One need not go through 1000-odd pages of Justice MS Liberhan Commission report to conclude that it was just a piece of paper written by someone as a command performance. Along with the “terms of reference” Liberhan was perhaps also given a pair of blinkers. More than what he said in the report, what he did not say profiles the author.
The very fact that the report, deliberately “leaked” to get certain political mileage, became a dead story within two days speaks volumes for the credibility of the report. The national television channels suffering from pathological hatred towards anything that is “right” exhausted themselves on the very second day after the usual BJP bashing and lectures on “secular fabric of the nation”.
For newspapers it was just one-day tamasha and on the second day Liberhan-related stories were pushed inside. Had there been “meat” in the report, the Chennai-based national daily, which is known to be a “daily for the record”, would have published the text of the report and thus served the interests of “secularism” in the country. There were not even excerpts.
Why then the report was leaked after allowing it to gather dust “in the safe custody” of the Home Minister for more than five months? And who leaked it? These questions are becoming irrelevant since the purpose for which it was leaked was not served. On the contrary, it misfired and only suited those who were “indicted” in the report.
When the report was leaked to Indian Express, the understanding could have been that the daily would share it with a television channel of its choice. Everyone knows the professional relationship between the Editor-in-chief of Indian Express and NDTV. So, NDTV must be right when it says that it did not obtain the report from Home Ministry sources. This is like the lie of Dharmaputra on Aswattama.
Coming to the “mouse” that was unearthed by Liberhan after 17 years of futile exercise, what was happening from 1986 to 1992 was not something that was planned and executed as a secret mission. Every step of the Ayodhya movement was in public domain, whether it is “shila pujan” at every village, “shila nyas” at the site, and the Rath Yatra of Advani. There was extensive coverage of the movement in the media for which Liberhan finds fault with the media and wants journalists to be licenced.
The only issue on which there was no clarity was whether the actual act of demolition was pre-meditated or spontaneous. Liberhan was supposed to unravel this mystery; but he not only failed, but chose to indulge in conjectures.
Conjectures, after all, are an anti-thesis of any credible evidence. Therefore, Liberhan, naturally, talks about the exhortations by the Sangh Parivar leaders on various occasions to support his conspiracy theory and not a shred of concrete evidence. For this revelation you don’t need a commission.
Was there a secret meeting to hatch a conspiracy and if so, when and where? Who were all the participants in such a meeting? What was the decision taken? How was it executed? The report is silent on these aspects.
If public speeches of the leaders of the Ayodhya movement can be construed as conspiracy, then Mahathma Gandhi must also be a conspirator for the violence that was witnessed during the independence movement and for post-partition violence unprecedented in the history of mankind. After all, he gave his nod for partition after maintaining a stand that the partition could only be on his dead body.
Liberhan Commission was a fact-finding commission. It was expected to take a holistic view of the issue and offer suggestions or recommendations. It never went into the historic battle for a temple in Ayodhya. Demand for a temple for Ram in Ayodhya is not the brain child of Sangh Parivar in the latter part of the 20th century.
The conflict began in 16th century after Mir Baqi, a General of Moghul Emperor Babur built a mosque after dismantling a 11th century temple. In 1855, there were conflicts between Sunni revivalists and Hindus which claimed nearly one hundred lives. There were frequent skirmishes subsequently and in 1934, there were country-wide Hindu-Muslim riots and Hindus broke parts of the Mosque wall and damaged the dome. Hundreds were killed during these riots. Sangh Parivar was nowhere in the picture.
During the thick of this controversy, Gandhiji wrote in his Navjivan (July 17, 1937) “Mosques built after destroying temples are the sign of slavery and Muslims should hand over the same to Hindu society”. Certainly, our ultra-seculars can’t blame Gandhiji for taking the side of “communalists”.
12 years later, i.e. in 1949, an idol of Ram was installed in the disputed structure when the great secularist Jawaharlal Nehru was at the helm. Following protests, he ensured that the structure was locked.
Who opened the locks? It was his grandson Rajiv Gandhi who opened the lock in 1986 for Shilanyas. Arun Nehru of the Nehru family also played a key role in unlocking the gates of the structure. Liberhan does not think it fit to recall these events nor the fact that this happened during the Congress regime in Uttar Pradesh when Bir Bahadur Singh was the chief minister and Buta Singh was the Union Home Minister. The Congress thought that this would take the wind out of the Sangh Parivar’s campaign for the temple, but everything backfired for the Congress.
Liberhan also talks about the destruction of “secular fabric of the nation” and puts the blame squarely on the saffron forces. Had he taken a peep into the history of Ayodhya movement from the 16th century, he would have noticed that the obduracy of the Muslims in not allowing a temple for Ram, worshipped by millions of people of this country, was also equally responsible for the continuing conflict and the frustration of the majority community. There was no worship at the mosque for decades and the site was not a most holy place like Mecca or Madina for Muslims to be so sentimental about the place. The offer of the Sangh Parivar to construct a mosque in any nearby place at their own cost was also spurned.
Syed Shahabudin , architect of the Babri Masjid Action Committee, promised to give up the demand for the site if it was proved that there was a temple beneath the disputed structure. But, when the Archeological Survey of India started the excavation in mid-nineties and artefacts resembling Hindu structure started surfacing, there was a feverish attempt to stop the excavation. Liberhan turned an ostrich when these facts stared at him.
What is appalling in the report is the clean chit given to PV Narasimha Rao. It was preposterous on his part to say that in the absence of President’s Rule, he could not have done much. Was there a governor in the country who refused to oblige the Centre? Liberhan was partly right when he says that PV trusted the Parivar. Why did he trust the Parivar? Because in the gatherings at Ayodhya prior to December 1992, there were no attempts to tamper with the structure. He must have thought, in the absence of intelligence report to the contrary, that Dec 6 gathering also would pass off without any major disturbance. But his hopes were belied as that of the top honchos of the Parivar. Only the imbeciles would believe that Advani and others, after planning the demolition, would come to Ayodhya and preside over the disaster.
As the renowned journalist, Mark Tully pointed out in one of the television shows, BJP leaders were politically shrewd enough to know that they could sustain the movement only when the disputed structure stood in tact. And he was right. With the demolition of the structure, the movement also lost its fizz and the political graph started declining for the BJP as well.
But how could Liberhan recognise these realities when he had his blinkers firmly placed?
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Thursday, November 5, 2009
TROUBLED STATES
It is more than a mere coincidence that two states in the South ruled by two surviving national parties are in a state of political flux and distress and what is more, there are a number of similarities between the two. Problems of both are self-made; both are suffering from the side effects of uncouth and unabashed display of money power in politics; and for both trouble is not from outside, but from within with groupism ruling the roost. It is difficult to say which is the B-Team of the other is. It used to be said that the BJP is the B-team of the Congress and now when you look at the manner in which the BJP is conducting itself, outbeating the Congress in political morality, you can easily say that the Congress is the B-team of the BJP.
The most vulgar manner in which the Reddy brothers of Bellary are flaunting their well-gotten or ill-gotten wealth to put a government on notice is something unprecedented and next only to the late senior Ambani’s political game during Rajiv Gandhi’s tenure and thereafter, that everyone who is interested in decent public life has to hang his head in shame. It will be a distraction of convenience to attribute political affiliation for such unscrupulous businessmen who use politics as a shield.
Yes, for the moment Bellary brothers are in the BJP. The very same brothers were close confidantes of the late YS Rajasekhara Reddy when he was alive and with whose overt and covert support, they allegedly amassed wealth by means fair or foul in so far as their AP ventures were concerned. Their interests are in both Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka, because the mines, geological bounties of nature, do not know geographical boundaries nor do they recognise linguistic boundaries. Hence, their interest is in both the states. Business interest is uppermost in their agenda and not public interest. They invested in BJP in Karnataka and in Congress in AP and we are only witnessing its fallout in both the states today. There are reports that if they are not contained in Karnataka, they may target the AP government which is already tottering.
