index

7th Anniversary of India's Nuclear Bomb Tests

Scoring nuclear self-goals

On the seventh anniversary of India’s Pokharan-II nuclear tests, how do South Asia’s strategic and political balance-sheets look? The honest answer is, distinctly ungainly. The Manmohan Singh government did not celebrate the anniversary although it observed May 11 as "Science Day." At the party level too, there was no enthusiasm for celebrating the Shakti tests. Only the Bharatiya Janata Party held a commemoration — a small symposium, where the tone was peevishly self-justificatory.
Party president L K Advani used the occasion to pillory the Left and demand it be firmly kept out of all areas that affect vital national interests. He cited Communist Party (Marxist) general secretary Prakash Karat’s description of the nuclear tests as "adventurist and very unfortunate" events which weakened India.
Advani was barking up the wrong tree. It is not just Karat, but much of the Opposition in 1998, which had questioned the wisdom behind the nuclear blasts, including Manmohan Singh, H D Deve Gowda, Mulayam Singh and many others. During the 1998 Monsoon session of Parliament, the government came under intense fire over breaking the consensus to have a nuclear capability, but not to cross the threshold and make weapons. Singh went as far as to warn that a defence strategy based on nuclear weapons would lead to an arms race which would turn out to be so expensive that there would be "nothing left to defend."
Today, the BJP’s claim that it did both the right thing, and the popular thing, by conducting the Pokharan blasts, sounds laughable. Opinion polls show that 63 to 72 per cent of Indians are against making or using nuclear weapons. This is in keeping with the figures in most major countries of those who want nuclear disarmament. These range from 67 per cent (Russia) and 78 per cent (Japan) to 87 per cent (US, Germany and UK) and 93 per cent (Canada).
In most Non-Aligned Movement countries, there is an even stronger sentiment against nuclear weapons.
Poll ratings apart, South Asia has become more insecure since 1998 despite the recent improvement in India-Pakistan relations, itself uneven, wobbly and reversible. As far as a flashpoint for a nuclear confrontation goes, South Asia still remains the world’s "most dangerous place". More than one billion ordinary civilians living in that region have become vulnerable to a devastating nuclear attack, whether intended, accidental or unauthorised, against which there is no defence, military, civil or medical.
Seven years ago, the Indian bomb lobby made at least five claims about the virtues of nuclearisation. It said India and Pakistan would become more secure and self-confident because neither could now blackmail the other on the strength of conventional strategic superiority or even covert support to militant groups. This new strategic equation would form the bedrock of stability.
Second, Pakistani and Indian leaders would behave ‘responsibly and maturely’: the bomb’s destructive power would ensure that, irrespective of the leaders’ qualities.
Third, after the Pokharan-Chagai tests, an India-Pakistan conventional war would become inconceivable. Doesn’t deterrence theory tell you that nuclear weapons-states do not go to war with one another? The low-intensity skirmishes between the USSR and China in the 1960s and 1970s across the Ussuri river were only an aberration. That doesn’t affect the rule.
Fourth, nuclearisation would greatly expand India’s and Pakistan’s capacity for political-diplomatic manoeuvre in world affairs. And fifth, nuclearisation’s adverse social-political impact would be minimal, and its economic costs affordable.
All five predictions have proved disastrously false. India and Pakistan have become edgy, nervously unsure about each other’s doctrines, more prone to panic reactions, and strategically unstable. Nuclear weapons have not induced ‘maturity and sobriety’ into India-Pakistan relations. Indeed, they have promoted rank adventurism based on the premise that nuclear weapons furnish a shield or cover for needling and harassing the adversary in numerous conventional ways. The casual, cavalier, manner in which Indian and Pakistani officials exchanged nuclear threats in 1999 and 2002 was spine-chilling. The two came close to the brink of a nuclear attack at least three times.
Thanks to pure adventurism, Pakistan and India went to war at Kargil a year after the Pokharan-Chagai nuclear tests. Kargil was a serious middle-sized conflict by international standards, involving 40,000 Indian troops, top-of-the-line weaponry, and billions of dollars. The casualties exceeded 1,000.
Take global stature and the supposed ability to expand room for international manoeuvre. After Chagai, Pakistan became a virtual pariah state — until 9/11, which gave it a chance to get into an alliance with the US. True, India’s global profile has risen. But that is more because of information technology successes and economic growth and despite nuclear weapons. India’s bargaining power and room for manoeuvre vis-a-vis Washington has shrunk thanks to nuclearisation. That’s one reason why India had to get into an unequal ‘strategic partnership’ with the US and take ambivalent positions on many US policies and actions.
Nuclearisation’s still-unfolding economic costs have proved extremely burdensome. India’s military budget has more than doubled in absolute terms since Pokharan-II. Pakistan’s spending has followed the same trend. This is just for starters. As their nuclear programmes proceed towards deployment, military spending will skyrocket. With an arms race in the Indian case, two races, the other being with China, it could spiral out of control, ruinously, for all concerned.
The low-end estimate for a small arsenal, one which is only one-fifth the size of China’s, is Rs60,000 to 100,000 crores. This would entail doubling the military budget, which is now 3.2 per cent of GDP.
All this means paying through our nose to court yet more insecurity. The nuclear danger cannot be contained or managed while retaining nuclear weapons. Systematic elimination of nuclear weapons, beginning with the South Asian region, is the only solution. India can work for it if it revives and upgrades the thoughtful Rajiv Gandhi plan of 1988, which involves a three-stage process of global nuclear elimination.
But this means making an extraordinarily bold gesture of nuclear restraint in the South Asian region. Is India ready for this? The alternative is an unsafe world over which the nuclear sword will hang forever.

index

Behind the arms deal

The view from Nepal: did New Delhi give in to the pressure of its own army to release aid to Nepal?

A disgruntled Nepalese politician from the terai plains, an area supposed to be close to India both geographically and socio-culturally, has an anecdote to underline the difference between Chinese and Indian diplomacy. “When a Chinese diplomat is transferred,” he says, “he leaves his address book with the list of his acquaintances for his successor, so that the latter can continue cultivating them. But when an Indian diplomat leaves, that is the end to his contacts. His successor will cultivate a new clique and there will be no continuity.”

India’s ties

That, in a nutshell, also sums up India’s relations with Nepal, if not its entire foreign policy. On February 1, after King Gyanendra deposed prime minister Sher Bahadur Deuba with the help of the army and set himself up as the head of the new government, India was among the first countries to show “serious concern” at the royal coup and urge for the restoration of multi-party democracy and constitutional monarchy.
To show its displeasure, New Delhi not only froze military assistance to the Royal Nepalese Army, it also stopped commercial cooperation, which includes work on mutually beneficial joint ventures like hydropower projects, and economic cooperation, that means altruistic aid for ordinary citizens in sectors like education and health. It even terminated sport engagements in Nepal with all Everest expeditions by defence forces heading for the peak via Tibet and not Kathmandu. An Indian Army all women’s team, that was originally scheduled to make the attempt from Nepal and accept logistic help from the Royal Nepalese Army, also changed its route.
Though Indian defence authorities said it was due to the lack of security in Nepal, the result of Maoist insurgency, the mountaineering community did not buy the reason. The buzz was that it was prompted by India’s annoyance. “Whatever it was, the decision cost the Indian government a sizeable sum,” shrugs a senior Nepalese official. “The Nepal government, to show its appreciation of Indian security forces, allows them to climb mountains here without having to pay the permit fee.” For Mount Everest, the most sought after peak in the world, the fee is about $10,000.
Yet, India agrees to play cricket with Pakistan, with whom it has had direct confrontations. It continues to have relations with Myanmar, ruled by a military junta, with Iran and Bhutan, whose king has been conducting an ethnic purge that has directly affected Nepal with over 100,000 Bhutanese refugees sheltering in the tiny Himalayan kingdom. Though Bhutan keeps putting off the repatriation of the refugees, India has refused to mediate, calling it a bilateral issue between India and Nepal. And yet, the same India has criticised Nepal over the coup, which Nepal’s other neighbour China has called the kingdom’s internal matter.

Foreign policy

Nepal’s frustration at India’s ambiguous foreign policy erupted when King Gyanendra’s deputy, vice-chairman of the council of ministers Dr Tulsi Giri, held his maiden press conference. “Dr Manmohan Singh refused to attend the SAARC summit because he would have to shake hands with King Gyanendra, who to New Delhi was a dictator,” Dr Giri said.
“And at India’s Republic Day celebrations in New Delhi, all top Indian leaders shook hands with the guest of honour, the king of Bhutan, who of course is the most benevolent ruler in Asia.” But after Gyanendra met Dr Singh on the sidelines of the Asia-Africa Summit in Jakarta last month, the king promised to lift emergency and the Indian premier agreed to release the military assistance in the pipeline.
This is regarded as the handiwork of the Indian defence forces, who enjoy close ties with Nepal’s army. The Indian Army felt if India continued its arms freeze, China and Pakistan would rush in to fill the vacuum, causing it to lose the clout it enjoys by virtue of giving arms at a 70 percent subsidy. It also reportedly said the arms suspension was affecting the morale of the Nepalese soldiers in the Indian Army, who, when they returned home on vacation, as well as their families, were being pressured by the Nepalese army.
So while South Block would have preferred to hold on a little longer and see a fuller restoration of civil rights, New Delhi gave in to the pressure of its own army. The consent is not well timed, coming at a time seven major opposition parties have formed a coalition and are planning to start a mass movement against King Gyanendra. If they succeed in toppling the king and heading the government again, they are likely to hold this action against New Delhi. But the supplies resumption has not been welcomed ecstatically by the present government.
So far, the moderates have won the day. As quid pro quo for Dr Singh’s thawing, King Gyanendra has offered to open Nepal as a transit route between India and China, that New Delhi thinks could help restore its growing trade imbalance with Beijing. Within a week of returning home from his foreign trip, the king formed a task force to prepare the economic and legal framework of a tripartite treaty to be signed between India, Nepal and China. The task force, comprising top bureaucrats, has been asked to prepare the draft in two months. As the moderates say, for over four years, India had been pressing various parties in power for the transit route with no result but now, the king has made files move.

