The Indian Spring: Lessons for the world

New Delhi
28 December 2013

On 17 December 2013, as Tunisians observed the third anniversary of the self-immolation of a 26-year-old street vendor Mohd Bouazizi in Sidi Bouzid that sparked protests in their country and triggered a wave of similar uprisings across North Africa and West Asia, people of Delhi broke out into celebrations for the second time in less than 10 days. A rank outsider, 45-year-old Arvind Kejriwal had just announced a referendum of sorts to ascertain the people’s wishes on whether his Aam Aadmi (common man) Party should take the lead for forming a government or not, after the fledgling party made a historic debut in the recently concluded provincial elections winning 28 seats in the 70-member Assembly and coming second behind BJP and its allies (32) but far ahead of the Congress’s tally of eight seats. Less than a week later, Kejriwal had staked claim to form the government, bringing to a successful culmination an unprecedented experiment in Indian democracy and bringing cheer to ordinary citizens who had had enough of the corruption and inflation that had peaked of late.

The contrast between Sidi Bouzid, a town 260 kilometres southwest of capital Tunis, and a Delhi located 6,000-odd km away, could not have been starker. Three years after the first stirrings of the Arab Spring, Tunisia – much like the rest of the Arab world – is still coming to terms with the contagion that was unleashed on an unsuspecting society and government alike. But the Indian version of the Arab Spring that began with a septuagenarian anti-corruption crusader Anna Hazare’s fast at Jantar Mantar in Delhi on 5 April 2011 can draw satisfaction from the many successes it has notched up on the way. There is a sense of accomplishment in the air. The spontaneous public movement that captured the imagination of men and women, young and old, in cities and towns across much of India has finally paid dividends. Not only does India today have a new Lokpal Bill that provides for a nationwide anti-corruption ombudsman, Hazare’s one-time protégé Kejriwal has turned a people’s movement for good governance, transparency and accountability into a political party with a remarkable felicity of democratic expression. That this was achieved without any blood-letting is a tribute to the virtues of democracy in general and the sagacity and maturity of the Indian voter in particular. Compare this with the less than two lakh people killed in the Arab Spring, including, but not limited to, 300 in Tunisia, 1,700 in Egypt, 2,000 in Yemen, 25,000 in Libya, 1.2 lakh in Syria and over 100 in Bahrain, all of which are yet nowhere close to overcoming the challenges such as corruption, unemployment, inflation and inequality that bedevils Sidi Bouzid as much as it does Chandni Chowk. The events that unfolded in those countries brought home the tragic consequences of choosing the bullet over the ballot.

The phenomenon sweeping across much of the Arab world did not leave democratic societies such as the United States, where the Occupy Wall Street movement gained traction, or India, untouched. No country was immune from its reach. Social media ensured that the word spread farther and anger travelled faster. It sprouted wherever it found a ground made fertile by misgovernance. It spared neither the dictator nor the democrat. Five governments were overthrown, including two in Egypt, just as the ruling Congress party was ousted from power in the province of Delhi but, unlike India and the US, the levels of disenchantment continue to remain high in the democracy-deficit countries in North Africa and West Asia. The prevailing sentiment in Tunisia, which has seen changes wrought by the Arab Spring, is that people’s lives and their economic situation has improved only marginally but it is not likely to improve any further in the immediate future. Tunisia is likely to witness the approval of a new constitution and the holding of parliamentary elections in 2014. In a recent study conducted by researchers from the University of Michigan Institute for Social Research and the University of Maryland in the United States, more than 60 per cent of the 3,000 Tunisian adults surveyed said that they are not happy with the current political leadership and 86 per cent said that corruption is common. The situation is worse in Egypt, which increasingly resembles a police state, or, Libya, where militias run amok, throwing the country into further instability. In Yemen, attempts are still being made for a national dialogue and reconciliation involving multiple stakeholders. “It is clear that the process of Arab transformation will need decades to mature and that its success is by no means guaranteed,” says Marwan Muasher, vice president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the oldest international affairs think tank in the United States. Muasher’s prognosis for some of the countries affected by the Arab Spring is not encouraging. According to him, Egypt, which can be expected to hold a referendum on a new constitution in addition to presidential and parliamentary elections in 2014, “is not out of the woods yet.” He sounds a warning for the Arab monarchies who have not succeeded in tackling the underlying political, economic, and social challenges their nations face. “Jordan will continue to feel that it has successfully ridden the wave of Arab transitions without seriously addressing some of the key economic and political challenges facing the country. And it will probably get away with it, at least for now,” notes Muasher, who served as Jordan’s deputy prime minister from 2004 to 2005 and foreign minister from 2002 to 2004.

At the same time, the Aam Aadmi Party’s ascension to the front and centre of the political landscape and discourse is instructive for a proud democracy such as India. We are seeing Kejriwal’s fourth avatar, this time as a politician, after the engineer-turned-bureaucrat quit government service to launch a non-government organisation (NGO.) He was in every sense of the word an antithesis to the reticent and self-effacing Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who for many had come to symbolise some if not everything that was wrong with the government and governance. By any reckoning, the recently concluded elections in Delhi that catapulted the Aam Aadmi Party to centrestage had to be among the most secular electoral contests in recent memory because it was fought on the twin issues of corruption and good governance, and these are as secular an issue as secular gets. The usual considerations of caste, sect or religion were trumped by the near universal outrage against corruption. Contrast this with many of the countries affected by the Arab Spring which descended into sectarianism, majoritarianism or plain terrorism; where people still yearn for the rule of law and many of the personal freedoms and human rights that many around the world take for granted. The Indian Spring also took under its wing issues other than corruption, such as crimes against women. The common man was once again at the forefront of the apolitical, secular protests following the 16 December 2012 gang rape of a young woman in Delhi. The Indian Street, similar to the Arab Street, had well and truly begun to take spape. The unprecedented outrage forced Parliament to pass the Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill to tighten the legal framework against rape. Women have found the voice to assert themselves like never before. It has led to the arrest of a magazine editor on charges of rape and a retired Supreme Court judge finds himself at the centre of a row over the alleged sexual harassment of a law intern. Having said that, if the groundswell of opinion in favour of the Aam Aadmi Party in Delhi extends to even some of the other states of Indian Union and/or the mandate decisively shifts away from the two blocs led by the Congress and the BJP to regional parties, then the 2014 parliamentary elections could throw up a more representative government bringing in its wake certain implications for the economic and foreign policies of India. Be it 51 per cent foreign direct investment (FDI) in multi-brand retail; policies vis-à-vis Pakistan, Bangladesh or Sri Lanka; National Counter Terrorism Centre (NCTC); or setting up of new nuclear power plants, what cannot be overstated is that devolution of economic or foreign policies to more stakeholders than what is currently assumed should not be entirely unwelcome. In a federal structure such as India’s, foreign policy in particular cannot be practised in a vacuum or in isolation or without consultations with all stakeholders concerned, including, but not limited to, the states, particularly those that share contiguous borders with neighbouring countries and/or share ethnic, linguistic, cultural or geographical affinities with them. A foreign policy drawn up in the corridors of the South Block in New Delhi may have served India well in all these decades but contemporary realities dictate that in a federal set-up and in an era of coalition governments the views of the states are factored in at the time of formulation of a foreign policy. The democratisation of policy-making and the salience of the states in shaping it cannot be continued to be treated as an exception; and the sooner New Delhi gets used to executing its foreign and domestic policies in a coalition with sometimes competing political interests, the better it will be for all the stakeholders concerned.

