India Watch

India should get a better deal

2008-09-04T08:53:00.000+05:30

The failure to get the nod from the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) in Vienna for the Indo-US nuclear agreement has not made India and the US governments worried that this “historic deal” will not go through. Too much has been at stake to see this deal at its present situation and there is still an opportunity to get the needed approval.

In India, the pull out by the Left parties from the United Progressive Alliance last July has threatened the survival of the Congress-led government in New Delhi. Arguing that the nuclear deal with the US is bad for India, it shook the four year long alliance. However, with the leadership quality shown by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and full support from his Congress party and its allies, the UPA government survived the no confidence motion.

PM Singh succeeded in convincing his fellow legislators that the deal is good and very important for India’s future. He argued that India’s insatiable needs for clean energy to support its ever growing economic development can be fulfilled through this deal. Furthermore, Indian nuclear technology, the peaceful nuclear technology, will become more advanced with the possibility of transfer of knowledge and technology.

The UPA won the majority of support to continue its term in office until next summer.

In the US, the Bush administration has been working relentlessly to convince the Congress that the nuclear deal with India is good for both sides. Apart from inching in on a strategic objective of balancing power equation in Asia, the Bush administration believes that the deal will bring billions of fortunes for America’s companies. With the superior nuclear technology at hand, the US will be able to benefit more than it can expect. Besides, this deal will become a legacy for President Bush once he leaves the office later this year.

The journey for this deal has, however, not finished yet. It needs the stamps and endorsement from the IAEA and the NSG before any of those above benefits could be achieved.

In the first week of August 2008, the IAEA gave its endorsement to India’s safeguards pact. It was a relief for both parties since one hurdle has been passed successfully. But the last and final hurdle still needs to be dealt with: the NSG.

The NSG consists of 45 countries which has great concern with reducing nuclear proliferation by controlling the export and re-transfer of materials that may be applicable to nuclear weapon development and by improving safeguards and protection on existing materials. Thus having studied the Indo-US nuclear deal document submitted by India and the US, the NSG met last month and decided to reject it.

They insisted on the maintenance of the status quo.

The concerns by the NSG are on issues related to the existing nuclear testing moratorium, no export of enrichment and reprocessing (ENR) technology, and conforming to nonproliferation agreements like the IAEA Additional Protocol and Missile Technology Control Regime.

However, the NSG still gave the deal a lifeline. They asked the two governments to revise the document and on 4 – 5 September 2008 they will re-convene and discuss the revised format of the Indo-US nuclear deal document.

India’s current status as a non-signatory to the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is another stumbling block for this agreement to get formal approval from the NSG. India, along with Pakistan, North Korea and Israel, are nuclear capable countries that do not sign the NPT. Exemption to India would deteriorate the status of the NPT.

It is up to the Indo-US team to come up with a better format of the document which shall satisfy the NSG.

In my opinion, even though critics of this deal argue that the deal is bad for the future of NPT and the balance of power in the international system, the deal should go through and the NSG should have no objection to this deal.

NPT is discriminatory and India’s history in dealing with nuclear technology, its strict adherence to the principle of no first use for its nuclear arsenal, its vibrant democracy in which the military is under the firm control of the civilian government and its insatiable need for clean energy to support its growing economy should make enough reasons for India to deserve a better deal.

Rejection to the deal is a perpetuation of discriminatory approach to nuclear technology and the rejection to establishment of equality in the international system.

The Meeting of Two Asian Giants: Part II

2008-01-17T17:31:00.000+05:30

Earlier this week, the leaders of two Asian giants met in Beijing to further boost their growing bilateral tie. Indian PM Manmohan Singh was on a three day official visit to China, 13 – 15 January 2008. This was the first visit by an Indian PM after five years and the fifth in the history of India – China relations. The last visit by an Indian PM to China was by PM Atal Behari Vajpayee in June 2003. PM Singh’s visit to China signified the new chapter of Indo-China relationship.

Significant improvements have been achieved by the two sides since the signing of a wide range of strategy to improve their bilateral ties in commercial, political and strategic areas in New Delhi in 2006. But there are also points of concern related to the Indo – China bilateral tie.

According to PM Singh, the bilateral trade with China has doubled in the last two years. The trade target of $20 billion set by 2008 was reached two years ahead of schedule (it has touched $38.6 billion in 2007) and the revised target of $40 billion by 2010 was likely to be achieved two years in advance. Furthermore, the two leaders agreed to mandate their commerce ministers to explore the possibility of commencing negotiations on a "high quality" Regional Trading Arrangement.

On political and strategic fronts, significant improvements have also been achieved in the last two years. Taking forward their 2006 accord, the two countries pledged to promote bilateral cooperation in civil nuclear energy, consistent with their respective international commitments. The Chinese also agreed to consider a visit to India by the head of their atomic energy agency. At the same time, China supported India’s aspirations to play a role in the UN, including in the UN Security Council.

On border issue, the two sides agreed to building a "boundary of peace and friendship" on the basis of the April 2005 agreement on political parameters and guiding principles to approach the dispute. The special representatives (dealing with the border issue) shall complete at an early date the task of arriving at an agreed framework of settlement on the basis of that agreement.

On the issue of climate change, they agreed to work closely to tackle global warming and emphasized the importance of tackling the issue as per the UN convention and Kyoto protocol, in particular the principle of common, but differentiated responsibilities.

Some points of concern, however, need to be elaborated here. Even though the two sides agreed to building a boundary of peace and friendship on the basis of April 2005 agreement, but it will not guarantee that the problem will soon be solved, especially in the current term of the Congress-led UPA government. The Special Representative-level talks agreed in 2006, which have gone through 11 rounds, made very slow progress.

But what has been clear from the time of Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi’s breakthrough visit to China in December 1988 is that a boundary settlement can come only through give and take, by whatever name called. ‘Giving’ large areas of territory held, or agreeing to significant transfers of population across the line of actual control (LAC), will not be politically feasible in either country. Thus, considering the seeming intractability of this dispute, the creative breakthrough was the political accord reached during the 1988 visit on the impermissibility of using force to alter the status quo along the LAC. This accord was subsequently formalised and firmed up and, in the words of the 2006 Joint Declaration, “pending resolution of the boundary question, both sides shall maintain peace and tranquillity in the border areas in accordance with the agreements of 1993, 1996 and 2003.”

Secondly, even though the Chinese has agreed to support India’s thirst of energy sources and considered a visit to India by the head of their atomic energy agency, but this does not guarantee that the Indo – US nuclear deal will go through smoothly, especially on the issue of importing nuclear materials from the NSG.

Finally, China’s statement that India has a role to play in the reformed United Nations, including the Security Council, cannot be seen as support for India’s claim to a permanent seat in the UNSC. But it is clear that both sides want to maximise bilateral relations.

Thus, it can be concluded that this part two meeting of two Asian giants had shown tremendous improvement, especially on the economic front while at the same time, some concern and patient should be on India’s mind if it wants to pursue its ambition in international arena and in atomic energy sector. Similarly, a more realistic and practical approach shoud be taken by India in order to solve its boundary issue with China, a delicate job for PM Singh and the Indian government.

Beyond Defense Cooperation

2007-06-20T13:13:00.000+05:30

Early this week, Indian Foreign Minister, Pranab Mukherjee, was on a four-day Southeast Asian tour. The destinations were Indonesia and Singapore with the enhancement of defense, economic and trade cooperation on his agenda.

In Indonesia, he co-chaired the third Indonesia-India Joint Commission (JCM) meeting along with his Indonesian counterpart Hassan Wirayuda. It was a routine meeting between the two countries’ officials to review the entire gamut of relations and make plans to enhance them. Usually, the outcome of such a meeting is rarely visible on the field. But this time, it is different.

On defense cooperation, the recent ratification of defense cooperation agreement by the Indonesian parliament has paved the way for future strategic cooperation between the two countries. The first ever meeting of a Joint Committee for India – Indonesia Defense Cooperation in Jakarta on 12 – 14 June 2007 was one of the results from this agreement. Joint training of defense personnel and the stepping up of maritime security of the vital and strategic Straits of Malacca are also on the table. Moreover, the two countries agreed to jointly produce military equipments in the future.

In trade, the two countries agreed to maximize their efforts to erase any barriers that might hamper their bilateral trade. With India’s steady economic growth of 8 to 8.5 percent per year and an improving Indonesian economy, the two countries agreed to double their bilateral trade to $10 billion by 2010 from the current level of 4.7 billion. This is not a difficult to achieve given growing interest of business community in each other's country.

The Indian government also offered to rebuild the historic Hindu Prambanan Temple damaged by Yogyakarta earthquake last year. The two countries also agreed to enhance tourism industry cooperation. They agreed to ease visa regulation for Indian and Indonesian nationals. The Indonesian government has even taken a step ahead by including Indian passport holders in the list of visa on arrival policy last year.

Besides defense and trade, the meeting also discussed the possibility of cementing cooperation on Special Economic Zone, development of alternative energy, mutual legal assistance on crimes and extradition treaty, biotechnology and women empowerment programs.

Discussions on IT, health, pharmaceuticals, nuclear technology, and the future of India – Indonesia space cooperation, especially after the establishment of Second Telemetry Tracking and Command Center in Biak and the launch of LAPAN TUBSAT Micro satellite using India’s rocket launcher last January 2007 were also held during Pranab’s visit to Jakarta.

A Memorandum of Understanding on the establishment of a Vocational Training Center in Aceh, specializing on construction, was also signed in this visit.

For India, Indonesia is a key strategic partner of India in the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). By its sheer size as the biggest country in the region Indonesia is a magnet for investment. Investors from the US, Europe, China, East Asian countries like Japan and South Korea are competing to invest in Indonesia. And for that reason, India as an emerging global power does not want to be left behind. With the new spirit of Look-East Policy, India is engaging its eastern neighbors, the Southeast Asian region, more seriously.

Similarly, the “New Strategic India – Indonesia Partnership” agreement signed by President Yudhoyono and PM Manmohan Singh in New Delhi two years ago is finally yielding some fruits. Tata, Bajaj, TVs, Mittal Steel, Essar Hutchinson are now coming to Indonesia while Indonesian pilots are flying Indian planes in India’s airspace. Moreover, with India’s booming information technology industry, pharmaceuticals, outsourcing and manufacturing sectors, strong services as well as a spending-hungry middle class, India should emerge as an attractive place for Indonesian businesses to make money.

To conclude, Indonesia is the heavyweight in the Southeast Asian region and is now coming out of its internal crisis. India is an emerging global power in Asia with the potential of balancing the Chinese domination in the region. Thus it is very sensible and useful for both countries to strengthen strategic, political and economic ties. Defense is not the only important cooperation that needs to be enhanced. A better, complete, multi-faceted bilateral relationship between India and Indonesia should be the main target of the two governments.

Learning from India’s experience

2007-04-17T14:04:00.000+05:30

Earlier this month, a delegation of Indonesian defense officials was touring Pakistan and China to conclude comprehensive defense cooperation with the two countries. This is the first kind of defense cooperation signed by Indonesia with foreign countries that would allow Indonesia to procure military hardware and materials as well as exchange of defense knowledge and technology. This deal would help Indonesian government in improving its defense system.

In line with this development, Indonesia’s House of Representatives (DPR) has finally agreed to ratify the Memorandum of Understanding in Defense Cooperation between India and Indonesia signed in New Delhi, on 11 January 2001. Contrary to the five-years time taken by the DPR to ratify this important MoU, the Indian government has ratified the MoU immediately after its signing by the then Indonesian President Abdurrahman Wahid and India’s PM AB Vajpayee.

Even though Chinese defense technology and industry is far superior than the Indian’s, but considering the progress achieved by India in the field of defense system over the years, it is such a strange phenomenon that Indonesia took the whole of five-years to finally decide that the MoU is worth of being converted into a working defense agreement. India’s ability to access Russian, European, Israeli and now US technologies, is something that needs some consideration.

At the same time, it is also important to note here that besides the immense progress achieved by India in the field of defense over the years India has also become an important market and partner for development ever since it opened its market in the late 1990s. Its thriving economy and democracy became a success story that development and democracy can go hand in hand.

India's founding fathers have done a great job in ensuring India's capability to stand on its own through the adoption of the concept of swadeshi (self-fulfillment). From education to economy, defense to development, India has cemented this spirit successfully in the minds of its people.

In developing its defense technology and military hardware, India adopted the concept of independence. The Indian Defense Research and Development Organization (DRDO) and Defense Public Sector Units (PSUs) become the backbone in this process. Through close partnership with foreign countries such as the former Soviet Union (now with Russia), India succeeded in transforming itself from a buyer into a builder and developer of defense technology and military hardware. The self-reliance process, through cultivating India's own resources over the years, proved to be very effective in this transformation.

