|
|
Prithviraj at the helm
Obama’s job agenda |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Challenges before G20
China: Straws in the wind
The ‘non-chastising’ mishap
Myanmar polls
window on pakistan
|
Prithviraj at the helm
THE Congress high command’s selection of Union Minister of State Prithviraj Chavan as Maharashtra’s new Chief Minister was not entirely unexpected. The party leadership had limited options following the ignominious exit of Chief Minister Ashok Chavan for his alleged link in Mumbai’s Adarsh housing scam. The other contenders for the post, especially Union Ministers Vilasrao Deshmukh and Sushil Kumar Shinde, who are under a cloud for their alleged involvement in the Adarsh scam, were out of the loop, after Congress leader Rahul Gandhi said that the new Chief Minister must have a clean image. Mr Prithviraj Chavan is an able administrator. He does his job well and has proved his mettle in the various ministries that he had handled at the Centre over the years — Prime Minister’s Office, Science and Technology, Personnel and Administrative Reforms and Parliamentary Affairs. Equally important, he enjoys the confidence of both Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Congress President Sonia Gandhi. Prithviraj Chavan’s experience at the Centre will, certainly, help him in running the day-to-day administration and the affairs of the state. But it remains to be seen how he would manage the party and the coalition. He has no mass base in Maharashtra and that’s why it is said that he is not suitable for the rough and tumble of state politics. The Congress is in alliance with Sharad Pawar’s Nationalist Congress Party (NCP). While there is rampant factionalism in the state Congress, the NCP has been a very tough customer. He will have to check factionalism in the party as also work with the NCP to manage the ruling alliance. The party high command, perhaps, feels that being a Maratha, he would be able to manage the power equations with the NCP. The biggest challenge before the new Chief Minister is to change the public perception of the Congress party and the image of the government which has suffered in the wake of the Adarsh housing scam. It would be expected of him to order a fair and impartial investigation into the scam and bring the guilty to book, however high and powerful they may be. His two immediate predecessors — Mr Ashok Chavan and Mr Vilasrao Deshmukh — were forced to quit for questionable conduct. He would be looked upon to repair the damage in terms of public perception and also to bring all sections of the party together to give it a cohesive look.
|
|
Obama’s job agenda APART from charming Indians with his informal interactions—something the protocol-ridden, grim-faced Indian political leaders seldom do — US President Barack Obama has more than dance and song to show back home. His visit has concretised Rs 44,000-crore worth deals for US firms. Boeing will sell planes to the Indian Air Force and Spicejet and GE will supply power equipment to Anil Ambani’s Reliance Power. The guests’ swift calculation that the deals will generate 50,000 jobs will help Obama tout his visit as a success to Americans red-faced over high unemployment. Since taking over as President, Obama has often berated India for stealing American jobs. It was, therefore, a fitting reply — “Indians are not in the business of stealing jobs” — from a cool, straight-faced Dr Manmohan Singh. The Republicans are known to be more business friendly than the Democrats and the Indo-US ties flourished under Bush, culminating in the signing of the civil nuclear deal. India’s trade soared after the US sanctions, imposed following the Pokhran-II nuclear tests, were lifted. Indian exports to the US rose 40 per cent between 2004 and 2009, while the US exports to India zoomed 170 per cent during the same period. Though the Indo-US trade was balanced in 2009 at $36.6 billion, it was China that cashed in on America’s consumption-driven growth. The 2008 financial crisis has forced the US leadership to export its way out of recession like Germany. No wonder, President Obama, eyeing India as a large market with a fast-growing middle class, prodded the Indian leadership to cut tariffs and open up multi-brand retail, defence, insurance and agriculture. What has India gained? Curbs on technology transfer to DRDO and ISRO have been eased. A joint clean energy centre will come up for research in solar energy, biofuels and shale gas. A better monsoon forecast may be possible. Talks are on for a $10 billion infrastructure debt fund. But there is nothing as specific as Obama is going home with. |
|
|
Challenges before G20
