First election after Woman's reservation bill got passed in Lok Sabha, starting from tomorrow. I was going through details of some candidates for the election. There were some broad questions that came to mind (33% to 50%). I have tried to answer each of them in this post.
* Do we need reservation for women?
* Is reservation really needed at the highest level?
* Are reservations really going to make any difference?
* Do we need sub-quotas?
Do we need reservation for women?
A lot has already been written in the mainstream media about the importance that gender equality and empowerment of women plays in the overall development of any society. So I do not wish to repeat what has already been said and to a large extent well understood as well. Empowering women in a society where they have been treated like doormats for centuries is not an easy task. There is bound to be a internal resistance.
Moreover how do we achieve it within the constraints that democracy poses us.China had a cultural revolution from 1966-78, which was imposed on the entire population and was not at all peaceful. In India, any acceptable change has to be brought in an extremely careful manner.
Therefore reservation is one way to empower women. Since 1993, 1/3rd of the seats in panchayats have been reserved for women. This has been referred to as "the greatest social experiment ever". Upon adding the numbers, there are more women elected representatives in India than the rest of the world.
Skeptics might argue that it is still the men who take most of the decisions and women are mere proxies. Most probably it is true. But at least it has brought some amount change in the general attitude of the people towards women. This has got them an entry point, something that would not have been possible without reservation. Changing the rural mindset is not easy. A young boy in a remote village grows watching his father ill-treat his mother. He begins view this as acceptable and is more likely to do the same when he grows up. With such a system in place, it would at least stop such outdated ideas from percolating to the next generation.
Today there are a large number of NGOs that are helping women sarpanches in performing their duties These sarpanches are slowly making their presence felt. They known to focus much more on basic issues like drinking water, sanitation and education. They are much more honest. Since then, the reservations for women have been increased to 50%. I would go on to suggest that this number should be further increased to 75-100% in areas such as Haryana and some part of Punjab where Gender ratios are extremely poor and female infanticide is prevalent.
Moreover, reservation is important because it has been observed that once the seat is dereserved, almost 40% of woman choose not to contest. India's poor record on HDI index can expect to receive a boost in the long run. A professor(with over 25 years of teaching experience) of mine was once discussing this issue. He recalled, how over all these years the psyche of female students changed. While female students of the 80's and 90's would be vocal and aggressive about their rights, the present day female students almost expect equality.As they say, this is how democracy works, slowly.
Is reservation really needed at the highest level?
Reservations at the bottom is needed to bring about social change but is it really needed at the top. Or should merit prevail as we should be more bothered about who is more qualified to lead the country?
India's biggest strength is its democracy and diversity. The idea of India is unique because of its unity in diversity. It has been a tradition in India since the very beginning to have representations of all communities and regions. So all Union Cabinets formed till date have ensured that all communities are well represented. With its abysmally low 10% of elected women representative doesn't goes well with its idea of World's Largest democracy.
One of the major reasons why women are so under-represented is because they have their family responsibilities. This has been well recognized by nearly half of the world and it is time that we also consider this option seriously. Let us not forget that even in the best and most admired companies in the world, the female representation in the boardrooms is extremely low despite good gender ratios at lower levels. The most important reason for this that is again the family responsibilities. In something as important as nation building, it is important to give women their due representation.
Are reservations really going to make any difference?
Reservations are not a panacea and mere reservation is not going to solve everything. Furthermore, just looking around at women politicians Most of them are from political families. Women Empowerment does not means election of such women from political families. In fact such reservations could reduce merit. Wives, daughters, mothers, daughters-in-laws of politicians could be running the show. Another option is that a certain tickets from political parties are reserved for women. The counter-argument given to this suggestion is that women shall be given only losing seats.
Another risk is that this reservation may extend to perpetuity. The caste based reservations introduced in 1950 were supposed to last only 10 years. They have been extended regularly. It is quite possible that the women reservation might take a similar course. Presently this reservation has been made for 15 years, but most probably it shall be there for a long time. In my opinion, there should be a clear road-map to gradually reduce the % of seats reserved for women to around 15%. This would make a balance between merit and social inclusion.
At this point of time, it is impossible to predict whether reservations can bring about any major difference.
Do we need sub-quotas?
Some of the parties like JD(U) and RJD are calling sub-quota for minorities and OBC's. Even though reservations are supposed to eliminate differences, they actually end up doing exactly the opposite. Caste based reservations are a classic example of the same. Reservations based on religion is therefore a dangerous territory.
However, this suggestion mustn't be rejected outright without examining whether there is a need for such a reservation. There is no doubt that women across all communities face numerous hurdles to rise. However, it is incorrect to assume that this is homogeneous across all communities.Women in some communities face much more hurdles than other because some communities are more orthodox than the others.
So while women reservations bill will benefit the women in SC's and ST's, Muslims and OBC women are not likely to benefit much and their representation in Parliament is likely to remain low. For e.g., presently out of 543 members in Lok Sabha, there are only 3 Women Muslim members. If one tries to think of prominent active Women Muslim Politicians, the only name that comes to mind is Mehbooba Mufti. But even she comes from a Political family and she is more likely to take up issues on Kashmir rather the empowerment of Muslim Women.
