Pakistani author Raza Rumi on Indo-Pak relations

The problem with Pakistani intellectuals appears to be their meaningless and contradictory approach to Indo-Pak relations. One such gentleman is Raza Rumi, Director of the Jinnah Institute, a Pakistani think- tank, and an author of the book:"Delhi by Heart-Impressions of a Pakistani Traveller".

In an article:"Give Sharif a chance", published by the Indian Express(August 9), Rumi has emphatically pleaded that India should adopt a "new Pakistan policy" in which giving a "chance to Nawaz Sharif", Pakistan's new-elected Prime Minister, should be an essential "part" and "stabilising and supporting Pakistan's democracy the central plank". Curiously, Rumi deliberately overlooks the fact that in his nearly two-month-old rule, Prime Minister Sharif has taken no concrete step nor sent a clear signal that he is in full command, ensuring stoppage of anti-Indian acts of terror emanating from his territory. In response to the charges of beheading of an Indian soldier in January this year, and the recent killing of five Indian jawans, Rumi cites Pakistani charges of Indian troops killing a few Pakistani in the same period. Understandably, as a Pakistani, Rumi has to defend his army's aggressive and bloody forays into our territory, but what about the recent bomb attack on the Indian consulate in Jalalabad, Afghanistan?  The Pakistani side flatly denied all the incidents, including the killings on the LOC, whereas the Indian side has accepted the killing of Pakistanis as they intruded the Indian territorywith terrorist intentions. Thus, Pakistan is in a permanent denial mode.

If Rumi believes that Pakistan is committed to peace with India, why his government is aiding and abetting infiltration into J&K? As a supposedly enlightened thinker, why can't he realise that the only possible, practical, peaceful solution is for Pakistan to accept the present status quo. No other solution will be acceptable to India, although formal claims would be forwarded that the entire J&K belongs to India because of its accession in 1947. However, because of Pak occupation of a sizable portion of the original State, the only possible peaceful solution is for both parties to accept the existing situation and settle it once and for all. Raza Rumi will be doing a great service if he tries to convince his countrymen to that effect. In the interest of peace in the subcontinent, Indians would be agreeable to treat the LOC as a permanent border between the neighbours. The alternative is a permanent conflict and tension that would be more harmful to Pakistan which is already facing internal disarray and the bitter reality of a failed State.

Debate on secularism vs communalism

The other day, I happened to watch a highly charged discussion programme on NDTV moderated by Ms Barkha Dutt, on the issue of secularism, in the context of the next year's general election. Those aggressively championing secularism as the most important factor for the survival of Indian democracy, included self-confessed secular fundamentalist Mani Shankar Aiyar, the Congress-nominated Rajya Sabha MP, Ashutosh Varshney, IE columnist who teaches at the Brown University in the US and Javed Akhtar, a pro-Congress film lyricist.

As usual, Aiyar was most intolerant, insufferable and full of hate against his opponents. His poisonous barbs against those disagreeing with him and his contemptuous style, makes him unfit for a civilised company, in my opinion. He seems emotionally sick. In the TV debate, he just dismissed his strong critic Ms Madhu Kishwar, the editor of a women's journal and an academic, who pointed serious flaws in Aiyar's thinking and arguments, with his angry and hateful epithets. The most controversial reasoning of these three advocates of secularism was their belief that it was a Gandhi-Nehru gift to Indian values. They clearly overlooked the defining fact that India was always a "secular" country. MK Gandhi claimed himself as a proud "Hindu" and believed Hinduism to be "the most tolerant of all religions known to me"(From Gandhiji's book:Hindu Dharam-Page 5). Thus, he regarded Hinduism as the most secular faith. The Constitution-makers did not specifically mention secularism in its preamble or the Directive Principles, presumably because they believed that the country's majority faith was the most tolerant and respectful of all other faiths. In other words, secularism-equal treatment of all religions-was the inherent characterisitc of Indian ethos. The word "secularism" was added to the Constitution through an amendment during the Emergency rule of Mrs Indira Gandhi in the mid-seventies

