The ruling party has been using surgical strikes to master the art of politicization, which prides itself on its commitment to the military and national security. By launching a new video of the same, the party is doing what it does best – politicize!

It is unfortunate that the already politicised issue of surgical strikes against terror camps in PoK was revived through a video clip, 20 months after the event. It triggered a tsunami of competitive nationalism among ‘loyal to Government’ TV channels, a bitter battle of words between the BJP and the Congress and sporadic criticism by military experts. It would have been better to let sleeping dogs lie. It will, however, be useful to recall two of the many epochal statements made by the BJP president Amit Shah following the surgical strikes. First, that it was the first time in 68 years that Indian troops crossed the LoC. Second, the party would take the issue of surgical strikes to the people.

The LoC has been crossed many times in the past covertly for similar raids. Our political class is severely deficient in military history, strategic thinking and political direction of operations and war. They rely on the generalist civil service, making it the blind leading the blind. Surgical strikes, and later Doklam, were used by the Government during the elections for political gains, particularly to showcase the strategic acumen of Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

I was among the seven military veterans who were briefed by Army chief Dalbir Singh and DGMO Lt Gen Ranbir Singh on the morning after the surgical strikes. Those facts do not require repetition. The video clip is authentic but for a layman, difficult to decipher. It could have been taken out of any Sylvester Stallone movie. Even before going public, the DGMO displayed exceptional civility in informing his Pakistani counterpart immediately after the last commando was back home that the target of the strikes was not the Pakistan Army but terrorist launch pads. He added that there were no plans for further strikes. This was Incredible India. Pakistan helped by denying the strikes altogether and called the video clip ‘farcical’. Fortunately, this prevented retaliation and escalation for which India was unprepared. The rest is folklore.

This was not the first time a raid/raids were carried out covertly. Yes, it was the first time multiple and coordinated raids were executed across the LoC and the Army, instead of maintaining silence and secrecy, was asked by the Government to go public for the first time ever. According to the Army, the operation was in retribution for the terrorist attack at Uri. Contrary to claims then that the surgical strikes as also the demonetisation that followed would deter Pakistan’s cross-border terrorism, the spin now is that it was primarily a revenge attack. What happened in the past were silent raids — including exchanging body parts of military personnel. I have witnessed such mutual bestiality since 1957 on both sides of the PirPanjal range. The ground situation changed significantly after the rigged elections of 1987 when the seeds of insurgency were sown.

Today, even the military community is divided over the merits of releasing the video clip. The disclosure can be viewed as a force multiplier for the forthcoming Assembly Elections but anyone who questions the military utility of the strikes is considered anti-national. Further, it does little to cheer the military whose modernisation woes have been publicised by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defence chaired by BJP military veteran, Maj Gen BC Khanduri. The Government’s latest charade is of the Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft 2.0 (MMRCA) for the Indian Air Force.

About marketing the strikes, as pledged by Shah, full marks to him and Modi’s team for their superb advertising skills. The surgical strikes were first milked in Lucknow by former Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar at public rallies in October-November 2016. I was with the Army in Central Command Lucknow and was, therefore, privy to Parrikar’s operations. Posters and hoardings blanketed Lucknow as never before. Congress chief Rahul Gandhi, also in town, was clouded by BJP event managers. What was striking was that for the first time, posters and banners carried pictures of the DGMO, Lt Gen Singh flanked by Modi, Shah, and Parrikar. This depiction was gross politicisation of the Army and the General who is today the Northern Army Commander.

This was not all. A few days later, Modi arrived in Lucknow at a public felicitation at the grand Sheesh Mahal.

BJP and RSS leaders indulged in grandstanding, talking up Modi as the conqueror in chief and presenting him with the mace of conquest. This Army-reflected glory was lapped up by the BJP brass as Parrikar narrated stories of how he had injected in the Army the great Hanuman spirit. In every election since Uttar Pradesh, surgical strikes have found a mention, including in Karnataka where Modi’s scriptwriters got their history of the Kodava Generals Cariappa and Thimayya completely wrong. Once again, Modi is denigrating the Congress and politicising the Army for votes.
However modest, surgical strikes were morale boosters. For the common man, it meant India was not always going to turn the other cheek. In that sense, it lifted the morale of the people but it did nothing to stop Pakistan from fighting its proxy war even more violently. After the victory in the 1971 war, Indira Gandhi was deified as Durga and Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw as the key architect of victory. On June 27, a day after Modi tore into the Congress for the Emergency, was Manekshaw’s 10th death anniversary. Except for Meghna Gulzar, who is making a film on the iconic Manekshaw, no one spared a thought for him.

The BJP prides itself on its commitment to the military and national security. It considers OROP as its crowning glory. But having squeezed the Army for maximum political advantage, it has done little for modernisation, enhancing capacities, defence reforms, and status vis-à-vis civilian services. The strategic utility of a 2-km deep incursion is questionable. Last Saturday, a Citizens Conclave in New Delhi pledged to safeguard the Constitution, the judiciary, civil services and the armed forces. A military veteran noted that the armed forces and civil services are pandering to those in power. The reverse is also true. The political class must not forget that the armed forces are secular, apolitical and professional. Once-in-68 years military operations must be game-changers and never politicised. National interest must not become synonymous with winning elections.

(The writer, Ashok K Mehta, is a retired Major General of the Indian Army and founder member of the Defence Planning Staff, currently the revamped Integrated Defence Staff)

Writer: Ashok K Mehta

Courtesy: The Pioneer

All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen chief Asaduddin Owaisi is urging muslims to vote along religious lines. What does he have in mind?

Was it to boycott other community candidates or to get more Muslims into legislative chambers or was it to avenge the takeover of Nizam’s State by New Delhi in 1948? Because his grandfather, Abdul Rashid was the right-hand man of Kasim Razvi who headed the Nizam’s unofficial roughnecks called the Razakars.

My earlier impression was that educated Muslim leaders must think before they articulate in public. This view somewhat faded recently after I read a book, Pathway to Pakistan, by Chaudhry Khaliquzzaman, the leader who succeeded Muhammad Ali Jinnah as the president of the Muslim League. Despite being a staunch follower of Jinnah, Khaliquzzaman stayed back in India, to begin with, and headed the League.

Khaliquzzaman corresponded with Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy, the mastermind of the Great Calcutta Killing in August 1946. On September 10, 1947, he wrote to Khaliquzzaman, strategizing for Muslims who were left behind in Hindustan. He recommended that they should continue to hold fast to the two-nation theory but at the same time have cordial relations with the Hindus.

They should form themselves into strong pockets or clusters which would enable them to survive better and be culturally benefited. He did not favour population transfer; although he confessed that he had not anticipated Bengal to be partitioned and be reduced to Muslims becoming a minority in West Bengal.