If the BJP made use of their money power and muscle power in Karnataka, now is the pay-back time for the party. And what they want in return for their support to the party is the head of Yeddiyurappa on a platter. Not because, the Karnataka chief minister swerved from the promises he made to the electorate, but for the simple reason that Yeddiyurappa’s continuance in power is not in their business interest.
If you live by the sword you must be prepared to die as well with the same sword. Yeddiyurappa or his political mentors in Delhi should have known this basic principle when they supped with Reddy brothers. Were the party bosses not aware of the brothers style of politics when the latter were putting the eggs in two rival political outfits at the same time as an insurance for their business. Playing footsie with YSR, they ensured that there was no interference in their business activities in the state. They wanted Yeddiyurappa also turn the other way. But, Yeddiyurappa is no YSR to have mastered the technique of running with the hare and huting with the hound.
Why did Yeddiyurappa not oblige the Bellary brothers, and on the contrary, queered the pitch for a political crisis. It will be foolish to say that political morality made the Karnataka CM to take on the Reddy brothers nor will it be correct to say that the CM wanted to assert his authority. Whatever the reason, here is a stark reality that is staring at all of us. Money power would like to buy over Constitutional power and run the state through its own proxy. Are we going to allow this?
Amidst the dark clouds, the only silver lining is that so far (at the time or writing this piece), the higher ups ensconced in New Delhi have not yielded to money power, but the fact that they are negotiating with those who should never be in politics in the first place is the indicator to the depth to which the party with a difference has descended. The party should have shown the Bellary brothers their place even if it meant sacrifice of power. That would have enhanced the image of the party which has taken a severe beating in the past.
While the neighbouring Karnataka is on the throes of a political crisis induced by money power, Andhra Pradesh is witnessing a crisis of political and administrative authority on account of poverty of leadership and clueless high command. The writ of APCC chief does not run in the party. Except for a handful of rootless wonders, Congress leaders care a damn for the party chief. The Congress chief in the state looks pathetic when he says, after he was snubbed by his own party men rejecting his alliance proposal with PRP, that his party will have a long-term alliance with the beleaguered PRP for 2014.
Andhra Pradesh cabinet has become the theatre of the absurd. Home Minister of the state says that YSR’s son is the only charismatic leader who can provide leadership. Is this not an expression of no confidence in the present head of government? Another minister who was in the forefront of “Jagan Bajan” programme turns around and swears by the present chief minister, when he finds that the latter will have a longer haul. There are reports that the ministers do not attend to their official work and are looking towards Delhi for the final word on leadership. Groupism that was the hallmark of the party in the state in eighties and nineties has staged a comeback with vengeance and it is going to be disastrous for the party. It is this “crab” mindset that prompted APCC chief to come out with an absurd proposal to align with the truncated PRP for the GHMC polls. The present chief minister is unable to inspire confidence among the members of his own cabinet, let alone the rank and file of the party.
If the money power is threatening the very existence of the BJP government in Karnataka, it is a different play of money power in AP which spells doom for the present regime.
The most vulgar manner in which the Reddy brothers of Bellary are flaunting their well-gotten or ill-gotten wealth to put a government on notice is something unprecedented and next only to the late senior Ambani’s political game during Rajiv Gandhi’s tenure and thereafter, that everyone who is interested in decent public life has to hang his head in shame. It will be a distraction of convenience to attribute political affiliation for such unscrupulous businessmen who use politics as a shield.
Yes, for the moment Bellary brothers are in the BJP. The very same brothers were close confidantes of the late YS Rajasekhara Reddy when he was alive and with whose overt and covert support, they allegedly amassed wealth by means fair or foul in so far as their AP ventures were concerned. Their interests are in both Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka, because the mines, geological bounties of nature, do not know geographical boundaries nor do they recognise linguistic boundaries. Hence, their interest is in both the states. Business interest is uppermost in their agenda and not public interest. They invested in BJP in Karnataka and in Congress in AP and we are only witnessing its fallout in both the states today. There are reports that if they are not contained in Karnataka, they may target the AP government which is already tottering.
If the BJP made use of their money power and muscle power in Karnataka, now is the pay-back time for the party. And what they want in return for their support to the party is the head of Yeddiyurappa on a platter. Not because, the Karnataka chief minister swerved from the promises he made to the electorate, but for the simple reason that Yeddiyurappa’s continuance in power is not in their business interest.
If you live by the sword you must be prepared to die as well with the same sword. Yeddiyurappa or his political mentors in Delhi should have known this basic principle when they supped with Reddy brothers. Were the party bosses not aware of the brothers style of politics when the latter were putting the eggs in two rival political outfits at the same time as an insurance for their business. Playing footsie with YSR, they ensured that there was no interference in their business activities in the state. They wanted Yeddiyurappa also turn the other way. But, Yeddiyurappa is no YSR to have mastered the technique of running with the hare and huting with the hound.
Why did Yeddiyurappa not oblige the Bellary brothers, and on the contrary, queered the pitch for a political crisis. It will be foolish to say that political morality made the Karnataka CM to take on the Reddy brothers nor will it be correct to say that the CM wanted to assert his authority. Whatever the reason, here is a stark reality that is staring at all of us. Money power would like to buy over Constitutional power and run the state through its own proxy. Are we going to allow this?
Amidst the dark clouds, the only silver lining is that so far (at the time or writing this piece), the higher ups ensconced in New Delhi have not yielded to money power, but the fact that they are negotiating with those who should never be in politics in the first place is the indicator to the depth to which the party with a difference has descended. The party should have shown the Bellary brothers their place even if it meant sacrifice of power. That would have enhanced the image of the party which has taken a severe beating in the past.
While the neighbouring Karnataka is on the throes of a political crisis induced by money power, Andhra Pradesh is witnessing a crisis of political and administrative authority on account of poverty of leadership and clueless high command. The writ of APCC chief does not run in the party. Except for a handful of rootless wonders, Congress leaders care a damn for the party chief. The Congress chief in the state looks pathetic when he says, after he was snubbed by his own party men rejecting his alliance proposal with PRP, that his party will have a long-term alliance with the beleaguered PRP for 2014.
Andhra Pradesh cabinet has become the theatre of the absurd. Home Minister of the state says that YSR’s son is the only charismatic leader who can provide leadership. Is this not an expression of no confidence in the present head of government? Another minister who was in the forefront of “Jagan Bajan” programme turns around and swears by the present chief minister, when he finds that the latter will have a longer haul. There are reports that the ministers do not attend to their official work and are looking towards Delhi for the final word on leadership. Groupism that was the hallmark of the party in the state in eighties and nineties has staged a comeback with vengeance and it is going to be disastrous for the party. It is this “crab” mindset that prompted APCC chief to come out with an absurd proposal to align with the truncated PRP for the GHMC polls. The present chief minister is unable to inspire confidence among the members of his own cabinet, let alone the rank and file of the party.
If the money power is threatening the very existence of the BJP government in Karnataka, it is a different play of money power in AP which spells doom for the present regime.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
DEALING WITH DISCREDITED FORCES - ROLE OF MEDIA
The lifeline for sustenance and growth of any terrorist or violent movement anywhere in the world is publicity. It is the most precious oxygen on which these outfits that do not believe in democracy and rule of law survive. They use media as a perfect tool to promote their cause which, in any way, does not contribute to peace and social harmony. What comes out of their so-called struggle, whatever veneer they may apply to it, is nothing but anarchy and chaos in society.
Should the media oblige such organisations? It is difficult to give a categorical reply “yes” or “no” to this question. It is debatable and it all depends on which side of the political spectrum you are perched. Conventional use of tags for those on the left is that they are “liberal” and those on the right are “conservatives”. This is no longer so in China. Those who are opposed to communism are “liberals” and those who stand by communist ideology are “conservatives”.
