Restructuring Indo-Nepalese relations

The recently concluded six day visit of Nepal Prime Minister Khadge Prasad Sharma Oil to India laid a platform for revival of the Indo-Nepalese friendly ties which were muddled by the 135-day long agitation of Madhesi and Tharu groups in Nepal. Oli’s visit to India is in line the long-standing tradition where Nepali leaders first India after assuming power. The notable exception was Pusha Kamal Dahal, the 33^rd Prime Minister of Nepal, whose Maoist leanings augured him to visit China first. The last Nepalese Prime Minister to visit India was Baburam Bhattari in 2011. Due to the prevailing political differences between Himalayan neighbors, it was widely believed that Oli would embark on his first bilateral foreign tour to China. Oil’s visit to India comes at a time when Nepal had a brief respite from the unremitting agitations of the Madhesi’s. On Feb 5^th for the first time in 135 days, Raxaul-Birgunj border was opened allowing the free passage of trucks ahead of Oli’s visit to India.

Indo-Nepal relations hit a new low with the eruption of Madhesi Andolan in response to the promulgation of Nepal’s new constitution on September 20^th 2015. Madhesis, Tharus and Janjatis who inhabit the plains in the Southern parts of Nepal have close cultural and linguistic relations with India protested as the new constitution is non-inclusive. They claim that basic rights of proportionate representation in the legislative bodies is diluted as the newly craved out seven new territories largely favored people living in the hills and had discriminatory citizenship provisions. The relentless protests which claimed 45 lives, led to the blockade at the Indo-Nepal border. With disruption of movement of goods along Nepal’s southern border, Nepal reeled under severe shortages of fuel, medicines and essential supplies. Nepal’s economy which was crippled by devastating Himalayan Earthquake in April 2015 was hard hit by this five month long agitation. The relations between the two Himalayan neighbors soured leaving a deep scar on the bilateral relationships. Nepal accused India of imposing a blockade in support of agitating Madhesis, largely of Indian-origin. Though India asserted that border tensions were the result of the internal protests in Nepal and urged Kathmandu to resolve the issue in harmony and ensure “uninterrupted commerce”. During this dead lock ill-advised Nepal facing severe humanitarian crisis besides criticizing India, played China card to resolve its energy crisis.

The abrasions in Indo-Nepal bilateral relationships further deepened as Nepal was irked by the mention of the Lipu-Lekh pass in a Joint Statement between India and China during Modi visit to Beijing in May 2015. Lipu-Lekh pass also referred to as tri-corner connects India, China and Nepal. India and China during the course of various trade transactions agreed to expand border trade at Lipu-Lekh pass. Nepal took a strong of the reference to the pass, an integral part of its territory as an intrusion into its sovereignty and considered the overture as a hegemonic stop of its big neighbors.

With protests showing no signs of remission, Indian Prime Minister on his behalf has sent an envoy urging the Nepalese leadership to work towards an inclusive constitution. Following an intense stand-off between government and Madhesis a conciliatory four point proposal emerged. It tried to address the basic demands by clarifying the provisions regarding citizenship, revision of demarcation of federal boundaries and representation of people on the basis of population in legislative bodies. Though complete consensus has not yet reached, both parties- United Democratic Madhesi Front (UDMF) and Nepalese government are working towards a logical conclusion.

Besides the close geographical alignment between India and Nepal the bilateral relations were strengthened by the India-Nepal Treaty of Peace and Friendship 1950. This treaty facilitated free movement of goods and people between the countries and fostered close collaboration in matters of defense and foreign policy. While both nations were enthusiastic in the beginning, resentment started brewing up in Nepal over India’s intervention and subsequently by 1960s Nepal began to associate with China closely forcing the Indian mission to leave and slowly both nations began to ignore the provisions of the treaty. The paharis of Nepal were against the treaty as they perceived it to be unequal. By and large the relations began two countries suffered gross neglect and dereliction under 10 years of UPA rule.

After coming to power in 2014, Modi tried to resurrect relations with all the neighboring SAARC countries and invited their leaders for his swearing-in ceremony. This was followed up by a bilateral visit to Kathmandu in the first three of assuming the office. Further the swift help, mobilization of the rescue and relief team and pumping of resources by Modi government immediately after the tragic earthquake holds testimony to India’s commitment towards its neighbor. Indeed India was the country to reach out to Nepal during its crucial hour of crisis. However, Nepal didn’t like Indian media coverage of the earthquake. It termed Indian actions as intrusive and labelled it as cheap publicity exercise. Nepal appealed to Indian rescue team to leave. Though India was embarrassed, the government acted in a mature way. Nepal was hard hit by earthquake which not only claimed over 9000 lives but also caused severe damages entailing a loss of $10 billion-roughly half of Nepal’s GDP. India has committed $1 billion credit line to Nepal towards reconstruction works.

India has been quite supportive of restoration of democratic process in Nepal and welcomed   promulgation of the New Constitution. But the Madhesi agitation and the subsequent blockade had stifled the bilateral relations. Oli having failed to control the law and order situation attributed the insurgency to India and unsuccessfully played China card. In the meanwhile, deputy PM and foreign Minister of Nepal Kamal Thapa tried to revive relations between the countries. Modi too responded positively and in a remarkable gesture invited Nepal Prime Minister to visit India. Thus Oli’s current visit was an attempt to revive the friendly ties between the countries and activate bilateral working mechanisms which were severely affected. Moreover, maintaining good relations with Nepal is highly critical for India with China increasing its investments in infrastructure, energy and telecommunications. Reports even suggest that Pakistan enjoys goodwill among certain sections of Nepal. Using the ruse of free border movement across India and Nepal, Pakistan is covertly pushing terror elements into India. Nepal’s stability is crucial aspect for India’s security. Also, the political instability in the Southern border of Nepal can spill over to the bordering states of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar.

Indian government displayed its resolve to engage with Nepal by sending a high-level political delegation headed by Minister of External Affairs Sushma Swaraj to Kathmandu to pay final homage on the death of former Nepalese Prime Minister Sushil Kumar Koirala. The delegation even called on Prime Minister and President of Nepal before returning home. This gesture in part dispelled existing difference between the neighbors and paved way for smoother diplomatic transactions.

The 46-member Nepali team part of the Prime Minister’s Contingent toured India from 19^th to 23^rd February and visited Delhi, Bhuj in Gujarat and Mumbai. During his visit Oli sealed nine pacts with India signaling the end of misunderstandings. Oli had an extensive bilateral dialogue with Prime Minister Modi with economic situation and political engagement topping the agenda. Assuring the Indian government that issues relating to discriminatory citizenship and constitutional delimitation will be addressed in a time bound manner, he sought India’s support and cooperation for long term sharing of mutual benefits. Modi in his address lauded Nepal’s efforts on promulgation of new constitution and anticipated that pending issues would be resolved through “consensus and dialogue”. Both leaders expressed their commitment to secure their open borders and prevent the misuse by terror elements and criminals.

