If the London Conference on Afghanistan held last week demonstrated anything, it is that it’s only a matter of time until India loses whatever strategic leverage it previously enjoyed compared with Pakistan in the country.
The plan floated at the conference is based on the flawed assumption among much of the international community that there’s a ‘good’ Taliban, one which can be weaned away from the ‘bad’ elements. Yet the consensus reached in London, born out of fatigue among Western nations (especially the United States and Britain) now eyeing a hasty late 2010 or early 2011 withdrawal, is not much different from the numerous failed peace deals that former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf cobbled together with the tribal communities of North-West Frontier Province.
This consensus also signals the beginning of the end of what little influence India has managed to wield in Afghanistan-the fortunes of which have in the past been closely linked to the terrorist threat to India.
To be fair to Indian diplomats, there wasn’t much New Delhi could do. External Affairs Minister S M Krishna was only one among dozens of foreign ministers who gathered in London, and so he had little choice but to fall into line in the face of an overwhelming consensus that had formed behind an Afghan roadmap that legitimizes sizable sections of the Taliban in Afghanistan.
The West’s strategy is to weaken the Mullah Omar-led Taliban by recognizing sections of the Taliban that are supposedly moderate and not affiliated with al-Qaida. These moderates are then supposed to share power with Afghan President Hamid Karzai in an attempt to bring about a national reunification (although of course this is something that isn’t going to happen overnight, and the broad contours of power sharing are yet to be drawn).
But there’s a real danger that while the West’s Utopian vision of peace, progress and prosperity in Afghanistan is laudable, the plan could ultimately serve to plunge the country into chaos. After all, if sections of the Taliban in Afghanistan are legitimized and allowed to share power, how could the Pakistani Taliban, which is also Pashtun, be ignored? And so what then would be wrong with the Punjabi Taliban?
Two days before the London Conference, the UN Security Council’s Al-Qaida and Taliban Sanctions Committee decided to remove 5 former Taliban officials from a sanctions list that places curbs on some 150 individuals who served in the Taliban government. These individuals were banned from international travel and their assets were frozen under UN Security Council Resolution 1267. The most prominent individual removed from the list is former Taliban Foreign Minister Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil, loathed in India since being seen on television picking up the baggage of three Pakistani terrorists freed from Indian prisons to secure the release of passengers on a hijacked Indian Airlines plane in Kandahar in 1999.
But it is not just India that has cause for concern. The Anglo-American diplomacy at the conference also has adverse implications for China, as well as other states with interests in central Asia such as Russia, Iran and Turkey. China fears, with some reason, that Islamist radicalism in Afghanistan could unsettle the country’s Muslim-dominated northwest. A legitimized Taliban in Afghanistan could stoke separatists fires in China and provide much needed oxygen to militants in the Uighur/East Turkestani area (although China may well be able to count on its all-weather friendship with Pakistan to keep the genie in the bottle while also enjoying the spectacle of India grappling with another strategic headache in the area).
Meanwhile, the London conference has again brought Pakistan centre stage and means that for the first time in more than eight years Islamabad has an opportunity to move closer to the Afghan regime once the ‘good’ Taliban is drafted into government. Under such a scenario, India would see the influence it has secured over the past eight years quickly eroded.
And this is New Delhi’s biggest worry. India has much at stake in Afghanistan and has not invested close to two billion dollars in Afghanistan since 2001 to see it all go to waste now. India moved in quickly and determinedly to fill the political space left in Afghanistan by the pro-Pakistan Taliban government, setting up consulates in four major cities in Afghanistan.
But once the ‘good’ Taliban is given an opening in Afghanistan, Pakistan will undoubtedly look to gain leverage, moves that would raise the worrying prospect for Indian policymakers of more unrest in Jammu and Kashmir. After all, militant activity reached new heights in Jammu and Kashmir during the Taliban’s reign, and there is no reason to think this would not be repeated once the Taliban had a foothold in the Afghan government.
A clear sign of Pakistan’s intent came at the London conference, when Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi said his country had offered to train the Afghan military and police. Such close involvement would give Pakistan clear and firm influence on the Afghan security establishment and add an unpredictable element to Indian security concerns.
For now, at least, India must fortify its defences in the border areas and abandon any plans to remove Indian Army units from Jammu and Kashmir. It cannot risk lowering its guard now.
