The Tribune, Chandigarh, India

India a friend of Nepal
Efforts on to infuse new life in relations

Nepal President Ram Baran Yadav’s visit to India has been highly successful in the sense that he is going back home with a soft loan of $250 million from New Delhi besides the signing of four major accords between the two countries. That he chose India for his first visit to any foreign country shows the level of expectations he has from New Delhi. India, which has had a special relationship with Nepal ever since Kathmandu began its struggle for democracy over 60 years ago, has been keen to play a key role in the establishment of peace in the Himalayan country after the abolition of monarchy in 2008. That is why Prime Minister Manmohan Singh expressed the hope during the delegation-level talks on Tuesday that the peace process and the drafting of a democratic constitution for new Nepal would be completed soon.

No one can deny that there are misguided elements in Nepal which doubt Indian intentions. Among them is the main opposition group, the UCPN (Maoists), which has been indulging in anti-India rhetoric for some time. But this is considered a “small irritant”, as the Nepalese President described it. The Maoists, who have their own negative agenda to promote, have not been able to prevent the two countries from agreeing to cooperate with each other in the fight against terrorism. During External Affairs Minister S. M. Krishna’s recent visit to Nepal the government in Kathmandu, headed by Mr Madhav Kumar Nepal, reiterated its commitment not to allow any territory of Nepal to be used by anti-India elements, including terrorists. The two countries are committed to fighting terrorism together.

Mr Ram Baran Yadav, a member of the Nepali Congress Party, who earned his MBBS and MD in India, is greatly inclined to take India’s help in rebuilding Nepal. He is a Madhesi from the Terai region. He must convince the Maoists, a major political force in his country today, that Nepal can grow faster economically and otherwise if New Delhi and Kathmandu have friendly and cooperative relations. There are geographical, historical and other factors which support this argument.

Single entrance test
It will reduce students’ stress

Students will no longer be bogged down by the multiplicity of entrance tests. Union HRD Minster Kapil Sibal, who has initiated many reforms in the education system, including making the CBSE Class X board examination optional, has once again taken an appreciable decision. Students of Class XI1 seeking admission to medical and engineering colleges will have to take one single entrance test by 2013. The proposed change that shall be preceded by a uniform science and maths curriculum for the students of Class XI and XII across the nation to facilitate the common test is undeniably a step in the right direction. Even more heartening is the fact that the higher secondary boards in the country have agreed to the core curriculum.

There is little doubt that multiple entrance tests not only create undue stress on students’ minds but also lead to a cramming culture. The situation that prevails is one of the main reasons for the mushrooming of teaching shops that go by the name of coaching institutes. The advantages of a single entrance test are being realised by educationists in India. Earlier even the MCI had mooted a single common entrance test for all medical colleges in the country. Prestigious institutes like the IIMs and the IITs already have their common entrance tests. Now, the new single entrance test that will ensure admission to all engineering and medical courses will hopefully curb malpractices, often reported in private medical and dental colleges. Even the IIT admission procedure has come under cloud.

While both single entrance test and core curriculum will help students and ensure uniform evaluation and education, efforts must be made to improve the curriculum as well. Student-friendly initiatives should go hand-in-hand with upgrading the quality of education. The task force, which shall be constituted for the national entrance test proposal, too must have the welfare of students uppermost in its mind. While evolving a fair criterion for the entrance test, it must ensure that merit prevails. To truly make it a “milestone in the history of education”, as Mr Sibal thinks it is, all irritants, including the concerns of different states, will have to be sorted out. Implementing a change of such a magnitude will require both will and resources.

Thought for the Day

What though care killed a cat, thou hast mettle enough in thee to kill care.
— William Shakespeare

ARTICLE

Emerging scenario in Kabul
‘Premature jubilation’ in Pakistan
by G. Parthasarathy

Pakistan’s General Kayani seems to be afflicted by the phenomenon that drowning men clutch at straws. His perspectives about his country appear contrary to what a high-profile Pakistani politician told me recently about that country currently confronting an “existential crisis”. General Kayani, however, evidently believes that Pakistan’s all problems will magically disappear once he re-establishes Afghanistan as a Pakistani client state and continues jihad against India in right earnest.

