Himalayan face-off is inevitable

India and China are competing everywhere on earth, from nearby Pakistan to faraway Africa, for natural resources and diplomatic edge. The situation is no different in the rugged terrains of neighbouring Nepal

India and China have a long history of love-hate relations that can be traced to the pre-civilisational era. Colonisation, of course, changed the conventional terms of engagement — especially the Boxer Rebellion in which the Indians fought, along with British forces, against the Chinese revolutionaries. Since then, the Chinese have never really trusted the Indians.

A part of the Henderson-Brooks-Bhagat report on the 1962 India-China War clearly establishes the effects of this old Chinese complex. It also details the blunders done by the Indian Armed Forces and the defence establishment.

Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru’s heightened sentimentalism, rather his show of statesmanship that caused for the war, have also been exposed. The report is only partially in the public domain; nonetheless, it has given much insight into India-China relations.

Tibet and Kashmir and China’s irritating stand on boundary issues are the focus in journalist Shishir Gupta’s book, The Himalayan Face-off: Chinese Assertion and the Indian Riposte, which says, “Even if bilateral trade between India and China goes beyond $100 billion in the coming years, China’s posture towards India is adversarial and will perhaps remain so in the future, with Beijing viewing New Delhi through the prism of the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan Government-in-exile… A rising China, inflexible on boundary dispute resolution and with strong tentacles across South Asia and beyond, could encroach on India’s strategic space and lead to a potential crisis this decade.”

However, the book doesn’t look into the India-China ‘face-off’ in Nepal. China has turned overtly cunning in Nepal, so as to challenge the traditional comfort characteristic of India-Nepal ties.

China is infusing large amounts of money in Nepal to minimise the warmth New Delhi and Kathmandu have enjoyed through economic cooperation. On the ‘softer’ side, China is missing no chance to slap its cultural load on Nepal.

Hence, the number of Nepalis wanting to learn the Chinese language has seen a dramatic rise in recent years. Still, it will be difficult for China to counter India’s traditional position in Nepal.

Politically, the advent of Maoism in the mid-1990s gave China a big foothold in Nepal. But Maoism in this Himalayan Kingdom has been so diluted that it has almost lost its Chinese soul, especially in the face of the complex conditions produced by local competitive politics.

For many years, Maoists were able to hold on to power because they were pragmatic and flexible in their political programming.

The Maoists in Nepal designed their policies in keeping with the changing political situation of the land. They rose to occupy the highest positions in the country, but in recent years they have lost the sheen after the top Maoist leadership’s dubious stands were exposed and the former insurgents frittered away the credentials to stay on the high moral ground.

China is watching the developments in Nepal closely. The 2013 election has given the new regime a mandate to govern, not rule ruthlessly and without a sense of direction. In this new composition, Maoists are a minimal force.

From a larger geo-strategic point of view, China perceives India to be getting close to the world’s only superpower. Therefore, it has been seeking to encircle India through various advances.

Some may argue that this is perhaps partially an existential tussle caused by China’s continuing complex vis-à-vis India. Perhaps China still sees India as a collaborator of the colonial British Army that plundered Chinese cities.

However, this seems like a ridiculous argument when China, today, is one of the biggest offenders of human rights. It makes little sense as to why China would seek to shape its current engagement with India on the basis of an event that happened over a century ago, and that too under the control of colonialists, not Indians per se.

Still, India and Nepal, in all their diplomatic manoeuvrings towards China, must take into account the complexities of the Middle Kingdom.

Time and again, the Chinese leadership has asserted its belief in co-existence — India has been acknowledging this without giving heart to it, as this country has its own share of complexes, born out of Chinese betrayals that began in 1962. Nepal, with its unique historical position, has rarely had to face-off with either Beijing or New Delhi.

India and China appear to be in a tug of war, with their many unresolved issues. It is difficult to be optimistic about the future, given the incorrigible complexes of both Beijing and New Delhi. The Himalayan face-off is a reality, and it is going to be an enduring one.

India and China are competing everywhere on earth — from nearby Pakistan to faraway Africa — for natural resources and diplomatic edge. The situation is no different in the rugged terrains of Nepal.
-Atul K Thakur
Email: summertickets@gmail.com
(Published in The Pioneer on April22,2014)

Spoilers of the democratic drive

Maoists in Nepal have in the past, with greater share in power politics, done immeasurable harm to the chances of healthy democratic movements in that country. They have unfailingly and deliberately created problems for the Government

Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) chairman Pushpa Kamal Dahal, also known as Prachanda, is a worried man these days, principally coloured in red — not for the lost ideological claim of his party, but because his command and credibility inside the party and in national politics is on the wane.

He has kept mum for months after the humiliating performance of his party in the 2013 parliamentary election. But after the customary soul searching, he is now trying to reunite the different Maoists camps and revive the party’s character in its rank and file.

In this endeavour, Prachanda is looking to the working class and the marginalised sections of society but he has also almost given up on his former colleague and now CPN(Maoist) chairman Mohan Baidya. This is his version of struggle for survival, but while doing this he has displayed his and indeed his party’s deep rooted desperation towards the new developments in Nepali national politics.

Another big factor is Mr Baburam Bhattarai — a powerful Maoist comrade who turned dubious to match Prachanda’s ambitions. There are open theories about their dualism in public life and none are refuted by these two giant leaders of the Himalayan nation. Mao is not alive but it seems like these two leaders believe in the old saying that ‘China’s leader is our leader’.

So much like Mao, they too, time and again, have committed follies, cheated the poor Nepali people of their aspirations, and damaged the delicate democratic fabric of Nepal.

Nevertheless, it will be wrong to say that Nepal doesn’t have place to accommodate radicals. But it is the wrong moves of the radicals, which have falsified the conception of progressive political manoeuvring. This amounts to a big setback for a democracy that is still trying to cross many hurdles.

Since 1996, when Maoism formally haunted the nation, almost two decades in Nepal have been wasted. Governance is broken, infrastructure is decaying, industry is in a mess — and the people are fleeing to Gulf countries where they live perilous lives.

Who are these Maoists representing then? Why they are still sticking with their false ‘ism’s and not focussing on national issues that are getting more serious day by day? In recent years, outbound human trafficking from Nepal has seen unbelievably high. Abroad, Nepalis live in a kind of exile and are routinely exploited.

Barring the elite, it is tough to find a Nepali who lives in dignified state. This was not the case earlier when Nepal was still poor but at least its political leadership had better control. Still, there has hardly been a ‘golden phase’ in Nepal.

Maoism was a stream forced to flow in an authoritarian China, where democratic tributaries were seen as rival counter-currents. It kept revising over the years in the country of its origin and, so cunningly, that it made China not only a closely-guarded, ruthless communist regime but also amusingly a hub of crony capitalism as well.

So, today, many communist leaders from China find themselves on the Forbes billionaire list even if their socialistic convictions stop them from making flashy style statements.

Sadly, this kind of an unhealthy cocktail of social and economic policies is being seen as the cure that can fix the ills of socio-economic disparity in Nepal. However, this will be at the cost of democracy, that will otherwise benefit the masses, unless the leaders turn into looters of resources. Such endemic tussles are, of course, long-standing. And resolving them is perhaps the toughest challenge for democracy.

Writing on Nepal’s last two decades appears tough, given how fast-evolving trends and developments boggle the commentator’s mind. One can see endless political activity and the unstoppable movement towards factionalism as well as the lust to grab the top seat of power, even if for a short while.

The Maoists brought these changes with bigger effect, and in the course of time, their brand of politics was borrowed by the old parties and narrowly-shaped the Madhesi and ethnic groups. And within this flurry of opportunistic moves, Nepali democracy has suffered. It has never recovered enough to support the country’s progress in different areas.

In the past, the Maoists, who then had a greater share in power politics, did immeasurable harm to the chances of healthy democratic movements in the country. Even now, they are creating trouble for the existing Government run by Mr Sushil Koirala.

It will be worthwhile to recall that Prime Minister Koirala is not a conventional representative of the Koirala family, rather he is detached from the aura of power. He has given the mandate to lead; he has not fought for it.

But his success is doubtful. The Constitution-drafting process is threatened by a motley group of Maoist comrades and it is unlikely that they will allow Nepal to stay the democratic course. The Maoists mock Nepali democracy and democracy here betrays masses and their humane expectations. On the other side of the tunnel, there seems to be no light.

Tough times will remain in this country that has no king but is not free from king-size maladies. And for that, the people cannot be blamed for an error of judgement as they were always without better choices.
-Atul K Thakur
Email: summertickets@gmail.com
(Published in The Pioneer on March25,2014)

UPA plays the numbers game

P Chidambaram may have shown his articulate command over pure economics and political economy, time and again. But his understanding hasn't led to the enhancement of the country’s macro-economic health
The recently presented interim Union Budget is skewed. The Vote on Account gives no space to overhaul the revenue or expenditure sides, and its provisions will haunt the successive Government as the latter seeks to review or implement policy. The last Union Budget of UPA2 lacks serious intents of fiscal consolidation.

