Common Sense Majority

Punjab Elections - The Descendants

2012-01-27T10:30:00.000+05:30

The last few days of campaigning are winding down a hard-nosed fight in the state of Punjab which goes for state polls on January 30th. Both sides - the Congress and the Akali-BJP combine are not giving the other an inch because in this fight each seat matters and every vote is the proverbial swing vote. Punjab shares the Tamilnadu phenomenon , where barring the days of the Emergency and Governors rule, no ruling party or combine has returned to power in successive state elections. This history goes back to the very foundation of the state of Punjab from the erstwhile PEPSU union of states. Punjab, was and still remains, an agrarian economy, with industries vying closely for second spot in contribution to the state's coffers and GDP. The rural and semi-rural economy has been the focus of politics and been on the political agenda for decades where candidates and party manifestos tried to out-do one another by offering free sops like electricity or subsidies for farm produce or higher Minimum Support Price for paddy and wheat. This competitive fiscal hara-kiri worked well electorally but failed miserably in doing any good for the State's balance. So while, Sikhs and Punjabis pride themselves in calling their state the grain bowl of the country, it is true that given the sops and subsidies that politicians have doled out in a state with rich fertile land and plenty of water (at least in large parts of it) the state was bound to proposer and lead the Green Revolution of the 60's. The last 30 years have seen the rise of industry, with Ludhiana leading the charge in production and manufacturing of textile, auto components and other industries. Along with this, the state have produced many prolific entrepreneurs who have are considered captains of industry and commerce. This has been coupled with the in-flow of large remittances and investments from Punjabi NRI's living in the West. So too has the so-called Punjabi culture infused itself as the dominant way of life in North India - be it Punjabi music, bhangra or butter chicken , cliched as it may sound, all have become the staple of what constitutes north India.

What has not kept pace with this remarkable states' success story in industy and culture has been the political class. The political class has either been identified as religious (those of the Akali Dal) or those of royalty and rich lineage (like Captain Amrinder Singh) or more recently those of a family (the Badals are only one of very prominent political families in Punjab). This collective association of disassociated voices in the State Assembly has created only din or personal glory but has done for little in formulating a coherent strategy for the next generation of reforms in Punjab. The so called Green Revolution 2.0 has not even been written or conceptualized, much less implemented. While the Concrete Revolution of roads, malls and infrastructure has been haphazard and uneven in the state. The two main poles for politics in Punjab - the Congress and the Akali-BJP combine have spent the last decade trying to erase every conceivable record of the other when in power. Politics of vendetta has replaced the so -called politics of development. Personality cults and family clans have overshadowed the state. All this has not happened by chance but by design. On the Akali side, the current Chief Minister - Sardar Prakash Singh Badal is the tallest and only leader of the Akalis after the many break aways and demise or sidelining of other contenders in his party. His son, has now taken over the mantle of the father in matters of administration while the father continues to be their main electoral and political face. This dynastic patronage has further extended to Sukhbir Singh's wife and her brothers and till very recently to Sukhbir's own cousin Manpreet Badal. With the cousin splitting and forming his own People's Party of Punjab, the Badal clan is in serious need of consolidation. Think the Sena breakaways and the Thackrey break-up.

On the Congress side, the matter remains almost replicable. The now indisputable leader Captain Amrinder Singh has an internal feud to sort. His brother has walked into the Akali camp after being denied the a ticket while Captain Singh's son has managed to get one. The Congress itself has from time to time created leaders who have indulged themselves in creating a fiefdom for their families. So Captain Singh has the Bhattals and the family of former CM, Harcharan Singh Brar, to contend with along with permanent dissenters against him like Jagmeet Brar. Not to be outdone, the BJP's Navjot Singh Sidhu has also managed to get his wife a ticket from Amritsar thereby ensuring that all parties are guilty as charged. In such a situation, it is clear that while the parties talk about development as being the sole agenda for these elections, in their hearts of heart they too know that this election could well decide the fate of their families in politics for some time to come.

Want to Run for US President?

2012-01-27T09:39:00.003+05:30

If you want to run for the American President's job, here's was you got to do! (At least this is the beginner's guide)

State of the Re-election: Obama and 2012

2012-01-25T10:10:00.002+05:30

US President Barack Obama delivered his terms final State of the Union address, a center-piece on the US' political calendar. The President laid the path to his re-election campaign message with a call for unity and harping back to the rhetoric that propelled him to the White House in 2008. The President again called for higher taxes for the richest American while calling for fairness in the American economy where everyone gets a "fairshot". Rhetorical flourishes were abound with quotable quotes like "what's at stake are not Democratic values or Republican values, but American values. We have to reclaim them" amongst others.

The President has a fair chance of being re-elected this November if the opposition Republicans continue to indulge in the type of politics and personal attacks that they have done so far. The Republican campaign and messaging is similar to what the BJP-led NDA tried in the national elections of 2009, where they targeted the Prime Minister by calling him weak and inefficient. Not realizing the wide acceptance the Prime Minister enjoyed amongst Indians (though his performance and timidness to stand for a cause was another story altogether), the Indian electorate gave a thumbs down to the NDA's campaign and returned Manmohan Singh to 7, Race Course Road. A similar fate awaits the Republicans if they paint the picture too negatively and too personally against Obama. Obama, ever the astute communicator, will paint himself as a martyr towards the cause of the nation, who was vilified and opposed tooth and nail by Republicans hell-bent on destroying his Presidency. He will also stake claims to genuine successes like that on healthcare reform, the peace initiative with the wider-Muslim/Arab world, drawdown from Iraq, the killing of terror mastermind Osama bin Laden amongst others.

The economy and joblessness along with a poor showing in international diplomacy (especially the vexed Israel-Palestine issue) will continue to be thrown back at Obama every time he talks ups his successes. Nonetheless, the stage has been set very clearly by Obama for his re-election campaign with populist sentiments against outsourcing and unfair trade practices by China being brought into the fore. The campaign has finally begun and it will be an interesting one at that.

Mental Disease and India: A No Brainer

2012-01-24T17:22:00.001+05:30

Belatedly India feels the need to fight mental and behavioral diseases (read the TOI story here). The Government throws statistics and advice but apart from a national program, has done precious little to reduce stigma and change the Mental Health Act 1987 to make it easier for providers to offer care to people with mental disease.

NRHM - Anything but healthy

2012-01-23T22:42:00.002+05:30

The National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) was touted to be the game changer in India's moribund health sector which has been devoid of 21st century reforms by the UPA government in 2005. The immaculate planning on paper and its impressive monitoring through online dashboards has been a case study of many health analysts on how to boost infrastructure at the primary and rural level, ways and means to provide access to healthcare to rural populace and training and skills upgradation of staff delivering healthcare at the block and gram levels. Individual states' record on NRHM has been uneven, with outliers, high performers and laggards all making their way in Union Health Ministry annual reports. NRHM's implementation in Uttar Pradesh has been the most controversial and bloody with allegations of a politician-bureaucrat-builder nexus siphoning and misappropriating funds and murky wheeling dealing in the procurement and dispersal of medicines and other supplies.

The death toll from the so-called NRHM scam has reached four, with a under-investigation Project Engineer shooting himself at his residence today. The CBI claims that Sunil Verma, the man in question was a crucial link in a scam that by some estimates runs into the thousands of crores. The sheer magnitude of fraud and corruption is staggering and saddening. Staggering because the amount involved runs in the millions and it has hard to believe that no one on the higher echelons of Chief Minister Mayawati's administration did not have a whisk of this monumental scandal. Saddening because at the most basic level this scam directly impats the health and well being of people. The hundreds of crores siphoned could have created infrastructure and facilities that could immunize and treat young babies and their mothers, train ASHA workers, dispense basic but life-saving medications and provide for basic surgical and medical needs of the community. Instead, the scandal will once again devoid the most needy of the most basic of care while the court cases and political ramifications continue for years to come. All that is so caricatured as corruption is so proven true in this scandal that should haunt the Mayawati regime.

One cannot fault the UPA government for its good intention to bring a scheme like the NRHM in its manifesto and giving it the necessary financial and political assistance to become a national mission of moderate success. But once again and oft-repeated truth of political discourse is proven - good intentions are merely not enough. What is needed is a radical clean up and to setup a national health infrastructure creation body on the lines of the NHAI that will have a national character in building quality primary health infrastructure in the country. Let the infrastructure so created be transferred to the state government once complete and for them to operate it. The underlying need is to create infrastructure in order to get the primary healthcare off the ground, literally. Till adequate infrastructure is in place no amount of training or goodwill be adequate to take care of the basic health needs of the last man, woman and child in the queue. NRHM may be well begun, but its not even half-done.

"King"rich wins South Carolina Primary

2012-01-22T13:51:00.000+05:30

The convoluted process of selecting a candidate to take on US President Barack Obama became even tougher for the Republican Party with former House Speaker Newt Gingrich winning the crucial primary in South Carolina. This follows two significant events over the past 24 hours for the Republican Party. One, the once formidable Rick Perry bowed out of the race in favour of Gingrich and not Romney, who till now was coasting home. Second, the "final" results from the Iowa primaries that went first in the race to select a candidate actually showed Rick Sanotorum winning the primary by a margin rather than Romney, who was shown as the winner earlier.

What this does for the Republicans is complicate the process of quickly deciding who its contender will be and then rally behind the selected candidate to take on the Obama re-election machinery. The three main candidates - Romney, Santorum and Gingrich have now won one primary each in New Hampshire, Iowa and South Carolina respectively. Each would have smelt blood and would want to now raise the pitch as they see the candidature as a distinct possibility. Result? Each will get more ferocious at the other at the cost of combining energies to take on the Obama administration and later campaign. The Republicans run the risk of squandering a winning opportunity to get back the White House by triggering an internecine internal strife. So whose to blame? Confused Republican party base? Lacklustre candidates lacking gravitas, national appeal or credibility? Stale ideas? Only time will tell.

Postscript:

The Economist also tries to answer the question posed in the end. In their reading its an incoherent Republican base that is causing the revolving door preference for the candidates in the fray. Read it here.

The Rise of the Overclass

2012-01-21T09:59:00.003+05:30

The Telegraph does a story on the rise of the "overclass" in Britain. It has a parallel in India where a new super-rich super class is emerging at the cost of a rising gap between the rich and poor. It portends poorly for India if this economic and social disparity grows. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/9027846/The-rise-of-the-overclass.html

While The Economist chronicles the demographic and social make-up of what constitutes the 1% or the overclass.
http://www.economist.com/node/21543178

Why Islamism is Winning?

2012-01-07T09:44:00.001+05:30

Professor John Owen asks this contentious question in the aftermath of elections in Egypt and other Middle Eastern states: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/07/opinion/why-islamism-is-winning.html

The Republican Race 2012 - Bachmann bows out

2012-01-05T17:36:00.001+05:30

The race to become the next President of the United States has only just started with the gruelling primaries and caucus season beginning in the country. The Republican Party have been long struggling with a long list of potentates who want to become the Party's nominee to take on the incumbent Democrat President Barack Obama. The Iowa caucus which was closely watched, closely polled and closely declared had front runner former Governor and perennial Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney emerge as the winner by the smallest of margins. His closest opponent, whom he he beat by 8 paltry votes has emerged as the giant killer for Rick Santorum managed to shake the apple cart by jumping straight to the top of the hopeful's league. That Romney only strengthens his top dog status is an obvious, what it also indicates to other candidates is to cut their loses quickly and bow out sooner rather than later. Michele Bachmann seems to have taken the cue and did just that as she announced the withdrawl of her candidature from the race to the White House after a dismal show in the Iowa caucuses.

The media has also become the story within the election results of the Iowa caucuses. It was not strange to expect one nominee or the other adore the covers of magazines or be written about or profiled in the American media over the past few months. Each candidate, both the serious and those who were testing waters, had been touted by the Beltway hacks as the next best thing to take on Obama. So we had the likes of real estate moghul and TV entrepreneur Donald Trump throw his hat in, only to be lap up by a pliant media as a potential front runner. When it finally emerged that Trump was not even considering a run but merely testing the waters the media ran to look for other urban legends to create. These included, Bachmann, Ron Paul, Hermann Cain (who rose and fell in media circles faster than most), Rick Perry and nor Rick Santorum. In the end, the media seemed to have read the tea leaves rather clumsily as Romney has emerged front and center in this election race and as things stand will get the nomination from his party (and if I may be bold enough to say so, win the election in November).

The race for the White House is going to be an exciting one once the President dons the mantle of a candidate. His true strengths of public oratory and working a crowd will only come to fore on the stump and not from the Oval Office or through Meet the Press type of settings. Romney, who is emerging as his opponent, is a different cut of the crop and it will be interesting to see how the interplay between two very different crowd pullers and politicians. So buckle up the engines are only just starting!

Indian Healthcare and the Value Chain

2011-10-12T12:37:00.001+05:30

Former Health Secretary of the UK Patricia Hewitt's take on Indian Healthcare http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/patricia-hewitt/indias-healthcare-industr_b_1004672.html

The Newton of Apple

2011-10-07T12:17:00.001+05:30

Apple co-founder Steve Jobs untimely and tragic death at at the age of 56 has left a void in the lives of many technology aficionado's and dreamers alike. Jobs single handedly made the computer cool and created a rare brand that was both aspirational yet cool, expensive yet mass market. The design style and fit and finish of his products became trendsetters and the world took his lead as he passionately showed us the way. In his own words, he was at the intersection of technology and liberal arts and he married the two into one enduring legacy that has changed our lives. Jobs tragic death due to a rare and deadly pancreatic cancer was something of an inevitability. Through the pain and trauma of multiple surgeries, medical treatment and hospital admissions, this remarkable man kept dreaming, kept pushing the limits of human imagination and made us all part of this giant experiment to move towards devices that became a part and extension of you rather than a tool of utility. Eulogies for a great man come from politicians, statesman, peers and industry colleagues - but it is unimaginable for a CEO of a for-profit company to be deified and remembered by his humble customers the the collective outpouring of grief the world has witnessed. In death as in life, Jobs is perched at a special place in human history being equated with Henry Ford, Edison, Da Vinci and Newton all at the same time.

This remarkable man of modest origins has proven to the world the power of passion. Jobs grew in a working class family that adopted him from a college drop out single mother who wanted Steve to have parents who could send him to college. His passion for electronics made him a millionaire at 25 and he went on inventing and being part of more than 300 patents in his relatively short life. While many commentators and mourners talk about his innovative zeal and a work ethic unlike any other company leader the one word that rings to my mind about him is passion. Pure unbridled incorruptible uncorrupted passion for something you love. If I were to learn the one thing from Jobs it how to be passionate about what one does - the rest - fame, success and money - will follow. The many tech "wizards" who are hailing Jobs as a near God and a genius were often uncharitable to him as he went on changing our world as we knew it. From iPhones to iPods, from Macbooks to iTunes, the critics rallied against him for flaws, monopolies and chinks. It seems that Jobs brushed such challenges aside to focus on what was his mission in life - to make technology simpler and more integrated into our lives. His passion for what he did is something that brought out the less charitable sides of his personality as reported by the media - that he was dictatorial, decisive to a fault and a man with a temper. Underneath those flaws was an overriding passion in a man who knew that time was not on his side. So thank you Steve for changing our lives and making it a better place for us. You have brought us joy and we are in gratitude to you for letting us be part of that journey of self-discovery with our beloved devices. The future of Apple and its pipeline of products can wait a while as we remember the man who taught us to live our lives on our own terms and bring passion to what we love to do. Jobs will be long remembered for his messianic streak and his ability to "think differently" - but I for one would like to remember him as a man who proved to us that though life's ups and downs it is passion and a belief in yourself that stands us in true stead. Thanks Steve, you are in a better place and thanks to you so are we.

The Bull On Britain

2011-10-06T22:21:00.001+05:30

The British Prime Minister David Cameron made and emphatic speech to the party faithful gathered at the Conservative Party's convention in Manchester. Amidst growing concerns of a double dip recession and an economy barely growing, the Prime Minister made an optimistic appeal to go back to winning ways of the days of yore. Perhaps the doom and gloom surrounding the news of the European debt crisis, joblessness, credit squeeze in most EU economies and banks and a growing sense of despair on how and what is the way out of the crisis, Cameron wanted to infuse optimism and statesmanship to a nation beleaguered. The realities of the state of Britain and it's future make for grimmer reading than how the British PM would like to believe. Questions on the future of immigration and it's capping, cuts in public spending and the seemingly fatal blow to the financial sector that made London the financial capital of world make a British return to the halcyon days of the Empire a distant dream. The social unrest of the summer, which some in the Government tried to pass of as no more than organised crime, was a sign of the state of deprivation. The British isles may not be fully integrate into the European Union, but the ripple effects of the economic crisis in the Continent have indeed hurt the British economy. Then again, the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is still something that the British tax payer is having to pay for. All things considered the British Prime Minister should be encouraged to rally his troops as it were but he should also not shy away from telling Britain the sad reality within which it exists. The British Bulldog may have a lot of fight in it, but it may have a bigger demons to face within than on the outside.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Location:Bapa Nagar Rd,New Delhi,India

Peace to Pieces

2011-09-23T09:41:00.001+05:30

The United States finds itself at a critical juncture over it's role and relevance as a negotiator and meditator in the protracted Middle-East conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. The Palestinian side has made it's intention of using the United Nation's General Assembly this year as a starting point for pushing towards recognition of a Palestinian State. The Palestinian Authority feels betrayed by the Obama Administrations inability or unwillingness to solve the Middle East crisis. Ironically, US president Barack Obama had made the Israel-Palestine issue one of his top most priorities when taking office in 2009. Unlike past Presidents, who have been accused of paying lip service or paying attention to late in their tenures to the issue, Obama made the right moves with a path breaking speech in Cairo, followed by the appointment of a high level administrator as Chief Negotiator. His tough stance on the hawkish Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu was seen by many as signs of an unshackling of US policy controlled largely by an aggressive pro-Israel lobby in the United States' Congress and politically influential organisations like the AIPAC. However, these manoeuvres made little difference to the perception in the Palestinian territories about the intent of the United States towards a two state solution. Two other parallel and unrelated events have led to this state of affairs. Obama's efforts and energies have invariably focused inwards towards domestic policy and in dealing with the aftermath of the financial crisis. Second, the Arab Spring has thrown out dictators through public demonstrations and little violence. There is a renewed sense of optimism that the Palestinian people themselves will need to do what it takes to attain full statehood. The United States' hands off policy towards the Arab Spring and to the events unfolding in Libya, where NATO and Atlantic Europe took the lead, betrayed a "do it yourself" approach by the United States towards countries crying out for change. The Arab Spring and the relative decline of the Saudi family. In affairs of the Middle East coupled with a rising and influential Turkey and Iran has only made things more complicated for the United States. It's friends and (dubious) allies both old (Mubarak) and new (Gaddafi) are gone and the newer incumbents have lesser patronage towards the United States than to European or Middle Eastern counterparts. In this scenario, the United States seems to have lost a key negotiating role in the affairs of the Middle East. With Presidential election scene gaining ground, Obama's attention will focus on re-election and boosting growth and jobs. The United States has betrayed signs of nervousness with a confusing and often contradictory speech by it's President at the United Nations General Assembly. The days of US hegemony in the Arab world and larger Middle East may soon be numbered.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Location:New Delhi

The Rat(h) Race

2011-09-13T14:12:00.003+05:30

The principal opposition party has sensed an opportunity in the aftermath of the Anna Hazare Lokpal campaign against the Government. The UPA and the its principal constituent the Congress Party have been badly bruised in the often one-sided campaign for an effective Lokpal Bill. While the proof of the pudding will lie in whether Parliament actually passes a draft that includes the terms and conditions of the Anna-wallahs, there is no denying the fact the the Congress has lost the perception battle in a key constituency that voted for it in the 2009 elections - that of the young urban voter. The urban voter looked at Manmohan Singh as an honest leader with impeccable credentials and someone who was the very antithesis of what embodies an Indian politician today. But with each passing year the halo and the Emperor's Clothes both have fallen wayside and the fig-leaf of personal integrity has not helped the Prime Minister who is seen as a Nero-like figure watching the Government implode under a barrage of scandals and resignations.

Many argue, and successfully at that, that the reason UPA-2 exists is given the disjointed nature of the Opposition in Parliament today. The BJP on its own is ineffective in altering the balance of power, while its coalition the NDA is seen as an experiment that is slowly fading from the political reality of today. The "others" have an on and off relationship with and against the Government with political expediency defining the currency of exchange and support. The Left bloc appears a shadow of its past strength and glory and in this situation has been a prime reason for Manmohan Singh retaining India's premiership. With hints of a mid-term poll sometime during or after the Uttar Pradesh state elections of 2012 the BJP has started planning a strategy to gauge its popularity amongst voters through a variety of means.

The old war horse of the BJP, LK Advani was first off the blocks with his announcement of another Rath Yatra, this time on corruption. The rath whose political mileage has considerably deteriorated still enamours the political behemoth whose own acceptability for the top job was roundly rejected in 2009. Advani may view the yatra from the optics of the Ram Janambhoomi agitation, but to many it seems myopic to see the political advantages in an old idea. The yatra though may serve as a useful tool for the BJP to judge how the response are for its tallest leader and if (as many predict) it falters, there still will be time for a recalibration of strategy. The news of the yatra has met with some predictable internal disquiet as well as sniggers from the media. One political cartoon shows a Arjun-esque Advani on a chariot going downhill with a signpost pointing down saying "1992" and another pointing in the opposite direction saying "2014". The Supreme Court's minor reprieve for Narendra Modi will also bolster talk of "Modi-for-PM" with many BJP supporters wanting a face to face contest between the Gujarat Chief Minister and the Crown Prince of the Congress party Rahul Gandhi. Both leaders of the opposition - Sushma Swaraj and Arun Jaitley remain contestants in this political reality show and the understated sniping will only increase as UPA-2 destabilises further with the Jan Lokpal Bill issue looking nowhere close to any resolution. One dark horse for the BJP remains Yashwant Sinha. The former Finance and Foerign Minister and ex-bureaucrat enjoys a clean reputation and is an experienced, articulate and erudite face for the BJP from the Hindi-belt. His protestations on issues and internal side-lining aside he could be a credible alternative to the usual list of suspects the BJP bandies about close to election time.

Given this uncertainty, one thing has emerged clearly that the BJP will need to project a leader for its top post given the Congress' virtual acceptance that Rahul Gandhi will be its candidate for the general elections. Also, the BJP for the remainder of its parliamentary term must constitute a shadow cabinet and assign key ministries to its front bench to project some semblance of a "government in waiting". This will project two messages for the party - one, the party is the principal opposition party in the parliament and second, voters would be clear on what the alternative to the UPA will look like much before the actual election itself. The rat race for the top job may have only just begun for the BJP but the party can ill-afford to put off the question of who its PM candidate is given that elections may be sooner than we think.

NRHM - Healthy Hits; Chronic Misses

2011-08-10T10:00:00.001+05:30

The National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) was launched on 12^th April 2005 by the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. The mission came out of the United Progressive Alliance’s Common Minimum Program to provide accessible, affordable and accountable quality health services even to the poorest households in the remotest rural regions. Special focus states were identified for a sustained thrust while the mission aimed at establishing a “fully functional, community owned, decentralized health delivery system with inter-sectoral convergence at all levels.” (from www.mohfw.nic.in) Additionally goals and targets were identified for the coming five years to encompass the Millennium Development Goals of the United Nations of which India is a signatory. These goals included reducing infant mortality and morbidity rates, improving institutional deliveries, immunizations, upgradation of rural health facilities, providing trained health professionals for all levels of care etc. At the structural level increased spending on health, improving access to health and health financing also fall under the ambit of the NRHM’s activities. The mission also aimed at decentralizing the delivery of healthcare by raising a trained workforce called the ASHA worker (Accredited Social Health Activist) who would liaise with Panchayats and Panchyati Raj institutions and ensure the last mile delivery of preventive and primary healthcare of rural areas of India. Critically, the program also subsumed the existing disease prevention programs like that of Polio, Malaria, Tuberculosis and HIV into the ambit of the NRHM.