At the time of writing, protests reminiscent of the Arab Spring are happening in Thailand, where at least four have died so far, and Ukraine. The international community could draw the right lessons from the Indian Spring, which spawned the rise of the Aam Aadmi Party. It has stirred even a 128-year-old party such as the Congress from its complacency and put others on notice. The three-time chief minister of Delhi, who had derisively asked “Who is Arvind Kejriwal? What is [Aam Aadmi Party]?” on election day, got her answer four days later when the votes were counted and how: Her party had been trounced and she herself had lost the election from her constituency. All of which can only mean one thing for political parties and governments everywhere: Thou shalt not mistreat the common man.

Remove the blinkers

New Delhi
16 October 2013

The Prime Minister of India met with his Pakistan counterpart on the margins of the 68th session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York on 29 September 2013, defying public sentiment and in spite of an overwhelming body of evidence of Pakistan’s complicity in allowing its territory to be used for mounting terrorist attacks against India and Indian interests, at home and abroad alike. The discourse leading up to the meeting was dominated by whether the talks should at all be held in the immediate backdrop of the 26 September 2013 twin terror attacks in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir in which Indian soldiers, police personnel and civilians were killed. It was not an isolated incident: In January this year an Indian soldier was beheaded at the Line of Control (LoC) with Pakistan; in August five more Indian soldiers were killed; and, in between, several more such killings and infiltrations were reported. As it became known later, the Indian Army was engaged in an operation to repulse an attempt from the Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (PoK) to push a tranche of infiltrators across the Line of Control even as the two premiers shook hands and posed for the cameras. It took the army a fortnight to successfully conclude the anti-infiltration operation. If the government dithered on calling Pakistan’s bluff, the army chief made it eminently clear to anyone who would care to listen that it is impossible for terrorists to carry out any activity along the LoC without the knowledge of the Pakistani Army.

By the Indian government’s own admission, the expectations from the New York talks had to be toned down given the terror arm which is still active in the Indian subcontinent. And as it predictably turned out, there was not much to show by way of outcomes except for the two sides deciding to task their respective Directors-General of Military Operations (DGMOs) to meet for suggesting effective means to restore the ceasefire. Even that looks remote now. The two DGMOs last met in 1999 although they speak fairly regularly. The New York meeting could at best be described as a photo-op. If anything, it once again reaffirmed Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s, and by extension his government’s, adamantly consistent but questionable position on talks with Pakistan. After the 26 November 2008 Mumbai attacks, too, he had similarly disregarded public opinion to first meet with the then President of Pakistan at Yekaterinburg in Russia on the margins of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit, and later with the then Prime Minister of Pakistan at the Red Sea resort of Sharm-el-Sheikh in Egypt on the sidelines of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) summit. It was at Sharm-el-Sheikh that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his team agreed to a joint statement with Pakistan that said: “Action on terrorism should not be linked to the Composite Dialogue Process and these should not be bracketed”. Also, in another first, Balochistan was allowed to creep into the text of an India - Pakistan joint statement. Pakistan has since conveniently used the bogey of Indian involvement in stirring up trouble in Balochistan as a stock response to India’s assertions of a Pakistani hand in fomenting unrest in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir.

All of which begs the question: Talks to what end, and at what cost? Is the life of an Indian – be it a soldier or a civilian — so cheap that talks with Pakistan should continue at any cost and in spite of a spate of terrorist attacks, as evidenced most recently in the twin terror attacks in the Samba and Kathua sectors of Jammu and Kashmir? How many more brave Indian soldiers should be killed in cowardly terrorist attacks before the decision-making apparatuses of the government proactively seek out the military’s views? How many more families should lose their loved ones at the hands of the terrorists and their masters outside our borders before the government of the day begins to pay heed to the sentiments of the common man whom it claims to represent? Why are no visible attempts being made to restore the delicate civil-military balance and to uphold the dignity and morale of the soldier? Instead, what we are witnessing today is a government that is playing with fire and it needs to stop now. External Affairs Minister Salman Khurshid has since clarified that while the two Prime Ministers met in New York the stage has not been reached where the two sides have indicated any dates, timeline or perspective on resuming the dialogue. And with a post-2014 Afghanistan looming large on the horizon it is anyone’s guess as to how much time and effort Pakistan, given its proclivities, will be willing to spare and/or invest in preserving the incremental peace dividends and insulating the bilateral relationship from external influences.

What the discerning stakeholders in India today need be understand is that this government’s blind faith in dialogue with Pakistan has not disproved those who have little or no faith in talks under the present circumstances. The history of India – Pakistan bilateral engagement over the past decade and more is replete with an unending series of terrorist attacks interspersed with peace talks, an overwhelming majority of which were held in third countries on the margins of multilateral summits. The New York meeting is but one in a long list of bilateral engagements starting with the 2006 NAM summit at Havana in Cuba, the 2008 Asia –Europe Meeting (ASEM) at Beijing in China, the 2008 United Nations General Assembly session in New York, the 2009 SCO summit at Yekaterinburg in Russia, the 2009 NAM summit at Sharm-el-Sheikh and the 2010 SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation) summit at Thimphu in Bhutan. Add to it former Pakistan President Gen Pervez Musharraf’s visit to New Delhi in 2005 and former Pakistan Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani’s visit to Mohali in 2011 for watching cricket or the private visits by Pakistani heads of state/government to Ajmer and you have a veritably uninterrupted dialogue that can be traced further back to Lahore, 1999; Agra, 2001; and Islamabad, 2004. Importantly, these bilateral engagements have survived multiple terrorist attacks and conflicts dating back to Kargil and Kandahar in 1999, Parliament in 2001, Mumbai train bombings of 2006 and the 26/11 terrorist attacks again in Mumbai, in 2008. But what has come of the talks so far? Are we any closer to a breakthrough than we were before? Have terrorist attacks diminished appreciably? Unfortunately, after every terrorist attack the government of the day mouths platitudes and employs boilerplate language such as ‘It cannot be business as usual’ or ‘Patience is not inexhaustible’ only to go back on them at the first available opportunity! This government has tied itself in knots over its Pakistan policy but it has only itself to blame for it. Its inability to think out of the box has exposed its bankruptcy of ideas on how to deal with an increasingly intransigent neighbour. And Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s personal quest for a lasting legacy insofar as Pakistan is concerned has only further compounded an already intractable conundrum.

The government needs to remove its blinkers and begin to appreciate that terrorism and talks cannot go hand in hand. It is imperative that the government shows zero tolerance to terrorism, takes strong steps to prevent terror attacks and imposes costs on the perpetrators of terrorism. Most importantly, the government must heed public opinion. The time has come for the government to start calling Pakistan’s bluff, to act firmly and decisively and if that involves putting a moratorium on future talks with Pakistan at the highest level, “so be it.” Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has used this specific language before, albeit to a domestic audience in the run up to the India – United States nuclear cooperation agreement in his first term in office when the Left parties parted ways with the UPA; there is no reason why in the instant context Pakistan cannot be told “So be it”; that India will be free to pursue its course of action if Pakistan does not intend to reciprocate peace overtures; and that consequences will follow if it does not give satisfaction to India on what India considers to be its core interests. Saying no to talks now is not the same as saying no to talks ever and it certainly need not necessarily mean or come to represent an escalation of tensions. A range of other equally effective options is available to the government of the day to execute its Pakistan policy and these must be explored. Above all, the government must forge the broadest possible national consensus on the way forward for a détente with Pakistan.

Post-2014 Afghanistan: Back to the Future?

