Round The States

New Delhi, 29 October 2009

Troubled Jammu & Kashmir

PM’s FRESH GESTURE FOR PEACE

By Insaf

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s eagerly awaited visit to Jammu and Kashmir was the highlight of the week, otherwise marked by a shocking Maoist hijacking of the New Delhi-bound Rajdhani Express 175 km from Kolkata. In Anantnag to inaugurate a train service on Wednesday last, with Sonia Gandhi and Mamata Banerjee in tow, Singh made yet another attempt to usher in normalcy in the troubled State. He reached out to both the separatists and Pakistan for talks, but with a proviso -- the former must give up violence and the latter must rein in terror groups operating from its soil. Regrettably, the offer has been turned down by a section of the Hurriyat under hardliner Ali Shah Geelani, terming it as “nothing new.” The separatist groups had stayed away from the three roundtable talks held by the PM in 2005-06. This time they enforced a total bandh in Srinagar and most parts of the Valley. What next?  

*                        *                                               *                                        *

Maha & Haryana Vote Stability

Now that the dust has settled in the recent Assembly polls interesting facts are emerging. The people have essentially voted for stability and Congress supremo Sonia Gandhi has done well in respecting the verdict. Both Chief Ministers, Ashok Chavan in Maharashtra and Bhupinder Singh Hooda in Haryana have been retained despite claims by detractors. It is now busy sorting out the tricky issue of ministerial berths with the alliance partner, NCP, in Maharashtra. The latter is threatening to support the Government from outside and not join if it is not given the portfolios held earlier. In contrast, Hooda has played his cards adroitly. Even when he was expecting a walkover, he did not take chances and ensured that the Opposition remained divided.  

In fact, Hooda successfully sabotaged the INLD and BJP alliance, which could have even managed to win a majority, according to pollsters. What is more, within hours of the results being announced he had the letters of support from all the seven Independents to stake his claim for forming the Government. He was sworn in on Sunday last for a second term, a record for Haryana and proved his majority on Wednesday afternoon, with the additional help of the BSP MLA. Significantly, the Haryana Janhit Congress MLAs, totaling six, abstained from voting, indirectly helping Hooda in response to the latter’s overtures for joining his alliance. Efforts are on to get former leader and HJC chief Bhajan Lal to merge his party with the Congress.  This would enable Hooda not only to give the State a “stable government” but ensure that the HJC doesn’t at some point join hands with the INLD and spell trouble.     

*                        *                                               *                                        *

Tawang Snubs China

Tawang district of Arunachal Pradesh has appropriately come to the rescue of the Centre. It used the recent Assembly poll to send a loud and clear message across to Beijing. The district, for which China claims Arunachal as its territory, ensured that all of its three MLAs from Tawang, Lumla and Mukto were elected unopposed. “We decided we shouldn’t fight among ourselves and should let the strongest voices against Beijing win without facing the battle of the ballot,” said a jubilant Congress leader after the party’s victory. Dorjee Khandu, decisively elected as Chief Minister for the second term was even more firm: “Arunachal was, is and will be part of India. We see no reason to be on the defensive whenever Beijing makes an unnecessary noise,” he said happy with a record 72 per cent turnout. In fact, some people in the district even rushed to sport the indelible ink on their index finger “for the pleasure of showing it to big bad China.” 

*                            *                                               *                                        *

Polls In Jharkhand

Curtains will finally be rung down on the controversial President’s rule in Jharkhand.  Twenty-four hours after the Congress won all three State polls last week, the Election Commission announced dates for the Maoist-infested State. Given the grave naxal threat, polling will be staggered over five days beginning November 27 and ending December 18. Counting will be held on December 23, completing the process before Xmas as 40 per cent of the State’s population is Christian. So far, the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha has said that it will contest all 81 seats on its own, projecting Shibu Soren as the Chief Ministerial candidate. Recall, President’s rule was imposed in January last when Soren lost the byelection to the Assembly and he and the UPA were unable to agree on his successor. However, Lok Janshakti Party President Ram Vilas Paswan wants the Congress to form a secular alliance with the RJD-LJP Front, JMM and the Jharkhand Vikas Morcha. If this happens, the going will become tougher for an already beleaguered BJP, which had vociferously campaigned for an end to the President’s rule.

