What we can learn from the United States’ withdrawal from World Health Organization - The Daily Guardian
Connect with us

Opinion

What we can learn from the United States’ withdrawal from World Health Organization

Chetna Alagh

Published

on

The United States was among the underlying allies for building up a worldwide office whose essential job is to immediate and facilitate global wellbeing framework inside the United Nation standards after the Second World War. World Health Organization was set up by the Constitution on seventh April 1948 with its fundamental goal as “the attainment by all people of the highest possible level of health.’ Its goal is to ensure that, “billion more people have universal health coverage, to act as a shield to billion more people from medical emergencies, and to provide a billion more people with better health and wellbeing”.

Under the WHO Constitution, it was founded in 1948 and is headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland. It is the UN agency responsible for global public health.

WHO with the commitment of its 194 Member States, across six districts, and from in excess of 150 workplaces has assisted with combatting transferable illnesses like — HIV, Ebola, intestinal sickness, tuberculosis, and numerous non-transmittable infections like-malignant growth and coronary illness. Since the start, the US has been a significant wellspring of surveyed and intentional monetary commitment towards its yearly subsidizing. The United States is the biggest contributor to the annual budget of the World Health Organization, 15 per cent of its total funding over the last two years has been solely contributed by them. In FY 2018–19 US alone roughly donated USD 450million.

But as the COVID 19 pandemic keeps to linger on worldwide, the main global wellbeing instrument devoted to planning a worldwide reaction by states appears to be stuck in a politicized issue, brought about by an antagonistic politicized atmosphere and a system with little oversight or response.

HOW THE WHO WAS FRAMED

Established in 1948, the World Health Organization is entrusted with advancing wellbeing and fighting sickness over the globe. In any case, countries had just been cooperating to determine general wellbeing emergencies sometime before at that point.

In the mid-1800s, cholera slaughtered a huge number of individuals across Europe as the advancement of railroads and steamships made it simpler for individuals to travel, and accordingly for this microbes and different irresistible infections to spread. Countries forced isolate measures, yet by the center of the century, their unfathomably contrasting reactions started to unleash devastation on worldwide trade.

European countries finished up in 1851 that they required a joint methodology and met the International Sanitary Conference to create normalized isolate guidelines. However, it took 40 years and seven gatherings to ratify the first international sanitary convention, in 1892.

The next decade proved more fruitful—to an extent. “The field of international health before World War II was a pretty fractured space,” says Alexandre White, an associate educator of humanism and the historical backdrop of medication at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Maryland. While a couple of other general wellbeing associations started to jump up far and wide during the 1900s, they handled various needs, and correspondences among them were incoherent.

At long last, in 1945, another period of worldwide participation showed up with the establishing of the United Nations toward the finish of World War II. Nations expected that the war’s decision would bring another influx of sickness—much like World War I and the 1918 flu flare-up—and chose to consolidate their endeavors under one global wellbeing office inside the UN. On April 7, 1948, that office would come into power as the World Health Organization, situated in Geneva, Switzerland.

HOW IS THE WHO FUNDED?

There are four sorts of commitments that make up funding for the WHO. These are:

Assessed contributions are the dues countries pay in order to be a member of the Organization. The amount each Member State must pay is calculated relative to the country’s wealth and population.

Voluntary contributions come from Member States (in addition to their assessed contribution) or from other partners. They can range from flexible to highly earmarked.

Core voluntary contributions allow less well-funded activities to benefit from a better flow of resources and ease implementation bottlenecks that arise when immediate financing is lacking.

Pandemic Influenza Preparedness (PIP) Contributions were started in 2011 to improve and strengthen the sharing of influenza viruses with human pandemic potential, and to increase the access of developing countries to vaccines and other pandemic related supplies.

THE 2005 INTERNATIONAL HEALTH REGULATIONS AND THE WHO LIMITED POWER

The IHR was revised in 2005, in light of the 2002-2003 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) epidemic, and the revision came into force in 2007. As the SARS scourge was not covered under the extent of the past adaptation of the International Health Regulations, of 1969, the global network met up for another instrument for planning reactions to new worldwide health care concerns.

The Indian Health Regulations establishes ‘ the key global instrument for protection against the global spread of infection’ as specified in its Preamble. Advancements were added into the 2005 amendment, for example, giving the World Health Organization (WHO) the abilities through its Director-General to announce a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC), as given in Article 12. The motivation behind this arrangement was to educate the states regarding an ‘unprecedented occasion,’ as characterized in Article 1 of the IHR, that ‘comprise a general wellbeing danger to different states through the worldwide spread of sickness and to possibly require a planned global reaction’. It was obvious from the SARS plague that giving the WHO the authorization to alarm the global network of wellbeing emergencies with transboundary concerns was a significant measure to contain the emergency. It permits the worldwide network to make the underlying strides in planning a worldwide reaction against pandemics. In any case, such measure relies exclusively upon states giving brief and right data on wellbeing emergencies that break out in their domains.

The WHO, as an association, doesn’t have the power to accumulate data and information in every nation. All things being equal, the obligation to reveal data falls on states’ public specialists, as specified in Article 6 of the IHR. States are committed to advising the WHO inside 24 hours of ‘all occasions which may comprise a general wellbeing crisis of worldwide worry inside its region’. Notwithstanding Article 7 of the IHR, which expects states to ‘give to WHO all applicable general wellbeing data’ of ‘sudden or unordinary general wellbeing occasion inside its domain’ that could establish a global general wellbeing emergency. Despite the fact that the IHR permits the WHO to consider reports from sources other than states, as given in Article 9(1) of the IHR, the WHO is as yet needed to demand confirmation from pertinent state gatherings of those reports, as specified in Article 10 of the IHR. The only circumstances in which the World Health Organization could neglect state parties are in instances of non-coordinated efforts by the states, as given in Article 10(4) of the IHR

Consequently, without states proceeding with their commitments in compliance with common decency and giving resourceful data, the body planned as a center point to encourage participation in handling worldwide wellbeing emergency would be essentially nearly ‘dazzle’. This is particularly worried in occasions with any international threats, as it could end up disastrous for international preparation for pandemics.

The main reason for this is WHO’s lack of enforcement mechanisms when states breach the IHR. Breaking the IHR doesn’t prompt approvals, notwithstanding WHO proposals being non-official, there are no connected direct legitimate ramifications for overlooking them. The main solution for debates, as given in the IHR, is the question settlement component as provided by Article 56. At the point when states have questions, the two of them may consent to parley, then again, a debate between the WHO and states are submitted to the Health Assembly. Nonetheless, this provision has never been used till date.