Be that as it may,there were two instances in the recent past where the media, wittingly or unwittingly, played into the hands of the political and left extremist elements which are not only discredited but lost public support. Media has only helped them in their efforts for revival.
First, let us take the case of Telangana Rashtra Samiti chief K Chandrasekara Rao. 2009 general elections have exposed his hypocrisy and the elections only helped him grow richer by crores. He is the most discredited and cantankerous politician today known for his thoroughly inconsistent stands and language that does not befit a civilized politician. Of late, he has been talking of militant movement and civil war for Telangana statehood. He knows that people of Telangana no longer trust him. He wants to be in the news and so he talks of civil war. But neither the people nor the state administration takes his talk seriously.
But his only lifeline for survival is the media. When he organised a rally in Siddipet, in a desperate attempt to regroup his truncated party, almost every Telugu news channel (there are 12 in the state) telecast his rally live including the one owned by late Dr YS Rajasekara Reddy’s son. This is the rally in which he reiterated his “resolve” to launch a civil war.
Well, there can be no legal bar on the channels to report the rally in whatever manner the electronic media wanted. But, is there something like professional judgement and discretion in going “live” for the (mis)adventures of a politician? This is where unhealthy competition in the electronic media makes them shed all sense of professional propriety. There is a sheepish mindset. If one channel does “live”, everybody else has to follow suit; otherwise the competing channel may pip the post in the TRP race.
There can be no restriction in reporting the event especially when KCR threatens “ civil war” and people should have enough inputs to judge his credentials. But covering the entire rally “live” is to give an importance that he or his party does not deserve. This is where the editorial judgement should have come to play rather than senseless competition.
Politicians like Ambika Soni are making politically correct statements that the government would not constitute a regulatory body on its own and it should be left to the media establishments to come out with their own regulatory body and a self code. In the competitive atmosphere that we witness not only in Andhra Pradesh, but in the entire country today, will the media barons come out with such a self-regulatory body, and even if they come out with one, will it serve any purpose?
The second instance where media did not come out with flying colours was the one revolving around the West Bengal cop abducted by Maoists. The media space/airtime that Maoist leader Kishenji aka Koteswara Rao got on the national channels in every bulletin was amazing. He was giving exclusive interviews, phone-ins which were getting updated and bytes “behind” the camera. Besides, he also addressed a press conference with a hood covering his head and gun totting over his shoulders. It would have been a “romantic” interlude for the young journos to interview one of the dreaded left extremists rather than interacting with run-of-the-mill politicians who give a boring copy and sedate headlines.
To digress, hitherto, a journalist had to trek several miles blind-folded in thick forest to have an interview with a naxal leader. Now, the Maoists are holding press conferences within ear-shot distance of the Police station.It only reminds us of Nepal Maoist leader Prachanda’s interaction with the media.
But the point here is that Kishenji used media as a tool (not that the Maoists have any love lost for the bourgeois media) to blackmail the establishment. According to the West Bengal government, “the police had nearly cornered the top Maoist leader, but he very shrewdly used the media to blackmail the government threatening that the officer’s life would be in danger if the offensive was not halted immediately”
It is possible that the W Bengal government did not have the nerve to corner the Maoist and developed cold feet. But was it right on the part of the media to have allowed itself to be used for blackmail?
As the Prime Minister had stated time and again, Maoists are the single most internal security threat and the Home Minister has declared “war” on Maoists. Maoists don’t believe in democracy nor in peace talks. They believe in armed rebellion and are not prepared to give up arms under any circumstances. They would like to over throw Costitutionally elected governments. When the state declares “war” against them, what should be the role of media? Should it do something, whatever the professional obligations, that will only publicise and further the cause of Maoists who pose a grave threat to the very concept of nation-state?
There is a school of thought that believes in the jargon “Publish and be damned”. Media cannot be expected to analyse the intentions of those in the news and then report. During the Balkan war, when British media did not toe the official line, it was said that media had no territorial loyalties and truth is the only overriding factor to guide the media. Otherwise, we would not have had “Watergate”.
While it is a case of professional discretion in the case of KCR, it is undoubtedly a dilemma when it comes to Maoists. At least, the latter deserves a debate.
Should the media oblige such organisations? It is difficult to give a categorical reply “yes” or “no” to this question. It is debatable and it all depends on which side of the political spectrum you are perched. Conventional use of tags for those on the left is that they are “liberal” and those on the right are “conservatives”. This is no longer so in China. Those who are opposed to communism are “liberals” and those who stand by communist ideology are “conservatives”.
Be that as it may,there were two instances in the recent past where the media, wittingly or unwittingly, played into the hands of the political and left extremist elements which are not only discredited but lost public support. Media has only helped them in their efforts for revival.
First, let us take the case of Telangana Rashtra Samiti chief K Chandrasekara Rao. 2009 general elections have exposed his hypocrisy and the elections only helped him grow richer by crores. He is the most discredited and cantankerous politician today known for his thoroughly inconsistent stands and language that does not befit a civilized politician. Of late, he has been talking of militant movement and civil war for Telangana statehood. He knows that people of Telangana no longer trust him. He wants to be in the news and so he talks of civil war. But neither the people nor the state administration takes his talk seriously.
But his only lifeline for survival is the media. When he organised a rally in Siddipet, in a desperate attempt to regroup his truncated party, almost every Telugu news channel (there are 12 in the state) telecast his rally live including the one owned by late Dr YS Rajasekara Reddy’s son. This is the rally in which he reiterated his “resolve” to launch a civil war.
Well, there can be no legal bar on the channels to report the rally in whatever manner the electronic media wanted. But, is there something like professional judgement and discretion in going “live” for the (mis)adventures of a politician? This is where unhealthy competition in the electronic media makes them shed all sense of professional propriety. There is a sheepish mindset. If one channel does “live”, everybody else has to follow suit; otherwise the competing channel may pip the post in the TRP race.
There can be no restriction in reporting the event especially when KCR threatens “ civil war” and people should have enough inputs to judge his credentials. But covering the entire rally “live” is to give an importance that he or his party does not deserve. This is where the editorial judgement should have come to play rather than senseless competition.
Politicians like Ambika Soni are making politically correct statements that the government would not constitute a regulatory body on its own and it should be left to the media establishments to come out with their own regulatory body and a self code. In the competitive atmosphere that we witness not only in Andhra Pradesh, but in the entire country today, will the media barons come out with such a self-regulatory body, and even if they come out with one, will it serve any purpose?
The second instance where media did not come out with flying colours was the one revolving around the West Bengal cop abducted by Maoists. The media space/airtime that Maoist leader Kishenji aka Koteswara Rao got on the national channels in every bulletin was amazing. He was giving exclusive interviews, phone-ins which were getting updated and bytes “behind” the camera. Besides, he also addressed a press conference with a hood covering his head and gun totting over his shoulders. It would have been a “romantic” interlude for the young journos to interview one of the dreaded left extremists rather than interacting with run-of-the-mill politicians who give a boring copy and sedate headlines.
To digress, hitherto, a journalist had to trek several miles blind-folded in thick forest to have an interview with a naxal leader. Now, the Maoists are holding press conferences within ear-shot distance of the Police station.It only reminds us of Nepal Maoist leader Prachanda’s interaction with the media.
But the point here is that Kishenji used media as a tool (not that the Maoists have any love lost for the bourgeois media) to blackmail the establishment. According to the West Bengal government, “the police had nearly cornered the top Maoist leader, but he very shrewdly used the media to blackmail the government threatening that the officer’s life would be in danger if the offensive was not halted immediately”
It is possible that the W Bengal government did not have the nerve to corner the Maoist and developed cold feet. But was it right on the part of the media to have allowed itself to be used for blackmail?
