Events And Issues

New Delhi, 28 May 2007 

Indo-US Nuclear Deal

IMPACT ON DEFENCE STRATEGIES

By Col. P.K. Vasudeva (Retd.)

Confusion persists in certain quarters about the significance and implications pertaining to US-India Peaceful Nuclear Energy Act 2006. Some of the critics feel that the US assurance on supply of uranium fuel is deceptive and illusionary; the US certification on India's activities is uncalled for; India's nuclear installations will be perpetually under the US scanner; the US will scuttle India's defence strategies.

President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh signed the Indo-US civil nuclear agreement on July 18, 2005 and issued a joint statement laying the grounds for the resumption of full U.S. and international nuclear aid to India. The PM stated in Parliament said, the deal is offering recognition to India as a nuclear-weapon state, pointing out that the joint statement says India will have "the same benefits and advantages as other leading countries with advanced nuclear technology, such as the United States." More practically, they see it as a way to sustain and expand the nuclear energy program while not restricting the building of what they describe as a "minimum" nuclear weapons arsenal.  

International support was stopped after India's 1974 nuclear weapon test and sanctions imposed after the 1998 test. It was therefore important to India for developing its nuclear infrastructure and capabilities. India's subsequent refusal to sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) has kept it largely outside the system of regulated transfer, trade, and monitoring of nuclear technology developed over the last three decades.

The July agreement requires the US to amend its own laws and policies on nuclear technology transfer and to work for changes in international controls on the supply of nuclear fuel and technology so as to allow "full civil nuclear energy cooperation and trade with India", even though it has not signed NTP. In exchange, India would identify and separate civilian nuclear facilities and programmes from its nuclear weapons complex and volunteer these civilian facilities for International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspection and safeguarding. 

Policy analysts in the United States have debated the wisdom of the deal. The larger policy context of a long-standing effort to co-opt India as a U.S. client and so sustain and strengthen U.S. power, especially with regard to China, has gone unchallenged. There is also doubt as to how the agreement could allow India to expand its nuclear arsenal being a non NPT state.

The deal has incited a wider and more intense debate in India on questions of national security, sovereignty, development, and democracy. Some desire minimum constraints on increasing the future capacity of India's nuclear weapons complex, and produce maximum nuclear energy that can help meet India's energy needs. The Government has to deliberate to the issue whether India needs nuclear weapons at all. The efforts should also be to reduce the cost of the nuclear energy for civil uses.

 According to estimates, the cost of producing nuclear electricity in India is higher than the non-nuclear alternatives. Construction costs are high, and take long time, making the capital cost of a nuclear reactor very high when compared to coal-based thermal stations.   The generation of power on coal-based thermal stations may be cheaper but the high cost cannot be compromised with the type of pollution it emits.

The Indian atomic establishment appears to have overcome its initial reservations about the July 18 agreement; there is a broad consensus among the scientists. Under no circumstances should the agreement compromise India's technological independence in the nuclear field. According to them, India's own reserves of uranium as well as its indigenous reactor programme will enable it to produce at least 207 gigawatts of electricity by 2052, or around 15 per cent of the projected national requirement of 1350 GW. The country therefore, needs to preserve its independence in heavy water reactors, fast breeders, and accelerator driven systems. Thus, all experimental and research facilities should be kept off the civilian list for safeguards purposes, including the fast breeder reactor. 

Hastily, the US amended its Atomic Energy Act 1954 and incorporated in the Henry J. Hyde Act US-India Peaceful Nuclear Energy Act, 2006. Under this Act the US has entered into civil nuclear cooperation with India even when it is not a member of the NPT which was forbidden in the earlier Act for non NPT countries. 

This legislative amendment was crucial because the 45-member Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) of nations (including China and Russia) are waiting for the US to amend its law of technology denial to India before they would consider relaxing the procedures of the NSG to permit India to interact with other nations to receive nuclear technology, materials and equipment. While the US is bound by legislation, the other countries which joined the NSG have done so only on the basis of executive decisions.

It will then be open to India to obtain its nuclear technology, materials and equipment from any one of the NSG members and not necessarily from the US. China is obtaining its nuclear reactors from Canada, France, Germany and Russia without putting in the kind of conditionality which the US Congress tends to do. Therefore, if India does not purchase reactors, materials and technologies from the US, then, no American conditionality will apply to its purchases from other countries as they will be governed only by the bilateral agreements.

