Greta Thunberg is the face of a global revolution by young people on climate change. We need many more like her
If you have not read about Greta Thunberg and the climate revolution that this teenager from Sweden is leading, you have either been living under a rock or completely obsessed by domestic news. However, this is the time that you must pay heed to what this young girl has been saying, which is quite simply that the way we are living today is unsustainable for the environment, that the current generation is completely messing up the planet and this will make it uninhabitable for future generations. Her voice is strong and credible, simply because she practises what she preaches, eliminating carbon footprints in her everyday life. For her journey to New York to address the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), she refused to fly. Instead, she sailed with her father, a two-man crew and a cameraperson on the 60-foot Malizia II racing yacht with solar panels and underwater turbines that generate electric power. Understandably she is being heard across many developed nations. However, she is not being heard in several others, including India. That is why it is vital that India gets a Greta Thunberg of its own, someone who can speak truth to the powers that be about the way we are treating this planet. Undoubtedly, the country will suffer some of the worst consequences of global warming and it is important that voices of young people, who will suffer the consequences of our actions and the lack of policy initiatives when it comes to the environment, are heard.
Climate change is for real and while leaders and bureaucrats in our country understand that, one presumes they are so focussed on other matters right now that environment is being swept under the carpet as a secondary concern. India and the rest of the world cannot afford to make this mistake. As the burning Amazon rainforest reminds us, the actions or inactions of nations will have long-term implications for humanity as a whole. India needs voices to pipe up and the media will play a crucial role here. Instead of the incessant jingoism and the bullying that masquerades as nationalism, we need to talk about the environment. And who better than a teenager, someone whose generation will suffer the consequences of what we do today, can do that? This effort also requires teachers in schools to make young people aware of how unbridled and unchecked development will impact the country and the world. It is a challenge though in India, not least because it is faced with the task of lifting millions out of poverty and hopelessness and giving them access to electricity and other such services, which will have an environmental impact. An aspirational population, which wants access to modern conveniences, will have an environmental impact. For better or worse, it would be desperately unfair for anyone to argue that they should not aspire towards a better future. There will be more thermal power generated and as new factories, airports and roads come up, we cannot escape all these. Ergo, it is important to teach the population at large to minimise that impact and this will be best served by someone young. While Miss Thunberg carries on with her stellar work, convincing young people and politicians in Western nations, who have contributed the most to environmental degradation, that they have to change their ways, we need an Indian inspiration.
Writer & Courtesy: The Pioneer
Yet another case of sexual abuse involving a politician in UP should be the last straw for lawmakers
Hardly has the focus from the Unnao rape case shifted than a new controversy over the alleged sexual harassment of a 23-year-old law student by a BJP politician, no less than a former Union Minister of State for Home, is making headlines. Both the cases have some uncanny similarities as they involve high profile politicians from the ruling party and that, too, in Uttar Pradesh. It is former BJP MLA Kuldeep Sengar in the Unnao case and a three-time former BJP MP, Swami Chinmayanand, in the latest Shahjahanpur sexual harassment case. In both instances, the victims feared for their lives for speaking the truth about their humiliation and the accused, with all the muscle, money power and political alignment on their side, have claimed being framed. Both the girls resorted to desperate measures to be taken seriously, the Unnao girl by threatening to immolate herself in front of the UP Chief Minister’s residence and the other girl through a viral video.
The Unnao rape victim and her lawyer are battling for their lives after an accident, which is being suspected as a deliberate conspiracy to eliminate her. And now that the complainant has gone missing in the Shahjahanpur case, reports surfacing that she has fled to Delhi, there is fear that she, too, could be intimidated. Already she is being defamed. So lest this becomes another blot on the nation’s consciousness, a group of Supreme Court lawyers has asked the Chief Justice to take suo motu cognisance of media reports and help her speak the truth. Chinmayanand has had a controversial past, being a rape accused in 2011, a decision still pending. The Unnao girl has been waiting for over two years despite the allocation of investigations to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Although sexual offences of this grave a nature have a timeline for resolution, the State prosecution has nothing to show yet. This wilful delay and the impunity enjoyed by the accused have anyway compromised evidence, witnesses and the fairness of the justice delivery system. And with political parties across the spectrum endorsing sexual offender-leaders, prizing their local organisational relevance above the rights of the girl child and women, victimisation of women has in popular perception become a scandal to be ignored rather than a gross persecution by powers that be. This, then, is not just travesty of justice but its total absence. At the heart of such cases lies the failure of the police, the Government as well as the law enforcement agencies who have failed to respect the criticality of the matter. They, perhaps, get more anxious about brushing the case under the carpet than ensuring a fair and speedy trial. In both cases, the girls’ families had a tough time to lodge an FIR with the police. Clearly, the reforms introduced after the infamous Nirbhaya incident, including legislative changes and the institution of fast-track courts for speedy prosecution of cases, has changed nothing on the ground. The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) figures are proof: Reported rape cases have increased 88 per cent from 20,737 in 2007 to 38,947 in 2016. In comparison to the number of rape cases, conviction rates remain low. UP registers the second-highest number of rape cases after Delhi. Of the 38,947 rapes in the country, the second highest was from this State (4,816). As for all crimes against women, UP reported 14.5 per cent (49,262 out of 3,38,954 cases) of the total. Till we ensure closure of every violation of women and stop treating them as negotiating tools of power games, we cannot claim to be an equal and plural society. How long will we let our girls and women down?
Writer & Courtesy: The Pioneer
The appointment of convicted SKM leader, PS Golay, as Sikkim CM has thrown up some sticky questions about constitutional propriety by the Governor
In the Indian Constitution, the Governor of a State occupies a unique position. He is, by virtue of his oath, expected to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the country and uphold the law. No other high functionary, except for the President of India, is sworn in as per such phraseology.