The Union Minister for Finance spent his precious time personifying the achievements of his Government as well as his personal wisdom. Unrelated to Indian economy’s woes, the statements irritated the sufferers of the UPA’s macro-economic mismanagement.

The Indian economy has been passing through trying times, with the GDP growth sliding below five per cent and inflation hovering around 7.5 per cent. Consumer price inflation, which affects the common man the most, has been around 10 per cent or more. And food inflation rarely climbs down from the double-digits. Industrial and services growth has dropped and jobs have withered away from the scene. Naturally, the slowdown created by different factors constituted in a big way to the anti-Government mood among the masses.

An election is around the corner and the legions of the UPA have no proper ideas to curb bad governance. They could have moved to the better path when Congress vice president Rahul Gandhi admitted the policy blunders of his Government, but sadly the Prime Minister and the Finance Minister observed that history will be kinder to them than their contemporary critics. Will this be true?

It is unlikely that any proper history-writing will let off the UPA2, characterised by scams and indecision which have lowered the morale of the economy and the people. Recent years have witnessed an erosion of confidence in economic activities at the mass level. The sagging sentiment has taken a high toll on the growth momentum.

UPA2 couldn’t live up to the benchmark set by UPA1. The excuse of the Finance Minister that it still performed better than the six years of NDA rule is an eyewash through data. In the NDA Government, average GDP growth rate and inflation stood simultaneously at six per cent and around 4.5 per cent. Under UPA1, average GDP growth shot higher at 8.4 per cent but inflation too rose to 6.6 per cent, and UPA2 ends with an average GDP growth of 6.7 per cent and inflation surging over eight per cent.

Astonishingly, the UPA2 has no patience to recall the good work of its own preceding Government. Instead it is comparing its performance with the NDA Government even though the fundamentals for it were different compared to the previous decade which was known for the rise of emerging economies like India.

It is undeniable that the global economic crisis of 2007-2008 messed-up the external environment. The economic slowdown has severely damaged the rising momentum in emerging economies but India has suffered more through the sustained high inflation, supported by impractical policy planning.

The UPA’s much celebrated commitment to inclusive growth made on modest gains on the ground. In 2003-2004, Gross Tax Revenues stood at 8.8 per cent of GDP — this figure witnessed a vertical growth under UPA1 to 12 per cent of GDP in 2008-2009 but came down dramatically to near 10 per cent of GDP under UPA2. Capital outlay and subsidies have modestly risen under the UPA rule but whether the funds were delivered for intended purposes remains a concern.

On the public expenditure front, the NDA Government spent around 2.6 per cent and one per cent of the GDP, respectively on education and health. Under the UPA rule, total public expenditure on education and health, respectively stood at 3.3 per cent and 1.3 per cent of the GDP. This clearly marked the violation of Common Minimum Programme of the UPA1 Government, which had promised spending six per cent of GDP on education and three per cent of the GDP on health facilities.

Mr P Chidambaram, who has presented many Budgets, failed to clean up the indirect taxation regime since 1991. Only Messrs Manmohan Singh and Yashwant Sinha, as Finance Ministers, tried to reform import duties and excise. So, Mr Chidamabaram’s claim to be a progressive mover of the public finances seems unbelievable. This last one was an interim Budget and he may have bound by electoral compulsions but the same was not true in previous years.

The interim Budget estimates fiscal deficit for 2013-14 at 4.6 per cent of the GDP, over-performing the target of 4.8 per cent of the GDP and projects next year’s deficit at 4.1 per cent, again better than the projected 4.2 per cent. But these do not including the pain of carrying revenue deficit at 3.3 per cent.

Time and again, Mr Chidambaram has shown his articulate command over pure economics and political economy. However, his understanding hasn’t translated in macro-economic health of the nation.
-Atul K Thakur
Email: summertickets2gmail.com
(Published in The Pioneer on February25,2014)

Under-estimating the potential

Monarchy has given way to democracy in Nepal. But the executive head of the world's largest democracy has chosen not to be an enthusiastic enough part of the great political transition taking place right next door

Last month, at a reception at the Embassy of Nepal in New Delhi, I asked Nepal’s visiting interim Minister of Home Affairs and Foreign Affairs, Mr Madhav P Ghimire, if he, on behalf of Mr Khil Raj Regmi, the Chairman of Nepal’s Council of Ministers, had extended an invitation to the Indian Prime Minister to visit Kathmandu. Mr Ghimire said he did, and that he was also visibly impressed with the warmth he received in New Delhi for his handling of the second Constituent Assembly election in Nepal.

Right after his visit, Press reports suggested that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was willing to visit Kathmandu after the new Government there had been formed. This would be a path-breaking step. It would certainly do some long-overdue damage control for India-Nepal relations. India has maintained a long-standing apathy towards its northern neighbour, especially in terms of high-level diplomatic and political engagement.

On occasions, the leadership and citizens of Nepal have wondered when the Indian Prime Minister will make an official visit to their country, otherwise considered to be a most strategic neighbour. For decades, Nepal has awaited a visit by an Indian Prime Minister, but India’s Ministry of External Affairs and the Prime Minister’s Office have been slow to respond.

It is also bizarre that ceremonial trips by the Indian President too have been on hold. Yet such visits would have helped give bilateral ties a much-needed level playing field. That Nepal’s own political establishment has been on a roller-coaster ride itself, not to mention is still fragile, has only made the whole scenario more precarious.

In New Delhi, the South Block routes its resources and infrastructure in a manner that overlooks the genuine expectations from its immediate neighbours. This is particularly shocking when one takes into account the fact that Nepal’s front rank leadership has always preferred its southern neighbour as its most trusted destination. It is true that there was an increased favour for China when a radical Government was at the helm in Nepal. This had also evoked some strong reactions in New Delhi. But with the extremist regime now a spent force, the ice has melted in no time.

The visit of Maoist Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal, popularly known as Prachanda, to Beijing before he travelled New Delhi, in 2008, offended India and supposedly resulted in his premature ouster from office. He was replaced by his deputy Baburam Bhattarai. An alumnus of an Indian university, Mr Bhattarai did not repeat the follies of his predecessor and brought back the bonhomie back between the two countries.

Sans that one hiccup with Prachanda, Nepal’s Prime Ministers have always naturally leaned towards India. This should have been acknowledged and reciprocated from the Indian side. Inder Kumar Gujral was the last Indian Prime Minister to make an official visit to Nepal in June 1997. In the 17 years since then, no such gesture has been made by his successors. As Prime Minister, Mr Atal Bihari Vajpayee also came to Kathmandu in January 2002, but that was to attend the 11th summit of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation.

Yet, as far back as February 1991, during then Prime Minister Chandra Shekhar’s visit to Nepal, both sides had agreed to form a high-level task force to preparing a programme of cooperation under the Nepal-India Joint Commission. But on the unofficial side, this long friend of Nepal also faced the wrath of the masses in the Himalayan nation for his anti-monarchy stand. Still, it must be admitted that Chandra Shekhar had shown enthusiasm on issues concerning Nepal, and this had produced some results. In 1990, though, he was an unpopular person for the average Nepali for whom the king was dear.

Things have drastically changed in the last two decades. The monarchy has given way to a democracy. But the executive head of the world’s largest democracy has chosen not be part of a great political transition taking place right next door. On the contrary, in the past 14 years, all Nepali Prime Ministers except Mr Jhalanath Khanal have visited New Delhi. The former Indian Ambassador to Nepal, Mr Jayant Prasad, termed the long gap in visit by an Indian Prime Minister as unnatural. However, he stressed that the delay could be due to the turmoil and political transition in Kathmandu since 1996.

It is equally surprising that like India, China too hasn’t shown interest in a Kathmandu visit by its Premier. The last Chinese Prime Minister to visit Nepal was Zhu Rongji in May 2001. On this count, China has matched India. When Mr Manmohan Singh received an ailing Girija Prasad Koirala at the airport in 2006, he accorded respect to this towering democrat of South Asia. Mr Singh should come to Kathmandu again, as Nepal is unlikely to have a high calibre leader like Koirala for whom the Indian Prime Minister can softly break protocol.
-Atul K Thakur
Email: summertickets@gmail.com
(Published in The Pioneer on February10,2014)

Wrong advice that we must avoid

Banking reforms are definitely needed, but they have to be driven by recommendations that people who are thoroughly conversant with the sector, make

The idea of inclusion, otherwise a ‘progressive hypothesis', has been sadly confused with ‘technical overplay' by the Reserve Bank of India and the Union Ministry of Finance. The most sightable case is Aadhar that lays too much emphasis on technical procedures and the opening of a maximum number of bank accounts. But merely having a bank account does not make someone genuinely aligned with formal banking.

Financial inclusion is a broader aim, and its ambit is far too wide to be limited to symbolic gestures. The incentive-based system, especially in private sector, has rather ensured the low effect of recently channelised banking access. In such a backdrop, Mr Nachiket Mor-headed Committee on Comprehensive Financial Services for Small Businesses and Low Income Households, makes the chance of financial sector reform even more distant.

