top of page

By:

Correspondent

23 August 2024 at 4:29:04 pm

Trust Reset

As the recent protests over the NEET paper leak showed, India’s examination system has reached a point where incremental repairs are no longer enough. The appointment of a high-powered task force on examination reforms, headed by technology pioneer Nandan Nilekani, is therefore not merely an administrative response to the NEET-UG paper leak crisis but a concrete attempt to rebuild confidence in one of the country’s most important public institutions. Examinations are gateways to opportunity,...

Trust Reset

As the recent protests over the NEET paper leak showed, India’s examination system has reached a point where incremental repairs are no longer enough. The appointment of a high-powered task force on examination reforms, headed by technology pioneer Nandan Nilekani, is therefore not merely an administrative response to the NEET-UG paper leak crisis but a concrete attempt to rebuild confidence in one of the country’s most important public institutions. Examinations are gateways to opportunity, social mobility and professional ambition. For millions of students across the country, a competitive examination represents years of sacrifice by families and the possibility of a better future. When question papers leak repeatedly, evaluation systems fail or allegations of manipulation emerge, the resulting damage strikes at the idea of fairness itself. The crisis surrounding NEET-UG exposed uncomfortable vulnerabilities in the country’s examination infrastructure. The resignation of Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan and the subsequent appointment of Pralhad Joshi with additional charge of the ministry underlined the political seriousness of the issue. But political accountability alone cannot fix a structural problem. That is why the composition of the new task force is a move on the right direction. It brings together expertise from technology, space research, intelligence, education administration and logistics. Nilekani’s appointment is particularly significant. The former Infosys chief executive and architect of Aadhaar has experience in building large-scale digital public infrastructure involving hundreds of millions of citizens. The Aadhaar project itself was born out of a similar challenge: how to create a reliable identity system in a country where leakages and duplication weakened welfare delivery. India’s examination system now requires the same kind of thinking. The committee’s mandate to examine the entire examination lifecycle - from question paper creation and distribution to candidate verification, evaluation and results - is the right approach. The problem lies in multiple weak points where human intervention, poor security protocols and outdated processes can create opportunities for malpractice. Technology will inevitably be central to the solution. Artificial intelligence can help detect unusual patterns, blockchain-based verification can strengthen record security and better data systems can improve transparency. But a secure examination system requires independent oversight, professional management, clear accountability and swift punishment for wrongdoing. India’s National Testing Agency was created to bring efficiency and standardisation to public examinations. Its credibility must now be restored through reforms that are visible and trusted by students. The Nilekani task force has been given the difficult job of repairing that trust. The government has chosen a committee led by people with experience of managing complex national systems. It is a sensible first step. The real test will now be whether its recommendations translate into action.

The Fighter Jet as Foreign Policy

Canada’s fighter-jet dilemma exposes a deeper rupture in North American trust.

Canada’s fighter-jet procurement has become a proxy war for something far larger than defence modernisation. As reported by the CBC, Ottawa has quietly begun making payments for long-lead components for 14 additional F-35s, even as a formal review of the contract with Lockheed Martin grinds on. The contradiction is revealing. It suggests that Canada is trying to keep its options open in an alliance that no longer feels reliably allied.


Officially, nothing has changed. The Department of National Defence insists the review continues. Prime Minister Mark Carney has declined to specify how many jets Canada will ultimately buy. Legally, Ottawa is bound only to the first tranche of 16 aircraft, due to arrive from 2026. But money has a logic of its own. By paying now for components tied to a further 14 jets, Canada preserves its slot in a congested global production queue.


The F-35, known formally as the F-35 Lightning II, has long been a political millstone. It is the most expensive weapons programme in modern history, and Canada’s share has swollen by roughly C$8bn beyond original estimates. The planned fleet of 88 aircraft was meant to cost C$19bn; sustainment costs will dwarf that. What was sold as interoperability has come to look like dependency.


That dependence matters because Canada’s strategic environment has shifted abruptly ever since US President Donald Trump has revived trade warfare and rhetorical belligerence. Tariffs have duly been slapped on Canadian exports. Threats have been floated to decertify Canadian-made aircraft. Trump has made a bad joke about making Canada the 51st US State. His commerce secretary has mused aloud about withdrawing from treaties governing the Great Lakes, NORAD and even the Five Eyes.


For a country whose defence has been structured around intimate American integration, this is destabilising. NORAD, the bedrock of continental air defence, assumes that the Royal Canadian Air Force can field credible fighters of its own. If it cannot, then American aircraft will have to fill the gap, ironically increasing Washington’s costs while eroding Ottawa’s sovereignty. The F-35 was supposed to lock in that partnership for decades. Instead, it has exposed its fragility.


Hence the renewed interest in Sweden’s Saab and its Gripen fighter. Saab has signalled a willingness to expand production in Canada, potentially assembling aircraft not only for Ottawa but also for Ukraine, which has expressed interest in more than 100 Gripens. Such numbers would require a dramatic expansion of Saab’s manufacturing capacity, possibly on Canadian soil. For policymakers in Ottawa, this technology diversification, with its industrial offsets and a subtle rebuke to American arm-twisting is tempting.


The idea of a mixed fleet that would include some F-35s for high-end stealth missions and some Gripens for air policing is gaining currency. While it would certainly complicate logistics militarily, it would hedge risks politically. Unlike the F-35, the Gripen comes with fewer strings attached and greater latitude over software, upgrades and deployment.


Yet, Canada cannot simply walk away. Its aerospace sector, the world’s fifth-largest, is deeply embedded in the F-35’s global supply chain. Canadian firms produce components for hundreds of aircraft flown by allied air forces. A full withdrawal would endanger domestic jobs and invite retaliation.


The result is paralysis by partial commitment. Canada pays just enough to avoid losing its place, while signalling loudly that the relationship needs rebalancing. It is a risky dance. The longer uncertainty persists, the higher the costs - financially, diplomatically and strategically.


What is really under review is not a contract but an assumption that proximity guarantees partnership. For decades, the United States and Canada treated defence integration as an unshakeable fact of geography. Today, it has become a bargaining chip. Ottawa’s flirtation with the Gripen is less about Sweden than about sending a message to Washington as allies, like aircraft, cannot be taken for granted.

Comments

bottom of page