Events & Issues

New Delhi, 8 December 2009

Idea of Justice

FIGHT FOR A HUMANE WORLD

By Dhurjati Mukherjee

Spotlight is once again on the question of justice, thanks to a recent book on the crucial subject by renowned economist and Nobel laureate, Prof. Amartya Sen. In recent times, the fight for justice and human rights has become all the more pronounced because various ethnic groups, including tribals and the dalits, have been agitating to get the basic necessities for a humane existence. As is well known, justice is to be understood as an attempt to remove various forms of injustice such as hunger, denial of basic health services, primary education, exploitation, gender inequality and non-responsive administration and ensure a dignified existence to the people.  

In the book entitled Idea of Justice, Prof. Sen pointed out that the political philosophy of justice needs to draw on welfare economics, on theory of social choice theory and measurement which is quite obvious. But human rights have too become intrinsically linked with the idea of justice as he himself observed that “justice and human rights are both, in some ways, parasitic”. The Nobel laureate has rightly stated that justice is not what has been legislated but what would be acceptable in an open public discussion. However, even in a democratic country like India it has its limitations because the development process regrettably is not inclusive and pro-people.

The acceptance of the majority is a theoretical proposition. As most of the people are uneducated in the country, they end up supporting decisions which go against them as they simply cannot comprehend the implications. Moreover, force, money power and other such things are used to get people on their side. Worse, in the panchayats there is only scattered protest against rampant corruption and debates are not so ‘open’.

Though the law is synchronous with justice, its implementation leaves much to be desired. If the implications go against the interests of the class that is to implement the decision, they would dither and try not to carry out the orders. Even if it is accomplished, the same will be done in such a manner that there would be little benefit with number of loopholes. Moreover, it is well-known that the poor and the deprived sections of the society have rarely received justice from Court orders though they may be favourable to them because the system is anti-people.

Undoubtedly, human rights are being violated the world-over and India is no exception. Let us take the question of rebelling against the State or professing a philosophy which is against it that has aroused much controversy in recent years. There are allegations that political parties are not allowed to carry on their activities in a free and unfettered manner while treatment of political prisoners leaves much to be desired.

It cannot be denied that the sending of troops in Jangajmahal in West Bengal without meeting at least some of the demands of the tribals, who languish in utter poverty and squalor, cannot be called just behaviour of the State government as it is well-known that the districts of West Midnapore, Bankura and Purulia are backward and there is need for evolving a strategy of development for livelihood security of the people. Similarly, there are areas in Jharkhand, Orissa and Chattisgarh where the tribals are in utter distress and need just treatment and the right to livelihood from the respective State governments. 

Prof. Sen mentioned that President Obama has put a lot of emphasis on basic capabilities and human rights, including healthcare and the right to a fair trial. This should be a pointer to the Indians as also many other governments where such trial is denied.

On the question of the widening disparities in income, it is unexpected that such discrepancy will not exist. But the State should not in any way subsidize facilities for one section at the cost of another. Mention may be made here of making available (or forcibly grabbing) agricultural land, mostly at below market prices, to help the business class set up industries or industrial townships without caring for proper and sustainable rehabilitation. There have also been large-scale evictions in the metros for beautifying cities again without proper and adequate rehabilitation. All this is no doubt unjust and goes against the interest of the impoverished sections of society who are struggling day and night for mere survival.

However, it may be difficult to comprehend a just society but there is great difficulty in implementation of welfare schemes and these reaching the intended sections. But what we may expect, and what Prof. Sen has emphasized, is that governance has to be just and should follow the accepted principles of justice. This is always echoed in seminars and conferences by the leaders of our society but the political will is lacking. Starting from weeding out corruption at the grass-root level, it is necessary to evolve strict measures to evaluate performance and take strong measures against those who perpetuate injustice and nepotism in the development process.  

At such a juncture when vast sections of the masses have been left impoverished, deprived and discriminated, when people are fighting for land, rights of self-determination and the empowerment of women etc, the call for justice and human rights becomes very much relevant. People fighting against displacement or for their livelihood cannot be branded ultra Left or anti-social and arrested without any justice being done.

Not just Naxalites or the Maoists but Muslims, dalits and tribals and all those fighting for the right to self-determination like the Kashmiris, Nagas, Assamese, the Bodos and the Kamtapuris, should not become targets by the respective State governments. It also needs to be stressed here that it has been found that Maoists are active in backward areas, where development has not reached the people. In the face of the people’s resistance, which is natural and just, the State should not act as an oppressor. Instead it should try to redress the problems of the poor in a democratic manner through discussions and dialogue.

