Indo-Pak relations

By Amulya Ganguli

There have been so many abortive initiatives in India-Pakistan diplomacy that it may be naïve to be optimistic about the latest endeavours. But the turn of events in the last few days seems to hold out better prospects than before. One promising development is Asif Ali Zardari’s observation about putting the Kashmir issue on the back burner although he has not relinquished Pakistan’s claim on the province.

Considering that Kashmir – the "K" in Pakistan - caused two wars in 1948 and 1965 and the border skirmish of Kargil in 1998 (the 1971 war was about Bangladesh), the suggestion from the present dispensation in Islamabad to put the matter aside for the time being is of no little importance.

There is little doubt that the proposal underlines a change from what transpired under Pervez Musharraf apart from his Kargil misadventure when he dreamt that he could put a final seal on Pakistan’s longstanding "proxy" war in the region by wresting the province from India’s grasp. Even when he was forced to withdraw under American pressure and also to join the Western world’s war against Islamic terrorism, the Pakistani dictator still stuck to his categorisation of Kashmir as the "core" issue which had to be solved if the region was to know peace.

To achieve this objective, he persisted with his dual tactic of letting the ISI promote terrorism in Kashmir and elsewhere in India even as the two countries engaged in what only be described as virtually fruitless negotiations – again under US pressure. Musharraf’s contention was that unless the so-called root cause of the dispute was removed – presumably to Pakistan’s satisfaction – the terrorist outrages could not be stopped.

Now, Islamabad’s new rulers have offered an olive branch. Although Zardari has said that like New Delhi, Islamabad also believes in Kashmir being an atoot ang (inseparable part) of Pakistan and that he cannot betray the "martyrs" who laid down their lives for Kashmir, he has also said that an improvement in India-Pakistan ties should not be held hostage to the Kashmir issue. Not surprisingly, it has taken the votaries of democracy to articulate this new, less strident approach.

It has to be remembered that the wars of 1965 and 1971 took place when Pakistan was under military dictators. Even the Kargil incursion took place behind the back of the then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, who was toppled within a year of the border conflict. What the latest development confirms, therefore, is that the old belief that democracies do not go to war may well be true. If the new regime in Pakistan has signalled a toning down of the country’s earlier belligerent policy towards India, the reason is that the Zardari-Nawaz Sharif set-up is a democratic one. As such, its world-view is markedly different from the perceptions of the military rulers.

It is possible that both the leaders of the Pakistan People’s Party and the Muslim League (Nawaz) have sensed the deep desire of the people of the subcontinent for peace. The fact that they have come to power through the democratic route has obviously kept them in touch with popular sentiments unlike those who live their lives in cantonments. There is another reason apart from the desire for peace. It is the diminution of the status of the Pakistan army through the years of Musharraf’s rule which have seen, on one hand, the growing strength of religious extremism and, on the other, the decline in Pakistan’s prestige evident in Musharraf’s admission that American had threatened to bomb the country into the stone age if it didn’t follow the US diktats on terrorism.

What is more, side by side with this degeneration of Pakistan into a virtual failed state, the Pakistanis have seen the rise and rise of India as an economic power and as a multicultural democracy which evokes the admiration of the world. It is the contrast between the two neighbours which has apparently persuaded Pakistan’s present-day politicians to forsake the fruitless path of endless confrontation with India. It is too early to say, of course, whether Zardari’s initiative will succeed or whether it is only a trial balloon which will burst sooner rather than later.

After all, the Pakistani establishment has been reared for so long on anti-Indian sentiments that it will be a miracle if there is a genuine change of heart. Besides, it is not only the establishment which will have to turn over a new leaf. It will also have to cut its links with the jehadis which it has fostered for decades via the ISI. All of this will involve a major overhaul, not the least of which is the dismantling of the terrorist camps. The longevity and stability of the new regime are also uncertain. The chances of Zardari’s and Nawaz Sharif’s rivals embarrassing them by accusing them of a sell-out to India are also a distinct possibility. It is evidently to deflect such accusations that Zardari has taken one step back in interviews with the Pakistani media after taking two steps forward in his conversation with the CNN-IBN. (IPA)

Project Sethusamudram

By T.K. Krishnamurthy

The UPA government's "Dream Project" Sethusamudram Channel Project estimated to cost the national exchequer Rs. 2,400 crore will come up for hearing before the Supreme Court from April 15. The Centre in a 60-page affidavit has pleaded that the apex court vacates its six-month-old stay order to start expeditious resumption of work on the stalled project. To avoid a controversy akin to the one created by doubting the existence of Ramayan and Lord Ram and their link to Ram Sethu, also known as Adam's Bridge, the Centre engaged seasoned lawyer Fali S. Nariman to prepare the draft for submission to the court. The Bench comprising CJI K.G. Balakrishnan, and Justices R.V. Raveendran and J.M. Panchal has directed other parties to file their rejoinder to the Centre's affidavit by then.

