|
|
More CWG
humiliation Tata
housing project |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
China’s
dubious record
Handling
the Naxalites
Smooth seventies
Sino-Indian
Relations
|
|
Tata housing project
The
stay on bookings, sales and construction activities on the 19-tower Tata Camelot housing colony project in Punjab’s Kansal village in the vicinity of Chandigarh ordered by the Punjab and Haryana High Court on Thursday affords an opportunity for a hard look at the controversial project which, in its present form, poses a grave threat to the skyline of the country’s only planned city as The Tribune has been pointing out through a sustained public-spirited campaign. It is heartening too that the Union Territory administration has been given time until March 31 to finalize its master plan. It would indeed be prudent for the governments of Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh to use this opportunity to work jointly towards integration of their respective master plans in right earnest so that the beauty, the majesty and the ecological balance of Chandigarh are duly maintained, as averred by the court. Significantly, since the Camelot site falls within the catchment area of the Sukhna lake, an ecologically sensitive zone because of its proximity to Sukhna Wildlife Sanctuary, the Union Environment Ministry is looking into whether environmental clearance to it would be in order. Though the Chandigarh Administration has been opposing construction activity in the city’s periphery around Sukhna’s catchment area, categorizing it as an ecologically sensitive zone, it is yet to issue a notification declaring the area around the Sukhna Wildlife Sanctuary as an eco sensitive zone. It would indeed be in the fitness of things if this is done without further delay. The latest guidelines issued by the Union Environment Ministry for declaration of eco-sensitive zones around national parks and wildlife sanctuaries clearly say that discharge of effluents and solid waste in natural water bodies or terrestrial area in the eco-sensitive areas will not be allowed. It is noteworthy that some leading architects and town planners had, at a seminar last month in Chandigarh, pointed out how the multi-tower, high-rise Tata project would defy town planning norms and would be violative of the New Punjab Periphery Control Act and the Edict of Chandigarh that banned construction in the north of the Capitol Complex. This and related issues need to be examined threadbare now that the High Court has stayed any further movement in the Tata Camelot project.
|
|
|
China’s dubious record
With
its arrival at the global centrestage as a new major power, China seems to be getting more conscious of its poor human rights record. Perhaps, some churning is going on behind the scene about how to handle the uncomfortable questions often being raised with regard to this ugly aspect of the communist giant’s otherwise envious image today. Whatever be the reason, Chinese President Hu Jintao’s candid comment in Washington DC on Wednesday that “a lot still needs to be done in China in terms of human rights” is bound to make the world go deeper into his observation. It must be a well-calculated outpouring, as it has come from a person who has been guiding China’s destiny since 2002 (his second five-year term will end next year). The real import of Mr Hu’s surprising observation may become clearer in the days to come. China’s dubious human rights record has been under sharper focus following the controversy generated by Beijing using its newly acquired global clout to force as many countries as possible to boycott the December 10, 2010, Nobel Prize ceremony in Oslo when its celebrated human rights activist Liu Xiaobo was honoured with the world’s biggest award. Only 17 countries responded to China’s test of friendship when it approached almost every invitee to Oslo with the with-us-or-against-us strategy. Most of those who succumbed to China’s intimidating tactics were its “all-weather friends” like Pakistan. But in the process, Beijing became a laughing stock in full view of the world. China may have emerged as one of the top economies of the world, but its record remains dubious on various fronts. It is deliberately keeping its currency undervalued, which has led to trade-related disputes between China and many other countries like the US. Its suspicious military build-up in the Pacific has sent disturbing signals across the region. It is also accused of not doing enough to get the controversial Iranian and North Korean nuclear programmes capped. China will have to improve its record not only on the human rights front but also in other areas to be treated as a responsible global power.
