Congress commits hara-kiri over promotion-quota bill (Sunday Guardian)

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

The Akhil Bhartiya Yadhuvanshi Mahasabha Trust protests against reservation in promotions for OBCs in government jobs, in New Delhi last week. PTI n 1964, US President Lyndon Johnson got passed a Civil Rights Act, which stopped several forms of discrimination against African-Americans. However, it was clear to him that his victory would almost certainly mean the loss by his party of numerous House and Senate seats in the south, and so it has proved. The "Boll Weevil Democrats" of that period morphed into full-fledged members of the Republican Party by the time Ronald Reagan took over in the 1980s. Fortunately, they were unable to roll back the Act or to stop the steady improvement in the civil rights of formerly disadvantaged groups in the United States. However, conservative white voters in the south never forgave the Democratic Party for this "betrayal", and as a consequence, the Republicans boosted their numbers significantly in national elections. It took first Jimmy Carter and later Bill Clinton — both southerners themselves — to return the White House to the Democrats, although the US Supreme Court ensured the victory of George Bush in 2000 by blocking a recount in Florida. In choosing Bush over Gore on a technicality, the US Supreme Court had chosen a war that was rooted less in necessity than pique. It had also set the stage for the near-collapse of the economy, and all because its Republican majority prevailed over the Court's Democratic minority in giving the judgement that enabled Bush to enter the White House in 2001. The 2008 financial crash owed its origins to two factors, the freeing of the financial sector by Bill Clinton from the Glass-Steagal Act and the extravagant ways in which Bush conducted his wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. A soldier is aware that in times of war, the level of comfort enjoyed by him may fall drastically, because everything will need to get subordinated to the aim of winning the war. George Bush and Dick Cheney sought to insulate the US soldier from the reality of war for as much as they could, by ensuring that food and other necessities and comforts got flown in from the US. Bush and Cheney made a fetish out of buying American. The fact that US-made items were far more expensive than substitutes available closer to the battlefield got added on to the logistical costs of transport to shoot up the daily cost of maintaining a soldier in combat to levels that reached a staggering $1 mn per soldier per year, a level unaffordable even for Washington. Maintaining a military weaned on the comforts of home have drained the budgets of many members of NATO. { What seems certain is that non-Dalit government servants will turn against the Congress party for introducing a change that would severely affect their own chances for promotion. After the Civil Rights Bill was passed, over the past 50 years, Republicans have held the presidency many years more than Democrats have, largely because of the defection of conservative white voters to the other side. Over the past week, the Congress party has "done a Lyndon" by its effort to ensure that promotions would fall under the quota rule for SCs and STs. The political benefit will get cornered by parties such as the BSP, which represent the Dalits in a way that the Congress party never can. Indeed, only the AICC would believe that placing a Dalit as Home Minister would drive voters to its door. Such tokenism does not work anymore, if it ever did. Instead, what seems certain is that non-Dalit government servants will turn against the Congress party for introducing a change that would severely affect their own chances for promotion. Rather than seek to amend the Constitution, all that the Congress needed to do was to pass an administrative order extending the tenure of SC/STs in government service from 60 to 62 years. Such an increase would automatically ensure a steady stream of SC/ST promotions within the services, a stream that could be broadened by making a special effort to ensure that more younger Dalits sit for the competitive examinations. It is because many enter service late (because of the five-year age limit relaxation in their case) that there are so few Dalits at the top. Entering earlier and leaving later would result in a goodly proportion of Dalit officers at the top. However, it seems that common sense finds no takers at 24 Akbar Road. http://www.sunday-guardian.com/analysis/congress-commits-hara-kiri-over-promotion-quota-bill

Indo-Pak moderate majority (PO)

M D Nalapat

In most discourses, it is the extremes that draw the most attention. As has often been pointed out, the majority is usually silent, while a tiny number of people make almost all the noise, thereby giving a false impression of the overall society. As a faith, Muslims have been the worst sufferers of this trend. While the overwhelming majority follow the command of the Holy Qur’an to emulate the Almighty in showing Mercy, Compassion and Beneficence to all. Across India, Muslims have shown that they are Good Samaritans, helping people of all faiths and promoting the moderate values that define civilisation. However, even in a country that has the second-biggest Muslim population on the globe, those in power ignore the overwhelming majority of Muslims who are moderate, and frame policy on the dictates of the few who are not.

