Open Forum

New Delhi, 9 July 2010

Dealing With Maoist Challenge

NOT BY FORCE & DEVELOPMENT ALONE

By Balraj Puri

(Director, Institute of Jammu and Kashmir Affairs)

“Army Headquarters have drawn up a plan to keep about 50,000 soldiers in readiness to help civilian authorities deal with the growing Naxal threat,” reported a newspaper on 18 June. Initially, the Army and the Air Chiefs were opposed to any intervention despite the massacre of 76 security forces in Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. But the game and thinking changed when 148 innocent people were slaughter by Maoists in the Jnaneshwari Express in West Bengal’s Midnapur district.  After meeting the Union Home Minister Chidambaram on 28 May, the Army and Air Chiefs finalised their action plan “to meet any emergency in anti-Naxalite operation beyond the present training, surveillance and logistical support”.

Originally, the emphasis of anti-Maoist operations was on strengthening security forces—adequate training, particularly in jungle warfare of the CRPF jawans, to equip them with better weapons, improve their knowledge about local terrain and better intelligence. Particularly, as Maoists influence has expanded in 220 tribal districts from Andhra to Chhattisgarh, Maharashtra, Orissa, Jharkhand, Bihar and West Bengal constituting as the Prime Minister said, “the greatest security threat”. They have established contacts with ULFA and other insurgents in North-East.

Importantly, the rapid expansion of the area and influence of the Maoists is due to the increasing alienation of the tribals. Thus, more than use of technology and arms in the war against the Maoists, the State has to enjoy popular support.

In her essay “Working with the Comrades” Arundati Roy, described the large scale devastation and displacement caused by multinationals companies on land leased for mining and other projects. She averred, “How a Government that professed its inability to resettle even a fraction of the 50 million people displaced by what it called development was able to identify 1,40,000 hectares of prime land to give to industrialists for more than 300 special economic zones.”

These include mineral projects with high quality iron ore in Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand, $4 trillion worth bauxite in Orissa and 28 others in various parts of the tribal belt called the Maoists’ corridor. Add to this, power plants, steel and cement factories, dams, highways and infrastructure projects. Leading the displaced tribals’ desperately asserting, “jaan denge per zameen nahin denge.”

Specially, as the three tribal-dominated States account for 70% of India’s coal reserves, 80% of high grade iron ore and almost 100% of its chromate reserves. Of the 50 mineral producing districts almost half are tribal. Taking note of this, the Prime Minister stated recently, “We cannot overlook the fact that many areas in which extremism flourishes are under-developed and tribals have not shared the benefits of development”. His advice: fight Naxals with development.

The Ramchandran report, too has recommended the Government refrain from signing more MoUs with corporates for ventures in the tribal areas. It impressed that the Centre and States respect tribal rights and desist from rampant industrialization.
According to a Planning Commission task force report which covers 33 Maoist-hit districts the expenditure for rural development, road connectivity and health is a measly 30-40% of the allocated funds in these districts. Adding, “Not a single claim of the tribals over land has been entertained under the Forest Rights Act in Dantewada and the entire district had just three doctors.”

However, the tribal woes don’t end there. Drawing a distinction between development and exploitation, former Bastar SC/ST Commissioner B D Sharma, in an open letter to the President wrote, “To call the tribals poor, hurts the simple people to the core as they are super-sensitive about their “honour”. They are deprived and disinherited in their own domain….have no place for their community and its customs and tradition, its unwritten laws of their village Republics.”

Sharma insisted the Government accept that the resources belong to the tribals. This is underscored by the Constitution’s Fifth Schedule which reads: Resources in Tribal areas belong to the tribals. The 1995 Bhuria Commission also recommended that for industries in tribal areas, 50% of the ownership remain with the community, 20% with the landowner and only 30% with the investor.

Alongside, is the question of tribal identity, their ethnicity, culture and way of life. Importantly, development at the cost of cultural and ethnic identity becomes counter- productive. It is no substitute for the joy tribals get in their music, dances and fairs which needs to be preserved from the threat of films and other modern entertainment. In fact, the process of modernisation should incorporate tribal culture and thus help in preserving them.

