ENVIRONMENT SPECIAL

New Delhi, 25 July 2008

Mangrove Conservation

NEED FOR STRINGENT LAWS

By Radhakrishna Rao

The ecologically significant and biologically diverse mangrove forests, wedged between the land and sea, act as an effective buffer against destructive cyclones and violent tidal storms that lash the coastal stretch with unchecked fury. Indeed, the deadly Tsunami of December 2004, which left behind a trail of death and destruction in coastal settlements in India and parts of South-East Asia did not cause any damage in Tamil Nadu’s Point Calimere, Muthupettai and Pitchavaram thanks to the dense and luxuriant mangrove cover.

It is precisely for this reason that eminent agricultural scientist M.S. Swaminathan, has all along been vigorously advocating the need to conserve mangrove forests that thrive well in the brackish wetlands between the land and the sea where other types of vegetation hardly grow.

Appropriately, India’s national environment policy, which calls for supporting the sustainable management of mangrove stretches along the country’s coastal belt, has identified four sites in Karnataka. In this State mangrove forests are found flourishing in the coastal belt between Mangalore and Karwar.

However, the mangrove stretches are mostly narrow and steep in places due to the presence of the mighty Western Ghats. As a result, the mangrove ecosystem of the southern west coast is small in size, less dense and less complicated in terms of tidal creek network.

Currently, India accounts for 2.60 per cent of the world’s total mangrove cover with an area of 4827 sq. km. While the east coast accounts for 57 per cent of the total mangroves found in the country, the west coast boasts of 23 per cent of the country’s mangrove wealth. The remaining 23 per cent mangroves are found flourishing in the Andaman and Nicobar islands in the Bay of Bengal. However the Tsunami waves did cause serious and widespread damage to the mangrove forest stretches there.

One of the largest and most productive stretches of mangrove forests in India are the densely-wooded and sprawling Sunderbans, shared by both West Bengal and Bangladesh. The delta of the Mahanadi in Orissa and that of Krishna and Godavari in neighbouring Andhra Pradesh are known for their rich mangrove stretches. In Tamil Nadu Pitchavaram-Vedaranyam stretch of mangroves spread over an area of more than 10,000 hectares was not long ago a well-known tourist spot and popular locale for shooting Tamil films. 

But the pictures sent down by our earth observation satellites have revealed a gradual deterioration in the mangrove eco system along both the eastern and western coastal belt of the country. Normally, mangroves are destroyed for fuel, fodder, timber and human habitation. These are also recklessly used for agriculture, aquaculture and industrial purposes.

In addition, it is now well-known that mangroves provide a safe sanctuary to a variety of flora and fauna. Moreover, a number of marine organisms including fish species, shrimps and prawns spend their entire or a part of their life cycle in the mangrove environment. As the Director of the Institute of Wood Science and Technology, Bangalore asserted, “Now, conservation of mangroves has taken priority especially after it was found that these can counter Tsunami”.

Clearly, mangroves are playing a vital role in the socio-economic life of the coastal communities. In fact, they protect the coastline and prevent erosion by collecting sediments from the rivers and streams and slowing down the flow of water. A study by the Nilgiris-based Wildlife Protection Group has shown that the dense growth of the mangrove cover came to the rescue of animals including the highly-threatened black buck and wild boars at the Point Calimere wildlife sanctuary during the Tsunami catastrophe.

Accordingly, environmentalists specializing in coastal ecology, maintain that the major threat to mangroves arise from indiscriminate tree felling for food, fodder and timber and the thoughtless conversion of mangroves into aquacultural ponds along the coast.

Other negative factors threatening mangroves include collection of fruits and discharge of industrial and domestic effluents. ”Mangroves are facing an overdose of chemical  fertilizers and pesticides which not only destroy the aquaculture farms but are detrimental to the surviving mangrove ecosystems”, they assert.

Significantly, the  violent  tidal storms that batter the low lying areas of Bangladesh around Chittagong, year after year, are traced to the  unchecked and massive destruction of mangroves in this densely populate South Asian country .

