The Hindu
Dec 22, 08
If Abdul Rahman Antulay has made his continuance as Minister untenable by blatantly ignoring the facts behind the terrorist attacks on Mumbai and buying into a strange conspiracy theory over the killing of the Maharashtra Anti-terrorism Squad chief Hemant Kharkare, the United Progressive Alliance government has not displayed any great sagacity in prevaricating over his resignation.
In the days since the attack, compelling evidence has surfaced to establish the Pakistani identity of the assassins of Mr. Karkare, Additional Commissioner of Police Ashok Kamte, Inspector Vijay Salaskar, and three of the four constables who accompanied them.
In an over-the-top interview to a television channel, Mr. Antulay insinuated a Hindutva plot to kill Mr. Karkare.
Later, speaking in Parliament, he alleged that Mr. Karkare and the other two police officers had been sent to their deaths by a telephone caller who summoned them to Cama Hospital.
He asked: “Why did all three of them go in the same vehicle to Cama Hospital? Who directed them there?”
Mr. Antulay’s indiscretion was the worse because he held the sensitive portfolio of Minority Affairs. The Minister clearly failed to appreciate that in the tinderbox environment terrorism has engendered, the smallest provocation can inflame communal passions. And thanks to the sanctity that attaches to the words of a Minister, there is already some consternation in sections of the Muslim community.
The Mumbai attack had been widely condemned by Muslim organisations; ordinary Muslims wore black bands on Eid to protest it.
Today sundry Urdu newspapers have joined the Antulay chorus.
This is unfortunate given that there are two eyewitnesses to the ambush of the policemen. The account of the surviving Pakistani terrorist, Mohammad Ajmal Amir has been corroborated by Constable Arun Jhadav who was left for dead by the assassins.
There is no disputing the reason why the police officers rushed to Cama hospital, which was the second place to come under attack after Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus. Mr. Karkare and his two fellow officers had received information that Additional Commissioner of Police Sadanand Date was injured in that attack.
In part as a consequence of the needless twist given to this straightforward story, Pakistan today refuses to accept that the Mumbai terror attack originated on its soil. For the Muslim community, targeted and taunted by the Sangh Parivar for its alleged terror links, Mr. Karkare was a hero, who uncovered the truth of the Malegaon terror blast and established the justness of the Indian legal system.
His death has created a climate ripe for conspiracy theories. As a Minister, Mr. Antulay had a responsibility to advocate calm and reason. Regrettably, he did the opposite.
Obama and FDR
The Hindu
Nov 27
Historical comparisons can be powerful, even when they need intellectually to be handled with care. There is a global consensus that the financial crisis of 2008 is the worst since the Great Depression of the 1930s.
The bursting of asset price bubbles, the collapse of many financial institutions, the freezing of credit, the contraction of effective demand, the economic slowdown that has spared no country or continent, recession across the developed world, the adverse effects on the livelihoods and food security of hundreds of millions of people in developing countries, deep forebodings of worse to come, and an underlying fear that the real economy will not turn round for some years have combined to depress people’s spirits worldwide.
During such a time of troubles, the clock seems to move very slowly — and it has moved very, very slowly for the American people (nearly 67 million of whom voted for ‘yes we can’ change).
They have huge expectations of the role of government in bringing economic order to their lives. They find the transition from a deeply unpopular administration whose policies they hold responsible for the present mess to a new dispensation that will take over in January 2009 excruciatingly long and costly.
They worry over the power vacuum in the world’s largest and most powerful economy, which is in the grip of not depression but what Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman calls depression economics.
He explains what he means by this in his accessible new book, The Return of Depression Economics and the Crisis of 2008, and also in a recent newspaper column: “for the first time in two generations, failures on the demand side of the economy — insufficient private spending to make use of the available productive capacity — have become the clear and present limitation on prosperity for a large part of the world” and “the usual tools of economic policy — above all, the Federal Reserve’s ability to pump up the economy by cutting interest rates — have lost all traction.”
Doing something, almost anything, to get credit to flow again and create demand to make use of the economy’s capacity are the keys to recovery, which means John Maynard Keynes “is now more relevant than ever.”
For the United States, Professor Krugman favours a major stimulus package of the order of $600 billion. He also advocates throwing out of the window faint-hearted notions of fiscal prudence and adopting, as Franklin D. Roosevelt did in the 1930s, a strategy of trying things out.
“The country needs and, unless I mistake its temper, the country demands,” FDR famously proclaimed in 1932, the year this patrician who was considered a political lightweight swept into historical ignominy an ideologically blinded, do-nothing President Herbert Hoover, “bold, persistent experimentation.
It is common sense to take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something.”
These words (ghosted, incidentally, by a reporter) anticipated the New Deal and the thrilling, if flawed, experimentation of FDR’s first hundred days in office. The 32nd President of the U.S. was not known to be well versed in economics: when Lord Keynes, an admirer of his programme, visited him in the White House in 1934, FDR was bewildered by the Englishman’s “rigmarole of figures” and supposed him to be “a mathematician rather than a political economist” while the visitor confessed that he had expected the President to be more economically literate.
Seventy-four years later, an intellectually better prepared, if politically less experienced, President-to-be faces a “crisis of historic proportions” (to use his own words). He knows he won big, by close to 7 percentage points, on November 4 thanks largely to the financial crisis and on the strength of his promises to restructure and reform the economy in a fairer, more equitable, and sounder direction.
But Mr. Obama’s medium- and long-term economic agenda has been overtaken by crisis events. In response, he has promised big, bold, and far-going action to jolt the economy back into shape. He will start his presidency with a huge legislative advantage: a Democratic hegemony in Congress. The Obama stimulus package is widely expected to surpass the expectations of the big league Keynesians. The President-elect has even promised that his economic recovery plan would create 2.5 million new jobs by 2011. He has announced a high-powered economic team — led by Tim Geithner, a fiscal bail-out top gun, and Larry Summers, a card-carrying Keynesian — that seems to have raised confidence levels on both Wall Street and Main Street. The man who would have no truck with the November 15 Washington Summit on Financial Markets and the World Economy has now made it a point to emphasise that the economic crisis was “no longer just an American crisis” and that his administration would reach out to countries around the world to craft a global response. But that is not all. Unlike President-elect FDR who in early 1933 rebuffed all efforts by lame-duck President Hoover to draw him into joint proclamations to tackle the banking crisis, who refused to “tie [his] hands” before becoming President, Mr. Obama has found his ‘we have only one President at a time’ gambit to be politically unsustainable. So he has let his good personal rapport with George W. Bush (FDR and Hoover had poisonous personal relations) develop into some kind of coordination to calm the jittery financial markets.
The size, orientation, and details of the Obama stimulus package aside, the key question on the minds of the historically minded is: will President Obama show the history-making leadership qualities — the self-confidence, the spirit of experimentation, the hopefulness, the warm empathy with working and middle class people, the first class temperament — that FDR brought to handling the unprecedented challenge of the Great Depression, which was actually brought to an end only by the Second World War?
Nov 27
Historical comparisons can be powerful, even when they need intellectually to be handled with care. There is a global consensus that the financial crisis of 2008 is the worst since the Great Depression of the 1930s.
The bursting of asset price bubbles, the collapse of many financial institutions, the freezing of credit, the contraction of effective demand, the economic slowdown that has spared no country or continent, recession across the developed world, the adverse effects on the livelihoods and food security of hundreds of millions of people in developing countries, deep forebodings of worse to come, and an underlying fear that the real economy will not turn round for some years have combined to depress people’s spirits worldwide.
During such a time of troubles, the clock seems to move very slowly — and it has moved very, very slowly for the American people (nearly 67 million of whom voted for ‘yes we can’ change).
They have huge expectations of the role of government in bringing economic order to their lives. They find the transition from a deeply unpopular administration whose policies they hold responsible for the present mess to a new dispensation that will take over in January 2009 excruciatingly long and costly.
They worry over the power vacuum in the world’s largest and most powerful economy, which is in the grip of not depression but what Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman calls depression economics.
He explains what he means by this in his accessible new book, The Return of Depression Economics and the Crisis of 2008, and also in a recent newspaper column: “for the first time in two generations, failures on the demand side of the economy — insufficient private spending to make use of the available productive capacity — have become the clear and present limitation on prosperity for a large part of the world” and “the usual tools of economic policy — above all, the Federal Reserve’s ability to pump up the economy by cutting interest rates — have lost all traction.”
Doing something, almost anything, to get credit to flow again and create demand to make use of the economy’s capacity are the keys to recovery, which means John Maynard Keynes “is now more relevant than ever.”
For the United States, Professor Krugman favours a major stimulus package of the order of $600 billion. He also advocates throwing out of the window faint-hearted notions of fiscal prudence and adopting, as Franklin D. Roosevelt did in the 1930s, a strategy of trying things out.
“The country needs and, unless I mistake its temper, the country demands,” FDR famously proclaimed in 1932, the year this patrician who was considered a political lightweight swept into historical ignominy an ideologically blinded, do-nothing President Herbert Hoover, “bold, persistent experimentation.
It is common sense to take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something.”
These words (ghosted, incidentally, by a reporter) anticipated the New Deal and the thrilling, if flawed, experimentation of FDR’s first hundred days in office. The 32nd President of the U.S. was not known to be well versed in economics: when Lord Keynes, an admirer of his programme, visited him in the White House in 1934, FDR was bewildered by the Englishman’s “rigmarole of figures” and supposed him to be “a mathematician rather than a political economist” while the visitor confessed that he had expected the President to be more economically literate.
Seventy-four years later, an intellectually better prepared, if politically less experienced, President-to-be faces a “crisis of historic proportions” (to use his own words). He knows he won big, by close to 7 percentage points, on November 4 thanks largely to the financial crisis and on the strength of his promises to restructure and reform the economy in a fairer, more equitable, and sounder direction.
But Mr. Obama’s medium- and long-term economic agenda has been overtaken by crisis events. In response, he has promised big, bold, and far-going action to jolt the economy back into shape. He will start his presidency with a huge legislative advantage: a Democratic hegemony in Congress. The Obama stimulus package is widely expected to surpass the expectations of the big league Keynesians. The President-elect has even promised that his economic recovery plan would create 2.5 million new jobs by 2011. He has announced a high-powered economic team — led by Tim Geithner, a fiscal bail-out top gun, and Larry Summers, a card-carrying Keynesian — that seems to have raised confidence levels on both Wall Street and Main Street. The man who would have no truck with the November 15 Washington Summit on Financial Markets and the World Economy has now made it a point to emphasise that the economic crisis was “no longer just an American crisis” and that his administration would reach out to countries around the world to craft a global response. But that is not all. Unlike President-elect FDR who in early 1933 rebuffed all efforts by lame-duck President Hoover to draw him into joint proclamations to tackle the banking crisis, who refused to “tie [his] hands” before becoming President, Mr. Obama has found his ‘we have only one President at a time’ gambit to be politically unsustainable. So he has let his good personal rapport with George W. Bush (FDR and Hoover had poisonous personal relations) develop into some kind of coordination to calm the jittery financial markets.
The size, orientation, and details of the Obama stimulus package aside, the key question on the minds of the historically minded is: will President Obama show the history-making leadership qualities — the self-confidence, the spirit of experimentation, the hopefulness, the warm empathy with working and middle class people, the first class temperament — that FDR brought to handling the unprecedented challenge of the Great Depression, which was actually brought to an end only by the Second World War?
Mission perfect
The Hindu
Nov 10, 2008
The successful critical manoeuvre on November 8 that put Chandrayaan-1 in an orbit around the moon marked the completion of the most important phase of the Indian lunar mission.
The rest of the mission involves only standard orbit manoeuvres, the likes of which the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) is quite used to, and the performance of the on-board scientific instruments during the mission life of two years.
The precision with which the crucial operation was exe cuted has unequivocally demonstrated ISRO’s capability to take up the more complex deep space missions as distinct from numerous near-earth missions in the past.
The achievement has put India in the exclusive club of space-faring nations that have ventured beyond the sphere of earth’s gravitational influence.
That ISRO brought this off in its first attempt is all the more commendable.
Although ISRO’s inherent scientific ability was never in doubt, Chandrayaan-1 — the maiden deep space endeavour — posed new technological challenges in telemetry, tracking, miniaturisation of on-board systems and devices, novel power packs and special thermal control of the spacecraft to withstand conditions of high solar load hitherto not experienced in the near-earth environment.
