The Tribune, Chandigarh, India

EDITORIALS

Treading cautiously
Undertone of Budget is positive

Mr Pranab Mukherjee is one of those finance ministers who give with one hand and take away with the other. If he has reduced the income-tax burden on the salaried class by raising the slab limits for various tax brackets, he has hiked the excise duty on petrol and diesel by Re 1 per litre. He has maintained the balance between rural and urban India. Perhaps, lack of consensus within the Congress has stopped him from breaking new ground in reforms. Mr Mukherjee is a middle-of-road- finance minister — neither too bold nor altogether hesitant. He has missed the chance to undertake the next-generation reforms as this was the ideal time with no major elections in the near future and no communist shackles to hold him.

The oil price hike, though not unwarranted altogether, will contribute to the over-all price rise, an issue which the opposition parties are exploiting to the hilt. They chose to walk out of Parliament on this issue on the Budget day, which is something unheard of. Some experts expect inflation to move up from 8.6 per cent last month to 10 per cent shortly, driven by a relentless hike in food prices, the hardening of the oil prices and an excise duty hike.

The Finance Minister, however, has been sensitive to the volatile issue of high food inflation. He has tried to accelerate agricultural production to ensure food security. A sum of Rs 300 crore has been set apart for creating 60,000 pulse and oilseed villages. The government has decided to take the Green Revolution to eastern India to spread it to the states of Bihar, Jharkhand, Orissa and West Bengal. A sum of Rs 400 crore has been earmarked for this expansion. Punjab and Haryana, it is believed, have reached a saturation point. The political leadership in Punjab and Haryana had demanded special compensation for farmers for keeping up paddy production despite a deficient monsoon last year. They have not got any relief. However, Mr Mukherjee has given farmers six months more to repay their loans. Otherwise they would have been classified as defaulters and the bad loans would have impaired the state-owned banks’ performance.

Some judge the popularity of a finance minister by the reaction of stock markets to a budget. From that angle it is a positive signal though the BSE Sensex retreated after the initial euphoria to close with a gain of 175 points only. Major benefits to the infrastructure, realty and banking sectors enthused the markets initially. Infrastructure has been given 46 per cent of the total plan. The allocation for power has been doubled and for roads it has been raised by 13 per cent.

Foreign investors appreciated the Finance Minister’s efforts to cut the government debt-to-GDP ratio and consolidate the finances. He has promised to bring out a status paper within six months to curtail debt. The 13th Finance Commission report had suggested capping the combined Central and state debt at 68 per cent of the GDP instead of the present 82 per cent. But, perhaps, they felt let down by the Finance Minister’s lack of boldness in opening up health insurance, rural banking and higher education for foreign direct investment as was suggested by the latest Economic Survey.

The Budget is a big success in terms of efforts to control fiscal deficit. The target of keeping fiscal deficit within 5.5 per cent is commendable. The government expects cash flows from surging economic growth, sales of government company stakes and 3G mobile licences. On the reforms front, a clear message has gone out that the goods and services tax (GST) and the Direct Tax Code will be introduced from April, 2010. The Unique ID Authority of India will get Rs 1,900 crore. Those who feel the defence budget should be hiked in view of the sensitive security environment will be disappointed as Mr Mukherjee has made just a 4 per cent increase in the defence outlay against a 34 per cent raise last year.

It is also a green budget. Raising the cost of owning cars, sports utility vehicles, TV sets and ACs apart from a hike in the oil prices are environment-friendly measures. But public transport still has not got the attention it deserves. A clean energy cess has been levied on coal and the money thus collected will go to the National Clean Energy Fund. Goa has been given Rs 200 crore for preserving its beaches and green cover. This is welcome though other coastal and hill states may also demand such help in future. The rivers, canals and other water bodies too need funds and an operation cleanup.

ARTICLE

Nuclear track record
Pakistan can’t be treated on a par with India
by K. Subrahmanyam

Last week in the Committee on Disarmament (CD) in Geneva, the Pakistani delegate made an elaborate statement on Pakistan’s objections for the CD taking up for consideration of the issue of Fissile Materials Cut-off Treaty (FMCT). He opposed the move and argued that the treaty, as it is formulated will affect Pakistan’s security.