In contrast, the Sundarbans stretch of mangroves on the Indian side appears better preserved. The picturesque and panoramic Sundarbans, famous for its Royal Bengal Tiger, is a rich and luxuriant forest eco system. It yields about 80,000-tonnes of timber, 50,000-tonnes of wax and about 200-tonnes of honey a year.

Over the last two centuries, the Sunderbans have been exploited to make room for human settlement and expansion of farming activities. A population of about three million is dependent both directly and indirectly on the Sunderbans. So far it has depended on the mangrove forests for charcoal, firewood, bark and honey for their livelihood.

Fortunately, in the Sunderbans, salinity is low and the coastal gradient gentle, enabling the mangroves to extend over hundreds of kms of inland up to the high reaches of the tide. Perhaps the best-preserved mangroves in India are located in the coastal stretch of Pitchavaram in Tamil Nadu.

According to marine biologists, the species-rich mangrove eco system is so finely tuned that once disturbed it is not likely to take its original state for a long time. “The roots of mangrove plants stabilize the sand and the mud. Wherever, mangroves are removed for developmental purposes, the coastline gets exposed to rapid erosion” pointed out an environmentalist attached to the Habitat Science Teaching Community in Kerala.

Unfortunately, in India there are no stringent and well conceived laws to regulate the use of mangroves and for their conservation. Not long back mangroves used to be treated as a part of the wetland between land and sea. Importantly, realizing there contribution to ecology, of late both the Government agencies and voluntary organizations have started creating awareness about the need to conserve the rich mangrove forests. ---- INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)

POLITICAL DIARY

New Delhi, 26 July 2008

Victory At What Cost?

WHEN DEMOCRACY LOST

By Poonam I Kaushish

The irony is profound. Two Bollywood movie titles aptly illustrate India’s political theatre today. One, actor and Congress MP Govinda’s film ‘Money Hai To Honey Hai’ and Akshay Kumar’s starrer ‘Singh is King,’ which bared the shameless, ugly and raw underbelly of power politics. Down to the gutter level. Indeed, the cash-for-vote during the high voltage Vote of Confidence in the Lok Sabha last Tuesday conclusively proved ‘money hai to power hai.’ Never mind that at the end of the day the temple of democracy was trampled and trashed.

Undoubtedly, the Prime Minister Manmohan ‘Singh is King.’ But as the Cong-led UPA preens over its victory, the issue is not whether it will continue to rule the roost at the Centre or will the UPA survive. Neither is it whether its dushman-turned-dost Samajwadi’s Mulayam-Amar Singh duo will extract their pound of flesh, become increasingly demanding and indulge in bigger blackmail et al. Nor is it the harsh truth that they along with the other allies will decide the mortality of the UPA since they control the crucial votes. What matters is victory at what cost?

Tragically for the country at the end of the day democracy lost. In the 25 years of covering Parliament, one has witnessed many an aberrations, but never before has politics denigrated to an euphemism for I, me, myself. More tragic is that we are today caught in a vicious circle which has been made a lot more malignant by our unstable and fragmented politics. Not just that. With every one propounding his own recipe of governance, with the favourite formula of communal harmony and caste bhaichara, the nation is getting sucked into the vortex of centrifugal bickering. 

Witness how the Prime Minister unshackled himself from being a “weak” mukhota of the ‘power behind the throne’, read Sonia Gandhi and from being the “bonded slave” of the Left. However, behind the façade of victory per se, Manmohan Singh is the biggest loser. His image of “a man who minds his manners and morals” is now in tatters. Even the most ardent supporters of the “honest PM” confess that the cloud over the cash-for-vote has tarnished his image and will provide ample ammunition to both the BJP and UNPA. Many Congress MPs aver that an apolitical Manmohan Singh has the least to lose. But they may lose their seats.

True, it was only a matter of time before the Left withdrew support. Especially as the Congress-Left relationship was a no-brainer and doomed from day one. In hindsight they waited a tad to long to withdraw support. In Indian politics never take things at face value, don’t be taken in by promises or be gullible to accept that a ‘gentleman’ will keep his word! It failed to safeguard against being double-crossed. Having burnt its fingers now, the Left has cast aside its antipathy for the BSP’s Mayawati and aligned with her. It has also shed its ‘communal bug-bear’ vis-à-vis the BJP and made plain that it is willing to do business with it.

