|
|
|
|
|
Rise of Akhilesh Yadav
Not without work
The female factor |
|
|
|
Nepal’s ties with India, China
Not for the chicken-hearted
THE TRIBUNE DEBATE: NCTC
|
Rise of Akhilesh Yadav
THE Samajwadi Party (SP) has ultimately chosen Akhilesh Yadav, the young architect of its victory in the UP Assembly elections, to head the government in the politically most important state of the country. The party patron, Mulayam Singh Yadav, has rightly allowed him to take up the reins of power ignoring the reluctance shown by some senior party leaders like Shivpal Singh Yadav, the SP supremo’s brother, and Azam Khan, a close confidant of the senior Yadav. Akhilesh, 38, deserved to be rewarded for his marvellous achievement. He will formally take over on March 15 as the yougest ever Chief Minister of UP. The SP had done very poorly in the 2007 assembly elections and got its strength reduced from 35 MPs to 24 in the 2009 parliamentary polls. But now it has won an absolute majority in the UP House mainly because of the strategy devised by Akhilesh. The young chief of the SP saw to it that his party’s following was not confined to its traditional supporters like Yadavs and Muslims. His strategy worked wonders. He emerged as the hero of UP’s youngsters, who saw in him a new kind of politician showing the capacity to deliver the goods. The younger population is mainly interested in development and creation of adequate employment opportunities. This means a clear focus on industrialisation of the state in a big way to change the economic face of UP. The second most significant challenge for Akhilesh is how to change the image of the SP as a party of “lathaits” (people seeking solution to their problems by using the stick or by indulging in violence). Some of the SP’s supporters did a great disservice to the party when they resorted to violence to settle scores with Dalits and others soon after the election results were announced. They need to be punished for taking the law into their own hands even if they are members of the SP. A serious decline in law and order was a major issue in the 2007 assembly elections when the SP was routed by the BSP of Mayawati. She can exploit this image of the SP in the 2014 parliamentary polls if the Akhilesh Yadav government does not take law and order as seriously as it deserves.
|
|
Not without work THE beleaguered Punjab Congress chief, Capt Amarinder Singh, has prepared a long list of reasons for the defeat in the state to present to party president Sonia Gandhi. Most of the explanations are valid, too, at least prima facie. But the party will be doing a disservice to itself if all blame is put on external factors. The foremost explanation that the PPP and the BSP took away its votes — which is a fact — means the party was banking on anti-incumbency more than positive vote for itself. The party waking up just three months before the elections was akin to a student bunking classes throughout the year, and then preparing just before exams. He then has to depend on means other than studies. In fact, this is the case with most parties when they are in the Opposition. They do no work. While most leaders take a break to run their personal businesses, the keen among them limit themselves to issuing Press notes condemning every action of the government. The Congress in Punjab was no different. While there were many candidates from top political families in the fray, most of them would never be seen among the voters when there is no election on, definitely not without a posse of aids conducting them around. The voter has changed, is aware of his rights, and can’t be fooled with words. Deeds are what will be remembered. One factor that also hit the Congress is its management structure, which the state unit could have done little about. That is also the problem with the other “national” party, the BJP. A lot of the management of the state unit is done by the high command in Delhi, which may not always be aware of the ground situation. Therein lay the reason for the fractious approach of the state leaders. They are empowered by the top leadership, not the people. The Congress now has to work its way ground up. Every ticket aspirant for 2017 needs to get to the people today, and serve for the next five years.
|
|
|
The female factor IF the sisterly compliments coming from across the border ring nice to our ears, they may not necessarily ring true. When Shad Begum of Pakistan, who received the 2012 International Woman of Courage award from US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, showered praise on the women of India for their courage and boldness, perhaps she did not know that many achievers from Haryana revealed in a recent interview to a newsmagazine that they did not report instances of sexual harassment to their family. If they did so, they would be asked to leave studies, or would be soon married off to a stranger. For most Indian women, who dare to realise their dreams, choices are getting narrower due to rising crimes against their gender. Women may have been told that they make half the sky, to feed the romance of equality, they do not own half the land. The law may have given them equal rights in property, but many women are killed under different pretexts so that the family can save a piece of land for its male inheritors. A woman’s health comes under government scanner only during her reproductive years; what happens to her before and after is of no concern to the authorities. Thousands of girls drop out of school once they reach puberty because these institutions do not provide required sanitation, and parents fear for their security. In fact, Bangladesh has shown better enrolment of girls in schools. In a research paper published by a Harvard University journal, it was found that women prefer to sit dumb in board meetings while their male counterparts brag about their accomplishments. Or, they become too conciliatory. Most women feel safe underplaying themselves. If this is the story of women who aspire to break the glass-ceiling in a liberal society, Ms Shad can well imagine the kind of music women have to face in India. Outsiders admire India when they look at women dominating the Indian political scenario, little do they know that the female sex has just about 9 per cent representation in Parliament.
