|
|
|
|
|
Trailing black money
Glut of grains |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Mukhtar Mai’s travails
BRICS’ Sanya declaration
Oh brother…
America is shrinking before our eyes. It is bamboozled and petrified
|
Trailing black money
Tracking black money holders within and outside the country has been as futile and frustrating an exercise as passing the Lokpal Bill. Years of efforts have produced no results. While the civil society is pursuing the Lokpal Bill with renewed vigour under activist Anna Hazare, the Supreme Court has turned proactive on tracing black money stashed abroad and nailing the offenders. “Was the government sleeping all these years on the issue of black money,” asked a Bench, consisting of Justices B. Sudershan Reddy and S.S Nijjar, almost in exasperation in response to the Solicitor General’s remark that the matter needed to be probed on different fronts. The government inquiry has so far been confined to Hasan Ali, the Pune-based stud farm owner, accused of large-scale tax evasion. The government also has information about some people holding accounts in LGT Bank but the Finance Minister has refused to divulge their names in the absence of a legal framework. The Enforcement Directorate is looking into the issuance of a passport to Hasan Ali and in that context Puducherry Lt-Governor Iqbal Singh has been questioned. In the process the wider issue of unearthing the sources of black money, including terror, drug pedalling and arms trade, is getting lost. The Supreme Court has tried to shift the focus back to the main point. In this context it has suggested the constitution of a special investigation team under a retired judge of the Supreme Court and drawing experts from the CBI, the IB, RAW, the Enforcement Directorate and the Income Tax Department. This seems to be the best possible way to deal with the vexatious issue expeditiously. The government, which has got three days to respond, should remember that public patience over inaction on corruption is running out. The Prime Minister realised this when he said on Thursday that “we must recognise that there is little public tolerance now for the prevailing state of affairs. People expect swift and exemplary action and rightly so”. Hopefully, the message will elicit the desired systemic response. |
|
Glut of grains
Even when Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar says something sensible, motives are likely to be seen, thanks to his tainted image. Backing traders, he has suggested wheat exports since the country has enough stocks. Food exports were banned after prices had skyrocketed. Though food inflation is still high, it is not due to shortages. Food supplies get disrupted sometimes due to road blockades — as it happened recently in Rajasthan and Haryana — but are often manipulated by middlemen. Because of the politician-official-middleman nexus consumers end up paying more and farmers getting below-market rates for their produce. The forecast of a normal monsoon this year is another reason for farm exports. The FCI has failed to move surplus grains from Punjab and Haryana to make room for the fresh bumper produce. This is delaying wheat procurement. The same may hold true for the coming paddy crop. Lack of storage space is well known. Despite all talk of roping in the private sector to build efficient supply chains, little has been done. The Railways do not have expertise or sufficient capacity to transport grains in bulk. Transportation is a slow, leaky process. Since mountains of food stocks are exposed to rain every year due to poor storage and processing facilities, there is no harm in exporting them. The cost of handling grains is huge. Right now the Centre has record grain stocks, valued at Rs 40,000 crore. Some 10-15 per cent of the foodgrains get damaged annually. Last year the Supreme Court angrily reacted to the situation in which food stocks rotted in rain while the poor faced starvation due to lack of access. But free grain distribution among the poor is easier said than done. It does not make economic sense, given the Centre’s bulging food subsidy bill. Besides, instead of the needy, the system users may lap up the state’s generosity. Foodgrains can be exported and imported when global prices warrant so while keeping a good buffer. |
|
|
Mukhtar Mai’s travails
Strange things continue to happen in Pakistan. The latest is that Mukhtar Mai, a well-known victim of gang rape, waited for five long years to get no justice at all. Her story of pain, agony and humiliation has been documented and discussed in detail. Her case did not need any more evidence than what was available to punish her tormentors. But the Supreme Court of Pakistan thought differently. It has upheld the Lahore High Court’s motivated verdict, declaring that five of the six accused persons were not involved in the crime and hence deserved to be set free. The one person who had been given death sentence by a lower court along with the other five will undergo life imprisonment. His punishment was reduced by the high court, and the apex court has agreed with its ruling. Interestingly, the Supreme Court of Pakistan had taken suo motu notice of the high court’s verdict. There seems to be some kind of a design behind the so-called judgement that has been handed to Mai. One can easily understand that the highest court intervened only to deny justice to Mukhtar Mai as the belief in the judiciary is that her case is more of a media creation than being a reality. This is, however, a fitting comment on the pliable judicial system in Pakistan. Mukhtar Mai, then in her early thirties, was raped by a number of persons in her village in Punjab province because her brother was found to have illicit relations with a girl belonging to an influential family there. She, however, gathered courage after some time and launched a large-scale drive against the rotten jirga system in Pakistan’s tribal areas. By now she has become a high-profile campaigner for women’s rights. She deserved all kinds of support from the judiciary and other institutions in Pakistan. Instead, a move is on to prove that she did not suffer as much as has been made to appear by the media. However, there is no dearth of civil society members who have expressed their support for her. Mukhtar Mai is right: the Pakistan apex court’s verdict cannot be accepted as justice. |
