|
|
Acid test for Modi
Housewives’ worth |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Wall Street cleanup President Obama picks the broom AFTER healthcare and the $787 billion financial stimulus, US President Barack Obama has scored another landmark legislative victory: he has signed Wall Street reforms into law despite dogged opposition from pro-business Republicans and corporate America and a sharp plunge in his own popularity.
Towards N-ties with Japan
Students I remember
INDIA-PAKISTAN STANDOFF
Synergy can’t be achieved without CDS
|
Acid test for Modi THERE is no mistaking the fact that the charges of murder, extortion,abduction and criminal conspiracy filed by the CBI against Gujarat’s just-resigned Minister of State for Home Amit Shah in the Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake encounter case will have far-reaching political consequences. The Congress, which has been in the wilderness in Gujarat for long, is banking on this case to settle scores with the controversial but charismatic Chief Minister Narendra Modi whose protégé Shah is. The party reckons that while the Sohrabuddin case will drag on in courts for years, it will put an end to Modi’s dream of making it big in Central politics. The BJP in turn has gone on the offensive, hoping to make a martyr out of Amit Shah by projecting him as a victim of CBI’s hounding at the behest of the Congress. Mr Modi ‘s comment to the media in New Delhi on Saturday that “there is an atmosphere of war against the state” is a signal that he is preparing to play his long-tested ‘Gujarati pride’ card. Since Amit Shah has been one of Narendra Modi’s closest associates, it would be difficult for Modi to stave off a sense of outrage particularly in the intelligentsia across the country. Predictably, Left and the non-UPA parties would distance themselves from the BJP in the ensuing Parliament session on the Sohrabuddin issue and that would hit the index of Opposition unity, which cannot but be a comforting thought for the Congress. But, at the State level the Congress in Gujarat is so weak that it may fail to capitalize on the issue against the demagoguery of Modi. Another key aspect of the politics of the case is that the CBI itself has pointed out in the chargesheet against Amit Shah that Sohrabuddin was an extortionist. To that the BJP has added that he was a Lashkar e Tayiba operative. This could give the party a handle to beat the Congress with in seeking to justify the fake encounter as a necessary evil. While this may cut some ice in communally-polarized Gujarat, it is unlikely to make much of an impression in the rest of the country. All in all, a fresh round of dirty politics lies ahead.
|
|
Housewives’ worth
IN a nation that ranks 114th in the gender development index among 155 countries, incidents of gender insensitivity not only abound but also rarely raise our hackles. While the status of women in India is nothing to write home about, that of housewives in particular leaves much to be desired. They are often at the receiving end within the family structure, with no value put to their domestic work. It is appalling that even the government nurses similar deep-seated prejudices against women, especially housewives, and that the Census of India clubs them as non-productive workers alongside beggars, prostitutes and prisoners. The apex court, which has of late been making many gender-just observations, has done well to take to task the statutory authorities for their “ totally insensitive and callous approach towards the dignity of labour so far as women are concerned.” In fact, the Bench comprising Justice G S Singhvi and Justice A K Ganguly has awarded a suitable compensation while hearing a case under the Motor Vehicles Act and put a significant value to a housewife’s worth. It is not the first time the apex court has valued a housewife’s contribution. In 2001, the Supreme Court order quantified the housewife’s labour also while hearing an accident claim case and put it at at least Rs 3,000 per month. In Kerala, housewives came together and demanded a fixed salary and pension from the government. While it is not possible to calculate the economic contribution of homemakers, it would be equally egregious to negate their role in nation-building and dismiss it as non-productive as the census has so derisively done. Both as wives and mothers they make a priceless contribution to nation-building. While the Supreme Court Bench has rightly called upon Parliament to rethink the value of housewives, rectify the anomaly of the 2001 census in the ongoing census operations and amend the Motor Vehicles Act that puts the worth of a housewife as one-third of the spouse, even more important is for society to wake up. It’s about time the nation that almost deifies the image of mother also began to give housewives their much-deserved due.