The trust vote has left the BJP-led NDA wounded and vulnerable with its MPs playing traitors. Having lost the Opposition leadership to dalit ki beti Mayawati, Advani and his brood are perplexed about how to undo Mayawati’s magic given that UP accounts for 80 seats. The Party is now trying it’s damnest to pull the UPA down. It wants early general elections. Preferably, along with the 5 State Assembly polls where it is confident of returning to power. Thanks to spiraling prices, rising inflation, terrorism, Amarnath Shrine land transfer controversy. It has already released its first list of candidates.

The players of the ‘Third Front’ UNPA are driven by different considerations. For Mayawati, it is achieving her ambition of being India’s first Dalit Prime Minister. For TDP’s Chandrababu Naidu allies are necessary to take on the formidable Congress in Andhra Pradesh. For AIADMK supremo Jayalalitha it is nice to have a friendly umbrella to beat arch rival DMK’s Karunanidhi with.

Needless to say, the combination of 10 parties across the country can be politically lethal during the next electoral combat. Namely BSP, CPM, CPI, RSP, Forward Bloc, TDP, JD(S), RLD and the TRS. All have the potential to create havoc and lead to further instability. Besides, there is no guarantee that the other regional parties which comprise the UPA and NDA will remain. Given that neither the Congress nor the BJP on their own are in a position to cross the critical threshold of 150 seats.

Thus, against this emerging scenario, from the periphery of competitive politics, the regional parties are now virtually the lifeline for the national parties. Bringing things to such a pass that who ever sits on Delhi’s gaddi can only do so with his regional friends. For it is they who really control the vote-banks.

In this political cauldron of uncertainty, the importance being given to the regional parties is not without the grave ramifications it will have on the unitary-federal structure of the State. Raising a moot point: Is it not time we rethink our model of democratic governance? Whether coalition politics is really the answer as India readies itself to join the global fraternity?  Or should one change to a two-party system?  Even do away with the first past the post method and opt for a proportional representation?

It has been exposed that when national parties cohabit with strange regional outfits for all the strong reasons to attain power, they fail to realize that it could end in an anti-climax. Tragically, national interests have been wantonly dumped in quest of power.  It has nothing to do with ideology or taking the federal structure of our polity a step forward.  Nor does the word coalition imply an alliance with all and sundry – with anybody and everybody.

Where do we go from here?  True, numbers will decide who sits on the Delhi’s gaddi. At the same time, we need to realize that this cannot go on forever.  Clearly, coalitions are neither guarantee for stability nor solution for responsibility. It is time we give serious thought to reverting back to a two-party system (or a three-party system) at the national level.  At best, the regional outfits should be confined to ruling their respective States. In the event they want to contest, they should be required to align themselves with one or the other national party.

Additionally, the first past the post method has proved to be a misnomer of the poplar electoral mandate.  We have had absurd situations where parties which polled a lower percentage of votes were in power. Today the Congress, which heads the UPA Government, polled no more than 30 percent of the votes cast.  Thus, it is imperative that we apply our mind to correct the anomalies caused by a multiplicity of parties. 

One way would be to learn from the German experience. Wherein the malady has been tackled by requiring every party to meet a minimum benchmark of votes polled to qualify for recognition. Or, we could follow the Westminster model and have at best two main parties and a smaller liberal party. That apart, we have to not only put a tap on election expenses but also determine the sources that should be legally tapped for campaign expenses.  Unless this is done, there is little hope of minimizing the evil influence of unaccounted money power and vested interests. The electoral system is today the main excuse for generating black money, which has in turn, totally corrupted the polity. 

The writing is on the wall. This raj nautanki has to end. Remember an old Chinese saying: When small men cast big shadows the Sun is about to set.  One is not worried about the small men. But the Sun setting on India is too frightening a prospect to be taken casually. Will our polity heed? Or will India rue a la Shahrukh Khan: Abhi toh khel baakee hai dost! --INFA.

