EDITORIAL 05.10.09

October 05, 2009                                          http://editorialsamarth.blogspot.com

Please contact the list owner of subscription and unsubscription at: editorial@samarth.co.in

 

media watch with peoples input                an organization of rastriya abhyudaya

Editorial

month october 05, edition 000315, collected & managed by durgesh kumar mishra, published by – manish manjul

 

Editorial is syndication of all daily- published newspaper's Editorial at one place.

http://editorialsamarth.blogspot.com

 

 

THE PIONEER

1. SINECURE FOR SOMNATH
2. THE OTHER INDIA
3. US APPEASING INDIA'S FOE - JOGINDER SINGH
4. EVANGELISM ON DD IS BAD NEWS - PRIYADARSI DUTTA
5. IT'S CHANGE WE CAN'T
6. BUT THE CHARM IS LOST! - RAJIV DOGRA
7. IRAN IS NOT LISTENING - BARRY RUBIN
8. SMUGGLING OF CATTLE MUST STOP - RICHARD L BENKIN
9. THIRSTY FOR WATER IN PARCHED UTTARAKHAND - DINESH PANT

 

MAIL TODAY

1. TAKING ON THE MAOIST CHALLENGE
2. IIT ISSUES REMAIN
3. THACKERAY USURPS STATE'S ROLE - BY RAJEEV DHAVAN
4. RAHUL STEP IN & SAVE GAMES
5. MODI OUTWITS PATEL AT FUNCTION FOR SARDAR
6. BABUS SEEK CUT IN GRANTS FOR NGOS

 

TIMES OF INDIA

1. OLYMPIC DREAMS
2. OUT OF TUNE
3. THE SEVENTIES, ONCE AGAIN - SUDHIR KAKAR
4. CORN VS PORN - JUG SURAIYA
5. INK-STAINED FINGERS - SADHNA SHANKER

 

HINDUSTAN TIMES

1. NO MIDDLING KINGDOM, THIS
2. MUMBHAI, MERI JAAN!
3. OLD TIES, NEW HOPES - SAMAR HALARNKAR,
4. THEIR SHOES ARE TOO BIG TO FILL - PANKAJ VOHRA

 

INDIAN EXPRESS

1. SHOPIAN FILES
2. WAKE UP, MUMBAI
3. ELECTRIFYING KABUL
4. BOARDROOM POPULISTS - DHIRAJ NAYYAR
5. CHINA'S VISION 2012 - NIMMI KURIAN
6. 'THE US WANTS THOSE CAUGHT (FOR MUMBAI ATTACKS) BE GIVEN ADEQUATE SENTENCES, HAFIZ SAEED IS PROSECUTED, LET INFRASTRUCTURE DISMANTLED'

 

FINANCIAL EXPRESS

1. FUND IS BOUYANT
2. POWER TO REFORM
3. BHARTI TODAY, ANOTHER TOMORROW - AJAY SHAH
4. THE DELICATE ART OF NEGOTIATIONS - YOGINDER K ALAGH
5. ADVANTAGE CONTRAST - AKASH JOSHI

 

THE HINDU

1. BRAVO BRAZIL
2. UNPRECEDENTED HAVOC
3. THE ROAD AHEAD FOR INDIA AND PAKISTAN - SIDDHARTH VARADARAJAN
4. SCIENCE JOURNALISM: ROLE OF TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE - S. VISWANATHAN
5. DETAINEE'S CASE SHOWS BIND OF GUANTANAMO'S FATE - SCOTT SHANE
6. WILL BOOKS BE NAPSTERISED? - RANDALL STROSS
7. WALRUSES SUFFER SUBSTANTIAL LOSSES AS SEA ICE ERODES - ANDREW C. REVKIN

 

THE ASIAN AGE

1. A REALITY CHECK FOR RICH NATIONS
2. EMERGING STATES CALL FOR IMF VOTE REFORM - BY PARANJOY GUHA THAKURTA
3. PRAYERS ALWAYS HELP - YUGA BHARATHI
4. DEVELOPMENT CAN HELP CURTAIL NAXALS' GROWTH - BY ARJUN SENGUPTA

 

THE TRIBUNE

1. CRYOGENIC CLUB
2. HITTING MAOISTS
3. IIT STANDOFF
4. INDIA IN TURMOIL - BY AMAR CHANDEL
5. AN ADMIRED TEACHER - BY EHSAN FAZILI
6. THE TIGER CRISIS AND REMEDIAL MEASURES - BY LT GEN (RETD) BALJIT SINGH
7. MOBILE PHONES VS HUMAN CONTACT - BY CAROLA LONG
8. CHIDAMBARAM'S FAMILY PLANNING INITIATIVE - BY DEVI CHERIAN

 

THE ASSAM TRIBUNE

1. DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE
2. HEALTH CARE
3. G-20 SUMMIT AND DEVELOPING NATIONS - SHIBDAS BHATTACHARJEE
4. ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR AND ECOLOGICAL ASPECTS - K C PATAR

 

THE ECONOMIC TIMES

1. NEEDED, AN INTEGRATED VISION
2. LEGALLY, BY ALL MEANS
3. HOLY COWS
4. THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS - MYTHILI BHUSNURMATH
5. GAINS FROM EFFICIENT USE OF ENERGY - JIWESH NANDAN
6. TOWARDS THE PROCESS OF 'MAKING UP' - K VIJAYARAGHAVAN
7. SPREAD THE CHEER AROUND, DON'T BE CLUBBY - SUDESHNA SEN
8. THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS - MYTHILI BHUSNURMATH
9. FIGHT THE DAUNTING TIMES WITH FRUGALITY AND RIGOUR' - MINI JOSEPH TEJASWI
10. MARKET TO REMAIN STOCK SPECIFIC, HCC, CENTRAL BANK GOOD BUYS ON DIPS: MODERN SHARES
11. INDIA TO BE FIFTH-LARGEST AUTO MKT BY 2015: AUDI INDIA MD - SAI DEEPIKA AMIRAPU
12. INDIA'S A VERY IMPORTANT GROWTH MARKET FOR US - GEORGE CHERIAN
13. 'CLIENT VIRTUALISATION IS THE NEW THING' - CHIRANJOY SEN
14. THE IMMELT-AMBANI DIALOGUE: INDIAN CURE FOR GLOBAL ILLS
15. 'HUMAN CAPITAL BUILDING IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF COS' - VINOD MAHANTA, VIKRAM DOCTOR & N SHIVPRIYA

 

DECCAN CHRONICAL

1. A REALITY CHECK FOR RICH NATIONS
2. DEVELOPMENT CAN HELP CURTAIL NAXALS' GROWTH - BY ARJUN SENGUPTA
3. BAD GUYS ARE STILL NOT TIRED OF FIGHTING WAR - BY THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
4. IN CHINA, THE RED FLAGS STILL FLY FOR MAO... - BY KANG ZHENGGUO
5. ...but Deng is the leader to celebrate - By Ezra F. Vogel
6. BETWEEN PAK & US - BY SRINATH RAGHAVAN

 

THE STATESMAN

1. ANOTHER 'NO-GO'
2. ON THE BACKFOOT
3. OPPOSITION'S INTENT
4. SHAM MARRIAGES BOOMING IN BRITAIN: REPORT
5. ENLIGHTENED DEMOCRACY

 

THE TELEGRAPH

1. BOGUS HOMAGE
2. TRAGIC TRIP
3. TO MAKE MORE MANAGERS - S.L. RAO
4. THE PLOT THICKENS - GWYNNE DYER

 

DECCAN HERALD

1. RIGHT TO LIVELIHOOD DENIED TO GAZANS - BY MICHAEL JANSEN
2. POWER OF WORDS - BY HEERA NAWAZ

 

THE JERUSALEM POST

1. IRAN SIDETRACKS THE WORLD
2. FOR FRIENDSHIP'S SAKE
3. DAVID CAIRNS, MP
4. WHAT ABOUT GILAD SCHALIT? - DAN KOSKY
5. BARACK OBAMA'S 1967 - ZALMAN SHOVAL
6. THE REGION: THE PRESIDENT, IRAN AND THE 'OR ELSE' FACTOR - BARRY RUBIN
7. OBAMA'S FRENCH LESSON - CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER
8. MY WORD: FROM THE UN PODIUM TO SUCCOT BOOTHS - LIAT COLLINS

 

HAARETZ

1. DON'T SPLIT UP THE AG'S ROLE - BY HAARETZ EDITORIAL
2. IRAN'S NUKES IN EXCHANGE FOR PEACE - BY AKIVA ELDAR
3. THAT BORING NICENESS - BY ADAR PRIMOR
4. MAHMOUD ABBAS' CHRONIC SUBMISSIVENESS - BY AMIRA HASS
5. A VITAL VISIT - BY ZE'EV SEGAL

 

THE NEW YORK TIMES

1. THE SUPREME COURT RETURNS
2. MR. OBAMA'S PROMISE OF TRANSPARENCY
3. WAITING IN CALIFORNIA
4. A BILLION HERE, A BILLION THERE - BY EDUARDO PORTER
5. THE POLITICS OF SPITE  - BY PAUL KRUGMAN
6. ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEDDLING - BY SUSAN DUNN
7. THUMBS ON THE WHEEL - BY MARK A. SHIFFRIN AND AVI SILBERSCHATZ

 

I.THE NEWS

1. PRAYING FOR CHANGE
2. NIPPING ANKLES
3. DEAD OR ALIVE?
4. THE NRO AND INSECURE PCO JUDGES – (PART I) M AKRAM SHEIKH
5. IMPLICATIONS OF US AID - TALAT MASOOD
6. THE KERRY-LUGAR OFFERINGS - SHAHZAD CHAUDHRY
7. WE NEED MORE PEOPLE LIKE MARYAM - SYED ANWAR MAHMOOD
8. MANAGING COMPETITION FROM OUTSIDE - SHAHID KARDAR
9. END TO END - CHRIS CORK

 

PAKISTAN OBSERVER

1. DON'T TURN PAK INTO A REFUGEE STATE
2. JUDGES AND CORRUPT! UNTHINKABLE
3. RUSH HUMANITARIAN AID TO INDONESIA
4. SPINNERS OF THE WEB! - KHALID SALEEM
5. CAPITULATING TERMS OF KERRY-LUGAR BILL - ABDUS SATTAR GHAZI
6. ANOTHER MUMBAI ATTACK SOON? - SHUMAILA RAJA
7. POLITICS & DEMOCRACY - MALIK M ASHRAF
8. KNOW YOUR VICE-PRESIDENT..! - ROBERT CLEMENTS

 

THE INDEPENDENT

1. EMPOWERING THE UP
2. OUR OTHER NEIGHBOR
3. THE SIREN…!

 

THE AUSTRALIAN

1. THIN TALENT POOL WEAKENS OPPOSITION
2. A PASSIONATE BELIEF
3. OLYMPICS GO TO RIO

 

THE SYDNEY MORNING HERALD

1. HOT CLIMATE CALLS FOR COOL HEADS
2. HELP FIRST, ASK QUESTIONS LATER
3. LABOR THE ONLY WINNER FROM COALITION CLIMATE OF CONFUSION

 

THE GURDIAN

1. HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: MR CAMERON'S 42 DAYS
2. IN PRAISE OF… MONTY PYTHON'S FLYING CIRCUS
3. LISBON TREATY: PAINFUL BIRTH

 

THE JAPAN TIMES

1. GRADUATES LOWERING THE BAR
2. COMPREHENSIVE PENSION REFORM
3. LOSING CONTROL OF THE HEAT - BY GWYNNE DYER
4. WHY JOINT INITIATIVES ON CLIMATE WILL LIKELY FAIL - BY CHRISTOPHER LINGLE

 

THE KOREA HERALD

1. ASSEMBLY'S AUDIT
2. HOUSEHOLD DEBT
3. ENDING EXCUSES FOR CHINA AT AGE 60 - JOHN LEE

 

 

 

THE JAKARTA POST

1. MILITARY UNFINISHED BUSINESSES
2. FAILURE TO ACHIEVE THE WATER AND SANITATION TARGETS - NILA ARDHIANIE
3. EMISSION REDUCTIONS THROUGH SERIOUS ENERGY EFFICIENCY - MONTTY GIRIANNA
4. THE SELAT SUNDA BRIDGE: CREATING CONNECTIONS? - DANIEL MOHAMMAD ROSYID

 

***************************************

******************************************************************************************

THE PIONEER

EDIT DESK

SINECURE FOR SOMNATH

HE JUST WON'T RETIRE GRACEFULLY

The Congress's desire to reward Mr Somnath Chatterjee with a suitable sinecure is understandable. As Lok Sabha Speaker between 2004 and 2009, Mr Chatterjee was unconscionably prejudiced. His attempts to censor Opposition and media criticism, with the larger aim of protecting the UPA Government, are well-documented. After the Left Front withdrew support from the Manmohan Singh Government, Mr Chatterjee turned rebel and refused to quit as Speaker, as asked by his party, the CPI(M). Instead, he allowed the Congress to survive a contentious vote of confidence, tainted by charges of bribery. If Mr Chatterjee's dissent against Mr Prakash Karat had been principled and aimed at a reordering of the Marxist worldview or an upholding of British parliamentary tradition, it would have been unexceptionable. He was, however, no conscientious objector. Essentially, he wanted to hang on to the privileges of the Speaker's post. In the period after the vote of confidence, Mr Chatterjee lost that crucial attribute that makes or breaks a politician: Credibility. He became a nowhere person — shunned by his party, hanging on to the coat-tails of the Congress, and unable to convince the BJP and other Opposition parties of his neutrality or supposed statesmanship. He made much of not being re-nominated by the CPI(M) for the Lok Sabha election, announced he was retiring and would be writing his autobiography.

Yet, nothing that Mr Chatterjee says or does can ever be taken at face value. He has refused to walk away from the charmed circle of New Delhi and live a secluded life in one of his many palatial properties in Kolkata. Instead, his friends in the Government have been pushing for some sort of reward for 'services' rendered. It was first suggested that Mr Chatterjee be sent to the Rajya Sabha as a presidential nominee, in the 'eminent persons' category. This would have been most unorthodox, as veteran, multi-term parliamentarians don't usually use this route to seek an entry into the Upper House. It is reserved for achievers — in the arts and sciences, in public life — who are not everyday politicians. When there was protest against this proposal, a new scheme was thought up. The Government decided it wanted him to head a one-man commission to "de-codify parliamentary privileges". No doubt, this office would have come with the usual pomp and allowed Mr Chatterjee Cabinet-level perquisites. Yet, as the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, Mr LK Advani, pointed out, the task of clarifying privileges could easily be taken up by a parliamentary committee. There was no need to invite Mr Chatterjee to impose himself yet again as an ombudsman.

As it seems, this is not the end of the matter. A job for Mr Chatterjee is still a quest for the UPA Government. Reportedly, he does not want to become a State Governor, but is willing to consider a foreign posting in a city or country of his choice. In his heart of hearts, he is also hoping that electoral reverses in West Bengal will force the CPI(M) to take him back. There is a polite phrase for such a phenomenon: Delusion of grandeur. Frankly, Mr Chatterjee's desperation and — dare one say it — lust for office are a national embarrassment. He should go quietly into the night, perhaps taking the newly-introduced Duronto Express to Kolkata.

***************************************

THE PIONEER

EDIT DESK

THE OTHER INDIA

LIFE IS DARK AND GRIM THERE

The gruesome killing of 16 people in Bihar's Khagaria district in what appears to be a land and caste dispute is a stark reminder that not all parts of our country can boast of living in the 21st century. Journey a few kilometres from any metro or second-tier city and reality hits us. There are sizeable parts of India that are far removed from the swanky malls of Delhi, Mumbai, Bangalore or Kolkata, or the liberal outlook that one would normally associate with the residents of a cosmopolitan city. In these places it is as if time has stood still for generations. Differences in caste and creed are still considered paramount. Feudalism, having taken on a more sophisticated character, is very much alive and kicking in our villages. As a result, prejudices and a false sense of honour rule the roost. People belonging to different castes, though living side by side, seldom mix and are suspicious of each other. In this India, even the concept of the country emerging as a superpower and making praiseworthy strides in the field of science and technology is alien. Perhaps it is only by juxtaposing what happened in Khagaria with India's Chandrayaan Moon mission that one can get a true sense of the contradictions that besiege our society. There is spectacular advancement in some parts of the country while elsewhere life continues to be frozen in the past.

As global India — the India that we would like the world to see, the India that is the talk of the international community — marches along the path of economic and industrial progress, there is a danger that we may lag behind in the one area of development that perhaps matters the most — social. Unless and until we as a society are not able to rid ourselves of the prejudices that continue to haunt us and replace them with a strong sense of justice and equality, all our progress and development will amount to naught. For this we need to bring about a change in our own mindsets. We need to focus on the commonality of our multiple identities, including linguistic and regional. We need to make those living in the other India realise that they too are a part of a 21st century, strong, emerging nation. But most of all, we need to make all our people, irrespective of who they are and in which India they reside, dream of a better life for themselves and their children. This can only be possible if we enact policies keeping in mind the social development of the people, more so in rural areas. But far too often have social welfare schemes been politicised, diluting their desired impact. It is precisely because of vote-bank politics that such schemes, instead of actually helping the backward sections of the society achieve parity with others, further deepens social differences. Till the time we as a people rise above selfish interests and petty politics there will remain two Indias — one constantly conflicting with the other and stifling our own potential.

 

***************************************

            THE PIONEER

COLUMN

US APPEASING INDIA'S FOE

JOGINDER SINGH

Despite India's constant protests regarding the misuse of American aid by Pakistan, US President Barack Obama recently urged "sustained and expanded" support for Pakistan at an international meeting. The objective ostensibly was to 'strengthen' Pakistan to defeat terrorism. Mr Obama said, "The violent extremists within Pakistan pose a threat to the region, to the United States, and to the world. Above all, they threaten the security of the Pakistani people." This, in spite of former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf's candid admission that under his regime Pakistan had misused US military aid to arm itself against India.

There are two forces leading men and nations. One is self-interest and the other fear. For obvious reasons the US President is motivated by self-interest as any patriotic leader should be. However, he is besieged with two problems that he inherited from his predecessor: Iraq and Afghanistan. American jubilation at the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in Iraq has been replaced by despair. The people of Iraq have neither been won over, nor have the last of anti-American forces been vanquished. As of June 18, this year 4,315 US military personnel had died in the Iraq since 2003. Whereas 29,395 is the number of US servicemen who have been wounded in hostile action in that country.

Currently, the US Defence Department says it is spending about $ 4.5 billion a month on the conflict in Iraq, which translates to $ 100,000 per minute. The objective of the war in Iraq has changed several times over. First, it was about weapons of mass destruction that the Saddam regime was purportedly harbouring. But after Saddam's capture and subsequent execution, the objective of the war effort was changed to exterminating the Al Qaeda, something which still is nowhere near accomplishment.

Similarly, the US war effort in Afghanistan was aimed at dismantling the Taliban led by Mullah Omar and hunting down Osama bin Laden. Here too the US is nowhere near achieving its goals. Its efforts to purchase loyalty either in Iraq or Afghanistan have not succeeded. As far as the official figures go, the US has spent $ 642 billion on the military effort in Iraq and another $ 189 billion on Afghanistan.

There is an old saying that it is better to have a wise enemy than a foolish friend. Of course, it is not for India to advise the US how it should handle its relations with Pakistan. But it should know that no matter who is in charge in Islamabad, it is the ISI and the Pakistani Army that are the real centres of power. And these two institutions are against wiping out the terror infrastructure that operates both in Afghanistan and India.

This is because terrorism ensures the primacy of the ISI and the Pakistani Army in Pakistani society. Whatever Pakistani politicians say, it doesn't seem to matter to the ISI or the Pakistani Army or to the fundamentalists in that country. Pakistan raised the Frankenstein of fundamentalism for its own strategic interests. But the monster today has a mind of its own.

The bonhomie that we often see between Indian and Pakistani leaders is a farce. So are Pakistan's repeated pledges to crack down on anti-India terror groups. Every time the issue is brought up Pakistan makes a show of moving against the terrorist. But in reality all this is for US consumption, so that the latter continues to fund its 'anti-terrorism' drive.

Whatever be the composition of the Government in Islamabad, it is a puppet in the hands of the US. The real problem is that the US does not care what Pakistan does with its financial and military aid as long as its own security is not compromised. It is least bothered about whether or not Pakistan is using American aid to fund terror activities against India or arming itself to counter India's military prowess.

Using groups like the Lashkar-e-Tayyeba and the Jaish-e-Mohammed to spread terror in India has been Pakistan's policy for quite sometime now. Tough statements by our leaders over the years have amounted to nothing. Not even once has Pakistan responded positively.

On the other hand, when our own security agencies act tough against terrorists there is no dearth of human rights activists to cry foul. What is even more incredible is that some Government leaders even sympathise with terrorists for their own selfish political interests. The truth is that unless we make the cost of terrorism prohibitive, not only for the terrorists but also their supporters, the menace of terrorism is going to plague India for a very long time.

This can be done only by using force and by having strong anti-terrorism laws. The Government has to decide what comes first, Indian citizens and our secular, democratic way of life or the terrorists and their supporters.

In the name of people-to-people contact, dialogue, or peace talks vis-à-vis Pakistan we have been taking one faltering step after another. And in return we have been rewarded with countless terror strikes that have killed hundreds of Indian citizens. What is the use of these conciliatory steps when they lead not only to the terrorist attacks but also to other problems such as proliferation of fake currency? Machiavelli had said, "A man who wants to act virtuously in every way necessarily comes to grief among so many who are not virtuous." This is quite applicable to a country like ours.

 

***************************************

THE PIONEER

COLUMN

EVANGELISM ON DD IS BAD NEWS

PRIYADARSI DUTTA

It's difficult to sidestep the evangelical burrows like Jesus Calls or The Prayer Show while browsing channels for your favourite morning entertainment capsule or news show on television. These are essentially 'time shares' purchased by foreign or inland missionary organisations from television owners with susceptibility towards Faustian pacts. But we could hardly burn their desire for revenue at the stake of unprofitable morality. It may be futile to argue that the visibility of the tele-evangelists increased since the UPA Government's ascension to power in 2004. With its second coming in 2009, their clout is only likely to be bolstered. Private television channels are commercial enterprises.

Could the same, however, be said about Doordarshan? India's national broadcaster is expected to reflect the Government's laissez faire policy on religion. No other country reminds itself too often about secularism. Thus it is curious to see some channels of Doordarshan featuring tele-evangelists like Ms Joyce Meyer. DD Marathi, DD Punjabi, DD Gujarati, DD Assamese, DD Oriya, DD Malayalam and DD Tamil telecast her half-an-hour morning/evening shows ranging from once a week to daily.

Ms Meyer is controversial in her own country for her lavish lifestyle and financial non-transparency. What kind of financial dealing has taken place between Ms Meyer and Doordarshan is best left to one's imagination. DD's package is apparently meticulous, which includes dubbing and subtitling in the respective regional languages. This militates against the ethos and principles of constitutional secularism. Evangelism is not coeval with giving space to Christians. There is no objection to showing Christmas and Easter, interviews of their religious leaders, or discussing the pressing issues before the Christians of India. Many people would enjoy the serialisation of Bible, as Doordarshan tried to do in 1992, but could not progress beyond the story of Able and Cain.

DD Bangla (where Ms Meyer has no footing) telecasts an inspiring 10-min programme every morning titled 'Amrita Katha' (Immortal Words). It features, on rotation basis, scholars of all creeds — Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism — who discuss the moral and ethical message of their religion. But it's not good news to allow evangelism, which has been at the heart of much social discontent in India, on our national broadcasting service.

 

***************************************

THE PIONEER

OPED

IT'S CHANGE WE CAN'T

BARACK OBAMA HAS BEEN IN OFFICE FOR NINE MONTHS NOW BUT HAS LITTLE TO SHOW BY WAY OF SUCCESS EITHER AT HOME OR ABROAD. THE AMERICAN ECONOMY IS GOING NOWHERE, NOR IS AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY FETCHING DIVIDENDS. THE DISARMING SMILE IS THERE, BUT THE CHARM IS LOST!

RAJIV DOGRA

There is an air of boyish adamance about Barack Hussein Obama; he still looks the pugnacious upstart who had dared the system and got away with it. It is that spirit of challenge, the desire to tame the untamable, which guides many of his policy pronouncements and his actions. Above all he likes to grand stand, and to subject others to his will. It is with this in view that he must have planned an agenda setting week in New York and Pittsburgh.

But in his posturing he makes one fundamental mistake.He is no longer the candidate who had dared. Then, his gumption was endearing. It built him up to a cult status hero, a global icon, really. He could tilt at the windmills and would still have been applauded for it. Later day historians may judge some of his actions, as a candidate, as indeed such.

But he is now the system; he personifies the establishment. Technically speaking, he occupies the throne of the mightiest empire on the Earth. In this position there is no one left whom he could shake a fist at. Yet, he feels compelled to do so; partly out of habit and in part because he in turn is now being dared domestically — look at the number of grey hair which signal his daily challenges.

He cannot claim any great credit for the economic revival that is slowly beginning to take shape in the USA. The credit for it should go to the sure-footedness of the Federal Reserve chief Ben Bernanke, who was a George Bush appointee and whose economic stimulation plans were well underway during the Bush presidency.

On the other hand, Mr Obama's health care initiative has drawn flak from many quarters and the public opinion is deeply divided on the issue. So there is not much which could be a source of joy to him domestically. At least for now.

That should be worrying for a man who wishes to carve his name in the same tablet of history that celebrates Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt.

Moreover, a year from now the countdown to the next presidential campaign would start and given the lack of outstanding performance on the domestic issues so far, Mr Obama must be nervously wondering about his future and his legacy.

Hence his week-long focus on international affairs, where his aim seemed to have been to lace his moves with a veneer of conciliation and an advocacy for peace. Eventually it may serve as a gateway to the Nobel Peace Prize. It is still too early to see any definite pattern or a calculated gameplan towards that goal, but there are some green shoots that seem to point in that direction. Moreover, for the second term-seeking Barack Hussein Obama, a Nobel Peace Prize would definitely be a great booster for his re-election.

It is no wonder therefore that he is pursuing the peace agenda in West Asia, planning to pull out troops from Iraq, perhaps Afghanistan too, and is pushing stubbornly ahead with his proposal for the nuclear disarmament. There were messages enough on each of these in the course of his speech to the UN General Assembly.

He spoke at length on the West Asia issue, and showed his impatience at the lack of progress so far. Though, just a month ago, he had called Afghanistan a war of necessity, yet he said almost nothing on it in his speech at the UN. Is it a sign that he is pondering a way out of Afghanistan? But the biggest surprise was in the manner in which he pursued the issue of nuclear disarmament.

Pointing an admonishing finger towards Iran and North Korea he thundered, "If the Governments of Iran and North Korea chose to ignore international standards; if they put the pursuit of nuclear weapons ahead of regional stability and the security and opportunity of their own people; if they are oblivious to the dangers of escalating arms races in both East Asia and West Asia — then they must be held accountable. The world must stand together to demonstrate that international law is not an empty promise, and that treaties will be enforced."

These are brave words indeed. Whether they will make Iran and North Korea cringe and run for cover remains to be seen. But it is certain that omission of Pakistan from a paragraph where it should have figured prominently is going to gladden its Army and encourage the ISI further.

Judged by any standard, Pakistan's record as a proliferator is unparalleled in the world. It has put the pursuit of nuclear weapons far above regional stability or the security of its people. And it has consistently defied the international law. In sum, it has broken, repeatedly and brazenly, each and every of the commandments that Mr Obama read out at the UN. Yet, he chose not to mention Pakistan in the list of countries that he is putting on notice. Instead, the US has decided to triple its annual aid to Pakistan!

But lean and hungry-looking Obama wasn't equally benevolent towards India, neither with his money nor with his attitude.

In that same speech to the UN, while talking of NPT, he says; "Those nations that refuse to live up to their obligations must face consequences." A similar message was conveyed later in the UN Security Council Resolution 1887.

Despite India's brave response rejecting this imposition, the chances are that India may fall in line in the course of next 12 months — if not in letter on NPT then definitely in spirit at least. Our compliance could also extend to other matters such as the Comprehensive Nuclear Test ban Treaty and Fissile Material Cut off Treaty.

But compliance on non-proliferation matters may just be the beginning and the ensuing pressure on India a negotiating technique to seek accommodation on other issues. In international affairs nothing comes coated in a mono-chromatic hue. Every approach is a means towards many ends.

Even as we put up pro forma resistance to signing on the dictated line of CTBT and FMCT; the US may well use that opportunity of negotiations to leverage its agenda regarding Afghanistan. It might mount great pressure to get us involved in a security role there so that American soldiers can return home in flesh and blood, rather than in body bags. Already, there are hints enough of its intent; look at the way its media has started playing up in recent days the good role that India has played on the developmental side in Afghanistan. This applause could prove to be dire for India, and its soldiers, if it were to get sucked into the Afghan quagmire.
 

The writer is a former Ambassador.

***************************************

THE PIONEER

OPED

IRAN IS NOT LISTENING

OBAMA CAN HOLD HIS BREATH AND TURN BLUE IN THE FACE

BARRY RUBIN

At the G20 meeting in Pitts- burgh, US President Barack Obama and several European leaders threatened Iran that it had better stop developing nuclear weapons right away or else they would act decisively. Let's call this the 'Or Else' factor.

The Western countries revealed that they knew all about a secret Iranian nuclear facility which showed how thoroughly that regime had lied and concealed its weapons' project. Yet there's something strange here: Why didn't Mr Obama mention this during his UN speech? By behaving this way he forfeited a great opportunity to build support base for real action. True, he's moving forward, but slowly and — after nine months in office — without material effect.

Mr Obama's strange approach to international relations neutralises the 'Or Else' factor. Iran is defiant, acting as if it's the more powerful side before which the West must cower. The more extreme the regime's behaviour, the more it shows — especially to Iran's primary audience of Arabs and Muslims — who's stronger, braver, and winning.

The 'Or Else' factor is supposed to be a major part of diplomacy: Sponsor terrorism, attack your neighbour, ignore our interests, and we'll make you pay. Well, that's sure out of fashion. In fact, Iranian and Syrian officials help kill American soldiers in Iraq, the US Government knows about it, and does nothing.

This is where credibility comes in. but you destroy your own credibility by apologising for past actions (and promise never to be tough again), pledging not to do more than timid allies permit, expressing sympathy for the other side (in West Asia politics, kindness is considered weakness and empathy a sign of cowardice), and showing reluctance about the use of force.

There is a saying that a real collision occurs when the unstoppable force meets the immovable object. In Obama versus the Islamist regime, it is a case of the reluctant force stopping short of meeting an object which is immovable precisely because it isn't challenged.

Just look at the international community's recent record:

Hamas fires missiles at Israel, Israel retaliates, world condemns Israel.

Hizbullah fires missiles at Israel, Israel retaliates, world (through the UN) promises to restrain Hizbullah, Hizbullah threatens UN forces, world backs down.

Yet even if Mr Obama was far more effective (that is, scary for America's enemies rather than its friends), the Iranian regime would behave this way. After all, it was founded by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini who was convinced he had the deity on his side.

Khomeini, who seized power in 1979 and died in 1989, was explicit in exhorting Iranians to defy America and the West. He assured them that if they did so, the Great Satan would back down. On one occasion he expressed this by saying, "American can't do a damn thing," to hurt Iran. The hostage crisis, and President Jimmy Carter's restraint, seemed to prove him right.

True, in 1988, fearful that the United States might attack Iran to protect Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Arabs in the Iran-Iraq war, Khomeini backed down and ended the conflict. Anything short of such a credible threat probably won't work.

Iran's current President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad styles himself as Khomeini's disciple. He believes — and he's shown it — that if he is very aggressive the West won't take him on. So far, he's been proven right.

That success was a central element in the decision of Iran's spiritual guide, Ali Khamenei, to back him for another term in office.

To foreign observers, the stolen election and demonstrations make the regime look weak; to Iran's rulers, having successfully stolen the election and put down the demonstrations makes them feel strong.

Mr Obama is treating Iran as if it is a generic country: Offer talks and benefits or sanctions and punishment. But Iran's Islamist regime is not just another country but rather an ambitious, ideologically guided regime that thinks it is winning and its enemies won't confront it.

That regime is not going to respond to Mr Obama's treatment, especially lacking the 'Or Else' factor's credibility.

Iran will first examine the level of new sanctions — if any — and find them not so frightening. It will look for ways to get around them, probably with Chinese and Russian help. It will then say: Bring it on!

Do your worst! Make my day! Punk, do you feel lucky?

And then, what's the US going to do? Go to the UN, where action will be delayed — both by Mr Obama's caution and the constraints of a divided Security Council — and any tough response whittled down further?

Thus, unless Israel attacks, a year or two or three will go by with Iran surviving the sanctions. And the day will come when the regime has nuclear weapons. This is Mr Ahmadinejad's game plan and it seems a reasonable one from his standpoint.

Mr Obama is trying above all to prove that he isn't the Big Bad Wolf of international relations — he doesn't just apologise for but greatly exaggerates the errors of past American diplomacy — and daily expresses his determination not to threaten to, "Huff and puff and blow your house down." Whether their regime is made of straw, mud, or bricks, the Iranian dictators can thumb their nose at him, give him the finger, and not tremble the least bit.

 

he writer is director of the GLORIA Center and editor of the MERIA Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader and The Truth About Syria.

 

***************************************

THE PIONEER

OPED

SMUGGLING OF CATTLE MUST STOP

INVESTIGATIONS HAVE SHOWN THAT CATTLE-SMUGGLERS ARE FACILITATING ANTI-INDIA ACTIVITIES. SADLY, SECURITY FORCES TURN A BLIND EYE TO CRIMES COMMITTED ALONG THE BORDER WITH BANGLADESH

RICHARD L BENKIN

The Pioneer recently ran a piece by Anuradha Dutt ("Criminal Slaughter," September 23) about smuggling of cows from India into Bangladesh. Anuradha Dutt has questioned how it could be done so easily, since "these bulky animals are difficult to overlook in the course of their journey." One answer: "The laissez faire attitude of the Congress, socialist and Communist parties to the vital issue of protecting these gentle creatures." Her argument is compelling, and having just completed an investigation into this criminal enterprise, I would add two more: Corruption and jihad, South Asia's two great scourges.

Early this year, two men contacted Bikash Halder, my Indian representative who works with me to stop Bangladesh's ethnic cleansing of Hindus. They said they had important information, so we arranged a late-night clandestine meeting in Kolkata with the two, 'Rahul' and 'Samir'. Rahul began by saying how he previously did unspecified work for intelligence agencies that involved frequent trips between India and Bangladesh. Whatever it was, however, it did not bear fruit, and the agencies dispensed with his services; but he stayed in the area and like Samir bought a house near the Bangladesh border. "After 10 pm you can see everything," they said; specifically, cattle going out of India in exchange for arms and Islamists coming in, and members of the West Bengal Police involved in the transactions.

In fact, Rahul said that the smugglers were jihadis (something he claimed to know from his earlier forays) whose success depended on corrupt Indian officials. Both men were so insistent that they invited us to spend the night with them and see for ourselves. While I had commitments outside West Bengal and eventually had to return to the United States, Halder took them up on their offer this summer.

He travelled to the Bongaon and Basirhat sub-divisions of North 24 Parganas where he met our informants. Since Samir told us in Kolkata that he could see the illicit activity from the back of his house, Halder went to their homes and waited with them for nightfall. Shortly after 10 pm, he confirmed what they reported in Kolkata: Cattle being taken brazenly from India to Bangladesh. It was not Halder's first encounter with cattle-smuggling.

"It is a usual matter in the India-Bangladesh border area," he said, adding that the proceeds from "cattle-smuggling are the main support for jihadi activities." He also uncovered evidence of what he termed "an industry" that floods India with Islamists, arms, and other contraband. "Smugglers are linked to militias on both sides of the border," Halder said. These arrangements make the police, who are supposed to enforce the law, nothing more than paid armed escorts for those who are breaking it.

He already knew that the West Bengal Police were involved in cattle-smuggling, but his observations from the back of Samir's house and subsequent investigations showed more extensive complicity. "I have seen the following scenario. Top to bottom, security personnel take bribes. Some agents of both Indian and Bangladeshi agencies are involved with smuggling, and both of them shelter jihadis coming into India."

He also uncovered evidence of financial ties between higher level authorities in the West Bengal Police. "I know it personally," he insisted. "Every local police station in West Bengal has a person called a 'Dak Master', who collects the bribes." Much of that, he said, comes from brokers who bring in Bangladeshis illegally, often with the help of BSF personnel. "Frequently, I have faced those incidents," he said.

In 2008, we observed the same BSF complicity in the tiny town of Panitanki on the India-Nepal border. A bridge over the Mechi River allows people and vehicles to cross freely. As a steady stream of trucks, covered wagons, and men carrying large packages entered India, my Bengali colleagues would point to one and say 'arms'; to another and say 'drugs.' "That one has counterfeit bank notes," one said, "a big smuggling business.

The illegal activity was so open that even I became adept at identifying the contraband. No one seemed concerned even though the area is notorious for smuggling and a known entry point for Islamist and Maoist terrorists into India. No one checked any packages or stopped a single individual — until I pulled out my camera. As we passed a pile of sandbags, two soldiers emerged and brandished their rifles and demanded I put away my camera. I protested vehemently until they threatened to confiscate it.

In exchange for putting it away, I asked them to let me cross the bridge into Nepal. They demurred, insisting that as an American I needed a Nepalese visa to cross, even though third country nationals frequently take rickshaws or other conveyances into Nepal. But they let me walk to the border in the centre of the bridge where it became clear why the soldiers did not want me taking pictures. The flow of contraband was heavy, continuous, and open. We also saw people running across the dried river bed on either side of the bridge, many carrying large parcels.

While our enemies do this for a principle, these officials do it for nothing more than money: Changing the demographics along the border, compromising India's security, and throwing away one of its greatest legacies in its reverence for life.

 

The writer campaigns for minority rights in Bangladesh.

 

***************************************

THE PIONEER

OPED

THIRSTY FOR WATER IN PARCHED UTTARAKHAND

WITH WATER BODIES GOING DRY, PEOPLE ARE TURNING TO COLAS AND PACKAGED WATER, WRITES DINESH PANT

Thanda matlab… no, not the popular jingle from a cola advertisement. In Uttarakhand, it means something more basic. The salubrious climes of the mountains, which offer a cool haven to heat and dust-stricken tourists from the plains, is itself in need of some comfort. Throughout the summer, bottles of cold drinks and mineral water are sold at dhabas, khumtas and tiny shops in far-flung towns and village bazaars, which does not seem odd at all. Except, strangely, the only consumers of this is not the tourists and other travellers alone. The local populace has increasingly become a major consumer of bottled water in the State.

And this consumerism has been driven more out of a crying need than a desire to show off in front of tourists. The summer season has been relentless and many of the water reserves have dried in this region. There is just not enough water in the water pipelines and those who still partake of it run the risk of getting jaundice or diarrhoea.

Before summer reaches its peak, all major traditional water resources, which once used to overflow, dry up. The region which lies in the shadow of the Himalayas and rivers like the Ganga and the Yamuna is faced with water shortage today. Two decades ago rivers, ponds and natural water resources used to very naturally fulfil the needs of the people. Today the situation is grim and the signs have been apparent for about a decade now.

Underlying this is the slow but now visible forms of environmental degradation. Areas under forest cover have shrunk, population has grown and towns have spread, bringing with them the inevitable spread of the concrete jungle. Traditional sources of water, gadehras, streams and ponds, which Uttarakhand used to abound in, have simply dried up or been cemented in this unrelenting march of development.

The level of water is decreasing in the low-lying areas. There is simply not enough moisture now retained in the soil. While earlier digging a few feet underground would cause water to spring forth, now one needs to dig more than 20 feet. Mahesh Pandey, a social worker, says, "Many tributaries have become nullah, whereas the levels of Yamuna, Ganga, Bhagirathi, Alaknanda, Ram Ganga and Kosi are regularly falling."

For the local communities it is back-breaking work to fetch water and is getting increasingly difficult so in a compromised environment. The problem is typical of many mountainous regions. A woman spends several productive hours of her day in fetching water for cooking from far-flung areas. On an average in one trip she is able to cart between 10 to 20 litres of water in canisters or earthen pots which would suffice for a medium-size family.

That in turn becomes a gruelling trek and very often villagers prefer to store this water for cooking and cleaning purposes, leaving the drinking water needs to be met from a more modern source — that of packaged drinking water.

The Government's water management is ineffective and does not have any long-term programme to address the water crisis issue. The undulating surface means that even from existing sources water has to be transported from pipelines. According to Uttarakhand Government figures, there are 950 such villages where no water could be provided without lift programme. Very often the water being brought through pipes from sources far away is polluted. In Pithoragarh, the water from Thuligarh source caused nearly 80 per cent of the population get jaundice according to the local hospital figures.

Over the years, the local people have organised movements to demand safe drinking water from the Government. In Pithoragarh district, after the dreaded illness took its toll, there has been a move to source water from a nearby water fall, Birthi. Almora district, where the local populace was dependent on the Kosi river for their water needs, has been experiencing a decrease in the water level. Here local communities have raised the banner to demand that water be sourced from another source, Pindari glacier in Bageshwar district. But these are small battles which are sometimes resolved to the satisfaction of a particular local community. Yet, there is a big picture that is missing and this falls squarely in the ambit of governmental action.

Ironically, subsequent Governments in the State have only paid lip service to the problem. The winners are clearly the cola companies and packaged water manufacturers who are making big money.

 

***************************************

 

******************************************************************************************

MAIL TODAY

 EDITORIAL

TAKING ON THE MAOIST CHALLENGE

 

THERE is an element of absurdity in the Indian Air Force seeking to combat the Communist Party of India ( Maoist), or Naxalites. Barring the early phase of the Naga insurgency in the 1950s, the IAF has not been used against domestic insurgencies.

 

Even the long Kashmiri uprising, which is backed by money, material and personnel from Pakistan, has not seen the use of the air force for either combat roles, or even liaison or transport purposes.

 

Equally absurd is the statement attributed to the Maoist leader Kishan ji who has called on the IAF not to hit at the Naxalites, because they were " citizens and patriots." We can accept that " citizen" claim, but as for patriotism, we would have to really stretch its definition to cover a group that is waging an armed struggle to overthrow the democratic, secular and socialist republic of India.

 

It is true that the extent and virulence of the Maoist insurgency poses a major security headache to India. But though the Prime Minister has been terming it as the " gravest internal threat" that India faces, he also acknowledges that we need to do much more to eliminate it. Barring the recent Lalgarh operation in West Bengal, most anti- Naxal actions have been desultory affairs, in part because the government had retained the option of holding negotiations with the Maoists. However, of late there has been a flurry of activity and there are indications that the government plans more sustained and tougher action against them.

 

Tackling the Maoists requires a multidimensional strategy and security is only one of its facets. Maoism is flourishing in the remoter reaches of the country, many inhabited by poor adivasis. There has been little or no development in these areas and the only governance that is known comes from the kangaroo courts of the Naxalites. So, along with a security campaign, the government needs to push governance and development. At the same time, it needs to reach out to those rebels who wish to come back into the mainstream, as indeed many have done in the past 30 years.

 

All this cannot be achieved by an ordinary process. It will require the best and the brightest in the government to spearhead the push. But that can only happen if leadership comes from New Delhi in the form of a coordinated strategy worked in tandem with the affected states.

 

***************************************

MAIL TODAY

 EDITORIAL

IIT ISSUES REMAIN

 

NOW that the standoff between faculty members of the Indian Institutes of Technology ( IITs) and the human resource development ministry has finally been amicably resolved, perhaps it is time we asked the following questions: What was the hullaballoo all about; and what if the salary issue rears its head again? The IIT faculty had made it clear early in the agitation, which began on August 18, that it was not just about the salaries; it was primarily about autonomy and also the 40 per cent cap on promotions. However, we find that at the end of the dispute, HRD minister Kapil Sibal seems to have agreed to the demands on the promotions, while the salary issue has been left untouched.

 

While this is a welcome development and will make all the IITs — perhaps India's only global technology education brand — get back to work, the issue about remuneration could become a sticky point. In this case, the IITs faculty members do have a point.

 

Lecturers and professors at IITs and other top professional institutions — chosen as much for their skill and proficiency as for their ability to shape some of the most brilliant technical minds of the country — would necessarily have to be kept on a different, perhaps higher pedestal than the teaching faculty in most other branches of learning. This is because they may find lucrative employment in the field of their specialisation elsewhere.

 

An easy way of attracting high- quality talent to education is to encourage faculty to officially work with corporations that specialise in their area of interest, with the institutes themselves getting a percentage of the money thus earned.

 

If the government's policies reflected a little bit of this flexibility, perhaps our IITs could get even better teachers that have the ability to churn out far better and more well- rounded students ready to take on the world.

 

***************************************

 

MAIL TODAY

 EDITORIAL

THACKERAY USURPS STATE'S ROLE

THE STATE GOVERNMENT IS GUILTY OF GRAVE DERELICTION OF DUTY IN LETTING ASMALL- MINDED CHAUVINIST DECIDE ON THE ISSUE

BY RAJEEV DHAVAN

 

HOW LONG will this continue? To what extent will the Thackeray family usurp and function like the Censorship Board? In the present milieu, why did it become necessary for Karan Johar to seek and agree to follow the censorious advice of Raj 'Censorship' Thackeray? Is this the real state of affairs in India? Does 'social censorship' override legal censorship?

 

In the past apologies had come from Amitabh Bachchan. Michael Jackson paid a visit to Bal Thackeray, Deepa Mehta's Water found a watery grave even before filming in Varanasi. After release, film theatres have been targeted in Gujarat over films Narendra Modi did not agree with. Social censorship has become easier and more dominating than legal censorship.

 

The latest addition to social censorship is over Karan Johar's Wake Up Sid. At places, the film described the famous city by its old name (Bombay) instead of the new one (Mumbai). The new one is ostensibly the name of the old village of centuries ago. The actual new city of Bombay has known no other name than Bombay until now. A statement made by Raj Thackeray objected that the film used the word "Bombay" (which it has been for several recent centuries or decades) instead of Mumbai (which was, allegedly, the name of a pre-Bombay village) to describe the city.

 

The film itself has nothing whatsoever to do with the Bombay/Mumbai controversy. It is not a political statement. It is the story of a rich person's son who finds himself out of favour for insolence to the family and looks to find a job of his choice. But, the use of the word 'Bombay' enraged Raj Thackeray, the Sena and their friends. May be, it didn't enrage them. Divisive politics has become emotionless in the hands of its patrons. But Raj Thackeray made sure that until he was appeased by apology and compliance, the film was in jeopardy.

 

LAW

It was not Thackeray who went to Johar's house for making a request for removing the word ' Bombay' from the film. It is Johar who came in the contrite proverbial sack cloth and ashes to seek forgiveness and leave pre- censorial justice to Raj. The latter was insistent, uncompromising and self satisfied that a great wrong had been committed.

 

The solution was a disclaimer apologising for the use of Bombay instead of Mumbai. Thackeray so ordered, Johar had no choice but to obey. If he had not followed these prescriptions, protests would have been organised in Mumbai — even elsewhere in Maharashtra.

 

He was the selfappointed custodian of Maharashtrian rage. Film theatres would have been picketed, the post- release prospects of the film would have been blighted. The loans on the film would have mounted. Pirated versions would have finished off the commercial prospects of the film.

 

State censorship is bad enough, but politicised social censorship is ' nasty, brutish and short'. In India, various legal forms of censorship exist — under the Indian Penal Code, Customs Act, Criminal Procedure Code ( which has ban provisions), local statutes and so on. The incidence of censorship is high. The list is endless: Salman Rushdie's book, Taslima Nasreen's novels, the film Black Friday . The celebrated Raj Kapoor was taken to court for the film Satyam Shivam Sundaram . Many TV films were liberated into broadcast or circulation by the Supreme Court and other courts including Aakrosh on Gujarat violence, Chand Bujh Gaya on rioting, Anand Patwardhan's Ram Ke Nam and his documentary In memory of Friends on Bhagat Singh, the TV serial Tamas by Bhishma Sawhney, Ore Ore Gramathile on casteism and many more.

 

The courts have been vigilant for free speech — including cinema and TV speech.

 

Earlier, the Supreme Court in the celebrated Romesh Thapar case ( 1950) suggested that precensorship was prima facie invasive of free speech. We are concerned here with speech before publication, distribution or circulation.

 

However in KA Abbas's case ( 1971), the court allowed pre- censorship in cinema because of the nature of the medium. The only form of legal censorship permissible is by, and under, a law which is reasonable and within the constitutional categories of public order, the sovereignty and integrity of India, defamation, decency, morality, contempt of court and incitement of offence.

 

But the exercise of this power has not been given to Raj Thackeray, but to the film Censorship Board set up under the Cinematograph Act 1952 which was upheld in the Abbas case.

 

The principles to guide the board are the very same as the limitations that are in the Constitution.

 

The film is reviewed by experts under the Cinematograph ( Certification) Rules 1983. The process is rigorous including viewing. There have been misgivings that the board has been over- bearing, angular and conservative.

 

But, the complaint is that it goes over the top.

 

The view of the board is final. It can be challenged as it was in the case of Bandit Queen and other films. But some deference has to be shown to the board.

 

RESPONSIBILITY

The Supreme Court went one step further. In Shankarappa's case ( 2001), an argument was made that if the film was released there would be a law and order problem. The court rejected this facile objection.

 

Such factors were taken into account by the board. It was the duty of all authorities to follow the board's decision.

 

The court went on to say: " It is for the State Government concerned to see that law and order is maintained.

 

In any democratic society there are bound to be divergent views. Merely because a small section of the society has a different view, from that taken by the Tribunal, and choose to express their views by unlawful means would be no ground for the executive to review or revise a decision of the Tribunal. In such a case, the clear duty of the Government is to ensure that law and order is maintained by taking appropriate actions against persons who choose to breach the law."

 

BOMBAY

The government could review the decision of the board. But it could not disobey it. There can always be protests about a film, but not threatening violence.Criticism is maximally permitted.But it can never be blackmail. Don't see the film if you do not want to.

 

The legal censor is the Censor Board, not Raj Thackeray.Or any one else. To allow Raj Thackeray the right to pre- censorship defies both democracy and the rule of law and signals the end of governance.

 

So far, our Constitution has been India's framework of governance. Unlike other new constitutions, India's constitutionally directed governance has succeeded where others have failed.

 

Social attitudes and pressures will always exist. But for social censorship to topple legal governance is an invitation to chaos.

 

A curious tail piece: The High Courts of Bombay, Calcutta and Madras are chartered and not amenable to simple statutory changes. So, even after Mumbai replaced Bombay for all other purposes, the High Court of Maharashtra is still called the " High Court of Bombay". Beyond that, if this is how constitutional governance is gazumped in what was Bombay, and is now Mumbai — I cry for you.

 

The writer is a Supreme Court lawyer

 

***************************************

 

MAIL TODAY

 EDITORIAL

RAHUL STEP IN & SAVE GAMES

 

FOR THE government and indeed for the Congress party, the biggest challenge on the international front lies not in the NPT, CTBT or getting a seat on the Security Council. It is the Commonwealth Games that are due to begin in New Delhi exactly a year from now. The CWG is the biggest sporting event to be held in the country since the 1982 Asian Games. When New Delhi won the bid for the CWG in 2004, India had hoped to use the games to showcase the country's economic progress in much the same way that China did during Beijing 2008.

 

Unless a miracle is pulled off, the games are doomed to become an international sporting disaster which, in an ironic twist to the tourism ministry's " Incredible India" campaign, will end up showing just how incredibly slothful the second fastest growing economy in the world is.

 

Besides a loss of face, forfeiting the games could impact India vastly on the international front. Now that another Gandhi Jayanti has come and gone and Rahul Gandhi has exceeded his wildest expectations by persuading his partymen to spend a day with a Dalit family, there are ministers and Congress leaders who believe it's time Rahul shed symbolism and got down to serious business by taking up the challenge of ensuring the successful conduct of the CWG. That sets my mind back to the 1980' s.

 

Then, as now, we were running woefully behind schedule. An international commitment that the Indira Gandhi government had given in 1976 to host the 1982 games was ignored by the Janata Party government which thought it was no big deal if India forfeited the games. When Indira Gandhi came back to power in 1980, she had just about two and a half years to get the then overgrown village that was Delhi into shape for the Asian Games. She sidelined Vidya Charan Shukla, then chief of the Indian Olympic Committee ( the post is now occupied by Suresh Kalmadi), appointed a Special Organising Committee with Buta Singh as its chief and appointed her son Rajiv Gandhi as a special invitee to the SOC. Things began to move at a rapid pace with Rajiv taking special care to ensure that nothing was lacking and no effort spared.

 

He assigned his close aide Arun Singh to monitor the progress of all facilities on a day to day basis and brought in people known for their competence into key areas.

 

Sankaran Nair, Indira Rajiv Gandhi Gandhi's security chief, was made secretary general of the SOC. Jagmohan was brought back from Goa where he was Lt Governor and given a key charge and so were KP Singh Deo, Kiran Bedi, HKL Bhagat, Air Vice Marshal HL Kapur and others. They were assisted by a volunteer army of thousands.

 

Rajiv himself visited the stadia, the games village and other sites daily and held meetings, often twice or thrice a day. I remember once he took me along on one of his inspection tours. It lasted nearly eight hours during which time we visited the Asiad Village, the indoor stadium on the Yamuna banks near ITO, the swimming complex at Talkatora and the main venue, the Jawaharlal Nehru stadium. His efforts bore fruit and the ninth Asiad was a spectacular sporting success and an organisational triumph for India.

 

Long before Obama made it a catch phrase, Rajiv showed us " Yes We Can". But now there is a real danger that this time next year, as a nation we would have collected a lot of eggs on our face. This week, Mike Fennel, the CWG federation chief, will meet Manmohan Singh in New Delhi to tell him that India stands the risk of being branded a pariah on the international sporting stage. That's why I wholly support the ministers who feel only Rahul can save the games. He should step in, induct his young Congress colleagues, including ministers, many of whom aren't doing enough because the senior ministers refuse to allocate any meaningful work to them.

 

They are all incredibly gifted young men whose talents are wasted in the council of ministers.

 

Admirers of the young Rahul feel that he should, as his father did, get rid of the fellows who have been lining their pockets in the name of the CWG, and lead the team. I am sure they will deliver. We can still put up a spectacular show that will make all Indians proud.

 

***************************************

 

 

MAIL TODAY

 EDITORIAL

MODI OUTWITS PATEL AT FUNCTION FOR SARDAR

 

FOR close to a decade, Narendra Modi's bearded visage has been like a red rag to the Congress bull.

 

The sight of him makes the Congress' blood boil and Modi's close aides in turn say he sleeps better after every verbal skirmish with the khadi brigade.

 

Dinsha Patel is a senior Congress leader in Gujarat and a Union minister but he obviously was not aware of protocol requirements which dictate that at all functions involving the President of India, the local chief minister must necessarily be consulted. Patel, who heads the Sardar Patel Memorial Trust, wanted to keep Modi out of a Presidential function in Ahmedabad.

 

But Rashtrapati Bhavan was finding it difficult to accept Patel's plea unless the state government concurred. Modi's office insisted not only on his presence on the dais but on his being seated next to the President since the blue book says that on visits to the states, the President must be flanked by the governor and the chief minister. Patel was thus consigned to one of the corner seats.

 

Modi may be in trouble with the courts rapping him for his shameful handling of the post- Godhra riots, but it seems every time he finds himself down and out, the Congress comes to his rescue. By harping on the Ishrat Jahan encounter during the recent byeelections, the Congress walked into the trap he laid. Modi ended up winning five of the seven assembly by- elections. Modi's strategy has always been simple: invoke Gujarati pride.

 

A message from Sonia Gandhi was read out at the Ahmedabad function last week in which Sonia said that Sardar Patel and Pandit Nehru never had unbridgeable differences.

 

It was of course a travesty of facts. So when his turn came to speak, Modi left red faces all around him by saying that " the history of independent India would have been different had Sardar become Prime Minister instead of Nehru." The sight of President Patil squirming in her seat couldn't have escaped Modi, but again, what mattered to him was Gujarati pride.

 

***************************************

 

 

MAIL TODAY

 EDITORIAL

BABUS SEEK CUT IN GRANTS FOR NGOS

 

BUREAUCRATS being bureaucrats, it is perhaps inevitable that they see opportunity beckoning in virtually every official file. Groaning under the austerity measures that have forced them to forsake the morning drive to the golf club in the official white Amby and fly cattle class instead of first class, they suddenly see a ray of hope that could put their lives back on five- star track. A letter sent by a Union minister from Kerala to his senior in the ministry, seeking a Rs one crore grant from the ministry's discretionary funds to an organisation in his home constituency for some social celebrations set them thinking. A quick audit was done of all the money that various ministries distributed during the last two years to NGOs and such like, working primarily in the areas of health, environment, women and child welfare, culture etc.

 

It was found that the Centre gives Rs 5,000- 6,000 crore every year to such organisations across the country. The babus needed no convincing that less than half of the funds given as grants to these organisations reach the actual beneficiaries, the money being spent mostly on establishment and administrative expenses. Unlike charity, austerity need not necessarily begin at home, they argue. A file has now been moved to the finance ministry detailing a few examples of the misuse of such grants and a proposal has been mooted for the slashing of the grants by half, which could save the government up to Rs 3,000 crore.

 

The government would ideally lap up the recommendations and implement them right away, since most NGOs are headed by left wingers who are otherwise very vocal critics of its policies. But there is a catch. Sonia Gandhi is very much a patron of several NGO causes and is on very friendly personal terms with the heads of many. If the recommendations win the seal of approval from finance minister Pranab Mukherjee, the NGO sector will keep their fingers crossed and hope that Sonia will intervene and save them.

 

***************************************

 

 

 

 

 

 

******************************************************************************************

TIMES OF INDIA

COMMENT

OLYMPIC DREAMS

 

Rio de Janeiro beat out Madrid, Chicago and Tokyo to win the bid to host the 2016 Olympic Games. Notwithstanding Barack Obama's personal appearance at Copenhagen, where the International Olympic Committee met to vote, Chicago was eliminated in the first round which goes to show that political influence isn't everything. Indeed, the USP of Rio's campaign was that Latin America had never hosted the Olympics.

Rio's successful bid for the 2016 Olympics will come as a boost to India's hopes of holding the Games. India has on several occasions expressed its interest in bidding for the 2020 Games. It would do India's image a world of good if it could successfully bid for and host an international sporting event such as the Olympics. But even making a strong bid for the Olympics will require the kind of organisation we seem to lack at the moment.

Within India Delhi is the obvious choice as the venue, having hosted the Asiad in 1982 and playing host to the Commonwealth Games next year. But the preparations for the 2010 Commonwealth Games don't inspire much confidence. With exactly a year left for the Games to begin, there is a danger that several projects associated with the Games might not be completed on time.

A Comptroller and Auditor General report has said as much. Work on 13 of the 19 sports venues are behind schedule, and the design for the Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium the main venue of the Games is yet to be finalised. These would be sending wrong signals to the world about India's capability to host an event of the stature of the Olympics. If India is to have any chance to make a winning bid for the Olympics, it has to put up a stellar show in hosting the Commonwealth Games. Only then would it stand a chance to host the 2020 Games, for which the bidding process will begin in 2011.

We need to realise that the Olympic Games are not just about staging a world sporting event; it's about projecting soft power as well as investing in infrastructure for long-term gains. India could learn from China and the way it went about bidding for and then hosting the 2008 Olympics.

 

The Chinese government, for instance, pumped in $40 billion to develop Beijing, building new highways, a vast subway network, the world's biggest airport terminal and a showpiece stadium. But before India can even think of bidding for the Olympics it has to get its act together for the 2010 Commonwealth Games. If it doesn't, India can kiss goodbye to any hopes of hosting the Olympics.

 

***************************************

TIMES OF INDIA

COMMENT

OUT OF TUNE

 

The BJP manifesto for the Haryana elections reflects the confusion in party ranks about what it is and what it wants to be. Hardly in a position to influence the political outcome none of the major regional outfits wanted an alliance with the BJP the party has adopted an agenda to please the most conservative sections of the population.

Besides a few populist measures, the manifesto promises to "ban western music and obscenity on display in the name of culture by enacting a law". And, yes, the party will encourage and rejuvenate ancient Haryanvi culture, festivals, sports and melas. No doubt, Haryanvi culture needs to be encouraged even though culture is most likely to flourish when it is free of governmental interference.

 

But that apart, why does the BJP want a ban on western music? And how does the party plan to define "obscenity in the name of culture" against which it is hell-bent on enacting a law? If we go by the recent activities of fraternal saffron organisations like Sri Rama Sene and Bajrang Dal, the implications of the BJP's vision for Haryana are ominous. These groups believe that all activities, public and private, presumed to be of "western" origin ought to be opposed. So, pubs should be closed down, Valentine's Day celebrations must be attacked and unfamiliar music banned.

Can the BJP, a political party that aspires to gain office, support such a view of culture? Not many in today's India are likely to identify with the sangh parivar's vision of the West as the fountainhead of evil. Ours is a young country and Indian youth don't share the parivar's fear of or disdain for western influences. They welcome all forms of entertainment, irrespective of their origin, and prefer celebration to disruption. Unlike their elders, they are far less concerned about the 'purity' of their Indianness. If the BJP wants to tap the youth it needs to recognise their likings and aspirations, which are anything but those championed by parivar groups.

Any study of the influence of western music or western popular culture on its Indian counterparts is bound to show up how vain the search for cultural purity is. Is the BJP, then, going to take a leaf out of the Taliban's book and ban all music, or at least all popular forms of music? It needs to rethink its ideas of culture and nationalism if it wants to expand beyond a narrow conservative section of the electorate.

 

***************************************

TIMES OF INDIA

TOP ARTICLE

THE SEVENTIES, ONCE AGAIN

SUDHIR KAKAR

 

The late 1960s and early 70s were witness to an unusual sight: a wave of revolutionary protests by young people all over the world. What made this revolutionary militancy remarkable were two factors. One, that it was independent of the ideologies and social structures of different countries. Two, it was expressed not by an oppressed class or the deprived masses but by a privileged section of youth with the best education that its society could provide. In other words, it was the very group of men and women society had selected as its potential leaders which had risen in open and, at times, violent revolt.

Naxalism was the Indian manifestation of a worldwide phenomenon. Like other violent student movements, it, too, fed on developments in mass communications which permitted young protesters all over the world to instantly identify with each other, lessening feelings of isolation and confirming the rightness of their revolutionary stance. Depending on local conditions, privileged youth in each country that had risen in rebellion searched for dispossessed masses in their own societies who might welcome revolutionary liberation. In India, the Naxals zeroed in on landless peasants.

Psychologists tend to relate revolutionary protest of youth to the young person's struggle for a cohesive sense of identity at a stage of life that demands, among others, the support of a vigorous peer group and an ideology that can attract total commitment. It is true that youthful revolutionary movements with strong ideological underpinnings like Naxalism derived their virulence in part from the emotional upheavals associated with this phase of life.

It is also true that much like a scaffolding that can support a crumbling building, Naxalism provided some young people suffering from identity confusion and its associated mood swings the framework of a convincing world-image and the use of new symbols and slogans ''China's chairman (Mao) is our chairman'' that were needed to achieve a cohesive sense of self and identity. One must further admit that there are ageing Naxalites who, like ageing hippies, cling with desperate determination to their youthful division of the world, as black or white. Now in their late fifties or sixties, they continue to maintain the 'all or nothing' quality that characterises youth, loath to let go of a phase of life that endowed them with rare verve and freshness of vision.

It would, however, be wrong to reduce Naxalism merely to a well-studied phenomenon in the psychology of youth without a psychological understanding of the historical moment that provided some of our best young people a focus for their protest.

The 1970s was a time when it was clear to the highly educated sections of our youth that the older generation had failed to live up to its ethical ideals, whether of Gandhian Ram Rajya or Nehruvian socialism. The patrimony passed on by the older to the younger generation in a society is not only its material development, its power plants, industries, roads, military might, state of environment and so on, but also its moral compass and ethical goals. Naxalism, then, was an attempt at the recovery of ideals that an older generation had surrendered at the altar of economic and political expediency. The Naxals succeeded in tapping into the guilt of parents in betraying their own youthful ideals.

