Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un have become the first sitting US President and North Korean leader to meet — a historic development that comes after a year of exchanging threats. But is the summit a false dawn or will it spell real peace?

The first ever summit meeting between a sitting US President Donald Trump and the North Korean leader Kim Jong-un in Singapore on June 12, since the end of the Korean War in Singapore, was indeed historic. The Korean War (1950-53) had ended with a truce and without a peace treaty, leaving both South and North Koreas technically at war. The core message of the summit was that it was a triumph of diplomacy. It was also a gentle reminder of Richard Nixon’s ground-breaking 1972 visit to Beijing, thereby normalising relations with China. The issue at the table was how to denuclearise North Korea. From the very start, the issue of denuclearisation was problematic as the interpretation of what it meant was different for both sides. What preceded the summit proposal was immersed in uncertainty, lurking doubts if the summit would ever take place. But diplomacy finally prevailed and Trump and Kim met and in a major breakthrough, signed the “comprehensive pact”, prompting Trump to announce soon enough that the denuclearisation process will begin soon.

In a joint text issued after the meeting, Kim committed to “complete denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula”. The statement was almost immediately endorsed by China, North Korea’s principal ally and benefactor. Earlier, Trump announced that both he and Kim signed an unspecified document, which he called “pretty comprehensive”. From his side, Kim announced that both sides decided to “leave the past” behind and that “the world shall see a major change”.

The summit finally happening after a year of exchanging warmongering threats and personal insults was truly historic. Kim having committed to “complete denuclearisation”, both leaders vowed in the joint agreement to establish “new” relations between the two countries. However, the text made no mention of the US demands for “complete, verifiable, and irreversible denuclearisation” or CVID, which implied scrapping weapons and committing to inspections.

From a time when both exchanged vitriolic diatribes and bellicose statements, to hear Trump say that he had formed a “special bond” with Kim and expressed willingness to invite him to the White House was music to many ears. But the truism is that the dramatic turnaround is real. That is how modern diplomacy is being conducted, with Trump leaving his own style. Hailing his “excellent” relationship with Kim, Trump predicted that both will “solve” the Korean Peninsula stand-off and that the 40-minute meeting was a “tremendous success”.

The instant bonhomie had to be seen to be believed, despite the huge age gap between the two — the 12-second handshake as they met for the first time in front of a dozen American and North Korean flags on the steps of the Capella Hotel on Sentosa Island in Singapore, with Trump patting Kim on the arm and sharing some words before posing for the cameras. The body language demonstrated warmth as both expressed optimism even when the meeting took place. While Kim greeted Trump with the words: “Nice to meet you, Mr President”, Trump returned the compliment with the words: “We will have a terrific relationship, I have no doubt.” Kim admitted that the path was not easy as past prejudices and practices worked as obstacles, which would be successfully overcome by sustained diplomacy. It was not known what exactly both discussed during their one-on-one meeting, though North Korea’s denuclearisation was on the agenda. Trump said his talks with Kim were “better than anybody could imagine”.

On a lighter note, Kim remarked through an interpreter: “Many people in the world will think of this as a form of fantasy from a science fiction movie,” before heading for the airport after the signing ceremony.

From the available information at the time of writing, here is what transpired. Kim committed Pyongyang to “working towards” the denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula in an agreement with Trump, as well as “peace and prosperity”. Both sides also agreed to recover the remains of prisoners of war from the conflict between North and South Korea, and the immediate repatriation of those already identified.

However, analysts expressed disappointment with the vague nature of the agreement, limited scope and the lack of specific details. For example, Robert Kelly, professor of political science at Pusan National University, felt the text was “even thinner than most sceptics anticipated”. Kelly expected that Trump would bargain for and get at least some missiles or a site closure or something concrete. Arms control expert Jeffrey Lewis was also doubtful. He expressed disappointment on how the joint statement from the “epochal” Singapore summit stacks up with other historic documents on denuclearisation. According to him, there was nothing new that emerged from the joint statement.

Chad O’Carroll of the Korea Risk Group decodes the text and raises two key points: How will Trump make “security guarantees to the DPRK” genuinely credible, and that answer will impact Kim’s roadmap to “denuclearisation of the Peninsula”. Adding to this two more points: Talk of “mutual confidence-building” suggests step-by-step process, meaning Trump administration is flexible on prior insistence of CVID up-front’; and the DPRK and US will have “join efforts” to build lasting peace, but there’s no mention of getting it done before 2018, as per the April 27 agreement.

There was further lack of clarity. The term ‘denuclearisation’ remained unexplained as interpretation by either side is completely different. While for the US, denuclearisation means North Korea dismantling its nuclear arsenal, for Pyongyang, it means scaling down of the US forces from both South Korea and Japan, besides ending the annual military drill between the US and South Korea. Further, there was no mention of missile, an issue that was brought to the fore in 2017. Also, the text on MIA remains implies the US military figures will be visiting North Korea. As contained in the joint text, the US and North Korea commit to recovering PoW/MIA remains, including the immediate repatriation of those already identified. However, commitment to “expeditious” implementation is good.

The most important of those four key points in the joint text is the third point in which both Trump and Kim “commit to work towards the denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula”. Indeed, there is plenty of wriggle room in committing to work toward denuclearisation. The joint text clearly mentions thus: “President Trump committed to provide security guarantees to the DPRK, and Chairman Kim Jong-Un reaffirmed his form and unwavering commitment to complete denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula”.

According to Jonathan Cheng of the Wall Street Journal, there are four key points in the Trump-Kim declaration. First, the US and North Korea commit to establishing new relations in accordance with the desire of the people of the two countries for peace and prosperity. Second, both would make efforts to build a lasting and stable peace regime on the Korean Peninsula. Third, reaffirming the April 27 Panmunjom Declaration, North Korea commits to work towards the complete denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula. And fourth, both sides commit to recover PoW/MIA remains, including the immediate repatriation of those already identified.

China welcomed the summit as “historic”. The Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi observed the fact that the two leaders “can sit together and have equal talks has important and positive meaning, and is creating new history”. He also talked of the need for a peace mechanism for the Peninsula. While calling for “full denuclearisation” to resolve tensions on the Korean Peninsula, Wang Yi observed: “Resolving the nuclear issue, on the one hand of course, is denuclearisation, full denuclearisation. At the same time, there needs to be a peace mechanism for the Peninsula, to resolve North Korea’s reasonable security concerns”. It needs to be remembered that Beijing is Pyongyang’s sole major ally and main trading partner. However, it supported others in implementing a slew of UN sanctions to punish the North over its nuclear and missile tests. Yet, Beijing welcomed Kim twice in quick succession, prior to the latter’s summit with Trump. That China continues to remain relevant in any peace process in the Korean Peninsula remains unquestioned. Despite tensions, the Cold War era allies sought to mend ties recently, and Kim even borrowed an Air China plane to travel to the landmark summit with Trump in Singapore.

The United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres welcome the summit outcome and said it is “a promising development for global peace and security”. Terming the summit as an “extremely important event”, Guterres conceded credit to both Trump and Kim for agreeing to “engage in a constructive negotiation to reach an objective” whose ultimate goal is “peaceful and verifiable denuclearisation of North Korea”.

