For an amicable settlement to the lingering problem, the country must move out of the bind that it has been in for the last several decades
The Supreme Court’s recent decision to appoint three mediators to attempt a solution through mediation of the vexed Ram Janmabhoomi issue in Ayodhya could be the last opportunity available to all parties to attempt an amicable out-of-court resolution of the vexed dispute that has been the perennial source of social disharmony. This mediation process will be a court appointed and court monitored exercise which will be conducted outside media glare “with utmost confidentiality”.
The idea of a mediated settlement in the Ram Janmabhoomi Case is not new. Two years ago in March, 2017, the then Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, J S Kehar had suggested a negotiated settlement and had offered himself as a mediator. However, this proposal did not find favour with the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) and the Babri Masjid Action Committee.
This time around, objections if any are muted, probably because of the court’s determination to get all parties to the negotiating table.
The Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute has taken a torturous course, but some of the milestones in recent times are notable. The first of these was the Supreme Court’s judgement in Dr M Ismail Faruqui and others vs Union of India and others in October, 1994. In that case, the constitutional validity of the Acquisition of Certain Areas of Ayodhya Act, 1993 was challenged. The court upheld the Act but declared Section 4(3) of the Act to be invalid. This judgment resulted in the revival of all pending suits before the Allahabad High Court.
The second milestone is the sovereign commitment given by the Government of India in September, 1994, before the Supreme Court that if it was established that a Hindu temple or religious structure existed before the Babri Masjid, it would hand over the site to the Hindus. The Union Government had made a Presidential Reference under Article 143(1) of the Constitution in which it asked the Supreme Court “Whether a Hindu temple or any Hindu religious structure existed prior to the construction of the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid (including the premises of the inner and outer courtyards of such structure) in the area on which the structure stood”.
The Presidential Reference said the government proposed to settle the dispute after obtaining the opinion of the Supreme Court. In the course of the arguments when some litigants representing Muslims interests said the reference would serve no purpose, the court asked the Solicitor-General to respond. The Solicitor-General made a written submission on behalf of the Union Government in response to the court’s query and what was said therein on behalf of the government is significant. The government said it was committed to the construction of a Ram temple and a mosque, but their actual location will be determined only after the Supreme Court renders its opinion in the Presidential Reference.
The government made the following commitments before the apex court in that submission: That it would treat the finding of the Supreme Court on the question of fact referred to it in the Presidential Reference as a verdict which is final and binding; that consistent with the court’s opinion it would make efforts to resolve the controversy by a process of negotiation; that if a negotiated settlement is not possible, it would be committed to enforce a solution based on the court’s opinion. It further said that “If the question referred is answered in the affirmative, namely, that a Hindu temple/structure did exist prior to the construction of the demolished structure, government action will be in support of the wishes of the Hindu community. If, on the other hand, the question is answered in the negative, namely, that no such Hindu temple/structure existed at the relevant time, then the government action will be in support of the wishes of the Muslim community”.
Why did the Union Government put this question to the Supreme Court. A white paper published by the Centre after the demolition of the Babri Masjid provides a clue. It said that during negotiations aimed at finding an amicable settlement, one issue that came to the fore was whether a Hindu temple existed on the site and whether it was demolished to built the masjid. Muslim organisations claimed that there was no evidence to prove this. Muslim leaders also asserted that if this was proved, “the Muslims would voluntarily hand over the disputed shrine to the Hindus”.
The Supreme Court declined to answer this question. The five-judge Bench which gave its verdict in the Faruqui Case in October, 1994 simultaneously disposed off the Presidential Reference. It said the reference was ‘superfluous and unnecessary and does not require to be answered”. However, the Union Government’s desire to secure an answer to the million dollar question was met when the Allahabad High Court, the pending suits before which got revived as a result of the Supreme Court’s order in the Faruqui Case, ordered the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to excavate the site and see what lay beneath the disputed structure.
The ASI, after extensive excavations, informed the court that there was evidence of a massive structure below the disputed structure which had “distinctive features found associated with the temples of North India”. Based on this finding, all the three judges on the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court concluded that a Hindu temple existed below the disputed structure. The Supreme Court has stayed this judgement after it was challenged by several parties to the dispute.
It is not unusual for courts to suggest mediation. This is often suggested by courts in many civil matters because there are no winners and losers when issues are resolved through mediation. However, if mediation fails, the court will have to hear the matter and arrive at a conclusion, which may or may not please all parties in a dispute.
Meanwhile, what will the Union Government do? It has committed itself to initially try and settle the dispute through negotiations once it heard from the Supreme Court on the question of fact it had put before it in the Presidential Reference. The court however declined to answer that question, but the observations made in the white paper and the ASI’s substantive report to the Allahabad High Court cannot be wished away.
The three mediators appointed by the Supreme Court — Justice Fakkir Ibrahim Kalifulla, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar and Sriram Panchu — will have all this material before them when they begin negotiations in search of an amicable settlement. All parties to the dispute will need to join this effort without hesitation in order to resolve the matter through mutual give and take. They must give mediation a chance.
(The writer is Chairman, Prasar Bharati)
Writer: A. Surya Prakash
Courtesy: The Pioneer
Demonetisation has been typically looked at from a political stance, rather than through the prism of economics. Second, it has not always been seen as preparatory to the GST. The real test will lie in the LS verdict
This writer saw a glimpse or two of demonetisation way back in early 1946 as a nine-year-old. We had moved to Calcutta (now Kolkata) less than two years before that. One evening, my father came home and promptly showed my mother two large currency notes with a portrait of King George VI, the like of which the writer had never seen before. Each was worth a thousand rupees. My father explained how he was offered five such notes at Rs 600 each only and he declined, thinking it was illegal. Eventually, his office colleague thrust two of them into his jacket’s pocket. He brought that home. The next day, he was meant to go to the bank which would give him new Rs 1,000 notes in exchange. My father went on to explain that during World War II, which had ended in August 1945, many a trader had profiteered by selling war materials for American as well as British troops, who had been deployed on the Burma (now Myanmar) front. The suppliers made money but did not always pay taxes. The British Indian Government, therefore, decided to demonetise the thousand rupee note. Since then, this writer has not been unfamiliar with the process.