In his view, the issue cannot be considered in isolation independent of other developments in South Asia. He launched a vitriolic attack on India for triggering an arms race in South Asia. But his main focus was on the waiver of the Nuclear Suppliers Group’s guidelines in favour of India in respect of civil nuclear cooperation.

He cited some US experts to support his view that it will enable India to save its own uranium for weapon purposes and that the Indo-US nuclear deal was damaging the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). According to him, the Indian nuclear submarine programmed, ballistic missile programme and anti-ballistic missile programme were all making an arms race in South Asia inevitable.

Though the Pakistani delegate made his speech an attack on India, it was a criticism of the major powers of the world who took the initiative to get India the NSG waiver and a criticism of the 45-member NSG for having extended to India this waiver. Though he denied that Pakistan was isolated on the issue the fact that the 45-member NSG group gave India the waiver and not to Pakistan speaks for itself. In March 2006, when President George Bush stopped at Islamabad on his way back from New Delhi, General Musharraf raised the issue of Pakistan getting a civil-nuclear cooperation agreement analogous to India’s in public before the TV cameras. President Bush replied that Pakistan was different, its needs were different and its history was different. The last sentence that Pakistan’s history was different explained the whole issue and provided the effective answer to all US critics of Indo-US nuclear deal.

India has been recognised as a responsible nuclear state with advanced nuclear technology while Pakistan has not been so recognised by the international community. This is the crux of the issue and no amount of propagandist attacks on India can alter this fact. There are only three non-signatories to the NPT — Israel, India and Pakistan.

Israel is not in need of civil nuclear energy. Therefore, when it is argued that the NSG waiver for India will damage the NPT, the critics are only advocating the cause of Pakistan even while professing to make out a general case to save the NPT.

The Pakistani delegate evidently thinks that South Asia is an island continent like Australia and there are no countries in it other than India and Pakistan. India has a longer border with China than with Pakistan. While the Indo-Pakistan ratios in terms of population, GDP, industrial and agricultural productions are seven to one, the two neighbours, China and India are more approximately balanced in terms of population and resources.

While Pakistan argues that its security considerations should have overriding priority, it does not appear to extend that logic to its neighbour. Since President Bush cited the different history of Pakistan as the justification for not extending to Pakistan the civil-nuclear cooperation, it is necessary to focus on that history.

Pakistran is the unique case where nuclear weapon development and deployment have been exclusively in the hands of the military. Even in North Korea, the Communist Party commands the weapon. Whenever Pakistan had civilian governments, the nuclear weapon development and deployment were outside the jurisdiction of the head of the civilian government.

The Pakistani Army has not only a history of repeatedly seizing power from elected democratic governments, it has also a history of one of the largest genocides committed after World War II in Bangladesh. This has been recorded in the report of Justice Hamidur Rahman Commission set up by the Pakistan government itself.

Pakistan set up the infamous Taliban regime in Afghanistan which had to be removed as it supported the terrorist organisation Al Qaeda which plotted and executed the 9/11 terrorist attack on the US. On February 3, 2010, US Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair told the Senate, “Pakistan’s conviction that militant groups are strategically useful to counter India are not only hampering the fight against terrorism but also helping Al Qaeda sustain its safe haven…Islamabad’s strategic approach risks helping Al Qaeda sustain its safe haven because some groups supported by Pakistan provide assistance to Al Qaeda…Islamabad’s conviction that militant groups are an important part of its strategic arsenal to counter India’s military and economic advantages will continue to limit Pakistan’s incentive to pursue an across-the-board effort against extremism.” He added, “despite robust Pakistani military operations against extremists that directly challenge Pakistani government authority, Afghan Taliban, Al Qaeda, and Pakistani militant groups continue to use Pakistan as a safe haven for organising, training and planning attacks against the United States and our allies in Afghanistan, India and Europe…However, it still judges it does not need to confront groups that do not threaten it directly and maintains historical support to the Taliban,” providing the assessment reflecting the views of 16 intelligence agencies, including the Central Intelligence Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

