The Tribune, Chandigarh, India

Modi govt’s ‘inaction’
Religious structures must be repaired

The Gujarat High Court’s censure of the Narendra Modi government in Gujarat for “inaction and negligence” during the 2002 post-Godhra riots and its order of compensation for the nearly 500 religious structures damaged in the state during the period are unexceptionable. There can be no denying that the Gujarat government’s response to the riots that continued for several days was inadequate. That with the State government abdicating its responsibility, the damage caused to religious properties was extensive is indeed a sad commentary on the government. In such circumstances, it is the government that should pay to re-build religious properties just as it has compensated those affected in the destruction of houses and commercial properties.

Undeniably, the Modi government has a decisive popular mandate and a glorious record of achievement in managing the economy. However, its failure to acknowledge that it made mistakes in looking the other way when rioters ran amuck especially against the minority community is a black mark that will remain embedded in the minds of all fair-minded people. It was indeed appalling that there has been not a word of apology from Mr Narendra Modi for the manner in which innocent lives, especially of Muslims, were lost in the riots. It was truly unprecedented for bodies of victims of the unfortunate Godhra train incident (in which some miscreants had set on fire bogies of Sabarmati Express) to have been taken to Ahmedabad in full public view. That this inflamed public anger is without doubt. Sections of the media also added fuel to the fire by printing pictures of charred bodies of the kar sewaks who were returning from Ayodhya.

The High Court judgement should be an eye-opener for the Modi government. Instead of contesting the court’s grant of compensation to repair the damage to the religious structures, it must set about the task without demur and in a spirit of atonement. The civil rights activists too must now contribute to healing the wounds rather than fanning the flames.

Lust for porn
K’taka ministers lower dignity of House

From snoozing and snoring in the Assembly, the Indian MLA has graduated to watching porn in the House. The normally ‘tolerant’ Indian society, however, routinely puts up with much more vulgarity, sexual violence and obscenity in the public domain. That would explain why the escapade generated more lewd jokes than a public outrage. It may also be due to the fact that we have already witnessed the live romp of a Governor in a Raj Bhavan. Nor are such shenanigans confined to India. While several US Presidents are now known to have made more innovative and pleasurable use of the oval office, Jimmy Carter made a public confession of having committed adultery in his heart. An Indonesian lawmaker too had to be disqualified after he was caught watching sleaze in Parliament. It is, therefore, difficult to say whether ‘porngate’, as the Karnataka escapade has come to be christened, is a more damning reflection of the times, of the MLAs we have or of the quality of the proceedings in Assemblies.

In any case, the BJP does seem to have a special breed of legislators in Karnataka. The wife of a BJP MLA committed suicide, allegedly after a rave party in her husband’s constituency. Yet another BJP MLA was accused of raping his friend’s wife. And now the three BJP ministers have been forced to resign for watching the pornographic clip in the Assembly. The BJP national president Nitin Gadkari, however, laboured over the point that the ministers must be deemed to be innocent till an inquiry finds them guilty. While the law does not prohibit watching pornography, it does ban transmitting and exhibiting obscene material. The three ministers, therefore, can well attract penal provisions in both the IPC and the Information Technology Act.

Lust for money and power has made the Indian politician both ruthless and intolerant. And the conduct of Laxman Savadi, one of the ministers, who allegedly got the electricity supply switched off in his constituency so that people would not be able to watch the offending footage, is one more example of the rot; and far more disturbing than Savadi’s addiction to porn.

Thought for the Day

An economist's guess is liable to be as good as anybody else's. — Will Rogers

ARTICLE

Disturbing signals from Gulf
Can Israel be stopped from attacking Iran?
by K. P. Fabian

On February 11, Iran will be celebrating the 33rd anniversary of the 1979 Revolution. I watched it from close quarters as I was then posted at the Indian Embassy in Tehran (from 1976 to 1979).

When I left Tehran in April 1979, the Shah was in exile. President Carter of the US accorded political asylum to him against the advice of Secretary of State Cyrus Vance. Carter made that cardinal mistake leading to the takeover of the US Embassy in Tehran by revolutionaries; 52 diplomats and others were kept as hostages for 444 days. Carter tried to get the hostages freed by sending a secret military mission that failed miserably. The hostage issue was the main cause for Carter’s defeat by Ronald Reagan in 1980.

The US has made serious mistakes in its policy towards Iran in the recent past. It has not learnt from those mistakes. It is likely to commit more mistakes.

If Israel attacks Iran in the near future, the primary reason for it is the failure of the US to understand the issues involved, to prevail upon Israel and prevent miscalculated adventurism on its part. The US gives enormous aid to Israel, which has received $106 billion in 60 years starting in 1949. But the US hardly has any influence on Israel as the situation prevails today. It is Israel that influences US policy enormously.