The year 1946 is too long ago but in 1978/79, too, the Janata Party Government of Morarji Desai had demonetised high-value notes. But the measure was so half-hearted that most people cannot remember it. Even this writer cannot recollect the details. In contrast, the Modi Government’s action has had an enormous impact; though it took time for many people to comprehend what exactly were the implications. But most, who had stocks of untaxed cash, lost their money. Those, who could not find a way out, deposited it in the bank on the fair assumption that they would sort it out with the Income Tax officer at the time of assessment, with or without penalty. A Kolkata person, who reportedly had Rs 7,000 crore, could have done the same unless his cash was gained not only from an untaxed source but also from a dubious earning like smuggling.
This writer discovered how unusual the move was on the evening when Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced his step with regard to the demonetisation of Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 notes. The writer and one of the most informed veteran journalists were dining at a club when the announcement was made. But that gentleman needed to be explained the implications.
Those, who had bundles and bundles of unaccounted notes of the two denominations, lost heavily that night. One person was rumoured to have become poorer by Rs 7,000 crore in one stroke. Many small holders managed to change their notes at a discount of between 20 and 50 per cent with the help of brokers, who had connections with willing bank managers. This was one of the several mismanagements reported against the Government. Another was the delay at many banks of new supply of currency. The rest was the loss of money by the middle class to upper class holders. Some felt gravely upset and sinned against for being suddenly deprived of their hard earned money. They were right, except that they overlooked that they had not paid income tax on the money they lost.
The first reaction this writer heard of was from three of his acquaintances — a teacher, a technocrat and a businessman. Each one of them stood to lose up to Rs 50 lakh, which were lying in the house or a safe deposit locker. They all swore against the Government. On the other hand, the average lower middle class and poorer people were vicariously happy that the rich people have been hit for their ill-gotten wealth. Until then, their impression was that only the poor get punished while the rich get away with the help of their influence and wealth.
The real stunning effect was that a great deal of informal (euphemism for black) money ceased to be legal tender. Most of it went into the banks. In the process for a few days to a couple of months, parts of over 85 percent of the currency notes, Rs 500 and Rs 1,000, became non-legal tender. Immediately, there was a liquidity crunch also because of the delay in supply of new notes. Except for Rs 2,000 notes, others were not printed for reasons of secrecy. How much of the secrecy was for a dramatic effect and how much was to prevent transfer of cash by the big holders were a matter of conjecture. But one thing was certain that demonetisation was a stinging message against black money as never before in India. It was also a warning that more steps were coming. Sure enough the Goods and Services Tax (GST) was on the anvil.
For those not emotionally involved, could understand that a digital, or just a modern economy could not exist on two parallel money streets — one white and bankable and the other black and not bankable. One which proposes to be taxable and the other which evades tax from start to finish. The latter would continually undercut the former because it would always be cheaper. Those opposed to demonetisation keep calling the latter informal instead of black. Even well-known economists and scholars talk in these terms — possibly they are being considerate to a great portion of yesteryear traders in our country.
This writer’s personal experience is interesting. My company manufactures toothbrushes, whose sales shot up by over 50 per cent on the morrow of demonetisation and more so after the introduction of GST. The explanation was that his competition in the cheaper varieties was taking no notice of taxation; with the changes, several of the competitors stopped manufacturing. There is no doubt that the so-called informal sector has been stunned. Liquidity had shrunk while new currency notes were being printed. Once they came into full flow, there was no such problem. The only difference was that black money has to be spent; whereas money in the bank is usually spent with care and caution. The reported reduced consumer demand is due to the comparative reduction in superfluous spending.
There are several other countries, which have demonetised their currency, including the UK and Australia, so has Pakistan. Zimbabwe had done something unique — it abolished its own currency and replaced it with the US dollar. Yet other countries are North Korea, Myanmar, Nigeria and Ghana. By and large, they have not benefited, not because of demonetisation per se, but due to the lack of any improvement in financial management. Whenever the Government faced a shortage of funds, its banks resorted to printing notes to meet its expenditure.
Regrettably, demonetisation in India has been looked at politically rather than with the help of economic logic. Second, it has not always been seen as preparatory to the GST, which makes trading with black money almost impossible. Moreover, paying GST means also exposing one’s turnover to the income tax authorities. For those, who were used to tax-free trading, these measures are doubly painful. Its impact on the general elections remains to be seen.
(The writer is a well-known columnist and an author)
Writer: Prafull Goradia
Courtesy: The Pioneer
A spate of accidents in the recent past involving high-performance vehicles makes one wonder whether there should be a separate driving licence for bigger cars
A recent accident in Delhi involved a Bentley Bentayga being driven by a 19-year old youth which slammed into an auto-rickshaw killing one of the occupants. Being someone who has driven in Delhi and across India for a long time, I will not absolve the auto driver of blame. The average auto-rickshaw driver is clueless about concepts like right of way and the idea of flashing indicators is alien to them. Of course, in that respect they much like most folks taking control of a motorised vehicle in India. However, there is little doubt that the Bentayga driver was in all likelihood driving a vehicle far beyond his competence levels.
Most of us know that in India, with the exception of some states like Delhi, the process of getting a driving licence is a corrupt and flawed one. I have noticed several taxi drivers with licences from other states in Delhi with extremely poor understanding of driving rules and regulations. But this is not an elitist issue. Many young children get a licence at the age of 18 with little or no understanding of road rules and regulations. And this is the scary part, when you get a driving licence it says which class of vehicle you can drive — two-wheeler, light motor vehicle or a heavy vehicle. There are no restrictions on power and performance. So you could technically drive a Bentley Bentayga with 500 horsepower the day you get your DL when you should ideally be driving a Maruti Alto or Hyundai Santro.
