 |
|
Leave Speaker alone When small is of value |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Setting up sleaze shops?
N-deal analysed
Babagiri
Obama is shining, but can
he win? Temple tussle in Cambodia The problem with being Hugo Chavez
|
|
When small is of value As the Manmohan Singh government is gearing up to seek the crucial vote of confidence in the Lok Sabha in a two-day special session on July 21 and 22, small parties and Independents are trying to extract their pound of flesh in exchange for their votes. As every vote is precious for the government or its challengers, the UPA on the one side and the NDA and the Left on the other are particularly wooing small parties to defeat the rivals. Mr Shibu Soren, the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) supremo, with five MPs in tow, is believed to have given two alternatives to the Centre — either make him Union Minister for Coal or Jharkhand Chief Minister by removing Madhu Koda. In fact, Mr Soren has been demanding a Cabinet berth ever since the Delhi High Court had acquitted him in the Shashinath Jha murder case. In view of his shady past, the Congress may be wary of offering him goodies on a platter. Mr Ajit Singh of the Rashtriya Lok Dal, Mr Chandrasekhara Rao of the Telangana Rashtra Samithi and Mr H.D. Deve Gowda of the Janata Dal (Secular), with three members each, have also upped their ante. Like Mr Soren, Mr Ajit Singh, too, wants a Cabinet berth and an assurance on Harit Pradesh. He may relent on the latter, but not Mr Rao who wants a Union Cabinet resolution approving of a separate Telangana state. Mr Deve Gowda, who has lost his clout after the Assembly elections in Karnataka, wants Mrs Sonia Gandhi to evolve an assured seat-sharing formula between the Congress and the JD (S) in that state for the parliamentary polls. Managing coalition governments always calls for a lot of skills and acumen on the part of the Prime Minister and the party leadership, but during crisis times it requires much more than that. Small parties per se are not bad. They can be effective instruments of regional development. However, they are amenable to all kinds of pressures and unhealthy influences. They also don’t want to lose the opportunity to bargain hard as they are shamelessly doing now. One may not entirely endorse CPM leader A.B. Bardhan’s “Rs 25 crore for an MP’s vote” charge. But didn’t we see how the JMM helped the P.V. Narasimha Rao government defeat a no-confidence motion in 1993? When politicians are more of sinners than saints, money and promise of power sharing are not considered a bad currency by rival sides during a political crisis; the helpless country can only hope for better times when ethical values will come to prevail in public life. |
|
Setting up sleaze shops? The
idea that jaded westerners looking for sex would be keen to attend coaching sessions with sex gurus in India is, at first take, plain hilarious. But the report that a self-styled “sex institute” from Sweden is actually planning to set up shop in places like Goa, Varanasi and Khajuraho, is cause for serious concern. While what consenting adults do in their private places is entirely their own business, such coaching “institutions” would be precariously close to organised sale of sexual services, with all the negative paraphernalia of exploitation, abuse, drugs, crime and spread of disease, that this entails. As it is, recent events in places like Goa, where British teenager Scarlette Keeling was murdered, are no advertisement for tourism. Goa, in fact, has become a tragic example of how drugs and “sex tourism” can become a deadly cocktail. Other places in Asia, from Thailand to Sri Lanka, are also facing the negative effects of large scale hawking of sexual services to tourists. Again, it is not the sex that causes concern. Exploitation and trafficking of vulnerable women is part and parcel of this phenomenon. Physical abuse is rampant. Even more harrowing, children get caught up in this racket. Criminal and drug mafias flourish, accompanied by more violence and persecution. Dreaded diseases like HIV/AIDS spread easily. The Swedish “sex teacher”, who has expressed interest in setting up shop in India claims that he already uses Eastern “methods”, including those associated with tantric practice and the Kama Sutra, in his institute back home. Apparently, his clients would like more of the original “atmosphere”. While the appeal of a sex clinic with the Khajuraho sculptures as the background is evident, what is to prevent such a venture from degenerating into, and spreading, a web of exploitation and abuse? The West may even claim some legitimacy for such services, with the idea that they are actually helping people with serious sexual problems. But the broken homes and social mores of the West are definitely not adding to the sum total of human happiness. India has plenty to offer tourists, as it is. And even the Kama Sutra is best enjoyed in the privacy of one’s own home. |
|
The men who really believe in themselves are all in lunatic asylums.
