Ram Jethmalani Does it Again

Ram Jethmalani omitted to mention before the Delhi High Court that the victims of the Upahaar fire tragedy were themselves to be blamed for leaving the secure environs of their respective homes and heading for the movie hall owned by the Ansals. According to him all criminals in the Capital are innocent and all citizens are the culprits creating mischief for his clients. His assertion that people appearing before the court and media with blood shot eyes was responsible for miscarriage of justice, undermines the caliber of judges hearing the case and competence of the media to see through such ploys.

His loyalty to his infamous clients can be gauged from the kind of cases he has taken-up, such as defending the killers of former prime minister Indira Gandhi, people involved in market scams (Harshad mehta and Ketan Parekh), and a host of gangsters, and smugglers as well as the British girl Daisy Angus who was acquitted of hashish smuggling after five years in jail, the defense of Manu Sharma, prime accused in the Jessica Lall murder case.

Speaking at the third Palkhivala Memorial Lecture at the IMAGE auditorium in Chennai on 10 Sep 2003 on "The Judicial System - need for urgent reforms and Uniform Civil Code", Ram Jethmalani said that in the 1970s when he asked Palkhivala to appear on his behalf in a case against Indira Gandhi's Government, which had filed a case against RJ for a speech he made to the Kerala bar against the emergency, Palkhivala obtained an injunction which gave Jethmalani the time to leave the country for political asylum in the United States. Much later, Ram Jethmalani was to declare that he regarded Nani Palkhivala as the Joseph Schumpeter of India for his efforts at initiating creative destruction. He was not wrong; Nani Palkhivala should have allowed the state to arrest him. Or better still for India, Ram Jethmalani should have stayed on in the US and spared his already harassed countrymen the ignominy of having to see him defending criminals again.

SUBPRIME PLUNGE: HOMEOWNERS’ PREDICAMENT- FACTS AND FICTION

http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/personal/02/29/rogue.debt.collectors/index.html

Introduction
Democrats have long argued for lending policies that allow easier mortgage credit to low-income families to help remove an important obstacle to achieving financial security. Republicans tend to frame their support for homeownership as part of their drive to create an "ownership society" in which everyone owns a piece of the country and can share in its prosperity. The result has been a range of policies that promote homeownership while generally neglecting renters.

In the dynamic U.S. economy, where job security is a relic of the past, workers frequently have to move to maintain or advance their careers. Since large transaction costs (typically close to 10 percent of the sale price) are associated with buying and selling a home, it generally does not make sense for someone to buy a home unless he or she can stay in it for a substantial period. The situation is even worse if the home purchase price was driven up in a speculative bubble, as was the case with many homes in recent years. Not only will some home buyers incur large transaction costs, but in today's market they are also likely to be forced to sell their houses for less than they paid.

While there are losers in this story, there are winners too. The transaction costs borne by home buyers are income for those in the real estate industry. A serious housing policy should recognize that renting can be a better option for many Americans, especially for tens of millions of families with low and moderate incomes. The country cannot allow its housing policy to be determined by ideology or the interest groups that benefit from this ideology.

Facts

· The subprime mortgage crisis, a sharp rise in home foreclosures, started in the United States in late 2006 and became a global financial crisis during 2007 and 2008. House prices fell at their fastest pace in 13 years in February 2008.
· Loan incentives and a long-term trend of rising housing prices encouraged borrowers to assume mortgages, believing they would be able to refinance at more favorable terms later.
· Major banks and other financial institutions around the world have reported losses of approximately U.S. $140 billion as of February 2008.
· The subprime crisis also placed downward pressure on economic growth on economies around the world.
· The downturn in the housing market has resulted in a significant decline in new home construction and housing prices.
· The risks to the broader economy created by the housing market downturn was the primary factor in the 22 January 2008 decision by the U.S. Federal reserve to cut interest rates and the economic stimulus package signed by President Bush on 13 February 2008.
· FOR five months, it has been clear that rising delinquencies and foreclosures, coupled with higher interest rates and declining home price appreciation, would undermine the market for mortgage securities. Yet it took the Administration until Jan 2008 to react to this looming financial crisis.
· The subprime crisis has not been averted. In fact, it is worsening and threatens to tip the economy into a recession.
· On the contrary, many Fed officials counted on the housing boom to prop up the economy after the stock market collapsed in 2000.
· Eventually the U.S. economy will weather the storm.