India now has to have a bilateral deal known as 123 Agreement to be negotiated and signed between Delhi and Washington. That is still under discussion.  Therefore, India has to watch carefully that the 123 Agreement does not have any clause that is not considered palatable.

The Government assured the Lok Sabha on May 16 that the 123 agreement in the Indo-US civilian nuclear deal was not in jeopardy and would be within the framework of the agreement reached between the two countries on July 18, 2005 and the separation plan of March 2, 2006.

In a bid to scotch speculation that the bilateral agreement might not conform completely to the parameters that were set by the two countries in July agreement and the separation plan, External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee said that the 123 agreement would conform to the commitment made by the Prime Minister in the Parliament. So far there have been four rounds of talks and with the visit of Nicholas Burns in the end of May it will be the last round of finalization of the agreement as the majority of the issues have already been sorted out.

The critics who outrightly reject the deal on various grounds have an exaggerated view of the US power and a very poor opinion of India's status, role and bargaining power in the world. They do not have an adequate appreciation that a developing country like India has to advance to the frontline status in the comity of powers in stages and through advantageous partnerships with other nations. Patience, skilful diplomatic manoeuvres, recognising and exploiting opportunities, not alienating other powers unnecessarily and enhancing continuously one's own bargaining leverage constitute successful real politik. Once the two sides are able to eventually clinch the 123 bilateral agreements as hoped by both Bush and Dr. Singh, it will feed a trust, security and stability. ---INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)

Events And Issues

New Delhi, 14 May 2007

Judicial Activism

Protecting People’s Rights

By Dhurjati Mukherjee

The Prime Minister stated recently that “a thin line divided judicial activism from judicial overreach”. As is well known, tensions between the legislature and the judiciary have surfaced in recent times and the Prime Minister obviously referred to this. But the Chief Justice, K. G. Balakrishnan said such frisson was “natural and even desirable” in a healthy and democratic society. Referring to public interest litigations (PILs), which PM agreed had great utility for initiating corrective action, he observed that they should not become vehicles for settling political or other scores.

The recent spate of judgments like those on Bihar Assembly dissolution, Jharkhand Government formation, expulsion of MPs in cash-for-query scam, reservation in promotions and finally the stay on 27 per cent OBC quota have no doubt unnerved the Centre. But the apex Court’s ruling on Bihar and also in Jharkhand was greatly appreciated by the general public as it helped in putting in place a system of governance in tune with Constitutional provisions. But it dented the ego of many political leaders of the ruling class who raised the question of the judiciary’s interference in political matters.

Also the illogicality of giving reservation within reservation in the M. Nagraj case and the lately the stay on OBC quota in institutions of higher learning has added fuel to the fire. These rulings were linked to quota politics and the political class protested as, in our country, they have resorted to such action for electoral gains. The judiciary thus became branded of overstepping its Constitutionally-demarcated limits.

One may mention here that the framers of the Constitution had placed a time limit of 10 years on such social affirmative actions. Although not much could be accomplished in uplifting the conditions of the backward castes as also the poorest of the poor, even after 60 years of independence, there is need for the judiciary to go deep into the problem and strike a balance between the right to equality and the extent of social affirmative action needed at this juncture.

The Supreme Court in India is highly regarded all over the world for its independence and judicious approach in taking decisions. Right to equality, promising equal treatment to all citizens, irrespective of birth, caste, class or sex has been the cornerstone of all judgments in tune with the provisions of the Constitution. Instead of appreciating the approach of the apex court, some political leaders – (most with criminal or dubious tags behind them) have resorted to challenging the independence of the judiciary and trying to bring them under some control.

There need not be any conflict between the legislature and the judiciary as each of them has its respective roles laid out in the Constitution. All three wings---legislature, executive and judiciary---owe their place and power to the Constitution, which has created and empowered them on a mandate from “we the people of India”. There is a feeling in recent times that the judiciary has taken the lead to enlarge its jurisdiction but that is because “of inaction on the part of the executive and legislature in performing their constitutional obligation”, pointed out a former Chief Justice of India.