Expressing distrust, Iran’s Foreign Minister Javad Zarif referred to Trump as the “habitual Deal-Breaker-in-Chief”. It may be recalled that Trump broke the agreement signed by Barack Obama on the nuclear issue with Iran. Iran reminded Kim that the US has a history of “quitting treaties and violating commitments”.

Interestingly, while Trump ignored a question about whether he discussed with Kim about Otto Warmbier, the American college student who was held in a North Korean labour camp, and died shortly after being flown back to the US, Kim did not reply when asked if he was willing to give up nuclear weapons. Kim’s silence on the nuclear question could be open to interpretation, if he retracts his stance as was in the past. Notwithstanding the much optimism that stems from the joint text, there could be always risk of decisions already taken being derailed.

But it is significant to note that what seemed unthinkable months ago happened and ended on a positive note, at least for the time being. The specter of growing nuclear threat, that looked real some months ago, has now receded. In the run-up to the summit, Trump had indicated that he might strike a nuclear deal or forge a formal end to the Korean War in the course of a single meeting or over several days, but as it transpired, Trump left Singapore soon after the meeting, on the evening of June 12 itself. This raises questions if his aspirations for an ambitious outcome had been scaled back.

The South Korean President Moon Jae-in was the most exuberant. Having laboured really hard for the summit to happen, he was pleased that it finally took place. He had made expansive outreach to the North with two summit meetings with Kim within a month. No wonder, he “hardly slept” before the summit and watched live broadcast of the summit with his Cabinet colleagues at the Blue House.

When Trump and Kim took a moonlight stroll following a handshake, critics were quick to say that Trump was legitimising Kim on the world stage as his equal. Trump was quick to respond to the critics by saying that researches and launches have stopped for now.

By arriving with a positive outcome soon after Trump shocked the US allies by using a meeting in Canada of the Group of Seven industrialised economies to alienate America’s closest friends in the West, Trump seemed to have salvaged some of the damages he caused to America’s reputation. At the G-7 summit, Trump had lashed out over trade practices and lobbied insults at his G-7 host, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. His change in dynamics in Singapore from his earlier threats of “fire and fury” against Kim and the latter’s scorn at Trump as a “mentally deranged US dotard” was a dramatic volte face. Besides, both leaders may reap some political fortunes; the summit could shape the fate of the impoverished citizens of North Korea and tens of millions living in the shadow of North’s nuclear threat in South Korea, Japan and some parts of the US and elsewhere. Kim seems to have been convinced of the security guarantee provided by the US as spelled out by the Secretary of State Mike Pompeo who said the US was prepared to take action to provide North Korea with “sufficient certainty” that denuclearisation “is not something that ends badly for them”. Though Pompeo did not clarify if that included the possibility of withdrawing US troops from the Korean Peninsula, he did say that the US was “prepared to take what will be security assurances that are different, unique than America’s been willing to provide previously”.

Both sides covered the distance in a relatively short span of time. Yet, despite the positive vibes that stem from the summit, it is anybody’s guess if Trump and Kim can pull off a Nixon-Mao type breakthrough. There is a lack of clarity in what both leaders agreed upon. Though Kim agreed to denuclearise, no deadline was announced. China was not mentioned, though the world knows that Beijing’s role in any resolution on the Korean issue remains crucial. It also remains unclear if the thaw in ties would lead to formal establishment of diplomatic relations. No mention was also made on how to tame the hardliners in their respective countries.

The most significant statement made by Trump after the summit was that the US would halt military exercises with Seoul, something long sought by Pyongyang. Pyongyang has long been insisting that the presence of US troops in the South as well as its nuclear umbrella over the East Asian allies — South Korea and Japan — are part of America’s hostile policy towards the North.

Trump’s vow to end war drills stunned the region. Trump further termed the drills as “expensive and provocative”. This announcement rocked East Asia. These too seemingly upended decades of the US defence posture on the Korean Peninsula. This was a reversal of the countless previous declarations by the US political and military officials over the years that the drills are routine, defensive, and absolutely critical. Trump claimed that by ending the war games, the US would save tremendous amount of money. Officials in South Korea were left completely off-guard with the announcement as the presence of the US troops has long been described as necessary to maintaining peace. Seoul reacted almost immediately by saying that there was no prior discussion with Washington on this. The next drills are set for August and Seoul is definitely confused.

Trump further added that “at some point”, he wanted to withdraw 28,500 US troops stationed in the South as a deterrent against North Korea. This could have huge implication as it would imply abrogation of the security alliance between the US and South Korea and later Japan. Japan and South Korea would be compelled to revisit their security postures if the reliance on the US for security protection comes under doubt. It is here that Trump and Pompeo need to coordinate and clarify what could be the real US policy, so there is no scope for confusion.

For now, the status quo is likely to remain largely unchanged. However, the joint document and Trump’s subsequent press conference remarks reveal a number of opportunities for both to test each other’s sincerity, flexibility, and understanding on key topics of contention. The window is open for both to work out and identify both positive and negatives in the short-to-medium term and look for solutions that are lasting.

Despite the positive summit outcome, there is little possibility that sanctions will discontinue so soon until North Korea denuclearises and the US could even increase pressure if diplomatic discussions do not progress positively, as expected. Pompeo clarified that the US will not lift economic sanctions against North Korea until Pyongyang fully eliminates its nuclear weapons capability. Those who hold the view that Kim is unlikely to quickly give up his hard-won nukes could have merit. Yet, the hope that diplomacy could replace animosity between the two cannot be dismissed either. Optimists would see the summit as a trendsetter.

In the US, Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi was scathing in her attack on the manner Trump conducted diplomacy in Singapore. She said: “Nuclear non-proliferation is a pillar of America’s national security. We respect any serious and real diplomatic efforts to achieve that goal on the Korean Peninsula. Apparently, the President handed Kim Jong-un concessions in exchange for vague promises that do not approach a clear and comprehensive pathway to denuclearisation and non-proliferation. In his haste to reach an agreement, President Trump elevated North Korea to the level of the US, while preserving the regime’s status quo. The millions of families currently living in fear of nuclear weapons in the region deserve strong and smart leadership built on diplomacy and engagement with our regional partners and allies. The President’s marginalisation of the vast expertise of the State Department and his habitual disparaging of our allies as demonstrated at the G7 Forum hinders a lasting, stable pathway to peace.”

The immediate positive result of the summit is that both Trump and Kim helped bring the world back from a “nuclear catastrophe”. Trump was triumphant in saying that by agreeing to give up nuclear weapons and embracing commerce and engagement, Kim has before him the opportunity to be remembered as the leader who ushered in a glorious new era of security and prosperity for his citizens.

Despite so much optimism, there remained a black spot. Human rights activists saw the summit as a missed opportunity, as the issue was not raised. Many analysts might see the summit as a victory for Kim, but what the summit overlooked was that the totalitarian regime functions under extreme censorship and forced labour camps. There is no individual freedom and a North Korean citizen can be jailed for almost anything. There are between 80,000 and 120,000 people in prisons across the country. With a strictly controlled economy, much of the nation’s resources are funnelled into its missile and nuclear programme, ignoring widespread shortages of basic necessities. According to the UN, 41 per cent of the total population of 25 million remains undernourished, while the country’s elites enjoy relatively comfortable lives in Pyongyang.

