 |
|
For affirmative action Coping with terror |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Tough times for trade
Save the dialogue
Unbridled emotion
When memory is selective Lessons in foreign policy Chatterati
|
For affirmative action THE J.J. Irani Committee report on affirmative action in the private sector, which was presented to the Prime Minister on Friday, is significant for various reasons. CII and ASSOCHAM, the two chambers of industry involved in preparing the report under the chairmanship of a noted industrialist, Mr J.J. Irani, presented some “concrete steps” to help the socially and economically underprivileged sections like the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. It appreciates the need to supplement the efforts of the government and civil society for giving better opportunities to the SCs and the STs in all levels of employment, including self-employment. However, it has taken a firm stand against compromising merit in providing employment to anyone in the private sector. Affirmative action has to be voluntary and self-regulated and any legislation in this regard would compromise the sanctity of its “non-negotiable freedom of choice in employment”, it says. A remarkable feature of the report is the committee’s resolve to help the socially disadvantaged sections for social equity, greater inclusiveness (excluding the creamy layer in these categories) in the workplace, business partnerships and capacity building. It reaffirmed its policy to enhance access and opportunity to applicants from the SCs and the STs with “equal qualifications and competence for employment”. Both CII and ASSOCHAM have undertaken the responsibility of monitoring the implementation of the proposed measures in industry through individual councils. There will also be an ombudsman and code of conduct for compliance of the proposed measures. The industry should help the socially disadvantaged sections through scholarships and apparenticeship training programmes, better education and upgradation of skills so that the pool of employable persons from among these sections in the private sector expands. Significantly, it has decided to create a scheme to identify exceptionally brilliant students from these sections and assist them with funds and suitable mentoring through vocational training right from the school level till they become self-dependent. The report merits serious attention because it is against lowering admission standards for some groups unequally, lest industry loses its competitive edge. In view of industry’s commitment to affirmative action, the Centre would do well to refrain from enacting legislation to enforce quotas in the private sector.
|
|
Coping with terror AS it is, nuclear installations and other security buildings are the obvious targets for the terrorists. But when the National Security Adviser of the country says that there is a “very serious threat” that the Lashkar-e-Toiyaba may be planning a “major assault” on them, it is obvious that big mischief may very much be afoot. We live in times when there are enough renegade groups raring to cause mayhem and disorder. The damage cannot be wished away. What matters is whether the nation is prepared to neutralise the threat posed by those groups. Unfortunately, the experience so far does not evoke great confidence. The way two young women and a man casually made their way into the Prime Minister’s residence past the high security cordon should cause alarm. While they might have been just innocent pranksters (although even that claim may or may not be true), what would have happened if a few terrorists along with a few girls riding a fancy car had sneaked past the Z-category security in exactly the same manner? Apparently, something is badly amiss that is now engaging the attention of the security chiefs. And the terrorists don’t have to strike at nuclear and other “vital” installations alone. They are always on the lookout for “soft” targets as the blasts in Mumbai trains have clearly underscored. The element of surprise will always be with them. This has to be fought with constant vigilance and superior intelligence that the security agencies have or are supposed to have. Unfortunately, there seem to be more than one chink in the security armour. The most disquieting is the news that the terrorists have infiltrated the security agencies. They managed to get recruited into the police in places like Jammu and Kashmir. Now even the Army has found a few terrorism backers in its ranks. The National Security Adviser has even warned of moles — may be a few — in the Air Force. That makes the whole security question all the more complex. Suspects will not only have to be completely weeded out, the government will also have to ensure that this is done in a delicate manner and bona fides of the innocent and the loyal do not come into
question. That is a difficult task no doubt. But then who said statecraft is child’s play?