— G.K. Chesterton |
N-deal analysed With
the draft safeguards agreement now with the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agnecy (IAEA), freed from the coils of the domestic politicking of poor losers and even more poorly advised opposition parties, there is a need to stand back and examine not just what the draft contains, but also the possible international reactions to the first multilateral exposure of the Indo-US nuclear deal. There has already been a proliferation of articles, at home, on the mind-numbing details of the safeguards agreement mostly by commentators who have never negotiated any international agreement, and abroad, from the non-proliferation absolutists, shrieking outrage at the “give-away” to India. While the more sober reactions at home, including a detailed Press conference by those who actually negotiated the safeguards agreement, have dealt, quite naturally, with the objections raised by the various groups — the Left, the right, disappointed scientists and even more disgruntled “experts” — there has been little comment on the ideological criticism from the non-proliferation lobby, particularly in the US. Such criticism and detailed word-by-word or clause-by-clause dissection has taken place at every stage of the process: the July 18, 2005, Joint Statement between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and US President George Bush, the Indian separation plan of March 2006, the Hyde Act of December 2006 and the 123 Agreement of August 2007. The bilateral agreement between the US and India has now entered its multilateral stage, an essential step in the removal of a global ban on nuclear trade with India and it should be necessary to evaluate how the international community will react to this exceptionalisation of India. A brief overview of the safeguards agreement must necessarily take into account that India’s approach has been defined by its previous experience with Tarapur when it was penalised and fuel supplies stopped even though India had not violated any law. At the same time, the non-proliferation purists’ perception of India is that of a defiant country, that has not signed the NPT, the CTBT, tested not only in 1974 but again in 1998, soon after all of them signed the CTBT. It is also important to remember that the text now available is only a draft which might be amended by the IAEA Board of Governors. Secondly, only the most obtuse or prejudiced would fail to notice that the draft is India-specific: it is neither the so-called “voluntary offer” of the NPT Nuclear Weapon States, nor that of the NPT non-nuclear weapon states. It is facility-specific, but only the facilities to be identified as civilian by India are to be covered by safeguards. In addition, it has a section that has been called a “preamble” but which is, in fact, an integral part of the draft agreement as is evident from the recommendation of the Director-General to the Board of Governors that the… “Board authorise the Director-General to conclude with the Government of India and subsequently implement the draft safeguards agreement reproduced in the attachment hereto” and the attachment includes the so-called preambular paras. It is true that the format is preambular, but it contains two important decisions. First, India’s conditional acceptance of the safeguards agreement: India’s acceptance of any safeguards agreement has been clearly made conditional on “the conclusion of international cooperation agreements creating the necessary conditions for India to obtain access to the international fuel market, including reliable, uninterrupted and continuous access to fuel supplies from companies in several nations, as well as support for an Indian effort to develop a strategic reserve of nuclear fuel to guard against any disruption of supply over the lifetime of India’s reactors”. In other words, since the safeguards agreements covering each facility placed by India in the annxure (which at the moment is blank) will be in a “phased manner”, India will have time to negotiate perpetual supplies with each supplier company. The conditionality refers, therefore, not only to NSG clearance, but also it has provision for continuous application. Apart from this crucial decision on the application of safeguards, the decision of the IAEA Board itself is contained in this so-called preambular section. To make the assurance doubly sure, the last sentence of this section makes an organic link with the technical sections of the agreement. In fact, it is quite possible that much of the opposition in the board will be focused on this section, preambular though it might be, as it gives India a status not foreseen by earlier safeguards agreements signed by the agency with NPT State Parties. In the technical part of the agreement, the agency, by accepting, in para 5, the existence of parts of India’s nuclear programme which will not be under safeguards, takes cognizance of India’s separation plan of March 2006. As has been pointed out by several independent commentators, the objectives outlined in the first section have been fleshed out in the technical sections — the building by India of a strategic reserve, actions open to India in the event of a disruption of fuel supply and even India’s reprocessing and enrichment rights. The pledges made by the Prime Minister and the External Affairs Minister to Parliament have, therefore, been adequately reflected in the draft text. The Board of Governors of the IAEA is not just a technical body, it is a political body as well. Some developing countries represented on the board, including Pakistan, might well object to the India-specificity of the agreement. These countries have been insistent that India should not be accepted into the NPT as an NWS but only as a non-nuclear weapon state. The US non-proliferation lobby has been active with this group, even going to the extent of addressing each of the Governors individually with points they should raise against the agreement. Some developed countries, NNWS themselves but under the NATO nuclear umbrella, are also likely to raise objections to the openings left for India to, for example, build a strategic reserve. As one prominent non-proliferation lobbyist has put it, the next government in India is likely to be formed by the BJP, which has indicated that it would conduct more tests: the strategic reserve of fuel would enable India to ride out any action the international community might wish to take to protest such tests. Given that these countries are all State Parties of the CTBT, there is bound to be an effort to introduce amendments to the so-called preambular section of the draft, to ensure that India cannot pursue such a course of action. The role that Pakistan (or Iran, which has never supported India’s nuclear programme) might play, especially through NAM, might very well bring this draft to vote. The support of the US, the UK, France and Russia and the neutrality of China are, however, likely to see the draft approved, perhaps with some negative votes and some
abstentions.
