Special Article

New Delhi , 5 April 2007 

Towards Forward Move?

CHANGING ATMOSPHERICS IN SAARC

By Dr. Chintamani Mahapatra

School of International Studies, JNU

The fourteenth SAARC summit in New Delhi this week took place in the midst of serious ongoing crisis in the region as well as in the extended neighbourhood of South Asia. Pakistan and Sri Lanka have been witnessing the menacing growth of terrorist activities. Bangladesh, Maldives and Nepal are not very stable politically. Afghanistan has been experiencing a painful resurgence of the Taliban.

In the extended neighbourhood, Iran faces the prospect of increased sanctions in view of its nuclear policy. Iraq is in deep crisis with rising tide of violence and murders. Myanmar continues to be under the military rule and Thailand has joined the group of Asian countries with military dominance, despite the expanding wave of democracy in the world in the post-Cold War era.

The good news is, however, intensification of Indo-Pakistan peace process, which began in 2003, moved through several ups and downs and now appears to be steadier than ever. Afghanistan has entered the regional grouping as a full member raising the number of SAARC countries to eight. Iran showed interest in becoming an observer of SAARC and the member-countries have unanimous views on according this status to Iran. The United States, Japan, South Korea and China attended the New Delhi SAARC summit for the first time as Observers.

The declaration at the end of the summit is bound to have a lasting impact on economic cooperation and better understanding among the member-countries. The members have agreed to set up a SAARC Food Bank and resolved to take steps to enhance trade and other forms of economic development. These include services in the ambit of the South Asia Free Trade Agreement (SAFTA), expenditure on investment promotion and protection agreement and working together towards energy security.  Also, an agreement to establish a South Asian University has been signed and the South Asian Development Fund made operationalised with an initial corpus of $300 million.

All these have created a novel atmosphere in the region raising the importance of SAARC into new heights. For long SAARC was either ignored, or bypassed or taken lightly by the international community. But today, the membership of this body has expanded and the new Observers are none other than the global superpower, the United States, the Asian superpower, China and the mighty economic Asian powerhouses, such as Japan and South Korea. The resource rich Iran too has sought an Observer status.

Two factors are largely responsible for these positive developments in SAARC. The first factor is unprecedented growth in the Indian economy. Ever since the current Indian Prime Minister launched a mini-economic revolution in 1991 in his capacity as the Finance Minister, there is no going back on the country’s economic growth. India could very well have sustained the international pressures in the wake of the 1998 nuclear tests and the Indian economy grew despite global recession, Asian financial melt down and sanctions imposed by the United States, Japan, Australia and many other countries.

When the UPA came to power, there were apprehensions around the globe that the Indian economic reform would no longer sustain itself, since there is a Government in New Delhi that could nor function without taking dictates from the Left leaning political parties of India. Such apprehensions were truly misplaced. The UPA Government has carried forward the Indian economic reforms and helped the economy grow to unprecedented levels.

The Indian success undoubtedly has had a positive impact in the SAARC region as well. As the traders and investors from the developed world made an economic pilgrimage to India and India’s economic profile enhanced, other SAARC members also began to push their respective reform agendas. The geographical proximity that had generated a fear among the neighbours about Indian intensions gave way to positive images about a growing India. If India could do business with China, an erstwhile enemy, why not with the immediate neighbours?

Like the industrially advanced nations of the world, even India’s smaller neighbours appear to have been developing a stake in the growing markets of India. In fact, the Indian Prime Minister’s bold decision to allow some SAARC nations duty free access to Indian market is a welcome step and a constructive policy, which certainly will enhance India’s image in the SAARC and assist economic growth in the larger region. In his very opening statement, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh announced that “India is ready to accept asymmetrical  responsibilities, opening its markets to its South Asian neighbours without insisting on reciprocity.” This is a policy that is quite different from free trade agreements. It will benefit the neighbours economically and will enable India to erect a secured and peaceful neighbourhood.

The second most important factor that has generated positive energy in the SAARC is Indo-Pakistan peace process. Many times in the past, New Delhi and Islamabad began a peace process and observed the death of the process in the hands of minor incidents or misperceptions. But the current peace process is not only the longest, but also has weathered several challenges that could have easily derailed it. Once there is a halt to the process, it normally takes very long time and additional efforts to restart it. Even if it is restarted, the fear of possible derailment continues to hunt.