This is not just specific to India though, across the world you can drive whatever vehicle you want the day you get your DL, and that is either when you turn 16 or 18. In most countries the driving tests are far more stringent but even then few go as far as Finland where drivers have to be trained to drive in slippery and icy conditions. Little wonder Finland has more Rally and F1 World Champions per capita than any other nation on earth.
And while there are young 18-year-olds in India with the requisite driving skills to handle a powerful car, you can probably count them on your fingertips. Let me assure you when I turned 18, I did not have the skills to handle a 100 horsepower car back then, it takes experience and it helps if you get some training. I have driven some manic cars on the streets of Delhi and Indian highways but I know how to control the power but most other road users in India are not expected to comply with rules. That is not accounting for our burgeoning bovine population on the roads. Handling a powerful car isn’t something you should do straight out of basic driving school, it takes time, particularly in India.
In many Western nations, massive insurance premiums for younger drivers restrict them to small, less powerful machines. While this means that the rich can abuse the system, even rich fathers would balk at the premium of letting his 18-year old drive a moderately powerful BMW, because the premium would be half the cars value, and in most nations a crash history record would lead to insurance premiums doubling. The easiest solution in India would be a similar route, insurance premiums should be determined on the basis of the age of the driver and lying should be made punishable. And while the Indian auto industry is cribbing about new long-term insurance requirements, they were necessary.
However, I am suggesting another solution. There should be a special driving licence in India to drive a car with more than 250 horsepower. The reason for that number? Because 99 per cent of cars sold in India have less than that amount of power. And remember the saying, with great power comes great responsibility.
Writer: Kushan Mitra
Courtesy: The Pioneer
While the entire nation is proud of our servicemen, it is disgraceful that the political leadership has been away from answering questions about the strike.
India, last Friday, welcomed its IAF hero, Abhinandan Varthaman, back from Pakistan, after he spent close to three days in Pakistan’s captivity, after his MiG-21 Bison went down in a brief skirmish with Islamabad’s Air Force. Officer Abhinandan’s return is the latest course of events in an episode that has not yet seen its last act but India can at least momentarily heave a sigh of relief. His return also provides us with enough pause to examine the events that unfolded over the past few weeks, to praise the bravery of our armed forces and to ask questions to the Prime Minister, who is the man entrusted with providing leadership to the armed forces.
Primarily, in this article, I aim to examine the concept of leadership and whether the Prime Minister demonstrated it this time around. While the entire nation is extremely proud of our armed forces and the huge sacrifices they are regularly asked to make, it does make it all the more important to ensure that they are led by a political leader who exhibits similar qualities. The events of the past few weeks make it apparent that while the country is proud of the armed forces, the political leadership leading them has been found wanting.
So what is leadership? Norman Schwarzkopf defined its as, “Leadership is a potent combination of strategy and character. But if you must be without one, be without strategy.” Over the past few weeks, the ruling Government has displayed a lack of both.
Lack of strategy: Pakistan is a hub of terror. There are not many people in the world who would disagree with this statement. Even recently, while Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan did earn some goodwill on the world stage by allowing Abhinandan to return and by ensuring that he was not mistreated while in Pakistan’s captivity, much of that goodwill was wasted by the clear propaganda videos that were released by the Government over there. During the entire ordeal, Imran Khan alleged that the attack by India on the terrorist camps did not really cause any harm to Pakistan. He also garnered sympathy and goodwill from world leaders by taking the initiative to return Abhinandan to India.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi allowed Pakistan to take the initiative by not speaking to the nation in its hour of need and failing to rebut Pakistan’s claims that there were no casualties due to India’s strikes. This was especially shocking since members of the BJP like Sambit Patra have said that close to 400 terrorists were killed while BJP chief Amit Shah said that 250 of them were killed. Instead of giving a fitting reply to Pakistan and reclaiming the initiative, Modi, as someone who rarely gives up an opportunity to speak, remained silent on this crucial issue and, therefore, let slip an opportunity to prove Pakistan and the world media wrong. By doing so, it was the Pakistani Prime Minister who appeared to garner greater admiration from the world rather than our Prime Minister.
Character: In terms of character, the BJP Government has an unenviable lack of it. There have been repeated reminders over the past few years of this character flaw. Whether it is the words used by the Prime Minister to describe women or the language used by the BJP when dealing with any member of the Opposition, the Government rarely covers itself in glory. However, in light of the recent events, there was some hope that maybe the Prime Minister may actually conduct himself in a manner befitting his role and get the entire country together. How naïve of us! Despite the Opposition issuing a statement reiterating their stance that they stand behind the armed forces, Modi repeatedly took political potshots without once addressing the nation in a dignified manner.
While the Prime Minister is often found near a microphone when the wind is in his favour, he is conspicuously missing when the nation actually needs answers. This time, too, he addressed a number of rallies when India’s brave Air Force attacked the terrorist bases in Pakistan, taking credit for the bravery of our armed forces but the minute one of our pilots was captured and there was a need for calm, clarity and composure, there was not a whiff from the Government or the Prime Minister. Instead, in the aftermath of Abhinandan’s capture, just a quick glance of the Prime Minister’s twitter feed shows that he addressed BJP workers in their booths before addressing the nation and even then, it was only through rallies or other political events that he talked about strikes rather than having a conversation with Indian citizens, which is only apropos in case of events of national significance, such as this one.
What was all the more disheartening was the fact that while media speculation about the precarious state of affairs was rife, there was no one from the Government to answer the lingering questions. Instead, the Government chose to send the armed forces in the line of fire again and forced it to field questions that could obviously only be answered by its representatives.
As stated above, one such question was about the claims made by international media channels about the number of dead terrorists after the attack. While there is no denying that it is difficult to quantify the number of terrorists killed in the mission, it was the BJP itself that came out with wild, varying figures. The armed forces have categorically come out and said that they have no idea about the exact figure and that this was a question for the Government to answer.
