Kudankulam stalemate over, PM to discuss N-safety at Korea summit next week

HYDERABAD

20 MARCH 2012

Echoes of Kudankulam would be felt in distant Seoul next week when heads of state or

government from about 50 countries gather in the South Korean capital for the second

edition of the nuclear safety summit.

On their agenda will not only be nuclear safety but also the future of nuclear as an

energy source, post the Fukushima disaster in Japan in 2011.

While there is a strong popular sentiment against nuclear energy in Japan and a host of

other Asian nations, South Korea and India stand out as an exception where

governments have signalled their intention to pursue the nuclear power path.

The March 26-27 summit, which will be attended by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh,

Chinese President Hu Jintao and US President Barack Obama, among others, can be

expected to discuss issues such as guidelines for nuclear safety.

The US hosted the inaugural nuclear safety summit in 2010.

A week before Dr Singh leaves for Seoul, Tamil Nadu chief minister J Jayalalithaa ended

the eight-month-long uncertainty over the future of the Kudankulam nuclear power project

by giving her go ahead.

Work at the site had been affected by the protests by locals spearheaded by a People's

Movement Against Nuclear Energy, which feared a Fukushima-like catastrophe in

Kudankulam.

The decision to restart work at Kudankulam coincides with China's decision to resume

construction of nuclear power plants. China currently has 13 nuclear power plants with

varied capacities.

China suspended approving new nuclear power projects and launched nationwide safety

inspections at nuclear power stations and facilities in operation and under construction

over safety concerns after the Fukushima nuclear crisis.

According to state-run Beijing Review, China at present has approved 43 nuclear power

plants, with a planned capacity of 200 million KW. These plants are located in 16

provinces, including eight in inland areas.

Incidentally, South Korea is one country where Prime Minister should find himself at

ease. In a poll conducted by worldpublicopinion.org a few years ago, Dr Singh was voted

among the most popular "regional" leaders in South Korea with 47 per cent South Korean

nationals saying they trusted him more than others.

In the 20-country poll, 30 per cent of Chinese leaned positively towards Dr Singh

although the Chinese views of him had become more negative as compared to the

previous poll. He also enjoyed an overwhelming support (83 per cent) among Indians.

In contrast, Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari fared poorly on the confidence index. Only

34 per cent of the Pakistanis had confidence in him.

Mamata, Karunanidhi effect: MEA sees red as states veto foreign policy

HYDERABAD

20 MARCH 2012

The protestations from Tamil Nadu chief minister J Jayalalithaa and her rival and DMK

patriarch M Karunanidhi over India's vote on Sri Lanka later this week, coming as they

do months after West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee vetoed an agreement on

the sharing of the Teesta river waters with Bangladesh, has further fuelled anxiety in

South Block, which also houses the ministry of external affairs (MEA.)

The precedent being set by the Centre caving in or succumbing to the States on matters

that fall in the domain of foreign policy is worrying for India, and more so for the

practitioners of diplomacy in the MEA.

Already, India's engagement of Pakistan on one hand and China and Burma on the other

are determined to an extent by the domestic conditions prevalent in Jammu and Kashmir

and the north-eastern states, respectively.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh betrayed his frustration when he said in the Lok Sabha

that difficult decisions were getting more difficult because of coalition compulsions. He

called for bipartisanship in the interest of the country.

However, not everybody is pessimistic. Lalit Mansingh, a former foreign secretary and a

former ambassador to the US, echoes the sentiments of many who believe that this trend

should not be unwelcome.

"Foreign policy today is made not only in New Delhi but elsewhere, too. There are

multiple stakeholders and one can't deny states a say in foreign policy if it relates to

them," Mr Mansingh told this newspaper. So, if the states assert their rights and seek

more consultations, then the Centre must respect those sentiments, he notes.

Equally worrying for New Delhi would be the erosion in its standing in what it calls its

sphere of influence. The ongoing debate over which way India should vote on a UNHRC

resolution on Sri Lanka is instructive in that it illustrates how far India has come from

being an influential player in its own backyard to a marginal or fringe player.