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Monday, March 8, 2010
women'e day
The world is celebrating the 100th anniversary of International Women's Day today. Apart from the purely symbolic felicitation ceremonies, newspaper supplements and TV programming geared to cash in on women power here, India is also hoping to make the day count by enacting historic legislation.
The Women's Reservation Bill is being tabled in Parliament today, and, if passed, it will reserve 33 percent of all seats in our Parliament and state legislatures for women. The bill was first introduced in September 1996, and has been re-introduced three times since but never passed, mainly due to staunch opposition by some regional political parties who have demanded ‘quotas-within-the-quota’, or special reservations within this for lower caste women.
But, it’s set for a smooth passage today, with both the ruling Congress Party and the main opposition Bharatiya Janata Party committed to the bill. If the bill passes, India will become one of the few countries in the world to reserve seats for its women at the parliamentary, state and local body elections. It already has in place a reservation of 33 percent for women in local body level elections (panchayat, gram) which is seen as having been extremely successful in broadening representation.
So is this the best gift Indian women could ask for? Well, maybe. Last year's parliamentary elections saw a record 11 percent of female representation, entering double digits for the first time. But, India still lags behind the world average of 18.4 percent of all parliamentary seats occupied by women.
Of course, the Women's Reservation Bill will correct that. But, there are worries that the political space given to women will be usurped by a few ‘families’ in politics. And, it does pigeonhole women into a reserved category. More importantly, though, it's the need to even have the bill that I think we need to feel worst about - isn't it sad that more than 60 years after India became a republic and constituted equal rights and opportunities for women, we need more legislation to ensure that happens?
The Women's Reservation Bill is being tabled in Parliament today, and, if passed, it will reserve 33 percent of all seats in our Parliament and state legislatures for women. The bill was first introduced in September 1996, and has been re-introduced three times since but never passed, mainly due to staunch opposition by some regional political parties who have demanded ‘quotas-within-the-quota’, or special reservations within this for lower caste women.
But, it’s set for a smooth passage today, with both the ruling Congress Party and the main opposition Bharatiya Janata Party committed to the bill. If the bill passes, India will become one of the few countries in the world to reserve seats for its women at the parliamentary, state and local body elections. It already has in place a reservation of 33 percent for women in local body level elections (panchayat, gram) which is seen as having been extremely successful in broadening representation.
So is this the best gift Indian women could ask for? Well, maybe. Last year's parliamentary elections saw a record 11 percent of female representation, entering double digits for the first time. But, India still lags behind the world average of 18.4 percent of all parliamentary seats occupied by women.
Of course, the Women's Reservation Bill will correct that. But, there are worries that the political space given to women will be usurped by a few ‘families’ in politics. And, it does pigeonhole women into a reserved category. More importantly, though, it's the need to even have the bill that I think we need to feel worst about - isn't it sad that more than 60 years after India became a republic and constituted equal rights and opportunities for women, we need more legislation to ensure that happens?
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
indian budget-2010 : government budget or aam aadmi's budget
its been long that i have pen down any post,but thanks to a well documented budget in recent times which actually made me to analyze and critically evaluate it.(right to express clause of fundamental right)
The budget document considers the high growth rates India has achieved as a ‘gain’, which needs to be consolidated so that there can be ‘inclusive’ growth. Economics, during its course has divorced rate of growth of output (of commodities and services) from the question of employment. Hence, we need to use terms like ‘jobless growth’, ‘inclusive growth’ and so on. Unfortunately, a weak form of trickle down theory is assumed in most cases. Therefore, having a high growth rate becomes a necessary pre-requisite.
It is comforting to see that the need for good institutions have been emphasised in the document. As one of the challenges is “to address the weaknesses in government systems, structures and institutions at different levels of governance. ”
Unorganised sector has been highlighted in the document. A National Social Security Fund has been established for workers in this sector. And the National Skill Development Corporation has approved three projects worth about Rs 45 crore to create 10 lakh skilled manpower at the rate of one lakh per annum targeting the unorganised sector. I guess the question is: do we impart skill to the workers or do we provide jobs according to their skill?
On the agricultural front, 5 more mega food parks are going to be set up as an impetus to the food processing sector. Under the Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme for Farmers, the period of repayment has been extended owing to the drought. In order to step up agricultural production, around 60,000 “pulse and oil seeds villages” are going to be set up. And the benefits of ‘green revolution’ are going to be increased by carrying out similar activities in the eastern region of India. The ‘benefits’ indeed!
