Dr. A. Prabaharan's

Social networking is good and bad. Good because it connects people across the world and help them to understand other cultures. Mostly the social networking sites connect old friends, lost friends and less number of new friends. Bad because it kills the time and makes onliners unproductive. It is highly the work places restrict the social networking for the better health conditions and work productivity of its employees.

The Times of India writes (28 July 2009)

Are you one of those people who tuck in a bit of Web socialising while at work? Well, a study now claims that your productivity might be dipping
because of this habit. The survey, conducted by a Boston-based firm, says that productivity at the workplace is hit by people who socialise on the internet during office hours. The firm even quantifies its findings, saying that employers who allow employees access to social networking sites in office lose an average 1.5 per cent in worker productivity. Frankly, this is much ado about nothing.

The fundamental problem with this survey is that it is very difficult to establish a direct correlation between time spent socialising on the internet by workers and their productivity. The output of an employee, and the organisation, is dependent on a combination of factors. It could well be a case of lethargy or disenchantment that hampers an employee’s productivity.

Social networking on the internet is a relatively new phenomenon. It is another dimension of the socialisation process, which includes telephone conversations, texting, e-mail, and good old-fashioned personal interactions. Employers have not put restrictions on talking over the phone or stepping out for lunch, so why single out networking on the Web? Social engagement lubricates the wheels of society. In its absence, life would be mechanical and insular. Spending a few minutes at work keeping in touch with the world outside is not such a bad thing. It can be beneficial, as employees might get ideas and make new contacts which will enhance their productivity while networking on the internet.

In any case, there are studies which contradict the findings of this particular survey. Recently, a research project at the University of Melbourne suggested that people who spend a reasonable amount of time on the internet for fun at work are actually more productive almost 9 per cent more. The workplace is being redefined rapidly these days, allowing employees flexibility and loosening up. An employee-friendly organisation is bound to be more productive. Let’s rest this case.
_________________________________________________________________________________
The survey confirms what was always suspected. Social networking sites impact work output negatively. Two aspects revealed in the survey explain
why these sites could prove to be a menace for firms. One, most of the workers who were part of the survey use the site in this case, Facebook during office hours and some of them up to two hours daily. Two, few among them could give a legitimate reason for having logged on to the site.

Put the two together and it is clear that social networking on the internet
is an addiction that eats into work time. There is no evidence to assume that such intrusion does not affect the productivity of a worker. This is not to argue that workers must shun all forms of social interaction at the workplace. However, social engagement should not be at the cost of work. Today, work hours are structured in such a manner that it is possible for workers to take time off and engage socially. What else are the designated lunch and tea breaks? However, office discipline demands that employees stick to the norms and make sure that productivity doesn’t suffer.

We have a different problem with the social networking sites. It is difficult to monitor and regulate engagement here. The nature of the engagement is such that it allows a person to float out of the workspace and time while being physically present. Old ideas of office discipline and work etiquette are difficult to sustain in the internet age. Who is to know if an employee shifts his work location to a destination a social networking site in this case on the World Wide Web? How do you account for the loss of work time, especially if we have to count them in hours?

It may become necessary for firms to restrict access to social networking sites at the workplace if quality time is not to be wasted on the web. No doubt, self-regulation is the best bet. But there’s hardly any incentive to make that possible. At the cost of some unpopularity, workplaces will have to restrict access to social networking sites if they are to get the best out of employees at work.

The achievement is no small. Finally India had developed indigenous nuclear submarine. The INS Arihant launched from Vishakapattinam has made Indians proud. I join the entire community of Indians all over the world to congratulate the team which worked night and day to achieve this great feet. Keep conquering India!

Brahma Chellaney writes in The Times of India (29 July 2009)

In India, no technological advance is too small to be celebrated nationally. The launch of a nuclear-powered submarine for underwater trials is an important step forward in India’s quest for a minimal but credible nuclear deterrent. But India still has a long way to go. After all, it will be some years before India can deploy its first nuclear sub armed with sea-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs). Yet the mere flooding of the dry dock to begin the harbour trials of INS Arihant became an occasion for national jubilation, with the prime minister present at the event to hail it as “a historic milestone in the country’s defence preparedness.” It is as if India already has joined the club of nations with nuclear subs.

To be sure, nuclear-powered, ballistic missile-carrying submarines (known in US argot as SSBNs) can help India bridge the yawning gap in its deterrent capabilities against China. Moreover, only such subs can underpin India’s no-first use (NFU) posture. For an NFU to be credible, the country needs a second-strike capability. If a country does not have the capability to retaliate after surviving an enemy’s first strike on its nuclear assets, an NFU would make no sense. Nuclear-propelled subs, with their high endurance, serve as a stealthy, least-vulnerable and cost-effective launch pad for nuclear weapons. Deterrence can be achieved with less number of missiles at sea than if they are land-based.

