|
|
|
|
|
Republicans
push forward Give
'em a dressing down |
|
|
|
Looking East for energy
Clean India without a clean mind?
A look at India-Pakistan vision of peace Pakistan needs to be rescued
|
Republicans push forward THE mid-term poll in America has changed the balance of political power as Republicans surged ahead of Democrats in a bitterly contested campaign. The Republicans have seized Iowa, Colorado, Arkansas, Montana, South Dakota, West Virginia and North Carolina seats, all previously held by their rivals, besides winning other seats. Now they have the numbers to control the Senate. The results are also seen as a vote against President Barack Obama's leadership. The Republican victory was sweeping -- they won 10 seats in the House of Representatives, where they already enjoy a majority, and their governors won in several key states. The mid-term election results will not come as a major surprise to anyone, considering President Obama's approval rating among Americans is rather low, and the voters are dissatisfied with the six years of his presidency. They will have the effect of further hobbling a President in the last two years in office. While the Democrats may have been expecting bad news, the result was more sweeping than what had been predicted. Particularly galling for the President would be his party's losses in states where he had won comfortably during his bid for the presidency. Even Illinois, his home state, has elected a Republican governor, replacing the Democrat incumbent for whom the President had personally campaigned. The mid-term elections are known for a low voter turnout, and a certain Republican sway in the voter demographics. The present elections have been calculated to be the most expensive ever, at $ 3.67 million. The Democrats will now have a tough time pushing through the reforms they had promised since the Congress is likely to block such efforts. The Republican Party has two years to prove it can provide solutions to the problems that have caused disenchantment among the Americans who have voted it to power. Even as it enjoys its victory, it would do well to remember that there is another battle ahead, this time for the crown, in barely two years, and the voters have shown how effectively they can punish those who, they feel, do not deliver.
|
|
Give
'em a dressing down THE latest to join the tribe of those offering unsolicited advice to women on how they should or should not dress is the Hindu
Mahasabha, which has vowed to enforce a dress code for girls in
Haryana. The self-styled moral keeper's diktat that women should not wear jeans and stay away from mobile phones would have been laughable had the corresponding corollary been not so grave. The presumption that women's attire is what abets crimes against them is as fallacious as
patronising. The desire to impose a dress code on women does not stem from any concern for them but has roots in the patriarchal mindset that wants to control their lives. Haryana, which has a dubious record on how it treats its women, evident in its skewed gender ratio as well as horrendous honour killings, has often provided a fertile ground to irrational voices. Indeed, in recent times Khap Panchayats have begun to take a more progressive line. The Khaps and the Finance Minister of Haryana, Capt Abhimanyu, have done well to distance themselves from the sabha's stance. Yet it is clearly not enough. The Khaps' position "girls should dress up properly" is itself ambivalent. The new government must be more vociferous in its condemnation and more vigilant in ensuring women's rights. After all it was not too long ago that Prime Minister Modi had remarked, “It’s the responsibility of the parents to stop their sons before they take the wrong path." Yet misguided sections of society continue to object to what they call the "unconventional behaviour” of women. Men's criminal tendencies in the classic victim-blaming approach are attributed to how the fairer sex behaves and dresses. Instead of curbing the freedom of young girls, it's time to give a dressing down to boys who breach propriety and punish those who break the law. The governments would do well not only to be seen on the right side but also doing the right thing.
|
||
|
Thought for the Day
Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is probably the reason why so few engage in it.
—Henry Ford
|
||
German women in fire line WHEN the armed merchant vessel "Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse" met the "Arlanza" and the 'Galician," the Captain enquired whether they had any women and children on board. To the "Galician" the merchantman said: "I will not destroy your ship on account of the women and children on board. You are dismissed." In Eastern waters when the Emden sank five British vessels off Minicoy, the same questions were put to the captains of British ships. The Captain of the "Ribera" specially mentioned this fact to an interviewer at Colombo and added "had we had a lady on board it would have saved my ship." This is as it should be, and the reports only serve to show that the officers concerned did not lack humanitarian sentiments: But how strangely inconsistent with this is the conduct of the Germans in pushing women to the fire line of the battlefield! Major D.S. Stephens, writing to a home paper, gives a ghastly description of this conduct of the German Army. Ganges Bund at Hardwar THE Maharaja of Durbhanga is reported to have recently paid a visit to Allahabad to confer with local officers on the question of the Ganges Bund. For some time past, the line of the bathing ghats at Hardwar has been practically dry, no water running there and pilgrims have had to go a long way to the other side of the river for a bath and religious performances. In the Hari-Ki-Powri, there was not water even a foot deep for weeks and the Public Works Officials and coolies were brisk at work. The Maharaja of Durbhanga is reported to have left for Hardwar, and it is hoped that his representations will be successful and that the Public Works Department will arrange ample water.