Furthermore, reservations for OBC's and Muslim women is not easy because there aren't any seats reserved for these communities. Moreover, Muslim population is varies across the country and hence the formula cannot apply across all states. One possible solution is increasing number of seats in Rajya Sabha and nominating members from these communities. Another important thing is that with 33% reservation, the total reserved seats would go upto 48% (22.5%+33%-(22.5/3)). Any further increase to reservation would mean that less than 50% seats are available in the unreserved category.
While the real empowerment of Women can take place at the grassroots level, women leadership across all communities needs to be created at the highest level so that they can take up women issues. Therefore, I believe there is a need to examine the feasibility of sub-quotas within quotas.
Conclusion
There is an old adage, when you educate a man you educate an individual when you educate a woman you educate a whole family. However, reservation is an easy shortcut. Without proper backup steps, it is unlikely to make any significant impact.
Happy Election, Vote for the best. Remember, they are going to rule us.
Friday, October 22, 2010
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Copyright amendment bill (2010)
I could attend lot of meetings and debates regarding the Copyright (Amendment) Bill, 2010, from a public interest perspective to sift the good from the bad, and importantly to point out what crucial amendments should be considered but have not been so far.
The full submission that IMI, IPRS and other civil society organizations made to the Rajya Sabha Standing Committee on HRD (which is studying the Bill) is available here. Given below is the summary of our submissions:
Existing Copyright Act
The Indian Copyright Act, 1957 has been designed from the perspective of a developing country. It has always attempted a balance between various kinds of interests. It has always sought to ensure that rights of authors of creative works is carefully promoted alongside the public interest served by wide availability and usability of that material. For instance, our Copyright Act has provisions for:
*
compulsory and statutory licensing: recognizing its importance in making works available, especially making them available at an affordable rate.
*
cover versions: recognizing that more players lead to a more vibrant music industry.
*
widely-worded right of fair dealing for private use: recognizing that individual use and large-scale commercial misuse are different.
These provisions of our Act have been lauded, and India has been rated as the most balanced copyright system in a global survey conducted of over 34 countries by Consumers International.
The Indian Parliament has always sought to be responsive to changing technologies by paying heed to both the democratisation of access as well as the securing of the interests of copyright holders. This approach needs to be lauded, and importantly, needs to be maintained.
Proposed Amendments
Some positive amendments
*
Fair Dealings, Parallel Importation, Non-commercial Rental: All works (including sound recordings and cinematograph films) are now covered the fair dealings clause (except computer programmes), and a few other exceptions; parallel importation is now clearly allowed; and non-commercial rental has become a limitation in some cases.
*
Persons with disabilities: There is finally an attempt at addressing the concerns of persons with disabilities. But the provisions are completely useless the way they are currently worded.
*
Public Libraries: They can now make electronic copies of works they own, and some other beneficial changes relating to public libraries.
*
Education: Some exceptions related to education have been broadened (scope of works, & scope of use).
*
Statutory and compulsory licensing: Some new statutory licensing provisions (including for radio broadcasting) and some streamlining of existing compulsory licensing provisions.
*
Copyright societies: These are now responsible to authors and not owners of works.
*
Open licences: Free and Open Source Software and Open Content licensing is now simpler.
*
Partial exemption of online intermediaries: Transient and incidental storage of copyrighted works has been excepted, mostly for the benefit of online intermediaries.
*
Performer’s rights: The general, and confusing, exclusive right that performers had to communicate their performance to the public has been removed, and instead only the exclusive right to communicate sound/video recordings remains.
*
Enforcement: Provisions on border measures have been made better, and less prone to abuse and prevention of legitimate trade.
Some negative amendments
*
WCT and WPPT compliance: India has not signed either of these two treaties, which impose TRIPS-plus copyright protection, but without any corresponding increase in fair dealing / fair use rights.
*
Increase in duration of copyright: This will significantly reduce the public domain, which India has been arguing for internationally.
*
Technological Protection Measures: TPMs, which have been shown to be anti-consumer in all countries in which they have been introduced, are sought to be brought into Indian law.
*
Version recordings: The amendments make cover version much more difficult to produce.
*
Moral rights: Changes have been made to author’s moral rights (and performer’s moral rights have been introduced) but these have been made without requisite safeguards.
Missed opportunities
*
Government-funded works: Taxpayers are still not free to use works that were paid for by them. This goes against the direction that India has elected to march towards with the Right to Information Act.
*
Copyright terms: The duration of all copyrights are above the minimum required by our international obligations, thus decreasing the public domain which is crucial for all scientific and cultural progress.
*
Criminal provisions: Our law still criminalises individual, non-commercial copyright infringement.
*
Libraries and archives: The exceptions for ‘public libraries’ are still too narrow in what they perceive as ‘public libraries’.
*
Educational exceptions: The exceptions for education still do not fully embrace distance and digital education.
*
Communication to the public: No clear definition is given of what constitute a ‘public’, and no distinction is drawn between commercial and non-commercial ‘public’ communication.
*
Internet intermediaries: More protections are required to be granted to Internet intermediaries to ensure that non-market based peer-production projects such as Wikipedia, and other forms of social media and grassroots innovation are not stifled.