|
|
Tough times for trade THE Geneva meeting of the G 6 group, comprising the US, the EU, Australia, Japan, Brazil and India, has hit a roadblock once again and it is over agriculture again. The US got the drubbing for its refusal to cut the $19.6 billion subsidies it pays to its farmers. Europe refused to cut tariffs that stop the inflow of agricultural goods. India and Brazil stuck to their known position of not allowing subsidised farm products from the US and the EU. No one was prepared to yield any ground. The familiar blame game was again on display. Commerce Minister Kamal Nath returned home, reiterating his usual “talks-have-failed” assessment. The setback at Geneva is serious. Faced with the Congressional elections later this year and the Presidential elections in 2008, Mr George Bush chose to play hard, refusing any concessions. His fast-track authority to push a trade Bill through Congress without any amendment expires next year, though he may try for a year’s extension. Started in November, 2001, the Doha Round has plodded on a bumpy road. The year-end deadline set for its completion is almost impossible to achieve now. Indications are it may take at least three years for the trade talks to revive. The impasse, expected to continue until the US elections, will hit every country, though Mr Kamal Nath is quick to rule out any adverse fallout on growth. The country’s exports to the US and the EU may lose momentum. The EU and the US too may not get the desired market access in India and China. The WTO will be saddled with more trade disputes. Brazil is taking the US to the WTO’s dispute settlement body for its subsidised exports of sugar and cotton. With the weakening of the multilateral trade regime, bilateral trade may flourish and more FTAs may be signed. Since it is established that every country gains from global trade, it is time to save the
WTO.
|
|
Parentage is a very important profession, but no test of fitness for it is ever imposed in the interest of the children. — George Bernard Shaw
|
Save the dialogue
Despite all the talk of “irreversibility” of the peace process that India and Pakistan launched in 2004, the shadow of terrorism has always been lurking in the background as a potential spoiler. The entire dialogue between the two countries was based on a quid pro quo — India would talk Kashmir with Pakistan, and Pakistan will not allow any territory under its control to be used for terrorism directed against India. True to its commitment to not let the peace process become hostage to terrorism, India stayed the course despite a number of high-profile terrorist attacks, the trail of which invariably led to some Pakistan-based jihadi organisation, generally the Lashkar-e-Toiba. In the process, India became something of a hostage to the peace process. That is until the Mumbai serial blasts, when under intense public and political pressure the government of India was forced to postpone the Foreign Secretary-level talks with Pakistan. The war of words that has ensued between the Foreign Offices of the two countries has only made the task of putting the dialogue process back on track more difficult. In a sense, the onus will be on Pakistan to take action against the extremist groups that are still functioning with relative impunity inside that country, without which India will find it very difficult to resume the dialogue. While there are some indications of a post-7/11 crackdown on the jihadis in Pakistan, it is not clear how far General Pervez Musharraf will be inclined to go in this direction. There are four big problems for General Musharraf in taking any major action against the jihadis in Pakistan: One, he will be seen to be acting on what some people in Pakistan would see as Indian diktats. Two, General Musharraf has gained nothing tangible from the peace process which could justify a crackdown on the jihadis. Three, at a time when the Pakistan army is engaged in combating insurgency in Waziristan and Balochistan, he may not like to open another front inside Pakistan; Finally, there is so far no substantial evidence that directly or indirectly implicates Pakistan, the ISI or any Pakistan-based jihadi group in the Mumbai serial blasts. In a way, India has shot itself in the foot by pointing a finger at Pakistan without as much as a shred of evidence to back its charges. The real blame for this must rest with the media, which within hours of the blasts started insinuating, if not directly accusing, Pakistan of involvement in the blasts. The widespread and, one dares say, manufactured public perception of Pakistani involvement coloured the political response. The government was simply unable to stand up to the rising tide of public anger at the outrage and suspended the composite dialogue. Before anyone knew it, the Prime Minister, like a faryadi, was in St Petersburg, seeking the indulgence of big powers against Pakistan’s perfidy. Obviously, none of the geniuses manning the Foreign Office told the Prime Minister that even if there was cast-iron proof of Pakistani hand behind the blasts, the big powers would not move one small finger against that country and its leadership, certainly not at a time when Pakistan is playing a frontline state and vital ally in the so-called “war on terror”. If after two decades of fighting (or should one say compromising?) terrorism India has still not learnt that it must not depend on others to pull its chestnuts out of fire, then it perhaps never will. What is more, while international sympathy (for whatever it is worth) will probably be with India, without rock-solid proof of Pakistani involvement in the Mumbai blasts, no will like to see India derail the peace process. Indeed, if the Indian policy establishment was to think things through, they would realise that the country’s interests are better served by continuing the dialogue with