The Tribune, Chandigarh, India

Uma Bharati returns
Handling battered U.P. unit no mean task

After months of speculation, Uma Bharati has finally returned to the BJP with her expulsion of December 2005 revoked by the party leadership. Seeing the hostility that she evokes in the present leadership of the BJP in her home state of Madhya Pradesh which she once led as chief minister, the firebrand leader who was in political wilderness for the last five and a half years has been assigned the onerous responsibility of helping to revive the party in Uttar Pradesh which is slated to go to polls in a year. That most of the top leaders of the BJP except party president Nitin Gadkari chose to keep away from her induction function is testimony to the poor acceptability she enjoys. Reviving a sleepy and ineffective state party unit in U.P. would have been no mean task for anybody but for Uma Bharati especially, it would be her life’s biggest challenge.

Considering that Uma Bharati had been in the forefront of the movement that led to the demolition of Babri Masjid, her return signals the resurgence of the Ram Mandir issue. How wise this move is only time will tell but there is weight in the argument of some that the issue has lost its saleability for the voters. Another motivation for Uma Bharati’s induction for the U.P. elections is to woo and bag the backward vote. A Lodh by caste, Uma Bharati fills the void left by the desertion of former chief minister and Mandir poster boy Kalyan Singh who had during his heydays managed to consolidate the backward castes. If Uma Bharati plays her cards well, she could also pander to the upper castes including Brahmins who may not mind a saffron-robed ‘sanyasin.’

With the irrepressible Mayawati in full cry, Mulayam Singh Yadav’s Samajwadi Party gearing up for a do-or-die battle and the scion of the Nehru-Gandhi family Rahul Gandhi playing for high stakes, Uma Bharati will add a new dimension to the battle of the hustings. Clearly, there will not be a dull moment for the U.P. electorate.

Mamata’s mantra
She appears a woman in a hurry

Although West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee is prone to taking a simplistic view of things and while her claim that the Darjeeling issue has been resolved needs to be taken with a pinch of salt, she does deserve credit for being earnest and for breaking the ice. She had promised that she would find a solution to the demand for a separate state of Gorkhaland, which had simmering for the last 30 years. In the event, the less than three-week-old chief minister announced on Tuesday that she had clinched the deal. She added, for good measure, that when she visits Darjeeling next, she would go there with a ‘wedding gift’. The Gorkha Janmukti Morcha, which has been spearheading a violent agitation for the past few years, was far less exuberant. They had merely reached an agreement and not signed a pact, they pointed out. They also reiterated that the agreement in no way diluted their demand for a separate Gorkhaland.

To be fair to her, she has demonstrated both flexibility and sincerity that the previous administration seemed to lack. The Morcha leaders are clearly more comfortable dealing with her than with the previous government. They also humoured her by not pressing for the immediate bifurcation of the state. The chief minister in turn agreed to give more concessions than the previous government was willing to grant. She agreed to explore the possibility of giving the Darjeeling Gorkha Hill Council ( DGHC) more control and more territory besides regularising the services of casual employees of the Council after having completed ten years in the job. In return she persuaded the Morcha to participate in an election for the Council, which has not been held since 1999.

But while she should be commended for taking the initiative to normalise the situation in the Hills and reduce tension, the success of her new deal will depend largely on how her government goes about redressing age-old grievances. The Left Front had made the mistake of abdicating its responsibility for the Hills, leaving governance and development entirely to the DGHC. Ms Banerjee needs to ensure that the Council delivers on the promises it makes and functions under close supervision.

Thought for the Day

No man is really honest; none of us is above the influence of gain. — Aristophanes

ARTICLE

Pakistan’s miscalculations
China not helping in countering US pressure
by G. Parthasarathy

American Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s assertion that “the US had absolutely no evidence” that “anyone in the highest levels of the Pakistan government” knew that Osama bin Laden was hiding less than a kilometre away from the Pakistan Military Academy in Abbottabad is not surprising. Despite substantive evidence to the contrary, the Americans had earlier asserted for over a decade that they had no evidence that Gen Zia-ul-Haq was acquiring nuclear weapons, as they needed his cooperation to “bleed” the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. They are today adopting the same approach in addressing what the whole world knows about the ISI complicity in global terrorism, because they fondly hope that General Kayani and General Shuja Pasha will cooperate in eliminating terrorism in Afghanistan. While this statement giving the Pakistani military some room to save its face was welcomed with relief in Rawalpindi, there were also admonishments delivered, which Pakistan’s military cannot ignore.

