Sonia Gandhi in combative mood

At a time when political atmosphere is already tense and volatile owing to the ruling Congress party's acts of omission and commission on the Lokpal bill and other issues, Mrs Sonia Gandhi, the president of the Congress and the chairperson of the UPA, after months of silence, has suddenly emerged into a fiercely combative role. She has urged her party MPs to be ready "to fight" the opposition and Team Anna. Thus, the fears of some observers that frequent confrontations between the two sides is essentially the result of the aggressive and non-conciliatory mood of the dynasty-the mother and son duo. As a foreign-born bahu of a combative mother-in-law, with little grounding in Indian ethos and values of consensus and respect for others' views, she is unable to see grave risks involved in such aggressive posture. By ignoring wide-spread public sentiments for a strong Lokpal with its investigating responsibilities transferred from the CBI, the ruling Congress seems to have paved the way for inevitable confrontation with the opposition and Team Anna movement. It has to be seen how the potential conflict will be sorted out, given the half-heartedness and arrogance of the Congress leadership.

Sonia Gandhi's low-witted son, pursuing his own combative style, has already drawn up serious battle-lines in his hyped electoral campaign in UP on the eve of the Assembly elections. In view of the prolonged infighting in the state unit, opinion polls independently undertaken by some media houses recently, do not predict any dramatic improvement in the Congress party's electoral prospects. The forecasts are for a fragmented/fractured verdict with the Congress in 3rd/fourth position, SP and BSP taking the first two positions. During his shrill campaign, Rahul Gandhi has been accusing his opponents of casteism and communalism; but, unfortunately, his own record is not very clean. In an incredible, mysterious act, he revealed that Sam Pitroda, an NRI entrepreneur settled in the US whom his father Rajiv Gandhi had invited to help in mobile phone revolution, was a low caste carpenter. Why Rahul did this to disgrace an Indian innovator who was helping his mother country selflessly? What was he trying to achieve or prove that the Congress was low-caste friendly? Was itn't a most silly, thoughtless and insenstive exercise? Does it behove a potential Prime Minister? Such lack of wisdom and sobriety is aggravating the tensions in the polity because of the small-mindedness and myopia of some ruling party leaders.      

Harvard University's action against Swamy for his article on Islamic terrorism

After the controversy that has followed the decision of the Harvard University to abruptly terminate a few Summer Courses that Dr Subramanian Swamy was conducting at the campus as a visiting professor, I re-read his article in the Mumbai journal-DNA, dated July 16, 2011, captioned:"Analysis:How to wipe out Islamic terrorism", that has triggered the adverse action against him. Written within three days of the terrorist blast in Mumbai on July 13, 2011, Swamy's article seemed to have been driven by emotional reaction to the terrible terror act. One may differ with some extreme solutions the author has suggested to fight the menace of Islamic terrorism which, undoubtedly, posed a grave threat to India-its social, communal harmony and stability. It is true that the kind of strong, wide-spread condemnation should have emanated from the Muslim community is hardly visible. On the top of it, one hears voices in favour of Sharia, separate personal laws, firm opposition to Uniform Civil Code provided in the Constitution and repeatedly underlined by the Supreme Court; also, wide support for burqa, special quotas in jobs, education as well as financial packages as if backwardness and poverty is only confined to the minority community! All these factors are creating a pre-partition environment of special pampering and favouritism that ultimately resulted in the division of the country.

In this disturbing background and given the goals of Islamic fanatics to which Dr Swamy has referred in his article, the emerging scenario does seem alarming and not so innocuous. Hence, it would be suicidal to ignore Islamic terrorism, aided and abetted by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, al-Qaeda and other sundry radical outfits. The USA is itself a major victim of this menace. Hence, it appears that the Harvard University has over-reacted to Dr Swamy's unpalatable, blunt views, not politically correct and traditionally liberal. At any rate, his Summer Courses were limited to economics; they did not relate to Islamic terrorism, radicalism in Muslim societies or any analysis of Islam. Thus, shutting him out of Harvard on his non-economic opinions, hardly does any credit to the prestigious University's respect for the right of the freedom of expression. It is terribly saddening.         

J&K Chief Minister Omar Abdullah's advice on China's unfriendly posture

The Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah, speaking in Mumbai at the Indian Express discussion programme-Adda-on December 4, was frank and forthright in his advice to his national ally, the ruling Congress party, to show " more spine when dealing with China". Under Jawaharlal Nehru's leadership
as our first Prime Minister after independence, we were the first to champion China's cause at the UN and the world at large. Even ignoring India's own interests to become a permanent member of the Security Council. But, unfortunately, within a few years of Communist China's emergence as an independent entity under Mao Tse-tung, its policy of double-speak and duplicity towards India began. But, as usual, we were too goody-goody and stupid to see its real motives. India-China Bhai Bhai slogan adopted by us never became bilateral; it was one-sided. Despite Sardar Patel's warning to Prime Minister Nehru, in a letter, shortly before his death, to be vigilant about China and not take its words at their face value, we did not prepare ourselves for any eventuality at the hands of an aggressive neighbour with expansionist designs. We paid a heavy price and suffered a humiliating defeat when Mao's hordes invaded the North-East(Arunachal Pradesh-then called NEFA), in the early winter of 1962.