If the armed forces have no clear figure in mind and the BJP has been saying it’s 400 or 250 or whatever the last person from the party has said, is it not logical to question whether the Government actually had any such estimate or was it just making up numbers as it went along?
But when one of us, mere mortals, actually asks the BJP why they are saying 400 when the armed forces are saying they have no idea about any exact figure, the party hides behind the armed forces and says that the people of India cannot question the armed forces. Waah Modiji, Waah!
My views on how a leader is supposed to be is a product of my time as an officer in the Indian Police Service. As someone who has had the opportunity to serve with other brave police officers, I was always told that you need to be the first one to take criticism to protect your officers and the last to take credit for their bravery. This is slightly different from Prime Minister Modi’s policy of hiding behind the armed forces when tough questions are asked and basking in the glory, taking selfies when the sun is shining. India, in my opinion, has had enough of Modi’s unique brand of leadership.
(The writer is Jharkhand PCC president, former MP and IPS officer. Views are personal)
Writer: Ajoy Kumar
Courtesy: The Pioneer
Priyanka’s exclusion from Uttar Pradesh poll list shows that the party can’t do without her mother’s steadying abilities
The Congress’ first list for the Lok Sabha election, which had key seats in Uttar Pradesh, was conspicuous by the absence of a name that was expected to be an elixir for its moribund state unit – Priyanka Gandhi Vadra. She was expected to relieve her ailing mother and Congress supremo Sonia Gandhi from the family seat of Rae Bareli, having led the war room there in past elections. Considering that Rahul Gandhi continues from Amethi and senior Congress leaders like Salman Khursheed, who had lost in 2014, are retaining their seats, the party seems keen on status quo. It would rather not break the mould or allow the whiff of confidence brought in by young Turks under new chief Rahul Gandhi to aerate the rank and file. Obviously, observers are wondering why the Congress is underplaying its charismatic trump card, one who could really steal the optics from a resurgent Prime Minister Narendra Modi and even match speech for speech? Or is it that the Congress is not unleashing her simply because 2019 is a political muddle post Pulwama and Balakot airstrikes, and with a nationalist swell in the heartland, it is advantage Modi for now? Is it that the party is grooming her for 2024, letting Rahul consolidate his presidentship first? Or is it that the Congress wants to revive its own tally ground up than play second fiddle to the federal front? Undoubtedly, Priyanka has successfully managed past elections at the booth level for both family seats but perhaps as general secretary of eastern UP, one that includes Modi’s Varanasi seat and one that will be a litmus test of her organisational and vote transference skills, she needs to be seen as a serious game-changer more than a poster child. Had she contested, she would have had to pay more attention to Rae Bareli and spread herself thinly. For now she seems to have adopted a deep-rooted and precise local strategy than deal with the weight of expectation that always follows her.
Looking deeper, the Congress has to deal with challenges of realpolitik. Sonia Gandhi is still the bridge for both the Opposition and the generational divide within the party. Knowing that it cannot claim some relevance for itself unless it synergises with regional parties, it needs Sonia to push through strategic alliances and rescue a flagging mahagathbandhan. She has the better experience of being an adhesive. Many alliance partners and potential ones prefer to deal with her directly, given past associations, than new president Rahul. This was evident during the Karnataka alliance with HD Kumaraswamy last year. Even Trinamool Congress chief Mamata Banerjee has gone on record saying that she was more comfortable with Sonia. The Congress has not been able to crack a sharing formula with the SP-BSP in Uttar Pradesh or the AAP in Delhi under the new dispensation. The federal front, comprising strong regional leaders seasoned for decades, is yet to soften towards Rahul, who may have come a long way but is still not seen as an equal to regional heavyweights. Besides, within the party, Sonia is the only reassurance and voice of reason for the old guard, who see their continuity through hers. It was only due to her insistence that the chief ministerial posts in Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh went to seniors Ashok Gehlot and Kamal Nath, much to the chagrin of the new brigade. Had Priyanka Gandhi been fielded from Rae Bareli, it would have meant that the brother-sister duo would call the shots henceforth and relegate them to the last row. Rahul himself may not be happy about these inner frictions but at this stage of the party’s tenuous recovery graph, he cannot risk their hostility either. Besides, Sonia being in the electoral fray also means a huge cushion for him in Amethi, where the BJP has launched a strident campaign and announced a slew of development projects, promising a tough fight. Amethi needs to feel the matriarch is with them and her son in the fight. The Congress is in transition in unsettling times and Sonia, for some time, will be indispensable as captain steadying the ship.
Courtesy and Writer: The Pioneer
A war is by no means is the answer to end cross-border terrorism. At best, it can only result in a stalemate. What is really needed is a coherent long-term policy and a clear blueprint to combat terrorism.
The episode that began with the attack on a CRPF convoy in Pulwama on February 14 ended with the repatriation of Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman to India on March 1, without triggering an India-Pakistan war. While this is all to the good, relations between the two countries will remain tense and further serious confrontations cannot be ruled out. This is because the two main causes of their continuing hostility will remain — Pakistan’s desire to annex Kashmir and India’s demand for an end to the cross-border terrorist attacks that Pakistan has been conducting against it for almost 40 years now.
Pakistan’s obsession with Kashmir stems not only from the region’s fabled beauty but its strategic importance. Controlling Kashmir, Islamabad can bring its armoured and infantry formations unopposed to Jammu & Kashmir’s borders with Punjab and Himachal Pradesh, and launch these against Delhi. Any such offensive has now to contend with the Indian forces stationed along the international border between the two countries in Jammu and the Line of Control in Kashmir. This is why India cannot part with Kashmir — besides the fundamental reason of the latter being an integral and inalienable part of this country.