This rather ambitious and overarching Mission has been in implementation for the past five years with the delivery mechanism monitored by the State Governments and a National body reviewing performance under the aegis of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India (for detailed architecture of NRHM see www.http://mohfw.nic.in/NRHM/Documents/Mission_Document.pdf). Half a decade on we look at some of the changes for the better that this scheme has made for the rural populace while also provide a critique of what the mission lacks in framework and implementation.

The Healthy Gains

The NRHM has made a notable change in improving health indicators across the country. For example, Infant Mortality Rate has fallen to 53 down by 4 points year on year since the Mission’s implementation. Institutional deliveries have increased manifold as have immunization numbers (from www.mohfw.nic.in/nrhm). At the same time out of pocket expenditure as a percentage of private expenditure on health has reduced from 87.9 in 2005 to 74.4 today while at the same time Maternal Mortality Rates have shown marginal improvements from 280 per 10,000 to 230 per 10,000 in the 2005-2010 period. These improvements do go a long way in improving the health of the nation and while India may not achieve all the goals of the Millennium Development Report, it will go a long way in improving our health status by the deadline of 2015.

Additionally, the decentralization of healthcare delivery and the involvement of the last mile governance institutions under the Panchayati Raj institutions has also been one major achievements of the NRHM. Rogi Kalyan Samitis (Patient Improvement/Redressal Cells) have come up at the Primary Health Centre (PHC) and Community Health Centre (CHC) levels with untied funds for improving the quality of health services. 8 lakh ASHA workers have been selected; 2 lakh of which have been trained. 77% villages have Village Health and Sanitation Committees to improve health and sanitation standards (data source NRHM webpage of Ministry of Health and Family Welfare). Along with this a strong IT bone has provided for real time data to be monitored by health officials in New Delhi and statistics are available for public viewing on the Ministry’s website. This transparency has been a welcome relief from Government initiatives of the past often implemented behind a veil of secrecy. All these are positive steps in the right direction that have been made possible by pro-active state governments who have allocated increased funds for the NRHM.

The Chronic Misses

Having looked at the positives, one must also evaluate some of the inherent failings on the implementation level and the structural flaws of the Mission architecture itself.

The Mission Itself

NRHM, commendably, has tried to bring all aspects of health – provisioning, financing, prevention, community health, disease prevention and surveillance, infrastructure upgradation under a single mission. The strength is also the mission’s biggest weakness. The silver bullet approach has led to certain areas getting more attention than the others. Whereas, the statistics quoted above are encouraging, the fact that the Millennium Development Report 2011 highlights those Sub-Saharan countries performed better on all counts than our regions even though so much expenditure has gone on public health through schemes like the NRHM is an eye opener (see The Millennium Development Report 2011). Then again, the crucial area infrastructure development and upgradation of existing facilities has lacunae’s countrywide. As compared to the BRIC nations beds per 10,000 people in India in 2005 was at 9, Brazil today is at 24, Russia at 97 (in 2006) and China at 41 (source www.who.int). This yawning gap has not been bridged by the NRHM, with tenders often being delayed, recalled or delays in completion and cost-overruns. Broadly speaking health infrastructure be it rural PHC’s, CHC’s, electrification of rural infrastructure, use of ICT in rural health, trained manpower, availability of drugs and equipment, ambulance facilities etc. have all been highlighted as laggards two years post the implementation of the NRHM by Bhandari and Dutta (India Infrastructure Report 2007). Further a White Paper by the Planning Commission itself has highlighted problems in physical infrastructure and uneven progress across the country (Gill 2009). New reports have also highlighted corruption and over-reporting from many states, and more recently the deaths of two CMO’s in UP made for sensational news stories (see News Stories link)

FUNDING & FINANCING

Another area needing attention is that of financing and funding for the NRHM. As part of the vision document for the NRHM, public spending on health was to increase from 0.9% to 2-3% of GDP by 2011. However, Governments own estimates peg the increased spending to between 1-1.5% at the moment (www.planningcommission.com). Then again on the monies spent, the Comptroller and Auditor General in its audit report of 2009-10 has highlighted that during 2007-08 the Ministry incorrectly released Rs. 174.84 crore under the Mission to four states thereby causing wastage to the exchequer (CAG Report No. 8 of 2009-10). The same report also highlights the “ineffective” implementation of the crucial e-banking initiative by the Ministry to make access to funds easier by on-ground institutions in villages. CAG has also been critical on the criteria for deciding outlays as the Ministry basis it on the total population rather than the total rural population thereby releasing excess funds to some states over the other (See Figure 1 and 2).

Health HR Crisis

The critical to success factor for NRHM was always the ability to raise a workforce to man the expanded infrastructure. Progress reports by the Governments of Jharkhand, Uttrakhand and Madhya Pradesh have all highlighted the need to address this. New medical and nursing colleges and paramedical training institutions have not kept pace the needs of the NRHM. A national mission level approach is required to ensure that a trained pool of health professionals is ready to ensure success. However, with the MCI and NCI recently being dissolved and the “rural MBBS” course far from finalized the prospect of a renewed focus on training and education remains far.

Complex Architecture

NRHM had put under its domain areas that were beyond the current scope of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. Cross-sectional and cross-ministerial issues like sanitation, nutrition, safe drinking water, health insurance etc. all involve multiple ministries and departments. Moreover, given the federal nature of our polity, charges of favoritism and negligence have been common in the news media. A combined effort from all under the aegis of the Ministry of Health was ambitious to begin with. Then again, the effort to bring all disease prevention and surveillance programs under the NRHM umbrella may end up reducing focus on one disease group from another (another aspect criticized by the CAG). What is the Government’s framework to allocate limited funds between HIV and Malaria, both equally serious conditions?

Role of the Private Sector

NRHM remains circumspect on the role of the private sector in partnering with the common cause of achieving the Mission’s targets. The mission document talks about “regulation of the private sector” on the one hand while also encouraging Public-Private Partnerships. Similarly, the use of private insurance and private micro-insurance has not been the mainstay of any of the mission’s initiative, this when the private sector accounts for over 60% of the provisioning of healthcare in the country and outspends public funding in healthcare. To cover a country as large as India, PPP’s and a model framework for engagement will be the step in the right direction. The NHS’ Private Finance Initiative and China’s use of private healthcare providers may be a useful starting point to study some options in funding and infrastructure creation as would the risk pooling models studied by the IFC in Nigeria, Senegal and Bangladesh over the past decade.

The gains from NRHM have been laudable, but the inherent structural weaknesses of the mission architecture need to alter greatly to achieve a quality healthcare system that is equitable, accessible and affordable

Mumbai Blasts - The Resilience Myth

2011-07-19T10:30:00.002+05:30

India was given a brutal reminder at the cost of 19 lives and scores injured of the real and present threat the country faces against organized terror groups. The city of Mumbai, mutilated and violated many times over, was again the cowardly venue for this mayhem, the innocent aam aadmi the spectacle in this interplay of blood and bombs. The response from stakeholders was so on predictable lines that it almost seemed farcical. The media went onto overdrive with its exclusive shots of blood and gore. Each one trying to outdo the other to invade the privacy of a victim coming to terms with a life altering episode. The politicians too spilled the usual humdrum about terror suspects, the role of our neighbors, the need to stay calm and other such banalities; while the police went hammer and tongs with its premature theories and half baked judgments on the what-how-whom of the terror atrocity. Film stars of all standings were seen expressing their solidarity with the cause while one Badshah of Bollywood celebrated the night away over the success of his newly launched film rather ironically titled You Wont Get your Life Back in Hindi. This mind numbing repetitious outpouring of well rehearsed lines and roles was nauseating as one could not differ this atrocity from the other. It seems that dates and years change, yet our attitudes and responses remain unchanged. The ultimate sacrilege that was committed was to bandy about the famed 'spirit of Mumbai' and its resilience which saw the city going back on its feet in under a day. This absurd logic seems only relevant to the attacks in Mumbai. For one never hears the resilience of the Amarnath Yatri who makes the ecclesiastical sojourn year on year braving bullets and existential threats to them and their loved ones. Delhi too frequents the minds of terror planners, and more recently a crude device went off at the High Court. One did not hear a whiff of resilience for the Dilli-wallah from the media, or was it that the involvement of lawyers lessened the crime! The fact of the matter remains that while terror atrocities are committed at the free will of terror groups, the country will limp back to normalcy. What remains stubbornly high on the agenda of most households is the price of daily essentials and the pursuit of a decent standard of living. Losing a life and a limb, today seems as a part of the "game" along with corruption and overcrowding. The oxymoronic resilience is actually an apathy. A sense of despair that even though the next victim maybe me or my loved one, it cannot stop me from pursuing a life that is an endless cycle of pain and woes. One would be happy to see "civil society" and "religo-political" leaders take a stronger stand on terror and the root causes of terror as they do for corruption and a free and fair society. And one would like the political leaders to better understand the psyche of India, where nihilistic citizens are not resilient and brave because they can be, it is because in the apathy surrounding them, William Thackeray summed it up well by saying that "bravery never goes out of fashion".

The Rise of the Republicans

2011-06-14T16:28:00.003+05:30

The race for the White House is warming up with the opposition Republican Party candidates throwing their collective hats in the ring to take on the daunting yet not undefeatable Barack Obama. The past four years have been one of political hara-kiri by the Republican Party. Much to the credit of George Bush and the allure of power, the Republicans presented a united front during the eight years of the Bush Presidency. Whatever differences, were over nuance and a party member who radically disagreed was taken to be a maverick or a centrist at worst trying to appeal to a new constituency or fire up his or her existing one. The Obama ascendency started the internecine war within the Republicans for whom perhaps the loss of the Presidency and the Congress was too much to take. Add to that the gloom and fatigue over the body count and tab of two wars overseas and a tanking economy saw the Republicans breaking rank on hitherto solid policy principles. The breakout of the Tea Party campaign saw a motley group of small-government advocates taking on the Democratic President's appeal to voters for a larger Governmental say in financial institutions and healthcare. There are the 'birthers', the radical and mildly racist group that believe President Obama was not born in the United States and hence this Presidency is 'null and void'. Another group broke away from the party line and took on the healthcare plan of the President with great gusto. While at the same time a group mutinied against the Republican Party chief Michael Steele over his handling of the party post the 2008 defeat. In short, the Republicans have been a party in disarray with little common direction and too many voices muddling any coherent strategy to take on the Democrats.

While this is not to suggest that the President has not has his share of troubles, the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico, a slow and uneven recovery, stalemate in the Middle-East, uprisings and overthrow of American back dictators in the "Arab Spring", a healthcare plan vilified by the Left and Right and frequent departures by the Obama inner circle. All this has ensured that the shining beacon of hope that embodied the President along with the halo of invincibility appeared illusionary like a hot tar road under the Indian summer sun. The challengers that have now come to the fore are a mix of the old and new. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is a Presidential race veteran and clearly the front runner. Others include Governor Pawlenty, Representative Michele Bachmann, Senator Rick Santorum and Ex-Speaker Newt Gingrich (who much like Fred Thompson, seems like a has been before even before the starting line up was getting ready). Representative Ron Paul has come in again and former Alaska Governor and politics' very own reality TV star Sarah Palin remains a possible candidate. All these candidates present a visible challenge to Obama on the home front. The theme will remain the economy and the President will be challenged on the economic recovery, job growth, the rise of the BRICS and the state of the banks and financial institutions apart from budget cuts, spending on Medicare and Medicaid and healthcare reform.

Ironically for President Obama his biggest achievement on any front has been overseas. The killing of terror mastermind Osama bin Laden was courageous and roundly applauded by the world; his hand of friendship to the Muslim world in Cairo was akin to Reagan's "bring down this wall" moment while his RESTART policy with Russia lowered rising temperatures between the US and Russia which rose during the Bush-Putin entente. Lastly, the relative peace in Iraq and the message of non-proliferation in Prague were well appreciated. There have been hiccups though, the policy with China remains a mixed bag, while America's reliance on oil and Saudi Arabia as its biggest provider, remains an area of concern; further, the Israel-Palestine dialogue has hit a hard dead end and the Arab Spring and Libyan crisis has seen a confused response from the President. The biggest focus for the President remains internal and domestic policy, where Obama is at his weakest while on foreign policy, where he augurs well, the administration chooses to downplay any of its achievements. This strange dichotomy represents the major challenge for the Obama re-election campaign managers. If they focus on the economy, a key concern of the constituents, they get walloped, while if they talk about foreign policy achievements, the President downplays the message.

It is this fork in the road that the Republican candidates must and will target. It is easy to forget in the momentous nature of the Obama victory in 2008 that 47% of Americans voted for his rival John McCain, if the same 47% galvanize against Obama and behind one single candidate (who is yet to emerge) the going may get tough for the President. The President will be portrayed as the flashy salesman who overpromised and under delivered by his rivals and the voters who looked at him for a clean break will be made to convince that your man was fibbing. Obama, for many, has gone from agent of change to a agent who changed post the victory. In such a political space the race for the White House is not sedate as many would believe and the President is not infallible as it may seem 18 months from voting day.

Reform or perish - the race for the IMF chief

2011-06-08T10:08:00.001+05:30

The visit of the French Finance Minister Christine Lagarde to India marked the beginning of the campaign for finding a successor to the deposed ex-chief Dominic Strauss-Kahn. Ms. Lagarde is a strong contender for the position and is considered well qualified for the job, with a wide acceptability across the political and Atlantic divide. It seems that in the absence of a strong counter candidate, the French will ensure that the IMF continues to be steered by a Continental representative. The unseemly manner of the previous head's ouster had ignited a valuable debate on whether the IMF and other international monetary agencies should be allowed to run on a pre-colonial mandate. The rise of the BRICS and the relative decline of European supremacy, especially after the Great Recession of 2008, makes it imperative for global political and economic leaders to make a bold stride towards reform. However, the response from European leaders and the United States has been on expected lines. The Germans have strongly opposed any change in the current arrangement where the IMF is run by a European and the World Bank by an American. The Obama administration too has made conflicting statements on the need for reform.

The World Bank and the IMF, therefore, are seeming more like the United Nations post the 2003 Iraq invasion - a behemoth whose administrative machinations make it slumber through most major economic and financial crises while reform is taken to mean lip service to keep the developing nations in good humour. India has done well to offer no carte blanche to Lagarde in succeeding to the top post 'just' because Lagarde is well Lagarde. India along with other near-developed nations have done their bit to ensure that the recession of 2008 did not result in a complete meltdown of the global economic order, and for far too long we have put up with perverse conditionalities on loans and economic assistance to not even question the need for debate on reform. Any radical change may seem unlikely, but India must link its support to any candidate based on a firm time-bound commitment to reform the troubled bank.

Create a crisis; get one free

2011-06-06T12:48:00.000+05:30

The events over the weekend regarding the protests by Yoga Guru Ramdev and his followers have boomeranged on the Government terribly. The facts and analysis of what this group of "civil society" asked for will forever be overshadowed by the disproportionate use of force used against a largely peaceful protest. The fact that the Government dilly-dallied on the hard-cop versus soft-cop approach ensured that they will forever be condemned for mishandling this crisis. The come down also brings to fore a telling tale of Governmental over-reach and selective reading of the law. It seems the freedom to protest peacefully is to be selectively applied based on the political leaning's of the group in question. The protest by Anna Hazare's camp was pussy-footed by the Government, whereas the Government's response to this recent protest against corruption had observers drawing exaggerated parallels with the Jallianwala Bagh. Either way, the Government seems to be looking weak and indecisive and at the same time seems to be indulging in paying only lip-service on the issue of corruption which has roiled the current dispensation. With bureaucratic lock-down and a political impasse it seems that the Prime Minister will have to change tracks radically else succumb to the ever increasing chorus of demands for him to step down.

Friedman on the 'Lessons from Tahrir Square'

2011-05-26T11:44:00.001+05:30

Friedman on the 'Lessons from Tahrir Square'

The Headley-Rana Trial

2011-05-26T11:30:00.000+05:30

The Headley-Rana trial on in Chicago on the terror activities of the two men have thrown up startling confirmations of what were hitherto spoken with guarded preconditions. The ISI and the Pakistani Army have been arming, plotting and waging a internecine war against our nation through proxy fronts. The Headley deposition is important as it links directly the ISI-Army and the terror groups that waged havoc in Mumbai in 2008. What is the worth remembering is that Pakistan has neither professed to giving up on extending support to PoK based terror groups neither has it made any attempts to curb infiltration across the Line of Control. Moreover, the killing of terror mastermind Osama bin Laden has only upped the ante within the ISI-Pakistani establishment to step up activities on Pakistan's eastern theater. All this happens as India makes a ham-handed attempt at cricket diplomacy, peace overtures and diplomatic engagement both covert and overt. Lawmakers must realize that in the chaos and inconsistency that is Pakistan, there is one consistent anti-India stance adopted by the ISI and the country's army.

It is high time that we look beyond the friendship doctrine and adopt a more guarded and radical view of Pakistan. Our friend and defense partner Israel has rightly made the issue of internal security and national boundaries inter-twined into their foreign and defense policy. India must push for the PoK to become a buffer zone since it is a proven launching pad for terror attacks against India. The PoK must be manned by international forces since Pakistan has failed to meet its self-stated commitment of ensuring no territory under its control is used for terror activities. India is already on the back-foot with its embarrassing slip up on the most wanted list which was subsequently withdrawn, similarly, the Prime Minister has made improved relations with Pakistan a top priority irrespective, it seems, of our neighbour's track record. To paraphrase an old one-liner - verify, and then trust not the other way round.

Rahul Gandhi and the rent-a-cause

2011-05-19T13:05:00.001+05:30

Rahul Gandhi has made rent-a-cause his political ideology. If he is not a farmer's voice on one day he becomes the youth icon talking issues to university students. Other causes include mining, environment, poverty, rural health and corruption. Ironically, all issues that he has spoken about seem to stem from the ineptitude of the UPA government of whom his party the Congress is the mainstay. While, it is entirely right for Mr. Gandhi to represent causes that may be of interest to him, what is disappointing is the results of his intervention. The "voice of the tribals in New Delhi" ensures that the Niyamgiri mining work comes to a halt without providing for a suitable alternative in terms of policy. Similarly, land acquisition remains a contentious bill which was paid only lip service to by Mr. Gandhi during his press brief on Monday, a similar fate meets of corruption, where the Gandhi scion has not condemned the DMK for the gargantuan corruption that was overseen in the 2G scam. While one wishes that the youth icon raises the level of political discourse towards a more in-depth approach rather than sound-bite politics, the recent antics of Mr. Gandhi do not offer much hope.

Tale of Two Women

2011-05-16T14:37:00.001+05:30

The stunning victories by two very remarkable women in Indian politics will be the story for days to come. Each in their own right has set a precedent of perseverance getting the ultimate political victory of becoming Chief Ministers of their respective states. Also, the fact that Mamta Bannerjee and Jayalalitha could keep together a coherent regional party while being out of power for what seemed like eons shows the tenacity and political ability of both women. But with the adulation that is rightly theirs, there is no denying the fact that the old cliche of "winning was the easy bit" hold true. Both women are tainted with individual weakness, for the mercurial Mamta it is her no holds barred cannonball approach to politics in a state that needs prudent policies and reconciliation, while for politically vindictive Jayalalitha the difference in the perceived corruption between her and the DMK is only of magnitude. It is common knowledge that both the DMK and AIADMK are corrupt, only that the DMK took the level of corruption to an (hopefully) unsurmountable level. The test and challenge for the begins now, they have shown grit and resilience, but whether they are ready for the long haul remains to be seen.

The Osama Experiment

2011-05-02T10:04:00.001+05:30

With the killing of the Al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden nearly a decade after the horrific terror attacks of 9/11 marks the end of a tragic and dubious 30 year old chapter in geo-politics and American foreign policy. The passing away of bin Laden is a huge psychological boost for the United States battling a 'war against terror' on many fronts and still looking to avenge the painful events of September 11th. That bin Laden came to symbolize the face of Islamic extremism made it all the more important for the Americans to "get him". A decade after he was declared the most wanted person in the United States, the US can take cold comfort from the fact they did finally get their man. This event of mammoth proportions will also boost the fortunes of President Obama who will come out looking like a tough leader, not dithering on getting America's most infamous villain. But the killing of Osama must also bring to fore a few inconvenient truths. First, that Osama was found to be in a compound in Abbotabad in Pakistan is disturbing but not surprising. America's most trusted ally, Pakistan has been and continues to remain the biggest hindrance to a successful global campaign against Islamic extremism. This fact is well articulated by military leaders from the United States, but aid and support continues to be given in the form of guns and cash. Second, the killing of Osama is the end of a failed experiment that the United States unleashed on its erstwhile Cold War rival, the USSR. Pegged to take on the Soviets in Afghanistan, the experiment went horribly wrong when the monster the US created turned on its master with disastrous consequences for the entire world. Thirty years on from the time when Osama and his nascent organization the Al-Qaeda was supported by the US tax payer, thousands have lost their lives and countries have been ruined in the so called 'war against terror'. Indeed our whole way of life has changed thanks to the events leading up to 9/11 and in the events' aftermath. Thirdly, Osama's death is not like a general's defeat on a battle field that will lead to the end of a war. Osama and Al-Qaeda's agenda has become a message or movement rather than an armed struggle. His perverted interpretation of Islam and Jihad will continue to resonate in trouble spots across the world be it the Middle East, North Africa, the Caucuses or in Kashmir. We must not be led to believe that the fight against extremism is over. The movement may have hit its biggest crisis with the killing of bin Laden, it is by no means over. All things considered, May 2nd will go down in the history of the world when a man driven by a perverse ideology that killed millions and destroyed lives was finally brought to justice in a hail of gunfire.

Sachin is India, India is Sachin

2011-04-07T14:37:00.000+05:30

Much has been said and even more written on the greatest sporting victory of our generation. Winning the World Cup after a span of 28 years was and will be considered, a stupendous achievement for all times to come. The players, rightly glorified into a pantheon of demi-Gods will forever be remembered as the "men who got us the Cup". A whole new generation of budding cricketers would want to emulate the achievements of 2011 in the decades to come and in winning the World Cup, the team has done 50-overs cricket a great favor by keeping it relevant in the day and age of Twenty-20 and its countless leagues and variants. The team, led by its magnificent captain, have been assessed by a variety of scholarly lenses - economically, psychologically, sociologically and through sports management. All observers and commentators have tried to explain the team, its successes and failures as a larger representation of India and where we stand today. A more deep lens view would lend us to understand the phenomenon even better if we were to analyze the trials and tribulations of arguably the greatest cricketer of all times Sachin Tendulkar.

Even a cursory glance at this legends' achievements leaves the observer astounded. With 99 first-class centuries and dozens of thousands of runs under his belt, the argument whether he is "the" best or "one of the best" is facile. Given the longevity of his playing career and the sheer impact on all forms of the game, with figures that would make any statistician sweat, it is fair to say that he is one of a kind, once in a lifetime, once in a century sporting legend. While the argument and counter-argument on greatness and what attributes that paradigm are important, they also do great disservice to a deeper understanding of the cricketer and his times. Drowning arguments in cold statistics and ratios and wagon wheels is akin to being on a merry-go-round of futility. A deeper more in-depth look at this modern day legend helps us better slot him in his relevance.