|
|
|
Wall Street cleanup AFTER healthcare and the $787 billion financial stimulus, US President Barack Obama has scored another landmark legislative victory: he has signed Wall Street reforms into law despite dogged opposition from pro-business Republicans and corporate America and a sharp plunge in his own popularity. This is the second most significant effort at financial reform after the great crash of the 1930s. The 2008 financial crisis had exposed some dark areas in the US financial system, including laxity by the regulators and poor supervision or complicity by rating agencies. The financial reform law’s aim is to ensure that Americans do not have to again pay for the Wall Street’s mistakes. Sounds fine, but this is tricky. Will the US leadership permit large financial institutions to fall should they commit similar blunders, particularly if their failure has repercussions on and beyond the US economy? The Bush administration, which gave the markets a free hand and let sub-prime mortgages pile up, had no alternative but to bail out the troubled banks with the taxpayers’ money. The alternative of allowing banks to go down was equally bad or even worse. Americans hated to foot the Wall Street bill. Obama has assumed office with a vow to clean up the system. It requires courage to take on the mighty banks. To have the law passed is Obama’s first success. The new law has a lesson or two for India and other nations. The financial system must be simplified. Consumers of financial products like house loans and credit cards are often required to sign papers which nobody reads or understands. The new US law hopes to make documents simple and procedures transparent, end all hidden fees and penalties. The President will appoint a regulator to protect bank customers. There will be a council of federal regulators to detect risks to the financial system. The aim is to avoid a repeat of 2008.
|
|
|
So long as the great majority of men are not deprived of either property or honour, they are satisfied. — Niccolo Machiavelli
|
Towards N-ties with Japan INDIA and Japan have started discussions on the possibility of a civilian nuclear energy cooperation agreement between the two countries. The two states have decided to fast-track the negotiations for a civilian nuclear deal with a view to signing the crucial accord during Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s visit to Tokyo by the year-end. This is a significant move as Japan has long been critical of India’s nuclear policy. Though India-Japan ties have blossomed in recent years on a whole range of issues, the nuclear issue has been a major irritant in their relationship. The Indian nuclear tests of 1998 marked the lowest point in bilateral relations with Japan reacting strongly to the nuclearisation of the subcontinent. Tokyo suspended economic assistance for three years as well as put on hold all political exchanges between the two nations. Japan’s economic measures against India included freezing of grant aid for new projects, suspension of yen loans, withdrawal of Tokyo as a venue for an India Development Forum meeting, a “cautious examination” of loans to India by international financial institutions and imposition of strict control over technology transfers. Japan took the lead in various international fora like the G-8 in condemning nuclear tests by India and Pakistan while the Japanese Diet described the tests as constituting a threat to the very survival of human beings. This strong reaction from Japan was in many ways understandable, given that the Japanese are the only people to have experienced the brutality of nuclear weapons and that experience has continued to shape their world-view. Yet, many in India saw the Japanese reaction as hypocritical, given that India’s genuine security concerns were brushed aside even as Japan itself enjoyed the security guarantee of the US nuclear umbrella. As many in India see it, Japan’s commitment to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), in many ways, remains predicated upon its reliance on American nuclear deterrence. As the major global powers re-evaluated their approach towards India post-Pokharan II, Japan also gradually came on board and the then Prime Minister, Yoshiro Mori, paid a symbolically important visit to India in 2000, envisaging a “global partnership” between the two states, thereby putting India-Japan relationship on an entirely new trajectory. Yet the nuclear issue continued to constrain this bilateral relationship. The US-India civilian nuclear energy cooperation pact has, however, changed the nuclear realities and Japan is trying to come to grips with India’s new nuclear power status. The Indo-US nuclear pact has virtually rewritten the rules of the global nuclear regime by underlining India’s credentials as responsible nuclear power that should be integrated into the global nuclear order. It creates a major exception to the US prohibition of nuclear assistance to any country that doesn’t accept international monitoring of all its nuclear facilities. Though Japan has supported the US-India civilian nuclear energy cooperation treaty, there remain differences between Japan and India on the nuclear issue. Japan continues to insist that India must sign the NPT and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) whereas India has no intention of doing so, given its long-standing concerns regarding the discriminatory nature of these treaties. Current Japanese law allows nuclear exports only to the countries that, unlike India, are either a party to the NPT or allow the International Atomic Energy Agency to safeguard all its nuclear facilities. If