Control over Kashmir will enable Pakistan to launch a three-pronged attack against India — from the Sind-Rajasthan and Punjab borders as well as Kashmir, and it will push some of its Army formations close to Delhi. This strategic consideration is supplemented by its pathological hatred towards India, which routed it in the 1971 war that led to Bangladesh’s liberation.
Pakistan’s fixation with gaining control over Kashmir is also a result of its strategic doctrine which aims at India’s balkanisation. In his book, India: A Study in Profile, Lieutenant-Colonel Javed Hassan (who retired as a Lieutenant-General) contended that “India was hostage to a centrifugal rather than a centripetal tradition.” Holding that India “had a historical inability to stay as a unified state”, he identified Punjab, Jammu & Kashmir, Tamil Nadu and six north-eastern States (strangely leaving one of the seven sisters out), as being completely alienated from mainstream India.
Hussain Haqqani, who refers to this book in his Pakistan: Between Mosque and Military, wrote that Hassan felt that “with some encouragement, the alienated regions could become centres of insurgencies that would, at best, dismember India, at [the] least, weaken India’s ability to seek regional dominance for years to come.” Hassan’s book is most significant as it resulted from a study of the Pakistani Army’s Faculty of Research and Doctrinal Studies, Command and Staff College, Quetta. It was published and distributed by the Services Book Club, Rawalpindi. None of this could have happened without sanction from the top, which, in turn, indicated that it articulated — at least was in sync with — official policy. Further, Haqqani points out in a footnote in his book, that in several conversations with him, Lieutenant-General Hamid Gul, who was director-general of Pakistan’s notorious Inter-Services Intelligence from 1987 to 1989, referred to an operational plan to encourage centrifugal forces in India that existed when he was director-general of military intelligence from 1984 to 1987.
Haqqani further states that after the United States had agreed to support the Afghan jihad against Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and American economic aid had started pouring into Pakistan, the latter’s President, Zia-ul Haq, wanted a forward policy drawn up regarding India. Haqqani also says that a conversation between Zia and Lieutenant-General Akhtar Abdul Rahman led to the implementation of a policy combining clandestine operations to weaken India with the pretence of seeking durable peace, throughout the years Zia was in power as well as subsequently.
As can be seen, it is being followed even now. What can India do? A war? It can end in India’s victory, defeat or a stalemate. Defeat is impossible given this country’s enormous military superiority over Pakistan and the valour of its uniformed personnel. A victory is possible given India’s superiority on land, sea and air, and India did defeat Pakistan comprehensively in the 1971 war which led to the liberation of Bangladesh. It, however, then had complete support of the Soviet Union under the Indo–Soviet Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Cooperation which, under Article IX, provided for immediate “mutual consultations” to remove any “attack or threat thereof” that either country may face and the taking of “appropriate effective measures to ensure peace and security of their countries.” Thus, the Soviet Union sent ships of its Pacific Fleet to counter warships of the United States’ Seventh Fleet which entered the Bay of Bengal to tilt the balance in Pakistan’s favour. India is unlikely to receive the same kind of support from Russia which is now reaching out to Pakistan. Besides, even if India wins a comprehensive victory, it will not end terrorism from Pakistan. The 1971 war did not. Pakistan was back to promoting terrorism and insurgency in India within 10 years of that.
Things might be different if this country annexes Pakistan, which the world will not allow. It is one thing for countries not to condemn — or even tacitly endorse — an attack on the JeM terrorist-training camp at Balakot, and, quite another for them to allow India to swallow Pakistan. Equally, Pakistan may not rattle its nuclear-tipped missiles over an Indian aerial attack on a target inside it but will certainly do so if Indian troops get, say, within 50 kilometres of Islamabad.
Most likely, a war will end in a stalemate. Besides not ending terrorism, it will impose a heavy cost in terms of human lives, public and private assets destroyed and economic disruption. Instead of it, one needs a coherent long-term policy and a clear blueprint to fight terrorism, providing for diplomatic and economic pressure on Pakistan, sound intelligence gathering to pre-empt terror strikes in India and terror attacks in Pakistan itself. Whipping up jingoism and war hysteria only diverts attention from this essential task.
(The writer is Consultant Editor, The Pioneer, and an author)
Courtesy: The Pioneer
Writer: Hiranmay Karlekar
The US’ move to delete India from a preferential list won’t have much of an impact, or will it?
It may make for some unpleasant optics at a time of sub-continental tension, where the US pressured Pakistan on dismantling its terror network and led the Western world on isolating it over the Pulwama attacks, but its decision to take India out of a preferential trade list — one that allows $5.6 billion worth of Indian exports to enter the US duty-free — is not such a big deal. First things first, this move has nothing to do with geopolitics or our global diplomatic prowess and impacts just a fraction of our trade volumes. Considering that China is the bigger threat for both the US and India, the world’s largest democracies wouldn’t want to mess with their strategic relationship and lose sight of the big picture. The US move was also not country-specific, it was announced at the same time as a halt on trade preferences for Turkey. It came two days after Trump’s reference to India as a “very-high tariff nation.” Besides, his demand for a “reciprocal tax” on goods from India is in keeping with Washington’s concerted attacks on India’s trade stance. This is also a pressure tactic to compel us to negotiate on sectors such as medical devices, mainly stents, dairy products and IT. And what better time to do it than when it is easier to coerce us at a sensitive time and seek a counter favour? Though India has kept the doors open to a compromise, it has said that it would not back down on the affordability of stents, a move that has dented US manufacturers substantially.
