Vande Mataram
Showing posts with label International Relations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label International Relations. Show all posts
Saturday, May 14, 2016
Refugee crisis and Europe - What is the way forward?
The world is too small to allow even a tiny part of it to step towards skepticism and melancholia. Economic impact would be disastrous at far off regions from the affected places due to intricate dependencies. Political impact would also be a reality thanks to Social Media and spread of information. Can't afford to discount the effects of religious discourses of fundamentalist nature. When somebody of a religion is punched in a brawl in Africa, the 'religious brethren' get up in the arms throughout the rest of the world or a mass media campaign of alleged persecution is launched worldwide.
Sunday, November 11, 2012
The Politics of Love and Loyalty
Contemporary politics is an idiosyncratic trade. People stay mum for allegations which would attract a tight slap in normal situations and even an attempted kill in flared up moods. An example of one such (chronic) behaviour is that of the Gandhi family, not of the Barrister from Gujarat, but of the heirs of the person to whom he lent his surname. Feroze Gandhi. There were some retorts and repartees during the times of Feroze's wife Indira and his son Rajiv. But right after Rajiv's wife Sonia Gandhi took over the family organisation i.e the Congress Party, a lot of allegations were levelled, some even make the listener think as if hurling vitriol at will were the order of the day. But not even a murmur heard against such allegations, leave alone law suits being filed.
Sunday, September 2, 2012
Applaud PM's honesty - His silence is honourable!
"Hazaron jawabo se achchi hai khamoshi meri, na jaane kitne sawalo ki aabru rakhe. (My silence is better than a thousand answers, it keeps intact the honour of innumerable questions)," The PM prefers silence when questions are asked.
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
TESO - A cliff to cling on for the falling DMK
Off late we've been hearing a lot about TESO. Some of us might have TESO in dim distant past memories. A quick catch up about it. TESO stands for Tamil Eelam Supporters Organization, formed in 1983 with M. Karunanidhi (DMK), K.Veeramani (Dravidar Kazhagam) and Pazha. Nedumaran of Tamil Nationalist Party. This was formed to garner support for separate Eelam nation in the Sri Lankan island.
On 4 th May 1986, DMK organized the Tamil Eelam Supporters Organization Conference in Madurai. Atal Bihari Vajpayee, N.T.Rama Rao and Dr.Subramanian Swamy participated in that conference. They indeed were seemed to be bent on getting Eelam. All participants promised help to the sufferers.
On 4 th May 1986, DMK organized the Tamil Eelam Supporters Organization Conference in Madurai. Atal Bihari Vajpayee, N.T.Rama Rao and Dr.Subramanian Swamy participated in that conference. They indeed were seemed to be bent on getting Eelam. All participants promised help to the sufferers.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
US lamenting about Indian Nuclear Liability Bill
While going through an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal which was titled "India Law Threatens U.S. Energy Deals" where the writers argue that the deal affects business interests of the US, but I felt their argument is not compelling to listen, keeping the thought of considering it aside. Most of the content of the article was cited to people people familiar with the matter, but not even one reference was given to any one person familiar with this matter.
The article claimed that the U.S. used its global influence to nullify the international community's moratorium on nuclear trade with India after Buddha laughed in 1974. It also claimed that the U.S. expected India to set up a civil nuclear regime in place to get business for companies like GE and Westinghouse. If that is the case how did India successfully tested another nuclear bomb in 1998, given fact that the US influence resulted in India's favor only in early 2000s?
The article also claims that the nuke law threatens the progress in other business interests and further commerce between India and US. People familiar with the issue are looking for ways to circumvent the law, claims the article. Also it goes into detail about circumventing the law by Government to Government agreement pledging indemnity to suppliers foreign or domestic. Other way suggested is to negate the law when it is formally implemented when the executive comes up with a different interpretation challenging the purpose of the law. Another way suggested is for the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd to sign contracts promising to take on all liability with U.S. suppliers.
When I wanted more information about the nuke law, a part of the nuke cooperation through the 123 agreement, I did quite a bit of research online. I didn't go to any sites those ask to pay to view contents. I relied mostly on contents available for free and from trustworthy sources, like Government of India, Government of South Korea, think tanks of US and related countries, IAEA and opinions from experts who know the intricacies of the nuke job than those just read materials and claim expertise in media.
Well, none of the 28 countries which have nuclear liability laws insist on foreign supplier liability. The Rajiv-Gorbachev nuke pact to setup the Koodankulam Nuclear reactor also doesn't have the supplier liability clause to this stringent effect. The supplier liability ended when the reactor and related materials are handed over to the NPCIL. The argument that the suppliers foreign or domestic, Government or private would find it a risk too costly compared to the benefits from such a business is considerable. The rules of the game has been changed that people feel that India's stand smacks the my way or high way attitude.
