 |
|
Caste war Big B as farmer |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
King of Deccan
A lingering border dispute
Matter of trust
Pipeline security Chinese targeting of Indian interests intensifying Chatterati
|
Caste war With
continuing violence, destruction of property and the blocking of road and rail traffic, the Gujjars’ war for privileges with both the state and the Meena community in Rajasthan has the potential to lead to a serious internal security situation. The agitation is not something that has happened overnight, and the power play of political hands is clearly visible. The violence is condemnable, and the virtual cutting off of large swathes of a state’s territory is a matter of grave concern for the entire nation. No federal government can brook such a situation and retain credibility. While the Prime Minister has intervened and efforts are on to defuse the crisis, there is no easy solution in sight. When groups are playing for high stakes and violence is seen as a bargaining chip, things will obviously be difficult. Reports of groups of people armed with weapons and roaming about, either fighting off road and rail blockades or attempting to enforce them, show that the law and order machinery is proving grossly inadequate. It is incumbent upon the Centre to ensure that this does not continue to be the case, and the deployment of Central forces in required numbers, including the armed forces, must be augmented. Both the Centre and the state government should collaborate to put in place a mechanism where dialogue and conciliation can take place. Those who are recalcitrant must be dealt with firmly. It is an unfortunate fact that the current system of state-granted privileges, in the form of reservations in both jobs and education, has combined with corruption, maladministration and undeniable socio-economic imbalances to perpetuate inequities and societal conflict. While reservation has benefited many from the disadvantaged groups, it has also failed to reach others, even as it privileges the winning of political entitlements rather than true empowerment. It is the Meenas’ success in using their ST status to dominate government services, including the police, that has got the Gujjars hankering after the same status. And with a limited size of the pie, the Meenas will brook no new claimants. Both wise counsel and a firm hand will be required. |
|
Big B as farmer AMITABH BACHCHAN needs no introduction. In his eventful life he has played many real as well as reel roles — actor, anchor, crorepati-maker, MP, friend of prime ministers and brand ambassador, to name a few. Yet, the millions who see him and know him would never have suspected him of being a farmer. Charmer? Yes, but farmer he is certainly not. This has been settled beyond doubt by a Faizabad court, which rejected the actor’s plea of being a farmer to justify his ownership of a plot of land in Barabanki’s Daulatpur village. It has been held that the transfer of 0.25 hectare of land in the name of Bachchan was “illegal, baseless and fraudulent” as the village land can only be owned by agriculturists. The allotment was shown as having been made in 1983 though the land was given to Bachchan in 1993. The court found that the entry in the land records was “tampered and forged” thus exposing that the allotment was backdated. Obviously, his proximity to the Mulayam Singh Yadav government and the willingness of local officials to oblige their political masters helped Bachchan to not only get the land but also claim the status of a “farmer”. Had his claim of being a farmer prevailed he would have got the legal right to gain possession of lucrative tracts near Pune which can be owned only by agriculturists. The real purpose was not ownership of the plot in Uttar Pradesh but to acquire legitimacy as a farmer to justify his acquisition of over eight hectares in Pune. Now, there is a question mark over the Maharashtra property, too. It is a cruel paradox that while farmers are dying and agriculture is neglected, powerful urban figures and corporate houses are able to virtually grab land not only at throwaway prices but also on the basis of questionable claims. Clearly, there is a nexus here among the urban rich, politicians and bureaucrats. This needs to be not only exposed but also undone, and the law must take its course regardless of the political and financial clout of the offenders. The officials involved must be awarded deterrent punishment so that the administration is not reduced to being a mere facilitator of wheeling and dealing. |
|