India and Nepal signed an agreement on the utilization of $250 million extended by India under its earthquake assistance package. Four sectors- housing, health, education and cultural heritage were identified for reconstruction. A MoU for revamping of the road infrastructure in Terai region was signed. Sangeet Natak Academy of India and Nepal Academy of Music and Drama signed a pact to enhance cultural ties. Both countries shared exchange letters on road and rail transit routes resulting in simplification of modalities for the movement of goods between Nepal and Bangladesh transiting through India. Muzaffarpur-Dhalkebar power transmission line was inaugurated. Both countries are in talks to set up an Eminent Persons Group to review bilateral relationships and make recommendation for inclusion of institutional frameworks to enhance bilateral ties. The group would include four members- a parliamentarian, an economist, a lawyer and a civil society activist from each country.

Oli was hosted by President Pranab Mukherjee and is the third visiting dignitary to stay in the refurbished Rashtrapati Bhavan. Oli addressed a business conclave in Delhi and invited them to invest in Nepal. In an attempt to revive fledgling Nepalese economy by harnessing the hydroelectric potential, Oli visited Tehri hydro project in Uttarakhand.  Oli and his contingent travelled to Bhuj to have first-hand account of revival stories from the officials about the region which was reduced to a rubble. Kutch region rose like a Phoenix after hit by a massive earthquake in 2001. Finally in Mumbai he met business honchos and assuring them of promising opportunities Nepal and Bollywood personalities to showcase Nepal as a destination for shooting films.

While Oli’s maiden visit to India was marked by lack of path-breaking agreements, he displayed fresh enthusiasm to build bridges of friendship and trust. Oli’s government which is under constant fear to being overthrown is keen on forging ties with India to garner the support and goodwill of Madhesis. Oli managed to significantly reduce the misunderstandings and sculpted a new path for long term diplomatic engagement. Notwithstanding, if the political dispensation fails to evolve an inclusive constitutional accommodation, protests will soon resurface and stand-off with India might continue.

 

@ Copyrights reserved.

Ferocious Rebuttal by Smriti Irani

Perhaps no other minister might have faced as much wrath as Smriti Irani does and interestingly, she single-handedly rebutted the entire coterie of the opposition on the first day of Budget Session. As predicted by political observers, opposition bragged for open debate on two issues- JNU protests and Rohith Vemula’s suicide. United opposition brazenly attacked and accused government of its inept management and created ruckus in both the houses of Parliament. With twin issues falling under the ambit of Ministry of Human Resources Development, the onus was on the minister to defend her actions. NDA government has reached out to opposition before the onset of budget session to avert indefinite logjams in both houses that crippled the passage of crucial bills in the last two sessions. Unfortunately Indian legislators elected to find solutions for development of country are consistently engaged in drawing political mileage. Global economy is in financial doldrums and the debilitating effects are indeed evident on Indian economy too. Indian exports have slumped and national Sensex is struggling to retain a firm ground but the undeterred parliamentarians are locking horns over the Rohith Vemula’s suicide episode and JNU protests even during the budget session.

With the opposition going for the government all guns blazing, in both houses of Parliament, seasoned journalists procrastinated that BJP would lose yet another battle in this session. In the past 20 month BJP’s attained critical acclaim of being on the wrong foot and scoring self-goals. But in a major reversal for the first time, the ferocious rebuttal by Smriti Irani for now has silenced several critics and the opposition. Though it might be too early to make any call in government’s favour, her unabashed conviction and the eloquence in presenting facts in a transparent way has really turned around the tide. While her aggressive face-off with the BSP supremo Mayawati in Rajya Sabha was branded as being too emotional, her stirring speech in Lok Sabha not only silenced her critics but earned sheer adulation from the party hierarchy. The fiery speech in response to the four-hour discussions in the Parliament has opened a Pandora box.

At an hour when most of the opposition benches were empty, her speeches busted all the false claims spread by the opposition. Congress has been literally gunning for her head ever since she contested in Lok Sabha elections from Amethi alongside Rahul Gandhi. Her fiery outburst rattled the opposition. She valiantly espoused the ideology and the nationalistic thought process critically adhered by her party. The rebuttal was impeccably corroborated by facts rendering her statements more authoritative and valid. Her speech loaded with stirring revelations about various aspects were alarming. She made a valiant effort to build a strong base for the case wherein her actions would be irrefutable. She critically contested all the allegations made by political parties point by point in her defence regarding Rohith Vemula’s suicide. She openly cited the lack of cooperation by the Telangana government and lambasted at the indifference of opposition who vied to turn the unfortunate death into a political tool. She minced no words in saying “Have you ever seen Rahul Gandhi go to a place twice? Six hundred students died during Telangana agitation. Did Rahul Gandhi visited them once?” Refusing to tender apology, she implored that she didn’t cast the suicide of young scholar as dalit versus non-dalit issue but lamented that politicization of this matter as scourge on humanity.

Regarding the JNU protests, she presented the firsthand account of the security personnel, university authorities and the letter written by the accused students to avail the university facilities for the organization of the cultural event. Her stinging revelations about JNU’s Mahishasura’s Martydom day under the façade of freedom of expression evoked sheer condemnation and utter repulsion. She challenged the left and its allied parties for an open debate about the derogatory remarks (they hired a sex worker Durga, who enticed Mahishasur into marriage and killed him after nine nights of honeymooning during sleep) made with respect to Goddess Durga on the streets of Kolkata. A forward press magazine Yadav-Shakthi published this stuff and was circulated in JNU in 2011 (1).

In response to allegations on government’s efforts to saffornise universities, she indicated that 20 chancellors and 16 vice-chancellors in central universities are UPA appointees and challenged that if any of these officials could prove that she is trying to saffronise, she will quit politics.

She then touched upon the quality of education imparted under the UPA regime and read out excerpts from the text books of class IV and VI of the Maharashtra board. The text books prepared by Teesta Setalvad and commissioned by Kapil Sibal against NCERT’s approval had insidious references to Kashmir toeing in Pakistan’s line. The grievous misrepresentation of facts, distortion of Indian history and the lacunae in the text books is truly alarming. The text books prescribed for basic education reeked of bigotry. Indeed the devious agenda of manipulating the facts and misinterpreting the glorious acclaims of nation is reprehensible. Schools, College and Universities should never be war grounds for battles but UPA government made forays into this zone too. UPA government reckoned for the innumerable scams, swindled crores of rupees reached acclaimed pinnacles of corruption. But its vested agenda towards education is unpardonable. Smriti Irani countered her argument by lashing out at the opposition that if children are seeded with bigotry and depravity from such a young age, nation is doomed towards a disaster. It is horrifying that even primary education too wasn’t spared of the brunt of religious discrimination and fanaticism. If education imparted in the schools fails to inculcate a feeling of belongingness and oneness towards nation, anti-national sloganeering would become a regular event. The long term consequences can be potentially dangerous.