Already a fierce debate is going on between orthodox Marxists, mainly belonging to Andhra’s People’s War Group which pioneered the Maoist movement (now declining) and the more pragmatic cadres in Central and East India on class vs. caste/ethnicity. The lesson of West Bengal is particularly relevant in this context.

Recall, the Left Front, led by late CPM leader Jyoti Basu, came to power and maintained its popular base for over three decades on the basis of its progressive programme on radical land reform and appeal of Bengali nationalism and identity vis-à-vis authority of Indian nationalism. Notwithstanding, being a Bhadralok Bengali front.

However, gradually, the momentum of radical land reforms started declining and the lower castes, Dalits, Muslims, tribals and other non-Bengalis began started asserting themselves. The regimented system, where local bodies were instruments in the hands of the State Government controlled by CPM cadres rather than instruments of local self- Government, blocked avenues of dissent.

At the same time on cannot ignore the fact that Maoist activities were not only confined to brutal violence. At some places they had not only undertaken relief and welfare work but also opened dispensaries and schools where none existed. In Bankura, for instance, they are running a school.

In addition, the role of interlocutors should not be dismissed. Not to reach an agreement between the Government and the Maoists but to understand them.  The extremists are willing to talk with Trimamool MP Kabir Suman, Arundati Roy, and Sharma. Ramachandran, who enquired into the security aspect of the Dantewada tragedy, has welcomed the role of civil rights activists in dealing with the Maoists.

Recently the Gandhi Peace Foundation, Sarvodya Mandal and Harijan Sevak Samaj leaders led a 540 km cycle yatra through Jhargram, Binpur, Lalgarh, Devda, Panskura, Barkhpur in West Bengal. The Chancellor of Gandhi Vidya Peath Gujarat Narayan Desai along-with other Gandhian leaders, academicians, social activists, journalists and advocates held a Peace March in Bastar.

In sum, it is not a question of being pro or anti-Maoists. It is an issue of understanding all the aspects of the Maoist phenomenon, the threat it entails and all possible means of dealing with it.  

Let us explore the possibility of accommodating Maoists as a radical Party. Given that, India is the first country in the world where a Communist Party opted for the Parliamentary form of governance and came to power through election in West Bengal and Kerala. The door should be kept open to accommodate the CPI (Maoist) as another Communist Party, like the CPI, CPM and CPI (M-L).  Albeit taking all precautions that it does not threaten the basis of Indian democracy. ----- INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)

Open Forum

New Delhi, 30 June 2010

Opposition BJP

SHORTSIGHTED & CONFUSED 

By Prakash Nanda

 
Two developments have been in the news pertaining to the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the country’s principal opposition party. One is the “home-coming” of former finance/external affairs minister Jaswant Singh, who was expelled from the party 10 months ago for his controversial book on Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan. And the second was the recent tussle between the BJP and the Janata Dal (U), affecting the fate of their ruling coalition in Bihar, which goes to polls later this year. Though news reports say the alliance is intact there is no clarity.

Both the developments have shown the BJP in very poor light, particularly its “chintan” (philosophy), and “chalan” (working style). Certainly, as a party, the BJP is now miles away from what it was in the 1990s, when it had caught up the imagination of the nation as “a party with a difference”.

Let us take the case of Jaswant Singh’s return. He was apparently expelled for his views on Jinnah, which the party did not share. In the first place, whether one’s individual, and that too academic, opinion on a person should be a sufficient reason for expulsion from the party is debatable. In fact, if at all Singh deserved to be expelled, it should have been for the widely shared view in Rajasthan that he, along with the late Vice-President Bhairon Singh Shekhawat, did everything possible to ensure the defeat of the BJP, in the last Assembly elections simply because they did not like the then chief minister Vasundhara Raje Scindia. It is said that but for Singh and Shekhawat, Vasundhara would have won a second term comfortably, rather than losing it narrowly.

