What is Zelensky going to do for Ukraine now that he has been swept into office with a landslide majority? Nobody actually knows and this may include Zelensky himself. But Ukrainian voters are no fools
Ukraine has a new President and he’s a comedian. Oh, wait a minute, that’s not such a big deal. Guatemala was the first country to elect a comedian as President: Jimmy Morales in 2015. Although Morales turned sort of serious once he took office: He’s a Right-wing nationalist, who supports death penalty and opposes abortion. Whereas Volodymyr Zelensky hasn’t turned.
Right through the presidential election campaign in Ukraine, Zelensky avoided speeches. Mostly, he just toured the country with a comedy troupe, performed in skits and did stand-up. And he’s not just a comedian, he’s a Jewish comedian — the very best kind. His style is south Ukrainian, sort of vaudeville, with a distinctive Jewish inflection and people love it.
Congratulations to Ukraine, by the way, for having Jews as both President and Prime Minister (Volodymyr Groysman) at the same time in the heart of traditionally anti-semitic Eastern Europe and not even making a fuss about it. But what is Zelensky going to do for Ukraine now that he has been swept into office with a landslide majority (73 per cent)? Nobody actually knows and this may include Zelensky himself.
When Zelensky did offer more than jokes, in the short videos he released from time to time during the campaign, it still wasn’t policies. More like mood music, really.
“He’s from a family of Jewish Soviet intellectuals from a Russian-speaking industrial region (in eastern Ukraine,” Vyacheslav Likhachev of the National Minorities’ Rights Monitoring Group in Kyiv told the Haaretz newspaper. “He has repeatedly made fun of over-the-top (Ukrainian) national patriotic discourse.”
“Zelensky might make some symbolic gestures toward nationalist sentiment to fend off accusations that he’ll sell us out to Russia,” Likhachev continued, “but that seems unlikely to me. He probably realises that it’ll be hard for him to win over the most nationalist-oriented part of society, so he’ll wash his hands of them so as not to alienate the majority.”
That will be a welcome change after five years of the pompous nationalist bilge of billionaire Petro Poroshenko, who won the presidency in 2014 after a popular revolt overthrew the pro-Russian stooge Viktor Yanukovych.
In a video Poroshenko released just before the sole presidential debate in Kiev’s huge Olympic Stadium last Friday, he tried to play the patriotic card: “There’s no room for jokes here. Being a President and supreme commander is not a game… it means being responsible for the people, for the country.” It would have sounded more persuasive if Poroshenko had done something about the corruption that has made oligarchs like him rich.
Zelensky’s response was lethal: “I’m not your opponent. I’m a verdict on you. I am the result of your mistakes.” And by a majority of almost three-to-one, Ukrainians voted to put their future in his hands. Although, to be frank, most of them doubt that he can really deliver the future of peace and prosperity that they hope for.
The only evidence they have of Zelensky’s industry, honesty and wisdom is the television series he writes and stars in, Servant of the People. It’s a heart-warming story of a humble high school history teacher, whose rant about the dreadful state of the country is secretly recorded by his students and goes viral when they upload it to You Tube. So he is elected President of Ukraine.
Zelensky is not a high school teacher; he is a show business millionaire with his own production company. He may be just as warm and sincere in person as Vasyl Petrovych Holoborodko, the former teacher and accidental President, whom he plays in Servant of the People. (It’s one of Ukraine’s most popular series and is now nearing 50 episodes). Or he may not be.
Journalists are now working their way through all the box sets of Servant of the People, trying to glean some clues about what the new President has in mind. But that’s a thankless task because a lot of the show is sheer fantasy (like the sequence where the frustrated Holoborodko machine-guns the entire Parliament).
Ukrainian voters are not fools. They know they are buying a pig in an poke. But they calculate that things might change if Zelensky becomes President, whereas they certainly wouldn’t change if any of the usual suspects won the presidency. And things are certainly not good now.
Ukraine has become the poorest country in Europe — far poorer than Russia. Millions of Ukrainians have left the country seeking work in Poland or Russia and the low-intensity war against the Russian-backed separatists in the east drags on endlessly. No post-Soviet leader of Ukraine has made even a dent in the corrupt rule of the oligarchs. Indeed, most of them have been oligarchs themselves. So why not vote for Zelensky? Most Ukrainians feel that they have nothing left to lose.