Owing to the financial crisis, an apex level Financial Stability and Development Council will be set up with a view to strengthen and institutionalise the mechanism for maintaining financial stability. Alongside this, FDI flows will be liberalised more. It is interesting how new challenges/problems are brought about. Regulation is removed in a particular sector and regulation is increased in some sector. Overall, it seems to appear that ‘less regulation’ is considered efficient- right prices, no wastage of output and so on. Thanks to Neoclassical Economics.
Several projects are being set up to meet our energy demands and also to conserve our environment. Strengthening transparency and public accountability seems to be given adequate importance (in paper at least). In this context, an Independent Evaluation Office (IEO) chaired by the Deputy Chairman, Planning Commission to be set up to evaluate the impact of flagship programmes. More and more committees and commissions coming up!
On the whole, I think it is a more government’s budget than people’s or the corporates! However, their highlighting of the unorganised sector and the crucial role of institutions need to be congratulated.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
inclusive growth for rural development and welfare
...here i am taking an exclusive case of rural development in terms of inclusive growth..based on some budget reports and survey i do not find any substantial changes atleast in my village lying in dry land zone and backward area of Rajasthan , dist alwar , village surer....last week my uncle(my moms brother) died due to snake bite..real cause of death was not the bite , but no immediate medication in form of anti dote...so every aspect of inclusive growth failed , be it availability , affordability , accessibility, and forget about security and sustainability..big question is whom to blame... indivisual who is no more,family who is finished,community who is damm hypocrite , govt who is ideal figure of gandhi ji ke bandar(deaf-blind)..
here is an effort to project some of the aspects of inclusive growth for rural welfare bcoz time has come when we as a responsible citizen and a dynamic youth should take up some of the initiative by atleast writing some aspects of developmental policy and their trickle down effect.....
One idea that the Budget speech touched upon was that economic growth provides the resources to sustain welfare measures. This echoes a similar statement in the Economic Survey released last week. The idea is reasonable, but can be limiting if poverty is viewed exclusively in terms of government programmes. The point is, certain economic activities such as growth in agriculture or in the unorganized sector have an impact on poverty that is both immediate and durable compared with other economic activities or government welfare programmes.
Recognition that certain types of growth are poverty-reducing is important to define and discipline public expenditures. The minister made mention of irrigation investments as well as infrastructure investments under Bharat Nirman. The promise to restructure fertilizer subsidies and to move to a system of direct transfers is long overdue.
But what about dryland agriculture? About a quarter of the value added in agriculture comes from livestock that is particularly important to the livelihoods of poor rural households. Opportunities for public investment here are large. For instance, in a world rife with epidemics and non natural death due to snakes poisonous lizards specially in dry land zone that originate from animals, disease control has benefits not just for this sector but for the wider economy as well.
It would be unfortunate if this government’s view of inclusive growth is confined to welfare programmes. The declining productivity of our agricultural research system, the collapse of public extension (health) and the erosion of our land and water resources have wide implications for livelihoods and sustainability. Fixing these problems should be central to inclusive growth.
The National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS) is the showpiece social welfare programme. To maximize employment, NREGS limits the amount of money that can be spent on non-labour materials such as steel, cement and so on. This naturally affects the quality of assets. Enterprising administrators have used NREGS funds together with money from other schemes for investments in rural infrastructure relating to land, water and forests. The minister’s speech now proposes formal convergence of these schemes, which is a good thing and could remove some of the administrative bottlenecks.
However, the ambitions of the government seem to run far ahead of its capabilities. While the allocation to NREGS has been substantially scaled up to nearly Rs40,000 crore, it is questionable if it can spend that much because the programme has, since its inception, used Rs24,000 crore. Perhaps such exaggerated allocations lead the finance minister to be sanguine about the fiscal deficit projections.
A more serious issue is the finance minister’s statement that “we are committed to providing a real wage of Rs100 a day as entitlement under the NREGA”. Wages in dryland agriculture are far below this level, and no employer would be willing to match it. Landlords—and their representatives in panchayats and state assemblies—would either sabotage these programmes or fill the muster rolls with their family members. If agriculture is curtailed in favour of NREGS, the government could end up as the largest employer in the countryside.
The Budget acknowledges the impending food security Act, but the dispute about the number of poor who will be subsidized seemed to have stalled it for the time being. One hopes that the legislation will only define the financial obligations of the Union government and leave the implementation details to the states. In particular, it should have the flexibility to allow alternative subsidy transfer schemes such as food coupons and food stamps to replace the seriously deficient public distribution system.
