|
|
|
|
|
Back to square one Rule of the Pinkis |
|
|
Political culture remains unchanged
An engineer by default
Not talking to Pakistan is a disservice We can’t talk to them the same old way any more
|
Back to square one India
and Pakistan both profess to seek peaceful relations, more trade and better people-to-people interaction. Kashmir, however, has cast a long shadow on various attempts at normalising relations between the two neighbours. Prime Minister Narendra Modi's recent interaction with his SAARC counterparts, including Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, had led to heightened expectations of better days ahead. However, India putting off high-level talks with Pakistan has poured ice over any perception of warmer relations. The foreign secretaries of the two countries were scheduled to meet in Islamabad next week for the first time in 18 months, but a tea invitation by the High Commissioner of Pakistan in New Delhi to a Kashmiri separatist leader provoked India to cancel the talks. The High Commissioner was apparently told to choose between diplomatic talks or meeting with separatists, and when he went ahead with the tea, the External Affairs Ministry responded decisively. Tit-for-tat diplomacy is unusual in the nuanced world of international relations. However, there have been recent indications that all is not proceeding smoothly. During a recent visit to Ladakh, the Prime Minister said Pakistan was conducting a "proxy war of terrorists". Now the High Commissioner was told to choose between diplomacy and supping with the separatists. By focusing on India's neighbours the Modi government has generated goodwill. The Prime Minister's subsequent moves have been in sync with this vision. However, Pakistan is a special case, and even as the ghost of Kargil may loom in the minds of some, there is no doubt that the Modi government seeks to change the syntax of discourse between the two countries, which may explain the latest reaction. It needs to be kept in mind that once cut off, dialogue will be difficult to restart. India and Pakistan will both have to find new ways to continue the peace process, something that the latest standoff will make more difficult.
|
|
Rule of the Pinkis Pinki', a Punjab Police Inspector convicted of murder, has had his prison term remitted after just seven years behind bars. The basis for the remission of Gurmeet Singh's (his actual name) sentence by the Punjab Government was "good conduct". A look at his past is warranted. Pinki was allegedly a terrorist at one time. He then turned a police informer, was subsequently recruited in the police, and during his service allegedly was also involved in fake encounters. Finally, he ended up shooting an innocent youth who objected to Pinki's drinking with his friends in the street. The name notwithstanding, this rotund ex-cop is no lily in the wind. He is a man hardened in the ways of the gun, who was drunk more on extra-constitutional powers than the alcohol in him. That a few years in jail could turn him into a law-fearing citizen is beyond belief. On Independence Day, the state government announced remission of varying lengths for prisoners in the state. For those serving between 10 and 20 years, the relief was one year. If such largesse is shown every year, a person could be out in 10 years instead of 20. The condition is the convict should have had 'good conduct' in jail, which one can safely assume is not a certificate that comes entirely on merit. That is where the
'Pinkis' find their escape. Of course, when the government decides, it simply sets a man free. This is undermining of the judicial process by the political dispensation of the day. What of the family that fought a long battle against the system to send Pinki to jail? The government has also painted itself into a corner. What answer will it have now to demands for the release of various other prisoners, some of them in jail on terror charges? There are also common prisoners who cannot afford legal help and are not released even after the completion of their sentence just because no one moved their papers. This is the conduct of a colonial power not answerable to people.
|
|||||
|
Have a heart that never hardens, and a temper that never tires, and a touch that never hurts. — Charles Dickens
|
|||||
The day's news Aug 17. — A British Expeditionary force has been landed on French soil-at Boulogne led by General French. Lord Kitchener's new army now amounts to 50,000 men. The French have occupied Schirmeck twelve miles below Saales. It is reported that German stock of supplies is running short. Japan and England respect the integrity of China. The action of Japan will not extend to the Pacific beyond the China Seas. The Czar and Czarina have gone to Moscow to attend a solemn
invocation for blessing Russian Arms. German harvests are good and assure a year's food supply. The Italian Foreign Minister has declared that he would never
participate in a war against England. Aug 18. — War correspondents are leaving Belgium. Little authentic information is available. The Belgian Royal Family have moved to Brussels. Barricades are
created to protect the town.