While the oath that a Governor takes is similar to that of the President, unlike him, the Governor is allowed a certain degree of discretion, albeit within constitutional limits. For instance, Article 163 (2) reads, “If any question arises whether any matter is or is not a matter as respects which the Governor is by or under this Constitution required to act in his discretion, the decision of the Governor in his discretion shall be final, and the validity of anything done by the Governor shall not be called in question on the ground that he ought or ought not to have acted in his discretion.”
At the time of formation of a State Government, when the Chief Minister and the Council of Ministers are yet to be sworn in, constitutionally there is no one to aid and advise the Governor as per the provisions of Article 163 (1). However, over time, precedents and conventions have evolved which are usually followed by the Governor.
Also, in this matter, the Sarkaria Commission that was set up in 1983 by the Central Government to examine the Centre-State relationship on various portfolios and suggest changes within the framework of the Indian Constitution, had given some concrete advice.
One of the key suggestions made by the Commission was that while going through the process of Government formation, the Governor should select a leader who, in his opinion, is most likely to command a majority in the Assembly.
In this context, Article 164 (1) lays down that the Chief Minister shall be appointed by the Governor and further as per Article 164 (4), a minister who for any period of six consecutive months, is not a member of the Legislature of the State, shall at the expiration of that period cease to be a Minister.
In this context, an unprecedented situation continues to prevail in the sensitive State of Sikkim, where Prem Singh Tamang alias PS Golay of Sikkim Krantikari Morcha (SKM) was sworn in as the Chief Minister on May 27, 2019. The unusual thing about this swearing-in is the fact that Golay, during his tenure as Minister for Animal Husbandry in 1996, was held guilty under the Prevention of Corruption Act for misappropriating Rs 9.5 lakh meant for the purchase of milch cattle. Golay’s conviction was upheld by the High Court and he was released only after serving a one-year prison sentence last year.
This conviction and subsequent imprisonment has brought Golay under the ambit of Section 8 (1) (m) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, entailing disqualification for a period of six years from the date of his release from prison.
Perhaps it was only on account of this disqualification that Golay did not contest the election to the State Assembly held in April 2019. This also disqualifies him from becoming a member of the State Legislature in accordance with the provisions of Article 173.
Despite the disqualification, the SKM elected Golay as their leader and Governor Ganga Prasad swore him in as the Chief Minister, being the leader of the party with an absolute majority. It is obvious that the Governor had used his discretion and not followed the principleslaid down by the Supreme Court in such matters.
The Governor is at liberty to appoint a person as the Chief Minister, who may not be a member of the Legislature, at that time, provided the State Legislature endorses such a choice, with the condition that he has to get himself elected within a period of six months.
Keeping this rule in mind and in a last-ditch effort to secure his position, Golay requested the Election Commission of India to waive his disqualification from contesting polls. He cited Section 11 of the Act, which allows the Commission to remove any disqualifications under Chapter 3 of the Act (which includes Section 8) or to reduce the period of such disqualification. Golay argued that he needed to be elected to the Assembly within six months of his appointment.
On the other hand, there is this case where the person so elected has the confidence of the House but is not qualified to be elected as a legislator. It was argued in late J Jayalalithaa’s case by KK Venugopal, the incumbent Attorney-General that, in a parliamentary democracy the will of the people must prevail.
Justice Patnaik, however, ruled in Jayalalithaa’s case that with the disqualification under Section 8 (3) of the Representation of People Act staring him in the face, the Governor would be acting beyond his jurisdiction and against the constitutional inhibitions and norms in appointing a disqualified person as the Chief Minister on the sole reasoning that he/she had been elected as leader of the majority party.
The plea taken by the SKM that the relevant amending clause of the Representation of People Act has since been repealed, may not have much strength, as after the amendment has been incorporated in the main body of the Act and notified as such, repealing of the amending Act at a later date would not make an impact.
But this is also a matter on which the apex court has to take a view whether the repealing of this Act was constitutional or not.
The Supreme Court, in Jayalalithaa’s case, also went on to say that the Governor was a functionary under the Constitution and cannot, in exercise of his discretion, do anything that is contrary to the Constitution of the country and its laws.
When requested to wait for the period of six months allowed under Article 164(4) to expire before pronouncing the judgment, the court had taken the view that “appointment of a person to the office of Chief Minister who is not qualified to hold it should be struck down at the earliest.”
The situation as it prevails today is that a person disqualified under the law has been in the Chief Minister’s chair for the last three months. It is now for the apex court to decide whether the discretion used by the Governor was constitutional or was a matter of indiscretion.
In the latter case the appointment of Sikkim’s Chief Minister and his entire Council of Ministers would become invalid as happened in the case of Jayalalithaa in Tamil Nadu. What the future holds and what precedents will be set through the Golay case, only time will tell.
(The author is a former Governor and a senior advisor at the Pranab Mukherjee Foundation)
Writer: KK Paul
Courtesy: The Pioneer
Each year, thousands of VIPS students enter various professions. Unknown to them, they all have a huge debt to pay to Arun Jaitley because it is due to his skills as a lawyer and his benevolence that they got their alma mater
The untimely demise of former Finance Minister Arun Jaitley has been variously mourned as the passing away of a political and legal giant, a strategist par excellence, both in the court of law and in the people’s court, an erudite orator and above all, a great human being. Jaitley’s acts of benevolence touched many hearts and were duly mentioned by many people in their remembrances.
However, there was one aspect of his personality that was not written about much, and that was Jaitley, the institution builder.