The situation has drastically changed in the relations between the two South Asian superpowers. The nuclear weapons have put in place a structure of deterrence. Impossibility of total war makes it imperative for both India and Pakistan that only détente could protect their respective national interests. It could have been a cold peace as well. But the peace process has prevented that. The confidence-building measures have created a complex inter-dependence, which is at the nascent stage right now but would begin to give dividends, if the current peace could be prolonged a little more.

The beginning of a complex inter-dependence is reflected in the statement made by Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz. He expressed his happiness that disputes have been acknowledged by the parties and have been discussed by officials and that the “trust deficit” between the two countries has been reduced. Positively put, this remark suggests that there is more mutual confidence between Indians and Pakistanis than ever before in the history of bilateral relations.

However, only a beginning has been made to take off the SAARC to higher plains of cooperative structure. This modest beginning need to be celebrated, but a cautious optimism should be adopted to face the continuing and future challenges. South Asians need to be made aware of the fact that their future lies in cooperation and that conflict could only keep the region in a primitive stage in this age of rapid globalization and technological advancements.---INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)

SPECIAL RELEASE

New Delhi, 22 April, 2006

Many Colonial Lies Nailed

Shaheed Bhagat Singh’s Last Testament

(Shaheed Bhagat Singh and Batu Keshwar Dutta created revolutionary history on 8 April 1929 by hurling bombs on the floor of Central Assembly under the British Raj.  On 23 March 1931, Bhagat Singh, Raj Guru and Sukhdev were hanged in Lahore Central Jail and their bodies secretly taken out and cremated on the banks of the Sutlej.  Dutta was imprisoned for long years in Kala Pani Jail in the Andaman Islands.

(Reproduced below for the benefit of free India’s younger generation, courtesy the Lok Sevak Sangh, is the full text of the written statement filed by “accused Bhagat Singh and B.K. Dutta” in the Court of the British Sessions Judge, Delhi in response to charges under S.S. 307 of IPC and 3&4 of Explosive Substance Act.  It provides authentic information about the motive of Bhagat Singh and Dutta in hurling bombs and nails many lies spread by the colonial rulers against the martyrs of India’s freedom struggle.)

1.         We stand charged with serious offences and at this stage we must explain our conduct.  The following questions arise:

i)         Were the bombs thrown into the Assembly Chamber and if so why?

ii)       Is the charge as framed by the Lower Court correct or otherwise?

2.         To the first half of the first question our reply is an affirmative, but some of the so-called “eye-witnesses” have perjured themselves and since we are not denying our liability to the extent and such as it is let our statement about them be judged for what it is worth. By way of illustration, we may point out that the evidence of Sergeant Terry regarding the seizure of the pistol from one of us is a deliberate falsehood for neither of us had the pistol at the time we gave ourselves up.

Other witnesses who have deposed to having seen the bombs thrown by us have not scrupled to tell lies patent on the face of them.  It has its own moral for those who aim at judicial purity and fair play.  At the same time, we acknowledge the fairness of the Public Prosecutor and the judicial attitude of the Court so far.

3.         In our reply to the next half of the first question, we are constrained to go into some detail to offer a full and frank explanation of our motive and the circumstances leading upto what has now become an historic event. When we were told by some of the Police Officers who visited us in jail that Lord Irwin in the address to a joint session of the two Houses after the event in question described it as an attack directed against no individual but against the institution itself, we readily recognized that the true significance of the incident had been correctly appreciated.

We are next to none in our love of humanity and so, far from having any malice against any individual, we hold human life sacred beyond words. We are neither the perpetrators of dastardly outrages and therefore a disgrace to the country as the pseudo-socialist Diwan Chaman Lal is reported to have described us, nor are we ‘lunatics’ as the Tribune of Lahore and some others would have it believed.  We humbly claim to be no more than serious students of the history and conditions of our country and human aspirations, and we despise hypocrisy. 