But having expelled Singh on the Jinnah issue, what is the reason behind “inviting” him back? Singh says he has not changed his views on Jinnah. Does that mean then that the BJP has changed its views?  If so, why has the country not been told about it? And if not, then how could few individuals, howsoever senior they may be, “invite” Singh back to the party without a proper or structured discussion in the concerned party forums? This question is the all the more important, given the fact that the decision to expel Singh was said to be BJP’s “collective” decision.

As regards the Bihar imbroglio, the BJP’s indecisiveness is equally bizarre.  Here, the party has been literally humiliated by Chief Minister Nitish Kumar, who belongs to the allied JD (U), seemingly over a non-issue – an advertisement displaying Kumar and Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi together above a factual narration of Gujarat’s friendly contribution towards Bihar’s flood relief.

The “friendly” advertisement invited “hostile” reactions from Kumar. He returned the Rs. five crore relief to Gujarat, though quantitatively speaking, Gujarat’s overall contribution in terms of men and material exceeded Rs. 20 crore. Kumar also cancelled a dinner with the BJP leaders, assembled in Patna for a party meeting. What is most humiliating, Kumar’s associates have threatened they would not want either Modi or Varun Gandhi on the soil of Bihar for electioneering.

The BJP’s top mandarins sat over many a time to discuss the party’s line of action in Bihar. It claimed as per reports that the alliance was alive and that it would not “compromise on its dignity”. Arguably, any decision on how to deal with Kumar till the elections is going to be tough. After all, BJP-JD (U) alliance is one of the oldest in the National Democratic Alliance (NDA). Any additional time may prove really costly for the party.

All told, Kumar is a wily customer.  He wants to cultivate the image of a “secular” leader so that he gets the votes from the Muslims whose number is considerable in Bihar. He is still learnt to be in two minds on whether to ally with the Congress, whose second most powerful leader, Rahul Gandhi, is strongly inclined to court him. Though it is debatable how much of the Muslim vote he will get given the fact that all his other opponents – Lalu Yadav and Ram Vilas Paswan – also thrive on the Muslim votes, Kumar’s supporters, particularly a section of the national media, will want him to emulate Orissa’s Naveen Patnaik, who dumped the BJP on the eve of the last elections, to prove his “secular” credentials.  

Of course, secularism has been a much abused concept in India’s political parlance but that is another story. However, it defies one’s imagination how Nitish Kumar can have “Rasgoola” but will hate to touch sugar. He has had no problem in taking the BJP’s support to remain chief minister for five years, but will consider Modi, a senior BJP leader, untouchable. 

Strangely, the national media has completely downplayed some strange ways of  Kumar’s functioning. For one, he is a leader who does not believe in party democracy. See the number of JD (U) leaders who have deserted the party in Bihar in recent years and the manner in which he has humiliated some of the party veterans, including former defence minister George Fernandes and former minister of state for external affairs minister Digvijay Singh, whose tragic and untimely demise came during the writing of this column (let me confess, it has been a great personal loss; Singh was a long-standing close friend). Arguably, Kumar has even surpassed Lalu Yadav in promoting his brand of casteism – the so-called Maha Dalits and Kurmis.

What is more disturbing is the way Kumar has handled the Modi issue. Without consulting his council of ministers, he took a unilateral decision in returning the money to Gujarat. Can any CM take a unilateral and personal decision pertaining to another State? After all, he did not return Modi’s money; that money came from the “whole” of Gujarat and had been given to the “whole” of Bihar. In fact, Kumar’s behaviour reflects poorly on the federal structure and functioning of the country.

What should, then, BJP do? The party must realise that the alliance with Kumar has not done any good to the party in Bihar. In 1996, the BJP was the senior partner there and he has now made it effectively negligible. Indeed, the BJP should have a second look at this concept of alliance politics. Be it in Uttar Pradesh or Orissa or Haryana or in Bihar, the party has become much weaker because of it. The same is considerably true in Punjab and Maharashtra.

It is being forgotten that if the BJP is the premier opposition party, it is primarily because of its performance in Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Rajasthan and Gujarat. And here, the party is not only alone but under the leadership of effective and competent leaders such as Yedurappa, Raman Singh, Shivraj Chouhan and Modi.

