Mangalyaan: a steal at Re.4 per person
Nine days ago India’s space mission termed Mangalyaan, the voyage towards the planet Mars, was launched. It was what one calls a “textbook” launch with zero error, and one that has made India say “Yes, we can”. And in 300 days, it will have covered 680 million kilometres to orbit the Red Planet on September 24, 2014. Once that happens, it will start analysing the surface of the planet for any methane, a gas which is believed to hint at the presence of any Martian biology or life forms.
It is a proud moment in the history of India, a nation that started its space programme just about 50 years ago, or to put it in another way, with the “Chutzpah” of a teenage nation. With the Mangalyaan experiment, some say that India has “arrived” as a member of technically advanced nations.
Yet some voices have been raised in the country about whether this is worth it, whether it is a meaningless bombast, and whether this money of Rs 460 crores spent on Mangalyan could not have been used to feed the starving millions across the country. India is a land of stark contrasts. Half the people here live on less than two dollars a day, of which many are estimated to live on even less than Rupees 30 a day.
To this, the criticism, the Space Commission Chairman Dr K Radhakrishnan responded saying that every
rupee spent here benefits people all across India. To put it in perspective, he said that Mangalyan cost each of us 115 crore Indians about Rupees Four.
What has the “aam admi” got out of these four rupees; or even forty or four hundred, counting over the year? Plenty! Recall how Indian satellites hovering around us give us real time information on weather, information to fishermen and coastal farmers on the tides and fish flock, on the state of ships and other vessels near and far from the coast, carry radio and TV waves, and most of all help in saving lives of millions.
Thanks to help from our space programme, the loss of lives in the recent cyclone Phanini was limited to 44 and almost a million people were saved by prior evacuation. Earlier cyclones, when we did not have this facility of early warning killed tens of thousands. Yes, but why to Mars? Herein is where the idea of development becomes important. India is still thought of as a “developing nation”, once ridiculed as a “ship to mouth” economy.
How does development occur? When and how does a country become “developed”?
Development has multiple components: proper food, clothing and shelter for the people; adequate education and culture; good health; good environment; equal opportunity for all; ability to defend from enemies; economic stability and growth; and above all, good governance, all leading to a feeling of justifiable national pride. If you look at any one of these above components, technology plays a vital role in it. Technology comes out of logical, scientific and rational thought and its application. The greatest thing about technology is that it is scalable to millions, it becomes cheap and affordable once it is spread, demanded and used; it can thus offer convenience and progress for the entire nation. Thanks to technology, we have now moved from “ship to mouth” to a “silo to ship” economy, and we rid ourselves of smallpox and polio, and are vaccinating all children against some common childhood diseases. It is here that Mangalyan is relevant. The 460 crores expenditure has several useful effects. We are using the latest technology, indeed creating new ones, and at a frugal cost. Mars missions by European or American countries would be at least thrice costlier. And the design, building, testing and setting up have all been done by Indian engineers. Only some vital components are imported. It has thus led us to be self-sufficient and advanced our capabilities. The technological prowess to aim for Mars means that we can apply it, and even better it for terrestrial needs at home. It also brings us business (recall that we pack the payloads of other countries in our satellites). It has captured the imagination of youngsters (over 2 lakh “likes” on Facebook by 18-21 year-olds). Mangalyan thus is a tool to attract youth and advance science.
It is therefore not an expense but an investment for the future. Today it is Mars, tomorrow even greater challenges. Should India not be ready? Mars is thus a metaphor.
Should these 460 crores not have been spent on feeding the poor? Look at the larger picture. The budget of India for the year 2013-14 is Rs 16,65,297 crores; this amounts to an individual amount of about Rs 14,500 per person. We have budgeted Rs 27,049 crores for agriculture (Rs 235 per Indian), plus Rs 33,000 crores on the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act or MGNREGA, to help the rural poor, which is another Rs 280 per person.
Money is thus earmarked and distributed to help the rural poor (Mangalyan has not taken away even a rupee out of these allocations). Despite these efforts, there are large holes in the programme, thanks to inefficient governance.