Although ISRO’s inherent scientific ability was never in doubt, Chandrayaan-1 — the maiden deep space endeavour — posed new technological challenges in telemetry, tracking, miniaturisation of on-board systems and devices, novel power packs and special thermal control of the spacecraft to withstand conditions of high solar load hitherto not experienced in the near-earth environment.
The performance of the mission so far is testimony to ISRO’s advanced capabilities in all these respects.
Nevertheless, as ISRO plans for Chandrayaan-2 in 2012-13 and a manned mission to space in 2015, when it will face even greater technology challenges, the question is whether the venture is worth the huge cost it will entail. A political factor that is relevant is the world’s constant India-China comparison and the latter’s demonstrated technological prowess in space technology. What is more, given the resurgent interest in tapping the moon’s resources, there is a strategic dimension to space missions.
This becomes particularly relevant if one notes the discordance between the Moon Treaty, which very few countries have ratified, and the Outer Space Treaty, which most nations have. While the former emphasises the principle of ‘common heritage of mankind,’ the latter articulates it weakly. It is from this perspective that the rhetorical question posed by ISRO’s former chairman K. Kasturirangan, “Can we afford not to go to the moon?” and the basic question of whether India should venture into deep space need to be addressed.
At the same time, as ISRO begins to think in terms of manned missions to space, which will cost a great deal more than unmanned missions, the cost-benefit analyses need to be done more rigorously than for relatively low-cost missions such as Chandrayaan. But these are policy issues that can be taken up later. Now is the time to congratulate ISRO on taking India’s exploration of space up a level — which very few developing countries have even aspired to reach.
Financial Times review of book 'Empires of the Indus'
Empires of the Indus: The Story of a River
By Alice Albinia
John Murray £20 384 pages
FT bookshop price: £16
Review by Paddy Docherty
Empires of the Indus is a magnificent book, a triumphant melding of travel and history into a compelling story of adventure and discovery.
Alice Albinia has taken her obsession with the great river and wrought a captivating account of her explorations through Pakistan, Afghanistan, India and Tibet, taking us hundreds of miles upstream and back in time to the earliest days.
She begins in Karachi in Pakistan, close to where the Indus enters the Arabian Sea.
By the time she reaches the source of the river in Tibet, we have been drawn through an array of peoples, cultures, landscapes and stories.
The book is deftly structured: the further upriver we journey, the deeper into history we go. This approach does not, however, tie Albinia narrowly to the river itself, and she branches off on numerous adventurous diversions around the cultural watershed of the Indus.
These forays, and her evident determination to track down little-known rock carvings or tribal villages, are enlightening.
I was especially taken by her burqa-clad and highly illegal journey through the tribal badlands of Waziristan, for which she surely deserves a medal.
Elsewhere, we follow her as she walks the path of Alexander the Great as he arrived at the Indus, and – clad in a piece of plastic sheet against the rain – tramping through snowy Tibetan mountains.
These exploits serve to illuminate or uncover rich historical evidence. Most notable is the deeply varied nature of the cultures and religions that grew or coalesced around the river: we learn of Sufi saints, river cults and Kalash practices besides Buddhism, Sikhism and Hinduism.
There are some surprising tales of collaboration between Muslims and Hindus and between Muslims and Sikhs – reminders that religions do not have to divide us – and many curious cultural fusions.
Hidden history is brought to light, notably a chapter on the Sheedi people of Sindh, descendents of African slaves now living as modern Pakistanis. Another surprise was the sexual current that runs through the book, from Pashtun catamites to Tibetan polyandry.
The entire journey is linked by a thread of the Rig Veda, the ancient Sanskrit hymns of worship which exalted the Indus as the ”Unconquered Sindhu”, river of rivers. Albinia is an engaging travelling companion with a quietly determined and gently humorous voice, often to be heard persuading bemused army officers or incredulous tribal leaders into letting her into forbidden places or across closed borders.
A reader cannot help but be delighted as she describes her discoveries, such as when she is led to an unexpected prehistoric stone circle in Kashmir:
“I hear myself gasping out loud. The circle is resplendent, majestic, isolated – a solid ring of stones in this silent, empty place. On our left is a sheer brown wall of rock, and the blue slither of the river; to our right, a wider, greener river, and a dark mass of mountains in the distance.
In the east, beyond the point where the rivers meet, snow-topped mountains shine fiercely in the afternoon light. I can almost hear, like a whisper, the footsteps of the people who created this circle.
For the first time in my life I want to get down on my knees and worship at this altar to human endeavour, to the power of Nature.”Her passion is infectious throughout; I felt Albinia’s relief and frustrations, her alarms and compulsions as I read. There is concern, too, for the riverside peoples and cultures, and for the river itself.
At times this anxiety even becomes sadness, a momentary lament for the impact of the modern world on the ancient Indus waters. Ultimately, though, this is an inspiring book, and readers with even a fraction of Albinia’s wanderlust will want to set off on their own explorations.
Paddy Docherty is the author of ‘The Khyber Pass: A History of Empire and Invasion’ (Faber)
Baloch provinces of Afghanistan seek independence
Courtesy: Baloch Voice
Different tribal and ethnic groups are trying to control their areas and declaring their autonomy from a non existing central authority in Afghanistan.
Baloch tribes of Nemroz, Helmand and Farah provinces in South Western Afghanistan have decided to secede from Kabul and to declare their independence, the Balochistan News Service reported on Nov 24, 2001.
The decision was taken unanimously by a tribal Jirga recently held in Nemroz province.
A five-member provisional committee was nominated to take the administrative control of the declared autonomous region with Karim Shagzai Muhammad Hassani as its head.
Baloch provinces of Nemroz, and Helmand.
The region is the agricultural back-bone of Afghanistan for its century’s old agricultural channels along the banks of River Helmand, border with District Chagai (Balochistan) of Pakistan in the south and Iranian Province of Seistan and Balochistan in the west.Both the provinces along with the southern part of Farah province is overwhelmingly inhabited by Baloch tribes like Mengal, Barakzai, Gorgegh, Baranzai, Mohamed Hassani, Naroi, Sanjarani and other Rakhshani tribes.
These are cross border tribes, also inhabiting the Chagai and Kharan districts of Pakistan and the adjoining areas of Iranian province of Seistan and Balochistan.The population of these tribes is said to be more than 1.2 million.
The action to take control of the Baloch areas by tribesmen was prompted by the attempts of a group of former Mujahideen supported by “foreign elements” to occupy Nemroz and Helmand after the withdrawal of Taliban warriors from the area in the first week of this month, a source told BNS.Political observers in the provincial capital Quetta, are of the opinion that Baloch Nationalist parties would welcome independence of these areas or the merger of these Afghan provinces into Pakistan.
Meanwhile, former member of National Assembly of Pakistan Sana Baloch in a statement appealed to western coalition not to consider inclusion of Nemroz, Helmand and Baloch majority areas of Farah provinces as part of southern Afghanistan, in a future political dispensation, in case of impending dissolution or disintegration of Afghanistan.He appealed for an autonomous status for the area.
He declares support to the tribes and said that Baloch tribes across the borders are ready to assist their brothers in Afghanistan if they are attacked or their areas are threatened by hostile forces.Political observers believe that in the eventuality of the disintegration of Afghanistan which is on the cards, Pakistan can claim this area for security reasons. It can also control the area indirectly with the help of its own frontier tribes of Chagai and Kharan.
Different tribal and ethnic groups are trying to control their areas and declaring their autonomy from a non existing central authority in Afghanistan.
Baloch tribes of Nemroz, Helmand and Farah provinces in South Western Afghanistan have decided to secede from Kabul and to declare their independence, the Balochistan News Service reported on Nov 24, 2001.
The decision was taken unanimously by a tribal Jirga recently held in Nemroz province.
A five-member provisional committee was nominated to take the administrative control of the declared autonomous region with Karim Shagzai Muhammad Hassani as its head.
Baloch provinces of Nemroz, and Helmand.
The region is the agricultural back-bone of Afghanistan for its century’s old agricultural channels along the banks of River Helmand, border with District Chagai (Balochistan) of Pakistan in the south and Iranian Province of Seistan and Balochistan in the west.Both the provinces along with the southern part of Farah province is overwhelmingly inhabited by Baloch tribes like Mengal, Barakzai, Gorgegh, Baranzai, Mohamed Hassani, Naroi, Sanjarani and other Rakhshani tribes.
These are cross border tribes, also inhabiting the Chagai and Kharan districts of Pakistan and the adjoining areas of Iranian province of Seistan and Balochistan.The population of these tribes is said to be more than 1.2 million.
The action to take control of the Baloch areas by tribesmen was prompted by the attempts of a group of former Mujahideen supported by “foreign elements” to occupy Nemroz and Helmand after the withdrawal of Taliban warriors from the area in the first week of this month, a source told BNS.Political observers in the provincial capital Quetta, are of the opinion that Baloch Nationalist parties would welcome independence of these areas or the merger of these Afghan provinces into Pakistan.
Meanwhile, former member of National Assembly of Pakistan Sana Baloch in a statement appealed to western coalition not to consider inclusion of Nemroz, Helmand and Baloch majority areas of Farah provinces as part of southern Afghanistan, in a future political dispensation, in case of impending dissolution or disintegration of Afghanistan.He appealed for an autonomous status for the area.
He declares support to the tribes and said that Baloch tribes across the borders are ready to assist their brothers in Afghanistan if they are attacked or their areas are threatened by hostile forces.Political observers believe that in the eventuality of the disintegration of Afghanistan which is on the cards, Pakistan can claim this area for security reasons. It can also control the area indirectly with the help of its own frontier tribes of Chagai and Kharan.
India 'not a threat to Pakistan': Zardari
By Barbara Plett
BBC News
Sept 5
Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari says India has never been a threat to Pakistan, and that militants in Indian-administered Kashmir are terrorists.
In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, he also seemed to acknowledge that his government has given consent to US air strikes in Pakistan.
The unorthodox views run counter to those held by Pakistan's military, which views India as a threat.
India and Pakistan have fought three wars but have made recent peace moves.
Deep suspicions
Pakistan's powerful military has long-defined India as an existential threat, and in the past it has given covert backing to the militants in Kashmir.
The two regional rivals did take part in a faltering peace process under the former president, General Pervez Musharraf. But suspicions always ran deep, and relations have soured recently.
Mr Zardari's comments thus mark a radical break with the past.
The Wall Street Journal also reports that Mr Zardari acknowledged that the US was firing missiles at militant targets inside Pakistan with his government's consent.
"We have an understanding, in the sense that we're going after an enemy together," it quotes him as saying.
But the Pakistani army is adamant that coalition forces do not have permission for such cross-border raids.
These incursions have stoked enormous anger in Pakistan - and Mr Zardari's comments may do the same.
BBC News
Sept 5
Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari says India has never been a threat to Pakistan, and that militants in Indian-administered Kashmir are terrorists.
In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, he also seemed to acknowledge that his government has given consent to US air strikes in Pakistan.
The unorthodox views run counter to those held by Pakistan's military, which views India as a threat.
India and Pakistan have fought three wars but have made recent peace moves.
Deep suspicions
Pakistan's powerful military has long-defined India as an existential threat, and in the past it has given covert backing to the militants in Kashmir.
The two regional rivals did take part in a faltering peace process under the former president, General Pervez Musharraf. But suspicions always ran deep, and relations have soured recently.
Mr Zardari's comments thus mark a radical break with the past.
The Wall Street Journal also reports that Mr Zardari acknowledged that the US was firing missiles at militant targets inside Pakistan with his government's consent.
"We have an understanding, in the sense that we're going after an enemy together," it quotes him as saying.
But the Pakistani army is adamant that coalition forces do not have permission for such cross-border raids.
These incursions have stoked enormous anger in Pakistan - and Mr Zardari's comments may do the same.
Why Begum Khaleda and Sheikh Hasina should talk
The Daily Star
October 4, 2008
By Harun ur Rashid
A lot of articles have appeared in the newspapers recently on the proposed face- to-face dialogue between the two former prime ministers. Some writers and politicians doubt whether any fruitful outcome would emanate from their talks.
Barrister Rafique-ul Huq first raised the matter, expecting that a new dawn could rise in restoring healthy political environment in the country if the two national leaders talked to each other.