It is only the so-called Delhi-based national leaders of the BJP who will go to any extent of appeasing the essentially authoritarian leaders of the so-called allies. They forget the fact that these allies will come behind you when you have the strength. That was the case in 90s. Consistent appeasement, on the other hand, not only makes the party weak but also hurts its dignity.

Clearly, it is time for the BJP to part ways in Bihar. But will its confused and shortsighted leadership in Delhi dare to do so? Highly unlikely, if the recent years’ record is any indication. ---INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)

Round The World

New Delhi, 3 August 2010

Cameron’s India Mission

REASSESSING INDO-UK TIES

By Monish Tourangbam

Research Scholar, School of International Studies (JNU)

The British Prime Minister David Cameron was a man on a mission to India and his opportune visit has indeed managed to create the right buzz in Indian and British media. His high-profile trip with a large and influential delegation, not long after occupying 10 Downing Street, is being seen as a bold and significant step towards giving steam to the otherwise less-dynamic Indo-UK relations. In spite of the ties being bogged down by debates on the controversial cap proposed on non-EU migrants, the visit managed to start the process of effective engagement, including initiating major efforts to take forward the defence and peaceful nuclear energy partnership. Reassess

Cameron came with an objective to tone down the differences and amplify the opportunities with New Delhi. India has managed to sail through the global recession relatively unscathed. Its growing role in G20 coupled with its increasing attractiveness as a major defence and peaceful nuclear energy market creates the atmosphere whereby British interest can invariably have a good landing spot.

A major leap in economic ties was the aim of his visit. Accompanied with a huge entourage, the British PM went out of his way to impress upon the Indian Government that he was determined to drive away areas of stagnancy. India’s emergence as one of the most lucrative markets in the world has attracted the attention of multiple countries and the visiting delegation came with the primary aim to qualitatively and quantitatively increase the trade flow between the two countries.

The two sides decided to constitute an India-UK CEOs Forum and an India-UK Infrastructure Group. Asserted Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, “We will work towards doubling our trade in the next five years. Building upon past experience, we have also agreed to launch a new phase of the UK-India Education and Research Initiative.” The CEOs Forum will make recommendations to the two Governments on how to increase levels of trade and investment in each others’ economies and the India-UK Infrastructure Group would help identify barriers to investment and potential solutions.

Joining countries that have signed agreements or negotiated with New Delhi in the field of civilian nuclear energy, London also signed a declaration on UK-India Nuclear Cooperation earlier this year. Following the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group (NSG) waiver given to India, the UK in November 2008 had lifted its ban on nuclear-related exports to New Delhi. The joint statement stated, “This has created opportunities for wide-ranging cooperation between the countries in the nuclear field including with regard to nuclear trade and exchanges between scientific institutions.”

In international politics, the strategic nature of a relationship is invariable defined by the growth and intensity of defence cooperation. The joint declaration took note of the development of broad-based UK-Indian co-operation in the defence sector. Besides, the various successful joint exercises, the icing on the cake was the £700m deal between UK-based defence group BAE Systems and engine supplier Rolls-Royce with India's Hindustan Aeronautics to supply 57 Hawk training jets. The deal designed to strengthen relations and boost trade was announced to coincide with Cameron's visit.

The issue of terrorism has sort of become a permanent fixture in all bilateral and multi-lateral meetings and with convincing reasons. As such, it was normal for both UK and India to reflect on the issue and welcome the cooperation in battling it. But, what came as an addition to the normal, “we condemn all acts of terrorism” part, were the British PM’s direct remarks on the threats of terrorist activities sourced from Pakistani soil.

Cameron comments were music to Indian ears but made the Pakistani Establishment furious. "We cannot tolerate in any sense the idea that this country(Pakistan) is allowed to look both ways and is able, in any way, to promote the export of terror, whether to India or whether to Afghanistan or anywhere else in the world," Cameron said

Adding, "It's unacceptable for anything to happen within Pakistan that's about supporting terrorism elsewhere. And it's well documented that that has been the case in the past." Cameron's remarks came amidst the leak of US documents to Internet whistleblower site WikiLeaks accusing Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) of secretly helping Afghan insurgency while Islamabad receives billions of US aid for counter terrorism.