Bus service pact

However, if everything goes according to schedule, King Gyanendra has promised to restore multi-party democracy in three years. If he keeps his promise, New Delhi would have to deal with the parties again, who might just unravel all the cooperation – like the Deuba government blocked a bus service pact between India and Nepal signed by the earlier Surya Bahadur Thapa government. If the king reneges on his promise, India would have to deal with a dictator with whom the largest democracy in the world would be seen as having thrown in its lot at a time when its allies the US and UK held back military aid, asking for fuller democracy.

index

Slow train to Pakistan

Immigration forms in English, two lengthy customs and immigration checks at Attari and Wagah and eight hours to travel 42 km! That is how taxing the Amritsar-Lahore train journey is.

EVEN as the successful first run of the bus journey between Srinagar and Muzaffarabad is being celebrated, we need to do an urgent rethink on the manner in which the Amritsar to Lahore train link is being conducted.
In November/December 2004, I travelled on the Samjauta Express and I can say with complete honesty that it is one of the toughest rail journeys in the world. Not only does it try one's patience, but it also saps one's mental and physical energies with the paperwork and the incomprehensible delays involved.
At the Attari railway station near Amritsar, where one boards the Pakistan bound train, one has to fill an immigration form in English! This is ironical, considering that the 600-odd passengers who travel on this train twice a week speak mainly Hindi or Urdu. Many are illiterate and have to beg fellow passengers to fill in their forms. I filled a dozen forms on my way to Pakistan and another dozen on my return to India!
The scheduled departure time of the bi-weekly train which runs every Tuesday and Thursday from Attari is at 1.30 p.m. That means the passengers, who arrive by the "Attari Special" from Delhi at 6 a.m. have to wait seven hours before their journey begins.
The immigration forms in English are distributed around 9 a.m. And though there are several counters, there are long winding queues. The officials take their own time.
One portion of the three-part form is retained by the Attari officials, the second has to be given to the Pakistani officials at Wagah and the last (the disembarkation form) has to be presented on return to India. This immigration form is superfluous, considering that every passenger has a valid visa to visit Pakistan to begin with.
If that is not all, the customs check is yet to commence. We are soon standing in long queues. The over zealous officials want to check every single bag right down to the last handkerchief! Not surprisingly, the entire process takes over four hours. It is soon 1.30 p.m., but there is no sign of the train. Platform two at Attari is a sea of humanity.
A mother is pacifying two of her youngest children from her brood of six, while an elderly couple eats their roti and pickle meal in silence in a corner. The Pune drama troupe, with whom I am travelling, decides to rehearse its lines.
The Samjauta Express from Pakistan finally arrives at 5 p.m., a good five hours behind schedule. The 14-coach train arrives on platform one, which is adjacent to where we are camping. It is a smart green coloured train with Urdu lettering. The two countries run their locomotives and rakes in rotation for the 42-km journey.
The Pakistani tourists in distinctive salwar kameez outfits are soon familiarising themselves with the Indian immigration system. The long lines have begun to form and the process we had just experienced, is about to repeat itself.
When the Pakistani train finally arrives on our platform, it is closer to six o'clock.

Largely unreserved

The train, except for a solitary bogie, is unreserved. Seats have to be secured on a first-come, first-serve basis. It is sad to see old couples with large bags, being pushed around by younger, stronger passengers in a rush for seats.
Expectedly, we have to climb over bags and even gunny bags to reach our seats. Despite being crammed on an upper berth, a group of little children seems cheerful. However, an old man named Mohammed is pensive. He is travelling to Multan to meet his deceased brother's family. Mohammed is upset, as he could not meet his brother when alive.
The train crawls out of Attari station at 6.30 p.m. Proceeding at a snail's pace, it reaches the Wagah check post in Pakistan in about 30 minutes.
At Wagah, every passenger has to once again disembark with bag and baggage for the Pakistani round of immigration checks. You need nerves of steel to put up with this rigour. The plight of the older passengers can only be imagined. Only the thought of meeting their near and dear ones must be what keeps them going.
There are eight visa counters and it takes the Pakistani officers five hours to clear the 600 passengers. It is midnight by the time the last passenger wearily pushes his trolley out of the immigration area.
After the last Lahore bound passenger has finally boarded the train, it takes another 70 minutes before the driver is given the green signal.
The only consolation is the potato samosas and hot, piping tea. . It gives us a chance to use our Pakistani currency for the first time.
The remaining journey from Wagah to Lahore is covered in 30 minutes. When we enter the majestic, century old Lahore railway station, it is already 2 a.m. on Friday!
This way, we have taken eight hours to cover a mere 42 km. Marathon runners are sure to find this amusing!
Syed Murtuza Hussain, an executive from Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, however, doesn't think so. He says, "The customs and immigration checks were painful. It has taken me 29 hours to cover the New Delhi-Lahore distance. This is not acceptable."
My return journey from Lahore to Attari on December 13 is no different. Our drama troupe wakes up at the crack of dawn and reaches the Lahore railway station at 6.30 a.m., just to secure our seats. The train, however leaves only at 9 a.m..
We reach Wagah at 9.30 a.m. and after the now familiar, back breaking, leg cramping, five-hour customs and immigration check, we reach Attari only at 3 p.m.
By the time we lug our bags out of the Attari station, past another set of elaborate immigration checks, the sun has already set. The customs officer, who is eyeing my Pakistani Qawali CDs greedily, lets them pass after I make a noise.
In New Delhi, D.S. Mishra, Joint Secretary (Foreigners), Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, says, "The immigration forms have always been in English. If people cannot read them, they can get help from fellow passengers." According to Mishra, his department has not received any written suggestion from passengers asking for a shift to Urdu and Hindi. Mishra says, "The two immigration checks are inevitable. These are international borders of two sovereign nations. The two sides have to follow their own prescribed procedures. We are trying to streamline the procedures at our end."
If you ask me, they should do away with the immigration paperwork completely.
Also, they must consider rechristening the Samjauta Express, as the "Dawn to Dusk Express".

