Spotlight

New Delhi, 2 January 2007

DATABASE FOR PRIVATE TEACHING CENTRES

NEW DELHI, January 3 (INFA): The Public Accounts Committee of Parliament has expressed concern about the Ministry’s failure to have an updated database in respect of the financial positions of private educational institutions and coaching centres in the country.

The Committee had earlier strongly recommended the need for the Ministry to create a reliable database.  It had pointed out that there were a number of irregularities in the finances of private schools, colleges and coaching centre.

It has been noticed that non-availability of database of private educational institutions, bulk of their income-tax assessments were completed in a summary manner. The Income-Tax Department was thus unable to widen the tax base by identifying such institutions.

In their original report on the subject, the Committee had observed that adequate steps had not been taken by the concerned authorities to bring all the private educational institutions into the tax net through adequate and focussed use of the powers to conduct surveys.

Expressing their concern over the insufficient utilization of the power of survey given to the assessing officers, the Committee had desired to be apprised of the details of the cases, which were brought under the tax net during the preceding two years, assesses that have been brought to tax net and the amount of additional revenue realized from them.

The Committee has noted that no progress has been made by the Income-Tax authorities in identifying the new assesses and in collection of additional revenue from the survey of private educational institutions conducted during the year 2004-05.

Considering the fact that the private schools, colleges and other educational institutions have consistently been collecting huge fees and other charges from the students, the Committee has desired the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) to closely monitor survey operations at the highest level, with a view to realizing the potential tax from these institutions.

While observing that separate yet overlapping clauses in the Income-Tax Act providing exemption for educational institutions are being misused, the Committee in their original Report had recommended that the existing tax laws should be made simpler and clearer in consultation with the Ministry of Law and the lacunae in the law, if any, should be plugged suitable. ---INFA

GOLCONDA FORT WORLD HERITAGE SITE

HYDERABAD, January 3 (INFA): The magnificent Golconda Fort on the outskirts of Hyderabad city could well be on its way to become a world heritage site.

A dossier about not only the Fort but also the Qutab Shahi tombs is being prepared to be submitted to the UNESCO, Paris, for including them in the world heritage site’s list.

If this bears fruit, they would be the first in Andhra Pradesh to get such a recognition, a feather in the cap of the State. ---INFA

PAKISTAN SPECIAL

New Delhi, 28 December 2007

Benazir’s Assassination

ADVANTAGE MUSHARRAF?

By Sreedhar

The tragic events on December 27 evening in Rawalpindi resulting in the death of the former Prime Minister of Pakistan Benazir Bhutto can be examined only after taking three factors into consideration.               

First, the group that needs to be blamed maximum is the Pakistani Armed Forces. One is not clear on which side the Armed Forces are, whether they are with the jihadis or part of the US grand strategy of the war on terrorism. The statements made by Gen. Musharraf (Retd), from time to time, indicate that he is fighting the jihadis.  But the ground realities show that the Armed Forces are doing nothing to fight the jihadis.

In fact there were reports that the Pakistani intelligence agencies like the ISI had alerted the jihadi leadership about the impending attacks and provided them the logistics to escape.

As of today, the North West Frontier Province (NWFP), Baluchistan and the Federally Administered Tribal Areas have become safe havens for the jihadis and the writ of Islamabad does not run in these areas. Some of the Pakistani observers believe that that there is close collaboration between a large section of the Pakistani Armed Forces and the jihadis.

This becomes evident from the way the Pakistani Army officers spoke to this author on a number of occasions about the jihadis. Often I used to feel that the jihadis have become part and parcel of the Pakistani Establishment and an instrument of foreign policy.

The second factor is the US who conceptualized the idea of the jihadis way back in the 1980s to fight the Red Army in Afghanistan. The American policy makers and the Pakistani sympathizers in the US State Department were short-sighted and never anticipated the long term implications of such a policy. They even happily prodded countries like India to recognize the Taliban type of Government in the mid 1990s.

The US realized its folly after the incidents of 9/11. But still persisted with their ally, Pakistan, in fighting the war against terrorism, not realizing the intimate relationship between the Pakistani military rulers and the jihadis.

Once again, the extremely limited perceptions of the US State Department officials about the Indian sub-continent landed them in evolving a messy policy. When the jihadis were shouting from their roof tops that democracy was not acceptable to them, Washington worked out a plan to introduce a smooth transition to democracy with Gen. Musharraf and made Benazir to take the lead.

The Karachi blast of October 18 must have shown to what extent the jihadis plan was working and the changes that needed to be made in the entire plan. In the process, Benazir got identified with the US to such an extent that some of the jihadi groups had started calling her the American stooge.

