Pre-poll alliance: BJP and Congress should go it alone

Narendra Modi (left) and Rahul Gandhi

The experience has not been encouraging. Coalition governments that have been around since the 1990s have not really brought the representative democracy or stability that people had hoped for. The Congress’ waning presence in different states and the BJP failing to become a pan-India party have given regional parties more political space in New Delhi. Pulled in opposite directions by coalition partners, the principal party — either the Congress or the BJP — has not been able to live up to the expectations of the people. In this scenario, it would be prudent for the two national parties to not enter into pre-poll alliances with regional parties and rather contest the maximum number of seats in the coming Lok Sabha elections.

Ram Vilas Paswan with his son

In that vein, it is not good news that the BJP might strike an alliance with the TDP in Andhra Pradesh, much against the will of the local party unit. Pre-poll alliances with regional heavyweights are safer bets for the national parties. But by doing so they are reducing their chances of reaching the half-way mark of 272 seats on their own. They are also opening the field for regional parties to have a greater clout at the Centre in a coalition government. This clout or bargaining power often works against the stability of a government. A sign of this is seen in KT Rama Rao’s statement that his party, the TRS, was under “no compulsion to either merge or ink a pre-poll pact with the Congress” and LJP leader Ram Vilas Paswan aligning with the BJP but keeping his ‘options open’. Regional parties seldom view issues through the prism of national importance, as was seen when TMC leader Mamata Banerjee scuttled the Teesta water-sharing agreement and when the DMK walked out of the UPA over the Lankan Tamil issue.

KT Rama Rao

If there is one lesson that can be learnt from the UPA 1 and UPA 2 governments, it is that the greater the presence of regional parties in a coalition at the Centre, the greater the chances of a gridlocked, dysfunctional government. Thus for increasing the chances of a stable government at the Centre, it is important that the national parties go it alone at the hustings. If the national parties fail to learn from past mistakes the 16th Lok Sabha will also succumb to ‘coalition compulsions’ and have an amorphous existence.

Enrica Lexie case: Italy's got a point as India mismanages the marines' case

Chief Master Sergeant Massimiliano Latorre (centre) and Sergeant Salvatore Girone (right)

The Enrica Lexie incident, in which two Italian marines on-board the Italian oil-tanker MT Enrica Lexie fired and killed two fishermen from Kerala in the Indian contiguous zone in 2012 is a text-book example of how not to handle a case. The case has seen far too many twists and turns for comfort: The marines going home twice, once for Christmas and once to cast their vote in the elections; Italy showing great reluctance to send them back, and; finally the Italian foreign minister talking about urging the Nato allies, the European Union and even the Commonwealth to press New Delhi into action. Rome has recalled its ambassador to India protesting the “unacceptable, deliberate delay” by the court in coming to a decision in the case. There is little doubt that the Centre has fumbled in handling this case. India has given Italy an assurance that the marines would not face the death penalty but if the anti-piracy law is slapped on them, it is for the court to decide whether or not to award the maximum punishment. The Supreme Court has asked the Centre to make up its mind as to which law would it want to try the marines under and reply by today.
The case highlights the larger issue of guarding merchant vessels on our high seas. India has refused the idea of armed personnel aboard ships stating that ‘floating armies’ in the seas around India can pose an immense security threat. While this fear is not entirely unfounded, New Delhi cannot ignore the reality: Sea piracy — though it has come down recently — has not been wiped out and it is still probably the greatest threat ships face today. With almost 50% of the world’s container traffic and 66% of the world’s oil trade through the seas passing through the Indian Ocean, and with a majority of trade in India, especially oil imports, through sea routes, maritime disputes are expected to rise and there should be mechanisms in place to fast-track such cases.
The indecisiveness of the government has led to a diplomatic standoff with even the EU raising concerns. Nothing but an expeditious trial is what all the people involved in this case want. But for the moment, India seems to be completely at sea on this issue.

Modi-Powell meeting: Does Modi need the United States?

