RIVALRY: INDIA AND CHINA

India Versus China!

The IIPM Think Tank brings to you the Most Recently updated Statistic set on where India Stands Economically Compared to China; And to No One’s Surprise, The Distance between the Two Has only Gotten Wider

According to a report by Morgan Stanley in 2004, India’s economic development at that time was 13 years behind China’s. Two years later, Bruce Einhorn, Bloomberg Businessweek‘s Regional Editor, Asia, updated that figure to 163 years! He in turn was quoting Gangan Prathap, chief scientist at the Centre for Mathematical Modelling and Computer Simulation in Bangalore, who, through seat-of-the-pants calculation, showed how “India will take at least 163 years to match China’s research workforce of 850,000 even if Beijing were to freeze the number today.”

When it comes to the selection of the one most powerful country in Asia, the competition between two nations – India and China – has ended up looking like a situational comedy; in the sense that such talks seem more like humorous discourses, given the mammoth lead China has taken on all fronts over India. Here’s a snapshot view.

If China recently became the world’s second largest economy with a GDP of $5.7 trillion, India is still struggling to maintain the tag of a trillion dollar economy ($1.2 trillion at current prices). Dr.Albert Keidel of Carnegie Endowment had predicted two years ago that the Chinese economy would surpass the US economy (currently at $15 trillion) by the year 2035 and be twice its size by 2050. On November 10, 2010, the Wall Street Journal quoted the Conference Board finding that the Chinese GDP, at PPP standards, could overtake the US economy by 2012 itself. As per a Goldman Sachs report, India will overtake US to become the world’s second largest economy (behind China) by 2050.

If that’s not enough a depressant for the India hawks, let’s go to the industry specific statistics. India’s construction industry is expected to reach $60 billion in 2010 with a real growth of 14% (for 2007-2011) and a value that is expected to reach $130 billion in 2011; compare this to China’s construction industry that was valued at $150 billion in 2006 itself! FDI in China is pegged at 6% of domestic investment since 2000; whereas in India, it is estimated at 4%.

From July 2009 to March 2010, vehicle sales in India had increased by 22%, with car sales growing by 24% and touching historical highs in October 2010. Despite that, while Indian companies sold 1.43 million cars in FY2009-10, China saw 13.6 million cars being sold in the same period. General Motors alone sells more cars in China than all the car manufacturers in the world put together sell in India. The Chinese Ministry of Public Security recently announced that there are around 85 million automobiles on China’s roads! China is the second largest consumer of oil while India is the 5th largest consumer of oil. China’s share in global trade is more than 5% while India’s is just 1/6th of China with 0.9%. China’s merchandise exports quintupled in value and contributed 9% to world exports (between 2000 and 2007) while India’s export share to the world trade increased from 0.7% to 1% in the same period (It takes around 4 months for a cargo to reach US from India compared to 1.5 months from China).

A similar trend is visible in usage of technology as well. A study by Informa Telecoms & Media shows that there were 508 million active mobile subscriptions in India as of 2009 while China had 773 million active connections. India on an average has 50-60 million Internet users and 7.4 million broadband connections while China has over 420 million Internet users with over 130 million using Internet for online shopping. The only respite for India comes in outsourcing. The Chinese government mouthpiece, People’s Daily, accepted in October 2010 that “India, which is similar to China in many aspects, yields more than 34 percent of global offshore outsourcing services, 10 times more than China does.” At the same time, with their shrewdest tactical planning, as per a July 2010 KPMG survey, China has succeeded in taking over India as the “primary destination of outsourcing & shared services” for Asia-Pacific firms.

In defense too, China is well endowed. China’s annual military expenditure is estimated to be around $80-90 billion; making it the second largest country in terms of military spending, while India’s annual military expenditure is around $30-40 billion, making it the 10th largest.

In this whole saga of becoming a superpower, where optimists consider India to be like the tortoise of Aesop’s fables, the real world is pretty different. For the hare here is in no mood to take a nap, while the Indian bureaucracy and political bench is mired as deep in controversy and corruption as can be shamefully possible! While China executed the former head of state food and drug department on corruption charges, India has not even succeeded in putting in jail the former telecom minister Sukhram, who is still out on bail despite having been convicted on corruption charges in a 13 year old case! India versus China? It’s time we own up to reality and stop the irrational comparisons.

UNIVERSITIES: WEIRD RESEARCHES

Frog odours, anyone?

A number of worthless and frivolous researches are giving the World of science and reason a boorish tinge; we say ban them!

Research and development across fields and disciplines has achieved great heights in its outcomes. But at the same time, some exercises and endeavours have also breached the depths of naivety. Consider this: Professor J. Mack and D. Jacobs of Harvard Medical School and Temple University published a paper that made a startling conclusion with respect to the people who believed they were kidnapped by aliens from outer space. They concluded from their pathbreaking research that “the focus of abduction is the production of children”.

This is not an exception. The University of Michigan (ranked 15th in the world) conducted a research in 2008 that attempted to find out whether doing exercises helps reducing weight rather than sitting and watching television all day long. No marks for guessing what they found. Or if you’re dying to find out this, consider the University of Alberta (ranked 127th), which came out with a research on the relationship among height, penile length and foot size. One is left guessing which industries such a research would benefit. Or take the ‘Technical’ University of Denmark (ranked 122nd), which published a paper on the impact of wet underwear on thermoregulatory responses and thermal comfort in the cold.

University of Adelaide (ranked 73), Australia, published a paper that researched odorous secretions in 131 species of frogs, and found out the odours that frogs produce under stress. Which biological benefit to mankind would this serve, is left to suspense. Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Research Organisation calculated the number of photographs one must take to more or less ensure that nobody in a group photo has his/her eyes closed.

University of Spain calculated ultrasonic velocity in cheddar cheese as affected by temperature; Stockholm university (ranked 168) established a relationship between chicken and humans by proving that chickens prefer beautiful humans; Newcastle University (ranked 152) shows that women prefer taller men for good one night stands and shorter men for committed relationships.

The inane tale continues. The National Institute of Health in the US conducted a study, and spent $500,000 of stimulus money to reveal why men prefer to have sex without condoms! While the objective of the research might still be logical considering the focus on promoting safe sex, the moneys spent to find out the obvious (or is it?) is what is surprising. The University of Florida (ranked 193) spent $325,394 given as stimulus fund, to find how environment affects sex related decisions of women. Thanks to them, apparently we have renewed emancipation of women in our midst.

If it were just about the comic relief, we could have actually chosen not to highlight their achievements. But this is really about how the world’s best universities waste resources and misuse their state-of-art resources in researches that bring in no substantial development to mankind or the planet. There seems to be no clear-cut logic in undertaking research to find out which side a flock of pigeons would turn when faced with a wind draft, or whether good looking people make more money than ugly ones (yes, they do, as revealed by a research by the University of California in 2007).