Lastly, various political groups for their own reasons cultivated the jihadis. The world was shocked to know that Nawaz Sharief played host to Osama Bin Laden and sought his help to get back in to power.

Similarly Benazir's Interior Minister Naseerullah Babbar was the key person in creating the Taliban in the early 1990s. Benazir's last six month speeches stating that she would take action against the radical groups (read jihadis) sounds hollow to people who are familiar with Benazir's attitude in the past.

With three major players in Pakistani politics being associated with the jihadis in one form or the other, the immediate question that arises is who is going to get benefited by Benazir's assassination?

The obvious answer would be the Pakistan People's Party (PPP) in the forthcoming elections on January 8, 2008. The sympathy wave would enable the PPP to sweep the polls. In real political terms this would not be acceptable to Nawaz Sharief's Pakistan Muslim League (PML). Therefore, the PML people are bound to send signals to the powers-that-be to postpone the elections. Already, there are reports that Nawaz Sharief wants the people to boycott the elections.

The jihadis have already declared that they are against any democratic process being introduced in Pakistan. Their agenda seems to be to bring in the Shariat into the rule book and it should form the basis for the governance of Pakistan. Moreover, they have already declared that a woman’s place is at home and not for governing an Islamic country like Pakistan.

Against this backdrop, the jihadis taking extreme action against Benazir can be understood. By eliminating Benazir they have effectively eliminated any charismatic leader who could have a large following. It is ironical that there is no successor to Benazir in the Bhutto family and her husband is no match to her. Benazir’s children are too young to take up the mantle of leadership of the PPP. 

Gen. Musharraf does not want any political party to come to power with a huge majority which could alter the political equilibrium. On the pretext of the breakdown of the law and order situation, he can conveniently defer the election for the time being. And if he follows in the footsteps of his predecessor, the late Gen. Zia ul Haq, who postponed the elections more than half a dozen times, then Musharraf’s postponement of the elections is not going to be unusual.

On balance it appears the situation after the death of Benazir Bhutto seems to have turned to Musharraf’s advantage. However, what needs to be watched in the coming days would be to what extend the public agitation is likely to continue in Pakistan.

The initial reports indicate that there was a public outburst in almost all the important towns in Pakistan. The media reports coming from various quarters also indicate mixed signals. Some observers expect the country to head for a period of prolonged unrest which might lead to a civil war like situation.

Some others feel that this is a temporary phenomenon and may at best last for a week or two. After which things would fall in to proper places. Significantly, other than the Pakistani Armed Forces there is no other institution today which commands support from the people. In other words, a lot would depend on the relationship between Gen. Musharraf and Gen. Ashifaq Kayani in the coming days.

The Indian concern to this new development in Pakistan is on predictable lines. At one level, the Government and various political parties have condemned this ghastly act and feel that Benazir’s assassination will be a major setback for the return of democracy in Pakistan. The Indo-Pak composing dialogue has already been derailed. New Delhi is anxious that it be restored at an early date. ---- INFA

(Copyright India News & Feature Alliance)

In lieu of Open Forum

New Delhi, 22 November 2007

India-ASEAN Relations

CATCHING UP WITH CHINA

By Dr. Chintamani Mahapatra

School of International Studies, JNU

The Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has given top priority to improving relations with the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN). His visit to Singapore last week to attend a summit with ASEAN leaders and subsequently participate in the East Asian Summit is likely to further cement the growing engagement of India with the countries of the East.

India’s “Look East” policy is much less controversial and contentious than India’s engagement with the countries of West Asia. The Eastern part of India is a growth area, while the Western part is an area of enormous energy resources. To maintain the current rate of economic growth New Delhi needs to maintain and enhance its cooperation with both the dynamic economies of the East and the oil producing countries of the West.

However, India appears to be more successful in its oriental economic and political ventures. During the Cold War days, most of East and South-East Asia, including China, was pro-US oriented. India maintained cordial ties with Indo-Chinese countries and North Korea and was thus viewed with suspicion by the majority of the countries of this region.

In addition, the relatively restricted economic policy of India failed to engage the dynamic and rapidly growing economies, such as South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, Malaysia and a few others.

The end of the Cold War coincided with India’s economic reforms. The expansion of the ASEAN to include the three Indo-Chinese countries of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, improvement in Indo-US relations and Sino-Indian cooperation all contributed towards a transformed and more positive image of India in the ASEAN.

India’s status was enhanced from a sect oral dialogue partner to a full dialogue partner. Also, India’s inclusion as a member of the ASEAN Regional Forum and the Indian efforts to devise a new foreign policy strategy of “Look East” brought dividends. Sooner than later, New Delhi became a founding member of East Asia Summit — a larger Asian initiative to forge regional cooperation in a much wider area than ever before contemplated.