|
Looking East for energy Prime Minister Narendra Modi will be setting a new record for an Indian Prime Minister by his participation in four multilateral summits in November 2014. He will be in Myanmar for two meetings, the first with ASEAN Heads of Government. He then participates in the East Asia Summit, which will bring him together with leaders of the US, Russia, China, Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand. He thereafter proceeds to Brisbane to participate in the G-20 Summit, bringing together leaders of the developed world and emerging markets. Towards the end of the month he will attend the SAARC Summit in Kathmandu — a grouping showing little economic promise, thanks to Pakistani obduracy. One of the most productive aspects of Indian diplomacy over the past two decades has been the country's growing economic integration with the fast-growing economies in its eastern neighbourhood, which extends across the Straits of Malacca, to the South China Sea and the Pacific Ocean. The greatest security concern of Japan and ASEAN countries like Vietnam and the Philippines has been the Chinese propensity to use its growing military power to enforce its maritime territorial claims. While India should go along with an ASEAN consensus on this issue, it has happily put aside the Hamlet like self-doubt and pusillanimity that characterised the approach of the national security establishment of the UPA Government, in responding to Chinese aggressiveness, not only on China's maritime boundaries, but also on its land borders with India. The Modi-Obama joint statement reflected this significant policy change. It affirmed the “importance of safeguarding maritime security and ensuring freedom of navigation and over flight throughout the (Asia-Pacific) region, especially in the South China Sea”. This was followed by shedding earlier fears on equipping the Vietnamese armed forces. The supply of naval patrol boats and expanded training facilities to the Vietnamese armed forces will hopefully soon be followed with equipping the Vietnamese with supersonic Brahmos Cruise Missiles to meet Chinese maritime challenges. There should necessarily be effective answers to Chinese policies of "strategic containment" of India, through its nuclear and missile proliferation to Pakistan and its propensity to seek strategic encirclement of India in the Indian Ocean region. Prime Minister Modi, who has developed an excellent personal rapport with his Australian counterpart Tony Abbot, will proceed from the G-20 Summit in Brisbane to Sydney, Canberra and Melbourne for an interaction with the 290,000-strong Indian community, an address to the Australian Parliament and extensive discussions with the business and investor community. Virtually every major Indian IT company has an office in Australia. Indian private investment in copper and coal mining in Australia is growing. Major Indian companies ranging from Tata Power and the Adtya Birla group, to Sterlite Industries, Petronet LNG and the Adani group have significant investment interests in Australia. The state-owned NMDC has an agreement with Australian mineral giant Rio Tinto for joint exploration in India and Australia. India and Australia are set to expand military cooperation. We have to remember that western Australia is located on the shores of the Indian Ocean. It would be useful to establish institutional links between our Andaman and Nicobar Command and its counterparts in nearby Perth. Moreover, India and Australia should seek to work for a system of cooperative security across the Straits of Malacca with ASEAN partners, especially Indonesia. India also needs to move ahead with steps to finalise a comprehensive economic partnership agreement with Australia, as it has done with Japan and South Korea. There are some doubts and misgivings on this agreement, which need to be addressed. Mr. Modi is likely to discuss the possibility of Indian participation in the America-led “Trans Pacific Partnership” (TPP) for developing a free trade, investment and economic partnership extending from India to the US, Mexico and Canada. Fourteen countries, including Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, and four ASEAN members — Vietnam, Singapore, Malaysia and Brunei -- have joined negotiations on the TPP. Indonesia, the Philippines and Cambodia have expressed an interest in joining the negotiations. There are naturally apprehensions in India on issues like intellectual property rights, investment protection and government procurement. These issues could be discussed with Prime Minister Abbot, who has taken a keen interest in the TPP. Mr. Modi’s visit to Australia is taking place when drastic changes are emerging in the global energy situation. The US is now the largest producer of oil in the world. It is also becoming a significant exporter of natural gas across its Atlantic and Pacific shores. Canada is also emerging as a major exporter of gas across the Pacific. Both Japan and South Korea, major buyers of Australian LNG, will soon have alternate sources of supply. The US is building additional LNG capacity of 80 million tonnes a year, predominantly for export. Oil and gas prices will stabilise or fall as the global energy scenario inevitably changes. Australia is also increasing its LNG exports substantially from its Indian Ocean terminals, to reach 83 million tonnes annually in 2017, and expand further thereafter. Given western Australia's proximity to our east coast, Mr. Modi's visit will be an ideal occasion to give momentum to efforts for long-term agreements for the import of LNG from Australia, which would facilitate the development of petrochemical, fertilizer and power industries along our east coast. India's excessive dependence on imports of oil and gas from the politically volatile Persian/Arab gulf region should be reduced.