India decides to go in for more nuclear tests in the future, the Japanese government of the day would be forced to respond in a manner that may be inimical to India-Japan ties. The Nuclear Suppliers Group approved of the US-India nuclear pact in 2008 in which Japan went with the consensus that India’s nuclear record warranted its support for the deal. There has been a gradual evolution in the Japanese approach towards the Indian nuclear capability. It refused to view the US-India nuclear pact as a danger to the global non-proliferation framework and was not an obstacle to the decision of the NSG to amend its guidelines enabling India to trade in nuclear technology and fuel. But the Japanese government ruled out any civilian nuclear technology transfer to India, at least for the time being, as domestic sentiment in Japan remains strongly anti-nuclear. The issue of civilian nuclear cooperation was also raised when the then Japanese Prime Minister, Hatoyama, had visited India last year. Though Hatoyama was sympathetic to the Indian argument about the desirability of such a deal, he had stressed that India would have to promise that it would not conduct any more nuclear tests. Since securing the NSG approval, India has signed civilian nuclear cooperation agreements with countries as diverse as Britain, France, Russia, Kazakhstan, Namibia, Angola and, most recently, Canada. Japan is realising that it is foolhardy not to be part of this larger trend. Given the involvement of Japanese firms in the US and French nuclear industry, an Indo-Japanese pact is essential if US and French civilian nuclear cooperation with India is to be realised. Japanese approval is needed if GE-Hitachi and Toshiba-Westinghouse are to sell nuclear reactors to India. Given the benefits that the Japanese nuclear industry will reap from such a deal, it should not be a surprise that the Japanese Atomic Energy Agency and the Ministry of Economics, Trade and Industry have pulled out all stops in support of the deal. Though the commercial dimension of the deal is certainly significant, it is the political symbolism that will be more critical once such a deal comes to fruition. It will underline Japan’s determination to put Indo-Japanese ties in a high gear. India’s relations with Japan have travelled a long way since May 1998 when a chill had set in after India’s nuclear tests with Japan imposing sanctions and suspending its Overseas Development Assistance. Since then, however, the changing strategic milieu in the Asia-Pacific has brought the two countries together so much so that the last visit of the Indian Prime Minister to Japan resulted in the unfolding of a roadmap to transform a low-key relationship into a major strategic partnership. The rise of China is a major factor in the evolution of Indo-Japanese ties as is the US attempt to build India into a major balancer in the region. Both India and Japan are well aware of China’s not-so-subtle attempts at preventing their rise. An India-Japan civilian nuclear pact will be critical in signalling that they would like to build a partnership to bring about stability in the region at a time when China is going all out to reward Pakistan with civilian nuclear reactors, putting the entire non-proliferation regime in
jeopardy. The writer teaches at King’s College, London.
|
|||||
Students I remember ANY teacher worth his salt (read salary — salt was once given to soldiers as salary) will admit and reveal that there are some students whose memory sticks on him like a stubborn burr. There are some whose memory lingers like a delicate perfume and there are others whose memory does not fade because it has a remarkable stamina like that of a pest. Here are a few mini ones from the last-named category. There was an uncouth, shabbily dressed one with a cloth bag slung over his shoulders. As soon as I entered the classroom, he would jump up like an unwound toy, grab the duster, wipe the blackboard clean, dust the chalk from his hands, and resume his seat on the front bench. For the next 45 minutes, he subjected me to a kind of third-degree torment with his never-fading smile which spread from one corner of his wide mouth to the other. Survival became an uphill task for me during the period. Villains smile more profusely than non-villains! Another from this infamous class always stood just outside the classroom, puffing furiously at his Charminar. The offensive smoke was his smoke-screen. He trailed to the classroom at my heels, and swaggered to the last bench of which he was the sole occupant. His smoking habit did not make me put up my hackles. What got my goat was his foul way of entering the classroom, smoke still exhaling from his mouth, and sometimes nostrils. Then there was neatkin, a dandy of sorts, heavily perfumed, who thought that the first seat in the second row belonged to him as if he had inherited it. He often came late and then asked the occupant to shift, make room for him. The entire row of students hopped from one warm seat to another while I stood smiling sheepishly. The last one’s memory lingers like a perfume. She was plumpish with a subtle sense of humour. Quite often she stumbled into my cabin and asked me to guide her for the forthcoming class test. She took notes. Sooner than later, I realised what was the secret of her scoring. I was evaluating my own work, and rewarding her! I stopped guiding her. She hit back. During the course of the lecture, she would look at her wristwatch more than it was comfortable for me. I did not mind it. She came out with a brilliant strategy. She looked at her watch and then shook it as if to ensure that it was
ticking!