(The writer’s new book is Growing Pains: The Future of Democracy and Work)
Writer: Gwynne Dyer
Courtesy: The Pioneer
A Kerala institution’s decision to prohibit women from wearing niqab is about right interpretation of texts
The decision by the Kerala-based Muslim Educational Society (MES), prohibiting female students from wearing veils in its institutions across the country, is not only about keeping to its reformist legacy but more about challenging the theological discourse set by powerful revisionist groups, who control mosques and madrasas. It is a brave attempt to uphold the true spirit of the holy texts and the Prophet amid a sea of interpretations by variant scholars, some of which have set the rigid template of Islam in our perception. It is about reinstating the position of women in Islam as it was intended and not circumscribing them by patriarchal interventions and culture constructs of the later years. At a time when Islamophobia has overpowered a true understanding of the religion, such voices are needed to dispel mistruths and begin where it is needed most, in education. The group runs 35 colleges, 72 schools and has around one lakh students, the future generation which MES president PA Fazal Ghafoor believes should be mainstreamed rather than feared, feel respected rather than reviled. In its circular, the MES even quoted a Kerala High Court order from December 2018, which dismissed a plea filed by two female students of Christ Nagar Senior Secondary School in Thiruvananthapuram, seeking to wear headscarves. The rationale being that the disadvantages of being marked out narrow down the advantages of maintaining parity. Although it would appear that the IS-operated blasts in Sri Lanka and the resultant swoop in South India may have set a precautionary context, Ghafoor has been consistent in his stand against veiling for far longer, saying it was un-Islamic and a cultural import. He had also said that wearing the niqab continuously can cause Vitamin D deficiency in Muslim women. Most importantly, such a move would actually uphold the identity of women as the misuse of the veil as a subterfuge has cost the community, the latest suicide bombers turning what should be a matter of choice to a matter of concern. Many purist scholars, too, maintain that the Quran does not specifically mention the burqa or tell women to wear confining clothes and cover their faces. Instead, it instructs men and women to dress and behave modestly in society and lower their gaze when interacting with each other. Much of the legitimacy of the burqa is drawn from the Hadith or traditions of life in the days of Prophet Muhammad and are, therefore, attributed to him. These have been conflated to embody the very idea of religiosity. However, he himself had always professed followers to go by the Quran. Besides, women in his times were progressive, were allowed to work unveiled and even today, they are not allowed to cover their faces during Haj, the idea being there should be no barrier between the devotee and her experience of divinity.
Of course, one must understand that in the backdrop of a growing Islamophobia, the veil has returned as an identity marker of the revivalist fervour of the times. This has resulted in the veil being politicised and tokenized as a tool for impact. Little wonder then that the extreme rightists at home raised the issue of banning the veil given its misuse by terrorists in Lanka. So long as it continues to be a power tool to perpetuate the politics of religion, the veil can only generate controversies and be used for point-scoring. Real victory is when women themselves are comfortable about choosing or shunning it.
Writer & Courtesy: The Pioneer
The listing of Masood Azhar as a global terrorist is a notable diplomatic victory for India. But the coming months are going to be very critical for us not only diplomatically but militarily as well
India has secured a big diplomatic victory with the listing of Masood Azhar, Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) chief, as a global terrorist by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) after China decided to lift its earlier imposed technical hold. It has been a long struggle for the Indian diplomatic corps since the issue had been hanging fire for almost a decade now. Incidentally, the JeM had already been listed as a global terror organisation by the UN since 2002. However, Azhar continued to avoid the listing due to Chinese patronage. The decision from the UN Security Council’s 1267 Al Qaeda Sanctions Committee came after China lifted its technical hold, imposed on March 13, on a proposal made by the US, the UK and France to this end. Even before that, China, a permanent member of the UNSC, had been blocking India’s attempts to secure designation of Azhar for almost a decade.
Certainly, India’s consistency has paid off. It was not an easy task to propel China to change its mind, especially when it had clarified after the Brics summit declaration that it was “for banning terrorist organisations but not individuals.” China still had three months to lift the technical hold but stretched it to the last limit. Now that it has given in, it is definitely a victory of the Modi Government. The declaration, coming as it does in the midst of the electoral battle, indicates the respect the Chinese leadership has for the current leadership in India with Modi at the helm. It is a spin-off of the Wuhan spirit and definitely a win-win for India.
In diplomacy, there are no clear cut winners or losers until a decisive victory in a war has already declared the winners. In the instant case, both India and China had been pursuing their national interests. The latter was also treading the path very carefully. Chinese national interests were under attack from America as a result of the ongoing trade war between the two countries that had begun much before Pulwama. China’s GDP was on a decline. Many companies are contemplating shifting their manufacturing units to India. China, which considers itself as an emerging global power, can ill-afford a declining economy. Also, China’s image as a responsible member of the global community was being dented due to its continuous support to Azhar, thus labelling it as pro-terror. The recently held second summit of the Belt Road Initiatives (BRI) also forced China for a re-think. India’s persistence to stay away from the initiative and not very encouraging response from those who attended, including Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan, made the Chinese think-tank a bit nervous.
China was feeling the heat of international isolation with majority nations not aligning with it in the matter of terrorism. America’s threat to take the matter to the UNSC further weakened China’s insistence because it was hardly left with any allies. The fear of losing a huge market like India — one of the major trading partners of China — also weighed heavily in the minds of the Chinese leadership. It was, therefore, perceived by China that in its national interest, it can no longer afford to be seen as a pro-terrorist nation. However, it also did not want to offend its only ally, Pakistan, with whom it pronounces its friendship as stronger than the Himalayas. Hence, China ensured that no reference was made to Kashmir and Pulwama, a face-saving gimmick for Pakistan, in the Sanction Committee’s declaration listing Azhar as global terrorist.
“On this listing issue, China has been communicating with relevant parties in a constructive and responsible fashion. Recently, relevant countries revised and re-submitted the materials for the listing proposal to the 1267 Committee. After careful study of the revised materials and taking into consideration the opinions of relevant parties concerned, China does not have objection to the listing proposal,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said in a press statement.
“The proper settlement of the above-mentioned issue again shows that in international counter-terrorism cooperation, we have to uphold the rules and procedures of relevant UN body, follow the principle of mutual respect, resolve differences and build consensus through dialogue, and prevent politicising technical issues,” he added.
In his statement, Geng pointed out that Pakistan has made “enormous contributions to fighting terrorism”, which should be recognised by the international fraternity. Thus, it is a win-win situation as far as China is concerned. It is a win-win situation for France, the US, Britain and other members of 1267 Committee as well.
