Make it fast

Who says that we can't have fun in hell? What else are we doing presently in the old historic city? All the roads are messily dug up. From the Panjtirthi end of Upper Mohalla to Link Road on the one hand and Pucca Danga on the other there are only potholes. To make matters worse even the small lanes and by-lanes have not been spared. Anyone who can walk through safely deserves an award. The scene is the same as it had prevailed, just to cite an example, in and around Ambphalla not very long ago. One good spell of rain is enough to further spoil the show. If there is a method in madness it is not visible here. Why can't the authorities carry out their assigned task in parts? Why do they have to first undo the entire thing before redoing it in bits and pieces? It should be other way round whether it is laying new pipes or improvement of surface. As it is, with the passage of time, the older parts of our habitat have become chaotic in a bid to keep pace with the time. The number of personal vehicles has shot up but there is no parking space. Two-wheelers shriek through narrow passages. These small machines look all the more dangerous in the current grotesque milieu. There is no control on their speed even though there are no roads at the moment. It is just a coincidence that one has not heard of a serious road mishap involving them these days. They threaten to run over children or elderly persons stepping out of their homes in the belief that they will come to no harm. With this background in view it is some relief that the Secretariat and judicial courts have moved out of their decades' old premises in the Mubarak Mandi complex of palaces.

Otherwise with the Durbar move around the corner we would have been in bigger trouble. One can simply derive vicarious pleasure from the thought that the Divisional Commissioner of the Jammu division is having a taste of bitter medicine his administration has inflicted on us. His is the only office that has yet to move to the new premises. At least twice on a working day he has to undergo the sort of nuisance that we have to live with every second. This does not solve either his or our problems. What is expected is that the officials act swiftly to restore the roads by ensuring that they are better than what they were in the past. This is not our intention to have doubts about their intent. But they ought to remember that at times even the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Their aim may be laudatory but they are unlikely to get the desired result if there is laziness or procrastination or some other such reason. In the instant case it is obvious that they have been carried away by an overzealous approach. The whole existing structure has been demolished in one go. This has added to the already prevailing disorder making confusion worse confounded. The solitary remedy ironically is to act likewise and complete the task on hand without delay. On the present reckoning it appears to be easier said than done.

Why UN is important

October 24 has come and gone. Like every year it is a day which gives us much food for thought. For the sake of record it is celebrated to mark the anniversary of the entry into force of the United Nations Charter on October 24, 1945. One and all will hail the preamble to the UN Charter which seeks: "(a) to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind; (b) to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small; (c) to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained; and (d) to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom." Whether or not the UN has been able to live up to it has been often a matter of debate. There are many who feel that as long as some members of the global body are more equal (possessing veto power) than the others it would not be able to function effectively. It can't be denied, however, that its presence in midst is a big boon. Very rightly UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has observed on this October 24: "UN Day is a day on which we resolve to do more. More to protect those caught up in armed conflict, to fight climate change and avert nuclear catastrophe; more to expand opportunities for women and girls, and to combat injustice and impunity; more to meet the Millennium Development Goals." He has left little doubt that it is a continuous struggle to match conflicting interests. This year's UN Day has focused on the eight Millennium Development Goals. To that end it follows on the high-level plenary meeting of the UN General Assembly held from September 20 to 22 which adopted a global action plan to achieve the eight goals by their target date of 2015. The summit had announced major new commitments for women's and children's health and other initiatives against poverty, hunger and disease. The eight goals are to: "(1) eradicate extreme poverty and hunger; (2) achieve universal primary education; (3) promote gender equality and empower women; (4) reduce mortality rate; (5) improve maternal health; (6) combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases; (7) ensure environmental sustainability; and (8) develop a global partnership for development."

Who will underestimate the significance of any of these objectives? Some headway has been made in the direction of achieving them. There has been a big leap towards cutting the rate of extreme poverty, getting children into primary schools, addressing AIDS, malaria and child health, and a good chance to reach the target for access to clean drinking water. But a lot more is required to be done. It is admitted that "improvements in the lives of the poor have been unacceptably slow, and some hard-won gains are being eroded by the climate, food and economic crises." We in this State often talk about the UN for our own reason. If we pause for a while we will realise that the world forum stands for a lot more and not just politics.

IN AND AROUND J&K
By D. Suba Chandran
Talking to the Taliban

The much anticipated negotiations with the Taliban, finally has begun in Afghanistan. During September 2010, Karzai announced the formation of a "Peace Council" primarily for the purpose of negotiating with the Taliban. There is a tacit American support and overt Pakistani pressure to such a move, besides Karzai's own calculation. Now the most important question is, will the Taliban be willing to engage in a sustained dialogue, ultimately resulting in reaching a kind of stability, if not peace in Afghanistan? Second, is Taliban a monolithic organization, and that the negotiation is with Mullah Omar directly? Finally, what is being neogitated?