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)

POLITICAL DIARY

New Delhi, 19 July 2008

Of The House, For The House

DEPOLITICISE OFFICE OF THE SPEAKER

By Poonam I Kaushish

It’s the season of parades galore and prize catches. The political arena resembles a Spanish bull-ring. Playing the Matador to the hilt, each party is busy hunting for “saleable and bankable” netas who could kill and set their vote tillers ringing. If it entails stealing or poaching a rival’s leader doesn’t matter. Each doing his best to outdo the others. Principles, ideology and policies be damned!

Tragically, in this game of numbers, thanks to the Left Parties withdrawing support to the Congress-led UPA government over the Indo-US nuclear deal, the Speaker’s office became the first casualty. With all parties indulging in a tug-of war over whether Somnath Chatterjee should continue as Speaker or resign.

It all started with the CPM handing over to the President Pratibha Patil a list of its Lok Sabha MPs, including Somnath Chatterjee, who had withdrawn support to the UPA Government. The Speaker objected by asserting that the Lok Sabha’s Speaker’s office was a high Constitutional post and was above politics. When the CPM persisted that he resign, Somnathda, as he is affectionately called, reportedly said that he could not be expected to vote along with the BJP against the Government. And in the event of a tie he would cast his vote for the UPA.

An infuriated BJP questioned the Speaker’s impartiality in light of his alleged ‘reluctance’. Besides, the Party President Rajnath Singh taunted him by asserting that the Speaker had no objection when the BJP had supported his election as Speaker. Adding that the Speaker’s stand was debatable under the provisions of the Tenth Schedule as he had not given up his membership of the CPM before his election as Speaker. Plainly, he continued to be a member of his Party and bound by its whip.

In stepped the Congress to bat for Somnath Chatterjee. Warning that the attempts to politicize the office of the Speaker would set a “dangerous precedent,” it told the CPM to let Somnathda take his own decisions. The issue is not whether the Speaker resigns or remains. What is more important is that this farcical drama has struck at the very roots of Parliamentary democracy, its authority and prestige.

Arguably, one is justified in asking why this hullabaloo over the Speaker. The answer is simple. In an evenly divided Lok Sabha and coalition milieu, the role of the Speaker becomes even more crucial. His rulings and decisions can make or break the ruling Party. His casting vote can swing the balance either way.

Or take the case of a split in a Party. It is the Speaker who decides whether it is a “split” or a case of defection. His ruling is binding. By this one act he can “destroy” a Party and facilitate another’s rule. Remember, the famous split by Chandra Shekhar, which led to the fall of the V.P. Singh Government. The Speaker’s decision on V.P. Singh’s plea that the split was illegal came after more than a year. After the fall of the govt.!

As things stand today one thing is clear: The time has come to depoliticize the office of the Speaker and not merely speak about it. The need of an independent and impartial Speaker is much greater today in an era of coalition politics. Unfortunately few today are conscious of the key role of the Speaker in our parliamentary democracy without whom, according to Erskine May, “the House has no constitutional existence”.

The first Prime Minister Nehru understood fully the importance of the office of the Speaker and repeatedly laid emphasis on its prestige and authority. Said he in 1958: “The Speaker represents the House. He represents the dignity of the House, the freedom and liberty. Therefore, it is right that his should be an honoured position and should be occupied always by men of outstanding ability and impartiality.”

Importantly, free India’s first Speaker, G.V. Mavalankar, tried hard to persuade Nehru to recognize the need to institutionalize the impartiality and independence of the Speaker by providing for his uncontested return --- but in vain. In 1951, the Conference of Presiding Officers, under Mavalankar’s leadership expressed the view that the Speaker should dissociate himself from party politics and, towards this end, “a convention should be established that the seat from which the Speaker stands for re-election should not be contested”.

But this suggestion went unheeded and Mavalankar was forced to contest on the Congress ticket. A great Speaker, Mavalankar did not give up. Two years later, in 1953, the Conference adopted a resolution reaffirming its 1951 stand and pressed the Government to make a beginning. Mavalankar then took up the matter with Nehru, who decided to take it to the Congress Working Committee.

