The Tribune, Chandigarh, India

Ice starts melting
Indo-Canadian ties come out of freezer

For the first time the head of a foreign government has paid a visit to the birthplace of the Khalsa, Anandpur Sahib, where Virasat-e-Khalsa has become a centre of attraction. But then Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who has already been to the Golden Temple at Amritsar, has a large population of immigrant Sikhs in Canada supporting his Conservative Party.

In India on a six-day visit, Harper was persuaded by the Punjab government to extend his Chandigarh visit to Anandpur Sahib. Another unusual but laudatory gesture on the part of Harper was to have a taste of Punjabi food at a “dhaba” in Chandigarh.

Given the interest of Canadian leaders in Punjab and the political clout overseas Punjabis have in Canada, the Punjab government could have used the Prime Minister’s visit to invite Canadian investment in the state. There may be prosperous Punjabi NRIs willing to do their bit for the state of their origin but the government has to first create an investor-friendly environment. Political disinterest, bureaucratic delays and rampant corruption apart from inadequate power supply and high land prices discourage private investment, foreign as well as domestic, in Punjab. Canada is home to many Sikh hardliners who fund separatist elements. Extremist activities in Canada can discourage further immigration from Punjab. The Central government has conveyed India’s concern to the visiting dignitary.

Stephen Harper is not just on a sight-seeing tour of Indian cities. Before coming to Chandigarh, he had struck a deal with the Indian government, enabling Canadian companies to ship — for the first time in four decades — uranium and nuclear hardware to India, which plans to build 40 new reactors in the next 20 years to meet its growing energy needs. A free-trade agreement has not materialised as also an investor protection pact, which Canada is keen on after the tax issues Vodafone faced in India. The scope for the expansion of bilateral trade is immense. Harper’s visit removes some of the hurdles.

Worries in Afghanistan
Time for India to be proactive

Afghanistan is faced with an uncertain situation again. With the US troops scheduled to be withdrawn from there by July 2014, various Taliban factions will get a fresh opportunity to start implementing their destructive agenda. Their links with Pakistan remain intact. Chances are that the Taliban may become part of the power structure openly.

This is what the US under President Barack Obama wants. President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan had been struggling for a long time to induct some Taliban factions into his government, but could not succeed. The situation may, however, change with the complete pullout of the foreign troops from Afghanistan. What the US and Karzai wanted would become a reality on its own.

Incidentally, 2014 is the year when Afghanistan will also have its presidential elections. As it is believed, the present government headed by Karzai may get replaced by a national unity government with the Taliban being in a position to dictate terms. There may be an open invitation to Pakistan to play a role in the scenario that would then prevail in Kabul. Pakistan’s ISI, which has invested considerably in helping some of the Taliban factions survive all these years, will obviously use its proxies to realise the long-cherished dream of Islamabad —- to get strategic depth.

This is an alarming outline of the state of affairs in Afghanistan in the days to come. When President Karzai holds talks with Indian leaders during his four-day visit to India beginning today, he must be presented this disturbing picture. It is true that the US and the Karzai government want India to contribute liberally to the task of rebuilding of Afghanistan. The people in that strife-torn country, too, now realise the positive role being played by India in developing infrastructure in Afghanistan. But the political dispensation that is likely to emerge after the international troop withdrawal may be very challenging for Indian diplomacy. Now is the time for India to become proactive with the help of regional powers like Russia and Iran to prevent Pakistan and its proxies from creating a situation in Afghanistan which may again endanger peace in the region.

Thought for the Day

Happiness is an inside job. —William Arthur Ward

ARTICLE

Scene after big reshuffle
Not a pretty picture at all
by Inder Malhotra

ON Thursday, November 1 — just three days after the “big bang” reshuffle of his council of ministers — Prime Minister Manmohan Singh called a meeting of his entire “new look” team to speak to them candidly about the facts of life. “Our growth has decelerated, our exports have fallen, and our fiscal deficits are expanding,” he told them. “Of particular concern is the fiscal deficit which is too high and acts as a deterrent to domestic and foreign investment.” Declaring that the country must “overcome the constraints that currently deter or slow down investment”, Dr Singh listed “fuel supply arrangements, security and environmental clearances, and financing difficulties” as the main challenges.

His Finance Minister P. Chidambaram painted an even gloomier picture: Fiscal deficit target of 5.1 per cent was likely to be exceeded, tax revenues were so sluggish that it would be difficult to meet the 19.5 growth estimated in the last budget, partial sale of shares in public sector undertakings had “yet to kick off” even though nearly half the financial year is over, the expectation of collecting Rs 40,000 crore from the spectrum auction was also in doubt, and so on. He concluded by asking his colleagues “aggressively to embark upon fiscal consolidation through controlling expenditure, especially on subsidies, and by raising more resources through disinvestments during the remaining five months”.