Pakistan rather than breaking off the talks. Whatever else anyone might say, the fact remains that the peace process has achieved a lot, much more than most people ever imagined. Relations between the two countries and peoples are more relaxed and friendly than ever before, and the desire for peace and normalisation of relations with India is palpable inside Pakistan. The right-wing anti-India lobby in Pakistan is finding itself totally isolated. Diplomatically, the process was yielding great dividends because without having yielded anything on Kashmir or any of the other sovereign issues, India was no longer being hectored to resolve the issue. Interestingly, the common refrain in Pakistan is that they have given in on practically everything, without India showing even a little bit of flexibility on any single issue. Most people in Pakistan openly say that Pakistan has all but given up on Kashmir. Of course, India will be deluding itself if it thinks that Pakistan will just roll over and play dead on Kashmir, something that it didn’t do even after the 1971 debacle. At the very minimum, Pakistan will want an honourable way out of the mess, which is exactly what the peace process is all about. Of course, India’s reservations over the continuing existence and operation of various jihadi organisations in Pakistan are perfectly valid. Well-informed Pakistani analysts say that despite of all the action that has been taken against them, the jihadis are still very much active, only they no longer publicise their exploits and operations. More dangerously, these groups are very active in radicalising Pakistani society, a phenomenon which in the not-so-distant a future could spell disaster for not only Pakistan but also the rest of the world. To a great extent, the activities of these organisations have tacit state sanction. Many people allege that General Musharraf is loath to closing the jihad option and would like to keep the pot of jihad boiling, to keep the pressure on India, because if violence was to cease completely then what is there to prevent India from turning around and saying that there is nothing to talk on Kashmir with Pakistan. But clearly, talks and terrorism cannot go together for a very long time. If General Musharraf is serious about ridding Pakistan of the curse of extremism on the one hand, and durable peace with India on the other, then he must act decisively against the jihadi organisations. India too needs to realise that unless it wants to junk all the progress that has been made in the last two and a half years and wishes to return to the rather barren policy of unremitting hostility, then it must get back on the negotiating table. Rhetoric like “India will do what it has to do” is all very well, until someone asks the question: what can India do? Can India actually do what it has to do? Does India even know what it has to do? Much of what is being suggested has already been tried and has failed. Unless India is able to decide that it will use its national power to the hilt to put Pakistan in its place and will pursue this policy for as long as it takes, it is best to avoid unnecessary machismo. Given India’s past record, it is clear that within months of taking a hard line, the Indian political establishment starts looking for ways to re-engage Pakistan. So, why go down a path that is not in keeping with our national trait. A soft and weak state like India must realise its inherent psychological, political and power limitations and make policy
accordingly.
|
Unbridled emotion IT is commonly said that if a person allows his emotions to have too free a run then sometimes he buys a great deal of trouble. That holds true whether the question is of trying to get even over a perceived wrong or of euphoria brought about by the sudden appearance of an utterly irresistible face in one’s life. Never-the-less some people just cannot control themselves and pay heavily for their lapse. One such instance is of an elderly person who happened to buy some cannabis for about £ 300 and found it was probably fake and quite unenjoyable. He demanded his money back from the dealer who refused point blank to do so. The buyer was furious and could not bear the idea of the shopkeeper getting away with the fraud. So he thought of what appeared to be a clever thing to do: he reported the matter to the police. One does not know what action, if any, the police took against the dealer but they prosecuted the complaining customer for the purchase and possession of the contraband. Another case is of a pickpocket who was standing next to a stunning beauty in a crowded bus in Germany. He just could not take his eyes off her but soon his itching fingers got the better of him and he proceeded to take the lady’s handbag off her. On his way home he still kept dreaming of her and wondered how he could contact her again. Later, when he opened the handbag he was thrilled to see a card in it with the woman’s address and telephone number. He regarded that as some kind of divine support for what had entered his mind and put a call through. Then he tried to chat up his heart’s current desire. She was livid with anger at his audacity but kept her cool and just led him on. Directly afterwards she complained to the police and the brazen youth ended up behind the bars for a longish spell. One person in Germany had an altogether different bee in his bonnet. He had not been bowled over by a human charmer, but instead had developed a deep aversion to a denizen of the animal kingdom, namely, the Easter ‘bunny’. According to him the bunny is a sadistic predator who preys on people’s sweet tooth as it gets them addicted to chocolates which lead to obesity, heart attacks and strokes. In fact he feels so strongly on this point that last Easter he approached the police to have the “animal” handcuffed and taken off the shop
shelves.