|
|
|
Believe that life is worth living and your belief will help create the fact. — William James
|
Nepal’s ties with India, China
WHEN Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao visited Kathmandu on January 14, after the deferment of his earlier scheduled visit, the media highlighted the largesse of economic aid and other kinds of assistance. There were certain diplomatic nuances, too, which could not miss the attention of the discerning observers of Nepal’s foreign policy postures towards China and India. During the five-hour visit the Chinese Premier announced a “one-time special grant” of $20 million as well as an assistance of 200 million RMB ($31.75 million) this year under a 750 million RMB grant spread over three years. China also committed to providing both economic and technical support to strengthen Nepal’s police force. Yet another highlight of the visit was that Wen impressed upon Nepal’s Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai to continue Nepal’s warm and friendly ties with India. Wen’s overture found its resonance in New Delhi when India’s Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh echoed the same sentiment nine days later to the visiting Deputy Prime Minister of Nepal, Bijay Gachedar. It is too early to say if the two countries are on the same page so far as Nepal is concerned. For long China’s engagement in South Asia vis-à-vis India has been perceived in the prism of a zero-sum game with India. Ever since Baburam Bhattarai became the Prime Minister in August 2011, he has been trying very hard to change this perception and paradigm. It may be recalled that when Bhattarai was appointed Nepal’s Prime Minister, he said in the Nepalese Parliament that Nepal was not a buffer state, but a bridge between India and China. Bhattrai, who studied at New Delhi’s Jawaharlal Nehru University, known for its left leanings, has an intimate affinity with India. Yet another illustration of Bhattrai’s smart diplomacy is his proposal to integrate the much-touted Lumbini project, supported by China, with Sarnath, Kushinagar and Bodh Gaya. How does one explain the convergence, if any, of China’s and India’s interests in Nepal? In the first place, it is in a way a reflection of the recent bonhomie between India and China after the spat over the South China Sea, where India’s state-owned Oil and Natural Gas Commission (ONGC) Videsh is exploring oil and gas. After the East Asia summit in Bali in November last year, both New Delhi and Beijing have papered over their differences, and there has been an exchange of goodwill gestures between the two countries. The Special Representatives of the two countries held the 15th round of border talks in Delhi on January 16 and 17. China’s overtures in turn can be related to the US attempts to mentor India in the Asia-Pacific to counter-balance China. Moreover, Beijing realises that in case the peace process in Nepal fails, the void should not be left to the US to fish in troubled waters. Considering that Myanmar is slowly slipping away from China’s sphere of influence, yielding to increasing US and India’s joint engagement under the juggernaut of democracy, Beijing feels winning India’s trust and confidence in Nepal will be a better option than leaving it to the US influencing India’s involvement in Nepal. Bhattrai knows well that in this gargantuan task of peace and prosperity in Nepal, the support and cooperation of both India and China are highly essential. No wonder, therefore, that he chose to visit India in October last year, after Dr Manmohan Singh invited him on the sidelines of the 66th session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York in his itinerary abroad after being elected the Prime Minister of the country. Thus, the visit was a vindication of India’s sustained and proactive efforts and diplomacy. To put India-Nepal relations on an even keel, India’s ace diplomat, former Foreign Secretary and envoy to Nepal Shyam Saran was deputed to Nepal in 2010, and later Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao visited Nepal in January last year. New Delhi had also engaged CPM leader Sitaram Yechury who played a key role as an interlocutor in Nepal’s peace process in February last year, in bringing the Maoists into Nepal’s political mainstream. It was against this backdrop that the visit of the Nepalese President to India took place in January-February last year. New Delhi offered Kathmandu a soft line of credit amounting to $250 million and a substantial amount of foodgrains to mitigate the problem of food security. Bhattarai seems to have realised the wisdom of equi-proximity to the two neighbours. Although India’s relationship with Nepal is rooted in the history and culture of the two countries, it has always been delicate and sensitive. For a sizeable number of the Nepalese who work in India, including in the defence services, India is like a second home for them. The two countries share an open border. India continues to remain Nepal’s largest trade partner, and accounts for about 60 per cent of Nepal’s total external trade. India was Nepal’s largest source of foreign investment, accounting for 44 per cent of the total foreign