30 September 2004
The Hindu
Deuba not keen on another ceasefire
By Siddharth Varadarajan
KATHMANDU, SEPT 29. Bolstered by the flow of weapons from India and elsewhere for its counter-insurgency operations and fearful that the Maoist rebels might regroup, the Nepalese Government is not keen on another ceasefire with the insurgents.
In an exclusive interview with The Hindu at his office in the Singh Darbar on Wednesday, the Prime Minister, Sher Bahadur Deuba, said his Government feared the Maoists would use the opportunity provided by any ceasefire to "prepare for fresh attacks."
`Discreet talks'
However, the absence of a ceasefire did not mean there would be no communication between the Government and the Maoists. Mr. Deuba said "discreet talks" were needed rather than a dialogue conducted through the media.
With the public clamour for a ceasefire and dialogue process growing, Mr. Deuba said the Cabinet on Thursday would take stock of the proposals made at the Government's High-levelPeace Committee (HPC) meeting on Tuesday. On top of the list is the call by Madhav Nepal, leader of the Communist Party of Nepal United Marxist-Leninist (UML), for a unilateral ceasefire during the Dasein (puja) holidays in October.
"So many things have to be taken into consideration before a ceasefire," said the Prime Minister. "So I think our answer is going to be `No'."
Towards the end of the interview, however, he struck a more ambiguous note. "I am not ruling out the possibility of a ceasefire but I am not going to say anything now."
Mr. Deuba said "our past experience suggests the modalities should be changed." Rather than an open dialogue, conducted in the full glare of the media, "there is need for discreet talks... If things are done in the open, you inevitably hit a problem. Positions harden and it becomes very hard to compromise."
Asked whether his ambivalence towards a ceasefire and talks with the Maoists was because of Army pressure — the military feel the Maoists are calling for dialogue because they have been weakened — Mr. Deuba said his Government "definitely has sympathy for the Army and we don't want to demoralise them." He said the Army would follow the Government's orders but "we should also appreciate their apprehensions."
The Prime Minister denied the growing international military assistance his Government was receiving — including from India — was obviating the need for a dialogue. "We have never said there is a military solution to the problem, but we can't remain idle. We have to strengthen our security forces. It is only when there is no problem (of insurgency) that we will no longer need weapons."
No `goodwill' gestures
Mr. Deuba also refused to consider making gestures such as lifting the "red-corner" notices from top Maoist leaders and removing the "terrorist" tag in order to create a conducive climate for talks. "Look, as far as any dialogue is concerned, we will ensure full security and safe passage for the people who will come to the negotiating table." Granting other concessions "may be seen by some as a good gesture but it has been counter-productive for us too," he added.
Turning to the six questions raised last week by the Maoist leader, Prachanda, in response to the HPC's appeal to the rebels to come forward for talks, Mr. Deuba said the HPC might have discussed the matter "but I don't think I have to reply each time."
Prachanda had asked whether the Government really had the opportunity to conduct negotiations given that it was beholden to King Gyanendra. "These questions have been framed to drive a wedge between the Palace and the parties," the Prime Minister said.
Would the King play a role in framing the government's policy on a ceasefire? "There is no harm in consulting the King," Mr. Deuba replied. "But he won't object, whatever we do."
30 September 2004
26 September 2004
Gas fuels warmth in India-Pakistan ties
26 September 2004
The Hindu
Gas fuels warmth in India-Pakistan ties
By Siddharth Varadarajan
NEW DELHI, SEPT. 25. From being a taboo subject as far as the Indian Government was concerned, the proposed Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) gas pipeline appears to have moved centrestage in the ongoing efforts to give relations between Islamabad and Delhi a new momentum and depth. In Friday's joint statement read out by the Pakistani President, Pervez Musharraf, after his meeting in New York with the Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, the pipeline was the only concrete issue — apart from Kashmir — which found mention.
While this does not mean a pipeline deal is imminent, it is indicative of the conceptual leap made by the two sides, particularly India. The erstwhile Vajpayee Government had tended to link the pipeline — which Pakistan has always been keen on — to certain economic concessions it wanted Islamabad to make first. When the UPA Government was elected, however, the External Affairs Minister, Natwar Singh, indicated almost immediately that New Delhi now had an open mind, even if no quid pro quo were forthcoming. Friday's statement is clearly the product of this new openness.
If the pipeline eventually materialises, it will not only help transform the nature of relations between India and Pakistan but will also have a major impact on the geopolitics of south-west Asia and the future evolution of energy routes in the wider Asian region.
Conference planned
As if anticipating the sudden prioritisation of the pipeline issue, a major conference on ``Iranian Gas Export to Pakistan and India'' is to be held in New Delhi on December 15-16 — largely on the initiative of the Iranian energy sector — with key players from all three countries set to take part. Among the invitees are the Petroleum Minister, Mani Shankar Aiyar, his Iranian counterpart, Bijan Zanganeh, and Ahmed Waqar, Secretary in the Pakistani Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources. Mr. Waqar is slated to make a presentation on ``the importance of the Iran-India pipeline project to meeting the gas demand in Pakistan."
Iran's massive South Pars gas field, first discovered in 1988, is being jointly developed by the National Iran Oil Corporation, Totalfina Elf and Malaysia's Petronas. Since the mid-1990s, Teheran has been pushing the concept of the IPI pipeline capable of carrying as much as 2.8 million tonnes of LPG per annum. In the face of Indian resistance to the idea of the pipeline traversing Pakistani territory, the Iranian side has sought to sweeten the proposal by offering to finance 60 per cent of the cost of the $3 billion, 2,600 km-long pipeline.
Consortium proposed
As for the security aspect, Dr. Mohammed Hossein Adeli, Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister for Economic Affairs, last year proposed the involvement of a consortium of companies from Russia, Malaysia, Europe and even China in the construction and ownership of the Pakistan section as a way of ensuring the non-disruption of supplies by Islamabad. The only wildcard is the restiveness of Baluch tribesmen, who have attacked the Pakistani pipeline network in the past.
For Pakistan, the incentive for the pipeline is obvious: annual transit fees are estimated to be anywhere from $300 million to $800 million. For the past few years, the IPI pipeline has been the only exception Islamabad has made as far as its `Kashmir First' approach to India is concerned. Curiously, the Pakistan Prime Minister, Shaukat Aziz, recently seemed to suggest the pipeline too could become a hostage to Kashmir. "India will have to deal with the Kashmir issue in an equitable and peaceful manner... so that progress can be made in other areas, including gas pipelines," he told the Pakistan Observer in an interview on September 13. However, Friday's joint statement makes it clear Gen. Musharraf has overruled Mr. Aziz.