The successful launching of an indigenously built short-range air-to-air Astra missile early this month and the latest Agni series, Agni-III a nuclear-capable ballistic missile with a range of 4,000 kilometers, last Thursday proved the improving capability of Indian defense system. India's Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) under an Integrated Guided Missile Development Programme launched in 1983 has successfully developed the technology.

India's success story in developing a self-reliance system has finally impressed Indonesian leadership to take realistic actions. The ratification of the MOU on limited defense cooperation has opened an opportunity for Indonesia to expand its defense cooperation. It has become a starting point to rebuild Indonesia's defense technology and military hardware.

Having concluded the defense agreement with Pakistan and China that would allow the transfer of military hardware and technology between Indonesia and the two countries, the ratification of the MoU with India would also allow the procurement of military hardware. The interest shown by Indonesian Navy Commander Admiral Slamet Soebijanto to acquire India’s ship-to-land supersonic cruise missile Brahmos on his recent visit to India proves the importance of having better defense cooperation with India.

It is no secret that both India and Indonesia have long been involved in an exchange program for their military officers. Both Indonesian and Indian Navies have been maintaining very close cooperation over the past few years and have been participated in bilateral as well as multilateral exercises in Andaman seas, Malacca Straits as well as in waters off the Indian coast. Thus the ratification of the MoU and the plan to acquire the Brahmos from India could be seen as a good sign for an improving bilateral relationship.

India is a fast emerging power both economically and militarily. Despite the oddities found in India (urban India) and Bharat (rural India), India as a country is improving each day. International attention is now on India, a self-declared nuclear country with thriving economy and vibrant democracy. Indonesia can learn a lot from India’s experiences. Especially on defense technology, Indonesia can emulate what India has done so far: indigenization of foreign technology for local use. At the same time, workable regional security cooperation can also be built through this process. The Indonesian leadership should chalk out long-term objectives to create self-reliance in the country, a model for future Indonesia.

Hu’s India Visit: The Merging of Asian Giants

2006-11-22T12:06:00.000+05:30

This week, the two Asian giants, India and China, are in a mood to move forward together and leave the bitter past behind. President Hu Jintao of China is in a four-day India visit from November 20 to November 24, 2006. This is the first visit in ten years by a Chinese President after the historic visit of President Jiang Zemin in 1997 and many considers the visit as symbolically significant, an effort to revive the Hindi – Chini, Bhai – Bhai (India – China are brothers) spirit of the 1950s.

President Hu’s visit comes at a time when India – China cooperation is at a historic high and the two giants want to assure each other that they are partners and not competitors. Even though there is no extraordinary breakthrough in this meeting, but there are significant improvements for the two giants to move forward as partners. The two countries agreed on Tuesday in New Delhi to sign a wide range of strategy to improve their bilateral ties in commercial, political and strategic areas.

Commercially, the two countries agreed to double bilateral trade to $40 billion by 2010 and a task force will be instituted to study the feasibility of an India – China Regional Trading Arrangement. At the same time, a Chinese consulate will be set up in Kolkata and an Indian one in Guangzhou in order to facilitate the people to people contact and business dealings. The consulates will give China access to Northeast India and India to Southeast China. Quoting Manoranjan Mohanty of Institute of Chinese Studies, the agreement is “important for India’s look east and China’s look west policies.”

Border issue that has been the bone of contention between the two giants were also being discussed in which the two countries agreed to settle the vexed border issue through the establishment of special representatives that will accelerate progress towards a deal that will solve the issue. A hotline between the Indian and Chinese foreign ministers will soon be established as an effort to build closer relationship and to quell any misunderstanding between the two countries.

Energy cooperation was also in the agenda in which the two countries decided to promote civil nuclear cooperation. In the backdrop of the India – US nuclear agreement, India is hoping that China, a key member of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, will extend its support to India’s growing need of energy through nuclear technology. Having secured the support from Russia and the US for India’s nuclear ambition through civil nuclear cooperation, an additional support from China will only complement India’s confidence to satisfy its energy need in the coming decades through nuclear technology.

On the fight against terrorism front, India and China agreed to revitalize and broaden the India – China Dialogue Mechanism on Counter-Terrorism to jointly combat terrorism, separatism and extremism and the linkages between terrorism and organized crime.

President Kalam remarked that President Hu’s visit is a milestone in India – China bilateral relations. He further said that the bilateral relations will continue to flourish and grow in the years to come in multiple fields. The positive trends in India – China relations promoted harmony in the region. Expressing similar confidence, former Indian Ambassador to China, C.V. Ranganathan, said that the joint statements like the one expressed on Tuesday could become programs for action to keep up the high level of momentum in India – China relations in various fields. It is an affirmation by the two countries that they are committed to deepen and diversify relations.

However, there are still voices of concern over these positive notes. One such voice is the concern over China’s lukewarm response to India’s ambitious aspirations for civil nuclear technology to satisfy its increasing energy needs. According to Bharat Karnad of Center for Policy Research, the clause about a civil nuclear cooperation between the two countries in the joint declaration does not mean that China will facilitate a consensus at the NSG in India’s favor (decision in the NSG is taken through consensus, not by vote). In fact, according to him, it will probably not: it is a political maneuver by the Chinese in the face of the India – US nuclear deal. China has nothing other than uranium to give India whereas India can offer China its technology.

On the resolution of the boundary issue, Karnad said that it is a mere lip service, adding that the status quo will stay. The statement by Chinese Ambassador for India on the border issue, his claim over the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh as an integral part of China, in an interview on a private TV channel days before the visit only adds to this skepticism. The recent opening of Nathu La to make border irrelevant is one thing, and the Chinese claim over Arunachal Pradesh is something else.

Similarly, on India’s candidature for a permanent seat on the UNSC. China said that it attaches great importance to the status of India in international affairs. It understands and supports India’s aspirations to play a greater role in the UN. But – unlike Britain and France – China refused to come out openly to support India

Summing up this article, President Hu’s visit to India is of an important significant for India – China bilateral relation. Despite of their differences and the reluctance of either side on certain issues, India and China have finally departed from their decades old cold relations. The agreements signed by the two leaders on Tuesday showed that their differences will not hinder their aspiration to establish a closer partnership for a better future. Even though the P-word (Pakistan is China’s all weather ally and India’s sworn rival in South Asia) will remain in between but the fact that a cordial relationship between India and China “is of global and strategic significance,” there exist “bright prospects for their common development”. India and China “are not rivals or competitors but are partners for mutual benefit.”

Note:
Published as China and India: When Giants Merge in The Jakarta Post on Friday, 24 November 2006.

US Mid-Term Elections: End of Indo – US Nuclear Deal?

2006-11-10T01:37:00.000+05:30

The long awaited verdict is finally out. This week’s US Congress midterm elections saw the Democrats won convincingly. They will control both the House and the Senate from next year. It is a return to controlling the Congress after the gap of 12 years. Democrats won the Senate with a clear majority of 51 seats against 49 seats won by the Republicans in a 100 seats Senate. Similarly, with 230 seats already been won in the House and led in two races, while Republicans won 196 seats and led in seven races, the most likely result in the 435 seats House would be a 232-203 majority for the Democrats.

The midterm elections became a referendum for President Bush and the voters have shown him the way. Every thing is different now for President Bush. The numbers above describe the changing balance in a new American Congress that will convene in January 2007. With the new composition in the Congress, there is possibility that the American foreign policies crafted out by President George W. Bush will be affected.

From Iraq war, the war on terror, North Korea’s nuclear issue to China policy, defeat by the Republicans means differently according to analysts. For Iraq war, it means a new approach to solve the Iraq quagmire has to be formulated sooner rather than later. The American public has become impatient and they want a change. On the war on terror and the North Korean nuclear issue, the rise of the Democrats will give hope to more dialogues and soliciting views rather than an emphasis on military intervention as favored by the conservative wing of the Republican Party.

On the other hand, according to David Zweig of Center on China’s Transnational Relations, Hong Kong, the Republican defeat means a weaker executive and a weaker executive means a weakening of America’s China policy. According to him, US – China relations do better when a President is strong, weak Presidents are no good for US – China relations.

These predictions and analyses, however, remain to be of a distant future. Even though there is now a change of guard in the American Congress, but there will be no change of policy overnight. The Democrats must take very cautious and step-by-step approach so as not to disappoint the voters who have cast their votes to reject President Bush. One thing is, however, of a very near future: the future of Indo – US nuclear agreement mooted in July 2005 and signed in March this year in New Delhi.

Will this new American Congress end the deal or will it help the deal to go through?

The Indo – US nuclear agreement has gone through various stages of detailed legislative consideration within the US over the last 16 months. As of now, the proposed bill cleared by the House of Representatives last July has three more steps before closure. First, a vote in the full Senate; later, reconciliation of the language of the bill as passed by the House and the Senate; and finally a vote in both legislative chambers. With the Democrats now controlling the Congress and the fact that a vote on the deal has been stuck in the Senate for the last two sessions where the Republicans were the majority, there is now some caution in New Delhi about the immediate future of this important deal. The so-called ‘Lame-Duck’ session of the Congress, which commences next week, must work very hard if it wants to see this deal through.

Most analysts in India, however, believe that the deal will likely to go through. There are several reasons for this optimistic view.

First, the core of the agreement among the supporters of the deal is a conviction that a closer relationship with India in the early part of the 21st century is in the abiding American interest. The nuclear area that had become a bone of bitter contestation was innovatively re-arranged to become an area of co-operation, even while respecting US non-proliferation sensitivities.

Second, even though the Democrats gained control of the US Congress riding an anti-Bush wave and some key opponents of the deal, who have argued that it undermines global non-proliferation efforts, have been among the Democrats, there was about 80 per cent support in the various Congressional committees over the last few months. Senior Democrats like Senator John Kerry and Congressman Tom Lantos have expressed their strong supports throughout this period. Moreover, in the post Tuesday’s triumph, there is a positive gesture from some key Democrat lawmakers on the nuclear deal.

Thus it would be misleading to infer that the agreement with India is a purely Republican affair.

Third, the assurance by President Bush that getting the India-US nuclear deal through the Senate next week is a priority. US Ambassador to India David C. Mulford echoed this view and said on Thursday that there was every intention to get the deal legislation through next week. Even though the upcoming Lame Duck session is hard to predict and other bills could be a priority, but with the very strong bipartisan support that had been expressed for the deal in last 24 hours, the deal will likely to go through.

At the end, it remains to be seen how these positive factors will evolve and help the deal to go through in this coming week. But if the deal fails to get through this time, it does not mean the end of the road.

The first and the second reason above are enough to convince everyone that the deal will return for reconsideration to the new Congress in early 2007. The essence of the agreement, which envisages closer co-operation between the US and India will neither die nor be rejected by the new Democrat-dominated US Congress. To recall the words by Tom Lantos, “It is my strong hope that we can have the bill on the House floor in July, and then, with House passage, we will have opened a new era in United States-India relations.” The deal might just get delayed, perhaps.

Affirmation of Diversity through Political Contract

2006-10-08T12:15:00.000+05:30

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) argued in his famous book Leviathan that all humans are driven by two and only two impulses: fear of death and desire for power. If left unchecked, human beings would act on these impulses and live violent, brutish, inhumane, and solitary lives.

Living in a society, which is diverse, complex and multi faceted is quite tricky and complicated at a time. Every member in the society must understand the nature of diversity and heterogeneity in it. Mutual respect and tolerance are the keys of successful co-existence in such diversity. The absence of these features would only lead to chaos and anarchy. Violence and anger would dominate the nature of relation among its members. Various bloody conflicts throughout human history are clear examples of this phenomenon. The tendency of each and every member in the society to resort to certain forceful method of personal assertion to achieve his/her intention only aggravates the matter. And to use the words of Thomas Hobbes, this situation is known as the “state of nature” which is brutish, solitary, violent and anarchist.

To avoid this unfortunate situation, according to Hobbes, all members in the society must collectively participate in the social contract that will guarantee the security and community. Hobbes did not care what form this single rule might take, whether a monarch or a dictator, as long as the society is kept together. This Hobbesian social contract could not be revised and if people attempt to regain some measure of sovereignty or power that has been lost in the contract, society will fall into violent chaos.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778), however, radically revised Hobbes' social contract. He proposed that the people agreed to cede authority to some group in order to gain the benefits of community and safety. If those in power refused to guarantee community and safety, the governed were free to disobey and establish a new political contract. While Hobbes believed in absolute rule, Rousseau believed that absolute rule was a perversion of the original intent of the primordial social contract. In his two famous works, The Social Contract and the Discourse on Inequality, Rousseau argued that modern human society is built on an imperfect social contract, because it fosters inequality and servitude. Thus there is a great need for a rebuilding of the social contract from the ground up in order to ensure equality and freedom.

To ensure this equality and freedom, all members in the society must accept the fact that human being is different in nature and diversity is natural. Acceptance of this kind of political contract that observes equality and freedom of individuals is in line with the concept of political pluralism in which diversity of human nature is celebrated as an utmost consequence of humanity. Political pluralism is the manifestation of the concept of unity in diversity. The aim of political pluralism is being ultimate in diversity.

Unfortunately, not all members in the society fully accept this fact and chose to stay away from it. At a time, they have their own concept and wish to implement it believing that their concept is more superior to the one agreed upon by the general populace. As a result clash of interest becomes unavoidable, a return to a Hobbesian state of nature. A lot of contemporary history of human relation, especially in a diverse, complex and multi faceted society, reflects this situation.

Let’s take a brief look at the history of violence in India to reflect this phenomenon.

India is a diverse, complex and multi faceted country. But it is very unfortunate that from the very first day of Indian independent in August 1947, violence between different communities is not an uncommon phenomenon. The bloody Partition of British India into India and Pakistan in 1947 saw millions of innocent people killed mercilessly. The rejection of the concept of an independent India as the home for all Indians regardless of their creed, color, sex, caste or any other distinctive social affiliation and the assertion that India or Hindustan is the promised land for certain group of people belonging to certain creed and race group led to this tragedy. It is very unfortunate that such a Mahabharat should have taken place in human history just to satisfy the greed and lust of certain personalities.

Fast forward, this bloody tragedy in the 1947 was repeated in a secular, democratic and independent India meant for all Indians regardless of their creed, color, sex, caste or any other distinctive social affiliation. There were bloody clashes in the early 1990s and early 2000. The main reason is the same: India is meant for a certain group of people belonging to certain creed and race group. People outside of this group must go, expelled or be punished if they insist on staying and living in India. Once again, the victims in these clashes were innocent lives, trapped between the conflicting factions.

This tragic cycle of humanitarian tragedy, however, does not belong to India alone. Diverse, complex and multi faceted societies around the globe experience this tragedy at one point of their national history. It is not uncommon in these kinds of societies to have clashes of interest involving different groups in their societies. Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, just to name a few, have had their own version of communal tragedy at one point of their national history. This phenomenon is unfortunate but it really has occurred, not once but repeatedly.

One thing should be noted here, however, that even though there was some kind of cycle of humanitarian tragedy in the form of communal conflict and clash of interest in these societies, they remain united as an entity. The diversity in these societies does not somehow hinder their desire to remain united. They are united in diversity.

However, I have a little doubt that this ‘myth’ of unity in diversity will remain forever. The fact that there is now a continuing pressure from certain groups in these societies to abhor diversity and to enforce uniformity is quite an irony. The fundamentalist groups in the majority community in these diverse societies seem to prefer the idea of uniformity instead of unity in diversity. And if they succeed in their propaganda of uniformity, it would a tragic end for the idea of political pluralism, the idea of unity in diversity.

How do we preserve this idea of unity in diversity amidst the increasing pressures of those groups who advocate uniformity? Isn’t there any method or concept that might be used to save innocent lives from this situation?

In the beginning of this article, I quoted Thomas Hobbes’ description of the state of nature: brutish, solitary, violent and anarchist. Driven by fear and lust of power, it is natural for any human being to satisfy his/her personal desire regardless of any objection and contradictory reaction from others.

The ambitious, egoistic desire of human being reflect those groups of people who advocate uniformity amidst diversity and the rejection and objection of others perfectly describe the natural diversity of human beings. They have diverse interests yet they feel vulnerable at a time. This clash of interests can be described as the state of nature, which is unfortunate but not unavoidable. It can be prevented through a social contract, which will guarantee the freedom, equality, security as well as the community of the members in the contract.

According to Rousseau’s concept of social contract, the participants are allowed to enjoy security and community without losing his/her liberty and individuality. The contract is not an absolute contract as the one proposed by Thomas Hobbes. Rousseau’s concept of social contract is more flexible in nature and it can be revised from time to time. The contract also ensures equality and freedom of the participants while at the same time the participants enjoy security and community.

This kind of social contract, I assume, will guarantee the diversity of a pluralistic society. The contract acts as a platform for political pluralism to achieve unity in diversity. Rousseau’s social contract allows the participants to define the shared values that will preserve the diversity of its participants while at the same time they can enjoy the benefit of protection from the contract.

But what are these shared values in this contract anyway? How do these men come to an agreement of these shared values when they are egoistic and greedy?

The shared values vary from one community to the other. But I believe that all of us agree that there is one common universal value that is acceptable, regardless of our creed, sex, race, caste or any other distinctive social affiliation. Moreover, even though men are egoistic and greedy in nature, but they also have that natural instinct as a social being in which the rational thought works to the service of their fellow beings. So it is not an improbability for them to actually act and think rationally for the benefit of his/her fellow beings and sacrifice their personal greed.

Let’s take for an example democracy as one social value that we all share.

Broadly speaking, in democracy, all members have interests that are affected by collective decisions. Everyone is capable of reaching a view about what the best of least bad decision would be, both for themselves and for the association or society as a whole. The best decisions over the long run will be ones where all such views have been publicly aired and debated. And where debate and discussion fail to produce a single agreed outcome, decisions should be taken by a vote of all participating members. Finally, the principle of ‘one person, one vote, one value’ reflects a wider conception that all persons are of equal worth.

If we can agree that democracy is the minimal common shared value, we can create a common platform for the political contract to accommodate the diversity in the society with the help of other factors like secularism, social justice as well as humanitarianism. This common platform will act as the middle path or the core value of interaction between individuals that will accommodate the diversity of interests in the society. It will balance the pulls and pressures from the diverse elements in the society. It is on the basis of such common platform that regardless of countless conflicts, a communally divided country like India is capable to stay united. The social contract signed by the Indian people in the form of its national Constitution has acted as the catalyst in preserving the unity of India’s diverse society. Moreover, this agreement has permitted the resolution of conflicts more peacefully.

In conclusion, human being is diverse in nature. They are also greedy, egoistic and always ambitious to achieve his/her goals regardless of rejection or objection from others. Driven by two impulses of fear of death and desire for power, human beings can sometimes act as destructive force when he/she must live in a society. The clash of interest between individuals in such a society leads into what we can describe as the Hobbesian state of nature: brutish, solitary, violent, and anarchist.

To avoid being in this kind of state of nature in perpetuity, human beings must realize that they have to accept their natural diversity. They must also formulate some kind of shared values that will act as a common platform of interaction between individuals that will accommodate the diversity of interest. They must formulate some kind of a social contract, a Rousseauan concept of social contract, in which they will be guaranteed safety, security and community without losing their liberty and equality. This kind of contract will preserve political pluralism in which there is an affirmation of diversity in the interests and beliefs of the citizenry.

Political pluralism is a participatory type of government in which the politics of the country are defined by the needs and wants of many. Political pluralism is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. In a politically pluralistic society there is no majority or minority and the basic ideas of government are seen through the ideas of individuals and groups to ensure that all the needs and wants of society are taken care of. Thus in a politically pluralistic society tolerance and mutual respect for divergent thinking tends to develop easily as a way to accommodate the differences in aspiration. The experience of the Indian people who live under such type of contract is worth noted as a reflection of this affirmation of diversity.

Havana Meeting: A Potential Breakthrough?

2006-09-19T00:09:00.000+05:30

The NAM summit in Havana, Cuba has just recently been concluded. Moderation, harmony, and reason are the new moods echoed by the NAM member states in the post summit. Condemnation against all acts of terrorism, focus on poverty alleviation as well as full support to Iran’s program to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes are other important points to consider by the movement. The absence of Fidel Castro in this summit did not dampen the spirit of renewal of NAM in the new world. And it is in this new spirit that the meeting between leaders of two nuclear powers in South Asia in the sideline of the NAM summit raised some hope as well as doubt to the future of peace in the region.

PM Manmohan Singh of India and President General Musharraf of Pakistan met for about one hour to discuss bilateral matters between the two countries. Described as a fruitful and successful meeting by the two leaders, many, however, still wonder whether this meeting will really lead into any meaningful results in the future. With the roller coaster history of the “fruitful meetings” between the two countries in the past few years, optimism and doubt fill up the atmosphere in the region. The detailed, round the clock media attention to this meeting has only added to this situation. Thus, it remains to be seen whether this Havana meeting is really having a potential for any breakthrough for the future of Indo-Pak relation.

Let’s take a closer look at the roller coaster history of the “fruitful meetings” between the leaders of the two nations in the past few years.

In April 2003, PM AB Vajpayee of India extended a “hand of friendship” to President Musharraf of Pakistan after a low in their bilateral relationship due to Indian Parliament attack and Kargil war. This was followed by the announcement of confidence-building measures that was followed by the ceasefire along the International Border, the Line of Control and Siachen in October 2003. The subsequent joint statement between the two leaders on the sideline of SAARC summit in Islamabad saw a new commitment from Pakistan to not allow its territory to be used for any act of terrorism against India. This commitment saw an eventual launch of the revival of the bilateral composite dialogue process between the two neighbors.

The change of guard in New Delhi in summer 2004 did not affect the willingness of New Delhi to engage Pakistan more closely. Ever since PM Manmohan Singh of the UPA took over the mantle of power from AB Vajpayee of the NDA government, there have been four summits between Singh and Musharraf: September 2004, April 2005, September 2005 and the latest was in September 2006 in Havana.

The September 2004 summit led to the increasing efforts to create closer people-to-people contacts and make boundaries in the disputed areas of Kashmir irrelevant. The April 2005 meeting between Singh and Musharraf in New Delhi resulted in the revival of the bilateral Joint Commission at which economic and social cooperation reappeared on the bilateral agenda. It also saw a definite decline in terrorist infiltration. The April 2005 meeting also marked the launch of the Srinagar – Muzaffarabad bus service to promote closer people-to-people contacts.

Even though there was a summit in September 2005 in New York on the sideline of the UN General Assembly meeting, but it was rendered for the peace process between India and Pakistan to move forward. The subsequent Diwali-eve bomb blasts in Delhi, the attack on the Indian Institute of Science in Bangalore, the Varanasi blasts followed by the July 2006 Mumbai serial train blasts have slowed down the pace, or even stalled, the peace process completely. India pointed its fingers to Pakistan for all these terror attacks called off a proposed meeting of Foreign Secretaries of the two countries. It is on the basis of these realities that many have seen that the recently concluded summit in Havana as a promising start for improving Indo-Pak relation.

Described as a “major achievement”, the most significant aspect of the meeting is a return to the primacy of terrorism and the need to ensure that violence does not derail the peace process with a bilateral mechanism to fight terrorism. The two leaders decided to set up a joint working group to identify and implement counter-terrorism initiatives and investigations. This plan makes it possible to go ahead with resumption of the bilateral composite dialogue process. Meeting of foreign secretaries has been planned next month in New Delhi.

Will this prove to be a breakthrough in Indo-Pak relations? Or will it turn out to be yet another instance of Pakistani one-upmanship vis-à-vis India?

Given the facts above and the admission of General Musharraf recently to European leaders in Brussels that he rejected all allegations that his country was connected to terrorism and that if there was any terrorism out of Pakistan it could be the works of freelance terrorists who might be operating on their own, and he could not do anything about that, it would be normal for New Delhi to be worried and skeptic to any meaningful result of this “major achievement”. Furthermore, the recorded roller coaster history of Indo-Pak relation does not guarantee that such plan would completely tenable.

But to recall what Musharraf said in an interview to Indian Frontline magazine recently, he noted – with candor that: “Over the last years, our intelligence agencies have been operating against each other... let me talk frankly… this is the reality that we have seen over the last 50 years… my experience is that there is a lack of trust… we should have trust in each other.”

True that the lack of trust is the major blockade in Indo-Pak relation. Building a sustainable trust with each other will prove very important for the two countries to move forward. Pakistan has acknowledged this aspect and agreed implicitly to change a policy of state it has clung to for decades. It is for India to decide the next course of action. The ball is really in India's court. The Manmohan Singh Government should seize the opportunity with both hands and fast-track resolution of the unwanted disputes should be resolved in the near future.

Thus, given this fact and the momentum built up in Havana, it will only be reasonable to expect the Foreign Secretaries of India and Pakistan to make significant progress towards a breakthrough on the issues concerning the two countries when they meet in New Delhi next month. The Havana meeting is surely has a path-breaking potential for improving Indo-Pak relation. But until Pakistan demonstrates its credibility and at the same time India shows its maturity in dealing with its neighbor, progress will be difficult to be made. Until then, Havana meeting is to be welcomed optimistically, but very cautiously.

Integrating Indian Muslims to Fight Terror

2006-09-06T00:19:00.000+05:30

Last month, Indian Muslim leaders gathered in a conference in New Delhi to voice their concerns about the negative portrayal of Indian Muslims as terrorists by the government as well as by the Indian media following a string of terror attacks throughout the country. Attended by Muslim leaders in the country as well as by government representatives including PM Singh, they requested the government to introduce curbs for biased and partisan projections on Muslims in India and to formulate concrete steps to eradicate stereotyping on Muslims. Responding to this request, PM Singh said that he heard the message and promised to formulate concrete steps in this regard.

On Tuesday, 5 September 2006, speaking in an internal security conference with the chief ministers of India’s 30 states in New Delhi, PM Singh asked the chief ministers to be proactive to counter further intensification of terror activities and to ensure that a few individual acts should not tarnish the image of an entire community. Regretting that terrorism has created a wrong impression of radicalisation of the entire Muslim community, he said the adverse consequences of the "prevailing insecurity" among minorities, especially Muslims, could be "extremely deleterious for our polity".

Sharing New Delhi’s serious threat perception based on intelligence reports on the possibility of more fidayeen attacks (use of suicide bombers), attacks on economic and religious targets and targeting of vital installations including nuclear establishments, PM Singh sought the "personal involvement" of the chief ministers to co-opt the public to act as counter-terrorist wardens to report unusual activity.

Thus, cautioning these deleterious consequences, PM Singh said that the government – both the center and the states – should take the sole responsibility to contain them and he asked the chief ministers to remove any feelings of persecution and alienation from the minds of the minorities. According to him, the best way to fight terrorism – besides the police response – was by not creating an environ where terror elements would have nurseries of support. At the same time, respect for fundamental human rights of citizens, particularly of minority communities, should become the core concern of the law enforcement agencies in dealing with terrorism.

Talking in the same vein as his PM, the Indian Union Home Minister, Shivraj Patil, said that his ministry has proposed a monitoring mechanism to ensure proper follow-up on intelligence inputs shared by central and state intelligence agencies. It has also asked states to strengthen the intelligence machinery up to the level of the police station by involving beat constables.

Patil further said that the Center also asked state governments to allocate more funds from its annual budget and five-year plan for strengthening their intelligence. He promised that if required, the Center would assist with more funds to revamp intelligence and police modernization in the states.

PM Singh’s suggestions above, countering terrorism with an emphasis on the respect of fundamental human rights of Indian citizens, were in line with his commitment to the conference of Muslim scholars in August to take "concrete steps" to address their concerns. Singh had reiterated this commitment to a delegation of minority MPs who had called on him subsequently to raise similar concerns.

With Muslim leaders agreeing to denounce terrorism in any form and pledging to cooperate with each other to maintain peace and tranquility in the country and concrete steps formulated by the Indian government to engage actively and understand the issues faced by the Indian Muslim community, it would not be difficult for the Indian government to achieve its target in defeating terrorism. Closer and vigorous cooperation between various government and non-government agencies as well as an objective and non-biased media will only help in the successful effort to achieve this goal.

The fight against terrorism is one of hearts and minds. These steps, I believe, would yield into a successful process of eradicating the feeling of insecurity prevails among the minority communities, especially the Muslims, that could cause some deleterious consequences to India and integrating them into the mainstream community. Furthermore, these efforts could become a positive precedence in the global fight against terrorism.

Striking at the roots of terrorism with force is rendered useless unless there are concrete steps to change the mindset in the society and full respect for human fundamental rights. PM Singh has formulated the “concrete steps” and it is now the responsibility of all agencies, both government and non-government agencies, to implement these steps vigorously and with full responsibility.

Fighting Against Stereotypes in India

2006-08-23T00:25:00.000+05:30

“Stop denigrating Muslims as terrorists and madrasas as factories of terrorism”.

That was the cry by Muslim and Muslim leaders in India as a response to the increasing suspicion by the majority community on them.

In the past few weeks, there has been an increasing suspicion among global community, especially the West, about Islam and Muslim community. In Britain, there have been reports about the eagerness of the authority to rein in the terror threats from fundamentalist groups (read: Muslim radicals). In India, where more than 13 million Muslims live as a minority in a democratic state, the situation is no difference.

Let’s take the following illustrations as examples of this phenomenon. Following the failed plot to blow up several airlines mid-air early this month, the British police took immediate actions by arresting 24 British Muslims of Asian decent for their “suspected” involvement in the failed plot. Two weeks later, only eight out of that 24 initially arrested were formally charged with conspiracy to murder and plotting acts of terrorism, and another three for lesser crime.

In India, the Mumbai police have since detained hundreds of young Muslims following the train blasts in the Indian economic capital last month. Even though no clear headway has been made so far in the investigation of the blasts, this aggressive action by the authority has created fear and resentment among Muslim community in India. The arrests that precede investigations and the media projection on Indian Muslim community have somehow deepened the popular stereotype in India that whenever terrorist strikes, Muslims must be a part of it.

It is in the view of these recent incidents, both in India and globally, that recently, Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Hind, India’s premier organization of Muslim clerics, organized a convention on terrorism in New Delhi to try to quash this Muslim stereotyping. It aims at seeking ways to defeat radical ideologies that attract Muslim youth to terrorism.

Attending the conference were prominent leaders of Indian Muslims like Maulana Asarul Qasmi, Maulana Fuzailur Rehman Hilal Usmani and Maulana Matinul Haque Osama as well as government representative, the Information & Broadcasting and Parliamentary Affairs Minister, P.R. Dasmunshi. PM Manmohan Singh also attended this conference.

Indian Muslim leaders complained that instead of adopting the role of an objective and neutral medium in disseminating news about events and ideas relating to Islam and Muslims, the Indian government and the media had played a subservient role to the western perception: Islamophobia. Thus it urged the government to introduce curbs for biased and partisan projection of Muslims in India following the latest terror attack on trains in Mumbai that killed more than 200 lives and injuring many others.

Responding to this plea, the government promised to conduct more regular dialogues between Muslim community and the central and state governments to address their concerns and make them a partner to face the terrorist challenge as well as to correct the wrong impressions in the mindsets of the majority community about Islam and Muslim community in India. Concrete steps have been announced by the government in which a conference of chief ministers will soon be convened by the central government where corrective steps in this matter will be formulated.

Furthermore, PM Singh cautioned against the tendency to suspect an entire community for the handiwork of a handful of extremists. He also said that the police forces should guard against painting the entire community with the same brush while probing incidents of terrorist violence. Being a Sikh himself, he drew a parallel of the current situation faced by the Indian Muslims with the Punjab experience in the 1980s when all Sikhs were branded as terrorists due to the terrorist activities by a group in the Sikh community.

Similarly the Indian media that has been playing quite prominent role in this stereotyping should use their freedom to clear the misconceptions about the matter. They should go for a deeper probe into what started it all instead of aping the West in demonizing Islam and branded anyone a terrorist.

In the conclusion of the conference, the Muslim leaders agreed to disapprove terrorism in any forms and pledge to cooperate with each other to maintain peace and tranquility in the country.

It is an open secret that almost everyone is agreed that the fight against terrorism is one of hearts and minds. Not only will we not win them by clod-hopping investigation that paints an entire community as villains like the illustrations above, we will also lose many. Concrete steps promised by the Indian government to engage actively and understand the issues faced by the Indian Muslim community are good and promising steps in this direction. Similarly, the Muslim community should not be in denial about the fact that radical elements do exist in the community, or other communities in India. They have to work hard to eliminate this element.

Thus, closer cooperation with each other and active supports from the government as well as an objective and non-biased media will help in the successful fight against this stereotyping. Moreover, in democracy, dialogue to build a consensus is the key in solving problems. Since India is the largest democracy in the world in which democratic traditions have entrenched quite deeply in the Indian culture, it would not be difficult for India and Indian community as a whole to achieve this goal and preserve peace and tranquility in the country.

It was published in The Jakarta Post, Monday, 28 August 2006. The published version was Indian Muslims against Stereotypes

Exploiting India’s Defense Potentials

2006-08-14T00:31:00.000+05:30

On Saturday evening, 12 August 2006, Indonesian Ambassador to India, Donillo Anwar, invited Indonesian community in New Delhi for a meeting with a DPR delegate led by Tosari Wijaya, vice-leader of Commission I of the DPR. The delegate was in India for an official visit to study the Indian potentials, especially in the field of defense that is yet to be exploited by the Indonesia government.

The firm and steady progress of Indian government to develop its defense capabilities and to produce indigenous defense technologies and hardware to fulfill its domestic needs are examples of potentials yet to be exploited by Indonesia. Even though training of Indonesian military officers in Indian Defense College in New Delhi and vice versa has been regularly conducted, but the reluctance by the Indonesian government to pass on the Memorandum of Understanding in Defense Cooperation between the two countries signed in New Delhi, on 11 January 2001, to be ratified by the House can be seen as a stumbling block in this exploitation process.

For the record, the Indian government has already ratified this MoU and is awaiting a reciprocal decision from Indonesia. However, more than five years after the signing of the MoU in January 2001, the Indonesian government is yet to even pass the MoU to the House to be ratified and converted into an agreement. Indonesian Ambassador to India, Donillo Anwar, asked in an interview with an online Indian magazine Diplomatist of any specific reason as to why the MoU is yet to be ratified by Indonesia, said that, “Indonesia’s Department of Defense has been taking the necessary steps to fulfill internal institutional requirements that are needed to ratify the MoU on Defense Cooperation.”

But so far, these ‘necessary steps’ have not yet found any materialization in any form thus stalling the progress of the MoU into a meaningful agreement. It was on the basis of this fact that I raised the issue on the occasion to seek clearer explanation from the DPR’s delegates so as to find ways to fully explore and exploit the potentials in India, especially on area of defense.

To my dismay, my argument was “corrected” by the Ambassador. Proudly saying as a part of the team that formulated the MoU, he said that the MoU is “only” covering the field of trainings for military officers and not on any larger issues of defense cooperation such as exchange of defense technology or the procurement of military hardware. And since the defense cooperation, in this case exchange of military officers to undergo trainings in either countries, is ongoing, the Indonesian government assumed that there is no need to ratify the MoU and convert it into a more meaningful agreement in Defense Cooperation. Let’s try a different viewpoint in this matter.

Since its early days as a nation, India’s founding fathers have done great jobs in ensuring India’s capability to stand on its own through the adoption of the concept of swadeshi (self-fulfiment). From education to economy, defense and development, India has cemented this spirit successfully into the minds of its people. But how did this success story come? The answer is: indigenisation. Let’s take a brief look at the concept of India’s IITs and Department of Defense.

The concept of the IITs originated even before India gained independence in 1947. It was believed that the future prosperity of India would depend not so much on capital as on technology thus the setting up of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research. To man those laboratories, hundreds of doctoral fellowships to USA under the Technology Cooperation Mission (TCM) programme were introduced. However realizing that such steps can't help in the long run for the development of India after it gains independence, a new concept of institutes that would train such work-force in the country itself was implemented. Higher Technical Institutions in the Eastern, Western, Northern and Southern regions of the country were establihed thus the creation of the IITs. It is the indigenisation of educational process that helped the successful transformation of IITs into world leading insitutes of technology.

Similary, in developing its defense technology and military hardware, India adopted this concept. The Indian Defense Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) and Defense Public Sector Units (PSUs) become the backbone in this process. Through close partnership with foreign country like the then Uni Soviet, India succeeded in transforming itself from a buyer into a builder and developer of defense technology and military hardware. Self-reliance process through indigenisation over the years proved to be very effective in this transformation.

The success story of India’s defense technolgy transformation was witnessed the other day by the DPR’s delegates. Taken to tour India’s radar technological development site, the delegates were impressed and remarked that “it could be used as inputs for discussions in Jakarta.” This view echoed President SBY’s impression when he visited India in November 2005. However, it remains skeptical as to how the Indonesian government would exploit the Indian potentials, especially in defense area.

The fact that an MoU signed in 2001 was not even passed by the government for “procedural reasons”, let alone be ratified by the House, indicates Indonesia’s reluctance to consider India as important partner. India’s success story in developing a self-reliance system is yet to impress Indonesian leadership to take realistic actions in this direction. However, with the growing interests among international community to invest in India, Indonesia should not be left behind in this race.

Ratification of the current MoU on the limited Defense Cooperation could, in my opinion, be the starting point to rebuild Indonesia’s defense technology and military hardware. Training the military officers is important and expanding the scope of the MoU into wider area of defense cooperation such as exchange of defense technology or the procurement of military hardware could open up the exploitation process of India’s potentials in defense area. Indonesia should envy the success story of India’s Department of Defense.

From Mole Hill to Oil Slick: Story of Two Singhs

2006-08-09T00:28:00.000+05:30

In the past few weeks, Indian politics have been full of surprises and controversies. With the Parliament is in session, the Monsoon Session, both the ruling and opposition parties are given headache and are on their backs during this period by their own respective party member. While Jaswant Singh, the ex-Indian Foreign Minister (FM) under the NDA, started the mole controversy, the oil slick or the Volcker controversy involves the current UPA government, its ex-FM K. Natwar Singh. Apart from this similarity of being an ex-FM, there are even more similarities between the two Singhs.

They both claim to have descended from minor royal lineage; they are both distinguished by a style that can best be described as sanctimonious, long-winded and self-righteous. They have no mass base politically and have depended on the largesse of their leaders or parties to prop up their political fortunes. Both are political lightweights, who now are creating news that is best described as making a mountain out of a molehill, or rather an oil slick.

Let’s start with the mole controversy before sliding into the slippery oil slick.

The mole controversy came up when the ex-Indian Foreign Minister, Jaswant Singh, released his book, A Call to Honour, last July. In his supposed to be a tell all book, Jaswant Singh claims that since the early 1990s, when the Congress Party was in power, the Indian nuclear program has been under the watchful eyes of Uncle Sam. He claims that an agent was present in the PMO who then leaked India’s nuclear secrets to the US. He even claims that this mole is still there in the PMO. Singh’s claim of a mole in the PMO has incensed the Congress Party thus forcing PM Manmohan Singh to ask clarification about this mole in his office.

However, having been pressed to name the mole in the PMO, Jaswant Singh has said he did not have a definite name about the US mole in the government when Narasimha Rao was Prime Minister. He did not have the names or any clues about the claim he made in his book. And because of this seemingly miscalculated political maneuver for personal gains, his Bharatiya Janata Party has distanced itself from the issue.

Singh’s inability to give names or clues to the request of clarification from the PMO has raised question on his claim about spy in Narasimha Rao’s government. Does Jaswant Singh really know anything about the mole? And if so, will that revelation embarrass the UPA government? So far there is no answers to these questions.

The story of the second Singh, K. Natwar Singh of the Congress Party, is slightly different from the first Singh. Natwar Singh’s controversy is about misuse of authority given to him by his party for personal gains. The oil slick controversy came up in November 2005 when the independent Volcker Committee on UN’s Oil for Food program for Iraq released its report in which several Indian companies, individuals as well as an India political party, the Congress Party, were named as the non-contractual beneficiaries of the program and have paid kickbacks to the then Iraqi government to procure the right to import oil from Iraq thus violating the program meant for helping Iraqis from sufferings from the economic sanctions. Natwar Singh and the Indian Congress Party denied this report thus the subsequent establishment of Pathak Committee to probe the scam.

The result: Pathak Inquiry Authority indicts Natwar and Jagat for helping persons close to them bag three Iraqi oil contracts whereas it gives clean chit to the Congress Party.

As leader of the Congress delegation to Iraq in 2001, Natwar Singh had misused his official position for furthering the commercial interests of his son Jagat Singh’s cousin Andaleeb Sehgal for his company Hamdaan Exports. Apart from including Jagat and Andaleeb as members of the delegation without the consent of the Party leader, he wrote letters to the Iraqi government requesting them a favor to give oil contract to Andaleeb. Convinced that Natwar’s request was from the Party, the Iraqi government agreed to issue the contract to the Hamdaan Exports.

Facing this mole and oil controversies, the governing Congress party appears more than ready to handle the issues. Even though the UPA government is worried that adverse political fallout may cast a shadow on the Indo-US nuclear deal but it determines to challenge Jaswant to prove and name the spy in the government and it is ready for a debate in the Parliament. Being cornered and singled out by the Congress Party and distanced by his own party, Jaswant seems to be in a maze to give an answer. His mistimed political attack to the Congress Party seems to snowball and hit back harder than the outcome he had expected.

As for the fate of the second Singh, even though the Pathak Committee found that no money from the oil contract yet to be found in Natwar or his son Jagat, but his defiant to challenge his own party by issuing a privilege notice to the PMO for the leak of the Pathak Committee report before being tabled in the Parliament has given enough reason for the Congress Party to issue disciplinary action to Natwar. Congress Party suspended Natwar Singh from his primary membership of the Congress Party for misusing post and issued a lengthy showcause notice as to why he should not be expelled for his several acts of omission, including bringing “disrepute” to the party. He has been given two weeks to reply.

Summing up the story of two Singhs, any political misadventure could result in political downfall. In a democratic society like India, there are rules in the game of politics that must be followed by all the players. Any failure to follow the rules can be too costly as has been proven by the Singhs.

Nuclear Deal Agreed, What is Next?

2006-07-28T00:36:00.000+05:30

Four months after the signing of the much-hyped Indo-US nuclear deal in New Delhi, the US House of Representatives finally passed the bill that would accommodate the implementation of the agreement. Under the proposed deal, the United States will aid the development of civil nuclear power in India in return for New Delhi placing its civil nuclear facilities under International Atomic Energy Agency inspections.

With an overwhelming majority in the US House voted for the deal, by a vote of 359 to 68, it means a major victory for the Bush administration, which argued that nurturing India as an ally outweighed concerns that the agreement would free more nuclear material for India to use for the manufacture of nuclear weapons.

This approval of the bill also means that the US would for the first time allow itself to ship nuclear fuel and technology to a country that has refused to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. India, Pakistan and Israel are countries with nuclear capability that refused to be a part of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). The deal is also seen as a sign of a geopolitical re-alliance following the Cold War, one that allows India to jump-start its quest for alternative energy, as its economy booms.

With majority of Democratic and Republican leaders in both houses of Congress have expressed strong support for the bill, it is expected that the Senate would pass the bill when they will meet and vote for it this year-end. And if it becomes law, the measure would reverse some three decades of US policy to restrict access to nuclear technology.

On the contrary, when the members of the US House are overwhelmingly in support of the deal despite opposition from some of its members, in India, the scene is the opposite. The Manmohan Singh’s government is facing distractions both from the opposition and from his own coalition partners, especially the Left parties and the Samajwadi Party.

They argue that if the bill that has just been passed by the US Congress finally becomes a law, it would curtail India’s independency in the nuclear technology development. According to the agreement India must separate its indigenously developed civilian and military nuclear facilities, and submit civilian facilities to inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

At the same time, the international community would see India as an ally to the US in South Asia, replacing Pakistan, something that the Left parties have been criticizing since the very beginning.

In response to these critics, PM Singh said that the Indian government would wait and watch the final shape of the agreement and will response accordingly. He said, "Let it (legislative process) be completed. Once it is completed we will then determine whether there are elements which go beyond what we have committed in July 18 (agreement) last year."

Thus the Indo-US nuclear deal is definitely having its supporters and detractors. The supporters say that the deal is the best deal an emerging giant like India can get from a superpower like the US. It will boost India’s growing needs of energy to keep the pace of its ever-growing economy. Nuclear power will help feed its rapidly expanding economy. At the same time, it strengthens international security by tightening US ties to ally India, the world's biggest democracy. A new alliance with a South Asian giant would balance the power equation in Asia that has been dominated by China.

On the other hand, the detractors argue that the deal is opposed to the NPT. India has refused to sign the Treaty. It also undermines the US campaign to halt the development of nuclear technology by Iran. Worse it could trigger a new nuclear arms race in South Asia. Pakistan's expanding nuclear program could fan the rivalry that saw the neighbors almost go to war for a fourth time in 2002, and conduct tit-for-tat nuclear tests in 1998.

In view of all the pros and cons, it must be remembered that unilateralism in international politics must be confronted at all cost. Nuclear technology is free for all. All sovereign nations, both developing and developed countries, can equip itself with the technology as long as there is responsibility in it. It is the responsibility of the political leadership to be accountable and responsible for their decisions. If India, an emerging giant in Asia, is capable of developing the technology independently and responsibly, why restrain it? So does Iran.

India, Washington and the Middle East Crisis

2006-07-26T00:40:00.000+05:30

Terrorism is not a new threat in India. It has been around since its independence more than half a century ago. Various terror groups use various reasons and means in justifying their terror operations. But the most significant reason of these terrors is political rather than religious reason.

Kashmir, the Northeastern region, Punjab are examples of where terror groups have been operating and voicing their discontent against the Indian government. Even though religious groups different from the majority group in India dominate these regions, but they have political reason to assert their terrorist activities: being independent from India. Besides, the threat from the Maoist (Naxalite) group is also very much apparent in India.

Of these various terror threats, the threats in Punjab and the Northeastern region have significantly subsided over the years, but Kashmir and Maoist militancy are on the rise in the past few years. The government has been trying hard to curb and suppress the activities of these groups but it seems that the threats of terror are growing by the day. The most recent terrorist attacks in India occurred in Mumbai, Srinagar and Orissa two weeks ago. More than 200 innocent people were killed in these attacks. If the first two attacks, Mumbai and Srinagar, were suspected to be conducted by Kashmiri militants, the attacks and killings in the villages in Orissa was conducted by the Naxalite group.

It was on the backdrop of these recent attacks that the Indian government decided to seek international support in its fight against terror threats at home. India wanted the international community to isolate terrorists anywhere irrespective of the cause they are fighting for and the group or country they get support from. And when India was invited to join the Outreach Session of the Summit of the G-8 leaders in St. Petersburg last week, it eagerly took the opportunity and lobbied these leaders to issue tough statement against terrorism.

The result: they stood with India and agreed to “undertake all necessary measures to bring to justice the perpetrators, organizers, sponsors of terrorist acts and those who incited perpetrators”. This was termed as a “major diplomatic gain” for India but the issue has gone well beyond Pakistan against whom India had intended to tighten international screw. It means that India stands equal with other nations in the fight against terrorism and all terror groups and their sponsors in the eyes of the US and its allies are now must be regarded the same by India.

This newly found support from the world leaders to India’s fight against terrorism at home, and its cozy relation with Washington, proved to be too delicate for India’s foreign policy in the Middle East. This “major diplomatic gain” has become a double-edged sword for India’s foreign policy in the region. India has long been known for its staunch support to the Palestinian cause and has close relation with Iran and Syria, two countries widely perceived as traditional supporters of Hezbollah. At the same time, it has also opened a diplomatic relation with Israel and building up a closer relation with the Jewish state. Thus, when the current Middle East crisis erupted, India found itself in a complicated position.

Even though the Indian government has strongly criticized Israel’s “disproportionate retaliation” to the kidnapping of its two soldiers by Hezbollah, but it is unable to unequivocally and strongly condemned Israel’s military action to root out Hezbollah militant from Lebanon. Israel has breached international laws and the Geneva Conventions by unlawfully entering and occupying the southern part of Lebanon, a sovereign and independent state. Israel has destroyed public infrastructures killed hundreds of innocent civilians. Israel’s military aggression, thus, deserves a strong and unequivocal condemnation from the international community and India should have done this regardless of any risk it might face.

But the reluctance shown so far by PM Manmohan Singh’s government will certainly bring additional criticism from its Left allies who already claim that New Delhi is increasingly aligning with Washington and not critical enough of Tel Aviv. At the same time, it would also affect India’s non-align stature and its position in the region. Its relation with Iran has already been affected in which Teheran has already called off an LPG agreement between the two countries. This could go even further if India does not respond to the Middle East quickly.

Having a good relation with Washington is beneficial in one sense but it can also be very delicate to handle. India’s current position is an example of this. It has good relation with both Washington and the Middle East but at the same time, it has to balance the two so as not to fall into the trap of unilateralism. Furthermore, if India is still ambitious enough to play major role internationally it must take corrective actions in the current crisis in the Middle East and must balance its national and international position so as to keep multilateralism intact. A failure to do so would not only bring down the government in New Delhi but would also put India at par with Israel and other Washington’s allies.

This post has been published in the Op-Ed section of The Jakarta Post on 29 June 2006. The published title of this post was India, U.S. and the Mideast Crisis.

A Left Hand Drive?

2006-05-17T00:45:00.000+05:30

Last week, Assembly elections were held in several parts of India. From Assam, West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Pondichery to Kerala elections were held to elect new State governments. And apart from Assam and Pondichery, the Congress Party lost the elections. The Left won big in West Bengal and Kerala while in Tamil Nadu, even though the DMK unseated the incumbent Jayalalithaa’s AIADMK thus a return of the veteran Karunanidhi as the most powerful person in Tamil Nadu, the Left also increased its share of votes.

For the UPA (United Progressive Alliance) government led by the Congress Party in the Center, the big wins by its allies gave some mix feelings. First, the win would mean the strengthening of the UPA government in the Center. It strengthens the position of the secular forces. At the same time, it also indicates the credible success of the UPA government in the Center. People voted for reforms and the UPA represents this spirit.

Secondly, the win by these allies sent a very strong message to the Congress Party that their allies can no longer be ignored in formulating and implementing government policies. The Congress-led UPA government would now have to stick to the CMP (Common Minimum Program) or else a deviation from it would mean an earthquake to the government. Sitaram Yechury, a politburo member of the CPI (M), echoed this second message through his confident comment in the post-elections that “the Left’s influence on the UPA alliance is bound to increase.”

A Left hand drive?

Since the establishment of the UPA government in New Delhi in 2004, the Left parties have been playing a crucial role. With a significant number of MPs in the Parliament, the Left gave an outside support to the Congress-led government on the basis of a CMP thus creating a majority power in the Parliament. Outside support means that the Left parties will not join and be a part of the government but will guarantee the majority of the alliance in the Parliament. This also means that if the Left parties decide to pull out its outside support in any given time, the UPA government would lose the majority number thus the break up of the government. As long as the CMP is adhered to, there would not be any likelihood of this scenario.

But the question now is how far the win by the Congress allies in the Assembly elections at the cost of the Congress Party would affect the unity in, and the functioning of, the UPA? Would this mean that the UPA would switch into a Left hand drive? Or would there be no effect on the UPA? Because even though the Congress Party is the single biggest party in the alliance but the support of the Left parties is crucial to keep the majority in the Parliament.

The most likely answer to these questions is that the Left parties, and the DMK of Tamil Nadu as a part of the alliance in the Center, would have more say on the formulation of new policies in the Center but at the same time the urgency to keep the communal forces out of power would mean the possibility of breaking out at the minimum. It strengthens the UPA while effecting some bargaining power in the decision making process. The Congress can no longer ignore their voices and strict adherent to the CMP would be observed to keep the alliance intact.

The negative response shown by the stock market immediately after the victory remark by the Left leader, however, should not be seen as a bad omen. It was just a sudden jolt with no long-term effect. Because even though the Left won big in these states, but reform was the promise in the elections. The Left in these states like Buddhadep Bhattacharya of West Bengal was a reform minded leader who does not shy away from liberalism, pro-capitalism and industry-friendly policies. The reforms promised by the UPA government would not be much affected by this new development.

Finally, the Assembly elections in these states can be seen as wake up calls for the Congress Party. Because even though the leadership in the Center in the form of Sonia Gandhi enjoys relative number of support, but locally, it is lacking of charismatic leaders capable of reinventing the grand old party. The elections in Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Himachal Pradesh and Uttaranchal next year should become a matter of concern for the Congress leadership. Failure by the Congress Party to retain power in last three states above would mean a dwindling influence of the Party in the national politics and the emerging domination and influence of regional forces. Furthermore, the possible lost of the Congress in these up coming elections would also mean an irreversible Left hand drive in the Center.

Sonia Gandhi and Morality in Politics

2006-03-24T00:49:00.000+05:30

Two years ago, Sonia Gandhi, the president of Congress Party, made a national and international headline when she shockingly declined to be crowned as the prime minister of India after she successfully led her party and its coalitions partners to win the general elections. Her decision has made her an enigma in Indian politics: a successful politician no doubt but one clearly different from the rest of the tribe in India.

For the second time in less than two years, Mrs. Gandhi, 59, has caught everyone off guard as she resigned her Lok Sabha (Lower House of Indian Parliament) post after coming under political cloud and tried to recapture the moral high ground in an arena where power is seen as the only driving force. In that dramatic announcement she made at her 10 Janpath residence, New Delhi, the mother of two, born in Italy but now completely an Indian at heart, proved once again that she is not and will never be another run of the mill politician.

If the reason of her refusal to accept the post of Prime Minister of India in 2004 was her ‘inner voice’, Mrs. Gandhi’s decision to resign from the Lok Sabha was said to be the ‘correct decision’ she thought she must take to avoid any controversy and disruption to the functioning of the government. Both the decisions were taken on the basis of moral ground, and not due to any political pressure. Her decision to be different from the rest of the pack is interesting to scrutinize.

When Sonia Gandhi decided to take the plunge into politics in 1998 to take the responsibility of reviving the ailing Congress Party, she was considered by many, her own party men as well as by the opposition, as an outsider and a novice in every sense of the term.

With her personal background as an Italian who happened to be married with a member of the Gandhi family, Rajiv Gandhi, and the fact that far from its stature as India's dominant political entity, the Congress Party then had just 140 members in the 545-seat Lok Sabha, many had considered her move as a scenario where few would have dared to take a step forward. But she did it and proved everyone wrong about her decision to join politics.

If Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi's father, was India's first prime minister for 17 years, Indira Gandhi held the post in two spells for 16 years. Rajiv Gandhi, Sonia's husband, was prime minister for five years. Sonia Gandhi was nothing compared to them.

She knew few political players by face or even name, she was considered aloof and cold, she did not emit the typical politician-friendliness, her command over Hindi was poor and she lacked original ideas – or so felt most people. And one thing that differentiates her from the previous three Gandhi: there was no one to fall back upon at the time she decided to plunge into politics.

However, contrary to the background she had and the shaky beginning when she entered politics, she matured rapidly. She had clearly understood the very many complexities of the game in a very short period of six years. Thus, not only was she successfully revived and rebuilt the Congress Party but she also brought the Party to where it belongs: the center of power in Indian politics.

Under the leadership of Sonia Gandhi, the Congress Party and its coalition partners won the general elections held in May 2004, defeating the successful coalition government of the BJP’s National Democratic Alliance. With the win and the success enjoyed by the Congress Party, many had expected that Sonia Gandhi would take the responsibility to lead the Congress-led coalition government in New Delhi. But she had a different plan and came up with a shocking decision of renouncing the job, saying she was listening to the voice of her conscience.

In her words, she joined politics to save the legacy of the Congress Party and to build a new order in India. Her decision had sent a shock wave throughout the country, and even become a headline in national and international news. Now, two years later, Mrs. Gandhi has dealt another political blow to the BJP as it tried to take off her sheen by accusing her of holding, against Indian parliamentary rules, an ‘office of profit’ while being a Member of Parliament.

The moral ground on which she entered politics has once again resurfaced to capture the imagination of the many. In the land of Mahatma Gandhi in which political renunciation is highly respected, Sonia Gandhi’s decisions to refuse being crowned as the Indian prime minister two years ago and to resign from the Lok Sabha post recently showed that she is different from the rest of the pack and her actions would certainly bring an impact to the future nature of politics in India.

Politicization of Terror by the BJP

2006-03-15T00:53:00.000+05:30

The recent terror attack in a temple in the holy city of Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh has resulted in a very different reaction from the Opposition party, the Bharatiya Janata Party. Instead of joining the voice of preserving communal harmony and tolerance that immediately spread throughout the country across political groupings and ideologies, the BJP attacked the government as being soft and indulged in the appeasement politics towards the Muslim community.

In its most defiant manner the BJP disrupted both the Houses in the Parliament, the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha, and along with other rightwing Hindu groups like the VHP and the Bajrang Dal, it called for the UP bandh (closure of all activities in the state of Uttar Pradesh) in the very next day after the attack.

If these reactions are not enough to show the immaturity and the opportunistic tendency of the leaderships in the party that only recently ruled India for 5 years, the BJP’s Opposition leader in the Lok Sabha and ex-Deputy PM L.K. Advani has announced a twin yatra (long march) as a mode of protest towards the attack. Advani and the current BJP president, Rajnath Singh, will lead these yatras.

If history is not easy to forget, in the early 1990s Indian politics was dominated by communal forces in which a yatra led by Advani had culminated in the destruction of an old mosque in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh. Cashing in on the strong wave of communal sentiment, the BJP and its allies succeeded in grabbing the power in the Center and ruled the country from the late 1990s and until in the early years of 2000s. And ever since the Ayodhya incident took place, Indian politics changed forever.

It is in the backdrop of this history that the current leaderships in the BJP tried once again to meddle in the dark water. The attack on Varanasi was justified by the party as an attack against Hinduism and thus necessary for all Hindus to retaliate. This perception clearly shows the communal mindset of the party.

Changes in the Society

India in the 1990s and in 2000s is two different societies. If communal sentiment is very much easy to manipulate in the 1990s, India in 2000s is more mature and has different priorities. Hiccups of communal violence somehow occurred in 2000s but the most part of the new century has shown the maturity of a new community.

There is one very important factor that led to the dramatic change in the Indian society: the opening up of the Indian market. The different approach adopted by the Indian government towards the international market through liberalization of Indian market and economy in the later half of the 1990s contributed a lot to the change that occurred in the society.

The open market policy has created new chances and opportunities to India and Indian people to improve their economic condition as well as a chance to have a different view and understanding of its politics. The new policy has transformed the country into a new agenda of growth, development, globalization, and self-assurance. The new India does not want to be distracted by claims made in the name of medieval passions anymore. The exposure to the international reality has changed their perspectives. The Indian citizen — whatever his faith — no longer subscribes to the grammar of religious animosity as they once did in the previous period.

This is the reality that has probably escaped from the BJP leaders' attention. They seem to be ignorant to the changes that have occurred in the society. The new and the old BJP leaders seem to have learnt no lesson from the Gujarat riots in 2002. "India Shining" turned its back on the BJP and the NDA because the country disapproved of Narendra Modi's deliberate and calculated Muslim-bashing. The hard lesson of defeat in 2004’s general elections seemed to have passed through an empty head.

The current efforts by the BJP leaderships and its allies to re-ignite communal passion for their political gains will fail to materialize. The changed reality in the Indian society will not permit this kind of politicization of people’s suffering to occur. The immediate positive responses shown by the different communities in Varanasi are positive indications to the maturity of the population in response to the attack that aimed at disrupting the communal harmony between communities.

The politicization of the recent attack in Varanasi by the BJP in order to regain its diminishing influence is an ashamed act and seems to be heading towards failure. India is moving and it is different. The Indian civil society has got the measure of pretenders who seek to assume the mantle of savior of this or that "community." The men-made humanitarian calamities in Ayodhya, Mumbai or Gujarat have woken up the conscience of the people. If the different communities in Varanasi are capable of preserving the communal harmony in the city, the whole Indian community should be able to do the same to preserve the unity of India. The diversity should become an asset and not a liability of a failure. The politicians and political parties should also understand this value of diversity as an asset to keep the nation intact instead of disintegrating it into factions for sake of their lust of power.

Resumption of Nuclear Arms Race in South Asia

2006-03-07T00:56:00.000+05:30

As President Bush concluded his South Asian trip and penned a nuclear deal with India, Pakistan’s President General Musharraf is keeping his 'strategic options open.' That is the chilling message sent recently by Pakistan to the world over President Bush’s blunt rejection to Pakistan’s request on similar deal.

The day before Bush flew to Islamabad in the dead of night, with his wing lights off and the window shades down, Musharraf delivered an address in his native Urdu to Pakistan's National Defense College. He had just returned from a trip to China, Pakistan's old cold-war arms supplier. He said, "America has signed a civil nuclear agreement with India on the basis of what it sees to be its interests. My recent trip to China was part of my effort to keep Pakistan's strategic options open."

What are these strategic options?

Pakistan’s nuclear program has long been known to be created with China’s help. China may not have technology as good as America’s, but it is not a junkyard either. As a friend, China will be much more reliable than America. This is not because of any character defect. But the fact that America is a democracy and therefore it is always vulnerable to democratic discourse. On the contrary, China is a dictatorship as Pakistan is.

Moreover, China will not be propelled by mere goodwill or friendship; its policy will hinge on pure self-interest, its national interests. And since a critical rationale for the Bush shift in South Asia is to help India become a counterweight to China, Beijing will respond swiftly by playing the Pakistan card against India.

China has already assured Pakistan three more nuclear reactors, and so far, there has not been any complain by Islamabad on fuel shortage problems, a clear contradiction to New Delhi’s continuous worry over its nuclear fuel supply.

What Musharraf gets from China could help determine whether President Bush's new diplomatic accord with India is a triumph or the trigger for a new era of nuclear proliferation.

History has witnessed that both India and Pakistan have been subject to U.S. sanctions since they tested nuclear weapons in the summer of 1998. But under the terms of the new deal, which was eight months in the making, India alone would be brought back from official outcast status. According to this deal, New Delhi agreed to subject 14 of its nuclear reactors to international inspection by 2014. But it reserves the right to produce unlimited fissile material, to keep its eight military reactors from any scrutiny and to build as many more as it wants.

In return India will receive U.S. investment and equipment directed toward expanding its civilian nuclear program.