*
Fair dealing and fair use: We would benefit greatly if, apart from the specific exceptions provided for in the Act, more general guidelines were also provided as to what do not constitute infringement. This would not take away from the existing exceptions.
The full submission that IMI, IPRS and other civil society organizations made to the Rajya Sabha Standing Committee on HRD (which is studying the Bill) is available here. Given below is the summary of our submissions:
Existing Copyright Act
The Indian Copyright Act, 1957 has been designed from the perspective of a developing country. It has always attempted a balance between various kinds of interests. It has always sought to ensure that rights of authors of creative works is carefully promoted alongside the public interest served by wide availability and usability of that material. For instance, our Copyright Act has provisions for:
*
compulsory and statutory licensing: recognizing its importance in making works available, especially making them available at an affordable rate.
*
cover versions: recognizing that more players lead to a more vibrant music industry.
*
widely-worded right of fair dealing for private use: recognizing that individual use and large-scale commercial misuse are different.
These provisions of our Act have been lauded, and India has been rated as the most balanced copyright system in a global survey conducted of over 34 countries by Consumers International.
The Indian Parliament has always sought to be responsive to changing technologies by paying heed to both the democratisation of access as well as the securing of the interests of copyright holders. This approach needs to be lauded, and importantly, needs to be maintained.
Proposed Amendments
Some positive amendments
*
Fair Dealings, Parallel Importation, Non-commercial Rental: All works (including sound recordings and cinematograph films) are now covered the fair dealings clause (except computer programmes), and a few other exceptions; parallel importation is now clearly allowed; and non-commercial rental has become a limitation in some cases.
*
Persons with disabilities: There is finally an attempt at addressing the concerns of persons with disabilities. But the provisions are completely useless the way they are currently worded.
*
Public Libraries: They can now make electronic copies of works they own, and some other beneficial changes relating to public libraries.
*
Education: Some exceptions related to education have been broadened (scope of works, & scope of use).
*
Statutory and compulsory licensing: Some new statutory licensing provisions (including for radio broadcasting) and some streamlining of existing compulsory licensing provisions.
*
Copyright societies: These are now responsible to authors and not owners of works.
*
Open licences: Free and Open Source Software and Open Content licensing is now simpler.
*
Partial exemption of online intermediaries: Transient and incidental storage of copyrighted works has been excepted, mostly for the benefit of online intermediaries.
*
Performer’s rights: The general, and confusing, exclusive right that performers had to communicate their performance to the public has been removed, and instead only the exclusive right to communicate sound/video recordings remains.
*
Enforcement: Provisions on border measures have been made better, and less prone to abuse and prevention of legitimate trade.
Some negative amendments
*
WCT and WPPT compliance: India has not signed either of these two treaties, which impose TRIPS-plus copyright protection, but without any corresponding increase in fair dealing / fair use rights.
*
Increase in duration of copyright: This will significantly reduce the public domain, which India has been arguing for internationally.
*
Technological Protection Measures: TPMs, which have been shown to be anti-consumer in all countries in which they have been introduced, are sought to be brought into Indian law.
*
Version recordings: The amendments make cover version much more difficult to produce.
*
Moral rights: Changes have been made to author’s moral rights (and performer’s moral rights have been introduced) but these have been made without requisite safeguards.
Missed opportunities
*
Government-funded works: Taxpayers are still not free to use works that were paid for by them. This goes against the direction that India has elected to march towards with the Right to Information Act.
*
Copyright terms: The duration of all copyrights are above the minimum required by our international obligations, thus decreasing the public domain which is crucial for all scientific and cultural progress.
*
Criminal provisions: Our law still criminalises individual, non-commercial copyright infringement.
*
Libraries and archives: The exceptions for ‘public libraries’ are still too narrow in what they perceive as ‘public libraries’.
*
Educational exceptions: The exceptions for education still do not fully embrace distance and digital education.
*
Communication to the public: No clear definition is given of what constitute a ‘public’, and no distinction is drawn between commercial and non-commercial ‘public’ communication.
*
Internet intermediaries: More protections are required to be granted to Internet intermediaries to ensure that non-market based peer-production projects such as Wikipedia, and other forms of social media and grassroots innovation are not stifled.
*
Fair dealing and fair use: We would benefit greatly if, apart from the specific exceptions provided for in the Act, more general guidelines were also provided as to what do not constitute infringement. This would not take away from the existing exceptions.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Politricks of Kidnapping
Our world shuddered with horror when one of the four Bihar policemen kidnapped by Maoists was murdered in cold blood. Three were released unharmed – and we rejoiced. But is this the end of this cruelest of political games?
Of course not. Within days of the Bihar release, three insurance agents were kidnapped somewhere near Kolkata by suspected Maoists. Why insurance agents? The question is really irrelevant because any human beings will do for militants around the world. They may be policemen, civil servants, children, women, journalists or air/train passengers. Human lives are the best bargaining chips.
