The Tribune, Chandigarh, India

CBI put to test
Caught between PMO and SC

WTH the Prime Minister coming out in defence of the 2005 coal allocations for which former Coal Secretary P.C. Parakh and industrialist Kumar Mangalam Birla are named in the FIR, a piquant situation has arisen for the CBI. It is required to work and collect proof to disapprove the statement of the head of the executive.

Then the case is monitored by the Supreme Court, which would corner the premier investigating agency for lapses or cover-ups, if any. It is a real test for the CBI. Any failure to substantiate its charges would leave it with egg on the face and the success would put the Prime Minister in a spot. The only honorable course left for the agency to salvage its reputation is to reach to the bottom of the issue and dig out evidence in support of its charges against the prominent personalities involved — evidence which should be credible enough for the Supreme Court to accept.

By speaking out, the usually reticent Dr Manmohan Singh has provided some solace to Parakh, who has accused the CBI of failure to distinguish a genuine policy stance from a scam. Given the reputation for honesty that Parakh has among his colleagues and the clout that Birla wields, the CBI should have done its homework thoroughly before rushing to name them as the accused. So vigorous is the media coverage of scam and rape cases that quite often reputations are damaged before a court verdict. The investigating agencies, therefore, have to be careful in naming names.

The booking of Parakh and two other IAS officers before him — Shyamal Ghosh and H.C.Gupta — in the telecom and coal scams has unnerved their colleagues, who have decided to take up the matter with the Prime Minister. If the IAS officers stop taking decisions, the already slow-going official machinery would virtually grind to a halt. But the corrupt among them cannot be spared just because of lobbying. The onus is on the CBI to prove its worth under these circumstances.

Lit fests galore
Celebrating books and writers

Literary festivals have become hotspots for authors, readers, publishers and media persons to interact and create a buzz. In the past decade, each place had its own distinctive flavour. If the biggest of them all, the Jaipur Lit Fest showcases international authors, as does the prestigious Hay Festival in Kerala, called the “Woodstock of the mind.” The Bangalore literary fest is marked (like the city) by its techno-savvy character as those unable to attend get live feeds and can tune in through Radiowallah.

Closer home, the Khushwant Singh Literary Festival, named after the writer-journalist with a high-readability quotient, has evolved into a melting pot of publishers, writers and wannabe writers. The hill station comes alive with frenetic activity. Lit fests give much-needed exposure to those interested in literature, writing and engaging with writers. Even if the lit fests are more about literary socialising, in the same manner as seminars are for academic socialising, they do encourage a discussion about books. How much of that translates into literature is another matter. The writer is no longer a solitary reaper of words, engaging in isolated activity.

The advent of lit fests has catapulted the writer, much like a star, centre stage, and as they market their books aggressively, they bridge the gap between the muse and the market. Literary festivals are not a recent phenomenon. While “mushiaras” have always been popular as have been “kavi sammelan”s, each region celebrates its writers. Ludhiana's Mohan Singh Mela is marked by a vibrant procession and reading out of Mohan Singh’s verse. Poets like Baba Farid and Shiv Kumar Batalvi live on in the hearts of readers and their verse is passed on to successive generations. Festivals may be celebratory events, but the real touchstone is time. The relationship between the writer and the reader is so intimate that it lives on once it survives the onslaught of time.

Thought for the Day

TV is chewing gum for the eyes. — Frank Lloyd Wright

ARTICLE

Security Council expansion
How long will India chant the need for reform?
by S. Nihal Singh

While there are a complex set of factors involved in Saudi Arabia's rejection of the rotating United Nations Security Council seat, it has done a great service to India and other aspirants to a permanent seat. It has, in effect, pointed the way to break the logjam in the composition of a Council that represents the past, rather than the present or the future.

First, we must look at Saudi motives for a move that is both unprecedented and has stunned the world. Riyadh had given increasing signs of its frustration as the Syrian civil war has raged on and the Security Council was paralysed by continuing Russian and Chinese vetoes even as the Saudis were aiding anti-Assad groups. And when the Council did act on a Russian initiative to count and destroy Syrian chemical weapons, the US withdrew its threat to attack Syria with cruise missiles.