As the Prime Minister had stated time and again, Maoists are the single most internal security threat and the Home Minister has declared “war” on Maoists. Maoists don’t believe in democracy nor in peace talks. They believe in armed rebellion and are not prepared to give up arms under any circumstances. They would like to over throw Costitutionally elected governments. When the state declares “war” against them, what should be the role of media? Should it do something, whatever the professional obligations, that will only publicise and further the cause of Maoists who pose a grave threat to the very concept of nation-state?
There is a school of thought that believes in the jargon “Publish and be damned”. Media cannot be expected to analyse the intentions of those in the news and then report. During the Balkan war, when British media did not toe the official line, it was said that media had no territorial loyalties and truth is the only overriding factor to guide the media. Otherwise, we would not have had “Watergate”.
While it is a case of professional discretion in the case of KCR, it is undoubtedly a dilemma when it comes to Maoists. At least, the latter deserves a debate.
Friday, October 23, 2009
IS THERE A POLICY ON CHINA?
Amidst revived war of words between India and China, the Prime Ministers of both the countries, Dr Manmohan Singh and Wen Jiabo are slated to meet at Bangkok today when they go there to attend the East Asia Summit. There is an accuracy deficit when we say “war of words” because war can only be with the particicpation between two entities. While Chinese media has been using abusive language against India and its diplomats threaten India on a regular basis, Indian response is to go on the defensive except on one occasion when it pointed out China’s infrastructural activities in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. So, the war is unilateral in the absence of a clear China policy for India. We can only pray, with Dr Singh’s track record being what it is, there is no repeat of Sharm-el-Sheikh in Bangkok.
When Indian media was talking about Chinese incursions on the border, Indian government was only trying to pretend as if nothing has happened. The nation was told that there was nothing to panic about such minor skirmishes on the border which are not uncommon on the disputed territories of any nation. The home ministry went a step further and warned criminal action against those correspondents who wrote about such incursions. Further, what was most unimaginable was that the government censored its own Prime Minister’s remarks on China when he addressed the military commanders. Alas, China does not take note of this “good-neighbour” conduct of India.
Now, the issue has become a full-blown controversy with China’s intentions becoming quite clear. Our China friends and those who supported China at the time of 1962 war were also making noises that what was happening on the border must be the handiwork of China’s border police and it may not have anything to do with the country’s rulers. But, will they change their tune after the People’s Daily editorial on October 14?
One should remember that there is no free press in Peoples Republic of China, unlike India, and People’s Daily is the official organ of the Communist Party of China and its subsidiary is Global Times which advocated “balkanisation” of India. The editorials in People’s Daily unmistakably reflect the official position as they are published only after getting clearance from the party higher-ups.
This is what People’s Daily said in its editorial. It describes India as hegemonistic power and talks about the common experience and common difficulties of both China and Pakistan in dealing with India with which both have unresolved border disputes. Look at the diplomatic mischief. It takes Pakistan along while talking about its “difficulties” while dealing with India.
The acerbic editorial further says “In recent years Indians have become more narrow-minded and intolerable of outside criticism as nationalist sentiment rises with some of them even turning to hegemony. Given the country’s history, hegemony is a hundred percent result of British colonialism. A previous victim of hegemony, it is developing its own hegemony. Obsessed with such mentality India turned a blind eye to the concessions China had repeatedly made over the disputed border issues and refused to drop the pretentious airs when dealing with neighbours like Pakistan”.
The editorial also gives gratuitous advice to India. “India which wants to be a super power needs to improve its relations with neighbours and abandon the recklessness and arrogance. For India, the ease of tension with China and Pakistan is the only way to become a superpower.”
Let us look at the “concessions” China has made to resolve issues between the two countries.
1. It blocked the Asian Development Bank loans to India for developmental projects because the project included one in Arunachal Pradesh.
2. It expressed serious reservations on our Prime Minister’s visit to Arunachal Pradesh for electoral activity. Elections have been taking place for decades in this border state and top politicians both in the government and in the Opposition have been visiting the state.
3. China has warned India against Dalai Lama’s visit to Arunachal Pradesh.
4. It started issuing separate visas to people of Kashmir origin to underscore the point that J&K is a disputed territory.
5. It showed J & K as a separate nation in its maps.
6. It establishes a spy station in Nepal to monitor India.
7. It has befriended all those countries around India like Pakistan, Lanka, Nepal and Myanmnar with a view to encircle India.
Just three years ago, when Chinese President Hu Jinto visited India he said China was keen on building a strong and cooperative relationship based on shared and common interests. He also said that India and China were willing to work hand in hand for long-term friendship and common development.
What happened in the last three years for China to reverse its stand? Dalai Lama, whose very name is allergic to China, has been staying as our guest for more than half-a-century. Arunachal Pradesh is not a new phenomenon. Why then this sudden hostility?
If we have to understand this, we have to understand human nature. After all, a country is no different from human being when it comes to the mindset and a country is again ruled by human beings. When a person becomes rich all of a sudden, he thinks big, acts big and expects his neighbours to pay obeisance to him. In short, he becomes a “dada” in his neighbourhood.
China is undergoing such a transformation. It has grown fabulously rich. It holds three trillion dollars in foreign exchange reserves which no other country in the world can boast of. Together with the US it accounts for 30 percent of the world’s GDP. The recession in the West, particularly in the US, added to its importance. It has emerged as the world’s largest growth engine and is out to economically humble the mighty US. There is also a talk of saying good-bye to G-8 and replacing it with G-2, i.e. China and the US.
The only country that can come in the way of China’s ambitions to be a unipolar power, militarily, economically and politically, it is India whose political and economic clout in the international arena is on the ascendant. It also suspects that Indo-US strategic relationship is only to counter China. Therefore, it wants to create tension in the border areas so as to divert India’s attention and resources. Not only in Arunachal Pradesh, even in Sikkim it wants to resurrect the ghost that was buried long ago. Dalai Lama is only a red-herring.
When Indian media was talking about Chinese incursions on the border, Indian government was only trying to pretend as if nothing has happened. The nation was told that there was nothing to panic about such minor skirmishes on the border which are not uncommon on the disputed territories of any nation. The home ministry went a step further and warned criminal action against those correspondents who wrote about such incursions. Further, what was most unimaginable was that the government censored its own Prime Minister’s remarks on China when he addressed the military commanders. Alas, China does not take note of this “good-neighbour” conduct of India.
Now, the issue has become a full-blown controversy with China’s intentions becoming quite clear. Our China friends and those who supported China at the time of 1962 war were also making noises that what was happening on the border must be the handiwork of China’s border police and it may not have anything to do with the country’s rulers. But, will they change their tune after the People’s Daily editorial on October 14?
One should remember that there is no free press in Peoples Republic of China, unlike India, and People’s Daily is the official organ of the Communist Party of China and its subsidiary is Global Times which advocated “balkanisation” of India. The editorials in People’s Daily unmistakably reflect the official position as they are published only after getting clearance from the party higher-ups.
This is what People’s Daily said in its editorial. It describes India as hegemonistic power and talks about the common experience and common difficulties of both China and Pakistan in dealing with India with which both have unresolved border disputes. Look at the diplomatic mischief. It takes Pakistan along while talking about its “difficulties” while dealing with India.
The acerbic editorial further says “In recent years Indians have become more narrow-minded and intolerable of outside criticism as nationalist sentiment rises with some of them even turning to hegemony. Given the country’s history, hegemony is a hundred percent result of British colonialism. A previous victim of hegemony, it is developing its own hegemony. Obsessed with such mentality India turned a blind eye to the concessions China had repeatedly made over the disputed border issues and refused to drop the pretentious airs when dealing with neighbours like Pakistan”.