In conclusion, it can be said that it was a truly dramatic turnaround and a great improvement over the nuclear saber-rattling of not so long ago. But what is most confusing is that though both agreed to work together towards denuclearising the Korean Peninsula, there was no definition on what that means. Trump agreed to stop the military drills, which could be seen as a major concession to Kim, but no details were given. The Bulletin of Atomic Scientist observed in an article: “The whole thing sounds remarkably like a version of what Vermont Senator George Aiken reputedly offered in 1966 as the solution to the Vietnam War: ‘We should declare victory, and go home.’” So, the world needs to know more on what transpired during the summit.

Dr Panda, former Senior Fellow at the IDSA, was until recently ICCR Chair Professor at Reitaku University, Japan

Writer: The Pioneer

Courtesy: The Pioneer

If enemies like North Korea and the US can come together to hearth a fresh start after months of growing threats, what is there to stop any other arguing countries in the world from concealing their own differences? Talks are the essence of the moment. But until Pakistan is ready to join the hands, militant China and Islamists and, Indo-Pak dialogue will not be fruitful.

Both showmen, US President Donald Trump and North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, have met at Singapore and according to Trump, created history in abandoning the path of mutual annihilation and agreeing on the outline of a negotiated formulation of their relationship to the great relief of other nations of the world.

Of course what Kim could do at the most is to attempt to hit the United States with at best one or two missiles with nuclear weapons that too if they manage to evade the missile shield America will deploy if Kim’s push comes to a shove.  But no one doubted Trump’s capacity to totally annihilate all of North Korea given the “Big Button” the US President always carried with him that would set a thousand nuclear-tipped missiles into pre-planned action against the enemy.

Then, overnight, the two met in Singapore and in three meetings created history.  Kim has signed a document pledging denuclearization of the Korean peninsula, whatever it means. Trump says he will end the seven decades of hostility and diplomatic isolation of the US from North Korea, whatever that means.

The world, taken by surprise by the quick turn of events, watched the developments in Singapore in awe and disbelief. Kim can be brash (only such a dictator can threaten the mightiest power on earth) and unpredictable while Trump can be firm at any cost and determined to implement his election pledges like he did in withdrawing from the Iranian deal despite all his allies opposing the withdrawal.

Considering the level of hostility that Kim of North Korea displayed against America and the annihilation he threatened American allies South Korea and Japan with — he even demonstrated his nuclear and missile capabilities — the hawk turning into a dove transformation at Singapore is certainly historic.

But many analysts who have studied the type of uncompromising  dictatorship the Kim family has subjected North Korea to will say that Kim only wanted to be seen by the world at the same level with the US President mainly to satisfy his image of himself. This cannot be easily dismissed as speculation.

When this Kim’s grandfather consolidated power in North Korea  with Soviet and Chinese help in the 1940s Kim Il Sung compelled every Korean to believe that all books whether in science or humanities published by the North Korean regime were written by him. Grandfather Kim spent money in many countries building up his image as the world leader respected by every nation that bowed to his authority and greatness.

In India, for instance, hundreds of newspapers, including many with little circulation as well as the large ones, used to carry two or three pages of advertisements praising the ‘world leader’ — all paid for in cash. The game only stopped when the Government here got to know the flow of cash behind it and put a stop to cash payments and with it the ads also stopped.

Interestingly these ads used to be relayed in North Korean dailies to tell the people under the Communist dictatorship how the  great newspapers of the world were praising Kim Sung as the world’s greatest leader. We may here wonder how an entire people could be fooled. But in a dictatorship where no other than official publication was allowed this was possible. So, no wonder that grandson Kim wanted to demonstrate how he was so great as to make the US President eager to meet him and arrive at a deal with him.

Most reports from inside North Korea reveal a picture of poverty and deprivation of people held together by a ruthless dictatorship of a family now three generations in power which does not allow any challenge to it. The question that arises for New Delhi regarding what went down in Singapore between the US and North Korea is: Can India and Pakistan come together, shedding the hostility between the two over seven decades, and take a forward step for mutual benefit? The argument for such a detente have been played out so many times that by now we in India are familiar with it. The first step was taken by the BJP-led NDA Government under the Prime Ministership of Atal Bihari Vajpayee. Soon after, however, the Pakistan Army launched infiltration in Kargil and created a war-like situation but Atalji did not lose his bearing.

The leading powers of the world like the US and China to whom the Pakistan Prime Minister turned for support tersely told him to work with India. This led to a humiliating defeat for the Army in that country and to save its face the Army under General Pervez Musharraf exiled Nawaz Sharif and took control of the country. The previous occasion when the Army in Pakistan took control of the country was after the Bangladesh War in which the country was divided and the Bengali-speaking eastern wing was freed from the dominance of the Urdu-speaking, Punjabi-dominated western part.

The brief civilian regime of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was removed by General Zia ul Haq who was at the head of the longest period of army rule when the Constitution was changed and the foundation was laid for Islamic fundamentalism and the subsequent rise of armed militant Islam which, with the Army, has become a third force in determining Pakistan Government policies, especially towards India.

That the elected civilian Pakistan Government does not speak for the state is well known in all informed circles that keep a close watch on the state.  Nawaz Sharif, after his recent loss of power, has revealed that the basic weakness of Pakistan is this dominance of non-elected actors.

Next month, Pakistan will go to polls and the result will reveal how far the Government can speak for the state. Though Nawaz Sharif’s party PML-N has welcomed a Indo-Pak dialogue in the present context, Government of India has been circumspect. It cannot afford to ignore the present fluid situation in the governance of Pakistan and welcome just any talks with it.

Secondly, Pakistan has had a long relationship with Kim Jong Un’s regime and got missile and nuclear technology from it. With its surrender to China  by transferring a part of occupied Kashmir to build the railway connecting the Indian Ocean to South China through the Gwadar-Xinjiang railway, Islamabad is also obliged to submit to Chinese interests as already demonstrated in various critical areas.

All this, in addition to what the Pakistan Army on the one hand and the militant Islamists on the other want. As long as this situation remains, any resumption of Indo-Pak dialogue can hardly be expected to yield worthwhile results.

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

Writer: Balbir Punj

Courtesy: The Pioneer

According to the present day international system, It is the good time of summitry.Prime Minister Narendra Modi met Chinese President Xi Jinping in Wuhan and US President Donald Trump met the European counterparts as part of the G20 where in the rest intended to stem the tide of rising America First doctrine along with the pricey protectionism which has been rebooted by the adventurous American President.