New Delhi

28 July 2013

As Afghanistan prepares for life beyond 2014 its capital Kabul is seeing a steady stream of visitors from far and near, all seeking to reassure and to be reassured themselves that peace and stability will return to the landlocked country torn apart by conflict for the last 33 years. Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd paid a surprise visit to Afghanistan on July 27; his country has about 1,500 troops there but the bulk will be pulled out by the end of this year. Security and Foreign Affairs Adviser Sartaj Aziz of Pakistan and British premier David Cameron were there, too, as was the US’s Af-Pak envoy James Dobbins. An Indian delegation comprising officials from the ministries of external affairs and defence travelled to Kabul in the second week of July to follow up on Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s visit to New Delhi in the month of May with a wish list of items he would like the Indian government to share with the Afghan national army and allied security forces as the US completes pulling out its troops by the end of next year.

What should have been a moment of quiet satisfaction, reflective of the enormous goodwill India enjoys among the Afghan people and government alike for funding development projects worth billions of dollars, has turned into an embarrassment of sorts as President Karzai’s wish list has exposed the limits to what India can, and is willing to, do to shore up a post-2014 Afghanistan. It was quick to waitlist Karzai’s inventory of lethal materiel rpt materiel on the ground that there are many moving parts to the Afghan conundrum, namely Pakistan’s attitude towards Afghanistan and India, the Taliban’s own game plan, the moves for a possible reconciliation with the Taliban (as evidenced by the opening of a Taliban office in Qatar) and the extent of Pakistan’s role in it, the ethnic configuration of Afghanistan in the immediate future and last but not the least the eventual successor to Mr Karzai following the elections.

Notwithstanding New Delhi’s contention that while it is there for the long haul it would not want to “become part of the problem”, Kabul maintains that the Afghan national security forces must be equipped with the necessary capabilities – including capacity for logistics and equipment maintenance as well as adequate ground and air firepower – to execute independent operations against conventional and unconventional enemies. India and Afghanistan signed a strategic partnership agreement in October 2011, which dwelled on security, trade, capacity-building and people-to-people contacts. Specifically, India agreed "to assist, as mutually determined, in the training, equipping and capacity building programmes for Afghan National Security Forces". Therefore, Kabul’s desire to source hardware with Indian assistance should be viewed in that context. But if the Afghans were disappointed by New Delhi’s circumspection, they did not show it. As Afghan ambassador to India Shaida Abdali put it, “In the post 2014 period, we look forward to working with India .... At the same time, we renew our call on the international community to stay the course in Afghanistan.”

So could Afghanistan descend into chaos after 2014? While jury is still out on that, serving and former Afghan officials are of the considered view that the road to peace in Kabul goes through Islamabad. An Afghan diplomatic source insists that the Taliban leadership continues to receive protection from the Pakistani military and intelligence establishments. Afghan army chief General Sher Mohammad Karimi believes that Pakistan could end the Afghan war "in weeks" because “the Taliban are under their control". A former Afghan intelligence chief, Amrullah Saleh, in turn, says that some of the Western powers are in such a hurry to cut and run from Afghanistan that they are eager to differentiate between the threats posed by the Taliban and the Al-Qaeda and to downplay the dangers posed by a return of the Taliban (similar to how the chaos after the erstwhile USSR’s withdrawal from Afghanistan gave rise to the Taliban.) Ironically, this view is in contrast to New Delhi’s which has of late adopted a nuanced position on the issue of reconciliation with the Taliban; at a recent Asean meeting in Brunei External Affairs Minister Salman Khurshid said India supported Kabul’s efforts to establish a dialogue with all armed opposition groups, “including the Taliban”. For now, Abdali is confident that his country will not go the Iraq way from where the US troops withdrew in December 2011 but which continues to be riven by civil strife, or, resemble the days of the Taliban rule between 1996 and 2001. “Let me assure you against the 2014 myth of Afghanistan falling apart after the withdrawal of NATO forces from our country,” says Abdali. Watch this space!

Bolivia to host global summit to rally support against US snooping

New Delhi

26 July 2013

Spurred on by Edward Snowden’s revelations about the U.S. snooping on internet- and telephone-users worldwide and provoked by the subsequent diversion of President Evo Morales’s plane to Austria ostensibly because of suspicion that Snowden was on board, Bolivia will host a three-day international summit from July 31 to rally support for the defence of human rights and sovereignty. It will be held the day after the summit of Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of America (ALBA) concludes in Ecuador, where again these issues would have been discussed by the participating heads of state.

The Bolivian ambassador to India, Mr Jorge Cardenas Robles, told the media in New Delhi on Thursday (26 July) that the summit to be hosted by his country would discuss among other things the fallout of Snowden’s revelations, the “act of terrorism” against President Morales’ aircraft, armed aggression by foreign powers in Libya and now Syria and the alleged violation of international treaties and conventions by certain countries.

Mr Robles described the acts of espionage by the U.S. as an attack on the freedom of people around the world and said that such acts demonstrated the seriousness of the violation of the basic rights of the people.

Karzai, Singh discuss roadmap for 2014 and beyond

New Delhi
21 May 2013

The situation that will obtain in Afghanistan after the presidential elections in April 2014 and the subsequent withdrawal of international troops from the country before that year ends, not to mention the protection of Indian interests and investments made in the war-ravaged, landlocked country over the years, would have weighed on Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s mind as he hosted President Hamid Karzai for talks in New Delhi on Tuesday. That, when taken together with President Karzai’s stated desire to broaden and deepen security ties with India, including, but not limited to, the supply of weapons and other military hardware for the Afghan forces, set this round of talks apart from previous ones. Afghan ambassador to India Shaida Abdali prefaced the Karzai-Singh meeting by asserting that “we would like to go beyond the current trend of co-operation between the two countries in the defence sector. So, we would like to have both lethal and non-lethal assistance to our defence forces in Afghanistan.”

Kabul maintains that the Afghan national security forces must be equipped with the necessary capabilities – including capacity for logistics and equipment maintenance as well as adequate ground and air firepower – to execute independent operations against conventional and unconventional enemies. India and Afghanistan signed a strategic partnership agreement in October 2011, which dwelled on security, trade, capacity-building and people-to-people contacts. Specifically, India agreed "to assist, as mutually determined, in the training, equipping and capacity building programmes for Afghan National Security Forces". Therefore, Kabul’s desire to source hardware with Indian assistance must be viewed in that context.

According to Ashraf Haidari, deputy chief of mission of the Afghan embassy in India who has served as Afghanistan’s deputy assistant national security adviser and deputy chief of mission of the Afghan embassy in the US, “the Taliban leadership continues to receive protection from the Pakistani military and intelligence establishments.” He buttressed his argument by pointing out that “without an external sanctuary, sustainable funding, weapons supplies, and intelligence support in Pakistan, the Taliban would be unable to reconsolidate its control over Afghanistan. Since 2003, the Taliban and its affiliated networks have gradually expanded their influence in the ungoverned southern and eastern parts of Afghanistan, launching daily terrorist attacks that have injured and killed thousands of innocent civilians.”

While India was expected to lend a sympathetic ear to President Karzai, how soon and to what extent will it be able to satisfy Afghanistan on this count will be a function of India's own assessment of the unfolding situation situation in the Af-Pak region. Adding to New Delhi’s anxieties is that there are many moving parts to the Afghan conundrum, namely Pakistan’s attitude towards Afghanistan and India, the Taliban’s own gameplan, the moves for a possible reconciliation with the Taliban and the extent of Pakistan’s role in it, the possibility of a greater Chinese involvement subsequent to the US pullout, the ethnic configuration of Afghanistan in the immediate future and last but not the least the eventual successor to Mr Karzai following the presidential elections to be held in April 2014. That may explain India’s circumspection, as evidenced by the Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson’s remarks that while Afghanistan is a “strategically important” neighbour, India will “continue to discuss and respond to specific requests of the Afghan government ... within our own modest means as a developing country”.

The Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) and the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) were not forthcoming with details on the Karzai-Singh talks. It was left to Rashtrapati Bhavan to articulate India’s views which it did by putting out a press statement quoting President Pranab Mukherjee as telling his Afghan counterpart that India was prepared to increase bilateral contribution to Afghanistan’s institution-building, training and equipment “to the extent [it] can” and that India would stand by Afghanistan during its critical period of transition. Earlier in the day, External Affairs Minister Salman Khurshid told journalists that India was already assisting Afghanistan with doing capacity-building, non-lethal military hardware, communication and transport equipment. “He (Karzai) may have a wish list and with which he may go to our Prime Minister but these are ongoing... which will all be discussed within the parameters of what our capacity is, what our philosophy is, we would help them as a friend,” Khurshid elaborated.

From President Karzai’s perspective there are three other issues that continue to engage his government’s attention. One is the tensions with Pakistan on the Durand Line, which has been cited by Karzai’s spokesman Aimal Faizi on more than one occasion. The second is the recognition that Afghanistan is vulnerable to transnational security threats, stemming in particular from the narcotics trade and terrorism. The third issue, which is of a more immediate concern to his government, is the lack of coordination among international donors or partners. Although the diversity of nations present in Afghanistan demonstrates international goodwill and consensus for supporting the country, Kabul feels each contributing nation has pursued its own aid strategies, effectively bypassing coordination with each other and the Afghan government. Hence, a lack of strategic coordination across international military and civilian efforts to ensure aid effectiveness has so far crippled the Afghan state and left it with no capacity or resources to deliver basic services to its people.

For landlocked Afghanistan, access to a sea port is particularly vital. This specific need can be met to a certain extent by India’s collaboration with Iran for developing the Chabahar port and linking it to Afghanistan by a network of roads. At the same time, Kabul is acutely aware that its location should help it serve as a regional trade and transit hub for easy movement of goods and natural resources to meet the rising energy demands of India and China. Incidentally, Afghanistan was discussed at some length by Chinese Premier Li Keqiang and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh when they met on Monday. India has also been discussing Afghanistan with a host of other countries in the region and beyond, notably Iran, Russia and the US, besides international fora.

It was President Karzai’s 12th visit to India, and the second in the last six months. He paid a courtesy call on President Pranab Mukherjee and addressed industry representatives, too. In his address to the captains of Indian industry, President Karzai called for Indian investments in healthcare, agriculture and telecommunications in Afghanistan. He pointed out that agriculture was a priority sector for Afghanistan as it accounts for 36 per cent of its GDP and supports 85 per cent of the Afghan population. Afghan Foreign Minister Zalmai Rassoul, Afghanistan ambassador to India Shaida Abdali, Indian Ambassador to Afghanistan Gautam Mukhopadhaya and other senior officials were present on the occasion.

Indians see China as a threat and an opportunity, welcome stronger India-US ties: Poll

New Delhi
20 May 2013

More Indians saw China as a security threat but opinion was divided on whether India should join other countries to limit China’s influence or cooperate with China to play a leading role in the world, according to an opinion poll conducted by the Lowy Institute for International Policy and the Australia India Institute which was released at a function hosted by the Observer Research Foundation in New Delhi on Monday. The survey was conducted late last year, before the incursion by Chinese troops into Indian territory in Jammu and Kashmir threatened a delicate peace at the Sino-Indian border.

The ORF said in a statement that the poll revealed multiple reasons for the mistrust between India and China, including China’s possession of nuclear weapons, competition for resources in third countries, China’s efforts to strengthen relations with other countries in the Indian Ocean region and the India-China border dispute. Although China has become India’s largest trading partner, only 31 per cent of Indians agreed that China’s rise has been good for India. On India’s response to China’s rise, 65 per cent agreed that India should join other countries to limit China’s influence. At the same time, 64 per cent agreed that India should cooperate with China to play a leading role in the world.

In contrast, only 31 per cent saw the US as a security threat; also, 83 per cent wanted the India-US relations to be strong.

An overwhelming majority of 94 per cent Indians saw Pakistan as a threat, citing terrorism as a major reason.  The other reasons were that the Pakistani army sees India as an enemy; Pakistan’s nuclear weapons; and Pakistan’s sovereignty claims over Jammu and Kashmir.

Pakistan ranked lowest in terms of warmth of feeling in the list of 22 countries surveyed. At 62 degrees (on a scale of one to 100), Indians felt most warmly towards the US. China ranked in the middle along with Brazil at 44 degrees; the US, Singapore, Japan, Australia, France, Nepal, Russia, the UK, Sri Lanka and South Africa ranked higher.

Significantly, the findings suggested that if Prime Minister Manmohan Singh were to hold a summit with Nawaz Sharif, prime minister-designate of Pakistan, today, he would have popular support among a majority of Indians. However, it must be reiterated that the survey was conducted last year, before the incidents of torture and murder of Indian prisoners Sarabjit Singh and Chamel Singh and the beheading of an Indian soldier by Pakistan vitiated the atmosphere.

Corruption, democracy, domestic policy and other issues also figured in the poll, which was conducted last year between August 30 and October 15.

Speaking on the occasion of the release of the survey’s report, Information and Broadcasting Minister Manish Tewari said he was sceptical of opinion polls but “India Poll 2013” was worth reading as it red flags various indicators and coming as it did two days ahead of completion of nine years of the UPA government. Mr Tewari criticised the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) for exaggerating the extent of corruption. “When institutions start indulging in fiction writing, that is the greatest disservice that can possibly be done to the nation,” he said. “I think the CAG in the past six years, with due respect to him, has done the greatest disservice to the nation by tossing mystical numbers into the open space.”

ORF Director Sunjoy Joshi moderation a discussion based on the findings of the survey. Participating in it, Dr C. Raja Mohan or ORF said many of the assumptions in the drafting of foreign policy would have to change following the results of the poll. He said there should be a redoubled peace initiative with Pakistan. Mr Ashok Malik, a political commentator, in turn said that the fact that 42 per cent Indians have said the central and state governments had been unfair to the Kashmiris showed that a confident Indian society was emerging.

// HIGHLIGHTS //

Findings of the “India Poll 2013: Facing the future” opinion poll:

* 83 per cent Indians consider China as a security threat

* 63 per cent Indians would like relations with China to strengthen

* 31 per cent Indians agree that China’s rise has been good for India

* 65 per cent Indians want India to join other countries to limit China’s influence

* 64 per cent Indians want India to cooperate with China to play a leading role in the world

* 83 per cent want strong India-US relations

* 31 per cent see the US as a security threat

India and China in the Arctic: The New Great Game?

Energy rivalry took India and China first to Central Asia and then to Africa. Now, they are scrambling for resources in the icy slopes of the Arctic. On Wednesday, the two Asian giants were made observers in the Arctic Council, an intergovernmental forum to provide a means for promoting cooperation, coordination and interaction among the Arctic States. It caps a concerted effort by India to reach out to the Nordic countries such as Iceland, whose president visited New Delhi in April this year.

The polar region located at the northernmost part of the Earth is the new “hot” real estate; and it is only getting hotter, quite literally, due to climate change and global warming. Melting ice caps are posing problems for the indigenous peoples of the Arctic, who fear for their livelihood and future; but at the same time they are presenting opportunities like never before by opening up new sea lanes of transport and communication and making it possible to tap hitherto inaccessible reserves of oil, gas and minerals.

