Issue 68 Vol III, July 31, 2008

F O C U S

Violence all around and the war within
Gobind Thukral

TWO major industrial hubs of India; Bangalore in southern state of Karnataka and Ahmedabad in western state of Gujarat were recently witness to gory bombings. In this senseless violence perpetrated by fundamentalists nearly one hundred innocent lives were lost. Many more were maimed to lead a miserable life, perhaps worse than death. Hundred of peaceful homes are in disarray. Worse for full one week as the police struggled to restore confidence, more live bombs were discovered not only in Surat, the diamond city, but in far away Pali in Rajasthan, causing scare. These bombs which were defused later could have been deadlier.

Any fault of these people; poor vegetable sellers, rickshaw pullers, pedestrians, office goers, policemen, children and the doctors and the patients at the hospitals. None whatsoever. Why were they victims of this senseless violence?  The entire country is asking this pertinent question from those who indulged in this crime against humankind and those who rule over India. In fact, if we look at the past five months alone, the extremists have built the capability of striking at will any place in part of the country. They have struck at 12 cities, causing widespread damage and loss of life. It costs little to  the perpetrators of violence, but the damage to the country is colossal not only  in terms of innocent lives lost, but people’s morale is down and the economic cost huge. This low cost war could be ruinous to the country.

We all know that terrorism continues to take innocent lives.  It shows no signs of abating. Terrorism undermines the basic right to life of the people. No society, no state can afford to silently watch this death dance. Yet every time there is a terrorist attack, the familiarity of the policy discourse in politics and society is extremely frustrating.  People find themselves at the mercy of the extremists, increasingly losing faith in the capability of the Indian state to protect them. They find police and other security agencies including the intelligence network of little help.

And each time a terrorist attack takes place our rulers work out the old worn out strategy.  Soon after, as it is customary while the television screens are full of those grisly scenes; wailing women, crying children and fathers with their eyes full of tears; we have the leaders descend in hordes for photo sessions. The chief ministers, home minister, the prime minister and the leaders of different political parties all rush to shed tears and offer their sympathy. Here too the competing politics blocks their minds and they stop short of thinking of any policy options.  There are sermons: India can not be deterred by these ghastly and cowardly acts and its social fabric can not be torn asunder.  It is war against the entire nation. After this round of terrorist attacks, some politicians in India have used the phrase, “war on terror.” This is a very familiar usage by the U.S. administration particularly President George W Bush. The world knows the consequences of this war on terrorism that has turned into ruining Iraq and killing over seven lakh innocent people over there. It is anybody’s guess as to how the so-called “war on terror” has failed globally. In fact, “war on drugs” failed too. How counterproductive these have been.

But this time the BJP smarting from a defeat in parliament over the Indo-US nuclear deal crossed limits of any civilized well informed discourse. Senior BJP leader Sushma Swaraj remarked that the blasts were a conspiracy to divert attention from the cash-for-votes scandal as the incidents took place just a few days after the government won the trust vote. Another reason behind the blasts, she cited, was an attempt to win-over the Muslim votes which got divided after the pro-American deal pursued by the government. She repeated two days later, "I smell a conspiracy in it. There are two objectives of that conspiracy." Blasts had occurred in two states ruled by the BJP.

We can draw some clear meanings that the UPA government or some agencies at its behest were behind these blasts and the aim was divert attention and take political advantage. No one would wish to believe these kinds of outlandish remarks. The Congress, large sections of media and other opposition parties were highly critical of this assessment made by a former union minister and a senior leader of the BJP. Was she not trying to draw attention away from the BJP governments’ failure in Karnataka and Gujarat? Was she not about the alienation of Muslims in Gujarat and elsewhere after they were massacred in 2002 after the Godhra train bombing. For sure the common Gujarat this time after the blasts acted sensibly and there were protests cutting across community lines. There were no Hindu Muslim clashes and no killing of innocent people in Ahmedabad and elsewhere. The common citizens of this country are saner than our politicians who provoke and egg them to violence. This time it did not suit the politicians and so there was no post blasts violence. We can surely agree with, former professor of Physics at M S University and Peoples Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) president J S Bandukwala who said, "It appears Sushma is out of her mind. If this is the type of leadership the BJP has at national level, no one can save the country. Frustration over her party's failure to grab power during the trust vote seems to have motivated her to make such an irresponsible statement." Are the BJP leaders feeling that their party is isolated and reduced to pariah status?  Is this the reason that they are using a language to provoke communal sentiments and divide society on religious lines to gain benefits in the forthcoming Lok Sabha polls? Let us wish it to be fallacious assessment.

