Daily Excelsior... Editorial

EDITORIAL

India's deadlocked
politico-security parameters

By Kedar Nath Pandey

The internal security scenario is very disturbing. In a 40-page confidential report prepared by the National Security Council Secretariat (NSCS) headed by the national security adviser .......more

The Sabarimala controversy

By Tukoji R. Pandit

The controversy over the entry of a Kannada actress in Sabarimala temple has once again drawn attention to certain Hindu ‘traditions’ that look out of tune in this age and time. .......more

Siachen Park and
Mumbai blast

By Dr Kavita Arora

The peace processes with Pakistan has again been hit by the deadly train bombing in Mumbai on 11th July 2006. The Indian Prime Minister has consistently been trying to tone down the.. ....more

Sino-Indian ties:
Hopes and fears

By Pallab Bhattacharya

Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee's recent back-to-back visit to Japan and China and reopening of Nathu La trade route between India and China are watershed .....more

EDITORIAL

Instantly instant

Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee seems to be fond of coffee. There is no other way one can explain why he said that he did in the Rajya Sabha the other day. Pressed by opposition parties for information on Pakistan's reported plutonium plans Mr Mukherjee could not help but express his annoyance: "There can't be an instant reply like instant coffee on an issue like this." Of course, his observation evoked instant reaction. Opposition parties demanded that he should clarify his remark. Apparently, however, Mr Mukherjee was in a hurry having finished the agenda listed in his name. He left the House in the midst of turmoil. This further angered the opposition that forced the adjournment demanding that he be recalled. The Defence Minister returned to mollify the agitated members. Among other things he stated: "In the surcharged atmosphere perhaps my humour could not be caught." As one see, the only lighter moment in his comment was refreshing coffee. These days, however, there is also instant tea, instant soups, vegetables and even non-vegetarian items. Everything can be boiled and cooked for the asking. There are no elaborate formulas. Just put them on the heater for specified number of seconds. Serve hot in a plate, eat and make merry. That is how these products are advertised. Cold readymade variety of foodstuffs is available for those who like to relish that way. Necessity is the mother of these inventions. This adage perfectly fits into the instant food scenario in the case of nuclear families. With wife and husband both going out for work there is little time for elaborate cooking except during the weekends when eating out is the fashion by way of relaxation. Human life is turning out to be so mechanical almost robot-like. Yet, nobody cares to pause for a while to ponder over the scenario. Every second counts is the refrain. The reality may be that most of the time is actually spent on trivial matters. Interestingly, all actions are executed in the name of instant considerations. There are certain things in addition to all this. These relate to the words that fly out of mouths all of a sudden. Like, for instance, Mr Mukherjee's own intervention that was so quick that it rubbed the opposition benches on the wrong side. It was an instant intervention that had more immediate effect than an instant reply or a cup of instant coffee could have had. There are many who attribute the genesis of Mahabharata to Draupadi's instant but sarcastic comment on Duryodhana losing his way in a mythical labyrinth. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto's instant abuse had boomeranged in the United Nations. After having hurled the epithet the late Pakistan Prime Minister (he was Foreign Minister at the time of the incident) was confused when he found his Indian counterpart Swaran Singh sticking to his chair as if nothing had happened. Bhutto staged a walk-out from the midst of global diplomats for added effect but still there was no ripple. Swaran Singh had proved that silence was more eloquent than speech. He made the world clearly distinguish who among the Indian and Pakistan representatives had barked at the august forum.

On the home turf we have several instances of instant politics. Sheikh Abdullah's arrest in 1953 was one. He was literally caught napping although a lot of planning had gone into the operation. Dr Farooq Abdullah's instant dismissal of all his ministers at a public meeting in Srinagar had created quite waves. Loyalties change instantly in the State politics. Call it style. Call it anything. Instantly instant actions have their own charm.

India's deadlocked politico-security parameters

By Kedar Nath Pandey

The internal security scenario is very disturbing. In a 40-page confidential report prepared by the National Security Council Secretariat (NSCS) headed by the national security adviser M K Narayanan, there is "an accretion of forces and multiplication of capabilities of core terrorist groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba." Nearly 140 terrorist modules are operating in India to destabilise the country.