As the Arctic becomes navigable it is opening up new avenues for mining, commercial exploitation of marine resources and maritime commerce. And as is the wont of human history, politics manifests itself when scientific, economic and other interests collide; so it is with the freezing environs of the Arctic too where competing geostrategies make intergovernmental cooperation manifestly imperative. This is where the Arctic Council comes in: It intends to bring various stakeholders together for evolving a code for addressing the issues of equity, territorial integrity, sovereignty and national security.

Unlike the Antarctica, which is governed by the Antarctic Treaty System of 1961 (India is a consultative party since 1983), the Arctic is only now beginning to occupy the attention of nation-states near and far and everybody, it seems, wants to have a say in who gets what and under what conditions. In other words, no one wants a free-for-all for the world’s last resources ! According to the US Government estimates, 13 per cent of the world’s undiscovered oil and 30 per cent of the world’s undiscovered gas deposits can be found in the Arctic. And given its burgeoning appetite for natural resources it is only natural and inevitable too that China will become interested in the region.

The Communist state is eyeing the Arctic region for many reasons, including, but not limited to, the fact that a northern sea route will reduce its dependence on shipping oil and gas from West Asia through the Indian Ocean and the Strait of Malacca; also, it will reduce transportation costs between Asia and Europe / the US. Not to mention the commercial benefits that will accrue in terms of mining and ports. In September 2012 China expanded its presence in the Arctic when its icebreaking vessel crossed the Arctic waters for the very first time. There is much at stake for India, too. Energy security is a prime motivation for venturing into the Arctic but renewable energy and pursuit of scientific and technological studies are equally important. Already, India is a participant in the ongoing research in the Arctic.

Welcoming the Arctic Council’s decision to grant observer status to India, the spokesperson of the Ministry of External Affairs iterated New Delhi’s “commitment to contribute our proven scientific expertise, particularly in polar research capabilities, to the work of the Arctic Council and to support its objectives.” For its part, China welcomed the observer status by saying that the decision made by the Arctic Council will facilitate China's communication and cooperation with relevant parties on Arctic affairs within the framework of the Council and promote promote peace, stability and sustainable development of the Arctic region. The spokesperson of the Chinese ministry of foreign affairs said, “China supports the Council's principles and purposes, recognises Arctic countries' sovereignty, sovereign rights and jurisdiction in the Arctic region as well as their leading role in the Council and respects the values, interests, culture and tradition of the indigenous people and other people living in the Arctic region.”

The Arctic is an idea whose time has come although certain grey areas need resolution. For instance, there is little clarity on the applicability of the international Law of the Sea Convention on the new sea lanes that are opening up in what Russia and Canada consider as their backyard. Also, the right to exploit the international waters for commercial or geopolitical reasons is another point of contention.

*    *    *    *    *    *    *

What is Arctic Council?

It is an intergovernmental forum to provide a means for promoting cooperation, coordination and interaction among the Arctic States, with the involvement of the Arctic Indigenous communities and other Arctic inhabitants on common Arctic issues, in particular issues of sustainable development and environmental protection in the Arctic. It was established in 1996. The Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy, which was adopted in 1991, is the forerunner to the Arctic Council.

Who are its members?

There are eight members: Canada, Denmark (including Greenland and the Faroe Islands), Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russian Federation, Sweden, and the US. There are 32 observers (comprising 12 countries, 11 NGOs and nine intergovernmental and interparliamentary organisations such as United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and United Nations Environment Program (UNEP).) The 12 countries are: France, Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, the UK, India, China, Japan, South Korea, Italy and Singapore.

What is its mandate?

The Arctic Council is a high-level forum for cooperation, coordination and interaction between Arctic states, indigenous communities and other Arctic residents on issues such as sustainable development and environmental protection. The AC provides a valuable platform for discussions on all issues of relevance to the Arctic and the people who live there. As many Arctic ecosystems cross national boundaries, international cooperation is a prerequisite for sustainable development. A key objective for the Arctic Council is to enhance discussion on and promote the integrated management of natural resource use in accordance with high environmental standards. Protection of the environment is another objective because climate change affects the cultures of the indigenous peoples and their traditional trades, such as reindeer husbandry, hunting and fishing.

Who heads it?

The chairmanship of the Arctic Council rotates every two years between the eight member states. Canada is the current chair and its two-year term will end in 2015. Leona Aglukkaq, Canada’s health minister, will act as chair during the Canadian chairmanship. Ms Aglukkaq is the first Arctic indigenous person to ever chair the Council.

What has it achieved so far?

At the 2013 biennial meeting held in Sweden, which concluded on 15 May, the Arctic Council members signed a new, legally-binding Agreement on Cooperation on Marine Oil Pollution Preparedness and Response in the Arctic which will substantially improve procedures for combating oil spills in the Arctic. At the 2011 biennial meeting held in Greenland, the Arctic Council signed an Aeronautical and Maritime Search and Rescue agreement. It is the first legally-binding agreement negotiated under the auspices of the Arctic Council.

India - Pakistan detente: So, will Gah get lucky or Jatti Umra?

New Delhi

15 May 2013

M

anmohan Singh, already the third longest serving prime minister in India’s history, is hunting for a legacy ahead of the next elections scheduled in 2014. A new government has just been elected in Pakistan in what is the first ever transition from one civilian government to another in that country. Prime Minister-elect Nawaz Sharif has identified rescuing the economy as his number one priority. He has also shared his vision of peace and prosperity with India. We got a glimpse of his vision in his party’s, the Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz)’s, election manifesto, which is entitled, “Strong economy – Strong Pakistan”. It reads: “The country could be a bridge between energy rich Central Asia and Iran on one side and energy deficit countries like China and India on the other. Pakistan’s coastal belt facilitates access to warm waters and oil rich Gulf, as well as international oil supply lines passing through the Strait of Harmuz (sic). Pakistan can also develop a flourishing transit economy because it provides the shortest land routes from Western China to the Arabian Sea, through the Gwadar Port, while linking India with Afghanistan and CAR and providing land route from Iran to India and access to the Central Asian Republics to the Arabian Sea and India for oil/gas pipelines.” Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has already spoken to Mr Sharif, congratulated him on his election victory and invited him to visit India. Mr Sharif, who expressed his desire to visit India in an interview to Barkha Dutt of NDTV, followed it up by saying that he would be happy if Manmohan Singh visits Pakistan for his inauguration. The Indian Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) kept up the conversation by suggesting that there is no specific proposal of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh visiting Pakistan as no formal invite has been received The DNA newspaper cited government “sources” as indicating that the Prime Minister could travel to Pakistan at a later date. The attendant euphoria in a section of the media and the spinmeisters in the Congress party and the government, all seem to make a point that while Manmohan Singh may have said in January this year after the beheading of an Indian soldier that “there cannot be business as usual” with Pakistan, Nawaz Sharif is a man India can do business with.

A sense of déjà vu cannot be helped here; it is only to be expected in any consideration of the history of India-Pakistan relations.

The year was 2008. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was about to complete four years in office when Pakistan went to the polls. Thirty-six days after the elections, and the evening after inauguration, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh telephoned Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani and greeted him on his assumption of office of the Prime Minister of Pakistan. By May 20, Pranab Mukherjee had landed in Islamabad for foreign minister-level talks with Makhdoom Shah Mehmood Qureshi , who was to declare the following day at a joint news conference that “our government is ready for grand reconciliation for the resolution of longstanding issues that need to be resolved peacefully through dialogue and in a manner that is dignified and commensurate with the self-respect of the involved parties”. Qureshi asserted for good measure that “it has been decided that this visit (of the Indian Prime Minister) will take place this year,” adding that “No, we cannot say it will happen this month. Both sides want that before the visit, there should be sufficient progress, for which the chances are very bright.” 