It is amazing that an academic like Varshney who lives most of the time in the US where no one talks of secularism as it is taken for granted, seriously debates secularism when he comes here even when as a born Hindu he knows what his faith stands for! Does Narendra Modi or the BJP talk or promote  Hinduism against other faiths? Mani Shankar Aiyar, a former Indian Foreign Service(IFS) officer who became Rajiv Gandhi's special assistant and speech-writer and later joined the Congress party, is one politician who is not seriously by the party leadership because of his acid tongue. He has been nominated to the Rajya Sabha in the "cultural" quota, as a reluctant reward for his great loyalty to the late boss's family. Javed Akhtar is one those intellectual Muslims who underline their secularism by supporting the Congress whom many regard as the most communally divisive political entity.

Madhu Kishwar, the panelist on the opposite side of the TV debate, strongly condemned the Modi-phobia, applauding Modi for his development agenda and leadership quality. He invited Aiyar to accompany her to a Gujarat village and see its inclusive growth under Modi; Aiyar, of course, spurned it with his usual contempt. Another panelist Ashok Malik emphasised that the secularism-communalism debate was confined to TV studios and an average Indian was not interested in it.  The election focus would good governance and development. Lord Meghnad Desai, a member of the House of Lords in London, the sixth panelist, drew attention to the Congress hypocrisy regarding secularism, adding that it was a party to the Partition of India!


      

Incredible India

For quite some time, the Tourist department of the govt of India has adopted a USP-Unique Selling Proposition:"Incredible India" as its foremost publicity slogan, to attract foreign tourists to the country. Despite India's tremendous variety of people, scenery, culture, cuisine, languages, seasons, heritage sites, religious practices, festivals, the tourist inflow was much smaller in comparison to its Asian neighbours, let alone smaller European nations like Spain.

However, my main focus in this piece is the meaning of "Incredible India" in its more mundane, existential and every day life sense. There is so such insensitivity, inhumanity and apathy that mark Indians' behaviour to each other; it is totally incredible. Even supposedly good things aimed at people's welfare-particularly poor citizens, are executed haphazardly, indifferently, without any real concern whether these will help them. Crores and crores are budgeted for education, health-care, mid-day meals for poor children to motivate their parents to send them to school. But, thanks to corrupt bureaucracy, mismanagement, misgovernance, govt schools are in a pathetic state: absentee teachers, poor infrastructure, no drinking water, no toilets. Thus, the overall picture is dismal.

In a latest incident in a village school in Bihar(Chappra dist), over two dozen small children lost their lives after consuming contaminated mid-day meals. It was shocking to read the story of utter callousness and near-criminality of the school principal who was supposed to supervise the cooking. The pictures of insanitary conditions in which the cooking oil was stored as well as other material, were appalling. It was reported that when the lady cook drew the attention of the lady principal to the bad soyabeans that were on the menu, the latter rejected her plea and ordered to go ahead and cook it. The bad soyabeans and contaminated cooking oil reportedly resulted in the terrible tragedy of young children of poor families dying in a large number.

Even a cursory look at the implementation of the Centre-State scheme-funded in the ratio of 75% and 25%, seemed so bizarre. How could such a delicate scheme dealing with feeding young children be handled in such a cavalier, ad hoc manner without proper, professional planning, supervision and monitoring on a regular basis? The Bihar incident is not the first such tragic occurence. But, unfortunately, after a short media hype and public anger, the tragedy is forgotten till the next one. There are reports of similar mess and chaos in other areas as well, like medicare. Peons, rikshaw-drivers and others without any medical training are allowed to give injections and allied services in the absence of trained nurses. Is itn't "Incredible India"?     

Indian Express Editor Gupta's Walk the Talk with Goa CM Parrikar

The BJP Chief Minister of Goa, an IIT graduate-turned-politician, Manohar Parrikar, in a Walk the Talk interview with the Editor-in-Chief of the Indian Express, Shekhar Gupta, recently televised on NDTV 24x7, has come out strongly and convincingly in defence of his Gujarat counterpart, Narendra Modi on the 2002 riots.