India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru dreamt of an Indian role in the Asia-Pacific while in prison during the freedom struggle. He also tried to lead a new initiative in forging Asian regional cooperation by calling for such a mechanism at the Asian Relations Conference in 1947 and 1949. However, regional events in South Asia then overtook such a grand initiative and India spent more time and energy in dealing with bordering enemies.

Not until the collapse of the Soviet Union and wide ranging economic reforms could India revive Nehru’s dream of engaging in wider regional cooperative efforts in the Asia-Pacific region. The “Look East” policy announced with much fanfare by the Narashimha Rao Government failed to take off due to a variety of reasons.

First of all, India got stuck with another grand plan to forge regional cooperation in the Indian Ocean Region — IOARC-- and a smaller version of sub-regional cooperation known as BIMSTEC. The nuclear test of 1998 and the Kargil War of 1999 also had a role in the lackluster performance of the “Look East” strategy.

The UPA Government led by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has invested substantial diplomatic and political capital to broaden and deepen India’s economic and political cooperation with the ASEAN countries. What is the likely outcome of India-ASEAN emerging initiatives? Several factors will influence the course of this emerging relationship.

First of all, India’s continued economic performance alone can promote closer cooperation with the ASEAN. The Americans, Europeans and the Japanese have begun to focus attention on the growing Indian economy. So are the ASEAN member countries. While India has been able to increase its trade with the ASEAN considerably to the tune of $30 billion, it is small change compared to China’s trade with this region.

Can India’s economy successfully integrate with that of the ASEAN? New Delhi was initially reluctant to join this grouping. The ASEAN later gave a cold shoulder to India both because of political reasons — the Cold War considerations and the Pakistan factor. Both these factors are non-existent now.

But the absence of political hurdles is not enough. Political will is essential to make the best use of the opportunity. The current leadership appears to have had the will and it is all reflected in the efforts to sign a free trade agreement with the ASEAN.

Secondly, India needs to do some catching up with China in the fields of economic performance, diplomatic skill as well as military modernization to be able to play an influential role in the ASEAN. The South-East Asian leaders will not talk about it, the Indian leaders will avoid comments on this, but it is widely understood.

Japan and the US maintain traditional influence in the ASEAN. China is already influential. India is still regarded as a country of potentiality. Japan’s lackluster economic performance and China’s hyper activities have generated an expectation in the region that India would play a moderating influence for the Asian balance of power. New Delhi needs to consciously and conscientiously work on this.

Thirdly, the positive Indo-US engagements will go a long way to assist Indian efforts to be a role player in the Asia-Pacific. The American hegemony in this region is real, accepted in the region and privately appreciated by many. China at one time sought to be a revisionist power, but no more. The US makes China richer by more than $200 billion by buying more Chinese goods and selling less.

China has prospered under the US hegemony and quietly desires it to stay. Some Indian leaders and analysts still conjure up negative images of the US role to the complete exclusion of its positive influences. More regrettably, Indians do not discuss how to benefit from the existing system that is unlikely to be replaced in the near future.

All this is partially reflected in the discussion on the Indo-US nuclear deal. Instead of focusing on what India can gain and whether India can gain sufficiently, the opponents of the deal went to the extent of name calling. This already has negative diplomatic consequences in the larger region.

But the bottom line is: India is incapable of playing the role of a revisionist power now. It needs to take care of the above-mentioned points to be able to emerge as a meaningful partner of the ASEAN — the most successful regional cooperation arrangement in Asia. --- INFA

(Copyright India News & Feature Alliance)

Special Article

New Delhi, 17 October 2007

Indo-US Nuclear Deal

TIME TO SOUND RUSSIA

By MD Nalapat

(Holds UNESCO Peace Chair, Prof, Geopolitics, Manipal Academy of

Higher Education, Ex-Resident Editor, Times of India, Delhi)

Those who regard India as a democracy and not a Saudi-style monarchy or a Pakistan-model military dictatorship will not be surprised that Manmohan Singh has had to halt further steps on the Singh-Bush nuclear deal. For Manmohan Singh and Sonia Gandhi, it was a great honour for the US to grant India the "favour" of being accepted as a low caste nation rather than as the nuclear outcaste that the US, the European Union (EU) and China have tried to make this country out to be since its first nuclear test in 1974.

As an "outcaste", the US, EU and China together denied India access to any technology that could help its technological development .Even power generation plants were sought to be denied to the country that still has 300 million desperately poor people.