Today, the Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies (VIPS), the institution I head, ranks among the top centres of higher education with state-of-the-art facilities. Each year, thousands of VIPS students enter the fields of law, media, business and the IT sector.
Unknown to them, they all have a huge debt to pay to Jaitley because it is due to his skills as a lawyer and his benevolence that they got their alma mater.
More than a decade ago, the institute was given a five-acre plot by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) for a hefty sum. However, the DDA was not forthright about the fact that there was a jhuggi cluster on the plot. The DDA intended to hand over the plot to us without bothering to clear the settlement, as it should have done.
We filed a suit and the matter came up before the Delhi High Court. Our lawyers advised us to hire a senior advocate and suggested Jaitley’s name. I was acquainted with Jaitley but did not know him too well. When I accompanied my lawyer for a meeting with Jaitley, he offered us a cup of coffee, heard us through and said, “Dr Vats, I am told that your law school is doing very well. In fact, my son refers to the tutorials that you give to your students.” I was taken aback and didn’t know how to react to this high praise.
Going back to the case at hand, Jaitley told my lawyer that it would be a long-drawn court battle needing several court appearances; nevertheless he would fight for the institute.
Amazingly, after the first hearing in the matter, he told his legal clerk not to raise any bills as he was offering his services pro bono because the future of students was at stake.
In all, there were over 20 hearings before the High Court and Jaitley, who was a senior Supreme Court advocate, would appear for each of them. In case there was a delay for some reason like the DDA counsel not turning up, he would settle down in the High Court canteen, have cups of coffee while chatting with the lawyers there and wait for his turn before the Bench.
There was only one hearing for which he did not appear as there was a pressing meeting of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) in Mumbai.
On the day of the final argument, Jaitley spoke with erudition, authority, conviction and aplomb for nearly 45 minutes. He concluded by saying that the plot was meant for an educational institution of eminence and not for a five-star hotel, hence, the land allocating authority could not apply similar parameters for handover. Needless to say, we got relief from the HC. It was a monumental judgment that forced the DDA to revise its land allocation policy.
Thankfully, Jaitley’s association with us did not end with the case and he began taking a keen interest in the development of VIPS. In fact, he visited the VIPS campus twice after its completion.
His second visit to the campus was as Finance Minister and he took the time out from his busy schedule to preside over the convocation function. In his address, he spoke like a true scholar and impressed the faculty and the students alike with his knowledge of diverse issues.
His last public function too was with us, as a few days before his 66th birthday in December 2018, he agreed to release a book on photography published by VIPS. This book titled Wide Angle showcased my efforts and that of the students and faculty. Since he was recuperating from a kidney transplant surgery, it was difficult for him to travel all the way to the VIPS campus in Pitam Pura. Jaitley requested for a venue in the heart of Delhi and despite health restrictions, he arrived on time.
Once again he spoke with similar affection and enthusiasm for the institution he had helped build. He spoke about the new avenues in education and how the art of photography not only encouraged creativity but also created employment opportunities.
He encouraged young minds to move off the beaten track and look for newer and richer employment avenues. Jaitley was very clear that evening about his vision of ‘New India’, which he and his long-time friend and comrade-in-arms Prime Minister Narendra Modi had got together to implement.
I am sure that Jaitley must have helped several other institutions like VIPS to overcome obstacles created by obdurate systems. I cannot speak for others but for us at VIPS, he shall ever remain a guiding star.
(The writer is a former MLA and Chairman, Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies, GGSIP University)
Writer: SC Vats
Courtesy: The Pioneer
With our neighbour negating bilateralism, only global pressure can help limit its nefarious abilities so as to establish relative peace between India and Pakistan
US President Donald Trump overcame his mercantilist instinct to “mediate” in the India-Pakistan muddle and reason was restored in the debate, albeit temporarily, given his whimsicality and penchant for “deals.” The initial hoopla to “mediate” was unnecessarily created by an over-enthusiastic Trump, who rode roughshod over the deliberately-calibrated position articulated by previous presidential regimes in deference to “bilateralism” as the preferred means to address India-Pakistan differences.
Trump had waded the perennially short-of-facts-and-sensitivities into the sub-continental quagmire and incredulously stated that he “would love to be a mediator”, without realising the inadvertent twist that such a reckless statement was affording. Soon, the revert to “bilateralism” as the strategic framework was clarified by the bumbling-fumbling US President on the sidelines of the G-7 summit as he restored America’s position by stating, “I have very good relationship with both the gentlemen (Prime Ministers Narendra Modi and Imran Khan) and I’m here. I think they can do it (resolve the issue) themselves.”
Part businessman’s braggadocio and part his genuine sovereign concern to keep the Pakistani establishment in good humour — given the tactical urgency to solicit Islamabad’s help in extricating itself out of Afghanistan — Trump had almost acceded to the Pakistani aspiration of “internationalising” the India-Pakistan differences instead of insisting on “bilateralism” between the two disagreeing parties as was maintained by the US for long.
The immediate battleground for the Indo-Pakistan war of words is essentially on the disagreeing framework of a possible peaceful solution ie, should it be conducted in a “bilateral” manner as India thinks appropriate or should third-party “mediate” as is the wont on Pakistan? Legally speaking, there ought to be no ambiguity as the last-standing agreement between the two sovereigns, overriding all previous understandings, is the Simla Agreement (1972) that unequivocally states that both countries will “settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations.”