Therefore, the current system to shield the worldwide network from a worldwide pandemic depends entirely on states regarding what is committed to them in compliance with good faith. Thus, tricky unresolvable questions could emerge when states blame different states for not doing as such.

GOOD FAITH IN |INTERNATIONAL LAW

In the current mechanism where the monitoring of disease depends totally on states’ inclination to cooperate, it is vital to revisit the significance of good faith for international law. Great faith as a “general rule” establishes a piece of the wellsprings of global law. Without great faith systems gave by International wellbeing, guidelines are non-utilitarian. It is in this way significant for states and the World Health Organization to have confidence in one another. It is significant not to disparage the significance of sincere trust in the working of systems, for example, IHR. However, possibilities of sincere trust collaboration can appear to be hindered in exchange wars, intermittent one-sided utilization of power and the general pushback against global foundations. Be that as it may, confronted with explicit difficulties, for example, the overall spread of illness, worldwide unsteadiness must be settled in cases.

THE US AGAINST THE WHO AND CHINA

An ongoing model that got ugly is the US-China circumstance with the WHO. The debate created to its pinnacle when President Trump proclaimed in a question and answer session that the United States would end its relationship with the WHO. The US government finished beginning the proper cycle of withdrawal by sending a letter formally informing the United Nations. This happens considering the United States government freezing financing to the WHO, and taking steps to do so forever. The United States blamed the Chinese government for not alarming the global network sooner, in view of concealing the underlying stages to the COVID 19 pandemic. President Trump likewise said that he doesn’t really accept that the numbers answered to the WHO by the Chinese government with respect to the COVID 19 pandemic. Furthermore, the Trump organization guarantees that the WHO is under China’s political impact, which brought about its inordinate trust in China’s underlying stage data of the COVID 19 pandemic’s spread. This had raised political pressures between the two significant powers considerably further, after late continuous exchange wars, the disappointment of the G7 meeting over naming the infection, and the circumstance of ‘broadened security control’ over Hong Kong. The United States rethinking its participation to the WHO could bring about disaster and sabotage the reason and extent of the IHR, by debilitating the worldwide exertion in fighting the COVID 19 pandemic.

AN UNFAVORED DECISION

Trump’s move was slammed by critics for pulling out the assets at the mid of such novel pandemic. US wellbeing specialists have censured this choice by communicating the requirement for a worldwide body like WHO to manage connections among nations and keep the information streaming. The UN Secretary, General António Guterres has likewise reprimanded this abrupt move, saying, there’s no such an ideal opportunity to end the assets to the WHO and full help must be given from each conceivable source, else it will get difficult to win the battle against the progressing COVID-19 pandemic. He further added, “the global network should cooperate in solidarity to stop this infection.”

The end of participation will be a yearlong cycle as different elements are required to emerge. Right off the bat, a one-year earlier notification should be given by the part states before withdrawal and no further change should be possible on the guaranteed willful assets. The US Presidential Election in November 2020 is another factor which can block Trump’s choice. As now Joe Biden has won the elections, the US will hopefully remain as the member of WHO as Joe Biden has publicly announced to reverse the withdrawal order.

The impact of this huge step can be seen in the loss of collaborations. US health researchers and experts are also indulged in many policy-making and research bodies of the organization. Many of the US researchers are members of WHO’s advisory body, counting those on the novel Covid-19 pandemic. US establishments work with WHO through teaming up focuses to notice flu and help with creating antibodies. The end will float separated the enduring coordinated efforts between the two of them. Innumerable wellbeing strategy specialists, disease transmission experts, and other visiting researchers of the US depend upon their WHO’s partners for vital data while many works with the association itself. After this decision, there has been seen a huge impact on the 80 official collaborative centers in the US. The jobs of all such health experts are drained indirectly eventually striking the position of the US in front of the world.

US government outfits 19% of the yearly spending plan for handling HIV, malaria, tuberculosis and immunization preventable infection like measles; 27% of the spending plan for polio annihilation; and 23% for other wellbeing crisis activities.

Every one of these activities has contracted up because of the absence of appropriate financing which further has flooded the tallies of death and enduring far and wide. Benefits procured through great many inoculation camps has been lost inside an eyeblink. The venture made by the US from the earliest starting point is of no utilization anymore.

WITHDRAWALS

The U.S. has a background marked by pulling out from global associations. It pulled out from the International Labor Organization in 1977, however, rejoined three years after the fact. It pulled out twice from UNESCO, first under then-President Ronald Reagan in 1983, and afterwards in 2017 under Trump. In 2018, it pulled out from the United Nations Human Rights Council.

The U.S. would not be the primary country to pull out its WHO participation. In 1949, the Soviet Union and a few other Eastern European nations including Albania, Bulgaria, Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, and Ukraine, sent WHO notices of withdrawal, communicating disappointment over the organization’s work and the U.S. influence on the WHO.

Around then, George Brock Chisholm, WHO’s first chief general, contended that the WHO’s constitution did exclude any arrangements for a withdrawal, and suggested that the World Health Assembly list those nations mentioning withdrawal as non-dynamic individuals all things being equal. This permitted the nations to effortlessly continue their enrollment to WHO in 1955, with WHO permitting them to pay just a level of their back of their dues.

A WAY FORWARD

To address the absence of global oversight components, we could set up audit meetings of states that are held consistently for the IHR, where states could meet routinely and hold surveys of one another occasionally. This would help the worldwide wellbeing system in adjusting to advancements in worldwide the study of disease transmission, innovation, science, and governmental issues. The current system doesn’t accommodate manners by which states could check and adjust each other legitimately routinely.

On the other hand, we could unchangeable better contest settlement instruments that expansion the contribution of experts from different important fields, as specialized issues identified with PHEIC should be resolved dependent on a viable normalized and settled upon science and the study of disease transmission. Notwithstanding setting clear methods and timetables in settling debates through quiet methods, which would forestall the drawing out or the deferring of building up arbitral courts. The current system doesn’t accommodate all things considered.

The first orders of business will be to launch a more aggressive pandemic response. In fact, shortly after being declared winners of the election, Biden and Harris announced a COVID Advisory Board of leading public health experts who will help them shape the country’s response, including curbing the current surge in cases. On 6 November, the United States saw more than 130,000 new coronavirus infections recorded in a single day — the highest number reported anywhere across the globe since the outbreak began.

