India in 2013: Another year of paralysis? (CNN)

By Madhav Nalapat, Special to CNN

Editor’s note: Madhav Nalapat holds the UNESCO Peace Chair at Manipal University in India. The views expressed are the author's own.

Although independent India’s first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, was a democrat, neither he nor apparently his colleagues in the Congress Party thought it necessary to do away with the colonial laws that had underpinned British rule. Across a wide range of functions that in normal democracies would be the prerogative of the citizen alone, the British-era laws retained by Nehru and his successors have ensured that the people of India have to routinely petition some government office or other in order to get official permission before embarking on any of a range of tasks.

In the past, businesspeople “paid and played.” Now, as some wags put it, they “pay and pray,” because decisions for which cash have been exchanged are seldom coming. The country has seen new projects slow to a crawl, even in sectors vital to growth such as energy and infrastructure. Should this paralysis in decision-taking continue into 2013, the continued deterioration of India’s economic performance could start to look a lot like the chaos of 1992.

Rather than chip away at colonial-style state prerogatives, successive governments in India have only added to the list of state functions and powers. As a result, “free” India’s legal system contains a dense overlay of regulations, many of which carry the punishment of incarceration if ignored. Most of those tossed into India’s fetid jails have been deprived of their freedom for deeds which would have merited at worst a reprimand in a more complete democracy. Whether it be a household, a factory or a service establishment, each has to run a daily gauntlet of dozens of laws to ensure that they stay within the country’s British-era laws.

There is, of course, an easy way of escaping accountability in India, and that is to pay a bribe. The colonial system being tailor-made for such illegitimate exactions, it is no wonder both politicians and officials in “democratic” India swear by it, and refuse to replace it with a system of laws that regards the citizen as being honest unless proved otherwise. Sadly, since Sonia Gandhi became the effective head of the government in 2004, a raft of laws and procedures have been introduced to compound this, meaning that even something as innocuous as a racy exchange on Facebook can land you in jail. Expect the debate over freedom of expression in India to be another feature of 2013. After all, the Information Technology Act passed without opposition in parliament, despite being draconian in its scope. It is being repeatedly misused to jail those who offend powerful interests.

While Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is, unusually in India, an honest politician, the government he technically heads is regarded by many as among the most venal of any since 1947. The silver lining is that the scale of graft has finally resulted in a fight back by the Indian public, and so we can expect to see growing demands next year among civil society for a governance structure under which the citizen has greater say over his or her own life.

Indeed, ever since the Commonwealth Games scandal exploded across television screens in 2010, civil society has been hyperactive in protesting government graft. The consequence has been that at least a small proportion of guilty individuals have actually been sent to prison, though not of course for long. The Indian media, itself often the creature of business interests that are less than ethical, has been forced by pressure from the blogosphere into giving prominence to stories about official graft and misfeasance, thereby pressing those at the top to take at least a few token steps towards punishing the guilty.

Yet although very few have been held properly to account so far, even these hesitant steps have been enough to scare several officials (and even a few of their political heads) from taking decisions of any magnitude. The consequence has been a paralysis in decision-making within the central government, a hiatus that has gone on for at least the past two years.

So where does all this leave us? One more year of this kind of paralysis at the central government level, and it will take a miracle to get India’s growth story back from the intensive care unit and to robust health. Sadly, under the current leadership, the prognosis for the next 12 months is not looking good.

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/12/india-in-2013-another-year-of-paralysis/

A US-Indian military deal hinges on an equal partnership (The National)

M D Nalapat

In 1941, when the British Empire was on the ropes following the German takeover of France, US President Franklin Roosevelt ignored isolationists within his country to launch the Lend-Lease programme. In present-day terms, Roosevelt delivered $720 billion (Dh2.6 billion) worth of military equipment, mostly to Britain. The naval vessels that were handed over enabled Britain to hold off German U-boat "wolf packs" and continue to receive essential supplies.

Apart from the British, both China and the USSR received combat supplies from the United States, the so-called "arsenal of democracy", despite the niggling detail that neither was conspicuously democratic.