In 1986,Rajiv Gandhi introduced a law that in the opinion of this columnist placed Muslim women at a disadvantage in matters of divorce, when compared to their sisters of other faiths. The “Shah Bano Law” ( passed to deny an ageing Shah Bano adequate compensation after she was divorced by her husband) sparked off competitive radicalism in the Hindu community, and began a cycle of segregation that most hoped had been laid to permanent rest after the events of 1947 Whether Hindu, Muslim, Christian or Sikh, all are children of the Almighty, and all need to be treated with compassion and respect in order to earn the merit that results in entry into a glorious rather than a cursed afterlife. Several commentators from countries that are members of NATO talk about “Hindu nationalists”, forgetting that a true nationalist is neither Hindu nor Muslim but Indian.

This columnist defines himself as a Secular Nationalist, which is the only true form of love for one’s country and all its people. Those who hate one section cannot be said to love the other, for their narrow-minded vision will make the country hell very soon. The only path to prosperity is through social harmony. Countries where there is sectarian tension suffer falls in lifestyle while those with an inclusive vision prosper. Although small, such a broad vision can be seen in tiny Singapore, where Chinese, Indians and Malays live and work together in harmony. Within India, the state of Gujarat has been among the best performers in economic terms, while for the past ten

years, there has not been a single communal riot in the state, the same state that saw an eruption of violence in 2002 that took the lives of two thousand innocents, mainly Muslims.

Ten years later, a judge has sentenced one of the perpetrators to 28 years in jail and another to jail for the duration of his life. Both the convicts are Hindus, and they have been found guilty of atrocities against Muslims Although legal experts are critical of such steep sentences, the fact is that the Judge Yagnik (a Hindu) has set a Gold Standard for the punishment of those guilty of crimes against other communities. For too long, those who have engaged in violence against those of another faith have been given lenient sentences, if they have been punished at all. It is a sad reality that not one of those who killed more than 400 Kashmiri Pundits during 1990 and drove three hundred thousand out of the state have been brought to justice. It is a reality that no important politician has been prosecuted for the killing of four thousand Sikhs in Delhi in 1984,even though they orchestrated the carnage in fury after the assassination of Indira Gandhi on October 31 that year. In contrast, those found guilty of the killings in Gujarat have faced the courts within months of the horrible events of 2002,and many are now in prison as a result.

Unless harsh - and swift - punishment is meted out to those guilty of communal violence, such incidents will grow and pose a risk to social stability. Which is why it is not possible to agree with those who say that a 28-yeat sentence or a sentence that lasts the whole of a convict’s life is excessive. For the punishment fits the crime Last week, this columnist was invited to a live program on the Gujarat verdicts hosted by NDTV. There, he was very moved when he listened to Professor J S Bandukwala, a Muslim educationist who, along with his daughter, suffered assault during the 2002 riots. Professor Bandukwala expressed sympathy for the dependents of the poorer among the dozens who have been jailed for their role in the riots, pointing out that many are poor, and are in danger of starvation now that their breadwinner is in jail. It is this compassion that makes Professor Bandukwala a true believer in the Holy Qur’an, in contrast to those who daily call for bloodshed and vengeance beyond the Rule of Law. However, the fact is that although the overwhelming majority share his moderate views, yet it is the extremists that are listened to and indulged, not the silent and moderate majority. Unless this cycle – of giving too much emphasis to the extremists and thereby encouraging them - be broken, social stability will suffer. Societies where the fringe rules are societies in decline It is in the context of the Gujarat verdict that External Affairs Minister S M Krishna is visiting Pakistan. In India, the overwhelming majority of people seek peace and friendship with Pakistan. They are opposed to war. Although the “hawks” fill the television studios, drowning out other voices, the fact is that it is the “doves” who are in a majority.