Our practical protest was against the institution which, since its birth, has eminently helped to display not only its worthlessness but its far-reaching power for mischief. The more we have pondered, the more deeply we have been convinced that it exists only to demonstrate to the world India’s humiliation and helplessness and it symbolizes the over-riding domination of an irresponsible and autocratic rule.

Time and again, the National demand has been pressed by the Peoples’ representatives only to find the waste-paper basket as its final destination.  Solemn resolutions passed by the House have been contemptuously trampled under foot on the floor of the so-called Indian Parliament. Resolutions regarding the repeal of repressive and arbitrary measures have been treated with sublime contempt and Government’s measures and proposals rejected as unacceptable by elected members have been restored by a stroke of the pen.

In brief, inspite of earnest endeavour we have utterly failed to find any justification for the existence of an institution which, despite all the pomp and splendour organized with the hard-earned money of the sweating millions of India, is only a hollow show and a mischievous make-believe.  And alike have we failed to comprehend the mentality of the public leaders who help to squander public time and money on so manifestly stage-managed an exhibition of India’s helpless subjection.

We had been ruminating upon all this, as also upon the wholesale arrests of leaders of the labour movement when the introduction of the Trade Disputes’ Bill brought us into the Assembly to watch its progress and the course of the debate only served to confirm our conviction that the labouring millions of India had nothing to expect from an institution that stood as a menacing monument to the strangling power of Exploiters and the serfdom of the helpless labourers.

Finally, the insult of what we considered an inhuman and barbarous measure was hurled on the devoted heads of the representatives of the entire country and the starving and struggling millions were deprived of their primary right and sole means of improving their economic welfare. None who has felt like us for the dumb-driven drudges of labourers could possibly witness this spectacle with equanimity.  None whose heart bleeds for those who have given their life-blood in silence to the building up of the economic structure of the Exploiters, of whom the Government happens to be the biggest in this country, could repress the cry of soul-agonizing anguish which so ruthless a blow wrung out our hearts. 

Consequently, bearing in mind the words of the late Mr. S.R. Das, once the Law Member of the Governor General’s Executive Council, which appeared in the famous letter he had addressed to his son to the effect that a bomb was necessary to awaken England from her dreams, we dropped the bombs on the floor of the Assembly Chamber to register our protest on behalf of those who had no other means left to give expression to their heart-rending agony.   Our sole purpose was “to make the deaf hear”, and to give the heedless a timely warning. 

Others have as keenly felt as we have done and from under the seeming stillness of the sea of Indian humanity a veritable storm is about to break out.  We have only hoisted the “danger signal” to warn those who are speeding along without heeding the grave dangers ahead. We have only marked the end of the era of utopian non-violences of whose futility the rising generation has been convinced beyond the shadow of doubt.  Out of our sincerest goodwill to and love of humanity have we adopted this method of warning to prevent the untold sufferings which we like millions of others clearly foresee.

4.         We have used the expression utopian non-violence in the foregoing para, which requires some explanation. Force when aggressives are applied is “violence” and is therefore morally unjustifiable, but when it is used in furtherance of a legitimate cause it has its moral justification. The elimination of force at all costs is utopian and the new movement which has arisen in the country, and of which we have given the warning, is inspired by the ideals which guided Guru Gobind Singh & Shivaji, Kamal Pasha & Riza Khan, Washington & Garibaldi, Lafayette & Lenin. As both the alien Government and the Indian public leaders appeared to have shut their eyes and closed their ears against the existence and the voice of this movement, we felt it our duty to sound the warning where it could not go unheard.

5.         We have so far dealt with the motive behind the incident in question and now we must define the extent of our intention.

It cannot be gainsaid that we bore no personal grudge or malice against any one of those who received slight injuries or against any other person in the Assembly. On the contrary, we repeat that we hold human lives sacred beyond words and would sooner lay down our own lives in the service of humanity than injure any one else.  Unlike the mercenary soldiers of Imperialist Armies who are disciplined to kill without compunction, we respect and insofar as it lies in us attempt to save human life.  And still we admit having deliberately dropped the bombs into the Assembly Chamber. 