Lalu’s Bihar might have taken kidnapping to the level of an everyday business. But whether it is a doctor kidnapped for ransom, or a busload of passengers hijacked by an aggrieved policeman as in Manila, there is a unique fear factor in this business. When Mumbai-based American journalist Daniel Pearl was captured by terrorists in Pakistan, video footage released by the captors, masked men holding guns to the kneeling victim’s head, terrorised the whole world. Then that innocent young man was beheaded. The extraordinary cruelty involved in many kidnappings makes this perhaps the most vexatious problem of our times.
That could also explain why most politically motivated kidnappings are successful. The Iran hostage crisis lasted 444 days following the seizure of the US embassy in Teheran by militants. It lasted that long because neither side wanted a bloodbath. The Americans staged a military rescue operation, but it failed. Eventually diplomatic negotiations by third parties led to the release of all American hostages.
The Tupamaros guerilla movement in Latin America succeeded in ending the myth of American invincibility. Their most dramatic operation was the kidnapping of the US ambassador near his home in Rio de Janeiro in 1969. In two weeks the Brazilian Government capitulated and agreed to release 15 Leftist prisoners. In 1970 the German Ambassador in Guatemala was kidnapped. But the Government refused to free prisoners in exchange and the hapless ambassador was killed.
The Indian Airlines hijack saw the most abject of surrenders. One passenger was killed and many wounded. Even then Delhi not only released the prisoners named by the terrorists, but Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh personally accompanied them to Kandahar. The need for that special tribute to terrorism still remains unexplained.
By contrast, Veerappan was rather decent the way he treated the captured Rajkumar in 2000. The Kannada hero was held captive for 108 days. The desperate Karnataka Government was willing to release the prisoners Veerappan mentioned, but the courts barred any release. In the end money changed hands, though nobody admitted it. But the point was that Rajkumar was safe and sound – and rather more philosophical about life, as was evident from the grace and dignity with which he met the press upon release.
Kidnapping ordinary people is an easy crime to commit. Hence its appeal to those who operate beyond the lines of legitimacy. Religious terrorists do it for a doomed cause. Political terrorists may cite a more plausible cause such as fighting for the rights of the poor and exploited. But all are terrorists and all are taking advantage of the helplessness of the unprotected.
We don’t know what bargains were struck to save at least three lives in Bihar. But we know that more kidnappings, more cowardly acts like train derailment, will take place as long as the problem of basic deprivations of people is not addressed. The more is the pit
Of course not. Within days of the Bihar release, three insurance agents were kidnapped somewhere near Kolkata by suspected Maoists. Why insurance agents? The question is really irrelevant because any human beings will do for militants around the world. They may be policemen, civil servants, children, women, journalists or air/train passengers. Human lives are the best bargaining chips.
Lalu’s Bihar might have taken kidnapping to the level of an everyday business. But whether it is a doctor kidnapped for ransom, or a busload of passengers hijacked by an aggrieved policeman as in Manila, there is a unique fear factor in this business. When Mumbai-based American journalist Daniel Pearl was captured by terrorists in Pakistan, video footage released by the captors, masked men holding guns to the kneeling victim’s head, terrorised the whole world. Then that innocent young man was beheaded. The extraordinary cruelty involved in many kidnappings makes this perhaps the most vexatious problem of our times.
That could also explain why most politically motivated kidnappings are successful. The Iran hostage crisis lasted 444 days following the seizure of the US embassy in Teheran by militants. It lasted that long because neither side wanted a bloodbath. The Americans staged a military rescue operation, but it failed. Eventually diplomatic negotiations by third parties led to the release of all American hostages.
The Tupamaros guerilla movement in Latin America succeeded in ending the myth of American invincibility. Their most dramatic operation was the kidnapping of the US ambassador near his home in Rio de Janeiro in 1969. In two weeks the Brazilian Government capitulated and agreed to release 15 Leftist prisoners. In 1970 the German Ambassador in Guatemala was kidnapped. But the Government refused to free prisoners in exchange and the hapless ambassador was killed.
The Indian Airlines hijack saw the most abject of surrenders. One passenger was killed and many wounded. Even then Delhi not only released the prisoners named by the terrorists, but Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh personally accompanied them to Kandahar. The need for that special tribute to terrorism still remains unexplained.
By contrast, Veerappan was rather decent the way he treated the captured Rajkumar in 2000. The Kannada hero was held captive for 108 days. The desperate Karnataka Government was willing to release the prisoners Veerappan mentioned, but the courts barred any release. In the end money changed hands, though nobody admitted it. But the point was that Rajkumar was safe and sound – and rather more philosophical about life, as was evident from the grace and dignity with which he met the press upon release.
Kidnapping ordinary people is an easy crime to commit. Hence its appeal to those who operate beyond the lines of legitimacy. Religious terrorists do it for a doomed cause. Political terrorists may cite a more plausible cause such as fighting for the rights of the poor and exploited. But all are terrorists and all are taking advantage of the helplessness of the unprotected.
We don’t know what bargains were struck to save at least three lives in Bihar. But we know that more kidnappings, more cowardly acts like train derailment, will take place as long as the problem of basic deprivations of people is not addressed. The more is the pit
Monday, September 6, 2010
yes, we have options, do we have the will?
Another war with India is unlikely to be on China's agenda. But menacing military build-up and other needling tactics to divert India's energies and attention is central to its agenda. It’s an old ploy. But the level of aggressiveness is new.
