Warming up Afghan scene

By M Rama Rao

For the Northern Alliance, these are happy days, Ahmad Shah Masood was heard with respect wherever he went in the European Union, in Paris and Brussels. He was able to present his case before the world media and political leaders. Whoever met him had promised Masood of material assistance and diplomatic support for his mission.

Ameer Saheb, as the Tajik was lord is known, Masood stands for the defeat of the Taliban. He and his comrades have been battling the student militia for a long while. Some success came his way. Some reverses too were his. In fact, there were more reverses than success in the recent past and if he can put his act together, probably he and his colleagues in the Northern alliance have an opportunity to redeem their pledge.

The international community is angry at the Taliban regime for what they have already done and are doing. With its commitment to the rule of law, with its pledge to protect human rights and with its promise to respect freedoms and democracy, the Northern Alliance (NA) and its warlords have earned the sympathy and goodwill of the world outside the troika that Taliban has constituted since it seized Kabul. More over, there is the increasing realisation in the capitals that matter that the NA can provide the moderate alternative to the Islamic rule of the Taliban and act as a bulwark against the jehadists who are out to export their brand of religious intolerance and fundamentalism to countries across the globe from Philippines to Chechnya and Kosovo and to Northern America.

From media reports on Masood visit to Europe, it is clear he deaftly exploited the groundswell of sentiment. The timing -so soon after Bamiyan vandalism- of the visit also helped him to less. Reports from Kabul that the provinces of Herat, Tauloqan, Bamiyan and cities like Shibrgan, Farayab and Ghour, may fall to the Northern Alliance if anti-Taliban forces launched a fresh joint effensive made his interlocutors hear him with respect. The fact that these reports emanated from Pakistan sources and found a place in dailies known to be close to the military junta added a new dimension to the interaction since it is public knowledge that Uzbek Commander Gen Dostum and former Governor of Herat Ismail Khan have joined hands with Ahmed Shah Masood to take on the might of the Taliban with their post - winter offensive.

There are only two routes to end to the nearly three decades old Afghan crisis -political settlement or barrel of the gun. Before the UN sanctions were clamped on January 19 this year and Bamiyan was savaged, there were hoped of a political settlement, courtesy UN special envoy, who succeeded in persuading the warring groups to sit across the negotiating table. The idea of a broad-based Government and concepts like power sharing and coalition Governments are much talked about in the past and even now since these are relevant to the ethnically pluralistic Afghan society.

The minorities of all hues should get properly represented in the power structure to impart stability to the Government. But the Pushtoon dominated Taliban are averse to this idea. So are their props in Islamabad.

When the 49-year old ethnic Tajik and vice president of the Rabbani government told a receptive audience in Paris, "the shortest way to reach peace in Afghanistan is to stop Pakistan's interference", he was not making any new proposition. He was merely repeating himself. At least in the short run, he and his NA colleagues know they cannot afford to hang their gun.

Any political settlement will necessitate a greater degree of understanding amongst the various Afghan groups not merely on the short-term goals and long term plans but on the immediate issues of concern of bread and butter. From all accounts it is clear that the Afghans have a long way to cover to come anywhere nearer to a mutually accepted plan.

In fact, it doesn't seem even remotely possible at this stage that both sides can enter into a dialogue for power sharing. There is ample evidence, according to reports in the Pak media, to suggest that the Afghan groups on both sides of the divide have not given up hope of giving knock out blow to the other. The Taliban feel that they have already delivered such a blow to the Northern Front, though the latter is on the come back trial.

Viewed against this backdrop, Masood's journey through Europe at a time the UN Commission for Human Rights was holding its annual session in Geneva, helped in building two kinds of pressures -- one against the Taliban, and the other against Pakistan.

Two other developments have brought cheer to the NA camp. And both took place almost simultaneously and coincided with the "triumphant" return of Masood to his base near Dushanbe after meeting French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine, Speaker of French parliament Raymond Forni and E U foreign policy supremo Javier Sona.

The Teheran declaration issued after Indian Prime Minister Vajpayee's summit meeting with Iranian leaders was very forthright on the Taliban issue. It issued a rather blunt call to Pakistan work with New Delhi and Teheran to resolve the Afghan tangle. For the first time, Teheran also came out openly voicing a role for New Delhi in bringing peace and stability in the war torn Afghanistan. This is not withstanding the limitations both India and Teheran suffer from in dealing with the Taliban.