If we can tighten this up, complaint about feeding the poor will be far less or can even vanish. Here too, technology helps through efficiency, cutting out the middlemen and so forth. Compared to these, Rs 460 crores on Mangalyan, or Rs 4 per Indian (about an onion or two) is not just a grand bargain but a steal!
BrahMos successfully penetrates hardened targets in Army test
he Army on Monday successfully test-fired an advanced version of the 290-km range BrahMos supersonic cruise missile which penetrated and destroyed a “hardened target” in the Pokhran firing range in Rajasthan.
“The Block III variant of BrahMos with deep penetration capability is fitted with a new guidance system and the launch by the Army has successfully validated the deep penetration capability of the supersonic cruise missile system against hardened targets,” BrahMos officials said in New Delhi.
“The missile system was successfully test fired by the Indian Army at the Pokhran test range in Rajasthan at 1055 hours,” they said.
The missile after launch “followed the predetermined trajectory and successfully pierced the designated concrete structure at bull’s eye owing to sheer velocity of the missile.”
The test-firing was witnessed by local Corps Commander Lt Gen Amit Sharma, who along with other senior officers congratulated the operational Army team for the successful launch.
The Block III variant of land-attack BrahMos has already showcased its supersonic steep dive with precision strike capability in mountain operations.
The Army has inducted two regiments of the missile in its arsenal, while the third regiment induction is in progress.
The 290-km BrahMos flies at a speed of 2.8 Mach and carries a conventional warhead of up to 300 kg. The missile can be launched from multiple platforms including land, sea, sub-sea and air.
Both the Army and Navy have already inducted the missile in service, while the air-version of the weapon is scheduled to be flight tested by the IAF soon.
Angela Merkel to get 2013 Indira Gandhi Prize for Peace
German Chancellor Angela Merkel will be awarded the coveted Indira Gandhi Prize for Peace, Disarmament and Development for 2013 with an international jury headed by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh choosing her.
The announcement was made on Tuesday by the Indira Gandhi Memorial Trust which said that the award was being given to 59-year-old Merkel for her exemplary leadership in Europe and the world during the financial crisis and her stewardship of German economic growth.
The trust said the prize was being given to the German leader because of the work done by her for promotion of global economic stability, her commitment to universal peace and disarmament and her leadership role in strengthening productive and mutually beneficial relations with India and other developing countries.
Ms. Merkel, who became the first woman to be elected as Chancellor of Germany, has been a strong supporter of close relations with India, it said.
Her joint declaration with the Indian Prime Minister greatly strengthened the Indo-German relations, leading to inter-governmental consultations during her state visit to India in 2011 and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s visit to Berlin in 2013 during which the German participation in the ambitious Green Energy Corridors Project was finalised, it added.
NASA launches robotic explorer to Mars
NASA’s newest robotic explorer, Mars Atmosphere and Volatile EvolutioN (Maven), rocketed toward Mars on Monday on a quest to unravel the ancient mystery of the red planet’s radical climate change.
The Maven spacecraft is due at Mars next fall following a journey of more than 700 million km.
Scientists want to know why Mars went from being warm and wet during its first billion year to cold and dry today. The early Martian atmosphere was thick enough to hold water and possibly support microbial life. But much of that atmosphere may have been lost to space, eroded by the sun.
Maven set off through a cloudy sky Monday afternoon in its effort to provide answers. An unmanned Atlas V rocket put the spacecraft on the proper course for Mars, and launch controllers applauded and shook hands over the success.
An estimated 10,000 NASA guests gathered for the launch, the most exciting one of the year from Cape Canaveral. The University of Colorado at Boulder, which is leading the Maven effort, was represented by a couple thousand people.
“We’re just excited right now and hoping for the best,” said the university’s Bruce Jakosky, Principal Scientist for Maven.
To help solve this environmental puzzle at the neighboring planet, Maven will spend an entire Earth year measuring atmospheric gases once it reaches Mars on September 22, 2014. The mission costs $671 million.