But then, is it any wonder that such researches do in fact benefit private enterprises? For example, the ugly versus beautiful research could well be a great boost to the cosmetics industry even if a fraction of the population chooses to believe it. The same is apparent in the study conducted in the US last year, which showed that women with bigger breasts were found to be smarter. Lobbies appear to be at work even when contradictory researches keep coming to the fore, like ones that debate on the merits and demerits of tea vs coffee and vice versa.

Sometimes, researches that are meant for serious and genuine issues come up with non-serious and bizarre conclusions. In a scenario where countries, universities and research institution are finding it tough to fund their researches for human development projects and development of drugs that could save lives and uplift lifestyles, it’s criminal that a few universities don’t mind blowing away invaluable capital to take out notably worthless researches. Evidently, one can’t say enough when one implores that such researches should be banned.

RESOURCE WAR : RARE EARTH ELEMENTS

A New 'RARE’ War
Rare Earth elements can fuel the next war among nations

There seems to be a new entry in the catalogue of war for resources. After oil, gold and water, the latest addition are the rare earth elements. Rare earth element is a collection of seventeen chemical elements like scandium, yttrium and the fifteen lanthanides. They are the key minerals used in green technology and precision weapons production — from iPads to electric cars, precision weapons to electronic goods.

China gained monopoly after mines of rare earth elements across the world were closed down owing to low cost exports of the same by China. When China instituted an export ban on rare earth elements to Japan on Sept 22, 2010, it intensified concerns on worldwide production of major electronic products and defense equipments. China today controls 36 million tons of the world's 88 million ton rare-earth element deposits, more than the combined deposits of the US and Russia. It also supplies over 97 per cent of rare earth elements to the world. According to surveys, over 1,24,000 metric tons of rare earth elements were produced in 2009 while the global demand was more than 1,34,000 metric tons. This demand-supply gap is encouraging black marketing and illegal trading; more so, as the worldwide demand is expected to rise to 1,80,000 metric tons by 2012. The global trade in rare earths is estimated to reach $3 billion by 2014.

These elements are so diversely spread that mining alone would fetch no economic benefit. Even the US for the last 15 years, is completely relying on imports. In spite of other countries crafting policies to make their rare earth elements mines more economical, the monopoly will be there with China — at least for next few decades. Since rare-earth mining produces radioactive waste and discharge of such waste calls for strict guidelines in developed countries, China seems to be the best option. The country has allotted billions into basic and applied research on rare earth elements; China also has two state laboratories exclusively for R&D on rare-earth elements and own two journals dedicated to rare earth metals. Japan has come out with an innovative alternative that can alter the rules of trade in this sector but unfortunately is expensive and calls for huge investment as of now. This Japanese alternative will extract rare earth elements through recycling. It is estimated that around 3,00,000 tons of rare earths stored in unused electronics can be tapped after recycling.

China since July 2010 has reduced export quotas of rare earth elements by 72 per cent, thus inflating prices by six-folds which will make a major dent on global availability and pricing and eventually jeopardize defense and electronic goods production. What is worse is that mines across the world would take a minimum of 10-15 years before they become operational. Hence it makes more sense for countries to go the Japanese way as it can guarantee both economic and environmental benefit.

‘Dalit’ is unconstitutional!

‘Dalit’ is unconstitutional! Go ahead, sue us!

The term ‘Dalit’ is unconstitutional as per Article 341. But the usage can still be seen across the country. Legal/political intervention is a must!

Words, depending on their context, have the power to capture the imagination of millions and precede paradigms that can be make civilizations proud, or put them to shame. There have been words that have caused massive rebellions and friction between communities. Be it the way Whites used the term Negro, Nigger, Black, and apartheid or the way Hitler and Mussolini used Nazism and fascism respectively, some words have stayed on to simmer deep rooted suspicion between civilizations. These words have in some cases, brought with them a feeling of discrimination and subjugation of the entire community.

To place the term ‘Dalit’ along with the examples quoted above might seem extreme – well, nobody in India seems to be having a problem currently – but the reality is that its’ about time the society is educated on and understands how pejorative this particular term could be. And history has seen too many such previously accepted terms being socially ostracised in one swift move – from ‘mentally retarded’ to ‘socially challenged’, from ‘deaf and dumb’ to ‘physically disabled’, from ‘beggars, mendicants and slum dwellers’ to ‘economically disadvantaged’, from ‘queer, faggot, gay and homo’ to ‘LGBT and MSM’, the examples are innumerable.

On the same benchmarks, if the usage of the term Dalit doesn’t get your goatee, and you’re mighty surprised on this proposition of ours being presented, then allow us to affirm, that you in all definiteness are yourself not a Dalit.

For the uninitiated, the Dalit term was originally used as a simile for ‘lower caste people’ considered to be ‘untouchables’ by the so-called ‘higher caste people’ in India. Somewhere down the line, social intellectuals, media sources and political commentators forgot the untouchability metaphor and adopted the usage of the term, disregarding the utter destituteness of the usage. But the discontent amongst the addressed classes had never vanished and in fact had grown, despite not getting an organised collective forum.

To a point in 2008 in Chhattisgarh, when finally the state government ordered the district collectors and its departments to immediately stop the usage of the Dalit term in their documents. This was done after an elongated series of requests made by the National Commission for Backward Classes. The reference point for this request is irrefutable and even shocking. The Commission proved that the usage of the term Dalit was unconstitutional. The Constitution defines this specific class (of Dalits, if we may) under the well documented Scheduled Caste (SC) category; this is as per Article 341 of the Constitution. Only the President of India, as per Constitution, can include any new term to address the SC category. In short, the term Dalit does not exist in the Constitution; and for specific reasons we have mentioned.

Post Chhattisgarh government’s move, the Dakshina Kannada district police officials in Mangalore also decided to avoid the usage of such a clearly pejorative term. Mangalore, which had been particularly infamous for its discrimination, showed this rare understanding that went against the convention.

Now, a similar course is being experienced by the term ‘Harijan’. As recently as in August 2010, the Parliamentary Committee asked the government to stop the use of the Harijan term – which has been alternatively used for Dalits; and in fact was introduced by Mahatma Gandhi himself. The committee argued that the term is deprecating the status of the underprivileged sections of society. As per the committee, the ministry had previously issued a circular in 1982 asking the state governments and Union Territory administrations to issue instructions to the concerned authorities not to use the word Harijan in scheduled caste certificates. 

However, given current blatant usage of both the terms – Dalit and Harijan – across India, these examples are aberrations at best. American constitutional laws, re-modelled during the reconstruction period after the Civil War, had provisions to protect freed black American slaves. The US government has also previously banned the Negro term, and made the usage of the term a punishable offence (of course, till the time Obama identified himself comfortably as being a Negro).

Recently, the United Nations Human Rights Council’s (UNHRC) declared discrimination based on the caste system as a human-rights abuse. But surprisingly, the Indian government is trying to get the word ‘caste’ removed from this UN draft. To the contrary, the UNHRC is now even considering ratifying a draft recognizing the persecution of Dalits worldwide.