He strongly felt that their co-religionists had been let high and dry to shape their own destiny without any homeland. Neither Suhrawardy nor Khaliquzzaman betrayed any enthusiasm for the two-nation theory which was injurious to the left behind Muslims. Yet as Leaguers, they had to swear by it.

Nevertheless, both the leaders appeared earnest and dedicated to the welfare of the left behind Muslims, and yet both of them packed their bags long before and landed in Pakistan: Suhrawardy to become the Prime Minister and Khaliquzzaman to take over as the successor of Jinnah as party president.

Since Owaisi is ideologically a bird of the same feather, could he also be a comparable acrobat? Politically, Muslims vote for Muslims makes no sense in the Indian electoral system either at the Parliamentary or the Assembly; level except perhaps for the fact that it would enable his own party to field more candidates.

Finally, has Owaisi considered the reaction of non-Muslims to his proposal that Muslims should vote for Muslim candidates? Should Hindus, for example, vote for only Hindu candidates? What would then be the profiles of the legislatures? Does he not know that Jinnah and his colleagues had demanded an exchange of populations?

In 1946, Dr Rajendra Prasad published a book, India Divided, wherein he responded to Jinnah that those Muslims who could not go to Pakistan should reside in Hindustan as aliens on the strength of visas and Jinnah had promptly confirmed his agreement on a reciprocal basis. If accepted by the Nehru Government, what would have been the status of Owaisi? Was not the Partition a final settlement: Pakistan for Muslims and Hindustan for the rest?

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

Writer: Prafull Goradia

Courtesy: The Pioneer

One of the grimmest chapters in the history of India, many events led to the Emergency. The least we can do is learn something from it.

A courageous judgement on electoral malpractice indulged in by the Prime Minister to win her Lok Sabha seat in the 1971 General Election was delivered on 12 June, 1975, by Justice Jagmohan Lal Sinha of Allahabad High Court. It had the potential to reveal the inner strength of Indian democracy to the world. Everyone, except a few, experienced a sense of pride in the autonomy of the judiciary and the vision contained in the Constitution. But the sense of elation was short-lived. Prime Minister Indira Gandhi did not submit her resignation in the wake of her conviction, nor even even after humiliating and debilitating restrictions were imposed on her on 24 June by Justice Krishna Iyer of the Supreme Court. What followed next was a sordid saga of unashamed mutilation of the Constitutional provisions by a coterie around Indira Gandhi. The Emergency lasted for 21 months starting June 25, 1975, to March 21, 1977. India was converted into a state ruled by a couple of persons who could incarcerate anyone without caring for the rule of law.

Though apparently everyone was scared, uncertain and apprehensive, slowly stories of heroic action by young and old alike began to emerge. India had tasted democracy, internalised it; and even an illiterate Indian was aware of his/her rights for which the leaders of the freedom struggle had made every possible sacrifice. The Emergency was imposed at a time when traditional respect for political leaders had begun to fade; those in power had become self-centred and drifted away from the welfare of the people. For the informed Indian, the manner the Emergency was declared was shocking.

The Prime Minister was in such a terrible hurry that she had no time for even a formal Cabinet Meeting before going to the President. And what a supportive President, who was supposed to be the defender of the Constitution! He accepted the recommendation without blinking an eyelid. The Cabinet ‘met’ at 6 a.m., just in time to hear that the Emergency had been proclaimed. And it is said that the Cabinet consists of Ministers in which the Prime Minister is only the first amongst equals. One wonders why all or even one of them did not protest. They just meekly acquiesced.

All three major organs of democracy were under test by Indira Gandhi. The Legislature emerged in poor light. The judiciary could not emerge as the defender of law and the Constitution. Not much was expected from the bureaucracy as they always have a defence: We are not policy-makers but implementers. While Justice Sinha and also Justice Iyer kept the flag of the judiciary flying, there was too much of disappointment in store when a five-Judge Bench of the apex court examined what is known as the ADM Jabalpur case. In his brilliant analysis of the Emergency in the volume, Emergency: Indian Democracy’s Darkest Hour, veteran journalist A Surya Prakash writes: “The case was decided on 28 April 1978. Four Judges — AN Ray, MH Beg, YV Chandrachud and PN Bhagwati – held that no citizen had the right to move a writ of habeas corpus in light of the presidential order of 27 June 1975 or to challenge detention as illegal.” Of the three judges, Justice Beg went so far as to praise the ‘maternal’ attitude of the Government. He said: “We understand that the care and concern bestowed by the state authorities upon the welfare of the detenus, who were all well-fed and well-treated, is almost maternal. Even parents have to take appropriate preventive action against those children who threaten to burn down the house they live in.” This probably was the biggest joke inflicted on the people of India and their Constitutional rights and will be read with profound sadness even when other details about the dreaded Emergency are forgotten.

Here too, however, there was a ray of hope for the future. The fifth judge on the Bench, Justice HR Khanna, was the only one who dissented as he found no merit in the case as presented by the Government. This was courage personified in the days when every Indian, irrespective of his station in life, was unsafe under a tyrannical dispensation. Justice Sinha was the original hero. Justice Khanna brought hope to the masses, inspired the young in the judiciary and in the process sacrificed his right to become the CJI. When superseded, he did the most dignified thing: He tendered his resignation. His contribution in sustaining the dignity of the judiciary shall be remembered with respect and admiration.

On the people’s front, none should forget how an underground movement was organised by the young throughout India. Several leaders went underground, forgot their political differences and organised the younger lot successfully, as well as educated the masses in what was at stake if the mutilators of democracy were not thrown out of power. The media was fully gagged by Sanjay Gandhi and Vidya Charan Shukla, people had evolved their own systems to gather information. Who could forget the courage and sufferings of Ramnath Goenka and others who stood like rocks against attacks on media?

The manner in which the censors did their work during that period will remain a dreaded memory in the minds of many. The resistance to all this and the coterie behind it would not have been possible but for the cementing presence of JP. He was the trusted leader of the people, he became courage incarnate. A life lived in selfless service of the motherland, he shall continue to inspire young generations in times to come. He followed Gandhian ideals in letter and spirit. Unfortunately, those who learnt their politics at his feet were swept away by power and perks. They did not learn the lesson that the Emergency taught us. But lessons must be learnt. Indira Gandhi’s return to power cannot justify her imposition of the Emergency. India cannot ignore the darkest period of its democracy. It cannot forget how the offspring of the Prime Minister could become a power centre without accountability. Dynasties have debilitating, destructive tendencies. These have no place in dynamic democracies.