Monday, November 10, 2008
JooTEY Do PAIsey LO.....micro finance institution
Microfinance is an interesting concept. You lend small risk-bearing money to those at the bottom of the pyramid, less privileged, for whom commercial banks are a no-no; you charge them at varying interest rates (ranging from 150% higher than the prime lending rate all the way to almost 50% lower); and then you wait - wait in the anticipation that these less privileged people will generate a higher income by which they can repay their EMIs. And this works. And it’s been working for centuries (the concept of “sahukars” or village money lenders is not a new one).
2006 Nobel Peace Prize winner, Mohammad Yunus in one of his speeches said that he targeted those people who were rejected by other banks, and decided to make them Grameen’s customers. If you had no assets, no guaranteer, no or very little income, only then would you qualify as a potential customer. An amazing concept, built on the premise of trust. And that’s the thing about microfinance. “Trust” is a highly valued asset in itself. An asset, which doesn’t depreciate, but only appreciates with time.
But there are a few loopholes in this space. I’ve found that a majority of the loan applications we have received so far is for working capital or short term. Someone’s sister is getting married, or someone needs an eye operation, or someone needs to pay daily bills - so he or she takes a small loan. The dire need for money is a frustrating one, and the pressure to repay no matter what the interest - or else be ostracized from the community - is highly strong. When the time comes to shed those monthly EMIs, panic strikes and the next best solution is refinancing. So by the second or third month, we have already woven ourselves into a cobweb of high interest debt and getting out is a struggle.
Untying from this requires a stronger force. Promoting income-generation could be one of them, but this too is contentious. For those in the BOP segment looking to start a new business, a self-help group, or co-operative, microfinancing provides access to money, but to channel this money in a productive manner ie to run a successful profit-making business requires much more. It requires business acumen, venture support, access to training, access to markets. Only 2 out of every 100 new business ideas are successful, and this statistic shines even more brightly in the rural space.
I think the future of microfinance does not lie solely in credit, but instead in a more holistic approach. MFIs need to look beyond and start giving incubation, training and network support. What we need are rural business consultancies, rural financial advisors. Why cant we have a McKinsey, Harvard, or Facebook but for the rural villager? This is not impossible. Granted, it requires a deeper understanding of rural dynamics between the social and political forces existing in the area. And granted, there are practical teething problems. But in order to raise income-levels and make individuals self-dependent, a lot more is needed than access to money. Besides, how will we know unless we try?
2006 Nobel Peace Prize winner, Mohammad Yunus in one of his speeches said that he targeted those people who were rejected by other banks, and decided to make them Grameen’s customers. If you had no assets, no guaranteer, no or very little income, only then would you qualify as a potential customer. An amazing concept, built on the premise of trust. And that’s the thing about microfinance. “Trust” is a highly valued asset in itself. An asset, which doesn’t depreciate, but only appreciates with time.
But there are a few loopholes in this space. I’ve found that a majority of the loan applications we have received so far is for working capital or short term. Someone’s sister is getting married, or someone needs an eye operation, or someone needs to pay daily bills - so he or she takes a small loan. The dire need for money is a frustrating one, and the pressure to repay no matter what the interest - or else be ostracized from the community - is highly strong. When the time comes to shed those monthly EMIs, panic strikes and the next best solution is refinancing. So by the second or third month, we have already woven ourselves into a cobweb of high interest debt and getting out is a struggle.
Untying from this requires a stronger force. Promoting income-generation could be one of them, but this too is contentious. For those in the BOP segment looking to start a new business, a self-help group, or co-operative, microfinancing provides access to money, but to channel this money in a productive manner ie to run a successful profit-making business requires much more. It requires business acumen, venture support, access to training, access to markets. Only 2 out of every 100 new business ideas are successful, and this statistic shines even more brightly in the rural space.
I think the future of microfinance does not lie solely in credit, but instead in a more holistic approach. MFIs need to look beyond and start giving incubation, training and network support. What we need are rural business consultancies, rural financial advisors. Why cant we have a McKinsey, Harvard, or Facebook but for the rural villager? This is not impossible. Granted, it requires a deeper understanding of rural dynamics between the social and political forces existing in the area. And granted, there are practical teething problems. But in order to raise income-levels and make individuals self-dependent, a lot more is needed than access to money. Besides, how will we know unless we try?
ON HAPPINESS
A few thoughts have occupied my mind lately, thoughts which have offered a contrarion logic, thoughts about happiness and its relationship with progress.
