The Tribune, Chandigarh, India

ARTICLE

The uncivil visa war
Canada has no right to debunk BSF
by Abhijit Bhattacharyya

Foreign diplomats in any host country are supposed to know that nation from the back of their hand. Indeed, as ambassadors representing their states, diplomats are supposed to be the torchbearers of peace and prosperity, trade and tranquillity. Hence, unlike other professionals, diplomats constitute a class by themselves whose hallmark are courtesy, decorum, dignity and poise.

However, the repeated actions of the Canadian diplomatic mission in India appears to have discovered something new to deal with the visa-aspiring Indian tourists to the land of the maples.

In a stunning “invention”, perhaps bordering on an internationally recognised club of historians, the Canadian High Commission in Delhi “finds” that the Indian Border Security Force is “a notoriously violent paramilitary unit”, which is “responsible for war crimes in India”.

It has further been discovered by the foreign diplomat on Indian soil that the BSF is a “unit engaged in systematic attacks on civilians” and accused it “of targetting a particular community for attacks and rapes”.

Since the “discovery” of Indian Border Security Force’s “war crimes” emanates from an advanced, developed, civilised and white western country’s diplomat, there are bound to be some Indian takers of the issues. But certain points remain unclear. Which “units” of the BSF are “engaged in systematic attacks on civilians”? When? Where? Who are the casualties? What are their names? Why is not the list of affected persons and families being made public by the Canadian mission? Which “particular community” had been “targetted for attacks and rapes” by the BSF? How many rape victims have been identified along with their medical test reports? If the rapes have been so well known, why did not the Government of India come to know of the heinous crime against humanity by the soldiers of the Indian state?

And finally, if indeed the discovery pertains to such a large-scale criminal act, how come the various vocal and volatile NGOs, human rights activists and the traditionally vigilant Indian media (print and electronic) failed to bring it to the notice of the Indians at large?

Though no actual and factual answer is likely to be made available to the points raised above in the foreseeable future, the action of the Canadian High Commission speaks for itself. Indian national, even if retired, with links with the Border Security Force, is a “persona non grata” in the land of the maples. And that “verdict” needs to be “accepted” by the Indians in toto, instead of being questioned needlessly.
Now, assuming without conceding, that the Border Security Force is guilty of “war crimes” (though we do not know yet as to which war the BSF fought, against which country, when and in which theatre so as to be branded thus), perhaps it is time to peep into the contemporary record of the Canadian “war crimes” committed far beyond their borders.

Thus, Jane’s World Armies 2008 have shown “combat operations in Afghanistan have been the primary focus of the Canadian army since October 2001, but particularly since late 2005 when Joint Task Force (JTF) Kabul moved south to Kandahar province, expanded into the much more capable JTF Afghanistan and initiated offensive combat operations against resurgent Taliban forces”.

According to Military Balance 2010 too, “Afghanistan remained the Canadian government’s primary focus, with nearly 3,000 troops deployed to Afghanistan on Operation Athena, the majority in the Kandahar area.

In fact, so deep is the commitment of Canada into the combat (crime?) zones of Afghanistan that it has “1 infantry brigade with (1 light infantry battalion headquarter; 3 light infantry company; 1 armoured squadron; 1 armoured reconnaissance squadron; 1 artillery battery; 1 unmanned aerial vehicle flight; 1 combat engineer squadron); 1 maritime patrol company; 20 Leopard C2 main battle tank; some light armoured vehicle 25 Coyote; 6 CH 147 Chinook helicopters etc”- all operating under the banner of NATO flag, 14,000 kilometre away from their home soil.

Canada is one of the most prosperous western countries of the world, and yet it has to operate to a remote wasteland of Afghanistan to kill and get killed, all for a possible possession of petroleum product and the ostensible goal to confront terror. Nevertheless, the western enterprise on the barren oriental front so far resulted in “slow progress, high costs and waning domestic support forced the government to maintain its pledge to end Ottawa’s combat mission in Afghanistan in 2011”.

Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper wants to maintain at least “some Canadian presence in Afghanistan” after the withdrawal of its combat troops to “focus primarily on reconstruction and development”. The message is loud and clear. At the moment, the Canadian forces are waging “undeclared” and “illegal” war in an alien land and resorting to destruction and killings. Hence, on mission completion the non-combatant civilians will take charge of “reconstruction and development”. And, for that again, Canada will require a force which “might include helicopters, police and army trainers, a Provincial Reconstruction Team and CF-18 fighter aircraft”!