Some would not like any mention of the Emergency in textbooks. That indeed is an amazing view of history and the lessons it offers for future generations. Why should young Indians not know how the implications of suspension of fundamental rights, including the right to life, were interpreted by the then Attorney General Niren De before a Bench of the Supreme Court? Justice Khanna wrote in his autobiography that his colleagues — normally very vocal about human rights — were sitting tongue-tied listening to De. Justice Khanna asked him what the remedy was “If a police officer because of personal enmity killed another man?” The Attorney General’s response shall remain an eye-opener for the Indian judiciary: “There would be no judicial remedy in such a case so long the Emergency lasts”. Can anyone ignore, forget and not learn from it?

Before June 25, 1975, teachers throughout the country were articulating the principles of democracy and the salient features of the Constitution with a sense of pride. Students were rehearsing to participate in ‘mock Parliaments’. But Indira Gandhi’s coterie was rewriting the principles of democracy for the “person, family and the dynasty”. India will never allow a repeat.

Thousands were already in jail, most of them unaware of why they were there. Within days of the Emergency, people gathered that the country was being run by Sanjay Gandhi and a couple of people around him. Stories of citizens being forced to undergo sterilisation became the talk of the town. A sense of fear gripped practically every household. At a rough estimate, victims of the ‘Sanjay Sterilisation Effect’ could be more than 70 lakh men. Imagine what a devastating impact it would have created on the person himself, at least five immediate family members and a further 10-15 close relatives. Think of families in which young unmarried persons were also forcibly subjected to this cruelty. In addition to these victims, the number of persons detained during Emergency under MISA and the Defence of India Act reached a staggering 1,11,000. Officials were given instructions to complete the quota of arrests and sterilisations ‘anyhow’, and no one was in a state of mind not to obey. No Indian should suffer such ignominies in future and, hence, must know everything about the dark days of Emergency. The description of democracy in Indian textbooks would always remain deficient if the learner is not educated through the example of Emergency on how a functional democracy is to be sustained and strengthened against diabolical onslaughts.

(The writer, JS Rajput, is the Indian Representative on the Executive Board of UNESCO)

Humanity has come to a standstill, and even depreciating day by day. The most innocent witnesses of this horrible truth are the children of Syria. With thousands of kids being killed, the fate of the nation seems grimmer than ever.

Casually skimming through several news websites, I stopped at a news item about a young Syrian boy who had fallen unconscious after a bomb attack. When he woke up in a hospital, he had become blind. The boy must have been six or seven years old. The news also carried a video in which the boy was screaming in terror, as his father held him to his chest trying his best to console him.

Can you imagine the terror of waking up blind? Can you imagine this happening to an innocent child? The boy was almost my nephew’s age, whom I am very close to. I tried to flush the images out of my system. I had to. I was about to make a presentation. I am not a very emotionally demonstrative man. But that day when I went back home, I instinctively found myself sitting quietly in a secluded corner. And then I wept. Forlorn, I lay on my bed and closed my eyes for a nap. After about half an hour or so, I suddenly woke up, gasping. I could see my surroundings to assure myself that I had woken up from a bad dream. But that child, he woke up to complete darkness. An entire generation of Syrian children faces psychological damage, ever-increasing danger and death. These are terrible times for children. They are being raped, tortured and killed as if society, as we know it, has declared war against them — a mad war against the future of the human race. Being mutilated by mentally ill perverts, maimed by vicious dictators, slaughtered by those who want to “bring democracy” to faraway lands, and butchered by men who do so in the name of faith.

Each of these sadists may have different ideologies and views, but inherently, they all carry a perverse existentialist streak which is apocalyptic. It makes them believe that there is no tomorrow, just a lonesome today. Some want to gluttonise life as much as they can from this today, while others want to destroy it because they think there’s something better waiting for them in the hereafter. They feel threatened by children because they remind them of a future — a continuation of life and the human race. By killing and maiming children they think they are halting this continuity. Some are doing it because they are deranged (yet respectable, pious members of the sane society). Some are doing it because of those grand sounding “geopolitical” reasons, in which supposedly a devastating war would end a dictatorship and herald a utopian democracy. Some are doing it because they don’t want to let go of power. They are scared of a different future; a future without them at the helm. Some are doing it because they believe the Almighty has sanctioned them to go on killing sprees so that their places in paradise are confirmed. The day after I watched that tragic video, I saw on my Twitter timeline, a journalist colleague exhibiting patience and tact while trying to engage with a Twitter handle that claimed to exhibit deep love for Pakistan’s Armed Forces. He/she suggested that it was wrong of the Government and military of Pakistan to have gone to war with the extremists because they were not anti-Pakistan.

Emotionally ravaged by the video that I had seen — and still remembering stories about how during a suicide bombing at Lahore’s Moon Market some years ago, children holding their parents’ hands were simply blown to pieces — I wanted to snap at the person tweeting such convoluted claptrap. I wanted to tell that person that it was narratives such as these that not only tried to justify the tragic, gruesome demise of thousands of Pakistanis at the hands of extremists, but eventually led to the extremists attacking and slaughtering over 140 schoolchildren in Peshawar in December 2014. Had this ridiculously imprudent person who claimed to be a lover of Pakistani military already forgotten about that attack? Or about how the extremists played football with the heads of executed Pakistani soldiers?

In 2013, when a prominent extremist was killed in a US drone attack in North Waziristan, then interior minister Chaudhry Nisar actually held a Press conference condemning the attack. Opposition leader Imran Khan was not far behind, calling the attack “an attempt to derail peace talks between the state and the extremists.” Even though hundreds of children had already been killed in suicide bombings, and hundreds more had lost a parent, and, in some cases, both the parents, between 2004 and 2013, yet these two gentlemen and others who were regulars on rabid television talk shows, couldn’t stop themselves from gazing at their navels and brazenly concocting reasons in their bid to hold back the military from launching an all-out operation against extremist groups.

But Gen Raheel had had enough. This nation of mine only managed to get the spell of the apologists over it broken by the tragedy of 140-plus students mercilessly killed by extremists in Peshawar. Just imagine, it had to take a tragedy of this proportion for many of us to finally realise how all that convoluted and conspiratorial nonsense barefacedly spouted by the apologists was a sham. By the way, many still hold on to such hogwash. On the other end, tragic images of children suffering the most terrible effects of war in Syria and Yemen often get overshadowed by the drawing room and social media debates about “geopolitics”. As if these wars were board games played by men who wanted you to believe that they were the most rational, yet okay about a few thousand children being mutilated by bombs and starvation. Collateral damage. Happens in wars, you know.

When children die, so does humanity. Those killing them know this. And they are doing this because they are not human anymore. They justify their murderous lust through a plethora of convoluted political and theological ideologies. But nothing will stop history from remembering them as nothing more than madmen who wanted to prolong their psychotic presence by killing innocent children.

Writer:  Nadeem Paracha

Courtesy: The pioneer

No matter what is the outcome of Pakistan polls, it seems like the Army and Islamic clergy will be the ones calling the shots, with the only intention of friction against India.