Indeed, recent events have been going against Saudi interests. Its main regional rival Iran has been trying to cosy up to the United States and is engaged in serious talks on its nuclear programme with world powers for the first time in years. The rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran is also along the increasingly dangerous Sunni-Shia fault line.

In rejecting the UN seat, Saudi Arabia charged the UN with practising double standards and faulted its work methods that prevent it from properly shouldering its responsibilities. Apart from the UN's inaction on Syria, Riyadh charged the organisation with failure in resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and inability to free the Middle East of means of mass destruction. The last was a swipe at Israel, the only nuclear power in the region.

The surprise, of course, was that the Saudi ambassador to the UN had welcomed his country's success in winning a seat after three years of hard lobbying. Obviously, the rejection decision was taken at the very top in Riyadh amidst reported impending changes in the country's foreign policy hierarchy.

Inadvertently, the Saudi enunciation of its dissatisfaction with the UN opens the door for India to make its own dissatisfaction with the status quo in the Security Council plain more dramatically than by issuing demarches. The nub of the problem is that despite support from powerful countries, the ‘have’ powers are content to let matters rest as they are, with a European-majority permanent membership enjoying veto powers. The only concession made thus far is to count Germany as an informal permanent member under the 'P 5 plus one' formula.

As long as countries like India and other deserving nations to the rotating Security Council seats based on regional caucuses are content to lobby and compete for these seats, the permanent five countries are happy. While expressing lip service for enlarging the permanent slots, they maintain the status quo.

The reactions of some of the permanent members are revealing. Russia reacted with barely concealed anger, recognising that the Saudis threaten to open a Pandora's box in challenging the right of veto for the permanent members. Realising that part of the anger is aimed at Washington on its reluctance to act militarily on Syria and President Obama's peace overtures to Iran, the US has sought to shrug off the Saudi move.

The French, always original in their contribution to world affairs, have supported the Saudi move for reform of the Security Council, suggesting that there should be no veto on issues involving ‘mass crime’. The UN Secretary-General, Mr Ban Ki-Moon, has refrained from making substantive comments while waiting for an official notification of the Saudi move, with perhaps a faint hope that Riyadh might relent. Among the regional powers, Turkey, which has been strident in its anti-Assad policy, said through its President Abdullah Gul that that the Saudi move should be treated with respect and that he shared Riyadh's perceptions on UN inaction on Syria.

India can make its own substantive move to jog the process of a speedier reform of an outdated Security Council by declaring that it would forswear contesting a rotating seat in its regional caucus as a mark of protest against the immobility in effecting substantive reforms in the Security Council. India would, of course, remain an active member of the world organisation in other respects.

Of the countries that had banded together for an expansion of the Council's permanent membership, Germany is perhaps satisfied with the half a loaf it has received as an honorary member of the ‘P 5’. But New Delhi should consult Japan and Brazil and other countries in forming a joint front in forswearing contesting rotating seats in their regional caucuses. It would then send out a signal to the ‘have’powers to end their delaying tactic in reforming a key institution of war and peace in the world organisation.

If the Saudis persevere in their rejection of the rotating seat, what comes next? It is an unprecedented situation, UN officials privately acknowledge. The Afro-Asian caucus will presumably have to go back to the drawing board to pick a new member for the tenth rotating seat. That will be the time for India to declare that it would forthwith decline to seek a rotating seat in solidarity with Saudi Arabia's justified complaints about the anachronistic nature of the Security Council.

There has been one grudging reform of the Security Council in terms of expanding its membership, but the permanent five — the US, Russia, China, Britain and France — have retained their privileges unaltered. China remains the sole permanent member from Asia and has a vested interest in warding off the addition of two other major powers, India and Japan.