When Sachin debuted for India in 1989 as a frizzy haired teen ager, India was in the depths of a crisis - both on an off the cricketing field. On the field - the rivalries between Gavaskar, Kapil Dev and Mohmamad Azharuddin were taking its toll on India's performance, while off the field, India was in the midst of a political crisis with the collapse of the Rajiv Gandhi government followed in quick succession by the Janta experimentations. India was economically on its knees with insurmountable debt that required us to put our gold reserves as security to obtain a loan. The refreshing change that Tendulkar brought about with his approach, soft-spoken demeanor, sheer talent and understated brilliance left the country impressed. As the years went on India and Indian cricket too changed. With Azhar at the helm of affairs, India made slow but steady progress on the cricketing field, led ably by the likes of Tendulkar and Co. On the political field, Manmohan Singh was marking a break from the morass of Socialism to adopt the free-market approach that would steer India onto the path of fundamental economic and socio-political change.

By the mid-90's free market economics and Tendulkar's place in the team was well established. The team made progress on the field and India was marching along nicely. Just when things were going right, both India and the cricketing world plunged into chaos with political instability post the elections in 1996 and Manoj Prabhakar's allegations on match fixing in Sharjah that led to the constitution of the Chandrachud commission in 1997. All through this, India and Tendulkar put its head down and ensured that the economic and sporting opportunities were not left untended. India finally had a stable government in 1999 with the NDA regime and the victory in Kargil and India's performance in the 1999 World Cup in England was a modest success with India reaching the super-sixes only to lose to a dominant Australia.

The new millennia ushered an era of prosperity and progress for India, its citizens and in its standing in the world stage. Sachin too, forgot the poor stint as captain and achieved most records in the game and went on to become the bulwark of the Indian batting - indeed it was not a far stretch to say that when he got out, most of us switched off the telly remorsefully as we knew our fate was sealed in that moment. The successes that led to us finally becoming World Cup winners and a respectable emerging global power was one of hard work, diligence and innovation in the midst of corruption and scandal on the political and sporting arenas. Tendulkar best embodies that spirit that has taken us from the Third World to the emerging superpower bracket and today when one debates whether he should be awarded the Bharat Ratna or not, the argument seems so parochial, because Sachin represents the rise of India, more particularly the rise of middle-India, so whether we want to honour him with the title or not, it does not take away from the fact the Sachin represents the best amongst us, that indomitable spirit that is humble even though he is worth millions, sincere even though he has achieved it all and hard-working even though he can demand a place in the team. He presents the ideal that we must aspire to be yet he embodies the story and the rise of India through the past two decades. More than the 'ratna' - Sachin is the symbol of India. Whether we bestow that honour is immaterial, let's at least salute him in the context that we must.

WikiLeaks–How not to handle a crisis?

2010-12-08T18:15:00.001+05:30

The WikiLeaks cable dump has been steadily coming out with revelation after revelation that has embarrassed governments, blown multiple myths and shown many governments in a bad light. Right from the concerns of Arab leaders over Iran’s nuclear program, to the more tongue-in-cheek references by US diplomats of world leaders – WikiLeaks has left the US administration and the State Department in particular blushing. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton’s multiple phone calls to important world leaders underlined the sense of embarrassment that US felt over the leak itself and then on the contents of the leaks. Many argue that the leaks will do long term damage to American diplomats’ reputation and ability to get world leaders to candidly speak to them. This may indeed hamper the ability of the Americans to gather information and also make diplomats' themselves wary of being unkind in cables that may leak in future events of this nature.

Fareed Zakaria, in his latest article in the Time Magazine argues that the leaks have actually enhanced the reputation of America and her diplomats. He argues that much of what has appeared is exactly what is espoused by the US as its stated foreign policy. What is embarrassing is the hypocritical views taken by many countries like those in the Middle East, Pakistan, China among other in their stated public statements and what is put on the table in private. This expose, though embarrassing is beneficial to the Americans in the long term, argues Zakaria. This line of thought has its merits but has been countered by many on the grounds that foreign governments may want to keep an arms distance from American diplomats and therefore harm American interests in the long-term. The jury is still out on this fundamental question – whether America has benefited or harmed with the leaks.

What has been disconcerting is the manner in which the US has followed through with each subsequent leak. The US first issued plain threats, followed by squeezing the site’s financial lifelines and even taking it off for a few hours. Charges against the site’s founder, Julian Assange have been played up and the whole issue is seeming like a bit of a witch-hunt in the eyes of netizens and freedom of speech advocates across the world. While sounding out foreign governments (as Clinton did) and then largely ignoring the leaks (like the Afghan and Iraq War Logs) was the correct way of handling the entire issue (unless more revelations are too damning to let the leaks be allowed to continue). The more recent attempts to silence Assange and the website will only leave the US with a dented image worldwide. The beacon of freedom and democracy cannot be seen resorted to arm-twisting and threats when it is in the dock. The quicker the US government realises the faster it can move into damage control.

World Cup '18 and '22 - Of Losers and Reactions

2010-12-06T11:36:00.002+05:30

It has been nearly a week since Russia and Qatar were awarded the 2018 and 2022 football World Cups respectively by FIFA. The reaction to these results has been markedly divided in the coverage that one witnessed in the Indian and Western news publications. While publications in India and those of Asia were excited at the prospect of the World Cup coming to Asia and more so the Middle East, the response from the Western media has been nothing short of rude and at times bordering racism. Many news reports showed similar skepticism that was displayed during the run up to South Africa's hosting of this year's World Cup and the unfavourable coverage Beijing got in 2008 for its hosting of a very successful Olympics. The sheer "shock and horror" that England was booted out in the first round of voting reflects a mindset set in a sense of entitlement to host the biggest sporting event in the world. Similarly, losing out to a nation like Qatar was much reviled with racist overtones thrown in. It was also regrettable that a country like Russia was so crudely called a "Mafia State" without any hesitation. The reportage and the sense of outrage especially in the English media belies a sense of nervousness and inferiority that the Western world finds itself in in the face of a rising Asia and Middle East. On another issue, questions are often asked about how a country like Russia or Qatar can afford the costs of hosting such an event. It would be prudent to ask countries that put such questions, whether given the current economic climate any country can afford to host such gala sporting events. Why single out host countries on this?

This mindset will in the long run only create divisions rather than unite people which is the underlying spirit behind sporting events like the World Cup and the Olympics. While FIFA has much to answer for on its voting rules and the opaque nature of its operations, however, it must also be lauded for resisting the considerable pressure from the Western media in bravely granting the World Cup to countries that have never hosted this event in the larger interest of the sport.

Iraq Inquiry - Too Little Too Late

2010-01-30T10:26:00.000+05:30

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair's appearance at the Iraq Inquiry was much awaited and much watched. The world tuned in to see one part of the duo that made the most controversial decision of the past decade - to invade Iraq. The visitor's enclosure had families of fallen soldiers, anti-war activists, Blair supporters and advisers and journalists apart from the millions that watched with rapt attention from home. The questioning went on for hours and touched upon various aspects of the decision to go to war against Iraq. The legal issues, preparations, role of the UN, possibilities of a "covert" deal between Blair and Bush and intelligence over WMD's all formed part of the questioning that Blair endured. However, as we have seen in his active political life, 'Teflon' Tony did not let one charge stick on him, carefully deflecting allegations and passing off many assertions as innuendos. The decision to invade Iraq on the pretext of the country possessing weapons of mass destruction was taken in 2003. The world has indeed moved on and one felt that the proceedings at the Inquiry seemed anachronistic to our present times. The lay public has already made up its mind on the decision to invade. Blairites still firmly believe that the decision was one taken in the best interest of the world, and naysayers are convinced that Blair, eager to toe the American line, sacrificed objectivity and national interest for a larger strategic alliance. So, what exactly does the Inquiry intend to 'prove'? It has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that the intelligence was faulty and the US-UK alliance was keen to take out Saddam Hussein in any eventuality. A long winded Inquiry coming to the same conclusions seems pointless and a bit late in the day, while Teflon Tony lives to fight another day.

The Sharm Al-Sheikh Scare

2009-07-17T11:29:00.000+05:30

The Indian and Pakistani Prime Ministers met at the Egyptian town of Sharm Al-sheikh on the sidelines of the NAM summit, a meet which was billed as an occasion where India would read the riot act to Pakistan following the latter’s failure to prosecute terror perpetrators and take any action on the executioners of the 26/11 attacks. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had set himself high standards by talking tough to Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari over a month ago, when they last met in Russia as part of the SCO summit delegates. The outcome of the Egyptian round of talks, however, have been disappointing. Much to the dismay of many Indians, the prime minister bargained too much and got precious little in return. India has recognized, right from the Havana round of talks in 2006, that Pakistan suffers equally from the specter of terror as much as India. This contentious recognition is lop-sided given that India suffers directly from terror perpetrated, planned and executed by elements on Pakistani soil. Pakistan has vacillated from this assertion by terming terrorists alternately as “freedom fighters”, “non-state actors” amongst other terms to deny India the right to see these criminals being brought to justice. Additionally, while the prime minister’s spin doctors are quick to point out that Kashmir has been taken out of the declaration, a quick read of the document shows it to be very much present with the statement talking about India’s readiness to “discuss all issues with Pakistan, including all outstanding issues”. Then again, India has “de-linked” talks with terror; amazingly, the exact opposite has been India’s assertion for years, no talks till terror stops. The statement goes further to include Balochistan in the dimension of bilateral talks, a clear red-herring like the previous Joint Anti-Terror Mechanism that shifts focus from Pakistan to India as an equal perpetrator of terror and mischief in its neighbors affair. The effect of this inclusion will be profound and work against Indian interest, for we have now, on record, recognized Balochistan to be an issue that requires bilateral diplomacy rather than terming it as an internal matter of Pakistan.

Diplomacy and foreign policy is driven by the twin principles of pragmatism and national interest. A third variable may be trust based on bedrock of evidence. At the moment India’s policy towards Pakistan seems to fly in the face of all three principles. The Havana round of talks of 2006 were preceded by the train bombings of 7/11 in Mumbai, when the prime minister talked tough, albeit on Indian soil or on board his aircraft, only to capitulate in Havana and setting up the contentious Joint Terror Mechanism, which was given a decent burial after Pakistan used it as a bargaining chip against India. We initiated numerous ‘people to people’ contacts through rail and bus links only to be betrayed by Pakistan last year with the most devastating and daring 26/11 terror attacks in Mumbai. The prime minister then solemnly held that talks with Pakistan will not resume till the terror infrastructure is removed from Pakistan and that the Pakistani establishment ends support, covert and overt, to Pakistani terror groups. Months have elapsed since a dossier indicting suspects in Pakistan have been handed over to our neighbor, only to see it indulge in double speak and indulge in the most vile sleight of hand. The question that arises to most minds is why after repeated betrayals by Pakistan, does our prime minister offer a hand of friendship to Pakistan? What material benefit has India got from this unnecessary kids glove approach to our neighbor? And more importantly, where does the prime minister see Indo-Pak relations in the coming five years, given the Pakistani track record of the past five?

No Charisma? Don\'t Worry, You Can Still Be a Leader

2009-07-12T12:54:00.000+05:30

No Charisma? Don\'t Worry, You Can Still Be a Leader

Railways: Financial Surpluses' and Political Deficits

2009-07-12T12:21:00.001+05:30

The furore over the real status of surplus' at the Railways Ministry has become a mudslinging match between the current incumbent and her predecessor. The Congress-led UPA government has maintained a stoic silence with the Prime Minister not willing to comment on the issue of what is the truth about the Railways financial health. Railways Minister Mamta Bannerjee has raised doubts over the claims made by her predecessor over the surplus achieved under his reign and has pegged the actual surplus at a much lower number. This confirms the doubts raised throughout Laloo Yadav's reign that his actual achievement was clever accounting practices and good public relations rather than a year on year growth unseen since the inception of the railways in post independence India.

The Congress Party has approached the issue by adopting a political perspective. Laloo does not seems to have become a liability rather than an asset given his poor showing in the Lok Sabha elections and given the Congress' intent to revive the party in Bihar. Also, Mamta is the current flavour of the month in the corridors of power given her potential to upstage the Left in West Bengal in 2011. What is regrettable is that this is a good example of how the Congress mixes politics with governance. The UPA cannot suddenly disown the performance and figures of its previous minister in favour of its current incumbent based on political expediency. If the former ministers figures are incorrect an audit and White Paper must be considered and facts must surface as to how the government backed numbers that were clearly fudged. And if Laloo's figures are indeed true, the present Minister must own up and apologize. Ministers come and go, but institutions remain, they cannot be subject to political whims by the ruling party of the day. The truth must come out.

The Railways Budget Rebuttal

2009-07-07T20:19:00.002+05:30

An excellent rebuttal by Arun Jaitley, the Leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha to the Railways Budget of 2009-2010. Read it here, will the main stream media please highlight some very pertinent facts raised in this rebuttal?

Walk The Talk with Brajesh Mishra

2009-06-17T01:06:00.001+05:30

Random Musings: Indian Healthcare

2009-06-16T13:49:00.000+05:30

Apropos to the piece by Dr. Devi Shetty titled, Healthcare's grand reformation (Indian Express, June 16th), the eminent author has done well to highlight some of the issues that need the urgent attention of reformers and policymakers. However, Dr. Shetty has tended to focus on the financing aspect of the healthcare quandary and has referred to the US system, which sadly is not only the world's most expensive and inefficient, it is also the least equitable. The US has more than 44 million uninsured or underinsured people and spends over a trillion dollars to take care of its people. The litany of problems of that system are legendary and we would be better off not going down the American way.

It would be better if our policymakers look at the Bismarckian model of healthcare in practice in Europe. The social insurance network that the government has mandated allows both public and private hospitals to exist as providers, while allowing people in networks to buy insurance to pay for it. Dr. Shetty makes a reference to it through his successful Yeshawini scheme. Since health is a state subject, this social insurance can allow states to define what network people get into, be it at the district level or at a block or panchayat level. This scheme allows for multiple payers while at the same time allowing private competition both in insurance and in hospitals.

Secondly, Dr. Shetty has not pointed out the dismal spending on health by the Government of India. India spends a paltry 1% of its GDP, when more developed countries spend anywhere between 7-9% of their GDP. The World Health Organization recommends as 6% to be spent on health, clearly we have a long way to go before we achieve those levels.

Thirdly, there is a genuine need for the insurance network/market to gain ground for it can then allow the government to remove itself from the more capital intensive tertiary level hospitals and look at an extensive network of primary and secondary health care which provides preventative and accident and emergency care amongst other things. Today, the government is in a pointless competition with private players for the tertiary care "market" often at the cost of primary health care. The WHO had called for a strengthening of the primary health network in its 2008 annual report and it needs to be the focus of the current government.

Lastly, the explosion of the "mom and pop" clinics and nursing homes needs to be curbed. These are often manned by under-trained personnel with profiteering as their sole motive. A strong lobby ensures their continuity at all levels of the health care pyramid. A strong primary and secondary care network can help alleviate some of the problems that have manifested themselves as a result of this booming 'sector'.

Private healthcare needs encouragement but so does affordable healthcare. The mythical 'ideal' health system which has the triad of - affordability, quality and access does not exist anywhere in the world. All three of those attributes cannot exist at the same time. But the current malaise in the health sector needs to be addressed urgently and Dr. Shetty's prescription is a welcome step in the right direction.

Annals of Medicine: The Cost Conundrum: newyorker.com

2009-06-12T02:18:00.001+05:30

Dt. Atul Gawande's experience from McAllen, Texas on why the cost of healthcare is soaring in the US. Makes for grim reading.

Annals of Medicine: The Cost Conundrum: newyorker.com

Shared via AddThis

: KAL's cartoon | The Economist

2009-06-11T22:21:00.001+05:30

The American Healthcare mess in one brilliant cartoon:

: KAL's cartoon | The Economist

Shared via AddThis

Brown and Out

2009-06-05T17:35:00.003+05:30

"If an injury has to be done to a man, it should be done so severe that his vengeance need not be feared" - Niccolo Machiavelli

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown must be ruing over the words of the great political mind that was Machiavelli as he battles to save his two year old premiership. The tumultuous rise and fall of Brown will surely be taught to students of political science and history in years to come. Here is a supremely talented man, who many felt was kept unfairly sidelined by the more charismatic rival Tony Blair, only to assume office and look like a complete novice in the job. Britain had many expectations out of Brown, but they find the New Labour government under him battered, bruised and hemorrhaging ministers.

The litany of problems under Brown are endless. Starting the 10p tax row to the more seedy muck raking by aides against his political rivals, Brown's premiership has witnessed much and them some. The proverbial last straw came with the Daily Telegraph's expose/investigation into the expenses of MP's and Cabinet Ministers that shamed the political class. Though, we in India are used to acts of omission and commission from our elected representatives, the British consider their politicians useless, if anything, but not money raking machines as the Telegraph so proved. Ministers have been shown to charge the official coffers for items such has property rents to more inane items like curtains, prams, nappies and even pornographic magazines. While in the normal course of a country and its polity, these revelations would not have caused the outrage they did, but given the downturn in the economy and rising unemployment, knowing that your MP is charging the tax payer for the upkeep of their lifestyles rather than ensuring the tax payers interest have led to this current national mood. Indeed, a Telegraph cartoon captured the mood well, with two much maligned bankers talking to one another and comforting in the fact that "at least we are not MP's"!

The trouble for Brown began much before this recent crisis, soon after taking over office, their were calls from all quarters - his aides, the media and political rivals, that Brown should call a general election so that his anointment after Blair's departure had a public mandate. Brown dithered, and lost public confidence who saw him less than astute in matters of politics. The cruel punch in the stomach, however, was the credit crisis and the recession. Having spent a decade in the Treasury, Brown was seen as the man with the requisite talent and skills set to steer Britain through the tough economic climate. Many world leaders praised his handling of the bank nationalisation and his attempts to build a global coalition to handle the crisis. But as sordid stories of executive pays packets, nepotism by the government and rising unemployment made its way to the headlines, people began to see Brown as the problem rather than solution. His star has faded ever since, with even minor setbacks - be it in local polls or in international diplomacy being magnified to show his overall inefficiency.

However, the biggest mistake, at least in hindsight seems to be Brown's move to install Blairites in his cabinet. This was seen a reconciliatory move to pacify and unite the party which was split down the middle. This act of unity has spectacularly backfired as not only have most Blairite ministers quit the Cabinet, thereby making Brown's position untenable, they have followed the "if I go, I will take you with me" approach. In resignation letter after resignation letter, ministers have seriously doubted Brown's leadership credentials and have suggested that he does the Labour party more harm than good by staying on as Prime Minister. Given this opposition from within and a virulent opposition benches with a younger shadow cabinet, Brown finds himself staring down the barrel.

Brown may have some political steam left in him to see him through this crisis, he can claim that he cleaned up the Cabinet as soon as the Telegraph story became public. He can also argue that the country needs stability and reform in this hour of crisis. But the more he repeats this, the more he resembles the Emperor sans his clothes. The wind in the sails of New Labour has gone, as has the motivation of fellow companions in the party and government. Brown needs to be realistic and realize that his time is now over, the sooner he leaves, the faster the country can begin afresh and decide which direction it wants to take as we enter a new decade in the Twenty-First century.

Arun Jaitley chosen the new leader in the Rajya Sabha

2009-06-04T02:44:00.003+05:30

The BJP elects BJP General Secretary as the new leader of the opposition in the Upper House. Mr. Jaitley's take on the move.

Between a rock and a hard(line) place

2009-06-03T01:38:00.007+05:30

The election defeat has stunned the BJP into silence and much introspection. While leaders like Arun Jaitley and Venkiah Naidu have voiced some of the opinions in the party over the shock defeat, the party is yet to come out with a complete post-mortem of the events that led to the poor show. The big existential dilemma for the party is where it is heading after these unfortunate turn of events. The media and liberal voices have explained the verdict in simplistic terms, putting the blame on the NDA's prime ministerial candidate L.K. Advani, suggesting that his hardline image were unacceptable to the people of India while others like the RSS and the larger Sangh Parivar have argued that Advani was not vociferous enough to 'unite' the Hindu vote by raising issues like Article 370, Ram Mandir etc.

The two arguments and reasoning seem to in direct contravention with each other. While it maybe that neither one is true, people may have rejected the Advani candidature as a result of the confused and mixed messages emanating out of the campaign (development one day, terror the other, soft PM and then Quattarochi and Swiss accounts), or because the threat of the dreaded unstable Third Front coming to power may have pushed people into opting for status quo. While this analysis is for political analysts and the party mandarins to ponder over, the larger issue that is now facing the party is over what direction to take given these conflicting reasons being spelt out for the defeat. Many noted writers suggest that it is time to drop Hindutuva from the mainstream agenda , while other argue that without ideology and Hindutuva the party will flounder.

The resemblance of the BJP with the US Republican Party is not only uncanny but in fact eerily similar. After the defeat of their candidate, John McCain, who like Advani was riled by hardliners and the centrists within his party, the Republicans are struggling to find a sure footing. Vacillating between ideology, moderation, centrism and the role of the Christian Right in the party, various leaders have proclaimed themselves as the 'real' voice of the party. Right from Radio polemicist Rush Limbaugh to former vice president Dick Cheney everyone has a view on where to take the party after losing the White House and the Congress. This internal confusion and incoherence has ensured that President Barack Obama is facing virtually no coherent opposition with the principal opposition in disarray. While it has barely been a month since the loss in the general elections, it is much too early to expect a sudden resurgence from the BJP. However, what is also important is that the party should not let the defeat make the party become its own worst enemy. It has a job to do and that is of a responsible opposition. While ideology, future policy and leadership succession are all important, the primary role that the party must get back to is that of holding this government to account. It can ill afford to cede that space and in doing so give the UPA a free reign to oush a partisan agenda.

Madam Speaker

2009-06-02T15:48:00.000+05:30

The Congress has shown much guile in ascending Meira Kumar to the post of Speaker of the House in the 15th Lok Sabha. The Congress seems have to have made tokenism a virtue and mostly much to its favour in the past. The nomination of Pratibha Patil to the Presidency was hailed as historic for it made her the first woman president of our Republic. Though a contentious choice, it did give the Congress an edge on brownie points and ensured that the debate over a second term for ex-President Abdul Kalam was given a quiet burial.

The choice for Speaker of the House makes tactical sense as the Congress has made inroads into the Dalit votebank of UP Chief Minister Mayawati. They sense that by promoting a Dailt and that too a woman not only will it further create a positive move towards the party by the Dalits, but also that a credible alternative to Mayawati, is now on the table and Mayawati cannot attempt to promote herself as the all encompassing representative of the Dalits given the political demise of Ram Vilas Paswan.

The BJP should take a leaf out of this ploy, however opportunistic it may seem. Nominating Karia Munda of Jharkhand to the post of Deputy Speaker makes little strategic sense given the strong hold the party has established in that region. Given the fact that top BJP leaders accept that a complete migration of the Muslim vote did the party in in these elections, should a Muslim nominee, maybe someone like a Mukhtar Abbas Nakvi have have not made better sense?

Venkiah Naidu on the Devil's Advocate

2009-05-31T23:11:00.001+05:30

Former BJP President Venkiah Naidu's take on the election results and on the BJP's performance to CNN-IBN.

Past its blooming period- Hindustan Times

2009-05-29T13:28:00.001+05:30

Past its blooming period- Hindustan Times

Shared via AddThis

Portfolios out; Sibal gets HRD, I&B for Soni- Hindustan Times

2009-05-28T22:31:00.001+05:30

Portfolios out; Sibal gets HRD, I&B for Soni- Hindustan Times

Shared via AddThis

Appeasing up the wrong tree?

2009-05-27T20:23:00.002+05:30

The North Koreans have come to define the term volatile and the Korean peninsula remains the tinderbox, where events have the potential for international ramifications. The North Koreans conducted their second nuclear test in less than three years and have virtually torn up the armistice between the North and the South that ensured peace for nearly fifty years. The North Koreans have made their intent clear on where they stand on the nuclear issue and have further confirmed the hypotheses of conservative commentators like ex-US ambassador to the UN John Bolton, who view the country as beyond reprieve in its pursuit of brinkmanship and as posing a threat to international security. The previous US administration had clubbed the troubled North along with Iran and Iraq as the “Axis of Evil”. Though the term has now been thankfully consigned to the bin of history, the policy against nuclear non-proliferation of the current administration continues to club North Korea and Iran together.

