|
|
|
|
|
|
Economic Highlights
River Management: CENTRAL CONTROL DESIRABLE, by Dhurjati Mukherjee,26 May 2008 |
|
|
Water
Crisis
New
Delhi, 26 May 2008
River Management
CENTRAL CONTROL DESIRABLE
By Dhurjati Mukherjee
Ten of the largest rivers in the
world are dying. Amongst these are the Ganga, Indus, Nile, Yangtze, Mekong and Danube that are the lifeline of millions of people. These
rivers are not merely water sources but repositories of history, myths and
cultural memories. And, the greatest threat to these and many other rivers is
industrial pollution apart from natural sewage channels.
In India, as also in many other countries
pollution of rivers has been a big problem. The developing world, particularly India and China,
needs to learn from Europe’s experience of
reviving and maintaining rivers. In our country, the Supreme Court has come out
with a number of judgements along these lines, but effective action has yet to
be taken. The projects that have been taken up are far from satisfactory. The 2006
official audit of the Ganga Action Plan has revealed that it has met only 39 per
cent of its sewage treatment target. Moreover, the Plan is behind schedule by
over 13 years. According to the legal counsel, Central Pollution Control Board,
Vijay Panjawani, even after spending Rs. 24,000 crores, the Ganga
remains as dirty as ever. The same holds true of the Yamuna Action Plan where
progress is unsatisfactory.
Apart from the problem of sewage flowing
into the Yamuna, the problem is largely attributed to the large-scale
extraction of water in upstream Delhi
for drinking and irrigation purposes, leading to negligible flow in the river
after Wazirabad, as per reports of the Environment Ministry. This problem has
also been witnessed in Kolkata (of the Hooghly river, an offshoot of Ganga)
after the water-sharing agreement was signed between India
and Bangladesh.
Meanwhile, following the directions
of the apex court on August 4, 2004, a high-power committee was constituted for
preparation of an integrated action plan to stop pollution of the river.
Another committee was formed with representatives from the five riparian states
of Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Delhi,
Himachal Pradesh and Rajasthan to consider the issue of maintaining a universal
flow of water in the Yamuna and to suggest both short and long-term measures
for the same.
Keeping in view the persistent problem
of pollution of these rivers, some are likely to be declared as ‘national
rivers’. This would facilitate the Centre’s direct intervention in projects to
clean up such rivers and ensure proper upkeep. Moreover, since the big rivers
pass through several States and there is a multiplicity of authorities,
monitoring at the central level would be better, even though it’s a State
subject, Ambitious projects viz Ganga and
Yamuna so far are unable to achieve the desired results within a specified time
frame.
The ‘national rivers’ concept has
long been mooted and deliberated upon by the Central Water Commission (CWC) and
the criteria for rivers that would fall under this head is being finalized.
This exercise became necessary after States like West
Bengal asked the Centre to take up river cleaning projects. It is
understood that half a dozen highly polluted rivers, including Ganga, Yamuna, Krishna, Cauvery, and Teesta are likely to figure in this
list.
Moreover, water sharing has led to
disputes between States and consequent appointment of tribunals under the
inter-State water disputes act to mediate between warring parties. Tribunals set
up so far are looking into disputes over the Narmada, Ravi, Beas, Krishna, Godavari and Cauvery. Regrettably, this has given rise to
a complex and highly litigious process as the States have moved the Supreme
Court challenging the awards given by the tribunals in spite of these being
binding on the States.
There is a high-level of vitriol in
the endemic clashes between States on inter-State water issues which have grave
political consequences. The intensity of these disputes and the complexity
arising thereof has possibly influenced the parliamentary committee on water
resources to recommend that water be put on the concurrent list from the
present List II of the seventh schedule, a State subject. The move has enough
justification, as it would entail Centre’s control over the rivers--
maintaining these properly from the environmental point of view and ensuring
regulated flow.
In the coming years, with rapid
industrialization and urbanization the demand for water would increase
considerably, making it necessary that control in matters pertaining to water
sharing, pollution and management be exerted by Central authorities, in
consultation with respective State governments, if necessary. It is in this
context that the question of river interlinking has also to be considered in a
judicious manner, keeping in mind, the geological, environmental, economic and
practical aspects.
As is well-known, some States are
already facing water crisis, both in the urban centres and rural areas, while States
like Assam
face floods almost every year. Besides, the 11th Plan has aimed at
expanding irrigation by 2.5 million hectares a year, and, recently at a meeting
of the National Development Council (NDC), most States voiced the need for additional
allocation for increasing their irrigated area. In such a scenario, there is
need for judicious management of water and ensuring its optimum use throughout
the country. How this could be made practicable, however, remains a big
challenge?