New Delhi on its part has pushed itself to a corner vis-a-vis Kabul over the years; it cannot aford to suffer from any illusions of acquiring a role for itself in the six-plus-two group set up the United Nations. Besides the US and Russia, Iran, China, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan are the peace brokers as a group.

The Chinese reaction to the Teheran declaration is however sweet music to both the foreign office mandarins in New Delhi and the Northern Alliance. Beijing welcomed a role for India in Afghan affairs. "China welcomes all efforts that are conducive to peaceful resolution of the Afghan issue", the Foreign office spokesman Ms Zhang Qiyue said as Pakistan Foreign Minister Abdus Satar was about to leave Islamabad for Beijing on an official visit on April 16.

Obviously, Beijing has decided to send a clear signal to Islamabad as to what its concerns and priorities are. Not that Pakistan was not unaware of Chinese worries over the links the Taliban has forged with Islamic separatist groups in the Xinjiang province. Chinese reservations against Taliban brand have been conveyed to Pakistan, now and then in the past too but this was the first time they have gone public knowing fully well the Islamabad mood.

The Pakistan media reacted violently, as can be expected off them, to the Chinese comment because they see in the comment a failure of Pak diplomacy. This shows that whether by design or by sheer accident, the multi-pronged approach has begun to place Pakistan and the Taliban under pressure.

Another development that has a bearing on the Afghan scene and South Asia is Christina Rocca's appointment as the new US assistant Secretary of State for South Asia. It is bad news for Pakistan and yes to Taliban too.

Rocca is known to be tough on exporters of terrorism. And as Staff Operations Officer of the CIA, she had first hand knowledge of the Afghan war in the Zia days. After the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, her interest remained undiminished in the area. Because she had to closely monitor the plans for buy back of unused stinger missiles, the CIA had generously provided to the Afghan factions and the ISI. That the plan (buy back) suffered from infirmities right from the word go is a different thing. What is germane to our discussion is the fact that Rocca is an advocate of cooperation on counter - terrorism among US allies and friends to deal with threats, new and old. To what extent this will translate into an advantage for the Northern Alliance is too early to say. What is clear as of now is that there is going to be no dull moment but action and more action in the days ahead. (Syndicate)

Will State funding of elections end corruption?

By Srinivasan K. Rangachary

There are well-meaning and gen-erally perceptive observers and commentators who are deeply impressed by the theory that corruption in politics can be eliminated if only politicians and parties did not need to raise funds in order to function and particularly to meet the astronomical costs of contesting elections. Therefore, they say, we must have state funding of politics, at least for fighting elections. In other words, make the people pay for them.

This question has been debated off and on and the view favouring state funding is not confined to individuals. Several committees have gone into the matter and these too, implicitly or explicitly, upheld the alleged nexus between corruption in politics and costs of politics and, consequently, commended the proposal. So far, fortunately for the tax-payers, the various reports have done no more than embellish the shelves in Government storerooms. Now, however, the Union Law Minister Arun Jaitleya has asked his legislative department to examine the Indrajit Gupta Committee report on the subject. Time, therefore, to see the issue in proper perspective, unblinkered by vested considerations and specious arguments.

The starting point of the discussion should be, but has never been, a simple and pertinent question: How has the cost of electioneering come to be so high? Inflation is an important part but only a small part of the answer. Let us face it, the main reason is that directly or indirectly money has become the predominant, many would say decisive, instrument of persuasion (and coercion) of voters. Be it buying of votes, literally or through distribution of goodies, or intimidating voters through bullies and muscled canvassers, or influencing them by sheer show of pelf and clout (helicopters, cavalcade of cars and jeeps, armed escorts and sideys by the score) - usually a combination of all these - huge amounts of money are spent by parties and candidates during the campaign. The sole aim is to win by hook or by crook and since the more you spend the better your chances of winning, the more you want to collect whichever way you can.