|
|
Just living is not enough. One must have sunshine, freedom, and a little flower. — Hans Christian Anderson |
BRICS’ Sanya declaration
The emergence of the Brazil-Russia-India-China (BRIC) group has been impressive. With the induction of South Africa as its latest member, BRIC becomes BRICS. With the latest summit at Sanya in Hainan province of China, BRICS completed three rounds of an annual leadership summit and is heading for the fourth round in India in 2012. This pace of events is prompting many to wonder if BRICS is slowly getting institutionalised in global politics. While many still question its relevance as the group consists of diverse powers in diverse continents with various strategic interests, the very fact that BRICS has emerged as a group and has been meeting regularly has confirmed to some extent that global politics is changing its hue with the lead given by the developing economies of BRICS. Moreover, BRICS has never been static; it has matured into some sort of an alliance that looks at key global political, economic and trade issues from the perspective of the developing world and offers an emerging model for global economic cooperation and competition. The Sanya summit was strategically important for a few reasons: South Africa’s debut as a new member, making the club grow from BRIC to BRICS (or BRICSA); gathering support for Russia’s entry into the WTO; and the idea of trading directly among BRICS nations and cutting out unstable globally convertible currencies. The Sanya summit also underlines the growing Chinese seriousness to push the club of BRICS as a credible alternative to the Western-dominated global financial system. South Africa’s entry into BRICS has been a matter of mystery for many. It is still unclear whether this was done through a consensus or by the pressure of the Chinese. Unlike the other members of the BRIC combination, South Africa’s economy remains far from impressive. South Africa’s current GDP, $268 billion, is almost a quarter that of Russia. Nevertheless, South Africa is the largest economy of the African continent and is geographically the gateway for the BRIC members’ entry into the continent of Africa. For South Africa, association with BRICS provides an opportunity to take part in global trade. The Sanya summit also witnessed Russia’s growing clout in its global posture. The BRICS collectively expressed support for Russia’s accession to the WTO in the current year and was of the consensus that Russia’s entry into the WTO would enhance the global multilateral trading system. Russia has so far been denied accession to the WTO because of the political reasons of the developed world. With Russia’s entry into the WTO, the clout of BRICS vis-à-vis developing economies is likely to increase in the global financial bodies. This is also an opportunity for Russia to make its presence felt at a time when its economy is still struggling to be on a par with those of China and India. A breathtaking development at Sanya was the idea of having a common currency among BRICS members. The proposal bears direct implications for the US dollar particularly. The proposal is a formulation to place better the developing world’s market voice for a greater say in the global financial order and on which the developing market’s currencies will have substantial drawing rights in the International Monetary Fund. It is generally seen that the Western-dominated economic world is undermining developing economies like South Africa by inflating its own currencies as investors always look for superior exchange rates. But while the idea of a common currency among BRICS members sounds great, it remains to be seen how the conversion rate would be computed. The geographic distances between BRICS members also poses difficulties in formulating something similar to the euro as a common currency among the European Union (EU) countries. Nevertheless, a beginning has been made at Sanya for a world order that provides an alternative to US hegemony. The bottom line of the Sanya declaration is also on similar lines: it clearly reiterates the need for a greater “global financial decision-making” structure and reform of the IMF. The BRICS countries are currently on a massive growth trajectory and plan to use the IMF as a starting point of their strategy to influence the global financial structure. The Chinese role and dialogue in this strategy remain an interesting phenomenon. While the markets in EU and the US are still struggling to overcome their current financial crisis, the Chinese have emerged from the global economic slowdown stronger than ever, buying up 10 billions of pound sterling of debt to help some of the EU economies like Spain, Greece and Portugal to recover. China has also emerged as the number two economy in the world and it could lead a multipolar world order structure in combination with developing economies and powers. BRICS was seen as a symbolic concept in the Chinese strategic community till recently; but now they find much more strategic value in it. BRICS is seen as a new focus in China’s “multilateral dialogue” programme where it aims to carve out a wider global role for itself in an ever expanding multipolar world order. The rise of BRICS may help China achieve numerous global objectives, overcoming the pressures from Western and European powers. On issues like climate change, Doha talks and bringing