As Pakistan’s eastern neighbour, New Delhi cannot close its eyes to political and social developments that take place in that country. Especially, when it is on the eve of a General Election precipitated by the apex court forcing the ouster of the then Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif on charges of corruption with the publication of what is known as the Panama Papers which disclosed money stashed abroad by the high and the mighty.

July 25 is the deadline for the election. The interesting fact is that the leading party, Pakistan Muslim League-N (PML-N) is facing a revolt from within. The giving of a ticket to Hamza Sharif, Nawaz Sharif’s nephew, has prompted a leading PML-N leader Zaeem Qadri to challenge his own party high command by threatening to contest as an Independent candidate.

Nawaz himself has been barred by the apex court verdict from contesting. His brother and till recently Punjab Governor is expected to take over if PML-N makes it to the top. The expectation is that if it gets a fresh electoral verdict in its favour, the party, thrice the ruling party and twice ousted by the Army, will be strengthened enough to assert legitimate civilian democratic power against interference by the Army in politics and could prevail over other contenders for power, the clerics.

The main electoral contest is between PML-N and former cricketer-turned-politician Imran Khan, from the Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI). But Imran Khan has had his reputation besmirched by his ex-wife Reham Khan though their marriage lasted for just 10 months. Her book, which she claimed was not timed for the election, however saw excerpts leaked clandestinely. The book as a whole does not flatter Imran; and his opponents are using its contents to blacken his reputation.

But Imran ‘s third marriage early this year with Bushra Maneka is also in trouble, apparently. She is described as a “respected Pir”, a faith healer. Bushra, also known as “Pinky Pir”, was married for several decades and had five children, including two married daughters. She divorced her husband, a senior customs officer, to marry Imran. Now the two newlyweds are reported to be having problems and are heading for a separation. It should be remembered that, in this context, his much publicised first marriage to a British Jewish billionaire’s daughter lasted almost a decade but was called off after an exchange of several allegations.

Last year, Imran Khan organised a Parliament shutdown which was resolved only by the Army’s intervention. That shut down had the backing from militant clerics who are still in power in Pakistan politics. There is, in fact, an allegation that Imran’s party has a deep understanding with fundamentalist clerics.

The political outcome of all this could be that either the election will not take place or the Army might intervene as the same Supreme Court, which brought down Nawaz Sharif, is yet to give its finding on allegations against Imran Khan on “moral turpitude”. If Imran is also disqualified then the two main leaders will not be contesting and the elected party leader will be a nominee and thus lack power to withstand the two other power forces — the Army and the clerics. Either way, there is little hope for those who are looking forward to strong civilian rule and policy stability in the nuclear weapons equipped country with fundamentalist forces within Pakistan with links to similar militant fundamentalists in  Afghanistan dictating policies.

That brings us back to the need for a strong and stable Government to continue for five years.  Pakistan has now virtually switched from its alliance with the US and gone over to China which is giving it critical support, both politically and financially, like never before. This should be considered in the context that our southern neighbour Sri Lanka is facing evidence of its top politician and former President Mahinda Rajapaksa as having been financed in the General Election two years back by China’s investments in the port which has been leased out for 99 years to China along with 15,000 acres of adjoining land to develop an industrial park. Details of payments made to Rajapaksa through various Chinese channels have been made public. That Sri Lanka had been virtually drowned in a debt amounting to eight billion dollar to China was the reason Sri Lanka had to give in to Chinese demands for the strategic post.  Yet the country still owes some seven billion dollars even after deducting the estimated value of the port. This puts Sri Lanka under pressure of Chinese political demands. Many independent analysts have cautioned about how Sri Lanka would be affected by the deal and its problems would multiply.

For India, its western neighbour and the southern strategic island neighbour both coming under China’s influence cannot be good news. Pakistan, it must be remembered has been promised a Chinese investment of 50 billion dollars for the industrial corridor connecting Xinjiang on Karakoram north to Gwadar on the Arabian Sea-Indian Ocean in Pakistan.

That also involves Pakistan ceding part of its territory in Kashmir, which it holds by force and which belongs to India by virtue of entire Jammu & Kashmir being part of India, thereby entering into an illegal transaction at our cost. In the process, it poses a threat to our security. Now Sri Lanka also poses a similar threat through leasing out a strategic port along the sea lane near our coast. China played a part in getting the Seychelles to hum and haw on going through with the naval facility it was willing to provide India. It is to the great credit to the Indian Government that it was able to persuade Seychelles President Danny Faure to cancel a proposed deal with China and restore naval and maritime facilities to India. The way China is building up its “road and belt” surrounding India is a warning to us that Beijing’s repeated statements of working for peace and security in the region should be taken with a pinch of salt.

Irrespective of what happens in Pakistan during the forthcoming polls — three things are certain: The Army and the Islamic clergy will continue to call the shots in the strife-ridden country and its policy of bleeding India through a thousand cuts followed by successive regimes in Islamabad too will remain unchanged. And Pakistan will continue to be China’s partner and a co-conspirator against India.

(The writer,  Balbir Punj, is a political commentator and a former BJP Rajya Sabha MP)

Writer:  Balbir Punj

Courtesy: The Pioneer

Spells of trouble await for Germany. First, elimination from the FIFA World Cup, and then, the ultimatum issued to Chancellor Angela Merkel by a coalition partner to act decisively and put an end to any more accommodation of asylum seekers from West Asia and North Africa. Coalition partner from Bavaria is demanding that Germany regain control of its own national borders.

What the regional party from Bavaria — a long-term ally of the ruling Christian Democrats — is demanding of its national Government is not unique. Ever since Germany stunned the world by accommodating nearly a million refugees — mainly Muslims — from war-affected zones, the European Union has been rocked by political convulsions. Two of its foundational principles — the free movement of people within the EU and the protection of human rights—have come under sharp attack from national governments of member-states.

It was Hungary’s pugnacious Viktor Orban who raised the banner of revolt by refusing to accommodate any of the refugees/ asylum seekers within its national borders because he felt their cultural assumptions were alien to the core assumptions of the EU — ‘Christian’ or ‘western’ values. Hungary was followed by Poland and Slovakia. Now Italy —by no means a late entrant or one of those states that had been under Soviet tutelage — has joined in the resistance to immigration from non-EU countries. The United Kingdom, still awkwardly perched between being in and out of the EU, has, in any case, never really acquiesced in taking on a flood of asylum seekers.