Pakistan is also claiming a win-win situation on the pretext that no mention has been made of Kashmir and Pulwama since India has been blaming Azhar as the mastermind and JeM as the executor of the dastardly Pulwama terror attack. Let Pakistan rejoice but the bare fact remains that it has been recognised and designated globally as a fountainhead of terror. The Damocles’ Sword in the form of Financial Action Task Force (FATF) continues to hang on its head. A fragile and failing economy is an issue, which cannot allow this rejoicing to be a long lasting pleasant experience. India should also not particularly worry about the fine print because the intent was to have Azhar declared as a global terrorist and that has been achieved. With the JeM already on the ban list and now its chief also meeting the same fate, it would be a Herculean task for Pakistan to defy the Sanctions. It will have to act, and act swiftly.
A word of caution: The deep state in Pakistan has mastered the art of circumventing international sanctions as is evident from its past behaviour. The banned organisations appear in a new avtar or with a different name and their leaders assume charge again though ostensibly of a different outfit, generally portrayed as a philanthropic organisation. But the watchful eye of FATF may make the task difficult for Pakistan this time.
Undoubtedly, India has secured a huge diplomatic victory but this should not be the end. India has to tread its path carefully to ensure that this victory is not turned into defeat through a Sino-Pakistan collusion. India also has to be prepared for the immediate consequences of this decision. The JeM sympathisers in Kashmir may carry out a sensational attack to show their solidarity with Azhar and as a protest to his listing. Pakistan is already singing a different tune. It says that by not naming Kashmir and Pulwama in the declaration, the global community has accepted their contention that what is happening inside Kashmir is an internal resistance movement. Indirectly, both China and Pakistan have continued to support their consistent policy of “good” and “bad” terrorists. Pakistan has also made its intentions clear that there would be no laxity as far as Kashmir is concerned and that it will continue to follow its policy of “thousand cuts.”
India will have to ensure that Pakistan and China are compelled to give up their policy of classifying terrorists to suit their convenience. As far as China is concerned, India has to keep its counter-narrative active and play the ‘Tibet card’ tactfully. In view of the ensuing summer, when passes in the Himalayas are open, India will have to be vigilant and guard against any Sino-Pakistan collusion militarily. After the Balakot strikes, both India and Pakistan continue to maintain the stand-off. It is the conventional edge that the Indian armed forces enjoy over their counterparts in Pakistan and the international pressure that has kept Pakistan reined in so far. A misadventure from Pakistan to avenge Balakot with the collusion of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) is a possibility that cannot be ruled out straight way. A lot would also depend on the electoral results on May 23 that would determine the new Government in New Delhi. Before resorting to any misadventure, Pakistan will like to determine the thresholds of the new regime. In a nutshell, the coming months are going to be very critical for India not only diplomatically but militarily as well.
Pakistan’s mindset against India will change only if its Army changes its attitude towards India and stops projecting us as a quintessential threat. That can only happen when Pakistan’s economy cannot be saved from a collapse. Fear of FATF sanctions may also, to some extent, force the Army to concede a bit. When IMF’s bailout package becomes almost a certainty, the Pakistan Army will have no option but to relent. Islamabad will be forced to denounce terrorism as the instrument of state policy.
India has a long haul ahead. It has to ensure that it further tightens its grip against Pakistan through diplomatic, economic and military means. It also has to ensure that the global watch over Pakistan does not slacken. With all indications that Modi may return to power and India continuing with its tough policy against Pakistan, there is a hope that coming years may see a decline in cross-border terrorism. However, the universal fight against global jihadi terror will continue relentlessly.
(The writer is a Jammu-based political commentator, columnist and strategic analyst)
Writer: Anil Gupta
Courtesy: The Pioneer
A Kerala institution’s decision to prohibit women from wearing niqab is about right interpretation of texts
The decision by the Kerala-based Muslim Educational Society (MES), prohibiting female students from wearing veils in its institutions across the country, is not only about keeping to its reformist legacy but more about challenging the theological discourse set by powerful revisionist groups, who control mosques and madrasas. It is a brave attempt to uphold the true spirit of the holy texts and the Prophet amid a sea of interpretations by variant scholars, some of which have set the rigid template of Islam in our perception. It is about reinstating the position of women in Islam as it was intended and not circumscribing them by patriarchal interventions and culture constructs of the later years. At a time when Islamophobia has overpowered a true understanding of the religion, such voices are needed to dispel mistruths and begin where it is needed most, in education. The group runs 35 colleges, 72 schools and has around one lakh students, the future generation which MES president PA Fazal Ghafoor believes should be mainstreamed rather than feared, feel respected rather than reviled. In its circular, the MES even quoted a Kerala High Court order from December 2018, which dismissed a plea filed by two female students of Christ Nagar Senior Secondary School in Thiruvananthapuram, seeking to wear headscarves. The rationale being that the disadvantages of being marked out narrow down the advantages of maintaining parity. Although it would appear that the IS-operated blasts in Sri Lanka and the resultant swoop in South India may have set a precautionary context, Ghafoor has been consistent in his stand against veiling for far longer, saying it was un-Islamic and a cultural import. He had also said that wearing the niqab continuously can cause Vitamin D deficiency in Muslim women. Most importantly, such a move would actually uphold the identity of women as the misuse of the veil as a subterfuge has cost the community, the latest suicide bombers turning what should be a matter of choice to a matter of concern. Many purist scholars, too, maintain that the Quran does not specifically mention the burqa or tell women to wear confining clothes and cover their faces. Instead, it instructs men and women to dress and behave modestly in society and lower their gaze when interacting with each other. Much of the legitimacy of the burqa is drawn from the Hadith or traditions of life in the days of Prophet Muhammad and are, therefore, attributed to him. These have been conflated to embody the very idea of religiosity. However, he himself had always professed followers to go by the Quran. Besides, women in his times were progressive, were allowed to work unveiled and even today, they are not allowed to cover their faces during Haj, the idea being there should be no barrier between the devotee and her experience of divinity.
