POLITICAL DIARY

New Delhi, 24 May 2008

Of Terror & Vote-Banks

WHAT ABOUT THE NATION, MR PATIL?

By Poonam I Kaushish

Foot-in-the-mouth disease is known to afflict many politicians. Perhaps it has something to do with their inflated image of self importance, which makes them forget to put their brain in gear when engaging their mouth. Or perhaps, it has something to do with perfecting the art of doublespeak. On being caught, it’s promptly dismissed as a ‘misquote’. Either way, they as well as we know it is a whole lot of balderdash, a weak excuse to cover their backside.

This one simply takes the cake, in fact it is unforgivable: The country’s Union Home Minister Shivraj Patil has equated hardcore terrorist Afzal Guru’s pending death sentence with that of Sarabjit Singh languishing in Pakistan. “People are saying that don’t hang an Indian in Pakistan, Sarabjit, and then they are demanding hanging of Afzal Guru here...this is not fair,” said Patil.

Clearly, either the Home Minister is playing obtuse or he does not understand the fine distinction that his utterances spell doom. One, it could lose New Delhi the right to ask Islamabad’s pardon for Sarabjit on the ground of mistaken identity. Two, both the accused are Indians, so how can Pakistan claim the right to seek Afzal Guru’s pardon? No matter these Patil gems came at a time when his colleague Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee was negotiating for Sarabjit’s pardon and the Pakistani Prime Minister had advised his President to oblige.

Making matters worse, Patil suggested that Afzal Guru could not be hanged just because political parties were demanding so. “Just because I don’t shout or enter into a ‘tu tu main main’ with others doesn’t mean I am soft. I am doing my duty with commitment that is all that matters. We have to follow the law...a humanitarian view has to be considered,” (sic) he asserted. Really? What about showing remorse for the families of those who laid down their lives to defend Parliament. Or does minority appeasement and vote-bank politics override India’s unity and security?

Arguably, if Indira Gandhi’s killers can be hanged, why can’t a terrorist who attacked Parliament? Are we to believe that Afzal Guru is being let off the hook simply because of religious considerations? That the Government does not want to do anything which may even remotely hurt the Muslim sentiment. Or be misconstrued as ‘deliberately’ singling out a person who belongs to a minority community, specially with elections to many State Assemblies later this year. Terrorism or no terrorism. More so, ignoring the fact that the Muslim clergy too has condemned the terrorists for bringing a bad name to the community.

The tragedy of Patil-speak is that it has descended to the base level of a Government-Opposition war of words. The Congress tom-toms the BJP-led NDA Government’s Kandhar fiasco to counter the Saffron Sangh’s shrill ‘UPA soft-on-terrorist” verbal blasts.  A case of the pot calling the kettle black! So busy are they in scoring brownie points that in their collective wisdom all have fuzzed the larger picture. We are talking about deadly terror which has enveloped India in its octopus-like embrace. Over 270 of the 670 districts in the country are terror-prone. Of these, 70 districts have already been ravaged by terrorists. Terror has already cost us more than 72,000 civilians and 12,000 security personnel. In the last three years alone, Islamic terrorists have killed 5,617 people. Can we then compartmentalize terror on the basis of caste and creed for the sake of votes?

As oft happens, the discourse on terrorism gets bogged down in a parrot-like repeat of predictable standard State response, mostly soft and ritualistic --- of more of the same. Merely curing the symptoms, not the disease. The Prime Minister talks of a new federal agency, the Chief Justice of India for a new legal framework to tackle terrorism and the Opposition clamour’s for ‘tough’ anti-terror laws. All wallow in the false belief that terror is merely a mind game which can be won peacefully by merely waving the white flag.

Recall, the Prime Minister had talked of setting up a federal agency after the Hyderabad blasts in September last. Excellent idea as it would be unencumbered by State boundaries and political interference. But nothing came of it. Simply because our polity uses terror attacks to hit at their rivals. Worse, our netas think small. The federal agency would result in them losing their exclusive control over law and order, a State subject and the powers to exert political and extraneous influence.

