Banning tourism will kill the tiger

The Supreme Court’s decision banning tourism in core areas of tiger habitats overlooks several critical considerations. It will harm, rather then help, the cause of tiger conservation. For a start, it gives way too much power to the forest department. The ban will mean only one agency will both implement the tiger protection agenda, and audit that process. The various forest and environment officials at the Centre and at the State level have a terrible record of tiger protection. They had held up the absurd number of 5,000 wild tigers in India till recently when it was already clear to every one (including the much maligned lodge owners) that there are only about 1,500 tigers left in India. Tellingly, the two parks from where the tiger completely disappeared due to poaching were Panna and Sariska and both were not in the top ten most visited by tourists. In contrast, parks with the highest tiger density, such as Ranthambhore and Corbett, are amongst the most visited In India. In both Panna and Sariska, the forest officers went to great lengths to deny that the parks were without a single big cat. The unscientific relocation in Sariska has been a double disaster. These are the very people who will run tiger parks across India, if the new order is implemented in its current form. Tourism isn’t the villain Tourism allows for ample outside scrutiny of the forest and thus aids tiger preservation. Tourism brings in its wake assessment by lodge owners, guides, photographers and other stake-holders whose survival depends on robust tiger numbers. Breeding of tigers has been observed with regularity by experts even when the tourism season is in full swing. What is more, no tiger deaths due to tourism have been reported. Forest officer vehicles have, however, caused at least three tiger deaths in national parks of Madhya Pradesh in the recent past. Poaching for skin and bones and poisoning by nearby villagers remain the two main causes of tiger deaths in India. Incidentally a majority of the poaching incidents, including the latest one in Corbett last fortnight, have happened during the monsoon, when Parks are closed to the tourists. The Minister of Environment and Forests has proposed dismantling of tourism infrastructure in and near parks within a five-year framework. Instead, this is the time for the tourism industry as well as the MoEF to draw up a regulatory framework. And hotels that violate norms need to go. Price it for rarity At the same time, India needs to understand that the tiger is the rarest of the rare, and access to it should be priced accordingly. The African model offers some lessons. A one-week visit to the Masai Mara, Kenya, during the great migrations costs $3,000 while a week in Ranthambhore or Corbett costs a measly $400 - and the Masai Mara is far cheaper than reserves in places such as Okavango in Botswana. Raising access fee to national park core area will not only regulate tourist numbers but also provide for far greater revenues for the upkeep of parks and sharing with the local population. This is the one measure that will achieve the desired ends and is also easy to implement on the ground. To deny future generations that heart-stopping moment - when one sights a tiger in the wild - is no solution. The State’s job is to facilitate this majestic experience through a regulatory approach. Each park in India has unique issues and will need different solutions. A thought-out policy framework - not an “off with the tourist's head” diktat - is the way forward.

indian air force in trouble.

Depending on what media you access, the price of the Rafale, the new “bird” of the Indian Air Force (IAF), ranges between $10 billion and $18 billion. Clearly, while the IAF will fly the Rafale, the media is flying kites! However, for the IAF there is plenty of turbulence to deal with. The deal has been delayed, even though it was trumpeted as the fairest in India defence procurement history, thanks to earlier objections raised by Rajya Sabha MP, Mr M.V. Mysura Reddy. It took the Ministry of Defence (MoD) and the IAF well over five years to initiate final negotiations. These negotiations will take a further year to close if all goes off well with the inquiry the Defence Minister has ordered. In this one-year period, the cost could rise by at least 25 per cent, combining inflation and the depreciating rupee. Thus, a seemingly fair procedure has come at a very high cost. Meanwhile, Rafale has developed new radar and added some avionics and airframe capabilities. WHAT ABOUT TEJAS? Maintaining its fighter squadron strengths to the minimum mandated level is the biggest challenge for the IAF. Even with the addition of the proposed SU 30s and the Rafaels, the strength of the fleet is unlikely to reach the desirable 42 squadrons that it plans by 2020. The IAF will retire more aircraft (such as the Mig 21s and the Jaguars) over this period than it will induct. Thus, the air force is likely to be short of optimum strength in fighter planes well into the next decade. The lack of squadrons is directly related to war preparedness and results in a domino which includes lesser sorties flown in peacetime, constrained war wastage reserves and a bigger part of the fleet in overhaul and maintenance. Lost in the cacophony surrounding the acquisition of the Rafale is the fate of India’s own light combat aircraft — the Tejas. The aircraft has been under-funded from its inception in 1983 — the actual funding for the programme came almost a decade later in 1992. The Indian defence acquisition strategy is at variance here from that of China, which has focused on indigenous aircraft development since the 60s. The LCA Tejas has, as yet, not got simple clearances, such as an all-weather-capability and lightning strike clearance. The strategic role of this aircraft is in question, although it has world-class avionic capabilities. It is unlikely to be inducted in effective numbers till 2018 or even later. Thus, the IAF has a missing middle — a single-engine new aircraft that can act as the bulwark — even as it gets very expensive twin-engine-heavy Sukhois and Rafales at the top end. INFRASTRUCTURE DEFICIT The IAF does not have a basic trainer aircraft on which to hone the skills of rookie pilots. The IAF is probably the only air force in the world that puts pilots directly on a jet rather then a turboprop basic trainer. Even the jet trainer is of a model from the 1970s. The Hawk aircraft have come a decade too late and the interim has caused loss of precious lives and compromised training. The MoD has belatedly approved the acquisition of the Swiss Pilatus trainer. Even if its procurement procedure goes forward, it will be five years before a fleet can be put in place. This is because acquiring the aircraft is only the beginning. Instructors have to be trained on the new aircraft and the equipment protocols put in place. Till such time, the safety record of the IAF is likely to suffer all the more. The IAF lost 46 fighters in the last six years. Alarmingly, the losses include not just aging MiG 21s, even ultra-modern SU 30s were lost. The IAF does not even have hangar facilities for majority of the SU 30s. This came to light when exposure to foreign elements was believed to be a cause in the last major crash of an SU 30. If basic infrastructure on the ground such as a hangar is unavailable in requisite numbers one can only imagine the state of more advance airworthiness procedures. Some years ago the IAF damaged half a dozen frontline Mirage 2000s in Gwalior when a hangar complex housing them collapsed apparently due to sub-standard construction. No lessons have been learned. The list of woes is endless — from Russian air-to-air missiles, that as a CAG report pointed, under-perform both in range and in accuracy during operations, to the fact that by the IAF’ s own admission there are major gaps in radar coverage across India. It is time that these matters were discussed in Parliament and the public domain, even as the Ministry of Defence mandarins pretend it is business as usual and bask in undeserved glory