|
Babagiri My
fascination with Babas started at a very early age. During Partition my mother fell seriously ill. Whatever medical aid could be made available at that time failed. In sheer desperation, my maternal uncle turned to a Baba. He took me along. The Baba lived in a small dera near the village cemetery. The Baba heard him patiently and told him not to worry. Pointing towards me, he told him that this child’s mother will live. He prescribed some herbal remedy. The Baba’s medicine had the desired effect. She recovered completely. It was a miracle. After becoming a cop, my interest in Babas increased. I was fascinated by the hold they had on their devotees and followers who always included politicians, police officers and bureaucrats. I found most of them to be partly Rasputin, partly Machiavelli and partly leering adolescents. Babas sell hope. And hope deceives more than cunning can. During Operation Bluestar, I was posted as SP, Sirsa. I came across a number of Babas. There was the presence of Radha Soamis, Sacha Sauda, Namdharis, Nirankaris and many small dera heads. Punjab was on the boil. Many of the dera heads were on the hit list. One day a friend brought a young Baba. He had inherited a dera, but some people were trying to grab the dera land. I sorted out the matter. He felt grateful and kept on meeting me. I found him a useful source of information. One day he invited me to his dera. He told me that my presence will instil confidence in the nearby villages, where people were getting threatening letters. After touring the adjoining village, I reached his dera. It was a sprawling complex. His living quarters were worthy of an Arab Sheikh. The chief “sadhvi” arranged for tea. She had the profile of a Greek coin, and the complexion of ripe wheat. The charcoal black eyes had a smouldering penetrating look, which is generally found in highly successful cops or accomplished criminals. I find remarkable similarities between the two. Later, I got a posting in the Ministry of Home Affairs in New Delhi. Many of the Babas or their lieutenants kept in touch with me in Delhi. I found them to be professionally useful. The young Baba whom I had helped was a frequent visitor. He was always accompanied by the “sadhvi” whom he started calling his secretary. She could converse in English. The Baba would go abroad very frequently. He always sent me New Year and Divali greeting cards. Again he had brush with law, and considering his professional utility, I helped him. One day I got a call from Baba’s secretary. She told me that she was in Delhi and wanted to meet me urgently. She came to my office. She told me that Babajee had become a victim of intrigue and was having problems with the police and foreign exchange regulators. I was non-committal. Seeing my passive attitude, she changed tack. She told me that they were aware that I was due to retire within a year, and I had been honest. If I helped Babajee, all my post-retirement needs will be looked after. I will be given some land in the foothills of the Himalayas, along with a small functioning dera. and adequate money will be deposited in a London bank. She told me that I could start the dera if I wanted to. I asked her whether she will join me if I started a dera. She gave me a deliciously corrupt look and purred that she was always with me and our relationship could develop into a mutually beneficial partnership. I showed her the door. To be a successful Baba, one should invoke the other world, and keep contacts with the underworld. I missed a lucrative
career. |
Obama is shining, but can
he win? He
is a good man, but he will not win,” said my light skinned, but kinky haired, “Megabus” driver as he saw me reading Barack Obama’s The Audacity of Hope on my journey to New York from Washington. The comments were similar from others who saw me with the book on planes and in cafes. There is certainly an Obama ripple in the US, not yet a wave. The opinion polls give him an edge over John McCain. But the bets are not on him. Most people believe that a black man will not be in the White House, at least not this time around. His supporters keep their fingers tightly crossed. I saw tee shirts and caps with Obama’s face, but not everywhere. They are mostly in black establishments, displayed without fanfare, as though any overt enthusiasm for him will somehow hurt him in the end. I did not see a single McCain tee shirt or cap in any of the cities I visited. On television, Obama has a great presence, not McCain, whose wrinkles seem to get highlighted on high definition screens. Minor campaign crises are managed more skillfully by Obama than by McCain. The long tussle with Hillary Clinton in the primaries hurt Obama and the Democratic Party more than anything else. The Republicans have only to play the tapes of what Obama and Hillary said of each other if the duo were to emerge as the Democratic running mates. This alone will be a good enough reason for Obama not to choose her as his running mate. But his dilemma is there for all to see. No one can say for certain whether Hillary will get him more votes from the whites. The white Democrats, who recently announced that they would not vote for Obama did not say that they would vote for him with Hillary as Vice-President. The young people, who backed Obama in the primaries for a change from the Clinton era will not be happy with such a choice. A full blooded white man with an impeccable record is what Obama needs. Whispers about Al Gore as a possibility arise from this sentiment, though Al Gore has grown too big for the modest Vice-Presidential mansion on Massachusetts Avenue. The