Britain Re-Establishing Diplomatic Ties With Syria As Lammy Visits Damascus Syria Unrest
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
18 minutes ago
- First Post
F-16 intercepts civilian plane over Trump's Bedminster golf club in New Jersey
A US fighter jet intercepted a civilian plane on Saturday after it entered restricted airspace over President Donald Trump's golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey, while Trump was spending the holiday weekend there. read more Trump has turned the Oval Office into a hub for his allies, friends and staff. Reuters/File Photo An F-16 fighter jet intercepted a civilian plane on Saturday after it entered restricted airspace over President Donald Trump's golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey, the US military said. The fighter jet, sent by the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), escorted the plane safely out of the area, according to the New York Post. Trump was spending the holiday weekend in New Jersey at the time. NORAD said this was the fifth time on Saturday that a civilian aircraft had entered the temporary flight restriction (TFR) zone. To get the pilot's attention, the F-16 performed a maneuver known as a 'headbutt,' before guiding the plane away. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Such airspace violations have become more frequent in recent weeks, prompting NORAD to urge civilian pilots to carefully check all flight notices before taking off. Similar incidents have happened before, including in March when a civilian plane entered restricted airspace near Trump's residence in Florida. That incident occurred just after Trump finished a round of golf in West Palm Beach. At the time, F-16s fired flares to alert the pilot. Despite the repeated incursions, officials say none have disrupted Trump's schedule or security. NORAD explained that the flares used by fighter jets can be seen from the ground but quickly burn out. General Gregory Guillot, commander of NORAD and US Northern Command, stressed the importance of following TFR rules to protect flight safety, national security, and the President.
The Print
2 hours ago
- The Print
India hasn't done much on privatising PSUs. Unprepared for 21st century: Vajpayee
Issues that directly impinge on our fundamental concern: the greatest well-being of the largest number of our people. It also demands a new mindset and a fresh approach — towards our society, polity and economy. We must adopt a perspective that is based on pragmatism. We need to undertake a reality check so that we can better address the real issues of today and tomorrow. India, along with the rest of the world, has just entered a new era of tremendous opportunities and awesome challenges. The 21st century promises new vistas of human development and economic growth. At the midnight stroke of 15th August 1947, India emerged as a free nation and the inheritor of an economy that had been designed to serve the exploitative interests of her colonial rulers. A land rich in natural resources, India barely had any manufacturing industry worth its name. The exploitation of India during colonial rule is best exemplified by the fact that cotton grown in her fields was processed in Lancashire mills and shipped back to be sold to Indian consumers. Or, the fact that salt used for weighing down empty cargo ships while sailing from foreign shores to Indian ports was sold at a price lower than that of salt produced in India. In the closing years of British rule, the Indian economy was further crippled by the effects of the Second World War. Also read: Pakistan knows cost of hostility. Our govt won't tolerate incursion: Vajpayee during Kargil War Therefore, the immediate task that faced the Government of Independent India was to build a national economy, virtually from scratch, to meet the demands and fulfil the aspirations of a free nation. A truly daunting task made more difficult by the fact that local entrepreneurs had neither access to large funds nor the capacity to accumulate capital for major enterprises. Lack of technology was another impediment — after all, India had missed the Industrial Revolution. In these circumstances, the government had to intervene in the form of both mobilising resources as well as setting up basic industries that came to be known as public sector enterprises. In the early decades of our Independence, these enterprises played a significant role in the nation-building process. However, by the seventies and eighties, public sector enterprises had begun to falter. The reasons for this are too many to be listed here. But, broadly they are: inadequate competition, leading to inefficiencies; inadequate accountability, making them careless about productivity and profit; and, inadequate motivation, making them uneager participants in the economy. There were systemic problems, too, and many of them still remain. For instance, it is virtually impossible to entirely separate a public sector enterprise from the government. As a result, the constraints within which governments have to function are invariably replicated in the functioning of public sector enterprises. And because public sector enterprise managements are constantly under pressure to conform to guidelines and rules, many of which are entirely irrelevant and dampen both initiative and enthusiasm, often inaction appears to be a better option than to act and face unfair consequences. I would be amiss if I do not mention that political parties in power contributed to the decline of public sector units, too, by using them as fast breeders of jobs, instead of making them sustainable, competitive and fruitful players in the national economy. Political expediency of the moment was allowed to prevail over the future viability of public sector units and the employment security of their employees. It would also be relevant to mention, if only to ensure that the same mistakes are not repeated in future, that the monopoly environment enforced by previous Governments in the guise of helping public sector units actually had a debilitating impact on them. Cumbersome procedures that formed the backbone of the pre-liberalisation licence-permit-quota