U.S. pressure on Iran
For Iran, the IPI pipeline is seen as a way of developing markets for its gas and also breaking out of the stranglehold that U.S. sanctions and scare tactics have placed its oil and gas industry in. U.S. pressure recently led to the Tomen Corp. of Japan pulling out of the South Azadegan gas field. And just past week, the U.S. Commerce Department fined a U.S. subsidiary of a Japanese firm, Ebara Corp., for having sold cryogenic pumps for South Pars.
In turn, Iran has sought innovative methods of attracting investment and has been particularly keen to involve Indian companies. At the recent OPEC meeting in Vienna, Teheran suggested ONGC Videsh Ltd. pick up a 20 per cent stake in the Yadevaran oil field in exchange for GAIL and IOC buying a specified amount of South Pars LNG.
China's deal
The Chinese are also getting involved in Iran's energy sector. In March this year, Zhuhai Zhenrong Corp. signed a $20-billion deal for the supply of Iranian gas over 25 years. Zhuhai Zhenrong is a subsidiary of China North Industrial Corp (Norinco), a company the U.S. imposed sanctions on last year for supplying components for Iran's missile programme.
© Copyright 2000 - 2005 The Hindu
The Hindu
Gas fuels warmth in India-Pakistan ties
By Siddharth Varadarajan
NEW DELHI, SEPT. 25. From being a taboo subject as far as the Indian Government was concerned, the proposed Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) gas pipeline appears to have moved centrestage in the ongoing efforts to give relations between Islamabad and Delhi a new momentum and depth. In Friday's joint statement read out by the Pakistani President, Pervez Musharraf, after his meeting in New York with the Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, the pipeline was the only concrete issue — apart from Kashmir — which found mention.
While this does not mean a pipeline deal is imminent, it is indicative of the conceptual leap made by the two sides, particularly India. The erstwhile Vajpayee Government had tended to link the pipeline — which Pakistan has always been keen on — to certain economic concessions it wanted Islamabad to make first. When the UPA Government was elected, however, the External Affairs Minister, Natwar Singh, indicated almost immediately that New Delhi now had an open mind, even if no quid pro quo were forthcoming. Friday's statement is clearly the product of this new openness.
If the pipeline eventually materialises, it will not only help transform the nature of relations between India and Pakistan but will also have a major impact on the geopolitics of south-west Asia and the future evolution of energy routes in the wider Asian region.
Conference planned
As if anticipating the sudden prioritisation of the pipeline issue, a major conference on ``Iranian Gas Export to Pakistan and India'' is to be held in New Delhi on December 15-16 — largely on the initiative of the Iranian energy sector — with key players from all three countries set to take part. Among the invitees are the Petroleum Minister, Mani Shankar Aiyar, his Iranian counterpart, Bijan Zanganeh, and Ahmed Waqar, Secretary in the Pakistani Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources. Mr. Waqar is slated to make a presentation on ``the importance of the Iran-India pipeline project to meeting the gas demand in Pakistan."
Iran's massive South Pars gas field, first discovered in 1988, is being jointly developed by the National Iran Oil Corporation, Totalfina Elf and Malaysia's Petronas. Since the mid-1990s, Teheran has been pushing the concept of the IPI pipeline capable of carrying as much as 2.8 million tonnes of LPG per annum. In the face of Indian resistance to the idea of the pipeline traversing Pakistani territory, the Iranian side has sought to sweeten the proposal by offering to finance 60 per cent of the cost of the $3 billion, 2,600 km-long pipeline.
Consortium proposed
As for the security aspect, Dr. Mohammed Hossein Adeli, Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister for Economic Affairs, last year proposed the involvement of a consortium of companies from Russia, Malaysia, Europe and even China in the construction and ownership of the Pakistan section as a way of ensuring the non-disruption of supplies by Islamabad. The only wildcard is the restiveness of Baluch tribesmen, who have attacked the Pakistani pipeline network in the past.
For Pakistan, the incentive for the pipeline is obvious: annual transit fees are estimated to be anywhere from $300 million to $800 million. For the past few years, the IPI pipeline has been the only exception Islamabad has made as far as its `Kashmir First' approach to India is concerned. Curiously, the Pakistan Prime Minister, Shaukat Aziz, recently seemed to suggest the pipeline too could become a hostage to Kashmir. "India will have to deal with the Kashmir issue in an equitable and peaceful manner... so that progress can be made in other areas, including gas pipelines," he told the Pakistan Observer in an interview on September 13. However, Friday's joint statement makes it clear Gen. Musharraf has overruled Mr. Aziz.
U.S. pressure on Iran
For Iran, the IPI pipeline is seen as a way of developing markets for its gas and also breaking out of the stranglehold that U.S. sanctions and scare tactics have placed its oil and gas industry in. U.S. pressure recently led to the Tomen Corp. of Japan pulling out of the South Azadegan gas field. And just past week, the U.S. Commerce Department fined a U.S. subsidiary of a Japanese firm, Ebara Corp., for having sold cryogenic pumps for South Pars.
In turn, Iran has sought innovative methods of attracting investment and has been particularly keen to involve Indian companies. At the recent OPEC meeting in Vienna, Teheran suggested ONGC Videsh Ltd. pick up a 20 per cent stake in the Yadevaran oil field in exchange for GAIL and IOC buying a specified amount of South Pars LNG.
China's deal
The Chinese are also getting involved in Iran's energy sector. In March this year, Zhuhai Zhenrong Corp. signed a $20-billion deal for the supply of Iranian gas over 25 years. Zhuhai Zhenrong is a subsidiary of China North Industrial Corp (Norinco), a company the U.S. imposed sanctions on last year for supplying components for Iran's missile programme.