|
|||
Clean India without a clean mind? I recently had an opportunity to visit Shimla. The queen of hills offers innumerous panoramic views which are soul soothing and fun to watch. But I also had the privilege to witness something, which was quite funny too. As I was getting my car parked in the parking adjacent to the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, I saw a graffiti on the inner wall of the parking “kripaya peshaab gaadiyon ke peechhe karein”. I was amazed. The graffiti, without intending to cause any hindrance to all those wanting to relieve themselves in the parking itself, was only very innocently requesting them to do the same behind the cars parked there. The belief behind it seemed to be: Stink will do, sight will not. But as I awakened to the reality of that having actually happened, I requested him to send me the image of that smiling little child along with the relevant news again. A few days later, as Jahnavi was fortunately found, I sent him the news along with a “Thank God” message. He, in spite of being a father himself, very innocently enquired: what happened? Why are you so concerned? I am sure Jahnavi and her family could pull a coup on misfortune because of, apart from the dedicated efforts of the police and the media, the prayers and wishes of millions of parents who were "concerned". Should we keep our concerns confined just to our self and our family alone? Is being human not a reason enough to be compassionate towards the pains and problems of others? Or do we need something like this to happen to us to make us respond to such sensitivities of life? I am hopeful most of us don't agree to this. While I was looking at Jahnavi’s photo, my daughter, also about four, looking at my phone said, “She looks like me na, papa”? I hugged her, trying to hide the tears swelling in my eyes. My daughter is about nine years younger to her brother. I remember when she was born, a few people, while congratulating me had also pinched me with their such innocence, “Arrey, itne saal baad, hum to samajhe baithe the ke doosra beta hoga!” And as I am talking of some “very well-educated” people, so no other reason, howsoever logical, seemed to justify such gap. I am so very thankful for having been blessed with a lovely and loving daughter. But for her, I would have very innocently been taken for a murderer of my own child. And her fault? Being a girl. Simple. ‘Swachh Bharat’ may be a great idea. But for its actualisation, what we all need within each of us is a ‘Swachh Bharatiya’.
|
|||
A look at India-Pakistan vision of peace IS Modi's belligerence and disproportionate use of force against Pakistan response or strategy? Or part of a deeper malaise gripping India in which Hindutva has morphed from being a deviation from an alleged secular norm into a mainstream ideology that is setting the national agenda? Accordingly, is Modi pursuing “another Mahabharata” which risks nuclear confrontation? Or is he conducting a populist diversion to avoid the political and electoral costs of real structural reforms?
How should Pakistan respond? There are the usual red lines no sovereign and independent country can disregard. But they constitute limits, not strategy or policy. Pakistan's response to security challenges should not lose sight of the long-term perspective. Otherwise, India's greater size and international influence will always count against it. Unfortunately, Pakistan's national policies have seldom had longer-term coherence mainly because it has been prevented from developing democratic and responsible governance. No military ruler of Pakistan is positively remembered. Pakistan's nuclear deterrence does not provide an equaliser vis-à-vis India except in extremis. This allows India to gain from limited conflicts and confrontations such as have recently occurred. India's superior conventional military strength and international image enable it to raise the ante in such situations without incurring significant diplomatic costs. Pakistan does not have this liberty. Modi wishes to convert this advantage into a Kashmir settlement on his terms. If Pakistan's decision-making can become more democratic, responsible and transparent this will not happen. Nawaz Sharif is being advised not to take any initiative to meet Modi or explore possibilities for the resumption of an agenda-based dialogue. He has been badly bruised by recent political developments and feels vulnerable to charges of weakness vis-à-vis India. He appears so risk-averse that he will not even pursue his own preferred policies. This reduces his credibility at home and abroad. Accordingly, the advice given to him is wrong. It neither enhances Pakistan's diplomatic nor military options. Instead, it compromises Pakistan's development prospects which would certainly diminish in an environment of active hostility with India. Former Foreign Secretary, Riaz Mohammad Khan, has written, “None of the disputes and problems