 |
|
Sheer
condemnation Too
little, too late |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Red
lights and gunmen
Re-grounding
foreign policy
The
maiden plight
The car
of the future Why
should Services Chiefs be frisked? Inside Pakistan
|
Sheer condemnation THE suspension of Pakistan from the Commonwealth became a fait accompli when the Musharraf regime rejected the 10-day ultimatum given by the 53-nation grouping to restore democracy in the country. The argument that the emergency was to prevent Pakistan from falling into chaos did not cut ice with the organisation. The announcement of elections — before January 9 — that the General made also failed to make any impact on the Commonwealth. In terms of day-to-day affairs, the suspension may not make any difference to Pakistan. For all one knows, the General may just shrug it off. But in terms of prestige, the suspension means a lot to Pakistan. Musharraf knows only too well how much diplomatic and political manoeuvring he had to do to get Pakistan readmitted to the Commonwealth in 2004. Of course, the war on terror in which he was supposedly a major player helped Pakistan at that time. Things are no longer the same for the General, who has to face not only international opprobrium but also national hatred for his regime. Outwardly, he may be having his way in that he has been “elected” President for another term and has the judiciary eating out of his hands. But all his military bandobast has not succeeded in containing the protest against his regime. He sought to show a state of normalcy when he went to Saudi Arabia on a state visit but he cannot escape from the reality that his international standing is dependent on his national standing. What the Commonwealth decision implies is that 53 nations do not consider Pakistan worthy of breaking bread with. Since the Commonwealth has clarified that the suspension will remain in force only till democracy is restored in Pakistan, it is up to General Musharraf to keep Pakistan a pariah state or withdraw the emergency, restore democracy and thereby re-enter the comity of democratic nations. Alas, he thinks that holding elections alone will be sufficient to prove his democratic credentials. As we have argued in these columns, elections and emergency are an oxymoron. Elections under the bayonet will hardly have any credibility. If General Musharraf does not want more and more countries to treat Pakistan the way the Commonwealth has treated it, he should allow democracy to flourish without any let or hindrance.
|
|
Too little, too late The
quantum of punishment to business tycoons Gopal Ansal and Sushil Ansal in the Uphaar cinema fire tragedy after 10 years of trial comes as a big surprise. Indeed, the Ansals deserved more stringent punishment under Section 304 for being guilty of causing the death of 59 people by suffocation in their cinema hall when a fire in the transformer turned the hall into a gas chamber with no safety exits. Two years jail — the maximum under Section 304 (A) under which the Ansals have been charged and convicted — is, certainly, too mild a sentence which does not meet the ends of justice. How will this act as a strong deterrent when the accused are treated so lightly? The same is the case with two municipal corporation officials and a fire service officer who also got the same sentence. The judge even granted bail to them, including the Ansal brothers, with a surety of Rs 25,000 each to go on appeal to the High Court. Undoubtedly, the CBI cannot be absolved of the blame for its failure to secure maximum punishment to the Ansals. Surely, because of their clout and powerful connections, the Ansals and three others got away easily. From the very beginning, the CBI should have made a strong case for their conviction under Section 304. Incidentally, under this section, three Uphaar managers, three officials of the Delhi Vidyut Board and a gatekeeper have been given seven years of rigorous imprisonment. Under Section 304 (A), a person is punished for “rash and negligent act, causing death”. In legal parlance, this section embraces what is called “involuntary manslaughter” in the United States, where death is caused but there was no clear intention to cause death. How can one agree that the gravity of the offence committed by Ansal brothers falls in this category? They are the theatre owners and it is mainly because of their callousness, laxity and dereliction in following the prescribed safety standards that 59 people lost their lives and 103 were injured in the fire. If the members of the Association of Uphaar Victims’ Tragedy (AUVT) have decided to go on appeal to the High Court pleading for higher punishment to them, they have every reason to do so. Unfortunately, this will prolong the case further and delay justice.