© Copyright 2000 - 2005 The Hindu
23 September 2004
NSSP: A small step in response to India's big leap
| 23 September 2004 The Hindu News Analysis By Siddharth Varadarajan
NEW DELHI, SEPT. 22. Tuesday's joint statement by the Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, and the U.S. President, George W. Bush, and the agreement on Phase I of the Next Steps in Strategic Partnership (NSSP) which preceded it on September 17 are being presented by U.S. and Indian officials as the "beginning of a new era of cooperation and trust." But a closer examination of the decisions of the past few days suggests the change under way is incremental rather than paradigmatic — India might well have taken a long stride but all the U.S. appears to have done in exchange is take a short step. The two concessions made by the U.S. are (1) removing the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) headquarters from the `Entities List' maintained by the U.S. Commerce Department for purposes of export control of dual-use items and (2) promising modifications to its export licensing policies that will "permit certain exports to power plants at safeguarded nuclear facilities." In return, apart from implementing unspecified measures "to address proliferation concerns and to ensure compliance with U.S. export controls," India has "recognised the importance of working closely together" with the U.S. to combat proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems." Whether this is just a rhetorical promise — or a commitment to support some of Washington's more controversial counter-proliferation initiatives — will become clear as time goes by. Many curbs remain
What is unambiguous, however, is that seven subordinate bodies of the ISRO will continue to remain on the U.S. Entities List — along with Bharat Dynamics and a number of DAE and DRDO outfits — with all export licenses to be granted on a case-by-case basis with a presumption of denial for high-end products. These include the ISRO Telemetry, Tracking and Command Network (ISTRAC), and the Sriharikota and Sarabhai Space Centres. "The bulk of our key imports is by ISRO's constituent units," said a senior space official. Terming the U.S. announcement "cosmetic," he said: "The technical units have to be taken off the entities list. Removing the ISRO HQ alone is absolutely not material to us." Acknowledging that the sanctions relaxation was limited, U.S. officials told The Hindu that further changes could be in the pipeline. But the Indian scientific establishment is not convinced. "So far, all I see is lots of optics. I suspect there is not too much substance," said one science administrator. The space official said, "There is a long list of things which we are currently being denied," adding that the U.S. had even put pressure on German and British suppliers to make sure they did not sell certain components to ISRO entities. As for U.S. exports to safeguarded nuclear facilities, this will cover only a very narrow range of dual-use items for Tarapur and RAPS such as control valves. Major cooperation in the civilian nuclear field is still blocked by U.S. legislation, particularly the 1978 Nuclear Non-proliferation Act, which stipulates that a country must accept full-scope IAEA safeguards as a condition for the supply of major nuclear technology and equipment. More denials
At the India-U.S. space conference in Bangalore in June, the U.S. Under Secretary for Commerce and Washington's interlocutor with India in the High Technology Cooperation Group, Kenneth Juster, painted a rosy picture of space cooperation saying that 93 per cent of license applications for the export of dual-use items to ISRO and its subordinates have been approved since 2001. However, most of these are for relatively low-end products. The value of licences approved by the U.S. Department of Commerce may be growing fast — from $27 millions in 2002 to $57 millions in 2003 — but licence denials for India in 2003 added up to $15 millions, or 20 per cent of applications processed. Even this does not tell the full story of ISRO's woes. Under the U.S. International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), satellites and their components and technologies are part of the U.S. munitions List (USML) and subject to a separate and tough licensing process administered by the State Department's Bureau of Political-Military Affairs. So far, the NSSP process has not touched this aspect of de facto U.S. sanctions at all.
© Copyright 2000 - 2005 The Hindu |
21 September 2004
The logic of unilateral concessions
21 September 2004
The Hindu
INDIA-PAKISTAN
The logic of unilateral concessions
By Siddharth Varadarajan
NEW DELHI, SEPT. 20. Six years ago, it took a meeting between Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Nawaz Sharif in New York to get the India-Pakistan composite dialogue process off the ground. Two rounds — mostly unproductive — have been held since then, the last one earlier this month. There have also been one war and one near war during this period. When Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and General Pervez Musharraf meet on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly session on Friday, both men will face the difficult challenge of ensuring that the next round produces some tangible outcome.
The last round may have been fruitless but it allowed New Delhi and Islamabad to demonstrate to their people that they had not compromised the "national interest" in any way. Pakistan promised to study India's famous "72 proposals" — which cleverly ranged from expanded travel and trade links to the holding of philatelic exhibitions and the "exchange of slides" — but did not respond in the absence of forward movement on Kashmir. On its part, India parried the Pakistani proposal for the Kashmir issue to be tackled in an accelerated manner by special envoys.
But if the first round required the reiteration of stated positions, the process will not survive another round of the same. Indeed, if the second round, which will run from December this year to February 2005, produces no concrete progress under any of the eight subject-heads, the bilateral dialogue will likely collapse. How to ensure this does not happen is the main task facing Dr. Singh and Gen. Musharraf.
Going by the easing of visa norms for certain categories of Pakistani visitors announced by the Ministry of External Affairs on Saturday, it seems the Indian side has come around to the view that unilateral concessions are a good thing. Rigid reciprocity had allowed Pakistan to implement its `progress on Kashmir first' approach. India now realises it has a stake in "normalising" relations with Pakistani civil society — journalists, doctors, lawyers, businessmen, students — and will benefit enormously even from a one-sided relaxation of visa rules. The same is true for trade in many categories of goods, and especially energy. The main point is that the unilateral gestures must be followed through and not regarded as mere propaganda points.
While these one-sided concessions will help India quicken the pace of bilateral relations somewhat, the issue of Kashmir also has to be faced up to squarely. In the first round, India put eight proposals on the table, including the Srinagar-Muzaffarabad bus, but none of these touched upon the aspect which concerns Pakistan the most: the issue of J&K's "status."
Taking up Gen. Musharraf's formula of "negating unacceptable solutions," India has apparently now asked Pakistan to spell out the universe of status outcomes it feels might be acceptable to both sides. This discussion is being conducted through the regular backchannel contact between the National Security Adviser, J.N. Dixit, and Gen. Musharraf's principal secretary, Tariq Aziz.
Though this process will likely be long and contentious, speculation is predictably mounting about radical proposals that may be exchanged when the two leaders meet. Time magazine, for instance, has reported that Dr. Singh will offer "adjustments" of the Line of Control involving a shift of the de facto border several miles eastwards. An official spokesman on Monday described this report as totally false. The magazine also said this proposal was first mooted by the Vajpayee Government in its talks with Pakistan — a claim a former highly-placed official of that Government told The Hindu was "bunkum."
But if LoC adjustments are not on the menu, are there other Kashmir-centric proposals that Dr. Singh could make? The use of special travel documents by passengers on the proposed intra-Kashmir bus could be one. There is also a proposal to allow all political trends in J&K, "Azad Kashmir" and the "Northern Areas" of Gilgit-Baltistan — whether pro-India, pro-Pakistan or pro-azadi — the opportunity to meet on a regular basis so as to help the Governments of India and Pakistan come up with proposals for the settlement of the issue.
In all likelihood, however, Dr. Singh will not get into specifics. The emphasis will be on getting the optics right, reassuring the General that India is not soft-pedalling on Kashmir and keeping the option of unilateral concessions as a lever to speed up the process whenever a roadblock is hit.