Punjab’s
gift to the nation THE announcement by Canada of a gift of one million bags of wheat flour to England was followed by another by Australia of a similar gift of sheep. Bombay announced the gift of a hospital ship and Bengal an offer of jute. Punjab which exports many million tons of wheat annually might most appropriately make a gift of this commodity to testify to the gratitude of the canal colonists who have greatly prospered by the combined operation of irrigation canals and high prices. The wealthy landholders would be acting most gracefully by making such an offer to Government.
|
Political culture remains unchanged For example, it was rumoured that Sonia Gandhi wielded authority without responsibility and ran the government from her residence. This is now confirmed. Official files were carried to her residence for direction. Till today, she has not said a word by way of explanation to defend herself. It appears that she believes that she doesn't have to explain as if it is the dynasty's prerogative. Those who have followed its ways will not be surprised about it. Jawaharlal Nehru allowed his daughter, Indira Gandhi, to run the government when he was in bed due to illness. On her part, she constituted a coterie to rule, which was an extra-constitutional authority. I was then the press officer of Lal Bahadur Shastri, a minister without portfolio. Nehru had brought him back after sending him out of the government under the K. Kamaraj plan, a ruse to oust Nehru's critics, particularly Morarji Desai and Jagjiwan Ram, from the government. The Prime Minister's residence was a two-storey building, Nehru staying upstairs. Who from among the visitors would be allowed to go upstairs was dependent on Indira Gandhi's decision. She did not like Shastri and would keep him waiting. Once, still working as the press officer, I pointed out to Nehru's aide, T.N. Sheshan, that Shastri, then out of office, was kept waiting. He told me not to get involved in such things as Indira Gandhi did it intentionally. "This is politics", he said. The ruling party may have changed at the Centre but the political culture has not. We are feudal in our outlook. This trait transcends other considerations. It does not go well with the democratic temperament. But it is there and has not undergone any perceptible change. Those who come to power become dictators in action. Even when they profess that power is with the people, they use it figuratively and not realistically because they, a very few, rule the country. The rule by Prime Minister Narendra Modi is no different. In fact, the Prime Minister's Office under him is more powerful than the ones before. The PMO is strong and sees to it that every bit of decision is ratified even before the files are sent to the Home Minister, who only signs on the dotted lines. Thus power has got concentrated in Modi's office. Therefore, one gets the impression that Finance Minister Arun Jaitley and Home Minister Rajnath Singh, however powerful, appear to have Modi's eyes and ears for their statements which look out of line with the party's thinking. In all fairness, the Modi government should have changed the administrative apparatus which has the Nehruvian stamp. After Independence, Nehru, who had gone through a long national struggle, set up paraphernalia which rejected liberalism that bound the different elements together. The BJP is different. None of its leaders went to jail during freedom struggle. The party should have reorganised the polity to suit its way of thinking and its way of doing things. Alas, the BJP has adopted the same old administrative methods which give all the leeway to bureaucrats. The BJP should have moved the machinery to the direction which will work the way it wants. Perhaps, the Modi government should have appointed an administrative reforms commission to suggest steps to implement the saffronised agenda. The administration is still stuck in the old ways, partly secular and partly democratic but mostly the withered ideas of the RSS leaders. True, there are so many administrative reform commission reports accumulating dust. But the Modi government's commission would be a departure from the past, the liberal era of Nehru. Modi's authoritarian way of governance requires new rules and guidelines. A BJP appointed commission could have provided the Modi government with the instruments to Hinduise the administrative set-up. I wish I could say that the lessons have been learnt. Persons who used authority without responsibility still wield power. And bureaucrats vie with one another in obedience to the ministers and bend rules to get an out-of-turn promotion or a cushy posting. The old type of civil servants are going to be hard to get. Yet there is no alternative to the bureaucracy which has entrenched itself in the system from top to bottom. The BJP must have realised this when in power more than 10 years ago. The regret is that it became a part and parcel of the system while its election plank was to cleanse it. It can be argued that the electorate faces a big problem. People cast vote in favour of the BJP in the recent Lok Sabha elections. This was not because they liked the party. But it was because they were sick and tired of Congress rule. Party president Sonia Gandhi herself admitted that the voters did not like the Congress. But she said she had no idea that their anger would convert itself into vengeance. They had voted the BJP to power. So much so they have given the party a majority by itself. But what would they do when they get disappointed with the BJP? They do not want to go back to the Congress. But what option do they have? That is the reason why the Congress is sitting pretty. People are waiting for the Modi government to perform and prove itself. Instead of that, the saffronisation programme is taking shape. The alternative could have been the Aam Admi Party (AAP). In fact, it evoked hope when Gandhian Anna Hazare held meetings in different parts of the country to warn the people against corruption. Their response was solid and AAP's Arvind Kejriwal was voted to power in Delhi. But then Hazare distanced himself from Kejriwal and his dictatorial tendency. Besides, the ambition of a few put cold water on finding a clean alternative. Unfortunately, the old cultures do not disappear quickly.