The reaction of the older generation to the evoking of guilt was varied. At one extreme was rage, played out in many families as fierce conflict, especially between fathers and sons, which found collective expression in calls for the annihilation of the 'Naxalite menace' of the society's children. At the other end was the older generation's nostalgia for its own idealistic youth during the freedom movement, and the first years of independence. These fathers saw their Naxal offspring as 'delegates' who would complete the unfinished agenda of their own lives.

Besides forging a link with the older generation, based on the latter's guilt, the Naxals were successful in tapping into the transient unrest and disaffections of young people, especially students, which are otherwise expressed in banal ways of dissent bordering on criminality: taking drugs, ragging, breaking university rules, ignoring traffic laws and so on. They elevated the normal unrest and protest of youth into the realms of heroism and martyrdom by holding aloft images of the struggle of an unarmed or poorly armed 'people' against the hyper-armed might of an oppressive 'state'.

However, once the violent struggle took on its own momentum, the empathy for the 'people' in whose name the revolution was undertaken was soon lost. The 'people' were reduced to mere objects of history, 'collateral damage' in terms of the other, militaristic end of the spectrum of violence. This loss of empathy, sensed by both the older generation and sympathisers among the youth, snapped psychological bonds that had nurtured the Naxals. Bereft of the recognition of their identity and emotional sustenance provided by parents and peers, their individual pasts emptied of human ties, the Naxals were thrown back into the isolation and arid intellectualisations of their own sub-groups. The road to evermore violence, paved with oversimplified and obsolete ideologies, was open.

The writer is a psychoanalyst and novelist.

 

***************************************

TIMES OF INDIA

CORN VS PORN

JUG SURAIYA

 

The opposite of comedy is not tragedy. Comedy has a happy ending, while tragedy has an unhappy end. But despite this structural difference, comedy and tragedy have a fundamental common factor: both are life-affirming. Comedy even comedy that relies on gallows humour is pro-life, in that it has the capacity to laugh off everything including death itself. Less obviously, tragedy too is life-enhancing: Romeo and Juliet must die in the end, but in their doing so love becomes both universal and immortal. If comedy is the bright dazzle of noon, tragedy is the sombre grandeur of sunset; both add light to our lives.

So what then is the opposite of comedy (or of tragedy)? And the answer is pornography. The many avatars of pornography have one thing in common: they are all life-denying, or life-diminishing, as opposed to the erotic which is always a celebration and an enhancement of life. The difference between the pornographic and the erotic is illustrated by the difference between the naked and the nude. The naked human form is an object of negativity: of contempt, scorn, cruelty, pity; it is a reduction of life to animal existence. The nude, clothed in an adoration of light and shade, is a subject of life-affirming sensuality which worships the body as the receptacle of the human spirit.

The comic and the erotic make for excellent bedmates; the pornographic is deeply incompatible with both. The pornographic is a four-letter word scrawled on the wall by a semi-literate vandal. The comic-erotic is the same four-letter word, deliberately misspelt as 'FCUK', on a designer T-shirt. The pornographic is the blunt instrument of an exposed erection; the comic-erotic is Mae West's famous line, "Is that a gun in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?"

The pornographic diminishes and ultimately denies the life force of the sexual impulse; the comic-erotic glorifies it. To use a political analogy, pornography is like a totalitarian state: remorselessly drab, one-dimensional and monochromatic, tolerating no shades of hidden meaning. The comic-erotic, sexually loaded with double meanings and puns, is like a rowdy, raucous democracy, full of irrepressible life.

A recent example of the unbridgeable divide between the pornographic and the comic porn vs corn is Sasha Baron Cohen's latest film, Bruno, which was released in the West in July this year, but which the Indian censor board for once rightly will almost certainly ban in this country. Cohen began his controversial career as a professional imposter who would scandalise British high society by gatecrashing it as a boorish intruder.
When he was finally exposed, in 2006 he turned his talent for mimicry into making a film called Borat in which he impersonated a rabidly anti-Semitic untoilet-trained and foul-mouthed Central Asian who visits the US ostensibly to make a documentary film about American life. Though often gross and full of lavatorial and politically incorrect humour, Borat was genuinely very funny, the comedy lying in the fact that the real-life people interacting with Cohen-Borat were unaware that he was playing a part. This created a genuine and often hilarious comedy of errors.

Cohen's latest film, however, in which he impersonates a homosexual Austrian fashion designer is a total disaster. Anally obsessed, it's about as much fun as being given or giving an enema. So how did Cohen a master comic go so wrong with Bruno? He fell through the trapdoor of pornography, which replaces the double entendre the double meaning of the comic (or the erotic) with the single-point agenda of obscenity for its own sake: the four-letter word as mindless graffiti instead of clever T-shirt. The fatal flaw in Bruno as in all pornography is not that it is morally objectionable. Pornography, along with Bruno, suffers from a far more serious defect: the terminal disease of inducing boredom in the audience.

The opposite of life is not death; it is boredom. As the opposite of corn is porn. And Bruno proves it.

jug.suraiya@timesgroup.com

 

***************************************

TIMES OF INDIA

PEN TO PAPER

INK-STAINED FINGERS

SADHNA SHANKER

 

A colleague and good friend, who is a regular user and self-confessed connoisseur of ink nib pens, asked me the other day, as he saw me scribbling with a gel pen, ''You don't ever use an ink nib pen?'' With his question, suddenly the vision of an old forgotten pen with a green body and silver cap flashed past my eyes.

 

I remembered it after decades. The feeling was like meeting an old friend after a long time. I had used that ink pen since my tenth board exam, through all the exams i had taken thereafter, until entering the job market. I used to believe it was my lucky pen. I recalled filling it up before an exam and carrying a small ink bottle with me into the exam hall with an acute sense of nostalgia. After long three-hour papers, my index and middle fingers would invariably be stained with some ink. We were taught that using an ink pen improves handwriting.

I do not know where my pen got lost in the mists of time. I started writing with whatever pen came my way somewhere along the way. Maybe it happened because ink pens kind of disappeared from daily life. Ink pens are never advertised anymore and at work, it is rare to find anyone regularly using them, even more so as the printed word takes over the written word.

 

My daughter, now in her last year of school, has never used an ink pen in her life. For her, pens mean gel pens with fancy names and fancier advertising budgets. She has never experienced the thrill of having ink on her fingers after a long stint of writing, nor the pleasure of believing that a pen can bring her luck. For her, a pen lasts until its ink lasts. Then, it is consigned to the dustbin and a new one takes over. No long-term bonding, no sense of belonging develops. A curse of the disposable times we live in, one supposes. Though the ink pen is slowly fading from our lives, even today when, on a paper, a few people have written with different pens, the words etched with an ink pen stand out. I still don't have the courage to revert to ink pens though. Convenience is the ultimate arbiter.

 

***************************************

 

 

******************************************************************************************

HINDUSTAN TIMES

EDITORIAL

NO MIDDLING KINGDOM, THIS

 

Some will find fault with the pomp, glory and official heavy-handedness that went with the foundation celebrations of the 60th anniversary of the People's Republic of China. Beijing can be excused: its leadership can rightly feel it has accomplished much. Modern China has many number one hits, including being the first to lift so many people out of poverty in such a short time and being the first Third World nation to be universally seen as a superpower in the making. In the realm of the economy, in particular, China has broken the mould.

 

China's bout with modernity and the last few rounds it still has to get through are the stuff of epic poetry. The Chinese suffered terribly from the ruling party's mistakes during the first three decades that followed the Republic's founding. Political evolution still remains Beijing's most pressing concern. In contrast, in India the political process has largely been taken for granted and it is the economic story that, until recently, has been a tale of failed expectations. The present intellectual consensus that China and India are on track to reclaim the positions they lost two centuries ago — but this time as modern rather than mediaeval States — is barely two decades old. There is still a bit of disbelief among many Chinese and Indians that this will actually come to pass. But there can be little doubt that this new attitude had its origins in China's decision to launch economic reforms in 1971. Or that China's success helped spur a less urgent Indian leadership to action.

 

Over the past six decades China and India buried a number of myths: that creating a modern State was largely a Western phenomenon, that population was a death sentence for such development, that there was a specific formula of political economy that had to be followed. Beijing still has plenty of hurdles to cross, including the direction of its polity and defining its geopolitical space. Nonetheless, China's huge pageant was a statement that not only has it come of age, but that it did so, to take a line from Frank Sinatra, "my way." As the Chinese writer Lu Xun once said, "When people walk all the time, on the same spot, a path appears." It is not a path for India, but it is one now laid out for other aspiring countries.

 

***************************************

HINDUSTAN TIMES

EDITORIAL

MUMBHAI, MERI JAAN!

 

Raj Thackeray (sic) is remembered before the polls thanks to a little yelp from a friend Tomah-to, tomay-to; potay-to, aloo. But some people would really prefer it that we get the words right. So it is with Mumbai and Mumbhai. Karan Johar's not the only Mumbhaikar to keep calling the city 'Bombay'. But it's Johar-bhai who was the sitting Mumbai Duck when his latest film, Wake Up Sid (Sena), riding on some serious box-office money, made far too many references to 'the beautiful bay' of Bom Bahia as the anachronistic 'Bombay'. Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) bossman Raj Thakre is still smarting from the fact that the Bombay Marine — the private navy of the East India Company — and its actions against Maratha vessels in the early 19th century, really established the first real power base in India for the Company Raj. So, Mr Thakre really had to come down on Mistah Johar for having characters in his film refer to Mumbai as Bombay.

 

Mr Johar is no fighter nor was he meant to be. So as part of a negotiated deal that may have involved changing the name of his television chat show to 'Coffee with Caran' as well as putting a one-line disclaimer about the Mumbai-Bombay switch in his movie at the start of the film, Mr Johar lives another day. The Marathi manoos feels vindicated about now knowing what the MNS's Assembly poll issue is weeks before he goes to vote in Westminster-style elections.

 

It's easy for us in the comfort of our cheap front stall seats and cheaper pirated DVDs to hrrmph about Mr Johar caving in to Mr Thakre's demands. But it's the filmmaker who's at the frontlines, making sure that the hundreds, if not the thousands, dependent on the release and success of his film earn enough to take those trains that ply in and out of Victoria Terminus for their livelihood. So a gift hamper for you, Johar-ji.

 

***************************************

 

HINDUSTAN TIMES

EDITORIAL

OLD TIES, NEW HOPES

SAMAR HALARNKAR,

 

'When Adam left heaven and came to earth, he came to India.'

 

I heard this grand declaration six years ago, just one of many made by delighted members of parliament in Khartoum, capital of the war-wracked central African State of Sudan. India's former President, the charismatic A.P.J.  Abdul Kalam (or Abubakr Zainabdeen Abu Kalam, as his name was Sudanised in the local press) listened to these outpourings with a bemused but growing smile.

 

It was also the only time I heard Kalam — ever the politically correct missile scientist — begin a speech with the Muslim greeting of Assalaam Aleikum, after being greeted with roars of Allah-o-Akbar when he stepped up to address MPs.

 

In the somewhat ramshackle galleries of the stadium-like Sudanese parliament, cooled ineffectively by industrial fans, a 30-something MP called Medina Mustafa turned to me and softly started singing a 1960s Bollywood hit: "Meri man ki Ganga… (the Ganga of my mind)"

 

Another MP in a flowing white robe and turban turned to me and said: "Mera naam Mohammed hain, aapka naam kya hain (My name's Mohammed, what's yours)?"

 

It started with Gujarati settlers who arrived in the horn of Africa more than 150 years ago. Bollywood's happy influence has helped, as has the sponsorship of a local football team by State-owned oil giant, the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation. India is indeed beloved in Sudan, the same country that gave the world a synonym for starving children and the brutality of civil war: Darfur.

 

I remembered my experiences in Sudan as I listened with disquiet to some of the knee-jerk deepest-Africa-type reactions when the South African telecom company MTN pulled out of a proposed $23-billion (Rs 110,000 crore) merger deal with India's largest telecom company, Bharti Airtel. It would have created a behemoth with the third-largest number of wireless subscribers in the world.

 

Some reactions from India Inc:

 

"I don't know who will want to touch MTN with a 10-foot pole."

 

"Indian industry is quite disappointed… in future Indian companies will be over-cautious."

 

"They (the South African government) could have said they will make an exception in their law in terms of dual-listing norms."

 

Let's not be hypocrites. The Bharti-Airtel deal was called off because of national interest. India's national interest prompted Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to call President Jacob Zuma last week and push the deal. South Africa's national interest pushed its treasury, which must clear multinational deals, to refuse permission (Interesting aside: the South African government's interlocutor on this deal is of Indian origin, their respected Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan).

 

I can understand why the South Africans might be wary of being overshadowed by India's aggressive, globalising business community. If South Africa wants to keep MTN South African, so be it.

 

In 2002, national interest drove ONGC to a great deal in Sudan. ONGC paid a Canadian company $650 million (Rs 3,120 crore) to buy out its stake in the Greater Nile Oil Project. Threatened by a US and Canadian blacklist, the Canadian company wanted out, one of the few times morals eclipsed national interest.

 

Oil revenues provided — and still provide — Khartoum's Islamist government finances for a bloody war against Christian and Animist rebels in southern Sudan. For Sudan's dictator, Lt Gen Omar Hassan Ahmed al Basheer, a man once accused of sheltering Osama bin Laden, that was a great vote of confidence.

 

For India, the deal was in the national interest, damn Basheer's repugnant government and dubious morals. Today, despite strong competition from the Chinese — who, like Indians, have few qualms about working with murderous regimes — ONGC is flourishing in Sudan.

 

Business opportunity and personal morals have been, are, and always will be second to national interest. Let's understand this, and let's move on to the opportunities Africa presents.

 

As Africa tackles health and social problems that bedevil India equally, there are indications that the future is full of possibilities.

 

Since 1994, Africa's economy has grown at an unprecedented pace. Between 2005 and 2015, 27 of 32 African economies are creating 'a window of opportunity' by going through a demographic transition — societies are getting richer and having fewer children, argues a recent Harvard University paper. Urban India with its one- or two-child families has undergone demographic transition, the poorer parts of India have not.

 

These African societies may well be lucrative markets for Indian companies, masters of squeezing profit from Re 1 shampoo sachets (pioneered by Chennai's Cavin Care, which now has plans to enter Africa).

 

Africa can hone India Inc's model of slim margins, high volumes, low costs and big profits.

 

Indian mobile companies flourish despite earning $6.5 (Rs 312) from every user. They could do better: in Kenya, a market not dissimilar to India, each mobile user generates $9.8 (Rs 470), according to data from Telegeography, a communications consultant.

 

In some African markets, MTN drops call rates frequently during the day, even every hour. If network use drops, so do call charges. These rates flash on telephone screens.

 

But if India is to make headway in Africa, the opportunity cannot be about India. The discomfort — rarely echoed in public — many South Africans feel with Indians is maybe why they did not want to change their rules for Bharti. In South Africa, Indians are known for some racial arrogance and clannishness. The T20 World Cup didn't help. We treated the country like a private holiday resort.

 

We have strong emotional bonds with many parts of Africa. Let's build on those — and learn some humility.

***************************************

HINDUSTAN TIMES

EDITORIAL

THEIR SHOES ARE TOO BIG TO FILL

PANKAJ VOHRA

 

Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi seems to have developed the habit of creating unnecessary controversies about our national leaders. He is neither known for his sense of history nor his scholarship. But he still tried to run down India's first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, by praising another stalwart Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel. Both Nehru and Patel have a place in history and neither needs certificates from anyone, least of all Modi. The country remembers them for their immense contributions and their names will forever be etched in golden letters.

 

Modi said that if Patel were made the Prime Minister of India (instead of Nehru), the country would not have witnessed the terrorism it is facing today in Jammu and Kashmir. Speculation does not alter history and we have to accept reality as it is. It is like saying if aunty had a moustache she would have been uncle. Or, in his context, if he had not usurped the position of chief ministership in late 2001 by pressuring BJP president Jana Krishnamurthy and others, there would have been no Gujarat riots and he would have still had his valid US visa.

 

In the case of Nehru and Patel, it was Nehru who was the prime minister and Patel his deputy as well as home minister. Both men were visionaries, well-educated — unlike many politicians we know  — and contributed to the very best of their abilities to the country. Both may have made mistakes but that does not change things. Modi and other BJP leaders cannot turn the clock back even if they want to and, therefore, must view things in the present-day context.

 

It is also true that BJP leaders somehow try to pit Patel against Nehru to run down India's first prime minister who laid the foundations of democracy and development. Patel had a vital role to play and died when the country needed him the most. But, who can battle death?

 

In Modi's case, he tries to touch an emotional chord among Gujaratis by invoking Sardar Patel's name. Could it be that he wants to compensate for displacing the BJP's best-known Patel leader, Keshubhai from his position while becoming the CM for the first time? No one has ever heard Modi going out of his way to praise Mahatma Gandhi, whom the whole world reveres. He was a Gujarati for people like Modi but much more for everyone else. Besides being the Father of the Nation, he was the original apostle of peace. Modi cannot identify with him for obvious reasons. Similarly, any attempt to identify with Patel is also  futile because Patel was a unifier and not a communalist. He had a national vision and his politics were not sectarian.

 

Another point which continues to fox BJP-watchers is why its leaders do not invoke Morarji Desai's name. After all, he was from Gujarat. He was the first chief minister of the state of Bombay and the first prime minister whom the Bharatiya Jana Sangh wholeheartedly supported —  so much so that they decided to forget their own identity and merge fully into a new political formation. Both Atal Behari Vajpayee and L.K. Advani served under him. But Modi and Advani shy away from uttering his name.

 

The BJP leaders are fixated over some Congress leaders who became iconic for them. Vajpayee tried to become a Pandit Nehru, which he could never become, and Advani continued to remain not even a pale copy of Patel. Coining phrases like 'vikas purush' and 'lauh purush' does not lead to drawing parallels with India's national icons. Surprisingly, none of the top BJP leaders has tried to model himself on Shyama Prasad Mookerjee or Deen Dayal Upadhyaya or even any of the RSS chiefs. If they believe in any ideology, there is no need to be apologetic about it. Between us.

***************************************

 

******************************************************************************************

INDIAN EXPRESS

EDITORIAL

SHOPIAN FILES

 

The question of what was amiss in Shopian had long morphed into the despairing realisation that everything is. The convoluted routes the original investigation into the deaths on May 29 of Neelofer (22) and Aasiya (17) had taken, the dead ends it had encountered, the claims and counter-claims, the suspensions, arrests and the release on bail of local police officers, the shocker of the fake forensic samples, the admission of criminal negligence and wrongdoing by doctors — all against the backdrop of a faltering, confused and confusing state administration and the stark likelihood of another sudden civil flare-up — have made 'Shopian' a ready, one-word reference for the Valley and its troubled history. How this act of crime and human tragedy was allowed to spiral into a months-long gory saga is an object lesson in how not to mete out justice to victims and their kin, how not to mock public indignation.

 

That the Shopian probe was finally handed over to the CBI on September 9 may be cause for more hope than hitherto could be invested in the investigation, but it is hardly the end of the story. The bodies of the two victims have since been exhumed, and new forensic evidence discovered by senior AIIMS professionals has reportedly prompted an admission of cover-up on the part of a doctor who had conducted the first set of tests on the victims' bodies. The state administration must answer why it did not probe the neglect of standard operating procedure in a medico-legal case.

 

The state government had for long stuck to ensuring that, irrespective of the success or sincerity of the probe, public anger would be mitigated by the arrests and appearance of action. Now that the CBI has taken over, it is imperative that the truth be unearthed and the tragedy laid to rest. For this the CBI must be transparent.

 

***************************************

INDIAN EXPRESS

EDITORIAL

WAKE UP, MUMBAI

 

When there's an election round the corner, any random thing can become political dyamite. And when there's an election round the corner in Maharashtra, there seems to be no end to the absurdity. Where else would a sweet and inoffensive slacker comedy like Wake up, Sid find itself as the flashpoint for fervid identity politics?

Raj Thackeray's MNS threatened theatres from screening the movie, because it commits the cardinal sin of referring to the city as Bombay a few times (though it says Mumbai just as casually, and the lead characters work at a magazine called Mumbai Beat). Bollywood understands the language of violence, said Thackeray in silky Marathi doubtless — and sure enough, Karan Johar, one of the most powerful names in the industry, promptly proved him right. He went over to Thackeray's place to apologise, and promised to insert a grovelling disclaimer before the movie. Chief Minister Ashok Chavan expressed his disgust with both the bully and the cowed victim, saying that the state was perfectly capable of providing security to Karan Johar, and that this apology was just a publicity stunt. But more charitably, maybe Johar had no desire to be the brave voice of dissent, and he figured a quick apology was better that inviting Thackeray's inconvenient enmity. But if Karan Johar couldn't stand up to a self-styled thug like Thackeray, what can less influential folks do but stay away from anything likely to attract his glowering attentions?

 

The point is not that Raj Thackeray (and Bal Thackeray before him) have seized upon Marathi manoos disenfranchisement to define a coarse and resentful politics — the point is that they get away with it. The city in Wake up, Sid is definitely not the hick town of Raj Thackeray's dreams — it is indeed "Bombay", the fabled gritty city where young people come from Kolkata and Bangalore, seeking their own private grails. Why isn't our politics aggressively sticking up for that expansive vision? We know the uses of taking an extreme position: you help decide or determine where the centre will fall. By not countering the narratives, we — and indeed, quite glaringly, Chavan's own administration — are letting goons forever blight the idea of Bombay.

 

***************************************

 

 

 

INDIAN EXPRESS

EDITORIAL

ELECTRIFYING KABUL

 

Against severe odds, India has built a 202-km transmission line to bring electricity to Afghanistan's power-starved capital, Kabul. The four-year-long project is notable for a number of reasons. For one, it is a confidence booster. At a time when Indian engineering within our borders (think of the overruns in years and budgets for the Mumbai sea-link) is a study in waste, this project, implemented on war-ravaged foreign shores, will surely boost our confidence. Second, as India begins to punch its weight in the world arena, lighting up Kabul demonstrates our capability. Third, remember that Pakistan had refused to allow heavy equipment meant for the project to travel through its territory, resulting in one of the largest airlifts Afghanistan has seen. With Pakistani allegations over India's presence in Afghanistan reaching fever pitch, the electricity line showcases Indians as a benevolent presence committed to capacity building in the region.

 

India's success also contains larger lessons. Indian involvement in Afghanistan is on the ascent. There is talk of India building an industrial estate which will generate much needed employment for the local population. There is also talk of Indian involvement in food processing, which addresses rural farmlands and a long-term plan to inhibit poppy cultivation. But this involvement has predictably only made Pakistan more argumentative, with Islamabad lobbying diplomatically against India's assistance. As if on cue, reports indicate that General Stanley McChrystal, the top US commander in Afghanistan, has cautioned that increasing Indian influence in Afghanistan is likely to exacerbate regional tensions and encourage Pakistani countermeasures. Should India continue to assist in rebuilding Afghanistan, or should the general's advice be heeded?

 

India must of course be sensitive to the inevitability that our increased involvement in Afghanistan could open up Indian installations to attacks — diplomatically and physically. But beyond that, India must not waver from its commitment to build roads, industrial parks and other infrastructure projects in Afghanistan. Of course, India must keep its partners — among them, the United States — fully in the loop, and mount a diplomatic offensive to counter Pakistani fears. This country has deep strategic and humanitarian concerns about the situation in Afghanistan, and its commitment to capacity building needs to be sustained by sharp diplomacy.

 

***************************************

INDIAN EXPRESS

COLUMN

BOARDROOM POPULISTS

DHIRAJ NAYYAR

 

What could have been India's largest outward foreign investment deal — Bharti's proposed takeover of South African telecom major MTN, valued at $23 billion — finally fell through last week at the altar of populist politics. Populism, as the term is used in the broad political economy discourse, describes policy decisions where cynical political motives take primacy over sensible economics, to the detriment of long-term economic performance. There is probably no better example of this than the US car industry, which has repeatedly been propped up by government over many decades, ostensibly in the national interest, but continues to be bankrupt nonetheless.

 

For Bharti-MTN, the stage was as perfect as it could have been for a merger between India's biggest telecom operator and Africa's largest telecom company. Together, they would have formed the third largest telecom company in the world and been superbly placed to expand beyond their local markets. The price, it seems, was mutually acceptable. The formula dictating cash and share swap components was worked out too. Hardly surprising, since both companies had spent many months negotiating all this, with a large set of bankers, lawyers and consultants advising them.

 

The only potential twist in the tale lay with MTN's largest shareholder — the South African government. With a 21 per cent stake in MTN, through its wholly owned investment corporation, it was the single largest shareholder in MTN and thus could virtually veto any deal. And as it turns out, the acquisition of MTN — a symbol of "black empowerment" and "national pride" in South African business — by a foreign company was simply not acceptable to the left-leaning Jacob Zuma government.

 

The demand for dual listing of Bharti-MTN (that is, in both Indian and South African stock markets) was at best a compromise to ensure that MTN continued to have a South African character even after takeover. At worst, and more likely, it was just a cynical cover-up for deliberately sinking the deal. Since India doesn't have capital account convertibility, Bharti could not have listed in South Africa. The government of South Africa would have surely known that India would not change its policy on convertibility for just one deal.

 

Of course, Bharti will lose out from the failure of this deal to materialise, but so will MTN, a fact which the government of South Africa has ignored in its short-sighted and purely political decision to keep MTN under South African ownership. If the objective of the South African government was really to empower black South Africans then a merged company with a global presence — that would have grown much faster — would have offered more jobs and more opportunities for black South Africans. And investors other than the government would have made good money from a sell-out in any case. So it isn't clear who has gained — national pride maybe, but not the average black South African investor or potential employee. That essentially sums up the problem with populist political decisions in the world of business. They end up compromising efficiency, competitiveness and growth of firms.

 

In India, we hardly need a lesson in the damage politics can do to business — just look at our public sector companies. Many struggle to remain viable business entities. And those that make handsome profits usually do so because government restricts competition from the private sector. So don't get misled by the "some PSUs are profitable" argument — it's only with the support of policy crutches.

 

Of course, the same companies could do well if they were allowed to function as commercial entities, but the fact is, they are not. All major policy decisions are routed through parent ministries and often through cabinet committees and the cabinet. This not only delays decision-making but also brings political considerations into it (note how the home state of the minister of railways always gets the new factories and offices). Ministers and bureaucrats freely use PSUs as fertile grounds for patronage. And most PSUs are over-staffed because of "social obligation" (basically populism) to create jobs for the favoured.

 

The classic example of a PSU gone wrong is Air India, which suffers from all of the problems mentioned above. However, the government simply refuses to either sell it or close it because it's a "national carrier". There is, of course, no reason to have a national carrier, especially when we have many other airlines operating much more efficiently in India and abroad. Air India could, of course, become the airline of choice (the more appropriate commercially oriented way to describe a "national carrier") for Indian and foreign consumers if it is well run, but for that the government needs to get out of the way. We can complain about MTN and South Africa now but would the government of India be willing to sell any of its PSUs, including the telecom majors MTNL and BSNL to a foreign buyer? Probably not, if past experience is an indicator.

 

Contrast this to what happens if politics is not allowed to interfere in the business of business. The recent sale of Ranbaxy to the Japanese firm Daiichi by its Indian promoters may not have pleased the populist nationalists. But the promoters and other Indian investors who sold out at a very good time did very well for themselves. And Ranbaxy is still operating in India, with Indian employees, and could no doubt grow under Daiichi management which will be good for stakeholders (and indeed non-promoter shareholders) in India. It is easy to forget that takeovers are a crucial component of corporate governance. They help keep firms on their toes, and if a firm is under-performing under the current ownership, it will be bought and improved by someone else. That's good for efficiency, that's good for the economy.

 

Outside India, consider what would have happened if Arcelor was actually owned by the French or Luxembourg government. Given their fervent populist opposition to Lakshmi Mittal's takeover, the deal would not have happened. However, since the decision was taken by value-maximising private shareholders, the deal went through to the benefit of both Mittal and Arcelor and indeed France and Luxembourg (even if not their politicians).

 

So, MTN, Air India and countless other such firms would be better off if politicians stuck to the business of politics and let the business of business be settled in corporate boardrooms, not in the corridors of power.

 

dhiraj.nayyar@expressindia.com

 

***************************************

INDIAN EXPRESS

COLUMN

CHINA'S VISION 2012

NIMMI KURIAN

 

As it turns 60, longevity will be the one wish China's Communist Party will fervently hold for itself. The "perennial ruling party", as it likes to be known as, is preparing itself for a critical transition of power. Its outcome will decide the next line-up of leaders who will govern the country in 2012. This could be a high-risk political mahjong that, not unlike the ancient gambling game, calls for skill, strategy and a good measure of luck. As the political leadership calculates its moves, the question is, will the gamble pay off?

 

The one constant that could underpin the process is unpredictability. Between now and 2012, China could see some of the most bitterly fought leadership battles. Last month, all attention was on the fourth plenary session of the Party's Central Committee for indicators as to who Hu Jintao's likely successor will be. Contrary to expectations, Vice President Xi Jinping failed to be named as vice-chairman of the powerful Central Military Commission (CMC). The fact that he is the son of a veteran communist revolutionary hero and former vice-premier was expected to ease his way. Princelings or politicians who hail from the families of high-ranking officials have flourished in China's power matrix. The 25-member Politburo of the Party, for instance, has seven princelings while the larger Central Committee has 19. Xi's promotion would have been a strong signal that he is en route to becoming China's next president. But the stumble just goes to show that China's war of succession is by no means wrapped up or guaranteed to be smooth.

 

Many of these pitched political contests are also a reminder that China's policy-making process is hardly the monolithic world of straight-line decision-making that it is often romanticised to be. Internal political competition is set to get intense as Party elders seek to find a place for themselves or their protégés in the influential Politburo Standing Committee of 2012. Hu's own embattled political position was evident from his decision to leave the G-8 summit this July and rush back to do fire-fighting. He is trying to fend off charges of being ineffectual in his handling of the security situation in Xinjiang and Tibet. He is also under increasing pressure to remove his protégé, the regional secretary of the Party in Xinjiang, Wang Lequan.

 

These uncertainties could be an indication that there need not be a complete transfer of power in 2012. It remains to be seen if there will be a repeat of the grudging transfer of power, as was the case from Jiang Zemin to Hu. Of his three posts, Jiang relinquished only the position of the general secretary of the Party to Hu in November 2002 and continued as president till March the next year before passing on the mantle to his successor. Most importantly, Jiang continued as chairman of the CMC till late 2004. The outcomes of many of these battles will also turn on how the rivalry between the Shanghai faction under Jiang and the Communist Youth League faction under Hu shapes up.

 

These mounting tensions also have the potential to make the political leadership jumpy, abrasive and in no mood to take any chances. This would then also impact state-society relations. The recent crackdown against civil society initiatives could be a signal that greater control in the name of caution might be the formulaic political response to dissent. Societal tolerance levels too appear to be fraying thin with people not in much of a mood to forgive any backsliding on social space. The primary challenge facing the Chinese leadership will be to prevent this conversation from breaking down. This will call for a delicate balancing act between the Party's anxiety about an erosion of its political supremacy and the compelling need for a robust domain of public autonomy. Much will depend on how China's leaders make this call.

 

Some of these leadership battles could also feed into a messy brew of national chauvinism, insecurity and uncertainty. Political signalling aimed at winning friends and influencing hardliners could be very much part of this power play. Where posturing ends and reality begins may, for a while, be hard to determine.

 

The writer is associate professor, Centre for Policy Research, Delhi express@expressindia.com

 

***************************************

 

 

 

INDIAN EXPRESS

OPED

'THE US WANTS THOSE CAUGHT (FOR MUMBAI ATTACKS) BE GIVEN ADEQUATE SENTENCES, HAFIZ SAEED IS PROSECUTED, LET INFRASTRUCTURE DISMANTLED'

 

Hello and welcome to walk the talk. I am Shekhar Gupta at New Delhi 's Roosevelt House and my guest this week, the new US Ambassador to India-Ambassador Roemer. Welcome to walk the talk.

 

TR: Thank you. Namaste

 

SG: Namaste. The new US Ambassador. Do you feel new or do you feel a veteran already?

TR: I feel probably this is the most important post in the world. Certainly there are always challenges and opportunities here. I am learning as we go. I was instructed by President Obama to try to go out and meet as many people as I possibly can. I remember standing in the White House with the President. The president looked at me and said, 'Tim, you know that there are a billion people in India ?' I said yes sir, I know that. he said, 'I want you to meet as many of those billion people as you possibly can.'

 

SG: Infact when you back to him, you qualify to him by saying that you forgot to tell me that there are a billion Indians in India , who are argumentative, difficult, diverse.

TR: Well sir, we are diverse. And I think it is one of the great strengths and one of the commonalities between Indian and the United states . We know in the United States we have great diversity in income, in class, in religion, in people. And if there was a scale of 1 to 1o in the United States , we like to think we are about nine and a half. I think in India there might be a new scale up to 19 in the diversity. And it is a great strength of vitality and vibrancy that is here that is great…

 

SG: We saw you at a school yesterday. We have also seen the US embassy now organizing Iftars in different parts of the country. This people to people contact is not something we associated American diplomacy with. So is there a shift and is this an Obama left shift?

TR: Well, it is two things, I think. One, president Obama has said to me directly at the White House, 'I want you to go out and meet people. Make sure that it is not just important government officials in Delhi but it is people throughout the country, rich and poor, in school and out of school, people with opportunities and people without opportunities. I think also I get it from my parents. My parents, I love them dearly, they are great role models, and my father and mother always said to me that it is one thing to have faith and to go to your services and pray, it is another thing to act that out and community service is a way to act that out, helping to plant trees here in a Delhi park, going to a particular school and helping mentor education. Many Indian businesses do the same with corporate social responsibility, reaching back to help others, after they have succeeded, bring more along the path to success. And I think you gonna see a lot of it, well I mean this mission in Delhi .

 

SG: That is also a six-time congressman speaking because you learn to look after your constituents.

TR: That is important. That is experience. Well, you look after your constituents but you also know in jobs like this that communicating with people is important, not only communicating with important business leaders, encouraging trade hopeful for a successful Doha round, advocating closer defence and military cooperation, success in the civilian nuclear deal. These are all important but so are people to people ties. After all that is the basis, that is the strength of our two countries foundation. Business to business, people to people…

 

SG: Would you say the India relationship is one of the few or one of the more visible areas where Obama administration has simply picked up the thread from the previous one? That there is total continuity?

TR: I think there is continuity and change and both are strengths in this relationship. I think the continuity is very respectful, a strong tie between United States and India , its people to people, it is business to business, it is 95,000 Indians in American colleges and universities. But it is also the success of the political system. Democrats and Republicans, President Clinton and President Bush, my predecessor David Mulford, it is also Indian government officials, Prime minister Singh, Prime Minister Vajpayee, we all recognize that this important relationship is a historic destiny to bring us together, not only in a bilateral way but in a global way to work on some of our world's most important problems. And I think that is where the President (Obama ) wants to take this relationship.

 

SG: So declassify for us, only what you want to declassify, of the conversations you had with your predecessor David Mulford. Did he give you any dos and don'ts? Did he hand you over some unfinished business or pass on some bucks to you?

TR: David is a very gracious guy and I reached out to different ambassadors who have served in this position when President Obama picked me and I want to learn from them to see what to do, as you said, and what mistakes not to make. David was very very nice and said, 'I wanna take you to and Sally out for dinner with my wife Jenny'. They did. He told me some very important things about completing the nuke deal, there are some legacy issues we need to work out there between our two governments, we are making progress but there are still some things to push forward. He told me how to run a big mission, some dos and don'ts there for morale and for constituencies that you play to and he also told me about the State department and the White House and how to work with both. So, David, Richard, Frank Wisener, all the way back to John Kenneth Galbraith and Patrick Moynehan . There are some big shoes to fill in this job.

 

SG: There are two very distinct categories. You have Frank Wisener, Pickering , these were people who were career foreign service officers. But there have been appointees like you, Mulford before that Dixalase came from outside…

TR: John Kenneth Galbraith. He came from outside, from President Kennedy.

 

SG: Absolutely. Is there a difference in approach, by virtue of the fact that you come in from sort of the political system. Do you see yourself being able to get more done in Washington or do you see usual bureaucracy in the way.

TR: I think that is a great question. Certainly, I have a great deal of respect for the foreign service and our State department and people there who have spent their lives and careers and who have come in with a great deal of knowledge about how to run a mission. I also think there are inherent and huge advantages to somebody coming from the political system and somebody who is close to the president. I am the president's representative here in India . The president and I campaigned together in a host of states very early on. I had long discussions with the president at the White House about US-India relations where he has talked to me about his conversations with Manmohan Singh, who he has such high respect for. But I also think that one of the advantages of coming from the political system is and my background in Congress is politics, and knowing how the state department and the white house operate. When we need to get some budget done here, a political problem of the finance is solved, where do we go in the Washington DC to get that done. We also have a very vibrant Indian caucus back in the United States and I have worked with them before…

 

SG: can you tell me one thing that President Obama said about Prime Minister Manmohan Singh?

TR: When we had completed our meeting after about an hour after talking about US-India relations, he came very close to me and said, 'I just want you to know one thing about Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. He touched his heart and he said, 'every time I talk to him, I feel very close to him. We have this connection and you make sure that when you see him that he is in good health and that I look forward to talking to him'. Then he said, every time I speak to him on the phone or see him at a meeting in London , I think it will be 5-7 minute conversation and it doubles because we have this connection. We know there is so much work our two countries can accomplish together. He feels very close to him.

 

SG: I ask you because there is this feeling in India --there was about a six-week period of some kind of a chill, you know President Bush had his highest ratings of any country in India until the day he demitted office—there was a feeling that somehow emphasis on India would shift. Your predecessor was in Walk the Talk just a few months before he left…

TR: I saw the interview.

 

SG: You saw the interview. And infact, he counted as the main achievement of his period the de-hyphenation of US policy towards India and Pakistan . There was a great fear that it will get re-hyphenated. Ricahrd Holbrooke came, so there were many insecurities. Were you exposed to nay of those before you came in and after you came in?

TR: No, infact, I think what President Obama and Secretary Clinton have advocated is how do we build on this

foundation of a very successful and significant civilian nuclear relationship that has broken through some new faith and trust and expand this into four-five key global issues facing us today. You know, President Obama doesn't do anything in small ways. He is a big thinker. He wants a broad ambitious agenda. So, one issue on civilian nuclear has now been expanded to strategic and defence cooperation, to after threats like Lashkar-e-Toiba but also global issues of defence cooperation with our two great countries. He is talking about climate, energy, green initiatives, green jobs, he is talking about women's development and education reform and he is also talking about Doha round and trade and economic links between the two countries, how do we help the poor come into the middle class.

 

SG: Since President has this big picture, big strokes of the brush, the vision kind of a person, he is a visionary. What is his big vision on India and India -Us relations?

TR: His big vision is, we think that India is an emerging global player significant in a host of different issues from how do we cooperate on strategic cooperation in very important neighbourhood, how do we work together on this. Mr Chidambaram just had a very successful visit as Home Minister to the United States . We are now doing unprecedented exchanges on intelligence sharing, we are gonna do maga city police training, the FBI, which did so much good work after the Mumbai attacks, I think we gonna see enhanced cooperation and training from them. That, we build on that. How do we now start to cooperate on climate issues and clean technologies? Both our countries are interested in developing new markets here.

 

SG: I think Mr Chidambaram has to pick you brain on many things because you were a member of the 9/11 commission. You looked at what goes wrong with intelligence and you have a better insight than many people here. Have you had a conversation yet?

TR: I have met several times with Mr Chidambaram and we have had very good conversations as I had with Mr Narayanan. I had a very good conversation with the Prime Minister in a sit-down that lasted about an hour, about a week and a half ago. I think one of the reasons President Obama picked me, selected me for this job is the closeness to him, of course, my experience in national security issues and the 9/11 commission and especially given the Mumbai attacks just happened here. How do we work together, we did somethings wrong prior to 9/11, how do we fix those. We have about 39 different proposals that we have come along in United States . What can we help India with? What can we learn from India in this process? How is India approaching this? And how do we combine our forces going forward to take on this emerging world and regional threat.

 

SG: Because you were also one of the prime movers of the Homeland Security Bill and then you opposed it.

TR: I did. One of the best votes I ever cast.

 

SG: So what happened because I am sure Mr Chidambaram would like to know something more about that as well because that is a debate that goes on all the time in federal coalition structure like India.

TR: Well, I initially was a co-sponsor of the bill that would put together a entrepreneurial and quick acting and small Homeland Security Department just like the enemy we often face whether it is Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, the Laskar-e-Toiba, different groups and cells and they are quick acting. They can strike at a moments notice anywhere in the world. We don't need b bureaucracies to deal with that. we need quick acting agencies. So…

 

SG: And you think what you had moved had become a big bureaucracy?

TR: I think there are still some challenges that we face on that front. I think Janet Napolitano is working them through and putting together a very smooth operation…

 

SG: That is a lesson fro India to learn as well because a new idea could become a big bureaucracy in no time.

TR: I think what you wanna do is you wanna put together an agency, something that thinks ahead of the organisations that you are hoping to strategise against. You want the vision coming before the attacks. You want be protective and proactive. And you wanna break down Stove pipes in different organisations, you wanna share knowledge from the top of the organisation down to the states, your system is very similar to our system and the local polices and special operations can do a lot to achieve safety in our communities.

 

SG: So, obviously you won't tell me exactly what you and we are doing together but tell me a little bit about how we are doing it. Is there a mechanism now in intelligence sharing, how do we share it, how do we jointly asses threats. Just how deeply we are involved with each other now?

TR: Well, I can't get into all the details…

 

SG: Nor do I want to know.

TR: ....but what I can tell you is that on intelligence sharing side that we are in unprecedented ways sharing more and more actionable intelligence, things that you can act on immediately. We are finding ways to communicate knowledge ahead of time and share threats.

 

SG: Could we have shared somethings since 26/11 which may have already prevented something?

TR: Very likely. That has happened. We are not only working on intelligence sharing we are working on our people coming from the United States to India and sharing their knowledge, sharing past mistakes that we have made but also learning from India. People from India are going to America , learning from our police operations, our forensics, our DNA training, our technology…

 

SG: And there is technology transfer of some kind?

TR: There are technology transfers that are taking place and will take place in the future that will benefit both countries and there are bigger things that we can do together moving forward. Look India has a rich tradition on the non-proliferation area. Mahatma Gandhi, whose birthday we celebrated, talked about a world free of nuclear weapons. Rajiv Gandhi had a plan to achieve this. On nuclear non-proliferation there are opportunities for our two countries to work together…

 

SG: But that is universal global disarmament.

TR: That is disarmament but there are also ways that we can that we can work on non-proliferation together, there are ways that we can work on climate change through solar energy and alternative energy projects together. Both our countries are concerned about cleaner air, cleaner water, protecting the soil for our farmers being more productive and growing crops, flooding issues that may take place in your country and our country and how do we mitigate those floods ahead of time. After all, you know, many of our defence exercises now in the United States are not just about other nation state's threats, they are about transnational threats, flooding issues, flu, cyber-security. How does the United States of America and the Republic of India work on these transnational issues.

 

SG: Are we talking adequately?

TR: I think we are but there is also room for us to even get better on these issues.

 

SG: I am fascinated that you mentioned Lashkar-e-Toiba in the same vein as Al-Qaeda and others, the Taliban. So that sets at rest a suspicion that even Americans would nuance it , terrorism to Pakistan's west and terrorism to Pakistan's east. But are you really optimistic that Pakistanis will do something real on Lashkar-e-Toiba, given the linkages there. The latest New York Times story is a good example that linkages continue.

TR: The United States has been very clear about this. We experienced our 9/11 and I served on that commission, met with many of the families who lost sons and daughters. When I came here with secretary Clinton we stayed in the Taj Mahal hotel in Mumbai. I met the General Manager who lost his entire family, which is absolutely unfathomable to me, unthinkable to me that you could lose an entire family. We have both experienced that. The United States lost six people in the Mumbai attacks, India lost dozens and dozens of people. United States has been very clear about this. One, we want those six people that have been caught and are now on trial starting in early October in Islamabad are given adequate lengthy sentences. Two, Hafiz Saeed is prosecuted and brought to justice and three, that the infrastructure of Lashkar-e-Toiba is dismantled. They are regional threat not just a threat to India . So those are very clear issues for the United states .

 

SG: So, you don't make the distinction between Lashkar-e-Toiba being more indigenous, unless India settles Kashmir, people in Pakistan 's Punjab will be angry, what can we do?

TR: Look, there are many issues that United States needs to engage India with. One is national security, one is economic security, one is energy security. There are many things that we can address. One of the things that President Obama has done so brilliantly in his last few months in office, he is only in there close to ten months, is that he has said that you need to use all of the resources of the United States, its power, defence, military but also its diplomacy and its development and we need to do all those things at the same time. We can fight Lashkar-e-Toiba and Al-Qaeda but we also we also have to have economic issues and energy issues and development issues and caring for the poor, that we are doing at the same time because our greatest military people have told us that this is not just a military war, this is a battle of ideas. This involves development, this involves bringing forward the poor, giving opportunities. When you read Osama bin Laden's messages, he has no jobs programme, he has no healthcare programme, he has no education reform programme, it is all about killing people. We step in, the United States and India , and talk about what we do to help the poor, how do we give opportunities to people.

 

SG: Nor does Hafiz Saeed?

TR: None of them do. It is all about destruction, killing people and taking people away from their families…

 

SG: He talks about unfurling Pakistan 's flag on the Red Fort?

TR: No positive ideas, no development issues, nothing constructive and then he goes and kills people using the people they recruit to blow themselves up.

 

SG: You say he goes and kills. When we say that the Pakistanis always tell us but where is the evidence against Hafiz Saeed. Would you put some sanity in that discussion?

TR: Well I certainly think, reading through some of the dossiers that Indian government has exchanged with Pakistan , that there is a lot of proof there, United Nations has Hafiz Saeed on their resolution 1267 and the Interpol has put Hafiz Saeed on the red-flag notice. There is plenty of evidence there, they need to put it together and prosecute.

 

SG: And what is your hope or expectation. You think this will happen?

TR: well, I am hopeful but I also know as the ambassador to India, not Pakistan, that I have a big agenda from President Obama to work on economic issues, how can we bring our two countries together…

SG: And you can't have Hafiz Saeed highjack it?

TR: Well, I think if that is all you do, if all you do is the military side then you are not doing as much as they are because Al-Qaeda has a political strategy and economic strategy and a military strategy. The United States and India need to continue to battle on all fronts.

 

SG: I will tell you, I am pushing the envelope on this one, I tell you the skepticism in Indian public opinion comes from the fact that when Americans are killed in 9/11, FBI can come and get Ramzey Yousuf. In this case, Americans also got killed but FBI has not even been allowed to go and interrogate anybody. So are you getting caught in this? Are the Pakistanis saying, look, you want help on our western frontier, let us deal with this?

TR: Well, again, I am not gonna get into all kinds of Pakistan issues. If Ambassador Paterson was here, she should answer a question like that. I so much look forward to the opportunities to engage with the people of India on so many new areas and fronts. Build on the civilian nuclear deal, talk about how we grow a middle class in India as partners, how in India's great tradition of caring for the poor, reaching out on the issues of disarmament, on global peacekeeping missions, how do these two great democracies and two great powers put their forces together on those fronts, how do we create new markets for green collar jobs and energy. These are exciting areas that President Obama wants to move forward with and we hope that when Prime Minister Singh visits United States as our first official state visitor, these are the kind of issues that we would talk about.

 

SG: And you would rather that no Hafiz Saeed, no 26/11 replay derails this process. Isn't it?

TR: We can do both. We can pursue justice for these people and we can also pursue economic …

 

SG: No, I am saying one more attack…

TR: Certainly United States and India are working so closely and in unprecedented ways that you and I talked about today to try to prevent any kind of attack here. It is in United States ' interest, it is certainly in India 's interest that attack. But also there are so many other issues…

 

SG: And your counterpart and people in Washington are saying that just as seriously to the Pakistanis as well?

TR: I think our government is treating this issue with utmost seriousness at all levels. I have had conversations with Richard Halbrooke on this issue, I have conversations with the highest people in our government at the State department and the White house and they all so much value this relationship with India that they know in pursuing this on all fronts, it is important for us that we go after the terrorists, it is important for us that to strike the ground on economic and energy issues, it is important for us to complete the civilian nuclear deal and it is important for us to find out how to reach out and help farmers and how to reach out to the poor.

 

SG: And find new areas to talk about, that we haven't talked about. Because our dialogue have become a bi unidimensional over the past few years. So you are trying to rectify that?

TR: We wanna take this from a unidimensional approach and success in one area to success in other areas, not only on a bilateral front but on a global front. Think about the rich potential as we move forward with a great democracy in America and a great democracy here in India, the diversity of the peoples, the rule of law, the markets created by clean energy products, the concerns in technology and science exchanges, how do we create new educational opportunities for both peoples. This is truly exciting between our two countries.

 

SG: Ambassador, we have come this far in this conversation without mentioning one word, China . The analyst community has also been trying to analyse the new India-US relationship in terms of US's relationship with China or US 's view of China in this region. Is that going to be the new hyphenation? An India-China policy.

TR: Here is my take on that. It is certainly an important relationship for the United States and we just had some important strategic and economic dialogue with China that I think was very helpful and productive. As the President has said, he thinks the India relationship is not only one of the most important but also one of the best. And there are so many commonalities that we have just discussed between our two countries.

 

SG: So, you are not hyphenating India and China now?

TR: We are not hyphenating. It is United States and India . The President has said that, the secretary of state has said that….

 

SG: Because one hyphen has no shifted from India-Pakistan to Af-Pak. Right?

TR: I don't think there is any kind of hyphenation right now between Pakistan and India and China and India .

 

SG: I said Af-Pak, although that is sometimes written without a hyphen even, they are joined together?

TR: Well, I think all those are miscalculations.

 

SG: Media creations.

TR: Media creations.

 

SG: You have learned quickly in Delhi .

TR: If I were one thing in Delhi its let's talk about US-India relationship but ask the next twenty questions about Pakistan . When we have the opportunity to move this relationship as we are forward on many fronts.

 

SG: If you have looked at our headlines lately, in most papers, not so much as ours, you would now think that after the 20 questions on Pakistan the next 20 questions will be on China .

TR: Well I know your paper has been covering that very consistently lately.

 

SG: But I must say very conservatively. We have been trying to sort of pour oil over troubled waters--nothing so exciting has happening. But have you lost some sleep over this.

TR: I have not. No. I have read Mr Narayanan's comments in your paper and other papers and he has said that things are going quite well and there is some media hype to this and he is working the issue very hard and I think the Prime Minister has said similar things.

 

SG: There is some hype on China in your political systems. Speaker (Nancy) Pelosi called them awful things—hell on earth.

TR: Again I am the Ambassador to India so I am not gonna talk about what the Speaker says or what the vice-president says or what the former officials have said about that relationship.

 

SG: But China is a source of some argument in American politics, and concern.

TR: Well, no relationship is perfect. And I am sure the United States and India relationship will have our disagreements too. But also a strong relationship, a relationship where you trust one another, where confidence is, you can either work through those relationships and find grounds of commonality and concern and work out that problem or you move to another issue. I don't agree with my wife sally on every issue, I don't agree with my parents on every issue. No relationship in the world is gonna be….

 

SG: I bet she disagrees with you on more issues than you disagree with her on?

TR: One thing we don't disagree on is our love for basketball.

 

SG: Absolutely. And I hope we can get to teach you some cricket.

TR: I would love to. I am very interested in that. I was greatly disappointed that India didn't make it into the semi-finals.

 

SG: But you also saw one billion Indians praying for the Pakistanis.

TR: And that is progress in diplomacy in the world.

 

SG: If you only left it to cricket.

TR: And the Pakistanis gave it a great effort to try to get India …

 

SG: Oh, I mean as a confidence building measure, nothing could be better. Let me tell you one more thing, going back to politics, you have got a great advantage because your arrival has coincided with the arrival of a new government. So you get stability and consistency, to use a cricketing expression, you can now be set for a long innings because you got four years at that end and you got five years at this end.

TR: We have had an election in India , the people have spoken and reelected the previous government. They elected in the United States through democracy and the ballot box a brand new person for change and bigger ideas and agendas. Both of these people get along so well and they want to talk about big ideas and expand this relationship beyond national security to brand new areas. We are very excited about this.

 

SG: What you have got to do is export a bunch of basketball coaches to us?

TR: Well, we are gonna do that.

 

SG: Your president is a very good player. Isn't he?

TR: He is a good player. I gotta tell you a story. Here is the basketball that when I was campaigning with President Obama in Indiana , he was a senator at that time, I said to him I know you didn't do a good job doing bowling in Pennsylvania . Infact, it didn't go well there at all. But if you can shoot hoops in Indiana , where we really care about it like you care about cricket in India , we will go a long way to winning this state. If you can shoot some hoops in this gymnasium (that we were in with a basketball hoop just like that), we got very all kinds of very important people, MVPs, VIPs in here, and they will talk you up all around in Indiana . I had my son Mathew with me that day. Mathew hit the president, then senator, with a bounce pass. He took this ball and from about here, he let it fly and it went straight to the hoop, swish as we call it in basketball. Didn't touch the rim, right through, clean perfect shot and all the people in the room started clapping. And for the next three weeks on all the news channels, the first thing they talked about to me was not Pakistan , it wasn't the economy or jobs, it was hat guy can play ball. He can really play ball.

 

SG: How good are you at it?

TR: I can shoot. He (Obama) beat me that day but I can shoot. I will give it a go for ya. Can I take my coat off and give it a go. I will shoot what we call a lay-up and then I will give you some longer shots too.

 

SG: Sure.

TR: That is a lay-up (after putting the ball through the hoop)

 

SG: I think you can join the basketball team.

TR: Now how about you?

 

SG: Well, if you had a cricket pitch, I might have spun one odd past your bat but not basket ball. Thank you

TR: Thank you very much.

 

Transcript prepared by Mehraj D Lone

 

***************************************

******************************************************************************************

FINANCIAL EXPRESS

EDITORIAL

FUND IS BOUYANT

 

The IMF, rejuvenated in the aftermath of the financial crisis, now wants to spread some good cheer all around. The Fund's latest forecast for global economic growth in 2010 is 3.1%, up from its previous forecast of 2.5% made in July this year. Unsurprisingly, China and India are seen as central to achieving this target with estimated growth rates of 9% and 6.4% respectively. The only caveat in the forecast is related to fiscal and monetary policies, which, according to the Fund, must remain loose for recovery to be sustained. That's all agreeable enough, but it may be a trifle too simplistic.

 

Contrary to the now conventional view on China and India leading the recovery, there is still a case to be made for the US, rather than China and India, being a key to sustained recovery. The US is, after all, the world's largest economy by some distance and the centre of global finance. While the financial system may have achieved some stability, it is still far from obvious that recovery in the real economy is for real and that it is sustainable. And given the dependence of China's key real economy sectors on exports to the US, one can hardly expect a sustained recovery without the US playing the lead. The future of US finance also remains uncertain as deliberations on new financial regulations continue and may last for a long while yet. And until clarity emerges on how American finance will emerge from this crisis, flows of funds to countries like India and China will remain lower than they were at any point in boom time. There is an additional complication in conventional calculations of the kind done by the IMF. One of the major pledges of the G-20 is to correct global economic imbalances, particularly the huge deficit of the US and huge surplus of China and, to a lesser extent, Germany and Japan. If genuine reform has to take place on this front, the US has to get serious about cutting spending. This will squeeze emerging economies which depend on US markets. It isn't clear how quickly China, Germany and Japan can increase domestic consumption to meet the fall in US consumption. Whichever way it unfolds, the process is unlikely to be smooth and even less likely to be fast. The IMF has probably not factored these deeper structural changes in its forecasts. Of course, the world would only be too relieved if the IMF is right, but a little caution is perhaps prudent at this point in time.

 

***************************************

FINANCIAL EXPRESS

EDITORIAL

POWER TO REFORM

 

The criticism directed at Union power minister Sushil Shinde by finance minister Pranab Mukherjee over the poor performance of the power sector once again brings to the fore the slow pace of reforms in this crucial infrastructure. It is a problem that has enormous implications for an energy-starved country like India. The weak defence offered by the power minister, trying to shift the blame on inadequate gas and coal supplies, will cut no ice as the problems in the sector have continued to multiply under his tenure since the UPA-I government. Incremental policy changes like the new sops announced for mega power projects will only help at the margins. Power policy needs a sustained burst of ministerial energy.

 

Most recent estimates show that the funds availability of Rs 6.37 lakh crore for the power sector in the Eleventh Plan will still leave a gap of Rs 4.21 lakh crore. Institutional fund flows are now constrained by the prudential norms imposed on credit offered to different sectors and companies, while foreign investors shy away because of low returns. RBI norms prevent the use of external commercial borrowings for meeting rupee expenditures. Fund flows to the power sector will continue to be constrained as long as power policies refuse to address the distribution and market risks. This would require bringing down technical and commercial losses from the current level of 35% to around 15%. This means radical reforms in the distribution sector: privatisation, the separation of agriculture feeders from other lines and shifting to open access systems to increase competition. Introduction of differential peaking tariff and setting up of well-functioning wholesale electricity markets are crucial as well. Another major constraint that has to be tackled urgently is the non-availability of power generation machinery. Repeated efforts to step up supplies and competition have not succeeded. Chinese machines are not the answer always; there are quality issues. Tackling many of these issues requires active participation and coordination with states. States won't be impressed by conferences or strictures. They need an effective incentive structure, something the central government has failed to produce. Clearly, there's an incredible amount for the power minister to do and clearly, there isn't much he's getting done.

 

***************************************

FINANCIAL EXPRESS

COLUMN

BHARTI TODAY, ANOTHER TOMORROW

AJAY SHAH

 

Reliance Infocomm and Bharti have both explored the possibility of a merger with MTN, the African telecom giant that is headquartered in South Africa. There are strong synergies in such a deal. Indian telecom companies are the world leaders in offering low cost services, and these skills would yield competitive advantage when applied in Africa. And yet, it is better to go from the foundation of MTN—with a huge subscriber base in Africa—instead of going into the countries of Africa and starting from scratch.

 

While a one-sided transaction (of Bharti purchasing MTN or of MTN purchasing Bharti) is feasible, the relative sizes of the firms suggest that the best path is a merger. A new unified firm would emerge. All existing shareholders would get shares in the merged company. The trading in both India and South Africa should continue as it has for the two erstwhile companies. In other words, the new company—Bharti-MTN—should continue to obtain equity capital from the combined base of shareholders of both countries as the two components had obtained pre-merger.

 

This requires a concept called 'dual listing' where one company is listed in two countries. This is commonplace in the world. However, it runs afoul of India's capital controls.

 

It illustrates the continuing collision between the growing sophistication of the Indian economy and the existing framework of capital controls. This story has been played out in many countries across the world. As a country obtains ecconomic growth, and obtains a certain critical mass of capable corporations and financial systems, capital controls interfere with the process of economic development. All countries that faced these problems have responded by dismantling capital controls. The Bharti-MTN story is in the limelight today. But a deeper problem has been brewing for a long time. Indian companies like Tata Steel compete on the global market for steel. Capital and financial services are crucial for determining their competitiveness. When India runs a policy framework which interferes with the ability of Tata Motors to obtain the lowest cost equity or debt capital, or the best risk management services, this interferes with India's growth. High GDP growth requires embracing globalisation, which involves rethinking the old arrangements for capital controls, financial sector policy and monetary policy.

 

One dimension of India's capital controls that merits concern is the gulf between the perspective of large firms and small firms. When Bharti faces a problem because dual listing is difficult, it has the heft to bring this to the attention of policy makers and the media. Big companies are able to pound the corridors of RBI seeking relaxations in capital controls, hire expensive lawyers to find loopholes in capital controls and find ways to get around constraints in order to get transactions done. When India is less integrated into the global financial system, this damages debt or equity investment into small companies because foreign financial firms do less with India, but it does not damage debt or equity investment into prominent firms like Tata Steel.

 

This drives a wedge between the corporate financial structure of the top 100 companies (roughly speaking, the members of Nifty and Nifty Junior) as compared with the remaining 100,000 companies in India. The top 100 companies are able to raise equity and debt capital from overseas, get their risk management done, and access international financial services from the best financial firms in the world. The remaining 100,000 firms take the brunt of the low quality financial services that the Indian financial system doles out. This is unfair, and more importantly, it is inefficient for the Indian economy. It eases the life of the big 100 companies who are then subject to less competitive pressure from everyone else. It results in suboptimal utilisation of resources by almost all firms, and lowers GDP growth. There are three alternative approaches which the policy establishment can take when faced with these problems. The first consists of comprehensively taking stock of where we stand, and reforming the financial / monetary arrangements. While this is the best way to proceed, all too often, in India we take the cynical approach of thinking that comprehensive solutions are out of reach.

 

The second best approach is one of rapidly responding to these problems as and when they surface. When the Bharti/MTN transaction appears to be shaping up as a dual listing, MOF would rapidly swing into action and come up with all the incremental reforms (both legislative and non-legislative) required to enable dual listings. There is a danger, in this approach, of responding excessively to the political pressures that go with high profile transactions, and not looking at deeper economic policy problems.

 

The worst possible approach that can be taken is that of sitting tight and smugly asserting that there is nothing wrong with the way India works today.

 

The author is an economist with interests in finance, pensions and macroeconomics

 

***************************************

FINANCIAL EXPRESS

COLUMN

THE DELICATE ART OF NEGOTIATIONS

YOGINDER K ALAGH

 

I was in Europe last week and in the headquarters of the OECD, the rich man's club. Once a year they have a Development Forum and third world types like me get asked to come for the prepcoms. Their preoccupation with the G-20 was understandable. Of course, in France President Sarkozy would make the romantic headlines and Prime Minister Berlusconi would provide comic relief everywhere. But the underlying seriousness was a motif also for the daily press. Especially when one out of six persons are without a job that is obvious. Yet I come back home and the trivialisation of the occasion is overwhelming. Intellectually we are really non-aligned with the world, in a sense which would horrify Nehru Chacha. The first thing to recognise is that structures change, interests don't and foreign policy is not just verbiage, but reconciliation. Some background may be of help.

 

The idea of an expanded G8 goes to the Canadians, Paul Martin in particular. It began in 2002. India was still a basket case since the IMF papers came in 2003/04 and the CIA and Goldman Sachs pronouncements later. John Kirton was the first to show that China and India are in the first eight in terms of GDP in purchasing power parity and some G-8 countries were not. Martin made an issue of this and the argument that you cannot solve world problems without them. It was not popular. No one likes to give up the status of power. Only the idealist knows that you can be more powerful by giving up power. Martin picked up the torch from Pearson and Trudeau. But more important he set up systems to work on the new world. In 2004 the leadership from the top argument was ready arguing for a G -20 Summit.

 

The argument, interestingly, was not popular with China and India. China had made it to the Security Council and felt that the expanded G-8 would be a demotion, but took refuge behind the argument of G77 democratisation. By this time the L20 book had been printed, edited by John English, Ramesh Thakur and Andy Cooper and the Chinese essay byYu Yong Ding was decidedly ascerbic. I was my usual enthusiastic self in an irreverential essay on Sherpas and Coolies, giving what I felt the Indian sherpa's stand should be, but when India was invited to the G8, its official stand was cool. It had just sewed up its understanding with President Bush and wasn't in a mood to think out of that.

 

The L20 book was in a sense anticipating the next few years. It caught the low-hanging fruit and looked wistfully at the tough ones. Diplomatically it ignored the really tough ones for that would weaken the new structures, letting some of the arguments rest in my coolies paper. Those paradigms discovered in 2003, printed in 2004/05 remain in 2009, proving that interests are not for sale. But first the low-hanging fruits.Anna Marie Slaughter, who now advises President Obama talks of the networked world and the danger of a pandemic being more lethal than terrorism. The global health agenda was to follow, as also micro finance at Gleneagles.