The only way in which change will
take place is if reform-minded political leaders shift the balance of power
between the State machinery, on the one hand, and users -- farmers, industries,
citizens – on the other. The State needs to surrender those tasks which it may
not be fit to perform, while develop the capacity to do such things which it
can and should do. Water management, let’s face it, is one of the several
tasks, which only the State can discharge. A monitoring mechanism at the
central level may be necessary or the Central Water Commission be given
additional powers. However, collaboration and consultation with the States
would be necessary.
The institutional changes in
building the “new Indian water state” could well be: the public sector will
continue to have an important role in providing irrigation and water supply; vibrant
non-governmental sector, private sector and cooperatives will too be given a
role in providing formal irrigation and water supply services in a competitive
manner with the State authorities; as service provided by the above improves,
large number of people will move from the informal, self providing, water
economy onto the formal service sector and the public sector will play an
expanded role in the financing and provision of public services such as flood
control, pollution control, sewage treatment etc.
In addition, the government will
deliver a set of laws, policies, capacities and organizations for defining and
delivering an enabling environment with special emphasis on the establishment
and management of water entitlements and the regulation of services and
resources. A clean flowing river thus could be of immense benefit to the
country and the States. ---INFA
(Copyright, India
News and Feature Alliance)
|
|
Uncork The Champagne…:UPA FIZZ JUST RAN DRY!, by Poonam I Kaushish,31 May 2008 |
|
|
POLITICAL DIARY
New Delhi, 31 May 2008
Uncork The Champagne…
UPA FIZZ JUST RAN
DRY!
By Poonam I Kaushish
Celebrations are normally great fun. Lots of masti, some khaana-peena and loads of mirch-masala
gup-shup. A time to wipe the worries, dismiss the problems and rejoice in
the vacuous rhetoric of a litany of achievements. Enjoy!
At the risk of sounding a party pooper, are you kidding? The
festivity at the Prime Minister’s dinner said it all. Never mind the phony
assurances served to the aam aadmi as
the tastiest dish. The high point
was the grand entry of dushman-turned-
dost Samajwadi leader Amar Singh even though he came an hour late.
The relief on Manmohan Singh’s face was palpable as he
scurried from his table to sit with his khaas
invitee to the exclusion of all present. Forgotten in the euphoria was the
irony that the 2004 gate-crasher at Sonia Gandhi’s dinner for the UPA allies
had become the most–prized guest. Never mind that Sonia and Amar Singh did not
exchange greetings. Should we measure
this as the UPA’s success or desperation?
Less said the better of the “there is no reason to party’
Left brigade who after much dilly-dallying attended the dinner because it didn’t want to loose
its numero uno position of being the
main benefactor of the Congress. It was worried that if it distanced itself now
then other parties would occupy its prime place at Sonia’s high table.
Moreover, Messers Karat and Yechury could not stomach the
fact that the Congress was seeking to replace it with the Samajwadi and other
new allies. Which would put to rest its dreams of forming a grand Third Front.
Thus, the back seat driving and
tu-tu-mein-mein could resume later. Should we measure the souring of
Congress-Left ties as success or failure?
What of the Grand Dame of Indian Politics. It was all
dressed up with no invites of a promising future, no grooms and no swayambar. In the last four years it has
lost 14 State Assembly elections out of 25. Since 2005, the only major wins for
the Party have been in Haryana and Assam.
In 2007-08 it has lost critical states like Uttar Pradesh,
Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh and, recently, Karnataka. Worse, there is no Congress
rainbow in sight in Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan, Delhi, Jammu and Kashmir
and Mizoram which go to the polls later this year and the general elections
next year. Should we make merry that the
Party is looking at the situation (read power) skidding out of its hands?
Given the Party’s penchant for dynasties, it has insulated
its ruling Goddess Sonia-who-can-do-no-wrong and ‘yuvraj deity’ Rahul against any finger-pointing backlash. If the
ground beneath the Congress is slipping fast, very fast in State after State,
blame it on intra-party politics, backstabbing and fighting between senior
leaders, stick-in-the-mud recalcitrant allies, the moon, sun, stars et al. But not
Sonia-Rahul. No matter that everything from A to Z is decided by the undaata, her alone.