index

The nukes' seventh anniversary I

Changes wrought by South Asian nukes

The international context of South Asia's nuclear weapons is important. To begin with, India and Pakistan were born as separate nations soon after the World War II ended. This War destroyed old European imperialisms making the world bipolar, characterised by an equally ferocious cold war. The WWII started between European imperialists and Axis of Fascist states. It led to a total victory after the alliance of old European imperialists with the US and a Soviet Union that had burst on the world stage in 1917. German and Italian Fascists, supported by Japan, were defeated. Fascists were aggressive nationalists who wanted to carve out empires of their own by war. The bipolar post- WWII world was mostly dominated by US, the real victor of the 1939-45 war, with the Soviets challenging it.
British imperialism gave way to the newly independent states of India and Pakistan, later also Bangladesh. They found the world divided and Nehru's India chose to follow a course of non-alignment along with the likes of Marshal Tito, Gemal Nasser and Sukarno. Pakistan looked for outside support (against India) and the US happily accepted it, although insisting not to have become a partisan against India. The US supported all Pakistan's Bonapartes in scuttling democracy and made Pakistan a satellite.
Nehru's heritage was a state committed to secular liberalism, social reforms -- chiefly ending feudal land tenures -- vague socialism, anti-imperialism and improving the world order. All this was foreign and unfamiliar to the Muslim League's galaxy, except Jinnah who was a secular liberal. Most others proudly preserved Pakistan's inherited social system though only a few proforma and largely ineffective land ownership reforms were made. The Leaguers' consuming idea, however, was military weakness relative to India. While Nehru tried ineffectually to refashion the world, Pakistan's stalwarts sold themselves for obsolescent military equipment that failed to offset India's advantage, becoming American stooges. Ties with US caused the murder of democracy, with generals becoming the authority of last resort.
Pakistan tried to counter Nehru's internationalism with a rapid pan-Islamism, hoping to become leaders of the Islamic World. Muslim kings and dictators now gracing a toothless OIC are terrified after 9/11.
The US needed the Pakistan Army and a long era of roller-coaster relations between Pakistan and America ensued, involving more heartbreaks than bliss. America perfected techniques of regime changes quite early and much of the Third World was foisted with US-supporting dictators. A few former colonies chose to become satellites of the Soviets. Nehru-Tito-Sukarno and other leadership of Non-aligned Movement held the high moral ground. The people of Pakistan were baffled and angry; often hearing taunts of being American stooges.
At the heart of the story is Pakistan's ties with India. Pakistan initially aligned with US to obtain support against India's highhandedness in Kashmir. The history of these ties is well known, characterised as they are by three full-scale wars and three or four quasi-wars. Pakistan, reflecting the ground reality of its own state of development and size of its resources, was never successful in these wars and fierce skirmishes. India always managed to stymie Pakistan. After 1971's decisive defeat, Pakistan opted for nuclear weapons. Its crash programme succeeded fairly soon. The exact date of its starting is not important: it was either 1972 as some have asserted, while Pakistan government talks of 1976. Anyhow Pakistan acquired nuclear capability by the mid 1980s; by 1986 it could threaten India with a nuclear riposte.
Why India chose to go nuclear remains a matter of speculation. Some think that India always wanted to be a nuclear power, as the road to national grandeur. Many think that the Indians were of two minds; others believe they were more interested in moral stature; still others think they were simply going slow. Anyhow India chose 1974 to test explode a nuclear device, and has been nuclear-capable since then, as an undeclared nuclear power. Speculation about its motives remains. Why did it go nuclear after the long history of its own international campaigns against nuclear weapons and the leadership of Non-aligned Movement? That is inexplicable. Perhaps somehow Mrs. Indira Gandhi heard about the start of Pakistan's nuclear programme and wanted to warn it. Motivation is less important than the effect, however.
About Pakistan there is absolutely no doubt that its nuclear programme is militaristic and India-centric. It wanted an equalizer against India's superiority in conventional armaments as well as in resources. It thought that the cheapest route to greatness was going nuclear. As soon as Pakistan had exploded its six nuclear devices in May 1998, its chattering classes went ga ga; Pakistan was termed the seventh great nuclear power of the world. A hubris set in about Pakistan's defence being impregnable.
What this means is that Pakistan and India had jointly drilled a large hole in the Non-Proliferation Treaty. NPT represented a noble objective -- though largely on paper. There are contradictions in it. The five recognised nuclear powers refuse to implement the promise of NPT's Article 6, making the Treaty one-sided. Others are being asked not to make atomic bombs while the Big Five are smugly sitting on countless nuclear weapons.
Except the Soviets and Chinese, the other three permanent members of the UN Security Council, have winked wickedly at Israel's nuclear weapons. America and France had actually helped it become a nuclear power. While the Big Five continue campaigning for NPT, they refuse to do what the Treaty asks them to. This is a case of double standards. True, Pakistan and India inhabit a world dominated by two, and now one, superpower. Their going nuclear simply made the international order more chaotic and has rendered the NPT into an instrument of superpower coercion, virtually cancelling its noble aim.
The fact is that nobody respects India and Pakistan for their nuclear prowess. A consequence is that the road to proliferation looks rosy to many have-nots; it is only a matter of time before new members join the non-recognised nuclear powers' club. Apart from promoting proliferation by precedence, India's defection has killed non-alignment as an international force. The UN has been rendered even more farcical and the US is being respected more, after the Soviets died. India too has joined the US drive to remake Asia. The US is generally able to use the UN machinery for its purposes. And as soon as the Soviet Union expired, the Americans started crudely exploiting the UN. The latest insult inflicted on it is to nominate John Bolton as America's representative in the UN -- a man who is on record belittling the UN and affirming the intention of using it when profitable and discarding it when not required.
Finally, India and Pakistan are seriously threatening their neighbourhood even more than they promote unilateralism. World Order is even more fragile and precarious today. The absence of an equal power has made the US taller than it is, while others are reduced to second rank powers in Europe, Japan and China. While the US knows what it wants, others find the world less predictable than before.
There is also very little chance of Pakistan and India being welcomed into the Nuclear Club or NPT as a recognised nuclear power, as is their immediate objective. The two remain secondary powers at best, nukes notwithstanding.

index

City is happy to be rid of Chagai hills and Ghauri missile models

LAHORE: Most people in Lahore are pleased that the Punjab government has removed models of the Chagai hills and Ghauri missile from public display because they symbolised war and violence. Saleema Hashmi, an art critic, said that throughout the world models are only installed after considering public opinion and its future impact on people, but unfortunately in Pakistan this process is not carried out. She said that the models of the Chagai hills and Ghauri missile did not depict beauty, love, peace or culture. Mian Yousaf Salahuddin, a prominent socialite, appreciated the removal of the models and said that people throughout the world have tried to demolish such models. He said that if India had similar models depicting its nuclear power than it should also have them removed.
Dr Ajaz Anwar, a painter, said that the models symbolised war. He said that many foreigners visited the Lahore Railway Station and the Chagai hills model gave a bad impression of the city. He said that the historic Lahore Railway station building was beautiful and it was not appropriate to have placed the models outside it in the first place.
The Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), however, sees the removal as a weakness of the government. MNA Muhammad Pervaiz Malik, PML-N central finance secretary, said that the removal of the models reflected the government's cowardice.
The Punjab government removed the models from the Lahore Railway Station on Sunday (May 8). The monuments were placed outside the station during Nawaz Sharif's regime. The models represented the nuclear tests conducted at Chagai in Balochistan on May 28, 1998. The two replicas were installed at eye-catching locations in 1999 with the objective of evoking national sentiment and patriotic feelings.

index

Indian cabinet approves pending shipment of arms to Nepal

India has decided to send to Nepal a shipment of arms it had delayed after King Gyanendra seized power in the tiny Himalayan kingdom, a spokesman said.
"With the lifting of the emergency in Nepal ... and the release of several political party leaders and activists, the government of India has decided to release some of the supplies currently in the pipeline, including vehicles," an official spokesman said in a statement on Tuesday.
India is Nepal's biggest arms supplier and has close ties to the country's military which has been fighting a Maoist rebellion that has claimed more than 11,000 lives since 1996.
It suspended military assistance following Gyanendra's sacking of the democratically elected government and assumption of power on February 1.
Britain also cut arms supplies to Nepal and joined India, the European Union and the United States in asking Gyanendra to restore democracy.
The spokesman added that India expected "further and early steps towards the restoration of multi-party democracy and constitutional monarchy" would be taken by the king in the coming days.
The decision to resume arming Nepal follows a meeting between Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Gyanendra in Jakarta on the sidelines of an Asia-Africa meeting last month and the subsequent lifting of the emergency in Nepal, the spokesman added.
US Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs, Christina Rocca, is currently in Nepal amid speculation the United States could consider sending M-16 rifles and ammunition to Nepal's military at the end of this month.
US ambassador to Nepal James Moriarty told a public forum in Washington recently that the United States would decide by the end of May on further military assistance to Nepal to fight the Maoist insurgency.
The Rocca visit follows Gyanendra's lifting the state of emergency in the kingdom, but rights groups say that press freedoms and basic civil rights remain restricted and hundreds of people have been arrested by authorities including former prime minister Deuba on corruption charges.
"If such military aid is given, then it will only strengthen the king's actions in suppressing human rights and attempting to silence democratic opposition," said T. Kumar, Amnesty International's Washington-based advocacy director for Asia and the Pacific.
"While we are glad that Secretary Rocca is visiting Nepal, we urge her not to miss the opportunity to send a strong message to the king that the United States will not sit silently and provide any military assistance until restoration of human rights and democracy in Nepal," he said.

index

Indian delegation to be allowed to hold peace rally in Lahore: District Nazim

LAHORE: District Nazim Lahore Mian Amir Mehmood has said that if the Indian delegation, which did a peace, march from Dehli to Multan wants to do another peaceful march the district administration of Lahore would allow it to do so.
He said this during his meeting with the members of the delegation in Lahore. The district Nazim Lahore welcomed the Indian delegation in Lahore.
He said that it is necessary that the Pak-India relationship is dual sided and exchanges of elected representatives along with prominent personalities from different fields of life from both countries must take place. The district Nazim further said that new land and air routes should be opened between Pakistan and India.
The members of the Indian delegation demanded that they should be allowed to hold a peace march at Lahore. They also stressed that the bottlenecks for the acquirement of visa must also be removed and the defence budget should be minimized so that it can be used for the people.
The members of the both the Pakistani and Indian delegation chanted slogans for Kashmir. The district Nazim Lahore said that friendship is always two-sided and we would have good relations with India if our friendship is also two-sided.
"We have welcomed them in Lahore and if they want to hold a peace march in any street of Lahore then we have no objections on such a step", Mehmood said.

index

Peace marchers for end to Indo-Pak arms race

PARTICIPANTS of India Pakistan Peace March have urged the governments of both the countries to end arms race and missile testing if they want to establish peace in the region.
The peace ceremony was organised by World Punjabi Congress on Sunday at a local hotel. The India Pakistan Peace March was organised by different NGOs and a delegation of 20 members which started the march from Delhi and entered Pakistan through Wagha. The delegation consists of 11 Indians and nine Pakistanis.
The delegation is headed by Sandeep Pandey, who runs an NGO, "Voice of Ayodhiya". The other Indian delegates include Gurudial Singh Sheetal, Mahesh K Pandey, Faisal Khan, Darshan Singh, Monika Wahi, Zaid Ahmed Shaikh, Niranjan Parikh, Ramnik Mohan, Sanat Mohanty and Mazher Hussain. Delegation from Pakistan includes Saeeda Diep, Muhammad Akbar, Safdar Mahar, Nayyar Habib, Rafia Bano, Miss Lali, Aslam Khwaja, Ghulam Hussain and Mithu Khan.
Addressing the gathering, Sandeep Pandey urged Pakistan and India to relax visa restrictions to promote people-to-people contact. He said both the countries should take steps to ensure peace in the region and cut their defence budgets, besides stopping tests of missiles. He said issues should be resolved through dialogues. "Kashmir is a core issue between the two countries and it should not be settled without the participation of the Kashmiris," said Gurudial Singh. He urged both the countries to eliminate their nuclear weapons as a solid move towards peace.
Minorities in both the countries should be protected and they should be given a surety that they are an integral part of majority in their respective countries, said Faisal Khan, an Indian participant from Ayodhiya. He said in Ayodhiya there were NGOs which were promoting peace and harmony among the Hindu and the Muslim and most of the NGOs were run by the Hindus.
Renowned Pakistani film actor Mustafa Qureshi said that in the present age film was considered as an effective media of communication and both the countries should use this media to promote peace instead of making movies against each other. He urged the World Punjabi Congress to produce a co-production to promote peace. He said Pakistan was a reality and those who were talking about the elimination of borders should accept the reality. Instead of talking about elimination of borders, we should plead for more peace and harmony among the people of both the countries, he added. He urged both the governments to relax visa rules and asked the Pakistani government to allow the Peach March to go everywhere in the country as a goodwill.
Fakhar Zaman, Chairman World Punjabi Congress, said the peace process should not be stopped at any stage in future. He said direct interaction between the people of both the countries will result in lasting peace. Sandeep Pandy said the peace march had initiated a massive signature campaign and the results will be presented to the heads of both the countries. He urged the people to participate in this campaign. He announced that a new campaign against the arms race in the two countries will be started soon.
Earlier, before the start of the program, the World Punjabi Congress showed a song sung by Shaukat Ali "Bohay Khool Deyo" to the participants. Another song of Arif Lohar was also presented. In the end, the congress distributed gifts among the delegates of the India Pakistan Peace March.