But the international conventions give the operator the right of recourse against a supplier, take up the Vienna Convention and the Paris Convention Articles as examples. The South Korean nuclear liability law gives the operator the right to catch hold of the supplier of any material, service or equipment when damage is done willfully or through negligence. This is normal in all businesses. If you supply me a material or equipment of inferior quality or do me a service of lesser quality than agreed upon, then I have the right to sue you.
Why is the US whining upon this normal clause of general business practice/mercantile law? US industry has done business with South Korea with this so clamored threatening clause in force. Then why are they whining when India says if you do wrong own up the responsibility. We have history of the US business interests doing serious wrongs and instead of remedying pulling up stakes by pulling some political strings. Our own example is the Bhopal tragedy which the said WSJ article describes as the worst industrial disaster in the world, but considers the reference to it as a deliberate attempt by the opposition for the sake of opposing a lucrative deal, promising bright future, by citing a 26 year old incident.
The pain and suffering of the toxic gas leak victims and the impact the incident had on their lives and the psyche of their kinsmen could not be understood, because the real pain was told but largely went unreported for lack of follow ups by the media. They had their own priorities and preferences. Belittling one of the worst industrial disasters of the world and its pathetically handled remedial measures reveal a callous attitude towards the basics of journalism. It is one of the industrial disasters when it happens miles away and thousand lose their lives and future, but it is pain and cry when it happens to you. In words familiar to the US, "It's a recession when your neighbor loses his job; it's a depression when you lose yours."
Well, what is the way out with US working out of its way to pressurize us to water down the safety clauses? They work so hard to circumvent this law neither for the sake of the victims of any nuke disaster, nor to reduce insurance cost for the insurer (in business sense), but only to safeguard their business interests. The US nuke industry has always been averse to legal tangles in foreign soil, but wishes to get business without any risks to its profits. This is like wishing to get an apple a day without planting and growing a tree or spending a penny to buy one. There is no free lunch, is the answer to this attitude.
The better option is to do nuke business with South Korea. UAE has been working with South Korea on its nuke power plants. Seoul has its own stringent laws and is not party to any external conventions. So, they would understand our concern for safety. The UAE deal brings some interesting facts to light. The Korean have technology comparable to Japanese and arguably advanced than the US/EU giants. Koreans have a strong record for safety which was one of the prime reason the UAE Government awarded the $ 40 bn contract to Koreans.
The Koreans do better quality job for a competitive price while the US or EU companies charge more but take less responsibilities for any contingency.
The US/EU argument supporting their businesses are mostly depending on political clout they have (or had?) in the region, but Koreans talk business and could be trusted to walk the talk, given their business history.
The article claimed that the U.S. used its global influence to nullify the international community's moratorium on nuclear trade with India after Buddha laughed in 1974. It also claimed that the U.S. expected India to set up a civil nuclear regime in place to get business for companies like GE and Westinghouse. If that is the case how did India successfully tested another nuclear bomb in 1998, given fact that the US influence resulted in India's favor only in early 2000s?
The article also claims that the nuke law threatens the progress in other business interests and further commerce between India and US. People familiar with the issue are looking for ways to circumvent the law, claims the article. Also it goes into detail about circumventing the law by Government to Government agreement pledging indemnity to suppliers foreign or domestic. Other way suggested is to negate the law when it is formally implemented when the executive comes up with a different interpretation challenging the purpose of the law. Another way suggested is for the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd to sign contracts promising to take on all liability with U.S. suppliers.
When I wanted more information about the nuke law, a part of the nuke cooperation through the 123 agreement, I did quite a bit of research online. I didn't go to any sites those ask to pay to view contents. I relied mostly on contents available for free and from trustworthy sources, like Government of India, Government of South Korea, think tanks of US and related countries, IAEA and opinions from experts who know the intricacies of the nuke job than those just read materials and claim expertise in media.
Well, none of the 28 countries which have nuclear liability laws insist on foreign supplier liability. The Rajiv-Gorbachev nuke pact to setup the Koodankulam Nuclear reactor also doesn't have the supplier liability clause to this stringent effect. The supplier liability ended when the reactor and related materials are handed over to the NPCIL. The argument that the suppliers foreign or domestic, Government or private would find it a risk too costly compared to the benefits from such a business is considerable. The rules of the game has been changed that people feel that India's stand smacks the my way or high way attitude.