Fiction
· The efforts of the Federal reserve in cutting interest rates and the economic stimulus package signed by President Bush on 13 February 2008 have brought relief to homeowners.
· The interest rate cut by Federal reserve is being passed down to the consumers.
· The banks and lenders have changed tac and are adopting a more humane approach towards harassed borrowers. Some collectors have resorted to threatening to have the person arrested, making improper bank withdrawals, intimidating people and making harassing phone calls.
· Most people are aware of their rights when it comes to dealing with intimidating lenders.

Homeowners / Borrowers’ Rights

· A debt collector cannot call you before 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m., unless you agree.
· You cannot be contacted at work if the collector knows your employer disapproves.
· If you don't want to hear from a debt collector, write a letter telling them to stop. By law, they have to. Remember, the debt won't go away and you can still be sued.
· The debt collector can contact your attorney -- if you have one. If not, your friends and family can be asked about how to get in touch with you.
· A debt collector can't misrepresent the amount of your debt.
· A debt collector also cannot use profane or threatening language
· Debt collectors can't say that they will put a lien on your property or file a lawsuit unless the agency really means to do that and it's legal.
· Collectors can't legally claim federal benefits, such as Social Security or your retirement accounts, like your IRA or 401(k).

Conclusion
Subprime lending is highly controversial. Opponents have alleged that subprime lenders have engaged in predatory lending practices such as deliberately lending to borrowers who could never meet the terms of their loans, thus leading to default, seizure of collateral, and foreclosure. There have also been charges of mortgage discrimination on the basis of race. Proponents of subprime lending maintain that the practice extends credit to people who would otherwise not have access to the credit market.

The borrowers facing a crisis and facing foreclosure or needing to sell their properties are advised to know their rights, have patience and hold on for the situation to improve; and improve it shall. In the meantime, renting out property is the option that needs to be explored for current housing problem to blow over. The Federal authorities too can explain to consumers why it takes so long for their efforts, like the interest rate cuts, to trickle down to those for whom their efforsts mean the difference between relief and agony.

Uphaar Tragedy: Jethmalani Defending Ansals

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Uphaar_case_Jethmalani_starts_defending_Ansal_brothers/articleshow/2827477.cms#write

Ram Jethmalani, who was sacked as law minister to avert an impending executive -judiciary confrontation and the very devil's advocate who had picked up the cudgels for Manu Sharma-murderer of Jessica Lal, has now proposed more money to the kin of Upahaar tragedy in order to save the Ansal brothers from a prison term. Maybe he has assumed everyone would do for money what he is willing to. Maybe he owed some obligation to the Ansals too. Some questions bother me- should he have lost a dear one in the tragedy, would Ram Jethmalani have accepted more money (in his case Honey) and forgiven the Ansals? Would he have been smiling at the thought of his kin having been brutally suffocated to death by criminal negligence and greed of the Ansals or would his eyes be tearful too, while recalling the incident before media or anyone else? Maybe he would smile if was given more honey. What use is being an exceptional lawyer if you are a lousy human being?

Who Cares About the Budget?

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Who_cares_about_the_Budget/articleshow/2821055.cms

With the budget session almost imminent, it is ironic that our politicians are busy calculating equations for the next elections and ignoring the vital importance of constructive contribution to the discussion on issues that should have been their bread and butter. The important issues before the government have always been lost to party politics and the ‘credit game’. In the last seven years, 2003 is the only year in which the number of hours spent in the House on discussing the proposed Budget exceeded the time lost to interruptions. Yet ministers like PR Dasmunsi are mainly concerned about the opposition grabbing the credit for the good budget, if it indeed that. Politicians of his ilk are scared to step out of the box and, for once, take an initiative with only the people in mind.