All in all, the worldwide network must raise and address these recognized holes of the system in forthcoming World Health Assemblies, to accomplish better structures in battling worldwide pandemics.

“The field of international health before World War II was a pretty fractured space,” says Alexandre White, an associate educator of humanism and the historical backdrop of medication at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Maryland. While a couple of other general wellbeing associations started to jump up far and wide during the 1900s, they handled various needs, and correspondences among them were incoherent. At long last, in 1945, another period of worldwide participation showed up with the establishing of the United Nations toward the finish of World War II. Nations expected that the war’s decision would bring another influx of sickness—much like World War I and the 1918 flu flare-up—and chose to consolidate their endeavors under one global wellbeing office inside the UN. On 7 April 1948, that office would come into power as the World Health Organization, situated in Geneva, Switzerland.

The Daily Guardian is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel (@thedailyguardian) and stay updated with the latest headlines.

For the latest news Download The Daily Guardian App.

Opinion

SASIKALA’S QUITTING RAISES SEVERAL QUESTIONS

Pankaj Vohra

Published

on

A majority of political analysts were of a considered view that V.K. Sasikala, a close aide of former Chief Minister J. Jayalalithaa would be the “X” factor in the Tamil Nadu Assembly elections which are barely a month away. However, the lady who was recently released from the prison on Wednesday took everyone by surprise by declaring that she was quitting politics. In fact, her decision has put a huge question mark over the outcome of the polls with many believing that she had withdrawn herself from the political arena either under some pressure or realising that AIADMK would find it very difficult to win, and it was pointless to contribute to the defeat. By choosing to stay away, Sasikala seems aware that Amma’s followers would rally around her subsequently, thereby decimating the current party leadership which in any case has betrayed her repeatedly. The reverse side of her decision is that DMK, which is the arch enemy of AIADMK, would have a better chance at forming the next government though in her statement, Sasikala claimed that she would want the DMK to be totally routed.

In the first election being held after the demise of both Jayalaithaa and M.K. Karunanidhi, Tamil Nadu politics could throw a few surprises. With M.K. Stalin being considered as a possible Chief Minister, the AIADMK and the BJP may find it extremely hard to galvanise the party workers, who in any case are disillusioned because of acute factionalism within the AIADMK. Sasikala’s nephew T.T.V. Dhinakaran, who had after winning the R.K. Nagar by-election, formed the Amma Makkal Munnetra Kazhagam (AMMK), is equally baffled by her decision. He was banking on her to bring Amma’s legacy to the newly formed political outfit whose aim was to both expose the AIADMK and contain the DMK. He is very disappointed and has now vowed to form a third front to offer a renewed challenge to the two established Dravidian parties in the state.

So far as Sasiskala is concerned, it is evident, she realises that with Amma gone, and after the death of her husband, it was pointless to pursue a career in politics. She has no children and therefore may have thought that she should be in politics for whom? The riddle is not as simple as it appears. Many of Sasikala’s supporters continue to wonder why she was jailed in the first place under the Prevention of Corruption Act since she had never held any public office. They attribute various kinds of motives behind her arrest. Now that she has voluntarily thought of saying goodbye to active politics, these same supporters may come up with some other theories as well. There is no doubt that Sasikala could have been a game changer in these elections and could have either helped the AIADMK or assisted her nephew’s party to become a dominant force. She would be the last person who would wish the DMK to be back in the saddle.

Tamil Nadu politics has its own complexities and so far as the lady is concerned, the last word on her is yet to be heard. Even by withdrawing, she would be a factor.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Communism in China: A hundred years later

As China prepares to celebrate the centenary of the Communist Party, the world must remember the massacres which Communist regimes have unleashed throughout history and question why Xi Jinping’s march towards the ‘New Era’ is marked by such aggression directed at neighbouring countries.

Claude Arpi

Published

on

The year 2021 is supremely important for the Middle Kingdom and its Emperor: Not only will it bring the occasion to unveil the 14th Five-year Plan and China’s 2035 Vision, but, more importantly, Beijing will celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Communist Party of China.

Already, in January, President Xi Jinping declared that “the party and country are on the right track… time and momentum are on our side”, and even though the country faced “unprecedented challenges and opportunities,” he urged his Politburo colleagues to “create favourable social conditions” for the important anniversary.

On 1 March, Xi spoke at the opening ceremony of the training class for young and middle-aged cadres at the Central Party School in Beijing. He told the young cadres that they were the successors of the old comrades, “the glory of the party is in your hands”, and exhorted them to be the “faithful successor of the tradition and fine work-style of the Communist Party, constantly enhancing willpower, perseverance and self-control and making contributions in the new journey of comprehensively building a modern socialist country in the New Era while striving to create a worthy party, worthy of the Chinese people!”

And, of course, “loyalty to the party is the primary political quality of Communists,” he added.

The words of the new Great Helmsman sound great, but there is another side to the coin.

In 1997, French scholar Stéphane Courtois, along with other European academics, published Le Livre noir du communisme. It was later translated in several languages, with the title The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression in English.

The Black Book, which sold millions of copies, is still considered by many as one of the most influential publications written about the history of Communism in the 20th century. The authors documented the history of political repression by Communist states, including genocides, extrajudicial executions, deportations, killing populations in labour camps as well as artificially-created famines.

Though some leftist ‘intellectuals’ objected to the Communist label being put on some of these dark events, the facts are difficult to change.

In the first chapter, The Crimes of Communism, Stéphane Courtois recalls, “Communist regimes turned mass crime into a full-blown system of government …and are responsible for a greater number of deaths than Nazism or any other political system. …Communism predated fascism and Nazism, outlived both, and left its mark on four continents.”

And today, it is still thriving in China and North Korea.

Quoting Plato’s Republic and Thomas More as Communist examples of ‘utopian philosophy’, Courtois explained, “We must make a distinction between the doctrine of communism and its practice. As a political philosophy, communism has existed for centuries, even millennia.”

Courtois gives figures, people killed by Communist governments amount to more than 94 million, including 65 million in the People’s Republic of China, 20 million in the Soviet Union, 2 million in Cambodia, 2 million in North Korea, 1.7 million in Ethiopia, 1.5 million in Afghanistan, 1 million in Vietnam.