He went on to elaborate, “Simultaneously, Islamabad has maintained relationships with other Taliban-associated groups that support and conduct operations against US and ISAF (International Security Assistance Force) forces in Afghanistan...It has continued to provide support to its militant proxies such as Haqqani Taliban, Gul Bahadur group, and Commander Nazir group…The Al Qaeda, Afghan Taliban, and Pakistani militant safe haven in Quetta will continue to enable the Afghan insurgents and Al Qaeda to plan operations, direct propaganda, recruiting and training activities and fund-raising activities with relative impunity.”

Does the Pakistani delegate believe that his country which has been accused of helping and abetting the Taliban fighting the forces of the European Union countries in Afghanistan has any credibility to persuade the international community that it is not a state supporting terrorism but a responsible state?

The Pakistani Army under General Musharraf charged the Metallurgist Dr A.Q. Khan of having proliferated nuclear weapon technology to Iran, North Korea and Libya and he confessed to it in public on national TV. Now he has been exonerated by the Pakistani judiciary and he accuses that the confession was obtained by coercion and the proliferation took place with the knowledge and approval of the Generals and one of them even made money out of it.

Pakistan refuses to allow access to A.Q.Khan by the International Atomic Energy Agency. With this unique record of nuclear irresponsibility, Pakistan expects that it should be treated on a par with India and its fairytales will be credible to the international community.

MIDDLE

Nani’s endurance test
by S.S. Bhatti

Prabhtej is barely two years and three months. By American standards of height and weight for babies, he is at zero per cent. But, in terms of ebullient energy and destructive power, he is a mini-nuclear reactor. He is free from gender biases and distinguishes me from his Nani by adding the honorific suffix “jee” to the epithet for granny or mother’s mother.

Driven by a monstrous instinct for independence, he brooks no interference in whatever he does. When hungry, he eats on the dining-table all by himself as neatly as a grownup. But the moment his tummy is full, he starts using roti, cheese, mashed potatoes, and other cuisine like an art maestro using clay or paint. His tiny hands become a giant’s tools, and he applies his materials to the table-top in gay abandon. When so fed up he litters the kitchen-cum-dining floor no vacuum-cleaner can easily clean up.

The other day he emerged as a real monster and an alien from a Hollywood movie, and put his Nani’s endurance and prudence to a near-fatal test right in the guest toilet. While supervising his ablutionary activities, his mother suddenly received a call on her mobile. Excited that it was the caterer she wanted to contact in preparation for the birthday party of her elder son, she coolly said: “Mummy! You take care of Prabhtej”, and walked out to discuss the menu, the charges, delivery time, bargaining—-all in one go, which included persuasion for a bonus dessert. During her five-minute conversation, the toilet became a battlefield for the Hollywood monster-alien. The urge for potty got transformed into irrepressible ardency for maverick marauding. He flushed the w.c. [water closet] four times in quick succession [American cisterns fill up in 20 seconds!].

When his Nani said “No”, he rose from his precarious position and hurled the baby-seat-adapter like a discus. Challenged by a double “No”, he unrolled the tissue-paper and spread it like spaghetti on the floor. Undaunted by further restraints, he thumped the full-height glass door that separated the bath from the dry area.

The catch-me-if-you-can sport progressively got more violent, and he squeezed the toothpaste out of the tube to make a lavish use of the “economy size”.

Nani tried everything, but it worked in the direction of exhausting her endurance and dwindling energy. Her commanding voice provoked the little devil to brandish the w.c.-cleaner like the legendary Bheema’s mace. This was followed by a magician’s trick of pulling out of the basket dirty laundry piece by piece. Then the trash bin was emptied as if he were looking for something precious he had misplaced.