direct investment in Nepal for 2010-11. Nepalese leaders had participated in India’s freedom struggle and Indian leaders like late Prime Minister, Chandra Sekhar, were good friends of Nepali Congress leaders such as D.P.Koirala. Be that as it may, India and China are like apples and oranges in their relationship with Nepal. The fruit basket of Nepal needs both. India and China should shed their traditional approach of engagement in South Asia and attempt to find out areas of convergence in the socio- economic development of a third country like Nepal. It may be mentioned in this connection that India has joined hands with Nepal and China for the conservation of the sacred Kailash landscape. China played host to representatives from the three countries in September 2010 when they met in Jiuzhaigou (Sichuan) in China to discuss on the landscape conservation initiative. The workshop was organised by the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD). The members of the group discussed initial steps in developing a regional cooperation framework for the sacred landscape, including the conservation strategy and the environment monitoring plan. The framework aims at focusing on trans-boundary biodiversity and environmental and cultural conservation, scientific and technical cooperation, information exchange and sharing, regional guidelines and policy mechanisms. This is just one illustration of trilateral cooperation and collaboration. Given the right political will, there can be many more such trilateral
initiatives. The writer is a Senior Fellow at the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, New Delhi.
|
|||
Not for the chicken-hearted
I
have been noble in the noble profession for decades now. Noble because I keep on getting, quietly, contagious diseases from the patients I see. And then everybody asks, "You are a doctor ... how can you fall ill?" Tell me, aren't doctors mortals? Sometimes I feel God should at least make them immune from these diseases (read unwanted gifts from patients) because they really endanger their health treating the latter. Despite the questioning I have to put up with, there's obviously a deep sense of contentment in healing others even if it means endangering your own health ( the Indian system and the government's apathy towards the medical profession, notwithstanding ). Any doctor will agree. The other day, I woke up with high fever and pockmarks
on my belly. My basic medical knowledge told me that yes (alas!) it was chicken-pox. Despite my best efforts to come to terms with my latest illness, I felt disheartened. The thought of how the ensuing week or so would go added to my frustration. I desperately searched for the patient who I might have examined and who in return might have given me this gift (along with my consultation fee). I even approached the police, who politely told me that they have better things to do, with ever-increasing crime rate ( unsolved cases notwithstanding ). And within days, chicken-pox bloomed and blossomed to indicate that it was not for the chicken-hearted. Looking at my face in the mirror, it took a while for an eye surgeon to recognise himself — "Gosh! What has happened to my Bollywoodish face? It resembled somebody ... yes, Saddam Hussein. And where have 6 Abs gone," I talked to myself in the mirror and tried to put up a brave face. My children were insensitive and began enjoying my metamorphosis. They had nothing else to do except for clicking my photographs, every now and then, for the album, lest we forget these days. At that time I ordered my orderly to get me a Burqua.I went up to my mother and grudged," Why didn't you let chicken-pox happen to me in childhood? Had you been a little careful (careless), I wouldn't have had to suffer now." I was consigned and packed off to the remotest corner of the house — perhaps my real status and place of belonging, which they all had been trying to impress upon me all these years. Everybody was afraid of me, not because of my personality of being a dictator but because of the possibility of catching the pox. Lying and grieving in bed with terrific pain, tremendous discomfort and unimaginable suffering, I remembered my English teacher and all the idioms like "only a wearer knows where the shoe pinches” and the "taste of own medicine". Since I was taking longer than usual to recuperate, my best friend suggested, "I know you are jack of all trades, but medically you are just an eye specialist. You don't seem to know much about this illness. Why don't you consult a specialist." "You mean a non-vegetarian doctor," I asked, boasting of my vegetarian status all my life. And why? " I don't want to waste money in paying his fee unnecessarily. Paying the doctor's fee also pinches me, just like you all," I retorted. The pox has since died ; the agony over. The charm and glamour is back, so is the stardom. I know beauty is not forever, but like Rajiv Gandhi said," I am young. I also have a dream." And like a good doctor and a good patient, I am proud not to have passed on this disease to anybody. But immediately after the chicken-pox incident, I could be seen munching a leg-piece, brutally, with a vengeance,
perhaps.
