|
|
|
|
|
Maintaining harmony
Return of the native
Back to belt-tightening |
|
|
|
Never too late to talk
Infantry napkins
Relations with the US: India remains optimistic
|
Maintaining harmony
India
has long prided itself on the wide diversity of its citizens, even as paradoxically the nation has faced communal riots from time to time. Indeed, President Pranab Mukherjee was quite right in maintaining that the country has not learnt lessons from history and that "tragic mistakes" are recurring. He stressed on how it is the constitutional duty of every citizen to promote harmony and a spirit of brotherhood among all sections of society. Differences of area, caste, creed, religion, and language all need to be subsumed under the common national identity of being Indian. Recent events have, unfortunately, shown how far we have gone from such ideals. Indeed, the nation has suffered a torture of thousand cuts as bloodshed in various parts has marred the spirit of communal harmony. Governance and administrative performance fall woefully short at the time of greatest need, resulting in a breakdown of law and order and sometimes deaths. The causes are often minor, the effect a rip in the social fabric that can be repaired only to a certain extent. Sadly, sometimes that too does not happen in the absence of a ‘healing touch’. Ironically, the President’s plainspeak came at an occasion that was a celebration of communal harmony. The plurality and diversity of India is its unique asset, and it must be guarded, especially from zealots who cynically exploit communally sensitive situations for petty political gains. India is the home to many schools of thought, many religions, ethnicities and languages. Vigilance against negative forces and prompt action against wrongdoers is the only way to maintain communal harmony. However, delay in taking action during various riots, including the recent one in Muzaffarnagar, show how dithering by the local administration contributes to the worsening of the situation. Delaying the arrest of the politicians held responsible for instigating the riots further exacerbated the situation. Such actions are a blot on the psyche of the nation that has, overall, managed to maintain communal harmony in spite of many challenges.
|
|
Return of the native
The
past couple of years in Kashmir gave reason for hope. Violence was down on both sides, securitymen as well as militants. Tourism was picking up, and there were comforting stories of youth from the state striving to make it in the national mainstream, including the civil services and sports. The mood has changed this year, however. The death figures are up after a long time. The communal clashes this side of Banihal were no help. The most disturbing news, however, is local youth beginning to join militant ranks once again. Disturbing not just because of the violence they may cause, but because it is also an indicator of a revival of local support to militancy. To fight a man with a gun is far easier than countering poison in the heart. The security agencies on the spot in Kashmir have the responsibility of winning both these battles. That brings on them the onus of extreme caution and self-restraint. At the state level there are the total figures of violence, and a small percentage change may not matter as much, and neither would the circumstances of a death. But on ground — amidst people and their homes — each death of a local, and how the cause of the death is perceived, decides the view the community is going to have of militancy and politics. And there is a whole generation of youth that has seen nothing but violence and tension since birth. There is an increased effort of operators from outside the state and the country to radicalise the community in the Valley. This is what Kashmiris themselves have to guard against. Self-proclaimed 'jihadists' from Pakistan and beyond, as well as certain pockets in India, are trying to impose on Kashmir an agenda that is not its own. As for ensuring the youth find productive engagement, it is the government's job to give them self-realisation opportunities, which will go much farther than the sops the state has got addicted to. Peace, after all, is what everyone longs for.
|
|
|
Back to belt-tightening
Under
pressure to contain the fiscal deficit at the promised 4.8 per cent of the GDP Finance Minister P. Chidambaram has announced austerity measures. Last year he had compressed Plan expenditure to keep the fiscal deficit within the acceptable levels. The ban on holding official conferences and seminars in five-star hotels and barring officials from executive travel are in keeping with the expectations of those who think the government should not waste the taxpayer’s money on non-productive expenditure. But, as West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee has pointed out, why should the UPA think of austerity only towards the end of its term? That should be a norm for every government. The government intends to cut jobs too. Quite often job cuts are done at the lower levels. When growth slows, employment generation also comes to a near halt. Private companies rather lay off workers. If at such a time governments also cut spending, especially on new projects, education and health, the growth pick-up chances recede further. Since elections are around the corner, the government proposes to raise the food subsidy, covering 67 per cent of the population, and slash the oil subsidy. At such times the subsidies should be better targeted, limiting these to the needy. More people may get cheaper food, but they will pay more for other commodities as higher diesel prices will raise the cost of transportation and travel. Better governance can particularly help in difficult times. Simplifying the tax structure can cut litigation and release large sums of money locked in tax disputes. Black money stashed abroad and generated within the country can be targeted. Fast-track clearances can kick-start projects, generating employment. The new land law may further delay land acquisitions and hurt the process of industrialisation. The present economic crisis needs to be tackled at various levels. Austerity is one small part of it. The Mamata Banerjee government may not be extravagant, but it is no model for development or good governance either.