In this scenario where political will is found wanting, the legal will needs to be strengthened. The Supreme Court should declare the usage of the term Dalit a nationwide offence. Closing this dark chapter of history is critically important; and it has already been delayed by a long and painful 63 years since Independence. 

Traffic jams across the globe need innovative solutions

The global As(h)tray
Traffic jams across the globe need innovative solutions

When it comes to owning superlative terms, China seems to be on the forefront. It has always attempted to build the biggest, tallest, longest or mightiest records across categories. But the recent inclusion of having the worst traffic jam is surely the most unwanted entry in the record books. And the honour for this goes to the traffic jam that occurred recently on the Beijing-Zhangjiakou Highway, which would comfortably put any similar traffic congestion in history to shame.

In all fairness, traffic congestions are not confined to over populated countries like China or India but can be traced across the world. The problem is not just about infrastructural or traffic management failure, but goes beyond. A recent study by the Pew Research Center shows that more than 33 per cent of the US roadways are in “substandard condition” and are most of the time incapable of handling traffic. This traffic gridlock dents the economy and affects the productivity of the nation. Going by the rate at which vehicle ownership is increasing, the number of cars and light trucks worldwide is set to double over the next 20 years, which today is more than 900 million. And mind you, the concentration of vehicles is much intense in cities than in rural or sub-urban areas. A new report from the Texas Transportation Institute reveals that congestion cost the economy $87 billion and eats away 4 billion hours of time. Congestion in Los Angeles averages at 72 hours a year while a driver has to face 62 hours average congestion in Washington DC annually. Traffic congestion in Dhaka eats up Tk 19,555 crore a year and about 3.2 million business hours are lost every day, which is about one hour per working person. A World Bank study revealed that the health impacts and costs attributed to air pollution due to traffic congestion in the Philippines were estimated at US$392 million for 2001 while the World Health Organization reveals that in developing countries as many as 300 million people are dying due to vehicle emissions.

Increasing roads, flyover and expressways is not the only solution, studies show that traffic congestion is more because of driver’s behaviour while driving. A few experts have suggested the introduction of adaptive cruise control (ACC) that would automatically keep a car at a set distance from the one in front through combinations of navigators, satellites and radars. Furthering this thought, a study by Technische Universität Dresden, Germany found that a 1 per cent increase in the number of ACC-using vehicles would free up 0.3 per cent of road capacity.

Other policy measures that can be put to use are parking restrictions, road pricing (charging money to access roads), certificate of entitlement (exorbitant purchase prices for the licenses) scheme, congestion entry tax (as is there in London), road space rationing (restricting certain types of vehicles in certain areas), number plate restrictions (based on days of the week, as was used in Korea during Olympics, 1988) and many other discretely practiced methods can come as a rescue too. Of course, public transport is the general solution that exists too. Still, the time is not too far when we'll have gridlocks that last for days, if not weeks. That's the danger for now.

AVIATION: SAFETY

Drunk pilots should be jailed!

It’s unbelievable that DGCA still does not cancel the flying license of a pilot flying drunk; the IIPM Think Tank does a critical analysis of the lopsided DGCA regulations

Last month, the DGCA announced that a pilot who gets caught drunk twice ‘might be’ sent for ‘rehabilitation’; and if caught thrice, the same ‘might’ lead to their job termination. Within two days of the announcement, DGCA upped the punishment post haste and announced that a pilot caught drunk once will have his or her license suspended for three months. A second time would lead to permanent suspension. 

While the DGCA is self-applauding itself on its apparently stringent resolve to reduce drunk flying, one is flabbergasted at how lenient such a resolve is in reality, given the fact that pilots are responsible for the lives of more than a hundred passengers per flight. The DGCA should learn a lesson or two from the Delhi Traffic Police, which now has a zero-tolerance policy for drunk driving, where any driver caught driving drunk even once will have his/her license cancelled immediately (1378 licenses were cancelled by the Delhi Police in the last eleven months under this clause). Clearly, the DGCA feels that it’s all right to allow drunk pilots to keep flying.

Further, till now, the DGCA has been checking pilots through breath analysers before the flight starts, without keeping a check on whether the pilot drinks during the flight. Pilots know and realise this easiest method of avoiding getting caught. One is told that the DGCA, after so many decades of existence, has started advising such checks post the flight too.

We say that the DGCA diktat should have focussed on cancelling the licence of the pilot and jailing him. The Motor Vehicles Act already has this stringent provision of jailing for drunk drivers, with the term ranging from three months (for first time offenders) to six months (for repeat offenders). It’s unbelievably strange that the DGCA doesn’t believe in that.

So are pilots really flying drunk? As per a 2009 Rajya Sabha report by Civil Aviation Minister Praful Patel, during the past one year, “Eight pilots of Kingfisher Airlines, six each of Indigo and SpiceJet and three each of Jetlite, Jet Airways and Paramount were detected alcohol-positive during a pre-flight medical examination.” A brief trend analysis reveals that in 2009, more than 40 pilots were found drunk on duty and only 8 of them were sacked. According to a Right to Information Act report in 2009, 28 pilots found drunk are still flying.

Imagine the consequences. The Jayaprakash Narayan International airport in Patna, for instance, allows pilots to use only 6,300 ft of the 7,500 ft (against the international norm of 9000 ft) long runway. This forces pilots to take-off at high speeds and calls for planes to fly light. But in most cases, these planes are full till the brim. Runways in Patna (6300 ft), Jammu (6700 ft), Mangalore (table top runway of 8038 ft), Aizawal (3131 ft), Kullu (3690 ft), Port Blair (6000 ft), Agartala (7500 ft) and so on and so forth, are other notable instances of international norms not being met on runway length, leading to a necessity that the pilot landing the plane or taking off be sober.

And in India, in spite of alcohol tests being mandatory, airlines take a lenient stance in order to keep the schedules of flights intact. DGCA’s current policy is a problem looking for a solution rather than being the opposite, which it should have been. We repeat, jail the drunk pilots the first time itself; they’re playing with hundreds of lives.

INFORMATION PORTAL: US PROPAGANDA

US: Pranab is still the External Affairs minister

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s State Department considers Pranab Mukherjee to be India’s foreign minister! More similar gaffes inside...

Truth is stranger than fiction, but fiction does appear to have an irresistible appeal for two of the world’s largest administrative agencies, the US State Department and CIA. The official web portals and communiqués of the US State Department and CIA are splattered with notable misinformation and errors that would be necessarily considered highly affronting at a diplomatic level. 

Last week, we showed how both the State Department and CIA confidently misrepresented India’s map (and showed Kashmir as part of Pakistan) on their websites. We had no idea there was more to come – perhaps even ‘the’ reason for why the Americans seem to be making no headway with India on foreign affairs. The US State Department’s official website mentions that the Minister of External Affairs of India is (still) Pranab Mukherjee! S. M. Krishna, the current Foreign Minister of India since May 2009, has been notably left out of the State Department’s official communiqués. Incidentally, Krishna has also met Barack Obama in various forums, including at New York in September 2009. Not all listed information is wrong, though. Some US government letters are thankfully still reaching the right addresses in India. The Home Minister of India is correctly named as P. Chidambaram; and so are some other Indian politicians.

