PM intervention not helping foreign policy, say officers (Sunday Guardian)

MADHAV NALAPAT  New Delhi | 16th Mar 2013

fficials in the Ministry of External Affairs are angered by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's "incessant interference, including in details of foreign policy best left to professionals". They hold such interference responsible for the manner in which Italy has "insulted and ignored India by treating a solemn commitment to the Supreme Court as waste paper". An official familiar with Europe said that "this could happen only because the Europeans are aware of the PM's willingness to bend backwards to oblige them and the United States". Another senior official claimed that "the micro-managing of foreign policy (by the PM) began after the nuclear deal was announced in Washington in 2005". From that time onwards until the agreement finally got through the International Atomic Energy Agency three years later, "the Prime Minister was constantly on our back, warning us not to annoy the US". According to a colleague of the officer, "The collapse in India's standing in the Maldives, Nepal and Sri Lanka began during this period, when it was obvious that Indian policy was being choreographed by Big Brother in Washington." He pointed to the hasty recognition of coup leader Mohammed Waheed as the new President of the Maldives and to the vote against Sri Lanka in the UNHRC as examples of Western pressure on India bearing fruit. According to him, "The effort at using India's leverage to promote US and EU interests in South Asia has boomeranged, with China rather than the US and the EU filling the vacuum voluntarily caused by India's deferring to the US in its own backyard." MEA officials fault Foreign Secretary Ranjan Mathai for not more forcefully articulating the professionals' view on matters of foreign policy, instead of "constantly deferring to the PM's wishes", in the words of a senior diplomat now posted in Delhi. He pointed out that "The vote against Iran in the IAEA and against Syria in the UN had the eager concurrence of the Foreign Secretary, despite contrary advice from our missions in Tehran and Damascus." An official claimed that the Indian mission in Rome "had warned even during the period when the question of Christmas leave for the two Italian marines accused of murder of two Indian fishermen was being discussed in the Kerala High Court that once in Italy, they were likely to remain there". The mission in Rome "had picked up enough signals from the Italian authorities that the marines would not be sent back to India. However, all such inputs were ignored in Delhi". According to an MEA official, "Pressure from the level of the Prime Minister of Italy was constant in order to force the Indian government to allow the marines to return to freedom by misleading the Supreme Court." Another official viewed as "suspicious" the fact that the second grant of permission for the marines to return to Italy in as many months, this time "for casting their votes in elections" was not accompanied by any cash surety, unlike the first time. "The lack of a demand for a surety indicates the probability that elements in the Government of India were aware that the marines would not return, and hence did not want to place a financial burden on the Italian government". Officials dealing with foreign policy say that "from the start, the matter of the marines was informally getting tracked at the level of the PMO, with the Secretary to the PM coordinating matters with a particular Minister of State for External Affairs. We (professional Foreign Service officers) were kept out of the loop". He said that External Affairs Minister Salman Khurshid "did not play any role in deciding matters". Instead, he "went by the signals received from the PMO". Another added that "the Italian government was under pressure from their armed forces to get the marines freed". Also, NATO members "had an interest in avoiding a precedent whereby a NATO soldier would get tried and sentenced for killing a civilian in a backward country in the line of duty". He pointed out that "NATO has refused to allow its men to be held accountable for civilian deaths in any theatre, calling such incidents collateral damage". Thus, "NATO as an alliance had an interest in ensuring that the marines escaped justice in India". MEA officials say that the contemptuous manner in which the Italian government misled the Supreme Court and — at least formally — the Government of India reflects on the fact that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has moved his foreign policy completely away from that of Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi, into an entirely pro-Western direction. They claim that "the obvious tilt in Indian foreign policy since 2004 has caused countries across the world to lose respect for India as an independent player", thereby having "disastrous long-term consequences for Indian foreign policy". They point out that the February 15, 2012 murder of the two Indian fishermen took place well within the coastal waters of India, and that therefore the Kerala police were well within their rights to arrest the marines. A senior official added that "only the arrest and incarceration of the Italian ambassador would ensure that India be seen as a country where the law gets applied to all, irrespective of rank or nationality". http://www.sunday-guardian.com/news/pm-intervention-not-helping-foreign-policy-say-officers

Italy shows India who’s boss (PO)

M D Nalapat

Friday, March 15, 2013 - Italy has enjoyed a privileged position in India since the 1970s,presumably because of the charming ways of the Italian people. Since that period, businesses linked to Italy have prospered because of orders placed by Indian, almost entirely by government agencies. There has been a frenzy in ministries such as Defense or Chemicals & Fertilisers to Buy Italian, so much so that middlemen such as Ottavio Quatrocchi became so powerful that he could reduce Cabinet ministers to tears with a frown.