One may mention here that the apex Court was right in saying that though Article 368 empowers Parliament to amend the Constitution; this power cannot masquerade as people’s will to subvert the basic framework of the Constitution, fundamental rights included. The total denial of judicial power enacted by 31B under the Ninth Schedule is a case in point. Taking advantage of this, the dreaded MISA law of 1975 and the Prevention of Publication of Objectionable Matter Act 1976 (to control the free Press) were put under the Ninth Schedule, though repealed later by Parliament.

There is thus need to ensure that the judiciary is allowed to follow its own course to ensure better governance and equality of opportunities to all. For this, it is necessary that cases should not be kept pending for inadequate number of judicial officers. Moreover more fast-track courts should be set up all over the country to ensure speedy trials as delays affect proper trials, leaving room for manipulation.

The respect that judges in High Courts command is because of their neutrality and independence. But there have been allegations, and not without any basis, that the rich and the powerful benefit if a case goes to court because of the inordinate delay and also because of the system of approaching a higher court when the judgment goes against the applicant. This undoubtedly is a major flaw in our system and some remedial action needs to be evolved to help those who cannot afford to engage lawyers to defend their cases. Though, in recent times, fast-track courts have been of some help, the poor continue to suffer because of the expenses and time taken to settle cases.

The involvement of the judiciary in the realm of environment has also evoked much discussion and debate in recent times. In the areas of forest degradation, pollution control, solid waste management, water contamination, arsenic control, conservation of wetlands and lakes etc. vigilant action by the judiciary has helped in the enforcement of laws by various state government, which affect the lives and well being of the people.

One may mention here the contribution of M. C. Mehta, the activist-lawyer, whose PILs had led to landmark orders like getting tanneries shifted from Kolkata and polluting industries out of Delhi, the switch to CNG by public transport in Delhi and by local authorities in Agra (to protect the Taj Mahal). 

However, it needs to be mentioned here that judgments are not always enforced. The number of judgments not implemented stands at around 500 in the past couple of years, up from 300 in 2000. In public perception, the judiciary is the last bastion of hope for the justice and it is necessary for executive to enforce their orders. There have also been allegations that the judiciary, in some cases, has also not been serious about enforcing laws, specially pertaining to the rights of the poor as it is about protecting the rights of the privileged. This, however, should not be allowed to happen.     

The judiciary has played an exemplary role, specially in the last few years, and if the legal process is expedited there can be no doubt that the benefits would go to the people. Moreover, the poor should have the benefit of getting legal counsel at the cost of the state or be allowed to plead their own case. This would go a long way in making the judiciary people-oriented and ensure that the rights of the people, including women and children, are safeguarded.---INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)

Events And Issues

New Delhi, 30 April 2007

Human Trafficking

DRAFT RIGHTS-ORIENTED LAW

By T.D. Jagadesan

Efforts to eradicate human trafficking are being made globally during the past decade.  The UN, European Union and the SAARC countries have made laws to combat trafficking.  These efforts have been assisted by human rights organizations, women’s groups and other social justice movements. 

Unfortunately, however, the progress in this social justice legislation being pursued in the name of human rights, especially of women and children, is emerging as disingenuous and illusory.  Indeed, anti-trafficking is perhaps the most explicit example of how good intentions can boomerang.  Despite a decade of efforts, there is an increase in the human trafficking statistics and the level of prosecutions and convictions remain abysmally low.

One primary reason is that anti-trafficking work is being used to pursue agendas that have little to do with women’s rights. They either adopt a paternalistic attitude towards migrant women and feed anti-immigrant policies in destination countries, or support sexually- conservative agendas, led by faith-based groups in the US and anti-sex work groups in India and elsewhere.

These competing agendas are present in the current Bill.  As defined in the UN Trafficking Protocol, trafficking involves the recruitment, movement or transportation of a person through force, deception, fraud or violence into a site of exploitative work. Recruiting a person by deceipt into domestic work or forcibly transporting somebody to a bar where she is made to perform sexual service constitutes trafficking.

The central problem with the proposed law is that it collapses the issue of sex work with sex trafficking and equates all trafficking with sex trafficking. The Committee had honed in on this confusion, recognizing that trafficking takes place into a broad range of sectors, such as construction, agriculture, or domestic work.

Secondly, it clarifies that trafficking should be distinguished from consensual commercial sex work, and that not all sex workers are trafficked. Yet the Committee does not take the logical step of recommending a comprehensive law on human trafficking and a separate law to address the concerns of sex workers.