The sharp corporate edge is visible in the recommendations of this committee — as it was expected of RBI Governor Raghuram Rajan. Quite naturally then, Mr Mor has seen the real solution of financial inclusion in covering each and every Indian with a bank account in next 24 months.

It is not that all initiatives taken by the RBI in the past had failed. Some did really well in increasing the delivery of institutional credit and relationship-based banking with the masses. In the first four decades after India's independence (1951-1991), the reach to institution credit went up from 7.2% to 64 per cent but to fail again at level 57 per cent with the opening of economy that year. Also money lenders have largely stayed on in the post-reform era, with some statistical differences.

They kill business with spirits of ‘wayward innovation' and walk easy step in this jubilant phase, when lobby rules the whole course. Mr Mor has missed an opportunity to re-define the utility of micro-lending. Instead, he committed blunder by underestimating the contribution of regional rural banks and cooperative societies. Probably out of focus, he couldn't check the past and present of RRBs, which are serving the rural segments, and solemnising the real intent of financial inclusion.

The RBI has played stringent with the branch affairs at banks. It is hardly a revelation, though the committee presented both malady and cure as something in fledgling state. Even before the birth of this committee, Mr D Subbarao, the former RBI Governor, had taken some crucial steps which, although not in the limelight, have done well in relaxing certain norms of banking.

In the ambit of financial inclusion, the basic rights should begin with making banking simple and accessible to all. Moreover, the services offered should be diversified and not restricted to offering a bank account, and stay satisfied. The overtures with people have to be at fast pace and fine carved out — disconnect with people or potential client makes the equilibrium of ‘good intent and business', impossible to achieve.

While opening another round of bank licensing, Mr Rajan has a fair opportunity to circulate in the vein of new entrants, sustainable determination to go ahead for achieving genuine financial inclusion. A lot would depend on how the RBI will deal with the aspiring banks and those existing ones.

A great deal has to be achieved in the months ahead, but mostly without any support from Mr Mor's recommendations. The RBI will realise this sooner than later. Next time, hopefully, it will include some bankers who have worked across this wonderland. India is a complex set of systems and our corporate lieutenants need to sharpen their knowledge and intuitions thoroughly, if they have to remain relevant in the changing environment.
-Atul K Thakur
Email: summertickets@gmail.com
(Published in The Pioneer,on January21,2014)

The break Nitish Kumar will rue

As long as the Janata Dal (United) remained aligned with the Bharatiya Janata Party, Lalu Prasad and Ram Vilas Paswan could be kept at arm’s length. By snapping ties with the BJP, the JD(U) will feel the heat

Bihar is passing through an unprecedented transition. This time it is imposed by the political compulsions rather by malfunctioning of the state machinery, which hitherto plagued the State on many occasions. The JD(U) and the BJP had changed the political discourse at the height of the RJD’s misrule together.

The end of the JD(U)-BJP coalition in Bihar has returned the subversive rhetoric to the forefront, which makes the present political scene in the State look like what it was in the 1990s. Back then, the Left and the Congress were in bonhomie with the RJD to fight the imagined threat to communal harmony. Although toothless, they will now do something similar in the Lok Sabha election to escape slipping through the cracks of untravelled political routes.

The Lok Janshakti Party’s Ram Vilas Paswan is too consistent in his own way. He has been a face of central politics, and his coalition choice will be decided according to which major alliance will have a better shot at Delhi’s throne.
Lalu Prasad’s son is another politician who was born into this role out of miserable cricket career and his father’s lack of trust in the senior leaders of his motley camp.

So, Mr Tejashwi Yadav is a poster boy and together with RJD’s old horse, Raghuvansh Prasad Singh, they are struggling hard to make their presence felt on the rough political turf of Patna.

This is the state of affairs inside the opposition parties in Bihar. Their claim of giving the State a better governance model than the present regime is based on flawed raw material and reckless manoeuvrings. However, the three-dimensional polarisation in the State will give leeway to a certain extent to these parties. But assuming that edge too significant would be an over-estimation.

It is axiomatic that in isolation, both the JD(U) and the BJP will see the upcoming election unprecedentedly tough.
The division of votes and the lack of a natural ally for any potential coalition will haunt both the camps equally. Danger is looming large for another round of devastating political plays by the desperate RJD and the LJP. They will not prefer missing any chance to get back the State.

Development as a political agenda was not commonplace in Bihar before the NDA rose to command in Bihar in 2005. The feudal construct in the State significantly diminished in subsequent years. Besides, social and political changes fast-paced and Bihar performed remarkably well in economic sphere too. But in the changed circumstances now, it is uncertain that the erstwhile component of the NDA will be able to reap any benefits out of that success.

Another crucial factor is the rising expectation of the masses from the Government. This is a positive phenomenon and even if the State Government is being criticised for not curing all ills of public services, it should be seen differently. Recently, Bihar has overcome its chronic power crisis too, next in line with other visible developments.

But the improved infrastructure is not happening in crucial areas like education and industry, and on this count the people are genuinely angry with the incumbent Government. A lacklustre attitude towards industry is another sightable drawback that Chief Minister Nitish Kumar’s Government has been afflicted with.

A casual attitude in the recruitment of teachers, doctors and other professionals is another disastrous move of the regime. When such moves were resisted, they were met with an arrogant response from the Chief Minister. Despite having a stable fiscal position, it is bizarre that Mr Nitish Kumar has no interest in avoiding such treatment to the educated unemployed.

The state of higher education is no less pathetic. Most students are still compelled to migrate for university education. The only improvement is the secured finances to many sick universities. It is not that moves were not made to improve the situation. But, wrongly envisioned, they met with failure. Surrounded with the wrong set of advisers, Mr Nitish Kumar seems to forget the pain of his people
Notably, these advisers come from different orbits and they hardly know the State outside of Patna. Those living in the State are acknowledging the welcome changes of recent years, albeit shunning the insensitive stand of the Government on key issues. As they vote during the election, their anger could impact adversely on the immediate prospects of the JD(U).

It’s time Mr Kumar looks beyond his statistical progression with developmental plans. He must recognise the excluded areas where his Government has failed to go far. Officialdom has its limits and Mr Kumar must not forget that. In the next few weeks, the scenario of alliances would become clear. Bihar will usher into a difficult phase. This time, it would be losing its ‘reformed politics’.
-Atul K Thakur
Email: summertickets@gmail.com
(Published in The Pioneer, on January7,2014)

India's industrial lobbies are crumbling

The return of these institutions to the fold of big business houses and the consequent weakening of executive control in these chambers have damaged their credibility and are detrimental to their sustenance

On hindsight, it is safe to say that India Inc no longer runs through legitimate lobbies. Recent years have witnessed a sharp fall in the quality of leadership at India’s premier business chambers — the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry, the Confederation of Indian Industry, the Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India and the National Association of Software and Services Companies. This has led to sagging morale in business circles, with furious voices emerging from the inside.

The return of these institutions to the fold of big business houses and the consequent weakening of executive control in these chambers are detrimental to their credibility and sustenance. These institutions are more the victims of inner strife than the economic slowdown that has plagued Indian industry in recent months.

It is worthwhile to recall that ‘lobbyism’ is itself a hyper-materialistic term which is often used to refer to the clout of the old boys’ network that uses the backdoor approach to get things done. Lobbying is an established phenomenon in the US, but clearly what may be fine in an alien land is not acceptable in India. Still, some people like a former CII chief (whose untainted reputation lost much of its sheen after the

Radia tapes came into the public domain) have sought to push the culture of lobbyism. UPA2, with its propensity to plunder public resources, has ensured that such systemic ills happily flourish. It is unlikely that the Government’s insensible use of the carrot-and-stick policy which pampered business tycoons, will lead to any improvements. It will only encourage sleaze in business and accelerate the downward spiral in trade.

The crucial issue here is that the Government rarely does anything that is notionally wrong, but routinely falters at the implementation level. The converging of politicians’ business interests with those of the industrialists can only fudge the lines between politics and business.

A recent case in point is the FIR lodged by the CCenttral Bureau of Investigation against Kumar Mangalam Birla. The Government sought to spin the news in its favour but the Supreme Court and a former Coal Secretary did not allow it to hide the Prime Minister’s Office’s explicit mishandling of coal block allocations. Moreover, the UPA’s own Ministers, including Mr Anand Sharma, spoke their mind and expressed displeasure over the Government’s risky adventure against Mr Birla.

The Ministers fear slowing growth in such circumstances — already, India’s corporate entities are turning incompetent. There is also a disconnect between intention and action, making it highly unlikely that the Indian economy will return to its lost growth trajectory soon. There is not much for trade bodies to look into at this point, as the current mess has happened at a high level, leaving no space for third parties to intervene.

The fight is on to save the face of the Government. And, except for the Supreme Court and the Election Commission, no other institution has effective authority to challenge the regime. Through indecisiveness and preferential treatment, the Government is doing its best to damage the entrepreneurial spirit in the country. Unfortunately, no voice can be heard against such moves from the industrial community, instead, it only whines on specific issues wherein its immediate interests come into play. The trade representatives are now pantomime actors.