Modi has been relentlessly ridiculed and maligned by a section of the media and his political opponents for allegedly engineering and conniving with the Muslim killings in that riot. They never talk of the post-Godhra carnage as an instant reprisal to the terrible torching of 59 Gujarati pilgrims-men, women and childen, in the Sabarmati Express at Godhra, while returning home from Ayodhya.

The tone and nature of Shekhar Gupta's questions suggested a clear, pre-determined bias against Modi. He insisted that it was Modi's "administrative and political failure", perhaps his "anger" that allowed the carnage, on the plea "what can I do, people are angry". While conceding that it was an "adminstrative failure", Parrikar emphasised that "not defending it does not mean that you put the blame on a particular person...Everyone got "polarised", including the administration and the police. However, "you don't blame the leader". "And Modi at that time had just taken over the govt(4 months). He may not have had that kind of a grip on the administration as he has now...The media should be blamed for it too-they showed the charred bodies...But after that, he has not displayed a single incident of non-governance". After that one "blot" on the administration, there has been no incident of violence in the last 11 years, Parrikar noted.

Responding to Gupta's question on what he called the "Parrikar model" in Goa where "you went and embraced your Catholics", and "Hindus and Catholics came together in Goa under the BJP flag", the CM observed that "a government cannot be complete unless every citizen is included" in the governance. "I am a strong Hindu but my Hindu feeling does not reflect in my decision-making as a Chief Minister. I believe Modi has managed to work in that way. In other words, Modi is fair and has no religious bias.

Parrikar's replies on some other topical matters are equally significant. Referring to the question on govt not taking decisions-"Manmohan Singh doesn't decide", he said, "virtually no one does in the govt." Gupta: "Well, Sonia Gandhi does. Apparently". The reply: "I strongly doubt that...I don't think decision-making has been the hallmark of Mrs Sonia Gandhi or Rahul(Gandhi). Most of the time, they disappear when there is a crisis."

Finally, Manohar Parrikar made it clear that he was in favour of the BJP National Executive meeting in Goa taking the decision on Modi and not postpone it. He added that "this is what the common people and the party cadre feel. I must have spoken to at least 1000 people on this issue at various forums-internet, friends, across the globe, across the country...I got a sense from them that they wanted  Narendra Modi. Because the country is headed by a person ... a Prime Minister(from where) no decisions are coming and people see that... I get a feeling that the Congress is run by a coterie...".   

PM Manmohan Singh calls Rahul Gandhi "natural leader"

Speaking to reporters at the Rashtrapati Bhawan(President's House), after the swearing in ceremony of some new ministers in his cabinet, on 17 June, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said  that "Rahul Gandhi is the natural leader" to lead the UPA if it returned to power in the general elections of May 2014. He would be happy to make way for him, he added. Some weeks earlier, he had hinted at his inclination and willingness to continue in the third term in case of the UPA victory.

Then, why this sudden sycophantic proclamation on the ruling dynasty's heir-apparent being the "natural leader"? In all the years that Rahul Gandhi has been active in politics, what are his attainments-or manifestations-symbolising his talents as "the natural leader"? In fact, he has publicly expressed his disinterest in taking over the leader. From all indications, he seems happy to assume the behind the scene role as the supremo, like his mother, without accountability.

The Congress party has several senior, more experienced leaders like C.Chidambaram, Kamal Nath, Ghulam Nabi Azad, etc. What is so special and "natural" about Rahul, if you take away his dynastic inheritance and succession claim? Is Manmohan Singh, a clever, calculating politician, playing a tactical game, asserting his self-sacrifice as well as his sub-servience to the dynsasty and its crown prince, in the knowledge that Rahul's reluctance to head the govt in the event of the UPA victory, might smoothen  his way to continue in office for the third term, even though he will be 82/83? Like at present, Dr Singh will act as "yesman"-in office but not in power; the power-wielders will be the son and the mother without accountability!
                                                                                                                                                                                                 