Justice has to prevail in society through genuine participation of the people in the developmental process. Prof Sen’s book has, no doubt, triggered a debate -- of justice reaching the people and due cognizance taken of their basic human rights. If this is not done, violent resistance cannot be stopped because it cannot and should not be expected that the people would suffer without any protest.

Eminent sociologists and intellectuals have pointed out that impoverishment and exploitation of the backward sections continues unabated, there is bound to be resistance – sometimes violent – and this can only be averted through development measures,  discussions and dialogue with the people. Whether and how soon the planners would follow these principles enunciated by the Nobel laureate and others remains to be seen. ---INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)

Round The States

17 December 2009, New Delhi

Telangana Crisis

STATES EYE DEVELOPMENTS

By Insaf

Telangana continues to dominate the headlines at the Centre and in all the State capitals. New Delhi’s decision to initiate the process of formation of a separate State and then to pass the buck on to the Andhra Pradesh Assembly to “first” adopt a resolution for the bifurcation has plunged the State into a crisis. Expectedly, the developments are being keenly watched in the other States, especially those where demands for separate statehood have been hanging fire. How Sonia Gandhi’s Congress is going to wriggle out of the mess will be a cue for many. More so, as Andhra is in the throes of violent protests by forces both for and against Telangana. Worse, with a large number of MLAs, including those of the ruling Congress and the opposition Telugu Desam Party, threatening to resign and a divided Andhra Cabinet staring the ruling Congress in the face, the State Assembly was adjourned sine die on Monday last.

Clearly, the issue of Telangana State has once again got consigned to the backburner, thanks to the typical game of one upmanship played by the political parties. While in Andhra, Chandrababu Naidu has done a turnaround with his TDP in the forefront of protests against the partition, the Congress is embarrassed by its MPs, particularly former Chief Minister YSR Reddy’s son Jaganmohan Reddy, joining the TDP members in the Lok Sabha on Tuesday last demanding a “united Andhra”. This apart, its partners in the UPA-II -- the Trinamool Congress, the DMK and the NCP-- questioned the Government’s “hasty” decision on Telangana at a meeting of the Cabinet Committee on Political Affairs in the Capital. The matter, the allies feel, needs careful study since any decision taken in a hurry would trigger demands for creation of other smaller States.  As a top Congress leader confided: “If we create Telangana we lose. And, if we don’t create Telangana, we lose! What do we do?”

*                                   *                                   *                                               *

Impetus For Gorkhaland

The aforementioned fears are not unfounded. For one, the demand for Gorkhaland, comprising Darjeeling, Dooars and Siliguri in West Bengal has got fresh impetus. A week ahead of the second round of tripartite talks between the State Government, the Centre and the Gorkha Janmukti Morcha (GJM), the latter took a cue from TRS chief  K Chandrashekhar Rao and has its members go on a hunger strike. Mercifully, it decided to withdraw its 96-hour total bandh in the hills and instead called for a shutdown of State and Central government offices, following appeals from Union Home Minister P Chidambaram, the BJP and former governor Gopal Gandhi. It also agreed to join the talks and its President Bimal Gurung is willing to wait till December 2010, the deadline for the creation of the State. However, a question mark has gone up on whether the talks will be held on Monday in Darjeeling, as the State government too has decided to put pressure. The situation is not conducive for talks with GJM’s hunger strike still on, said the State’s Home Secretary Ardhendu Sen before leaving for Delhi for preparatory discussions. 

*                   *                                   *                                   *                      

Mayawati For Poorvanchal

At the same time, the Telangana developments could not have been at a better time for Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister and BSP supremo Mayawati. It has provided her an opportunity to neutralize Congress’ yuvraj Rahul Gandhi’s efforts towards making inroads into her territory. Behenji promptly grabbed the moment to write to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to advocate once again the creation of Poorvancahal and state that any such initiative from the Centre “will be supported by the BSP”. Emphasising that the region was the “most backward” and the situation was fast deteriorating, she reminded him that she had written to the Centre about it in March 2008. This apart, the BSP has also backed the demand for carving out Paschimanchal (Harit Pradesh) and Bundelkhand. It is now threatening to launch an agitation for its demand by holding dharnas and hunger strikes, preferably from Bundelkhand. Recall, only last month, the Centre had released a Rs-7,266 crore special development package for the drought-hit region at Rahul’s bidding. 