This is a commendable initiative, coming from an eminent barrister who, as a citizen of the country, has the right to propose such a meeting.
Furthermore, his standing is greater than other people's because he represented both the leaders before the courts at a difficult time in their personal lives.
The leaders will not talk about their personal matters, or about removing their dislike for each other, but about promoting representative democracy in the country.
The leaders will not talk about their personal matters, or about removing their dislike for each other, but about promoting representative democracy in the country.
There is a saying that the interests of a political party come before self-interest, and the interests of the country come before the interests of a political party.
Briefly, politics in the country since 1991 was characterised by and large by the following unsavoury practices:
-The mutual dislike for each other continued unabated between Begum Khaleda Zia and Sheikh Hasina. They did not speak to each other for years. As a result, confrontational politics prevailed.
-If one lady won the election and ran the government, the other lady and her party MPs boycotted the parliament on allegation of the election being rigged and non-cooperation in the parliament by the ruling party.
Briefly, politics in the country since 1991 was characterised by and large by the following unsavoury practices:
-The mutual dislike for each other continued unabated between Begum Khaleda Zia and Sheikh Hasina. They did not speak to each other for years. As a result, confrontational politics prevailed.
-If one lady won the election and ran the government, the other lady and her party MPs boycotted the parliament on allegation of the election being rigged and non-cooperation in the parliament by the ruling party.
The issues were raised on the streets and violence would erupt among the supporters of rival parties.
-The prime minister became an authoritarian leader because of dynastic reasons. One is the wife of a slain president and the other lady is the daughter of assassinated president and founder of the nation.
-The prime minister became an authoritarian leader because of dynastic reasons. One is the wife of a slain president and the other lady is the daughter of assassinated president and founder of the nation.
Hardly any cabinet minister or MP had the courage to express different views on the prime minister's decisions.
-Politics became a big commercial investment because if one could become an MP, it was a gateway for him/her to make money by being corrupt and abusing power and privilege. If MPs and ministers became corrupt, bureaucrats were not far behind them.
Suspected corrupt ministers and MPs were never dismissed or put on trial, and corrupt individuals and musclemen moved freely under the patronage of influential politicians. Criminalisation of politics became a routine affair. A section of ministers and MPs had allegedly pampered criminal elements to make money by extortion as long as they could bring enough votes for politicians during the elections.
State institutions became weak, and it is alleged that successive governments appointed their own people in the state institutions.
-Politics became a big commercial investment because if one could become an MP, it was a gateway for him/her to make money by being corrupt and abusing power and privilege. If MPs and ministers became corrupt, bureaucrats were not far behind them.
Suspected corrupt ministers and MPs were never dismissed or put on trial, and corrupt individuals and musclemen moved freely under the patronage of influential politicians. Criminalisation of politics became a routine affair. A section of ministers and MPs had allegedly pampered criminal elements to make money by extortion as long as they could bring enough votes for politicians during the elections.
State institutions became weak, and it is alleged that successive governments appointed their own people in the state institutions.
In the perception of the public, there was almost a complete breakdown of integrity of some of the state institutions. Bureaucracy became politicised, and those who "did not go with the flow" were marginalised.
Given the confrontation between the two major parties since 1991, democratic norms and traditions totally disappeared from ethical standards of most of politicians.
Democracy in the country was dominated by tyrannical rule of the majority and a recalcitrant minority. The conduct of both parties had alienated an overwhelming majority of common people, and when 1/11 came there was a relief in the country.
But everyone realises that the caretaker government has been a stop-gap one and that an elected government has to run the country, and, therefore, politicians have an important role to play in restoring representative democracy in the country.
What should they talk about?It is assumed that the two leaders must have gone through a process of self-analysis and introspection when they were in prison. Socrates said that an unexamined life is not worth living.
The leaders must have taken stock of the past deeds of their parties' stalwarts and realised that there must be a new beginning in politics, which will not be influenced by money, muscle and corrupt elements.
Broadly, they need to talk about the following:
Given the confrontation between the two major parties since 1991, democratic norms and traditions totally disappeared from ethical standards of most of politicians.
Democracy in the country was dominated by tyrannical rule of the majority and a recalcitrant minority. The conduct of both parties had alienated an overwhelming majority of common people, and when 1/11 came there was a relief in the country.
But everyone realises that the caretaker government has been a stop-gap one and that an elected government has to run the country, and, therefore, politicians have an important role to play in restoring representative democracy in the country.
What should they talk about?It is assumed that the two leaders must have gone through a process of self-analysis and introspection when they were in prison. Socrates said that an unexamined life is not worth living.
The leaders must have taken stock of the past deeds of their parties' stalwarts and realised that there must be a new beginning in politics, which will not be influenced by money, muscle and corrupt elements.
Broadly, they need to talk about the following:
Acceptance of the outcome of a fair election with grace.
Role of ruling party and opposition in parliament.
No boycott of the sessions of parliament.
Political issues not to be settled on the streets.
Some guidelines for conduct of supporters during hartal.
Revision of the Constitution.
A few words about revision of the ConstitutionThe 1972 Bangladesh Constution provides for representative democracy in which the ability of the elected representatives to exercise decision-making power is subject to rule of law (not merely rule by law) that places constraints on the government leaders on the extent to which the will of majority can be exercised against the rights of minority parties.
37 years of governance have demonstrated the pitfalls, and misinterpretation, of the provisions of the Constitution. Some of the amended provisions (such as Article 70) tend to be totally against the democratic norms of the Consitution, and they need to be deleted.
What is imperative is that provisions of the Constitution must be made explicity clear, with checks and balances on the separation of powers among the organs of the state --executive, legislative and judiciary. There exists an imbalance between the powers of the president and those of the prime minister, which needs to be rectified.
It does not matter whether their parties or members of civil society initiate the process of talks, if the two former prime ministers can arrive at a consensus on the issues mentioned above it will augur well for the country.
Politics is the art of the possible, as Bismarck said. Both the prime ministers have served the people, and it is always the politicians in all countries who provide service to the community. Politics is the highest call of service to people.
Barrister Harun ur Rashid is a former Bangladesh Ambassador to the UN, Geneva.
Art of War: Are we deceiving ourselves again?
Book written by Arun Shourie
Reviewed by Brahma Chellaney for Hindustan Times
India and China are both adept at playing with numbers. While China invented the abacus, India conceived the binary and the decimal systems.
But India, having forsaken the Kautilyan principles, has proven no match to China’s Sun Tzu-style statecraft.
From Nehru’s grudging acceptance of Chinese suzerainty to Atal Behari Vajpayee’s blithe acceptance of full Chinese sovereignty, India has incrementally shed its main card — Tibet.
As a result, India has found itself repeatedly betrayed.
Indeed, it wasn’t geography but guns — the sudden occupation of the traditional buffer, Tibet, soon after the communists seized power in Beijing — that made China India’s neighbour.
Jawaharlal Nehru later admitted he didn’t anticipate the swiftness of the Chinese takeover of Tibet because he had been “led to believe by the Chinese foreign office that the Chinese would settle the future of Tibet in a peaceful manner”.
Shourie’s well-researched, powerfully written book relies on Nehru’s letters, speeches, notes and other correspondence to bring out the significance, in Nehru’s own words, of the events from the 1950-51 fall of Tibet to China’s 1962 invasion.
The author then draws 31 lessons from those developments for today’s India.
After all, there are important parallels, as Shourie points out, between the situation pre-1962 and the situation now.
Border talks are regressing, Chinese claims on Indian territories are becoming publicly assertive, Chinese cross-border incursions are rising, and India’s China policy is becoming feckless.
Indeed, what stands out in the history of Sino-Indian disputes is that India has always been on the defensive against a country that first moved its frontiers hundreds of miles south by annexing Tibet, then furtively nibbled at Indian territories before waging open war, and now lays claims to additional Indian territories.
By contrast, on neuralgic subjects like Tibet, Beijing’s public language still matches the crudeness and callousness with which it sought in 1962, in Premier Zhou Enlai’s words, to “teach India a lesson”.
India’s crushing rout in 1962 hastened the death of Nehru, “a fervent patriot,” according to Shourie, who “misled himself and thereby brought severe trauma upon the country, a country that he loved and served with such ardour”.
The defeat transformed Nehru from a world statesman to a beaten, shattered politician.
A classic example of Nehru’s selfdelusion cited by the author is the following note he wrote on July 9, 1949, to the country’s top career diplomat: “Whatever may be the ultimate fate of Tibet in relation to China, I think there is practically no chance of any military danger to India arising from any change in Tibet.
Geographically, this is very difficult and practically it would be a foolish adventure. If India is to be influenced or an attempt made to bring pressure on her, Tibet is not the route for it.
I do not think there is any necessity for our defence ministry, or any part of it, to consider possible military repercussions on the India-Tibetan frontier.
The event is remote and may not arise at all.”
What Nehru naively saw as a “foolish adventure” was mounted within months by China. What Nehru asserted was geographically impracticable became a geopolitical reality that has impacted on Indian security like no other development since the 20th century.
Right up to 1949, Nehru kept referring to the “Tibetan government” and to Tibet and India as “our two countries”. But no sooner had China begun gobbling up Tibet than Nehru’s stance changed. He started advising Tibetan representatives, as Shourie brings out, to go to Beijing and plead for autonomy.
By 1954, through the infamous ‘Panchsheel Agreement’, Nehru had not only surrendered India’s extra-territorial rights in Tibet but also recognised ‘the Tibet region of China’ — without securing any quid pro quo, such as the Chinese acceptance of the McMahon Line.
From Nehru’s grudging acceptance of Chinese suzerainty over Tibet to Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s blithe acceptance of full Chinese sovereignty over Tibet, India has incrementally shed its main card — Tibet — and thereby allowed the aggressor state to shift the spotlight from its annexation of Tibet and Aksai Chin to its newly assertive claims on Arunachal Pradesh.
The irony is that by laying claims to additional Indian territories on the basis of their purported ties to Tibet, China blatantly plays the Tibet card against India, going to the extent of citing the birth in Tawang of one of the earlier Dalai Lamas, a politico-religious institution it has systematically sought to destroy. Yet India remains coy to play the Tibet card against China.
The sum effect of failing to use Tibet as a bargaining chip has been that India first lost Aksai Chin, then more territory in 1962 and now is seeking to fend off Chinese claims to Arunachal Pradesh.
And as Shourie reminds us, India has still to grasp that the Chinese modus operandi of promising a peaceful settlement and then employing force to change facts on the ground is an old practice.
The lessons he paints — from not running policy on hope to ensuring peace by building capability to defend peace — are words of warning no leadership ought to ignore. Shourie’s book is a call for a downthe-earth Indian policy which, without pushing any panic buttons, begins to build better Himalayan security and countervailing leverage to ensure that China’s growing power does not slide into arrogance and renewed aggression.
After all, China’s dramatic rise as a world power in just one generation under authoritarian rule represents the first direct challenge to liberal democracy since the rise of fascism in the 1930s.
But just as India has been battered by growing terrorism because of its location next to the global epicentre of terror, it could bear the brunt from its geographical proximity to an increasingly assertive China.
-Brahma Chellaney is a political commentator
Reviewed by Brahma Chellaney for Hindustan Times
India and China are both adept at playing with numbers. While China invented the abacus, India conceived the binary and the decimal systems.
But India, having forsaken the Kautilyan principles, has proven no match to China’s Sun Tzu-style statecraft.
From Nehru’s grudging acceptance of Chinese suzerainty to Atal Behari Vajpayee’s blithe acceptance of full Chinese sovereignty, India has incrementally shed its main card — Tibet.
As a result, India has found itself repeatedly betrayed.
Indeed, it wasn’t geography but guns — the sudden occupation of the traditional buffer, Tibet, soon after the communists seized power in Beijing — that made China India’s neighbour.
Jawaharlal Nehru later admitted he didn’t anticipate the swiftness of the Chinese takeover of Tibet because he had been “led to believe by the Chinese foreign office that the Chinese would settle the future of Tibet in a peaceful manner”.
Shourie’s well-researched, powerfully written book relies on Nehru’s letters, speeches, notes and other correspondence to bring out the significance, in Nehru’s own words, of the events from the 1950-51 fall of Tibet to China’s 1962 invasion.
The author then draws 31 lessons from those developments for today’s India.
After all, there are important parallels, as Shourie points out, between the situation pre-1962 and the situation now.
