EVENTS AND ISSUES

New Delhi, 21 July 2005

Among Gobal Issues…

Terror Hijacks G8 Summit

By Dr. Chintamani Mahapatra

School of International Studies, JNU

Months of preparations went into holding the G8 Summit at St. Petersburg in Russia, but it appeared that terrorism and violence hijacked this important gathering of one of the most powerful groups of influential countries. The participants were aghast by the horrendous terrorist strike in Mumbai that killed more than two hundred innocent lives, injured more than five hundred and frightened millions others who often travel by train to make both the ends meet.

The statement issued by the G8 members and the observers condemned this ghastly act of timidity. It said; "We are outraged by the barbaric terrorist acts, carried out on 11 July 2006 in Mumbai and other parts of India. We stand in solidarity with the Government and the people of India and express our deepest condolences to the victims and their families….We are united with India in our resolve to intensify efforts to fight terrorism which constitutes a threat to each of our country, as well as to international peace and security."

Yet another incident that occupied the debate and deliberations at the St. Petersburg Summit was the kidnapping of four Israeli soldiers and Tel Aviv’s strong retribution against Hamas and Hezbollah leading to massive bombardment of Lebanon. Neither the G8 nor the international community has been able to take a definite stand on the Middle East violence, as international terrorism is striking back in Afghanistan, Iraq, India, Pakistan and in several other places as well. Israel, which is often criticized for its heavy-handed approach in dealing with Palestinian issue, is undoubtedly facing enormous terrorist challenges.

The international community is not united in its view on the victory of Hamas in the Palestinian election recently. Yet another angle is the alleged Iranian involvement in giving persistent help to Hamas and Hezbollah and a suspicion that Tehran is raising the temperature in the Middle East by enhanced encouragement to militant elements to divert the attention on its nuclear weapon ambitions.

The G8 resolution on this issue is significantly balanced. It said: “The immediate crisis results from efforts by extremist forces to destabilize the region and to frustrate the aspirations of the Palestinian, Israeli and Lebanese people for democracy and peace.  In Gaza, elements of Hamas launched rocket attacks against Israeli territory and abducted an Israeli soldier. 

In Lebanon, Hizbollah, in violation of the Blue Line, attacked Israel from Lebanese territory and killed and captured Israeli soldiers, reversing the positive trends that began with the Syrian withdrawal in 2005, and  undermining the democratically elected government of Prime Minister Fuad Siniora. These extremist elements and those that support them cannot be allowed to plunge the Middle East into chaos and provoke a wider conflict.  The extremists must immediately halt their attacks.”

And then it went on to say that “it is also critical that Israel, while exercising the right to defend itself, be mindful of the strategic and humanitarian consequences of its actions.  We call upon Israel to exercise utmost restraint, seeking to avoid casualties among innocent civilians and damage to civilian infrastructure and to refrain from acts that would destabilize the Lebanese government.”

Nonetheless, the G8 underscored the rise in the extremism and terrorism and were less critical of Israeli retribution. It was clearly reflected in the order of its resolution, which called for: Return of the Israeli soldiers in Gaza and Lebanon unharmed; an end to the shelling of Israeli territory; an end to Israeli military operations and the early withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza; and release of the arrested Palestinian ministers and parliamentarians.

While nations continue to differ on the definition of terrorism and the best means to tackle this menace, the G8 declared: “We, the Leaders of the G8, meeting in St. Petersburg, categorically denounce terrorist attacks worldwide and condemn in the strongest terms those who perpetrate these atrocities and bring untold suffering and death to citizens.  We express our deepest sympathy with all victims of these attacks.  If terrorism and violent extremism are permitted to exist anywhere, they diminish our societies everywhere.  Today we pledge that we will not rest until the terrible blight of terrorism has been removed from our daily lives.”

The G8, which recognizes the role of the UN in tackling the terrorist menace the world over, reiterated its commitment to work closely with the UN Security Council’s Counter-Terrorism Committee (CTC) and expressed its desire to expand cooperation between other countries and the Counter-Terrorism Action Group (CTAG) it has created

The G8 Summit already had the issue of energy security high on its agenda. Russia’s self-perception as an energy superpower, its use of energy to pressurize its neighbours and the rising oil prices would have dominated the debate and discussions. But terrorist violence, sectarian conflict and Israel’s war against Lebanon in the heart of the world’s hydrocarbon resources altered the focus and concerns were expressed over the danger to the energy infrastructure.