Her conversation over, my daughter moved towards the toilet and mercifully asked: “Are you OK, Mummy?” Collecting her attenuated breath in one giant gasp the poor Nani said: “Another minute and I would have collapsed!” The word ‘collapsed’ alarmed me, and I promptly enquired after her grandson-gruelled health. “God has been unfair to you. He has granted me a new lease of life. Otherwise you would presently have been the fortunate beneficiary of my foreign health insurance!”

OPED

India needs policy for space security
by Anil Lal Vats

India’s recent successful test of a 22-metre long heavy motor can be graded as number three in the world. In fact, India has gone ahead of China in this particular aspect. This achievement will give a phillip to India’s space programme and build capacity of placing heavier version of satellites weighing four tonnes or more in the orbit projected through a 200-tonne solid propellent.

Two S-200 will hug the core liquid stage of the GSLV Mark-111 rocket, which will itself be propelled by a cryogenic engine (which is a great achievement for India as the US-led technological denial regime had denied India this capability for more than two decades). The other country with these capabilities of two heavy motors is NASA’s booster rocket of its heavy space shuttle Ariane-5 space launch vehicles.

Heavier payloads of the category of four tonnes will give multi-role capabilities to the satellite and make their operations more versatile. This will enable more efficient utilisation for civil application (and even military option). Although, India’s space programmes are strictly based on civilian application on the Eisenhower Model of the 1950s.

However, with the recent Chinese test of ASAT Weapons, India may have to revise its policy to build defensive systems in space. Over and above this, in a future scenario where solar energy can be tapped through space, such heavy platforms can become very useful.

Further,thinking on the other end of the spectrum, can India in combination with China create an Asian alliance and form the Asian Space Station like the ISS? Can this big Idea become feasible, to prove that the 21st century is Asia’s century?

Militarily speaking, these heavy satellites in combination with nano or microsatellites can become a deadly military configuration. These duel use satellites will usher space power groupings akin to the existing global nuclear order. In other words, if India has to stay as an influencing power in future, then it will have to showcase its space-based capabilities, which in a way is bound to become the power index.

Yesterday’s nuclear P-5 s are bound to transcend to similar space power groupings like S-6 or 8. Latest reports of an EMP threat from space are yet another area of worry and that too from non-state actors. There are other many weapon system, which may take shape. All these will require bigger payloads satellite and India can build on these technological successes. But this mandates a space security blue print of growth and India is already late in formulating one so as to enable cost-effective duel-use application.

Here one can quote the pioneering work done by the IDSA-Pugwash Committee Report ,which was published about a year back and which has laid out some concrete recommendations, which need urgent attention by the government. The recommendations state that there is an urgent need for India to formulate a space security policy with elements of creating an institutional structure for its implementation.

The space policy should include the requirements of the defence services and civil agencies like broadcasting services, meteorology etc. The aspect of R&D, space laws and commercial business development needs to be factored in. The government may consider setting up a “national space security command” to meet operational needs of various agencies. India needs to identify critical duel-use technologies and become self-reliant in them (technologies like sensors, satellite hardening, counter-space nano and micro-satellite, sub-orbital flights etc.) Human resources (10,000 scientists) have to be trained and thus the same be facilitated by the government.

In addition the government’s international negotiating strategy must be proactive and flexible. International cooperation on space issues should be given high priority as it builds the soft power of a nation. For instance, India should consider international cooperation with SAARC and other developing countries and give them benefits in space.

The end result of an assertive India in space will add to India’s comprehensive growth and power in the comity of nations as a responsible nation. The government and the media should take note of this urgent requirement.

The writer is a former fellow at the IDSA and has done a PhD in defence studies.

Obama liked but not feared
by Rupert Cornwell

What went wrong? In January 2009, Barack Obama took power in a nation that overwhelmingly yearned for him to succeed. He was a fresh face, eloquent, thoughtful, plainly intelligent. On Capitol Hill, his party had massive majorities. All of that remains true. Yet, just 13 months later, America is in about as foul a mood as when George W. Bush reached his nadir.

