Rajdhani, which recently turned 50, has established itself as a premium brand. But what made it more accessible was its redesigning 25 years ago

The Rajdhani Express, running between New Delhi and Howrah,  recently completed 50 years in service. But it is no longer the same train that was introduced on March 1, 1969 as 101 Up and 102 Dn between New Delhi and Howrah. It has become a brand and proliferated on a number of routes connecting different state capitals with New Delhi. Its current avatar reflects the socio-economic and mental transformation of the Indian society as much as the technological evolution of the Indian Railways.

The time taken to travel between New Delhi and Howrah has remained more or less the same though. It was 17 hours and 20 minutes in 1969, when the train ran at a maximum speed of 115 km per hour. It is in the vicinity of 17 hours now (unless one gets trapped for an extra hour between Ghaziabad and Delhi as is often the case) running at a maximum of 120 km per hour. But way back then, the engine could haul only five coaches to meet that speed requirement. Out of the five, only one was the AC Sleeper Car having 18 berths while the remaining four were AC Chair Car compartments, each having 71 chairs. The fares of two categories were as different as Rs 280 and Rs 90. But it was still able to find 96 per cent occupancy within three years.

Chair cars are not conducive for long and overnight journeys. But few complained about it for auxiliary advantages that the Rajdhani Express entailed like end-to-end air conditioning, great speed, complimentary quality food, books and magazines and excellent upkeep. It was like a flight on the rails. Only one had to endure it for 17 hours too long. But chair cars were not intentional on the part of the Indian Railways. Just that in those days, it was not possible to manufacture coaches having enough safety features to accommodate sleepers and simultaneously travel at such a high speed.

On May 17, 1972, the first Rajdhani Express between New Delhi and Bombay Central was introduced. Since both New Delhi-Howrah and New Delhi-Bombay ran twice a week, both trains were oversubscribed. For a long time, there was a demand to increase the accommodating capacity by adding coaches, increasing the frequency of trains and introducing Rajdhani Expresses on new routes. These demands pointed towards the growing clout of the Rajdhani brand. By the 1980s, Indian Railways was reportedly developing high speed coaches. But high speed locomotives were still not there. Thus  on April 1, 1981, when another AC Chair Car coach (in view of increased demand) was added on the New Delhi-Bombay Central route, authorities conceded that the speed would be reduced, which could be compensated by putting an additional locomotive.

Since the mid-1980s, powerful locomotives took over gradually. The Express hauled no less than 16 habitable coaches without suffering retardation in speed.  Madhav Rao Scindia, Rajiv Gandhi’s Railway Minister, is considered one of the best ever. Under him, the railway locomotion, dominated by steam engines until the middle of the 1980s, gave way to diesel engines. But it was a barren period as far as Rajdhani Express was concerned. There were clamouring voices in Parliament to introduce Rajdhani Express to Madras (now Chennai), Secunderabad and Bangalore which he sternly rejected. He rather introduced the Shatabdi Express in 1988, which ran faster than the Rajdhani but for a lesser distance without the need for an overnight journey.

But a new phase opened up in the early 1990s, when C.K. Jaffer Sharief became the Railway Minister. Sharief, perhaps being from Karnataka, treated those voices from the South with sympathy. In his first railway budget on February 25, 1992, he announced weekly Rajdhani Expresses from New Delhi to Secunderabad and Bangalore respectively. Based on passengers’ response, he even announced that new Rajdhani services would be introduced on the Madras and Thiruvananthapuram routes. In 1993, a weekly Rajdhani Express was started from Hazrat Nizamuddin to Madras. Simultaneously, both the original Rajdhani Expresses to Howrah and Bombay Central respectively became a daily phenomenon.

Sharief was somehow determined to play Santa Claus with the Rajdhani Express. By the end of his term in 1996, the premium train was operating on 11 different routes from New Delhi. He also took an important decision to replace the AC chair cars with AC 3-tier on all Rajdhani Expresses. The bedrolls were to be supplied by the Indian Railways. This, however, had a cost to the customer, which was 25 per cent higher.

The AC 3-tier coaches (with 67 berths) manufactured at Railway Coach Factory at Kapurthala (estd.1986) around 1994 were innovative products that became extremely popular. By the end of 1996, they had been introduced on 46 trains, including 11 Rajdhani Express routes. It was a game-changer for the Indian Railways.

The advent of AC 3 tier, replacing the chair car, signified a reconceptualisation of the Rajdhani Express. It was the end of that elite train as one knew it for 25 years. It was now a “normal” super fast train where passengers could spend their nights sleeping rather than be seated. It was actually this feature that made the Rajdhani Express India’s favourite train whereas earlier it was just exotic. Today it is a brand among  long distance AC superfast trains. The demand for introducing the service on new routes is constantly heard in both houses of Parliament. In October 2017, the present government introduced a weekly service on the New Delhi-Agartala route, the longest distance covered by any Rajdhani Express. But at the same time the frequency of the New Delhi-Bhubaneswar Rajdhani via Bhadrak and Adra was reduced from thrice to twice a week as an alternate route was opened up through Sambalpur City.

With the introduction of dynamic pricing, a berth in Rajdhani Express could be dearer by 150 per cent than its notified price. But on the other hand the government is experimenting with cost-cutting measures that hit service quality. For instance, from last year, snacks and soups have been reduced or taken off from the menu. Is Rajdhani Express still evolving or scrambling?

(The writer is an independent researcher based in New Delhi. The views expressed herein are his personal)

Writer: Priyadarshi Dutta

Courtesy: The Pioneer

Developing economies, such India, are logging the highest consumption in spite of the fact that they are already suffering from poor monitoring and regulations. The country must revisit policies to avoid poisoning of our natural resources

The United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA), that got under way on March 11 in Nairobi, put the spotlight on the chemical production industry of the world and how it is set to severely undermine global environmental conditions. On the first day, the UNEA delivered a wake-up call to the world that the globally agreed target of minimising adverse impacts of chemicals and waste by 2020 is all set to be missed thanks to the rapid growth of the sector making it the world’s second largest manufacturing one. This does not bear good news for countries across the world and more so for fast-growing economies like India.

According to the Global Chemicals Outlook report, chemical production across the world will double by 2030. This clearly means that the countries must find ways in which this spiralling volume is controlled before the very same chemicals seep into our precious ecology and start impacting our food cycle and endanger our flora and fauna. Currently, the world has the capacity to produce 2.3 billion tonne chemicals and according to the World Health Organisation (WHO) estimates, already 1.6 million lives have been lost in 2016 due to diseases related to chemicals. With dangerous consequences such as these, it is high time that growing economies, particularly India, focus on replacing the chemicals with more eco-friendly alternatives.

The efforts in the direction of reining in the chemicals in our lives was initiated strongly in 2015 when the world collectively adopted the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) — seventeen of these goals relate to chemicals and waste management. In fact, SDG Target 12.4 specifically mandates that “by 2020, achieve environmentally-sound management of chemicals and all wastes throughout their life cycle, in accordance with agreed international frameworks, and significantly reduce their release to air, water and soil in order to minimise their adverse impacts on human health and the environment.” But given our intrinsic dependence on these chemicals and the almost lax regulations governing their production, usage and disposal, one cannot help but observe that the impact on our environment is going to be grave indeed.

To understand the very gravity of the issue, one must refer to the assessment by UNEP and the International Council of Chemical Associations in 2018, which showed that there were 40,000-60,000 chemicals being commercially used globally. And 6,000 of them account for 99 per cent of the total volume. Despite a global agreement reached at high-level UN conferences and significant action already taken, environmental scientists continue to express concern over the lack of progress towards the sound management of chemicals and waste. The laxity in the matter is evident by the abundant growth in the sector uninhibited by a meaningful control mechanism and framework.

To make matters worse as of 2018, more than 120 countries did not implement the globally harmonised system of classification and labelling of chemicals.

Against this background, the stark threats of chemical production and their use are too real and serious to be ignored. Moreover, statistics show that developing economies are logging the highest consumption of these chemicals in spite of the fact that these countries are already suffering from poor monitoring and regulations. How this can be allowed is too difficult to fathom.

The fact that chemical production and consumption are shifting to emerging economies, in particular China, is alarming to say the least. The Asia-Pacific region is projected to account for more than two-thirds of global sales by 2030. Cross-border e-commerce pertaining to the chemical industry is growing at 25 per cent annually. This is expected to fuel the growth which will be highest in Asia, with China estimated to account for almost 50 per cent of global chemical sales by 2030. These developments are taking place in total disregard for the international efforts to control the chemical industry.

India in particular has unique environmental conditions, which are already very much burdened by the expanding population and high air pollution levels. Given this, India cannot afford a chemical pollution fiasco and must set up stringent regulations that can control prevalence. The government must revisit the laws governing the production and disposal of chemicals in India. Focus must also be laid on how the by products of chemical production are handled without compromising the environment. India must also check the content of heavy metals in the various categories of chemicals as these eventually find their way into nature, especially ground water tables, and directly impact human health.

The chemical industry needs to turn over a new leaf and thanks to advancements in science and technology, developed countries across the world are now leaving harmful substances out of manufacturing. This is encouraging responsible production and accountable consumption. For this to take place in India the government must educate people about the ill effects of chemicals and highlight the role of naturefriendly alternatives. This alone can have a huge impact on saving the environment from a disastrous onslaught.

(The author is an environmental journalist)

Writer:  Kota Sriraj

Courtesy: The Pioneer

Measuring the Indian economy is challenging. But multiple surveys are emphasising a crisis in the job market

Which is the biggest problem that the next government that will take power by the end of May face? This is a multiple-choice question unfortunately. Will it be the precarious situation on the border with Pakistan? Will it be the massive trade deficit with China? Will it be the state of the Indian environment? Or the crisis in Indian agriculture? And lastly, could it be that of mass youth unemployment? No matter what happens in the elections and whosoever gets the hot seat, the next government will have its hands full the day it is sworn into office. The last two crises are the most pressing ones though, because they directly impact the mood of voters and are interlinked. The agrarian crisis is at a level born out of modern farming and food chains, which have made land more productive and subsistence farming even more marginal. As a result, more and more young people, the children of farmers and farm labourers, want to enter the workforce but find far too few jobs compatible with their skill set. At the same time, increasing levels of manufacturing and software automation are causing job numbers to shrink further.

While Opposition politicians will use these numbers as a stick to beat up their rivals in power, they should realise one important fact. This is not a crisis unique to India, youth unemployment is off the charts in many countries across the world, in developed and developing economies. Fixing this will not just take a national effort but a coordinated global push. And innovative new solutions will have to be found. For example, should a “Universal Basic Income”, like that initiated by Finland, be followed? The rationale is that if people know that they are getting a decent level of income, they can focus their energies on doing something creative and economically worthwhile. But the question arises whether India can afford such a scheme? The other crucial fact that is becoming increasingly clear in some of the job surveys that have been released is the fact that India’s higher education system is also broken. Many young men and women have qualifications but cannot get jobs, in no small part due to their qualifications not being worth the paper they are printed on. Poor language and social skills are the biggest problem of all. In many other parts of the world, such as in France, the issues around youth unemployment have driven thousands of people on to the streets. India has so far been spared mass protests and while election season will pass off peacefully, the fact is that by May-end India will have another batch of freshly-minted graduates with fancy degrees but with few jobs. How long can any government keep them off the streets? And the problem is menacing. India’s unemployment rate rose to 7.2 per cent last month, up from 5.9 per cent in February 2018, according to data compiled by CMIE.

Writer:  Pioneer

Courtesy: The Pioneer

Sonia Gandhi may be considering the idea of retiring from politics but the Congress needs her on many front. From bridging the new and old guard, to negotiating with the Opposition front and chaperoning Priyanka in the post-Pulwama scenario

All set to win her sixth Lok Sabha election since 1999, the 72-year-old Congress matriarch Sonia Gandhi is far from her long speculated retirement. Rumours have been doing the rounds for the past year that she was ready to hang up her boots from active politics due to her ill health and also to give space to her son. It was said that since she has handed over the baton to her son Rahul Gandhi and also inducted her daughter Priyanka Gandhi Vadra in active politics, the time was ripe for her to bow out.

Sonia herself indicated her retirement as early as December 2017 when she declared, “My role is to retire.” Though she has been keeping a low profile since then and taking a back seat, her role, as the final arbitrator in case of any dispute in the party, remains unquestioned. Many expected her not to contest the Lok Sabha elections this time. Contrary to this, her name was in the first list of candidates from Uttar Pradesh. Her candidature from Rae Bareli proves that the Congress cannot do without Sonia for some more time, as the party believes that she can still pull the votes.

Sonia has been toying with the idea of complete retirement from politics since she turned 70 in 2016. She is said to have shared her plans with those close to her.  However, the party kept pressuring her and delaying her plans until Rahul Gandhi stabilised himself as the party chief. For the past year and more, she has stopped meeting party leaders and directed those who called on her to Rahul. Her public appearances have reduced drastically over the past year. She did not campaign in the five  Assembly polls last year. Her last election rally was in Hyderabad before the Telangana Assembly polls in December. She has withdrawn herself completely from day-to-day party activities. However, the post Pulwama and Balakot airstrikes and the current political situation have forced her to change her plans of retirement and hence her re-nomination from Rae Bareli.

Sonia Gandhi has grown from the political novice that she was in 1998, when she took over the party, to become the party matriarch today. She has emerged as one of the tallest national leaders and has found a niche for herself in the party as well as in the national scene. She has been the longest party president for 19 years. The party won the Lok Sabha elections in 2004 and 2009 under her leadership. She is seen as the binding force to keep the party united. The Congress is banking on her experience and mature guidance to keep a balance between its young and old guard. The pressure from the old guard was also one of the reasons for Sonia’s contesting elections as the latter is still not comfortable with the new set-up. Though Rahul has accommodated the old guard, they feel that a new group, consisting of Sam Pitroda, the party’s data analysis department chairman Praveen Chakravarty and Jairam Ramesh, have taken over decision-making leaving them to watch helplessly. The old guard is aghast at their tall claims like training seven lakh booth level workers in about three weeks.

Sonia’s retirement plans were never final. Even at the time of handing over the party in December 2017,  Congress chief spokesperson Randeep Surjewala said that Sonia would only retire from her role as party president and not from politics. “Her blessings, wisdom and innate commitment to Congress ideology shall always be our guiding light,” Surjewala posted on Twitter.

Second, her role in dealing with other Opposition parties is important as leaders like Sharad Pawar, Mamata Banerjee, Sitaram Yechury and others still respect her. Many alliance partners and prospective allies would prefer to negotiate with her rather than Rahul Gandhi.  Her ability to put together the UPA in 2004 and 2009 are proof of her negotiating skills. Therefore the party would like her to play the role of cementing alliances, before as well as after the ensuing elections, given her equation with senior leaders of several parties and her political stature.

Third, she has just launched her daughter Priyanka Gandhi Vadra in active politics. Her dramatic entry was interrupted after the Pulwama and Balakot airstrikes. Though there were rumours that Sonia would retire and Priyanka would contest from Rae Bareli, it now appears that Priyanka would only work for the campaign and build up the party. Priyanka also needs the support of her mother until she stabilises. It is Sonia’s objective to ensure that her two children work in tandem and take the party forward.

Therefore, Sonia continues to be the party mentor and the queen mother as also the Leader of the Congress Parliamentary Party and the UPA chairperson. The Congress needs her now more than ever as every vote and every seat matters.

(The writer is a senior political commentator and syndicated columnist)

Writer: Kalyani Shankar

Courtesy: The Pioneer

For an amicable settlement to the lingering problem, the country must move out of the bind that it has been in for the last several decades

The Supreme Court’s recent decision to appoint three mediators to attempt a solution through mediation of the vexed Ram Janmabhoomi issue in Ayodhya could be the last opportunity available to all parties to attempt an amicable out-of-court resolution of the vexed dispute that has been the perennial source of social disharmony. This mediation process will be a court appointed and court monitored exercise which will be conducted outside media glare “with utmost confidentiality”.      

The idea of a mediated settlement in the Ram Janmabhoomi Case is not new. Two years ago in March, 2017, the then Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, J S Kehar had suggested a negotiated settlement and had offered himself as a mediator. However, this proposal did not find favour with the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) and the Babri Masjid Action Committee.

This time around, objections if any are muted, probably because of the court’s determination to get all parties to the negotiating table.

The Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute has taken a torturous course, but some of the milestones in recent times are notable. The first of these was the Supreme Court’s judgement in Dr M Ismail Faruqui and others vs Union of India and others in October, 1994. In that case, the constitutional validity of the Acquisition of Certain Areas of Ayodhya Act, 1993 was challenged. The court upheld the Act but declared Section 4(3) of the Act to be invalid. This judgment resulted in the revival of all pending suits before the Allahabad High Court.

The second milestone is the sovereign commitment given by the Government of India in September, 1994, before the Supreme Court that if it was established that a Hindu temple or religious structure existed before the Babri Masjid, it would hand over the site to the Hindus. The Union Government had made a Presidential Reference under Article 143(1) of the Constitution in which it asked the Supreme Court “Whether a Hindu temple or any Hindu religious structure existed prior to the construction of the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid (including the premises of the inner and outer courtyards of such structure) in the area on which the structure stood”.

The Presidential Reference said the government proposed to settle the dispute after obtaining the opinion of the Supreme Court. In the course of the arguments when some litigants representing Muslims interests said the reference would serve no purpose, the court asked the Solicitor-General to respond. The Solicitor-General made a written submission on behalf of the Union Government in response to the court’s query and what was said therein on behalf of the government is significant. The government said it was committed to the construction of a Ram temple and a mosque, but their actual location will be determined only after the Supreme Court renders its opinion in the Presidential Reference.

The government made the following commitments before the apex court in that submission: That it would treat the finding of the Supreme Court on the question of fact referred to it in the Presidential Reference as a verdict which is final and binding; that consistent with the court’s opinion it would make efforts to resolve the controversy by a process of negotiation; that if a negotiated settlement is not possible, it would be committed to enforce a solution based on the court’s opinion. It further said that “If the question referred is answered in the affirmative, namely, that a Hindu temple/structure did exist prior to the construction of the demolished structure, government action will be in support of the wishes of the Hindu community. If, on the other hand, the question is answered in the negative, namely, that no such Hindu temple/structure existed at the relevant time, then the government action will be in support of the wishes of the Muslim community”.

Why did the Union Government put this question to the Supreme Court. A white paper published by the Centre after the demolition of the Babri Masjid provides a clue. It said that during negotiations aimed at finding an amicable settlement, one issue that came to the fore was whether a Hindu temple existed on the site and whether it was demolished to built the masjid. Muslim organisations claimed that there was no evidence to prove this. Muslim leaders also asserted that  if this was proved, “the Muslims would voluntarily hand over the disputed shrine to the Hindus”.

The Supreme Court declined to answer this question. The five-judge Bench which gave its verdict in the Faruqui Case in October, 1994  simultaneously disposed off the Presidential Reference. It said the reference was ‘superfluous and unnecessary and does not require to be  answered”. However, the Union Government’s desire to secure an answer to the million dollar question was met when the Allahabad High Court, the pending suits before which got revived as a result of the Supreme Court’s order in the Faruqui Case, ordered the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to excavate the site and see what lay beneath the disputed structure.

The ASI, after extensive excavations, informed the court that there was evidence of a massive structure below the disputed structure which had “distinctive features found associated with the temples of North India”. Based on this finding, all the three judges on the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court concluded that a Hindu temple existed below the disputed structure. The Supreme Court has stayed this judgement after it was challenged by several parties to the dispute.    

It is not unusual for courts to suggest mediation. This is often suggested by courts in many civil matters because there are no winners and losers when issues are resolved through mediation. However, if mediation fails, the court will have to hear the matter and arrive at a conclusion, which may or may not please all parties in a dispute.

Meanwhile, what will the Union Government do? It has committed itself to initially try and settle the dispute through negotiations once it heard from the Supreme Court on the question of fact it had put before it in the Presidential Reference. The court however declined to answer that question, but the observations made in the white paper and the  ASI’s substantive report to the Allahabad High Court cannot be wished away.

The three mediators appointed by the Supreme Court — Justice Fakkir Ibrahim Kalifulla, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar and Sriram Panchu — will have all this material before them when they begin negotiations in search of an amicable settlement. All parties to the dispute will need to join this effort without hesitation in order to resolve the matter through mutual give and take. They must give mediation a chance.

(The writer is Chairman, Prasar Bharati)

Writer: A. Surya Prakash

Courtesy: The Pioneer

Demonetisation has been typically looked at from a political stance, rather than through the prism of economics. Second, it has not always been seen as preparatory to the GST. The real test will lie in the LS verdict

This writer saw a glimpse or two of demonetisation way back in early 1946 as a nine-year-old. We had moved to Calcutta (now Kolkata) less than two years before that. One evening, my father came home and promptly showed my mother two large currency notes with a portrait of King George VI, the like of which the writer had never seen before. Each was worth a thousand rupees. My father explained how he was offered five such notes at Rs 600 each only and he declined, thinking it was illegal. Eventually, his office colleague thrust two of them into his jacket’s pocket. He brought that home. The next day, he was meant to go to the bank which would give him new Rs 1,000 notes in exchange. My father went on to explain that during World War II, which had ended in August 1945, many a trader had profiteered by selling war materials for American as well as British troops, who had been deployed on the Burma (now Myanmar) front. The suppliers made money but did not always pay taxes. The British Indian Government, therefore, decided to demonetise the thousand rupee note. Since then, this writer has not been unfamiliar with the process.

The year 1946 is too long ago but in 1978/79, too, the Janata Party Government of Morarji Desai had demonetised high-value notes. But the measure was so half-hearted that most people cannot remember it. Even this writer cannot recollect the details. In contrast, the Modi Government’s action has had an enormous impact; though it took time for many people to comprehend what exactly were the implications. But most, who had stocks of untaxed cash, lost their money. Those, who could not find a way out, deposited it in the bank on the fair assumption that they would sort it out with the Income Tax officer at the time of assessment, with or without penalty. A Kolkata person, who reportedly had Rs 7,000 crore, could have done the same unless his cash was gained not only from an untaxed source but also from a dubious earning like smuggling.

This writer discovered how unusual the move was on the evening when Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced his step with regard to the demonetisation of Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 notes. The writer and one of the most informed veteran journalists were dining at a club when the announcement was made. But that gentleman needed to be explained the implications.

Those, who had bundles and bundles of unaccounted notes of the two denominations, lost heavily that night. One person was rumoured to have become poorer by Rs 7,000 crore in one stroke. Many small holders managed to change their notes at a discount of between 20 and 50 per cent with the help of brokers, who had connections with willing bank managers. This was one of the several mismanagements reported against the Government. Another was the delay at many banks of new supply of currency. The rest was the loss of money by the middle class to upper class holders. Some felt gravely upset and sinned against for being suddenly deprived of their hard earned money. They were right, except that they overlooked that they had not paid income tax on the money they lost.

The first reaction this writer heard of was from three of his acquaintances — a teacher, a technocrat and a businessman. Each one of them stood to lose up to Rs 50 lakh, which were lying in the house or a safe deposit locker. They all swore against the Government. On the other hand, the average lower middle class and poorer people were vicariously happy that the rich people have been hit for their ill-gotten wealth. Until then, their impression was that only the poor get punished while the rich get away with the help of their influence and wealth.

The real stunning effect was that a great deal of informal (euphemism for black) money ceased to be legal tender. Most of it went into the banks. In the process for a few days to a couple of months, parts of over 85 percent of the currency notes, Rs 500 and Rs 1,000, became non-legal tender. Immediately, there was a liquidity crunch also because of the delay in supply of new notes. Except for Rs 2,000 notes, others were not printed for reasons of secrecy. How much of the secrecy was for a dramatic effect and how much was to prevent transfer of cash by the big holders were a matter of conjecture. But one thing was certain that demonetisation was a stinging message against black money as never before in India. It was also a warning that more steps were coming. Sure enough the Goods and Services Tax (GST) was on the anvil.

For those not emotionally involved, could understand that a digital, or just a modern economy could not exist on two parallel money streets — one white and bankable and the other black and not bankable. One which proposes to be taxable and the other which evades tax from start to finish. The latter would continually undercut the former because it would always be cheaper. Those opposed to demonetisation keep calling the latter informal instead of black. Even well-known economists and scholars talk in these terms — possibly they are being considerate to a great portion of yesteryear traders in our country.

This writer’s personal experience is interesting. My company manufactures toothbrushes, whose sales shot up by over 50 per cent on the morrow of demonetisation and more so after the introduction of GST. The explanation was that his competition in the cheaper varieties was taking no notice of taxation; with the changes, several of the competitors stopped manufacturing. There is no doubt that the so-called informal sector has been stunned. Liquidity had shrunk  while new currency notes were being printed. Once they came into full flow, there was no such problem. The only difference was that black money has to be spent; whereas money in the bank is usually spent with care and caution. The reported reduced consumer demand is due to the comparative reduction in superfluous spending.

There are several other countries, which have demonetised their currency, including the UK and Australia, so has Pakistan. Zimbabwe had done something unique — it abolished its own currency and replaced it with the US dollar. Yet other countries are North Korea, Myanmar, Nigeria and Ghana. By and large, they have not benefited, not because of demonetisation per se, but due to the lack of any improvement in financial management. Whenever the Government faced a shortage of funds, its banks resorted to printing notes to meet its expenditure.

Regrettably, demonetisation in India has been looked at politically rather than with the help of economic logic. Second, it has not always been seen as preparatory to the GST, which makes trading with black money almost impossible. Moreover, paying GST means also exposing one’s turnover to the income tax authorities. For those, who were used to tax-free trading, these measures are doubly painful. Its  impact on the general elections remains to be seen.

(The writer is a well-known columnist and an author)

Writer: Prafull Goradia

Courtesy: The Pioneer

The conspicuous absence of internationally recognised Ghani regime raises questions about who is deciding Afghanistan’s future. Afghan President is convinced the US-led endeavour is made in hurry

The US-led war in Afghanistan has completed over 17 years by now. It started on October 7, 2001, less than a month after the dastardly terror attack on the heart of America on September 11 the same year. This historic campaign, internationally known as the “Global War on Terror” (GWOT) was launched by then US President George W Bush.

It was named “Operation Enduring Freedom” after Mullah Mohammad Omar-led Taliban Government refused to hand over to the US the 9/11 mastermind, Osama bin Laden, who was hiding in Afghanistan. Since then, Afghanistan has witnessed chaos, leading to loss of lives, resources, but more precisely the very Afghan sense of liberty and pride.

Today, the Afghan war, by all indications, is coming to an end. The current Afghan peace talks in Qatar is sending out positive signals so far despite off and on Taliban attacks either on the US forces or on the Afghanistan Government forces in the country.

Amid longing for peace, the most disturbing issue is that the Taliban have refused to have any direct talks with the current Afghan Government of Ashraf Ghani. To Taliban, the Government based in Kabul is a “puppet” of the Western powers. But then, the Taliban representatives have indicated that after the withdrawal of US troops from their country, they will start negotiation with the Government.

Critical actors and their independent roles in this conflict may jeopardise the Afghan peace process. Hence, it is not the Taliban and the US Government that alone could put an end to this chaos. Regional stalwarts such as India, Iran, Pakistan, Russia and China have carved out their own spheres of influence in this protracted war game, largely supported by an absence of a long historical narrative of the Cold War era.

Their active engagement in the peace process may mean a permanent guarantee of stability in the post-American Afghanistan.

A hasty US withdrawal from war-torn Afghanistan will be a disaster. Moreover, a namby-pamby Government in the country in a post-American departure might help resurrecting not only Taliban but also all other tribal war lords across the country. Else, the US making an exit without offering a credible solution to this war-ravaged nation would dampen American forces’ superior ability to handle hot conflict zones. Meanwhile lessons learnt from the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan necessitates a peace deal that simply sticks to its principles. Hope, Afghanistan can be saved from turning it into a “graveyard of empires”.

The US and the Taliban negotiators have agreed a draft framework for peace to bring to an end to this protracted crisis. But the talks that continued between US special envoy for Afghan reconciliation Zalmay Khalilzad and the representatives of the Taliban have veered around two main issues: Withdrawal of the US troops from Afghanistan and prohibiting international terror groups from using the Afghan soil.

Meanwhile, amid Helmand attack, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, a powerful deputy to the Taliban leader Hibatullah Akhunzada, who was in Pakistan jail, has joined the talks in Doha. It is hoped that his meeting with Khalilzad will help ironing out many hurdles in the coming days. What is bringing positive vibes for the first time is that another top leader Amir Khan Motaqi, chief of the Staff of the Taliban supreme leader, is also attending the talks in Qatar. This demonstrates how seriously the Taliban is viewing the ongoing talks.

However, there are some genuine spoilers that may come on the way. First, what is complicating the negotiation process is the continued violence coming from the Taliban side. Even when the talks are on in Doha this week, the Taliban fighters assaulted a large Army base in the Helmand province where also the US Mariners were present. And, this led to the death of at least two dozen Afghan soldiers. There are such inherent bottlenecks that may further delay the peace talks.

Second, the current India-Pak clashes may directly influence the Afghan peace dialogue. It is learnt that there is very strong likelihood that Pakistani troops would be shifted from the border with Afghanistan to reinforce positions on the border with India. The all too plausible risk is that this spat may finally derail the Afghan peace process. When the Trump Administration tried to lower tensions between India and Pakistan, the latter’s officials conveyed to Washington that if the war continues, it would be difficult for their country to focus on the western border. Some US officials say Pakistan does not have the capability to make peace happen with Afghanistan, but it has the capacity to spoil it for sure.

However, India-Pak tensions are just being overstated by the Pakistani establishment as to downplay the progress of the Afghan peace deal. But then a section of Western diplomats opine that if the Trump Administration pushes Islamabad too far on combating the jihadists, it could lessen its manoeuvering tactics while convincing and taming them.

What Afghanistan fears is that it can be readily used as a proxy for tension between India and Pakistan. India’s sudden air strike on JeM’s terror camps deep inside Pakistan’s Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province last month has indeed drawn a “new red line” with Pakistan. Undoubtedly, Pakistan has played a vital role in bringing the Taliban’s to the negotiating table. It was Islamabad that released Taliban leader Baradar in 2018, with the hope that he could play a decisive role in the peace process in Doha.

Finally, trusting the deadly Taliban could be serious mistake on one hand. However, without taking the militants on board which today threaten more than 70 per cent of Afghanistan could be again a tactical mistake for any peace deal for this country and any international mediating group.

Only with guarded optimism, the international peace brokers such as the US could move ahead, else anytime Afghanistan may slip into a war zone like before. Even today regular skirmishes are on between the Taliban and the Kabul establishment, and at times with the US-led NATO troops. But bringing such senior Taliban leaders like Baradar to the negotiating table may be hailed as a record of sort for the US Administration.

America is not only fighting wars outside the precincts of its sovereign borders, but it is also encountering backlashes for its actions back home. It is worth noting here how long-drawn battles such as Afghanistan and Iraq have influenced the US armed forces and its policies.

During Obama’s second term in office, he declared the end of the combat operations in Afghanistan. By September 2014, the Afghan Government signed a treaty with the US and a similar agreement with the NATO which stated that 12, 500 foreign soldiers, of which 9,800 are Americans, will stay in Afghanistan in 2015, after the end of the NATO combat mission at the end of 2014. When Trump came to power, he increased defence spending, especially to the GWOT.

After fighting two most dangerous and long-standing wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq, even the US forces might undergo serious changes in its operational style, tactics and using high-tech gadgets. Defence Secretary Patrick Michael Shanahan is trying to probably prepare the ground for forces’ life and work, after two devastating and tiring wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The National Defence Strategy (NDS) published by the Trump Administration in January 2018 clearly changed its course of direction and decreed that America, henceforth, would focus on “long term strategic competition between nations”, namely China and Russia. In fact, this is for the first time, since the Regan era, America is planning to retool its forces by modernising its fighting architecture and technologies in war. In fact, Shanahan, a former Boeing executive, who has just completed a year in the top job, is truly confident of remoulding more than 700,000 strong armed forces in the years to come.

These are some of the policy changes that are being taken forward under the Trump regime so as to suit the new war games around the world. And, definitely, new plans are afoot to look beyond traditional battlegrounds like Afghanistan and Iraq.

What confuses the international community today is that there are two competing peace deals held on Afghanistan — one led by the US and the other by Russia. And, sadly, the popularly elected Government of Ghani is nowhere involved in these peace talks. How is this possible? Why Washington and Moscow want to sideline Kabul? Or is it the Taliban leaders that purposefully trying to hijack the peace process? Now, the point is that even if the Taliban and their sponsors want them to bypass the Ghani administration, the Mullahs should have never agreed. Again, when the US is pushing too far to conclude a peace deal in the absence of Afghanistan’s “legitimate” Government, it should have convinced the Taliban that such an agreement could spell calamity in the days to come. And, it is well understood that Putin is back in business to flex his muscles once again to demonstrate that Russia could settle the Afghan quagmire.

Nevertheless, it must be highlighted here that the conspicuous absence of internationally recognised Ghani regime. Subsequently, it raises questions about who is deciding Afghanistan’s future; whether Washington’s policy of maintaining forces in Afghanistan until the circumstances are favourable for withdrawal can outlive the bizarre wishes of Trump who desperately wants to pull out; whether we all could seriously trust the reclusive Taliban and their weird promises.

Hence, for now the prospect of these two parallel peace deals is far from clear to the world. Ghani is convinced that the US-led effort is made in a hurry. Afghanistan is an age-old war field. And, both Washington and Moscow are well aware of the consequences of falling apart with the Taliban at this crucial juncture. Equally, Ghani is feeling that Trump is cutting him out of the whole process.

If Trump pays no heed to engage the core stakeholders in Afghanistan’s long road to peace, it would all, but be crystal clear that he is playing with only fire. And, the fire will lit entire Afghanistan once again.

(The writer is an expert on international affairs)

Writer: Makhan Saikia

Courtesy: The Pioneer

A spate of accidents in the recent past involving high-performance vehicles makes one wonder whether there should be a separate driving licence for bigger cars

A recent accident in Delhi involved a Bentley Bentayga being driven by a 19-year old youth which slammed into an auto-rickshaw killing one of the occupants. Being someone who has driven in Delhi and across India for a long time, I will not absolve the auto driver of blame. The average auto-rickshaw driver is clueless about concepts like right of way and the idea of flashing indicators is alien to them. Of course, in that respect they much like most folks taking control of a motorised vehicle in India. However, there is little doubt that the Bentayga driver was in all likelihood driving a vehicle far beyond his competence levels.

Most of us know that in India, with the exception of some states like Delhi, the process of getting a driving licence is a corrupt and flawed one. I have noticed several taxi drivers with licences from other states in Delhi with extremely poor understanding of driving rules and regulations. But this is not an elitist issue. Many young children get a licence at the age of 18 with little or no understanding of road rules and regulations. And this is the scary part, when you get a driving licence it says which class of vehicle you can drive — two-wheeler, light motor vehicle or a heavy vehicle. There are no restrictions on power and performance. So you could technically drive a  Bentley Bentayga with 500 horsepower the day you get your DL when you should ideally be driving a Maruti Alto or Hyundai Santro.

This is not just specific to India though, across the world you can drive whatever vehicle you want the day you get your DL, and that is either when you turn 16 or 18. In most countries the driving tests are far more stringent but even then few go as far as Finland where drivers have to be trained to drive in slippery and icy conditions. Little wonder Finland has more Rally and F1 World Champions per capita than any other nation on earth.

And while there are young 18-year-olds in India with the requisite driving skills to handle a powerful car, you can probably count them on your fingertips. Let me assure you when I turned 18, I did not have the skills to handle a 100 horsepower car back then, it takes experience and it helps if you get some training. I have driven some manic cars on the streets of Delhi and Indian highways but I know how to control the power but most other road users in India are not expected to comply with rules. That is not accounting for our burgeoning bovine population on the roads. Handling a powerful car isn’t something you should do straight out of basic driving school, it takes time, particularly in India.

In many Western nations, massive insurance premiums for younger drivers restrict them to small, less powerful machines. While this means that the rich can abuse the system, even rich fathers would balk at the premium of letting his 18-year old drive a moderately powerful BMW, because the premium would be half the cars value, and in most nations a crash history record would lead to insurance premiums doubling. The easiest solution in India would be a similar route, insurance premiums should be determined on the basis of the age of the driver and lying should be made punishable. And while the Indian auto industry is cribbing about new long-term insurance requirements, they were necessary.

However, I am suggesting another solution. There should be a special driving licence in India to drive a car with more than 250 horsepower. The reason for that number? Because 99 per cent of cars sold in India have less than that amount of power. And remember the saying, with great power comes great responsibility.

Writer: Kushan Mitra

Courtesy: The Pioneer

While the entire nation is proud of our servicemen, it is disgraceful that the political leadership has been away from answering questions about the strike.

India, last Friday, welcomed its IAF hero, Abhinandan Varthaman, back from Pakistan, after he spent close to three days in Pakistan’s captivity, after his MiG-21 Bison went down in a brief skirmish with Islamabad’s Air Force. Officer Abhinandan’s return is the latest course of events in an episode that has not yet seen its last act but India can at least momentarily heave a sigh of relief. His return also provides us with enough pause to examine the events that unfolded over the past few weeks, to praise the bravery of our armed forces and to ask questions to the Prime Minister, who is the man entrusted with providing leadership to the armed forces.

Primarily, in this article, I aim to examine the concept of leadership and whether the Prime Minister demonstrated it this time around. While the entire nation is extremely proud of our armed forces and the huge sacrifices they are regularly asked to make, it does make it all the more important to ensure that they are led by a political leader who exhibits similar qualities. The events of the past few weeks make it apparent that while the country is proud of the armed forces, the political leadership leading them has been found wanting.

So what is leadership? Norman Schwarzkopf defined its as, “Leadership is a potent combination of strategy and character. But if you must be without one, be without strategy.” Over the past few weeks, the ruling Government has displayed a lack of both.

Lack of strategy: Pakistan is a hub of terror. There are not many people in the world who would disagree with this statement. Even recently, while Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan did earn some goodwill on the world stage by allowing Abhinandan to return and by ensuring that he was not mistreated while in Pakistan’s captivity, much of that goodwill was wasted by the clear propaganda videos that were released by the Government over there. During the entire ordeal, Imran Khan alleged that the attack by India on the terrorist camps did not really cause any harm to Pakistan. He also garnered sympathy and goodwill from world leaders by taking the initiative to return Abhinandan to India.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi allowed Pakistan to take the initiative by not speaking to the nation in its hour of need and failing to rebut Pakistan’s claims that there were no casualties due to India’s strikes. This was especially shocking since members of the BJP like Sambit Patra have said that close to 400 terrorists were killed while BJP chief Amit Shah said that 250 of them were killed. Instead of giving a fitting reply to Pakistan and reclaiming the initiative, Modi,  as someone who rarely gives up an opportunity to speak, remained silent on this crucial issue and, therefore, let slip an opportunity to prove Pakistan and the world media wrong. By doing so, it was the Pakistani Prime Minister who appeared to garner greater admiration from the world rather than our Prime Minister.

Character: In terms of character, the BJP Government has an unenviable lack of it. There have been repeated reminders over the past few years of this character flaw. Whether it is the words used by the Prime Minister to describe women or the language used by the BJP when dealing with any member of the Opposition, the Government rarely covers itself in glory. However, in light of the recent events, there was some hope that maybe the Prime Minister may actually conduct himself in a manner befitting his role and get the entire country together. How naïve of us! Despite the Opposition issuing a statement reiterating their stance that they stand behind the armed forces, Modi repeatedly took political potshots without once addressing the nation in a dignified manner.

While the Prime Minister is often found near a microphone when the wind is in his favour, he is conspicuously missing when the nation actually needs answers. This time, too, he addressed a number of rallies when India’s brave Air Force attacked the terrorist bases in Pakistan, taking credit for the bravery of our armed forces but the minute one of our pilots was captured and there was a need for calm, clarity and composure, there was not a whiff from the Government or the Prime Minister. Instead, in the aftermath of Abhinandan’s capture, just a quick glance of the Prime Minister’s twitter feed shows that he addressed BJP workers in their booths before addressing the nation and even then, it was only through rallies or other political events that he talked about strikes rather than having a conversation with Indian citizens, which is only apropos in case of events of national significance, such as this one.

What was all the more disheartening was the fact that while media speculation about the precarious state of affairs was rife, there was no one from the Government to answer the lingering questions. Instead, the Government chose to send the armed forces in the line of fire again and forced it to field questions that could obviously only be answered by its representatives.

As stated above, one such question was about the claims made by international media channels about the number of dead terrorists after the attack. While there is no denying that it is difficult to quantify the number of terrorists killed in the mission, it was the BJP itself that came out with wild, varying figures. The armed forces have categorically come out and said that they have no idea about the exact figure and that this was a question for the Government to answer.

If the armed forces have no clear figure in mind and the BJP has been saying it’s 400 or 250 or whatever the last person from the party has said, is it not logical to question whether the Government actually had any such estimate or was it just making up numbers as it went along?

But when one of us, mere mortals, actually asks the BJP why they are saying 400 when the armed forces are saying they have no idea about any exact figure, the party hides behind the armed forces and says that the people of India cannot question the armed forces. Waah Modiji, Waah!

My views on how a leader is supposed to be is a product of my time as an officer in the Indian Police Service. As someone who has had the opportunity to serve with other brave police officers, I was always told that you need to be the first one to take criticism to protect your officers and the last to take credit for their bravery. This is slightly different from Prime Minister Modi’s policy of hiding behind the armed forces when tough questions are asked and basking in the glory, taking selfies when the sun is shining. India, in my opinion, has had enough of Modi’s unique brand of leadership.

(The writer is Jharkhand PCC president, former MP and IPS officer. Views are personal)

Writer: Ajoy Kumar

Courtesy: The Pioneer

Priyanka’s exclusion from Uttar Pradesh poll list shows that the party can’t do without her mother’s steadying abilities

The Congress’ first list for the Lok Sabha election, which had key seats in Uttar Pradesh, was conspicuous by the absence of a name that was expected to be an elixir for its moribund state unit – Priyanka Gandhi Vadra. She was expected to relieve her ailing mother and Congress supremo Sonia Gandhi from the family seat of Rae Bareli, having led the war room there in past elections. Considering that Rahul Gandhi continues from Amethi and senior Congress leaders like Salman Khursheed, who had lost in 2014, are retaining their seats, the party seems keen on status quo. It would rather not break the mould or allow the whiff of confidence brought in by young Turks under new chief Rahul Gandhi to aerate the rank and file. Obviously, observers are wondering why the Congress is underplaying its charismatic trump card, one who could really steal the optics from a resurgent Prime Minister Narendra Modi and even match speech for speech? Or is it that the Congress is not unleashing her simply because 2019 is a political muddle post Pulwama and Balakot airstrikes, and with a nationalist swell in the heartland, it is advantage Modi for now? Is it that the party is grooming her for 2024, letting Rahul consolidate his presidentship first? Or is it that the Congress wants to revive its own tally ground up than play second fiddle to the federal front? Undoubtedly, Priyanka has successfully managed past elections at the booth level for both family seats but perhaps as general secretary of eastern UP, one that includes Modi’s Varanasi seat and one that will be a litmus test of her organisational and vote transference skills, she needs to be seen as a serious game-changer more than a poster child. Had she contested, she would have had to pay more attention to Rae Bareli and spread herself thinly. For now she seems to have adopted a deep-rooted and precise local strategy than deal with the weight of expectation that always follows her.

Looking deeper, the Congress has to deal with challenges of realpolitik. Sonia Gandhi is still the bridge for both the Opposition and the generational divide within the party. Knowing that it cannot claim some relevance for itself unless it synergises with regional parties, it needs Sonia to push through strategic alliances and rescue a flagging mahagathbandhan. She has the better experience of being an adhesive. Many alliance partners and potential ones prefer to deal with her  directly, given past associations, than new president Rahul. This was evident during the Karnataka alliance with HD Kumaraswamy last year. Even Trinamool Congress chief Mamata Banerjee has gone on record saying that she was more comfortable with Sonia. The Congress has not been able to crack a sharing formula with the SP-BSP in Uttar Pradesh or the AAP in Delhi under the new dispensation. The federal front, comprising strong regional leaders seasoned for decades, is yet to soften towards Rahul, who may have come a long way but is still not seen as an equal to regional heavyweights. Besides, within the party, Sonia is the only reassurance and voice of reason for the old guard, who see their continuity through hers. It was only due to her insistence that the chief ministerial posts in Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh went to seniors Ashok Gehlot and Kamal Nath, much to the chagrin of the new brigade. Had Priyanka Gandhi been fielded from Rae Bareli, it would have meant that the brother-sister duo would call the shots henceforth and relegate them to the last row. Rahul himself may not be happy about these inner frictions but at this stage of the party’s tenuous recovery graph, he cannot risk their hostility either. Besides, Sonia being in the electoral fray also means a huge cushion for him in Amethi, where the BJP has launched a strident campaign and announced a slew of development projects, promising a tough fight. Amethi needs to feel the matriarch is with them and her son in the fight. The Congress is in transition in unsettling times and Sonia, for some time, will be indispensable as captain steadying the ship.

Courtesy and Writer: The Pioneer

A war is by no means is the answer to end cross-border terrorism. At best, it can only result in a stalemate. What is really needed is a coherent long-term policy and a clear blueprint to combat terrorism.

The episode that began with the attack on a CRPF convoy in Pulwama on February 14 ended with the repatriation of Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman to India on March 1, without triggering an India-Pakistan war. While this is all to the good, relations between the two countries will remain tense and further serious confrontations cannot be ruled out. This is because the two main causes of their continuing hostility will remain — Pakistan’s desire to annex Kashmir and India’s demand for an end to the cross-border terrorist attacks that Pakistan has been conducting against it for almost 40 years now.

Pakistan’s obsession with Kashmir stems not only from the region’s fabled beauty but its strategic importance. Controlling Kashmir, Islamabad can bring its armoured and infantry formations unopposed to Jammu & Kashmir’s borders with Punjab and Himachal Pradesh, and launch these against Delhi. Any such offensive has now to contend with the Indian forces stationed along the international border between the two countries in Jammu and the Line of Control in Kashmir. This is why India cannot part with Kashmir — besides the fundamental reason of the latter being an integral and inalienable part of this country.

Control over Kashmir will enable Pakistan to launch a three-pronged attack against India — from the Sind-Rajasthan and Punjab borders as well as Kashmir, and it will push some of its Army formations close to Delhi. This strategic consideration is supplemented by its pathological hatred towards India, which routed it in the 1971 war that led to Bangladesh’s liberation.

Pakistan’s fixation with gaining control over Kashmir is also a result of its strategic doctrine which aims at India’s balkanisation. In his book, India: A Study in Profile, Lieutenant-Colonel Javed Hassan (who retired as a Lieutenant-General) contended that “India was hostage to a centrifugal rather than a centripetal tradition.” Holding that India “had a historical inability to stay as a unified state”, he identified Punjab, Jammu & Kashmir, Tamil Nadu and six north-eastern States (strangely leaving one of the seven sisters out), as being completely alienated from mainstream India.

Hussain Haqqani, who refers to this book in his Pakistan: Between Mosque and Military, wrote that Hassan felt that “with some encouragement, the alienated regions could become centres of insurgencies that would, at best, dismember India, at [the] least, weaken India’s ability to seek regional dominance for years to come.” Hassan’s book is most significant as it resulted from a study of the Pakistani Army’s Faculty of Research and Doctrinal Studies, Command and Staff College, Quetta. It was published and distributed by the Services Book Club, Rawalpindi. None of this could have happened without sanction from the top, which, in turn, indicated that it articulated — at least was in sync with — official policy. Further, Haqqani points out in a footnote in his book, that in several conversations with him, Lieutenant-General Hamid Gul, who was director-general of Pakistan’s notorious Inter-Services Intelligence from 1987 to 1989, referred to an operational plan to encourage centrifugal forces in India that existed when he was director-general of military intelligence from 1984 to 1987.

Haqqani further states that after the United States had agreed to support the Afghan jihad against Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and American economic aid had started pouring into Pakistan, the latter’s President, Zia-ul Haq, wanted a forward policy drawn up regarding India. Haqqani also says that a conversation between Zia and Lieutenant-General Akhtar Abdul Rahman led to the implementation of a policy combining clandestine operations to weaken India with the pretence of seeking durable peace, throughout the years Zia was in power as well as subsequently.

As can be seen, it is being followed even now. What can India do? A war? It can end in India’s victory, defeat or a stalemate. Defeat is impossible given this country’s enormous military superiority over Pakistan and the valour of its uniformed personnel. A victory is possible given India’s superiority on land, sea and air, and India did defeat Pakistan comprehensively in the 1971 war which led to the liberation of Bangladesh. It, however, then had complete support of the Soviet Union under the Indo–Soviet Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Cooperation which, under Article IX, provided for immediate “mutual consultations” to remove any “attack or threat thereof” that either country may face and the taking of “appropriate effective measures to ensure peace and security of their countries.” Thus, the Soviet Union sent ships of its Pacific Fleet to counter warships of the United States’ Seventh Fleet which entered the Bay of Bengal to tilt the balance in Pakistan’s favour. India is unlikely to receive the same kind of support from Russia which is now reaching out to Pakistan. Besides, even if India wins a comprehensive victory, it will not end terrorism from Pakistan. The 1971 war did not. Pakistan was back to promoting terrorism and insurgency in India within 10 years of that.

Things might be different if this country annexes Pakistan, which the world will not allow. It is one thing for countries not to condemn — or even tacitly endorse — an attack on the JeM terrorist-training camp at Balakot, and, quite another for them to allow India to swallow Pakistan. Equally, Pakistan may not rattle its nuclear-tipped missiles over an Indian aerial attack on a target inside it but will certainly do so if Indian troops get, say, within 50 kilometres of Islamabad.

Most likely, a war will end in a stalemate. Besides not ending terrorism, it will impose a heavy cost in terms of human lives, public and private assets destroyed and economic disruption. Instead of it, one needs a coherent long-term policy and a clear blueprint to fight terrorism, providing for diplomatic and economic pressure on Pakistan, sound intelligence gathering to pre-empt terror strikes in India and terror attacks in Pakistan itself. Whipping up jingoism and war hysteria only diverts attention from this essential task.

(The writer is Consultant Editor, The Pioneer, and an author)

Courtesy: The Pioneer

Writer: Hiranmay Karlekar