Young Turks are impatient and if the CWC president emerges from the old guard, they could take drastic steps

Today could be a transformative day for the Congress as it would not only choose a new party president but decide whether it would go down the road to perdition or revival, stifle itself with formulaic tradition or break out of boxes, part with the old and stake everything on the new, and simply put,  matter anymore in news headlines. Of course, murmurs are of the predictable kind, that the leadership vacuum created by the exit of Rahul Gandhi will be filled by a loyalist and a retainer of the old order, an endorsement that guarantees the centrality of the party’s first family without owning responsibility for the post. Even Gandhi’s good intentions, to force a rethink without dynasty and the baggage of history, will then come into question. It would seem like he, too, played along with the tested plot of foisting a lesser leader and seeking a distress vote to resume dynastic control. Clearly, that will be ruinous given the current context where the party is clearly split down the middle over key issues, the latest being the abrogation of Article 370 in Kashmir. The younger lot of leaders, some of whom are believed to be of Rahul Gandhi’s camp, like Jyotiraditya Scindia, Deepender Hooda and Milind Deora, are clearly looking for a changed axis in a Modi-fied and Naya India and want their voices heard as new Congressmen. So all of them publicly endorsed the revocation of Article 370 contrary to the stance of senior Congress leader Ghulam Nabi Azad in the Rajya Sabha. The less said about the forked tongue approach in the Lok Sabha the better with CLP leader Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury going to the other extreme of classifying Kashmir as not an “internal” matter. This forced the old guard to pass a united resolution emphasising the whole of Kashmir as an integral part of India and just criticising the NDA government’s lack of a democratic and consultative political process behind the reorganisation of Jammu and Kashmir. Hooda and Deora are facing Assembly elections in their States and do not want to go against the national sentiment while seeking votes.  Younger leaders like Sachin Pilot are also living down their dynastic entitlement and working towards creating their personal legacies with practical logic. With all of them now 40ish and middling, they want to take a last shot at credibility than perish away into extinction. This young lot is also not averse to organisational elections to build inner-party democracy first before espousing it in Parliament or blaming other parties for running roughshod over it. Elections, they feel, would infuse new energy and get new faces in on the basis of political acumen and deliverables. Particularly Jyotiraditya Scindia, the co-general secretary of Uttar Pradesh with Priyanka Gandhi and believed to be an inner circle member, has put pressure on the party by publicising his support for the Government move on Kashmir and sparking speculation whether the disenchanted Congress brigade had parked themselves in the shopping cart.

Of course, senior leaders are still prevailing on Congress matriarch Sonia Gandhi, warding off elections for fear of being sidelined. After all, their undisputed runs in the party have meant that they have carved their own fiefdoms too and legitimised their continuity by virtue of maintaining these turfs and votebanks. Truth be told, most senior leaders in the CWC have not fought elections in a long, long time and are out of depth with ground reality. For example, one of the names for CWC president, Mukul Wasnik, last won an election in 2009. Were they to contest now, they would lose their deposits. So they don’t want to let go of their status quo in the Congress, hoping their posts would still lengthen their political careers. What the Gandhis need to understand is that egoistic dramas have run their course and it is time to either hand over charge fully or rescue it upfront. The Congress leadership, which is either calculatedly or helplessly driving the party to disaster, better value its political relevance over selfish interests. Because when the former is gone, even the latter won’t be of any consequence. If all this is part of an elaborate attempt to create an irretrievable mess where the Gandhis would look like supreme saviours, then one could also look at a consensus candidate who is accepted in their presence. And that would be an anti-climax.

Writer & Courtesy: The Pioneer

Freezing economic ties won’t have much consequence but the cessation of diplomatic ties is not good for both nations

There is no doubt that after the Balakot strikes, which showed how Pakistan’s jihadi adventurism could be curbed while staying well under the nuclear threshold, and now the reorganisation of Jammu and Kashmir, which removes Kashmir as a pre-condition for diplomatic engagement, our western neighbour has to have a newscript. Till then, it has to keep up the noise and bluster of aggression, hemmed in as it is by international pressure advising restraint against escalation and the US making its strategic relevance conditional upon helping it swing the Taliban in Afghanistan. It is also true that while both Balakot and the revocation of Article 370 may have seemingly shocked Pakistan, it was implicitly prepared for the boldness of Modi 2.0, its Prime Minister Imran Khan grudgingly admitting that at least he could get Kashmir moving. And now that Modi has indeed moved the cheese in Kashmir, Pakistan has no option but to wipe off the spilt milk. Since there cannot be naked aggression, it has done the next best thing — squeezing diplomatic ties with India, recalling its envoy and sending back ours, shutting down airspace and Samjhauta Express and suspending trade.

And contrary to perception, Pakistan isn’t imploding. Yes, its economy is in a bad shape and to that end it has taken steps, no matter how cosmetic, to crack down on terror factories and convince the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), which blacklists IMF and World Bank loans and grants to terror-funding States, that it is making progress. It may have lost its diplomatic edge but not been blunted completely as it has negotiating power with the Taliban. So it would be wrong to assume that it would come around to India’s terms or change tack on Jammu and Kashmir. Yes, India’s latest moves have clearly removed the possibility of talks as a continuing weapon of stalling under the garb of good intention. It has also reclassified the Kashmir issue as not one of aspiration but a creation of Pakistan-exported terror. Yet, robbed of its favourite pitches, Pakistan did counter Balakot robustly, shooting down our aircraft, denying its own F 16 loss and through an aerial dogfight at least showed that it was capable of reciprocal hitback, no matter what the diplomatic consequence. Similarly, even though it knows that raising the UNSC resolution bogey is fruitless, considering it has violated it with its own intrusions, it will make big announcements to take care of domestic imperatives. It is using the same logic to internationalise Kashmir, using its changed status as the raison-d-etre of renewed neighbourly hostilities, challenging India’s “internalisation” with “externalisation” of alarmist impacts.