*                        *                                               *                                        *

Mayawati In Trouble

BSP supremo Mayawati’s grandiose plans of being “kingmaker” have come crashing down again. Her party fared miserably in both Haryana and Maharashtra, forcing many to ask whatever happened to this great dalit leader. Worse, there is a nagging fear that the dismal performance may cast a shadow on the byelections to 12 seats next month in the party-ruled Uttar Pradesh. The BSP had contested all 288 seats in Maharashtra, home state to Baba Sahib Bhimrao Ambedkar with 30 per cent of the population Scheduled Castes. It failed to win even a single seat, whereas rival Samajwadi Party bagged four. In adjoining Haryana, an over confident Mayawati broke a poll alliance with Haryana Janhit Congress and put up candidates in all 90 seats. She also campaigned extensively but won only a solitary seat. Remember, the BSP had secured 15.75 per cent vote in the Lok Sabha poll and was determined to establish a foothold in the Dalit strongholds. Now bahenji has to concentrate on saving her hold in UP itself.

*                        *                                               *                                        *

Orissa Is Now ‘Odisha’

Orissa is soon to be known by a new name, ‘Odisha’ and the Oriya language is to be now Odia. This follows the Union Cabinet’s nod last week to the BJD-led Government’s proposal for the rechristening in August last year. The State will now be pronounced in “its own language.” While the ‘Odiyas’ are bound to rejoice, neighbouring West Bengal has reason to sulk. The Centre has been sitting pretty over its proposal to rechristen the State to “Bangla” for nearly a decade now. It was on 28 December 1999 that the CPM-led Government had requested the Centre for the change under Article 3(e) of the Constitution, wherein neither House of Parliament can deliberate on the matter or introduce a Bill to change the spelling or name of a State without the recommendation of the President. Intriguingly, the Centre has been prompt (within a year) in changing the name of Uttaranchal to Uttarakhand in 2007. The question Bengalis rightly ask: What about us? ---INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)

Political Diary

New Delhi, 31 October 2009

Helplessly Watching Menace Swell….

NAXILITES: RUTHLESS KILLERS

By Poonam I Kaushish

From mining roads in Andhra Pradesh, blowing up bridges in Orissa, killing security personnel in ambushes and daring jailbreak in Chhattisgarh to beheading a policeman in Jharkhand and hijacking the Bhubaneswar Rajdhani train for over five hours in West Midnapore district in West Bengal… Indeed the ‘Red Brigade’ has not only come a long way but got mightier and deadlier with each killing. Earning it the incongruous lethal nickname: Bold & Beautiful!

More so after the West Bengal Government’s capitulation to the militants by releasing 22 suspected Naxalites in exchange for an abducted policeman. Each attack getting a befitting (sic) reaction. From Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s “Naxalism is the single biggest internal security challenge … they are creating ‘liberated zones’ … we needed two-pronged strategy…”  The same ghisa-pita drone

Kudos to Union Home Minster for his timely blunt warning against romanticizing Naxalites: “If the Naxalites accuse elected governments of capitalism, land grabbing, exploiting and displacing tribal people, what prevents them from winning power through elections and reversing current policies? Why are human rights groups’ silent?” Questions unanswered by deep silence.

Statistics show that Naxalism has cast a shadow over 17 States, 270 districts and 40 per cent of terrain where the Government’s writ no longer runs. And of the total of 12,476 police stations, Naxal violence was reported from 609 police stations in 11 States last year.

Clearly, the Indian State has allowed the Maoist problem to fester for far too long. How long have we been hearing that Naxalites are the gravest security threat, having spread to over a third of India's territory and claimed 600 lives this year alone? In 2008, the State police and paramilitary forces together lost 250 personnel in violence, whereas in the Northeast and J&K a combined 120 were killed. In 2009, till Sunday, the Maoists had already accounted for 170 security personnel; 67 casualties in J&K and northeastern states alone.  