index

Those Greasy Guns

Denel is but one in a series of dubious Kargil-era deals awaiting an official probe

Out of the news, investigations into defence deals have a peculiar habit of slowing down. Public memory is also so notoriously short that scams are quietly forgotten. Last fortnight, Parliament went into a tizzy over procurements made during the Kargil war. The issue was back in focus after almost a year following the startling revelation by Scorpions, the anti-organised crime and corruption unit of the South African government. The agency found invoices from the treasury department of arms manufacturer Denel which showed the payment of commissions to Varas Associated Inc, a company registered in the Isle of Man. Varas was paid $3.6 million or Rs 14 crore for "consulting and technical services" offered to Denel in a deal it inked with the Indian government after the Kargil war.
Insiders in Denel questioned by Scorpions even identified the deal: anti-materiel (bunkerbuster) guns worth Rs 300 crore cleared by the NDA government in September 2003. Now, defence minister Pranab Mukherjee has ordered a cbi inquiry after South African newspaper Saturday Star revealed details of the 12.75 per cent commission paid to Varas. According to it, Varas had procured the crucial price negotiating committee (PNC) minutes for Denel to gain an unfair advantage over its competitors.
In Parliament, Congress and Left MPs demanded a probe. The general perception was that the investigation had to be kickstarted from scratch. But the dubious dealings of the Vajpayee government with Denel are nothing new. The procurement of ammunition for the Bofors gun during Kargil was a significant but conveniently forgotten aspect of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India's (CAG's) 2001 report on the purchases made during and after Operation Vijay. The CAG had already completed the preliminary scrutiny. What's left is a last lap of investigations to book the guilty. But that hasn't happened.
Three questionable Kargil-era purchases have been detailed in the CAG report. Prima facie, all three proved Denel was unduly favoured. The first case pertained to the same anti-materiel rifle (AMR) investigated by Scorpions. The NDA government concluded a Rs 22.23 crore contract with Denel for 100 AMRs and one lakh rounds of ammunition. The first batch of rifles came five months after the war ended, the next batch of 35 came after another five months and the rest were delivered subsequently. When the rifles were inspected in June 2000, the army found that they could not be cleared for issue because they came minus carrying handles, open sight systems and did not have a compatible night vision system!
The purchase of the AMRs was rushed through citing operational urgency caused by Operation Vijay. The lowest altitude in the mountainous Kargil sector is 8,000 feet. But the 20 mm AMR ammunition designed by Denel can be only used at an altitude of 6,500 feet. Despite the ammunition being unsuitable in Kargil and its other shortcomings, the procurement was completed. The army also went back on its own assessment and accepted the guns.
Bofors field artillery guns were the mainstay of the army during Kargil. But the contract with Denel for illuminating ammunition for the howitzers was finalised only in January 2000, much after the war. This was another 'emergency' procurement. The Rs 52.47 crore contract for 7,300 rounds illustrates the point that Denel was one of the defence ministry's most favoured manufacturers. Specifications of the ammunition were changed to make Denel the "single vendor".
South Africa became a source for the Indian army's arms purchases in the post-apartheid era. That too, primarily for Bofors ammunition. Ironically, Denel, now in the dock for paying kickbacks, got to do business with the Indian army only after Bofors was blacklisted for its payoffs.In fact, it's been alleged that some Bofors technology might have come in through South Africa. Denel has close relations with Saab, the parent company of Celsius, the new avatar of Bofors.
When Bofors guns were procured in 1986, the range of the illuminating ammunition was 18 km. This was changed to 24 km to suit Denel as the only vendor. This was done in 1997, when the price of a single round was negotiated at $1,440 along with transfer of technology.
But in January 2000, without transfer of technology, the government agreed to pay $1,641 per round. "The escalation of 14 per cent over two years with no claim for transfer of technology appears high and partly attributable to the weak negotiating position because of a single vendor situation," CAG noted. Worse, the Ordnance Factory Board had initiated work on setting up facilities to manufacture Denel's ammunition in India and reported in August 2000 that it could start production by December. But the NDA government was not interested in indigenisation.
Another Rs 55.1 crore contract with Denel for 155 mm red phosphorous ammunition for the howitzers also came under the CAG scanner. An army team visited South Africa in June-July 1999 and cleared the firm as a single vendor. The contract had a clause for free transfer of technology to the Ordnance Factory Board. Just as in the case of the illuminating ammunition, the red phosphorous shells were procured for the Kargil war. But the first lot of 1,200 rounds reached the Central Ammunition Depot in June 2000, and its inspection was not done till October 2000­Kargil was only a ruse to push through the procurement.
After the flip-flop on the first 'clean-chit-to-Fernandes' affidavit filed by the defence ministry in the Supreme Court on a pil over CAG's Kargil report, the defence ministry on April 13 told the apex court that it has asked the cbi to probe all the cases of irregularities raised by CAG. This brings into focus the other clean chit given by Justice S.N. Phukan to Fernandes on the eve of the general elections.
According to the 'summary' of Phukan's clean chit, leaked to the media, the judge didn't find any procedural lapse in the purchase of hand-held thermal imagers or Krasnopol ammunition. Tehelka had recorded on video army officers discussing how a lower bid from Sagem was not considered and how the deal was struck with another French company, CSF Thomson. The CAG report has pointed out that the Rs 41.95-crore contract had major irregularities apart from ignoring Sagem, like forgoing an existing Rs 9 crore transfer-of-technology pact of Bharat Electronics Ltd with Elop of Israel, which in March 1999 supplied the same equipment to the army. Elop's bid for the Kargil procurement was lower than that of CSF Thompson. Though the imager was bought in the name of the war, the actual contract was signed only in February 2000, when BEL was prepared to manufacture it indigenously.
Also, the Tehelka tapes had senior army officers bragging about how they pushed the case of Russian ammunition manufacturer Krasnopol. The Rs 151-crore deal with it was for terminally guided tank shells. Though it was known that this ammunition could not be used in high altitude, the government bought it specifically for Kargil. This is what CAG had to say about the Krasnopol deal: "It appears that Operation Vijay was but an excuse for pushing through a procurement that otherwise may not have qualified."
In the other controversial deal, the purchase of Barak anti-missile defence system, Phukan absolved Fernandes of all responsibility and merely blamed officials. Outlook had exposed the fact (Bang of a Smoking Gun, August 30, 2004) that defence officials had written notings on the file that the Rs 1,257.19-crore Barak acquisition violated procedures. To quote: "It will be seen from Para-16 of Note 187 ante that the provisions of the Defence Procurement Procedures 1992 haven't been followed in toto in processing of the acquisition proposal. The deviations from the stipulated procurement procedures relate to formulation of SQRS (staff qualitative requirements), issue of RFPS (request for proposals) inviting technical and commercial offers from prospective vendors, evaluation of technical proposals by TEC (technical evaluation committee), seeking approval of the TEC especially in regard to deviations from the requirement and selection of equipment that meet SQRS."
Allegations against George Fernandes in the Tehelka tapes stick because CAG has corroborated most of what was being dubbed as 'loose talk' by arms dealers. Major General S.P. Murgai (retd), who took up the offer from Tehelka's fictitious company to be liaison consultant, had taken the portal's reporters to Fernandes' residence and introduced them to then Samata Party chief Jaya Jaitly. Murgai was a member of the price negotiating committee which finalised the coffin deal from the US mortician, Victor Baiza. The PNC was chaired by joint secretary (ordnance) L.M. Mehta, alleged to have taken a gold chain from the Tehelka reporters. The coffin deal was clinched on July 28, 1999, two days after the last Pakistani intruder left Indian soil. The first lot of 150 coffins, which the army declared unusable, arrived in December, four months after the last Indian martyr was laid to rest.
Enquiries with Defence Supplies Centre Philadelphia (DSCP) confirmed that India had bought coffins for twice the US price. The imported coffins cost $2,500 apiece with $500 for transportation. The same coffins with US national stock number, 9930-00-823-9805, were bought by the medical supplies directorate of dscp for $1,250, that too on October 29, 2001. When the media exposed this, Fernandes promised Parliament a probe in May 2002.
But collective amnesia seized the BJP-led government and NDA convenor George Fernandes. It is now up to the present government to give a push to the investigations. But the big question is, will it? Arm dealers and middlemen are known to have their links across the political spectrum. Promising a conclusive probe is easier said than done.