*                        *                                               *                                   *  

Carving Bihar Too

Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar too has joined the bandwagon for smaller States, even as he demanded on Monday last the re-merger of Jharkhand, which was created by bifurcating Bihar in 2000. In fact, he even went to the extent of saying “why only Jharkhand. The proposed Poorvanchal State out of UP should also be merged with Bihar!” Nevertheless, he spoke strongly in favour of small States, including the creation of Bundelkhand. Meanwhile, demands have cropped within Bihar of carving out Mithilanchal, Bhojpur and Seemanchal States. The latter particularly is hotting up with its first mover, former Union Minister Mohd Taslimuddin saying “It is the right time to raise the issue.” The demand for Seemanchal, comprising Purnia, Ariria, Katighar, Kishanganj, Bhagalpur, Supaul and Khagaria districts was made in early 90s. The justification?  “More funds and speedier development.” It was also argued that since it would be along the border with Nepal, Bangladesh and West Bengal, “it would help curb activities like smuggling etc”

*                                   *                                   *                                               *

Another First For Modi

It will be yet another first for Narendra Modi’s Gujarat. His BJP government proposes to make voting compulsory in all local body elections in the State. According to the proposed Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2009 to be introduced, it will be mandatory for residents of the State to vote in elections to a local self-governing body, including municipal corporations, municipalities and panchayats. Once the Bill is in place, election officers will be entitled to declare those who fail to vote as “defaulter voters.” The penalty could amount to being deprived of below-the-poverty line card, government service or subsidized loan. However, the defaulters will be served one-month notices seeking reasons for their failure to vote. If the voter fails to respond, or the officer is not satisfied with the reply only then will he/she be declared a defaulter. At the same time, there is an exempted category: if the voter is physically incapable, or ill or away from the country or the State at that time. If all goes well, the first-ever compulsory voting in the country will take place next year in Gujarat.

*                        *                                               *                                   *

Freebies In Tamil Nadu Poll

Voters continue to have it good in Tamil Nadu. It’s raining freebies for them even in an Assembly byelection.  With the AIADMK vying for the seat in Vandavasi, which fell vacant due to the death of the sitting DMK member, the voter finds himself being bestowed with gifts, including money in envelopes, dhotis, sarees and booze bottles by the candidates. The cash offerings have ranged between Rs 500 and Rs 200 and the voter is expecting a second round on the polling day, this Monday. A family of five voters thus would make anything between Rs 6,000 to Rs 8,000 this month, besides the goodies coming its way. Other than money, one political party has generously distributed quarter bottles of whiskey supplemented with biryani feasts. Though the electoral officer says that on getting complaints they send squads, observers note that by the time they arrive the party is over! ---INFA

 
(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)

Round The World

New Delhi, 8 December 2009

US’ New Afghan Policy

CAN OBAMA PULL IT THROUGH?

By Monish Tourangbam

Research Scholar, School of International Studies, JNU

In the run-up to the presidential elections that brought him to the White House, President Barrack Obama emphasized and re-emphasized the war in Afghanistan as a “war of necessity” and that in Iraq as a “war of choice”. But, his belief in seeing the Afghan campaign being brought to a meaningful end seems to be waning as doubts seem evident regarding the effectiveness of America’s role in the war-torn country. He definitely wants a better secured Afghanistan and the Al-Qaeda elements destroyed.

However, at the same time, he has been quite categorical in his statements that America cannot afford to fight an indefinite war. The result is a new strategy that includes the deployment of 30,000 more troops expected to help accelerate transfer of responsibility to the Afghan forces, which is then expected to allow the Americans to start leaving Afghanistan by July 2011. The domestic pressure is starkly evident in his decision to set a timeframe on the withdrawal process.

Public opinion in the US has become increasingly vocal against the continued engagement in Afghanistan in the face of a weakened American economy. Obama’s approval rate has been dipping, as Americans seem to worry that the cost of the war would increasingly make it difficult to manage domestic problems. The Congress will need to approve an additional $30 billion needed to fund the strategy over the next year. Even the new strategy is favoured only by a narrow majority (a mere 51 per cent surveyed with 40 per cent opposing it) according to a recent opinion poll. There is little consensus on how America should deal with the Afghan quagmire.

President Obama had often been criticized for being indecisive and dithering while assessing the Afghan situation. Even now, when he has made his new strategy public, unanimity is hardly the picture in American political circles. There have been heated debates in the Congress regarding the course of the American engagement in Afghanistan. Add to this the lukewarm response that the US gets from its major European allies in the Afghan war effort.