|
|
|
Try not to become a man of success, but rather to become a man of value. He is considered successful in our day who gets more out of life than he puts in. But a man of value will give more than he receives. — Albert Einstein
|
Handling the Naxalites One
finds it odd that civil society has not reacted to the Supreme Court’s observation that Indian nationals were not meant to be hunted down by the police in encounters. The court was reacting to the killing of two Maoists in an “encounter” when they were responding to private peace overtures. Why does the government persist in its belief that the force can suppress discontent? Violence is what I detest in solving a problem. Maoists or Naxalites are defaming their movement by using the gun. However, the fact of state terrorism remains. It is not a secret that the state has arrayed the maximum possible force against the Naxals, who are portrayed as the “worst internal security threat” in the country. The most affected area is the Dandakaranya region. This was promised a special rehabilitation deal by Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru in 1958 while inaugurating the Dandakaranya Development Authority. That undertaking was never met. Power from the barrel of the gun began to be seen in the late 1960s in areas such as Naxalbari in West Bengal and Srikakulam in Andhra Pradesh. It was only in 1980 that some Andhra groups moved into remote places of Baster in Madhya Pradesh for shelter and training. Their very presence in concerned areas gave the simple tribals some relief against the patwari-havaldar-dafedar trio. The language barrier proved to be the most effective screen for Naxal consolidation in Bastar. The national policy of teaching through mother tongue in elementary classes was buried beneath the compulsory instruction in Hindi. Even learning of tribal dialects by all state functionaries was ignored. The people’s communication with outside world, therefore, was largely through middlemen or a privileged few. The Naxals, on the other hand, established direct rapport with the people in no time. They started attracting the youth to become a part of their cadre with no other rival in the realm of ideas or even information. Abujhamar that had been kept outside the purview of normal administration since 1930s with restricted entry to outsiders became their most favourite area. Thus, here was the most propitious opportunity for the Naxalites to consolidate their hold on a part of Bastar as a “liberated zone”. With the firm resolve to meet the challenge of internal security threat, the state has used every force except the Army in this region. Hundreds of villagers have either deserted their homes or are closeted in camps. Many are moving out to adjoining states. There is practically no chance for a dialogue between the state and the Naxals. The Andhra experience has proved to be a calamity. Yet there are countless special deals with liberal financial assistance for infrastructure and social services for the hither-to-“neglected poor tribals”. The rulers have faulted in the very first step in their perception about the real issues concerning the tribal people. The worst insult which a self-respecting tribal has to swallow in the name and game of development is the tag “poor” given to him by the officialdom and others. This is being done on purpose so that politicians, officials and the elite can project themselves as the well-wishers of the tribals. The bitter truth is that the tribal is not poor but disinherited. Less said the better about the infrastructure and other development programmes. A radical start was made by abolishing the commercial sale of intoxicants in tribal areas (1974) and conceding the ownership of minor forest produce (the 1976 conference of tribal and forest ministers). These vital decisions and the need to raise the level of administration were forgotten by the end of the decade. However, an array of fortune seekers rushed to the tribal areas in the real style of gold rush. The tribal people in India have their respective territory. They manage all their affairs as members of a virtual “village republic” in accordance with their customs and traditions. They depend for their livelihood on the natural resources of their habitat. Although the state is enforcing the model of individual ownership, land even now is not property. The traditional frame of “community ownership and individual use” is still in vogue among many communities, especially in the Northeast. A simple tribal lives in the present, unconcerned about the future. There is no future tense in many a tribal dialect. Theirs is a subsistence economy with heavy dependence on forest and water resources that have been endowed by nature in plenty. The tribal is a “man of word” and proud about the same. It is worth recollecting the incident of a Naga chief storming out of the court with a resolve never to return when a lawyer started cross-examining him. The British had to accept the freedom-loving spirit of the tribal people after a number of unsuccessful expeditions into their territories. They were obliged to face the entire communities. It is a prevarication of history that the British conquered tribal territories. People’s refusal to acknowledge British authority was at the root of some of the major revolts in the tribal areas. There was a qualitative change in the legal regime of the tribal areas with the adoption of the Constitution. Some of the excluded areas and partially excluded areas in various provinces and also some territories in the erstwhile princely states were designed as Scheduled Areas under the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution in 1950. The near-ideal frame of the Scheduled Areas, which has been eulogised as “constitution within constitution” became virtually dysfunctional ironically with the adoption of the Constitution on November 26, 1949. Take the case of Bastar. The traditional system of dispute resolution is so powerful and pervasive that on an average one case in two years is reported per police station in the whole district. But this system has no sanction of law. Therefore, all proceedings in village councils, especially in non-bailable cases, are violations of law. Proceedings can be initiated against one or more members of the village council by some operator or the police, notwithstanding the consensus-reached decision which is accepted fair by all parties in dispute. Yet, the government has ordered “denotification” of some villages in Bastar so that the Panchayat (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act, 1966, is not applicable to them. The Act was specifically drafted to give tribal populations control over their lands. The state has not learnt any lesson from its mistake so
far.