To the casual observer one feature of India's strategic set-up is striking - namely, the seemingly identical composition of the various bodies that are concerned with national security. For example, the Cabinet Committee on National Security (CCNS) resembles the NSC barring one extra member; the National Security adviser (NSA) is the same as the PM's Principal Secretary (PS); and even the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) has tuned into the National Security Council Secretariat (NSCS) thus implying an inability to divide operational and planning roles. The Strategic Policy Group (SPG) also comprises the usual bureaucratic suspects while the National Security Advisory Board (NSAB) comprises retired versions of bureaucrats (with only six "new" voices including economists and journalists).

A variety of arguments are made as to why responsibility is vested in such a select few individuals. Theorists would argue that a furious replication of individuals and institutions in their various and demanding avatars suggests a lack of delegation and an inability to trust. As Max Weber's seminal work on bureaucracies notes; "Government departments and agencies hoard information. Secrets become organisational assets, never to be shared save in exchange for another organisation's assets." The refusal to engage in inter-departmental cooperation thus renders the participation of senior bureaucrats necessary in every circumstance and anything less is often construed as a loss of turf.

Together these two views suggest that on the one hand a lack of delegation results in decision making being concentrated amongst the few, while on the other hand the selected few are tightly constrained by systemic imperatives. Despite these general observations, the strategic analysts who emerge from the bureaucracy or the army (as nearly every single one does) generally lay blame for security deficiencies on the absence of" a strategic culture" amongst the political elite. The political elite are thus variously accused of displaying a lack of appreciation for assessed intelligence, of having a reactive temperament and of displaying a preference for ad-hoc decision-making. While these criticisms are largely accurate, we argue that investments of time, considered though and painstaking decision-making are only to be decreasingly expected from our political class (or vociferously demanded of them by our citizenry). Deficiencies in our strategic set-up must therefore be examined in light of such an assumption.

There are a variety of reasons underlying such an assumption. Most broadly, as Mr. Jaswant Singh has cogently argued in a compelling paper, the civilisational nature of India's nationhood and its non-proselytizing, inward-looking character had denied it the historical basis for strategic thought (CAI, 1998). He also acknowledges George Tanham's criticism when he remarks that governments and the public both display a "habitual disinterest in the larger more profound aspects of national security - except during crises.."

Second, on a systemic level, one could argue that the patterns of capitalist economic growth and development (and the resultant division of labour) place an emphasis on specialisation at the expense of general interest. As the complexity of exploitable knowledge within disciplines grows, the barriers between disciplines become more prominent and it becomes decreasingly likely that citizens will be sufficiently motivated to undertake the costly search for information (in terms of time) that is needed to understand, debate or criticize those policies that fails to impinge on their immediate and visible material interests. Instead such economically active citizens can be expected to wholly delegate such decision-making to the state (whom they consequently expect to hold accountable) or to rely on specialist oversight mechanisms (such as the press) ensure a defence of the public interest.

Third and more specifically in the Indian context, it could be argued that increasing federalism has already further reduced the attention focused upon nation-level activities in favour of greater attention toward state-level activity. Indeed, we already see many Cabinet members expending their energies in furthering state-level ambitions and pursuing parochial interests. The public good nature of national issues, in a federally structured polity evidently results in citizen groups who focus upon holding their own representative accountable for the provision of private benefit, rather than seeking to influence national issues that benefit everybody. This behaviour is in fact quite rational because each group worries that others will free ride on their efforts, that is, that others will gain better governance without having to make similar exertions. The result is a collective focus on narrow, rather than secular, national interests.

Finally, a more basic public policy question of discount rates also arise when we deal with issues of a long-term nature, that is, how heavily do pivotal members in the policy process discount the future? The structure of Indian politics (and the demographics that underlie it) understandably encourage pacification in the present at the cost of future generations. India's fiscal health evidences such a politics of patronage, which emphasizes short-term consumption to the disadvantage of long-term investment. Electoral instability also prevents long-term planning and the consequent ad-hoc funding of long-term adversely effects the development of human and military security.