Truth be told, the cessation of bilateral trade ties will hit it more as India has been downgrading volumes consistently, particularly after Balakot, considering trade was being used as a conduit for funding terror operations inside Kashmir. Our export bouquet to Pakistan is really limited considering it has never given us “most favoured nation” status though we had done so in the past. Most of what we sell to Pakistan are agri-products, which can easily be diverted to markets in Southeast Asia. Cross-border volumes shrank as India imposed 200 per cent customs duty on imports after Pulwama. While India’s exports to Pakistan stood at $2 billion, imports were about $500 million per year. Imports from Pakistan declined by 92 per cent to $2.84 million in March this year compared to $34.61 million in March 2018, according to commerce ministry data. Mutual trade makes up for really minuscule proportions for both in world markets. Of course, in a healthy scenario, both countries could have a significant volume of transformative trade in the region, some estimating a $37 billion potential, but that in any case has never been pursued. So there isn’t much to rue either. But yes, a diplomatic freeze doesn’t work any which way. A stalemate does give Pakistan time to recalibrate and reconfigure a new “bleeding cuts” policy. Meanwhile, the Government must take care of engaging with the mature civil society, as also legitimately elected political leaders of the Valley, who have so far invested themselves in our democratic processes, and not leave them out in the cold. Pakistan is precisely looking for this alienated space to occupy and justify its intervention. Given the brutality of the lockdown, with news trickling in of food shortages and pellet gun attacks, the Government shouldn’t compound the local’s sense of being let down. A flashpoint could then become a volcano.

Writer & Courtesy: The Pioneer

The RBI has cut interest rates to the lowest levels in nine years but can that jumpstart the Indian economy?

The  35 odd-basis point cut in inter-bank interest rates by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) was seen as an indication that a quarter per cent cut was too little and a half per cent cut may be a bit too much. Whatever it was, it is seemingly unlikely that this will be the booster shot the Indian economy needs because banks are still hesitant to lend money to customers and even if they do, few are passing on the benefits of lower rates to customers. Almost all our banks, particularly public sector ones, are still suffering from the profligacy with which they forwarded loans a decade ago. So when the Chairman of India’s largest bank, the State Bank of India, says that he looks to the heavens to pray when speaking about top insolvent accounts, it becomes evident that even the reforms on the insolvency code haven’t really helped matters. And now the dramatic collapse in non-banking financial companies has only made the situation worse. But is it just about a switch, as some are commenting, that could turn 18 months of gloom overnight? Is India just in a vicious cycle of negativity that is making consumers and companies hold on to the purse strings tight? Could an injection of positivity be the change that India needs, one that will make banks lend again and consumers buy again? But where will that injection of positivity come from is the question. Quite clearly, it is not going to be from rate cuts, unless thanks to the reduction of interest rates, it becomes apparent that the best way to deploy one’s financial assets is to spend because the money will not earn much interest in the bank. May be the positivity that India needs will be a good monsoon, which will lead to a positive festive season come September with Onam kicking off the upbeat sentiment. Indeed, the Onam floods of 2018 in Kerala were the ignition source for the dramatic slowdown in sales for the Indian automotive industry.

The events surrounding Kashmir notwithstanding, the government really needs to ramp up its efforts on the economy. Because not only are behemoths dramatically scaling back new hires, the class of 2019 is finding it impossible to get jobs as companies have begun layoffs. This, and not the reactions in  Kashmir, should be keeping Narendra Modi up at night. The cycle of negativity has to be broken and a rate slash frankly does not cut the mustard.

Writer & Courtesy: The Pioneer

The Government’s launch of the KUSUM programme to promote solar power bodes well for farmers, DISCOMs and the environment. But there are impending challenges, including a huge financial liability on farmers themselves. Moreover, will they really be willing to join the scheme?

In a recent interview, Minister of State for Power and Renewable Energy RK Singh informed about a scheme viz the Kisan Urja Suraksha evam Utthaan Mahabhiyan (KUSUM), which the Government proposes to implement over a period of three years.   

Intended to promote the use of solar energy in rural areas, KUSUM allows a farmer to use his barren land — currently lying fallow — to set up a solar plant on it for 1 MW or so (in case the land is cultivable, he can set it up on stilts and grow crop below). Whereas, during the crop season (spanning over three to four months), the farmer can use the power for cultivation, for the remaining part of the year, units generated at the plant will be purchased by the Centre.

The Union Government will give capital subsidy to cover 30 per cent of the cost while the State will bear another 30 per cent. Of the balance 40 per cent, the farmer will get 30 per cent as loan at a concessional interest rate and will have to pay 10 per cent from his pocket. The total cost of implementing the scheme is estimated to be about Rs 146,000 crore, of which the Centre’s contribution will be Rs 34,000 crore.

The scheme has the potential to bring about a fundamental transformation in not just the way farming is done to augment farmers’ income but also help in giving a new lease of life even to power distribution companies (DISCOMs), which at present are literally on a ventilator, gasping for life.

For the farmer, the solar plant will not only supply all his electricity requirement (for running pump sets and other needs, including domestic consumption) but also generate surplus, particularly during the non-cropping period, which can be sold to generate cash. Besides, this will drastically reduce spends on diesel (irrigation bill can go down by as much as 90 per cent) and help reduce the load on the environment. Saving on oil import bill will be an added bonus.    

At present, there is overexploitation of ground water, courtesy unrestricted availability of electricity at heavily subsidised rates (even free in some States). However, in a scenario of having their own power source juxtaposed with an incentive that they can increase their income by selling surplus power, the farmers will be motivated to shun the current unhealthy practice, thereby conserve and prevent depletion of ground water.   

For the DISCOMs, this could be a blessing in disguise. Currently, a major reason for their incurring loss year-after-year is the supply of power to farmers and households at heavily subsidised rates or even free (under direction from their owner viz, the States). Even after charging exorbitant rates from industries, they are unable to make up for the shortfall in realisation from sale to these preferred consumers. Their woes are exacerbated by large-scale power theft.

Now, if farmers can meet their power requirement from the captive source (solar plant), this will obviate the need for supply from DISCOMs. When the latter does not have to supply electricity to the former, the losses associated with such supplies (albeit at subsidised/below cost tariff) will automatically disappear. 

In short, the scheme could be a gateway to a wonderland wherein farmers will be better off, DISCOMs financially healthy and environment will bear less pain. But this scenario appears too good to be true.   

