Gobind Thukral

KASHMIR is on the boil. The valley scene of dreadful violence for the past two decades is ablaze with its young men and women losing life and limb each passing day. Every day all over the valley, youngmen and women along with children are on the streets, protesting against the grave injustice meted to them. They pelt stones, the only weapon they have, on security forces. They carry banners saying, 'We Want azadi', ' Jammu Kashmir government murdabad ‘. A good section of the media in India blames Pakistan, without understanding the issues and why this anger. The state responds with brutal guns. Since June 11 over fifty people mostly young including children have fallen to these marauding guns. Many security men have suffered injuries and were humiliated in other ways. Pitch is queered every passing day. And, durbar in Delhi is struck with inertia, not know until now.

A young chief minister, Omar Abdullah who 19 months back promised so much to bring Jammu and Kashmir back to peace and deliver justice is cocooned in his office. He often shuttles to Delhi instead of visting towns and villages of the violence mired valley. These trips to meet the central leaders and for pleasure and family meetings, have earned him the nick name of Mr. Visitor. Everything has been left to the armed forces and the ruling leaders in Delhi struck up with myriad problems and the daily dose of scandals can hardly offer anything. They can issue warnings, hold threats and fall back to old promises. Kashmir valley is completely alienated and even the hard liners Hurryiat and other sections have little rapport with the angry people labeled mobs in the lexicon of the ruling elite.

The fault does not lie with the people of Kashmir. It lies completely with the political parties whether in or out of power, with the Kashmiri separatists and all those who have developed the problem of Kashmir into a profitable industry from which they derive their legitimacy and their income. It lies with Delhi and all the major political parties that have ruled India. They have wasted several opportunities. Is the Indian army chief Gen. V. K. Singh wrong when he states that huge task accomplished by the armed forces at a great sacrifice is being wasted by the small time political leaders who now are in seat of power. Here is how a leading newspaper from the state, Kashmir Times writes, “The Kashmiri separatists have slowly lost their hold over the people, and they are not spoken off at all with respect and are today a group of squabbling men who do not see eye to eye on any one issue concerning the state. The ordinary Kashmiri insists they are getting money from both New Delhi and Islamabad, and even if this is not true, the perception is so widespread that no one really believes otherwise”.

Now Omar Abdullah asserts that there is a “consensus” in the central and state governments that any initiative in the troubled state, political or administrative, can only take place after normalcy is restored. He reasons that the problem of Kashmir is a political one, and therefore requires a political solution. The initiatives could be related to the "footprint" of the security forces, return of young men from across the border and the repeal of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act. The state government had also sent a request for a policy to rehabilitate former militants, who have served their jail sentence and were unemployed besides a comprehensive policy for those youths who were willing to return from Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. Intelligence agencies report that a majority of stone-pelters are former militants who are at present unemployed. But all this is so well known. Where is the action?

To say that Kashmir is on the boil is to state the obvious. The situation is perhaps, worse, than what it has been for years now. People , particularly the youth unmindful of the curfew and firing have taken the plunge. And if those in power remain with their heads stuck in the sand, there is every possibility of the state erupting in a manner that far eclipses the situation even at the height of the militancy. For this time, the anger and the frustration is spilling out on the streets, and the security forces are not tackling terrorists sent in by Pakistan, but their own citizens.

Chief Minister Omar Abdullah blamed the Hurriyat, and then he blamed the PDP, the main opposition party, for the current phase of violence. Union Home Minister P. Chidambaram insisted that the Lashkar e Tayaba was responsible. Neither of them is right. It is frustration, poverty, unemployment and lack of any good governance that is coming together in young people who have been born and brought up during these years of violence and conflict. This newspaper touched the right cord when it wrote, “The people are fed up. Fed up of the political parties, fed up of India, fed up of Pakistan, fed up of their meaningless lives, fed up of the conflict and the violence, fed up with the inability of all concerned to resolve the issue and bring a semblance of peace into their lives. So they have picked up stones and moved into the streets, targeting the police and anyone else who confronts them.”