The long and short of the above scenario is transparent. The Canadian army, navy and air force personnel are on a killing mission in Afghanistan with political decision to back them up. Yet, none accuses and abuses (at least not India certainly) the Canadians of being war criminals for a combat mission far from their own territory.

The Canadians, like their western brethren, woke up to the threat of terror one fine Tuesday morning of September 11, 2001 only after the American mainland faced direct assault, next to the Statue of Liberty, after a gap of 60 years when Pearl Harbour was attacked by the Japanese in 1941. Till then, the western world (Canada included) were totally indifferent to the crippling effects of terror attacks which India had been facing and dealing with since decades. Now that Canada has some idea about terrorism, it is all the more surprising that it should brand the Indian paramilitary as “war criminals”.

Unlike Canada, India has not gone out of its national border to invade into a foreign sovereign nation “to fight a war”. Far from it. India is facing relentless attacks originating from outside, a place universally known as the “epicentre of world terrorism” — Pakistan. How come this lamentable lack of general knowledge on the part of Canadian diplomats in New Delhi?

That Canada has not been serious to deal with terrorists operating from its soil against India is visible even today. Else how does one justify the substandard investigation of, and indifference to, Air India 182 Kanishka bomb blast of June 23, 1985!

In reality, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police miserably failed to be professional enough to uncover the Kanishka crash thereby resulting in the sordid miscarriage of justice. Nevertheless, notwithstanding the incompetence of the RCMP in the India-specific terror act, Canada is now preparing to stay in Afghanistan to train Kabul’s police officers.

Let it be seen as to what Jane’s World Armies have to say about the Canadian army: “Combat operations in Afghanistan have been the primary focus…and all three infantry regiments have deployed battalions to Afghanistan as the core of the Canadian battle group. Overall army performance in Kandahar has been exceptional. Canadian troops have been universally aggressive”.

The world (including India) knows what the Canadian garrison is doing in Afghanistan. Yet the Indians have never branded the Ottawa soldiers and generals as “war criminals”. Far from it, they often transit through India. India did not deny them visa and does not play foul, the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan notwithstanding.

The writer is an alumnus of the National Defence College of India

MIDDLE

That zest called life
by Aditi Tandon

In metros these days, weekday visitors are a rarity. So the other night when the doorbell rang on an unusual hour, my heart skipped a beat. Stealthily I walked to the entrance of my house, feeling the rush of prayers through my mind. What I saw across the door’s eye that night was what I had only dreamed of seeing.

There she stood, wrapped in a lanky frame. A familiar smile lit up her face and scars on the forehead appeared fresh as they were the day I first met Bharti in Chandigarh. It was four years ago in October. She was just 12 then and was very, very scared of her mother.

But I knew Bharti for her courage, not her scares. That very year, she had booked her mother for assault, sending shock waves through one of City Beautiful’s thriving slums, where it was routine to abuse girl children. But Bharti’s story was different — too dark, too ugly for anyone to digest. Few people knew of it, and those who did chose to keep the child’s pain a secret.

Even today as I recall my first interface with Bharti, I feel jitters down my spine. It was in the police post of the slum. She shivered like an aspen leaf from the memory of what had just happened to her. “My mother tore at my forehead with the kitchen knife… poured boiling water over my head… tried to strangulate me. I hit her and ran….,” Bharti told the interrogators as some activists stood by, stunned and distraught. The child had reported her distress on the toll-free (1098) helpline number and volunteers, I remember, had lost no time in rescuing her.

It later turned out that for years, Bharti had suffered severe thrashings at the hands of her mother – a maid deserted by her man. Before leaving the house every morning, the woman would leave behind a set of orders for the child to execute – do the house, cook the food, bathe the younger siblings, stay put. That fateful October night, Bharti was late in serving the meal when her mother got back from work. The girl had been out playing. It almost did her in but for that zest called life.

Later at the PGI where Bharti was shifted for a medical examination, medics were shocked at what they saw. The child had lesions all over her scalp and injury marks across the body. Some wounds were so deep they took months to go. Some wounds were even deeper. They didn’t show except in Bharti’s eyes. I wondered if they would ever go.