© Copyright 2000 - 2005 The Hindu
The Hindu
INDIA-PAKISTAN
The logic of unilateral concessions
By Siddharth Varadarajan
NEW DELHI, SEPT. 20. Six years ago, it took a meeting between Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Nawaz Sharif in New York to get the India-Pakistan composite dialogue process off the ground. Two rounds — mostly unproductive — have been held since then, the last one earlier this month. There have also been one war and one near war during this period. When Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and General Pervez Musharraf meet on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly session on Friday, both men will face the difficult challenge of ensuring that the next round produces some tangible outcome.
The last round may have been fruitless but it allowed New Delhi and Islamabad to demonstrate to their people that they had not compromised the "national interest" in any way. Pakistan promised to study India's famous "72 proposals" — which cleverly ranged from expanded travel and trade links to the holding of philatelic exhibitions and the "exchange of slides" — but did not respond in the absence of forward movement on Kashmir. On its part, India parried the Pakistani proposal for the Kashmir issue to be tackled in an accelerated manner by special envoys.
But if the first round required the reiteration of stated positions, the process will not survive another round of the same. Indeed, if the second round, which will run from December this year to February 2005, produces no concrete progress under any of the eight subject-heads, the bilateral dialogue will likely collapse. How to ensure this does not happen is the main task facing Dr. Singh and Gen. Musharraf.
Going by the easing of visa norms for certain categories of Pakistani visitors announced by the Ministry of External Affairs on Saturday, it seems the Indian side has come around to the view that unilateral concessions are a good thing. Rigid reciprocity had allowed Pakistan to implement its `progress on Kashmir first' approach. India now realises it has a stake in "normalising" relations with Pakistani civil society — journalists, doctors, lawyers, businessmen, students — and will benefit enormously even from a one-sided relaxation of visa rules. The same is true for trade in many categories of goods, and especially energy. The main point is that the unilateral gestures must be followed through and not regarded as mere propaganda points.
While these one-sided concessions will help India quicken the pace of bilateral relations somewhat, the issue of Kashmir also has to be faced up to squarely. In the first round, India put eight proposals on the table, including the Srinagar-Muzaffarabad bus, but none of these touched upon the aspect which concerns Pakistan the most: the issue of J&K's "status."
Taking up Gen. Musharraf's formula of "negating unacceptable solutions," India has apparently now asked Pakistan to spell out the universe of status outcomes it feels might be acceptable to both sides. This discussion is being conducted through the regular backchannel contact between the National Security Adviser, J.N. Dixit, and Gen. Musharraf's principal secretary, Tariq Aziz.
Though this process will likely be long and contentious, speculation is predictably mounting about radical proposals that may be exchanged when the two leaders meet. Time magazine, for instance, has reported that Dr. Singh will offer "adjustments" of the Line of Control involving a shift of the de facto border several miles eastwards. An official spokesman on Monday described this report as totally false. The magazine also said this proposal was first mooted by the Vajpayee Government in its talks with Pakistan — a claim a former highly-placed official of that Government told The Hindu was "bunkum."
But if LoC adjustments are not on the menu, are there other Kashmir-centric proposals that Dr. Singh could make? The use of special travel documents by passengers on the proposed intra-Kashmir bus could be one. There is also a proposal to allow all political trends in J&K, "Azad Kashmir" and the "Northern Areas" of Gilgit-Baltistan — whether pro-India, pro-Pakistan or pro-azadi — the opportunity to meet on a regular basis so as to help the Governments of India and Pakistan come up with proposals for the settlement of the issue.
In all likelihood, however, Dr. Singh will not get into specifics. The emphasis will be on getting the optics right, reassuring the General that India is not soft-pedalling on Kashmir and keeping the option of unilateral concessions as a lever to speed up the process whenever a roadblock is hit.
© Copyright 2000 - 2005 The Hindu
15 September 2004
Inside Bangladesh III: Lurking fear about larger neighbour
15 September 2004
The Hindu
Inside Bangladesh III
Lurking fear about larger neighbour
By Siddharth Varadarajan
Dhaka: In June, when the Bangladesh Foreign Minister, Morshed Khan,
visited New Delhi to greet the incoming Manmohan Singh Government, he
said bilateral relations were on the upswing and that he and his
Indian counterpart, Natwar Singh, had agreed not to speak to each
other "through the media" but through the telephone. Last week,
however, Mr. Khan appeared to disregard this sensible agreement in
vigorously criticising the Indian Government before a conference room
full of journalists. His remarks on trade, water-sharing and terrorism
— which were replete with bitterness, anger and sarcasm — prompted a
retired Bangladeshi diplomat to describe the speech as
"thought-provoking, with the emphasis on the latter word."
It is not clear what the minister thought the consequences of his
outburst would be but the next day's headlines — "Morshed blasts Delhi
for `unfair trade'" — must surely not have come as a surprise to him.
Given the prickliness of South Block, he must also have known that his
broadside would generate a tough response. Coming on the eve of
bilateral secretary-level talks between the respective water resources
and Home Ministries — where a number of key issues and proposals are
to be discussed — Mr. Khan's words led one Indian official to express
pessimism about the meetings' outcome. "At this point, I think all
bets are off".
Why did Mr. Khan say what he did? What has changed since the apparent
bonhomie of June, and have bilateral ties now hit rock bottom?
Rivalry is the reason
As with most things in Bangladesh, the answer lies in the rivalry
between Prime Minister Khaleda Zia and Awami League leader Sheikh
Hasina. Begum Khaleda had been keen for the Indian Prime Minsiter to
visit Dhaka and had sent Mr. Khan in June for that reason. Not only
did the sought-after visit not materialise, the UPA Government further
upset the Bangladesh Prime Minister by receiving Sheikh Hasina in
Delhi in July days before her own meeting with Prime Minister Manmohan
Singh at the BIMST-EC summit in Bangkok in early August. Finally, Mr.
Singh's decision to speak only to Ms. Hasina after the August 21
grenade attack — and not Begum Khaleda — greatly upset the PM and her
advisors. Indian officials say Mr. Singh called Ms. Hasina 45 minutes
after learning of the attack on her life and that Begum Khaleda was
not telephoned because "she was not the target". They also say that
many other world leaders including Jack Straw and Donald McKinnon too
spoke only to the Awami leader. However, given the sensitivities, New
Delhi certainly erred in not speaking to the Bangladesh PM about what
was after all an attack on the very existence of democracy in her
country. Colin Powell did not make this mistake.