|
|
Red lights and gunmen The
Punjab Chief Minister’s decision to provide two official gunmen to all members of the Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee and allow them the use of red light on their vehicles cannot be justified on any count. According to reports, no member of the SGPC has complained of any threat to his life. Nor does the peaceful situation in Punjab warrants it. If anyone in the SGPC needs security guards, it should be for the organisation itself to provide so that the state does not have to prevent. The SGPC members, who are supposed to advance the interests of their religion, are expected to be pious and non-controversial. They command public respect because of their personal stature and commitment to public good. They need not flaunt the symbols of state power and status. Mr Parkash Singh Badal has tried to reward his supporters with the two status symbols, perhaps, for reasons connected with the election of next President of the SGPC. Mr Badal virtually runs the SGPC which has not seen democratic elections for the past many years. The mixing of politics and religion has often led to undesirable consequences. It is strange Mr Badal’s announcement comes within days of the much-publicised and widely welcomed judgement of the Delhi High Court, which had deplored the practice of politicians moving around with gun-toting security guards, causing much inconvenience to ordinary citizens. Observing that politicians were not “a national asset” that should be protected, Justice T.S. Thakur had said: “If politicians feel so threatened, they should not come out in public places”. The Punjab and Haryana High Court had also taken a dim view of the red lights on cars being misused for reasons of status. After this one thought politicians would have a re-look at the prevailing security culture and change their colonial mindset. It seems in Punjab, despite the financial crunch, the vast security paraphernalia is going to stay or may even expand. That is unfortunate.
|
|
Let us not envy others’ knowledge but strive to learn from them. — The Upanishads
|
Re-grounding foreign policy
OVER the past two years, the tumultuous Indo-US nuclear saga has consumed the foreign policy establishment in New Delhi. And it has, at its apogee, disintegrated almost as dramatically as it entered the Indian national consciousness in July 2005. What appeared a “slam dunk” bilateral deal, a few weeks ago, has now been “frozen” indefinitely. The strategic community should use this interlude to dispassionately appraise the fundamental tenets of Indian foreign policy and whether they continue to serve Indian security interests. Beneath the nuclear veneer, the ideological discord is principally over the relevance of non-alignment as the guiding doctrine for Indian foreign policy. Leading members of the American security establishment have disparaged India’s reluctance to abandon this “outdated concept”. Recent critiques coming from Condoleeza Rice are reminiscent of an earlier era, when another Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, found Indian neutrality “immoral” and “shortsighted”. American disdain for the ideational foundations of Indian foreign policy should hardly be a cause for concern. What is disturbing is that occasional domestic exhortations readily echo these external critiques. India chose to leverage the superpower rivalry to gain flexibility in foreign policy and augment her development goals. Indeed, during the 1950s and 1960s, India was one of the largest recipients of US and Soviet aid! K. Subrahmanyam has been one of the eminent expositors to state it bluntly: non-alignment was always the practice of realpolitik cloaked in idealism. That the ideological veil got confused as an end in itself, manifesting in moral outbursts, was as much a reflection of India’s relative material weakness in the international system as it was of strategic naiveté. Since the disappearance of the Soviet Union in 1991, New Delhi came to recognise that incremental engagement with the US was beneficial. This was a structural response to the new power reality, where US primacy was unchallenged. Yet, by the early 2000s international politics took another seminal turn. Ironically, as New Delhi was reconciling itself to a place in a US-led system, the very foundations of that order were being withered away. By 2005, it had become clear in Washington that the fantasy of reshaping the security structure of West Asia had reached an impasse. The US debacle in Iraq, however, coincided with equally dramatic developments in Eurasia. Russia, after more than a decade of internal upheavals, was displaying signs of breaking out of the shell that Washington’s cold warriors had confined it to since 1991. It will also be recalled that China had gained from the strategic surprise of September 11, which had diverted US strategic attention to the West Asian theatre, from President Bush’s pre-September 11 national security goal of expanding the scope of its East Asian containment strategy. By 2006, with the US bogged down in West Asia, and, Russia and China, rapidly accelerating their geoeconomic profiles and influence, American triumphalism appeared all but over. Russia’s geopolitical arbitration over the Iran issue has been the watershed event. Thus, India today faces its most propitious global environment, after almost 15 years of “unipolarity”. Given a range of options hitherto unavailable, it would be extremely costly if New Delhi’s external conduct was unable to exploit the altogether new diplomatic revolution. Drawing lessons from the Cold War, however, will not suffice. The discord and collaboration amongst the great powers over the past few years can easily be misinterpreted and produce narrow policy choices. Strategic coordination between Russia and China as it manifested itself over the Iran issue and in Central Asia, while not an insignificant development, led to predictions of new blocs emerging to contain the US, with the corollary that India would need to choose between the US and its allies or Russia-China. The emergence of multilateral “blocs” such as the Russia-China-India trilateral format and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) has lent currency to such views. This is a false choice! While Russia and