There are clear signals from Israel that it is planning to bomb Iran’s nuclear sites. Israel has argued that Iran might not be engaged in making a bomb. But Iran is fast acquiring the capability to make one. It is necessary to strike at the right time. Otherwise, Iran would have acquired the capability, and have its sites in bunkers, making it almost impossible to destroy the nuclear facilities by resorting to bombardment.

“The dividing line may pass”, Defence Minister Barak has argued , “not where the Iranians decide to break out of the non-proliferation treaty and move toward a nuclear device or weapon, but at the place where the dispersal, protection and survivability efforts will cross a point that would make a physical strike impractical…. Whoever says ‘later’ may find that later is too late.”

The US has adopted the policy of tightening economic and diplomatic pressure on Iran with two aims. One, the more important, to prevent Israel from resorting to military action. Second, to compel Iran to stop the enrichment of uranium.

The US policy is deeply flawed. Those who know Iran know that it will not surrender under pressure and threats. The pro-bomb lobby in Iran, assuming that there is one, will only derive strength from US opposition to the enrichment of uranium. That lobby can argue convincingly that Iran is entitled to enrich uranium under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; and that the West is encroaching upon Iran’s sovereignty by making such a demand. Further, it can be argued that given the implacable hostility of the US, Iran really needs a bomb or two to protect itself. In other words, the current policy of the US is to push Iran in the direction of making a bomb in the interest of national security.

Is Iran engaged in making a bomb? It may be, and this writer thinks it is the case that Iran desires a bomb. But it does not follow that Iran is making one. So far, no evidence has been adduced by the US or the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that Iran is making one. In any case, the international community should take with a pinch of salt any evidence to be produced by the US in view of the lies propagated about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq under Saddam Hussein.

What is Israel’s game plan? Israel wants to put pressure on Iran by killing its nuclear scientists, carrying out sabotage and strangling Iran’s economy, hoping that Iran might send missiles to Israel or blockade the Straits of Hormuz. In either case, Israel is sure that the US will militarily intervene. Should Iran fail to be provoked, Israel has the option of bombing the nuclear sites with the full confidence that the US will come to Israel’s rescue if Iran retaliates. As regards the likely hike in oil prices endangering the fragile recovery of the Western economies, frankly, Israel could not care less. In any case, Israel believes that such hike will be temporary.

Israel knows that Obama, if re-elected, will stop Israel from going ahead with its plans for Iran. The June 1981 Israeli strike on the Iraqi reactor at Osirak was unnecessary as the French had designed it in a manner not usable for making a bomb. The bombing took place three weeks before the election to the Knesset. The Likud party that was trailing in opinion polls came back to power mainly because of the strike. The next election in Israel should be held before February 2013. It is possible to advance the election and choose the best time for bombing Iran.

If Israel thinks that Iran is incapable of retaliating as Iraq in 1981 was, it might be sadly mistaken. Iran has missiles that can reach Israel, and the US Patriot interceptor missiles might not prove fully effective. Hezbollah and Hamas also can send missiles to Israel. Iran can make life difficult for President Obama in Iraq and Afghanistan. The planned troop withdrawal from Afghanistan and the pullout from Iraq that has already happened can be made to look like disastrous national security decisions crippling Obama’s re-election strategy.

In short, it is in the interest of everyone, including Israel’s, to prevent it from bombing Iran. But it does not follow that the US will act wisely. A war is highly likely.

It is in India’s interest to prevent a war. The repeated mantra that it is not in India’s interest to have a nuclear-armed Iran is not of much help in policy formulation. The primary threat from Iran is to Israel, which probably has around 100 bombs. In fact, there is hardly any threat to India’s security from a nuclear-armed Iran.

In any case, Iran knows that the use of bombs or any other kind of attack on Israel will lead to severe punishment by the US. It is obvious that the wise thing to do is to agree to Iran’s right to enrich uranium and flood Iran with IAEA inspectors. India can suggest this, but it lacks the clout to be listened to.

Meanwhile, India is trying to arrange for paying for oil imports from Iran. There is much talk of multi-polarity. But there is a pocket of unipolarity in the international financial sector. The US can punish any financial entity that disobeys its orders to stop dealing with Iran. There is a BRICS summit due in Delhi in March. Can one expect the summit to address this issue? I doubt.

The writer is a former ambassador of India.