|
When memory is selective Narration
of contemporary events and trends by a major player is not an easy task – he may be pilloried for what appear to be overstatements or understatements, may be questioned on points of fact, or may be seen as indulging in self-glorification. The former external affairs minister Jaswant Singh has undertaken this job, knowing full well the risks involved. His latest book, A Call to Honour: In service of emergent India ( Rupa, New Delhi, 2006) is a marathon exercise, chronicling foreign policy-related developments during the six years of NDA rule. It is a readable narrative, the absence of new insights and the ponderous style notwithstanding. What he has penned is notable – equally so is what he has omitted. His account of India’s dealings with Pakistan stops at the point when he moved to the finance ministry from external affairs. He could have extended it to cover subsequent developments, especially the making of the peace process, the cease-fire on the international border, the LOC and Siachen in November 2003, and the joint statement of Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee and General Musharraf on January 6, 2004. The book gives an account of the bus journey to Lahore in February 1999, starting with how the idea of this road travel was mooted at a luncheon meeting between Vajpayee and Nawaz Sharief in New York on September 23, 1998. Nawaz Sharief recalled his visit to India in 1982 to witness the Asian Games, having driven his own car to New Delhi, adding sentimentally, “Those were the days” to which Jaswant Singh interjected, “We can rediscover those days.” The process for the Delhi-Lahore bus service was then set in motion. Most of the details given in the book regarding Vajpayee’s journey on the inaugural run on February 20, 1999, are well-known. The euphoric scene at the Wagah-Attari border, the warm welcome, the talks between the two Prime Ministers, conclusion of three documents, the Lahore Declaration and the MOU between the two foreign secretaries. We humble scribes had reported a lot more – like the absence of three service chiefs, including Gen Musharraf, then the chief of army staff, at the border (though they did salute Vajpayee at the governor’s residence), the tough stance of Pakistani officials during the preparatory discussions on the draft documents, who only gave up their inflexibility following Nawaz Sharief’s intervention at Brajesh Mishra’s instance. On the humiliating episode of the hijacking of IC 814, Jaswant gives some graphic descriptions – for instance of Kandahar where the plane was eventually taken and where he went in a special aircraft, along with three TADA detenues to be handed over to secure the release of 166 passengers – but there is no addition to the known information. He was exasperated that the hijacked plane was allowed to leave Amritsar but does not tell us why this avoidable lapse could not be averted. In his predictable defence of his trip to Kandahar, he cites some documents but leaves out those which, according to insiders, were not supportive of the controversial decision. During his return flight from Kandahar, Jaswant Singh, we are told, spotted a young Frenchman who was crying incessantly, a Swiss gentleman of dignity and reserve, a lady from Nepal who thanked him profusely. Laudable human gesture, no doubt. But how come he does not spare a thought for the bride-turned-widow whose husband, Rupan Katyal, was brutally killed by the hijackers. Kargil is the subject of self-congratulatory accounts – of the victory on the ground and in diplomatic moves. India, the book says, had achieved the substance of all that it had set out to, militarily and diplomatically. Not one inch was “negotiated away”, unlike the previous engagements, an obvious dig at the previous rulers. To Jaswant Singh, the US acknowledgement of Pakistan’s wrong-doing and recognition of the menace of terrorism was a “very significant gain.” His satisfaction over the then US president Bill Clinton’s tough talk with Nawaz Sharief is justified, but the book could have given some details of these encounters, of the type carried by the US papers. As in the case of the Kandahar trip, Jaswant has done some defensive explaining regarding his role during the Agra summit. Was it “a draft” or “the draft” of the Vajpayee-Musharraf declaration which was okayed by Jaswant Singh? Was the approval of the two heads a mere formality? According to him, he merely corrected the “Punjabi English”, a remark taken sportingly by his counterpart Abdul Sattar. According to the other side, there was finality about the document but it fell through because of opposition from hawks like L.K. Advani, then home minister. The detailed narration in the book does give some