that bedevil relations between the two countries are ideological or inherently intractable; they are essentially political and, thereby, resolvable”. Accordingly, the only conditions for movement are political will and reciprocity. But reciprocity should not rule out initiatives, especially in critical times. Nevertheless, they do need to be reciprocated in order to sustain the necessary political will for movement on “intractable” issues. The adverse environmental impact of the Siachen stalemate through an accelerated melting of the glacier on millions of people in both countries and the implications of water disputes, water scarcity and possible crop failures are potentially greater threats to peace than the unresolved Kashmir dispute. Both countries have a huge stake in more rationally handling these issues. There is, of course, no reason to bow to Indian intimidation and intransigence or abandon principled and legitimate positions as a condition for structured dialogue. But there is very much an argument for adopting longer perspectives. Indian provocations, short of crossing red lines, should not be allowed to derail strategies for a more predictable and sustainable relationship with a difficult and larger neighbour. Pakistan will need to eschew its own provocations. Its denials and counter-arguments carry little international credibility because of its international isolation. This has to change if it is to garner greater international understanding for its policy positions. Ultimately, these strategies will not work if India refuses to accord priority to improving relations with Pakistan and seeking negotiated and mutually acceptable solutions to issues that can further “bedevil” the relationship. Modi does not appear to be a likely partner in such an endeavour. Hopefully, this is not a given. Many in Pakistan compare him unfavourably with Vajpayee, forgetting that Vajpayee finally accused Pakistan of “stabbing him in the back” in Kargil shortly after Lahore. Moreover, this happened on Nawaz Sharif's watch. The mutual-perception barrier is real. It has to be overcome. Both prime ministers will need to demonstrate they are up to the task of normalisation and reconciliation. Accordingly, Pakistan should not forgo any opportunity to make a beginning. The Shimla Agreement envisages the establishment of durable peace “without prejudice to the recognised position of either side”. This “recognises” Pakistan's position regarding the relevance of UN resolutions, which in any case cannot be superseded by a bilateral agreement. On this basis, ensuring an uninterrupted and productive dialogue is a joint leadership obligation and responsibility. A better international image of Pakistan's policies will help in dealing with any Indian intransigence in this regard. Far-sighted leadership based on commonsense, imagination and commitment can overcome adverse “initial conditions” and “intractable” differences. This attitude should inform public opinion in both countries. Accordingly, the media of both countries should refrain from promoting zero-sum attitudes. Within these parameters, a whole range of agreed, interrupted and postponed measures need to be consistently implemented. Line of Control/working boundary flare-ups can and should be avoided. Political leadership and military command structures must ensure this. Personal understanding and trust, based on frequent contact, needs to develop between the prime ministers. Preparations for an exchange of visits should be priority. These should help restore the LoC ceasefire and change the history of sterile exchanges on unresolved issues. The two countries should cease to categorise each other as an “enemy”. The back-channel talks in 2004-06 produced a document for an interim solution. The contents remain controversial. But as Riaz Mohammad Khan rightly observes, if there is to be a Kashmir settlement acceptable to all the parties, including the Kashmiris, it will need to include elements that were addressed in the back channel. They should be revisited, possibly in a more open format, provided both prime ministers and credible representatives of Kashmiri opinion publicly commit themselves to the process. A bilaterally negotiated final settlement would require an agreed modality for Kashmiri participation and approval. If and when achieved, the settlement could be embodied in a unanimously adopted UN Security Council resolution superseding existing resolutions. The writer is a former Ambassador to the US, India and head of the UN missions in Iraq and Sudan. By arrangement with the Dawn
|
|||
|
Pakistan needs to be rescued ON November 2, at the Wagah border, the curious crowds on either side gathered to witness the interesting manoeuvres of border guards on either side were also witness to a gory incident. An explosion on the Pakistani side resulted in the death of at least 61 persons, including women and children and injuries to over 100 people.