There was but one silver lining in the cloud – the child never returned home with her mother despite the latter’s desperate attempts at a truce. After a few months, I met her in a state-run childcare home in the city. She was happy to be among friends and had, by then, enrolled in Class I at a nearby government primary school. Life had finally overtaken pain.

Tonight after all these years, I see a very different Bharti standing at my doorstep. She has brought me marigolds which reflect her own undefeatable zest for life. “I have cleared Class V exams,” says the precious girl, a glint in her eyes as I watch her glow for the first ever time. She has come all the way to tell me that her wounds have healed, that she’s ready to fly.

THE Tribune interview

by Raj Chengappa, Editor-in-Chief

‘No breakthrough soon in climate change’—Jairam Ramesh

Jairam Ramesh is not your archetypal Union minister or politician. He brings to his job as Minister of State for Environment and Forests a combination of erudition, understanding, zest and wit. At times he does get carried away and can be indiscreet in his statements as it happened in China. But he still remains one of India's best brains on the subject and has brought a new vigour to his Ministry. As the world observes Environment Day today, Ramesh spoke extensively to Editor-in-Chief Raj Chengappa on a range of critical issues. Excerpts:

Do you see any breakthrough in the climate change negotiations
post Bonn?

Jairam Ramesh

No, I don't see any great breakthrough in the climate change discussion. We are no closer to any international agreement now than we were six months ago in Copenhagen. The triggers for success are lying not with the developing world but with the developed world. At the Copenhagen accord they made a commitment of 30 billion dollars over the next three years, which is 10 billion dollars annually. This is for small island states, the Least Developed Countries and the vulnerable economies. Now the money has to start flowing. Countries like India and China have ruled themselves out of such aid. We have said let this money go to the truly poor countries. But we are already six months gone in 2010 and there it does not seem to be any clarity on where the money is going to come from, how it is going to be raised, where it is going to be spent and how it is going to be monitored. That is the most important trigger because the credibility of the international system is at stake. So I am not very optimistic about any great international agreement.

Is that the only reason for your lack of optimism?

There is also the continuing failure of the United States to make credible commitments on its part. The earlier climate bill that the US moved in the Congress is dead now. The Administration has now introduced a new bill which is very conservative in its targets for the year 2020. I think the combination of their inability to have clarity on the financing issue and of course the inability of the United States to get legislation through has meant the 2010 also will be somewhat like 2009.

So the Copenhagen agreement is being slowly undone?

The Copenhagen accord is a good step forward. It sets a global goal and we limit the temperature increase to 2 degree Celsius by the year 2050. It acknowledges that the burden sharing has to be equitable. How the Kyoto Protocol has to be determined is left for negotiations. But it acknowledges that Kyoto is one of the cornerstones of carbon budgeting. This will be an important thing as we proceed. I think there is a logjam on the transparency issue and on the measurement, reporting and verification issue.

Has there been any change in our position since Copenhagen?

Our position is that we didn't cause the problem of climate change but we want to be the solution to climate change. Because we are very profoundly affected by climate change and its various dimensions so we need to work out an international regime with which India can be comfortable. We have announced an energy intensity to GDP decline of 20 to 25 per cent by the year 2020 on 2005 reference levels. We are not going to cut our ambitions in absolute terms but we will moderate the growth of ambitions and we will certainly improve our energy efficiency. We also want to be part of the solution that does not impose constraints on an 8 to 9 per cent rate of economic growth for us. For us economic growth is paramount. But as the Prime Minister has repeatedly said it’s ecologically sustainable development we are talking about. We are not talking about 9 per cent economic growth that destroys the environment, pollutes the air, pollutes the water and destroys the forests.

Why is the Copenhagen accord floundering?

We are not negotiating a new agreement. We already have an internationally legally binding agreement in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). What we are negotiating is the second commitment period, as the first expires in 2012. Many countries would like to abandon the Kyoto protocol, The Europeans say if the Americans are not going to make comparable commitments why should they make such commitments. Then America says if the world's biggest emitter China does not take on commitments why should it do so. So this merry-go-round goes on.

Do you see the resolution at the Cancun meeting in Mexico later
this year?

I half jokingly said the other day that of the three Cs in UNFCCC, the first C stands for Copenhagen, the second for Cancun and the third for Cape Town which is where the 2011 meeting is scheduled for. You will have to go through all the CCCs before we get the agreement the world is looking for.

The US is now talking of international scrutiny of India's plans to reduce energy intensity?