Mistakes on the CIA and State Department’s websites are not only India-centric but can be found in the case of other countries too. What’s interesting is that, in spite of the official websites of these respective countries portraying genuine information, the US has failed to recognise the same in its own records. First, the comical. In South Korea, three years ago, a series of protests against the CIA finally forced the agency to correct the information about South Korea’s origins (CIA had earlier amusingly stated that “South Korea has been a nation for a millennium;” South Korea, apparently a stickler for dates, protested en masse as this nation has been in existence only since the last 4000 years). This was apart from the CIA correcting the misrepresentation of the number of deputy prime ministers that South Korea had had. However, the country is still trying to convince the agency to rectify names of two locations on CIA’s map of South Korea.

On the same lines, Northern Cyprus is still being shown as a part of Republic of Cyprus, despite the region having gained independence in the year 1983, 27 years earlier. On another line, while the whole of Kashmir is shown as being “disputed”, Taiwan is peacefully included on the map of China. This has to be seen along with the fact that Taiwan is shown as a separate country on the US Department of State site with the names of its President and Prime Minister. And when it comes to Myanmar, both the CIA and US State Department list the country under its old name Burma. In 1989, Burma changed its name officially to Myanmar; a rename that was endorsed by the UN. Apparently, not by the CIA/State Department.

While some of the mistakes – including India’s foreign minister’s name – are evident typographical mistakes (and show the lack of intent within the government to keep critical diplomatic facts updated), some of the mistakes, like Kashmir or Taiwan, seem deliberate and evidently committed with political intent. This can be considered even propaganda if one were to assume the worst, as many institutions globally (including schools) refer to these websites for authentic information. There’s a thin line between a diplomatic error and a strategically planted insult. Imagine if were considering Bush still to be the US president. 

PIRACY : TERROR FUNDING

The silicon terrorism
How piracy is funding the global terrorism?

The Hurt Locker, a story on Iraq war and winner of six Academy Awards, may be just another movie in the line of terrorism, but it took war on piracy to an interesting turn. One of the scenes in the movie, where Christopher Sayegh (as Beckham) sells pirated DVDs and various electronic items outside the Jeremy Renner's military base, may not be the climax, but has a significant role in the theme of the film. The pirated DVDs, which are sold for about $1 each, are not only a major source of terror funding in the Middle-East, but are sources of minting money for global terror groups.

On May 2010, Voltage Pictures, the production company of The Hurt Locker, sued thousands of computer users who downloaded pirated copies of the film and filed complaints against 5,000 unidentified BitTorrent users with the US District Court (largest lawsuit of its kind). In addition, it demanded $1,500 from each defendant to release them from the suit. This case, however, may be one-of-its-kind, but it would surely go a long way in influencing production companies to take such steps to reduce piracy. According to a report, counterfeiting and piracy cost around $250 billion annually from the movie industry. Terrorists and organised criminal groups are exploiting this huge market in order to fund their evil plans — for instance, the highly active D-Company that spearheads the major syndicate involved with film piracy in India and sub-continent for the past 25 years. In 2004, an Interpol report revealed that intellectual property crimes (illegal CDs manufacturing) are a growing resource for terrorist groups from Northern Ireland to the Arab world, including Al-Qaida and Hezbollah. This mode of terror funding is not only present and practised in Asia and the UK, but also found in Latin American countries like Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay. According to a report by Rand Corporation, Hezbollah receives $20 million annually from proceeds of pirated films in the tri-border area. Moreover, restrictions on release of international movies in countries like China (allows only 20 foreign movies per year) have cost its industry a whopping $2.5 billion in 2005 (the last available data), due to influx of pirated DVDs. Studies say that developing a pirated DVD in South Asian countries costs less than 70 cents and these can be sold in developed countries for around $10 each. Not only is developing a pirated DVD relatively safer and cheaper, the transfer is equally easy. For example, in France, transacting counterfeit products, including pirated DVDs, is punishable by a fine up to $0.19 million and imprisonment up to two years (whereas selling drugs is punishable with 10 years imprisonment along with a fine up to $9.5 million). However, the pirating gets more lucrative not just because of the returns it offers, but also because of the low risk factor. The rate of conviction for piracy is lower compared to that of smuggling drugs. In 2002-03, merely 134 criminals were convicted of piracy while smuggling of drugs pushed around 1.5 million criminals behind the bars in the US alone.

It is just not about saving millions of dollars that finds its way into the terror industry, but actually about several innocent human lives that are eventually hit. While anti-piracy laws will take its own time to stop piracy, a move like Voltage Picture's will certainly deter internet users from downloading pirated movies.

ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM : EXPERTISE NEEDED

Rope in more Technocrats
We need to make space for technocrats in our administrative league.

A year back, a survey and a report by Hong Kong-based Political & Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC) stated India’s bureaucracy was “suffocating” and further concluded that “working with the country's civil servants was a slow and painful process.” The report also mentioned that the powers-that-be are quite reluctant in bringing in structural reforms and changes in the system. This report should not come as a surprise to any Indian, especially those who have had a first hand experience interacting with the civil servants – aka babus.

The leverage that these babus have is primarily because of the communication link they are able to monopolise between India Inc. and politicians/government. Not only does such a bureaucracy help in smooth 'execution' of corrupt activities but also helps in diverting funds (meant for development schemes) to their and politicians’ own treasures. The whole aura of ineffective bureaucracy has actually intensified during the last couple of decades – while the influx of well experienced technocrats fell to a large extent.

Entry of technocrats from various professions to handle administrative jobs (or ministries as secretaries) would reduce the inefficiency that is rampant across all departments to a large extent. This will not only allow ministries to function as Strategic Business Units but will also make the entire hierarchy more efficient and productive. Take for instance the DMRC project. Had this project been headed by some legacy bureaucrat, the project wouldn't have been such a success. It was all thanks to a technocrat– E Sreedharan, a former professor and engineer – that DMRC could meet the deadlines. On similar lines, the UID project is running on fast track largely because a technocrat, Nandan Nilekani, chairs the initiative.

It goes without saying that when a novice heads a ministry that calls for technical knowledge and years of experience, the result will be what this nation is facing with almost all development projects – from cost overrun to time overrun. Yes, there’re exemplary exceptions like Maruti (even the current Chairman, RC Bhargava, is the 1965 IAS topper). But in general, these exceptions remain, well, exceptions, with a growing demand that technocrats be put at leadership positions in our defence, railways, agriculture and other ministries.