King of Deccan MR VIJAY MALLYA’S UB group is set to acquire a controlling stake in Deccan Aviation, which has brought air travel within the reach of the common man by cutting fares. Only a few days ago Group Capt G.R. Gopinath had scotched rumours about any such takeover saying: “I am from Mars and he is from Venus”. Air Deccan, actually, had no choice. If the deal had not been struck with Mr Mallya, it would have possibly been with the Anil Ambani group, which wanted a 51 per cent stake. That is because Air Deccan had run out of cash, defaulting on Rs 200 crore payments. Mr Mallya’s terms were better: he asked for only 26 per cent shares as an investor, retaining Captain Gopinath as the Chairman. Mr Mallya would not have liked the cash-rich Ambani to lap up Air Deccan and give him competition he would have been hard put to meet. Now he can breathe easier. The UB’s deal makes the Kingfisher Airlines-Air Deccan group the largest domestic airline in the country having a fleet of 71 aircraft. Reports say Air Deccan will continue to be run as a no-frills, low-fare airline, but Mr Mallya has given enough hints of a fare hike. By synergising operations, the two airlines will save Rs 300 crore and have a combined revenue of Rs 6,000 crore this year. The Indian aviation industry is consolidating. The Jet Airways’ capture of Air Sahara and the merger of Indian with Air-India are two recent examples of such conslidation. The trend does not augur well for the small-budget traveller as competition no longer remains that stiff. Instead of the market forces, the airlines can decide on fares and form a cartel. The government, however, should check this as well as speed up the expansion and modernisation of airports to meet the needs of a rising India. |
|
The accent of one’s birthplace lingers in the mind and in the heart as it does in one’s speech.
— Duc de la Rochefoucauld |
A lingering border dispute
STATES spoil their case when they overstate it. China has done so by refusing visa to an Indian Administrative Service officer from Arunachal Pradesh, India’s northeastern state. That Beijing does not consider the territory a part of India is nothing new. But the refusal of visa to the IAS officer is at the cost of trust that the long-estranged people in India were beginning to have in China. Beijing has been consistent. But that does not mean it is correct. Beijing took a similar stand when it blocked the entry of Arunachal Pradesh Speaker and former Chief Minister Gegong Apong. Not long ago, China’s Ambassador Sun Yu Xi in New Delhi said publicly that Arunachal was “Chinese territory.” When the talks were going on, India expected China not to do anything that could disturb the efforts at conciliation. China should know that it took almost two decades to prepare the ground for talks. New Delhi has technically violated Parliament’s unanimous resolution in 1962 to get vacation of every bit of Indian territories that China had occupied during the war. For Beijing to claim Arunachal without a negotiated settlement will only spoil the relations which are beginning to look up. It has been tough going. First, there was Mao’s smile and then his long handshake with the then Indian Ambassador in Beijing. It indicated a desire for the resumption of snapped ties. Atal Bihari Vajpayee as Foreign Minister and Rajiv Gandhi as Prime Minister reciprocated the gestures for a new chapter of rapprochement to begin. The border issue was kept aside lest the bitterness over it should affect the talks. Trade, travel and other avenues were taken up first to establish contacts. The same approach New Delhi vainly tried to sell to Islamabad as well. India initiated efforts to double or treble the trade on the one hand and hold talks on the prickly issue of border on the other. This was despite the fact that China had not accepted even the Colombo proposals following the ceasefire. The proposals worked out by Sri Lanka favoured Chinese withdrawal by 20 kilometres in the Ladakh area and the creation of a demilitarised zone in the vacated territory that both Beijing and New Delhi would administer through mutually agreed civilian posts and recognition of the line of actual control as the ceasefire line in the then North-East Frontier Administration (NEFA) area. Till today, China has not vacated the positions it gained during the war. Nor has it recognised the ceasefire line in Arunachal Pradesh, then NEFA. When talks on the border began New Delhi understandably assumed that China, too, wanted a peaceful settlement and would accept the status quo till the settlement was reached. Apparently, China, basking in the glow of its galloping economic growth, has different ideas on talks. It has not yet changed its old line that what it occupies is its territory and what it claims is also part of China. What difference would it have made if Beijing had allowed people from Arunachal visit China? Six weeks ago there was a meeting of some 100 students at the Chinese embassy in New Delhi. One student was from Arunachal. Why did Beijing not block his attendance? China’s argument is that it does not issue visa for the territories which are its own. Then what is the purpose of holding talks when it has already made up its mind? India’s stand is entirely the opposite. Its Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee has said that Arunachal is an integral part of