 

Now the tougher ones. I talked of the Asian crisis and a need to develop an early warning system. But the prize went to Gordon Smith who was a Sherpa earlier. In his piece with Barry Carin, he makes a song and dance of the business cycle. That was heresy then for we were in the golden age of derivatives stabilising the world and their harping on history seems prophetic and anticipates the '09 G-20. Incidentally India has, as I wrote in 2003, asked for an early warning system now. Water and energy were seen as tough then but are on the agenda. I got some credit, for the editors argued that 'Alagh's chapter sets a high test for the L20, but it is an option he sees within the range of possibillitties.'Again I am quoted as saying that Cancun failed not because the issues were intractable, but because the World did not recognise that the East Asian crises had sent the global agricultural economy into a spin. In water and energy again cutting-edge institutions are not becoming a part of the stateof-the-art solutions on a global plane.' Pittsburgh put the spotlight on energy. Water is still out there and now we will raise it with food security, another Obama interest.

 

In spite of all my persuasion, the editors of L20 only gave me a hearing on agriculture in the WTO. In a recent invited piece for Kirton's G20 volume for Pittsburgh I showed that India was willing to get Doha done. The G20 did not bite as all the global press reports show. Our briefings on that are a little on the starry side. The Sherpa's haven't even been allowed to get their toes in that one. Structures change. Permanent interests don't. That's what negotiations are all about.

 

The author is a former Union minister and former vice-chancellor, JNU

 

***************************************

FINANCIAL EXPRESS

COLUMN

ADVANTAGE CONTRAST

AKASH JOSHI

 

As the stock market keeps moving up, there seems to be an undercurrent of confidence that adds to the optimism. This undercurrent probably emanates from the fact that the two key players in the market, the foreign institutional investors (FIIs) and domestic institutional investors (DIIs) have contrasting styles of investing.

 

This means that the buying in the market becomes broader. Moreover, contrasting styles also mean that when one party is selling, there is somebody who is ready to buy.

 

This supports the markets from spinning into a downward spiral. A recent study by CLSA Asia Pacific Research on the monthly net data from FIIs and DIIs shows that there is a clear difference in thinking by the two market participants.

 

Analysis since April 2007 shows that over the 28-month time frame, FIIs net sold $22bn worth equities on the exchanges and DIIs bought $26.7bn. The report notes that the flows have been in opposite directions for 26 of those 28 months.

 

Now, it could be said that the data was skewed as due to the global uncertainty, the overseas investors were forced to pull out of the markets and the domestic institutions were investing as they had sufficient inflows and even doubt that they stepped in to support the market from going under. However, in the five of the seven months that FIIs were net buyers in the market, DIIs were net sellers.

 

Another observation is that, overall, DIIs' holding in the Indian equity markets has moved up from 8% in March 2007 to 10.4% by June 2009. The DII share of the cash institutional businesses has risen from 18% levels in April 2007 to 35% in July 2009. The report estimates that around 82% of the sell-off caused by the FIIs during FY09 was offset by DII inflows. And, DII inflows in the past six years are 93% of the FII inflow since 1993. Interestingly, the stock selection, after valuation considerations, is also contrasting.

 

While the DIIs prefer stability and look for strong track record and tend to invest in public sector undertakings and multinationals, FIIs prefer growth.

 

akash.joshi@expressindia.com

***************************************

******************************************************************************************

THE HINDU

EDITORIAL

BRAVO BRAZIL

 

In a bow towards global inclusiveness, the International Olympic Committee voted for Rio de Janeiro to host the 2016 Summer Olympic Games. The decision deserves to be celebrated not just by Brazilians: it marks the end of a longstanding script that, for whatever reason, shut South America out of the list of Games' hosts. That the IOC session in Copenhagen overwhelmingly picked Rio ahead of Chicago and Tokyo, not to speak of Madrid, which lost 32-66 in a direct contest in the final round of voting, is significant. The Brazilian triumph is of course a reflection of the growing economic stature of the world's fifth most populous nation (the 'B' in BRIC, the four-member grouping of fast-growing developing economies). As important is the consideration that the Games might leave an all-round sports legacy for a nation that has an iconic status in football, samba, and the Carnival. Unfortunately, the city of more than six million is also known for its crime and violence, which is why it scored poorly in safety and security when an IOC expert group analysed the bids of each of the seven original contestants against 11 criteria. As against this, Rio top-scored in government support and public opinion. The Brazilians have expressed the hope that the Games would help curb crime and solve transport, traffic, and accommodation problems in addition to providing employment opportunities over the next seven years. But in the final analysis, it was probably the emotional appeal of spreading the Games to South America, coupled with Rio's inspired slogan, "live your passion," that settled the issue.

 

The first-round elimination of Chicago — the one contest lost by master campaigner Barack Obama, who sportingly took time off his busy presidential schedule to lobby for his adopted hometown — was seen as a legacy of the Salt Lake City bribery scandal of 1998. The proposal of the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) to create an exclusive Olympic television network may also have hastened the exit of Chicago, which was the bookmakers' favourite. The IOC gets the bulk of its revenue, running into billions of dollars, from television rights every four years. The ever-spiralling cost of holding the Olympics has remained a matter of concern for the IOC with Beijing reportedly running up a bill of $40 billion for a Perfect 10 edition of the 29th Olympiad. Notwithstanding claims to the contrary, host cities have run up huge deficits in the past, Montreal in 1976 and Athens in 2004 being prime examples. Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, who along with the great Pele shed tears when IOC President Jacques Rogge made the announcement in Copenhagen, has plenty of hard work ahead of him.

 

***************************************

 

THE HINDU

EDITORIAL

UNPRECEDENTED HAVOC

 

North Karnataka and the districts along the Krishna and Tungabhadra rivers in Andhra Pradesh have been under water for a few days now. Heavy and persistent rains in some districts of northern Karnataka led to waterflows into the Krishna and its tributaries reaching unprecedented levels. The discharge from the Karnataka reservoirs touched a historic high of over 20 lakh cusecs on Friday-Saturday affecting Andhra Pradesh downstream. At one stage, Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister K. Rosaiah had to appeal to his Karnataka counterpart B.S. Yediyurappa to stop releasing water from the Almati and Narayanpur dams, as the levels at Nagarjunasagar and Srisailam dams in Andhra had reached alarming levels. Gulbarga, Bijapur, Bellary, and Belgaum in Karnataka, as also Kurnool and Mehboobnagar in Andhra Pradesh were perhaps the worst-affected by last week's flood fury. The temple town of Mantralayam was also submerged. At least 150 people have died in the floods and several lakhs have been rendered homeless. The Army, the Air Force, and the Navy have been called in to assist the two State governments, but people in many places hit by floods are yet to get relief.

 

The number of houses destroyed and the extent of damage to infrastructure such as highways, and railway tracks need to be properly assessed. Aside from carrying out immediate relief work, the Centre and the State governments must draw up medium- and long-term plans to mitigate the hardship and havoc caused by such calamities. There is need for a mechanism to coordinate actions such as releasing of surplus water from dams, issuing early warnings, and evacuating people from the vulnerable areas downstream. The Central Water Commission officials in Andhra Pradesh have complained that the State government and the district administration do not heed their early warnings. Given that the country has to contend against drought and floods at the same time, the need for galvanising the inter-State and Centre-State consultation mechanisms can hardly be over-emphasised. During the non-monsoon months, the State governments must make it a point to desilt the network of tributaries and canals and ensure that the dams are fully strengthened to withstand the stress of heavy inflows or discharge. While the State administrations rush to show their concern through high profile visits and promising relief measures on a "war-footing" after a calamity strikes, they have been lackadaisical when it came to taking preventive steps and this has proved very expensive in terms of the human cost.

 

***************************************

 

THE HINDU

LEADER PAGE ARTICLES

THE ROAD AHEAD FOR INDIA AND PAKISTAN

IF TERRORISM WILL NOT COMPEL INDIA TO SETTLE OUTSTANDING DISPUTES WITH PAKISTAN, KEEPING THE DIALOGUE PROCESS SUSPENDED INDEFINITELY IS NOT GOING TO FORCE ISLAMABAD TO BE MORE MINDFUL OF NEW DELHI'S CONCERNS EITHER. BOTH STRATEGIES HAVE FAILED; IT IS TIME THE TWO COUNTRIES MOVED BEYOND THEM.

SIDDHARTH VARADARAJAN

 

There is a story senior journalist A.S. Panneerselvan tells of the experience of the first group of Tamil Tigers who were brought to a remote camp in Uttar Pradesh for arms training by the Indian government in the early 1980s. Every evening, the camp's Tibetan cook would look at the group of Sri Lankan Tamils and start laughing. Eventually, one of the Tamils learnt enough Hindi to ask the cook what was so funny. "Thirty years ago," the old man said, "I was in this camp with other Tibetans getting trained and there was somebody else to cook for us. Now you are here and I am cooking for you!" "That may be so," the LTTE man said, "but I still don't see what's so funny." Prompt came the reply: "You see, I'm wondering who you will be cooking for 20 years from now … I think it may be the Chakmas!"

 

Unfortunately for the Indian establishment, the LTTE story did not end so tamely, over cooking pots and a camp fire. Well before the terrorist group eventually met its end in the Vanni earlier this year, the Tigers assassinated a former Prime Minister of India and were responsible for the death of countless Indian soldiers.

 

I am recalling this story in an article about India and Pakistan because it reminds us of three processes that are an essential part of modern South Asian statecraft and which help define the contours of the current crisis in the bilateral relationship. First, that every state in the region has, at one time or another, patronised extremist groups or tolerated their violent activities in order to advance its domestic political or regional strategic interests. Second, the activities of these groups invariably "overshoot" their target and begin to undermine the core interests of their original patrons. Third, there comes a time in the life of all such groups when the nature and extent of their violence reach a "tipping point" as far as the same state is concerned.

 

A mature, well-developed state is one which is able to read the early warning signs and effect a course correction in official policy well before that tipping point is reached. In the absence of this maturity, states respond in one of two ways. States with a tendency to stability are at least able to recognise when a tipping point has been reached and act accordingly. But states which are unable to recognise either the early warning signs or the tipping point itself and which continue to pretend that the non-state actors they have patronised can be subordinated to an official command structure despite evidence to the contrary run the risk of destabilising themselves.

 

The Congress party leader in Bombay, S.K. Patil, encouraged the rise of the Shiv Sena in the 1960s in order to undermine the city's communist-led trade union movement. The Sena overshot its target and eventually became a political rival to the Congress. By the time the Sena revealed its true self in the communal violence it helped orchestrate in Bombay in 1992, it was too late for anyone to act against it. The Sena had already become a part of the establishment, its violence normalised, its leaders insulated from police action and proper judicial sanction.

 

A second example of the same phenomenon, but with a different ending, emerged in Punjab in the 1980s. Indira Gandhi welcomed the rise of Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale and his extremist politics because she saw in him an effective counter to the Akali Dal in Punjab. The Khalistani ideologue's violence was tolerated for some time; the tipping point for the establishment should arguably have come when a senior police officer, A.S. Atwal, was gunned down by Bhindranwale's men in April 1983. But New Delhi waited and waited, acting against the 'Sant' only in June 1984.

 

The trouble with acting against extremist groups after the tipping point is reached is that the process can be long drawn out and costly, especially in terms of human life. Successive governments at the Centre pacified Punjab but not before nearly 20,000 people lost their lives in Operation Bluestar, the November 1984 massacres, and the brutal police campaigns in the Punjab.

 

In Pakistan, the military-cum-intelligence establishment has had a long-term policy of creating, cultivating and using extremist groups both as a lever against mainstream political parties within the country and as a tool of foreign and military policy against India and Afghanistan. Some of these groups very rapidly 'overshot' their initial targets, especially domestically. The state responded by targeting particularly wayward terrorist leaders but did not abandon the overall structures of official permissiveness. External pressure following 9/11 led to the temporary course correction of abandoning the Taliban in Afghanistan. The Lal Masjid situation in Islamabad was another potential tipping point but its lessons were ignored, leading to the growth of the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan. Then came Benazir Bhutto's assassination, but the nexus between extremism and a military establishment keen to subvert the return of democracy muddied the waters. Sufi Mohammad's folly in openly defying the Pakistani state soon after the Nizam-e-Adl fiasco in Swat brought about a more decisive point of inflection, which is today still being played out in the Malakand division.

 

But even if the Pakistani army has joined the battle against terrorism in the frontier regions bordering Afghanistan in earnest, there is no question of the military establishment recognising the danger that anti-India terrorist groups have started to pose to Pakistan itself. A section of the Pakistani political leadership saw in the terrorist attack on Mumbai in November 2008 the grave threat that groups like the Lashkar-e-Taiba pose to the stability of the region. Nudged along by the United States and by a non-confrontationist Indian approach, an unprecedented criminal investigation was launched against a section of LeT operatives. Since the LeT has never launched a terrorist attack inside Pakistan, however, it is easy for sceptics there to argue that the group does not pose a threat. That is why the establishment there is reluctant to act against Lashkar chief Hafiz Saeed. But wise statecraft is about recognising the early warning signs, not waiting for the tipping point. Imtiaz Gul's book, The Al-Qaeda Connection, provides plenty of evidence on the deep links which exist between the LeT, the Jaish-e-Mohammed and even the Hizb-ul-Mujahideen, on the one hand, and the TTP in Pakistan's tribal areas, on the other.

 

Given these political realities, what can India do to encourage Pakistan to recognise that the terrorist groups operating on its soil are an undifferentiated syndicate and pose a common threat to both countries? Of all the forms of encouragement, refusing to talk is the least effective. It is not a coincidence that those sections of the Pakistani establishment which continue to see the jihadi terror groups as future assets are the very sections least anxious to see the resumption of the bilateral dialogue. Exchanging rhetoric and putting pressure via public statements are also not likely to pay dividends. Nor is there any point in messing up the strong case India has in Mumbai with overkill. Pakistani officials have pointed out, for example, that the salutation "Major General sahab" — one of the co-conspirators allegedly identified by Ajmal 'Kasab' and seen by the Indians as proof of Islamabad's official complicity in 26/11 — is never used in the subcontinent; the preferred greeting is 'General sahab'.

 

At a recent Track-II meeting of Indian and Pakistani analysts, former ambassadors, military officers and intelligence chiefs organised by the Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies in Bangkok, there was consensus on the grave threat terrorism poses to Pakistan and to India. Specifically, the need for India and Pakistan to open a back channel on counter-terrorism was recognised, with the participation of intelligence agencies from the two countries. This would supplement the back channel on Jammu and Kashmir which worked effectively till 2006 and which, the Track-II meeting felt, needs to be revived at an early date. The Composite Dialogue process, too, was seen as having served a useful purpose in the past.

 

With last month's meeting in New York between the Foreign Ministers of India and Pakistan yielding little in terms of forward movement by either side, there is a danger of the bilateral relationship getting stuck into one of those ruts that finally require the mediation of extra hands in order to be rescued. Rather than wait for that, the first available improvement in optics — the start of the Mumbai trial in Pakistan, for example — should be seized upon to move ahead on the back channel, with the front channel being revived in a calibrated manner as confidence increases. Indefinitely postponing talks will not help protect India from future terrorist attacks. And talking will not make it more vulnerable. India should stop confusing hard line diplomatic strategy for effective counter-terrorism.

 

***************************************

THE HINDU

NEWS ANALYSIS

SCIENCE JOURNALISM: ROLE OF TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE

S. VISWANATHAN

 

In mid-September, two young men called me at my residence and introduced themselves as engineering (leather technology) students of Anna University. They said they wanted to choose journalism as their career after completing studies in the next two years. I was a bit surprised and asked them why. One of them said that they had been regular readers of The Hindu for the past few years and that they were so impressed and fascinated by newspaper articles that they decided to become journalists. I told them there was nothing wrong with their decision: science journalism was a growing and promising field, but they would need to be trained in journalism in a good institution, in addition to their academic qualification in science and technology. The training would give them the needed perspectives and skills, particularly the skill of writing with clarity.

 

Ten days later, on September 25, I received calls from a number of readers. They spoke highly of The Hindu's lead story of the day, "Chandrayaan-1 finds traces of water on moon", written by the Thiruvananthapuram-based Science Correspondent N. Gopal Raj. The appreciation was not so much for the spacecraft's probe that found traces of water across the surface of large parts of the moon, demolishing the long-held view that the earth's natural satellite was bone dry, as for the way the story was written.

 

Many readers said the story was simple and eminently readable. G. Krishnan, who has been a senior trainer of reporters at The Hindu (in news gathering, reporting, and writing), said in an email: "The Hindu's front-page story today by Gopal Raj about the discovery of traces of water on the moon is a clear and simple explanation of a complicated technical subject. It is a good example to give to young reporters about reporting scientific discoveries."

 

Even a casual reading of the story would show that the correspondent has not diluted the content in his effort to present the story in a lucid style. (That is what happens most often.) While making it interesting and accessible to large sections of readers, he has not sacrificed the technical details. Nor has he compromised on accuracy and nuance. Surprisingly, the writer, who has a first degree in zoology, did his post-graduate work not in science, but in Far East Studies at the University of London. He also took a diploma in Sociology of the London School of Economics.

 

How then, with only a basic academic grounding in science, could he emerge as a skilled science writer? He said he did not undergo any formal training either. "So much of what I have learnt about science reporting has been by working on the job," Gopal Raj explained modestly. When he went to Bangalore on transfer (1991-2001) he "wrote a great deal about the Indian space programme." He was interested in the country's rocket programme. (His book Reach for the Stars: The Evolution of India's Rocket Programme was published by Penguin Books India in 2000.)

 

MOST CHALLENGING

Science reporting for a daily newspaper is perhaps the most challenging of journalistic assignments. Even among science graduates and post-graduates, only a few opt for journalism as a career — and fewer stay on. Not many make a mark.

The major hurdle, of course, is the difficulty the reporter (with some assistance from the editorial desk) faces in presenting the story in a precise, simple, and readable form. This means avoiding excessive technical jargon and an array of statistics, which often stem the flow of the story and deter general readers from reading on.

 

This is not surprising in the context of the phenomenal advance of technology on one side and increasing specialisation in various fields of study on the other. Providing in-house training; conducting workshops to inculcate a better understanding of specific subjects and improve the writing skill of the journalist; creating opportunities for interaction with scientists and technologists — besides providing the journalist with the needed tools, this will go a long way in altering the situation favourably.

 

So what is needed is a fairly good understanding of the subject and the skill to present the story in readable form. Training will help. But as important is hard work, continuous exposure to the subject, acquiring domain knowledge, and improving the craft of writing over a period. Professional experience, or the yoga of doing this day in and day out, makes all the difference.

 

Readerseditor@Thehindu.Co.In

 

***************************************

THE HINDU

NEWS ANALYSIS

DETAINEE'S CASE SHOWS BIND OF GUANTANAMO'S FATE

FOR BARACK OBAMA, GUANTANAMO HAS BECOME BOTH A SECURITY CHALLENGE AND A POLITICAL HEADACHE.

SCOTT SHANE

 

To understand how hard it is proving for President Barack Obama to close the American military prison at Guantanamo Bay, consider the case of Alla Ali Bin Ali Ahmed, Internee Security No. 692. His long-delayed departure last week leaves 97 Yemenis at the complex in Cuba, by far the largest remaining group.

 

It was seven years ago that Ahmed, then 18, was swept up by Pakistani security forces in a raid on a Faisalabad guesthouse and taken to the prison. It was five months ago that a federal judge, after reviewing all the government's classified evidence, ruled that his incarceration had never been justified and ordered the government to get to work "forthwith" on his release.

 

But Obama administration officials were worried. Even if Ahmed was not dangerous in 2002, they said, Guantanamo itself might have radicalised him, exposing him to militant fellow prisoners and embittering him against the United States. If he returned to his troubled homeland of Yemen, the officials feared, he might fall in with the growing contingent of al-Qaeda there, one more Guantanamo survivor to star in their propaganda videotapes.

 

So American officials first sought to route him to a rehabilitation programme for militants in Saudi Arabia. But the Saudis would take him only if he wanted to go — and he did not.

 

So last weekend, as Judge Gladys Kessler of U.S. District Court in Washington appeared to be losing patience with the delay in complying with her May 11 release order, an American military jet finally delivered Ahmed to the Yemeni capital, San'a. He was so greatly changed that his older brother barely recognised him.

 

"Seven years are gone from his life and can never be gotten back," said the brother, Wagdi Ahmed, a surgeon's assistant in the port city of Aden, speaking through a translator on a cell phone after a brief first reunion. "The feeling of the family is his detention at Guantanamo was not rightful. But nonetheless, we just say, praise God."

 

Alla Ahmed, now 26, was expected to spend a week or more in the custody of Yemeni security officials, who were questioning him about other Yemenis at Guantanamo and about his views and plans. Then, his brother said, he will join his family in Aden and decide whether to look for work or try to resume his education. Ahmed is the first Yemeni to depart Guantanamo since Obama's promise, the day after his inauguration, to close the prison complex in Cuba within a year — a deadline that aides now say may not be met.

 

Since Yemenis now make up nearly half of the 220 remaining prisoners, an exit route for them is critical.For Mr. Obama, Guantanamo has become both a security challenge and a political headache. A group of retired generals and admirals who stood behind him when he signed the closing order were back in Washington last week to make sure the administration did not renege on its pledge. Meanwhile, the House voted 258-163 on Thursday for a nonbinding recommendation that no Guantanamo detainee be brought to American soil, even for trial.

The public file on Ahmed suggests a highly ambiguous case that typifies many at Guantanamo. He told a review board that he had travelled to Pakistan to study ``religion and science" — but he said one reason he wanted to attend an Islamic university was that religious schools accepted students with lower grade point averages.

 

The guesthouse where he was captured was used by both students and terrorist operatives. Four fellow prisoners later reported having seen him fighting or undergoing training in Afghanistan, but Kessler found their accounts unpersuasive, flawed by inconsistencies, contradictions and even mental illness.

 

She rejected the government's so-called ``mosaic" theory, which asserted that the pattern of indications of terrorist ties added up to a strong case. "If the individual pieces of a mosaic are inherently flawed," she wrote, "then the mosaic will split apart." Ultimately, the government may not have had much faith in its own case, since it chose not to appeal Kessler's order.

 

Brent N. Rushforth, a lawyer with Day Pitney in Washington who represents Ahmed, said his client never supported terrorism and was known as "the sweet kid" to other prisoners at Guantanamo. "Alla has never exhibited any bitterness," he said.

 

Yemen, with a population of 24 million, is a fragile state plagued by a separatist insurgency and a growing presence from the group called al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula. American officials say the government is weak and does not control parts of the country; the escape of 23 terrorism suspects in 2006 shook confidence in Yemen's counterterrorism capabilities. That is why, even as 117 Saudis and 197 Afghans have left Guantanamo, only 16 Yemenis have been transferred. Yemeni authorities say none of the 16 have joined any terrorist group, and note that Salim Hamdan, Osama bin Laden's former driver, who spent nearly seven years at Guantanamo and whose legal challenge led to a landmark Supreme Court ruling, is leading a quiet life as a cab driver in San'a.

 

But given the instability, some experts say, the administration is right not to simply send most of the Yemenis home. "Right now, there's no comprehensive program to integrate these guys back into Yemeni society," said Christopher Boucek, who studies Yemen as an associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington.

 

John O. Brennan, a presidential adviser on counterterrorism and a former CIA station chief in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, has made repeated trips to both Saudi Arabia and Yemen, trying to persuade the Saudis to accept a large number of Yemenis in their rehabilitation programme. But Saudi officials have balked so far, in part because of the negative publicity when 11 of the programme's graduates turned up on a Saudi list of most-wanted terrorists in February.

 

American officials still have a high opinion of the Saudi programme, noting that its recidivism rate compares favourably to that of ordinary American prisons. But Boucek said the Saudi programme depended on the involvement of relatives, who participated with the former militants and helped police their behaviour after the program concluded.

 

That means the Saudi programme might work for the roughly 20 Yemeni prisoners at Guantanamo who grew up in Saudi Arabia or had relatives there. For the rest, he said, the Saudi programme is "a catastrophically bad idea."

 

American and Yemeni officials are now discussing how Yemen might build its own version of the Saudi programme.

"It won't be quick, and it will cost some money," Boucek said. "But I think it may be the best choice among a bunch of not very good alternatives."

 

***************************************

THE HINDU

NEWS ANALYSIS

WILL BOOKS BE NAPSTERISED?

RANDALL STROSS

 

You can buy The Lost Symbol, by Dan Brown, as an e-book for $9.99 at Amazon.com. Or you can don a pirate's cap and snatch a free copy from another online user at RapidShare, Megaupload, Hotfile and other file-storage sites.

 

Until now, few readers have preferred e-books to printed or audible versions, so the public availability of free-for-the-taking copies did not much matter. But e-books won't stay on the periphery of book publishing much longer. E-book hardware is on the verge of going mainstream. More dedicated e-readers are coming, with ever larger screens. So, too, are computer tablets that can serve as giant e-readers, and hardware that will not be very hard at all: a thin display flexible enough to roll up into a tube.

 

With the new devices in hand, will book buyers avert their eyes from the free copies only a few clicks away that have been uploaded without the copyright holder's permission? Mindful of what happened to the music industry at a similar transitional juncture, book publishers are about to discover whether their industry is different enough to be spared a similarly dismal fate.

 

The book industry has not received cheery news for a while. Publishers and authors alike have relied upon sales of general-interest hardcover books as the foundation of the business. The Association of American Publishers estimated that these hardcover sales in the United States declined 13 per cent in 2008, versus the previous year. This year, these sales were down 15.5 per cent through July, versus the same period of 2008. Total e-book sales, though up considerably this year, remained small, at $81.5 million, or 1.6 per cent of total book sales through July. "We are seeing lots of online piracy activities across all kinds of books — pretty much every category is turning up," said Ed McCoyd, an executive director at the association. "What happens when 20 to 30 per cent of book readers use digital as the primary mode of reading books? Piracy's a big concern."

 

Adam Rothberg, vice-president for corporate communications at Simon & Schuster, said: "Everybody in the industry considers piracy a significant issue, but it's been difficult to quantify the magnitude of the problem. We know people post things, but we don't know how many people take them."

 

We do know that people have been helping themselves to digital music without paying. When the music industry was "Napsterised" by free file-sharing, it suffered a blow from which it hasn't recovered. Since music sales peaked in 1999, the value of the industry's inflation-adjusted sales in the United States, even including sales from Apple's highly successful iTunes Music Store, has dropped by more than half, according to the Recording Industry Association of America.

 

A report earlier this year by the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, based on multiple studies in 16 countries covering three years, estimated that 95 per cent of music downloads "are unauthorised, with no payment to artists and producers." Free file-sharing of e-books will most likely come to be associated with RapidShare, a file-hosting company based in Switzerland. It says its customers have uploaded onto its servers more than 10 petabytes of files — that's more than 10 million gigabytes — and can handle up to 3 million users simultaneously. Anyone can upload, and anyone can download; for light users, the service is free. RapidShare does not list the files — a user must know the impossible-to-guess URL in order to download one.

 

But anyone who wants to make a file widely available simply publishes the URL and a description somewhere online, like a blog or a discussion forum, and Google and other search engines notice. No passwords protect the files.

 

"As far as we can tell, RapidShare is the largest host site of pirated material," McCoyd said. "Some publishers are saying half of all infringements are linked to it."

 

When I asked Katharina Scheid, a spokeswoman for RapidShare, if the company had a general sense of what kinds of material were most often placed on its servers — music? videos? other kinds of content? — she said she could not say because "for us, everything is just a file, no matter what." At my request, Attributor, a company based in Redwood City, Calif., that offers publishers anti-piracy services, did a search last week to see how many e-book copies of ``The Lost Symbol" were available free on the Web. After verifying that each file claiming to be the book actually was, Attributor reported that 166 copies of the e-book were available on 11 sites. RapidShare accounted for 102.

 

Scheid said her company complied with publishers' take-down requests. But the request must refer to a particular file and use the specific URL; it's left to the publishers to find all instances of a given book title on RapidShare's servers. (I can report that RapidShare acted promptly in September when my publisher, Simon & Schuster, asked it to remove an audiobook version of one of my own books and provided the URL for the one file.) According to Scheid, the company gets requests to remove about 1 to 2 percent of the files that are uploaded daily.

 

To protect users' privacy, however, she said RapidShare does not attempt to block the uploading of infringing material in the first place: ``We don't do content filtering; we don't look into uploaded files." Once a file is removed, the company tries to keep perfectly identical files from being uploaded again, but she listed various ways that determined users can alter the files just enough to effectively circumvent these measures. (My book reappeared on RapidShare a few days after it was taken down.) Hotfile and Megaupload did not respond to requests for comment.

 

RapidShare and fellow online storage services say that their services help users share large files easily or store personal data without having to carry around a memory stick. On the FAQs page of its Web site, Megaupload depicts its customers as the most ordinary of citizens: ``Students, professional business people, moms, dads, doctors, plumbers, insurance salesmen, mortgage brokers, you name it."

 

Publishers and authors are about the only groups that go unmentioned. Scheid, of RapidShare, has advice for them if they are unhappy that her company's users are distributing e-books without paying the copyright holders: Learn from the band Nine Inch Nails. It marketed itself ``by giving away most of their content for free."

 

I will forward the suggestion along, as soon as authors can pack arenas full and pirated e-books can serve as concert fliers.

 

(Randall Stross is an author based in Silicon Valley and a professor of business at San Jose State University.)

 

 

© 2009 The New York Times News Service

 

***************************************

THE HINDU

NEWS ANALYSIS

WALRUSES SUFFER SUBSTANTIAL LOSSES AS SEA ICE ERODES

THERE IS SUFFICIENT SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE OF RISING STRESS ON THE MARINE MAMMALS FROM CLIMATE CHANGE.

ANDREW C. REVKIN

 

Half a century after Pacific walruses began recovering from industrial-scale hunting, marine biologists are growing worried that they face a mounting threat from global warming.

 

Masses of the lumbering Arctic denizens have been crowding on beaches and rocks along the Russian and American sides of the Bering Strait in the absence of the coastal sea ice that normally serves as a late-summer haven and nursery.

 

While the retreats in sea ice around the Arctic this summer were not as extensive as in 2008 or 2007, the Chukchi Sea, at the heart of the subspecies' range, was largely open water.

 

On Thursday, biologists from the U.S. Geological Survey issued a report concluding that 131 walruses found dead near Icy Cape, Alaska, on September 14 died from being crushed or stampeded. Several thousand walruses had been congregating in the area, a situation that scientists from the agency said was highly unusual.

 

In September, Russian scientists and the World Wildlife Fund had reported several thousand crushing deaths among tens of thousands of walruses crowding along the western shores of the Chukchi Sea.

 

The tusked marine mammals have endured more than 15 million years of climatic ups and downs, so walrus specialists do not foresee the species going extinct, particularly if hunting remains controlled. (Thousands are legally killed each year by indigenous communities in both countries.)

 

But there has been growing confirmation that the walrus is suffering substantial losses as the sheath of sea ice in coastal waters erodes in the summer.

 

The floes normally provide a floating nursery for pups while adults dive to root for clams and other food in the seabed in shallow coastal waters along the continental shelf. In September, the federal Fish and Wildlife Service, responding to a lawsuit by the Centre for Biological Diversity, an environmental group, concluded that there was sufficient scientific evidence of rising stress on the animals from climate change to consider granting the Pacific walrus protection under the Endangered Species Act.

 

That review is under way, and the service is taking public comment until November 9.

 

The polar bear, similarly dependent on sea ice, was listed as threatened under the species act last year.

 

"I think there is reason to be concerned," said Dr. Brendan P. Kelly, a marine biologist at the University of Alaska — Fairbanks, who has been studying walruses for several decades and is also a researcher at the National Marine Mammal Laboratory in Juneau.

 

Fatal stampedes among walruses have occurred in past years, he said, citing research he conducted on a similar event in 1978 and reports by hunters on islands in the Bering Sea more than a century ago. But the expansion of open waters along the coasts raises the odds and adds to other pressures on the animals, he said.

 

For the moment, the Pacific walrus remains abundant, numbering at least 200,000 by some accounts, double the number in the 1950s.

 

The Atlantic walrus, a subspecies in Canada, Norway, Russia and Greenland numbering about 22,000, never recovered from sustained slaughter.

 

Kelly said the long-term forecast of warming and less summer ice for the Arctic did not bode well for the Pacific walrus.

 

"The Pacific population did recover," he said. "But it is hard to imagine that it will not decline in the coming century."

 

 © 2009 The New York Times News Service

 

***************************************

 

******************************************************************************************

THE ASIAN AGE

EDITORIAL

A REALITY CHECK FOR RICH NATIONS

 

Money is not everything, and the weekend meeting in Istanbul of the Group of Seven richest nations in the world must have realised this. Almost all, with just one exception, are reeling under massive financial problems and clinging to stimulus packages — as the proverbial last straw — possibly in the realisation that if these were withdrawn their economies could go into a tailspin. The problem is that they are yet to resolve issues relating to the real economy. The communiqué at the end of the one-day deliberation on Saturday admits that "the prospects of growth remain fragile and labour market conditions are not yet improving." But the solutions they talk about don't appear relevant to real problems, they only deal with the symptoms. The G-7 talks of strengthening the financial system by building on high-quality capital; implementing strong international compensation standards; improving over-the-counter derivative markets; develop a new framework for sustainable and balanced growth; reform and review the resources, mandate and governance of international financial institutions, etc. It is all so much déjà vu, and does not take issues forward.

 

The G-7 communiqué notes that "excess volatility and disorderly movements" in exchange rates have adverse implications for economic and financial stability — which is an euphemism for asking China to release controls on its currency — the renminbi — to ensure more balanced growth, in China and elsewhere. But China, always fiercely nationalist, has made it clear time and again it will work at its own pace and to suit its own requirements, and it is powerful enough to ensure that its writ prevails. Beijing has been signing yuan-based agreements with other nations, skirting the dollar, in line with its view that the dollar should not remain the world's only reserve currency. The real problem with the Anglo-Saxon and European economies is that they have priced themselves out of the markets, and are forced to provide huge subsidies to maintain exports. Their markets are flooded today with goods from developing economies which the poorer countries produce at the cost of exploiting their own citizens. Wages are low and workers labour in sweatshops across China, India and much of Southeast Asia because the West, over the years, leveraged its strength to beat down Asian markets and prices. Now the fortunes are reversed because the West has outpriced itself, and no longer enjoys leverage. That is why the World Trade Organisation is so vital for them: with a world trade deal they hope to be able to flood the markets of the developing world with their products. That scary proposition is the main hurdle that is tripping the Doha Round of world trade talks.

 

The only real success of the G-7 has been to maintain the illusion of its relevance. It succeeded in pushing under the carpet any talk of restructuring the G-7 into a G-4 as suggested by the United States (to comprise the US, EU, Japan and China). From indications given by the Japanese and German finance ministers, the G-4 wasn't discussed at all, allowing the G-7 to survive to fight another day. The International Monetary Fund, at its parallel meeting in Istanbul, perhaps wrote the G-7's epitaph: it said "the G-20 nations would become the world's main economic decision-making forum, effectively taking over the role of the G-7 group of rich countries", as it (G-20) represented both the rich and the large emerging countries.

 

***************************************

THE ASIAN AGE

OPED

EMERGING STATES CALL FOR IMF VOTE REFORM

BY PARANJOY GUHA THAKURTA

 

After the late-September Pittsburg summit meeting of leaders of the Group of 20 (G-20) countries, most analysts have happily concluded that the G-20 would henceforth replace the Group of Eight (G-8) club of developed countries as the new international economic coordinating forum. Happily, because the G-20 is supposed to be a formation that is more representative than the G-8 of the current changed global economic power balances, thereby recognising the importance of emerging market and developing economies such as Brazil, Russia, India and China (Bric). But this is only one side of the story.

 

What has received relatively less attention is that even as the G-20 has reposed greater faith in a multilateral body like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to help some of its member countries that are facing acute financial distress, the IMF itself is unlikely to drastically change in a hurry. The Bric countries wanted a seven per cent shift in IMF quotas to emerging market and developing countries to "correspond roughly to their share in world GDP (gross domestic product)" but what was eventually agreed on at Pittsburg was only a five per cent shift in quotas — a decision that India's Prime Minister Manmohan Singh conceded was "obviously a compromise".

 

Over the years, many developing countries have been rather unhappy with what the IMF euphemistically calls economic "reforms". Until not very long ago, financial assistance from the IMF would be linked to stringent conditions that entailed a lowering of import barriers and the initiation of "neo-liberal" market-friendly measures that often wreaked havoc with the economies of poor countries and their ability to implement welfare schemes.

 

There were no such conditions for developed countries when they would come to the Fund to borrow and this was simply because such countries were entitled to larger loans commensurate with their bigger quotas or voting rights held by them. In recent years, while becoming more "flexible" in imposing conditions on developing countries that have received loans, the IMF has agreed to review its quotas or voting shares two years ahead of its original schedule of January 2013, that is, by January 2011.

 

At the April 2 London summit of the G-20, world leaders agreed to treble IMF's resources to US $750 billion ostensibly to help growth in developing countries. On September 5, the finance ministers of the Bric countries jointly stated: "For the IMF and the World Bank group, the main governance problem, which severely undermines their legitimacy, is the unfair distribution of quotas, shares and voting power…"

 

On April 28, 2008, the IMF had approved an increase in the voting rights of all developing countries put together from 31.17 per cent to 34.49 per cent, much of it by increasing the voting rights of emerging economies from 23.88 per cent to 25.64 per cent. Consequently, the share of the affluent countries in the aggregate voting rights of the IMF came down from 60.57 per cent to 57.93 per cent. It was a baby step forward for an institution that has staunchly resisted change.

 

Earlier, in September 2006, the Fund had approved an "ad hoc" increase in the voting shares of four countries: China, South Korea, Mexico and Turkey. At that time, the finance ministers of four other countries, India, Brazil, Argentina and Egypt had issued a statement opposing the move that, in part, read: "We reiterate that we support the increase in quota for… (China, South Korea, Mexico and Turkey) who are the present beneficiaries of the ad hoc increase. However, the present quota calculation formula is opaque and flawed… a disturbing picture that emerges is that some developing countries will be given increases by reducing the shares of some other equally deserving countries…"

 

For decades, critics of the IMF have pointed out the gross inequity in the manner in this organisation works. Out of its 186 members, seven countries have dominated its decision-making process — these are the US, Japan, Germany, the UK, France, Canada and Italy. A major decision by the IMF requires 85 per cent voting support. This implies that one country, the US, has veto power since it has a little under 17 per cent voting power on the basis of its quota.

 

The total vote share of the 80 poorest members of the IMF is barely 10 per cent while five rich countries — the US, the UK, Germany, France and Japan — together control around 39 per cent of the total vote and have permanent seats on the Fund's governing board. The increase in the combined voting quotas of China, South Korea, Mexico and Turkey by a niggardly 1.8 per cent in 2006 had been preceded by two years of intense negotiations.

 

After the IMF quotas are revised on or before January 2011, the biggest gainer is likely to be China followed by India and Brazil while the biggest loser would be France. Against China's present quota of 3.7 per cent, Saudi Arabia has a 3.2 per cent quota with an economy one-eighth the size of China's. With an economy one-and-half times smaller than that of China, France has a quota of 3.7 per cent. Importantly, even after the quota revision takes place, the US quota is not expected to change and America will continue to exercise veto power over major decisions of the Fund. This is indeed ironical since the ongoing international economic crisis originated in the US and other countries are suffering for no fault of theirs.

 

After the Pittsburg summit, the IMF managing director Dominique Strauss-Kahn claimed the five per cent quota increase proposal was a "decisive move" and a "historic" one.

 

The G-20 communique said the IMF's "staff diversity should be enhanced" and that top officials of the Fund "should be appointed through an open, transparent and merit-based process". The managing director of the Fund has always been from a European country (just as the World Bank has invariably been headed by an American) because of an internal understanding among developed countries. So after a gap of six-and-half decades, are we going to see a non-European as the head of the IMF? Keep your fingers crossed!

 

Paranjoy Guha Thakurta is an educator and commentator

 

***************************************

 

 

THE ASIAN AGE

PRAYERS ALWAYS HELP

YUGA BHARATHI

 

My relationship with God is highly secretive like a well-guarded love affair. It is a feeling within and cannot be advertised and needs to be preserved. There is no logic to it; there is so much love for Him which cannot be measured by any yardstick.

 

My relationship with the Almighty is marked by a very firm inner belief. The belief that my prayers will be answered. My belief is strong and there is no room for any doubts.

 

There have been moments which made me realise the existence of the creator of this universe. I learnt it from the atmosphere. My cultural surroundings taught me about Siddhars, Sufis and saint-poets who have always been closer to the Supreme Entity.

 

Sufism is generally understood to be the inner, mystical dimension of Islam. A practitioner of this tradition is generally known as a sufi, though some adherents of the tradition reserve this term only for those practitioners who have attained the goals of the Sufi tradition.

 

I follow the teachings of Sufi-saint Shahul Hameed of Nagoor Dargah. The dargah is an object of great veneration not only for Muslims but also for other communities. On every Thursday large congregation of worshippers of all communities visit the dargah and make offerings to the saint.

 

It is the prayers of everyone that keeps us going and helps us achieve what we dream of. I believe in God's grace and feel blessed when I am recognised by many people in a crowd.

 

When I close my eyes and meditate, it is from the sounds of nature that I feel the presence of the God of the Universe. From being aware within, I become one with the elements and can feel the Almighty.

 

(As told to Peer Mohamed)

 

Yuga Bharathi is a Tamil film lyricist

 

***************************************

THE ASIAN AGE

DEVELOPMENT CAN HELP CURTAIL NAXALS' GROWTH

BY ARJUN SENGUPTA

 

In my last column Naxal violence is a cry to be heard (September 21), I wrote about Naxal violence, supporting the Prime Minister's concern about leftist extremism threatening India's security. While such violence needs to be suppressed, I pleaded that Naxals should also be hurt. I received comments on the article, calling for wider discussion especially when it is decided to combat this violence by expanded police operations, supported even by the Army and the Air Force, so that irreversible mistakes are not committed.

 

There is no question that when the Naxal movement turns violent and Naxalites take law into their hands through extortions, murder and senseless violence, action must be taken against them. There is no room for such violence in our democratic society. Whatever opinion one may have about the philosophy of the movement, no one can support the methods of violence and coercion that Naxalites use.

 

There can, however, be questions about the most effective manner of suppressing Naxalite violence. It is by now very well documented that such leftist extremism can survive not by acquiring great firepower but by establishing a hinterland of support in the countryside and in the fields of operations.

 

Essentially these groups are small minorities and their classical method is to hit the establishment at its weak points — and practise the policy of hit-and-run — to provoke unplanned retaliation from the authorities resulting in huge loss of life and property. The strength of the police force is mostly in numbers and its superiority of firepower can hardly differentiate between those actually guilty and those who just got trapped in a situation.

 

As a result, retaliation on the part of the police makes them more unpopular with the people and thereby serves the purpose of the militants. The violence continues. Clearly, the police needs to change its way of tackling Naxal violence with the best equipment and support mechanism. But more important is that they need support of the local population giving them information and disseminating messages. It is only then that the police can pinpoint the targets and avoid massive onslaught to apprehend one or two real culprits. But this is not easy. This cannot be done by hired people or spies who would soon expose themselves.

 

In other words, it is the administration and the democratic functionaries in the local areas, members of the gram sabhas and panchayats together with the civil organisations that should be brought into the system for protecting peace and security.

 

Surely no respectable person will join this effort unless it is clearly seen as working for the affected people and not working as a group of vigilantes. It has to be essentially a political answer to a political problem to win over the population which is affected and exploited by the militants. Also this should not be used by political groups and parties to settle their score — a problem that has been dissipating anti-militant actions, particularly in West Bengal. The administration must remain impartial and act against any group and any party perpetrating violence. Such administrative action cannot be a success unless accompanied by well-thought-out programmes for development of the Naxal-affected areas.

 

Some of the programmes are being carried out effectively in many parts of the country. Be it construction of school buildings, setting up of public health centres, intensive child care activities or sanitation programmes, we now have enough experience of carrying them quickly and effectively. Many of these programmes should be seen as additional to the schemes already approved at the district and at the panchayat level. But the most important part is that people must believe that these programmes will and can be implemented if law and order prevails and Naxalite violence is curbed.

 

In the design and the execution of these programmes, the administration must invoke active participation of the local population, with the support of NGOs and other activists and the involvement of panchayati raj institutions. It is true that in many of these Naxalite-affected areas the panchayats have been locally dominated by vested interests who are generally opposed to a radical change affecting those who are poor and vulnerable. But it will be unwise to keep the panchayat system outside this programme, because ultimately they will have to be brought within the grassroots political system.

 

Once the administration succeeds in initiating these programmes, the hold of the Naxal groups in the local areas will be diluted. With little force and efforts, their violent activities can be effectively controlled.

 

There will be some differences about the choice of these programmes. It has been noted that in several Naxal-affected areas, building of roads and communications as well as forest development projects have been steadfastly opposed by local people.

 

Such opposition is temporary. Once people witness that development (construction of roads and communication) would increase trade and prosperity, this opposition will melt away.

 

But all these decisions have to be taken through discussions and consensus-building operations. NGOs and social activists may often play a very major role in this process and the administration must be prepared to provide them all the support and assistance.

 

There is one single area of the problems of development in this country which have been the most fertile ground of breeding Naxalism, namely the system of land acquisition and ousting of the tribals and the local population from their natural habitat.

 

Our government is aware of this. The enactment of the Forest Rights Act 2006 and the announcement of a new rehabilitation policy on October 11, 2007 is proof of this.

 

Recently, the government approved a special development package with a budget of Rs 20,000 crores for the 33 Naxal-affected districts along with 22 districts around Naxal-affected areas.

 

The development projects need to be implemented systematically involving the participation of the affected people.

 

The time has now come for us to realise that development in our country requires a change in our approach to planning and development of the local area. Dealing with the Naxal-affected areas can teach us an effective lesson.

 

The country is prepared to spend sufficient resources for the purpose of national security and overcoming Naxalite problem. Hopefully the lesson that is learnt will be then spread to all other areas of our economy.

 

Dr Arjun Sengupta is a Member of Parliament and former Economic Adviser to Prime Minister Indira Gandhi

 

***************************************

 

******************************************************************************************

THE TRIBUNE

EDITORIAL

CRYOGENIC CLUB

INDIA'S RARE ACHIEVEMENT IN ROCKET TECHNOLOGY

 

It is a matter of pride for all Indians that the country today is in a position to build its own Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs), needed by the armed forces to meet any serious threat to India's security. This has been made possible after successfully developing the country's first cryogenic engine, which is ready to be used in the Geosynchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle (GSLV) that will put the GSAT-4 experimental communications satellite in orbit sometime in December this year. India is the sixth country in the world after the US, Russia, the European Space Agency, China and Japan to have acquired indigenous cryogenic engine building capability. The cryogenic stage "is a very complex system", which will give a big push to India's space research programme. A cryogenic engine uses liquid hydrogen at minus 260 degrees Celsius and liquid oxygen at minus 183 degrees Celsius. As Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) scientists have explained, those engaged in the task have to acquire great expertise in storing and pumping liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen.

 

It all began with India reaching an agreement with Russia in 1992 for the supply of cryogenic engines and technology for the ISRO's GSLV programme. Moscow, however, reneged on its commitment following pressure from the US, which said that Russia could not go ahead with the transfer of this sensitive technology to India because of being a signatory to the Missile Technology Control Regime. The ISRO took it as a challenge and the happy result is before all of us to see. The ISRO Cryogenic Upper Stage Project, launched in 1994, helped India join the world's elite club with indigenous cryogenic technology with the first "full test firing" in 2002.

 

The brief test for reaching the full-fledged cryogenic stage in the rocket system development at the Liquid Propulsion Systems Centre at Mahendragiri in Tirunelveli district in Tamil Nadu was conducted in October 2006. Now the much-awaited cryogenic engine is ready to be used for different purposes. The US forcing Russia to deny India this crucial technology has proved to be a blessing in disguise. The ISRO scientists must be adequately rewarded for their remarkable achievement.

 

 

***************************************

THE TRIBUNE

EDITORIAL

HITTING MAOISTS

LETTING IAF LOOSE HAS BOTH PROS AND CONS

 

The Indian Air Force has never used firepower against militants in Jammu & Kashmir or insurgents in the North-East. Its request, therefore, for permission to open fire against the Maoists is a grim reminder of the growing strength of the rebels and the seriousness of the crisis. The request made by the IAF to the Ministry of Defence, confirmed by Air Chief Marshal P.V. Naik, is evidently related to the impending offensive against the outlaws. Two IAF choppers came under attack in Chhattisgarh and Maharashtra in November last year and in April this year, respectively, killing a Sergeant in the process and damaging the helicopters. The IAF, deployed usually for transporting troops and machinery, in search and rescue operations and as air-ambulance, clearly expects to play a far more active role in the offensive, which explains why the permission to fire back at the Maoists has been sought at this juncture.

 

The Maoists, who killed 16 people in Bihar, including five children, last Thursday night, have become a menace and need to be dealt with firmly. Maoist terror is unacceptable and the rebels must be defeated. But Air Chief Marshal Naik has rightly struck a note of caution and pointed out the very real possibility of collateral damage if the IAF uses its firepower even in self-defence. Killing innocent people on the ground will not only be unfortunate and counter-productive, it would also strengthen the rebels by spreading discontent among the people. It is a difficult choice because the rebels are almost certain to provoke the IAF and take their chances. Still, the permission cannot be granted lightly and one expects the IAF to use its firepower under the gravest of provocations.

 

Pilotless spy planes have already been in use to guide and direct ground troops during counter-insurgency operations as also in operations against the Maoists. But Air Marshal Naik ruled out the possibility of arming them for firing on the ground, like the Predator drones used by the US against suspected Taliban militants. The IAF chief held out a warning though that Unmanned Aerial Vehicles ( UAVs) can be fitted with sensors to look through the foliage in forests. Public pronouncements in detail may have been a part of psychological warfare and designed to demoralise the enemy. One only hopes it will not rob the offensive of the suspense and the surprise element required for success in such operations.

***************************************

THE TRIBUNE

EDITORIAL

IIT STANDOFF

INSTITUTIONS OF EXCELLENCE MUST BE HANDLED WITH CARE

 

Union HRD Minister Kapil Sibal appears to have jumped the gun when he claimed on Friday that "all's well with the government and the IITs". The meeting with a delegation of the IIT Faculty Federation, the minister said, had helped in clearing the air. He had also underlined that the guidelines on recruitment and the salary structure issued by his ministry for the IITs were normative and that the IITs were free to deviate from them in exceptional cases. While representatives of the IIT teachers had also put on record their satisfaction over the minister's clarification, the misgivings expressed by them the very next day are ominous. The federation on Saturday sought the Prime Minister's intervention and an undertaking in writing, indicating its lack of trust in the minister's ability to honour his word. The federation also sought more funds to be placed at the disposal of the HRD Ministry, responding to the HRD Minister's statement that his budget is not enough for the needs of a knowledge society and to disburse "world class salaries".

 

The IITs have been known for their high degree of excellence and are one of the very few Indian brands recognised internationally. The HRD Ministry has been accused of ignoring the growing needs of the IITs and their demands related to the upgradation of infrastructure as well as recruitment and retention of quality faculty. While the older IITs faced a debilitating funds and faculty crunch, the crisis was further accentuated by the setting up of several new IITs in different parts of the country. The ministry's notification on the salary structure in Centrally funded technical institutes, issued first in August and revised twice since then, raised the hackles of the IIT faculty, which is clearly upset at the ministry's patronising attitude to them.

 

The continuing standoff is detrimental to the interests of the nation and must be resolved at once. The IIT Council, which is scheduled to meet later this month, will hopefully be able to pull down the curtains on this sad chapter. If only the HRD Ministry had initiated the dialogue before issuing the contentious notifications, the spectacle of IIT teachers agitating and observing fast, etc, could have been avoided. That the ministry has had to issue the same notification thrice, with minor modifications, is proof enough that there was not sufficient application of the mind. If the IIT boards are indeed autonomous, as the minister has repeatedly claimed, then babus in the HRD Ministry should not be allowed to call the shots.

 

***************************************

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE TRIBUNE

COLUMN

INDIA IN TURMOIL

WE HAVE ONLY OURSELVES TO BLAME

BY AMAR CHANDEL

 

When V S Naipaul wrote "India, a Million Mutinies Now" in 1990, it led to a howl of protest over the "exaggeration". Well, the number he had mentioned may have appeared padded up, but is not too far from reality today.

 

With violent fires burning in Jammu and Kashmir and the Northeast and 40 per cent of the country's geographical area and over 30 per cent of its population in the grip of Left-wing terrorism, India can indeed be called a country in turmoil, as Mr Ved Prakash Marwah, former Governor of Manipur, Mizoram and Jharkhand, has done in his book.*

 

He has presented a ring-side view of these bushfires, besides explaining their genesis and the reasons that led to the deterioration in the situation. Normally, whenever there is trouble in a border state, the standard government response is that it is due to meddling by inimical foreign powers.

 

Mr Marwah differs and holds that Pakistan or any other unfriendly nation could not have succeeded in their nefarious designs if we had put our own house in order. He elaborates in graphic detail how narrow politics and avoidable administrative failures have contributed to the escalation and complexity of the many security problems.

 

It is an insider's account, considering that before being appointed Governor, Mr Marwah, an IPS Officer, held assignments in different states, including Commissioner of Police, Delhi; Director-General of the National Security Guard; and Adviser to the Governors in Jammu & Kashmir and Bihar.

 

He blames the political class for many avoidable blunders. The negative role of inexperienced and not very competent police and administrative leadership also comes in for caustic comments.

 

Mr Marwah laments that while more than half the country is in turmoil, the government is in a self-congratulatory mood. He alleges that many of violent conflicts enjoy the tacit, if not open, support of the ruling parties.

 

He is most concerned about Left extremism. After all, the states affected by it are more than four times in area and eight times in terms of population than Jammu and Kashmir, the Northeast and Punjab put together.

 

Yet, the government was not even acknowledging till recently that things are so bad. Shrewd bureaucrats played around with data to hide the fact that more than one-third of the country had been affected by Left-wing violence. Instead of looking at the data district-wise, they cleverly reorganised it police station-wise.

 

Despite that, peace initiatives have been short-sighted and vacillation and ad hocism have been the hallmark of the government's counter-terrorism policies. The state police has been generally ill equipped, ill trained and poorly led.

In his view the spread of the extremist ideology is primarily a consequence of bad governance and ruthless exploitation of the poor and the marginalised.

 

He cites Punjab's fight against terrorism as one success story but mentions that things would not have come to such a pass if the government had not treated it as a law and order problem initially.

 

Mr Marwah was the first officer to enquire into the 1984 riots. All the available oral and documentary evidence did not show the Delhi Police in very good light. The Delhi Police officers, whose role was suspect, first filed a petition in the Delhi High Court to stall the enquiry. When that did not work, they used their political clout to "derail my enquiry when it was drawing to a close".

 

While the guilty officers have so far not been punished even after 25 years, Mr Marwah reveals that "they have succeeded in causing me unending harassment". They have been filing one case after another against him on flimsy grounds. "I have been summoned time and again by one court or the other. I received a court summon even when I was serving as Governor of Manipur".

 

His constant argument is that terrorism could not have raised its ugly head but for New Delhi's short-sighted policies.

 

Another grouse of his is that sitting in Delhi, it is easy to blame police officers functioning in a harsh and hostile environment of using excessive force. The sacrifice of police and armed forces personnel does not find a place in national consciousness. Separatists exploit this weakness to the hilt.

 

More than his reiteration of the history of extremism and the remedies that should be applied, it is his personal experiences which make the book a remarkable work.

 

Talking of rampant corruption, he recounts that a serving Chief Minister in Jharkhand floated a company in his wife's name, which managed to get contracts worth crores of rupees from a large corporate house having a major interest in his state.

 

As the Governor of Jharkhand, he could not communicate with officers in charge on the phone or wireless, because the communication system at most police stations was obsolete.

 

Mr Marwah recalls that many of the policemen in the Northeast do the bidding of the insurgents rather than that of the government. He found during President's rule in 2001 in Manipur that in not a single case in the last 10 years had the police filed a charge-sheet against the arrested insurgents.

 

He also witnessed the spectacle of the Samata Party coming to power when it did not have even a single elected member in the Manipur assembly. Another amusing story he narrates is of an eminent political leader who changed his affiliation thrice in 24 hours to come to power.

 

How seriously New Delhi takes the Northeast can be gauged from the fact that during his tenure as a governor of two Northeastern states, on more than one occasion, he was referred to as the Governor of Nagaland by one of the high-ups. When he tried to inform him that he was the Governor of Manipur and Mizoram and not Nagaland, his immediate remark was: They are all the same any way, what difference does it make?

Poverty in the Northeastern region, he opines, is more due to the misappropriation of funds by corrupt politicians and civil servants and less due to the paucity of funds. The collusive arrangement between different militant factions and the various political parties and civil servants are more the norm than the exception.

 

For all practical purposes, these financially non-viable states are more like UTs. In spite of huge grants, these states cannot even regularly pay the salaries to their employees. Even the governor's salary is delayed for months, Mr Marwah reveals.

 

All that makes dark, depressing reading. But, as they say, facts are stranger than fiction.

 

* India in Turmoil: Jammu and Kashmir, the Northeast and Left Extremism, by Ved Marwah, Pp 352; Rs 395, Rupa and Co.

 

***************************************

THE TRIBUNE

COLUMN

AN ADMIRED TEACHER

BY EHSAN FAZILI

 

Prof Meenakshi Mukherjee, who died in Hyderabad on September 16, was one of the very few teachers admired by students and colleagues. She had her admirers and well-wishers abroad, too, as she had been a visiting professor at Chicago, California and Texas. Her death came between India's national Teachers' Day on September 5 and World Teachers' Day on October 5. The aim of World Teachers' Day, being observed since 1994, is to mobilise support for the teachers and to ensure that the needs of future generations will continue to be met by teachers.

 

As a student, I had the opportunity to listen to one of Prof Meenakshi Mukherjee's extension lectures at the Post-Graduate Department of English, University of Kashmir, in the summer of 1982. She impressed the teachers and the students during her polite discourse on Indian writing in English. After the lectures were over in one of the two classrooms of the Faculty of Arts, she would be looking at the enchanting scene outside. The lush green sprawling lawns in front of the faculty building, separated by the waters of the Dal Lake from the foothills of Zabarwan, have been giving solace to the onlookers' eyes, nature lovers and men of letters.

 

Four years after that first opportunity, I happened to be one among over 15 students she taught at the School of Languages of Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), New Delhi. Though I was there for less than a year, the greater and closer interaction could not be possible. However, all the students and my classmates then maintained an equal and respectable equation, as every word she spoke had an indelible mark on our minds. Each student (of MA, Linguistics) had compulsorily to submit an assignment in each paper and have a one-on-one discussion with the teacher concerned. Thus, while submitting my detailed assignment, I got an opportunity to individually get her observations and comments on areas which I had failed to cover. I got valuable pieces of guidance.

 

She could easily find out where I had tried to be smart. But her comments, instead of discouraging me, helped me develop a keener and more honest way of working. It was an honour to have an individual interaction with the great teacher, who could more easily also find out from my write-up that I had already post-graduated from the University of Kashmir. That relationship created in me a greater sense of responsibility. Aptly, World Teachers' Day aims at ensuring that the "needs of future generations will continue to be met by teachers".

 

***************************************

THE TRIBUNE

OPED

THE TIGER CRISIS AND REMEDIAL MEASURES

"ONCE ALL THE BEASTS ARE GONE, MAN WILL SURELY DIE FROM THE LONELINESS OF THE SPIRIT."

BY LT GEN (RETD) BALJIT SINGH

 

That was the concluding sentence of a lengthy, very well argued letter to the US President Franklin Pierce in the 1850s, when the Red Indian Chief Seattle realised how close the "White Man" was to destroying American Wildlife heritage through excessive hunting and associated commerce.

 

Today, we Indians are faced with the same stark reality. For if the tiger, the master-predator, becomes extinct, the majority of India's animal world in the wild will perish because (a) their numbers will explode beyond the carrying-capacity of our national parks and allied forests, (b) large-scale deaths will follow from epidemics and starvation and (c) the survivors will en-mass descend upon agricultural crops where farmers will understandably impose the ultimate coup-de-grace.

 

In essence, we are close to witnessing the horrors arising from the dismantling of the natural prey-predator food chain, triggered by filthy lucre.

 

One of our most knowledgeable tiger-biologists, Valmik Thapar, had made valiant efforts in the 1980s to sensitise the Ministry of Forests and Environment on the magnitude of tiger-poaching in India. Unfortunately, the State chose to deny rather than listen and act. The Secretary MOEF told him emphatically that just ONE tiger had been poached in the whole of that year and that Valmik Thapar must desist pro-offering unasked for advice.

 

Now some 15 years later, the government admits to the country-wide tiger count at a mere 1,145 and that 50 to 70 tigers died to-date in 2009 alone. Even more worrisome is the government's attempt at naive damage-control by assigning, among other factors, 20 to 35 deaths due to old age and a few even due to drowning in the rivers.

 

Let us remember that after the tiger's birth about 1.2 million years ago, its southward journey on the Asian mainland ended with the arc, Kanyakumari, Java and Bali islands. The Sunda trench, which separates Java and Bali islands, is one among the deepest in the ocean. Yet, the tiger swam across to inhabit and thrive on Bali island till poached to extinction in the 1930s. So, please let us not lie about tigers dying due to drowning in the Indian rivers. They are poached for money. Period.

 

Of course, tigers must perish of old age too in the natural way. But how many and over how long? A tiger's average life span is 12 to 15 years. There is little plausibility of 35 old-age deaths in nine months out of 1, 145 tigers of varying age-mix. Perhaps the Prime Minister's scientific advisor could organise a computer-simulated model-check to arrive at the truth.

 

The common man cares not whether the tiger survives or perishes. But nor does the common man care for the global warming phenomena or for the diminishing green gene-pool and bio-diversity, as the principle tools for human survival. No, these are those vitals of survival strategies of homo sapiene race at large which the elected governments are mandated to deliver upon.

 

One person who had foreseen this apathy of the common man and therefore of the politicians in India towards our wildlife has been summed up in the personal Journal of Field Marshal Lord Wavell, the Viceroy of India in an entry for December, 1946: "His (Jim Corbett) talk on tigers and jungle life is of extraordinary interest and wish I could have had more of it. He has rather pessimistic views on the future of tigers ... and that in many parts of India tigers will become extinct in the next 10 to 15 years; his chief reason is that Indian politicians are no sportsmen and tigers have no votes, while the right to gun licence will go with a vote." What a damning but true crystal gazing of our society.

 

Having said all that do I have a "doable" plan for the tiger's assured survival? Yes I have, though politically draconian, but it alone will save the tiger and is as follows:

 

Place the existing National Tiger Conservation Authority directly under the PMO. Place all the tiger reserves and contiguous sanctuaries and protected/notified forests in the country under it for a period of ten years, together with all their current administrative assets and liabilities. Offset the loss of revenue to the states arising from this ordinance for the period of its operation, through special budgetary allocations.

 

Hold an annual tiger revival audit by an independent body of three to five experts from within and outside the country. Induct 30 per cent new members to the audit team each year and retire an equal number from the previous team.

 

The Prime Minister must take the annual audit findings as mandatory fresh in-puts for implementation and for keeping Parliament informed.

 

Place a moratoriam on denotifications and or alteration of boundaries of existing national parks, tiger reserves, sanctuaries and notified forests both by Parliament and by state legislatures through the same ordinance.

 

Provide legal safe-guards/immunity in the event of encounter-deaths of poachers at the hand of forest staff inside the declared boundaries. This is what broke the back of the ivory poaching syndicates in Kenya in the 1960/70s.

 

Assuming that there are about 300 tigresses in the cub-productive age (among the 1,145 surviving tigers) and allowing for the average survival of one cub per litter to adulthood and also factoring-in 20 old-age deaths each year, there is every chance our tiger population will reach the 2,000 to 2,500 mark ten years hence. Most tiger-biologists would agree that in fact 2,500 to 3,500 tigers is the optimum figure to look for given the size of our protected areas network and the tiger prey-base availability.