While some smaller European countries have made their commitment known, the bigger ones such as France, Britain and Germany have not been forthcoming regarding their decision to give substantial help in the troop increase, perhaps waiting for the Afghanistan conference in London early next year. Then, countries like Turkey are ready to consider increasing their assistance in training the Afghan forces, but are reluctant to send troops there. Similarly, Australia while supporting and endorsing the Obama strategy has not committed any additional troops.

How far will the troop surge help in curtailing the influence of the Taliban and wiping out the Al-Qaeda from Afghanistan? Well, the increase in the fighting force alone could not be the deciding factor in defeating the insurgency, as the sources are many-pronged and only a multifaceted and comprehensive strategy could bring substantial improvement in the situation. In the pursuit of normalcy, which is a long-term process, the Karzai government plays a primary role. It needs to strike at the deep-rooted corruption that reaches the highest levels of the system, and build confidence in all sections of the diverse Afghan population. 

Meanwhile, the Obama Administration plans to adopt strategies to win back various sections of the Afghan insurgency into the government’s side, but this is easier said than done. One of the serious impediments to this would be that the Taliban is on a high-point where it believes it is driving the NATO and the Aghan forces to frustration. It seems confident that it is the winning side in the present showdown and in such a scenario it is going to be hard to induce the insurgents to switch sides. Moreover, the Afghan terrain also adds to the woes of the NATO operations. The territory is highly mountainous and rural making it easier for the insurgency to locate to remote corners, thus stretching the force commitment across a wide terrain.

Serious concerns are being raised in the US legislature viz the repercussions of the new strategy on the fight against terrorism in Pakistan. There is definitely a section that feels that the threat emanating from across the border should be dealt with more sternly. They have hinted at and questioned the lack of a clear strategy in the Obama strategy to deal with the safe havens across the border in Pakistan. Democratic Senator John Kerry, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman, said what happens in Pakistan, particularly near the Afghan border, “will do more to determine the outcome in Afghanistan than any increase in troops or shift in strategy.”

The Pentagon plans to send the bulk of the 30,000 new troops to southern Afghanistan, the Taliban heartland, as well as eastern provinces bordering Pakistan. But they cannot cross the border and the few U.S. troops and contractors in Pakistan have a limited training role. Moreover, the new strategy has not been received favourably in Pakistan. Islamabad is concerned that the troop surge in Afghanistan could force the Taliban fighters to cross over to Pakistan, thus undermining its own operations against terrorist activities. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton acknowledged the Pakistani efforts in the Swat and Waziristan regions but said they were “far from sufficient.”

The exit strategy to start withdrawing by mid-2011 is raising more eyebrows than anything else, and rightly so. The Obama administration is visibly unhappy with the Karzai government’s inability to rein in wide-spread corruption and other inefficiencies of governance. By giving a withdrawal timeframe, President Obama might have wanted 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. Then, there is an American domestic platform to be assuaged that he is serious about bringing the troops back home. At the same time, the exit strategy would definitely send out another message to the Taliban and the Al-Qaeda.

The strategy runs the risk of furthering emboldening these elements and emphasizing their conviction that they are winning the war. Moreover, the strategy might make their game-plan easier by just lying low and waiting for the Americans to back-off. As of now, the new approach is raising more concerns than hope and more vagueness than direction. In the coming days, as President Obama and his administration goes around selling this new strategy, hordes of questions will confront them, especially at home as the US fights back the worst recession since the Great Depression.

President Obama clearly would not want the Afghan war to become what Vietnam became for President Johnson in the late 60s -- a political coffin. But in the grind of political survival, the hope is that the end-game does not mess up Afghanistan’s already worse situation. The country should not be left again to the mercy of the power-hungry warlords, who in their pursuit will lead the country yet again a few hundred years back in civilization. ---INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)

Round The World

New Delhi, 15 December 2009

Noble Peace Speech

OBAMA JUSTIFIES WAR

By Monish Tourangbam

Research Scholar, School of International Studies, JNU

 Putting his oratory skills and rhetorical flourish to the best use, President Barack Obama with his speech in Oslo has managed to give his critics much food for thought. Dispelling strict dichotomy between war and peace, between realism and idealism, Obama dwelt on the idea that war is sometimes inevitable and necessary in the pursuit for peace. He combined pessimism in human nature to do evil things with the optimism in the human ability to bond and fight evil forces. Giving a clever mix of the world as it is and the world as it ought to be, he emphasized that a leader entrusted with the responsibility of securing a nation had to resort to force in the real world where evil is not a product of mere imagination.