THE G20 meeting at Seoul, beginning today, has come at a time when tensions are rising involving the currencies of the US (the dollar) and China (the yuan). The Chinese have prevented their currency from becoming costlier so that their exports do not get adversely affected. China has a large current account surplus against the US, upsetting the trade balance between the two biggest economies. This has led to a major problem of capital outflow from the US to the emerging economies like India, China and Brazil. The US Federal Reserve some time ago indulged in what is called “quantitative easing” — a fancy name for printing currency notes to buy bonds) to handle the crisis it has been faced with for some time. The problem is still not over. The US plan to resort to such a measure again has raised considerable concern at the global level. This may be a major item under discussion at the meeting of the 12 major economies of the world. The US is right when it says that the American economy, being the largest one in the world, must remain stable in global interest. There is, therefore, need for a “broad consensus” for having a policy to avoid excessive trade imbalances. The US economy has recovered considerably since it was hit hard by the 2008 financial crisis. But it is not in a position to face a situation like a currency war, which may begin if the G20 leaders fail to address the issue successfully. Excessive trade imbalances may also lead to protectionism, which must be avoided in times of globalisation. The G20 grouping, born in the wake of the 1997 Asian currency crisis, has many successes to its credit like the establishment of the Financial Stability Board and the strengthening of international financial institutions. Let us hope that it will come out with decisions so that China does not have to use state control to prevent its yuan from becoming stronger in terms of the US dollar, and the US has no need to resort to printing money to ensure economic stability. |
|
|
An agreement between two men to do what both agree is wrong. — Lord Edward Cecil
|
China: Straws in the wind
FOR quite some time, India and China have been at odds with each other and have watched their relations turning from bad to worse. The downward slide in relations between Asia’s two neighbours has caused concern to all those who believe that it is not necessary for the two to continue living in hostility. The way things were going out of hand recently both in Beijing and Delhi could lead to serious consequences for stability in a region where one-fourth of the humanity lives with the hope of a better future and a respectable place in the world. Last month’s East Asian summit in Hanoi provided the Prime Ministers of the two countries an opportunity to begin an exercise to explore ways to restore mutual trust and begin tackling the issues that are keeping the two nations apart, sitting uncomfortably in adversarial postures. Some positive signs, even if faint, have emerged from the Hanoi meeting between Dr Manmohan Singh and Mr Wen Jiabao. They have asked their senior officials to sit together during the next few weeks and make an effort to tackle each other’s concerns and, if possible, allay mutual doubts that have been piling up lately. If nothing else, the officials are supposed to find ways to remove some irritants that have deepened mistrust between the two nations. The idea both Prime Ministers chose to subscribe to at Hanoi was simple: the two Asian nations, set to emerge as major powers of the 21st century, should have the maturity to resolve their problems amicably and to mutual satisfaction. The two Prime Ministers avoided getting into detail but in a manner befitting statesmen agreed to try arresting the recent deterioration in relations. A day before he met Wen Jiabao, Dr Manmohan Singh set the tone by pointing out in a public lecture that there was enough space in this big wide world for both India and China to grow together. Mr Wen Jiabao seemed to be sharing this sentiment at the meeting of the two Prime Ministers. Dr Manmohan Singh did not, however, hide Indian concerns at the strange position China has lately taken on Jammu and Kashmir. He did not have to spell out, but clearly it was a reference to China’s choosing to staple visa for residents of J & K which amounts to questioning Indian sovereignty over the state. It also tended to raise an objection to China’s stand over Ladakh and its activities in Gilgit and Baltistan in PoK. Some of these issues, will be discussed by the officials during the next few weeks as mandated by the two leaders. Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao will be going to Beijing in the middle of this month. The Prime Minister’s Special Representative, Mr Shankar Menon, will be visiting Beijing towards the end of this month. Their talks will prepare the ground for the visit of the Chinese Prime Minister to New Delhi in December for fairly crucial talks with Dr Manmohan Singh. Another indicator of an attempt to add some warmth in the relationship is the recent visit to Delhi of Zhou Yougkang, who is one of the senior members of the Chinese Communist Party’s Politbureau, to attend the 60th anniversary of India-China relationship. Mr Zhou said China’s development was an opportunity, not a threat, to India. His speeches in India have been reported in detail in the People’s Daily back home. During his private conversations with senior leaders he is believed to have stressed the need to remove irritants in the relationship. It remains to be seen whether positive signs thrown up by the Hanoi meeting are just meant for effect aimed at stopping bickerings, or they really indicate a beginning of a thaw in the relationship. The situation in Pakistan reportedly came up for a mention at Hanoi but it is not clear how far China is ready to address Indian concerns about its thickening relationship with Pakistan, and its assertive presence in the Indian Ocean. There are no signs to suggest that China will reverse its