The Simla pact also captures the essentiality of “non-interference” in each other’s internal affairs and conducting hostile propaganda — features that have unilaterally been violated by Pakistan with its proven support to insurgencies and terror groups in India, with Kargil emerging as the apogee of its misadventures and machinations. Today, despite much posturing to the contrary, having been found guilty on 32 counts of the total 40 parameters related to terror financing, Pakistan has been put on the “enhanced blacklist” by the global watchdog, the Financial Action Task Force (FATF). This backdrop of sovereign immorality, incorrigibility and duplicity is what underlies the Pakistani aversion to “bilateralism.”
There are various reasons as to why Pakistan abhors “bilateralism”. Conceptually and practically, the deliberations that are conducted in a “bilateral” framework are implicitly more focussed, nuanced with historical perspective and sensitivities and above all, lead to the fastest possible resolutions.
Ironically, the efficacy of “bilateralism” is what haunts the Pakistani narrative. Peace with India is the ultimate delegitimiser of the troika in Pakistani establishment ie, military, politicos and the clergy. The entire edifice and rationale of the Pakistani state is based on a regressive, competitive and flawed concept of “two-nation” theory that militates against the tenets of inclusivity, secularity and prosperity of the Indian state.
The creation of Bangladesh in 1971 destroyed the foundational raison d’etre of Pakistan. This was a deep wound that dangerously questioned its military and the ruling politicos of that time and, thus, germinated the seeds of the third vector of the Pakistani establishment ie, clergy, to inter-mingle, mutate and atrophy the societal-political-cultural moorings of the state. Post 1971, for Benazir Bhutto to Zia-ul-Haq as also subsequent regimes over there such as the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) [PML-N] and now Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) led by Imran Khan, the underlying, accompanying and unsettled fixation to “even” with India by keeping the fires burning is a predominant national instinct.
“Bilateralism” works on reconciliation, confidence-building steps, gradualism — all of this is an anathema to the very existence of the Pakistani troika/establishment. The third-party “mediation” allows the much-needed obfuscation, escalation and pandering to unrelated emotions that keep the issue “live”, thus necessitating the relevance of each of the elements of the Pakistani establishment. Third-party mediation is also sought via friendly and leverage-able countries and organisations who can provide the much-needed tilt in the battle of positions.
Resorting to pitching the Kashmir issue within the precincts of an organisation like the Organisation of Islamic Countries (OIC) by default allows Pakistan to posit the same from a narrow religious lens and emotion as opposed to the reality of historical facts, agreements and any other societal lens. On the other hand, the Constitutional construct of India auto-rejects religiosity as a basis of difference, preference or concern. Equality of all, irrespective of their race, religion or region, is the Constitutional guarantee.
“Internationalising” the Kashmir issue is the only unifying aspiration for a nation that is deeply polarised, combusting and enfeebled (financially, socially and economically). However, Pakistan has not been able to replicate the wounded sense of “Palestine” as the comparable actions of the Indian state and Israel in addressing their respective concerns have been starkly different. With all its systemic flaws, occasional mistakes and missteps, India has always sought, invested and aspired for “peace.” This legitimises the larger Indian narrative.
Globally, there is an increasing amount of plain-speak, impatience and intolerance with roughish duplicitousness that naturally lends itself to isolating nations that still insist on carrying on the tracks of the past.
The recent retraction of Trump to re-suggest “bilateralism”, the haunting silence of the Arab Sheikhdoms towards the rote Pakistani pitch on Kashmir and the unrelenting pressure on Islamabad by multilateral organisations like FATF, are all symptomatic of the times that be.
Unfortunately, there is a parallel need to sustain the skeletal-structure of governance in Pakistan as it is, as the alternative to this can be far worse than the one that exists today — Libya, Iraq, and Yemen are cases in point of dismantling imperfect structures.
Thus, it is only the collective global pressure to “manage” the Pakistani establishment and limit its nefarious abilities that can usher in relative peace as the existing issues are foundational, existential and regime-sustaining.
(The writer, a military veteran, is a former Lt Governor of Andaman & Nicobar Islands and Puducherry)
Writer: Bhopinder Singh
Courtesy: The Pioneer
The Government miserably failed to contain misinformation or disinformation on Article 370 in the foreign media. It should have given a historical briefing on all facets of the issue
The abrogation of Article 370 has led to a lot of typing on the keyboards of Indian as well as foreign journalists. Most scribes were ill-informed about the legality of the issue but generally, the Indian Press dealt with the subject more decently, taking into consideration the situation on the ground, including Ladakh where the “liberation” of the mountainous division was celebrated as in Jammu, too. The Indian Press also mentioned about the tragic fate of the Kashmiri Pandits and how the Article fuelled terrorist acts, which have plagued the Valley for decades. Even the Supreme Court, which sometimes does not mind stepping in the role of the Executive, handled the issue with restraint and care in the higher interest of the population concerned.
But this has not been the case of the foreign Press, which has once again shown not only its partisanship — the often-violent “anti-Modi” bias (they hate the ‘Modi’ phenomenon which eludes their understanding) — but also its abysmal ignorance of the historical background of the Kashmir issue.
Take the example of the French Press. Following the August 5 decision, it is difficult to say that it was the worst, because the British and the American were really bad, too (particularly the BBC). In their offices beyond the seas, editorialists remain stuck in old clichés — they love to portray Modi’s India as having only one objective: To massacre as many Muslims as possible. Due to sheer “White” arrogance, most of these “grand reporters” do not need to study the issue before writing on it, as “they know” about it.
After the Indian Prime Minister’s visit to the UAE, one French publication even wrote: “Modi has managed to escape the Muslim ire …for now.” The Chinese factor and their indecent claims over Ladakh have also been brushed aside; the Buddhists of Ladakh and the Pandits are not worth a word. It is ironic that at the same time, the Indo-French bilateral relations have been blossoming (but journalists will probably say, “Modi has bought Macron on his side by promising to buy a few Rafales more”).