India's politicians, the TV channels in particular, have a way of reacting to such unfriendly actions in an emotional, high-decibel style. Which is reminiscent of the Nehru-era cries like “we won't let them get one inch of Indian territory”. If anything, such declamatory posturings only reduce our own ability to work out counter-strategies in a cool and calculating manner.
Actually, we should learn from the Chinese how to be calculating. With a hundred-year perspective, they planned the strategic encirclement of India, with bases in Burma, Sri Lanka and Pakistan – even as we steadily lost our influence in neighbouring countries. With the same long-term view of history, they built up their road and rail networks in the Tibetan territory previously considered inhospitable to such transportation facilities. Recently they successfully tested their strategic airlift capability, an area where they have advanced very far with 450 high-capacity military cargo planes.
India is famous for dithering when it comes to military acquisition. Unseen middlemen still controlling the bulk of the transactions is only half the problem. The other half is our insistence of all kinds of special provisions, from incorporating systems still on the drawing board to establishing joint venture facilities. The result is that in all three wings of the defence forces, our strike capacity is well below the required level.
Sure, we have deployed significant troop numbers along the northern border and mountain road networks are being expanded. There will be no repeat of 1962. But it will take a heavy dose of unilateral patriotism to claim that India is a match to China in the military field.
The Chinese have been very smart in their diplomatic tantrums as well. Look at the calculations that must have gone into the stapled-visa system they invented for residents of Jammu & Kashmir. By introducing that system, China did not deny the validity of Indian passports held by Kashmiris, nor did it debar Kashmiris from travelling to China because of their Indian passports. It merely established that it did not recognise J & K being a part of India either in theory or in practice.
Smartly, again, it made no such distinction vis a vis residents of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir; they continue to have their visa stamped on their passports. By doing so, China established its recognition of the PoK areas as a legitimate part of Pakistan. A cleverly nuanced dual policy that hit India on the head and patted Pakistan on the shoulder.
Pakistan has been no less smart. By pretending to fight the Taliban, it has won the backing of the Americans. It has won also all-inclusive support from the Chinese by giving the Chinese three vital services they need: Keeping India pinned down, providing access routes to Iran and suppressing the Muslim nationalists in Xinjiang. While it encourages and finances Islamist groups, it suppresses the Uighur Islamists who are fighting the Chinese. It gets full help from China and the US at the same time.
India is demonstrably friendless because (a) we do not have a bold enough political leadership and (b) we are too obsessed with the US. We should be having a stridently active programme in east and Southeast Asia. From Japan and South Korea to Indonesia, all the countries of the region have been angered by China’s claim that all of the South China Sea is its territorial waters. This is a theatre where India would be warmly welcomed.
The first thing to do is to have a military-strategic action plan with Vietnam, Malaysia and Indonesia. As China’s economic power grows, its ambitions to dominate the world are also growing. This is the explanation for its newfound haughtiness. India has options in such a context – if it has the will to use them.
India's politicians, the TV channels in particular, have a way of reacting to such unfriendly actions in an emotional, high-decibel style. Which is reminiscent of the Nehru-era cries like “we won't let them get one inch of Indian territory”. If anything, such declamatory posturings only reduce our own ability to work out counter-strategies in a cool and calculating manner.
Actually, we should learn from the Chinese how to be calculating. With a hundred-year perspective, they planned the strategic encirclement of India, with bases in Burma, Sri Lanka and Pakistan – even as we steadily lost our influence in neighbouring countries. With the same long-term view of history, they built up their road and rail networks in the Tibetan territory previously considered inhospitable to such transportation facilities. Recently they successfully tested their strategic airlift capability, an area where they have advanced very far with 450 high-capacity military cargo planes.
India is famous for dithering when it comes to military acquisition. Unseen middlemen still controlling the bulk of the transactions is only half the problem. The other half is our insistence of all kinds of special provisions, from incorporating systems still on the drawing board to establishing joint venture facilities. The result is that in all three wings of the defence forces, our strike capacity is well below the required level.
Sure, we have deployed significant troop numbers along the northern border and mountain road networks are being expanded. There will be no repeat of 1962. But it will take a heavy dose of unilateral patriotism to claim that India is a match to China in the military field.
The Chinese have been very smart in their diplomatic tantrums as well. Look at the calculations that must have gone into the stapled-visa system they invented for residents of Jammu & Kashmir. By introducing that system, China did not deny the validity of Indian passports held by Kashmiris, nor did it debar Kashmiris from travelling to China because of their Indian passports. It merely established that it did not recognise J & K being a part of India either in theory or in practice.
Smartly, again, it made no such distinction vis a vis residents of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir; they continue to have their visa stamped on their passports. By doing so, China established its recognition of the PoK areas as a legitimate part of Pakistan. A cleverly nuanced dual policy that hit India on the head and patted Pakistan on the shoulder.
Pakistan has been no less smart. By pretending to fight the Taliban, it has won the backing of the Americans. It has won also all-inclusive support from the Chinese by giving the Chinese three vital services they need: Keeping India pinned down, providing access routes to Iran and suppressing the Muslim nationalists in Xinjiang. While it encourages and finances Islamist groups, it suppresses the Uighur Islamists who are fighting the Chinese. It gets full help from China and the US at the same time.