Of course, one must understand that in the backdrop of a growing Islamophobia, the veil has returned as an identity marker of the revivalist fervour of the times. This has resulted in the veil being politicised and tokenized as a tool for impact. Little wonder then that the extreme rightists at home raised the issue of banning the veil given its misuse by terrorists in Lanka. So long as it continues to be a power tool to perpetuate the politics of religion, the veil can only generate controversies and be used for point-scoring. Real victory is when women themselves are comfortable about choosing or shunning it.
Writer & Courtesy: The Pioneer
Putin wants to isolate Russia’s internet from the rest of the world, much like China. This is not a good thing
Vladimir Putin is the archetypal strongman; his “muscular” presence has allowed a Post-Soviet Russia to punch way above its weight in global geopolitics. Of course, it helps when you have tens of thousands of nuclear warheads at your disposal. Now, Putin wants to emulate the Chinese and create a purely Russian internet. According to a law signed by the President, November onwards, it will be possible for Russian authorities to cut off access to the wider world-wide web in certain situations and thus create a purely domestic internet. A simple reason for Putin to do so is to prevent the spread of information or misinformation on Western social media networks that can be used to destabilise a state. Twitter and Facebook, as well as other public social networks, have become ‘enemies of the state’ in several countries, particularly quasi-dictatorships. Russia has even acted against one of its homegrown networks ‘Telegram,’ an extremely secure instant messaging service favoured by terrorists across the world.
This action of Russia has sent shivers not just in other countries but also among activists. Can Putin’s actions give ideas to the next Indian government? However, Putin has realised and so should Indian politicians that services like Twitter and Facebook are extensions of the United States’ foreign policy. They can very easily manipulate information flows and how they serve up that information to transform electoral results. This is why defence analyst Abhijit Iyer-Mitra has filed a suit against these companies in the Delhi High Court, as their actions can manipulate (and are, according to some evidence) Indian elections. So should we also go down the same path and have a purely ‘Indian’ internet? No. The beauty of the internet is that it has democratised information flows as well as how people react and talk with each other. That has to stay. However, governments are right and must be concerned about how the internet has encouraged and enabled coercive activities. While the Supreme Court did enshrine the right to privacy, it does not allow anyone to work against the state. India should remain part of the world-wide web but protect its own interests. It should force foreign companies to not only store their data here but explain their actions when it comes to blocking users and their algorithms since these can be weaponised against Indians.
Writer: Pioneer
Courtesy: The Pioneer
Now that the UN has tagged the Jaish chief a global terrorist, it is a diplomatic coup for India and its standing in the world
This is closure at so many levels, the UN declaration of Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) chief Masood Azhar as a global terrorist. For common Indians, this is comeuppance for a series of terror attacks that began with the Kandahar hijacking besides the brutal blasts and suicide squads that we have lived with for two decades. Besides costing us human lives, they have also hurt our institutional pride by attacking the Indian Parliament no less. It’s a big win for Indian diplomacy, which has been in lobby wars from the Capitol Hill to the UN, to convince the world that Pakistan-exported terrorism was not just a byproduct of regional conflicts but a sub-set of global terrorism and that the West had as much of a common cause as us. It’s also the first time that India at least painted China into a corner with world opinion on its side, though it had to concede ground on the wording of the ban order, making it look equidistant from both India and Pakistan. Finally, though the final resolution did not mention the Pulwama attacks, the fact that the global ban follows the worst terrorist attack in Kashmir, that, too, on security forces, is acknowledgement enough of the context and Pakistan’s hand in fomenting terrorism in Kashmir. Of course, the biggest political capital has been claimed by the Narendra Modi government, during whose tenure the impossible task of proscribing Azhar has been achieved. In the middle of the Lok Sabha elections, this only lends credence to the ruling BJP’s twin planks of muscular nationalism and national security. It silences the criticism of Balakot being a misadventure, shows that Pakistan can be brought to book by staying well under the nuclear threshold and demonstrates to the world that a usually pacifist India will no longer be a pushover. As for Modi himself, who has already arrogated to himself the task of protecting the nation’s interests, the US-led move posits him as a tall leader the world wants to do business with. Regardless of what concessions that superpower extracts from us, maybe a quid pro quo on Iran.
Getting China on board was the biggest obstacle despite India working with international allies relentlessly. Beijing had put a technical hold on the Azhar ban in the Security Council’s 1267 Al Qaeda Sanctions Committee not once but four times. Given the strategic depth of the Sino-Pak friendship, one that is often reiterated by President Xi Jinping, it seemed unlikely that China would ever give in. Particularly considering Pakistan was whole-heartedly participating in its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and ensuring no IS activity was directed its way. But when the US pushed for an independent Security Council resolution, where China would have had to explain its veto and risk being tagged a pariah, the latter agreed to the ban albeit with conditions, prime among them being no mention of Pulwama or Kashmir. Besides, both India and the US also approved China’s presidentship of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) that caps terror funding and it did look the other way when Pakistan was put on the grey list. The US-India-China equation was calibrated so well that each side could factor in sensitivities of the other and accommodate each other without appearing to have cut a compromise. Given India’s intransigence on BRI, China has already worked out an alternative space through the Wuhan dialogues. Even before the UN meeting, Indian Foreign Secretary Vijay Gokhale went to Beijing, held talks with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi and shared evidence of JeM’s involvement in the Pulwama terror attack. In fact, France, which spearheaded the UN resolution, was the only one which mentioned Pulwama as the last straw on the camel’s back. “For many years now, French diplomacy has been relentlessly pleading for sanctioning Azhar, head of the terrorist group responsible, notably, for the Pulwama attack last February,” it said.