Pakistan's intelligence agency Chief scrapped his visit to Britain in protest against Cameron's comments. Notwithstanding,  Islamabad’s remonstration London made it plain that it stood by its Prime Minister’s remarks. Said a spokeswoman, “He (Cameron) was referring to elements within Pakistan supporting terrorism and not the Pakistan Government.”

Both sides also agreed that India and UK had much to gain from co-operation in education, science and research and the new jointly-funded collaborative research programmes. The two Governments agreed to launch a new phase of the successful UK-India Education and Research Initiative.

But, the issue of putting a cap on migrants from non-EU countries has sparked a major debate. The Union Commerce Minister Anand Sharma made plain that this could have an adverse effect on trade relations between UK and India and hit Indian doctors, nurses and engineers seeking employment in the UK.

The British Business Secretary Vince Cable too made it clear that he, among others, was concerned that the new policy could be too restrictive. Though Cameron said that it was "perfectly legitimate" for Cable to argue his case, he added, "we decide these things in a Cabinet, in a reasonable and sensible way". The British PM also asserted that New Delhi was among the bodies being consulted about the level at which the cap should be set.

This issue might be of critical importance in the coming days. Primarily, how the British Government looks for increasing trade and investments from countries like India but continues to seriously devise a policy to limit the number of non-EU newcomers. The debate rages and the final policy statement is still due. So it is best not to give a final verdict on it.

Meanwhile India and the US have signed an agreement on nuclear fuel reprocessing arrangements, thus furthering the process of implementing the milestone Indo-US nuclear deal. Given the circumstances wherein Indo-US ties have hogged the limelight when it comes to Indian engagement with the western world, India-UK relations need to find its own space and areas of mutuality. But, it needs reassessing the areas of convergences and divergences to create an atmosphere where the two countries would pragmatically raise the levels of engagement, where even differences of opinion over certain issues could be put in perspective and understood in the context of their rationale and the interests driving them. Such an understanding would keep alive the dynamics of the relationship even at times of adversity. ---- INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)

Round The World

New Delhi, 27 July 2010

The Afghan Quagmire

ANOTHER MEET, ANOTHER TIMELINE

By Monish Tourangbam

Research Scholar, School of International Studies (JNU)

Afghanistan is in dire straits. As the Taliban increases its menacing hold on Afghan society, President Hamid Karzai’s Government becomes increasingly tainted of corruption and is accused of being inefficient. As the Government’s control over Afghan territory slips away, the Taliban acquires more area of maneouver.

Many of the countries involved in fighting the Taliban as a part of the international coalition are already going through war fatigue, looking for the most viable ways to quit the dangerous job at hand. Besides, the Obama Administration has already announced a timeline by which US forces would start withdrawing, even though various versions are being given to show that the timeline in no way indicates the abrogation of US responsibility to put Afghanistan back on its feet.  

The rationale behind the US withdrawal date is to lend more urgency and seriousness to the process of handing over responsibility to the Afghan forces. But the question is: Is this the opportune time to give a date for the eventual withdrawal? By giving a withdrawal timeframe, President Obama apparently wants to tell the Karzai Administration that America is not going to fund and fight “an open-ended war” and that someday soon a semblance of stability has to be achieved.  

At this present juncture, in the face of continuing operation in the Taliban strongholds, and news of an impending operation in the insurgency haven of Kandahar, the extremists seem to be in a buoyant mood for driving the NATO forces to a point of frustration. They have often targeted the heavily fortified Afghan Capital almost with impunity. Amidst this conflict, the international community is increasingly warming up to the idea to collude with the so-called “Good Taliban” and bring it into the Afghan mainstream.