|
|||||
An engineer by default
Since the result in the matriculation examination earned me a scholarship, their hopes of meeting one of those goals soared high. DAV College, Amritsar, picked me up for the FSc (Faculty of Science) course, which I completed with distinction. And then my father started the hunt for a suitable engineering college for me. My marks in FSc made me eligible for every reputed engineering college in India; but my father asked me to apply for a seat in Guru Nanak Engineering College, Ludhiana , Punjab Engineering College (PEC), Chandigarh, and the newly opened Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur (IIT-K). For the first option I was required to appear in a very simple interview conducted by the Principal himself, who cleared me immediately but we decided to wait for a call from PEC. When I received the expected call letter from PEC, I immediately deposited the requisite fee and joined the course. Within four months of my joining the college, I received a call letter from the IIT-K also. A large number of selected students were from Delhi, UP and Bihar. I recall how tough it was for one like me with a small-town background to enter the inner circle of snobbish English-speaking boys of Delhi from the elite Modern School, St Columbus School, DPS etc. Dr P. K. Kelkar, the ever-smiling first Director of the institute, was respected and loved by every single student. During the first year, John Kenneth Galbraith, who was the US Ambassador in India, visited the institute and gave away prizes to some students. When I went to receive the prize, Galbraith, a very tall man standing on a wooden platform, had to make a U-turn with his body to hand over the prize to me. During my stay at the IIT-K, the Chinese resorted to an act of treachery, deceit and back-stabbing and attacked India. On a knee-jerk reaction, India started recruiting a large number of emergency commissioned officers in the army. I too was selected and was required to report at the IMA, Dehradun, on a short notice. When I broke the news to my father, all hell broke and my father sent me a stern warning letter to get the 'stupid idea' out of my head. And when the Director learnt about my plans, he summoned me and advised, "Are you mad? You want to leave this institution to join 'fauj'. Forget it." But I did join the 'fauj' eventually. My Platoon Commander in the IMA noticed my science and IIT background and I was allotted the Corps of Electrical and Mechanical Engineering (EME). It was here that I completed a degree and post-graduation in electronics engineering. Destiny made me reject three reputed civil institutions and I landed up in the army's Military College of Electronics and Mechanical Engineering at Secunderabad to fulfil my parents' dream of making me an engineer and/or an army officer.