Besides, these institutions had ceased to be the knowledge institutions long time ago, when motley groups of tainted management consultants begun supplying second-hand wisdom from within the various chambers’ crumbling blocks. Clearly, it is tough to be either on the side of the Government or the industry.

China has controlled its economy and implemented progressive reforms for over three decades, yet, it hasn’t been able to join the league of high-income nations. It is impossible to see India walking a smooth path in the coming years. If the country’s economic performance has to improve, steps must be taken renew faith in institutional frameworks.

Industry is a vital component of the nation’s growth and ‘profit’ is really not a dirty term, if it has some redistributive bearing. Economic growth and redistribution of wealth can happen simultaneously, if the Government and trade and industry learn to work together.Finally, industry chambers too need to wake up and get their act together, if they wish to remain relevant. Or else, they will soon have no role to play at all.
-Atul K Thakur
Email:summertickets@gmail.com
(Published in The Pioneer on October28,2013)

More than a rockstar performance

The new RBI Governor has loosened capital controls to attract investments from abroad. But the weather is still rough and the economy weak. Raghuram Rajan has a lot to do, and his debonair looks will not see him through...

These days everyone, including celebrity author Shobhaa De, is writing about Mr Raghuram Rajan for the country’s leading pink papers, which surprisingly cover lifestyle alongside business news. In the Reserve Bank of India’s long history, such excitement over a new Governor is unprecedented. But much of this has been manufactured by the Union Ministry of Finance which also clouded the end of Mr Rajan’s predecessor’s term.

Mr D Subbarao was given a politically-motivated farewell for his conservative handling of the central bank. He will also be remembered for his principled tussle with the Finance Ministry for quite a long time. It is a cliché that the nitty-gritties of politics overrule broad-based approaches because, for now, politics has won, and the Finance Ministry and the RBI are enjoying a rare harmony.

I have known Mr Rajan since his early days in Government, was impressed by his celebrated 2005 lecture, The Greenspan Era: Lessons for the Future, that was delivered at a symposium sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. I also read with great interest his radically upfront book on capitalism, Fault Lines: How Hidden Fractures Still Threaten the World Economy.

If his 2005 lecture placed him among visionaries who sensed in advance the impending trouble in the Anglophone financial model, his 2010 book added to his position as a rational thinker who had confronted the ills of the financial model, spoke against the rise of cronyism and the suspicious increase in the number of billionaires in post-reform India. Unfortunately, I fear we will miss that person now that he has taken his position at the helm of the RBI.

There is good reason why Mr Rajan’s nicely tailored suits are more talked about than his policies. Some of these, for instance, he has taken overnight to stop the downfall of the vulnerable rupee. Mr Rajan has also loosened capital controls to attract investments from abroad. But the weather is still rough and the fundamentals of the economy still weak. The pampered corporate sector is in no mood to fight its incompetencies.

In the last three decades, financial systems around the world have witnessed major change. The credit system has liberalised and the reaches of financial markets have expanded. But these changes have come with greater risks. The RBI, on many occasions, has had to step in to control visible and imminent challenges such as the earlier East Asian crisis to the worldwide recession of 2007-2008, from which we are yet to recover.

The RBI especially deserves praise for maintaining an effective regulatory grip over the new entities in the financial sector such as private equity and hedge funds. But on the other side, it remains a helpless hawk that cannot control the unethical business model of the capital market or rein in the impractical mutual fund sector which is destined for be untrustworthy. But with regard to the banking sector, the RBI has appeared to be in sync with the Finance Ministry. As a result, this sector has remained semi-reformed and non-progressive.

The last two decades have seen the emergence of diverse institutional networks in India and together they make a huge impact on policy-making. From inflation control to monetary policies, the RBI is controlling them all but individually. The clout of established third party financial assessors and lobbyists is also being strongly felt, now that India’s financial system too is seeking to become a clone of the Anglophone financial model. This is fine in the short run, but will lead to heavy losses in the medium to long term.

Mr Rajan has to take a position on this. But in the short span of time that he has been in office, he already seems to be losing his sheen. The Economist, which for some reason is religiously read in India, has compared the RBI with a pressure cooker and covertly offered sympathy for Mr Rajan. I don’t subscribe to such an extreme evaluation but have no doubt that leading the RBI during the last months of a beleaguered UPA2’s term is not a comfortable task.

At a time when the Government has made governance a redundant theme, reviving growth and containing price rise are among toughest tasks for the new RBI Governor. Also, since election is around the corner, agencies that have been sleeping all this while, such as the Planning Commission, will awake to action and offer concessions to cover up the incumbent regime’s fiscal imprudence. The RBI will come under pressure from the top and play safe, or not play at all.

Of course, India will eventually bounce back but the recovery will happen with a volatile financial sector that will remain densely populated by crony-capitalists and marred by their incompetent corporate spirit. The impressive ratings of the new RBI Governor must be taken with a pinch of salt.
Atul K Thakur
Email:summertickets@gmail.com
(Published in The Pioneer on 25September2013)

Too early to drop one’s guard

India must work closely with the newly-elected Nawaz Sharif Government in Pakistan. But, while it must explore enhancing relations in areas of trade, New Delhi must remain vigilant all the time.

Mr Nawaz Sharif’s return to power and his exuberant shower of constructive announcements offer hope, both to the Pakistani people as well to those in India wanting to improve relations with Pakistan. But India has had a mixed experience dealing with democratic regimes in Islamabad — at the start, things appear to be promising but suddenly the relationship turns sour. This was the case with Mr Sharif’s previous stint as Prime Minister, when friendly summits and goodwill trips to Pakistan by the NDA leadership were reciprocated with heavy infiltration in Kashmir.

Also, Mr Sharif, groomed under the cunning shadow of former President Zia-ul-Haq initially had little problem with limited military-political interface within the Pakistani establishment. His perception changed, however, after his Army chief Pervez Musharraf’s coup d'état in the post-Kargil days. While in exile, Mr Sharif has supposedly become more gentle, practical and reliable. So, he exudes hope to the crowds in Pakistan as well as to the Congress-led UPA regime in New Delhi, which has no strategic foreign policy for the South Asian neighbourhood.

But let us not forget that the root cause of pessimism in Pakistan lies in the fact that this country knows not how to live with rational actions. Today, Pakistan exists somewhere between the grim world of Saadat Hasan Manto and Faiz Ahmad Faiz.

These two literary greats had witnessed the making of Pakistan, and knew the country better than others and much before it was overrun by fundamentalists. A country created on religious lines, and also a product of the tussle between the elitist leaders of the Muslim League and those of the Congress, Pakistan has never been able to outgrow the complexes attached to its birth.

The history of democracy in Pakistan is blurry and replete with instances of continuous military interference, which till date distort political processes. Sixty-three years after its birth, Pakistan is far from how its founder Mohammad Ali Jinnah, an astute politician, had envisioned it. And even though a small segment of progressive Pakistanis may like to hold on to Jinnah’s vision, it is, for all practical purposes, now lost.

Its international borders notwithstanding, Pakistan’s alliances with China and the US have already compromised its sovereignty. Driven by their imperial compulsions, these countries use Pakistan to maintain their grip on the South Asian region. And this is obvious to Pakistani leaders, civil society activists and journalists.

The other factor that defines Pakistan’s geo-strategic policies is Afghanistan. The ground realities from that country plague Pakistan on a real time basis even as one powerful class of Pakistanis reap the benefits of instability. This class knows how important it is to keep stirring the pot — as, in a political order that is driven by force rather than constitutional values, it is troubled times that offer better strategic dividend than peace times.

India has the burden of history to bear when it comes to its foreign policy vis-à-vis Pakistan. However, New Delhi has often failed miserably to carry the load. This maybe in part due to the inadequacies of those who have sought to shape India’s policy towards Pakistan in recent years. Many of these so-called ‘Pakistan experts’ in New Delhi have practically no on-ground exposure to that country and only limited understanding of the historical linkages between India and Pakistan. They look upon Pakistan as a project that they need to handle. This impedes any deep and long-term study of the Pakistani problem in India.

Even New Delhi’s diplomatic corps, from the IIC to the Gymkhana generation, has failed to make its mark when it comes to strategic thinking with respect to Pakistan. Yet, India cannot afford to remain indifferent to this neighbour. As for now, India should keep playing safe with Pakistan. New Delhi may allow for an enhanced trade engagement with Pakistan, for instance. More importantly, it should support Mr Sharif so as to keep hardliners at bay in Islamabad. A fresh round of goodwill summits may also be encouraging for bilateral relations.

But through it all, India must remain vigilant. It must not be caught off-guard like it was in the 1990s when the then Prime Minister was indeed working to make a long-lasting improvement in India’s relations with Pakistan. Of course, both countries are in a different state now — this is especially true in Pakistan where the people have chosen the ballot over the bullet. Hopefully, Mr Sharif too will stay democratic and the Pakistani military will be cut to size by him. At this juncture, New Delhi should work closely with Islamabad for a positive turn in bilateral ties but while keeping its border security mechanism firmly in place.