China have enunciated their desire to coordinate their actions on several issues, first expressed in their strategic partnership agreement of 2001, and have done so subsequently, they have simultaneously sought to deepen their interaction with the actors they seek to balance. Multilateral endeavors, manifested in the trilateral format and the SCO, are but pragmatic attempts at collective diplomacy to manage regional interaction in a common geopolitical space and more importantly to exploit geoeconomic opportunities: given the dearth of effective pan-Asian institutions, hardly an unwelcome development. To appreciate this phenomenon, it is vital to distinguish today’s multipolar system with its bipolar predecessor. The bipolar division of the Cold War was geopolitical and geo-economic. Both blocs were self-sufficient and inter-bloc trade and investment was irrelevant. Today, however, the erstwhile “blocs” are clearly more entwined at an economic and thus political level. This is not to suggest that geoeconomic competition has ceased and that states will pursue an international division of labour over relative national gains. In an anarchic world, they never will. But the zero-sum premise has been tempered where opportunities for mutual benefit exist. US-China relations epitomise this phenomenon: the mutual dependence of the US economy whereby it is the largest importer from China, which in turn finances one-third of the huge US current-account deficit. Importantly, the relationship has transformed from the “asymmetry” that existed in the 1990s when China was highly dependent on American markets and investment, towards the “common vulnerability” that currently prevails. Energy linkages between Russia-EU — originally with and via Germany, but now extended to an array of bilateral gas deals between Gazprom and EU members, ranging across Ukraine to Portugal — is another example of interdependence. This is because supply security for the EU is as vital as the demand security for Russian hydrocarbons, especially gas, where buyers-sellers are entwined by pipelines. Consequently, traditional alliance-based relationships, being reshaped as states, are adopting omnidirectional foreign policies. For New Delhi, the implications of contemporary interdependence must be clear. Neither Washington nor Beijing will upset their bilateral relationship over India, despite US efforts to cultivate India as a potential alliance partner. This, arguably, has more to do with enhancing US leverage on India rather than solely constraining China. Similarly, in China-Japan relations, the bilateral economic interaction is too high for Japan to seek exclusive relations with India. Thus, exploiting the cleavages in today’s system requires far more sophistication than in the bipolar world, where neither bloc had economic leverage over the other. The overlapping bilateral linkages involving all the major centres of power imply that a “friend” or “foe” choice for India is simply inconceivable. Rather, India must adopt a multivector philosophy that will facilitate greater strategic flexibility within the dynamic web of international alignments. And this, surely is the kernel and essence of non-alignment! The writer is an international relations analyst
|
The maiden plight
I
have
often been rather pained and anguished at the news in the media, reporting the stories of various hues pertaining to domestic helps. While the complicity of domestic helps in killing and murder of their employers or the kidnapping and subsequent murder of child of the employer has distressed me, so do the bizarre stories of their exploitation and abuse, particularly of the maids by their employers and the service providers called the placement agencies. Being a working couple in Delhi, which has been my adopted city for about 30 years now, I often introspect how much we owe to domestic helps who contribute in no small measure for our successes and achievements. Unlike many others, I have been rather fortunate and privileged to get a domestic help from my native place. Inexperienced and untrained, they start working as raw hands and eventually turn out as master chefs laying out native culinary delights with authentic flavour and teaching my two daughters, if not the alphabets, the colloquial vocabulary with the purity of its accents. Otherwise, my two daughters would have by now thoroughly aculturalised to the pidgin Hinglish. I am quite astonished at their native intelligence and earthy commonsense to pick up the trick of handling electronic items and gizmos. I have no doubts in my mind that given opportunities, these helpless boys and girls could come out as successful in any vocation as any other children with normal background. It is unfortunate that in spite of such instances and their reportage in the media, there has not been any meaningful efforts to salvage them and give them minimum human dignity and proper working conditions. There has been no legislation or executive fiat or proper enforcing agencies for their welfare. What we have is the occasional advertisement in the newspapers by the police to register them with the local police and a stipulation governing public servants not to employ children below 14 years. Beyond this we have neither any law nor any law-enforcing agencies. It is high time there was legislation or at least their working conditions were covered under existing legislations such as those pertaining to unorganised sector or under the Domestic Violence Act, which the government has passed recently. The National Commission for Women has also shown concern to mitigate the plight of such domestic helps, particularly domestic maids and some legislative measures are being worked out. It is heartening that the media and the civil society like some NGOs have shown concern and have tried to sensitise the whole issue. One does not know how much we owe to them for our success when they toil day and night for days together without a holiday or a vacation away from their home and hearth. What is required from the perspective of the housemasters or the employer is a humane touch and a sensitive mind and a caring and patronising attitude. One does not know if a Baby Halder, the maid who authored the book A Life less Ordinary, is hidden and dormant in one of
them.