India. State chief minister Dorjee Khandu has said: “We are an integral part of Akhand Bharat.” What disappoints people in India is that New Delhi does not keep the nation in the picture when it comes to talks on the border. This happened even before the 1962 hostilities. The then Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, did not tell the country how China was nibbling our territories and how it had forcibly occupied the Aksai Chin. I was working those days in the Home Ministry as Information Officer. The joke in the ministry was that if you did not want to take action on a matter, put the relevant papers in the “border file.” The term coined was to describe Nehru’s no-action attitude even after reports by Indian intelligence agencies in the fifties that China was occupying Indian territories in Ladakh and punishing the stray soldiers patrolling the area. Although New Delhi has not violated the Colombo proposals, China has not bothered about India’s sensitivities. However, every time there is a meeting between the representatives of India and China on the border issue either in Delhi or Beijing — 10 rounds so far — the impression given is that the two sides are going ahead. Even words like “progress” or “positive” have been used after the meeting. Yet, the ground realities are different. There is practically no progress. Claims are not taking the shape of clashes as it happened in the sixties. But that is all. The task of Indian National Security Adviser M.K. Narayanan, the chief negotiator on our behalf, has become all the more onerous and arduous. But he has an obligation to tell the nation what is happening. Otherwise, he too would be held responsible for hiding facts. Beijing’s claim over Arunachal has nothing new. It goes back to the fifties. When top officials of the two countries met following the inconclusive talks between Prime Ministers Nehru and Chou-En Lai in the late fifties, both sides claimed Arunachal Pradesh. Today, when we are supposed to have good relations, Beijing is not willing to let the status quo prevail as it happens when the talks are in progress. A small thing like an IAS officer from Arunachal visiting China as part of his curriculum is not acceptable to Beijing. Is there any purpose in holding discussions when China is not open to even a little leeway? Beijing has issued a statement to welcome the IAS officers for training. But that is neither here nor there. It must explain how Arunachal is part of China. Could this development be a straw in the wind to indicate that Beijing is reverting to its old policy of hostility towards India? Nehru was right when he recorded a note in 1962 during the Sino-Indian war: “It is a little naïve to think that the trouble with China was essentially due to a dispute over some territories. It had deeper reasons. Two of the largest countries in Asia confronted each other over a vast border. They differed in many ways. And the test was as to whether anyone of them would have a more dominating position than the other on the border and in Asia
itself.”
|
Matter of trust
The
departure time of Qutab Express from Nizamuddin Station was 5.05 p.m. I was the last passenger to enter the 4-berth compartment and had been allotted an upper berth. Two passengers, sitting like damp sparrows on the opposite berth and reading newspapers, looked at me as if I was an intruder. Perhaps they thought that one berth would remain vacant throughout the long journey, giving them more space and privacy. But the third passenger who introduced himself as Avtar Singh was different. He wore a welcome smile and offered to swap his lower berth with my upper one, if that pleased me. It was a great gesture but I politely declined the offer. Avtar Singh went up in my estimation. I struck up conversation with the young sardarji and we talked about the weather, the spiralling prices and the fluid political situation in the country to while away the time. In our fast developing camaraderie, we took tea in earthen cups from a hawker who was crying himself hoarse on the platform. I learnt that he was a senior executive in an auto-ancillary firm and like me, he too was heading for Jabalpur on official work. As the train was nearing Agra, I casually told Avtar Singh that apart from Taj Mahal, Agra was also known for its saffron-laced petha sweets and the name of the shop which excelled in its preparation. There was a mischievous glint in his eyes. He made some mental calculations and declared that he would manage to procure a box of sweets from that particular shop just after the train arrived at Agra. Avtar Singh was neither a godman who are known to produce watches and rings from nowhere nor a sorcerer with his magic wand to do what he had boasted. At best, it was a good joke, devoid of any substance. But Avtar Singh meant what he had said. As the train stopped at Raja-ki-Mandi before Agra station for a few minutes, he rushed out. After a while he returned to the compartment. He