According to the Institute for Conflict Management, of the 40 Naxalites groups active in country, the CPI (Maoists) constitutes the most formidable security challenge. That apart, the Red Brigade has capitalized on internal schisms that divide India’s highly inequitable social order through catchy slogans and beguiling rhetoric.

True, the Home Ministry has readied what would be the biggest-ever security operation against the Naxalites. Nearly 70,000 paramilitary forces have been mobilised to begin operations in Naxal-affected districts. Operations are expected to last anywhere between one and three years. But it's not just Naxal-infested areas that need beefing up of security. Studies have shown that at 145 policemen for every one lakh residents, India is way below the UN-mandated ratio. This situation needs to be rectified at the earliest.

Sadly, successive Government’s have missed the wood for the trees. The terrorist is an invisible enemy who uses our resources, freedom and laxities to hit at us. Adept in exploiting the latest communication technologies, he identifies and exploits our weakness. While we talk, he acts. Inflicting maximum loss at minimum cost. Add to this an effete polity bereft of any out-of-the-box ideas, wallowing in inane, obsolete and muddle-headed formulations to complex and important strategic issues. Resulting in a complete paralysis in policy-making and the operational command of enforcement and security agencies.

What the Centre needs is to think beyond the headlines, do some honest soul searching and translate words into action. Of a well thought-out long-term planning. It needs to realize that Naxal violence cannot be thwarted by force alone or tough-sounding words. We also need a political leadership and vision that delivers inclusive development, which can mitigate the underlying causes that have enabled Naxalism to take roots and spread. Visibly, they represent a failure of the sovereignty of the State wherein the rulers have miserably failed to uphold the rule of law thereby reflecting the failure of democracy per se in the affected regions.

Several measures need to be taken to tackle the menace. One, the lacunae in the Naxal’s ideological framework has to be exposed. Simultaneously a political offensive with a humanistic vision should be launched. Two, 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. Three, the distortions in the social system need to be tackled on a war footing to alleviate poverty, ensure speedy development and enforce law and order strictly. Four, take up land reforms with a fresh revolutionary zeal and approach.

Look at the dichotomy. With a majority of India’s population engaged in agricultural pursuits, one would imagine the tillers would be rich. But it is the opposite. The peasants are not only poor but are at the mercy of the rich landlords. Providing the Naxals the perfect opening to wean the agricultural labourers with the promise of getting them their rightful dues in terms of not only wages but also give them confiscated surplus land from the landlords and distribute it among the landless labourers. Thereby laying the seeds of running a parallel government in remote areas, conduct people's court, extorting money from "landlords" and distributing the booty among the poor.

Simplistically, the Naxal USP is that they have sold the poor the pipe dream of implementing land reforms by breaking up large feudal landholdings and dividing the surplus land among the poor, a la Robin Hood. Something which successive governments at the Centre and in the States have lacked the political courage to do. Today, the downtrodden are saying no to oppression and exploitation.

Also, security forces need to urgently undertake joint operations and set up unified commands for continuous monitoring of the arms profile of various Naxal groups. Along with this, the identification of sources and networks, coordinated intelligence gathering, and a well-equipped local police force are needed, backed by a liberal surrender and rehabilitation policy. Measures to safeguard pro-active policemen against Naxalite harassment should be enforced. The police should avail of air-surveillance of Naxal areas through helicopters. Specially against the backdrop of the growing professionalism in Naxal ranks, which is now characterised by growing militarization, superior army style organization, better trained cadres and coordination.

Clearly, New Delhi is sitting on explosive dynamite. However, proper diagnosis and prescription is not enough. What is needed is political will to carry forward the agenda and so far India's ruling elite has proved unequal to the challenge of good governance.

In sum, when the State’s existence is in peril, the only way to strike back is to carry the fight into the enemy camp effectively. It is not enough to assert “we have might and muscle.” One has to display that power. The Naxalites, or anyone else for that matter, do not have the licence to take up arms. Rule of law is a prerequisite not just of democracy but also of development, both of which are negated when armed militias rule the roost. Anyone who breaks the law, whatever may be his motivation, must pay the price.

