|
|
Setback to dialogue
India’s unsafe ports |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rupee arrives
India-Canada N-embrace
Octopus for C’wealth Games
Threats from Myanmar’s N-ambitions
Bangladesh: Terror down, but not out
Window on Pakistan
|
Setback to dialogue
The
manner in which the Foreign Minister-level talks between India and Pakistan virtually collapsed at Islamabad on Thursday with the two sides trading accusations at a joint Press conference should make one conscious that the path to peace between the two countries is arduous and long. Yet, the only way they can move towards durable peace and meaningful cooperation is to continue to remain engaged despite setbacks. Having said that, India has reason to be deeply aggrieved over the attitude of Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mehmud Qureshi and his delegation. For instance, when Indian External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna pointed out that there had been a 40 per cent increase in infiltration from across the border into Kashmir in 2008-09 and that this was “designed to create instability in that part of India”, Mr Qureshi’s curt response was that it was up to India to deal “firmly” with anyone caught doing so and that infiltration was not the policy of the government of Pakistan or any of its agencies. When Mr Krishna remarked that the “complete unravelling of the Mumbai conspiracy” would be the “biggest confidence-building measure” and expressed the hope that Pakistan would take into account the fresh evidence presented by Home Minister Chidambaram, Mr Qureshi indicated that there was little that could be done to speed up things since the government could not dictate to the courts. There was virtually nothing on which the two leaders seemed to agree except that Mr Qureshi would visit India before the end of the year. Even minor confidence-building measures regarding the exchange of imprisoned fishermen and making the Line of Control more porous were not agreed upon. If there was any discussion on bilateral trade and on opening up more trade and transit routes there was no mention of these positives in the general atmosphere of negativity and acrimony. There is indeed no room for India to give up its insistence on the Pakistan government stopping infiltration into Kashmir. Nor can there be any whittling down of the Indian position that Pakistan must come clean and take punitive action against the perpetrators and abettors of the Mumbai blasts. The ball is really primarily in Pakistan’s court to put the dialogue back on track. Failure to do so would be to the detriment of both countries.
|
|
India’s unsafe ports
Internal
security has emerged as a major concern for India owing to the unending terrorist problem, the insurgency in the Northeast and the Maoist menace in many states. Yet it seems the country is not prepared to face the challenge from these elements with as much preparedness as is required. The fact that a large number of small and disused ports along the country’s large coastline have no proper security arrangement is proof of this sad state of affairs. This is so despite “high priority” given to coastal security after the 26/11 Mumbai terrorist strikes. One wonders what would have been the situation in the absence of the so-called “high priority” factor. Coastal security is too serious a matter to be neglected. Spending crores of rupees and holding any number of meetings for the purpose are not enough. If this is the style of functioning of those responsible for coastal security, what is the guarantee that the gaps will be completely filled following the “security audit” that has been undertaken after the alarming signals received from intelligence agencies. We must not forget that if trained terrorists can enter Mumbai using the sea route, they can do it again; this time they may choose a less important port for causing mayhem. It is true that many state governments are to blame for the lack of security arrangements at the nearly 200 ports falling under the purview of their maritime boards, which do not exist in many coastal states. But where is the Coastal Command, set up after 26/11 for the overall coordination and supervision of maritime and coastal security? No one should be spared for putting the country’s coasts at risk, including the naval authorities, which are not forthcoming in clearing the states’ coastal security plans. Indulging in a blame game will take us nowhere. The main problem that appears to be coming in the way of ensuring adequate security at all big and small ports, including the disused ones, is the civilian-uniform divide that pervades the system. There is need for a system that allows the pooling of the assets of all the agencies concerned besides a regular review of coastal security.
|
|
|
Rupee arrives
The
rupee has got a new symbol, which blends the Devnagri “Ra” with Roman “R” and signifies India’s emergence as a growing economic power. It is a moment of national pride and global recognition. After the Tricolour, it is another significant symbol of Indian oneness. Hitherto denoted by “Rs” or INR, the Indian currency has got a new face that “reflects and captures Indian ethos and culture”. Since the currencies of countries like Pakistan, Nepal, Indonesia, Mauritius and Sri Lanka are also designated as the rupee or the rupiah, the new symbol will make India a part of an elite global club. India’s is the fifth currency to have this distinctive mark after the US dollar, euro, pound and yen. The new mark has been designed by Chennai-born Dharmalingam Udaya Kumar (32), who was set to take over as an Assistant Professor at the IIT, Guwahati, when the news of the selection of his design by the Cabinet reached him. His once-in-a-lifetime feat will usher in far-reaching changes. The new rupee sign will require software and telecom firms to grant it entry in all future computer keyboards and mobile phones. Microsoft is not averse to such adjustments as it already provides content and support in many Indian languages. The Indian currency has definitely come a long way since Emperor Sher Shah Suri first issued the rupiah five centuries ago. From being dubbed a backward state, a land of snake-charmers and beggars, impoverished by floods and droughts, India has moved up the economic ladder to become the world’s second fastest-growing economy. Once dependent on foreign aid, India today is a popular investment destination for foreign capital. From being forced to pledge gold to avoid a loan default, India has now accumulated foreign exchange reserves of Rs 279 billion. It is definitely a matter of pride to cover such a distance in such short time.