Germany, not least because of its extremely troubled history in the 20th century, had always resisted the trend to accommodate exclusively national sentiments. The post-1945 consensus deemed that Germany would find a new role for itself by embracing an European ideal and devolving many aspects of national sovereignty to a multilateral, pan-European body. Consequently, despite grave domestic compulsions, Chancellor Merkel has not succumbed to the pressures from within Germany to take unilateral action that pitted national sovereignty against multilateralism. Even when her own Government was on the verge of collapse, she took the matter of asylum seekers to Brussels to ensure that whatever measures Germany took had the backing of the EU and didn’t violate the larger principle of free movement of EU citizens.

Merkel will, however, be accused of doing too little and too late. That charge is valid. The Chancellor’s real folly was to unilaterally announce that she would take in a million asylum seekers at one go in 2015. She was lavishly praised for her enlightened sense of accommodation by the world’s liberal fraternity but there was a huge price she has paid for her decision.

First, Merkel clearly miscalculated the extent of simmering resentment of ordinary Germans to the influx. Despite the sympathy for people whose lives had been destroyed by the conflicts triggered by fanatical politico-religious movements in Asia and Africa, many Germans wondered why it had become obligatory for them to take a disproportionate burden of a problem that, in any case, had not been created by Germany.

After the details of Hitler’s holocaust were fully grasped, Germans were sufficiently demoralised and guilt ridden to accept the loss of one-fifth of its territories. The country disavowed militarism completely and its Constitution made it impossible for any strong leader to emerge. However, the crisis of 2015 left Germans completely unmoved. They felt no responsibility for it and Merkel’s undeniable over-generosity left them unmoved. They resented the fact that they weren’t consulted. In effect, Merkel’s 2015 open door policy undermined the guilt consciousness that had dominated German consciousness since 1945. The feeling that Germany had more than done its fair share of atonement now became prevalent.

Secondly, the attempts to meet Germany’s present concerns over asylum seekers has eroded the country’s touching faith in multilateralism and the lofty ideals of the EU. Although Merkel still preferred to take the matter to Brussels rather than initiate national action, there is a growing realisation that Germany cannot be the only guys playing by the rules. The Government in Budapest may appear abrasive to the editorial classes but there is no question that Orban’s stubborn refusal to extend hospitality to asylum seekers enjoys widespread support within Germany. The EU too appears to have grudgingly recognised this too. Hence its recent decision that gives national governments scope for autonomous action. What this means is that the Franco-German moves towards a deeper EU that will, in time, evolve a common foreign policy and even have a common EU military, has suffered a setback.

Predictably, the strains in the EU and within Germany as a result of the asylum seekers problem will be welcomed by Russia’s Vladimir Putin. The Russian leader may even find comfort with the growing strains between the EU and US over tariffs and contributions to NATO. That, however, is an incidental consequence. What is probably more consequential is that events may be propelling Germany and France to take a more active role in promoting European interests in an age of nationalism. Will that create opportunities for China? Or will European countries now acknowledge that China’s economic expansion also has a definite political sub-text.

A Great Game is also being played out in Europe. It offers India some new openings, if only we are far-sighted enough to realise what these are and move accordingly.

Writer: Swapan Dasgupta

Courtesy: The Pioneer

Many states might be are going into elections along with Lok Sabha elections including opposition-ruled Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, and Odisha, and BJP-ruled Maharashtra, Haryana, and Jharkhand. Some say the dilemma over poll timing may only resolve after the PM mentions something in his 15th August speech this year.

The BJP leaders are trying to assess whether the anti-incumbency factor in the BJP-ruled States is strong or if the anti-government feeling towards the Central Government is more prominent. This must be noted that the Assembly Elections are scheduled in four States at the end of this year. The BJP is the ruling party in Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, and Rajasthan, whereas the Congress is ruling in Mizoram. Many BJP leaders feel that if the Assembly Elections are held separately in the three BJP-ruled States and the party doesn’t perform well, then the party will suffer in the Lok Sabha Elections. So, these three States might go into elections along with Lok Sabha. There are two ways to go into simultaneous elections: Either the Lok Sabha Elections will be held before schedule or the Assembly Elections will be held four to five months after schedule. If the elections are pushed and four States go into elections along with LS polls, then there will be pressure to hold elections in other States also along with the LS.

Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, and Odisha go into elections along with the LS Elections. Apart from these, three Opposition-ruled States — Maharashtra, Haryana, and Jharkhand, which are BJP-ruled — will also witness elections next year. It is in Maharashtra that the BJP doesn’t go into elections along with the Lok Sabha. However, some say this dilemma over poll timing will be over only after PM Narendra Modi’s speech from the Red Fort on August 15.

OF TWO RESTLESS LEADERS

Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar is sailing in the same boat as Shiv Sena supremo Uddhav Thackeray — they are both worried and restless. Both know well that they don’t have any place in the non-NDA alliance if they part ways with the BJP, and they will face a tough situation if they fight alone. So, they want to continue with the BJP, but are creating pressure for more seats. On the other hand, the BJP is well aware of their compulsions and is positioning itself accordingly.

The JDU has put a proposal before the BJP to fight elections on the old formula and wants the seats to be distributed according to the results of the 2015 Assembly Elections. The BJP and other alliance partners want seat distribution according to the 2014 Lok Sabha results.

As per the 2015 results, the JDU was the largest partner in the NDA, while according to the 2014 results, the JDU is the weakest partner in the NDA. In fact, Nitish knows that the BJP needs him for the Lok Sabha Elections because the Government at the Centre will be at stake, and the BJP will try to save its 22 seats at any cost. That is why the JDU wants to hold the Assembly Elections along with the LS, so that seats for both elections are distributed at the same time and they can clinch a respectable number.

The Shiv Sena is also aware that the BJP needs it for the LS Elections as it has to save 23 seats in the State. That is why Uddhav has not surrendered even after meeting Amit Shah, and is continuously attacking the BJP. He knows well that the BJP will share the Lok Sabha seats with the Shiv Sena. But Uddhav is also aware that if the Assembly Elections are not held along with the LS, anything can happen. That is why he also wants the seat-sharing arrangement for the LS and Assembly Elections at the same time. He is asking for 22 Lok Sabha seats and 150 Assembly seats as per the old formula.

IN BIHAR, UPHEAVAL ON THE CARDS

Political drama is unfolding fast in Bihar. First, the Congress went soft on Nitish and said if he leaves the BJP, then its leaders would talk to its alliance partner, the RJD. Suddenly after that, the JDU leaders started demanding 25 seats and pressed for the 2015 formula for seat-sharing. This must be noted that at that time, the JDU and RJD had fought together. Next month, the JDU’s national conclave is scheduled in Delhi and before that, the party’s demand for seat distribution is indicative of many things.

Meanwhile, a fight has erupted between two Dalit leaders of the RJD-Congress alliance. Jitan Ram Manjhi, who has joined the RJD alliance after leaving the NDA, is feuding with former Speaker, Uday Narayan Choudhary. Manjhi said Choudhary was anti-Dalit and he had to resign from the CM’s post due to him. Not only this, Manjhi has staked a claim on five Lok Sabha seats and even started announcing its candidates.