Facts, however, speak for themselves and our intention should be judged from the result of our action without drawing upon hypothetical circumstances and presumptions.  Despite the evidence of the Government Expert, the bombs that were thrown in the Assembly Chamber resulted in some damage to furniture and a few slight abrasions in less than half a dozen cases. While the Government’s scientist ascribed this result as a miracle, we see nothing but a precisely scientific process in it all.

First two bombs exploded in vacant spaces within wooden barriers of desks and benches. Secondly, even those who were within even 2 feet of the explosion (for instance Mr. P.R. Rau, Mr. Shanker Rao and Sir George Schuster) were either not hurt or only slightly scratched.  Bombs of the capacity desposed to by the Government Expert (though his estimate being imaginary is exaggerated) loaded with an effective charge of Pt. Chlorate and a sensitive Picrate would have smashed the barriers and laid many low within some yards of the explosion. 

Again had they been loaded with some other high explosive with a charge of destructive pellets or darts they would have sufficed to wipe out the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly. Still again, we could have flung them into the official box chokfull of people of note. And finally we could have ambushed Sir John Simon whose luckless Commission was loathed by all the responsible people and who was sitting in the President’s gallery at the time.  All this, however, was beyond our intention and the bombs did no more than they were designed to do and the miracle consisted of no more than the deliberate aim which landed them in safe places.  Similarly, the pistol was fired in the air, but by neither of us.

6.         We then deliberately offered ourselves to bear the penalty for what we had done, and to let the Imperialist Exploiters know that by crushing individuals they cannot kill ideas. By crushing two insignificant units the nation cannot be crushed. We wanted to emphasise the historical lesson that letters de Cachets and Bastilles could not crush the Revolutionary movement in France. Gallows and Siberian Mines could not extinguish the Russian revolution. The Bloody Sundays and Black and Tans failed to strangle the movement of Irish freedom.

Can Ordinances and Safety Bills snuff out the flame of freedom in India? Conspiracy cases trumped up or discovered and incarceration of all the youngmen, who cherish the vision of a greater ideal, cannot check the march of the Revolution. But timely warning if not unheeded can help to prevent loss of life and general sufferings. We took it upon ourselves to provide this warning and our duty is done.

7.         I, Bhagat Singh, was asked in the Lower Court as to what we meant by the word ‘Revolution’. In answer to that question, I would say that Revolution does not necessarily involve a sanguinery strife, nor is there any place in it for individual vendetta.  It is not the cult of the bomb and the pistol. By Revolution we mean that the present order of things which is based on manifest injustice must change. The producers or the labourers, inspite of being the most necessary element of society, are robbed by their exploiters of the fruits of their labour and deprived of their elementary right.

On the one hand, the peasant who grows corn for all starves with his family; the weaver who supplies world markets with textile fabrics cannot find enough to cover his own and his children’s bodies; the masons, smiths and carpenters who rear magnificent palaces live and perish in slums; and on the other the capitalist exploiters, the parasites of Society squander millions on their whims. These terrible inequalities, and forced disparity of chances are heading towards chaos. This state of affairs cannot last; and it is obvious that the present order of Society is merry-making on the brink of a volcano and the innocent children of the Exploiters no less than millions of the exploited are walking on the edge of a dangerous precipice.  The whole edifice of this civilization, if not saved in time, shall crumble. A radical change, therefore, is necessary; and it is the duty of those who realize this to reorganize Society on the Socialistic basis.

Unless this is done and the exploitation of man by man and of nations by nations, which goes masquerading as Imperialism, is brought to an end, the sufferings and carnage with which humanity is threatened today can not be prevented and all talk of ending wars and ushering in an era of universal peace is undisguised hypocrisy.  By Revolution we mean the ultimate establishment of an order of society which may not be threatened by such a breakdown, and in which the sovereignty of the proletariat should be recognized, and as the result of which a world-federation should redeem humanity from the bondage of capitalism and the misery of Imperial wars.

Revolution is the inalienable right of mankind.  Freedom is the imprescriptable birth-right of all. The labourer is the real sustainer of Society. The Sovereignty of the people is the ultimate destiny of the workers.

