Video: Obama's Republic Day Visit: Symbolic or Significant? (Gateway House)

Video: Can India Balance the U.S. and China? (Gateway House)

It’s time for a Pak-mukt South Asia (Sunday Guardian)

ROOTS OF POWER MADHAV NALAPAT www.sunday-guardian.com/profile/madhav-nalapat M.D Nalapat is the Editorial Director of The Sunday Guardian. A new Economic and Security Cooperation Union should include Myanmar, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Lanka, Mauritius, Nepal, Bhutan, Maldives and India. SAARC leaders during the 18th SAARC Summit in Kathmandu, Nepal on 27 November 2014. PTI The Congress party made two decisions, which this columnist regards as momentous from the viewpoint of seeking to ensure that the British left a united India behind them, rather than the vivisected entity which finally emerged by 15 August 1947. The first was the 22 October 1939 decision by the Congress party to make its legislators resign from the provincial ministries controlled by it, a move which facilitated full control by the colonial authorities over several key provinces and which strengthened the bargaining position of the Muslim League, which was of course delighted at the decision apparently taken after consultations with the "Inner Voice" of Mahatma Gandhi. Predictably, M.A. Jinnah called 22 December 1939 (the day when the Congress provincial ministries formally quit office) as "Deliverance Day from Congress Rule". The Mahatma's unwavering adherence to the dictates of his "Inner Voice" are exemplified in such decisions as the 1922 decision to abort a swelling programme of noncooperation with the British authorities as a consequence of the torching of a police station at Chauri Chaura, or his decision to fast in 1955 until the newly-formed government of independent India gave Rs 55 crore of that period's money to Pakistan, a view which had the wholehearted concurrence of Governor-General Louis Mountbatten of India. In contrast to Gandhi's "Inner Voice", M.A. Jinnah allowed not conscience but crafty opportunism to guide his decisions, which included complete support to the British war effort, in contrast to the "neutral" stand of the Congress Party, which in essence was about as "non-aligned" between the Axis and the Allies as Delhi's policies towards Washington and Moscow during the 1960s until the 1990s, when the doctrine was quietly buried by P.V. Narasimha Rao. And, now, to the second decision with huge consequences for the future. In 1942, the complete contrast between the Congress Party and the Muslim League on the issue of support to the Allied war effort, got highlighted by the start of the "Quit India" movement, which turned out to have minimal consequences on the ability of the British authorities to ensure that manpower and resources from India flowed to theatres of war in an uninterrupted fashion. From that period onwards, Pakistan became an inevitability, given the reaction even of friends of the Congress Party to its "neutral" stand at a moment of crisis for Great Britain, as the UK was known in those times. Within the British establishment, pro-Congress and therefore pro-unitary voices got muffled in contrast to the vigorous promotion of Jinnah and his divisive agenda by Prime Minister Winston Churchill, who spoke often and with fervour of "those beastly Hindoos" in his conversations on the future of India. Creating a state wholly on the specious logic that Hindus and Muslims formed "two nations", the British authorities and the Congress Party (which acquiesced in the partition) ensured that a state got created, which defined itself in opposition to India, and which promptly erased its history, replacing that narrative with an imaginary construct where the people of Pakistan were held to have been descended from the Turks or the Turkomans, rather than from the same gene pool as the rest of the subcontinent. Since then, Pakistan has consistently looked westwards, seeking simultaneously to pretend that its eastern border is wholly unrelated to it. The time has come to give the Pakistan establishment what it wants, which is dissociation with India. In such a context, retaining Pakistan in any subcontinental formulation would be an absurdity. Hence, the need to set up a new Economic and Security Cooperation Union (ESCU), which would include Myanmar, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Mauritius, Nepal, Bhutan and the Maldives, besides India. SAARC can continue, and for each meeting, chefs should be flown in so that dishes of each of the participating countries can be cooked and savoured. The discussion should focus on cuisine and other like matters of great import to humankind, rather than inconsequential items such as trade and security, which can be tackled by the ESCU. To delude ourselves any longer that Pakistan is linked to "South Asia" rather than to Turkey and the Turkomans is to fly in the face of the history and geography taught in that country. Looking at the trajectory of that country, it is an illusion to believe that a course correction is possible at this stage of its evolution. What is needed is a Pakistan-mukt South Asia, so that the rest of us can speed up progress in harnessing the synergies between our countries, rather than plod along at the limping pace set by Islamabad for SAARC. http://www.sunday-guardian.com/analysis/its-time-for-a-pak-mukt-south-asia