Smriti Irani hasn’t shied away in making political swipes at Congress and Left combined. She reminding the Parliamentarians of the lavish praise heaped by Atal Bihari Vajpayee on Indira Gandhi for her deft action in creation of Bangladesh and continued that even Indira Gandhi too last elections but her sons didn’t lent support to the anti-national sloganeering. This stinging attack should force Congress to reconsider its stance on the JNU issue. Smriti Irani with her aggressive tenor, unyielding spirit and emotional speech has carved a special niche for herself. She single-handedly quashed the false propaganda of the opposition parties and ignited a new spirit of enthusiasm in BJP. At a time when BJP is battling hard to reach out to people, Smriti Irani has infused new hopes into cadres.

Political affiliations aside, the current spate of Indian politics is deplorable. It is unfortunate that Indian Parliamentarians, shirking the responsibilities thrust by the electorate are in default electioneering mode constantly drawing political mileage from any exigency. Undermining national interests, they are constantly engaged in political slug-fest. It is beyond logical understanding as why Indian politicians fail to understand that issues like national security are simply undebatable. There can be no second opinions on issues related to sovereignty and integrity. Nation is above ideological affiliations. It is an uncontestable fact. Does this peculiar tribe of politicians be reminded of that basic virtue?

 

@ Copyrights reserved.

 

JNU Protests: Are they mere voices of dissent?

It is an irony as loathsome condemnation of the nation is at its crescendo, political parties and its allied elite paraphernalia is engaged in ludicrous debate of brushing aside implications of these concocted ideas of dissent. Does any democratic nation under the banner of freedom of speech allow anti-nationalist voices to have a free ride? Ridiculously so, there can be no other outlandish definition of right-wing and left-wing as the one that exists in India. According to the Indian definition speaking about national interests and security makes a person right-winger and so by same logic, leftists are the ones who have no qualms about the security of the country. Notwithstanding, any responsible citizen would raise cudgels in response to the indignant comments made in reference their nation. A sense of belongingness towards nation imbued in every citizen entitles them to speak up when anti-national forces tries to run amok with frenzied indoctrinated postulates right in the heart of the country. It is so appalling as how there be standing debates on issues which are as vital as national security. There be no alternative opinion and empathy towards ideologues whose affiliations are inimical to nation’s interests.

Truly, the bush fires ignited along caste and religious lines are slowly rousing unwarranted passions in the society and taking a great toll on India’s aspirations of making it big. The students union at JNU obtained a permission from the University authorities to organize a cultural event on Feb 9^th to express solidarity to Kashmir movement. With the real agenda of the cultural gathering held under wraps, students obtained permission to conduct the event. The permission was withdrawn at the eleventh hour when the varsity administration received a tip-off from other sources. The event as it turned out to be was organized to protest the hanging of Afzal Guru, the mastermind behind the attacks on Indian Parliament in 2001. The protests soon gathered momentum in the campus and were marred by anti-India slogans. With the videos of the sloganeering becoming viral across the social media, student association defended that they were airing their voices of dissent. They maintained that in a democratic society, people are entitled to have an alternative opinion. It is unfortunate that intellectuals and saviors of free speech with rambunctious English rendition castigated the government for threatening democracy and crushing  thinking. PB Mehta in his open-ed was highly critical of Modi’s government and opined that “universities are spaces of open debate”. Interestingly, the illustrious history of the university reveals that the place has been intellectual nourishing den of leftism. A few instances of its glorious past strikingly reflects its hypocrisy. The place has several ignominious distinctions. In 2010, JNU students association organized an event to celebrate massacre of 76 CRPF jawans during the operation Green Hunt launched to crackdown Maoists in Chattisgarh. For long, elected representatives of the country were shown black flags and their entry was prevented into their campuses. The article asserts that “being anti-national is not crime” and implores that definition of patriotism in the present scenario has become narrow. Logic fails to comprehend how patriotism can be narrow. It is a pity that noble traits like patriotism are subjected to bipartisan scrutiny. It is parody of logical cynicism as how people can defend the outrageous slogans like- Bharat ki barbadi tak jung rahegi jung rahegi…

Another article titled-Why our universities are in ferment by Nivedita Menon in the Hindu expounds about the raising overtures of politics in the universities. The message portended by author is clearly biased. Her deplorable animosity towards the right-wing and its allied youth organizations while abdicating leftist ideologues of all sins is not convincing. Interestingly if campus is truly democratic why is any alternative ideology, hunted, chased and least tolerated? While the elite Indians lambasted Modi government for suppressing freedom of speech, Freedom House- a democracy watch dog organization in its latest reports disapproved the intolerant propaganda. The organization uses the standards endorsed by the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and civil liberties of individuals categorized India as a free country on par with other American and European Countries. Indeed the leftist who sing peons of Mao’s China and empathize with our western neighbor, to their surprise is labelled as one of the non-free countries.

While liberals allege massive crackdown on the students, how can the protestors raising  slogans- India, you shall be divided; Afzal, your death will bring a revolution and Afzal we are ashamed, your murderers are still alive be construed? Does any saner democracy under the guise of freedom speech tolerate this? India which is currently battling the onslaught and return of terror and contending the insidious plans of being encircled by belligerent neighbors, risk national discontentment from an elite education institute? With regards to overflowing compassion for the executed terrorist Afzal Guru, the university should feel ashamed that not only their immature students are gullible for indoctrination, but are also misinformed. The terrorists who launched brutal attacks on the Indian consulate Mazar-e-Sharif in Afghanistan inscribed on the walls of building that “Afzal! Your death is avenged”. Fourteen people lost their lives in attacks on Indian Parliament. The attackers from JeM, launched twin attacks simultaneously on Indian airbase at Pathankot and on Indian Consulate. Even the blood of soldiers who defended nation’s security within the country and abroad hasn’t dried yet and these commies defend the actions of JNU students. Further to expressing solidarity to Kashmir movement, so far 10,000 lives were lost and several thousands of crores of resources and invaluable human power were expended to defend the Kashmir. What kind of cynicism can approve India’s educated youth to toe in line with aspirations of terrorists?