Who is responsible for this constant misinformation or disinformation? As I said, it is not possible to change the ideological slant of the Press (foreign or French), so one should let it be. Where the Government of India failed is in “educating” the Press by giving a full historical briefing on all the facets of the issue.
One problem is that the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) today functions without a historical division, (in the 1990s, some smart mandarins thought they knew everything and that a division was not required). Before the announcement, the South Block should have prepared a “background note on the Kashmir issue and the history of the temporary Article 370 of Indian Constitution” but nobody probably had the time for such niceties. Foreign embassies could have been given this note, which could have informed their “all-knowing” Press; it is part of the bilateral relations, no?
The foreign Press could have been told: “You are free to use the briefing and check the facts if you want.” One of the problems is the sacrosanct “freedom of the Press” which allows anybody to write anything! Those who object to this are “fascists.”
Now what are the facts?
A few years ago, I came across a top secret note entitled, ‘Background to the Kashmir Issue: Facts of the case’, written in the early 1950s in the Nehru Papers (the JN Collections at the Nehru Memorial Museum and Library). It makes for a fascinating read. It starts with a historical dateline: “Invasion of the State by tribesmen and Pakistan nationals through or from Pakistan territory on October 20, 1947; ruler’s offer of accession of the State to India supported by the National Conference, a predominantly Muslim though non-communal political organsation, on October 26, 1947; acceptance of accession by the British Governor-General of India on October 27, 1947, under this accession, the State became an integral part of India; expression of a wish by Lord Mountbatten in a separate letter to the ruler the fulfillment of which was to take place at a future date when law and order had been restored and the soil of the State cleared of the invader, the people of the State were given the right to decide whether they should remain in India or not.”
Then the note mentioned “[the] invasion of the State by Pakistan Regular Forces on May 8, 1948, in contravention of international law. One of the grounds for this military operation, as disclosed by Pakistan’s Foreign Minister himself, was a recommendation of the Commander-in-Chief of Pakistan that an easy victory for the Indian Army was almost certain to arouse the anger of the invading tribesmen against Pakistan.”
Pakistan was not interested in the plebiscite, further it wanted to grab …Buddhist Ladakh, too. At some other point, the note observed: “Pakistan, not content with assisting the invader, has itself become an invader and its Army is still occupying a large part of the soil of Kashmir, thus committing a continuing breach of international law.”
This was noticed by Sir Owen Dixon, the UN Representative. Pakistani politicians (and others) often quote the UN resolutions but very few have read them. Has Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan ever looked at them? I bet not.
Following the ceasefire of January 1, 1949, the military representatives of India and Pakistan met in Karachi between July 18 and 27, 1949, under the auspices of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan. Before leaving for Karachi, the delegates had a briefing from Sir Girja Shankar Bajpai, the Secretary General of the MEA, who explained the legal position in detail to the delegates. He told them that the resolution of August 13, 1948 “had conceded the legality of Kashmir’s accession to India and as such no man’s land, if any, should be controlled by India during the period of ceasefire and truce.” Thus, the Line of Ceasefire (now Line of Control) was drawn and accepted by Pakistan on this principle.
Who remembers the August 1948 resolution today?
Similarly, for Article 370, the temporary background should have been explained, particularly how it deprived Jammu and Ladakh of their administrative freedom; how it helped fuel terrorism from across the LoC; how gender-biased it was. This should have been done. It would not have removed the bias of the foreign “secular” Press but they could not have said they did not know.
(The writer is an expert on India-China relations)
Writer: Claude Arpi
Courtesy: The Pioneer
Imran Khan may be throwing more ill-thought hurdles our way but is now being hounded at home for mishandling J&K
It is a tough time to be the Pakistan Prime Minister, even if one propped up, coached, tutored and played by the fountainhead of the nation’s real power, the Army. Little wonder then that Imran Khan is at his most vulnerable as his armed invincibility has now been hopelessly blown to smithereens and isn’t scaring anybody in the region. Completely spooked by US President Donald Trump’s stand on Kashmir that it was a bilateral issue between two neighbours and isolated by even the Islamic world that considers the abrogation of Article 370 as India’s internal and administrative matter, Khan is desperately short of ideas and is making one embarrassing counter-move after another. First, he is threatening to close down his country’s airspace to Indian flights, riled by the fact that Prime Minister Narendra Modi used Pakistani airspace to fly to France, a nation that has steadfastly helped India’s line on sponsorship of terror factories. Second, he is urging certain pro-Khalistani Sikhs, who have been used for anti-India propaganda for years, to support him on Kashmir. In a viral video, a Pakistan-based Sikh leader claimed that no less than the highest temporal authority of the Sikhs, namely the Akal Takht, had asked the community to do so. It is another matter that the Takht has passed no such unrealistic resolution. Third, he is threatening to close land routes between India and Afghanistan and block trade, something that is more disadvantageous to his economy than ours. We have already downgraded trade relations and withdrawn Most Favoured Nation (MFN) status to Pakistan since the Pulwama attacks. Khan has proclaimed himself to be a global brand ambassador of Kashmiris and is reminding the world of repercussions in the event of an escalation of Indo-Pakistan hostilities, considering both are nuclear powers. Does he realise that such a strike is the last option any nation would contemplate and obliterate his people as well?