This is NASA’s 21st mission to Mars since the 1960s. But it’s the first one devoted to studying the Martian upper atmosphere.
Maven bears eight science instruments. The spacecraft, at 2,450 kgs, weighs as much as an SUV. From solar wingtip to wingtip, it stretches 37.5 feet, about the length of a school bus.
Unlike the 2011-launched Curiosity rover, Maven will conduct its experiments from orbit around Mars.
Maven will dip as low as 125 kms above the Martian surface, sampling the atmosphere. The lopsided orbit will stretch as high as 6,218 kms.
53 p.c. of Indian households defecate in open: World Bank
With over 600 million people in India or 53 per cent of Indian households defecating in the open, absence of toilet or latrine is one of the important contributors to malnutrition, a World Bank report has said.
The report, released on Monday on the eve of the first ever UN World Toilet Day, said access to improved sanitation can increase cognition among children.
Currently, more than 2.5 billion people worldwide lack access to toilets, one billion people practice open defecation.
“Our research showed that six-year-olds who had been exposed to India’s sanitation programme during their first year of life were more likely to recognise letters and simple numbers on learning tests than those who were not,” said Dean Spears, lead author of the paper ‘Effects of Early - Life Exposure to Sanitation on Childhood Cognitive Skills.’
The paper studies the effects on childhood cognitive achievement of early life exposure to India’s Total Sanitation Campaign, a national scale government programme that encouraged local governments to build and promote use of inexpensive pit latrines.
“This is important news - the study suggests that low-cost rural sanitation strategies such as India’s Total Sanitation Campaign can support children’s cognitive development,” Ms. Spears said.
The results also suggest that open defecation is an important threat to the human capital of developing countries and that a program accessible to countries where sanitation development capacity is lower could improve average cognitive skills.
“Open defecation lies at the root of many development challenges, as poor sanitation and lack of access to toilets impact public health, education, and the environment,” said Jaehyang So, Manager of the World Bank’s Water and Sanitation Project.
A World Bank working paper released earlier this year found that children exposed to more faecal germs don’t grow as tall as other children with less exposure. Studies have shown physical height is an important economic variable reflecting health and human capital.
However, differences in average height across developing countries are not well explained by differences in wealth, according to the report.
In particular, children in India are shorter, on average, than children in Africa who are poorer, on average, a paradox called “the Asian enigma,” which has received much attention from economists. Studies indicate a 5 year-old girl in India to be around 0.7 cm shorter than her counterpart in Sub-Saharan Africa.
“Within the triad of causes, food, care and environment, these papers provide additional evidence that inadequate sanitation is one of the important contributors to malnutrition, particularly in India,” said Bert Voetberg, Acting Sector Manager, South Asia Health, Nutrition and Population.
Freeing the world from hunger
The Bali ministerial conference in December presents a crucial opportunity to bring about changes in WTO rules
Ending hunger and poverty requires major national policy initiatives in developing countries. The United Nations Secretary-General has articulated a broad zero hunger vision, endorsed and embraced as a priority by national leaders in many developing countries in Latin America, Africa and Asia. Production of food by small cultivators in developing countries has a critical role to play in ending world hunger. But to increase support for smallholder agriculture in developing countries, a revision of World Trade Organization (WTO) rules on agricultural price support is necessary.
Developed countries had very high support levels for agriculture when the Uruguay Round agreement was signed in 1994. Despite restrictions imposed under the agreement, most developed countries have retained high levels of support for agriculture by shifting most of their subsidies to the unlimited “Green Box” forms of support, not restricted by the Agreement on Agriculture.
In contrast, owing to fiscal constraints, developing countries generally had much lower levels of support for agriculture when the agreement was signed. Due to constraints imposed by the Agreement, the levels of support for agriculture in most developing countries have barely been allowed to increase since then.
Green Box subsidies in developed countries, although not directly linked to levels of production, have helped their farmers to innovate, invest and increase productivity by providing additional resources for investment and by effectively reducing risks associated with the investment. Such support has also extended social protection to the countryside. On the other hand, lacking comparable levels of support, cultivation by small producers in developing countries has become even less viable and uncompetitive.