|
|||
THE TRIBUNE DEBATE: NCTC To move from this assessment of threat, and the history of dramatic terrorist attacks and response failures, to the conclusion that the National Counter-terrorism Centre (NCTC), in the form and format presently proposed by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs (UMHA) is necessary, however, requires a leap of faith that is difficult to come by, even among officials at the Centre, and much less in the States. This is ironic since, over the past several years, and particularly after the 26/11 Mumbai attacks, there has been an increasing acceptance of the idea that at least some centralisation of counter-terrorism (CT) functions and capabilities, and a greater role for central agencies, are now necessary. Indeed, despite the stridency of protests from the Chief Ministers, who have objected to aspects of the Union Ministry of Home Affair’s NCTC order, all of them prefaced their opposition with
an acknowledgement of the rising threat of terrorism, of the urgency of securing significant improvements in response, and of the necessity of greater Centre-State cooperation and coordination. It is, in other words, not the broad idea of an increased Central role in Counter Terrorism, or the imperatives of institutional transformations at the Centre, that are being contested. Rather, the problem lies in the manner in which the NCTC has been sought to be established, the necessity or otherwise of particular elements that have been included within its powers and functions, the implied logic of some of these transformations, and the absence of prior consultations and consensus building with the States, especially with regard to the delegation of powers, that could potentially disturb existing Centre-State equations.
LESS THAN IMPRESSIVE It is these specifics, rather than the noisy debate over generalisations, that will demand far greater attention as the Union Home Secretary meets with the DGPs from States to scrutinise and discuss the NCTC proposals on March 12 and as the Centre, over the coming days, seeks to build a consensus among the Chief Ministers. What are the most significant elements that require centralisation within the current context? The first and most important of these is an effective national intelligence network and database. The core of this complex – a database on crime and terrorism – will necessarily lie with the Centre, but its substance and sinews will need to be provided in significant measure by the States. Of course, central agencies will also have to strengthen their own intelligence gathering networks; however, it would be utterly misguided to believe that the Central agencies alone can generate the volume and complexity of intelligence that is required for prevention of terror and response to terror in a country as large and diverse as India, irrespective of the scale of the projected augmentation of capacities. The augmentation of the State intelligence and policing apparatus, and its integration with this network, is essential to the success of the proposed national intelligence network and database. Unfortunately, the record of both the Centre and the States in taking this project forward has been far from impressive. At the Centre, the creation of the national intelligence network and database was a task allocated to the Multi-Agency Centre (MAC) within the Intelligence Bureau (IB). More than three years after its creation, MAC is still to get its belly off the ground; and the States’ performance in the creation of the State Wide Area Networks (SWAN) and State Data Centres (SDC), crucial to the construction of the national intelligence database, has, in most cases, been abysmal. Some commentators have sought to harness these failures to their arguments in support of the present NCTC initiative, contending that it is precisely the failure of MAC that has made the NCTC necessary. This, however, is tantamount to the claim that, since we have failed to cross a three feet high hurdle, we must now jump over one that is six feet high. The argument against the Centre, here, is that, having failed to set up an effective MAC, how will it suddenly acquire the genius, capability and capacity to set up an effective
NCTC?