|
|||||
Not talking to Pakistan is a disservice Nawaz Sharif seems to be drowning in the clutches of a giant squid, the COAS, Imran Khan, Tahirul Qadri, the Taliban, the economy all tentacles wrapping themselves around him. The Government of India appears to have decided that sending the Foreign Secretary to Islamabad now would be a waste of time, but to use the Hurriyat as an excuse is not only unworthy, giving its worthies an importance they neither have nor deserve, it lays down a precondition for talks with which Pakistan cannot
comply. When we reach a settlement over Jammu and Kashmir, which came agonisingly close during Musharraf’s tenure, Pakistan will abandon the Hurriyat, whose demand for azaadi is as much anathema to it as to us. Till then, though, it must maintain the fiction that it supports their aspirations; “consulting” them is a ritual of anticipatory expiation, a charade with which everyone has played along, until now. Since Pakistan cannot give up its meetings with the Hurriyat without losing face, there will be no talks for the foreseeable future. We are sanguine about this because, even if the talks had taken place, we intended to talk only about terrorism. We have made this our core concern vis-à-vis Pakistan, and since the civilians with whom talks are held do not control the terrorists, a hiatus in talks is neither here nor there. A view seems to be gaining ground that there are more muscular options available, should terrorism again rise above a threshold. Are there, and should terrorism be our core concern with Pakistan? Data for the last five years, collated by the South Asia Terrorism Portal, shows that in 2009, 721 Indians died in terrorist attacks, 759, 429, 252 and 304 in the next four years. These lives should never have been lost, but in 2013, when terrorism killed 304, the National Crime Records Bureau reported that 8,083 women were murdered for dowry. Terrorism is by no means the largest shadow looming over our lives. The Portal’s figures also show that very few of the deaths from terrorism can be attributed to Pakistan. Of the 304 victims in 2013, 159 were killed by Left-wing extremists, 95 in Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya and Nagaland in the festering insurgencies that the rest of India ignores, and 30 in Andhra Pradesh, Bihar and West Bengal. In J&K, where Pakistan’s terrorists operate, they killed 20 civilians. (The same year, they killed 3,001 innocent Pakistanis.) This pattern has held steady for five years. Nor indeed do we have viable sanctions backed by force. In the nostalgia over Parakram, we forget that it failed at an insupportably high cost. The Economic Survey for 2003-4 reported that “FDI peaked at $4.74 billion in 2000-1 and declined thereafter to $3.73 billion in 2001-2 and further to $3.57 billion in 2002-3”. FII, which dropped to $0.3 billion in 2002-3, made “a sharp recovery to $7.2 billion in April-December 2003”. The drying up of investment was directly related to foreign fears, as was the sharp drop in international tourist arrivals, which fell by 6 per cent in 2002, recovering with a 13 per cent growth in 2003, once the crisis passed. The World Bank estimated that India’s GDP growth was 4.9 per cent in 2001. It dropped to 3.9 per cent in 2002, rebounding to 7.9 per cent in 2003, once the crisis had passed. Parakram brought us no security; it cost us at least 2 per cent of GDP growth. A reprise would be even more costly. In contrast, the Bank estimated that Pakistan’s economy grew from 2 per cent in 2001 to 3.2 per cent in 2002 to 4.8 per cent in 2003. Pakistan was (and is) immune to pressures, since for two decades now, it has survived on international aid; it has almost no investment or tourism, and trade is a small percentage of its GDP, which grew in the crisis because donors were either afraid to cut off aid or increased it, as some Arabs did, to keep it from falling apart. So if a conventional military option is ruled out, what options do we have? Almost none if we see the challenge only as terrorism out of Pakistan, but this is not the only or the gravest threat to our security. There are other dangers brewing which can overwhelm both countries if we do not tackle them together, and these will not wait for us to resolve our differences over the Hurriyat and terrorism. Huge numbers of Indian citizens are more at risk from these than from terrorism. For instance, seismologists estimate our region is shortly due for an earthquake of a magnitude that in the past has claimed tens of thousands of lives. Much of Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab and eastern Gujarat, contiguous to Pakistan, are Zone-IV areas, where severe earthquakes are likely. Patches of J&K and the Rann of Kutch, right on the border, are in Zone-V, where very severe earthquakes are likely. Almost all of PoK is in the same zone as J&K, with a substantial circle centred on Muzaffarabad in Zone-V. It is entirely possible, as was the case when the last major earthquake struck J&K, that populations on both sides of the LoC will be hit. There, and across the international border, access to areas cut off by a major earthquake in one country might be easier from the other. It makes sense, therefore, to urgently negotiate disaster-relief protocols, which would include