The only way for Naxalites to have a place in this country is to play by the rules of our Constitutional democracy. They cannot be allowed to be a law unto themselves and challenge the legitimacy of an elected Government. In a democracy, there is no place for guns or bombs. But, at the same time, the basic needs of the people cannot be ignored. Poor and insensitive governance is certain to lead to anarchy. As the Dalai Lama has rightly pointed out: "Peace can only last where human rights are respected, where the people are fed, and where individuals and nations are free." A long and hard struggle lies ahead. Are New Delhi and the concerned State capitals ready to face the challenge? -----INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)

Round The World

New Delhi, 28 October 2009

Copenhagen Meet

OVERCOME RICH-POOR DIVIDE

By Monish Tourangbam

(Research Scholar, School of International Studies, JNU)

Climate change and its implications are hardly conspiracy theory. Yet the world gets divided between the developed and the developing countries regarding strategies to combat this man-made problem. Climate change can be combated only when countries- rich and poor, big and small realize that co-operation is the only way out. It is a fight to save the one and only planet that we call home -- the earth.  

However, in the international arena where each country comes with its own set of problems and ways to tackle these, it is stating the obvious to say that cooperation is easier said than done. Different nations in the world are at different levels of growth and thus have different perspectives and narratives on the strategy to fight climate change.

The issue has become a battleground of inflexible parties leading to a stalemate in response to a rapidly deteriorating situation. But, cooperation in this case is not a choice but an inevitable necessity and countries at some point of time have to accept their responsibilities and make compromises in dealing with this imminent danger. Climate change knows no boundaries and hence would not take sides before inflicting damage.

This is an unconventional security threat that has to be dealt with differently. Countries that have got used to flexing their muscles in the pursuit of power and influence have got to swallow their egos and work with the smallest of countries. Speaking at the Observer Research Foundation, a New Delhi-based think tank, Maldives President Mohammad Nasheed commented that climate change was a bigger challenge than international terrorism. In meeting this challenge, nations have to learn to either swim together or drown. In the realm of international relations, the world is often and generally projected as an anarchic environment where self-help is the best recourse to increasing one’s power and prestige. But in tackling climate change, one country’s gain does not necessarily translate into another’s loss and vice-versa. To mitigate the effects of climate change, countries should understand that helping others is actually helping the self.

As such, some amount of selfless help is inevitable more so from the developed nations. These countries are in a position to help the developing countries to resort to greener technology. But it seems that the US, even under the leadership of the Nobel Peace Prize winning President Barrack Obama, and the EU are hardly committed in talking about the transfer of funds and technology to the developing countries.

The developed countries seem adamant on binding the emerging economies to international legal instruments with the stated purpose to ensure results. But the former with their rapid industrialization at an earlier stage have been relatively more responsible for global warming and hence they should make amends and lead the way. In this context, they lack the moral authority to give sermons to the developing countries, such as India that are in crucial stages of their developmental processes and hence need to be assured security of their growth.

They intend to legally internationalize the projected domestic targets of the developing countries before funds are guaranteed. On the other hand, the developing countries want to have a concrete knowledge of the funds and the technologies expected from these countries, so as to plan the scale of their projects.

In fact, in the run-up to the Copenhagen talks, countries like India and China have chosen not to amplify their differences. New Delhi and Beijing have signed an initial five-year pact on climate change before these talks. Both the countries essentially agree that the prerequisite for a successful agreement is a very substantial commitment on mitigation by the developed countries, which calls for a 40 per cent reduction in emissions by them by 2020 with 1990 reference levels.

While at the global talks in Copenhagen, countries will seek to agree on a new pact that will replace the Kyoto Protocal expiring in 2012, the prospects appear dim. Demands and counter-demands made by different groups have jeopardized the chances of a pact acceptable to all. If the same dilly-dallying continues, then whatever new pact comes into being would meet the same fate as the Kyoto Protocol. The US did not sign the Protocol in 1997 because it was unwilling to accept any binding cuts unless developing countries accepted the same.