Irrespective of whether India joins the US, France, Norway and others in voting for the

resolution as Prime Minister Manmohan Singh indicated in the Lok Sabha, or abstains,

which is not ruled out if the resolution is not worded to its satisfaction, the non-binding

resolution is most likely to fall through.

Colombo is sanguine about the outcome of the March 23 vote in Geneva. It believes it

has the numbers required to defeat the resolution. China, Russia, Pakistan, Cuba,

Indonesia, Thailand and others from the Asian and the African regional groups in the 47-

member UNHRC have indicated that they would oppose it.

If that is a probability, then is it advisable for New Delhi to vote for the resolution and

risk losing whatever goodwill and leverage it might have with Colombo? At the same

time optimists take the view that Colombo would be helping itself, and India, by agreeing

to some concessions on the language of the draft resolution and by putting forward a

roadmap for a political solution of the ethnic conflict.

// Table //

Current membership of the Human Rights Council (20 June 2011 - 31 December 2012) by

regional groups

AFRICAN STATES

Angola

Benin

Botswana

Burkina Faso

Cameroon

Congo

Djibouti

Libya

Mauritania

Mauritius

Nigeria

Senegal

Uganda

LATIN AMERICAN AND CARIBBEAN STATES

Chile

Costa Rica

Cuba

Ecuador

Guatemala

Mexico

Peru

Uruguay

ASIAN STATES

Bangladesh

China

India

Indonesia

Jordan

Kuwait

Kyrgyzstan

Malaysia

Maldives

Philippines

Qatar

Saudi Arabia

Thailand

WESTERN EUROPE AND OTHER STATES

Austria

Belgium

Italy

Norway

Spain

Switzerland

United States

EASTERN EUROPEAN STATES

Czech Republic

Hungary

Poland

Moldova

Romania

Russia

India's poser to US: If you won't dump Pakistan, why should we jettison Iran?

Hyderabad
18 March 2012

As India negotiates the diplomatic minefield that is West Asia, questions are being asked of the government as to whether and how it could engage differently with Iran, Israel and Saudi Arabia, without having to taking sides or pick and choose one over the other.

New Delhi would have you believe that the overlapping tensions in West Asia, manifested in the Israel-Iran stand-off over the latter's nuclear ambitions, the proxy war being played out in Syria between a Shiite Iran and the Sunni-bloc led by Saudi Arabia, or more generally the competition between Saudi Arabia and Iran for supremacy, constrict India's options.

In an example of some nimble Indian diplomacy, the government despatched external affairs minister SM Krishna to Israel and defence minister AK Antony to Saudi Arabia in order to offset any adverse fallout from Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's proposed visit to Iran later this year. However, the same government chose in its wisdom to support a UNSC resolution against Syria.

While there is merit in New Delhi's argument, an influential section of the Indian diplomatic community contends that the ongoing investigation into the attack on an Israeli envoy in New Delhi or the threat of US sanctions on Indian entities post-June 28 for not reducing oil imports from Iran should not deter the government from pursuing what it deems is in its enlightened national interest.

"The US not only does not choose between India and Pakistan but actually assists our adversary in many ways, so why should we forego our limited relationship with Iran for the sake of the US?" wondered Kanwal Sibal, a former foreign secretary.

"Do Iran and Saudi Arabia choose between us and Pakistan? If at all they have been historically closer to Pakistan than to us. If Iran's statements on Israel and the Holocaust are objectionable, the Wahabi ideology emanating from Saudi Arabia is objectionable too. We should safeguard our energy relationship with Iran as best as we can despite US and EU sanctions and the Arab position," Mr Sibal told this newspaper.

Increasingly, diplomats who have observed or served in the region insist that India's relationship with Iran should stand on its own feet and not linked to its relations with Saudi Arabia. They maintain that whatever the differences between Iran and Saudi Arabia, and the Shia-Sunni conflict that is building up, India does not need to take sides or feel compelled to choose.