This policy outlook is flawed as strategic expert Brahma Chellaney correctly equates the North Korea as more like Pakistan than Iran. Pakistan with its burden of fighting the Taliban and the Al-Qaeda relies on aid – military and humanitarian from the United States and the larger Western world. The Pakistan doctrine remains simply, and rather crudely – pay up or face the consequences. The North Koreans too seem to be taking a leaf out this doctrine from a country that helped set up their nuclear program. The continuous flow of aid is a guarantee of peace in the peninsula and Pyongyang likes to remain centre stage in the scheme of things. The North Koreans realize that aid is needed not for its deprived people but rather to prop up the Kim Jong-il regime. As soon as attention moves away from them, this lifeline gets shorter or dries up altogether. The nuclear test needs to be seen in this light and to be dealt with accordingly. The timing of North Korea’s actions are not tough to explain. Kim Jong-il’s health has been dominating the headlines and the talk of succession and its implications seems to have rattled the reclusive leader. Further, the illegal trade and smuggling that the North Koreans carry out through the sea route will now be curbed thanks to an effort by South Korea, Japan and the United States to man the Sea of Japan among other waters. This has certainly rattled the North Korean leadership for whom this acts as an important source of illegal revenue. Therefore, questions on the leadership and the threat of action against an important revenue stream seems to have pushed the North into raising the stakes rather spectacularly.

The Iranian nuclear program on the other hand is not based on the fundamentals of securing aid. The country sees itself as a regional power and its government asserts nuclear power as its right. The threat to stability in the region and the Iranian leaderships views on Israel are the cause for concern in this part of the world if the Iranians were to get the bomb. Given these rather different ‘motives’ to acquire and develop a nuclear weapons program the Obama administration has applied a one-size-fits-all approach to both countries. Having made as much as campaign pledge to renew diplomacy with the two countries, President Obama went as far as looking at the possibility of a face to face meeting with the Iranian leadership. While this was received cautiously by Tehran the North Koreans have assumed it to be a sign of weakness and the test and its reneging on the armistice is a result thereof. The North Koreans have to be dealt with firmly and the new found bonhomie that the Secretary of State Hilary Clinton has tried to achieve with Russia and China should be used to further the future course of action. Sanctions and terse condemnation has not worked, neither have the six-party talks or Obama’s pledge to restart diplomacy. The world needs to relook at North Korean problem more holistically like how the Americans have done with their Af-Pak policy. The issue here is not of two countries at constant strain with eachother, but rather a larger geo-political issue that involves Russia, China, South Korea, Japan, the United States and the North Koreans. Clearly, appeasement and promises have not worked, a new direction is needed on the North Korea issue, and the urgency for which was underlined by the North Korean regime which looks increasingly volatile and susceptible to further misadventure.

Random Musings - Youth power or promoting dynasties?

2009-05-26T22:17:00.001+05:30

The phenomenal success of the Congress in the general elections have been partly attributed to Rahul Gandhi's role in encouraging the youth to come to the fore in a big manner. It is beyond doubt that Gandhi has been successful in that endeavour given the number of young MP's who form the Congress' kitty. Having said that a closer look at the profile of the new MP's tells a different story. Most, if not all, come from political families and have inherited their constituencies from their parents or relatives. Given this reality, is the whole youth brigade movement nothing more that a clever cover for promoting dynastic politics in the name of bringing in the youth? It is important that while bringing in the youth should be of importance to Gandhi, he should also seek to add a caveat - to encourage youth from varied backgrounds (and not just political lineages) come to the fore and take part in public affairs. That, one feels, will be a greater contribution by Gandhi, rather than easing and legitimizing political inheritance in the name of youth involvement.

BJP will be a constructive opposition: Arun Jaitley

2009-05-16T20:54:00.001+05:30

Rajnath: Will Analyse Results Today

2009-05-16T17:49:00.001+05:30

Drawing Parallels - India 2009 and USA 2008

2009-05-16T13:43:00.000+05:30

The UPA has emerged as a clear winner in the general elections for the 15^th Lok Sabha and it will form the next government with considerable ease given the numbers that the results indicate. The Congress has performed exceedingly well with over 190 seats, while its ally in West Bengal, the Trinamool Congress ensured that the Left’s bastion finally started showing signs of crumbling. The Congress also performed better than expected in Rajasthan, Kerala and in Andhra Pradesh while it swept Haryana and did well in Uttaranchal. Congress’ allies, the DMK, remain the story of this election as they managed to put up a good show against the popular belief of a wipeout in the media.

The election victory of the Congress has striking parallels that can be drawn from the Presidential elections of the United States in 2008. The Congress much like the Democrats managed a wide range of allies and got votes from a diverse “vote bank” cutting across religions and castes. The Democrats too won voted in the African-American and Hispanic community while the BJP, much like the Republicans, only managed to hold on to its traditional vote bank without consolidating in newer territory. Second, the Congress adopted a risky yet fruitful strategy of offering hope with its “Jai Ho”, “Aam Admi” and youth campaign like the Democrats offered hope and change attractively packaged in the form of President Obama. The BJP, again much like the Republicans offered a campaign that took a negative line of attack against the prime minister and with the “Bhay Ho” parody. This clearly did not work and in a departure from the American similarities, the Indian electorate decided to vote for stability and continuance rather than change. Third, much like the Republicans, personal ambition has met with a cruel twist fate. Republican candidate John McCain, many considered the ideal man for decades lost when the opportunity finally came, much similar to the fate of the Leader of the Opposition L.K. Advani.

The Congress will indeed lead a more confident, if not abrasive style of government, knowing fully well that it does not require the Left or the critical support of any particular ally to retain power. Like the Democrats who enjoy complete dominance of both houses of the Congress and Senate, the Congress will now further push reforms which it deems fit for the party and the country (in that order of preference). The victory is clear mandate for Manmohan Singh, much as some leaders in the Congress may cringe, and not for Rahul Gandhi. It is now imperative on the party that they drop the talk of ‘Rahul as PM’ as this is a perverse subversion of the popular mandate for Prime Minister Singh.

Random musings: Editorial Endorsements

2009-05-04T20:19:00.002+05:30

The electoral exercise to install the 15th Lok Sabha is well and truly underway with three phases having gone to the polls. The Election Commission has played a big role, some say too big a role, in these elections with its rulings on exit and opinion polls, its stance on the Varun Gandhi issue and by serving notices to politicians across party lines for violating the model code of conduct in letter and spirit. This spirited effort on the EC's part has, for better or worse, made the elections a staid affair with news channels and newspapers conjuring up likely scenarios and having debates or op-eds by members of the major parties of India. In many instances media houses have taken a clear stand on whom their preferred candidate or coalition is for these elections, while others have been more circumspect. Borrowing a leaf out of the American system (the Left would roll its eyes in disgust) would it not be better if media houses officially endorse a candidate, party or coalition whom they see as fit to lead the country. This will ensure that readers and viewers are clear on which side a media house stands while also remove the subterfuge that has become an undercurrent in news reporting. It is an idea that editors and leaders in the media need to think about, as the benefits maybe many.

Manifesto's of the big two

2009-05-04T20:15:00.001+05:30

The BJP's Manifesto, click here.

The Congress' Manifesto, click here

Will be back after the elections!! Busy campaigning!!

2009-05-04T19:45:00.001+05:30

Weather, your party noticed?

2009-03-07T21:20:00.001+05:30

The election season is now firmly upon us, with political parties across the country getting into the poll mode. It is expected that party manifesto’s and policy formulations will begin to emerge and be disseminated across the country. It is also likely that all parties will address the bread and butter issues that concern the electorate including, access to employment, equity in healthcare, a control on inflation, a tough line on terror and policies to ensure that India continues her growth story in the years and decades to come. Along with these ideals, talk of the aam aadmi and the middle class will continue to dominate political lip-speak. However, while these issues maintain their supremacy on the electorate’s mindset, it is important that leaders of all national parties clearly spell out their stance on the big issue of the day that will affect the lives of millions, especially the poor in the years to come – global climate change.

Global climate change has evolved from the reel world to the real world in less than a decade. What was seen as popular science fiction along with extra terrestrial stories and fantastic missions of space exploration and travel has now become a reality. Climate change and the global warming phenomenon have moved from a theory to reality thanks to the work of scientists and people like Al Gore and Thomas Friedman. The Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change or the IPCC came out with a series of reports over a year ago on the impact of climate change and its implications in the years to come. The reports were endorsed by all countries and even the most watered down interpretation of the report suggests that the world has till 2015 to bring into effect real mitigation initiatives lest the problem will become, in all likelihood, irreversible. The effects of this threat were presented in a cruel preview of sorts with the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina in the United States and our own climate change disaster in the form of the Mumbai floods of 2005. Both these events, though rather regrettably, were mired in justified accusations of government apathy and the lack of civic amenities as the real cause of the disasters rather than focusing on the underlying cause of the catastrophic events. Thomas Friedman, in his influential book Hot, Flat and Crowded, posed the question on the cause of Hurricane Katrina and the Mumbai floods in an unorthodox fashion. He asked whether these events were really Acts of God (as most freaky weather is usually dubbed) or was this an act of man? The answer to his question according to most climatologists is that in all likelihood these two events mark the beginning of events that are directly attributed to man. And the situation makes for grim reading, especially for our country, which has a long coastline, areas prone to drought and a growing population that will put extra pressure on resources like food and polluting energy sources like crude. Moreover, India is not only the victim but also the perpetrator of global climate change. With increasing demand for access to “American” living standards by the 350 million strong Indian middle class and similar demands forecasted by the millions who will ultimately make it to the strata of the middle class means that possible solutions if not the mere addressal of the problem is an urgent need for our country.

Professor Barry Munslow of the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine has put the mission out clearly. In his words, it is time to move from the “War on Terror to the War on Weather”. The histrionics aside, the fundamental point to be made is simple; India must formulate a clear mitigation and coping strategy for global climate whose implications on India will be catastrophic. While it may be true that terrorism and roti-kapda-makan issues remain fundamental to the needs and aspirations of our country, these only mark medium or short term goals. Our long term goals will include tackling global climate change whether we like it or not. Our leadership must start to begin the process of a dialogue to communicate with the people of India, especially the poor on the real threat that climate change will have on the country. This should include farmers, fisherman and those dependent on the soil who are most likely to be affected the first by cyclical trends of droughts and floods. Second, the incoming government must spearhead a comprehensive strategy to reduce India’s dependence on oil, while also chart out a path for relying on more non-renewable sources of energy. Critics of mitigation argue that bringing in such measures will slow down the growth of the Indian engine; however, this argument is akin to suggesting that we must keep accelerating towards an unsustainable future. While it is true that the biggest polluters in the world like the US and Europe have done little in way of tackling climate change, India must take the lead like it has in areas like information technology and mobile telephony and our leaders must set the vision for a new green revolution that will ensure sustainable development while also ensure that climate change does not increase the vulnerabilities of the marginal and the poor. The issue of climate change and its impact is one of national interest and it must start to appear on the policy domain immediately.

Franken-stan: Pakistan's descent to chaos

2009-03-04T21:59:00.000+05:30

Pakistan finds itself on a seemingly irreversible path to anarachy and chaos with the latest attacks on the Sri Lankan cricket team in Lahore. The proverbial soft target of cricket seemed like the last bastion that needed to be breached before there is across the board consensus that Pakistan is fast becoming a failed state. With a hit list of a former prime minister, journalists and now a brazen attack on a cricket team, the terror groups have clearly signaled to the Pakistani establishment of their intent and control over large swathes of the country. Conventional wisdom predisposed most analysts to argue that the Frontier provinces and the Pashtun-dominated areas were where the Pakistani State had ceased to control territory and that the rest of Pakistan - Sindh and Punjab were relatively 'safe'. The dastardly attacks on the Sri Lankan team have demolished that argument and further bolster India's arguments against her westerly neighbor.

In a belated acknowledgment of sorts The Times newspaper in London has acknowledged that India's assertion that Pakistan had not done enough to dismantle terror infrastructure has proven 'all too true'. The fact that the governments of the West have given the Pakistani establishment a long leash of tolerance has only exasperated the problem. A firm confrontation with Pakistan in the aftermath of the Mumbai terror attacks was the need of the hour; however, at the time Western governments chose to pay little but lip service to demand that Pakistan hand over the terror culprits to India. Regrettably, the visiting foreign minister of Britain did not help matters when he brought up the 'core issue' argument about Kashmir and a need to resolve it before terror could end from the Pakistani side. Then again the need to usher in 'real' democracy saw the United States and the West support the ouster of former president Pervez Musharraf, only to install the dubious current incumbent Asif Ali Zardari whose dilly-dallying and schizophrenic approach to the Mumbai attacks tested India's patience. It can be argued that under Musharraf the terror attacks went on unabated and that he was at the helm when Benazir Bhutto was assassinated. The sad reality of that truth is that the hope that democratic elections will somehow end extremism and that terror groups could be better managed under civilian rule has now been proven wrong. Put plainly, the nature of rule - whether civilian or military is not going to solve the problems of Pakistan. Or for that matter neither will continuous drone attacks by the United States in the tribal areas. The monster that Pakistan had created and tried to tame is today unmanageable and in need of some unconventional approaches from the world community.

Analysts have often proposed the creation of a 'Pashtunistan' from the Afghan-Pakistan border in order to manage the problem on a piece-meal basis. The effective break-up of Pakistan is envisioned to solve the problems of our neighbor. US President Barack Obama's envoy to the region Richard Holbrooke does not talk in such direct terms but is known not to be averse to the idea. The 'proposed' solution though is easier said than done. Afghanistan and Pakistan for all their anarchy are sovereign states and a re-division of borders and creation of a new state will require international effort not seen since the Balkan wars of the 1990's. Worst still, unlike the Balkans, Pakistan is a nuclear power which only adds to the complication. Further, merely creating a new country will not make it governable. The Pakistani establishment has argued that signing peace deal with the Pashtun is the only way forward rather than the creation of a new state. Critics of this particular school of thought argue that cutting peace deals led to the creation of the Taliban government in Afghanistan and the effects of that were for all to see Therefore, a solution - external or from within Pakistan seems a pipe dream at the moment.

India must tread cautiously given the frail state of affairs in Pakistan. If anything the attack on the Sri Lankan team could indicate that India could be targeted by militants who are clearly stronger and more determined than ever to do so. Also, India must adopt a stronger approach towards Pakistan. We must not look at Pakistan from the prism of the past decade but rather alter foreign policy on the current nature of Pakistan's sovereignty. Simply put, peace initiatives and 'confidence building measures' are policy approaches that have failed to bear fruit. For the foreseeable future, a more cautious, aggressive and wait-and-watch policy should mark our outlook towards Pakistan.

Lok Sabha Elections - Where is the agenda?

2009-02-20T17:15:00.001+05:30

The General Elections are slated to be held sometime in the coming three months. The run-up to the elections will see the beginning of the great political exercise that India witnesses and participates in every five years. Election manifestos, speeches, political rallies, behind-the-scenes machinations and stabbing in the front and back will make its appearance very soon into our lives and living rooms within weeks. Political parties will be wrangling for votes and space on news channels and newspapers columns to sell their case as to why India should choose them to form a government for the next term. However, what has been disappointing up till now has been the lackadaisical attitude of political parties at agenda setting and charting out a vision for the future of the country. Indeed, politics has become so fragmented, ad-hoc and “issue” based that longer timelines and larger policy formulations just do not figure in public discourse.

A brief scan of the news in the past few weeks is a case in point. All major political parties have played a rather dubious game of musical chairs as to whom they would ally with in the coming elections. So while the Samajwadi party professes full support for Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, they do not rule out the possibility of supporting NCP leader Sharad Pawar for the top-job. Similarly, while the AIADMK has decided to side with the Left in the coming elections, she does not rule out an alliance with the Congress. Similarly, the JD(U) in Bihar will be part of the NDA, but will not ‘actively’ highlight BJP leader L.K. Advani as the NDA’s candidate for prime minister. The list goes on. To most observers, these charades hardly seem shocking enough to even merit a response. And indeed it would be naiveté to expect political parties to stick to public policy and moral commitments, but in doing so do we not let off our political leaders with more leeway than they deserve? Should we and the news media not ask the tough questions of what is the agenda for a political party and hold them to guarantees that they would adhere to it after coming into office. Additionally, is it not high time that the political class move beyond narrow confines of political discussions as they exist today and include broader policy strokes and a vision for the country.

The two biggest national parties, to give them their due, have set the agenda in terms of public policy and vision. The Congress with its eyes on the ‘”slumdogs” and ‘Billu barbers” came out with its ambitious (though faltering) National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme and is currently focusing on its other flagship programs including the National Rural Health Mission amongst others to appeal to the aam admi. TV spots also show it promoting diversity and equal opportunities in building a more equitable society. Cynically, it has also in its interim budget provided huge outlays for defense in the aftermath of the terror attacks in Mumbai last year. Finding another more monumentally apt example of bolting the barn once the horse has escaped would be tough to find. The government also spent many months of gridlock and perpetual crisis over the Indo-US nuclear deal, which though successfully culminated, would find few takers given the long gestation time that modalities of the deal would take. Contrast the approach to the NDA years when the more ‘visible’ victories like that of Kargil ensured re-election for the Vajpayee government while schemes like the Golden Quadrilateral and the highways project gave visible signs of progress that was made in the Vajpayee years. Having said that they still did lose the elections in 2004. Whatever be merits of either strategy, the slow and bottom-up approach of the UPA’s schemes or the more top-down approach of the NDA, there is no clear winner on what appeals to the masses.

The BJP has made national security and a fight against terror as the mainstay of its vision along with growth and development. However, the BJP has faltered with its blow hot blow cold approach on the subject. So while the party is keen to make terror an issue during terror attacks or threats to the nation, it often finds itself ignoring the subject between terror attacks in order to appeal to a “larger constituency”. Similarly, the BJP seems mildly phobic on the terror topic lest inevitable questions be asked about the Kandahar hijackings and the Parliament attacks. However, terror and national security is probably one subject on which the nation is unanimous in its opinion – it has to be dealt with firmly. The BJP should formulate ‘achievables’ and ‘deliverables’ on the subject in order to comprehensively make the subject their strength. If it fails to do so, it will be clutching on to rhetoric on a subject which clearly has outraged the nation in the months gone by. What has not been on the national agenda is the Ram Mandir issue. The Nagpur session of the BJP’s national executive sought to bring the issue to the fore. So while the subject may enthuse the extreme Right in the BJP and the Sangh Parivar, it is a non-starter for most voters today. It is onerous on the BJP to clearly spell out what they intend to do if they form the government rather than repeat the ‘Advani is our prime-ministerial candidate’ mantra.

As for the smaller parties and regional groupings, the less said the better. Agenda setting in such parties is often limited to the quickest way to power. Switching sides and modifying one’s stand has become all too common for this section of the political makeup of our country. The reasons are for this is quite obvious, fractured mandates and the age of coalitions have made these parties the proverbial kingmakers. Often this has resulted in the national agenda taking a back seat to more regional concerns and a consensus approach which has often slowed down the formulation, implementation and monitoring of public policy. A glance at the most inefficient ministers in vox-pop surveys shows that they often come from smaller parties. While such an inference maybe a gross generalization, stronger leadership at the top maybe the only solution to under-performing and non-performing ministers. In a larger context though, India must decide on the fate and future of smaller regional parties. Yes, regional concerns and agendas are top-most on the minds of most people and it is true that national parties often do not have their ears to the ground on the regional concerns of many – most notably in the North East, but the cost that regional parties extract out a coherent national policy is paving the way for underperforming governments becoming the norm rather than the exception. Moreover, corruption, efficiency in governments functioning and restructuring some aspects of governance that we have inherited from the British do not seem to be on the agenda. It is high time that the national parties take the lead in bringing public policy and public accountability to the fore-front along with roti-kadpa-makan issues in order to ensure that India grows holistically and is able to face the social, economic and political challenges we face in our country today.

Withdrawal Symptoms - Obama's Cabinet Woes

2009-02-13T18:03:00.000+05:30

The barely month-old Obama administration has come face to face with its first crisis of sorts, emanating not from the far corners of the world or by actions of rogue dictators or indeed traders, but from within his own cabinet. Three appointees for top level positions within the Cabinet or the administration have either chosen to withdraw or compelled to stand down in what is fast descending into a self-inflicted crisis. President Obama’s nominee for the crucial position of Secretary for Health and Health Services, former Senator Tom Daschle had to step down amid allegations of tax violations and his potential conflict for interest given his successful career in the private healthcare sector. Daschle’s loss was indeed a body blow in more ways than one. Healthcare reform in America requires expediency at the highest levels of government. With over 45 million uninsured and millions other under-insured, the U.S. has the dubious distinction of running one the world’s most inefficient healthcare delivery systems. Daschle, a veteran of the Senate and the Democratic Party, had the right credentials, at least on paper, to be the man to lead reforms that are so urgently needed. Having pledged his support to President Obama early in the Democratic primaries, he was seen as a key advisor to the President and therefore hopes were raised that after decades of dithering on reforms by the Clinton and Bush administration, finally health reform would be central to the new administration. However, Daschle’s own transgressions over dodgy tax returns and accusations of being too complicit with the industry he was to oversee and reform, ensured that he was constrained to withdraw his nomination for the post. And with it not only has the prospect of health reform taken a backseat (critics of health reform argue that it is an exorbitantly expensive exercise, especially in the current economic climate), but President Obama has also lost a close confidant in the cabinet.

The latest withdrawal for the post of Commerce Secretary was Republican Senator Judd Gregg. Keeping in line with his campaign pledge to walk across the aisle and include rivals in his cabinet, Obama looked for a suitable Republican for Commerce and Gregg was short-listed. The move was seen as both brave and tactical, as it would ‘buy-in’ Republican support for the economic and financial rescue plan that Obama has chalked up while at the same time include Right-wing thought in his economic team. The events of the past week, however, seem to have dashed all such hopes for the President. Republican loyalties proved too strong for Senator Gregg, who much rather sit in the opposition with his principles intact rather than sit in the cabinet with quiet whispers of having sold out his principles for power. Such is the realpolitik that so defines Washington and the Belt Way. The Left-wing of the Democratic Party too played its part in stalling Obama grand ambition of establishing a grand coalition in the cabinet. Clearly perturbed by Obama’s centrist stand since being sworn into office, the Left-wing of his party now want nominees who forward their agenda with the Republicans having to tow their line, rather than the other way round. Senator Gregg’s withdrawal was in part due to such pressures to toe the line, which he was in fundamental disagreement with. It is becoming clearly evident that no matter how well-intentioned President Obama’s rhetoric on a “new era of bi-partisanship” maybe, the reality is that the Democrats have been lying low for the past eight years and now having been swept into office with the nation rallying behind them, bi-partisanship can wait for a while.

Obama’s cabinet woes have not been limited entirely to these two high profile withdrawals. The new Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner had to earlier apologize as it emerged during his Senate confirmation that he owned back taxes for under-filing previous returns. A similar tale was to be told for the President’s pick for the newly created post of chief performance officer, Nancy Killefer, who too had to withdraw her nomination. Earlier, Obama’s first pick for commerce secretary, Bill Richardson, a one time presidential rival and later key supporter, withdrew his nomination pending a federal investigation over allegations of favoritism to key industries. The current spate of withdrawals has only added on to an impending feeling of a crisis within the administration, in an otherwise stable beginning to a new administration. However, how much of this burgeoning crisis can be attributed to the president and his naiveté and how much of it is plain bad luck will be answered in the manner with which the administration carries its way forward from now on. Any more mishaps and serious questions will be creep up over the lack of experience or worse still the capability of the new president; President Obama will need to tread carefully from now onwards. He has embarked on an unconventional approach to regain lost momentum that he enjoyed on inauguration day by giving campaign style stump speeches in Florida. This strategy is unfortunately fraught with danger. The evolution from the campaign to the Presidency is now over. Yes, Obama won hearts and minds with his speeches and message, but now it’s his policies and leadership that will do the talking, not the rhetoric and slogan chanting. Obama needs to make that evolution now.