Clearly, the time has come that our polity should shed its blinkered communal approach. If the battle against terror has to be won, political considerations, communal pressures, administrative and police lethargy and a weak legal-judicial regime will have to be negated. New Delhi must realize that normal deterrence doesn’t work against a faceless and fearless enemy.

The only way to strike back is to carry the fight into the enemy camp effectively. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Former Punjab Governor, the late Dharma Vira was ever so right when under a spell of President’s rule during the height of Sikh militancy in the State he directed: “I have no use for live terrorists!” Indeed, the Kandhar fiasco would never have happened if only the three hijackers had been eliminated and not jailed.

The need of the hour is more effective intelligence gathering and implementation of existing laws dealing with terrorist crimes. One way is community policing, which would ensure accurate intelligence information leading to credible investigation. Interestingly, a former Director of the Intelligence Bureau, Ajit Doval, has blasted as “a myth the widespread belief that the terrorists strike anywhere, at any time and any target.”

In his view, they strike where their intentions and capabilities meet the opportunities. Hence, the success of counter-terrorism lies in degrading their capabilities, forcing them to change their intentions and denying them opportunities to strike. New Delhi, he feels needs to think of ways to neutralise their fast-growing domestic base, availability of hardware and human resource, collaborative linkages with organized crime, gun runners, drug syndicates, hawala operators, subversive radical groups et al.

We also need to revamp our anti-terror laws. Top experts agree that laws such as the defunct POTA are required. True, Parliament was attacked when POTA was in operation. Nevertheless, it helped in speedily tackling cases of terrorism and bringing culprits like Afzal Guru to book. A POTA-like anti-terror law would send a strong signal that India is no longer soft.

What next? Much depends upon the Government’s willingness to acknowledge without any sugar-coating that India is ensnared in terror’s vicious grip. Already prolonged inaction has proved much too costly and Patil-speak has worsened it. The Centre must launch major offensives to drive home the message that India has no use for a live terrorist.  Self-serving decisions of minority appeasement may feed the polity’s vote-banks. Ultimately, it will only spell double disaster. Enough of self-invited terrorism. India’s freedom and unity is at stake. ----- INFA

(Copyright India News & Feature Alliance)

Round The World

New Delhi, 3 June 2008

‘Republic of Nepal’

CELEBRATIONS IN TRANSIT STATE

By Dr. Monika Chansoria

(School of International Studies, JNU)

Nepal braced itself to be referred to as a Republic from 29 May onwards as opposed to being the ‘Kingdom of Nepal’ when it became the world’s newest Republic with a historic Assembly session abolishing its monarchy. It gave the ‘unpopular’ King Gyanendra a two-week notice to evict the pink pagoda-roofed Royal Narayanhiti Palace or ‘get ready to be forced out.’

The eviction order thereby ended 240 years of royal rule in Nepal. Subsequently, the Royal Standard flying atop the Narayanhiti Palace was brought down by officials. For decades together, the Nepalese population considered its monarch as an incarnation of the Hindu God of protection, Vishnu.

The decline of the Nepalese monarchy has been rather dramatic and the heavily one-sided vote to abolish the monarchy culminates the process of the closing stages of the centuries-old Hindu monarchy Kingdom.

The transition towards ‘a secular, federal, democratic, Republic nation’ was formalized with a resolution moved by the Home Minister KP Sitaula and passed immediately by 560 votes in favour and 4 against by a special session of the newly elected Constituent Assembly. By means of this motion, King Gyanendra and other members of the royal family have been reduced to common citizen’s status, thus loosing all cultural, administrative and political powers.

However, hours before the announcement, few suspected royalists threw three crude bombs in Kathmandu, leading to chaos and wounding one person. Meanwhile, thousands of Nepalese people gathered on the streets of the Capital in support of their ‘Republic Day’.

Thousands of Maoists, now referred to as former insurgents and new members of the Assembly’s biggest political party ever since joining the political mainstream, also rallied in Kathmandu carrying hammer and sickle flags and pumping their fists in the air as they shouted slogans against the monarchy.

Referring to Nepal becoming a Republic, Girija Prasad Koirala addressed the Assembly and stated, “Today is the day when my dreams have been realized and similarly the dreams of the nation have perhaps also been realized.”