raj helped only to worsen matters. Trade unionism that focused less on workers' responsibilities and more on their rights, as well as a certain brand of union politics whose success depended on crippling strikes, also had a long-term effect in the form of declining productivity and falling profits. No doubt these are harsh truths. But unless we face them, we will never learn any lesson from our past. I may also add that these experiences are not unique to India. Countries in the West with huge public sector enterprises that ranged from railways to telecommunications to mining to public transport faced the same problems. They have been able to overcome them because they dared to face the truth. Since the late eighties, however, things have begun to change — both in India and abroad. The wave of economic liberalisation in countries across the world has not only swept away the age of monopoly for state enterprises but also swept in the conversion of public sector units into private enterprises. World over the experience has been that privatisation has led to increased efficiency and higher profits that have not only benefited the new private owners of these enterprises but also their employees. Yet another global experience is that of liberalisation sweeping away those public sector enterprises that had refused to shake off their lethargy, thus making themselves untenable and losing their relevance. In India, compared to other countries, we have been less hasty in ending monopolies and privatising public sector enterprises. And for good reasons, too. After all, we did not have a safety net in position, nor did we have a welfare system that was adequate to meet the problems of blanket privatisation that often leads to redundancy and re-deployment of the workforce. Also, the private sector's access to capital still remains limited, although it has increased by leaps and bounds in the last one decade. After more than a decade of economic reforms, and now that we have entered the 21st century as a country economically much stronger than she was at the time of Independence, we should take a hard look at the public sector. Along with your cooperation, we need to prepare public sector enterprises to meet the challenges of the new era of global economy driven by market forces. What are the facts? Of the 235 operating public sector enterprises, more than 100 are loss-incurring units. In a third of public sector enterprises, capacity utilisation is less than 50%. Despite government infusing capital, strengthening management structures and giving public sector enterprises greater autonomy, returns are yet to be commensurate with inputs. The total investment in Central Public Sector Units is more than Rs.230, 000 crores. In 1998-99, the total profits of all Central Public Sector Units was Rs.19,743 crores and the net profit was Rs.13,235 crores with a net dividend of Rs.4,932 crores. No less worrisome is the fact that public sector enterprises' contribution to public debt is estimated at a third of the total internal debt of the Union Government. These facts and figures are hardly encouraging and should cause concern — to both management and employees of public sector enterprises. The results do not reflect government's efforts to keep public sector enterprises going. My message to the Chief Executives of Public Sector Enterprises gathered here today is simple: You have to arrest these worrisome trends and ensure purposeful functioning as well as higher profitability of your respective enterprises. There is no dearth of opportunities — indeed, in many ways, you have greater opportunities than the private sector to score better results. You have to concentrate, and concentrate now, on technological upgradation, improved manufacturing methods and expanded market penetration. In an economy increasingly driven by competition, you have to be successful competitors. The system of performance contracting, or MoU, has been a significant step in the direction of improving the performance of public sector enterprises and separating management control from ownership. Government, you must remember, lays down macro-level policy. The task of day-to-day operation is left entirely to you; you are required to deliver; we are here to assist. Government's policy towards the public sector is clear and unambiguous. We will strengthen the capability of our public sector, give greater managerial autonomy, foster technological upgradation for enabling them to effectively meet the new challenges of globalisation and increased competition. To those who unthinkingly criticise our disinvestment policy, I have this to say: Ours is a well-thought-out strategy to revitalise the public sector by bringing in competition, granting greater operational flexibility, reducing surplus manpower and upgrading technology. We are not here to indulge in distress sale. Our actions in the last two years are ample testimony to our commitment towards making the public sector viable and sustainable. I would urge everybody, especially workers, to dispel unfounded fears about the effects of disinvestment. We are fully aware of the legitimate and reasonable interests of employees and we are committed to protecting them. In his speech, Joshiji has outlined the features of the new and more liberal voluntary retirement scheme formulated by the government. It is intended to enable public sector enterprises to restructure their manpower as well as to provide opportunities to workers to redeploy themselves to more profitable pursuits. I would like to reiterate my government's firm belief that our national economy should be built on the principle of 'India shall be built by Indians'. This does not imply that our doors are not open to foreign investment. On the contrary, foreign investment is crucial to our priority areas to enable us to achieve our goal of economic self-reliance and strength. I urge you, the custodians of public sector enterprises, to extend the boundaries of your thought and vision, and draw from the expertise and experience of today's global economy. This is part of ThePrint's Great Speeches series. It features speeches and debates that shaped modern India.