 

Emperor Ashoka had chosen the Asiatic Lion as the symbol of Indian nationhood. Twenty-two centuries later, we the Democratic Republic of India placed the Royal Bengal tiger on a similar pedestal. Let us arise and save them both.

 

Jane Goodall was asked by an interviewer in September, 2009, whether she believed there was "Hope for Animals and Their World" to which she responded:

 

"At one time (1980s) there were just 12 Californian Condors in the wild and one in captivity. Now there are 300. This bird would have gone but for a small group of people who would not give up. As long as we have people like that, there's hope for the future".

 

Would Minister Jairam Ramesh consider without prejudice the remedial strategy, please?

 

***************************************

THE TRIBUNE

OPED

MOBILE PHONES VS HUMAN CONTACT

BY CAROLA LONG

 

"iPHONES are killing the conversation on the front row," asserted one fashion editor after the recent Milan shows. And guess what? Her comment loud, to me, in conversation. Anyone remember that? The people-watching afforded by the front row is as fertile as conversation fodder comes, but this season the idle but fascinating chat that used to be struck up between two people who didn't know each other, thrown together on a tiny bench packed tighter than Anna Wintour's suitcase for Paris Fashion Week, had dwindled. Old friends still chatted but that casual conversation between strangers had all but vanished. Instead of gossiping to their neighbour that, say, someone in the crowd's outfit cost more than a family car, many of the audience were furiously tapping away on their iPhones.

 

Some were tweeting; some may have been answering genuinely pressing emails; some may have been playing with that bubble wrap-popping app but others were using their phones as instruments of isolation that say "don't even think about talking to me" better than the sourest of pouts.

 

When the lights went down at the Dolce & Gabbana show there should have been a thrilling moment of silence and darkness before the catwalk bursts into light and sound. Instead, glowing in the gloom, like the lighters held aloft at a concert, were the bright screens of several hundred phones.

 

I appreciate that iPhones are useful and, for many work situations, essential. I am even considering confronting my chronic Luddite tendencies by being one of the last people on earth to join Facebook and Twitter, although I quite enjoy the instant camaraderie of meeting someone else in this beleaguered band. I get that the iPhone represents progress. However, just as President Sarkozy suggested that a country's prosperity shouldn't just be measured in GDP, but also in a joie de vivre index, it doesn't matter how many useful apps you can download, or how quick and wide reaching your internet connection is, if this little ergonomic tyrant is running your life and ruining your personal relationships.

 

To paraphrase Princess Diana — there are three of us in my relationship: me, my boyfriend, and the new love of his life with curves to die for, the iPhone. It sits next to us on the sofa, the restaurant table, beside the bed, on the beach. Maybe he doesn't really like me, or it's a dog substitute. Either way, it's there flashing constantly like some sort of needy spaceship, fuelling his addiction.

 

The advent of the BlackBerry meant that people's jobs spilled over into their personal lives, but now the fun factor of the iPhone means that many more are now leading double lives, real and virtual. Whatever happened to living in the moment? On a recent visit to Edinburgh, my boyfriend and I were trying to find our way to the hotel, but instead of meandering through the streets discovering the city's unexpected treasures we had to consult some hi-tech map device, then proceed 500m forward, 300 to the left, etc.

 

Then there was finding a restaurant. Forget spontaneity: the local eateries for miles around were duly Googled and assessed in the street. Perhaps we missed some kind of virtual tasting app that we could have downloaded to experience our future meal for us. While we were staying in Edinburgh I sent my friend a real, live postcard.

How retro, given that there is actually an iPhone postcard app. What was less retro was the feeling several hours later that I should have had a reply. We've all become so used to instant messaging that the idea of sending a postcard and not getting an instant reaction was frustrating.

 

These appealing, addictive devices inveigle their way into your consciousness and distort your perception of time and distance. They make people impatient, and rob experiences of their spontaneity. They are anti-joie de vivre. The thing is, I really want one, and that's the saddest bit.

 

By arrangement with The Independent

 

***************************************

THE TRIBUNE

CHATTERATI

CHIDAMBARAM'S FAMILY PLANNING INITIATIVE

BY DEVI CHERIAN

 

With an over-efficient Home Minister, even minor changes in offices say a lot. P. Chidambaram has proved to be number one in the Union Cabinet today. He has delivered, been open and is a workaholic. Thank God, he makes sure his officials are as efficient as he is.

 

As if biometric attendance systems were not enough to amuse and maybe annoy Home Ministry officials at North Block, two condom vending machines installed in the washrooms left many of them amused.

 

The initiative is a part of a safe-sex awareness drive for North Block staff, who can buy two Josh condoms of Rs 5. Some curious Home Ministry officials were seen studying the instructions for using the machines minutely. Family planning, they were heard joking, no longer starts from home, but from the Home Ministry office. Great job!

 

POLITICAL PLAYERS

After belting his opponents in the political arena, Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi has padded up for a new innings. Right after his victory in by-elections, ending the Congress' 16-year domination of the Gujarat Cricket Association, Modi is now in the company of NCP supremo Sharad Pawar who is ICC chairman-designate, while Arun Jaitely is the president of the Delhi and District Cricket Association.

 

Congress Rajya Sabha member Rajiv Shukla is the vice-president of the BCCI, while Union Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises Minister Vilasrao Deshmukh was only recently elected vice-president of the Maharashtra Cricket Association. Another political heavyweight, Union Non-Conventional Energy Minister Farooq Abdullah heads the Jammu and Kashmir Cricket Association. RJD chief and former Union Minister Lalu Prasad too turned into cricket buff, but his efforts to control the Bihar Cricket Association have ended in a legal tangle.

 

Cricket and politicians are not new. Former Union Ministers Madhavrao Scindia and N.K.P. Salve too took to cricket administration, and have headed the BCCI during their heydays. So, it's not surprising that Modi was tempted to head the cricketing body. The ground work had been going on for over a year. As usual, all minute details were studied well. GCA had till now be controlled by the Narhari Amin group. Modi's man Amit Shah has been engaged in a tussle with the Amin group for the last one-and-a-half years for controlling the affairs of the cash-rich cricket body.

 

Modi says he will soon come out with a blueprint on how to develop the game in the state. He wants to give it a professional touch by harnessing technology and how to develop the game through an integrated approach. The popularity of the game of cricket can be used to attract the youth to other sporting activity as well is Modi's logic.

 

So, now Modi obviously will be headed soon to becoming the BCCI chief. He surely is not going to rest till then.

 

HEIGHT OF PUNISHMENT

Gujaratis are really an original lot. A village in Gujarat has taken lead in effectively implementing liquor prohibition laws. Kanesara village of Patan Taluka in north Gujarat has not only prescribed financial penalties for consuming liquor, but the person 'caught' drinking is required to spend 24 hours on a tree.

 

***************************************

******************************************************************************************

THE ASSAM TRIBUNE

EDITORIAL

DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE

 

The surrender of weapons by the members of the DHD(J) is a welcome development and it will definitely help in restoration of peace in the trouble torn district of North Cachar Hills to enable the Government to expedite implementation of development schemes. Chief Minister Tarun Gogoi, who attended the surrender ceremony in Haflong on October 2, announced a special Rs 50 crore development package for the hill district, which remained one of the most backward districts of Assam. But only providing additional funds will not ensure development of the district if the funds are not utilised properly for the benefit of the common masses. It is now a well established fact that over the years, funds provided to the NC Hills Autonomous Council by Central and State Governments were misused and substantial amounts went to the coffers of the militants, thus depriving the common masses of the fruits of development. The National Investigating Agency (NIA) is probing into the politician-militant nexus in the Hill district and took the former Chief Executive Member of the NC Hills Autonomous Council, Mohit Hojai and the Chief of the DHD(J), Jewel Garlosa into custody. But if the Government is really serious in ensuring proper utilisation of funds, a thorough probe into the allegations of misuse of funds provided to the Council should be instituted and exemplary punishment should be meted out to anyone found to be responsible for the same to ensure that no one dares to indulge in such activities in future. The Government of India should also keep a close watch on the implementation of the Centrally sponsored projects in the Hill district if it is interested in the development of NC Hills.

The Chief Minister also assured rehabilitation of the militants who came over ground to solve their problems through talks and a proposal has reportedly been mooted to create a special battalion of police to rehabilitate the surrendered militants. But it will not be possible for the Government to appoint all the surrendered militants in the special police battalions as some have police cases against them and they cannot be appointed as police personnel till the cases are withdrawn. Moreover, most of the members of the militant groups are not qualified to be appointed as police personnel and the Government will have to amend the rules to appoint them. The Government can think of providing vocational training to the surrendered militants to provide them self employment avenues and even it can help the former ultras to set up cooperatives of their own to earn their livelihood. Creation of self help groups in different parts of Assam provided employment avenues to thousands of people and the Government can also examine the feasibility of encouraging the surrendered militants to set up such groups to provide them with employment avenues as it will never be possible to provide Government jobs to all of them.

 

.***************************************

THE ASSAM TRIBUNE

EDITORIAL

HEALTH CARE

 

A review of the performance of the north-eastern States vis-à-vis implementation of the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) has revealed that notwithstanding some overall progress, several critical areas continue to be a matter of concern. On the positive front, both Assam and Meghalaya have succeeded in bringing down the infant mortality rate to below national average but the other north-eastern States continue to lag behind. The maternal mortality rate, however, remains a persistent drawback for Assam. This makes clear that the interventions made so far have failed to benefit the targeted groups in the desired manner. This does not merit surprise because family planning, which is intrinsically related to maternal welfare, is yet to gain grounds in areas in urgent need for such intervention. The bane of early marriage, polygamy and high birth rate continues to plague many backward areas, mostly chars. Along with health-related interventions, the situation also calls for greater awareness at the grassroots. Immunisation of children against deadly diseases has been another problem area for the North-East as a whole. A special and sustained focus is highly imperative to bring about a change for the better. Yet another worry relates to the high incidence of malaria and Japanese encephalitis in the North-East, which accounts for one-third of total deaths caused by these diseases in the country.

Health care being a traditionally neglected area in the North-East, the desired changes can be effected only by ensuring the required infrastructure. Shortage of doctors and paramedical staff, too, needs to be addressed as a priority. Along with initiatives from the State governments, the Centre will have to play a key role in augmenting the region's health-care infrastructure. A majority of the rural populace in the North-East hardly have any access to health-care facilities. Even where there are hospitals, they serve little purpose due to lack of infrastructure and manpower. While we need institutions for advanced medical treatment, of equal importance is to have dependable health-care set-ups at different levels. This is essential for bringing the entire populace under standardised medical care, and can be achieved only when governments give the matter precedence. The problems afflicting the sector being deep-rooted, a pro-active and sustained response from the authorities is a dire need. With escalating costs making private health care out of bound for a vast multitude of the populace, the authorities must exhibit greater sincerity and commitment in addressing the growing health-care needs of the people.

 

***************************************

THE ASSAM TRIBUNE

EDITORIAL

G-20 SUMMIT AND DEVELOPING NATIONS

SHIBDAS BHATTACHARJEE

 

G-20 is an informal forum comprising major developed countries and leading emerging market economies. It was necessitated due to the total failure and collapse of many American financial institutions that led to global economic meltdown. The formation of the G-20 implied a judgment that the current institutional structure was inadequate, even outdated, for dealing with the main problems of the world economy. The Western countries that traditionally have wielded power at the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the United Nations want the developing nations to cut greenhouse gases blamed for dangerous climate change and to slash barriers that prevent free trade. The developing nations of G-20 forum — Japan, India, South Korea, Australia and Indonesia – believe their growing importance deserves a bigger say in the world's financial decision-making. The G-20, which represents 80 percent of the world's economic output, is where they can make their case. In fact, Asian countries have done well, comparatively, during the world economic crisis. But the region has been criticized for protecting its trade and agricultural industries from competition.

In fact, China, India, Mexico and the United States during the last decade experienced quantum jumps in their integration with the world economy. The United States, for example, has tripled the share of trade in its economy over the past 40 years. Africa's share of world trade and investment has dropped to minuscule levels. Brazil could quickly expand its trade, probably by a multiple of two or three, if it could obtain better access to foreign markets and reduce its own barriers. Japan's globalization ratio has declined and Germany's has been flat—and those countries have been the growth laggards within the G-7.Perhaps the most dramatic example is the Middle East, on which much current attention is rightly focused. The region did as well or better than Latin America and even Asia in the first postwar decades but has declined steadily for the last 30 years despite the dramatic rise in the price of oil. Earlier President Bush's proposal for a new free trade agreement between the United States and the entire Middle East was one way to advance such integration on a much broader basis. The Middle Eastern and other countries cited here obviously have problems that range beyond their lack of globalization, but their failure to take advantage of international economic integration is clearly a major factor in their lagging performance.

On the other hand, India has been an active and a key participant in G-20 discussions right from the beginning when the G-20 forum of Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors was established in 1999. It always played a dominant role in G-20 talks, which is also very important for its long-cherished ambition of a becoming dominant player in global arena. India took the opportunity at the Pittsburgh G-20 Summit to discuss on ways to prevent regulatory failures that led to the economic crisis from recurring. Financial market reform was a central issue at the summit and India opted to play a pro-active role in this issue. The agendas that India tried put forward at the Pittsburgh summit were to exchange of views on stimulus and growth measures while planning exit strategies, review of regulatory framework reiterating commitment against protectionism, focus on reforms of international financial institutions, redressing requirements of mobilising resources for poor developing countries, sending out a strong political message calling for a balanced and successful outcome of the climate change negotiations in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change at Copenhagen.

On the other hand, it was a rare occasion when China and India not only shared a common platform but also expressed consensus, on major issues at the Pittsburgh G-20 Summit. India and China are more or less in sync with each other on issues related to international financial sector reforms, including reforms in global financial institutions like IMF and World Bank. The two countries have a similar position on the issue of climate change, which is based on the principle that the 'polluter must pay'. India successfully utilised the opportunity at the G-20 meeting to press for changes in the international financial architecture through reforms of the global financial institutions, like IMF and World Bank, so that the voice of poor and emerging economies gets heard. India also raised the issue of rise in protectionism being embraced by developed countries and the damage it has done to the developing nations' economies. In the first week of September, finance minister Pranab Mukherjee attended a G-20 summit in London, which was meant to prepare the ground for the Pittsburgh talks. A solution to financing ways to combat climate change was introduced on the agenda, which India found discomfiting.At the London meeting, India said it wanted a solution that was in sync with the underlying philosophy of UNFCCC. Another game plan was brandishing UNFCCC commitments at the so-called high table was a strategic move to neutralize a chance of talks on financing climate change moving in a direction unsuitable to India. Both the bureaucrats spoke on condition of anonymity.In London, the finance ministers of Brazil, Russia, India and China (Bric) said UNFCCC, which oversees the drafting of a new treaty, to be the main forum for negotiations on climate change,.A key reason underpinning India's strategy is the principles of UNFCCC, which work in India's favour when it comes to solutions for climate change financing.

Thus the long run significance for the G-20 could be even greater. Successful realisation of the regional aspirations—especially in Asia, which until recently have lagged far behind Europe and even the Western Hemisphere—could lead to the emergence of a tripolar world economic structure. So G-20 should gradually but steadily supersede the G-7 as the informal steering committee for the world economy. The London communique, which US President Barack Obama declared as "historic", sounds non-historically familiar as so long the developing nations take greater role and responsibility, the G-20 forum will fail to give desired result, the sustainable growth and development of the economy of the emerging economic powers of the nations of Asia-Pacific. It was really good to see that the developing nations particularly India took a leading role in the recent G-20 summit held at Pittsburgh, USA. The joint initiatives of both India and China compelled their Western counterparts to give due respect to the cause of developing nations.

 

***************************************

THE ASSAM TRIBUNE

EDITORIAL

ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR AND ECOLOGICAL ASPECTS

K C PATAR

 

Almost all animals face similar basic ecological problems such as a suitable place to live in, appropriate foods to consume, escape from enemies and producing offspring etc. Some areas are good for feeding and some for breeding. Sometimes these areas are widely separated places. Even if suitable areas are found, animals cannot utilise the resources to their satisfaction as efficiently as possible for several reasons. Because resources such as food, shelter and water are not distributed uniformly in the habitats. These are available in patches. In addition, the areas may not be free from predators, which greatly disturb the prey animals while foraging. Therefore, animals had to spend considerable time and energy in locating a prime site. When animals remain busy in selecting prime site, and in other significant activities such as defence of territory, escaping from predators and establishment etc, they get very little time for bringing up their offspring. Considering all the factors the cost of searching ie time lost, energy expended and risk of predation is far above the possible benefits that may be derived from locating a superior site. Now the question of choice arises, whether the dispersing animals will stop searching for a better location somewhere or settle at a particular site. As animals become sensitive to the costs of locating a superior site, they eventually settle at the second or the third best.

Many animals travel a great distance to collect food and then return to a rest or den, burrow or rookery to deposit their take in the mouth of immobile offspring. In doing so, they run a risk of being blown by wind or carried by currents or attacked by predators. For example - Adelie penguins leave the young chicks in the rookery upto 2 weeks at a time and travel a great distance to forage at sea in search of shrimp-like krill and then return. Ascension is a small island 5 mile wide speck of land in the Atlantic ocean between Africa and Brazil. The green set turtle nests on the island of Ascencion. The adult female turtles visit the island only to deposit their eggs in beach sands. They then swim 1000 miles to the warm shallow waters of Brazil where they feed on marine vegetation for several years and then again return to sand beach to lay another clutch of eggs.

There is innate preference for which some species have a tendency to return to a breeding place where an individual was born and reared. This is called site-tenacity or site-attachment. This characteristic contributes a great deal to habital selection. Site-tenacity is exhibited by the gulls and green herons. They choose to breed in the same place where they were born. Because the area is familiar to them and they are certain that it is capable of supporting adults and their offspring. In case of human being also, it has been observed that there is innate preference for the place where he was born and brought up. Many species of birds may have an innate preference for certain environmental characteristics such as presence of a nest hole or particular density of foliage.

According to ecologists, animals are classified as generalist and specialist feeders on the basis of food items taken by them. Generalist feeders consume a wide variety of foods during its life time. Specialist feeders feed on a highly restricted number of foods. Everglade kite is a bird which feeds entirely on one species of fresh water snail. If a particular food which is eaten by specialists is ample, then population will be more. They are efficient at using their resources. If foods become rare, in that case they become vulnerable to environmental changes, because they cannot switch over to an alternative food. The specialist feeder is more or less dependent on a single food resource.

Generalists occupy a broad ecological niche in their feeding habit. If supplies are short, they can switch from one to another. There is food preferences. Generalists may never become as locally abundant as specialists. They do not become vulnerable to environmental changes. In some part of the year, when the seeds of some crops fall, food may be super-abundant for some species such as various seed eaters. Even then, animals cannot forage as efficiently as possible, because they devote more time for other significant activities such as avoiding predators, maintaining territory, courting mate, incubating eggs etc. For such reasons, there remains very little time for feeding.

Although many species of animals live in the same habitat, their niches are different. In Africa, the black rhino and the white rhino live in the same habitat, but their foraging techniques are different. The black rhino is a browser and feeds on woody plants while the white rhino is a grazer and feeds on herbs and grasses. Many species of animals such as rhino, buffalo, deer etc have been observed grazing together in the short grass habitat of Kaziranga National Park, but their techniques of eating grass are different. Some eat the tip of the grass, some to the ground, some randomly etc.

There are three species of ground-dwelling finches on the Galapagos Islands in South America. Finches are seed eaters. They are commonly known as Darwin's finches. It is interesting to note that the small-billed-finches have very small beaks, the large billed finches have very large beaks and the medium-billed species is in between. The beaks vary according to the type of seeds they eat. There is variation in bill size within each species, but little or no overlap among species. Each finch is best adapted to crush and feed upon. Ecologists said that no two species with same ecological niche can co-exist. They can co-exist in the same environment if their niches or ecological requirements differ.

Under what ecological conditions the species become a specialist or a generalist? Animals that encounter an abundance of one food, generation after generation may tend to evolve specialised traits that maximise the exploitation of this food. On the other hand many species live in areas where they rarely or never have access to a single food that is consistently present in large amounts, under these circumstances, they tend to evolve generalised traits suitable for exploitation of many different foods. Several species of birds have been observed feeding from morning till evening (and even in the night). In these cases, it has been estimated that each ndividual had to find a bit of food every second or two in order to survive.

Territoriality is a wide spread-mammalian behavioural trait. The term territory has sometimes been applied loosely to the home range. The term territory was first given by students of avian behaviour. Classically, it referred to the area surrounding the nest-site from which other conspecifics were driven away, usually by the male. The space defended in this way was large enough to provide most or all of the life requirements of the pair and their dependent offspring.

Home Range is not an exclusive preserve but overlaps with other animal's home range. Many mammals are larger than the largest bird, the areas in which they forage are very large which is difficult to defend. For example: hunting dogs hunt over a tract of land upto 1500 square miles in area. Individuals of the same species require some areas for their normal activities such as food gathering, mating and caring for their youngs. They traverse within such areas for the above purposes. Such areas are called home-range.

(Published on the occasion of Wildlife Week, 2009).

***************************************

******************************************************************************************

THE ECONOMIC TIMES

EDITORIAL

NEEDED, AN INTEGRATED VISION

 

Whether or not Friday's killing of 16 poor villagers in Bihar was the handiwork Maoists, there is no denying the rising challenge this form of armed insurgency poses today. It is inevitable that the state should resort to tough policing to check such violent challenges to its authority and legitimacy.

 

Yet, it would be futile trying to combat Maoism by use of force alone. Policing has to go hand in hand with transformative politics that redistributes social, political and economic power in the areas where Maoism finds fertile soil.

It is the failure of the state to live up to the promise of equality of opportunity held out by the Constitution that has prepared the ground for ordinary people to support, if not join in, armed struggle against the state. And the task of delivering on the Constitution's promise of decent citizenship cannot be performed by the state and its agencies alone.

Political parties must come forward to mobilise people to change the status quo in rural areas and rectify the extreme inequality of power and assets that is a hallmark of much of rural India even today. The left parties continue to mouth land reforms as the solution to all rural problems. And it is indeed true that part of the reason why Andhra Pradesh registered a sharp decline in Maoist violence over the last five years was a fresh dose of land reforms in the state, in which the then chief minister YSR Reddy himself gave away a good part of the surplus land his family owned.

But land reforms are no longer sufficient. Investment in rural infrastructure — irrigation, roads, power, schools, hospitals, markets, banking or microfinance — is as important. Rural prosperity is driven not just by farming but also and, in fact, to a greater extent, by integration of the rural economy into the national and global economy.

The structural diversification of the economy underway as part of India's globalisation paves the way for people to move to non-traditional occupations, paving the way to break the age-old correlation between caste and occupation. Only an integrated vision that links globalisation to transformation of rural society towards a more egalitarian structure can effectively counter the Maoists, who project armed struggle as the only way out of the crass exploitation and hopelessness that form the staple of rural reality for the majority.

 

***************************************

THE ECONOMIC TIMES

EDITORIAL

LEGALLY, BY ALL MEANS

 

The government's proposal to enact a law defining security clearance procedures for foreign direct investment

(FDI) proposal is welcome. It would put end to arbitrary decisions based on the country of origin. To deny a company access on the basis of the country of its origin is grossly unfair, not just to the company in question but often to the consumers who may derive some benefit from the products and services that particular company would offer.

Often, a new player would increase competition in the market, expand choice for consumers and bring down prices. For instance, first the Korean companies and then the Chinese intensified competition in the consumer durables market. While enhancing choice for consumers is important, it cannot be at the cost of undermining the security of the country.

However, it helps to have clearly defined guidelines to screen investment proposals from foreigners, to identify and reject proposals that potentially pose a security concern. The existing system does have a scrutiny procedure in place, with proposals in sectors such as power, defence and aviation being referred to security agencies.

However, in the absence of a clearly defined policy, the scrutiny process would be ad hoc and possibly even arbitrary. The US model of screening investment proposals within a specified time period (90 days for final decision to permit or bar a proposal, from deciding whether to investigate a proposal for possible security breach) and subject to some laid down conditions is a good one to follow.

When the government is planning to enact an FDI law, it would make sense for it to cover all aspects foreign investment. The practice of regulating FDI through executive orders should be replaced with a comprehensive law.

The recent press notes (PN 2, 3 and 4) that define a foreign company, lay out guidelines for transfer of ownership from resident to non-resident entities and for downstream investment should ideally be incorporated into law. The entire objective of enacting a law should be to reduce policy flip-flop and arbitrary decisionmaking.

 

***************************************

 

 

THE ECONOMIC TIMES

EDITORIAL

HOLY COWS

 

Word is out that the Indian government has given the go ahead for the movie The Indian Summer, with some unfortunate censorious slashes — all scenes suggesting anything improper between India's charismatic first PM, Jawaharlal Nehru, and the charming last Vicereine, Lady Mountbatten, are to be excluded.

 

Why does the Indian establishment persist in its peculiar belief that either eminent people were immune to matters of the heart, and that even if they did have a flutter or two, the general population should not be allowed even a whiff of any impropriety? This streak of prudery is almost akin to the one that kept kissing off the Indian silver screen till almost the onset of the 21st century. There is every reason to aver that at least the newest generation of Indians — weaned on steamy, kissing-allowed cinema — would welcome the idea that their forebears were not impossibly abstemious paragons of virtue but real human beings, with enough mortal (and moral) foibles to make them believable and even loveable.

Take the case of Britain, where not only has the formidable Queen Victoria's life been speculated upon in print and celluloid and Princes Diana's life chronicled in gory detail, now a film is being planned on her son, the feckless Prince Harry and his (non)role as the 'Spare to the British throne'. Given the prince's generally colourful lifestyle, the movie might bring out some embarrassing aspects but so far the British government has not restrained the producers.

Indeed, ever since the sons of Prince Charles became adults, the press embargo on them was lifted and they have had to sink or swim with the rest of the celebrity headliners. Yet in India, a film on Sonia Gandhi has already been canned, and any similar suggestion about her son Rahul is likely to meet with a similar fate though as a bachelor politician, his life attracts even more attention than his late great-grandfather's. Time the government let political figures step off their pedestals and be more human — even if only on celluloid.

 

***************************************

 

THE ECONOMIC TIMES

THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS

MYTHILI BHUSNURMATH

 

When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master — that's all."

 

If reading the Leaders' Statement released at the end of the two-day meeting of the leaders of the G20 group of nations in Pittsburgh late last month reminded me of this wonderful conversation between Alice and Humpty Dumpty in Lewis Carrol's Through the Looking Glass, the reasons will become clear by and by.

'We will fight protectionism,' says the Statement in a ringing endorsement of free trade. Good show! Yet less than a month ago the US slapped a 35% duty on import of Chinese tyres. It's not the only one. China has its 'Buy Chinese' clause on the lines of the 'Buy American' clause while India (yes, navel gazing is sometimes necessary) holds the record for initiating the highest number of anti-dumping probes.

In the period since the April Summit when G20 leaders pledged just as fiercely to avoid protectionist measures, a G20 member has violated that pledge approximately once every three days, says the Geneva-based World Trade Alliance.

There's more in the same vein. 'Excessive compensation in the financial sector has both reflected and encouraged excessive risk taking,' says the Statement, calling for reforming compensation policies to align compensation with 'long-term value creation, not excessive risk-taking.' Does it mean extravagant payouts seen in the boom years and even after the crisis have become history?

Unfortunately, no! What is excessive? $10 million? $20 million? What is long-term value-creation? What is a sound capital base? Eight per cent? Ten per cent? The statement leaves these tricky questions to the Financial Services Board. But the latter's standards are much too vague and allow as much scope for gaming as before.
That's not all. A careful reading (literally and between the lines) shows that as of now there is much in the Statement the March Hare would have found to admonish.

"Then you should say what you mean," the March Hare went on.
"I do," Alice hastily replied; "at least — at least I mean what I say — that's the same thing, you know."
"Not the same thing a bit!" said the Hatter. "You might just as well say 'I see what I eat' is the same thing as 'I eat what I see.'"

Take, for instance, the call to develop 'cooperative and coordinated exit strategies recognising that the scale, timing and sequencing of this process will vary across countries or regions and across the type of policy measures.' If the scale, timing and sequencing of exits is going to vary across countries, can the G20 compel the give-and-take inherent in 'co-ordinated exit strategies'? Unlikely! What about the newly-anointed IMF? Even less likely!

The fact is, for all the tom-tomming about the success of coordinated responses to the crisis, there was no prior co-ordination. Each country responded as it saw fit from its own perspective. Thus the EU held out against repeated US calls to ease monetary and fiscal policies until such time as it felt the Europe's interests were being hurt.

Likewise with developing countries whose governments were initially carried away by talk of de-coupling. They jumped into the fray only when it became evident this was nothing but hogwash. In India the initial stimulus was driven more by the compulsions of elections than by any grand plan of global co-operation. Co-ordination, therefore, was not a conscious a priori decision but a de facto consequence of the crisis once it enveloped the world.

Here too it was each nation for itself. When Iceland's Landsbanki failed, the country initially insured only the savings of its own citizens with deposits in the bank. The UK, not to be outdone, promptly invoked anti-terror laws to freeze Icelandic banking assets in the UK to try and arm-twist Iceland into insuring British depositors.

The matter was finally resolved only when the UK agreed to give a loan to Iceland to rescue British depositors.
So make no mistake about it. As long as nation states exist, each nation will be driven by national interests. Co-ordination might be possible in the good times (when there is usually less need for it or the downside of un-coordinated policies is not obvious, as during the pre-crisis years). But in bad times, when push comes to shove, each nation looks to its own.

So does that mean Pittsburgh is an empty victory for the G20? No! The Statement marks a significant break with the past in that for the first time the presence of emerging economies at the high table has been formalised. This is no mean achievement even if the new grouping, like the G-8 it seeks to replace, is no more than a talk shop. But to the extent the G20 is to be the 'premier forum for international economic cooperation', developing countries will now have a forum where they can voice their concerns. Whether their voices will carry any weight remains to be seen. But if they are determined they can make a difference, however small, to the course that is finally charted.

For now, the agenda reflects the concerns of the developed rather than the developing world. The two main issues — how much capital banks need to hold and bankers' bonuses — are not major issues for the non-G8 countries whose banks are in relatively better shape. But in the not-too-distant future the old order must give way to the new and in a far less niggardly fashion than envisaged in the Statement.

Thus the promise of a 5% shift in voting rights in the IMF from 'over-represented to under-represented countries' without spelling out the details (which are these over-represented countries that are to make the necessary sacrifices and by how much?) may be both vague and inadequate. So too the promise of 3% increase in voting power of developing countries in the World Bank. But only for now. As the King of Hearts (also from the same book) tells the White Rabbit, you have to begin at the beginning then go on till you come to the end: then stop. So too, Pittsburgh marks a beginning. As long as we continue in the same direction and do not stop till we come to the end, all will be well. Amen!

 

***************************************

THE ECONOMIC TIMES

EDITORIAL

GAINS FROM EFFICIENT USE OF ENERGY

JIWESH NANDAN

 

A recent report released by the Bureau of Energy Efficiency about the energy savings during 2008-09 estimates there were total energy savings to the tune of 6.53 billion units of electricity and 3.21 million MTOE (Metric Tonne Oil Equivalent) were saved. In terms of MTOE, the total saving is 4.98 million as the equivalent of 6.53 billion units of electricity is around 1.77 million MTOE. The total energy consumption of the country during the same period was around 570 million MTOE. Electrical savings have also been converted into an equivalent avoided capacity of more than 1,504 MWs. Avoided capacity of electricity generation is arrived at by converting the total energy saved on the demand side to the supply side by taking into account the losses and plant load factor. It may be noted that 3,450 MW was added to generation capacity in 2008-09.

 

This document is not an in-house report of the BEE but has been verified by the National Productivity Council. The main components of these savings are achieved by the industries, from the use of efficient home appliances through the Standard and Labelling programme and the building efficiency programme. The study also covered the energy saved due to efforts of the state designated agencies (SDAs). The savings reported by SDAs include replacement of incandescent bulbs with CFLs, energy saving by industries through waste-heat recovery, and other campaigns undertaken by the SDAs for saving electricity in households.

Let us try and analyse the gains to the economy from these savings. Electricity saving is around 35.5% and other fuel saving is 64.5% of overall savings in MTOE. 1,504 MW of electricity generation capacity addition has been avoided. In financial terms this is a saving of approximately Rs 6,000 crore, as cost of setting up one MW capacity today is around Rs 4 crore. It is not only the avoided capacity that is a gain to the economy. There are many other gains as well, which have not been documented in the report. First and foremost is the money that is saved by the consumer on his energy bills. It has been estimated that roughly 6.5 billion units have been saved.

Taking a conservative figure of Rs 3 per unit, it is a saving of Rs 1,950 crore. This is not a double count since, if the savings had not occurred then the consumers would have paid this amount and the utilities would have still needed to set up extra generation capacity.

Another saving is in terms of CO2 emission reduction that takes place due to avoided capacity. It has been estimated that for the Indian electricity grid every kWh of electricity use produces 0.79 kg of CO2 emissions. Saving 6.5 billion units of electricity results in CO2 emission saving of around 5 million tonnes.

The other benefit is in terms of extra revenues that the utilities can gain by selling the saved electricity to better paying customers. Out of 1,500 MW, around 600 MW is from the S&L programme which is essentially in the household, and households are not the highest paying customers. Another 200 MW is from Kerala and Himachal households. A conservative estimate of the difference in the electricity rates between household and commercial users can be taken as Rs 2 per unit. So the utility gains around Rs 650 crore. Again this is not a double count as the Rs 650 crore are over and above the electricity charges that the utilities were being paid prior to the savings by existing customers.

Another gain is in terms of reduction in losses as the total electricity flowing through the system has been reduced by 6.5 billion units on the demand side. Losses stand at 32%, so the reduction in losses is to the tune of 3.2 billion units, which have a financial value of Rs 960 crore. Similarly, there is gain in the life of the electricity infrastructure due to reduced loads. A conservative estimate of Rs 100-200 crore of savings in these costs can be made. There is another gain due to shaving of the peak demand due to electricity saving which is not being quantified here.

Savings which have not been included in the report add up to Rs 3,960 crore over and above avoided investment of Rs 6,000 crore. It makes for around Rs 10,000 crore. The above analysis pertains to the electricity savings only, which are 35.5%. The rest 64.5% is fuel oil savings. It can be concluded that at least a similar saving for the Indian economy has occurred for fuel oil savings also. Hence roughly Rs 20,000 crore have been saved by the energy efficiency measures. It needs to be qualified that policy initiatives have come from the government and not the investments. Third party verification of savings is by NPC which is an agency of the government. There may thus be a case for enhanced credibility of verified savings.

What is required is to assess the potential of energy savings in each state in major sectors and to implement the detailed plans of savings systematically. The first step is to have an assessment of the sector and aggregate state-wise potential and to convince the stakeholders that it makes financial sense to adopt energy efficiency measures. Gains are bound to follow.

(Author is a civil servant. Views are personal.)

 

***************************************

THE ECONOMIC TIMES

EDITORIAL

TOWARDS THE PROCESS OF 'MAKING UP'

K VIJAYARAGHAVAN

 

Over the years, much has been said on 'making up' for past bad karma. However, the million dollar question that would arise is: "But then, how

actually is this to be done?" While the methodology and modus operandi would, of course, vary from case to case, certain basic and universally applicable issues would call for every aspirant's attention.

The first step commences with the admission that one has actually committed errors, wrong doings and mistakes in life. Conscious feeling of this need for true repentance would invariably be followed by the process of identifying the specific issues that call for the needed corrections, 'making up' or atonement. Improvement would naturally result. Indeed, tears of a repentant sinner are not only rare but also precious. As noted by the Bible (Luke: 15,7), "Joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance".

Doing good, altruistic and virtuous deeds as compensation for a life thus far focused only on accumulation, greed and self centredness would, doubtless, serve to ease the conscience and spirit within, going a long way to ennoble and broaden one's horizon — a must for true growth of personality. However, purely from practical and mundane points of view, it would be necessary to live a life which would be rewarding, also fulfilling one's pet aspirations and dreams. This life would invariably be one where particular problems are intelligently addressed and deficiencies thus sorted out.

Damaged health can be repaired to a great extent through temperance, healthy life style and habits, besides discipline. Squandered or lost wealth can be regained, at least in part, through industry and foresight, while lost or wasted time can be made up significantly through the virtues of attentiveness, focus, alertness and briskness, following the time tested and suited techniques of stress release, time management, effectiveness and regaining one's 'lost' powers.

Waking up to a new life is often, thus, spurred by that dynamic optimism and urge within, in the manner conceived of by F P Adams: "And of all glad words of prose or rhyme,/The gladdest are, "Act while there yet is time".

Indeed, the ardent seeker, in spite of possible slip-ups or errors in the past, would explore and actually land on specifically needed avenues of 'making up'. He would, then, comprehend that all is not wasted after all and that "there yet is time"!

 

***************************************

THE ECONOMIC TIMES

EDITORIAL

SPREAD THE CHEER AROUND, DON'T BE CLUBBY

SUDESHNA SEN

 

Whatever Thomas Friedman says, the world is very definitely not flat. This side of the world, we ended the week with a slump in various indices,

as unemployment figures rose unrelentingly in the US. In Europe and UK, we're still involved in intense and acrimonious debate on how much bankers should be paid. And no, the job situation is very definitely not improving, whatever headline macro figures say.

From what I hear, the festive season in India has not only brought back cheer to the sensex, which missed the end of the week blues, but has also the dizzy days of buzzwords like talent crunch, poaching, retention, double-digit salary hikes and so on.

Regulating or clawing back bankers' bonuses may seem like an exotic diversion for most of you — after all the Indian taxpayer isn't out of pocket or jobless because they had to make sure those guys could pocket their million dollar bonuses.

But you should care. Therein hangs a cautionary tale. Okay, consider it like this. You're in a fast-growing, relatively new, booming sector where there aren't that many trained professionals around, your competitors are waiting to poach anyone and everyone away from you, and business schools, secure in their position as first port of call for 'management' talent just keep hiking their base rates.

Or consider this. You are a small company, and need a common or garden variety mid- or entry-level employee, or even a CEO, but you can't get anyone, because even the less than suitable candidates want the moon and stars and a trip around Saturn thrown in.

What does that have to do with bankers bonuses in London? Pretty much everything. In the US, for instance, studies have shown that over the years, the wealth created in the economy was increasingly distributed by the generators among themselves, to a smaller proportion of people.

Main Street got poorer, Wall Street got richer. As a result, it's sucked up a generation of talent that could possibly have been engaged in research, industry, education government, infrastructure, social services, engineering, et al (many are now going back, by the way). The argument was that these other sectors should pay more – the argument now is that if the money-changers hadn't kept all the money they handle for themselves, and paid what their employees actually deliver, there'd be more to go around for everyone else.

The prevailing economic wisdom was that increasing salaries across the board would fuel inflation, and rip the backbone out of the low-interest rate economies, fuelled by cheap debt. Please note, we're talking in a regime where people costs are already the biggest corporate cost, and interest rates in low single digits.

With a lot of money concentrated in a few hands, the inflation, or bubble as they found, came not in food prices, but with too much money chasing casino investments and property. After all, what exactly do you do after the 100th million? How many Lamborghinis or Diors can you buy?

Nothing like that has happened in India yet — luckily for us, we've got a whole raft of real economy industries just starting up, and anyway people costs are still a minuscule portion of corporate costs. Prosperity is a relatively new phenomenon, even in cities. (Remember those ultimately depressing art films about unemployment woes at film fests?). Indian managements still feel aggrieved if they have to move wage bills into the double digit column.

From what I hear though, there are warning signals to beware of. After all, HR as an industry in India is, at most, barely a couple of decades old. I still remember when Personnel used be 'that guy who deals with the unions'. And the textbooks, performance management systems, appraisal forms, models, business school syllabi and theories that HR, recruitment and compensation experts come armed with have all been written in the west. Those textbooks are now being ripped up, along with half of conventional economics and business theory.

I might be lynched for saying this, but it's common knowledge across the world among employers. There's absolutely no way a top B-school graduate without work experience actually earns those headline starting salaries, neither is that the value of their education – that's just like buying a painting at Sotheby, an investment in the future competitive value of the candidate, and because big daddy banking distorts the talent market into some other dimension.

I'm all for giving Diwali bonuses, and double-digit salary hikes and so on. Give 'em to your software writers, to shop floor workers, to your productive people, that branch in Bihar, to people who actually do the work, and create products. The India growth story is based on the increasing prosperity of its vast demographic and domestic market, the aam aadmi, not its few ultra-high net worth individuals.

The theory that paying over the top for a few high profile stars, almost always to compete with banks, is necessary, has proved not only to be wrong, but disastrous. As they say in the festive season, spread the cheer. It's not socialism, it's good for the economy.

 

***************************************

 

THE ECONOMIC TIMES

EDITORIAL

THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS

MYTHILI BHUSNURMATH

 

When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."

"The question

is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master — that's all."

If reading the Leaders' Statement released at the end of the two-day meeting of the leaders of the G20 group of nations in Pittsburgh late last month reminded me of this wonderful conversation between Alice and Humpty Dumpty in Lewis Carrol's Through the Looking Glass, the reasons will become clear by and by.

'We will fight protectionism,' says the Statement in a ringing endorsement of free trade. Good show! Yet less than a month ago the US slapped a 35% duty on import of Chinese tyres. It's not the only one. China has its 'Buy Chinese' clause on the lines of the 'Buy American' clause while India (yes, navel gazing is sometimes necessary) holds the record for initiating the highest number of anti-dumping probes.

In the period since the April Summit when G20 leaders pledged just as fiercely to avoid protectionist measures, a G20 member has violated that pledge approximately once every three days, says the Geneva-based World Trade Alliance.

There's more in the same vein. 'Excessive compensation in the financial sector has both reflected and encouraged excessive risk taking,' says the Statement, calling for reforming compensation policies to align compensation with 'long-term value creation, not excessive risk-taking.' Does it mean extravagant payouts seen in the boom years and even after the crisis have become history?

Unfortunately, no! What is excessive? $10 million? $20 million? What is long-term value-creation? What is a sound capital base? Eight per cent? Ten per cent? The statement leaves these tricky questions to the Financial Services Board. But the latter's standards are much too vague and allow as much scope for gaming as before.
That's not all. A careful reading (literally and between the lines) shows that as of now there is much in the Statement the March Hare would have found to admonish.

"Then you should say what you mean," the March Hare went on.

"I do," Alice hastily replied; "at least — at least I mean what I say — that's the same thing, you know."
"Not the same thing a bit!" said the Hatter. "You might just as well say 'I see what I eat' is the same thing as 'I eat what I see.'"

Take, for instance, the call to develop 'cooperative and coordinated exit strategies recognising that the scale, timing and sequencing of this process will vary across countries or regions and across the type of policy measures.' If the scale, timing and sequencing of exits is going to vary across countries, can the G20 compel the give-and-take inherent in 'co-ordinated exit strategies'? Unlikely! What about the newly-anointed IMF? Even less likely!

The fact is, for all the tom-tomming about the success of coordinated responses to the crisis, there was no prior co-ordination. Each country responded as it saw fit from its own perspective. Thus the EU held out against repeated US calls to ease monetary and fiscal policies until such time as it felt the Europe's interests were being hurt. Likewise with developing countries whose governments were initially carried away by talk of de-coupling. They jumped into the fray only when it became evident this was nothing but hogwash. In India the initial stimulus was driven more by the compulsions of elections than by any grand plan of global co-operation. Co-ordination, therefore, was not a conscious a priori decision but a de facto consequence of the crisis once it enveloped the world.

Here too it was each nation for itself. When Iceland's Landsbanki failed, the country initially insured only the savings of its own citizens with deposits in the bank. The UK, not to be outdone, promptly invoked anti-terror laws to freeze Icelandic banking assets in the UK to try and arm-twist Iceland into insuring British depositors.

The matter was finally resolved only when the UK agreed to give a loan to Iceland to rescue British depositors.
So make no mistake about it. As long as nation states exist, each nation will be driven by national interests. Co-ordination might be possible in the good times (when there is usually less need for it or the downside of un-coordinated policies is not obvious, as during the pre-crisis years). But in bad times, when push comes to shove, each nation looks to its own. So does that mean Pittsburgh is an empty victory for the G20? No! The Statement marks a significant break with the past in that for the first time the presence of emerging economies at the high table has been formalised. This is no mean achievement even if the new grouping, like the G-8 it seeks to replace, is no more than a talk shop. But to the extent the G20 is to be the 'premier forum for international economic cooperation', developing countries will now have a forum where they can voice their concerns. Whether their voices will carry any weight remains to be seen. But if they are determined they can make a difference, however small, to the course that is finally charted.

For now, the agenda reflects the concerns of the developed rather than the developing world. The two main issues — how much capital banks need to hold and bankers' bonuses — are not major issues for the non-G8 countries whose banks are in relatively better shape. But in the not-too-distant future the old order must give way to the new and in a far less niggardly fashion than envisaged in the Statement.

Thus the promise of a 5% shift in voting rights in the IMF from 'over-represented to under-represented countries' without spelling out the details (which are these over-represented countries that are to make the necessary sacrifices and by how much?) may be both vague and inadequate. So too the promise of 3% increase in voting power of developing countries in the World Bank. But only for now. As the King of Hearts (also from the same book) tells the White Rabbit, you have to begin at the beginning then go on till you come to the end: then stop. So too, Pittsburgh marks a beginning. As long as we continue in the same direction and do not stop till we come to the end, all will be well. Amen!

 

***************************************

THE ECONOMIC TIMES

EDITORIAL

FIGHT THE DAUNTING TIMES WITH FRUGALITY AND RIGOUR'

MINI JOSEPH TEJASWI

 

You are completing your tenure as CEO & MD of TCS and getting into a new role in brand building and leadership mentoring. What are the major

milestones TCS achieved under your leadership?

In the last over a decade, TCS has become a true global player with 142 offices across 42 countries and with over 800 clients, many of whom are Fortune 500 companies. We have successfully ventured into key markets in Latin America, China and Eastern Europe. My focus has always been on planning and directing technology development, building strong relationships with customers, stakeholders and academic institutions.

You grew TCS from a small domestic company to a multi-billion dollar global corporation . What are some of the most crucial challenges you faced during this journey?

Global competition, client diversification, margin expansion and economic slowdown are the continuous challenges one faces. The key is to be innovative, willing to diversify and be adaptive to each situation. Investing and believing in your team and people is key. But the initial years were tough for us. There were a number of policies and government regulations that were not favourable. Everything was a process of convincing people, giving commitments that were very difficult to meet. But those were the ones that taught us how to do more with less. Our patience paid us good dividends.

TCS leads the Indian tech industry. But in terms of size and revenues, Infosys and Wipro are not too far behind. Do you see this as a threat and what is your strategy to remain ahead?

TCS has always been the leader and will continue to sustain its growth. Given our large global footprint, including our investments in new growth markets and emerging markets like China, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, Chile, Hungary and India, we believe we are well positioned for sustained growth globally. Also, our diverse service portfolio shows that there is tremendous headroom for growth among our existing global customers and new clients.

Industry peers like Wipro, HCL and Cognizant have been active in terms of inorganic growth, but TCS has not made any acquisitions , barring the Citi Global deal. Yet, you recently emphasised the importance of size and scale. What is your comment?

For TCS, growth has always been largely organically driven. However, we have always said that we will look at acquisitions at a strategic level. And over the years, we have made several such moves, CMC (in India), FNS (a banking product company in Australia) and Comicrom (BPO in Chile). All these acquisitions have helped us fill gaps in our portfolio of services or allowed us to enter new markets quickly, like BPO in Latin America following our acquisition in Chile. We have a dedicated M&A team that continues to examine opportunities for M&A as they arise and we are always open to acquiring if a compelling reason is there.

Based on your vast experience, what message would you like to leave behind for the industry?

The current economic tsunami has been among the toughest phases in my career. But I believe every challenge is an opportunity and trying times are a good time to learn and improve , reflect and ask fundamental questions like: Are you doing the right thing? Are you compromising to bring harm to the organization ? Keep the mood and work upbeat. Fight the daunting times with frugality and rigour.

 

***************************************

 

THE ECONOMIC TIMES

EDITORIAL

MARKET TO REMAIN STOCK SPECIFIC, HCC, CENTRAL BANK GOOD BUYS ON DIPS: MODERN SHARES

 

The SGX Nifty probably pointing towards slightly less than 5000, but, should that be a concern or we are still in an intermediate uptrend so to

say?

You will have to assume that the intermediate uptrend is still there because we just hit a new high on Thursday. I thought we maybe would be second time lucky, last Monday also when we were shut, Asia was quite down but then Tuesday morning was a different story. For today 4980 remains a key level and I think we should take support there first thing in the morning, but, even going forward a dip closer to 4900 also would not change the charts too much and I think the market will still remain stock specific. I did mention earlier on when the series started and you would see a little more volatility this series because it is a longer series. There are also a few holidays here and there. So, I think that will play out in the initial part, you know, we are getting into a holiday season also but there will be volatility going forward. Overall I still think you will get enough good trading opportunity every time you get these gap-down sort of openings and there will still be lot of stocks to trade more than the Nifty.

What do you have to say about cement in general because of the despatches that have come in and Grasim in particular because of the news, how do these stocks look?

I am not sure how the news might affect the stock, but, if you look at the charts, particularly this sector there has been more action maybe in the smaller mid-cap segment, but, the large cap has not really done much in the last couple of months. It has not participated in this rally where the market has made new highs. So, I would not be too excited even this morning about any news, I still think this sector is probably in some sort of a consolidation zone and you are looking for momentum right now; you are looking for stocks making new highs to buy on declines and that is not happening in the cement sector. So for me that is probably a sector I would avoid right now just because I am looking for momentum.

Grasim in particular, would that be an avoid as well and are there any cues which show that there is probably some kind of a sell signal because UltraTech on the other hand has shown some very positive activity the whole of last week?

I still think if you are looking for a breakdown level it will come little lower 2500-2600, not right now, so I think for the time being even if there is a knee jerk reaction I do not think it will be big move on the charts, it still suggest more sideways sort of a move.

 

In which case some of the stocks that traders could look out for maybe today or for this week, what will be the stronger ones, the buy side calls or the sell side calls?

A mix of both, for example to break it up, a couple of sectors that have done well but the stocks have not really participated that closely. They will be more susceptible on the downside. I picked Hero Honda that could fall back to 1390-1360 levels or a Tata Power also back to 1260-1220 levels. The reason I feel they could fall is because when the market has gone and made a new high-their peers for example a Bajaj Auto or a Maruti has gone and hit a new high. Hero Honda has not done that or in the power segment Torrent Power or a CESC made a new move but Tata Power did not do that. So I think on the downside these maybe more susceptible to some sort of a sell off.

The buy side there are some interesting ones especially in the smaller mid-cap segment. We talked about Central Bank a lot and it has moved from Rs 122 to 164, made a new high I believe, that can be bought in the fall, immediately Rs 146 is a level but I think if it comes down to Rs 137-136, there is a lot of support there where you will get that bounce back to Rs 154-164 levels. So look to buy Central Bank on the fall. HCC I mean it has traditionally been a trader's delight but recently it seems like to be getting into stronger hands. Even when the market starts to get a little volatile intraday, HCC is not falling off. So Hindustan Construction is one you could look to buy on the fall. I think Rs 125 to 113 is a good support zone. The stock eventually should go and make a new high in this move, Rs 138-150 is possible. So look to buy that also on the fall, that is another interesting one. A third one is not so much where I have not seen too much trader interest recently but is Zee Entertainment, that also went and made a new move. So I think on the fall back to Rs 230-220 range it becomes a buy and the move on back will be 244 and an unfinished target of 254. So I am looking to buy strength on the way down and looking to avoid weakness, the stocks that did not really move when the market moved up.

 

***************************************

THE ECONOMIC TIMES

EDITORIAL

INDIA TO BE FIFTH-LARGEST AUTO MKT BY 2015: AUDI INDIA MD

SAI DEEPIKA AMIRAPU

 

German luxe carmaker Audi is optimistic about sales of the affluent car while projecting an 80% growth over last year. But Benoit Tiers, the MD of Audi's Indian subsidiary, cautiously downplays this scorching pace of growth and talks about being profitable rather than grabbing the market share from his competitors BMW and Mercedes. An exclusive interview with ET NOW after Audi's annual golf tournament at Hyderabad. Excerpts:

 

BMW and Mercedes plan to sell more cars than Audi in India. How do you plan to beat competition?

India is a very interesting market because most manufacturers have their production plants in the country. The customer has a choice of products even in the luxury car segment . But I am of the view that the quality of the product and the service of the dealers matter. Audi in India is a long term commitment and my target is not to be number one in terms of sales figures. My aim is to establish the brand and build service and quality, so that the result will impact sales. We may be late entrants in to the Indian market, but our rate of growth is higher. We're looking at being profitable first. We sold around 1,050 cars in India last year, logging a 120% growth.

How has the order rate been in the first half? Are you tempering your outlook?

Audi India was incorporated in March 2007, and ever since, we have been ahead of our targets in India. We have done extremely well in September by delivering 205 cars to our customers . Our Q7 and A6 are in great demand and we expect to sell 1,800 units of all models this year.

Do you plan to expand your dealer network from 12 right now? Any hiring plans?

Most certainly. It is important for us to be present where ever our customer is. By 2010 we will have 15 dealers and by 2011 we wish to have 18 dealers pan India. We also have our roadside assistance centres where the customer can avail services just by making a call. We will also marginally increase our headcount in regions where we have dealers.

Mercedes Benz will enter the used car segment by the end of this year. Have you any plans to foray in to this market although it is highly fragmented?

The used market will get organised and the market size will touch 1.6 million cars this year. This market will have more requirements due to its growth and we plan to enter this segment in 2010. We have our pre-owned used Audi car programme the worldwide where each car is technically and thoroughly checked before it is re-sold.

The credit crunch softened demand for luxury cars in the US and the UK. Do you think India and China have a greater growth potential?

Clearly, India in the future is one of the biggest markets. Our estimation says that India will be the fifth largest automobile market in the world by 2015. We sold 1,20,000 cars in China last year. India will soon go that way, though it will not happen over night. We are studying the market and we want to be ready for it. Are you planning to offer any discounts and special offers to customers this festive season?

I think it is important for us and our dealers to follow tradition in India.

 

***************************************

 

THE ECONOMIC TIMES

EDITORIAL

INDIA'S A VERY IMPORTANT GROWTH MARKET FOR US

GEORGE CHERIAN

 

She's been voted the most powerful woman in banking in the US for two years in a row. As CEO of JPMorgan Chase's treasury & securities services business, Heidi Miller oversees what is one of JPMorgan Chase's most profitable businesses. In a recent exclusive interview with ET Now, Miller talks about the challenges faced by corporate treasurers, the new banking landscape and the shift in business activity from the West to the East. Excerpts:

 

Do you anticipate a shift in market shares in the treasury and securities services business due to the global financial meltdown?

Well, yes. I do agree that market shares will change. I'm not sure how huge a shift it will be. These are scaled businesses, and I think, you are right to observe that the financial crisis has re-emphasised to people that you're a provider of cash and securities services and that it has to be beyond reproach and very stable. And so I think, a lot of businesses will move to stronger players. I think, there will be more consolidation, and sub-scale players will realise that the amount of investment required to maintain these businesses is quite high. So, I do expect consolidation and a movement to stronger players, which hopefully will benefit us.

Is there a concern among banks over the health of their corporate clients? That recent events could lead to more cases of corporate bankruptcy?

Of course. I think, last year's crisis has already started the ball rolling. So yes, we see increased bankruptcy among corporates of all sizes in addition to retail pain in the US and Western Europe. So, we fully accept and are prepared for certain bankruptcies and an uptick in that. I think, last year was one of the most exciting but difficult years that I've seen in this business. In any given year, we expect bankruptcies and pressures in certain industries, but one or two would be a phenomenal year in that way.

This year, I think, every week brought a new concern about an industry or name and we needed to prepare ourselves to make sure we mitigated any potential exposures or risks that we understood the impact of that bankruptcy whether the company ultimately went bankrupt or not, we needed to be prepared. So, the level of attention and concern was higher than it has ever been.

Economies across the world are at the bottom of the interest rate curve. And given the rock-bottom yield on deposits at this point in time, would you say that the current environment is an extremely challenging one for international transaction banking?

I do think that corporate treasurers are very concerned about the transparency of where their cash is. They do business around the world. They want to know where their cash is, who has it, the ability to know where your cash resides to pool it effectively to maximise its value overnight wherever it is in the world. I think, that's what corporate treasurers are concerned about. Visibility, control, confidence in where the cash resides when it is out of their account or jurisdiction. Corporate treasurers realise there is risk there and they want to minimise that.

Are banks today faced with greater demand from corporate clients to make service level agreements more flexible, especially in light of the recent financial crisis?

I think, corporate customers are more concerned with specifying what exactly they expect us to do. So, there is a greater formality, I would say, in those expectations. In the past, there was, perhaps, in many cases, a willingness not to prescribe what exactly you expect to happen. But people, I think, are very attentive to regulatory change. They want to make sure they are protected in the documentation. They want to make sure they understand what we're supposed to do. What the fiduciary responsibilities are. Where ours ends and theirs begins. So, I would say, if anything, it's more a sensitiveness to the risks involved.

With multi-national corporations shifting focus to emerging markets and also Asia proving to be a great investment story, would you say that the treasury and securities services income of banks will also start being accounted for in large part by these economies?

You're absolutely correct. I think, everybody recognises that growth is coming from emerging markets, whether in Asia or Eastern Europe. We are a very large US player in terms of retail and mid-market, but our wholesale banking and asset management businesses are truly global and we invest where we see growth. So, that's clearly Asia, Latin America and Eastern Europe. We strive to have a diversity of revenues. Fifty-Fifty, in terms of the business coming from the US against other regions and our investment pattern shows that. So, we clearly want to maintain that level of growth and investment. I would tell you that Asia, in particular India, is a very important market for us.

How radically would you say the treasury & securities services business has changed since September 15 last year?

Not radically. I don't think, the business has fundamentally changed. There is a greater demand for information. There is a greater sensitivity to the control environment. I think, regulators are extremely interested in knowing how we do our business, whether it's in valuing assets for third parties or managing collateral. So, there's a greater sensitivity among regulators on the control environment. I think, our customers are also very focused on the risk environment. But I wouldn't say that's a radical change. I think, there's a demand for information about what goes on in the business.

Would you say with the huge changes that have taken place within the financial system, banks are now getting used to operating at a "new normal"?

Yes, there is a new normal. We're seeing deleveraging, a greater conservatism in terms of risks that they're taking on their balance sheets. I think, for larger systemically important banks, regulators around the world are going to demand this greater conservatism. The markets are changing. Whether they're the securitisation markets, products will change as a result. So yes, there will be a new normal, at least till we all forget again.

We keep hearing of very strict banking regulations likely to be pushed through within the US and maybe, even other parts of the world. Will this increase the cost of doing business for banks?

We spend a lot of money and we will continue to spend a lot of money on compliance. There will be change. We know in the US, for example, there is an increased cost of insurance with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Compliance costs have always been a part of our business. When you're a large player, you have to embed those expected costs in and that's why for many in the business, the scale of the business becomes more important to absorb these costs effectively. You need to take advantage of operating leverage, especially in the processing business.

 

***************************************

 

 

THE ECONOMIC TIMES

EDITORIAL

'CLIENT VIRTUALISATION IS THE NEW THING'

CHIRANJOY SEN

 

A few weeks after the firm's quite satisfactory second-quarter results, virtualisation giant Citrix CEO Mark Templeton was down in India. It is the new technology adoption by enterprises that gives him a kick even though spending on technology has declined globally and revenues are flat, Mr Templeton tells ET in an interview. Excerpts:

 

What will drive future growth of Citrix — acquisitions or product launches?

It will be a mix of both. Over the past five years, we have invested almost $1.5 billion to acquire technologies and world-class talent through strategic acquisitions. It has been a successful part of our growth strategy. Most of our revenue growth will be driven by rapid expansion of virtualisation, networking and collaboration markets we serve today. Incremental penetration in high growth countries such as India, China, Brazil and Russia where we are still building our go-to-market muscle will also contribute.

How important are the new product launches to keep Citrix ahead of the technology and business curve?

New products are the life blood of every technology company and critical for Citrix. We need to keep existing products fresh, competitive and be able to deliver customer value. At the same time, we are also building and launching some exciting products over the next 12 months, some of which are being designed and built by our Bangalore-based R&D team.

Which technology will dominate in the coming years: virtualisation, SaaS or mobile computing?

Every technology that makes people more productive, while giving them control of where and when they work will be really hot. Virtualisation, web collaboration, communications, network acceleration, and device miniaturisation are all very complementary and fundamental toward making a wide range of virtual workstyles a reality.

Apart from India, which other Asia-Pacific markets are you eyeing?

The Asia-Pacific market has a number of countries that Citrix views as growth markets. In addition to India, we are interested in China due to its geographic size, high GDP growth and its rapid infrastructure development. While our Asia-Pacific revenues have grown by 10% year-on-year, our India revenues have grown at a compounded rate of more than 25% over the past few years. We are increasing our India headcount and adding to the number of clients every year.

Citrix has been aggressively launching new products in 2009...

Again, the new products follow the ethos of making virtual workstyles a reality. For one, we have made available the Citrix Receiver application on the Apple App Store. This application gives iPhone and iPod Touch users access to their Windows applications and documents from anywhere. We have also unveiled Citrix Dazzle, a self-service "storefront" for enterprise applications. Dazzle gives corporate employees 24x7 self-service access to a broad array of applications, desktops and content, allowing them to choose exactly what they need, when they need it.

Citrix has been at the forefront of virtualisation. What's the latest?

An emerging development is client virtualisation. It is something that Citrix is working on with Intel. Their version called Xen Client is expected in the fourth quarter of this year. It will allow you to have multiple virtual machines on your personal desktop or laptop or even a handheld device. You will have your corporate and personal information on this single device. Your company can control one of the virtual machines in the device, with the necessary security, to enable a person to do all her official work as well as personal work on the device.

Can you explain how that works?

Multiple types of machines — with different applications — are possible within a single device. Say in a training institution, if some people are to be trained on web programming and others on desktop publishing, the same device can be used. In a government set up, a single device can be used for regular office work as well as to do highly classified work. In short, it can significantly reduce the requirement for personal devices. A company can even ask its employees to bear a part of the expense towards their official laptops and allow them to use it also for personal purposes. This can even be bigger than server virtualisation.

 

***************************************

THE ECONOMIC TIMES

EDITORIAL

THE IMMELT-AMBANI DIALOGUE: INDIAN CURE FOR GLOBAL ILLS

 

It was a rare instance of the East meeting the West to talk leadership. The representatives of the established and the emerging world orders - Jeffrey Immelt, chairman and CEO of the $183-billion General Electric, one of the world's largest corporations and Mukesh Ambani, chairman of Reliance Industries, India's largest company -- came together to exchange ideas.

 

They dídn't have much in common to begin with. While Immelt reflected GE's famed belief in processes, Ambani talked about the role of intuition and respect in effective leadership. But the debate, moderated by Confederation of Indian Industry's chief mentor Tarun Das, saw them gravitating towards a common conviction that the future of world business will be shaped by ideas from the East. Throughout the conversation, Ambani reflected the confidence of an emerging India providing thought leadership to the world of business, while Immelt highlighted the importance of transporting ideas back to the developed world. Excerpts:

MANAGING DIVERSITY

Tarun Das: Jeff, GE is in diverse businesses. How do you manage this global business, different products, different services?

Jeffrey Immelt: When I joined GE in 1982, the company was $25-billion dollars and 80% of our revenues were inside the US. Today, we have a $100-billion outside the US alone. So the notion of how to manage the global company and how to keep that going forward is foremost on my mind and that boils down to a couple of fundamentals. First, we have to constantly focus on recruiting, training and developing the world's best talent and giving them the freedom to act and win in their own markets. Second is focus on customers and the third is interface with the society and government. You should know how to make money for your investors and the country. The unique role of the CEO in globalisation is to sense the moment of time and continue to be flexible as things change. Jack Welch (former chairman of GE) sensed the moment of time for India was 1991 when he sent all of us here.