“This is the people’s victory. With today’s declaration of a Republic we have achieved what we fought for,” were the sentiments of former Maoist guerrilla, Kamal Dahal.

Apparently the Maoists, who emerged as the largest party in last month’s elections, were committed to removing the monarchy right at the onset. They entered the political arena after signing a peace deal in 2006 that led to the end of a decade-long period of violent insurgency. Thereafter, King Gyanendra was stripped of all his powers and forced to end his reign of royal dictatorship and restore democracy after widespread protests all over the country two years ago.

The Communist Party of Nepal (Maoists) finally became the mainstream Nepalese political party with an unprecedented mandate with their leader Prachanda, declaring that he himself would lead the new Government of the ‘Republic of Nepal.’

Moreover, the people of Nepal too spoke candidly with their vote and crucially the election witnessed nearly 65 per cent of the nation’s voting population exercising their franchise and delivering a mandate in favour of the Maoist party.

In what could be considered a key development, even though the United States has not yet struck out the Maoists from its terrorist blacklist, Washington has since inverted its preceding policy of not negotiating with the group’s leaders.

The US Government still classifies the Maoist group as a terrorist organization, with US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Evan Feigenbaum asserting, “The degree to which the United States would work with the Maoists depends on how well they stayed away from violence.” Adding, that Washington was working with the Maoists to try to encourage a stable, democratic and peaceful country.

The victory of the Maoists that practically sealed the fate of the discredited monarchy in Kathmandu saw them winning 220 seats of the total 601, with expectations to head the new Government.

Conversely, political squabbles already seem to be taking precedence with Maoist Chairman Prachanda making a terse statement on 30 May stating, “Our Party deserves both the posts of President and Prime Minister. Losers cannot get these posts,” apparently referring to the Nepali Congress (NC) Party and the Communist Party of Nepal (UML) who lost in the Constituent Assembly elections.

Expectedly, leaders of both these parties have expressed concern over Prachanda’s remarks. The NC Vice-President and Minister for Peace and Reconstruction Ram Chandra Paudel termed this ‘undemocratic’. He further stressed, “Demanding both the President and Prime Minister posts is nothing but totalitarian tendency.”

The UML leader Bharat Mohan Adhikari too said their Party could not agree with this statement. “The President and Prime Minister should be from different parties, he asserted.”

Not only that. The power-sharing issue has upset the other parties as well including the Madhesi Janadhikar Forum and the Maoists themselves. Furthermore, all the four parties are in favour of electing the President through a simple majority of the Constituent Assembly members while the Maoists favour a majority of two-thirds.

Subsequently, in what could be judged as a crucial turn of events, Chairman Prachanda has threatened as recently as 2 June, to launch a massive agitation in the next few days if the mainstream parties in Nepal prevented the former rebels from leading a Government. “We will have no option but to launch a struggle if the crisis were not resolved soon,” Prachanda said in severe rhetoric at a rally of supporters in western Nepal.

It appears absolutely clear that the declaration of the Republic of Nepal is just the first step in the long journey of the country’s political future. Evidently, the ongoing political bickering is testament to the fact that fine-tuning among the Seven-Party Alliance and the Maoists may not be all velvety.

Significantly, although the Maoists are now in pre-eminence in the Government, they still remain laden with the baggage of essentially being a guerrilla group with several queries persisting about the new power structure in the new-fangled Nepalese Republic.

Therefore, the primary and foremost challenge confronting Kathmandu today is to translate the mandate of the Nepalese people into fine and effective governance and bring about peace, political stability and economic development to the Himalayan country.

Undoubtedly, Nepal’s tumultuous transition from a kingdom to a democracy does indeed come about as a welcome transformation for the Nepalese people but the celebrations could well be in transit given the potential reality that in the long run, ongoing political wrangling amidst the Seven-Party Alliance and the Maoists might just take precedence over governance. --- INFA

 (Copyright India News & Feature Alliance)

Round The World

New Delhi, 27 June 2008

Indo-Bhutan Ties

PM’s Visit Cements Relations

By Monish Tourangbam

(School of International Studies, JNU)

The recently concluded visit of India’s Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to Bhutan was significant in ways more than one. While, the Wangchuck Dynasty is celebrating its centenary this year of the coronation of King Jigme Khesar Namgyal Wangchuck, it also was the first trip by the Indian Prime Minister to the youngest democracy after Bhutan held its first ever elections in March.