In 2017, India had capped prices of cardiac stents and knee implants, slashing them by over 70 per cent and 60 per cent respectively. The move impacted US giants like Abbott, Medtronic, Boston Scientific and Stryker. India had also insisted on a change in the certification procedure of dairy products, that their source animals be never fed blood meals and that this would be “non-negotiable” from a cultural standpoint. And if the US could comply with halal and kosher standards, this could easily be factored in too. The US move is expected to have minimal impact as exporters here were deriving duty free benefits of only $190 million of the total $5.6 billion-worth of GSP items traded. Around 1,900 of our products, including raw materials and intermediaries across sectors such as organic chemicals and engineering goods, have been circled out. Exports in other categories like articles of iron or steel, furniture, aluminum and electrical machinery and parts could also be affected. But experts say with the economy growing at a rapid pace and diversifying into newer markets, particularly in Africa and Latin America, the losses resulting from withdrawal of concessions could easily be offset. Of course, the full extent of the loss can only be gauged by which of our competitors enters the US market to fill in the demand gaps. Needless to say India has been the biggest beneficiary of the GSP regime and accounted for over a quarter of the goods that got duty-free access into the US in 2017. Considering that even the US and China have simmered down their trade war, all doesn’t seem to be lost at this stage.
Courtesy: Pioneer
Writer: Pioneer
Only two months are left for NEET exam that is tough with a vast syllabus, tricky questions and negative marking. Rajshekhar Ratrey shares tips on how one can get that perfect score
This year, over 15 lakh aspiring students have registered for the NEET 2019 exam, which will be held on the May 5, 2019. This is a record-breaking number and almost 2 lakh more than last year itself.
At present, the Government and private colleges in most States choose their MBBS and BDS candidates based on NEET score. The exam is an extremely tough exam with its vast syllabus, tricky questions, and negative marking scheme for incorrect answers.
In spite of this, the number of applicants has constantly been on the rise. Why the sudden jump in the number of applicants? There are two reasons for this 14 per cent rise in applicants.
Hours before the application deadline for the exam closed, the Supreme Court announced that students above 25 years of age are eligible to take the exam. To help these students complete their application forms.
The second reason is, that NEET is now a mandatory exam for all students who want to pursue their MBBS and BDS courses abroad.
With this sudden rise in applicants, the number of students competing for a single rank has also increased. This means, that students will have to learn better, aim higher, and attempt as many questions as they can while maintaining a high percentage of accuracy. Practice is the key to a high score. s a NEET aspirant, you only have two months before your final exam. Spend as much time practising as you can.
Prioritise the chapters that you practice based on the weightage that exam authorities have given in the past.
Download an app that gives you adaptive practice. In simpler words, these apps create unique learning paths for every student depending on their unique needs. If your basics are weak, it will create questions that build your fundamentals. As you improve, it will keep raising the level of questions until you ace the tricky ones.
Take a mock test every day for at least a month.
In the last month before your exam, you should start taking mock tests at the same time of the day as your final exam.
Ensure that you take it in a time-bound, exam like environment
Develop answer strategies – Which subject will you attempt first? What is the most amount of time that you should spend answering a question?
Keep evaluating your incorrect answers. Make a note of concepts that you keep getting wrong. Moreover, categorise your incorrect answers.
Did you start solving it correctly and then get confused?
Did you have no idea how to solve the question?
This will help you prioritise your revision. Since NEET has negative marking, accuracy is as important as volume.
Make short notes and flashcards of formulae, diagrams, and other concepts that you keep getting wrong. Have a look at these during your last minute revision.
Ensure that you understand the concepts instead of rote learning them. There’s no room for doubts!
Clarify your doubts immediately.
When you just have about 60 days left before an extremely critical exam, you cannot wait for your teachers to free up time so that you can clarify your doubts.
Get your doubts solved immediately, or else you will keep repeating the same mistakes in every mock test that you take.
You can download a doubts on chat app to clarify your doubts instantly, 24X7.
Here, you can chat with experts at any time of the day or night and they will answer your questions.
Keep your mind calm, stay focused, and give it your best shot.
The writer is VP, Educational Content Head, Toppr
Courtesy: Pioneer
Writer: Rajshekhar Ratrey
The lack of will has allowed a non-disputed issue like the Ram Janmabhoomi to acquire such dimensions. It’s high time we get over old complexes and act as free citizens
Many an onlooker would be laughing at the manner in which India has dealt with the Ram Janmabhoomi issue. Until 1947, it was understandable that the Hindus held no trump card to win at Ayodhya, but why the lackadaisical handling of the issue thereafter? In 1949, the local court allowed the mahants to place the idol of Rama on the chabutra so that the worshippers would have access to the deity. That was sufficient to delight most devotees until 1983 when the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) appealed to every village to send a brick or Rama shila to Ayodhya. This was symbolic of their desire to build a Rama temple. Other members of the Sangh parivar kept aloof until 1989, when the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) included the temple in its manifesto. On December 6, 1992, the demolition of the Babri edifice took place. A fortnight later, the BJP distanced itself from the demolition. Thereafter, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board claimed ownership of the land and dragged the dispute to court and still after 27 years, it remains unresolved. This despite the Archaeological Survey of India testifying that there was a stone temple below which the Babri structure had stood.
This writer’s associates overseas are amazed at the lack of will which allows everybody to make a mockery of a non-dispute. Experts have identified about 3,000 temples, which over the centuries, were either converted or recycled into mosques. Hardly a single place of worship has been restored to the Hindus despite seven decades of our Independence. On the contrary, over 100 temples have been desecrated in Kashmir over these seven decades. It is distinctly possible that easy conquest, again and again over centuries, introduced a sadistic habit into the psyche of the conquerors, who then perpetrated a variety of crimes and cruelties on the conquered. They acquired an inclination to obtain pleasure out of inflicting pain on others. Nearly seven centuries of the invaders’ rule may have reduced the vanquished to acquire a slave mentality. Such a state of mind could well have affected the conquered people in the absence of any alternative source of political pressure.