In most of the developed countries, the head of the government comes to power along with his team of experts (derived from think-tanks, experts, economists and so on) who have had impressive career records. For example, most of the members of the Obama Senate Transition Team are exemplars in their areas of work. Similarly, China adopted a technocratic economic model since its reforms period. The same goes for UK where Political and Economic Planning, a think-tank, assists the government. Similar are the cases with Germany a nd Russia. Presently, even European countries (especially the eastern ones) are experiencing a massive technocracy movement. Just pumping in money for development projects won't suffice, unless these are headed by people who know how to deliver efficiency. The conclusion to be drawn from these examples is that the existing politico-bureaucracy nexus needs to be broken and a conscription started where the nation’s top executives, management graduates are compulsorily made to work for a few years in government companies and ministries. 

OBAMA : BORDER SECURITY BILL

Please, find better ways …
…to secure the borders than increasing visa charges!

After being passed by the US Congress, the much-touted Border Security Bill was signed by the President Barack Obama. The bill will strengthen security along the border with Mexico and address the ongoing problem of illegal immigration. 

The $600-million bill will fund necessary law enforcement equipment and cover expenses of newly-recruited officials. But before the bill could come into effect, there were several protests and dissent across the globe. Since the bill will be funded through charging higher visa charges from foreign companies operating in the US, many Indian companies showed their agitation over it. Most of Indian IT companies have their operations in the US and they collectively apply for more than 50,000 visas every year. The sudden rise in application fee for H-1B and L-1 visas, by at least $2,000 for the next five years, would hit the operations of Indian IT companies to a very large extent, as Indian IT export industry earns over 50 per cent of its revenue from the US market. However, this is not for the first time that a move or statement by Obama will affect Indian IT or for that matter outsourcing business in India and sub-continent. 

Even in his first state of the union address, on January 27, 2010, Obama announced that the tax breaks that Indian companies get would be discontinued and said, “It is time to finally slash the tax breaks for companies that ship our jobs overseas, and give those tax breaks to companies that create jobs right here in the USA…” On the same lines, this move of Obama will not only increase the operations cost of Indian firm but will also deter Indian investment in US. 

The H-1B and L-1 visa application already costs around $2000-2500; and an increase of $2000 as filing and fraud prevention and detection fees will ensure more per capita cost on temporary skilled workers sent to the US for work from India and subcontinent. As per trade body NASSCOM, the impact on the Indian IT sector could be as high as $200-250 million per year. 

Further, the bill may not be acquiescent with WTO as the state department spokesman put it defensively, "We are reviewing a suggestion that this bill is not WTO-compliant. I am not aware that we've reached any final judgment, but we're not sure that necessarily any WTO issues are triggered."

Interestingly, a report titled ‘Regaining America's Competitive Advantage: Making our Immigration System Work’ made by the US Chamber of Commerce and a popular think-tank called American Council on International Personnel suggested that far from restricting foreign workers, the US should eliminate the cap on H1B visas and allow the market to determine the overseas workers entry into the country. The US President Barack Obama and his government definitely understand already that it is this capability (of the US) to absorb highly skilled foreign employees that is the prime reason behind America’s competitiveness and its position as a top superpower. It’s surprising that knowing all that very well, they would still allow such a move to curb the flow of skilled technicians and experts that could, in the long-run, dent America’s intellectual capital and international business competitiveness. 

US: TERROR POLITICS?

Why Osama will be...!
Alive! There are reasons to kill Osama, and there are reasons to keep him alive; Pakistan, and the US, look decisively tilted towards the latter

May 11, 2010: In context with the failed attempt of the Times Square bombing, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warns that Pakistan would face “severe consequences” if a future terrorist attack on US soil was traced back to Pakistan and said, “…Pak officials know where bin Laden, al Qaeda, Mullah Omar and the Afghan Taliban leadership are.” A few days later, she reiterates her warning (albeit in a relatively softer tone) and said, “There is more that Pakistan must do to face what is now a common enemy…” May 12, 2010: The US Defence Secretary Robert Gates bellows, “The relationship between the two anti-terror allies [aka, USA and Pakistan] has improved significantly over the last two years.”

In the two statements above, which are obviously contradictory, the usage of word “ally” does raise critical concerns. When one juxtaposes this with the latest leakage of thousands of secret US military records by a whistle-blowing site WikiLeaks, which proves Pakistan’s deep complicity in terrorist activities, US pro-Pak political intentions suddenly become suspiciously dangerous, as the US and especially Barack Obama ostensibly are still not convinced enough to declare Pakistan as a terrorist state, amazingly turning a blind eye to what seems crystal clear to the rest of the world!

But wait! Barack’s bent clearly must be a put-on, in his efforts to get Pakistan’s assistance to catch Osama bin Laden, right? At least initially, it seemed so. But of late, Barack’s double entendres just can’t be ignored. While Barack announced that his administration would stick with pulling out US troops from Iraq (down from a peak 150,000 to 50,000 by the end of this month), he has concurrently increased the deployment of US soldiers in Afghanistan (up from 68,000 to 100,000). With a shrewd redeployment, it’s quite clear that the US is simply gaining avenues to increase its influence over Central Asia. Without the excuse of hunting down Osama bin Laden and Taliban, the US would surely have faced global admonition on troop deployment.

On the other side of the coin, the presence of Osama and the controlled nurturing of Taliban and anti-India elements allows Pakistan to keep receiving spectacularly humungous aid from the US, most of the moneys going to the personal pockets of local bureaucrats and politicians in Pakistan, a handful of who – by some accounts – are now close to becoming billionaires. Pre-Osama, from 1991 till 2000, Pakistan received $434.2 million as economic and military assistance aid from the US. Post Osama (9/11), from 2001 till 2009, Pakistan has received a shocking $15 billion from the US; and Obama had deftly announced another hollering $7.5 billion in October 2009! 

Newsweek reported late last year that officials at the US embassy in Islamabad alleged that “Pakistan misspent some 70% of the US funds!” Pakistan is also accused of “running a double game with the money, keeping the Taliban at bay just enough to persuade American benefactors to keep their wallets open.” Not that this was a State secret; but the benign nature of Barack Obama’s response – or lack of it – is astounding! On August 2, 2010, Obama commented that Pakistan is beginning to “take the fight to violent extremists within its borders.” That sounds as far from the truth as possible.

Thomas Friedman writes in this week’s issue of The Sunday Indian, “The 9/11 attack was basically planned, executed and funded by radical Pakistanis and Saudis.” Fareed Zakaria confirms, “70 percent of the terror plots uncovered in the past decade can be traced back to Pakistan,” a country which, Zakaria adds, is “the epicentre of Islamic terrorism!”

Is Barack Obama blind or are we plain nutty? The practice of keeping anti-social elements alive for political and economic benefits is not just a western phenomenon. In the Asian continent, the most famous case was of a forest brigand cum smuggler in Southern India, called Koose Muniswamy Veerappan, who – in spite of being charged of murdering 184 people, poaching around 200 elephants, smuggling ivory and sandalwood worth $24,600,000, kidnapping the who’s who of the political and entertainment world – never saw the local government ordering swift action against the criminal, mainly because a considerable amount of money flowed into the territory due to his staying alive and in action.