Summitry or not, antagonism and prevarications might mar another set of negotiations which are very crucially juxtaposed with the East Asian BOP system with much wider ramifications for the rest of the international system. It is the unique and the feisty phantasmagorical quality of the talks and the twin proud palavers which make the negotiations between Trump and youngling communist dictator Kim Jong-Un a quick stand-out diplomatic one-up act. It is no more “the theatre of the absurd” as both the state heads are making an attempt to rise above the skullduggery witnessed in the past half a year and more. Either the summitry par excellence could have been negated by the previous threats of a walkout by Trump or a refusal by Kim to denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula could have acted as a precursor element to a diplomatic fiasco. These were the key observations which were being bandied about in the context of the high-wire summitry and the mother of all summits between the two state heads who were at loggerheads not so long ago. The positive fallout is that the talks have ended with a promise at the Capella hotel which might have a plaque in the future bearing testimony to the summitry akin to the flick, Independence Day, which showcases a similar plaque bearing the words, “ Mankind came here in peace”.

Trump postulated and Kim acquiesced. What is going to be the cost of disarmament in the besieged Peninsula was one of the pertinent posers while the one-to-one talks were on the anvil and even when both the leaders lived a “fantasy” and went ahead with the negotiations. Already “a-without-the-aides” five hours were spent in Sentosa Island in Singapore and Trump contended that it is all a sage camaraderie through and through. The entire world was keeping its fingers crossed. Thus, the talks were very unusually pleasant without the blistering forecasts of the day which prognosticate the confrontationist streaks in both the leaders. It was the bluster and the spectacle of sparring, which formed the key conditionality of the relationship and the avidly followed verbal bouts between them. The ease with which both the state heads, with one reflecting the most powerful nation state on the face of the Earth and the other representing a crank and prank ridden spectacle of a policy maker, made good of the bout is exemplary. The Americans have normally stayed away from entangling alliances but this bout of diplomacy in Singapore was facilitated after a great deal of spade work by the American establishment, and, the strivings of the Chinese counterpart too. Of all talking spectacles, Kim went in a royal train to meet his Chinese counterpart before the tete-a-tete with the American President in Singapore.

In the city citadel of Singapore, it has been a “felt and a sentimentally touching exchange” between Trump and Kim. The joint declaration which emerged out of the exchanges was of “a surprisingly ordinary nature” in the light of the kind of sparking denouement which was expected in the aftermath of the talks. There is as expected no well-delineated and well-defined agreement on the theme of the Peninsular disarmament and the declaration is sugar-coated with a filial understanding of peace and friendship. What are the takeaways in the talks? It was a necessity that a “cooling off” period was attained by the region in the light of the future of US umbrella states of the order of Japan and South Korea and also for the betterment of the politically confrontationist clime of the region. Also, the initialising was well orchestrated with the meet between the two leaders of North and South Korea’s with the visage of the leaders standing partitioned by an elevated platform of concrete with gravel lying strewn all across the floor. It was a symbolic image of the roughshod manner in which the negotiations were rebooted in the Korean quagmire. The Guardian reports in its naturally critical and acerbic manner that “We must be clear-eyed on what a diplomatic success with North Korea looks like, that would be “complete, verifiable, irreversible denuclearisation” of the Korean peninsula. It is imperative that we actually get action here, not just photo ops,”

A minority leader in the US Senate informs that there are no details in Trump’s signed statement about the definition of “complete denuclearisation. Unfortunately, the entire document is short on details. It is worrisome, very worrisome that this joint statement is so imprecise.”

This palaver about “worrisomeness” emanating out of the democratic stable is quite a continuation of the irrepressible takes on Trump’s so-called erratic foreign policy idiom. It is definitely a first on response which actually and realistically verges on to become one of the major foreign policy coups of the Trump establishment. The opposition will react anyhow. Still, the non-proliferation plank of the quintessential streak can come much later after the trust deficit has been tided over between the open and the closed world. The China factor too bears a weight, wherein the efficacy of the Chinese support to North Korea has always been a destabilising element in the regional scenario. No quick fix solutions are probable in the heat of the “diplomatic moment,” wherein the world had reached a state of irreversible Armageddon in the light of the “menacing-flying-over-the-seas” missiles of the North Korean denomination. It would be unreasonable to blame the American intransigence and the larger role in the besieged Peninsula. General Douglas Macarthur would be a sad personage today and squirming in his grave wherein he demanded that President Truman opened the floodgates of an all-out military aggression during the original war in the Korean peninsula in the early part of the decade in the fifties, a freedom run which President Truman did not allow for him. The Chinese aggression was a cause of mayhem across the Yalu river in the truncated Peninsula. Another pathway open for the American President living true to the philanthropist streak of the US foreign policy would be to attempt a normalisation of relations between both the estranged Koreas. The talks might be hurt in the longer run by the doomsday prevarications of the North Korean satrap-dynasty, but still the easing of tensions and the cooling of temperature between the nations can be an ideal platform for a historic East Asian détente. The Americans have a role to play where they can stamp their regulatory role and zeal over a troubled Korea with their patience and diplomatic sanity and the accompaniment of other willing powers in the region and in other sections of the world polity. The US President has a destiny to fulfil even if it may require becoming a compromising peacenik.

(The writer teaches International Relations at Indian Institute of Public Administration, Delhi)

Writer: Manan Dwivedi

Courtesy: The Pioneer

With the J&K ceasefire, the question remains – should it be extended or have terrorists made it unfeasible?

As Eid approaches, the Government of India has to take a call on whether the ceasefire — or to be more precise the month-long suspension of proactive operations by the security forces while retaining the right to self-defence and/or armed intervention in a situation where civilians/innocents are in danger — in the Kashmir Valley announced on May 17 should be extended. The latest information from the ground, as reported in The Pioneer on Wednesday, is that infiltration has increased in a big way over the past three weeks. The Indian Army has eliminated 36 infiltrators in the period beginning May 17 till today, in comparison with only 56 of them being gunned down in the fourth months from January and May. Terrorists have also, in the ceasefire period, carried out 42 attacks while all through January-May the figure was 55 terror incidents.

Indeed, it appears that the worst fears of the security and intelligence establishment have been realized and the separatists have used the cessation of operations to regroup and replot to take advantage of the situation. The military domination established by the security forces ever since the launch of Operation All Out by the army, paramilitary, police and intelligence agencies in close coordination last year, may not yet have been lost but we seem perilously close to it. The sacrifices made on behalf of the nation by the men and women of our security forces to establish that domination on the ground, the Centre is aware, cannot be seen to be frittered away. The national mood will not countenance any step which seems to suggest that. At the same time, the tactical advantages of extending the ceasefire, as Jammu & Kashmir Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti and other political forces at the national level even though they often advocatewhat is effectively a soft separatist agenda have been demanding, cannot be ignored completely. Not because the usual malcontents must be pacified or to throw the peace lobby a bone but if it makes sense in the national interest which includes the interests of the residents of the State of the Union under discussion too, naturally, but without a veto.

If the Centre’s strategic aim is, as it ought to be, peace in the Valley and a mainstreaming of Kashmir with rest of India, overwhelming military domination on the ground is an essential prerequisite, which Operation All Out has achieved very substantially if not wholly. The Government therefore needs to decide on two central issues. First, whether the domination established by the security forces could be fatally undermined if the cessation of operations/ceasefire is extended beyond Eid. If the answer is yes, then there is no question of an extension. If, however, the answer is in the negative, then an extension could certainly be considered. But even then attempts overt and covert must be made to ensure that less hawkish elements disassociate themselves from the narrative of violence, intimidation and Islamist terror that Pakistan is pushing and those simpatico in the Valley are amplifying for the extension to be meaningful.

