|
|
Captain takes charge
Poll blues in Tamil Nadu |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Sudarshan-speak
Rising Chinese assertiveness
Down memory lane with Nehru
A shift in power to the east
Cameron warns of risk of new Great Depression
What was decided
|
Captain takes charge
Congressmen are falling over one another to show their loyalty to Capt Amarinder Singh, who took over as the state Congress president at a massive display of political power in Chandigarh on Friday. Many of these party workers had abandoned the former Chief Minister after he was unceremoniously removed from the assembly. The Captain spent a couple of years in political exile before the court set aside his expulsion from the House. His appointment as the Punjab Pradesh Congress Committee President has seen party men leave in droves the previous incumbent, Mr Mohinder Singh Kaypee, though former Chief Minister Rajinder Kaur Bhattal has her band of supporters. In Punjab politics personalities matter more than policies and those in, or likely to be in government, attract more followers than those out of power. Who should know this more than the Captain or former Finance Minister Manpreet Singh Badal? The latter has tried to bring Punjab’s economic decline to centre stage but has landed in political wilderness. Whether Punjabis back his issue-based politics remains to be seen. One major change seen in Capt Amarinder Singh now is he too talks of getting Punjab out of the fiscal mess, solving the debt issue, boosting industry and creating jobs. Another change is his goodbye to the politics of vendetta. In the last term he had hounded the Badals for corruption. Capt Amarinder Singh has infused new life in the Congress and lifted the sagging morale of party men, who see brighter chances of returning to power under a charismatic Amarinder Singh than a lacklustre Kaypee. There are two mistakes which, one hopes, the Captain would not repeat. He should choose his advisers carefully. It is better to have intelligent, honest and straightforward people around than sycophants or controversial friends. Secondly, he should be accessible to people and party men. In public life he cannot afford to keep himself aloof like a “Maharaja” as he used to do in his previous term as Chief Minister. |
|
Poll blues in Tamil Nadu
Politics in Tamil Nadu is getting murkier by the day with Assembly elections only a few months away. The traditionally-bitter battle between the DMK and the AIADMK which has for many years degenerated into a no-holds-barred personality clash between Chief Minister Karunanidhi and his prime challenger J. Jayalalithaa, promises to turn uglier as the campaign gets going. At a time when there is relentless pressure for Union Telecom Minister A. Raja’s sack in the wake of his purported indictment by the Comptroller and Auditor-General of India in the 2G spectrum allocation scam, Jayalalithaa has added a new dimension to the drama by publicly offering to make good the numbers in the Lok Sabha that the UPA would lose if the DMK with its 18 members were to walk out of the alliance in the event of the Prime Minister deciding to drop Raja. Though the Congress has turned down Jayalalithaa’s offer, it is no secret that it is on the horns of a dilemma. For the Congress, it is truly a Hobson’s choice. If it persists with Raja in the Cabinet, the Opposition would not only paint the government as being soft towards a corrupt minister who has been indicted by the CAG for causing a loss of Rs 1.7 lakh crore to the Central exchequer but also project the Prime Minister as being weak and ineffective. On the other hand, if Raja is dropped from the Cabinet against the wishes of the DMK and the latter leaves the coalition, the UPA would fall short of numbers in the Lok Sabha. In Tamil Nadu, too, the DMK-led coalition would have no legs to stand on. The Congress knows only too well that despite Jayalalithaa’s olive branch, she has a record of being an unreliable ally. Reports that the Congress is preparing to go it alone in the Tamil Nadu elections can also not be brushed aside but it is doubtful if the party has the resilience to come good on its own steam. All eyes are now on the Prime Minister who will take a call on Raja’s continuance. A Congress-DMK deal is still in the realm of possibility despite Karunanidhi’s public stand that he would not agree to dropping Raja.