MIDDLE

Trekking then and now
by Harish Dhillon

My first experience of taking children out on treks came in the mid-seventies. For a week in April, the whole school went out in small groups into the interiors of Himachal. We travelled on an extremely limited budget. I remember that first year it was one hundred rupees per head. Everything was much cheaper then but this amount still gave us provision only for the barest minimum. I was tutor to a group of Lower Three (class five) boys. The boy who was best in maths was appointed treasurer and the understanding was that when, on the last day, we reached Shimla, the balance would be divided among the group and they could do what they liked with it.

At the end of the first day everyone crowded around the ‘treasurer’ while he did his accounts. There were gasps of horror as the figures were entered. There was a consensus that too much money had been spent on the bus fare and from now on there would only be walking, and if the distance was too great we would hitch a ride in a truck.

The next ‘luxury’ to be abandoned was the stoppage in rest houses. We slept now in temples or in school buildings. On the third day the luxury of eating breakfast and dinner in dhabas was cast side and the boys took turns at cookhouse duty. They learnt how to light a fire, to make tea and pakoras. Their parathas, which looked like maps of a forgotten country, were easily the most delicious parathas I had ever eaten.

So much was learnt during those seven days. The boys, most of them sons of millionaires, learnt the value of money. They learnt to step out of their airconditioned ivory towers and live in a world where they could do without.

That things have changed since then was brought dramatically and painfully home to me when I joined YPS Mohali. As the children set out in their groups, there was a commotion at the gate. It was a group of parents who were refusing to send their children on treks because the buses that had been arranged for them were not airconditioned. At the end of the one week period I was deluged by a flood of complaints. There were parents who complained that the water for their child’s bath had been tepid. There were others who said that their child had got a cotton mattress to sleep on and not the foam mattress he was used to. Still others complained about the food – their child had only got chicken thrice during the seven days. One parent even complained that the five thousand rupees pocket money that he had given his child had been confiscated by the teacher.

I know that this change in attitude is symptomatic of the change that has come in every sphere of our lives. But I cannot but feel sorry for these children who are missing out on a beautiful and valuable learning experience.

OPED Environment

Can’t shut eyes to climate change
Interview by Jayanta Basu

The 2011 UN Climate Change Conference in Durban agreed to a legally binding deal comprising all countries. It will be prepared by 2015, and will take effect in 2020. While the meet was officially declared a success, IPCC chairperson Rajendra Kumar Pachauri believes it ignored what science is telling us. The cuts proposed are far less than required to save the planet.

Rajendra Pachauri, Chairperson, Intergovernmental Penal on Climate Change (IPCC)

We have seen what had happened in Durban. What's your observation on Durban as a platform for environment negotiations?

I can only look at it from the point of view of the science of climate change. The reality is that science clearly tells us about the serious impact of climate change and the fact that sooner we take action, the greater the chance of avoiding, postponing and reducing its impact. That in view, the Intergovernmental Penal on Climate Change (IPCC) in its fourth assessment report had stated that if we wanted to stabilise the temperature increase between 2 and 2.4 degree Celsius (over the pre-industrialised era), then the emission of carbondioxide had to peak no later than 2015,ie, if we wanted to do it at "least cost". Delay in the peaking will involve much higher cost and greater climate change impact, which should avoid. I wish people in Durban had grappled with some of these issues; unfortunately, that did not happen.

During the Durban climate talks, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) came up with a report that mentioned that even if all countries kept their pledge of emission cut, there would be a gap of 6-11 gigatonne in carbondioxide emission as compared to the target to contain the temperature at 2 degree Celsius. Was it a case of politics winning over scientific requirement?

We (IPCC) also brought out a special report on extreme events and disasters recently, in which we showed that the poorest parts of the world were going to be vulnerable and, hence, most heavily affected. Some extreme events will become far more frequent and intense. Let's take heat wave. If nothing is done, then the phenomenon that occurs once in 20 years will increase to once in two years by the end of the century. That's serious. One example is what happened in Europe in 2003, when there was a heat wave and over 40,000 people died. It is a normal occurrence in our part of the world, but you can imagine how mortality and morbidity will increase if it became more frequent.

In the face of such strong evidence, politicians have unanimously chosen to come up with an agreement that hardly reflected the scientific concern. Is it time people looked beyond politicians to find a solution?

The answer lies in awareness of the public. If people realise the scientific reality, understand the issues involved, and then in a democracy they could ensure their leaders did what they expected them to do. The role of the media is also very important in spreading the information. The IPCC welcomes debate, but it should be objective. Let the public question what science is telling them, and on the basis of that they may demand action from their leaders, who will then have to deliver. I don't believe we have reached that stage yet.

In Durban, we saw a new global regime on emission cut being agreed upon, almost being bulldozed through by the European Union, which was nowhere in sight before the conference began. What you feel about the plan for an agreement in 2015 to legally mandate emission cut by 2020?