index

Pakistan navy to get Orion aircraft, Harpoon missiles

Islamabad, May 8 -- The Pakistan Navy has placed an order worth $1.3 billion with the US for supply of eight P3-C Orion aircraft, six Phalanx close-in weapon systems and at least 60 Harpoon missiles, Xinhua reported.
The Pentagon has notified the sale of the aircraft and equipment to the US Congress, which is expected to approve it within the next 30 days.
According to an official, the eight P3-C aircraft with T-56 engines and associated equipment and services will cost $970 million.
He said the deal would be paid for from the US military assistance to Pakistan.
A media report said the aircraft would help the navy develop a long-needed fleet of maritime and border surveillance aircraft.
It said the command-and-control capabilities of the P3-C aircraft would help improve Pakistan's ability to restrict littoral movement of terrorists along its southern border.

index

Pak-India Peace March delegation arrives in Lahore

LAHORE: Twelve Indian peace activists crossed the Wagah border into Lahore on Saturday to visit the shrine of Saint Bahauddin Zikiriya in Multan. The delegation is part of a peace march, which started in March 2005 from the shrine of Saint Nizamuddin Auliya in New Delhi. The peace march has been organised by civil society groups and non-government organisations (NGOs) under the banner of Pakistan Peace Coalition and National Alliance of Peoples' Movement, India.
The Joint Action Committee (JAC) for Peoples' Rights and an alliance of 30 NGOs received the delegation at the border.
The delegation emphasised the need for peace and bilateral cooperation between the two countries. JAC, South Asia Free Media Association, World Punjabi Conference, Punjab Union of Journalists (PUJ) and other NGOs will hold receptions for the visitors.

index

US readies to sell missiles to Pak

The Pentagon has notified the US Congress of a proposed sale of anti-ship missiles to Pakistan, including 40 air-launched and 20 ground-launched Harpoon Block II missiles and associated equipment valued at about $ 180 million.
The proposed sale would also include 300 Sidewinder missiles, a release said on Friday.
The US had on March 25 cleared the supply of about two dozen nuclear-capable F-16 fighter planes to Pakistan and in an apparent balancing exercise paved the way for sale of the same aircraft and offered civilian nuclear energy cooperation with India.
Pakistan intends to use the purchase to upgrade and modernise its existing Harpoon missile capability, it said.
"The modernisation will enhance Pakistan's legitimate self-defence capability," the Pentagon told Congress, which has 30 days to move to block any such arms sale.
"The proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the US by helping to improve the security of a friendly country that continues to be a key ally in the global war on terrorism," it said, adding the proposed sales will not affect the basic military balance in the region.

index

India's U-turn on Nepal

India has let down the Nepali people's struggle for democracy and weakened its own claim to be an enlightened moral and political leader of South Asia.

Just three days before King Gyanendra left Kathmandu for Jakarta to attend the 50th anniversary of the Bandung conference, he passed on his royal mantle to his son Paras in a religious ceremony organised by the World Hindu Federation. The staunchly monarchist federation regards King Gyanendra, the ruler of the world's only self-proclaimed Hindu kingdom, as an incarnation of Vishnu, and therefore the sovereign of all Hindus worldwide. It aims to establish Hindu supremacy globally. The week-long religious rite coincided with the 25th anniversary of the WHF, which defends the King's usurpation of absolute power on February 1 and all his repressive measures.
No less important was Paras' appointment on the day of the King's departure as head of the Royal Representative Council (RRC) that would administer Nepal in his absence abroad. Paras, known for frequenting discotheques and getting into brawls, and feared because of his violent temper, has been groomed to take over from Gyanendra.
During the past month, Paras was present at Gyanendra's meeting with the Chinese Foreign Minister, inaugurated a special programme of state-run Radio Nepal, and attended an Army function where he looked the identical image of his father, "both wearing similar uniforms, caps and dark glasses", according to a report.
The message could not have been clearer. Gyanendra's priorities have little to do with restoring democracy or lifting draconian restrictions on freedom. Formally lifting the state of emergency is a red herring. What matters is whether he releases prisoners, restores media freedom, stops using the Public Security Act against dissidents, and suspends Tora Bora-style helicopter attacks which have been killing more civilians than insurgents.
None of this looks likely. Indeed, the April 27 arrest of former Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba and other leaders, including former Minister Chakra Bastola, only confirms one's worst fears.
Given this situation, it is completely incomprehensible, indeed unconscionable, that External Affairs Minister K. Natwar Singh, and then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, met Gyanendra in Jakarta and offered to resume arms supply suspended three months ago. Earlier too, there were signs of a weakening of India's resolve to give no quarter to Gyanendra. In early April, India worked in concert with the United States (U.S.) and United Kingdom (U.K.) to block a tough resolution at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva reprimanding Nepal and appointing a Special Rapporteur. Instead, they let off Kathmandu under a mild procedure, demanding only "technical cooperation".
The Jakarta meeting represents a deeper, qualitative break. It gives a shot in the arm to the King and legitimises his takeover. It weakens India's - and the world's - ability to hold his feet to the fire. And it is liable to sow confusion among Nepal's political parties just as they seem to be getting their act together.
It deserves mention that the very day Manmohan Singh met Gyanendra, a broad spectrum of Nepali parties met in New Delhi. Speaker after speaker assailed the royal takeover; indeed, most demanded dismantling of the monarchy itself. As a common minimum, they all solemnly pledged to agitate for a Constituent Assembly beginning early May.
Neither the External Affairs Ministry (MEA) nor the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) has transparently laid out the rationale for India's disgraceful Nepal policy U-turn, although the government was acutely embarrassed by Deuba's arrest. There have only been "background" briefings and selective leaks. By adopting this approach, the government has let Gyanendra get away with his public boast, "we have got assurances that [the arms supplies] will continue". This breach of India's understanding with him offered New Delhi a chance to spell out his commitments regarding a "road map" for restoring democracy. The government muffed it.
Five considerations seem to have wrought the unfortunate shift in India's stand. First, an obsessive fear that weakening Gyanendra would lead to Maoist infiltration from Nepal and a rise in naxalite violence. Second, the King's plea that he is running out of ammunition. Third, the fear that China and Pakistan would occupy positions of influence if India vacates them for too long. Fourth, the MEA fears that India might lose its leverage to settle issues of bilateral interest such as water, immigration control and trade, if it does not "engage" Gyanendra.
Finally, there is the lame argument that if India can do business with General Musharraf and the King of Bhutan, it should not be sanctimonious about another dictator. This is too fatuous to be taken seriously.
The Nepal coup represents a qualitative regression in a democratisation process that was fairly advanced in Nepal - in relation to both Bhutan and Pakistan. Besides, India had not boycotted Musharraf or the Bhutan King the way it did Gyanendra. The whole logic of India's initial response was to tell the King that it was unacceptable to use his war against insurgency as an excuse to snuff out democracy.
The other four arguments do not hold much water either. None of them is inspired by or relates to the situation in Nepal, as distinct from questionable notions of statecraft. As argued earlier (Frontline, March 11), the naxalite movement is indigenous and only marginally influenced by Nepali Maoists. Only a fifth of naxalite-affected districts abut Nepal.
The King has long claimed that arms alone can defeat the insurgency. But the Royal Nepal Army (RNA) has found it impossible even to control it with abundant weaponry. About half the RNA is deployed in the Kathmandu valley, whereas the insurgency is strong outside it. The RNA has more than doubled in size and fighting power, but it can hardly be treated as a serious professional force. Its commanders' personal loyalty and subservience to the palace undermines its integrity. The King's plea for arms and ammunition should not be entertained.
As for China and Pakistan, true, both refused to condemn the royal coup. China sent its Foreign Minister on a two-day visit to Nepal, and Pakistan offered $5 million in aid. But neither has offered to sell arms to Nepal. Both governments know that they have much more to gain from normalised relations with India than any minor "point-scoring" advantage they might win in Nepal. India's leverage in Nepal is incomparable to China's. The Indian and Nepali economies are tied. Nepal's vital supply-lines pass through India. Besides, some six million Nepalis live and work in India.
The "leverage" business often serves as a substitute for good diplomacy and an excuse for appeasement. Recall that the U.S. advocated "constructive engagement" with apartheid South Africa in place of tough action, including sanctions. The policy shored up a sinking evil regime. India would be best able to address bilateral issues such as water-sharing, environmental protection and trade by discussing them with a representative popular government in Nepal which enjoys real legitimacy, not a despotic one like the King's which may be on its way out.
The record of the King's emergency is absolutely appalling. According to the Asian Centre for Human Rights, in February alone, the number of people killed in the violence has averaged 8.41 a day, up from 3.44 a day cumulatively since 1996, and 6.52 persons daily in 2004. Barely two weeks after the palace takeover, the RNA carried out a massacre of 35 Maoist suspects (mere suspects) in Kapilavastu over many days. The dead bodies were flogged in front of television cameras in the presence of Nepali Ministers and RNA officers. The television cameras could not have arrived there without the crew having been tipped off. That makes this medieval act of vengeance all the more barbaric.
Most of the 3,000 people detained since February remain incarcerated, without trial. They include more than a dozen journalists. The media remains muzzled. Dissidents are regularly intimidated or detained. One of the greatest casualties is FM community radio, in which Nepal is a world leader. A major source of information to the rural public, it has fallen silent.
This is of a piece with the deterioration in the Nepal situation ever since the RNA's Unified Command took over in November 2001, followed by the King's arbitrary dismissal of the Deuba government in 2002. The executive monarchy has hastened Nepal's descent into the abyss - a failing state with dysfunctional institutions. The King's writ does not run in 70 per cent of the territory. The law courts are not operational in the 19 hill districts.
Greater militarisation of daily life has meant that even the police is becoming irrelevant. The number of police stations has decreased from 1,500 to 350. In tiny Nepal, more than 11,000 people have perished in violence and counter-violence since 1996. And at least 1,619 are missing. The more the monarchy tightens its grip on Nepal, the worse the governability crisis becomes.
The reason why the palace has interfered more and more in society and politics is profoundly retrograde. The King's usurpation of power, perceptive Nepali commentators like C.K. Lal and Kanak Mani Dixit have argued, was a reaction against the devolution and redistribution of power that has occurred since 1990, when parliamentary democracy was established. Power got increasingly dispersed to remote areas, regional groups and ethnic minorities outside the Kathmandu valley. This threatened the interests of the valley-based elite, including the royal family and the aristocracy.
The coup was a last-ditch attempt to reverse the democratisation of power and re-concentrate control within the narrow circles of the old ruling class, with its network of predatory interests and criminal activities, including smuggling and poaching. The takeover is unlikely to succeed in re-concentrating power. That agenda is far too anachronistic. Nepal has gone way, way beyond it.
India's interests - and those of its people - lie in solidarity with the forces of democracy and popular empowerment in Nepal. Refusing to arm the King, and goading him towards a ceasefire and negotiations with the Maoists, is the priority of the day. This is the best way of encouraging long-overdue reform, including land reform, and further decentralisation of power. The Maoists can be important allies in the process of progressive change. India cannot simultaneously advocate negotiations and peace with domestic guerilla groups, including the Nagas, Kashmiris and the naxalites, while advocating violence against Nepal's Maoists. That is neither good politics nor decent diplomacy.
In the past, India executed many turns on Nepal - doing the King's bidding by arbitrarily arresting scores of Maoist leaders, joining hands with the European Union (E.U.) in encouraging a ceasefire, then again going along with the U.S.-advocated "tough line" which declares the Maoists a "terrorist" organisation, and so on. A year ago, India, the U.S. and the U.K. sent their ambassadors to the leadership of the "Anti-Regression" initiative, which had gathered tremendous momentum and was planning a large-scale agitation against the palace, including a demonstration in Kathmandu with lakhs of people. The troika got the leadership to cancel the plan, which could have had a sobering deterrent effect upon the King. This casts a special responsibility upon India to help the cause of democracy.
It just will not do for the MEA to keep repeating shop-worn cliches about Nepal's "twin pillars" - constitutional monarchy and multi-party democracy. In today's circumstance, when the King is out to decimate and destroy political parties, it is meaningless to advocate an imaginary "national consensus between the two constitutional forces" as if they were equal, as the MEA did after Deuba's arrest.
The King is no longer acting as a constitutional force. India is called upon to take sides. The first step in doing so is to stick to the decision not to supply weapons to him. But India must do more. It must demand a time-table for the restoration of democracy in its full sense, and should not remain content with the lifting of the state of emergency.
There seems to have been very little coordination between the MEA and the PMO on these issues. Such lack of coordination was visible over Pakistan and Mauritius too. (Or else, the Indian Ambassador there would not have publicly contradicted Manmohan Singh.) This must change.
However, a larger issue arises about India's role in the South Asian region. In dealing with its neighbours barring Pakistan, New Delhi has so far vacillated between three poles or positions: aggressive self-assertion as the region's pre-eminent power; a passive status quoist force which offers "reciprocity" to its neighbours; and benign indifference or neglect towards its neighbours unless the situation there flares up. This does not amount to consistent diplomacy based on coherent policy premises, leave alone regional leadership.
In the final analysis, the credibility of India's claim to leadership will depend less on military or economic might than on moral clarity and the will to promote principles and values of universal significance, including democracy and popular participation. In doing so, India must show that it will not be Big Brother; it is enlightened.
India has a huge stake in Nepal's well-being and stability, which is a pre-condition for the progress and prosperity of a big swathe of the Gangetic delta, from Uttar Pradesh to Bihar and Bengal, not to speak of Uttaranchal. But great virtue must also be attached to making a positive contribution to pulling South Asia out of poverty, despotism and backwardness. After all, one-fourth of humanity lives here.
India can claim such virtue, and the legitimacy and honour that come with it, only by sticking to a principled stand on Nepal and other neighbours. The United Progressive Alliance government must shed its timidity, reject parochial calculations and develop a broad vision while acting in solidarity with the Nepali people. Will it?