At a meeting held in L’Aquila, Italy this July, the G8 industrialized nations committed to cutting emissions by 80% by 2050. But, probably fearing domestic criticism they are reluctant on coming up with interim near-future targets for 2020. During the same meeting, the G5 group of emerging economies – Brazil, India, China, Mexico and South Africa – refused to back a specific target for developing countries to cut emissions. At the recently held climate talks in Bangkok, senior G77 leaders staged a walkout from a meeting saying that a future without the Kyoto Protocol could not be discussed. Moreover, the African continent seems to be quite unanimous in rejecting efforts being made to make the Kyoto Protocol redundant.

Over-expectations from a blanket agreement that tries to bring all the nations on board have more chances of being tangled in the messy business of ratifications and denials. Pragmatic and small-scale approaches need to be attempted while countries debate for a more international framework. For instance, countries could look at some form of agreements to conserve forests, which could be instrumental in combating climate change. Forests could effectively serve as natural absorbers of greenhouse gases. It is crucial to invest in harnessing nature’s ability to curb climate change.

The idea is to look at agreements that could be easier to clinch and hence bind the countries involved in cooperative projects. This could ease the atmosphere when these countries come together to talk about other agreements on climate change. Intransigence on the part of both the developed and the developing economies is expected during the winter talks. 

Keeping in mind that the developed economies of the West have been largely responsible for the current state of the atmosphere, the West should definitely mend its ways first. According to a data released by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, carbon dioxide emissions from the US has increased by 20.2  per cent between 1990 and 2007 while developing countries have cut down considerably.

Taking an instance from Hindu mythology, Sita knew exactly where the Laxman Rekha was, but the problem with climate change is that the threshold is not seen to most. The effects of climate change are often seen as some probable events in the distant future. As such, the threshold is often oblivious and when it finally comes, it will be too late to do anything. It might just be a point of no return.

Different parts of the globe are seeing effects of climate change in varying degrees. The leaders who are debating this issue at present may not be the victims of drastic changes expected but the hallmark of humanity is the ability to think for future generations. But, alas! Lobby politics and intransigent national interests take precedence over a threat that will test humanity to its highest limits.--INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)

Round The World

New Delhi, 14 October 2009

US Foreign Policy

CHINA Vs TIBET ISSUE CRUCIAL

By Hina Pandey

(Research Scholar, School of International Studies, JNU)

Washington today assigns considerable significance to Beijing’s reaction. This is reflected in the fact that for the first time in 18 years a US President did not meet his Holiness the Dalai Lama, who was in Washington on a five-day visit this October. The Dalai Lama was there to meet Congressional leaders and present the Light of Truth award to Late Julia Taft. He also attended a conference and received human rights award from the Lantos Foundation, in memory of Tom Lantos, a Holocaust survivor and longtime champion of human rights.

While the Chinese have always been skeptical about the Dalai Lama meeting with any foreign Head of State, this time around the opposition may have also been aroused by the timing of the meeting. It so happens that October 7th marks the 59th anniversary of the Peoples Republic of China’s invasion of Tibet (1950) and the Dalai Lama visiting the White House around then would have sent alarming signals to Beijing.

President Obama's decision to reschedule his meeting with the Tibetan monk was taken after Beijing voiced its strong opposition. White House officials were forced to confirm that the meeting would now take place only after Obama met with Chinese premier Hu-Jintao in November. Obviously fearing ruining ties with the Chinese dragon, the current presidency vetoed Congress representatives Nancy Pelosi and Frank Wolf’s suggestion to host the Dalai Lama.

Interestingly, this is not the first time that Beijing has objected to what could have been a possible association of President Obama and the Dalai Lama. In 2007 too, when his Holiness received a congressional gold medal by President Bush, Beijing had opposed the decision. Likewise, Sino-French ties fell to their lowest point after French President Nicolas Sarkozy met with the Dalai Lama in December last year, following which China postponed a summit with the European Union. Early this year Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi made it amply clear that refusing the visits of the Dalai Lama should become one of “the basic norms of international relations” of any country cultivating ties with China.