After a meeting in Brussels with fellow Generals from NATO member-states, General Kayani pontificated extensively on how 2273 of his officers and men had been “martyred” in operations against the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan. He revealed that he had told his NATO counterparts that Pakistan was ready to train officers of the Afghan National Army (ANA), claiming that “if we get more involved with the ANA there is more interaction and better understanding.”

Not surprisingly, he added: “We want strategic depth in Afghanistan.” He, thereafter, strangely suggested that unless this happened, a 250000-strong ANA could pose a security threat to Pakistan. The London Conference on Afghanistan had decided to increase the strength of the ANA to 171600 men by 2011.

If General Kayani was emboldened by what he believed was the credibility of his presentation in Brussels, his friends in the Pakistan Foreign Office waxed eloquent on the decision in London that efforts would be initiated to reach out to sections of the Taliban, to reintegrate them into the mainstream of Afghan national life. President Karzai has been advocating such an initiative for over five years now. Responding to the decision of the London conference, Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Quraishi remarked: “Pakistan is perhaps better placed than any other country in the world to support Afghan reintegration and reconciliation.” Does Mr Quraishi seriously believe that people in Afghanistan have forgotten how Pakistan brought the Taliban to power and enabled its protégés to indulge in ethnic cleansing of Shias, Hazaras, Uzbeks and Tajiks? Moreover, does he think that the Afghans are so naïve as to trust a neighbour that still harbours and assists the Taliban political and military leadership in Quetta, Peshawar, Karachi and North Waziristan?

Pakistan’s highly respected political commentator and an expert on the Taliban, Mr Rahimullah Yusufzai, responded caustically to General Kayani’s and Quraishi’s observations. Reacting to General Kayani’s comments on training the ANA, Mr Yusufzai remarked that the Afghans would naturally fear that “the ISI would recruit Afghan army officers it they are sent to Pakistan, and would then use them for its strategic goals in Afghanistan”. He also noted: “India’s emphasis on building roads, hospitals, educational institutions, electricity systems and other projects of public welfare is paying rich dividends and earning it tremendous goodwill in Afghanistan.”

One of Mr Quraishi’s worthy officials earlier commented: “We do not see India playing any role in Afghanistan. Any role for India in Afghanistan can only be problematical.” Mr Yusufzai also remarked that the international community was hardly likely to trust Pakistan as an intermediary with the Taliban and added that the Taliban leadership had already rejected President Karzai’s offer of reconciliation.

The fact that Pakistan lives in a world of illusion on its role in Afghanistan and its image abroad was confirmed when America’s Director of National Intelligence, Mr Dennis Blair, testified before the National Intelligence Committee of the Senate on February 2. Mr Blair stated: “The Afghan Taliban, Al-Qaeda and Pakistani militant groups continue to use Pakistan for organising, training and planning terrorist attacks against the United States and its allies in Afghanistan.” More significantly, he added that Pakistan “still judges it does not need to confront groups that do not threaten it directly and maintains historical support for the Taliban. It has continued to provide support to its militant proxies such as the Haqqani Taliban, the Gul Bahadur group and the Commander Nazir group. Indeed, as is well known, the Al-Qaeda, Afghan Taliban and Pakistan militant safe haven for the insurgency in Afghanistan is in Pakistan. The safe haven is an important Taliban strength, and unless it is greatly diminished, the Taliban insurgency can survive defeat in Afghanistan”.

Alluding to Pakistan’s support for terrorism in India, Mr Blair noted: “Pakistan’s conviction that militant groups are still an important part of its (Pakistan’s) strategic arsenal to counter India’s military and economic advantages will continue to limit Pakistan’s incentive to pursue across the board efforts against extremism. Islamabad’s strategic approach risks helping sustain its safe haven, because some groups supported by Pakistan provide assistance to Al-Qaeda.”