Should we celebrate the tragedy that the raison de atre for the Party’s defeat is
because the Congress has tied its kundalini
to Sonia’s stars and refuses to see what the asli stars foretell: time has cut the dynastic umbical cord? Yesterday it was UP, today Karnataka,
tomorrow Lok Sabha, who knows?
This not the only problem. The link between the Congress’s
electoral underperformance and organisational disarray cannot be overstated.
Karnataka is only the tip of iceberg where former Chief Minister Krishna made
no bones that the blame for the Party’s defeat rests squarely on the “central
leadership. My not contesting was a crucial mistake. I would have led from the
front and the situation would have changed.” This was a "grave
blunder," he added. Are we to rejoice that another senior leader has
joined the Arjun Singh bandwagon of cribbers? Recall, the Union Human Resource
Development Minister was the first to indirectly question Sonia’s style of
functioning and coterie culture.
Things are no better in the Party unit in Madhya Pradesh. Union
Ministers Kamal Nath and Jyotiraditya Scindia and former Chief Minister
Digvijay Singh have to play second fiddle to handpicked ‘Sonia-stooge’ Suresh
Pachouri, who hasn’t one electoral victory to his credit. In Chhattisharh, the
Party is caught between the claims of warring Ajit Jogi and VC Shukla for the
top slot. In Maharashtra governance has gone
for a toss as the Chief Minister Vilasrao Deshmukh is busy keeping tabs on
thorn-in-the-flesh leader Narayan Rane’s audiences with Sonia. What to speak of
the near-complete decimation of its grassroots organisations in UP and Bihar.
Adding to its woes is the spiraling prices and rising
inflation. Pulses, wheat, vegetables, tomatoes, potatoes, oil et al have become
the bane of the aam aadmi. Bin bijli, bin jal, bin aloo (without
power, without water and without potato). Whatever happened to the Congress ka haath aam aadmi ke saath!
Increasing unemployment, illiteracy, ill-health and suicides
by farmers are the touchstone of the much-hyped and illusionary deal of roti, kapada aur makan. Look at the
irony. Cellphones go abegging, yet people continue to beg for food. Do we measure success by the fact that
the common man is being made to pay for the follies of the Government which
waited much too long to read the signs of the agrarian crisis facing the
country leading to spiraling prices?
Besides, the Congress defeat in Karnataka has not only
rendered the Government lame duck but a domino effect has started surfacing in
New Delhi. The UPA is branded as unpopular and the Congress a sinking ship. Already
staunch ally RJD Chief Lalloo Yadav has castigated the Finance Minister for
‘giving short shrift’ to the aam aadmi and
the plight of the farmers. He is reported to have said, “yeh GDP, FDP kya hai, aloo-pyaaz itna mehanga kyuin hai?” The other
allies followed suit.
The Left has made up its mind to snap ties with the Grand
Dame. But when and on what issue would be decided later. Till yesterday it was
the nuclear deal today it has a plethora of issues: price rise, inflation and
terrorism. Prakash Karat understands that the law of diminishing returns has
set in and there are no political gains if they continue to support the
Government. Do we cheer the curious
political setting where the Left is confronting the UPA and also desperately
looking for an exit route to re-establish its credibility? That too after
enjoying power without responsibility.
Ironically, while all its allies have done their electoral
calculations for the next round of elections, Sonia has yet to disclose her
mind. Raising a moot point: Can such a Party hope to ride the crest of victory
again? Sadly, as oft is the case, power breeds arrogance and absolute power
breeds absolute arrogance. Ultimately, much will depend upon Sonia’s political
will and priorities in the weeks and months ahead. If she can do no more than cleanse
the stinking sycophancy cesspool and replace ‘I’ with ‘We’, the Congress could
still stand a chance. Or else let the UPA fizz continue to run dry. ------ INFA
(Copyright India News & Feature
Alliance)
|
|
Of Terror & Vote-Banks:WHAT ABOUT THE NATION, MR PATIL?, by Poonam I Kaushish,24 May 2008 |
|
|
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)
|
|
‘Republic of Nepal’:CELEBRATIONS IN TRANSIT STATE, by Dr. Monika Chansoria,3 June 2008 |
|
|
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)
|
|
Indo-Bhutan Ties:PM’s Visit Cements Relations,By Monish Tourangbam, 27 June 2008 |
|
|
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 50th
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 10th 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 8th
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)
|
|
| | << Start < Previous 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 Next > End >>
| Results 5491 - 5499 of 6261 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|