explained that he had given a 100-rupee note to an auto-driver, asked him to hurry up and purchase a kilo of that delicacy from the right shop. The unknown auto-driver was to meet him at the exit gate of Agra station which was the next stop for the train. The driver could keep the balance which would suffice for the fare and his service. The other two passengers had a hearty laugh and thought that Avtar Singh was crazy. They were prepared to bet that the driver would never turn up and decamp with the money. But Avtar Singh thought differently. He had faith in human values “ honesty and integrity” and the deal that he had struck with the auto-driver was honest. It took about 25 minutes for the train to reach Agra station. Nonchalantly, Avtar Singh left the compartment. We went through some anxious, breathtaking moments with our eyes riveted on the crowd outside. Suddenly he emerged tearing through the surging multitude with the trophy , “ the promised box of sweets! The driver had vindicated the trust that our friend had put on him. Such complete strangers like Avtar Singh who just flit past and stir our lives like an exquisite tune of melody, symbolise what is noble and magnanimous in a human
being. |
Pipeline security Trilateral
negotiations on an overland, natural gas pipeline from Iran to India appear to have reached critical mass, with the three countries now talking of floating joint venture companies (JVs) on their respective sides , to take the project further. The Iranians are talking tough on the price of gas and the Pakistanis are demanding more royalty than India is prepared to pay. Since the pipeline will run through Pakistan’s Balochistan and Sind provinces, with attendant security risks, decisions made today will affect India’s energy security and have an impact on the growing economy for decades to come. The Persian Gulf region is a major source of oil and natural gas for India. Iran is an energy giant with one foot in the Caspian Sea and the second in the Persian Gulf. It is mutually beneficial for India and Iran to enter into a buyer-seller relationship for natural gas that Iran has in abundance and India desperately needs. The geographical location of Iran’s natural gas reserves at the South Pars field is such that the Indian – and, to some extent, Pakistani – markets are the only major markets that can be profitably served by this gas. Natural gas is transported either through overland or undersea pipelines in its natural state or as liquefied natural gas (LNG). Liquefying gas and transporting it as LNG in oil tankers is a costly venture. The capital outlay that would need to be incurred would include an expenditure of US $ 2 billion for a liquefaction unit, US $ 200 million for each LNG tanker and US $ 500 million for a re-gasification plant. Considered purely in economic terms, overland pipelines present the most viable commercial option. The 2,200 km overland pipeline from Assaluyeh and Bandar Abbas in Iran, which would pass through Pakistan and link up with the existing HBJ pipeline in Rajasthan, is likely to cost between US $ 3 to 4 billion. Since this pipeline would supply natural gas to Pakistan also, the cost would be proportionately shared by India, Iran and Pakistan. The 2,900 km offshore pipeline from Bandar Abbas to Jamnagar, through shallow waters on the Continental Shelf, would cost approximately US $ 5 billion, to be shared by India and Iran. The deep-sea option, that is still technologically suspect, would cost almost as much to build, operate and maintain as the LNG option. The overland pipeline option would suit Pakistan too as it would benefit by netting a transit royalty of US $ 700 to 800 million annually, besides getting a regular source of gas with minimal investment. Though this option through Pakistan is economically the most viable, India cannot allow good economics to be jeopardised by bad security. India must not allow the supply of a strategic resource to be held hostage to the machinations of capricious Jihadi elements. General Pervez Musharraf’s military regime has stated several times that Pakistan is willing to give a unilateral undertaking that it will not allow the disruption of the supply of gas to India. However, General Musharraf has admitted that his government has no control over some Jihadi organisations that are responsible for internal instability in Pakistan. Does his government have the capability to ensure the physical security of a pipeline that runs for almost 1,500 km through Pakistani territory even if it is inclined to do so? In addition, the Baloch people are concerned that Pakistan will not equitably share these revenues with their underdeveloped province. A fairly vigorous insurgency has engulfed most of Balochistan and the gas pipeline will be a target. The diameter of the gas pipeline would be between 50 to 55 inches. Though such pipelines are mostly buried underground, they are laid just below the surface and their route is well marked to