The then Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) chairman Asif Ali Zardari revealed his mind on his vision for relations with India in an interview to the Press Trust of India (PTI). Asked if he saw economics as being the driving force in bilateral relations, Mr Zardari told PTI's Pakistan correspondent: “Yes, I can’t afford 180 million people with the poverty level today, but I have got water, millions of acres of virgin lands ... I can feed India and the world. On the border with India, I have got gas and oil. I can convert all that into product and market it to myself and to India. Then, I have a 1,100-mile coastline, which is virgin.” Mr Zardari doesn't stop at that. He said Pakistan could act as a “force multiplier” for India’s economy through increased cooperation in key sectors like energy. Mr Zardari went on to suggest: “You can’t expand Kolkata port. With today’s technology, I can make 20 deep sea ports and an economic zone in Gwadar. I can have high speed cargo trains, have a 17-18 hour turnaround period from your railway lines and the products will be available to you. You cannot put up gas containers on Mumbai beach, but I can put up (on the Pakistani coastline) any number of gas containers (and acquire gas from) all sorts of friendly Muslim countries where I, the PPP and the Government of Pakistan have influence. And we dovetail it, we create economic zones owned by the people.” Mr Zardari also said in the interview that his “model for India-Pakistan relations” was to create economic zones along the India - Pakistan border, use Pakistan’s coal reserves in Thar to generate power that could be exported to India and even acquire gas from “friendly Muslim countries” that could be supplied to India. (Here it is interesting to note the statement issued after the foreign minister-level talks took care to state India and Pakistan “reiterated their commitment to the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline project and had a useful exchange of views in this regard.”)

T

he current discourse on India and Pakistan reminds me of the late K Subrahmanyam. I remember talking to him in 2008, when a prime ministerial visit to Pakistan was a topic of discussion and debate within the government and without. Mr Subrahmanyam argued that a visit by the Prime Minister will strengthen the hands of the civilian government in Pakistan. “It has much more to do with lending legitimacy and showing support to the new government of Pakistan,” he said. However, he qualified it by noting that Pakistan has not stabilised yet and visiting that country now might not allow India to make full use of it. He urged patience, when I asked him about the likely outcomes or deliverables from such a visit. “Where we must move forward quickly, like the India-US nuclear deal, we don’t act fast. Where we have to be patient, we show great hurry.” Unfortunately for Mr Subrahmanyam and Indians like him, what unfolded in Mumbai on 26 November 2008 only served to test India’s patience.

With Nawaz Sharif there is more historical baggage: Kargil, 1999; and Mumbai, 1993. Both took place in his two previous stints as Prime Minister. Perhaps anticipating a sense of caution in India at Nawaz Sharif’s electoral victory, a retired Pakistani general Talat Masood has told Hindustan Times that “Nawaz Sharif is very serious about better relations with India. (President Asif Ali) Zardari was thwarted by the establishment. Being a Punjabi and a mandate from Punjab, Sharif can do much more.” Similar sentiments are shared by a section of Pakistan watchers in India. However, what New Delhi needs to appreciate is that doing a Sheikh Hasina on Nawaz Sharif can be counter-productive: First feting him and later leaving him in the lurch, similar to the manner in which India treated Sheikh Hasina of Bangladesh, could give rise to unintended consequences.  Therefore, India would do well to do its homework properly. As Lt Gen Asad Durrani (Retd), a former chief of Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), Pakistan’s intelligence agency, told me a few years ago: “Making peace means compromises but India does not want to pay the price. India believes Pakistan is suffering today and therefore India can wait and not make gestures. What needs to be understood is that peace is give and take and sometimes it involves changes in position.”

I

t can be reasonably argued that the Pakistani military will continue to call the shots insofar as Afghanistan is concerned and/or that Nawaz Sharif will allow the Generals to handle the Afghanistan affairs in the run-up to the withdrawal of American combat troops by 2014-end. However, what cannot be said with any degree of certainty is how he would ensure, as per his party’s manifesto:

i)                    That the formulation and determination of foreign policy remains the sole preserve of its elected representatives, while the implementation and execution shall be assigned to relevant departments and agencies by the Federal Cabinet”;

ii)                    that “for purposes of regular and systematic coordination and consideration of all matters related to national security, a Cabinet Committee on Defence and National Security, to be headed by the Prime Minister and assisted by a Permanent Secretariat, will be established to maintain democratic oversight of all aspects of foreign, defence and national security policies”;

iii)                 that “all institutions, whether civil or military, including those dealing with security and/or intelligence matters, act in accordance with the law, and under the instructions and directives of the Federal Cabinet”; and

iv)                 “democratic and parliamentary oversight on intelligence services”.

And then there are a host of other issues that would have a bearing on domestic politics in Pakistan, such as:

a)      Relations between the PML(N) and the PPP;

b)      Nawaz’s choice for President of Pakistan (presidential elections have to be held by September);

c)       Economy;

d)      Energy;

e)      Extremism and safety of minorities;

f)        Employment; and

g)      Export of terror to India.

Pakistan-watchers in India will have little difficulty in conceding that Nawaz Sharif is riding a tiger what with so many domestic challenges confronting him, which will demand his attention for some time to come. Prudence dictates that India will be ready when Pakistan is ready; until then he can do with India’s benefit of doubt and time.

So, will Gah get lucky or Jatti Umra?

India, China standoff: Acne or acme of skill ?

New Delhi
4 May 2013

The latest Chinese incursion into Jammu and Kashmir may in itself not pose an existential threat to India but when read along with China’s history of all-weather friendship with Pakistan, cartographic aggression, its foray into Pakistan-occupied-Kashmir, issuing of stapled visas to Indian nationals and damming of rivers in Tibet, it reveals a pattern that is not in the least tentative. Or, that is how New Delhi must proceed in the interest of a nimble and supple China policy.

So, to describe the latest Chinese incursion as nothing more than an “acne” that can be cured with an “ointment” would not be accurate; such a description does not square  with the facts obtaining on the ground and definitely not with the statements emanating from the political, military and diplomatic quarters. The discourse in the Indian media is not without criticism either. As a former diplomat MK Bhadrakumar put it, it is improper on the part of a section of media to isolate a particular incident (in this case the latest Chinese incursion in J&K) and insist that is where history begins.

Questions have also been raised about the inability of the political class to hold a rational discussion of the terms of a boundary settlement with China. Why is it that India is the only neighbour of China (beside Bhutan) to not have an agreed border? How can India expect to resolve its boundary dispute with China if it is not willing to make concessions? Perhaps it would be instructive to understand how China, which has 14 countries in its neighbourhood, has resolved border disputes with all but two of them.

When Kazakhstan became an independent state almost a decade ago, it inherited a border conflict with China that dates back several centuries. In 1998, China and Kazakhstan reached a broad understanding on the border dispute. A Kazakh diplomat, who I met a few years ago in New Delhi, recalled the pitfalls of his country’s negotiations with China. Murat Mukhtarovich Auezov, who was Kazakhstan's first ambassador to China from 1992 to 1995 (China and Kazakhstan established diplomatic relations on January 3, 1992), told me that some of the Central Asian republics lost out territorially and politically to China on the negotiating table in spite of enjoying generally good relations with China.