overview of what went on in Agra but we are no wiser. Jaswant Singh, as is known, has attached considerable significance to his talks with the US deputy secretary of state Strobe Talbot on the problems thrown up following India’s 1998 nuclear tests. That explains his disproportionately elaborate accounts of his many encounters with the US official. Going strictly by concrete results, there was nothing to write home about though Jaswant Singh claims considerable advance in the harmonization of their viewpoints and even sees the present India-US agreement as the culmination of that effort. There are detailed accounts of other developments which are readable no doubt but do not present a complete picture. In defending mobilization of troops on the border after the terrorist attack on Parliament on December 13, 2001, he repeats the arguments given by the NDA government then. That it was part of coercive diplomacy, “combining aggressive diplomatic actions internationally with firm military positioning.” But we are also aware that there was controversy then over the merits of this move and over its achievement. Of this we do not get any indication in the book. It also glosses over the intense diplomatic activity which was witnessed then as top Western leaders had descended on New Delhi to plead for de-escalation.
|
|
Lessons in foreign policy LET’S
pretend. It’s been a bad few weeks, with the Israel–Lebanon confrontation daily growing more devastating and Iraq continuing its downward spiral. Why not indulge in a brief escapist fantasy? So let’s pretend – just for a few minutes – that America has a president who is serious about creating a more secure world for our children and grandchildren. What lessons would this imaginary president draw from the tragedies and mistakes of the last five years? Lesson No. 1 would surely be this: Although there’s a time and place for military force, technological military superiority is no guarantee of success. The weak will always seek – and find – asymmetrical methods of warfare against the strong. More than two centuries ago, our own war of independence succeeded in part because we didn’t “play fair.’’ Our untrained soldiers wore dull, homespun clothing and sneaked around in the woods. In their proper red uniforms, the British soldiers were sitting ducks. It’s the same today, except that all the technologies are more lethal. Any reasonably capable teenager can manufacture a homemade bomb with instructions from the Internet, and the more talented can turn lampposts into crude but effective missile launchers. In Iraq, we’re discovering all over again that technological military superiority is no match for a determined foe on fire with religious or nationalist zeal. In Lebanon, the Israelis are banging their heads against the same brick wall. Lesson No. 2: If you can’t defeat your enemy militarily, you need to take away his motivation to fight. Overly aggressive military approaches only increase the bitterness that caused the conflict in the first place. Unless America wants to become the permanent global cop in a permanent global police state, we need to change our approach. We want peace in the Middle East? Stability in Iraq? An end to terrorist attacks? We may not achieve any of those things even in the best of circumstances. But we certainly won’t achieve them if we refuse to take seriously the idea that our enemies – like us – consider themselves good people, with legitimate grievances. Eliminate the grievances and you’re on the way to eliminating the conflict. When progressives say things like this, right-wing pundits immediately sneer. But you don’t have to love your enemy – or trust him further than you could throw him – to recognize the benefits of talking to him and taking his concerns seriously. That’s not being “soft.’’ It’s being realistic. Lesson No. 3: Imperfect solutions are better than none at all. Condoleezza Rice thinks a cease-fire in Lebanon would be premature because it wouldn’t resolve the conflict’s “root causes.’’ It’s sweet that she’s so interested in root causes, but sometimes you’ve got to start small. When civilians on both sides are having their limbs blown off, it’s hard for anyone to focus on root causes. Lesson No. 4: If we want to build a safer long-term future, we need to start giving those root causes more than lip service. We need to invest our money and our political capital in spreading peace and prosperity for all people, not just those inside Fortress America (which – pursuant to Lesson 1 – can never truly be a fortress anyway). By arrangement with
LA-Times–Washington Post
|
|