Manjhi’s move is worrying the RJD and Congress. The speculation is that Manjhi is yet again ready to switch sides and might join the NDA. It is also being said that he wanted to see his son Santosh — who had been sent to the Legislative Council recently by the RJD-Congress alliance — as a minister. This must be noted that right now, Nitish is busy connecting with Dalit leaders from all over the State. First, he sent Ram Vilas Paswan’s brother Pashupati to the Legislative Council and gave him a ministerial berth, and later brought in Congress leader Ashok Chaudhary. Now, people are saying Nitish can give the JDU Bihar president post to Ashok Chaudhary. In this scenario, if Manjhi gets ready to join the NDA again, Nitish would give him a warm welcome. And at last Nitish can also go into elections separately with a battery of Dalit leaders.

KCR THE NEW CHANDRABABU?

CM of Telangana K Chandrashekar Rao has stopped singing anti-BJP tunes. He is the first leader who had given an anti-BJP, anti-Congress slogan and had started toiling for a federal front. However, he now seems to have given up all such plans, and can be seen trying to cosy up to the BJP and PM Modi. That is why it is being said that KCR can be the new partner for the BJP in South India.

This is a known fact that Rao wanted to join the NDA Government at the Centre. He desperately wanted to see his daughter, K Kavitha, as a minister at the Centre. His son and niece are ministers in his own Council of Ministers. However, for four years, he could not be successful in his attempts. Now, it is being said that if talks are finalised between the BJP and TRS, Kavitha can become a minister at the Centre and both parties can become alliance partners in Telangana. In this way, the BJP will find a new Chandrababu Naidu in South India. But the BJP leaders of Andhra Pradesh are not in favour of such an alliance. They say that if an alliance is forged with Telangana’s party, then chances of the BJP will go down in Andhra Pradesh.

On the other hand, the BJP leaders of Telangana feel the party can perform better in the politics of Congress, MIM, and TRS. So, they are pressing to go alone in the elections. It’s not clear what will happen in the future, but the fact is that KCR’s language has changed in the past few days. That is why he was not a part of the politics of four Chief Ministers of the Opposition, who had attended the Niti Aayog meeting recently.

Writer: Hari shankar vyas

Courtesy: The Pioneer

Making it crystal clear that the UN’s credibility is at stake, two contrarian reports on J&K were conducted back to back. Not only does the world body need to have wide representation, but also have the courage to call out the corrupt.

A flip-flop is but expected in politics. But for an august body like the United Nations, which is believed to be the moral compass of the globe, it only erodes its relevance and righteousness. Just last week, a UN report on alleged human rights violations in Jammu & Kashmir caused quite a row with political parties across the spectrum calling it motivated and ill-intentioned. The flimsy report, with no clear-cut, factual points of reference and largely a remote-sensing operation with gettable quotes, was roundly debunked by political parties across the spectrum. And then this week, it released another report of how Pakistan-based banned terror outfits Jaish-e-Mohammad and Hizbul Mujahideen had recruited and used children in Jammu & Kashmir during clashes with security forces last year. The annual report of the UN Secretary General on Children and Armed Conflict listed the use of children as cannon fodder in Jammu & Kashmir as a “grave violation.” It even asked the Indian Government to put in place measures to hold perpetrators of child recruitment, thereby arguing for an extreme vigilance set-up.

The problem, given the release of two contrarian reports back-to-back — the latter almost negating the offensive narrative of the former — is that the UN seems to be placating both India and Pakistan, obfuscating reality and keeping the chasm wide rather than holding peace. The swiftness of releasing the second report, soon after a comprehensive criticism of the rights report, also seemed reactive, much like a coerced amendment rather than investigated truths.

Now with the US also withdrawing from the UN Human Rights Council, on the grounds of its “shameless hypocrisy” in assessing its border issues, (of course, US has used its clout all too often in the UN to justify its agenda in oppressor countries) the credibility of the world body is at stake. With heft and funding in the hands of big powers, neutrality is a chimera. The Human Rights Council, for example, has 47 member countries, which are elected to three-year-terms by the General Assembly. The representatives are chosen carefully to represent all regions and they cannot seek re-election immediately after completing two consecutive terms. Little do we realise that most member states have rights abuses in their own turf and avoid being upbraided for their track record for the period they are in control. So they make a scapegoat of existing and familiar conflict zones, becoming an implicit partner in the terror economy around these hotspots.

Let’s agree that when it comes to Kashmir, there have been more UN reports on its human rights than any other totalitarian territory, without ever a mention made of the victims of terrorists, whom the UN still classifies as militants. Has the UN ever tried to commission a fact-finding mention on how moderates in the Valley, who are trying hard to bring about a negotiated settlement and peace, are being systematically silenced or eliminated? How sufi clerics who prize Kashmiriyat over radicalisation, go missing? Instead of attempting to simmer down and look at a holistic approach, UN reports on Kashmir have always targeted the establishment and security forces, who, truth be told, are bleeding resources and lives pointlessly and would, of course, want an alternative method of engagement without compromising India’s integrity. The UN has never ever acknowledged that the vituperative policies of neighbours are equally responsible for a festering Kashmir. Let us also not forget that Kashmir is an easier encashable conflict zone, which can be recycled with the same narrative of civil society drift and alienation because of the presence of security forces, upgrading a few figures here and there. The situational dynamics on the ground, which take a longer time to manifest, have, therefore, been conveniently overlooked.

Do the Chinese excesses, given its political prisoners, suppression of dissent and aspirations of Tibetans and Uighurs, merit as much attention in the UN? Or what about Egypt which has banned NGOs from operating and arrests dissenting journalists? What about more stringent forms of punishment and suppression of democracy in Arab states? Does the UN realise by letting go of an objective analysis, and working according to pressure groups, has made it more propagandist than peace-keeper?

The core issue is that the UN, or even other human rights watchdogs, exist simply by countering the establishment narrative anywhere in the world, assigning themselves a certain kind of legitimacy as a champion of the unheard or alternative voices without realising that some of their own investigations are compromised by subjective assessment than objective investigation. Most often the UN information resource is based on viewpoints of activists, who again have to justify their raison d’être. Often UN observer teams rely on second-hand information and the easy access to experts rather than probing the complexity of the situation. There is no problem with consulting experts, provided the basket has a credible mix of opinions and viewpoints, rather than relying on the “educated perception” of a few. The second problem is of referencing the study in the context of timelines and dot surveys. The UN says it is granted limited access but given its patchy performance in compiling reports, which cherry pick time periods that reinforce the prevalent theory than giving a holistic big picture, and sample sizes that are not at all widespread or representative, and which ignore the so-called “oppressor” as also an “oppressed”, can it really expect us to be welcoming?  