A grim-faced Secretary of State reportedly warned her Pakistani interlocutors, including President Zardari, Prime Minister Gilani and General Kayani that “There can be no peace, no stability, no democracy, no future, for Pakistan, unless the violent extremists are removed.” She warned that “in solving its problems, Pakistan should understand that anti-Americanism and conspiracy theories will not make Pakistan’s problems disappear”. She stated that she had told the Pakistani leadership that they will have to take “very specific actions”, warning that the US would act unilaterally if the Pakistanis balked.

The “specific actions” she alluded to were immediate operations to eliminate Al-Qaida leaders Ayman al-Zawahiri and its military commander, Libyan terrorist Afsya Abdel Rehman. The other two against whom “immediate action” was demanded was Taliban military commander Sirajuddin Haqqani and long-term ISI asset and terrorist leader Ilyas Kashmiri, since reportedly killed in South Waziristan in an American Drone attack.

Taliban supreme leader Mullah Omar, who has enjoyed ISI support while residing principally in ISI safe houses in Quetta since he fled from Kandahar in 2001, falls into a special category. He has been designated as being wanted in order to determine “whether he can be part of a political reconciliation in Afghanistan”. Pakistan’s assistance has been sought to facilitate this effort. Mrs Clinton specifically alluded to a Pakistani role in carrying forward the process of “reconciliation” in Afghanistan.

The Americans have established direct and indirect contacts with Taliban leaders close to Mullah Omar and expect Pakistan to facilitate this process. But whether Mullah Omar will accept American requirements of his abiding by the Afghan constitution and renouncing violence and links with Al-Qaida and its affiliates is doubtful. Significantly, Lashkar-e-Toiba leader Hafiz Mohammed Saeed is not a high priority target for the Americans. The omission of Hafiz Saeed has serious implications for India, as it sends a signal to the ISI that India-centric terrorist groups are not of primary importance to the US despite the assertion by Janet Napolitano in New Delhi, equating the dangers posed by Al-Qaida and the Lashkar.

Pakistan appears to have seriously miscalculated in its belief that advocacy of a closer Sino-Pakistan alliance to undermine US strategies in its neighbourhood will be welcomed by Beijing. American annoyance on this score was evidently conveyed to the Chinese during the bilateral strategic dialogue in Washington on May 9-10 when President Obama received a highly publicised telephone call from Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on the Abbottabad operation.

The fallout was almost immediate, when Prime Minister Gilani visited Beijing on May 16. While the Chinese were willing to pander to Pakistan’s quest for “parity” with India, by agreeing to expedite the delivery of 50 JF-17 fighter aircraft and launch a satellite manufactured in Pakistan, they are also reported to have advised Gilani to “remove irritants” in relations with Washington and New Delhi. At the same time a Pakistani proposal that China should induct the JF-17 in its own air force and agree to its export by Pakistan appears to have been rejected.

Perhaps the biggest setback for Pakistan in its efforts to demonstrate to the Americans that China would step in to bail them out in the face of US assertiveness was China’s rejection of Pakistan’s proposal that it should immediately take over the management of the strategic Gwadar Port, located near the entrance to the Persian Gulf. The Chinese made it clear that they could consider this offer only after Pakistan’s existing contract (valid till 2047) with the Singapore Ports Authority expired.

In a more direct snub to Pakistan, China’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Jiang Yu categorically rejected an assertion by Pakistan’s Defence Minister Ahmed Mukhtar that he had asked China to build a naval base in Gwadar. Jiang stated that she had not heard of any such proposal being made during Gilani’s visit. Clearly, the Chinese are in no mood to give credence to American allegations that China’s growing naval expansion is fuelling concerns across the Asia-Pacific and Indian Ocean regions.