India is demonstrably friendless because (a) we do not have a bold enough political leadership and (b) we are too obsessed with the US. We should be having a stridently active programme in east and Southeast Asia. From Japan and South Korea to Indonesia, all the countries of the region have been angered by China’s claim that all of the South China Sea is its territorial waters. This is a theatre where India would be warmly welcomed.
The first thing to do is to have a military-strategic action plan with Vietnam, Malaysia and Indonesia. As China’s economic power grows, its ambitions to dominate the world are also growing. This is the explanation for its newfound haughtiness. India has options in such a context – if it has the will to use them.
yes, we have options, do we have the will?
Another war with India is unlikely to be on China's agenda. But menacing military build-up and other needling tactics to divert India's energies and attention is central to its agenda. It’s an old ploy. But the level of aggressiveness is new.
India's politicians, the TV channels in particular, have a way of reacting to such unfriendly actions in an emotional, high-decibel style. Which is reminiscent of the Nehru-era cries like “we won't let them get one inch of Indian territory”. If anything, such declamatory posturings only reduce our own ability to work out counter-strategies in a cool and calculating manner.
Actually, we should learn from the Chinese how to be calculating. With a hundred-year perspective, they planned the strategic encirclement of India, with bases in Burma, Sri Lanka and Pakistan – even as we steadily lost our influence in neighbouring countries. With the same long-term view of history, they built up their road and rail networks in the Tibetan territory previously considered inhospitable to such transportation facilities. Recently they successfully tested their strategic airlift capability, an area where they have advanced very far with 450 high-capacity military cargo planes.
India is famous for dithering when it comes to military acquisition. Unseen middlemen still controlling the bulk of the transactions is only half the problem. The other half is our insistence of all kinds of special provisions, from incorporating systems still on the drawing board to establishing joint venture facilities. The result is that in all three wings of the defence forces, our strike capacity is well below the required level.
Sure, we have deployed significant troop numbers along the northern border and mountain road networks are being expanded. There will be no repeat of 1962. But it will take a heavy dose of unilateral patriotism to claim that India is a match to China in the military field.
The Chinese have been very smart in their diplomatic tantrums as well. Look at the calculations that must have gone into the stapled-visa system they invented for residents of Jammu & Kashmir. By introducing that system, China did not deny the validity of Indian passports held by Kashmiris, nor did it debar Kashmiris from travelling to China because of their Indian passports. It merely established that it did not recognise J & K being a part of India either in theory or in practice.
Smartly, again, it made no such distinction vis a vis residents of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir; they continue to have their visa stamped on their passports. By doing so, China established its recognition of the PoK areas as a legitimate part of Pakistan. A cleverly nuanced dual policy that hit India on the head and patted Pakistan on the shoulder.
Pakistan has been no less smart. By pretending to fight the Taliban, it has won the backing of the Americans. It has won also all-inclusive support from the Chinese by giving the Chinese three vital services they need: Keeping India pinned down, providing access routes to Iran and suppressing the Muslim nationalists in Xinjiang. While it encourages and finances Islamist groups, it suppresses the Uighur Islamists who are fighting the Chinese. It gets full help from China and the US at the same time.
India is demonstrably friendless because (a) we do not have a bold enough political leadership and (b) we are too obsessed with the US. We should be having a stridently active programme in east and Southeast Asia. From Japan and South Korea to Indonesia, all the countries of the region have been angered by China’s claim that all of the South China Sea is its territorial waters. This is a theatre where India would be warmly welcomed.
The first thing to do is to have a military-strategic action plan with Vietnam, Malaysia and Indonesia. As China’s economic power grows, its ambitions to dominate the world are also growing. This is the explanation for its newfound haughtiness. India has options in such a context – if it has the will to use them.
India's politicians, the TV channels in particular, have a way of reacting to such unfriendly actions in an emotional, high-decibel style. Which is reminiscent of the Nehru-era cries like “we won't let them get one inch of Indian territory”. If anything, such declamatory posturings only reduce our own ability to work out counter-strategies in a cool and calculating manner.
Actually, we should learn from the Chinese how to be calculating. With a hundred-year perspective, they planned the strategic encirclement of India, with bases in Burma, Sri Lanka and Pakistan – even as we steadily lost our influence in neighbouring countries. With the same long-term view of history, they built up their road and rail networks in the Tibetan territory previously considered inhospitable to such transportation facilities. Recently they successfully tested their strategic airlift capability, an area where they have advanced very far with 450 high-capacity military cargo planes.
India is famous for dithering when it comes to military acquisition. Unseen middlemen still controlling the bulk of the transactions is only half the problem. The other half is our insistence of all kinds of special provisions, from incorporating systems still on the drawing board to establishing joint venture facilities. The result is that in all three wings of the defence forces, our strike capacity is well below the required level.
Sure, we have deployed significant troop numbers along the northern border and mountain road networks are being expanded. There will be no repeat of 1962. But it will take a heavy dose of unilateral patriotism to claim that India is a match to China in the military field.