In conclusion, my argument is that neither a metamorphosis in Indian strategic culture nor a sudden expansion in the skill-sets and attention span of the political class appears likely in the short run. While capable and secure ministers might act on external advice they cannot be expected to be immune to political cycles and interests thus weakening long-term initiatives. Reforming the system is the primary option available since no political consensus exists on alternatives that require constitutional amendments, such as the Presidential form of government that would introduce a direct-nominations mechanism. The direction and substantive content of any future internal reforms are clear. However, the basic problem - of instituting structural reform that creates statutory mechanisms - still requires parliamentary approval.

Not unexpectedly, the biggest losers from, and thus obstacles to, institutional reform will be the inefficient (and excluded) members of the bureaucracy. Overcoming them will consequently require an as-yet unseen degree of political will and solidarity. Here a contradiction arises because on the one hand analysts argue that reform is necessary precisely because the political elite itself lacks any sense of strategic culture, yet on the other hand these analysts admit that our democratic system requires the very same political elite to initiate the reform process! If a generalised lack of concern for strategic affairs amongst the political elite be expected to care enough about engendering a solution? It is precisely this contradiction that creates a deadlocked state. Consequently two paths remain: Either a pivotal statesman pilots reforms through at great personal cost or else the deadlock continues until fresh impetus for reform is provided by disaster. INAV

The Sabarimala controversy

By Tukoji R. Pandit

The controversy over the entry of a Kannada actress in Sabarimala temple has once again drawn attention to certain Hindu ‘traditions’ that look out of tune in this age and time. It certainly looks odd that when much of the world seems to be fighting gender bias against women, there are religious and some other institutions in India that would not allow a female to step inside their ‘sacred’ premises. Perhaps, instead of treating it as a purely gender issue, the Sabarimala controversy needs to be viewed in the light of the general reluctance or slow pace of religious reforms in the country even by champions of secularism. Is it any surprise that religion’s hold on the people remains very strong?

The Sabarimala controversy erupted after the disclosure that in 1987 the Kannada actress, Jayamala, had not only entered the Sabarimala temple, where because of the bachelor status of the presiding deity, Lord Ayyappa, women between the ages of 10 and 50 are not allowed, but also reached-horror of horror-the sanctum sanctorum and touched the feet of the deity. That ‘illegal’ entry would not have become public had not an astrologer said that the deity at the temple looked ‘disturbed’ and that was only because a female had touched the stone idol.

The question whether or not Jayamala actually touched the idol has since become rather unclear because of different accounts she has rendered of her controversial visit to the temple nearly 20 years ago. But this much seems sure that she did enter the temple and that is a good enough cause for a display of ‘outrage’ by the temple’s clergy and other devotees.

Whatever the truth about Jayamala’s entry or touching the idol at the hill-top Sabarimala temple, surrounded by mountains and forests in the Kerala part of the breath-taking Western Ghats, it can hardly be said that the grounds of the controversy surrounding her 1987 visit to the temple will not be readily accepted by many in today’s world. Notwithstanding the criticism of the ban on female entry in the temple, it has been said that the restrictions on female devotees of Lord Ayyappa have been placed for their own good because reaching the temple requires an arduous climb. Moreover, (male) devotees are expected to observe a 41-day fast and observe abstinence before arriving for a ‘darshan’ (view) at the Sabarimala temple. This argument does not cut much ice because if the climb on the hill where the temple is located is really tough it can take the toll of male devotees too, many of whom are elderly and perhaps quite a few have cardiac and respiratory problems. No, the real reason for denying access to women devotees at Sabarimala is that according to the orthodox Hindu view menstruating women are not ‘clean’ and they are kept away from religious rituals even within their homes on the days they are not ‘clean’.

Does this quaint belief have something to do with hygiene, or is it just a ‘tradition’ that has been followed for ages? Well, orthodox Hindus will be the first one to object if they are told that the ‘ban’ on the visit of women to certain temples is a sign of disrespect for them. The Hindu pantheon has many goddesses who are revered as much as they are feared. One of the many rituals followed by the orthodox is worshipping women of pre-pubescent age. In Nepal they find one child goddess and worship her till she reaches puberty, which is time to bring her down to earth and send her back into oblivion.

If there are traditions in the Hindu religion that expect reverence for women then how can women be barred from entering any temple? That is why it might be a better idea to sort this matter out as part of a larger exercise of bringing changes in some of our hoary religious traditions. It will serve no purpose to suggest that some other major religions too are accused of showing ‘less respect’ to women.