The Committee recommends some major amendments.  It strongly criticizes the proposal to criminalize clients, recognizing that such a provision would be used to further harass sex workers, and do little or nothing to stop trafficking. The recommendations go some way in recognizing consensual sex work and the need to protect the rights of sex workers. Yet it still fails to delink the issue of trafficking from sex work, thus making any effort to seriously tackle human trafficking unworkable. Similar tensions have plagued efforts made by the Government since 1993 to reform the law.

Given these inherent tensions, why is the Government supporting such a flawed law?  The answer lies partly in pressure being exerted by the US.  In 2000, Christian evangelicals successfully lobbied for the enactment of the trafficking in Victims Protection Act with the support of the Bush presidency and anti-sex work groups.  Under the Act, a task force annually evaluates the anti-trafficking efforts of over 150 countries and classifieds them into three tiers.

Tier-one for those who have met the minimum standards for fighting trafficking. Tier-two for those who have not met the standard but are trying and Tier-three a Watch List for those who better shape up or else they will be pushed into Tier-three, a category that triggers the withdrawal of non-humanitarian aid from the US, as well as US opposition to non-humanitarian assistance from institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank.

India is the only South Asian country to be placed in the Tier-two Watch List for the third consecutive year because of its apparent “failure to show evidence of increasing efforts to address trafficking in persons”. While India has a range of legal provisions on trafficking, kidnapping and slavery, it does not have a legislation outlawing prostitution.

The USAID, which sits on the task force, has an explicit policy of refusing funding for HIV/AIDS or anti-trafficking projects to “organisations advocating prostitution as an employment choice or which advocate or support the legalization of prostitution”. Yet opposition to prostitution is not the central criterion for tier placement.

Pakistan had been placed in Tier-two, though it has not enacted a single significant law against trafficking. Nepal was placed in Tier-one in 2005 after the monarchy’s grab for power, but pushed into Tier-two in 2006 after the Maoists’ victory.  Bangladesh provides the death penalty for certain forms of trafficking and bans unskilled and semi-skilled works from working abroad. It is in Tier-two.

The Committee recognizes that the proposed reforms serve as only a “half-hearted” effort to combat trafficking. The US bullying and the threat of sanctions should not push India in a direction that will harm more women than it will help.  India should draft a comprehensive human trafficking law that is human rights-oriented.

And this law needs to be framed against a comprehensive policy on migration and rights of migrant workers. Otherwise, the security of migrants, especially female migrants, may end up less threatened by people smugglers and traffickers than by the system of protection offered by anti-trafficking laws. ---INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)

Events And Issues

New Delhi, 16 April 2007

High-Profile Seminar

Envisioning New South Asia

By Dr. Syed Ali Mujtaba

The recent high-profile seminar at the Andhra University, Vishakhapatnam that had delegates from Pakistan, Nepal and Sri Lanka witnessed a robust academic debate between the prophets of doom and the advocates of peace. The theme of the seminar was: “Envisioning A New South Asia.” The good part was that it ended with the Italian proverb: “after every absorbing game of Chess, the King and the Pawn both have to go and rest in the same box.”

A prophet of doom thundered, ‘I do understand Bharat, even Hindustan but what is South Asia? I don’t understand. They talk about common culture and civilization. All this is humbug. With all the similarities, didn’t Europe go to War? Then it’s said, India should have more trade with its neighboring countries, why?  The logic of trade is profit. Does India stand to gain trading with its neighbors or extra regional countries? The best prescription is India should give a fraction of its surplus economic growth to its smaller neighbours to keep them contended, he summed up. 

This view was countered by some one buildup a case for common South Asian Union. There are two choices before us, either to live in the current moving anarchy syndrome or forge unity for common welfare of the people living in this part of the world, he said.

Some one made a fervent appeal for prevention, management, and resolution of conflicts in South Asia. He argued: Since conflicts n South Asia are of protracted nature, so instead of rushing towards its resolution, efforts should be made for prevention and management of such conflicts.

There was no dearth of Mr. Dooms at the seminar. A Professor in late fifties professed; ‘I don’t see any resolution of Kashmir issue in sight, there would be none at least in my generation, even in my children or grandchildren’s generation. There is no light in the tunnel of the Indo- Pak conflict.’