Ever since the Loya Jirga during July 2010, everyone was expecting that the formation of an exclusive institution to officially kick start the negotiations with the Taliban were due. According to a Washington Post report, the 70 members council, , includes "jihadi leaders, about a half-dozen former Taliban, former members of the communist regime, at least six women and leaders from civil, religious and ethnic groups from across the nation." The composition of the Peace Council and the members of it will highlight internal divide within Afghanistan in terms of negotiating with the Taliban.

Not every Afghan is interested in negotiating with the Taliban. In fact, some of them are fierce opponents of any such negotiations. This opposition includes the ethnic minorities of Afghanistan outside the pashtun belt. The Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras have fought the Taliban in the 1990s, and have suffered enormously at their hands. The Afghan women, irrespective of whether they belong to the minorities or the pashtun community, majority of them also are hesitant in reaching out to the Taliban. Even within the pashtun community, there is no unanimity in terms of negotiating with the Taliban, leading to any kind of power sharing. Gulbudin Hekmetyar, for example, is a pashtun leader; he fought the Soviet Union in the 1980s and one of the dreaded Mujahideen commanders. He and his Hizb-e-Islami has considerable support even today at the grass roots level, especially in the eastern provinces. Currently, it is believed, he is under the patronage of Iran.

If there is no unanimity within Afghanistan, why is Karzai insisting the same? Three clear reasons. First, Karzai is clearly afraid of his personal safety, once the American troops leave. Neither his administrative structure and institutions are strong, nor are the Afghan security forces adequately prepared to deal with an insurgency led by the Taliban. Afghan bureaucracy is considered to be one of the most corrupt among the Third World countries; starting from Karzai himself, down to the village level, corruption runs very deep in the Afghan bureaucracy. The Afghan security forces - the Afghan National Army (ANA) and Police are ill prepared. Until today, there is no single battle that they have won against on their own, against the Taliban.

Second, there is an enormous pressure from the US, The search for a moderate/good Taliban, who could be engaged, begun years ago, not by Karzai, but by the American administration. The predominant belief amongst this section, within the Taliban, there is a section, which is reasonable and logical, which is willing to negotiate with the US. After exiting from Iraq, Obama and his administration are anxious to leave Afghanistan as early as possible; like they have done in Iraq, they would like to leave Afghanistan with an administration relatively stable and does not provide the space for any future threats.

Third, for Karzai, there is enormous pressure from Pakistan. Islamabad has been wanting to gain back its strategic depth in Afghanistan. For various reasons, Islamabad, Pakistan's military and its ISI strongly believe, that a friendly regime in Kabul, pliable to Pakistan's interests will keep them safe on their western front, and give strategic depth on their eastern front. If Karzai has to remain independent, Islamabad is afraid, that there will be no space for Pakistan; hence for Pakistan, it is imperative that Karzai engages with the Taliban, so that they have access to Kabul in a post-American exit environment in Afghanistan.

According to news reports appeared in Pakistani media, there were more than two meetings taken place between the military (and ISI) leaderships in Pakistan, Haqqani group and Karzai. The sacking of Amrullah Saleh, his Intelligence Chief and Hanif Atmar, his Interior Minister, by Karzai was done at the behest of the ISI, because they were totally against any rapprochement with the Taliban and also against Pakistan. Clearly, Pakistan has a road map, and is pressuring Karzai and Obama to play to their tunes. And it seems, they are even winning this objective.

Now the most important question is, will the Taliban negotiate. It is imperative to understand, that the Taliban is not a monolithic organization today. There are at least three distinct Taliban entities led by Mulla Omar, the Huqqanis and the TTP. Mullah Omar and his group primarily from Kandhahar formed the nucleus of the Taliban in the 1990s, while other entities among the pashtun community belonging to erstwhile Mujahideens joined the Taliban to further their interests. Many of the former Mujahideen commanders, who fought the erstehwile Soviet Union, during the early 1990s became war lords in Southern and Eastern Afghanistan; when the Taliban swept regions after regions, these former commanders and war lords, joined Mullah Omar.

Today, with American inducements, especially monetary rewards and a promise to provide a pie in the future Afghan administration, those groups that joined Mullah Omar at a later stage, are willing to pursue their own interests. Many of them were supported by the ISI, which continued over the years irrespective of 9/11 and developments later in Afghanistan. For example, the Huqqanis are always considered to be closer to the Pakistan military and its ISI. Today, the Huqqanis are engaged in a negotiation with Karzai. There have been numerous reports in Pakistani media over the last few months, regarding secret meetings between Karzai and the Huqqanis brokered by Gen Kayani and his ISI Chief.