As per the draft plan the project to provide a 260 km long, 12 metres deep shipping lane linking the Arabian Sea and the Bay of Bengal to avoid circumnavigating Sri Lanka. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and a large section of the Hindu society is opposed to the project on religious grounds. The Director General of Coast Guards, too, has expressed opposition for reasons of security as the project will pose danger to naval establishments in South India. According to experts the economic viability of the project is also doubtful. It is only the DMK pressing for the project to be pushed through in spite of opposition from many quarters.

Conceived by Commander A.D. Taylor in 1860 and given up by the British colonial rulers as economically unviable, it was revived in 1952 when the Government of India appointed the Sir A. Ramasamy Mudaliar Committee to submit a proposal and feasibility report. But no action was taken on the committee's report. While it remained a dream project of Tamil Nadu politicians, every government at the Centre paid-lip service without moving an inch. The present UPA government, in which the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam is a major partner, forced its way through by persuading Sonia Gandhi. According to the project under implementation, Adam's Bridge, a 30 km long chain of seven shoals, hard at the surface with Miocene era limestone beds and soft as it descends till it rests on a bank of sand, that links Dhanushkodi tip of Rameshwaram on the Indian side with Talaimannar in northern Sri Lanka, will have to be cut for the shipping canal to pass through the barrier between the Gulf of Mannar and the Palk Bay.

Legend and epics have it that this causeway was built under the direct supervision of Ram, an incarnation of the Supreme, to rescue his wife, Sita, from the clutches of Ravan in Sri Lanka. Though geography books and world atlas call it Adam's Bridge, the Hindutva brigade calls it Ramar Sethu and wants it preserved at all costs.

It is their ardent belief that Ramar Sethu is the formation to facilitate Vishnu avatara Maryada Purushottama Sri Rama and his army to cross the Palk Strait, as described in detail in Valmiki Ramayana and other Hindu scriptures. Archaeologists have dated the age of Adam's Bridge as 1,750,000 years old. Ram was believed to have been born in Ayodhya in Treta yuga, roughly corresponding to the time of formation of Adam's Bridge. Whether one believes in Ramayana as fact or mythology, the bridge is an ancient heritage and pride of India which deserves to be preserved.

Work on the Sethusamudram Shipping Canal Project was launched jointly by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Sonia Gandhi and the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister, M. Karunanidhi, on 2 July 2005 but had floundered while trying to dredge the Adam's Bridge. Three foreign dredgers had met their Waterloo on its shoals, adding zeal to the faith of the believers in their fight to scuttle the project. The New York-based World Monuments Fund which brings out the World Monuments Watch List of endangered heritage sites has called on the government of India to desist from demolishing Adam's Bridge. Marilyn Perry, chairperson of the organisation, has said the government could leave the disputed site untouched and make it a tourist attraction by arranging glass-bottom boats to see what is under the shoals.

The slogan raised at a rally in Delhi's Ram Leela grounds in July 2007 organised by Jagadguru Shankaracharya Swami Vasudevanand of Jyotishpeeth, Om or Rome, may be misplaced, for it is T.R. Baalu, Union Minister for Shipping belonging to the DMK, who is determined to break Adam's Bridge. Initial opposition to the project came from the fishermen of Rameswaram whose livelihood is threatened by the canal work. On 27 September last year, Ramagopalan, president of Hindu Munnani, submitted a "people's memorandum" signed by 3.5 million people to President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam against the project.

If Ramar Sethu is destroyed it would hurt the religious sentiments of the majority community across the length and breadth of the country. The British colonial rulers had shown greater sensitivity to Hindu sentiments by shelving its proposal to construct a railway bridge between Rameswaram and Talaimannar in 1914 than the UPA government which seems unmoved by the hurt feelings of the majority community.

Even if religious sentiments were left out, Ramar Sethu should not be disturbed on considerations of environment. It acts as a natural barrier between Kerala and Tamil Nadu and protects them from natural calamities. When the 2004 tsunami played havoc on the Tamil Nadu coast, the west coast was spared. Article 51A(f) stipulates that it shall be the fundamental duty of every citizen of India "to value and preserve the rich heritage of our composite culture." Ambika Soni, Union Minister for Culture, has told the Rajya Sabha in a written reply to a question that the government had neither done any archaeological studies regarding the antiquities and heritage value of Ramar Sethu nor any plans for preserving the site. Such nonchalance about a matter which touches religious sentiments of millions of citizens in this country is not only shocking but makes one wonder if she, as the Ram Leela grounds rally echoed, was beholden to Rome than Om.

While the economic value of the Sethusamdram shipping canal is dubious, as merchant marine experts have worked out, the project could still be implemented if only to humour the DMK and keep it content in the UPA by choosing any one of the other five alignments drawn up by experts. The 1998 plan which was cleared by the NDA government in which also the DMK was a partner, provided for digging the canal through a 15 km stretch between Dhanushkodi and Pamban in Rameswaram without demolishing Ramar Sethu. This alignment was also given environmental clearance by NEERI.