More the merrier: the case for more MP's

2009-01-30T20:47:00.001+05:30

India is going to elect a new government very soon. As the Election Commission has advertently or inadvertently indicated, general elections to elect the 15^th Lok Sabha should take place in April or May of this year. The recently concluded delimitation exercise was widely welcomed and hailed as electoral reforms that were keeping up with the times. While many career politicians lost their pocket boroughs in the exercise, there is no doubt that the delimitation was seen as fairly comprehensive, and in line with the changing demographics and population mix of the country. However, the election commission and the political class have missed out on a crucial debate that must be had in India regarding the number of elected members we send to Parliament as a result of each election process. Currently, India has 552 members in the Lok Sabha that represent a population of 1,147,000,000 or 1.1 billion. Crudely, that gives a ratio of one member parliament for every 2,085,454 (this being a rough estimate as gross population includes non-eligible citizens like children as well). A cursory comparison of this MP: population ratio highlights how our representative democracy needs more representation

Spain has a population of over 46 million people and has 350 elected members in parliament that gives it a ratio of 1:131,879. Similarly, the United Kingdom has a population of 60 million and a ratio of 1:94,388. France enjoys a ratio of 1:112,778 and even Italy, with its dubious distinction of having sixty governments in as many years has a respectable ratio of 1:94,967. Europe aside, Turkey, has a population of over 71 million which elects 550 members to its Grand National Assembly (ratio – 1:130,000). Closer home, Japan has a ratio of 1:265,486 or 1:176,500 (depending on how you define a people’s representative in the country). Australia comes in at 1:143,124. While the countries mentioned maybe smaller in terms of the gigantic population of India’s, a comparison with countries of comparative proportions doesn’t change the outcome. Russia, with a population of 142,008,838 citizens has 450 deputies in the Duma, giving it a ratio of 1:315,575. And lastly, the oldest democracy in the world, the United States has a population of 305,701,000 people and sends 535 Congressman to the House of Representatives with a ratio of 1:571,403.

Therefore, given these numbers, India remains an embarrassing class apart. It is the crying need of our democratic reforms to maybe double the number of elected representatives in order to make our democracy more credible, representative and accountable to its people. A smaller ratio will ensure a politician keeps his ears to the ground to understand the needs of his constituents and represent them better at appropriate forums. Similarly, a smaller ratio will encourage people to take up civic and political issues directly with their people’s representative rather than having to hem and haw at the futility of the electoral exercise or hide behind the convenient cover of rhetoric and politician bashing. Increasing the number of parliamentarians may bring with logistical nightmares and will alter the very nature of democracy forever; nay-sayers may take a cynical view that it will further fragment our polity and increase corruption, but in order to be a truly ‘representative’ democracy more the merrier is the way to go.

Inaugurating Hope and Reaffirming Responsibility

2009-01-21T03:05:00.002+05:30

President-elect Barack Obama took oath as the 44^th President of the United States of America. Taking oath in front of a crowd of well over a million eager Americans, Barack Obama with the 35 word oath scripted a historic chapter for his country. The unintentional fumbling on part of Supreme Court Justice John Roberts seemed like the last improbable hurdle before Obama could officially become the most powerful man on the planet and at the same time become an icon for this generation. Obama struck a somber yet inspiring tone in his inaugural speech to the nation, reminiscent of the oratorical greatness that one witnessed on the campaign trail and the gift that more than any other ensured victory over Senator John McCain in the November elections last year. Though, Obama maintained the running theme of hope and change in his address to the nation and the world, he struck a cautious reality check to Americans to rise to the challenge to ensure that America is not a power in decline but instead one that will come back from a moment of crisis and adversity. However, what struck out most powerfully was a call for rebuilding a divided nation and the reaffirmation of personal responsibility as a citizen for the country. It was this thought that needs to be echoed in our country that remains divided on caste, class, religion and ethnicities, with a need for a new national ethos to make India the superpower it so has the potential to become.

President Obama used his crucial address to reach out to multiple constituencies and audiences. He reached to the Muslim world to work together with the West in order to root out terror and its perpetrators. He sounded out the corrupt leaders of the world to take his advice and do what is best for their people. He warned terror organizations against their attempts to harm Americans and her allies the world over. He spoke at length of the rights of man as enshrined in the American constitution, a clear reference to the numerous human rights abuses witnessed under the Bush administration, right from Guantanamo Bay to Abu Gharaib. He asked Americans to rebuild their nation in the dire economic situation that the US finds itself in. He asked Americans to take responsibility as citizens, to work together for the larger good of the nation. The sum of all individual interests is not greater than national interest he implored. This message holds special significance for us in India. We find our national ethos strewn at the edges. The ‘chalta hai’ attitude has taken its toll on the nation. Corruption, so endemic into our system, is now regarded as a given rather than a disease that needs surgical intervention. We all ask about our rights as citizens, consumers and patients but not of our responsibilities towards the nation and nation building. Some of us have adopted a hands approach to the public sector. Happy in our private sector cocoon that so ghettoizes the public and private sector. Parallel India’s seems to run oblivious to one another. This needs to change in order to attain the common goals of a strong nation whose citizens are prosperous and where poverty and inequalities don’t ruin opportunities. This needs strong and able leadership, which unfortunately is in short supply across the political spectrum. It is often said that an idealist is what a cynic calls a realist. The need is not be wary of idealism in order to alleviate the endemic problems of our country while at the same time build a strong and prosperous nation. Apart from Obama’s story of personal triumph that appeals at an individual level by offering hope and inspiration, his message for nation building and creating a new national ethos must inspire us to move collectively towards these goals in our own country.

And so as President Obama takes over the reins of the most powerful country in the world, there is unenvious expectation on the man to solve all the world’s ills. His cautious tone as he addressed the nation seemed to indicate his wariness of such high expectations. Obama wants to ensure that successes so expected of him stay in the realm of reality and that he presents a realistic picture of achievables before a nation that is deifying him and a world that expects the Obama wand to do some magic. In that context the inaugural address did remarkably well to lay out the challenges before America and the Obama administration. Having said that, the hullabaloo and the honeymoon period for Obama will not last forever and Obama now has to prove that he can actually walk the talk. His time has begun.

Boys Night Out: State Visit or political back-scratching?

2009-01-18T15:43:00.001+05:30

The wholly controversial visit by Britain’s visiting foreign minister David Miliband has been dubbed by some as a diplomatic faux pas, while the BJP’s Arun Jaitley has called it the biggest diplomatic blunder of the current dispensation. Miliband, who is described by much of the international and national press as the prime minister-in-waiting did India no favours by towing Pakistan’s line vis-à-vis terrorism and further gave sustenance to the “root cause” theory which holds that terror in the region cannot be rooted out till the contentious issue of Kashmir is settled. While British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has provided no such backing to the root cause theory, his minister’s ranting does point more to realpolitik at play within the UK rather than indicating a principled stand of the British government. A few months ago, Brown’s leadership was severely challenged by members of his own cabinet who wanted him to step aside owing to his lackluster leadership and the handling of the economy and spate of bank nationalizations. The man leading the coup-de-grace was none other than David Miliband who is seen a Blair loyalist in the British cabinet. While that move backfired spectacularly, the two men have not quite forgotten the unsavory episode. The statements by the British foreign minister must, therefore, be seen within that context. Gordon Brown has sided with the outgoing Bush administrations world view of terrorism and the menace it is for civil society. This while the incoming administration of President-elect Barack Obama has been more attuned to argue for the root cause theory to root out terrorism and encourage closer dialogue between the Muslim world and the West. Clearly, Miliband wants to be seen in tune with the Obama administration thereby raising his acceptably within the new White House. He said as much at meetings with the Indian delegation during his visit to New Delhi, where he cited his discussions with Obama’s transition team and how they were in agreement on solving the Kashmir issue in order to root out terror in the region. Politics aside, it would have been astute of the foreign minister to have instead praised the recent elections in Jammu and Kashmir, where the people came out in large numbers and democratically chose a new combination to rule the state. The defenders of democracy, as Britain claims itself to be, must hail these elections where the people mandate was proven to be supreme, unlike in “Azad” Kashmir, about which no foreign leader wishes to make a comment.

The other disturbing aspect of the visit was his visit to Amethi, the parliamentary constituency of Congress general secretary Rahul Gandhi. What was meant to be a State visit by the foreign minister of a country was turned in a political gimmick by the Congress party. One could ask what makes Amethi special when compared with many such constituencies in the country. Does the Government of India hold Amethi as some role model for rural development that ought to be shown to visiting dignitaries, and if so why have preceding dignitaries not had the “honour”. The political overtones the sleepover at Amethi highlighted point to crass politicization of a State visit. It would serve the Congress party well to remind itself that by virtue of being in Government it does not automatically hold the right to further its party’s profile to visiting dignitaries. It sets an unacceptable precedent and blurs the line between Governments, which are essentially party-less in coalitions, and political parties that constitute a ruling coalition.

Satyam Shivam Sundaram

2009-01-14T17:43:00.002+05:30

The LTTE threat to the UPA

2009-01-04T13:44:00.000+05:30

The Sri Lankan government have made their intentions to decimate the separatist LTTE movement abundantly clear through sustained military actions that the Sri Lankan army have been engaged in for the past year. The decades long struggle now seems to be in its last throes with the Sri Lankan army taking the strategically important town of Killinochi, considered as the headquarters of the Eelam fighters. This fresh offensive with its intent to decisively swing the war in the Sri Lankan’s governments favour could have profound implications for the ruling UPA government and may shape the future alliance with the DMK party which forms an important constituent of the ruling coalition and currently heads the government in Tamil Nadu.

The statement by the Congress’ Verappa Moily, that if LTTE chief Velupillai Prabhakaran is captured by the Sri Lankan army he ought to be handed over to India to be tried for the assassination of former prime minister Rajiv Gandhi, could create friction within the ruling UPA coalition. It is now certain that the LTTE will either be completely routed out or be irreversibly damaged by the time the Sri Lankan army’s operations are completed. In such an eventuality it will be interesting to note the reactions of the DMK and the Vaiko led MDMK who are strong supporters of the LTTE’s cause and the Tamil minority in Sri Lanka. The LTTE’s movement in Sri Lanka has created friction between the DMK and the Congress earlier and eventually led to the fall of I.K. Gujral’s government in 1997. The Jain Commission report at the time had indicted the DMK for supporting the LTTE which ultimately was held responsible for the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi. Similarly, Vaiko’s seditious behavior towards the LTTE is frequent and unchanging over the years.

With general elections not far and the demise of the LTTE movement seemingly evident, could the differences within the UPA over the LTTE have the potential to damage the coalition? While at the present moment that question may seem too distant into the future to adequately answer, the Congress may find itself in a bind over how events turn out in Sri Lanka. The DMK, astute in knowing which way the poll winds are blowing may use the cause of the Tamil people and India’s hands off approach in reacting to the Sri Lankan army’s offensive to sever ties with the Congress. However, it is also evident that they may not have too many options in the event of their parting ways from the UPA. With their arch-rivals AIADMK tying up with the Left parties and the NDA seeming like a distant partner, the party may need to stick it out with the UPA in spite of their need to woo the Tamil vote bank that feels for their Tamil brethren across the Adam’s bridge. What is clear however is that the future of the LTTE and the outcome of the military offensive in Sri Lanka could profoundly affect the UPA and the Congress think tank must be ready for a rocky ride ahead. For the DMK, who have enjoyed an unstinted run in the union government, under both the NDA and the UPA, will need to look for innovative ways if they intend to achieve the dual objective of staying in power in New Delhi while enjoying the support of Tamils in north Sri Lanka.

Middle East - Peace by the barrel of the gun

2009-01-01T23:24:00.001+05:30

The Israeli offensive against the ruling Hamas faction in the Palestinian territory of the Gaza Strip has been bloody, brutal and unrelenting for the past week. The Israelis have vowed to make this offensive a “fight to the finish” and the military action by the Jewish state has resulted in over 400 deaths, with the UN predicting 25% of the fatalities being civilians. This overwhelming show of force has been in response to the Kassam rockets that have frequented Israeli cities of Ashkelon and Sderot over the past few days. The tentative ceasefire brokered by the Egyptians is now in tatters with both sides blaming the other for violating the ceasefire in letter and in spirit. The arguments and counter-arguments are all too familiar in a region that is returning to turbulence after relative (and short lived) days of peace. So will this latest offensive be any different from Israel’s other indecisive war against Lebanon in 2006 where the political-militant movement of Hezbollah regrouped and rearmed soon after the end of hostilities, or will this initiative by the Israelis yield different results given the changing political behaviours of states like Egypt and the transitory nature of American politics at the moment?

The election of a Hamas government in the Palestinian territories in January 2006 paved the way for a prolonged conflict given the hostile attitude of Hamas towards Israel and the complete subversion of the Palestinian people’s mandate by Israel and the Quartet. Then last summer’s internal strife between Hamas and Fatah factions led to two separate Palestinian authorities, Hamas ruling in Gaza and the moderate Fatah faction in the West Bank. The open backing of Fatah’s Mahmud Abbas by the West further irreversibly complicated a situation that was tenuous to begin with. With two Palestinian “authorities”, one enjoying the people’s mandate (Hamas legitimately won 76 of the 132 seats in Parliament) and the other enjoying the backing of much of the Middle East and the Western world, a continuation of tensions was all but certain. What didn’t help matters was Israel’s military loss in its war against Lebanon and the further strengthening of Iran post the Iraq War. These two events have created a situation where Israel is hell-bent on proving its military superiority in the region, hence this conflict while at the same time warns the Iranians of its over-riding military prowess in the contentious region. Hamas for its part has not played the innocent bystander in the affairs of the Middle East. While it is true to conclude that Hamas won the 2006 elections, it did so on given its humanitarian track record and its contribution in setting up relief camps and schools in the Palestinian territories. The corruption so rampant in the Fatah governments was rooted and the Palestinians chose an alternative who they thought would further the humanitarian cause of the Palestinian people. Instead, Hamas has continued to ratchet up its anti-Israel rhetoric and has been indulged in illegal arms smuggling and rocket attacks on Israel. The anti-Israel rhetoric is something that may work wonders to enthuse a large crowd and win support, but it is not the logical or legitimate discourse for leadership of such crucial territories. As is evident the blame for the current mess is not easy to fix and all sides are guilty in contributing to how we have come to such a pass.

The future of the Israel-Palestine issue remains more worrying given how the situation has evolved since 2006. Contextually, Israel has been in as much turmoil as the Palestinian territories. There is a major leadership crisis post Arial Sharon’s incapacitation. President Moshe Katsav had to make way for current incumbent and former Prime Minister Shimon Peres over charges of misconduct. While current Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was forced to quit over corruption allegations. This struggle for power within Israel has led to more hard-line views towards the resolution of the Israel –Palestine issue. Much like the anti-Israel rhetoric of Hamas to rally support, the front runners for Israel’s top job have adopted more hard-line positions in order to appear steadfast and strong to the Israeli electorate. The battle seems to be down to two contenders, current foreign minister Tzipi Livni and former prime minister and leader of the Right-wing Likud party Benyamin Netanyahu. Both contenders are hawks and whoever wins will definitely adopt a more confrontational view towards Hamas and Palestinian terror groups.

The timing of the current conflict seems carefully planned. Coming at the fag end of the Bush presidency, the conflict is intended to change things on the ground prior to a President Obama taking office. Israel would feel more in control of the situation if it decimates its arch enemy in the Palestinian territories, that way only having to deal with the moderate Fatah to broker peace. Additionally, given President-elect Obama’s view for a more “balanced” view of the Israeli-Palestine conflict, the Israelis it seems are keen to alter the situation on the ground in their favour lest a new President be more hostile towards their cause. The Arab Street too is supposed to have taken an encouraging view of Obama’s ascendency to the White House. The prevailing sentiment is that of a more unbiased stance by the United States on the Israel-Palestine issue unlike the Bush Administrations open support for the Jewish state. However, the Arab Street maybe in for a rude shock if they expect any radical change of tact by the Americans and the incoming administration. Obama the President will be very different from Obama the presidential hopeful. Indications are that the Obama administration may be more centrist in governance rather than the Left-wing campaign that Obama seemed to be running at times. This would mean a reiteration of commitment to the Two-State solution and maybe a Camp David like summit in the next 12 months, however, the support for Israel is unlikely to diminish anytime soon in the West Wing and at Capitol Hill.

The tacit support that Israel’s neighbours in the region like Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia for this fight against Hamas is a clear indication of shifting trends in the Middle East. Today a situation exists where support of the Palestinian cause is meaningless unless one identifies which Palestinian “cause” – Hamas or Fatah one supports. And Israel’s neighbours have clearly sided with Fatah and Israel on this count while old allies Syria and Iran (and its Lebanese proxy Hezbollah) seem to favour the Hamas faction. This larger geo-political game of chess would not be so tragic had it not included the unnecessary and unrelenting cruelty that national interests of Middle Eastern states is having on the hapless and increasingly hopeless cause of the ordinary Palestinian people to live in peace and security. Their suffering is, unfortunately, not going to end anytime soon.

G-20 Summit - Global crisis, global solutions?

2008-11-16T20:50:00.001+05:30

The G-20 summit in Washington to look at possible solutions for the current economic crisis has been met with measured optimism and outright skepticism. Many are optimistic that the fact that world leaders are coming together to solve the “greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression” shows seriousness and clear intent, albeit forced, to look for solutions. However, the naysayers are clearly in the majority. Many argue that with a lame-duck US president the outcome of this summit is meaningless. It is argued that President-elect Barack Obama, once in office, will host a similar summit to look for solutions to this crisis. Obama’s refusal to even meet with foreign leaders during the summit signals his clear intent to chart a new course once in office and he has clearly shown a tendency to not be too closely aligned to the Bush Administrations plans for the crisis. While some of this has to do with the fact that as Obama puts it, “there can only be one President at a time” and therefore he is not attending the summit, the real reason it seems is that by aligning too closely with the current administration he runs the risk of undermining his political philosophy of change that swept him into office.

Many observers are also anxious that a 5-hour summit is nothing but loose change for a crisis that involves heavier investment. One analyst calculated that given the structure of the summit, each country would get a miniscule 15 minutes to put forth their solutions. Therefore, at best what this summit can achieve is common ground on where the world is and in which direction the world must re-direct itself. The summit is not Bretton Woods part 2 as some analysts would argue. Bretton Woods was the result of the economic devastation of WW2 and led to the creation of global monetary agencies like the IMF, while this summit is at best a preview of Bretton Woods that would most likely be chaired next year by President Obama. Apart from the semantics of ‘what’ exactly this summit is all about, clearly a niggling question has fallen between the cracks. Is there a global solution to this global crisis? Yes it is true that we live in a globalized world, where the interlocking of countries and economies have made the proponents of the decoupling theory run for cover. And it is also true that for this crisis to be handsomely met, a global effort is required. However, does that necessarily mean a global “one size fits all” solution is the way forward?

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has called for interest rate cuts on a global scale from all G-20 countries as the way forward. Brown is intent on spending his way out of recession. His solution does have its merits. For if the world were to start spending again and buying goods from all over the world, the manufacturing and service hubs of China and India would bounce back and we would all be safely home and dry. However, what complicates this proposal is the fact that if banks do start lending again, and more credit and debt is created, will the entire cycle that led to this crisis not be repeated? Moreover, spending ones way out of the recession is akin to drinking your way out of alcoholism. The money for such a spending spree will have to be raised through debt or tax increases, both unlikely to happen in countries neck deep in debt and recession. Therefore, we see that a single solution as mentioned by Brown may not entirely serve the purpose. The Germans have been particularly concerned about hedge funds and the role they played in this crisis. Chancellor Merkel is calling for more regulation of hedge funds. But it was these financial instruments that led to a rally in the stock markets of India and China and any regulation on them will ensure that their return to emerging markets is not likely in the near future, thereby depreciating cash flow and liquidity.

Moreover, as one analyst caustically noted it is amusing that the summit is being organized by the debtors who are asking countries with huge reserves to bail them out. Why should the countries with surpluses like China and the Middle-Eastern Emirates listen to debtors who have spent their way recklessly into this crisis? A plea has been made to countries in the Middle-East which are awash with petro-dollars to fund the IMF and provide cash injections. These countries are the ones that have been at the receiving end of American chauvinism and misadventure and are now not willing to bail out a country they blame for many of their ills. The underlying fact remains that the West has failed to realize that this crisis ultimately will mark the end of the West hegemony over the world. It marks the beginning a certain new world order where emerging countries and oil rich nations will demand an equal role on economic and political decisions taken at the international level. The greatest challenge for President-elect Obama and leaders of the Western world is to recognize this subtle shift that is occurring and prepare their countries for this inevitable reality. The world was changing; it took this crisis to shows how much it has changed over the past two decades.

The response to the economic crisis in India has been comical. For every thousand point drop on the bourses, a stock press release was issued allaying all fears and reassuring the country that the ‘fundamentals’ of the economy are strong. It is baffling how the prime minister and his colleagues can continue to parrot that line when it is clear that the real effects of the crisis are yet to hit our country. Whilst in Washington, the prime minister sounds a cautious and bleak tone, while in India he is upbeat and confident. While this may be reassuring, it is important for our leaders to come out with the entire forecast of what the impact of this crisis will be. The government is quick to point at the fact that inflation is now in single-digits. This cruel euphoria belies the fact that falling inflation is a by-product of falling prices of commodities like cement and not “vote commodities” like food grains. So while there is general cause for optimism at falling levels of inflation, the larger picture does not make for easy reading. The financial crisis is now beginning to show effects in terms of job cuts and tightening liquidity, and if the Jet Airways retrenchment was any indication, the future is indeed gloomy.

President Obama - The rise of a political phenomenon

2008-11-05T17:56:00.001+05:30

Senator Barack Obama completed a landslide 52%-47% victory over Republican Senator John McCain to become the 44th President of the United States of America. Rarely do such momentous occasions come in history and the world has indeed witnessed an occasion that will go down in history, popular culture and become part of folklore. Obama, 47, defied all political fundamentals to win over not only the establishment in the form of the Republican Party and a Republican White House, he won against the establishment within his own party by running a political campaign that will be taught in universities and discussed amongst political strategists for decades to come. The man who brought the ‘audacity of hope’ of our lives is now promising to bring change that has not been witnessed in America for the past two decades. His now famous phrase of there being ‘no red states or blue states, but only the United States of America’ truly touched a chord with the electorate who came out in record numbers and handed him victories in states hitherto Republican for decades like – Virginia, South Carolina, Colorado, Florida and Indiana. Such was the appeal of this political phenomenon that today he can claim himself to be the leader of both red states and blue states.

The most obvious interpretation of Obama’s victory is the fact that after years of race tensions and barely 40 years after the civil rights movement in America, an African-American has finally made it to the White House. Columnist Thomas Friedman has called this the moment when the American Civil War (for racial equality) finally ended. The fact that America will have a black president is indeed the most enduring legacy of this election and points towards an America that has moved beyond race and racial politics. It is not to say that race-relations will dramatically alter overnight, but the road to normality between races passes through an Obama White House. Having said that, this election offers a much bigger outcome for the world. 2008 will be marked as the end of the twentieth century as we had known it and the real beginning of the twenty first century. The politics, culture and attitudes of the twentieth century have given way to a new way of thinking and outlooks best embodied by Obama. Much of the worlds political, economic and social problems will remain, however, the fundamental change will be the manner with which we deal with them and Obama offers that fresh perspective and outlook for a new century and a new generation. This decade will be remembered for two events – the September 11th attacks and the election of President Obama and in weighing the two one can say that the 9/11 attacks and the years after it were where the last principles of the twentieth century were applied; from 2009 the rules of engagement change considerably. It could be argued that Obama brings a cyclical change that is inherent to politics. The rise of Reagan and Thatcher in the 80’s or the victory of New Labour and Bill Clinton and their ‘Third Way’ in 90’s all embody the change that Obama is now part of especially after a disastrous Bush presidency. However, that cyclical change does not reduce the significance of this political victory for Obama.

