900M Indians outside worldwide web (Pakistan Observer)

Geopolitical notes from India

M D Nalapat

Friday, April 17, 2015 - As is the norm in India with state agencies, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) has been the preserve of bureaucrats serving and retired, many of whom have functioned not on behalf of the consumers they are supposed to protect but Big Business. Internet penetration in India is among the lowest in Asia in percentage terms, placing this country in the same dismal league as Afghanistan. Bandwidth is low and speeds are so slow that most downloads are impossible. In such a situation, it would have been expected of TRAI that it ensured universal access to the internet and made the same free of cost or at a very low cost. 

Such a development would empower tens of millions of ordinary citizens - or “netizens” as those using the world wide web are called - and boost the country’s productivity and hence GDP. However, should the curbs on net usage now seen in India persist into the future, such growth would be absent and the country would continue to have the doubtful distinction of having more people without internet access than such unfortunates in the rest of Asia combined. The reason for such a dismal state of affairs was evident when TRAI released a “discussion paper” which in effect would choke access to the internet for hundreds of millions rather than open out the system to more. However, this time around, netizens refused to accept such absurd suggestions supinely, and mobilized to protest. The Telecom Minister, Ravi Shankar Prasad, who comes from a wealthy family, is now in a dilemma: whether to disappoint the big telecom companies who want access to the internet to be controlled by them, or ensure “net neutrality” in India,whereby any site can be freely accessed through a portal. When battling to first emerge as the Prime Ministerial nominee of the BJP and subsequently to gain a majority for his party in the Lok Sabha (House of the People), Narendra Modi had on his side an army of netizens who flooded websites with complimentary references to him and adverse mentions of his Congress rivals, notably Sonia Gandhi. These millions of motivated individuals will be hoping — indeed expecting — that Prime Minister Modi will rein in the Big Business lobbies within his team, and ensure both that the internet spreads to the nine hundred million citizens without useful access to the system as well as ensure increased bandwidth at reduced cost.

However, rather than a person who understands technology and the power of the internet, the Prime Minister chose a lawyer as the Telecom Minister, with an inevitable bias towards regulation. It was Ravi Shankar Prasad who ensured, for example, that the Modi government followed the line of Manmohan Singh by defending the notorious Article 66A of the Internet Act, which gave powers of arrest to any policeman on the most flimsy of grounds. Fortunately for the prospect of democracy in the country, this provision was struck down by the Supreme Court. Of course, Prasad is reportedly planning to bring into force a new law which would fill in the gap in untrammelled state power caused by the string down of 66A. Prime Minister Modi has total faith in the bureaucracy, and he has continued with the time-worn practice of giving bureaucrats and ex-bureaucrats a near-monopoly in top positions. Posts that in other countries are usually filled from those in Civil Society, not the Civil Service. For example, there are only bureaucrats in a committee the Prime Minister has set up to “review” the Official Secrets Act, that graveyard of facts inconvenient to those in power. Not a single representative from Civil Society finds a mention in such a committee, despite the obvious interest of the citizen in ensuring that the British-era fetish of secrecy get replaced with a more 21st century construct. 

At present, within the portals of government, secrecy is the norm and disclosure the exception, whereas the reverse ought to be the case. Rather than “Make in India”, what is being seen in a flurry of contracts awarded to countries and companies across the globe is “Make for India”. Any visitor to Silicon Valley would note that close to a third of the companies functioning there are run by individuals of Indian origin. Why is it that, despite such talent, India has been unable to come up with a challenger to Google or to Facebook? Why has India not been able to follow the lead given by China, which has its own versions of Twitter and Facebook? Instead, the effort within a section of the bureaucracy (which coincidentally has several of its offspring working abroad and many in the very platforms which have a monopoly within India) is to drive away any chance of a domestic competitor to platforms from abroad. 

Whether it be the Zuckerbergs of Facebook or the Gates of Microsoft,what they are really interested in is cash,lots of it,as well as the promotion of the interests of big corporates in the US through “charitable” programmes such as those involving vaccines (of course manufactured by huge pharma companies charging extortionate prices). The tens of millions who backed Narendra Modi over others in 2014 are still hopeful that the Prime Minister of India will finally implement what he promised, and ensure both Net Neutrality as well as universal internet access for a country that has 300 million destitutes and 900 million without effective access to the internet. For this, he will need to involve within his government those who are expert in the field, rather than in bureaucratic procedures and with the framing of regulation upon regulation. 