There are parallels to today, although things have certainly changed since the 1940s. Economic power is moving from west to east, while China has thus far wisely avoided a military conflict with any of its neighbours since its 1979 invasion of Vietnam. However, it is a reality that decades of robust economic growth have given Beijing a heft that has begun to alarm other countries.

Of its neighbours, only Japan, Vietnam and India have significant military capabilities. The Australian military is hobbled by its small population and massive coastline, while South Korea needs to concentrate on its northern border rather than participate in a broader theatre.

Given its huge potential and population, the most significant player - apart from China - within the region is India. However, when compared to its neighbour to the northeast, India's economy and domestic technological skills are primitive. The country has squandered decades in setting up a high-tech base that, except in a few areas, has been a failure. More than 80 per cent of core defence equipment still needs to be imported. As for the Indian economy, it is less than a third of the size of China's (which had half the GDP of India in 1949).

What India has in plenty is trained manpower, as well as a military that has been continuously primed for combat since its inception. In contrast, China's People's Liberation Army forces have rarely seen a weapon fired in anger; those who have participated in combat operations in the past have almost all left the military.

But the fact remains. Although India's ruling Congress Party has spent an average of $9 billion (Dh33 billion per year) on purchasing defence equipment, mainly from France, Russia, Israel and the US, the reality is that India's economy cannot support the navy and the air force it would need to face a challenge in Asia.

There is only one way forward, which would be for the United States to once again begin a Lend-Lease programme of sorts, handing surplus military stock to India and, on a smaller scale, Vietnam. Surplus stock might include naval vessels, aircraft and ammunition - this is the only practical way by which the Indian and Vietnamese militaries could reach the needed level of combat capability.

Such a mobilisation would not be directed against China, in view of that country's avoidance of combat for the past 33 years. The enhanced capability would be a guarantee against any country or other player that used force to interfere with the freedom of the seas and skies vital to modern commerce. While the 1940s Lend-Lease was focused on war, a new programme would be geared towards preventing a conflict by creating a deterrent force on continental Asia.

The equipment and the technology would probably be less up to date, although it would have to be of sufficient quality to deal with regional threats, including non-state threats such as piracy.

For close to a decade, negotiations between the US and India on Logistics Supply Agreement have foundered on Washington's insistence that it be given a unilateral right to enter sensitive Indian military facilities at will to inspect the equipment that it had supplied. Both that supply agreement and the proposed Communications Interoperability and Security Agreement have conditions attached that dilute India's sovereignty.

Given India's unhappy history with western colonialism, even a western-friendly government in New Delhi has been unable to sign either agreement. In the 1940s, the relationship between the US and the UK was one of equals, whatever the difference in their financial capabilities. Unless a similar, Rooseveltian approach is taken by the Obama administration, all of its talk of a "pivot to Asia" will remain a television sound bite or a talking point at international conferences, rather than be expressed in reality.

Just as Asia has changed with geopolitics, it is time for the US to abandon the Second World War-era Atlanticist thinking that has underpinned its strategy since the 1940s. If Asia is to achieve a genuine military balance, credible enough to prevent the adventurous from resorting to conflict, the US will need to implement a 21st century version of Lend-Lease with India and Vietnam as the principal beneficiaries.

In tandem, India and Vietnam's militaries would be a counterbalance in Asia against any force that attempted to establish a hegemonic force, such as those that once forced Europe to war.

http://www.thenational.ae/thenationalconversation/comment/a-us-indian-military-deal-hinges-on-an-equal-partnership

BJP adopts Nehru’s policy of keeping economy closed (Sunday Guardian)