index

Delhi to Multan peace march

An unfinished march

Is the Indo-Pak peace process irreversible? If so, why is the Delhi to Multan peace march being blocked, asks Sandeep Pandey

The Delhi to Multan India Pakistan Peace March, scheduled between March 23 and May 11, 2005, met a roadblock on April 18, 2005, when it reached the Wagah border. None of the Indian marchers were given visas to cross over. Earlier, the Pakistani marchers also had trouble in coming over to India. First, for 10 days, the Indian government delayed giving visas to the marchers; then the interior ministry of Pakistan did not allow the marchers permission to cross the Wagah border for another 13 days. It was only after one of the persons keenly following the developments, Saeeda Diep, whose commitment to the cause of India-Pakistan friendship is magnanimous, pressured the interior minister of Pakistan that the permission was granted.
It is funny that visas and clearances are not given easily using security concerns until pulls are applied. But when it comes to actually giving permission no procedures are strictly followed. When the pressure builds up for taking decisions, even a proper scrutiny is not done. For example, a list of 21 prospective marchers from Pakistan that was submitted by us was finally approved by the ministry of external affairs and communicated to the Indian High Commission in Islamabad for granting visas. Inadvertently, a name was repeated in this list and passport details of two members were missing. Consequently, nine Pakistani marchers - Saeeda Diep, Aslam Khwaja, a freelance writer from Karachi, Mahar Safdar Ali and Muhammad Akbar of Anjuman Asiaye Awam, Ghulam Hussain, who works on labour issues in Hyderabad, Sind, Lalee, a freed bonded labourer, Nayyar Habib, Rafia Bano, a councillor from Layya, and Mitho Khan - were finally able to join the march on April 14, 2005, at the banks of river Beas.
Sublime, river Beas: we went down in the waters on the bank and resolved that water, land and human beings are one and we do not recognise any artificial boundaries dividing nature or humanity. It was an emotional moment for all of us; tears were flowing down the cheeks of many of the marchers from both sides. The Pakistani marchers walked with us for the last five days of the peace march. The police were conspicuous by their absence. That the government did not feel the need to have the police accompany the marchers, while nine Pakistanis were walking with us, is a good sign. It points to the fact that normalcy is returning.
We waited at the border for two days in the hope that we would get our visas and be able to cross the border along with our Pakistani friends. However, after two days, when we saw no sign of visas, we decided to let the Pakistani marchers go ahead. The Pakistani marchers are now waiting in Lahore for their Indian friends to join them. They have registered their protest with their government for not letting the Indian marchers enter Pakistan. We are determined to complete the peace march whenever we get permission from the two governments. We knew right from the beginning that crossing Wagah was not going to be easy. We were mentally prepared to suspend our effort as an 'Unfinished March'. We are in no hurry.
The march will be completed. That could be in the next six months, a year, or any time in the future. We will wait. Our hope is our strength.
We have learnt from sources within the Pakistani interior ministry that Indians walking on Pakistani roads could be a security concern. Obviously, anything is possible when such an exercise is undertaken. After all, in our own country, Mahatma Gandhi, Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi have been assassinated. But the fear of any untoward incident should not prevent us from embarking on a noble mission. The Pakistani government must put aside all reports from security agencies and approve the peace march in a positive spirit. The potential gains far outweigh the risks involved.
Indeed, the promises made by the two governments during President Pervez Musharraf's visit to India about more people-to-people contact and soft borders seem to ring hollow - the ground reality has not changed at all. The process remains as complicated as ever; for the common person it is still a nightmare to even think of crossing the border. There is no relaxation in bureaucratic hurdles and Kafkasque norms. People are made to run from this obstacle to another. They are harassed and intimidated. We can only trust the governments if the ground reality shifts with a note of optimism. Finally, the experiences of people must validate the rhetoric of official claims.
We are afraid that the Indian and Pakistani governments do not really want the peace process to go into the hands of the common people. Until that happens, we cannot say that the peace process has become "irreversible". So long as governments determine the extent and pace of the peace process, there is a possibility that it may be reversed to suit geo-political whims. If they can buy fighter aircraft from the US, what is the guarantee that they will not begin issuing threats of bombing each other tomorrow? It is necessary to talk about the abolition of nuclear weapons and land mines and the reduction of defence budgets if governments want the people to take their confidence building measures (cbms) seriously. There has been such intense mistrust during the past 57 years that cbms without any disarmament measures do not appear credible.
If free people-to-people contacts and softer borders are allowed, it would become difficult even for establishments in Islamabad and Delhi to reverse the peace process. Only in an atmosphere where people are kept artificially separated from each other that hostilities can be promoted. It is the right of the common people to live in peace and harmony and if the governments represent the will of the people they must honour the popular public sentiment. The passport-visa regime between India and Pakistan must be done away with.
The writer is a Magsaysay Award winner

index

Indian army under fire for wasting lives clearing a million landmines

NEW DELHI May 6

The Indian army came under heavy attack Friday for putting soldiers at risk in a gigantic operation to clear more than a million landmines laid along the border during a near-war with Pakistan in 2002.
The Comptroller and Auditor General watchdog said the manual demining was a result of the army's failure to import hardware in good time after the 20-month military standoff.
"The delay in getting robotic equipment to defuse over one million landmines laid along the western front had led the army to clear substantial landmines manually, with a high degree of risk to human life," the federal watchdog said in a report.
Dozens of soldiers were killed and hundreds more maimed while clearing mines laid across vast swathes of land from disputed Kashmir to the northern Indian states of Punjab and Rajasthan.
India deployed some 500,000 soldiers, heavy armour and artillery along its borders with Pakistan after a December 2001 attack by pro-Pakistani guerrillas left 14 people dead at parliament in New Delhi.
The national watchdog said the military was supposed to have imported 40 demining systems by October 2002 to minimise the risk but failed to secure the hardware in time.
"The systems were proposed to be brought under fast-track procedures indicating a time frame of six to nine months and in exceptional cases 12 months," the watchdog said in the report which was unveiled in parliament.
"(But) the equipments were received at (military) engineer depots only between June, 2003 and March, 2004, eight to 16 months beyond the date indicated by the army headquarter," it said.
"The actual utilisation of the equipment purchased to demine one million landmines reveals that most of the minefields had already been cleared manually due to delay in procurement of the equipment."
Only 1,182 landmines were defused with the help of the imported hardware, the cost of which was not revealed.
Military sources said detection of landmines planted during the 10-month standoff proved a nightmare because monsoon rains had displaced many that had been mapped during the mining exercise.