Similar is the case with bin Laden. His living means more to Pakistan than to any other entity. Barack’s refusal to call a spade what it is, will go down in history as perhaps the worst two-faced moves ever made. Friedman quotes, “If you are in a poker game and you don’t know who the sucker is, it’s probably you!” Obama, ever wondered why Chelsea never invited you for her wedding?

FUNDING : TERROR SCHOOLS

Crime is what they teach

Call it SOA or WHINSEC, the US must close down this war factory soon

 

The history of hiring mercenaries to conduct war on a country's behalf is certainly not a new phenomenon. The Saika mercenary group of the Kii Province, Japan, played a significant role during the Siege of Ishiyama Hongan-ji in the 15th century. Although, the concept of mercenaries — also known as overseas security consultants — may have changed, but using these trained troops to do one’s evil work is still rampant. The mercenaries, who had been hired for international peacekeeping duties, are now being used for different purposes. Present day governments across the world (especially in developed countries) use them as convenient tool to meet their political ambitions.

Ironically, Fort Benning—a mercenary producing factory and popularly known as the Army School of the Americas (or SOA) in Georgia — widely known for recruiting best of instructors and students from Latin America's military forces. These instructors and students, however, undergo rigorous training for counter-insurgency, military intelligence, interrogation techniques, jungle operations – to name a few. But these students are not trained to protect their border or safeguard their country from foreign invasion, rather to wage a war against their own people! Congressman Josheph kennedy was once found quoting, “…US Army School of the Americas is a school that has run more dictators than any other school in the history of the world." Apparently, if media reports are to be believed, in the past 60 years, the SOA has trained over 60,000 mercenaries who have tortured and killed thousands of Latin Americans till date. Even Colonel Alberto Quijano (Colombian Army's special forces) was recently arrested for helping Diego León Montoya Sánchez — who is on FBI’s most-wanted list and is the leader of Norte del Valle Cartel. Besides, name like Atlacatl Battalion, Romeo Vásquez Velásquez and Juan Velasco Alvarado are some of the alumni of this war factory. Moreover, Gen. Hernan Jose Guzman Rodriguez (responsible for the deaths of at least 149 people), Gen. Hector Gramajo (architect of genocidal policies from 1980-1991 in Guatemala) are other prominent names. Reports say, the SOA graduates conducts most horrendous crime across the world. In fact, over 10 high-ranking military officers (SOA graduates) are accused of human rights abuses. 

After huge public outrage and protest, the SOA changed its named to the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC). However, reports have confirmed that the training at SOA still prevails in the Latin American countries. In 2008, the Congress completely terminated $20 million annual funding bill for the SOA/WHINSEC. This has boosted the spirits of NGOs and social watch groups, who are still optimistic about the closure of the facility. With Obama closing down the Guantanamo Bay and advocating humans rights across the world, activists seem hopeful that the US President will close the "bloody" school. 

With series of WikiLeaks and surfacing of human rights abuses by the US, Obama may soon curb the funding of the institution, if not the closure. 

AFGHANISTAN: THE $1 TRILLION LOTTERY

$1 trillion? Sure...


The US has announced the discovery of minerals apparently worth $1 trillion in Afghanistan – the IIPM Think Tank believes much of this made up value is balderdash and pure hogwash forwarded by the US

Have you heard about the jungle gold digger who announced to the world that he’s found the biggest gold horde underground? Never? That’s not too surprising, as not even a sophomoric mercenary would make the mistake of letting the world onto El Dorado if he found it first – unless, of course, he didn’t find it and simply wanted to conjure one up in order to boast to grandma back home. Or, of course again, the protagonist in question were the conscientiously incorruptible and trustfully industrious United States.

If those adjectives sounded oxymoronic, that’s basically the simple crux of this article’s argument. The recent June 2010 announcement by the US geological survey – a Pentagon study, if anyone expected any less – that they have stumbled onto $1 trillion and beyond of “untapped” mineral deposits (ostensibly iron, copper, cobalt, gold and lithium) in Afghanistan reminds one of the Great Game that was played between the British and the Russians for gaining influence in central Asia in the early phase of the 19th century.

The US is an old hand at peddling such so called discoveries for its mutual convenience – or at not peddling them. During the period that US took over Iraq, did one wonder even once that the Bush regime never gave official confirmation of the oil reserves in Iraq that the US was directly controlling and extracting? Rarely, as it was a given fact that US will siphon off oil money to pay for its war expenses and claims. The truth is, in February 2010, Agence France Presse had already quoted Karzai brandishing a US Geological Survey report that Afghanistan had $1 trillion mineral reserves. The flop attempt at global media publicity went unnoticed then. Clearly, Pentagon’s spin doctors were not too impressed by the February achievement, and re-branded the effort, training Karzai to repeatedly mention that the reserves were between $1 trillion to, hold your grandma’s horses, $3 trillion! 

There’re three reasons for the June 2010 re-branding of old news. First: when it comes to fragile governance, the Afghan government is already a top contender. It is today standing on legs largely because of foreign aid, which is over 70% of its budget. Undoubtedly, the announcement of this discovery will give Karzai – who has recently mended fences on his own terms with Obama – a new lifeline in his fragile political career, as he would be able to wishfully promise the mineral rich regions to tribal chiefs and Taliban representatives. Second: the announcement will give an excuse to the US to postpone their decision of withdrawing troops out of the country. Third: the US has been trying hard to figure out ways to attract foreign investment into the region. The announcement will jump start the proceedings. One can easily visualise deals being signed under pure promises and conjectures than on realistic data – leading to future litigation.

There is a huge downside for Afghanistan due to this announcement. Mineral and oil discovery announcements have led to social unrest in various countries; and Afghanistan is a country that is still struggling to come out of a war like condition. African nations like Ghana, Sierra Leone, Uganda, Nigeria and Sudan saw a decade long violence and civil unrest after similar discoveries. An analysis of the top oil rich countries would show that around 10-12 nations in the top 50 list are unstable. For Afghanistan, the announcement would exacerbate the ongoing power politics. If on one hand the local clans, Taliban, Al-Qaeda and the likes will fight a bloodying conflict to tap these supposed resources to fund their anti-social missions, then on the other, China, which last year grabbed the Aynak copper mine in Logar, would leave no stone unturned to expand its influence over the region and country in particular.

All this is not to say that there are no reserves – of course, there are. But in all probability, only around 1/5th of what has been announced – which anyway would be exploited by US firms. It’ll take decades for other investing companies to realise they’ve been had. By then, Obama will be out of power, and Afghanistan will no more be a priority. 