|
|
|
Prosperity is full of friends. — Euripides
|
Never too late to talk IN the world of foreign policy, few events really surprise anyone. Yet as the foreign ministers of the US and Russia came out of their meeting in Geneva, Mr Kerry and Mr Lavrov made an astonishing picture. The two leaders complimented each other, Kerry reached out his arm to playfully jab Lavrov, as they spoke of the deal they had reached on bringing Syria into the international chemical weapons regime. While the world is trying to understand the full impact of that meeting, the way forward in West Asia and the emergence of Russia as the new mediator on the world stage, there are many lessons for India and Pakistan, poised as their relations are at the moment. The first lesson is that it is never too late to talk. Without over-dramatising the situation in the Mediterranean sea, a full-blown conflagration over Syria was a distinct possibility just two weeks ago. The US had deployed five destroyers capable of launching Tomahawk missiles, with more aircraft carriers and warships standing by in the Red Sea. Russia had mobilised 12 destroyers in all, its largest such deployment since the Soviet days, including the "carrier killer" missile cruiser Smetlivy that was dispatched from Sevastopol even as Lavrov met Kerry. These ships weren't just part of naval defence operations; they were escorting ships carrying weapons to help Syria stave off the attack from the US. The theatre had been prepped for war, when on August 27 US DoD officials told the press the strikes on Syria could happen as early as the 29th, and would likely last about 72 hours. Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin accused Western countries of behaving "towards the Islamic world like a monkey with a grenade". This was no empty rhetoric, and it bears remembering that in the same week President Obama and President Putin had faced-off at the G-20 in St Petersburg, after the US cancelled its bilateral talks with Russia, angry over the Snowden issue. The atmosphere was flammable and charged, much like the atmosphere between India and Pakistan has been over the past month. Yet President Obama and President Putin were able to send their foreign ministers for talks — with the authority to discuss a breakthrough. As Dr Manmohan Singh prepares for his visit to the US, with the possibility of a meeting Nawaz Sharif, it is this confidence that should power him, rather than the diffidence of the present. The next lesson is that the "stated positions" can only be the beginning of talks. In order to conclude successful talks, it is necessary to move beyond what you are willing to give, and end up short of what you were prepared to receive. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh set up his expectations for talks, when on his return from the G-20, he said that "If the terror acts do not stop, if those who voice terrorist thoughts move about freely, if there is no significant progress in bringing the culprits of the Mumbai massacre to book, that I have to factor in before arriving at a final decision (for talks with the Pakistan PM).” The truth is none of those demands can be deliverable before the talks, and in fact will only be achievable if there are talks. Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has recently referred to Kashmir as the “jugular vein” of Pakistan — repeating that stated position will hardly allow for any movement in talks with India. Both leaders may wish to take a leaf from Presidents Obama and Putin here-after weeks of the US threatening unilateral strikes, and Russia refusing to entertain any resolution at the UN against Syria, the final agreement spoke of both an acceptance of the UN’s authority. From Russia too, that had vowed to veto any anti-Syrian resolution, came an acceptance of the UN's authority to enforce and, if necessary, punish Syria if it doesn’t keep its word. These are significant steps back from what both had been saying all these weeks. In taking those steps towards dialogue, as both Manmohan Singh and Nawaz Sharif have established they want to do, they will also need to acknowledge the resistance to peace from elements in both countries. While in India Dr. Singh has to battle an increasingly vocal military, as well as the resultant echoes of an angry polity that appears on television channels to oppose talks. Mr. Sharif has already come face-to-face with the resistance to his open proclamations of peace with India within Pakistan --led by LeT founder Hafiz Saeed, and many question why the killing of Indian Jawans took place just as the two countries were readying to announce the next round of secretary-level talks. Over the Syria deal, President Obama has been accused of softening, and being ‘outplayed’ by Putin, while Putin is accused of being bullied to the negotiating table by the American show of strength. As Ed Husain of the Council for Foreign Relations said, pulling back from war as the two world leaders did was not so much a “moment of