Notwithstanding wide spread public disapproval, political parties of all hues are queuing up to JNU condemning action against students who championed these reprehensible acts. Why the bellicose fool-hardy sickulars, intellectual snobs who launched tirade against Modi are discreetly silent towards the sedition charges slapped on Kamlesh Tiwari who is still rotting in jail? Sadly our democracy is too outstretched. It slowly losing its sheen as the line between patriotism and anti-India sloganeering is getting blurred. Recent disclosures of Rajendra Kumar, who was implicated in Ishrat Jahan indicated that 26/11 could have avoided but for the complacency of Indian politicians. Currently when the World is wrestling hard to annihilate traces of terrorism how can India afford to ignore the vocal support of youth to terrorists? Also, with tweets making rounds on social media of LeT (Lashkar-e- Taiba) supremo, Hafiz Saeed’s support to JNU students and with intelligence agencies backing the claims, the issue needs a thorough investigation. Moreover with intellectuals alleging that right-wing students association raised the anti-India slogans, the entire issue warrants serious investigation.

Indian defence personnel and public hardly recovering from the tragic death of 10 jawans patrolling serving at Siachen glacier any complacence towards national interests shouldn't be tolerated. Army officers too are irked by the irresponsible and immature statements of students who are unable to empathize the valiant efforts of soldiers guarding our borders. Ex-servicemen are now threatening to return their degrees if anti-national activities persist on the campus. Indian government has now decreed that serious action would be taken against the students which may include slapping sedition charges. In a display of solidarity 3000 odd students and faculty formed a human chain demanding dropping of charges against the students. It is illogical to dilute and subvert the whole issue by simply dismissing the protests as an act of Kashmiri youth questioning the flawlessness of Supreme Court since the dissent was accompanied by outrageous sloganeering demeaning India. At a time when local Kashmiri youth are indoctrinated to wage a jihadi war against Indian Union and Headley revealing Pakistani terror outfits actively recruiting Indian citizens to carry out their mission, it would be ridiculous to push entire issue under carpet. While liberals argue that acts of petulant youth be pardoned, can government risk overlooking strong voices of dissent gathering empathies and support from a range of political parties and vested interests?

@ Copyrights reserved.

Headley's Revelations: Implications and Introspections

India having exhausted the chances of extraditing the key-player, David Coleman Headley in 26/11 made astute diplomatic moves by agreeing for a conditional pardon and turning the crucial accused into an informer. Despite severe criticism from various corners, Indian government having resolved to bring a logical conclusion to the Mumbai attacks officially went ahead with the investigation process. It is already know that Headley, a double-agent for the American Intelligence Community and member of LeT (Laskhar-e-Toiba) who has been in the US judicial custody had already revealed vital details to the American agencies. The on-going depositions of David Coleman Headley so far hasn’t evoked tremendous response as most of them more or less corroborated assertions of Indian intelligence agencies that obviously underpinned Pakistan’s involvement in Mumbai attacks. Headley’s chances of extraditing being  an US citizen was almost impossible and hence turning him into an approver was considered a big leap forward to legally nailing down the Pakistan’s Army,  ISI (Inter-Serices Intelligence) an its allied terrorist operatives. Headley’s stunning revelations about the Ishrat Jahan on the third day, (today) created ripples in Indian media. He revealed that Ishrat was a member of LeT’s women’s wing and was killed by India Police during an important mission in Gujarat. This revelation opened up a Pandora box. For over a decade media circles milked the fake encounter by viciously nurturing and propagating lies for larger political gains.

The latest revelations about Ishrat Jahan shattered deliberately articulated myths. The fake encounter case provided political mileage to certain vested interests and political outfits. The ground breaking remarks exposed dubious allegations inflicted by many acclaimed journalists and human rights activists. The integrity and the fallacy of the journalistic values expounded by these reputed Indian media honchos now stands busted. The claims made by the entourage of the relatives of Ishrat, who wailed on the prime time news channels are now under serious scrutiny. Sadly due to obfuscation of details and vicious propagation of lies, upholders of peace and security had to suffer the burden of falsification and burnt of injustice. Despite the enormity of the truth even now the ruthless political leaders instead of tendering apologies potentially considering the veracity of the revelations. Now political rivals are contemplating  the issue of contesting the loop holes in the Indian Penal Code which failed to provide concrete guideline for plea-bargaining (in other words, the legitimacy of turning the accused into prosecution witness in cases where maximum sentence is more than seven years). Revelations which might be calamitous for some political parties are now questioning the veracity of the remarks. Major political outfits till now had no serious qualms about Headley’s deposition are now upset by the latest unsavory truth. They seem to be rattled and started questioning the authenticity of the revelations. In an attempt to save their career, (votebanks) these callous politicians are providing enough ammunition to Pakistan to out rightly reject the depositions and discredit the contents of fresh dossiers India intends to send Islamabad. It is matter of great concern as how Indian dispensation could defend their allegations that Ishrat was a college going girl when LeT mouthpiece Ghawza Times, pronounced that she was a suicide bomber and member of LeT just two days after the fake counter. Why does the Indian brigade yearn to defend the indefensible? The political churning of crucial issues related to national security attest popular perceptions that India’s enemies are within. Politics aside, isn’t it a matter of infernal shame as how a powerful lobby of politicians and media could put country’s security at stake? It is unfortunate that Indian leaders, instead of feeling ashamed for blatant ineptness in acting against the enemies are crying foul. It may not be an overstatement, to say that past political dispensation chose to undermine national interests for meagre political gains. 

Beyond the clamor and ruckus of Ishrat Jahan’s fake encounter case, Headley’s depositions solicits serious reassessment of India’s strategy towards Pakistan. By and large, Modi’s outreach which included series of flip-flops and overt U-turns proved to be futile. While commitment of the leadership is unquestionable and attempts serious, Indian leadership by now should have assimilated Islamabad’s policy of obfuscation and treachery. The latest depositions unambiguously confounds New Delhi’s affirmations that Pakistan Army and Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI) masterminded brutal terrorist attacks in India. As a diplomatic exercise government of India is all set to handover dossiers to Pakistan to take action against perpetrators of 26/11. But with alleged master-minds of crime already scot-free expecting Islamabad to bring Zakir-ur-Rahman Lakhvi, Hafeez Saeed to justice would be ridiculous. In fact Pakistan cannot and will not act against terrorists patronized, nurtured and trained by its top-notch army officials. During the recently concluded symposium on counter-terrorism, foreign secretary opined India should name and shame the nations that have become safe dens of terrorists.