To them, it would be an immense tragedy were India and Pakistan to go to war again, thereby placing at risk their common economic future. S M Krishna comes to Pakistan in the knowledge that the people of his country want peace and not war. He knows that similarly, the people of Pakistan similarly want a peaceful future with India, that only a small segment are looking for war. Both Krishna and Hina Rabbani Khar, his attractive and assertive counterpart in Islamabad, know that the people of India and Pakistan want a better life. They want good jobs and education. They seek adequate housing and healthcare. Above all, they want the or children to have a better future than they themselves have had. All this needs peace and reconciliation. When Krishna and Rabbani meet over the next 48 hours, hopefully they will remember the Silent Majority and not once again genuflect before the Extremist Fringe.

http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=172656

Peace forges Sino-Indian military ties (Global Times)

By M.D.Nalapat (Global Times)

08:46, September 07, 2012   

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90883/7940157.html

Since both countries became independent nations, there has only been a single Sino-Indian armed conflict in 1962. Since then, even while India and China were engaged in war on other fronts, the Sino-Indian border has remained calm. 

However, despite such a peaceful record, neither military has much contact with the other, a situation that makes them susceptible to disinformation from those countries that gain by India and China remaining geopolitically apart. Chinese Defense Minister Liang Guanglie's visit to India on Tuesday will help reduce this "knowledge deficit" between the two ancient countries.

As the two countries are facing the same threats from foreign sources, separatism and terrorism, it would be in the overall interests of India and China for the militaries of the two to cooperate with each other. 

At present, while defense links between India and the US are high and rising, military-to-military ties with China are near zero. This has created an imbalance in India's strategic diplomacy, and a propensity to look at the international situation through a narrow rather than a broad-spectrum lens. 

As a consequence of the lack of adequate contact, despite the huge common ground on international issues, media attention in both countries gets focused on the relatively smaller areas where the two countries' views diverge. Such a perception plays into the hands of outsiders who seek to keep China and India apart. They know that were China and India to come together in meeting common security challenges, no outside powers can dominate Asia.

Both China and India have demonstrated their commitments to peaceful resolution of disputes, in contrast to NATO, which is daily engaged in acts of war in locations across the world, actions that have caused hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties. Peace is win-win, while war is usually zero-sum. The two militaries that give priority to peace over war, those of China and India, are natural partners of each other.

The lack of significant military-to-military ties between two countries that together have armed forces totaling over 6 million people is mirrored by a lack of ties in other spheres. For example, there are hardly a dozen direct flights between India and China, while cultural and sports contacts are also low. This is in contrast to business, which is expanding rapidly. 

Indeed, in a situation where growth is faltering in Europe, India has become a major market for China to export goods and services, almost all at costs far below other international competitors. In energy, infrastructure and other fields, India has the potential to become a huge market, provided overall relations warm up to desired levels.

The common culture of professionalism provides the cement that can forge a close partnership between the armed forces of China and India. Such a partnership is needed, because both China and India have been facing terrorist and separatist efforts aimed at disrupting the lives of their citizens. 

Hence it is logical that both share their experience and expertise in counter-terror operations. If the 21st century is to be the Asian century, there is need for much greater coordination between China and India, especially in the military sphere.

While Europe provided a horrible example of colonization and conflict in previous centuries, NATO is trudging the same road today, using armed forces to change regimes in weaker states. The zero-sum NATO preference for war as the preferred means of settling diplomatic differences needs to be shunned in favor of a win-win path of peace and harmony. 

The coming together in friendship and cooperation between the militaries of India and China would be a significant step toward a comprehensive geopolitical partnership between two countries that together account for over 2.5 billion people, a partnership designed to ensure that countries and peoples that were dominated and exploited in the past gain the ability to lead their lives independent of external control, and can forge the institutions and instruments needed for their welfare. Closer defense coordination between China and India would, among other benefits, help to ensure that the oceans get cleansed of pirates.

The dream of those who are opposed to the steady increase in prosperity by both China and India is to somehow goad the two countries in the direction of tension and conflict. Such an outcome will be a nightmare for Asia, as it will set back the continent's chances for regaining the preeminent position that it enjoyed throughout much of human history. 

Once there is closer contact between the militaries of China and India, the prospects for a resolution of the border issue would brighten substantially. Together with this, India and China could take the lead, together with Kuwait, Russia, Brazil and South Africa, to create international financial institutions which would better reflect current realities rather than the past. 

Closer defense ties have the potential to ignite a much broader partnership that would be to the benefit of both sides. In such a context, Liang's visit to India is a welcome development, which needs to be followed up with a deepening of the strategic engagement between China and India.

