. |
. |
EDITORIAL Prime Minister of Japan Mr Yoshiro Mori's visit to India is meant to open the floodgates of massive economic cooperation. Nothing else can explain his first stop at the Silicon Valley of India i.e. Bangalore and wide interaction with software giants like Wipro and Infosys. It may be mentioned that Japan ranks amongst the top countries as regards hardware technology but in the field of software it finds herself left behind. Japan being basically business-minded which has given to the world many ....more There is good news from village Chak Darab Khan in Kathua district. This village is mostly inhabited by the Sansi and Perna tribes which are traditionally notorious for criminal acts. To that extent village has remained a source of persistent threat to all the neighbouring areas and quite a headache for the police. These tribes particularly ... .more |
|
Penalties of falling rupee Sheikh Hasina braving
threats from Islamists Defence of Kashmir
linked to survival of India If an immense By M J Akbar |
 |
||
EDITORIAL Prime Minister of Japan Mr Yoshiro Mori's visit to India is meant to open the floodgates of massive economic cooperation. Nothing else can explain his first stop at the Silicon Valley of India i.e. Bangalore and wide interaction with software giants like Wipro and Infosys. It may be mentioned that Japan ranks amongst the top countries as regards hardware technology but in the field of software it finds herself left behind. Japan being basically business-minded which has given to the world many innovative technologies at cheap rates strongly feels that software field need massive impetus in terms of economic growth. As on now Japan remains economic giant of Asia and is member of G-8, the most rich nations of the world. But as regards IT revolution it failed to have its share which explains his visit to India. To be precise, when economic cooperation is talked of it essentially has IT in mind particularly of software human resource and massive strides made by Indian companies the world over. Today, Indian professionals are in demand in USA, Germany and Japan. The latest to seek cooperation is France which too understands vast potential of the IT revolution in which India has been making rapid strides. Precisely speaking there is definite competitive race between Bangalore and Hyderabad to tap the vast potential worldwide. Tamil Nadu is the latest to join the software club while other States are fast catching up. Tomorrow's India is thus slated to be IT India whence every State competes amongst themselves even as they open up for world competition. It was first American President Bill Clinton who mentioned India as the IT giant of the millennium when he visited software township in Hyderabad aptly named as Cyberabad. It is now the turn of Japanese Prime Minister to visit Bangalore which is the Silicon Valley of India. While at Infosys software park he was astonished at the huge gathering of Infosyians and humourously remarked,'' I am taken aback by the crowd and looking at it I thought that there is a cricket or soccer match. I wish the crowd was this big during the last general election in Japan''. This is in fact a candid admission of our very large software human resource. So he invites Indian professionals to come to Japan for which all types of relaxations will be given. He also promises exposing Indian experts to Japanese trade practices and market besides familiarisation in Japanese language. Japan would need up to 10,000 professionals from India over the next few years to catch up with other IT countries. He minces no words in saying that he has great respect for India's contribution to the IT-related global talent. He thus proposes an Indo-Japanese 'IT Summit' in October for drawing the road map for the future, send Japanese Economic Mission to India and promote private sector economic exchanges between the two countries. In the process Japan offers 15 billion dollar package over the next five years to be mostly utilised in Asia and where major beneficiary will be India. This is as far as IT cooperation is concerned. The visit can also be seen as marking shift in Japanese stand on Indian security concerns. It may be recalled that Japan alongwith other nations had imposed many sanctions against India in the wake of Pokhran-II nuclear tests. Ever since Japan has been insisting on India signing CTBT for facilitating lifting of economic sanctions. Mr Mori has given enough of hints that there would be all round improvement in India-Japan relations. The very fact Prime Minister pays visit to India proves that CTBT condition is put on the back-burner particularly when India promises voluntary moratorium on further tests and building consensus within the country for signing CTBT. The second area where India has gained relates to terrorism. Without as much mentioning role of Pakistan, Japanese Prime Minister promises to tackle growing