What does it mean for Azhar and other terror networks in Pakistan? Yes, there will be an arms and funds freeze as well as a travel ban and confinement. But when it comes to Jaish and the Lashkar before it, they mutate in hibernation and cadres emerge with a new face, style and identity. By the time they are circled out, much damage is done. So clamping down on Pakistan’s hydra-headed terror networks is still quite a bit.
Writer & Courtesy: The Pioneer
The Election Commission has been under scrutiny for not taking action against those who violate the Model Code of Conduct. It is now faced with the task of regaining moral authority
Last week, I read an excellent article in the New York Times by SY Quraishi, who was India’s Chief Election Commissioner between 2010 and 2012. In this article, Quraishi shared a number of fascinating nibbles about the Election Commission of India (ECI). A particularly interesting fact highlighted by him was the sheer size of the Indian election and the poll panel’s massive responsibility to ensure that each vote counts. He illustrated a lovely example of this task by narrating how Election Commissioners set up a polling booth in the Gir Forest National Park in Gujarat for the only living voter in the area: A Hindu priest.
The Indian election is remarkable. As the Constitutional watchdog of the voting process, the EC plays an important role to ensure free and fair polls. It is fully empowered to take any action for upholding the legitimacy of a democratic process. While each election is crucial, the ongoing edition requires the electoral body to demand more from itself. No other election was filled with as much misinformation, as much hatred, and as clear a blatant abdication of any form of responsible conduct than the 2019 Lok Sabha polls. This is especially evident from the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP’s) conduct and transgressions in the ongoing elections. However, the EC has unfortunately been disappointingly silent through this most trying period.
One way through which the electoral body tries to ensure free and fair polls is by issuing guidelines for Model Code of Conduct, which come into force the day the election schedule is announced. This code is not a law. Instead, it is in the form of a moral code and the electoral body expects the politicians to adhere to the terms set by it. Crucially, it believes that leaders will have the integrity to adhere to such a code. Unfortunately, over the past few weeks, the moral authority of the EC and the Model Code of Conduct has been brazenly undermined by the Prime Minister, who has shown reckless disregard.
Take, for example, the directives of the Election Commission. On March 19, the electoral body issued a general advisory saying that “political parties/candidates are advised that their campaigners/candidates should desist, as part of their campaigning, from indulging in any political propaganda involving activities of the defence forces.”
The order was aimed at curbing actions by political parties who claim votes in the name of the military because after all, India’s armed forces are not owned by any political party. Therefore, one expects that any decent political party will not ask for votes in the name of its martyrs. However, in this election, we have campaigners like Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, who termed the Army as “Modiji ki Sena.”
The Prime Minister, too, during an election speech on April 9 said: “I wish to ask my first-time voters, can you dedicate your first vote to the brave martyrs of Pulwama”? Did Prime Minister Modi not get the memo or was he absolutely unafraid of any repercussions? Since it is evident that the Prime Minister will not voluntarily subject himself to any authority, let alone a moral one, it is incumbent on the enforcers of the Model Code of Conduct to come down hard against such brazen violation of diktats of the institution.
However, the EC has been found terribly wanting. While it heard numerous complaints and representations against various leaders, till last week, it took no action against the various representations by Opposition parties against the comments and conduct of Prime Minister Modi. This forced the Congress to approach the Supreme Court in the hope that such an action would provide some explanation as to why numerous blatant violations by the Prime Minister were not examined and acted upon by the EC.
Ironically, the Commission was prompt in dealing with complaints against other candidates, but failed to display the same promptness in dealing with objections raised against the Prime Minister and BJP chief Amit Shah. Since then, we have seen Prime Minister Modi not being cautioned for several parts of his speech against Congress chief Rahul Gandhi, who is contesting from Wayanad, and the April 9 speech where the Prime Minister explicitly asked the voters to dedicate their vote to Pulwama martyrs. If this isn’t “political propaganda involving activities of the defence forces,” I am not sure what is.
Even after an inexhaustible delay, when it did choose to probe these charges and act, the EC cleared the Prime Minister on two counts. Even when his remarks were not that veiled and quite specific.
Other than this, there have been several instances like “no pending complaint against Prime Minister Modi” appearing on the poll panel’s portal, despite the fact that several complaints have been lodged. The official defence is that there has to be a prima facie violation of the Model Code of Conduct. That means the violation should be obvious on the face of it. A look at some of the comments on social media and by wide sections of the political establishment will show that this basic standard has been met.
Similarly, the fact that the EC suspended an IAS officer, who searched Modi’s chopper, and that this action of the electoral body was stayed by the Central Administrative Tribunal does not reflect well on it either.
Mahatma Gandhi had once said, “Moral authority is never retained by any attempt to hold on to it. It comes without seeking and is retained without effort.” The Indian elections are a magnificent testimony to our commitment to democracy. However, it needs a strong moral authority to ensure that it remains so. Unfortunately, going by events of the past few weeks, the EC will need to put immense effort to regain its moral authority and fulfil the role it was meant to. And its office-bearers will at some point have to think about the sacredness of their jobs over political expediency.