The very foundations of human life, such as birth and death, are based on simple principles. We are born from the start of a single breath, and we die from the mere stopping of it. As simple as that. Similarly, I believe that Happiness, is most often found in simple things - in the innocent smile of an infant child, the fresh aroma of home cooked food, the sound of gentle ripples in a pond. Hence we, humans, are essentially simple creatures already provided with the basic foundational tools to find happiness.
Based on this logic, one would think that the quest for happiness is an easy one - a journey, which should only involve understanding and “appreciating” the simple structure on which our existence resides. But if the existence of our life is based on such simple notions, and if happiness can be obtained from simplicity, then shouldn’t we all be bustling with joy? And if in fact we can claim that the simplicity of life has caused us to be happy, and hence the entire world is bursting with happiness, then why do we still have brothers killing brothers, or marriages falling apart, or countries invading other countries - all causes or effects of an unhappy world?
You might be wondering where I’m going with this. And what this has to do with rural development. Here’s a story. I was in Cuddalore recently, visiting an orphanage for tsunami victims. When I went back the next day, I decided to go back with some chocolates and candy for all the children. The kids were thrilled and by the time I went through Round 2, they were completely ecstatic. However, one young girl sat by herself, clutching on to her chocolate. When I came around and offered her another piece, she looked up, smiled and politely refused – she said one for her was enough. What came next left me completely stumped. She said she didn’t want more because she was worried that if she kept enjoying the chocolate today, then what would happen tomorrow when I would leave and there would be no more of it? In the superficiality of it all, this little girl had figured it out! She knew that her happiness lay in enjoying what she had, and her wanting more would only take that away from her.
The problem is that while our existence is a simpe being, our culture, our history, and our thoughts are not. They are in fact the complete opposite – complex, multi-layered institutions. Unfortunately, we are conditioned to shoulder these complexities, and as a result we corrode the simple establishment on which our happiness lies. One of these complexities is also the constant need for more. Economic progress is great for a country. But as our country progresses, and its benefits trickle down to villages and small towns, people’s wants and needs will also keep rising, The simple foundation on which we were born and will die will only get burdened with more.
So I wonder, then, how happy we will our future actually be? Will we break away from the complex traps of life and discover a simpler truth? Or will we build an even more complex cobweb of thoughts and needs? Will we be able to carry the weight of our unforeseen unhappiness, or will we be like the young girl, who basks in the glory of her simple, yet happy, untainted existence?
The very foundations of human life, such as birth and death, are based on simple principles. We are born from the start of a single breath, and we die from the mere stopping of it. As simple as that. Similarly, I believe that Happiness, is most often found in simple things - in the innocent smile of an infant child, the fresh aroma of home cooked food, the sound of gentle ripples in a pond. Hence we, humans, are essentially simple creatures already provided with the basic foundational tools to find happiness.
Based on this logic, one would think that the quest for happiness is an easy one - a journey, which should only involve understanding and “appreciating” the simple structure on which our existence resides. But if the existence of our life is based on such simple notions, and if happiness can be obtained from simplicity, then shouldn’t we all be bustling with joy? And if in fact we can claim that the simplicity of life has caused us to be happy, and hence the entire world is bursting with happiness, then why do we still have brothers killing brothers, or marriages falling apart, or countries invading other countries - all causes or effects of an unhappy world?
You might be wondering where I’m going with this. And what this has to do with rural development. Here’s a story. I was in Cuddalore recently, visiting an orphanage for tsunami victims. When I went back the next day, I decided to go back with some chocolates and candy for all the children. The kids were thrilled and by the time I went through Round 2, they were completely ecstatic. However, one young girl sat by herself, clutching on to her chocolate. When I came around and offered her another piece, she looked up, smiled and politely refused – she said one for her was enough. What came next left me completely stumped. She said she didn’t want more because she was worried that if she kept enjoying the chocolate today, then what would happen tomorrow when I would leave and there would be no more of it? In the superficiality of it all, this little girl had figured it out! She knew that her happiness lay in enjoying what she had, and her wanting more would only take that away from her.
The problem is that while our existence is a simpe being, our culture, our history, and our thoughts are not. They are in fact the complete opposite – complex, multi-layered institutions. Unfortunately, we are conditioned to shoulder these complexities, and as a result we corrode the simple establishment on which our happiness lies. One of these complexities is also the constant need for more. Economic progress is great for a country. But as our country progresses, and its benefits trickle down to villages and small towns, people’s wants and needs will also keep rising, The simple foundation on which we were born and will die will only get burdened with more.