weakness, but a moment of intelligence and strength.” However difficult, it is that narrative of intelligence and strength that the two leaders of the subcontinent must pursue -- after all Dr Singh would only be following BJP Prime Minister Vajpayee, who visited Islamabad a year after the Parliament attack, and invited Gen Musharraf to Agra a year after the Kargil war . Finally, the leaders must be able to talk over the walls that those elements that run counter to their plans for dialogue. A startling survey by the Lowy Institute conducted in May 2013 found that 94 per cent of Indian respondents see Pakistan as a "threat". The same survey also found that 89 per cent of Indians agree that ordinary people in both countries want peace, 87 per cent agree that a big improvement in India-Pakistan relations requires courageous leadership on both sides, and 76 per cent agree that India should take the initiative. It is this courageous leadership that both sides must show in speaking over their respective establishments and to the people in both countries. It was how President Putin explained his editorial in the New York Times last week “speaking directly to the American people and their political leaders." “It is important to do so”, he said, “at a time of insufficient communication between our two societies….We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political
settlement”. The writer is the Foreign Affairs Editor of CNN-IBN. She is currently in
Islamabad to attend a conference
|
||||||
Infantry napkins IT was in the mid-seventies, after becoming a commissioned officer, I joined my battalion in Jammu and Kashmir. It was the post-1971 war period and both armies had some calming influence after an intense war. The leadership on both sides had a sobering effect too and it reflected in the conduct of the opposing armies. Though hostilities did occur occasionally, as there were some nasty incidents of shooting and killing but by and large peace did prevail, most of the time, on the LOC. Keeping vigil on the LOC can become monotonous. At places, opposing posts are so close to each other that sentries are at hearing distances. To break the monotony, sentries on the vigil duty, inside well-fortified vantage points, at times even conversed with each other. I happened to be posted at one such post. One bright day there was a flurry of activity on the Pakistani side. All of us were curious to observe that cleaning and painting of the post. Whoever we could observe was in neat uniform. The noise and the smoke from the cookhouse was more than usual. Our sentry, on vigil, could not control himself and enquired the fellow soldier on duty on the other side as to what was going on. Pat came the reply that their company commander was coming to visit. In chaste Haryanvi our soldier replied that "our company commander keeps idling here (at the post) only". Everybody, confined to the restricted area of the post, heard it and this became a battalion joke. So much for the officer-men relations and attitude of the opposing armies! Many years down the line, in the mid-nineties, this time as an infantry battalion commander, I again got an opportunity to serve in the sector. This area is close to the one where our two soldiers were recently killed and brutalised. Those were the challenging times too with no ceasefire agreement in place, an assertive military dictatorship in Pakistan, no border-fencing, no multilayered defences well into hinterland and not-so-modern weapons and gadgetry. The media was also not so proactive in those areas then. Therefore news never filtered across of the intensity of the conflict. However, the environment was always professionally managed, without giving an inch. The Indian Army always knew how to deal and give it back, without escalating the situation, as the self-serving Pakistani army does not understand any other language. One fine day the brigade commander came on a visit and was at a forward post by mid-day. After the customary briefing and pep talk to soldiers, it was the interaction time. The dignitary was taken to the common area, away from direct observation and fire of the enemy, for a working lunch with the troops. After lunch he was presented neatly cut and folded old newspaper pages on a platter. Slightly taken aback, he wanted to know the purpose. “Infantry napkins, sir,” was the prompt reply of the young company commander. Amused and appreciative, the commander used one and thanked the rank and file for the good work in the area. It is well established internationally that the western frontier of India is the most dangerous frontier in the world. Soon the visitors left with a deep sense of gratitude towards men and officers guarding the LoC without any fuss or demand, under the shadow of lurking danger, where a slight mistake or error of judgement can so easily cost you life or limb. Indian Army soldiers do not complain normally but when they do, there would be something seriously amiss. You can only ignore at your
peril.