While President Obama would like to pull out from Afghanistan before the next Presidential election in November 2012, he realises that the larger American interests may be seriously compromised by a precipitate pullout. Mr Arvind Gupta, a senior Indian diplomat, now with the Institute for Defence Studies and Analysis, perceptively noted: “The United States does not wish to get bogged down in Afghanistan and yet it cannot leave in the ignominy of defeat.” While the Americans knew that a defeat in Vietnam would not result in any threat to the security of their homeland, a perceived defeat in Afghanistan and a return of the Taliban to power would set the stage for increased radicalisation in the Islamic world and a threat to American homeland security.

The London conference and the consequent jubilation in Pakistan based on the belief that the stage was set for the early return of the Taliban to power raised some concerns in New Delhi. But there is realisation now that the situation is more complex than earlier envisaged. India has to invest in retaining the goodwill it has built by its imaginative and effective interaction with and assistance to the people of Afghanistan.

India should also realise that it is not going to be consulted as the Obama Administration fashions its policies. But as long as it is clear that the Americans do not intend to withdraw till the Afghan Government’s security apparatus is adequately beefed up, we need not get unduly concerned.

A senior American official, who was till recently intimately involved with national security policy making, perceptively noted: “It is correct that the Obama Administration does not see India as an intimate collaborator in Afghanistan, but it is also not near to turning Afghanistan over to the Taliban and the ISI.” Yet another well-informed American analyst termed the reactions of the likes of Mr Quraishi and General Kayani as “premature jubilation”.

India should supplement its economic assistance with added emphasis on military training, if requested by the Afghan Government, while expanding consultations with Russia and Afghanistan’s neighbours like Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Iran. The London conference had endorsed a “regional approach” to handling the situation in Afghanistan.

MIDDLE

Thou Shall Not Smile!
by Robin Gupta

When with a heavy heart I left to train as a young IPS officer in 1972, my father exhorted me to keep smiling as hope and life are imperatives of joy. Indeed in 1519 Leonardo da Vinci painted a mesmerising smile on the face of the Mona Lisa which captivated generations, for centuries. Irrespective of the angle from which this enigmatic portrait is viewed, the smile continues to haunt the viewer.

In a manner of speaking a smile is the essential impetus of life just as dance, as witnessed in Zorba the Greek, is the ultimate expression of freedom. While it is difficult to determine whether the smile precedes happiness or whether it is the other way around, it is certain that into the hedonistic philosophy that prevailed for centuries Plato and Socrates introduced strict societal values as a pre-requisite to any indulgence of pleasure or, expression of joy.

Therefore, when SPS Rathore smiled, deriving his inspiration from Nehru, apparently he had come to terms with his conscience having forgotten depriving the young girl Ruchika of a smile even in her grave, and in the process had cast aside the ignominy and lurking fear of going behind bars.

I think Rathore may not have read the gripping tale of the Russian rebel, Ryleyev, for it is a chilling reminder that a distorted smile when correctly interpreted can attract the ultimate penalty of death. Condemned to the gallows at the start of the 19th century curiously Ryleyev escaped certain death as the rope meant to hang him, perchance snapped after the trapdoors of the execution platform were opened, and he fell into the well below, unhurt.

In those days such incidents were considered to be divine intervention and, therefore, the condemned were remitted from their sentence and set free. When the Russian Czar, Nicholas I, before affixing his signature to the royal pardon, enquired from the executioner of Ryleyev’s reaction to the failed execution was told that Ryleyev had stated with a smirk that in Russia they did not know how to make ropes, His Imperial Majesty immediately tore the pardon order to shreds and the next time the rope did not break.

Rathore’s rope may break this time, yet one wonders whether he suffered the agony of a heavy conscience! This police officer’s smirk indicates, however, that it is easier to cope with one’s conscience than to withstand the reasonable opinion of civil society.

