EDITORIAL
Don't suffer twice
Why has the grenade attack
outside a mosque in Tahab village in Pulwama district
received such wide notice last weekend? Is it because of
the venue of the dastardly occurrence? Is it because of
the high rate of casualties? Can the fact that a cleric
has been directly targeted be the possible reason? Has
the fear of a sectarian clash been the dominating factor?
Viewed one by one not any of these aspects is new. The
terrorists have struck earlier not only at the periphery
but also right inside highly revered religious places on
both sides of the Pir Panjal. They have carried out
killings of the people while they were offering namaz.
They have not hesitated to set mosques on fire. Brusquely
they have exhibited their intolerance of the State's
centuries' old Sufi traditions. Moreover Pulwama district
is one of those seriously affected by militancy. Hizbul
Mujahideen is still considered to have sizable presence
in the area. Its being there has made the south of the
Valley a sensitive and politically volatile region.
Actually the State as a whole has often been exposed
earlier to a series of gory scenes of large-scale mayhem
and bloodshed. There have been massacres. In comparison
the latest incident may well appear to be a smudged
carbon copy. On numerous unfortunate occasions the tally
has gone up higher than the death of five persons
including women and 60 injured --- it is the terror
apparatus's heinous score in this case. It is not the
first time either than a priest has been sought to be
liquidated. Many men of learning have been made to lose
their lives in this cruel fashion. Only in the last
summer the militants had exploded a grenade in the house
of a mystic in Sopore resulting in the death of at least
two of his followers.
Perhaps the cumulative
effect of this happening sets it apart. According to
reports the grenade was thrown on a visiting Barelvi
cleric having considerable influence in the territory. At
that time he was heading for offering Friday prayers. He
was injured along with many of his disciples who were
accompanying him. Those receiving serious wounds
succumbed to them subsequently. His admirers managed to
take courage in their hands. They captured a young man
stated to be responsible for throwing the grenade and
handed him over to the security forces. A fall-out is the
tension on the spot with some people pointing an accusing
finger in the direction of those belonging to the
Deobandi sect. It is only too well known that Barelvi and
Deobandi schools are of Sunni origin named after cities
in Uttar Pradesh where they have their headquarters. The
former eulogises Sufis and acquiesces in their
supernatural qualities. The latter believes in
theological wholesomeness. It is not surprising,
therefore, that their members at times call one another
non-believers.
This is what the Pulwama
village is experiencing at the moment. Given the
ideological conflict there is apprehension of more
trouble to follow. As a result the security forces are
taking no chances. The people at large need to ensure
that they don's suffer twice. Why should they cry for
each other's blood? They must know that terror is a
common enemy. It has no religion. How can it have a sect?
Terror is terror
How should we react to the
killing of 42 Pakistani military trainees by a suicide
bomber at a centre in Dargai more than 100 kilometres
northwest of the neighbouring country's Capital city of
Islamabad? One can only feel sad. It will be utterly
inhuman to think that for us it means as many
"enemies" less as the number of those
liquidated. There is no doubt that Pakistan has spared no
effort to keep causing trouble in this country as a whole
and in the State especially. It is directly or indirectly
responsible for the elimination of some of the finest
sons of our soil. Its misdeeds are firmly etched in the
annals of 1947, 1965, 1971and 1999. Why should it be the
recipient of our sympathy? At the same time we can't
overlook the fact that it has been observing cease-fire
for the last more than three years along the Line of
Control (LoC) and the International Border. It remains a
participant in the composite dialogue between the
countries. That should be taken as a fair indication of
its desire to have some peace in the sub-continent. One
can argue that Pakistan is slowly feeling the
boomeranging effect of terrorism. Its own creation
Taliban has turned out to be an albatross around its
neck. It has made some effort to curb the evil at its
end. Why can't it complete the act conclusively? Its
inability in this behalf has given rise to suspicion that
it is still not averse to running with the hare and
hunting with the hound. That is Pakistan's own problem as
a theocratic state. So far as we in this country are
considered we should not even remotely be seen as
acquiescing in any act of violence anywhere. We can't
forget that for too long we have suffered from the
menace. We had to bear with it all alone till at least
9/11, 2001. It was only after the Manhattan bloodbath
that the United States and the affluent West had woken up
to the truth about the wounds inflicted on us by the
terror apparatus. Since then their perception of the
situation in this State and the sub-continent has
undergone a significant change. On numerous occasions
they have reminded Pakistan to control its sponsorship of
terrorism in India. History shows us that violence is
counter-productive for its practitioners. The terror
strike in Dargai is believed to be in retaliation to the
Pakistan Government's role in the recent air hit on a madrasa
in Bajur in which more than 80 persons were killed.
Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf has defended the
strike. The madrasa was suspected to be a suicide
bomber facility for Al-Qaeda and Taliban. In an instant
and angry reaction Bajur Al-Qaeda leader Faqir Mohammad
had pledged to teach the Pakistan Government and army a
lesson. Dargai is considered to be the centre of
Tehrik-e-Nifaz-e-Sharait-e-Mohammadi (Movement for the
implementation of Mohammad's Sharia Law), an affiliate of
Al-Qaeda.
Clearly the terrorists
trained and patronised by Pakistan have turned their fire
against it. It has no choice but to deal with them
strictly on the home turf. Simultaneously it must
understand that it is a war that has no borders. It must,
therefore, work closely with New Delhi to set up an
effective joint deterrent.
 |
A power of
bliss off Karachi
By Samuel
Baid
Pakistan’s
image of radical Islam may change
drasti-cally if the
government’s plan to develop
two uninhabited islands off
Karachi into a modern resort for
Western tourists is executed
successfully. The government
plans to provide all facilities
that are available in
Indonesia’s Bali island,
says Minister of Tourism Nilofer
Bukhtiar. An article by Amir
Latif for Pak Tribune on line,
which reported this, says
"Bali is one of the
world’s biggest prostitution
den where thousands of foreign
tourists throng every year to
avail the of facilities of disco
clubs and bars.
According to the
article, the Qasim Port Authority
brought out a tender notice in
limited Urdu and English
newspapers in April inviting
offers for development of state
of the art cities in two
uninhabited islands off Karachi.
The contract has been awarded to
a UAE based company Emaar with 85
per cent equity in the project.
No local investor reportedly
showed interest in it.
The UAE based
company will build homes and
resorts on Bundal and Buddo
islands which will be called
Diamond Bar island city. The
construction to be completed in
about 13 years is estimated to
cost 43.135 billion dollars. The
Port Qasim Authority of Pakistan
will hold 15 per cent stake. It
is this authority which will
provide the land for the project.
However,
controversies about this project
have already started: The
decision to raise this city was
taken by the Economic
Coordination Committee of Prime
Minister Shaukat Aziz’s
Cabinet to promote tourism
without taking the Sindh
Government into confidence. Also,
the tender notices were not
widely advertised to attract
wider attention. Sindh Chief
Minister Arbab Rahim said he was
not aware of the plan to build
the Bar City. He said he had
heard about such a plan but the
Provincial Government had not yet
been taken into confidence in
this regard. Here the Federal
Government showed the same kind
of arrogant attitude towards the
Sindh Government as it did to the
Balochistan Government while
going ahead with the Gwadar Mega
Project. The Gwadar project has
become a major cause of Baloch
unrest.
However, Chief
Minister Arbab was forced by the
Federal Government to change his
statement within 24 hours.
Arbab’s changed statement
was that the Bar City project was
in the interest of Pakistan and
Sindh and that he had been taken
into confidence by the Federal
Government.
On the other hand
the Pakistan Navy is alarmed by
the project. According to Amir
Latif, the Navy was oblivious of
this project till it learnt about
it from the media. The Navy says
this project is dangerous for the
country’s defence, writes
Latif quoting sources. But,
according to him, Prime Minister
Aziz is in no mood to entertain
any objection. "We have a
culture of objection in Pakistan.
Even if you are going to do
something good, you will have to
face a series of objections from
different quarters," he told
a press conference in reply to a
journalist’s question. The
Prime Minister further said:
"If your intention is wrong
then you can’t do anything,
but our intention is clear and we
know we are doing a right thing
for the country. The ownership of
the two islands is a bone of
contention between the Port Qasim
Authority and the Sindh Board of
Revenue. Also, the city
government, Karachi, claims that
in October 2000 it signed an MoU
with a Thai firm to build a
technology city on these islands.
But this MoU, too, was not widely
publicized in 2000.
Various NGOs,
environment groups and Pakistan
Fisher folk Forum have objected
to this project on the plea that
it will have a very adverse
impact on the local fishermen
communities because of the
construction activity. Also once
the construction starts the area
around the island will be
polluted affecting the marine
life.
The author of this
article in Pak Tribune fears that
if this project becomes a
reality, the two islands will
become dens of prostitution in
the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
He quotes Tourism Minister
Nilofer Bakhtiar as advising
Pakistan women to join the
profession of massage to solve
their financial problems.