But if domestic politics is giving an unjustified rhetorical edge to
Dhaka's policy towards India, the bulk of what Mr. Khan actually said
— particularly his fears about India's river-linking project and the
difficulty of Bangladeshi goods accessing Indian markets — resonates
deeply with what most people here, cutting across party lines, feel
about their larger neighbour.
Over-reaction
Indeed, the Indian side has to guard against over-reacting to what the
Bangladeshi Minister said. Certainly, the veiled threat to get the
Tata group to cancel its $2 billion investment plans in Bangladesh
would be a case of cutting one's nose to spite one's face. Indian
officials who are quick to write off Bangladeshis as "anti-Indian"
should realise there is tremendous public support inside the country
for the Tata project. "It is truly a win-win situation for both us",
says Rehman Sobhan, economist.
He argues that if India were unilaterally to allow free trade from
Bangladesh, FDI inflows would increase — and not just from India —
leading to improved production structures, better wages and greater
employment. There would also be another spill-over benefit: As work
prospects in Bangladesh improve, the flow of job-seekers to India
would slow down, perhaps removing another irritant in bilateral
relations.
FTA holds the key
Indian officials say New Delhi is not averse to granting free access
to Bangladeshi products but wants to embed this within the framework
of a free trade agreement. An FTA in which Indian concessions are
frontloaded while the Bangladeshis do not have to open up fully for,
say, 10-15 years, might prove mutually acceptable. In exchange, India
would have the right to expect Dhaka to soften its irrational
opposition to the transhipment of goods to the north-east through its
territory.
(Concluded)
The Hindu
Inside Bangladesh III
Lurking fear about larger neighbour
By Siddharth Varadarajan
Dhaka: In June, when the Bangladesh Foreign Minister, Morshed Khan,
visited New Delhi to greet the incoming Manmohan Singh Government, he
said bilateral relations were on the upswing and that he and his
Indian counterpart, Natwar Singh, had agreed not to speak to each
other "through the media" but through the telephone. Last week,
however, Mr. Khan appeared to disregard this sensible agreement in
vigorously criticising the Indian Government before a conference room
full of journalists. His remarks on trade, water-sharing and terrorism
— which were replete with bitterness, anger and sarcasm — prompted a
retired Bangladeshi diplomat to describe the speech as
"thought-provoking, with the emphasis on the latter word."
It is not clear what the minister thought the consequences of his
outburst would be but the next day's headlines — "Morshed blasts Delhi
for `unfair trade'" — must surely not have come as a surprise to him.
Given the prickliness of South Block, he must also have known that his
broadside would generate a tough response. Coming on the eve of
bilateral secretary-level talks between the respective water resources
and Home Ministries — where a number of key issues and proposals are
to be discussed — Mr. Khan's words led one Indian official to express
pessimism about the meetings' outcome. "At this point, I think all
bets are off".
Why did Mr. Khan say what he did? What has changed since the apparent
bonhomie of June, and have bilateral ties now hit rock bottom?
Rivalry is the reason
As with most things in Bangladesh, the answer lies in the rivalry
between Prime Minister Khaleda Zia and Awami League leader Sheikh
Hasina. Begum Khaleda had been keen for the Indian Prime Minsiter to
visit Dhaka and had sent Mr. Khan in June for that reason. Not only
did the sought-after visit not materialise, the UPA Government further
upset the Bangladesh Prime Minister by receiving Sheikh Hasina in
Delhi in July days before her own meeting with Prime Minister Manmohan
Singh at the BIMST-EC summit in Bangkok in early August. Finally, Mr.
Singh's decision to speak only to Ms. Hasina after the August 21
grenade attack — and not Begum Khaleda — greatly upset the PM and her
advisors. Indian officials say Mr. Singh called Ms. Hasina 45 minutes
after learning of the attack on her life and that Begum Khaleda was
not telephoned because "she was not the target". They also say that
many other world leaders including Jack Straw and Donald McKinnon too
spoke only to the Awami leader. However, given the sensitivities, New
Delhi certainly erred in not speaking to the Bangladesh PM about what
was after all an attack on the very existence of democracy in her
country. Colin Powell did not make this mistake.
But if domestic politics is giving an unjustified rhetorical edge to
Dhaka's policy towards India, the bulk of what Mr. Khan actually said
— particularly his fears about India's river-linking project and the
difficulty of Bangladeshi goods accessing Indian markets — resonates
deeply with what most people here, cutting across party lines, feel
about their larger neighbour.
Over-reaction
Indeed, the Indian side has to guard against over-reacting to what the
Bangladeshi Minister said. Certainly, the veiled threat to get the
Tata group to cancel its $2 billion investment plans in Bangladesh
would be a case of cutting one's nose to spite one's face. Indian
officials who are quick to write off Bangladeshis as "anti-Indian"
should realise there is tremendous public support inside the country
for the Tata project. "It is truly a win-win situation for both us",
says Rehman Sobhan, economist.
He argues that if India were unilaterally to allow free trade from
Bangladesh, FDI inflows would increase — and not just from India —
leading to improved production structures, better wages and greater
employment. There would also be another spill-over benefit: As work
prospects in Bangladesh improve, the flow of job-seekers to India
would slow down, perhaps removing another irritant in bilateral
relations.
FTA holds the key
Indian officials say New Delhi is not averse to granting free access
to Bangladeshi products but wants to embed this within the framework
of a free trade agreement. An FTA in which Indian concessions are
frontloaded while the Bangladeshis do not have to open up fully for,
say, 10-15 years, might prove mutually acceptable. In exchange, India
would have the right to expect Dhaka to soften its irrational
opposition to the transhipment of goods to the north-east through its
territory.