That the controversy over a woman entering an exclusively male temple should break in the state of Kerala looks quite ironic. It is the most literate state of India and its people are generally known to be forward looking. It is also one of the two states in India (the other being West Bengal), which are under a strong influence of Communists, who are known to be atheists. The comrades happen to be ruling the state at present, but they seem to take their atheism so seriously that they refuse to do anything about the practices at Sabarimala.

Apart from Sabarimala, another equally famous temple in Kerala is at Guruvayoor. It was a very famous communist leader of Kerala, the late A. K. Gopalan, who had fought for the right of Dalits to enter that temple. Sometime ago the Guruvayoor temple was in the midst of a controversy. Senior Congress leader, Vayalar Ravi, married his son here. It sparked off a controversy over the presence of Ravi’s wife, a Christian. How can a mother be not present when the son is being married? Earlier this winter, the wife of the Buddhist Sri Lankan president, Mahinda Rajapakse, had also visited the Guruvayoor temple and raised a controversy. Do we see these incidents as instances of gender bias or religious orthodoxy?

The very ‘secular’ Kerala comrades of today are probably of a different mettle than the previous generation. Today, they may be more worried about ‘political correctness’ of whatever they do. And why not? Any number of instances can be recounted, for instance, of ‘seculars’ backing a ban on a book or a play or a film found ‘objectionable’ by a religious group. The justification for the ban comes from the fear of sparking ‘violence’ and ‘riots’.

With that kind of political mindset it might be difficult to expect any meaningful thrust coming for overdue reforms of certain practices in the Hindu religion, at least the ones regarding restrictions on visiting temples. The reasons behind stopping followers of ‘other’ religions from visiting a Hindu place of worship are not always clear. One argument heard is that the followers of ‘other’ religion would not know how to show respect to the idols as idol worshipping is confined to Hinduism (and Buddhism) or they may enter the temple with an idea of showing ‘contempt’ to the idols.

Of course, these arguments will not apply to Hindu women worshippers who too are barred from entering certain temples. The point is that in nine cases out of ten people of other faith will not enter a temple with an idea of showing disrespect or desecrating the idols. Quite a few temples in India are now open to Dalits, something that was unthinkable some decades ago because of the belief that the Dalits did not know how to show respect to the Hindu idols and the Hindu gods and goddesses would be defiled with the mere presence of a Dalit in a temple’s vicinity.

Perhaps, the will to reform religious the Hindu practices is there, but its scope needs to be widened-and expedited. It can hardly be emphasised that religions that are seen to be reluctant to move with the times tend to attract an adverse publicity all over the world. (Syndicate Features)

Siachen Park and Mumbai blast

By Dr Kavita Arora

The peace processes with Pakistan has again been hit by the deadly train bombing in Mumbai on 11th July 2006. The Indian Prime Minister has consistently been trying to tone down the anti-Pakistan rhetoric and despite the low in relations between the two countries, Indian and Pakistani officials met on 19th July at Wagah to discuss ways to shore up border security and combat smuggling. The two sides also considered a proposal on joint border patrols. But the obvious fact is that putting off the Foreign Secretary level talk shows a marked departure from the previous approach. With this India has unequivocally put Pakistan on notice that it will be difficult to continue with the process of détente unless cross-border terrorism is brought to an end.

With a heightening of the security concerns of the region, the efforts for peace seem to have reached a dead end. This is a tragedy also for peace initiatives like 'K2 Siachen peace park proposal'. Recently, the international community came up with a peace park proposal for the worlds highest battle field Siachen and one of the main conflicting issues between India and Pakistan. Since 1984, the "snow-warriors" of India and Pakistan have been locked in supremacy for the control of Siachen glacier. Because of this both the countries have not only been facing the problem of financial and human loss but the pristine environment of the glacier has also been put to risk. The area was once surprisingly rich in wildlife- snow leopards, brown bears, herbivores and various mountainous plants they depend on. Years of war and border tensions in the Siachen glacier region have pushed this critical ecological habitat to the brink. The Siachen glacier is being terribly polluted by human wastes (which do not easily decompose at those altitudes) and also by chemical contamination from weapons and the heavy equipment required for survival at high altitudes by both armies. The Indian base camp at Siachen is at 3,600m and there are some army posts up to a height of 6,700m. Mere existence at such heights is an incredible hardship. A staggering 97 percent of casualties have been due to altitude and weather rather than enemy action. On an average, one Pakistani soldier is killed every fourth day, while one Indian soldier is killed every other day. It costs India an estimated US$ 1 million per day; the cost to Pakistan is less but is nevertheless a heavy drain. Both countries would be happy to end this situation