menace of terrorism jointly with India. There are other areas where Japan tends to differ like the bidding for Security Council seat where Japan herself is a candidate because of its economic power and backing by USA. Japan also differs on the need of having minimum nuclear deterrent. As far as Japan is concerned it gets USA nuclear umbrella. Nuclear proliferation is quite a sensitive issue amongst average Japanese because that is the country where atom bombs were dropped in 1945 by USA on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killing 5 lakh people and exposing millions of others to radiation. It is now possible that the target of $ 50 billion IT exports by the year 2008 will not only be achieved by India but the date could be advanced as also the quantum of exports. Besides export of software experts to USA, Germany, Japan and other destinations promises additional foreign exchange bonanza. Above all, his visit has added cheers to the stock exchanges in India and there is the expectation of rupee becoming somewhat stable against the dollar. There is good news from village Chak Darab Khan in Kathua district. This village is mostly inhabited by the Sansi and Perna tribes which are traditionally notorious for criminal acts. To that extent village has remained a source of persistent threat to all the neighbouring areas and quite a headache for the police. These tribes particularly 'Sansi' are not exclusive to this village but have many pockets all over the country. In every place the criminal habits and track record is consistent. This largely stems from illiteracy and traditional prejudices whence this tribe finds itself isolated and treated with sarcasm and hatred. The police in particular has been quite harsh in that it invariably suspects 'Sansis' hand in all the crimes that occur in areas where this tribe is having some pockets. It is thus quite a commendable achievement that Kathua police chief Mr R R Swain together with the help of social workers/organisations have pursuaded these tribes to give up crime and channelise their energies in gainful pursuits. In the absence of any formal education and lack of job opportunities, the Sansis and Pernas perhaps cannot be blamed for earning their livelihood through unlawful and criminal activities. They are ready to give up criminal acts and they do take a pledge to be peaceful and law abiding citizens henceforth. But that is not enough. True, Chenab textiles have promised some jobs. There is the mention of some skills and training for them including promise of appointing Home Guards from amongst them. But this won't suffice. As the police has adopted the village which in itself is a rare phenomenon it is incumbent on the police to ensure that all inputs to lead decent life are provided. This include adult education, education for their children, some training and gainful employment for their women folks besides absorbing male members in productive pursuits. True, these tribes want to give up all evils. It stands manifested from their demand to close the country liquor vendors in their village. Police cannot do it on its own and the concerned department must meet this demand of the tribesmen. Further, other villages prone to similar criminal life should also be adopted not necessarily by the police but other departments/business houses. Now that RR Swain is posted out of Kathua, his successor must continue with the good work and make adoption of this village an examplary exercise. |
||
|
||
Penalties
of falling rupee Collapse of Indian rupee in relation to the US dollar in recent months is going to impose huge invisible burden on the country's economy. It, however, looks surprising that no questions are yet being seriously raised anywhere about the extent of such burden or about fixation of responsibility for the same. Though India's foreign debt amounting to US $99 billions remains unchanged, the country's obligation to discharge the same has shot up by about Rs. 21400 crores assuming that the entire debt may be repayable in US dollars. It is obvious that more rupees will now be needed to discharge the same amount of dollar denominated foreign debt. The exchange are which stood at around Rs. 43.50, to a dollar, at the beginning of 2000-01, has slumped to Rs. 45.85 to a dollar (10 August 2000). This may imply that a stupendously larger amount of Rs. 4539 billions may now be needed, against Rs. 4314 billion previously; to meet the same foreign debt of US $99 billions. The country has been importing large quantities of crude oil, petroleum products, fertilisers, non-ferrous metals, various raw materials, components, machinery, etc. The manufacturing costs of industries depending on such imports will automatically go up. They will be less competitive in the overseas markets. They will be forced to hike their prices for domestic consumers, adding to inflationary pressures, which in turn may tend to