The London Conference early this year had endorsed this concept, and India’s suspicions about the Taliban were disregarded. Yet again, the recently concluded international conference in Kabul reiterated the promise of the reconciliation process, whereby moderate elements of the Taliban would be roped in to join the country’s political mainstream.

The fact that the Indian Government had cultivated good relations with the Karzai Government along with the huge inflow of aid to the reconstruction program did not translate into concrete dividends in influencing the international deliberations towards Afghanistan.  But, it is worthwhile remembering for the major players that compromise and conciliatory policies would be the last thing in the mind of the Islamic extremists and the Taliban during their tyrannical rule of the country. Which has always been synonymous only with extreme cases of despotism and barbaric extremist policies.

In addition to this re-integration programme that has been a subject of acute debate and divisions, President Karzai has set another deadline of his own for taking over the responsibility of securing the country. His timeline is 2014 for Afghan forces to completely take over the responsibility of providing security to the country. “I remain determined that our Afghan national security forces will be responsible for all military and law enforcement operations throughout our country by 2014,” Karzai told the attending delegates during the conference.

The international community endorsed the plan but at the same time made it known that the plan would depend on the readiness of the Afghan forces to effectively take up the responsibilities of security on a province-by-province basis. NATO Secretary General Anders Rasmussen while welcoming Karzai’s plan commented, “But transition will be based on conditions, not calendars.”

Major security arrangements had been made for ensuring the success of the high-level gathering. The conference ended without any major security hitches although insurgents fired rockets at Kabul's international airport during the night, forcing the diversion of a plane carrying UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to Bagram air base, north of Kabul. During the conference, President Karzai also called for international support to distribute more development aid through the Government.

One of the major flaws of the present campaign in the war-torn country is the severe corruption charges made on the Afghan Government, which in turn is feeding sympathy and support for the insurgent groups. According to sources, many donor countries and particularly the United States have been reluctant to entrust total authority over the funds to the Karzai Government because of these accusations.  Presently, they are known to distribute most of their aid through international development groups or contractors.

Importantly, this is a critical juncture of the engagement in Afghanistan, when the resolve of the international forces are being tested to the maximum. Moreover, there has been a change in the US command structure, with the much-famed General David Petraeus (known for favorably turning around the Iraq War) taking over the reins in Afghanistan. As the US forces takes on the Taliban in its strongest havens, there is an increasing reiteration of the need to rely more on local forces, equip and train them so as to transfer responsibility.

For this to happen, the Afghan Government in Kabul should make its presence felt in the far-flung provinces of the country. Wherein, ‘making a presence’ does not translate into autocratic provincial Governments, knee-deep in corruption and totally immune to the dire conditions of the local populace. Such frustrations with local governance are the very fodder on which the Taliban insurgency feeds.

 It has been a long time since the Afghan people have really known any semblance of governance in the proper sense of the term. With the Government machinery meant to provide security and administration to its people becoming ineffective, the Taliban has come to fill the power vacuum.

Thus, before going forward with implementing the plans of reconciliation and responsibility transfer, the Karzai Government needs to introspect and win back the confidence of its people and the international donors. The drug trade that substantially funds the Taliban insurgency has to be curtailed. However, in the absence of a serious policy to deal with this resourceful menace, it would be a stiff task to contain the insurgency. Notwithstanding, that the Karzai Government plays a primary role in the long-term process in the pursuit of normalcy.

 It is not yet certain as to how the Afghan Government, with the support of many international players, will go about implementing the policy of reintegrating the Taliban’s “moderate” elements. But if it does go ahead, strict conditions should be laid down to determine how certain insurgents would be deemed fit to join the mainstream. Which is easier said than done.

The Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen reportedly cautioned that talks with the Taliban could only be successful once the coalition and Afghan forces shift the balance on the battlefield. "I think we've got be in a position of strength. We're just not there yet," he commented.

Finally, look at the paradox. The ground conditions in the war-torn country are so complex that the coalition forces are required to fight the dreaded Taliban and at the same time expected to win the hearts of the Afghan people. All in all, one hopes the endgame does not mess up Afghanistan’s already worse situation. ---- INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)