But the international conventions give the operator the right of recourse against a supplier, take up the Vienna Convention and the Paris Convention Articles as examples. The South Korean nuclear liability law gives the operator the right to catch hold of the supplier of any material, service or equipment when damage is done willfully or through negligence. This is normal in all businesses. If you supply me a material or equipment of inferior quality or do me a service of lesser quality than agreed upon, then I have the right to sue you.
Why is the US whining upon this normal clause of general business practice/mercantile law? US industry has done business with South Korea with this so clamored threatening clause in force. Then why are they whining when India says if you do wrong own up the responsibility. We have history of the US business interests doing serious wrongs and instead of remedying pulling up stakes by pulling some political strings. Our own example is the Bhopal tragedy which the said WSJ article describes as the worst industrial disaster in the world, but considers the reference to it as a deliberate attempt by the opposition for the sake of opposing a lucrative deal, promising bright future, by citing a 26 year old incident.
The pain and suffering of the toxic gas leak victims and the impact the incident had on their lives and the psyche of their kinsmen could not be understood, because the real pain was told but largely went unreported for lack of follow ups by the media. They had their own priorities and preferences. Belittling one of the worst industrial disasters of the world and its pathetically handled remedial measures reveal a callous attitude towards the basics of journalism. It is one of the industrial disasters when it happens miles away and thousand lose their lives and future, but it is pain and cry when it happens to you. In words familiar to the US, "It's a recession when your neighbor loses his job; it's a depression when you lose yours."
Well, what is the way out with US working out of its way to pressurize us to water down the safety clauses? They work so hard to circumvent this law neither for the sake of the victims of any nuke disaster, nor to reduce insurance cost for the insurer (in business sense), but only to safeguard their business interests. The US nuke industry has always been averse to legal tangles in foreign soil, but wishes to get business without any risks to its profits. This is like wishing to get an apple a day without planting and growing a tree or spending a penny to buy one. There is no free lunch, is the answer to this attitude.
The better option is to do nuke business with South Korea. UAE has been working with South Korea on its nuke power plants. Seoul has its own stringent laws and is not party to any external conventions. So, they would understand our concern for safety. The UAE deal brings some interesting facts to light. The Korean have technology comparable to Japanese and arguably advanced than the US/EU giants. Koreans have a strong record for safety which was one of the prime reason the UAE Government awarded the $ 40 bn contract to Koreans.
The Koreans do better quality job for a competitive price while the US or EU companies charge more but take less responsibilities for any contingency.
The US/EU argument supporting their businesses are mostly depending on political clout they have (or had?) in the region, but Koreans talk business and could be trusted to walk the talk, given their business history.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Indian Citizenship for Eezham Tamils
It is reported in the media that the TamilNadu chief minister MK has asked for Indian citizenship for Tamil refugees of Srilanka. As a vote minding politician his demand is correct. He could boast of getting them citizenship and end up getting their vote en masse. The ruling Congress at the center, which too could not stay back in expressing its concern about the Tamils as it could not afford to have the "bad name" of not caring for Tamils. Hom Min PC has said that the GoI would favorably consider this.
This episode sends a signal that even our ivy-league politicians could not think of the pros and cons of an issue and come up with an argument for or against a stance in an issue. He has to play second or side fiddle to MK for fear of losing the Tamil votes. Whatever MK says with a dash of Tamil sentiments and a splash of Tamil brotherhood, others have to follow suit or they would be branded as anti-Tamils. This makes democracy a mockery and Churchill a prophet.
The moot question is whether the Srilankan Tamil people want Indian citizenship? They, spread all over the world, prefer to go back to Eezham land and lead a life of their own. They have taken citizenship of many other nations where they stay to make a living. But when it comes to the question of foregoing Eezham and staying put in the country of living, they would prefer Eezham. The question may - no, it should-arise that what should be the problem for India to grant citizenship for Lankan Tamil refugees when other nations have done so.
The answer is, technically by the law, there is no problem. But the spirit of the problem lies with the sentiments of Tamils. Our brothers have been driven out of their homes by some beasts. Do we prefer to keep them at our home forever, or take steps to beat the beasts out and make their home livable? Of course we'll temporarily keep them at our home and take care of them, but won't we take real steps to get them back to their home?
The politicians of Tamil Nadu except quite a few have only done lip service to the Eezham Tamil fraternity. Either they've got money from LTTE and supported them in the name of Eezham Tamils, or they've supported Eezham Tamils for getting votes in their name and on their sufferings. They have merely played with the sentiments of the local Tamil people. Some politicians may go for a defamation law suit against me. They will never have the guts nor facts to tell the court of law what constructive steps they have taken without fear, fervour, fiduciary and political benefits.