|
The car of the future
The
cold steel and blinking lights of technology seem so far removed from the flesh and blood of daily existence that it is sometimes easy to forget that technology cannot be divorced from society. Technology is never developed in a vacuum. If religion and social taboos once played a role, market forces and “network externalities” today determine the outcomes that directly affect the common consumer. And so it is with electric cars and the holy grail – the hydrogen-fuel cell powered motor vehicle that will not only run on cheap and plentiful fuel, but spit out, not noxious fumes, but plain old water. And it will run more or less silently, to boot. It is thus exciting to hear Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) Chairman G. Madhavan Nair’s announcement of a tie up with Tata Motors to produce a fuel-cell driven car, and their goal of producing a prototype vehicle by 2008. Both entities, one a premier government agency and the other a top-notch private corporation, are known to deliver on carefully thought-out, result-oriented projects. They have had their share of problems, but not for them the notorious time and cost overruns, not to mention the less than satisfactory performance, of some of our defence research laboratories. Adding to the excitement is a view held in many quarters that the big, powerful, oil companies, in cahoots with motor-vehicle manufacturers, are actively working to keep these technologies off the streets – at least up to a point when it will be profitable for them to deploy them in the mass market. The Independent, for example, has reported the story of an electric car that a US major developed, pushed by legislation from California state. But the company deliberately “undersold” the car, and when the legislation (mandating compulsory introduction of electric vehicles by big car companies) was scrapped, the product was quickly withdrawn. There is more. Electric cars, including the sole product available in India, are limited by range – say around a hundred kilometres. They can go only so far on one ‘charge.’ One engineer however was reported to have developed a technology for a staggering 300 miles at 70 miles per hour on a single charge. But the oil companies bought up the technology, and neither the innovation, nor anything similar, has ever been seen on the streets! As Madhavan Nair pointed out, these cars have no engine – only a battery or fuel cell. For car companies, that is obviously a discomfiting proposition. There are sales and service figures to be considered that directly impact their overall profitability. And the oil companies don’t like it either. While oil is pushing the 100 dollar per barrel mark, there are trillions and trillions of dollars worth of oil still left in the earth. Actual reserves are closely guarded secrets. Still though, and that brings us to the next point, there is no doubt that oil is running out, and the mass-produced, alternately fuelled passenger car is set to become a reality sooner rather than later. Many scientists have already questioned even the 2050 ballpark figure for oil to run out, proposing that it may well happen much earlier. Production of easy-to-extract oil has already peaked, and the peak for the more expensive stuff may not be too far away. But while the technologies exist, in secret or otherwise, the challenges persist too. For, whatever the obstacles, it is not that easy to stop technological innovation – it is bound to march on. India has little experience in the field, and Dr Nair, admitting that they cannot claim to have mastered the technology, mentioned importing modules from the West for the prototype vehicle. Several such prototype vehicles are already running, as show pieces by car companies, and their actual costings are secret. They are cited to be expensive, with the hydrogen production costs itself quite high. Then there are storage, transportation and distribution issues, not to mention weight in the actual running car. There is a 100-dollars- per-kilowatt efficiency benchmark which is yet to be satisfactorily achieved. But that is no reason why ISRO and the Tatas should shy away. In fact, as a motor vehicle manufacturer themselves, it is good that the Tatas have latched on to the hydrogen-fuel cell alternative. And ISRO has enormous experience with its satellites and launch vehicles, which use all kinds of complicated fuels, from liquid hydrogen and oxygen to solar energy. If anybody can pull of this off, it is these two. In November 2005, a National Hydrogen Energy Roadmap (NHER) was submitted by a steering group headed by Mr Ratan Tata, the chairman of the very same Tata group. The roadmap, which envisions a massive investment of Rs 25,000 crore between 2006 and 2020, was approved by the National Hydrogen Energy Board. It