To obtain pleasure by being subjected to pain has been classified by psychologists as “masochism.” This is a psycho-sexual disorder in which erotic release is achieved through having pain inflicted on oneself. The term derives from the name of Chevalier Leopold von Sacher-Masoch, an Austrian, who wrote extensively about the satisfaction he gained by being beaten and subjugated. The amount of pain involved can vary from ritual humiliation with little violence to severe whipping or beating. While pain may cause a certain amount of excitement in many people, for the masochist, it becomes the chief end of activity. The term is frequently used in a looser social context in which masochism is defined as the behaviour of one, who seeks out and enjoys situations of humiliation or abuse. More commonly, the association of pain with sexual pleasure takes the form of both masochism and sadism, the latter obtaining sexual pleasure through inflicting pain on others. Often, an individual will alternate roles, becoming aroused through the experience of pain in one instance and through the infliction of pain in another. Perhaps, this explains why we have yielded ground so easily.
Ever since Professor Max Mueller, German philosopher, delivered his lecture in Westminster Abbey, London, in 1873, the six great religions of the world have been broadly classified into two categories. Missionary religions: Buddhism, Christianity and Islam; and non-missionary religions: Hinduism, Zoroastrianism and Judaism. In the case of the missionary religions, it is a sacred duty cast on the followers to spread faith among the non-believers until, as it were, it is accepted by all members of the human family. It is only in the case of Islam that its followers have resorted to forcible means to convert non-believers.
For example, Professor Sir Thomas Arnold, who was the principal of Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh in the 19th century, recorded the following: “India is a country where Islam owes its existence and continuance in existence to the settlement of foreign conquering Muhammadan races, who have transmitted their faith to their descendants and only succeeded in spreading it beyond their own circle by means of persecution and forced conversions.”
Ever since Islam was born in Arabia, it came into conflict with Judaism and Christianity. The clash mainly occurred because of the common characteristics of the two faiths rather than the differences. One book of faith; one leader; one religion and, in the latter, a similar missionary zeal. Professor Bernard Lewis, the eminent American scholar, observed: “The see-saw attack and counter-attack between Christianity and Islam had begun with the crusades and they ended with a conclusive Christian defeat.” Besides, for almost a 1,000 years, from the first Moorish landing in Spain to the second Turkish siege of Vienna, 1682, Europe was under constant threat from Islam. In the early centuries, it was a double threat not only of invasion and conquest but also of conversion. Having conquered large parts of southern Europe, Muslims imposed their Sharia on Christians.
For a millennium, from the Arab invasion of Sind in 712 AD till the death of Aurangzeb in 1707, Hindu society was equally under the threat of conversion and conquest. This happened because after the death of Harsh Vardhana in 647 AD, Hindu rulers of north India generally embraced one idea: Self-aggrandisement, which spelt but only ruin.
It is well-known that Mahmud Ghazni had led several expeditions into India but Hindus seemed to think that history teaches but one lesson, namely, there are no lessons to be learnt from history. Alberuni, the distinguished astronomer, who had accompanied Mahmud, wrote that Anand Pala, after his own defeat at the hands of Mahmud, wrote to him. “I learn the Turks have rebelled against you. If you wish, I shall come to you or send my son with 500 horses, 1,000 soldiers and 100 elephants. I have been conquered by you and, therefore, wish that another man should not conquer you.” Such examples of Hindu mindset abound. In this context, an eminent Indian historian said, “The people en masse seldom act except as they are led. Given effective leadership, they are capable of achieving almost anything.”
Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru had invited the distinguished historian, Sir Arnold Toynbee, to deliver the Maulana Abul Kalam Azad memorial lectures. In the course of them, he expressed surprise that two prominent mosques stood on the bank of the Ganges at Benaras so many years after Independence.
He went on to quote the example of Warsaw, whose biggest church had been converted from Catholic to an Eastern Orthodox place of worship when the Russians conquered
Poland. When, however, a century later, the Poles were able to free themselves, they demolished the Russian church. They promptly replaced it with a Roman Catholic edifice of worship. That is what Sir Arnold expected of Indians too. Indeed, it is high time, Hindus got over their old complexes and became self-confident free citizens.
(The writer is a well-known columnist and an author)
Courtesy: Pioneer
Writer: Prafull Goradia
The return of IAF pilot Abhinandan to India from Pakistan’s custody, last Thursday, was met by a combination of relief and celebration in India. Relief because, in the light of what happened to some Indian soldiers during the Kargil war of 1999, there were grave concerns over his safety and well-being. Ironically, the videos of Abhinandan capture and subsequently, which Pakistan attempted to use for propaganda purposes, may have ensured that nothing untoward happened to him. But this relief that a brave pilot who distinguished himself by downing a Pakistani F-16 aircraft — which Islamabad still hasn’t formally admitted to — has returned home to resume his duties was coupled with a celebratory mood.
This mood stemmed from the fact that Indians were aware that the Narendra Modi Government hadn’t negotiated Abhinandan’s release. Despite the attempt by Pakistan to use an Indian soldier to force India to “negotiate”, the Modi Government has refused any talks unless there is credible evidence that the infrastructure of terror that has been built across the border is dismantled and action taken against the organisers of terror. If despite this refusal, Pakistan felt compelled to release Abhinandan hastily, it is not because Prime Minister Imran Khan is a large-hearted sportsman. The Pakistan Prime Minister was unquestionably an accomplished cricketer but his apparent magnanimity was triggered by two factors. First, he needed to look statesmanlike, which is understandable. But more important, confronted with a beleaguered economy and dwindling diplomatic support, particularly after the UN Security Council resolution against terrorism directed at India by the JeM, Pakistan has very little room for manoeuvre. The jihadi problem may have predated Imran Khan but it has cost Pakistan dearly in every possible way. Earlier, Pakistan has leveraged the Cold War and its position as a frontline state in the Afghan war to bargain its way. Today, that is no longer possible. The country’s bluff has been called and the world wants it to atone for its sins, particularly its patronage of global jihadist.