Border talks are regressing, Chinese claims on Indian territories are becoming publicly assertive, Chinese cross-border incursions are rising, and India’s China policy is becoming feckless.
Indeed, what stands out in the history of Sino-Indian disputes is that India has always been on the defensive against a country that first moved its frontiers hundreds of miles south by annexing Tibet, then furtively nibbled at Indian territories before waging open war, and now lays claims to additional Indian territories.
By contrast, on neuralgic subjects like Tibet, Beijing’s public language still matches the crudeness and callousness with which it sought in 1962, in Premier Zhou Enlai’s words, to “teach India a lesson”.
India’s crushing rout in 1962 hastened the death of Nehru, “a fervent patriot,” according to Shourie, who “misled himself and thereby brought severe trauma upon the country, a country that he loved and served with such ardour”.
The defeat transformed Nehru from a world statesman to a beaten, shattered politician.
A classic example of Nehru’s selfdelusion cited by the author is the following note he wrote on July 9, 1949, to the country’s top career diplomat: “Whatever may be the ultimate fate of Tibet in relation to China, I think there is practically no chance of any military danger to India arising from any change in Tibet.
Geographically, this is very difficult and practically it would be a foolish adventure. If India is to be influenced or an attempt made to bring pressure on her, Tibet is not the route for it.
I do not think there is any necessity for our defence ministry, or any part of it, to consider possible military repercussions on the India-Tibetan frontier.
The event is remote and may not arise at all.”
What Nehru naively saw as a “foolish adventure” was mounted within months by China. What Nehru asserted was geographically impracticable became a geopolitical reality that has impacted on Indian security like no other development since the 20th century.
Right up to 1949, Nehru kept referring to the “Tibetan government” and to Tibet and India as “our two countries”. But no sooner had China begun gobbling up Tibet than Nehru’s stance changed. He started advising Tibetan representatives, as Shourie brings out, to go to Beijing and plead for autonomy.
By 1954, through the infamous ‘Panchsheel Agreement’, Nehru had not only surrendered India’s extra-territorial rights in Tibet but also recognised ‘the Tibet region of China’ — without securing any quid pro quo, such as the Chinese acceptance of the McMahon Line.
From Nehru’s grudging acceptance of Chinese suzerainty over Tibet to Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s blithe acceptance of full Chinese sovereignty over Tibet, India has incrementally shed its main card — Tibet — and thereby allowed the aggressor state to shift the spotlight from its annexation of Tibet and Aksai Chin to its newly assertive claims on Arunachal Pradesh.
The irony is that by laying claims to additional Indian territories on the basis of their purported ties to Tibet, China blatantly plays the Tibet card against India, going to the extent of citing the birth in Tawang of one of the earlier Dalai Lamas, a politico-religious institution it has systematically sought to destroy. Yet India remains coy to play the Tibet card against China.
The sum effect of failing to use Tibet as a bargaining chip has been that India first lost Aksai Chin, then more territory in 1962 and now is seeking to fend off Chinese claims to Arunachal Pradesh.
And as Shourie reminds us, India has still to grasp that the Chinese modus operandi of promising a peaceful settlement and then employing force to change facts on the ground is an old practice.
The lessons he paints — from not running policy on hope to ensuring peace by building capability to defend peace — are words of warning no leadership ought to ignore. Shourie’s book is a call for a downthe-earth Indian policy which, without pushing any panic buttons, begins to build better Himalayan security and countervailing leverage to ensure that China’s growing power does not slide into arrogance and renewed aggression.
After all, China’s dramatic rise as a world power in just one generation under authoritarian rule represents the first direct challenge to liberal democracy since the rise of fascism in the 1930s.
But just as India has been battered by growing terrorism because of its location next to the global epicentre of terror, it could bear the brunt from its geographical proximity to an increasingly assertive China.
-Brahma Chellaney is a political commentator
A fresh start?
Daily DAWN
Sept 27, 2008
IT is hoped that Thursday’s meeting between President Asif Zardari and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh will help undo the grave damage that bilateral relations have suffered in recent months.
Among other agreements, a pledge has been made to revive the composite dialogue process which was dealt a severe blow in July this year when the Indian embassy in Kabul came under ferocious attack.
New Delhi, possibly at the instigation of Kabul, was quick to accuse Pakistan of direct involvement in the bombing.
The severity of the charge and the undiplomatic language used by Indian officials was shocking, and tensions were ratcheted up further by subsequent clashes across the LoC and a string of bombings in India.
Hopefully New Delhi will show more tact in the future. Instead of being broadcast to the world, any and all terrorism-related concerns must be addressed discreetly and at the proper forum, which in this case would be the Joint Anti-Terror Mechanism.
Given this backdrop, it will take more than a photo-op meeting in New York to restore trust between the two neighbours but at least a fresh start seems to have been made.
Prime Minister Singh has also vowed to resolve the ongoing dispute triggered by the Baglihar Dam project in Indian-held Kashmir. Pakistan has not been receiving anywhere near its share of water envisaged under the Indus Water Treaty, and agriculture this side of Wagah has suffered as a result. It was also announced that at least four trade routes are to be opened, one of them across the LoC.
This is a welcome move and the plan’s materialisation clearly the need of the day. In this age of regionalism, both countries and their citizens will benefit from freer trade and cheaper goods. In this connection, attention must be given to breathing new life into the comatose South Asia Free Trade Area agreement.
Under Safta, customs duties on most products traded between Pakistan, India and Sri Lanka were to be lifted by 2012. But there has been no movement on this count, to the detriment of the region.
There was also no mention in New York of the popular uprising that is gathering strength in Indian-held Kashmir or the brutality with which security forces there are trying to suppress it. Understandable, perhaps, given that an attempt was being made to ease tensions, not inflame passions.
Still, what President Zardari recently called “the main hurdle in the way towards peace and full normalisation of relations between Pakistan and India” has to be discussed sooner than later. This is not to suggest that the two countries should put everything else on hold until the Kashmir issue is resolved to the satisfaction of all parties to the dispute. But the plight of the Kashmiri people cannot be ignored either.
Global Crises Challenge Leaders
Daily Outlook Afghanistan
The world’s huge challenges such as human rights violations, insecurity, economic and food crisis required an all-out international plan that is reflected in the Millennium Development Goals. MDGs are eight goals to be achieved by 2015 that respond to the world's main development challenges.
The MDGs are drawn from the actions and targets contained in the Millennium Declaration that was adopted by 189 nations-and signed by 147 heads of state and governments during the UN Millennium Summit in September 2000.
The Millennium Declaration sets the United Nations (UN) agenda for peace, security and development concerns in the 21st Century, including in the areas of environment, human rights, and governance.
Adopting the Declaration, the U.N. General Assembly called upon the whole UN system to assist Member States in the implementation of this Declaration In order to guide the UN system in this task, the Secretary-General prepared a “road-map” for implementing goals.
During the presentation of his first annual progress report on implementing the Millennium Declaration, United Nations’ previous Secretary-General, Kofi Annan warned that prospects for reaching the MDGs on current trends are uncertain, with marked differences between and within regions.
Opening the UN General Assembly's 63rd annual debate, UN Chief Ban Ki-moon on Tuesday stressed the need for "global leadership" as he pressed world leaders not to pursue narrow national interests in the face of hard economic times.
He spoke of a "challenge of global leadership" to tackle the world's worsening financial, energy and food crises. Ban, who has chosen implementation of key poverty reduction goals as a major theme of this year's debate, said he saw "a danger of retreating from the progress we have made, particularly in the realm of development and more equitably sharing the fruits of global growth."
Perusing the current indicators of world development and measurement of eradication of poverty, insecurity and economic and food crisis through out the globe, it comes true saying that global leadership is strongly challenged today.
To prove efficiency of world leaders’ performances, they should, in concert, launch political, social and economic initiatives to overcome today’s big menaces threatening the human community’s interests.
Restore autonomy originally enjoyed by Kashmir
Ajit Bhattacharjea has been writing on Jammu and Kashmir ever since he went there in 1947 to report the invasion of Pathans sent in by Pakistan.
In his 80s, Bhattacharjea has completed a biography of Sheikh Abdullah to complement his previous book ‘Kashmir: The Wounded Valley’.
Humra Quraishi talks to Bhattacharjea:
How has Kashmir changed?
I went to Srinagar the first time in 1947, soon after our troops landed there. I saw how Kashmiris helped to resist the invasion by Pathan tribals sent in by Pakistan.
The same Kashmiris are now crying for azadi from India. When I was there last year, temples were open in the heart of Srinagar and people were visiting them.
There were so many publications about the culture and history of the Valley and there were tourists. There was hope. There’s little hope left today as the situation amounts to a form of occupation because of our repressive law and order approach.
How did the situation deteriorate?
Sheikh Abdullah and Jawaharlal Nehru believed in secularism and in socialism. Kashmiris were with India and rejected Pakistan because for them it didn’t stand for either socialism or secularism. Over the years Hindutva outfits have exerted their influence over the government of India. With that several factors came up.
The assurances given to Sheikh Abdullah were taken away, the special autonomy promised to J&K was gradually eroded.
There’s a sense of alienation among Kashmiris. That sense of alienation had always been there but today it has increased. Blocking the highway and connecting roads to the Valley was a disaster.
It made Kashmiris feel that they are not part of the country. And now, this news of curfew being imposed in the entire Valley.
The way forward is to invite all concerned for discussions on specific, time-bound measures to revive the autonomy J&K had enjoyed when it joined the Indian Union.
What kind of political solution do you think will be acceptable in the Valley?
People tend to forget that Jammu and Kashmir cannot be treated like any other state. It acceded to India on October 27, 1947, on the condition of being given internal autonomy.
Though Muslims were in a majority, they supported accession and helped Indian troops resist Pakistan. But gradual erosion of the state’s autonomy planted the seeds of alienation. Azadi became a popular slogan, that could mean independence or full autonomy.
I do not see any prospect of early resumption of talks on autonomy after this heavy dose of repression. Prospects had improved after General Musharraf made his out-of-the-box proposals to increase cooperation between the two halves of Kashmir.
But he, too, is gone. Even so, if the Centre offers talks on restoring the level of autonomy originally enjoyed by the state, a new beginning can perhaps be made. But it must seem to be sincere.
Nepal Maoists seek new order with India
By Sunil Raman
BBC News
Nepalese Prime Minister Prachanda visits India apparently determined to change the terms of engagement with his country's giant neighbour. The visit is being watched with great interest as India prepares to work with a Nepal that looks like being governed very differently from the past.
For years Nepalese leaders have expressed a desire to review a peace treaty which has defined relations between the two countries since 1950.
Prachanda, under pressure from Maoist comrades not to be pro-India, has gone further.
He is being urged to stand up to India and has said he will bring the draft of a new agreement to Delhi.
'Hype'
Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru stressed Nepal's importance for a newly independent India in 1959 when he said "we cannot allow anything to go wrong in Nepal or permit that barrier to be crossed or weakened because that would be a risk to our [India's] security".
Prachanda is conscious that his visit to India is unlike trips made by his predecessors. His remarks and body language clearly show that he wants to engage with India as the leader of a sovereign nation and not of a "vassal state".
He has been under pressure from his party comrades and others to scrap the treaty with India. His India trip has dominated Nepalese newspapers, television channels and radio stations for days. Nepal and India have an open border more than 1,800km (1,125 miles) long.
Prachanda is conscious that his visit to India is unlike trips made by his predecessors. His remarks and body language clearly show that he wants to engage with India as the leader of a sovereign nation and not of a "vassal state".
He has been under pressure from his party comrades and others to scrap the treaty with India. His India trip has dominated Nepalese newspapers, television channels and radio stations for days. Nepal and India have an open border more than 1,800km (1,125 miles) long.
Over five million Nepalese people work and own property in India. They do not need visas or work permits and instead have all the rights of an Indian citizen.
Continuing with the British tradition, India recruits Nepalese Gurkhas into its army. There are 40,000 Nepalese Gurkhas in the 1.13m-strong Indian army and thousands of them receive monthly pensions in Nepal from India.
Former Nepalese ambassador to India, Prof Lokraj Baral, says demands to review the treaty are nothing new. The hype, he says, is more to "satisfy" public opinion.
Some recent media reports in Nepal were highly critical of reports that Indian soldiers might be sent to Nepal to protect river projects.