Reflecting on the challenges that the human race has had to face in its history, he stated that pacific and non-violent means could not have confronted and defeated the cruel and diabolic advances of Hitler’s Nazis. He added that negotiations cannot convince the Al-Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms.

President Obama’s speech, on an occasion awarding him as the champion of peace, presented some watered down realist dishes with some well-placed idealist toppings. He sought to highlight the realist cynicism in human nature, the willingness and the capability of human beings to inflict damage upon each other and that the necessity of war is often a by-product of the mistakes made by humans. As such, he sought to strive for a more pragmatic approach to bringing peace, which as President Kennedy had propounded should be based “not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions.”

In an effort to further build on his image as a US President, who prioritized American security but at the same time respected the centrality of international institutions, he spoke at length about the validity of international norms and standards. He called for more multilateral actions in global relations, especially hinting to the need for cooperation in Afghanistan. Though accepting that war in itself could never be glorious, he also believed that, “peace required responsibility and sacrifices and that the belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it.”

Reflecting on the fact that the superpower could not go alone in changing the world, where the problems are more complex and multi-pronged needing the resources and expertise of different nations, President Obama said, “America's commitment to global security will never waiver. But in a world in which threats are more diffuse, and missions more complex, America cannot act alone. America alone cannot secure the peace. This is true in Afghanistan. This is true in failed states like Somalia, where terrorism and piracy is joined by famine and human suffering.” While accepting that the nature of the international system often necessitates self-help measures to defend one’s country, he expressed the significance and legitimacy of internationally-supported actions.

The idea of “American exceptionalism”, the idea of the US being a standard bearer in human conduct was liberally sprinkled all over the speech. The world at present is confronted with unconventional threats and the distortion of religious teachings lead to violent ramifications against the human race. No country is really secured from the scourge of terrorists groups that try to subvert all forms of law and conduct, while nation States are bounded by the norms and standards of international co-existence. But, President Obama spoke in favor of maintaining these differences, re-emphasizing American values and conduct. He said, “Where force is necessary, we have a moral and strategic interest in binding ourselves to certain rules of conduct. And, even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe the US must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war. That is what makes us different from those whom we fight.”

Obama spoke in favor of both sanctions and engagement with the “rogue States”, which flout international standards of conduct. His attempts at engaging with countries such as Iran and North Korea have met with little results. But it is too early to give a report card. “Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable. Sanctions must exact a real price. Intransigence must be met with increased pressure,” he said, emphasizing the need for multilateral and concerted actions, noting “such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one.”

In difficult situations of negotiations when it is hard to strike a bargain, clever diplomacy demands that the other party should not be pushed to a corner with no choice and no traction. As such, he spoke in favour of efforts of engagement and choices amid sanctions and impending punishment. “Sanctions without outreach --- condemnation without discussion --- can carry forward only a crippling status quo. No repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door,” he said.

Treading an imperfect world populated by a more imperfect human race, force is often a necessary evil in the pursuit of peace. The path of the unending search for virtue is often laden with vices. This is best expressed in the words of Martin Luther King, Jr. whom President Obama quoted. King had said, “I refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history. I refuse to accept the idea that the ‘isness’ of man's present condition makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal ‘oughtness’ that forever confronts him.”

Indeed, Obama raised eyebrows of peaceniks in the US who want the Afghanistan war ends once and for all. His recent announcement to increase troops there upset anti-war Democrats, a key component of his election victory. His speech in Oslo only inflamed opposition to the troop surge. But the speech won praises from conservative figures like former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Republican vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin. Gingrich in an interview on National Public Radio said, “I think having a liberal president who goes to Oslo on behalf of a peace prize and reminds the committee that they would not be free, they wouldn't be able to have a peace prize, without having force I thought in some ways it's a very historic speech.”

In the final analysis, Obama’s speech served as a reminder that he is the Commander-in-Chief of the lone military superpower in the world, engaged globally. It served as a much more nuanced justification of the American engagement in Afghanistan. He entered as one of the most popular US presidents at home and abroad. But his popularity ratings are dipping, with two unfinished wars and a derailed economy. In the face of such adversities, it was a courageous act to defend the use of force to preserve peace. However, it has become a norm with Obama’s speeches. It now needs to be seen how much of his policy projections and brilliant ideas can be implemented on ground. ---INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)