France: Victim of Sarkozy-Hollande folly (Pakistan Observer, 9 January 2015)

http://epaper.pakobserver.net/201501/09/comments-1.php

Modi’s magic endures in Gujarat (Sunday Guardian)

MADHAV NALAPAT  5th Jan 2015

Narendra Modi. That Gujarat was transformed during the period when Narendra Modi was CM (2001-2014) has been clear to its citizens, who have beaten back any anti-incumbency feelings to elect and re-elect and again re-elect the Modi government to office. It is his performance in Gujarat which catapulted the state's favourite son into the South Block office room once occupied by Jawaharlal Nehru. The expectation is that Modi will repeat, this time on an all-India scale, the success he has had in placing Gujarat on the growth track, and this despite a hostile central government for the bulk of his term in office, a neglect visible in the indifferent quality of central establishments in that state as compared to those favoured by the UPA. However, another question was also being raised, which is whether Gujarat would continue on its high-growth trajectory even after Narendra Modi exchanged his "HCM" (Honourable CM) title for the more prestigious "HPM" (Honourable PM). The international reaction to the 2015 Vibrant Gujarat summit indicates that across the globe, investors are confident that the Modi magic will endure in the state which has launched his political career, despite the baton being passed to a new Chief Executive, Chief Minister Anandiben Patel, who has been a trusted associate of Narendra Modi since his tenure in the state. Candidate Modi promised the people of India "Minimum Government and Maximum Governance". Certainly it will be an uphill task to ensure that the web of vexatious regulations and redundant laws get replaced by constructs that reflect 21st century needs and values. Sadly, despite having taken office in a free country, those tasked with the superintendence of the nation since 15 August 1947 saw no need to do away with the 19th century architecture of governance put in place by the British colonial authority. The laws and practices of that period reflected the needs of a colonial power intent on draining away initiative and energy from a populace which just decades back had accounted for a full quarter of global output. But because such constructs gave powers to government and to its minions a power not present in any other democracy, both officials as well as their political masters were reluctant to reduce the colonial edifice of rules and administrative minutiae to the proportions and the chemistry suited for the genius of the vibrant people of India, a country with an unbroken civilisational record spanning five millennia. Gujarat is expected to take the lead in transforming the vision of Narendra Modi into reality, by continuing his drive to reduce procedures and replace red tape with a red carpet. Certainly this needs to be among the primary priorities of Chief Minister Patel, the successor to Narendra Modi. From across the globe, companies and countries are flocking to Gujarat to participate in the Vibrant Gujarat celebrations. Now that Modi is the Prime Minister, he is expected to ensure that the many barriers to state initiative which have been in place since the Nehru years get torn down, so that each state in the Union of India can compete on equal terms with the other. The BJP needs to follow the example of both P. V. Narasimha Rao as well as Atal Bihari Vajpayee,who liberalised the economy. Even in sectors such as retail, rather than place a blanket ban on foreign entities, what is needed is to give to state governments the discretion to decide as to what are the entities they will permit. Whether it be retail or roads or energy or education, the often stifling control of Delhi over state capitals needs to get substantially reduced, so that genuine competition takes place between the states where those that are the best governed get rewarded rather than (as often happens under the present system) get penalised. Prime Minister Modi has promised that Civil Society will have greater weight in the government led by him than the Civil Service, and in a vibrant democracy, this is as it should be. Unless the overall talents and potential of a nation get identified and utilised for the overall good, progress will be less, much less, than what it could be. Gujarat has done well precisely because its people have shown initiative and enterprise, often in a context where such qualities are viewed askance by those in authority. Knowing as he does the value of freedom of action and diligent examination of options before choosing a particular stream, Prime Minister Modi can be expected to deliver on the promise which brought his party to power, which is that India will go the way of Gujarat in the matter of economic development. The Vibrant Gujarat initiative shows that this is a promise that is on the way to being kept. Hopefully, rather than continue looking back at 19th or (more rarely) 20th century models for the framing of policies, other states in India — especially the least developed — will adopt the 21st century vision that is in such abundant display in Gandhinagar. The state of Gujarat, led by Chief Minister Anandiben Patel, has an immense responsibility not merely to the state itself but to the entire nation. This is to demonstrate to the people of India that the systems put in place with such care and concentration by Narendra Modi can endure even after he has moved on to other responsibilities. That the Modi Model of government does not need a Modi at the helm, but can function as effectively with another leader at the helm. The people of Gujarat, the entrepreneurial spirit of the state, and the goodwill and affection which Prime Minister Modi retains for his home state are precious gifts which the new dispensation in Gujarat can use with care to ensure that the magic of Narendra Modi endures even in his absence, just as in future, the 21st century system of governance crafted by Prime Minister Modi for the country will long outlast his firm hand on the wheel. Vibrant Gujarat 2015 is a sign that the promise of continuity will be kept in a state that has become a global model for good economic management. http://www.sunday-guardian.com/extra/modis-magic-endures-in-gujarat