The US decision to grant India a nuclear status is definitely against the backdrop of its efforts to curb nuclear rouge states and its fight against terrorism. By giving special treatment to New Delhi in the pretext of its flourishing democracy, a sterling record on non-proliferation and a future Indo – US strategic partnership to spread democracy and freedom to the world, it has threatened to blast a bomb-size loophole through the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

It would have been bad enough on its own, and disastrously ill-timed. Because it undercuts some of the most powerful arguments Washington can make to try to galvanize international opposition to Iran's nuclear adventurism.

At the same time, by refusing Pakistan the same treatment on the pretext of its continuous evasion to democratic setup and sheltering terrorists in its territory only means jealousy and heart break.

As has been stated in the beginning, President Musharraf has said that Pakistan’s strategic options are open and China is ready to provide the necessary resources for Pakistan.

A concluding remark in an editorial in the New York Times clearly denotes that, “it would be an unthinkably bad idea [for the US] to grant a loophole to a country [Pakistan] whose top nuclear scientist helped transfer nuclear technology to leading rogue states. [But] granting India a loophole that damages a vital treaty [the NPT] and lets New Delhi accelerate production of nuclear bombs makes no sense either.”

Even though the ambitious Indo – US nuclear deal signed in New Delhi on 2 March 2006 still needs the ratification from the US Congress, it however has marked the resumption of nuclear arms race in South Asia.

By granting India a nuclear status while at the same time depriving its archrival Pakistan, a natural ally of the US, President Bush has not only done damage to the treaty (the NPT), as has been raised by China. But he is also losing the confidence of one of his most important allies against terrorists, Pakistan.

India and Pakistan are neighbors and military archrivals that have fought each other repeatedly. Kargil war was the last war the two neighbors have fought. They have both developed nuclear weapons outside the nonproliferation treaty, which both refuse to sign. The new deal will remain to be seen as Bush’s diplomatic triumph or a resumption of a nuclear arms race in South Asia.

Engaging India of 21st Century

2006-01-05T00:59:00.000+05:30

This week, some students from the famous Harvard Business School arrived in India to have a first-hand experience to the world's second largest growing economy. The visit was a part of the academic program sponsored by the HBS. Its aim was to imbibe an understanding among the students about India in the hope of understanding the opportunities available in this part of the world.

India, the biggest country in South Asia, has been performing well in its efforts to push its economic growth. Having opened its market to the international players in the early 90s, it is now harvesting this brave decision to move from a previously closed market policy adopted by India ever since it got independence. In the globalized world of today, such a closed policy would certainly curtailed the capability of any nation to compete in the international market. However, this approached of relying on its own capability to survive the waves of globalization has been an important key to where India now. India has been enjoying a strong economic growth of 7-8 % for the past few years and from this year onward, the current government in New Delhi has decided to keep the pace of its growth into above 10-12 % in order to keep up the pace with its giant neighbour, China, which has been enjoying a much suprior economic strength as compared to India and to be able to join the league of developed nation by 2020. This decision to raise the bar of India's economic growth has been issued in a statement by the Indian President, A.P.J. Abdul Kalam recently.

To achieve the targeted growth, the President has given his vision for a vibrant India and identified a five-point roadmap: agriculture and food processing, reliable and quality infrastucture, education and healthcare, infomation and communication techonology and development of strategic sector. According to the President, these areas are closely inter-related and if properly implemented, they will lead to the enomic and security needs of the country.

Thus, having experimented a first-hand experience about India and realized the steady economic growth as well as the opportunities it has created, the students from the HBS understood that the common perception among Americans on off-shoring programs by the American companies to India and other parts of the world is wrong. It was commonly percieved among the American workeres that the off-shoring program, much of which has been off-shored to the Indian workers, is reducing the employement opportunity in America thus rising the graphic of unemployment. They believe that the program is a correct approach to the growing phenomena in the international world and need not to be stopped but instead, they expected that the American government realized this golden opportunity and work hard for the benefit of its people.

Bangalore Terror Attack

2005-12-31T01:02:00.000+05:30

The last week of 2005 in India was marked with a terror attack that struck India's IT capital, Bangalore. Similar to the bomb blast in Delhi in the last week of October 2005, this act of terror has again taken the life of innocent victim, a retired professor of IIT Delhi, as well as injuring five others. This attack has become a reminder to the unrelenting efforts by terrorist groups to disrupt the peace and tranquility in the society. Bangalore, the capital city of Karnataka Sate, is a home for India's leading IT companies, the ISRO, the HAL as well as important centers of learning. The city also acts as a technological hub for India's ever growing IT industry.

The Bangalore attack that targeted a leading Indian institute of science has become a wake up call to other centers of learning in other parts of India. The soft target chosen by the terrorist to launch their heinous crime has forced the administration in the Center as well as throughout the Indian States to increase the security measures in various other leading institutes and establishments across in India. The Home Ministry had issued an order to provide CISF security at institutes like IITs (Delhi, Kanpur, Mumbai), IIMs (Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Calcutta) as well as additional security personnel to scientists in Defense Research Development Organization Hindustan Aeronautical Limited and the Bhabha Atomic Research Center.

This Bangalore terrorist attack should be viewed as a clear warning for us that the terrorist war in India that is being fought is not about Jammu and Kashmir anymore. It is a war against the Indian state. It has become a deep-rooted conflict and the targets have been varied since: centers of economic growth, institutions of higher learning and other symbols of an open society and democratic culture. The 1993 and 2003 Mumbai blasts - the Bombay Stock Exchange, Air India headquarter, Gateway of India and the Zhaveri Bazaar. Attacks to provoke communal riots and to draw fear over the country's populace are too many to be listed - the foiled Ayodhya attack earlier this year and the pre-Diwali Delhi blast were only the most recent.

Who is responsible for these attacks? In India, whenever terrorist attack appeared, blame is always mounted to the terror groups that have been working to destruct the stability of the India state: the Pakistani sponsored terrorist groups like the LeT, the Hizbul Mujahedeen and others. The same logic is also applicable to the recent Bangalore attack. The Pakistani sponsored LeT terrorist group has been blamed for this crime. The police have been gathering evidence and information to prove the involvement of this group in the attack. Even though so far there is yet to be found any concrete proof for the involvement of this group in the attack, but their records of planned attack in Bangalore in the past years as well as other parts of India are enough to suggest that this group is involved. But until the final clue is gathered, it is impossible to put finger on any certain groups or individuals to be responsible for the attack.

One thing that needs to be emphasized here is that whoever is responsible for this attack, as well as other attacks on innocent lives, is regarded to be irresponsible being. If any he/she is still willing to be regarded as human, there should be an end to this kind of act of terror. Their action is a crime against humanity and as long as they are alive and continue their acts of terror, humanity will not be the same. It is a duty for all of us to fight and eradicate this menace forever. Until and unless terrorism is defeated, peaceful coexistence between peoples of different shades of life is a distance reality. The eventful year of 2005 is finally coming to an end and with the arrival of the new year, a new beginning, a new spirit of harmony and peace should be revive. Let’s hope and fight for a better tomorrow.

Containing Terrorism in India

2005-12-07T01:04:00.000+05:30

The tragedy of 9/11 in the US in 2001 has developed into a global problem to the international community. The terror act that claimed the lives of thousands of innocent souls has been condemned as a crime against humanity and posed to be a new global threat for humanity. The attack of the Indian Parliament building just two months later, on 13 December 2001, signalled the expansion of the scale and scope of terrorist violence. It was in the backdrop of this event that act of terror, or terrorism, rose to become an important subject of concern among nations in this century. Efforts to fight this evil menace has since been started the world over. And to successfully eradicate this evil, a thorough understanding about the concept of terrorism as well as its roots is very important so that tragic events in the post 9/11 tragedy like the war in Afghanistan and in Iraq in the pretext of removing the roots of terrorism could be avoided in the future.

What is terrorism?

The word terrorism comes from Latin, terrere, that means “to frighten” and terrorism as a concept can be understood as the organized use of violence for political ends by non-state actors of various kinds like the nationalists, the anarchists, the rightists, the leftists, the secessionists, and so on, which is directed primarily towards non-combatants, the innocent civilians, in order to frighten the other into capitulating. The acts of violence conducted by these groups are random, spontaneous and not an everyday occurrence. At the same time, this kind of act of violence is also an instrument of states or legitimate governments, often to combat non-state terrorists. However, there is a marked difference between the terrorist violence conducted by the non-state actors and of the state in which even though both can be bloody, both may seek to shock and disrupt, both may be defensive in nature, i.e. to protect the society against oppression of the other, but terrorist organizations usually claim responsibility for their violence whereas the states are reluctant to acknowledge the use of violence to frighten and intimidate. It is publicity of their outrages that terrorist organizations are seeking whereas the states do not necessarily seek to publicise their use of violence. In certain circumstances, though, the states might well admit to and advertise its use of violence to deter violence sponsored by non-state organizations. It is meant as punitive action towards those irresponsible acts of violence by non-state organizations in the efforts to prevent or reduce terrorist violence in the state.

As an act of violence, terrorism has causes and remedies. Two major streams of thinking, the Liberals and the Conservatives, offered different understanding towards the problem. According to the Liberals, terrorism is a response to economic, social and political deprivation as well as bad government. People who feel deprived of these situations harbour violence to dramatize their misery or to change the conditions that are responsible for it. And since in the modern world the government is the most eligible party to be blamed, their anger and misery are directed towards it thus creating the problem of terrorism.

On the other hand, the Conservatives think that it arises from the process of nation building and that it is a stage that all nations have gone through, a transition period before embarking into a strong, developed nation. It is the ‘natural’ stresses and strains of nation-building process in which the integration of different elements, e.g. classes, castes, religious and linguistic groups, in the nation resulted into different responses. Alienation towards certain element in the newly constituted government might result in the form of resistance, which may turn into violence. If it does, the government, according to the Conservatives, will have to restore law and order through the immediate use of act of violence as the punitive action that resulted in the emergence of a cycle of violence and counter-violence.

Besides, there is another stream of thinking, the Realists, which offer different approach to the problem of terrorism. According to this third group terrorism is caused by the competition between states in which the absence of an overarching authority – no world government that can enforce justice and peace – the only means of settling disputes and differences between the states is through the threat or the actual act of violence. Terrorism, thus according to the Realists, is one of the stratagems available to the states in their competition for power. It can weaken rival states by throwing their domestic life into chaos and weakening their government thus they cannot compete with their external rivals.

Having differently pointed causes of terrorism, these groups also suggested different approaches to contain terrorism. The Liberals argue that the best answer to terrorism is to improve the lot of the people, including those who might be moved to secede, and to provide better if not good government. The act of violence as a means to end terrorism becomes the last resort to be adopted if these approaches failed to deliver. On the contrary, the Conservatives argue that the best way to counter terrorism is to urge governments not to waste time with social, economic, political and administrative engineering as a way of containing and defeating terrorism the way the Liberals have suggested and instead to maximize the use of violence to eradicate terrorism. The Conservatives urge governments to quickly resort to violence approach if there is any resistance from within the nation. Pre-emptive violence, according to the conservatives, will staunch terrorism and save lives. Similarly, the Realists give a green signal to the use of force to quell terrorism. The justification of the use of force by the Realists is based on their concept that terrorism is just another instrument in the hands of rival states to disrupt internal integrity of a state. Thus, only the prospect of actual use of even greater counter-violence will end terrorism.

It is on the basis of the conceptual definitions of terrorism presented above that the discussion on the threat of terrorism in India is explored.

Terrorism in India

Discussing about terrorism in India, it is an irony that a liberal democratic country like India has been the stage of immense social and political violence for the past fifty years of its independence: communal rioting, caste wars, the political assassinations of Mahatma Gandhi, Indira Gandhi, and Rajiv Gandhi, the leftist insurgencies, and secessionist terrorism in the borderlands. Tracing back to the very first days of Indian independence, there was the struggle of the Naga militants in the Northeast India against the Indian government in order to carve out a separate state of Nagaland. Other militants in the Northeast have also fought the government (and against each other) to achieve their political goals. The crisis in Punjab in the 1980s has cemented the roots of terrorism in India when the Sikh militants attacked government officials and ordinary citizens as part of their campaign for an independent Khalistan. And in 1989, after two decades of calm, Kashmir exploded into violence with young Kashmiri men crossing over into Pakistan and returning to fight the Indian state and anyone else who opposed the struggle for an independent Jammu and Kashmir.

Other parts of India like Hyderabad in 1948, West Bengal in the 1960s, Andra Pradesh since late 1970s and in northern Bihar since 1980s have witnessed the practice of terrorism by the left-wing groups. Similarly, the rath yatra (long march) in 1990 marked the beginning of the act of violence by the right-wing Hindu in India that climaxed in the form of the Babri Masjid demolition on 6 December 1992. It continues in the attacks on religious minorities over the past three years. The incidence of violence against Christians since 1999 is the most public example of Hindu militancy. Right-wing Muslim violence was visible in the Mumbai bomb blast in 1993 in the aftermath of the destruction of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya. In March 2002, Hindu and Muslim groups in Godhra, Ahmedabad, and Baroda in the state of Gujarat engaged in a form of terrorism.

These various threats of terrorist violence have become the foremost security concern of the liberal democratic government of India. The responses given towards these threats are varied depending on the degree and roots of these threats. Internal as well as external factors are very much involved in the acts of violence throughout the history of Indian state. Of the threats of violence in the borderlands, the Khalistani movement in Punjab, the Northeast as well as the Jammu and Kashmir separatist violence, external factors are very much involved in this area in which the neighbouring states are very much involved in these violence. The rest of threats of violence in India emanated from internal factors ranging from disparities in the economic status to chauvinistic feeling of certain groups against another. Then, what should India do to end terrorism or at least to manage it better?

Ending terrorism altogether is against the grain of history but managing the threats of violence for an improved situation is the best possibility that can be achieved. The three streams of thinking, the Liberals, the Conservatives and the Realists, offered different approaches to the problem. But the fact that India is a liberal democratic nation, only the combination of these approaches will give the best of benefits to the Indian state. Because by adopting any single options proposed by any of these groups, the possibility is the failure to contain the threats. Take for an example of the approach taken by the Liberals who argue that best way to respond to terrorist violence is by an imaginative program of political, economic, and social engineering. It is hard to get a program political, economic and social accommodation going if violence and other forms of intimidation are not brought under control. Similarly, the policing of terrorist groups through punitive violence and intimidation as argued by the Conservatives cannot bring peace and instead will only encourage the same response by the terror groups if nothing is done to get to the root cause of the problem. Finally, both the Liberal and Conservative programs will fail if India’s neighbours are determined to harbour and support terrorist groups. As long as there are regional governments willing and able to interfere in India’s domestic affairs, there will be groups who will continue to fight and resist and settlement with New Delhi.

Containing Terrorism

Combating terrorism requires delicate efforts that involve a wider set of ameliorative measures to undercut the perverse appeal of terrorism. The threats of violence that has been lurking the Indian state since its independence more than five decades ago can be best managed through several approaches like power sharing, de-legitimisation of violence as well as diplomatic approach.

The first step offered to contain terrorism in India emanates from the very fact that the Indian constitution guarantees and protects individuals and groups against government tyranny or the tyranny of others, including social majorities of any kind who, by virtue of superior numbers, could override the rights and preferences of those who disagree with them. The liberal constitutionalism that becomes the element of power sharing structure in the Indian state allows those who feel that their rights have been violated to seek justice and compensations. Through this arrangement of power sharing in which the process of devolution of power is guaranteed, the problem in the gargantuan, far-flung country, especially in the distant borderlands, as well as of those communities who seek justice over the alleged violations of their rights can be addressed.

The second step towards better management of threats of violence is through the process of de-legitimation of violence. The fact that violence cannot be eliminated altogether, the best possible approach is to reduce the esteem in which violence has come to be held in India and the grasp it has on the people’s imaginations. By reducing the esteem of violence, a peaceful environment could be created in which it eventually reduced the legitimacy of violence as the preferred way of seeking justice over the injustices and violation of rights. Other peaceful approach to address grievances like dialog can be offered as an alternative.

Finally, the fact that the terrorist violence in the Indian borderlands (in Punjab, Jammu and Kashmir as well as in the Northeast states) is sponsored by foreign countries, diplomatic approach as a way to contain terrorism is necessary to be adopted in which continuous international pressure towards countries that support and sponsor the acts of violence in India to end their role will bring improvement to the situation. The ability of the Indian government to exert diplomatic pressure towards its neighbours to end terrorism within the Indian state instead of using its military prowess will certainly beneficial to its status as a big country in South Asia as well as in the international stage. Besides, by enhancing the diplomatic ties between India and its neighbour will help in curbing cross-border terrorism that has since wrecked the peace as it affects the domestic affairs of India.

The effective combination of these approaches to contain the threats of terrorism in India will answer the question of what should the Indian state do to the threat of terrorism. Power sharing through the process of devolution of power between the Center and the states as guaranteed by the Indian Constitution while at the same time de-legitimising the acts of violence will help the process of better management of terror threats in India. Through carefully calibrated military response accompanied by wider set of ameliorative measures to undercut the perverse appeal of terrorism will certainly help the process of winning the war against terrorism. Because a military approach per se to end terrorism will only produce more counter reaction to the action. Diplomatic approach as the essential step to end foreign sponsored terrorism in India complement the efforts to win this endless war against terror. The successful application of these approaches in the Indian soil to contain the terror threats can be a mirror for the global community in its fight against the most evil menace in the twenty first century.

Engaging Political Pluralism: Lesson from India

2005-08-25T01:07:00.000+05:30

The great Indian nation under the British Raj was finally divided into two very distinct entities in 1947: a secular democratic and vibrant country of India and a religiously based, non-democratic and riot-ridden state of Pakistan.

The Two Nations theory that sparked the partition process in 1947 could be described as a fatal choice taken by the then impatient Indian national leaders in their efforts to achieve an independent India. The eventual break up of Pakistan into the present day Pakistan and Bangladesh further diminished the relevance of the Two Nations theory which was based on religion – Pakistan was meant for the Indian Muslims while India was for the Indian Hindus.

The failure of Pakistan to keep its unity as a country that is a home for the Indian Muslims and the eventual emergence of Bangladesh, formerly known as East Pakistan, into an independent, Muslim country in 1971 became a vivid proof of the failure of religion as an adhesive force that is capable of binding a homogenously religious community into one single nation. On the other hand, India, which was initially meant for the Indian Hindus, has been developing into a vibrant democratic country with a secularly based Constitution that guarantees the freedom of its citizens to profess and practice their own faiths without any disturbance or any slightest hindrance.

The remarkable experience of India in managing the pluralism of its citizens is of an example of the working of democratic values in a plural society.

Having Hindus as its majority constituents in a now more than one billion populations, India is experiencing the benefits of the age-old Hindu culture that respects the existence of others as an integral part of a society. Islamic traditions that dominated India for over four centuries before the British rule in India became an aspect of importance in building a tolerance in Indian society which is highly multicultural, multilingual as well as multireligious. The synergy of these two great civilizations in the world marked the strengthening of secular philosophy of Indian state in guaranteeing the freedom of its citizens of its rights.

Gandhi, Tilak, Maulana Azad, Nehru, Ambedkar are several prominent Indian leaders that have put a strong foundation for the functioning of a secular and democratic India. Despite several differences between them, they agreed that the tragedy of 1947 would never to ever happen again in the future. The differences of aspirations that exist in the society are being properly accommodated through the channels that enable the functioning of a democratic system. The Indian National Congress party as a congregation of different values, views, ideologies as well as political aspirations became the vehicle for the functioning of good governance. However, the combination of firmness and sensitivity that was attempted finally broke down. With the growing aspirations in the masses, the transformation from a single party dominance into a multi party and coalitional politics cannot be denied. Started with the split in the INC after the demise of Nehru and its failure to further play its role as a natural party of the government, the transformation into the present day India became natural. Several factors have come to support the process: the highhandedness of the new INC leadership, the new wave of Hindu nationalism, the caste politics as well as the increasing demands in several regions for more autonomy have resulted in the emergence of regionally based political parties that led into the multipartism in Indian politics.

Religion, Caste, Region and Coalition Politics

The failure of the new INC leadership to accept the new reality in Indian politics resulted in the disappointment and the formation of breakaway political parties. The secularly based INC met the challenge of the Siv Sena, the Jan Sangh party, later known as the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), that used religion as its driving force. The Janata Dal party, the Bahujan Samaj Party, the Samajwadi Party are several parties that emerged later as the vehicle of caste-based politicians to rise to power. The Telugu Desam Party, the DMK as well as the AIADMK are several regional parties that emerged as a result of regional dissatisfaction towards the Center. At the same time, the grand old party of the INC has split into several parties like the Trinamool Congress Party, the Congress (I) as well as the National Congress Party.

The complex Indian society faced a very difficult situation in which accommodating the various aspirations of different communities is a huge task. The INC failed in keeping up with the growing differences in the society when it was rejected from power and split into different factions. The 1980s and early 1990s witnessed the new political reality in Indian politics. Political opportunisms and political survival have brought the previously harmonious society into jitters. The implementation of the recommendation by the Mandal Commission on the rights of job reservation for the backward classes and lower caste groups by the Government and the exploitation of the sentiment of the majority by several major players to reap electoral harvest marked the departure of Indian politics into a more communal and caste-based politics. Riots and social disharmony was the phenomenon that cannot be avoided. The Babri Masjid demolition in December 1992 by the Hindu hardliners became the turning point of the political scene in India. The post 1992 Indian politics is more communal in nature as compared to the previous decades.

Riding on the wave of religious sentiment, the BJP defeated the secular forces led by the Congress Party to capture the power in the Center and led the formation of the first successful coalition government in New Delhi, the National Democratic Alliance (NDA). With the success of this BJP-led coalition government in New Delhi and the absence of a single national party to be a majority power in the national politics, the compulsion of a coalitional politics to accommodate the increasing demands of the voters became unavoidable. The needs to make compromise between coalition partners became the key success of a coalition government. However, the growing maturity of the Indian society saw the setback of communally based politics in which the general elections held in early 2004 witnessed the emergence of the Congress-led government coalition in New Delhi. The return of the secularly based Congress-led coalition in New Delhi on the compulsion of coalition politics became the landmark of a new innings of a harmonious India in which a secular India is tightly uphold by its citizens.

Lessons Learned

Living in a complex and composite society is quite an experience. Building a nation that integrates the different constituents into a single, powerful entity needs special efforts and bond that work as an adhesive to unite the differing components without neglecting the diversity it possesses. A great nation like India found an integrating force in the form of secular belief based on its age-old tradition of respect and harmonious existence between differing components in a united society. The painful experience of 1947 partition of India based on religion was firmly rejected and forcefully to be avoided in the future chapter of Indian history. However, there are always players that use communal sentiments for personal gain of power and greed. The communalization of Indian politics after the failure of the grand old party to perform its duty as a binding organization have transformed the political compulsion between differing groups into making certain alliances that is benefiting. The changing scenario witnesses the transformation from a single party system into a multi party system. In the absence of any single majority power to occupy the Parliament, the compulsion of coalitional politics becomes abundance. This new phenomenon in Indian politics is necessary to be observed in the efforts of engaging the complex aspirations of a diverse community.

Indonesia is an immediate neighbor of India that shares a lot of aspects with India. Be it the religions, traditions as well as cultures. The influence of the Indian tradition in Indonesia is very much apparent that we cannot miss. As a plural society, Indonesia also needs a binding instrument that is capable of acting as an adhesive to bind the various and diverse components of Indonesian society. While India found the bond in the secular tradition of Indian society, Indonesia had decided to make Pancasila, derived from the diverse traditions of Indonesian society, as the binding instrument to hold the great nation together. Pancasila acts as a ‘social contract’ of a consensus by the Indonesian people to hold together as one nation. It has an integrative force for the idea of Indonesia as a nation-state. However, a question has come up as how far is the commitment of the Indonesian people to hold Pancasila as the binding instrument? Throughout the Indonesian history, we witnessed different groups that have mounted several challenges and oppositions towards Pancasila. But, the failure of these groups to drag the Indonesian society into their folds and chose to stay as a nation that respects the diversity of its constituents is a proof of the firmness in the society to uphold the values of diversity.

The initial accommodation of various political aspirations through a single party in India that proved to be a failure, led into the creation of multipartism in which the compulsion of coalition politics is the phenomenon. The Indonesian experience with a democratic exercise is relatively young to be compared to the Indian experience. But the tendency of living in diversity has also brought Indonesia into the experimentation of multipartism. With the legitimacy of the executive being derived from a direct presidential election, the compulsion of coalitional politics for the formation of a government is of a lesser degree to be compared to the parliamentary system of Indian politics. However, securing legitimacy without being able to create stability in the functioning of the government would only create problems. Hence coalition politics in Indonesia is a necessity stage before transforming itself into a dual party system that would guarantee more stability as well legitimacy to the government. The successful coalition politics of the NDA government in India based on Common Minimum Program, a practice being faithfully followed by the current Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government, is something to be imitated to create a stable and working coalition. Learning from the functioning of Indian democracy is of an advantage for Indonesia as it shares a lot of similar aspects of a plural society. The successful experience of the Indian democracy in engaging the political pluralism within its diverse society could become an immitation for the future working of Indonesian democracy based on the Pancasila, a manifestation of diverse Indonesian traditions.