Clueless and visibly uneasy in Tehran (Sunday Times)

ROOTS OF POWER MADHAV NALAPAT www.sunday-guardian.com/profile/m-d-nalapat Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, with NSA Shivshankar Menon, addresses the media onboard his special flight to Delhi after attending the XVI NAM Summit in Tehran on Friday. PTI ay this for the World Bank and the IMF, both institutions know how to permeate those that work there with the belief that the only prescription to be followed is obedience to the nostrums served out by the US, the UK, France and the few other civilised countries that have put boots on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan and lightened up the Libyan skies with airpower. Whether those that have worked at the Bank or the Fund come from India or Burundi, a few years there will acclimatise them towards acceptance of the advice given by colleagues from the civilised world. That their careers in either institution are likely to be brief and unpleasant were they to challenge the views of those representing the US or the EU — the two that from the start have headed the World Bank and the IMF — presumably assists such a process of acquiescence. India is fortunate in having a Prime Minister in Manmohan Singh who relies completely on Fund-Bank products for his economic and other policies, which is why the PM seems, for example, to have backed the RBI governor in setting interest rates at levels that delight the foreign investor but which cripple domestic producers. Strategic groups across the globe are aware of the umbilical cord linking Manmohan Singh and his closest advisors to Washington, London and Paris. Which is why they have not been surprised at the PM's visible uneasiness in Tehran, and his refusal to explore any of the many ways by which India can benefit from Iran. The World Bank and IMF types in the RBI and the Finance Ministry have dawdled and diddled for more than two years in setting up alternative mechanisms of trade in the face of US-EU sanctions on Iran that add more than $50 per barrel to the cost of oil. As the major oil companies are based within the US and the EU, which are also the major suppliers of such peace-oriented items of manufacture as combat aircraft and tanks to the oil-producing states of the Gulf, each rise in the price of oil brings more cash to them. The countries which lose out are India, China, Japan and South Korea. Of course, unlike the other three, China is already developing a robust export trade in military items, although still a considerable distance away from the $66 billion that the US exported last year, more than half of this to a single state, Saudi Arabia, whose media is filled daily with scare stories on the theme "The Iranians are coming". That Iran is much more likely to be invaded than invade has obviously eluded both edit page writers and defence procurement teams within the GCC. Iran represents a huge opportunity for India in the context of energy security. Some years ago, Mani Shankar Aiyar (who seems never to have darkened the doors of the Bank or the Fund) sought to craft an energy diplomacy for India that would make more secure this country's energy economy. Had he been allowed to remain as the Petroleum Minister, he would almost certainly have taken advantage of the present situation to firm up long-term (and low-priced) contracts with Iran for oil and natural gas. But this tendency to look at issues from the point of view of Indian interests is probably why he was dropped from the portfolio and later the Union Cabinet by Manmohan Singh. The induced hysteria about Iran has had the effect of sending up oil prices and promoting defence sales to the GCC. More ominously, the wall of hostility that Tehran is encountering will make it more rather than less likely to go the North Korea path and acquire nuclear weapons. The example of Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi shows what happens to those who decide to surrender their WMD in the belief that such an action would win them the goodwill of NATO. In the 1990s, Manmohan Singh was instrumental in preventing Narasimha Rao from conducting a nuclear test, because he believed the Fund-Bank voices, who warned that such a move would result in sanctions that devastate the economy. 1998 showed how false such warnings were. These days, those preventing India from taking advantage of unexpected opportunities in Tehran similarly predict disaster from US-EU sanctions. The reality is that both are so weakened by economic problems that it would be suicidal of them to impose sanctions on major economies such as China, India, South Korea or Japan. Sadly, Delhi, Seoul and Tokyo seem to have taken the bait, while Beijing has called the bluff. http://www.sunday-guardian.com/analysis/clueless-and-visibly-uneasy-in-tehran

Video (link): NDTV We The People

Prof Nalapat appeared on the 2 September 2012 edition of We The People. His contributions can be seen at 31.30 and 45.13.

http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/we-the-people/we-the-people-riots-and-the-rule-of-law/245238

Will Obama rediscover himself? (PO)

By M D Nalapat

Barack Hussein Obama is a charmer. Ever since he won the Iowa primary and showed that he could reach across racial divisions, millions — including this columnist - were entranced by the man and his story. Fused to a campaign team that was fiercely loyal to him, it was a forlorn effort by John McCain and Sarah Palin, who were unable to stop the Obama tsunami from overwhelming them in 2008.In the early stages of his candidacy, Obama was shunned by those who for decades have made a comfortable life for themselves in Democratic administrations and in those parking lots for retired officials eager toresume government work, the thinktanks that dot Washington and New York. Almost all of them rooted for Hillary Clinton, because of loyalty to the man who had given so many of them high-level jobs during 1993-2001,Bill Clinton.