A few days ago, Amnesty International had to do a volte-face. Embarrassingly so. The rights body, which has at various points been criticised for receiving funding from Islamists, had to change its line of Muslim victimisation by the military Government. Although the Myanmar Government had for long time been claiming genocide of Hindus and Buddhists by extremist Rohingya Muslim groups, observers dismissed it as Government propaganda to hide its own excesses against them. Till the team interviewed refugees at camps and chased information on-ground, there was no corroboration of what was known unofficially for long, that 100 Hindus were brutalised, terrorised and killed in cold blood by Rohingya extremists. Predictably, this raised hackles of Rohingya activists worldwide, leading them to wonder if the Myanmarese military had indeed been able to swing Amnesty to their side of the story. This disbelief at Hindu or Buddhist oppression is symptomatic of a deep-rooted malaise in a mindset, sometimes even our own, that perceives Islamic extremism as a result of other kinds of majoritarianism and never the accelerator or provocateur of deepening faultlines. Activist agenda have been funded on perpetuating a one-sided story. The other side, therefore, is not easily allowed to gain traction. Hawkish anti-India propagandists, who have worked lobbies and generated cause-driven finances, right now have the upper hand as influencers.

Even when it comes to our own educated discourse, any talk of Hindu victimhood is quickly assigned to being driven by political agenda rather than being a matter of genuine human interest. Has the UN or any rights watch group decided to focus on conflict refugees in Jammu, who have been left homeless as their border villages have been ruined in shelling of the proxy war and terrorist attacks? Has the unofficial ethnic cleansing and displacement of Pandits been ever the subject of review without risking the tag of it being part of right-wing propaganda? The UN, whatever be its compulsions of working with the Big Five and its contributors, must at least try to sift the grain from the chaff and bubble up the truth rather than taming itself with an acceptability of clichéd prejudices, particularly in relation to an assertive and emergent world from the Orient. The UN needs to have a moral equivalence and be widely representative to re-establish its worth as an organisation respected by everybody. Former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee had once said, “The UN’s unique legitimacy flows from a universal perception that it pursues a larger purpose than the interest of one country or a small group of countries.” It is time for the UN to work on others’ perception of it.

(The writer is Associate Editor, The Pioneer)

Writer: Rinku Ghosh

Courtesy: The Pioneer

In case closely watched by higher education, justices find that Trump was within his authority in restricting entry to the U.S. for nationals from a group of mostly Muslim-majority countries.

Deep in the Bible Belt in the American South, a highly conservative area that bought into Donald Trump’s message of ‘Make America Great Again’ (MAGA) and voted overwhelmingly for him to become the 45th President of the United States, there is indignation that coastal liberals are bent on scuppering Trump’s agenda, that is, their agenda. These are people who while very welcoming to foreigners who speak their language, are fearful of them as well, because they see them taking their jobs away and challenging their ‘culture’. Their deep-rooted Baptist beliefs makes them scared of non-Christians, especially Muslims.

So Trump’s travel ban, which made it difficult for visitors from seven mainly Muslim nations to come to the United States was welcomed by them. Yet, they were angry that ‘liberals’ were attacking the ban, which many feel goes against the ethos of the United States. But the United States Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the ban, and going forward it is almost certain that the United States Supreme Court is going to endorse several other Trump policies as well which will make the United States far less welcoming to refugees and illegal immigrants. While many liberals have attacked Trump for separating the children of illegal migrants from their parents, the fact is that the United States should be free to make their own immigration policies and cannot willy-nilly let in thousands of undocumented migrants every year. The media across the world including. ironically, the British and Australian media, have attacked Trump for his ‘inhumanity’ while conveniently forgetting or tacitly supporting their country’s anti illegal immigrant policies.

While some Western nations such as Germany have allowed thousands of migrants in and highly educated liberals across the world including in India (with regard to Rohingyas) have supported refugees, almost nothing has been done to educate local residents on migrants/asylum seekers and even less has been done to better assimilate migrants into host cultures. Absorbing immigrants from Islamic nations into highly developed, free and open societies is particularly problematic. There has been a consequent and well-documented spike in crime, especially against women, and fundamental misunderstandings. This has in turn led to the rise of extreme right-wing nativist politicians across the world. And while liberals — whether in America, Europe or India — live in their own idealistic bubble, cocooned from the problems of, in Hillary Clinton’s infamous coinage, ‘the deplorables’, the fact is that in democracies the ‘deplorables’ vote and vote in numbers. Liberals have to understand that if migrant issues are to be solved they need to work with communities and societies and not just impose their will. Because, if they continue to do so, those elites including our homegrown variety attacking Indian Government policy on the Rohingyas will only make the right stronger and end up lamenting their own failures. The world needs to understand that migration due to war, famine and economic causes is a reality and so does society at large. But forcing the issue in today’s hyper-connected world will only lead to failure for liberals as Trump has demonstrated quite unequivocally.

Writer: Pioneer

Courtesy: The Pioneer

The people of Kashmir now have to prepare for Governor’s rule, after suffering under the BJP-PDP Government. Although the future cannot be predicted, one can only hope that Kashmir sees better governance.

This past week saw the end of the alliance between the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Jammu and Kashmir People’s Democratic Party (PDP). There have been a number of signs since its inception that this marriage of convenience was inevitably heading towards an early demise. As my friend and colleague from the Congress, Shashi Tharoor, eloquently put it, this entire episode was of a divorce foretold. To take this analogy further, the entire marriage has set the state back decades and in this week’s column, I will examine how the state has been the abused child of this reckless relationship.

A state left burning:The BJP-PDP alliance has presided over one of the worst periods of terrorism and unrest in the state of Jammu & Kashmir. The state has been witness to over 800 incidents of terror over the past three years. This has been a dramatic change from 2013 where the state suffered the fewest incidents of terror over the past 28 years. The steady increase in incidences of terror (from 208 in 2015 to 342 in 2017) coincides with the loss of control the BJP has seen in the State since first forming the Government with the PDP. This breakdown of law and order and uptick in terrorist activities in the state has been brought to the stark attention of the Indian populace over the past few weeks.

We have seen the case of Aurangzeb, an army rifleman who was heading home for Eid celebrations, who was abducted and brutally murdered by terrorists. We have also witnessed attacks and the resultant deaths due to terrorism that have seen hundreds of civilians suffer, which was highlighted by the coward assassination of Shujaat Bukhari. Shujaat Bukhari was the chief editor of Rising Kashmir and his murder resulted in the loss of an irreplaceable voice of the state.