Still, some harsh facts stick out. India has paid a tremendous international price for its nuclear programme without reaping the kind of security benefits it should have. And the gaps in its deterrent posture remain glaring. Indeed, among nuclear-armed states, India stands out as the country with the slowest rate of progress in deterrent development. Can it be forgotten that India’s nuclear programme is the oldest in Asia and that its first nuclear test happened more than 35 years ago? Yet, India’s ‘credible minimal deterrent’, far from being credible, has yet to deliver minimalist capabilities against China. India still does not have a single deployed missile of any type that can reach Beijing.

Let’s face it: No country in history has struggled longer to build a minimal deterrent than India. There are multiple reasons for that, including the absence of a resolute political leadership, the country’s accountability-at-a-discount culture, western technology sanctions, the non-existence of independent oversight or audit, creeping politicisation of top scientists and the bureaucratisation of strategic establishments. Also, unlike Britain, China, Israel and Pakistan, India received no assistance from another nuclear power and has had to develop everything indigenously while facing a rising tide of technology controls.

In the absence of a reliable nuclear deterrent, India remains irredeemably dependent on imports of conventional weapons, spending more than $5 billion annually on such purchases, some of questionable utility. Among important states, India is the only one that relies on imports to meet basic defence needs, to the extent that it has become the world’s top arms buyer.

Yet that record has not stopped India from being boastful. The start of Arihant’s underwater trials ought to have been a quiet affair, not a national event. After all, 11 years after a thermonuclear test, that technology is yet to be weaponised. Take another example. The Agni 3 is still to be deployed, yet the DRDO chief held a news conference earlier this year to brag about the likely first test next year of the Agni 5, which is still at the design stage. The press then went ga ga, portraying the Agni 5, with a maximum range of 5,000 km, as an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) when, in reality, it is just another Intermediate-range Ballistic Missile (IRBM) in India’s agonisingly incremental missile-development path.

Which other country in the world advertises every technological move or brags about a missile still on the drawing board? To the contrary, the long-standing tradition in the nuclear world is to quietly develop and deploy capabilities. India is the lone exception to that tradition.

Instead of launching a crash ICBM project drawing on the intercontinental-range capabilities of the space programme, India remains stuck in the IRBM arena, where its frog-like paces have taken it two decades after the first Agni test to Agni-3, a non-strategic system. In fact, if everything goes well, India’s first SSBN will be deployed with a non-strategic weapon a 700-km SLBM under development. That would further underpin the regional and stunted character of India’s deterrent.

Of the three technologies nuclear propulsion, SLBM and ICBM the most complex are the first two. Developing a nuclear-weapon-strike capability from underwater is far more difficult than firing missiles from the ground. Yet, while seeking to develop an SLBM-armed nuclear sub, India still does not have an ICBM project, even on the drawing board. India wants to go down in world history as the first nation to deploy an SSBN without having developed an ICBM. ‘Incredible India’ indeed.

Credit is the important component for the high economic growth. With the economic meltdown it is natural that both the government and private sector are running out of liquidity. If the interest rates are high it is unlikely there will be adequate borrowing. One way to bailout the economy from the crisis is to keep the interest rate low. The RBI had done a good job by not hiking the interest rate as there is vocal support for that. The private sector should not be too panicky about the unavailability of credit because of the government’s intention to borrow heavily from the market or print more currency notes to meet the fiscal deficit.

The Times of India writes 29 July (2009)

In its credit policy review, the RBI has maintained a status quo on key interest rates. In the run-up to its quarterly stock-taking, there were
two takes on the RBI’s course. Some felt rates needed raising to beat a possible inflationary upswing resulting from sustained fiscal boosting of the economy. Others wanted rates cut, saying the economy wasn’t out of danger. Weighing both concerns, RBI has rightly chosen a mid-path. For one thing, a rate hike would have impacted materially and psychologically on entrepreneurs, dampening the pace of incipient recovery. For another, having steadily reduced policy rates, the RBI can keep its powder dry by promising need-based flexibility in monetary policy.

In its earlier macro-economic report, RBI patted India’s economic resilience in the face of the global recession. It pointed to ‘green shoots’ like positive growth in industrial production after a protracted period of negative trends, and higher core sector figures for June. Six infrastructure industries grew by 6.5 per cent. This performance, especially the sharp pick-up in cement and steel, indicated revived economic activity. Construction, for which demand remains strong in rural and semi-urban sectors, has emerged as a bright spot in particular.

The finance ministry seems to be taking no chances though. It has announced a 1 per cent subsidy for low-cost home loans. Developers are extended a tax holiday on profits from time-bound housing projects, in the hope the benefit will percolate to consumers. This is a second stimulus for realty, on which nearly 270 industries depend for business. The aim, clearly, is to cheer the aam aadmi while boosting a sector whose dynamism has strong multiplier effects in terms of growth and job creation. The intra-sectoral thrust is rightly on affordable housing, an area where demand is undersupplied. Realtors will do well to respond, adapting to a slowdown-hit market environment where demand for high-end housing is down. There are also extended tax breaks for developers of industrial parks, welcomed by industry. Given the likelihood of a below-normal monsoon hitting agricultural growth, these measures are a well-timed attempt to rev up an economy on the rebound.