In a free for all where justice is dispensed within a court room as in the public mind his smirk has cost him more than the agony he suffered for smiling over the decimation of an innocent child and the destruction of her family 19 years ago. And with a sorrowing heart heavy with the kaleidoscope of memory I recall a saintly Inspector-General of Police, Director of the Academy, who some 37 years ago bade me farewell with a blessing as I entrained to take up my next assignment in the civil service.

OPED

Capture of Mullah Baradar
A morale-booster for US forces in Afghanistan
by K. Subrahmanyam

Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar Akhund, senior-most deputy to Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Omar and commander of the Afghan Taliban forces, is reported to have been arrested in a joint operation by the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and US agencies in Karachi on Wednesday last week. A few weeks ago the US media had reported that the Quetta Shura of Mullah Omar had been shifted by the Pakistanis to Karachi since it was feared that the US might target its drones on the Shura in Quetta in the forthcoming US surge operations against the Afghan Taliban.

As is usual with the Pakistanis, they vehemently denied it. Now it is obvious that the US was keeping a close watch on the movements of the Quetta Shura. The official US version is this arrest was a joint operation by the ISI and US agencies. And US Senator Kerry during his stopover in Pakistan had praised the Pakistani cooperation over the CNN television channel. The Pakistani military spokesman has now confirmed the report. In all probability, the initiative for the capture should have come from the US agencies. Their Xe services or Special Forces operating in Pakistan should have captured the Mullah and the Pakistanis had no alternative but to go along with the Americans.

It is very difficult to envisage the Pakistanis who have been denying the presence of the Afghan Shura in Pakistan and Karachi and who have been talking about promoting a reconciliation between the Afghan Taliban and the Karzai government, moving to capture the Afghan Taliban commander on their own, especially on the eve of the US offensive at Marjah. The five-day delay in the public announcement of the capture is, in all probability, necessitated by the interval needed to remove the captive out of Pakistan to a safe destination. The US media mention that the mullah is being jointly interrogated by US and Pakistani officials is adding insult to injury since the Pakistanis are not in a position to own up to such interrogation.

If the Pakistanis have indeed moved in the matter it will indicate that they have decided to make a radical U-turn in their policy of supporting the Afghan Taliban surreptitiously against the US and to throw in their lot with President Obama and his strategy. It will mean that the Pakistan Army will block the Afghan Taliban retreating into Pakistan and having a safe haven there. Such a move will go along the hint of General Kiyani during a Press briefing that he may move against the Haqqani network, a part of the Afghan Taliban. This appears to be less likely of the two scenarios. The more probable one is the US agencies and Special Forces located the mullah in Karachi and zeroed in on him and physically captured him.

The Pakistanis were unable to free him and had to agree reluctantly to go along with the US and allow them to put out that the mullah was captured in a joint effort. This would highlight that the US forces are able to operate within Pakistan with sufficient autonomy to effect such captures even in a crowded city like Karachi. Though this is bound to be denied by both the US and Pakistani authorities, the existence of such US capability is widely discussed in the Pakistani media.

If the second scenario turns out to be correct then those who are vigorously debating Mr Obama’s withdrawal from Pakistan in mid-2011 and leaving it to the mercies of the Afghan Taliban may have to reassess the US strategy. Till now President Obama had been threatening to hit with drone-launched missiles the Afghan Taliban targets in Pakistani territory when actionable intelligence became available. Now the US agencies are extending their operations to capturing the jihadi personnel within Pakistani cities. This is not new. Khalid Sheikh Mohammad was captured in Rawalpindi and other Al-Qaeda leaders in Karachi, Faisalabad and elsewhere. While this capture enhances Mr Obama’s credibility, the Pakistanis have to clarify their stand on the issue. Do they contribute to the US strategy of acting against the Afghan Taliban or do they still maintain that the Afghan Taliban should be reconciled with? If the latter is their position then why did they collaborate in the capture of the second most important leader of the Afghan Taliban? If they did not, they have a lot more to explain to their population.