|
||||||
Smooth seventies The
teens were tough. Twenties trying. Thirties thriving. Forties fruitful. Fifties were fun and fulfilling. Sixties have been sweet. And now, how will seventies be? Sour? Or satisfying and smooth? I was born in a small town. Not in a fancy nursing home. But in a small bedroom. No inoculations or vaccinations. No fuss. Everyone drank water from the pump. Ate chaat and sweets laid out in the open. Walked to the school. Sat on the floor. Learnt to write on a wooden board. Sometimes, studied under the light of a kerosene lamp. The teachers were tough. Wielded the rod regularly. The defaulters were punished without any distinction. Played in pouring rain and scorching sun. Gradually grew up. Without ever complaining. The routine continued even after I left the school. The educationists, governors, ministers and chancellors were regular visitors to the college as well as the university. But no cars with blue or red beacons. Virtually, no noise or nuisance on the road. The ‘sirens’ were heard only during war. Life was simple. Straight. Never heard the word ‘stress’ or ‘suicide’ during my days at school, college or university. Today, it is a different world. Everything appears to have changed. While I continue to enjoy the good things of life, I see the children leading a wholly protected existence. Drinking bottled milk and water. Eating fat-free food. They go to the school in a bus or car. Preferably airconditioned. The principal cannot punish her pupils. Everybody says that the system should be free from stress. The educationists adopt the populist line and propose to eliminate the examinations. Why? When and where will the children learn to face the storms of life? To struggle for success? Probably, we shall have young men who will carry the knowledge of the world in a pocket computer. But will they be able to stand the strain and stress that the present-day materialistic world poses? How will they survive in the ruthlessly competitive environment that we live in? Thus, I am never tired of pestering my children and grandchildren. The grandson often tells me — ‘Dadu! Please chill.’ Yet, the concern remains constant. Looking back, I realise that tough times in early years make for a strong body and mind in later life. It lends a spring to every step. So, I enter the solemn seventies with lots of optimism. Just as the setting sun lends bright colours to the sky, I am sure the years bring a rare rhythm to the life’s routine. Today, the numbers may count me old. Still, I have something of the youth. I look forward to another decade with no signs of decay. I savour the thought. The seventies shall be smooth and
satisfying.
|
||||||
Sino-Indian Relations
As fragile bilateral relations continue to be marked with contentious issues like stapled visas, border incursions and
territorial claims, the military gap between India and China is growing steadily due to the double-digit annual growth
in the Chinese defence budget while India's military modernisation continues to remain mired in red tape.