Modi will need to bring to TRAI and other such agencies those with a record of fighting for the ordinary citizen rather than promoting the interests of Big Business, especially foreign monopolies eager to lock out domestic competition from the growing market in India. As it is, steps such as Aadhar are making data on citizens vulnerable to external interests, while within the country, platforms hosted from outside have close to a monopoly in coverage. Unless the telecom authorities ensure that Net Neutrality is promoted and protrude rather than cast aside, India’s immense potential will go unrealised. Faster access to the internet at low or zero costs would boost productivity and therefore production in such a significant manner that taxes - even if at low rates - would jump upwards as they do in every country with fast rates of growth. 

Ufortunately, all that bureaucrats seek is control, control and more control, for they know that there exists a direct correlation between such regressive steps and the bribes they covet. Thus far, the record of the Modi government has been as dismal as that of its predecessor. However, many are looking towards the day when the Prime Minister “walks the talk” and delivers the 21st century system of governance he promised voters in 2014.

http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=262201

Dogma is against Sanatan Dharma (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. It is theologically possible to be a Sanatani, while following faiths other than Hinduism. Sri Jayendra Saraswati More than a decade ago, in 2001, this columnist attempted to arrange a visit of Sri Jayendra Saraswati, the Shankaracharya of Kanchi, to China. After some hesitation, the Chinese hosts agreed to almost all the requests made by the Shankaracharya's nephew (who was deputed as his representative to finalise the logistical and stay details of what would have been the first-ever visit by a Shankaracharya to China, a country which successive Popes have yet to succeed in getting invited to). They, however, drew the line at the suggestion that the WCs at the Zhongnanhai State Guest House in Beijing be replaced with squat commodes so as to suit the preferences of the saint's party, although agreeing to cooks and vegetables being brought in from India for providing Sri Jayendra Saraswati's fare. In order to meet the traditional prohibition of a Shankaracharya travelling over water, the Chinese hosts agreed to a special aircraft flying entirely overland on its journey from Chennai to Beijing. The saint would have been welcomed with the almost same panache as though he were a Head of State, the way the Pontiff at Rome is by protocol the Head of State of the Vatican, which is technically a country independent of Italy. Those were the years when an increasing number of Chinese, now that they were well off, were looking beyond the materialism of Marxist textbooks and delving into the world of spiritualism, especially into Christianity and Buddhism. Had the Shankaracharya's visit taken place, Sanatan Dharma would have been a third option for such individuals. However, criticism from the orthodox ensured that Sri Jayendra Saraswati cancelled his visit at the last minute, thereby depriving not only the Chinese people but the global community of the spectacle of a religious leader being welcomed into the world's largest communist state, for there is little doubt that international news channels would have found such a trip impossible to ignore. It is not only in China, but across other parts of the globe — principally in the US and within much of the EU — that presumed champions of Sanatan Dharma have missed out on an opportunity to showcase the philosophy of a faith which reflects the liberal and eclectic values of the 21st century better than many others. Indeed, by its clarity on the reality of each faith being a pathway to the divine, Sanatan Dharma can be extant even within communities of those professing faiths that postulate only a single pathway to the divine and characterise as heresy any alternative formulation. Indeed, it is theologically possible to be a Sanatani, even while being followers of faiths other than Hinduism in those where there is an acceptance of the rights of others to follow a different path, and an abhorrence of violence as the means towards the achievement of goals. Rather than expend energies on seeking to prevent conversions in India, what is needed is an international competition between faiths, and the underlining of free choice to individuals to adopt the faith of their choice, or to move away from all such constructs. Within the US, China and the more advanced parts of the European Union in particular, there is a hunger for knowledge of faiths other than what have been the tradition in their lands, and it is certain that the philosophies embedded in the teachings, which have originated millennia ago within this country, are strong enough to ensure at least a respectful hearing among tens if not hundreds of millions of seekers. In such a context, both the Shankaracharya of Kanchi's opting out of a possibly historic China visit as well as the near-exclusive focus on preventing conversions in India conflicts with the adoption of a global perspective on the lines advocated by Swami Chinmayananda and now by Sri Sri Ravi Shankar. A narrow approach, in contrast, springs out of a dogmatism in thinking and behaviour alien to the Open Skies philosophy of Sanatan Dharma. The months following the assumption of national office in Delhi of the BJP-led coalition have been on far too many occasions marked by incidents and approaches — including sometimes by those in ministerial office at the Centre or in the states — which are contrary to the universality and tolerant spirit of the fundamentals of Sanatan Dharma. It bears repeating that such a liberal spirit is witnessed also in the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, as well as in the ubiquity of the qualities of mercy, compassion and benevolence found interspersed within the Holy Quran. Rather than seek to prohibit lifestyle choices and opportunities through the bludgeon of law the way authoritarian countries do, what is called for from a government, which promised to raise the country to 21st century codes and standards, is to respect freedom of choice, enlarge the flow of information, and ensure security for liberty and property, while extending opportunity to the disadvantaged. Unless such a move away from the colonial state be carried out, it would be a travesty of truth to claim that the contrary policy — of restrictions and prohibitions which enforce monochrome choices on the people — is in any way reflective of Sanatan Dharma. http://www.sunday-guardian.com/analysis/dogma-is-against-sanatan-dharma