His charm,combined with the winning ways of his wife and children, ensured Quatrocchi a warm welcome in the homes of the most powerful people in India, such as Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, whose own wife was born in Orbassano, in Italy, and who spoke Italian to her and to his two lovely children in the privacy of their home. Since Congress President Sonia Gandhi became the de facto Prime Minister of India in 2004 ( with Manmohan Singh being affectionately termed the “Virtual PM”), Italian diplomats have had privileged access to the corridors of power in Delhi. So profound is the respect that senior ministers and bureaucrats have for “Silent Sonia” (so named for her wariness in giving unscripted interviews) that requests from Italian diplomats and businesspersons for appointments almost never go unfulfilled. Arab ambassadors, a group of great importance toIndia, often have to wait for weeks before getting a response to their requests for meetings, while the Ambassador of Italy often gets his the same day

Although India has not formally signed a Status of Forces Agreement specifying that NATO personnel are exempt from the law of the land for actions committed on Indian territory, the Manmohan Singh government has de facto accepted SOFA. This is analogous to the way Atal Behari Vajpayee ( post-1998) and his successor Manmohan Singh have de facto accepted the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, without actually signing it. In a way, this ensures for Indua the worst of both the worlds: the disadvantages of being outside the CTBT without the technological and security advantage that would flow from a robust program of nuclear testing.

In the case of SOFA, the way in which the Manmohan Singh government has coddled two Italian marines after they had shot dead two Indian fishermen illustrates the complete adherence by the Government of India to the NATO principle that any actions committed by its personnel, no matter how costly in terms of human - especially civilian - lives, will attract zero punishment from the authorities. Soon after a court in Kerala (which was less respectful of the NATO demand for full immunity than the government) placed the two marines in jail, Manmohan Singh (who is in regular consultation with Sonia Gandhi on all important matters, and who regards the Congress President’s word as law) saw to it that they were lodged in a Guest House and given Italian foodprepared by chefs from star hotels. The higher courts in India decided to extend a humane hand to the two marines, who were after all in a faraway land and clearly missing their families, by permitting them to go back to Italy for Christmas and thereafter to cast their votes in the nationalelections in that country. Hopefully, this privilege will get extended to all prisoners in Indian jails, so that they may return home for religious festivals and for elections. India being a country where there are numerous religious festivals and several elections, such a precedent would permit prisoners to spend quality time in a family atmosphere. Certainly such a setting would be more conducive to reform than the animal-like condition of several prisons in India

However, despite linguini for lunch and pizza for a teatime snack, despite air-conditioned guest houses and liberal visiting privileges, the Italian government insisted on the NATO doctrine of immunity, demanding that the marines be released and sent back to Italy, where they were promised a trial. Of course, the My Lai precedent is still fresh in memory. Even after ordering the gunning down of 600 innocent Vietnamese women and children in cold blood, Lt Willian Calley was sentenced to “house arrest” before being pardoned by President Richard Milhous Nixon in one of that individual’s rare manifestations of Christian charity. This being the case, those NATO personnel responsible for the deaths of only two Third Worlders could expect not jail but a medal. Indeed, when the marines returned for their Christmas festivities (as ordered by the benevolent Supreme Court of India) ,they were filmed in full uniform. Apparently the crime of murder is not sufficient to justify dismissal from the military, especially if the deaths be those of Afghans, Iraqis, Libyans or Indians. The two are likely to join duty very soon, although they may miss the wholesome ravioli prepared for them by solicitious chefs in India, and the comforts of the luxurious facilities in which they were “imprisoned” while in India. Clearly, Italians are specially loved in India, perhaps out of gratitude that the country sent to the shores of the world’s most populous democracy the lady who has captivated with her silent ways the entire Congress Party, the inimitable Sonia Gandhi nee Maino