“Foreign investment is not an option, but an absolute necessity”.

This should explain why the Prime Minister, while showing full awareness of the compulsions of the general election in 2014, emphasised that the government’s “responsibilities for and commitments to nation-building” had to “transcend other considerations”. This was as clear a hint as possible that some bold decisions, even if unpopular, would have to be taken.

Within an hour or so after the ministerial meeting’s dispersal, TV channels began announcing, most agitatedly, that oil companies had increased the price of “non-subsidy” cooking gas cylinders by Rs 26 each. Evidently, the companies couldn’t have done this without at least the tacit concurrence of the Union Petroleum Ministry. Since this immediately gave rise to public outrage, some observers concluded that the “paralysed” Congress-led government had at last chosen to bite the bullet. How wrong they were!

For, rather late at night the Petroleum Ministry decided to put the LPG price increase “on hold”, whatever that might mean. Later, official sources revealed that the ministry was having “second thoughts”, and was mulling an increase in the number of subsidised cylinders from six to nine. Did the Rip Wan Winkles of the ministry need to be told by someone else that it was imprudent to announce the price rise not only a day before the Hindu festival of Karva Chauth and rather close to Diwali but also just three days ahead of the voting in the assembly election in Himachal Pradesh? Hopefully, they know by now that the far more crucial election in Gujarat is still a month away.

Such a flip-flop cannot but erode the credibility of the Manmohan Singh government’s brave new vow to follow its resolve to implement a new series of reforms. Unfortunately, an equally damaging flip-flop took place also within the Congress party, and that too, at the highest level.

In a span of two days — in response to Janata Party president Subramanian Swamy’s allegation that the Young India company owned by Congress president Sonia Gandhi and party general secretary Rahul Gandhi had “illegally” given an “unsecured, interest-free” loan of Rs 90 crore to Associated Journals Limited, once the publishers of the now-defunct National Herald, founded in 1938 by Jawaharlal Nehru — the Congress leadership changed its position three times. On day one, a statement issued by Mr Rahul Gandhi’s office described Mr Swamy’s allegations as “utterly false, entirely baseless and defamatory” and threatened to sue him. The Janata chief replied that he would be happy to meet Mr Gandhi in court.

Thereupon, the Congress changed tack. Its spokesman P.C. Chacko declaimed that if Mr Swamy had the “guts”, he should go to court to prove his charges against the top Congress leaders. There was nothing more to be said. As usual, many others vigorously repeated the party line. Ironically, this exercise was on when the party leadership changed its line yet again. It admitted that it had loaned AJL the said amount but not for commercial activity. The loan was for resurrecting the newspaper that spread the message of the Mahatma and Nehru. This was not only a political act but also the Congress’ “dharma”. Mr Swamy has now petitioned the Election Commission and sought “de-recognition” of the Congress party. The commission’s verdict has to be awaited.

However, the BJP’s attempts to profit from Congress’ discomfiture, always pathetic, is now backfiring. This is so because the shenanigans of its president, Nitin Gadkari and his dubious firms, often with non-existent addresses, are a bigger embarrassment than the Congress is facing. The RSS, which is to the BJP what 10 Janpath is to the Congress, had gone so far as to force an amendment to the party constitution to give him a second term. It is having second thoughts now. Meanwhile, the phalanx of the BJP is defending its beleaguered president as unabashedly as the Congress phalanx did in the case of the Congress president’s son-in-law, Robert Vadra.

The week’s dramatic event was the Congress rally on Sunday in the national Capital, the first of its kind, as far as I know. It had two main messages: One, that for once the party and the government were united behind economic reforms, including foreign direct investment (FDI) in multi-brand retail trade; and secondly, that the ruling party had decided to go on the offensive against all its critics, especially the BJP. If that was indeed the purpose, only Mrs Sonia Gandhi — who, unlike the Prime Minister, is a feisty speaker — succeeded in achieving it. Her son marred his effort to be equally aggressive by equating the Kargil war with (FDI) in retail trade — something not as crass as Mr Gadkari’s equation of the IQ of Swami Vivekanand with that of Dawood Ibrahim, the mafia don and terrorist but untenable.

The most important point, however, is that more such public rallies are a must, and in all parts of the country. A flash in the pan just will not do.

MIDDLE

‘Beware of dogs’
by Madan Gupta Spatu

On a festival I went to see one of my old friends after a long time. With his small name-plate hangs another big one with bold letters —’Beware of Dogs’. To my call bell, six dogs responded along with the friend’s greetings, “Langh aaoo…... langh aaoo Spatuji”. To my query whether his pets bite and can taste my B positive blood, he informed from the first floor, “Five don’t bite, I am sure, but I cannot say about the Marshall whom I purchased last night only. You just come inside; I will also come to know about his nature.”