Indians wonder at the scale of violence in the country. There are over 200 districts where Naxalites strike with impunity. Six states of north east; Nagaland, Manipur, Tripura, Meghalaya Arunachal Pradesh and Assam are suffering this untold violence for years. In fact, Nagaland, where some peace prevails now has been through violence since 1960. We all know how ruinous this violence is in Kashmir. We suffered for 12 long years of senseless dance of death in Punjab. And, all this to whose advantage? Of course, it did help some politicians to rule over India and the states and perpetrate exploitation of the people. Caste and communal lines divide us and stop us from thinking as humans and Indians. And, our leaders have contributed to this kind of mindset. And, look around no one is talking about equitable economic development and social justice.  So long as poverty and injustice is there, there would be breeding ground of extremist politics of one type or the other.

In this context, it is pertinent to recollect a global policy perspective. The U.N. Secretary-General’s High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change in its report “A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility” noted : “Terrorism attacks the values like human rights, the rule of law; rules of war that protect civilians, tolerance among peoples and nations; and the peaceful resolution of conflict. Terrorism flourishes in environments of despair, humiliation, poverty, political oppression, extremism and human rights abuse.  It also flourishes in contexts of regional conflict and foreign occupation. It profits from weak State capacity to maintain law order.” Shall the Indian state keep in mind all these aspects while formulating its response to terrorism?

BACK

Nuclear treaty leads to realignment
Sawraj Singh

THE debate on the nuclear treaty between India and the U.S. is leading to realignment of the forces in India. The biggest switch took place in the UP where the two largest parties took a 180-degree turn. The BSP, which was moving closer to the congress party turned against the treaty and joined the leftists who are opposing the congress and the treaty, on the other hand, the Samajwadi (socialist) party, which has always opposed the U.S.A. and congress, came out in favor of the treaty and is now supporting the congress.

The RSS is appreciating the leftists. Finally the RSS has realized that the leftists can be patriots too. Advani, who has been projected as the next Prime minister by the BJP, called the congress party “Dalal” (comprador). So far nobody has suggested that the Samajwadi (Socialist) party should now change its name to Samrajwadi (Pro Imperialist) party.

Traditionally the congress has always been supported by the big and the comprador section of the Capitalists and the RSS and it’s offshoot the BJP have been supported by the shopkeepers and the smaller capitalists. These sections can be considered the Nationalist Capitalists. However, when the BJP came to power then a section of the big Capitalists shifted from the congress to the BJP, I called this phenomenon the congressization of the BJP.

The two party system has become outdated in India.  Neither the congress nor the BJP can rule without an alliance with the regional parties. The two big parties have gradually lost influence to the smaller regional parties. Even between the two big parties, the congress party is the only true centrist party.  The BJP can still be considered mainly as the party of the Hindi speaking North Indians.

The centrist bureaucratic system was set up by the British colonialists and is against the ground realities of India. India is a multi cultural, multinational and multi religious country. The common thread uniting these diverse groups is a common value system, which can be called the Indian civilization.

The Indian civilization is a bigger entity than the smaller cultural groups, which unite to form this common higher cultural unit. Therefore, Unity in Diversity is the principle, that can really unite the people.