Why can't the TN Government pressurize the center to go for an embargo of Lankan tea and other products in protest against the despicable treatment meted out to the Tamil brethren who could not manage to flee the war torn island? Why can't we step up diplomatic pressure on the Lankan Government through the UN, G-20 and other international fora? With an eminent Tamil lawyer as Hom Min in the Center and with the influence in the ruling coalition, MK could easily have got things done in this way.
Rather he prefers to keep our brethren at our home and asking them patiently wait for the good to happen in its own pace. Citizenship for them is not correct politically and sentimentally. Work toward getting them back to their home and let them live with dignity. The feel of losing home and living at someone else's mercy is really painful. The granting of Indian citizenship to the Eezham people would be a disastrous step that would result in forgoing the rights of Tamils for either a few thousand votes or sentimental foolishness. Step up a campaign against the holocaust of the east. Make the Lankan Government do the right things. That would really make MK a leader of the Tamil brethren as he wishes to be addressed to.
This episode sends a signal that even our ivy-league politicians could not think of the pros and cons of an issue and come up with an argument for or against a stance in an issue. He has to play second or side fiddle to MK for fear of losing the Tamil votes. Whatever MK says with a dash of Tamil sentiments and a splash of Tamil brotherhood, others have to follow suit or they would be branded as anti-Tamils. This makes democracy a mockery and Churchill a prophet.
The moot question is whether the Srilankan Tamil people want Indian citizenship? They, spread all over the world, prefer to go back to Eezham land and lead a life of their own. They have taken citizenship of many other nations where they stay to make a living. But when it comes to the question of foregoing Eezham and staying put in the country of living, they would prefer Eezham. The question may - no, it should-arise that what should be the problem for India to grant citizenship for Lankan Tamil refugees when other nations have done so.
The answer is, technically by the law, there is no problem. But the spirit of the problem lies with the sentiments of Tamils. Our brothers have been driven out of their homes by some beasts. Do we prefer to keep them at our home forever, or take steps to beat the beasts out and make their home livable? Of course we'll temporarily keep them at our home and take care of them, but won't we take real steps to get them back to their home?
The politicians of Tamil Nadu except quite a few have only done lip service to the Eezham Tamil fraternity. Either they've got money from LTTE and supported them in the name of Eezham Tamils, or they've supported Eezham Tamils for getting votes in their name and on their sufferings. They have merely played with the sentiments of the local Tamil people. Some politicians may go for a defamation law suit against me. They will never have the guts nor facts to tell the court of law what constructive steps they have taken without fear, fervour, fiduciary and political benefits.
Why can't the TN Government pressurize the center to go for an embargo of Lankan tea and other products in protest against the despicable treatment meted out to the Tamil brethren who could not manage to flee the war torn island? Why can't we step up diplomatic pressure on the Lankan Government through the UN, G-20 and other international fora? With an eminent Tamil lawyer as Hom Min in the Center and with the influence in the ruling coalition, MK could easily have got things done in this way.
Rather he prefers to keep our brethren at our home and asking them patiently wait for the good to happen in its own pace. Citizenship for them is not correct politically and sentimentally. Work toward getting them back to their home and let them live with dignity. The feel of losing home and living at someone else's mercy is really painful. The granting of Indian citizenship to the Eezham people would be a disastrous step that would result in forgoing the rights of Tamils for either a few thousand votes or sentimental foolishness. Step up a campaign against the holocaust of the east. Make the Lankan Government do the right things. That would really make MK a leader of the Tamil brethren as he wishes to be addressed to.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Unlocking of Lockerbie criminal - Compassion for what?
“Mercy but murders, pardoning those that kill.” - William Shakespeare.
We see tears, shrill and whine over Scottish justice minister's decision to free Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the criminal convicted of bombing the Pan Am flight over Lockerbie killing 272 people, on compassionate grounds. This leaves every sane mind with a question whether we need the provision in the laws to release criminals of such a grave nature on compassionate grounds. Megrahi was accorded a hero's welcome in Libya, as if he has done something extraordinarily good for his nation or for the world and had been jailed for a cause. Criminals who have the potential to be symbolized for recruits and trainees at the terror camps don't deserve to be released on any grounds.
Megrahi had killed people who hadn't chosen to die over the skies of Lockerbie. The people were common men women and children, who were going home or away from home for reasons personal, business and intimate. They were not allowed to live a life of their choice. They were killed at the behest of Col.Gadhaffi, by Megrahi and gang, to show to the world that they are someone that the world has to be afraid of. Releasing him on compassionate grounds is not what justice is, be it the system of whichever country. Earl Warren rightly said,"It is the spirit and not the form of law that keeps justice alive".