The G8 thus recognized the urgency of enhancing “cooperation with regard to counter terrorist and other criminal attacks on critical energy infrastructure facilities” and announced “a plan of action to secure global critical energy infrastructure, including defining and ranking vulnerabilities of critical energy infrastructure sites, assessing emerging and potential risks of terrorist attacks, and developing best practices for effective security across all energy sectors within our countries.”

Significantly, the issue of nuclear terrorism was also seriously debated. In the past, scholars and officials differed on this issue. Some argued that nuclear weapons are too complicated and difficult for the terrorist groups to manufacture. Others emphasized that terrorist groups may not be able to build nuclear bombs, but they can certainly acquire one. The Abdul Qadeer Khan-run nuclear black market certainly has frightened and woken up the world leaders to nuclear terrorism.

In sharp contrast, India got kudos for its new commitment to non-proliferation. The G8 statement on non-proliferation said: “We look forward to reinforcing our partnership with India. We note the commitments India has made, and encourage India to take further steps towards integration into the mainstream of strengthening the non-proliferation regime, so as to facilitate a more forthcoming approach towards nuclear cooperation to address its energy requirements, in a manner that enhances and reinforces the global non-proliferation regime.”

The G8 did carry out debate and discussion on a host of global issues, but terrorism and violence dominated the summit.---INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)

EVENTS AND ISSUES

New Delhi, 17 July 2006

Air Pollution Problem

Disastrous Impact On Environment

By Dhurjati Mukherjee

The human impact on the environment has indeed been disastrous.  And with Western-induced strategy of development and consumerist approach to life and living in countries like India, environmental problems have accentuated since the 1990s.

At the present juncture, Indians are very much exposed to dangerous levels of highly toxic gases, including carcinogenic organic compounds and sulphur and sulphur fumes, through the air they breathe. The levels of air borne suspended particulate matter recorded in the large metro cities, especially Delhi and also Kolkata and Mumbai, far exceeded air quality standards adopted by India and many other developing countries. Two independent analyses estimated that urban air pollution in the country could be responsible for about 40,000 premature deaths annually (Brandon & Homman 1995, WHO 2002), primarily due to human exposure to elevated levels of particulate matter.

This being the situation the Community Environment Monitoring (CEM) report titled ‘Smokescreen Ambient Air Quality in India’ (released in June 2006), has found that the country is “pathetically behind in terms of infrastructure to safeguard its environment or health of people from air pollution”. India’s air pollution monitoring is primitive and the world’s fourth largest economy has no standards for most of the toxic and commonly found air pollutants, the CEM’s Shweta Narayan pointed out. In fact, the report revealed that the air in the country is unfit to breathe.

The study observed that compared to 1997, carbon monoxide levels are down 32 per cent and sulphur dioxide levels 39 per cent. While the change has been remarkable, it has lulled regulators into complacency. The air has never been monitored for toxic gases and has therefore never been regulated for the same, the report pointed out with special reference to Delhi.

In another more comprehensive study conducted by the World Bank (June 2006), progress and challenges of air quality management between 1993 and 2002 of five cities in the country have been analyzed. It found that despite efforts to curb air pollution, respirable suspended particulate matter (RSPM), the main pollutant of public health concern, has been the highest and significantly above the national standards in Delhi and Kolkata, specially in winter.

Delhi continues to have the highest levels, notwithstanding the implementation of the most extensive programme of air quality management. Moreover ambient concentrations of nitrogen dioxide (NO₂) have exhibited an increase in recent years although still at relatively low levels.

However, the achievement has been that between the years 1993 and 2002, the RSPM declined which might have led to nearly 13,000 fewer cases of premature deaths and much greater reductions in the number of cases of respiratory illness (in all the five cities) on an annual basis by 2002 compared to the early 1990s. The levels of sulphur dioxide (SO₂) also declined during the same period. However SPM levels remained steady, implying against a backdrop of falling RSPM levels increasing concentrations coarse particulate matter, which is indeed surprising.

It is generally agreed that all cities will gain substantial health benefits from fallen RSPM reductions to or even below the current national annual standard of 60 ug/m³ for residential areas, which may be achievable in Chennai and Hyderabad in the medium term. However, bringing the RSPM levels down to this standard is clearly a long-term target for Delhi and Kolkata, according to the World Bank study.