The Chinese have been very smart in their diplomatic tantrums as well. Look at the calculations that must have gone into the stapled-visa system they invented for residents of Jammu & Kashmir. By introducing that system, China did not deny the validity of Indian passports held by Kashmiris, nor did it debar Kashmiris from travelling to China because of their Indian passports. It merely established that it did not recognise J & K being a part of India either in theory or in practice.
Smartly, again, it made no such distinction vis a vis residents of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir; they continue to have their visa stamped on their passports. By doing so, China established its recognition of the PoK areas as a legitimate part of Pakistan. A cleverly nuanced dual policy that hit India on the head and patted Pakistan on the shoulder.
Pakistan has been no less smart. By pretending to fight the Taliban, it has won the backing of the Americans. It has won also all-inclusive support from the Chinese by giving the Chinese three vital services they need: Keeping India pinned down, providing access routes to Iran and suppressing the Muslim nationalists in Xinjiang. While it encourages and finances Islamist groups, it suppresses the Uighur Islamists who are fighting the Chinese. It gets full help from China and the US at the same time.
India is demonstrably friendless because (a) we do not have a bold enough political leadership and (b) we are too obsessed with the US. We should be having a stridently active programme in east and Southeast Asia. From Japan and South Korea to Indonesia, all the countries of the region have been angered by China’s claim that all of the South China Sea is its territorial waters. This is a theatre where India would be warmly welcomed.
The first thing to do is to have a military-strategic action plan with Vietnam, Malaysia and Indonesia. As China’s economic power grows, its ambitions to dominate the world are also growing. This is the explanation for its newfound haughtiness. India has options in such a context – if it has the will to use them.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Family Politics
From the sublime to the ridiculous. From the orderly conduct and salutary results of the election, to the ugly scramble for portfolios by our greedy politicians. How selfish are these “leaders”, how narrow their minds.
The coalition setup in the last five years was marred by the blackmailing tactics of the junior partners in the Government. Some ran their portfolios as private fiefdoms. The Prime Minister seemed to have no voice even when ministers like T.R.Baalu and A.Raja took highly questionable decisions that attracted charges of massive corruption. When an alliance minister is answerable only to his party boss and not to the Cabinet, it is coalition adharma.
There were several paragons of corruption in the last Government. But the DMK was special because it projected the view that India was just a part of Tamil Nadu and Tamil Nadu a part of the family estate. How else can we explain the DMK’s proprietorial demand of nine specified berths?.
Don’t forget that the proposed ministerial list was headed by son Azhagiri, daughter Kanimozhi and grand-nephew Dayanidhi. Isn’t a modicum of administrative experience necessary for a minister in such a vast and complex country as India? Azhagiri’s experience is confined entirely to the streets of Madurai. Kanimozhi has hardly ventured beyond poetry. Yet, they are fit to be rulers of our great country because their father loves them.
But then, do we have a right to fault Karunanidhi if he puts his family’s interests above his country’s? The Family First thesis was elevated by Indira Gandhi into a major plank of patriotism in India. The promotion of sons, daughters, wives, nephews and girlfriends has become the most outstanding feature of our democracy. Politics is the preferred family business today.
The Congress continues to spearhead this idea. Look at the way the Prime Minister publicly pleaded with Rahul Gandhi to accept a ministerial position. See how every Congressman attributes the present victory to Rahul Gandhi’s brilliant campaigning and brilliant tactical thinking. Manmohan Singh is hardly given any credit although his quiet efficiency and clean image have been major factors in the Congress victory.
To be sure, Rahul Gandhi is an energetic modern-minded young man and therefore an asset to political India. So are Milind Deora, Sachin Pilot, Navin Jindal, Jitin Prasada, Priya Dutt and Supriya Sule. But so, too, are Shubhra Saxena, Sharandeep Kaur Brar and thousands of others. The first lot got on top because they are the children of their fathers. Not the second lot.
Shubhra Saxena came first out of nearly 12,000 men and women who wrote the final IAS examination this year. She has IIT background and international work experience which makes her, in terms of qualification and ability, equal to the Deora-Pilot-Jindal-Gandhi lot. But she won’t be on top of the political heap because she is middle class and her father and husband are neither famous nor wealthy. Same with Sharandeep who came second in the all-India rankings.
For that matter, someone like Indira Nooyi (of Pepsico fame) was once reported favourably disposed to a political appointment in the US. Why are such people of proven quality not available to the political leadership in India? At best they can only become unseen, unheard-from backroom advisers, like Sam Pitroda is to Rahul Gandhi.
Our system is strong enough and will eventually triumph. But the first step to that victory is the recognition that political power as a family right is fundamentally incompatible with democracy. Thanks to Indira Gandhi, it has became a reigning concept in India. The concept gives opportunities only to those who have the right fathers. It is bad for India. It must go.
.
The coalition setup in the last five years was marred by the blackmailing tactics of the junior partners in the Government. Some ran their portfolios as private fiefdoms. The Prime Minister seemed to have no voice even when ministers like T.R.Baalu and A.Raja took highly questionable decisions that attracted charges of massive corruption. When an alliance minister is answerable only to his party boss and not to the Cabinet, it is coalition adharma.