(The writer is Jharkhand PCC president, former MP and IPS officer. Views are personal)
Writer: Ajoy Kumar
Courtesy: The Pioneer
Neither is the Ashraf Ghani regime in Kabul a Shia-centric dispensation, nor does India have a commonality of religious denomination. Yet both inspire more trust among Iranians
As a nation, Pakistan has had a historically unsettled and restive relationship with all three neighbouring countries that touch its land borders ie, India, Afghanistan and Iran. However, recently, Prime Minister Imran Khan took his national obsession with the “borders” of other countries to another level of imagination when he waxed eloquently to a befuddled audience in Iran, “Germany and Japan killed millions of their civilians until after the second World War when they both decided to have joint industries on their border regions!” Imran Khan’s political nemesis Bilawal Bhutto soon tweeted a stinging, “Our Prime Minister thinks that Germany and Japan share a border. How embarrassing, this is what happens when you @UniofOxford let people in just because they can play cricket”. Beyond the obvious embarrassment emanating from such “deliveries”, the former cricketer-turned-politician returned back to Islamabad from a lukewarm trip to Iran, which refused to offer any strategic succour or sound-bite that could thaw the Pakistan-Iran coldness, beyond diplomatic courtesies and officialese.
The backdrop to the recent visit by the Pakistani Prime Minister to its Western neighbour, Iran, came at a most unpropitious phase of acute mutual suspicions, with both nations having recently accused each other of having allowed “terrorists” to operate and attack the other country. Few weeks back, Pakistan had pointedly blamed Iranian-based “terror outfits” for a deadly bus jacking incident on the coastal highway, wherein the “terrorists” entered a bus and identified passengers on the basis of their IDs and then killed 10 of them who served with the Pakistani Navy, Air Force and the Coast Guard.
Earlier, Iran had unequivocally blamed Pakistan for harbouring Sunni jihadist group Jaish ul-Adl (Army of Justice), who had killed 27 members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards in the Sistan-Baluchistan region of Iran. The undeniable undercurrents of sectarian rift have beset the Iran-Pakistan narrative, with Islamabad increasingly relying on the Saudi bloc, much to the chagrin of the Shia-centric sensibilities of the Iranian identity. The umbilical cord of Pakistan with the Saudis has got strengthened with the life-sustaining financial bailout afforded by the Saudis and the Emiratis — besides the appointment of former Pakistani Chief of Army Staff, General Raheel Sharif, as the head of 41-nation (Sunni ruled), Riyadh-based, Islamic Military Counter Terrorism Coalition, that is at the forefront of battling Iran-supported Houthi rebels in Yemen. Pakistan’s own fractious societal divide that pits its vulnerable “minority” of Shia Muslims at the hands of the supremacist and extremist groups — for example, the recent terror attack on the Hazara Shias that killed over 20 — is a matter of perennial and irreconcilable distrust between Pakistan and Iran.
Recognising the sectarian angularity, Imran Khan went with a retinue of Shia Ministers, like the Minister for Human Rights, Dr Shireen Mazari and Minister for Maritime Affairs, Syed Ali Haider Zaidi. The Pakistani delegation’s port of disembarkation was not the capital Tehran but a symbolic first stopover at the historical town of Mashad, where Imran Khan paid obeisance at the holy shrine of Imam Reza, the eighth Shia Imam, before proceeding to Tehran. Post the symbolism, Imran Khan began his maiden visit with a laborious endeavour to explain the ostensible Pakistani commitment towards fighting “terrorism”, besides common pain-points of smuggling narcotics, human trafficking, hostage taking, money laundering and abduction.
However, both sides had extended agenda and pet peeves with Iran euphemistically alluding to the US as the “enemy” blocking regional peace; whereas Pakistan unwarrantedly dragged Jammu & Kashmir into the bilateral discussions in a desperate attempt to elicit some expression of interest or text, only to draw a studied silence. Iran, which has its own strategic convergence and understanding with Delhi on many fronts, including that on the Chabahar port, Afghanistan, oil exploration and supplies among others, did not take the Pakistani bait. Under pressure from the more experienced Iranians, Imran Khan made yet another amateurish move by confessing the obvious, “We have come to the conclusion, we will not allow any militant group to operate from Pakistan.” Expectedly, Imran Khan was roasted at home, with the Opposition parties referring to the same as an unpardonable admission of complicity and guilt, especially when the International Monetary Fund was linking the much-needed bailout package to the findings of Pakistani guilt via the Financial Action Task Force (FATF).
It will take the Pakistani leadership more than charm offensives and half-meant confessions to overcome its deep-rooted perceptions in Delhi, Kabul or even Tehran. Rote and banal attempts by Islamabad to invoke the line of “brother Muslim country” have so far failed the Ashraf Ghani regime in Afghanistan and Iranians, who keep a hawk eye on the growing Saudi-Wahhabi influence and control of the Pakistani establishment. The delicately placed chessboard of institutional fiefdoms within the Pakistani state, entailing the trinity of military, politicos and clergy, cannot allow any major course-correction from the historical Pakistani intransigence as that would amount to deligitimising, any one or more, of these three institutions.