|
||||||
Relations with the US: India remains optimistic This will be Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's sixth bilateral summit with a US President. His first summit in 2005 with President Bush built on the momentum of the previous years to establish a new, bold and transformative agenda for the relationship. Prime Minister's visit in November 2009 as President Obama's first state visitor, and President Obama's own historic visit to India a year later, highlighted the bipartisan character of the relationship; its enduring merit based on shared values and interests; and, the commitment of the leaders to a sustained process of broadening and deepening the strategic partnership. Both leaders have spoken about the India-US relationship as a defining relationship and as one of the most important relationships of the 21st century.
The transformation India-US relations have come a long way in the last decade. From a time when we dealt with each other formally, sometimes warily, we today have a full spectrum relationship, between our governments, our peoples and our institutions. I do not need to count the ways for this audience. For India, the relationship with the US has been the most transformed relationship in the past 10 years. What were once considered breakthroughs in the relationship, are now regarded as routine and normal. This is a sign of maturity in the relationship, even if it robs it of some of the excitement of some years ago. We also face the reality that we must now deal with new challenges in the years ahead. The relationship has all the attributes of a strong and comprehensive strategic partnership. We have regular high-level political dialogue. In recent months, we have had one high-level visit every month. India and the US have strategic consultations on every major issue and region. We have a growing dialogue and partnership on non-proliferation, export controls and nuclear issues. Our security cooperation includes multiple forms of engagement. Our defence relations are strong. We conduct defence exercises regularly. We are steadily moving to joint research, co-development and co-production of defence products through partnerships between our defence industries, as part of our strategy to develop India's defence industrial base and to increase the domestic share in our defence acquisitions. Cooperation between India and the US beyond the public gaze in the fight against crime and terrorism has also been effective. The Homeland Security Dialogue since 2011 has been of mutual benefit in protecting our two countries. We have also begun exploring the potential of cooperative engagement in cyber and space security. Our total trade in goods and services exceeds $100 billion. It has grown every year through the past five years of a global economic crisis. We might each have reasons not to be fully satisfied with our economic relations but no one denies its potential and significance. The US is our single largest trading partner and is a source of critical technology, investment, and collaborations, with over $11 billion worth of Indian investments in the US, and $50 billion of US investment in India. Some of our most innovative and rewarding partnerships are in the inter-linked domains of energy, health, higher education and science and technology. They often do not get the attention that they deserve, but are critical in their impact on the lives of our people. As for our peoples, there are about 600 major and 1,500 small and medium US companies in India, and over 100,000 Indian students in the US. When you see suburban developments around Delhi called 'Palm Springs' or 'Nassau County' you realise the extent of links at the popular level.