The argument supporting his release is not based on strong legal or judicial grounds. People argue that the American bombers of Iranian civilian airplane were not punished, so none should question the release of Megrahi. American bombing of civilian aircraft is a different case. People concerned should have approached the International Court of Justice or the UNO for dealing with that crime. It is not wise to compare two crimes and justify one. Crime is a crime and it deserves punishment through a thorough legal system.
Megrahi killed people and that is a fact. If terrorists wanted to show “compassion” they wouldn’t have become terrorists. Therefore showing compassion to them is criminal. The abettor of the Pan Am attack is terminally ill and would like to die in peace. Let him do it in the confines of a prison cell. If that Megrahi had repented for the killings he had abetted and took part in, and atleast felt bad for the common people whom he killed under the orders of one who wanted to frighten someone else for some reason the dead were not allowed to comment or even think upon, then his release on compassionate grounds to have him a death at the place of his choice would have some credibility. Peace has nothing to do with the place you live, it is a state of mind.
If people have the maturity to live life peacefully with a calm mind, even petty crimes would not happen. Until then, we need to have mercy only for the victims and not for criminals, especially towards such brainwashed people who take pride in killing in the name GOD in a form they worship. Megrahi should not have been released. Scotsmen have erred in judgment. This is a costly error. This has already cost 272 human lives and may cost more because of the agony and angst.
Englishmen are accused of having vested trade interests in this crime of release. If that is proved we have to hail Sir. Winston Churchill for telling the truth about the mentality of his people so publicly. He said,“The whole history of the world is summed up in the fact that, when nations are strong, they are not always just, and when they wish to be just, they are no longer strong.” Englishmen seem to be strong now and Americans are weaker. If this release is based on compassion, is it a compassion for justice or compassion for commerce?
We see tears, shrill and whine over Scottish justice minister's decision to free Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the criminal convicted of bombing the Pan Am flight over Lockerbie killing 272 people, on compassionate grounds. This leaves every sane mind with a question whether we need the provision in the laws to release criminals of such a grave nature on compassionate grounds. Megrahi was accorded a hero's welcome in Libya, as if he has done something extraordinarily good for his nation or for the world and had been jailed for a cause. Criminals who have the potential to be symbolized for recruits and trainees at the terror camps don't deserve to be released on any grounds.
Megrahi had killed people who hadn't chosen to die over the skies of Lockerbie. The people were common men women and children, who were going home or away from home for reasons personal, business and intimate. They were not allowed to live a life of their choice. They were killed at the behest of Col.Gadhaffi, by Megrahi and gang, to show to the world that they are someone that the world has to be afraid of. Releasing him on compassionate grounds is not what justice is, be it the system of whichever country. Earl Warren rightly said,"It is the spirit and not the form of law that keeps justice alive".
The argument supporting his release is not based on strong legal or judicial grounds. People argue that the American bombers of Iranian civilian airplane were not punished, so none should question the release of Megrahi. American bombing of civilian aircraft is a different case. People concerned should have approached the International Court of Justice or the UNO for dealing with that crime. It is not wise to compare two crimes and justify one. Crime is a crime and it deserves punishment through a thorough legal system.
Megrahi killed people and that is a fact. If terrorists wanted to show “compassion” they wouldn’t have become terrorists. Therefore showing compassion to them is criminal. The abettor of the Pan Am attack is terminally ill and would like to die in peace. Let him do it in the confines of a prison cell. If that Megrahi had repented for the killings he had abetted and took part in, and atleast felt bad for the common people whom he killed under the orders of one who wanted to frighten someone else for some reason the dead were not allowed to comment or even think upon, then his release on compassionate grounds to have him a death at the place of his choice would have some credibility. Peace has nothing to do with the place you live, it is a state of mind.
If people have the maturity to live life peacefully with a calm mind, even petty crimes would not happen. Until then, we need to have mercy only for the victims and not for criminals, especially towards such brainwashed people who take pride in killing in the name GOD in a form they worship. Megrahi should not have been released. Scotsmen have erred in judgment. This is a costly error. This has already cost 272 human lives and may cost more because of the agony and angst.
Englishmen are accused of having vested trade interests in this crime of release. If that is proved we have to hail Sir. Winston Churchill for telling the truth about the mentality of his people so publicly. He said,“The whole history of the world is summed up in the fact that, when nations are strong, they are not always just, and when they wish to be just, they are no longer strong.” Englishmen seem to be strong now and Americans are weaker. If this release is based on compassion, is it a compassion for justice or compassion for commerce?
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Sharm - El- Sheik: An episode of shame for India?
