Indian dilemma over Iraq

By Dr Bhabani Dikshit

The controversial issue of deployment of Indian troops in Iraq, which has surcharged the atmosphere of the country in recent weeks, continues to agitate most of the political parties. The issue has far reaching political consequences. When the BJP-led NDA Government has been trying to mend fences with the US and vice versa, the complicated international scenario almost compels the Indian policy-makers to go slow in taking a hasty step like sending troops to Iraq.

On the other hand, the US faces a critical phase of consolidating its position of authority and occupation of Iraq in the aftermath of its eventual conquest that ousted Saddam Hussein's regime. There have been conflicting views with regard to the situation in Iraq at present.

There were problems and challenges in rebuilding post-war Iraq, but there was also ample evidence that conditions were improving, said US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld last month. ''Each day the conditions are improving, and life is slowly beginning to return to what one might call the normal prewar standard,'' Rumsfeld told at a Pentagon news media briefing on May 20. ''There are difficulties, to be sure, but that difficulties exist should not come as a surprise to anyone. No nation (that) has made the transition from tyranny to a civil society has been immune to the difficulties and challenges of taking that path.''

Keeping in view the changing internal political developments in Iraq, a draft resolution was tabled on May 9 at the UN Security Council by the US, the UK, and Spain seeking for lifting of the UN economic sanctions on Iraq and supporting the country's recovery and reconstruction. The Security Council resolution 1483 was approved by 14 of the 15 Security Council members on May 22. Briefly, the resolution lifts the burden of sanctions onthe Iraqi people, encourages the international community to assist in helping the Iraqi people build a better future for their country, establishes the positions of a UN Special Representative who will play a vital role in all aspects of Iraq's reconstruction, winds down the Oil-For-Food programme (OFF) over a six-month period- while providing for the continued delivery of priority civilian goods approved and funded under OFF to meet the immediate needs of the Iraqi people, supports the Iraqis in charting their own political and economic future, reaffirms the Coalition's commitment to work with the UN and an Iraqi Interim Administration to transition authority to an internationally recognized, representative government of Iraq as efficiently and effectively as possible.

In its bid to stabilize Iraq, the US policy-makers have been making allout efforts to engage Indian troops there and for that they have been conducting hectic diplomatic parleys with their Indian counterparts including persuading the top leaders of the country. The recent visit of a team of US civilian and military officials led by Peter Rodman, Assistant Secretary of Defence for International Security, to the Capital was intended to explain the US point of view in seeking the services of Indian troops in Iraq.

The diplomatic parleys held between the Pentagon team led by Rodman with the officials of our own country revolved around issues concerning Indian apprehension of complexities involving sending of our troops to Iraq and the mechanism of operation. Our government officials reportedly sought clarifications on (a) the development of a responsible Iraqi interim administration, (b) the future political scenario in Iraq, (c) humanitarian relief and (d) reconstruction acitivities. The team also met the National Security Adviser Brajesh Mishra and Foreign Secretary Kanwal Sibal after the delegation-level talks. Sources said the US team explained to them the current political, economic and security situations in Iraq and the pivotal role India could play in contributing to the security and stability of the war-ravaged Iraq.

The US endeavours to win over Indian authorities to their side were in the backdrop of the Security Council resolution 1483 that invited countries to support 'stabilization' efforts in Iraq by working under the command and control of the occupying authority, in the US and the UK.

Perceiving hostile public opinion, the Indian authorities sought to buy time and wait for sometime, while gauging the mood of people and the opposition parties, before hastily committing to send troops. The government also realized the need to consult Iran. Egypt, Jordan and other neighbouring countries around Iraq with shom India has friendly relationship. The main opposition, the Congress sought a consensus among the political parties while taking a sensitive decision of sending troops to Iraq.

The Indian dilemma over the vexed controversy raises many questions like what would be the reaction of Iraqi people to India's involvement as an American ally? What would be the operational framework? How much time it would take? Whether the Indian troops are ready to get bogged down in a difficult Iraq climate even to the extent of losing their lives on a chaotic hostile political atmosphere ? Who would command and control the troops and under which flag? What would be the reactions of other Muslim countries and what would be the fallout of such a decision on our own country's political events and that too before the ensuing assembly polls. The prime element would be also who would bear the huge costs of such a military operation. Are we prepared to bear the military expenditure for the so-called 'peace-keeping' in Iraq ?