further depress the rupee. Devaluation/depreciation of a currency always leads to a rise in prices and adversely affects the masses. No doubt, depreciation of rupee may give some immediate advantage to the exporting community, but the past experience shows that such advantage based on depreciation of currency do not last long. These are snatched away by overseas importers sooner or later. The real impetus to exports can come through increase in productivity, improvement in quality, and prompt service through efficient infrastructure. Sharp depreciation of the currency affords unintended additional protection to domestic industries, thus defeating the objective of giving the consumer a better deal through liberalised imports. One might be tempted to argue that the entire foriegn debt was not repayable immediately. This may imply a tendency to throw a part of the additional burden on the coming generation. It may be a moot point whether the present generation can be morally justified in leaving behind itself a legacy of heavy burden of debts, instead of prosperity. All these issues become more important now than ever before, as mistakes seem to have been made by the authorities concerned by yielding to pressure from industry circles that interest rates on bank advances should be brought down taking into consideration the low rate of inflation. The authorities concerned should have realised that the low inflation rate of around 3 per cent was a temporary phenomenon and that it would be highly imprudent to prune our interest rates when the US was gradually stepping it up over the earlier several months in a bid to control inflation. However, instead of going by such considerations the finance ministry was the first to fall to the easy temptation of placating those who were angling for a cut in interest rates, regardless of the possible consequences of such a step. Soon after presenting the Union Budget, finance minister Yashwant Sinha said that the government created a conducive environment for lowering lending rates. The RBI Governor, Dr. Bimal Jalan, picked up the signal and slashed, from 1 April 2000, the bank rate to 7 per cent from 8 per cent, the CRR from 9 per cent from 8 per cent and the interest rate on savings banks deposits to 4 per cent from 4.5 per cent to force these depositors to subsidise relatively affluent bank borrowers. Taking a cue from this, public sector banks immediately joined the queue for reduction of prime lending rates. As was inevitable, the inflation rate started moving up generating pressure on the rupee. This made FIIs reduce their fresh investments in May 2000, and withdraw some existing investments in the subsequent two months, thus adding to the pressure on the rupee. Imports had continued to rise faster than exports, because of virtual failure of the Exim Policy in reversing this trend. Demand for dollar seemed to exceed the supply putting additional pressure on the rupee. Intermittent release of dollars from the reserves was of little avail. In the process, nearly US $2 billions were lost. When this tool seemed to fail the RBI imposed, in May 2000, a surcharge on import finance and fixed a high interest rate of 25 per cent on delayed receipt of export proceeds. When even these steps proved inadequate to stem the rot of the rupee, the RBI almost reversed on 21 July 2000, its earlier steps under which it had pruned, since 1 April 2000, the bank rate and CRR. However, after a temporary halt in further depreciation, the rupee continued its southward journey indicating that various measures taken by the RBI were inadequate, though it thus tacitly admitted its mistake in reducing the bank rate and CRR since 1 April 2000, to bring down lending rates. Had the authorities avoided the temptations to swim against the international trends and prune lending rates, and had RBI paid more attention to inflation control than to a cheap money policy, the rupee would not have slumped so sharply, as it did in just three-four months, inflicting severe penalties on the country. INAV |
||
|
|
Defence of Kashmir
linked to survival of India Between words and deeds, there is inevitably a hiatus. But if this distance grows beyond a certain measure, words lose all significance, and men must be judged not by their proclamations or their intentions, but by deed alone. Strong words have been spoken on Kashmir in the past months, culminating in the address from the ramparts of the Red Fort on Independence Day. `Warnings' have been articulated against Pakistan on the futility of its disruptive designs and the proxy war it has unleashed in Jammu and Kashmir. But actions in the recent past completely undermine the force of these pronouncements. In the fifteen days that followed the Hizbul Mujahideen's announcement of a `unilateral ceasefire' more than 230 persons were killed by terrorists as the Security Forces, on command by the Centre, discontinued all offensive