President Zardari fared no better than his Prime Minister during his visit to Moscow on May 11-13. President Medvedev and his Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov welcomed and lauded the American operation in Abbottabad as morally and internationally justifiable. What the Pakistanis seem to have failed to recognise is that while the Russians do have concerns about a US presence in Central Asia, they are also providing logistical support for the American presence in Afghanistan and making military supplies available to the embattled Karzai regime.

Interestingly, despite its close relations with Moscow, the Kazakhstan Parliament approved a proposal on May 19 to deploy armed forces in Afghanistan to join NATO forces there. More importantly, Nikolai Bordyuzha, the Russian Secretary-General of the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (comprising Russia, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan) stated that foreign troops needed to stay on, with the Editor of Russia’s influential Global Times asserting that Russia and the neighbouring countries were not interested in a hasty withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan.

The elimination of Osama bin Laden has increased calls within the US for an early withdrawal from Afghanistan at a time when the Obama Administration is hoping, somewhat unrealistically, that it can get Pakistan to persuade the Taliban to lay down arms and embrace the virtues of democratic pluralism! India should realistically recognise that the Americans are not going to use their time and effort to eliminate India-centric groups like the Lashkar-e-Toiba. The American end-game in Afghanistan is just starting, and we need to be proactive in anticipating the forthcoming challenges, countering motivated propaganda and seizing diplomatic opportunities.

MIDDLE

Remembering Bhajan Lal
by Ram Varma

Way back in 1969, I met Bhajan Lal in Delhi for the first time. I was Director, Public Relations and Tourism and he was an MLA. He told me he was on the lookout for a good officer for the vacant post of SDM Fatehabad because Chief Minister Bansi Lal had given him a carte blanche in the matter and if I liked I could occupy that all-important post.

I thanked him profusely but said I had passed that stage and could only be posted as Deputy Commissioner. His face fell and he confessed that the CM had not authorised him for that. Later when he attended the first Assembly session of his long political career and saw me sitting close to the CM in press conferences, it dawned on him that the post I held wasn’t unimportant although he hadn’t heard of it and that I too enjoyed some measure of the CM’s confidence.

From those simple beginnings, he rose to master the intricacies of statecraft and could teach a thing or two to Chanakya. He would claim openly in public meetings that he was a Ph. D. in realpolitik and others of his ilk were no match to him.

He did become Bansi Lal’s close confidant who asked him to guard his flock of MLAs. The spectre of defection always haunted Bansi Lal during the mandatory bi-annual Assembly sessions. After one such dark and ominous session in 1971, Bhajan Lal told me that he was going up and down the corridors of the MLAs’ Rest House the whole night, pistol in hand, lest someone escaped.

Bansi Lal rewarded him shortly afterwards and he became Agriculture Minister. I too had been appointed Director Agriculture some time earlier. The department used to grow quality seeds on the large state farm at Hansi. I found to my horror that enormous quantities of wheat seed had been sold but the cashbook hadn’t been maintained for the last six months. Suspecting huge embezzlement, I placed the cashier on suspension.

When I returned from tour after three days, the minister’s message to see him urgently was waiting. When I met him the next morning, he said 10 men had been camping at his house, eating at his table, since the cashier had been suspended and they won’t budge till he was reinstated. The man belonged to his constituency and clan. I told him there was no way he could be reinstated until the accounts were squared. He said he had verified there was no embezzlement; the cashier had recorded all transactions separately but had not posted them in the cashbook. I made the man complete the accounts in a fortnight, got them verified and reinstated him with a stern warning.

On another occasion, he sat listening to the people from his constituency who flocked his house. One man had a grievance against the patwari who wouldn’t give copies of revenue record of his land holdings. Bhajan Lal took out five hundred rupees from his wallet (a considerable sum those days) and gave to the man to give to the patwari, chiding him mildly for not taking care of important officials like a patwari.