They cautioned against a repeat of 2005 when New Delhi jettisoned its ties with Tehran in its narrow pursuit of the India-US nuclear deal. While some claim that Iran's rise as a regional power is inevitable, others cite the significance of Iran as land bridge to Afghanistan and beyond as a case in point.

NDA partners pitch for minus-Modi formula to bait new allies

Hyderabad

17 March 2012

Making it to the cover of Time magazine may prompt two-time Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi's followers to believe that he has it in him to lead India, but BJP's allies seem to think otherwise.

These parties seem to be making up their mind that the NDA's electoral prospects in the next parliamentary election, whenever it is called, would be better served without Modi in the lead. Some of them have suggested sotto-voce that the NDA could hope to become more acceptable to voters and allies -- present and potential -- alike, if the likes of a Narendra Modi or even an LK Advani are not projected as shadow premiers. They are calling it a minus formula, similar to the minus-one or minus-two formulae seen in the politics of neighbouring Bangladesh and Pakistan.

For one, the JD(U), which is the second largest constituent of the NDA, sees Modi as a liability and it does not fancy the idea of going to polls with him at the helm. More so, when JD(U) leader and Bihar chief minister Nitish Kumar himself is seen as a potential choice for prime minister. What goes in Nitish's favour, as compared to Modi, is the degree of acceptability towards him among non-BJP, non-Congress political parties, some of whom are coming together to constitute what is loosely being called a third or federal front comprising regional parties such as the Trinamul in West Bengal, BJD in Odisha, AIADMK in Tamil Nadu, and, now, SP in Uttar Pradesh, where Mulayam Singh Yadav's party has emerged the winner of the recently concluded Assembly election.

The third front is not without problems or internal contradictions, though. Complicating matters for this motley group is that there are many potential contenders for prime minister, including, but not limited to, Mamata Banerjee and Mulayam Singh Yadav. Already, Samajwadi Party sources have indicated that their next goal after getting a brute majority in the Uttar Pradesh Assembly is to make "Netaji", as Mulayam is called in his party, the prime minister. The SP has indicated its support to the UPA in the event of the Trinamul pulling out of the alliance and there it is speculated that the Congress could offer Mulayam a Cabinet berth to return the favour.

For its part, the Trinamul would not mind an early election because it is better placed than its rivals after winning the last Assembly election. However, if Congress veteran and finance minister Pranab Mukherjee is to be believed, Mamata has a huge challenge ahead of her simply because she is not fluent in Hindi. "If you don't know Hindi, you cannot be a prime minister. There are certain skills that are required for certain work. That is why Narasimha Rao became a good prime minister", Mr Mukherjee had famously remarked in 2009 when asked whether he was in contention for the top job. The language handicap notwithstanding, Mamata's Trinamul could emerge as the pivot of this front and a potential kingmaker in the event of a hung Parliament, where no party or alliance has absolute majority in the Lok Sabha.

Incidentally, the question asked about Modi has been used for Rahul Gandhi, too. A section of the Congress party is in favour of seeing the Gandhi scion succeed Prime Minister Manmohan Singh before the next parliamentary election, if only to enthuse party cadres and voters alike, but Congress President Sonia Gandhi has dismissed the possibility for now. Like cricketer Sachin Tendulkar, Dr Singh is faced with a career dilemma: they would want to know when is a good time to retire. Dr Singh's anxiety is compounded by the fact that for one who invested a large quantum of political capital in the UPA-1 on seeing the India-US nuclear deal through, even at the cost of risking his own government, he is today having to explain why nuclear projects in Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra and West Bengal have not taken off. Also, big-ticket reform measures such as entry of FDI of up to 51 per cent in multi-brand retail, or in insurance sector, has
been put on hold for want of consensus among the UPA allies.

Dinesh Trivedi calls for a national railway policy, lays stress on beefing up infrastructure along China border

Hyderabad

14 March 2012

Dinesh Trivedi made an impassioned plea for augmenting rail infrastructure in the border areas, in an implicit reference to China building a network of rails and roads in areas bordering India's north-eastern states.