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh knows that his job does not depend on public opinion but on the goodwill of Sonia Gandhi. Why should he care, therefore, that not only his government but his country (and indeed the people) appear as objects of ridicule by the international community at the sight of two killers being escorted out of India and sent back to their forgiving country for the presumably petty offense of adding two more names to the lengthening list of Third World innocents killed by NATO soldiery? The Italian government has with contempt gone back on its written commitment that the two marines would be sent back, while Manmohan Singh dithers and frets, waiting for a decision from Sonia Gandhi, the source of all his authority. Italy has shownIndia just who is the boss. Were Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi buried and not cremated, both would be twisting and turning in their graves at the pathetic condition to which their country has been reduced by this mockery of justice.

http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=200293

Video: Prof. Nalapat Interviews Syrian Political Adviser Buthania Shaaban

Western models not panacea (China Daily)

M D Nalapat, China Daily 03/13/2013 page10

Each human being is different from any other, having a mix of strengths and weaknesses thatare unique. In the same way, societies differ from each other, having evolved out of differenthistorical circumstances.

For example, in the 19th century, the British Empire was a source of pride in the UnitedKingdom, being a small island that took control of more than half the planet and converted itsresources to its advantage. India's view on the same empire is different, for it saw its share inthe global economy fall from 24 percent to less than 1 percent from 1820, when the Britishbegan to establish themselves in India, to 1947, the year they left.

Similarly, the Opium Wars were a source of immense profit for UK merchants, helping hugeconglomerates dominate business in Asia and elsewhere. However, for the Chinese people,the Opium Wars were a source of immense pain and the cause of social disintegration thatwas only reversed in 1949, when the Communist Party of China founded New China.

The reality is that the European experience of colonialism has almost always been a zero-sumgame, in which the other side lost heavily in order to ensure gains for the colonizing power.Which is why it is not reasonable for the West to demand that the rest of the world accept itsversion of history and economic and political doctrines. The circumstances in each non-Western country are very different from those in the West, which is why imposing a Westernmodel would result in a less than optimal outcome.

If China has made such great progress, especially since the 1980s, it is because the CPCrejected copying Western commercial institutions, creating instead a model that had a naturalfit with Chinese experience and needs. Strangely, while admitting that the Chinese economicmodel has worked in China, where a purely Western version may have failed, some Westernpowers constantly criticize China for not adopting a fully Western model of democracy.

Western powers ensured their dominance in the two previous centuries by control of territory.These days, they seek the same outcome by seeking to make other societies believe thatfollowing the advice given by them is the best course.

In South America in the 1970s, much misery was caused precisely because governmentsthere strictly followed the orders of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, bothof which were, and still are, dominated by the West, with only a United States or an EuropeanUnion national heading these so-called international organizations.

Indeed, to the West, international means the West. The so-called international relationsprograms taught in the West, which are unfortunately so popular with affluent students inChina and India, teach subjects solely through the prism of Western interests. Those passingout of such programs subconsciously begin to act and think in ways that promote Westerninterests, rather than that of their own countries. This is hardly surprising.

When the West refers to the international community, it refers only to itself. The views ofpeople in China, India and other large non-Western countries are regarded as not having anyworth. In the same way, "international media" refers only to the Western media and to theirWest-centric viewpoint, ignoring the views of the rest of the world.

Even globalization is taken to mean easier access to Western products, services and people inother markets rather than a genuinely international free flow across borders. The EuropeanUnion in particular has made entry into its own markets as difficult as possible for companiesbased in Asia, while constantly putting pressure on this continent to open up markets to theEU. Rather than a Western zero- sum approach, what the world needs is an Asian win-winapproach, which is why the rest of the world needs to avoid falling into the trap of judging theirown interests solely in the terms set for them by the West. Each country has the right to its ownperspective and the right to craft its own path to progress.

India provides an example of a country whose leadership uncritically accepted Westernsystems when more local solutions were required. Although a democracy, the legal andadministrative system in India is largely what it was during British rule. The Indian Penal Codeand the Indian Police Act, for example, have not changed for more than a century. Democracyis good for making decisions taking different groups' interests into consideration, but India hasdeveloped at a slow pace. In 1949, the Indian economy was twice as big as China's. Today, itis less than a third the size.

It costs millions of dollars to fight a parliamentary election in India and in the US, therebyensuring that only those with access to money will be elected, the poor are effectivelyexcluded.

While Western-style democracy may suit Western countries, other countries need to ensurethat systems are created that meet local needs. A one-size-fits-all approach makes no sense,except for the West, because if other countries slavishly follow the Western model they will behandicapped from competing with the West.