Chatterati DEATH came cruelly to the innocent in Mumbai where cops and the intelligence agencies were caught napping. Hats off to the Mumbaikars! From slum dwellers to film stars, everyone came to the rescue of the victims. Dr Manmohan Singh was also plodding along to help save the situation. The Home Minister and the Secretary, as usual, were clueless about the bombs and stuttered and stammered on camera. They sure need more than a pallu to hide behind. The other Mumbai minister at the Centre, Sharad Pawar, and his cronies were, of course, flying all over the world for health and wealth reasons. Happily riding piggyback on the Congress! Busy, very busy, running the BCCI, buying planes and upgrading airports! What about the starvation deaths in Maharashtra and the nationwide price rise? Does that have something to do with the Agriculture Ministry? Muscle power The Gandhis have been complaining about Mulayam Singh Yadav giving their constituencies in UP— Amethi and Rae Bareli — step-motherly treatment. No bijli, pani and, of course, such poor infrastructure in the VVIP constituencies! We all know that Mulayam was a wrestler and his first love is still going to “akhada” to relax whenever he is stressed. Rahul Gandhi has come out with a bright idea and has decided to open ten
gym-cum-fitness centres in Amethi. The youth will, of course, love the idea of developing muscle power. That is obviously something one would need to fight the coming elections in Uttar Pradesh. BJP in action In recent times I have not seen the BJP/Sangh Parivar so happy and competent as when the NDA MPs demonstrated against UPA Government policies outside Rashtrapati Bhavan. Our senior NDA leaders, making noise, shouting slogans, laughing, full of life and doing what, it seems, they are good at. These are the people who have always sat in opposition and are experienced in chakkajams, hartals and other such demonstrations. This was clearly a change from a very demoralised Opposition we have been seeing for some time now. Truth and honour The Capital is abuzz with Jaswant Singh’s new book A call to honour. He has written some truths and some half-truths. It appears the book has done more damage to the author than to any of his intended targets, particularly with reference to the Kandahar issue. How can a minister be influenced by his officials, in making the crucial decision to accompany terrorists released from Indian jails to Kandahar, to hand them over to the hijackers? Do bureaucrats have more influence than the cabinet? Quite shocking. Will we ever live the Kandahar episode down? No way. Anyway, he did not do much to celebrate as a Foreign Minister.
|
|
From the pages of Sanjay’s small car Letters of intent have been issued to Mr Sanjay Gandhi and Mr Madan Mohan Rao for the manufacture of small cars in the private sector. Issue of licenses to the two parties will be considered by the Ministry of Industrial Development after they submit detailed project reports. Additionally, the Government proposes to set up another small car plant in the public sector with foreign collaboration. That Mr Gandhi seems to have done it all by himself goes to his credit, but tongues will wag if Mr Rao is handicapped for want of foreign exchange. There are already three passenger car units in operation in India turning out 35,000 cars per year. The public sector plant will have an initial capacity of 50,000 cars. The Ministry of Industrial Development expects that the demand for passenger cars would increase to 85,000 by the end of the Fourth Plan, just when the Government factory would go into production. The expected demand being equal to the existing production plus the expected production from the Government plant, it does not provide for the output from the projected factories of Mr Gandhi and Mr Rao. How many people are there in India who can afford any kind of car, however, small?
|
Between the daring dash of a savage and the indomitable courage of a civilised man there is this vast difference that the latter is prepared to meet real dangers but he reasons and reflects, even in the fury of battle, before he proceeds and takes the course best suited to avert the evil, while the former in obedience to an irresistible passion makes a violent onset in one direction only. — The Koran The Truth is this: Our lives are shaped by our deeds. One who realises this has reached the summit of self-realisation. — The Bhagavadgita The false find no refuge in God’s court. They are marched to hell with blackened faces — Guru Nanak The Almighty God, sitting alertly in each individual, guides the action of man according to his will. — Kabir
|
| HOME PAGE | |
Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir |
Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs |
Nation | Opinions | | Business | Sports | World | Mailbag | Chandigarh | Ludhiana | Delhi | | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |
