Humanoid Robot Sophia, who was in India, says the country is colourful, diverse and beautiful.

Developed by Hong Kong-based company Hanson Robotics, Sophia is modelled after actress Audrey Hepburn, and is known for her human-like appearance and behaviour compared to other robotic variants. She uses artificial intelligence, visual data processing and facial recognition.

Sophia, who is here to be the part of 7th Forevermark Forum, got into an interesting conversation with Stephen Lussier, CEO Forevermark & EVP of The De Beers Group of Companies during the forum that focussed on the theme, “Future is Now.”

When Lussier asked her if this is her first time in India, she replied: “No. I have been to India before. It’s a colourful, diverse and a beautiful country.” Talking further about herself, she said: “I live in Hong Kong and travel the world to meet people from different cultures.”

Sophia, who spotted a Forevermark Diamond necklace, asked Lussier that, “How does one really choose the best diamond?” To this, he replied: “You start by asking your jeweller about the 4Cs that is the cut, clarity, colour and the caratage. So diamonds having the best cut, flawless clarity, colourless nature and the high carat weight are the ones that are most valuable and worth buying,” he told her.

Also talking about what the future means to her, she said: “The future is unpredictable but I really want to make a difference.”

And is there anyway you think we could make the future better, asked Lussier? Replied Sophia: “Yes. By planting more trees, by using water wisely and contributing to help the environment.”

The goal of the forum was to provide a wide platform for all its partners to interact, transact and gain new perspective to events within and outside the industry. Partners discussed diversity in thought, culture, design and innovation in a multi-faceted future which they felt was brimming with diverse opportunities.

Writer: Pioneer

Courtesy: The Pioneer

Nawaz Sharif, being one of the canniest politicians in the world, will try his best to get out of the jail. But can he be successful in performing a Houdini-like escape this time?

Nawaz Sharif would never have imagined that he would one day become a poster-child for democracy. But in an increasingly dysfunctional Pakistan, he is now a prisoner of conscience of the Pakistani deep state. Nor could he imagine that Indian newspapers across the political spectrum would be writing sympathetic editorials for him. Pakistan is a country where the Armed Forces have all but taken over all functions of the state without admitting to actually doing so. They have certainly taken over the judiciary. Politicians in Pakistan undoubtedly suffer from the bug of corruption so deep-rooted in South Asia and the fact that Sharif, like so many other Pakistani Prime Ministers before him, is corrupt is quite believable. The news reports about the Sharif family having secret bank accounts in Panama should not surprise anyone; many of South Asia’s elite have ferreted away millions of dollars of public funds. But the fact is that Sharif is also one of the best bets Pakistan has of not completely turning into a Chinese client state.

Pakistan’s military-industrial complex, in this case quite literally as much of Pakistan’s industrial complex is controlled by the military, has been gorging of late on Chinese funds for China’s planned economic corridor from Gwadar on the Arabian Sea via roads and rail through to the Chinese border. However, as several other countries have seen the example of Sri Lanka and how the Chinese have economically captured that nation in a debt-trap, Pakistan wants China to double-down on their investments even as reports emerge of China having second thoughts about Pakistan’s economic viability. The fact is, minus any semblance of democracy, Pakistan’s political parasites are being wiped out by their far worse cousin species, the Pakistani military parasite, and the judiciary is aiding the process.

We do not know what will happen to Nawaz Sharif now. He returned to Pakistan fully-well knowing the risks he was undertaking. Pakistan’s military has executed one Prime Minister, killed their own Chief and assassinated another Prime Minister. It is a truly dysfunctional military whose only objective is to keep surviving, the nation be damned. Nawaz Sharif must have been the last person to believe that one day he would be called brave, but he could have stayed on in exile. One could believe that Mian Sharif knows that the path his country is headed down is not a good one and if he did not act, Pakistan would be beyond saving.

Nawaz Sharif stood up to the military before and paid the price. He was the single best-bet India had for negotiating a truce with its neighbour and foster the belief that our two nations for long divided by hate might finally work together in joint economic prosperity. And being a popular mass leader, he could have also sold the idea to his nation. Unfortunately, that is not the case right now. One hopes that elements in the Pakistani deep state come to their senses soon enough and realise that Sharif, despite all his flaws, is not bad compared to the alternative.

Writer: Pioneer

Courtesy: The Pioneer

There are a number of different takes people have when it comes to the what the real Benazir Bhutto. With all the different versions, Sashanka S Banerjee will always believe that Benazir Bhutto was the woman who first offended him and eventually befriended him, sharing dark secrets.

Ironically, my first experience of meeting Benazir Bhutto was quite unpleasant, to say the least. To my surprise, minutes after I was introduced to her by Justice Abu Sayeed Choudhury, who had earlier served as the President of Bangladesh, at his then family home in Hendon, London, I was denied even breathing space as she started an unprovoked and an unrelenting verbal attack on India. She described India as a “hegemonic power harbouring territorial ambitions on neighbouring countries”, an “oppressive tyranny masquerading as a democracy”, a “violator of  human rights in Kashmir”, a “Muslim baiter” and much more. Her voice was shrill, her face flushed with goose pimples indicating that she was nervous while talking to me — an unknown Indian from the enemy country. I suspect she was under the illusion that I was a member of some sort of a repressive, Gestapo-like organisation of India.

I was disappointed to have discovered that a mature and sophisticated lady who had studied in Oxford and Harvard and belonged to a highly-regarded political family in Pakistan, would be so naive in her approach. It was her first interaction with a former senior bureaucrat — even if from the enemy country. And before this, the bureaucrat actually had regard for her as she had introduced democracy in Pakistan. But, she went on with her anti-India rant. And I wondered what her underlying motive could be. Whatever her intention was, my curiosity only increased over time. One thing I was sure about was that her worldview was not dissimilar to the official position of Islamabad that Pakistan would never bow down to India and be a poodle to New Delhi.

Initiated as a policy option by Benazir, Pakistan had devised its own ways of keeping India — a soft power in her view — firmly on the leash. Forging of ties with Taliban after she had become the Prime Minister of Pakistan meant using the terror group’s violent methods against India as an instrument of state policy.  Pakistan Army had long aspired to secure “strategic depth” in Afghanistan. Benazir had played a key role in that. And this was her idea of power play with New Delhi.

Thus, Pakistan started an innovative “two-front war” — on the East with India and on the West with Afghanistan. There was no dearth of funding for this dangerous game, richly sourced from three of its key allies. At the same time, for Islamabad it was strategically important to maintain the pretense that it was a “friend to India”. Within the parameters of this manufactured ambivalence, Justice Abu Sayeed Choudhury’s introduction of Benazir Bhutto, heralded the beginning of a stormy and complicated equation.

Our next meeting was scheduled a few days later at her home in a luxury apartment at the Lauderdale Towers in The Barbican, London. Most of my remaining meetings in the subsequent period of my association with her were held at her home.

Benazir being much younger to me, I chose to address her by her first name. She didn’t mind it. I said, “Benazir, the other day, you thundered like the cataract of Niagara but, just think, did your fire and fury serve any real purpose? Neither was I intimidated nor was Justice Choudhury persuaded by what you said.” I added, “How can anybody call India  a hegemonic power when within three months of the liberation of Bangladesh, at the end of a successful military campaign, India withdrew its armed forces from the soil of what was now sovereign independent Bangladesh? It was a gesture of goodwill. Some 93,000 Pakistani POWs taken at the end of the Bangladesh War of 1971 were also released. But Benazir didn’t return the compliment.  

Gradually, our discussions began taking shape. I took the initiative and asserted that if she was looking for India’s support in promoting liberal democracy in Pakistan, I thought that India would gladly come forward and help her and the Pakistan Peoples’ Party. But this was all subject to New Delhi agreeing. I gave her the example of India’s support extended to the secular, democratic, and pluralistic Bangladesh Liberation Struggle led by Shaikh Mujibur Rahman.

I could see she was not amused. I felt like she had other things weighing on her mind. After several interactions, I got a shrewd impression that she was hiding something from me. Soon, I had no doubt in my mind that she was still in a state of deep shock and mourning. I would often find her getting emotionally choked while talking about Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, her father. Her eyes would moisten at the very mention of his name.

Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was hanged till death on August 4, 1979, and buried at Larkana, the family’s graveyard. I often heard her saying that General Zia-ul-Haq was an incarnation of evil.

She would speak about her father as “Shahid Zulfikar Ali Bhutto” and described his hanging as “judicial murder”. I could detect the undercurrent of an overpowering dark force working within her, craving for revenge against the Pakistani dictator. She had mentioned the word “revenge” to me a number of times. I was pretty certain that she had also spoken about it among some untrustworthy friends. I knew only too well that Benazir had no security cover appropriate to her status provided by the state. She was an easy target, very vulnerable.  

It couldn’t be that the ISI didn’t get a wind of Benazir’s overzealous pronouncements on avenging the dead. I was not prepared to believe that the ISI would not deploy a posse of surveillance detail on her, like static and mobile watch and telephone tapping for delving into her inner thoughts on her father’s hanging by General Zia-ul-Haq. It was all too well known that the grip of the ISI on Pakistan was so firm that not even a crow could fly over Pakistan without the ISI knowing about it.

Benazir had an inherent capacity to spring surprises. I was not quite ready for it, but one day she came up with a proposal that was beyond the bounds of my wildest imagination. She said, “You have been putting pressure on me to open up about my “secret agenda”. I will tell you, but it will be in bits and pieces”. Then, she told me that she would like to send a group of six young men to India on an “extended” educational tour for training in leadership skills in democratic principles and practice drawn from the Indian experience. The training would include lectures on international relations with special focus on India-Pakistan relations. As our discussions expanded, I was getting a sneaky feeling that Benazir was keeping what she “really” wanted close to her chest. She was shrouding her real thoughts in ambiguity. Her half-baked thoughts in the backdrop of what she was saying all this time, were in all probability linked to her zeal for revenge against General Zia-ul-Haq.

I asked her if she was thinking of an extreme kind of capital punishment with the help of an enemy country. And added that she must know the consequences of embarking upon such a dangerously mad mission. Moreover, why would India get involved in such a misadventure?

“What would happen if there was a leak? Are you not afraid of dying,” I asked. “No, for my father’s sake I am prepared to die. But my mission must succeed,” she said. It was becoming devastatingly clear to me that the “judicial murder” of her beloved father had acted as a catalyst in splitting her personality into two parts.

She asserted that a question kept nagging at her, “Why should I not take revenge with a concrete plan of action against that murderer? He has ruined my family. My mother has been widowed and my brothers and I have been orphaned when we are still at the prime of our lives.” A second shock awaited me. I asked her how much she trusted “the boys”. “Hundred percent” was her answer. What were their political affiliations? She paused for a moment and then admitted coyly, “Yes, you are right. They were cadre members of Jiye Sindh Mahaz (JSM) led by GM Syed.” Do you know him? She didn’t hesitate to say “Both of us are Sindhis, Yes, I know him”. I told her that GM Syed was serving a life sentence in a Pakistani prison for treason. I did not have to remind her that JSM was a pro-independence militant organisation fighting for the liberation of Sindh. Nobody knew if he was still alive. I reflected what was Mujibur Rahman to Bangladesh Liberation Struggle, GM Syed was to Sindh Freedom Movement. I told her that the ISI regarded JSM as “a separatist terrorist outfit” and they would go to any extent to crush them with heavy handed brutality.

It was a revelation to me that Benazir had close connections with GM Syed’s pro-independence movement in Sindh. I wondered, “Did she have an open mind for switching her loyalties to the Sindhi Freedom Movement, if her aspirations at Pakistan’s national level were to fail?” At this point, I thought I had enough knowledge of her inner thinking and must not pursue this matter any further. In fact, it seemed to me that there was perhaps already a dark deal struck up between JSM and herself.

India partly agreed to Benazir’s request but it was nowhere near to what she really wanted. India agreed to receive the “boys” in Delhi. As a huge gesture of goodwill to Miss Bhutto, they would be issued tourist visas for three months. The boys would be extended normal consular courtesies. They would be taken around the Golden Triangle — Delhi, Jaipur, and Agra. While in Delhi, they would be taken around on day trips to the Houses of Parliament, the Supreme Court, CP, and Raisina Hill. They could be taken on a short day trip to a Military Academy and so on. They would be treated as honoured guests. As per Benazir’s personal wish, total secrecy would be maintained about the trip. What was deeply disappointing for Benazir was that there was not a word about military training for the boys that she had asked for. Her core interest was ignored in totality.

In the blood-soaked, revenge-filled, unforgiving political environment of Pakistani politics, a brief comparative study of three high-level political assassinations that happened in quick succession between 1979 and 2007 may be in order. I will touch on them in chronological order. For starters, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was hanged to die on some “flimsy grounds” under orders of General Zia-ul-Haq, Pakistan’s military dictator, on April 4, 1979. There were reports that General Zia-ul-Haq did not trust the highly ambitious Bhutto and suspected that any day Bhutto he may usurp power from Zia. The hanging solved the military dictator’s fears but threw the country into turmoil and Benazir in a determinedly revengeful outrage.

Nine years later, General Zia-ul-Haq was killed, in an “air mishap” after his flight on a PAF heavy duty C-130 transport carrier took off from Bahawalpur Cantonment’s airfield on August 17, 1988. This game-changing event, described as “political murder” has also come to be known as “a case of exploding mangoes”.

Security had cleared “some casual employees” working in the Cantonment. There was a fruit and vegetable shop that loaded two basketful of the finest Dasheri mangoes, one for the military dictator and another for the US Ambassador Arnold Raphel, who was accompanying the General. They were on a visit to Bahawalpur Cantonment to oversee the performance of America’s best known main battle tanks (MBTs) Abram M1. After their field inspection, they were going back to GHQ Rawalpindi, satisfied that the tanks were to the liking of the military dictator. The order was to be in the region of 300 Abrams M1 MBTs. The loaders — there is no scope for any doubt — had placed two high explosive time bombs hidden in the mango baskets. Nobody checked the baskets because the security environment in the Cantonment was thought to be water-tight. After the explosion that killed everybody on board the aircraft, the ISI went into an overdrive to find out who had done it but the matter was so delicate that the report of the investigation was kept “top secret”. Any punitive action would have to wait for an appropriate date. Apparently, the assassination looked like part of a bigger conspiracy where there was involvement of biggies who had  political and military interests.

Nineteen years later, it was Benazir Bhutto’s turn to face the wrath of her enemies, quite probably, the military top brass, perhaps avenging the killing of Gen Zia-ul-Haq. A brief recount of Benazir Bhutto’s assassination — as her cavalcade started moving out after her successful election rally held at Liaquat Bagh, Rawalpindi, where Pakistan’s first Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan was assassinated in 1951, a small group of Punjabi-looking young men who also had Punjabi accent surrounded her moving car, started shouting slogans of “Jiye Benazir” a Sindhi language version of “Benazir zindabad” or “long live Benazir” in English. She was lured to stand up looking through an opening in the roof of the SUV to thank them. In a flash, she was fired upon from a precision weapon allegedly of military origin. Of the four bullets fired, one went through her head, killing her almost instantly. This was quickly followed by a bomb attack which completed the job of killing the leader.

For the record, Benazir Bhutto’s assassination took place after her fateful election rally on December 27, 2007. Thus, Benazir with a tasbih — a string of prayer beads — in her hand, chanting “Jiye shahid Bhutto”, died. A thing to note about these three political murders was that they were all linked to each other by a thread of starkly competing interests in an intense power struggle among viciously ambitious power-hungry military men and politicians at high places. In the bargain, all three lost their lives after short spells of glory. What’s worth is the lack of any long term impact — it was business as usual after a few short weeks.   

A few days after General Zia-ul-Haq died, Benazir summoned me to a pub located in a hidden corner on the ground floor of the Barbican Towers for a chat. I saw her beautiful face, pretty much glowing like one who had won a war and established an empire. She felt quite strongly that the exit of an “evil genius” like Gen Zia-ul-Haq was reason for celebration. “The punishment was willed by Allah,” she asserted with a raised glass of Coca-Cola in her hand and a broad smile on her face.

What was no less important for Benazir was that the death of Gen Zia-ul-Haq potentially opened the door for her to climb the political ladder and win her position as the next Prime Minister of Pakistan. Her passion for the creation of a sovereign, independent Sindh emulated from the example of Liberation of Bangladesh, seemed to have died with her.

Before I left for home, I said, “Benazir forgive me for asking you something that may upset you — who put the “exploding mangoes” in the baskets of the C 130 that killed General Zia-ul-Haq and US Ambassador Arnold Raphel?” For the first time,  she addressed me endearingly and said, “My dear friend, I should not answer your query. However, since I have already shared so many secrets with you, I will not disappoint you. Yes, I happen to know them.” For her comfort, I did not ask their names.

For me, it was now time to say goodbye to Benazir. I had a warm hand shake, said an emotional goodbye, and stepped back. And as it turned out, I was never to meet her again. Benazir’s assassination will be remembered by future generations as the darkest day for democracy in Pakistan’s turbulent history.

Banerjee is the author of A Long Journey Together

— India, Pakistan and Bangladesh published in 2008

Writer: Sashanka S Banerjee

Courtesy: The Pioneer

PM Narendra Modi is expected to make the most of his stay to the African continent.

Stakes are high as Prime Minister Narendra Modi began his five day three-nation tour of Africa on Monday. The visit comes at a time when there is a decline in trade and investment in the continent not to mention years of diplomatic neglect of Africa and its absence from the foreign policy matrix. The past decade, however, has seen Chinese presence in Africa expand exponentially as Beijing cast its net wide looking for energy security and strategic depth. This has, fortunately, compelled India to facilitate a comprehensive engagement with the continent and also enter into its fourth phase of friendship with Africa, the first India-Africa Forum Summit having taken place from April 4 to April 8, 2008, in New Delhi. Despite such unprecedented diplomatic outreach and high-level visits to Africa, India’s contribution as well as interest in Africa’s growth has failed to keep pace with intent and declined with time. China, our biggest competitor on the continent, makes India’s economic presence in Africa look miniscule. The figures are revealing: Chinese investments increased from 2011-12, when its investment levels were equivalent to India’s at $16 billion, to a massive $40 billion in 2016-17.

In terms of defence and security ties too, China is way ahead of India. According to the Stockholm Institute of Peace Research, China’s export of arms and ammunition to Africa increased to 55 per cent in a period of four years (2013-2017). China also boasts of an exponential growth in arms import to sub-Saharan Africa, which is up to 27 per cent from 16 per cent over the past four years. And our bleeding hearts diplomats must take some responsibility for India lagging behind in forging a deep defence and military relationship with various African nations. Perhaps nothing exemplifies how ahead of the game Beijing is when compared to New Delhi than the factoid that China has virtually gifted Rwanda, the Prime Minister’s first port of call during his African sojourn, a military training centre and provided tech support for an Artificial Intelligence based security platform. We have a lot of catching up to do; the Prime Minister’s visit, despite the memes it has spawned on social media, is essential. We hope something substantive comes of it. Africa is an aspirational continent with a young population and huge scope for development. India needs to sustain its engagement with Africa and set itself the aim of emerging as its economic, security and cultural partner so it can be a part of the African growth story even as expands its global strategic footprint.

Writer: Pioneer

Courtesy: The Pioneer

The power of Brexiteers’ lie in their threat to have the ability to stage a revolt that fatally splits the Conservative Party, overthrows May, and precipitates an early election.

Even with Donald Trump scheduled for a brief visit to the United Kingdom this week amid massive protests, it’s still ‘all Brexit, all of the time’ in the sceptred isle — and the long struggle over the nature of the deal that will define Britain’s relationship with the European Union post-exit allegedly reached a turning point last weekend.

“They had nothing else to offer. They had no Plan B. She faced them down,” said a senior Government official about the hard-line Brexiteers after Prime Minister Theresa May got them to sign up a so-called ‘soft Brexit’ at a crisis Cabinet meeting last Friday. But the armistice between the ‘Leave’ and ‘Remain’ factions in her fractious Conservative Party lasted less than 48 hours. On the morning of July 8, hard-line Brexiteer David Davis, the ludicrously titled Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, reneged on his short-lived support for May’s negotiating goals and resigned in protest. Then Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson followed suit, claiming that May’s plan meant “the (Brexit) dream is dying, suffocated by needless self-doubt.”

The sheer fecklessness of the ‘Brexit dream’ is epitomised by Johnson, who first compared May’s negotiating plans to “polishing a turd”, then came round to supporting them for about 36 hours, and finally resigned, saying that they would reduce the UK to a “vassal state” with the “status of a colony” of the EU. Yet at no point in the discussion did either of them offer a coherent counter-proposal.

And what is all this Sturm und Drang about? A negotiating position, devised by May with great difficulty two years after the referendum that yielded 52 per cent support for an undefined ‘Brexit’, which could never be accepted by the European Union. Its sole virtue was that it seemed possible to unite the ‘Leave’ and ‘Remain’ factions of the Conservative Party behind it. But the unity imposed by May broke down before the weekend was over.

All four of the great offices of the state — Prime Minister, Chancellor (Finance Minister), Foreign Secretary and Home Secretary (Interior Minister) — are now held by Conservative politicians who voted Remain in the referendum. Yet they are unable to persuade their party to accept even a ‘soft Brexit’ that preserves Britain’s existing access to its biggest trading partner, the EU.

The Brexiteers’ power lies in their implicit threat to stage a revolt that overthrows May, fatally splits the Conservative Party, and precipitates an early election that brings the Labour Party to power. They may not really have the numbers to do that — it’s widely assumed that a majority of the Conservative members of Parliament secretly want a very soft Brexit or no Brexit at all — but May dares not test that assumption.

So, horrified by the prospect of a Labour Government led by Jeremy Corbyn (who is regularly portrayed by the Right-wing media as a Lenin in waiting), the Conservatives are doomed to cling desperately to power even though they can probably never deliver a successful Brexit. And the time is running out. The United Kingdom will be leaving the European Union on March 29 next year, whether there is a deal that maintains most of its current trade with the EU or not. In practice, the deadline for an agreement is next October, since time must be allowed for 27 other EU members to ratify the deal. If there is no deal, the UK simply ‘crashes out’, and chaos ensues. The volume of trade in goods and services between the United Kingdom and the rest of the EU is so great, and the preparation for documenting the safety and origins of goods and collecting customs on them so scanty, that the new border would simply freeze up.

That would cause great difficulty for many European enterprises, but for Britain it would be a catastrophe. As an example, two-fifth of the components for cars built in the UK are sourced from elsewhere in the EU. Yet most of the time available for negotiating a soft Brexit has already been wasted, and Britain still does not have a realistic negotiating position. This preposterous situation is almost entirely due to the civil war within the Conservative Party between the Brexit faction the rest. The only reason that there was a referendum at all was because former Prime Minister David Cameron thought that a decisive defeat in a referendum would shut the Brexiteers up and end that war. He miscalculated.

The Brexiteers spun a fantasy of an oppressive EU that was the cause of all Britain’s troubles and sold it to the nostalgic older generation, the unemployed and underemployed who were looking for somebody to blame, and sundry nationalists of all colours. They narrowly won the referendum with the help of a rabidly nationalist Right-wing Press, spending well beyond the legal limits in the campaign – and, it now appears, with considerable support from Russia. (The biggest contributor to the Brexit campaign, mega-rich investor Arron Banks, met the Russian ambassador at least 11 times during the run-up to the referendum and the subsequent two months). There’s still a chance that reason will prevail before the UK crashes out of the EU, of course. But the odds are no better than even.

(The writer is an independent journalist)

Writer: Gwynne Dyer

Courtesy: The Pioneer

The Bihar government finally wakes up to the fact that prohibitions don’t work like in the past. What is required is greater awareness.

While there is no doubt that the social realities in Bihar much like in other parts of India are such that consumption of alcohol invariably leads to domestic abuse, neglect of children, and self-inflicted penury in a large number of homes, the panacea is not prohibition but awareness. That is the lesson from the world over which the Bihar State Government under Nitish Kumar has now part-learnt, at least to the extent of realising the rampant misuse of the stringent prohibition laws in the State and proposing some dilution (pun unintended) of the harshest. History is replete with examples of the failure of prohibition in India – of the nine States that have given it a go not many have stood the test of time. For instance, Mizoram revoked its prohibition laws after 18 years as the ban led to the spread of bootlegging and caused a huge loss of revenue to the State. Gujarat has had prohibition on the statute longest, given it is Mahatma Gandhi’s birthplace, but easy availability and even home delivery of the tipple of your choice is the State’s worst-kept secret.

In the case of Bihar, though prohibition was an election promise made by Nitish Kumar after thousands of women demanded it, the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, is draconian. The most egregious penalty was that it provided for the arrest of all adult members of a family in case liquor was found stored in their house and if found guilty all would be imprisoned for a minimum of 10 years extendable to a life term. Besides, first-time ‘offenders’ were sent to jail and authorities had the power to confiscate their property in case of repeated offences. Thankfully, common sense has prevailed after two years of the miscarriages of justice as a result of the imposition of this law replete with false cases. Sensing the many drawbacks in the implementation of prohibition which has caused a massive dip in revenue and given birth to a booze mafia which smuggles in alcohol from neighbouring States, the Government it is in the process of amending some laws in the upcoming Monsoon Session of the Bihar Assembly. Improving public health should be the aim of any Government and if an adult exercising his/her individual freedom of choice chooses to drink then the smart response would be to earmark revenues that accrue to the exchequer from the sale of alcohol to such initiatives including de-addiction centres.

Writer: Pioneer

Courtesy: The Pioneer

Political parties including the the Congress and Communist Party took exception to the fact that Amit Shah came to Kolkata and spoke on Bankim.

BJP president Amit Shah delivered the first Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay Memorial Oration, instituted by the Syama Prasad Mookerjee Research Foundation, in Kolkata on June 27.  2018 being the 180th birth anniversary year of the Rishi — the Sage, who as Sri Aurobindo wrote in his opuscule on Bankim, ‘was a seer and nation-builder’, the programme took on a symbolic dimension. Those who came to listen to Shah did so from across the State. It was not a Kolkata-centric event with a metro audience. Young academics and intellectuals from across West Bengal, from district colleges and educational institutions and from State universities had congregated to listen to Shah speak on Bankim and Vande Mataram —his immortal ode to Bharat Mata.

A large number of leading intellectuals and educationists had also come to listen to Shah and share the stage with him; notable among them was Bankim’s foremost Bengali biographer Amitrasudan Bhattacharya and the legendary modern Bengali writer Buddhadeb Guha.

Despite various roadblocks created by elements within the administrative and political establishment of the State, people thronged the venue and the programme succeeded in generating discussion for weeks after the event. Displaying stark opportunism, just two days before Shah’s address, the Mamata Banerjee administration announced a three-day Bankim Chandra festival — a first in seven decades of West Bengal’s existence as a State, while a day after the Oration, the State Government announced it was instituting a Chair in the name of Bankim at the University of Calcutta — again for the first time in seven decades.

In fact, the only time that Mamata Banerjee garlanded Bankim’s photo was just after she had taken over as Chief Minister in 2011. Since then, until 2018, she had desisted from alluding to his contribution and had refrained from even garlanding his portrait. Yet, her party and few of her appendage intellectuals project her as the leader of Bengalis and the party as a party of Bengalis and of Bengal and pay obeisance to her as the ‘premier’ of Bengal! In all this feigned Bengaliness, somehow Bankim went missing and was plastered over due to the false demands and exigencies of the politics of appeasement.

The Congress that ruled West Bengal for three decades after Independence did not think of paying tribute to Bankim through erecting appropriate institutions or memorials recognising his contribution.

During the Marxist phase, Bankim was relegated to the margins, projected as a communal thinker whose words and call for India’s liberation needed to be decimated or at least diluted from the public and intellectual discourse of the State.The Communists and their intellectuals, whose political fountainhead Muzaffar Ahmed (Kaka babu), displaying shallow intellectualism, found Bankim’s Anandamath ‘full of communal hatred from the beginning to the end’ began generating a narrative that Left-leaning intellectuals had refused to attend to Shah’s speech despite being invited.

The likes of Manoj Mitra, Bibhas Chakraborty, Rudraprasad Sengupta, Chandan Sen — all so-called pillars of the Left intellectual movement in Bengal — posed as if they were invited but refused the invitation to Shah’s event! On the contrary, these intellectuals were never reached out to and were not invited to the programme. In their desperation to appear relevant in the mainstream of intellectual discourse, they pretended to have rejected an invite that they had never received in the first place.

The Congress, Communists and a lone intellectual in the Trinamool Congress — an intellectual in the midst of lumpens — Sugata Bose, had actually taken umbrage at the fact that Shah had dared to come to Kolkata and to speak on Bankim, a figure that they have tried, for decades, to marginalise and to eradicate from the Bengali psyche. They behaved as if Bankim was their personal property over whose life and legacy they had sole control and authority over.

Ironically, it was this same Congress party in the opposition in Bengal in 1983, which had moved a resolution in the State Assembly demanding that the government ‘adopt measures to propagate the novel Anandamath’. The greater irony was that the ruling Left Front refused to vote against the motion, while cries of  Vande Mataram rent the Assembly. It is a history that the Congress of today would like to forget, because it is a Congress that has become increasingly de-nationalised, de-ideologised and de-linked from the ethos of India.

The inquisitiveness among the people at large was very encouraging; first, they wanted to hear Amit Shah who was speaking on a topic which was not the usual political-type subject and secondly because the oration was on Bankim. It was perhaps for the first time that Bankim Chandra’s birth anniversary was being observed through such a grand programme in the city. The programme was not a political programme; the venue, the famed GD Birla Sabhaghar was not a political forum; and the topic was an ideational, ideological and cultural issue aimed at the psyche and soul of Bengal. Shah that evening spoke from the heart, he referred to Bankim as the father of modern cultural nationalism, spoke of how Bengal through Chaitanya Mahabprabhu, Sri Ramakrishna, Vivekananda, Bankim and Sri Aurobindo had been the fountain of cultural nationalism and how that heritage, that past, needed to be revisited.

Shah spoke of India as a geo-cultural rather than a geo-political entity and argued that it was Bankim who, describing India as the Mother, had put his seal on this vision of Bharat as a geo-cultural and spiritual entity.

The discourse had been taken to an altogether new level in which the political was subsumed to the inspirational, ideational and philosophical dimension. His most poignant and hard-hitting point was that the fragmentation of  Vande Mataram in 1937, with Congress’s hesitation in singing it in its entirety, paved the way for the fragmentation of the country. That act of omission announced the era of appeasement politics, which eventually led to the Partition of India. It was an act of sacrilege, which tampered with the sacred spirit and dimension of India and her spiritual and cultural unity. These observations have struck a deep chord in the Bengali psyche, the Bengalis being a people most affected by the charade of the politics of appeasement. That act of fragmentation remains forever condemnable. Shah reminded us of that.

Writer: Anirban Ganguly

Courtesy: The Pioneer

Even though many political parties including the Congress had initially endorsed the idea of statehood for Delhi, the Congress finally wakes up to the fact that it is not possible.

The question of the feasibility of Delhi being granted the status of a fully-fledged State is in the news nowadays. When we won elections, we also wanted it to be a State and all three of our manifesto stated that we will try to make Delhi a State as did those of the other major parties, including the BJP. But to be honest what I realized is that Delhi cannot be a State like other States. That is because Delhi happens to be the capital of India. The capital of a country cannot be a State. So, that is the logic behind it.

Article 239AA gives Delhi a position of not a State but a Union Territory though with State-like features and as a territory of the Union the L-G here, who is appointed by the Central Government, has certain powers with him which the elected Government does not. These two powers are land and police (law and order). What developed over the years was a complete understanding between the State Government and the Lieutenant Governor. In my three terms as Chief Minister, including the first when the NDA was in power at the Centre, whenever the State we needed the police there was never an issue with deployment; indeed, ministers in the State Government are provided security/protection as required by Delhi Police. Similarly, when we needed land for a hospital or any other building for public welfare it was given to us without any jhagda or fuss.

On police specifically, there used to be a monthly meeting of the MLAs, MPs and the relevant police officers to discuss the problems of their particular areas. Law and order issues were discussed at these monthly meeting and when we asked questions we were given answers by police. Where land was concerned, if we needed to build universities and hospitals, we need land.

My experience was we always got the land except in Dwarka and even there we got land to build a hospital because there was no hospital in the area. We got land for the Institute for Liver and Biliary Sciences Hospital we established in Vasant Kunj, which is now rated among the top medical institutes of its kind in the world. The point is that in this kind of unique situation, the State Government and Lieutenant Governor must work in coordination. There is nothing really wrong with the Delhi situation. It’s a very well-governed city, which has everything that you want. It has people migrating to it. It has jobs galore.

The governance model has to be different because it’s the capital of the country. The entire diplomatic corps and international institutions are based here. They also have to be looked after and one can’t have anything going amiss there. Delhi Government per se has all the powers required to provide

effective governance. As for powers to transfer officials, all officers are broadly speaking equally good or bad; it depends on how you handle them and how much work you can get out of them. This is an issue that tends to get overstated.

I also feel the proposal mooted by some to keep New Delhi areas (those coming under New Delhi Municipal Council) in the current model and give the rest of Delhi the status of what is called a full-fledged State, is unworkable and impractical. Imagine a situation where a crime is committed in an NDMC area and the suspect and runs towards a ‘full State’ area; effective policing will be impossible. This is a fantasy someone has dreamed up.

Our current Chief Minister hasn’t done a proper job of governance, I’m afraid. Roads, flyovers and infrastructure has not been enhanced after the Congress Government was voted out. School buildings are dilapidated, our work has not been taken forward. After the Sonia Vihar water treatment plant set up by us which resolved the South and East Delhi water crisis and for which I must thank Ms Mayawati who was in power in Uttar Pradesh at the time, no water capacity has been added.

In sum, I find that the entire so-called full Statehood demand is nothing but a diversion. Colonies are in a mess, trees are being cut but the focus of Mr Arvind Kejriwal and his government is on what it terms the ‘obstructionist’ role of the Lieutenant Governor/Centre and the amount of time ‘wasted’ because of it. Well, at least they admit to having wasted over three years of their term. For example, the Aam Aadmi Party Government said it was going to buy a number of buses to augment the current fleet. But for the past two years there has not been a single new bus on the road. They have failed to buy a bus; what’s that got to do with obstructionism?

As for the demand for full Statehood for Delhi is concerned, I am of the firm view that the rules are in place, the regulations are in place and the division of powers are in place. The Supreme Court has only re-endorsed these and not come up with anything new. But it has emphasized the need for coordination and cooperation. The Court has made no changes in the subjects which come under the purview of the Centre; the rest remains with the State. So, the State needs to get on with providing good governance.

But the question for Mr Kejriwal remains: Did you not know the governance model and division of powers extant in Delhi before you came to power? If one takes on the responsibility of being the Chief Minister of Delhi, one must first understand the administrative and constitutional make-up of the place. Finding excuses because of one’s inability to do so is not correct. To sit on a dharna at the Lieutenant Governor’s residence, lying on a sofa with shoes off along with your ministerial colleagues is very undignified and does not behoove a Chief Minister. The point I’m making is that all these excuses not to do anything ring hollow. Melodrama is the right word for it. Just get on with the job. That’s all.

Writer:  Sheila Dixit

Courtesy: The Pioneer

Religious minorities in Afghanistan such as Hindus and Sikhs have been at the receiving end due to decades of internal conflict. International organisations’ failure to acknowledge their plight adds insult to injury.

India’s foreign policy has its task cut out — to ensure the safety of the Hindu-Sikh community within Afghanistan or its safe repatriation to India (or migration elsewhere) with full citizenship and rehabilitation. In a positive move, New Delhi has issued long-term visas to members of Afghanistan’s Sikh and Hindu communities and offered them the right to live in India without any limitation. India’s envoy to Afghanistan, Vinay Kumar, said that these Afghan citizens must take the final call. The Jalalabad bombing (July 1, 2018) has complicated matters for New Delhi and Kabul. India has given sustained support to successive Governments in Afghanistan (barring the Taliban that behaved shabbily during the Kandahar episode); Prime Minister Narendra Modi has invested personal capital in support of “Afghanistan’s multicultural fabric”. India has invested in many large development projects but growing insecurity has forced a slowdown. Seven Indian engineers kidnapped in May, in Baghlan Province, remain captive.

Some things are notable about the Jalalabad incident. First, Islamic State (IS) claimed responsibility, though security agencies are yet to confirm this. IS fighters are fleeing Syria in droves under pressure from the Syrian Arab Army and need safe havens; Pakistan which has long desired to be leader of the Islamic world seems a natural destination. How IS coexists with other terrorist groups there remains to be seen but Nangarhar, where the attack occurred, borders Pakistan and is a terrorist stronghold despite sustained operations by Afghan commandos and American airstrikes.

Second, Avtar Singh Khalsa, an important Sikh community leader and among the 19 victims in a convoy of Hindus and Sikhs that was going to meet Afghan President Ashraf Ghani, may have been an intended target. He was planning to contest Afghanistan’s parliamentary elections in October and would have been elected unopposed to the Wolesi Jirga (Lower House) as the seat he was planning to contest was reserved for minorities by Presidential decree in 2016. The IS statement disparaged Hindus and Sikhs as “polytheists” and may have aimed at preventing even token political diversity in the nation.

Afghanistan’s Hindu-Sikh minority has lived under various strains for decades. The rich fled to India after the assassination of President Daoud in 1978. The assassination of President Najibullah in 1996 made life more difficult and a silent exodus began towards the West and India. In 2016, TOLOnews reported that 99 percent of Hindus and Sikhs had left Afghanistan in the past three decades. From 2,20,000 in the 1980s, their number shrank to 15,000 during the mujahideen era followed by the Taliban rule, and currently stands at barely 1,350. The television channel said that the main reasons for their flight were religious discrimination and official neglect. Under the mujahideen-Taliban, their lands and assets were seized by warlords, reducing them to penury. These were never restored after the fall of the Taliban in 2001.

Under the Taliban, Hindus and Sikhs wore yellow armbands and were not allowed to hold Government jobs. Even post-Taliban, bigoted neighbours harassed them while cremating their dead, children were bullied and could not attend schools and the community as a whole was made to feel like outsiders. The head of the Hindu Council in Afghanistan, told TOLOnews that he had lost 10 members of his family in the Afghan conflict; two brothers in the Army had died fighting the mujahideen. He said discrimination against the community began in 1992 “when people started counting who were Hindu or Muslim and Tajik, Uzbek or Hazara.” TOLOnews observed that Hindus and Sikhs once had thriving businesses in the country, but now faced increasing poverty. There are no Sikhs or Hindus in Helmand and Kandahar Provinces. Only two gurdwaras function, one each in Jalalabad and Kabul; most temples are deserted.

The timing was political. It came the day after the Government ordered Afghan security forces to resume offensive operations against the Taliban on expiry of the Government’s 18-day ceasefire that overlapped with the Taliban’s three-day ceasefire for Eid, which IS did not join. It coincided with the visit of US envoy Alice Wells, who came to pressure the Taliban to engage with Ashraf Ghani. The Taliban is demanding direct talks with the US, which Washington has refused. Wells said, “Right now it’s the Taliban leaders … who aren’t residing in Afghanistan, who are the obstacle to a negotiated political settlement”, and added that Islamabad had to do more to bring Taliban to the negotiating table.

The attack is a setback to the Afghan Government as it has forced the minorities to weigh the prospects of continued survival in that country. Tejvir Singh, secretary of a national panel of Hindus and Sikhs, told Reuters, “I am clear that we cannot live here anymore… We are Afghans. The Government recognises us but terrorists target us because we are not Muslims.” Sikhs who took shelter in the Indian consulate in Jalalabad added, “We are left with two choices: To leave for India or to convert to Islam”.  Some Sikhs, however, said that their ties with Afghanistan were too deep to contemplate leaving. The situation is grim. Hours before the Jalalabad bombing, terrorists set fire to a boys’ school in Khogyani district and beheaded three workers, a standard tactic of IS, which had threatened to attack schools in the area as revenge for the US-Afghan military operations. It had specifically stated that it would also attack schools with girl students. The Norwegian Refugee Council, which runs a programme for displaced students, noted that, “Afghan schools are increasingly at risk on military, ideological and political fault lines, with attacks increasing in eastern Afghanistan”.

In a heart-warming gesture on July 3, 2018, as members of the Shiromani Akali Dal and Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee protested against the attack outside the Afghanistan Embassy in Delhi, Afghan diplomats and officials joined the protests. Stating that Afghans were also victims of cross-border terrorism, they said Ambassador Shaida Abdali viewed the incident as “a shared pain” and the embassy “was obliged to protest together with the Afghan Sikhs residing in India who also found support from Sikh brothers of India”. The attack underlines the fragility of the regime in Kabul. The rogue elements in Pakistan cannot be controlled without joint and concerted action by the US, Russia, India and China.

Writer:  Sandhya Jain

Courtesy: The Pioneer

The world is transfixed by the ongoing rescue effort for the boys trapped in a cave in Thailand and their will to survive

Hardly does a story of human endeavour feature in the chaos and conflict of information and interpretation. Neither does faith find a place if it is not trawling trolls. That is why the cave rescue of the Thai boys — who were trapped by sudden rain and flooding in a subterranean chamber on an exploratory mission and who miraculously blipped up after 12 days of being mistaken as dead — is a life-positive story that the world is glued to moment to moment. Amid trade wars and conflicts, this is the hope story that everybody wants to be part of and contribute to, simply because these crises remind us what a chance at life means beyond our destructive potential. It has had dramatic peaks and troughs, the joy of discovery plummeted by the almost impossible nature of rescue. With rapidly receding hopes — last heard oxygen levels in the cave were dipping low and a fresh spell of rains predicted more flooding, threatening to gobble up the perch where the boys are — all nations are stretching every limb for what could be the greatest human endeavour of our time. The challenges are superhuman: The dive route is a serpentine, narrow-neck channel, five hours long where large oxygen tanks cannot be carried through. Ace divers have had to hack through boulders with limited air supply, one dying in the process. We do not know whether the untrained boys will be able to dive in perilously murky water that is filling up faster than being pumped out or whether rescue workers can drill an escape chute through the slippery and stubborn rocks overhead. But it is a chance that the world is ready to take. Football stars like Ronaldo are cheering them, the FIFA president has even invited them to watch the World Cup finals and billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk is doing everything possible to aid their extraction, innovating on an inflatable pod. India, too, is offering technical expertise in flushing out water through Kirloskar. Over 1,000 international experts are at it while keeping up the morale of the boys, who now have food to wait it out for four months, can talk to families through an optic fibre link and will have an air tube to stay in a bubble of sorts. But the can-do spirit ticks because of another epic rescue in 2010 when 33 Chilean miners trapped in a caved-in shaft were rescued after two months of persistent efforts. The hurdles were many — the main submergence was followed by a secondary slip-in, the first two shafts for sending down a capsule for evacuation failed, the third worked and the first capsule collapsed. Yet all 33 made it to the surface for a world exclusive moment that was freeze-framed by photographers and became the subject of a Hollywood film.

Will fate deal a cruel hand? If the boys could hold out 12 days of blackout, don’t they deserve a chance to get back in the land of the living? Perhaps it is a test of human will. More so of technology that needs to come out of the cloud and tame Nature’s wilful ways. Or perhaps it’s Nature’s way of telling us that there is no bigger battle than survival worth fighting for.

Write: The Pioneer

Courtesy: The Pioneer

The government needs to be more proactive to bring a change in the present sexist and misogynist Indian social order. This will give a sense of security to women. As a society, it is time we set higher standards for ourselves.

Disheartening does not begin to describe the past two weeks. It has been a week where the Thomson Reuters Foundation came out with a perception report that ranked India as the world’s most dangerous country for women. This was also the week in which a young girl who had not even seen her tenth birthday was abducted and brutally raped in Madhya Pradesh. All of this has been interspersed with the now almost daily dose of disheartening news on some form of assault or violence against women. These however are just symptoms and we as a country must recognise that we have failed our women. It is therefore imperative to place a greater emphasis on ensuring that the women in our country irrespective of caste, colour, creed, religion or nationality feel that India is a country that not only respects women but also allows them to thrive.

This raises the important perceptional question of how the Government views women; and why we have to start demanding better of our Government and ourselves. Not one to adopt a subtle approach or letting its actions speaks for itself, the BJP is unsurprisingly of the view that it has excelled in dealing with issues relating to women empowerment. Union Minister Smriti Irani, on International Women’s Day, wrote an opinion piece where she said: “The need for empowerment of women is an idea that everyone acknowledges as important. However, following up ideas and ideals with actions is of prime importance. In this, Prime Minister Narendra Modi leads the way.” But the question is whether the BJP really leads the way? To help answer this question, instead of getting distracted by catch phrases and keywords,we must examine what the Prime Minister and the BJP have actually done in relation to the issues of importance to women.

Thomas Reuters Foundation report and the reaction of the BJP: As I mentioned above, the report released by the Thomas Reuters Foundation ranked India as the world’s most dangerous country for women. There was some shock that this report ranked India to be worse for women than war-torn countries like Syria. A large part of this criticism came from the BJP where the report was received with cries of an “agenda” against India. This is all the more surprising given that the same people who criticized the report such as Amit Malviya, the head of the IT Cell of the BJP, and party MP Rajiv Chandrashekhar, relied on the same report in 2014. In my opinion, to focus on whether India stand fourth or first is missing the woods for the trees.

What cannot be debated is the fact that India is among the worst countries in the world for women and the BJP would do well to dispel that notion by reigning in trolls, focusing on women safety, encouraging discussions in schools about the importance of protecting women rather than talking up the idea that there is an “agenda” against India.

Attack of the trolls: If you have had a chance to see my twitter handle or go to my Facebook page, you will know that similar to millions of people on social media, trolls love to heckle, abuse and threaten me for the opinions I share on social media. As a former police officer, I have had to deal with a number of criminals, goons and dacoits but I must say that women on social media face threats and encounter abuse that would make these criminals, goons and dacoits recoil with disgust. While social media has been present for some time now, the sheer volume of abuse suffered and the vitriolic, sexist messages against women have increased manifold. A clear example of this was the manner in which a number of such trolls have been attacking our Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj. It is significant to note that these trolls who threatened and abused Swaraj are “followed” by 41 BJP MPs and the Prime Minister himself follows eight such troll accounts. It was also telling that the Congress party condemned the attack on Swaraj before the BJP did and that the Prime Minister has maintained his silence on the issue. It is this kind of silence which the vicious trolling army takes as acquiescence even if that is not what is intended. When Irani said that the PM is leading the way, I am sure that this was not what she had in mind.

Casually inconsiderate: In addition to these specific issues, there is, in my view, a casual attitude towards women that emanates from the BJP. The obvious example of this attitude is the lack of fervor in any condemnation of the BJP MLA from Unnao, who is a rape-accused, or the BJP ministers who participated in a rally demanding a CBI probe into the Kathua rape-and-murder which was seen as supporting the accused. This lack of consideration by the BJP is also reflected on issues like GST slabs where sanitary napkins are taxed at 12 per cent.

In terms of the schemes that the Government has come out with to improve the status of women, there is a distinct feeling of disappointment at the lack of attention to actual implementation. The ‘Beti Bachao Beti Padhao’ (BBBP) is a clear example of this where the Comptroller & Auditor General (CAG) reports found a fall in the sex ratio at birth in various districts of Haryana and Punjab due to the lack of policy implementation, diversion of funds and a weak monitory mechanism. While the BJP says the BBBP is a visionary scheme to improve the status of women, the report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Human Resource Development found that out of a total amount of Rs 43 crore that was set aside for BBBP in the fiscal year 2016-2017, only five crore rupees has been correctly utilised.

Unfortunately, as history has shown, it is unlikely that the BJP will pay heed to any of these warnings. It is just as likely that the Prime Minister will continue to remain silent on these pressing issues. Irani rightly said that, “The nation will benefit from women’s qualities like excellent management abilities, communication skills, ability to multitask. It will also give a more caring and compassionate edge to the often impersonal realm of governance.” However, the manner in which women’s rights have been set back over the past few years suggests that India too could do with a Government that tries to incorporate these values.

Writer:  Ajoy Kumar

Courtesy: The Pioneer