Many people in the World will see the nuclear treaty, as a prelude to an India’s alliance with the U.S.A They will perceive this alliance as an anti China and anti Islamic alliance. The natural alliance of India is with Asia and the third world. Most of the Asian and third world countries will join Russia and China. Therefore the congress and the samajwadi parties are going to be perceived as leading India to an unnatural alliance. Since many third world countries are Islamic countries. Both these parties can turn off the muslim voters.

The realignment of the forces can help the BJP to decongressize itself and become a true nationalist party. It should give up its anti Muslim orientation and instead emphasize saving the Indian civilization from the Western Cultural invasion.

The leftist parties should come closer to the Muslims and Dalits and together with all progressive and patriotic forces, join a third front. India really needs a strong third front. This is the right time to make the people aware that it is not a struggle against the nuclear treaty alone but is a struggle to free India from the Western imperialistic domination.

[Sawraj Singh, M.D.FICS.]

BACK

Foul play and no punishment

AS Parliament erupted over allegations of bribery and horse-trading on July 22 there is a need to look back on the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha [JMM] bribery case that dramatically brought forward the issue of parliamentary corruption. If we had found solution, another bad day for the Indian parliament could have been avoided.

Here is the chorology:

January 1996: Rashtriya Mukti Morcha president Ravinder Kumar approaches the CBI, claiming that opposition MPs were allegedly bribed to vote for the Narasimha Rao government in the 1993 no -confidence motion. CBI files FIRS against Jharkhand Mukti Morcha MPs Suraj Mandal, Shibu Soren, Simon Marandi and Shailendra Mahato in March.

October 1996- Jan 1997: CBI files three charge-sheets, naming Narasimha Rao, Buta Singh, Satish Sharma, Soren, Mandal, Marandi and Mahato among many others.

January 1997: Marandi, Mandal, Soren and Mahato released on bail after being in jail for four months.

April 1997: Shailendra Mahato turns informer and is pardoned by the court

October 13, 1997: Rao, Bhajan, Moily file special leave petitions in Supreme Court seeking constitutional immunity under Article 105. Court issues notice to CBI, but refused to stay trial.

April 17, 1998: In a three-two verdict, SC rules that Article 105(2) of the Constitution provides immunity to bribe-takers — Mandal, Soren, Marandi, Mahato etc— as their act involved voting in Parliament. Those accused of giving bribes are liable to prosecution.

December 8, 1998: Government seeks review of judgment. The Supreme Court subsequently dismisses petition, citing the long delay on the part of the government.

June 4, 1999: Nine accused — Marandi, Soren and Mandal and Mahato, and former break-away Janata Dal MPs - Ram Lakhan Singh Yadav, who was also a Union minister, Abhay Pratap Singh, Anadi Charan Das, Ram Sharan, Roshan Lal and Haji Ghulam Mohammed - were discharged.

September 29, 2000: Court delivers judgement. Convicts Narasimha Rao and Buta Singh but acquits nine others including Bhajan Lal, Ajit Singh and Rajeshwar Rao.

March 2002: Narasimha Rao and Buta Singh acquitted by the Delhi high court, citing contradictions/improvements” in Mahato’s statements and CBI’s inability to prove independent evidence.

BACK

Mayawati wins the nuclear debate?
Sawraj Singh writes from Washington

EVEN though on the surface the Congress Party has won the nuclear debate and the government survived the no confidence motion in the Indian Parliament, yet the real winner seems to be Kumari Mayawati. The political equation after the debate shows that both the pro strong center parties, the congress and the B.J.P. lost influence to the regional and the smaller parties.

The Congress Party had to make hard compromises with the regional and smaller parties. The opposition parties accuse the congress party of paying 25 crore Rupees (more than 5 million dollars) to one Member of Parliament to get his vote. All these compromises and deals are going to weaken the congress now and adversely affect the ability to rule properly.

The B.J.P. also lost. It was hoping that if the congress loses then B.J.P. would come in power. L.K Advani, the B.J.P leader, was almost certain that he was going to be the next Prime Minister. However, now it looks that Kumari Mayawati is more likely to be the next Prime Minister.

