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)

Round The World

New Delhi, 2 December 2009

Obama-Singh Summit

DISPELS FEARS, BOOSTS NEW IDEAS

By Chintamani Mahapatra

(Professor, American Studies, JNU)

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s recent mission to Washington to hold summit level meeting with President Barrack Obama has broken no new grounds. But, it was not expected to.

However, that does not mean it was an insignificant trip by Prime Minister Singh to the United States. The uneventful US-Indian relationship, with the solitary exception of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s visit to India last July, actually is indicative of the importance of Singh-Obama summit meeting.

Ever since he entered the White House, President Obama had been more than pre-occupied with pressing and urgent issues to take note of, rather than the need to further broaden and strengthen relations with India. These included, the planned withdrawal of troops from Iraq, a proposed policy to focus more intensely on tackling the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the need to restore domestic economic normalcy and to come to terms with anti-Americanism in the Muslim World. All this have kept the Obama Administration so busy and engaged that he had little to say or do on the US-Indian relationship.

It is true that India was in the midst of a national election and the Obama Administration officials were awaiting a clearer political picture in New Delhi before taking any high- level initiative. But the early position of the new US administration on the Kashmir issue, attempt to bracket India with Pakistan and Afghanistan, while appointing a new envoy to the region, reaffirmation of campaign promises to seek Senatorial ratification of the CTBT etc. did generate a certain amount of apprehension and anxiety in the strategic community in New Delhi.

Would Washington under the Obama dispensation bring the contentious nuclear issues with India back to its foreign policy agenda? Would the 123 Agreement on civilian nuclear cooperation be put on the back-burner? Had bipartisan support for an enhanced level of strategic partnership ended with the Bush Administration?

The marginal place allotted to Washington’s relations with New Delhi did not go unnoticed even in the US. Some analysts warned that Obama’s relative silence on Indian affairs could prove costly unless something was done in time. Hillary Clinton chose to go to China and even Indonesia in her maiden visit to Asia as the new Secretary of State, but not to India! As and when she came to India and made several statements suggesting importance given to New Delhi by the Obama Presidency, some analysts pointed out that the State Department’s role in national security affairs of the Obama Administration was not adequate and that Hilary did not always have the sympathetic ears of the President.

To silence the critics as well as skeptics and to set at rest unnecessary speculations, an Obama-Singh summit was essential. Well, that happened in the recent past.

It was President George Bush and Prime Minister Singh who together crafted and then cemented a new Indo-US strategic partnership by successfully negotiating a civilian nuclear cooperation agreement. President Obama could either bolster it further or pour cold water on it.

What then was the outcome of the summit? First of all, in a joint Press conference President Obama said that “as nuclear “powers” the two countries would fight proliferation of nuclear weapons and work towards the establishment of a nuclear weapons’ free world. Referring to India as a nuclear power, bang in front of the media and in the very presence of Prime Minister Singh itself lent an enormous legitimacy and credibility to the de facto status of India as a nuclear weapon power.

Secondly, the two leaders stated their commitment for an early and full implementation of the 123 agreement. As was made known subsequently, an agreement on reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel was on the last legs of negotiations when Prime Minister Singh landed in Washington. Now there is sufficient ground to believe that the civilian nuclear cooperation between the two countries remains on the plate.

Thirdly, Obama and Singh took a new initiative to work together on the crucial agricultural field not just bilaterally but internationally. Given the world of hunger and poverty in the globe, this initiative is truly strategic in nature.

Fourthly, the announcement of a new “Obama-Singh” initiative to expand educational exchanges is perhaps the most significant element in the overall outcome of the summit. Here the goal is to intensify and broaden contacts between the students of the two nations. Today’s students are tomorrow’s leaders. There is no better way to cement a long-term strategic partnership than to nurture cooperation through educational cooperation.

In addition to all these important schemes, the two leaders also emphasized the need to deepen cooperation in countering terrorism and host of other areas. However, it was amply clear that there would be a difference in their methods of countering terrorism. Obama recalled the tragic event of Mumbai 26/11, but made it plain and simple that Pakistan would continue to be the frontline State in his administration’s war against the Taliban and the Al Qaeda.

This makes it crystal clear that the US’ hands would remain tied when it comes to the question of dealing with anti-India terrorist groups based in Pakistan. Nonetheless, Prime Minister Singh expressed his satisfaction over the dialogue with President Obama on issues related to terrorism in the sub-continent. One hopes that while the US would not push Pakistan too much, it would pressurize Islamabad to distance itself from anti-India terror groups.

Last, but not the least the summit seems to have set at rest concerns that the Obama Administration was seeking to outsource the solution of South Asian problems to China. This was the impression created from a joint Obama-Hu Jintao statement during the former’s China trip. But President Obama made a loud and clear announcement that his administration sees in India an emerging global player and an Asian leader and vowed to cooperate with India in maintaining peace and stability in Asia.

China’s clarification before Singh’s departure for the US that it was not interested in meddling with South Asian issues and that all outstanding issues between India and Pakistan should be solved through bilateral negotiations was helpful too. Truly, China is part of the South Asian problem by possessing some Kashmiri territories ceded to it by Pakistan and by being an active collaborator in Pakistan’s WMD programmes. Therefore, Beijing can be assigned the role of a judge or a sheriff.

Obama administration’s earlier statements on Kashmir and its attempt to bracket India with Afghanistan and Pakistan and the recent statements in China did create misperceptions and apprehensions. Fortunately, the Obama-Singh summit appears to have removed these fears and misunderstandings if any. ---INFA

 (Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)