(Concluded)
14 September 2004
Inside Bangladesh II: Limited room for mullahs, military but not mastans
| 14 September 2004 The Hindu Inside Bangladesh-II By Siddharth Varadarajan
Dhaka: If Bangladesh were Pakistan, the irrational enmity between Prime Minister Khaleda Zia and Awami League (AL) leader Sheikh Hasina might well have led to the Army and the Islamist parties — acting singly or in alliance — slowly expanding their influence at the expense of both the ruling BNP and the opposition Awami League. But while majoritarian and violent impulses have become more manifest in Bangladeshi politics — as witnessed by the recent ban on Ahmadiya literature, the attacks on Hindu minorities soon after the 2001 elections, the tendency of both the BNP and the AL to flirt with political Islam and the growing number of bomb blasts and attacks on liberal and secular targets — electoral support for the Jamaat-e-Islami (JeI) and the Islamic Oikya Jote (IOJ) continues to run at less than 10 per cent of the votes cast. A definite presence
The Islamists have a definite presence, says political scientist Imtiaz Ahmed, who teaches at Dhaka University, "but there are natural limits to the amount of influence they can wield in Bangladesh." Instead, the force to watch, he argues, are the mastans, underworld bosses who have penetrated every party and are pushing the envelope as far as criminalisation of politics is concerned. As for the Army, most analysts argue that the military has been transformed by its role as the single largest provider of United Nations peacekeeping forces. With close to 10,000 men serving various blue-helmet missions around the world — earning dollars, and, of course, plaudits — the Bangladeshi Army is apparently in no mood to even think once again of returning to politics. Scholars also point to structural changes in the Army since the Ershad days which make it difficult for a coup to succeed. Limited vote share
According to Prof. Ahmed, there are a number of reasons why the Islamist parties are unlikely to extend their influence beyond the current limit. Their alliance with the BNP might have provided respectability to the JeI and the IOJ — the Jamaat is actually in Begum Khaleda's Cabinet — but their own vote share remains limited. In 1996, when the BNP and the JeI fought alone, their respective vote share was 34 per cent and 9 per cent; in 2001, after fighting as allies, the BNP's went up to 41 per cent but the JeI's fell to 4.2 per cent. Second, Prof. Ahmed argues that the use the BNP and the AL themselves make of Islam also tends to limit the JeI's appeal. When Sheikh Hasina was the Prime Minister, for example, she increased funding for madrassas. And today, as opposition leader, she is attacking the JeI for allowing the manufacture of liquor — a decision she says JeI leader Motiur Rahman Nizami has taken in his capacity as Industry Minister. Women's role
Third, says Prof. Ahmed, the enormous role played by women in the electoral process — the voter turnout of women in Bangladesh is the highest in South Asia — acts as a barrier to the growth of the JeI or IOJ. Finally, he argues that the memory of the genocide, of the liberation struggle and language movement, continues to exert a decisive pull on the national psyche. "Bangladesh may once have been East Pakistan but 1971 is far more important to us than 1947," he says. If the Islamists have a limited electoral future, could they seek to expand their influence through other means? Certainly the needle of suspicion for many of the bomb blasts in which cinema halls and secular festivals like Poila Boishakh have been targeted points in the direction of terrorists with links to shadowy Islamist groups. But then some degree of official collusion also cannot be ruled out, since neither the BNP nor the AL — when it was in power — managed to solve any of these mysterious crimes. Bomb culture
Asked why the JeI has never been targeted by bomb blasts yet, Jamaat leaders say a number of their student and youth cadres have been assassinated or killed in gun battles with rival groups. Scholars like Prof. Ahmed also argue that the increasing salience of mastans in politics is contributing to the bomb culture. "The `mastanocracy' is really quite huge, with some dons having hundreds of well-armed and trained `cadres'," he says. "If the popular belief of U.S. involvement in the August 21 attack is the "high" conspiracy theory and Indian and Pakistani/Islamist involvement the "middle", there is also a "low" theory that mastans seeking to avenge the growing number of encounter killings by the Rapid Action Battalion chose to stage the attack as a warning to the entire political class."
© Copyright 2000 - 2005 The Hindu |
13 September 2004
Inside Bangladesh I: A rivalry that is tearing the country apart
13 September 2004
The Hindu
Inside Bangladesh-I
A rivalry that is tearing the country apart
By Siddharth Varadarajan
Dhaka: Competition may be the engine of pluralist politics everywhere but here in Bangladesh, the rivalry between the ruling party and the Opposition is so personalised, intense and venomous that it is poisoning the very lifeblood of democracy.
Consider one symptom of this pathology: Three weeks after a deadly grenade attack on a rally of the Opposition Awami League (AL), Prime Minister Khaleda Zia and Awami leader Sheikh Hasina, who was the target of the attack, have not seen it fit to meet or even speak to each other on the telephone.
Familial loss
Each side has its own explanation, but at the heart of this bizarre and unhealthy disconnect lie three decades of bitterness in which the visceral emotions of familial loss — Ms. Hasina blames Ms. Khaleda's husband, the late Zia-ur-Rahman, for the assassination of her father, Sheikh Mujib, while Ms. Khaleda believes Ms. Hasina was complicit in her husband's killing by the Ershad regime — have merged with a confrontationist political ethic to produce a situation in which "normal" politics has no place. Elections take place regularly — and produce shock upsets, as in 1996 and 2001 — but Parliament rarely functions since the Opposition party invariably launches an unending series of street protests and hartals soon after the elections demanding that the ruling party resign. "The whole country is divided on bipolar lines. Journalists, lawyers, doctors, judges and generals, everyone is either BNP or AL. The only thing left is the cricket team," said a senior editor.
The August 21 incident was an attack on Bangladeshi democracy but when ordinary political cadres — whether of the AL or the ruling Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) — suspect the hidden hand of the rival party, there is obviously no question of their two leaders meeting. Begum Khaleda sought to call on Sheikh Hasina soon after the attack but the AL leadership, convinced the Prime Minister's sole aim was propaganda, baulked. On her part, Ms. Khaleda quickly realised there was little sense in pressing for a meeting given the Awami League's failure to capitalise on the initial wave of sympathy.
Investigation
The AL wanted Interpol to handle the investigation but Ms. Khaleda went one step further and brought in the FBI. Last week, the BNP upped the ante again. The Prime Minister is said to have broadly hinted to a Chambers of Commerce group that the Indian intelligence agency, RAW, might have engineered the attack to discredit her Government. And her Foreign Minister, Morshed Khan, told a visiting group of Indian journalists that the fact that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh telephoned only Sheikh Hasina and not Begun Khaleda to express his concern about the attack suggested New Delhi was being partisan in its approach.
"This is no time for jokes," the owner of a Bengali-language daily told The Hindu , "but the only thing that can be said about the identity of the assailants with a fair degree of certainty is that half of Bangladesh secretly believes India did it while the other half is convinced the culprit is Pakistan," which still has links with collaborationist elements — mostly Islamist — who opposed the 1971
liberation war. "Quite frankly, the situation is really bad," a senior BNP leader said. "Unless I see the two ladies appear on television together soon, signalling an end to this destructive bitterness, things are going to go from bad to worse. One might as well pack up one's bags and leave the country."
Asked why the Awami League is embarking upon a political programme with a demand — the resignation of the Government — that the Prime Minister can never accept, a senior AL leader said the growing number of terrorist attacks on liberal and secular forces had pushed the entire Opposition into a corner.
"We have no choice but to press for the ouster of the Government. It is a question of survival."