The potential benefits would still be very high; it may save as many as 10,000 lives every year in these two cities alone. It may be mentioned here that a significant number of people, specially in Kolkata live in the pavements and their exposure to air pollution continues to be very dangerous.

The nature and magnitude of emission of emission vary between cities. While in Mumbai there has been reduction in RSPM and SO₂ levels in industrial areas, in Delhi and Kolkata the mixed land-use pattern challenges the current practice of having different National Ambient Air Quality Standards within a city.  However cleaner fuels (like the introduction of CHG in Delhi) and improved technology along with stronger and better enforcement of regulations is obviously the solution.

The need for immediate improvement in air quality in these five cities can hardly be emphasized and lot of debate and discussion has been generated on this issue in recent years. Recently as per directives of the Supreme Court draft action plans have been submitted by a number of cities. Given that as per the Air (Prevention and Control) Act 1981 section 19 (1), State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs) have the right to declare air pollution control areas within its jurisdiction, the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) is of the view that many more cities should take up the action planning exercise in order to meet air quality standards as notified under the Act.

The increase in cardiovascular and other diseases, including asthma, bronchitis and even lung cancer, has been on the rise and this needs to be checked. As is well known, the oxides of sulphur and nitrogen cause breathing problems while carbon monoxide hampers oxygen transfer in the body. In the lungs, oxygen gets attached to the haemoglobin present in the blood.

When carbon monoxide is inhaled, it combines with haemoglobin to form carboxyhaemoglobin. As a result, less haemoglobin is available for transporting oxygen. This causes headaches and, in extreme cases, death. Controlling the air quality is thus imperative at this stage and the SPCBs and the CPCB should join hands to ensure that air quality is closely monitored and necessary standards maintained, as far as possible.---INFA

 (Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)

EVENTS AND ISSUES

New Delhi, 19 June 2006

US And India

NOTHING GAY ABOUT IT!

By Saumyajit Ray

If President George W. Bush’s foreign policy initiatives ---- in Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Iran ---- are the result of his neo-conservative political convictions, his recent utterances against homosexuality and gay marriages have placed beyond doubt his ideological leanings in matters of domestic policy. He had called himself a “compassionate conservative” while campaigning for President in 2000; six years later, he continues to be a conservative, with compassion for everything that Republicans hold dear to their hearts.

It is not the first time that President Bush has voiced his opposition to homosexuality and gay marriages. During Campaign 2004, he came out strongly against “civil unions”—the quasi-legal term for gay marriages—and declared that marriage, as we knew it, was a time-tested institution, sanctioned by faith, that solemnized the union between man and woman.

In other words, there can be no marriage between man and man or between woman and woman. The term marriage should not be used to describe same-sex relationships. In practical terms, neither can same-sex relationship be accorded the status of marriage, nor can people in such relationships be given the privileges and facilities associated with marriage.

On the contrary, the Democratic Presidential candidate in 2004, John F. Kerry, the senior Senator from Massachusetts, opposed any ban on gay marriages. Despite the fact that the Roman Catholic Church — the single largest Christian denomination in the United States to which Kerry belonged — is theologically opposed to same-sex relationships. However, Kerry’s stand on gay marriages was in perfect tune with his party’s politically correct Left-liberal ideological orientation.

His refusal to support a ban on gay marriages ruffled the feathers of his native constituency of Irish Roman Catholics. Hispanics — also devout Roman Catholics who, with African Americans, make up the Democratic Party’s voter support base — also shifted loyalty to the Spanish-speaking conservative President. In fact, President Bush had improved his Latino voter support from 35% in 2000 to 45% in 2004.

The overwhelmingly Protestant Christian Coalition, a Republican grassroots organization dating back to the Reagan days ( it was known as Moral Majority then) not only controls a big chunk of Republican votes but also decides the Grand Old Party’s policies on social issues. No Republican candidate — incumbent or challenger — can afford to rub it the wrong way.

It would be imprudent to think that President Bush, a devout born-again Christian himself, would disagree with the Christian Coalition on such issues as homosexuality and gay marriages. Accordingly, the President has re-affirmed his support to a Christian Coalition-led group for their proposed amendment to the federal Constitution defining marriage as exclusively between man and woman and seeking to ban gay “marriages”. He has also declared that the Government would “recognize and protect” marriage as it “promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society”.