policy on South Asia that has a bearing on India’s legitimate security interests in an area of immediate concern. Why China has chosen to send positive signals by showing a desire to resolve various issues with India, or remove irritants, is not known. There is no doubt that China, on the way to becoming a big power, has been assertive lately all across the globe, making its presence felt on the geopolitical scene, looking for minerals all over and showing its economic might to the US and other Western powers which are facing bad times with their economies. It is also making it clear that it certainly does not want the countries facing its Pacific coast to become a part of an American design to encircle it. That it chose Japan, of all its Pacific neighbours, to send a hard message must have been deliberate. Japan is the closest ally of the US, living under American umbrella. A tough message must also have been meant for other Pacific neighbours. In the recent face-off between China and Japan’s arresting the captain of one of Chinese boats Beijing succeeded in showing its sheer outrage and muscle power and to convey that no one should mess around China by playing a part in the encirclement game. In geopolitical chess, nations — certainly China — send different messages in different directions. It is possible the Chinese may have come to the conclusion — although warily — that India is too big a country to be a part of any encirclement game despite its improved ties with East Asian nations and its nuclear deal with the US. Sober commentators in China tend to think that India will not play other countries’ games vis-à-vis China. Hence Wen Jiabao’s readiness to discuss outstanding issues or irritants in Delhi in December. Mr Wen Jiabao’s term, as also of the present leadership in China, will come to an end in another couple of years. He, of all the present leaders, has been stressing political reforms in China. On relations with India he has been sounding more positive in approach than many other Chinese leaders. Not that the Chinese leaders are emotional in matters of foreign policy, it could be that he is keen to leave improved relations between the two countries as a sort of legacy before he lays down his office. A clearer idea of how the Chinese want to travel along on improving relations with India will be known by the year-end by which time their senior officials would have met and done their bit for Mr Wen Jiabao’s visit — which has become more significant after the Hanoi meeting of the two
ministers.
The writer, former Editor-in-Chief of The Tribune, is now a Member of Parliament.
|
|||
The ‘non-chastising’ mishap
The
easy availability of literature in print and the 24x7 accessibility to the electronic media have fabulously enriched vocabulary for the benefit of the progeny. The parents have been thereby enabled to bring up the children in a finer way. Four decades ago, however, it was only individual perception that worked. In retrospect, I feel that me and my siblings (to be precise, seven in all) owe immense gratitude to our parents for having ensured that English language got deeply ingrained in us. Three of us (the eldest, a sister — who stubbornly stuck to education, even at the cost of ‘forfeiture’ of the law admission fee, the next in seniority — a sister Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, who had the rare privilege of ‘counselling’ (by signs, in the full Court Administrative deliberations), and myself) shared the six days of the week in reading out the newspaper to our father — first thing in the morning. The duration of the reading exercise corresponded to the time consumed by his shaving period. My ‘initiation’ into the ‘reading’ started when I was a student of third standard. Being almost a novice into the language (at that age and stage), I once committed a howler of pronouncing ‘mishap’ by joining the third and fourth letters therein. One could hear me pronounce it in a ‘silencing’ way — Sh……. Sh……. I was not immediately corrected. The ‘Correction’ exercise was deferred till the family got together at the breakfast table. The ‘reprimand’ came in a thoroughly non-hurting way. The availability of domestic help was no problem during those days. The number of those in attendance at the official residence of the S.D.M. (a post which my father held at that point of time) was three. One cook, a gardener and yet another holding the official nomenclature of a chowkidar but otherwise well-conversant in household chores, including cooking. In spite thereof, my mother would always enjoy personally cooking the breakfast and serving it too. She handed over an omelette to my father. He never relished an omelette and would invariably prefer another non-fried egg preparation. Looking askance at our mother, he announced that she had committed a mishap (of course, he correctly pronounced it) by handing over a wrong preparation to him. The message was well taken. It is only that encouraging non-chastising methodology, which enabled me to use the expression “vicissitudes” in an essay while in the fourth standard, much to the bewildered astonishment of my class teacher. The narration is not aimed at endeavouring perpetuation of a personal compliment, but to indicate what a non-chastising approach of a parent can do to a child of impressionable
age.