In China alone, there is no doubt today that the Great Leap Forward resulted in 40 to 50 million deaths. According to Frank Dikötter in his masterly Mao’s Great Famine: The History of China’s Most Devastating Catastrophe, “45 million people died unnecessarily …6 to 8 percent of the victims were tortured to death or summarily killed—amounting to at least 2.5 million people.” Yang Jisheng in Tombstone: The Great Chinese Famine, 1958–1962 put the tally between 43 million and 46 million.

We could argue that it was another age, another time. But in this case, why continue to eulogise Communism and the Party?

Of course, Xi Jinping’s Thought is known as Socialism with Chinese characteristics for a New Era. A couple of years ago, it was even enshrined in the Chinese Constitution.

But if it is a new era, why arrest all the pro-democracy activists in Hong Kong? Recently, pro-China prosecutors argued in court that the defendants were involved in a “massive and well-organised scheme to subvert the Hong Kong government” by organising and participating in an unofficial primary election last July, although CNN commented, “such contests are a normal function in democracies around the world, during which political parties select the strongest candidates for an election.”

Look at the situation in Xinjiang where millions of Uyghur Muslims have been forced to live in ‘reeducation camps’, in Tibet, where the Communist regime wants to impose its own Dalai Lama (over one hundred years, the Party seems to have acquired great knowledge in spiritual matters), in Taiwan, which perpetually lives under Beijing’s invasion threat, or closer to us, India, which during the past nine months was subjected to an uncalled for aggression on its borders. Examples could be multiplied to show that China has not really entered a ‘New Era’.

A few weeks ago, I was watching a Chinese program on Tibet and, to my surprise, spotted an old Maoist figure named Pasang, along with the present Standing Committee of the Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR). The old lady served Mao well during the darkest days of the Cultural Revolution. She managed to survive the purges of other leftist officials and even the fall of the Gang of Four in October 1976 to become a vice chairwoman of the TAR Revolutionary Committee in September 1968. In 1971, she was made a deputy party secretary in the TAR Party Committee, a position she held until her retirement in 2002.

The fact that China is ready to use figure-heads of the darkest days of Communism tends to prove that the New Era has not yet landed in the Middle Kingdom.

In the coming months, Chinese propaganda will try to convince us of the contrary.

Xi Jinping, the General Secretary of the Communist Party, likes to say, “The original aspiration and the mission of Chinese Communists is to seek happiness for the Chinese people and rejuvenation for the Chinese nation… This founding aspiration, this mission, is what inspires the Chinese Communists to advance.”

Today, former Premier Zhou Enlai, who joined the CPC in 1921, the year when the Party was founded, has become a ‘lofty character’ who selflessly pursued a just cause for the common good throughout his life, says Chinese propaganda.

We remember him in India as a Machiavellian politician who took the Nehru government for a ride. The recent happenings in Ladakh have their origin in Zhou’s lofty words—the world’s standard for ‘lofty’ are obviously different than the Chinese’s.

Large-scale massacre may not occur today (mainly due to the information revolution), but has the mindset really changed in Beijing?

It does not seem so, even in the New Era.

The writer is a French-born author, journalist, historian, Tibetologist and China expert. The views expressed are personal.

The Black Book, which sold millions of copies, is still considered by many as one of the most influential publications written about the history of Communism in the 20th century. The authors documented the history of political repression by Communist states, including genocides, extrajudicial executions, deportations, killing populations in labour camps as well as artificially-created famines.

Continue Reading

Opinion

TIME TO GET THE COVID-19 VACCINE

Priya Sahgal

Published

on

This is the one topic that everyone is talking about these days—have you got vaccinated or not as yet. And if so, which one? The vaccine hesitancy that we saw in the early days of the roll out with even health workers hesitant to take the needle is no longer the case. As you can see from the queues of Mercedes, BMWs and Maruti Suzukis parked outside hospitals, everyone who is eligible to take the dose, is lining up for it.

The registration part is simple, however when you reach your designated hospital they will check your papers, give you a token and ask you to wait. This can vary from an hour to longer depending on the queue as most hospitals even have a counter for walk-ins i.e. those who have not been able to register themselves on the Co-WIN website. But don’t let this deter you, because the vaccination is certainly worth the trouble. And this seems to be the general mood. Going for my morning walk in south Delhi, I saw a number of elderly leaving their homes at around 9 am, picnic baskets in tow, ready for a long wait but determined to make the vaccine trek. 

There is some confusion about the gap between the two doses which currently has been set for 28 days. Not for Covaxin but Covishield as there are some reputed studies that state that a longer gap of between 8 to 12 weeks makes the dosage more effective. Since India is sticking to the 28 days gap (other countries like the UK have gone in for the longer one) it is left to the individual’s discretion. Another reason that explains the rush is that the vaccination is an added passport for those wanting to travel. India has been more successful than some other countries in combating the virus. Hence it makes sense to secure yourself before boarding that flight. 

Of course, there are still some who are hesitant to take the vaccine. Some are waiting for the nasal dosage, others for the crowds to thin. But in the end, don’t forget for the vaccination to work it is important that everyone takes it. This is important not just for making the country safe again, but also for each individual for his or her own sake. For as more than one doctor has told me on the NewsX-Sunday Guardian Roundtable, the complications of taking the vaccine are nothing compared to the complications of not taking it. So, go, get that vaccine.

What has helped the optics is that the Prime Minister himself took the vaccination. This was something that needed to be done as the Opposition and other sceptics were raising this issue and wondering about his hesitancy to do something that other world leaders had done in full media glare. Finally, once the vaccine was opened to senior citizens (and not just emergency workers) the PM took the jab—that he opted for the Indian origin Covaxin instead of Covishield was a no brainer as that fits into his narrative of nationalism. But the larger message here was more important as it gave the confidence to others to overcome their hesitancy and take the vaccine.

Continue Reading

Opinion

India set to make a V-shaped recovery

The sharp improvement in the performance of core sectors and the quick resumption of high activity levels in the economy indicate that India is close to achieving a fast-paced and broad-based V-shaped recovery in the third quarter of FY21.

Sanju Verma

Published

on

India’s GDP growth for Q3 FY21 has come in at 0.4%, versus the -7.3% recorded in Q2 of FY21. Earlier, the contraction for Q2 had been estimated at 7.5%, but has now been revised upwards to a decline of only 7.3%. Q1, on the other hand, has been revised from a 23.9% to a 24.4% contraction. The NSO said, “GDP at constant (2011-12) prices in Q3 of 2020-21 is estimated at Rs 36.22 lakh crore, as against Rs 36.08 lakh crore in Q3 of 2019-20, showing a growth of 0.4%.”