‘Team Advani’ must deliver for PM Modi (Sunday Guardian)

ROOTS OF POWER MADHAV NALAPAT www.sunday-guardian.com/profile/madhav-nalapat M.D Nalapat is the Editorial Director of The Sunday Guardian.

Narendra Modi has an accommodative nature In 2009, both Manmohan Singh as well as Sonia Gandhi assumed that it was their popularity which fetched victory in the Lok Sabha polls. In reality, it was the antipathy of voters to L.K. Advani and those around him becoming the rulers of India which ensured a repeat victory for the UPA. Had Narendra Modi been chosen six years ago as the PM-nominee of the BJP, that party would have emerged the single largest in the Lok Sabha, although not close to a majority on its own. In 2014, it was the induction of Modi as the face of the campaign that ensured victory, where a repeat of Advani would have resulted in a Third Front government backed by Congress. Because voters were casting their ballots not for the BJP but for Narendra Modi, it was possible for him to fill the list of party candidates with new faces untainted by the dirt and grime of "politics as usual". Instead, Modi appears to have been guided by the wishes of existing party bigwigs, almost all of them members of "Team Advani" (and who, barring the patriarch himself, had by now left Advani and attached themselves to the new standard bearer). Candidates who would never have had a chance of gaining the voter's favour have been elected on Modi's coattails, with the result that if in 2019 the BJP makes its 2004 mistake of repeating almost all of its MPs, more than half are likely to get defeated. And it was not merely in the selection of Lok Sabha candidates that former loyalists of Advani were given preference in the new government, but in the selection of individuals for the Union Cabinet and key "political" slots within the bureaucracy. Why did Narendra Modi, the solitary winner of the 2014 Lok Sabha polls, not bring in fresh blood into the Lok Sabha, instead relying on those who have been within the Raisina Road circuit for the past three, and even four decades? Because of his accommodative nature, and by not opting for change in matters of personnel and instead accepting continuity, Prime Minister Modi took an administrative risk, the consequences of which are only now becoming apparent. For his hold on the loyalty of the voter is far from secure. Given his political shrewdness, Modi would not have fallen into the error made by Sonia Gandhi and Manmohan Singh, who thought that the 2009 verdict was a personal victory, when the major factor behind the victory of the Congress Party was voter antipathy towards an alternative Advani-led dispensation. In like fashion, the 2014 verdict was at its core a negative vote against Sonia Gandhi and Manmohan Singh, a wave expertly ridden by Modi and his message of change. Voters saw in Modi the polar opposite to Sonia-Manmohan, and cast their ballots for him. They also saw him as totally different from the man he had replaced, Advani. It was, therefore, an act of loyalty to his senior party colleagues for Modi to go against the widespread voter perception that he would usher in comprehensive change, and instead content himself on 26 May, and in subsequent days, by choosing a team composed largely of individuals who had been part of the Advani bandwagon. Those few had who backed Modi against Advani in the takeoff period of his ascent to national power — 2011 to 2013 — were themselves largely passed over in favour of those who had been Advani loyalists till it was certain (by the autumn of 2013) that the patriarch of the BJP was no match for Narendra Modi. It needs to be remembered that almost all of those who backed Modi during 2002 did so because Advani backed him. Had the former Deputy PM not done so, how many of those who supported him then would have remained by Modi's side during those difficult days? And, judging by the way they deserted Advani when it became clear he would lose to Modi within the BJP, despite the patriarch being the leader who nurtured them into prominence, how many will remain with Modi, should the PM encounter severe turbulence? Not surprisingly, when it is factored in that the same civil service team was tasked with preparing the new budget as had drafted the older version, rather than point out the disasters perpetrated by P. Chidambaram, the BJP government's first Economic Survey gave a clean chit to the former Finance Minister. Less understandably, its new economic advisor has lauded the (disastrous) monetary policy of the RBI. Small wonder that the public have become impatient for visible change, which they would not have been were they informed of the truth, that the situation is dire, and needs years of remedial effort before Acchhe Din can dawn. Even after 7 Race Course Road got a new occupant, taxes have remained high, while more and more harsh laws seem to be on the anvil, rather than the many vexatious ones already extant getting consigned to the dustbin. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has shown his generous nature and his accommodative spirit by treating the core of Team Advani with honour and giving them the same positions into which they would have entered, had the BJP won in 2009. It is now time for the former Advani loyalists in Team Modi to deliver for the PM, by implementing his promise of "Minimum Government, Maximum Governance", rather than continuing on the stale path of past attitudes towards governance, which for long has been: "Rule of a few, by a few, for the well-connected few", rather than Modi's inspiring Sabka Saath, Sabka Vikas.

http://www.sunday-guardian.com/analysis/team-advani-must-deliver-for-pm-modi

Concern over PK sharing stage with ISI ally ARY (Sunday Guardian)