cross-border rescue and emergency relief. These are precautions that our government owes the lakhs of its citizens who live in these highly vulnerable zones. It would also be politic: nothing lessens hostility more than a supposed enemy coming to help in an hour of need; the aftermath of the earthquakes in Turkey and Greece in 1999, when they did just that, showed how dramatically this can mould public opinion. Agriculture is another key area where, for India’s own security, we must work closely with Pakistan. An ILO survey in 2013 of employment in Pakistan’s Punjab, which is its bread-basket and its industrial heartland, found that from 2007-08 to 2010-11, the percentage of the work-force employed in agriculture had gone up, from 43.44 per cent to 45.39 per cent. This confirms that industry has stagnated, and agriculture become crucial to its survival. Unemployment is high in Pakistan, but the ILO found that unemployment levels among Punjabi youth were 2.5 times higher than among adults. That is a recipe for domestic turmoil, which will not be contained within its borders. Even if our worry is terrorism, the L-e-T, the J-e-M and the Punjabi Taliban recruit from the unemployed and unemployable rural youth of the Punjab. Ajmal Kasab and his fellow murderers were all from this background, which will yield an endless line of recruits. Helping Pakistan revive its agriculture is a hedge against this, and there is much we can do. Water management is an obvious and crucial example. Pakistan’s farmers, like ours, are profligate with water. Indiscriminate irrigation has made huge tracts of formerly fertile land saline and led to water stress. We share this problem. The UN’s Water Development Report 2014 shows the Indus and Ganges basins both under stress. The Fifth Assessment Report of the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change, published in April this year, which concurs, recommends “integrated coordination” for water management between countries that share a river basin, including the Indus and the Ganges. The Indus Waters Treaty does not provide for this; we have to go beyond it. It is as essential to work together to mitigate the broader economic impact of climate change.The Fifth Assessment Report warns that “there could be a decrease of about 50 per cent in the most favourable and high-yielding wheat area” in South Asia, and rice production would plummet. This would devastate Pakistan. The Report notes that in India, “the estimated countrywide agricultural loss in 2030 of over $7 billion that will severely affect the income of 10 per cent of the population could be reduced by 80 per cent if cost-effective climate resilience measures are implemented”. For India, it would be very hard to absorb losses of this order; for Pakistan it would be impossible, plunging it into a chaos from which we could not insulate ourselves.We must explore coordinated adaptation and mitigation measures, cooperating on the coping mechanisms that we will both need. These are not simply matters for discussion between Governments; they have to be translated urgently into the life of villages in both countries. This is, without hyperbole, a matter of life or death. On these, and a host of other problems, we cannot wait for the Pakistani army to change its attitude to India and terrorism to end, or for Pakistan to end its pasodoble with the Hurriyat. Both countries are at the mercy of forces infinitely more powerful than an army, and which are marching to deadlines which States cannot control. We have to forge common solutions to enormous common problems. Invoking shabby excuses not to do so, not even to talk about them, does our citizens no
service. The writer is former Indian High Commissioner to Pakistan
|
|||||
|
We can’t talk to them the same old way any more Prime
Minister Modi has bitten the bullet and called off the Foreign Secretary-level talks between the two countries, scheduled for August 25 in Islamabad, after the Pakistani High Commissioner went ahead with meeting one of the so-called Kashmiri separatist leaders in the High Commission premises in New Delhi. The Pakistani High Commissioner was told beforehand by the Indian Foreign Secretary to avoid meeting the self-appointed Kashmiri separatist leaders, as this would be a needlessly provocative interference in India’s internal affairs. The High Commissioner ignored this advice, no doubt under instructions from Islamabad. The decision to cancel the scheduled talks came swiftly, as soon as the meeting ended. The contrived outrage of the so-called Kashmir separatist leaders and their mentors and financiers based in Pakistan will fool no one. For Pakistan and these so-called Kashmiri leaders, Jammu and Kashmir remains disputed territory and Pakistan is a party to the dispute. Tut-tutting by commentators and analysts criticising the decision, ignore the fact that the BJP government will not let its Pakistan policy meander along the well-trodden path of yesteryear. The argument that such meetings have been taking place for the last 25 years and, therefore, should be ignored is no longer par for the course. Nor is the assertion that these separatist leaders do not represent the people of Jammu and Kashmir. If they do not, where is the need to humour them and hold talks with them?