Will the Indian economy have a V-shaped recovery, as is now increasingly being touted? The answer, without doubt, is a resounding yes! With a Covid recovery rate of over 97%, a mortality rate of barely 1.4% and an active caseload of only 1.2%, and with over 15 million people vaccinated, the overall economy of the country is rapidly moving back to normalcy and the GDP numbers are only going to get better in Q4. This is evident from the IHS Markit India Manufacturing PMI reading of 57.5 and 57.7, recorded in February and January 2021, respectively. Composite PMI reading rose from 55.8 in January 2021 to 57.3 in February, the highest since October 2020, while Services PMI rose from 52.8 in January to 55.3 in February, the highest in a year. Unified payments interface (UPI) trades hit a new high of 2.3 billion transactions in January 2021, amounting to Rs 4.31 lakh crore in value terms. The blistering pace continued in February 2021, with 2.29 billion transactions, amounting to a value of Rs 4.25 lakh crore, further corroborating the full-fledged V-shaped recovery which is taking shape.

Services growth in Q3 fell by 1%, which is much lower than the 11.3% fall seen in Q2 and the 21.4% fall in Q1. Agriculture growth has come in at a solid 3.9% in Q3, versus 3% in Q2. Manufacturing sector grew by 1.6% in Q3, which is great news as the big decline of 35.9% in Q1 and the 1.5% fall in Q2, at the height of the Covid pandemic, has now turned into a positive number. The industrial sector witnessed a growth of 2.7% versus a -3.03% growth in Q2. This 2.7% growth was supported by a manufacturing growth of 1.6%, electricity, gas, water and utility services growth of 7.3% and a healthy growth in construction at 6.2%. The high traction in the real estate sector was on the back of the reduction in stamp duty and other levies across various states, thereby attracting home buyers to invest in new homes.

The output of eight core infrastructure sectors grew 0.1% in January 2021 as compared to last year. The infrastructure output, which comprises eight core sectors, including coal, crude oil, and electricity, fell by 8.8% during the April-January period in 2020-21, against a growth rate of 0.8% in the corresponding period in 2019-20. However, Q4 should see a turnaround in the infra space. The Modi government’s decision to invite private investment in 400 port and shipping projects worth Rs 2 lakh crore will give a fillip to the infra space. The Modi government is also aiming to attract investment worth Rs 3.39 lakh crore during the Maritime India Summit 2021, that kicked off on March 2, 2021. 

The Indian Railways carried 119.79 million tonnes of freight in January 2021, the highest ever in a month, beating its previous record of 119.74 million tonnes in March 2019, showcasing how the Indian economy’s momentum is gaining rapid traction. In February 2021, the Indian Railways’ loading was 112.25 million tonnes, which is 10% higher compared to February last year, which had been 102.21 million tonnes. On just February 28, 2021, the freight loading of the Indian Railways was 5.23 million tonnes, which is 37% higher compared to last year’s loading for the same date, at 3.83 million tonnes. 

For the December 2020 quarter, cement major ACC saw a solid 73% jump in profit, while cement behemoth Grasim saw profits rise by a massive 107%. Since cement sales are a lead indicator, it should be suffice to say that a core sector bounce is back on the cards. Car sales, another lead indicator, continued to be robust with a 16% growth year on year (YoY) in January 2021, with Toyota, Tata Motors, Honda and Nissan, witnessing a YoY growth of 92%, 94%, 114% and 220%, respectively. In February 2021, while Maruti saw a growth of 11.8% year on year (YoY), tractor major Escorts saw a growth of 30.6%, showing the all-pervasive nature of a demand resurgence that is underway in both rural and urban areas.

The economic growth in the coming year, i.e., 2021-22 (FY22) will be robust, with a broad-based momentum across various sectors. The government’s focus on infrastructure, real estate demand on the back of low-interest rates, recovery in commodity prices and healthy consumption expenditure all point to better times for the GDP trajectory. Private and foreign investment is also on the rise and capex should be higher than in previous years, aiding long-term growth. In the last one year, FPI and FDI inflows put together have been in excess of Rs 2.32 lakh crore, which speaks volumes about India’s attractiveness as an investment destination, all thanks to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s courage of conviction and reformist mindset which is now bearing fruit.

Significant recovery in manufacturing and construction segments also augurs well for the support these sectors are expected to provide to growth in FY 2021-22. Real GVA in manufacturing has improved from a contraction of 35.9% in Q1 to a positive growth of 1.6% in Q3, while in construction the recovery has been from a contraction of 49.4% in Q1 to a positive growth of 6.2% in Q3. Going ahead, only for a quarter at the most, we are likely to see the continuation of a K-shaped recovery, with some sectors growing faster than others. However, beyond Q4 FY21, the K-shaped recovery will soon transform into a sharp V-shaped recovery that will be both fast-paced and broad based in FY22.

The growth stimuli available from the Union Budget and additional measures, including the production linked incentive (PLI) scheme, will lead to a sturdy growth path over the recovery horizon. The real push will be visible in the Q4 (January-March) 2021 because lockdowns in many sectors, particularly hospitality and travel, have begun to ease substantially. The 1% growth in GVA and 0.7% growth in core GVA (core GVA excludes agriculture and public administration), in particular, marks the end of a contractionary phase. In fact, all the sectors except (a) mining and quarrying, (b) trade, hotels, transport and communication services, and (c) public administration, defence and other services, have recorded positive growth in the third quarter of FY21, which is great news as it vindicates the flurry of GDP upgrades seen in recent times. Even in trade and hotels, the pace of decline has slowed down significantly from a negative growth of 15.3% in Q2 to 7.7% in Q3. In public administration, the pace of fall has been reined in at -1.5% from -9.3% in Q2. The construction sector, which contributes about 9% to India’s GDP, is back with a bang on the back of a strong recovery in execution, registering a 6.2% growth in Q3 from -7.5% in Q2, which is nothing short of outstanding. India is amongst the very few economies which are posting growth for the December 2020 quarter—one amongst 16 major world economies – which shows that Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Rs 30 lakh crore stimulus package has been able to boost both business sentiment and spending via the multiplier effect.