Massive floods in India's Bihar state after a river burst its banks upstream in Nepal are another source of argument.
Buffer
As a landlocked country Nepal is acutely dependent on India. India sells Nepal all its oil and the Himalayan nation's imports and exports transit through Indian ports.
A difference of opinion about the language of a trade agreement saw India bring Nepal to its knees in the early 1990s, with an economic blockade that lasted several months.
India believes that Nepal, as a buffer with China, is integral to its security concerns.
It is for this reason that a controversial clause in the India-Nepal treaty does not allow Nepal to buy arms and weapons from a third country without consulting India. This clause is seen by many Nepalese as subverting the country's sovereign rights.
In the early 1990s King Birendra threatened to buy weapons from China which saw India froth with anger. While Nepal's dependence on India is something that cannot be ignored by Prachanda and his team, experts feel some of the wording of the 1950 treaty should be changed.
One Indian official admitted that the clause dealing with defence matters will need to be revised. "One has to understand that 2008 is not 1950. People's aspirations cannot be brushed aside," he said.
But Indian commentator Inder Malhotra says it will not be easy for India to agree to change the clause dealing with defence. He says Nepal is too important for India to allow it to embrace China.
Given the high Himalayan ranges to its north, Nepal needs India for access to sea ports. Mr Malhotra blames "traditional anti-India sentiment" of the Nepalese elite for the renewed demands to end the peace treaty.
"Just like the elite in India who for a long time remained anti-America in their outlook, so is the elite in Nepal anti-India," he says.
Even so, India is now dealing with a new order in Nepal which demands to be treated more as a partner than a subordinate nation.
Continuing with the British tradition, India recruits Nepalese Gurkhas into its army. There are 40,000 Nepalese Gurkhas in the 1.13m-strong Indian army and thousands of them receive monthly pensions in Nepal from India.
Former Nepalese ambassador to India, Prof Lokraj Baral, says demands to review the treaty are nothing new. The hype, he says, is more to "satisfy" public opinion.
Some recent media reports in Nepal were highly critical of reports that Indian soldiers might be sent to Nepal to protect river projects.
Massive floods in India's Bihar state after a river burst its banks upstream in Nepal are another source of argument.
Buffer
As a landlocked country Nepal is acutely dependent on India. India sells Nepal all its oil and the Himalayan nation's imports and exports transit through Indian ports.
A difference of opinion about the language of a trade agreement saw India bring Nepal to its knees in the early 1990s, with an economic blockade that lasted several months.
India believes that Nepal, as a buffer with China, is integral to its security concerns.
It is for this reason that a controversial clause in the India-Nepal treaty does not allow Nepal to buy arms and weapons from a third country without consulting India. This clause is seen by many Nepalese as subverting the country's sovereign rights.
In the early 1990s King Birendra threatened to buy weapons from China which saw India froth with anger. While Nepal's dependence on India is something that cannot be ignored by Prachanda and his team, experts feel some of the wording of the 1950 treaty should be changed.
One Indian official admitted that the clause dealing with defence matters will need to be revised. "One has to understand that 2008 is not 1950. People's aspirations cannot be brushed aside," he said.
But Indian commentator Inder Malhotra says it will not be easy for India to agree to change the clause dealing with defence. He says Nepal is too important for India to allow it to embrace China.
Given the high Himalayan ranges to its north, Nepal needs India for access to sea ports. Mr Malhotra blames "traditional anti-India sentiment" of the Nepalese elite for the renewed demands to end the peace treaty.
"Just like the elite in India who for a long time remained anti-America in their outlook, so is the elite in Nepal anti-India," he says.
Even so, India is now dealing with a new order in Nepal which demands to be treated more as a partner than a subordinate nation.
Terror attacks can’t break India’s unity
Deccan Chronicle
Sept 14, 2008
In a couple of days we’ll probably have a better idea of the damage caused by the Saturday evening blasts in three important markets in the national capital.
We should by then also be able to make some sense of who the perpetrators might be, looking at the nature of the materials used and by the modus operandi of the terrorists.
Early reports suggest more than 10 people lost their lives and more than 80 were injured. Whether this is a coincidence or not, the Saturday blasts bear a striking resemblance to blasts in Delhi three years ago.
They occurred on the same day of the week and approximately the same hour of early evening. Perhaps this points to the fact that the terrorists expect ordinary people to be out shopping in large numbers on weekend evenings.
But whoever they are, the executors of evil designs against innocent people must be warned that they will be exposed in the not too distant future.
Already, several leading dramatis personae of previous terror attacks on prominent cities are finding the going tough. It is no use getting carried away by claims that terrorists make.
This is usually done to demoralise the authorities and the public, especially when the same agency seeks to appropriate credit on more than one occasion.
This is usually done to demoralise the authorities and the public, especially when the same agency seeks to appropriate credit on more than one occasion.
The intention is to plant the subconscious fear among ordinary people that those who plan to hit them are everywhere, while the providers of security are groping in the dark. These are pretty much standard psy-war techniques.
Ordinary folk should be encouraged to give them short shrift. Terrorist groups sometimes advertise themselves loudly with a view to registering their success with those that dispatched them.
This is a mercenary motive, of course. It is only when the initial impact of a terror attack simmers down and the early excitement abates that it is possible to dispassionately analyse an incident or a chain of events.
The Delhi blasts are also being taken credit for, and the name of a group popping up is the same that tried to foreground its claims on earlier occasions also. It may be no more than a paper front shielding the real culprits, or it may be the alias of another outfit.
Whatever the case, we should await proper identification before jumping to conclusions.
Since the primary purpose of terrorism is to jolt the morale of a people, and create in them a gripping sense of insecurity, as citizens we will do well not to direct suspicion against whole religious communities.
Since the primary purpose of terrorism is to jolt the morale of a people, and create in them a gripping sense of insecurity, as citizens we will do well not to direct suspicion against whole religious communities.
This is a communal reaction that demonises people only on the basis of their faith. The terrorists would have succeeded in their aims if they can elicit such a reaction from us, for the ultimate purpose of the enemy is to disturb the unity of a people.
The terror strike in Delhi should impel us to greater effort to establish a well-coordinated national agency to track and attack perpetrators of terror attacks. Such an agency will naturally need to have strong cooperative relations with police sleuths in the states.
This is because all of India is on the radar screen of those who think nothing of killing innocent people in order to advance their political aims.
Tread with caution
By Abhijit Bhattacharyya
The Telegraph
Sept 11, 2008
Asif Ali Zardari has arrived at last. He was sworn in as the Pakistani president on September 9. What next? What would be the president’s priority — keeping the polity intact by responding to Nawaz Sharif’s call, avoiding conflict with the army, mollifying the mullahs, taking on the Taliban, terrorists and al Qaida, or starting talks with India? It is indeed a tough call for Zardari as the future of Pakistan depends on his diplomatic skills.
There is one thing that Zardari should surely avoid doing — incurring the wrath of the army and the Inter-Services Intelligence, keeping in mind the role played by both in Pakistan’s history till now.
Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was ousted from power and hanged to death by the army chief, General Zia-ul-Haq, in 1979. His daughter, Benazir Bhutto, too got it all wrong while dealing with General Mirza Aslam Beg and the ISI chief, Hamid Gul, in the Nineties and ultimately lost her life in 2007 during General Pervez Musharraf’s reign. Zardari’s back room manoeuvring before he became the president to bring the ISI chief under the prime minister’s office backfired badly in July 2008. Hence Zardari needs to tread cautiously.
At present, however, the current army chief, General Ashfaq Kayani, does not seem keen on the thorny throne of Islamabad, focussing more on the professionalism of soldiers and skills of the ISI spies. Yet in Pakistan the army still continues to rule, albeit less blatantly, the advent of legal presidency notwithstanding.
The new president should also be careful because he has dethroned an ex-chief of the Pakistani army with the threat of impeachment. Musharraf left, humbled by the civilians. No previous Pakistani army chief had to go like this. In Pakistani tradition, coup is the privilege of the army and not of the civilian, however high and mighty he or she might be.
Cure for headache
The army apart, perhaps the most tricky of all the factors facing Zardari is the geography of Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas, consisting of the seven tribal regions of Bajaur, Mohmand, Khyber, Orakzai, Kurram, North Waziristan and South Waziristan. Endowed with the three characteristics of melmastia (honour and hospitality), nanawati (the pledge never to deny hospitability to a fugitive) and badal (right to revenge), Fata has been renamed by the al Qaida and Taliban as the “Islamic Emirate of Waziristan”. The fight by the tribals for their unique brand of freedom will continue to be a headache even for the best of presidents.
Zardari may also like to decide as to whether or not there is a need to take mid-course correctives, avoiding a repeat of the past actions of Zulfiqar and Benazir, who tried to make the military subservient to the civilians. The Bhuttos also, theoretically at least, had sought better relations with the Pakistani army’s traditional foe, India, and had opposed Islamic extremists whom the army supported.
President Zardari’s greatest test could lie in the fact that he assumed power on the eve of the seventh anniversary of 9/11, when Osama bin Laden continues to be at large and the various factions of the Taliban and al Qaida vie with one another to get the top slot for violence. Zardari now faces the daunting task of balancing the actors and factors in the high drama of Islamabad. First, it is Zardari versus Nawaz Sharif; then the army’s traditional distrust of the Bhuttos; the Bhutto clan’s bitter memory of ruthless Generals; the ISI pursuing its own plans; and finally, the suicide-bombers spanning from Khyber to Quetta, from Mohmand to Multan. Last, but not the least, is the psychology of the Baluch leaders who view the Pakistani armed forces “not as a national military, but a Punjabi force with a mercenary and exploitative character”. Will Zardari succeed?
Importance of President Zardari
The Hindu
Sept 8, 2008
Asif Ali Zardari has been elected to one of the toughest jobs in the world.
As President of Pakistan, he is in charge of a country that has a central role in tackling the sources of global terrorism, yet is badly divided on how to go about it, or even if it must.
Large swathes of territory have been taken over by the Taliban, a force that Pakistani officials are now beginning to acknowledge is the “other face of Al Qaeda”.
For his survival in office, as that of the government led by his Pakistan People’s Party, Mr. Zardari must negotiate with the military that has a tradition of producing generals who chafe against civilian leadership and one that seems undecided whether it should perceive militancy as a national threat or continue to retain jihadists as a shadow instrument of foreign policy in the region.
The inherent instability of the system has triggered a serious economic crisis that only a foreign bail-out can end.
Pakistan has never been more in need of a leader with the right blend of political capabilities, sagacity, and statesmanship.
The PPP is Pakistan’s most progressive party and has made unsurpassed sacrifices in the interests of democracy.
Two of its biggest leaders, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and his daughter Benazir, were killed in the process. But its record in government is poor.
The PPP’s two terms in power under Benazir were synonymous with corruption and cronyism, for which much of the blame was laid at the door of her husband, Mr. Zardari, though the charges were never proved in a court.
The PPP’s two terms in power under Benazir were synonymous with corruption and cronyism, for which much of the blame was laid at the door of her husband, Mr. Zardari, though the charges were never proved in a court.
Catapulted to the presidency through part-circumstance, beginning with the December 2007 killing of Benazir and his inheritance of the party leadership, and part-political skill, Mr. Zardari must show he can live down his unsavoury image and give the country the good leadership it needs.
It is clear that despite what the PPP says about the supremacy of Parliament, Mr. Zardari, in the double role of President and party leader, will call the shots.
With the Prime Minister from the same party, that is not a cause for worry. For political stability, it is essential that the PPP does not let bitterness and hostility develop with the Pakistan Muslim League of Nawaz Sharif.
The ascendance of Mr. Zardari could see a new phase in relations between India and Pakistan. Several times he has articulated a vision that is focussed on building bridges with India through trade and economic ties, setting aside the traditional “Kashmir first” rhetoric.
With a problem on its hands in Kashmir, India will welcome a Pakistani leadership that does not add fuel to the fire and is demonstrably able to overcome all internal opposition to an agenda for peace.
India flooding: The sorrow of Bihar
Courtesy Wikipedia
On August 18, 2008, the Kosi river picked up an old channel it had abandoned over 100 years ago near the border with Nepal and India.
Approximately 2.7 million people were reported affected as the river broke its embankment at Kusaha in Nepal, thus submerging several districts of Nepal and India.