Stalin 'dealt with' Netaji on London’s request (Sunday Guardian)

MADHAV NALAPAT  New Delhi | 11th Apr 2015

The disclosure that members of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose's family were snooped upon for two decades has given rise to the conclusion that Government of India was worried about the family coming across evidence that he was alive, or later about the circumstances of his death. In fact, according to sources in Delhi, "The fear was that the family may discover what actually happened to Netaji." And what was this? In this context, experts dealing in matters of state express surprise at the refusal of the NDA government to release any more data than previous Congress governments on the officially declared death on 18 August 1945 of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, allegedly in an aircraft crash in Taipei. While there are nearly 200 relevant documents in the possession of the Central authorities and the West Bengal government, two of the 41 documents asked for by various individuals and authorities have been released for public viewing. However, no visible effort seems to have been made to ferret out the response of British authorities to news of Bose's escape from Tokyo. Sources familiar with the facts within India and Russia, claim privately that "the reason for such a refusal to disclose more information was not to protect the national interest, as much as it was to protect the reputation of high officials and politicians, who connived at a cover-up designed to protect the reputation of the British and Soviet governments in office at the time from public anger in India, besides global public opinion". According to these sources, "the situation (vis-a-vis) Netaji Subhas Bose was resolved in a conclusive way by Stalin", the inference being obvious when judged in the context of the fact that the leader of the Indian National Army was never seen or heard from after the date of the alleged "air crash". Taiwanese authorities have stated to this correspondent that to the best of their information, there exist no records of any crash at the airbase in question, on the date specified as being the final day of the life of Netaji Subhas Bose. Instead, they say that witnesses to the flight confirmed that the aircraft took off in a normal fashion and was bound for an airfield in Manchuria which on that date (18 August 1945) was under the occupation of Soviet forces, which had invaded the territory in force after Emperor Hirohito of Japan announced the surrender of Japan on 15 August 1945, in order to spare his people further pain after the obliteration of Nagasaki and Hiroshima a short while previously by the dropping of atomic bombs. Sources based in Russia (erstwhile Soviet Union) claim that "the aircraft landed safely in a Manchurian airbase" and that the former president of the Congress party was "taken custody of by Soviet troops and security personnel" and "flown to Moscow". According to them, Bose was taken away to a gulag within 17 months of internment in a security prison in Moscow, and passed away 11 years later. They add that the Soviet leaders, who came after Stalin, kept the circumstances of Netaji Subhas Bose's capture and passing secret "out of a desire to ensure good relations with India". Only an examination of records in London and Moscow on the basis of an official request by the Narendra Modi government would reveal the truth, or otherwise, of this assertion (assuming that these be accurate and not doctored in a cover-up bid). But the same sources claim that Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin was asked by UK Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin through Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov to "ensure that Bose never returned to India and was never heard from again". According to them, "because of Bose's policy of collaboration with Germany under Hitler and Japan under Tojo, the Soviet dictator saw him as an enemy" and therefore presumably did not need much persuasion in carrying out the British request. There are reports of the then ambassador of India to the USSR, Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, having a meeting with Netaji Subhas Bose in a prison near Moscow soon after taking charge at the embassy in 