CENTRE ALSO FAILED Another line of reasoning arises out of the failure of the States to fulfil their mandate and responsibilities with regard to policing and law and order management. This, it is contended, has made it necessary for the Centre to augment its own role and jurisdiction. This, however, evades crucial questions regarding the Centre’s own failures to act efficiently and effectively, to develop adequate capabilities and capacities to fulfil its own mandate, and to use Central agencies in a manner that is transparent and free from partisan political abuse. Some of the States have, certainly, undermined counter-terrorism initiatives purely on narrow partisan, electoral or regional/communal considerations. Some States have, for instance, refused to act within the ambit of the law against banned organisations, such as the Students Islamic Movement of India, on communal vote bank considerations. But such perverse politics is not within the compass of the States alone, and particular regimes at the Centre have been just as susceptible to a perverse application of laws and powers. The political and administrative culture at the Centre is not all that radically different from that of the States, and there is no reason to believe that the Centre is necessarily in better health than at least some of the States. This, indeed, gives meat to objections against a specific provision of the UMHA’s NCTC order: the ascription of the power to “prescribe counter terrorism priorities for each stakeholder”. Regimes of particular ideological hue may well use such prescriptive authority to direct Counter Terrorism resources and operations against, or away from, terrorist organisations of particular colour. NCTC has also been justified in terms of what are perceived as endemic ‘coordination failures’ in the face of major terrorist strikes. However, the cacophony of mutual recrimination between Centre and States in the wake of major terrorist strikes is not the consequence of any breakdown of ‘effective coordination’ as often as is made out, or of the absence of a centralised mechanism for command and control; it is, rather, a consequence of the shared incompetence and incapacity of both Central and State agencies. This failure of implementation, rather than any specific deficit in institutional ‘architecture’, continues to undermine Counter Terrorism capabilities. There is no reason to believe that this will, abruptly, end with the creation of another infirm and incoherent Central institution, particularly if it is opposed by a significant proportion of State Governments. Moreover, given the Centre’s recent record of institution building, there is little reason to believe that the NCTC will be anything but infirm, incoherent and incompetent.
CONFIDENCE, NOT CONFRONTATION All this said, there is a strong case for greater coordination of our Counter Terrorism responses. It is indeed an urgent imperative. The Khalistani terrorists in Punjab had, at one time, spread across a number of States, or used several border States for transit, safe haven and smuggling of cadres, arms and resources from Pakistan. The sheer divergence of the quality of responses from State to State was one of the key problems that had to be overcome, before effective Counter Terrorism success could be secured. There were numerous misunderstandings and much time – and often lives – wasted. Tremendous coordination across agencies and States was, eventually, achieved. Today, the challenge of Pakistan-backed Islamist terrorism, as well as of other streams of extremist violence, has created a multiplicity of nationwide challenges. The Centre will certainly have to take the initiative to bring about a measure of uniformity and effectiveness in national Counter Terrorism capabilities and responses. In doing so, however, the Centre will have to take the States into confidence, rather than creating a situation of confrontation – as is the current case. Although badly begun, the process can still be retrieved. Haste and unilateralism need to be avoided, and States’ objections should be looked into very carefully. The States must also recognise that contemporary terrorism constitutes a challenge that was not envisaged at the time of the drafting of the Indian Constitution. The Founding Fathers could not have imagined the sheer scale and virulence of terrorism that India, indeed the world, confronts today. Elements of the Constitutional distribution of powers need to be explicitly discussed with all ‘stakeholders’, to secure consensual changes necessitated by changing circumstances. Crucially, constitutional, legislative and institutional changes must keep the imperatives, both of Counter Terrorism and of rule of law, constantly in focus. The present NCTC order makes no provision for any effective monitoring mechanism, and this is essential, not only to ensure that there is no abuse of power, but also that there is effective and efficient use of power and resources by the institutional infrastructure that is being raised in the name of Counter Terrorism imperatives. The entire administrative edifice is collapsing across the country today, because there is no effective audit of performance. This cannot be allowed to happen to the Counter Terrorism institutions that are being created as an urgent necessity. For the time being, moreover, there should be no delay in implementing the measures deemed most essential to secure effective Counter Terrorism capabilities. If it is not possible to settle all issues immediately, provisional arrangements may be consensually drafted, with an assurance to the States that these are transient and subject to continuous review, in confidence with State Governments, and subject to early (though not hasty) legislative and constitutional validation. (The writer is former DGP, Punjab Police and President, Institute for Conflict Management)
|
|
| HOME PAGE | |
Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir |
Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs |
Nation | Opinions | | Business | Sports | World | Letters | Chandigarh | Ludhiana | Delhi | | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | E-mail | |
THERE is, without doubt, a tremendous and enduring threat of terrorism in India, and the regional geopolitical environment suggests that this threat may well become even more sinister in the foreseeable future. It is also acknowledged that past responses to major terrorist attacks were found wanting, with specific and glaring lacunae visible in the quality of coordination between various intelligence and enforcement agencies at the Centre, between the Centre and the States, and both within and between the States. 