There are any number of other spoilers such as Italy and Pakistan, countries aware of their own limitations in making the grade. Thus it comes about that many vested interests combine to frustrate matching the key organisation with today's and tomorrow's world. The point is simple: How long will New Delhi tolerate a distorted membership of the Security Council merely chanting the need for reform?

MIDDLE

Longing for spring
by Mahesh Grover

THE forest ‘graze lands’ usually bristled with activity of grazing animals who found it to be an opportune place to socialise and munch, while the birds gossiped and twittered.

“Twitter, I heard about a tussle for the throne between the African Lion and Asiatic Lion”, said a deer to which the other responded, “I heard it too, but an African has different origins.”

“Inconsequential”, replied another. “Only manes are differently coloured with same lion instincts, but I hope our living conditions improve”, which was immediately countered by a few others who saw no hope in the change.

In this way, conversation progressed and soon many other ‘argumentative animals’ locked horns over the issue.

A giraffe sauntering nearby stopped them from sparring and said, “Let us go to the wise Bison for his opinion as he has seen many ‘springs’”.

The Bison looked at them from his cataracted eyes, heard them out and snorting loudly said, “You have great hopes of deliverance, but you forget that you are middle class — the mango animals who count only for those who feast on you. Neither you nor minorities count.”

“Minorities?” quizzed all in unison.

They are those who exist but do not exist; errr! I mean they are but are not, umm ! I mean they matter but they do not matter.”

Seeing his audience perplexed, he said, “Minorities, though essential, are marginalised, banished to their rat holes and pigeon holes and doomed to an insignificant existence, sir, you must understand. The jungle is run by animals who are big, are visible and matter i.e. lions and the likes. The entire class of mighty ones are like leopards who do not change their spots and without exceptions, write the laws with themselves in mind. The jungle is of them, by them and for them. So for us ‘spring’ is a mirage.

The hush that followed was broken by the giraffe, “Listen, if size matters, then I am big and tall with a visible presence. I will plead our cause with the king.”

The Bison replied, “Your neck is the envy of many and let me tell you a universal truth, nobody likes a chap who looks at him straight in the eye, and you my dear, generally look down on others. Not your fault though, you are tall, and believe me, those in power do not tolerate anyone taller than them. If you love your neck, do not stick it out.”

“The giraffe gulped, and said, “I am optimistic, as both the African and Asiatic Lions have assured us that the jungle will change once their reign begins.”

The Bison shook his head vigorously, a tad impatiently, “You are such dim-wits. Both Lions talk only about their manes and roars being better than the other. They will split the jungle in the middle with their rhetoric about the majority versus the minorities and the result will be a catastrophy.

“Are we then doomed?” questioned the antelopes.

“Certainly, if we fall prey to their chicanery. We need to co-exist and sink our differences if their devious designs are to be defeated but till then, the winter of discontent will continue. Remember lions can roar in winter, but the bees don’t buzz, the birds don’t chirp and the butterflies don't flutter. No need to despair though, for as they say, if winter comes, can 'spring' be far behind?”

OPED NEIGHBOUR

China playing for high stakes
China has been consistent in its policy of 'picking on India'. For 50 years the Western powers used Pakistan as the surrogate to counter India during the cold war years. Now, China is determined to take advantage of surrogate Pakistan to unsettle India
D. N. Panigrahi

A monument at Tiananmen Square signifying China's might. China's journey from "Revolution, Repression to Renaissance" is a matter of great pride and is worthy of attention.

CHINA is a nation with a grand vision and has a mission to fulfil. Conceptualising China's worldview and perspective in the modern age no doubt may be a daunting task but a close look at its history and culture as a civilisation of the past and the present political, economic, military and cultural scenario reveals that its grand design and mission would be one of expansion of its power, influence, dominance and hegemony wherever and whenever possible.