|
|
|
Sudarshan-speak
Only a few days ago, the Sangh Parivar was sitting pretty, gloating over the fact that it had put the Congress in a tight corner on the issue of corruption. Even the allegations about some RSS leaders being involved in acts of terror were being dismissed as a “conspiracy to malign Hindu Samaj”. Suddenly, without any provocation, former RSS Sarsanghchalak K. S. Sudarshan has scored a perfect self-goal by remarking that Sonia Gandhi is a CIA agent who has “conspired” in the deaths of both Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi. So outlandish are the comments by the former RSS chief that even his own outfit is deeply embarrassed. It has tried to control the damage by asserting that these views do not reflect the view of the RSS, but that has not convinced many. Even the BJP has been forced to express its disapproval and caution its Parivar that as a democratically elected leader, Sonia deserves respect. The difference with the Congress are ideological and not personal. All this has not stopped the Congress from hitting back forcefully, with Parliamentary Affairs Minister Pawan Kumar Bansal saying that Sudarshan “seemed to have lost his mental balance” and AICC general secretary Janardhan Dwivedi branding him as a “fossil from the archaeological museum”. While the outrage expressed by Congressmen is understandable, it should not go overboard. Mr Dwivedi’s warning that “if Congressmen get provoked after hearing all this, they (RSS) will be responsible for it …The reaction from society should be such that none can dare use such uncivilised and obscene language” is ominous. While protesting, Congressmen must bear in mind that paying back the RSS in the same coin would be counterproductive. The reaction of another party general secretary Digvijay Singh, who sought that RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat should come out with a statement either applauding Sudarshan or denouncing him was more appropriate and balanced. |
|
|
I’m armed with more than complete steel — the justice of my quarrel.
— Anonymous |
Rising Chinese assertiveness
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s meeting with his Chinese counterpart Wen Jiabao at the sidelines of the East Asia Summit in Hanoi was followed by an announcement that the Chinese Premier would be visiting India in December. This visit is to be preceded by detailed discussions of issues which have raised concerns in New Delhi, including the border issue and recent Chinese policies on Jammu and Kashmir. Noting that China’s recent statements and actions on Jammu and Kashmir were contrary to Beijing’s past policies of “neutrality” on the issue, External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna had earlier reiterated India’s concern at Beijing’s denial of a visa to India’s Northern Army Commander Lieutenant-General Jaiswal, who was to lead a delegation for scheduled military-to-military exchanges in Beijing. Mr Krishna also then made it clear that all military exchanges with China stood suspended and that China’s growing “assertiveness” would figure in discussions during President Obama’s visit to India in November. Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi had somewhat arrogantly warned those whom he referred to as “small countries” dependent for their prosperity on a “large country” (China), for trade and investment, against attempting to internationalise maritime boundary disputes with China. Foreign Minister Yang asserted that there was little chance of “equality” in relations with such “small countries” and that they should remember their economic dependence on China, before seeking to internationalise their maritime disputes with China in the South China Sea. This was a clear warning to the ASEAN countries and particularly Vietnam and the Philippines not to raise the issue of maritime boundary disputes in the first ever meeting of their Defence Ministers, together with Defence Ministers from the US, Russia, South Korea, Japan, China, Australia, New Zealand and India in Hanoi on October 12. China has, of late, characterised the South China Sea as an area of “core national interest”, where issues of its sovereignty are not negotiable. Similar “assertiveness” has characterised Chinese behaviour towards Japan, on its maritime boundaries with Japan in the East China Sea. While U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates had spoken of the need for China to honour accepted standards for sharing oceans and air space and avoid harassment of ships in international sealanes, Asia-Pacific countries now entertain doubts about the readiness of the Obama Administration to fulfil security commitments. Chinese jingoism reached new heights in the wake of the arrest of the captain of a Chinese trawler that attempted to ram a Japanese coastguard vessel off the disputed Senkaku Islands. China responded by arresting four Japanese nationals on trumped up charges of spying, and suspended the export to Japan of “Rare Earth Elements” (REE) required for the manufacture of crucial industrial products like wind turbines, hybrid cars, laptop computers and cameras. With the Americans remaining aloof, the Japanese capitulated and released the Chinese captain. This incident came in the wake of China refusing to condemn the sinking of a South Korean warship in international waters by a North Korean submarine and thereafter raising tantrums, over proposed US-South Korean naval exercises in the Yellow Sea, even as it deployed 10 warships, including attack submarines and destroyers, through the Miyako Strait, South of Okinawa. The subsequent American response to these Chinese actions has raised eyebrows. Even though China abruptly cancelled defence exchanges after the announcement of US defence supplies to Taiwan, President Obama called on the US Congress on October 8 to lift the ban on the sale of C 130 cargo aircraft to China, asserting that “it would be in the national interest of the United States,” to do so. The C 130 is categorised as a military transport aircraft originally designed as a troop, medical evacuation and military cargo aircraft. This action sought to end the ban imposed after the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre on the sale of military-related equipment to China. This was followed by a meeting between Defence Secretary Gates and his Chinese counterpart Liang Guanglie in Hanoi on October 11, which resulted in the resumption of Chinese-American military exchanges. Across India’s western borders, there are now signs that China intends to use Pakistan as a staging area for establishing a stronger maritime presence in the Indian Ocean. Apart from its unprecedented military presence in Gilgit-Baltistan, China appears determined to access oil and gas resources for its western regions through Pakistan. Moreover, Pakistan has recently cancelled a contract it signed with Singapore for the management of Gwadar Port, built with Chinese assistance. There are reports that the management contract for Gwadar Port is now to be given to China. Speaking to a gathering in Islamabad just after the visit of then Chinese Prime Minister Zhu Rongji to Pakistan in May 2001, General Musharraf declared: “Pakistan’s security interests lie in maintaining a regional balance and in this it would desire an active Chinese role”. He added the main objective of giving the contract to construct Gwadar Prot to China was that “as and when needed, the Chinese navy would be in Gwadar to give a befitting reply to anyone”. Nine years later the Chinese now have a naval presence in the Gulf of Aden, with access to refuelling facilities in Aden and Oman. Moreover, there have recently been unprecedented air force exercises with Turkey, in which Chinese SU 27 fighter aircraft flew to Turkey after landing in Pakistan and Iran. Pakistan seems to be emerging as the hub for Chinese access to the Persian Gulf. The visits of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to Japan, South Korea and Vietnam have led to sections of the Chinese media proclaiming that India is attempting to “encircle” China. It is significant that Japan and India have indicated the need to find alternate suppliers for strategic “Rare Earth Elements,” whose supply is now virtually monopolised by China. In meetings with Vietnam’s Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung and Defence Minister General Phung Quang Than, Defence Minister A.K. Anthony had reportedly agreed to expand maritime cooperation, including assistance for the maintenance of Vietnam’s Russian origin Petya class light frigates and Kilo class submarines. India will also be providing military training facilities to Vietnam, which is said to have offered to provide maintenance and repair facilities in Vietnamese ports for Indian warships. India is said to be considering the supply of Brahmos cruise missiles, which can substantially enhance Vietnam’s coastal defence capabilities. We are, hopefully, seeing the emergence of a more proactive approach to our relations with China’s Asia-Pacific neighbours. New Delhi has for too long stood by passively, even as China followed a policy of pro- active containment of
India. |
|||
Down memory lane with Nehru
As a journalist in 1950s, I had had the rare privilege of having several one-on-one meetings with Jawaharlal Nehru on his frequent visits to Dehra Dun. Meeting Nehru those days was a simple matter; one just had to visit the Circuit House where he stayed. No security, no PAs, no telephone calls or prior appointments. It was as easy as that. What easily facilitated our visits to the Circuit House was the fact that there were very few journalists at that time, and the district officials and personnel of local intelligence unit knew them well enough. My first meeting with Nehru happened in the mid-1950s. I was then editor of Vanguard and a stringer of some of the mainstream English newspapers. A year earlier I was also the president of DAV College Students Union