For anyone who has been following the campaign by political parties in India leading to the general elections this summer, the Hindustan Times report that United States ambassador to India Nancy Powell has got permission from the Centre to meet Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi does not come as a surprise.
If opinion polls are anything to go by, Washington will soon have to do business with a government in New Delhi headed by Modi. For the US, which holds the adage 'there are no permanent enemies, and no permanent friends, only permanent interests' as the bedrock of its diplomatic relations with foreign nations, it was natural to warm up to Modi. Clearly, both the US and Modi have come a long way since 2005 when the Gujarat CM was denied a US visa.
However, there are two points to take away from this US climb-down. The first: Is Washington trying to 'influence', albeit covertly, the political scenario in India? Citing this, many political parties have taken objection to Ms Powell's move. This is also because the US has a checkered past when it comes to 'influencing' elections (a recent example being the admission by former US defence secretary Robert Gates in his memoir that the US tried to delay and manipulate the 2009 Afghan presidential election outcome). Given this, the US embassy statement that the meeting was "part of our concentrated outreach to senior political and economic leaders which began in November to highlight the US-India relationship" can be taken with a pinch of salt.
The second: Is it really a victory for Modi? The party has rightly refrained from speaking about this proposed meeting in a shrill pitch and will do well to overcome the temptation to go to town tom-toming this as Modi's 'achievement'. If the BJP was to highlight this as an achievement, it can be accused of doublespeak and of being opportunistic.
Modi has grown in stature over the years despite the US and to a certain extent the US boycott has helped further his image as a 'desi' leader who 'is-not-a-American-stooge'.
In the crystal ball of Indian politics, Washington's retraction is a clear shot in the arm for the BJP's prime ministerial candidate. It does not require clairvoyance to see that countries, like the UK, the EU and now the US, are reacting after witnessing the 'Modi wave'.
When the political and diplomatic dust settles one thing is evident: This is a victory for Narendra Modi. But the question to be asked, in true 'NaMonomic' style is: Does Modi require the US or its endorsement at this point of time?
(This appeared in the Hindustan Times on February 11)

Bangladesh polls: Sheikh Hasina’s Pyrrhic victory

Khaleda Zia (L) and Sheikh Hasina

One need not be a psephologist to have predicted the poll outcome in Bangladesh’s parliamentary election held on Sunday. With the main opposition party, Khaleda Zia’s Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), boycotting the election, it was a foregone conclusion that Sheikh Hasina’s Awami League would win a second term. However, even after bagging more than 230 seats among the 300 in the Jatiyo Shongshod (parliament), it might not be smooth sailing for Ms Hasina. Sunday’s election saw widespread poll-related violence, including the death of 18 people. And with just 22% polling (down from 87% last time) there are concerns about the validity of the process.
History will be at the back of Ms Hasina’s mind when she holds talks with the opposition on future polls. In February 1996, the BNP won a landslide victory after the Awami League boycotted the election. Following massive protests from the Opposition, fresh elections were held in June, in which the Awami League won. For the time being, however, Sheikh Hasina and her party have emerged victorious and this is good news for India — under her rule Dhaka-New Delhi ties have strengthened, especially in boosting trade and tackling terrorism. Early in 2013 Bangladesh had replaced Sri Lanka as India’s largest trading partner in the subcontinent. With trade close to $5 billion Bangladesh is an important trading partner for India.

After the general elections this summer, whichever party that forms the government in New Delhi should focus on strengthening ties with Dhaka. Rather than giving too much importance to smoothening ties with Islamabad, with no light at the end of that tunnel, New Delhi should focus on its neighbour on the east. Also, the equation is not gung with Colombo after frequent arrests of fishermen from Tamil Nadu and the picture is not yet clear with a change of government in the Maldives. The Centre should reach an agreement on water-sharing from Teesta River with Bangladesh. This would also go a long way in boosting the image of the Hasina government, which is often criticised by the Opposition for going the extra mile for India when the goodwill has not been reciprocated. Good ties with Dhaka will also help in tackling insurgency and boosting the economy in the Northeast.

Iran nuclear deal: It's an opportunity the world shouldn't miss

For decades Iran has been the bad boy for the West. The antics of its leaders in public coupled with its nuclear ambitions have not earned it many friends. But since June, when Hassan Rouhani was elected president, there have been changes in this outlook. The earlier round of talks, to put a tab on Iran’s nuclear programme, held in Geneva, between the West and Iran missed an agreement after France scuttled the deal at the last minute. While differences continue among the P5+1 (the United States, Russia, France, China, the United Kingdom, and Germany) and Iran, leaders like US President Barack Obama and UK Prime Minister David Cameron have made the right moves: Mr Obama has stuck his neck out to stress the need for talks and the easing of sanctions, while Mr Cameron called up Mr Rouhani (a first in a decade by a UK PM) to ‘address concerns on both sides on the nuclear issue’. Given this, it is not in the best interests of anyone to further impose sanctions on Tehran. The loosening of sanctions would mean that Tehran has more flexibility with its trade on gold and oil, which is good news for New Delhi.