Beyond a point, Imran Khan is beholden domestically to the GHQ in Rawalpindi and to the elements of sectarian religiosity within the Pakistan narrative, as well as to the survival-linked beneficence of the Saudi-bloc that by default militates against the aspired behavioural changes sought by Iran. The proximity of the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) elements to the Iranian-Pakistani border as also the common ground of Tehran and Beijing on the US do offer the opportunity for China to play a more substantial and strategic role in Iran to the benefit of Pakistan. However, as of now, such geopolitical evolutions are only in the realm of strategic possibilities; whereas the more tangible, visible and secure footprint of the Indian state abounds and resonates in Iran, currently.
Honesty of purpose has triumphed both religious and sectarian pandering in Iran as neither is the Ashraf Ghani regime in Kabul a Shia-centric dispensation, nor does India have a commonality of religious denomination. Yet both these nations inspire more trust with the Iranians as opposed to Pakistan or even the so-called ‘Naya Pakistan’.
(The writer, a military veteran, is a former Lt Governor of Andaman & Nicobar Islands and Puducherry)
Writer: Bhopinder Singh
Courtesy: The Pioneer
Woman alleging sexual harassment against CJI walks out of inquiry, fuels more speculation
The sexual harassment allegations against Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi by a former Supreme Court staffer turned murkier when she withdrew from a three-judge panel looking into the case, citing procedural flaws that she felt compromised neutrality. The stakes in the case, that could stigmatise the highest court of the land, just became higher. For there are two interpretations of the story, even before investigations have reached their logical end. One assumption being that the complainant was part of a larger coercive attack on an institution, as had been suggested by the CJI himself, to “deactivate” a position that is tasked with fair dissemination of justice. The other being that of a junior, whose fears, anxieties and the very act of speaking up are of consequence simply because there is no legal framework within the top court’s rulebook whereby a CJI could be investigated on allegations such as these, his removal being only possible through parliamentary impeachment. And her charge is the first of its kind. Neither theory can be taken lightly. The three-judge committee duly took note of the “frame-up by honey-trap” allegation, questioning a lawyer who claimed he was offered money for concocting charges, and involving top police and investigative agencies to look into the veracity of his claims. Similarly, the court has to be equally delicate and proper about hearing out the complainant, lest any move is interpreted as inimical to working women’s rights in a society where they are subjected to cultural innuendos and suppositions. There were initial stutters that got the Bar association and many lawyers rallying behind the woman, too. Neither did the CJI’s special hearing in court include the complainant, though remarks were passed about her and her faulty legal record. Nor did the court check the backstory of the judges on the panel till the complainant pointed out one of them was a friend of the CJI. He recused himself thereafter. Considering the case is based on highly unequal circumstances — a junior employee versus the CJI — the investigation and assessment should appear non-intimidating and trustworthy. Let’s look at the complainant’s concerns — she wanted the presence of her lawyer or any support person so that she didn’t feel too overwhelmed by the topmost judges, she insisted on an audio-video recording of the committee proceedings and a copy of her statements as recorded on two sessions for the sake of fair play and cross-questioning. The present Supreme Court Internal Complaints Committee mechanism is inadequate for an inquiry into the alleged misconduct by the CJI himself. So her request for an external observer is not too far out, in keeping with the spirit of the Vishakha guidelines and the Prevention of Sexual Harassment Against Women at the Workplace Act, none of which can be applied in this case. The court, which is rightfully conducting the matter in secrecy, could actually keep a significant other, be it her counsel or perhaps someone like the National Commission for Women (NCW) chief during proceedings for the sake of balance. Nobody doubts the wisdom and maturity of the three Justices but perhaps certain sensitivities could be considered to prevent this one from being another “he said, she said” battle.
The Supreme Court is being tested most severely in an unprecedented case and how it upholds the law and treads its way without fear or favour is being watched keenly. At no point can it look one-sided without meaning to be so. The court, which has given judgements empowering women, should unravel the truth through procedural propriety for the sake of all women out there. For if the accuser is guilty of fabrication, coercion and mala fide motives, the judges should not let her get away. If not, the court should be seen as acting justly in matters concerning its own women employees. By walking out of the inquiry panel, the accuser has set off enough speculation if this was just another case of silence by intimidation or if she was guilty of a frame-up. Therefore, the panel should create a foolproof atmosphere, one she cannot exit on grounds of “feeling insecure.” This needs a closure without leaving an iota of doubt.
Writer & Courtesy: The Pioneer
Did an Indian Army expedition team indeed spot the mythical creature’s imprints?
The Indian Army posted a strange update on its Twitter handle recently where it claimed that an Army mountaineering team in Nepal, which was scaling Mount Makalu south-east of Everest, found some large footprints. These impressions, measuring 32 inches by 15 inches, were clearly too large for a human. So the Army concluded that the footsteps were possibly those of the mythical creature called the Yeti. So called by local Gurkhas and the “Abominable Snowman” by Europeans, the rare entity has an interesting legend. Rumours of its existence have swirled around the Himalayas for centuries, a giant humanoid creature, which has attacked mountaineering expeditions and local villages alike.
Humanity has long been fascinated by gigantism. The legend of the Yeti is similar to those related to Bigfoot in the vast forests of North America from where several supposed sightings and “footsteps” have been reported. The Yeti’s footprints, similar to those seen by the Indian Army team, have been seen in the past too, headed in a clear direction. Even if we go beyond just land creatures, humans have been captivated by stories of untameable monsters, the Loch Ness being the most legendary alongside the Chinese Dragon, since time immemorial. Every native culture has legends and myths of such creatures, many even built into their ancient texts. The legend of the Yeti, as we know it today, was built up in a large part by Belgian comic creator Herge, whose character, the eternally young journalist TinTin, interacted with the Yeti in the legendary TinTin in Tibet graphic novel. That was the character’s only visit to India. Delhi, in particular, occurred in that same book.