95% of total flow of the Koshi was reported flowing through the new course. The worst affected districts included Supaul, Araria, Saharsa,Madhepura, Purnia, Katihar, parts of Khagaria and northern parts of Bhagalpur, as well as adjoing regions of Nepal.
Relief work was carried out with Indian Air Force helicopters by dropping relief materials from Purnia in the worst hit districts where nearly two million persons were trapped. It has not been possible to assess the magnitude of deaths or destruction, because the affected areas are totally inaccessible.
150 persons are reported to have been washed away in a single incident (Dainik Hindustan, Darbhanga edition). Another news item stated that 42 people had died in the flood in Bihar.
The Government of Bihar has constituted a technical committee, headed by a retired engineer-in-chief of the water resource department to supervise the restoration work and closure of the breach in the East Kosi afflux embankment. Indian authorities were working to prevent further widening of the breach and channels would be dug to direct the water back to the main river bed.
The fury of the Kosi river left at least 2.5 million people marooned in eight districts of Bihar and inundated 65,000 hectares. The prime Minister of India declared it a national calamity.
The Government of Bihar has constituted a technical committee, headed by a retired engineer-in-chief of the water resource department to supervise the restoration work and closure of the breach in the East Kosi afflux embankment. Indian authorities were working to prevent further widening of the breach and channels would be dug to direct the water back to the main river bed.
The fury of the Kosi river left at least 2.5 million people marooned in eight districts of Bihar and inundated 65,000 hectares. The prime Minister of India declared it a national calamity.
The Indian army and non-government organizations were operating the biggest flood rescue operation in India in more than 50 years. It is reported as the worst flood in the area in 50 years.
By Dr A.B. Thapa
Nepalnews.com
June 2004
There are two rivers in Asia, which were known in the past as the rivers of sorrow. The Huang Ho River in China, which is also called the Yellow River, was known as the “Sorrow of China”.
Similarly, the Kosi River that flows from Nepal to India was known as the “Sorrow of Bihar”.
Both these two rivers were named “River of Sorrow” because they had caused widespread human suffering in the past.
At present, the Kosi and the Yellow River have nothing in common.
The Yellow River is already completely controlled, as a result, it does not anymore pose threat to people.
The Kosi still remains totally unregulated. At present, the embankments built on both sides of the Kosi few decades back have temporarily helped to control this river. It is feared that very soon the Kosi would abandon its present course triggering off a new cycle of damages and destructions.
After such incident, the Kosi might not anymore be only the sorrow of Bihar. It could be the sorrow of the West Bengal and Bangladesh apart from the terrible havoc the Kosi floods could be playing with the safety of people in southeastern Nepal.
In the Past the Kosi river known as the river of sorrow of the Bihar shifted from east to west over 12O km in the last 200 years.
In the Past the Kosi river known as the river of sorrow of the Bihar shifted from east to west over 12O km in the last 200 years.
In the past about 8000 sq. km. of lands had been laid waste because of the sand deposit.
In course of shifting, many towns and villages were wiped out, and heavy losses of property, cattle, and human life were inflicted.
Fortunately, the embankments built few decades ago temporarily helped to check the lateral shifting of the Kosi.
But at present the detention basin upstream of the barrage at Hanumannagar is almost full of sediments. Soon the embankments would be ineffective to control the Kosi floods.
The Kosi river is now on the verge of shifting to the east far away from its present course. The peoples of Nepal and India are heading for a natural disaster of an unprecedented scale.
The Kosi river is now on the verge of shifting to the east far away from its present course. The peoples of Nepal and India are heading for a natural disaster of an unprecedented scale.
But it appears that only very few in Nepal and India have realized the extent of this danger. It would be unfortunate if the Kosi swing to the east takes the life and property of millions in South Asia by surprise while the governments of Nepal and India would merely be silent spectator.
Rise in Kosi River Bed Level
The Kosi River brings every year an enormous quantity of sediments from its catchments in the mountains.
Rise in Kosi River Bed Level
The Kosi River brings every year an enormous quantity of sediments from its catchments in the mountains.
Sir Claude Inglis an expert on Kosi had attributed the shift of the Kosi River channel to excessive sand load carried by the river. Leopold and Maddock considering Kosi behavior had stated that a braided stream will tend to shift laterally at a rate dependent on the rate of accumulation of material being deposited.
As one course becomes higher than possible adjacent paths, the river would shift.
Data published in the American Society of Civil Engineering in March, 1966 indicate that in the period between 1938 and 1957 every year on an average about 100 million cubic meters of sediments used to be deposited on the Kosi River bed.
Data published in the American Society of Civil Engineering in March, 1966 indicate that in the period between 1938 and 1957 every year on an average about 100 million cubic meters of sediments used to be deposited on the Kosi River bed.
The maximum such deposition was around Nirmali in India not far away from the Hanumannagar.
There was very big change in sediment deposition pattern immediately after the completion of the Kosi barrage in 1963.
The results of the Kosi River channel study for post barrage period have been published by V.C. Galgali, Central Water and Power Research Station, Pune (India), and Gohain & Prakash of Roorke University.
All the past studies confirm that the Kosi River bed just upstream of the barrage has significantly aggraded due to sediment deposition.
On account of ponding, sediment deposition had occurred, flattening the bed gradient. The bed slope of the river in the pond area was abut 0.61 m per km in the year 1956 prior to construction of the barrage, which became flatter to about 0.42 m per km in the year 1969, ie in six years of the functioning of the barrage.
Studies were made to determine the sediment deposition based on post flood 1963 and 1970 surveys These studies indicated that about 35 million cu.m. sediments had deposited in the pond length of about 10 km upstream of the barrage, giving an average depth of about 0.4 m in about 8 years with a rate of bed level rise at about 0.05 m per annum.
Alarming Situation
Few years after the commissioning of the Kosi barrage there was a big flood in 1968. A discharge of about 25,000 cumecs was recorded. The flood at that time did not pose any serious threat.
Alarming Situation
Few years after the commissioning of the Kosi barrage there was a big flood in 1968. A discharge of about 25,000 cumecs was recorded. The flood at that time did not pose any serious threat.
At present the conditions might be altogether different. It is said that whenever the discharge exceeds 9,000 cumecs , which is fairly common, the whole area between the embankments is submerged. Such observations raise the fear that a flood similar to 1968 flood in magnitude could prove to be catastrophic. It should be further remembered that the 1968 Kosi flood is not exceptionally rare. A flood of this magnitude has already been observed twice within the last 50 years. Fortunately in course of the last 35 years the maximum flood discharge of the Kosi River has not exceeded 16,000 cumecs.
Embankments Would be Ineffective
Embankments built a few decades ago temporarily helped to check the lateral shifting of the Kosi.
Embankments Would be Ineffective
Embankments built a few decades ago temporarily helped to check the lateral shifting of the Kosi.
The detention basin upstream of the Kosi barrage near Hanumannagar is going to be very soon full. After that the embankments would be ineffective to prevent the lateral shifting of the Kosi. It is predicted that the Kosi would again take its 1732 course. The farthest position of the new course of the Kosi is expected to be about 120 km away from its present course. The swing of the Kosi river to the east could be sudden and almost unexpected because nobody yet exactly knows when it is going to happen. The people would be completely taken by surprise. So the loss of life could be very high. In a similar type of 1938 flood incident of the Yellow River in China the number of people killed alone was about half a million.
It does not need to be further explained that such shifting of the Kosi to the east would be a biggest disaster for the whole region.
Generally, the flood damages are temporary in nature but the Kosi flood damages would be widespread and also permanent in nature. Mr. Shilling Feld an expert on Kosi, has warned a longtime ago that the eastward movement of the Kosi will be in one big swing accompanied with great loss of life and property.
Resolving the Flood Problem
Provision of dams in the drainage area with very big storage volume is the only lasting solution to the Kosi flood problem. It is the opinion of the renowned experts and scientists involved on the Kosi study in the past. We can draw such lesson from the past experience of China also. It can be concluded that there are not any substitutes for the large storage dams to control the Kosi floods. Thus, our only recourse is storage dam. The storage dams should be provided in time. Unfortunately, some peoples in Nepal and India have misgivings about the Kosi dams. Such misgivings are unfounded and they are often the result of present global disenchantment with the high dams particularly for the generation of hydroelectricity. In case of the Kosi dams this type of notion is completely misplaced. The life and property of too many peoples in Nepal and India would be at great risk if the Kosi dams are not built in time.
Learning to Live with the Floods
Some people in Nepal and India have misgivings about storage dams. They regard that we should learn to live with the floods, therefore, it is not necessary to build storage dams to control the floods. The core issues often raised against the flood control embankments and dams in Kosi drainage area do not appear to be realistic. Some subscribe to the principle that the Kosi should get back its original route to the Ganga. One would certainly be at a great loss to determine the original route of the Kosi to the Ganga. The Kosi route had shifted from east to west over a distance of 120 kms in the last 200 years.
In almost all the cases when there is surplus water in the river, flooding results. It is a well known phenomenon in hydraulic engineering.. The Elbe and Rhine floods reported few years back in our newspapers come under this category. The Yantze River floods are also of similar nature. The flood damages are not permanent in nature. Some people try to attribute future Kosi floods also to this type of hydraulic phenomenon. Unfortunately, the Kosi flood feared to wipe out in future vast area of densely populated lands in our region is altogether different in nature. Unlike the above mentioned floods in Europe and China, the Kosi flood damages would be virtually permanent in nature.
The 1997 Indo-Nepal Study Agreement
In 1997 an agreement was signed between Nepal and India to carry out feasibility studies of the Sun-Kosi project and the Kosi project along with a navigation canal linking Nepal with the seaport. This agreement is a substantial modification to the earlier understanding reached between the Prime ministers of Nepal and India that covered only the Kosi high dam. The modification was made based on the findings of Nepal explained to Indian side in the meeting. There is a very close interrelationship between the Sun-Kosi and the Kosi projects. This interrelationship required the inclusion of the Sun-Kosi dam project in the Kosi development. Even a simple analysis of both these projects clearly illustrates the following points that help to explain why the Sun-Kosi project should be built first, and as a result, the feasibility study of the Sun-Kosi Project had to be completed as soon as possible. (a) The diversion of the Sun-Kosi river at Kurule is the most important project of Nepal for agriculture development in near future. . It can be said based on the Karnali feasibility study that North Bihar would be getting for free about 65% of the water diverted from the Sun-Kosi reservoir for irrigation in Nepal's Eastern Terai as return flow. Moreover, the stored Sun-Kosi water diverted in surplus to the need for irrigation in Nepal for generation of power would also be freely available to irrigate vast area of lands in North Bihar. This very important project would be precluded forever after the completion of the construction of the Kosi high dam project.
Resolving the Flood Problem
Provision of dams in the drainage area with very big storage volume is the only lasting solution to the Kosi flood problem. It is the opinion of the renowned experts and scientists involved on the Kosi study in the past. We can draw such lesson from the past experience of China also. It can be concluded that there are not any substitutes for the large storage dams to control the Kosi floods. Thus, our only recourse is storage dam. The storage dams should be provided in time. Unfortunately, some peoples in Nepal and India have misgivings about the Kosi dams. Such misgivings are unfounded and they are often the result of present global disenchantment with the high dams particularly for the generation of hydroelectricity. In case of the Kosi dams this type of notion is completely misplaced. The life and property of too many peoples in Nepal and India would be at great risk if the Kosi dams are not built in time.
Learning to Live with the Floods
Some people in Nepal and India have misgivings about storage dams. They regard that we should learn to live with the floods, therefore, it is not necessary to build storage dams to control the floods. The core issues often raised against the flood control embankments and dams in Kosi drainage area do not appear to be realistic. Some subscribe to the principle that the Kosi should get back its original route to the Ganga. One would certainly be at a great loss to determine the original route of the Kosi to the Ganga. The Kosi route had shifted from east to west over a distance of 120 kms in the last 200 years.
In almost all the cases when there is surplus water in the river, flooding results. It is a well known phenomenon in hydraulic engineering.. The Elbe and Rhine floods reported few years back in our newspapers come under this category. The Yantze River floods are also of similar nature. The flood damages are not permanent in nature. Some people try to attribute future Kosi floods also to this type of hydraulic phenomenon. Unfortunately, the Kosi flood feared to wipe out in future vast area of densely populated lands in our region is altogether different in nature. Unlike the above mentioned floods in Europe and China, the Kosi flood damages would be virtually permanent in nature.