Although some lessons were learnt, but essentially we seem to be frightened of our big neighbour. It keeps pushing us, humiliating us with occasional pin-pricks about territorial claims on Arunachal Pradesh and other areas and dictating to us on the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan refugees in India. Recently, when the World Buddhist Conference took place in Delhi, even a junior diplomat-a vice consul in Kolkata, had the audacity to tell the government that the State Governor or the Chief Minister must not attend a function to honour the Dalai Lama. Fortunately, he was ignored. But the basic fact of our softness and reluctance to tick off China remains that has resulted in our hostile neighbour taking us for granted. They regard J&K as disputed in order to support their friend of all seasons-Pakistan.

Hence, in this backdrop of pusillanimity and timidity vis-a-vis China, we needed a young man in authority like the Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir, Omar Abdullah to tell his senior ally at the Centre, the ruling Congress, to display "more spine when dealing with China". He rightly added that if we are expected to follow a one-China policy and not question Taiwan's and Tibet's status, shouldn't China reciprocate and follow "one India policy for India" and not calling "Kashmir disputed"? In other words, he urged the policy of tit for tat, to tell China that we cannot take her aggressive and provocative statements and posture lying down.   

Muslim quota

As elections to five State Assemblies are nearing, the despicable vote bank politicians from the Congress, the Mulayam Singh's SP and Mayawati's BSP, alongwith communal bigots in academia and intellectual class, are vying with each other to shamelessly play the Muslim quota card. The issue is being hotly debated in the media, particularly TV news channels. In one such discussion on December 1 night, one was struck by an unexpected parochial mindset of one leading panelist, the vice-chancellor of the Jamia Milia university who was unabashedly batting for Muslim quota. Fortunately, another Muslim panelist and a Muslim student in the audience, challenged the vice-chancellor as to why reservations should be done on religious and not economic basis?

Why this self-serving perception is being deliberately perpetuated that Indian Muslims are the most backward and impoverished lot? Why are we refusing to look at the misery and deprivation of other groups? What have Muslim leaders and other well-off members of the community have done to extricate their community from self-imposed obscurantist ways and madarsa teaching? Who is responsible for keeping Muslim women backward, homebound and in purdah(burqa)? Is the quota demand not dangerously divisive and disharmonious?

AFSPA controversy

The Armed Forces Special Powers Act(AFSPA) has come under sharp focus, thanks to the J&K Chief Minister Oma Abdullah's clearly unwise and potentially dangerous insistence to withdraw it from certain areas in the Valley which, in his view, have returned to peace and normalcy. However, the Indian Army and the Defence Ministry strongly oppose the proposal on security and strategic considerations. Hence, the Central govt. has not given the green signal to the State govt.

Omar Abdullah's logic for the Act's revocation seems primarily motivated by Kashmiri separatists' long-held antipathy and hostility to the central forces, including the Indian army's presence in the State for its safety and security. Strangely, the CM appears to overlook the fact that Kashmir is enjoying peace owing to the sacrifices and good work of the Indian army and the central para-military forces. How can he ignore intelligence inputs that Pakistan's terror infrastructure is still intact and active; 2000-2500 terrorists are under training in these camps; 700-850 militants are waiting to cross over. Nearly 70 terrorists-infiltrators have been killed in the last two years. By proclaiming certain areas in the Valley as safe havens, free from terrorists, is the CM not inviting these killers and bombers to shift to these peaceful zones to plan their heinous operations?

The Indian army is in J&K since 1947 when Pakistani invaders attacked the State to illegally annex it to the newly-created Muslim State-Pakistan. Having failed in its evil attempt, Pakistan engineered cross-border infiltration and terrorism with the help of separatist elements in the Valley. The security forces, including the army, had to be strengthened to counter the aggressive designs of the anti-Indian forces, aided and abetted by our hostile neighbour. The army had to operate under a protective, enabling legal framework. Hence, the AFSPA. It was not a licence to kill innocent people.Any excesses and aberrations were promptly looked into and action taken. The army was primarily there to come to the help of the civilian authority whenever required. It was not an army of free-booters and marauders.

Hence, it was ridiculous for a former Central Information Commissioner and one of the three centrally-appointed J&K interlocutors, to support the revocation of the AFPSA on the plea that it was a "draconian law" to "suppress people's voice". He wrote this in an article in the Indian Express of November 22, 2011. How can a J&K interlocutor who had visited the State several times on behalf of the Union govt., overlook the bitter reality of the cross-border infiltration and terrorism and Pakistani involvement in this criminal activity? Misgovernance and alienation of some sections of Kashmiris should be attributed to local leaders who have always been heading the State govt.