Das: Mukesh, how do you see the world and manage in this very complex situation?

Mukesh Ambani: When I joined Reliance in 1980, it was less than Rs 80 crore in size. Next year, it's expected to touch Rs 200,000 crore mark. Through my journey, I have had the backing of my father's philosophy that business has to have a purpose, which is to meet a missing need in society. I still remember in the 1980s in Delhi people would question us. They said, 'I don't trust you guys. If you are going to spend my foreign exchange, you better earn it and we will put an export obligation on you.' Lots of people think that India is a country of a billion problems. I am a big believer that India is a country of a billion opportunities.

INDIA & CHINA

Das: GE has been in India for the past two decades now. What do you feel about India today?
Immelt: The sense of optimism in India is really impressive. China has probably had one of the best governments in the world. If you did exactly what the government told you to do, you were successful. India has a great human resource capability. Going forward, India is going to be the place where the business processes will change rapidly. We have made the decision to actually have all of the businesses in India report to a CEO in India versus back to their home CEOs back in America or Europe or elsewhere. We are doing this only in India. It will make things move faster and help us experiment with different business models. Also, we can see how business models that people like Mukesh are inventing can be transported to the rest of the world.

(REVERSE) INNOVATION

Das: You recently had a great article in the Harvard Business Review on 'Reverse Innovation'.

Immelt: I think it is the idea that most American multinationals go through stages of globalisation where you export, start to localise and ultimately get to the point where you build local capability. And then you can start transporting ideas back to the developed world. That's what the article really is about. Now the only person in GE who thinks having all the businesses work for a CEO in India is a good idea is me.

Das: Are you too doing that at Reliance when you are looking at your business? Are you innovating, finding new models of doing business?

Ambani: Absolutely. We have got to have a vision to leapfrog, to make sure what we have done in communications, we are able to repeat in multiple sectors. There is always a danger of falling in the trap of doing what the West did. I think our challenge really is to think about what is next and reach there faster than anybody else. All through the 1990s, early 2000s, we were all being given homilies in terms of saying, 'you guys, in the emerging economies, you can disturb the world, and you guys have to discipline yourself'. And see where the biggest crisis came from in the world. It came from the heart of capitalism...

Immelt: (laughing) Are you pointing at me Mukesh?

Mukesh Ambani: We at Reliance have people like Dr Mashelkar and under him we have set up our Innovation Council, which really collects global thought leaders to think about extreme innovations. I am quite clear that 20 years from now, we would not talk about garages in Silicon Valley. We will talk about projects in the villages and rural areas in India, which are then scaled all over the world.

INDIAN ENTREPRENEURS

Das: Confidence has been a new ingredient (for Indian entrepreneurs), especially in the last five years. Do you see this in other parts of the world?

Immelt: The CEOs in India are as good as or better than any in the world. When I joined GE, Jack (Welch) sent all of the young leadership team to Japan because he wanted us to understand the force that he feared could beat us in the 20th century. I observed that Japanese CEOs did not like to travel and do things in the rest of the world. What makes this generation of Indian CEOs different is that they have really travelled the world and are willing go where it takes because that's how you get better.

 

Das: Mukesh, would you like to add to that?

Ambani: My father used to say that leadership really means winning respect. Leadership, to me, is really first about your soul, what values you believe in and what convictions you stand for. Next it is about your heart, what passion you have and that gives you the courage to move on. Third is the brains and that's your knowledge, competence and your ability to execute. And, to my mind, the soul, the heart and the brains, they do not change. So be it 19th century, 20th century or 21st century, leadership continues and what I am seeing is that with every generation, we are only getting better. Today at Reliance, we give people the choices to where they want to work. And 10-15 years ago, everybody would want to go and work outside India, but today bulk of our younger people want to work for rural transformation.

Das: Younger people want to do their own thing. They want to be self employed.

Immelt: I would say in the post-crisis world, the job of the CEO is that we have to recognise that the world now wants us not only to make a profit, which is important, but also to create jobs and income, and that is the way the world will judge us. We are going to do you a service when GE invest in India but I also do you a service when I invest in United States as well because 10% persistent unemployment in US is not going to do any good to the future globalisation. The biggest thing that Indian business leaders can do for me is to see the world every now and then through US President Barack Obama's eyes. And maybe do some of your own foreign direct investments in the United States to create jobs. I mean my own argument would say that the next generation of BPO (business process outsourcing) jobs should be in the United States.

PERSONAL TRACK

Das: I want to get a little personal with the two of you now as we near the end of the programme. I envy both of you as both of you have a head of hair. This man (Mukesh) looks like he does not have a single grey hair, you (Jeff) look as if you do not have a single black hair, what makes you tick Jeff? I mean what are all you about? Where did you go to school? Where did you grow up? Did you marry your girlfriend? How many kids do you have? Tell us about Jeff Immelt?

Immelt: So I grew up in Cincinnati, Ohio in the Midwest. I went to college at Dartmouth. I was a Physics major, Applied Math major in college. I received an MBA and went to work for GE. I spent most of my early career in sales and marketing in our plastics business. I ended up running our plastics business. I spent time in our appliance business. I ran our medical business for five years before becoming CEO. I could tell you a thousand stories about myself. I'd tell you about my father, my real father.

Das: Not Jack Welch?

Immelt: Not Jack Welch. My father worked for GE for 40 years and so in some ways, I am a representative of what's called the American dream. My mother was a school teacher. In one generation in the United States, if you can go from sitting around a kitchen table talking about GE to actually sitting around the boardroom planning the future of GE. So that's what motivates me. I would say the way I would describe myself is I am a GE man. GE is a company of normal people who work together and do extraordinary things, and we like it that way.

Das: Mukesh, I am not going to let you off on the personal front. How is it that you do not have grey hair, not even one?

Ambani: I am from the chemical industry. (The audience bursts into laughter)

Das: And do you share the family passion for cricket or do you have other hobbies and interests?

Ambani: I have left cricket to Nita and am wise enough not to interfere in other's domain. Business requires passion and 24 x 7 kind of an involvement, but it is also important to be detached. The amount of time that I spend with my three children is very important. I think the best upbringing I can give them and the best wealth that I can create for them is really to bring into them a value system that will then last with them for a lifetime. I am a voracious reader, Nita make sure that I work out, though you would not see the obvious results. (Laughs)

INDIA 2014

Das: What kind of India would you like to see five years from now?

Immelt: I would like to see an actual good road between the Mumbai airport and downtown (laughs). I'd say three things about India. The first thing is that the long, foremost focus on infrastructure really comes true; the second thing is really making sure that this prosperity is shared broadly across the country; and the third thing is an incredibly friendly relationship between India and the US.

Ambani: I will give it to you in terms of my wish list. By 2014, India would have demonstrated that a double-digit growth is a reality. Second, we would have created gainful employment and we would be used to creating gainful employment for 12 to 15 million people a year, a large percentage of them being professionals. Third, we would have created (massive) education and training infrastructure.

 

***************************************

THE ECONOMIC TIMES

EDITORIAL

'HUMAN CAPITAL BUILDING IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF COS'

VINOD MAHANTA, VIKRAM DOCTOR & N SHIVPRIYA

 

IT's easy to figure out that both NR Narayana Murthy and RA Mashelkar are good friends; they think alike on most topics, often complete each other's sentence and are the most eternal optimists around. Both are extremely passionate about science, technology and innovation and believe that many of the solutions to India's ills can be solved using these. In Mumbai recently for "Future Challenges Summit" organised by the IITB — Monash Research Academy, the two intellectuals discussed academic-industry interface, innovation, and of course the IIT compensation issue with ET in an exclusive interview.

In the early part of last century, the Tatas and others got into research and education and after that not much happened, but now there is a renewed interest amongst corporates to get into education. Why are we seeing resurgence in corporate interest and what lessons do we learn from Tatas?

NRN: It's a unique time in the history of India. For the first time after 300-400 years, India is getting global attention and admiration. Look at the past five years: the GDP has gone up, exports are rising, the forex situation is comfortable, Indian companies are making acquisitions abroad, NRIs are raising India's image and sportspersons have done well. Of course, last year was an exception due to the global scenario. All these things have led to a higher level of confidence in people. When the confidence is high, you reach out and say we have these problems and we will solve it. In some sense, same-openness stems from the confident mindset. I believe that this is the time to start again what Tatas and all started.

Mashelkar: But for the Tatas, I wouldn't be sitting here. I was born into a poor family, my father died when I was six and my mother brought me up doing menial jobs. I walked barefoot till I was 12. There used to be Janjira Motor Works near Chowpatty, I used to study there under the streetlamps. After I did my SSC, and I was about to quit school, I got Sir Dorab Tata Trust scholarship of Rs 60 per month that made me study further. That Rs 60 added so much value to my life without subtracting any value from Tatas. That's what Tatas have done, they give you an opportunity. But for one Mashelkar who got help, they are millions of mashelkars who don't get help. I think the philanthropy that Murthy and the Tatas have demonstrated, needs to be demonstrated by corporates. Because human capital building is not the responsibility solely of the government, but of corporates too. There are four points that are critical for India: Talent, technology, tolerance and trust. The new higher education technology and infrastructure that we are building has to be built on these four pillars. The demand for the country is huge. We talk about six IITs, we need 60 for a country of 1.2 billion.

The research work done by most of the research institutes are too abstract and doesn't benefit the common man. Don't we require more action-oriented research?

Mashelkar: Science is not only unravelling the mystery of nature, blue sky research, and contributing to the pool of knowledge. There is a useful part of science in which you move from science to technology to innovation. That's what the rest of the world has done. What we haven't done in India is not followed the path of science, technology, and innovation. In 1958, we had the science policy resolution, in 1983 we had technology policy statement, and in 2003 we had science and technology policy. What we really require is science, technology and innovation policy. Innovation is mind to market, concept to commercialisation. In the rest of the world you see that happening. In Malaysia, there is a ministry of science, technology, and innovation, Spain has science and innovation ministry, Argentina has science, technology and productive innovation ministry, and even UK that has given us 60 Nobel laureates, has ministry of innovation, university and skills.

NRN: Peter Drucker said marketing and innovation are only two of basic functions of a successful business. If you don't have strong marketing and strong innovation, you won't succeed.

 

Higher education is critical for India's competitiveness in the future. But then the government seems to be dragging its feet in the IIT compensation issue — what's your take on the issue?

NRN: I think that Kapil Sibal has said he was introducing the flexibility clause or something like that. I think he will definitely come out with a solution that will be good. But at the end of the day what we need to do is we have to create channels which will provide decent compensation to the faculty. It doesn't have to be compensation from the government. The only thing we should ask from the government is to give a sum to the institution and as long as they can raise funding legally and ethically, nobody should mind compensating the faculty. For example, at IIM-A, whenever a faculty member's paper is published in a journal, he is given a sum of money. I personally feel that the government should be open and give full autonomy to the institutions to raise funds through legal and ethical channels.

Mashelkar: I agree. For example, I am on the board of the Institute of Chemical Technology (ICT), and on this issue, the board there said we should be the first one to give six-figure salaries, this despite some internal opposition. We said we will not be a burden on the government. X is what they can afford to give, we will pay the rest ourselves with money raised in a legal way and compensation will be linked to performance criteria. What is important is that compensation be performance based, it just cannot be a right.

But experiments involving academia and industry haven't been a success in the past, for example, the Media Lab Asia initiative was a debacle.

NRN: I mean that just because one Media Lab Asia was not successful, we can't throw the baby out of the water. There are many examples of academic enterprise partnerships that have worked, and Mashelkar has been involved in many. We have to look at the glass as half full, not half empty. Also remember that India is just 62-year old and we are toddlers, we are learning a lot of things. All of us have to be positive that's the only way we can make progress.

Mashelkar: I will give you an example. Back in 2007, we celebrated our 60th Independence, but we got our second independence in 1991 after the seeds of liberalisation were sown. I have spent 15 years in research labs in pre-liberalisation era and 15 years in post-liberalisation era. In the pre-liberalisation era, it was import substitution, copying. Anything we did, anything that was ahead of the world, the industry questioned have they done it. In 1989, I took over as the director of National Chemical Laboratory (NCL) and changed the business model. I said we will sell to the world. That's what lead to the partnership with GE ultimately. People told me GE's R&D budget is more than India's R&D budget, what can we offer them. I said it's not the size of the budget that matters but the size of the idea. We created IP in polymerisation of polyethylene tepephthalate (PET) and NCL formed a partnership with GE. Jack Welch said if India is that good, why aren't we there. So GE set up its R&D centre in Bangalore. So things can work.

 

***************************************

 

 

 

******************************************************************************************

                                                                                                               DECCAN CHRONICAL

EDITORIAL

A REALITY CHECK FOR RICH NATIONS

 

Money is not everything, and the weekend meeting in Istanbul of the Group of Seven richest nations in the world must have realised this. Almost all, with just one exception, are reeling under massive financial problems and clinging to stimulus packages — as the proverbial last straw — possibly in the realisation that if these were withdrawn their economies could go into a tailspin. The problem is that they are yet to resolve issues relating to the real economy. The communiqué at the end of the one-day deliberation on Saturday admits that "the prospects of growth remain fragile and labour market conditions are not yet improving." But the solutions they talk about don't appear relevant to real problems, they only deal with the symptoms. The G-7 talks of strengthening the financial system by building on high-quality capital; implementing strong international compensation standards; improving over-the-counter derivative markets; develop a new framework for sustainable and balanced growth; reform and review the resources, mandate and governance of international financial institutions, etc. It is all so much déjà vu, and does not take issues forward. The G-7 communiqué notes that "excess volatility and disorderly movements" in exchange rates have adverse implications for economic and financial stability — which is an euphemism for asking China to release controls on its currency — the renminbi — to ensure more balanced growth, in China and elsewhere. But China, always fiercely nationalist, has made it clear time and again it will work at its own pace and to suit its own requirements, and it is powerful enough to ensure that its writ prevails. Beijing has been signing yuan-based agreements with other nations, skirting the dollar, in line with its view that the dollar should not remain the world's only reserve currency. The real problem with the Anglo-Saxon and European economies is that they have priced themselves out of the markets, and are forced to provide huge subsidies to maintain exports. Their markets are flooded today with goods from developing economies which the poorer countries produce at the cost of exploiting their own citizens. Wages are low and workers labour in sweatshops across China, India and much of Southeast Asia because the West, over the years, leveraged its strength to beat down Asian markets and prices. Now the fortunes are reversed because the West has outpriced itself, and no longer enjoys leverage. That is why the World Trade Organisation is so vital for them: with a world trade deal they hope to be able to flood the markets of the developing world with their products. That scary proposition is the main hurdle that is tripping the Doha Round of world trade talks. The only real success of the G-7 has been to maintain the illusion of its relevance. It succeeded in pushing under the carpet any talk of restructuring the G-7 into a G-4 as suggested by the United States (to comprise the US, EU, Japan and China). From indications given by the Japanese and German finance ministers, the G-4 wasn't discussed at all, allowing the G-7 to survive to fight another day. The International Monetary Fund, at its parallel meeting in Istanbul, perhaps wrote the G-7's epitaph: it said "the G-20 nations would become the world's main economic decision-making forum, effectively taking over the role of the G-7 group of rich countries", as it (G-20) represented both the rich and the large emerging countries.

 

***************************************

DECCAN CHRONICAL

EDITORIAL

DEVELOPMENT CAN HELP CURTAIL NAXALS' GROWTH

BY ARJUN SENGUPTA

 

In my last column Naxal violence is a cry to be heard (September 21), I wrote about Naxal violence, supporting the Prime Minister's concern about leftist extremism threatening India's security. While such violence needs to be suppressed, I pleaded that Naxals should also be hurt. I received comments on the article, calling for wider discussion especially when it is decided to combat this violence by expanded police operations, supported even by the Army and the Air Force, so that irreversible mistakes are not committed.

There is no question that when the Naxal movement turns violent and Naxalites take law into their hands through extortions, murder and senseless violence, action must be taken against them. There is no room for such violence in our democratic society. Whatever opinion one may have about the philosophy of the movement, no one can support the methods of violence and coercion that Naxalites use.

There can, however, be questions about the most effective manner of suppressing Naxalite violence. It is by now very well documented that such leftist extremism can survive not by acquiring great firepower but by establishing a hinterland of support in the countryside and in the fields of operations.

Essentially these groups are small minorities and their classical method is to hit the establishment at its weak points — and practise the policy of hit-and-run — to provoke unplanned retaliation from the authorities resulting in huge loss of life and property. The strength of the police force is mostly in numbers and its superiority of firepower can hardly differentiate between those actually guilty and those who just got trapped in a situation.

As a result, retaliation on the part of the police makes them more unpopular with the people and thereby serves the purpose of the militants. The violence continues. Clearly, the police needs to change its way of tackling Naxal violence with the best equipment and support mechanism. But more important is that they need support of the local population giving them information and disseminating messages. It is only then that the police can pinpoint the targets and avoid massive onslaught to apprehend one or two real culprits. But this is not easy. This cannot be done by hired people or spies who would soon expose themselves.

In other words, it is the administration and the democratic functionaries in the local areas, members of the gram sabhas and panchayats together with the civil organisations that should be brought into the system for protecting peace and security.

Surely no respectable person will join this effort unless it is clearly seen as working for the affected people and not working as a group of vigilantes. It has to be essentially a political answer to a political problem to win over the population which is affected and exploited by the militants. Also this should not be used by political groups and parties to settle their score — a problem that has been dissipating anti-militant actions, particularly in West Bengal. The administration must remain impartial and act against any group and any party perpetrating violence. Such administrative action cannot be a success unless accompanied by well-thought-out programmes for development of the Naxal-affected areas.

 

Some of the programmes are being carried out effectively in many parts of the country. Be it construction of school buildings, setting up of public health centres, intensive child care activities or sanitation programmes, we now have enough experience of carrying them quickly and effectively. Many of these programmes should be seen as additional to the schemes already approved at the district and at the panchayat level. But the most important part is that people must believe that these programmes will and can be implemented if law and order prevails and Naxalite violence is curbed.

In the design and the execution of these programmes, the administration must invoke active participation of the local population, with the support of NGOs and other activists and the involvement of panchayati raj institutions. It is true that in many of these Naxalite-affected areas the panchayats have been locally dominated by vested interests who are generally opposed to a radical change affecting those who are poor and vulnerable. But it will be unwise to keep the panchayat system outside this programme, because ultimately they will have to be brought within the grassroots political system.

Once the administration succeeds in initiating these programmes, the hold of the Naxal groups in the local areas will be diluted. With little force and efforts, their violent activities can be effectively controlled.

 

There will be some differences about the choice of these programmes. It has been noted that in several Naxal-affected areas, building of roads and communications as well as forest development projects have been steadfastly opposed by local people.

Such opposition is temporary. Once people witness that development (construction of roads and communication) would increase trade and prosperity, this opposition will melt away.

But all these decisions have to be taken through discussions and consensus-building operations. NGOs and social activists may often play a very major role in this process and the administration must be prepared to provide them all the support and assistance.

There is one single area of the problems of development in this country which have been the most fertile ground of breeding Naxalism, namely the system of land acquisition and ousting of the tribals and the local population from their natural habitat.

Our government is aware of this. The enactment of the Forest Rights Act 2006 and the announcement of a new rehabilitation policy on October 11, 2007 is proof of this.

Recently, the government approved a special development package with a budget of Rs 20,000 crores for the 33 Naxal-affected districts along with 22 districts around Naxal-affected areas.

The development projects need to be implemented systematically involving the participation of the affected people.

The time has now come for us to realise that development in our country requires a change in our approach to planning and development of the local area. Dealing with the Naxal-affected areas can teach us an effective lesson.

 

The country is prepared to spend sufficient resources for the purpose of national security and overcoming Naxalite problem. Hopefully the lesson that is learnt will be then spread to all other areas of our economy.

Dr Arjun Sengupta is a Member of Parliament and former economic adviser to Prime Minister Indira Gandhi

 

***************************************

DECCAN CHRONICAL

EDITORIAL

BAD GUYS ARE STILL NOT TIRED OF FIGHTING WAR

BY THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

 

He didn't want to wear earplugs. Apparently, he wanted to enjoy the blast.

That is what the Dallas Morning News reported about Hosam Maher Husein Smadi, the 19-year-old Jordanian accused of trying to blow up a downtown Dallas skyscraper. He was caught by an FBI sting operation that culminated in his arrest nearly two weeks ago — after Smadi parked a 2001 Ford Explorer Sport Trac, supplied by the FBI, in the garage of a Dallas office tower.

"Inside the SUV was a fake bomb, designed to appear similar to one used by Timothy McVeigh in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing", the News wrote. "Authorities say Smadi thought he could detonate it with a cellphone. After parking the vehicle, he got into another vehicle with one of the agents, and they drove several blocks away. An agent offered Smadi earplugs, but he declined, 'indicating that he wanted to hear the blast', authorities said. He then dialed the phone, thinking it would trigger the bomb... Instead, the agents took him into custody".

If that doesn't send a little shiver down your spine, how about this one? BBC.com reported that "it has emerged that an Al Qaeda bomber who died last month while trying to blow up a Saudi prince in Jeddah had hidden the explosives inside his body". He reportedly inserted the bomb and detonator in his rectum to elude metal detectors. My God.

Or how about this? Two weeks ago in Denver, the FBI arrested Najibullah Zazi, a 24-year-old Afghan immigrant, and indicted him on charges of planning to set off a bomb made of the same home-brewed explosives used in the 2005 London transit bombings. He allegedly learned how to do so on a training visit to Pakistan. The New York Times reported that Zazi "had bought some bomb ingredients in beauty supply stores, the authorities said, after viewing instructions on his laptop on how to build such a bomb. When an employee of the Beauty Supply Warehouse asked about the volume of materials he was buying, he remembered Zazi answering, 'I have a lot of girlfriends'".

These incidents are worth reflecting on. They tell us some important things. First, we may be tired of this "war on terrorism," but the bad guys are not. They are getting even more "creative".

Second, in this war on terrorism, there is no "good war" or "bad war". There is one war with many fronts, including Europe and our own backyard, requiring many different tactics. It is a war within Islam, between an often too-silent Muslim mainstream and a violent, motivated, often nihilistic jihadist minority. Theirs is a war over how and whether Islam should embrace modernity. It is a war fuelled by humiliation — humiliation particularly among young Muslim males who sense that their faith community has fallen behind others, in terms of both economic opportunity and military clout. This humiliation has spawned various jihadists cults, including Al Qaeda, which believe they have the God-given right to kill infidels, their own secular leaders and less pious Muslims to purify Islam and Islamic lands and thereby restore Muslim grandeur.

 

Third, the newest and maybe most active front in this war is not Afghanistan, but the "virtual Afghanistan" — the loose network of thousands of jihadist Websites, mosques and prayer groups that recruit, inspire and train young Muslims to kill without any formal orders from Al Qaeda. The young man in Dallas came to FBI attention after espousing war on the US on jihadist websites.

Fourth, in the short run, winning this war requires effective police/intelligence action, to kill or capture the jihadists. I call that "the war on terrorists". In the long run, though, winning requires partnering with Arab and Muslim societies to help them build thriving countries, integrated with the world economy, where young people don't grow up in a soil poisoned by religious extremists and choked by petro-dictators so they can never realise their aspirations. I call this "the war on terrorism". It takes a long time.

Our operation in Afghanistan after 9/11 was, for me, only about "the war on terrorists". It was about getting Bin Laden. Iraq was "the war on terrorism" — trying to build a decent, pluralistic, consensual government in the heart of the Arab-Muslim world. Despite all we've paid, the outcome in Iraq remains uncertain. But it was at least encouraging to see last week's decision by Prime Minister Nouri Kamal al-Maliki to run in the next election with a nonsectarian, multireligious coalition — a rare thing in the Arab world.

So, what the US President, Mr Barack Obama, is actually considering in Afghanistan is shifting from a "war on terrorists" there to a "war on terrorism", including nation-building. I still have serious doubts that we have a real Afghan government partner for that. But if Obama decides to send more troops, the most important thing is not the number. It is his commitment to see it through. If he seems ambivalent, no one there will stand with us and we'll have no chance. If he seems committed, maybe — maybe — we'll find enough allies.
Remember, the bad guys are totally committed — and they are not tired.

 

***************************************

DECCAN CHRONICAL

OPED

IN CHINA, THE RED FLAGS STILL FLY FOR MAO...

BY KANG ZHENGGUO

 

On October 1, 1959, I took part in a parade for the 10th anniversary of the Communist revolution that led to the founding of the People's Republic of China. I was a middle-school student in the central city of Xian, and my classmates and I gathered at school before dawn. We marched into the city's main square, where senior party leaders would review the parade.

As members of the Young Pioneers, a Communist youth organisation, we were all in uniform — we boys in crisp white shirts tucked into navy slacks, and the girls in white shirts and blue pleated skirts that swayed in the brisk morning breeze. Each of us had a red scarf neatly tied around the neck. We were like meticulously arranged flowers, waiting for inspection.

The senior party leaders showed up late, as usual. By the time they delivered their slogan-filled speeches and initiated the flag-raising ceremony, we had already been standing like statues for several hours, our feet planted to the ground. Nobody was allowed to make a noise or leave the group, even though I badly needed to answer the call of nature. Instead, I raised my arms repeatedly and joined the crowd in shouting: "Long live the Chinese Communist Party! Long live chairman Mao!"

Standing next to me was a student who seemed to share my anxiety. She was pretty, with closely cropped hair. Her eyes darted around impatiently. We waved our arms, chanting slogans like everyone else.
Suddenly, I saw a trail of tears rolling down her cheeks. I first thought she had been caught up in the revolutionary euphoria, but then I noticed that she seemed to be embarrassed by something. She kept adjusting her skirt with her hands. I looked closer and saw that she had wet herself. I untied my red scarf and tucked it into her hands.

Our political instructor used to tell us that the red colour of our national flag symbolised the blood shed by Communists who had sacrificed their lives for the country. We were told to treat our scarves like parts of the flag. So as I quietly tossed away my stained scarf at the end of the ceremony, a vague sense of fear flashed through my mind.

In 1963, I entered college. All freshmen had to undergo a month of intensive training to prepare for the anniversary parade. On the morning of October 1, we goose-stepped in unison, passing the podium and saluting the leaders. Once again, there were red flags everywhere. Colourful floats depicted another bumper harvest. People shouted slogans at the top of their lungs, touting the so-called accomplishments of the Great Leap Forward campaign. I later heard that more than 20 million Chinese had starved to death as a result of that disastrous programme.

It was on the eve of another National Day, in 1968, that the security police suddenly arrested me and put me in a detention centre without any explanation. During interrogation, I found out that my "crime" was related to a letter I had written a year before to the Moscow University Library, requesting a copy of Dr Zhivago, which was banned in China as counterrevolutionary. The police had intercepted the letter and had been monitoring me for quite some time.

I was sentenced to three years of re-education in a labour camp, where I spent two National Days behind bars. On those days, prisoners were granted a reprieve from working in the fields. National Day was a holiday for the guards, who simply locked us inside while they went home. We were able to enjoy a day without supervision. More important, every prisoner would get a few morsels of pork in his meal, which normally featured half-rotten vegetables, thin corn gruel and steamed corn buns.

So while the whole country was involved in the October 1 celebration, we huddled together inside our cells, chatting and playing cards, a rare break from the daily grind of hard labour. The parade, the fireworks and the slogan shouting seemed as remote as a half-forgotten dream.

In September 1971, I was released from jail and arrived home a few days before National Day, which was unusually quiet. Later, through the rumour mill, people learned that the plane of defence minister Lin Biao had mysteriously crashed in Mongolia. (Lin, once seen as a possible successor to Mao, had fallen from favour.) The authorities scrambled for an appropriate public explanation. Lin's absence at major public events could certainly fuel speculation that could damage Mao's reputation. To buy time, the government cancelled the parades that were supposed to glorify the great leader and his successor.

Mao soon grew ill and was no longer in the mood to go to Tiananmen and wave to the adoring masses. Red October lost its lustre, and we were finally free to celebrate National Day at home.

This October 1, the elaborate parades — and tight control — returned. I watched from the United States as China's leadership orchestrated a huge celebration to showcase its wealth and military prowess — while the familiar red flags flew over the capital. Tens of thousands of policemen and volunteers were sent in to maintain security. The party tried to control the weather and even regulate the movement of pigeons. Dissidents were under surveillance or in jail. I couldn't help but think that while China has made great material progress over the last 30 years, Mao is still clearly the patriarch of the Communist Party.

 

Kang Zhengguo is the author of Confessions: An Innocent Life in Communist China. This article was translated by Xiaoxuan Li from the Chinese.

 

By arrangement with the New York Times

 

***************************************

DECCAN CHRONICAL

OPED

...but Deng is the leader to celebrate

By Ezra F. Vogel

 

Thursday was the 60th anniversary of the day Mao Zedong stood on the platform at Tiananmen Square and announced the formation of the People's Republic of China. But the revolution that millions of Chinese are really celebrating began 30 years ago — under the leadership of Deng Xiaoping.

For the Chinese who had for years endured Japanese occupation, 1949 brought the promise of a new era. But a decade later, the puffed-up National Day celebrations could not mask the widespread starvation that resulted from Mao's commune system. Later, Mao's Red Guards terrorised the country, killing intellectuals and officials. The world shrank away. At a low point in the Cultural Revolution, China had only one ambassador abroad, in Cairo. In isolation, China fell far behind other East Asian countries.

Like Germans who asked why they followed the Nazis, thoughtful Chinese still wonder why they continued to follow Mao even after disaster struck. Outsiders also ask why a population that has rejected Communist utopianism and class struggle still celebrates the 60th anniversary under a large portrait of Mao in Tiananmen Square.

One reason is that after Mao's death, Chinese leaders considered how the entire Soviet leadership lost political authority after 1956, when Khrushchev thoroughly denounced Stalin. They thus decided to keep images of Mao even as they departed from his visions and ideology. Also, the Chinese understand that Mao's achievements of the first seven years of the revolution, especially in unifying the country and building local organisations, formed a base for what his successors accomplished.

Still, most Chinese recognise that the true revolution belongs to Deng Xiaoping. No specific reforms were as important as his persistence in further opening China's doors and encouraging its people to scour the world for new ideas in science, technology and management.

One first step was to promote talent at home. Many universities had been closed during the Cultural Revolution, which ended with Mao's death in 1976. When he returned to power in 1977, Deng embarked on a colossal rush to hold national entrance examinations and reopen universities.

Deng also frequently invited Chinese-American scientists for talks. His key question was always: How can China catch up in science? In 1978, when Frank Press, President Jimmy Carter's science adviser, visited China, he was taken aback when Deng proposed sending far more students and faculty to the United States than Press had the mandate to offer. Deng was so insistent on a quick answer that Press called Carter, waking him in the middle of the night. Carter immediately accepted Deng's proposals.

In the 30 years since Deng started his revolution and further opened China's doors to foreign trade and investment, hundreds of millions have risen above the poverty level, China has become the workshop of the world, urban slums have been replaced by forests of modern high-rise buildings, superhighways have succeeded dirt roads and cars have displaced donkey carts.

To be sure, the last 30 years have had plenty of problems — corruption, crackdowns on dissidents, environmental degradation, unequal educational opportunities and a failing rural health system.

Chinese leaders lacking confidence in their ability to maintain public order are not likely to listen to Western advice on how to handle human rights, minorities and dissidents. China will move at its own pace, but Deng's revolution demonstrated that it is able to take positive lessons from the West.

So on this 60th anniversary, we should join in the celebration of the Deng revolution and not be distracted by the portrait of Mao hanging in Tiananmen Square.

 

Ezra F. Vogel, a professor emeritus of social sciences at Harvard, is writing a book about Deng Xiaoping

 

By arrangement with the New York Times

 

***************************************

DECCAN CHRONICAL

OPED

BETWEEN PAK & US

BY SRINATH RAGHAVAN

 

America's policy on Afghanistan is at a critical juncture. Barely six months after unveiling his AfPak strategy, US President Barack Obama is assailed by a host of indications that it is not yielding the expected results. The confluence of three important developments has cast his predicament into sharp relief: the controversial presidential elections in Afghanistan; the grim strategic review by the US military commander in Afghanistan; and the deepening domestic divide on military commitment to Afghanistan.

Mr Obama has said that he is thinking hard about the assumptions underpinning the current policy. His candour is to be welcomed; but unless his administration undertakes a more searching examination of its approach, it is only likely to reinforce past failures.

Consider the elections in Afghanistan. Even before polling had commenced, American and European officials were voicing their concerns about the possibility of widespread electoral fraud. Whilst their apprehensions might have been genuine, there is little doubt that these also reflected a burgeoning mistrust of President Hamid Karzai. Indeed, these statements came after months of tension between Washington and Kabul, including some theatrical confrontations involving American vice-president Joe Biden and Richard Holbrooke, special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Mr Karzai was well aware of the administration's ill-concealed desire to see him out of office. In consequence, he opted for an unsavoury embrace of the likes of Rashid Dostum and Mohammed Fahim.
Washington's attitude after the elections has been no better. Nobody, including Mr Karzai, denies malfeasance during the elections. The question is of scale. American and European officials have suggested that but for the rigging Mr Karzai would neither have obtained an 18 per cent lead on his nearest rival nor crossed the 50 per cent mark to avoid a second round of polling. It strains credulity to believe that hundreds of thousands of votes could have been rigged in favour of a Pashtun candidate, however powerful, when the top brass of the Afghan security and intelligence set-up is dominated by Tajiks. The US continues to grumble about the legitimacy of Mr Karzai, but has settled into a sullen acquiescence of the election's outcome.

This attitude is unlikely to help and could well be counterproductive. A recurring theme in America's long history of military interventions has been the intractable problem of dealing with the local ally. Although the government may have initially been propped up by the Americans, it tends gradually to distance itself from the latter — not least to bolster its own domestic standing and to avoid being tainted by the military excesses of foreign forces. The Americans tend to view such behaviour as ungrateful and grow critical of the local government. This in turn leads the host government to display its independence more vigorously. This spiral of mistrust has plagued numerous American interventions, most notably in South Vietnam.

Unless the Obama administration adopts a more mature approach in dealing with the Karzai government, its efforts to stabilise Afghanistan will prove ever more difficult. Such an approach would begin by recognising that Mr Karzai cannot solely be blamed for the ills of his administration. Take the much discussed issue of corruption. The venality of the current regime is evident, but it stems to a considerable extent from the highly centralised structure of the government — one that was imposed on the country by the Western coalition in 2001. Similarly the inefficiency of the governmental apparatus is in no small measure due to the coalition's unwillingness to adequately bankroll the efforts in Afghanistan. The recently completed strategic review by General Stanley McChrystal repeatedly underscores the need for "responsive and accountable governance".

 

This is undoubtedly a key requirement, but it cannot be accomplished without a better working relationship between Washington and Kabul.

The McChrystal review also indicates other problems and blind spots in American strategy. It admits that American forces are not adhering to the basic principles of counter-insurgency operations, and calls for a more population-centric approach. The need to "protect" the people from the insurgents has been a mantra of American counter-insurgency since 2006. Clearly it is easy to repeat such platitudes, but rather more difficult to implement them. Excessive reliance on firepower not only continues to inflict civilian casualties, but has undermined the legitimacy of Western forces in eyes of the Afghan people.

Equally problematic is America's refusal to come to terms with Pakistan's role in the Afghan insurgency. The review acknowledges that the "insurgency is clearly supported from Pakistan", and that the senior leadership of the insurgent groups are based there. But it goes on to assert that the "existence of safe havens in Pakistan does not guarantee failure" and that Afghanistan needs Pakistan's "cooperation". Little is mentioned about how this might be secured or why Pakistan would extend such cooperation. Indeed, there is no discussion on dealing with the Pakistan end of the insurgency.

What's more, the review excessively privileges Pakistan's interests and perceptions in Afghanistan. The observation about India's increasing presence in Afghanistan inviting "counter measures" from Pakistan has received some attention. This is entirely in keeping with the larger, specious assumption that unless Pakistan's concerns vis-a-vis India are allayed, it will not move against Taliban. Interestingly, Iran's role too is viewed through the prism of Pakistan's "strategic interests". The review also alleges that Iran's Qods Force is training sections of the Taliban — an absurd claim that betrays ignorance about the history and nature of relationship between Tehran and the Taliban.

Notwithstanding these issues, it is unlikely that Mr Obama will either drop the current strategy or turn down the military's request for additional troops. Having talked up and committed himself to the conflict in Afghanistan, it would be politically unwise to execute a swift volte face. But it is not clear that persisting with the current, flawed approach can be anything more than a holding operation.

From India's standpoint, this is highly unsatisfactory. Not only has Washington quietly dropped the idea of a "big tent" approach involving the major regional actors, but is increasingly viewing their efforts solely from the perspective of Pakistan's interests and desires. It may be time for New Delhi to start thinking seriously about a regional approach to Afghanistan outside the American framework.

 

Srinath Raghavan isa Senior Fellow at the Centrefor Policy Research, New Delhi

 

**************************************

 

******************************************************************************************

THE STATESMAN

EDITORIAL

ANOTHER 'NO-GO'

COUNT has long been lost of the number of "drives" undertaken to clean up the pride of Srinagar, but the fate of the shrinking Dal continues to be gloomy. The most recent of the non-starters is the judicially-directed campaign to prevent the 1200-odd houseboats ~ another unique tourism magnet ~ from discharging sewage into the lake. It was launched with much fanfare some six months ago, only three of the boats moored on the celebrated waterbody have installed the recommended systems thus far, and those who did insist the results do not justify the expenditure. According to the houseboat owners' association the systems, developed with the assistance of an IIT, flop in the wake of fluctuating water levels. Now another experiment is in the offing. But, as usual, a blame-game is on. The houseboat owners insist that their high-profile makes them a target, that the boats contribute less than five per cent of the waste that is dumped in the lake, that the hotels and VIP villas in the vicinity are the greater polluters. An opposite line is taken by the Lakes and Waterways Development Authority which insists that the boats install sewage disposal systems, or shut shop. A typical bureaucratic approach: the Dal without the houseboats would just not be the same, the folklore of the Valley would nurse a void.

Admittedly the chief minister has a lot on his plate with both militancy and Mehbooba breathing down his neck. Yet unless a major political move is made, and sustained, the Dal is doomed. It has been reduced to half its size and there has been a 50 per cent reduction in its depth. When militancy ran riot all maintenance activity ceased, and thereafter there has been a lot of talk but little else. Omar Abdullah must put parochial pride in his pocket and launch a nationwide appeal for funds and expertise to resurrect the lake. The tourism sector must also realise that it has high stakes in the Dal's future and loosen the purse strings ~ houseboat owners say they can hardly afford the costly equipment. It would be in order to get New Delhi involved too ~ except that it has made such a mess of cleaning-up a limited stretch of the Yamuna! 

 

***************************************

THE STATESMAN

EDITORIAL

ON THE BACKFOOT

 

LAST Thursday's meeting in Geneva will rank as yet another milestone in Iran's nuclear programme in as much as it signifies a retreat from confrontation. The development must be all the more critical as it comes within a week of the ultimatum to Teheran by the big powers of the UN Security Council. If the disclosure of the second uranium enrichment plant was an act of defiance, the fact that Iran has now agreed to admit inspectors to the new plant and even surrender some of its enriched uranium to be processed abroad signals a definite concession. Though there is no commitment to stop the uranium enrichment programme, it certainly is a comedown by the Islamic Republic. Further, it coincides with the 1 October deadline, and effectively staves off the clamping of sanctions just yet. Iran has agreed to negotiate with the West, and that is progress indeed.
The success of the meeting in Switzerland is embedded largely on the one-on-one between the US diplomat, William Burns, and Sayeed Jalil, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator. In effect, America and Iran have broken the ice after 30 years of what international relations experts have called "high level silence". It was essentially Barack Obama's tactic to bring Teheran to the high table of compromise. The US President has been cautious enough to temper what he calls "a good start" with the caveat that "our patience is not unlimited" and that Iran must take "concrete steps to meet its obligations under international law". The follow-through must at once be substantial and convincing.

No less significant must be Iran agreeing to hand over a substantial part of its stockpiles of low-enriched uranium for further enriching into fuel rods in Russia and France. The material will be exported back to a research reactor in Teheran, eventually to meet the need for isotopes in medical centres. To trade in its own low-enriched uranium is another comedown for a country that may have been planning to convert the material to bomb-grade uranium. It would be premature to speculate if the ruling clerics have had a dramatic change of heart and mind. Suffice it to register that the country is clearly on the backfoot after having revealed a hitherto unknown nuclear facility near the holy city of Qom. To the extent that it will allow inspectors to this facility within the next few weeks.

 

***************************************

THE STATESMAN

EDITORIAL

OPPOSITION'S INTENT

 

IN terms of pre-poll alliances, Maharashtra's BJP-Shiv Sena combine doubtless has an edge over the incumbent Congress-NCP. It has an edge too in the timing of its election manifesto. That said, the statement of intent of the combine, as unveiled last week, reinforces its train compartment mentality. The goalposts remain ever so parochial and centred around class groups. The stamp of the Shiv Sena, notably the Thackeray circuit, is unmistakable in the pledge to earmark 80 per cent of the jobs for "inhabitants of the state", a euphemism for an indeterminate number of locals. The 15 per cent additional reservation for "economically backward sections" is another pledge designed to woo an equally amorphous class group. Assuming for the sake of argument that the BJP-Shiv Sena takes over, both these concessions are bound to exacerbate the provincial tension and also, of course, the violence in Mumbai and the rest of Maharashtra. To use the language of understatement, the BJP-Shiv Sena's style of addressing bread-and-butter issues is fraught with risk.

The alliance is on firmer ground when it dwells on the other critical sector ~ the irony of a dismal power situation in one of the more developed states. Just as it is ironical that the Vidarbha region, where 60 per cent of the power is generated, is the worst affected. Indeed, the whole of Maharashtra is dependent on Vidarbha for electricity. It may sound a tad presumptuous when the BJP-Shiv Sena pledges to "eradicate power cuts in two years". But the importance accorded to this segment underscores the failure of the Congress-NCP to grapple with the problem in the ten years it has been in office. The statutory board, set up by the state government, has done but little to assuage the situation. Politically, the manifesto's emphasis on power is significant as 66 out of the 288 constituencies are in Vidarbha and 60-odd in Marathwada, where the impact of the crisis has been no less crippling. Beyond such aberrations as renewed parochialism, one must give it to the BJP-Shiv Sena that it has chosen a campaign plank that is close to the bone.

 

***************************************

THE STATESMAN

EDITORIAL

SHAM MARRIAGES BOOMING IN BRITAIN: REPORT

PRESS TRUST OF INDIA

London, 4 OCT: Thanks to relaxed laws, illegal immigrants are increasingly staging fake marriage ceremonies to stay in Britain, according to government figures.

The figures, collated by the British home office, have revealed an estimated 261 "fake marriages" took place in the first half of this year ~ putting numbers on course for over 500 by this year end, the Daily Mail reported.
In fact, in 2004, the home office counted 3,578 sham marriages and the figures fell to 282 in 2006. But in the wake of a court ruling last year, there has been an increase of 80 per cent this year, the report said.
Last year, Law Lords said the strict rules against fake marriages were "unlawful" and breached human rights, and could deny genuine couples the right to marry.

However, some marriage registrars believe the estimates undercount the true level of immigration cheating through marriage. "We are seeing a steady increase in the numbers coming through our doors who are producing certificates of approval from home office who have no connection with their partner, sometimes they don't even share the same language with their partner and are unable to communicate with each other in any way apart from through an interpreter. "These are purely for the purposes of immigration avoidance. Now that means we are looking at a figure in the thousands, not in the hundreds," Mr Mark Rimmer, director of marriage registration at Brent council, was quoted as saying.

 

***************************************

THE STATESMAN

EDITORIAL

ENLIGHTENED DEMOCRACY

 

Democracy is under stress. Its essence has been lost in the welter of shambolic values and misdirected objectives. The individual's worth, so vital for the growth and enrichment of democracy, has been denuded to the extent that he feels alienated. In such circumstances, democracy cannot be as vibrant as it ought to be.
Such qualities as self-respect, self-discipline, self-development and self-activity are at a discount. Yet, as Mahatma Gandhi had envisioned, they are crucial for the survival of democracy. His experiments in teaching and learning urgently need a re-look.

The maladies that plague democracy are a worldwide phenomenon. The problems of Indian democracy need to be spelt out and evaluated. Its values and ideals need to be re-examined as India has contributed not a little to global democracy and civilisation.

Gandhi's contribution to democracy was invaluable, his efforts relentless. He highlighted the glory of Visvamanav, the "global man" and "Visva-Samaj". 

It would be pertinent to ask what, according to Gandhi, are the fundamental problems of Indian democracy? What are his suggestions to address these issues? How far are these suggestions relevant for the revival of democracy in the true spirit of altruism? A modest endeavour to answer these questions might just steer us towards enlightened democracy.

ETERNAL VALUES

GANDHI was ever so anxious to enrich democracy in order to ensure that it represents the eternal values, ethos and moorings. It ought to be the ideal exponent of humanism. A tireless and lifelong crusader against the ills of democracy, he delved deep into its problems. Foremost is the problem of illiteracy, one that has snapped its foundations. Exploitation masquerades as democracy. This is a problem that has virtually gone beyond control.
Poverty is an outcome of illiteracy. It breeds and spreads inequality to such an alarming extent that in certain vulnerable areas democracy has been reduced to a theoretical concept. Terrible differences exist between the rich and the poor, the haves and the have-nots, the advantaged and the disadvantaged.

The third factor is the devaluation of values in personal and social life. This has tarnished the image of the individual and social democracy in the wider context. When morality is at stake, democracy suffers. Which explains why the system, as it exists in India, is plagued by greed, graft, and corruption. To an appalling extent, this has affected both the individual and society.

The erosion of aesthetic values in individual and social life has led to the craving for cheap popularity, obscenity and vulgarity ~ trends that militate against the growth of democracy. The technological overdrive has overshadowed the true tenets of democracy. Noticeable also is a general sense of passivity and despair, which runs counter to a thriving democracy.

 

To tackle such problems, Gandhi had suggested certain constructive measures that deserve special attention in the context of a misguided democracy. The problem of illiteracy should, as he had suggested time and again, be arrested in right earnest. He wanted the whole system of education to be overhauled for wider and more effective dissemination. His Nai Talim or Basic Education envisages the "education of the head as well as the heart", synchronising the wishes and expectations of millions of people who are deprived of the merits and advantages of democracy. His experiments with learning, with a focus on self-dependence, self-service, self-discipline and self-study accentuate the march of democracy towards accuracy, ascent and excellence.

Gandhi gave maximum attention to the elimination of poverty in order to restore equality. The concept of Trusteeship is a novel experiment based on the involvement of the affluent in restructuring the imbalanced economy. Indeed, disparities have resulted in differences and anomalies in a largely confused democracy. His suggestions on "bread labour" introduced a new philosophy that glorifies work as workship. 

As regards Gandhi's thoughts and experiments on reshaping the vision of democracy, the role of the spinning wheel ~ charkha ~ is very significant. Indeed, he had wanted to revive the cottage industry by introducing the spinning wheel. He hoped that it would help remove poverty and also act as the centre of other activities. The charkha, as he emphasised, "is a useful and indispensable article for every home. It is the symbol of the nation's prosperity and, therefore, freedom. It is a symbol not of commercial war but of commercial peace. It bears not the message of ill-will towards the nations of the earth but of goodwill and self-help. It will not need a navy threatening a world's peace and exploiting its resources; but it needs the religious determination of millions to spin their yarn in their own homes as today they cook their food in their own homes." (Young India, 8 December 1921).

HARMONY & BROTHERHOOD

IT is extremely regrettable that the spinning wheel has been misunderstood and misrepresented. It is actually a pointer to revival and renovation of altruistic democracy in the light of regeneration of the soul-force in self-esteem and self-reliance where the spirit of conjoint living works amidst the sound of the wheel of perfection. Moreover, the role of the spinning wheel in awakening the spirit of harmony and brotherhood in order to eliminate the ills of democracy such as untouchability, communalism, fundamentalism, casteism and so on necessitate a rethink on the programmes for the poor.

Gandhi was distressed over the crisis of democracy and the devaluation of such traditional values as austerity, simplicity, tolerance, steadfastness to truth, righteousness, benevolence, and modesty. He himself was a strict and relentless follower of these values. He preached the highest esteem for all, irrespective of caste, creed, colour, sex, religion. This comes through in his philosophy of man as the embodiment of God who is Truth ~ Satyanarayan. 

Non-violence, in Gandhi's reckoning, is the permanent pillar of democracy. Non-violence is "truth-force". It is also soul-force and love-force, the most vital elements of democracy. When democracy is guided and guarded by non-violence and truth, it is a safe, pure and perfect platform for the emancipation of man and society.
When shall we follow the footprints of the Mahatma?

 

***************************************

 

 

 

******************************************************************************************

THE TELEGRAPH

EDITORIAL

BOGUS HOMAGE

 

The government has named the national rural employment guarantee programme after Gandhi. That would not have been a surprise if it had been named after Indira or Rajiv Gandhi. Nor would anyone have given it a second thought if it had been named after Jawaharlal Nehru, who belongs to the right genre even if he has the wrong name. What is stunning, however, is that the programme has been named after Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, also known as Mahatma Gandhi. Perhaps the nominal diversification can be explained by the fact that Congress governments have used the Gandhi-by-marriage name all too often; names, like currency, tend to get devalued if they are used indiscriminately. That, however, applies even more strongly to the MKG name, which has been in currency twice as long as the adopted Gandhi name, and has a greater achievement to its name, namely the freedom of India. It has been used so routinely that a stranger to any Indian town, if he does not know a thing about it, can get down at the railway station and ask the taxi driver to take him to Mahatma Gandhi Road; ninety-nine times out of a hundred, he will end up on some crowded, dirty road, full of jewellery and fashionwear shops. He is, however, unlikely to do so. This six-syllable name is too long for common use; he is more likely to ask for just MG Road.

 

In this surfeit of bogus homage, Shashi Tharoor's admonition to the nation, that instead of taking a holiday, it should be working harder on the nation's adopted father's birthday, is a breath of fresh air. So was his celebration of his being consigned to cattle class. That is rather staidly ironical; perhaps more ironical is the idiot's guide to diplomacy that is supposed to have originated from him.

 

But it cannot have been just another joke, for Tharoor has been engaged in serious diplomacy in the past two weeks. Among other things, he went heavily loaded with gifts to Liberia, and had a one-on-one with President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf of Liberia. He did not stop there. He went on to have a tête-à-tête with the Indian Female Formed Police Unit, the typically long-winded name that our policewomen exiled in Liberia must bear. Although it may be premature to attribute the achievement to our 53-year-young minister of state for external affairs, to use another typical long-winded Indian description, it has been reported that after his visit, young Liberian women have been queueing up to join the police. But just in case he has trouble at home for saying that he is "not proud about our over-politicisation, our emphasis on rights rather than responsibilities and our unwillingness to work in Kerala the way we work in the Gulf", he has at least one other country where he will find a warm welcome.

 

***************************************

 

THE TELEGRAPH

EDITORIAL

TRAGIC TRIP

 

No investigation by a sitting judge, or compensation for bereaved families, or admission of lapses, or passing the buck is going to make any difference to the fact that over 40 people died in a shocking tragedy during a holiday trip arranged by Kerala's much-vaunted tourism development corporation. It is Kerala's achievement that the lack of professionalism that seems routine in states such as West Bengal has become unthinkable in that state. Yet such an image, associated with middle- to high-end tourism, cannot be sustained without a scrupulous sense of responsibility and ceaseless monitoring. The almost new, although properly licensed, double-decker fibreglass boat with 76 tourists that capsized in the lake near Thekkady while on a visit to the Periyar wildlife sanctuary was being piloted by a driver who had driven the boat just four times. From his later comments, it would seem he was more at home with wooden boats. The boat capsized because the passengers crowded to one side to catch a glimpse of animals on the bank. They did not have life jackets, although unopened packs of these were found later. No safety instructions had been given, apart from the driver's warnings when it was too late. The whole incident has the colourings of nightmare.

 

The tragedy says something important and not very pleasant about Indian attitudes, especially because it happened in a state known for its high professional standards. There is always a peculiar carelessness regarding basic details. The tourism industry has provided numerous jobs and has helped training institutions flourish. Yet the staff on the boat was not adequately trained, and the driver was not at home with his vessel. There is no centralized state authority to inspect the capability of the vessels, although the backwaters of Kerala have been built up as a tourist attraction. India's service industry has to learn that nothing can be taken for granted; when people pay for a holiday, they do not expect to die.

 

***************************************

THE TELEGRAPH

EDITORIAL

TO MAKE MORE MANAGERS

MANAGEMENT EDUCATION NEEDS TO BE BETTER PLANNED

S.L. RAO

 

Kapil Sibal might well deal aggressively with the reform of management education, still being regulated by the All India Council for Technical Education. Indian institutes of management are only the froth on top of a large wasteland (with a few oases) in management education. It also attracts some of the brightest young people. Business education is almost a guarantee for well-paid jobs and prospects for rapid increases in remunerations. Indian students of management in business schools here and abroad were around 200,000 in 2007, a very small number in relation to the needs.

 

Management education was an artificial graft on to our educational system. It has not had the integrated thinking and planning that, for example, went into Indian institutes of technology or the five-year law programme at the National Law School of India University. The regulatory framework of the AICTE is highly inefficient, overly centralized and corrupt. The National Knowledge Commission and the Yash Pal committee want the AICTE disbanded and individual schools to decide on fees, curricula and other matters. This will not improve the many bad schools that should be dealt with firmly.

 

Self-regulation by many bad business schools cannot do any better than the AICTE. Many schools are promoted by seedy entrepreneurs including politicians, out to make large bucks. Until we can weed out the shady schools and introduce high standards of self-governance by law, there must be a mechanism to monitor, inspect and award quick punishment for violators. There must be a mechanism to close the inefficient and corrupt ones.

 

AICTE norms for recognition included square footage, library, faculty strength, and so on. But AICTE constantly overlooked norms in granting recognition. There was casual and sporadic monitoring and inspection. Cheating was not uncommon and AICTE did not take action. Few were penalized for violation. Many of these recognized schools are scandalously under-equipped in libraries, computers and even qualified faculty. It is a comment on the high quality of students, the shortage of trained managers, and the herd instinct of Indian industry that almost all get good jobs on graduation.

 

Post-graduate management education must be integrated to build on knowledge imparted in a related undergraduate programme. The student should have had a broad exposure to the social sciences as well as the natural sciences. Values, ethics and societal needs must reflect themselves in management education.

 

Management education has failed to meet the vast need for managers in Indian business and non-business organizations. The unintended consequence of the hurried reservation for other backward classes is that IIMs, after years of foot dragging, have been compelled to increase the numbers admitted. But IIMs alone cannot meet the huge need for managers in India. We need a more root-and-branch reform of all management education.

 

There is a severe shortage of competent faculty. They are poorly integrated into management education. Most have little practical experience of management. Many come from different disciplines and there is no system to give them orientation towards management. At least the better management schools must offer the doctorate degree and run faculty development programmes. A massive effort to train faculty from other disciplines to teach in management courses needs to be initiated.

 

There is no way for students and recruiters today to establish the capability of different schools. Ratings could enable assessment of their relative merit. But hardly 15 per cent of recognized management schools allow themselves to be rated. They all make substantial surpluses both above and below the table. Most schools have modest libraries, few computers and poor faculty. We need a single national rating agency that would publish results annually, and compel all schools to pay for annual ratings.

 

There are over 22,500 listed and unlisted companies in India. Then there are private companies, partnerships, proprietary companies, service companies, innumerable small and medium manufacturing, trading and financial enterprises, and many non-governmental organizations in health, education and other fields that also need trained managers. The numbers of around 100,000 domestic MBAs (or equivalent) and such of the foreign-trained who return are not sufficient to meet the needs of most of these current and potential users. Most organizations actually recruit experienced people or those freshly out of school and college and train them for their needs. Commerce and economics graduates and others with professional qualifications in accounting, auditing, secretarial practice, engineering and so on form the bulk of the managerial population.

 

The present standalone MBA post-graduate programme must be integrated with undergraduate education. Students must be able to seamlessly move into an MBA class without having to newly learn the social sciences, statistics, economic history and so on. Many undergraduate courses do not give exposure to a lot of these subjects. The present undergraduate programme is the BBA, a money-making course designed in haste to cash in on the demand for people with a 'business' education. Teaching business management, as is done now, for a BBA degree to 16-year olds is misguided, since management studies demand some more exposure to other subjects and preferably work experience. Instead, a new five-year integrated management programme, with a two-year gap for work experience, must be like the five-year law programme at the national law schools.

 

We must also pay a lot more attention to the content and teaching in our BCom and MCom courses. The V.K.R.V. Rao committee report on commerce education of 1961 had proposed that management education be at the apex of a pyramid of which the base consists of diploma and degree-holders in commerce who learn the essentials to start as foot-soldiers in commerce and industry. Above them would be the BCom starting as a lower level executive, sales officer, supervisor of accounts and so on. The MCom would have specialized in one industry or another, like banking, transport, railways, even NGOs, arts management and so on, and enter those areas. The management education post-graduate would be fit to join as manager at the entry level anywhere. He would be well-rounded because of his undergraduate work, have had exposure to aspects of management, and would be even more useful if he had spent two years at work. If we create a structure like this, we will produce many more trained personnel to staff a variety of industries and levels of jobs. The present mad rush for management graduates for all types of jobs might decline.

 

Exploitation of students by charging capitation fees or excessive fees, offering poor facilities and relatively untrained faculty is rampant in many business schools and must be stopped ruthlessly. Every management education institution, whether run by a university or a trust, should be made to follow the same corporate governance rules prescribed for listed companies by the Securities and Exchange Board of India.

 

 

The small number of management graduates in relation to the total need makes many of the young and bright entrants act superior and arrogant. They complete management education in their early twenties and have multiple highly paid job offers. Management thinkers fault this practice and attribute the decline of values in many industrial and finance companies to it.

 

The government must not interfere with educational institutions on matters of faculty remuneration, differential salaries according to qualifications of faculty members, or remuneration based on performance. If the institution depends on government grants it must be free to set remuneration within an overall budget.

 

Sibal must understand that IIMs do not represent management education in India. There are hundreds of other institutions, many quite unsuited for the job, but making money. After the aging senior politicians who for the last decade handled the human resource development ministry, Sibal is a fresh mind and can transform management education.

 

The author is former director-general, National Council for Applied Economic Research

 

***************************************

 

 

THE TELEGRAPH

EDITORIAL

THE PLOT THICKENS

GWYNNE DYER

 

The Iranians have been watching too many James Bond movies. If you want to hide a secret uranium enrichment plant, you should bury it under some existing structure in the heart of the city. Hollowing out a mountain just attracts the attention of every intelligence service in the world. They start watching as soon as the first approach road shows up on the satellite photographs.

 

Western intelligence agencies have known about Iran's second uranium enrichment plant, hidden in the mountains west of Qom, since construction began in 2006. Amazingly, it took until now for Iran's spooks to realize that and warn Tehran to come clean. Recently, the Iranian government delivered a letter to the International Atomic Energy Agency admitting that the plant existed.

 

The Qom discovery also brought the Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev, around to the view that, "in some cases, sanctions are inevitable." The United States of America, Britain, France and Germany were already convinced that Iran is working on nuclear weapons, and Russia makes five. Out of the six countries that are negotiating with Iran (the five permanent members of the UN security council plus Germany), only China is still holding out, but it is starting to waver. The meeting between Iran and the Six may not be followed immediately by sanctions, but they are coming soon.

 

Yet, it is still not clear that Iran is actually seeking nuclear weapons. The religious leadership regularly declares that they are "un-Islamic", and presumably takes its own decrees seriously. On the other hand, the country has been facing the threat of attack by the US or Israel, using conventional or even nuclear weapons, for decades. So it's hardly surprising that the Iranians decided on a back-up site for uranium enrichment in case their main enrichment plant was destroyed. However, the site near Qom is much smaller, and could not supply the large quantities of slightly enriched uranium that a nuclear power station requires.

Dirty secret

 

Many people think that the Iranians meant to keep the Qom facility secret permanently, enriching uranium for nuclear weapons there while everybody monitored their innocent activities at Natanz. Others think that the secondary site near Qom is meant to give Iran the option of going flat-out for nuclear weapons if the US or Israel attacks and destroys the main enrichment site at Natanz. Both of these possible rationales were pretty stupid, since there was really no way that the Qom site could stay secret. But it does matter which of those motives underlay the Qom site: was it to build secret nuclear weapons or to have the ability to build nuclear weapons if attacked? The probable answer is that Iran genuinely wants an independent source of fuel for its civil nuclear power programme, since it has repeatedly been targeted by sanctions. Iran also wants the ability to produce nuclear weapons within six to 12 months if it is attacked.

 

The current crisis is occurring because some countries believe that Iran intends to make nuclear weapons now. They are the same countries that mistakenly thought Iraq had nuclear weapons and invaded it. They may be wrong this time, too. Some governments will argue that Iran has already crossed the legal threshold by keeping the Qom site secret from the IAEA. Under the normal NPT rules, it would only have to declare the site six months before it actually starts processing uranium there, but, in 2003, Iran voluntarily signed the so-called Subsidiary Arrangement, under which it promised to inform the IAEA of new nuclear facilities in the design stage.

 

It repudiated that extra obligation, but the IAEA says it cannot do so unilaterally. So maybe Iran has now broken the law, or maybe it hasn't. But sanctions are now almost certain, and the odds of a US or Israeli military strike on Iran just got a lot shorter.

 

***************************************

 

 

******************************************************************************************

DECCAN HERALD

EDITORIAL

RIGHT TO LIVELIHOOD DENIED TO GAZANS

THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY HAS SO FAR REFUSED TO INSIST ON AN END TO ISRAEL'S SIEGE AND BLOCKADE.

BY MICHAEL JANSEN

 

Like the Biblical strongman Sampson, the international community remains blind to the grim realities of Gaza. Instead of exerting pressure on Israel to lift its siege and blockade of the Strip and its 1.5 million Palestinian inhabitants, the world's leaders provide them with a pittance which keeps people alive but poor.

Eighty-five per cent of Gazans subsist on UN aid. Israel, which controls all the goods crossings into the Strip, permits only basic humanitarian supplies to enter in strictly limited amounts. No raw materials and no cemment, no steel, no glass and no aluminium for construction come through Israeli-controlled crossings. Consequently, water, sewage, and other infrastructure damaged or destroyed during the Israeli war early this year have not been repaired or reconstructed. Some 50,000 Palestinian families have not been able to rebuild homes wrecked by Israeli bombs and shells; the homeless live with relatives or in flats too expensive for their budgets. Unemployment is running at 40-50 per cent. Skilled workers who once had jobs in Israel are sweeping the streets in temporary employment schemes and thousands more are working in smuggling tunnels running under Gaza's southern border into Egypt. Imports through the tunnels provide Gazans with the goods they want and need and create an illusion that there is an economy.

LIFELINE
The shelves of shops that have survived siege and sanctions are filled with household items, fresh and tinned food, and cheap clothing. Women cook with gas bottles dragged through the tunnels and cars run on petrol and diesel piped through fuel tunnels.

Livestock and even cars emerge from larger tunnels. Although Israel routinely bombs one or two, the remaining 1,300-1,500 tunnels have created a new class of entrepreneurs. They not only stock the shops but also cafes and restaurants which are doing good business.

On Thursday night, before the Friday holiday, the streets of Gaza city were packed with horn-hooting cars, the shops on the main thoroughfares were decked out inbright lights to attract custom. The Mazaj Cafe on Omar al-Mukhtar street was filled with affluent young men and women sipping coffee and delving into chunks of dark cho- colate cake smothered in cream. But most Gazans cannot afford rich cake or even the modest price of masala tea at this cafe.

Gazans breathe a bit easier these days but are not optimistic about their future. They see no hope for the lifting of the siege and blockade. They fear that the Hamas government in Gaza will not be able to reconcile with the Fateh government in the West Bank since their differences remain wide on a whole range of issues, including reform of the security agencies, elections, and inclusion of Palestinians in the diaspora in decision-making.