|
|||||
INDIA-PAKISTAN STANDOFF
Cut losses and change tack Foreign policies are not made or changed by individual whims and fancies, especially in a democracy. When majority of the populace does not support resumption of dialogue with Pakistan, till it not only abjures state sponsored terror but shows it by its actions, why does our political leadership persist in this charade? It is not that enough wise people have not warned or requested the leadership not to do so, but it seems our hierarchy listens more to emotions and diehard peaceniks than to hard facts. No doubt there is pressure to talk from the US, but it has to be resisted as we have good grounds for not re-starting the so-called peace-dialogue. While peace should be the goal of all countries, no country does so by shooting itself in the foot! The present government has done so on more than one occasion and instead of learning, it now wants to persist in this endeavour. When perfidy by Pakistan since its formation is well known and documented, one fails to understand the reasons for the persistence of our leaders in continuing to try for peace with a nation that does not want it as a matter of state policy. It is state policy, as policy is made by the power structure in being and in Pakistan, its army calls the shots.The The Pakistani army has its own agenda, where peace with India has no place. It wants to retain its powerful position as Pakistan's sole power center. Any headway in reaching a peace settlement with India would obviously undermine its pre-eminent position and would be opposed. Unless the army’s clout is reduced or eliminated, nothing will change. The onus for this lies squarely on the polity of Pakistan, but it can be facilitated by external actions too. This brings us to the obvious question of how to proceed further. Statements emanating from the political leadership and officials they have made up their minds to carry on regardless. They have obviously not heard the phrase "cutting one's losses" and changing tack. There is a well-known military saying that asks military leaders to "reinforce success, not failures". Even if our political leaders pay little attention to "matters military', surely common sense should lead them to such a conclusion. However, linear thinking continues to be a bane of Indian establishment, where change has little meaning! The need of the hour is to make a drastic change in our foreign policy, as it relates to the India-Pakistan equation. Till now, India's policy has been to reach out to its neighbours, including Pakistan, so that a friendly atmosphere is generated and problems are solved in a spirit of give and take. While this may be a splendid theoretical exercise, it can only be implemented if there is reciprocity.. In South Asia, India has managed to achieve this with some countries, but it has always been a one-way street with Pakistan. That country only wants concessions from India, with no inputs from its side. This can never be a solution to peaceful coexistence and this policy should, therefore, change. We do have routine relations, with diplomats functioning at full strength in each other's capitals. There are also frequent meetings of senior bureaucrats and ministers at various multi-lateral fora. The PM also meets his counterpart on many occasions. In addition there are a several military CBM's in place like hot lines between the two DGMO's and agreements relating to flying aircraft in border areas, the conduct of military exercises near borders and so on. This should suffice till Pakistan stops state-sponsored terrorism. Despite the machinations of Pakistan in destabilising India by sponsoring insurgencies in Punjab earlier and J&K currently, supporting Jihadi and similar outfits for launching terror attacks; flooding India with fake currency and providing support and shelter to indigenous militant groups, the economy of India continues to rise at a fast pace. While the growth rate of India is steadily increasing at 8-8.5 per cent of the GDP, that of Pakistan is stagnating at 2 per cent. Our democracy continues to be commented favourably by foreign countries, while Pakistan continues to earn the dubious honour of being the hub of terrorism and every act of terrorism in the world is linked to it. Our military continues to be apolitical, despite its gross mishandling and down grading by the political leadership and the "committed" bureaucracy, while that of Pakistan is always in a "military coup" mode even when a so-called elected government is in being. We have built and nourished numerous institutions, which are strengthening our democracy, but Pakistan struggles to sustain even rudimentary institutions it has managed to create. Lastly, while India has moved from an "aid receiver" to an "aid giver", Pakistan is perpetually on the verge of bankruptcy and only substantial funds it gets from USA keep it afloat. The bottom line therefore is to take a much-needed break from any kind of formal negotiations with Pakistan. Let us continue with routine, impersonal and correct relationship with Pakistan, so that the Pakistani leadership - political, civil bureaucracy and military - fully understands that we mean business and we will not succumb to its threats, cajoling and blandishments, or pressure from other countries. This will require not only a drastic change in our policy but also building up our military and internal security apparatus for meeting the challenges posed by the Pakistani army. (The writer is a former Vice Chief of the Indian Army).