There were several paragons of corruption in the last Government. But the DMK was special because it projected the view that India was just a part of Tamil Nadu and Tamil Nadu a part of the family estate. How else can we explain the DMK’s proprietorial demand of nine specified berths?.
Don’t forget that the proposed ministerial list was headed by son Azhagiri, daughter Kanimozhi and grand-nephew Dayanidhi. Isn’t a modicum of administrative experience necessary for a minister in such a vast and complex country as India? Azhagiri’s experience is confined entirely to the streets of Madurai. Kanimozhi has hardly ventured beyond poetry. Yet, they are fit to be rulers of our great country because their father loves them.
But then, do we have a right to fault Karunanidhi if he puts his family’s interests above his country’s? The Family First thesis was elevated by Indira Gandhi into a major plank of patriotism in India. The promotion of sons, daughters, wives, nephews and girlfriends has become the most outstanding feature of our democracy. Politics is the preferred family business today.
The Congress continues to spearhead this idea. Look at the way the Prime Minister publicly pleaded with Rahul Gandhi to accept a ministerial position. See how every Congressman attributes the present victory to Rahul Gandhi’s brilliant campaigning and brilliant tactical thinking. Manmohan Singh is hardly given any credit although his quiet efficiency and clean image have been major factors in the Congress victory.
To be sure, Rahul Gandhi is an energetic modern-minded young man and therefore an asset to political India. So are Milind Deora, Sachin Pilot, Navin Jindal, Jitin Prasada, Priya Dutt and Supriya Sule. But so, too, are Shubhra Saxena, Sharandeep Kaur Brar and thousands of others. The first lot got on top because they are the children of their fathers. Not the second lot.
Shubhra Saxena came first out of nearly 12,000 men and women who wrote the final IAS examination this year. She has IIT background and international work experience which makes her, in terms of qualification and ability, equal to the Deora-Pilot-Jindal-Gandhi lot. But she won’t be on top of the political heap because she is middle class and her father and husband are neither famous nor wealthy. Same with Sharandeep who came second in the all-India rankings.
For that matter, someone like Indira Nooyi (of Pepsico fame) was once reported favourably disposed to a political appointment in the US. Why are such people of proven quality not available to the political leadership in India? At best they can only become unseen, unheard-from backroom advisers, like Sam Pitroda is to Rahul Gandhi.
Our system is strong enough and will eventually triumph. But the first step to that victory is the recognition that political power as a family right is fundamentally incompatible with democracy. Thanks to Indira Gandhi, it has became a reigning concept in India. The concept gives opportunities only to those who have the right fathers. It is bad for India. It must go.
.
Call for entries for Environment Film Festival: Quotes from the Earth 2010
Quotes from the earth: The Environment Film Festival (2010)
4th-5th Dec 2010, New Delhi
Organised by Toxics Link and India International Centre, New Delhi
Call for Entries
Toxics Link invites film entries for the upcoming ‘Quotes from the Earth: The Environment Film Festival, 2010’ to be held on 4th-5th Dec 2010 at India International Centre, New Delhi.
Criteria for choosing a film
The films should be in and around the environmental milieu and be able to bring to the fore a subject/issue/concern on it. The films should preferably be recent, however a film from the past not gained much public attention but deserves it is an amiss. Of the entries, the films to be screened will be selected by a panel that includes experts from the field.
Film makers send in your entries with the completed application form latest by 1st of September 2010.
Application form can be downloaded directly from http://toxicslink.org/filmfestival/2010/web/films.html
For further information please visit:
http://toxicslink.org/filmfestival/2010/web/index.html
RSVP:
Anjali Pandey - E: anjali@toxicslink.org Ph: +91-9990180880
Nitin Jain - E: nitin@toxicslink.org Ph: +91-9810759190
Toxics Link
H2, Jungpura Extension (Ground Floor)
New Delhi - 110014
Tel: +91-(11)-24328006, 24320711
Fax: +91-(11)-24321747
Email: info@toxicslink.org
4th-5th Dec 2010, New Delhi
Organised by Toxics Link and India International Centre, New Delhi
Call for Entries
Toxics Link invites film entries for the upcoming ‘Quotes from the Earth: The Environment Film Festival, 2010’ to be held on 4th-5th Dec 2010 at India International Centre, New Delhi.
Criteria for choosing a film
The films should be in and around the environmental milieu and be able to bring to the fore a subject/issue/concern on it. The films should preferably be recent, however a film from the past not gained much public attention but deserves it is an amiss. Of the entries, the films to be screened will be selected by a panel that includes experts from the field.
Film makers send in your entries with the completed application form latest by 1st of September 2010.
Application form can be downloaded directly from http://toxicslink.org/filmfestival/2010/web/films.html
For further information please visit:
http://toxicslink.org/filmfestival/2010/web/index.html
RSVP:
Anjali Pandey - E: anjali@toxicslink.org Ph: +91-9990180880
Nitin Jain - E: nitin@toxicslink.org Ph: +91-9810759190
Toxics Link
H2, Jungpura Extension (Ground Floor)
New Delhi - 110014
Tel: +91-(11)-24328006, 24320711
Fax: +91-(11)-24321747
Email: info@toxicslink.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)