Till now it was claimed that the Afghan Taliban had been left alone and they in turn were only interested in fighting the US and NATO forces in Afghanistan and had not acted against anybody else. This capture of the second ranking leader changes the game. The ISI is attributed partial responsibility for the capture by the US. Will Afghan Taliban retaliate or not? A lot of Afghan Pashtuns are living in Karachi and there were some recent unsuccessful attempts at disrupting NATO convoys on their way from Karachi port to Afghanistan.

How will the other jihadi groups like the LeT and Al-Qaeda read what could be considered an act of betrayal by the ISI of a long trusted ally – the Afghan Taliban? Will they continue to be allies of the ISI or be alienated? If so, what will be the consequences? Or will there be attempts by the ISI to demonstrate its continued commitment to the LeT by activating it against Indian and US targets? These are the issues which need to be analysed in Delhi and Washington.

Obviously given the nature of the relationship with Pakistan, especially in the wake of this extremely delicate operation with implications for popular indignation in Pakistan, it is unrealistic to expect the US authorities to share all their intelligence with their Indian counterparts. One wonders whether Senator Kerry shared this information with the Indian authorities during his visit to New Delhi.

While it has been stressed that the Afghan Taliban command structure is very loose and has a great deal of autonomy and, therefore, the capture of the top commander will not have any significant impact on the ongoing operations in Helmand province, there can be little doubt that this capture comes as a big morale-booster for the US and allied forces and is likely to increase the proportion of reconcilable Taliban.

The capture also raises the issue how Mullah Baradar is going to be interrogated and where. He is likely to rank with Khalid Sheikh Mohammad as a source of information. President Obama has abjured the interrogation techniques like water-boarding employed to extract information from Khalid. However, given the demonstrated reach of the capabilities of the US forces deployed under cover in Pakistan, the Afghan Taliban Shura in Karachi is likely to disburse itself and go deep underground. So will the leaderships of Al-Qaeda and other jihadi organisations. That will result in the degradation of their operational capabilities.

The eluding great power status
by Anand Kumar

FOR last couple of years, India has often been described as a ‘great emerging world power.’ Though this epithet mesmerizes most Indians, many of us know in our heart of our heart that a long time has to be passed before that great power status comes to us.

Even the countries which started labeling India as a rising global power know very well that India would take quite some time before it gets this status. India ranks very low in priority of American think tanks. All the prominent think tanks of the US are focused on the rise of China. They see China as rival and potential threat. Though, they often do not mention this in so many words. India’s rise has been termed as ‘benign’ whereas Chinese rise has been seen as a threat, because most western powers think that India can not rise that fast where it would pose serious competition to them.

India is placed in volatile south Asia, where all countries have major internal problems. This kind of neighbourhood does not allow India to focus fully on its developmental process. India also has some internal fragility. Today a large part of India is under the influence of Maoists. The writ of the state barely runs over those territories. Besides, a significant proportion of Indian population is below poverty line. Poverty continues to be major issue. A lot still needs to be done on the nation building front.

Interestingly, even China is aware of this fact. The difference in situation can be gauged from the simple fact that India sees China as its ‘number one enemy,’ though of late we have become little diplomatic and chosen not to describe it so clearly. On the other hand India is a very low priority in Chinese threat perception. Ideally, China wants India to remain limited in south Asian politics. Similarly, the Western powers want China to get embroiled with India. But Chinese now have global ambitions and do not see any great threat emerging from the side of India.

Clearly, China is differently placed than what we are. This difference is because China has been on this growth path for several decades now. China did not show global pretentions till they became very confident. This confidence of China emanates from their strong economic and military might. We may like to condemn China for its totalitarian state structure and praise ourselves for being a democracy, but the fact of the matter is that the Chinese state appears far more cohesive than the Indian state. This cohesiveness is also reflected in the way Chinese have successfully conducted their foreign policy.

Unfortunately, for India this comparison with China has started at a very early stage. India is not at the same developmental level where China is. The political instability in the country makes things worse. Only recently the UPA government has managed to get comfortable majority. Our foreign policy is more of reactive kind. When Chinese make repeated incursions, we become conscious of their threat. Otherwise, we choose to ignore that threat. What is worse, we do not even seriously prepare for that threat.