|
|
|
Parents — especially step-parents — are sometimes a bit of a disappointment to their children. They don’t fulfil the promise of their early years. — Anthony Powell
|
India-Canada N-embrace Amidst the string of pacts on civilian nuclear cooperation that India has signed in the year gone by, it is the Canada-India nuclear agreement that merits top ranking for its wide-ranging impact on developing India’s nuclear capability and operational benefits. It is superior in some respects to the accords with big nuclear-capability nations — France, Russia and the United States. True, the accords with the three major nuclear powers hold the promise of advanced light water reactor imports to India, thereby giving a big push to this country’s nuclear power capacity build-up in a short span of time. But the agreements are also laced by a commercial veneer: big money deals. The India-Canada nuclear accord, on the other hand, is largely a technology enhancement agreement. Add to that Canada’s commitment to export uranium to India on a large scale — and Canada is a world leader in uranium. The most important feature of the India-Canada agreement lies in the commonality of reactor technology that both countries have adopted, as distinct from the type of reactors that the three top nuclear powers are constructing. India and Canada are both constructing what is known as pressurised heavy water reactors while France, the US and Russia are engaged in light water reactors — the former fuelled by natural uranium, the latter by low enriched uranium. These are two different technologies, each having its merits and negative points, and their overall economies are nearly matching. Why then did India and Canada not come to terms earlier? Why the elapse of three decades for this engagement to fructify? The answer is just this: lack of understanding. And thereby hangs a tale. At the beginning of India’s nuclear power capacity build-up, it was Canada that came forward with meaningful civilian nuclear cooperation. Dr Bhabha selected the Canadian reactor technology known as Candu reactors — pressurised heavy water reactor design, fuelled by natural uranium, moderated and cooled by heavy water. The PHW reactor design enabled India to avoid getting enmeshed in nuclear weapon controversies, since various light water reactor designs required low-enriched uranium as fuel. The PHWR design also had two other benefits. First, it was better adaptable to the thorium path, vital strategy for India because of India’s vast thorium resources and meagre uranium availability. Second, the PHWR design was better for handling radiation safety, proved by the four-decade safety record in India as well as Canada. In the sixties, when India sought to build nuclear power generation capacity, Canada came forward to help New Delhi build its own nuclear electricity generation capacity: reactor construction of two nuclear power stations — Rajasthan I and II was undertaken. Earlier, Canada had cooperated in building the CIRUS research reactor. CIRUS has played a great role in developing India’s nuclear research, which included developing the advanced technology of reactor spent fuel reprocessing, essential for extracting plutonium — a man-made fissile element. And it is here that India-Canada nuclear estrangement begins. When India carried out its first peaceful nuclear explosion experiment at Pokhran in 1974, the fissile core of plutonium had been built by reprocessing spent fuel from CIRUS. Canada, reacting violently, charged India with the misuse of Canadian civilian nuclear cooperation by building atomic weapon devices. The Indian contention that the Pokhran test was a nuclear implosion for peaceful applications — which was an established activity in some countries as well as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) — did not cut much ice, and thereby commenced the three-decade-old India-Canada estrangement. During these decades, the Indian nuclear establishment has fought the global sanctions imposed on this country by building nuclear capability through the hard indigenous way. It has built research facilities, nuclear infrastructure as well as nuclear power generation capacity, pushing up India to an advanced nuclear capable nation. In the process, Indian scientists have not only made full use of the initial India-Canada cooperation but also made significant advances. The DHRUVA research reactor built by Indian scientists in the eighties is many times the CIRUS and in some respects better. DHRUVA has become the mainstay of India’s atomic weapon programme, and Indian-built PHW reactors are now rated among the best in the world. Kakrapar-I, 220 MW PHW reactor, won the prize, “Best PHWR in the world”, during the mid-nineties. Indian-built Tarapur- 3 and 4, 540 MW PHWRs have been registering up to 95 per cent capacity factor, and now the nuclear establishment is moving on to build 700 MW capacity PHWRs. Such is the advance of Indian-built PHWRs that Dr Mohammed el-Baradai, IAEA Director-General, during one of his earlier visits to India, asked: “Why do you call your reactor design as Candu; you should describe it as Indu, since your reactors are in some respects an improvement on the original Canadian design.” Canada has watched Indian nuclear capability development during these decades and sought to reverse the chapter of estrangement. The opportunity came with the Nuclear Suppliers Group’s waiver of the sanctions on India, even when it retained its weapons programme. The India-Canada civilian nuclear cooperation agreement inked during Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s recent visit signifies a new chapter for mutual cooperation among the countries that have pursued similar technologies. Three important areas of nuclear cooperation between the two countries open up. First, technology development of PHWR design and its further improvement jointly. Second, large Canadian uranium exports for Indian projects under IAEA safeguards, as also Canadian nuclear equipment import by India. Third, cooperation and joint exports of PHWRs to third countries. An interesting thing to watch would be India engaging in PHWR repair and maintenance market in Canada. A bright vista of India-Canada nuclear cooperation
begins.