The Issues

Equi-distribution of wealth – Creation rural employment plan, which guarantees 100 days of work for one person in every poor household, was the priority of the government. The plan was the government's attempt to address some of the countryside's biggest problems - poverty and unemployment. Having already spent some $3bn on this scheme over the last two years, its performance has not met any rural expectations. Obviously the implementation of the scheme was riddled with corruption and has been anything but perfect.

Rising Food Prices - While the middle class is relatively immune to such price rises, for almost half of India's population that lives on less than $2 a day, it is vital for the government to keep prices in check.

Looming Inflation – The inflation for the year was recorded at 4.35%, because of rising prices of fruits, vegetables and lentils. The price of wheat has almost doubled. The real challenge for the government would be to try and curb inflation even though it means putting the brakes on India's growth story.

Encouragement to Entrepreneurs – India’s hi-tech start-ups are a place where angels fear to tread. The government can be the initial risk-taker and step in to fill that gap, at least until they are big enough to attract outside funding. The funding gap has arisen because hi-tech entrepreneurship is a relatively new phenomenon in India. In this context, Wipro chairman Azim Premji’s statement that “it would be years before India could come up with a global gadget like the iPod, because it has been so focused on ‘low hanging fruit’, and developing services rather than products” is relevant.

Rising Naxal Menace - With naxal menace spreading from Orissa, Bihar, Andhra Pradesh to Chattisgarh, it is high time the government allocated resourcses to tackle the desease on priority.

The Courts - The condition of our courts and resultant lack of effective justice delivery system is in shambles. The legal infrastructure must be developed and vacancies of judges must be filled up to avoid incidents of people taking the law into their own hands and dispensating what they consider is justice. The issue does need to be addressed on a war footing.

Law and Order Situation - The law and order situation is a matter of grave concern, especially in states like Bihar and Uttar Pradesh; claims to the contrary by local politicians not withstanding. The problem, if ignored at this stage, is only likely to turn ugly.

Wide Range of Options
· Be first in line to buy and test new ideas.
· Give tax breaks to investors who back new startup companies.
· Simplify the paperwork for small firms.

Conclusion
Unfortunately, none of these offer a rapid solution to a government that will be heading to the polls next year. With politicians worried about the credit for any work done, it is unlikely they would have the wisdom or the patience to do much about it. As it is, Lok Sabha in recent years has spent less and less time discussing the Budget. As a result an overwhelming majority of the government’s expenditure plans have been passed by Lok Sabha with no discussion on them in the House. Given that the demands for grants now total in the region of Rs 18, 00,000 crore a year, an enormous amount of expenditure being sanctioned without adequate legislative scrutiny amounts to abuse of voters’ confidence in their elected representatives. The Times of India’s heading ‘Who cares about the Budget’ is apt; certainly the people elected to care about such matters have more vested occupations in mind

CALLOUS POLITICIANS, INDIFFERENT POLITICAL PARTIES

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Farm_sops_Cong_fears_oppn_will_take_credit/articleshow/2820877.cms#write

It is shamefully obvious that both the Congress led ruling alliance as well as the opposition are only thinking about themselves, the next elections and grabbing the credit for the sops expected for the farmers in the Union Budget. The elections next year are more important to our calculating politicians than the plight of the farmers. The frequent reports of Indian farmers committing suicide mean little to the callous politicians beyond the smell of another political opportunity. Inspite of the Prime Minister having made several trips to the Vidharbha region and promised effective steps to help out the farmer community, the trend has not been arrested.

The collective low mentality of our politicians and their total disregard for the actual issue at hand-the well being of the farmers- is reflected in the statement of Parliamentary Affairs minister P R Dasmunsi when he said that the opposition is trying to send out a message that if the budget is good, then it is because of their effort. National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data from studies between 1997-2005 reveals that - and this is a conservative estimate - 1.5 lakh farmers committed suicide all over India with countless farmers abandoning agriculture. Why should it matter to him what the opposition thinks? If the budget is good for the farmers, his government would have justified its existence, at least for a deserving segment of the population. But that is of least importance to the minister who had joined hands with Anbumani Ramadoss to oust the Director of AIIMS disregarding the detrimental impact his actions would have on the finest medical institute in the country. With such lopsided priorities and twisted approach of our politicians to the country’s problems, is it any wonder that farmers continue to commit suicide and some people even go hungry in grain surplus India?