Imran’s gesture may have impressed India’s small community of liberals who were against the air strikes on the Jaish-e-Mohammed camps in Balakot in the first place. This isn’t because they are particularly fond of the JeM or even Pakistan, but because they can’t countenance any move that could lead to Modi becoming the personification of the Indian mood. Consequently, despite being fully aware of Pakistan’s track record of duplicity, including its role in giving shelter to Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad, they have chosen to believe stories of India’s air strikes in Balakot being purposeless. The logic is simple: promote anything to undermine and discredit Modi.
The latest claim is that India has lost the “war of perceptions” to Pakistan. The theory is not based on any analysis of Indian diplomacy — of its record in mustering the support of 105 countries in its campaign against terrorism —but almost entirely on what some foreign journalists have or have not said. It is a different matter that the publications have lost sight of the fact that the present crisis arose from the killing of 44 CRPF jawans in Pulwama and the central issue is terrorism. To them what is relevant is that India has a Government led by Modi and that Modi must be brought down several notches, even if that involves putting a failed state such as Pakistan on a pedestal. The coverage of India’s conflict with a rogue Pakistani state has been reduced to partisan positions on India’s domestic politics.
In justification, it is claimed that this unending scepticism is a counter to the Indian (electronic) media’s xenophobic posturing. Whether the Indian media is excessively shrill and nationalistic or perceives itself as a patriotic vanguard is for the readers and viewers to judge. There is a media war, which to some extent is an extension of the culture wars that have been fought over the past four years, which is of relevance to the journalists and social media gladiators. However, state policy cannot and must not be shaped by this battle. As the custodian of national interests, the Indian Government has a paramount responsibility to its people, and not least the overwhelming majority that identifies itself with the nation. The shift in the country’s strategic doctrine from the do-nothing approach of, say, 2008 to the willingness to cross the Line of Control when necessary was a response to pressure from below — a sentiment that Modi understood and acted in accordance with. True, there are other expressions of opinion in India but they should be accommodated only if they are broadly in synch with national priorities — including the relentless war on terrorism.
In reality, India is today not a divided house. In all the conflicts, there have been the odd dissenting voices. In 1962, during the war with China, a section of the Communists chose to be partial to China. In 1971, the CPI(M) equated Indira Gandhi with Yahya Khan. And during the Kargil conflict in 1999, the Congress baited the Government unendingly, hoping that the failure to recover the heights would lead to Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s defeat in the election. It is that same game that is being replayed today. But just because there are awkward noises being made, it doesn’t imply that the nation should get distracted. Democracy, unfortunately, also confers rights on those whose values don’t correspond with national priorities. They have to be tolerated but not heeded.
Courtesy: The Pioneer
Writer: Pramod Pathak
As our hero pilot is back and UAE and Saudi Arabia are helping defuse tension, India must take the diplomatic way
With Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman back home after Pakistan, under tremendous international pressure, released him from captivity, let’s remember what he stood for. First, his extreme courage under fire. He chased back a fleet of hostile Pakistani jets when they crossed the LoC and shot down a latest Pakistani F-16 with a vintage MiG-21. Second, his extreme alertness and presence of mind. Brought down by the Pakistani side, he followed his survival drill to a T, swallowing papers, junking other evidence in a pond, shooting at locals in self-defence before he was overpowered and roundly thrashed. Third, grace under pressure. As a true soldier, he held his own, revealing only his name and number and skillfully dodging mindgames by his captors.
In short, his poise and dignity remind us how hereon we should pursue a path of equanimity. True, we have just about started a new fight against terror, and the deep strike into Pakistan to smash a Jaish base does not mean that our problems are over. In fact, they may have just begun, requiring us to be ever ready along the LoC. By attempting a “non-military, pre-emptive” strike on terrorist bases that plan bombings in India, we have opened a new path of staying way below the nuclear threshold and yet protect our national security. And with terrorists gone from the frontline, Pakistan will find new ways of provoking India. So with this paradigm shift, we have to be on the ball and extremely vigilant about a Pakistani offensive. We could do so without brashness and bluster, instead consolidate our diplomatic offensive and build on the gains made so far. In fact, it is the diplomatic isolation of Pakistan globally on the anti-terrorism plank that helped us get back Abhinandan in record time, considering the history of Indian PoWs in Pakistani captivity.
India should now continue to press its point home and reverse opinions. This is borne out by the fact that the Organisation of Islamic Countries (OIC) named us a chief guest and did not withdraw that status despite the airstrikes. This miffed Pakistan so much that it decided to stay away from its ongoing edition. Minister for External Affairs Sushma Swaraj, in her speech at OIC, highlighted that the fight against terrorism was not a confrontation against any religion. She even gave a conscience call to “tell the states who provide shelter and funding to terrorists, to dismantle the infrastructure of the terrorist camps.” An indirect reference to Pakistan. This space was unthinkable even last year when the OIC was uncomfortable about Army presence in Kashmir and easily fed on Pakistani propaganda. But countries like Bangladesh have been arguing for expanding the scope of OIC so that India could get observer status. India itself has been citing its Muslim population base as a marker of eligibility. A bigger coup is getting the support of Saudi Arabia and the UAE. While the West, led by the US, worked the lines with Pakistan to defuse tension along the LoC, it is the Saudis who played a crucial role in convincing Pakistan to simmer down and release Abhinandan. Although Saudi Arabia is a close ally of Pakistan and has its imperatives, it still sees India as a key market and acknowledges the contribution of our workforce to it. Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince even rushed a minister to Islamabad with a key message. The UAE has emerged an ally, too, its Crown Prince stressing the “importance of dealing wisely with recent developments and giving priority to dialogue and communication.” And though China considers Pakistan an all-weather friend, even it did not want to risk India’s goodwill for fear of losing a stable trading partner given the US rebuff on that front. Its commonalities with us are bigger than differences. China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi firmly told Pakistan that China “does not want to see acts that violate the norms of international relations.” If India spearheads the fight on terror in the region diplomatically and works for a consensus approach, it will give us bigger gains.
Courtesy & Writer: Pioneer
FREE Download
OPINION EXPRESS MAGAZINE
Offer of the Month