By MD Nalapat

Senior BJP leaders awaharlal Nehru never could bring himself to forgive India's business community, despite the generous help that it had given to the freedom movement. That most businesspersons appeared to prefer Vallabhai Patel over him rankled. Consequently, Nehru saw to it that the business community in India got marginalised not merely in overseas markets but also within India, a policy continued by daughter Indira, who was firm that only state control would ensure that "garibi" got "hataoed". Although Rajiv Gandhi showed a few glimmerings of backing for Indian business, since 2004, a combination of tighter restrictions and high interest rates has ensured that companies in Europe in particular no longer have to fear competition from India. Even in his earlier avatar as economic reformer (1992-96), Manmohan Singh reserved his largesse for foreign companies wishing to crack the Indian market rather than helping Indian enterprises expand overseas, a quirk in policy which has continued throughout the nearly nine years that he has been Prime Minister. Taking a cue from the top, institutions such as the RBI have put in place a policy regime that penalises domestic investors and industry while helping those from outside to make profits, usually through arbitrage and speculation. However, this is not justification enough to adopt the reverse policy tack, that of banning foreign companies altogether. Granted, that a few steps may have some immediate health benefits, such as the banning in 1977 of a prominent international soft drink manufacturer whose products are not ordinarily known to improve overall physical fitness, although it must be admitted that this columnist is an addict of Diet Coke, and has been for quite a while. However, were they to be gifted a policy regime which helps local enterprise, India's businesspersons have the verve and the capacity to compete in any market. Hence, what is needed is for steps that promote domestic industry to get taken simultaneously with measures designed to assist foreign companies in their quest for profits from India. This country is an easy mark for a variety of outflows, some designed as "royalties" and "fees", or in the form of excessive loading of international overheads on the Indian operation. Sadly, a warm welcome at the Finance Ministry, the Planning Commission and even the PMO is given to the same international financial cartels which caused the 2008 crash and are responsible for much of the commodity speculation which boosts prices up to levels which hurt entire economies. Not a surprise. In the 1950s, Nehru himself relied on quacks from overseas such as Nicholas Kaldor to formulate policy which ensured that the country's growth rate remained in the region of 2% at a time when the rest of Asia was growing at twice or thrice that speed. What is a surprise is the fact that Nehruvian economics — state control and keeping the economy closed — seems to have been adopted across the political spectrum. Looking at the statements being made by that party's leaders, it is obvious that the BJP has decided that the best economic policy to follow is that favoured by Comrade Prakash Karat. A party that was once seen as pragmatic has developed a mindset in economic policy that is close to both the CPM as well as Mamata Banerjee, who succeeded in driving away investors from West Bengal even before becoming Chief Minister of that under-performing state. Barring the influence of commercial interests nervous at the prospect of competition from international chains, there is little justification for the BJP's adoption of a Marxist economic platform, and banning its own Chief Ministers from allowing FDI in retail, even though at least a couple of them may be wishing that they could. Gujarat, for example, is on course to become a magnet for huge volumes of FDI, once the Delhi-Mumbai industrial corridor goes online in a few years' time, with the help of $100 billion from Japan, which is anxious to find an alternative home for the 36,000 Japanese enterprises that were set up in China since the 1980s. The BJP has travelled this way before, of repeating Nehru's insistence on "the government way or the highway". An example is the HRD Ministry's insistence during the NDA period that all donations to the IITs and IIMs ought to be routed through it, rather than be given directly. As a consequence, several wealthy NRIs offloaded their largesse on foreign universities rather than on their alma mater. Nehru believed, as did Churchill, that Indians were incapable of functioning without the state to guide them. He believed that a closed economy worked best. He was wrong on both counts. So is the BJP when it opposes FDI in retail when Manmohan Singh breaks to an extent with Nehruvian dogma by seeking to open up the economy, of course inwards rather than also outwards. http://www.sunday-guardian.com/analysis/bjp-adopts-nehrus-policy-of-keeping-economy-closed

Male’s Pak, China connections cannot be ignored (Sunday Guardian)