Writer: Pioneer

Courtesy: The Pioneer

Since the institution of Waqfs was came into existence in 1185 AD, no action has been taken to control its adverse effects. Contrary to this fact, the law was made in favor of the stakeholders

Whether the Uttar Pradesh Government can reclaim properties which stood on agricultural land or transfer them as Waqf assets by holders having no ownership is a topical question. It appears that the Allahabad High Court had asked the Government to reclaim them. However, the apex court has, on appeal, stayed the judgement. It would, therefore, be interesting as well as relevant to know how the institution of Waqf was established in India.   

The Muslim strategy, ardently supported by self-styled secularists, is to insist that the Babri is a disputed property which is best adjudged by a court of law. Since in our country justice is invariably delayed, the hope is that no decision is likely to be made in the foreseeable future. Thereafter, the scope for an appeal is enormous. To play on the soft sentiments of most Hindus may not be difficult, especially on the plea that a property when turned into a Waqf goes into the ownership of Allah, the merciful.

The Waqfs are the biggest urban landlords in India. Their origin dates back to the life and times of Prophet Muhammad. The institution began with a place called Khaybar in Arabia. It was the genius for turning a conquered property into an inalienable ownership. So is written by Asaf AA Fyzee in his book, Outlines of Muhammadan Law, Oxford University Press (OUP), Delhi, 1999.

Joseph Schacht, an international authority on Islamic law, in his book, originally published by OUP in 1964, said, “The Waqf has one of its roots in the contributions to the holy wars which Muhammad had incessantly demanded from his followers in Medina”. For one thing, a Waqf property is an outcome of conquest. If any further proof of expropriation was required in this context, the temple-turned-mosque provides it. The corollary of this development would be that the conflict over the temples should extend to question the validity of the institution of Waqf itself.

Uncannily, none other than the Caliph of all Sunni Islam and the Ottoman emperor thought it fit to abolish the institution in his empire in 1917. Thus, there are no Waqfs in Turkey, Libya, Egypt, Sudan, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Iraq. In 1956, on the morrow of Tunisian independence, President Habib Bourguiba abolished Waqfs.

Although every Waqif or donor claims that he has handed over the property to Allah, the merciful, Muslim leaders, ranging from the conservative Caliph to the modern Bourguiba, did not think so. Fyzee goes on to observe that the importance of the institution will be better understood if we take into consideration the enormous extent of Waqf land or the possessions of the Dead Hand in the various countries of Islam. In the Turkey of 1925, three-fourth of the arable land, valued at 50.000.000 Turkish pounds, was endowed as Waqf. At the end of the 19th century, one half of the cultivable land in Algiers was dedicated. Similarly, in Tunis, one-third; and in Egypt one-eighth of the cultivated soil was ‘in the ownership of God’. But it was already realised by the beginning of the 20th century, first by France and later in Turkey and Egypt, that the possession of the Dead Hand spelled ruin. The institution of Waqf was in some respects a handicap to the natural growth and development of a healthy economy.

In 1830, the French Government took over the habous or Waqf in Algiers, and later on in Morocco. Elsewhere, Government control was made more stringent. In 1924, the Turkish republic abolished the Ministry of Waqfs and it was taken over by a general directory, or by the secular state administration, as we would call it. In Egypt, it was Muhammad Ali who first confiscated all agricultural Waqfs and compensated the beneficiaries and in 1924, the Waqf Ministry came directly under the control of Parliament. Although in Russia, Waqfs existed in Muslim districts for centuries, soon after the revolution, such endowments were confiscated and declared state property.

The religious motive of Waqf is the origin of the legal fiction that Waqf property belongs to God; the economic ruin that it brings about is indicated by the significant phrase ‘The Dead Hand’. Waqf, to some extent ameliorates poverty, but it has a dark side too. When a father provides a certain income to his children and descendants, the impulse to seek education and the initiative to improve their lot gradually decreases. Charitable aid often keeps people away from industry, and lethargy breeds degeneration. Furthermore, some people, who desire fame by making endowments, obtain property by shady means, amounting to exploitation. Land deteriorates in the course of time; no one is concerned with keeping it in good trim; the yield lessens. In India, instances of mismanagement of Waqfs; of the in effectiveness of mutawallis (managers); and of the destruction of Waqf property have often come before the courts.

For India, there are several other arguments that support the abolition of Waqfs. The dispute over a Waqf in the late 19th century eventually went up to the highest court of appeal, namely the Privy Council in London. The four British judges described the Waqf as “a perpetuity of the worst and the most pernicious kind” and declared it to be invalid. In the Privy Council, the judges were Lord Watson, Lord Hobhouse, Lord Shand and Sir Richard Couch.

A gift may be illusory whether from its small amount or from the uncertainty. If a man were to settle a crore of rupees, and provide ten for the poor, that would be at once recognised as illusory. It is equally illusory to make a provision for the poor under which they are not entitled to receive a rupee till after the total extinction of a family; possibly not for hundreds of years; possibly not until the property had vanished away under the wasting agencies of litigation or malfeasance or misfortune; certainly not as long as there exists on the earth one of those objects whom the donor’s really cared to maintain in a high position. Their Lordships agree that the poor have been put into this settlement merely to give it a colour of piety, and so to legalise arrangements meant to serve for the aggrandisement of a family.

Fyzee has deeply regretted that the Privy Council judgement did not prevail in India. The Mussalman Wakf Validating Act, 1913, proved to be the saviour of this institution. No attempt has since been made to either abolish or curb the adverse effects of Waqf. On the contrary, the law was made more favourable to the Muslims as a result of the Act of 1995. To quote Fyzee:

Speaking for myself, and in the light of actual experience, it is unfortunate that the opinion of Lord Hobhouse in Abul Fata’s case did not prevail in India.

Nevertheless, Waqfs in India date back almost to the beginning of the Sultanat of Delhi. S Athar Husain and S Khalid Rashid, in their work, Waqf Laws and Administration in India, Eastern Book Company, Lucknow,1968, have traced their history. According to them, Sultan Muizuddin Sam Ghaor dedicated two villages in favour of the Jama Masjid of Multan and handed its administration to Shaikhul Islam.

Another commentator, Ahmedullah Khan has recalled several properties which were brought under Waqf much earlier. For example, the dargah of Moinuddin Chishti at Ajmer Sharief as well as Nagaur in Rajputana, Hansi and Ajodhan in Punjab, the dargah-i-Sabiri at Kalyar and the dargah of Shaykh Ahmed’ Abdal Haqq at Rudauli. The Government of independent India found it expedient not to interfere with the operation of the Waqf laws. Political expediency dictated this unfortunate approach just as Article 44 of the Constitution with regard to the personal law of the Muslims has remained a pious lip-service.