Manmohan Singh's indifference to direct election to Lok Sabha

It is no credit to the supposedly vigilant and dynamic Indian media to overlook Prime Minister Manm+ohan Singh's deliberate indifference to the important issue of his direct elected entry to the Parliament through the House of the People(Lok Sabha), to occupy the most powerful office in our democratic set-up. Instead, he prefers the easy way out-the indirect election to the Rajya Sabha. Over ten years ago, he did contest the Lok Sabha election for a New Delhi seat but he lost. Since then, he avoids the hard work and tension involved in direct election. In 2004, when Mrs Sonia Gandhi, the Congress president, chose him to head the UPA govt, he was a member of the Rajya Sabha. However, even five years later, in 2009 general elections, he had an opportunity to follow the healthy convention set up by the Congress first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and his successors-Lal Bahadur Shastri, Mrs Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi, and get elected directly to the Lok Sabha from a safe Congress seat,  for the PM's office. But, Dr Singh, a man known for his integrity, was clearly not interested.  

Since his present term in the Rajya Sabha is ending, Manmohan Singh, as usual, rushed to Assam to file his nomination papers for the next term. Press reports said that this time the PM witnessed strong protests from Assamese intellectuals and mediamen who objected to his usurping a Rajya Sabha seat meant for native people, since 1991. They complained that for all these 22 years of the Upper House membership, Dr Singh did nothing for the development of the State; it was also reported that in all, he has spent less than a month in this adopted place from the very beginning.

Sadly, this utter insensitivity and thick-skin attitude to the local feelings, do not seem to have caused any uneasiness and moral soul-searching to somehow continue with the privileges of the Parliament membership which also facilitates his holding to the office of the head of govt till, at least, 2014; maybe, even later, if his alliance wins the next elections. Obviously, his advanced age-beyond eighties-does not matter. Some of his earlier supporters have started saying that Manmohan Singh undoubtedly loves office-and power-and wants to stay put as long as possible.

In this backdrop, it was heartening to read an article in the Indian Express of May 16, by a veteran journalist Inder Malhotra, who has criticised, though mildly, the fact that "some one should be Prime Minister of the world's largest democracy for a full 10 years on the strength of the membership of the Upper, indirectly elected, House..." Although it is not constitutionally mandated that the PM must be a member of the Lok Sabha, but the spirit of the Constitution and conventions established  since the dawn of independence, have underlined the democratic importance of the direct election route to the House of the People. As a member of the Rajya Sabha, Manmohan Singh cannot be the leader of the ruling party in the Lok Sabha-the more important House; he has no voting right here. Does it not sound ridiculous that the Prime Minister can participate in the Lok Sabha proceedings but he cannot vote! Is it that he is comfortable with this terrible oddity, just to stay in power?  

Latest Chinese occupation of Indian territory in Ladakh

On April 15, 2013, a platoon of the People's Liberation Army(PLA) of China, reportedly intruded 18km deep into our territory in the Ladakh area and stayed put till the writing of this blogpost. Despite several military and diplomatic efforts, the Chinese arrogantly and aggressively rejected our requests to go back to their side of the Line of Actual Control(LAC ). This latest incident of China's crude display of its armed might while mouthing meaningless rhetoric of friendly bilateral relations, inevitably takes us back to the tragic Nehruvian phase of Hindi-Chini Bhai Bhai(Indians and Chinese are brothers) when our first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru's thoughtless, romantic policy towards Maoist China, brought worst disaster in 1962: Maoist troops invaded India in the North-East and occupied a large territory. The neglect of the border areas and the ill-equipped armed forces resulted in the worst humiliation of the Indian army.

However, fifty years down the line, no lessons seemed to have been learnt. Several defence and strategic analysts have opined that the infrastructure in the border areas is almost as pathetic as before; so is the preparedness of our troops guarding the areas. The latest Chinese incursion and our govt's reluctance to challenge the intruding PLA platoon-and even blocking its supply lines-is a tell-tale evidence of our
congress-ruled, Manmohan Singh-led government's utter incompetence, pussillanimity, confusion and lack of resolve to protect national interests.

On the contrary, the ministerial statements only underline utter spinelessness, timidity and callousness of this govt. The PM says he has a plan for this "localised" affair but he does not share this with outraged citizens; similarly, his stupid Home Minister calls the area as a "no-man's land"; his Foreign Minister calls the incursion as "acne" that will go away with some ointment! What can the Indian people expect from such crazy, confused govt?