MADHAV NALAPAT  NEW DELHI | 8th Dec 2012

Two tourists walk past a GMR banner at the Male International airport on Tuesday. PTI credulous Government of India "accepted the word" of key Western allies that the replacement of the India-friendly Mohammad Nasheed by his Vice-President, Waheed Hassan Manik on 7 February 2012, "would not change the situation in the slightest". With "reckless haste, and without ascertaining facts about the new team, the GoI backed the change and blessed Waheed", a senior official lamented. He added that "the Vice-President was known to be close to senior officers in the Pakistan military, and was also a welcome guest in China", both countries where then President Nasheed was "looked upon with suspicion because of his known affinity with India". Another official revealed that "although our intelligence agencies warned that the new team may refuse to continue an India-friendly policy", such counsel was disregarded by the Prime Minister's Office "on the advice of two friendly European countries, who had received glowing testimonials about the new man (Waheed) through their contacts in Dubai". That this city is known to be an effective disseminator of ISI disinformation was ignored when President Nasheed was forced to resign. Later, in a transparent cover-up, a committee appointed by the new team found that the ousted head of state had "resigned voluntarily", even though he himself had been alleging the contrary since his dismissal. A Maldivian official claimed that the decision to take over the airport was based on “commercial considerations”. He alleged that “because of political influence in India, GMR got a sweetheart deal that would give it a huge profit at the cost of the Maldivian exchequer.”  A senior official revealed that not only the new Maldivian President "but Home Minister Abdulla Mohammad and Defence Minister Mohammad Nazir are also hostile to India and close to the Pakistan military". However, unlike in the case of President Waheed, whose removal requires a two-thirds majority in Maldivian Parliament, both the Home and the Defence Minister can be removed by simple majority through a no-confidence vote in Parliament. Ousted President Nasheed is proposing just that. However, intelligence agencies in India warn that "the two ministers will defy the law and refuse to quit, even after they are impeached by a Parliamentary majority". However, he was sceptical of the Manmohan Singh government taking steps to assist democratic forces in the Maldives against those defying the Constitution of the country. "As the US, the UK and France all three are hostile to Nasheed, there is zero chance that Manmohan Singh will back him," a senior diplomat claimed. Mohammed Waheed President Waheed has the backing of not only Pakistan, China, the US and the EU but religious groups as well. "Maldives has a growing number of converts to Wahhabism, thanks to preachers from the Gulf region who come here in large numbers", a Maldivian analyst claimed, adding that "these groups disliked former President Nasheed because of his refusal to ban alcohol and dancing and to impose Sharia law among the local population". He added that such groups "have been given oxygen because of the takeover of Tunisia and Egypt by religious parties that have close links with countries having significant Wahhabi populations". Another Maldivian analyst said that "the Pakistan army wants China to replace India in running the airport". He said that a Chinese company had "already been promised the concession by Waheed, Nazir and Abdulla Mohammad", the alleged pro-Pakistan trio now running the Maldivian government. Mohamed Nasheed However, a Maldivian official claimed that the decision to take over the airport was based on "commercial considerations". He alleged that "because of political influence in India, GMR got a sweetheart deal that would give it a huge profit at the cost of the Maldivian exchequer". He claimed that "the final straw was GMR's proposal to hike airport and passenger fees to such an extent that tourist traffic would get impacted". According to him, "GMR has made Delhi the most expensive in the world and wanted to do the same in Male International Airport". Those close to GMR deny such a claim, saying that the proposed $500 million modernisation would have made the airport "among the world's finest". After the dust clears, it is almost certain that the Indian company will lose the airport contract. "India is getting a taste of its own medicine, after its Supreme Court took back the licences given to foreign telecom companies", a Maldivian official gleefully said, adding that "the GMR contract has become a political football because of the imminence of fresh elections". Given its track record, it is unlikely that the Manmohan Singh government will take any steps barring noise to safeguard Indian interests in the nearby country. http://www.sunday-guardian.com/investigation/males-pak-china-connections-cannot-be-ignored

Gadkari hopes Gujarat, HP will win him second term (Sunday Guardian)