|
||||||
Octopus for C’wealth Games Buoyed by the high rate of success of Paul the octopus in predicting the results of World Cup matches, the Commonwealth Games Organising Committee has sought the eight-legged creature from Germany (on loan) for the smooth conduct of the October Games. According to unimpeachable sources, the Planning Commission has already given the go-ahead to Delhi Chief Minister Sheila Dikshit. Now, once Germany accedes to India’s request, the Organising Committee with Suresh Kalmadi, Randhir Singh and MS Gill in tow will take possession of the octopus right at the Delhi airport and keep it in custody till the end. With octopus here as a star performer, the games will be conducted in the most revolutionary manner, with the minimum of expenditure and fuss. Winners will be decided without the players doing anything. For this two glass enclosures have been ordered which will be placed right in the middle of the ground with both teams facing the octopus. The enclosures will be painted with national flags of two rival countries. On the lines of the World Cup, national anthems of the two teams will be played. Then Paul will be released from its sea cage to decide the winner. The event of the octopus entering the winner’s box will be beamed the world over by Doordarshan. It will be followed by an awards ceremony. By involving the octopus, there will be no fear of protests by political parties. There will be no maintenance of grounds or carrying of equipment. Yes, the octopus could take five or even 50 minutes to decide the winner. But that is hardly a big issue for Indians. As controversy is a part of any big event, the Delhi organisers have also roped in the services of a long-tail parrot, Mani, from Singapore. If by chance there is a dispute during an India-Pakistan match, the particular tie will be referred to the parrot for final adjudication. Well, as for entertainment of spectators, vuvuzela, the horn-type musical instrument, will be imported and given free to BPL (below poverty line) spectators and sold at double the price to APL (above poverty line) fans. But there are rumours that leading astrologers and palmists are planning to hold a massive demonstration. Such deafening sound might affect the performance of the octopus, who is used to conducting his business in the most peaceful
environment.