facilitate maintenance, making them prone to easy disruption. The compressor stations that are usually over-ground are also vulnerable to sabotage, though these are easier to guard. Any terrorist group or disgruntled individual fanatic, with a medieval mindset, could disrupt the pipeline with a few grams of plastic explosive or a few hundred grams of high explosive – commodities that are available in abundance in Pakistan. In fact, in some areas in Pakistan, explosive charges, detonators and cordite are so freely available that one can buy the stuff from the neighbourhood grocer. Under such circumstances, ensuring the security of the pipeline would be a challenge for the most committed police or paramilitary force. The entire length of the pipeline would need to be fenced off on both sides to deny easy access to prospective saboteurs. Since wire fencing can be easily cut, it would need to be kept under electro-optical surveillance throughout its length, combined with continuous physical patrolling. All these measures would cost a massive amount to implement and would still not guarantee 100 per cent security. Perhaps a more suitable option would be to form an international consortium of stakeholders to build and operate the pipeline, buy the gas from Iran and deliver it at India’s border. Such a consortium will incur heavy costs to ensure the security of the pipeline. Also, higher insurance costs, opportunity costs and the need to maintain larger strategic reserves might well make the overland option too expensive. Perhaps the best option at present is to continue with LNG while simultaneously exploring the possibility of a secure overland route with unimpeachable international guarantees. If India can get gas at the border and has to pay only for what it gets - COD - without sinking its money into capital investment, the Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline might still be a good option. The author is Senior Fellow, Centre for Air Power Studies, New Delhi. |
|
Chinese targeting of Indian interests intensifying The
Chinese refusal to grant a visa to an Arunachal Pradesh IAS officer has thrown up a piquant situation that is delicate and highly sensitive. The officer, Ganesh
Koyu, was denied a Chinese visa on the grounds that Arunachal Pradesh belonged to China and hence the officer was a Chinese citizen and did not require a visa to visit China. Beijing went one step forward when its foreign ministry spokesperson cautioned India on May 29 to desist from highlighting bilateral differences before the boundary dispute was resolved. There is always some friction between countries, even if they are allies. Even in Sino-Pakistan relations, where each side describes the other as a “time-tested ally”, Beijing has often criticised Pakistan for allowing Uighur separatists to be trained on the latter’s soil. The Sino-Pak relationship has been so durable for so long because the two share very important common goals, one of them being countering India. India and China currently do not have any major, common, strategic objectives. In fact, the two have stood an opposite sides on many sub-regional, regional and international issues. Besides these, the critical issue of resolving the boundary dispute remains. If Beijing had given Ganesh Koyu the visa, the entire batch of 107 officers would have gone to China for a learning experience. It would have also made China proud. On the contrary, the Chinese leader decided to chide and teach India how to conduct diplomatic relations with them. While the visa issue was playing out in media in New Delhi, something else was taking place in Beijing. The Indian Army Chief, General
J.J. Singh, was in Beijing drawing up plans for joint exercises between the armed forces of the two countries. Sino-Indian relations have travelled a long way from the frosty days of the 1960s and 1970s. The armed forces are finally beginning to look at each other. The confidence building measures along the Line of Actual Control are holding, save for a few occasions when PLA soldiers decide to jolt New Delhi’s complacency with temporary detention of Indian border personnel, and incursions into Indian territory. Interestingly, the Indian officials generally try to sweep these incidents under the carpet in the interest of bilateral relations. But similar reciprocity from the Chinese side is sorely missing. Trade and economic relations rapidly increased in the last eight years. This is a healthy sign, but progress in one area should be followed up in more congenial and acceptable areas. It is unfortunate, that the Chinese, including their ambassador in New Delhi, Sun