One must spare a thought for Senator John McCain. The war hero and multi-term senator ran an effective and dignified campaign till August of this year. Indeed he was the only man in the Republican Party who in a ‘change election’ could be considered a fair chance against the Obama phenomenon. However, rather disappointingly, just like the mistake Hilary Clinton made, McCain forgot that change was the mantra for this election. From August onwards, he relied on the old Lee Atwater style of politics that put George Bush Sr. and George W. Bush in the White House. The man who abhorred the below-the-belt tactics that ensured his own defeat at the hands of Bush Jr. in 2000 readily indulged in it himself. The Republican Party clearly was willing to extend support to McCain if he toed the Karl Rove style of political campaigning. Clearly, without the support of the party, his chances would have further diminished, but then again in compromising with his party’s ultra-right wing, the maverick that he so personified seemed like a pale shadow of himself. Obama understood his weaknesses and in order to fortify them chose Senator Joe Biden as his running mate. In that one tactical move, Obama ensured that all questions about his foreign policy credentials were laid to rest. There was an experienced man behind him and that reassured voters. McCain rather disappointingly, never acknowledged his weakness – economics. With the economic downturn gripping the country and the world, the McCain campaign decided to chose little known Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin to be his running mate. She was young, a woman and a Washington outsider. However, she was also woefully inexperienced and was not ready to be commander in chief if the oldest president in history were to be incapacitated. Moreover, a candidate like Governor Mitt Romney would have been far more complimentary as a running mate given his economic skills. However, that was not to be and McCain will forever rue the fact that in the ultimate analysis while Palin may have become a star of her party, she did not bring any advantage to the fledgling ticket.

The challenges facing President Obama are indeed daunting. The man has been in continuous campaigning for the better part of his political career. Many argue that he has never run a state, government organization or even a city. He has been a one term senator and has spent the better time of his senate term running an election campaign. Fears have been raised about how different a political campaign and running a country is, a count on which Obama is a true novice. However, having run a successful campaign organization, one can be reassured about his skills and leadership. Moreover, Obama’s willingness to hear competing points of view and the ability to seek advice from across the aisle will hold him in good stead. The world has some major challenges. The two wars and an economy on the brink are just the first that Obama will find on his desk. The more delicate task will be to manage an America in transition. Gone are the days of unilateralism and the years when America ordered and the world obeyed. The world’s levers of powers are changing and redistributing power to other countries. This is a reality that Obama must begin to fathom and start to chart a course that best suits his country. He will also be challenged to win over people who have doubts about him in the initial few months in office; his policies and bi-partisanship are the only means to ensure that. However, the world today has witnessed history in the making. The young man from nowhere is today the most important man in the world, offering hope to millions the world over to dream and think big. Even if Obama proves to be an average president in office, his biggest contribution to the world will remain his embodiment of hope and the idea that to dream big is not only for the rich, powerful and influential but a legitimate aspiration for every man, woman and child on the planet.

It's Time

2008-10-31T04:21:00.000+05:30

The Economist endorses Senator Barack Obama - Read it here

UPA - United Promotion of Apathy

2008-10-24T17:47:00.000+05:30

With the revelations by the Maharashtra Police over the involvement of right-wing Hindu extremists in the string of blasts that took place in Maharashtra and Gujarat last month, the worst fears of many has been confirmed. India, under the present UPA dispensation, is witnessing a paradigm shift with a nation that’s looks increasingly divided and caught up between the triangulation of Islamic terrorism, Left-wing Naxalism and now, if confirmed, Right-wing Hindu extremism. How things have come to such a pass can best be answered by the manner with which the Manmohan Singh government has chosen to address the issue of internal security and also mortgage the country’s very future into the hands of an inept Home Minister. The implications for such monumental mismanagement will have to be paid by the country in the years, if not decades to come.

The Home Minister, Shivraj Patil has under his regime has ensured the rise of the three forces of extremism that are increasingly plaguing and terrorizing the country. The politicization of terrorism and the pandering to ideologies of pseudo-secularists within and outside his party has ensured that Islamic terrorism, which was once considered an idea foreign to India, become a home-grown and increasingly sophisticated reality in the country. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh drew kudos and applause from the world when he triumphantly told world leaders that India may have a population of over 150 million Muslims, but Al-Qaeda and their radically perverse ideology has no footing in the country. The string of attacks on major cities and the growth of home born terror groups and modules have exposed how hollow that claim turned out to be. Much of what the prime minister said remains wrapped up in a game of semantics. After all, what constitutes Al-Qaeda – organization or ideology? Does one have to sign a formal membership form to become part of the ideology? The answer to it has been emphatically answered by terrorism experts the world over. Al-Qaeda is now a movement and not an ideology, hence, its followers, no matter what the name; continue that ideology in modules and small localized cells. The Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) continues to adhere to that ideology and have regained a foothold under the auspices of the present regime. The banned outfit has seen a wishy-washy approach by the government that is careful not to appear ‘anti-Islam’ even if it that meant tacitly turning a blind eye towards terror. That unfortunate trade off has resulted in lost lives, a terrorized country and paradoxically many equating the community with the actions of the deviated minority. The issue of convicted terrorist and Parliament attack mastermind, Afzal Guru, and the delay in his hanging, further led credence to the notion held firmly by terrorists that the Indian state is weak and competing interests can override national interest. The rise and rise of Islamic terror has been one of the grave contributions of this government who are content on politicizing the issue rather than dealing with it in a firm and decisive manner.

The piecemeal, inconsistent and incoherent handling of Naxalism has been another unfortunate development that the government has the distinction of having overseen under its tenure. Any questions and debate on the governments handling of Naxalism is meet with the usual combativeness that belies political one-upmanship. Data is thrown which shows how Naxal violence, though unacceptably high and affecting more than a dozen states, is not as bad as under previous governments. The race to the bottom approach, where being second worst qualifies as a success, underlines the criteria for success that the government has set-out for itself. While it maybe clichéd to call for the issue of Naxalism to be seen as more than a law and order problem, the government though acknowledging the role socio-economic inequities has played in the rise of the Naxal movements has not taken any concrete steps to improve those indicators that have led to the unprecedented levels of violence and growing audacity of Naxal groups.

Additionally, today India has been given evidence of the rise of Right-wing Hindu groups that may have been involved in reprisals against Islamic terrorism. The tit-for-tat mentality that seems to be a response by fringe elements to what they see as inaction against Islamic extremism calls for immediate attention. What we maybe witnessing today is the rise of groups that want to engage in battle, identifying themselves on the basis of religion and unified against the perceived atrocities conducted against their belief, willing to attack the “other side” with increased sophistication and targeted intent. This alarming scenario may seem far-fetched at the moment, but it is the imperative of the government to realize that the rise of religious extremists will and can one day lead to civic chaos and increased ghetto-isation of communities, going against the very fabric of Indian plurality and secularism. The government, though, seems to be intend on being reactive rather than proactive on the significant security challenges our country faces, and sadly, in a few months the government will give up on its job of governing and get into election mode, thereby not only ceding some time for extremists of all colours to strategize and plan, but also lose critical focus in a time when our country needs leadership and a New Direction against extremism.

Debating the Debates - Even Stevens

2008-10-16T18:51:00.001+05:30

If the first debate was a draw and the second a win for Senator Barack Obama, the third and final debate threw up Senator John McCain as the clear winner. Post the second debate earlier this month, McCain saw his rival extend his lead to such an extent that polls indicated that a rout was in the offing on November 4th. The Republican candidate needed to get back into the race with some radical new thoughts and answers to questions that have raised anxiety levels of the American voter over the past few months – namely the economy and the future of their savings. While the McCain camp responded to the slump in numbers by unleashing a questionable tactic of letting his vice-presidential candidate Governor Sarah Palin take pot shots at Obama, (in)famously quipping Obama for “pallying” up with terrorists, most voters felt that to regain the lost momentum McCain needed a win in the third debate to stay viable in the race. And by a narrow margin McCain did manage to nip this debate out of Obama’s kitty. However, the debate over who won the debate may continue for days to come, the more important question that has become central to this race is this, is it too late for McCain to get back into this race?

The third debate was the most exciting by far of its previous two avatars. The candidates were combative and not wary of pulling any punches. Unlike the first debate where it was impossible to get the two candidates to spar at each other, this debate had a lot of rebuttals which is ultimately the entire premise of having such a format. The second debate was again high on substance by both candidates; it too lacked any coherence that is hallmark of the format. The third debate was also the one in which John McCain came out fighting against his oratorically gifted opponent. In the first two debates McCain looked edgy and did not communicate with the audience or the people watching. His rebuttals were tepid and his response times lagging. In the third debate he was quick to put Obama on the mat from the word go. The most famous lines from the debate may well be McCain telling Obama, "im not George W Bush, if you wanted to fight aginst him you should run four years ago." He was stronger on the economy, an area where the smooth Obama smothered him in the past two encounters. McCain also had to regain some lost credibility on the economy since in his last debate he talked about the American government picking up the entire mortgage bill which would cost a whopping $300 billion, a plan that was panned by critics and supporters alike. Last night McCain expanded on his plan by linking the state of the economy with the future of the housing market. He suggested that out of the agreed $700 billion rescue package, $300 billion could be spent on buying up mortgages. His suggestion addressed two constituents, it appealed to voters who face the prospect of foreclosures or defaulting on their mortgages and to fiscal conservatives whom McCain considers himself to be a part of.

McCain was also more specific on his healthcare plan, which offers American voters a guaranteed payback to buy health insurance. He also chided Obama for offering a rival plan which would increase bureaucracy and also “socialize” healthcare, a big no-no for the American healthcare system. While Obama did content that his plan would offer universal coverage and ensure that he rein in the pharmaceutical industry (a key contributor to the precarious condition of the American healthcare system), his words sounded mere aspirations rather than rational policy. McCain hammered Obama on tax increases for small businesses, which witnessed a quick rebuttal from Obama. But the clear focus of this debate was Joe the Plumber. Joe, a voter from Toledo who met Obama during the campaign trail and expressed his concerns over Obama’s tax plans, became the euphemism for small town America throughout the debate. The candidates spoke 24 times, of or to, Joe the Plumber in order to win the hearts and minds of Middle Class America. On that count the candidates fought a battle of attrition with no clear winners.

The debate was not however, an all-McCain affair. Obama managed to keep his composure under the relentless attack that McCain unleashed. He showed resilience and certain strength of character that was, well, “presidential”. No matter how hard McCain tried to induce Obama into making a rash statement, Obama with a Zen-like smile on his face saw off his competitor. The debate also saw McCain hit out at the Obama campaign for running negative ads and injecting a negative character to the race. This seemed disingenuous from McCain considering that his own vice-presidential candidate has been attacking Obama on issues that are neither relevant nor are they focus issues on the minds of the American electorate. If McCain loses, the negativity that Palin has injected will certainly be considered a major contributor, apart from the selection of Palin herself as the VP nominee.

The debate was also odd considering that the candidates never talked about Iraq, Al-Qaeda or Afghanistan during the entire discourse. It marked a major shift in American politics where the two wars and the larger war on terror has taken a back-seat and will continue to do so as the economic collapse of corporate America will take centre stage for the foreseeable future. The other sore thumb that has struck many outsiders over the past few weeks has been the pro-Obama bandwagon effect. The nation’s mainstream media have done grave injustice to journalistic neutrality by displaying a marked preference for Obama over McCain. Pundits and political experts are quick to criticize McCain and Palin over every sentence and word they utter, but do not apply the same principles to the case of Obama and Biden. In fact, Biden has not been reported on or covered ever since the vice-presidential debates. In the case for Obama, journalists don’t seem to be asking the tough questions over healthcare, tax reform and foreign policy, areas where Obama’s policies need more scrutiny. Similarly in the case of the debates, it was a given as to who won the debate amongst talking heads on television. It would be prudent on part of media houses to take a more calibrated approach while analyzing and scrutinizing both candidates, in order to do their job of presenting an unbiased picture to the American people.

The third debate may have been a victory for McCain, but has it come too late? With three weeks to go, McCain needed to reinvigorate his campaign. His performance in this third debate did just that. However, it did not do much insofar as to displace Obama from the frontrunner status, and it seems unlikely that anything can change that reality in the coming weeks. It is now Obama’s election to lose. However, it would be presumptuous to count out McCain after last night’s performance. The candidate is certainly back in the race and two good weeks could change this race. Don’t believe the polls yet, this race is still as close as ever.

Left to Right - Tata drives into Gujarat

2008-10-07T17:49:00.001+05:30

After months of dithering by the West Bengal government and many an agitation by the Trinamool Congress, Tata Motors Chairman, Ratan Tata finally decided to pull out of the state and relocate his crucial Nano project to Gujarat. Tata Motors did scout around several states to look for a suitable state with adequate resources and political will to restart the Nano project, a car that has not only been keenly awaited in India but has been a topic of much discussion the world over. The move to Sanand in Gujarat comes as a double delight for Gujarat Chief Minister, Narendra Modi, who was only recently exonerated by the Nanavati Commission Report over his role in the 2002 Hindu-Muslim riots.

The Left-led Government in West Bengal today lies in a bundle of self created contradictions. The deplorable police action during the Nandigram agitation last year saw the Buddhadeb Bhattacharya government being accused of double standards and of encouraging Left cadres to take the law into their own hands. This year’s Singur crisis has further discredited the government that on the one hand speaks of industrial growth as the way forward, but at the same time does not have the political will to impose the rule of law in the state. The Singur issue has also highlighted the level to which politicians from the state are willing to pursue political agitations for personal gain at a tremendous cost to the state and its future. Mamta Bannerjee spearheaded a campaign that witnessed support from varied quarters. However, her utter disregard for conflict resolution and revolving door manner of negotiation has left many genuine supporters of her movement feeling let down. It is a crucial lesson for the political class to know when to stop and not turn a genuine people’s campaign into a political gimmick. If Bannerjee was under any illusions that her confrontationalist attitude will win votes then the voters will have a rude surprise for her in store.

The move to Gujarat is an additional victory for Narendra Modi. The villain of the mainstream media rubbed many an opinion makers the wrong way with the exoneration by the Nanavati commission findings. Tata Motors move will further solidify his position as an able administrator while at the same time make Gujarat an attractive option for capital intensive industrial units. The Nano project will further put Sanand on the world map, a potential opportunity that Singur unfortunately lost upon. While Bhattacharya may rue missed opportunities and face questions over how effective a leader he is, Modi will emerge stronger and more ‘credible’ to a wider spectrum of voters who will do a rethink after the Nano move. Ever since Modi won handsomely in state elections last year, the victory was met with stunned silence by many in the mainstream media. If that historic win was not indication enough of the acceptably Modi enjoyed in his state, this move by Tata Motors will further solidify his position amongst industrialists who do have a favorable outlook towards Gujarat as a state and Modi as an administrator. It is high time that Modi is looked in a more holistic manner rather than through clichéd name tags and false presumptions.

Economic downturns and political upturns

2008-10-03T14:53:00.002+05:30

The state of the global economy, most particularly the American economy, has witnessed a further downturn with the closure of financial behemoths like Lehman Brothers and the buyouts of former heavyweights like Merrill Lynch. What hasn’t helped matters is the fact that the solution on offer is not easy to accept for some nor is it bereft of political posturing. The beleaguered US president George Bush has put forward a $700 Billion bailout plan which will see the US Federal Reserve and the Treasury buy out the so called “toxic debts” that the financial and lending institutions have accumulated over the past few years. This solution, while seemingly agreeable on its intended outcome, is contentious given the injection of bi-partisan politics and the ongoing presidential elections.

There is much concern among the American people and investors from the world over that the rescue plan that the president has outlined is actually a bailout for the culprits of this crisis. There is a perception, and not without merit, that the companies that need the rescuing have voluntarily dug themselves into this hole and are now looking at the government to pay for their wayward ways. The proposed rescue plan also addresses the issue of salaries to be paid out to executives of these trouble firms. This particular clause has been met with complete consternation amongst the American people who see the so-called fat cats at the top as being the reason why they are seeing the value of their investments and savings evaporate. Over the last two years much attention has gone to the pay checks of CEO’s at Wall Street, but those were the good times. The high remunerations were seen as encouragement to next generation of investment bankers and financial wizards of the pot of gold that awaits them at the end of the rainbow. The shutting down of the financial behemoths coupled with a reshaping of Wall Street has come as rude shock for all of them. The crisis has also displayed the underlying fragility of the system that looked so robust from the outside. Six months ago if one were to be asked to comment on the prospect of a Lehman Brothers shutting shop; it would have been met with bemusement. Today, the rules of the game and indeed the financial landscape have been dramatically altered in more ways than one.

The financial downturn and the melt down of the world’s bourses have given politicians in America a new cause to champion for the American “Main Street”. Politicians have used the crisis to appeal to their constituencies by beating Wall Street with a big morality stick. Never mind the fact that most politicians during the boom years of the past 6 years were championing capitalism as the solution for all troubles. The dramatic shift to the political left has been baffling and hypocritical, for no matter what the solution for the current crisis, there is not going to be a looking away from capitalistic policies anytime soon. The political crisis could not have come at a worse time for the Republicans. The espousers of de-regulation of business and champions of the free markets are now defending a bail-out plan which is diametrically opposite to what is the economic dharma for Republicans. The rejection of the bailout plan by the US Congress, in which a majority of the Republicans voted against the bill, demonstrated the dilemma many Republican politicians find themselves in. Do they bailout their president and their presidential candidate by signing on the bill or do they stick with what has been Republican ideology for decades.

Republican Presidential candidate John McCain has taken a particular hit from the economic crisis. McCain had confessed that economics was not his particular area of strength, and his recent flip-flops on the how to handle the crisis have only added to that notion – much to the dismay of supporters and causing jitters to independent voters who may have been evaluating the candidate. What has further increased the anxiety for some is the choice of his running mate. Increasingly it seems that the American people are coming around to the view that if the economic crisis is going to be the mainstay of public discourse for the foreseeable future then a McCain-Palin ticket is really not an attractive option. While the McCain camp is training Governor Palin on foreign policy, the voters are awaiting her response to the economic crisis. It seems the McCain managers are looking in the wrong direction as to what prioritizes as American interests at the moment.

The Democrats have got a boost from the economic downturn. The party has always been more keen on expanding government’s role in the interest of the people, and the solution for this crisis seems to be the one on offer by Democratic ideology. By claiming the solution as the very foundations of his party, Senator Obama can make the issue and the solution for the financial crisis his own. Polls conducted recently have shown Obama opening up his lead over McCain after this crisis broke out. If Obama manages to keep this momentum and turns up a good performance in the remaining two Presidential debates, the keys to the White House are not very far off. However, their does remain the possibility that given the uncertainty that America faces today, some voters may decide to go for stability by way of John McCain rather than shake the apple cart and vote for Obama. Its Obama’s election to lose now and he has to re-assure people with specific policy initiatives in the coming debates that he does hold the solution and not just the promise.

Nuclear Deal - Time for pragmatism

2008-09-05T12:08:00.000+05:30

The so-called letter bomb written by the US’ State Department to the US Congress could not have come at a worst time for the Indian and American Governments. Facing bruising sessions at the Nuclear Suppliers Group meeting in Vienna, the letter has been a cause of much consternation in both India and the US. In the US, the successor to former Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Congressman Tom Lantos, Howard Berman, ratcheted up the pressure on the lame duck Bush Administration by making this “secret” though not confidential letter public. This move was intended to have two outcomes. One it helped cement Berman’s place as a nuclear non-proliferation messiah and at the same time put tremendous pressure on the Bush administration to ensure that the contents of the State Departments letter are reflected in the waiver document at the NSG meet. Knowing fully well that the language used in the letter is stronger and implicit in the US governments intend if India tests a Nuclear weapon, Berman’s move had the intended benefit for the non-proliferation lobby, that has been thoroughly opposed to the nuclear deal that it sees as weakening the non-proliferation regime.

In India, the nuclear deal has been controversial to say the least. The Government has waded through political storms and hurricanes that have put the very continuance of the UPA’s existence at risk. However, having seen the political upheaval and trust vote through, the Manmohan Singh government was hoping that the political heavy lifting was behind it with the eponymous tunes of Singh is King still fresh in the ears of the UPA camp. The letter and the news item in the Washington Post has unraveled a new political storm for the government, which is now at pains to explain that there is no dichotomy between the State Department’s letter and the text of the 123 agreement and the assurances given by Manmohan Singh in Parliament. While that may be true, the notion that since this letter was “secret”, it shows that there was something to hide has gained considerable currency. What this letter does prove is something that is beyond doubt with or without the Indo-US nuclear deal – all bets are off if India it tests a nuclear weapon. This revelation is something that is not new. Indeed, this deal does not bind India from its sovereign right to test a nuclear weapon. However, the US government also reserves the sovereign right to end all nuclear co-operation is such a situation were to arise. However, the deal does provide a significant leeway since it allows for negotiations to be carried out between India and the US and deliberations within the political establishments and legislatures of the two countries to take a final decision on ending nuclear co-operation. This clause on nuclear testing has been the one that is said to have sacrificed India’s sovereignty to the United States. However, if it remains in India’s national interest to test a nuclear device, then the government of the day should have the courage to do so even if it means the demise of the nuclear deal, for would national interest not supercede relations between India and the United States?

The more prudent need of the hour is for pragmatism. India is a rising power, with a potential to be the leader of the world in this century. But with that enormous potential there comes a need for pragmatism. It is foolhardy to expect other countries to give up their laws and standard practices – discriminatory as they maybe – while we push our way through to setup a new world order. So let us accept that if India were to test, and she must if the need arises, then we as a nation should be strong and united enough to say goodbye to the nuclear deal. But we should in no way expect a nuclear deal that ensures us the right to test a nuclear weapon without any consequences, especially since we have not signed the discriminatory NPT. India must look at the geo-political realities today. The world is deeply concerned about North Korea and Iran and their pursuit for nuclear weapons. In such a scenario to expect the world to look the other way for India is impossible. Secondly, the NSG negotiations would always have been touch and go. An organization that succeeded the London Suppliers Group after India tested her first device, with the mandate to ensure that such actions are not repeated by other “rogue” nations, was always expected to play hardball with us. India should accept this deal as the best it could have gotten and while we should not give in to any further demands of lightweights like Austria and Ireland – who looked the other way when AQ Khan was trading merrily in nuclear merchandise, we should also be pragmatic enough to understand after the mathematics of the give and take are tabulated, we would emerge as the beneficiaries.

The importance of being Vice President

2008-08-25T10:06:00.000+05:30

In any US presidential race, three stages of the process of electing a new US president attract maximum attention. First, the nomination fight between potential candidates from within the party, followed by the selection of a running mate by the party’s nominee and lastly the big televised pre-election debates which puts the two opposing party’s candidates in a gladiatorial verbal free for all. So it was with interest that the whole world awaited the announcement of either candidate’s running mates. With the Democratic National Convention slated to begin today, Democrat hopeful Barack Obama was first off the block with his keenly awaited selection. “The One” as the media and his opponents have often referred to him as, chose the veteran Senator Joseph R. Biden, a Delaware Democrat with sterling credentials and a foreign policy experience unmatched within his own party and across American politics in general. While many received the news of Obama’s pick with skepticism, his supporters seem confident that Biden will help, if not ensure, Obama’s quest for Presidency.