still requires plenty of funding support from both the Planning Commission and the Finance Ministry, and the government should ensure that the necessary clearances are provided. It needs more than just the token Rs 250 crore for the first phase. The roadmap actually has a target of injecting 10 lakh hydrogen powered vehicles on the road by 2020. Incidentally, it also talks about hydrogen-based power generation of at least 1,000 MW capacity. While Rs 25,000 crore might seem a large amount, Rs 24,000 crore will be needed for the infrastructure for hydrogen production, storage and distribution alone. Just as India saw an opportunity in IT services and seized it by the scruff of its neck, what an achievement it would be if Indian entrepreneurs and scientists can do the same with the vehicle of the future. Well before oil runs out, we should be able to put an alternately fuelled, viable, passenger car on the road. Imagine the beneficial effects on everything from the economy (think oil import bill, inflation) and national security (strategic independence), to urban pollution, mass transport, quality of life and so on. ISRO and Tatas should take this very seriously indeed, and the government should do everything it can to help them.
|
|
Why should Services Chiefs be frisked? In
spite of Defence Minister A.K. Antony’s valiant efforts at getting the three Service Chiefs exempted from security procedures at airports in India, the powers-that-be have ruled that this cannot be permitted as such an exemption could open up the floodgates of other categories requesting for a similar facility. It of course does not matter to the Civil Aviation Ministry or the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security, or for that matter the President of India, the Supreme Commander, or the Prime Minister and his Cabinet, that those entrusted with the security of this nation and country, undergo frisking and other checks in the name of enhanced security. While thanking Antony for his attempt, may one ask of him as to what further does he propose doing about this insulting and wholly unwarranted restriction, considering that the serving Service seniors cannot speak out themselves? Someone in authority right at the top has to answer us service veterans as to why this differentiation, when exceptions are made in the case of some senior bureaucrats, former Presidents of India, Chief Ministers, Cabinet Ministers, and even religious dignitaries like the Dalai Lama. It is a long list and government is welcome to do what it thinks fit, but my objection is as to why the three custodians of national security have been kept out of it. Is it the precedence of rank and a certain bias at work? From the days of 1947, when the Service Chief ranked among the top most, to these times is indeed a terrible fall for the prestige and dignity of those who command some of the finest soldiery in the world. Is this the ‘izzat’ that is being doled out to the serving and the retired fraternity of the Armed Forces? Even the argument that others might ask for a similar concession if one can call it that, is flawed since in all fairness and right the Armed Forces cannot be ever equated with any other Para Military or Police force, in terms of their role and performance. And in what way is a former President, a Chief Minister or a Cabinet Minister with possibly just 18-20 years of ‘political’ experience more entitled to exemption at pre-embarkation than a Service Chief with over 40 years of dedicated service in the field of security? Should we also have the National Security Adviser of the country undergoing similar checks? What should be an ideal list if we were to include the top most from the Legislature, Executive, Judiciary and others not from these three fields? Leaving aside the President, Vice-President, PM and the Governors and LGs, the others exempted should only include the Speaker and Chairman of the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, Chief Justice of India, Chief Election Commissioner, Cabinet Secretary and the three Service Chiefs who have very competently, ever since independence, been keeping the country’s national integrity and sovereignty intact. Why should not Chief Ministers, religious leaders, Leader of the Opposition and bureaucrats of the Civil Aviation Ministry not undergo security procedures like anyone else, is a question the government should have long been asking itself. In the UK, the Prime Minister can go around riding a bicycle and am sure would submit to pre-embarkation checks if requested to. But here in India everyone is some sort of a VIP and it is so difficult to find the common man. So, is this list of the most preferred a result of security perceptions or is it a status symbol, a ready convenience or fast-track propulsion to importance and fame?
