New weapon in Beijing’s armoury!

Disclaimer: Let me start off by posting a disclaimer!!

The below written thoughts on recent Indo-China International relations are based on my personal analysis of recent developments of both nations and have nothing to do with Delhi-Beijing bilateral talks and strategic and economics dialogues. [Disclaimer ends]

China, the geographical hub of Asia, is the source of transboundary-river flows to the largest number of countries in the world — from Russia to India, and from Kazakhstan to the Indochina Peninsula. Recently china has strongly objected the Indian oil exploration campaign (By ONGC-videsh ltd) in south china sea , saying that it would be treated as stepping in the sovereignty of china. This has been answered by India’s external affair minister in his recent tour to Vietnam , by clearing the fact that ONGC would continue its oil exploration project in those blocks.

If we look back, we can find that block no. 127 &128 are under the jurisdiction of Vietnam by 1982 UN agreement and hence there is no need to seek permission for the exploration in them from anyone, except Hanoi.

In the month of July, China had captured Indian water jet craft –INS-Aeravat, which was patrolling in the international sea boundary near South China Sea. Unfortunately the biggest impediment before such an important task is the attitude and self-deception of the Indian ruling class. Although George Fernandes, the Defence Minister during the NDA regime, always voiced concern about Chinese intentions, he did not get sufficient support from other members of the Vajpaiyee Cabinet. Manmohan Singh, the present Prime Minister, is also advising restraint with respect to the attitude towards China. Obviously he is trying to sweep every uncomfortable information beneath the carpet. Manmohan Singh has reasons to do so as he is in the best position to know how unprepared his government is to match with inside scams !

From the above few examples what I want to convey is- China is not only trying to capture the mammoth oil and gas deposits by muscular power in that part of the globe but also trying to get a despotic control over the sea route which is considered as the backbone of trade and commerce in far-east. If India’s presence in the south china sea is hurting so much to Beijing , then by the same analogy China should stay away from the activities in PoK.

For the expansion of the India’s regime in south-china sea, Vietnam would be key for New-Delhi. Delhi-Hanoi defence pact could be a milestone in this direction. Now India is in the position to use Taraang port of Vietnam. In the decade of 70-80s China maintained good relations with the neighbours (especially Pakistan) of India to keep New-Delhi on its toes, now its time for India to establish pragmatic relations with the countries like Vietnam to pressurize china. Basically, its ‘Message-giving Strategy’ is that the relevance of Chinese communism and despotism is not over. To counter the Chinese strategy India has option to spread the message all over the world and indirectly all democratic authorities.

Now, the Chinese response is not very enthusiastic. We could not find out the answers; this is an unsolved question paper. Recently Montek Singh Ahluwalia went to China; took many issues with them in 1^st ever SED, but he returned to India almost empty-handed. What does it signify? To get the answer to the query we have to understand the basic perception of China towards India!

All about Telangana

Telangana issue has been generating a lot of news for the past couple of years. It’s an issue about which many people have been very passionate and has led to the loss of many lives.Infact the Telangana issue has been around for over many years now.
Here is a look at what has happened over the years and why the Telangana issue still stands unsolved as it does today.
What is Telagana?
Telangana is a region in Andhra Pradesh and was originally a princely state, ruled by the erstwhile Nizam of Hyderabad. Andhra Pradesh today as it stands, can be divided into three regions‘ Telangana, Rayalaseema
and Coastal Andhra.The Telangana region comprises of districts in Western and Central Andhra Pradesh (Adilabad, Karimnagar, Nizamabad, Medak, Warangal, Khammam, Hyderabad, Rangareddy, Nalgonda, and Mahaboobnagar) It comprises 10 of Andhra Pradesh’s 23 districts. It accounts for 119 seats out of the 294 seats in Assembly.