Truth is Khan, and by extension the Pakistani Army, are just moving around traditional counterweights in the strategic chessboard, hopelessly failing to blur the hard-edged reality. And that is since Pulwama, India has stopped being preventive about but rather reactive to Pakistani threats. The Modi brand of Indo-Pak diplomacy has shown that it is not scared to take on Pakistan’s “what could be” scenarios and could frustrate its “thousand bleeding cuts” strategy of exporting terror and separatism, staying well under the nuclear flashpoint. This new-found boldness means Pakistan misadventures on Indian territory are not to be tolerated but acted upon and nipped in the bud. Khan’s emotional appeal to the Islamic world that Kashmir was a matter of protecting Muslim identity has also backfired miserably with the snub from OIC and the UAE. Bahrain named Modi for its highest civilian honour, coopting the centrality of India in economic and strategic cooperation in the Gulf. Even the Taliban, known for its hardline interpretation of Islam, has not warmed up to the Kashmir question, although it has been safe-housed and nurtured by the Pakistan Army. Then its all-weather friend China has been selective in its reaction to India’s mainstreaming of Kashmir, objecting only to the bifurcation of Ladakh and its impact on Aksai Chin that it had taken over after the 1962 war. Besides, given its own problematic record of human rights in minority provinces and with Uyghurs, it doesn’t want to attach itself to causes linked to religiosity or upset its bilateral paradigm with India at the moment, which is far bigger. The Asia-Pacific grouping of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), the watchdog of nations promoting terror and empowered to restrain international funding, has already put Pakistan on an enhanced blacklist, so most nations would not want to touch it now because of that taint. Now, our western neighbour has to focus on avoiding the blacklist in October, when the final review comes up. If any good has happened to Pakistan, it is that the foreign policy of years is now being questioned by its opposition parties. Bilawal Bhutto has now advised Khan that he better focus on saving Muzaffarabad and Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir, lest that strategic pie also slips out of his hands. Of course, democracy is a long shot in Pakistan but Khan and the Pakistan Army have now got to reconcile that their age-old templates aren’t working or won’t be anymore in a world where politics will be dictated by the economy.
Writer & Courtesy: The Pioneer
The UK is driving towards the new deadline haphazardly. Its actions will impact the global economy
The United Kingdom (UK) is now in the midst of a full-blown Constitutional crisis with the new Boris Johnson-led Government deciding to prorogue Parliament. This might have been scandalous in other times, especially as the Government has a majority of just one, and could have led to “horse-trading” as several Constitutional experts in the UK have warned. But with Britain also rushing headlong towards the October 31 deadline to leave the European Union (EU), there’s no room for such machination. One can only imagine the volume of screaming and shouting had the Government in India tried to prevent Parliament from discussing something of paramount national interest. Comments by several British parliamentarians from the Opposition as well as the ruling Conservative Party, including the Speaker of the House of Commons, have been of surprise and outrage. For students of British history, it appears that another schism has emerged between Parliament and the Executive, which goes back before the English Civil War.
And while there is no risk of a violent second civil war, the country is hugely divided, politically, socially and economically. Yet, it is also clear that the vote on leaving the EU must be honoured — for better or worse. The problem is that several parliamentarians are rightly scared about the “for worse” option, particularly about a “no deal” transaction with the EU. This would, some fear, lead to a land border between British Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland as well as Customs and immigration chaos. There is no resolution as yet about the status of European citizens living and working in the UK as well as what will happen to British citizens in Europe. And with just about 60 days to work out a solution, Johnson must have felt that he could have done without the distractions of a deeply divided Parliament. What he might have created though is a monster and united the several warring factions inside the Houses of Westminster into a cohesive unit. Negotiating deals is not as easy as composing tweets or even campaigning, both things that Johnson is very good at. Dealing with hard-nosed bureaucrats of the EU and trying to extract concessions is even tougher. It appears Johnson has borrowed some tactics from Pakistan, which regularly negotiates with a gun to its head, as a commentator once aptly said. The UK, which sowed the seeds of conflict in the Levant, South Asia and Africa, finds itself in a bind and the rest of the world, particularly those that have once been part of the empire, cannot help but feel what the Germans call schadenfreude.
Writer & Courtesy: The Pioneer
A determined matriarch has taken the reins at a time when the party is totally demoralised. The Congress leadership should offer a ‘new Congress’ to the voters to attract them like the Labour Party in the UK came up with a New Labour
Congress president Sonia Gandhi’s comeback as the chief recently might have silenced the Young Turks as well as the old guard in the party about who should replace Rahul Gandhi, but she has her task cut out.
However, it’s not as if Sonia doesn’t know the problems that beset the party and the challenges that lie ahead, as she was the Congress president for almost two decades before she relinquished the post and Rahul was elected president in 2017.
Sonia took charge of the Congress in 1998 when it was at its lowest ebb, with many leaders leaving the Grand Old Party, but she was able to stop the exodus. She even brought the party back to power in 2004 and then again in 2009.
Now again, an ailing but determined Sonia has taken the reins at a time when the party is totally demoralised after its humiliating defeat in the recent Lok Sabha polls and consequent desertions by party workers and leaders. But 2019 is not 1998.
The Gandhis have deftly resolved the leadership issue albeit temporarily. The old guard propping up some senior leader and the younger leaders suggesting names like Sachin Pilot and Jyotiraditya Scindia were quickly silenced after Sonia came back, stifling the debate about Rahul’s successor. Her return provided them with relief even as it scuttled chances of any non-Gandhi becoming party president.
The other challenge for Sonia is the growing erosion and indiscipline in the party. On August 18, former Haryana chief minister BS Hooda gave an ultimatum that unless he was made the chief of the party unit in the State, he would explore other options. The impressive rally at Rohtak was a show of strength. Though the Congress leadership has not reacted, it may send a wrong signal if Hooda leaves the party now. As it is, the chances of the faction-ridden Congress in the State are bleak. If Hooda departs now, he may not benefit but the party will get zero seats in the ensuing Assembly polls. There is not much time left for damage control as three states, Maharashtra, Haryana and Jharkhand, will go to polls later this year and Delhi will follow suit early next year.