In an appeal to the international community to act, John Ging, head of the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) that cares for the refugee populace here, called for financial aid for the cash-strapped agency. "The people are prevented from sustaining themselves because of the illegal siege on Gaza. Well, if we're not capable politically of getting the siege lifted... then the minimum that we must do is pay the financial price of keeping them alive."

HOPE LOST

He told Deccan Herald, "Eighty-five per cent depends on handouts of food from the UN to survive. All aspects of life are a struggle. People are losing hope. The whole society is being broken down and the mindset is being transformed so that a decent, civilised people becomes hostile. The most vulnerable are the children, half the population. They are susceptible to the environment, which gives opportunities to extremism."

Opening the borders to allow imports of materials for reconstruction, manufacturing, and agriculture and to permit exports would "unleash the potential" of the workforce and of "entrepreneurs who remain committed" to Gaza, Ging stated.

But Palestinians are not optimistic that anything will be done to relieve the unbearable pressure on them.

So far, the international community has refused to insist on an end to Israel's siege and blockade and the application of the 'rule of law' which prohibits collective punishment.

Gazans are being punished for voting for Hamas in the 2006 Palestinian legislative election and for failing to oust Hamas after it seized control of the Strip in 2007. "But the people of Gaza, struggling to put bread into their childrens' mouths, cannot do anything," said Hala over her cup of coffee in the upmarket Mazaj Cafe. "The world's leaders have to act," added Safa. Najla asserted, "Palestinians cannot even work to support our cause. We are in a situation where he cannot help ourselves."

 

***************************************

DECCAN HERALD

EDITORIAL

POWER OF WORDS

AT TIMES WORDS CAUSE IMM-ENSE PAIN WHEN THEY ARE ARTICULATED IRRESPONSIBLY.

BY HEERA NAWAZ

 

It's only words, for words is all I have to steal your heart away…" goes my favourite song. It implies the power of words which evolve when a man has romantic feelings for a woman, he being inclined to believe that verbal wooing of his love is the best and most effective way to win her over. Indeed, words are very powerful and potent means of communication, which can be either written or spoken, although I'm still pondering over which is more effective. I guess men in love will try both!

There are thousands of words with both positive and negative connotations. One just has to read the introductory pages of 'Reader's Digest' to know the nuances and shades of meanings of several words, how they evolved and the context in which they can be used. It is interesting to see how different wordsmiths chisel and mould sentences, each word used to perfection. When one communicates a certain thought, it should be done by way of economy of words.

There are four categories of people when it comes to communication. The first are the ones who form societies for they communicate well by measuring and weighing their words succinctly and they are never relegated to the category of hurting others. Not only do they talk politely, they are also ethical people. The next category consists of people who talk glibly and courteously but don't necessarily mean well. In other words, they are the smooth talking operators who should be avoided at all costs. In fact, it is even preferable if one falls into the next category of being blunt in written and spoken communication. What is most detestable is the last category of human beings, who are vituperative and vile on the outside as well as inside.

Indeed, so important is apt communication that if not apt, it can break hearts, damage people's psyche and cause irreparable harm to one's emotional health and well-being. Since words once spoken cannot be taken back, they can at times cause immense pain and hurt when they are articulated irresponsibly.

In fact, it has correctly been said by a wise sage, to always make your words pass through three gateways: the first being "Are the words true?", the second "Are the words necessary?" and the third "Are the words kind?" The sage concludes, saying "If it passes through gateway three, have no fear what the result of speech can be."

 

***************************************

******************************************************************************************

THE JERUSALEM POST

EDITORIAL

IRAN SIDETRACKS THE WORLD

 

There has been so much good news about Iran's nuclear weapons program lately that it's almost churlish to expose that news for what it really is - hollow and ephemeral.

 

Teheran has offered to ship much of its low-enriched uranium to Russia and France, where it will be processed before being returned for use in medical research and generating electricity. Yesterday, Iran also agreed to allow international inspectors to visit its previously secret - and still unfinished - uranium enrichment plant at Qom on October 25.

 

President Barack Obama said that the uranium export offer was "a step toward building confidence that Iran's program is in fact peaceful." Ray Takeyh of the Council on Foreign Relations said that if Iran honored its pledge to export its fuel for processing, Washington's proliferation concerns would be partly alleviated.

 

But Henry Sokolski of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center asserted that "the fuel France and Russia will send back to Iran will be far more weapons usable, being enriched with 19.75 percent nuclear weapons-grade uranium, than the 3.5 percent enriched brew Iran currently has on hand."

 

Experts say that uranium needs to be enriched at 90% for use in a nuclear bomb.

 

So instead of talking about when Iran will suspend its fuel-making activities, the mullahs have cleverly shifted the conversation to what their export pledge means - even though it would not take effect for a year or two.

 

And just to muddy the waters, Iran's ambassador to Britain, Mehdi Saffare, a member of its delegation to the Geneva talks with the Security Council "five plus Germany," insisted that the idea of sending Iran's enriched uranium out of the county had "not been discussed yet."

 

ON SATURDAY, The New York Times reported (elaborating on a story carried last month by the Associated Press) that dissident experts at the International Atomic Energy Agency have tentatively concluded that Iran has "sufficient information to be able to design and produce a workable… implosion nuclear device."

 

Their report, "Possible Military Dimensions of Iran's Nuclear Program," also argues that the country is aiming to place a nuclear payload on its Shahab 3 missile - which can reach parts of Europe.

 

The only genuinely good news is that "Overall the Agency does not believe that Iran has yet achieved the means of integrating a nuclear payload into the Shahab 3 missile with any confidence that it would work…."

 

Still, the IAEA specialists believe that though Iran hasn't detonated a device, the elaborate nature of its experiments gives it confidence that its bomb will explode.

Mohamed ElBaradei, the outgoing IAEA chief, has spiked the report. Yesterday, in Teheran he talked about how Iran has supposedly shifted from confrontation toward "transparency and cooperation."

 

With IAEA dissidents, and the intelligence services of Britain, France, Germany and, of course, Israel arguing that Iran is racing toward a bomb, Obama has instructed the US intelligence community to reevaluate its controversial 2007 finding that Teheran had halted efforts to design a nuclear weapon back in 2003.

 

NO MATTER how the US intelligence reassessment goes, or how Iran's export gambit plays out, or what happens when the inspectors visit Qom, at the end of the day - and in keeping with the mullahs' strategy - Iran will have bought time.

 

Obama insists his administration is "not interested in talking for the sake of talking. If Iran does not take steps in the near future to live up to its obligations, then... we are prepared to move towards increased pressure."

 

Of course, the president would have greater credibility with the mullahs if the heightened sanctions his administration insinuated would be forthcoming in September had actually been implemented.

 

At this point, there are only three possibilities: (a) Iran will build a bomb; (b) draconian sanctions, spearheaded by Washington, will persuade Teheran to abort its program; (c) military intervention will significantly set the mullahs back.

 

Assuming Obama realizes that the second option is by far the most preferable, he must not allow Teheran to sidetrack the discussion.

 

All the world needs to know is when Iran will stop enriching uranium, and when it will end its weapons program.

 

***************************************

 

THE JERUSALEM POST

EDITORIAL

FOR FRIENDSHIP'S SAKE

DAVID CAIRNS, MP

 

At the height of Operation Cast Lead, several anti-Israel marches took place through London and other European capitals. To try and inject balance to the debate I gave some media interviews explaining the facts about the mauling Sderot had been taking for years.

 

Once back in my House of Commons office, I anticipated volumes of hostile e-mails. What I did not expect, however, was that the e-mails were actually evenly split, for and against Israel. Equally unexpected was an opinion poll, published shortly afterwards, which showed that almost as many Britons supported Israel's action as disapproved, despite the horrific images of civilian suffering that were flooding the air waves.

 

The impression that many Israelis have of uniform hostility among Europeans to the State of Israel is false. Certainly it is true that there are many politicians and people across the continent only too happy to believe the worst of Israel. True also is the rise of anti-Semitism, especially in Eastern Europe, which politicians in these countries do shamefully little to combat.

 

BUT ISRAEL has friends in Europe, especially in the United Kingdom. Recently, press coverage was given to moves by UK Trade Unions to institute a boycott of Israeli goods, but little attention was paid to the fact that the original hard-line proposal was actually replaced by a more moderate position.

 

Much of the credit for this should go to the dedicated members of the Trade Union Friends of Israel in the UK. Most readers of The Jerusalem Post will never have heard of this organization, or of the Friends of Israel groups that exist within both the ruling Labour and opposition Conservative Parties. Yet these groups are flourishing, and working hard to ensure that the debate on the Middle East is fair and balanced, and that Israel's legitimate concerns are represented in public discourse.

 

There is no British version of AIPAC; here Labor and Conservative Friends of Israel do not coordinate strategy, nor share resources. This is no bad thing. I am a Labor Member of Parliament who happens to be a friend of Israel.

 

As a politician of the centre-left I would love to see my comrades in the Israeli Labor Party flourish again, and I yearn for the days when Israel was seen as a social democratic cause. However, being a friend of Israel does not, and cannot mean being a friend of everything that every Israeli government does or has ever done. As citizens of a vibrant democracy this is not a standard that self-respecting Israelis would hold themselves to, so it cannot be expected of foreign friends.

 

Israel's Ambassador to the UK jokes that whenever anyone introduces themselves as a "friend of Israel" he dons a flack jacket. So, as a friend of Israel who has proven himself to be so in the House of Commons as well as in the BBC studios, let me say this: it is becoming increasingly difficult for Israel's friends to make our case. The expansion of settlements; disturbing accounts of Palestinians stripped of their rights in east Jerusalem; a deteriorating situation in Gaza; all of these make it harder for Israel's friends to be heard when we speak about the threat of Iran, Hamas and the unfair double standards Israel is subject to. We will robustly defend Israel when it is maligned unfairly, but please do not ask us to defend the indefensible.

 

Many Israelis may be tempted to shrug off such warnings; as long as the Americans remain committed, what does it matter if support dwindles elsewhere? This would be a grave mistake. Firstly, it would be to abandon the idea that Israel's cause is just; that fair-minded people of goodwill everywhere can feel solidarity with the plight of a country that is the only meaningful democracy in its region, a beacon of free-speech and the rule of law, menaced by fanatical enemies committed to its destruction.

 

Secondly, to believe that as long as the Americans are on-side little else matters may be real-politik, but it is dangerous. America's patience may be great, but it is not inexhaustible. Obama will probably be around for another seven years; to dismiss him as naïve, and batten down the hatches until another Bush inherits the White House is not a strategy, it is folly.

 

So for the sake of its many friends around the world, but even more for the sake of its children and grandchildren, Israel should demonstrate once again that it has justice and righteousness on its side, not just might and strength. Embrace every opportunity to advance the cause of a lasting peace and if others do not respond, so be it; but by its actions let the world see once more that the moral high ground belongs, unequivocally, to Israel.

 

The writer is a Labor member of Parliament, former government minister and past chair of Labor Friends of Israel.

 

***************************************

THE JERUSALEM POST

EDITORIAL

WHAT ABOUT GILAD SCHALIT?

DAN KOSKY

 

The Goldstone Report has rightly been sternly criticized for its myriad deficiencies. Even stalwart supporters of the investigation have added their own degree of disapproval. In a recent article, B'Tselem's Jessica Montell admitted to being "disturbed" and "unsettled" by Goldstone's allegation that the IDF conducted a deliberate policy of targeting Gazan civilians. Yet she and her NGO colleagues have remained characteristically silent on Goldstone's scandalous treatment of captured IDF soldier Gilad Schalit as a side issue. As Israel is left to nauseatingly pawn terrorists for proof that Shalit is alive, the tokenism afforded by his captivity breeds further mistrust of the moral claims of Goldstone and the human rights community.

 

To be clear, Goldstone's report does call for Schalit's release. But this demand is given little prominence, with only two of 452 pages devoted to the issue, including an appalling moral inversion. Rather than focus on Schalit's incarceration itself, Goldstone is more concerned that if Israel maintains a blockade to secure his release, Schalit's captivity would be the cause of illegal "collective punishment."

 

GIVEN THAT the lengthy report constitutes a 'cut and paste' of NGO 'evidence, including over 500 citations to their material, it is hardly surprising that the NGO community reflects Goldstone's disregard for Schalit. Their mandates may suggest a natural role as leading campaigners for Schalit, but organizations such as Physicians for Human Rights-Israel and Association for Civil Rights in Israel are conspicuous by their virtual silence. Barring isolated mentions of his fate, there has been almost total inaction from the likes of Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and B'Tselem in protecting Schalit's basic human rights.

 

When these infrequent references have been published, they have invariably been placed in the context of condemning Israel for "war crimes," "wanton destruction" or "collective punishment". The immorality of this position is exemplified by those NGOs who cling to the legal fallacy that Israel continues to 'occupy' Gaza, ignoring the reality of the 2005 disengagement. They fail to appreciate the irony that the only remaining Israeli in Gaza, Gilad Schalit, has been held illegally and entirely against his will for more than three years.

 

Goldstone's report and its defenders have rightly been condemned for failing to place last winter's violence in context. The treatment of Schalit as a footnote to the Gaza conflict is another terrible example of the unwillingness to apply human rights to Israelis.

 

In Gilad Schalit, Israelis see their own sons or brothers. The covenant between Israeli citizens and its army, that both will do everything possible to protect the safety of the other, is central to understanding Israeli military thinking.

 

By sidelining Gilad Schalit, it is a factor that both Goldstone and the NGO community choose to ignore. The primacy given by the State of Israel to the fate of even one individual soldier reveals a compassion totally at odds with Goldstone's sinister and false accusation that the IDF launched "a deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorize a civilian population."

 

The symbolism of Schalit is particularly powerful for the thousands of IDF soldiers who entered Gaza in the knowledge that they risk being the next to suffer the horrors of captivity. Yet it is their actions which are being scrutinized as never before. NGOs are calling relentlessly for Israel to comply with Goldstone's recommendation to open an independent inquiry into 'war crimes' allegations.

 

B'Tselem's Montell is among those leading the charge, lamenting how "the authorities have stubbornly refused" their demands. That the Israeli authorities have already investigated over 100 charges of wrongdoing, with 23 cases still pending is deemed insufficient. One wonders how many convictions Israel must secure, how many IDF soldiers must be offered as sacrificial lambs, to satisfy Goldstone and his NGO cheerleaders.

 

What is clear is that neither intends on dedicating anywhere near the same enthusiasm to free Gilad Schalit as they do to convicting the very soldiers who risk sharing his fate.

 

Until they rectify this immoral imbalance, the demands of both will remain baseless and they will justifiably be viewed with continued suspicion.

 

The writer is Communications Director of NGO Monitor, www.ngo-monitor.org

 

***************************************

 

THE JERUSALEM POST

EDITORIAL

BARACK OBAMA'S 1967

ZALMAN SHOVAL

 

US President Barack Obama's inspirational speech at the UN included more than a few passages about the Middle East conflict. He expressed the hope for "a just and lasting peace between Israel, Palestine, and the Arab world," a wish shared by all Israelis. Upon closer look at some of the president's statements, several question marks arise.

 

The speech didn't, for instance, mention Islamic fundamentalism or Jihadism, the principal reasons for instability in the Middle East and beyond. Nor did it condemn the Arab world's refusal to acknowledge the Jewish people's right to a state of its own. No less problematic, the reference to ending "the occupation that began in 1967" puts history on its head, as it implies, perhaps unintentionally, that Israel's occupation of the West Bank is the cause of the Arab-Israeli conflict. This clearly inverts cause and effect.

 

As the writer and historian Simon Schama wrote, history should endeavor "to disentangle fact from fable," also reminding us that one of America's Founding Fathers, John Adams, had said "Facts are stubborn things." Well, the facts regarding the conflict in the Holy Land, though often deliberately or inadvertently distorted or ignored , are indeed "stubborn." Terrorist activities against Israel had started years before the "occupation," and the PLO committed to the destruction of the Jewish state was founded in 1964

 

NO LESS important in the factual and historical sense are the actual antecedents of the "Six-Day War" which resulted in the "occupation" to which the president's speech referred.

 

On May 13, 1967 the Egyptian dictator Gamel Abdel Nasser announced that two Egyptian divisions would move into the Sinai Peninsula bordering on southern Israel - contrary to international agreements, US commitments and UN guarantees. Caving in to Nasser's blustering, the then UN Secretary U Thant agreed to remove the UN emergency force from the area.

 

The next day, Egyptian armored and infantry columns crossed the Suez Canal and started moving towards the Israeli frontier. Shortly after, Cairo announced that it would block all shipping to the port of Eilat, Israel's only maritime outlet in the south, while Egyptian Mig21 war planes began flying over Israeli territory including the Dimona area. Concurrently, Syrian and Iraqi forces were ordered to prepare for an assault on northern Israel. The minimum strategic aim of the Egyptians, as was revealed later, was to cut off Israel's Negev from the rest of the country - but Nasser himself, in both public and secret statements, left no doubt that his ultimate aim was the complete annihilation of the State of Israel.

 

A decisive turning point leading up to the Six-Day War and grievously affecting the history of the entire Middle East to this day, occurred on May 30, 1967. On that date, King Hussein of Jordan, who had been regarded both by Israel and the US as a paragon of peace and moderation, without warning, infamously signed a military agreement with Egypt's Nasser, his former bitter enemy, including a Jordanian commitment to join Egypt in any war with Israel, stationing Egyptian and Iraqi forces inside Jordan. The "Arab Legion," considered by many as the Arab world's best fighting machine, was put under Egyptian command. Cairo radio crowed that now Israel's only escape was the sea.

 

Jordan (formerly Trans-Jordan) had in 1948 occupied and later annexed the western part of Palestine, hence called the "West Bank" - thus making the kingdom Israel's next door neighbor, abutting on most of the latter's population centers, including west Jerusalem and Israel's only international airport. King Hussein's precise motives are debatable; some believe that he wanted to placate the Palestinian majority inside his country, others ascribed it to the King's desire to get part of the spoils if the Arabs were be victorious against Israel.

 

The rest, as the expression goes, is history. The war broke out on June 5; the Egyptian air force was totally destroyed on the first day and the IDF advancing toward the Suez Canal, wiped out the Egyptian forces in its wake. The blockade of Eilat was lifted. In the north, the Golan Heights from which the Syrian army began its attack on Israel, were taken - and Jordanian troops, after an unsuccessful attempt to force their way into West Jerusalem, were, after several days of hard fighting, expelled from all of the land west of the Jordan River. Israel had achieved complete victory in a war of legitimate self-defense against blatant aggression whose declared aim had been its obliteration.

 

ALL OF the above was fully acknowledged by most of the nations of the world, though not, of course, by the Arab countries and their allies, or by the Soviet Union which according to some views, had actually egged on the Arab governments in their aggressive designs. Successive American leaders declared that Israel should never be asked to go back to its former vulnerable borders, while the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 242 which specifically linked any Israeli withdrawals from "territories" to achieving secure borders.

 

This is what 1967 is all about: not "ending" occupation, but making sure that Israel will never again be put in a situation like the one it faced in that fateful year.

 

The writer is the former Israel Ambassador to the US, and currently heads the Prime Minister's forum of US-Israel Relations.

 

***************************************

 

THE JERUSALEM POST

EDITORIAL

THE REGION: THE PRESIDENT, IRAN AND THE 'OR ELSE' FACTOR

BARRY RUBIN

 

It is widely claimed that the meeting in Geneva last week between the US - along with Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany - and Iran obtained three great achievements toward ending the Iranian nuclear campaign.

 

The first point was that the talks were conducted in a polite and civil manner; the Iranian delegates did not shout slogans nor throw shoes at the Americans.

 

This is absurd. With typically short memories, observers forget that Iran conducted years of serious talks with all the participants except the United States. But of course these talks were used to stall for time and divide the foreign opposition. Any commitments made were promptly broken.

 

What's amusing is that this point reveals how, behind the screen of political correctness, it is considered a revelation that Iranians don't act like stereotyped savages. In fact, Iran has a long and successful history of diplomacy imbued in its political culture.

 

And of course the regime has a vested interest in not engaging in footwear-throwing at the meeting. After all, in every other venue it can continue its ideological extremism, repression, and terror-sponsoring.

 

The second alleged success is equally hollow. Iran agreed to allow inspections of its hitherto hidden enrichment facility. Again, memories are short. In fact, the Iranian government announced that it would do so before the meeting in the same statement where it admitted the facility existed.

 

Let's consider the situation. For four years, Iran built and kept hidden the Qom enrichment plant. This is in complete violation of Iran's treaty commitments and is one more definitive proof - as if another was needed - that Teheran is seeking nuclear weapons ASAP.

 

Finally, though, Iran got caught. So it basically said: in exchange for keeping this facility and for no punishment for building it, we will allow you to do inspections. This is a clever maneuver, not a huge concession and can be considered a victory for Iran.

 

Thirdly, Iran has agreed in principle to send much of its nuclear fuel from the Natanz enrichment plant - the one we've known about - to Russia where it will be further enriched and then to France to be converted into fuel, making it far less suitable for weapons production.

 

But guess what? The Iranian ambassador to Britain has denied that Iran agreed to turn over the nuclear fuel. And this has not even been reported in the Iranian media yet. Iran is getting credit for a concession that it has not even made yet and probably doesn't intend to make!

 

THE ACCOUNT we are getting of the meeting's significance is too good to be true. After all, one must take into context the nature and ideology behind the Teheran regime as well as its immediate need to consolidate power at home and defuse pressure from abroad. If ever there was a situation that seemed ripe for trickery this is it.

 

To believe that Iran is ready to sincerely give up its nuclear fuel which can be used to make atomic weapons, you have to conclude that the regime's goal all along was to build nuclear energy power plants, not weapons of mass destruction.

 

From Teheran's viewpoint, in just seven hours of talks it made the threat of sanctions go away for months without taking any significant action. Indeed, Iran and those it met with have a common interest: to make the public and confrontational aspects of the problem go away.

 

US officials said that the issue of repression in Iran was raised at the meeting but that sanctions were barely brought up. Of course, the Iranians knew all about the sanctions already but the point here is that the tone of the meeting was to downplay pressure and to give Iran a chance to "go straight."

 

Obama's response to this matter shows his strategy. He will support Iran doing reprocessing in exchange for the

regime pursuing a peaceful nuclear energy option. Remember that this is what Iran has insisted it has been

doing the whole time and will go on insisting until the day that nuclear weapons are obtained. Obama - to use current jargon - is empowering the Iranian narrative.

 

What this may well amount to is a plea: Fool us, do a more persuasive job of covering over your project without actually doing so.

 

That's not, of course, what Obama and other Western leaders intend. Obama created a framework for resolving the issue by affirming that all nations have the right to peaceful nuclear power as long as they stick by the rules of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. By making clear his commitment for all countries in the world to get rid of nuclear weapons he united the international community behind him. That is what made the Geneva meeting possible.

 

Obama then presented demands: Iran must allow inspections of the Qom facility, which it has agreed to do and

it must build confidence that it is only seeking peaceful nuclear energy - by transfering the uranium to Russia for reprocessing.

 

He is thus giving Iran a face-saving way out: keep your program but don't build nuclear weapons.

 

Meanwhile, sanctions are off the table and Iran will be able to talk for months about the details of the Russia reprocessing deal.

 

In a separate but related story, the Iranian automaker Khodro announced a deal with the French company Peugeot to make cars for export. Khodro also has such deals with Mercedes-Benz and Suzuki. It doesn't sound like Iranians are worried about being isolated internationally.

 

After the Geneva meeting, they don't need to be.

THE JERUSALEM POST

EDITORIAL

OBAMA'S FRENCH LESSON

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER

 

"President Obama, I support the Americans' outstretched hand. But what did the international community gain from these offers of dialogue? Nothing." - French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Sept. 24

 

When France chides you for appeasement, you know you're scraping bottom. Just how low we've sunk was demonstrated by the Obama administration's satisfaction when Russia's president said of Iran, after meeting President Obama at the UN, that "sanctions are seldom productive, but they are sometimes inevitable."

 

You see? The Obama magic. Engagement works. Russia is on board. Except that, as The Washington Post inconveniently pointed out, President Dmitry Medvedev said the same thing a week earlier, and the real power in Russia, Vladimir Putin, had changed not at all in his opposition to additional sanctions. And just to make things clear, when Iran then brazenly test-fired offensive missiles, Russia reacted by declaring that this newest provocation did not warrant the imposition of tougher sanctions.

 

Do the tally. In return for selling out Poland and the Czech Republic by unilaterally abrogating a missile-defense security arrangement that Russia had demanded be abrogated, we get from Russia ... what? An oblique hint, of possible support, for unspecified sanctions, grudgingly offered and of dubious authority - and, in any case, leading nowhere because the Chinese have remained resolute against any Security Council sanctions.

 

CONFUSING ENDS and means, the Obama administration strives mightily for shows of allied unity, good feeling and pious concern about Iran's nuclear program - whereas the real objective is stopping that program.

 

This feel-good posturing is worse than useless, because all the time spent achieving gestures is precious time

granted Iran to finish its race to acquire the bomb.

 

Don't take it from me. Take it from Sarkozy, who could not conceal his astonishment at Obama's naivete.

On Sept. 24, Obama ostentatiously presided over the Security Council. With 14 heads of state (or government) at the table, with an American president at the chair for the first time ever, with every news camera in the world trained on the meeting, it would garner unprecedented worldwide attention.

 

Unknown to the world, Obama had in his pocket explosive revelations about an illegal uranium enrichment facility that the Iranians had been hiding near Qom. The French and the British were urging him to use this most dramatic of settings to stun the world with the revelation and to call for immediate action.

 

Obama refused. Not only did he say nothing about it, but, reports Le Monde, Sarkozy was forced to scrap the Qom section of his speech. Obama held the news until a day later - in Pittsburgh. I've got nothing against Pittsburgh (site of the G-20 summit), but a stacked-with-world-leaders Security Council chamber, it is not.

 

Why forgo the opportunity? Because Obama wanted the Security Council meeting to be about his own dream of

a nuclear-free world.

The president, reports The New York Times citing "White House officials," did not want to "dilute" his disarmament resolution "by diverting to Iran." Diversion? It's the most serious security issue in the world. A diversion from what? From a worthless UN disarmament resolution?

 

Yes. And from Obama's star turn as planetary visionary: "The administration told the French," reports The Wall Street Journal, "that it didn't want to 'spoil the image of success' for Mr. Obama's debut at the UN" Image? Success? Sarkozy could hardly contain himself.

 

At the council table, with Obama at the chair, he reminded Obama that "we live in a real world, not a virtual world." He explained: "President Obama has even said, 'I dream of a world without (nuclear weapons).' Yet before our very eyes, two countries are currently doing the exact opposite." Sarkozy's unspoken words? "And yet, sacre bleu, he's sitting on Qom!" At the time, we had no idea what Sarkozy was fuming about. Now we do.

 

Although he could hardly have been surprised by Obama's fecklessness. After all, just a day earlier in addressing the General Assembly, Obama actually said, "No one nation can ... dominate another nation." That adolescent mindlessness was followed with the declaration that "alignments of nations rooted in the cleavages of a long-gone Cold War" in fact "make no sense in an interconnected world." NATO, our alliances with Japan and South Korea, our umbrella over Taiwan, are senseless? What do our allies think when they hear such nonsense?

 

Bismarck is said to have said: "There is a providence that protects idiots, drunkards, children, and the United States of America." Bismarck never saw Obama at the UN. Sarkozy did.

 

The Washington Post Writers Group

 

***************************************

 

 

THE JERUSALEM POST

EDITORIAL

MY WORD: FROM THE UN PODIUM TO SUCCOT BOOTHS

LIAT COLLINS

 

Speeches to the UN rarely leave a lasting impression. The exception that proves the rule is the case of the late president Chaim Herzog who, as Israel's ambassador to the international body, shocked the General Assembly with an address followed by an action that spoke even louder than his words.

 

On November 10, 1975, the 37th anniversary of Kristallnacht, the UN General Assembly approved Resolution 3379, infamously declaring that Zionism is a form of racism. Following the decision, Herzog made the speech still considered one of the most important in Israeli diplomacy and definitely of his very full life.

 

Warning the other ambassadors that they would be accountable for the next holocaust, Herzog stated: "For us, the Jewish people, this resolution based on hatred, falsehood and arrogance is devoid of any moral or legal value. For us, the Jewish people, this is no more than a piece of paper and we shall treat it as such." He then proceeded to tear the document to shreds.

 

Herzog's address survived the test of time and a couple of years ago was included in a book edited by a team of British historians entitled Speeches that Changed the World. It obviously did not change the world enough, however.

 

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's address to the UN General Assembly on September 24 was not aimed at changing the world. When Libya is allowed to preside over the General Assembly despite its human rights record - and the welcome it gave Lockerbie bomber Abdel Basset al-Megrahi when he recently returned home - you might wonder if the world even can be changed. Netanyahu's speech, given in English to allow the largest number of people to understand it, was more of an attempt to change, or at least soften, world opinion.

 

NETANYAHU'S SPEECH was not as dramatic as the build-up to it: In today's world, the hype preceding a speech can be more important than what is actually said. It was not even the most memorable moment of last month's gathering. That honor probably belongs to Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi's antics and ramblings, which went on so long that the noteworthy points were lost on the way.

 

And Netanyahu's appearance was certainly not the most significant in the annals of UN history. Among the contenders for that distinction is Yasser Arafat's idea of diplomacy when in November 1974 he became the first representative of a nongovernmental agency to address a plenary session of the General Assembly. The leader of the PLO, wearing a holster, proudly proclaimed: "I come bearing an olive branch and a freedom fighter's gun." The PLO soon became an official UN observer. It was a few months after 21 schoolchildren were killed in the Ma'alot massacre, two years after 11 Israeli athletes were murdered at the Munich Olympics, and at the height of the PLO's terror campaign and hijackings that cost the lives of hundreds.

 

It was one of those moments that casts considerable doubt over the UN's ability to carry out its mandate - to prevent wars, rather than wait to investigate how they are conducted. After all, we need peace or at least quiet from missile attacks far more than we need Richard Goldstone's lecturing us on how we should not have fought back.

 

Of Netanyahu's speech two phrases echoed with me. They sounded out across the uncomfortably small global village and resonated in my Jerusalem neighborhood, where many victims of Arafat's combination of war and peace process used to live until they were blown up on the No. 18 bus or in the city's streets and restaurants.

 

The first phrase was Netanyahu's resounding: "To those who gave this Holocaust-denier a hearing, I say on

behalf of my people, the Jewish people, and decent people everywhere: Have you no shame? Have you no decency?" He was, of course, referring to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who seems to be turning Holocaust denial into a political survival technique. If he makes sure the spotlight centers on his outrageous claims that the systematic destruction of the Jewish people did not take place, the world might pay less attention to the fact that he is busy trying to ensure he has the means of a nuclear apocalypse.

 

Clearly, just a few decades later, those who can deny that the murder of six million Jews took place have no shame. Can the same be said for future generations? They might be tempted to use ignorance as an excuse. Young adults growing up today on a diet of Hollywood movies in which mega-hit fictional versions like Inglourious Basterds are the staple might lose sight of the truth as the real survivors with their only-too-true stories die off. What will shape the thoughts of viewers of films like Valkyrie, The Reader, Good and The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas which Post movie critic Hannah Brown pointed out "can be grouped in a category I'll call "A Few Words from the Nazis"?

 

This is the danger in the larger-than-life world in which we live - a world in which "Survivors" are those fighting for attention in reality TV shows.

 

The other phrase that struck a chord in Netanyahu's speech was his "We are not strangers to this land. It is our homeland."

 

It is a message worth repeating. It could be heard echoing throughout the land, our land, as religious and secular alike erected succot, the booths that gave the Feast of Tabernacles its name and remind us of the temporary abodes erected by the Children of Israel as they wandered through the desert. True, today's booths might not resemble those desert dwellings of yore. Many in Israel are incongruously decorated with made-in-China Christmas-colored trappings. But nonetheless, Succot is one of those oh-so-Jewish festivals for which we have been reviled and admired over the millennia. Like Passover, marking the Exodus, or Tisha Be'av, commemorating the destruction of the First and Second Temples, it is a sign not only of our ongoing national identity - united in joy and in sorrow - but also of our unbroken link to this land.

 

Succot's essence as an agricultural festival has in the New Age turned it into a "green holiday," helping Jews of all types to find it relevant even after thousands of years.

 

There is only one place to truly celebrate Succot. In Israel. Like the other Jewish festivals, here it not only feels right, it feels natural. This year, however, I couldn't help wondering whether some human rights group wasn't monitoring all the booths going up and preparing to file criminal charges against Israelis who dared add dwelling places without international permission.

 

Only in Israel do the local municipalities put out palm fronds to use as roofing. Only here do the meteorologists on the TV and radio pronounce whether the weather conditions will be favorable. And only here do we count it as a blessing if it rains anyway.

Netanyahu's words should act as a reminder to the world that we live here by right - as writer Haim Gouri puts it: Not because of the Holocaust but in spite of the Holocaust.

 

It's about time our neighbors learn to live with it. Peacefully.

 

***************************************

******************************************************************************************

HAARETZ

EDITORIAL

DON'T SPLIT UP THE AG'S ROLE

BY HAARETZ EDITORIAL

 

Justice Minister Yaakov Neeman has been working energetically over the past few weeks to separate the functions of the attorney general and fundamentally change the significance of the position. Neeman is worried over the current contradiction, in his view, between the attorney general's two obligations: to provide ministers with a binding legal opinion, and to decide when to approve the opening of a police investigation against them, or against the prime minister, which could end in an indictment. Neeman's solution is a weakened attorney general whose advice is merely a recommendation, alongside a "general prosecutor" who would be in charge of the state prosecutor.

Behind Neeman's declared desire to streamline the offices of the attorney general and the state prosecution, and to ease the burden on the attorney general, this unacceptable view clearly stands out as an attempt to go back to a time when politicians were above the law. A determined attorney general who refuses to act leniently toward politicians, of the type of Aharon Barak in the mid-1970s and Menachem Mazuz of the past two years, is inconvenient for politicians. They see him as a golem who has turned against its creators, of which they want to regain control.

Neeman, who is not an elected official but rather an attorney in private practice who joins the government from time to time at the behest of Benjamin Netanyahu, first in the Justice Ministry, then in the Finance Ministry and again in Justice, has mistakenly interpreted the attorney general's role as the attorney for the current cabinet. In fact, the attorney general represents the state and the law, and therefore does not leave his post in favor of a new attorney general when a new cabinet is installed.

 

	Advertisement

The attorney general heads the law enforcement system, which includes, in addition to responsibility for the accepted and binding interpretation of the law, the state prosecutor's office, legal counsels to the various ministries and the police investigations division.

This system needs unified command. The criminal realm is connected to legislation, and separation would be artificial.

A committee headed a decade ago by Meir Shamgar - who has served both as attorney general and Supreme Court president - considered the idea of splitting the attorney general's function, and rejected it. No new circumstances have been created that would justify overturning the Shamgar Committee's recommendation. Splitting up the attorney general's position would only weaken the rule of law.

 

***************************************

 

HAARETZ

EDITORIAL

IRAN'S NUKES IN EXCHANGE FOR PEACE

BY AKIVA ELDAR

 

One of the best-known sayings bandied about in this region is that "Israel will not be the first country to introduce nuclear weapons in the Middle East." This has been the official position of successive Israeli governments. What is less known is that after a comprehensive, regional peace agreement is reached, Israel will support a regional decommissioning of nuclear weapons. Recently, President Shimon Peres personally confirmed to me that this was the policy he had presented to the world when he served as prime minister. He added that as far as he knows, this policy remains in effect to this day.

Let us assume that tomorrow Iran informs its American interlocutors that it will cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency, abide by all United Nations resolutions relating to nuclear weapons, and recognize Israel - but on two conditions: first, that Iran will receive assurances from the international community that it will immediately act to implement UN resolutions calling for the establishment of a Palestinian state in territories conquered in 1967, and a commitment to expedite the end of Israel's occupation of the Golan Heights; secondly, that Israel be forced to open its reactor in Dimona to IAEA inspectors, to ensure that the country has developed nuclear energy solely for peaceful purposes rather than for producing dozens of atomic bombs, which foreign press reports say do, in fact, exist.

Is this a scenario for the distant future? Not necessarily. During a meeting among the foreign ministers of Muslim states that took place in Tehran in May 2003, Iran - then led by president Mohammad Khatami - voted in favor of the Arab League peace initiative introduced in March 2002. According to the initiative, which has since become part of the road map as well as UN Security Council Resolution 1515, the Arab League would offer Israel full, normalized relations in exchange for a total withdrawal from the territories.

 

Flynt Leverett, the senior director for Middle East affairs on the National Security Council during president George W. Bush's first term in office, claims that on at least two occasions, Washington ignored conciliatory gestures from Tehran. In a lecture he gave in June 2006 before the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, Leverett recalled that in the spring of 2003 - a short time after the U.S. invasion of Iraq - the Swiss ambassador to Tehran relayed to the White House an Iranian offer which included three elements: an agreement to launch negotiations with the U.S. administration over the nuclear issue, to adopt the Arab League initiative, and to cease support of Palestinian terrorist organizations based outside of the territories. The Bush administration ignored the message.

According to an article written by Leverett at the time, this was not the first time that an Iranian offer was met with a cold shoulder. Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, he noted, Iran offered the Bush administration assistance in stopping the terrorism sowed by Al-Qaida and the Taliban. Bush preferred to adopt the "Axis of Evil" strategy. In a New York Times op-ed piece which he co-authored with his wife, Hillary Mann Leverett, Leverett warned U.S. President Barack Obama not to repeat the same mistakes as his predecessor vis-a-vis Iran.

Today Leverett, a research fellow who specializes in Iran at The New America Foundation, shares the view of many experts, who are doubtful of the chances that Russia and China will support more stringent sanctions against Iran. Given the fact that the "traditional" sanctions policy has not produced any tangible results, they warn that Obama will be faced with two unsavory options: coming to terms with an uninspected Iranian nuclear program that will demonstrate the powerlessness of the international community; or another war in the Middle East.

Leverett proposes a different approach: replacing the language of sanctions against Iran with an attempt to build new relations with it, based on shared interests. In the op-ed piece, he noted that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared recently in New York that cooperation with the United States on the nuclear issue is possible only within the context of a wider strategic understanding in the diplomatic, security-related and economic realms.

Is this a case of naivete? Perhaps. It is certainly possible that the ayatollah regime seeks to mislead the Americans in order to buy more time to complete its nuclear program. But what will we do if the Iranians surprise Obama with an offer to rid the Middle East of nuclear weapons and to help establish peace throughout the entire region? It is so convenient for us to remain tied to the policy of ambiguity on both issues. Netanyahu needs to prepare himself for the possibility that Iran will redeem its concessions vis-a-vis its nuclear program with Israeli concessions over the territories.

 

***************************************

 

 

 HAARETZ

EDITORIAL

THAT BORING NICENESS

BY ADAR PRIMOR

 

Like a peacock on Peacock Day, European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso, sporting a brilliant Irish green necktie, strutted around Brussels. "This is a great day for Ireland and for all of Europe," he and other leaders of the European Union chanted in unison after the citizens of Eire voted "Yes" in the country's second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty - which defines the EU's constitutional makeup. And indeed, if everything goes according to plan, the treaty will go into effect next January.

President Vaclav Klaus of the Czech Republic, who refused during his term as EU president to fly the flag of Europe over his Prague palace, is still holding out - but as one man versus half a billion EU citizens and versus the union's big guns, Sarkozy, Merkel, Barroso and others. It seems likely that this extreme Euro-skeptic will eventually have to swallow his pride as well and sign the treaty.

The treaty's primary purpose is to enable the EU, which expanded eastward in 2004, nearly doubling in size, to function more efficiently; but more than anything else, its adoption will signify a victory of federalism over nationalism, a victory of the founding fathers of the EU over rebellious sons, like Klaus, who will probably prove unable to put a spoke in the wheels of European history.

 

The historian Timothy Garton Ash recently wrote in The Guardian that 70 years after the outbreak of World War II, Europe has become "nice, boring and irrelevant." The elections in Afghanistan, for example, drew more of the world's attention than those that took place last week in Germany, the most important country in Europe. Not surprising, as the extreme right didn't pass the electoral threshold, not even in its biggest strongholds. Today's Nazis are in Waziristan, as Ash wrote.

Ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, however, is liable to bring an end to the "nice and boring" syndrome. It will bolster the democratic legitimacy of the EU by giving national parliaments a share in legislative processes and by strengthening the powers of the European Parliament; it will streamline the decision-making process by limiting the national veto right; and mainly it will shore up the EU's standing in the world, by the creation of two new positions: a president of the European Union who will serve for two and a half years (replacing the current half-year rotating presidency), and a more powerful foreign policy chief.

The fact that Tony Blair has the greatest chance of becoming the first EU president in the new system holds the promise that things in Brussels won't be so boring anymore. In a world controlled by one superpower, and with rising forces like China and India to contend with, Europe is trying to stake its claim. This ambition could not have been realized in the Bush era, when the world was divided between the Axis of Evil and the Sons of Light, between "those who are with us" and "those who are against us," between the "old" Europe and "new" Europe.

When the original European constitution failed to be ratified in the earlier stages, in June 2005, there was the sense of spiteful satisfaction on the part of the Americans. In Israel too, the prevalent perception then was that "a weak Europe is better for the Jews." As a senior official in Jerusalem put it, "Without a constitution, Europe will show more humility and [EU foreign policy chief Javier] Solana won't come around anymore to mess with us." U.S. President Barack Obama, however, sees a strong Europe as an essential element in advancing his own agenda for the world. He needs its diplomacy in the face of the Iranian threat, its military capability in the Balkans and stabilizing missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and he also needs it to realize his vision of peace in Middle East.

It seems that Israel, too, will soon have to reprogram itself and realize that the United States is not the only one who counts.

***************************************

 HAARETZ

EDITORIAL

MAHMOUD ABBAS' CHRONIC SUBMISSIVENESS

BY AMIRA HASS

 

In a single phone call to his man in Geneva, Mahmoud Abbas has demonstrated his disregard for popular action, and his lack of faith in its accumulative power and the place of mass movements in processes of change.

For nine months, thousands of people - Palestinians, their supporters abroad and Israeli anti-occupation activists - toiled to ensure that the legacy of Israel's military offensive against Gaza would not be consigned to the garbage bin of occupying nations obsessed with their feelings of superiority.

Thanks to the Goldstone report, even in Israel voices began to stammer about the need for an independent inquiry into the assault. But shortly after Abbas was visited by the American consul-general on Thursday, the leader of the Palestine Liberation Organization got on the phone to instruct his representative on the United Nations Human Rights Council to ask his colleagues to postpone the vote on the adoption of the report's conclusions.

 

Heavy American pressure and the resumption of peace negotiations were the reasons for Abbas' move, it was said. Palestinian spokespeople spun various versions over the weekend in an attempt to make the move kosher, explaining that it was not a cancelation but a six-month postponement that Abbas was seeking.

Will the American and European representatives in Geneva support the adoption of the report in six months' time? Will Israel heed international law in the coming months, stop building in the settlements and announce immediate negotiations on their dismantlement and the establishment of a Palestinian state in the occupied territories? Is this what adoption of the report would have endangered? Of course not.

A great deal of political folly and short-sightedness was bared by that phone call, on the eve of Hamas's celebration of its victory in securing the release of 20 female prisoners. Precisely on that day, Abbas put Gaza in the headlines within the context of the PLO's defeatism and of spitting in the face of the victims of the attack - that is how they felt in Gaza and elsewhere.

Abbas confirmed in fact that Hamas is the real national leadership, and gave ammunition to those who claim that its path - the path of armed struggle - yields results that negotiations do not.

This was not an isolated gaffe, but a pattern that has endured since the PLO leadership concocted, together with naive Norwegians and shrewd Israeli lawyers, the Oslo Accords. Disregard for, and lack of interest in the knowledge and experience accumulated in the inhabitants of the occupied territories' prolonged popular struggle led to the first errors: the absence of an explicit statement that the aim was the establishment of a state within defined borders, not insisting on a construction freeze in the settlements, forgetting about the prisoners, endorsing the Area C arrangement, etc.

The chronic submissiveness is always explained by a desire to "make progress." But for the PLO and Fatah, progress is the very continued existence of the Palestinian Authority, which is now functioning more than ever before as a subcontractor for the IDF, the Shin Bet security service and the Civil Administration.

This is a leadership that has been convinced that armed struggle - certainly in the face of Israeli military superiority - cannot bring independence. And indeed, the disastrous repercussions of the Second Intifada are proof of this position. This is a leadership that believes in negotiation as a strategic path to obtaining a state and integration in the world that the United States is shaping.

But in such a world there is personal gain that accrues from chronic submissiveness - benefits enjoyed by the leaders and their immediate circles. This personal gain shapes the tactics.

Is the choice really only between negotiations and armed-struggle theater, the way the Palestinian leadership makes it out to be? No.

The true choice is between negotiations as part of a popular struggle anchored in the language of the universal culture of equality and rights, and negotiations between business partners with the junior partner submissively expressing his gratitude to the senior partner for his generosity.

 

***************************************

 

 HAARETZ

EDITORIAL

A VITAL VISIT

BY ZE'EV SEGAL

 

Anyone who did not notice the incomprehensible gap between the Goldstone Commission's unequivocal conclusions condemning Israel and its intentions during Operation Cast Lead in Gaza on one hand, and the delicate, indecisive wording the panel adopted when speaking against the Palestinians on the other, would do well to read the small portion of its report devoted to "the continuing detention of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit."

The official version of the report devotes only two of its 452 pages to Shalit's captivity, aside from a few fleeting mentions of his name in its description of the background to the operation. And while its declarations are usually quite harsh, the report adopts very terse, restrained language on this matter.

The panel recognizes Shalit as a prisoner of war, and thus someone protected by the Third Geneva Convention. Preventing the Red Cross from visiting someone covered by this convention is a severe blow to, and a gross violation of, international humanitarian law. But the commission's report declines to dwell on this, or to detail the convention's explicit provisions on the matter, or even - heaven forbid - stress that Shalit has been held captive for more than three years, with precious little information on his condition being relayed to his family or any authorized agency.

The videotape of him that was aired on Friday, after more than 1,200 days in Hamas captivity in an unknown location, does nothing to mitigate the severity of the abuse done to Shalit and his family by withholding all information about his situation. As Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu noted, the video did "settle" the question of whether Gilad is alive, but it did little beyond that. And the difference between releasing this video and allowing Red Cross personnel to meet Shalit is enormous.

The video, every last detail of which was dictated by his captors, is liable to be erroneously considered an appropriate substitute for visits to Shalit by Red Cross personnel. However, at the very least it must be remembered that the video was not handed over so as to meet some minimal international requirement, but rather in exchange for the release of female Palestinian prisoners who were convicted of serious crimes.

The entire drawn-out Shalit affair merits only a terse description in the Goldstone report, and the lion's share even of that is devoted to the fact that Israel attacked buildings in Gaza and arrested Palestinian government officials in an effort to secure his release. Noam Shalit's appearance before the Goldstone Commission in Geneva this past July merits two sentences, as does the anemic conclusion in the report about Hamas' obligation to allow his son to have contact with the outside world and a Red Cross visit "without delay."

As far as is known, the commission's members did not demand that they be allowed to visit Shalit during the time they spent in Gaza. But in the two pages of the report devoted to the soldier, they do express concern about statements made by Israeli leaders regarding the continuing "blockade" of Gaza as long as Shalit remains in captivity. The commission views this as "collective punishment" of the civilian population. The panel also noted that it heard testimony from witnesses indicating that during Cast Lead, Israeli soldiers interrogated detained Palestinians about Shalit's whereabouts.

It is hard to believe that the Goldstone report's recommendation that Shalit be allowed a visit "without delay" will resonate internationally. But that does not mean it was superfluous to mention it, alongside the demands for an independent investigation into the 36 incidents described in the report. And nonimplementation of the report's conclusions regarding Red Cross visits ought to revitalize the demand to deny family visits to Hamas prisoners held in Israel.

A few months ago, a group of Knesset members introduced a bill to prevent family visits to any prisoner belonging to a terrorist organization that holds an Israeli citizen or resident in captivity, but refuses to allow visits to said Israeli captive. This proposal - which the government could implement even without a law - is neither disproportionate nor a violation of international law, as it would still permit such prisoners to be visited by their lawyers and the Red Cross.

Withholding information about Shalit for more than three years is inhumane, and no carefully scripted videotape can make up for this. If the tape that was aired indicates, as Hamas claims, that Shalit is in good health and has "excellent relations" with his captors, as the soldier says in his carefully supervised statement - then Hamas has nothing to hide. Israel must continue to insist that Red Cross personnel be allowed to visit the captive soldier. Indeed, such a visit must be the next step.

 

***************************************

 

 

 

 

 

******************************************************************************************

THE NEW YORK TIMES

EDITORIAL

THE SUPREME COURT RETURNS

 

The Supreme Court starts its new session this week with cases on its docket that could reshape the law in campaign finance, gun control and sentencing for juvenile crimes, and with the first new Democratically appointed justice in 15 years. That newest member, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, has been getting a lot of attention, but Justice Anthony Kennedy is likely to continue to wield the real power, on the most controversial issues.

 

Among the most anticipated cases so far are two that raise the question of whether it is constitutional to sentence juvenile offenders to life without parole. One of the defendants was just 13 when he raped an elderly woman in her home — an appalling and brutal crime, but one that did not involve homicide. We should not be giving up on a person for an act committed at 13. A few years ago, the court ruled that the death penalty for juvenile offenders amounted to cruel and unusual punishment. It should extend that reasoning to these cases.

 

The court has also agreed to hear the case of a man prosecuted for selling videos of dogfights, in which he was not involved. A federal appeals court ruled that his conviction violated the First Amendment. Animal abuse videos are truly loathsome, but the right approach is to criminalize animal cruelty, as all 50 states do, and not to infringe on free speech.

 

Following on a major case from last year in which the court struck down parts of the District of Columbia's gun control law, the justices have decided to consider whether state and local gun control laws can also be challenged under the Second Amendment. The court should not use the case to prevent states and localities from enacting reasonable restrictions on guns.

 

The court will hear a First Amendment challenge to a cross that stands on land in California that once belonged to the federal government. The government gave the land to a private group to get around a court order that the cross violated the prohibition on state support for religion. The court should rule that despite the land transfer, the cross is unconstitutional.

 

The docket is heavy with business cases. One asks whether a way of hedging financial risk can be patented. Patents should be limited to more physical creations.

 

The most important business case, however, is one the court heard last month. In Citizens United v. F.E.C., the court could wipe out a longstanding ban on corporate spending on federal elections, which would allow big business to swamp democracy. We hope the court will avoid such recklessness, and rule narrowly.

 

The Citizens United argument marked Justice Sotomayor's debut and she asked several questions that cut to the heart of the matter. A new justice always changes the dynamic of the court, but in ideologically charged cases, Justice Sotomayor's positions are likely to be similar to those of Justice David Souter, whom she replaced.

 

That means the court is likely to remain divided between four moderate-liberals and a very conservative bloc of four, with the moderate conservative Justice Kennedy providing the swing vote. Barring any new changes in the Supreme Court's composition, or any sudden changes of heart among the sitting justices, the law on many issues is likely to be, as it has been for several years now, what Justice Kennedy says it is.

 

***************************************

THE NEW YORK TIMES

EDITORIAL

MR. OBAMA'S PROMISE OF TRANSPARENCY

 

Hopes for an effective law that would protect the public's access to essential news from inside government have been dealt a severe setback by the Obama administration.

 

As a senator, President Obama co-sponsored a robust proposal to protect journalists and their sources who rely on confidentiality to reveal abuses, scandals and other inner workings of government agencies. But, White House officials are now proposing deep revisions to a Senate Judiciary Committee bill that weaken protections against forcing reporters to reveal their sources.

 

At the heart of the disagreement is the balance between national security and the public's right to know. The best approach is to protect legitimate security claims while rejecting those that are made in the name of national security but are really aimed at avoiding embarrassment. That was the constant cry from the Bush administration as the public learned — through the unauthorized disclosure of confidential information — of prisoner abuse, secret C.I.A. prisons for terrorist suspects and warrantless wiretapping.

 

The Senate bill and a measure passed earlier in the House aim at a reasonable balance by relying on a federal judge to decide when security is not truly at risk and sources must be protected. The White House proposals would instruct judges to defer to the administration's view of when and if a news leak presents a "significant" security leak. The executive branch would arrogate power to decide the public's right to know by crimping the news media's ability to make a case for disclosure.

 

The need for a shield law is clear. Last year, 42 of the state attorneys general pushed for a clearer federal standard to avoid undermining state shield laws.

 

The White House insists that the president supports a strong media shield and that negotiations should proceed. But Senator Charles Schumer, a chief sponsor of the pending measure, said the Obama proposals have made it an uphill fight. The administration's position, he said, "doesn't show much concern for compromise."

 

As president, Mr. Obama has been progressively more protective of executive powers in such sensitive areas as state secrets and detainee policy. It's time for him to recall that in winning the White House, he spoke vigorously in favor of a shield law that trusts the judiciary to settle disclosure conflicts. The latest hedging from the White House does not deliver on his promise for a new era of openness. Instead, it signals that some in his administration may be intent on killing a fair shield bill.

 

***************************************

THE NEW YORK TIMES

EDITORIAL

WAITING IN CALIFORNIA

 

Two innovative bills recently approved by the California Legislature are on Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's desk. One would make the state's justice system fairer and more efficient. The other would improve public safety. Neither would add to California's fiscal woes, and both would set a worthy example for the nation.

 

The first bill would expand legal services for the poor. The nation as a whole does a dismal job of providing the indigent with legal counsel in child custody and domestic violence cases, foreclosure actions and other civil cases where basic rights are in peril.

 

The bill seeks to narrow that gap by investing about $11 million a year from existing court fees in a pilot program to make legal help for the poor routinely available. The bill — the Sargent Shriver Civil Counsel Act — is named, appropriately, for Mr. Schwarzenegger's father-in-law, who helped build the national legal services movement in the 1960's.

 

The second measure seeks to strengthen the web of laws aimed at protecting people from gun violence. It would require ammunition dealers to obtain a purchaser's identification and take a thumbprint. These records would be available to local law enforcement, which could then cross-check them against the state's list of felons, gang members and other prohibited purchasers. People who buy bullets on the Internet would be required to pick them up from a store and undergo the same checks.

 

Mr. Schwarzenegger vetoed an earlier version of this bill five years ago because he questioned the benefit. Since then, the police in several California cities with similar local ordinances have successfully used dealer records to identify, track and arrest felons and others who illegally bought ammunition.

 

Expanding the program statewide would prevent criminals from traveling to other communities to buy ammunition. The gun lobby reflexively objects to this measure. But that should not deter Mr. Schwarzenegger from standing up for public safety.

 

***************************************

 

 

THE NEW YORK TIMES

OPED

A BILLION HERE, A BILLION THERE

BY EDUARDO PORTER

 

Past the initial schadenfreude, it's hard to figure out what to think about the shrinking of the nation's 400 most gilded fortunes. It is reassuring that the super-rich can lose money too — $300 billion in the last year, according to Forbes, bringing their total down to $1.27 trillion. It's about the same percentage that was lost by Americans' private pensions, whose assets dropped by about $1.1 trillion, nearly 19 percent.

 

It can hardly hurt as much. Warren Buffett lost $10 billion but still has $40 billion. Kirk Kerkorian has $3 billion left, after losing $8.2 billion. Citigroup founder Sanford Weill dropped off the billionaires list, but still has many millions.

 

Every year as I get worked up over Forbes's latest billionaire review, I try to convince myself that accumulation

of wealth at the top can serve a social function. I tell myself that inequality of income is a standard feature of capitalism, pushing the best and brightest into the most profitable jobs. It encourages people to study hard and work hard, or at least to become a banker. Big financial rewards push people to excel, and thus the economy to grow.

 

But $1.27 trillion? That's a decade of health care reform in one of the more expensive versions. This isn't garden-variety inequality — this is a winner-take-all deal that can destroy incentives for everyone except those in the upper crust.

 

Lawrence Katz, a labor economist at Harvard, sensibly points out that one could generate incentives to excel for less: "I don't think the added incentive of earning $100 million over $50 million is very different than the incentive of making $10 million over $5 million," he told me once.

 

Maybe the jolt of billion-plus losses can spur plutocrats to change. Ralph Nader just wrote a novel called "Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us!" in which Mr. Buffett (already a major philanthropist), Ross Perot and a few other billionaires go to Maui to "redirect" society onto the right path. Warren Beatty gets to run California. Wal-Mart workers unionize. Corporate greed is brought to heel.

 

There is no sign of such enlightenment on Wall Street. Financial markets are back up; bankers are scouring the horizon for new opportunity. The hottest new incomprehensible financial object is the "re-remic," bundles of distressed mortgages repackaged in a way that banks and insurers can minimize how much cash they must set aside in case the investments go south, again. Amid all this it's hard to see how our oligarchs could be persuaded to restrain their appetites.

 

Perhaps I'm being too pessimistic. We could promise that Mr. Nader wouldn't have a say in the outcome. That would seem like a reasonable incentive.

 

***************************************

THE NEW YORK TIMES

OPED

THE POLITICS OF SPITE

BY PAUL KRUGMAN

 

There was what President Obama likes to call a teachable moment last week, when the International Olympic Committee rejected Chicago's bid to be host of the 2016 Summer Games.

 

"Cheers erupted" at the headquarters of the conservative Weekly Standard, according to a blog post by a member of the magazine's staff, with the headline "Obama loses! Obama loses!" Rush Limbaugh declared himself "gleeful." "World Rejects Obama," gloated the Drudge Report. And so on.

 

So what did we learn from this moment? For one thing, we learned that the modern conservative movement, which dominates the modern Republican Party, has the emotional maturity of a bratty 13-year-old.

 

But more important, the episode illustrated an essential truth about the state of American politics: at this point, the guiding principle of one of our nation's two great political parties is spite pure and simple. If Republicans think something might be good for the president, they're against it — whether or not it's good for America.

 

To be sure, while celebrating America's rebuff by the Olympic Committee was puerile, it didn't do any real harm. But the same principle of spite has determined Republican positions on more serious matters, with potentially serious consequences — in particular, in the debate over health care reform.

 

Now, it's understandable that many Republicans oppose Democratic plans to extend insurance coverage — just as most Democrats opposed President Bush's attempt to convert Social Security into a sort of giant 401(k). The two parties do, after all, have different philosophies about the appropriate role of government.

 

But the tactics of the two parties have been different. In 2005, when Democrats campaigned against Social Security privatization, their arguments were consistent with their underlying ideology: they argued that replacing guaranteed benefits with private accounts would expose retirees to too much risk.

 

The Republican campaign against health care reform, by contrast, has shown no such consistency. For the main G.O.P. line of attack is the claim — based mainly on lies about death panels and so on — that reform will undermine Medicare. And this line of attack is utterly at odds both with the party's traditions and with what conservatives claim to believe.

 

Think about just how bizarre it is for Republicans to position themselves as the defenders of unrestricted Medicare spending. First of all, the modern G.O.P. considers itself the party of Ronald Reagan — and Reagan was a fierce opponent of Medicare's creation, warning that it would destroy American freedom. (Honest.) In the 1990s, Newt Gingrich tried to force drastic cuts in Medicare financing. And in recent years, Republicans have repeatedly decried the growth in entitlement spending — growth that is largely driven by rising health care costs.

 

But the Obama administration's plan to expand coverage relies in part on savings from Medicare. And since the G.O.P. opposes anything that might be good for Mr. Obama, it has become the passionate defender of ineffective medical procedures and overpayments to insurance companies.

 

How did one of our great political parties become so ruthless, so willing to embrace scorched-earth tactics even if so doing undermines the ability of any future administration to govern?

 

The key point is that ever since the Reagan years, the Republican Party has been dominated by radicals — ideologues and/or apparatchiks who, at a fundamental level, do not accept anyone else's right to govern.

 

Anyone surprised by the venomous, over-the-top opposition to Mr. Obama must have forgotten the Clinton years. Remember when Rush Limbaugh suggested that Hillary Clinton was a party to murder? When Newt Gingrich shut down the federal government in an attempt to bully Bill Clinton into accepting those Medicare cuts? And let's not even talk about the impeachment saga.

 

The only difference now is that the G.O.P. is in a weaker position, having lost control not just of Congress but, to a large extent, of the terms of debate. The public no longer buys conservative ideology the way it used to; the old attacks on Big Government and paeans to the magic of the marketplace have lost their resonance. Yet conservatives retain their belief that they, and only they, should govern.

 

The result has been a cynical, ends-justify-the-means approach. Hastening the day when the rightful governing party returns to power is all that matters, so the G.O.P. will seize any club at hand with which to beat the current administration.

 

It's an ugly picture. But it's the truth. And it's a truth anyone trying to find solutions to America's real problems has to understand.

 

***************************************

THE NEW YORK TIMES

OPED

ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEDDLING

BY SUSAN DUNN

 

 "PRESIDENT OBAMA is not only president of the country, but head of the Democratic Party," said Doug Sosnik, the political director in the Clinton White House, commenting on President Obama's aggressive move to quash the election hopes of New York's deeply unpopular governor, David Paterson, and to pick favorites in gubernatorial and Senate primaries in Colorado, Pennsylvania, Virginia and elsewhere. But history shows that a White House push to intervene in state races is fraught with danger.

 

In 1938, in the middle of his second term, Franklin D. Roosevelt found himself stuck. Two years earlier, every state in the union — except Maine and Vermont — had joined in a collective vote of confidence in Roosevelt and the New Deal. But that overwhelming mandate proved to be anything but shatterproof.

 

Even though Democrats held staggering majorities in both chambers of Congress, that huge Democratic majority was deceptive. Conservative Democrats — senators like Millard Tydings of Maryland, Walter George of Georgia and Ellison Smith of South Carolina — allied themselves with Republicans to obstruct and vote down key New Deal bills. Yet when Roosevelt ran for re-election in 1936, none of those Democrats had had the courage to criticize him. On the contrary, they gave lip service to the New Deal — and then, insisting that they were only voting their consciences, proceeded to knife it.

 

Concerned about his progressive agenda as well as about the next presidential election in 1940, Roosevelt decided to intervene in state primaries — tantamount to the November election in the one-party Democratic South — and support challengers to the conservative incumbents.

 

In a fireside chat in June 1938, he carefully explained that as president, he would not intervene in Democratic primaries. But, as the head of the Democratic Party, he said, it was his right and duty to support liberal candidates who stood by the New Deal. In addition, he believed that the nation should have two effective and responsible political parties, one liberal, the other conservative, each ideologically consistent and united. Newspapers branded his tactic a "purge" — and the inflammatory label stuck.

 

Roosevelt spent the summer of 1938 zigzagging across the country, holding rallies, speaking out against some incumbents and campaigning for others. On the top of his hit list was Millard Tydings. "Take Tydings's hide off and rub salt in it," Roosevelt once snapped. Tydings had opposed nearly every New Deal measure — even on Social Security, which was approved by all but six senators, he demurred, voting only "present." Yet, aware of the president's extraordinary popularity among his constituents, Tydings improbably insisted that he embraced the "bone and sinew" of the New Deal.

 

But in Maryland as in other states in which the president spoke out against the incumbents, the purge failed. It succeeded in only one race, against John O'Connor, a New Yorker who was the reactionary chairman of the powerful House Rules Committee.

 

In the end, the purge was one of the few glaring political missteps in Roosevelt's long career, and afterward he had to struggle to make amends and repair relations with the men he had tried to oust. As it turned out, many of the Democratic conservatives — especially those from the South — whom Roosevelt had sought to banish were staunch internationalists who would soon become his loyal allies as he battled isolationists over America's role in World War II.

 

Will President Obama and his White House team learn the lessons of the purge of 1938? Franklin Roosevelt's political vision of party realignment was compelling; and yet the purge was hastily contrived and its execution amateurish.

 

The president and his White House advisers underestimated not only the power of incumbents and their political machines but also their longstanding relationships with their constituents and the influence of local newspapers. They also underestimated the resentment prompted by their interference in local elections. And they overestimated the control that the national Democratic Party had over local party organizations.

