|
|
|
|
|
|
Economic Highlights
Armed Forces Tribunal:MILITARY JUSTICE FINALLY IN PLACE, by Col (Dr). P. K. Vasudeva (Retd),28 July |
|
|
Defence Notes
New Delhi, 28 July
2008
Armed Forces Tribunal
MILITARY JUSTICE FINALLY IN PLACE
By Col
(Dr). P. K. Vasudeva (Retd)
The Union
Cabinet has finally cleared 31 top-level posts for an independent Armed Forces
Tribunal, which is to hear the grievances of the Armed forces personnel. This is a major step taken towards the much-needed reform of
the military judicial system. For long, the jawans and officers have been deprived of speedy redressal of
grievances, thanks to overburdened high courts and the Supreme Court.
Full credit,
of course should go to Defence Minister AK Antony, for his commitment as the
demand has been hanging fire for over two decades. Soon, the Armed forces
should feel confident that their grievances against court martial verdicts,
supersession in promotions and other irregularities will be taken care of and
that too hopefully faster.
The parent
legislation, which came into affect this mid-June, had secured parliamentary
approval after a protracted process during the winter session, and the Presidential
assent on Christmas Day. The Tribunal will have a chairperson
and 29 members at its principal bench in New Delhi
and eight regional benches in Chandigarh, Lucknow, Jaipur, Kolkata, Mumbai, Guwahati, Chennai and Kochi. The Chandigarh
Bench will have jurisdiction over Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir.
Once
the Tribunal starts functioning, it will not only take up fresh cases but will adjudicate over 9,800 cases of Armed forces
personnel relating to court martial and other service matters pending in
various high courts and the Supreme Court. Significantly, the paramilitary
forces will also be brought under the control of the Tribunal, about which,
however, some Service as well as police and paramilitary officers aren’t too happy.
They feel that the Tribunal members would, in all probability, be biased and that
this would impact the adjudication of justice to paramilitary personnel.
It has not
taken long for the Cabinet to follow-up on Defence minister Antony’s anxiety to give defence personnel
their due. With the benches and their “physical” jurisdiction clearly defined,
aggrieved personnel ought to find it comparatively easy to seek redress in
matters of appointment, promotions or appeal against court martial verdicts.
Hopefully, not only should the adjudication process be expeditious, but at the
same time affordable.
The
issue of a separate tribunal for the Armed forces had been hanging fire for
over two decades. In 1982, the Supreme Court had suggested an independent
tribunal after pointing out several deficiencies in the existing Acts in the three
Services. It specifically pointed out the absence of remedy of appeal against
the orders of court martial and ruled that these court martial must record
reasons in support of their orders and inferences. The Supreme Court gave its
opinion after it had heard a number of super-session and court martial cases. Subsequently,
the Law Commission, in its 169th report, recommended a separate Tribunal for
prompt disposal of cases challenging such decisions in the Services.
Unfortunately,
the present grievance redressal machinery in the three Services is faulty,
psychologically-biased with the odds heavily stacked against the complainants! Moreover,
undue delay in adjudication of cases causes stress, hardship, anxiety and
misery to the aggrieved soldier. This is one of the causes, which has led to the
recent rise in cases of either the jawans
committing suicide or attacking their superiors.
Regrettably,
even though a jawan can go up to the
Services Chief for justice, he fails to get fair treatment at the hands of his immediate
boss, who in fact processes the complaint. Worse, the complainant is neither
informed about the fate of his petition nor apprised of his superior authority’s
comments. Sadly, there is no independent judicial forum to review the executive
decision of the officers in the command ladder.
Let us hope that there will be no delay in
selecting/appointing the key judicial and Service personnel, their support
staff and other nitty-gritty infrastructure requirement as the Tribunal has
already been delayed by almost 20 years and a large number of defence personnel
have suffered due to infirmities which exist at the decision-making authorities’
levels. The new
tribunal is expected to fix accountability and ensure greater discipline among
the officers and, above all, enhance the morale of the defence personnel.
The mix of
judicial and defence members of the Tribunal ought to provide the right
balance, and hopefully not dilute (an apprehension of some top officers) the
military’s critical discipline and ethos. The mix would also save the Judge
Advocate-General’s branch from having to function in High Courts across the
country, often having to enlighten the judges that different criteria should apply
in a military system.
Since there
will be a singular focus to the Tribunal, and desirably a uniform bottom-line
to the verdicts, a revised and appropriate judicial code could develop. Those
involved insist that the present system of military justice is not draconian
though highly disciplined, the Tribunal would serve as the cushioning appellate
authority, and the deemed-stigma of approaching a civil court would be averted.
The appellate authority should lie with the apex court against the Tribunal’s
decision and not with the High Courts.
But, for
those senior officers whose concept of discipline has never graduated above the
parade ground, the movement towards making the Tribunal a reality will be
highly appreciated. Alas, even as the minister merits applause on this score,
there can be no suppressing a negative sentiment: there must be some awful
shortcomings in the armed forces’ functioning with 9,800 cases being taken to
the High Courts.---INFA
(Copyright, India
News and Feature Alliance)
|
|
Mangrove Conservation:NEED FOR STRINGENT LAWS, by Radhakrishna Rao,25 July 2008 |
|
|
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)
|
|
Victory At What Cost?:WHEN DEMOCRACY LOST, by Poonam I Kaushish,26 July 2008 |
|
|
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)
|
|
Of The House, For The House:DEPOLITICISE OFFICE OF THE SPEAKER, by Poonam I Kaushish,19 July 2008 |
|
|
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)
|
|
Anti-Americanism in India:OBFUSCATION ON US HYDE ACT, by Prof. Chintamani Mahapatra,22 July 2008 |
|
|
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)
|
|
| | << Start < Previous 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 Next > End >>
| Results 5401 - 5409 of 6263 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|