operations. The humiliating farce of implausible `negotiations', the eventual and contemptuous withdrawal of the Hizbul's ceasefire, the subsequent strike in the very heart of Srinagar, and Pakistan's escalating rhetoric and threats of open war speak volumes of the enemy's perception and assessment of the Indian state. Our self-perception appears no better. All our policies and responses over the past year (can we ever forget the disgrace of Kandhar?) have communicated a single, unambiguous message to the enemy-that we are exhausted , unnerved and desperate for a `solution' at any cost. That we are willing, in other words, to negotiate with just anyone, and on our knees. I am certain that this is not the message the government sought to communicate to the terrorists, or to their sponsors in Pakistan. But this, unfortunately, is the message that is getting across. There is a crucial lesson here: there are often times when talk of peace worsens conflict. When states seek to conciliate and appease those who thrive on terror and intimidation, this is inevitably interpreted as a sign of weakness, and the consequence can only be greater violence. Our commitment to, and striving for, peace must never be diluted. But they must be founded on the secure ground of reality, not on the make-believe that has enslaved the imaginings, and subdued the will, of those who currently command India's destiny. The fact that the ceasefire would fail should have been evident to anyone who had not wilfully blinded himself to the obvious. A day after the declaration of the ceasefire, I had expressed my unqualified scepticism regarding the enthusiasm it generated, in an interview to the correspondent of Der Spiegel, and a few days later, repeated my position in more than one of my writings. But nothing could, at that time, pierce the thick cloud of euphoria that enveloped those who were talking of a `return of peace' and of the `light at the end of the tunnel'-not even the reality of more than a hundred murdered in a single day's carnage. The fact is, there was no real ceasefire-and there could be none. With four thousand mercenaries on your soil, and an equal number ranged along your border, ready to cross over at Pakistan's bidding; with over a dozen disparate terrorist groups active in Jammu and Kashmir; and with the strings of the Hizbul itself held in Pakistan, there simply could not be any realistic expectations of a cessation of violence. The difficulty is that, in this age of instant coffee and of instant communications through the Internet, we have come to expect instant solutions to everything that troubles us. There are, however, certain problems to which a solution can only be constructed painstakingly, through infinite sacrifice, and through a relentless process of will, and out of the culmination of miniscule, almost imperceptible gains. In War and Peace, Tolstoy wrote of General Kutuzov, who crushed Napoleon with his `philosophy of time and patience.' Unfortunately, our decisions increasingly reflect an immature impatience and an unwillingness to engage over the extended periods of time that the conflict in Kashmir necessarily demand. In Pakistan, however, there is evidence of a greater understanding of the nature of this struggle. Each immediate victory, every passing defeat, is seen there as a stage in a struggle that is envisaged to last `a thousand years'. Even the worst of reverses has not brought about a pause in their strivings to bleed India with `a thousand cuts'. There is a constant shift in tactics, but not the slightest deviation in the larger strategy or its objectives. The most recent reports from that country suggest that as many as 1.7 million children and young men are being trained in Pakistan's madarsas for the jihad in Kashmir. To those who see themselves as the leaders of this `holy war' it matters little that some group has entered into a dialogue with the Indian government. Indeed, for them, even if General Musharraf or any successor government of Pakistan sought peace with India, this would be no more than an act of treason against their `sacred cause'. Their course is set, and can only be altered by the single authority that they acknowledge-their perverse conception of God-or by the only means that they can succumb to-the use of force. The Pakistani Army has long and correctly been regarded as `all powerful' in Pakistan. But this is a changing reality. General Musharraf's military regime has already been forced to backtrack on at least two occasions in the face of potential fundamentalist backlash-and the changes he was attempting to introduce into the prevailing practices were only peripheral and essentially minor. The Army in Pakistan has both weakened and been significantly penetrated by Islamic extremism. Under the circumstances, to pin all hopes on a `peace process' based on dialogue with individual terrorist groups or their overground