Pakistan’s infamy as a terrorist haven is well-known. Any amount of rebuke or international condemnation can hardly drive it into voluntary abdication of terrorism. Moreover, as the depositions emphasized, Pakistan perceives India as an enemy of Islam. Thus, it would be sheer naivety to expect Pakistan to act. Ironically, Pakistan imbued with compulsive hatred towards India and guided by demarcation of good and bad terrorism will never crack whip on the elements that foster its anti-India agenda. Islamabad having notoriously mastered the asymmetric warfare will never refrain from its insidious low cost war that could bleed India with thousand cuts. Despite its fake promises and claims of being victim of terrorism at international platforms, it is hardwired to nurture terrorism. Moreover, it would be ridiculous to anticipate any change in its strategy while it is cynosure of a reigning super power and an emerging superpower. It is high time that India should pay back Pakistan in same coin. May be the strategy envisioned by Defence Minister, though provocative that “kante se kante nikalna (removing a thorn with a thorn” can be a best antidote for Islamabad’s pathological vilification. Shyam Saran who was in Pakistan on Solidarity Day, February 6^th referring to Pakistan’s army wrote “hostility and mistrust of India is embedded in military’s DNA and is unlikely to change in foreseeable future”.

Evidently so, Pakistan’s policy toward India is unlikely to change. Despite Modi’s best efforts to reach out to Pakistan with his impromptu visit to Lahore, his attempts boomeranged. India’s friendly demeanor towards its neighbor was reciprocated by twin attacks- air base attacked at Pathankot and Indian consulate at Mazar-i-Sharif in Afghanistan was under siege. Prime Minister Sharif post-Pathankot attacks assured that he would rein in on JeM, the outfit responsible for attacks. Reports indicate that Masood Azhar the master mind of Pathankot is in safe havens of Afghanistan and Pakistan is back with its old tricks of evasion. In fact emboldened Hafiz Saeed’s is publicly mocking and threatening India of more terror attacks. Addressing a gathering on Kashmir Day at Muzaffarabad, he warned India to withdraw troops from Kashmir or face consequences.

Indeed Pakistan for all its nefarious activities must be internationally condemned but US for its strategic interests is not only shielding Islamabad from international sanctions but also generously extending financial aid. Few days back Obama administration has proposed granting $860 million in aid to Pakistan which includes $265 million worth military hardware. It is inconceivable as how US continues to finance Pakistan even as Pakistan’s army and intelligence agencies continue to work against US interests including killing American troops stationed in Afghanistan. As a matter of fact, US authorities are highly informed than Indian counterparts of the vicious plans of the extended anti-Indian terror network of Pakistan in greater detail since Headley made his depositions with US agencies way back in 2010. But US has even intensified its collaboration with Pakistan by forming Quadrilateral Consultative Grouping (QCG) to deal with Afghanistan Taliban. QCG is an exclusive club which includes Pakistan, US, China and Afghanistan and aims to start a dialogue between Afghanistan and Taliban. Leaders of US, Afghanistan and Pakistan met along the sidelines of World Economic Forum at Geneva and instituted the grouping. Logistically, India which had larger stakes in Afghanistan is deliberately left out. While the Headley’s depositions are making news in India, the initial consultative discussions between QCG and Taliban are underway. Recent developments indicate that US, despite the back-stabbings is keen on aligning with Pakistan to pursue its regional interests. 

It would be naïve to anticipate any action from Pakistan despite obtaining concrete proofs in the form of depositions by Headley (co-accused). Pakistan would simply quash these depositions and would demand for concrete evidences. This eternal saga of exchange of dossiers would continue endlessly. India with its aspirations of emerging as financially viable economy is averse to the option of a full-fledged war with Pakistan. However a conventional war with Pakistan may not be a panacea. India so far waged four battles with Pakistan but no avail. Conventional wisdom suggests that India should pay back Pakistan its own coin. To drive home message, Pakistan be inflicted with wounds India has been battling with for decades. It’s a payback time. But India can’t ignore Pakistan either. Needless to say, India will continue to engage with Pakistan to diffuse cross-border tensions.

 

@ Copyrights reserved.

 

 

Fictitious Saudi-led Counter-Terrorism Alliance

There can be no greater paradox than Saudi Arabia’s defence minister and deputy crown, Muhammad Bin Salman Al Saud announcing an Islamic military alliance of 34 countries to fight global terrorism. Intriguingly, most member countries of the alliance feigned ignorance about modalities, kind of cooperation and denied any official allegiance as such. Enlisted countries in the counter-terrorism include Pakistan, Malaysia and Lebanon who indicated that they didn’t have a clue about the conglomerate they are part of. Needless to say, Saudi Arabia generously included its financial beneficiaries in the alliance without consultation. Obviously, the sudden announcement might have been a surprise for its votaries. Interestingly, countries like Uganda, Gabon, Benin and Togo which are not Muslim majority countries were listed as members of pan Islamic alliance (these countries do have membership in the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC)). While Muslim majority countries like Indonesia, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq are not part of alliance.  Intriguingly, Indonesia, which is rocked by terror attacks just few days back with twice the amount of Muslims of Middle East and a strong democracy was not included. A mere glance at the list of countries reveals that alliance is primarily constituted by Sunni-majority countries. Crafting an alliance along sectarian lines and exempting democratic regimes raises serious doubts about the intentions of Riyadh. By and large, autocratic states tend to strengthen jihadi culture. With all the Shia-majority nations purposefully excluded from the proposed global action against terrorism, the alliance once again reflected the deep fractures in the Muslim world which is largely divided along sectarian lines. Historians trace back the roots of Sectarianism in Islam to violent conflicts of 7^th century. 

To assuage heightened international fears of burgeoning Muslim extremism and terrorism Saudi Arabia has created a sham counter- terrorism alliance. Growing incidents of terrorism across the World was meted with unequivocal condemnation with German foreign minister directly casting aspersions on the extremist Islamic ideology championed by Saudi Arabia. It is an open secret that Saudi Arabia perpetuated Wahabbism, an extreme form of Islamic fundamentalism by pumping in thousands of petrodollars since 1970’s. Ever since formation of Saudi Arabia in 1932 there has been a symbiotic relationship between the Royal Saud Family and the Wahabbi clerks. The Oil-price boom not only accelerated the pace of the economic growth of Saudi Arabia but also bolstered its Wahhabi Agenda. The tremors of this far-flung ideology was experienced by the world in violent rampage created by its denigrating off-shoots like the Al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, Taliban, al-Sahaab, the Islamic State and the Laskhar-e-Taiba, which engineered the 26/11 Mumbai Attacks.

Despite repeated alerts by various international agencies alerting Saudi Arabia’s indiscriminate obsession towards spreading jihadi ideology, grossly reflected in spending patterns, the World at large and the US in particular chose to remain silent. Owing to its oil dependency on Riyadh, the West never contemplated any serious action like imposition of international sanctions. Emboldened by the Western approval, undeterred Saudi Arabia steadily moved ahead espousing Wahabbi ideology. Nearly all the Madrassas and Mosques across the World are recipients of copious amounts of oil money from Riyadh. Following the Paris Attacks, under international duress Riyadh was forced to clampdown on the charities but still individual donors continue to fund militants.