We've had a lot of discussions, lashings, defenses, promises, justifications and pleas on the Joint statement of the PM Manmohan Singh and his Pakistani counterpart in Sharm-El-Sheikh. The meeting was not a formal Indo-Pak summit. It was just a sort of a tete-a-tete on the sidelines of NAM summit. So, the first question we need to ask is what the pressing necessity was for a joint statement. Was it an unnecessary exercise by the over zealous foreign services officers? The PM had stepped over the External Affairs minister, a man he had trusted with the responsibility of taking the foreign policy forward.
S.M.Krishna is not a mere vote crammer who had risen to higher up levels only because of dirty political tricks and loyalty defying rationality. He is qualified lawyer from University Law College, Bangalore and was a Fulbright Scholar who studied and taught International Law at the The George Washington University Law School in Washington D.C. He is a man capable of understanding the nuances of foreign policies and working on them. He is often referred to as the father of modern Bangalore by making it the IT capital of India. He was also instrumental in creating power reforms and was a torchbearer of the Bangalore Advance Task Force. So, his skills are not questionable.
If the PM wants to earn a name as a peace propagator that is fine. But that doesn't mean that he should slight the presence of his minister responsible for external affairs. The PM could have taken up some task in his own forte Economics and done something exceptionally good for the national economic development, while every one has been concentrating and boasting on economic growth. Testing new waters without proper assistance has proved costly, not only for the PM but also for the nation. The external affairs minister was reportedly not involved in this issue. He also did not comment on this afterward.
Why should the PM okay a statement that has ambiguities in many areas and sounding to be a statement of Pakistan. In the words of Kanwal Sibal," it was an ill-conceived and badly drafted joint statement that had compromised India's position and made unnecessary and damaging concessions to Pakistan". In other words, the PM had, at Egypt, agreed to de-link action on terror infrastructure in Pakistani soil as a precondition for "meaningful dialogue" and had backtracked on it upon reaching New Delhi. The PM had cited example of his predecessor Vajpayee's invitation to Musharraf after the Kargil and Parliament terror attacks, while defending his acts.
We still disapprove of Vajpayee's decision to invite Gen.Musharraf as a state guest, whom any other soverign nation would try as a war criminal. Vajpayee had also backtracked on and earlier stand that Indo-Pak dialogue would not resume till democracy was restored in Pakistan. But he kept Musharraf under constant check, by surprising him with Pakistan's official secrets. The foreign affairs minister was not slighted by Vajpayee. He also never backtracked on his own words to the Parliament, which Manmohan had done twice, once on the Indo-US nuclear deal and now on the Indo-Pak agreement.
It is a diplomatic goof up. A faux pas by a novice in foreign policy PM, and was subscribed by an expert career diplomat, the foreign secretary Shiv Shankar Menon. We have had great minds with clarity of thought and the audacity to speak up the facts, no matter what the PM's intentions be, as Foreign Secretaries. T.N. Kaul, an ICS officer had remarkable ease in making friends and influencing adversaries, M.K. Rasgotra had the ability to reduce complex foreign policy issues to an intelligible political quotient, and J.N Dixit, with another foreign policy expert P.V. Narasimha Rao as PM, repositioned India in an emerging global order. We also have a south asia expert in the field of foreign affairs, G.Parthasarathy, who could also have been consulted. (sources for info in this paragraph: Articles by former FSOs of India)
But right from the Indo-US nuclear deal, we've had a PM who stands firm on his own beliefs and refuses to take people along with him, not even to hear their concerns and allay their fears. He had promised that the parliament would be taken into confidence before finalizing the nuke deal, but went back on that promise. Now that the parliament was in session, the PM had signed a documented dictated by his Pakistani counterpart, after making minor corrections. The inclusion of Balochistan in the document deserves explanation.
This would give Pakistan a chance to speak up that India is inciting terror in Balochistan and escape from it's long run crime of abetting terror in Kashmir and providing Governmental support to perpetrators of terror against us. The argument that the pathetic economic conditions of Balochistan would discourage Pak from raising Baloch terror as an issue in the international fora has no justification, but a mere attempt to cover up the PM by some of the supporters of his political Boss, under instructions to do so.
Minister of State for External Affairs Shashi Tharoor's clarification that the joint statement was only a “diplomatic paper” and not a “legal paper” questions the basics of the diplomacy.Diplomacy is a gentleman's arena where people go by the words and not by reassurances and clarifications. One agrees to something and sign then come and tell the world that the signature has no legal binding, pushes one's credibility to a weaker ground. Not expected of an international veteran diplomat, Mr. Tharoor, though he tried to save the face of his erring super boss.