It was only when it became clear that Barack Obama was going to win the nomination and the Presidency that they shifted to his side, but with a caveat. This was that they were unwilling to abandon the Clintonite policies that they had implemented two terms back, and that therefore, Candidate Obama would need to jettison his own policies and follow those of Bill Clinton, once he got elected. Barack Obama did not let the Clintonites down. As several post-election books have pointed out, he distanced himself from the loyalists who had crafted his victory almost as soon as the election results came in. In place of the idealistic, mostly young, Team Obama, the new President of the United States surrounded himself with Team Clinton,led by the formidable Hillary. The present Secretary of State must be savouring her revenge over Obama backers such as Samantha Rice, who have been shunted to forgotten corners of the administration that they helped bring to office. The only prominent Obama backer who was given a substantive post has been Susan Rice, who is a close friend of Shirin Taher-Kheli, a US national with roots in the Subcontinent who has always taken the Pakistan army’s line on Kashmir, and who was particularly close to General Pervez Musharraf, who is in his own way as much a maestro in handling people as Obama.

This columnist is no friend of Musharraf, but has to admit that he swiftly and skillfully diverted the wrath of the Bush administration away from Pakistan when the Taliban facilitated the attack on the US which took place on 9/11 (2001) by sheltering and provisioning Osama bin Laden. In weeks, Musharraf gained a decisive voice in US military operations in Afghanistan and during 2003-06 especially, was able to replace several anti-Pakistan elements in Kabul with those friendly to Islamabad. If Pakistan is today still a major player in Afghanistan, most of the credit has to go to Pervez Musharraf. Although derided as “Busharraf”, the fact is that calling Bush “Mushbush” instead would be more accurate. The then US President and Vice-President were completely sold on a strategy that - as in the 1980s - placed Pakistan at the centre of the situation in Afghanistan.

Musharraf was expert at conveying an image that won the support of those he was seeking to neutralize. His successors have failed to accomplish this task, with the result that Pakistan has been getting a very bad press while essentially being not all that different societally from what it was during Musharraf’s time in office as CEO of Pakistan. The genial general stood by the military and gave it cover, even while making adjustments to ensure continued international support. In his steadfastness to his (uniformed) base, Pervez Musharraf distinguishes himself from Barack Obama, who jettisoned his followers when it was clear that he would be the next President of the US. Since 2009, President Obama has implemented a policy of “Clinton Lite”, surrounded as he by those close to the former president. As a consequence, he has followed the policy of giving a free pass to those in the financial sector who are guilty of cheating millions of investors of trillions. Indeed, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was complicit in several of the steps that led to the 2008 crisis, but because he was a favourite of Wall Street, Obama chose him. The only true “Obamian” in a crowd of Clintonites in the Obama Cabinet is Janet Napolitano, who has done a superb job at the Department of Homeland Security in preventing a terrorist attack on the US.

Although he has had wide exposure to Asia in his youth, once in office, Barack Obama has shifted to the Europeanism of the Clintons, placing exaggerated faith in NATO as an instrument of policy, especially in Asia, a continent that has ugly memories of European colonialism. He went along with Hillary andBill Clinton when the two decided to withdraw US backing from Hosni Mubarak, and to attack Muammar Kaddafy militarily, even though both had accommodated the strategic concerns of NATO fully, Mubarak for three decades and Kaddafy since 2003.The consequence has been that no sensible leader in the Arab world has any faith in the US or in the EU, being made aware of the fickle nature of such support by witnessing the killing of Kaddafy and the incarceration of Mubarak.