Yuxi, continue to express unhappiness over the alleged access to their companies in India. What raises questions is why the Chinese companies, most of which are state owned and many connected with their security agencies, are desperate to enter India’s strategic sectors - ports, airports, telecommunications and such others. In another instance, to give life and excitement to bilateral relations, India entered into an unwritten energy-security partnership with China. It was natural since both developing countries are energy starved. The first shock was in Kazakhstan when the Chinese outbid India from the back door giving no opportunity to India to offer a counter bid. The latest in this series of incidents of out-maneuvering India by any means is the Myanmar government’s decision to sell all gas from two off shore fields, A-1 and A-3, in which two Indian companies have a 30 per cent stake. Almost an internationally ostracised country for human rights abuses, Myanmar is heavily dependent on China for the arms and equipment with which to terrorise its unarmed democratic movement. China emphasises its “principled stand” on all issues. The only principle it has is what benefits China - the means are immaterial. There is an upcoming potential for another brush with India. Beijing is extremely sensitive about Taiwan, which it considers a renegade province of China. Taiwan opposition leader and president of the Knomingtang party, Ma
Yin-Jeiyong is to visit India from June 12–14. Will Beijing oppose the visit vociferously? Unlikely. Ma and the KMT are the best bet for China in Taiwan to oust the present hard-line President of Taiwan, Chen
Shui-bian. Political analysts in Taiwan are confident that Ma will be the next presidential candidate in the 2008 elections. It is not in China’s interest to alienate Ma and the
KMT. Notwithstanding China’s deceptive foreign policy, the need is to keep engaging China, including the border negotiations. After all, neighbours are a geographical fact and cannot be changed. That, however, does not mean India has to bow down to China. Peace and friendship is achieved only if they are backed by power. |
|
Chatterati The
BJP chief Rajnath Singh has once again reshuffled his team. Loyalty wins over delivery. Well! It is better than the other national party, the Congress. Ever since the Congress flop show in UP, it’s like watching a silent movie. No sound at all. Kalyan Singh resigned taking responsibility. In the Congress, even though the PCC president Salman Khurshid’s wife lost, forget about resigning -- he has not even taken responsibility for the organisational problems. In the Congress, whether it is for loyalist Natwar or for any chief minister like Amarinder, who are in a spot today, there is no support from any Congress state unit or the Centre. If they were corrupt, why were they not changed mid-term? How can you allow a corrupt person to lead your party into elections? What are this national party and its leaders doing? Collecting moneybags does not help you win elections. Not supporting your men is in bad taste. Taking responsibility for losing gives a boost to the worker. From cabinet minister to party man, they have all lost interest, as there are no chances of winning the next general elections. The AICC reshuffle is pending, like the union cabinet reshuffle. There is a dearth of men who can deliver. The Aam Aadmi is crying for his Dal Roti. Murmurs of frustration in the Congress circles are cropping up. People who lose their own elections are made PCC president. Outsiders with no contribution to the party are made Rajya Sabha members. The bigger the flop in public life, the higher the position you will secure for yourself in the Congress. So, leave the party, join some other party, then come back and you will be rewarded, is the mantra in the Congress.
Stellar failures Mayawati is a star herself. She does not believe in mixing Bollywood nautankiwalas and politics. But we do have film stars in Parliament. Let us look at their contributions. Their star appeal was enough to get them elected to the Lok Sabha or to ensure them a place in the Upper House, by election or nomination. But once elected, MPs like Dharmendra, Hema Malini, Jaya Bachchan, Shatrughan Sinha, Govinda, Vinod Khanna and Shyam Benegal are hardly seen in Parliament. Most of these star politicians seem to have played just a guest role. Out of the 210 sittings of Parliament, they have been present in just a handful. Govinda takes the cake here for he has been present in the Lok Sabha only on 34 occasions. There are other MPs like Jaya Bachchan and Jaya Pradha who are sometimes there. Another example will be Lata Mangeshkar’s absence from the Rajya Sabha. BJP MP Shatrughan Sinha has only been a star campaigner for the party in Bihar. These star-politicians fail to give politics their 100 per cent attention. Well, non-participation is not expected. Had someone else been in this position, he or she could have raised various issues. Nobody is forced into being nominated. But after one accepts the position, one is expected to show responsibility. |
Love the sinner as well as the pious. Sin and piety are mortal distinctions. He who obeys the command of God, is approved and admitted to his palace. |
| 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 | |