© Copyright 2000 - 2005 The Hindu
The Hindu
Inside Bangladesh-I
A rivalry that is tearing the country apart
By Siddharth Varadarajan
Dhaka: Competition may be the engine of pluralist politics everywhere but here in Bangladesh, the rivalry between the ruling party and the Opposition is so personalised, intense and venomous that it is poisoning the very lifeblood of democracy.
Consider one symptom of this pathology: Three weeks after a deadly grenade attack on a rally of the Opposition Awami League (AL), Prime Minister Khaleda Zia and Awami leader Sheikh Hasina, who was the target of the attack, have not seen it fit to meet or even speak to each other on the telephone.
Familial loss
Each side has its own explanation, but at the heart of this bizarre and unhealthy disconnect lie three decades of bitterness in which the visceral emotions of familial loss — Ms. Hasina blames Ms. Khaleda's husband, the late Zia-ur-Rahman, for the assassination of her father, Sheikh Mujib, while Ms. Khaleda believes Ms. Hasina was complicit in her husband's killing by the Ershad regime — have merged with a confrontationist political ethic to produce a situation in which "normal" politics has no place. Elections take place regularly — and produce shock upsets, as in 1996 and 2001 — but Parliament rarely functions since the Opposition party invariably launches an unending series of street protests and hartals soon after the elections demanding that the ruling party resign. "The whole country is divided on bipolar lines. Journalists, lawyers, doctors, judges and generals, everyone is either BNP or AL. The only thing left is the cricket team," said a senior editor.
The August 21 incident was an attack on Bangladeshi democracy but when ordinary political cadres — whether of the AL or the ruling Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) — suspect the hidden hand of the rival party, there is obviously no question of their two leaders meeting. Begum Khaleda sought to call on Sheikh Hasina soon after the attack but the AL leadership, convinced the Prime Minister's sole aim was propaganda, baulked. On her part, Ms. Khaleda quickly realised there was little sense in pressing for a meeting given the Awami League's failure to capitalise on the initial wave of sympathy.
Investigation
The AL wanted Interpol to handle the investigation but Ms. Khaleda went one step further and brought in the FBI. Last week, the BNP upped the ante again. The Prime Minister is said to have broadly hinted to a Chambers of Commerce group that the Indian intelligence agency, RAW, might have engineered the attack to discredit her Government. And her Foreign Minister, Morshed Khan, told a visiting group of Indian journalists that the fact that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh telephoned only Sheikh Hasina and not Begun Khaleda to express his concern about the attack suggested New Delhi was being partisan in its approach.
"This is no time for jokes," the owner of a Bengali-language daily told The Hindu , "but the only thing that can be said about the identity of the assailants with a fair degree of certainty is that half of Bangladesh secretly believes India did it while the other half is convinced the culprit is Pakistan," which still has links with collaborationist elements — mostly Islamist — who opposed the 1971
liberation war. "Quite frankly, the situation is really bad," a senior BNP leader said. "Unless I see the two ladies appear on television together soon, signalling an end to this destructive bitterness, things are going to go from bad to worse. One might as well pack up one's bags and leave the country."
Asked why the Awami League is embarking upon a political programme with a demand — the resignation of the Government — that the Prime Minister can never accept, a senior AL leader said the growing number of terrorist attacks on liberal and secular forces had pushed the entire Opposition into a corner.
"We have no choice but to press for the ouster of the Government. It is a question of survival."
© Copyright 2000 - 2005 The Hindu
05 September 2004
Text of statement issued by PMO after Manmohan Singh-Hurriyat meeting, 5 September 2005
PMO Press Release
Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh today met a delegation of the All Parties Hurriyat Conference led by Mirwaiz Umar Farooq.
Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh today met a delegation of the All Parties Hurriyat Conference led by Mirwaiz Umar Farooq.
The Prime Minister welcomed the resumption of dialogue between the Government of India and the APHC. He reaffirmed his faith in a peaceful resolution of all issues pertaining to J&K and said that violence had no role in a democracy. He reiterated his commitment to ensuring a life of peace, self-respect and dignity for the people of Jammu & Kashmir. He agreed to review all cases of those held in detention and ensure that violations of human dignity would not be tolerated and Government would take all necessary measures to safeguard against human rights violations. He agreed to the time-bound review of those held under the Public Safety Act (PSA) and POTA. The Prime Minister said that if there is a cessation of violence and an end to infiltration, conditions will be created for the reduction of armed forces.
The APHC delegation welcomed the opportunity to meet the Prime Minister and discuss issues pertaining to Jammu & Kashmir. It was felt that the dialogue process should lead to the resolution of all outstanding issues relating to J&K. The APHC delegation stressed that an honourable and durable solution should be found through dialogue. It was agreed that the only way forward is to ensure that all forms of violence at all levels should come to an end. The APHC delegation welcomed the India-Pakistan peace process and the initiatives taken so far by the Prime Minister, including the resumption of the bus service between Srinagar and Muzaffarabad.
It was agreed to carry forward the dialogue process so that all regions and all shades of political opinion in J&K are involved. Several issues concerning the rights of people deserving the attention of the Government were raised in the meeting. The APHC stated that they would be able to bring up specific suggestions for the honourable and durable resolution of the problem of Jammu and Kashmir, at the next meeting.