 

The purge would have worked only after extensive preparation at the grass roots. But the White House was parsimonious with its economic assistance to the liberal challengers, who were themselves weak candidates and relatively inexperienced. The president had simply neglected to deal with the core problem of nurturing new political talent.Temperamentally, Roosevelt was more comfortable exploiting his charm, magnetism and political dexterity for short-term ploys rather than for long-term, coherent political planning. He would have had to dedicate his time, energy and resources to providing direction and support to grass-roots liberal Democrats and to stimulating the growth of liberal groups within the party. His efforts failed because instead of using his personal popularity to build his party so that it could outlast him, he concentrated only on nudging out a few bad apples.

 

It is not yet clear how extensive President Obama's plans are for intervening in party primaries. Nor is it yet clear if his criteria for picking favorites are based on ideology, as Roosevelt's were, or if the White House is simply focused on choosing the most popular candidates and winning a few more elections. So far, the president's support for Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and his desire to dump Governor Paterson would seem to indicate that his approach is purely pragmatic. But in either case, by meddling in state and local politics, he risks fueling the same indignation that Roosevelt did in 1938.

 

With the cautionary tale of Roosevelt's failed purge in mind, the White House may be able to develop a more organized and coherent blueprint than that of Roosevelt and his team, one that transfers the president's personal popularity to the party by building strength at the local level; developing a persuasive, enduring party message; and nurturing new political talent like Barack Obama himself. More critical than the short-term tactic of picking favorites in a few primary races is a longer-term strategy of party-building so that Democrats can thrive even without their charismatic leader and so that the hundreds of thousands of first-time voters, who were spurred to cast ballots in the historic 2008 election, will return to the polls.

 

So, President Obama, purge at your peril.Susan Dunn, the author of the forthcoming "Roosevelt's Gamble: How F.D.R. Fought to Change the Democratic Party," is a professor at Williams College.

 

***************************************

THE NEW YORK TIMES

OPED

THUMBS ON THE WHEEL

BY MARK A. SHIFFRIN AND AVI SILBERSCHATZ

 

PRESIDENT Obama has forbidden federal employees from texting while driving. The federal Transportation Department plans to do the same for commercial-truck and Interstate-bus drivers. And support is building in Congress for legislation that would require states to outlaw texting or e-mailing while driving. Such distractions cause tens of thousands of deaths each year.

 

But the way to stop people from using cellphones while driving is not to make it a crime. Too many drivers value convenience more than safety and would assume they wouldn't get caught. A more effective approach is to get telecommunications companies to tweak technology to make it difficult or impossible to text and drive.

 

When a cellphone is used in a moving car, its signal must be handed off from one cell tower to the next along the route. This process tells the service provider that the phone is in motion. Cellphone towers could be engineered to not transmit while a phone is traveling. After a phone had stopped moving for a certain amount of time — three minutes, maybe — it would be able to transmit again.

 

Another solution would be to install hardware in cars and software in cellphones that would disable some phone functions when cars are moving. It would be the electronics equivalent of putting a guard on a knife handle or a grill over the blades of a fan.

 

This would, of course, affect passengers in moving cars as well as drivers. The inconvenience would arguably be worth it. But it is also easy to imagine technology that would allow only passengers to use their phones — by tethering them to devices, placed on the passenger side of the car, that would override the system.

 

Just as the text function could be disabled from a moving vehicle, so could the talk function be limited — at least when used without hands-free operating technology like Bluetooth. Given the evidence suggesting that even hands-free operation is dangerously distracting to drivers, we may need to ask whether all cellphone use should be technologically impeded in moving cars. There is nothing unreasonable in expecting drivers to park before making calls.

 

While texting behind the wheel is a problem today, innovations may give rise to other risky behaviors within a few years, if not months. The best solutions will come not from lawmakers plugging holes in the dike, but from the engineers finding ways to make products safer.

 

Mark A. Shiffrin, a lawyer, is a former consumer protection commissioner for Connecticut. Avi Silberschatz is the chairman of the computer science department at Yale.

 

***************************************

 

 

******************************************************************************************

 I. THE NEWS

EDITORIAL

PRAYING FOR CHANGE

 

The interior minister has said the help of NADRA has been sought to check on the identity of prayer leaders. This seems to have come in response to a point raised in the Senate about the nationality of some prayer leaders. But the need to pay attention to the clerics who rule mosques scattered across our country goes beyond the matter of their nationality. These persons play an important role in shaping opinion. Sadly, while there are notable exceptions, this role has often been a negative one. Even today, those who regularly attend Friday prayers speak of sermons condemning actions against the Taliban. Attempts to argue with the clerics are met with accusations of 'pro-US' or western sentiments. The charged atmosphere that these accusations can give rise to, even in urban settings, is obviously intimidating and enough to persuade anyone but the most hardy to revert to silence.

There is another aspect to the role played by prayer leaders. The few findings we have on the process of recruiting young men to militant groups indicate these individuals are often first approached in mosques. The success in picking out the most vulnerable – often those frustrated by joblessness or poverty – is striking. The process continues in towns across Punjab. Logic holds that clerics who know their communities well may be helping the recruiters. In many cases they may be doing so through misguided notions of religiosity rather than any malafide intent. But the problem is that as a result more and more people land up at training institutes where extremism is preached. Sadly, in our country religious education has been left to those who lack any real learning themselves. Many prayer leaders have only a rudimentary schooling. Most have never been exposed to debate or discussion that could broaden their understanding of a religion which has great depth, complexity and beauty. The respected Islamic scholar, Javed Ghamdi, has suggested Islam be treated as a specialized subject and be taught at institutes of higher learning, attended after basic education is complete, rather than at madressahs. There is obvious value in this. There is too merit in making a bigger effort to incorporate prayer leaders in the struggle against extremism. Senior scholars can play a part in this. There has been success in using prayer leaders to campaign for the polio vaccine. In other Muslim nations they have been instrumental in promoting family planning. We must tap the potential they offer to tackle the ills of our society and to defeat extremism.

 

***************************************

I. THE NEWS

EDITORIAL

NIPPING ANKLES

 

There is a refreshing honesty about the remarks made by Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani earlier this past week. Speaking after chairing a meeting of the Gilgit-Baltistan administration and commented that judicial and media activism had of late 'kept the strings tight' and provided a pointer for the government to identify its mistakes and rectify them. Good governance, said Mr Gilani, is a product of what can sometimes seem an unseemly scuffle as the government, the judiciary and the Fourth Estate tussle for our attention. This is both a shift in stance and recognition of developing reality. Assorted governments have, over the years, had a less-than-comfortable relationship with the media. Attempts to control and censor have become increasingly fruitless in a world that has global connectivity and 'the news' is now delivered from dozens of platforms in a variety of formats.

The explosion of TV stations, the increasing reach of the internet and a lively and diverse press have all come together in a (moderately) happy conjunction in the last two years. There appears to be a realisation on the part of the government that the media genie is well and truly out of the bottle and is never going back in again. Ham-fisted attempts at stifling access to information have generally failed, foiled by netizens using proxy servers beyond the reach of our own regulators. Investigative journalism is a craft that continues to refine itself, as does TV current affairs reporting. Our bloggers are busy in cyberspace offering an alternative view to that of the mainstream and, whilst not all content is of uniform quality, there is a sense of vibrancy in the media today that bodes well for the future. The last decade has seen the media environment change out of all recognition, and more change is afoot as the print industry adapts to the opportunity offered by cross-platform content delivery. The line between the newspaper that we hold in our hands and the television that sits in the corner is becoming blurred. Mr Gilani's admission that the media and the judiciary, both of which in their different ways are nipping at the ankles of the government, are helping to keep government honest is an indicator of an emerging maturity; and another brick in the democratic house we are trying to build.

 

***************************************

 

 

I. THE NEWS

EDITORIAL

DEAD OR ALIVE?

For weeks now controversy has continued to brew over whether Hakeemullah Mehsud, the man who we are told replaced Baitullah Mehsud as chief of the TTP, is dead or alive. Most recently, US intelligence officials have said they believe he may have been killed weeks ago in a gunfight with a rival faction. This indeed was the version of events we first heard, after the death of Baitullah, but subsequent interviews by Hakeemullah – or a convincing impersonator – dispelled the rumour. The government's lack of credibility also meant no one was ready to believe the official version of events. However, there are key military and intelligence men who continue to argue Hakeemullah is indeed dead. There must be some question as to whether there is much relevance in this. What we do know is that the Taliban for the moment remain a potent force, able to stage attacks. There is then apparent need to act decisively against the militants regardless of who is leading them.

 

But on the other hand, any outfit such as the Taliban is weakened by confusion over who is running the show. It is this that led for so long to denials that Baitullah was dead. Even now, the video footage of his body has created some angst among the militant militia. If the death of Hakeemullah can be confirmed, it would no doubt act to further weaken the Taliban. This could be significant given that we hear an operation in South Waziristan is being planned. The possibility of a split in Taliban ranks is then one that cannot be disregarded as irrelevant. Our agencies need to step up their efforts to find out more, so that any discord or disarray that exists can be taken maximum advantage of as the time comes for what many believe will be decisive military action in South Waziristan.

 

***************************************

 

 

I. THE NEWS

EDITORIAL

THE NRO AND INSECURE PCO JUDGES

PART I

M AKRAM SHEIKH

For many people, it may still be a mystery as to exactly why Asif Ali Zardari did not restore the judiciary right after the elections? And, more importantly, if he never intended to restore the Chief Justice of Pakistan, why did he then enter into agreements with Nawaz Sharif, when he never intended to stand them?

While no one knows the exact answers to the above questions, the following may help unravel the mystery surrounding the president's inaction on the matter. In February 2008, as head of a party that was positioned to win the coming elections on the huge sympathy wave that was generated by the tragic assassination of Benazir Bhutto, Mr Zardari found in his lap two vital gifts, both courtesy of General Musharraf. One was the NRO and the second were the insecure PCO judges who were keen to do anything to continue in their position.

In February, immediately after the 40th day of Benazir's death, Mr Zardari set about using the above two opportunities for his maximum advantage. What people do not know is that while the NRO gave him and his friends the opportunity to have all corruption cases being pursued against him withdrawn, the insecurity of the PCO judges meant that this could be used to have even criminal cases against him withdrawn – even those that had no link with the NRO.

Right after the election, Mr Zardari went to Raiwind and made a commitment to restore Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry and other honourable judges who had refused to take oath. This was followed by a number of meetings and accords between him and Mr Sharif, in Murree, then Dubai, then Islamabad, the commitments even becoming part of two formal agreements.

Throughout that time, many in the country was perplexed as to why Mr Zardari was taking his party and his government into a political cul-de-sac. By doing this, he also ensured that his party not only stood on the wrong side of the most popular public demand, and that too for no substantive reason and after having made a commitment to the contrary. The result was a blow to the PPP's popularity and credibility. Eventually, though, the party had to give in to the sheer will of the people and restore the chief justice and other judges.

Why did the president act this way, with regard to the restoration issue? Three days before the elections, on Feb 15, 2008, Asif Zardari had already placed all his bets with the PCO judges, expecting them to deliver on all his demands if they wanted to remain in their jobs. His subsequent meetings with Nawaz Sharif and agreements and oral commitments were just a way to kick Dogar and other PCO judges to complete their assigned job at the earliest. On Feb 15, 2008, just after 40th day of Benazir's murder and three days before elections that Mr Zardari filed a constitutional petition (D-265/2008) in the Sindh High Court seeking a direction to the federal government and to NAB to withdraw all proceedings against him that they might still be pursuing in UK and Geneva courts as well as before the courts in Pakistan. The cases included the SGS reference, ARY gold reference, BMW car reference, the Cotecna reference, the Ursus tractor reference and the Polo Ground reference. Also, Zardari retained Malik Qayyum as attorney-general. It was thus that whenever that petition was fixed and Zardari's withdrawal applications under the NRO were fixed before any court, both counsels, one representing the accused and the other representing the state of Pakistan were taking instructions from the same person.
Justice Dogar, then acting as Chief Justice of Pakistan, too was not found missing in his keenness to help Zardari get quick acquittals. It was thus on Feb 27, 2008, while hearing Constitution Petitions 76 and 77 of 2007 (petitions that actually challenged the validity of the NRO), that a five member bench of PCO judges – Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar, Justice Muhmmad Nawaz Abbasi, Justice Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, Justice Ejaz-ul-Hassan, Justice Ch Ejaz Yousaf — issued the following directions to all subordinate courts: "… The Courts and authorities concerned shall proceed further expeditiously in the light of the provisions of the Ordinance without being influenced by the pendency of these petitions:"

Acting on the above direction, and realizing that the fate of all PCO judges now lay in the hands of one man, the Sindh High Court, took it upon itself to supervise the earliest withdrawal of all corruption cases against Zardari. It was thus two PCO judges, Khawaja Naveed and Ali Sain Dino Metlo, while hearing Asif Zardari's Constitutional Petition (D-265/2008), in compliance of the above Supreme Court order, directed NAB and Government to file a report in Court confirming that they had withdrawn all corruption cases against Zardari, including confirmation that they had ceased all kinds of cooperation with all foreign prosecuting authorities against Asif Zardari on the basis of above mentioned SC order.

The Sindh High Court Petition was fixed again and again, with counsels from both sides insisting earliest withdrawal of cases. It was finally on 17 September 2008, that the counsels representing NAB and the Federal Government, now under the virtual and legal control of President Zardari, through Deputy Attorney General Amir Raza Naqvi and NAB counsel Salman Aslam Butt confirmed the compliance report before the same two member bench of Sindh High Court consisting of the same judges who had directed withdrawals, i.e. Khawaja Naveed and Ali Sain Dino Metlo.

As for the proceedings in Swiss courts, the Deputy Attorney General, on behalf of the federal government, produced a copy of the letter regarding the termination of the proceedings before the Swiss court and informed the court that all proceedings against the petitioner had been withdrawn. It was thus that Investigating Magistrate, Geneva, was forced to drop proceedings against Zardari regarding criminal conspiracy to defraud Pakistan for his personal financial interest.

As for UK case relating to the infamous Surrey Palace, DAG confirmed that all the proceedings against Zardari before the High Court of Justice Queen's Bench Division, Commercial Court London, regarding the sale of Rockwood Estate in Surrey (UK) had also been terminated.

Lastly, with regard to NAB references, the DAG confirmed that all seven NAB references against Zardari - Asset Reference, SGS Reference, ARY Gold Reference, BMW Reference, Cotecna Reference, Ursus Tractor Reference, Polo Ground Reference – that were pending against the petitioner before the Accountability Courts in Rawalpindi had been withdrawn by the government.

After the above DAG's statement, the petitioner's counsel Abu Bakar Zardari and Hyder Ali did not press their petition and Honourable Justices Khawaja Naveed and Ali Sain Dino Metlo disposed off the petition through the following order: (Order sheet C P D-265 of 2008) Sept 16 — "… The learned DAG states that on the request of the Government of Pakistan criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner in Swiss Court have been closed and the civil proceedings pending against him in the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, Commercial Court, London, United Kingdom, have terminated. In view of the statement made by the learned DAG, learned counsel for the petitioner does not press the petition. Accordingly, the petition along with the listed applications is disposed of as not pressed."

(To be continued)

The writer is an advocate of the Supreme Court. Email: akramsheikh @asla.pk

 

***************************************

I. THE NEWS

EDITORIAL

IMPLICATIONS OF US AID

TALAT MASOOD

US Congress voted last Wednesday to triple aid to Pakistan to 1.5 billion dollars every year for five years. The long-term US commitment that aims to build a strategic partnership with Pakistan has generated a serious controversy. The PPP government has hailed it as a great foreign policy success and a qualitative jump in its relations with United States, and opponents calling it a sell-out of our sovereignty. Clearly, the conditions are stringent and reflect the extent of political leverage the super power is able to exercise over us. But in return it brings considerable benefits in form of huge infusion of financial assistance and international support to confront the formidable challenges that the country faces. Due to gross mismanagement, spread over years, Pakistan has ceased to be a viable state without foreign assistance. And it would be a few years before we will be able to recover from this situation and that too if the country is put on the right course.

Apart from Iraq and Afghanistan there is no other country being micro-managed as much as Pakistan. And through the implementation of this specific legislation Washington expects to transform Pakistan in the vision of its choosing. There is also a domestic compulsion for the US to impose these conditions. Congress has to satisfy the constituencies that tax payer's money is going for the specific purpose that it is intended and conditions incorporated in it pertaining to proliferation, democracy and terrorism, etc., will prevent Pakistan from engaging in activities that are detrimental to US national interests.

Although United States and Pakistan are close allies regrettably there is a huge distrust between them. When US invests in a long-term relationship and consequently expands its activities it is viewed with great suspicion. As we are witnessing the reaction to the increase in the embassy build-up. On the other hand Washington does not trust that money disbursed to civil or military institutions would be utilised for the purpose that it is intended.

In principle, it would be hard to disagree with most of the declared aims and objectives of the Kerry-Lugar Bill. The Congress is echoing what people of Pakistan have always yearned that democracy should be strengthened and military and judiciary should not undermine it. Although it is a paradox that in the past United States has been an accomplice in undermining democracy by supporting military rulers.

The condition requiring military and intelligence agencies to stop supporting extremist and militant organisations would be tough to implement soon due to the complexity of problem. Washington nonetheless will keep the pressure. It is time our military and political leaders realise that the network of proxies created to advance certain warped concepts of national interests have since back fired and a major policy shift is necessary.

The requirement that Pakistan conducts itself as a responsible nuclear state and assists in all efforts toward breaking proliferation networks has given rise to apprehensions. Fears are being expressed that CIA would want direct access to AQ Khan or to any of our nuclear scientists. Washington knows that Pakistan under no circumstances will hand over any of its nuclear-related scientists or engineers even if it means a rupture of our relationship. The maxim "we would eat grass but remain a nuclear power" still holds valid as it was during senior Bhutto's time. Again this clause is to satisfy the nuclear non-proliferation lobby and domestic constituents of US that economic assistance will contribute toward tightening proliferation controls.

Politics in US is as much about posturing as anywhere else. The condition of accountability and transparency is a reflection of Washington's frustration with the pervasive corruption that prevails in Pakistan. Whereas there is a genuine desire to assist the people of Pakistan but at the same time they do not want that the money should be squandered in corruption and mismanagement.

There is however danger of a backlash the way the legislation is worded. One, if it perceived as a dictation it could further fuel anti-Americanism and anti-Zardari if not anti-government sentiment. Secondly, even if the government was genuine in the faithful implementation of these conditions, it would not be possible to achieve these conditions in the time frame that US expects. A fragile civilian government whose leadership is uninspiring and a military that is overstretched fighting Taliban in the west and guarding the eastern frontier will find it difficult to open up new fronts with the jihadis.

Clearly, contents and objectives of the Kerry-Lugar Bill go beyond the legitimate concerns of corruption and accountability. The Obama administration wants to tie it with its policy goals. They have taken advantage of the tenuous civilian control, the civil-military divide and the extensive stretch of the army dealing with the external threat from India and internal challenges posed by the militant organisations. Nonetheless, it is a dangerous road for the US to take when it starts dictating and overstepping its balance. Washington has been dictating to many countries in the past. President Bush wanted to transform Russia when its economy was weak and national mood despondent. Russians strongly recoiled to Bush's "lecturing" and Washington had to reassess its policies. Of course Russia is a major power and nuclear super power and Putin a highly competent leader capable of mobilising the nation to a strong response.

In the final analysis what is significant how Pakistan succeeds in achieving perceptible success on core issues. The litmus test would be how Pakistan state is able to weaken the Taliban, improve control over tribal areas, neutralise the jihadi elements, takes effective measures to promote non-proliferation, detaches from support of Afghan Taliban and establishes stability in the country. The danger is American policies could negate these efforts by their overbearing posture and ratchet up a strong anti-American sentiment. One hopes Obama being far more receptive and amenable to adjustment, unlike his predecessor Bush, would respond by pursuing a more balanced and nuanced approach towards Pakistan.

The writer is a retired lieutenant-general. Email: talat@comsats.net.pk

 

***************************************

 

 

I. THE NEWS

EDITORIAL

THE KERRY-LUGAR OFFERINGS

SHAHZAD CHAUDHRY

The US administration and its representatives in Pakistan must be chewing on their nails ever since the House passed the reconciled 2009 bill on aid to Pakistan. Just as Senator Pressler became a household character of villainous leanings in Pakistan in 1990 after President Bush, the elders (refusing to certify Pakistan's sanctimonious conduct in the nuclear domain) Senators Kerry and Lugar, and Congressman Berman are most likely to engage the Pakistanis for some time. Not that the Pakistanis mind the $1.5 billion a year coming into their kitty. Exactly what do the Americans hope to assuage with the award of the new aid bill?

First the good things — let us assume that Pakistan had a social development policy but was still searching for a strategy. A policy states intent while the strategy links the resource, the means to an end. The Kerry-Lugar Bill provides perhaps the most elaborate linkage of the means to the ends for social development in Pakistan. The creators of this blue-print deserve our kudos. If they happen to be Americans, which is likely, we need to hire them for Pakistan's Ministry of Social Development because not even the Pakistanis can be expected to identify the exact areas of our essential attention in such detail.

If, however, those who helped draft the document are Pakistanis, which is more likely because only the Pakistanis can be that certain of where the state has screwed up in its prioritisation, they still need to be hollered in to be part of the administration at home so that they can keep tabs on where the effort heads after it is launched. They also need to be home, if indeed they happen to be accomplices, for the not-so-good things that seem to have found their way into the bill.

A few things squeak through the smart work that has helped shape the bill. The amount of insistence that goes into reassuring a political process smacks of perceived insecurity. What makes it even more eerie is how the US has generally been comfortable dealing with a one-window process in dictatorships or autocracies and yet, somehow, they seem to have awakened to the need to sustain a more inclusive and just democratic order in Pakistan. If it has something to do with the party in power in the US and their political philosophies in client states, that may explain the apparently principled position. But the amount of dollars that are planned to go into training parliamentarians and members of the various committees betrays a more intimate input of interested quarters from within Pakistan.

It seems to me that any discussion between the political mandarins in Pakistan with the frequently visiting US interlocutors had to run on these lines: "nine years of dictatorial rule and the 24 before that have robbed us politicians of the opportunity to establish democracy as the pillar of a stable Pakistan; all the dollars that have been given to these regimes have always gone into the pockets of the corrupt dictatorial rulers; the 12 billion that you gave to the previous regime cannot be accounted for; if democracy were to be strengthened, and that would entail teaching politicians how to practice politics, including setting up their offices in their respective constituencies, they need a special attention for financial awards. It will enable them to become the strongest supporting hand of the democratic government and through that ensure upholding of the common interests of the democracies of this world. They could be taught better by physically seeing democracies in work and, therefore, should need repeated visits to Westminster and Capitol Hill; the use of political surgeries in their respective constituencies will help Pakistan keep a tab on wayward religious leanings inimical to neighbouring regions. Democracy will deliver and needs to be strengthened."

Fine words and noble ideals have not been stated before; but it begs the question: is the US going to ensure democracy in Pakistan? When have they ever been able to do so before? Now, if this is not insecurity and a grab for resources, what else is? One hopes that money allocated to these activities is just enough for a few truants only and does not become a beeline to the democratic capitals of the world.

The American interest to set our curriculum may just be a step too far. Pakistan's educational system is desperately short of resources and if there is one single gain that should be made of the $7.5 billion is to channel most of it into education. This shall have to be project based and with clear indication of developing and restoring the Pakistani state schools into some level of dignity and capacity. On the curriculum, only the Pakistanis know what to teach their children; and if for the sake of some crumbs we are going to be dictated on how our children turn out to be in future, perhaps we can do with a little less but keep our children from turning into American clones.Another area of interest that the bill generates is the importance of human right. It intrigues me though when a special mention is made of the need to preserve the Balochi, Sindhi and Pashtun culture but no mention is made of Punjab. Is the bill encouraging dissent in the state?

The military related provisions are the most transparent and leave a sour taste. One of those needs the military to be trained to appreciate democratic governments and learn to be controlled by them. Another clause binds the military to a subordinate behaviour to the democratic government otherwise the $1.5 billion aid will be suspended. It seems like a dire warning after that most dreadful incarceration of standing in a corner of the classroom when the rest of the children amble along the session with a comely teacher. I wonder what happened to the "one jeep – two trucks" analogy; one hopes the major on the jeep would have been through the corrective learning process. Less said of including and naming geographical locations where the US wants Pakistan to take action. It is demeaning and pays put to the normalisation process that Pakistan is trying to pursue separately with India. Without a sensible recourse to the underlying dynamics of the Indo-Pakistan complexities, the bill takes a prescriptive line and details what it would hope to see enacted.

What is the clause on the need for enhancement of a national airline doing there? Is a large order for Boeing on the way? And what about a study to replace the AH-1 Cobra; will the Americans tell us what is suitable to buy for our forces? And the promotions in the senior ranks; are we that insecure as a government and a nation?

In comparison, the Americans spend in Afghanistan $30 to the one that they spend on Pakistan. Afghanistan also seems to have a proud leadership and a better group of interlocutors in Washington. I say take the elements of social development strategy from the bill; show some steel to retain national dignity on the rest; and see if the $1.5 billion will still hold. It should, if the US is so genuinely interested in seeing Pakistan stable. The money is anyway a supplement and not supplant.

The writer is a retired air-vice marshal of the Pakistan Air Force and served as its deputy chief of staff. Email: shhzdchdhry @yahoo.com

 

***************************************

I. THE NEWS

EDITORIAL

WE NEED MORE PEOPLE LIKE MARYAM

SYED ANWAR MAHMOOD

Maryam Gilani has done us proud. She has also set an example for her peers and colleagues to follow. And she has put to shame the senior ones who lost the opportunity in their careers to say no to orders that were not legal and which violated the rules.

Maryam is a young officer who joined the Pakistan Railways Service through the Central Superior Services (CSS) examination only a few years ago. She is upright and courageous and upholds merit in public service. Looking after the personnel branch at Pakistan Railways' Rawalpindi Division, Maryam refused to issue letters of appointment to candidates on the list reportedly sent by the Minister for Railways. The minister had allegedly sent a list of candidates, all belonging to his constituency, to be appointed against the available vacancies. Obliging the minister would have meant ignoring all other applicants who were otherwise eligible for appointment based on the laid down criteria.

Maryam said her boss, the Divisional Superintendent of Railways, asked her to oblige the minister and find out ways to circumvent the rules, criteria and even the quota system. Maryam refused saying she could not violate the rules and ignore merit. Retaliation was quick to come. Maryam was placed under suspension. Undeterred, she is resolute in her conviction that appointments in public service should be based on merit and not 'sifarish'. She is also ready to face the consequences of her stand and is seeking relief under the law. Since the matter is subjudice, I shall not comment on it any further.

Comments, however, will continue to be made on the courage and character demonstrated by this young officer. These are qualities that were once the hallmark of our civil services. These are qualities that have generally evaporated from the cadres of the same for many reasons, not the least being lack of security of service and poor compensation.

The new-born state of Pakistan, fragile, resource starved and inundated by millions of refugees not only survived but continued to grow from strength to strength only because it had inherited a cadre of civil servants who valued merit, were bold and courageous and were motivated to serve. Some of them later meddled in politics, to the great detriment of the country but none of them were blamed for corruption. The purge done by Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan and Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was more political and had little to do with the desire to eradicate corruption. The accountability process continues to suffer from this malaise to this day.

What Maryam did in the course of her duty is indeed credible. Such acts should be the norm in public service. Unfortunately, however, these are the exceptions. Such is the state of our governance that the alleged desire of the minister is taken as part of the political culture. Confronted with this allegation on Geo TV's 'Capital Talk', the minister did not deny the action, saying only that he had not written the list himself. Obviously, Ministers do not write themselves. They have such lists prepared by others. No thought is given to the fact that favouring some one unduly has to be at the cost of some one deserving. That surely must have been the consideration Maryam had when she refused to act against the rules. She deserves all round support, especially from the media. Unfortunately however, while we watch and read comments on many issues of the day, those like Maryam's draw little attention. One must commend Hamid Mir, Haroon Rashid and Geo TV for bringing it to the fore.

While not many of our leaders are known for their belief in the rule of law and observance of rules, the late Mohammad Khan Junejo was one prime minister who would always ask "baba rule position kia hai?" At the end of office hours one day, I (then serving as his press secretary) was summoned by him through his ADC. As I knocked and entered the prime minister's chamber, I saw his principal secretary and additional secretary standing near his desk. The discussion was about inducting an officer very close to him in the secretariat group. He was told it was in his competence to do so. Junejo responded that if it was, let the law and establishment divisions initiate the case on merit and state the "rule position... I will decide accordingly." He then stood up and left. No such summary was ever received in the prime minister's office and the officer was never inducted in the secretariat group.

Here is an opportunity for Prime Minister Gilani to show the nation that he believes in merit. He must move in support of the young officer who only coincidentally happens to be a Gilani. She is no relation of the prime minister. Mr Gilani must get the matter probed transparently under a senior judicial officer and take action under the law. If what Maryam says is true, the minister must be held accountable and the officer must be rewarded. This will do immense good to his government and add to his political stature. It will also send all the right signals to the bureaucracy in whose efficiency rests the performance of his administration.

The writer is a former federal secretary. Email: sanwermahmood@hotmail.com

 

***************************************

 

 

I. THE NEWS

EDITORIAL

MANAGING COMPETITION FROM OUTSIDE

SHAHID KARDAR

It is now widely recognised that the cost of doing business in Pakistan is somewhat excessive. Other than the lack and poor quality of infrastructure and woefully inadequate availability, unreliable supply and feeble quality of energy/power, two factors — inflation and a slightly overvalued exchange rate — have become key issues. By keeping the costs of doing business higher than in our competitor countries, the competitiveness of domestic exports have adversely been affected.

Economic literature suggests that monetary policy should focus on core (non-oil and non-food inflation), instead of the headline inflation rate. Unfortunately, however, despite the decline in core inflation that is controlled by good monetary management the domestic rate of inflation continues to be high. For the general public and especially the poor, knowledge that core inflation has fallen brings little comfort since food inflation at double digit rates in recent weeks (partly owing to the sugar crisis and the increase in prices generally experienced in Ramazan). The prices of some products like oil and food tend to be affected more by supply and demand conditions than by monetary policy and, considering they carry a large weight in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) of 40 per cent, impact more heavily on overall inflation and expectations regarding inflation.

For maintaining employment and economic growth, the stabilisation of the rate of inflation is a key factor. However, this assumes that the State Bank should monitor the core (using it as the anchor) and not the headline CPI. But, as mentioned above, the sources of inflation in Pakistan are to a large extent non-monetary. These include government policies like the import duty structure, protection to some sub-sectors of the industry, efforts to make markets function more effectively and the massive unwarranted enhancement in the procurement price of as critical a commodity as wheat which in turn affected output and availability of other food items. Other matters within government control and relevant for keeping inflation in check include its expansionary fiscal polices (reflected in the huge and growing budget deficit, especially in the unenviable security and other conditions facing the country), weak management of the economy and poor regulation. This does not, however, mean that the Sate Bank should not be mindful of the contribution of its monetary policy to this pressure. Moreover, globalisation has also made the economy more sensitive to inflation.

Negligence on part of the State Bank in this area could affect capital flows in and out of the country, despite the positive impact on remittance flows. This is a result of greater scrutiny of deposits and money held abroad by Pakistanis.

The discussion above has tried to argue that the State Bank, while targeting inflation, will have to look at the headline and not the core inflation rate, a difficult task since this requires greater focus on non-monetary polices (matters beyond its mandate), with only limited attention on monetary policy, to keep inflationary pressures subdued and sustain growth in output.

The rupee today is still overvalued despite claims to the contrary. The standard and hackneyed argument of government functionaries is that gone are the days that the price of the rupee was determined by the government. It is now determined by the market and since capital inflows, some of which are non-debt creating in nature, are largely financing the deficit on the external trade account, the value of the rupee continues to be essentially steady. Even if their contention that the market is determining the value of the rupee were to be accepted, the question is whether letting foreign capital inflows keep the value of the rupee artificially higher than it would be otherwise is a good strategy for the profitability of our exports, especially considering that our domestic rate of inflation is significantly higher than that of our trading partners and competitors. The lowering of the profitability rates and levels in the export and modern sectors of the economy is preventing investment in these sectors. Hence, the movement into other activities such as real estate and stock exchanges.

If China were to follow this advice, the value of the yuan would continue to appreciate (since it still has a huge trade surplus with the rest of the world). China, by not choosing to sharply revalue its currency upwards and maintain a highly competitive currency, has not only made it exceedingly difficult for the competitiveness of our exports but has also kept profitability and investment high in its exporting industries. So who is suffering on account of this reality? If, when we find our strategy unsustainable, we decide to adjust the value of the rupee, some of our export markets would have been lost having been captured by others and our ability to re-gain these markets is bound to be awkward, if not impossible.

Admittedly, managing the exchange rate is not an easy task under the circumstances that we face currently. But then policy makers need to understand the critical role played by the exchange rate and how to maintain competitiveness of industry without capital inflows. Policies that support trade create an incentive to improve industrial competitiveness and, thereby, productivity and efficiency. An appropriate exchange rate regime would be a key instrument of such a strategy.

Email: kardar@systemsltd.com

 

***************************************

I. THE NEWS

EDITORIAL

END TO END

CHRIS CORK

This has been a busy week even by my standards. It started last Sunday with a trip down to Karachi to sort out the loose ends of arrangements surrounding a family wedding; followed by a couple of days packed with social engagements – and then the bus back to Bahawalpur arriving Wednesday morning only to leave again on Thursday night for Islamabad, where this column is being typed. Saturday night will see me back home again before I head off a week later for a conference in Nathia Galli. But it is not my itinerary that I wanted to comment on, so much as the land that I have traveled through in the last week.

Much of my daily life is consumed by understanding what is going wrong with Pakistan, how it teeters on the edge of failed statehood, is beset by any number of potentially fatal problems and whose people wander glumly from one crisis to another, hope gone from their hearts. I have no intention of minimising the problems we face, but having taken a vertical slice through the nation in the last week come away with the impression that we are not in such bad shape as we might have been telling ourselves.

Take my cousin, he of the impending nuptials. He runs his own business refitting offices at the dead of the night then having things ready for business again the next day, his crew sleeping while the printers chatter and business goes on. It is a niche market, and he has exploited it well. His contracts get bigger by the month and he has an income that will support himself and his wife well. Not that she needs supporting – she has a good job of her own and will continue to work after marriage. They have a small modern apartment they are going to live in determinedly without either set of in-laws. I wish them luck. Consider the lunch I had with a colleague in a restaurant where the food and service was as good as you would get in the West. Note that the bus that took me to and from Karachi was on time, clean, and not over-booked.

Back home, my father-in-law had had his monthly check-up, workmen had made a very poor job of putting up the new curtains and the electricity bill was less than expected. I was able to book my ticket northwards by phone, I got two SMS messages from a courier company to say that my dispatched packages had been received – and a statement from this newspaper telling me how much tax they had deducted from my earnings in last year.

Here in Islamabad, I sit in a busy internet café in G-11 that is modern, full of people working hard at a variety of projects and next door to one of my favourite bookshops and two doors away from the place where I get my hair cut. Another hundred metres down the road there is a reliable source of imported cheese and tomorrow I will breakfast off French bread locally baked by bakers who went to France to learn how to do it. Yes, there are parts of this nation that are badly broken, some of them close to broken beyond repair. But there are larger bits that aren't, and, most of the time, they work. Let us not forget that.

The writer is a British social worker settled in Pakistan. Email: manticore73@gmail.com

 

***************************************

******************************************************************************************

PAKISTAN OBSERVER

EDITORIAL

DON'T TURN PAK INTO A REFUGEE STATE

 

WHILE the Government is still in the midst of coping with the resettlement and rehabilitation of IDPs from Swat and Malakand, there are clear indications that a full-scale operation against militants in South Waziristan is on the card. The UN has warned that if the FATA operation begins, there would be a great influx of IDPs leaving their homes and large scale arrangements to evacuate the people would have to be made ahead of the operation.

Although majority of IDPs from Swat and Malakand have returned to their homes and desperately trying to settle down, the UN refugee agency has also reported that still a large number of people from these areas are staying either on their own or with the host families outside the valley for fears that the militants could return with vengeance. Returning people still complain lack of infrastructure facilities while health, education and communication system there is yet to be fully normalized. In this situation launching of operation in South Waziristan would open a floodgate of refugees from the entire tribal belt and the adjoining settled areas. DG ISPR has been quoted as saying that it is a matter of time when the operation would be launched there In our opinion the warning by the UN is timely and one wonders why those in favour of such an operation do not realize the exact implications of the situation that would emerge. They should keep in view the sufferings of the people when the exodus started from Swat and uprooted people were made to wait for days even for their registration. Tentage villages established for the purpose were not sufficient and food was in short supply. It took weeks to meet the requirements of these unfortunate IDPs. On the basis of that experience we expect that efforts would be made to minimize the displacement of people and operation to cleanse South Waziristan from the menace of terrorism would be in specific areas on the basis of intelligence information. There are reports that around 5000 foreign militants are in South Waziristan and there is need to wipe them out yet at the same time we may point out that they could move to other places instead of confronting the security forces head-on. There are also talks of operations against militants in other areas as well and one fears that the land of the Quaid may turn into a bigger state of refugees having horrible consequences for the country and the coming generation.

 

 

 

 

***************************************

 

 

PAKISTAN OBSERVER

EDITORIAL

JUDGES AND CORRUPT! UNTHINKABLE

 

THE Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) has declared Justice Muhammad Afzal Soomro of the Sindh High Court responsible for misconduct and decided to send its report against him to the President under Article 209(6) of the Constitution for further action.

One would not like to comment on this but it is certain that the respected SJC must be having irrefutable proofs for reaching this conclusion. People at large hold the judges of the superior judiciary in high esteem and it was very very shocking, as one cannot imagine that a judge of the superior judiciary is so corrupt. The world over judges enjoy the highest respect and are considered a role model as they are responsible to deliver justice without fear or favour. In Islamic society, in particular, a Qazi i.e. Judge enjoys a unique and most respected position and delivers justice to the aggrieved party even if that goes against the Ruler of the time. In Islamic Republic of Pakistan it is most shameful if such things happen and there is need for keeping a close eye on the conduct of a few who bring a bad name to this very noble institution. We would therefore request the honourable Chief Justice of Pakistan that while he is engaged in addressing very important and serious issues relating to judiciary including clearing the back log of cases, he may consider inviting feed back from the public about handling and disposal of cases at the lower level judiciary. Though there is no denial of the fact that the strength of the lower judiciary is not enough to keep pace with the filing of new cases yet we may point out that cases of most of the litigants go unheard even on the fixed date and they are just given a new date for next hearing causing lot of dismay and resentment. The most agonising curse is corruption at the lower level that also deserves urgent attention. To deal with it, we suggest that a foolproof mechanism should be laid down. In this connection formation of committees of elders in each district could be an option, who should keep an eye on particular cases and then submit their views to the Chief Justices of the respective high courts.

 

***************************************

PAKISTAN OBSERVER

EDITORIAL

RUSH HUMANITARIAN AID TO INDONESIA

 

THE devastating earthquake that struck the Sumatra Island of Indonesia with a magnitude of 7.6 on Wednesday left a wide scale destruction, deaths and miseries everywhere. Though quake's worst effects may be yet to emerge as areas around Padang remain largely cut off, there are estimates that over 3000 people might have died and hundreds of thousands injured left homeless and without any aid.

People of Pakistan feel the pain of sufferings of the brotherly people of Indonesia as the horrible details of the catastrophe are coming in through the print and electronic media. Indonesia Health Minister has sought the help of foreign countries for the evacuation efforts as the authorities fear that large number of people in villages, which were destroyed by the landslides, were still under the rubbles. In view of the dimension of the earthquake and the consequent destruction, the international community has started rushing relief goods. Pakistan Govt. had sent relief items and medical mission to Indonesia after the last earthquake and that did splendid task in helping and treating the injured and earned a lot of goodwill. It is time that the Government as a gesture of brotherhood, goodwill and on humanitarian considerations must respond to the call of the brotherly country and despatch not only the relief items but also the much-needed evacuation and medical teams in this hour of need. We would also urge the Chairman of Pakistan Red Crescent Society Dr Basharat Jazbi to arrange medicines and other items in consultation with the Indonesian Embassy and take the first consignment himself to the devastated areas without losing anytime.

 

 

 

 

***************************************

 

 

PAKISTAN OBSERVER

EDITORIAL

SPINNERS OF THE WEB!

KHALID SALEEM

Public memory is proverbially short. Nonetheless, the Bush presidency is not such a distant memory. One can only offer an apology for harking back to it, but the subject matter may have some relevance even in the present epoch. So here goes. It may be recalled that, in the midst of the Bush epoch, it had become something of a habit with column writers to bung in what had come to be known as 'Bushisms' to round off their columns. To add a bit of spice, they never forgot to mention that Mr. George W. Bush was the proud possessor of the nickname 'Dubya'. Whether or not these extras added to the readability of the columns in question is something one would leave to the reader to decide.

Here a clarification may be in order. One has no intention to talk either of 'Bushisms' or indeed of President George W. (Dubya) Bush. Instead, what wished to do was to draw the reader's attention to a Reuters news item, datelined Washington, circa December 2001, the clipping of which one happened to come across the other day. The item in question splashed the glad tidings that President George W. Bush had issued presidential pardons to two turkeys, named as "Liberty" and "Freedom". The clemency was formally granted by the President of the world's sole superpower in the course of a ceremony in the White House Rose Garden. The two turkeys in question, one was authoritatively informed by none other than Reuters, thereby escaped the fate of 267 million turkeys (where do they get these statistics from?) raised in the US with the customary end in mind.

Having digested this momentous bit of news - splashed no doubt by the spin doctors of the 'War against Terror" genre - with a pinch of salt, one still looked askance at what the world of information had in store. Why, one may ask with reason, name the two birds 'Liberty' and 'Freedom' in the first place knowing fully well that, save for the elusive presidential pardon, they were intended for the proverbial axe? Was it intended to create a Rambo-type drama of a super-hero stepping in at the last minute to honour these two highly regarded (?) attributes?

It can safely be surmised that the date of the naming ceremony (chritening?) of the turkeys, if there was one, must have preceded the vaunted one of the 'Presidential pardon'. What would have happened if, due to one of those pressing matters of State one keeps hearing about, the latter ceremony had to be put off and either 'Liberty' or 'Freedom' or both had met the fate of all turkeys in the United States? One supposes that the spin-doctors, given their known propensity to spin tales that sell, would have cobbled together some explanation or the other for this mishap too. But, how is one to believe that the white bird that the President was shown (in the accompanying photograph) as tentatively 'petting' was actually the authentic 'Liberty' and not an imposter introduced as a last minute replacement for the (late lamented) original item? As it is, why could 'Freedom' not be present at the ceremony? Its absence was hardly a laughing matter, despite President Dubya's lame attempt at humour ('Freedom' is not here because he is in a secure and undisclosed location); the turkey in question being no Cheney and vice versa. There was reason to fear the worst, though hoping for the best.

These turkey tales aside, one could hardly help wondering what the wretched spin-doctors have been up to. War is a serious business whether it is waged against an equal adversary or (as appears in the current case) against a ravaged, starving populace. One may be accused of being over-sensitive, but a ceremony for pardoning of a couple of turkeys somehow did not appear to go too well at a time when little starving children were being killed and maimed by the cluster bomb remnants that just happened to look like the food parcels that were also dropped (as a sop?) at the same time.

As it is, the military campaign that was trumpeted as a 'war against terrorism' appears to have fast generated into a war against a poverty-stricken country and its hapless people. In the general atmosphere of frenzy created by the media hype, it is imperative that the real objectives are not lost sight of. At this point, it may perhaps be pertinent to make a passing reference to two matters. Firstly, the cold-blooded massacre of Prisoners of War (remember?) is at best a bad precedent. Secondly, incidents of persecution of Muslim visitors and residents in Western countries that not very long ago prided themselves on their human rights record are regrettable (and avoidable). And, while on the subject, need one allude to the universal principle that the life and dignity of a human being is sacred, whether he (or she) comes from the richest country on earth or the poorest.

Let it be said that no sane person would attempt to justify the appalling events of 11 September or, for that matter, any other wanton acts of terrorism. By the same token, no one would deign to challenge international action against the roots of terrorism. Wouldn't it have been better though to take the "peoples of the United Nations" into full confidence before taking precipitate action? And, in particular, if the World Body's Charter had been adhered to in letter and spirit? Now after some eight years of the 'war on terror', it may not be out of place to ask the spin-doctors to pause and ponder whether or not the objectives for which this cruel campaign was let loose in the first place are anywhere near to being achieved. If not, then would it be unfair to expect that the powers that be take a second hard look at the whole thing. We are, after all, living through an era of history – one that may well take the fateful decision whether or not we deserve to call ourselves civilized or, at the very least, enlightened human beings. There is no disgrace in recognizing the truth – obviously, a certain course of action has not paid dividends expected of it and that policy re-orientation may be called for. The decision has to be made by the powers-that-be; it just would not do to shirk it!

 

***************************************

 

 

PAKISTAN OBSERVER

EDITORIAL

CAPITULATING TERMS OF KERRY-LUGAR BILL

ABDUS SATTAR GHAZI

Major political parties of Pakistan have bitterly criticized the capitulating conditions attached to the $4.5 billion US aid to Pakistan under the Kerry-Lugar Bill passed by the Congress on September 4, 2009. Pakistan Muslim League, a leading political party led by a former prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, described the conditionalities similar to the notorious Pakistan-specific Pressler's amendment that was used as an arms twisting tool by the US administration.

The Secretary of State has to issue a certificate on some sensitive subjects before each installment of the US aid is to be disbursed. The Secretary of State, under the direction of the president, has to certify to the appropriate congressional committees that,

1. The Government of Pakistan is continuing to cooperate with the United States in efforts to dismantle supplier networks relating to the acquisition of nuclear weapons-related materials, such as providing relevant information from or direct access to Pakistani nationals (Read Abdul Qadeer Khan) associated with such networks; 2. The Government of Pakistan during the preceding fiscal year has demonstrated a sustained commitment to and is making significant efforts towards combating terrorist groups, consistent with the purposes of assistance described in section 201, including taking into account the extent to which the Government of Pakistan has made progress on matters such as:

(a) ceasing support, including by any elements within the Pakistan military or its intelligence agency, to extremist and terrorist groups, particularly to any group that has conducted attacks against United States or coalition forces in Afghanistan, or against the territory or people of neighbouring countries (Read India); (b) preventing al-Qaeda, the Taliban and associated terrorist groups, such as Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed, from operating in the territory of Pakistan, including carrying out cross-border attacks into neighbouring countries, closing terrorist camps in the Fata, dismantling terrorist bases of operations in other parts of the country, including Quetta and Muridke, and taking action when provided with intelligence about high-level terrorist targets; and (c) strengthening counter-terrorism and anti-money laundering laws; and (3) The security forces of Pakistan are not materially and substantially subverting the political or judicial processes of Pakistan.

The language of these conditions is different but in essence the US demands are the same — give us AQ Khan, don't finger India, forget Kashmir, close the terror shops of Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Muhammed and cooperate in the war on terror on our terms. The more direct language against military intervention in political and judicial processes has apparently been added by the US legislators on the insistence of those Pakistanis who feel that the GHQ in Pindi is still creating hurdles in allowing the PPP to run its government as it likes, specially after the March 15 intervention to restore the judges, something which was taken as a direct affront to President Zardari who had over-committed himself not to restore the chief justice.

These conditions implied that (1) Pakistan is supporting terrorist groups. (2) It is involved in attacks on India. The Kerry-Lugar Bill particularly mentions that attacks outside of Pakistan that have been attributed to groups with Pakistani connections, including— (i) the suicide car bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, which killed 58 people on June 7, 2008; and (ii) the massacre of approximately 165 people in Mumbai, India, including 6 United States citizens, in late November 2008. Clause relating to the nuclear issue is aimed at allowing US investigators access to individuals, such as AQ Khan, suspected of engaging in nuclear proliferation. It was reported in April 2008 that the US State Department reportedly proposed to the Pakistan Government to place one official permanently at the US embassy in Islamabad to deal with Pakistan's nuclear issues, and also that the official would have direct access to Pakistans National Command Authority (NCA) Secretariat.

Clause related to effective civilian control over the armed forces is self explanatory. Apparently on behest of Washington in July 2008 Zardari government abortively tried to put the powerful military-run spy agency, Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), under civilian control. After the Mombai attacks of December 2008, Senator Kerry called for putting the ISI under civilian control. It is all the more intriguing that the conditionalities contain names of cities and towns from where the Government of Pakistan is required to uproot the alleged terrorist training camps. By doing so the US has formalized its allegations about presence of so-called terrorist training camps and also that Pakistan's soil is being used for such activities against neighboring countries including India. Tellingly, one billion dollars from the US aid to Pakistan is to be spent on upgrading US Embassy and Consulates.It was revealed in May that the White House has asked Congress for $736 million to build a new U.S. embassy in Islamabad, along with permanent housing for U.S. government civilians and new office space in the Pakistani capital. The scale of the projects rivals the giant U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, which was completed last year after construction delays at a cost of $740 million.

McClatchy Newspapers quoted senior State Department officials said the expanded diplomatic presence is needed to replace overcrowded, dilapidated and unsafe facilities and to support a "surge" of civilian officials into Afghanistan and Pakistan ordered by President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.Other major projects are planned for Kabul, Afghanistan; and for the Pakistani cities of Lahore and Peshawar. In Peshawar, the U.S. government is negotiating the purchase of the Pearl Contintental is the city's only five-star hotel, that would house a new U.S. consulate.

In Islamabad, according to State Department budget documents, the plan calls for the rapid construction of a $111 million new office annex to accommodate 330 workers; $197 million to build 156 permanent and 80 temporary housing units; and a $405 million replacement of the main embassy building. The U.S. government also plans to revamp its consular buildings in the eastern city of Lahore and in Peshawar. Peshawar is an important station for gathering intelligence on the tribal area that surrounds the city on three sides. The consulate in the southern mega city of Karachi has just been relocated into a new purpose-built accommodation.

This is a replay of Baghdad," said Senator Khurshid Ahmad, a member of Pakistan's upper house of parliament for Jamaat-e-Islami, one of the country's two main religious political parties. "This (Islamabad embassy) is more (space) than they should need. It's for the micro and macro management of Pakistan, and using Pakistan for pushing the American agenda in Central Asia."Makhdoom Javed Hashmi labeled the mega US embassy as a mini Pentagon in Islamabad.

On September 12, a petition has been filed in the Supreme Court of Pakistan seeking to restrain the Americans from getting further 18 acres of land over and above the 38 acres already acquired by them, for expansion of the US Embassy in Islamabad. The petitioners, Watan Party and Barrister Zafarullah Khan, have also urged the Apex Court to prevent the Americans from hiring as many as 250 offices in Islamabad and that no diplomatic mission may be allowed to get on lease or through sale land more than the requirement of the diplomatic mission.

The lawyer further disclosed that Islamabad had provided the US with access to data of the country's telecom authority, from which information about Pakistani citizens could be attained. "The rights of Pakistani citizens are compromised. Such activities should be stopped," he demanded. The petitioner argues that contrary to the trend, set by the age of communication, of cutting down the staff, America is extraordinarily enhancing the presence of its staff in Islamabad, which may also include 1000 marines with latest equipment, which may be a means to 'bring us down on our knees' and to 'capture our nuclear facility' so that Pakistan could get the same treatment the US meted out to South Korea, Taiwan, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

The capitulating terms for the new five year US aid to Pakistan came at a time when the Pakistani media is buzzing with stories about the operation of the ill-famed Blackwater mercenary army in Islamabad and Peshawar, the capital of North Western Frontier Province where the army has launched operations to contain militant insurgency. The National Assembly Standing Committee for Human Rights on September 29 expressed serious concerns over presence of Blackwater and its secret activities in the country and constituted five-member committee under the leadership of PML-N leader Javed Hashmi to review the matter. Many people in Pakistan believe that Afghanistan, India, Israel and US are involved in the current turmoil and violence in the tribal areas of Northern Pakistan and Baluchistan to destabilize the country.

 

***************************************

PAKISTAN OBSERVER

EDITORIAL

ANOTHER MUMBAI ATTACK SOON?

SHUMAILA RAJA

Reports suggest that there is credible intelligence information that India in collaboration with Israel is going to stage manage another Mumbai like incident to implicate Pakistan in terror-sponsoring state. As per plan, Israelis and Indians would create hype about some secret information blaming ISI for deploying terrorist groups against Indian-Israeli interests in India ! A James Bond plot designed to kill multiple birds with one stone – target ISI, establish nexus between Pakistani State and terrorist groups, declare Pakistan a terrorist State and also exploit the subsequent global media explosion to kill the Kashmiri unrest against Indian State. The Israeli threat level advisory is a major psy-ops geared towards above objectives. The key words in the press release – Israel , India , Pakistani military, militants, Al-Qaeda, Mumbai styled, Jewish tourists, western tourists – all geared towards creating the fear factor.

There is no doubt that Israel and India are collaborating together to frame Pakistan on terrorism charges. Last year, in Mumbai attacks, there were concrete proofs that Israeli secret service was involved with the Indian military intelligence in planting dubious groups as terrorists from Pakistan. This is serious and stunning development exactly in line with what we anticipated. Indians are most aggressive against Pakistan these days on multiple fronts. Denying any talks, building global campaigns to declare Pakistan as terrorist State, blocking Pakistani waters, massively building their own conventional and nuke weapon systems, waging insurgencies within tribal regions and Balochistan, demanding full trade and economic concessions and waging a massive propaganda and information warfare to dilute Pakistan's ideology, identity and confidence as a nation. Despite clear proofs that the Indian government had been involved in faking encounters and planting evidences on innocent civilians to prove them Pakistani terrorists, no PPP government official or minister is found nailing India for their propaganda and disinformation war against the Pakistan . There is no response from Pakistani government but a stunned silence, baffled stammering and confused or even sinister moves supporting Indian game plan on all counts. If the government is not going all guns blazing supporting Indians, it is simply because it does not have enough moral and political strength to do it; else the criminal intent is all there to auction the national security.

What is rather stunning is that Israel does not share this "pin point intelligence" with India , taking India by surprise as well. Indians had to scramble to know what is happening. Then Indian media also joins the plan and stories are being planted about a possible LeT attack on Indian soil just as Israelis had predicted. "Israel will warn its citizens to avoid India after receiving a 'pinpoint' intelligence tip-off that Pakistani militants may carry out a series of attacks there in the coming weeks, Israeli TV reported on Thursday. Citing a leaked copy of the travel advisory due out on Friday, Channel Two said the alleged militants had Al Qaeda links and planned to target both western and Jewish tourists in attacks similar to last year's attacks in Mumbai..."

Indian officials said last Friday they were in contact with Israel after a television report claimed Jerusalem had a 'pinpoint' intelligence tip-off about Pakistani militants attacking India in the coming weeks. Citing a leaked copy of a travel advisory, Israel 's Channel Two said the potential attackers had Al Qaeda links and planned to target both western and Jewish tourists in strikes similar to last year's attacks in Mumbai..." "A spate of travel advisories warning visitors to India of a terror strike added to a festival security alert as an Israeli counter-terrorism unit warned its citizens that they could be targets in India . Now apart from US that has also issued a similar warning, UK and Canada have come out with advisories too. The Israeli alert specifically speaks of the "group responsible for the serious Mumbai attacks" planning more outrages in India , particularly against concentrations of western or Israeli tourists. The reference is unmistakably to the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba. There have been several warnings about a major terror strike in the past months, including one about another landing on the western coast."

On raising issue with the UN Security Council regarding Hafiz Saeed, India has embarked upon a diplomatic offensive against Pakistan . Just to keep Pakistan in the news, in same regressive mode, rocket fires on border towns have also increased. Creation of hype on issues requiring mundane treatment is dismal policy of India notwithstanding the peace of world and desire of Pakistan . In this scenario the gimmicks of non-state actors can not be over ruled. Being hostage to such mercurial characters, India would not draw any mileage other than running into a vicious circle.

In the aftermath of previous straining of relations leading to military escalations, the only lesson learnt was "restrain". Why that lesson is always forgotten and a misadventure imitates afresh every now and then. The Bollywood style action thrillers have always been the attributes of stooping relations of Pakistan and India . Present situation has gone too volatile to be controlled on a small incident of insignificance nature .India must clear the field for honest and more meaningful dialogues in the better interest of her own starving nation and for the regional peace and mutual co–existence.—The writer is Rawalpindi based freelance journalist.

 

***************************************

PAKISTAN OBSERVER

EDITORIAL

POLITICS & DEMOCRACY

MALIK M ASHRAF

The impulsive propensity of our politicians to lock horns on non-issues , conspiring to bring down the sitting governments mandated by the people to rule the roost for five years , vitiating the political atmosphere through personal animosities rather than playing a constructive role as an opposition, has been the bane of democracy in Pakistan ; a phenomenon which also has mainly been the reason for repeated military interventions. Who can forget the crass politics of the nineties which still haunts the nation and continues to obstruct our march towards sustainable democracy.

Had the political leadership shown vision and sowed a culture of political tolerance , the nation would not have gone through the ordeal of another dictatorial rule by General Musharraf. It is an undeniable fact that the array of problems confronting the country , including the existentialist threat posed by terrorism and religious extremism are formidable legacies of the dictatorial era . It was in the backdrop of these harsh realities that all the segments of the society welcomed the process of rapprochement morphed by Muhatarma Benazir Bhutto and PMLN leader Mian Nawaz Sharif in the form of Charter of Democracy . This understanding sent very positive signals to the masses who justifiably hoped that the politicians had learnt their lessons and the new found bonhomie between the two major political parties would not only help in eliminating the negative fall out of the Musharraf legacy but would also put the country back on the road to our cherished destiny. To achieve that , they were expected to lead the nation with a new vision , solely guided by the national interest.

But unfortunately , the portents are not as encouraging as one would have wished them to be. The amity between PPP and PMLN seems to be ebbing away by some very unimaginative politicking. At a time when we need to have an impregnable unity among the political forces and require their collective wisdom and initiative to surmount the grave challenges , it is painful to note that they are still wedded to their old ways and are wasting their energies on frivolous issues.

Take for example the reaction shown by PMLN leader Chaudhry Nisar on the reported revelation by the President that the exit of President Musharraf was secured through a deal guaranteed by our foreign friends , though later denied by the presidential spokesman. Chaudhy Saheb thinks that the deal is a breach of the sovereignty of the country and the parliament and that it effectively insults the peoples democratic mandate. He also wants the issue to be debated in the parliament. By the same token may one ask the honourable opposition leader what he has to say about the deal negotiated by the Saudis for the release and exile of Mian Nawaz Sharif , which was so vehemently and repeatedly denied by him until the Saudis themselves spilled the beans ? Will he also condescend to furnish the details of that deal and enlighten the nation on what is the difference between that deal and the one reported deal of Zardari with Musharraf ?

History is a witness to the bitter realities that all the dictators were shown the exit through deals either negotiated by the internal or the international guarantors. One does not need to repeat those details. Deals, if hammered for sinister purposes must be condemned and rightly so. But what about the deals that have been choreographed to restore democratic rule in the country ? The deal between Shaheed Muhtarma Benazir Bhutto and Musharraf guaranteed by the international guarantors paved the way for return of democracy to the country , of which PMLN is also a beneficiary. Similarly the deal or agreement with Musharraf also helped get rid of the dictator. So in terms of their objectives both were very positive developments and must be seen in the same light. Therefore , instead of creating fuss over the non-issues and wasting the time of the parliament , the political stalwarts are better advised to concentrate on resolving the array of grave challenges that the nation is confronted with and which undoubtedly require a collective effort by all the political entities. Viewed in the backdrop of this dire necessity , the approach adopted by President Zardari to take along all the political forces and do things through consensus , reflects a pragmatic thinking and the only way to pull the country out of the crucible of precipice into which it has been pushed. Any belligerent and confrontational move could undo what we have achieved so far and those who are conversant with power dynamics in Pakistan and are aware of the currents and cross currents ravaging our political landscape know it fully well.

The proposal presented by President Zardari to constitute a Truth and Reconciliation Commission headed by Asma Jehangir is also a very thought provoking initiative which can help us in putting our bitter past behind and make a fresh beginning to our cherished dream of uninterrupted democracy in the country. Sentiments apart, We need a process of reconciliation instead of revenge. The best guarantee against future military interventions , of course , can be the good governance geared to promoting well being of the people . The effort has to begin right now . We have very little time left to fix the maladies. Both the PPP and PMLN who are the two major political parties need to work hand in hand and set new traditions of governance in the country . This is crucial for the creation of a political culture which eliminates the need for deals for ever. Political bickering can wait for better times.

 

***************************************

PAKISTAN OBSERVER

EDITORIAL

KNOW YOUR VICE-PRESIDENT..!

ROBERT CLEMENTS

Sure, you know your President, you got to know her, because if you're traveling to the airport and miss your flight it's because her terribly long cavalcade and she sure has a stream of cars and ambulances and police jeeps, mucked up your travel plans and everybody else's travel schedules.

But the Vice-President? Just imagine a show, something like 'Kaun Banega Crorepati' or 'Smarter Than a Fifth Grader,' and you come onto the show, all confident and sure of yourself, wave to the crowd do a hi five to Amitabh, a hi five to the computer and then Amitabh asks, "Name the third Vice President of India?"

The what?" "The third Vice-President?" "May I use 'Phone a friend?" "And who is this friend?" "My dad!" And you phone your dad and ask, "Dad who's the third Vice-President of India?" "Put me on to Amitabhji!" "Dad you got to answer the question!" Put me on to Amitabhji!" And you put him on, "Amitabhji, I think this is ridiculous, why don't you ask my son simple questions about stem cell research or the names of all the craters on the moon, but this is not on!" "Okay," says the Big B, "Who is the present Vice-President?" And you look at the audience who look as puzzled as you, then look at Computerji and quietly walk back and out. And just near the door you turn round and ask the Big B, "Do you know the answer?"

My job is to ask," says the Big B, going red faced, "Now let's take a break!" I agree that the VP is also Chairman of the Upper House, another institution which is more a relic than of any use except to give a retirement pension to unneeded politicians and government servants who want to stay on in Delhi at government expense. But who really knows the VP? He needs more visibility! "Madam President I need more visibility!" "Mr Vice President will you step behind me, that cameraman is taking a photo!" "Madam where are you tomorrow and day after and the day after that?" "Tomorrow I open a shop at Mumbai, the day after one at Gauhati, and after that back in Mumbai for another opening!"

Let me look after one of those openings?" "What? I have only one term not two like the American presidents!"

And so the VP remains unknown, unrecognized, unheard, a good question to ask so no one wins the millionaire show! You want to win a million; know your Vice President..!

 

***************************************

 

 

 

 

 

******************************************************************************************

THE INDEPENDENT

EDITORIAL

EMPOWERING THE UP

 

Ever since the passage of the Upazila Parishad Bill-2009 in parliament, curtailing the independence and power of the Upazila Parishad, the Union Parishad (UP), the lowest tier of local government, had reasons to be concerned about its own legal framework for performing its functions. Chairmen, as top functionaries of the UPs, have long raised their voice against any possible move towards making a law providing for what they termed 'unwarranted interference in UP-related activities by local lawmakers.' So concerned are they that the UP chairmen threatened to launch a movement from the National Convention of the Bangladesh Union Parishad Forum (BUPF)-2009 held on Saturday at a local hotel.

No wonder the representatives of the UPs, like those at the upazila level, have been disappointed because the move totally contradicts the promises made by the ruling Awami League. Most of the proposed amendments such as appointment of civil servants as advisors and exercise of power by deputy commissioners actually run counter to the spirit of local government and even the Constitution. Enshrined in article 59 of the Constitution are independence and importance of the local government bodies. By giving advisory role to the MPs, the Upazila Parishad Act has virtually reduced the local body at this level into a lame duck. Any attempt to put similar restrictions on the UPs will render the whole concept of the decentralisation of administration untenable.