The US in particular has long pressured Russia to stop nuclear cooperation with India. Now George W Bush has decreed that India is no longer an outcaste but can be promoted to "low caste" status in the context of the nuclear sector. This refers to countries that have been given permission by the US, EU and China (the self-appointed masters of the world) to have supervised and limited access to nuclear technology. This category includes most countries in the world.

On the other hand, George Bush sees countries such as Germany and Japan as what may be termed "medium caste". These have the right to not merely receive foreign technology but undertake specific functions such as re-processing of spent fuel on their own. These are what Bush has termed as "donor countries" in his proposed Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, as opposed to "recipient" countries (including India) that are denied this privilege. The "high caste" are of course the 5 declared nuclear weapons powers under the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

That Manmohan Singh and Sonia Gandhi were willing to concede to this lowly status for India is surprising. The US has been forced to accept that 34 years of technology denial have not stopped India's scientists from building bombs and reactors, and now seeks to crush this capacity by pretending to assist it.

The contours of the cooperation proposed by the 123 Agreement and the infamous Hyde Act would result in a steady diminution of India's indigenous nuclear capability. Within a few years, the country would be as dependent on outside fuel and technology for nuclear power as it is for petroleum.

Once the deal gets operationalised, an intrusive regime of inspections would kick in, and the limited re-processing that would be permitted under the terms of the "123 Agreement" and the India-specific Hyde Act passed by the US Congress last year would be at a facility that would in effect be under international control and cost more than Rs 15,000 crores to construct.

Over time, almost all of India's nuclear capability would come under the harsh inspections regime of the IAEA, and efforts at developing an indigenous energy programme based on thorium would have to be given up. Costs would rise substantially, as most foreign technologies are based on "high" rather than "low" enriched uranium, the price of which is shooting up even more than broader-term trends for oil

Manmohan Singh has consistently been opposed to the vigorous nuclear programme favoured by the Indian strategic establishment over four decades. As Finance Minister, he limited and slowed the Indian programme, which despite such official retardation has developed into a self-sufficient basket of technologies that would find ready and profitable markets, were some exported. India could raise at least Rs 20,000 crores by export of reactors, for instance.

As for adequate supplies of nuclear fuel --- the stated reason for the deal --- this could easily be secured if the Government had the courage to re-process the mountain of (highly toxic) spent fuel that is accumulating at the Tarapur reactor because Jimmy Carter broke the solemn word of the US Government and refused to re-process it, an illegality that all his successors have continued. There is no legal obstacle to India re-processing this fuel, except fear of Bush on the part of Sonia Gandhi and Manmohan Singh.

India is indeed rising, and this despite its Government. Among the under-30s, especially, there is a confidence about the future of the country that is palpable to most visitors. The new Indian regards herself or himself as the equal of citizens of any other major power, including the US.

Hence, they reject a concession that appears incredibly generous to those policymakers in the US who implicitly regard those with ethnic origins different from the natives of Europe, diplomats such as Under-Secretary of State Nicholas Burns, who must no doubt have spent numerous pleasant holidays at "home" in Europe.

Burns, however, is more liberal than other Under-Secretaries, such as Robert Joseph, who apparently regard the Bush attempt to monopolize nuclear technologies in the hands of those of European (or, regrettably to these, the Chinese) origin. They see the nuclear deal as a way of getting India to retreat from its 47-year quest for strategic equality with the major European powers, a drive manifested not only in the bomb program, but in the space missions being undertaken by the country.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, with the backing of Sonia Gandhi, has reportedly agreed to halt development of the Indian missile system to a range higher than 5500 kilometres, uncaring of the effect that this would have on the space programme and the quest for developing rockets that can compete with China and the EU in the profitable space launch business.

Manmohan Singh and Sonia Gandhi are delighted at their "promotion" from nuclear outcastes to nuclear lowlife ("recipient states", in Bush terminology). The majority in India's Parliament disagrees with them, and in any democracy, a policy that does not have the support of the majority of MPs cannot have the force of law.

Should Sonia Gandhi and Manmohan Singh choose to accept the reality of a Rising India, and re-negotiate more acceptable terms, the country will support them. If the PM were less a prisoner of his attitude towards the US, then he could have already worked  out a deal with close ally Russia rather than spend time persuading the US Congress that the world's fast-growing only billion-plus democracy deserves to be treated the same way the US treats the UK and France.

By highlighting US unwillingness to acknowledge Indians as being the strategic equals of their major European partners, the nuclear deal has become an obstacle to, rather than the symbol of, the India-US partnership that is so necessary in the present world. ---- INFA

(Copyright India News & Feature Alliance)