1949. However, till his death, the scholar, who subsequently became President of India (in 1962), refused to comment on such reports. Interestingly, both Netaji's close associate Lt Col Habibur Rehman, as well as his widow Emilie, refused, to the close of their respective lives, to assent to the repeated requests of Government of India that he had died in an air crash and to affirm that the ashes brought back to India were Netaji's. Interestingly, although DNA matchings of these ashes could confirm whether they indeed were those of the disappeared leader, thus far this does not seem to have been attempted. What is clear is that if Subhas Bose had returned to India, rather than either been killed in an air crash or gone permanently missing, he would have easily been the most popular leader in the country, and could quite possibly have displaced Mahatma Gandhi's favourite, Jawaharlal Nehru, from the effective leadership of the Congress party and consequently the Prime Ministership. Given the fact that Netaji attracted both Muslims and Hindus to his fold in like manner, there is a high probability that a Bose-led Congress could have checkmated the plans of both Whitehall as well as M.A. Jinnah to partition India. The INA was a completely secular force, with patriots from all communities joining out of admiration for Netaji. Certainly, his return to the political arena would have upset the plans of the British, who saw Bose as a formidable foe of their empire and indeed, the entire system of governance they had constructed over the centuries in India, a system retained almost in its entirety by Jawaharlal Nehru and his successors, and which continues to this day, making India in effect an administrative dictatorship, which holds periodic elections, bringing to office those wielding such authoritarian powers. London would clearly have had ample incentive to prevent Subhas Bose from returning as a hero to India, and could be expected to act energetically to prevent such a possibility. Papers in London show that the increasing disaffection in the (British) Indian military was the most potent cause of the 1946 decision by Whitehall to partition and thereafter leave India, whereas official historians give 100% credit for the British withdrawal to the freedom struggle led by the Congress party. As for Bose, "where he erred was to assume that Stalin would welcome him because of his opposition to British rule in India". However, Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose "forgot that the UK and the USSR were allies against the very individuals (Hitler and Tojo) that Bose had befriended and taken assistance from" for four years during a war to the finish for both sides. According to them, Nehru "was far more acceptable to the Communist Party of India and to the USSR, than Bose". Both would certainly have preferred the former to the latter as the future Prime Minister of an independent India. Interestingly, the "official" line on the death of Subhas Bose was best enunciated in the Shah Nawaz Khan report. The former INA officer was given the task soon after remitting office as a Deputy Minister in the Nehru government. After the report, he was repeatedly made a minister, this time with full Cabinet rank, besides other ministerial-level posts in successive Congress governments. Whether Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose died in the Taihoku crash or survived the flight and was made a prisoner by Joseph Stalin and finally "dealt with" such that he disappeared from view (either by execution or by transfer to a Siberian gulag where conditions roved fatal) can be known only after documents on the subject get released by Delhi, London and Moscow. Experts say that there is no justification for keeping secret papers dating seven decades back, as the impact of such material on current regimes and situations would be minimal. The BJP promised during the 2014 Lok Sabha campaign to release the Netaji papers, and there is still some anticipation that Prime Minister Narendra Modi will fulfil this pledge, especially because all the dramatis personae — Stalin, Attlee, Molotov, Bevin and others — are long gone, and therefore beyond harm at the disclosures. http://www.sunday-guardian.com/news/stalin-dealt-with-netaji-on-londons-request