One can say with
certainty that if the Pakistan
government goes ahead with this
project it will meet serious
opposition from many quarters.
Among them will be country’s
Muslim fundamentalists who
practically hold their sway in
the north-west of Pakistan.
But it is doubtful
how effective can be this
opposition if the government is
determined. The North-West
Frontier Province (NWFP) has many
holes in its Islamic
fundamentalism. For example,
during and after the Afghan war
of the 1980s there were very high
class prostitution dens in the
province where prostitutes from
Afghanistan and Central Asia sold
their services. Also, in whole of
South Asia, this province has the
distinction of recording a gay
marriage last year.
Karachi, the
provincial capital of Sindh, has
been known for its liberalism.
Until April 1977 this port city
was famous for its nightlife and
prostitutes from all over the
world. A call girl trade
flourished here during the Iraq
war in 1991 to cater to the
jawans of US led forces who came
to Karachi for rest.
|
|
|
Sensex
on the swing
Dr
Bharat Jhunjhunwala
The
Sensex has crossed the
landmark 13,000 on the
strength of foreign
investments in the shares
of Indian companies. This
is known as Foreign
Institutional Investment
(FII) or foreign
portfolio investment.
Foreign investors have
assessed that Indian
companies are likely to
make big profits in the
coming times hence they
are buying up their
shares. This enables
Indian companies to raise
funds at lower cost.
Purchases made by FIIs
leads to higher price of
shares of Indian
companies. They can issue
new shares at a higher
premium. They can also
place Commercial Papers
at a lower rate of
interest. This investment
strengthens Indian
companies against
competition from
Multinational
Corporations investing
directly in India which
is known as FDI. The
purchase of shares of
Tata Motors by Morgan
Stanley, for example,
enables the Tatas to face
competition from Ford
Motor Company which has
made FDI in India.
The
crucial difference
between FII and FDI is
regarding control of the
company in which
investment is made. FIIs
invest in companies which
are listed on Indian
stock exchanges and
mostly controlled by
Indians such as Ratan
Tata controls Tata
Motors. FDI, on the other
hand, is controlled by
foreign nationals such as
Mr. Henry Ford, Jr. of
Ford Motor Company. The
critical decisions taken
by a FDI company are
taken keeping interests
of the foreign owners in
mind. Whether to use
components made
indigenously in India or
import them; or whether
to reinvest profits in
India or to repatriate
them to the head office
in Detroit are taken to
suit Mr. Ford.
Ford
Motor Co competes with
Tata Motors in India.
More investment by the
global investors in Ford
Motor Co increases the
capacity of that company
to steamroll and smother
Indian competitors. The
purchase of shares of
Ford Motor Co, USA by
Morgan Stanley
strengthens the company's
Indian arm against Tata
Motors. On the other
hand, purchase of shares
of Tata Motors by the
same Morgan Stanley
strengthens Tata Motors
against Ford Motor Co.
The impact of the two
types of foreign
investment is entirely
different. FII
strengthens the ability
of Indian Company to
compete with
Multinational
Corporations while FDI
strengthens MNCs in their
competition against
Indian companies. The
tradeoff for India is
that economic sovereignty
is strengthened by FII
while India's access to
advanced technologies is
made easy by FDI. Till
recently the flow of
global capital towards
India was evenly balanced
between FII and FDI.
Lately, however, FII has
jumped while FDI has
remained flat. Moreover,
outward FDI by Indian
companies is showing a
strong performance as
indicated by the buyout
of Corus by the Tatas.
Such outward FDI
establishes the control
of Indian companies on
foreign soil. This is
exactly opposite of
foreign control over
Indian economy that is
established by inward
FDI.
The
present situation is
triply beneficial for
India. Large inflows of
FII are strengthening
Indian companies' ability
to compete with MNCs and
to takeover foreign
companies on foreign
soil. Low inward FDI is
reducing the foreign
control over the Indian
economy. And, lastly,
buoyant outward FDI is
increasing Indian control
over the world economy.
The
credit for this happy
development is often
given to our government's
policies. Actually,
opposite is the case. The
Congress, Janata Dal and
BJP of the nineties and
the present Congress
governments-all have made
their best efforts to
increase inward FDI. Some
finance ministers even
carried Indian dancers
with them for road shows
trying to attract more
inward FDI into the
country. Prime Minister
Man Mohan Singh even now
continues to repeat that
India needs huge amounts
of FDI to meet its needs
of investments. But the
efforts of the Indian
government have come to
naught thanks to the
stiff competition
provided by Indian
companies to the MNCs who
found it difficult to
beat Indian companies.