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

Writer: Prafull Goradia

Courtesy: The Pioneer

Aminul Haque Laskar, Assam’s sole Muslim BJP legislator, has received a letter threatening him with dire consequences unless he resigns from the party in 15 days, police said on Tuesday.

A lesser known organisation, named Save Secure and Development Protection Force of Muslim has sent a letter with two bullets pasted on it to BJP legislator of Sonai constituency, Aminul Haque Laskar to quit from the BJP within 15 days time or face death.

“You are a devout Muslim. So why are you going against the Muslim by becoming member of a anti-Muslim and Hindu fundamentalist organisation like the BJP? You have also jeopardising the fate of many Muslim youths by forcing them to join BJP. Consider this as a diktat to quit the party within 15 days time or get ready to face dire consequences like death,” said the letter which was delivered to Laskar by India Post.

The letter written in Bengali and signed by one Haider Hussain Khan, self styled Vice chairman of the organisation also threatened to attack his family members and destroy his residential building.  “We have also noticed that you are maintaining a relationship with the RSS,” the letter said.

The letter mentioned that the two personal security officers (PSOs) provided by the Assam Police to the legislator will not be in a position to protect him from the organization. “You are neither safe in Barak Valley nor in Brahmaputra Valley,” the letter said.

Meanwhile, Laskar had already lodged an FIR with the police in this regard and said that he is not scared of any such diktat. “Our Government since assuming power in Dispur had stopped many illegal activities like syndication of coal, urea, drugs paddling and many other evils. I have been against these kinds of evils for a long time. The steps taken by the Government and by me as a local MLA must have affected the interests of some section. However, this cannot deter me from doing my job,” said Laskar.

It may be mentioned here that the Police have registered a case in this regard and started investigation. The Police have also reviewed the security arrangements of Aminul Haque Laskar and increased the number of his PSO.

Writer: Anup Sharma

Courtesy: The Pioneer

China fails to get Indian support for (OBOR) Belt and Road project ahead of meeting between Xi, Modi. The decision as India’s first summit as a full SCO member was initially taken as part of New Delhi’s policy of not compromising on territorial issues. India has called OBOR or the Silk Road project a threat to its sovereignty over concerns on the CPEC (China Pakistan Economic Corridor).

The recently concluded Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in Qingdao, China, saw Prime Minister Narendra Modi coin yet another acronym to go with the many others he has for both domestic and international audiences. SECURE — or S for security, E for economic development, C for connectivity, U for unity, R for Respect and E for environmental protection — may or may not have been a bit labored but Modi’s resounding ‘No’ to endorsing Beijing’s grand One Belt One Road (OBOR) initiative was anything but. It was an emphatic and unambiguous articulation of India’s deep concern about China playing ducks and drakes on the twin issues of sovereignty and territorial integrity, eliding these issues when it comes to India’s concerns while being historically ultra-aggressive when it comes to any questioning of its own claims on disputed territories and its stand on what constitutes interference in its sovereign decision-making sphere.

In reiterating India’s stated position on OBOR from a high-profile platform such as the SCO summit, the Prime Minister has also ensured that China will have to accept that arguments about “regional prosperity” and “economic imperative” which Beijing’s apologists in India and the region trot out in support of the “inevitability” of the initiative will not pass muster. At least not as long as the Modi Administration is around. In nuancing its opposition to OBOR, New Delhi has done well to decouple the need for greater cooperation within and economic integration of the region and the countries that will be served by OBOR from the issue of each nation’s sovereign rights, which has a major implication in the projection of power in the region. After all, if sovereignty is chipped away in the name of future prosperity the existing regional hegemon is only the gainer in geopolitical terms. Support for terrorism and the expansionist designs of certain nations in the region (without naming either Pakistan or China) is also a concern that reflects in New Delhi’s opposition to the Chinese-initiated project. In fact, Modi’s plenary speech at the SCO laid the ground for the Indian stand when he pointedly said India welcomed connectivity projects which respect sovereignty.

We must, however, be prepared for a pushback from Beijing. The wording of the communique issued after the two-day meet ensured India was clearly identified by omission while lauding the other nations for reiterating support for the OBOR and its implementation and, to underline New Delhi’s so-called isolation on an issue of great concern to it, the SCO added that meddling in the affairs of other nations on the “pretext of fighting terror” was not acceptable.There is also pressure being applied on the KP Oli Government in Kathmandu to not be too gung-ho about the India-Nepal connectivity mega project. We are in for interesting times, to say the least, and the lack of domestic agreement on how to deal with a rampant China is a cause for worry.

Writer: Pioneer

Courtesy: The Pioneer

Former President Pranab Mukherjee addresses RSS function in Nagpur, proclaims, India originates her strength from tolerance and respect for diversity and pluralism, stresses on requirement for discussion to balance competing interests.

The reverberations of former President Pranab Mukherjee’s address at the valedictory session of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh’s (RSS) Tritiya Varsh Varg (Third Year Course) in Nagpur will doubtless resonate for a long time. Whatever one’s ideological persuasion, there is no denying that Pranabda has made a significant intervention in our political discourse.

After running around like headless chickens in the run-up to the function, Congress leaders heaved a sigh of relief at the largely bland presentation and skirted the potentially explosive bits. The former President had ruffled feathers the previous day by writing in the visitor’s book at Dr KB Hedgewar’s birthplace, ‘Today I came here to pay my respect and homage to a great son of Mother India’. ‘Respect’ is a formal term, ‘homage’ goes deeper; the words are broadly synonymous, the devil is in the context.

Pranabda nixed decades of calumny heaped upon the RSS and subtly included it among the venerable national institutions. This could, but need not, hamper efforts to forge opposition unity against the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in the run-up to the Parliamentary elections. But Pranabda, reputedly in the thick of the exercise, will now be excused. It would be unfair to say that he has “positioned” himself as a possible candidate for Prime Ministership if BJP’s tally falls below 200, as some suggest. But he has gently stirred the political cauldron and we can only wait to see the broth.

Mukherjee said India was always an open and globally connected society; he mentioned the Silk and Spice Routes. Scholars now increasingly talk of the Cotton/Linen Route and the Manuscript Route by which Buddhist pilgrims took scriptures back to their own lands. Indian merchants and sages took Indian goods and knowledge abroad; goods were in high demand in West Asia and Europe; culture, knowledge and faith in Central Asia, China and Southeast Asia. Alexander’s ambitions created some of the earliest foreign accounts of ancient India; later Fa Hien and Hiuen Tsang wrote about the efficient administrative systems, planned settlements, good infrastructure, and famed universities. Mukherjee’s reference to Arthashastra could be a hint to look at native wisdom and traditions of governance.

Pranabda punched a hole in the Westphalian model of nationhood, asserting that India was a state long before the European Nation State rose after 1648, based on the notion of a defined territory, single language, shared religion and a common enemy. Indian nationhood rests on the universal philosophy of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam (world is family) and Sarve Bhavantu Sukhinah, Sarve Santu Niramayah (may all be healthy and happy). We may highlight here the difference between Indian and Western notions of ‘universal’. The Hindu meaning is that which is applicable or can be adopted voluntarily by all (e.g. Yoga, mutual coexistence without strife, etc). The monotheist concept is that which should be imposed upon all (religion, culture, thinking, et al).