DEOBANDI ISLAMIC FATWA

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Deoband_meet_Terror_un-Islamic/articleshow/2814090.cms

The Deobandi Islamic revivalist movement was started by the 150-year-old Darul-Uloom Deoband madrassa in Saharanpur India and spread to other countries. Deobandis follow the fiqh of Abu Hanifa and Abu Mansur Maturidi's thought in Aqidah and Kalam which is characterised by a strict adherence to the Sunnah and an emphasis on Sharia.

Muslim scholars at the leading Wahabi madrassa declared that “Islam is a religion of mercy for all humanity. Islam sternly condemns all kinds of oppression, violence and terrorism. It has regarded oppression, mischief, rioting and murder among severest sins and crimes. Islam prohibits killing of innocent people.”

The declaration is a welcome development considering the terror related incidents all over the globe, and, recently involving Indian Muslims. The declaration will help Indian Muslims to see that terrorism is not sanctioned by Islam and also convince the world of the difference between Indian Muslims and those hailing from Pakistan and elsewhere.

RELEVANCE OF MOB VIOLENCE IN DISPENSATION OF JUSTICE

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Mob_fury_Murder_accused_thrashed_in_Bihar_/articleshow/2807542.cms http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6992711.stm

Ravi Kumar, receiving treatment after being arrested for stabbing another man to death in Bihar’s Hajipur District on 24 Feb 2008, was dragged from his bed by the crowd with a rope tied to his hands and being kicked until he stopped moving. The local police was present on the scene but chose to ignore such blatant violation of law, the very purpose of their being.

A similar case occurred in the State on 19 Feb 2008, when a mob lynched an alleged rapist in a village in Saran district. In 2007, a man accused of stealing in Bihar was lynched and dragged behind a motorcycle by a crowd with active help of policemen. There is an unending list of incidents where the people took law into their own hands to deliver what they perceived as instant justice.

The attack was the latest, but not the last, in a series on suspected criminals in the country. India's legal system is mired in bureaucracy and corruption, and it can take years for a case to be heard and a trial to be concluded. In most cases, it is virtually impossible to get the police to register a ‘First Information Report’ (FIR). The progress of a case or otherwise depends mostly upon two of the most damaging elements of the Indian legal system – ‘Jan Pehchan’ (influence and connections) and ‘Ghoose’ (graft). There are honest and efficient individuals in the system no doubt, but they are few and far between and not enough to make a difference for the better. The frequent cases of mob fury, vigilantism and violence are a sign of growing frustration with judicial delays and reflect absence of public confidence in the police force. When justice becomes distant and elusive, alternative platforms surface to deliver so-called justice through muscle power and / or mob violence.

With criminals making politics a safe bastion in the country, the line dividing law makers and law breakers has been obliterated. Politicians with criminal backgrounds/connections oppose any attempt at reform and set the state law and order machinery in order. Unfortunately, even established political parties like the Congress and Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) have not refrained from depending on criminals for making their way to power. How else can the presence of the likes of Laloo Prasad Yadav, Mayawati and a host of others in Parliament and state assemblies be explained? The Vohra Committee report paints a grim picture of criminal elements in politics and has made various suggestions, as has the National Committee on the Review of the Working of the Constitution. Based on this information, the Election Commission of India has filed a number of proposals for the consideration of the Government.

The judiciary has also made directives concerning the writ petitions filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms [ADR] and the People’s Union for Civil Liberties [PUCL] in May 2002. The central government failed to take any legislative initiatives to bring greater transparency to elections in response. However, the Election Commission of India mandated disclosure of criminal records of electoral candidates--including convictions, charges pending and cases initiated, financial records and assets and liabilities of a candidate, their spouse and other close relatives.