-Atul K Thakur
Email: summertickets@gmail.com
(Published in The Pioneer on June18,2013)

US-China Cold War in Korea

The complete loss of bilateral trust in the peninsula is directly proportional to the expansionist interests of Beijing and Washington, DC. While the former patronises Pyongyang, the latter is an ally of Seoul

The Korean peninsula is again going through a rough time. North Korea’s nuclear test and South Korea’s close military co-operation with the US has lead the region and international community towards deep uncertainty. But this is not for the first time that there have been tensions in the Korean region. The two countries have been bitter rivals since the Korean War ended in 1953.

From North Korea’s standpoint, its aggression has been surfacing because of South Korea’s over-reliance on the US. Over the decades, South Korea’s easy access to nuclear capacity has created a sense of grave insecurity within the dictatorial regime of North Korea.

However, it is by manipulating this potential threat from a neighbour that the dynasty in North Korea has endured for long. And, the swiftness with which Mr Kim Jong-un succeeded his father as the Supreme Leader of North Korea confirms it. As for South Korea, it has moved with the times, keeping in mind its defence and trade-related requirements, under the shadow of the US.

North Korea, too, found in China, a patron to help it challenge the combined might of the US-South Korea alliance. Nevertheless, its reliance on China is not quite on the same level as the symbiotic relationship that South Korea shares with the US. But a liberal South Korea tried to bring about a rapprochement in the past with its ‘sunshine policy’ — this was a genuine initiative put forth by then President Kim Dae-jung in 1998.

The policy was a big step towards improved political and economic engagement with North Korea. Unfortunately, within a decade, it ceased to exist. This created ground for never-ending acrimony between these two countries. The present wave of hostilities in the Korean peninsula is possibly generated in response to the recent leadership change in South Korea and US President Barack Obama’s unprecedented aggression towards the ‘wrong part of world’.

For years, North Korea has routinely violated the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. But the country’s third and latest nuclear test worried the American establishment to such an extent that North Korea is now considered by Washington, DC to be a serious threat — in fact, it seems to have been listed as the ‘foremost security threat in the region’.

North Korea’s young and immature Supreme Leader has only made the situation worse by behaving unmindfully. At the height of a crisis such as this, North Korea has made a terrible blunder by not pushing for serious negotiations.

North Korea may succeed in engaging the US, but it has no infrastructure to effectively challenge the world’s mightiest country. The US is formidable because it can fight relentlessly. Often, it even wages war without apparent reason. This is perhaps because it has no civilisational back-up that India enjoys, so it has little to consider regarding the moral degradation that comes with such aggression.

A few weeks ago, the North Korean Government stepped up the security-cover it provides to foreign diplomatic missions in Pyongyang. Before that, it had stopped the movement of South Korean workers employed in a giant business district run by both countries — this was an attack on business interests, and had more than just a symbolic impact on South Korea. It made Seoul more worried over its vulnerable location. South Korea’s capital is close to the demilitarised zone and could be demolished in case there is a military confrontation with the North.

The complete loss of bilateral trust in this region can be seen as directly proportional to the expansionist interests of both China and the US.

‘Multi-lateralism’ is an obsolete term today — the US has ensured as much with its remarkable follies in the past six decades. The Cold War has been over for more than two decades now, and there is no supposed threat from the Soviet Union which does not even exist. But given the manner in which the US is responding to any Chinese overture around the world, it seems like the the foreign and military policies of America are yet to move with the times.

As for China, it is not always what it appears. Sometimes, its actions help clear the fog around it; at other times its intentions are unclear. For example, in the Korean region and even in Nepal, China has played an awkward role. Remember North Korea was once sanctioned by China too under its opportunistic state policy. And Nepal will pay the price for cosying up to the Asian giant.

As for the Korean clashes, they will probably not end in the foreseeable future. But India can, meanwhile, learn a lesson from China which has undertaken a dangerous march in the neighbourhood, outside of its den. It needs to be careful
-Atul K Thakur
Email: summertickets@gmail.com
(Published in The Pioneer on May7,2013)

Mubarak to Morsi,little has changed

There was some hope that, with a new regime coming to power in Cairo, bilateral ties between India and Egypt would improve. But a recent visit of the Egyptian presidential delegation has proved that the glorious Nehru-Nasser era is over.

In 1975, when Hosni Mubarak was appointed as the Vice President of Egypt, no one expected that he would be an epoch-maker. But the assassination of President Anwar Sadat catapulted him to the helm in Egypt, and a new chapter of history was in the making.

Mr Mubarak served as President for the next 30 years years, until the status quo-defying ‘Arab Spring’ forced him out of office. In February 2011, he was stripped of all his power, but that does not in any way take away from the fact that Mr Mubarak will remain Egypt’s longest-serving ruler since Muhammad Ali Pasha.

In recent years, the changes imposed upon emerging economies through greater global economic integration have resulted in the development of a new consciousness among its citizens. Structural and social contradictions propelled tensions between the people’s rising aspirations and the Government’s failure to provide good governance.

The Arab Spring was essentially instigated by popular dissatisfaction with the Government while the lack of equity in income distribution may have been the other reason. Anyhow, when Egypt’s dictatorial regime fell, there was hope for a better future. That is the better part of the story.

As the movement for regime change in Egypt was essentially driven by a middle-class desperate for growth and development, it should have come as no surprise that Mr Mubarak’s successor Mohamed Morsi is an accomplished professional focussed on reviving the economy. It is in this context that Egypt’s relations with India must been seen.

After decades of being low-key, India-Egypt diplomatic and trade relations have now witnessed some degrees of improvement. However, it would be incorrect to term these recent developments as a ‘breakthrough’, as the recent visit of an Egyptian trade delegation led by President Morsi himself proves.

First, Mr Morsi’s India visit came as a follow-up to his Pakistan trip. Second, the Memorandum of Understan- dings signed during a joint meeting of the Indian Industrial Chambers were largely insignificant. Finally, nothing conclusive came out in India’s favour in the realm of diplomatic engagements even.

Against this backdrop, one can safely say that Egypt’s new regime doesn’t have a foreign policy that would distinguish itself from the one followed by its predecessor. There used to be a time when alongside Mahatma Gandhi, the Egyptian revolutionary leader Saad Zaghloul also shared the common goal of overthrowing colonial rule in their respective countries.
In later years, Egypt and India solidified their relationship through the Non-Aligned Movement essentially built on the co-operation between Nehru and Nasser.

In fact, through the crucial decades of the 1950s and the 1960s, Nehru offered Egypt India’s unrelenting support. It is no secret that during the Israel-Arab war, India was among the few nations which encouraged President Anwar Sadat to visit Jerusalam and sign a peace treaty with Israel. It is this treaty between the largest Arab country in the world and Israel that till dates holds the key to peace in West Asia.

But the fundamentals of the India-Egypt relation have changed with time. Moreover, by the time Mr Mubarak came to power, Egypt had already lost much of its liberal character. Of course, Mr Mubarak did his best to keep the Islamists on a tight leash, but after his ouster, the Muslim Brotherhood has come all out and captured political space in Egypt. Today, along with its Salafi allies, the Brothers rule from Cairo.

In India too, the situation did not remain stagnant. Nehru viewed the Cold War as yet another round of Western imperialism, wherein the rest of the world was expected to pick any one superpower and stick to it. But, Nehru’s non-alignment logic failed when he chose to join the Commonwealth of Nations.

In fact, the basic purpose of the Non-Aligned Movement was compromised at this time by none other than Nehru himself. Consequently, as the era of moralism in international relations passed, and realism knocked on many fronts, NAM quickly lost its way and along with it India and Egypt drifted apart as well.

As mentioned earlier, the relationship between India and Egypt has not changed drastically even though it has been many months now that Mr Morsi’s new regime has taken over in Cairo. Of course, this could quite possibly be because of the many dire challenges that the President faces at home. Indeed, Egypt is yet to recover from the impact of the Arab Spring and it remains to be seen if revolutionaries can deliver on their promises.

Mr Morsi especially will have to work hard to respond to the aspirations of his people. At a different time in history, India may have actively participated in Egypt’s development processes but given that there has been no visible warming up in bilateral ties, New Delhi will most probably just watch the developments from a distance.
-Atul K Thakur
Email: summertickets@gmail.com
(Published in The Pioneer,on April08,2013)

Give democracy a chance

With Chief Justice Khil Raj Regmi reacting positively to suggestions by Nepal’s political class to head an election Government, Nepal’s transition to democracy has suffered yet another setback.

The shrewd proposal to form a Government headed by the Chief Justice was floated by the ruling Maoist party recently, after political parties failed to reach consensus on who would head the election Government.

Like many recent political events in Nepal, this is also surprising, and it challenges the sincerity of the so-called democratic activism that is being pursued by Nepal's political parties.

The move is worrisome as it will violate the core values of the Constitution. The provision of Article 106(1) of the Interim Constitution allows, at best, the Chief Justice or a Justice to be on deputation for judicial inquiry — it clearly prohibits a former Justice, let alone a sitting Chief Justice, to serve as the topmost executive of the Government.

On a larger scale the principle of ‘separation’ of powers as well as judicial independence would come under heavy strain. Then, what compels Nepali politicians to abandon their avowed role and instead come up with a highly objectionable set of plans?