enthusiasts for change have begun to see a change in Obama, now that he is the presumptive Democratic nominee. He has begun to inject a sense of pragmatism into his pronouncements to prepare for Presidential policy making. Iraq is the most visible issue on which Obama appears to move towards a centrist position. This is nothing unusual. Michael Kinsley says in a Time essay: “Securing your base and then moving to the centre is the fundamental move of politics, like the basic steps of the fox-trot.” On other pressing issues like the economy also he may have to be less progressive and risk losing his popularity among the hard core Democrats. His need to win over the independents and some Republicans will influence his rhetoric. Similarly, McCain will appear more progressive and confuse the electorate further. Obama has no illusions about the advantages and disadvantages of his colour. He was born the child of a black man and a white woman and his extended family, according to him, is a mini UN General Assembly. “To suggest that our racial attitudes play no part in these disparities is to turn a blind eye to both our history and our experience – and to relieve ourselves of the responsibility to make things right”, he says. He insists that things have got better, but better is not good enough. He won black votes across the country in the primaries. How does he now aspire to win white votes without losing his committed black supporters? Race will become the crucial issue and the whites will quietly vote for McCain in November. Obama’s Muslim background will also play up. An Obama presidency is too revolutionary a change to contemplate for the average white American. The unpredictability of Obama’s foreign policy is a factor that his opponents highlight in the campaign. His articulation of his faith gives reason for hope. Continuity is a part of his agenda for change. “Our challenge, then, is to make sure that US policies move the international system in the direction of greater equity, justice and prosperity – that the rules we promote serve both our interests and the interests of a struggling world”, he says. Indian American votes are important for Obama and a majority of the Indian votes will go to him. For the first generation Indian Americans, the change will be a harbinger of a new America, which they had not expected to see in their own lifetime. For the younger Indians, it is a matter of idealism and democracy. Obama’s Indian supporters like Preeti Bansal seem to be working overtime. The Indians now know that Obama carries an image of Hanuman with him for good luck, he has supported the nuclear deal and even sung the praise of Field Marshal Manekshaw. But the Indian vote will not be a determining factor except to add a non-black vote bank for Obama. Obama has begun to fire the imagination of young people across the racial divide, but no one is expecting the current ripple to turn into an Obama wave. If he wins, it will be a quantum jump in American politics, the dream that Martin Luther King had the audacity to have. It will also have international repercussions, as yet unimaginable. If he loses, the US and the world will settle down to a routine Republican administration at least for the next four years. History will record that in 2008, the US was not ready to elect either a lady or a black as the President, though an opportunity had presented itself. The writer is a former Ambassador of India to the United Nations |
|
Temple tussle in Cambodia The
controversy surrounding an 11th-century temple on the Cambodian border with Thailand has taken a new twist after the authorities in Phnom Penh alleged that up to 170 armed troops and civilians from Thailand had illegally entered its territory. Cambodia’s Information Minister, Khieu Kanharith, made the allegation yesterday, a week after the country celebrated the temple’s designation by the United Nations as a World Heritage Site. He said the troops and civilians had crossed the border close to the Preah Vihear temple and refused to pull back. The Thai authorities denied they had crossed into Cambodian territory and claimed that troops had gathered close to the border simply to protect the nation’s “sovereign territory”. They said at least one soldier was injured after accidentally triggering one of the landmines that litter the border between the two countries. The incident is the latest flash-point in a long-running controversy between the two countries over the Hindu temple, which was built by the Khmer empire. As far back as 1962, an international court ruled that the temple belonged to Cambodia but the two countries have quarrelled over the land surrounding the temple. In 2001 Cambodia began seeking special status for the temple in the hope that such a designation would boost the number of tourists visiting the site. Thailand had long opposed the designation because it feared the ruling would also say that the disputed territory along the border belonged to Cambodia. But in May, Thailand’s Prime Minister, Samak Sundaravej, announced that he was supporting the Cambodian application. His decision – taken without parliamentary approval – was seized on by his political opponents who have sought to drum up a nationalist outcry over his decision. Last month, Mr Samak survived a confidence vote brought by his opponents, who have accused him of acting as a proxy for the former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra. Yesterday, Major-General Kanok Netakawesana, a Thai army field commander in the region, told reporters that his troops were on Thai soil close to the disputed area but they had not crossed into Cambodia. The deployment of the Thai troops followed the arrest by Cambodia of three Thai citizens for allegedly crossing the border earlier in the day. A Cambodian government official said all three were later released. While the Khmer empire constructed many temple complexes – the most famous being that located at Angkor Wat – the buildings at Preah Vihear are said to enjoy perhaps the most stunning location, high on a cliff top. The temple has long been favoured as a defensive outpost; in 1975 government troops based there held off Khmer Rouge fighters for more than a month after the rest of the country fell. In 1998, when the last sizeable group of Khmer Rouge fighters agreed to surrender to the Cambodian government, Preah Vihear was the location of negotiations. By arrangement with