Most parties that win the White House lose seats at the next mid-term elections. This November though, Democrats are bracing for a wipe-out that could conceivably see them lose control of both House and Senate, as the independent voters who, in November 2008, bought Obama's message of change and renewal abandon him in disillusioned droves.

The man they thought was an outsider has behaved like the quintessential insider. He and his administration talk tough about Wall Street, but after their near-death experience the banks are paying bonuses as they did in the locust years. Instead of bringing a fresh broom to Washington, Obama has deferred to the crusty old barons of Congress. He promised a new era of unity. Instead, the system is so gridlocked by partisanship that some call the country ungovernable. And then there's the healthcare morass.

Today the president is bringing Democrats and Republicans together for a televised "summit" in a last bid to rescue his signature initiative that after nine months was about to cross the finish line – until the Democrats contrived to lose Ted Kennedy's former seat in Massachusetts, and with it the 60th Senate vote that would have enabled them to break a Republican filibuster.

The calculations underlying this event are far too complex to go into here. An ever more confused American public no longer knows what it wants. The Republicans will play nice to the national viewing audience to show they're not bloody-minded obstructionists. In reality, they have no incentive to compromise now. The Democrats will also be on their best behaviour, even as they plot to ram through a final version of the bill over Republican objections, using a procedural manoeuvre that requires just 51 Senate votes, not 60, for passage.

Whether they can pull it off is anyone's guess, but for Obama the gamble is huge. Having invested so much in healthcare reform, he cannot walk away now. Yet after a while persistence starts looking like a political obsession to match Captain Ahab's hunt for the great white whale. Moby Dick, of course, hauled Ahab to his death, and healthcare could easily drag Obama to disaster.

However the big lesson of the Obama presidency thus far is the opposite. Intelligence, eloquence and sweet reason alone are not enough in politics. Yes, it seemed that way to voters when they chose a successor to the dogmatic, tongue-tied and defiantly anti-intellectual Bush. Obama was the most politically inexperienced person to become president in a century, but in 2008, a majority of Americans either overlooked that fact or saw it as a positive virtue. Obama, they thought, would summon what Abraham Lincoln called "the better angels of our nature".

In fact another Illinois politician, the former governor Adlai Stevenson, hit the nail on the head, more than half a century ago. Like Obama, Stevenson ran for president (twice, both times unsuccessfully). Like Obama, he was highly intelligent and rather cerebral. He was also very witty. "You have the vote of every thinking person," a woman supporter called out during Stevenson's 1956 campaign. To which he replied, "that's not enough, madam, we need a majority."

Today Obama is on the verge of losing that majority, if he hasn't lost it already. When an administration is struggling, the pundits' advice machine moves into overdrive. The current wisdom is that Obama must broaden his circle of close advisers beyond a "Chicago mafia" at the White House, and maybe jettison Rahm Emanuel, his foul-mouthed White House Chief of Staff.

That the infighting is seriously under way was proved by a column in The Washington Post at the weekend, surely inspired, if not leaked, by Emanuel or his allies, arguing that Obama's mistake had been to ignore his top aide's advice on key issues, and that Emanuel was the one reason Obama's presidency hadn't already gone the way of Jimmy Carter's. When such pieces start appearing, you know a president's in trouble.

But the person who probably needs to change is the boss. Events have proved Stevenson right, that reason and intelligence take you only so far in politics. Obama cannot be accused of masking the truth about America's financial and economic situation. Nor does he fail to make the case for sacrifice.

But he rarely demands sacrifice directly. Take healthcare. To win agreement, Obama now proposes that a crucial revenue-raising provision, a tax on higher-end employer-sponsored schemes is now being deferred to 2018, long after he leaves office. Such moves only reinforce a feeling that this president is a soft touch.

Which in turn suggests a second truth. When times are tough, successful leaders must not only be liked. They must also be feared. No one fears Obama, in part because he hasn't faced anyone down, least of all the Congress that is now supreme emblem of everything the public thinks is wrong with the system.