Auezov was particularly critical of the manner in which China approached the boundary dispute with Kazakhstan. He said Kazakhstan ended up with an agreement that served China’s interests; not Central Asia’s. The Central Asian countries may have benefited from the oil transit money received from China but they have had to pay a price for it by settling the issue of water resources, including cross-border rivers, to the advantage of China. He also felt that the expanding Chinese economic and trade ties have given rise to political and demographic threats.

Some commentators have wondered whether the latest Chinese incursion into Jammu and Kashmir could have been motivated in part by India’s beefing up of its border infrastructure. According to Mr Bhadrakumar, it is only the Indian government which has a complete picture of what happened on the Line of Actual Control (LAC); it only knows how the Indian forces’ conduct has been on our side of the LAC. B Raman, a former additional secretary in the Cabinet Secretariat, counters it by saying that the Chinese presence in PoK and Gilgit-Baltistan, for instance, is a violation of India’s sovereignty claims. Prof Srikanth Kondapalli of Jawaharlal Nehru University, in turn, points out that China has invested heavily in Gilgit-Baltistan, including investing 32 billion dollars in a hydro electricity projects and widening the Karakoram highway so that it could also be used for landing aircraft.

Then, could it be that the Chinese might be trying to force a unilateral solution on India by taking their ground positions in line with their map? TCA Rangachari, a former diplomat, believes it requires careful consideration. Jury is still out on these and other questions. For now, all eyes are on External Affairs Minister Salman Khurshid’s visit to Beijing next week and Chinese Premier Li Keqiang’s visit to New Delhi later this month.

Singh is sinking !

New Delhi

4 May 2013

On 3 May 2013, India went to sleep with the news of the arrest of the Railway Minister’s nephew for receiving a bribe. What should surprise the discerning is not that a politician’s kin was involved in corruption but that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) carried out the arrest, particularly at a time when the country is in the midst of a debate on the independence or otherwise of the premier investigating agency; when the Supreme Court is asking for the agency to be insulated from executive interference; and at a time when the scam-ridden ruling coalition, which is stumbling from one crisis to another, can easily do without another crisis of its own making.

For a government that does not shy away from letting the CBI loose on errant allies to rein them in, and for an agency whose director says it is a part of the government, not an autonomous organisation, the arrest of the minister’s nephew by the CBI should raise some perplexing but pertinent questions. Are we to believe, for instance, that the CBI acted on its own and that it did not take its political masters into confidence before arresting a minister’s kin? Or that the Department of Personnel and Training to which the agency reports and, by extension, the Prime Minister’s office under which the department falls, did not intervene? Or, worse still, the CBI director had an axe to grind with the Railway Board official who bribed the minister’s nephew?

Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Akhilesh Singh Yadav was not betraying any secrets when he told journalists at Allahabad in April that anybody who does not act according to the Congress party’s wishes faces persecution through CBI. Neither was his father Mulayam Singh Yadav of the Samajwadi party, who amplified it by saying that the CBI was misused by the Congress the moment any party took it on. MK Stalin of the DMK would not disagree with the Yadavs; the agency raided his house in March barely two days after the party pulled out of the UPA. Finance Minister P Chidambaram disapproved of the action by the CBI, saying it will be misunderstood. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, in turn, said that the government did not do it.

Not for a moment is it being suggested here that there is indeed something more to the arrest of the Railway Minister’s nephew than meets the eye. Whatever be the circumstances of his arrest, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh cannot escape the blame for presiding over a tainted government. If his administration can take credit, rightfully, for giving to the nation path-breaking initiatives such as the Right to Information, the Right to Education and the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, it must own up to its acts of omission and/or commission, too.

Nobody is yet calling Manmohan Singh corrupt but there is no denying that his Teflon image has taken a beating from his heydays in 2004, when he was pitchforked into the prime minister’s chair. Four years into its second consecutive term, the government has not come out smelling of roses after the various scams in 2G spectrum, Commonwealth Games, Adarsh housing society, coal ‘gate’ and purchase of helicopters. Surely, the Prime Minister cannot possibly blame compulsions of running a coalition on all the scams ! True, as Congress Vice President Rahul Gandhi puts it, “One man riding a horse cannot solve the country’s problems”, but try telling that to a Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi or a Nelson Mandela ! Simply put, giving up without trying or looking the other way is tantamount to abdication of one’s responsibilities. Ironically, for a technocrat-turned-politician he has allowed his party to go out of its way to penalise the honest and make an example out of them for all to see. A case in point is the brazen manner in which the party has treated a certain bureaucrat for taking undue interest in a matter. You can imagine what message that sends out to the world at large.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh would be doing a singular disservice to his reputation and legacy and that of his administration if he does not rid himself of inertia and live up to the expectations of the New Middle Class, which can be impatient, demanding, unforgiving but generous to a fault, too. Already, his political rivals dismiss him as weak. Some in the media call him an underachiever. If he stays the course, the time is not far when he will be described, not uncharitably, as a Mukhota (mask) for all things corrupt. That epithet was reportedly used for Atal Behari Vajpayee to hide or camouflage the BJP’s proclivities. Manmohan Singh could find it hard to live down that epithet if he does not stop the buck with himself. Silence may not be an option going into an election year, and it certainly won’t help him to win friends and influence people.

The transformation of Manmohan Singh from the proverbial outsider to the consummate insider is complete. Well before the advent of Facebook and Twitter, Manmohan Singh enjoyed enormous goodwill among the Indian middle class. His personal integrity was never in doubt. Therefore, it came as a disappointment to the Aam Aadmi (common man) when scams began tumbling out of the government’s closet. Disenchantment with the political class began manifesting itself in various forms, most recently in the form of a public movement against corruption. That movement spawned many clones across India in its many cities, towns and villages. But as the middle class learnt much to its dismay, Manmohan Singh’s so-be-it attitude on the issue of the India-US nuclear deal did not extend to areas of governance that touched their everyday lives, be it jobs, prices or corruption. Today, he runs the risk of alienating the very people who give him the benefit of the doubt every time his government is embroiled in a new scam.

India - Pakistan: Dream gone sour

New Delhi

2 May 2013

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's Pakistan policy is in tatters after an Indian prisoner Sarabjit Singh's murder in a Lahore jail sparked anger and outrage across India.

Coming as it does after the mysterious death of an Indian prisoner Chamel Singh in a Pakistani jail on January 15 and the beheading of an Indian soldier and killing of another soldier on January 8, Prime Minister Singh increasingly finds himself at odds with the national mood and public opinion on relations with Pakistan.

For one who has fought off opposition from within his own party and from other quarters to invest in improving relations with Pakistan since he came to power in 2004, Prime Minister Singh has had to bow to public sentiment and voice his anguish at Pakistan's behaviour.

"... the criminals responsible for the barbaric and murderous attack on Sarabjit Singh must be brought to justice," the Prime Minister said, adding that "the government of Pakistan did not heed the pleas of the government of India, Sarabjit's family and of civil society in India and Pakistan to take a humanitarian view of this case."

Relations with Pakistan came under a strain early this year with the beheading of an Indian soldier. The public outrage over the incident forced the Prime Minister to assert that “there can’t be business as usual with Pakistan” and that the onus for fostering peace with India was squarely on Pakistan.

If the first term of Prime Minister Singh's government between 2004 and 2009 was taken up by his single-minded pursuit of the India-US civil nuclear cooperation agreement, the second term was expected to see him focus his energies and political capital on a rapprochement with Pakistan.