It was revealed later that a teenaged suicide bomber, suspected to have been carrying 20-25 kg of explosives, detonated the bomb on the Pakistani side. For this brutal attack, three different Taliban factions claimed credit. One of the Taliban groups claimed that the attack was a reaction to the military operation the Pakistan army was conducting in North Waziristan. Another group claimed that the attack was to tell the government that it had failed to enforce the Taliban version of Islamic law. Yet another Taliban faction, supposedly loyal to Hakhimullah Mehsud stated that it was in response to the killing of Mehsud in a US drone strike last year. These counter-claims of different Taliban factions only expose the ugly fact that Pakistan's security is at the mercy of the Taliban. The tragedy in Pakistan is that apart from the Pakistan army which has assumed powers of directing Pakistan's foreign policy and also inspires and partly controls the agitations of the Canadian-born cleric Qadri, as well as Tehreek-e-Insaf leader Imran Khan, the Pakistani judiciary also interferes in the administration. A Pakistani court ordered, on October 26, that all the arrested workers of Tehreek-e-Insaf and followers of Qadri should be released forthwith. The Islamabad Police Chief Tehir Alam said that he would request the court to review its orders since the arrested persons were involved in the attack on Parliament. The well-known Pakistani commentator Khaled Ahmed has stated that Malala Yousafzai had openly objected to Taliban's policy of destroying girls' schools and had been shot in the head by Taliban terrorist and went on to get the Nobel Peace prize. She was denounced by the mullahs as an American agent. But for her posthaste despatch to London by the then Army Chief General Kayani, she would have been liquidated by radical Islamic elements in Pakistan. Khaled also pointed out that Pakistan's Abdus Salam, who got the Nobel prize for physics in 1979, was denounced since he was a member of the Ahmadiya sect and considered to be a non-Muslim in Pakistan. He returned to Pakistan only to be buried in Pakistan, but not honoured. The fact is that Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif is too weak to assert himself or exercise his authority as Prime Minister. One possible line of hope and encouragement to Nawaz Sharif may be India's willingness to resume talks with him in the forseeable future. The next possible opportunity is during the SAARC Conference in Nepal, followed later by the G-20 Conference in Australia. However, Pakistan has to demonstrate its bona fide by moving decisively against jihadi terrorist elements based in Pakistan. Amidst all this chaos, the disgraced General Pervez Musharraf made an appearance and made a speech that Pakistan Government should continue to give all support to the pro-Pakistani agitators in Kashmir and keep the agitation up till the situation turned favourable to Pakistan. Musharraf said that he was not running away from Pakistan and that he would visit Karachi of and on from his temporary residence in Dubai. It is obvious that Musharraf was fishing in the troubled waters of Pakistan and would only be too happy to grab power in Pakistan again, if possible. Husain Haqqani, who was Pakistan's Ambassador to the USA for some time and is presently working at the Hudson Institute, Washington DC, describes the chaos in Pakistan which was living in denial, having lost its sense of direction. He describes jihadi terrorism as the principal threat to the country's survival. The suicide attack at Wagah border on November 2 was only a face of jihadi terrorism. Haqqani says that even in Pakistan's closest ally China, only 30 per cent of people held a positive view of Pakistan. Haqqani also goes on to say that jihadi extremists could embark on new dangerous missions against India, while Prime Minister Sharif remains pre-occupied. Haqqani fears that sooner or later, the Taliban and their backers would make a bid to grab power in Pakistan which would lead to a big setback for Pakistan. One of the important ways of preventing jihadi terrorism from becoming a threat to the State itself is to initiate action against the terrorist organisations which are active in Pakistan. These terrorist organisations are only concentrating on planning attacks against India. These are Lashkar-e-Toiba and Jammat-ud-Dawa, which are in fact used as terror assets by the Pakistani Army and its creation, the ISI. To begin with, Pakistan should stop offering specious alibis against prosecuting Hafiz Saeed, who was the brain behind the 26/11 Mumbai attack. Ajmal Qasab, who was captured and successfully prosecuted in India acknowledged his links with Hafiz Saeed. Pakistan would realise possibly very soon that unless it moves against terrorists stationed in Pakistan, indirectly supported by Army and the ISI, these will continue to be as much a threat to Pakistan itself rather than India. The suicide attack at Wagah border on November 2 was only a reminder to Pakistan in this direction. The writer is a former IB Chief & former Governor, UP
|
|
| 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 | |
The recent BRICS Summit led to tentative steps for ending the global economic dominance of the US and its European partners by the establishment of the BRICS Development Bank and the Asian Infrastructure Bank in China. These institutions should be realistically seen as complementing, supplementing, but not supplanting institutions like the World Bank, the IMF and Asian Development Bank. A multiplicity of institutions for developmental funding fits in excellently with its belief in a genuinely multi-polar world. If some countries take serious objection to American unilateralism, an equal number have serious misgivings about the increasing manifestations of Chinese hegemony, territorial expansionism and crass mercantilism in developing countries. 
Just a few days ago we all read, saw and experienced the horror when little Jahnavi, aged around four, went missing from the India Gate. I first got the news on, of course, WhatsApp. Initially, I dismissed and deleted it, as the source of it was the group admin who will send anything and everything to all the members of the group of which I happen to be a privileged member.