Forcing a choice The past practice of holding talks with these so-called separatist Kashmiri leaders was an attempt to bring all disgruntled people into the tent, It leaves Pakistan having to make a choice between the ritual of holding meaningless talks with the so-called separatist Kashmiri leaders and talking turkey with the Indian government. The Indian government’s decision to cancel the Foreign Secretary-level talks crosses a Rubicon and lays down a new threshold for the future, further complicating the minefield that characterises India-Pakistan relations Those who are surprised by the decision to cancel the talks, ignore the fact that Prime Minister Modi made the first move to reach out to all neighbours, by inviting their leaders to the swearing-in ceremony. It was a gesture of immense significance and potential for India’s neighbourhood policy, particularly for Pakistan. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif understood the message when he accepted to attend the swearing-in ceremony and also eschewed the option of meeting the Kashmiri leaders. This time round, Pakistan has failed to read the fine print. The current political scenario in Pakistan is getting murkier by the day. Nawaz Sharif is facing a formidable challenge from cricketer-turned-politician Imran Khan and the Canadian-based cleric Tahirul Qadri. The Pakistan Army, the ultimate power centre and arbiter of all security policies and relations with India, is embattled on two main fronts – fighting the jihadists in the north-west border region and holding on to its plummeting public image as the defender of the state. Jihadist attacks on military installations, Karachi airport, suicide terrorist strikes killing and maiming innocents, the hunting down and killing of Osama bin Laden by American Special Forces, hosting the Afghan Taliban and a host of terrorist outfits have seriously dented the credibility of the Pakistan Army.
Struggle for power in Pak The struggle for power being played out in Islamabad has led to the Army trying to re-assert its dominant role in India-Pakistan relations and set terms for dialogue with India, undermines Nawaz Sharif’s instincts, as a businessman, to reach out to India to further trade and other economic initiatives. The Army and its jihadist allies do not want to move away from the policy of perpetual hostility towards India, unless India bends on Kashmir. Their raison d’être is firmly rooted in anti-India and anti-Hindu rhetoric without which they face an existential problem. This policy also pays dividends as external powers like the USA and China find it convenient to manipulate Pakistan, in their quest for geo-political advantage and leverage vis-à-vis India. In this environment, it is arguably quite appropriate to cancel the talks because no breakthrough, in any case, was expected. The dialogue between the two Foreign Secretaries would have been a fruitless reiteration of each other’s position. The only possible outcome would have been an agreement to meet again. This is not worth expending effort or political capital at this stage and the decision of the Indian government clearly reflects this thinking. The Indian government’s irritation was rising with more than 50 ceasefire violations, not just across the Line of Control (LOC) but also across the International Border (IB), ever since the announcement scheduling the talks. Another factor is the forthcoming election in Jammu and Kashmir where 87 seats in the Assembly are at stake, 46 in the Muslim dominated Valley, 37 in the Jammu and four in Ladakh. The prelude to elections in Jammu and Kashmir has always led to Pakistani attempts to undermining the elections which strengthens the Indian case that the people of Jammu and Kashmir have delivered their democratic verdict via elections. Pakistan, its paid agents and jihadi proxies in Kashmir find elections an anathema. Its undercuts the self-seeking role of the Kashmiri separatists leaders and further rolls back the fading hope of a referendum as per UN resolutions on Kashmir. Delhi’s tough stance on UNMOGIP, an anachronistic relic of history born out of the womb of the 1948 UN Resolutions, is also relevant in the build-up to the decision to cancel the talks.
Discarding the status quo These developments do not mean that talks with Pakistan will go into a deep freeze. The Indian government will wait for a more propitious time to re-open talks. Meanwhile, Pakistan has to mull over how to play the ball in its court. If it persists with the sterile status quo of the past, then the prospects for normal relations with Pakistan will be bleak and India will be better off concentrating its energies on other neighbours, where prospects of progress are much brighter on the bilateral track. It would be better to wait and see whether Pakistan’s domestic politics creates the space for breaking out of its erstwhile India policy. It should be quite clear to all that the current Indian government is not going to be guided by past practices. Its decision on scrapping the Planning Commission is an indication that more such decisions can be expected. The comfort of the status quo is a luxury that has been discarded. A new model can now be crafted to deal with the vexed issue of India-Pakistan
relations. The writer is a former Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs and was the last Indian Consul-General in Karachi
|
|
| HOME PAGE | |
Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir |
Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs |
Nation | Opinions | | Business | Sports | World | Letters | Chandigarh | Ludhiana | Delhi | | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |
A spate of personal accounts by insiders has made the Indian political scene interesting and chirpy. However subjective, they do put in the public domain some information which was not available earlier. There is nothing earth shaking in the revelations made. But they do confirm some of the perceptions about our governance. 
I am from a generation in which educated fathers took all the decisions for their children. Like most of the parents of those days, my parents also couldn't think of any other career for their son except making him a doctor, an engineer or an army officer, in that order.