To circumvent this order, the government drafted an ordinance with provisions expressly in violation of the Supreme Court’s directives and Article 19 (1) of the Constitution of India. On 16 August 2002, the government sent the ordinance for the president’s approval. However, concerned citizens and activists got together under the banner of the National Campaign for Electoral Reforms and pressured the President to refer the matter under Article 143 of the constitution to the Supreme Court. The President returned the ordinance to the Indian parliament for reconsideration on 23 August 2002. But the cabinet reiterated its position against disclosure of details of the candidates for election and simply returned the ordinance to the President, who had no other option by law but to promulgate it. For his efforts, the then President, Mr APJ Abdul Kalam was denied a second term in office by the Congress, even when all opinion polls showed he was the people’s choice.

The Lok Satta, PUCL and ADR challenged the constitutionality of the ordinance in the Supreme Court, which on 13 March 2003 struck down the amendment brought in by the ordinance by holding that Section 33B of the Representation of People’s Act of India is unconstitutional. It also held that the parliament cannot abridge the right of the citizens to know about the candidates and for all practical purposes declared that the notification issued by the Election Commission of India must be made law.

The political parties of India have a moral and legal responsibility to weed persons with criminal records or pending allegations out of their ranks. Their minimum duty is to provide citizens with a genuine choice for representatives, not persons seeking to use state resources to defend themselves and their cronies. The dismal choice of candidates offered by the political parties leaves little hope for the future of India’s claim to be the world’s largest democracy.

Plight of Air Hostesses on Deccan Air Flight

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Cities/Airhostess_molested_on_Deccan_flight/articleshow/2806428.cms#write

The two culprits who molested an airhostess on board a Deccan Air flight from Jaipur to Kolkata could not have been on a pligrimage. They may have said that just to mitigate their offense. That they deserve the maximum punishment, goes without saying; unfortunately they will be out on bail no sooner than later. As long as our judiciary and police force remains weak and ineffective, we will continue to read about a repeat of such incidents in your columns. It may be worth finding out if the duo are affiliated to any political party. Such affiliations do embolden the criminals in the country.

KOSOVO DECLARES INDEPENDENCE FROM SERBIA

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7255400.stm#upup

Created out of the ashes of Austria-Hungary's defeat in WWI, the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes - changed to Yugoslavia in 1929 - was in theory a single autonomous state, but ethnic tensions were not far from the surface.

After invasion and a series of overlapping civil wars in WWII, a lid was kept on national aspirations by the creation of a federation of six nominally equal republics. In Serbia, Kosovo and Vojvodina were given autonomous status. But from 1991 Yugoslavia fell apart.

A series of splits saw the bloodiest fighting in Croatia and Bosnia. A peace deal created the self-governing Bosnian Serb Republic (Republika Srpska) and Muslim Croat Federation. Kosovo become a UN protectorate after inter-ethnic fighting and NATO bombardment in 1999. Serbian security forces were driven out of Kosovo in 1999 after a NATO bombing campaign aimed at halting the violent repression of ethnic Albanian separatists.

In 2003 Yugoslavia disappeared from the map of Europe. Replaced for a short time by the looser union of Serbia and Montenegro, the latter broke away in 2006. Two years later, Kosovo's majority ethnic Albanians declared independence from Serbia.

The UN Security Council is divided over how to respond to Kosovo's move, and it has failed to agree on any action. Serbia insists it still has sovereignty of Kosovo under UN Security Council resolution 1244 of international law.

Britain, France, and Italy were among the first to recognise Kosovo's independence. Germany and Austria too have accepted Kosovo as an independent country. USA had earlier recognised Kosovo and declared it would soon establish diplomatic relations with it.

Kosovo's independence is likely to set a dangerous precedent for secessionist movements in Asia, Europe and beyond.

PAKISTAN ELECTIONS UPDATE AND ANALYSIS

General
As a result of Former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto’s assassination in a gun and bomb attack on 27 Dec 2007, the government postponed the elections from 8 January to 18 February 2008. The election to the national parliament and the provincial assemblies has been marred by pre-election violence and controversies. More than 400 people have been killed in violence this year. People doubt whether these polls will truly be free, fair and transparent. There is trouble ahead with both the PPP and PML promising mass unrest if the election results fail to meet opposition expectations, even as Musharraf cautions against street protest. Musharraf says that in Pakistan's elections the loser always cries foul.

Fair and free elections and a smooth transfer of power will help integrate the fractured nation and help isolate militants from the mainstream.

The Election Scenario
The law and order situation, one thing a long-serving head of the army should have got right, has gone from bad to worse. Asif Ali Zardari, the acting Chairman of Pakistan People’s Party, has been dogged by accusations of corruption for so long that he is seen as a liability by many. Pakistanis have not forgotten that ‘Mr 10 percent’ faces corruption charges in Pakistan, Switzerland, the UK and the US. Such feelings are echoing around Punjab, Pakistan's biggest province and most important as far as the elections are concerned.

The insurgency in Balochistan has revived, Swat Valley and FATA are virtually controlled by Al Qaeda and the Pakistani Taleban. The elections have been banned by the militants engaging the Army in NWFP and fears of violence during the elections is likely to intimidate the voters; not a conducive environment for holding elections of any kind.

Issues
Flour prices have sky rocketed and the country is facing tremendous gas shortages.
The people are disillusioned with military rule and demanding restoration of democracy.
Law and order situation has worsened.
Fundamentalism and religious extremism have raised their ugly head.

Manifestos
PPP Manifesto - Employment, energy, education, environment and equality.

PML-N's Manifesto - Restoration of judiciary, democracy and the 1973 constitution, the elimination of military's rule over politics, security of life and property, tolerance, overall reconciliation, relief for the poor, and education and employment.

PML-Q-MQM Alliance Manifesto - Democracy, development, defence, devolution and diversity.

Sympathy vote
The assassination of Benazir Bhutto on 27 Dec 07 will definitely weigh in favor of her PPP; particularly in Sindh, her home Province. Sympathy factor is also likely to fetch votes for the Party and improve its chances at the hustings.

Monitors
Monday's election, which was scrutinised by a 130-strong European Union team, the largest international observer mission in the country, was closely watched by the world.

Conduct
Although the elections were by and large peaceful they were nevertheless overshadowed by violence and fears of rigging. The security measures were effective in most parts of Pakistan. There were a few incidents to mar the otherwise state of normalcy. 47 people were killed at a rally on Saturday in the town of Parachinar, near the border with Afghanistan. On Sunday, four soldiers were killed when their vehicle hit an explosive device in Baluchistan province.

Fear of militant attacks and apathy after a lackluster campaign appeared to keep turnout low. The widespread anti-incumbent mood was prominently in evidence. Although Polling at some booths began late after the agents arrived, happily there has been no evidence of rigging.

Likely Results
There’s a powerful factor against Mr Musharraf at play in the campaign - the shocking assassination of Benazir Bhutto on 27 December. This election is expected to deliver not just the solid vote bank of her Pakistan People's Party, but a wave of sympathy that's hard to quantify. PPP is expected to sweep its traditional power base of rural Sindh. If the people turnout is large, PPP and PML-N are likely to be the biggest beneficiaries.

If the results don't deliver a resounding victory to the Pakistan People's Party and gains for the Pakistan Muslim League (N) of former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, street protests, violence and turmoil are certain to dog Pakistan in the aftermath of elections.

Post elections, if the PPP then joins forces with pro-Musharraf parties, there may be a backlash within its rank and file, which blames the president for Benazir Bhutto's murder. If it forms an alliance with Mr Sheriff’s party there could be confrontation with the presidency. Either ways, managing post election scene is going to be more difficult for the Party than the election itself. The arrow, PPP’s election symbol, may miss the mark.