We ignore Chinese threat partly because we think that we are not as prepared militarily as China is. If this is the situation then there is no point getting involved in rivalry with China. At present, a better strategy for India would be to remain engrossed with its economic growth for a decade more and add to its economic and financial muscle.

However, only economic growth is not going to make India a great power. To be taken seriously on international scene there is a need to develop ‘comprehensive national power’ of the country of which economy is only one component.

The Indian state is facing various internal challenges. Though democracy has managed to survive in India, it has not inspired any widespread enthusiasm among the people. There is nothing wrong with democracy per se but to become a strong nation India will have to strengthen its democracy and transform it from a surviving democracy to functioning and delivering democracy.

In the sphere of military India is spending only two percent of the GDP whereas China and Pakistan are spending 7 and 5 percent respectively. No major defense acquisition is made, as it is generally felt that it can not be done fairly and without stirring controversy. There is very little indigenous capability available in the field of defense production. If a country can not resolve simple procedural issues involved in defense acquisition then definitely lot more has to be done before that great power status come on us. US says that it will help India become a major, but the hard fact of life is that no country helps another country to become a major power unless that country helps itself.

Google in privacy row over Buzz
by Stephen Foley

GOOGLE is being threatened with legal action over the launch of its new social network, Google Buzz, amid furious claims that the service breaches A week after launching the service with great fanfare and with high hopes that it could lure internet users’ attention away from Facebook and Twitter, Google has found itself embroiled in a technical and public relations nightmare.

The pioneering internet company again apologised to users yesterday, and said it was working round the clock to roll out additional alterations to Buzz, on top of emergency changes imposed late last week and over the weekend.

Google said last Tuesday it was creating a vast social network from scratch by harnessing the 180 million users of its Gmail email service, converting parts of their contacts lists into Facebook-style “friends” who could share status updates, pictures and links.

But users revolted when they realised that their contacts could now see who they had been emailing n something that could reveal everything from private business relationships to romantic affairs.

Angry users have deluged Google with complaints and conversation in company chatrooms has turned to legal action. In Israel, one Gmail account holder has already reportedly launched a lawsuit that she hopes can be joined by other users. Amal Jaraisy said she had lodged the suit on behalf of people who “woke up one morning and found that the details of the people with whom they have open or covert contact are exposed to the entire world”, according to the daily newspaper Haaretz.

Google had bypassed the careful testing that it usually insists upon for new products, trialling Buzz only using internal staff. Shelly Palmer, technology and media consultant and founder of Advanced Media Ventures, said the company had been caught unawares by the reaction of its public users.

“Anyone who understands the Google mindset could not have expected them to get this right,” he said. “Everywhere they go, they try to apply mechanistic efficiency. They looked at Facebook and said, ‘You have to invite people? How ridiculous! We’ll just look at who you email most and hook up those people right now.’ This wasn’t a malicious attack on your privacy. It was just Google’s attempt to create a social network with no fuss.” Google has issued repeated apologies to Gmail customers as the dEbâcle has unfolded and now makes it easier for users to keep their contacts private, to block certain people from following them and to unsubscribe from Buzz all together.

Todd Jackson, the Google product manager who a week ago had expressed his enthusiasm for the new service by declaring “Woohoo, Google Buzz launched!” was taking a different tone yesterday, saying the company was “Very, very sorry”. In his latest blog post, he said: “We quickly realized that we didn’t get everything quite right. We have been working hard ever since to improve things based on your feedback. We’ll continue to do so.” Further changes under consideration include setting up Google Buzz as a standalone website, to further untangle it from Gmail. But, even as it was dealing with its public relations nightmare, Google was trying to look on the bright side. At least many of the Buzz users who were venting their fury were doing so on the new social network.

“We’ve been getting feedback via the Gmail help forums,” said Mr Jackson, “and we’ve also been able to do something new: read the buzz about Buzz itself.”

— By arrangement with The Independent