Interview with George soros

'The challenge for democracy is to go beyond the vote' George Soros He has been famously called a 'moron' by former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Muhammed, and was criticised as 'an evil man' by the Thai government. This was in 1997, when the tiger economies of Southeast Asia went into a tailspin and those countries felt that speculators, led by the billionaire George Soros, had pulled out money leading to economic chaos that lasted years. But Soros is more than just a man with lots of money; he also has a mission — to promote democracy — for which he has pledged his own funds. He was in New Delhi last week to release a survey on the state of democracy in South Asia by the Center for the Study of Developing Societies. In a chat with Ninad D Sheth he declined to talk about his investment plans or the economy, preferring to stick to his great concern: the promotion of democracy. You have never been to India before, which is surprising. What is more interesting is that you have never invested here... India has always been of close interest to me. I had tried to invest here way back, as many as 15 years ago. However, at that time there were several restrictions. As for India as a democracy, we at the Open Society Institute watch it very closely, and I am here to learn first-hand about the magic of Indian democracy. Rest of South Asia has an uneven relationship with democracy… Yes. Two countries are of particular interest to me — Pakistan and Burma. Pakistan is obviously not a democracy. But many independent people have told me that there is more media freedom under Musharraf than there was under Nawaz Sharif. I find it perplexing that on the level of press freedom, electoral democracy in Pakistan has not been able to deliver. In Burma, on the other hand, there is a clear void, since elections are not allowed. It is a non-democratic and non-representative regime and I believe that it is critical to push for the democratic alternative in that country. I have a personal initiative in Burma and I spend considerable time and effort in watching the situation in that country closely. The last few years have seen democracy emerge in several countries. How has it evolved in your own lifetime? Well, it has obviously spread much wider now. However, its depth remains a problem. I also think that instead of aggregation of concerns of the voting public, a lot of the time the elected politicians are concerned only about their own good. This is a worrying development, more so since corruption and lack of governance are directly linked with what I see as a self-serving governing elite. The challenge for democracy is in its ability to get more accountability and better governance through more transparent institutions. Don't you think voters see through such elites and vote them out? Electoral democracy alone is very limited. While electoral processes are critical in setting the broader terms of discourse, they have limitations in ensuring good governance. It's important to broaden the democratic base to include checks and balances beyond the mandate of the ballot box, and to revive non-governmental institutions and vitalise alternatives beyond political parties. The challenge for democracy is to go beyond the vote. Open societies need constant vigil to maintain the openness — it cannot be taken for granted. What challenges does financial globalisation pose to democratic control and the nation state? The challenges posed by financial globalisation are not new. What has changed is the speed at which financial globalisation has gone ahead. I believe that the challenge for democracies is to build flexible institutions that can react to the pace of change. It is in that context that foreign policy in the financial sphere should look to regulation, from an international standpoint; this is particularly true for democracies that are also globalised markets. You have watched Russia closely. There are concerns that Moscow is increasingly turning towards totalitarianism… Yes, this is true. Putin has curbed a lot of institutions, including the power of opposition parties and the media. Moreover, he is in a very firm position — the Russian economy will remain in the growth mode for some time to come. Answers for Russian democracy, I believe, have to come from within Russia. Outside criticism only makes Putin stronger, as he can play the nationalist card and prey on old fears. But there is bound to be an impact on Eastern Europe and Russia's so-called 'near abroad'. It is too early to tell. One thing is certain though — Russia will use its newfound leverage, especially in commodities prices, and the Baltic states and Ukraine are obviously more vulnerable. However, other East European democracies are less influenced by Russia. For one thing, most are now in the NATO framework and therefore have institutional democratic support. Are you likely to open an institution in India on the lines of the Soros Foundation? I would like to, but I cannot. There are too many restrictions on foreign foundations in India. We do not feel that we will have the independence that we need to operate here. I am afraid Indian laws regarding foreign foundations are much too restrictive.