While the Huqqani network is likely to engage in the dialogue, the most crucial question is, will Mullah Omar and his Quetta Shura engage in the negotiation? It seems unlikely; for they would prefer to play a waiting game. Why should they negotiate, if they know well, that the Americans are leaving and that the security forces of Karzai government is not strong enough to take on them?

Tough time a head in Kashmir

By Brij Bhardwaj

There may not be many takers for suggestions by hard line separatists leaders for intervention by USA or other international agencies for resolution of Kashmir problem, but there is no doubt that normalcy is not likely to return to the Valley in near future. The encounter between the security forces and Jaish-e-Mohammad terrorists on Thursday morning in outskirts of Srinagar clearly indicate that pot will be kept boiling. There may have been some reduction in the stone pelting in the streets and lifting of curfew restrictions, but the militants have used this opportunity to regroup themselves and were able to strike close to Srinagar in a crowded area.

There are many indications that infiltration is on rise again and militants are trying to cross line of control at many points as indicated by frequent clashes between security forces and Pakistan Army. The number of such clashes always go up as Pakistan forces always try to create diversions to help the infiltrators and make border crossing easy. The rhetoric from Pakistan side has been on the rise and the dialogue between the two countries has been stalled with Pakistan Foreign Minister adopting hard line under pressure from Army which is not keen on normalising relations with India.

The appointment of interlocutors by the Government to interact with political parties and non-Governmental organisations has not made any impact on the situation as it is felt that in the absence of any senior politician in the group it will not inspire any confidence and most of the political parties and separatist leaders have reacted adversely to its appointment. Two of the intrerlocutors Dileep Padgaonkar and Professor Radha Kumar have been associated with developments in Kashmir while Prof. M.M Ansari, a member of the Information Commission will be involved in Kashmir for the first time.

More complications have been caused by the stand taken by State Chief Minister Omar Abdullah when he declared that state of Jammu and Kashmir has acceded with India, but not merged, a distinction which has not been received well by the Government of India as well as Congress party which is a part of he coalition running State Government in Jammu and Kashmir. At the moment both the parties are not fighting publicly or airing their differences but tensions exists because both have to look after their respective constituencies that is Kashmir Valley in case of National Conference and Jammu province in case of Congress party.

The tussle between the State Government and hard line faction led by Sayeed Ali Shah Gillani is also continuing. Gillani continues to issue protest Calenders giving calls for hartals and protests while State administration is fighting the same by imposing curfew restrictions. The level of violence has come down and fatigue factor is also setting in because people are tired of continue confrontation which has dislocated normal life. Will this situation change with onset of winter is not easy to answer as the grip of the State Government on the situation remains loose.

The other factor which will make a difference is how far militants are able to challenge security forces by undertaking operations in highly populated areas of the Valley or major cities like Srinagar, Anantnag and Baramulla. Before the present agitation started the presence of the militants had become confined to border districts only The recent strikes by militants in Srinagar city and in other towns is an indication that militants have used long period of civilian unrest which saw protest in different parts of Valley for many months to regroup and re-equip and increase their ability to strike.

The group of interlocutors have declared that they would be visiting Valley every month and hope to carry out a dialogue on sustained basis. But one wonders how much they will be able to achieve as most of the groups who can make difference to the situation on ground or help in finding a solution have not shown any enthusiasm for interaction with them. The group is going to Kashmir with open mind, but how open are the minds of people with whom they have to interact remains a question mark.

In nutshell one can not help but conclude coming winter in Kashmir Valley or a clouds cover may not help in cooling down tempers. The days will certainly become shorter and there will be long and cool nights, but tempers remain on edge and wounds inflicted during months of agitation remain fresh. The task of applying balm remains difficult and formidable. One hopes all actors in this drama will keep cool heads and work for solution and give up confrontation. (NPA)

Give cross-subsidy to kirana stores

By Dr Bharat Jhunjhunwala

The Government is considering allowing entry of Foreign Companies in multi-brand retail stores. Single-brand retail stores such as those of Nike or other brands are already allowed. But multi-brand retailers like Wal Mart of America, Tesco of UK and Carrefour of France are not permitted to open stores in India at present. Indian companies like Reliance, Spencers and Shoppers Stop are, however, allowed to engage in multi-brand retailing in the country. There is a fundamental difference between single- and multi-brand retailing. Single brand retailers have a limited reach in the market. They scarcely impact the kirana stores that provide many items of day-to-day use. Multi-brand retailing, however, competes directly with the kirana stores. The question at hand is whether to allow foreign companies to enter multi-brand retailing which is already being done by domestic companies.