Telegana at the time of Independence
After Independence, the Nizam of Hyderabad wanted to retain his hold over the state. But the Government of India had other plans and amalgamated his state on 17th September 1948 by force.On a historic note, Rayalseema and Coastal Andhra were part of the Madras Province under the British Empire. However post independence Rayalaseema and Coastal Andhra were separated from the Madras State in 1953 and were merged with the Telangana region of Hyderabad in 1956 to form the state of Andhra Pradesh.
The remaining parts of the Telangana region were merged with Karnataka and Maharashtra. This was the first state that was carved out on linguistic lines in the country.
Demands for a separate Telangana State
Demands for carving out a separate Telangana State became more buoyant during 1969. There are quite a few reasons for this:-
There were distinct differences between Telangana and Andhra Regions.
Andhra that was initially a part of Madras presidency had much better standards of development and education. Telangana on the other hand was more feudal in its approach and much less developed.
The Telangana people had reservations also because they feared they would lose out on many jobs with the merger.
The cultural differences too were apparent. Under the rule of the Nizam the Telangana region bore influences of Northern India. The kind of festivals being celebrated too was different.
The 1969 Agitation
This was primarily a student protest which erupted in the regions of Telangana with Osmania Univeristy proving to be the hot bed of it all. The protests became massive with huge numbers of people taking part in the agitation.Over 350 people lost their lives in lathi charge and police firing. Former Congress leader Channa Reddy who defected to form his own party the ‘Telangana Praja Samithi’ later diluted the impact of the agitation as he
merged with the Congress.Channa Reddy was also the same person responsible for raising slogans like ‘Jai -Telangana’. The Prime Minister Indira Gandhi later went on to make him the Chief Minister after which the movement collapsed.After this P.V Narasimha Rao was also made the Chief Minister in 1971. He was also from the Telangana region.
The role of K Chandrasekhar Rao

K Chandrasekhar Rao was a member of the Telugu Desam Party (TDP) during the 1990’s. While hoping for a ministerial berth, he only got that of a deputy speaker following the 1999 elections.KCR quit TDP in 2001 and set about to form the Telangana Rashtra Samithi (TRS) which he announced would fight for the formation of a separate Telangana State. The timing could not have been more perfect for KCR considering the fact the people of Telangana were already feeling looted.There was already a strong feeling gaining ground that the surplus produced by them was being rerouted to the finance body so that it could be used to develop the rest of the state.In the elections of 2004 YS Rajashekara Reddy and KCR decided to join hands after YSR promised him the formation of a separate Telangana State. But later YSR backtracked and sent a report to the Congress against the formation of the Telangana State.TRS withdrew support from the Congress led coalition government on the grounds of alleged indecision by the government over the delivery of its electoral promise to create a separate Telangana state.
Soon the Telangana also ended up being a deeply political issue. Parties could often be seen flip flopping on their stand on the Telangana issue.The Congress and TDP are a divided house while Praja Rajyam and CPM are for a united Andhra. On the other hand the BJP and CPI are supporting the formation of s separate Telangana.
On November 29, 2009, KCR took a fast until death demanding that the Congress Government introduce the Telangana bill in the parliament.
Student’s rallies and people from various organizations took part in the demands and there were massive protests in many regions of Telangana. With KCR’s health fast failing the centre was forced to look into issue and finally gave into his request of a separate state making KCR end his 11 day fast.
Srikrishna committee headed by Justice BN Srikrishna was then set up to look into whether a separate state should be carved out or a united Andhra must remain.The committee was constituted by the Government of India in 3 February 2010 and expected to submit its report on 30 December 2010 to the Ministry of Home Affairs.
As part of the committee they invited people from all sections of the society and also toured the entire state where they got the opinions of a lot of people on what they felt about the issue. The SriKrishna Report was released on the internet to the public on 6 January 2011.
The issue is still being contemplated in the political circles.

Anna Hazare’s Crusade!