For these ideals, and for this faith, we shall welcome any suffering to which we may be condemned. To the altar of this Revolution, we have brought our youth at incense; for no sacrifice is too great for so magnificent a cause.

We are content; we await the advent of the Revolution.

“Long live the Revolution” – Bhagat Singh and Batu Keshwar Dutta.

(Signed in hand)

INFA-Special

New Delhi, 6 March 2007 

Christianity In India Today

NO CONFLICT WITH HINDUISM

By Eduardo Faleiro

(Former Union Minister)

During my last term in Parliament (1999-2004) I travelled extensively throughout the country to understand Christianity in India today. 

Asia is the cradle of all the great religions of the world and several of them were born in India.  The Asian religious psyche resonates with the perception of plurality and the consequent attitude of tolerance. Jesuit theologian Samuel Ryan asserts “Pluralism is a grace.  No one person, race, culture, language or religion can grasp and express exhaustively the will of God”.

Inculturation is the process by which a particular Church expresses its faith through the local culture.  In India, the purpose is to make the Church both authentically Indian and genuinely Christian.  At the Asian Synod of 1998 the bishops called for “divesting of the Western image of the Church in the liturgy, style of life, celebrations and trying to overcome the present image of a powerful, affluent and domineering institution”. 

Father George Gispert-Sauch, Emeritus Professor at the Vidya Jyoti Theological Seminary has published two volumes of the writings of Brahmabandhab Upadhyay.  Upadhyay was among the first if not the first to demand complete independence of India from the British Raj.  He died in jail in October 1907, a martyr of the freedom struggle.  Rabindranath Tagore, the poet wrote about him “Upadhyay was a sanyasi, a roman catholic, yet a vedantist.  He was powerful, fearless, self-denying; he wielded great influence on those who came near him.  He had a deep intelligence and an extraordinary hold on spiritual matters”.

When asked by a Census official whether he was a roman catholic or a protestant Upadhyay replied “Neither.  Put me down as an Indian catholic”.  The Upadhyay message, as contained in his writings is simple.  He was personally a Hindu by birth and culture, a Christian by faith and religion.  He was a Hindu Christian.  His culture and his faith were both valuable and not in conflict. 

There was no contradiction because Hinduism is a cultural reality.  Christianity is a supernatural revelation that can be expressed in any cultural garb. Fr. Gispert- Sauch believes that we should commemorate this year the death centenary of Brahmabandhab Upadhyay.---INFA

GUJARAT ANALYSIS

New Delhi, 24 December 2004 

Anti-Populist Modi

NO FREE LUNCHES!

By Prakash Nanda

The much-denigrated Narendra Modi has received another massive mandate from the people of Gujarat to start his third term as the Chief Minister. He had many odds against him --- his acts of omission and commission during the 2002 communal riots; his so-called arrogance that has alienated him from his senior colleagues in the BJP and his disregard for populist politics, particularly when the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) was seeking the fourth consecutive term in office, something that no ruling party, except the communists in West Bengal, has managed to achieve in recent memory in Indian politics.

Of these, the critics have overplayed the first two “drawbacks” of Modi. Therefore, let us discuss the under-highlighted “drawback” of Modi --- his aversion towards populist politics. In fact, the most important lesson of the Gujarat polls is that Modi has proved that one can shun populism and yet win elections. 

The worst critics of Modi do accept the fact that under his Chief Ministership, every village, not to speak of towns in Gujarat gets uninterrupted supply of electricity these days, where earlier long and frequent power shortages were the order of the day. And yet these critics wooed the public to vote against Modi. Why? Because, Modi has been severe on those people who fail to pay for their electricity consumption.

In fact, one heard during the electioneering a prosperous diamond merchant in Surat telling a television journalist --- “what is the use in having electricity if people are forced to pay for its consumption. Earlier we never paid for electricity. We never cleared our bills, but nobody cut our connections. But under Modi, not only are our connections cut, we are also being forced to go to courts to face legal charges against us”, he added, while vowing that he would campaign for Modi’s ouster.  

In other words, detractors of Modi say that there is nothing wrong in stealing electricity. So much so that the rival Congress Party had promised to write off the unpaid electricity bills if voted to power. And worse, the Party had promised to supply free electricity to the farmers in the villages.