The Independent |
|
The problem with being Hugo Chavez Sometimes
you hear a stray sentence on the news that makes you realise you have been lied to. Deliberately lied to; systematically lied to; lied to for a purpose. If you listened closely over the past few days, you could have heard one such sentence passing in the night-time of news. As Ingrid Betancourt emerged from captivity after six-and-a-half years – sunken and shrivelled but radiant with courage – one of the first people she thanked was Hugo Chavez. What? If you follow the news coverage, you have been told that the Venezuelan President supports the FARC thugs who have been holding her hostage. He paid them $300m to keep killing and to buy uranium for a dirty bomb, in a rare break from dismantling democracy at home and dealing drugs. So how can this moment of dissonance be explained? Yes: you have been lied to – about one of the most exciting and original experiments in economic redistribution and direct democracy anywhere on earth. And the reason is crude: crude oil. The ability of democracy and freedom to spread to poor countries may depend on whether we can unscramble these propaganda fictions. Venezuela sits on one of the biggest pools of oil left anywhere. If you find yourself in this position, the rich governments of the world – the US and EU – ask one thing of you: pump the petrol and the profits our way, using our corporations. If you do that, we will whisk you up the Mall in a golden carriage, no matter what. The “King” of Saudi Arabia oversees a torturing tyranny where half the population – women – are placed under house arrest, and jihadis are pumped out by the dozen to attack us. It doesn’t matter. He gives us the oil, so we hold his hand and whisper sweet crude-nothings in his ear. It has always been the same with Venezuela – until now. Back in 1908, the US government set up its ideal Venezuelan regime: a dictator who handed the oil over fast and so freely that he didn’t even bother to keep receipts, never mind ask for a cut. But in 1998 the Venezuelan people finally said “enough”. They elected Hugo Chavez. The President followed their democratic demands: he increased the share of oil profits taken by the state from a pitiful one per cent to 33 per cent. He used the money to build hospitals and schools and subsidised supermarkets in the tin-and-mud shanty towns where he grew up, and where most of his countrymen still live. In 2003, two distinguished Wall Street consulting firms conducted the most detailed study so far of economic change under Chavez. They found that the poorest half of the country have seen their incomes soar by 130 per cent after inflation. Today, there are 19,571 primary care doctors -- an increase by a factor of 10. When Chavez came to power, just 35 per cent of Venezuelans told Latinobarometro, the Gallup of Latin America, they were happy with how their democracy worked. Today it is 59 per cent, the second-highest in the hemisphere. For the rich world’s governments – and especially for the oil companies, who pay for their political campaigns – this throws up a serious problem. We are addicted to oil. We need it. We crave it. And we want it on our terms. The last time I saw Chavez, he told me he would like to sell oil differently in the future: while poor countries should get it for $10 a barrel, rich countries should pay much more – perhaps towards $200. And he has said that if the rich countries keep intimidating the rest he will shift to selling to China instead. Start the sweating. But Western governments cannot simply say: “We want the oil, our corporations need the profits, so let’s smash the elected leaders standing in our way.” They know ordinary Americans and Europeans would gag. So they had to invent lies. First they announced Chavez was a dictator. This ignored that he came to power in a totally free and open election, the Venezuelan press remains uncensored and in total opposition to him, and he has just accepted losing a referendum to extend his term and will stand down in 2013. When that tactic failed, the oil industry and the politicians they lubricate shifted strategy. They announced that Chavez was a supporter of Terrorism. Now they claim he is a drug dealer, he funds Hezbollah, he is insane. As the world’s oil supplies dry up, the desire to control Venezuela’s pools will only increase. The US government is already funding separatist movements in Zulia province, along the border with Colombia, where Venezuela’s largest oilfields lie. By arrangement with
The Independent |
|
|
|
| HOME PAGE | |
Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir |
Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs |
Nation | Opinions | | Business | Sports | World | Letters | Chandigarh | Ludhiana | Delhi | | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |
