An Indian Youngster

The Pak-China and USA Algorithm

2012-06-24T23:59:00.000+05:30

The USA can do more to put pressure on Pakistan to act on terrorists. One way of doing so is by involving China in the equation.

The news about a certain level of breakdown in the Pakistan-China ties has been in the newspapers for the last couple of days. Despite the excited editorials in every daily about the issue, this crisis, excuse the exaggeration, is far from anything anybody should be excited about. The consequences of deteriorating Pak-China relations, when studied keeping in mind the various geo-political and economic factors, are not positive globally.

One of the most important geo-political factors that needs to be kept in mind is the decision of the United States to showcase a close relationship of sorts with Pakistan to the international media. The prime reason for this is, of course, the continued reluctance on the part of the Pakistani administration to take concrete action against the terrorist havens which still continue to exist in the country resulting in an increase in the number of drone attacks carried out by the USA on Pakistani territory.

A major roadblock to the Pakistan government's resolution to eliminate terrorism is the conservative view of world affairs held by many in the top brass of the Pakistan Army, the de-facto decision-maker at times. However due to this insistence on non-acknowledgement of the existence of terrorist havens in the country, the relations between Pakistan and its once upon a time all weather friends are certainly being tested.

New reports indicate that, along with the many anti-India and anti-West terrorist havens that operate in the south-east Asian country, many Uighur sympathizers have also set up havens for the struggle against the Chinese government in the province of Xinjiang.

The Chinese government has repeatedly made its displeasure over the existence of such anti-China institutions in the country known to the Pakistan government. Yet, due to rampant corruption and sympathizers within the administration, not much has been done in this regard resulting in a continued anti-China resistance in Xinjiag with majority of the support received by the protestors being traced back to Pakistan.

Though this is primarily an area of conflict between Pakistan and China, the US authorities must also keep a keen eye on the developments surrounding these incidences. Despite the inability of many western countries to convince Pakistan to cancel terrorism as a state policy, China has to an extent succeeded or at least performed better than the other western countries, considering the drop in the number of terrorist/freedom struggle incidences now reported in China which can be traced back to Pakistan.

Adopting such an approach of being convinced that there has been a drop in the above mentioned activities appears optimistic considering the lack of information coming out of China. However, when we look at the situation in the context of national security, there has been a slight shift in allied positions from the USA to China under President Zardari's regime. Though the shift is not absolute, it is easily noticeable.

Thus, despite the numerous long term concerns that the White House may have regarding Pakistan's closeness to China, it is only sensible in the short run to encourage greater Pakistan-China engagement on terrorism as that might be the only possible way to deter Pakistan from hosting terrorists on its soil. The fear of being isolated internationally, withdrawal of US and western world's support from major contracts and treaties internationally without adopting sanctions as a means of approach and at the same time portraying China as a reluctant ally of Pakistan would be the most surrealistic of all possible methods to get the Pakistani administration started on its fight against terrorism.

However as surrealistic as the above scenario may sound, it is possible for the United States to manipulate its positions a bit to get a more positive response from Pakistan. An example of such a manipulation would be to stress the importance of banishing terrorism from all forms of practice to the new Chinese Premier and President (both Mr Jiabao and Mr Jintao handing over power to their successors during the year) while at the same time steering clear of the human rights aspect of the situation in Xinjiag. Such a manoeuvre by the USA would ensure that enough pressure is put on Pakistan to curb terrorist activities while at the same time, it won't be seen as the US stepping back on its demand for human rights and their implementation all over the world.

Though idealistic, only such manoeuvres have been known through out time to change the course of history as we know it.

Why India must work on its Foreign Policy

2012-02-29T21:44:00.000+05:30

Given the status that India currently enjoys in the diplomatic world, it is only natural that India be required to make tough decisions.

The diplomatic power of a country can be analysed by simply taking together factors that act for and against the state at the international level and the state's ability to work out a plan to balance out the negatives that it may face. United States can be considered to be a country that is more or less able to balance out the negatives at the international level (recent 'stand-off' with Russia and China on the Syria and Iran issue can be considered to be a negative that it hasn't balanced out in the UN).

If we look at India under the same lens, then a couple of inconsistencies do crop up which are common in countries which are still developing their diplomatic power (i.e focus more on the soft power). One of the major problems that the current foreign policy of India has is the inability to move out of the neutrality sphere.

After the end of the Cold War, the diplomatic world underwent a period of 'secondary power vacuum' wherein, the west was able to take major decisions without being challenged in a manner that would threaten its dominance in the diplomatic world. Yet soon countries like Russia, China and India caught up and three together are no able to form a major opposition to the west at the international level.

Thus while the three are able to form a formidable opposition, India's foreign policy still hasn't evolved enough to take a stand with one side and through out the course of the event remain on the same side. One of the major example of this would be the recent decision by the Indian government to send a diplomat to attend the Friends of Syria meet which is considered to be an anti-Assad and a pro-change forum. This decision has certainly raised a few eyebrows towards the effectiveness of the Indian bureaucracy and government in formulating a foreign policy meant for the long term.

While at the same time, this can be considered to a successful practice by India of its principle-based foreign policy. However such a practice cannot be considered to be an exactly ideal path to follow at the international level and thus a certain reworking of the foreign policy is in order as India tries to analyse the pro-cons of its relationship with various countries in this every changing world.

Democratizing the Nuclear Neighbour

2012-01-29T21:45:00.000+05:30

Despite the fears of a coup, India must ensure that conditions are maintained to retain some state of democracy in its nuclear neighbour.

Historically, relations between the Pakistan Army and the Indian government haven't exactly been friendly. Since Independence, they have bordered at extreme paranoia and complete distrust. Attempts to start/maintain peace between the two neighbours has seen the civilian government in Pakistan asking for the "go-ahead" from the Army. In case the above hasn't been done, the efforts to achieve peace have been scuttled at the very basic stage.

Thus, it is not in India's interest to allow the Pakistani Army into power. But any attempt to do so by using "unacceptable" methods would only ensure that the public opinion tilts in favour of the Army (something that has for the last couple of years prevented the army from coming to power). A more intelligent approach would involve encouraging the civilian institutions in Pakistan to maintain their grip on power mainly by covering them in the mainstream Indian and international news media.

Also covert funding to moderate pressure groups in Pakistan would be an ideal path that the RAW (India's spy agency) can take in order to ensure that the public opinion remains in favour of the civilian institutions while at the same time ensuring that a balance is attained with the extremists. A situation resembling the current Indian state of affairs (extremely active civil society) would provide democracy the much needed boost that it requires in the country which has a history of democracies being overthrown by military coups.

For India, a military government is not acceptable considering the fact that all the wars that India has fought against Pakistan happened during the military rule. Thus any attempt to install an army government in Pakistan can only succeed if the 'terror of India' is created in the minds of the Pakistani people. The paranoia regarding India has always been the stepping stone that the Pakistan Army has needed to hoist itself to a position of direct power (indirect power involves tremendous amount of influence on the civilian government while refraining to portray itself as a major political power in the public eyes).

A face off with the US (though highly unlikely) would certainly create the buzz that the Pakistani Army needs while at the same time uncomfortable relations with India would certainly put the civilian government in an uncomfortable position. Thus attempts to improve ties between India and Pakistan should be on the top of the priority list for Pakistan.

Closer trade ties involve direct interaction between the people and thus the mistrust on either side is reduced every day little by little. It is only through such attempts of improving ties while at the same time not 'bowing down' with/to other countries in the public eye can the current government in power hold on to its present position and last till the next elections where the verdict might or might not go against them.

On the other side of the globe, it would be ideal if USA took steps so as to improve the ties with the current government in Pakistan at least till the elections are over. A civilian government in power is the only way the USA can attempt to get rid of the Taliban and terrorism which has time and again proved to be a strategic asset for Pakistan against its rivals in the Indian subcontinent.

Why India needs to intervene

2011-12-04T00:00:00.000+05:30

Despite the anger in Pakistan regarding the NATO strike, it would be a wise decision for India to play the peacemaker between Pakistan and USA.

With the emotions of the populace boiling up, it is rare to see the leaders of a country take the right decision instead of the popular one. The leaders in Pakistan are faced with the same puzzle at the moment. With anger against the NATO and the USA rising, it would be wise for the Pakistani leadership to look at their present situation in a whole some manner and not overlook one aspect just because the pressure on the other aspect to be viewed is greater.

All the warnings, talks and decisions that are being given/taken by the civilian government/army in Pakistan would have tremendous consequences not only for Pakistan but also for the region as a whole. The US-Pakistani relationship has had a lot of bumps ever since the Abottabad raid but since then, this can be said to be the single worst incident in the relations of the two country.

US presence in Pakistan and Afghanistan is essential for India's national security and also the security of the Indian interests is heavily dependent on the US presence there fore the time being at least, as India starts to play a greater role in Afghanistan and have a greater say in matters. Thus, the removal of the US boots from Pakistan would be a major blow to India and its interests. With the vacating of the Shamsi Airbase (if that happens), the entire incident would be a major strategic victory for the Taliban, which has many sympathizers in the Pakistan Army, which is making attempts to come back to power in Afghanistan.

India would now require to act in order to protect its interests. First of all, the Indian administration must ensure that Pakistan gets the message that India sympathizes with them and then slowly and steadily work would need to be done to ensure that the US do not vacate the Shamsi Airbase. Many in Pakistan have already viewed this 'accidental' attack as a direct attack by USA and India on their sovereignty, which has already been an issue of contention between the once upon a time allies (USA and Pakistan) for quite some time. Any more fuel into this fire would only result in consequences for the entire region including China, who want the US to exit from the region in order for them to achieve a greater level of influence on the struggling Afghan civilian government.

With the exit of the US troops from the region it would be very easy for the Taliban to take back control of the areas near the North-Western border of Pakistan and Afghanistan, which has very limited government presence with majority of the area being tribal in nature guaranteeing a firm base for the Taliban to make a comeback into the region and the regional politics.

India would need to bring the two allies to the table and ensure that both of them engage in a healthy discussion and sort out their differences at the earliest, if India wants to ensure a peaceful and stable neighbourhood. Manmohan Singh could play a major role in bringing the two to the table using the respect and influence that he has earned in the government circles of the both, the US and Pakistan.

Till then it can be expected that with the pressure on the government and the army in Pakistan building up to take a strict action against the US, the relations between the two allies can only expected to go downhill, if there is one. The US would need to play calmly at the moment in order to prevent the situation from worsening. But it sure isn't going to be a easy journey to keep track of unless and until India does not intervene.

Walking the Pakistani Tightrope

2011-11-19T10:41:00.001+05:30

Even though relations between the two rivals are normalizing. It is in vast contrast to what lays underneath the surface.

The move by Pakistan to grant India the MFN (Most Favoured Nation) status was welcomed by a big majority in the diplomatic circles and was hailed as move towards a shift in the relationship between the two nuclear states. Manmohan Singh and Yousuf Raza Gilani who met in Maldives recently decided to break the deadlock that the two countries were in since after 26/11. Yet there continue to be rumors that there is a lot more than meets the eyes.

The UPA government which is at the moment at its lowest ever in public popularity is doings its desperate best in an attempt save face. With allegations against members of India Against Corruption rising, the government at the moment remains fairly convinced that it might have a chance in the state elections that are coming up in the next two years leading up to the general election in 2014. But even as the elections at the state level happen, there is a lot of reason for the UPA to take care in the way it deals with issues like terrorism, nowadays a major vote-puller in India.

Though the number of attacks in the country have decreased a lot, there still continues to exist a state of uncertainty among the populace as they deal with a neighbour (Pakistan) which every day heads close to either a military coup or take over by Islamic fundamentalists. The anger in India continues to be at the same level as after 26/11 with many a facebook pages coming up with negative results regarding celebrating the return to normal relations between India and Pakistan. Youth in India is eyeing every development with a keen eye, ready to get out on the street and corner the government for any mistake that they make. Hence, the ability of the UPA government to deal effectively with Pakistan will determine their odd of winning the upcoming elections.

Carefully keeping the 'Kashmir' issue off the table, the government has succeeded in brushing of concerns of an 'unfavorable' round of table talks. With an on-going dispute between Omar Abdullah, the Jammu Kashmir Chief Minister, and the army already heating up the atmosphere in the country, including the Kashmir issue would have been a certain death warrant for the present Government. But the step to not include talks on punishment of the terrorist is also a bold step for this government which faces continuous flak from BJP, the primary opposition party, for any and every mistake that it is committing in recent times.

Hence any progress between the two countries at best is balanced on a thin line at the moment. With internal pressure mounting on the UPA government to prove it's worth, the Pakistan card might just be the trump card that the government desperately needs at the moment. If India is successful in getting Pakistan to hand or even punish the culprits of the 26/11 attack, then it will be a guarantee that the odds against the Congress for the 2014 general election would have been countered and all parties would be on the same starting point.

Thus even as India tries to do its best to reach out to Pakistan, India's friendliness would directly depend on what Pakistan is able to do against terrorism. Any further attack on Indian soil would not only damage but paralyze the relationship for a long time if not permanently. Thus the onus is now on Pakistan to show results as the UPA government puts everything on line for their Pakistan card.

Right to Recall: Step towards better governance or disorder?

2011-10-30T00:00:00.000+05:30

Recently media's favourite Gandhi topi boy started off a discussion on electoral reforms. Yes I am talking about Mr. Anna Hazare who has enjoyed a lot more than the supposed 'fair-share' of the lime-light. He has talked about getting rid off corruption and also Congress to put it frankly. But now he has taken up the topic of electoral reforms. This topic as good as it may sound does not quite ring a bell with many people. There have been many attempts through out history to make elections better and fairer but most of them have failed and there are many reasons that can be attributed to this failure. But none of them would have managed to influence these reforms so much so that they end up being failures, unless and until they did not have people behind them.

Electoral Reforms basically aim at ensuring that the people get their 'money's worth'. Some of the electoral reforms that Mr. Hazare has been so overwhelmingly talking about are The Right to Recall and The Right to Reject. These rights have been tried out by many nations and in most of the cases, there has been a gross misuse of them. But why does it so happen? The reason is fairly simple to decipher. A democratic country functions on the simple concept of people choosing their representatives and ensuring that they work for them. My statement is ensured by elections which happen both for the purpose of electing representatives and also for throwing them out. History has repeatedly proven my latter statement to be true.

Governments have repeatedly fallen and so have representatives for the simple reason that their policies failed to bring about the result desired by the electorate. And that is how a democracy should and must function. So then what is Mr. Hazare trying to say by bringing up these issues of Right to Recall and Right to Reject. According to him, he would like the electorate to enjoy the option of having a Right to Recall. What is Right to Recall? Right to Recall is a constitutional right that can be given to citizens of an electorate so as to recall their representative and hold a new election to elect a new representative. In short it is basically removing a representative from office before the regular elections and then holding an election to get a new representative.

It is done by holding a signature campaign/election of sorts where in if around 30% (number varies, it is 5% in some countries) of the people sign the campaign to recall the minister than a new election is held and in this new election, the people have the option of either continuing with the present minister or voting for someone new. Thus in short it is a long and tiresome process and not to leave out the expenses part of it. A process like this though is called the epitome of democracy is meant for developed countries with adequate funds to spare and an electorate which is educated in political matters and thus not influenced a lot by ideological leanings, religion, place etc.

Electoral exercises like these should only be seen as a very distant dream in a country like ours for the simple reason that we haven't reduced poverty to below 5%. It is amusing to see people talk about this exercise with such fervor while at the same time it is this group of people who strong arm the government on issues of inflation, which is affecting the poor sections of society terribly, and poverty which according to them is simple an example of the government failing to do what it was meant to do.

Hence with so many problems like inflation and poverty already in front of us, it would only be a Koalemos' dream to have such a huge project implemented in India without even understanding and taking care of various other problems like poverty and a politically illiterate majority. Thus this is nothing but a desire to ape the west (a term that I am personally against) without taking an appropriate look at the real situations that affect the electorate in their daily routine.

The Indian and International politics on Anna Hazare

2011-10-16T00:00:00.000+05:30

NOTE: This article was written on 9th September 2011. Thus some facts might not be correct. Any error is deeply regretted.

News channels do not seem to be tired of airing virtually the same content everyday. Every channel that you switch to, there are discussions by expert panellists on the future of JanLokpal and whether Mr. Hazare should be ending his fast. There seems to be a unanimous response for the latter with almost everybody saying that Mr. Hazare should end his fast. Some people rather critical of Mr. Hazare pass comments on how it is unconstitutional, which it is, while the others urge him to end it as the idea behind the fast has been accomplished.

What was the idea behind the fast and all that followed? The real idea behind the entire event seems to now be lost in the cacophony of theories of government conspiracies against the 'civil society', opinions on how this entire event is now turning into an anarchist display of anti-corruption façade and proposals of alternative bills. The people at the moment seem to be disconnected with the real idea. They have caught onto a definition of the event which is a work of minds angry at the lack of government action on issues of corruption, terrorism and other events.

Individuals are singing vande-mataram slogans at the moment while allowing themselves to be intoxicated by the talk of this being the second freedom struggle, which it certainly isn't. This struggle which started off as a journey by a single individual, Mr. Hazare, against the government's inaction on corruption now seems to have acquired definitions and thoughts which are miles away from any initiative to get the country rid of corruption and other such malpractices generally thought to be performed by public servants.

Yes, this entire event had been sparked by the anger of one person over the ever increasing corruption that India seems itself to be surrounded with. The individual in question, Mr. Hazare, went on a fast and it soon garnered public attention. What I feel is that where public is there, it is imperative that news channels be there for that is the only way that they will be able to establish a connection with the wider society. Thus media crews descended upon the site and soon there were high-TRP shows on every news channel that was on air.

As the coverage increased more and more people flocked to the place and to their television sets. Soon the government found itself in the midst of a storm and they tried their best to fight it. Arrangements and settlements had to be made and thus the government and the civil society came to an understanding and the movement for the time being ceased. A Drafting Committee was formed to look into the matter. However, there was no further concrete action by the government on the issue which resulted in Mr. Hazare once again threatening to go on a fast on the 16th of August this year if the bill wasn't passed till then.

In the meanwhile, Baba Ramdev also went on a hunger strike. He demanded that all the black money that was stashed abroad in tax havens by Indian citizens be brought back. Followers gathered at Ramlila Maidan, the location of his agitation. The crowd grew. Kapil Sibal, a cabinet minister, asked him to stop the agitation. However, Ramdev continued on and even hardened his stance. Till now, tremendous public awareness had been generated on the issue and even the youth started taking to their various forms of protesting be it online or forming groups and marching.

Around midnight the Delhi Police entered the place and resorted to 'lathi' charge to disperse the mob. The government came under fire and the common man took the stage. There were mass-rallies against the government and it was said that the government was being autocratic, a charge which I find ridiculous when we look at the real situation.

The real situation was that, had the police not started the crackdown at Ramlila Maidan than in the morning the place would have been an anarchist's heaven for people gathered and aggressively pitched their anti-government stand. The very basic right to freedom of expression was being manipulated over here to suit the anti-government supporters. There was simply no sense of sensibility in the people that night at Ramlila Maidan to put it frankly.

Mr. Hazare was arrested on 16th August just before he was about to commence his fast. Neither the opposition party and nor his supporters took kindly to this decision and there were wide spread protests across the country and at places, people voluntarily courted arrest. Under heavy pressure the government released him.

The protests continued and so did Mr. Hazare's hunger strike. The government and the civil society tried to negotiate over the text and other provisions of the bill but there were repeated break-downs in talks and later on the parliament passed a resolution agreeing to the demands of Mr. Hazare and decided to reffer the matter to a standing committee.

INDIA

I am disappointed looking at the manner in which the citizens of India have responded to this entire event. As per a survey done by a newspaper, only 2 out of 5 JanLokpal supporters were actually even aware of what the bill proposed. This apathy towards political institutions, be it the government or 'civil society' is saddening. Individuals came out with the national flags. Waving it as if with every thrust of it, they were proving their patriotism which existed in their hearts for the country.

How is a person waving the national flag going to stop corruption in its track is a phenomena that is beyond the understanding of my rather practical mind. Yet the supporters of this media hyped campaign claimed that it was changing the mindset of the people. Sure it was, but how was it really going to manifest itself in the daily day to day happenings in the lives of these individuals?

While having my morning breakfast one day, my grandma raised an interesting point. She said that if everybody (almost the entire country as claimed by Mr. Hazare and Co.) in this campaign was not corrupt then, who was corrupt? It was quite interesting to note this point which I had seemed to have overlooked. Even as I pondered on this topic, I couldn't help but think about the real situation that was unfolding.

Groups of people were surrounding the houses of MPs (Members of Parliament) demanding that this bill be passed, without as much as even a proper discussion. This group consisted of people, half of whom I wouldn't like to see near my house. They were the simple common youth who had been simply brainwashed into believing that Mr. Hazare was the only individual against corruption and that the political and elite class would not be benefited if this bill were to pass. Thus the 'struggle of the common man', as the news channels had suggested, continued with a fierce boost.

According to me, these groups that were forming chains and surrounding the houses of the MPs were resorting to harassment. Had I been a MP then I would have gotten appropriate action taken against all of them because that is not the way of asking something from your elected representative. The individual is a representative and not a servant of the people. If people need to demand something from him, they should go through the appropriate mechanism of doing that. It would involve first taking an appointment with the representative and then addressing the issue at the appointment that you wish to make your representative aware of. At a point of time, there were even calls to surround the house of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister? He is the most important person in the country. Terrorists could have easily taken advantage of such a situation and then assassinated him. What would the consequences have been? They would have been severe. Curfews and complete police control over activities.

Although such a thing did not happen while the government tried to unsuccessfully stop the protesters from surrounding the house of the PM by stopping the metro train services in nearby areas and by cordoning off the area. I think that there is no explanation whatsoever to justify such an activity that was carried on by supporters of Mr. Hazare. Common sense and normal practice says that these picketers should have been arrested on ground of disturbing peace and acting as a threat to the PMs security and should have been dealt with accordingly.

As these events were unfolding it was very much evident that the common man had simply lost his ability of reasoning and the anger over the government poor handling of situations involving corruption and terrorism was flowing down the pot and was acting as a boost to the already racing adrenalin. These situations arise very often in democracies and need to be dealt with in a manner that is neither harsh nor soft but sets a tone for the proceedings.

Thus even though Mr. Hazare like a true gentleman said that all the proceedings should happen in a non-violent manner, it is difficult to ensure that people's excitement won't get the better of them and that they won't turn violent. It needs to be noted that very many of these non-violent protests end up becoming violent when a single individual loses his control and attempts to act as the legal guardian of the law through ways that are not legal and a clear violation of the provisions of the constitution.

Hence, the lesson that the political class and the people should get from this entire event should be that of being legal in whatever they do. Of course many from the political class can find loopholes in the current slightly outdated legal structure but what they must keep in mind is that though they may get away for the time being without being caught but a time may come when they may find themselves in a corner and the anger of the people flowing towards them like molten lava. Thus, the political class must take the responsibility of acting in a manner that is clean and fair towards the country. There should be zero tolerance for unfair advantage which the politicians use to create a better lifestyle for themselves.

While at the same time, the people should also not be allowed to get away with any and every practice that they may follow. What they should do should be within the legal framework of the constitution and the UN Charter on Human Rights and should not be a manipulation of the duo. The people are the most important element of the state and thus it is essential that they follow the correct path for if they as much as even get slightly distracted from the correct path then there will be chaos, pandemonium and anarchy. The people cannot take everything into their hands. They need to utilise the correct provisions, procedures and mechanisms as provided to them by the legal bodies for the overall good.

PAKISTAN

Pakistan is an example of the path that one country should not head for. However, it is not in the hands of individuals to stop or change the direction of the route that they have taken. They can only manipulate it to either suit themselves (example Mr. Gaddafi's earlier practice used for suppressing rebellions, now rather unsuccessful) or the country. Pakistan has been in a state of chaos for a long time now. Every other day individuals opposed to the stringent laws that are established by a certain religion are killed, journalists investigating into the frauds of the government suffer the same fate and the people there are scared to openly criticize the government or the extremists. It's basically a no man's land.

However, there is no authority that can take over and try to control the situation and ease the stress. Here is where the Indian connection comes in. The country though has a human rights body but it is more or less like a body set up to ensure that the provisions of the constitution are maintained. Though it has no authority over the happening of the country and due to the extremist state of affairs that is prevalent in the country, there is a lot of fear.

Here, now a powerful body, something like what Mr. Hazare is proposing can be brought in. But what needs to be taken care of is that this body should be primarily for the Human Rights of the citizens as an all powerful body like the JanLokpal (as proposed by Mr. Hazare) can become autocratic in its functioning. Thus over here only the police force should be under this department and there should be no political interference in the matters it deals with. However to ensure that it does not become autocratic in nature, provisions, mechanisms and many loopholes would need to be worked on.

Such a body can easily function in matters related to Human Rights in Pakistan and once the people are not afraid then it is the government that would be afraid. In India due to the vast presence of Human Rights activists, the governments are scared to take steps which may be deemed as anti-human rights and try to avoid them as much as they can. But for a country like India an all powerful body to deal with matters related specifically to corruption would be like inviting a lion for a feast. The lion may enjoy the feast and become your best friend or you may become its feast with the chances of the latter being higher.

CHINA

China can be best described as a country that is still waiting for a spark. Thus it is no surprise that the party is trying to do everything that it can to improve its image that has taken a beating after the train accident which took place recently. Though however much the party tries to come across as a non-corrupt set up whose sole purpose is the betterment of human life in China. It is exactly the opposite that most people believe.

People in China have since long identified the party as corrupt at the grass root level. Senior leader in the party are thought off as non-corrupt and honest individuals but yet it is the grass root politics everywhere which influences the people. No revolution takes place because the country as a whole is doing bad but because every region as a whole is doing bad and a similar situation though however much exaggerated it may be by the Chinese critics is slowly but steadily developing in China.

People have started questioning the motives behind the party's continuous attempts to remain in power. Though the party may try to come across as working for the people but the question is that how long will the people be contend with this face that the party is showing. Soon there will be protests. Its a matter of time that some incident takes place and the entire country erupts. In this modern age of the internet, it is difficult to segregate a group of people by simply cutting off the internet connect and this is fairly evident from the situation that we can see in Libya.

However, what can the party do to improve its image? One of the suggestions that people give is set up an anti-corruption body with ultimate power but every where it is the same issue that ensures that talks fail. That issue is of the amount of power that can be allotted to this body. No government in its right mind would be favorable to giving unlimited power to such a body for the simple reason that the power of the government might become weak in front of it.

While at the same time, it is said that China has been funding these events that have been happening in India. However, there has been no proof of this theory yet it is a theory that dominates the discussions of the conspiracy theorists. If it were to be true, then though there won't be any major effects on the relationship that the two countries, India and China share but this will certainly act as a thorn.

India may not directly take any action against the Chinese for this reason but behind the doors a lot of action may happen such as India providing excess funding to groups hell bent on creating troubles for the party in China. However this is a very remote possibility since any such action by the Indians would have direct repercussions due to China's growing assertiveness.

Thus the Indians may just stop supporting China all the time on issues in the international sphere and may take positions at times which may not please the Chinese. Hence all in all this is a very complicated issue which for all one knows may not at all result in anything and might just end up being ignored by the Indian Government which is ever ready to promote peace and stability in the region.

USA

USA is considered to be the most successful democracies of all time and it is true. And hence it is only justifiable that the US would do things to help the democratic setup in other countries and we can see that it is doing work in Afghanistan and ensuring that the new Afghan set up continues to get the much needed oxygen. However there have been allegations by some members of the Indian National Congress (party in power) that the USA was indirectly funding the Anna Hazare movement.

So serious were the implications of this statement that the US came out with an official statement that it in no way was supporting Mr. Hazare. It is true that at the moment, the US cannot afford to have its ties with India strained, especially at a time when most of the middle-east takes an unfavorable view of the US, India is the only friend that the US has who has the ability to influence policy-makers in the middle-east.

Apart from that, Indian co-operation is something that India would soon need desperately in the UN and other International bodies as China starts to flex its muscle and counter the US and at the time being, India is the only counter balance that USA has to the mighty dragon. However, there is a major conflict of interests in this regard.

India and China are seen as the face of the developing world and that is a fact. In every major convention or event, the developing countries look up to these two giants for support so that their demands are looked at and seriously considered instead of being dropped and lost in the bureaucracy. And thus it is quite essential from point of the developing world that India and China continue to show the same co-operation that they had shown in Copenhagen.

While from the US point of view, it is essential that the US try to get India to tilt even if by just a few degrees to its side if it is to maintain its position in Asia and the Pacific.

Thus all in all, so great was the Anna Hazare episode that it promoted almost all the countries which share a special relation with India to respond or to act in a particular manner. Only time will tell how the world economy and the politics take shape as more and more countries slip into the euphoria of the Jasmine Revolution and demand greater freedoms.

The Era of Poker Diplomacy

2011-10-10T15:12:00.000+05:30

The world political scenario can at any given point of time be viewed as a game of poker – with a difference. The participants (countries) are playing not for money, but the ability to influence decisions at a regional as well as global level. For long the players have been recurrently changing with each player being replaced by a new one. Thus there is a constant continuity in this whole cycle along with greater participation by different countries which prevents an unrivalled uni-polar system from being established.

Since the Soviet Union’s fall, world diplomacy has been entirely dominated by the Western Hemisphere. As true as this fact may be, an entirely different situation is unfolding right before us. With the US Budget Deficit crisis continuing, it’s expected that Uncle Sam might replace its expensive military programs with a new policy which excludes active US involvement during a crisis.
For starters, US has been giving pro-active assistance to rebel groups in enemy states like Iran. Modern weaponry is being supplied to nations like Saudi Arabia in the middle-east as advance policing fee for the region when USA exits from Iraq. Critics of this theory highlight the increased US involvement in Pakistan as a counter theory but the fact remains that this involvement of the US is not at a proactive level. This role that the US is trying to fit itself into is that of an observer state. To maintain its domination while staying an observer state, it must forge excellent relations with the countries that counter-balance its enemies - and one of the biggest threats at the moment for Uncle Sam is the growing clout of the People’s Republic.

What constitutes the pot?

Accumulating absolute power is often the reason for these ‘international’ poker games. Migration, an international economy that is in danger zone and acquisition of arms by both legal and illegal entities are crises faced by modern nation states. Enhanced awareness of human rights and improvements in the regional as well as the global economy, political and security scenarios are the only remedy to this problem. These collectively determine the path that a country may take for the acquisition of resources to achieve its ends.

China can be quoted as an example of a state that has adopted an active-aggressive approach in order to address its ends. This hypothesis is based on past positions adopted by the Chinese government on various issues like Chinese claims of ‘indisputable sovereignty’ over the South China Sea, treatment of citizens of Jammu and Kashmir and incursions by Chinese troops beyond its borders. All these actions have directed negative attention on China and disturbed policy-makers in distant countries. Of the various solutions devised, none seems as effective as portrayal of India as a counter balance.

In order to counter the Dragon, the Indian Elephant is being portrayed as the future global power. This has led to certain questions that have certainly puzzled the western policy makers and have even started to baffle them (read the Copenhagen scenario). The question that is being repeatedly asked is: Is the West trying to push its luck a bit too far by pitching India against China?

Playing a bluff a little too often?

“The most likely scenario is that of a competitive relationship, unbuffered by extensive economic ties, but without a significant possibility of armed conflict.” (Frankel and Harding, 2004)

Despite being pitched against each other repeatedly, the two Eastern giants have also come together to act as a counter balance against the US. This counter balancing act practiced by India and China is based mainly on issues of development and environment with respect to the developed and developing country differences. Thus as the western hemisphere retreats, the two Asian giants have started following their respective policies in order to generate a clout for themselves.

China has followed a policy of what is known as ‘flexing their might’ which involves showing off the military strength of the country and thereby subduing the opponents. They are doing it in a manner which has caused some brows to sweat in Washington DC, New Delhi and even Tokyo. The rapid Chinese military build up along the borders is seen as an act of aggression. Some neighbours try to counter it, as in India’s case by bolstering the military capabilities while countries like Japan approach Washington for support where they are given the same reassurances of assistance in case of a crisis.

However, “South Asian states are concerned about the fallout of a potential conflict between the Unites States and China if Beijing becomes more assertive or Washington decides to adopt a more aggressive containment policy towards Beijing.” (Cooney and Sato, 2009) The Dragon perceives its aggression only as a precaution against encirclement by the US and its allies. Almost all countries neighbouring China have some form of close ties with NATO (a major US ally). Be it Philippines, Thailand, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, Australia or India, all share a close relationship with the US with some having a kind of a treaty with the US guaranteeing US assistance during crisis.

Thus it can be said that the Chinese fear of America is not an irrational thought made up by a government which is trying to divert attention from its internal problems. At the same time, the Indian fear is that of a total Chinese controlled South Asia which would be the biggest challenge to achieving a status at par with the US in the future; and India also has its fair share of theories of how the Chinese are expanding their support base.

The present Look East policy of the Indian government seems to lack that excitement which had originally resulted in success. For example, there has been little publicity regarding the work that India is doing in the countries which are a part of the Look East policy. It was only after the Chinese started advancing into Myanmar that the Indian government opened its eyes and stepped up its efforts to reach to the people of Myanmar. However, there’s been very little progress after that. Thus India has been taking a less pro-active stand on how it wants to go about making inroads into other countries except the West and Russia.

Nations close to both India and China have naturally been wary of their ambitions. However, this is more so the case with China as many countries fear the Chinese expansion dream i.e. the Greater China dream and this is where the US comes in. It has given these countries many guarantees regarding their safety.

However, how long will these assurances last?

Which player will call a fold?

As the pot keeps on getting bigger and bigger, the chance of kicking off a row also gets bigger. The important question, however, is: who will be the first to call a fold. A fold in this game has tremendous effects which affect both the political and economic functions of the country. For instance, the demise of the Soviet Union saw many socialist or communist economies shifting to the capitalist fold. Hence, if any shift is to take place, the consequences will be bigger than what they were when the Soviet Era came to an end.

The diplomatic power of a country is vastly affected by the monetary condition of the country. For starters, an increasing budget deficit means that other countries are a little wary of buying its currency bonds which dries up a source of finance to manage unsustainable expense. This results in spending cuts across the board in order to reduce this deficit and regain the confidence of those other countries. Certain departments like Defence are the first to be hit by budget and spending cuts which directly impacts the military might and thereby the arm-twisting strength. Inevitable budget cuts to other areas like Development Aid also reduce the clout of the country as nations shift their allegiance to more generous nations.

The West has been suffering from a self-created economic crisis. The current double-dip recession, for instance, can be attributed to the Bill Clinton Administration. Emerging countries like India and China don’t face such problems. A large amount of sustainable fund will always be easily available to them. Creation of efficient and sustainable infrastructure is the problem they face. Despite credible advances in infrastructure, they still lack sustainability and the problems like the recent China super-fast train crash only add worry.

Another aspect that adds shine to a country at the international level is the respect for human rights shown by the country and the amount of freedom that its citizens have been given. India triumphs over China in this regard, having been recognised by the International Community as a true Democracy. This gives India its fair share of positive light on the International Stage along with the constant pressures of upholding the functioning of democratic institutions in a nation which is becoming home to active participation of citizens in various matters of policy, be it economic or political in nature.

Hence if we were to look at this game of poker in a holistic manner, we can say that the developed countries can still take calls on diplomatic matters only if their internal politics allows them to take significant decisions. At the same time, India and China perform better than their counterparts despite their fair share of problems, provided both are on the same side of the table.

The conclusion of the events down at South China Sea might help us in coming up with an answer to the question India or China but until then, I would as an investor like to invest in both of them equally.

To use Wall Street lingo, one should not expect any gains or losses, but in the long run, as the players revaluate their strategies and come up with the perfect consumer pitch, the sight of the bull and the bear will become common. Till then, let’s allow the speculators to earn their bread.

Thus for the time-being as players work on their strategy and the speculators operate the market, the game stretches on to infinity.

Bibliography

Frankel, F.R and Harding, H, (2004), “The India-China relationship: what the United States needs to know”, Columbia University Press.
Cooney, J.K and Sato, Y, (2009), “The rise of China and international security: America and Asia respond”, Routledge

Into the Theory of THE CIVIL SOCIETY

2011-08-20T11:30:00.000+05:30

There has been a debate raging on the Lokpal issue for few months now and every time that the JanLokpal is questioned, its supporters start talking about what the civil society is doing against corruption and question the people who have taken a position against theirs. This statement of civil society et al has continued to amaze me for years. Who does the civil society comprise of? Who is allowed in it? What's the definition of it? Are there societies that are uncivil? If there exist such societies, then how are they surviving when their very existence is frowned upon by the remainder of the people? These are the many questions that have always found an adobe in my mind and however much I try to do, I am unable to shoo them away or to find an answer to them.

Thus quite recently, when I questioned a tweet that asked, what the civil society should do now that the government had sent the Lokpal that it had formulated to the Parliament, I was taken back into that part of my brain which had held this question for years and continues to hold. How is one to come up with an exact definition of the civil society? A fellow twitter user tried to answer that question of mine by tweeting to me that 'Everybody who works for public interest objectives, not national, not profit, academic, etc' forms that civil society. I was quite amazed by this answer. For many new questions had arisen in my mind by just looking at that one statement for under a minute and the questions were some that I had never thought needed answers.

One question was, Isn't public interest also a part of national interest? Another question that surprised me was that then are all the educated businessmen who work for profits and in turn provide employment to people and manufacture goods and services which are provided to millions at affordable rates, generally, part of the uncivil society? And what about the politicians who despite having vested interests at times work for the national well-being? Do they get an entry into this narrow definition of civil society? And what about the people who lack even a very basic education? Are they allowed to be included in this sphere of Civil Society that we have created for ourselves?

What about the people in countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and others which have been marked as the world terror hubs? Will they count as being civil? I don't know for the definition that my friend gave is extremely inadequate to smuggle these people into the boundaries of civil society. What about Anders Breivik who despite being a product of an advanced and developed society went on to kill over a hundred people in cold blood? Will he find a place into civil society? When questioned about this, people tend to label those engaging in activities like Terrorism or killing others as uncivil and criminal. My question to them is, what about the CIA, RAW and other such agencies that at times have to kill people for the greater good? Will one label them as agencies of the Civil Society? Wouldn't that be hypocrisy?

These questions are difficult to answer but some people define Civil Society as any society that follows a set of rules and regulations. A few questions that I would like to ask are, who makes these laws? And since there are different societies practising their own norms, rules and regulations as such, would one classify a society say for example, a society that is involved in stoning people for say adultery, would one classify them as uncivil? Who gives people the right to make this distinction between societies. Every society has its own culture which allows different practices to be followed. Thus it is not up to an individual to label societies as civil or uncivil.

And even as we talk about culture, I can't help but mention the culture of cannibalism which as gruesome and as cruel as it may be, it is still practised in some remote regions of the world and quite recently a few serial killers were also caught who practised it. Thus we may label these individuals as insane but the groups who practised it have been practising it for generations because that is what their culture is like. Hence would it be right of us to categorise them into a small category?

I personally am of the belief that there are only societies which cannot be further classified into smaller groups for the definition of these smaller groups would need to be absolutely accurate without any room for error for the subject political science of which this is a theory is not an exact science and thus any classification which is exact in nature would oppose the very basic theory of why political science is not regarded as an exact science.

The societies in turn may vary due to the various rules and regulations followed in each of them. However there is a common link in all of them, for the people in them and not societies themselves can be divided on the basis of different values, fields and areas like professions, religion, level of development etc. Thus these societies have a certain limit beyond which dividing them would only alter the definition of these various concepts.

Another noteworthy thing while the topic of civil society is being discussed is that though these groups which the people are divided into may be many but they are all inter-linked and at times even overlapping for example a working parent would not only be classified into a category which denotes his/her profession but also in a category which denotes parenthood. Furthermore, the category of parenthood can be further classified into that of mother/father, single parent and even the category of single parent can be further divided into single parent (mothers)/ single parent (fathers). Hence, as stated before, these categories are not absolute in nature and can be divided into as many as possible but within a definition that has some legal acceptance behind it. For example the definition of civil society is not clear like many other concepts in political science but the one issue that differentiates the concept of civil society from all the other concepts is the grey area. This grey area is very big and thus the legality of the definition comes into question. Thus it is no surprise that many political thinkers have refused to accept the concept of civil society.

Thus, the various definitions that are given to each concept in political science needs to have some level of similarity in them and must also discuss a topic that is of common interest. For no concept in political science has only one definition. And if there exists a definition which is absolute in nature then it challenges one of the very basic rules of political science i.e that political science is not an exact science. Hence as for me, I refuse to accept and recognise the concept of civil society due to its vagueness and big pockets of grey areas.

Violence Is Not Preached In Religion

2011-07-25T15:15:00.002+05:30

Few days ago a politician wrote an article trying to analyse and finding a solution for Islamic Terrorism and it was published by a reputed newspaper which now I feel has lost that reputation at least in my eyes for the simple reason that even though people get angry at various situations and don't know what to do except just blame others but they engage in self-control and self-censorship for the fear that what they do might have repercussions in the future, for their country, for their kids or for people in general and that is what is humane. However neither this 'reputed' newspaper and nor this politician seem to be on the same page of the dictionary.

It’s been happening ever since the twin tower attacks. Since then people have been linking a particular religion as a synonym of terrorism. This way of thinking is not at all rational. Recently Norway had its share of terrorism when a fundamentalist Christian bombed a building and massacred people with his gun in cold blood. I would like to know what this esteemed politician would want to say to that or what would he say when he is asked about the nuns in Odisha who were raped by people who supported their 'saffron' leaders. What would he say about those Sikhs who were killed by the mob just after Indira Gandhi was assassinated? There are no limits to the number of examples that I can give of barbarism that has been committed by people of nearly all religions.

Even Ashoka the king attacked and killed people but then he learnt of his folly. He looked in the eyes of the mothers whose sons he had killed, he looked at small children who played unaware that their father was being taken for cremation and how would a wife feel when she is to know that the man she loved for years has been killed in this fight for land. These question are relevant even today, it is only the reason behind this new 'war' that has changed everything else remains the same. Even now kids would be made orphaned; even now parents would just look on as the child who played on their laps is laid to rest before them. Earlier people fought over land and today they fight over god.

It is strange how people think that only their religion is right and that it their birth right to ensure that others bow down to their way of thinking and follow their religion. Not many thankfully think like that. However there are elements whose ultimate objective is to simply kill of the opposition or ensure that they convert to their form of thinking. That is exactly what that article of this politician hinted at.

The sad part of this form of democracy in India is that, even thought people may fight for their rights and talk about more freedom and protest if the state as much as tries to clamp down on even a single right of theirs, the people in India are simply not ready for this form of multi-party democracy. And they won't be until and unless they stop voting on the basis of religion, caste, gender, region etc. This has to stop. How is a country to progress if the people themselves are divided on the basis of these small thing which at the end of the day won't even play a minor role in shaping my future?

Everybody talks of progress and growth but when will the people themselves grow up and look at each other as humans and not as individuals from a different religion. Humans are supposed to evolve into intelligent life-forms. They are meant to make miracles happen. And miracles do not happen unless one does not think beyond himself/herself. They only happen when an entire community is to be benefited; for even if there is a god, he won't want only one of his kids to have his wish full-filled. He would want the wishes of the entire community's be full-filled. That child who was about to die of a disease survive thanks to a transplant. As the sun is about to set on his life when he is in his seventies, that same kid in him would ignite and he would look around him and ask, how has my existence helped those around me? And as he says this his eyes will first go to the picture of a dog whom he saved from coming under a car. He would look at his family and see that they are crying and he would know that in his life, he has done thing, good thing, for the grave of a bad man does not get any visitors, as Mr. Scrooge had dreamed.

Thus similarly it is true that whatever religion you may follow you want to end up in heaven. And the gates to heaven do not open for people who have done bad things in their life. A mother in a movie explains to her son when the son unknowingly talks about killing people of another religion, she says "There are two kinds of people in this world. One who do bad things and the other who do good things. It is up to you who you want to be." This line is absolutely true in life. I for one can never ever even think of killing another human let alone do it for ethnic cleansing. Its the way I have been brought up. My mother used to tell me the same thing that they said in the movie. I have decided who I want to be life. Now it is your chance to decide.

The Time After The Blast

2011-07-17T00:00:00.091+05:30

A couple of days ago, a tragedy struck us. Three blasts rocked Mumbai and with it also the country. Nothing could be done about it. News channels aired their favourite 'Are you safe?' programs while papers came up with ridiculous headlines which instead of showing sympathy and support to the victims commercialised their agony. Ministers claimed that it wasn't a failure of intelligence, some questioned that claim while the others simple said that during their rule the number of such incidences were limited and advocated a zero tolerance policy for Terrorism. It didn't bother me what people had to say about the incident. What bothered me was what they did about it and how they helped the people in need.

I am very happy to say that I wasn't disappointed as the human spirit awoke as the news about the blast spread and people offered their help to the stranded. Social networking sites were full of offers to people to give them a ride home, offering a place to stay and people even from the overseas tweeted to the stranded telling them that they would call the folks of the stranded due to the mobile network being down and all. Nothing more could have been done to show how united the people were. The terrorists only succeeded in revoking those sentiments of unity and sympathy which were not seen on the faces of news anchors as they went into commercial break after having had a chat with their correspondents on the death toll.

The topic #mumbaiblasts became a worldwide trending topic on Twitter for a couple of hours while tags such as #offer2help came up as people tagged their offers of help and sent around a message to the masses. Some of the stranded responded to the tweets and they were taken care of. People took out their cars and drove up long distances only to help a person stranded at a temple reach home. This simple act of kindness gave me an absolutely strange feeling as I looked on in delight as offers to help flowed.

The common Indian politics started soon after with many a people blaming certain communities for the tragedy that struck us all. This one thing infuriated me the most and I lashed out at those who were trying to incite communal hatred. Of course they had their own reasons which they childishly tried to prove right in front of us as me and a couple of my friends questioned the very logic behind each of them and proved them wrong. Many a friends of mine on Twitter asked me to not respond to them but then I couldn't help it and gave the irritants a piece of my mind. However trolling continued.

An Indian Youngster

The Pak-China and USA Algorithm

Why India must work on its Foreign Policy

Democratizing the Nuclear Neighbour

Why India needs to intervene

Walking the Pakistani Tightrope

Right to Recall: Step towards better governance or disorder?

The Indian and International politics on Anna Hazare

The Era of Poker Diplomacy

Into the Theory of THE CIVIL SOCIETY

Violence Is Not Preached In Religion

The Time After The Blast

Taxing Religious Institutions in India

Master of Disguises

The Concept of Clean Politics

Justifying the crackdown at Ramlila Ground

Education...Nah! Tuitions...Yeah!

Psychology of Views and Decisions

Earth in 2011: Humans and Nature

A New Republic For India

Indian Political System

The US-Pakistan Relationship: Friend or Foe?

Teach What is Relevant

The Cyber Wars

Asian Union- A Dream

The Complicated Indo-Sino Relationship Part III