Clearly, Chinese support is crucial for America’s foreign policy, as put across by Ian Kelly, US State Department spokesperson. The Obama presidency wants to engage China as an important global player, even though it does not want to compromise on human right issue. Does this signal towards Washington’s change in its Tibet policy? In the past it has maintained a fair amount of compassion about the Tibet issues. However, assessed under the light of Beijing’s importance to America’s foreign policy in the future, it seems that there may be a U turn.

Since the early 90's the debate about “rising China" has occupied American strategic literature. The threat of the PRC as a peer competitor, a possible regional authority in Asia and a potential global power in the near future has become more immediate, especially if viewed under the backdrop of the current economic financial crisis. Indeed, of late it has been observed that China is making an attempt to engage with the international community. Combined with its naval modernization and newer space programmes, the PRC certainly has a long-term global objective on its mind.

Today China is competing face-to-face with the US both economically and politically in the world arena. Few instances of it trying to subtly step into Washington’s shoes are: its participation in the first East Asian Summit in 2005, which included member nations as ASEAN States and others such as Japan, South Korea, India, Australia, and New Zealand. Beijing has also pursued ties with Central Asian countries of the former Soviet Union, including Russia, through the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).

This apart, it is vying with the US for influence and access to energy resources in the Middle East. The PRC President Hu Jintao made an official State visit to Saudi Arabia in February last, to strengthen Sino-Saudi Arabian energy ties. Besides, China’s trade with the six Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) nations has steadily increased, touching $32 billion in 2005. Early this January, the Chinese Foreign Minister met his counterpart in Oman, Yousuf bin Alawi bin Abdullah, to discuss Beijing’s willingness to improve Sino-Arab cooperation, including efforts to resolve the Palestine-Israel conflict.

Coming back to Tibet, the issue could be viewed as a three-dimensional challenge for America’s foreign policy. The first is to comprehend the real problem, as the issue is highly controversial. The perplexed political status of Tibet, the Dalai Lama’s influence on monks and the Chinese control of religious traditions and media appear to be a major irritant in Sino-US relations.

The present administration needs to make a clear distinction between the Chinese and Tibetan version to find out the sensitivities attached. For any kind of constructive foreign policy success, the US administration must see through the accusations that both the parties have levied against each other. One can not possibly turn a blind eye to the blatant human rights violation by the Chinese in Lahsa and the Tibetan region of China and the constant criticism of the Dalai Lama, despite his being recognized as a peacemaker by the world community. Remember, he received the Nobel peace prize in 1989.

On the other hand, one must closely introspect that notwithstanding violations, China has provided Tibet with extensive economic assistance and development. At least that is what Beijing claims. Chinese officials have adopted plans to increase economic activity in Tibet by 10 per cent per annum and provide substantial subsidies to help its economy.

The second challenge is diplomatic, wherein the administration has to deal subtly with the sensitivities of the issue to engage China constructively, such that Sino-US relations can prosper in spite of disagreements. By now the US must have realized the importance of the Chinese economy, and that it can ill afford to upset Beijing let alone issue any warning. Recall that in 1993 Bill Clinton's administration threatened to suspend normal tariff treatment. Apparently it was a mistake as its economy took precedence over human rights violation and as such no significant action was taken.

The third challenge though domestic has international significance. It is to formulate a consensus-based approach towards Sino-Tibet issue, and at the same time garner more world support for Tibet, which began in 1986-1987, so as to eventually resolve the issue multilaterally. Till now the US has maintained its consistent support to the Dalai Lama's middle approach. It has repeatedly called for change of policies in Tibet and has recognized itself as playing a critical role in fostering ties between the two parties.

Clearly, the American primacy in the 21st century's global and much-integrated world has certainly declined. Combined with this is the emerged multi-polar or “non polar” international  system which demands the policy makers in the White House to carefully extract elements of rising China, such that national interests can be served.

Hence it is in Washington’s interest to engage and cooperate with the PRC. It also turns out to be the safest way out for the American policy makers. And, it is for this purpose that the “Tibet Issue” may be sidelined for sometime in the future. Sadly, for the US China has and shall always takes precedence over human rights violations be it the case of Tibet or any other. –INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)