Understandably, these political shenanigans have not found favour with the people. The ongoing protests in Kathmandu lend credence to the growing disenchantment of the masses with the incumbent regime which is labouring under the delusion that the ordinary Nepali has a dismal sense of political realities in their country.

The obvious lack of political will and consensus to hold elections and install a properly elected Government, has further eroded the credibility of the Nepali political class.

Unfortunately, the United Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) and the Nepali Congress have failed to acknowledge the gravity of the situation. Rather, they are working overtime to block the prospects of a ‘multi-party transitory Government’, which could have addressed the issues related to the fresh election in the country, besides putting in place a new Constitution, which is the dire need of this nation going through a difficult transition.

This is crucial to keep alive the democratic sentiments, although much more than mere tokenism is required today to pull Nepal out from its political chaos.

Ever since monarchy was abolished in this tiny Himalayan kingdom in 2008, the political parties, belying all expectations, have failed to provide a credible leadership to the country. Today, five years on, the situation has gone from bad to worse.

Probably, at this stage Nepal misses its ‘centrist stalwarts’ like its five-time Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala and Ganesh Man Singh, or an idealist of Man Mohan Adhikari’s calibre. They are worth remembering, not with nostalgia but to emphasise the fact that the first generation political leadership could understand and empathise with Nepal’s democratic aspirations in a much better way.

These leaders were not faultless, but their performance was never at variance with the promises made to the nation and its people. They led from the front and did not shy from taking on the role of troubleshooter when issues of crucial national interest cropped up.

In the present scenario, it is impossible to find anyone from Nepal’s political circle who is not championing ‘political overplay’! Most of the current clutches of leaders are more intent on targeting easy goals and short-term interests, blithely unmindful of the disaster that such recklessness entails.

The Maoists have contributed largely to this atmosphere of gloom and despondency that Nepal finds itself in currently. It is evident now that the Maoists have clear plans of running a totalitarian regime while destroying India’s conventional position vis-à-vis Nepal.

So a sort of ‘Maoist monarchy’ is in the offing, and the rest of the contenders like the leaders of the democratic Opposition, the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist) and Nepali Congress, have been unable to stand up for the people even as the situation has worsened over the years.

Over the years, the delay in holding elections, and in setting up of the Constituent Assembly and the involvement of non-Nepali elements in governance and federalism-related debates have made a mockery of Nepal’s polity.

It is depressing to see that an aspiring democracy like Nepal, which streamlined the basic tenets of democracy in a short span of time and successfully handled the ‘ultra radical’ political outfits following the abolition of monarchy, is struggling to save those ideals.

The coming days will decide whether Nepal dissolves into anarchy or stands up for its democratic ideals. The people, the civil society must act now to keep the system running by not allowing the Chief Justice to become the Prime Minister and by preventing the incompetent Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai from brokering power.

Nepal needs a simple democratic political course that can be easily attained without seeking the ‘blood or tears’ of the citizens. The political parties should not worry about China’s reaction; they should just move on.
-Atul K Thakur
(Published in The Pioneer on March05,2013)

Frindship is a two-way street

Both India and Nepal have faltered in strengthening their historical ties in recent years. But now, as Kathmandu struggles towards democracy, New Delhi must be a more understanding and supportive neighbour
As the political transition in Nepal progresses, the country’s political institutions have become a hub of sorts for intermingled ideas. These ideas are neither being shaped nor developed constructively to end the political impasse that has plagued Nepal’s journey to democracy. Consequently, key challenges such as drafting the Constitution, delineating the nature of Nepali federalism and more recently, accepting a national unity Government before general election next summer, still remain. It is against this backdrop that President Ram Baran Yadav’s recently concluded trip to India must be viewed. In fact, many were a bit surprised that Mr Yadav made this visit when his country was at such a critical juncture. After all, the President is the sole stable authority in Nepal today.

Mr Yadav’s official visit to India took him to Banaras Hindu University, where he was conferred an honorary DPhil, but his time in New Delhi was also quite hectic as he met with leaders of the ruling and Opposition parties, besides inviting his Indian counterpart to Kathmandu. At a time of receding trust in India’s role in Nepal, President Yadav’s India visit holds strategic value that can lead to greater cooperation between these formidable allies. The beginning of this new dialogue will hopefully infuse dynamism in the India-Nepal diplomatic engagement and economic partnership.

Hailing from the Madhesh region of Janakpur in Nepal, Kolkata-educated President Yadav is well-connected in India. His understanding of India-Nepal relations is better than that of the average Nepali politician. Even though President Yadav doesn’t have the charisma of someone like Girija Prasad Koirala, as a long-practicising doctor, he knows how to treat maladies well. It is an ability that is sadly lacking in many leaders who have been entrusted with handling India-Nepal affairs.

For instance, even Indian representatives and officials who are otherwise sensitive and responsive towards Nepal, try to run down their counterparts in Kathmandu during diplomatic visits. This makes India, a less dear ally. Also, Nepal has never really received the kind of attention it deserves from India’s Tier-I leadership, even though it is one of New Delhi’s important neighbours. This is an unwavering trend that has continued since the period of Jawaharlal Nehru.

It is time that India brings to its relationship with Nepal more in action, rather than friendly mannerisms alone. This is the need of the hour, especially if New Delhi wishes to keep at bay Nepal’s India-baiters. The first generation of Nepali leaders had also fought for India’s independence and they shared with their Indian counterparts a desire for democracy. Leaders like BP Koirala, MP Koirala, Manmohan Adhikari, Ganesh Man Singh and others had also dealt with the politics of two countries, and this was possible only because they had leveraged the power of people-to-people relations between India and Nepal.

In New Delhi, President Yadav’s presence at the Mahendra Malangia Natya Mahotasav (organised by the Maithili Lok Rang), which saw the participation of a number of reputed artists from India and Nepal including leading Maithili thespian Ramesh Ranjan Jha and his Mithila Natyakala Parishad, was a reminder of the golden moments that India and Nepal once shared in the cultural-political field. In fact, it is events such as these that really have the potential to boost bilateral ties.

Listening to the voices of aggrieved Nepali youth (mostly because of their ignorant biases) at a New Delhi conference, organised by the Nepal-Bharat Sahyog Manch a few weeks back, however, offered an altogether different experience. A blunt question put to one of India’s seniormost diplomats at that conference by a young Nepali continues to haunt the mind for it also represents the mindset of a reactionary section in Nepal. The youth had asked why Nepal should give priority to India, and not favour China instead.

Such wild ideas are causing the current mess in Nepal. In this case, for example, it is amply clear that China will not think twice before disrupting Nepal’s close relationship with India, but still there are talks about China taking over India’s place in Nepal.

There is, of course, no doubt that Nepal will overcome its political hurdles in its own time, especially if its leaders and its people were to exude more confidence in democratic values. Since the massacre of 2001, the royal family of Nepal first became a nefarious and later a ghostly object. Now, it is no longer in a position to offer itself as a system of alternative governance. Still, while the physical end of the monarchy was painful, the collapse of the idea of the monarchy is a healthy development for Nepal’s democratic aspiration. Still, unless the duplicity of political leaders is brought under control, change as desired will not happen.

Ideologically, the radical Maoist movement in Nepal is impure and reflects the personal cynicism of its leadership. Next to the ideological line, these leaders have been nurturing their political ambitions by pumping up a ‘sovereignty phobia’ which naturally leads to anti-India sentiment in Nepal. The Maoists are a divided entity now, and those who sit outside the power circle are trying to carve a niche for themselves. They hope that the anti-India demonstration will give them the leverage to do so.

Over the last one and a half decades, China has made various efforts to proliferate a certain version of communism inside Nepal. Sect and sub-sects of Maoist ideology have marred Nepal’s development on all fronts. Nepal has a lot to deliver with its untapped natural and human resources; here, the political leadership of Nepal has a pivotal role to play. It must decide on how it will move collectively on the bigger issues of foreign policy and trade negotiation and how it will rid Nepal of the ‘underdog’ tag that has prevented the country from embarking on a regular course of development. President Yadav too must remind the political elite in Nepal of all its unkept promises to him and the country.
Atul K Thakur
(Published in The Pioneer, 31 December2012)

Obama’s re-election is blessing for India

The US President’s sharp and well-woven South Asia policy will be crucial for all stakeholders. Both India and the US will benefit from the new arrangement
As per The Wall Street Journal, “Obama's victory in the bruising campaign marks a landmark in modern election history. No sitting president since Franklin D Roosevelt in 1940 has won re-election with a higher unemployment rate, which stands at 7.9 per cent.”

Also, this election will be remembered for the excessive reliance on economic policies as its rallying point. With India-US total merchandise trade touching $57.80billion in 2011, the US is now India's third largest trade partner and hence shares many concerns jointly.

Despite WTO's reservations on such sound bilateral trade relations between these two countries, it's unlikely that any significant change will take place in their cooperation in the days to come. India's current diplomatic engagement with the US is primarily being driven by the hope that Mr Obama's return to the White House will make his economic sense more ‘improved'. But, stepping away from his anti-outsourcing stand would not be easy for the US President, leaving Indian corporates not much to cheer about at this stage.