Chinese
Prime Minister Wen Jiabao's recent visits to India and Pakistan achieved diametrically opposite results. His visit here fell much short of Indian expectations and failed to resolve the recent logjam in the security relationship between the two countries. However, in Pakistan he further consolidated the "all-weather" strategic partnership and, according to the joint statement, the relationship has gone "beyond bilateral dimensions and acquired broader regional and international ramifications". It had been widely anticipated in India that Jiabao's visit would not result in the satisfactory resolution of India's major concerns. The joint statement issued at the end of the visit on December 16, 2010, bears out the apprehensions of Indian analysts. Agreements for bilateral trade amounting to US$ 16 billion were signed and the two sides agreed to raise mutual trade from US$ 60 billion this year to US$ 100 billion by 2015. (In contrast, China signed trade agreements with Pakistan worth US$ 35 billion during his visit.) However, India did not agree to sign a free trade agreement; instead the joint statement proposes ''measures to promote greater Indian exports to China with a view to reduce India's trade deficit.'' Six joint agreements were signed on culture, green technology, media exchanges, river data and banking, all of which are relatively less significant aspects of the bilateral relationship. China remained non-committal on the ticklish issue of visas being stapled to the passports of the residents of the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K), instead of being stamped on their passports. China did not agree to either mention Pakistan as the source of terrorism or condemn the perpetrators of the Mumbai terror strikes. It also did not specifically endorse India's quest for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. In turn, India did not accept a reference to the one-China policy and, instead, the principle of "mutual respect and sensitivity for each other's concerns and aspirations" was included in the joint statement. The visit also reinforced Indian views that China is increasingly leaning on Pakistan in its Kashmir policy. Relations between India and China have been fairly stable at the strategic level. Economic relations are much better now than these have been in the past. Mutual economic dependence is growing rapidly even though the balance of trade is skewed in China's favour. The two countries have been cooperating in international fora like WTO talks and climate change negotiations. There has even been some cooperation in energy security. However, at the tactical level, China has been exhibiting a markedly aggressive political, diplomatic and military attitude. Instability in the security relationship, in particular, has the potential to act as a spoiler and the security relationship will ultimately determine whether the two Asian giants will clash or cooperate for mutual gains. The major cause for this instability is the half-century old territorial and boundary dispute over which the two countries fought a border war in 1962. The pointers to the future are not particularly positive. China continues to be in physical occupation of large areas of Indian territory in J&K. On the Aksai Chin plateau in Ladakh, China is in possession of approximately 38,000 square kilometres of territory since the mid-1950s. In addition, Pakistan illegally ceded 5,180 sq km of Indian territory to China in 1963 in the Shaksgam Valley of Pakistan Occupied Kashmir under a bilateral boundary agreement that India does not recognise. Close to this area, the Chinese built the Karakoram highway that now provides a strategic land link between Xinjiang, Tibet and Pakistan. China continues to stake its claim to about 96,000 sq km of Indian territory in the eastern state of Arunachal Pradesh, which it calls Southern Tibet. Chinese interlocutors have repeatedly claimed that the Tawang Tract, in particular, is part of Tibet and that the merger of this area with Tibet is non-negotiable. In 2005, India and China had agreed on "guiding principles and parameters" for a political solution to the territorial dispute. One important parameter was that "settled populations will not be disturbed". In the case of Tawang the Chinese have gone back on this. If such errant behavior continues, India will find it difficult to accept Chinese assurances of peaceful resolution of the territorial dispute at face value. The Line of Actual Control (LAC) between India and China is yet to be physically demarcated on the ground and delineated on military maps. In fact, despite the Border Peace and Tranquility Agreement (BPTA) signed with the Chinese in 1993 and the agreement on Confidence Building Measures in the Military Field signed in 1996, border guards of the People's Liberation Army (PLA) have transgressed the LAC repeatedly to intrude into Arunachal Pradesh and Ladakh. They have even objected to Indian road construction efforts and the presence of Indian graziers at their traditional grazing grounds. Patrol face-offs are commonplace and usually end with both the sides warning each other to go back to their own territory. While