|
|
Inside Pakistan Most
newspapers have warned General Pervez Musharraf that his efforts to give legal cover to his unconstitutional actions, including the November 3 emergency imposition, may prove futile in the course of time. The occasion was provided by the latest constitutional amendment he introduced through an order on November 21, blocking any move to challenge in a court of law whatever he is doing to protect his continuance in power. Dawn says “All Pakistani dictators, beginning with Ayub Khan, managed to overcome legal challenges to their rule because the state apparatus was with them. However, that in no way served to confer legitimacy on their rules, for the moment the ‘saviours’ were gone, the system they crafted collapsed.” The General, whose election as President for another five-year term has been declared as valid by the Pakistan Supreme Court, appears to have prepared a well-calculated plan to perpetuate his rule. He has “already rigged the elections”, as Justice Wajihuddin (retd), who unsuccessfully fought the presidential poll. The General gave “less than 60 days for the preparation and only five days for the submission of nomination papers”. He must have got the blueprint ready for ensuring the victory of his PML (Q) in the January 8 elections. After all, he requires a clear two-thirds majority for “a repeat of the Eighth and 17th Amendment phenomena to seek parliamentary approval of all that President Musharraf has done since November 3”, as Dawn pointed out on November 23. This is the General’s style of conducting “free and fair” elections. Black Tuesday for media These are the worst times for the media in Pakistan. Journalists, protesting on November 20 against some fresh curbs imposed on the media, were beaten up mercilessly by the police at many places. The attack on the media professionals was the worst in Karachi. Even senior and highly respected journalists were not spared. Many could be seen bleeding profusely, though determined to carry on their fight for the freedoms dear to them. What was the latest provocation for the media people to take out rallies throughout Pakistan? According to Daily Times, the journalists were protesting against the regulations which “disallow private news channels and newspapers to ‘ridicule’ the head of state, members of the armed forces, or the executive, legislative or judicial organs of the state.” Those who dare to ignore the regulations may suffer a jail term for three years and a fine of Rs 10 million. The media refused to take it lying down. Already up in arms because of the draconian measures introduced after the imposition of the emergency, the journalists’ unions gave a call for protest rallies all over Pakistan irrespective of the consequences. The administration responded ruthlessly, sending out the message that media freedom was a thing of the past in Pakistan. Opposition undecided Opposition parties appear to be planning to boycott the elections to defeat General Musharraf’s gameplan. Members of the All Parties’ Democratic Movement are holding hectic consultations among themselves in this regard. Ms Benazir Bhutto is part of this exercise, but she is not trusted as much as she was before she struck an undeclared deal with the dictator. Ms Bhutto gives the hint of boycotting the polls, but few believe it. As The Frontier Post says, “… PPP chairperson Benazir Bhutto has always been taking an unclear and conflicting stand against the Musharraf regime. After signing the Charter of Democracy with Mian Nawaz Sharif, Benazir Bhutto was the first one to ditch the opposition parties when they held their All Parties’ Conference in London in July this year. That was followed by her much-publicised secret deal with General Pervez Musharraf that was being brokered by the United States….Therefore, it is very unlikely that in the present circumstances she would adopt a policy which goes against General Musharraf’s plans”, despite her public speeches to the contrary. In the same editorial, The Frontier Post quotes reports as saying that “JUI-F chief Maulana Fazlur Rehman has assured the US Ambassador in Pakistan that come what may, his party will not boycott the forthcoming general elections.” Exiled former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif is reported have told MMA president Qazi Hussain Ahmed that taking part in the polls will be an exercise in futility under the circumstances. But General Musharraf and his camp followers are working overtime to ensure that at least some of the opposition parties contest the elections so that it acquires legitimacy.
|
| 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 | |