index

Indians, Pakistanis to join hands against missiles

NEW DELHI: Say no to missiles and war and yes to peace and prosperity - that is the message of a mass signature campaign to be launched by the people of India and Pakistan from May 11.
Entitled 'No! No! campaign', it will urge the governments of both countries to immediately stop all missile testing as well as negotiations with the US for the purchase of F-16 and F-18 fighter jets.
The campaign, which is sure to expand the burgeoning constituency of peace, will start on May 11 (to coincide with the day India conducted nuclear tests at Pokhran in 1998) and end on May 30 (the day Pakistan conducted nuclear tests at Chagai hills).
Nearly 10 million people on both sides of the border are expected to endorse the appeal, which will be submitted to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf by mid-June.
"The idea is to make more funds available for poverty alleviation, health and literacy. Military spending dwarfs government spending on the two main social sectors of health and education," said Kamal Mitra Chenoy of the Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace (CNDP).
Outlining the ideology behind the campaign, Swami Agnivesh, a crusader against child labour, said: "The idea is to get the governments to spend less on defence equipment to create a peaceful South Asia.
"If India and Pakistan will engage in an arms race, it will only benefit the industrial-military complex of the US. The US is out to make bonded labour of both India and Pakistan."
"Instead, both countries should focus on trade, cultural relations, and the relaxation of the visa regime between the two countries," he emphasised.
Confederation of Voluntary Associations (COVA), based in Hyderabad, will act as the facilitating organisation, which will collect signatures from all over India. Pakistan Peace Coalition, based in Islamabad, will be the nodal organisation for the signature campaign in that country.

index

Appeal against arms aid

New Delhi, May 3: A leading member of Nepal's human rights commission today said he hoped the Manmohan Singh government would not resume arms supplies to Kathmandu as it would only serve to "legitimise" King Gyanendra's authority, reports our special correspondent.
"India should know that the problem in Nepal cannot be solved with the help of the gun, so it must not be misled by those who believe that defence supplies can in any way improve the situation. The guns now are being turned on political activists and the pro-democracy forces," said Sushil Pyakurel.
The plea came on a day India's ambassador Shiv Shankar Mukherjee briefed foreign minister K. Natwar Singh on developments in the kingdom. The consultations are aimed at helping Delhi decide on, among other things, resumption of military aid.
Pyakurel, who could travel out of Nepal because eight US Congressmen wrote to the royal government to allow him to visit Washington last month, said Gyanendra lifted the emergency mainly to confuse international opinion. If leaders are not allowed to take part in any political activity, it is as good as keeping them under house arrest, he said.

index

Indo Pak Peace Process

How irreversible is 'irreversible'?

The joint statement issued after Delhi's Indo-Pakistani summit described improvements in their mutual relationship as "irreversible" because of the sizeable peace lobbies in both countries. War mongering is no longer popular. But how irreversible is this peace process?
Things are often deceptive in politics. Entrenched powerful groups in both countries do not want friendship between the two countries, not even trade and economic cooperation. They like freer cultural exchanges even less. The two bureaucracies, each excelling the other in rigid approaches and in being actually backward-looking, do not want to change. Bureaucracies are always meant to preserve a system. They cannot be expected to take significant initiatives "outside the box." It is not their job. That is the job of political leaderships, and they should make the bureaucracies implement their "out of the box" thinking which requires change.
The two governments are a long way from settling down as friends and have still to build many bridges. Governments can always reverse their stances. There is the sudden reversal of India's policy over Nepal, for instance. Only a few months ago, India angrily condemned King Gyanendra's wrapping up the elected system by assuming total power himself on Feb. 1 last. It stopped military aid to the Nepalese Army. Now suddenly it has decided to send him armaments against the wishes of India's leftists. One goes beyond a mere notice of this instance of a reversal for a reason.
The proffered reason was other countries would take advantage of the tiff between India and the Nepalese King and would start supplying arms to him. The "other country" in this case could either be Pakistan or China because America and the UK were on India's side against Gyanendra. Now China, in its own national interests, would never give an excuse to India, the US and the UK to unitedly oppose China's help to Gyanendra. As for Pakistan, it would never go against US and UK advice, all its gestures of independence notwithstanding. But even this flimsy threat of Pakistan establishing a relationship with Gyanendra was enough to unnerve the South Block.
True, there could be a different reason. Maoist inroads in India itself demand that the Indian government should enable the Nepalese Army to prevent its Maoists from coordinating with their Indian friends. Doubtless, the Indian bureaucracy is stoutly fighting against Indian Maoists. However, this Indian iron fist has not stopped Maoists from spreading operations from the Indo-Nepalese border down to Andhra Pradesh. The logic of fighting the Maoists at home could impel India to cooperate with Nepal's anti-Maoists. But India's stoppage of military cooperation with Nepal had no links with the decades old insurgencies in India. Pakistan's fishing in Nepal's troubled waters could only be a minor threat.
Another example is military exercises that India is about to hold near Jullundhur. Who would be the enemy to be vanquished in this exercise? The emotional underpinnings of such exercises make the enemy known: it is Pakistan. The Indian Army is for preserving Indian borders from Pakistan; the two are designated adversary states for each other. Three wars and many skirmishes have stabilised these enemy images. These inveterate enemies have recently gone nuclear. Pakistan's nuclear stance is India-specific. Thus reversing the enemy image is going to take time and much more than diplomatic bonhomie and sweet talk; something has to be shown to the people before they change their inimical attitudes. The feel good factor created by the many "permitted" cultural exchanges cannot long be sustained on sweet words alone. There has to be evidence of inter-state free trade, economic cooperation and a credible framework of a lot freer travel to permit cultural exchanges to do their magic.
The Army patronises many other forces. Among them, two deserve notice: the first is the political forces that demonise the enemy. In India there is the Sangh Parivar and parties like Shiv Sena that are anti-Pakistan and, up to a point, anti-Muslim. The Bharatya Janata Party represents their political interests. The second group associated with the armed forces (and the bureaucracies) comprises publicists. Whole battalions of them are embedded in the military establishments as well as civilian ones. Governments need special media persons to be properly guided by intelligence agencies; arrangements to this effect are in working order in both countries.
This is reality. Despite professed recent governmental desires of being friends hard progress has been slow and halting. A tribute to Americans is due for bringing India and Pakistan to the negotiating table. This has had a benign effect so far. It is for India and Pakistan to go further than the Americans want. They should go much beyond a mere normalisation of relations. They have tried hard to make the Composite Dialogue, agreed in 1997, productive. Despite many rounds, it has so far yielded no solution to any of the eight propositions.
The two states have fixed a "normal" relationship as their goal, though the Composite Dialogue has so far refused to move forward. Both are still at the starting point. However, many agreements on Confidence Building Measures, some along the LoC in Kashmir, may have been agreed upon, there needs to be some concrete agreements on disputes. These CBMs are welcome. But they are reversible. Can the bus between Srinagar and Muzaffarabad not be stopped? Can the Munabao-Khokhrapar line not be postponed again? The two Consulates General in Bombay and Karachi can be made to wait more years. The fact is the two bureaucracies are micro-managing the relaxation process. Each action is under strict control. No state is ready to give the citizens of the other the freedom of movement in its own country. The Indians in Pakistan are supposed to pose unexplained security threats. Similarly, Pakistanis loafing around Indian cities constitute an equally serious threat to India. The two bureaucracies remain unreconstructed and unaffected by new impulses.
The two countries are fated to keep going round the mulberry bush if their aim is no more than normalisation. Normalisation is a vague concept. It can mean Peru's relations with Mongolia. It can mean, at the other extreme, relations between France and Germany. We must know what kind of relations we want. There have to be common aims before relations can stabilise and start growing into a friendship. It is common objectives that hold the key. One recommends the goal of peoples' reconciliation between India and Pakistan from grassroots up. It has to be complete reconciliation that should be reinforced with the aims of common economic and cultural objectives.
Today India is desperate for a permanent seat in the UN Security Council. Here is Pakistan, supposedly working to be friends with India, openly campaigning against India being elevated. Nothing could be more absurd than the present sets of antithetical approaches. Why can't Islamabad think holistically whether it wants to change or remain in the comfort of old notions: India is the enemy. Why cannot a situation be visualized in which India and Pakistan would invite each other to enrich themselves culturally and economically through cooperation and trade? Here is an exciting goal: let the two jointly undertake to ensure that each Indian and Pakistani citizen becomes entitled to social security in his or her own state -- a minimal but progressive one. And it can be created at the cost of their military budgets, if necessary. That will deepen the friendship, especially if combined with cultural cooperation.