Given the State of Union’s precarious finances, garnering the required resources of Rs 34,000 crore for capital subsidy will be a big challenge. For the same reason, getting the States to contribute another 30 per cent will be a daunting task. Even more worrying is the balance 40 per cent, which has to be arranged by the farmer. Apart from the 10 per cent, which he has to give upfront, the responsibility of amortising the loan component, 30 per cent, falls entirely on him.      

Today, the Government perceives the farmers’ economic situation to be so precarious that it was prompted to give Rs 6,000 annually to the farmers under the Pradhan Mantri Kisan Samman Nidhi (PM-KISAN) so that they can buy agricultural inputs such as fertilisers, seeds and pesticides among other things. How then are they expected to pay a huge sum of Rs 4.5 million @10 per cent (cost of 1 MW solar plant: Rs 45 million) being their contribution upfront?  Servicing the loan of Rs 13.5 million (30 per cent of Rs 45 million) will be even more excruciating as interest alone at subsidised @7 per cent will come to Rs 945,000 annually. Moreover, till such time the solar plant is commissioned and becomes operational, it will be double-whammy for the farmers, who will continue to spend money on diesel for running the pump set in addition to servicing the loan. They may not survive for the day when the gains from captive source start accruing.  

Given the impending challenges in particular, a huge financial liability on them, the big question is whether the farmers will really be willing to join the scheme. This is most unlikely all the more when for decades, they are used to free/heavily subsidised power arranged by power-hungry politicians, who thrive on populist measures such as this. When the present is easy going, why would they transit to an effort-based, self-driven system san sops? KUSUM may be a non-starter!

(The writer is a New Delhi-based policy analyst) 

Writer & Courtesy: The Pioneer

With the South Korea-Japan spat escalating, it is unlikely that the US can play a mediatory role. The fallout of such dispute will affect the world economy

At a time when both Japan and South Korea are expected to cooperate in addressing multiple economic and strategic challenges in the East Asian region, they are embroiled in a serious trade dispute, which threatens to escalate and even spill into other areas like security and regional supply chain.

That the bilateral relations between the two have long been plagued by historical and territorial issues is well-known. But this time around, it is not the usual historical wrangle but a more serious and substantive trade dispute that poses a challenge to their ties. The current issue, which has created a serious diplomatic row between the two, relates to the action taken by Japan to put restrictions on its supply of semiconductor manufacturing materials to South Korea.

On July 4, Japan started implementing a new policy of restricting its supply of three critical materials involved in the manufacture of semiconductors — photoresist, etching gas and fluorinated polyimides — to South Korea. Restrictions on more such sensitive materials are expected to follow once the policy gets into full swing. Under this policy, Japanese companies supplying these materials to South Korea will have to seek the Government’s approval for each contract — a cumbersome process that would take at least 90 days for clearance.

For a long time, South Korea has enjoyed a preferential treatment in the supply of these sensitive materials, which contributed to Korean companies like the Samsung Electronics and SK Hynix among others, to emerge as giants in the semiconductor field. Today, they make nearly two-thirds of the world’s memory chips, which are used in a wide range of products from smart phones to cars. If these companies go out of their stockpiles, it will cause serious disruption to the global semiconductor production.

On August 2, the Japanese Government followed up on its earlier action by removing South Korea from the “white list” of 27 countries, which enjoyed preferential treatment in the supply of sensitive materials from Japan. South Korea is the only Asian country which joined the list in 2004. The latest action of the Japanese Government will come into force by August 28 and is regarded as a serious threat to the Korean companies.

Expectedly, this has provoked sharp reaction from Seoul, which considers the Japanese action as politically motivated. Many in South Korea perceive it as a retaliation to the recent Korean court ruling, asking Japanese companies like Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Nippon Steel and Sumitomo to pay compensation to Korean workers, who were not paid for their labour during the Japanese colonial period.

Japan strongly protested the court’s ruling  on the ground that this would undermine the very basis of the post-war bilateral relations. The Japanese Government further clarified that both countries had already settled all war-time labour disputes under the 1965 — $500 million was paid to South Korea in aid and loans at the time — Japan-South Korea normalisation treaty. Japanese leaders fear that the court’s verdict could open the floodgates of never-ending claims for compensation from different quarters.

But inside South Korea, the court’s verdict enjoys considerable support, particularly among the younger generation. There are even voices that doubt the legitimacy of the 1965 Treaty itself, which they claim was signed by a military dictator, Park Chung-hee.

The issue has already created a complex diplomatic row between the two countries. Basically, Japan has clarified that its measures to curb the export of the three materials are closely connected with regional security concerns as it doubts the effectiveness of the monitoring mechanisms of South Korea. It alleged that some of the sensitive technologies have reached North Korea, thereby raising serious security concerns.

But the same has been denied by the South Korean Government, which has given evidence to prove how Seoul has tightened its vigilance against any illegal diversion of these sensitive materials to North Korea. South Korean President Moon Jae-in has himself taken the position that Tokyo’s restrictive measures run “counter to the history of the development of bilateral ties” and called for their immediate halt.

Warning that these measures would be counterproductive as they would ultimately “cause great damage to the Japanese economy itself”, apart from “destroying the framework of South Korea-Japan economic cooperation accumulated over half a century”, he also complained that Japan’s action would “cripple the global supply chain and wreak havoc on the global economy.”

Anti-Japanese sentiments have quickly picked momentum in South Korea, resulting in the boycott of Japanese products, temporary closure of many Japanese business establishments, decline in the number of Korean tourists to Japan and cancellation of many private air services to Japan.

Undoubtedly, bilateral relations have now sunk to the lowest level since 1965 and to stem the further decline, it is necessary for a friend outside power like the US to intervene and mediate. One would like to recall the mediatory role played by the then-President Barack Obama in 2014 at The Hague, in a bid to reduce tensions between the two countries. But current US President Donald Trump is different from Obama and he does not inspire the same degree of trust and confidence as his predecessor did.

Nevertheless, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo met the Foreign Ministers of Japan and South Korea together in a bid to reduce bilateral tensions and to urge them to accept a “standstill agreement” to gain time to find a “pathway for dialogue.”

Analysts doubt the ability of   Washington to play any mediatory role given Trump’s strong push for “America First”, his transactional approach to South Korea and Japan on security issues, his obsessive anti-China postures and unsuccessful bid to denuclearise North Korea.