Since ascent of throne in Jan 2015, King Salman’s regime brought a marked change in Saudi Arabia’s domestic and foreign policy. With the OPEC countries failing to reach an agreement to cut down crude oil supply to World despite reduced demand, oil prices began to steadily fall. Incidentally, the country’s economy propelled by the petrodollars received a jolt with foreign exchange reserves plummeting from $746billion in 2014 to $669 billion in July 2015.The country witnessed a deficit of $87 billion in its $224 billion budget in 2015. Slowly the new regime began a crack a whip and reinforced its strong hold by latching on to hard core policy approach. This was reflected in drastic increase in number of executions. Further, military expenditure too has peaked with Riyadh spending $200 million a day in Yemen. Apart from falling oil prices and increasing military expenditure, burgeoning social spending and public sector bonuses, an inevitable political necessity of the Monarchy to survive tough times rapidly depleted country’s reserves. In part, tumbling oil prices across the World markets is the handiwork of Saudi Arabia, for refusing to downsize its market’s share despite the increase in number of oil producers. Oil prices are soon expected to hit rock bottom as Iran’s oil is going to hit world markets with international sanctions completely lifted.

International strategists lament that the anti-terrorism alliance is bound to follow the foot-prints of the 10-nation Saudi-led coalition of United Arab League Army, a joint military force announced in March 2015. Creation of 40,000 strong army equipped with sophisticated military weaponry was floated initially in the Arab League. Curiously, in spite of the official announcement of coordinated military intervention, such force was never launched to fight the Houthis in Yemen. Saudi Arabia known for its guarded foreign policy is now becoming increasingly interventionist. Saudi’s Counter-terrorism alliance is opined by some strategists as a move to distract the attention of its own citizens and World at large from the mess it has created in the poorest Middle East country of Yemen. Prolonged air campaign to oust the Houthi regime and reinstate Hadi government is met with unsubstantial progress. Moreover, till now Saudi received formidable support from the US despite its uninterrupted and unceremonious campaigning of the Wahabbi ideology. The newly explored shale gas reserves made US self-reliant in fossil fuels and less dependent on the Middle East. In the meanwhile, smart diplomatic actions of the US and concomitant Iran’s adherence to the international nuclear agreement put forth by P5+1 made Iran a significant geopolitical player in in the region. Iran’s restoration of diplomatic ties with the West has suddenly escalated the lingering cold war between Riyadh and Tehran. With successful inking of the nuclear deal, Iran now enjoys greater international backing and UN endorsement. Moreover with the west increasingly pressurizing the Saudi and Allies for their inaction towards IS despite its continued rampage in Syria and Iraq, Saudi Arabia cosmetically responded announcing the creation of counter-terrorism alliance. Saudi announced an alliance largely to contain the emergence of Shiite Iran and to strengthen the unity between the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC).

Reports indicate that Senator’s John Mc Cain’s visit to Gulf and condescending remarks of Ashton Carter, in part prompted Riyadh to initiate a measure on terrorism. As the inhumane atrocities of IS continue to rock the Middle East and Africa, the announcement of a counter-terrorism alliance appears to be a sham event. The alliance was ridiculed by the IS Chief, Al-Bhagdadi, who defiantly lashed out that alliance, “increased IS’s resolve and determination”.

Incidentally, the counter-terrorism move by Saudi has been the outcome of its inherent threat perceptions towards Iran’s growing influence in the region. Precisely, Saudi is desperately seeking all options to maintain its strong hold over the Muslim World. It campaign of Iran fomenting the Arab Spring in Bahrain and Tehran’s continued support to the Houthi rebels in Yemen has stemmed out its irrational fears. The new Islamic alliance is simply a culmination of shared concerns of the Sunni nations rattled by its regional adversary Shiite Iran. It is also reflective of Saudi’s displeasure towards US and an attempt to build regional military coalition of Sunni states. Emma Ashford, a senior research fellow, describes the alliance as a “new Arab NATO” and essentially a “Sunni Arab defense pact".  More so, the alliance is not expected to make new forays since the GCC member countries Oman and Qatar have strong ties with Iran and states like Pakistan are averse to committal of troops. Despite the crown prince’s generous bounty of $1.5 billion to Pakistan during his visit to Islamabad in February 2015, to reaffirm the Saudi-Pakistani strategic accord, Pakistan failed to mobilize its troops for the Decisive Storm Campaign launched by Saudi and it GCC alliance against Yemen.

To sum up, the counter-terrorism alliance launched by Saudi Arabia by and large has no concrete plan of action and Saudi officials themselves fumbled in elaborating its future course of action. Moreover, with larger states like Pakistan defiant to military committal, a joint military action will be far-fetched. Also, the alliance falls flatly on the claim that it is representative of Islamic world. With Saudi Arabia which is now wading through neck deep crisis of brewing sectarianism, its committal towards fighting the IS, is highly apocryphal. Since there is no coherence of objectives, absence of interoperability, trained personnel and strategists among the states it has roped in to fight terrorism, the vivacity of alliance is contentious. Worse so, even the term ‘terrorism’ isn’t clearly defined by the alliance. With tension between Saudi and Iran ratcheting up along sectarian lines (by beheading of Shiite Cleric Nimr-al-nimr and cessation of diplomatic ties between the countries), Riyadh will undeniably try to safe-guard its own interests as opposed to carrying a defiant campaign against IS. The dismal human rights records of Saudi Arabia testimonies its contemptible adherence to Islamist fundamental ideas and hence any Saudi-led initiatives to fight terrorism can be dubious.

 

@ Copyrights reserved.

Paradigm Shift at Nairobi WTO Ministerial Talks

Trade Ministers from 162 countries of the World have assembled at Kenyan capital Nairobi, between Dec 15-18 to arrive at a consensus on liberalizing trade and give final push to the Doha Development Agenda (DDA) which was stalled since 2001. The special focus for the 10^th WTO Ministerial conference at the Kenyatta International Convention Centre was agriculture, services and industrial tariff. This year marks the 20^th anniversary of WTO (World Trade Organization), created under the Marrakesh Treaty replacing the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). GATT came into existence after World War II along with Bretton Woods Institutions of World Bank, IMF and ITO (International Trade Organization). ITO, initially created to address trade related issues, employment, investment and commodity agreements as an allied agency of UN couldn’t be rolled out as US didn’t approve it. In absence of an international organization for trade, GATT took over the trade till an institutional mechanism came into force. WTO is an intergovernmental organization that control the international trade by providing a framework for negotiating trade agreements, resolving disputes and enforcing the adherence to WTO agreements by member countries.