Simply put, Hindus celebrate multiplicity in culture, faith, language, everything. In fact, contrary to the popular slogan, we do not believe in ‘unity in diversity’ as that intrinsically suggests potential strife. We believe in ‘Diversity in Unity’, because everything emerges from Oneness. Indian pluralism, or ‘sarv dharma sambhav’ (all faiths are harmonious) and ‘ekam sat, vipra bahuda vadanti’ (truth is one, the wise call it by many names) is rooted in this awareness. Mukherjee cited Vincent Smith, “India beyond all doubt possesses a deep underlying fundamental unity, far more profound than that produced either by geographical isolation or by political superiority. That unity transcends the innumerable diversities of blood, colour, language, dress, manners, and sect”.

It must have riled the Marxists and secular fundamentalists that the former president observed that large parts of India fell to Muslim invaders from the twelfth century onwards, till the East India Company won the Battle of Plassey in 1757 and quickly brought large tracts under its control; the British Crown took charge in 1858. Throughout this political and cultural upheaval, however, India’s “civilisational continuity remained unbroken”. To Indians of my generation, this is probably the first time such an exalted public figure has openly stated that Delhi was captured by Muslim invaders. It could pave the way for a more honest articulation of historical facts and their cultural impact, in future.

British rule compelled Indian nationalists to articulate the concept of the Modern Indian State; all Congress Presidents upheld a Nation comprising the territorial areas of British India and the territories of 565 princely states. When Bal Gangadhar Tilak said, “Swaraj is my Birthright and I shall have it”, he meant the Indian People, encompassing various castes, creeds, and religions, across British India and the Princely States. Pranabda made special mention of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel’s statesmanship in securing the merger of the Princely States and thus ensuring the consolidation of India. Is there an unstated admonition regarding the continuing problems in Jammu & Kashmir?

Mani Shankar Aiyar has lamented that Pranabda had lent respectability to the RSS, which represents the anti-thesis of the Indian tradition of “welcoming to new ideas and thoughts, absorbing, assimilating and synthesizing what comes our way, whatever its provenance and however associated in historical memory with assault, invasion and political turbulence”. This is preposterous. It bears stating that Mukherjee did not exonerate any ‘assault’ related with ‘invasion’; he would be aware of contemporary realities in Assam, West Bengal, and many other Indian States. Nor did he touch upon “Islam and evangelical Christianity”. Readers may note that Aiyar emphasised ‘evangelical Christianity’, indicating overt support for the conversion agenda. Obviously, he regards Hindus who resent or resist as intolerant.

Critics have rightly concluded that the former President’s presence (and the rage of the all-India Lutyens Brigade) catapulted a routine function into “a national event and the message of the Sangh reached all corners of India thanks to our curiosity over what India’s former president was going to do there”. Some have noted the Sarsanghachalak’s assertion that the RSS works for the whole society (often first responder during natural calamities), but resented his contention that “Hindus are answerable to questions about India’s fortunes” (uttardayi).

This is a fundamental truth, underlined by Mukherjee’s reference to foreign invasions. Non-Hindus should explain why they cannot accept the nation’s civilisational and foundational ethos. A political party and an intelligentsia that do not blink when a former Vice President of India attends a function of the terror-linked Popular Front of India cannot baulk at Hindus who are comfortable in their own skins.

(The writer is Senior Fellow, Nehru Memorial Museum and Library; the views expressed are personal)

Writer: Sandhya Jain

Courtesy: The Pioneer

Chief Minister Mr. Trivendra Singh Rawat and Union Agriculture Minister Mr. Radha Mohan Singh, under the ‘Rashtriya Gokul Mission’ Yojana inaugurated the Sex Sorted Semen laboratory at Deep Frozen Semen Production Centre Shyampur, Rishikesh.

This would ensure that the cows inseminated with ‘sexed semen’  give birth only to female calves. Sexed semen technology is a breeding technology about preselecting the sex of offspring by sorting or separating the X-sperms from Y-sperms. This will help to produce more cows than bulls.

“In normal breeding, there are 50-50 chances that, we either get a bull or a cow. With sexed semen, in majority cases one gets a female progeny,” said officials of Agriculture Ministry. Union Agriculture Minister Radha Mohan Singh has laid the foundation of the country’s first sex semen production centre at Rishikesh. The Centre is being set up as part of the Rashtriya Gokul Mission.

“The Centre has planned to set up 10 more such sorted semen centre across the country and global tender has been floated to this effect,” Singh said. According to officials, the technology is being adopted for this centre, was developed by the United States, to produce more cows than bulls. The project is being undertaken to increase milk productivity and the cow population.

Officials said that in sex sorted semen technology, the fractions of X-bearing (female) and Y-bearing (male) sperm are modified from the natural mix through sorting and selection. The new semen mix, which is formed, when impregnated will only yield female calves in almost 90% of the cases. The sorting process basically involves exploiting the differences in deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) content between X-chromosome-bearing and Y-chromosome-bearing sperms. The former contains slightly more DNA, with the difference ranging from 3.6% to 4.2%, depending upon the breed of the cattle or buffalo. The process of sorting is done either by passing the sperm cells through a laser beam or by staining sperm with a DNA-binding fluorescent dye.

Data from the 19th livestock census shows that while the cattle population has dipped by 4.1 per cent in 2012 from 2007 (previous census period), the buffalo population has grown by 3.19 per cent during the same period. Further, the study notes that the percentage changes in milch buffalo population during the period 2003-07 and 2007-12 has increased by 46 per cent in rural areas.

“Cow is a better animal than buffalo to increase the farmers’ income. Cow can give you a better jump in milk yield and is more amenable to upgrading in breeding than a buffalo,” officials said.

Writer: Rajesh Kumar

Courtesy: The Pioneer

Rajnath Singh on Thursday said it’s time to end combat operations in J&K. The matter would be reviewed thoroughly and discussed with Pak to extend or withdraw after the month of Ramzan.  

He sought Pakistan’s cooperation in combating terrorism and counselled the neighbouring country to take India’s help if it is unable to stop terror activities from its soil.

The Home Minister reiterated his offer of talks with separatist leaders. He said a dialogue needed right-minded people to succeed and not necessarily the like-minded people. “Everything is encompassed in this sentence. The right-minded people must come forward,” he said and added that talks could be held with everyone.

On the possible extension of Center’s decision to stop initiation of counter-terrorism operations during the holy month of Ramadhan, the Home Minister said that the issue would be thoroughly discussed in security review meetings. “All options are on the table. No possibility can be ruled out,” he declared.

Rajnath arrived here on 2-day visit to take stock of the security and developmental scenario. This was his first visit after the Center announced unilateral cessation of combat operations in the backdrop of holy month of Ramzan. The Home Minister chaired a security review meeting and held separate meeting with Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti who is chairperson of the Unified Command Headquarters.