The 1997 Indo-Nepal Study Agreement
In 1997 an agreement was signed between Nepal and India to carry out feasibility studies of the Sun-Kosi project and the Kosi project along with a navigation canal linking Nepal with the seaport. This agreement is a substantial modification to the earlier understanding reached between the Prime ministers of Nepal and India that covered only the Kosi high dam. The modification was made based on the findings of Nepal explained to Indian side in the meeting. There is a very close interrelationship between the Sun-Kosi and the Kosi projects. This interrelationship required the inclusion of the Sun-Kosi dam project in the Kosi development. Even a simple analysis of both these projects clearly illustrates the following points that help to explain why the Sun-Kosi project should be built first, and as a result, the feasibility study of the Sun-Kosi Project had to be completed as soon as possible. (a) The diversion of the Sun-Kosi river at Kurule is the most important project of Nepal for agriculture development in near future. . It can be said based on the Karnali feasibility study that North Bihar would be getting for free about 65% of the water diverted from the Sun-Kosi reservoir for irrigation in Nepal's Eastern Terai as return flow. Moreover, the stored Sun-Kosi water diverted in surplus to the need for irrigation in Nepal for generation of power would also be freely available to irrigate vast area of lands in North Bihar. This very important project would be precluded forever after the completion of the construction of the Kosi high dam project.
Fortunately, the Kosi high dam project can be built even after the completion of the construction of the Sun-Kosi high dam project. (b) The Kosi high dam along with a navigation canal to link Nepal with seaport is a very big project. Needless to explain that navigation canal would be extremely important for future development of Nepal as well as North Bihar. It will take long time to implement this project. But the Kosi river is on the verge of shifting to the east. The Sun-Kosi dam project could control the Kosi floods in the interim period till the Kosi high dam is completed. (c) Very serious downstream degradation problems could be expected to arise after the completion of storage dam projects. It is due to release of clear water from the reservoir in big quantity. Such acute degradation problem was observed in Boulder dam of the USA. The river bed in the 77 mile canyon reach had been lowered between 6 and 14 feet. Owing to the exposure of rock ledges the river became stable.
However, at about 130 kilometers away, the riverbed rose by six metres necessitating the construction of very expensive flood control structures. Similar phenomenon could be expected after the completion of the Kosi high dam also. The Sun-Kosi high dam built to control the floods in the interim period could help to reduce downstream degradation. It could also help to determine with greater accuracy the volume of flood regulation storage.
In Conclusion
Mr. F.A. Shilling Feld, a renowned expert on Kosi study, had made a chilling forecast a long time ago “ The westward movement of the Kosi oscillation (in the past) is slow and is in a series of steps, each of which is attended with damage to property of temporary nature. The eastward movement (in future) of the oscillation will probably be accompanied with great loss of life and property.” It is hoped that the governments of Nepal and India would take up the Kosi development matters seriously.
In Conclusion
Mr. F.A. Shilling Feld, a renowned expert on Kosi study, had made a chilling forecast a long time ago “ The westward movement of the Kosi oscillation (in the past) is slow and is in a series of steps, each of which is attended with damage to property of temporary nature. The eastward movement (in future) of the oscillation will probably be accompanied with great loss of life and property.” It is hoped that the governments of Nepal and India would take up the Kosi development matters seriously.
--Dr. Thapa writes on water resources.
Arundhati Roy and the K-word
Daily DAWN
Sept 3, 2008
NATIONS are usually proud of their celebrities. But sometimes these celebrities can be a pain in the neck, if they are a little too outspoken, especially at an awkward time.
Arundhati Roy, the petite Booker Prize winner (author of The God of Small Things) has been exactly that, at least to some Indians.
She has uttered the dreaded K-word, just when Kashmir has been aflame.
“After 18 years of administering a military occupation, the Indian government’s worst nightmare has come true,” she writes in a cover story for Outlook, one of India’s most read and respected news magazines.
“For all these years, the Indian State has done everything it can to subvert, suppress, represent, misrepresent, discredit, interpret, intimidate, purchase — and simply snuff out the voice of the Kashmiri people. It has used money (lots of it), violence (lots of it), disinformation, propaganda, torture, elaborate networks of collaborators and informers, terror, imprisonment, blackmail and rigged elections to subdue what democrats would call ‘the will of the people’.”
Strong stuff. Also a tribute to the extent of press freedom in India. Not many developing countries, even those with a free media, would allow such sentiments to be expressed on a sensitive subject.
Roy continues, “It was always clear that in their darkest moments, it was not peace that (the people of Kashmir) yearned for, but freedom too,” and then concludes in words of great eloquence that will resonate for a long time to come: “At the heart of it all is a moral question. Does any government have the right to take away people’s liberty with military force? India needs azaadi from Kashmir just as much — if not more — than Kashmir needs azaadi from India.”
Basically, Roy was elaborating on the idea of India as formulated by the nation’s first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru: a democratic federal republic where all have the right to dissent. Her implication was that this idea of India should be big enough to also take in the right of people to peacefully disassociate themselves from the republic.
The Hindu-nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) immediately condemned her, virtually calling her words treasonable.
The Congress said nothing, though a former Congress prime minister had once said that everything on the status of Kashmir was negotiable, except ‘azaadi’.
Roy’s writing must be viewed in the context of an unprecedented three-month-long mass agitation in Kashmir — which continues at the time of writing — that has taken several lives.
At core of the demonstrations is a relatively minor issue, the handing over of some land at the Hindu pilgrimage centre of Amarnath. Yet, the unrest has spread from the Muslim-dominant Valley of Kashmir to the Hindu-majority Jammu region.Underlying it, however, is something much bigger, the alienation of the Muslims of Kashmir, where a secessionist movement has been going on for almost two decades and which has taken the lives of some 30,000 militants, military personnel and civilians.Human rights abuses have certainly taken place — on both sides. And Pakistan, despite its official denials, undoubtedly helped to arm and train the militants, at least until a few years ago. Whether this was done by the shadowy intelligence agencies acting on their own, is neither here nor there. Sept 11 and American pressure on Gen Musharraf changed all that.Be that as it may, the reality is that pro-Pakistani slogans have now been raised in the Valley and the Pakistan flag flown, in defiance of the Indian army, not by the militants, but the general populace. Make no mistake, this is a mass upsurge.
That disturbs most Indians. You can use the gun against terrorists but what do you do when virtually all sections of society are demonstrating peacefully?Though Kashmiris were never really ‘pro-Indian’, even in the days of the charismatic Sheikh Abdullah, they were not ‘pro-Pakistan’ either. Islamabad learnt this to its cost in the 1965 and 1971 wars, when it expected Kashmiris to rise up in revolt. They didn’t.
In any case, it was a paradox for Pakistan to say that there should be a plebiscite in Kashmir, as had been promised by Nehru, and that Kashmiris should have the right to self-determination when that very right was denied to Pakistanis under military rule. But Pakistan now has a democratically elected government. So, the picture has changed.When Pakistan broke up and Bangladesh was formed, one thing had stuck in this writer’s mind. In the 1960s there had also been a secessionist movement in what is now the state of Tamil Nadu. In fact, the Tamil secessionist demands were more extreme than those made by Sheikh Mujibur Rehman. But in India, the secessionists were voted to power and became moderates.
In Pakistan, there was a crackdown on Sheikh Mujib and his party. And we know what followed.Some people also liken what is happening in Kashmir to what happened with the Sikhs in Punjab. However, that is a false analogy. In Punjab in the 1980s, when Sikh militancy was at its height — and this writer was based there then — the vast majority of Sikhs, though alienated and unhappy over the army assault on the Golden Temple and the anti-Sikh riots that followed the assassination of Indira Gandhi, were by no means votaries of an independent ‘Khalistan’. At most, perhaps 10 to 15 per cent were ‘Khalistanis’.
In the Kashmir Valley, on the other hand, the people overwhelmingly want azaadi, so fed up are they with army repression.Nevertheless, how far can one expect any Indian government to go in meeting Kashmiri demands — and listening to Arundhati Roy’s plea? Sadly, not very far. Although Kashmir is a case apart, given the controversy that shrouded its political status when the British withdrew from the subcontinent, the government in New Delhi has over the years whittled down its special status and treats it like any other part of the country.
So, Ms Roy, though many of us admire your boldness and the sentiments underlying your eloquence, the reality is that no Indian government would risk its political future by making Kashmir azaad. That government would fall. What it can do — and what it must do — is to restore to Kashmiris their lost dignity and their sense of well-being. The call for azaadi will then melt away. Ask the Tamilians.
The writer is a former editor of the Reader’s Digest and Indian Express.
singh.84@hotmail.com
Shifts on climate change
The Telegraph
Sept 1 , 2008
Sept 1 , 2008
By Chandrashekhar Dasgupta
There is a growing mismatch between the words and deeds of affluent industrialized countries on the subject of climate change. While joining the rest of the world in calling for enhanced action on climate change, they are failing to meet even their existing responsibilities.
They are pressing developing countries to accept new commitments, while shrugging off and retreating from their own commitments.
The facts speak for themselves. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (agreed upon in 1992) called upon the developed countries to restore their greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2000 and, thereafter, progressively reduce their emissions in order to avert global warming.
The facts speak for themselves. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (agreed upon in 1992) called upon the developed countries to restore their greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2000 and, thereafter, progressively reduce their emissions in order to avert global warming.
In gross disregard of these provisions, the total greenhouse gas emissions of the developed countries actually increased between 2000 and 2005 (the latest year for which figures are available).
This alarming trend was less clearly visible during the decade of the Nineties because of the economic collapse of the former Soviet bloc countries. The sharp decline in levels of economic activity in these industrialized countries (referred to as “economies in transition” in climate change agreements) resulted in a corresponding reduction in their greenhouse gas emissions. The emissions of the “economies in transition” fell by 39 per cent during the Nineties. Emissions of other industrialized countries continued to increase but, because of the unintended decrease in the case of the former Soviet-bloc countries, the total emissions of the group of developed countries registered a marginal decline during the decade. This was trumpeted with great fanfare by the developed countries as evidence of their “taking the lead” on climate change.
The hollowness of this claim can no longer be concealed. The recovery of the “economies in transition” during the current decade has led to an increase in their emissions, in parallel with the continuing rising trend in most other developed countries.
This alarming trend was less clearly visible during the decade of the Nineties because of the economic collapse of the former Soviet bloc countries. The sharp decline in levels of economic activity in these industrialized countries (referred to as “economies in transition” in climate change agreements) resulted in a corresponding reduction in their greenhouse gas emissions. The emissions of the “economies in transition” fell by 39 per cent during the Nineties. Emissions of other industrialized countries continued to increase but, because of the unintended decrease in the case of the former Soviet-bloc countries, the total emissions of the group of developed countries registered a marginal decline during the decade. This was trumpeted with great fanfare by the developed countries as evidence of their “taking the lead” on climate change.
The hollowness of this claim can no longer be concealed. The recovery of the “economies in transition” during the current decade has led to an increase in their emissions, in parallel with the continuing rising trend in most other developed countries.
As we saw earlier, far from registering a sharp decline, the total emissions of the developed countries actually rose between 2000 and 2005. It is true that some of these countries, such as Germany and Britain, did reduce their emissions but this was not the case with a large majority of the group. Between 1990 and 2005, greenhouse gas emissions continued to rise in 26 out of a total of 40 developed countries.
The framework convention, as its name itself indicates, lays out a general framework of responsibilities and commitments, without assigning specific numerical emission reduction targets. These were set out in an agreement reached in 1997, the Kyoto Protocol. This agreement sought to reduce emissions from the developed countries by about five per cent by 2008-2012, compared to the 1990 baseline. With the major exceptions of the United States of America and Australia (the latter has now ratified the Kyoto Protocol), the developed countries accepted individual time-bound emission reduction targets.
The framework convention, as its name itself indicates, lays out a general framework of responsibilities and commitments, without assigning specific numerical emission reduction targets. These were set out in an agreement reached in 1997, the Kyoto Protocol. This agreement sought to reduce emissions from the developed countries by about five per cent by 2008-2012, compared to the 1990 baseline. With the major exceptions of the United States of America and Australia (the latter has now ratified the Kyoto Protocol), the developed countries accepted individual time-bound emission reduction targets.