SPORTS : TRANSPARENCY

Fear of FIFA
FIFA needs to democratise itself

This FIFA World Cup should have come as a slap to all those skeptics who thought that an erstwhile apartheid-loving nation won’t be able to pull off this mega sporting event well. Not only did South Africa pull off the game well but it also raised the global standards when it comes to hosting a mega sporting event like FIFA. South Africa took care of every possible measure in order to squeeze maximum economies out of this gaming event. From refurbishing and building new infrastructure to vacating slums – almost all attributes under the sun were taken care of to make sure that the dividends of the game flow well even after the World Cup got over. But then, amidst all these romantic developments, it was someone else who ran away with big money, leaving pittance for the host country. The figures will prove that – while FIFA made a whopping $3.2 billion as profit, it gave a trifle $80 million to the South African government, and that too because the amount was a guarantee.FIFA is more than a century old organisation. Talking about big moolah, FIFA on an average generate revenues that is well above $1 billion per year and more than $4 billion in the World Cup year. A brief research would be enough to unearth the fact that most of revenues come from television and marketing rights, which are under direct control of FIFA. So much so that FIFA charges rent from the host country and does not pay taxes for revenues earned as it insists on having a ‘Diplomatic status’ (amendments allowing FIFA's activities as 'diplomatic' via the Revenues Law Amendment Act 20 of 2006, guaranteeing 17 provisions granting 'supportive financial environment' as well as various other free services, have been passed). Unlike the International Cricket Council (ICC), where the tenure of the President lasts on an average for 2.5 years, FIFA has no term limits (tenures average over 13 years). Moreover, FIFA allots tourism rights to its agent, Switzerland-based Match AG (the company is said to have family connections with heads of the FIFA body), without any bidding process. Match AG is reported to practice marking up of services charges and licensing fee and surcharge. Match AG is the official accommodation provider since the last six World Cups. All in all, FIFA retains on an average 95 per cent of total profits. In March this year, a UN human rights expert, Raquel Rolnik, said FIFA ignored clauses on adequate housing in the bid proposals and commented that the organisation should be "more transparent." In July, 2010, Transparency International pin-pointed FIFA being involved in multimillion dollar illegal transactions on account of broadcasting and TV rights. As per a recent article published in Forbes, "Executive power has remained with the president and his unaccountable cabinet of highly paid advisors, despite the 24-strong executive committee drawn from FIFA's member associations."FIFA needs to understand that World Cup – or for that matter soccer – is not just a mega sporting event but a game that unites the world. History is testimony that the game played a major role in bridging the racial divide. FIFA should not dent a host country's development activities and burden them with exorbitant costs, especially in developing economies. Instead of asking countries to build new stadiums and infrastructure on their own cost, FIFA should productively engage member countries to invest in such capital expenditure in the host countries. Imagine the camaraderie that can be generated within even enemy countries by such a model through the world's greatest event.

US ARMY: RELIGIOUS EXTREMISM

No, for Christ’s sake!

Interpreting the war on terror as a crusade has led to a simmering religous extremism in the US military, which needs to be curbed

When the US ex-President George W. Bush tagged his War on terrorism as a new Crusade, little did he know that his words were being taken too literally by audiences in his own nation as well as across the world. On September 16, 2001 at South Lawn of the White House, Bush said during a press conference, “This is a new kind of evil. And we understand. And the American people are beginning to understand. This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while. And the American people must be patient. I’m going to be patient.” 

This statement of his obviously stoked a huge controversy, since it was taken in the religious context, and did not go well with Islamic countries across the world. Franklin Graham (American Christian evangelist and president and CEO of international Christian relief organization Samaritan’s Purse) took it further, as he made an anti-Islamic comment (just after 9/11) and referred to Islam as “a very evil and wicked religion”. Further, on April 18, 2003, he made an statement that true Islam cannot be practiced in the US as the country criminalizes beating your wife, killing your children, committing adultery, et al. Recently a video obtained by al Jazeera (and advocated by the Huffingtonpost) revealed how military officials at Bagram were urging US soldiers to evangelize in the Muslim country. The video also exposed how US military forces in Afghanistan were asked by top chaplain to “hunt people for Jesus” and spread Christianity in Afghanistan. Evidences also reveal that the soldiers stationed at Afghanistan were given bibles translated into Pashto and Dari – the dominant languages of Afghanistan. Even air force cadets in the US were taught to proselytize.

When it comes to religious diplomacy, nothing can beat the Boykin saga. Lieutenant General William G. Boykin – retired Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence and a key person during military operations in Grenada, Somalia and Iraq, openly framed the War on Terror in religious terms (obviously anti-Islamic) during a show on NBC News on October 15, 2003. The heights of audacity got breached when it was found that The Soldier’s Bible contained the words of Lt. Gen. William Boykin (in inspirational words from military leaders), where he said of his battle against a Muslim warlord in Somalia, “I knew my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol.” 

A scan through media reports over the past few years provides disturbing evidences of unethical behaviour by the US army towards non-Christian soldiers. Among many incidents that came to light about harassment of non-Christians, army specialist Zachari Klawonn’s experience is a case in point. He recently filed a lawsuit alleging that that the Army has not followed through on its promises to address problems even after filing more than 20 complaints of harassment for being Muslim. A media report carried out by the Washington Post (November 12, 2005) wrote about the role of private missionary groups who where training cadets to evangelize their peers. In September 2007, a military watchdog organization, Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) joined decorated medic Justin Chalker in filing a lawsuit against Secretary of Defense Robert Gates; charging the Pentagon of forcing the soldier to embrace evangelical Christianity. Neither the Pentagon nor the country’s defence official raised any interjection against scriptures found on US weapons. It was only recently that, after an international outcry, a Michigan-based arms company stopped embossing references to New Testament Scriptures on rifle sights that it sells the military. The Muslim Public Affairs Council in Washington referred to biblical references in the weapon as violation of the nation’s values and feared that the blaze of religious extremism may creep into the US military. 

With a half Muslim and half Christian president at the helm, things were expected to change to a large extent. On one hand, President Obama is holding meetings and soft peddling with Islamic countries in an attempt to undo the Bush administration’s legacy of anti-Islamic rhetoric that had antagonized many Arab and Asian nations with substantial Muslim populations. But on the other hand, he seems to be quite neutral and indifferent on matters of evangelical military culture which aims to Christianize the US army. Experts fear that this indifferent attitude would give space to these extremists to sow seeds of religious extremism among army men. If the US is really keen on tacking religious extremism in south Asia then it can’t afford to ignore a similar simmering sentiment back home. This is that kind of war where using the same weapons as your enemy would prove counter-productive. For the more friends the US has, the better it is. That conversion makes far more sense than the religious one.

Pakistan: unending betrayal

Why India must humiliate Pakistan!

Pakistan openly continues sponsoring terrorist activities against India. Why should India even talk with Pakistan then?

“The P word!” TIME magazine’s Bobby Ghosh quotes a top counterterrorism official, “When I hear of a terrorist plot, I can count back from 10, and before I get to zero, someone will bring up the P word.” P stands for Pakistan, a country, as Fareed Zakaria confirms, is “terrorism’s supermarket” –  70% of terror plots identified by the UK government have been “traced back” to Pakistan. Yet, US advises India to resume its diplomatic talks with Pakistan. How more churlish could that be?