which had given me additional confidence and self-assurance. Thus one winter morning I cycled all the way to the Circuit House porch, and parked my bicycle against its outer wall. Ram Prashad, the all pervasive bearer there, accosted me and smiled, “Have you come to see Panditji,” was his obvious question, and my reply was just a nod. A couple of constables with lathis lolled about while some other sauntered inconspicuously deep on the expansive lawns under the shades of giant trees. Ram Prashad pointed towards the lawn, and I saw Panditji strolling there. So close to the great man, I felt scared. Mustering courage, I diffidently approached him and hesitantly introduced myself. Nehru saw through my confusion and nervousness and smiled. “I have no news to give, young man,” he said without slowing his steps. My nervous response was, “I haven’t come for any news; I just wanted to see you.” Nehru again smiled and that reassured me. I was tight-lipped; what would a rookie journalist ask a great man like Nehru. I murmured some inane words; realising my nervousness, Nehru asked me what subjects I had in the college. “I did my masters in political science.” By then I had overcome my nervousness. I also told Nehru that I was the president of the Students Union a year before. This seemed to impress Nehru, so I assumed. I spent another 15 minutes with the great man and then thanked him for having met me. Nehru smiled, and asked me to feel free to see him whenever he visited Dehra Dun. This carte blanche lifted me to seventh heaven. Subsequently, I met Nehru whenever he visited Dehra Dun, and even occasionally sent news or two about him. Once I presented him a copy of Vanguard in which I had joined issue with Nehru on one of his controversial statements. He read my story and then smiled as if to say, “you are yet too young to question my statement.” On his 121st birthday tomorrow, I recall with a sense of loss and great deal of nostalgia those few times I had spent in the company of Nehru. Now I wish that I could have maintained and further developed my relations with Nehru but that was not to be, and I just remained his good acquaintance till his last days which too he had spent in Dehra
Dun. |
|||
A shift in power to the east
Power is shifting East and if you want to take a moment when this has become glaringly evident, this week in Seoul is as good as any. It is not just encompassing the largest emerging economies, is taking over from the old "rich club" of the Group of Seven. No, it is simply that this week it has become clear that the emerging countries have coped with the global downturn far better than the old developed world. Europe and North America go to the G20 hobbled by the debts of the most serious recession since the Second World War. Asia and much of Africa go there without having had a recession at all. You can catch a feeling for this in the news of the past few days. There was the forecast that China will pass the US to become the world's largest economy, if exchange rates were adjusted to reflect purchasing power, within two years. There were the pictures of Chinese leaders in Portugal promising to lend the country money to ease its debts. There has been the sight of Barack Obama trekking round India and David Cameron round China seeking export deals. There is also a big difference in the self-confidence of the countries that have avoided recession vis-à-vis those struggling to rekindle much growth. In previous post-war downturns the onus was on Western governments to fix things. Even 18 months ago, at the G20 in London, there was an implicit assumption that the package of initiatives announced by Gordon Brown would set the way forward. Now in Asia at least, the indebted West is seen as the problem, not the solution. It has been a North Atlantic recession, not a worldwide one. It would be harsh to say that we go as supplicants, while they - leaders of the emerging world - strut their power, but there is something of that. In truth both worlds need each other and will continue to do so. We all need the open trading system, and the reasonable freedom of capital flows. The world has just had the greatest burst of prosperity it has ever known, prosperity quite widely shared if not widely enough. It would be mad to junk something that has worked pretty well. But all sides have to abide by the rules of that system, which require responsible policies by all. To put this in context, see the world as still in the early stages of a power-shift as great as that which took place after the Industrial Revolution. Over the next two decades China and India will again become the dominant world economies, as they were 200 years ago. The G20 meeting is about their ideas, and those of the other large emerging economies will be incorporated into, and help shape, the existing global system. It is a system developed and ordered by the West. But it needs to adapt and this meeting is the start of a 20-year debate as to how that should be done.