The editorial also gives gratuitous advice to India. “India which wants to be a super power needs to improve its relations with neighbours and abandon the recklessness and arrogance. For India, the ease of tension with China and Pakistan is the only way to become a superpower.”
Let us look at the “concessions” China has made to resolve issues between the two countries.
1. It blocked the Asian Development Bank loans to India for developmental projects because the project included one in Arunachal Pradesh.
2. It expressed serious reservations on our Prime Minister’s visit to Arunachal Pradesh for electoral activity. Elections have been taking place for decades in this border state and top politicians both in the government and in the Opposition have been visiting the state.
3. China has warned India against Dalai Lama’s visit to Arunachal Pradesh.
4. It started issuing separate visas to people of Kashmir origin to underscore the point that J&K is a disputed territory.
5. It showed J & K as a separate nation in its maps.
6. It establishes a spy station in Nepal to monitor India.
7. It has befriended all those countries around India like Pakistan, Lanka, Nepal and Myanmnar with a view to encircle India.
Just three years ago, when Chinese President Hu Jinto visited India he said China was keen on building a strong and cooperative relationship based on shared and common interests. He also said that India and China were willing to work hand in hand for long-term friendship and common development.
What happened in the last three years for China to reverse its stand? Dalai Lama, whose very name is allergic to China, has been staying as our guest for more than half-a-century. Arunachal Pradesh is not a new phenomenon. Why then this sudden hostility?
If we have to understand this, we have to understand human nature. After all, a country is no different from human being when it comes to the mindset and a country is again ruled by human beings. When a person becomes rich all of a sudden, he thinks big, acts big and expects his neighbours to pay obeisance to him. In short, he becomes a “dada” in his neighbourhood.
China is undergoing such a transformation. It has grown fabulously rich. It holds three trillion dollars in foreign exchange reserves which no other country in the world can boast of. Together with the US it accounts for 30 percent of the world’s GDP. The recession in the West, particularly in the US, added to its importance. It has emerged as the world’s largest growth engine and is out to economically humble the mighty US. There is also a talk of saying good-bye to G-8 and replacing it with G-2, i.e. China and the US.
The only country that can come in the way of China’s ambitions to be a unipolar power, militarily, economically and politically, it is India whose political and economic clout in the international arena is on the ascendant. It also suspects that Indo-US strategic relationship is only to counter China. Therefore, it wants to create tension in the border areas so as to divert India’s attention and resources. Not only in Arunachal Pradesh, even in Sikkim it wants to resurrect the ghost that was buried long ago. Dalai Lama is only a red-herring.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
COMPETITION DRIVES MEDIA TO GO PRO- ACTIVE
While the nature was flooding four districts of Andhra Pradesh in a manner that was not witnessed in the last one hundred years, eleven Telugu news channels were flooding the drawing rooms of millions of households in the state with non-stop coverage of floods for full five days. Of course, it was necessary to keep the people and the administration informed of the ground realities with visual support. Though such in-depth coverage and studio discussions with irrigation experts and engineers might have sacred some people because of forecasts of deluge, there was no choice before the channels. Even visuals repeated like nobody’s business, dubious claims to exclusivity, “first”- to- reach- the- spot claims and the like are understandable in the electronic media keeping in view the mindless competition. But the problem was, the claims were taken to ridiculous levels.
Anyone who was watching the Telugu news channels during those agonising days of flood fury would have come to the conclusion that it was the electronic media in the state that has taken over control of the flood management, rescue, relief and rehabilitation measures from the state administration.
It was the market leader TV9 that showed the way for others in the fraternity. On October 2 itself the channel started the claim that it was TV9 team that could reach out to places where official machinery could not venture. Of course, there were no specific details or visuals except “bytes” from the villagers to this effect. There was a pattern. A loaded question will be asked to the people “Did anyone come to your area to help?” You can’t expect the marooned people to say “Oh yes, many people came and we are all happy with their timely help” It is quite natural for them to be disappointed and angry. Obviously, when hundreds of villages were affected due to sudden inflow of more than 10 lakh cusecs of water, you can’t expect government officials to be present everywhere. So, a byte will be extracted from them to say that TV9 was the first to visit them. What is the strength of a television channel’s team in the affected areas to replace government machinery? A stringer in each mandal with a cameraman? Besides, the channel might have sent dozen teams from the capital.
How can the competitors of TV9 keep quiet when a rival is taking all the credit? TV5 went a step further. It announced that it was the only channel to have conducted an aerial survey of flood affected areas. If a chief minister or prime minister conducts an aerial survey, the purpose is to assess the damage due to floods and to chalk out plan of relief and rehabilitation measures. What would a TV channel do with an aerial survey if it is not just to shoot visuals? The channel also announced in bold fonts across the screen (not just scrolling) that TV5 rescue teams were active in the affected areas and that affected people in the submerged areas thanked TV5 profusely for the timely help. It was also claimed that the TV5 personnel were operating along with fire service authorities to rescue the flood victims.
The trend that was set by these two channels was meticulously followed by others in making claims and counter-claims. Every channel had “exclusives” and was the first to reach affected villages to lead rescue efforts.
However, there was a blessing in this competition which cannot go unnoticed. It was TV9 again that started collecting relief materials to be sent to the flood victims. The channel gave an appeal for aid and the channel claimed, throwing all decency and modesty into thin air, that the response it got was unparalleled in history and that even the government, NGOs, or the political parties could not get the same level of response which in turn reflected on the credibility of the channel among the people and the unshakable faith they repose in the channel.
On the positive side, this spurred other channels to collect relief materials and if we go by the visuals shown in all the channels there must be hundreds of trucks heading towards those four districts of Kurnool, Mahabubnagar, Krishna and Guntur. This is one area where the competition among the channels benefitted the people if we ignore the tendency of some channels to run down the competitors. When TV9 was collecting clothes, TV5 ran a ticker that it was of no use except for propaganda. Since some channels received cheques/drafts, an attempt was made to discourage it saying that the cheques/drafts must be sent only to the chief minister’s office, as otherwise, there is a likelihood of misuse of funds.
Though Sakshi TV was trying to be professional in the first few days, even cutting live to TDP leader Chandrababu’s press meet in Vijayawada and not making exaggerated claims, it could not probably resist the temptation to cater to its owner’s political interests. There was an extensive coverage of YS Jagan Mohan Reddy’s tour of Cuddapah district with a voice over that smacked of sheer sycophancy.
Of all the channels, ETV2 maintained semblance of balance and sobriety. The reason is not far to seek. There was no YSR in the scene to let loose its prejudice.
While the Telugu channels went overboard because of the real threat perception involving millions of people of the state, the coverage of national news channels was abysmal. On the afternoon bulletins of Times Now, IBN and NDTV 24x7, the lead story was the collapse of two cranes in the Delhi Metro project even as the Krishna flood was threatening to submerge hundreds of villages taking the lives of scores of villagers in the process. On the prime time bulletin at 9.00 PM on 2nd Oct, Times Now found Karan Johar’s apology to Raj Thakeray as more important than the flood fury in the South. Speculation about Shiney Ahuja’s exact time of release from jail was also considered to be more important to be taken before the break whereas the flood fury in the South was pushed as the last item before Sports news.
If we go by conventional wisdom, role of the media is to inform. But then, we are passing through changing times and changing priorities. When we have an Executive whose mantra is “positive discrimination”, judiciary which is told to be committed to social justice, and not just Constitutional justice, why can’t we have a pro-active media? Media which wants to replicate state administrative machinery.
Anyone who was watching the Telugu news channels during those agonising days of flood fury would have come to the conclusion that it was the electronic media in the state that has taken over control of the flood management, rescue, relief and rehabilitation measures from the state administration.