The MNCs have almost
completely been routed
from mobile telephony and
power generation. The
Indian businessman has
foiled the plans of
successive governments to
attract more FDI and to
promote foreign control
on the Indian economy.
The credit for our
present success of high
FII, low inward FDI and
high outward FDI,
therefore, belongs to
Indian businessmen who
have stood their ground
and to analysts who have
consistently opposed FDI.
The Swadeshi Jagaran
Manch and the Left
Parties share in this
credit.
The
question presently is
whether this happy
situation, particularly
buoyancy of the Sensex,
is likely to be stable.
Such is entirely
probable. It is possible
for the Sensex to rise to
even 20,000 in the coming
2-3 years. The reason is
that the nature of world
economy has changed from
technology to mind power.
The MNCs often have
advantage in technology
and financial muscle. But
Indians have an agile
mind. Our life style is
geared to the development
of mind power. Practices
like applying the tika on
the forehead,
distributing sweets in
the temple and rising
early to worship are all
designed to this end. The
increasing importance of
'knowledge' or 'mind' in
the world economy gives a
natural advantage to
India. Hence it is likely
that not only Indian
companies but Indian
authors, painters,
fashion designers and
other professionals will
make great inroads on the
world platform in the
coming times. This India
story will surely pull
more world capital into
India and the Sensex may
only rise further.
Two
factors can dampen this
happy scenario. One is
decline in the world
price of oil. Lower price
of oil will strengthen
USA against India. USA is
more dependent on imports
of oil hence more
affected by increase in
its price. Lower price of
oil would also lead to
less demand for Indian
workers in West Asia and
result in fewer
remittances. A decline in
price of oil, though
beneficial in respect of
oil imports, will benefit
us but benefit the US
even more. Thus,
relatively speaking, we
will be losers. Lower
price of oil will make
the US more attractive
for the global investor
and the inflow of FII may
be reduced.
The
second problem is
domestic instability.
India is reported to have
more billionaires than
China. But India has more
hungry people too. The
BSE Small Cap index fell
by 0.6 percent on the
same day that the Sensex
scaled the peak of
13,000. This implies that
the gap between the poor
and the rich is widening.
Today a license is not
required to make an
investment of Rs 100
crores but one is
required to buy a cycle
rickshaw. Such anti-poor
policies can create
domestic instability. The
benefit of UPA
Government's social
welfare programmes like
Employment Guarantee
Scheme are likely to
accrue more to government
servants and less to the
poor in keeping with the
tradition of the last 60
years. The stability of
the Sensex will depend
upon the government
making policies that are
truly beneficial for the
poor rather than only
making a façade of the
'human face'.
|
|
|
|
US elections
and Indian dilemma
By V.N.
Paranjape
The removal of
Donald Rumsfled as Defence
Secretary sends out a clear
message that the defeat of the
Republicans in the elections to
the US Congress will have an
immediate impact on US policy.
President Bush's willingness to
change course has been prompted
not just by the practical
difficulties involved in dealing
with Democratic majorities in
both the Houses of Congress. The
polls were seen as a referendum
on his performance and its
verdict leaves him with few
options but to change tack,
particularly in Iraq. This is not
to suggest an immediate
withdrawal of US troops is on the
cards.
The President's
legacy is too dependent on Iraq
for him to allow the war to end
in what is perceived as defeat.
What is more likely is that US
policy will remove the
ideological blinkers of
neo-conservatism and move back
towards the pragmatism that
characterised the strategies of
the first President Bush. By
appointing Robert Gates as the
new Defence Secretary George W
Bush has brought back one of the
team that managed the first Gulf
War. The President no doubt hopes
the thinking that prevented the
US from being bogged down in Iraq
the first time will now throw up
a much needed exit strategy.
The Second Iraq War
was misconceived because the
First Iraq War had been
misconceived. After the 1979
Iranian Revolution, it had been
an American interest to allow the
Iran-Iraq war to continue
throughout the 1980s. The USA was
Saddam's quiet ally then, and
Donald Rumsfeld was a visiting
businessman shaking hands with
him. Saddam had seen himself
defending Kuwait, Saudi Arabia
and the sheikdoms against Iranian
radicalism; he was now broke and
felt he had to settle accounts.
Saddam and the American
Ambassador to Iraq met in July
1990, the US State Department
knew of the Iraqi troops massed
on the border with Kuwait, the
Ambassador told Saddam the USA
had "no opinion" on
such inter-Arab disputes. Famous
last words.