The WTO does not restrict Green Box types of support to agriculture. However, administrative and other constraints limit the possibility and feasibility of developing countries using Green Box subsidies. WTO provisions for policy instruments such as crop insurance to be counted under Green Box are extremely restrictive. Green Box measures such as decoupled payments — lump cash transfers to farmers — are not feasible in most developing countries because of domestic governance bottlenecks such as the absence of data, a lack of well-defined land titles, prevalence of informal markets, frequent market failures, and insufficient development of rural financial institutions.
Relevance of price support
As a result, Green Box provisions only allow most developing countries very limited scope for affordable interventions. China, Brazil and a few countries from the Cairns group (for example, Thailand and South Africa) are the only ones that have reported substantial Green Box subsidies at different points of time. With the notable exception of China, their use has been minimal or has declined over time in most developing countries.
Given the limited relevance of Green Box subsidies, price support remains an important instrument for supporting smallholder agriculture in developing countries. It has become an increasingly popular means for mitigating price volatility, which has become a major concern since the price spikes of 2007-2008, 2010-2011 and 2012. Consumer price subsidies combined with public procurement and stockholding helped mitigate the full impact of price spikes on consumers in several developing countries.
Global prices for agricultural commodities have risen steeply since the Uruguay Round was negotiated, especially in the new century. The FAO food price index more than doubled between 2002 and 2012, rising from 89.9 to 211.8.
Under the Uruguay Round agreement, price support was considered trade- distorting and was classified under the “Amber Box.” For countries without a positive Aggregate Measure of Support (AMS), Amber Box subsidies were limited at the de minimis level, defined as five per cent of the current value of output for developed countries and 10 per cent of the current value of output for developing countries.
Thirty countries that reported higher base levels of Amber Box subsidies at the time of the agreement than the de minimis limit, committed to schedules for bringing Amber Box subsidies down towards thede minimis limit.
Under the current rules, the difference between prices offered by a public procurement programme and prices prevailing in 1986-1988 is multiplied by the total output potentially eligible for support (not the actual quantity procured) to calculate the level of price support provided by a country. The price support thus computed is considered a part of the Amber Box subsidies, subject to the de minimisrestriction.
Since current world price levels are much higher than the 1986-1988 reference prices, any price support provided at prices anywhere near current world market prices results in the violation of the de minimis restrictions under current WTO rules.
The Ninth Ministerial Conference of WTO is to be held in Bali in the first week of December. The Bali Ministerial presents a crucial opportunity to bring about changes in WTO rules so that developing countries can support small farmers and move towards ending hunger. G33 and other groups of developing countries have made several proposals over the last year demanding that the WTO rules on price support be revised.
Four options
These options should be considered in the negotiations:
reduce disparities in permissible agricultural support levels between developed and developing countries;
update reference prices (presently pegged at 1986-1988 nominal prices) to account for global inflation in food prices;
compute levels of price support using actual quantity procured rather than total quantity eligible for procurement;
provide exemption from restrictions for procurement on grounds of food security or support for poor producers.
Appropriate restrictions can be introduced to ensure that commodities thus procured are used only to mitigate volatility in domestic markets and for purposes of domestic food security. This can effectively prevent the possibility of using procured stocks to influence international markets.
It is important to move speedily towards a pragmatic and equitable resolution of the problem. The options outlined above provide an opportunity to achieve real gains towards the goals of supporting smallholder agriculture and ending hunger. This will help expedite the conclusion of the already protracted Doha Round of trade negotiations on a more developmental basis.
Who betrayed Sardar Patel?
Sardar Patel persuaded the Constituent Assembly to guarantee payment of Privy Purses and preserve the rights of the erstwhile rulers. But the Congress betrayed him.
In the recent media coverage on Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, there was not one word about the greatest insult to his memory: the abolition of the Privy Purses, first by a Presidential Order and, later, by a constitutional amendment.