MADHAV NALAPAT  NEW DELHI | 8th Dec 2012

Indian Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) president, Nitin Gadkari, gestures at a function in New Delhi on November 5,2012. AFP JP president Nitin Gadkari, under attack for his association with the Purti companies, believes that a double victory by his party in Himachal Pradesh and Gujarat will ensure his second term. The Nagpur politician already has the backing of RSS sarsanghchalak Mohan Bhagwat. Moreover, many party leaders do not want to see him replaced by the senior L.K. Advani or his protégé Arun Jaitley. Election results are due on 20 December. They will also have an impact on national politics. Should the BJP fight back anti-incumbency and retain HP, while Narendra Modi ensures a good performance in Gujarat, the Congress would be severely weakened, and left with its only remaining core constituency, minority voters. For minorities, BJP is still toxic. But they will mobilise for Congress only if it shows the ability to stop the BJP in elections. If this does not look likely, Muslims in particular will turn to regional parties, and Mulayam Singh Yadav in particular. It is not Gadkari alone who is waiting for Congress to lose; so is Mulayam. The ever-ebullient Lalu Yadav will also benefit in Bihar. Sources in Congress say that an informal agreement is being reached with Mulayam Singh Yadav that Congress would back him to be Prime Minister at the head of a Third Front if Congress is unable to win enough seats to lead another UPA government. This is what prevents Mulayam from bringing down UPA as long as Congress wants it to continue. As for Mayawati, she will vote against UPA only if confident that it would certainly fall. Should the Samajwadi Party withdraw support and the BSP backing be sufficient to rescue the UPA from defeat, Mayawati will come on board the UPA, using her new clout within the ruling alliance to better take on a faltering Akhilesh Yadav in his home state. { Congress has reached an informal agreement with Mulayam Singh Yadav to back him as Prime Minister as the head of a Third Front if it is unable to win enough seats to form government. In the absence of a policy designed to win over the minorities, a Modi triumph in Gujarat would further polarize voters, benefiting both the BJP as well as the SP. Although few within the higher ranks of the BJP are privately enthusiastic about the Gujarat CM, no matter what they say in public, the reality remains that Modi has become the most popular politician in India. His businesslike attitude is in contrast to the hapless Manmohan Singh, and his record of achievement in Gujarat is better than that of either his predecessors or of any possible challenger. Fortunately for the BJP, Rahul Gandhi has thus far declined to accept any position of responsibility within the government, in a context where the record of his father Rajiv Gandhi (whose first job in the Government of India was as Prime Minister) in governance had been judged a failure by voters in 1989. Should Rahul Gandhi step forward to lead the charge formally in the next polls, including as PM, the Congress cadre will be energised. However, this appears remote, leaving the field open to a BJP, which will be under the shadow of Modi, should he cross 115 seats in the next Assembly. And should a Modi-fired BJP tally cross 175 in the next Lok Sabha elections, the Gujarat CM could make a credible bid for the PM's job. A danger signal for the UPA is the fact that it "won" the FDI vote in the Lok Sabha by appreciably less votes than the 272 needed for a majority. Like the Narasimha Rao government in the first two years of its term, the last two years of Manmohan Singh's term are witnessing a minority party (or alliance) holding the reins of government, depending for its survival on the tested wiles of Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kamal Nath. Few expect any revolutionary changes to take place within the Congress after its "chintan shibir" on 18-19 January 2013, followed by the AICC on 20 and 21 January. The party seems to have run out of not just a majority in Parliament, but enthusiasm, leadership and ideas as well. http://www.sunday-guardian.com/news/gadkari-hopes-gujarat-hp-will-win-him-2nd-term

Egyptians seek change across GCC (PO)

By M D Nalapat

Friday, December 07, 2012 - Pity those confused liberals. By the very nature of their chemistry, it is seldom possible for them to have a strong organisation of their own, with the result that there is a tendency to piggyback or to ride pillion on stronger groups, including those whose philosophies and policies are very different from a liberal worldview. In 1978-79, it was the support thatAyatollah Khomeini received from Iranian liberals which allowed the founder of the Khomeinist school of theology ( a close cousin to Wahabbism) to usurp power in Tehran at the close of 1979. The network of liberal Iranian nationals within Europe ensured that Khomeini’s message got transmitted to cities across Iran, while they assured opinion leaders in Europe that the fiery cleric would disappear into a seminary in Qom once the Shah of Iran got toppled.