|
|
Synergy can’t be achieved without CDS Addressing
the Army Commanders' Conference recently, Defence Minister A.K. Antony made a strong plea for synergy among the Army, Navy and Air Force as future security matrix calls for a high degree of cooperation and inter-dependence among the services. Antony also stated in Parliament that the proposal to appoint a Chief of Defence Staff (CDS), recommended by the Kargil Review Committee, was "under examination", and institutional support and infrastructure had already been created in the form of an Integrated Defence Staff Headquarters to support the CDS "whenever created". His statement amounts to putting the cart before the horse, as there was no need of creating a "headless" IDS Headquarters years earlier if the proposal for its head (CDS) was to remain "under examination" indefinitely. Antony knows as much as everyone that the proposal for a CDS has been under consideration since before the Chinese aggression of 1962. Like in all previous wars, the necessity of having a joint head was felt in the Kargil conflict too, though it was a localised operation in a "war-like situation". In Kargil, air action was delayed for several days due to differences between Army and the Air Force. It was only these were resolved at a meeting of the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) that the air action was put through. Similarly, the decision to move the Navy's eastern fleet into the Arabian Sea to send a strong signal to Pakistan, was delayed until the Navy Chief stressed on this in the meeting. All this has again brought to the fore the necessity of having a joint head for the armed forces. What was heartening after the Kargil war was that the three service chiefs had unanimity. The Kargil Review Committee examined the necessity or otherwise of a joint head and recommended the appointment of a CDS besides restructuring the Ministry of Defence. The issue was then examined by a Group of Ministers, which recommended the creation of a CDS in 2001. No sooner did this happen than a controversy started between the three services as each service staked a claim on this appointment. It took sometime to resolve this, after which it was hoped the appointment of CDS would come through. Formalities were completed in 2002, but the appointment still hangs fire. In his book:, "Problems of Indian Defence", defence analyst K.M. Panikkar, says: "The separation of three services under independent commanders is, indeed, an outmoded concept. Division of functions makes sense only if they represent distinguishable strategic mission. Today, this is not possible…." Modern wars not only call for close coordination between the services but also an integrated command set-up. In the 1965 war, the Army and the Air Force virtually fought independent battles, while the Navy had a very little role. In 1971, things functioned better because of the long preparatory period and a healthy nexus between the service chiefs who had the backing of a strong political leadership. Both in Sri Lanka and the Maldives, each service had to carry out its own reconnaissance for operational planning. In Sri Lanka, the necessity of having representatives from the three services at each HQs was greatly felt. Until this requirement was met, the conduct of operations suffered. After Lord Mountbatten came to India as Viceroy, he tried to convince Jawaharlal Nehru that India should adopt CDS system, but Nehru was reluctant. Mountbatten recorded: "I urged him to appoint General Thimayya the CDS right-away as I could see trouble brewing up. He liked Thimayya immensely and was no longer opposed to the CDS provided it got through the Defence Minister, Krishna Menon. He said Krishna was so bitterly opposed to Thimayya and indeed, all the really intelligent senior officers that he was sure he could never get Krishna to agree." We never came as close to having a CDS as we did after the Kargil conflict. But when all hurdles were cleared, the political hierarchy dithered and put the issue in cold storage by saying that consensus of all the political parties was required, which is unlikely. The powers-that-be have always shied away for two main reasons. One, the bureaucrats feel that the defence forces integrated under one head will become stronger, resulting in the bureaucrats losing some of their clout and powers. Two, the politicians suffer from an inherent phobia that a strong Army will not augur well for them. In sum, synergy among the services cannot be achieved without creating a joint head for the armed forces. India is still following a system of command that is totally outdated and is neither in the interest of the country nor is it conducive to the operational efficiency of the services. There is, therefore a dire necessity to create a CDS as a modern war cannot be fought without integrating the three services under one
head. (The writer is a freelance journalist)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 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 | |
AS expected, the talks between India and Pakistan at the Foreign Minister's level failed, although our government is at pains to tell us that this is not so! Such failures are an oft-repeated phenomenon as we have gone through many similar exercises. The results every time are sabotage by the Pakistan army, either directly as in Kargil, or indirectly, as has happened now. In the bargain, here we are - a potential superpower in the making, which continues to be taken for a ride by Pakistan. When will we learn? It is no solace that Pakistan has been taking the would’s sole super power, the United States, also for a ride for decades!