Recent years have seen an increasing interest in trans- boundary protected areas, for a variety of environmental, economic and political reasons. A Peace Park is a "trans-boundary protected area managed through legal or other effective means, which is dedicated both to the conservation of biological and cultural diversity and the promotion of peace and cooperation. Peace and cooperation encompass building trust, understanding and reconciliation between nations, the prevention and resolution of conflict, and the fostering of cooperation between and among countries, communities, agencies and other stakeholders". Already over 169 trans-boundary International Peace Parks have been declared around the world, many in areas affected by war.

The idea of a peace park for Siachen was put forward by academic researchers who have been interested in the scientific value of the region - for both natural science as well as social science research. Under the auspices of the Kashmir Study Group (initiated by the Kashmiri-American businessman Farooq Kathwari), the idea for using the peace park concept as a tool for conflict mitigation has been proposed by geographers Joe Schwartzberg and Nigel Allan. .Additionally, environmental researchers such as Saleem Ali, are interested in the planning mechanisms by which common environmental protection goals can be used to bring hostile players together.

Mountaineers have also been avid supporters of the peace park idea, particularly since the establishment of the Sagarmatha International Peace Park between China and Nepal. The momentum in this regard is coming from both indigenous mountaineers such as Harish Kapadia and Sayed Hamidullah, as well as from foreign mountain climbers such as the Italian group Montagna. This idea also has strong supporters within the United Nations.

International Conservation Union joined with the mountaineering group of the International Mountaineering and Climbing Federation in 2002 to sponsor a series of summit climbs in Switzerland as symbolic peace climbs involving Indian and Pakistani mountaineers.

However, the success of all these activities and international efforts is dependent on the military negotiations, which further depend on mutual trust. But the track record of both sides of the LoC has been one of 'hit and claim' whenever possible.Our defence and strategic experts have already expressed certain concerns regarding the strategic sensitivity of this proposal. The Indian defence establishment view is that Pakistan will try and re-capture Siachen. In case of a Pakistani occupation of Siachen, it would not be easy for India to regain control of it. They argue that the topographical advantages that accrue to Pakistan will make access many times more difficult for India .Pakistan is also not ready to trust India and refuses to authenticate the Indian occupied positions that its troops have held in Siachen since 1984. Pakistan argues that its authentication of these illegally held positions could potentially be used to establish India's legal jurisdiction of these positions. In spite of this stalemate, both countries have been continually communicating their interests. Talk have been underway on the Siachen issue for the last fifteen years, ever since Rajiv Gandhi and Benazir Bhutto were on the verge of an agreement to pull out troops in 1989.The latest 10th round of Siachen talks on May 23-24 ,2006 in New Delhi again concluded again inconclusively However, the fact that both countries have been keen on continuing the process of dialogue served as a small hope for the peace initiators and environmental conservationist lobbying for the Siachen peace park.But it now seems that the fog of this mistrust is going to be get more dense Kashmir is already burning with terrorist activities and now the Mumbai blast has proved to be another jolt on the peace process. Its true that we cannot ignore the cross border terrorism but as the prime minister of India said the destinies of the people of South Asia are interlinked and both India and Pakistan need peace and stability. Therefore there is a need to continue the peace process and give a chance to initiatives like the K2 Siachen Peace Park.

Sino-Indian ties: Hopes and fears

By Pallab Bhattacharya

Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee's recent back-to-back visit to Japan and China and reopening of Nathu La trade route between India and China are watershed developments in Sino-India relations. The one clear message that the visits rang out is that India has donned the role of an important player in the strategic and security architecture of Asia by engaging the major powers in the region, having moved far away from the Cold War days when non-alignment was at the core of its foreign policy.