transparency to the global financial structure, the Chinese need the support of India and Brazil. China, India and other BRICS nations were among those that abstained from voting during the recent UN Security Council meeting called to take a stand on supporting military intervention in Libya. The Sanya declaration on a common currency will help China to successfully sideline the supremacy of the US dollar in the global financial order. The idea of promoting trade settlements in “alternative currencies” is also a strategy to test the India-US and US-Brazil relationship as both India and Brazil share close trade relations with the US. Chinese President Hu Jintao categorically highlighted in his speech at Sanya the Chinese effort to restructure the global economic system and the governance process. Currently, BRICS lingers on the hope that it will work with mainstream global bodies like the UN, G20 and other such multilateral institutions for a democratic and transparent global governance system. The current progress of BRICS narrates that its growth is southward. Mexico is being considered seriously to be in the club of BRICS. Future expansion proposals suggest new representation from West Asia with Egypt coming to the grouping; this will have greater continental representation. There is optimism that BRICS shares a vision for inclusive growth and prosperity in global politics through South-South dialogue. What it requires is a non-confrontational approach among its members. The Sanya summit confirms that the emerging economies seek a more balanced global and financial system more than anything else. The summit has highlighted a shift in power order away from the Western
world. The writer is a Research Fellow at the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA), New Delhi. |
|||||||
Oh brother…
Being a mother of an only girl child in India is never easy. Ever since my husband and I decided to restrict our family to our one and only darling daughter, we have also learnt to brace ourselves and take the remarks of our dear and not-so-dear friends and foes alike in our stride. While the wellwishers have often sympathised with our plight, reactions to our not so “unenviable” predicament have varied from the tongue-in-cheek, “Oh you are following the China model of family planning” to the good old justification for obsessive son fixation, “Who will look after you in your old age?” Over the years we have developed a thick skin, even mastered the knack of turning a blind eye and deaf ear to unsavoury remarks like —“Goodness! You are so foolish, why are you saving money and for whom, for your son-in-law?” That this particular refrain of theirs is extremely biased and symptomatic of a societal mindset according to which only sons and sons-in-law and not daughters and daughters-in-law inherit property, they are deliriously oblivious to. And we too have become unmindful of insensitive comments. Thus when the 14 year-old-daughter of my domestic help in all her innocence announced, “Oh Bhabhi you don’t have a son. Whom will your daughter visit after she gets married”, I found no reason to take offence. For if among the well-heeled educated, our family’s gender composition can be a cause of both consternation and commiseration, her lament is only justified. A sister of five brothers, she believes she is uniquely privileged and blessed. Never mind that the same brothers do precious little to ensure that she doesn’t work or goes to school. For her life sans dear brothers is unimaginable and listless and worthy of sympathy. Till one fine day she realised what being a girl in a man’s world means. Having come of age, like all adolescent girls she was attracted to a boy of her community. Her mild harmless flirtation was discovered by her brothers and all hell breaks loose. Not only was the budding romance brought to an ignominious end, her pleas that she would never meet the boy ever again were paid no heed. After a sound thrashing, much against her wishes, her marriage was fixed in a jiffy, far away in a village to a boy much older than her. While her mother excitedly shared the details of the groom-to-be’s material possessions, teary eyed and wistfully she confided in my daughter, “I wish in my next life at least I am born like you, an only girl child with no brothers.” Overnight she seems to have lost her bubbly enthusiasm. And suddenly, the luxury of being an only girl child amidst the unfair and unjust world that she has inherited dawns on her. Her brothers, of course, continue to remain stone deaf to the agony and the yearning of her
heart. |
|||||||
America is shrinking before our eyes. It is bamboozled and petrified
Somewhere in a cave, in Pakistan or Afghanistan or wherever, a tall, skeletal man with a long stick and dodgy kidneys must have been laughing on all. We hear little from or about him these days, apart for the odd report of a sighting or claim of his death. But assuming he is alive, we might imagine this conversation two days ago with a minion. I translate very loosely from the original. “Father to us all, I have news to cheer you up.” “Cheer me up, Abdullah? Whatever can you mean?” “Come off it, Ossie, you’ve been miserable ever since Liverpool equalised against your beloved Arsenal yesterday, thereby handing the title to the Great Satan of Old Trafford.” “Ah, well, Eboué was certainly foolish to barge into Lucas. Yet, as Allah is my judge, it was never a penalty.” “Be that as it may, sire, our fortunes prosper elsewhere. The credit agency Standard & Poor’s threatens to downgrade America’s AAA credit rating unless more drastic steps are taken to cut the deficit.” “This is indeed wondrous news, my son. Bring me a mint tea and the dialysis machine, and we’ll have a right old knees-up with the lads.” Who could blame him for celebrating? A few months before the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks that set America’s corkscrew spin in motion, the S&P’s report heightens the sense that this empire is disintegrating faster than any before it. The warning’s economic import may be negligible, because there is no chance of the US, cosseted by what remains the world’s reserve currency, and with its economy reviving, defaulting on its loans. No creditor would call in such a loan knowing that a default would cripple the global economy in about 17 seconds. Yet the psychological impact is immense. Imagine the blow to any residual faith America had in its exceptionalism and supremacy. Imagine the shock, not to mention the awe, to find itself, within 10 years of being vaunted as the planet’s hyperpower, at being styled a potential debt-welsher on Graeco-Portuguese lines. The three interconnected forces that destroy empires — military over-reach, lack of money, and the catastrophic loss of self-confidence that stems from the other two — have coalesced with astonishing speed since the Twin Towers fell. When George W Bush was elected President by five of the nine Supreme Court justices, he took on a country swimming in cash and basking in its post-Cold War hegemony. Eight years later, despite the healthy surplus Bill Clinton left him and a barely broken economic boom, he had doubled the deficit by wasting trillions on imbecile wars and trillions more on tax breaks for the wealthy. He inherited a swaggering empire at the zenith of its financial, military and cultural might, and bequeathed to Barack Obama a traumatised country in precipitous decline. Obama’s wise refusal to dominate a wretchedly confused Nato campaign confirms something unimaginable a few years ago. The President of the United States is no longer the leader of the free world, but a fellow-traveller in a free world without a leader at all. Proper historians eschew the Boy’s Own-style of history that sources dramatic power shifts to individuals, analysing them in terms of sweeping economic patterns. Yet in this case, they might allow themselves one of those “What if?” questions they generally disdain. What if the hanging chads hadn’t hung, or if the Supremes had heeded Diana Ross’s dictum that “You Can’t Hurry Votes (No, You Just Have To Wait)” by allowing a full Florida recount? With Al Gore in the White House, there would have been an Afghan campaign after 9/11, but no wicked oil grab in Iraq and no obscenely unChristian tax cuts for the rich. Far from doubling, the deficit would have remained stable or shrunk. America would have been nicely placed to withstand the sub-prime and banking crises that led The Idiot, in the dog days of his distempered administration, to say of the economy with wonted gravitas: “This sucker could go down”. Under Gore, the US would not have sacrificed what she saw as her moral authority to impose the Pax Americana, however misguidedly and self-servingly, on the satanic altar of Dick Cheney’s neo-con experiment. The US the 44th President inherited from a two-term Gore would have been a startlingly different entity-rich, confident, unsullied by Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, and still dominating the world by the projection of soft power. The America at which we glance across the ocean today is shrinking before our eyes. The Chinese, to whom the US is in ever growing multi-trillion hock, own the very pants Obama walks in. Extending far beyond the Birther nonsense, the far right’s malevolence has prevented him from reversing the Bush tax cuts — worth $500bn per annum, or half the annual increase in the deficit — for fear of spreading the Fox-propagated belief that he is a Communist sleeper. He regretted this last week on finally cobbling together a deficit-reduction fudge with the Republicans, but regrets butter no Thanksgiving turkeys. Impotent domestically and internationally, he may be judged kindly by history for preventing the sucker from going down, and for finding that presidential holy grail of universal(ish) health care. But the figurehead of a collapsing empire will never be loved in the homeland, let alone when trying to lead a people divided by much and united only by fear for the future. His approval ratings are sliding again, and he looks vulnerable in the unlikely event of the Republicans nominating a sane and serious challenger next year. There is only one of those on the horizon. A feeling in my bones whispers that Mitch Daniels, the engagingly unpompous, Harley Davidson-riding, deficit-slashing Governor of Indiana, is an obscure name that won’t be obscure for much longer. In the last year, the number of Americans citing the deficit as the country’s major problem has gone from virtually nothing to almost 20 per cent (and that before the S&P warning). If this issue proves decisive in 2012, Daniels could — for all his lack of hair, charisma and willingness to pander to the far right on social policy — do an Obama, and come from nowhere to win. But that’s one for another column. The real biggest issue that faces America today is that America, despite a recovering economy, is broke, dispirited, bamboozled and petrified. It is terrified by the suddenly bleak middle-class future faced even by graduates, by the prospect of losing its supplies of cheap oil from rebellious client kingdoms in the Middle East, and by the staggering speed with which China threatens to supplant it. Although the links between the Bush and Bin Laden families made a fine film in Michael Moore’s hands, they seemed merely a diverting conspiracy theory. Yet it appears that Ossie and Dubya are destined to be conjoined in history after all, as the double act that destroyed the American empire in record time. Only one of them will be laughing about that, of course, and it should be one hell of a tenth anniversary bash, come September, in the cave.
— The Independent
|
|
|
| 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 | |