Economic Times
2 hours ago
- Economic Times
We have to formalise our ties with governments: Sikyong Penpa Tsering on Tibet's political future, global outreach
Reuters Sikyong Penpa Tsering, the head of Tibet's government-in-exile The political head of the Tibetan government in-exile is called the Sikyong. This democratically elected position was established in 2011 when the Dalai Lama relinquished his political responsibilities. The current Sikyong, Penpa Tsering, was born in a Tibetan settlement in Bylakuppe in Karnataka and now works out of the Central Tibetan Administration (CTA) office in McLeodganj, Himachal Pradesh. In a conversation with Nirmal John, Tsering, a fan of South Indian cuisine, especially parotta and fish curry, details his plans to counter the many problems facing the Tibetan community. Edited excerpts Q: It is nearly 15 years since the decoupling of the political and spiritual parts of the Tibetan administration. How has it worked out so far? A: His Holiness (the Dalai Lama) knows he will live up to a certain point. So, he has prepared the Tibetans to take care of themselves. It took a long time. Our people had no idea of what democracy meant and the organs of democracy needed. We started slowly. In 1991, he made our parliament a fully legislative body. In 2001 we had a direct election of the head of government. Then in 2011, he devolved all his political responsibilities. I feel we have grown over the years. I spent a lot of time visiting every single community, bringing in more efficiency, building databases. I am also committed to making sure His Holiness is not unduly bothered by small issues happening within the community. Q: His statement on Wednesday emphasised tradition in the process of finding the next Dalai Lama. One impact of that would be the long wait for what would be a small kid to grow up. In the interim, the office of the Sikyong will become even more critical. A: That's a question we are always asked—if there is a reincarnation in future, wouldn't things be difficult in the interim period? Of course, it'll be. But as the leadership of the Tibetan community, we are trying. Now His Holiness is there, so we get some respect from governments, parliamentarians, foreign officers and all that. We have to now start institutionalising our relationship with governments and others so that the same dignity, the same recognition that we are given right now when His Holiness is present, may continue when he is not there. I don't want to praise our own administration, but I think we have done pretty well in the last four years, reaching out to the international community, keeping our people together. Q: One of the problems you are facing is young people moving out, thereby diluting the community's fightback. A: Young people moving out is a problem. We have started a big project called BBCC—building back compact communities. Since people moving out causes problems for the sustainability of compact communities here, we are trying to provide housing to those who don't have it. Many people who came from Tibet over the last 30-40 years don't have housing. The idea is to address the immediate need of housing, and then the long-term sustainability of the community. Many have become citizens of other countries. They speak the language, they understand the system. Now, if they understand what's happening in China, what's happening in Tibet, then as Tibetans for Tibet, they could be the best advocates for Tibet. But the downside is that the next generation will be born in a totally different environment. We are just beginning to explore having compact communities globally, starting with a project in Minnesota. I'm speaking with 100 young Tibetan students flown in from around the world at the International Youth Forum here. If we do this for 10 years, we'll have more than 1,000 young Tibetans, who will be the next generation of Tibetan leadership. Q: How has US President Donald Trump's USAID cuts affected your budget? A: The total US funding is around $14 million. $2 million is for PRM—population, refugees, migration—and for health issues, which is directly under the State Department, so it was not cut. Of the remaining $12 million, $5 million is for two specific projects—$3 million to build the capacity of institutions and individuals at CTA, which is a five-year project and we are on year four, so we need to mobilise to finish this. Another project is the digitisation of all Tibetan scriptures. $7 million is for education, health, rehabilitation—it is connected with so many departments here. That has been restored. For the other two specific projects we have reached out to other governments; they are interested in supporting. Our sources are not just countries, there are organisations and individuals too. But for the last seven months it has been a setback, from January to now. Q: Which governments are interested in supporting? A: Germany is one. And, of course, the Indian government is the largest benefactor. If it was not for the government of India, we wouldn't exist.Q: What more can India do? A: What more can India do? On humanitarian grounds, there is no other country that has done as much. Of course culturally, linguistically, we feel part of India in that sense. The Tibetan script, Devanagari, came from India. The Nalanda system of Buddhism came from India. All these historical connections are there, and perhaps for all these reasons India has been kind. We never had a war, in that sense, having been neighbours for centuries. Politically, of course, we would like the Indian government to take a more visible stand, but we also understand there are so many things on the table between India and China. If there has to be a resolution (on the issues between India and China), it is better to resolve the Sino-Tibet dispute first. That can contribute more trust between China and India. If you look at the larger geopolitical scenario also, if there is better trust between India and China after the resolution of the Tibet conflict, then would China need to maintain such a relationship with Pakistan to contain India?Q: You mentioned back-channel diplomacy with the Chinese in a presser. Do you see common grounds? A: There is no common ground. It's just to convey messages. Like this time, to say don't do anything during the 90th birthday that will spoil the mood of the Chinese government. During the earthquake, I asked them whether there's anything we can do from outside. At least some messaging here and there, but we are not very keen right now to push this, because you don't have a leadership that is willing to listen. Q: What do you see is happening in the political circles in China? A: There are symptoms of a bigger malaise in the political circles now, and I think his (Xi Jinping's) friends are shrinking as he's removing the very people he appointed. That also questions his choice of people. If you look at the last one and a half years, there have been a lot of signs of things not being well in the political circles. Q: I have heard that the office of the Dalai Lama and CTA see some of the most cyberattacks. A: We have an organisation in Canada that helps us with internet security, and several people work pro bono. According to them, we are one of the most attacked websites, or whatever platform, from the Chinese side. We have no issues because we have nothing to hide. We have always said we are transparent. Q: Is there infiltration? A: That has always been there. They themselves admit they have sleepers. They have people listening. They are on social media; they listen to what the community is saying as we have a very vibrant social media community