Issued by Media Advisor to Prime Minister
New Delhi
September 5, 2005
02 September 2004
One hundred days of solitude
| September 2, 2004 The Hindu Opinion - Leader Page Articles By Siddharth Varadarajan
THE BHARATIYA Janata Party has made life easy for Prime Minister Manmohan Singh by refusing to play the role of the Opposition. But why is the United Progressive Alliance reluctant to play the role of Government? One hundred days after our own momentous regime change and it is clear that the leaders of the BJP are still in that stressed-out, post-traumatic stage psychologists like to call `denial.' And who can blame them? So heady was the rush of adrenalin that came with power — with testing nuclear weapons, massing nearly a million troops on the Pakistan border for a year, planning not just a glorious future for the country but also rewriting its past, and having TV channels eager to report and interpret every nod of the head and inflection of the voice — that losing it all in such an unexpected manner must have been a terrible and cruel blow. Those who, till yesterday, were swanning around the world have been reduced to releasing privately published works of fiction by unknown authors in nearly empty rooms at the Habitat Centre in New Delhi. The former Deputy Prime Minister no longer evokes awe, fear or distaste in those he meets — he just evokes the usual ennui and indifference that being in the presence of an `also ran' tend to generate. It is little consolation to say that such are the ups and downs of politics. Even lesser mortals would be unforgiving at this unexpected turn of events — and these are, after all, Great Men who had been chosen by Destiny to right 2,000 years of historic injustice. And the greater the men, the more virulent the pathology. There is no other explanation for the apoplectic ineptitude that has characterised each one of the BJP's political initiatives so far. First, the "tainted" Ministers issue fell flat because of the erstwhile Vajpayee Government's own track record on this score. The party then tried to raise an even more absurd issue — an obscure research paper written by a senior bureaucrat while on a sabbatical in the United States which was "anti-national" because it spoke of American "facilitation" of the India-Pakistan peace process. This, too, fizzled out when it was realised that the bureaucrat had only put into words what had been the practice of the erstwhile Vajpayee Government. Then came the irrelevant controversy regarding V.D. Savarkar, the allegation about Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's "rude" behaviour, and the issue of the non-bailable warrant from Karnataka against Uma Bharti for a 10-year-old case relating to inciting riots and attempt to murder. This, apart from some meaningless carping about the budget, the World Trade Organisation meeting in Geneva and the mental state of the Arunachal Pradesh Governor, is the sum total of the Opposition's exertions in the past 100 days. But if the BJP has not reconciled itself to being in the Opposition, the Congress too sometimes gives the impression of not reconciling itself to the fact that it is now in power. It has shown no urgency in tackling the fast snowballing crisis in Manipur, it has allowed the situation in Kashmir to deteriorate to such a point that the future of the dialogue process with the All Parties Hurriyat Conference is now in jeopardy, and it has demonstrated an unwise preference for symbolic and irrelevant skirmishes with the BJP and Hindutva over Savarkar and Uma Bharti without bothering to take legal and institutional steps that can actually tackle the menace of communal violence and hatred on the ground. In short, the Congress in power — at least when it comes to questions of great political import — seems to be behaving as if it is in the Opposition. There is no other explanation for the political laziness with which it is responding to the ongoing crisis in Manipur. The day the body of Thangjam Manorama Devi was discovered by villagers — I repeat, discovered, rather than taken to a local morgue by the soldiers who claimed they had shot her while escaping — the Centre should have realised this was no encounter but a case of murder. Even in the fakest of fake encounters, such as the show that was enacted in Delhi's Ansal Plaza in 2002, the security forces do not abandon the bodies of their victims. They take the body in, conduct a post-mortem, file a case. But in Manipur, so pervasive is the impunity the security forces enjoy that the soldiers did not bother to do any of these. If the Centre's political instincts were well honed, it would have immediately — within a day at the outside — apologised to the people of Manipur, arrested the soldiers who killed Manorama, put them on summary trial and handed down exemplary punishments. The veteran journalist, Inder Malhotra, has written recently of how Indira Gandhi, when she was Information and Broadcasting Minister, responded to the fast-spiralling anti-Hindi agitation in Tamil Nadu in the 1960s. Even as Lal Bahadur Shastri was dithering over whether there should be any truck with "anti-national" forces, Indira got on a plane to Madras and went straight down to meet the demonstrators. She had the politician's knack of knowing how to defuse a situation. It is a different matter that she lost those skills later in life and gave in to the comforting certitudes of the intelligence and bureaucratic establishment — that saw in every expression of public protest nothing other than the hand of a foreign country or an underground insurgency. Dr. Singh is apparently being briefed twice a day on the situation in Manipur — and being served the same predictable fare — but I am willing to wager that none of the officials will have shown him a video disc from Manipur that was screened at the Press Club of India in the Capital last week. It shows Manipuri boys and girls — many of them from schools and colleges — being brutally beaten up by the security forces with lathis and rifle butts for the crime of waging what Gandhiji would have described as a satyagraha against the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act. In one scene, that most journalists found too painful to watch, a soldier screams hysterically at a group of students to lie face down on the ground. He then takes his rifle and fires a shot inches away from the head of one of the boys. In another place, soldiers line up a number of Manipuri youth and brutalise them by making them hit one another with lathis. Those who waver get a beating from the soldiers. Despite this appalling cruelty — which made me think immediately of Abu Ghraib — the people of Manipur continue their protests. It is unhealthy for the Centre to ignore the reality of what is happening there, to simply wish it away. The Prime Minister may feel he has good reason for not lifting the AFSPA, or visiting Manipur himself, but is there any explanation for why no high-power envoy or committee has been despatched to give him some independent inputs? Home Minister Shivraj Patil will travel to Imphal later this week but, if reports are to be believed, all he is taking with him as a "concession" to public sentiment is a proposal to recruit "adventure-loving Manipuri youth" in the paramilitary Indian Reserve Battalion so that the Assam Rifles can gradually be drawn down. Sadly, the UPA Government is being no more political when it comes to the other set of issues relating to communalism. The damage to our textbooks wrought by the previous Government is gradually being undone but there is a tendency to confine the ideological struggle against violence and communal division to merely the iconic. All the plaques honouring Savarkar can be removed but why is the Centre baulking at setting up a full-fledged judicial commission to probe the Godhra incident in which 58 Vishwa Hindu Parishad supporters were killed? Nothing has the capacity to puncture the Sangh Parivar balloon better than the truth about what happened at the Godhra railway station on the morning of February 27, 2002. The UPA Government has also shown no urgency in joining the National Human Rights Commission's plea before the Supreme Court for the investigation of all major Gujarat violence-related cases such as Godhra and Naroda Patiya to be handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation. The former head of the intelligence department of the Gujarat police, R.B. Sreekumar, testified before the Nanavati Commission on Tuesday that senior BJP politicians told police officers not to act against the rioters. However, he declined to name the politicians for fear this would jeopardise the career of his fellow officers. Why can the Union Home and Law Ministries not, along with the blessings of the Supreme Court, devise a way of providing protection to Mr. Sreekumar and other whistle-blowers so that they actually name names? It is concrete steps such as these that will help tackle the menace of violence. The UPA, if it is serious about implementing the mandate which has brought it to power, should not allow itself to be sidetracked by pointless controversies. The first 100 days may have not been used well but there is still time for the Government to make a dent. The fact that Dr. Singh is not a politician is his greatest strength and also his greatest weakness. The public at large has tired of the neta, has come to dislike and loathe him as a breed. So for the UPA Government to have at its head a man who radiates both probity and intellect in abundance means the battle for public support is already half won. But it is the other half of the battle which has yet to be joined, let alone won, because it calls for the guile and cunning of a politician rather than for technocratic quick-fixes. When it comes to Manipur or other issues involving widespread public disaffection, the Prime Minister has to learn to put politics in command.
© Copyright 2000 - 2005 The Hindu |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