Besides, our national interest and prestige would be also at stake. The sending of troops may also go contrary to our adopted resolution in Parliament. When we condemned US action against Iraq, will it be proper now to send there troops as an ally just to please the US. Whatever the piecemeal gains we may derive from US like diplomatic victory over Pakistan or procuring some petty contracts and sub-contracts jeopardising our long-cherished national economic interests ?

It would be proper on the part of the government to make a realistic assessment of the 'risks' and 'rewards' involved, while taking a decision of joining the military operations to 'stabilise' Iraq.

While the Pentagon team visited India, the diplomatic parleys of Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov in the capital created a flutter as it almost coincided with the US efforts and neutralised its bid to have a sweep over the issue. No doubt New Delhi is eying to be a serious ally of the US in its war against terrorism, but at the same time it also wants to continue and expand its traditional strategic ties with Moscow that it at any cost cannot afford to ignore.

On the question of the prospect of India's sending troops to Iraq, Ivanov recently said that India had the ''sovereign right'' to take its own decision, but underlined that Russia was not sending troops to the Persian Gulf. Whether India listens to Washington or Moscow, ultimately the views of the leaders of mainstream political parties and the people in general are paramount. Our national interest should be kept above all other considerations on this serious question. We have already paid a heavy price for sending our army to Sri Lanka in the past and that too on invitation from a legitimate Government.- CNF

Confusing case for cas

By P Dev Kumar

Watching television may become an entirely different experience for over six million couch potatoes in the four metropolitan cities of India after July 14 when the Government enforces the Conditional Access System (CAS) and has a police man in the form of Broadcast Regulatory Authority in place.

Shastri Bhavan, the home to the Information & Broadcasting ministry, has become so obsessed with system a hostage to its own rhetoric...?) that it has decided to CAS the rest of India too, mercifully from a later date.

''CAS means you pay for what you watch and not what is thrust on you by your cable operator,'' says the government. But this allegedly consumer friendly measure has already generated a lot of misgivings in the public mind. A good section of the public feels that contrary to the government's tall claims, the experience with CAS may be anything but happy.

From available indications it is clear that the Government is developing cold feet over the introduction of CAS following criticism by the Congress and other Opposition parties. But brave faces continue to stare. That is a different matter.

When he heard that Delhi's Chief Minister, Sheila Dixit, had written to the Prime Minister seeking postponement of CAS, BJP's M L Khurana made an astonishing declaration that she wrote that only because she had somehow come to know that Atal Bihari Vajpayee was also opposed to the July 14 deadline for CAS. But to his dismay, Khurana found himself holding the CAS baby when neither Vajpayee supported him nor anyone else in the Government.

If the Government had been honest about serving the interests of TV viewers, it would have found no difficulty in ensuring that the cable operators provided a satisfactory service at nominal rates, without the help of Set Top Boxes (STBs).

The operators are said to be duping the broadcasters, especially the pay channel ones, by underplaying their number of viewers/customers. The STB will eliminate that malpractice. But why disturb or burden the viewer in that dispute? It is also said that under the existing system, the TV broadcaster suffers revenues loss on account of manipulations by cable operators. Is it fair to correct this situation at the cost of paying viewers? And what is the guarantee that malpractices will not resurface under the CAS regime ? Indians ingenuity at this game is legendary.

The government claims to be unhappy that viewers are forced to pay for channels they don't want to see. That is true. But as far as one knows all over the world, the TV viewer receives a large number of TV signals and it is understood that they will see only some of them. If, for example, one gets 80 channels (free to air as well as paid ones, as the I&B Minister is promising) in Delhi, it can be no body's case that all the channels will be viewed by all the couch potatoes all the time. Certainly, channel surfing will continue as some channels are of no interest. This is happening surfing will continue as some channels are of no interest. This is happening even now. No role for STB in making this choice; all that is needed is that the quality of signals should be uniformly good.