Such a man was Bhajan Lal – worldly wise and amoral, with deep roots in the soil, determined to rise at all costs.

OPED HEALTH

The UN 2011 high-level meet on AIDS is currently being held in New York. At this crucial meet, the member-states will negotiate a Draft Declaration outlining the future response to the AIDS epidemic
Don’t let the guard down against AIDS
Aditi Tandon

All eyes are set on the UN member states, currently engaged in hectic negotiations in New York to chart the future course of global response to the AIDS epidemic. The 2011 High Level Meeting (HLM) called by the UN to finalise the Draft of Commitment to HIV is vital as it will set targets for HIV prevention, treatment, care and support and determine if the world will reverse the epidemic at all.

The HLM comes at a crucial time — when funding for HIV is on the decline; 10 million people, in need of treatment, don’t have access and fears are growing of this being the last HLM on AIDS, as the developed world goes back on its funding commitments.

That makes these negotiations vital if fruits of the past (global rate of new HIV infections declined by 25 per cent between 2001 and 2009) are to be preserved. The UNAIDS has, in its publication “AIDS at 30: Nations at Crossroads”, examining progress since the infection was reported on June 5, 1981, already warned the world: “Despite expanded access to antiretroviral therapy (ART), treatment gap remains. At the end of 2010, 9 million people eligible for treatment didn’t have access.”

The report identifies treatment gaps and declined global funding as major challenges, so does the “Zero Draft” the UN has extended for negotiations from June 8 to 10. The draft is so called after its objectives of zero new infections, zero discrimination and zero AIDS-related deaths. While the world awaits the declaration, documents in public domain don’t present a heartening picture. They indicate the developed world’s reluctance to set treatment targets; make funding commitments; and their urge to dilute proposals that lower treatment costs.

In the past, treatment targets have only helped the global response to AIDS, like the WHO’s “3 by 5 call” (3 million people on treatment by 2005) which inspired efforts. But now, the European Union (EU) is reluctant to commit targets for getting people on treatment. Led by Thailand, many nations have sought treatment for 15 million people living with HIV (PLHIVs) by 2015. This represents 80 per cent of the 18.3 million PLHIVs who will need treatment by then. For developing countries like India that are scaling up treatment efforts and that need global funding, targets are vital to secure unhindered flow of money.

They must, therefore, fight for target setting. It would further serve India well to push for inclusion in the draft of treatment targets for Hepatitis C and TB-related mortality, considering Hepatitis C is a growing problem for drug users who are HIV positive and the government’s ability to get funds to treat it would depend on how the infection features in the declaration.

Meanwhile EU’s reluctance with targets has health groups worried. Matthew Kavanagh of Health Global Access Project says, “The EU is not just refusing to commit to treatment targets, it’s working with the US to dilute any language in the draft text related to increasing access to affordable generic medicines.”

The latter is a huge concern, and PLHIVs and treatment activists have already called for an immediate moratorium on all Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) and Trade Related Measures of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) like data exclusivity that prevent access to generic medicines.

In May, groups from Asia, Africa and Latin America adopted the “Bangkok Declaration on FTAs and Access to Medicines” to announce opposition to the rapid spread of FTAs that put the profits of MNC pharma firms ahead of people’s health. The declaration said FTAs permanently undermined access to affordable new HIV/AIDS medicines, Hepatitis C treatments and life-saving medicines for chronic diseases were all under its threat.

To address this concern, the UN, in the “Zero Draft”, has sought to mitigate the impact of patent barriers on access to AIDS treatment by incorporating language which developing countries like Thailand, Brazil and Africa are backing. This language highlights the need for governments to use public health safeguards when faced with IP barriers in producing or purchasing affordable medicines for HIV/AIDS. Such safeguards are even recognised under the international law as TRIPS flexibilities. The developing nations have further inserted in the draft language to highlight the danger that FTAs pose to the sustainability of AIDS treatment and have prescribed that TRIPS-plus provisions be kept out of FTAs.