As it turned out, it was Abolhassan Bani-Sadr and other europeanized liberals who were removed from positions of authority in post-Pahlavi Iran. Ayatollah Khomeini used Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Iran to his advantage, instituting under the cloak of wartime necessity a regime far more authoritarian and brutal than that of the Pahlavis,in the process sending his former allies,the liberals,to prison, exile or to irrelevance. Fast forward to Egypt in 2011,where once again liberals joined hands with religious groups - mainly Wahabbi - to demonstrate agaist Hosni Mubarak. In fact, the Muslim Brotherhood was extremely cautious in the beginning, not wanting to once again be at the receiving end of a regime crackdown. It was only after the fall of Mubarak became certain that the Brotherhood joined hands with liberals to continue the waves of street protest so comprehenively documented by the three international channels that most backed the “Arab Spring”, BBC,CNN and Al Jazeera.

However,the fact that it was at best tepid in its opposition to Mubarak,especially during the dictator’s final days in office,it was the Muslim Brotherhood which gained the most from subsequent events. With strong - albeit silent - backing from NATO capitals,the Brotherhood established itself as the new ruling group in Egypt. As in the case of Iran during 1979, within weeks of occupying the Presidential Palace in the form of faithful follower of Brotherhood principles Mohammad Morsi, the liberals of Egypt were cast aside.Indeed,their most prominent representative, Mohammad el Baradei, has now been officially charged with being a “Zionist agent”,a charge so ridiculous that it exposes the nature of Brotherhood rule in Egypt Had the remnants of the Mubarak era rallied behind El Baradei rather than seek to install their own man in the Presidential Palace in the elections which followed the fall of the old regime,the situation in Egypt may have been different. However,the former IAEA chief - a person whom this columnist admires,let it be admitted - committed the same mistake that so many liberal leaders have in the past,of seeking to embrace those who are ideological foes in order to confront an immediate enemy.

Back in the 1920s,in Germany,who can forget the way in which the German Communist Party made the Social Democrats their worst enemy,in the process sparing and indeed assisting the Nazi Party led by Adolf Hitler? While there was much within the Mubarak era that was condemnable,there were strands that were worthy of support,such as the commitment to secular values. During the years when Gamal Abdel Nasser,Anwar Sadat and finally Hosni Mubarak were in office,there was no discrimination against the Coptic Christian community in Egypt, a situation that has changed since 2011.Throughout that year and well into the next,El Baradei sought common ground with the Muslim Brotherhood,only to be discarded once they no longer needed him. Too late,he and other liberals have understood the fundamentally authoritarian nature of the political vision of the Muslim Brotherhood

Egypt is a country with a cultural tradition second to none. Its people have a civilisation that goes back nearly seven millenia. Most of the population adopts the true values of Islam,which is mercy,compassion and tolerance. However,there is an organized minority which subscribes to the Wahabbi faith,and these days - thanks largely to the backing that they have received from NATO capitals - it is the Wahabbis who are steadily replacing Mubarak-era appointees across key positions in Egypt. The way in which the proposed constitution has been drawn up,by a body that is not at all representative of the diversity of opinion which characterises the vibrant Egyptian people, indicates that the country is in for a long period of instability.The power grab by the Muslim Brotherhood,which seeks to impose a constitution and a governance system of its choice,reveals the lack of a commiment to the pluralism which is at the heart of a genuine democracy. Of course,the US,the UK,France and other self-proclaimed champions of democracy fully back Morsi,the more so after he ensured that Bibi Netanyahu was given an escape route from his messy intervention in Gaza. NATO has once again ignored the liberals who ought to have been its partners,the same way as it did in Afghanistan,in Libya,in Syria and in theatres across the world. The centuries-old alliance between Wahabbis and the West still holds,despite a few tremors caused by 9/11.

Across the GCC,Egyptian Wahabbi communities have become active,seeking to persuade other Arabs to follow in their own path,of ensuring fundamental changes in local governance structures. In every GCC city,whether it be Riyadh or Doha or Kuwait or Sharjah,it is possible to see Egyptians arguing energetically with other Arabs,touting the benefits of change.The Egyptian diaspora across the GCC has within its composition more Wahabbis than liberals,and as a consequence,the former are seeking to be change agents across the region,persuading local populations to shed their reticence about politics. However,it is not clear that such efforts at generating political change will succeed.In many parts of the GCC - certainly in countries such as Qatar,Abu Dhabi or Kuwait - the local populations are well looked after by their rulers,and are consequently resistant to suggestions that they seek Egypt-model change.

http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=185719