The Committee considered the issue and sent a communication to Mavalankar, which was disclosed by him at the next Conference of the Presiding Officers in 1954. The communication stated: “The CWC accept the desirability that the Speaker’s seat should not be contested but they will require concurrence of other political parties which they felt was not possible to obtain. All conventions grow bit by bit… we have laid the first brick very firmly and we have now to strive further”.

Things have not worked out the way Mavalankar hoped---and Nehru promised. The Speaker, after all, is human and it has not always been possible (or practicable) for him to resist political temptation in the absence of a definite convention assuring his continuance in office through uncontested Parliamentary election.

Sadly, few follow the premise that a Speaker is expected to be above party politics, not a plaything of the ruling party. If we truly follow the Westminster model, the Speaker should resign from his Party. But as one former Lok Sabha Speaker told me: “We are elected on Party tickets with party funds. How can we claim independence? Moreover, even if we resign on becoming the Speaker, we would still have to go back to the same Party for sponsorship for the next election.”

Impartiality of the Presiding Officer of the Lok Sabha is even more important as the Speaker in India has been given more absolute powers than his opposite number in the House of Commons. Among other things, this empowers him to give required protection to the minority in the best national interest. Hence the need to depoliticise the Speaker’s office by common consent and enable him to rise above political temptation and maintain his independence.

Much must be done if the Lok Sabha is to regain its lost vigour and vitality – and respect. One thing that the country’s top leaders could do straightaway is to agree to place the Speaker above electoral politics and thereby enable him to function impartially and independently. Conventions designed to achieve this end exist. Our top leaders have been aware of them all along. Regrettably, however, they have merely paid lip service to healthy parliamentary traditions.

All need to remember Mavalankar’s words: “The Speaker has to abstain from active participation in all controversial politics. The essence of the matter is that the Speaker has to place himself in the position of a judge. He has not to become a partisan so as to avoid unconscious bias for or against a particular view and thus inspire confidence in all sections of the House about his integrity and impartiality.”

In sum, if we mean what we say and say what we mean about our parliamentary democracy, we must take note that the Speaker is of the House, by the House and for the House. He is a servant of the people and should be enabled to serve democracy like a true servant with total loyalty --- and devotion. We need to adopt the traditional British maxim: “one a Speaker, always a Speaker.” ----- INFA

(Copyright India News & Feature Alliance)

Round The World

New Delhi, 22 July 2008

Anti-Americanism in India

OBFUSCATION ON US HYDE ACT

Prof. Chintamani Mahapatra

School of International Studies, JNU

There is considerable anti-Americanism in India and it seems to be growing. During the long Cold War years, successive Indian Governments often displayed anti-Americanism by remaining on the opposite side of the Cold War divide. Anti-US rhetoric and anti-US stand on the Cold War related issues were so intense at times that the US and its allies came to suspect India's professed non-alignment.

The Government of India's foreign policy views generally got reflected in the expert opinions and scholarly writings. It was not easy for commentators and scholars to give views on certain issues that could even remotely appear to be along the lines supported by Washington.

The US policy of containment and confrontation with Communism; close alliance with capitalist and industrial nations; strategic alliance with Pakistan and the Indian policy of non-alignment, closer security ties with the former Soviet Union and reactive foreign policy vis-à-vis Pakistan and China were all accountable for anti-American sentiments in India.

The end of the Cold War, disintegration of the Soviet Union, temporary end of the US-Pakistan alliance, Indian economic reforms and the end of ideological competition and conflict between a liberal capitalist democracy and socialist authoritarian states altered the image of the US in India and the Indian image in the US.

As India began to institute a series of economic reforms and decided to be an integral part of the globalization process, the image of the US among a large number of traders, businessmen, investors and IT professionals turned very positive. The IT boom in the US enabled thousands of IT students and professionals to move there for contractual jobs and assignments. A large number of Indian families in India greatly benefited from the IT boom and considered America and Americans as very friendly to Indians.