As for India, while Barack Obama supported India’s case for a permanent seat in the UN Security Council while in Delhi, he has thus far not repeated this suggestion at UN headquarters in New York, nor is he likely to do so. Under Obama, effective cooperation between India and the US has stalled, even though in Sonia Gandhi and Manmohan Singh, this country has the most pro-US administration ever seen since 1947. Given the disconnect between what Barack Obama talks and what he follows in practice, it would be rash to believe that India-US relations would blossom during a second term in office. Unless, that is, Barack Obama finally found the courage to cast away the Clinton cloak that he has covered himself with since 2009 and returns to his own base, his own team. Should that happen a second innings for Barack Obama may be the game changer that so many of us thought his first term would be.

http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=171618

Does China’s Gu Kailai deserve a life in prison? (Sunday Guardian)

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

In 1959, Kawas Manekshaw Nanavati (left), a naval commander, murdered Prem Ahuja, his wife Sylvia’s lover. or the well-heeled (and hence deep-pocketed) woman of substance in China, to wear a personable western boyfriend on one arm while sporting a Gucci handbag on the other is the norm. Western males, especially the Brits with their charming accents and sense of humour, are an essential fashion accessory in wealthy circles in Beijing and Shanghai. Most such tie-ups are not formal, the reason being that several of the society ladies in question are already married, to influential (and rich) Chinese. The male half of such informal Sino-European pairs is usually passed off as a "consultant" or an "artist" or as "photographers". Interestingly, Chinese men do not seem to share the fascination for western women that their counterparts in Japan, India or West Asia have. Their female companions are usually local. Although conventional wisdom defines China as an authoritarian state, and there is little doubt that any effort to prise the country loose from the grip of the Communist Party would be met with retribution, the reality is that society in China has a level of personal freedom that would be the envy of those not fortunate enough to live along the California coast. While the elite there (as everywhere else) live in a world of their own, even those less affluent live a social life that is full and varied. A personable "fashion accessory" is not necessarily restricted to those with several hundred million euros in a Swiss bank. Many Chinese women working in establishments in the bigger cities have the same distinction of possessing a western boyfriend. They, and those who have yet to acquire the ultimate status symbol of a western companion, would have been glued to their satellite dishes watching foreign coverage of the murder by Gu Kailai of Neil Heywood. The lady is the spouse of one of the most prominent politicians in China, now disgraced. The other, of course, was a "consultant". Given the extremely high value placed on the single male child in Chinese society, if Gu Kailai is being truthful when she claims that Heywood threatened to do harm to her son Bo Guagua, now slumming it at one of the pricier degree shops in the UK, it is understandable why she felt he had to go. But is the cover story true? If it were, then Heywood was a danger to the life of Gu Kailai's son. If so, and had Gu Kailai been from the West and Neil Heywood from China, and the courtroom been in the EU, the odds are that she would have been released into psychiatric care. After all, the prosecution itself admits that she was "mentally disturbed" when she ordered the killing, and that her act was motivated by the perceived need to protect her son. If these two propositions are true, Gu Kailai does not deserve to spend the next dozen-odd years in prison, as she will now. Rewind to India 1959, and to the Commander Nanavati case, where a naval officer came upon his spouse and a Bombay based businessman, Prem Ahuja mutually engaged in "aerobic exercises" in the altogether. When Nanavati asked Ahuja if he was prepared to marry his (British-born) wife and look after their three children, the ungallant response was that he, Ahuja, was not obligated to marry all the women that he had "aerobic exercises" with. The gallant Nanavati pulled out a revolver and shot him on the spot. And because a jury of his peers subsequently acquitted Nanavati of any crime, Jawaharlal Nehru ensured that trial by jury got abandoned in India, thereby returning the country to its colonial past, whereby a single judge rather than a lay jury had the sole responsibility for finding a defendant guilty or innocent. Most would have judged the provocation faced by the naval officer extreme enough to warrant his acquittal, but not Nehru, who was clearly angered that leniency was shown to Kawas Manekshaw Nanavati. The punishment (of life imprisonment) given to Commander Nanavati (despite his earlier acquittal in what was the last jury trial in India) parallels the same verdict that was handed down to Gu Kailai on 20 August 2012 in the Hefei courtroom. Both taken together indicate the distance that India and China have to traverse before reaching the same standards as countries such as Germany, that was almost continuously authoritarian till 1945, or Spain (that got freed from dictatorship of one kind or the other only in 1977),which treat their citizens with far greater consideration. If the prosecution's version in both trials was correct, neither Nanavati nor Gu deserved a life sentence. http://www.sunday-guardian.com/analysis/does-chinas-gu-kailai-deserve-a-life-in-prison