One worry is growing public debt, which raises fears of bank lending to private players being crowded out. The RBI claims there’s enough liquidity in the system to lend sufficiently both to industry and government. The fact, however, is that the government’s spending commitments seem to keep ballooning as, for instance, with the latest home loan subsidy. The wager is that stimulus-induced growth will bring in money in terms of higher tax collections and private investment. This gamble shouldn’t preclude keeping an eye on fiscal health, ensured by resource mobilisation through adherence to reforms.

The Indian army is highly disciplined and duty bound force in the world. Unfortunately the perennial corruption in ammunition purchases have affected its image for a very long time. Despite the continuous censoring by the CAG the armed forces haven’t been able to put its honesty in order. The political establishment with the help of crooked agents are mainly responsible for this mess.

The Times of India writes (28 July 2009)

It has been a strange few days for the Indian defence establishment. The Comptroller and Auditor General’s (CAG) scathing denunciation of the
military’s procurement system exemplified by the long-running fiasco of the Gorshkov carrier deal has been followed by the launch of the INS Arihant, India’s first indigenous nuclear submarine. As a technological achievement, it is significant. Only five other nations have the capability to build nuclear submarines. As the potential third leg of India’s nuclear triad crucial if New Delhi’s no-first use policy is to be credible it becomes even more important. It is a peculiar schizophrenia on display, this simultaneous proof of the defence establishment’s inadequacies and capabilities. But the fact is that of the two, the CAG report paints a far more accurate picture of the entire procurement and development system.

Corruption, of course, is a prime factor here. Kickbacks, backchannel deals and tenders tailored to suit certain bids have all played a role in compromising the armed forces’ readiness and capabilities. It plays into another problem the CAG report highlights; a lack of foresight and long-term planning that has crippled the armed forces. There is no clear vision of where the armed forces must be by 2025 or 2030, or quantifiable waypoints to measure progress towards achieving that goal. This lack of forward planning has plagued India for decades. In the years since independence, various administrative and policy structures have been implemented, from five-year defence plans to an Integrated Defence Headquarters. None of them have been truly successful.

It leaves India’s military hobbled by a culture of ad-hocism. This is best exemplified by the aborted initiative to appoint a chief of defence staff in the wake of the Kargil war. Such a position is crucial. A single-point interface between the government and the armed forces would enable coordinated defence planning for all three arms of the military, especially when the trend is increasingly towards joint arms operations, something that India has itself adopted with its new Cold Start doctrine. But as it stands now, there is little coordination between the army, the navy and the air force.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has said that India is not an aggressive nation, that it seeks only to defend itself. It cannot achieve this if it continues as it is today. The government must realise that planning from year to year is of little use when the gestation period for deals and development projects can stretch into decades. Reforms are needed and needed urgently.

The western world is hypocritical about the protocols. No frisking for its leaders but top to toe clean check up for the Eastern leaders. It is highly condemnable act that the continental airlines had frisked the people’s president Dr. A. P.J. Abdul Kalam and refused to apologise intitally. After the uproar in parliament and society they have finally apologised. But the high humility filled Kalam down played the act and said “it is minor”.

The Times of India writes (23 July 2009)

When it became known that the people’s president as former president A P J Abdul Kalam is popularly known was subjected to frisking before he
boarded a Continental Airlines flight to the US, it’s but natural that the Indian public was miffed. The issue rocked Parliament this week with members cutting across party lines condemning the incident and the media has splashed the story all around. Are we overreacting? Not quite.

The outraged responses are a reflection of the immense popularity Kalam enjoys with the Indian public, as well as against what is perceived as a blatant violation of ground rules by a foreign airline. Indian law clearly mandates that certain people are exempt from body checks before they board an aircraft. These include the head of state, and an assortment of politicians and other public personalities. The law, of course, needs to be followed in this regard. But the issue goes beyond that. It’s a major breach of protocol that the former president of India, a much-revered figure in this country, should be subjected to humiliation; moreover, that such humiliation should be allowed to occur on Indian soil itself.

The outrage expressed in Parliament, therefore, is entirely justified. It reflects the sentiment of the nation. The airline claims that it was following standard operating procedure, which requires passengers to be frisked if they are flying to the US. But the aircraft was taking off from Indian soil, and therefore had to abide by the regulations that are binding in this country. All international airlines are given a list of people exempt from body checks by the Indian authorities, and they ought to know that Kalam was one of them.

Not following Indian rules in India is a calculated insult to the nation. Imagine what would have happened if Barack Obama were to be frisked by Air India crew. Now that would create quite a hullabaloo, wouldn’t it?