front organisations, or even with the government of Pakistan, is not only myopic, it is suicidal. Certainly, there are sane elements in Pakistan, and even among the militant leadership, who can and must be encouraged to adopt a path of reconciliation. But their voice is weak, and their influence limited. With the fundamentalists, there can be no dialogue-for having heard the voice of their God, they have become deaf to human reason. There are, consequently, no soft options left for India. Those who seek to bleed this country, must themselves be made to bleed; their violence must be crushed with greater and overwhelming force; a single, unqualified message must be sent out across the world-the Indian state will not allow terror and intimidation to succeed, whatever the costs. The ambivalence, the ambiguity and the vacillation of the Indian state have, over the past year, infinitely strengthened the terrorist cause in Jammu and Kashmir, and have weakened and demoralised the Forces that continue, neverthless, to stand as the bulwark of India's freedom and integrity against incessant and inhuman attacks. There is increasing despair throughout the country, and wherever I go, I am often asked whether India will break up again into little and mutually hostile formations. Those who are seeking solutions in parceling out Jammu and Kashmir into communally constituted segments; those who believe that the cost of the conflict in Kashmir is too great a burden for the nation to bear; those who have, in just over a decade, been exhausted by the struggle-all these should understand that the war in Kashmir is not about the defence of Kashmir alone, it is about the defence and survival of India itself, of democracy, and of the diverse and unique civilisation that has come into being in this sub-continent through a process that spans many millennia. INAV |
|
If an immense couch potato stirs By M J Akbar Joseph Lieberman first came on my radar scan during the horrors of the Bosnia war, when Muslims were being massacred (another mass grave was discovered this week) with exceptional barbarity, even by Serb standards, between 1993 and 1995. John Burns, who covered that war for the New York Times, and was posted to Delhi after this assignment, coined the phrase "ethnic cleansing" to describe the carefully planned atrocities of the Serbs. (John won a Pulitzer for his brilliant coverage of the war.) Christian Europe tried hard to look the other way. The United States was in isolationist mode: Bill Clinton, concentrating as he had promised on the economy, had no time for the New York Times. The United Nations, champion of human rights, actually had an embargo on the supply of weapons to Muslims. One American began to voice his frustration at the world's indifference. His name was Joseph Lieberman. Many Muslims wondered at the fact that he was Jew, and a deeply religious one; but as a Jew he could better appreciate an emerging holocaust when he saw one. For two years he lobbied hard with the Clinton administration to get the embargo lifted. His ally was another Senator, Bob Dole, who would challenge Clinton in the 1996 elections. Lieberman was consistent in his view that America should adopt and maintain a serious interventionist policy wherever it saw violation of human rights. He called Bill Clinton a coward when Clinton refused to send American soldiers to prevent the "ethnic cleansing" of Kosovars. He co-authored a bill to send US troops to Kosovo, but Clinton sabotaged it. This time Lieberman's ally was another Republican with presidential ambitions, John McCain. Lieberman wanted to send $25 million of arms to the Kosovars, but was stopped by his own Government. When East Timor appeared on the horizon, the Senator wanted American troops there quickly, in greater numbers than eventually went. The Lieberman world view was articulated in a famous sentence: "When we are presented with a humanitarian crisis, we cannot sit back like some immense couch potato." I wonder if anyone is experiencing a few goose pimples in Delhi at the prospect of a Gore-Lieberman administration. There have been many colourful descriptions about the role of a Vice President in America. One of the more famous ones is attributed to Lyndon Johnson, who described his job under the charismatic John F. Kennedy as not worth a warm bucket of spit (I hope I have my four-letter words correct). When Dwight Eisenhower, no orator, was asked what his Vice President, Richard Nixon, did, Eisenhower asked for two weeks in which he might think of an answer. You may have gathered that this has not been the most demanding of jobs in the United States. This equation changed during the Clinton years, when Al Gore was given an important role in policy-making. As the beneficiary of the change, Gore is unlikely to distance this Vice President if he reaches the White House. Lieberman will have a say in policy, and given his personal