While gross fixed capital formation (GFCF) has improved from a contraction of 46.4% in Q1 to a positive growth of 2.6% in Q3, private final consumption expenditure (PFCE) has recovered from a contraction of 26.2% in Q1 to a much smaller contraction of 2.4% in Q3. The revival of investment demand, triggered by capital spending by the Modi government, has helped in a big way. Besides the overall uptick in the economy, the resurgence of GFCF in Q3 was also triggered by capex by the Central Government, that increased year-on-year by 129% in October, 249% in November and 62% in December 2020. The fiscal multipliers associated with this capex are at least 3-4 times larger than government final consumption expenditure (GFCE), as capex induces much higher consumption spending than normal income transfers.

For the fortnight ending January 8, 2021, credit growth has picked up to 6.6% YoY, while deposit growth is 11.4%. Excellent results by banking sector biggies showcase the ongoing economic momentum. HDFC Bank and ICICI Bank posted profit growth of 18% and 19%, respectively, for the December 2020 quarter, with the retail loan book growing by anywhere between a healthy 13% to 16%. The robust profit growth for these two banking giants came about, despite a high provision coverage ratio (PCR) of 148% for HDFC and 78% for ICICI.

Needless to add, the Indian economy has seen a superb rebound from the onslaught of the Covid-19 pandemic, thanks to the Modi government’s relentless war against the Wuhan virus. From being a net importer in March 2020 to becoming the world’s second largest exporter of PPE kits and N95 masks, it is a telling tale of how “Make in India” is about a grand vision and also about the ability to translate that vision into a meaningful end result. India produced more than 60 million personal protection equipment (PPEs) and almost 150 million N-95 masks till October 2020, from almost zero in March 2020. India also exported more than 20 million PPE and over 40 million N-95 masks during this period. Speaking of Covid, the two states that account for over 72% of all the active coronavirus cases in India are Maharashtra and Kerala, one where the Congress in in power with allies and another which is a Left-ruled state. The horrific performance by these two states in reining in Covid is a testimony to all that is woefully wrong with both the politics and economics of the Congress and the CPI(M).

With a pro-growth budget, structural farm and labour market reforms and the Modi government’s bold decision to raise Rs 2.5 lakh crore by monetising 100 sick, loss making and unviable CPSEs, coupled with the RBI’s resolve to support the financial markets and economy, the Indian economy is well poised to ride the long-term structural growth path, despite states like Maharashtra being a drag due to the misgovernance of the Congress-centric Maha Vikas Agadhi (MVA) alliance.

Investments were the primary driver in pushing up Q3 GDP numbers and were up 2.1% YoY, versus a fall of 28.2% in the first half of fiscal year 2020-21 (1HFY21). Consumption was down only 2.2% YoY in Q3, versus a sharp fall of 16.7% in 1HFY21. The 4.9% growth in consumer durables and 2% growth in consumer non-durables in December 2020 are a precursor of demand resurgence. Even two-wheeler major Hero Moto Corp, for the last six months, has been selling over 4.5 lakh units every single month, with more than 14 lakh units sold in just the two months of October and November 2020. Tractor major M&M too has seen utility vehicle sales growing in excess of 20% on an average in the last few months, pointing towards a demand rejuvenation. Nominal GDP grew strongly at 5.3% in Q3, implying that GDP deflator was 4.8% in 3QFY21. While CSO/NSO expect a contraction of 1.1% YoY in 4QFY21, implying an 8% fall in FY21, this is highly unlikely. Many domestic investment banking houses believe Q4 real GDP growth could be as high as 3.5%, leading to a GDP decline of only 6.7% in FY21, versus CSO’s more conservative estimate of an 8% decline in GDP in FY21.

An 8% or 6.7% GDP decline is less relevant. The more relevant part is that growth momentum is picking up pace significantly, with GST collections in January 2021 at Rs 1.19 lakh crore and February collections being equally healthy at Rs 1.13 lakh crore. GST collections have topped the Rs 1 lakh crore mark every single month from October 2020. FASTag collections hit Rs 102 crore last Friday, crossing the earlier high of Rs 80 crore collected by way of toll in a single day. E-way billing is applicable for inter-state sales in excess of Rs 50,000. Rs 6.42 crore E-way invoice reference numbers (IRNs) were generated in January 2021, versus a number of just 26 lakh IRNs that were generated in September 2020, once again vindicating the sharp uptick in routine business activity.

The GVA equivalent of manufacturing companies, arrived at after adding up wages, depreciation, interest and profit before tax (PBT), grew a robust 17% on a yearly basis in Q3 FY21, after a 9% growth in Q2 this fiscal and a 29% contraction in Q1. Since manufacturing GVA is a leading indicator of the manufacturing sector’s performance, the sharp uptick in manufacturing GVA is indeed highly reassuring. In many cases, GVA equivalent is a better predictor of manufacturing sector’s performance than IIP since the latter captures volume of production while the former captures value of production, ICICI Securities argues. Hence, the manufacturing sector is expected to record a healthy growth in the upcoming Q4FY21. The manufacturing GVA currently has a share of 19% in the country’s real gross value added (GVA).

Moody’s has raised India’s growth forecast to 13.7% for FY22, from the earlier 10.8%. For the current FY21 fiscal also, Moody’s revised its prediction of a contraction in real GDP to 7.1%, from the earlier projected contraction of 10.6%. Interestingly, Moody’s has also said that the Modi government’s fiscal deficit for FY21 and FY22 could be much lower than the projected 9.5% and 6.8% of GDP, respectively, supported by stronger revenue generation in the fourth quarter of FY21 and higher nominal GDP growth in 2021-22 (FY22). The big upside to growth projections in FY22 are absolutely realistic and not based on a low base effect. Rather, the massive growth upside in FY22 will be driven by facilitative government measures, including the Modi government’s capital expenditure increases, with the Central Government budgeting an impressive 34.5% rise in capital spending at Rs 5.54 lakh crore in FY22, compared to the revised estimate for FY21.

Exports which were lagging too have begun to pick up, with a 6% YoY growth in January 2021, and February seeing only a minor fall of 0.25%. Imports also grew by 7% in February, versus a 2.03% growth in January 2021. Interestingly, in February, while oil imports fell by 16.63% YoY, non-oil imports rose by 16.37%, suggesting both an economic revival and improving terms of trade.