I am not aware whether all his dogs figure in his Aadhar Card, but it is confirmed that he got the names of his wife and three children deleted from the electoral list and the ration card as soon as they deserted him due to his love for dogs in Shanti Niwas. My friend has now forgotten the names of his relatives. All in his memory box are replaced names of relatives like Alsatian, Boozo, Labrador, Julie, German Spitz, Coco, Puppy instead of relatives’ names which he used to boast like Arvind, Lal Singh, Jatinder, Germany Daas, Kukku and Pappu. In their company he forgot his own ailments. On meeting, he complained, “My Lilly had a nervous breakdown yesterday; Puppy got pregnant; Robby requires exercise in a good gym; Blacky is under-weight…”

While I started relishing the tasty snacks and hot tea in his drawing room, a dog pounced upon the cup. My friend removed my fear, “Don’t be panicky! Perhaps mistakenly, I have served the snacks in Puppy’s plate. You just return it to her; I will bring another one for you.”

As the sun sets, our street turns into an empire of dogs, the canines pounce on the new visitors and save the residents from sales boys and girls, specially professional and perennial ‘donation collectors’, et al. They direct the permanent residents to walk swiftly or run fast to their respective homes only as soon as they enter the street by following their feet. If you are driving a car or a two-wheeler, they run parallel till you reach your own home.

At a nearby temple in our area, all stray dogs assemble and hold meetings under a banyan tree, from morning till noon where the worshippers park their vehicles. The devotees are supposed to oblige them first with “parshad” before reaching the deities inside, otherwise the gang makes you aware — what your blood group is. Whosoever brings a new vehicle for “pooja”, they waste no time to sanctify the tyre with one leg raised up in the air before any “punditji” breaks coconut as a ritual to save the owner from the police and accidents.

The administration has its own fantastic plans to curb the dog menace. It has advised not to keep more than two dogs in a house. It conducts census over census to know their exact population as if the statistics will help the Planning Commission in formulating some strong fiscal policy to arrest the inflation. Then some family planning schemes have been launched besides issuing their registration, death and birth certificates. On the contrary, animal lovers and administration are debating about whom to protect, dogs’ life or human life.

Meanwhile, one trader who deals in dogs’ accessories, food items and anti-rabbies vaccines is doing roaring business. Dog trainers and dog dealers too are doing brisk business in the era when poor children remain hungry. A canine catwalk after the dog shows also proves a crowd-puller. Newspapers may not cover a social event, but pictures of dog shows do appear on the front page. Facebook is flooded with their photos with pride as if they have grabbed the highest position in an IIT entrance test or passed some administrative examination.

In journalistic jargon, when a man bites a dog, it makes news, but now this defunct norm does not prevail in the fourth estate. Today when a dog bites a judge or a municipal councillor, it hits the headlines. If the owner of the dog is arrested for a fault of his pet, readers send their comments on the burning issue and the media stretches such series like a “Saas-Bahu” serial as it happened in the case of a dispute between an IAS and IPS officer over dogs till it became sub judice.n

OPED World

The tenacity of hope
Barack Obama’s re-election was not only a triumph of campaign organisation and political resilience in an age of economic discontent, it stood as a victory for common sense – a reflection of what America truly is
Rupert Cornwell

To outward appearances, little today is different: $6bn of spending has produced an unchanged Democratic President, a repeat of the last divided Congress and, it is confidently forecast, continued political dysfunction. And yet something fascinating and profoundly hopeful has happened, too.

Many are describing this election as the “status quo election”. There are fears that it comes as a mere prelude to a disastrous rush over the looming “fiscal cliff”

Barack Obama’s re-election was not only a triumph of campaign organisation and political resilience in an age of economic discontent, it stood as a victory for common sense – a reflection of what America truly is, rather than the fulfilment of a warped conservative vision that contradicts reality.

It was even a good night for two much-maligned bodies, the pollsters and the Electoral College.

The former called a close election exactly. The latter, an 18th-century anachronism, did precisely what it’s supposed to do: translate a narrow majority of the popular vote into an unequivocal majority where it constitutionally matters.

Many are describing this as the “status quo election”. There are fears that it comes as a mere prelude to a disastrous rush over the looming “fiscal cliff”.

Obama must now live up to his words. Maybe, freed of electoral pressure, he will slip into the disengaged mode visible at the least successful moments of his first term. That would be disastrous. Vital issues remain, not least immigration reform and overhaul of the unwieldy and loophole-infested US tax code.

Listen to the mean-spirited, but now familiar, reaction of Mitch McConnell, leader of the Republican minority in the Senate, which only reinforces that impression: it was time for the President to deliver, he declared, “to propose solutions that actually have a chance of passing the Republican-controlled House of Representatives and a closely divided Senate”.

In other words the same systematic House opposition to every proposal from the White House, and the same use of the filibuster to paralyse the Senate. Mandate, he might have asked, what mandate?