The timing of the statement reiterates Mr.Singh's undying desire to please the US. The US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was to arrive after two days of the joint statement. So, to paste a rosy picture for Hillary to boast having got the warring neighbours to peace table, the PM had okayed whatever Gilani had written in that paper. It seems when it comes to pleasing the US, the PM wants not to trust anyone and do it himself. That was why the Minister mannig the MEA was stepped over it seems. The man who was tipped for the top UN job and had landed up in our MEA Shashi Tharoor was also not taken in by the PM and party.
One has to conclude, with all these considerations, that the PM had attempted to get an image of peace loving statesman, but ended up as a childish novice saying something and backtracking on that upon criticism of what was said. Are you serious about your job Dr.Singh? Please act with some sense of responsibility. We still respect you as an economist who is capable of doing good to the nation's economic development.
The Sharm - El- Sheik episode has proved to be a shameful encounter for India. Ironically Sharm means shame in Hindi.
S.M.Krishna is not a mere vote crammer who had risen to higher up levels only because of dirty political tricks and loyalty defying rationality. He is qualified lawyer from University Law College, Bangalore and was a Fulbright Scholar who studied and taught International Law at the The George Washington University Law School in Washington D.C. He is a man capable of understanding the nuances of foreign policies and working on them. He is often referred to as the father of modern Bangalore by making it the IT capital of India. He was also instrumental in creating power reforms and was a torchbearer of the Bangalore Advance Task Force. So, his skills are not questionable.
If the PM wants to earn a name as a peace propagator that is fine. But that doesn't mean that he should slight the presence of his minister responsible for external affairs. The PM could have taken up some task in his own forte Economics and done something exceptionally good for the national economic development, while every one has been concentrating and boasting on economic growth. Testing new waters without proper assistance has proved costly, not only for the PM but also for the nation. The external affairs minister was reportedly not involved in this issue. He also did not comment on this afterward.
Why should the PM okay a statement that has ambiguities in many areas and sounding to be a statement of Pakistan. In the words of Kanwal Sibal," it was an ill-conceived and badly drafted joint statement that had compromised India's position and made unnecessary and damaging concessions to Pakistan". In other words, the PM had, at Egypt, agreed to de-link action on terror infrastructure in Pakistani soil as a precondition for "meaningful dialogue" and had backtracked on it upon reaching New Delhi. The PM had cited example of his predecessor Vajpayee's invitation to Musharraf after the Kargil and Parliament terror attacks, while defending his acts.
We still disapprove of Vajpayee's decision to invite Gen.Musharraf as a state guest, whom any other soverign nation would try as a war criminal. Vajpayee had also backtracked on and earlier stand that Indo-Pak dialogue would not resume till democracy was restored in Pakistan. But he kept Musharraf under constant check, by surprising him with Pakistan's official secrets. The foreign affairs minister was not slighted by Vajpayee. He also never backtracked on his own words to the Parliament, which Manmohan had done twice, once on the Indo-US nuclear deal and now on the Indo-Pak agreement.
It is a diplomatic goof up. A faux pas by a novice in foreign policy PM, and was subscribed by an expert career diplomat, the foreign secretary Shiv Shankar Menon. We have had great minds with clarity of thought and the audacity to speak up the facts, no matter what the PM's intentions be, as Foreign Secretaries. T.N. Kaul, an ICS officer had remarkable ease in making friends and influencing adversaries, M.K. Rasgotra had the ability to reduce complex foreign policy issues to an intelligible political quotient, and J.N Dixit, with another foreign policy expert P.V. Narasimha Rao as PM, repositioned India in an emerging global order. We also have a south asia expert in the field of foreign affairs, G.Parthasarathy, who could also have been consulted. (sources for info in this paragraph: Articles by former FSOs of India)
But right from the Indo-US nuclear deal, we've had a PM who stands firm on his own beliefs and refuses to take people along with him, not even to hear their concerns and allay their fears. He had promised that the parliament would be taken into confidence before finalizing the nuke deal, but went back on that promise. Now that the parliament was in session, the PM had signed a documented dictated by his Pakistani counterpart, after making minor corrections. The inclusion of Balochistan in the document deserves explanation.
This would give Pakistan a chance to speak up that India is inciting terror in Balochistan and escape from it's long run crime of abetting terror in Kashmir and providing Governmental support to perpetrators of terror against us. The argument that the pathetic economic conditions of Balochistan would discourage Pak from raising Baloch terror as an issue in the international fora has no justification, but a mere attempt to cover up the PM by some of the supporters of his political Boss, under instructions to do so.
Minister of State for External Affairs Shashi Tharoor's clarification that the joint statement was only a “diplomatic paper” and not a “legal paper” questions the basics of the diplomacy.Diplomacy is a gentleman's arena where people go by the words and not by reassurances and clarifications. One agrees to something and sign then come and tell the world that the signature has no legal binding, pushes one's credibility to a weaker ground. Not expected of an international veteran diplomat, Mr. Tharoor, though he tried to save the face of his erring super boss.