During the presidential debates, India attracted only fleeting interest of the candidates. Though much like the rest of the world, India too breathed a sigh of relief at Mr Obama's re-election. By choosing to look askance at Mr Obama's first term, where US economic policies were shaped mostly against Indian interests, India has shown a progressive and pragmatic approach towards strengthening ties and dealing with the US Government's ‘new protectionist policies’.

Mr Obama's presidency started off on a less friendly standing with India when he initiated a short-lived, albeit deep, engagement with China. But the past four years have shown that his views have turned significantly in India's favour. His distrust of military-dominated Pakistan in Afghanistan clearly marks India's expanding future role in the South Asian region. So, it's hardly surprising if Mr Obama is now building Bush-era like close ties with New Delhi.

In his new term, an older and wiser Mr Obama is likely to rearrange policy on South Asia and adopt a stricter line on Islamic terrorism emanating out of Afghanistan-Pakistan region. So, in strategic terms too, the US President is looking to India for decisive cooperation in Afghanistan and West Asia.

Washington knows that a decade-old operation in Afghanistan can be ended only through a more proactive role by India. India, on the other hand must not forget that the “Americans are adept at producing or reproducing well packaged formulas”, and should follow the course with proper guard for maintaining its own foreign policy fundamentals.

In the post-Cold War scenario, the US is pre-eminent but nowhere has it held supreme position. The current global strategic scenario is heavily influenced by the US, but it will be too simplified if it is called anything close to ‘unipolar dominance'. USSR's breakup had strengthened the chances of a homogenised world. India must resist such developments as an idealistic leader of global politics. In the last six decades, India has been maintaining its independent stand on foreign policy unmindful of the brickbats and bouquets that came its way. Since 1947, the country has moved up and now it has a legacy to offer.

So, it was not by chance that Mr Obama named Gandhi as his inspiration just after winning the presidential election. With amazing diversity and capacity to act as a bridge between industrialised and developing world, India is now a prominent soft power state. It's a fair development that US now realises India's security concern more responsibly and accepts ‘terrorism' as the immediate target to fight with. The world's two great democracies, India and the US, face many common challenges and also share similar conditions to act on them.

Mr Obama's sharper and well-woven South Asia policy will be crucial for the all stakeholders. India and the US will be benefit in the new arrangements, which might be a conservative estimation though would be closer to the reality. The responses and counter-responses in the main areas of cooperation between the two countries will decide the future course. The present is promising enough with Mr Obama's return.
Atul K Thakur
Email: summertickets@gmail.com
(Published in The Pioneer,dated on November21,2012)

Big brother is not watching

Be it during the long rule of the monarchy or during the one-and-a-half decade in which Nepal experimented with semi-democracy and even in the subsequent phases of complete democracy, the Himalyan nation has never witnessed a more dangerous, anti-India programme in action. The manner in which the new breakaway group from the UCPN (Maoist) called the CPN (Maoist) has been blatantly attacking every Indian symbol in sight in Nepal is worrisome.
The CPN (Maoist)’s most recent decision to ban Indian vehicles and Bollywood cinema within the country marks the height of bankruptcy in Nepal’s ultra-Left movement. First, it violates the fundamental rights enshrined in the Interim Constitution of Nepal, 2007, in Article 12(2). Second, it negates Nepal’s long history of co-operation with India.
The psychological complex that has produced such action is, however, strikingly different from the Orwellian notion of a big brother figure watching over the country. Or else, the people propagating the anti-India message would have similar apprehensions about China as well. But they don’t, possibly because Red China is offering the seed capital with which to destroy the tightly knit fabric of India-Nepal relations.
China is already outpacing India as a major investor in the Himalayan state, besides controlling the nerves of that country’s ultra-radical political forces. India should never have taken China’s hidden game in Nepal so lightly. Also, India’s diplomatic mission in Kathmandu has miserably failed in recent years to nourish the goodwill of the Nepalese people.
People-to-people contact between India and Nepal is New Delhi’s sole edge over Beijing. Probably, this is the reason why the average Nepalese stands against the ban on Indian vehicles and movies, having dismissed the dictates of the CPN-Maoist. But this is not surprising.
Since 1996, when civil war broke out in Nepal, the Maoists have consistently defied the common man’s aspiration. Even those with the most radical of imagination will agree that the Maoists don’t qualify as the leader of proletarian movement. Indeed, it is the average Nepalese, the civil society in that country and the Press that have been the biggest victims of the Maoist’s hypocritical people’s movement.
Ideologically, the Maoists’ movement in Nepal is impure and reflects the personal cynicism of its leadership. Next to the ideological line, these leaders have been nurturing their political ambitions by pumping up a ‘sovereignty phobia’ or ‘Indophobia’ in Nepal. Maoists are divided entities now, and those who sit outside the power circle, try to carve a niche for them. They hope that the anti-India demonstration will give them the mileage to do so.
A recent report by the United Nation’s High Commissioner for Refugees, charting 10 years of human rights violations during the Nepal conflict, presents the trove of horrific data regarding the number of dead, the number of abducted people etc. As expected, the ruling Maoists have rubbished the report. In fact in a bid to corner the international watchdog, the Maoist Government has begun distancing itself from the UN in multilateral arenas. This marks a complete departure from its earlier reliance on international agencies such as the UN. Clearly, transition from a power-seeking role to a position of power-mongering has altered the basic principles of the Maoists.
Political theory suggests that a state’s sovereignty rests with its people. Nepal has always successfully maintained its sovereignty and independence. Since the end of the Malla confederacy and the political unification done by the founder of the ruling house of Gorkha, Prithvi Narayan Shah, in the 18th century, Nepal has in fact never faced any sovereignty crisis.
Even the present time of political transition has hardly allowed for any systemic vulnerabilities in Nepal that might result in the country falling to the domination of a foreign power. So, this new-found ‘insecurity’ regarding sovereignty, especially among the radical politicians, is really the result of the kind of petty politicking that is rampant in Nepal.
Let there be no doubt that political strategies based on anti-India, hate campaigns will not last long enough. This is because neither Nepal’s economic nor sentimental impulses will ever allow India to be any less participative in its soil. Besides, India still has a positive footprint inside Nepal. Any apprehension towards India’s role in that country is misplaced and principally irrational, and the fighting political parties of Nepal must acknowledge this. They must also understand that there is no merit in engaging in a tease game with an immediate and friendly neighbour, who also strategically ranks high in global power-politics. The Nepalese people deserve better than vile rhetoric.
Atul K Thakur
October10th, 2012, Wednesday
Email: summertickets@gmail.com
(Published in The Pioneer,dated on October23,2012)

Nepal needs genuine democracy

It's alarming to see that the Himalayan country has no real economic roadmap in place. Industries are either being shut down or they are stagnating. Meanwhile, politics is being shamelessly played out.

In a recent quantum leap, the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), the constituents of United Democratic Madhesi Front and other Madhesi and Janjati parties came together to form a Federal Democratic Republican Alliance, with the professed aim of moving towards ‘a Constitution with federalism, and federalism with identity’. Unfortunately, this hardly presents any positive signal to end the political uncertainty in that country.

The FDRA’s aim is to put pressure on the Nepali Congress and the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist) to accept an identity-based restructuring of the state before the polls and then go in for an electoral partnership. Altogether, this alliance has done little more than angering the Opposition and preventing any potential thaw in relations.

The present state of Nepal’s politics allows for such an unusual condominium of parties that make little sense when it comes to resolving the greater political mess in the country. The overblown ambitions of the political class nullify the earlier efforts of democratic experiments. The current state of instability in Nepal seems to be more the result of the behavioural recklessness of politicians rather than the consequence of a celebrated political transition.

Undoubtedly, such pacts and agreements among politicians who are under pressure to survive have pushed governance issues to an all-time low. When the roads were not all rubble and 12-hour-long power cuts were not the norm, things were different. The people of Nepal had hope in the new generation of politicians and their brand of democratic politics.

For instance, the Maoists, until recently, were viewed differently as they focused on inland development and did not wish for Nepal to continue as a dumping ground of imported goods. However, their economic vision has been lost mid-way. Today, the work done by the present Maoist led-Government, headed by the once ideologically pure Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai, is no less disappointing than any of his predecessors.

The wider connect among the people of India and Nepal has remained the cornerstone of ties between these two countries; the bond here is simply unmatchable. Still, the current level of engagement between these two countries is less satisfactory than it used to be in earlier times. From the Indian side, there is need to limit reliance on the diplomatic mission in Kathmandu for all negotiations, most of which should actually be carried out by Ministerial level delegations.

Also, the inadequate response from India in diplomatic engagement has kept Nepal on the margins; in this regard, there is need for course-correction. Greater people-to-people exchanges will help minimise anti-India feelings among a large section of the Nepali population. In the recent past, India has played the role of a cautious yet concerned neighbour, with respect to Nepal’s fluctuating political scenario. But to stop the vendetta of misguided radicals, India should deal with the situation in a proactive manner and without any biases.