In the same breath, he pitched for evolving a national policy for Railways, so that there is continuity of policy across successive governments and policies can be executed without them falling a victim to partisan politics.

"... the time has come to think of a national policy for Railways, just as we have one for defence and for external affairs," Mr Trivedi said Wednesday in his budget speech in the Lok Sabha.

Uncharacteristically for a railway minister, Mr Trivedi spoke about how the geopolitical situation on borders arising out of building of state-of-art road and rail network by neighbouring countries "requires a matching response."

The Railways, he continued, must remain in a state of preparedness to move men and machines to border areas.

Mr Trivedi sought to impress upon the relevant ministries of the government, not least of all the ministry of finance, that it was therefore necessary to undertake projects of national importance on priority and to ensure adequate funding.

Similarly, he argued for liberal funds for connecting the remote and backward areas in Jammu and Kashmir and the north-eastern states, without worrying about the return on investment or such other factors.

He warned that the projects in J&K and in the north-east, which required more than Rs 4,000 crore for the current year, may get delayed for want of adequate funding.

"The budgetary support to Indian Railways has been pegged at a modest level of Rs 24,000 crore as against a projected requirement of Rs 45,000 crore. The national projects in Kashmir and northeast region have also to be funded out of this," he said.

In his speech, Mr Trivedi also dwelled on how the Indian Railways was contributing its bit for improving India's relations with her neighbours. He cited the proposed Tripura-Bangladesh railway link, and the new Jogbani-Biratnagar line and Jaynagar-Bijalpura-Bardibas to provide connectivity to Nepal as a case in point.

Trivedi bites the bullet, but may have bitten off more than he can chew!

Hyderabad
14 March 2012

Dinesh Trivedi's maiden railway budget could well be his last, if the reaction from his own party is any indicator.*

In what can only be described as unprecedented, unconventional, or, comic, barely had Mr Trivedi commended the budget to the House than his party colleagues demanded that the increase in the passenger fares be rolled back in the interest of the common man, who, they said, is already reeling under the burden of recent increases in the prices of fuels and essential commodities.

Sudip Bandopadhyay, a Trinamool MP and Union minister of state of health and family welfare, was the first to fly off the handle, describing the hike in the fares as being against the party's principles and stated position. The Trinamool Congress wants withdrawal of the rail-fare hike, Mr Bandopadhyay told reporters matter-of-factly, suggesting an open breaking of ranks by Mr Trivedi. When pointed out that Mr Trivedi and Mr Bandopadhyay belonged to the same party, Mr Bandopadhyay said that Mr Trivedi, as the railway minister, had performed his Constitutional duty but the party was steadfast in its demand of a roll-back. "The Trinamool Congress never rolls back its demand," Mr Bandopadhyay added for good measure, indicating that the ball was squarely in the court of the UPA Government.

Another Trinamool MP and party spokesman Derek O'Brien was even more candid. "... yes, our party has issues on content," O'Brien said in a message on his Twitter account. "Railway Budget...what was all that about increasing fares across the board? Upper class...maybe ok...but all? Sorry, cannot agree (sic)” read another tweet by him.

The tremors of Mr Trivedi's decision to hike fares was immediately felt in Kolkata, where party supremo and West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee was hardpressed to defend it. The message from Writers' Building to Rail Bhavan was clear: Roll back, or else.

Speaking to reporters at Nandigram in West Bengal, Ms Banerjee said that her party was opposed to the hike.

"We will not accept the fire hike. We will not allow the fire hike to happen for the sake of the common man... we are totally against it. I can assure you this," Ms Banerjee said.

Later in the day, Mr Bandopadhyay told reporters in New Delhi that if necessary, the party will move a cut motion on the issue in Parliament, indicating little possibility of a compromise. In an oblique reference to Mr Trivedi, Mr Bandopadhyay also said that everyone should know that Trinamool was united and committed to its leader, Ms Mamata Banerjee. "Those who do not not abide by the party directive may quit the party. We have no no feelings for them,” he asserted. Adding insult to injury, he indicated that the party could propose a new name to replace Mr Trivedi as railway minister. Furthermore, the Trinamool MPs are likely to take up the issue of rail fare-hike during their sit-in outside Parliament House on Thursday. Also, a delegation of Trinamool MPs is expected to call on Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to press for a roll-back of the fares.