At Copenhagen, we did not use the word scrutiny, we did not use the word review, we used the word international consultation and analysis and I still stick to that. Incidentally in Para 5 of the Copenhagen accord it says international consultations and analysis that respect national sovereignty. So you would not have inspectors going and inspecting every chimney. So it is consultation and analysis. I am very clear that this is international consultation and analysis must have a multilateral framework which is the UNFCCC. India has signed the Copenhagen accord and we have no intention of going back on it. Whatever is there we will take forward.

What action has India taken on climate change since you took over as environment minister a year ago?

We must delink what we do in the country from international negotiations. We must have an autonomous policy; we must have a policy of our own because climate change profoundly affects us. We have a national action plan on climate change. We have announced the national ambitions on the energy efficiency which makes the energy savings certificates a trade-able commodity. We are doing a number of other missions as part of the national action plan of the climate change. We have set up an Indian national climate change network of over 128 research institutions and 250 scientists across the country who are monitoring the impact of climate change. A 4x4 assessment will be ready by November of the impact of climate change on agriculture, water, health and forests and in the Himalayas, the western costal area and the northeast. We are speaking from a position of leadership and not from a defensive position- only after having done something.

Where does the controversy over the Himalayan glaciers now lie? Is there an agreement over whether they would disappear or not?

The situation of the Himalayan glaciers is complex rather than simplistic. There are 9,000 to 12,000 glaciers on the Indian side and most glaciers are in retreat and some others are advancing but at a decelerating rate. The Siachin glacier and the Gangotri glacier are still advancing but at a decelerating rate. But the health of many other glaciers is very poor. We should understand what is happening to our glaciers. We should have a manual of governance of best practices to all the Himalayan states as to what needs be done in energy, tourism and agriculture fields in order to adapt to climate change. The Himalayan glaciers are different from European glaciers and I think we don't have a premature epitaph as some of the popular writings on which the IPCC seems to have depended on for its reports. We need to do our homework on the glaciers - that is the main lesson that I draw from the entire exercise.

Why did you not clear genetically engineered Bt. Brinjal?

The evidence before me was not overwhelming enough that we should go in for commercialization. There were many doubts about its safety and all that. I spoke to scientists and wrote to 60 scientists abroad. Civil society wanted me to do this. I adopted a middle path. I must tell you that no state government supported the Bt. Brinjal, including the three states of West Bengal, Orissa and Bihar which account for 60 per cent cultivation. So in the light of this I had to move cautiously. In the process I lost some friends who said I have sold out to some specific lobby. Biotechnology is one option for increasing agricultural production and productivity. But we should also understand the risks of certain elements of biotechnology particularly in so far as transgenic crops are concerned. Once we have put up a risk assessment and a regulatory system in place and a system of public communication we will be able to address many of these issues.

What is your Ministry doing to conserve the tiger?

One decision which the Prime Minister took on March 18 is to set up separate forest and wild life departments within the same ministry of environment which we are about to do soon. We have a Wildlife Protection Act of 1972. Not only for the tiger but all species whether the elephant, the rhino, the lion, the snow leopard and even the dolphin - all wild life species are under threat. We have a huge challenge in front of us.

But are you doing anything for the tiger specifically?

We are doing a census now and we are using a figure between 1,200 and 1,600 tigers. About 50 per cent of the wild tigers are under threat because of mining projects, because of power projects, because of poachers. because of demand from China. So we are looking at a very serious situation. But I think we have been able to galvanise the machinery we have been able to put more funds, we have been able to decentralise the functioning of the national tigers conservation authority and more importantly we have been able to stop encroachments in to the tiger areas, stop coal mining, stop power projects which are very close to this tiger areas and are destroying their habitats. So we have a long long way to go to create inviolate spaces for the tiger which is really the only answer for ensuring the long-term survival of the tigers and other magnificent species.

What did you learn in the first year of your term as Environment Minister?

I am trying to run the ministry transparently and efficiently. It is a thankless job. It is difficult to make a balance between environment and development. I am always under attack-if I clear any project, environmentalists turn against me and if I hold back some project, then my ministerial colleagues go against me. And if environment and development are expected to go hand- in-hand, then there is "yes" in some cases but a "big no" in other cases and in some it is like "yes, but, a no". Forest and environment should not be allowed to be taken for granted.

And from the Chinese controversy?

Keep quiet at international forums.