The overall reduction target was rather modest and even this will not be fully attained. Despite these limitations, the Kyoto Protocol has made a real contribution to tackling a global problem. Only quantified emission reduction commitments can offer a reasonable guarantee of achieving real cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. It is essential that the developed countries should commit themselves to a new set of quantified reduction targets for the next decade as required by the Kyoto Protocol.
Negotiations on these targets have been going on for some years but the developed countries have used every ploy to evade the issue. With the sole exception of the European Union, they have maintained a deafening silence on their treaty obligation under the Kyoto Protocol to commit themselves to a second round of quantified emission reductions for the next decade. It is now quite clear that their real intention is to bury the Kyoto Protocol. Indeed, they are talking about a “post-Kyoto agreement”, implying that the protocol should be scrapped. Their intention is to escape from the quantitative emission reduction commitments that are obligatory for developed countries under the Kyoto Protocol and to introduce, at the same time, new commitments for developing countries — in particular the so-called emerging economies such as China, India, Brazil and South Africa.
Developing countries have a number of commitments under the framework convention and Kyoto Protocol. They are not, however, required to take measures involving significant additional costs that would divert scarce resources from their priority goals of economic and social development and poverty eradication.
Negotiations on these targets have been going on for some years but the developed countries have used every ploy to evade the issue. With the sole exception of the European Union, they have maintained a deafening silence on their treaty obligation under the Kyoto Protocol to commit themselves to a second round of quantified emission reductions for the next decade. It is now quite clear that their real intention is to bury the Kyoto Protocol. Indeed, they are talking about a “post-Kyoto agreement”, implying that the protocol should be scrapped. Their intention is to escape from the quantitative emission reduction commitments that are obligatory for developed countries under the Kyoto Protocol and to introduce, at the same time, new commitments for developing countries — in particular the so-called emerging economies such as China, India, Brazil and South Africa.
Developing countries have a number of commitments under the framework convention and Kyoto Protocol. They are not, however, required to take measures involving significant additional costs that would divert scarce resources from their priority goals of economic and social development and poverty eradication.
The UN framework agreement provides that additional costs of agreed measures implemented in developing countries should be met through transfers of finance and technology from developed countries. These provisions reflect the fact that the industrialized countries are primarily responsible for causing climate change through their excessively high historical and current levels of greenhouse gas emissions, and also the fact that affluent countries have a greater capacity than the poor to meet the costs of a global response to the challenge. The developed countries are thus seeking to undermine the ethical basis of current international agreements on climate change. Their object is to impose a new agreement that will enable them to reduce their own commitments, while imposing additional burdens on developing countries. In short, affluent countries are trying to pass the buck to poorer countries instead of discharging their own treaty responsibilities.
This is not the end of the story, however. A new and disturbing trend is manifesting itself in the negotiations. Trade protectionism, disguised as concern for the climate, is raising its head. Citing competitiveness concerns, powerful industrialized countries are holding out threats of a levy on imports of energy-intensive products from developing countries that refuse to accept their demands. The actual source of protectionist sentiment in the OECD countries is, of course, their current lacklustre economic performance, combined with the challenges posed by the rapid economic rise of China and India — in that order. Defenders of the global economic status quo are posing as climate change champions.
We should not succumb to pressures from rich and powerful countries to accept new, legally binding commitments, especially when they themselves are backing out of their own commitments. New commitments would result in a slowdown of our development and poverty reduction programmes and this, in turn, would leave us without the financial, technological and human resources required for coping with the impacts of climate change.
At the same time, we must act as responsible global citizens and make our due contribution to international efforts to mitigate climate change. This requires us to implement “win-win” measures that promote our development objectives while simultaneously yielding side benefits for climate change mitigation by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The National Action Plan on Climate Change, recently released by the prime minister, sets out an ambitious and comprehensive approach for simultaneously advancing our development and climate change objectives.
This is not the end of the story, however. A new and disturbing trend is manifesting itself in the negotiations. Trade protectionism, disguised as concern for the climate, is raising its head. Citing competitiveness concerns, powerful industrialized countries are holding out threats of a levy on imports of energy-intensive products from developing countries that refuse to accept their demands. The actual source of protectionist sentiment in the OECD countries is, of course, their current lacklustre economic performance, combined with the challenges posed by the rapid economic rise of China and India — in that order. Defenders of the global economic status quo are posing as climate change champions.
We should not succumb to pressures from rich and powerful countries to accept new, legally binding commitments, especially when they themselves are backing out of their own commitments. New commitments would result in a slowdown of our development and poverty reduction programmes and this, in turn, would leave us without the financial, technological and human resources required for coping with the impacts of climate change.
At the same time, we must act as responsible global citizens and make our due contribution to international efforts to mitigate climate change. This requires us to implement “win-win” measures that promote our development objectives while simultaneously yielding side benefits for climate change mitigation by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The National Action Plan on Climate Change, recently released by the prime minister, sets out an ambitious and comprehensive approach for simultaneously advancing our development and climate change objectives.
--The author has been involved in climate change negotiations for many years. He was awarded the Padma Bhushan earlier this year.
Shoaib Malik denies affair with Sayali Bha
Indo-Asian News Service
Aug 30, 2008
Pakistan captain Shoaib Malik has denied reports of his making secret trips across the border to keep alive his affair with former Miss India and Bollywood actress Sayali Bhagat.
Shoaib, however, admitted that Sayali was a "close and dear friend" whom he met at a promotional event during the inaugural season of the Indian Premier League (IPL) earlier this year."
Sayali is a close and dear friend and that's about it," said Shoaib.
Media reports from across the border linked Malik with Sayali, the Bollywood beauty who made her film debut by starring opposite Emraan Hashmi in The Train.
Malik has been frequently travelling to India this year and in fact has been spending most of his off season there.
When asked whether his relationship was the reason behind the trips, Malik said: "I've a contract with Reebok in India and have to go there once in a while for promotional activities. My friendship with Sayali has nothing to do with it."
While Malik tried to play down his affair with the former Miss India, Pakistani media has been flashing reports on their romance.
But Malik said that he was more focused on his team's next international assignment, the proposed three-nation tournament in South Africa involving Sri Lanka and the hosts next month.
The postponement of the Champions Trophy was a big blow for us. But we have to leave it behind and get ready for the next assignment.
Malik hoped his players will be ready for the challenge in South Africa.The triangular event is being planned at the request Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) which is trying to compensate for the postponement of the Champions Trophy which was supposed to take place here Sep 12-28.
There have been reports that Malik is likely to lose his captaincy following the resignation of PCB chairman Nasim Ashraf, who elevated the experienced all-rounder to the important position after the World Cup debacle last year.
Malik has been criticised for being a 'weak' captain in recent times and it is expected that he could lose the captaincy to either vice-captain Misbah-ul-Haq or senior batsman Younis Khan.But Malik said that he is not under any pressure.
"It's an honour to lead Pakistan and I am doing it to the best of my ability," he said.
India’s role in Afghanistan
By Harsh V. Pant
The Tribune
Aug 28, 2008
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has just returned from Japan where he attended the G-8 summit as a special invitee, and many in the country are arguing that India deserves a permanent place in G-8 and other international institutions as India is already a major global player. Most of the challenges that the international community faces today cannot be resolved without India’s active participation.
There is some merit in this argument and many across the world are beginningto realise the importance of India in the global inter-state hierarchy. Yet, India itself has not shown that it is ready for this larger global role. After all, if India is a major global power, what is it doing about the security environment in its immediate neighbourhood?
Forget China’s rise, global climate change and the nuclear deal. All these dwarf in front of the challenge India faces in Afghanistan, which is on the brink of collapse even as New Delhi continues to dither on how to respond adequately to the rapidly changing ground realities there.
India no longer has the luxury to argue that while it is happy to help the Afghan government in its reconstruction efforts, it will not be directly engaged in security operations. The Taliban militants who blew up the Indian Embassy have sent a strong signal that India is part of the evolving security dynamic in Afghanistan despite its reluctance to take on a more active role in the military operations.
The progress towards stabilisation and development in Afghanistan is being heavily influenced by India and Pakistan, and the rivalry between them. Pakistan has always been suspicious of New Delhi and Kabul cooperating against it, and as India’s influence in Afghanistan has increased in the post-Taliban scenario, Pakistan remains stalled in its efforts to curb extremists. Pakistan’s failure to contain cross-border militancy has been a key factor behind its deteriorating relations with the Karzai government in Kabul.
Relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan have long been complex, with Islamabad’s military-intelligence establishment contributing to the defeat of Soviet troops before 1988; the overthrow of Soviet-backed President Muhammad Najibullah in 1992; and the capture of large areas of Afghanistan by the Taliban after 1994. Several long-standing strategic interests fuelled Pakistan’s involvement in these developments.
It has long believed that it can gain “strategic depth” against India by influencing politics in Kabul, something Islamabad felt it achieved in the 1980s and 1990s. It is keen to prevent “strategic encirclement” as a result of closer Delhi-Kabul ties. Pakistan is wary of Afghanistan (or India) exerting influence on its restive populations in border regions such as Balochistan and the North-West Frontier Province.
However, the perceived gains of the last two decades have been increasingly under threat since the overthrow of the Taliban in 2001. After the terrorist attacks in the United States, President Pervez Musharraf had to choose between support for the US-led invasion of Afghanistan and its “war on terrorism”, and isolation as a backer of radical Islamic extremism. Mr Musharraf promptly signed Pakistan up as an ally of Washington. This committed Pakistan to supporting efforts to stabilise Afghanistan and to strengthen the administration of President Hamid Karzai.
However, there are considerable doubts about Islamabad’s capacity and commitment to crack down on militants. Kabul is deeply suspicious of Pakistan, on whom its security is largely dependent. Pakistan’s ISI is linked to the resurgence of the Taliban, whose leadership is thought to be operating from the tribal border regions. The rejuvenation of the Taliban has potential benefits for Pakistan in bolstering its role as a frontline state in the war against terrorism, thereby securing engagement from the United States.
The security problems in Afghanistan can be linked to the military’s continuing position as the predominant force in Pakistan, an institution that has, since the 1990s, viewed the Taliban as a means of controlling Afghanistan and undercutting India’s influence there. Having focused exclusively on the Taliban, it is struggling to abandon it now.
Meanwhile, as tensions between Pakistan and Afghanistan have increased, India’s relations with Afghanistan have steadily improved. Unlike Pakistan, ties between India and Afghanistan are not hampered by the existence of a contiguous, and contested, border. India’s support for the Northern Alliance (against the Pakistan-backed Taliban) in the 1990s strengthened its position in Kabul after 2001.
Many members of the Alliance are members of the government or hold influential provincial posts. New Delhi is one of Afghanistan’s top six donors, having extended a $750 million aid package and most of its aid is unconditional, directed largely at reconstruction projects as well as education and rural development. Kabul is also encouraging Indian businesses to take advantage of its low-tax regime to help develop a manufacturing hub in areas such as cement, oil and gas, electricity, and in services like hotels, banking and communications.
Mr Karzai may not be deliberately crafting a New Delhi-Kabul alliance against Islamabad, but he is certainly hoping to push Pakistan into taking his concerns more seriously. India has opened consulates in Herat, Mazar-e-Sharif, Kandahar and Jalalabad, in addition to its embassy in Kabul. Pakistan has accused the embassy in Kabul of spreading anti-Pakistani propaganda and views the establishment of the consulates as a way for New Delhi to improve intelligence-gathering against it.
After targeting the personnel involved in developmental projects and emboldened by India’s non-response, terrorists have now trained their guns directly at the Indian State. India must now respond with greater military engagement to support its developmental and political presence in Afghanistan. If India is to realise its aspirations of emerging as a major global actor, it must first learn to become a net provider of regional security.
This is a difficult task for India, given the wariness with which its neighbours view its capabilities. But India has a few good options given the instability that surrounds it. No major power has emerged historically without providing some measure of stability around its periphery. India should be using its growing capabilities to extend security in the region.
A stable, secure and prosperous neighbourhood is a sine qua non for the emergence of a great power. India cannot be merely seen as free-riding on the outside powers for regional stability. For all the rhetoric emanating from New Delhi about India’s rise, it remains unclear as to what India is ready to do to preserve and enhance its interests in its neighbourhood. India’s approach towards Afghanistan is a casualty of this short-sightedness, and it will cost New Delhi dear over the long-term.
The writer teaches at King’s College, London.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