Article 1 of the Constitution states that India, that is, Bharat, shall be a Union of States. No person can claim greater credit for the creation of Bharat than Sardar Patel, ably assisted by V.P. Menon (Constitutional Adviser to Lord Mountbatten). In 1947, princely states numbering 555 covered 48 per cent of the area of pre-Independent India and constituted 28 per cent of its population. Legally, the princely states were not a part of British India and the people of these states were not treated as British subjects. But, in reality, they were completely subordinate to the British Crown.
The Indian Independence Act, 1947, provided for the lapse of paramountcy of the British Crown over the Indian states. Each ruler had the option to accede to the dominion of India or to Pakistan, or continue as an independent sovereign mini-state. The rulers were often seen, perhaps rightly, as lackeys and stooges of the British Empire. Even in the “mutiny” of 1857, many of them actively assisted the British. Lord Canning acknowledged their role as “breakwaters in the storm which would have swept over us in one great wave.” From the beginning, therefore, several members of the Congress were totally opposed to the payment of Privy Purses.
Integration
The tireless efforts of Sardar Patel and V.P. Menon resulted in the princes agreeing to the dissolution of their respective states. They surrendered several villages, thousands of acres of scattered jagir land, palaces, museums, buildings, aircraft, and cash balances and investments amounting to Rs.77 crore. In addition, there was the railway system of about 12,000 miles which the states surrendered to the Centre without receiving any compensation.
In consideration of their agreeing to integrate with India, the princes were to be paid a Privy Purse, which was approximately 8.5 per cent of the annual revenue of each princely state. The amounts varied from Rs.43 lakh a year to the Nizam of Hyderabad to just Rs.192 a year to the ruler of Katodia. Of the 555 rulers, 398 were to get less than Rs.50,000 a year. The total cost to the Indian exchequer in 1947 was Rs.6 crore, which was to be progressively reduced. At the time of abolition in 1970, the total amount payable to all the erstwhile princes was just Rs.4 crore a year.
On October 12, 1949, Sardar Patel persuaded the Constituent Assembly to include Articles 291 and 362 in the Constitution to guarantee the payment of Privy Purses and also preserve the personal rights, privileges and dignities of the rulers. His brilliant speech bears clear testimony to his statesmanship and deserves to be carefully read:
“The privy purse settlements are, therefore, in the nature of consideration for the surrender by the rulers of all their ruling powers and also for the dissolution of the States as separate units … Need we cavil then at the small — I purposely use the word small — price we have paid for the bloodless revolution which has affected the destinies of millions of our people? …
“The capacity for mischief and trouble on the part of the rulers if the settlement with them would not have been reached on a negotiated basis was far greater than could be imagined at this stage. Let us do justice to them; let us place ourselves in their position and then assess the value of their sacrifice. The rulers have now discharged their part of the obligations by transferring all ruling powers by agreeing to the integration of their States. The main part of our obligation under these agreements is to ensure that the guarantee given by us in respect of privy purses are fully implemented. Our failure to do so would be a breach of faith and seriously prejudice the stabilisation of the new order.”
He also informed the Assembly that if the cash received from the rulers of Madhya Bharat alone were invested, the interest would cover the payment of Privy Purses to all the princes. Nobody but Sardar Patel and V.P. Menon could have negotiated such a settlement with them. After Patel’s death, there were repeated demands to abolish the Privy Purses, but Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru refused to do so. Appalled at these demands, Menon remarked: “As an honourable party to an agreement, we cannot take the stand that we shall accept only that part of the settlement which confers rights on us, and repudiate or whittle down that part which defines our obligations. As a nation aspiring to give a moral lead to the world, let it not be said of us that we know the ‘price of everything, and the value of nothing’.”