To this it was pointed out, the India-Pakistan peace process is an act of tight rope walking. Currently, the optimists have taken an edge over those who doubt and remain pessimist over the outcome of Indo Pak peace process. This is a very delicate moment in the history where for the first time the two adversaries are sitting on the same side of the fence on the many issues.  It would be in the interest of both the countries to work hard to maintain the era of good feeling and resolve their differences for regional peace and integration.  

Another presenter pointed out three dominant problems that beset South Asia. First is India- Pak tension, second, India’s mindset in dealing with its neighbours and third inadequate confidence of the smaller nation to handle their own economic, social and political issues and blame India for such ills. There are signs of positive changes on all the three fronts, he argued.

South Asia is only above the sub-Sahara African region in terms of human development index; therefore all the countries in the region must manage or resolve their problems to an acceptable level and make collective efforts to build peace, stability that’s so vital for the human development of the region.

The new millennium is witnessing a resurgent South Asia and the relationship with the neighboring countries is being refashioned as never before. There is a marked shift in the agenda for the projection of a better future. South Asia has collectively has initiated structural adjustment in policies that has a strong bearing on the region. Envisioning a resurgent South Asia seems the future agenda of the region.

Another doom theorist propounded that India’s self perception in recent times tends to rule out any alteration in the South Asian vision. India perceives itself as a leading power of Asia and is more interested to adjust its role to a larger Asian theater than investing seriously to repair its South Asian image. The challenge before SAARC therefore remains how to transcend the prevailing perception about India’s role in the subcontinent.

A futurist countered this argument saying India needs to take SAARC seriously to serve its regional as well its global interests. Its ability to gain the confidence of the member countries and share its resources with them will enhance its political image and clout to play a larger role in the regions around it. ‘They are keenly watching India’s behavior and their perception of India’s role would have a bearing on New Delhi’s politico- strategic engagement with these regions,’ he said.

India need not get itself strained in the pool of South Asian politics; instead it must set out itself for sailing across Bay of Bengal. In such an event, the SAARC would get itself salvaged from the state of being wrecked, someone said. There is a considerable section that looks at SAARC as a positive development in the region. As the theoretical paradigm indicates, there are inherent difficulties in moving towards complete regional integration. Nonetheless there is no ambiguity that to achieve full economic integration, the SAARC has to travel a long way, opinioned another scholar.   

The SAARC was compared as a cluster of bamboos, each of which was an independent entity, and which together could withstand turbulent winds, and the tallest of the bamboos must stoop its head but must never impose its will on its smaller neighbors.   

About the US role, it was said that currently the overarching objective of the US foreign policy is to integrate all the major national economies into global capitalist free market under its leadership. The Indo- Pak peace process, the inching forward on economic front in the SAARC affairs is in the American scheme of things. The US policy towards South Asia is on the mend and hopefully for the better, it was argued.

On China’s interaction with the South Asia it was said the new characteristics of its policy is to stabilize its peripheries with the recently launched Western Development Campaign, coming to grips with the rising India, nuclear stability in the region, counter terrorism measures, exploration of markets for its exports and exploring ways to secure sea lanes for sustainable supply to fuel its economy.   

 An alarm was raised about the reported attempt by China to divert the river Tsangpo in Tibet (the origin of major rivers of South Asia) to meet the requirements of its mainland. ‘If this project is successfully executed, India and Bangladesh would be at the mercy of China for the adequate release of water during the dry season and for protection of floods during the monsoon seasons. The Tsangpo project not only threatens the environmentalist but also pose a threat to national regional and international security,’ it was said.

A fervent appeal was made to the South Asian countries to accommodate each other and move towards cooperation and then initiate the process of regional integration. Only a stable society can attain the benefits of various economic programmes being designed to see a prosperous South Asia.

There was also a paper on internationally displaced persons that sought attention for collective response to the refuges problem in South Asia. There was another paper that sought to look at the problems of fishermen and advocated their security as a part of human security measures adopted by the SAARC. Another paper pleaded; non- traditional security issues to be tackled in the context of economic development. Then someone questioned the rationale of prioritizing military security over human security and stressed the need for inclusive growth through human and economic security. One paper examined the traditional Indian approach to human security for addressing contemporary issues in South Asia.

On the whole the three-day international seminar envisioning a new South Asia left a considerable body of knowledge for future deliberations. In the end John Lennon’s prophetic words stated the roost: You may say I’m a dreamer. But I’m not be only one. I hope someday join us and the world will be as one”.---INFA

 (Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)