It's not yet too late; Obama is far more popular than the Congress. There are parallels too with the early stages of Bill Clinton's presidency. Clinton also failed to push through sweeping healthcare reform. After a crushing mid-term defeat in 1994, he changed tack and went for smaller changes. These now add up to a decent legacy. But the 2010s are not the 1990s. Big things need to be done, and Americans instinctively knew that when they voted Obama into office. Thus far, he hasn't delivered.

— By arrangement with The Independent

Inside Pakistan
Lahore’s Basant: politics enters the fray
by Syed Nooruzzaman

There was a time when Lahorites would wait for Basant more eagerly than even their Eid. But times have changed. Now it is not possible to celebrate Basant with kite-flying, which remains a banned activity. Yet every year Basant enthusiasts try to celebrate the occasion in the traditional manner – flying kites, wearing colourful dresses, holding dance and song parties, etc. In the process, the Basant controversy gets revived involving different sections of society.

The controversy has taken an interesting turn with Punjab Governor Salman Taseer declaring on a TV channel a few days back that he would defy the ban by celebrating Basant with kite-flying, etc. The Kite-Flying Association of Lahore, too, announced that Basant would be celebrated on March 6 and 7 (Saturday and Sunday) in the traditional manner. This led to the association’s Secretary-General Sheikh Salim getting arrested and the provincial government threatening that the Governor would also meet the same fate if he went ahead with his Basant celebration plan.

Governor Taseer is a member of the ruling Pakistan People’s Party, but Punjab province has a PML (N) government, headed by Mr Shahbaz Sharif, younger brother of Mr Nawaz Sharif. The two principal political parties are in different camps – one against the kite-flying ban and the other in favour of it.

As Nusrat Nasarullah says in an article in Business Recorder, referring to a TV programme on the subject, “Of course, there is a political side to the kite-flying context and the Basant picture … Those who are with the Pakistan People’s Party on this kite-flying issue have opted to defy the ban, and those who are supporting it are standing behind the Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz).”

According to a report in The News, the Supreme Court of Pakistan banned kite-flying in 2005 “in response to an outcry over injuries and deaths caused every year by the glass-coated string.” The court order, however, has it that the ban can be lifted for a brief period if the court is approached for the purpose. Despite this, last month the Lahore High Court turned down a request for lifting the ban.

This has dampened the spirits of Basant enthusiasts. They wanted the provincial government to defend their case in the court at a time when democracy is back on the rails in Pakistan. The government, however, looks at the whole issue from the law and order and ethical angles, ignoring the business aspect and the sentiments of those who want to celebrate Basant to keep this popular cultural festival alive. Most people are of the view that culture should not be made to suffer if some people indulge in questionable activities.

On this occasion, women prefer yellow-colour dresses. The famous cultural festival heralds the arrival of spring. During the days when there was no ban on Basant celebrations, it provided an opportunity to make huge profits to businessmen. Many multinational companies would pitch their tents on rooftops. The owner of the highest building in Lahore would get the maximum rent. One could find everybody constituting the Who’s Who of Pakistan in the country’s cultural capital. However, all this has become a thing of the past because of the controversy associated with Lahore’s Basant.

Judicial appointments

The recent controversy over the appointment and promotion of judges ended soon after it was caused, but it highlighted the need for transparency in the consultation process involving the judiciary and the executive. It was also felt that there must be a clearly laid down procedure to avoid an confusion over whose opinion would be final.

According to Daily Times (Feb 25), the Constitutional Reforms Committee of parliament headed by Senator Raza Rabbani has recommended the formation of two commissions – a judicial commission and a bipartisan parliamentary commission – for the purpose. “In this scheme, the parliamentary commission has the final authority to approve or reject names proposed by the judicial commission, while the role of the Prime Minister and the President has been reduced to ceremonial approval”, the daily pointed out.

When the controversy arose following the two notifications by President Asif Ali Zardari for certain judicial appointments contrary to the recommendations made by the Chief Justice of Pakistan, the two sides made different claims over the question of consultation. Those belonging to the Chief Justice’s camp expressed the view that his recommendation could not be overruled. The appointment of the two commissions can eliminate the chances of such claims and counter claims.