Is there a drift? Despite this range of relationships some today speak of drift in the relationship. I find this a rather strange way to describe a relationship where the two governments have thirty-two dialogue mechanisms meeting each year. One reason for this perception may be the fact that it is now a full spectrum relationship, no longer focused on one big transformational idea like the civil nuclear cooperation initiative in 2005-8. To me that breadth is the strength of the relationship. The impression of drift is also partly due to economic factors. It arises from the macro-economic situation. US friends mention concerns about economic reforms and specific policy issues in India. These concerns are not unique to the US. They are, first and foremost, of concern to Indians. Government is addressing all three sets of issues. Our IT industry, the locomotive of our economic partnership, which provides employment to 280,000 people in the US, also has genuine difficulties with certain discriminatory provisions of the Immigration Reform Bill. Looking ahead, the potential for growth in the relationship is strong. This is particularly so in energy, defence, education, and in the quality and range of the strategic dialogues that we undertake. Economically, as we go forward we will focus on opportunities, especially in the infrastructure sector; improve market access; negotiate a Bilateral Investment Treaty; pursue constructive solutions in the WTO that addresses our key concerns; and, work to strengthen the global multilateral trade regime, avoiding its fragmentation or the growth of protectionism. There is much useful bilateral work being done in clean energy and this will certainly grow. The civil nuclear agreement of 2008 is a symbol of our transformed relationship. It is a significant part of our strategy to meet long-term power demand in India, which is expected to grow four times over in the next two decades. The two governments have resolved government-to-government permissions and understandings necessary to enable commercial negotiations between NPCIL (Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited) and Westinghouse, and for the AERB (Atomic Energy Regulatory Board) to begin its independent evaluation of the safety of the power plant. It has been our consistent stand that the power plant should meet the highest standards of safety delivering power at a price that is competitive vis-a-vis other sources of energy. I was surprised in the last few days to see several stories claiming that somehow Indian law would not apply to projects in India. Civil nuclear projects in India will naturally be subject to Indian law, including civil liability. Domestic and foreign vendors have sought clarifications on some points of that law, which are being examined. The India-US bilateral relationship is embedded in a larger vision of a global strategic partnership. This decade has been a period of transitions, turbulence and challenges in an interdependent world, on a scale that has few parallels in history. We have experienced a long drawn out global economic crisis and volatile financial markets. Across the arc from the Pacific to the Indian Ocean, through South Asia, Afghanistan, West Asia and to Africa, there are a range of immediate challenges and long-term structural changes. Our bilateral relations have stayed on a strong and steady course despite these rough seas, because of convergence on a broad range of issues that matter. We have shared interests in a stable, secure, peaceful and prosperous Asia-Pacific. The United States is an Asia-Pacific power and can play a constructive role in advancing regional stability, integration and cooperation. We are working together and with other countries in the region to establish an open, balanced, inclusive and rule-based regional economic and security architecture. As we build our respective regional partnerships, we deepen our own relationships with ASEAN. We have also launched a fruitful trilateral dialogue with Japan. Neither India or the United States see their relationship as directed against any other country. Nor does a strong India-US partnership run against the course of India's relations with other countries.
Shared interests India and the US have promoted their shared interest in maritime security through strategic dialogue, diplomatic efforts in regional forums and our regional partnerships. We each affirm the principles of freedom of navigation and unimpeded commerce, in accordance with international law, and peaceful settlement of maritime disputes. We consult closely on Afghanistan, and, though approaches may diverge sometimes, we have a shared vision for a stable, united, democratic and prosperous Afghanistan that is never again a source of terrorism, and that emerges as a hub of regional cooperation. Both have important interests in the stability and peace of West Asia. For India, proximity, religious and cultural links, economic interests, energy security and the livelihood of six million Indians in the Gulf area make this a vital interest. Our deepening strategic partnership does not mean that we won't have our differences. This is inevitable between countries in different circumstances, at different levels of development, and in dissimilar geopolitical situations. We are both democratic countries with a strong and vocal sense of independence, sometimes shading into exceptionalism. As democrats we know that autonomy of decision making and differences are not inconsistent with a strategic partnership. Where we have differences we also have the confidence and maturity to be able to speak to each other candidly and to deal with the issues. In sum, the strategic foundations of this relationship are enduring. In my view they will become more relevant in coming years. From our perspective, the US will continue to be a key partner for capital, technology, knowledge and skills in our development effort; a potentially important source of clean energy technology and hydrocarbons; an important partner in areas like defence technology, intelligence and counter-terrorism; an important factor in our space security and cyber security; a key interlocutor in adjustments to the global security and economic architecture; a partner in the quest for a rule-based, open international trading and economic order; and in our efforts to seek peace and stability in our extended neighborhood and globally. And that is why I am a confident optimist about the India-US
relationship. The writer is National Security Adviser. This article is based on a speech delivered by the author at Aspen India on September 20, 2013
|
|
| 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 | |