So I wonder, then, how happy we will our future actually be? Will we break away from the complex traps of life and discover a simpler truth? Or will we build an even more complex cobweb of thoughts and needs? Will we be able to carry the weight of our unforeseen unhappiness, or will we be like the young girl, who basks in the glory of her simple, yet happy, untainted existence?
Monday, October 6, 2008
Fighting Terror
THE world’s financial sector is in the grip of a crisis. The Lehman Brothers fiasco is expected to be seismic in its impact and could well reshape banking, insurance and allied services. Senator John McCain blames Wall Street greed for the disaster, while Barack Obama attributes the quake to the mindless “hands-off” approach of the George W. Bush administration.
Obviously, politics has been injected fully into what should have been a dispassionate, professional analysis of a grave situation. I cannot help but draw a parallel to the debate on terrorism in India. The Congress and the Bharatiya Janata Party are engaged in a blame game that will not take us anywhere near a solution, if at all a solution to the growing menace is possible.
The Delhi blasts of September 13 came, ironically, two days after the seventh anniversary of 9/11. I am surprised the miscreants responsible did not act two days earlier and gain greater mileage internationally. Possibly, they did not want Al Qaeda to take credit for the (mis)adventure. This squares with expert assessment that Indian terrorism has come of age and requires no external assistance. It does not for a moment mean that the self-styled Indian Mujahideen and its suspected mentor, the Students Islamic Movement of India, do not draw their inspiration from Osama bin Laden. The spark comes from the latter and it ignites the minds of scores of misguided Muslim youth in the country.
The Mumbai blasts of 1993 and the Coimbatore explosions of 1998 highlighted the ferment within the Muslim community, for some right and more wrong reasons. Future historians could point to the Ayodhya issue as the watershed in Hindu-Muslim relations. But that would be too simplistic an analysis to explain these two gruesome happenings. Greater justification for terrorist strikes comes perhaps in the form of our holding on to Kashmir, our support to Afghan President Hamid Karzai, and the nuclear deal with the United States.
The terrorist will look for more reasons each day to instigate the Muslim youth in the country and mislead them into believing that under the present set-up they have no future. If bombs planted in crowded public places incidentally kill many innocent Muslims, this does not matter so long as the action is in the cause of the jehad. I do not see a let-up in the violence for some time to come. This is why every rupee spent on protecting the public from savage strikes is worth it.
There are several aspects of the debate that could annoy the average citizen, especially one who has suffered directly at the hands of terrorists. It is preposterous to blame either the United Progressive Alliance or the National Democratic Alliance for the current mess. Both are equally culpable for having failed to produce a national consensus. Both have given strong grounds to believe that they carry, besides a genuine resolve to defeat terrorism, a desire to make political gains. This is what has reduced their credibility when they talk of tackling terrorism with an iron hand.
When we watch the Obama-McCain debate in the U.S., there may be some comfort that the Indian politician is not alone in the game of politicising even crucial issues impinging on national security. But this is cheap comfort. We must resolve to make our leaders understand that our patience is wearing thin, and we expect them to abandon all narrow pursuits.
Is this not the time for us to call for a national government that would sink all political differences and address squarely the issue of terrorism to ensure that it is handled in a tough and professional manner? If next year’s elections are put off, say by a year, while a non-partisan government engages in the task of combating terrorism, it would do all of us a world of good. This is a major move, which can only come about under great public pressure.
It is a strategy that may or may not work. It is nevertheless worth a try. I can assure you that the average citizen is fed up with the current mess. The people’s interest lies in protecting their own lives and property, and a general election is not what the country needs at this crucial juncture when the very basis of constitutional government is under question by some within the country who receive active support from across the border.
Federal agency
The Delhi blasts prove yet again that the way our law enforcement agencies are organised does not answer the need of the hour. I was one of those strongly opposed to the creation of an agency outside the Central Bureau of Investigation for investigating terrorism. Since taking that stand years ago, the magnitude of the problem has enlarged beyond belief. We cannot lose any more time in setting up a federal agency – call it by any name – that would have the authority to take cognisance of any terrorist incident in any part of the country.
The States will have to accede to this. No Chief Minister who opposes such a move has the moral right to criticise the Centre for being soft on terrorism. The mere fear that such an agency will become politicised in the course of time is no grounds for opposing its creation. After all, there is a strong judiciary, which would come down heavily on blatant political use of the new outfit. Let us not dither on creating the new organisation.