But the most important question that arises out of India's greater interaction with China both in trade and defence fields is whether India runs the risk of getting enmeshed in China's "grand" strategic design woven deftly in the broader canvas of cooperation and development? Such a question is understandable in the light of the hostilities that had bedeviled ties between New Delhi and Beijing for a long time after the 1962 war and assessments in India that China had covertly helped Pakistan acquire nuclear weapon technology.

But Mukherjee's visit to China has brought to fore tale-tell signs that the two countries are moving out of the old mindsets and attitudes imposed by decades of suspicion and bitterness following the 1962 conflict.

Defence diplomacy has emerged as an important tool in India's growing engagement with South East Asia and countries of Indian Ocean region. India has initiated new bilateral defence cooperation with the Philippines and Indonesia. For the first time, a Memorandum of Understanding on such cooperation was signed between India and the Philippines when President APJ Abdul Kalam had visited Manial in February this year. India has not only provided security in sea lanes in the Malacca Straits, an important trade route connecting the oil-rich Pesian Gulf and major consuming points in the Far East, but is also pushing for supplying defence equipment to Myanmar whose major weapons supplier has traditionally been China.

All this has considerably raised India's profile in a region where China has since long been a key player.

In Tokyo, Mukherjee discussed with Japanese counterpart Fukushiro Nukaga the emerging security environment in Asia, transnational terrorism, violent extremism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and related materials, equipment technologies and means of delivery and threat to maritime traffic, including the non-traditional threats. The Defence Minister visited some Japanese defence industrial units as New Delhi hopes that these industries will play a role in India's defence modernization drive.

All this is a far cry from a few years ago when the then Defence Minister George Fernandes had described China as "enemy number one" of India.

Clearly, India has embarked for the first time on a major exercise to build defence partnership with Japan and that, coupled with the Indo-US civil nuclear deal, is being closely watched in Beijing whose strained ties with Tokyo following years of Japanese occupation of China are too wellknown. What had particularly angered China was the fact that Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, soon after taking over power, had visited a memorial for Japanese soldiers who had laid down their lives during the Japanese occupation of China in the 1930s. China had taken this gesture as a manifestation of colonial instincts under the "garb" of nationalism.

Besides, the Indian Defence Minister's visit to China took place at a time when the US and its allies in China's neighbourhood including Japan, have been voicing concern over China's growing military power and pressing for transparency in its defence build-up.

But Mukherjee reflected a big shift in India's attitude when he told the media in Beijing that reform and modernization of the military of the two countries should not be seen as a threat to each other. Signaling the change, the two countries signed a "historic" MoU on defence cooperation which provides for joint exercises, military-to-military cooperation and exchange of visits at the level of Defence Ministers and military officials.

Besides, Mukherjee was allowed access to a key Chinese military site - the Beijing Aerospace Command and Control Center, the never center of China's space and military satellite programme, which had so far been restricted to outsiders. In China, Mukherjee made it clear that India's defence cooperation with the US and Japan was not directed against third countries nor aimed at counter balancing of China. Although, India and China are competing for greater economic engagement with in regions like Latin America, Africa and South East Asia and Far East, he sought to emphasize that India is not in competition with China and that there is enough space for both to together and cooperate. This, in essence, is summing of the principal of "panchasheel" enunciated by former Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and Zhou en Lai way back in 1960s.

Concerns remain in a sizable section of Indian political class over China's insistence on stronger trade ties with India, especially opening up of more routes for business between Tibet and northeastern Indian states. If Nathu La was a beginning, many other points in northeast could be considered as potential centres for bilateral economic linkages. More trade means better infrastructure, particularly road and rail linkages. Since China is strategically located at a higher altitude along the entire stretch of the Himalayas stretching from northeast to northwest, it gives the Chinese army better access to India, it is often pointed out.

The questions that arise are should India continue to doubt China's intentions? Should India restrict the limit to cooperative ties with China? What should China do to reassure India that it has no longterm strategic design as far as northeast India is concerned? Neither side gains by trying outgrow or outsmart each other. On the other hand, recognition of each other's views and needs and the need for peace for the two countries to prosper could bring about immense benefits, analysts say.

If the Strategic and Cooperative partnership for Peace and Prosperity that India and China have signed can hold out better prospects for South East Asia, why should these not herald a new chapter in Sino-India relations, they ask. PTI Feature