Saddam invaded
Kuwait. George Bush the First
beat Saddam back, and then began
the slow deliberate destruction
of his regime and all of Iraq
too, a policy carried forward by
Bill Clinton. George Bush the
Second, in a fit of pique, then
caused a wantonly unlawful and
unethical invasion and occupation
of Iraq in 2003, and now holds
Saddam in custody, No tears are
shed for fallen dictators and
perhaps Saddam's fate is finally
sealed, the world hardly cares.
But Saddam and his generals
advising them who thoroughly knew
Marshall Kutusov let Napoleon
could not keep Moscow and would
have to leave sooner or later,
while the Russians would always
stay. That is what the Americans
shall soon have to do in Iraq,
and they have begun to know it.
Napoleon never recovered from his
retreat from Moscow; Kutusov had
vowed he would make the French
eat their own horses and he
succeeded. America's retreat from
Iraq will be an inevitable
humiliation for them (even if
they maintain a dozen
hermetically sealed bases). But
it may be a boon in disguise too
if it causes America to retreat
within herself, to become
"isolationist" and
non-interfering - which will
allow other countries of the
world to get on with their own
histories and destinies.
However, it is the
administration's Iraq policy that
will come under maximum pressure.
It is expected to force President
Bush to temper US involvement in
Iraq. Although Democrats have not
really provided a clear roadmap
of what they will do in Iraq, the
White House will now be hamstrung
by a Democratic-majority Congress
that will control the
purse-strings of the war and is
not inclined to support
indefinite US presence there. The
US-backed governments in Baghdad
and Kabul will feel the heat.
This need to limit
change to tactics rather than
fundamental strategy will
probably leave many other aspects
of US foreign policy untouched.
Indeed, fears that the electoral
verdict will somehow scuttle the
Indo-US nuclear deal could well
turn out to be premature. The
bipartisan character of the
voting on the resolutions on the
issue so far implies that a
Democratic majority does not
automatically mean a rejection of
the deal. There is also little
reason to believe the Democrats,
as a party, will unanimously work
against a deal that enhances the
civilian component of India's
nuclear programme. On the
contrary, there are already
indications that the Democrats
may not stop President Bush from
pushing through the deal in the
current Senate itself. As long as
the deal is seen as one that
suits the interests of both India
and the US it is unlikely to be
hurt by a vote that was primarily
against the neo-conservative
ideological rigidities of the
Bush administration.
But the big win
could embolden some
non-proliferation driven
lawmakers to seek greater
concessions from India on the
nuke deal that would not have
made the cut under the more
security-minded Republican
establishment which negotiated
the agreement. It also puts a
question mark on issues of
concern to India such as free
trade and outsourcing on which
the Democratic position is a
little more protectionist. Since
Democrats have their eye firmly
fixed on the presidential race in
2008, can they afford to ignore
one of US's wealthier and
influential minorities - Indian
Americans, who have been lobbying
hard to influence the US Congress
by contributing generously
towards election funding of many
Democrats?
If elections 2006 in
the US is a precursor to 2008,
India could be looking at the
possibility of a Democrat
presidency, Hillary Clinton,
Obama, or anyone else - friends
of India doubtless, but perhaps
opponents of the nuclear deal. In
many ways, it encapsulates the
India dilemma - they all love
India, but not all love the
nuclear deal. But India is
increasingly clear: to love
India, Democrats will have to
wear their nuclear badges on
their sleeves.
But there is a
general consensus in New Delhi,
that a Democrat-strong Washington
could certainly put the brakes on
a relationship that both George
Bush and Manmohan Singh have
substantially invested in.
Several important appropriations
Bills are due, and the India
legislation is now slated for the
first couple of days of the
session starting on November 13,
right after the Vietnam trade
Bill.
India is also a lot
more confident today. For the
past four days, senior officials
from the US - led by Richard
Stratford - have been huddled
with their Indian counterparts,
working on the 123 agreement. The
US Assistant Secretary of State,
Richard Boucher, has arrived in
Delhi to fine tune details of the
nuclear legislation - it is a
sign that South Block is ready to
push hard on the deal. Moreover,
in the past year, India, too, has
gathered its act to woo the
Democrats in Washington,
especially once it became clear
that they needed bipartisan
support to get the nuclear deal
through. From Tom Lantos to John
Kerry, Joe Biden, Chris Todd and
Harry Reid, New Delhi courted
every one. India has even engaged
a Democrat lobbyist to take care
of the side of the aisle, and
entertained several high-powered
Democrat-heavy Congressional
delegations. INAV
|
|
|
|