Then, there is the row over a new terror law. This subject has invited acrimony in the past. The Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA), 1987, and the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA), 2002, invite derision instead of fear and respect. Neither law was bad in itself. The way each of them was perceived by the politician or implemented by a government of the time hardly enhanced its acceptability. Let us forget the past. Let us devise a new law in quick time – the Administrative Reforms Commission headed by Veerappa Moily has endorsed this – and place it on the statute books. Let us not quibble and say that the existing law is adequate because it has drawn liberally from both TADA and POTA.
This, again, calls for unprecedented political consensus. If we do not forge such unity now when we have nearly lost the war against terrorism, we can never do so. A stringent law may have negative human rights implications. This is again no grounds for postponing action. An intelligent country devises ways and means to check abuses rather than not act at all to produce a much needed piece of legislation. Saying, as some in the government now do, that the existing law is strong enough is to adopt the attitude of an ostrich. The U.S. and the United Kingdom have benefited from new laws. Neither has suffered a major attack since 9/11 and 7/7 respectively. Is this not enough to goad us into acting?
Coming down to brass tacks, how are we going to protect public places that attract huge crowds, such as markets (the principal targets in both the 2005 and 2008 attacks in Delhi), railway stations, places of worship and cinema houses? Minister for Science and Technology Kapil Sibal spoke sometime ago about experiments relating to sensors that could help detect explosives. What is the progress? Inexpensive devices capable of being produced on a large scale are the need of the hour. They should be part of the drill to ensure public safety.
Introducing closed circuit television (CCTV) in large numbers at places where crowds gather every day can act as a deterrent. Here again, economically manufactured devices can play a major role. Many Western cities, especially London, have a positive experience. Why can we not adopt a similar tactic? Going by the ease with which we have implemented the Sixth Pay Commission recommendations, the country can afford the expenditure.
It would be a fatal mistake to dismiss suggestions for widespread use of sensors and cameras in public places as wasteful or impractical. Banking solely on the resilience of our citizens, who come back to normal after every attack, is unethical. You ask the surviving victims or the families of those killed in recent incidents, you will get an entirely different picture.
The community’s role in organising the nation against terrorism remains diffused. Except for the odd debate on television, that too only for a few days after an incident, I do not see any strong evidence of a resolve to assist law enforcement by way of information on suspicious goings-on in certain urban centres. Without such inputs, no intelligence agency will ever prove effective. As I have said earlier, fighting terrorism should become a national obsession. It is for the media to help keep the focus.
Obviously, politics has been injected fully into what should have been a dispassionate, professional analysis of a grave situation. I cannot help but draw a parallel to the debate on terrorism in India. The Congress and the Bharatiya Janata Party are engaged in a blame game that will not take us anywhere near a solution, if at all a solution to the growing menace is possible.
The Delhi blasts of September 13 came, ironically, two days after the seventh anniversary of 9/11. I am surprised the miscreants responsible did not act two days earlier and gain greater mileage internationally. Possibly, they did not want Al Qaeda to take credit for the (mis)adventure. This squares with expert assessment that Indian terrorism has come of age and requires no external assistance. It does not for a moment mean that the self-styled Indian Mujahideen and its suspected mentor, the Students Islamic Movement of India, do not draw their inspiration from Osama bin Laden. The spark comes from the latter and it ignites the minds of scores of misguided Muslim youth in the country.
The Mumbai blasts of 1993 and the Coimbatore explosions of 1998 highlighted the ferment within the Muslim community, for some right and more wrong reasons. Future historians could point to the Ayodhya issue as the watershed in Hindu-Muslim relations. But that would be too simplistic an analysis to explain these two gruesome happenings. Greater justification for terrorist strikes comes perhaps in the form of our holding on to Kashmir, our support to Afghan President Hamid Karzai, and the nuclear deal with the United States.
The terrorist will look for more reasons each day to instigate the Muslim youth in the country and mislead them into believing that under the present set-up they have no future. If bombs planted in crowded public places incidentally kill many innocent Muslims, this does not matter so long as the action is in the cause of the jehad. I do not see a let-up in the violence for some time to come. This is why every rupee spent on protecting the public from savage strikes is worth it.