But this text proposed by nations facilitating the UN process — Botswana and Australia on removal of TRIPS — plus measures from FTAs has been rejected by the EU, US and Japan. The latter has even said there’s no evidence that greater patent enforcement in the developing countries is hindering access to medicines. Activists trash the claim.

“This is ludicrous,” says Rose Kaberia of the East African Treatment Access Movement (EATAM), who has challenged an anti-counterfeit legislation in Kenya that increases enforcement of medicine patents, “The greater enforcement of medicine patents has resulted in the seizure of generic medicines, including ARVs, by the EU which were on their way from India to Africa and Latin America. We can’t afford such laws in the fight for Universal Access to treatment.”

Off-patent drugs

Recent evidence has clearly revealed that FTAs have undermined people’s right to health — FTAs with the US resulted in 79 per cent of 103 off-patent medicines not having any generic equivalent in Jordan; and in price differences of up to 845,000 per cent in the same therapeutic segment in Guatemala.

The 2011 document, it is hoped, will reject FTAs, and India would support developing countries’ proposals on the IP text. Some of these proposals read: “Recognise the critical importance of affordable generic medicines in scaling up access to affordable HIV treatment; express grave concern that the greater enforcement of medicine patents in middle and low-income countries significantly limits generic competition for newer generations of HIV treatments, including for opportunistic infections and note that trade barriers and bilateral and regional trade agreements that impose IP protections stricter than necessary under the TRIPS Agreement seriously limit access to affordable HIV treatment.”

The EU, US, Switzerland and Japan are resisting this language, and pushing for insertions highlighting the importance of IP protection in developing new medicines and using them as an incentive for investment in R&D of newer generation of treatments. Several developing countries like India must oppose this and review the language from the 2001 and 2006 HIV/AIDS Declarations on IP which talked of using TRIPS flexibilities as a right.

Funding gaps

Now about funding gaps — the zero draft recognises this challenge and calls on governments, particularly of the developed world, to fulfill their funding commitments as the epidemic is far from over. Developing countries like India have just about managed to stabilise it and sapped funding could prove disastrous for HIV programmes.

That calls for Indian negotiators led by Health Minister Ghulam Nabi Azad to support draft provisions on funding like the one India has itself proposed – on high costs of non-generic medicines and trade barriers to legal trade in generics. This is a crucial provision as the biggest drain on HIV resources will come for newer treatments that are patented in India resulting in lack of access to generic ARVs in India and across the world.

Every effort would have to be made to secure generic drugs. As Loon Gangte of the Delhi Network of Positive People points out, “In 2001 generic medicines made it possible for us to hope for healthier lives, to get back to work and watch our children grow. A decade later the EU, US and Japan want to take that hope away in the name of MNC pharmaceutical companies. Our lives are not for sale.”

TREATMENT TARGETS VITAL
A recent study of 1763 couples of whom 97 per cent were heterosexual in 13 sites across different countries, including India, Africa and Brazil, has shown that treatment may in fact be the best form of prevention with a nearly 96 per cent reduction in HIV transmission between sero-discordant couples being reported if the HIV-positive partner was on treatment before their health declined. UNAIDS Executive Director Michel Sidibe is on record saying: “Antiretroviral therapy is a bigger game-changer than ever before — it not only stops people from dying, but also prevents transmission of HIV to women, men and children”
FUNDING CRITICAL
Between 2001 and 2009, investments in the HIV response in low and middle-income countries rose nearly 10-fold from $ 1.6 billion to US$ 15.9 billion, and new infections dropped by 25 per cent. But in 2010, resources declined even as in 56 countries, global donors account for 70 per cent HIV resources. UNAIDS has warned against this decline saying if the world does not invest now, it will have to pay several times more in the future.” UNAIDS recently found that an investment of at least $ 22 billion is needed by 2015 — $ 6 billion more than is available today. The return on this investment would be 12 million new HIV infections averted; 7.4 million AIDS related deaths averted by 2020; new infections would decline from 2.5 million in 2009 to about 1 million in 2015. At present the world houses 34 million PLHIVs; India has 2.3 million.