It was the market leader TV9 that showed the way for others in the fraternity. On October 2 itself the channel started the claim that it was TV9 team that could reach out to places where official machinery could not venture. Of course, there were no specific details or visuals except “bytes” from the villagers to this effect. There was a pattern. A loaded question will be asked to the people “Did anyone come to your area to help?” You can’t expect the marooned people to say “Oh yes, many people came and we are all happy with their timely help” It is quite natural for them to be disappointed and angry. Obviously, when hundreds of villages were affected due to sudden inflow of more than 10 lakh cusecs of water, you can’t expect government officials to be present everywhere. So, a byte will be extracted from them to say that TV9 was the first to visit them. What is the strength of a television channel’s team in the affected areas to replace government machinery? A stringer in each mandal with a cameraman? Besides, the channel might have sent dozen teams from the capital.
How can the competitors of TV9 keep quiet when a rival is taking all the credit? TV5 went a step further. It announced that it was the only channel to have conducted an aerial survey of flood affected areas. If a chief minister or prime minister conducts an aerial survey, the purpose is to assess the damage due to floods and to chalk out plan of relief and rehabilitation measures. What would a TV channel do with an aerial survey if it is not just to shoot visuals? The channel also announced in bold fonts across the screen (not just scrolling) that TV5 rescue teams were active in the affected areas and that affected people in the submerged areas thanked TV5 profusely for the timely help. It was also claimed that the TV5 personnel were operating along with fire service authorities to rescue the flood victims.
The trend that was set by these two channels was meticulously followed by others in making claims and counter-claims. Every channel had “exclusives” and was the first to reach affected villages to lead rescue efforts.
However, there was a blessing in this competition which cannot go unnoticed. It was TV9 again that started collecting relief materials to be sent to the flood victims. The channel gave an appeal for aid and the channel claimed, throwing all decency and modesty into thin air, that the response it got was unparalleled in history and that even the government, NGOs, or the political parties could not get the same level of response which in turn reflected on the credibility of the channel among the people and the unshakable faith they repose in the channel.
On the positive side, this spurred other channels to collect relief materials and if we go by the visuals shown in all the channels there must be hundreds of trucks heading towards those four districts of Kurnool, Mahabubnagar, Krishna and Guntur. This is one area where the competition among the channels benefitted the people if we ignore the tendency of some channels to run down the competitors. When TV9 was collecting clothes, TV5 ran a ticker that it was of no use except for propaganda. Since some channels received cheques/drafts, an attempt was made to discourage it saying that the cheques/drafts must be sent only to the chief minister’s office, as otherwise, there is a likelihood of misuse of funds.
Though Sakshi TV was trying to be professional in the first few days, even cutting live to TDP leader Chandrababu’s press meet in Vijayawada and not making exaggerated claims, it could not probably resist the temptation to cater to its owner’s political interests. There was an extensive coverage of YS Jagan Mohan Reddy’s tour of Cuddapah district with a voice over that smacked of sheer sycophancy.
Of all the channels, ETV2 maintained semblance of balance and sobriety. The reason is not far to seek. There was no YSR in the scene to let loose its prejudice.
While the Telugu channels went overboard because of the real threat perception involving millions of people of the state, the coverage of national news channels was abysmal. On the afternoon bulletins of Times Now, IBN and NDTV 24x7, the lead story was the collapse of two cranes in the Delhi Metro project even as the Krishna flood was threatening to submerge hundreds of villages taking the lives of scores of villagers in the process. On the prime time bulletin at 9.00 PM on 2nd Oct, Times Now found Karan Johar’s apology to Raj Thakeray as more important than the flood fury in the South. Speculation about Shiney Ahuja’s exact time of release from jail was also considered to be more important to be taken before the break whereas the flood fury in the South was pushed as the last item before Sports news.
If we go by conventional wisdom, role of the media is to inform. But then, we are passing through changing times and changing priorities. When we have an Executive whose mantra is “positive discrimination”, judiciary which is told to be committed to social justice, and not just Constitutional justice, why can’t we have a pro-active media? Media which wants to replicate state administrative machinery.
Friday, October 2, 2009
SOUL OF OUR POLITY IS AUTHORITARIAN
We adopt all universally recognised motions of democracy. We have periodical elections to state assemblies and Parliament and elected representatives of the people “elect” chief ministers or Prime Minister. We have a written Constitution which swears by democracy. We follow its provisions in letter. But can we say we follow it in spirit?
The farce that is being witnessed in Andhra Pradesh in electing a successor for the late Dr Y S Rajasekara Reddy only confirms, if confirmation is needed, that we are yet to imbibe the true spirit of democracy notwithstanding the fact that we follow all the superficial features of democracy. Democracy has come to stay, we say; and indulge in self-flagellation comparing ourselves with our neighbours. But, what is the quality of our democracy?
For centuries we were ruled by kings or emperors. Indian tradition treats kings as incarnation of God. A king, benevolent or malevolent, is accepted without a question and what he says is law and his subjects have to obey. In fact, there were kings who, despite unquestioned powers, acted in accordance with the wishes of his people.
Now that we are the world’s largest democracy, atleast in the eyes of the world, has anything changed? “High Command” has replaced the kings in any political party and the credit, shall we say “dubious credit” goes to the Congress for setting this authoritarian trend right from the time of Mrs Indira Gandhi and it has, regretfully, caught up with other parties as well. Only the nomenclature has changed and the king or queen is now called “High Command”.
The state is witnessing an interesting scenario where leaders, who were either defeated by the people, or those who survive in politics because they are the “retainers” of the Nehru-Gandhi family, or those who can never win an election, vent their spleen for something which cannot be considered “democratic” by any standards.
In order not to leave a Constitutional vacuum soon after the death of Dr YSR, an arrangement was made by the High Command to usher in a leader who is not even a member of the Legislative Assembly. True, there was no legal bar. The Congress Legislature Party should either endorse his nomination or elect a leader of its choice. But look at the chorus of Congress leaders both at the Centre and in the State. They shamelessly say that the tradition in the Congress is that the High Command has to zero in on a person and he/she alone will be duly “elected” by the CLP. Do you call this democracy? May be, we can call it “authoritarian democracy” or “despotic democracy”!
Here was a chief minister who stood by the party like a rock and was instrumental in a way for the Congress to be in power at the Centre and the CLP is yet to meet to condole his death even after one month. What is the hitch in convening the CLP meet? There is a fear that the overwhelming majority of elected representatives may elect a new leader which may not be to the liking of the High Command.
That’s why a CWC member from the state says “party high command is the ultimate authority to decide on the state leadership issue”. Do we call this democratic tradition? Legislators are reduced to mere puppets who just have to nod their heads or raise their hands for whatever the direction of the High Command. This is what the kings used to demand from their courtiers. Is there any change under the so-called democratic dispensation?
Look at the audacity of an AICC member, who is at best a domestic help of the first family of the party, and made a political career by singing bhajans to the family, to say “Those who say they won on account of the late YSR should realise that YSR was made Chief Minister due to Mrs Gandhi”. The reality is the other way round. Both in 2004 and 2009, it was YSR who made Mrs Gandhi to wield real power behind the throne. Here was a chief minister who won on his own strength. It amounts to blasphemy to admit that and the credit has to be laid at the feet of the queen. This is another dimension of our unique democracy.
Do you know that in the olden days when any hint of dishonour to the king would be perceived a “Raja Droham” and a severe punishment would await those who committed it? Are you not reminded of it when you watch the reaction to the innocuous incident when a flexiboard poster of Sonia Gandhi was torn in Khammam? Though those who are accused of committing such a “heinous” crime say that their real target was former minister and pink chaddy activist Renuka Chaudhury who happened to be in the camp of “defeated loyalists”, an attempt is being made to paint “YSR loyalists” as the culprits and “Raja Drohi”. The incident is termed in choicest epithets like “ghastly”, “heinous”, “unpardonable”, “very serious” etc. Yes, tearing of a poster is “heinous” crime!