The timing of the statement reiterates Mr.Singh's undying desire to please the US. The US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was to arrive after two days of the joint statement. So, to paste a rosy picture for Hillary to boast having got the warring neighbours to peace table, the PM had okayed whatever Gilani had written in that paper. It seems when it comes to pleasing the US, the PM wants not to trust anyone and do it himself. That was why the Minister mannig the MEA was stepped over it seems. The man who was tipped for the top UN job and had landed up in our MEA Shashi Tharoor was also not taken in by the PM and party.
One has to conclude, with all these considerations, that the PM had attempted to get an image of peace loving statesman, but ended up as a childish novice saying something and backtracking on that upon criticism of what was said. Are you serious about your job Dr.Singh? Please act with some sense of responsibility. We still respect you as an economist who is capable of doing good to the nation's economic development.
The Sharm - El- Sheik episode has proved to be a shameful encounter for India. Ironically Sharm means shame in Hindi.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
SriLanka and Tamils - An issue centuries old
Many voices and some fists have been raised in wake of the news of the LTTE head honcho Prabakaran's death in the hands of the SriLankan Army (or his suicide.) People tend to jump to a conclusion that with the death of Prabakaran, the Tamil-Sinhala fighting would be over. But I would say they are either overzealous about peace or have no eye for history. The Lankan Tamil crisis is not a one that had started during the British Raj. The Tamil-Sinhalese conflict and fighting is centuries old.
If we take a look at the history of South India, every one of the three dominant Tamil emperors the Chera, Chola and Pandias have had their war with the Sinhalese kings and had conquered the island then called Eezham. The Sinhalese kings have also shown their prowess by defeating the weaker kings of the Tamil dynasties. This has been continuing for centuries. The current ethnic problem has its roots in the history. Literature plays a pivotal role in fueling the fight. Sinhalese literature praises and lifts high of the Sinhalese king by showing the Tamils in dim light for the goods they've done and in bad light overall. The Tamil literature also boast that the Sinhalese kings lamenting about their ill-fate at the victory of Tamil kings over them, and shows the Sinhalese kings as born tyrants.
It is literature that gets more into the minds of the people than recorded history. Literature makes or breaks social harmony in such cases. But humans, with their emotionally charged mindset and fancy for fantasy, always prefer literature and it's mostly distorted visual form cinema. With exaggeration being the baseline of literature and cinema, the facts get distorted and human mind takes history as a reason to fight with others.
The present Lankan turmoil was due to the Sinhala only stance adopted by the Government of SriLanka. Instead of getting diplomatic pressure to deal with the potential ethnic cleansing, the Govt of India and the people of Tamil Nadu took the emotional path to deal with the issue, which made strategic thinking impossible. One man thought with a military mindset and he was left at the top with none to guide and mentor. He was Prabakaran and he gradually took course to eliminating other Eezham freedom fighters to hog the whole limelight. Had he been mentored properly, he would today have become the commander in chief of the Armed forces of Tamil Eezham with some political leader being the head of the nation state.
His unfettered desire with mentor-less thought process, lead to the separation of his own men from him, with which he lost trusted commanders like Mathaiya, Karuna etc. They were the people who translated the goal into military strategy into war tactics which lead to their invincibility for 30 years. Also he earned the wrath of the people of India and the world with the killings of Amirthalingam, Padmanabha, Rajiv Gandhi, Neelan thiruchelvam, Lakshman Kadhirgamar and the level headed likes. His self-centric attitude brought to an end his life (suspicions surround this claim) and his organization, till someone else takes it up again.
The problem with the people of Eezham is that they don't like LTTE, but the TINA factor worked in LTTE's favor, as the people liked to hate the Srilankan armed forces. Military victory over the LTTE of the SL Army would not solve the Eezham crisis as it is an ethnic problem not a national problem. Both parties involved try to get the issue resolved in their terms. Negotiations have failed. Now that the remaining leaders of the Tamil political parties need to take up the initiative to take the cause forward, for which great men like Amirthalingam were killed.
Prabakaran's LTTE is history. But history teaches us not to trust the Lankan Government. So, the trained cadre of the LTTE shall be kept intact to get an edge in the negotiating table, since without an edge in the negotiating table, Tamils would be again put to trouble. We don't want another Black July and another Prabakaran's LTTE.
Eezham people want peace and tranquil life. It is the duty of Tamils worldwide to diplomatically pressurize the concerned Governments to get this done.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)