The knives were always out for Mr Trivedi; his decision to hike rail fares has further isolated him. Mr Trivedi has not particularly endeared himself to his party for not forcefully articulating Ms Mamata Banerjee's position on key policy issues that were discussed in Cabinet meetings chaired by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Also, Mr Trivedi is the lone Trinamool minister with a Cabinet rank in the UPA Government when those senior to him in the party, such as Mukul Roy, are only ministers of state. Furthermore, Mr Trivedi's effusive praise for Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Congress President Sonia Gandhi, and Ms Mamata Banerjee, in that order, in his budget speech left many wondering where his loyalties lie.

Trinamool sources insisted that Mr Trivedi's decision to hike the rail fares went against the grain of the party's stated position. More so, after the party threatened to pull out of the UPA last year over an increase in fuel prices.

However, the Trinamool party's critics would argue that the open criticism of their own minister was unfounded, particularly after Ms Banerjee's government in Bengal allowed the state-run power distribution utility to raise tariff on account of rise in coal prices.

The only praise for Mr Trivedi, predictably, came from the Congress party and the industry. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh described the budget as forward-looking with emphasis on safety and modernisation. Finance minister Pranab Mukherjee, in turn, welcomed Mr Trivedi's attempt to bring down the operating cost of the Indian Railways.

Industry chambers such as CII and Assocham said that the "very minimal" hike in rail fares was a good decision as they had not been increased in nearly a decade.

Mr Trivedi defended himself by maintaining that the hike was not steep. "The Railways was getting into the ICU and I have pulled it out of it," he said stoically. "You cannot have everything".

For somebody who famously asserted in the speech that he has opted to bite the bullet, as opposed to maintaining a status quo, the next few days could determine whether Mr Trivedi actually ended up biting off more than he could chew.

* The report was filed at 4.20 pm on Wednesday, 14 March 2012.

Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh to visit Iran despite regional tensions

Hyderabad
12 March 2012

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's much-anticipated visit to Iran this year can be expected to serve the dual purpose of maintaining India's ties with Iran on an even keel and kickstarting peace talks with Pakistan.

Tehran will host the 16th Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) summit in September.

His visit to the Iranian capital will, literally, be couched in nonalignment, coming as it will in the midst of a brewing crisis in West Asia, between Iran and Israel, and between the Shiite and Sunni blocs represented by Iran and Saudi Arabia, respectively.

It will follow the visits by external affairs minister SM Krishna to Israel, and defence minister AK Antony to Saudi Arabia. Also, it will be the first visit by an Indian premier to Iran in over a decade, after Atal Bihari Vajpayee's in 2001.

Prime Minister Singh's proposed visit to Tehran is being described as a manifestation of India's balanced and equitable relationships with various protagonists in the region. A broad-based relationship with the region is a welcome shift in policy, particularly after the narrow-minded pursuit of interests in the run-up to the signing of the India-US nuclear deal.

India and Pakistan are among the 120 members of the NAM. Besides interacting with the host, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, Prime Minister Singh is likely to re-engage his Pakistan counterpart, Yousuf Raza Gilani, on the margins of the summit.

The prime ministers of India and Pakistan last met in November 2011 on the sidelines of the Saarc summit in the Maldives. Incidentally, it was on the margins of the last NAM summit, hosted by Egypt in the Red Sea resort of Sharm-el-Sheikh in 2009, that prime ministers Singh and Gilani agreed to insulate the peace talks from "action on terrorism".

Prime Minister Singh will be hoping that peace with Pakistan will be his legacy, as India heads for elections in 2014. The Singh-Gilani talks will be preceded by Mr Krishna's visit to Islamabad.