India has mainly two types of Corruption. One type of Corruption is seen in the 2G Scam,CWG,Antrix,Adarsh scams and the other is bribing the official or politician in power to get a legitimate thing done where he fulfils all the conditions for the service but still has to pay the bribe for the legitimate thing to be done like getting your ration card,licence etc.99% of all Indians have been forced to suffer the second corruption which is basically financial extortion. The former is the most dangerous Corruption like to get undue favour by wrong means by paying a bribe or if got caught having done something wrong then paying a bribe and your record becomes clean. The dangerous corruption is where most of the black money is transacted and goes via hawala etc and is deposited in Tax havens like Switzerland etc or is invested heavily in real estate,jewellery,gold etc(black money) and this is what has to be fought very seriously and this is what Shri Anna Hazare is fighting. Whatever maybe the result his intentions and his fast are respeected,admired and supported and the UPA government since 2004 is worried and shivering in it's spine and will do everything possible to make it effectively toothless and if any elected politician and government bureaucrat is prosecuted ,they will ensure he does not spill out the all the beans and will get the most lenient punishment.

“Setting up a citizen's ombudsman will not be the end of corruption. There's much more to do.”

Of course there is tremendous work to be done. No sensible person will underestimate the gigantic task. The track record of all legislators who are entrusted with this task is poor and they have betrayed the trust reposed in them by the electorate. Anna Hazare is convinced that left to themselves the law-makers will continue to deceive the public through their tokenism in the struggle against corruption — a criticism that is based on the weak anti corruption bill that the government has framed. Anna’s proposed modified bill has vastly improved upon the official bill, offering hope for drastic action being taken against bribe-takers and will cover bureaucrats and judges also, in addition to the Prime Minister, Ministers and Members of Parliament. It will not be a hollow, toothless recommendatory body as the one that is envisaged by the official bill.

India, reeling under series of corruption, its image internationally taking unprecedented beating, undoubtedly need a truly powerful Ombudsman of the kind Anna is agitating for. This is working fine in many countries and no reason to be pessimistic at all. Indian intelligentsia need to draw inspiration from Anna Hazare’s anti corruption crusade and bring about a change for the sake of future generation.

Anna, a 72 year old school drop-out from a labour family of Maharashtra's Ahmednagar district, has fearlessly taken on the formidable might of entrenched corrupt Indian establishment . He certainly "want world sympathy in this battle of right against might.” to quote Gandhi during Danti anti salt agitation.

Nevertheless I support Shri Anna Hazare's fast and the Jan Lok Pal Bill !

Equality regime - A need of hour!

As a nation we appear to manage inequality without denting it. Manage it the same way we manage corruption. A sop here and a mop there. But the open drain remains as rotten and the bias as deep. Inequity management systems in India have grown old but strong, and spread roots deep in the ground, like the grand peepal tree of the village. Generations of Indian politicians have been schooled under that tree. What they have learned is traditional patriarchal panchayati raj – where some decide the fate of many. And everybody is kept ‘subjectively satisfied’ in their place by periodic handouts. An ‘equal’ electorate would truly befuddle the Indian politician. How then to politic? Whom to give blankets to? Whom to give quotas to?

We manage inequality in group based silos of protectionism that match and reinforce the silos of our vote bank politics. In this handout-based, vote bank inequity management system of our body politic, those who get short shrift are those who don’t matter electorally – the disabled, women, and sexual minorities, among others. The rest – Dalits, Adivasis, Muslims – are left pitted against each other, with competing claims to the handouts.

What have been our dominant inequity management strategies? Quotas, Commissions and Ministries. Reserved quotas for dalits and adivasis were constitutionally sanctioned – 22.5% seats in public sector jobs, educational institutions, and legislatures. Since then we have expanded it to include 27% quotas for OBCs in public sector jobs and higher education and in some states a handful of Muslims have sneaked in through inclusion in other quota categories. Despite a Supreme Court 50% cap on quotas, several states flout this diktat.