China's new formulation of building 'a harmonious world' through 'peaceful development' as declared by former President Hu Jintao that China is a 'spiritual civilisation'; that the peaceful rise does not endanger other societies; that they would accommodate 'diversity' and not work for 'uniformity' in the world etc are much welcome. Also, the present President of China, Xi Jinping, spoke on March 13, 2013, of his ambition to fulfil 'the dream of Renaissance' for the Chinese people, assuring the world at the same time that they did not contemplate 'hegemony' over other people seemed quite mind-boggling. The journey from Revolution, Repression to Renaissance is by itself a matter of great pride and is worthy of attention.

A trust deficit

Yet, in spite of these assurances, the neighbouring countries have openly demonstrated considerable scepticism and overall there has been 'a trust deficit' in their relationship with China. China's diplomatic and military posture on issues of vital interest has been somewhat intimidating and aggressive. Even with powerful neighbours like Japan and the Soviet Union, China had displayed military offensive which has baffled the world.

All South East Asian countries have contested China's sovereignty bid over the South China Sea. Each of them protested when China sent a naval vessel while the Phnom Penh Conference was being held in July 2012. The conference reiterated by a resolution to follow the UN convention of 1982 regarding navigation in international waters. Yet, China insisted that the South China Sea, along with its islands, belonged to China only.

Incidentally, India was also involved in the South China Sea region owing to the offshore oil exploration that has been carried out in association with Vietnam ever since 1988. China had warned India not to be associated with these ventures. It is generally believed that the disputed blocks lie in the economic zone of Vietnam. Meanwhile, according to recent reports, China had been engaged in maritime mining activity deep into the Indian Ocean declaring that they were legally tenable being in the midst of the international waters.

Personality clashes

The Sino-Soviet animosity and eventual split were the result of several factors, most important being ideological, personality clashes and the border dispute. The Soviet leaders, led by Joseph Stalin, felt that they had successfully established a kind of paradise of proletariat dictatorship and were not prepared to accept any paradigm shift in this dogma.

Mao believed that the Chinese experience in the Chinese revolution was equally important in building the Marxist Communist revolutionary world. Nikita Khruschev in his memoirs "Khruschev Remembers" edited by Strobe Talbott describes the rationale and depth of discord and split in this regard.

Mao Tsetung in his discussion on Marxism-Leninism with P.F.Yudin, the Soviet philosopher who was the Soviet ambassador in China in order to study Mao's thoughts, felt 'vexed' and wondered: 'Did philosophy reach its limit with Marx and Lenin? He would sometimes wonder out loud… 'Can't the inclusion of Chinese revolutionary experience produce new philosophical thought?' Mao used to say aloud.

When Khruschev visited China to meet Mao, he was literally insulted by Mao. He was to stay for a week but he left only after three days. The chairman was deliberately playing the role of an emperor treating Khruschev as a barbarian who came to pay tribute. Russian designs, according to Mao, were not acceptable. 'Their real purpose is to control us. They're trying to tie our hands and feet' said Mao.

Unbelievable it may seem but the China-Soviet border conflict had the ingredients of a large-scale war. According to historians, 'the clashes at the disputed Zhenbao island on an isolated stretch of the Ussuri river' was of prime concern in 1969. The conflict opened the door to the possibility of a Sino-American re-approachment and the USA seized the opportunity. President Nixon assisted by his adviser Henry Kissinger planned the historic visit to China in 1971-72 through the good offices of Pakistan. That brought about Sino-American reapproachment for a while. On February 21, 1972 President Nixon along with Henry Kissinger met Chairman Mao and Prime Minister Zhou Enlai at Chairman Mao's residence. President Nixon asked, 'why have the Soviets more forces on the border facing you (China) than on the border facing western Europe?' (The Kissinger Transcripts -- top-secret memo of conversation p.62). Also Kissinger in his "On China" observed that 'Soviet troops along the Chinese border grew to some 42 divisions -over a million men'. Towards the end of 1969 in anticipation of a Soviet attack on China's National Day i.e. on 1 October, PLA had ordered full alert in China on 30 September, 1969. But the Soviets did not attack China, which surprised the Chinese leaders.

Henry Kissinger also informs that the Soviet Union had stepped up their armed strength all along the frontier resulting in the wiping out of a Chinese battalion at the Xinjiang border.