He said that the Center has appointed its representative (Dineshwar Sharma) to hold talks in Kashmir and whosoever was interested in dialogue must approach him. “So far as question of dialogue is concerned, we have appointed special representative for this purpose. We have not sent him for holidaying. He has arrived 11 times. I want to repeat my appeal to people to come forward for talks. We can talk to anyone,” he said.

He said the BJP Government was firmly committed to solve the problems of Kashmir and not to let it linger on. “We don’t want that another generation is lost in the vortex of violence,” he said.

Referring to acts of violence in Kashmir during the ceasefire period he questioned the intentions of the perpetrators. “Those who cannot stop their activities during the month of Ramzan, cant we call their intentions contaminated,” he asked.

He said that it was understandable as to why Pakistan is allowing its soil to be used for terror activities. “WE have asked Pakistan to stop terror activities from its soil. If Pakistan is not able to stop it, why it is not taking help from the neighbouring country,” he said.

He said that terrorism has no religion and it is difficult to say when and whom it is going to devour.

He said the Central Government will take all measures to overcome the obstacles to bring lasting peace in Kashmir. He lauded the role of security forces including Army and Police who have worked with utmost restraint. He gave a detailed description of strengthening police and central security forces in Jammu and Kashmir.

Rajnath said the Central Government is profoundly concerned about the future of J&K youth and development of the state as Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s mantra that he espoused from the precincts of Red Fort. He said Modi’s words “not by bullet or abuse, only by embracing Kashmiris” remains core spirit of the BJP Government.

Home Minister said the Centre decided to withdraw cases against those youngsters misled into stone pelting as it was concerned about the future of Jammu and Kashmir’s youth.

Singh appealed to the youth to harness their immense talent and not to tread the path of destruction. He said the Centre and the State Government had initiated several schemes to help them secure their future.

Writer: Khursheed vani

Courtesy: The Pioneer

The BJP Government talks about undertaking corruption and presents transparency by the means of new agendas.

The pervasiveness of money power and corruption in the political and governance process, as the attempts by the BJP to buy MLAs in the aftermath of the Karnataka Assembly election confirmed, is intense. The Government talks big on taking on graft but its actions betray a very different agenda. The Electoral Bonds Scheme is a prime example of its hypocrisy.

The touted motive

The Electoral Bonds Scheme, which was introduced on January 2, 2018 is a perfect example of the duplicitous nature of the Government. In a Press note titled “Why Electoral Bonds are Necessary?” the Finance Minister of India, Arun Jaitley, said “as against a total non-transparency in the present system of cash donations where the donor, the done, the quantum of donations and the nature of expenditure are all undisclosed, some element of transparency would be introduced in as much as all donors declare in their accounts the amount of bonds that they have purchased and all parties declare the quantum of bonds that they have received”. Therefore, the Press note seems to give us the impression that while introducing absolute transparency in the political funding process is difficult, the BJP wishes to introduce some amount of transparency to the funding process, which is why the Scheme has been introduced. In reality, however, if one examines the amendments made to the other laws in India, pursuant to the introduction of the Scheme, a truer and much more somber picture begins to appear.

How the Scheme works

The Scheme permits any person who is a citizen of India or is an entity incorporated/established in India to purchase an electoral bond in favour of certain political party within a period of 10 days during the time frames specified by the government. This electoral bond, which has been purchased, may then be encashed by political parties by depositing the bonds within in the political party’s designated bank account. In this regard, in order to appreciate how this Scheme actually encourages a lack of transparency it is important to examine the manner in which funding by way of electoral bonds is to be disclosed by political parties compared to other sources of funding.

In this regard, an examination of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (RP Act) and the Income Tax Act, 1961 (I-T Act) is illuminating.  The RP Act, inter alia, deals with the conduct of political parties including the funding of political parties. Section 29C of the RP Act requires political parties to prepare a report of all contributions received by a political party in excess of Rs 20,000 from a person or a company in a financial year and to submit this report to the Election Commission. After the introduction of the Scheme and amendments introduced under the Finance Act, 2017, the RP Act now creates an exemption to this reporting requirement for contributions made in the form of electoral bonds to political parties. While, the Scheme specifies that the know your customer (KYC) norms of a bank will apply to the buyers of an electoral bond, this does not help introduce any real transparency because the Election Commission will be unable to access this data which is the confidential information of banks.

In effect therefore, the Election Commission will have little to no information on the contributions received by political parties received in the form of electoral bonds. Another law that has been amended to further discourage transparency is the I-T Act. Prior to the amendment under the Finance Act, 2017, in order to avail tax benefits and reliefs under the Act, a political party was required to maintain a record of each contribution that was over Rs 20,000. After the amendment, the contributions made to a political party by way of electoral bonds have been excluded from the ambit of this requirement. Therefore, in order to avail reliefs under the I-T Act, no such record is required to be maintained by political parties if they are funded through electoral bonds.

It is therefore obvious, that while the government made claims that it was introducing this Scheme to bring greater transparency, in reality the government has made the entire system more opaque and attempted to fool the ordinary citizen by glossing over these unpleasant details.

How do we stem the rot?

While it is important to critically analyze the Government for its lack of drive and motivation in tackling corruption and introducing transparency in the political system, it is also important to suggest measures that in my opinion can help stem the rot of corruption in our system.

One such measure is a shift in the approach of our investigative agencies towards investigating and prosecuting corruption. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is the premier investigating agency in India that typically investigates cases of corruption in India. Currently the CBI looks into all cases of corruption across departments and more importantly across the entire spectrum of public officials in our system. In case of the Indian police service, this means that allegations of corruption against a police constable as well as a Director General of Police are investigated by our investigating agencies. While there is no denying that all acts of corruption are condemnable and should be dealt with sternly, our primary goal should be to find the most efficient way to tackle corruption as comprehensively as possible.

In order to achieve this objective, it is my opinion that more focus should be placed on investigating and prosecuting high level Government officials like Joint Secretary & above (Equivalent Rank) as well as MLA’s and MP’s. By ensuring that high-ranking corrupt officials are brought to justice and honest, competent officers occupy higher positions of responsibility it is likely that such competent, honest individuals will implement practices and policies that encourage transparency and reduce corruption in the entire department and therefore help ensure that day to day corruption that ordinary citizens face are minimized as well. By adopting such an approach, the CBI can use its resources in a more focused, efficient manner rather than spreading itself thin chasing every instance of corruption.

As the saying goes, sunlight is the best disinfectant. So another way in which corruption can be reduced is by introducing greater transparency in our system. The Right to Information Act was a big step in this direction. In order to move forward in this direction, we should strive to ensure that all government documents (other than such matters which are sensitive or relating to national security) should be accessible to the public. Such a move will help ensure that the citizens of the country to provide a check against an abuse of power in the Government.

At the end of the day, we must remember that the problem of corruption is a massive problem that cannot be tackled by sweeping statements or empty gestures. It requires a sustained committed approach and should not be reduced to a marketing campaign. However, I am aware that the BJP and the Prime Minister are big advocates of the hashtag culture so I humbly request Prime Minister Modi to undertake this #seriousaboutcorruption challenge.

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

Writer: Ajoy Kumar

Courtesy:The Pioneer