The initial policy choice of “lives over livelihoods” succeeded by “lives as well as livelihoods” is now bearing excellent results, converging with the foresight the Modi government had about an imminent V-shaped recovery when it entered the war against the pandemic. The sharp V-shaped recovery is being driven by rebounds in both private final consumption expenditure (PFCE) and gross fixed capital formation (GFCF) as a combination of the astute handling of the lockdown and a calibrated fiscal stimulus that has allowed strong economic fundamentals to trigger quick resumption of high activity levels in the economy. It would be apt to sum up India’s swift economic recovery with a brilliant quote from Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Independence Day speech last year, where he emphasised the relevance of Aatmanirbhar Bharat, when he said, “It is now time for India to move forward with new policies and new customs. Now simple and ordinary will not work. Our policies, our processes, our products, everything should be the best.”

The author is an economist, national spokesperson for the BJP and the bestselling author of ‘Truth & Dare: The Modi Dynamic’. The views expressed are personal.

Continue Reading

Opinion

NO, MINISTER

Published

on

Even teams led by experienced and expert captains suffer from occasional self-goals. These are usually a consequence of the best of intentions, but end up as embarrassments. There was in the recent past a stray statement by a Union Minister that the gallant soldiers of the Indian Army had moved several more times in the direction of the PRC than PLA forces moving in the other direction. The movement of Indian troops, who are and have always been seeking only to safeguard or to re-occupy territory that belongs to India, cannot be compared to the transgressions of the PLA, which is seeking to expand through military means the territory controlled by them, every bit at the expense of India. That remark of a minister, possibly reported out of context, was swiftly used by PRC spin masters to try and spread the falsehood internationally that it was Indian forces and not the PLA who were theaggressors on the LAC.

Fortunately, the world knows the truth, and such deception was not believed except by the usual suspects, such as Prime Minister Imran Khan, who is swift to repeat as gospel whatever gets conveyed from Beijing. The minister who made the earlier (possibly misquoted) remark has distinguished himself for his service both before and after joining the Council of Ministers at the Centre, and has not repeated the earlier remark attributed to him. The movement of Indian troops is to safeguard existing control over land and to recover territory that has been snatched in the past. This can never be compared with the transgressions of the PLA, which has joined hands with GHQ Rawalpindi in the errand of seeking to constrain and damage the growth and stability of India. These need to fail repeatedly, an outcome that can be made possible through strong will and capability on the part of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his colleagues. Care needs to be taken to avoid statements that can be used by the other side to obscure facts and to discredit the factual narrative that has been disseminated by India about the situation on the borders.

The armed forces defend the territory of India with zeal when given full support by the government. In several statements and through many actions, Prime Minister Modi has shown his commitment to stand by the courageous men and women in uniform who are tasked with defending the borders of the Republic of India, the most populous democracy on the face of the planet. Moreover, ours is a country that alone in its neighbourhood has remained a democracy and not fallen victim to authoritarian rule of any form, save a brief period of quasi-authoritarian rule during 1975-77 that was swiftly replaced with the holding of elections that led to the replacement of the existing government through the ballot box and to a peaceful and orderly transfer of power from Indira Gandhi to Morarji Desai in the PrimeMinister’s Office.

Now another self-goal has been scored, in the form of the remarks of a Union Minister that the power outage in Mumbai was not the consequence of a cyberattack executed by elements in the PRC but was the consequence of “human error”. The statement is reminiscent of several made by other policymakers in the past, when unexplained misfortunes afflicted some of the most potent weapons platforms of different wings of the armed forces. In some cases, entire platforms were rendered inoperable, to great human and material cost, besides causing gaps in defence preparedness. Very quickly, unnamed sources rushed to pin the blame on “human error”, whether these relate to naval personnel or air force pilots. Both risk their lives in defence of the country and have shown an exceptional degree of competence in handling the weapons given to them to operate. The possibility seems to have been ignored of malfunctioning of equipment as a consequence of glitches introduced clandestinely, and which have had the effect of so damaging operational capability that nothing the pilot or seaman did could have rescued the situation.

In the past, there were serial deaths of those associated with the nuclear and missile programme, and the dots were first connected by the Sunday Guardian after having been in the open for several years, in each of which those connected with these key programmes had their number reduced through “accidental” deaths or “suicides”. Circumstances indicated that such hastily reached conclusions were far from accurate. That there was a cyberattack is not a reflection on the Power Ministry but a warning that this is a threat needing much more attention than shown in the past. There are powerful lobbies involved in the import of critical infrastructure equipment from countries that have a record of hostility to India expressed in a kinetic way. Such lobbies should not be given a handle to continue to keep the country vulnerable through dependence on equipment or other services from companies deeply involved with strengthening the offensive capabilities of at least two foreign militaries that have attacked India in the past, and are expected to do so again. There must not be a rush to hasty conclusions and the giving of clean chits to those companies and entities who are transparent in their linkages to enemy forces, including in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, territory that belongs to India and where no other country has a right.

Prime Minister Modi has spoken firmly and often about the dangers facing the country. Among the reasons why the PM is popular is the trust voters have in his ability to defend the nation. That same strength of purpose and determination should be present in each of the members of the government. The country is facing a grave threat, and action is needed to reduce vulnerabilities and to expand capabilities. In such a task, it is all hands-on deck, and an end to remarks by policymakers that may be used by foes of India to paint themselves as innocent of the wrongs that they have flagrantly committed.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Embedded patriarchy in science must end

History and research have shown proof of how few women in science have received their due, despite making discoveries and providing services which have led to the progress of modern science and civilisation. Decision makers must find a way to put an end to the gender bias.

Amita Singh

Published

on

Albert Einstein with his wife Mileva Marić.

Two years of #MeToo have changed little in the world of scientific research, according to most women in science across the world. India has 43% of women as science graduates—the highest number in the world—but a mere 14% in science-related jobs. Despite the additional push the present government has provided since 2017, in which the Department of Science and Technology was provided Rs 2,000 crore to encourage more girls into science-related careers, the picture remains grim. Gender inequity, subtle discrimination, indifference, workplace derision and isolation have kept women in India out of the job market that matches their science training. This has serious challenges for the country’s developmental ambitions. As a McKinsey research report of 2020 emphasised, narrowing gender gaps in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) can lead to an increase of $12 trillion to $28 trillion in the global economy. Does this sound an alert for decision making bodies of science and the NITI Aayog?