|
|||
Myanmar polls
Elections are rare — very rare — events in Burma, officially known as Myanmar since 1989. In the last half a century there was only one — in 1990. And another, the fifth since independence from the British in 1948, was held on Sunday (November 7). A devout Buddhist politician, U Nu, set up an unstable administration on the withdrawal of the British, survived the first two elections, but voluntarily retired after the second. His successor asked the army, soon after, to stand in for some time in the capacity of a caretaker. Nu returned for a second try at governing the multiple insurgency-ridden country by decisively winning the 1960 election. Yet in less than two years the army was back - this time without invitation, that is, by a coup and determined not to go back to the barracks again on its own. The first military dictator, General Ne Win, was toppled by a students-led agitation in 1988 but another General took power and from him another and the military has not yet betrayed any intention of loosening its grip on the country. Currently, Senior General Than Shwe is the top boss and nearing 80 in age — he is worried about his and the junta's future. The Generals did try to create a democratic facade for their rule at one stage, organized a general election in 1990, did not know how to tailor it to their desired narrow self-interest and watched with horror their own make-believe civilian political party crushed by the voters. That largely fair election, witnessed by foreign journalists, gave only 10 of 492 seats to the army's party and 392 to Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy (NLD). The junta responded the only way it could. The iron fist was out again. The result of the election was annulled. Suu Kyi and her NLD were turned into targets for unceasing persecution. Suu Kyi has been under house arrest for 15 of the 20 years since then. She could not collect the Nobel Peace Prize she was awarded. Nor could she participate in the November 7 election because the military junta's electoral laws were largely directed against her and her party. Most of today's estimated 2200 political prisoners have affiliations to the NLD. Twenty years after that failed election, the army has staged another. This is an attempt no doubt at easing the growing pressure of adverse world opinion. As could be expected, the Generals are careful this time not to make the mistakes of 1990. A new constitution was framed and adopted by a referendum in which 99 per cent of the voters participated and over 92 per cent of them cast "yes" votes. The figures are an indication that the junta has mastered the art of creating wind effects that can make any Myanmarese tree bend or look bent. The constitution reserves for the army one-fourth of the seats in each of the two Houses of Parliament and the more important ministries. Also, no constitutional change will be possible without a majority of more than three-fourths. A political party has been created with leading roles in it for about a score of men who were military officers until a few months ago. Prime Minister General Thein Sein resigned from the army to lead the civilian-looking outfit named the Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP). The National Unity Party (NUP), which had been set up for the election in 1990, had come to incredible grief and was in hibernation since, has been revived to serve the Generals as their second string. The electoral scene has been further dressed up by encouraging or allowing 35 more minor parties to put up candidates. Most of these parties were hurriedly got up with an underpinning assurance that they would abide by the junta's terms. The various pre-emptive measures put in place are significant too. The electoral laws ruled out Aung San Suu Kyi's participation. Neither convicted persons nor individuals opposing the state organizations could stand for any seat. Roughly 300,000 Buddhist monks representing the religious order were disenfranchised. So, too, the people in some rebellious ethnic minority areas. A curious electoral law said that convicted persons could not be involved in political parties. Attempts to get a clarification of this law were stonewalled. A constitutional law is clearly directed against Suu Kyi personally. No one whose spouse or children are foreign citizens can become the head of the Myanmarese state. Suu Kyi's British husband is now dead and her two sons are also British living in the UK. Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy found the dice so heavily loaded against them that they had no honourable choice except for boycotting the sham election. Yet the junta wanted to be doubly sure; it ordered the dissolution of NLD and a few other parties on the ground that they failed to apply for permission to continue political activities. There were no election observers from abroad and unlike in 1990 when 60 foreign journalists were granted visas a few days before the polling, no newsperson from outside was let in this time. The official media has been making all announcements pertaining to the election and foreign outlets manned by Myanmarese nationals in Yangon (formerly Rangoon, which is no longer the capital) allowed the freedom to relay them to the outside world. When the results of the election will be declared is not known. But the outcome of the exercise so carefully orchestrated by the junta from Naypyidaw, their new capital built far away from the centres of population and possible rebellion, can be easily guessed. The Union Solidarity and Development Party headed by Prime Minister and former General Thein Sein, set up only a few months ago and with a claimed membership of 18,000,000 already, inherited substantial funds and a big headquarters building in Yangon from a so-called civic association created by the junta some time ago and now merged in the new political party. The USDP took a flying start. In as many as 50 constituencies its candidates remained unchallenged. The only curiosity now left is about the figures the Election Commission announces about the scale of participation by the voters and the margin of victory for the USDP. The NUP will come second. Whether this election will be convincing to Myanmar's silent majority or international opinion is another matter. The brutalized Myanmarese people are afraid to talk. Much of the outside world is sceptical. The Human Rights Watch foresees the outcome of the election as the "appearance of civilian rule with a military spine."