During the tenure of this alliance there has been a discernible trend towards hostility and a lack of engagement between the various actors in Kashmir. This was allegedly done in order to send a strong message to the actors that operate in the state, however the numbers show how this policy hasn’t seen any success. In a sensitive state like Jammu & Kashmir it is important for Governments to recognise that ensuring national security and establishing a relationship of trust with the people of the state are not opposing principles but are in fact closely linked. The BJP-PDP Government, however, has singularly failed in this regard and there is much greater animosity and anger in the state than ever before.

Besides these specific incidents, the callous and step-fatherly treatment accorded to Kashmir by the BJP has inspired resentment and hatred from the people of Kashmir as is visible from the instances of violence, public disorder and stone pelting that the region has been marred with over the last few years.

While it appears that the BJP pulled out of its alliance keeping in mind the General Election of 2019, there is no denying that it has left the state burning in its wake. The facts above show that Kashmir is still reeling from the BJP’s inexperience in governing a sensitive, crucial state of India with all the elegance of a sledgehammer and the people of Kashmir have unfortunately been the victims of the BJP’s ineptitude and arrogance.

Adding fuel to funeral pyres: Earlier this year, we were exposed to a horrific crime when it was discovered that Asifa, an 8-year-old Muslim girl was the victim of a brutal gang rape. The BJP or the State Government did not alleviate the pain, horror and disgust from this incidence in any way but instead the entire episode was given a horrific communal colour. The whole incident was shameful, right from local lawyers preventing the police from filing a charge sheet to the Jammu & Kashmir Bar Association calling for a bandh to hand the investigation over the Central Bureau of Investigation.

There were distinct communal undertones to this entire horrific episode and the approach of the State Government and the BJP at the Centre towards this episode was disgraceful. There was little to no criticism by either the State Government or the Prime Minister of the sectarian and of divisive forces that were clearly communalising an incident that should be a matter of shame for all Indians, irrespective of religion. The episode was especially embarrassing for the BJP as the protests in favour of the accused included an organisation called the ‘Hindu Ekta Manch’ and two BJP ministers from the State Government were actually participating at rallies in support of the accused.

The entire episode of the brutal rape of Asifa and the corresponding communal reaction to the same was followed not just by national media, but also by international outlets. The entire world watched the debacle unfold, aghast at how the brutal rape of an innocent girl became a matter of communal politics, with the BJP and the state Government doing little other than playing the fiddle while Kashmir burned.

Presenting a divided front: In The ballad of East and West, Rudyard Kipling says “Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet.” It appears however that the BJP and the PDP have not read this particular poem as the two parties tried to marry their polar opposite views on how to govern Kashmir, resulting in the inevitable car crash they called a Government. One such issue where the BJP and PDP disagreed on is the revocation of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA). The BJP is of the view that AFSPA needs to be in place in the Kashmir to the point where the peace and normalcy is restored in the state.

The PDP on the other hand, favours a withdrawal of AFSPA as they believe peace can only be ensured through good governance, which requires reduced military presence in the region. Whichever side of the fence one is on the matter, it must be remembered that it is very difficult for coalition partners to engage with one another if they disagree about one of the major issues in the state and fundamentally differ on how to tackle it. A similar dissonance between the BJP and PDP was visible with respect to talks with other actors and stakeholders in the region.

As per reports, the PDP was in favour of starting a dialogue with all actors including the Hurriyat Conference. The BJP however was vocally against any such dialogue with Hurriyat leaders as they said they did not want to start any dialogue with those who oppose India. Both the PDP and the BJP unequivocally disagreed on how to engage with these actors and presented a divided front to the other stakeholders that only weakened India’s position at the negotiation table.

What lies ahead: After suffering through close to three and a half years of the BJP-PDP Government, the people of Kashmir will now have to prepare for Governor’s rule. While it is not ideal, the people of Kashmir have been subject to Governor’s rule/President’s rule a number of times since Independence and will be acutely aware of what follows.

Though one can never predict exactly what the future holds, in the months that follow I do hope that the people of Kashmir see better governance than they did under the BJP and PDP. It will, however, take tremendous work and commitment for the state to recover from the damage caused due to this unholy alliance.

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

Writer: Ajoy Kumar

Courtesy: The Pioneer

All is well when everything ends with positive things. Now, Delhi’s Bureaucracy and AAP should work together.

They have agreed to disagree on a few things but agreed to work on deliverables. The truce between the AAP Government in Delhi and the bureaucracy, howsoever temporary, has brought relief among Delhiites, who are clueless about the direction the civic administration is taking. Not unknown to many, there are unmet challenges of summer pollution, transportation and the crumbling health infrastructure that need urgent looking into. Already water wars, dengue and malaria have reared their ugly heads. Although both sides claimed that they have been working, with optics of files being signed and moved, the fact is there has been no convergence, leave aside congruence, between the Kejriwal Government and bureaucrats ever since Chief Secretary Anshu Prakash was allegedly assaulted by AAP MLAs about four months ago. Now after his prolonged sit-in at the LG’s office and the latter’s intervention, Chief Minister Kejriwal has promised security to his officers. While it is true that Delhi lacks full statehood and the LG’s office is not bound to heed the council of ministers, fact is both the Government of the day, the bureaucracy and the LG have to find an operable space for smooth functioning of the nation’s Capital rather than scoring brownie points over each other and playing the game of who’s the boss. Both would gain from mutual efficiencies in the end. And whatever the rulebook says about comparative powers, one must realise that AAP has the people’s mandate and the bureaucracy must show some respect towards it rather than antagonising the people and making them hate the establishment it represents. In fact, bureaucrats have a shot at leaving their own legacies. Delhi Metro will forever be known for E Sreedharan, a public servant, rather than the enablers in the Government.

Similarly, AAP, which has used agitationist tactics to get what it wants, must realise that its ministers need to build more credibility in governance rather than behaving like an Opposition party. That will only invite criticism about it being an attention-seeking party that endorses the personality cult while failing to honour the core job it has been tasked with. Continuing his crusade for Delhi’s statehood under the Constitution, Kejriwal must not forget that he could work effectively in existing authorised areas and would be seen as more of a doer than going after Central bureaucrats or police officers. By the time elections take place, his outcome will depend solely on how he governed despite the challenges, his dharma of delivering to his voters, rather than his aggressive dharnas that may grab headlines but end up alienating his own vote base. Already the spoiler card has cost AAP its image and overshadowed its positive performance in building transparency and accountability into the system and statistically proving how leakages can be stopped. All the AAP needs now is sound execution within the sphere it has and showing demonstrable evidence of its good intentions. All eyes are on Delhi as the Capital and governance templates here are more likely to get emulated. Therefore, the bureaucracy must stop being politically exploitative and the AAP must give up the idea of “teaching them a lesson” and work with the mindset of a healthy competition.

Writer: Pioneer

Courtesy:The Pioneer