Since 1996, Nepal has witnessed a series of troubling developments. Primary among them was the outbreak of the highly violent Maoist insurgency and later the royal massacre of 2001 which pushed the nation into an age of uncertainty. King Birendra had acceptability among the masses and political parties as well; and his willingness to lead Nepal to democracy was well known. It is true that had he still been alive, the credibility of the throne would not have been lost so early and without the emergence of any better substitute. Before 2001, Nepal was a nation in political transition. Now, it is a land ruled by leaders, who have no other plans except to walk with their erroneous ideas.

It’s alarming to see that Nepal really has no economic roadmap in place. Industries are either being shut down or they are stagnating. Janakpur, a remarkable city in the Terai region, has no other industry apart from a state commanded cigarette factory. As a result, the city is far worse today than it was twenty years ago.

This problem is contagious. The condition of Nepal’s other big cities is not very different. Nepali leaders visiting New Delhi have no will to execute the Memorandums of Understanding signed with the Indian Government or the Indian private sector in the areas of thermal power, telecommunications, tourism etc.

Until the political class reacts to economic impulses, things in Nepal will be hard to change. Nepal deserves a better deal than shrinking under the false promises of undeserving politicians. Democracy is indeed desirable but only if Nepal has chances of getting a real one, not something clownish in its place.
Atul Kumar Thakur
September 29, 2012, Saturday
Email: summertickets@gmail.com
(Published in The Pioneer, dated on September 20, 2012/ http://www.dailypioneer.com/columnists/item/52487-nepal-needs-genuine-democracy.html )

The many facets of Premchand

Book Review: Fiction/ The Temple and the Mosque: The Best of Premchand-Translated from Hindi by Rakhshanda Jalil, Harper Perennial, 197 pp; Rs250 (Paperback)
Munshi Premchand’s writings depict the ‘other’ world — a world which most of us see either as wretched, poverty-stricken or idealist, self-sufficient, depending on the side of the ideological divide we stand. In the process, this well-known Hindi writer too has become the other. A compassionate litterateur and visionary, Premchand strived for progressive ideals. But hardly many English-speaking, city-wallah Indians know him. And, even less people know that Premchand was only a pen-name adopted by Dhanpat Rai, who left behind more than a dozen novels and about 300 short stories.

Today, we don’t have a congenial milieu for translation works, thus hindering our indigenous literature from getting a larger audience. Imagine if Maupassant, Leo Tolstoy, Kafka and Milan Kundera had met the fate of Premchand, would they have been the international phenomena they are today. It doesn’t seem so. And, herein lies the importance of The Temple and the Mosque. The 17 stories of Premchand, selected and translated by literary critic Rakhshanda Jalil for this volume, introduces him as a literary genius. Unlike the usual translated works, there is no attempt made by the translator to force ‘transcreation’ while dealing with the natural ambience and characters of these stories. Jalil has done justice to her translation with this collection of Premchand’s stories and earlier with Phanishwar Nath Renu’s stories (Panchlight and Other Stories, Orient Blackswan, 2010).

In this work, the inclusion of stories like, Idgaah, Do Bailon ki Katha, Namak Ka Daroga, Mandir Aur Masjid, Budhi Kaki, Push Ki Raat, among others, gives ample chances for the first-time readers of Premchand to comprehend the other world. Also, the stories, in no way, seem dated. The villages of Premchand’s literary world may have changed today but the basic flaws that cause agrarian crisis remain as agitating as ever. In fact, the deprivation today is more acute in both relative and comparative terms. Yet, responses during the adversities have radically changed and they are closer of escaping the situation rather facing them the way a young Hamid did in Idgah. A new India with its consumerist strength has many avenues to hide its moral dilemmas.

Jalil has done a commendable job to get Premchand back to the centre-stage of literary discourses. In the changed time too, his works remain as relevant as they were before.
Atul Kumar Thakur
August31,2012,Friday, New Delhi
Email: summertickets@gmail.com
(Published in The Pioneer,Sunday-August4th2012/ http://www.dailypioneer.com/sunday-edition/sundayagenda/books-reviews/85422-the-many-facets-of-premchand.html )

Nepal’s politics at a cross roads

Prithvi Narayan Shah, 18th century king and the father -figure of Nepal, had once termed his country’s position as “a yam between two boulders”. He was, of course, referring to Nepal’s unusual status between the two intimidating giant powers — India and China. Even to this day, his metaphor aptly defines the existing state of affairs in Nepal’s strategic terms with its neighbours. Despite the fact that Nepal as a nation is far older than both of its principal neighbours, it has not been able to come out of the major influence of the two, especially India.
While the India-Nepal relations have historic backing from a series of factors, China’s quest to downplay India’s special friendly status with Nepal is part of Beijing’s narrow imperialistic ploy. Now, both in international relations and domestic politics, Nepal is facing the adverse implications of recently increased political engagement with China.

In broad terms, Nepal has suffered a lot by mismanaging its conventional role of a passive and focussed nation that tempered its special peaceful standing in South Asia. In his later days, King Birendra shared close relations with China, and so the royal massacre of 2001 shocked the Chinese greatly. King Gyanendra, who then occupied the throne in highly suspicious circumstances and without the respect that his predecessors enjoyed from an average Nepali, sought to cement ties with China by offering it space in the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation in 2005. India had been understandably less than amused by Kathmandu’s overture to China.
Since the end of the monarchy, Nepal’s politics has turned more inward looking. The breathless twists and turns hatched by political parties, whose working patterns are radically different from one another. Such is the friction among them that the attainment of any goal collectively or individually has become a lot more challenging. After the bloodless coup in February 2005, Mr Baburam Bhattarai, a thinking leader from the Maoists’ camp, came forward against the obstinate ideological hardline pursued by the likes of Mr Puspa Kamal Dahal, popularly known as ‘Prachanda’, called for the democratic means of struggle — that was a point of highest accomplishment in Nepal’s democratic transition.

Things are not similarly idealistic and flexible now, even with Mr Bhattarai as the elected Prime Minister having greater acceptability inside the party and outside. The conclusion that can be drawn over the failures of Constitution making on another deadline is that Nepal’s polity is undergoing a major change in its fundamentals.
Consequently, the assertiveness could be found at an all-time high among the elite political participants, though this is hardly surprising as every major political change in Nepal (even in the past) has created a new class of elite with shrewd aspirations. That’s why the project of democratic revolution has not met with the success that it deserved in Nepal since 1950.

Chronic political deadlock is denting the credibility of mainstream political forces in Nepal. There is the need for an immediate consensus among the country’s political parties to acknowledge the progress that democratic movements have made since 1990, when the county first tasted democracy, although on restricted scale. Misleading demands of the Rashtriya Prajatantra Party, the Rashtriya Janshakti Party and others for bringing back the Constitution of 1990 or to go for an election only because the term of the CA has ended is condemnable. Such a move will give a fresh lease of life to a defunct monarchy. Despite the failures of the CA, revisiting the last seven years since the abolition of monarchy presents many positive landmarks on which the future base of democracy could thrive.

In this time of uncertainty, the Interim Constitution of 2006, which is still functioning, can offer the new proposed Constitution all the progressive set of rules that is enshrined in it and has a degree of high credibility. The Interim Constitution consists of all the major issues to be followed in the future, such as the abolition of monarchy, provision of federalism, participative representation in state services and others.

The intra-party feuds in the major political parties of Nepal and the failure of these parties to reach a consensus on crucial issues including on the CA, have severely damaged the democratic spirit of the country through decades of struggle. As compared to the Nepali Congress and the CPN (UML), the Maoists are new to power and lack the soundness they should have as representative of a ruling collation.
The issues of federalism based on ethnic identity need a sensitive response on the policy front. Unfortunately, exactly the opposite has been done by the top political leaders. Before the Madhesi parties’ total convergence with the Maoists on this front and their outsmarting acts over NC-CPN(UML), the region of Madhesh had passed through a rather volatile phase in which many lives were lost in the process of peaceful demonstrations in favour of statehood. A major blast in Janakpur (unofficially Nepal’s political laboratory) left four dead, including an emerging Maithil-Nepali leader Ranju Jha.

Kathmandu has to be more accountable in the changing times to the Madhesi-Janjatis who now have a greater say over political matters and can easily make or break the established political discourse for their long-anticipated rights. The concentration of power in Kathmandu has to be reduced. While this will happen with the upcoming execution of the federal model, it may not cure all the maladies of ‘divisive political mania’. Still, its impact at least in selected terms would be long-lasting in favour of a peaceful and stable Nepal.
In the ongoing round of political manoeuvrings, India has played an apparently passive role. Diplomatically though, this cannot be taken as inertia, as silence speaks too. No longer is India ‘Swyambhu’ and no longer is Nepal ruled by the comprador capitalists.
Atul Kumar Thakur
June 24,2012,Sunday, New Delhi
Email: summertickets@gmail.com
(Published in The Pioneer, June 18, 2012/ http://www.dailypioneer.com/columnists/item/51822-nepal%E2%80%99s-politics-at-a-crossroads.html )