Privy Purses case
In the 1967 election, several rulers had joined the Swatantra Party headed by C. Rajagopalachari, and many of them defeated Congress candidates. Indira Gandhi was, therefore, determined to abolish the Privy Purses. On June 25, 1967, the All India Congress passed a resolution to abolish them. The Constitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Bill, 1970 was introduced and passed in the Lok Sabha by a majority of 332:154 votes, but it was defeated in the Rajya Sabha by 149:75. Having failed in Parliament, Indira Gandhi asked President V.V. Giri to derecognise all the rulers. This derecognition was successfully challenged by N.A. Palkhivala before the Supreme Court in the historic Privy Purses case. Indira Gandhi’s landslide victory in the 1971 election enabled her to amend the Constitution that abolished the Privy Purses and extinguished all rights and privileges of the rulers. In Parliament, Indira Gandhi stated that the concept of Privy Purses and special privileges were incompatible with an “egalitarian social order.”
Thus, just 20 years later, the Congress Party, of which Sardar Patel was a member, betrayed the solemn constitutional guarantee given to the rulers by the Constituent Assembly. It was primarily on the assurance of Sardar Patel that the rulers signed the Instruments of Accession that created a united India.
In the end, the abolition of Privy Purses will remain one of the most shameful events in our constitutional history. The nation saved Rs.4 crore annually but lost its honour. It is equally regrettable that neither the Janata Party in 1977 nor any subsequent non-Congress government did anything to redeem Patel’s pledge. What purpose will, then, be served by spending Rs.2,500 crore to build the tallest statue in his memory?
Drawing a line of peace & tranquillity
An agreement that includes CBMs similar to those in the 1996 India-China pact, with the January 2004 India-Pakistan joint statement additionally written into it, could have an impact beyond the LoC.
When Prime Minister Manmohan Singh met Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in New York in September, they agreed to “find effective means to restore the ceasefire” in Kashmir. To this end, the Directors-General of Military Operations on both sides were asked to set up meetings between themselves to find ways to maintain “peace and tranquillity” on the Line of Control.
Ten years of ceasefire
Despite the instruction, the two DGMOs have not been able to schedule a meeting. It is not clear what the stumbling block is, but when Minister for External Affairs Salman Khurshid and Sartaj Aziz, foreign policy advisor to the Pakistan Prime Minister, met in New Delhi recently, they had to reiterate that instruction. The Line of Control has remained peaceful since the third week of October but no one knows for how long it will remain so. Instead of marking 10 years of the ceasefire, a significant achievement in India-Pakistan relations, with a celebration, all there is to the anniversary is dreaded anticipation of the next violation.
The ceasefire came into existence on November 26, 2003, after a unilateral announcement by Pakistan which India reciprocated, amid a flurry of other moves to normalise relations two years after the terrorist attack on Parliament House. There was no written agreement. After two decades of near-daily artillery fire exchanges, the guns just fell silent on the 740-km LoC and the AGPL on that Eid day a decade ago.
Soon after, India resumed building a fence on the LoC, a project it had begun much earlier but had to stop because of the artillery firing. Though Pakistan had earlier protested and criticised the construction, it allowed it to go on, and the 550-km fence was completed in 2004.
Only in August 2005 were some terms of the ceasefire spelt out in a joint statement after officials from both sides met for talks on Conventional Confidence Building Measures. The statement reaffirmed the commitment to uphold the ceasefire. Both sides agreed to upgrade the then existing hotline between the two DGMOs by the end of September that year, and hold monthly flag meetings between local commanders in designated sectors. Most importantly, they agreed not to develop any new posts and defence works along the LoC.
The arrangement worked well until 2008, the same year a democratically elected government took charge of Pakistan. From January that year to March 2009, there were, according to the annual report of India’s Ministry of Defence, 87 firing incidents on the LoC, of which 51 were ceasefire violations by Pakistan. Subsequent annual reports record only ceasefire violations by Pakistan: 33 in 2009 rising to 57 in 2010; and 61 in 2011. In 2012, the number spiked to 108. This year opened with the killing of two Indian soldiers at the LoC, one of whom was beheaded. In August, five Indian soldiers were ambushed. Both incidents effectively muddied the waters for a peace process that has been struggling to get started. According to numbers from the Indian side, the violations by Pakistan have topped 200 already this year. Officials on the Indian side are clear that the incidents are linked to cross-border infiltration.
LoC & LAC
Compare this situation with that on the Line of Actual Control. No one disagrees that this border is under stress. Unlike the LoC, the LAC has not been demarcated. There are several areas where claim lines are overlapping, so patrols encounter each other as each side patrols up to its respective claim.
The 1986-87 faceoff in Wandung prompted talks between the two sides leading to the first border agreement between India and China in 1993, on the “maintenance of peace and tranquillity along the line of actual control in the India-China border.” That was followed by another agreement on confidence-building measures between the two militaries in 1996. The expectation was that the two sides would at least be able to soon demarcate the LAC, but this did not happen, necessitating the Border Defence Co-operation Agreement, which Prime Minister Manmohan Singh signed with Chinese Premier Li Keqiang last month, that adds another layer of CBMs to the existing mechanisms. Meanwhile, both sides have designated Special Representatives to find a resolution to the boundary dispute.
The entire set of these agreements has acted as a cushion for tensions along the LAC. Not very well, it could be argued, as the Depsang incident showed, but the undeniable fact is that until the faceoff earlier this year, there had been no such extreme situations between the two militaries since 1986; as for casualties, there have been none for more than four decades. The underlying philosophy of the institutional mechanisms for India-China border co-operation seems to be that it is impossible to guarantee there will never be tricky moments between the two militaries at the LAC until the boundary question is resolved; until then, the effort should be to minimise such incidents and, if they do take place, to resolve such situations without resorting to firepower.
Formalise the arrangement
Falling as it does in a bad year for the ceasefire on the LoC, its 10th anniversary may be the right time for India and Pakistan to consider formalising their unwritten ceasefire arrangement, with a layered set of border co-operation mechanisms for the two militaries similar to those that exist for the LAC so that the two sides deal with incidents rationally and with maturity.
Purists would argue that a formal ceasefire comes into existence only after hostilities, orally or in writing, and that as India and Pakistan were not at war in 2003, there was no need to do anything more than just agree to stop exchanging fire. However, as events have shown, that agreement has been violated time and again since 2008, and this year, went far enough to prevent dialogue between the two countries. The weekly telephone calls between the DGMOs were sufficient when there were no incidents, but this hotline has proved inadequate at a time of crisis on the LoC.
It will also be argued that the India-China border management effort has worked well because the nature of their relationship, and between the two militaries, is different from that between India and Pakistan; indeed, that in the case of Pakistan, it is the unique character of the Pakistan military and its philosophy of proxy war that presents a problem, not just at the LoC, but for the entire gamut of India-Pakistan relations.
But if, as Prime Minister Singh and Prime Minister Sharif agreed in New York — for the first time using a phrase that has only ever been used in India-China relations — “peace and tranquillity” along the border are a prerequisite for moving ahead on the dialogue process, they should be doing everything to secure that.
All said and done, written agreements are far better for building stable relations between countries. An agreement that includes CBMs similar to those in the 1996 India-China pact, with the January 2004 India-Pakistan joint statement (in which Pakistan agreed not to allow territory under its control to be used for terrorist activities against India) additionally written into it, could have an impact beyond the LoC.
The possibility that the two militaries would oppose it, or that the Pakistan Army will never answer to such an arrangement, are not good enough arguments against such a move. In fact, they only prove the need for it. A formal agreement for peace and tranquillity on the LoC, authored on the Pakistani side by a popularly elected government, may even help Prime Minister Sharif regain some initiative on his India policy, and put a civilian stamp on it.
Tasks for Mr. Yaameen
The Maldives has finally elected a President, but the acrimony that preceded the November 16 verdict leaves Abdullah Yaameen Abdul Gayoom without the luxury of the usual honeymoon period.
The Maldives has finally elected a President, but the acrimony that preceded the November 16 verdict leaves Abdullah Yaameen Abdul Gayoom without the luxury of the usual honeymoon period. That he won with barely more than the mandated 50 per cent plus one vote is proof enough that nearly half the country trusts someone else: Mohammed Nasheed, who stepped down as President in February 2012 in highly controversial circumstances after winning the tiny island nation’s first multiparty election in 2008. The new President is the half-brother of former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, who ruled the country with an iron hand for about three decades. Mr. Yaameen has to first assure his deeply divided country that he will not go down the path that Mr. Gayoom strode for decades — locking up detractors and quelling dissent with a heavy hand. Speaking for his party, the Progressive Party of Maldives, Mr. Gayoom has set the right tone of engagement, saying that neither Mr. Nasheed nor his party, the Maldivian Democratic Party, will be harmed. This will address only a part of the challenges before the new President.