During the 1997 financial crisis in Asia, which was caused by Western currency speculators,India and China both escaped as both refused to adopt the measures that Westerngovernments were urging them to do. In contrast, countries such as Thailand, which faithfullyimplemented Western prescriptions, suffered badly. Western prescriptions are good - but onlyfor the West.

Non-Western countries should take care to ensure that their national policies do not getframed in a way that helps outside powers at the expense of their national interests.Democracy implies diversity, not the total adherence to the concepts and models that Westerncountries promote as universal, but which are really to their advantage. Each country has notonly the right but the duty to ensure that diversity is protected and that models suited to theirown people and their own history get adopted.

Confidence in one's own people is essential to make the sort of immense progress that Chinahas achieved over the past three decades. Such confidence cannot be transplanted from theoutside. It has to develop from within a country and its unique people.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2013-03/13/content_16303688.htm

Budget spares Super Rich (Sunday Guardian)

ROOTS OF POWER MADHAV NALAPAT www.sunday-guardian.com/profile/madhav-nalapat

alaniappan Chidambaram believes officialdom in India to be 100% honest, which is why he has loaded the Income-Tax Department with powers that have made a mockery of the 1991-96 reforms allegedly midwifed by Manmohan Singh. In his latest budget, the Union Finance Minister has granted his men still more authority to take away the liberty and the property of those whom they choose for such treatment. "The taxman is watching," claimed the Finance Minister, even as the Income-Tax Department gladdened the hearts of newspaper proprietors across India by commissioning advertisements touting the superb services that the money collected from taxpayers was providing for them. Aaykar Bhavan is apparently located in a different country, for in India, the roads are awful, the piped water unsafe, and state schools and health facilities behind the times even for the 19th century. If Chidambaram's earlier tax on withdrawals over Rs 10,000 was a joke passed off as serious policy, then clearly he has not lost his sense of humour, coming up with a 10% surcharge on annual income above Rs 1 cr, "to make super-rich pay a higher share" of the total tax pickings. It is a debatable point whether a yearly income of Rs 1 cr qualifies an individual to be labelled as "super rich", except perhaps in some corner of the Andaman Islands. What is more pertinent is that the Finance Minister has in fact spared the super rich entirely while levying this surcharge. The reason is that the bulk of the moneys got by the affluent come from dividends and capital gains, neither of which gets taxed. According to tax rules, just 12 months qualify as "long-term", thereby ensuring exemption from capital gains tax. Thus an individual holding shares for 12 months and a day can sell all of them at a huge profit, and in the process pay zero income-tax. The same exemption applies to dividend income. On paper, this concession is meant for the "retail" investor, but the reality is that the concession (of zero tax on dividend income) benefits almost entirely the actual super rich of the land. Chidambaram may be forgiven for not knowing that the Super Rich get most of their takings via the dividend and capital gains route. After all, each day so many files reach his table that he scarcely has the time to think. And what of our politicians and their cohort of obliging officials? The bulk of them are "poor farmers", holding vast tracts of agricultural land on which again they pay zero tax, or hold their financial assets in hard cash, thereby once again avoiding income-tax. It is only the salary man, who will have to pick up the tab for Chidambaram's populist gesture, not the Super Rich. Indeed, if the Finance Minister was to really force those of sufficient means contribute to national development, all he has to do is to get every official and politician to contribute a year's bribe to the exchequer. The sum deposited ought to be more than enough to more than halve the fiscal deficit. The more powers that are given to such a venal force, the greater their pickings. Is it that the Finance Minister is unaware of this fact, or is it that he is too much a part of the system to deny himself the pleasure of adding to black money in the country by empowering those to whom the taking of a bribe is second nature? And finally, what about those favourites of Manmohan Singh, the FIIs? These have been given a licence to speculate at will in India, boost commodity prices and distort trades, and thereafter take back billions of dollars each year in the form of their profits, cloaked under different heads. While in other countries, such entities pay billion-dollar fines for their misdemeanours, in India they are given unlimited access to both North and South Blocks as well as Mint Road. Were this loophole of zero tax on FII outflows to get plugged, it would have an immediate and beneficial impact on the Current Account Deficit. But for that, the Finance Minister will need to go after the real Fat Cats, and not play his usual jokes on public opinion.

http://www.sunday-guardian.com/analysis/budget-spares-super-rich