With no prospects of any truce in the escalating trade friction, more Japanese exports regulations will come into force from August 28 and they could virtually restrict any product on national security grounds to South Korea.

Faced with such a grim situation, the South Korean Government seems to be in a mood to take counter-measures against Japan.

First, it may consider terminating a military intelligence-sharing pact, which is coming up for renewal by the end of this month. But the US is very much interested in its renewal and it remains to be seen whether it can persuade Seoul to renew.

Second, Seoul is also thinking of removing Japan from its own “white list” of countries that receive preferential treatment on trade and will

proceed to file a formal complaint with the World Trade Organisation (WTO).

Third, Seoul has already informed Japan that it may not consider it as a “friendly” nation for ignoring along “history of cooperative relations.”

(The writer is a distinguished fellow at the Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi. Earlier, he was a professor of Japanese Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi)

Writer: KV Kesavan

Courtesy: The Pioneer

It’s unfortunate that leaders choose to ignore the truth or deliberately serve the interests of lobbies who want to maximise profits without regard for the future impact of climate change

The UK has been quite unique as a developed nation, having enacted the country’s Climate Change Act in 2008. According to the Committee on Climate Change, a statutory independent body, by 2017 its greenhouse emissions were 43 per cent below 1990 levels while the economy grew by two-thirds over the same period. The Act calls for the UK to reduce these emissions by at least 80 per cent by 2050, compared to 1990 levels. The remarkable aspect of this Act is that it cuts across party lines and binds the country to a set of measures enacted by Parliament. But, of course, much more needs to be done now to ensure that human society does not allow the earth’s temperatures to exceed 1.5°C by the end of this century.

Meanwhile, according to meteorological information, the year 2019 has already crossed previous limits and is heading towards becoming the hottest year on record. At the same time, all across the world, there are extreme events ranging from heat waves to extreme precipitation events, which have increased in frequency and intensity. This year there were also reports that a widespread area in the Arctic had raging fires right from Siberia to Alaska.

The Arctic region, according to the Fourth Assessment Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published in 2007, estimated that the Arctic region was warming at twice the rate of the rest of the globe. The extreme heat this year and in earlier periods is also melting the Greenland ice sheet at a rapid rate, which would enhance sea level rise dangerously. Drastic measures are required to curb greenhouse gas emissions and these include lifestyle changes as well.

It is questionable whether the new Prime Minister of Britain, Boris Johnson, is truly committed to action on climate change and certainly, he is not likely to make any lifestyle changes himself or motivate others in the UK to do so. This writer had addressed a gathering of professionals in London in 2008, where he clearly highlighted the need for reducing meat consumption, based on his plea, “Please eat less meat, because you would be healthier and so would the planet.” The UK beef industry, of course, was very critical of this appeal but surprisingly, so was the current Prime Minister of Britain, who was then the Mayor of London.  He wrote an op-ed piece in the Daily Telegraph on September 9, 2008, which while ridiculing advice to cut down on meat consumption, wrote the following.

“No, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, distinguished chairman of the panel, I am not going to have one meat-free day per week. No, I am not going to become a gradual vegetarian. In fact, the whole proposition is so irritating that I am almost minded to eat more meat in response.

Every weekend, rain or shine, I suggest that we flaunt our defiance of UN dietary recommendations with a series of vast Homeric barbecues.”

Johnson ignores the fact that the IPCC makes no recommendations. Its assessments are policy-relevant but not policy prescriptive. He states further, “We are going to have carnivorous festivals of chops and sausages and burgers and chitterlings and chine and offal, and the fat will run down our chins, and the dripping will blaze on the charcoal, and the smoky vapours will rise to the heavens.

We will call these meat feasts Pachauri days, in satirical homage to the tofu-chomping UN man who told the human race to go veggie.”

There is considerable speculation in the British media on whether Johnson’s live-in partner Carrie Symonds might actually be able to influence his position on climate change, perhaps with some changes in lifestyle as well and possibly have him forego the excessive craving for meat feasts, which he had referred to as Pachauri days.

While one can be amused with Johnson’s humour, it would be unfortunate if the Prime Minister of a country as important as the UK, and which has had the vision of enacting its climate change law, sticks to his old position. Who knows, perhaps he has actually reduced his meat consumption because he certainly seems trimmer than was the case when he was the Mayor of London. It may be that Symonds will be a productive influence on the man who is now the British Prime Minister and, thus, send a message to the public in that nation.

Johnson in his article also stated, “Man is an omnivore, culturally and probably biologically programmed to take protein from meat; and those meat animals must be farmed.” The meat industry undoubtedly was thrilled with this view.  Sadly, Johnson obviously has not realised that the entire global meat cycle is very intensive in the use of energy, right up to the stage where households store meat in their refrigerators. 

Added to that is the clearing of forests as pastureland, such as with the Amazon rainforest, and providing CO2 intensive feed material produced in larger and larger quantities for livestock. An IPCC report just released provides a stark warning of land just not being available on planet earth if we consume meat at current levels. This report establishes the escalating conflict between meat production and other more essential uses of land.

Sadly, the current President of Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro, who subscribes to US President Donald Trump’s and Johnson’s views, has recently sacked the head of the National Institute for Space Research, which has been monitoring deforestation in the Amazon region. After Bolsonaro’s assumption of office, deforestation in June was estimated by this organisation as 88 per cent higher than the same period last year.

It is unfortunate that leaders of major countries choose to ignore the truth or deliberately serve the interests of lobbies, who just want to maximise their profits without regard to the future impacts of climate change.

This mental inertia has to be overcome through public consciousness and grassroots action, as has been the case in several countries of the world. It is the youth of the world who now need to take the lead and implement actions to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases, which are responsible for human-induced climate change.  

Fortunately, this is now gaining momentum with the efforts of Greta Thunberg, the 16-year-old Swedish activist, and the Protect Our Planet (POP) movement being implemented in several countries. But when do we get leaders with a conscience and those who care about our future?

(The writer is former chairman, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2002-15)

Writer: RK Pachauri

Courtesy: The Pioneer

With Article 370 being revoked, the writing on the wall is clear: The Government is discarding old guard in the State and building a new leadership at the grassroot level

Think Kashmir without the families of Raja Hari Singh, Sheikh Abdullah, Mufti Mohammad Sayeed in today’s context and delete Jawaharlal Nehru and MA Jinnah’s personal love for the place; surely, the political landscape of the State would have been completely different.  It is axiomatic that Jammu & Kashmir became independent as soon as it was released from its allegiance to the British crown under the Indian Independence Act. The Maharaja of Jammu & Kashmir became the repository of all power under this Act, which created the two dominions of India and Pakistan. He was free to decide whether he would accede to any one of the two dominions.

Meanwhile, Jinnah visualised Kashmir as part of Pakistan and dreamt of bracing its climate and Mughal Gardens as the Governor-General of Pakistan. He thought it was almost in his pocket: Whether it came to him willingly or was taken by force was immaterial. The British had promised it to him: It was a majority Muslim area and it had no approach to India except through Pakistan. Being sure of his ground, Jinnah first made an approach to the Maharaja for accession of the State to Pakistan in a very persuasive and friendly manner. In fact, he lured the then Prime Minister of Kashmir, Ram Chandra Kak, to bring Kashmir to Pakistan. But the Maharaja remained firm on the ground that either the State would enjoy independent status or it would emerge with the Indian dominion.

As far as India was concerned, it was indifferent on the subject, though it would have been happy if Kashmir had acceded to India. Mahatma Gandhi visited Kashmir before August 15, 1947, to persuade the Maharaja to accede to India but he remained non-committal. If the Maharaja had decided to accede to India or to Pakistan before August 15, 1947, much of the trouble and bitterness may well have been avoided. But he was toying with the idea of independence and was relying on his Dogra forces to achieve this end. However, he was completely averse to the idea of acceding to Pakistan as it would have involved the complete destruction of the Hindu population of the State and seizure of all that they had, including abduction of women. Meanwhile, Sheikh Abdullah along with his deputy, Bakshi, took over the leadership of the National Conference (NC) as it was the only political party of the State. NC leaders were favorable to the State’s accession to India. The Maharaja felt that there was no option for him but to accede to India. However, India continued maintaining an indifferent approach towards Kashmir. Mahatma Gandhi and Sardar Patel preferred the situation where Kashmir accession must come voluntarily to India. Being a liberal democrat, Pandit Nehru was keen on the Maharaja handing over the power to Sheikh Abdullah than about accession. In his view, once the State administration had gone to popular hands, the question of accession could be appropriately discussed with the popular Government.

The biggest hurdle to resolving the Kashmir issue has been the business of “plebiscite”, which Pakistan as well as other India-baiters, including the so-called liberals, has often raised. The origin of that apprehension can be traced to the letter of October 27, 1947, which Lord Mountbatten wrote to Maharaja Hari Singh after the latter had signed his acceptance on the Instrument of Accession on October 26, 1947. That letter of Mountbatten was personal and it was in reply to the Maharaja’s letter of October 26, stating that “’a grave emergency” had arisen in his State and acknowledging that the Indian dominion “cannot send the help asked for” without his State acceding to India. Accordingly, on October 26, the Maharaja attached the Instrument of Accession for acceptance. In his letter, Mountbatten wrote, “…my Government has decided to accept the accession of Kashmir State to the dominion of India. In consistence with their policy that in the case of any State, where the issue of accession has been the subject of dispute, the question of accession should be decided in accordance with the wishes of the people of the State. It is my Government’s wish that as soon as law and order have been restored in Kashmir and its soil cleared of the invader, the question of the State’s accession should be settled by a reference to the people.” This statement of Mountbatten was to evoke an almost violent reaction from MC Mahajan, who was the then Prime minister of Kashmir and later became the Chief Justice of India.

In his Accession of Kashmir to India (The Inside Story), the learned judge wrote: “The Indian Independence Act did not envisage conditional accession. It could not envisage such a situation as it would be outside the Parliament’s policy. It wanted to keep no Indian State in a state of suspense. It conferred on the rulers of the Indian States absolute power in their discretion to accede to either of the two dominions. The dominion’s Governor General had the power to accept the accession or reject the offer, but he had no power to keep the question open or attach conditions to it.” What is also not in dispute is the Himalayan bungle created by Nehru’s Government of the time. On January 27, 1948, India and Pakistan submitted a draft proposal to the president of the United Nations Security Council on the appropriate methods of solving the Kashmir dispute. According to the Security Council verbatim reports cited by Justice Anand, the Indian representative on the floor of the Security Council made it appear that the final status of Kashmir was to be determined by plebiscite although the legal nature of Kashmir’s accession was the foundation of India’s case.

Years later, the problem in Kashmir is often represented primarily as a matter between India and Pakistan and framed around the issues of the legitimacy of Kashmir’s accession to India during independence. But this is not the problem today as circumstances since the accession have changed such that insurgency is now largely fuelled by an increasingly hardliner Pakistan state. The ethnic and religious diversity in Jammu & Kashmir, which is divided into three regions, has contributed to the complexity of the Kashmir problem.

The current violence cycle of the insurgency was started in late 1980s — it began as an ethnic issue. However, over the years, insurgency has been carefully and deliberately cultivated into a religious one. This created an environment of intolerance, intimidation and ultimately, violence throughout the Valley that only exasperated other existing tensions: A situation that led to the exodus of the Kashmiri Hindu pandits from the region. With Prime Minister Narendra Modi securing a majority in the second term and Union Home Minister Amit Shah at the helm of affairs, the Central Government will now take on the Kashmir issue much more assertively than it did in its first term.

One of the key shifts in the new Government’s approach to Kashmir is that while prior to May 2019, the focus was on dealing with the separatists with an iron hand, the focus now is to make the Kashmiri separatist and dynast leaders irrelevant altogether. National Security  Advisor Ajit Doval has pushed for a muscular policy in dealing with the present crisis in the Valley with fair success but India was missing a bold Home Minister in Modi 1.0 to translate Doval’s initiative at the legislative platform. Shah has bridged this gap with Modi 2.0 leading to appropriate legislation in the Parliament to address the Kashmir issue, seeking permanent solution from an Indian perspective. 