The point is that electioneering is not a fixed-price shopping; it is a frenzied spending spree where the only limit is the candidate's and the party's ability to harvest megabucks from all possible fields. This ability is inherent to a lesser or greater degree in every MP and MLA; it increases exponentially if they are in power or likely to come to power - and therefore in a position to benefit their beneficiaries. In short, a mutually convenient vicious circle. In these circumstances, pray, how would state funding break the circle? It would add to the politicians' kitty, but in no way stop them from seeking donations chiefly, as it repeatedly turns out, on the something-for-something basis, and not necessarily or always for the party, or even for their own election alone.

This may seem a harsh and unduly pessimistic view to many: After all, state funding is prevalent in foreign countries. This fact, I suspect, has much to do with the psychology of those who favour adoption of the practice in India; if it is done abroad, then it must be the right thing to do! This copycat "solution" ignores the kind and extend of political sleaze in those countries. Even in the oftcited example of Germany, the Flick scandal of the 1980s and an array of illegal political donations have come to light from time to time, as have similar scams in the US and other countries which have state funding of elections.

That apart, contrary to the impression created by the protagonists, state funding is not a universal practice. In fact, it is confined to a handful of countries, and these are all rich and industrialized and (mostly) Western. No country comparable to India in socio-economic and political realities has introduced state funding. One aspect particularly pertinent to the discussion is the fact that is the countries sought to be emulated by the pro-funders, the multi-party system is multi to the extent of two or three parties. In our case, it is a multitudinous-party system. There are some half-a-dozen Election Commission-recognized national and 43 State parties - out of a whopping total of nearly 700 registered with it!

Given this sordid fact of our politics, how is state funding to be implemented? The Gupta committee has recommended a framework which is as simplistic as it is arbitrary. It proposes state funding in kind, not cash. Included in this would be rent-free office accommodation with telephone, free time on DD, AIR and private networks; for individuals, fuel for a specified number of vehicles, paper of printing election materials, postage stamps, one set of loudspeakers for every assembly segment (six for parliamentary constituency), some free telephone calls, refreshments and food packets for polling agents, etc.

To pay for all these freebies the committee suggested an initial corpus of Rs.1200 crore with the Centre providing Rs.600 crore and the states a matching amount. The figure was worked out on the basis of Rs.10 for each of our 60 crore electors! Lest this bounty lead to a (further) mushrooming of parties, the committee proposed state funding only for the recognized parties. Leaving aside the ludicrous per-voter basis of arriving at the overall figure, the suggestion of restricting funding to certain parties is discriminatory - and irrational - in an era where tiny little parties have found themselves not only in power but in the council of ministers (even supplying a prime minister or two). And in ruling out independents, the committee has dealt a body blow to what many believe is the best hope of getting good persons into legislatures and thereby reducing the stranglehold of the kind of unprincipled politics that the parties, such as there are, have spawned.

All this apart, it is na‹ve to believe that state funding will end the quest even among the beneficiary parties for donations from elsewhere. In fact, the Gupta committee itself recognizes the fact that parties and individuals will continue to do so, and suggests what it believes is a foolproof arrangement against giving and receiving of black money and allied illegalities namely all "donations" above Rs.10,000 will have to be by cheque. If this is scrupulously implemented, all it means is that the payments would be kept to 9999, at a time! In other words, state funding plus the existing "business" as usual! So all this cry about ending political corruption will boil down to the tax-payers financing the parties in addition to the prevailing skulduggery on this count.

By what stretch of imagination, and on what moral criteria, can this be justifies? As it is, politics costs the public exchequer a stupendous and ever-escalating amount in terms of organizing elections, having huge permanent bureaucracies for the purpose, etc. And not just elections. The 5000-odd legislators in the country and particularly the 1000-odd ministers directly and indirectly cost the tax-payers mind-boggling amounts, enough to set up a million primary schools, a year. The expenditure on their salaries and allowances and perks and security and a whole lot of freebies would make even the top courtiers of the richest and most generous emperor of yore look like lower division clerks in comparison!

All said, the alleged merits of state funding of elections are a trainload of motivated bosh. As, tautologically enough, the Prime Minister himself said the other day, greed is at the root of all corruption. And greed, especially a politician's greed, is a bottomless pit which cannot be filled by dollops from the tax-payers' money, nor in all conscience should it be. The very idea of state funding is bad in principle and deserves to be thrown out of the nearest window. INAV