This is only a statement of intent. How the negotiations proceed and whether we get an agreement by 2015 is yet to be seen. But the guiding principles laid under the United Nations Framework Convention of Climate Change should remain unchanged.

Everybody is talking about the IPCC's fifth assessment report for review before taking a concrete position. What do you have to say?

That is something I do not fully understand. There is already enough information in the fourth assessment report. In fact, there has been a series of reports, giving even firmer and more robust information. What do we expect in the fifth assessment report that is already not in these reports? The fourth report itself was very clear. I wonder what they are trying to do.

What do you feel about India's role in Durban? It is also talking about the fifth report.

It has just become a chorus, everybody is talking about it… Yes, the fifth report is expected to have some details and new issues, probably a little more regional information, but in essence not a major leap from where we are currently. This reminds of the little anecdote about a courtier appreciating the emperor's new clothes, when actually he was naked. Everybody else present also started praising the attire. It's just that nobody wanted to be different.

India again raised the equity issue in Durban, after putting it on the backburner in Cancun and Copenhagen.

It is a reiteration of what UNFCCC has already stated in "common but differentiated responsibility". But we should also not lose sight of the fact that it is a common responsibility, and every country should do whatever it possibly can, depending on its needs, capacity and ability.

Environment put at sea in Durban

Thinkstockphotos/ Getty Images

The legacy of the "imperfect deal" — as it was called by all participants — at the Copenhagen climate conference two years back continued in the Durban summit last December. People's need had lost out to political manoeuvring.

The reason for Durban's failure to come up with a perfect deal, however, was different — and perhaps more fundamental — from Copenhagen. In Copenhagen, the "imperfectness" was linked with the process. The chairman of the conference had bulldozed a consensus with the help of a few countries. A year later, Cancun "officially" ratified almost what Copenhagen had proposed, but after more transparent and representative deliberations. Yet, neither of the drafts was revolutionary, dealing basically with the extension and modification of the existing global regime of climate change.

Durban was a game changer, with fundamental changes being unanimously agreed upon vis-à-vis future climate regime. Instead of the Kyoto Protocol being extended to a second commitment period, the European Union pushed through its road map for all countries — targeting China and India — to undertake legally binding emission cuts from 2020. The move had the support of smaller and vulnerable countries threatened by weather change, who felt India and China had been blocking their flow of climate funds by not accepting binding cuts.

However, by the end of the Durban meet, India and China had ensured that the final text remained vague enough to keep scope for future bargaining. As a matter of fact, Durban succeeded in being a rare international agreement that largely satisfied the political interests of all major countries concerned. While the European Union was happy to have made India and China agree to a legal emission cut net; the US was a winner by getting one more decade for initiating binding cuts despite being one of the biggest CO2 emitters. The smaller countries felt that with emerging economies joining the cuts, climate finance would finally flow. China and India, though pushed into a deal nobody thought possible, took solace in the fact that they could at least ensure that the Kyoto protocol would survive. Also, they retained bargaining chips for the future, ranging from "common but differentiated responsibility" to "equity".

PACT OF CONVENIENCE

Despite being a political winner, Durban was a flop deal when it came to safeguarding the interest of the planet. Several scientific reports released in Durban or just before had warned far greater political was required to ensure the sustainability of life in earth.

The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) report highlighted there could be a 6-11 "gigatonne gap" (1 gigatonne = 1 billion tonne) between what we needed and what was being pledged in the emission cut of carbondioxide and other greenhouse gases. This would lead to further global warming.

Another study by Germans claimed the current carbon pledges would lead to a warming of 3.5 degrees Celsius by 2100, rather than 2 degrees Celsius, as agreed upon in Cancun. The consequences would be disastrous.

The Intergovernmental Penal on Climate Change had earlier predicted that by mid-century, temperatures could be up by 3 degrees Celsius, peaking at 5 degrees Celsius towards the end of the century.

Politicians, confronted by such disastrous possibilities, chose to play with words. The agreement barely reflected any concern, apart from the wish that all countries “should be more ambitious in cutting emissions”.

WHY THE DISINTEREST

The question arises why the political leadership chose not to act on an issue as important as survival of the planet. Part of the answer may lie in a success story reported a fortnight before the Durban conference. It stated that emission of an average 8 gigatonne of carbondioxide and other greenhouse gases' per year had been prevented between 1988 and 2010 as a result of the Montreal protocol. This protocol had been undertaken to phase out ozone depleting substances to protect the ozone layer in the atmosphere. Many feel that the protocol proved successful as the ozone holes — which can trigger a host of diseases — were close to many developed countries. On the other hand, the countries that run the most risk from overall climate change are not the ones that produce the most emissions. The urgency is thus missing. — JAYANTA BASU