India as secular and socialist [perhaps] democracy as written in the preamble our constitution is failing to live up to the expectations. The leadership mired in scandals and lethargy is frittering the country’s energy to grow as grand vibrant democracy. They are unable to talk about Kashmir outside the framework set by popular media, government propaganda and the rhetoric of nationalism that fails us in the eyes of Kashmir today. Why not stop paying the already rich corrupt politicians and instead ameliorate the lot of the people, struck in deep poverty. We have already wasted six decades to find a solution to the vexed issues that threaten to tear the country apart.

BACK

Friends: Toxic and non-toxic

Vinod Anand

THERE are two kinds of contacts that an individual normally has. One is through relationship, and the other through friendship. The first kind of contact has many bindings (both household and social), especially in the Indian context, whereas the second one does not have any such bindings.

According to Wikipedia, friendship is the cooperative and supportive relationship between people, or animals. In this sense, the term connotes a relationship that involves mutual knowledge, esteem, affection, and respect Friends will welcome each other's company and exhibit loyalty towards each other, often to the point of altruism (a selfless concern for the welfare of others). Their tastes will usually be similar and may converge, and they will share enjoyable activities. They will also engage in mutually helping behaviour, such as the exchange of advice and the sharing of hardship. A friend is someone who may often demonstrate reciprocating and reflective behaviours. Yet for some, the practical execution of friendship is little more than the trust that someone will not harm them.

The traits of friendship are connoted by the tendency to desire what is best for the other, sympathy and empathy, honesty, and mutual understanding and that too on a consistent basis. In this context, it is worthwhile to mention what The Christian Gospels states: it is said that that Jesus Christ declared, "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you."(John 15:13-14). In philosophy, Aristotle is known for his discussion (in the Nicomachean Ethics) of philia, which is usually (somewhat misleadingly) translated as "friendship," and certainly includes friendship, though is a much broader concept.

In the context of what we have said above, a few quotes, as given below, are highly relevant:

A friend is one who knows us, but loves us anyway. -- Fr. Jerome Cummings

Remember, the greatest gift is not found in a store nor under a tree, but in the hearts of true friends. -- Cindy Lew

"Your friend is the man who knows all about you, and still likes you."
-- Elbert Hubbard

Who finds a faithful friend, finds a treasure. -- Jewish Saying

Friendship needs no words..." -- Dag Hammarskjold.

"Each friend represents a world in us, a world possibly not born until they arrive, and it is only by this meeting that a new world is born."- Anais Nin

"Every person is a new door to a different world."- from movie "Six Degrees of Seperation" Steve's Famous Quotes

“Kushiyon Ka Zikra Jab Bhi Duniya Mein Kahin Hoga,
Har Lab Ki Har Jabbaan Per Tera Naam Likha Hoga.”- For a Non-Toxic Friend by Vinod Anand “NAZAR”

In essence, real friendship is mutually reciprocal; there is no intermediary between the two friends. It is also believed that there is a positive correlation between real friendship and poverty in the sense that real friendship is more common in poor countries as compared to the richer nations. Even in villages and remote areas we do find a number of real friends as compared to big cities and metropolitan cities. Non-toxic friendship is also highly durable.

Friends with the traits as mentioned above are known as the non-toxic friends. But it is quite often seen that such friends are rare to find. Most of the so-called friends are, in fact, do not exhibit any of these positive traits, and hence, they are called toxic friends. There is a bunch of demerits of the toxic friends. These are briefly mentioned below.