— The Independent |
|
Cameron warns of risk of new Great Depression
THE WORLD could slide into a 1930s-style depression, David Cameron has claimed, as the G20 summit struggled to find common ground on the best way British officials played down the prospect of a resolution of the escalating dispute between China and the US over the value of their currencies. The leaders, meeting in the South Korean capital, Seoul, found it difficult to recapture the spirit of unity which was achieved at the London summit 19 months ago, at which they agreed a $1trillion stimulus package for the world economy. Speaking ahead of the detailed negotiations overnight, Mr Cameron warned of disaster if disputes over currency levels — vital for making nations' exports competitive — meant that the world's major economies looked inwards. The main flashpoint has been the recriminations between the United States and China. Washington is accusing Beijing of keeping the value of its currency, the yuan, artificially low to give its exports a huge competitive advantage. The Chinese, who have lent the US nearly $800bn, are resisting the pressure and believe the US has been hyprocritical in pumping $600bn into its coffers — a move also apparently designed to keep the dollar low. Yu Jianhua, an official with China's Ministry of Commerce, said that Beijing didn't want a confrontation with the US over currencies or trade issues, but that Washington "should not politicise the yuan issue; should not blame others for its domestic problems and should not force others to take medicine for its own disease". The US Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner, denied the charge: "We will never seek to weaken our currency as a tool to gain competitive advantage or to grow the economy." He renewed his criticism of China for stoking inflation by its strict controls on money supply. Asked what his biggest anxiety was for the G20, Mr Cameron replied: "A return to what happened in the 1930s: protectionism, trade barriers, currency wars, countries pursuing beggar-my-neighbour policies; trying to do well for themselves but not caring about the rest of the world. That is the danger. "So it's in our interest to keep world trade moving; to keep those trade barriers down. That's our interest at the G20 and we will pursue it very, very vigorously." Mr Cameron insisted the G20 meeting — where the "big battle" would be combating isolationism — was vital. But he warned against expectations of solving such problems as reconciling the huge debts accumulated by western countries with the large surpluses of money built up by developing nations — notably China. He said the G20 was not going through an "heroic phase". UK officials said there was no prospect the issues would be solved at this summit — or others in the near future — but that at least negotiations prevented the world's biggest economic powers from retreating into isolation. Russian officials said they were "especially worried by attempts by a number of countries to take unilateral decisions to weaken their currencies" to stimulate growth. President Obama said he was confident leaders would agree a programme for promoting balanced growth. The problems ahead in agreeing anything but the most anodyne form of words were spelt out by Montek Singh Ahluwalia, the Indian chief G20 negotiator: "I don't think you should be too demanding... such policy coordination has never been attempted." Mr Cameron held a series of bilateral meetings with fellow leaders, including South Korea's President Lee Myung-bak, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.
—The Independent |
|
What was decided Global imbalances Ironing out rifts between export-rich countries and debt-laden consumer nations has become the G20's cornerstone. Leaders had already agreed on a "framework" for balanced growth, and submitted medium-term economic plans for IMF review to ensure they do not clash, and the final summit communique did not go much further. In Seoul, Washington had to give up on getting others to agree to numerical targets for current account deficits and surpluses. Instead, G20 leaders instructed their finance ministers to draw up a set of "indicative guidelines" to measure large current account imbalances, in consultation with the IMF, but left the details to be discussed in the first half of next year. Currencies Foreign exchange rates are central to the imbalances debate. The United States and others have cajoled China to allow its yuan currency to rise faster and accuse Beijing of keeping it undervalued to gain a trade advantage. But Washington faced a tougher time making that case when many of its allies view the Fed's easy money as a means to weaken the dollar. The leaders vowed to move towards market-determined exchange rates and shun competitive devaluations, a repeat of a commitment made at a G20 finance ministers meeting last month. But, in a nod to the growing clout of developing economies such as Brazil, G20 said those emerging economies with increasingly overvalued exchange rates that face an undue burden of adjustment would be justified in taking "carefully designed macro-prudential measures"-code for capital controls-to counter capital inflows. At previous G20 summits, leaders have haggled over whether to include a line in the closing statement singling out China for keeping its currency undervalued, but once again this did not happen. Financial regulation World leaders signed off on a "Basel III" agreement to raise the quality and quantity of bank capital, the centrepiece of their reforms following the financial crisis. They also endorsed of the Financial Stability Board's proposals to tighten supervision of the over-the-counter derivatives market and reduce reliance on credit rating agencies. However, they did not significantly advance the rest of their regulation agenda. Trade Slow-growing advanced economies all want to export their way to economic health, which is the root of the tensions over currencies and imbalances. Leaders made broad pledges not to pursue protectionist policies and to work towards concluding the long-stalled Doha round of trade liberalisation talks. In a blow for the hosts, South Korea and the United States failed to seal a long-stalled free trade agreement, mainly due to disagreement over access for U.S. carmakers to the South Korean market. IMF The leaders endorsed a package of reforms thrashed out by their finance ministers last month to reform the International Monetary Fund to reflect a shift in the balance of global economic power. Under the deal, more than 6 percent of voting shares at the Fund will shift to dynamic developing countries such as China, which will become the third-biggest member of the 187-strong Washington-based lender.
— Reuters |
|
|
|
| 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 | |
W