Christian churches all over America — Protestant and Roman Catholic — are bitterly opposed to both same-sex relationships and any move to legalize them. President Bush’s support to the proposed amendment not only echoes the church’s voice in Government but reflects his own religious convictions as well. It would be wrong then to say that he acted keeping in mind only his Party’s prospects in the mid-term elections in November this year.

True, the Republicans can ill-afford to lose the Congress (which they had recaptured from the Democratic Party in 1994 and controlled since) but they cannot be expected to be so politically naïve as to depend solely on the Christian coalition to shore up their political fortunes, an unpopular Partyman in the White House notwithstanding.

In India, on the other hand, if latest newspaper and magazine columns are to be believed, homosexuals and lesbians—people with “alternate sexuality”—are beginning to come out of the closet. In fact, some of them are carrying their sexuality on their sleeves, neither ashamed nor apologetic about it. There is no move as yet to demand legalization of gay marriages, but certainly a long-standing demand, supported by the politically correct English language media, for legalization of homosexuality persists.

Gay activists and sympathizers point to the continued existence of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which not only describes homosexual activity as “unnatural” but makes it a cognizable and non-bailable offense attracting punitive action, and call for its immediate abrogation. According to them, this law is a legacy of British rule in the sub-continent and even though no such law existed in Britain any longer, the Indian Parliament has made no attempt to repeal it.

Indeed, India was ruled by conservative British Protestants who were (and still are) known to take the Holy Bible literally. In the matter of same-sex relationships too, they have always faithfully stuck to the Biblical command: “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman, that is detestable.” (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13)

Undoubtedly, then, that Protestants in the 19^th century Britain and those in present-day America would respond similarly to the issue of same-sex relationships. Roman Catholics, in India as in America, go a step further: they oppose abortion and divorce too, apart from condemning same-sex relationships in the strongest terms.

Indian gay activists also point to the “existence” of same-sex relationships in ancient India, saying that the literature of those times is replete with references to homosexual activity in society. But the fact remains that homosexuality is strictly forbidden by the Laws of Manu, that ancient code of personal and collective conduct sacred to Hindus. There is no denying that public morality in India, at least in sexual and conjugal matters, is informed and governed by such scriptural stipulations. In Islam, too, homosexuality is condemned as despicable and unnatural, anti-God and anti-social.

In such a situation, the Protestant-written Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code has perfectly served the purpose of Indians (both Hindus and Muslims) who look at “alternate sexuality” as an example of embarrassing fringe behavior. If the politically correct media in both India and the United States encourages behavior that is largely perceived as deviant, then it is natural to expect both the Church and the state (whose duty it is to control and eliminate social deviance) to intervene. ---- INFA

(Copyright India News and Features Alliance)

EVENTS AND ISSUES

New Delhi, 5 June 2006

Bhai-Bhai Syndrome

HUMAN FACE OF INDO-PAK TIES

By Dr. Syed Ali Mujtaba

India and Pakistan have formed many peaks and valleys in its love and hate relationship in a span of about six decades.  At times, frenzied emotions have been whipped up to such a level that political parties in India have made open pronouncements to wipe out Pakistan from the face of the earth.  However, when the political temperature cooled, the same parties talked about an ever-lasting friendship with Pakistan.

At the moment, there is much talk about the evolving India-Pakistan relationship that is moving from eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation in 2002 to the bhai-bhai syndrome.  However, little is being written or said about the human face of this relationship that is also emerging in its wake due to people-to-people contact between the two countries.

Recently, two powerful narratives have come to limelight due to the new thaw in the India-Pak relationship that could melt any one’s heart.  The fact that these human relation stories are surfacing even 60 years after creation of Pakistan following India’s partition in 1947 suggests that there exists a human bond that is much deeper than the geographical boundaries that divide the two nations.

Two Sikh brothers Joginder Singh and Kesar Singh who fled to India during the turbulent days of partition were re-united with their Muslim sister Rabia living on the other side of the divide.  They had to wait for six long decades for this to happen.

Their story goes something like this: Joginder, 76 and Kesar, 72, left behind two sisters in Pakistan in the wake of the partition. They adopted Islam and became Rabia and Razia and settled down in Mirpur town on the Pakistan side of Kashmir.  Despite raising their own families, the desire to meet their siblings remained alive on both sides of the border.  The brothers had first received the information about their sisters, way back in 1953, but due to tensions between India and Pakistan they could never establish contact with them.