The Prime Minister, who was born in Gah village in what isnow Pakistan, was not averse to visiting that country in his quest for a lasting legacy but recent developments have ensured that he cannot undertake that journey any time soon.

Death sparks outrage in India

Indians woke up Thursday to the news of Sarabjit Singh's death, who was on death row for terrorism and espionage in Pakistan. He died at 12.45 am on Thursday in a Lahore hospital. He was brought there comatose on April 26, after six other prisoners attacked him in jail, using bricks to inflict mortal injuries on him.

"It is a cold blooded murder," screamed Sushma Swaraj, the leader of Opposition in the lower House of Parliament. Her party,the BJP, accused the government of not trying hard enough to secure Sarabjit Singh's release while he was alive. It also demanded downgrading of bilateral ties with Pakistan.

Other Opposition parties targeted the government for its inability to get Pakistan to transfer Sarabjit Singh to India or a third country for medical treatment and for not taking up the cause of Indian prisoners languishing in Pakistani jails.

Sarabjit Singh's sister Dalbir Kaur, who spent many years campaigning for his release, urged political parties to unite for a strong collective response to Pakistan.

Parliament condoled his death in a resolution.

Concern in Pakistan

Incidentally, the murder of Sarabjit has come at a time when Pakistan is in the midst of a campaign for electing a new parliament. It goes to the polls on May 11.

Najam Sethi, a journalist who is currently the caretaker chief minister of the Pakistani province of Punjab, told CNN-IBN that there was negligence in the case of murderous attack on Sarabjit. However, he denied any link to the February 9 hanging of Afzal Guru in India, who was convicted for attacking Parliament in 2001.

“I can say there was negligence but I am not aware of anything else,” Sethi said when asked about a letter Sarabjit reportedly wrote to his family apprehending a threat to his life.

An internal inquiry and a judicial probe has been ordered into the matter.

The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) has demanded action against all those who played any part in the assault on Sarabjit Singh. Its chairperson Zohra Yusuf called upon Islamabad and Delhi to take urgent measures to prevent the incident from undermining bilateral ties and to improve the lot of detainees from the other country in each other’s prisons.

In a statement issued on Thursday, the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan said: "Not even the most naive person can believe that a prisoner like Sarabjit in a death cell inside a jail can be targeted in such a brutal assault by prisoners without the knowledge and support of prison guards and the authorities.

"This is far more serious a crime than allowing someone like General Pervez Musharraf to escape from court. It was no secret that Sarabjit faced more threats than other prisoners on account of the charge that he was convicted of and yet his security was so completely compromised. He died when members of the joint Pak-India Judges Committee were visiting Pakistan in order to assess the conditions of detention of Indian prisoners in Pakistani jails."

The statement went on to say that "those in Pakistan who take pride in their vengefulness must feel some shame today, if they are capable of that."

The Commission was worried that Sarabjit’s death might undermine the hard work done by both countries to normalise relations.

"They will have to go out of their way to undo the damage that the murder and the manner that it took place in has done. The need to expeditiously conclude a judicial inquiry to bring all those who are involved to justice cannot be stressed enough. If the two countries begin to treat each other's prisoners with some compassion even now instead of exposing them to the worst of treatment reserved for prisoners in their jails, then some good would still have come from Sarabjit's brutal murder."

Although Pakistani police has charged two prisoners with Sarabjit's murder, conspiracy theories abound in India about how Pakistan's intelligence agency ISI may have had a hand in the murder.

"I don't have any doubt that the attack on Sarabjit was pre-planned and was the handiwork of ISI and jail officials though other people attacked him. Now, two prisoners are being made sacrificial goats," said Mehbood Elahi, a former Indian spy, told PTI in Kolkata.

Sarbjit Singh (49) was given the death sentence in 1991 for bombings a year earlier in Pakistan's Lahore and Faisalabad in which 14 people were killed. His family has said he was innocent.

Sizing up the Chinese Dragon

NEW DELHI
2 May 2013

Delivering the late Air Chief Marshal PC Lal 25th Memorial Lecture in New Delhi on 26 March 2008, the then national security adviser of India, MK Narayanan, said that a “national consensus across the board” was required on issues such as whether China is “a threat or is China a neighbour that we can go along with”. In his lecture, entitled “Managing India’s national security and building a consensus for the 21st century”, Narayanan suggested that a consensus was also required on what would be the optimum terms of a boundary settlement with China.

Four years later, Narayanan’s successor Shivshankar Menon took to the podium in New Delhi to deliver the same memorial lecture but on a different topic: “India’s National Security: Challenges and Issues.” Speaking on 2 April 2012, Menon noted that “while intent is the stuff of diplomacy, the national security calculus must include, and prepare to deal with, the capabilities we see around us.” Later that year, Menon said in Beijing that both sides had made considerable progress on the boundary negotiations and that “we have increased our area of understanding between us steadily, thanks to the SR [special representative] process.”

It could be argued that New Delhi is still none the wiser today about Beijing, not in the least for lack of application on its part but because China may not have helped matters with its attitude as manifested in its foray into Pakistan-occupied-Kashmir (PoK), issuing of stapled visas to Indian nationals, cartographic aggression, damming of rivers in Tibet, or, more recently, incursions into Indian territory in Jammu and Kashmir. For its part, New Delhi tweaked the Dragon's tail, first by feting Nobel Laureate Liu Xiaobo in Norway, and then by omitting any reference to one-China from the joint statement issued towards the end of the then Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao's visit to New Delhi in December 2010.

As New Delhi mulls options to deal with the latest Chinese incursion into Indian territory, passions are running high among some political parties and media alike, with calls for reproaching China and a retaliatory action. There is a view that the latest incursion represents the largest and most strategic land-grab since China’s launch of a more muscular policy toward its neighbours. Another view is that if China does not respect India’s territorial integrity, India is no longer bound to respect China’s. However, there are others who believe that it would be premature to talk of a retaliatory action. They insist that matters concerning relations with important neighbours such as China deserve much greater attention to detail.

The Chinese media, which had hitherto remained silent on the issue, spoke out on May 2 when the Communist Party-run Global Times said in an editorial that “... staking claims to its borders is of crucial significance to China and peace and stability along the border are also vital to India. Current peace and status quo is not bestowed by India alone. China should firmly maintain its friendly policy toward India. However, this doesn’t mean that China will ignore provocations.”

Incidentally, on the day (May 1) when Indian Army Chief Gen Bikram Singh briefed the political leadership on the situation obtaining on the ground following the latest Chinese incursion, India held trilateral talks with the US and Japan in Washington on a wide range of regional and global issues of mutual interest. Their talks focussed on regional and maritime security, and cooperation in multilateral fora.

As External Affairs Minister Salman Khurshid prepares to visit Beijing next week ahead of Chinese Premier Li Keqiang’s visit to New Delhi later this month, it would be instructive to take a step back and look in the rearview mirror in order to make sense of the present and the future.

The outcome of Li Keqiang’s forthcoming visit to India is not likely to be any different from that of his predecessor Wen Jiabao in 2010, when all that the two sides had to show by way of an outcome was a joint statement that hid more than it revealed. There was no mention of any contentious issues, nor did it hold out any promise for realignment of the trajectory of Sino-Indian relationship, which by their own admission, has “acquired global and strategic significance”. In fact, Wen’s visit did not compare favourably with his last visit here in 2005, when both sides had at least an “Agreement on the Political Parameters and Guiding Principles for the Settlement of the Boundary Question” to show. The 2010 joint statement was interesting to the extent that for the first time in many years, it did not contain the usual formulations such as “Tibet Autonomous Region [is] part of the territory of the People’s Republic of China”.