The experience of the last 60 years shows that whichever party controls the U.P., that party usually controls the center also. The U.P. is the largest state of India and sends the maximum number of members of Parliament. Moreover the U.P. is a miniature India. There is a very diverse population. People belong to many different castes and there is a very large Muslim population.

Kumari Mayawati has expanded the base of the B.J.P. in the U.P. while all other major parties have lost their base there. The congress party had already lost its base in the U.P. to the Samajwadi party. The Muslims used to vote for the congress but then they started voting for the Samajwadi party. Now the Samajwadi party will lose its Muslim followers to the B.S.P. By supporting the nuclear treaty with the U.S., the Samajwadi Party has alienated most of the Muslim voters.

Advani made it clear that he was not opposed to India’s close relation with the U.S. and he was also not opposed to the nuclear treaty with the U.S. He just wants to revise the treaty. Mayawati, on the other hand, completely opposed the treaty as well as an alliance with the U.S. She said that if the treaty is signed then the U.S. and Israel will attack Iran and the Indian government could be held responsible for this. With such statements she has won over many Muslims thereby eroding the bases of the congress as well as the Samajwadi party.

Kumari Mayawati reached an understanding with Ajit Singh, the leader of the Jaat [farmers] community in western Uttar Pradesh. This will really broaden her base in the U.P. as well as in the neighboring states. Before the nuclear debate, Mayawati was mostly perceived as a leader of the U.P. but now she has become a national leader. The left has started taking her seriously. Even the leaders of the T.D.P. and former Prime Minister H.D.Devgaura have recognized her as a national leader. She has become a very serious contender for the Prime Ministership.

I feel that the nuclear debate has weakened both the largest parties as well as the two party systems in India. This debate has strengthened the regional and the smaller parties. The conditions for the emergence of a third front have never been better in India. Mayawati may become the leader of the emerging strong third front. Dalits [scheduled castes] are becoming a formidable force.

[Dr. Sawraj Singh M.D is chairman of the Washington State Network for Human Rights]

BACK

Politics-India: Costly vote of confidence
Praful Bidwai

PRIME Minister Manmohan Singh has won a bitterly contested motion of confidence in his government by 275 to 256 votes in Parliament, securing his government's survival for several months.

But the victory came at the cost of a major loss of political credibility for the ruling United Progressive Alliance (UPA) and its new-found friend, the regional Samajwadi Party, amidst charges of flagrant horse-trading and payment of hefty bribes for the purchase of supporting votes by Members of Parliament.

The confidence vote became necessary because Singh wanted to push the controversial civilian nuclear cooperation deal with the United States in the teeth of fierce domestic opposition. This led to the withdrawal of support to the government by the Left parties and reduced the UPA to a minority in the Lok Sabha, the law-making lower House of Parliament.

The UPA took up the challenge of securing the trust vote in the full knowledge that it and the SP lacked the required numbers; and winning the motion would need money power, bribery and other unscrupulous methods such as political arm-twisting, media manipulation and offers of the loaves and fishes of office in return for opposition MPs voting against their own parties' whips.

Not just the UPA's reputation, but India's democracy itself will end up paying a high price for the Machiavellian politics involved in the run-up to the vote.

Crude political manipulation, and the display of Rs 10 million (about 200,000 US dollars) in bank notes, allegedly paid as bribes for crossing the floor, has shocked the public had shaken its confidence in the fairness of the political process of democracy.

The overall impact of the changes brought about by the political realignments caused by the vote and its aftermath will be to encourage a rightward shift in Indian politics, thus further alienating the vast majority of the people, who are poor, from governance processes.

"The UPA and the SP resorted to blatant abuse of power and abominable malpractices to win," says Kamal Mitra Chenoy, a social scientist. "They stooped to the same low level as the right-wing Bharatiya Janata Party does. This has discredited them significantly in the eyes of the public."