In developed countries such as Sweden, women science graduates are much less than India, at 35% only, but 34 % of them get placements in STEM jobs. The lack of women in these jobs reflects gravely on India’s science policy as only one woman out of 41 men has been able to reach the position of an office bearer in 86 years of the existence of the Indian National Science Academy (INSA). This marginalization further unfolds in the shortlist for the INSA awards, which have so far gone to only 14 women as compared to 501 men. The situation is appallingly unfavourable towards women in other top science awards too, such as the Shanti Swaroop Bhatnagar Award which has been bestowed on only 16 women against 500 men beneficiaries. It appears that patriarchy rules most science academies across the world even if women are fortunate to obtain a STEM job, since globally only 12% women are represented in 69 science academies across the world.

India’s developmental dreams may have to crash land over an utterly deficient terrain if women in engineering and technology, despite holding a 50% share of undergraduate degrees, fail to get absorbed into appropriate jobs. As a consequence, many switch to non-science jobs or become homemakers—recent situations show that more than 49% women in science are ready to switch to other jobs which they would have otherwise rejected. The irony of the STEM job market is that it has the potential of creating 10.5 million additional jobs, if countries can promote gender equality, as was suggested by a report by the European Union. Most new fields in science such as artificial intelligence (AI) and big data are currently completely male-dominated with a pathetic 10-15% jobs going to women in top companies like Google and Facebook.

Science, to be appropriate, should be able to absorb dynamic social relationships from the living and non-living or everything around it. Women have proved to be more perceptible and transdisciplinary in their approach than men with similar training. Traditional societies which were hierarchical, orthodox, fatalistic and believed in supernatural forces offered little space for modern science to flourish. Yet when modern science came, it also became a source of immense power which was soon captured by men. Modern science advanced through state power and started distancing itself from a holistic social relevance, inadvertently falling into a trap of increased productivity and control which the industrial revolution brought about.

Minnie Vaid’s book on the role of women space scientists in the Mangalyaan mission exposes an embedded gender bias that pushes women out of key positions where they can perform better than their fellow men. Nonetheless, this bias can also help analyse an unanswered question that most students in social science classrooms are perplexed about: why did Einstein win the Nobel Prize when his invention destroyed the world? Did Einstein know what could happen when his invented genie would be released from the laboratory to a wider and ever-advancing world of power aggrandizement?

The nature of science is founded on a matrix of human disconnect, and after reading an interesting Paul Halpern’s science narrative from 2015, titled Einstein’s Dice and Schrodinger’s Cat: How the Two Great Minds Battled Quantum Randomness to Create a Unified Theory of Physics,the fact reveals, to our dismay, that scientists give much greater priority to winning the right scientific algorithm than the world around them. These power pathways of science have ignored many achievements by women who fed and fuelled these discoveries within the fortresses of labs. This was a terrain where questions on social conscience were never ever asked.

This does not mean that all scientists are directly influenced by dominant interests as many are also instructed by their own or their society’s cultural framework which is embedded in their individual morality, values, beliefs and community ethics. An example is the case of Joseph Rotblat who withdrew from the Manhattan Project in 1939 for he firmly believed that such weapons of mass destruction should be avoided due to their catastrophic impact upon humanity. He preferred to receive a Nobel Prize for Peace rather than for Physics which was awarded to his number two scientist, Einstein. However, the most astounding is the revelation about Einstein’s wife, Mileva Marić, who, despite being a classmate of Einstein with an equal or even stronger disciplinary training in physics, was not acknowledged for her influence and contribution to Einstein’s achievement. A 2019 book Einstein’s Wife, written by Allen Esterson and David C. Cassidy, with Ruth Lewin Sime, presents an evidence-based history of Marić’s life with Einstein. Science historians have repeatedly established that Marićs ideas were central to Einstein’s science but while her pregnancy, childbirths and divorce gradually weakened her relationship with science, Einstein marched ahead to the Nobel Prize. 

Another astounding case is that of Henrietta Leavitt who in 1900 joined the Harvard College Observatory as an assistant for Edward Pickering. There were some far-reaching astronomical revelations which were observed and discovered by her. One such observation was that slower-moving stars were more luminous through which the size of the galaxy and much more on the study of variable stars could have been discovered. She paved the way for modern astronomy. enabling scientists to measure the universe. Edwin Hubble, the American astronomer, became famous by using Leavitt’s ground-breaking research and he also admitted that it was she who deserved the Nobel Prize. But Levitt watched all this as a silent worker at the laboratory, where she was paid half of what her fellow men researchers got ($10.5 a week) and did not raise an alarm when Pickering published her findings without giving her due credit.

The laboratory’s new director Harlow Shapely also used her work without acknowledging her phenomenal contribution. The patriarchal culture in science of keeping women out of mainstream publications and awards has been so strong that the world has wasted many years seeing men scientists reach milestones which had already been achieved by women much earlier. Leavitt’s work was interrupted by her family obligations and her early death by stomach cancer ended the tragic and continuous marginalisation she suffered because of her powerful male colleagues.

The world of science has not changed much. Most laboratories belong to men scientists who continue to control them even after they are transferred, retire or are thrown into disrepute through charges of corruption or sexual harassment. Women scientists, on the other hand, are made to leave their laboratories immediately when they retire or are transferred, notwithstanding that their ongoing research might prove a great contribution to society. From life sciences to physical, environmental and geophysical sciences, a woman’s journey is gripped by obstructions and gendered ostracism. From Muthuswamy to Swaminathan, some leading women scientists—the ones who led the ICMR towards an accountable bioethical journey or silently brought out key cancer research findings in the biochemistry lab at AIIMS while taking care of her ailing father or dedicated herself to set up the Brain Research Institute at Manesar—have definitely not received their due despite their services being of utmost importance to the progress of India. The country needs to look for more of them in the IITs, CSIR, INSA, ICMR, AIIMS and other science institutes for more holistic progress of science. Why should one hear science policy talk only from male scientists, who are now also controlling NITI Aayog as well as the TV channels?

Unless the needs, capacities and acceptability patterns for women are absorbed in the behaviour of decision makers, the road to gender equity in science would remain bumpy and hazardous. Science shapes society and women in science break stereotypical frames of research, bringing acceptable solutions to the problems of development and acting as catalysts for change and progress.

The writer is president, NAPSIPAG Disaster Research Group, and former Professor at Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi. The views expressed are personal.

Continue Reading

Trending