The acrimony between India and Pakistan is decades old, and it doesn’t require a rote numbskull Jane’s defence analyst (or the sophomore upstart Ms. Clinton, if you please) to understand that Pakistan is no Castro loving Trotskyite bent on ensuring India’s social betterment. Pakistan is what Pakistan has been for the past many years – an incendiary anarchist nation, which unfortunately has a like-minded arsonist government establishment that promotes, funds and implements well-planned terrorist and extremist activities against India, and of late, the West too. While India for ages had pleaded with the international community to recognise Pakistan as a terrorist state, the West had daftly rejected the proposition time and again – and more because they were not the addressed recipients of Pakistan’s loving infatuation communiqués. They are now.

Given that, it is extremely wrong that India can be forced by the US to resume talks with Pakistan. In fact, this should have been the moment when India – and the international community – should have openly humiliated the Pakistani establishment, bringing them to task in the same manner as has been done in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan.

India has received a spate of betrayals and hollow promises from Pakistan. After nearly every other attack within India by Pakistan-backed terror groups, the Pakistani government has come up with highly promising compendiums of support, with a specific objective of buying time for the next attack. Some nuggets:

February 1999: Pakistan signs the ‘historic’ Lahore Declaration, promising to work towards a peaceful and bilateral solution to the Kashmir issue.

May 1999: Pakistan army clandestinely attacks and takes over Kargil. India retaliates and takes back lost territory.

July 2001: Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf (considered the Kargil mastermind) comes to India for the Agra Summit, peddled by Pakistan as peace talks.

December 2001: The Indian Parliament is attacked by a well trained set of terrorists, funded by agencies within Pakistan. Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf promises to crack down on terrorist groups. It is found  that Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence agency (ISI) was the one funding the attack.

January 2002: Musharraf promises again that “no organisation will be allowed to indulge in terrorism in the name of Kashmir.” This is immediately followed by several terror attacks, topped in May 2002 by a terrorist attack on an army camp in Kashmir, which kills at least 30 people.

July 2006: Terror strikes in Mumbai local trains in July 2006. Prime suspects – SIMI, Lashkar-e-Toiba and ISI.

July 2008: Indian embassy destroyed in Kabul by terrorist attack, killing 58. New York Times confirms ISI involvement. Pakistan denies all accusations.

November 2008: Terrorists land on Mumbai shores from Pakistan and randomly fire at and bomb various targets, killing 173. One terrorist captured alive confirms Pakistan establishment’s complete involvement. Pakistan denies everything, and promises (again) to handover gangster Dawood Ibrahim and terrorist leader Masood Azhar if India provides “evidence.” India does, Pakistan doesn’t!

The list of Pakistan’s hellhound extremist orientation is clearly unending, yet what remains unbelievable is America’s continued financial support to this failed state – on December 2009, in the latest tranche,  Pakistan received a $7.5 billion US aid package to ostensibly strengthen counterinsurgency and counterterrorism operations. Much of this will be used against India; some against US too.

If US representatives, on May 3, 2010, can humiliate Iran (a country that has no intentions of becoming a nuclear armed state; and one that openly denounces terrorist activities) by walking out of the UN assembly when Iranian President Ahmedinejad starts speaking, then why shouldn’t India too openly humiliate Pakistan (a certified nuclear armed state, openly supporting terrorism) by walking out of nonsensical peace talks? On May 7, 2010, Hillary Clinton commented, “Somewhere in the Pakistan government are people who know where Osama bin Laden is.” Good morning Ms.Clinton, the Ambien seems to be wearing off finally. 

Putin

Quit to fight another day!

Putin should resign to change his perception as a ruthless power hungry political leader; and then (rightfully) reclaim the throne a few months later – that’s a sleight Putin knows too well and has practised well in the past

“Putin is Stalin! Putin is Brezhnev! Russia without Putin!” The protest slogans broke the calm across Moscow’s streets on the occasion of May 1, 2010 – International Labour Day. What made this protest uniquely different from past protests was that this protest – ostensibly in criticism of Putin’s abuse of media freedom and democratic rights – was supported by around 1.7 million people in 1,000 cities across Russia over eight time zones. More than 40,000 people signed a petition demanding Putin’s resignation. One has to realise that in Russia, where Putin’s ruthless power wielding (and stymieing of opposition dissent – sometimes suspiciously violently or through undemocratic jailing) is compared often to mafiosi behaviour, for protestors to come out in the open en masse like this is an ocean of a change. Among the frontrunners in the protests was chess wizard and now political opponent Gary Kasparov.

Putin’s decisions regarding utilities prices, increased taxes on imported cars and environmental initiatives have provided a snowball effect for the wave of discontent. Of late, there have been many more such incidents. Starting from 2007, numerous “Dissenters’ Marches” were organized across various cities like Moscow, Saint Petersburg and Nizhny Novgorod. On January 30, 2010 in Kaliningrad, around 10,000 people came together to protest against Putin’s decision to increase the transportation tax. And in March 10, 2010, Russian opposition activists started an online campaign.

Undeniably, there have been several incidents of human rights abuses and shocking assassinations, purportedly sponsored by the State. Particularly during the second Chechen War, corruption flourished and strengthened its roots and a new group of business lobbyist came into being (Gennady Timchenko, Vladimir Yakunin, Yuriy Kovalchuk and Sergey Chemezov) with personal linkages with Putin. The recent killings of human rights lawyer Stanislav Markelov and newspaper reporter Anastasiya Baburova have further added fuel to fire and led to tensions with the EU President. Amnesty noted with grave concern in 2007 how Putin was rolling back civil rights in Russia. Another critical blot has been the continued trial of Russia’s richest man, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, because he allegedly financed Putin’s opponents, apart from committing corporate fraud – he’s now serving an eight year sentence.

But then, there is a flamboyant other side to Putin too. Truly, Russia has enjoyed one of the most prosperous periods of growth under Putin after Boris Yeltsin left the country in a sorry state. Between 2000-2008, GDP growth peaked at 10% (2000) and saw 5 years of GDP growth over 7% (APEC). He devised strong policies in fiscal reforms, oil prices, and external financing. Russia experienced a PPP growth of 72%, poverty rates dropped by 50% and average salaries increased by eight times. So Putin’s enduring popularity, by far the highest in the world, isn’t surprising (In 2007, Putin’s approval rating was 81%; even in late 2009, post recession, it was still 65%; Levada Center public opinion surveys). Various surveys revealed that Russians felt the country was “more democratic” under Putin than during the Yeltsin or Gorbachev years.

Given all that, there can be no denying that for all it matters, there is no better choice than Putin that Russia currently has for a leader. Then how does one handle the increasing protests? The solution is pretty simple – and one that Putin has practised well in the past. Putin should resign from his position (for a few months perhaps) and let the protest brigade run out of steam. Once that happens, he should quietly step back and reclaim the throne. Well, it has been rightfully his for years...