Naftali Bennett, Israel’s economy and commerce minister and leader of the ultra-nationalist Jewish Home Party, said a few days ago that Iran was six weeks away from enriching weapons-grade uranium. The fear of nuclear proliferation is not without merit but what about nations that have nuclear weapons acquired under the table, like Pakistan or North Korea? Douglas MacKinnon, a former White House and Pentagon official, has rightly asked, in a Fox News op-ed: “Are we endangering our own safety and that of Israel by over-exaggerating the nuclear threat posed by Iran while drastically under-estimating the growing threat posed by Pakistan?” There is a need for international pressure and scrutiny on Islamabad for its clandestine nuclear dealings. This is the clear and present danger — more than the likelihood of Iran’s plans.

The talks with Iran are perhaps one of the greatest tests for Obama. A deal could also bring greater peace to the region and change the course of world politics.

Kachchatheevu: A no man's land everyone wants

Kachchatheevu, an uninhabited island, a little over a square kilometre in area, has been a bone of contention between Tamil Nadu and Sri Lanka for decades. The Rajya Sabha on Monday saw MPs from Tamil Nadu criticising the Centre for its affidavit to the Supreme Court, which stated that no portion of India’s land was ceded to Sri Lanka. The Centre was responding to a petition by Tamil Nadu chief minister J Jayalalithaa, filed in 2008, seeking the apex court to declare unconstitutional the 1974 agreement. Tension over the island came to focus in 1974 after the Centre signed an agreement with Sri Lanka accepting that Kachchatheevu was not a part of India. According to the agreement signed between the two countries, fishermen from both sides can use the island to dry their nets and even pray at the St Antony’s shrine in the island. Politicians, across the political spectrum in Tamil Nadu, claim that the Centre ceded the island without passing a resolution in Parliament and thus it is an invalid agreement. To bolster their claims politicians claim that the island was under the king of Ramanathapuram and later under the Mdaras Presidency. Over the years, especially after the end of the civil war in Sri Lanka, there have been an increasing number of reports of confrontation between Indian and Sri Lankan fishermen and cases of the Sri Lankan navy firing at Indian fishermen. More than 150 Indian fishermen have been arrested and are at present facing trial in Sri Lankan courts.

The manner in which the Centre ‘ceded’ Kachchatheevu to Sri Lanka in 1974 should be seen not as an aberration but as a general tone adopted by New Delhi while dealing with the states. Much of the problem surrounding the rights over the island could have been avoided if in 1974 the Centre had taken the then state government in Tamil Nadu into confidence. Today, a similar pattern can also been seen in the way the Centre has gone about unilaterally on its decision to carve out a Telangana state out of Andhra Pradesh, so much so that it has not even won the support of its state leaders on the decision.
For our democracy to be robust and to function in the manner it is meant to, the Centre cannot treat the states as lackeys. States should be seen as equal partners in the democratic process and in decision-making and should be consulted on matters that concern the respective state. This is all the more important in a coalition era where regional parties play an important role in government formation at the Centre.

Lone wolf terror: More potent than Al-Qaeda

A video grab of the Woolwich killer

 Just when world nations had thought that they had seen the worst of terrorism and were devising ways to check and tackle it, comes an offshoot of terrorism that is frighteningly hard to detect and contain given its nascent and localised nature. ‘Lone wolf’ terrorism, in which an individual or a small group of people, after being influenced by extremist views, decide to attack, has been on a steady rise over the years. The Woolwich attack, in which two radicalised Britons of Nigerian origin attacked and killed a British soldier, shook the world because of the gory nature of the crime. What came as more shocking was the motive behind the crime: the two ideologically motivated youth were protesting British military action in Muslim countries.

Anders Breivik

Faisal Shahzad

The Woolwich incident is not a one off case. Right from Norway where Anders Breivik gunned down more than 80 youngsters to Faisal Shahzad’s failed attempt to bomb Times Square in 2010 to Fort Hood where Nidal Malik Hassan gunned down 13 people in 2009 till the recent Boston marathon bombings where two radicalised youth to used a pressure cookers to kill three and injure more than 250 people, all these examples prove that these lone wolves can be as potent and dangerous as organised groups. Two main reasons for a sprout of such attacks is the increasing difficulty in organising a 9/11 type of organised, large-scale attacks and a growing access to radical views on different platforms: be it on the Internet, educational institutions, etc.
These developments, though not taking place in India, have a bearing on India and should catch the attention of New Delhi. India is not immune to terror attacks. India has been a victim of the various hues of terrorism and has at times been successful in tackling it. However, New Delhi is yet to come up with a comprehensive strategy to tackle terror. More often than not it has been a piecemeal approach of gathering scattered bits of information after there has been an attack. With Internet and information technology penetration increasing throughout India, the law enforcement agencies must be on top of the job when it comes to surveillance of online activity. More manpower and technology should be dedicated for this purpose. If we fail to heed this wakeup call it will be too late before we get our act together.

Obama’s New Team Set to Give India the Jitters

Statements by Charles Timothy ‘Chuck’ Hagel, the new United States Defence Secretary, that “India has over the years financed problems for Pakistan on that side of the border” and “used Afghanistan as a second front” are bizarre to say the least. Hagel’s speech, made at Oklahoma’s Cameron University in 2011, which was uploaded by Washington Free Beacon recently, also gave Pakistan a clean chit. It goes without saying that Hagel’s statements are the much-required fuel to run the anti-India mills in our neighbourhood.

Hagel’s comments are contrary to the US stand on India’s commitment to rebuilding Afghanistan. India’s role was appreciated in a statement released by the US embassy in New Delhi, which distanced itself from Hagel’s views. Whether Hagel is fit for the demanding job or not is a different question but what should be concerning the mandarins in New Delhi is that such a comment is coming from a top authority in the Obama administration at a time when the Manmohan Singh-led United Progressive Alliance government is turning to the United States to protect Indian interests in Afghanistan. These comments by Hagel, when seen with Secretary of State John Kerry’s January statement that “I don’t think the Pakistanis have frankly gotten credit, sufficiently, for the fact that they were helpful” in catching Osama bin Laden, poses serious questions on what course Indo-US ties will take at this crucial juncture.
New Delhi will have to work overtime to ensure that the new ring of leaders in the Obama administration are on the same page as its immediate predecessors and that they talk in one voice about India’s support to US goals in Afghanistan. It should impress upon Washington to see through Islamabad’s double game of hunting with the hounds and running with the hares. It will, however, be prudent to not rely heavily on a United States that is waiting to board the last plane out of Afghanistan.
(This appeared as an edit in The New Indian Express on February 28)

India Should Not Succumb to Pressure Over Iran

The Congress-led United Progressive Alliance government has showed unusual tenacity is holding its cards close to its chest and not succumbing to growing pressure from the United States and Israel to blame Iran for the February 13 bomb attack on an Israeli diplomat’s car in New Delhi. Not only has the government refrained from airing its doubts but has also approached the scenario with maturity. This is evident in the statement made by Union commerce minister Anand Sharma on Wednesday that India will be going ahead with its planned trade delegation to Tehran, and that terrorism and trade are “separate issues”.

While India has strong defence ties with Israel, India annually imports crude oil close to $12 billion. Iran is important not only because of oil but also access it provides to the region. The Port of Chabahar, in Iran, is vital for India’s access to Afghanistan, especially in a scenario where a US pullout from the country will leave India with little support in the region. New Delhi will have to factor this aspect as well while taking a call.
Without doubt India finds itself in a spot as both Israel and Iran are important allies. But New Delhi should see this as an opportunity to present itself to the world as a responsible nation capable of taking mature decisions even if it means not toeing the US line. Such an independent stand will also prove that India’s claim for a permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council is one that is earned over the years and not one doled because of the benevolence for ‘right conduct’. India’s stand that it will abide by a United Nations resolution, be it against Iran or Syria, and not favour unilateral moves is the right approach.
India should go ahead with its investigation and not be influenced by outside pressure. If the trail leads to Iran, New Delhi should condemn Tehran in no uncertain words — but should not allow itself to be used as the stick by Israel or the West to beat Iran.
(This article appeared as an editorial in The New Indian Express on February 17, 2012)