MADHAV NALAPAT  New Delhi | 3rd Jan 2015

Officials regard reports of Pakistan-based ARY (Abdul Rehman Yakub) television channel being associated with a function connected with the promotion of the film PK in Dubai as "unfortunate", because of that company's perceived links with terror groups as well as with the state agency in Pakistan, which is the primary sponsor of such groups on the sub-continent, the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI). Its founder A.R. Yakub was an associate of Iqbal Mirchi, who was wanted for the 1993 Mumbai blasts and was placed in the Specially Designated Terrorist list by the UN, the UK and the US despite his linkages with the Pakistan establishment. The channel sought entry into India in 2007 through an attempted partnership with an Indian company, which ran a Punjabi channel as well as a Gujarati channel. Their plan was to set up an "ARY Just for India" channel. However, intelligence inputs from R&AW about some of the promoters of this channel led to permission being refused. However, officials say that entry into the Indian market continues to be a high priority for the channel, and that it is actively searching for partners which would enable this. Entry into the film industry would be a plus for a Pakistan-based company eager to expand the reach of its patrons into locations in India. However, as yet, no concrete evidence has emerged of a business link between the producers of PK and ARY, barring a function in Dubai reportedly attended by both sides. A BJP leader, Subramanian Swamy, has called for an investigation into the funding of the film, which hopefully will reveal more details than what is presently available. An official claimed that the channel "appears to have used the tax haven route to make investments in India", principally in Hyderabad and Mumbai. ARY's affiliate in the UK, ARY Digital UK, found itself under investigation by authorities in London during 2004-05 on suspicion of being associated with hawala channels. Incidentally, the UK was the favoured domicile of A.R. Yakub, and it was in that country that he passed away last year. He became a billionaire through gold trading in Dubai It is not a secret that huge profits were made in that trade through smuggling of the precious metal into India during the period when there were severe curbs on legal private import of gold into India. Yakub was close to the Bhutto family and is suspected of having been a front for some of the money kept abroad of that super-rich political dynasty. He was also known to Mullah Omar, and is known by intelligence agencies in India of having assisted the Taliban, presumably on the request of the ISI. More ominously, the ARY Group was alleged by agencies in India of having provided funding to ULFA in Assam to enable the group to secure sophisticated weapons through Bangladesh, a country where ARY has extensive contacts, especially within the groups close to former Prime Minister Khaleda Zia, a known backer of Pakistan against India, but who is also a favourite of Washington. An arms consignment designated for ULFA was seized from two vessels at Chittagong port