And while seeing is believing, we all know that footprints will not stand up to scientific scrutiny. In an ideal situation, the mountaineering team should have had a naturalist among them. Even if someone is dispatched today, the melting snow would have wiped out any trace of these footprints. At the same time, a bit of prudence by the Indian Army’s public information department would have served it well. It would be unscientific to throw out the possibility that the Indian Army team did find something strange, may not be the Yeti but some other natural curiosity, without some cross-checks. After all we continue to discover new species all the time. A more thought-out investigation away from the public glare would have made more sense instead of putting information out on a medium where many people are professionally outraged all the time. Even in these times where people and institutions constantly ‘over share’ thoughts, a bit of silence can do wonders.
Writer: Pioneer
Courtesy: The Pioneer
As we gear up for the 50th anniversary of Earth Day in 2020, young people must lead from the front to take on climate change challenges
Earth Day is celebrated on April 22 each year. But few people understand the conditions under which this major initiative was introduced in 1970 by a visionary leader, US Senator Gaylord Nelson. The Earth Day Network’s (EDN) website explains the conditions under which the first Earth Day was organised in 1970. It mentions the height of counter-culture in the United States (US), the resistance to the war in Vietnam, the very basic morality of that war and the role of the US in waging violent aggression on one of the poorest countries in the world, so remote from the aggressor nation. Concurrently, the state of the environment in the US was badly degraded with powerful automobiles using large quantities of leaded gas, several industries emitting large quantities of smoke and sludge and no legal remedies as a recourse or reporting by the media on these terrible and negative impacts. Air pollution was generally accepted as the other side of prosperity.
Yet, it was in 1962 that Rachel Carson published a powerful account of the state of the environment in that nation, the widespread use of pesticides and chemicals, which were harming not only the human society but all living species and in general, exposing the link between pollution and public health. On the very first Earth Day, 20 million Americans took to the streets and gathered in parks and auditoria to demonstrate against the shocking conditions under which the so-called progress was being achieved with massive damage and degradation to the environment and its effects on human life.
Significantly, there was bipartisan support for this massive show of concern and determination for action by the people of the US. According to EDN, people — both rich and poor — urban dwellers and farmers, industrial tycoons and labour leaders joined hands to express their concerns. What was particularly important is that Senator Nelson asked a young person called Denis Hayes to organise this nationwide effort involving 20 million people taking part in a set of events, with which all Americans made common cause.
Today, the state of our planet and its fragile ecosystems are under progressive assault and since 1970, the ecological footprint of human activities has grown in gigantic proportions. One reason for this is the universal desire of people across the world to own, produce and consume goods and services, for which a benchmark and style has been set by the countries of North America. The unsustainability of this escalating uniformity of desires and aspirations hardly needs any explanation because the earth’s population today is moving towards eight billion people. The population in 1970 was around 3.7 billion and, therefore, demands on ecosystem services and the value that nature provides to life across all species has not only increased on account of this substantial increase in population but also led to a boost in income and wealth. The GDP of the world is at an unprecedented level of 87.37 trillion dollars. Despite this exponential increase, disparities in income and wealth have grown to an unhealthy degree. As per the Oxfam International report published in January 2019, the combined fortunes of the world’s 26 richest individuals reached $1.4 trillion last year, which represents the same amount as the total wealth of 3.8 billion poorest people.
Even more serious is the growing problem of climate change, which, as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has shown, is the result of the cumulative emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. As Nobel Laureate Paul Crutzen stated, this combination of effects on planet earth represents a period of the anthropocene; we are clearly within an era when human beings have become responsible for geological changes defined by earlier epochs. Today, thoughtful voices of despair and determination are being heard all around by which human society will hopefully move us forward in limiting the risks from the impacts of climate change. This, therefore, becomes a relevant mission for celebrating the 50th anniversary of Earth Day in 2020.
The current challenge facing human society is to bring about a disruptive shift in paradigm from the totally unsustainable path, which we have embarked on since industrialisation. A massive change with a sense of urgency is what would be required to reduce the risks of climate change, for which the youth of the world must take the lead.
On Earth Day 2016 in Mexico City, the POP (Protect Our Planet) Movement, a major programme of action focussing on the youth of the world, was launched. Essentially, every young person has to work towards minimising his/her carbon footprint. This would involve the development of educational institutions, which meet the goals of sustainable development, mitigate the emissions of greenhouse gases and adapt to the impacts of climate change. Just imagine, if every educational institution across the globe becomes a centre for action to deal with climate change, this would not only transform the lives of those who pass through the portals of such institutions, but also influence the communities around them, including adults who come directly in contact with the students. In reality, the youth of the world have to make major shifts in their lifestyles and behaviour so that they are at the vanguard of change.
The 50th anniversary of Earth Day in 2020 needs a massive effort on the part of young people and others to celebrate Youth CAN (Youth for Climate Action Now). While we have less than a year left for this major set of activities, young people need to make plans, form partnerships and build up their efforts towards a global movement that would truly bring about a paradigm shift in the very concept of growth and development pursued by human society since the beginning of industrialisation. This would hopefully embarrass adults as well in changing their own lifestyles.
(The writer is former chairman, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2002-15)
Writer: RK Pachauri
Courtesy: The Pioneer
FREE Download
OPINION EXPRESS MAGAZINE
Offer of the Month