Moreover, the visit also coincided with the 50^th anniversary of India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru’s visit to Bhutan in 1958. And last but not the least, Singh became the first international leader to be given the honour to address a joint session of the first elected Parliament of Bhutan on 17 May.

One of the prime issues of focus during the two-day visit was cooperation in the energy sector (read hydroelectric). Prior to the visit, the Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon briefed the media on the central need of forging a more diversified and contemporary economic and energy partnership in tune with emerging realities.

He said that hydroelectric power cooperation has been an important element of Indo-Bhutan relations as both countries have signed bilateral agreements to the effect that all surplus power from the three commissioned hydroelectric projects in Bhutan will be sold to India. In fact, Bhutan at present utilizes only 30 per cent of its total power generation. The remaining 70 per cent is sold to India and this is one of the biggest exports of Bhutan.

During his visit to the newest democracy, the Prime Minister dedicated the 1,020 MW Tala Hydroelectric Plant, built entirely with Indian assistance to the people of India and Bhutan. He also laid the foundation stone for the 1095 MW Punatsangchu I Hydroelectric Plant. According to India’s Ambassador to Bhutan, Sudhir Vyas detailed project reports for the Punatsangchu II and Mangdechhu Hydel Power Projects were also nearing completion. During formal talks, Singh and his Bhutanese counterpart Jigme Yoser Thinley raised the targeted aim of jointly developed hydroelectric capacity in Bhutan from 5,000 to 10,000 MW by 2020.

The increasing opportunities of India importing hydroelectric energy from Bhutan assumes importance, now that the Indo-US nuclear deal is in limbo and the Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline is being constrained by strategic and political considerations. According to Menon, Bhutan has the potential of producing up to 30,000 MW of hydroelectric power. According to a study, even if half of this potential is tapped, it will to a large extent ease the chronic power shortages in Northern India.

Another important development during Singh’s visit was the formal announcement of India’s decision to start construction of the first ever rail-link from Hashimara in Northern Bengal to Phuntshoeling in Bhutan across the border. This link is to be called the ‘Golden Jubilee Rail Line’ commemorating Nehru’s first visit to Bhutan 50 years ago. The Indian Prime Minister promised that the link would connect Bhutan to the entire railway network in India.

Moreover, welcoming the assistance of Rs 100 billion pledged by the Prime Minister, Thinley asserted that the amount would be spent in developing hydropower, the proposed rail-link and 10^th Five Year Plan programmes, among other projects.

Though the antiquity of relations between the two nations can be traced to the influence of missionary Buddhism around the 8^th Century, substantive relationship between the two countries struck roots once India gained Independence. In 1949, Bhutan signed a Treaty of Friendship with India, thus institutionalizing formal relations between the two sovereign countries. In 1954, the then king of Bhutan, Jigme Dorji Wangchuck paid a State visit, which was reciprocated by Nehru in 1958.

In the face of numerous changes in international and regional dynamics over the years, India has remained the most important development partner for Bhutan. Reflecting on how Nehru arrived on a horseback in Bhutan in 1958, the Foreign Secretary commented, “Now the Prime Minister goes by plane. It just goes to show how economic integration and transport linkages have developed.”

On his arrival in Bhutan, interacting with Bhutanese and Indian media, Manmohan Singh said, “I have come with the message for the people and the Government of Bhutan that India stands ready to join hands to strengthen our relationship, to do our best for accelerated development of Bhutan.” Forty-seven delegates, including the National Security Adviser M.K.Narayanan, Principal Secretary TK Nair besides the Foreign Secretary accompanied the Prime Minister.

Reflecting India’s commitment to provide ‘every possible assistance’ to Bhutan in its period of transition, Manmohan Singh emphasized the importance of working with Bhutan in both the bilateral and the regional context, to ensure a peaceful South Asia. Indeed, India has actively supported the democratic transition of Bhutan by training poll officials and setting up Bhutan’s Election Commission, as well as providing over two million dollars in assistance, including electronic voting machines.