Adds Chenoy: "Worse, the UPA suborned the office of the Lok Sabha Speaker, who belongs to the Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPI-M), which is opposed to the nuclear deal and voted against the government. They put pressure on him to continue as Speaker although his party was opposed to this, and thus weakened his authority."

The CPI-M, expelled the speaker, Somnath Chatterjee from the party, though he may continue to hold the high constitutional post, which is supposed to be above party politics by convention.

The greatest scandal during the two-day debate on the confidence motion occurred soon before it was put to the vote, when three MPs from the BJP displayed thick wads of money on the floor of the Lok Sabha, claiming that these were given them as bribes to abstain. They claimed this was paid to them as part of total bribes offered by Samajwadi Party general secretary Amar Singh in return for defying the BJP whip.

Things got murkier when a private television channel claimed that it had conducted a "sting operation" in support of the allegation, which showed an SP leader visiting the residence of one of the three BJP MPs. The channel, however, decided not to air the stealthily gathered footage, and instead says it will hand it over to the Speaker for investigation.

Media insiders believe that a factor at work in the channel not airing the footage is the rivalry between the Ambani brothers, who run vast business empires from the western port city of Mumbai.

Mukesh and Anil Ambani, who control the equivalent of five percent of India's GDP, are locked in a fratricidal war and back political parties that are hostile to each other.

Mukesh Ambani is said to support the Congress party, which leads the UPA, and the BJP as well. But Anil Ambani is a staunch supporter of the Samajwadi Party, and is personally close to its leaders.

This corporate rivalry has further muddied India's political waters. Its intensification is directly related to the UPA-SP alliance, itself necessitated by Manmohan Singh's insistence on pushing the nuclear deal.

The BJP made a big fuss about the Rs 10 million bribery issue and first demanded that the government resign and the vote be cancelled. But it soon fell in line and voted on the motion.

It has now launched a nationwide campaign on the allegedly corrupt means used by the UPA-SP to muster support in Parliament.

However, the BJP has a credibility problem because its own MPs are unreliable and can be induced or bribed to vote against their party. Yesterday, five BJP MPs voted for the government, and another three abstained or did not show up—despite the party whip. "The charge is probably true that the SP tried to bribe at least one of the three MPs, who then roped in the other two, and set up a sting operation with the help of the television channel to deceive the SP," says a media insider, who insisted on anonymity. "That means the bribed BJP MPs were no innocents or hapless victims of Machiavellian manipulation, of the kind Amar Singh is known for. They planned and conducted the sting operation only to embarrass the government."

This episode has drawn sharp comments from legal experts, the intelligentsia and the public and raised questions about the legitimacy of the Parliament debate and the confidence vote.

Equally importantly, it has affected the image of Prime Minister Singh. Says Chenoy: "Singh has a reputation not only for never having sullied his hands in murky politics and shady deals, but also for having never encouraged his colleagues to do so. But in this case, he was certainly complicit in the UPA's questionable tactics to secure support by whatever means."

The confidence vote showed up most political parties barring the Left in a deplorably poor light and has highlighted the degeneration of India's political system.

Says Achin Vanaik, a political scientist at Delhi University: "The significance of this degeneration lies not just in the unethical character of the votes' rationale, but more importantly, in the non-representative nature of the choices made within the context of party-based democracy, without any reference to the people's will. The confidence vote has set Indian democracy back."

Adds Vanaik: "It is promoting utterly unscrupulous and unprincipled political alliances, which have no common ground in policies, programmes and priorities. This blurring of the lines of political demarcation will result in the BJP becoming disproportionately important as a party with a distinct identity. This doesn't bode well for diversity and plurality in the political system, which is essential in a one-billion plus country."

A prime example of scrupulous alliances is the current UPA-SP arrangement. The SP is backing the UPA not out of support for its policies or to isolate the BJP, but to counter its arch-rival, the Bahujan Samaj Party, which is rapidly growing in Uttar Pradesh, India’s biggest state with a population of 170 million people.