On the domestic front, the first part of the policy involves scaling up military action against terrorists in Kashmir. The second part of this policy involves the relentless pursuit of individuals and outfits, who claim to be self-styled representatives of the Kashmiri Muslims and support radicalism — directly or indirectly. No one will be spared, no matter how much influential. The National Investigation Agency has already seized assets worth Rs 1,400 crore and has launched an investigation in 21 cases. The Central Board of Direct Taxes and the Enforcement Directorate are working overtime in the State, identifying, tracking and shutting down all means to fund terrorist activities. A massive crackdown on the Jamaat-e-Islami has begun. The outfit has a strong influence in south Kashmir and is largely held responsible for turning the four districts in the region into a hub for terrorism. This crackdown is going to get stronger in the days to come until the outfit is made completely redundant. Similarly, tougher action is being taken against separatists, not just cosmetic ones. Many leaders have been shifted to prisons outside Srinagar so that the Valley does not come under their influence. 

The writing on the wall is clear: Narendra Modi and Shah are discarding the old guard in the State and building a new leadership from the grassroot. The abrogation of Article 370 and 35A shall facilitate larger integration of Jammu & Kashmir with the rest of the country. As India is marching ahead towards becoming a $5 trillion economy, policy-makers must not exclude Jammu & Kashmir State from the fruits of development just to please a few feudal families threatening the State of India of false repercussions. Jammu & Kashmir has been a victim of protecting the rights of a few political families rather than the people and then one of the tallest Indian leader Syama Prasad Mukherjee has correctly predicted in 1952 that the Indian State must abandon Prince and Czars of Kashmir to let it freely integrate with the Union of India to blossom in a prosperous integrated society. The historic decision to abrogate Article 370 and re-organisation of the State by the Modi Government shall facilitate faster development of the State with the nation.        

(The writer is a regular columnist with The Pioneer and Editor-in-chief of Opinion Express)

Writer: Prashant Tewari

Courtesy: The Pioneer

China’s restrictive ways are only magnifying the pro-democracy movement and costing the economy

It seems discussions and contraventions around “special status” have even thrown civilian life completely out of gear in Hong Kong, as pro-democracy activists continue to make their point despite crackdowns and teargas fury. Things have come to such a pass that around 100 flights have been stopped in and out of the semi-autonomous southern Chinese city. Triggered by opposition to an extradition law to mainland China — that was subsequently put on hold — the stir has snowballed into a wider movement for democratic reforms and autonomy as mandated by its historical special status. And given the size of Hong Kong’s economy and global vibe, even China cannot overlook the opposition in its stressed times. A British colony for more than 150 years, China also leased the rest of Hong Kong to the British for 99 years. It became a busy trading port, and post-1950s became quite the economic powerhouse. Over time, it became an island of opportunity, attracting migrants and dissidents who fled persecution in the mainland. And though China ensured a return of Hong Kong to itself in 1997,  it was under the conditional principle of “one country, two systems.” So, apart from foreign and defence affairs, Hong Kong is empowered to develop its own legal system, borders and rights, including the ones on free speech and peaceful protests. But with the heaving approach of Premier Xi Jinping’s “China first” mantra, there have been insidious ways of meddling in Hong Kong and muzzling pro-democracy legislators. Its Legislative Council has been defanged as most members aren’t chosen directly by Hong Kong voters and are pro-mainland.

These frictions have been building up over time and the extradition order was just the last straw on the camel’s back. The restlessness is now a galloping civil movement, spearheaded by the young, who want an identity and a life independent of the oppressive idea of being a “global Chinese.” China cannot steamroll this movement any longer and risk further negativity or renewed demand for full independence. And though it is wondering how far should it endure before kicking in with familiar ways, it knows that bottling gaps may lead to a bigger pipe bursts of anger. Besides, could it risk its business interests in the world’s most expensive piece of real estate and trading volumes? Technically, Hong Kong’s special status ends in 2047. But can China hold out with its belligerence till then without addressing political demands of its people to have a say about their lives?

Writer & Courtesy: The Pioneer

Politically expedient, may be, but the effect Article 370 repeal will have on Kashmiris’ cultural identity could be devastating

Righting historical wrongs may sometimes be a desirable political objective but may not necessarily be prudent. In many cases, if settled issues are meddled with or, to put it colloquially, sleeping dogs are disturbed from slumber, consequences can be serious. Jammu and Kashmir seems headed in that unfortunate direction following Monday’s dramatic announcements revoking Article 370 and 35A along with the bifurcation of the erstwhile State, now reconstituted as two Union Territories, one with and the other without an elected Assembly. The insertion of Article 370 in the Constitution, granting Special Status to Jammu and Kashmir following its merger with India in the aftermath of the Partition in 1947, was in itself a flawed decision prompted by Jawaharlal Nehru’s soft corner for his ancestral homeland. For many years J&K stayed cut off completely from the rest of India, so much so that Indian nationals required a permit to cross the Tawi river. This resulted in Jana Sangh founder Syama Prasad Mukherjee’s forced entry, arrest by Sheikh Abdullah’s police and controversial death in custody. Other draconian provisions of the Article included the ban on non-State subjects from acquiring property and even daughters inheriting parental property if they married non-subjects of the State. In fact, many other progressive Central legislations, too, were not operational as every Indian law had to be ratified by the State Assembly. The existence of a separate State flag, a separate Constitution and the executive head of the State being designated Wazir-e-Azam (Prime Minister), were sore points with a vast majority of Indians resenting the “special favours” doled out by the Centre, including subsidised rations to the State’s residents. But the Centre, too, did little to bridge the alienation in India’s only Muslim-majority State. Most elections in the decades after the merger were widely perceived as rigged, in which electoral participation was abysmally low and Chief Ministers without a popular support base were regularly imposed and toppled at will. Gradually, New Delhi whittled down the State’s pre-1953 autonomy, giving fillip to separatist sentiment long before full-fledged Pakistan-sponsored terrorism erupted in 1989 following the abduction of Rubaiya, daughter of then Union Home Minister Mufti Mohammad Sayeed. Matters reached a point of no return after the ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Pandits from the Valley, who had to live in abject misery elsewhere — refugees in their own land. With Pakistan routinely upping the ante by promoting both cross-border terrorism and supporting home-grown religious militancy, India’s patience was running thin.