China and neighbours

Why did the Chinese build up such an atmosphere of conflict and ill-will with their neighbour and erstwhile benefactor, the Soviet Union? The main reason it seems, as stated by Kissinger was that 'China inevitably found it impossible to play the role of a junior partner'. Elsewhere, he had observed about the attitude of Chinese towards their neighbours.

'The Russians they hate and fear now. The Japanese they fear but do not hate. For the Indians they feel contempt but they are there backed by the USSR.' (The Kissinger Transcripts : The Top-Secret Talks with Beijing and Moscow ed. William Burr, New York 1998, p.42).

Lorenz M. Luthi asked the question who was responsible for the border dispute with the USSR? Henry Kissinger asserted that the USSR started the clashes, while Philip Short, according to Luthi, argued that 'Chairman Mao Tsetung instigated them to seek re-approachment with the United States and to balance the Soviet Union'. Also Lyle Goldstein M.Taylor Fravel held the view that 'the evidence points towards Chinese aggressiveness on March 2 as a Soviet counter-attack on the 15th.'

The Chinese feared a Russian attack. Observes Kissinger: "there were underground shelters in Peking and other cities. They were not against us. They had shown some of the tunnels and they were 35 km. long. The Chinese were far more exercised by the million Soviet troops along the borders then they were by our forces in Japan".

In China's strategic architecture, the supreme place of honour was given to the USA. Despite their acute differences, in terms of ideology, system of governance, concept of international relations, in fact in most public domain, China never wanted to follow a policy of confrontation with them, although once a while Mao Tsetung described the US as nothing but a 'a paper tiger'. In fact China was quite cautious and placed the powerful countries in high pedestal and went out of its way to placate them despite antagonistic aims and objectives on world affairs. President Ziang Zemin, for instance, stressed the point, during his meeting with Kissinger in September 1990. He said: 'Your friend Zhou Enlai used to talk about our five principles of peaceful co-existence. Well, they are still in existence today. It won't do that there should be only a single social system in the world. We don't want to impose our system on others, and we don't want others to impose theirs on us'.

It is quite instructive to note that in relation to Taiwan, Mao and Chou declared that they would not fight a war to liberate it but wait for a peaceful transfer of the country even if it meant a century of waiting. On the east coast of Chinese mainland lies Taiwan, 'with substantial American military presence', as stated by the Chinese representative during the meeting between President Nixon, Kissinger and Premier Chou Enlie. Zhou told the guest of honour: 'Beijing had no intention to liberate Taiwan by armed forces.' Zhou also agreed to the suggestion of Kissinger that they should 'strive for a peaceful liberation.' However, Premier Zhou reminded that John Foster Dulles had suggested at the Warsaw Talks to resolve the Taiwan issue in the next 20 years. 'Since already more than 20 years have passed, it would be good if the liberation of Taiwan could be realised in your next term of office', implored Zhou in a friendly way to Henry Kissinger.

US is exceptional

Nearly hundred years have passed and the Chinese have waited for a solution with the United States of America, without taking 'unilateral action to liberate' Taiwan. Similarly, more than a century has passed but China has not dared ask for the return of Vladivastok from the Soviet Union.

Although the US has declined economically while China has achieved an economic miracle, the fact remains the 'US is still an exceptional country and the leader of the world.' With regard to India, the story is different because comparatively India is both economically and militarily weaker. Khruschev's reminder on China, as he understood is worthy of note: 'Chinese don't recognise any law except the law of power and force. If you don't obey, they would tear your head off.' Nevertheless, whatever may be India's profile, 'India is a major Asian power, a potential rival both nationally and ideologically and a State to which even the hazy traditions of vassalage could not be attached,' observed Francis Watson in "The Frontiers of China". China is fully conscious of this. It would nevertheless continue to unsettle, marginalise, encircle and overwhelm India. India will have to face the inevitable with fortitude, diplomatic skill, wisdom and with strength.

The writer is a former Professor of History, Delhi University