Therefore, the state Home Minister orders a probe into the Khammam incident, chief minister writes to the High Command apologising for the “heinous crime” and assures her of stern action, APCC chief has suspended some four persons, deemed to be partymen. We can only wish that the government machinery at the state level has shown the same seriousness in apprehending the terrorists of Mecca Masjid blasts and the twin blasts in Gokul chat bhandar and Lumbini park or preventing acid attacks on hapless women or increasing incidents of rape and murder.
The High Command also should realise that allowing this anarchy to continue in the state is going to cost the party dearly. If it is under the illusion that it is the brand image of the Nehru Gandhi family that has won them 33 seats giving a decisive advantage in the number game, as is claimed by sycophants, it may have to pay a heavy price in 2014. Those who are singing the praise of the High Command are not only rootless wonders, there are many in the party, of course, but they are born dissidents and they will be of no help to the party when the chips are down.
High Command’s prevarication in taking a timely decision is only going to deepen the crisis in the beleaguered party and make the TDP chief to relax. It should remember that the present chief minister has opted out of the electoral politics. It will be a little too much to expect him to deliver 30 odd MPs to the Lok Sabha in 2014?
The farce that is being witnessed in Andhra Pradesh in electing a successor for the late Dr Y S Rajasekara Reddy only confirms, if confirmation is needed, that we are yet to imbibe the true spirit of democracy notwithstanding the fact that we follow all the superficial features of democracy. Democracy has come to stay, we say; and indulge in self-flagellation comparing ourselves with our neighbours. But, what is the quality of our democracy?
For centuries we were ruled by kings or emperors. Indian tradition treats kings as incarnation of God. A king, benevolent or malevolent, is accepted without a question and what he says is law and his subjects have to obey. In fact, there were kings who, despite unquestioned powers, acted in accordance with the wishes of his people.
Now that we are the world’s largest democracy, atleast in the eyes of the world, has anything changed? “High Command” has replaced the kings in any political party and the credit, shall we say “dubious credit” goes to the Congress for setting this authoritarian trend right from the time of Mrs Indira Gandhi and it has, regretfully, caught up with other parties as well. Only the nomenclature has changed and the king or queen is now called “High Command”.
The state is witnessing an interesting scenario where leaders, who were either defeated by the people, or those who survive in politics because they are the “retainers” of the Nehru-Gandhi family, or those who can never win an election, vent their spleen for something which cannot be considered “democratic” by any standards.
In order not to leave a Constitutional vacuum soon after the death of Dr YSR, an arrangement was made by the High Command to usher in a leader who is not even a member of the Legislative Assembly. True, there was no legal bar. The Congress Legislature Party should either endorse his nomination or elect a leader of its choice. But look at the chorus of Congress leaders both at the Centre and in the State. They shamelessly say that the tradition in the Congress is that the High Command has to zero in on a person and he/she alone will be duly “elected” by the CLP. Do you call this democracy? May be, we can call it “authoritarian democracy” or “despotic democracy”!
Here was a chief minister who stood by the party like a rock and was instrumental in a way for the Congress to be in power at the Centre and the CLP is yet to meet to condole his death even after one month. What is the hitch in convening the CLP meet? There is a fear that the overwhelming majority of elected representatives may elect a new leader which may not be to the liking of the High Command.
That’s why a CWC member from the state says “party high command is the ultimate authority to decide on the state leadership issue”. Do we call this democratic tradition? Legislators are reduced to mere puppets who just have to nod their heads or raise their hands for whatever the direction of the High Command. This is what the kings used to demand from their courtiers. Is there any change under the so-called democratic dispensation?
Look at the audacity of an AICC member, who is at best a domestic help of the first family of the party, and made a political career by singing bhajans to the family, to say “Those who say they won on account of the late YSR should realise that YSR was made Chief Minister due to Mrs Gandhi”. The reality is the other way round. Both in 2004 and 2009, it was YSR who made Mrs Gandhi to wield real power behind the throne. Here was a chief minister who won on his own strength. It amounts to blasphemy to admit that and the credit has to be laid at the feet of the queen. This is another dimension of our unique democracy.
Do you know that in the olden days when any hint of dishonour to the king would be perceived a “Raja Droham” and a severe punishment would await those who committed it? Are you not reminded of it when you watch the reaction to the innocuous incident when a flexiboard poster of Sonia Gandhi was torn in Khammam? Though those who are accused of committing such a “heinous” crime say that their real target was former minister and pink chaddy activist Renuka Chaudhury who happened to be in the camp of “defeated loyalists”, an attempt is being made to paint “YSR loyalists” as the culprits and “Raja Drohi”. The incident is termed in choicest epithets like “ghastly”, “heinous”, “unpardonable”, “very serious” etc. Yes, tearing of a poster is “heinous” crime!
Therefore, the state Home Minister orders a probe into the Khammam incident, chief minister writes to the High Command apologising for the “heinous crime” and assures her of stern action, APCC chief has suspended some four persons, deemed to be partymen. We can only wish that the government machinery at the state level has shown the same seriousness in apprehending the terrorists of Mecca Masjid blasts and the twin blasts in Gokul chat bhandar and Lumbini park or preventing acid attacks on hapless women or increasing incidents of rape and murder.
The High Command also should realise that allowing this anarchy to continue in the state is going to cost the party dearly. If it is under the illusion that it is the brand image of the Nehru Gandhi family that has won them 33 seats giving a decisive advantage in the number game, as is claimed by sycophants, it may have to pay a heavy price in 2014. Those who are singing the praise of the High Command are not only rootless wonders, there are many in the party, of course, but they are born dissidents and they will be of no help to the party when the chips are down.
High Command’s prevarication in taking a timely decision is only going to deepen the crisis in the beleaguered party and make the TDP chief to relax. It should remember that the present chief minister has opted out of the electoral politics. It will be a little too much to expect him to deliver 30 odd MPs to the Lok Sabha in 2014?
Friday, September 25, 2009
HISTORY'S ROLE REVERSAL
President Barack Obama is quite firm that all those non-signatory countries to Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) should fall in line and sign the NPT that came into effect on July 1968. He ensured that the United Nations Security Council adopted a US-sponsored resolution committing to work towards a world without nuclear weapons. The meeting was chaired by Obama himself and the resolution authorises the Security Council with the responsibility to determine and respond as necessary when violations of the Treaty threaten international peace and security. What does this mean is to state the obvious. Obama made a very pious statement that the resolution shared the US commitment to a goal of a world without nuclear weapons.
Since 1968, 189 countries signed the Treaty, five of which are declared Nuclear Weapon States (NWS). Only four sovereign countries have consistently refused to sign the treaty and they are India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea. Interestingly, expansionist China, emerging nuclear power nation Iran and rogue nation Libya were signatories. North Korea did sign initially and then backed out. Basically, the present resolution targets India and Pakistan. Israel has not made any open declaration about its nuclear status and North Korea, any way, is a pariah among the international community.
Therefore, India was very quick to respond with a firm “no” to the UNSC resolution. India’s argument is that the NPT creates a club of “nuclear haves” and a larger group of “nuclear have-nots” by restricting the legal use of nuclear weapons to those states that tested them before 1967, but the Treaty never explains on what ethical grounds such a distinction is valid.
India is also of the view that nuclear weapons are an integral part of India’s national security and will remain so, pending non-discriminatory and global nuclear disarmament. Non-proliferation and disarmament are complementary to each other. India maintains that without tangible progress in disarmament, the current emphasis on non-proliferation cannot be sustained.
In fact, Abdel Nasser of Egypt, one of the architects of Non-aligned Movement, once said “basically they did whatever they wanted to do before the introduction of NPT and then devised it to prevent others from doing what they had themselves been doing before.