In a trend that is bound to worry Sonia, ten Congress legislators recently shifted to the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in Goa. In Telangana, 12 of the 18 MLAs went over to the ruling Telangana Rashtra Samithi (TRS) and Maharashtra too saw defections. The party saw its strength reduced in the Rajya Sabha, too, as senior leaders Sanjay Sinh and Bhubaneswar Kalita resigned their membership and joined the BJP. All these do not augur well.
The third urgent matter on Sonia’s plate is the need to contain the discordant voices emerging from Congress leaders on various issues. There’s a division in Congress ranks on the party’s response to key issues such as the Triple Talaq Bill, abrogation of Article 370 and bifurcation of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K).
Moreover, leaders like Jairam Ramesh, Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Shashi Tharoor suggesting that the Congress stop demonising Narendra Modi was embarrassing to the Congress leadership, which has been making personal attacks on the Prime Minister. Do they perhaps mean that there’s a need for change of strategy or are they emboldened because of a weak leadership?
Fourth, more than anything, Sonia has to think of organising a brainstorming session to thrash out several issues, including the reasons for the 2019 poll defeat and come up with a new strategy to take on the BJP. The party leaders should be given a chance to speak their mind in the session. This might stop them from voicing their views in public.
If the party could win even one of the three poll-bound states, it would go a long way to revive the party that received yet another body blow with the recent arrest of senior Congress leader P Chidambaram in the INX Media case.
Fifth, the Congress should be clear about what it stands for. The earlier planks of unity and diversity popularised by Indira Gandhi have become an old concept. Secularism versus communalism also has lost its appeal as seen in the last two Lok Sabha polls. The Congress only ended up with being perceived as a pro-Muslim party, which ignores the majority community. Therefore there is every need to come up with a catchy slogan like the Aam Aadmi as it did in 2004, to lure the voters. In fact, the Congress leadership should offer a ‘new Congress’ to the voters to attract them like the Labour party in the UK came up with a ‘New Labour.’
Above all, with so much water under the bridge, is the Congress ready for a course correction? Is it ready to look back and introspect what has gone wrong? If not, it can give up hope of a revival as things have changed, voters have changed, aspirations have changed and leadership is in transition.
The defeat should be viewed as an opportunity and a new Congress should emerge out of a party conclave.
(The writer is a senior journalist)
Writer: Kalyani Shankar
Courtesy: The Pioneer
People cannot be looked at as enemies of the State even as we score in diplomacy at G7
We may have been able to blunt the edge of the Trumpian kind of Twitter diplomacy, which blows hot and cold over the US position on Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) and is now in line with India’s argument that the Valley is our internal matter and a bilateral concern with Pakistan. But we may not be able to hold off till we get round to normalising the situation on the ground. It is the Modi 2.0’s diplomatic triumph of convincing the world, particularly the Islamic nations, that the abrogation of Article 370 was well within legal parameters of a sovereign nation, but it is equally important that the lockdown shouldn’t be prolonged so much as to trigger a debate on rights violations, denial of basic freedoms or flaunting supremacist behaviour. First, we have got to accept that an overturning of status quo that has so far defined the identity of Kashmiris and their engagement with the mainstream will but evoke unpleasant reactions, so distrust is a given. As a democracy, we should have the strength to stomach dissent and in Kashmir, allow contrarian viewpoints their space of expression if not accommodation, rather than suspect them to be enemies of the State and alienate them further. Militarisation has only frightened the common Kashmiri, who should have been made to feel that the changeover would not affect his/her daily life but could perhaps improve it in the long run, and look at the revocation of Article 370 as an offensive assault on the right to live and the basis of a long-drawn conflict than peace. It is not just the politics but the crippling of the local economy that cannot be allowed to drag on. In the age of communication, people still have to walk up to 10 km to find a phone booth to connect with their folks over landline as mobile networks may be silent for some more time. People cannot be greeted in their own community and neighbourhood by more than 10 people as that would amount to fomenting trouble. Such is the mistrust that some stone-pelters, who are defying curfew in sporadic bursts, attacked a truck of a fellow Kashmiri, thinking it belonged to the security forces. And buying daily rations certainly doesn’t do anything for the consumerist economy. Even those are in short supply. The worst-hit are the tourist operators and apple growers. Asia’s second largest apple market at Sopore is going empty, prices have crashed and farmers find it cheaper to trash unsolds as waste than repackage them for further use. These apple farmers, already in a debt trap, have no way of clawing their way out of it. The State’s horticulture sector, too, has been hit for one cannot ensure a coordinated flow in supply-chain management. All hotel bookings have been cancelled in the festive season, when a huge inflow of domestic tourists would keep Srinagar and surrounds buzzing. Existing small and medium-scale businesses are gasping, delivery service start-ups are on the verge of a meltdown with stoppage of services, the flight of labour and in the absence of internet. Of course, the Government has promised an investors’ summit in October but it should make sure that the atmosphere exists for both investors and local entrepreneurs to feel safe in the first place and carry on business operations uninterruptedly. Or else the economic incentive will matter little in what is being perceived as an economic blockade of sorts. Anyway, given its terrain, there are limitations to long-gestation projects and, therefore, the doable sectors need to be up and running.
Of course, there is a political vacuum that has been created with the arrest of mainline party leaders, who have for years helmed the pro-India movement, albeit serving their selfish interests too. This along with the information shutdown and fear psychosis have created a dark whirlpool that could throw the Valley into a dangerous tailspin if an attempt at empowering the locals is not made in some way, be it as encouraging an alternative leadership or facilitating local self-governance. Right now, there’s the government and the people with no filters in between and there’s all the more reason to not appear confrontational and ruin our new diplomatic paradigm.