Having said that, it must be emphasised that not all Kashmiris had turned hostile to India. The democratic political process was running effectively despite periodic hiccups and even voters’ participation in the three-tier electoral system was rising at every passing polls. The mainstream leaders of all parts of the State averred their faith in the Indian system, including its secular, democratic Constitution whose values are in sharp contrast to those extolled by pro-Pakistani separatists. The abrogation of Article 370 may have been a long-standing commitment of the ruling BJP but the effect it will have on Kashmiris’ perceived cultural identity could be devastating. Separatists are certain to hype up their slogan of the Indian Army being an “army of occupation” which has “colonised” the State. Few voices from  the Valley are likely to back New Delhi’s move although residents of Ladakh seeking separation from the Valley for a long time are likely to welcome the bifurcation move. Apart from hard-core ultra-nationalists, many others in the rest of India may view the timing of the measure as political muscle-flexing in the face of severe reverses facing the economy. It will be alleged that the knee-jerk moves were propelled by the Union Government’s attempt to induce public amnesia to counter its pathetic failure to handle the economic downturn and the drastic loss of employment opportunities. The country is anticipated to face a bout of international criticism too for curbing democratic freedoms in the erstwhile State. The likely negative fallout of these measures on communal harmony in the country cannot be overlooked. Kashmir may have been Nehru’s blunder as the BJP claims. But undoing it 70 years later is not a sign of maturity, especially as it may spark widespread discontent and even greater alienation in the picturesque Kashmir Valley. No poet hereafter may write poignant lines such as:

Agar bar-ruyi zamin ast, u hamin ast, hamin ast, u hamin ast

(If there be a heaven on Earth, it is this, it is this, it is this)

Writer & Courtesy: The Pioneer

With a massive security build-up and unprecedented fear psychosis, civil engagement in the Valley is under threat

Before we address the cloud of apprehension over Kashmir, courtesy the unprecedented security cover, the bigger question is whether the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)  is being pragmatic or wise enough to push a tunnel vision project pursuant to its party agenda at this point over other issues that perhaps need more intense an intervention. While everybody understands how Prime Minister Narendra Modi feels about the Valley, having been a party in-charge of Jammu and Kashmir in the past, and is keen to de-radicalise it internally and be seen as an architect of its political destiny, the ho and hum around that effort is certainly not convincing enough. If anything else, it is ending up drawing attention in the wrong places and strengthening policy stereotypes than breakthroughs. Nobody is discounting the security threat that looms large over the Amarnath yatra or that a post-Balakot Pakistan won’t let up. But the yatra itself has never been called off in the worst years of militancy. Nor an emergency situation created whereby 11,000 tourists, including foreigners, are being evacuated from a State that depends a lot on the tourist economy. That, too, with war-like hyper drills of rationing goods. Isn’t crippling services and everyday life more provocative than reassuring? This, compounded by speculation and a massive security build-up, only leads to an atmosphere of fear and doubt, particularly when it comes so soon after Governor Satyapal Malik’s advocacy of grassroots governance through panchayats or talks with Hurriyat leaders. Unless this blow-hot-blow-cold approach is some sort of mind game. Either way, with a civil society that has long drifted away, the fog of alienation and insecurity is not good for either side and undercuts any gains made. Also, wittingly or unwittingly, it has drawn the international gaze, too, to what is clearly a created chaos or a confrontational context for justifying any intended action. Ostensibly, there has been a seizure of Pakistani-origin weapons and intelligence input of an attack. And despite the aggressive stance of Home Minister Amit Shah on Article 370 in Parliament, the fact is he is well within rights to maintain law and order and curtail threat perception in conflict-riddled areas. But will brute force or naming individual people as terrorists under the new UAPA (Unlawful Activities [Prevention] Amendment) Bill really reset the contours of Kashmir’s eco-system? The clampdowns on school teachers from across the state and others suspected of “militancy-related” activities have already diminished the scope of civil engagement.

What is left to crack down considering even the Hurriyat is now a spent force? A muscular squeeze on terror financing has ensured a weakening of Pakistani conduits, even charities. Yet worryingly, the last few years have seen local youth supporting terrorism and even participating in it. South Kashmir is still caught in the vortex of violence. And if the heavily supervised Lok Sabha election in sensitive areas and low percentages are anything to go by, then democratic participation is a long call. In this supercharged atmosphere, the fears of abrogation of Article 35 A or Article 370 are now being attributed as the sole intention, further leading to a sense of detachment and anger. In these days of information superhighways and the wayward traffic of dialogue in them, radio silence does no good. A build-up, clearly meant to induce a fear psychosis, automatically fuels the expectation of retributive approach. Kashmir is not alien to security presence and a stronger-arm approach can do little to dent its status. If anything it only entrenches rigidities. Some are wondering if this is part of a great plan consistent with the BJP’s aim of hoisting the tricolour in every panchayat this Independence Day, an attempt at galvanising its workers who ensured success at the local body polls. But that inroad has to be made through negotiation, reconciliation and a semblance of trust. Any ramrod approach now may even tear this delicate fabric. Besides, with all the intermediary filters and interlocutors out of place, it might be very difficult for the government to engage with people who may come out on the streets en masse for a bloody showdown.

Writer & Courtesy: The Pioneer

Although Nigeria presidency has claimed that Boko Haram’s 10-year-old insurgency has been ‘defeated’, the brazen way the group’s terrorists attacked and looted a village in Jakana town of Konduga local government area last week, it seems the Islamist group poses a growing threat to peaceful life in Nigeria

Boko Haram, Nigeria’s deadliest Islamist group, completed a decade of ghastly terror activities in July. As Boko Haram’s terror campaign has left 30,000 people dead and another two million internally displaced, the most populous country of the African continent has miserably failed to stop the marauding monster.

The Islamist group, based in Nigeria’s North-East, was founded in Maiduguri in 2002 by Mohammed Yusuf, a popular Islamic cleric from the country’s Borno State. An offshoot of the Salafi Movement, Boko Haram’s overarching goal is to set up a fundamentalist Islamic regime in Nigeria, with Sharia criminal courts. Boko Haram followers, known as Yusuffiya (after the name of its founder), are mainly composed of northern Islamic students, scholars and unemployed professionals. It was officially known as the “Association of the Sunnis for the propagation of Islam and for the Jehad”, but it is popularly known as Boko Haram meaning, “Western education is abomination or forbidden”.