in 2004 after an alert from Delhi, but others are known to have got away. Interestingly, A.R. Yakub was close to Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan, the "father" of the Pakistan nuclear bomb and has been accused by agencies in the US and India of having been a front for the assets of the nuclear scientist, who set up a merchandise depot for sensitive nuclear technology before it was shut down because of US pressure. ARY Digital and ARY Aurum Plus are some of the other businesses of the group. Its bullion business suffered a setback in 2005 when the London Bullion Market Association cancelled its licence after an investigation into a UAE-based affiliate. The investigation focused on allegations of money laundering, narco trafficking and terror financing, although details have not been released. Intelligence agencies in India warn that the group has extensive ties to the ISI. A senior official claimed that the group has "often facilitated the ISI in its global operations". A colleague pointed out that Yakub "was (alleged to have been) the intermediary between the Taliban in Afghanistan and tribal groups in Pakistan, theologically and operationally allied to that militia". Yakub was close to Pervez Musharraf. In 2002, former PM Benazir Bhutto was convicted on corruption charges for making ARY Gold the monopoly importer of the precious metal into Pakistan, from which country a significant chunk gets smuggled into India via the porous coasts of the two countries. In the UK, group affiliates have been accused of assisting Taliban leaders to convert their cash hoards into gold, thereby converting illegal cash (often the proceeds of narcotics or terror operations) into a commodity freely traded in legal exchanges worldwide. Interestingly, Yakub had visited India in 2008, holding discussions with two Mumbai-based jewellers. Should Finance Minister Arun Jaitley and Home Minister Rajnath Singh accept Swamy's suggestion that a probe be launched into the funding of PK, hopefully such an investigation will also zero in on ARY, which has for years been active in India through intermediaries and cutouts, and which has extensive links that are problematic from a security standpoint. What would be interesting to find out is exactly who in the Indian establishment lobbied for ARY media entities to set up shop in India, before such moves were scuttled by adverse intelligence on the group. It needs to be reiterated that thus far, there has been no substantive evidence produced of any formal linkage between the producers of PK and ARY, and that the truth can emerge only after the suggested probe has been completed, if it is begun. http://www.sunday-guardian.com/news/concern-over-pk-sharing-stage-with-isi-ally-ary

ISIS is the new NSDAP (Pakistan Observer, 2 January 2015)

http://epaper.pakobserver.net/201501/02/comments-1.php

Don’t revive the ghosts of 1987 in Kashmir (Sunday Guardian)

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

M.D Nalapat is the Editorial Director of The Sunday Guardian.

‘Going soft’ on AFSPA and omitting mention of Article 370 alienated the core support base of the BJP.