India also feels that the NPT is flawed because of violations by the five Nuclear Weapon States (NWS). Art 1 of the Treaty prevents transfer of nuclear weapons or the nuclear explosive devices by the five NWS and also not to assist, encourage or induce a non-nuclear weapon state to acquire nuclear weapons. If we go by the nuclear proliferator of Pakistan, AQ Khan’s letter to his wife, China has been doing exactly what the NPT prohibited. What could the signatories to NPT do to restrain China from nuclear proliferation?
NWS are also prevented from using nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon states except in response to nuclear attack or conventional attack in alliance with a NWS. How did the US follow this provision of the Treaty? It had nuclear war heads targeted at North Korea for decades. US also invoked the possibility of using it against rogue states. France was no exception either. What could the NWS do to the signatory Iran when it is on the verge of developing nuclear weapons?
So, India may not be totally wrong in resisting the attempts by world powers to make India sign the NPT. But one cannot miss the 360 degree turnaround in the world scenario between Fifties and Sixties and the 21st century. There was a time during the Cold War when both America and the Soviet Union, in complete disregard of the world opinion, were indulging in nuclear arms race. It was India which first raised a moral rebellion against nuclear weapons and it was C Rajagopalachari, at the age of 84, who undertook his first foreign visit to meet John F Kennedy to prevail upon him the need to give up the arms race keeping in view the interests of humanity and posterity.
It will be worthwhile to take a peep into history to know how it was left to the first Indian to voice the country’s protest against the nuclear proliferation much before the NPT whereas it may now appear that India is obsessed with the need for n-weapons for its security because of the changed geo-political equations when it says “no” to UNSC resolution.
Soviet Union’s 50-megaton nuclear bang made Rajaji to demand that India ostracise the USSR and Nehru was unwilling to take such a drastic step. Later when America scheduled retaliatory blasts, Bertrand Russell wanted an Indian ship to be sent to the Pacific Zone. Nehru was reluctant even to this proposal. After series of exchange of letters between Nehru and Rajaji, it was agreed to send the latter by the Gandhi Peace Foundation to the US and USRR to prevail upon both the Heads of States to call off the nuclear arms race.
It was on September 28, 1962 (exactly 47 years ago) Rajaji accompanied by RR Diwakar of the Gandhi Peace Foundation and journalist Shiv Rao, met John F Kennedy in the White House. Recalling the visit, Rajmohan Gandhi, grandson of Rajaji goes into the details of the meeting in his book “The Rjaji Story 1937-1972” (pp 311)
“Kennedy sat in his rocking chair, with Diwakar and Shiv Rao on his right and Rajaji and BK Nehru on his left. Rajaji began disarmingly. He was not pleading, he said, for American disarmament: how could he, when his own government had a policy of armed defence? But the immediate cessation of nuclear tests stood on a different footing. Delicately he introduced the argument that the world as a whole had a right to say to the nuclear powers that they could not, in the name of testing, poison the atmosphere and endanger humanity, now and in the future”.
Was the talk fruitful? Rajaji was asked by a reporter. It was “flowerful” was the reply.
What an irony and quirk of world scenario. Nearly half-a-century ago, India was pleading with the major world powers for cessation of nuclear tests which endangered humanity. Now, India is being asked to sign the non-proliferation treaty by the very same powers and India says “nuclear weapons are an integral part of India’s national security".
Since 1968, 189 countries signed the Treaty, five of which are declared Nuclear Weapon States (NWS). Only four sovereign countries have consistently refused to sign the treaty and they are India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea. Interestingly, expansionist China, emerging nuclear power nation Iran and rogue nation Libya were signatories. North Korea did sign initially and then backed out. Basically, the present resolution targets India and Pakistan. Israel has not made any open declaration about its nuclear status and North Korea, any way, is a pariah among the international community.
Therefore, India was very quick to respond with a firm “no” to the UNSC resolution. India’s argument is that the NPT creates a club of “nuclear haves” and a larger group of “nuclear have-nots” by restricting the legal use of nuclear weapons to those states that tested them before 1967, but the Treaty never explains on what ethical grounds such a distinction is valid.
India is also of the view that nuclear weapons are an integral part of India’s national security and will remain so, pending non-discriminatory and global nuclear disarmament. Non-proliferation and disarmament are complementary to each other. India maintains that without tangible progress in disarmament, the current emphasis on non-proliferation cannot be sustained.
In fact, Abdel Nasser of Egypt, one of the architects of Non-aligned Movement, once said “basically they did whatever they wanted to do before the introduction of NPT and then devised it to prevent others from doing what they had themselves been doing before.
India also feels that the NPT is flawed because of violations by the five Nuclear Weapon States (NWS). Art 1 of the Treaty prevents transfer of nuclear weapons or the nuclear explosive devices by the five NWS and also not to assist, encourage or induce a non-nuclear weapon state to acquire nuclear weapons. If we go by the nuclear proliferator of Pakistan, AQ Khan’s letter to his wife, China has been doing exactly what the NPT prohibited. What could the signatories to NPT do to restrain China from nuclear proliferation?
NWS are also prevented from using nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon states except in response to nuclear attack or conventional attack in alliance with a NWS. How did the US follow this provision of the Treaty? It had nuclear war heads targeted at North Korea for decades. US also invoked the possibility of using it against rogue states. France was no exception either. What could the NWS do to the signatory Iran when it is on the verge of developing nuclear weapons?
So, India may not be totally wrong in resisting the attempts by world powers to make India sign the NPT. But one cannot miss the 360 degree turnaround in the world scenario between Fifties and Sixties and the 21st century. There was a time during the Cold War when both America and the Soviet Union, in complete disregard of the world opinion, were indulging in nuclear arms race. It was India which first raised a moral rebellion against nuclear weapons and it was C Rajagopalachari, at the age of 84, who undertook his first foreign visit to meet John F Kennedy to prevail upon him the need to give up the arms race keeping in view the interests of humanity and posterity.
It will be worthwhile to take a peep into history to know how it was left to the first Indian to voice the country’s protest against the nuclear proliferation much before the NPT whereas it may now appear that India is obsessed with the need for n-weapons for its security because of the changed geo-political equations when it says “no” to UNSC resolution.
Soviet Union’s 50-megaton nuclear bang made Rajaji to demand that India ostracise the USSR and Nehru was unwilling to take such a drastic step. Later when America scheduled retaliatory blasts, Bertrand Russell wanted an Indian ship to be sent to the Pacific Zone. Nehru was reluctant even to this proposal. After series of exchange of letters between Nehru and Rajaji, it was agreed to send the latter by the Gandhi Peace Foundation to the US and USRR to prevail upon both the Heads of States to call off the nuclear arms race.
It was on September 28, 1962 (exactly 47 years ago) Rajaji accompanied by RR Diwakar of the Gandhi Peace Foundation and journalist Shiv Rao, met John F Kennedy in the White House. Recalling the visit, Rajmohan Gandhi, grandson of Rajaji goes into the details of the meeting in his book “The Rjaji Story 1937-1972” (pp 311)
“Kennedy sat in his rocking chair, with Diwakar and Shiv Rao on his right and Rajaji and BK Nehru on his left. Rajaji began disarmingly. He was not pleading, he said, for American disarmament: how could he, when his own government had a policy of armed defence? But the immediate cessation of nuclear tests stood on a different footing. Delicately he introduced the argument that the world as a whole had a right to say to the nuclear powers that they could not, in the name of testing, poison the atmosphere and endanger humanity, now and in the future”.
Was the talk fruitful? Rajaji was asked by a reporter. It was “flowerful” was the reply.
What an irony and quirk of world scenario. Nearly half-a-century ago, India was pleading with the major world powers for cessation of nuclear tests which endangered humanity. Now, India is being asked to sign the non-proliferation treaty by the very same powers and India says “nuclear weapons are an integral part of India’s national security".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)