The choice of Joe Biden brings with it many advantages; the Senator is a veteran in American politics and in foreign affairs. He has been the ranking member and the chair of the Senate Judiciary and Foreign Relations Committee’s and over the past 35 years in the Senate has enjoyed bi-partisan appreciation as a man with tremendous depth and understanding of world affairs. These attributes help Obama, whose foreign policy resume is light to put it mildly, and which was exposed recently with the Georgia-Russia conflict. The Georgia-Russia conflict in fact, helped cement Biden’s name on the ticket. As a result of the conflict, new opinion polls started showing a downward trend for Obama, and for the first time since the primaries got over, Obama trailed McCain by 5 points. The Obama camp realized that McCain continues to dominate the American public support on issues of national security and foreign policy, and no amount of reassurance by Obama to the contrary could sway that support. And so followed the selection of Senator Biden who can help quell that loss and firm up the ticket favorably towards Obama. Biden also brings with him experience, something that Obama baiters are quick to point out as lacking in the candidate. As a first time Senator with limited exposure to national and international affairs, Obama needed Biden to lend solidity to the ticket.

However, with all the positives of having a man of the stature and experience of Biden, the Obama camp seems to have weakened their own message with the selection of his running mate. Biden can be considered experienced, bi-partisan and a foreign policy veteran, but he is not the outsider that Obama has sold himself as. Obama has made change the clarion call of this election with him being the agent that brings about the shake up of American politics and helps to “clean up Washington”. Biden, ironically, represents the exact opposite of that ‘change’ having served 35 years in the American political system. Biden, regrettably, dilutes the message that Obama has been so effective in propagating in the last year of campaigning. Some Democrats may even feel cheated that a person who promised change has actually brought an insider to bolster his own chances at the cost of walking the talk on his message of change.

Senator Biden also brings with him a sharp tongue and a propensity to over speak. The McCain camp was quick to come out with ads showing Biden chiding Obama and clips showing Biden opining that Obama was not experienced enough to become President. Then there was the controversy surrounding the description Biden used to describe Obama last year when he referred to the African-American candidate as being a rarity because he was “clean”. Then of course there is the famous quip during the Democratic primaries where Biden felt that he would be privileged to run with or against John McCain and that McCain would make a better president than Obama. In the age of YouTube and the internet, a loose tongue can be dangerous. In the coming weeks the McCain camp is sure to come out with more ads to dent the credibility of the Obama-Biden ticket and to cling to every word coming out of Biden’s mouth hoping for a faux pas to be gifted to them.

By selecting Biden, Obama has also made his own insecurities be known. The confident Obama till now was keen to show that experience is not always the necessary tool to “get it right”. He would give the example of the Iraq War and tell supporters that his experience of the lack of it, could not and did not sway his judgment on something that was morally and tactically wrong, and so he voted against the war, while his more experienced opponents chose to get into it. But by choosing Biden, Obama has betrayed a sense of weakness, a defensive posturing vis-à-vis his lack of experience. It would be lunatic to suggest that Obama should not bolster his weaknesses; however, in choosing Biden he has shown that even Obama does acknowledge his weakness over the whole issue of experience.

The McCain camp will now have to make its choice of choosing a running mate. Obama has smartly chosen a candidate that strengthens the ticket and at the same time addresses the candidate’s weaknesses. McCain would have to do the same. He should go with his former rival for the candidature Mitt Romney. Romney, a former Governor and entrepreneur brings with him a mix of economic expertise and executive experience, something that McCain lacks. The fact that Romney is youthful adds to strengthen the ticket, with many McCain baiters holding his age against him. His other options include Governor Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota and Tom Ridge the former Homeland Security secretary, both lightweights compared to the Obama-Biden ticket.

It is true that the conventional view is that the vice-presidency is of limited importance and that the men and women running for the vice-presidency are of significance only upto a certain extent in an election that is primarily about the presidential candidates and their vision of their country and the world. However, this view is not true anymore. The Bush Presidency which was virtually run by Vice President Dick Cheney has changed that conventional wisdom. Cheney, widely considered the architect of the ‘war on terror’ and the Iraq invasion, has been the man behind every major political decision George Bush has taken and has therefore underscored the importance of knowing who is running for the vice-presidency and potentials thereof. Secondly, in this particular election the vice-presidency is of even more import. The Republican candidate is a 72 year old cancer survivor and it is important for the country to know who would take over in case their president was to be incapacitated in office. The Democratic candidate is a 47 year political novice and it is important for the country to know that there is a candidate in the Naval Observatory as vice-president who can help and guide the candidate if the need so arises. In conclusion, this race maybe about competing visions of McCain and Obama, candidates that enjoy wide support and admiration, but this race is also one with candidates that bring flaws that are deep and well known, and it is for this reason that the selection of their running mates is more important than ever before.

Exit Musharraf, enter 1999?

2008-08-18T17:03:00.000+05:30

Pakistan’s president for the past nine years, General (Retd.) Pervez Musharraf resigned from his post in an emotional swansong speech on national television. The wily dictator had run out of options over the past few weeks with state assembly after state assembly asking him to step down and as a country increasingly viewing him as an impediment to the future of democracy in the country. Pakistan’s tumultuous history has taken another curious turn to uncertainty and what the future holds being anybody’s guess. Pakistan under Messrs Asif Ali Zardari and Nawaz Sharif do not exude or give reason for much confidence given their divisive, chequered and somewhat unsavory pasts. There is already talk of installing a woman as president, much as the token gesture amounts to, it will mark another phase of indirect power wielding at the hands of Zardari and Sharif, with both the prime minister and the president being mere proxies for the two men who currently hold power in Pakistan. United only in their chant of “Go Musharraf Go”, it will be of great interest to see how they take their country forward now that their common enemy is well on his way out. The two have talked of national unity and reconciliation and have even signed the Muree Declaration with it as its basis, whether they can sink their differences and usher a new political course for Pakistan is keenly awaited and equally doubted.

But today, it is all about Musharraf the man. The ex-commando, bravado spewing general who ironically overthrew the man who has now overthrown him came to power in a coup in October 1999. He promised to change Pakistan and bring in real democracy to a nation that was tired to see its politicians indulge in political misadventures and an army that was omnipresent and omnipotent. Hi Kargil misadventures prior to the coup had been thwarted by India and he was seen as a hawk in our country. The failed Agra Summit of 2001 where he blamed everyone except his own self only gave credence to the fact that the General would be troublesome for India to handle. However, the events of September 11th changed the man and the course of his country’s history. With George Bush’s new war on terror and his war cry of countries being “either with us or against us” saw Musharraf become a frontline ally in the war against Islamic fundamentalism. This, though contended by India, had an unintended yet beneficial outcome for India. It managed to punch craters, not holes, in Pakistan’s stance against militancy on Kashmir. Musharraf’s “freedom fighters” arguments failed to cut much ice with Bush and Blair and made the valley much more peaceful with the ISI out of the way. However, the big change in Musharraf’s attitude towards terror came in January of 2004, when under intense American and Indian pressure, Musharraf vowed to end terror, sponsors of terror and pledged to ensure that Pakistani soil will never be used to breed terror groups. The self proclaimed Chief Executive of Pakistan won laurels from the west, but dark clouds started to loom soon afterwards. By 2006, Musharraf eventual downfall had slowly, but insidiously begun. There was a rising insurgency in the NWFP, Baluchistan and tribal areas of Pakistan. The Taliban and Al-Qaeda had managed to regroup and makes these areas their safe havens to launch attacks against Afghanistan and the Pakistani Army. The Pakistani Army adopted a faltering approach towards the insurgency with war following peace deals followed by war again. On the one hand, Pakistan was facing Western pressure to do more against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda operating from within Pakistan, while at home, Pakistanis saw their country as becoming a client state of the United States. The Bush Administrations call for ushering in democracy further pressurized the General to cede powers to democratic institutions. Thus, Shaukhat Aziz was appointed prime minister from the PML(Q) party, which began to be referred to as the Kings party for obvious reasons. The killing of tribal leader Nawab Akbar Bugti further increased the chaos and the battle from within against Musharraf had begun.

2007 was a watershed year for Musharraf. His dismissal of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Iftikhar Chaudhary, marked a turning point. With lawyers and civil society rallying in the streets against the autocratic ways of Musharraf, Musharraf chose to attack the Lal Masjid mosque in Islamabad, which had become a hotbed of extremist activities. This violence and blood shed had a pincer effect on the Musharraf regime, with all sides closing ranks against the general. With chaos reigning and running out of options, Musharraf decided to declare martial law in his country in October of 2007. His clampdown on political activity, dissent, protests, free speech and the media was seen as the last straw for even the most ardent of the Musharraf backers, including the United States. Under intense pressure from all sides, Musharraf had to life emergency in six weeks and called for free and fair elections. But more bad news was in store for the man with the December 27th assassination of Benazir Bhutto, seen as the likely prime minister in the election outcome. Musharraf had to take the blame for not providing adequate security to his political rivals, considering that Bhutto had survived a previous attempt prior to her assassination. The February elections threw up a coalition government formed by the PPP and the PML(N), with Musharraf’s PML(Q) party being relegated to a also ran status. The new government, formed on the premise of national unity and reconciliation, began equating “unity” with the ouster of the president. Musharraf, who under US pressure had already quit as army chief, looked increasingly exposed and ducking for cover. The call for his ouster became increasingly louder by the PPP and the PML(N) who had failed to show much by way of achievements in their six months in power. Increasingly it seemed that anti-Musharrafism was the only motivation that kept the coalition alive, and given these dynamics the President looked on his way out. Musharraf decided to put an end to his misery rather than go throw the process of impeachment which would have been long drawn and loaded with the consequence of being tried in a court of law.

So what is the legacy of the man and his years in power as he resigns in the “national interest”? As Musharraf addressed his nation, he pleaded his case. He talked of the improvements in infrastructure, health, education, the fight against terror, women’s emancipation, holding free and fair elections and of democracy. It seemed as if he wanted to ask his people, what wrong did I commit. As with all dictators, they see themselves as patriots and nationalists, nation builders and men of destiny. They choose to ignore the freedom that they curtail and the freedom that is the essence of democracy. They choose to ignore that freedom is cherished more by civil society than nation building at the barrel of the gun. Dictators like to see themselves as the creators of something better, as being different from the rogue of predecessors who don the mantle of dictatorship. But to the oppressed and hungry for freedom, they increasingly and singularly represent the very rogues a dictator differentiated himself from. So while Musharraf may have been the moderate preaching “enlightened moderation” in a country and army full of fundamental elements, he was still and shall always be remembered as a dictator. His country was crying for change, something that Musharraf was an impediment to, not an agent of. So while he resigned (dis)gracefully, Musharraf failed to appreciate the power of democracy and its almost hallucinogenic effect in empowering people. His self proclaimed exceptionalism as the man who could change things ultimately did him in and he shall now have enough time to ponder over his years in power, possibly in exile. But at 65, he still a player as far as age is concerned in the politics of the sub-continent with our geriatric polity. Who knows, his eventful life may have many more surprises in store.

But for Pakistan, the more things change, the more they remain the same or worse. Today is as if the Musharraf years end exactly where they started. The Zardari-Bhutto and Sharif family continue to dominate Pakistani politics, much like the pre-1999 days. The ISI is again powerful, carrying out bombings within and outside the country. They have restarted their export of terror beyond the western and eastern borders of Pakistan, much like the pre-1999 days. Kashmir, thanks to our own folly is again centre stage in Pakistani politics, again much like the pre-1999 days. It is as if Musharraf never came, yet his decade in power has changed so much.

Russia-Georgia conflict - Where is the EU?

2008-08-10T15:31:00.001+05:30

Russia reinforced its presence and military dominance in Eastern Europe and the Caucuses with a show of force both aerial and by troops in the flare-up in the breakaway region of South Ossetia that lies in the northern part of Georgia. Georgia lays claim to South Ossetia and Abkhazia, a claim that is challenged by the two regions and Russia. Russia and Georgia have shared a tumultuous and bitter relationship for centuries. Ever since Georgia became part of the larger Russian empire in 1801 till full Georgian independence in 1991 to the current crisis, the Russians and the Georgians are often at loggerheads on three contentious issues – status of the autonomous region of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, gas and fuel supplies and the pro-Western tilt of the Georgian people and government. This recent flare-up, one that has been building for some years, has been particularly bloody with heavy fighting claiming as many as 2000 lives in South Ossetia with a ballpark figure of 20,000 internally displaced people. Georgia has declared itself at war while at the same time has held out an olive branch by way of a ceasefire if the Russians agree to withdraw forces from South Ossetia. However, the very break out of conflict and the seeming incapability of the Georgians to take on Russia is a sign, if any was needed, of the dominance Russia will show in the years to come.

Ever since the Rose Revolution of 2003 when the pro-Russian president Eduard Shevardnadze was overthrown and replaced with the current incumbent Mikhail Saakhashvili, the trouble between Russia and Georgia has gone about unabated. Ex-Russian president and current Prime Minister Vladimir Putin had warned Georgia about the perils of cozying to the European Union and the United States. The Georgians seemed to have not paid heed to that warning by not only providing troops for America’s war on terror, they even hosted and gave a hero’s welcome to US President George W. Bush, even naming a street after the president. The Russians took heed and as if to provide a glimpse of what was in store if the Georgians did not take the Russian threat seriously as to who is the real big brother in the region, two years ago, in the peak of the bitter winter, decided to cut gas supplies to Georgia. Only after hectic negotiations and a reworked tariff to supply gas did Russia begin supplies. Then again in the past year, Russia along with a hand full of countries decided to recognize the South Ossetia and Abkhazia as autonomous regions and have provided the two regions with supplies, logistical support and weapons to fight the Georgian army. Post the declaration of freedom by Kosovo from Serbia earlier this year, Russia had asked the international community to recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia as well if they were so ready to recognize Kosovo as a show of solidarity with the South Ossetian and Abkhazian cause. This should have set alarm bells ringing in Western capitals and in Brussels, instead the EU and much of the world did what they do best when dealing with the Caucuses – leave it for the regional power to decide. Russia did exactly that and it built up conditions in South Ossetia to guarantee a Georgian military response that could be used to escalate the crisis. Put simply, the Georgians and the EU have played into the hands of a clever Russian design.

The Russians and more crucially Vladimir Putin have cleared the air on two very important points as a result of the military conflagration. One, Vladimir Putin was and continues to be in charge of Russia and the recent change of guard and installation of Putin acolyte Dmitry Medvedev as president was only a cosmetic exercise. Second, given the rising nationalism and sense of pride in the Russian people over the past near decade, thanks mainly to the economic upsurge that Putin ushered, Russia is willing to reassert its authority on the global and the regional stage. The Russian-Georgian conflict is a proof of that assertion. The West to its credit has recognized the role Russia will play in the future, given that the country commands a huge army and equally huge reserves of fossil fuels; a veto at the Security Council only adds to that immense power. Where the West and the EU in particular have faltered is in backing aspirants to the EU club. Right from aspirational countries like Turkey to Georgia, the EU has not backed them fully. In the case of Georgia, backing the Georgians against the Russians could have compromised Russian support elsewhere – most notably in the Iran nuclear issue and on gas supplies from Russia to Europe. In dealing with Russia with kid gloves they have not only compromised their own diplomatic leverage vis-à-vis the Russians but have let down Georgia that wants to be part of the EU at the earliest. If the EU does desire to become a power to reckon with, it will have to deal with a rising Russia and that too on equal terms. While dealing with a resurgent and confident Russia after years of economic downturn and morass may not be high on the EU’s agenda given that the bulk of EU’s business is concerned with the controversial EU constitution and further expansion of the union, Russia will and must focus high on the minds the EU parliament and the leadership in Brussels. A failure to do so will not only will it leave the EU as nothing more than a club of countries rather than a unifying pan-European power centre, it will also push countries like Georgia and others in the region to fall back and be coerced by the region’s emerging power centre – Russia.

Learn terror lessons from the US

2008-07-28T11:27:00.000+05:30

One of the critical outcomes of the twin terror attacks in Bangalore and Hyderabad is the fact that even after repeated attacks at various sites our intelligence services at the federal level and police at the state level have not learnt any lessons on preventing any further attacks. India could do well to take lessons from the United States in gathering intelligence and preventing terror attacks. Post the events of September 11th, the United States intelligence was severely criticised for not being able to prevent the catastrophe. Mismanagement within intelligence and investigative organizations and the lack of co-ordination between organizations like the FBI and the CIA were considered as the leading cause of terrorists being able to operate under the investigative agencies radar. The Bush Administration creditably vowed to ensure that no attack ever takes place on American soil again, a promise they have lived up to thanks to the creation of a Department of Homeland Security with a staggering annual budget of 45 billion dollars. This along with the creation of an intelligence czar, the Director of National Intelligence, who reports to the President directly based on the information gathered by all internal and external spy agencies has kept America safe from terror attacks.

Unfortunately, in India we are long on policy talk but short on actions on the ground. The talk of creating a federal agency to tackle terror has been just that, talk. In the prevailing confusion and a lack of coherent strategy on terror - both by the centre and the state, terrorism goes on unabated.

Sting is King

2008-07-23T12:11:00.001+05:30

The Manmohan Singh led-UPA government managed to sail past the trust vote in Parliament with fairly convincing numbers. While 275-256 may not constitute a landslide by any stretch of the imagination, there is no doubt that the UPA did manage to get the numbers on a vote which could have gone either way. Absentations and cross-voting not withstanding, the UPA did manage to keep its flock together and finally managed to save its government for the moment. Ironically, the trust vote saw two individuals who not only emerged the winners but also the biggest losers in this bruising battle. The two Singhs – Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Samajwadi Party General Secretary Amar Singh have emerged as the two real winners and losers after the final vote was counted. For the Prime Minister it is a personal victory of sorts, with him having to convince his party and naysayers within his government about his intent to take the Indo-US nuclear deal forward no matter what the consequence. So while his party may now be chanting, that Singh is indeed the King, there is no denying the fact that had the UPA lost on the floor of the house, the knives would have been out for Manmohan Singh, who risked his political future by going in for this trust vote. Analysts have been quick to hail the trust vote win as the mark of Manmohan Singh the politician. While in praising the prime minister, analysts did carry get carried away and chose to ignore a crucial point, it took this prime minister 4 years in a 5 year term to let his political instincts out in the open. One wished he had displayed this deft political acumen in the past five years and in doing so could have avoided what he calls painful adjectives as being the ‘weakest prime minister’ this country has seen. Lastly, the prime minister in indulging in the Amar Singh style of politics has sullied his image as a politician with integrity, who had risen above the politics of money and muscle power. How the prime minister views this association with Amar Singh is something for him to ponder over and political scientists to fully dissect and comprehend.

Amar Singh on the other hand, has also emerged as the new power center in the UPA. If Manmohan Singh is the King, Amar Singh has emerged as the Kingmaker by extending the much needed lifeline to the Congress-led UPA. How he extracts his pound of flesh, politically, through policy changes and by extending governmental support to influential friends remains to be seen. And while any Left-SP rapprochement seems distant at the moment it is a possibility that cannot be ruled out given the affinity the two sides have had over the years. But just as the triumphant trust vote has made the two Singhs emerge stronger and politically more astute, both men have also lost out as a result of the manner with which proceeding panned out in the run-up to actual vote. The display of money bags that allegedly were provided by Amar Singh and Ahmed Patel to three BJP’s MP’s as inducements to abstain from the vote and thereby help the government not only sullied the UPA’s victory party but also left a nation stunned. The Prime Minister on Tuesday night had asked his political opponents to prove the charges of horse-trading and money exchanging hands being carried out at the behest of the UPA. The scenes from Parliamentary proceedings on Wednesday afternoon would have stunned the prime minister. It is now imperative on the prime minister, who personal integrity is above board to ensure that an investigation is sought into this unsavory incident and the guilty punished. The last two weeks have left the nation not only horrified at the level of money trading hands but shocked at the depths of political immorality our politicians are willing to indulge in for the sake of power. While many may argue that the politics and people exercising realpolitik are corrupt, that is still no justification for it to go on or for it to become acceptable in any way, shape or form.

The prime minister would do well to get over the victory celebrations and revelry that his party had descended into yesterday, for a much tougher task lies ahead. Price rise and inflation are issues that will continue to affect the state of the Indian economy for the foreseeable future. So while Manmohan Singh may have fixed India’s long term strategic and energy concerns by sealing the fate of the nuclear deal from his end, he still needs to use his entire economic wisdom and intellect to address short term concerns that concern ordinary citizens and more importantly his party with elections in the not too distant future.

Losing the people's trust vote

2008-07-21T12:22:00.000+05:30

The Congress-led UPA government headed by Manmohan Singh has descended into a frenzy to ensure that the UPA sails through the trust vote that is due on July 22nd. Having shown great ‘moral’ courage, the Prime Minister willfully offered to undergo a floor test in a bid to boost his credibility and also to legitimize the contentious Indo-US nuclear deal with a stamp of approval from the Parliament. Ever since the prime minister made that offer, his party and the so called UPA ‘managers’ have started playing the game of poach-the-MP and woo-the-party with great élan giving coalition dharma a whole new definition all together. So much so that a curious situation exists today, the mainstream media has received the NDA’s refusal to reduce the trust vote to a game of voluble horse-trading, as indications that the alliance is a spent force! The trust vote or the run up to the fateful vote has in fact caused more damage to the reputation of the prime minister and the Congress Party irrespective of the outcome of the vote. The Prime Minister must consider how he is increasingly being viewed by many in this country as nothing more than a wily old politician wrapped in an economists clothing.

The Prime Minister’s cloak and dagger approach towards taking the next steps vis-à-vis the nuclear deal started when he flew to Japan for the G8 summit. Having remained quiet and publically indisposed for days, he chose the safety of a plane and a foreign soil to break the news of going ahead with the negotiations with the IAEA thereby marking his government’s intent to take the Indo-US nuclear forward, which in turn precipitated the Left’s walking out of the government. Wanting to prove his credentials to the world and to parliament, Prime Minister Singh gallantly walked to Rashtrapati Bhawan to express his willingness to undergo a trust vote, even though it was not mandated, as the UPA ‘managers’ keep repeating. Having done this in good faith what has followed in the intervening weeks is tragic if not comical. The Congress Party decided to switch from one unholy alliance, with the Left, to join arms with another, the Samajwadi Party. The endorsement by Prime Minister Singh of the Amar Singh style of politics has caused enormous damage to his reputation, apart from the opportunism and hypocrisy that such a tie-up highlighted. But even though there are no permanent friends or enemies in politics, Prime Minister Singh’s next move has truly shocked even the most ardent of his supporters. By offering JMM’s Shibu Soren the return of ‘his’ Coal ministry along with giving in to a laundry list of his party’s demands, the prime minister instantaneously lost the moral aura that has surrounded the man. Soren is the same man that was not only convicted but who also caused the prime minister many sleepless nights by choosing to go underground and refused to tender his resignation. At the time we were told that the prime minister was ‘pained’ and had made sure that Soren put in his papers, thereby raising his moral standing in Indian politics. By ensuring Soren’s return to the Cabinet, the Prime Minister has done little to allay fears of many that he is willing to overlook public propriety in order to stay in office for a few more days. So while the Congress’ Rahul Gandhi may use brave words like if the government falls in national interest, then ‘so be it’, his prime minister is busy ensuring that even if survival of his government means political impropriety of the worst kind, then ‘so be it’.