Under WTO’s predecessor GATT, seven rounds of negotiations occurred. Ministerial conferences, which meets once in two years are the highest level decision making body of WTO. The fourth ministerial conference held in Doha in 2001 had an ambitious agenda of increasing global trade by lowering the trade barriers through slashing subsidies. Termed as the Doha Development Round or the Doha Development Agenda, it was congruent with growth aspirations of the developing countries. The Doha agenda included two declarations- first one included negotiations on agriculture and services- referred to as Doha Development Round. Second agenda included industrial tariffs, changes to WTO rules, aspects related to developing countries and an agreement on Trade- Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). Doha declaration called for phasing out all forms of export subsidies, and “substantial reductions in trade-distorting domestic support”. It provided special and differential treatment for developing countries. Domestic support, export subsidies and market aspects became key pillars for agriculture negotiations. China has become member of WTO during Doha conference where the implementation of patent systems in Least Developed Countries (LDC) is deferred by 2016.

Following the stalemate of the Doha talks, subsequent rounds held in Cancun (2003), Hong Kong (2005) aggressively pursued the agenda but the developed countries led by EU, US and Japan and developing nations under India, Brazil, China and South Africa failed to arrive at conclusion of negotiations by the first deadline, January 2005. Negotiations were stalled after breakdown in 2008 over disagreements in agriculture, industrial tariffs, non-tariff barriers, services and trade remedies. In the meanwhile, India was repeatedly blamed for breakdown of negotiations but 100 countries supported India’s claims that livelihoods of farmers would be at stake if the threshold of Special Safeguard Mechanism (SSM), was high. SSM is a measure that allows countries to protect the interests of domestic farmers by imposing import tariff on agriculture goods in case of price fall or import surge. Besides, a study by University of Michigan indicated that if trade barriers in services, agriculture and manufactured goods are reduced by 33% as per DDA, global welfare would increase by $574 billion. But following disagreements over the Doha talks, countries are now entering into agreements in smaller groups. Thus recently the groups like Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) (nearly finalized), Trans- Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) are actively working to recalibrate the existing trade practices to accrue financial benefits.

For the past several years, WTO is witnessing huge rift between the developed and developing countries over the DDA, wherein developed countries led by the US are keen on foregoing the DDA and rallied for more market access for their domestic producers. India, China and South Africa has been vocal about special and differential treatment for developing countries.

While current talks at Nairobi failed to evolve at a consensus, India managed to obtain Special Safeguard Mechanism (SSM) to protect interests of poor farmers of developing countries and affirmation from member countries to work towards permanent solution for stockholding food grains. SSM facilitates India to scale-up tariff barriers to protect the small and marginal farmers. Developed countries raised the bar of imposing SSM, by contending that it can introduced when agricultural imports crosses 40% in a sustained manner. India, insisted on using SSM when imports raise by 10%. Earlier at Bali, India despite stiff opposition from the US managed to obtain a right to hold huge amounts of food stocks in exchange for its support to the World Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA). Public stock holding for food security is vital for developing countries like India.

The reaffirmation of the DDA rallied by New Delhi failed to find a place in the Nairobi Ministerial Declaration (NMD) or the Nairobi Package finalized after hectic negotiations for five days. Significantly, while the DDA agenda was literally buried, new issues were identified for discussions. The final draft, largely an outcome of series of negotiations carried out by the US, EU, China India and Brazil mirrored the demands of US and conveniently avoided reaffirmation of DDA. Ironically the twitter hashtag #IndiablocksWTO was trending throughout entire duration of the meetings, implicating India for blocking the negotiations, while the dubious propaganda was indeed launched by the west on the social media.

In a marked departure from the “consensus-based decisions” the voices of developing countries like India, China, G-33, Least developed Countries (LDC), African Group and the ACP groups (African, Caribbean and Pacific) were largely ignored for the first time at the Nairobi talks. Developed countries hailed the Nairobi package who argued that in the 20 years history of WTO Doha talks significantly consumed 14 years and still negotiations over DDA couldn’t be concluded successfully. At Nairobi, developed countries have agreed for ban on export subsidies immediately while developing countries must follow by 2018 and global trade on IT products was liberalized. Developing countries can support transport and marketing costs of agricultural exports till 2023. Poorest countries are bestowed with more concessions and products coming from sub-Saharan region are given preferential treatment in the global markets. WTO has struck Information Technology Agreement in July 2015 to cut tariffs on $1.3 trillion worth of technology products (on nearly 200 products). This move will indeed boost the manufacturers of various IT products like video games. Computer chips, GPS devices, medical equipment, printer cartridges etc., creates more jobs boosting the economy. Developed countries opined that removing export subsidies will help the farmers of poor countries to compete fairly. But Indian civil society was deeply disappointed as eliminating export subsidies might aggravate the crisis of sugarcane farmers. They opined that Nairobi talks spelt death knell for Indian agriculture and that New Delhi has meekly surrendered at Bali without getting much in return. At Nairobi, Afghanistan and Liberia joined the WTO taking the tally to 164 countries.

Economic crisis of 2008 has impacted all global economies and most of them failed to recover yet. By and large developed countries having lost their patience, have decided not to let the niceties for developing countries plague the agenda of the WTO talks, have  collectively opposed negotiations on Doha agenda. Developed countries battling under recession now want emerging economies to open up their agriculture, services and manufacturing sector. But intriguingly, market access to developed countries is not fully resolved. Besides, EU has been forcing India to impose cuts on the farm subsidies while they (EU&US) remained deeply uncommitted about their own agriculture subsidies.

But in any case, India’s agricultural subsidies are proving to be largely inefficient and unsustainable over a period of time. It is time to reform the agriculture subsidy system in India by moving onto direct cash transfer which is more effective and WTO-compliant. Further this will reduce burden on country’s exchequer even. Moreover, with economies largely aligning themselves into regional trade agreements, India can no longer afford to evolve a system wherein Indian markets and domestic producers can remain uncompetitive in the global market. With emergence of mega-trade blocks at faster pace, India might be forced to bring about changes in its IPR laws even. 

 

@ Copyrights reserved.

 

 

 

Travesty of Indian Secularism

On January 3rd nearly 2,50,000 Muslims assembled at Kaliachak protesting a  derogatory comment allegedly made by Hindu Mahasabha activist Kamlesh Tiwari on Prophet Mohammed in response to UP Muslim leader Azam Khan’s tweet. In response to the comment made on Dec 2^nd, Edara-e- Shariyah called for a protest march. The incensed mob besides demanding a death penalty for the Hindu activist eventually in a rather pre-planned attack turned violent. They gutted public infrastructure, burnt buses, deliberately vandalized Kaliachak police station destroying valuable documents and attacked houses of dozens of Hindus. Hindu temples too were attacked. Tiwari was arrested in Lucknow despite non-existence of any blasphemy law in India. Interestingly, the over enthusiastic Indian media too was tight-lipped. It smartly escaped public censure for hardly covering the incident with riots striking the state at a time when country was reeling under treacherous Pathankot attacks. Post-attacks, entry of politicians from other parties was restricted and the details of the attack are largely kept under wraps. Latest reports now indicate that intelligence agencies warned state police of an impending attack but district machinery wasn’t alerted. In fact, Mamata Banerjee government held BSF responsible for the violence.