|
||||||
Threats from Myanmar’s N-ambitions In
a troubled neighbourhood, India now has reasons to be worried about its eastern borders as well, thanks to Myanmar’s burning ambition to become a nuclear power. Reports suggesting that the military junta in Myanmar might have embarked on an atomic weapons programme have caused a lot of anxiety in New Delhi. Though Myanmar cannot be dubbed as a hostile nation like India’s western neighour, Pakistan, it is well known that its military rulers, who have scant regard for democracy, have closer ties with China than with India, posing a strong strategic challenge to Indian policy makers. Is the military junta in Myanmar trying to acquire nuclear capability with North Korea’s assistance? Is North Korea trying to shift some of its
nuclear facilities to Myanmar to protect them from a possible attack by the US? If either of these scenarios is true, is China, which has a strong presence in North Korea as well as Myanmar, aware of Myanmar’s designs? Has it taken up the matter with the two governments? Has it alerted the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)? These questions immediately come to one’s mind in the wake of the reports regarding an alleged nuclear relationship between Myanmar and North Korea. Rumours that Myanmar is a new recruit to a shady nuclear nexus that seems to link North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, Syria and possibly others have been floating around from time to time in recent years. The missile link appears quite clear in all these cases. North Korea has either sold missiles or helped Myanmar build its own. But apart from an agreement in principle in 2007 for Russia to build a small research reactor for Myanmar, the military junta has successfully maintained a veil of secrecy over its nuclear ambitions. The recent defection of a former major in the Myanmarese army, Sai Thein Win, and the documents and photographs he brought with him have taken the lid off Myanmar’s nuclear programme. The developments confirm its intent, if not yet capacity, to enrich uranium and eventually build a bomb. The evidence from Myanmar, formerly called Burma, is analysed in the report by a former Director of the IAEA, Robert Kelley, and published on the website of the non-profit Democratic Voice of Burma. Myanmar is said to be mining uranium and exploring nuclear technology that is “useful only for weapons,” Kelley said in his report. Evidence from the Myanmarese army defector, quoted extensively in the report, said the plant was inside a mountain at Naung Laing in northern Myanmar and close to a research reactor Russia agreed to help build at another site. Myanmar has only a “Small Quantities Protocol” with the IAEA. This exempts it from regular inspections on the government’s assurance that it has nothing to inspect. Sharper questions are now likely to be asked. The agency had already been trying to dissuade Myanmar and Russia from going in for the research reactor. Sai Thein Win, who learned missile expertise in Russia, says that since about 2002 hundreds of Myanmarese scientists have been trained in Russian nuclear institutes, including one formerly linked to the Soviet nuclear weapons programme. Sai Thein Win offers no new insight into the North Korean link. But Western intelligence agencies watch North Korea’s activities in Myanmar. There have been reports that a company associated with the construction of a secret nuclear reactor in Syria (until it was bombed by Israel in 2007 just before completion) has worked in Myanmar too. The military junta has strongly refuted authenticity of the report and alleged that it is “politically” motivated, but then nobody expected it to publicly announce its nuclear programme and earn the wrath of the global community. Analysts have gone to the extent of suggesting that given the level of progress made by Myanmar, it could realise its nuclear ambition by 2014. If it is so, the development has serious implications for New Delhi as it would further reduce India’s influence in the region, surrounded by a belligerent Pakistan on the West and a well-equipped military dictatorship in Myanmar on the East.
|
|
Bangladesh: Terror down, but not out A new example in counter-terror cooperation in South Asia has been set by the Sheikh Hasina-led Awami League government in Bangladesh which assumed power in January 2009. In fact, within two days of her taking over as Prime Minister, Sheikh Hasina declared that terrorists could no longer treat Bangladesh as a safe haven either to operate within this country or to launch operations against other countries. Subsequently, she also floated the idea of South Asia anti-terrorism task force. Through this task force she had expected the cooperation of other South Asian nations as almost all countries of this region have been facing the problem of terrorism. Though the idea of the task force has not been very successful, the government in Bangladesh has been quite actively working against terrorist outfits domestically. Terrorism has, however, not been decisively defeated in Bangladesh; the government action has only forced it to make a tactical retreat. Bangladesh has now been acting against terrorism of all hues. The present government has carried out operations against the Islamist groups which were active within Bangladesh. Many of them were also using Bangladesh territory for operations against India. The government action has led to the busting of many modules of the Harkatul-Jihad al-Islami (HuJI) and the Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB), which were domestically active. At the same time, action has also been taken against international terror groups which have links with international criminal networks. The government arrested some members of the internationally notorious Dawood Ibrahim gang. From them the law enforcement authorities came to know about the Lashkar-e-Toiyaba (LeT) operatives who were using Bangladesh territory for operations against India. The arrest of David Headley in the US also had its fallout in Bangladesh where 15 LeT operatives were arrested on the basis of information gleaned from him. Their timely arrest averted a major terror attack in Bangladesh as the LeT operatives had plans to attack Indian and American embassies in Dhaka on November 26, 2009, on the anniversary of the Mumbai attack. These arrests also revealed a South Asia-wide network of terrorists. The arrested LeT operatives had members from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Bangladesh