Given the dynamics of the trust vote, and the touch and go nature of its outcome, what exactly is the UPA looking to achieve by reducing its image to taters in this unholy game of poaching, threats and incentives? The UPA, if it does mange to make it through the trust vote, would have done so only to lose the larger moral argument. With what moral authority would the government carry on the job of ruling this country knowing fully well how it has managed to stay in power? Winning the trust vote would be akin to saying that the surgery was successful, but the patient died. And that is something that the Congress and UPA ‘managers’ are failing to see in this political ’20-20’ game as some media houses would have you believe. Lastly, this game of quick money transfers between political parties and individual MP’s has irreparably harmed the prime minister. Over the past four years influential columnists and commentators have always upheld the prime minister as the face of modernity, piety, honesty, transparency and moral authority. While his personal honesty and transparency remain intact his moral authority and standing as an economist have taken a beating. While the prime minister may plead helplessness on the economic front owing to global attributes that have caused inflation and rising prices, the people of India looked up to the economist prime minister to have foreseen the trouble rather than raise his arms in helplessness. On the moral front, Manmohan Singh will always be remembered as the man who not only reduced the position and stature of the prime minister by playing second fiddle to the party chief, he will also be remembered as the honest man who stood by and watched dishonest machinations being played out in his name in order to ensure his continuity in office. That is a realization that must dawn on his conscious sooner rather than later.

Why are Obama and McCain still neck and neck?

2008-07-16T11:50:00.000+05:30

Going by the hyperbolic media coverage of the US presidential, conventional wisdom would suggest that Democrat Presidential nominee Barack Obama should beat his Republican rival John McCain in a no contest. Obama with his huge mass appeal, flourishing oratory and a genuine mass movement that has not been witnessed for decades looks set to be installed at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue come January 2009. However, recent polls conducted by various news organizations are not that emphatic towards such a notion. A recently conducted Washington Post/ABC poll gives Obama a lead of 50%-42% preference over McCain amongst people it polled, while CBS/New York Time polls it at 45-39. Crucially, both these polls mention a 5% margin of error and have more than 10% of voters who were undecided or considered switching candidates. Further the CNN’s poll of polls give Obama a lead of 5% while Newsweek and Gallup 4% and 3% respectively. What these numbers indicate is two fold. One, undoubtedly Obama has a lead over McCain no matter which poll you consider and second, the margin of error once adjusted to the numbers suggests that this race is still in a statistical dead heat. Four months ahead of the Presidential elections, it is important to analyze why after such a huge movement of public interest, the media and the world in general towards Obama, McCain still remains at par with his more charismatic opponent.

For Barack Obama two things have become the core nucleus of his campaign strategy – momentum and his message. Obama has become the first candidate in history to use the internet to his full advantage and thereby not only increase his war chest full of dollars, he has also been able to attract the youth, to whom he appeals strongly as an agent of change. For the first time in this century perhaps, the youth are genuinely involved in this election process. Additionally, Obama has enjoyed some good press, with the media attracted towards his message of change and a break from the policies of incumbent President George Bush, with whom large swathes of the media had open disagreements and a testy relationship with his policies and administration. To the press corps Obama represents a new beginning that can make the country turn the page on the eight years of Bush that have left the country divided and at war on multiple fronts. While the conservative media outlets have been critical of Obama and have labeled him as potentially the most liberal candidate to ever get nominated, the majority of the media coverage on Obama has been favorable. So much so that his erstwhile rival, Hillary Clinton and her husband Bill would often openly complain about how the press dealt with Obama with kids gloves.

Secondly, Obama has used a well crafted message along with his legendary oratory skills to great use. His rally cry of bringing ‘change we can believe in’ has become a movement in itself. Every stump speech Obama delivers is against the backdrop of change and how all his life he has championed change and will continue to do so if voted to office. His second message has been even more devastating for McCain. The Obama camp has been effective in associating a potential McCain presidency as a third Bush term. While the notion of McCain being similar to George Bush could not be further from the truth, the two men have been great political rivals since 2000; the Obama campaign nonetheless has driven home that point repeatedly, especially amongst first time voters with some success.

Over at the McCain camp, two things are at work for the candidate. His experience and nuanced approach on many issues has many voters nodding in approval. While Obama has relied on bigger venues and crowds to rally his troops as it were, McCain has relied on smaller ‘town hall meetings’ to engage his supporters and also answer all their questions and apprehensions. This low on rhetoric and high on substance approach may not get thousands in a hall creaming “change” but it does reassure a large number of people who want the right type of change. Secondly, considering the issues and problems that face the United States and the world in general, McCain is seen as the more reliable candidate to handle crises. When CBS/New York Times asked people polled whom they consider more effective in handling national crises, 82% favored McCain as being more effective than Obama. This shows that McCain’s overwhelming military and senate experience is encouraging a lot of people to vote for him.

McCain’s problems stem from the fact that the self proclaimed ‘straight talk express’ often says things that are stingingly true and when juxtaposed with the message of hope and change on offer at the Obama camp seem dark and gloomy. Obama has also talked intensively on the Iraq and Afghan Wars. He has promised to bring the war in Iraq to an end right from his first day in office and also to send three additional brigades of US troops to bolster the American efforts in Afghanistan. Obama has also rather contentiously offered to hold direct talks with the leader of Iran in order to reduce tensions between the two sides. McCain has used this to his strength and has argued that while talking about the mistake of going to war in Iraq is yesterday’s news, he presented the country with a solution (the famed surge) that though unpopular was highly successful. McCain therefore, seems to suggest that he is not wary of taking decisions that are unpopular but in national interest, rather than pander to the audience he is addressing. On Afghanistan, McCain is offering another surge, much like Iraq, along with specifics like ensuring a unity in command under the United States to ensure a coherent military strategy in Afghanistan. He has also talked about hiring an Afghan war czar to monitor the Afghan war on a day to day basis rather than let it be on auto-pilot as is the case now. Encouragingly, McCain has also talked about ensuring that Afghanistan is not used as a theatre of war to further the interests of Afghanistan’s neighbors (read Pakistan). On Iran, McCain is unwavering in his support for Israel and hawkish on his approach towards the leader of Iran. These specifics on the foreign policy front not only make McCain a more acceptable candidate, but also enhance his foreign policy credentials which appeals to voters.

It will ultimately be for the American people to decide whom they finally install at the White House, but at the moment the race looks set to intensify with both sides wanting to woo the independents, undecided voters and fence sitters in both parties, the so called Reagan Democrats and the Obama Republicans to vote for them. But the bottom line remains that many are already calling Obama the winner rather prematurely. He may have beaten a formidable rival in Hillary Clinton to claim his party’s nomination, but polls and empirical data indicate his fight for the White House has only just begun.

Why Zimbabwe matters

2008-06-30T13:42:00.000+05:30

The southern African nation of Zimbabwe has been reeling under political turmoil and economic downturn for all of this year. The March 26 Presidential elections were the stage where many felt that the country’s ruler for the past nearly three decades would finally be ousted and his long time rival would democratically replace him. However, the elections in Zimbabwe have proven to add to the turmoil in the country rather than make things any better. President Robert Mugabe’s Zanu PF party was given a spirited challenge by the Movement for Democratic Change’s (MDC) Morgan Tsavangarai. The ZANU PF did try to throw a red herring in the way of the electorate by propping up a rebel from within their party, the former finance minister Simba Makoni. The election results, declared after a three week delay amidst charges of rigging in favor of Mugabe, showed Tsvangarai ahead of Mugabe but not by the constitutionally mandated majority. This ensured a June runoff between the Mugabe and Tsvangarai. What followed was a not only a subjugation of human rights and free speech but also a dictatorial crackdown on all opposition to Mugabe. Tsavangarai regrettably pulled out of the race following the threat, intimidation and arrest of MDC cadres including their general secretary Tendai Biti. The results of the ‘election’ showed Mugabe winning a handsome 85 % of the votes and he started his new term in office yesterday. The international press has showcased this case for months and has been vocal in their opposition to the dictatorial ways of Robert Mugabe. However, the world community and particularly African nations have long been accused of not doing enough; a criticism which extends to the Commonwealth nations as well, India included.

Zimbabwe under Mugabe has seen a steady decline both economically and socially. Mugabe’s decision to nationalize all farms owned by the white minority was his way of rallying the rural population into a pseudo-nationalistic fervor. He espoused white rule and is still seen by some as standing against the oppressive white regimes of the past and the perceived neo-imperialistic designs of the United Kingdom and the United States now. While this racially biased social equality policy did make Mugabe popular, it did not help since Mugabe did not have a plan on what do to after the acquisition of these farms. This resulted in a huge decline in agricultural production in a country which was considered the breadbasket of southern Africa. The new owners of the land did not have the wherewithal that the white farmers had at their disposal, and the declining produce along with crippling economic sanctions by the world and the United Nations ensured that the Zimbabwean economy came to a grinding halt. Today Zimbabwe has the unenviable distinction of having the world’s highest inflation rate, a mind boggling 66,000%, a figure that makes India’s 11% seem almost laughable. Social indicators have also seen a steady decline, infant mortality and general health indices have all declined to sub-Saharan levels, something which was unthinkable as late as the early nineties. This decline in social indicators and the economy have paradoxically helped Mugabe’s grip over power. Like all dictators, he has passed the buck on to the UK and the US for the squalor of the common Zimbabwean. Mugabe wants to see himself as the savior of his people in the face of Western imperialism, a delusional strategy employed by every dictator in past century with limited success. Zimbabwe has witnessed in a span of two decades a dramatic shift from a democracy to a certified dictatorship while her neighbors have watched in a studied silence.

The Commonwealth threw out Zimbabwe in 2002 and urged the African Union and the Southern African Development Council (SADC) to crack the whip on the country’s ruler. However, both the AU and SADC have been reluctant to do so, the reasons for this are obvious. Firstly, by siding with the ‘West’, the AU and SADC do not want to play into Mugabe’s hands. Mugabe would portray his AU leaders as sellouts, much like how Saddam Hussein portrayed countries like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt and Jordan. Secondly, any violent overthrow or a hybrid AU-UN peacekeeping mission may result in a full scale civil war, with thousands of refugees pouring into neighboring countries. Already, Zimbabwean refugees have been brutally attacked and hundreds killed in an orgy of targeted violence against them in numerous shanty towns in South Africa last month. The anger stems from the fact that poor South Africans with their own hand-to-mouth existence cannot share the economic pie with refugees from a country that has become a self induced man-made disaster. Both these crucial reasons have ensured that even respected and influential leaders like South African President Thabo Mbeki have chosen to deal in hushed tones rather than the open bluster, much to the chagrin of Western democracies.

While a lasting solution to the Zimbabwean crises needs to come out the country and the African nations itself, there is no denying the fact that democracies like India need to be openly vocal on it views on the country. Countries of the Commonwealth, like India, have often been accused of suffering from a post colonial hangover, where we see criticism of any erstwhile member of the British Empire as heresy. We all relate to each other since we have suffered under the same colonial oppressor operating from London. We see criticism of a country like Zimbabwe as some sort of betrayal, by backing our colonial masters instead of our oppressed brothers. This sense of ‘post-colonial persecution syndrome’ against the West must cease for the larger interest of democracy and individual freedom. Until the time we continue to stay mum, flourishing countries like Zimbabwe will continue their dramatic decline to dictatorship and chaos. India is seen as the beacon of democracy in South Asia, we along with our African friends must involve ourselves in vigorous diplomatic overtures to help find that elusive ‘African solution’ for Zimbabwe. Failing which, not only will African nations be viewed as a lost cause, countries like India will be considered ineffective in the fight for democracy the world over. We made the mistake with Myanmar, let’s not repeat it with Zimbabwe.

Political Guru

2008-06-26T09:31:00.000+05:30

Courtesy: Ziggy

Can India say Yes?

2008-06-25T17:39:00.002+05:30

Can India say yes? - The Washington Post's editorial, June 25th on the Indo-US nuclear deal

Blame Duck Government

2008-06-23T11:28:00.001+05:30

The Manmohan Singh led coalition finds itself in a crisis on multiple fronts. While on the one hand, the country is witnessing sky rocketing double digit inflation, simultaneously, the Indo-US nuclear deal and how to take the deal forward has led to talk of an imminent fall of the government. Just when Manmohan Singh had taken an emphatic, ‘deal or I quit’ stand, the news from the economic front made his party think tank ask the prime minister to lay low. While the nuclear deal has undertaken repeated bouts of two steps forward followed by several steps backwards, the news on the economic front makes for worse news for the Congress and its UPA allies. Till as early as a year back, the troika of Dr. Manmohan Singh, P Chidambaram and Montek Singh Ahluwalia were hailed by one and all as steering India to economic prosperity. The government was never shy to take credit for its handling of the economic boom that the country was witnessing. Who can forget the finance minister triumphantly declaring the farmers loan waiver scheme this March with the backdrop of pleased UPA MP’s thumping their desks. Today, March looks like light years away and the same MP’s are wondering whether their positions will remain secure in the coming elections. Curiously, ever since the bad news on the economic front has hit the headlines, the troika has adopted a change in heart. The economic downturn is not because of inept handling or myopic understanding of global trends, but actually because of ‘global causes’. The troika must understand that the ‘global causes’ argument cannot be used to one’s convenience. If all the good is because of the troika then so must be the bad and vice versa, the global causes argument cannot be used an escape route for the government or the troika.

The handling of the Indo-US nuclear deal has been worse than economics in the country. The government has dithered on a deal that must go through keeping in mind India strategic and energy interests. The government has however taken a more petty view on the nuclear deal. The prime minister has weighed the pros and cons of the deal not on the merits of national interest, but based on how it can ensure his continuity in office or somehow when the dust settles make him look like a patriot and martyr at the alter of national interest and competing world views vis-à-vis the Left. Politics and politicking over the nuclear deal has now gone on for close to two years, however, one expected straight talk from Manmohan Singh on the issue. He threatened to resign last year, but did not follow through; neither did the deal for that matter. This year again a similar charade has played out and once again the prime minister has been threatening to resign but has not followed through, yet. More disturbingly, the government has also not been upfront about the chances of the deal going through at this stage. Even if the government were to go to the IAEA and get the necessary clearances, the NSG rounds of talks will be time consuming and contentious. China and Australia are likely to hold up the NSG clearance to suit their national interests. In such a scenario any delay in getting the NSG clearance will ensure that the US Congress cannot take up the issue for voting, not at least with Bush as President. As things stand today, the deal can only be carried through by the next government, both in India and the US.

Lastly, the Congress is now cozying up to the Samajwadi Party for support on the nuclear deal. This is the same SP that the government and more importantly the Gandhi family never refrained from vilifying when Mulayam Singh was chief minister of Uttar Pradesh. This is the same SP whose General Secretary Amar Singh was thrown out by the Congress in 2004 at the time of the UPA’s formation. This is the same SP that caused Sonia Gandhi her biggest embarrassment when in 1998 she claimed to have 272 MP’s only to be spurned by Mulayam Singh Yadav. This misadventure with the SP has all the chances of boomeranging on the Congress. It is possible that the SP might vote against the deal when and if the nuclear deal comes for a vote in parliament. That is the only way the SP can keep its shaky UNPA afloat and not burn bridges with the Left. The SP will view the UPA as a sinking ship and supporting it at this late a stage in the government’s life will not serve its political purpose. The Congress will not only held accountable for political misadventure, it will also be railed as inept in getting a deal through that the prime minister believes in but lacks conviction for fear of losing a few insignificant months in office.

Why McCain could still beat Obama

2008-06-09T13:14:00.000+05:30

Why McCain could still beat Obama - The Daily Telegraph's Janet Daley lists out why McCain is still stronger than the phenom Obama.

Leadership of Inconsequence

2008-06-05T12:53:00.000+05:30

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh finally made his presence felt belatedly with an address to the nation to explain his government’s decision to hike oil prices. The almost apologetic appearance on national television accurately depicted the beleaguered leader’s years in office. An honest and able politician was forced to address the nation in what seemed liked a hostage video, with the hostage pleading his case. Painfully, it seemed that his party and allies had given up on this government and wanted to push him to become the fall guy for the cabinet’s decision to raise the prices of oil. In the din of protests from across the political divide, the one important question that remained unanswered is that of a vision for oil security. Prime Minister Singh must be congratulated for highlighting the need to reduce the country’s dependence on oil and carbon based fuels. Unfortunately, for a man who is touted as the initiator of economic reforms in India, his focus on alternative and renewable sources of energy came four years too late. To give the Prime Minister the benefit of doubt, there was no oil “crisis” when he was anointed Prime Minister in 2004. However, the rising price of crude the world over is not a month old phenomenon. As early as 2007, analysts had started speculating that the price of oil was set to rise, with some beginning to talk about oil at $ 100 a barrel. The government at the time paid lip service to these forecasts and the nominal increase in oil prices followed. What the government under the leadership of Prime Minister Singh lacked in was the myopic view they had on subject of oil security and rising oil prices.

The Prime Minister ought to have raised the red flags and set out a comprehensive agenda to not only ensure energy security but how to tackle rising fuel prices. The country at that time needed a vision to be laid out for how our country, a net importer of oil, was going to meet the growing demands of a rising middle class and burgeoning economy. That was the time when the government needed to speak honestly about the fact that cheap oil as a concept was dead. By offering a grim reading of the situation in the summer of 2008 is not only late; it comes when we are far into the abyss. The government pulled an effective smokescreen over rising prices in order to tout its growth figures and the country’s rising stature. The adulation should be left for the independent media and analysts to offer and not the government. As much as it is important to tout one’s successes, it is imperative on the leadership to point towards the dark clouds. The UPA seems to be looking at only the silver linings.

Time and again the government has let things chug along and react only when a crisis erupts. Damage control has become an area of expertise rather than damage mitigation. What the country needs today, as we stand on the threshold of a better and rising India, is a strong leader who can provide a vision for the future. Talking about renewable sources of energy when oil is hovering at $125 a barrel is akin to procuring a bullet proof jacket after the bullet has been shot at you. More so, the call for rationing petroleum products has come at the fag end of the UPA’s term, which at best is a piecemeal solution for the country. The Prime Minister must not let the issue of India’s energy security and oil dependency be encapsulated in a solitary address to the nation. If indeed he is serious about the threats India faces because of rising oil prices, he must at the least initiate the process of outlining a comprehensive energy policy for the coming twenty years. Anything less will not only be disastrous for the country it will also seriously hamper Prime Minister Singh’s legacy.

Its official - Obama will take on McCain in November

2008-06-04T12:05:00.001+05:30

Democratic Presidential hopeful Barack Obama will be his party’s nominee for November’s US presidential elections. Obama with a win in Montana now has the desired number of pledged and super delegates to take on Republican nominee John McCain in what promises to be a historic election either way. The long winding and often bitter battle for the Democratic Party’s nomination saw two candidates, whose candidature was historic on its own; pull no punches in trying to claim the nomination. The party looked more divided in the face of extreme polarization on choosing either the first potential female president or the first African-American president. With the results of the last two primaries coming in, Obama clinched the desired figure of 2118 delegates to become his party’s nominee and also potentially the first African-American President of the United States.

Clinton, who hasn’t officially thrown in the towel yet, came in for praise in Obama’s victory speech in Minnesota, where he praised his rivals tenacity, public service and advocacy for healthcare for all. Obama was conciliatory knowing fully well that he will need the backing of the entire Clinton machinery to win the Presidency. Although, Clinton ran a spirited fight, nearly becoming her party’s nominee, her prolonged campaign knowing fully well that the math was not in her favor has some pundits worried that she may not fully back Obama in order to have another shot at the Presidency when the vacancy comes up in 2012. Far fetched as that theory may sound, it could be a possibility. With the elevation of Obama and his team as the new face of the Democratic Party, 2008 may well mark the end of the Democratic Party’s two most famous and formidable political dynasties – the Clintons and the Kennedy’s. A nomination battle defeat for Clinton could signal an end of her family’s stranglehold of her party, while the news of the grim diagnosis of Kennedy patriarch, Edward Kennedy’s brain tumor signals the end of the Kennedy era in Democratic and American politics. The new face of the Democrats, therefore, is now Obama and his vast pool of supporters that he has acquired during his 16 month old campaign. The Democrats now desperately need to all they can to unite the party in order to present a credible force to take on the redoubtable John McCain whose credentials as a war veteran and experienced Senator will be a challenge to counter. A sulking Clinton will not help the Obama camp, but they must make that first move towards reconciliation as Obama did in his Minnesota address, Hillary Clinton too must move away from personal achievement and glory and unite for the common cause of her party.

As the US Presidential elections now move towards a new phase – where a Republican and Democratic nominee will face off, talks of whom the candidates might choose as their running mates has become an area of increased focus. Barack Obama, whose legislative resume and foreign policy experience is thin, will do well to choose a running mate in either Senator Joe Biden of Delaware or take the bold step of tapping Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska. While Biden brings with him years of experience and foreign policy expertise, he could be accommodated as the Secretary of State in a potential Obama cabinet. Hagel, a Vietnam War veteran and an Iraq War critic whose recent book America Forward: The Next Chapter: Tough Questions, Straight Answers was scathing on the Bush presidency’s policies and could be the ideal candidate for Obama. A joint ticket of Obama and Hagel representing the Democrats and the Republicans will bolster Obama’s promise of bringing bi-partisanship into American politics. It is unlikely that Obama will tap Clinton as his running mate as it will counter his campaign’s clarion call for change. Obama, when under attack from Clinton, used to equate her as the Washington insider against whose policies he had run his campaign and given the fact that Clinton does not exactly represent the “change” Obama speaks of, if he does tap Clinton, his message will be considerably weakened.

John McCain too will have a tough time picking a running mate. If McCain does win, he will at 72 become the oldest President of the United States, and age will remain a keen area of focus given his youthful opponent is just 46. McCain will need to counter the call for change by Obama with what he has called the “right change” arguing that he has the experience and the ability to bring about change in Washington and in the country’s domestic and foreign policy. The call for “change with experience” will help in countering Obama and more so if he brings in a vice president running mate like Mitt Romney who can counter Obama’s youthfulness somewhat and also bring with him the experience of being a Governor of Massachusetts. Romney can also help rally the religious conservatives, the pro-life lobby and Wall Street that is influential in deciding the fate of the Republicans in electoral face offs. The array of candidates for McCain is widespread; he would be well advised to choose a candidate that bolsters his message of experience and the right change that needs to be brought in after eight years of the Bush presidency.

Obama now must focus on the campaign by stating his policy’s and initiatives against that of McCain’s. His lofty rhetoric has many worried that the solutions he promises for the nation are just not possible and some wonder whether his rhetoric is populist in nature to win votes and the Presidency while what McCain offers is straight talk which is much closer to reality, unpleasant as it may sound to many voters. Obama’s call for quitting Iraq is dangerous; though popular it may be in a country that is in war fatigue. McCain offers a more nuanced and responsible approach on the right way forward, no matter how unpleasant or time consuming it may sound. Similarly, while Obama talks about the reasons why the United States went to Iraq and the profound lack of judgment shown by the Bush administration in doing so, it is effective in rallying supporters but it fails to offer a solution on how best to deal with Iraq, a country finally back on a path of some normalcy after years of war. Obama’s call to meet with leaders of country’s like Iran has come in for flak as being naïve, Obama will have to prove his credentials on the foreign policy front as it is an area where McCain scores higher. On the American economy, Obama promises to end the Bush tax cuts and bring in tax cuts for middle income America. McCain has argued for making the Bush tax cuts permanent after they expire in 2010 keeping in mind the ailing economy. Obama, though, takes the lead in climate change and offering millions of “green jobs” by investing in alternative energy research and reducing the dependency on oil. McCain has lacked a clear vision on alternative energy and will face tough questions on that front. Closer home, John McCain has asked for closer ties with India and has backed the Indo-US nuclear deal, bringing him in line with most Republicans that call for closer ties with the world’s largest democracy.

The 2008 elections will feature two candidates who will bring about a definite change from the policies of the present incumbent George W. Bush. What quantum of change the American people desire, only time can tell, but there is no denying the fact that change is in the air. Obama, the original messenger of change will want to paint a vote for McCain as voting for a third Bush term, a potent message that will damage McCain and one that McCain will find tough to fend off. While McCain will argue that Obama does not have the ability and experience to solve the problems he has promised. The race to the White House has just begun.