In the year and a half since Mr. Nasheed was forced out of office, the country had come to a virtual standstill. The electoral process had stuttered along, interrupted repeatedly by the Supreme Court, the very institution tasked with upholding the rule of law. From September 7, when the first round of polls was held, only to be annulled by the Supreme Court, to the final round on November 16, the Maldives had witnessed a clash of the institutions that form the backbone of any democracy. The police had, on one occasion, prevented election officials from moving out of their premises, and, on another, the Supreme Court had, contravening the Constitution, extended the term of President Mohamed Waheed. Mr. Waheed, an international diplomat, who was Mr. Nasheed’s Vice President, had been elevated in February 2012 under a constitutional provision, a day after Mr. Nasheed resigned. India, the Maldives’ closest friend and neighbour, adopted a mature approach, which could form the template for its engagement with other neighbours too. Though there were calls — often from more than one player in the Maldives — for Indian intervention to ‘set right’ democracy, New Delhi showed restraint to guard against any charge of dabbling in the internal affairs of the nation. Mr. Yaameen’s first priority will be to fix the economic mess the country is in. Despite the antipathy towards India among a large section of his party — his Vice-President, Mohamed Jameel, is a known India-baiter — it will serve Mr. Yaameen well to have a good working relationship with India. The two nations have much to gain from fostering closer, friendly ties.
An Indian honour
Sachin Tendulkar is not the first of India’s sporting heroes: there were several before him, and even some after 1989, the year he made his international debut.
Sachin Tendulkar is not the first of India’s sporting heroes: there were several before him, and even some after 1989, the year he made his international debut. That he became a nonpareil sporting icon is not only due to his feats on the cricket field, which were without doubt many, but also because of the times he lived in. Tendulkar’s rise as an unprecedented nationwide hero-phenomenon coincided with India’s growth into a major economy, a period when the country’s rapidly growing middle class followed the game on television and drew in advertisers and sponsors. The master-blaster gave ordinary Indians a chance to think of themselves as world-beaters, even if not in a truly global sport. For them, Tendulkar filled a void larger than the hole in the Indian team’s middle-order. For a generation starved of heroes, and short on confidence, he served as a source of inspiration and motivation. Even when Indian cricket got mired in charges of fixing and bribery, Tendulkar was left untouched. And in the eyes of his fans, he could do no wrong, whether on or off the field. The extraordinary outpouring of emotions at his farewell match on his home ground in Mumbai was thus not unexpected. Indian cricket is now on a high, and he might not leave as big a hole as the one he filled 24 years ago, but for India’s cricket fans the game would not be the same anymore.
Given his popularity and iconic status, the Central government obviously did not want to lose even a day in honouring him with the Bharat Ratna. For some years now, the cricketer’s fans in high places have been quite vocal in demanding a Bharat Ratna for him. Indeed, the rules governing eligibility for the highest civilian award were modified two years ago apparently to keep the doors open for Tendulkar to receive the honour on his retirement. As per the revised criteria, it can be awarded for exceptional performance in any field of human endeavour. After having nominated him to Parliament last year, there was little doubt that the Congress-led government would take the first opportunity to honour him. And that opportunity came the day the Mumbai Test, Tendulkar’s 200th, ended. To be conferred the award is one thing; to force a change in the eligibility criteria for the award is quite another. It was almost as if the award would lose some of its sheen if Tendulkar were not among the recipients. At 40, the cricket icon is the youngest ever to receive the award. Unlike many others who have received the honour in the last six decades, he did not have to wait for the award; the award waited for him. The honour was India’s, as much as Tendulkar’s.