However, when a Muslim resident of the Mirpur area recently visited India to see his Hindu mother, the desire among the Sikh brothers to meet their sisters once again grew.  They made fresh attempts to locate their sisters through this Muslim visitor and came to know that Razia had died a few years ago but Rabia was alive.

The brothers finally decided to cross the border and fulfil the long-cherished desire to see their sister before they breathe their last.  It was an emotional moment for the divided families to reunite.  Thanks to the peace process that such a reunion could materialize.

The brother and sister story is not an isolated event.  There is yet another case which is more gripping than this.  It is a story of a 77-year-old Indian woman who has two homelands, two husbands and two religions and who finally got united with her family after decades of separation, thanks again to the India-Pakistan peace process.

Harbans Kaur and husband Banna Singh belong to a Kashmiri Sikh family living in the village of Pataika, 16 km north-east of Muzaffarabad in occupied-Kashmir.  After partition, Banna went to India alone to find work and a place to live before he could call his wife over.  He left behind his wife with her father.

But around this time, both countries stopped issuing visas and Banna could not come back and Harbans could not join him in India.  Soon after, her father died and Harbans was left all alone.  The lady assuming that she would never be able to see her husband again, married a Muslim called Hadayatullah and adopted Islam. They had two children – son Manzoor and daughter, Zeenat.

In 1953, Pakistan and India signed an agreement for the return of relatives left behind in each other’s country.  Banna filed a claim for his wife, and Harbans was forced to leave for India to be with her husband without her two children.

The poor ties between the two countries prevented Harbans from visiting her children in Pakistan.  Her son and daughter grew up with their father and she did not hear anything about them.  Meanwhile, Harbans who is converted to Sikhism gave birth to another son and daughter, Dalbeer and Manmohan.

For many years, the members of the divided family did not know each other’s whereabouts or even if they were alive.  The Pakistani children did not forget their mother.  In 2000, when a Sikh from Mumbai visited, Muzaffarabad to meet his Muslim sister, Zeenat, now 53, and her brother Manzoor, 48, sought his help in locating their mother.  To their surprise the gentleman found their mother living in Ahmedabad and provided her telephone number.  They spoke to her on phone, wrote letters and exchanged pictures and became desperate to meet each other.

The daughter invited her mother to Muzaffarabad where she was born and brought up. But India and Pakistan were then on the brink of a war following a terrorist attack on Indian Parliament in 2001, and it was impossible for Harbans to visit Pakistan.  The mother and children remained separated for another 30 months until the resumed Lahore-Delhi bus service in 2003 could finally unite them.

After more than 40 years, Harbans crossed back into Pakistan, accompanied by her Sikh son, Dalbeer Singh, and her daughter-in-law.  She was greeted at the Wagah border crossing by her Muslim children Zeenat and Manzoor, along with grandchildren and other family members.  Later her Sikh daughter Manmohan also joined them along with her husband and their daughter. But one person with whom she could not reunite was her Muslim husband who died some years after she left for India.  Her Sikh husband was also dead.

These are the happy sides of the emerging peace process developing between India and Pakistan, thanks to the renewed people-to-people contact between the two countries.  However, there are many families not so fortunate enough to see such reunion.  The hostile India-Pakistan relations had kept them away from seeing each other’s relatives and in the process many have passed away. Some could know the welfare of their relatives living across the border only through a common relative living in a third country, but were unable to attend the wedding or funeral at their homes.

However, things are changing for the better now.  The second generation of the divided families now wants the borders to be softened enough so that they could freely crisscross to meet their loved ones.  They want India and Pakistan to de-link their political differences from people-to-people contact.  The people in both the countries desire to have a peaceful and neighbourly relationship with each other.  The general perception is the bridges of peace and friendship between the people would help the Governments of both the countries to iron out their political differences in a more amicable manner.

The new thaw in India-Pakistan relationship has been a boon for the divided families of the two countries. There is no count as to how many of them live on the other side of the border. The migration from India to Pakistan has taken place from all over the country.  The majority of the separated families however live in the Indo-Gangetic plains where there is the largest concentration of Muslim population in India.  There would hardly be a family living in this region that may not have a relative in Pakistan.  They hope and pray that the juggernaut of peace and friendship between India and Pakistan keeps moving on till a lasting peace is established in the sub-Continent.---INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)