Moreover, so “appealing” was this Congress plank that senior BJP leaders in Gujarat had almost decided to copy this in their manifesto, but Modi was not impressed. He ultimately prevailed and the State BJP leaders were told not to be defensive about cutting electricity to the defaulters and punish them on charges of theft.                   

In my opinion, condoning power-theft is populism at its worst. In order to get votes, political parties encourage people to defy rules, regulations and laws. Let it be made clear that here one is not talking of the subsidies that the Government provides to the disadvantaged sections of the society on various items, though one can legitimately argue that the subsidy regime is simply not working in India. Here, one is talking of the middle class people --- the diamond merchant certainly belongs to this class --- being averse to pay for the facilities provided by the Government.

They do not want to pay their electricity bills, water charges and even income taxes. They violate all the rules and regulations --- we see how in cities like Delhi and Mumbai they encroach on the public properties, add unauthorized constructions in their residences and commercial establishments and so on. And yet, if the law tries to catch them, politicians come to the forefront in not only protecting them but also in justifying their actions!   

It seems that Narendra Modi is not one of these politicians. He believes in delivering goods to the people provided people pay accordingly for those goods. No wonder that he is disliked by India’s traditional political class and that includes his own BJP.

Besides, it is not wrong when some analysts say that more than the Congress leaders, many in his own BJP would have been happy if Modi had lost.  For these conventional or traditional politicians --- and they included all the BJP dissidents under the leadership of Keshubhai Patel --- Modi is the villain, as he did not believe in populist politics. 

Ironically, “populism” is not a wrong concept if one goes by its true meaning. At its core, populism stands in stark contrast to elitism and, therefore, by definition a populist would be against all forms of elitism: social, political and economic. It means being against corporatism. It means fighting those who corrupt to retain their elite status. 

A populist must surely be a status quo buster by representing the interests of the non-elites, the larger public of working --- and the middle-class people that are the victims of elitists. A true populist relates to the common person because he or she by virtue of their entire background is more of a common person than an elitist. Populists are not part of the establishment; they are fundamentally and aggressively anti-establishment.

The Encyclopedia Britannica provides this useful view of populism: "Political programme or movement that champions the common person, usually by favourable contrast with an elite. Populism usually combines elements of the left and right, opposing large business and financial interests but also frequently being hostile to established  socialist and labour parties”.

But if in India or in any developing country, populism has assumed wrong connotations, it is precisely because of the fact that the populist leaders here are essentially statusquoists and pro-establishment --- they do not want change; they want captive vote banks, which is possible when the people remain poor and poverty is glorified.

You cannot give free electricity knowing pretty well that it is not sustainable and once the state coffers get emptied by such policies, you do not have funds for growth, development and even for social justice that India’s populist politicians promise. In fact, one may give enough examples of how the populism of the Indian brand actually sustains and help the rich more than the poor (for instance, subsidy in diesels and fertilisers do not help the poor farmers who do not buy them.).

Writing in “the Guardian”, Ralf Dahrendorf, a member of the British House of Lords once decried successful populists worldwide, saying: "It does not take long for voters to discover that the promises of populists were empty. Once in power, they simply make for bad Government. Populist episodes are signs of an underlying instability that neither   serves national progress nor contributes to international order."  One cannot agree with him more.

In any case, when one talks of growth and development in this age of globalisation, one cannot progress without rules of law. Nobody will invest in developmental projects and infrastructural developments if one is not assured safety of his investments and returns. Why should the Ambanis --- sons of Gujarat --- invest in power generations (the two Ambani brothers are entering the power sector these days in a big way all over the country) if people will not pay for their power? 

Coming back to Narendra Modi, he is definitely a multi-faceted personality, analysing him is not easy task. He is not a typical populist politician since he is talking of the rules of law. One may find serious faults, and legitimately so, with his rules of law in dealing with the minorities, but he deserved support for his rules of law in the sphere of economic development. The Gujaratis have not disappointed him and taught his critics --- particularly, the aforesaid diamond merchant --- a fitting lesson. ---- INFA

(Copyright India News & Feature Alliance)