preferences, he is likely to pick up a role in the management of what might loosely be called human rights problems, since that is the screen behind which demands for change in sovereign status abide. The core of Lieberman's philosophy is that a sovereign nation does not have a sovereign authority to perpetrate injustice. There are rights, to freedom and justice for instance, that transcend national boundaries. Peace is assured only by the elimination of the causes of war, and perceived injustice is the most evocative cause for conflict. What happens when this world-view narrows down into an eagleview of Kashmir? When Clinton came to office, India and Pakistan were the last item on his worksheet. In eight years this region has moved to the top. This is not just one more foreign policy problem for the United States, on par with other toubled corners full of people who do not possess the common sense to understand that war is expensive, dangerous and counterproductive. If India and Pakistan were merely threatening to destroy each other, the world would have shown concern, but not beyond a point. But when the fallout of a nuclear war between the two could affect the oil wells to the West and savage the environment for beyond the zone of conflict, it becomes a legitimate worry for capitals beyond South Asia. One mistake and we are in the midst of an unprecedented human and ecological disaster, of death, famine, devastation, destruction, darkness beyond the limited imagination of the rats and rattlers who have brought India and Pakistan to the verge of such horror. The world is not safe as long as India and Pakistan are in a State of undeclared war. Pakistan's leaders keep talking of this ominous future at every opportunity because they know that each time they talk of a nuclear war, Americans sit up. There has been a perceptible shift from the principles that have helped maintain peace, or at least prevented another world war, since 1945. The structure of international relations in the post-colonial world was supposed to rest on one vital concept: non-interference in the internal affairs of another country. The two superpowers, however, declared themselves immune from any control on their pursuit of self-interest. Excesses-Vietnam and Latin America in the case of the United States, East Europe and Afghanistan in the case of the Soviet Union - ensured a reaction. America could absorb the reaction; the Soviet Union could not. The new world order propelled by Washington from roughly the time of Ronald Reagan, made Prosperity its religion, Consumerism its heaven and the American President a rotating Prophet, in charge of implementing the Ten Commandments. This is a story much longer than can be told within the space confines of a column. Suffice it to point out that Consumerism cannot work without a Consumer, and Dead Consumer is no Consumer. Without peace, as the common phrase hints, there can be no prosperity. Armed intervention in the name of self-interest was no longer plausible, or viable; it was far simpler to lure the world into a market economy than to subdue it with an army. Chief Executive are the generals of our time. But conflict is an inherent law of human affairs, and conflict resolution needs a few guidelines of its own, because you can take sides only on the basis of some higher ideal. Human rights is the answer. It helps that it fits well with human conscience. Conscience is a strong force in the thinking of politicians like Joseph Lieberman. He has been a vocal and insistent interventionist in the service of conscience. It is true that India cannot be either bullied or subdued like Yugoslavia but watch out for the paradox. India may be too powerful to ignore. The official position of the United States is that it has no direct role to play in the Kashmir conflict-resolution: that is only partly true. Washington is sensible enough to realise that this is one conflict that only the partisans can settle; but it is also aware that fifty years of history provides little hope for the outbreak of any sense. Kashmir will be discussed when Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee goes to the United States, and it should be. There was once some hope of a minor breakthrough by September; that will not happen. A process of dialogue has begun, and a peace table must be broad enough to accommodate those who bring goodwill as well as those who bear illwill. It is a bit strange that we still think that war is an answer. It is not, because in war one side is defeated, and the defeated pass their wounds to their heirs. A peaceful resolution works only because no one feels defeated. In order to ensure that you must first keep everyone at the table. Except maybe Joe Lieberman. Maybe someone in Delhi has already thought of this. So far, according to the grapevine, the only meeting with the candidates arranged for Mr Vajpayee is with George Bush. |
|
|
|