PDP president Mehbooba Mufti he hollowing out of the middle class in the US and the fell impact on growth and macroeconomic stability of predatory speculation are consequences of a propensity to look at the future as merely a succession of short terms. Seeking to maximise returns in each short term period leads to strategies which forfeit the future, at least for those affected by such decisions. Statespersons often sidestep short term advantages and implement plans that make sense in the longer term, even if they seem sub-optimal in the present. This columnist has, for a decade, regarded Narendra Modi as a marathon runner, refusing the short bursts of speed that lead to future exhaustion, instead conserving his energy so as to finish the long race first. This is what he did while engaged in the steps which led to his becoming the BJP's declared Prime Ministerial candidate, and subsequently to fulfilling the forecast first made in The Sunday Guardian special supplement on Gujarat, that while his first job was that of a tea boy and the second, the Chief Ministership of Gujarat, the third would be the Prime Ministership of India. Now that he has become the lawful occupant of 7 Race Course Road, the sprawl of buildings which serves as the official residence of the PM, it is precisely such a longer-term view that Modi needs to insist on, even while his associates press for the adoption of strategies that may secure immediate benefits, but which could have toxic effects in the course of time. This columnist was, from the start of the campaign, sceptical of the view of some in the BJP that the party could — this time around — crack the code in the Kashmir Valley, thereby enabling it to cobble together the 44 seats needed to form the elected government in Srinagar. Instead, the compromise made by the party of "going soft" on AFSPA and omitting mention of Article 370 in its poll manifesto for the state would, this columnist warned, alienate the core support base of the BJP, without any countervailing benefits in the Valley. And so it has proved, with the BJP getting at least five less seats in the Jammu and Ladakh regions than it would have, had the May 2014 message been reiterated rather than muffled. Having lost its deposit in every seat in the Kashmir Valley, bar a single constituency, the BJP was able to attract a bare 1% of the vote there. This is the context in which the party needs to work out its post-poll strategy, given a context in which extremists are gaining ground in nearby Pakistan. Had the Valley given the BJP 15% or more votes, there would have been a stronger case for joining in a coalition which could govern J&K for the coming term. Given its poor showing in the valley, it would be more prudent for the BJP to step aside and allow the NC and the PDP to cobble together an opportunistic alliance to run the state. Given the obvious disaffection in both Jammu and Ladakh with Srinagar and its Kashmir-centric policies, the BJP could emerge in Opposition as a force for justice to these neglected regions of the state, and as a check on the misgovernance which is endemic in Kashmir. Conversely, should it insert itself into an alliance with either the PDP or the NC, the BJP would thereby present the ISI and its allies at GHQ in Rawalpindi with a window of opportunity too tempting to pass up. The BJP will get the blame for each terror attack, every civilian death in what will certainly be a storm of stone-pelting and agitation in the Valley, following the installation of a BJP-inclusive government at Srinagar. The ghosts of 1987 and the forced cohabitation of the Congress party and the NC are not yet stilled, and could revive. By seeking to control too many states in the very first year of its term, rather than working out and implementing a (much more feasible) plan of action, which would make the BJP the natural party of governance in India by 2019, the BJP is in danger of giving primacy to politics over economics, whereas the USP of Narendra Modi is economics. Ultimately, it is the functioning of the government rather than the party organisation which will decide the electoral future of the BJP. Thus far, despite the fact that prices have abated both as a result of Modi's policies and international factors, voters at large are yet to see the Naya Soch and the Acchhe Din that has been promised to them. Getting rid of the obstacles to growth needs to be the priority, for only jobs, jobs and more jobs will give the BJP the 350 Lok Sabha seats in 2019 that would establish the party as the natural party of governance at the Centre. As for the states, a rainbow mix is part of the fabric of federalism, and for the BJP, watching an NC-PDP (and perhaps Congress as well) from its vantage perch in Delhi and in the Opposition benches in the Kashmir Assembly would be an option preferable to forming an alliance certain to re-ignite passions in the Valley. The time for a BJP government in Srinagar is the next time around, not this time, and the aim should be a majority on its own, exactly as was the case during the 2014 Lok Sabha campaign. http://www.sunday-guardian.com/analysis/dont-revive-the-ghosts-of-1987-in-kashmir