Quite naturally, the BUPF has taken a hard line and sounded uncompromising on issues from interference in their autonomous role to empowerment for leasing out khas land, ferry points, markets and water bodies. When the objective should have been the strengthening of the local bodies, in practice the Upazila Parishad Act is very far apart from the constitutional provision for total separation of power between national and local governments. If the provisions for exercise of power by deputy commissioners on UPs and appointment of administrators are dropped from the Union Parishad Bill-2009, it will remove the bone of contention. But much more needs to be done if we really want to make the local bodies fully functional. 

 

***************************************

 

 

THE INDEPENDENT

EDITORIAL

OUR OTHER NEIGHBOR

 

Tension is mounting on Bangladesh's eastern border as Myanmar has resumed construction of barbed wire fences inside the no-man's land. This comes at a time when Bangladesh is having a problem with Myanmar over demarcation of the maritime boundary. Earlier, Myanmar had built a platform for drilling within our sea waters, while Bangladesh recently requested two foreign companies to start work in three of Bangladesh's off-shore blocks.

Although both countries have reportedly reinforced their military positions on the border, Bangladesh foreign ministry officials said they would seek Chinese assistance to resolve its problems with Myanmar. Hopefully Bangladesh can pull it off, as China is Myanmar's principal backer. This is because Bangladesh enjoys a good rapport with China. However, it will not be an easy task and we need all the finesse and the diplomatic skills to achieve our objectives.

Now that Bangladesh's relations with India is improving, there is no reason why the same will not happen in case of Myanmar. India's relations with Myanmar has improved substantially of late, and Bangladesh could also think of using the Indian conduit, given its current bonhomie, too, for resolving its "Myanmar problem." Increased interaction with neighbours, hopefully, will lead to better relations and as a result more avenues of dispute resolution could emerge. Considering the current spate of cross-boundary problems, Bangladesh also has to review its "immediate-neighbour-policy" for mutual benefit. We need to think constructively about what went wrong and what can be done right in the years to come.

 

***************************************

 

 

THE INDEPENDENT

BOB'S BANTER

THE SIREN…!

 

"Give way!" I tell my driver, as I hear the siren behind my car, he does and the ambulance races ahead, and as I peer into it's closed windows I can't see the patient, but anxious faces of those who sit alongside, willing the ambulance forward to reach the hospital before a life is lost. The ambulance siren: What are your thoughts when you hear one? It could be me, I think, those anxious people alongside could be my family, worried, scared, terrified that the one on stretcher won't make it. And then I jerk myself back and thank God I am alive and healthy, my heart ticking, my brain functioning, my limbs working. But what if it was me in there? The thought persists. "Ah God I pray, why are you taking me away? There's so much I have to do?"

"Like what?"

"Like looking outside the window, seeing those trees, those flowers, appreciating the sound of rain, laughing at a ray of sunlight peeping through a cloud!"

 

"Why didn't you do all this before?"

"I was too busy Lord!"

"Doing what?"

"Making money, taking part in office politics, climbing the social ladder, I was so busy inside I never looked out at the beauty you had created for me. Let me live that I will appreciate it more!"

"You had all the time to do so!"

"And (gasp), and (gasp) she looks so worried, doesn't she know that there is money for her in the bank even if I go?"

"She looks worried because she loves you, look at her eyes, they are filled with tears, she cries wondering what she will do without you?"

"Does she know about my philandering, about my wayward ways?"

"She knows, yet she loves you!"

"I love her too, but (gasp) I have no strength to hold her in my arms and tell her so, I can't hug her and tell her that she is the most important person in my life!"

"You had all the time before!" The sirens scream, the ambulance pushes ahead, I crane my neck to look out and see myself sitting in the car peering at the ambulance. "Bob!" I shout at myself. "There's no warning when the end draws near! Start living as if these are your last moments!" I watch the ambulance racing ahead. I see anxious faces looking down at someone whose face I can't see, suddenly they leap forward, I hear a silent scream from the woman, I see the nurse urging the driver on, the siren grows louder and I shiver because I know inside a man struggles to live. "Please stop!" I tell my driver as I get out and smell the flowers, look at the blue sky and ring my wife to tell her what I haven't told her in years. The siren wails in the distance, and from inside the ambulance a revived man smiles and I shiver no more…!

 bobsbanter@gmail.com  

***************************************

******************************************************************************************

THE AUSTRALIAN

EDITORIAL

THIN TALENT POOL WEAKENS OPPOSITION

THE LIBERAL PARTY MUST ENDORSE THE LEADERS OF THE FUTURE.

 

THE federal Liberal Party needs opposition health spokesman Peter Dutton, 38, who was assistant treasurer to Peter Costello in the Howard government. It also needs former indigenous affairs minister Mal Brough, but he appears to have slipped through their fingers for lack of a safe Queensland seat. When the Liberals and Nationals merged in Queensland to form the Liberal National Party, all sitting members were ensured endorsement for the next election. The folly of such "grandfathering" is evident when several long-serving MPs could make way for much-needed younger talent. Against this background, it's hardly surprising that Malcolm Turnbull is "very, very troubled" by the result of Saturday's preselection in the southern Gold Coast seat of McPherson.

 

Capable as she appears, the endorsement of industrial engineer Karen Andrews, 49, the party's divisional chairwoman, was another blow to Mr Turnbull's leadership. He wanted Mr Dutton to be given the plum seat because Dickson, which Mr Dutton holds on Brisbane's northwestern outskirts, is now notionally Labor by 1.3per cent, after redistribution. Mr Dutton came close in the first round of the preselection, but his chances were not helped by the fact that after arranging with him to take over McPherson, retiring member Margaret May was in the UK for the preselection. Mr Dutton's fate was sealed when a bloc of former Nationals voted against him.

 

Recontesting Dickson is not a realistic proposition for Mr Dutton, who would be easy prey to be labelled a "deserter". Mr Turnbull is demanding he be found a seat, and one possibility appears to be the new, notionally marginal Liberal seat of Wright, a diverse electorate taking in rural areas west of Brisbane and parts of Logan city and the Gold Coast hinterland to the south.

 

Not that all of Mr Turnbull's preselection woes stop at the NSW border. Former MP Bruce Baird argued yesterday that it was time for some of the party's old guard to give up their safe seats. He singled out NSW MPs Philip Ruddock, 66, and Bronwyn Bishop, who will be 67 later this month, and Western Australia's Wilson Tuckey, 74, who intend to stand again. Turning out experienced players simply on the grounds of age makes little sense, but once MPs have achieved their ambitions over a long period, it is often time to look to the future. Several candidates defeated in the recent Bradfield preselection, including Menzies Research Centre chief Julian Leeser and former journalist Tom Switzer, are indicative of the talent available.

 

One of Mr Turnbull's problems is that within the Liberal Party organisation, the state divisions are empowered to act autonomously from the federal secretariat. Grass-roots democracy can be a strength, but unless a very strong federal leader commands intense loyalty, as John Howard did, it is difficult to force the hands of state divisions when renewal of the party's candidates is overdue. Mr Turnbull, who ironically, was preselected for his eastern suburbs Sydney seat, Wentworth, against Mr Howard's wishes in 2004, has seen his leadership weakened by his poor showing in opinion polls. He will soon see whether he has the authority to force the preselection issue with state divisions. In Queensland, his stance on climate change has not helped him, as the LNP is dominated by former Nationals, who are implacably opposed to any emissions trading scheme. Such urban-rural divisions on policy were inevitably going to cause friction when the parties merged.

 

Nationally, the Liberals face a serious problem as they try to ward off catastrophe at the coming election and rebuild. Apart from Mr Dutton, two other potential leading players of the future, Christopher Pyne, 41, from South Australia and Michael Keenan, 37, from WA also hold electorates with razor-edge margins of 1 per cent or less, making them extremely vulnerable in the current climate. In refusing to give way to younger members, long-serving party members in several states, and the state presidents who allow them to stay put, run the risk of stunting the party's prospects for several terms to come. Nor does such stubbornness help the nation, which needs the strongest talent on both sides of parliament. Never is renewal more important than following defeat after a long period in office. On the Labor side, Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard, Craig Emerson and Nicola Roxon all entered parliament in 1998, and Wayne Swan was re-elected. The more a party renews itself when it is down, the more strongly it will emerge in the long term.

 

***************************************

THE AUSTRALIAN

EDITORIAL

A PASSIONATE BELIEF

FOR ALL HIS PROBLEMS, MALCOLM TURNBULL STANDS FOR SOMETHING.

 

FOR all of his leadership problems, including being defied by rank-and-file preselectors in the McPherson division of the Queensland Liberal National Party, at least Malcolm Turnbull cannot be accused of standing for nothing, which is one of the most common criticisms levelled at struggling leaders. Unpopular as it is with much of his own party and the Nationals, Mr Turnbull has shown he is passionate about his belief in man-made climate change and the need to counteract it through an emissions trading scheme.

 

On the ABC's Insiders yesterday, the Opposition Leader sounded more like Paul Keating in full flight than John Howard or Kevin Rudd ever did as he argued the case why the Liberal Party should play a constructive role in attempting to amend the government's proposed scheme. Last week, in a "crash or crash through" manoeuvre, Mr Turnbull made himself and the opposition's internal differences the issue when he said that if the Coalition refused to try to amend the legislation, it would be "literally a party with nothing to say" and "not the party I am prepared to lead".

 

Yesterday, he was on the offensive, focusing on the policy rather than the politics, claiming Coalition amendments would protect jobs. Without amendments, he said, jobs would be lost at no gain for the environment because equivalent amounts of coal, aluminium or steel would be produced overseas.

 

Mr Turnbull has a vested interest in attempting to turn media attention on to the government's scheme rather than his problems, but he made a legitimate point about the general lack of sophistication in media coverage of the issue.

 

Too many in the Canberra gallery have been spun by the Prime Minister and Climate Change Minister Penny Wong into focusing obediently on the opposition. The media's attention diverted, the government has enjoyed a rails run while many journalists are reluctant to dissect the nuts and bolts of the ETS legislation and its likely impact. Nor, as Mr Turnbull said, have many useful comparisons been drawn between Australia's proposals and the Waxman-Markey legislation in the US.

 

Unlike some of his back bench, Mr Turnbull is not prepared to abandon the inevitable ETS to the Labor Party without fighting to improve it. And he cited other conservative leaders, including Britain's David Cameron, France's Nicolas Sarkozy and even Margaret Thatcher who had expressed views similar to his. The bigger battle, however, will come when the scheme, with or without Coalition amendments, is re-presented to parliament.

 

***************************************

THE AUSTRALIAN

EDITORIAL

OLYMPICS GO TO RIO

SOUTH AMERICA'S FIRST GAMES SHOULD BRING MAJOR BENEFITS.

 

RIO de Janeiro's stunning victory over Chicago, Tokyo and Madrid to host the 2016 Olympics confirms the rise of Brazil as an important economic power. Preparing for, and staging, the games is a vast opportunity for the nation to further lift its status and profile, although authorities need to be mindful that much wealthier places have struggled to pay off the debts incurred. Montreal finally paid off the 1976 Games in 2006. Athens remains heavily in debt from 2004 and London's budget for the 2012 Olympics has more than trebled already.

 

On paper, Brazil should be able to rise to the challenge. Its economy weathered the global financial crisis well because of strong manufacturing and minerals exports and is the 10th largest in the world with GDP of close to $US2 trillion. Preparations for 2016, including facilities, transport and security, will be bolstered by hosting the 2014 soccer World Cup.

 

However, when Brazil hosted the 2007 Pan American games, which will be dwarfed by the Olympics, the cost escalated from about $US340 million to $US2bn. The government faces a major challenge rebuilding slums near the Maracana football stadium and it will also need to contain high rates of violent crime. It must also clean up the sea and lakes near the city where water sports will be held near and which are heavily polluted from sewage. On the positive side, Rio should do well from US television rights because it is in the right time zone. Providing the challenges are met, the first Olympics in South America promises much for a continent beginning to realise its potential.

 

***************************************

 

******************************************************************************************

THE SYDNEY MORNING HERALD

EDITORIAL

HOT CLIMATE CALLS FOR COOL HEADS

 

MALCOLM TURNBULL'S testosterone-charged decision to stake his political future on negotiating an emissions trading scheme with the Rudd Government is a dramatic spectacle for political pundits, no doubt. But for a wearied electorate, determined to confront the challenge of climate change in their lifetime, it is but a sideshow in the long-running political circus that government attempts to tackle climate change have become.

 

The scorching summer that awoke Australians' minds to the dangers of global warming is almost three years past. John Howard's task group on emissions trading recommended in May 2007 that a carbon emissions trading scheme be set up. Both Liberal and Labor parties went to the November 2007 election promising such a scheme.

 

A frustrated electorate is wondering: what are we still arguing about? Most people still have trouble comprehending what an emissions trading scheme actually is. But that does not mean they do not want a sensible debate on its merits and design. The electorate will not take kindly to an obstructionist Opposition frustrating its desire to do something to help the environment. However, nor will it reward a Government that appears hell-bent on political point-scoring off an already diminished Opposition.

 

The Government has been through almost two years of tortured negotiations with industry over the design of the trading scheme. Its desire to legislate, and legislate soon, is understandable. But Opposition parties in the Senate have the right, indeed the responsibility, to propose amendments to legislation. The Government, in return, has a responsibility to negotiate in good faith.

 

And surely there is a middle ground for negotiation here, if only politicians of all stripes can put their egos and political agendas aside. A negotiated solution goes somewhere further towards allaying the niggling concerns of business over compensation, but stops somewhere short of handing out so many free perks for industry that the entire purpose of the scheme - forcing a change in behaviour towards less carbon-intense production - is negated.

 

Australians have come too far along the road towards a trading scheme to watch it stumble at the last hurdle. The environment is too important an issue for political grandstanding. There are just 63 sleeps to go until the next United Nations climate change conference starts in Copenhagen on December 7. Across the Pacific, the US President, Barack Obama, is also struggling to negotiate his climate legislation through the US Senate in time. No one ever said this process was going to be easy, only that the future of our planet depends upon cool heads prevailing.

 

***************************************

THE SYDNEY MORNING HERALD

EDITORIAL

HELP FIRST, ASK QUESTIONS LATER

 

SOMETIMES it seems that our planet is experiencing more disasters than it used to, but in reality it is our knowledge of what goes on that is expanding exponentially. With knowledge comes responsibility. We cannot turn away even when, as in the past week, nature unleashes its fury with bewildering force and frequency.

 

From tsunami-devastated Samoa, to typhoon-troubled Vietnam and the Philippines, and quake-hit Sumatra the images of suffering foster empathy and a determination to do what we can to help. They also prompt debate about the nature of our responses. Are we being generous enough? Should we be more focused on building sustainable economies in developing nations, rather than behaving like global Florence Nightingales every time nature turns hostile? Do we care more for Australians than for locals caught up in the chaos?

 

Such questions should never become an excuse for inaction. Common sense and our shared humanity demand immediate help for those unable to help themselves wherever we can, and wherever the victims may be. Yes, there are limits to what we can do. Yes, it makes sense for Australia to prioritise, and in some cases lead, rescue and aid efforts in places closer to home, such as the Pacific, where we have obvious logistical advantages. Our overall aid program should reflect a balance of long-term aid for sustainable progress and a capacity to intervene when help is most critically needed. On these criteria Australians can be modestly proud that our responses to such disasters as the Boxing Day tsunami in 2004 have made a palpable difference to millions of people's lives, and continue to do so. The Australian Government's aid program does consciously strive to balance competing demands and priorities.

 

We can always do better, of course, and criticism of specific failings that is constructive and sensitive is welcome. The loss of Australian lives in disasters abroad should never, and will never, be ignored; nor should the fact that most of the victims, by definition, are not Australians. Dramatic footage serves to provoke generous donations to relief efforts; but it can also be voyeuristic, the global equivalent of rubbernecking at a car crash. As a nation, let us mourn our dead, acknowledge the losses of others, express our condolences to the bereaved and extend our hand to help the survivors get back on their feet. Each of us, in our own different ways, is responsible for getting the balance right. ''Help first and ask questions later'' should be our motto.

 

***************************************

 

 

THE SYDNEY MORNING HERALD

EDITORIAL

LABOR THE ONLY WINNER FROM COALITION CLIMATE OF CONFUSION

MALCOLM TURNBULL IS RIGHT, BUT ARE THE REBELS IN THE RANKS OPEN TO REASON?

 

THE Federal Parliament resumes two weeks from now. That is how long the openly divided Liberals have to reach a decision on climate change and Malcolm Turnbull's leadership, a decision that could seal their political fate for the next three or four years at least. On Thursday, Mr Turnbull staked his leadership on the party falling into line with his desire to seek amendments to the Government's bill on emissions trading, an approach consistent with Coalition policy at the 2007 election. The Nationals already appear likely to walk away from that policy and at least half of the Liberal MPs are reportedly inclined to do so too.

 

Last week, Australians were treated to the extraordinary sight of senior Coalition members claiming to have been unaware of the Howard government's election commitment to emissions trading - this in a campaign in which that government's inaction on climate change was one of the most decisive factors in the election result. The Opposition's acting emissions trading spokesman, Ian Macfarlane, felt it necessary to email a copy of that policy to every backbencher, even though the Howard government legislated for such a scheme in its final months and Mr Turnbull, as environment minister, introduced the legislation in 2007. Little wonder that Mr Turnbull has vented his frustration at his party's refusal to come to a sensible position, saying: ''Anyone who thinks it is electorally wise to have a do-nothing-on-climate-change policy is not in tune with the mood of the nation or the mood of the globe.''

 

Lest his critics in the Liberal Party failed to grasp the electoral implications, Mr Turnbull spelt them out. If the Opposition fails to negotiate amendments and refuses to pass the legislation when it comes back before Parliament in November, the Rudd Government will have a constitutional trigger for a double dissolution election. On current polling, the Coalition could expect to lose at least a dozen seats, and as many as 20. Passage of the unamended legislation would be assured in the new parliament. Not only would the Coalition's prospects of regaining office be even more remote than they are now, but Mr Turnbull's critics would have done nothing to reduce the harm to agriculture and industry that they say the emissions scheme will cause.

 

The open division on climate policy is profoundly damaging for the Coalition, especially as the critics of Mr Turnbull's position are not even supported by those whose interests they claim to be protecting. The Opposition enjoyed a rare win when it engaged the Government on renewable energy legislation. As Mr Turnbull says, business now wants the Opposition to negotiate changes to the emissions trading scheme, a position endorsed by the shadow cabinet. The Government is committed to putting to Parliament a position that it intends to take to the United Nations climate change conference in Copenhagen in December, and the Opposition is not in a position to change its mind.

 

Mr Turnbull has taken a brave stand by insisting: ''I will not lead a party that is not as committed to effective action on climate change as I am.'' Some Liberals, though, have taken that as an invitation to ''find somebody else'', as rebel backbencher Wilson Tuckey put it. Another dissident Liberal said Mr Turnbull had put a noose around his neck and stood on a chair. ''All we have to do is kick it over.'' When that comment was put to Mr Turnbull, he said he didn't ''place any store on anonymous smart-arses'', a tone that drew attention to a leadership style that tends to put noses out of joint. But changing leaders won't solve the Coalition's underlying problem, its deep division on one of the big issues of our times. Indeed, it is unlikely that the most obvious alternatives as leader, Joe Hockey and Tony Abbott, who have backed Mr Turnbull on emissions trading, would be able to satisfy the dissidents either.

 

The Government is turning the screws by insisting the Opposition finalise its proposed amendments by October 19, which Mr Macfarlane has indicated is achievable, although its first party room meeting is not scheduled until October 20. Climate Change Minister Penny Wong points out that the legislation has been available in its final form for three months and has been developed over 18 months. It is, however, the months ahead that should be focusing Liberal minds on the dire consequences of an obstructive or divided approach. Kevin Rudd could end up holding all the best cards, of which the power to call an early election is only one.

 

In fact, Mr Rudd need not gamble on voters' reaction to rushing to the polls well before the Government's term is up, which would also make for awkward timing of the next half-Senate election. Once the Government has a constitutional trigger, it can call a double dissolution election up to six months before the expiry date of the House of Representatives - the poll could be held, improbably, as late as October 16 next year. Between July 1 and August 10, Mr Rudd would be free to call elections for the House and whole Senate, or a normal House and half-Senate election.

 

The only way the Coalition can avoid stacking the electoral deck further in Labor's favour is to deny the Government a double dissolution trigger. Mr Turnbull gets that, but it seems many of his recalcitrant colleagues don't.

Source: The Age

***************************************

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

******************************************************************************************

THE GURDIAN

EDITORIAL

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: MR CAMERON'S 42 DAYS

 

Writing for his new best friends at the Sun, David Cameron proclaimed a top 10 of Tory priorities on Friday, with a depressingly retro feel. Thus one promise embodied an aversion to Europe, and another the superstition that prison works. Most, however, were sufficiently vague to avoid hard commitment. The exception to this rule is the explicit pledge to "replace the Human Rights Act [HRA] with a new British Bill of Rights". A magisterial pamphlet – written by two leading conservatives, and published by Liberty today – explains why his approach is not merely awry, but an affront to Tory tradition at its best.

 

With forensic logic, Tory candidate Jesse Norman and conservative journalist Peter Oborne rehearse arguments often made in these columns. They question the lazy assumption that trampling on rights will tackle terrorism; they debunk absurd fictional rights cooked up by the media; and they explain how the perverse effect of scrapping the HRA would be to shift power from the British courtroom to Strasbourg. The twist, however, is that they argue from the centre-right – and they are less concerned with abstract arguments than attending to history. Its lesson is that Mr Cameron's innuendo about swapping funny foreign protections for the roast beef rights of old England is incoherent.

 

Winston Churchill kick-started a charter of rights for Europe, with a view to affording the central protections of English common law to the continentals, as they emerged from totalitarianism. His overriding concern was protecting the individual against an over-mighty state, and this was reflected in the convention eventually penned by the British Conservative lawyer David Maxwell-Fyfe. Potentially desirable entitlements to welfare provision were sidelined; instead, the stress was on those rights – such as the bar on torture and arbitrary detention – that had evolved under the guiding hand of English jurists since the time of Magna Carta. The 10-year-old HRA simply embeds the 60-year-old convention in UK law – and in an impeccably pragmatic manner. Laws passed by parliament cannot be struck down, and judges are asked to interpret laws to respect human rights only "insofar as it is possible to do". Liberals hanker after much stronger protections, which is why Norman and Oborne can reasonably describe the HRA as an "exquisitely conservative" document.

 

Their argument only deepens the mystery and heightens the alarm about why today's Conservatives would rip it up. Which rights, precisely, do they want to prune? Free expression? The right to life? The prohibition on torture? Mr Cameron suggests one aim would indeed be new flexibility on torture. Fortunately, there is no chance of that, since he remains committed to the European convention and Strasbourg would respond to the HRA's repeal by guarding the rights of Britons more jealously. The only real effect would be to send a monstrous signal to other convention signatories, and to undermine a precious contribution to the international rule of law.

 

Mr Cameron is not alone in playing politics with the HRA – the justice secretary proposes a nonsensical "Bill of Rights and Responsibilities", spin designed to suggest duties might be given equivalence with unpopular rights. The big difference is that the Labour gimmick would sit alongside the existing act, while the Tory gimmick would replace it.

 

The Conservatives struck a blow for freedom when they opposed Gordon Brown's bankrupt plans to jail uncharged terror suspects for 42 days. Repealing the HRA, though, would diminish the framework that safeguards liberty right across the continent. The pledge cynically barters freedom for headlines, and represents Mr Cameron's own version of 42 days. And it provides lovers of liberty, on both the left and the right, with reason to regard him with suspicion.

**************************************

THE GURDIAN

EDITORIAL

IN PRAISE OF… MONTY PYTHON'S FLYING CIRCUS

 

"I'll give you 13 shows, but that's all," said the BBC's head of light entertainment in 1969, and Monty Python's Flying Circus aired to a perplexed, but eventually grateful, British audience on Monday 5 October that same year. Over the subsequent 45 shows, the rules of television comedy were rewritten as John Cleese, Graham Chapman, Michael Palin, Terry Jones, Eric Idle and Terry Gilliam created lunatic characters and sketches, as funny today as they were 40 years ago. A new generation now memorises the Lumberjack Song, the Spanish Inquisition and the Dead Parrot sketch (famously employed by Margaret Thatcher shortly before she politically "ceased to be") – although the Fish Slapping Dance is harder to pull off, culminating as it does in a 3m plunge into Teddington Lock. Terry Gilliam's surreal and frequently disturbing animations threaded a creative link through the mad mosaic of ideas and gave the whole its unique appearance. Films raised the bar again. A tiny budget almost scuppered The Holy Grail, allowing no money for horses, but it inspired coconut-playing squires. The Life of Brian gave us a singing crucifixion scene – sheer genius. We had never seen anything like it, but Monty Python became a national treasure, influencing almost everything that followed. The surviving five Pythons (Graham Chapman sadly passed away in 1989) will be presented with a special Bafta at a reunion in New York next week. So cue Sousa's march, The Liberty Bell ... and don't forget the raspberry at the end.

 

***************************************

THE GURDIAN

EDITORIAL

LISBON TREATY: PAINFUL BIRTH

 

The Lisbon treaty has had so many setbacks in the eight long years of its inception that even if it comes into force by the end of the year, it is likely to be the last major treaty the European Union signs. Try as they might to rename the baby, its birth pangs have been so painful that this child will be the EU's last. Its passage has evoked such powerful Eurosceptic currents that by default it has established the opposite of what it set out to achieve – the limits of European integration and expansion. Croatia and possibly Iceland will join, but Turkey and Ukraine seem less, not more, likely to do so.

 

That said, Ireland's emphatic endorsement at the weekend will now lead to a rush to conclude the business. At least two remaining obstacles lie in the treaty's path (Finland has an issue with the Aland Islands, an autonomous archipelago in the Baltic sea, but this is being treated by the Swedish presidency as an internal matter). The Czech president, Vaclav Klaus, and his Polish counterpart, Lech Kaczynski, have both to sign the treaty, although their parliaments have approved it.

 

Of the two, the more serious threat to ratification is presented by the Eurosceptic, right-wing Mr Klaus, a climate change denier who believes that snowboards, bottled water and backpacks are leftist. A group of senators close to the Czech president have filed a complaint to the country's constitutional court claiming that the treaty lays the foundation for a superstate. Mr Klaus initially hoped the court would take months to deliver its ruling, giving David Cameron time to come to power as the prime minister who promised a referendum if the treaty was not already in force. But on Saturday at least, Mr Klaus was downbeat about the chances of holding another referendum in Europe on the subject. Mr Klaus told the Tories not to depend on a Czech delay, warning British Eurosceptics that they may have left it too late.

 

If Mr Klaus is right to say that his powers are waning then a succession of major decisions will be taken in relatively short order. Tony Blair, the frontrunner candidate for new post of president, may overcome the doubts of the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, partly because he could be seen as a way of neutralising the dangers posed by a future Tory British prime minister. Besides, the job of president is what he makes of it. The more defined post is that of the EU foreign policy chief, a foreign minister in all but name, which would probably go to a Christian Democrat.

 

For Britain, and for Mr Cameron in particular, the message is clear. The EU is getting its act together, and the question once again is whether Britain wants to be part of it. The choice should be obvious.

 

***************************************

******************************************************************************************

THE JAPAN TIMES

EDITORIAL

GRADUATES LOWERING THE BAR

 

Only 2,043 graduates of the law schools established since April 2004, following adoption of the nation's legal reform, passed the bar exam for 2009, according to the Justice Ministry. This is a poor performance in view of the 2,500 to 2,900 graduates who were expected to pass the test. These law schools, which now number 74, were created to help satisfy a national demand for legal professionals who could provide high-quality services.

 

The schools accept people who studied law at the undergraduate level as well as those who majored in different subjects or who have job experience in nonlegal fields. Results of the bar exam indicate that the schools, especially those whose graduates performed poorly, need to make stronger efforts to provide a better education.

 

The first bar exam for these law school graduates was held in 2006. The ratio of successful applicants was 48 percent that year but fell to 40 percent in 2007 and 33 percent in 2008. Despite this downtrend, the number of successful applicants rose each year.

 

What is peculiar about this year's results is that not only did the ratio of successful applicants drop to a record low 28 percent, but the actual number of successful applicants decreased from the previous year — 22 lower than in 2008 — even though 7,392 people, or 1,131 more than for the previous year, took the exam.

 

The government has a plan to increase the number of successful applicants to 3,000 yearly by around 2010 under the expectation that a large number of people of various backgrounds will join the legal profession and offer better legal services. The bar exam results show that this goal is unlikely to be achieved.

 

Graduates of the law schools who pass the bar exam undergo one year of training at the Supreme Court's Judicial Research and Training Institute to become lawyers, judges or public prosecutors. The top court announced Sept. 1 that an unusually high 6 percent of trainees failed to pass graduation exams. It is likely that the general quality of law school students has been declining. The schools need to tackle this problem.

 

***************************************

 

 

THE JAPAN TIMES

EDITORIAL

COMPREHENSIVE PENSION REFORM

 

Japan's pension system has many problems. It is complex. The Kokumin Nenkin pension system is for self-employed people, pensioners and jobless people. The Kosei Nenkin system is for workers at larger companies, and the Kyosai Nenkin system is for public servants and teachers. There is another system for workers at small companies.

 

Premiums and benefits differ from system to system. Less than 50 percent of Kokumin Nenkin participants are actually paying their premiums. If this rate of delinquency keeps up, it is feared that many people will have to live on small pensions, if any, thereby creating a serious social problem.

 

The ruling Democratic Party of Japan proposes creating a unified system covering everybody under the principle that people with the same incomes should pay the same premiums. The proposed system would consist of the minimum, guaranteed monthly benefit of ¥70,000 plus the benefit linked to the amount of premiums individuals have paid. The guaranteed portion would be fully funded by consumption tax revenue. When the premium-linked benefit increased beyond a certain level, the guaranteed benefit would be reduced accordingly.

 

Employees would pay 7.5 percent of their income as premiums with employers paying an equivalent of 7.5 percent of the employees' income. But it is unclear whether self-employed people should pay the full premium amount — that is, 15 percent of their income.

 

The DPJ has not made clear when and by how much it will raise the consumption tax to pay for the guaranteed

benefit. People may oppose the proposed introduction of the social security number system as a violation of privacy. Transition to the new system would start in fiscal 2014; until then, the government would concentrate on resolving the current pension records fiasco.

 

The DPJ needs to answer many questions about its reform proposal. For the time being, it should do what it can to include irregular workers in the Kosei Nenkin system and to integrate the Kosei and Kyosai Nenkin systems. It should build consensus on pension reform by holding talks with the opposition parties.

 

***************************************

THE JAPAN TIMES

EDITORIAL

LOSING CONTROL OF THE HEAT

BY GWYNNE DYER

 

LONDON — My youngest daughter is 17, so she will have lived most of her life before the worst of the warming hits. But her later years will not be easy, and her kids will have it very hard from the start. As for their kids, I just don't know.

 

It is the Met Office's job to make forecasts, and its forecast for the 2060s is an average global temperature that is as much as 4 degrees (Celsius) warmer. Speaking last week at a conference called "4 degrees and beyond" at Oxford University, Dr. Richard Betts, head of Climate Impacts at the Meteorological Office's Hadley Center, one of the world's most important centers for climate research, laid it all out.

 

"We've always talked about these very severe impacts only affecting future generations," said Betts, "but people alive today could live to see a four-degree (C) rise. People will say it's an extreme scenario, and it is an extreme scenario, but it's also a plausible scenario."

 

All we have to do is go on burning fossil fuels at the rate we do now, and we'll be there by the 2080s. Keep increasing our carbon dioxide emissions in pace with economic growth, as we have done over the past decade, and we'll be there by the 2060s. "There" is not a good place to be.

 

At an average of 4 C warmer, 15 percent of the world's farmland would become useless due to heat and drought, and crop yields would fall sharply on half of the rest: an overall 30 to 40 percent fall in global food production. Since the world's population will have grown by 2 billion by then, there will be only half the food per person that we have now. Many people will starve.

 

In western and southern Africa, average temperatures will be up to 10 C higher than now. There will be severe drying in Central America, on both sides of the Mediterranean, and in a broad band across the Middle East, northern India, and Southeast Asia. With the glaciers gone, Asia's great rivers will be mostly dry in the summer. Even one meter of sea-level rise will take out half the world's food-rich river deltas, from the Nile to the Mekong.

 

So there will be famines, and massive waves of refugees, and ruthless measures taken to hold borders shut against them. The bitter irony is that the old-rich countries whose emissions did the most to bring on this disaster will suffer least from it, at least in the early stages. By and large, the further away you are from the equator, the less you are hurt by the changes.

 

In Britain, at 4 C hotter, there would doubtless be severe food rationing, but the country could still just feed itself if it farmed every available piece of land: the heat would not be lethal, and it would still be raining. That's one advantage of being an island surrounded by sea; the other is that it's easier to avoid being completely overrun by refugees. Britain would be almost unrecognizable, but it would be seen as one of the luckiest places on the planet.

 

The trouble is that 4 C is not a destination. It is a way station on the way to 5 C or 6 C hotter, where all the ice on the planet melts and the only habitable land is what's still above sea level around the Arctic Ocean. Once the average global temperature rises more than 2 C, we are at ever-greater risk of triggering the big "feedbacks" that take control of the warming process out of our hands.

 

At the moment, we are in control of the situation if we want to be, for it is our excess emissions of greenhouse gases that are causing the warming. But if melting permafrost and warming oceans begin to give up the immense amounts of greenhouse gases that they contain, then we find ourselves on a climate escalator that inexorably takes us up through 3 C, 4 C, 5 C and 6 C with no way to get off.

 

The point where we lose control, most scientists believe, is when the average global temperature reaches between 2 C and 3 C warmer. After that, it hardly matters whether human beings cut their emissions, because the natural emissions triggered by the warming will overwhelm all our efforts. If we don't stop at 2 C, our civilization is probably doomed.

 

That's why the leaders of all the world's big industrial and developing countries, meeting in Italy last summer, adopted 2 C as their joint "never-exceed" goal. (Interestingly, they didn't explain the reasoning behind that goal to the rest of us. Mustn't frighten the children, I suppose.)

 

Meanwhile, the people tasked with negotiating a new climate treaty at Copenhagen in December struggle bravely onward, but show no signs of coming up with a deal that will hold us under 2 C. Global emissions must start dropping by 3 percent a year right away, but over the past decade they have been rising at 3 percent annually.

 

Everybody involved in the process understands the stakes and agrees on the goal. Almost everybody knows what the treaty will eventually look like, but they don't believe they can yet sell that deal to the folks back home, so it probably won't happen this year. Or next. Tick tock.

 

Gwynne Dyer is a London-based independent journalist whose articles are published in 45 countries.

 

***************************************

THE JAPAN TIMES

EDITORIAL

WHY JOINT INITIATIVES ON CLIMATE WILL LIKELY FAIL

BY CHRISTOPHER LINGLE

 

GUATEMALA CITY — A U.N. summit on climate change at the recent U.N. General Assembly meeting was supposed to give momentum for a post-Kyoto Protocol accord to be penned in December in Copenhagen. Indeed, an announcement was made that most leaders agreed that there is an "urgent and significant need" to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

 

But even though most participants accept a controversial claim that human-based carbon emissions cause climate change, they are unlikely to agree to significant curbs. And if such an accord is reached, it is unlikely to be implemented, not even by those countries that supply the most vocal and ardent supporters.

 

While the United States drew international criticism for not adhering to the Kyoto Protocol, from every performance and compliance standard, most countries that signed on did not fulfill their promises.

 

The biggest hurdle to reaching agreement on a scheme to curb emissions is that it will impose high costs on some countries while benefits are enjoyed by all. As such, negotiations to reduce carbon emissions involve a "prisoners' dilemma" game that lacks an enforcement mechanism and where interaction relating to an agreement is limited.

 

It turns out that the outcomes of discussions under these conditions tend to fail to serve the interests of most involved parties. Since most parties realize before the fact that a negotiated outcome will not meet their goals, there is mostly smoke and little fire. As it is, there are wide differences between industrial powers and emerging economies over mandatory reduction targets and exemption of obligations for developing countries.

 

For their part, governments of industrialized economies sprung a self-inflicted trap by admitting that Western carbon dioxide emissions are behind the worsening of global natural disasters. This has encouraged officials from developing economies and environmentalists to insist that the West pay to fix the problem.

 

Some developing countries are seeking an environmental "Marshall Plan" to address climate change worth $600 billion each year, paid for by citizens of rich countries. In turn, taxpayers of advanced economies will be put on the hook to pay the bills of those that believe that climate change is the most important issue confronting humanity.

 

But it beggars belief that international institutions will be more effective in compensating poor countries for climate-change adaptation than they were in distributing aid. Much of the more than $2 trillion in development aid paid by rich countries to developing countries over the past half century was wasted.

 

Another issue related to global climate talks is that paying for a shift to "clean" energy requires that taxpayers accept lower living standards. That's because nearly all "clean" energy initiatives involve large subsidies that must be funded by higher taxes. Only by willfully ignoring the large government-funded payouts can proponents of alternative energies insist that they will lead to net gains.

Another barrier to climate-change agreements is that many countries are not yet at an income threshold where their citizens place sufficient value on a clean environment. They may not be willing to incur costs to make improvements.

 

Economists point out that a clean environment is considered good only among the people who want it. The will to reduce carbon emissions may grow as countries become more prosperous to the extent that citizens are able and willing to forgo consumption for environmental improvements.

 

Estimates are that this kicks in at an annual per capita income of about $4,000. It seems that this threshold must be reached before citizens possess sufficient education or information to begin putting a value on environmental quality. At the same time, there are sufficient resources to put to work on making improvements.

 

An ironic conclusion drawn here is that those seeking lower carbon emissions should promote economic growth so that more countries attain this income threshold and do so soon. This would involve encouraging free trade and expanding economic freedom with reduced taxes, fewer regulations and lower tariffs, and protection of private property rights. This suggests that environmentalists should find comfort in the process of globalization!

 

In the end, it is likely that more effort will be spent on posturing about or reaching a climate-change agreement than will be applied to reduce emissions after a resolution is reached. As such, it is a safe bet that any significant decrease in emissions will be due to a sick global economy rather than adherence to a treaty signed in Copenhagen.

 

Christopher Lingle is research scholar at the Center for Civil Society in New Delhi and Visiting Professor of Economics at Universidad Francisco Marroquin in Guatemala.

 

***************************************

******************************************************************************************

THE KOREA HERALD

EDITORIAL

ASSEMBLY'S AUDIT

 

Lawmakers, who have just returned from constituency work during the Chuseok holiday, are starting a 20-day audit of government agencies today. Feedback from the electorate should guide them in reviewing policy implementations and making recommendations.

 

Among the most controversial issues that will draw attention from the lawmakers will be the fate of Sejong City, which is under construction in South Chungcheong Province. When its plan to relocate the nation's capital to the site was ruled unconstitutional, the previous administration started to build an administrative town as a new home for ministries and other government agencies.

 

President Lee Myung-bak's administration, which is opposed to the idea of moving government agencies away from Seoul, has put the administrative town plan on hold. Following his nomination as prime minister, Chung Un-chan made it clear that he was opposed to building the town as originally planned. During his confirmation hearing, he reaffirmed his opposition on the grounds that the proposed town would not be self-supporting.

 

It is not clear what model the Lee administration has for the new town. The presidential office avoids mentioning the issue. Chung is also cautious. He says the administration will make a final decision after consulting with government agencies involved and the National Assembly and taking public opinion into consideration.

 

In an official comment, the ruling Grand National Party says it endorses the original plan. But few would believe the party, given that lawmakers close to Lee are openly demanding that the plan be revised.

 

The Lee administration will soon have to finalize a new plan for the city in consultation with the ruling party, possibly during the parliamentary audit. Before starting the process of revising the underlying law, the administration will do well to build a consensus on the issue by persuading Chungcheong residents and opposition parties to accept its new plan.

 

***************************************

 

THE KOREA HERALD

EDITORIAL

HOUSEHOLD DEBT

 

At a time when nominal household income is stagnating, household debt is snowballing. The growing debt-to-income ratio may pose a serious threat to the nation's financial stability if no proper action is taken.

 

At the end of June, outstanding household debt stood at 697 trillion won, up a historic high of 5.7 percent from a year ago. But the nation's nominal disposable income grew at a disturbingly slow rate of 0.2 percent, the lowest since such data was compiled for the first time in 1970.

 

How much to borrow and how to manage the debt is no doubt a matter that should be determined by individual households. But this is not to say that the government should stand idly by while household debt grows so fast that it threatens to destabilize the financial industry.

 

A similar case involved runaway credit card spending in the late 1990s and early 2000s. In the wake of the 1997-98 financial meltdown, the government loosened regulations on the issue of credit cards, an apparent move to encourage consumer spending.

 

When the business boom started to cool in 2002, the credit card industry had a liquidity crisis, which threatened the entire financial industry. The government was forced to provide it with an emergency bailout fund.

 

Financial watchdogs in the nation say household debt is manageable, with the default rate remaining below 1 percent. But the ratio of household debt to disposable income was at a historic high of 1.39 at the end of June.

 

Debt servicing may not be too onerous at the moment, with the central bank's benchmark rate pushed down to a historic low of 2 percent. The central bank has been maintaining an easy monetary policy to encourage corporate investment and consumer spending and, by doing so, speed up a recovery from the global financial crisis.

 

But it is only a matter of time before borrowers are hit with higher rates. They will have to keep themselves from overspending, given that it is practically impossible to increase their income by a significant amount anytime soon.

 

Even in the absence of an increase in the central bank's benchmark rate, commercial banks have been charging higher interest rates on household borrowing. The average annual rate climbed from 5.47 percent in June to 5.58 percent in July and 5.63 percent last month. Such an increase will certainly accelerate when the central bank raises its benchmark rate and begins to mop up excess liquidity in the not-too-distant future to keep rising consumer prices under control.

 

Mortgages account for almost half of all household debt. As such, the latest tightening of housing financing should help curb household borrowing.

 

 

 

Under regulations introduced last month, a household buying an apartment in residential districts in Seoul other than the three wards south of the Han River may borrow up to 50 percent of its annual income. The ratio goes up to 60 percent for the purchase of a home in Incheon and Gyeonggi Province. But no change has been made to the 40 percent ratio that applied to home purchases in those three wards.

 

True, the aim was to nip a property bubble in the bud when the government limited mortgage lending. Nonetheless, the application of debt-to-income ratios in mortgage lending should also put the brakes on increasing household debt. It is advisable that the debt-to-income regulations be made more flexibly applicable, depending on changes made in household debt as well as in property prices.

 

The government will do well to heed a think tank's warning that household debt, if not properly regulated, will eventually pose as serious a problem as the 2003 credit card crisis did.

 

***************************************

 

 

 

THE KOREA HERALD

EDITORIAL

ENDING EXCUSES FOR CHINA AT AGE 60

JOHN LEE

 

On Thursday, Oct. 1, it was exactly 60 years since Mao Zedong told his people, "The Chinese people have stood up," and declared the founding of the Peoples' Republic of China.

 

Anniversaries usually simply mark the passing of time but this one is more significant. Leaders from Deng Xiaoping onwards have been telling the world that China is assiduously laying the groundwork for fundamental economic and political reform - but only after it recovers from the chaos and destruction of the Mao years. Yet, when Thursday came around, it was almost 30 years since Deng Xiaoping took power and began reforms - exactly half the age of modern China. The reform period exceeded Mao's 27 years of terrible rule. But China's leaders appear to have lost interest in seriously pushing the reform agenda and Beijing's excuses for not doing so are wearing thin.

 

Why is it important for China to build institutions, and institute changes that might eventually trigger political reforms? Because authoritarian China is failing in one significant respect: the Chinese state is rich and the Chinese Communist Party powerful, but the civil society is weak and the vast majority of people remain poor.

 

Agitating for political reform is not popular amongst most China-watchers, even in the West. However, we frequently need to remind ourselves that while the CCP is uniquely placed to guide the destiny of China, the well-being of Beijing and the CCP is not the same as the well-being of the Chinese people. What is good for the Chinese state is even frequently no longer good for the vast majority of its people.

 

How is this possible when China's GDP has been rising so spectacularly since the 1990s? It is because of China's model of investment-led state corporatism, which was hatched after the 1989 Tiananmen protests to preserve the economic power and relevance of the CCP.

 

Most Western commentators focus on the spectacular success of China's export sector and the emergence of China as the world's factory. But the biggest contributor to Chinese growth is actually domestically funded fixed-investment, which constituted over 50 percent of GDP in 2008 and over 45 percent of growth in that year. Due to the massive $586 billion stimulus in 2009, around 75 percent of growth this year has been achieved through state-led fixed investment.

 

Even more important than the high reliance on fixed-investment is where the capital is going. China is unusual in that bank - drawn from the deposits of its citizens funneled into state-controlled banks - constitute around 80 percent of all investment activity in the country. Even though state-controlled enterprises produce between one-quarter and one-third of all output in the country, they receive over 75 percent of the country's capital, and the figure is rising. State-controlled enterprises received over 95 percent of the 2009 stimulus money. Consequently, the Chinese state sector owns more than two-thirds of all fixed assets in the country.

 

But it is not just about who gets the money that matters. Economic growth in poor countries is valued if it manages to raise the standard of living of the majority of citizens. The problem with predominantly state-led models for growth is that they put emphasis on building the wealth of the state rather than the people. This creates profound and structural inequalities.

 

Tellingly, the 50 million-200 million middle class citizens in China (depending on how we define the term) are the strongest supporters of the party. Demand for CCP membership is growing fastest among this group of elites. Of the 75 million card-carrying CCP members, almost a quarter are professionals and skilled workers, a third are students, and another third are successful businesspeople. Joining the CCP has become a career move. By controlling the most important industries, the bulk of the country's capital (through state-owned-banks), as well as overseeing an extensive system of awards, promotions and regulation, the CCP continues to control and dispense a dominant share of the most valued economic, professional and intellectual opportunities.

 

Meanwhile, around 1 billion people are missing out on the fruits of prosperity. The country's "bottom billion" are outsiders in China's state-led model of development. They have little prospect of rising up, and frequently bear the brunt of the corrupt and incompetent rule dished out by China's 45 million local officials.

 

A little known fact is that, of the hundreds of millions in China lifted out of poverty, 80 percent had their lot improved in the first 10 years of reform leading up to the Tiananmen protests - before the state retook control of the economy. In the 1990s, poverty alleviation slowed dramatically and since 2000, the number of poor has actually doubled in absolute terms. In one generation, China has gone from being the most equal to the most unequal country in Asia.

 

The planned 60th anniversary celebrations in Beijing and other cities was no doubt spectacular. But they primarily demonstrated the success of the CCP and wealth of the Chinese state - not to mention the might of the People's Armed Police and People's Liberation Army. China needs to build institutions - especially rule of law, accountability and transparency - and the state needs to take its hand off the levers of economic power. The CCP knows that these conditions will likely lead to political reform. The party will therefore remain hesitant to pursue reform. But doing so will confer greater legitimacy onto the CCP, the party's leadership will be truly responsive, and it will allow the Chinese people to finally stand up.

 

Dr. John Lee is a foreign policy research fellow at the Centre for Independent Studies and a visiting fellow at the Hudson Institute in Washington, D.C. He is the author of "Will China Fail?" - Ed.

 

***************************************

******************************************************************************************

THE JAKARTA POST

EDITORIAL

MILITARY UNFINISHED BUSINESSES

 

The Indonesian Military (TNI) has been the dominant player in the country's political and security affairs ever since its establishment 64 years ago. Such a role – though significantly reduced after the reform movement marked by the downfall of military man president Soeharto in May 1998 – can still be felt to date as there are still a number of commitments it has yet to fulfill. Today, on its anniversary, we feel obliged to remind the nation again how to maximize the benefits we can take from the TNI while still sticking to principles of civilian supremacy.

 

We have always been thankful for the military, which has always been at the ready whenever natural disasters hit the country. It has been at the forefront in evacuation and rescue operations, including in the latest West Sumatra earthquake, where the death toll has passed 1,000 mark. But that is not enough to meet the prerequisites to be declared a professional institution, as the reform movement has recommended.

 

To be precise, to date there has been no concrete report or revelation of whether the military institution will be able to meet the five-year deadline – in October 2009, as stipulated by the 2004 Law on the Indonesian Military – to completely hand over all its business units.

 

While this month is the transitional period for the government and legislature, it is very unlikely the deadline will be met, and so it will be the responsibility of the new government – fortunately (or unfortunately) still under Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono's leadership.

 

Another case in point is how to ultimately and properly utilize – and not waste – the TNI's experience and skills in counterterrorism and warfare, and in combating security disturbances. The separation of the National Police from the TNI in April 1999 has limited the military's role to defense only, with internal or domestic security issues being handed over to, and the sole responsibility of, the police.

 

The police's separation from the military was definitely meant to make both the police and the TNI professional institutions. But the fact that terrorism threats have reached an alarming level and expanded beyond state boundaries has made the counterterrorism campaign a tough task for the police to handle on its own.

 

It is therefore advisable for the state authorities to also involve the TNI in the war against terrorism. However, allowing the TNI to take part in the country's antiterrorism campaign should also be followed by the establishment of strict rules of the game, to prevent abuses and irregularities as a result of unclear "rules of engagement".

 

The last and most important item on the military reform agenda is the necessary review of the TNI's continued territorial command role. Such a role — with TNI officers deployed to the smallest community units, known as Babinsa — has been under intense public criticism, as they were previously used as part of the ruling government's repressive arms to silence all forms of criticism against the government and freedom of expression.

 

There are sharp divisions over whether the nation needs to let the TNI maintain its territorial role. Should the nation agree to have it reviewed or even revoked, the vacuum of responsibility must not allow any security disturbances to crop up at any point. And again, as experience has taught us all, we need to have a complete set of rules to regulate alternative necessary measures against such disturbances.

 

We must not let irresponsible people or groups of people steal and take advantage of such a power vacuum. Happy 64th anniversary, TNI.

 

***************************************

THE JAKARTA POST

EDITORIAL

FAILURE TO ACHIEVE THE WATER AND SANITATION TARGETS

NILA ARDHIANIE

 

President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY) will soon begin his second five-year term. Let us examine his government's achievements in the water and sanitation sector over the last five years.

 

A World Bank report "Economic Impact of Sanitation in Southeast Asia" said that, compared to other Southeast Asian countries, Indonesia experienced the highest economic impact from its poor
sanitation.

 

The annual economic impact on health, water, the environment, human welfare and tourism is approximately US$6.3 billion in Indonesia, $1.4 billion in the Philippines, $780 million in Vietnam and $450 million in Cambodia. Indonesian loses the equivalent of Rp 265,000 per capita annually.

 

The report stated that more than 94 million of Indonesia's population does not have adequate sanitary facilities causing, as a result, 121,100 cases of diarrhea, with 50.000 deaths every year.

 

Now let us look at the government's National Medium-Term Development Plan for 2004-2009 (RPJMN) as stipulated in the 2005 presidential regulation. The document maps in detail the planned targets to be achieved by 2009 for several sectors, including water and sanitation.

 

In the water and sanitation sector, the government intended to increase piped water coverage in 2009 to 66 percent in cities and 30 percent in villages. As for sanitation, the government had an ambitious plan that the country would have private sanitation facilities for all by the end of 2009.  

 

Based on data gathered by the Central Statistics Agency (BPS), we can conclude that the government has failed to achieve its target.

 

The percentage of people with access to piped water is even decreasing.

 

In 2006, 17.9 percent of the population already had access to piped water, in 2007 the number
increased to 18.3 percent, but in 2008, the percentage dropped to 16.1 percent.

 

Data from the national socioeconomic survey 2007 also conducted by the BPS, showed a worse situation, with only 12.3 percent of the population having access to metered piped water and 3.8 percent having to rely on piped retail payment. In the provinces of Bangka and Belitung Islands, Riau and Lampung, access to piped water is even less than 2 percent.

 

For national sanitation coverage, 33 percent of village populations still do not have private sanitation facilities in their homes, a situation that puts Indonesia amongst the worst in Asia.

 

The huge gap between achievement and target (especially, the achievement in the water sector which is, in fact, less than half its target) is surely nothing to be proud of.

 

We need to bear in mind that in five years the Millennium Development Goals will be evaluated and it will very

difficult to achieve the national target coverage of 57.4 percent in 2015 if there is no significant improvement in effort and budget allocation.

 

Ever since the Republic's independence, until Abdurrahman Wahid's presidency in 2000, Indonesia has achieved the highest coverage rate of piped water connections with 19.2 percent of the population having access to piped water.

 

The implication behind the proportional numbers with access is very important and broad; the limited access to water and sanitation forces people to use water from unsafe sources that is usually contaminated by pollutants, including human waste.

 

The safe distance between a water source and a septic tank is 10 meters, but due to population density in big cities in Indonesia, it is very likely that many household water sources are contaminated with pollutants from neighbors' sewers, or even their own.

 

In Jakarta, the Environmental Agency (Bappedal) this year announced that 94 percent of its groundwater is no longer safe as a drinking water source as it is contaminated, particularly with Escherichia coli bacteria.

 

With only 24 percent of the population of Jakarta having access to piped water, we can be sure that most Jakartans consume polluted water every day.

 

A breakthrough is surely needed for the 2009-2014 period. The government needs to avoid ambitious but unrealistic targets.

 

Accurate and precise budget allocations for sectors with a high multiplier effect, like water and sanitation, need to be prioritized.

 

There is a need to balance the allocation for the three biggest infrastructure expenditures: roads, irrigation, and water and sanitation.

 

So far, roads always get the biggest budget portion, while water and sanitation get the smallest bite.
    

The writer is the director of Amrta Institute for Water Literacy.

 

***************************************

THE JAKARTA POST

EDITORIAL

EMISSION REDUCTIONS THROUGH SERIOUS ENERGY EFFICIENCY

MONTTY GIRIANNA

 

Concern on the negative impacts of climate change, i.e., green house gas due the extensive use of fossil fuel, has encouraged many governments around the world to address the need for a comprehensive approach to clean energy, energy efficiency and conservation.

 

This is recognized as one of major components of mitigation measure to combat climate change.

 

Leaders of the G20 during their summit in Pittsburgh, confirmed the need to have a global economy with less carbon emissions - less dependency on hydrocarbon - and the need to use energy efficiently. The world is in need of directed efforts to increase productivity from energy use.

 

For our country, efficiency measures must be within the core program of the country's medium-term development plan.

 

These measure must include, improved utilization of efficient technologies, better management of energy demand and supply, increased use of energy saving equipment, standardization and labeling in households and commercial sectors, and application of energy efficiency standards to motor vehicles.

 

Increased energy consumption is inevitable to support our economic growth. Statistics confirm that our energy demand is growing at a rate that cannot be met by the growth of domestic energy supply.

 

The demand for oil has grown at 5-6 percent annually for twenty years, and that for electricity at more than 10 percent per year.

 

While our economic growth is set to reach 6 percent annually for the next five years, the increase in demand for energy may almost be double that rate.

 

Current energy intensity, a macro indicator for energy consumption, is larger than one, confirming energy demand is growing faster than economic growth.

 

This macro indicator appears to be high, but somewhat misleading since we live in a country with structural economic activity mix ranging from very low household energy intensity to some industries with high energy intensity.

 

Low income and low energy consumption in households are unlikely to leave much room for increased efficiency. Some industry sectors are locked into an historical pattern of inefficient plants, producing low value-added products with poor access to capital.

 

Understanding the structure of our economy and changes over time will provide us with tools to identify optimum energy efficiency improvements.

In many economies, the growth of the service sectors is an important part of the economy with less dependence on constrained (natural) resources, and as sunset industries close, sector and aggregate national energy intensities change.

 

Recognizing the diversity of energy end-use activity provides us a viewpoint on how energy is used and the best ways to realize the energy efficiency potential.

 

Energy demand will be heavily influenced by economic growth, its structure and other factors, such as price and demographic factors.

 

With that, we can design appropriate short, medium and long-term plans for improved efficiency both for the

supply and demand side of energy.

 

From the supply side, a number of studies indicate that the electricity generation base operated by the state power utility PT PLN and our nine fuel refineries operated by state oil firm Pertamina offer significant opportunities to improve energy efficiency on the supply side.

 

Many power producers are using old inefficient plants. These two state-owned companies may not face the strong commercial incentives of a market player to ensure their plants are optimized to maximize their energy utilization or energy efficiency.

 

With the majority of PLN's electricity generated from oil, gas, and coal, it is worthwhile to focus on the improved efficiency of operations, retrofitting of advanced control systems and component upgrades.

 

Pertamina's refineries are high intensity energy transformation activities, and some of the present refineries are very old and lagging behind in efficiency and best practices.

 

They are now operating at far less than their full capacity as they currently fulfill only 65 to 70 percent of our domestic demand - with imports filling the gap. We bringing the prevailing refineries up to their optimal output, where possible, is a key to energy efficiency and the least cost approach to increasing fuel supply.

 

A considerable efficiency gain from improved operation, maintenance, and process improvements from these two companies is possible, and would release energy resources without greatly increasing demand on primary energy resources.

 

From the demand side, statistics confirm that there is a valuable potential for energy efficiency improvement, i.e., industry (15 percent), transportation (25 percent), and households and commercial sectors (10-30 percent).

 

In the industrial sector, iron and steel manufacturing provide potential for improvements in efficiency.

 

Our transportation sector accounts for approximately half of national fuel demand and is growing at a rate of roughly 11 percent per year. With the current subsidized fuel prices, demand is rapidly exceeding supply not only for fuels, but also for the carrying capacity of transport infrastructure.

 

Road transport takes the largest share of transport energy, followed by sea and air transport, and then rail.

We see that an intervention is needed to lessen this dramatic growth in demand for energy for transport. A range of measures must be introduced to include a minimum vehicle fuel efficiency standard at the point of import or first registration, with differential engine size taxation, as well as fuel efficiency labeling.

 

Currently, we do not yet have a regulatory program, i.e., test standards and related efficiency performance standards, for household appliances and equipment like other countries.

 

We must call up international best practice standards for adoption in our product efficiency regulations, as this might ensure conformity with other economies and harmonize local manufacturing conditions with international markets.

 

We might not expect a considerable potential of efficiency gain from residential electricity. Approximately 75 million residential electricity connections exist but most of them use a very low level of lighting service. Their lighting power density is relative low and probably has little scope for lighting load reduction.

 

Technologies and intervention capacities for energy efficiency for the supply and demand sides are currently

available and are being applied in a number of developed countries.

 

The main task for the new administration is to seek opportunities for access and utilizing these technologies to get improvements to our energy efficiency - thereby reducing green house gas emissions.

 

Finally, the administration has to have a strong commitment to review productivity from energy use in all the main economic sectors and to endorse policy initiatives enabling transitions to markets with higher return products and services.

 

The writer is director for energy, mineral resources and mining at the National Development Planning Agency (BAPPENAS). This is a personal opinion.

 

***************************************

 

THE JAKARTA POST

EDITORIAL

THE SELAT SUNDA BRIDGE: CREATING CONNECTIONS?

DANIEL MOHAMMAD ROSYID

 

Recently, probably inspired by the Suramadu bridge, a plan to build a bridge to connect Sumatra and Java was launched by the Banten and Lampung provincial governments and a civil engineering consultancy company.

 

The 2009 annual budget speech of the President also mentioned the plan as part of a program to develop basic infrastructures in Indonesia.

 

But the bridge will not solve the connection problem, but even actually create new problems.

 

An economic and technical analysis will show the inferiority of the bridge compared with the much cheaper, quicker to implement and more robust advanced ferry system alternative.

 

This short article will use a topology argument - a branch of mathematics - to demonstrate that the bridge will not improve the present connectedness of the two islands, but, on the contrary, will reduce connectedness.

 

To start with, there is an implicit assumption - derivable from a "big island or continental" mindset - that there are only two ways to connect two islands: building a bridge or a tunnel. This mind-set sees a strait like a huge river. Within this mind-set, connecting the islands with a bridge is similar to building a bridge across a river.

 

There is also another assumption: That building a bridge will automatically promote significant regional economic development.

 

However this is not the case, i.e. a strait is not the same as a river, and while the positive regional impact of building a bridge across a river is well documented, the rationale for building an inter-island bridge is only based on unsubstantiated claims.

 

Up to now, there is no known scientific evidence that an inter-island bridge or tunnel brings about significantly positive regional economic impacts to the islands so connected.

 

The 50-kilometers Euro tunnel that connects Dover and Calais is a well-known mega-project that has proved to be a regional economic disaster for England at least.

 

The topology argument goes as follows. An island is almost always a concave landmass domain in which there are always 2 set of points in the domain that cannot be connected via a straight line unless some segment of the line lies outside the domain. As a comparison, a perfect 2-dimensional circle plane is a convex domain. Any domain that is surrounded by straight lines is also a convex domain.

 

The presence of holes, and cuts in this convex domain makes it a concave domain. From this definition, it is obvious that concavity, i.e. the presence of rivers as cuts in the domain, creates a distance problem in the domain, and therefore a bridge is a straight-forward solution to a distance problem, or a connectedness problem, in a concave domain.

 

Now consider two separate concave landmass domains, i.e. islands. Building a fixed "connector" such as a bridge between the two domains will create a new, combined, and larger concave land mass domain. Since concavity creates a distance problem, the inter-island bridge does not solve it, but in fact creates a new distance problem that requires an additional bridge to solve it.

 

The inter-island bridge location is usually selected such that it represents the shortest distance between 2 points in the islands to cut the cost of building to the minimum.

 

But this proves to be problematic, i.e. there are always another 2 set of points that becomes longer to connect if one is forced to do it via the bridge.

 

To solve this new distance problem will require a new, additional bridge to be built. But this further increases the concavity of the combined domain. The problem therefore becomes non-linear.

 

To avoid this problematic non-linearity, one needs only to change one's mind set to see that a strait is naturally different from a river, and that the water between the concave landmass domains is the natural connector of an unlimited number of points.

 

One then simply uses ports and ships to provide a flexible, and movable means to exploit these natural water ridges.

 

In other words, an artificial bridge only provides, a fixed, single-connectedness, while the natural bridge of sea water provides multiple-connectedness. Building a bridge therefore drastically reduces the connectedness between the two islands.

 

Shifting one's mind-set from "the big island" to "the archipelago" mind-set thus provides a "relaxed" distance

problem in which one is not obsessed with a single-mode transport solution to a distance problem.

 

The bridge solution is a single-mode trap that is not sustainable in terms of energy, environment, and reliability of archipelagic Indonesian transportation systems.

 

An advanced ferry system is not only more cost-effective, but also a more difficult target for terrorist attacks, more adaptive to fluctuations in traffic demand, and it will also promote multi-modalities.

 

To conclude, the Selat Sunda bridge will not solve a connectedness problem between Sumatra and Jawa, but will in fact undermine the connectedness that already exists.

 

Daniel Mohammad Rosyid, Ph.D is a lecturer at the department of ocean engineering, 10 November Institute of

Technology (ITS), Surabaya.

 

***************************************

 

EDITORIAL from The Pioneer, The Times of India, Hindustan Times, The Indian Express, The Financial Express, The Hindu, The Statesman's, The Tribune, Deccan Chronicle, Deccan Herald, Economic Times, The Telegraph, The Assam Tribune, Pakistan Observer, The Asian Age, The News, The Jerusalem Post, Haaretz, The New York Times, China Daily, Japan Times, The Gazette, The Sydney Morning Herald, The Australian, The Guardian, Jakarta Post, The Moscow Times, The Bottom Line and more only on EDITORIAL.

 

 

 

Project By

SAMARTH

a trust – of the people by the people for the people

An Organisation for Rastriya Abhyudaya

(Registered under Registration Act 1908 in Gorakhpur, Regis No – 142- 07/12/2007)

Central Office: Basement, H-136, Shiv Durga Vihar, Lakkarpur, Faridabad – 121009

Cell: - 0091-93131-03060

Email – samarth@samarth.co.in, central.office@samarth.co.in

Registered Office: Rajendra Nagar (East), Near Bhagwati Chowk, Lachchipur

Gorakhnath Road, Gorakhpur – 273 015