has also acted against Indian insurgent groups, who have been using its territory to launch operations against India. The Sheikh Hasina government, immediately after coming to power, ordered the law enforcement agencies to act against Indian insurgent groups, many of whom had established camps in Bangladesh during the earlier regime and were getting training there. The action of the government made clear to many of these insurgent groups that Bangladesh was no longer a safe haven. As a result, some of them even surrendered. These surrenders were specially noticed in the Indian state of Tripura. The Government of Bangladesh restarted an enquiry into Chittagong arms haul case of 2004, which exposed the involvement of some top intelligence officials of that country. The fresh investigation confirmed that the consignment of arms and ammunition was for Indian insurgent groups. In fact, the commander-in-chief of the United Liberation Front of Assam (ULFA), Paresh Barua, was named as one of the accused. This forced Paresh Barua to escape to Myanmar. The Bangladesh government also took action against other members of ULFA and actually handed over their all top leaders who were in that country. Subsequently, the Bangladesh authorities in May this year handed over Ranjan Daimary, chief of the outlawed National Democratic Front of Bodoland (NDFB), to India. Daimary is wanted for organising serial bomb blasts in Assam in October 2008. There has been a dramatic change in the attitude of Bangladesh. It appears that the country has now realised that neither helping terror groups nor even ignoring their presence is good for them. If terror groups create problems for the neighbours, they also make internally the law and order situation volatile. This has prompted the present Bangladesh government to act against these groups, who also targeted Awami League leaders when they were in the Opposition. These actions against terror groups have, however, also showed that they have managed to entrench themselves in the country. Many of them are still active. Their pan-South Asia spread is a matter of concern. This highlights the need for cooperation at the regional level. Unless all countries of the region, including Pakistan, show similar commitment against terror, it would be very difficult to handle the menace. No doubt, the present action of Bangladesh has put a lot of pressure on the terror groups, but it has only managed to contain their action. The terror groups are only down. A lot more will have to be done before they are finally thrown out of Bangladesh. The writer is Associate Fellow,
Institute for Defence Studies & Analyses, New Delhi. |
|
Window on Pakistan How much members of the legislatures in Pakistan are upset after the revival of the controversy over their fake educational degrees can be understood from what happened in the Punjab Provincial Assembly last week. The House adopted a resolution attacking the country’s media for its “irresponsibility that is damaging democracy”. Most members accused journalists of colluding with the judiciary and the army generals for maligning the political class.
The resolution was moved at the behest of Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif, as the maximum number of members of the provincial assemblies and the National Assembly who are believed to have submitted fake graduation degrees to contest the 2008 elections belong to his party, the PML(N). Every legislator present in the House signed it, irrespective of his party affiliation. The politicians indulged in the condemnable act of producing fake degrees as there was a law (now scrapped) that anyone contesting the polls must have graduation as the minimum educational qualification. The journalists, however, are not taking it lying down. They observed Black Day last Saturday throughout Pakistan, according to Daily Times. Their protest evoked widespread support from different sections of society, including lawyers. A report in The News quoted former Punjab Chief Minister and PML (Q) leader Chaudhary Pervaiz Elahi as describing the PML(N)’s move as a “fascist” campaign, though his party’s legislators too supported the resolution. Punjab Governor Salman Taseer, a former PPP leader, has demanded withdrawal of the resolution. Efforts are on to challenge it in the Supreme Court of Pakistan. All this led to the tabling of another resolution on the subject in the Punjab Assembly on Tuesday —- it was in favour of the media’s appreciable role. The pro-media resolution was also adopted by the House but with most members having vacated their seats. The legislators trying to shoot the messenger are bound to cut a sorry figure at the end of it all, as they are blaming the media for doing what is its primary duty. According to The News, “Within hours of the passing of the resolution the Higher Education Commission (HEC) declared invalid the degrees of two federal ministers who had received these from “non-chartered universities”. Thus, it is, in fact, “not the media that is exposing the fake degree-holders; it is the HEC and the courts, and the media is merely reporting the matter and commenting on the reports”, the newspaper added. A Business Recorder editorial has it that what the PML(N) has done is contrary to what Nawaz Sharif was quoted in a statement of his party’s central secretariat as saying on June 16, “Fake degree-holders will not be given the party ticket in future, and those who won the elections fraudulently should submit their resignations to save themselves from embarrassment.” The PML(N), however, changed its stand later on. This is a desperate act, which can erode the party’s following considerably. The uncalled-for media-bashing has provoked many to criticise the politicians for their dictatorial behaviour. Dawn of July 14 carried letters from its readers in support of the media’s role. One letter writer said, “This resolution must be criticised by major civil society groups as well as other stakeholders, otherwise the media won’t be able to report the truth.” Another letter writer wanted civil society members “to persuade the Election Commission of Pakistan to at least disqualify for life these fake degree holders from taking part in elections, if not initiating proceedings in a court of law for the breach of trust and fraud”. His argument is: if doctors with fake degrees can get severe punishment, why can’t the guilty legislators and parliamentarians be dealt with accordingly? |
||
|
|
| 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 | |