This massive carnage stirred up huge demonstrations in places like Bhopal, Purnea, Bengaluru and Rampur in support of Malda protests. These series of events were largely unreported. Meanwhile, self-acclaimed liberals thronging debates on various platforms downplayed the protests. Civil Rights organization, Association for Democratic Rights simply dismissed the unprecedented violence as a “symptom of lawlessness in state”. The riots of Malda are truly grievous in nature considering its strategic geographical location. Malda district shares border with Bihar and Jharkhand and also shares an international border with Bangladesh. Kaliachak is under NIA scanner for  the burgeoning anti-social activities including bomb making, illegal drug trafficking, smuggling of arms and routing fake Indian currency. It is reported that 8000 bighas of land is under Poppy cultivation in the district. Malda known for its succulent mangoes and raw silk is now hot seat for poppy farming. The region having suffered utter neglect fell from state government fell into the trap of the organized international criminals across the porous border. According to Census 2011 reports, Malda district recorded an unusual increase in Muslim population, drastically altering demographic composition and making its Muslim-dominated region. It is unfortunate despite ruthless display of violence by an organized congregation of agitated masses the State government refuses to act. State administration managed to arrest nine accused of them six are already out on bail. Sadly, even many media houses refuses to run stories of the targeted communal attacks. With assembly slated for 2017, the incident is now gaining much traction and reports for investigation agencies alerted that Malda will be Afghanistan of India.

On contrary, no contemporary Indian political enthusiast could ever forget the torrent of intolerance debates, fury of outrage and exemplary solidarity displayed by political outfits in lambasting the Dadri incident. While the incident was heinous, the cacophony it created, drew the attention of international media. Newspapers like Guardian carried a scurrilous attack on intolerance of the current dispensation. It is no overstatement that Dadri was instrumental in sculpting a massive electoral victory. Major political parties augured by proactive media drew enough mileage from the unfortunate incident. Disparagingly, the violent rampage at Kaliachak in the Muslim dominated district of Malda in West Bengal hasn’t received any political condemnation leave aside the relief, which seeped in generously to the Dadri victims.

While the selective outrage displayed by political outfits is bound to draw a comparison between Malda and Dadri, but the problem plaguing India for the past six decades needs to be rectified. Since independence India is a pluralist state and there used to be one Muslim for every ten Indians then. Constitutional experts in a bid empower minorities enshrined special provisions for them through article 29 and 30. But the constituent assembly while trying to protect minorities failed to define what constitutes minority. Post-partition elitists presumed that if at all any rights can be threatened it will be of minorities, thus began mollycoddling of minorities and the advent of jingoistic secularism. Over the period of time, politicians began appeasing the minorities. Incidentally, courts have defined minorities as groups that are smaller in state. By this definition, Muslims are no longer minorities in Jammu Kashmir while Hindus are minorities in Nagaland and Meghalaya. Kerala is starring at a new possibility of having no majority since Hindus are no longer 50% of the population. Contemptuously, majority bashing and minority appeasement has become unwritten golden rule of secular India. While the world secular was never part of the preamble, a disguised form of the minority appeasing continued to exist. Through the 42^nd amendment of constitution enacted in 1976 India has become a secular nation. While the state had no religion, secularism in India entails equal treatment to all religions by state. Thus, acceptance of religious laws has become a binding on state in India. In contrast the western definition of secularism advocates a separation of religion and state.

In other words, while Muslims are entitled to have Sharia based Muslim personal law, Hindus, Christians, Sikhs and other minorities are bound by a common law. Currently according to Pew research report, one in every seven Indians is a Muslim. With stark change in the demographic composition, the old perception that Muslims would eventually march towards secularism discarding obscurantist ideas like blasphemy is now going to be an onerous task. Meanwhile political parties are unabashedly warming up to the whims and fancies of the minorities for assured vote-banks. Leaders of major political parties are at the beck and call of the Muslim clergies whose dictum can change the electoral fate. Ugly insinuations by leaders implicating Hindus extremists is tearing the society along communal lines. This phenomenon has propelled the emergence of Muslim leaders solely committed to defending Muslim personal law. In the process, the streak of extremism which is inconspicuous in Indian Muslim majority may rise new concerns.

Moreover, World is now battling to overcome the veracity of the Islamic terror rooted in jihadi ideology. In fact, our western neighbor which was in the safe hand of the modernists in its inception is dominated by hardliners who have steered the country away in a new direction turning it into a den of terrorists. For the fast six decades, India has been expending its critical resources, personnel and energy to fight the menace. Excessive pandering to the fundamentalist elements in Indian society would cause abrasion to the communal fabric of Indian society. A clear distinction should be made between the cases where Muslims were truly the victimizers and should be sympathized when they are victims. In Bengal, as ground reports indicate situation is turning from bad to worse. It is a border state and shares porous international borders with Bangladesh where avowed Indian enemies have clandestinely implanted active terror networks. Putting aside the electoral advantages, the state government must act sternly to extricate the terror elements operating on Indian soil.  Investigation agents have expressed severe concerns about operatives active in the border districts of Birbhum, Malda, Murshidabad. Bengal has been riot prone and consecutive governments have failed to stem the growing menace.

While World nations enthusiastically revel marvel of technological advancements and steadily march ahead unraveling mysteries of the Universe, India is bogged down by bouts of episodic communal unrest, intolerance and lately hit by caste bias too. The enormity of public tirade and pandemonium created by gusty Indian youth requisites serious introspection. 21^st century was widely projected to be dominated by Asia. Indeed several South East Asian nations, liberated from the cudgels of colonialism around 1950’s and 60’s proved their mettle emerging as Tiger Economies. China, too overcame the encumbrances of class divide and inequalities by religiously pursuing economic reforms in 1980’s. Though India made a humble beginning to revive its stuttering economy, the periodic resurgence of simmering class bias/communal drives India back into the swamp of inequality, prejudice and the feudal mindset resurfaces. Recent spate of events and the subsequent escalation of tensions across the society raises serious doubts about the prospects of a modern and competitive India.

It is time that power mongering politicians refrain from appeasing minority communities and crucially focus on the law and order situation. Irrespective of religion, fundamentalists in any form who threaten to violate the pluralism of the country shouldn’t be treated with kid’s gloves. India should learn to call a spade a spade. Every community must be extended similar treatment and government should critically refrain from extending preferential treatment. Finally it should now bell the cat and consolidate grounds for implementation of uniform civil code. India was pluralistic nation and has to remain so to make steady progress.

 

@ copyrights reserved.