The Congress-SP alliance will shift the centre of gravity of Indian politics to the right, with possibly harmful consequences for the mass of the population which has a stake in Left-of-Centre policies.

Soon after the government secured the confidence vote, finance minister P. Chidambaram announced that the government would now be pushing for faster economic reforms including a bill facilitating greater foreign direct investment (FDI) in the insurance sector -- that was being opposed by the Left.

‘’The bill will enable the government to raise FDI in insurance from 26 percent to 49 percent... The focus will now be on greater liberalisation,'' Chidambaram said.[Courtesy IPS]

BACK

Three top scientists caution on deal

INDIA’S three  top nuclear scientists  feel  that once the nuclear deal is in place, India’s commercial nuclear interaction with other countries will be “firmly controlled” by Washington through the Hyde Act. US can easily enforce it through its  “stranglehold” on the Nuclear Suppliers Group.

The scientists — P. K. Iyengar (former chairman, Atomic Energy Commission), A. Gopalakrishnan (former Atomic Energy Regulatory Board chief) and A.N. Prasad (former Bhabha Atomic Research Centre Director — have written a letter to Members of Parliament  on the Indo-U.S. civilian nuclear cooperation. They have  pointed out several lacunae in the draft safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

“We are strongly of the opinion that the government should not seek the IAEA Board’s approval for the current draft safeguards agreement until its implications are debated more fully within the country and with a group of experts who were not party to the IAEA negotiations,” they observed, adding that analysts had convincingly refuted the government’s main reason for pushing the deal — energy security to the country.

The deal will not be governed by the bilateral 123 Agreement because it is anchored in U.S. domestic laws, including the Hyde Act, which contains several stipulations “extraneous to the issue of bilateral nuclear cooperation, including foreign policy behaviour which India needs to adhere to if the deal is to be kept alive.”

The deal could also have other serious repercussions, including a potential weakening of India’s nuclear deterrent and an inability to protect & promote indigenous R&D efforts in nuclear technology.

They expressed doubts about the safeguards agreement being India-specific. For, it was “distinctly” clear from the Hyde Act and the 123 Agreement that no uninterrupted fuel supplies were guaranteed. “The government had assured that this defect will be corrected in the safeguards agreement but since the IAEA was all along known to be no fuel-supply guarantor, it is not surprising that Indian negotiators have failed to obtain any assurance in this regard.”

“The corrective measures mentioned in the preamble to the safeguards agreement have nothing that anchors them to any section in the operative part of the agreement.”

“The nation would like to know clearly what these corrective measures are, before plunging headlong into this deal. India being merely allowed to withdraw the Indian-built civilian [pressurised heavy water reactors] PHWRs from safeguards, and that too after stripping them of all spent & fresh fuel and components of foreign origin, is not a corrective step because this action does not ensure uninterrupted operation in the event of disruption of foreign fuel supplies.”

“Even here, Article 32 of the Safeguards Agreement appears to stand in the way of any such withdrawal. Besides, this relaxation does not apply to the imported power reactors, which will use up the bulk of our investments in nuclear power; these units will perpetually stay under safeguards, even after fuel supplies are denied,” noted the scientists.

The scientists also drew attention to the fact that the Hyde Act prohibits the U.S. administration from directly or indirectly assisting India with lifetime fuel supplies after suspension of the deal. “Therefore, the government owes a clarification to the Parliament and the public about how they intend to avoid the consequential huge economic loss from the non-operation of these extremely costly imported reactors, as a result of fuel denial.”

The government also needs to clarify its thinking on the Additional Protocol before entering into the safeguards agreement. The government had pledged to secure an unqualified right to reprocess spent-fuel and even termed India’s right to reprocess “non-negotiable.” But the 123 Agreement has an “empty theoretical right” to reprocess.

The actual permission will come after years, when a dedicated state-of-the art reprocessing plant is built anew to treat foreign fuel, along with a host of allied facilities.

BACK