Bunch of Toxic Friends

• Leaner: those who always come to you for their own purpose, and always depend on you;
• Users: those who use you for their own purpose or goals;
• Betrayers: those who quite often double-cross you and stab you in the back;
• Promise Breakers: those who initially make a promise but keep on postponing the promise, and eventually break the promise;
• Gossip Mongers: those who always talk about others without any reason and purpose, and focus just on gossip;
• Self- Centered: those who are concerned with their own wants and needs but not yours;
• Jealous: those who always silently envy you, and do not openly share your success and happiness;
• Criticizers: those who are extremely critical and always find fault in everything you do;
• Confidence Breakers: those who disclose your confidence and talk about your weaknesses to others;
• Phony/False: those who always pretend to be what they are not, and talk in the air;
• Regulator: those who needs to control you and the friendship;

On the basis of these demerits, when toxic friends hurt friendship harms. There a saying that “a friend in need is a friend indeed”. But according to my assessment this is not true quite often, hence I regard this statement as a myth. In fact, the truth is that “a friend without need is a friend indeed”. In fact, when some one needs some help, even the strangers also come to give the required support and help.

In this materialistic world, it is really difficult to get a non-toxic world. One who gets such a friend, he is really lucky.

BACK

Reduction of British aid not justified

Pritam Singh

THE British Prime Minister David Cameron begins his high profile tour of India with the aim of building stronger economic and political ties with India. The importance the British government attaches to this visit is highlighted by the fact that he is accompanied by seven members of his cabinet and a host of chief executives from top British companies such as Vodafone, BAE and Standard Chartered.

This growing British interest in India is understandable given the size of expanding middle class in India which has high purchasing power. However, along with this increased interest in India comes a conflicting signal that the British government is considering reducing foreign aid to India.

One of the reasons for this move towards reducing foreign aid is the compulsion to step up aid to Afghanistan but the other reported reason, that India does not need foreign aid any more, is questionable.

In taking a decision about foreign aid to a country of the size of India, it is important to keep in mind the role of such aid in reducing the level of poverty in India and, through that, to the reduction of global poverty. It is wrong to look at the growth rates of India’s GDP, which are certainly impressive , to conclude what Andrew Mitchell, the cabinet minister responsible for international development, does when he says that India is “roaring out of poverty”.

Given the uneven nature of India’s development pattern, India still has one of the largest concentrations of poor people in the world.

The United Nations Development Programme update for 2009 reports that 320 million Indians, almost 25% of the population, live in extreme poverty. The World Bank’s report on global economic prospects shows that 827 million of the Indian population live on less than $ 2 a day.

The findings of the Arjun Sengupta-chaired National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganised Sector are even more alarming. According to the Sengupta report, 836 million Indians (77% of the population) live on Rs. 20 ($ 0.45) a day. Even the more conservative estimates by the government’s own Suresh Tendulkar Committee give a figure of 37% of the population living below the poverty line. India figures at 66 out of 88 in Global Hunger Index.

If the UN Millennium Development Goal of halving global poverty by 2015 is to be met, the reduction of poverty in India is central to meeting that target. Instead of reducing foreign aid to India, what is required is a strategic shift in the focus of that aid to reduce poverty.

British foreign aid in the past has been generally well monitored and that monitoring process needs to be tightened to ensure that the aid reaches the most vulnerable and is compatible with sustainable development objectives.

No doubt there is weight in the argument of those who question giving foreign aid to India which is a nuclear power with a defence budget of $31.5bn. That underlines the need to change the focus of aid away from supporting militarisation of India to those projects that are targeted at reducing poverty reduction and ensuring sustainable development.

Another argument is that since British foreign aid to China and Russia has been cancelled, there should be reduction, if not cancellation, of aid to India. But it misses the historical debt that Britain owes to India from the period of colonial rule. It should never be forgotten that British colonial rule over India was responsible for deindustrialisation of India, increasing burden on agriculture, accentuating poverty and causing the first ever famine in India.

Finally, the almost 2 million strong Indian diaspora settled in the UK makes a significant contribution to the UK government revenue and has the right to expect that British aid effort should result in reduction of poverty in India.

[The author is the Director of Postgraduate Programme in International Management and International Relations at Oxford Brookes University, Oxford]

BACK