no such incident has resulted in a violent clash so far, the probability of such an occurrence is high. Demarcation of the LAC without prejudice to each other's position on the territorial dispute would be an excellent confidence building measure but little progress has been made in 14 rounds of talks between the two special representatives. Under the circumstances, China's intransigence in exchanging maps showing the alignment of the LAC in the western and the eastern sectors is difficult to understand. The military gap between Indian and China is growing steadily as the PLA is modernising at a rapid pace due to the double-digit annual growth in the Chinese defence budget while India's military modernisation plans continue to remain mired in red tape. China's negotiating strategy is to stall resolution of the dispute till the Chinese are in a much stronger position in terms of comprehensive national strength so that they can then dictate terms. The rapidly blossoming strategic partnership between China and Pakistan is also a major cause for concern. During any future conflict with either China or Pakistan, India will have to contend with a two-front situation as each will collude militarily with the other - a situation for which the Indian armed forces are not prepared. Hence, it is in India's interest to strive for the early resolution of the territorial dispute with China so that India has only one major military adversary to contend with. The author is Director, Centre for Land Warfare Studies, New Delhi
|
|
Tango with the Dragon October 20, 1962: China attacks India on two fronts — Ladakh and Arunachal Pradesh. Chinese forces capture Tawang, an important cultural center for Tibetans in Arunachal. A month later, China declares a ceasefire and withdraws its troops, but territorial disputes along the 3,225-kilometer-long Himalayan border continue. India claims China is occupying 33,000 square kms of its territory in Jammu and Kashmir. July 24, 1976: Diplomatic ties between India and China are re-established. December 19, 1988: Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi makes a five-day breakthrough visit to China, the first visit by an Indian prime minister in 34 years. The two countries agree to set up a joint working group to settle the boundary issue. November 28, 1996: Chinese President Jiang Zemin visits India, the first visit to India by a head of state from China. The two countries sign an agreement on confidence building measures in regard to the India-China border areas. January 5, 2000: Tibetan Buddhist leader Karmapa Ugyen Trinley Dorje reportedly flees China and joins the Dalai Lama in India. Beijing says giving him asylum would violate the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence. June 23, 2003:
Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee makes a landmark visit to China -- the first Indian head of government to visit China in ten years — to strengthen relations. April 9, 2005:
Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao visits Bangalore seeking an increase in cooperation in high-tech industries. India and China also sign an agreement aimed at resolving border disputes. July 6, 2006:
China and India re-open Nathu La Pass, an ancient trade route through the Himalayas which was once part of the Silk Road. The pass had been closed since the 1962 Sino-Indian war. May 25, 2007:
China denies a visa to a government official from Arunachal Pradesh, arguing that since the state was a part of China, he would not require a visa to visit his own country. December 21, 2007:
First ever joint Sino-Indian military training exercise held. The five-day anti-terrorism drill was held at Kunming in southwest China January 13, 2009:
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh visits China. Bilateral trade surpasses $50 billion and China becomes India's largest trading partner in goods. October 13, 2009:
Dispute over Manmohan Singh's visit to Arunachal Pradesh. China expresses "strong dissatisfaction" on the visit to the "disputed area." India responds by saying Arunachal Pradesh is an "integral and inalienable" part of India. August 27, 2010:
India cancels defense exchanges with China after Beijing refuses a visa to a top Indian army officer because he "controlled" the disputed area of Jammu and Kashmir. India subsequently refuses to allow two Chinese defense officials to visit New Delhi. December 15, 2010: Wen Jiabao arrives on a three-day visit to India, but signing 84 memorandums of understanding on the business front notwithstanding, his visit was regarded in many quarters as largely devoid of substance on the political and diplomatic front.
|
|
|
| HOME PAGE | |
Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir |
Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs |
Nation | Opinions | | Business | Sports | World | Letters | Chandigarh | Ludhiana | Delhi | | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |
March 17, 1959: Tibet's spiritual leader Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama flees to India to escape China's crackdown on Tibetan uprising. New Delhi's decision to grant him asylum sours relations with China.