There are several aspects of the debate that could annoy the average citizen, especially one who has suffered directly at the hands of terrorists. It is preposterous to blame either the United Progressive Alliance or the National Democratic Alliance for the current mess. Both are equally culpable for having failed to produce a national consensus. Both have given strong grounds to believe that they carry, besides a genuine resolve to defeat terrorism, a desire to make political gains. This is what has reduced their credibility when they talk of tackling terrorism with an iron hand.
When we watch the Obama-McCain debate in the U.S., there may be some comfort that the Indian politician is not alone in the game of politicising even crucial issues impinging on national security. But this is cheap comfort. We must resolve to make our leaders understand that our patience is wearing thin, and we expect them to abandon all narrow pursuits.
Is this not the time for us to call for a national government that would sink all political differences and address squarely the issue of terrorism to ensure that it is handled in a tough and professional manner? If next year’s elections are put off, say by a year, while a non-partisan government engages in the task of combating terrorism, it would do all of us a world of good. This is a major move, which can only come about under great public pressure.
It is a strategy that may or may not work. It is nevertheless worth a try. I can assure you that the average citizen is fed up with the current mess. The people’s interest lies in protecting their own lives and property, and a general election is not what the country needs at this crucial juncture when the very basis of constitutional government is under question by some within the country who receive active support from across the border.
Federal agency
The Delhi blasts prove yet again that the way our law enforcement agencies are organised does not answer the need of the hour. I was one of those strongly opposed to the creation of an agency outside the Central Bureau of Investigation for investigating terrorism. Since taking that stand years ago, the magnitude of the problem has enlarged beyond belief. We cannot lose any more time in setting up a federal agency – call it by any name – that would have the authority to take cognisance of any terrorist incident in any part of the country.
The States will have to accede to this. No Chief Minister who opposes such a move has the moral right to criticise the Centre for being soft on terrorism. The mere fear that such an agency will become politicised in the course of time is no grounds for opposing its creation. After all, there is a strong judiciary, which would come down heavily on blatant political use of the new outfit. Let us not dither on creating the new organisation.
Then, there is the row over a new terror law. This subject has invited acrimony in the past. The Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA), 1987, and the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA), 2002, invite derision instead of fear and respect. Neither law was bad in itself. The way each of them was perceived by the politician or implemented by a government of the time hardly enhanced its acceptability. Let us forget the past. Let us devise a new law in quick time – the Administrative Reforms Commission headed by Veerappa Moily has endorsed this – and place it on the statute books. Let us not quibble and say that the existing law is adequate because it has drawn liberally from both TADA and POTA.
This, again, calls for unprecedented political consensus. If we do not forge such unity now when we have nearly lost the war against terrorism, we can never do so. A stringent law may have negative human rights implications. This is again no grounds for postponing action. An intelligent country devises ways and means to check abuses rather than not act at all to produce a much needed piece of legislation. Saying, as some in the government now do, that the existing law is strong enough is to adopt the attitude of an ostrich. The U.S. and the United Kingdom have benefited from new laws. Neither has suffered a major attack since 9/11 and 7/7 respectively. Is this not enough to goad us into acting?
Coming down to brass tacks, how are we going to protect public places that attract huge crowds, such as markets (the principal targets in both the 2005 and 2008 attacks in Delhi), railway stations, places of worship and cinema houses? Minister for Science and Technology Kapil Sibal spoke sometime ago about experiments relating to sensors that could help detect explosives. What is the progress? Inexpensive devices capable of being produced on a large scale are the need of the hour. They should be part of the drill to ensure public safety.
Introducing closed circuit television (CCTV) in large numbers at places where crowds gather every day can act as a deterrent. Here again, economically manufactured devices can play a major role. Many Western cities, especially London, have a positive experience. Why can we not adopt a similar tactic? Going by the ease with which we have implemented the Sixth Pay Commission recommendations, the country can afford the expenditure.
It would be a fatal mistake to dismiss suggestions for widespread use of sensors and cameras in public places as wasteful or impractical. Banking solely on the resilience of our citizens, who come back to normal after every attack, is unethical. You ask the surviving victims or the families of those killed in recent incidents, you will get an entirely different picture.
The community’s role in organising the nation against terrorism remains diffused. Except for the odd debate on television, that too only for a few days after an incident, I do not see any strong evidence of a resolve to assist law enforcement by way of information on suspicious goings-on in certain urban centres. Without such inputs, no intelligence agency will ever prove effective. As I have said earlier, fighting terrorism should become a national obsession. It is for the media to help keep the focus.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