In what is almost an untainted relationship between the two countries, the security of the porous border has been of concern to India. As such, during his visit, the Prime Minister said New Delhi looked forward to continuing its cooperation with Thimpu on issues related to the national interests of the two countries and ensuring that their territories were not used for activities harmful to each other’s national security and interest.

At formal talks, the two sides agreed to continue their cooperation to keep their border safe and secure. In December 2003 and January 2004, the Bhutanese army had carried out operations to evict anti-India insurgent groups that had set up camps on Bhutanese soil, specifically United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA), National Democratic Front of Bodoland (NDFB) and Kamtapur Liberation Organisation (KLO).

In recent years, the evolving relationship between the two countries has seen a momentum of desiring a more symbiotic relationship. The Bhutanese Prime Minister commenting on the absence of the ‘Big brother syndrome’ in India-Bhutan relations said the partnership in recent years in hydropower sector “is changing the nature of our bilateral relationship from a purely donor-recipient relationship to one of collaboration for mutual benefit.”

Besides, in February 2007, both countries signed a revised version of their 57-year-old Friendship Treaty that gives Thimpu more freedom in the crucial areas of foreign policy and non-lethal military purchases as long as such decisions do not damage India’s vital strategic interests. Article 2 of the Treaty, which says that Bhutan will be guided by India’s advice while conducting its foreign policy, has been substituted by a language that speaks of cooperation.

The credibility of the democratic transition in Bhutan will of course have to withstand the test of time. But, India, in most likeliness, will be patient and supportive as Bhutan treads hitherto uncharted territories. Further, there are no doubts in New Delhi as well as in Thimpu regarding the prime importance that India occupies in Bhutan’s calculations. It would be worthwhile to conclude by quoting Manmohan Singh who said, “The best in India-Bhutan relations is yet to come.”---INFA

 (Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)

Round The States

New Delhi, 5 June 2008

TRS Routed In Andhra

Telengana Statehood WIDE OPEN

By Insaf

The formation of a new State of Telengana from Andhra Pradesh is again wide open. This follows the resounding defeat of the Telangana Rashtra Samithi (TRS) in the by-elections to four Lok Sabha and 16 Legislative Assembly seats caused by the en masse resignation of its MPs and MLAs in protest against the Centre’s failure to carve out Telangana. Out of the four Lok Sabha seats, the TRS managed to retain only two while the Congress and TDP bagged one seat each. Of the 18 Assembly seats, the TRS could retain only 7 and the Congress and TDP wrested 6 and 5 seats each. More humiliating for the TRS was that its supremo K Chandrasekhar Rao retained his Lok Sabha seat with a slender margin while its Assembly floor leader had to bite dust. The writing is on the wall: The TRS faces an uncertain future.

For the Congress reeling under a series of electoral reversals, the results are a major moral booster. All eyes were on these by-elections rated as a ‘mini general election’ wherein an adverse result would have triggered a series of in-house crises. One, its State unit could have split as belligerent Telangana leaders were on the verge of a revolt  against the party high command’s failure to take a clear stand on the statehood issue. Demonstrated when senior leader G Venkataswamy forecast the party’s doom in the region at the CWC meet last week. Leading to senior leader Ahmed Patel visiting Venkataswamy to placate him that the party would address his concern. Two, it has snuffed out all rebellion against Chief Minister Y. Rajasekhar Reddy. For its arch rival TDP, the bypolls provided fresh lease of life.

*                             *                  *                                               *          

Barely had the euphoria over its victory in Karnataka sunk in, that the BJP found itself in a war of wits with the Governor Rameshwar Thakur. In a take-off on the classic which came-first-chicken-or-egg theory, both were caught in a Constitutional bind. While the BJP wanted the Governor to render the special address to the joint session of the Karnataka Legislature, Thakur asked the Saffron Sangh to first prove its majority on the floor of the Assembly, before he rendered his address. True, the BJP bowed to the Governor’s diktat, but in the process it opened the legal Pandora’s Box. Experts stated that the Governor’s directions were not in consonance with the Constitution. Article 176 states that there shall be a special address by the Governor at the commencement of the first session. Following which the business of the House shall be carried on.