Indian Express Editor advises getting out of Afghanistan for Pak sake

Shekhar Gupta, the chief editor of the Indian Express, in his latest Saturday commentary(November 19), entitled:"Get out, leave Af to Pak", has championed our neighbour's cause, urging the govt of India to "get out" of Afghanistan along with the scheduled exit of Americans, to enable Pakistan to achieve its dream of geographical and strategic depth. Is it'nt a most appalling, bizarre, cynically argued piece of advice, coming from a leading Indian editor who should know that India has only a benign presence in that country, and that too on the invitation of the Afghan govt and its people? We are not a colonial  or an expansionist power. On the other hand, Pakistan had always wanted Afghanistan as its ward and tried its hand  to attain its objective through the Taliban, a radical, Islamist band of students(Taliban) spawned in Pakistani madrasas. With the US and Pakistani help, the Taliban captured power in Kabul and imposed a ruthless and tyrannical form of sharia regime there. In the wake of the 9/11 terrorist assault on the US, the American armed forces intervened and ousted the Taliban govt. The US govt. called upon the Pakistani military ruler Gen Musharraf to choose between the Taliban and the US and he had no choice but to fall in the US line.

Since the Pakistan govt became the US ally against terrorism, it was hoping that once the US forces quit the scene, it would give them the opportunity to cash in. In 2014, the US forces are scheduled to withdraw from Afghanistan and the way will open for Pakistanis to fill the power vacuum to dominate a conflict-ridden, war-torn nation with the help of their Afghan Taliban allies. In this situation, Pakistanis are hostile to any Indian presence in Afghanistan. The whole world knows that we are not a colonial power but a soft one which is more interested in helping a poor neighbour with infrastructure projects like building roads, hospitals, schools, etc., as well as offering training facilities to Afghans. Our historic ties with the country go back to ancient times. Since our friendly assistance is widely popular with the Afghan people, the Pakistanis are deeply worried.

In this backdrop, it is incredible that a major Indian newspaper is batting for our adversary and asking us to leave that unfortunate country to the mercy and ravages of a military-dominated regime, making us more vulnerable to its conspiracies alongwith its great and reliable patron, China, who, in any case, hates our emergence as a rival Asian power.       

Prime Minister Singh calls Pak PM "man of peace"

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh gives a deceptive appearance of being a man who loves his silence more than the usual verbosity of politicians. One will presume that such a taciturn person will weigh his words more carefully when he speaks on major issues of vital concern to the nation. On this account, Dr Singh's record is quite dismal, particularly when dealing with Pakistan and its leaders, irrespective of the fact whether they are military dictators or civilians. His thinking process seems to take a break, his tongue strangely loosens and he announces decisions that are not only incredibly bizarre, these take a sudden U-turn on established, consensual national policies.

This happened first time within a couple of years of Manmohan Singh's prime-ministership in 2004, when he atteneded the Non-aligned Summit in Havana,Cuba where the Pakistani dictator Gen. Pervez Musharraf  was also present. In a joint statement with the Pakistani military ruler, Prime Minister Singh proclaimed that both India and Pakistan were equal victims of terrorism! He totally disregarded India's long-time charge against its neighbour, based on voluminous details, that Pakistan was the primary aider, abettor and perpetrator of cross-border terrorism against India, specially in J&K. And in a total flip-flop, the Indian PM, thoughtlessly put the victim of terrorism and its promoter and mastermind  on the equal footing! This utterly senseless action stirred a huge uproar in the country which forced him to keep the Havana agreement to fight terrorism jointly at the backburner.

However, Prime Minister Singh's pro-Pakistan itch resurfaced at the Sharm El-Sheikh(Egypt) where the former met his Pakistani counterpart. Forgetting his strong rhetoric in the wake of 26/11 Mumbai massacre perpetrated by Pakistani terrorists under the guidance of the ISI, that no dialogue with Pakistan would take place until our unprincipled, untrustworthy, neighbour took action against the State and non-state criminals involved in the mayhem, Manmohan Singh agreed to delink bilateral talks with Pakistan-sponsored terrorism. Again, history repeated itself and in the face of tremendous furore in the country, Dr Singh reversed his position.

As if the pitcher of the Prime Minister's faux pas and stupidities in domestic and foreign affairs was not yet full, he, once again, indulged in his romantic view of Pakistan, the place of his birth, by giving an undeserved certificate to his counterpart Yusuf Raza Gilani as "a man of peace", at the Maldive SAARC summit recently. He even trusted the Pakistan Prime Minister's assurance that the Pakistan Army was on board with the civilian leadership on the issue of restoring friendship and normalcy between the two neighbours. But, again, following the pattern of national reaction against his indiscreet and needlessly sugary sentiments, the PM stepped back, qualifying his remarks that he has not abandoned his approach of "trust but verify" theory. No wonder, a senior, retired Indian diplomat, Satish Chandra, former Indian High Commissioner in Islamabad, and the National Deputy Security  Adviser, in an article in a national daily, sharply attacked Dr Singh for "appeasing" Pakistan in the hope that it will lead to a "thaw" in bilateral relations and lend him the stature of a "statesman"! He accused him of offering Pakistan "far too many concessions" at the cost of India's "national interests".