Inauguarating Amritha Sethu in Kollam, Kerala, last December, President Kalam said: "When I saw the Amritha Sethu, my memory went back to Ramwawarm. It is said that Ram ordered the construction of the bridge at Dhanushkodi. His Vanara Sena built the bridge in time for Rama's troops to go to Sri Lanka for waging a war against Ravana. Satellite picture shows that remnants of the bridge still exist between Rameswarm and Sri Lanka."

Justice K.T. Thomas, former Supreme Court judge had said: "In projects like the Sethusamudram Shipping Canal decisions are to be based not only on a study of geological implications; the religious sentiments of the people are also to be taken into account." Justice Krishna Iyer, also a former Supreme Court judge, in a letter to Manmohan Singh cautioned that "our nation will be weaker and may suffer new dangers with American presence in Sethusamudram waters by doing what for centuries have never been considered necessary or feasible or in any manner advantageous to us, the people of India." INAV

Promoting Rural- Urban growth

By Ramesh Kanitkar

There is media frenzy that the budget 2008-09 is rural oriented. There is a need to study how rural-urban economy is a mixed fare. There cannot be urban development without rural development as economies of the two segments of the population are intertwined.

If urban development is not placed squarely alongside rural priorities, we risk policy errors that will ultimately cost heavily to the country's development.

To begin with, our definitions are problematic. Our classification of rural areas is simply too broad. Or rather, our narrow interpretation of 'urban' areas means that many semi-urban areas-with their unique set of policy challenges-get thrown into the rural bucket. Semi-urban areas typically grow faster than traditional cities and many face a rapid transition away from agriculture.

There is an urgent need to prepare for the oncoming demographic change. Urbanisation is low: on current figures, roughly 30 per cent of the population is urban. Our best guess is that 45 per cent of our population will be urban by 2050-this figure is more conservative than some of the official estimates. Even on these numbers, 379 million people will be added to urban spaces over the next 40-years-more than the entire population of the US today.

Despite our presently low levels of urbanisation, there seems to be a desire to "slow it down", with the accompanying assumption that rural-urban migration is causing cities to swell. However, contrary to most of the images we see, natural increase (the excess of births over deaths) is the major factor in India's urban growth-not rural migrants rushing to the cities.

In India, 60 per cent of growth in urbanisation is due to natural increase, 18 per cent is due to reclassification, and only 22 per cent is due to migration. In fact, roughly 60-70 per cent of migration in India is composed of rural to rural movements.

Indeed, one of the criticisms lobbied against the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS) is that it is partly an attempt to curb rural-urban migration. This critique may be debatable, but the underlying idea of massive rural-urban migration-and consequently a perception of the need to quell it-is simply not true.

Strangely, while the scale of urbanisation tends to be exaggerated, the practical function of urban centres is virtually ignored. Total urban spending in India as a share of GDP has remained stagnant for the past 15-years. Against comparable countries, India's spending on cities reflects its grim fiscal position with severely constrained administrative capacity at the local level.

Part of the larger problem-the lack of integrated rural-urban policy-is clearly linked to perceptions of need. Absolute poverty measures (standards like below $1 a day, $2 a day, etc.) make it hard to ignore the difference in urban-rural poverty rates. Using standard poverty thresholds, rural poverty soars relative to urban poverty. Where absolute measures fall short is in incorporating standard-of-living adjustments.

When these are taken into account, the share of urban population living in relatively poor conditions becomes much more dramatic than that using absolute threshold. Given where we are headed with respect to urbanisation, we simply cannot afford urban development to languish.

Investment in rural India is crucial, and we have to view urban India as part of the solution. Execution of infrastructure investment and manufacturing incentives in urban-semi-urban areas could strengthen rural-urban linkages.

Also, given that the entire shortfall from priority sector lending is not being channelled into agriculture Rural Infrastructure Development Fund (RIDF), money could be considered for low-cost housing and infrastructure development in small towns and cities.

Addressing semi-urban centres, with many clustered around manufacturing activity, is pivotal now. The manufacturing sector could be in a favourable position over the coming years, as global manufacturing margins bottom out, raw material prices stabilise and supply-side pressures hit, the semi-urban and rural non-farm sector in general, will further provide a long-term outlet for the country's semi-skilled employment crisis.

Where possible, we should avoid the global trap of choosing between urban and rural development. It is a costly mistake to address rural and urban development as distinct from-or even worse, competing against-one another. Urban demand could be one important, and largely overlooked, engine helping to drive the shift from farm to non-farm employment in rural India.

It is well known that urban growth is a key driver for food production, but even more generally we see signs that urban consumption appears to translate into a boost for rural non-farm employment and household incomes. We need to expand innovative linkages running both ways between urban and rural growth. INAV