The key word is “business”, stress legal experts. According to the Constitution, “business” of the House implied a floor test also. Hence technically, the Governor should have addressed the House before he ordered a floor test, they claim. However, Raj Bhawan thought otherwise. Citing the Bommai judgment, Governor Thakur held that a floor test was supreme before any action in the House could be undertaken. The BJP, argued that the Bommai judgment was just an interpretation and not above the Constitution. Moreover, the Governor had invited the Party to form the Government only after satisfying himself that it enjoyed a majority. Clearly, the Governor’s action has reopened the debate on retired or active politicians being appointed by the Centre to act as ‘its eyes and ears’ in the State. Thakur, once again has earned the ignominy of being called the “Centre’s stooge.”

*                       *                          *                                               *          

PDP-Congress Tussle Over Governor

After a lull the Congress and the PDP are once again locked in a tussle. This time on who should be the next occupant of Srinagar’s Raj Bhawan. With the term of Governor, General (Retd) S.K. Sinha, coming to an end soon, the PDP has conveyed its preference for a civilian and a secular person. The Chief Minister, Congress’ Ghulam Nabi Azad begs to differ. He is pushing for another term for General Sinha. He is skeptical about changing the Governor just months ahead of the Assembly elections later this year. The Centre on its part, is hooting for two former Union Home Secretaries, N.N. Vohra and V.K. Duggal. Adding to the confusion, Governor Sinha too has conveyed to New Delhi his inclination to continue “for some more time”. However, the Centre continues to hold the gubernatorial cards close to its chest.

*                      *                            *                                               *          

Assam-Meghalaya Fight Over Uranium

Till date the southern states were infamous for boundary disputes. But this malaise seems to have spread to the north-east where Assam and Meghalaya are locked in a border row over a remote village Lampih. Following the potential discovery of uranium in this tiny hamlet. To ensure that Lampih remains with it, the Assam Government has dangled lots of carrots including a health centre and motorable roads for 3,200 villagers who have to travel for six hours on horseback to reach the nearest road. Across the border, the Meghalaya Chief Minister is not taking things lying down. He has lodged a protest with the Centre and threatened to use force if Assam encroaches on the area. The contentious village, 97 km from Guwahati is populated by Nepali, Garo and Khasis. While the Khasis  hoot for Meghalaya, the Nepalis and Garos bat for Assam. In the fracas, the Uranium Corporation of India remains tight lipped.

*                                   *                          *                                               *          

Kerala Strikes Discordant Note In Congress-CPM Ties

Even as the Left-UPA tango continues, discordant notes are growing louder in the Red strongholds. The Kerala Chief Minister, V S Achuthanandan lambasted the Centre for cutting the APL (Above Poverty Line) rice share of 87 per cent while the State was grappling with the unprecedented price rise. Accusing the Centre of turning a blind eye to the severe damage to paddy cultivation due to the unseasonal summer rains in March, the Chief Minister alleged that the Centre was not willing to grant monies for reviving the crops and fisheries sectors. He reminded the Centre that the Swaminathan Commission has recommended a comprehensive Central package to solve the agrarian crisis in the Idukki district. “But the Centre has not shown any readiness to accept this report and to grant the required amount,” he asserted.

*                     *                            *                                               *          

Mamata Drives Wedge In Left Front

If the RSP walking out of the UPA-Left Coordination Committee was not bad enough, the Trinamool’s stormy petrel Mamata Banerjee is busy driving a further wedge between the CPI(M) and its allies in the Left Front on the issue of land acquisition. Rejecting the Industry Minister plea that the State Government would work out a consensus with the new Trinamool Congress-led Zilla Parishads before going ahead with land acquisition, Mamata asserted: “They are speaking in many voices. We would respond only to those proposals which have the approval of the Cabinet and the Left Front Committee.” In support of her stand, she cites the Opposition of the Left partners RSP and Forward Bloc to setting up of industry on farm land. Adding to the CPM woes its General Secretary Biman Bose has confessed that the Party lost the Zilla Parishad elections due to corruption within in its cadres. ----INFA

 (Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)