From Promise to performance (Pakistan Observer, 10 April 2015)

http://epaper.pakobserver.net/201504/10/comments-1.php

Giriraj Singh is scripting a Congress comeback (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. With some of the "friends" it has, the BJP is in scant need of enemies. The latest self-goal was scored by Giriraj Singh, an individual who appears to follow the George W. Bush dictum of thinking with the glands rather than the brain. His remark that the widow of Rajiv Gandhi may not have been his eventual successor (or indeed his wife) were she of "Nigerian" extraction rather than European, is not merely tasteless, but untrue. Rajiv Gandhi was not among those who judged individuals on the basis of skin colour. He was eclectic in his choice of friends, and showed no discrimination on the basis of criteria as superficial as skin tone. Indeed, among his closest friends were individuals who would accurately have been described as dusky, but possessed of immense charm. There may have been multiple qualities in Sonia Maino, which won the heart of the elder son of India's reigning "Empress", Indira Gandhi, but skin colour was not among them. To claim otherwise is to reveal the slave mentality of Giriraj Singh himself, who has clearly not escaped from a colonial-era awe of the white skin that the globalised Indian community has moved far away from. The influx of images of living (and other) rooms in homes of "white" people during the 1980s (when Rajiv Gandhi liberalised television as he freed telecom) was followed by floods of citizens of this country travelling and settling down in countries with a majority of "whites". Once there, they discovered that human beings were human beings, and that differences such as colour were soon forgotten. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the "white" populations in Europe and North America have within them a significant proportion of idealists, individuals much freer of superficial biases than a Giriraj Singh. As those who for some time have pointed to aspects of Sonia Gandhi's actions know, a potent way of discrediting such comments has been to portray them as being based on racial prejudice, specifically on a "dislike of white people". Such a defence has served boosters of Sonia Gandhi well in smudging the motivations of the very small number of individuals — including individuals of the mettle of Tavleen Singh and Suryaprakash — who have consistently drawn attention to those parts of the Congress president's record that have gone unmentioned by her party's spokespersons. Giriraj Singh's remarks will be used by publicists of Sonia Gandhi with frequency, exactly the way it is being done now. The possession of a colonial-era slave mentality by the BJP MP, who clearly regards a white complexion as a sign of perfection and black as the opposite, has done immense harm to the cause of those who seek to raise issues about the UPA chairperson that are far away from superficialities such as skin colour, issues concerning personal and family wealth and participation in decisions of government. Rather than the focus being on such seldom-raised matters, television and print commentators are in a full-throated roar about the racially insensitive remarks made by an individual who is a poster boy for a 19th century rather than a 21st century party. It had been expected that the coming to office of the Narendra Modi government on 26 May 2014 would be followed by the government divulging information about the Congress president, which would prove with facts the numerous negative mentions of Sonia Gandhi by several BJP leaders while on the campaign trail. Thus far, negative information divulged has been zero, exactly as was the case when Atal Behari Vajpayee or Manmohan Singh was the PM. Even details about Robert Vadra have gone unmentioned, notably by Haryana Chief Minister Manohar Lal Khattar. Was it that Tavleen Singh, Suryaprakash and the handful of others (who constantly drew attention to what they saw as uncomfortable facets of the Congress president's record) were wrong? Is it that Sonia Gandhi is blameless, that she is actually living and moving around in circumstances as straitened as her election declarations make her out to be? Are the reports of luxurious homes in foreign countries of close relatives also wrong? What about the foreign travels of Sonia Gandhi and the means of their funding? Judging by the silence emanating from official channels, it would appear that the Congress president is in fact blameless, and therefore is owed an apology by those who thought (and wrote) otherwise. The apparent lack of success of the BJP dispensation in coming up with any evidence to the contrary provides Sonia Gandhi with a strong platform to make a political comeback, for she can now claim that the many direct and uncomplimentary charges hurled in her direction by the BJP were false and indeed motivated by racial hatred. The impossible is taking place with the Congress making a comeback as surely as it did during 1976, when Morarji Desai was Prime Minister of India. At that point in time, the Shah Commission came up with zero against Indira Gandhi that was related to personal corruption. This time around, even a cursory effort at uncovering alleged wrongdoing does not seem to be being made, thus leading to the conclusion in the minds of voters that Sonia Gandhi is innocent of the charges made against her by the BJP during the campaign trail. By his remarks on the ethnicity of Sonia Gandhi and by the way in which he has defamed an individual as liberal as Rajiv Gandhi as being influenced by skin colour, Giriraj Singh has provided a handy excuse for supporters of Sonia Gandhi to discredit the few who remain critical of her. The Congress can now claim (with much higher credibility than before) that the allegations made against Sonia Gandhi have been motivated not by the public interest but even by racial bias. While abusing Giriraj Singh in public, Congress functionaries should thank him in private for bringing back to life what were once assumed to be the dying embers of a party humiliatingly rejected by voters just a year ago. http://www.sunday-guardian.com/analysis/giriraj-singh-is-scripting-a-congress-comeback

‘Rahul in deep anguish over present situation’ (Sunday Guardian)