|
|
window on pakistan Very
few people believe that the PPP-led government in Pakistan will last its full term. It is not because of the junior coalition partners like the Sindh-based MQM often threatening to desert the government. It is also not owing to the fact that the government can no longer be run with President Asif Zardari — whose corrupt past has been thoroughly exposed — continuing to exercise the executive power despite the 18th Constitution Amendment having tilted the balance in favour of the Prime Minister. What is making the government's survival difficult is its inability to maintain law and order, effectively fight terrorism and control the price rise. These factors hit the people directly. The main opposition party, the PML (N) led by Nawaz Sharif, seems to be doing all it can to create a condition when mid-term elections may become unovoidable, as this course suits its calculations. That is why the Leader of the Opposition in the Pakistan National Assembly, Chaudhary Nisar Ali Khan, last week declared in the House that the "mid-term election is an option". He even asked the PPP, which leads the ruling coalition in Islamabad, to withdraw itself from the PML (N)-led government if it so desired. This clearly shows that Chaudhary Nisar's party, the PML(N), has completely abandoned its earlier policy of "cooperative coexistence" with the PPP. Though no opinion polls have been conducted in the recent past to find out which of the two major parties — the PPP and the PML(N) — has a better chance of getting enough seats to form its government at the Centre, it is believed that President Asif Zardari's PPP will not be able to retain the number of seats it has in the National Assembly today. The stories on corruption in the media after the Pakistan Supreme Court ruling on the National Reconciliation Order have led to Zardari's image getting disparaged considerably. The sympathy factor because of his being Benazir Bhutto's husband may not be as effective as it was during the 2008 elections. The media in Pakistan seems to be divided on holding mid-term polls primarily because of the cost factor and the uncertainty that the performance of the new government will be better. Dawn's opinion is that the PML(N) should first go in for local government elections in Punjab, already delayed, to strengthen the case for a mid-term parliamentary poll. "A convincing showing by the PML(N) in local government elections would strengthen its hand and make a better case for changing the government in Islamabad", the paper points out. Business Recorder says there is no harm in seeking mid-term polls but only if "the man in the street feels that the present government has failed and someone else should manage" the system. However, "no one is sure" if such an exercise can "secure relief for him (the common man) from the skyrocketing inflation, broken-down lawn and order and gross misuse of authority", the paper adds. It also questions the ability of a PML(N)-led coalition, if it forms the government, to deliver the goods. Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani has, however, ruled out the possibility of an election at this stage. His argument, as he gave in the National Assembly, is that he will not seek the dissolution of the House when it has not completed its full term, and the army is "too patriotic" to overthrow the elected government. But Business Recorder points out that there is a third course also, available to those seeking a regime change. The present government can be voted out through a no-confidence motion. This can happen if disgruntled PPP members desert the party and the MQM, a major coalition partner at the federal level, leaves the government to join the new coalition that may emerge. This is not impossible as the MQM has been threatening to quit the PPP-led ministry off and on. "With no effective governance, this is bound to happen, and if the trend continues, then the Prime Minister may well have no option but to give in to the demand for mid-term polls", as The Nation forcefully argued in an editorial.
|
|
|
| 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 | |