But now viewers will be forced to buy a set-top box (STB) under the mandated CAS to view pay channel programmes. Nobody knows if STBs will ensure better reception. But that is secondary when considering that it will be one STB for one TV set. If a household has two TV sets, it will be necessary to buy two STBs if pay channels are to be watched on both the sets. Also, a shift in house will require hiring or buying another STB. The cost of one STB will be anywhere between Rs 2000 and Rs 5000, depending upon whether one goes in for an analogue (cheaper) or (expensive but mult-utility) digital version.

But the prospect of an entirely unnecessary financial burden is not the only cause for worry among the viewers. By Government's own admission there are hardly any stocks of STBs in the country. They are to be imported from China. Now, even those who are anxious to see the return of ''Hindi-Chini bhai bhai'' days will admit that Chinese electronic goods are not among the best in the world, though they may be cheap. The Chinese electronic goods have ''flooded'' India but they have not made a mark for quality. At least a section of quality conscious TV viewers will be upset at being forced to pay for a poor quality product that he or she did not want in the first place.

STB is not such a terribly sophisticate technology that India cannot make them. Indeed, there are entrepreneurs who say that they will not only manufacture them for the domestic need but also make them of better quality. But the Indian entrepreneurs cannot produe them out of their hats in a jiffy. The government is hell bent on meeting the July 14 deadline for introducing CAS. So no Indian STBs, only imported---Chinese--ones.

It is hard to understand the urgency shown by the Government in enforcing CAS in the country and, thereby, push imported STBs down the throat of TV viewers. This Government's fancy for ''roll back'' policies has become well-known. But still the speed with which the Finance Minister lowered the customs duty on STBs and the extent of its drop--- bring the overall impact down to something like 5 percent from 52 percent----looks incredible.

It will appear that for the Government STBs have become number one priority items. But will such consideration be shown to other--and more pressing--- causes? There is reason to suspect that the STB ''deal'' is tailor made to benefit the importers of STBs. But who are they ? Is it too much to speculate that the mass import of STBs will bring in hefty cuts for some ''influential'' people who may be behind the importers?

If the introduction of CAS is meant to ''discipline'' the cable operators that could be done with the Government has under the present set of rules. The cable TV business has thrieved over the last 12 years---without fear of any Government action for bad services to customers. Even the Government could not get the operators to follow the rule on compulsory transmission of Doordarshan channels. Why ?

Every operator in the country supplies TV signals to viewers with the help of overhead cables strung across electricity and/or telephone poles and trees. Rules do not allow that. But the Government keeps its eyes shut over this violation. Never have authorities even vaguely threatened any cable operator, accused of bad service or overcharging customers, with action for violating this rule.

At a time when monopolies, especially in the public sector, are being wound up, it is strange that the Government has winked at cable operators' monopoly all across the country. At least in Delhi, TV viewers have no choice but to stick to one operator in their district. A rival who wants to set up business and inject some competition has little chance of gaining access into viewers' homes. On the other hand, the powerful ''monopolist'' of the area is quite likely to have the rival harmed physically, right under the eyes of the protectors of law and order.

The cable industry seems to have a lobby that protects it from action from the Government while allowing it to fleece the customers. Though some districts in Delhi may have made their own arrangements for viewing cable TV, most household depend on the sole operator in their area. Now this monopolist operator is set to enrich his coffers a great deal with the introduction of CAS------and assured government apathy. Many of them are reportedly preparing various packages for the customers, outlining offers of STBs on ''nominal'' hire and ''attractive'' bouquets of satellite TV programmes.

Cynical though it may sound, it can be said straightaway that these offers will work to the disadvantage of the customer/viewer. The ''fairness'' of the hire charges being announced for STBs and serving free-to-air ''bouquets'' can be questioned because the ''flowers'' to be included in the ''bouquets'' will remain a secret till the end. Experience suggests that these ''bouquets'' will be so constituted that each customer has to buy at least two or three of them. And top it all with payment for paid channels as well as STBs. The total monthly bill will in no case be less than what one pays now---unless one decides to stick to just one or two free-to-air ''bouquets''. But before viewers actually see and select their ''bouquets'' there will be only ''brickbats'' for the Government. Syndicate Features