MADHAV NALAPAT  New Delhi | 4th Apr 2015

Sources close to Congress vice-president Rahul Gandhi say that his absence from the political scene is because of "deep anguish" over the present situation in the party and the country, and that it is this "upwelling of emotions", which has led to Rahul's current retreat from not only politics but his social life as well. They say that the Congress veep "regards it as a disaster that a supercharged BJP under Narendra Modi secured a majority in the Lok Sabha" and that "since 16 May 2014 (when the results of the Lok Sabha polls got declared), Rahul Gandhi has been going through an intense period of introspection, focusing within himself for long periods of time on just how and why the (poll) defeat happened". They say that this "deep introspection" is the reason for the Congress party's Heir Apparent's exceptionally scanty appearances in the political arena after the BJP-led government took office last year. "Last October, following the shock collapse in Haryana and the miserable showing in Maharashtra, Rahul's already present periods of self-introspection deepened, and he spent long periods of time mulling over what went wrong and what his party could have done to avoid such a fate". According to these sources, Rahul is "privately unhappy" with some of the party leaders close to Sonia Gandhi, and "regard their wrong advice as the reason for serial Congress losses". They add that this is why "Rahul has been insistent that the Congress should go through a makeover as comprehensive as those undertaken by Indira Gandhi in 1969 and 1978, subsequent to which she won impressive victories, despite starting with a disadvantage". However, these sources say that Congress president Sonia Gandhi is not in favour of a purge in the party as comprehensive as these earlier episodes, and would like "all groups to be taken on board, both the old and the new". These sources say that "throughout what has been the Congress vice-president's intense crisis of confidence in his party's direction and perception of remedies", Sonia Gandhi has been a "warm and supportive mother", spending long hours with her son and reassuring him about the future. They say that Rahul's sister Priyanka Vadra too has been "an amazing source of support" to a political leader seemingly riddled with questions about the past and the future, and that both "Sonia Gandhi as well as Priyanka Vadra have been the reason why Rahul has not yet acted on his desire to leave politics entirely". They add that both mother and sister "are the only individuals who understand Rahul Gandhi fully" and who "have almost daily shown a level of love and concern (for the Congress veep) that does them both credit". The implication of such comments (that both his mother and his sister are in frequent contact with the Congress vice-president) indicates that Rahul Gandhi is not abroad as has been speculated, but within the country, most likely in the vicinity of the national capital. These sources said that "of course the SPG is aware of where Rahul is" and that they would have informed the Prime Minister's Office about the same. They gave high marks to Prime Minister Modi for his "sensitivity in keeping information (on Rahul's introspection and whereabouts) secret", despite the fact that releasing details either directly or through leaks would have been to the political benefit of the BJP. "It must be said that the Prime Minister has acted in a principled manner" in the matter of the Congress vice-president's absence from the political arena, during the recent Parliament session, at a time of high tension between the NDA and the Opposition in both Houses of Parliament. They warn that "it is not certain" that Rahul will end his period of deep introspection before Parliament reconvenes on 20 April, as "the issues being debated in his mind are of a complex nature that admit to few simple solutions". They say that Rahul Gandhi is a "deeply caring individual, who suffers genuine agony at the fact that poverty is still so ubiquitous in India despite seven decades of freedom from British rule". Among the reasons given for Rahul's retreat into deep introspection is his "disgust at the way in which even those much senior to him in age and experience such as Manmohan Singh and A.K. Antony behave towards him", acting "as though they were his subordinates rather than his being very much their junior in every way". They claim that "several times, Rahul has talked to his close friends about the sycophantic culture pervading politics in the country and how he wants an atmosphere in which only merit, and not birth, counts". They add that Rahul has been distressed by the way in which his efforts at promoting inner-party democracy and a culture of equality in the Congress have been blocked by key confidants of the Congress president. Should Rahul finally decide to take up the reins of the Congress, "it is likely that within the next two years at most (well before the 2019 Lok Sabha polls) he will ensure a complete change in personnel and approaches" within a party that has lately shown signs of regaining some of its old popularity. However, they add that as yet Rahul "has not definitely decided to return to the political arena". In such a situation, Priyanka Vadra may fill the vacuum created by such a withdrawal from political activity. She is known for her charismatic appeal and "for backing the same strong anti-NDA stand advocated by her brother", and could emerge as a formidable competitor to the BJP leadership, should there be public discontent with the performance of the BJP-led government, as is lately being manifested in some parts of the country. These sources say that "it is still an open question as to whether Rahul will heed the advice of those who seek his return to active politics", or (in their words) "heed his inner voice and once and for all leave a field that is so denuded of idealism". Whatever his decision, "it is likely to be announced before the coming session of Parliament ends", and that "in any case, it will still be the Family in charge of the party, this time in the persona of Priyanka Vadra", who, they claim, will assist Sonia Gandhi in seeking to manage a comeback for the Congress, while Rahul assists "with advice and understanding for his mother and sister". Dismissing reports of a rift within the family, these sources say that Rahul and Priyanka are "on the same page" where the Congress is concerned, and that lately, "Sonia Gandhi has been heeding the advice of her children", rather than solely relying on the traditional politicians who have been close to her and have guided her decisions since she entered active politics in 1998. http://www.sunday-guardian.com/news/rahul-in-deep-anguish-over-present-situation

Middle East's chequebook diplomacy (Pakistan Observer, 3 April 2015)

http://epaper.pakobserver.net/201504/03/comments-1.php