As the business climate changed so did the strategic landscape. Former US President Bill Clinton's historic visit to India in March 2000 set the stage for a new kind of strategic partnership between the two countries. The terrorist attacks on the US in 2001 elevated further the security ties between the two countries. The Bush Administration, while witnessing growing anti-Americanism in the Islamic World and even in friendly European countries, was witness to the rising pro-American perception in India.

By completing a process known as the Next Step in Strategic Partnership, the Bush Administration worked towards generating goodwill for America in the world's largest democracy at a time when the US image was getting a beating elsewhere in the world.

The Indo-US nuclear deal was considered to be the most significant effort that would cement a new strategic partnership between the two countries and reorient the Indian attitude towards global affairs.

Besides, President Bush took personal interest in the nuclear deal, initialled an understanding with India in 2005, visited India in 2006 and after incessant lobbying in the US Congress got a Civilian Nuclear Cooperation Act passed by the legislature.

The US President expected the deal to bring smiles on the face of Indians, since it had the potential to legitimise the nuclear weapon status of India, to allow India to retain its nuclear arsenals and remove India from the list of countries in the target list of the non-proliferation regime.

However, the calculations backfired since the enactment of the Hyde Act on the Indo-US civil nuclear cooperation. It generated considerable heat in India’s political processes, even as the Left Parties, supporters of the UPA Government led by Manmohan Singh, left no stone unturned to raise anti-American sentiments in the country.  Several other Opposition political parties picked up the threads and began to chorus anti-Americanism.

Major allegations against the US included Washington's goal to extend its hegemony over India and limit its sovereignty; neutralize New Delhi’s non-aligned foreign policy by making it part of anti-China containment strategy and make India a partner in the perceived anti-Islamic policy of the US.

Frankly, most of these fears and concerns are without strong foundation. The US has so far been the unchallenged hegemonic of the world since the end of bi-polarity with the demise of the Soviet Union. The US is a global hegemonic and its hegemony already extends to India. The nuclear deal has little that could make India kowtow to American diktat and has nothing that could deny or fight back the US global hegemony.

Secondly, India has been building economic and political relationship with China and has come to a stage where China has replaced the US as India’s largest trading partner. Significantly, this happened in the midst of the national debate on the nuclear deal with the US.

It is preposterous to argue that the nuclear deal would make India a partner of the US in containing China. By the way, the US has a much stronger economic, political and even security cooperation with China than has India. The Chinese trade surplus with the US is several times higher than the total US-India trade. The US investment in China too is much higher than that in India.

China as member of the APEC, permanent member of the UN Security Council and member of the Nuclear Suppliers' Group interacts more closely with the US than India, which is a member of none of these bodies. The Indo-US strategy to contain China is like building castles in the air, searching for water in the sun or looking for fish in the desert.

Finally, the argument that the nuclear deal is anti-Muslim is outrightly outlandish. The US non-proliferation pressure on Iran and the American military intervention in Iraq or even in Afghanistan give us little evidence to conclude that Washington is anti-Muslim. These examples need to be understood with other instances of US ties with Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Indonesia, Malaysia and several other Islamic countries.

However, the fact remains that growing anti-Americanism in India has resulted from the debate on the nuclear deal. The Bush Administration is also partly responsible for this phenomenon. While the leaders from the Left Parties have taken an ideological stand and have opposed any kind of strategic partnership with the US, the statements from Washington officials have not helped allaying certain genuine concerns in India.

The most serious concerns in India are related to certain provisions in the Hyde Act. These provisions are certainly unwelcome in India, including by the UPA Government. The Indian Ministers, as also the Prime Minister, say that India's nuclear relations with the US will be guided by the 123 Agreement and not the Hyde Act. But the Indian public is not satisfied with this answer.

While the Bush Administration officials have admittedly no problem in going ahead with the decision of a minority Government in Delhi, none of them has clarified the White House position on the Hyde Act. A clear-cut interpretation of the Hyde Act by Washington could have reduced anti-Americanism in India and also could have given the much-needed momentum to the completion of the process of implementation of the deal. ---INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)