Writer & Courtesy: The Pioneer
Some prominent members of the Congress Party are now advising colleagues and political fellow travellers to come to terms with reality
At last, we are now hearing some voices of sanity in the Congress! After practising politics of abuse for months and years and being in denial ever since they were reduced to a rump in the Lok Sabha after the parliamentary election in 2014, some prominent members of the Congress Party are now advising party members and political fellow travellers to come to terms with reality. Jairam Ramesh, one of the saner voices in the party, who has often tried to ensure that his political loyalty does not cloud his judgement, has recently said that demonising Prime Minister Narendra Modi all the time is not going to help the Congress because Mr Modi’s governance model is not a “complete negative story”.
He seemed to be particularly impressed by Mr Modi’s “economics of governance” and the Ujjwala Scheme to provide cooking gas connections to women in poor households across the country, which has given the Prime Minister political traction. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, another senior member of the party, soon joined the chorus to say that “demonising Modi was wrong.” The decisions of the Modi Government “must be judged issue wise and not person wise.” He even went further to say that “the Ujjwala scheme is only one amongst other good deeds.”
This is quite in contrast to the constant criticism of the Prime Minister by the party’s top leadership, including Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi on every issue. In fact, though the Modi Government has taken many significant decisions, which have won acclaim all round the country, there is not a single instance when Mr Modi’s work has been acknowledged by members of the Nehru-Gandhi family.
As regards abrogation of Article 370, the decisive move made by the Modi-Shah combine has stunned the Congress Party and made its leaders run hither and thither. The utter confusion among the party brass is rooted in the party’s loud commitments to “protect” 370 at any cost. Only last April, the Congress declared in its manifesto for the Lok Sabha election that “nothing will be done or allowed to change the constitutional position.”
Having thus dug itself in on this issue, the party had nowhere to go but to plug this moth-eaten line, which has been a drag on India’s unity and integrity. So, we had Rahul Gandhi declare loftily that national integration cannot be achieved by “unilaterally tearing the state apart.” Priyanka Gandhi tweeted and asked “Does the Modi-Shah Govt believe India is still a democracy?”
Sadly, the Congress does not appear to have a mind of its own on such critical national issues. Since the late 1960s, when then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi needed Communist crutches to run her government, the party has been nose-led by Left-wing politicians and intellectuals, resulting in the complete abandonment of its nationalist ideology. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is now comfortably ensconced in this space and the Congress does not know which way to turn. As a result, you will find that invariably the Congress and the Communists sing the same tune on all issues. After Rahul Gandhi, P Chidambaram has accused the government of dismembering the state.
This is in line with the approach of Left leaders, including Sitaram Yechury, who have demanded that Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) be restored to its earlier status. However, the party’s response to the 370 issue is not to be seen in isolation. It is in line with the scepticism and distrust it has displayed even in regard to the daring surgical strike carried out by the Indian Army to eliminate several terrorist launch pads across the Line of Control in J&K on September 29, 2016.
While the entire country hailed the bravery and commitment of our soldiers and the surgical precision with which the Army had targeted terrorist hide-outs across the border, the Congress claimed that many such “surgical strikes” had been carried out when it was in power.
However, there were few takers for this story. While one leader of his party in Maharashtra said the surgical strike was “fake”, Mr Chidambaram demanded “proof” that the strike was carried out. Rahul Gandhi accused the Prime Minister of trying to make “political capital” out of surgical strikes. The disrespect it showed towards the Indian Air Force (IAF) after its daring airstrike on Jaish-e-Mohammad Training Camps in Balakot on February 26, 2019 was even more shocking. Chidambaram criticised the government’s claim about the number of terrorists who had been killed in the IAF strike. Another Congress leader, Navjot Singh Sidhu, seemed to debunk the purpose of the strike by asking “Were you uprooting terrorists or trees? Was this an election gimmick?”
Finally, what about the phenomenal success of several social sector schemes launched and delivered by the Modi Government? The Ujjwala Scheme, which proved to be a game-changer, has ensured domestic cooking gas connections to 60 million households with another 20 million in the pipeline over the next year or so.
Similarly, the medical insurance scheme that provides a cover of Rs 5 lakh per poor household per year is the biggest health insurance scheme in the world. Similarly, the Jan Dhan Yojana, which ensured that all people below the poverty line opened bank accounts, has been a spectacular success, resulting in the opening of over 360 million new bank accounts. This, too, is a global record. There are many more such schemes which have been planned and executed by the Modi Government but members of the Nehru-Gandhi family have never ever acknowledged the efficacy of any one of them. Taking a cue from them, members of the Congress Party have spent their time pooh-poohing these schemes and thus losing support of the millions of citizens who have benefitted from them.
The intolerance of the Nehru-Gandhis to the achievements of other national leaders from the days of Sardar Patel and Dr BR Ambedkar is now a well-established truth and has been adequately chronicled in recent years. The family got away with this for many decades, but the people have now begun to see through the pettiness and jealousy that permeates the family’s responses in this regard. More importantly, public awareness has resulted in diminishing electoral dividends for this family. If the Congress Party is to cut its losses, its responses to government decisions and schemes will have to be more credible. Jairam Ramesh has shown the way. Hope others will follow!
(The writer is an author specialising in democracy studies. Views expressed are personal)
Writer: A Surya Prakash
Courtesy: The Pioneer
FREE Download
OPINION EXPRESS MAGAZINE
Offer of the Month