In fact, it is hard to believe that Congress and the President will not find a safe path down from the “fiscal cliff”, a combination of mandated spending cuts and tax increases that will automatically take effect in January 2013. If not, economists warn, a fragile economy will be driven back into recession, amid the deepening eurozone crisis that helped send Wall Street tumbling yesterday. Did not Churchill note that, “We can always count on the Americans to do the right thing, after they have exhausted all the other possibilities”? Surely they will, this time too.

There are other clear upsides of Mr Obama’s victory. For one thing, it ensures the survival of his healthcare reform, his defining legislative achievement. Obamacare is admittedly imperfect. But it is long overdue, bringing the US more or less into line with other rich countries that provide guaranteed coverage for all their citizens. His re-election also means that for the next four years American foreign policy, starting with a perilous showdown with Iran over its nuclear programme, will be in the hands of a leader of proven cool and sound judgement, who no longer has to worry about his next election.

That brings us to the most fascinating element of all: How will this supremely rational but sometimes over-didactic politician behave in his second term? Mr Obama’s victory speech in Chicago on Tuesday night sounded uncannily like the electrifying keynote address to the 2004 Democratic Convention that launched him as a national figure, urging not a blue America and a red America, but the United States of America.

He must now live up to his words. Maybe, freed of electoral pressure, he will slip into the disengaged mode visible at the least successful moments of his first term. That would be disastrous. Vital issues remain, not least immigration reform and overhaul of the unwieldy and loophole-infested US tax code.

Mr Obama would do well to steal a leaf from Bill Clinton, his most effective surrogate during the campaign. That means massaging Congress, spending face time with its members, cajoling Democrats and Republicans alike. This is not the natural style of the 44th President, but it may be the best way of reaching a deal on reducing the deficit, the problem that almost forced a US debt default in 2011 and created the fiscal cliff.

Had Mitt Romney won on Tuesday, the can could have been kicked down the road. It may yet be: never underestimate the ability of politicians to stall. However a short window – perhaps two months – of real opportunity exists. A blueprint moreover exists, the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles plan that combines spending cuts, tax increases and the gradual scaling back of costly entitlement programmes. Mr Obama’s refusal to embrace Simpson-Bowles was one of the errors of his first term.

But the biggest reason for optimism lies in the election’s impact not on the winners, but the losers. Whatever Mr McConnell implies, Republicans suffered a massive defeat that extends far beyond Mr Romney’s defeat. Republicans now face a stark choice: remake themselves, or risk becoming a permanent minority party.

They may have retained the House, where the Tea Party is the driving force and moderates have all but disappeared. But that chamber is a gerrymandered distortion. Ways have not yet been found to gerrymander entire states which elect individual senators, and there the results brook no argument.

Democrats had to defend 23 seats on Tuesday, the Republicans only 10. Yet Democrats actually made a net gain of one or two, winning in several states easily carried by Mr Romney. In the last two cycles, 2010 and 2012, excessively conservative (and poor) candidates cost Republicans at least five sure Senate wins. The lesson is clear: American voters are not in the market for the far-right candidates thrown up by primaries at which only the most committed vote.

Mr Romney started to do better in the campaign only in the later stages, when he moved towards the centre.

The Republican Party of the future must deal with the real America represented in the Obama coalition. It is a coalition of women, young people, Hispanics and other minorities, and urban professionals. If the white, male and ageing Republican Party continues to ignore this truth, it will be marginalised for decades.

—The Independent

2nd terms: Hits & Misses

For the first time since James Monroe in 1820, Americans have given a third consecutive President a second term. Here are the last six incumbents who won twice.

George W Bush

(re-elected 2004)

His second term was a near-unmitigated disaster. Iraq descended into chaos, Hurricane Katrina brutally exposed his lack of management skills. He left office amid the worst financial crisis in 75 years, with approval ratings in the low 30s.

Bill Clinton (1996)

His second term is remembered for the Monica Lewinsky scandal. But its achievements were notable, including a balanced budget. He left office with a 65 per cent approval rating.

Ronald Reagan (1984)

The Iran-Contra scandal overshadowed his second term. But in three summits with Gorbachev he paved the way for the end of the Cold War.

Richard Nixon (1972)

Nixon won a landslide victory, but resigned over Watergate just 21 months later. Early in his second term he signed a Vietnam ceasefire deal, but thereafter was destroyed by the scandal.

Dwight Eisenhower (1956)

The early verdict on Ike's second term was unfavourable. Much of it seemed to be spent on the golf course. In fact he kept America at peace, and enforced school desegregation.

Franklin Roosevelt (1936)

His second term was marred by strikes, a clash with the Supreme Court, and a crushing Democratic defeat in the 1938 midterms. Roosevelt won a third term in 1940, mainly on foreign policy issues.