In its formative years, Yusuf criticised the northerners, specially the Muslims, for supporting what he widely regarded as the non-Islamic and illegitimate Government. The group started radicalisation amid widespread clashes between the Muslims and the Christians in the country. What drew many towards Yusuf’s fold was harsher tactics adopted by the Nigerian military towards suspected militants in the North-East. In 2009, when Yusuf was murdered in police custody, the movement turned into a full-scale armed struggle against the Government in the region. After Yusuf’s death, Abubakar Shekau took up the reins of the main faction and vowed to fight the Nigerian Government. The other faction is led by Yusuf’s son Abu Musab al-Barnawi. Boko Haram had in 2015 declared its allegiance to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), rechristening itself as the Islamic State of West Africa Province.

While rediscovering the roots of Boko Haram, one can easily conclude that the centre of its struggle lies in poverty, corruption, and a very strong sense of localism and religion.

Booming commercial capital “Lagos” can’t offer a solution to the resource-rich nation afflicted with great economic inequality across the nation. In the north of Nigeria, more than 70 per cent of the people live in poverty as compared to 27 per cent in the south and nearly 34 per cent in the Niger Delta. As per Goldman report, Nigeria is a very big and diverse country which has a particular source of wealth that has benefited some areas more than others. The north has been left behind and is more impoverished.

In April 2019, Africa’s richest man Alhaji Aliko Dangote, while speaking at the Kaduna Investment Summit (KadInvest 4.0) in Kaduna (north-western Nigeria), expressed concern over the underdevelopment of Northern Nigeria, especially north-west and North-East part of the country. To him, Northern Nigeria will continue to remain poor unless Nigeria’s provincial Governments collaborate with the private sector to create investments and bridge development gaps in the region. 19 northern States which account for over 54 per cent of Nigeria’s population and 70 per cent of its landmass collectively generated only 21 per cent of the total sub-national Internally Generated Revenue in 2017. Therefore it is required that the regional Governments along with the central Government must create conducive environment to attract massive capital inflow to that part of the country so as to generate employment and charter a route for faster development.

Historical trend indicates that the north region had enjoyed the fruits of Islamic civilisation for centuries. But by 19th century, the Sultanates of the region succumbed to jehad by Shehu Usuman Dan Fodio. Eventually, he created a unified caliphate that became the biggest pre-colonial state in Africa. And it consisted of swaths of what is today known as Northern Nigeria, Niger and Southern Cameroon. The irony is that though the regime imposed a strict interpretation of Islam, it is open for a culture of poetry and scholarship.

The current jehad launched by the followers of Yusuf is an example of a sort of religious rebellion in Northern Nigeria. At the same time, Nigeria is roughly divided into Muslim-dominated North and Christian-dominated South. Even for decades, both the major groups have made an informal arrangement of abiding by a system of rotational presidency. But political friction between the two remains at the centre of this conflict in the North-East. Further, Nigeria’s entrenched political corruption and vivid socio-economic inequality have also contributed to the rise of this malaise in the region. Thus, Boko Haram is not a cause, but it is an impact of long-festering extremist impulses that reflects in the socio-economic realities of this neglected States of the North-East.

In fact, Alexander Thurston in a seminal work, written in 2017 (Boko Haram: The History of an African Jihadist Movement, Princeton University Press), highlighted that “Boko Haram represents an ugly paradox: its ideas have limited appeal, but significant staying power. The group can be crushed militarily, yet State violence fuels its narrative of victimhood”.

Since, 2002, the radical movement spread more terror, and established almost an institutionalised structure through which it has been continuously fighting the Nigerian state. Further it has become a serious risk for bordering nations around Nigeria. Over the years, it has fuelled instability across the Lake Chad Basin. Besides displacing millions, Boko Haram has pushed these vulnerable people into starvation, and jeopardised some of the basic human rights such as education and most importantly, the health care. And, this mess has fast led to the stalling of global aid activities and cutting of federal Government services to many of the areas wherein the group is active. Due to the presence and macabre style of operation of these Islamists, gradually many of the international investors backed away, indicating more trouble for the North, despite Abuja’s constant military intervention against the group.

The Nigerian security forces have made considerable gains against the insurgent group, with the help of neighbouring countries such as Cameroon, Chad and Niger. These nations along with the Nigerian security forces have formed a multi-national force, as authorised by the African Union in 2015, to stamp out the rebels of Boko Haram. The coalition forces have been able to help the Nigerian military to retake much of the areas controlled by rebels and reduced violence to what was seen before 2014. Back in 2013, the US Administration had designated Boko Haram as a terror organisation, but at times Washington has suspended military assistance out of concern over Nigeria’s alleged human rights abuses and counterterrorism strategy. But following the abduction of Chibok girls and uproar over the issue worldwide, the UK, France and the US pledged additional assistance, including intelligence for Nigeria. By early 2018, US President Donald Trump sealed a deal worth $600 million to sell a dozen Super Tucano aircraft to Nigeria to support its massive counterterrorism efforts. When it comes to the UN, its Security Council imposed economic sanctions and an armed embargo over Boko Haram way back in 2014. Critics say that this move of the top global body is simply symbolic as the financial transactions and movements of the insurgents are extremely difficult to track at any time. However, these efforts on the part of the international community and concerned developed nations, along with constant support from the African Union, may help Abuja to contain the expansion of the Islamists, if not rooting it out altogether.

Today, the problem at the heart of Boko Haram insurgency is that it is fast becoming a full-scale security challenge for the central government in North-East of Nigeria. The communities in the States of Borno, Adamawa and Yobe are still at loggerheads despite attenuation in violence propelled by Boko Haram in recent days. Nigerians in general, and those in North-East in particular, must be cognizant of this entrapment and end this internecine war. It is simply deepening the crisis, pushing the impoverished region to the brink of a permanent boiling point.

(The writer is an expert on international affairs)

Writer: Makhan Saikia

Courtesy: The Pioneer