Quota solutions have also been extended to those who don’t matter electorally but whose group based inequities were embarrassingly obvious (these were the bechaaras) and elicited the charitable protection of the patriarchal state. The 1995 Disability Act gave a 3% quota to the disabled in government jobs – much of which remains unfilled.

From the 1990s we have also inaugurated an era of group-specific commissions to further our stated equity agenda – each managed by the various group-specific ministries. Barring the Backward Classes Commission (which is mandated chiefly to examine inclusion and exclusion of citizens from the central backward class lists), the other group-specific commissions have a broad based mandate to promote welfare and equity. Some have individual complaints mechanisms, but armed with little other than recommendatory and advisory powers, they have been less than useful.

Successive governments have treated them shamefully by refusing to debate their reports or take on board their recommendations (the NCST website shows its 2004-5 and 2005-6 reports as ‘still to be tabled before Parliament.’ NCM reports have met a similar fate for several years); and systematically eroding their autonomy by using them as parking lots for party loyalists who must be accommodated somewhere. These are not solutions to inequity.

The true test of our coming of age as a democracy will lie in whether or not we can inaugurate an equality regime beyond quotas and commissions; one which forces our diverse deprived groups to seek some common ground; rather than perpetuating inequity through management systems of isolated, competing silos – always separate and always unequal.

Hitlerism

There are many advantages and disadvantages of being in a democracy. The advantage is that many a times you get to listen to and follow a leader who is actually concerned with the development of the country and other times we have to listen to leaders who do nothing except divide the country or raise trivial topics which have no place in the life of an individual while at times these very same political parties and people come out with policies and opinions that encroach on the people’s rights. Here is my new post on this year’s Noble Peace Prize winner- Liu Xiaobo.

Born in 1955, the young professor, writer and human rights activist Liu Xiaobo, joined the protesters against the totalitarian brutal regime during the Tiananmen Square Protest in 1989 and became very vocal in favour of establishment of democracy in lieu of the dictatorial monopolistic communist rules like many other like minded youngsters and intellectuals. Though China has changed to some extent under the pressure of time, with the fall of communism almost everywhere, the dictators are very reluctant to give way. Liu Xiaobo’s career was crippled since then. He has been under surveillance, subject to different types of tortures throughout the period and now undergoing eleven year prison term though he has grown more liberal wishing a gradual change of the system of the Government.
This year , he has been chosen to receive the Nobel Peace Prize “for his long and non-violent struggle for fundamental human rights in China” but he has been behind the bar and none of his relatives and friends (his wife is under house-arrest and friends have either been arrested or prevented from proceeding to the site of the prize giving ceremony) were present in the Oslo City Hall to witness the conferring of the award to him as per arrangements made by the Chinese Government.
Though there may sometimes remain disagreement about the decision to bestow Nobel Prize to certain individuals for the world is, as it is, always partial, that does not stop the recipients to receive the prize for it is the decision of a body which may or may not be to one’s or the other’s liking. But the Chinese Government has made virulent publicity against the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, pressurising the Governments to refuse the invitation to attend the function, even under coercion and threat of retaliation, directly or indirectly.

This is certainly a suppression of Human Rights.


We understand that this type of opposition to such award was once enacted by Hitler. In an article titled, “Servant of the State” by Jianying Zha in The New Yorker in its November 8, 2010 issue I read, “A leading contemporary Chinese novelist, widely admired for his laconic style, once told me, ‘Mao is China’s Hitler.’” It is no wonder that Hitlerism still continues there, will continue till it bends to democratic pressure of the public giving birth to a new China.
But as people have always said and will keep on saying there is always a ray of light at the end of the tunnel and in this case also this principle holds true. The ray of light is education. With more and more people becoming educated and aware about their fundamental rights and not only rights but even their fundamental duties. So all I can say is that with more and more youngsters raising their voices. I certainly regret and oppose the move to prevent Liu Xiaobo and his people to be present there to receive the prize.