index

Pak has no plans to supply arms to Nepal to fight Maoists

Kathmandu, May 3 (PTI) Amidst speculation that it might supply arms to Nepal to fight Maoists, Pakistan today said it has no such plans as dealing with insurgency is an "internal affair" of the kingdom.
"We have no plan to provide any arms to Nepal, we would rather concentrate on economic cooperation," newly-appointed Pakistani Ambassador to the Himalayan kingdom, Sohail Amin, told reporters here.
Also, he said, there was no proposal from the Nepalese side regarding military assistance to fight the Maoists.
Ever since countries like India and Britain suspended military aid to Nepal in the wake of the February one takeover of power by King Gyanendra, there had been speculation here that Pakistan might supply arms to the kingdom to deal with the Maoist insurgency.
"The Maoist problem is an internal issue of Nepal and we are confident that Nepalese government and people are capable of resolving the matter internally," Amin said when asked what help Pakistan could extend to Nepal to fight the Maoists.
"Pakistan is also a sufferer of terrorism and we are in favour of international coalition against terrorism," he said. "But regarding the Maoists problem facing Nepal, we don't interfere in internal affairs of other countries." When asked to comment on Nepalese people's movement for restoration of democracy, the Pakistani Ambassador again said it was an internal affair of Nepal and Pakistan didn't want to interfere in this matter.
"Pakistan has excellent relations with Nepal and we want to further expand our political as well as economic relations," he said.

index

India Vacillates On Nepal: Don't compromise with despotism

Did India lose in two days in Jakarta the tremendous goodwill it earned over three months in Nepal, by agreeing to meet King Gyanendra and resume the arms supply it blocked since the Royal usurpation of power of February 1? India is certainly in serious danger of doing so-notwithstanding the King's reported assurances about not extending the state of emergency beyond April 30.
The King quickly publicised the Indian offer and gloated that "Š we have got assurances that [the arms supplies] will continue." This gave New Delhi an opportunity to go public about the King's "roadmap" for restoring democracy and thus hold his feet to the fire. India squandered that chance and revealed utter confusion in its Nepal policy. This looks especially stark after the arrests of former Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba and others.
Whether or not India's weapons offer is conditional, and whether or not it's limited to releasing a consignment already in the pipeline, a shift has doubtless occurred in New Delhi's stance. It has been in the making for many weeks and became apparent at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva last month, when India, with the United States and Britain, blocked a worthy and tough resolution reprimanding Nepal and appointing a Special Rapporteur. The "troika" offered the King an escape route under a mild procedure only asking for "technical cooperation" (Agenda Item 19).
India seems to have diluted its principled stand against the Royal takeover for four reasons. First, there is the hyped-up fear in New Delhi that Nepali Maoists would infiltrate into India, aggravating the Naxalite problem. Second, the King pleaded that the Royal Nepal Army (RNA) is running out of the ammunition it badly needs to control the insurgents. Third, there was the fear-especially after the Chinese Foreign Minister's recent visit to Kathmandu-that China and Pakistan would occupy the space of influence vacated by India. And fourth, problems of mutual concern like water, environment and economic development would persist if India continued with its strong stand against the coup.
Remarkably, none of these considerations has anything to do with Nepali realities: most of the 3,000 prisoners taken under the coup continue to be detained; draconian operations remain in force, including Tora Bora-style helicopter attacks that kill more civilians than insurgents; the media remains stifled by censorship. On the very day Prime Minister Manmohan Singh met the King, the Royal government plucked out from a plane three Nepalis, including a former Supreme Court justice and the Bar Association president, who were leaving Kathmandu to attend a conference in New Delhi.
Fears about the "Maoist factor" are, to put it mildly, exaggerated. The Naxalite movement is indigenous. Less than a fifth of the 175 districts affected by it are anywhere near Nepal. Indian arms are likely to be used by the RNA to grossly repressive ends. Between February 17 and 23, the RNA conducted a massacre in Kapilavastu district and then flogged the dead bodies in front of TV cameras in the presence of Nepali ministers.
India should not worry much about China and Pakistan becoming Nepal's substitute arms-suppliers. Pakistan is playing a small game, and has no major influence in Kathmandu. Neither Pakistan, nor more importantly China, would like to lose the greater benefits of peace with India for tiny potential gains in Nepal. India and China could well have issued a joint statement appealing for Nepal's re-democratisation during Premier Wen Jiabao's visit to Delhi. This chance was missed. Finally, issues of India-Nepal bilateral concern would best be resolved if there is a representative regime in Kathmandu.
However, the weightiest reason why India should not dilute its stand against the King's usurpation of power is the Nepal situation itself. The coup has aggravated the crisis of governability and the monarchy has discredited itself. Nepal's political parties were thrown into disarray after the King unleashed a wave of repression. But now, they are recouping and planning to launch a focused agitation for the restitution of multi-party democracy. At a convention in Delhi on April 23, all major parties but one pledged themselves to a Republican order. As a minimum demand, they all agreed on a Constituent Assembly.
The Nepali people have tasted democracy for 15 years and won't be easily cowed down by the King. Nepal's politicians may not be South Asia's most competent, coherent or clean leaders. But as Nepali editor and commentator Kanak Mani Dixit says, "they do shine when compared to the monarchy's 30 years of misrule" until 1990.
Since the RNA's Unified Command took over under the monarchy in November 2001, Nepal has accelerated its march towards state failure. All its institutions, including the judiciary, are in trouble. The state's writ doesn't run in 70 percent of the territory. The law-courts don't function in the 19 hill districts. The number of police stations has decreased from 1,500 to 350. The healthcare system has collapsed. Growth has come to a standstill.
Since the coup, the number of people being killed daily has risen almost three-fold. The number of "disappeared" persons is now 1,619, according to the Human Rights Commission. More than half of the budget of the country, 42 percent of whose people live below subsistence, is financed by external aid.
The King's takeover had little to do with "safeguarding democracy" or even fighting the insurgency. Rather, it was a reaction to the decentralisation and redistribution of power that has occurred under Parliamentary democracy. Power has increasingly devolved to regional groups and ethnic minorities outside the Kathmandu Valley. As Dixit says, a "doubling of the rural roads network, spread of telecommunications, and the opening up of overseas employment" has made Nepalis more "confident in challenging authority." The Royal coup was a reaction to this momentum towards democratisation-a desperate attempt to roll it back. It was profoundly reactionary.
The King has acquired a new instrument of coercion through the high-powered Commission on Corruption Control, which is being used to intimidate and harass political leaders, dissidents, even judges. Community radio, in which Nepal is a world leader, is being destroyed. King Gyanendra's record thoroughly falsifies the grandiose promises he has made, including that of restoring normalcy in 100 days. He has done his utmost to promote the interests of a narrow rapacious elite that thrives on the peoples' poverty. Just before leaving for Jakarta, he passed on his mantle to his dreaded son Paras in a special ceremony organised by the World Hindu Federation.
Opposing the King does not amount to strengthening the Maoists. Indeed, it can encourage long-overdue reform, including land reform, and further decentralisation. The Maoists' methods can be criticised, but not their political platform-a representative, radicalised, democracy. Their violence fades into insignificance beside the excesses of the RNA, which is responsible for a majority of the 11,000 people killed since 1996.
India, with the US and Britain, did great harm to the cause of Nepali democracy and pluralism a year ago, when it sent its ambassador (present foreign secretary Shyam Saran) to persuade a multi-party "Anti-Regression" initiative to call off a major agitation for restoring multi-party rule. The agitation might have pre-empted the coup. It's India's moral and political responsibility to rectify this blunder.
India must now revise its standard formulation emphasising the "twin pillars"- Constitutional monarchy, and multi-party democracy. She must squarely side with the popular forces fighting for democracy. The King is a despot. He has shown no intention of reforming his ways. Even if he lifts the emergency, he is unlikely to release prisoners, bring errant soldiers to book, restore media freedom, or install a broad-based multi-party government. The issue of lifting the emergency is a red herring. It's not good enough that Nepal return to the pre-February status quo. It must go further. India has been seen as a bulwark of support by the Nepali people. It must not let them down by legitimising the King's authoritarian rule.
A larger issue arises. What role should India as an aspirant to Great Power status and a Security Council seat play? This cannot be separated from India's potential contribution to making the world, especially its neighbourhood, a better place. India must help South Asia become a more open, democratic, plural, just and equitable society at peace with itself.
Leadership is not only about economic clout, military muscle or political power. It's about the purposes of power. These will be legitimate only if they promote universal principles and values. Taking one-fourth of humanity, which lives in South Asia, out of poverty and backwardness undoubtedly constitutes a universal good. India must contribute to it.
The case for doing so in Nepal is all the greater considering India's special relationship with it, the 1,700 km-long open border, their citizens' right of residence and work in each other's countries, as well as historic ties of culture. A failing state and a deeply convulsed, troubled and disintegrating society in Nepal cannot be in India's interest. The King is the surest guarantee of disaster. He must be opposed-on principle and in practice.

index

HOME Landelijke India Werkgroep

pagina KRUITVAT INDIA-PAKISTAN

Landelijke India Werkgroep - 31 mei 2005