Organized retailing by big companies-domestic as well as foreign-has two opposing impacts on the country. On the plus side, cheap and good quality goods become available to the consumer. Organized retailers procure goods directly from manufacturers and supply to consumers. They bye pass the chain of suppliers, agents and wholesalers. Commissions being charged by these intermediaries is eliminated leading to reduction in price of goods. They have wide procurement networks. They can quickly compare the price offered for a product in China, Thailand and Mexico. They also have knowledge of global trends of consumption. They can more reliably predict goods which will sell in the coming season. In this way they can provide better services to the consumers. On the minus side, organized retailers provide jobs to a handful of workers while large numbers involved in kirana stores lose their livelihood. Economist Larry Mishel of the Economic Policy Institute sums up the problem as follows: "If people were only consumers, buying things at lower prices would be just good. But people also are workers who need to earn a decent standard of living. The dynamics that create lower prices at Wal-Mart and other places are also undercutting the ability of many, many workers to earn decent wages and benefits and have a stable life." Briefly, of what use are cheap goods lying in the shopping windows when there is no money in the pocket to buy them?

The negative impact of organized retail on kirana shops has already been verified in other countries. The share of organized retail increased from 10 to 40 percent between 1995 and 2005. The share in China increased from 10 to 20 percent in the same period. British MP David Amess says that one in six street corner retail shops have shut down in England in the last 10 years after the entry of organized retailer Tesco. Such impact does not appear to have occurred in India yet because only domestic companies are allowed to engage in this business. Such an impact is likely to take place with the entry of foreign retailers. No wonder the Standing Committee of the Parliament under the Chair of Dr Murli Manohar Joshi has recommended complete ban on entry of foreign companies in multi-brand retailing.

Question before us is whether the entry of foreign organized retailers should be permitted when domestic organized retailers have not had much negative impact? We have to examine the additional impact of foreign players in order to unravel this question. First benefit of entry of foreign players is that of capital investment. Big companies like Wal Mart can plough in billions of dollars in establishing stores in prime location and establishing international supply chains. Domestic players like Reliance have not been able to do this. Second benefit is access to the retail technologies and efficiency. Foreign players know how to procure goods from factories located in distant locations in China and reach the goods to equally distant locations in Brazil. They know how to assess the preferences of customers in a particular town and have goods made to their liking. Indian companies appear far behind in this. Third benefit is of global supply chains. Toys from China, scents from France, cameras from Taiwan and computers from America could become easily available in a Wal Mart shop in India. There may be some benefit to our exports as foreign players become accustomed to the Indian market though this benefit is likely to be small because they already have sourcing facilities in India. Fourth benefit will be that of quality. The quality of cars available in India has improved much after the entry of foreign players. The quality of other consumer goods may similarly improve with the entry of foreign retailers. These benefits of foreign retailers appear to be genuine and cannot be ignored.

Problem is that the negative impact of foreign retailers is likely to take place in same measure as they make available cheap goods to our consumers. Indian organized retailers have not been successful because they did not have adequate capital, technology and global linkages. Accordingly, negative impact of their entry has also been less. We are thus caught between the devil and the deep blue sea. Entry of foreign players means loss of livelihood for crores of our people engaged in retailing. Not allowing entry to them means that Indian consumers will not get goods of international quality at lowest prices.

The solution to this predicament may lie in taxing the foreign players and providing cross-subsidy to kirana shops. Say the rate of VAT on toys is at present 12 percent payable both by organized retailers and kirana shops. It can be arranged that organized retailers pay 16 percent while kirana shops pay only 8 percent. This will push up the retail prices for the organized retailers and make it possible for kirana shops to face competition from them. An alternative would be to impose a hefty tax on foreign retailers on the basis of floor area or turnover. If foreign retailers can succeed in the country despite paying such high taxes, then they should be allowed because it means that the improvement in quality of good supplied by them is real and significant. Only then consumers will be willing to pay higher prices. The organized retailers will only be able to sell items where they have a significant price- and quality advantage. Similar cross-subsidy is already in place in the telecom sector. Companies that do not provide services in rural areas have to pay 'Access Deficit Charges' and this money is given to state-owned Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited as subsidy for the provision of services in rural areas. The railways similarly increase the fares of upper classes and use the money to cross-subsidize the fares in lower classes. A similar cross subsidy in the retail sector will provide us with the benefits of foreign players while protecting the livelihood of our kirana stores.