Analysis
National and provincial elections in Pakistan are meant to be a key step in a tortuous process of moving Pakistan from military to civilian rule. The current elections are essentially a referendum on nearly nine years of rule of President Pervez Musharraf.
Musharraf is not actually contesting, but his popularity will be manifested in votes cast for the party that backs him - the Pakistan Muslim League (PML- Q), known as the "King's Party". Over the years his popularity has plummeted. The PML-Q has suffered in the anti-Musharraf backlash.
However, no matter how bad the situation in Pakistan seems right now, and no matter which party gains the people’s mandate, the country will continue to be ruled by military-ISI combine. If an understanding is reached with the political establishment, the Army and the ISI will resort to back seat driving. In both the scenarios, the Islamists will be the winners.

Conclusion
At a testing time for Pakistan, its politicians are busy reminding the people of their individual worth to the country. Asif Ali Zardari, Mr 10 %, has been talking about the Bhutto legacy. Both Nawaz Sharif and his brother Shahbaz never tire of bragging about the sacrifices by their family. People seem to have already resigned their fate to the feudal lords.

The deciding factor, as always in Pakistan, will be the army. General Ashfaq Kiyani has made it clear that the interests of his institution are now distinct from Musharraf's own political ambitions. If Kiyani distances himself from Musharraf, he will be continuing a long and fundamentally undisturbed tradition that sets the army, rather than the electorate, as the ultimate kingmaker in Pakistan.

The deeply felt grievances of the people, emergence of Pakistani Taliban, a bitterly fractious polity and refusal of the Army-ISI combine to loosen its hold on power and usher in a genuine democracy could implode Pakistan.

US' BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE: RUSSIAN AND CHINESE FEARS

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6726839.stm

Background
The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 saw United States remaining the sole super power; militarily invincible, economically unrivalled, diplomatically uncontestable, and the dominating force on information channels worldwide. The next century was to be the “American century”. Within a decade, however, a new and increasingly potent multipolar world has surfaced, in which new powers are challenging different aspects of American supremacy — Russia and China in the forefront, with regional powers Venezuela and Iran forming the second rank primed to erode American hegemony.

The phenomenon behind the rapidly evolving world, that too so soon, is intriguing. The US getting bogged down in Iraq is clearly a major factor in this transformation. The Iraq fiasco has demonstrated the striking limitations of the world’s highest tech-savvy and most destructive combat machine. The phenomenal rise in price of oil and natural gas has enhanced the power of hydrocarbon-rich nations as never before; the rapid economic expansion of the mega-nations China and India and the end of the Anglo-American duopoly in international television news is another factor. Russia has recovered from the economic chaos that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. In 2005, Russia overtook the United States, becoming the second largest oil producer in the world. Its oil income now amounts to $679 million a day.

Strategic Defense Initiative
President Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defence Initiative (SDI), also called ‘Star Wars’ was proposed in early 1980S, aimed at protecting the US, its allies and troops deployed around the world against a limited ballistic missile attack. The concept was shelved much before it could crystallise.

National Missile Defense
It was revived as Bill Clinton’s National Missile Defence(NMD) and reflected the US fixation with protecting itself from a ballistic missile attack. However, both the SDI and NMD systems were deactivated shortly afterwards because of their high costs and low reliability. Fearing that dissemination of these systems would alter the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD), in 1972 the US and the Soviet Union signed the Anti-Ballistic Missile –ABM– Treaty, which limited the numbers and locations of anti-missile systems that the two superpowers could deploy to defend themselves against possible nuclear strikes. Thus, MAD ensured a strategic stalemate that the US has always aimed at overcoming.

GPALS
In 1991, SDI was formally cancelled and replaced by another, less ambitious system to suit the strategic reality of the immediate post-Cold War period: Global Protection Against Limited Strikes (GPALS). This project sought to protect American territory from ‘accidental, unauthorized or deliberate’ launches of a maximum of 200 ballistic missiles from the former Soviet republics or China. GPALS was also be required to guarantee zonal defence for forces stationed abroad; in light of the experience of Iraqi Scud missiles fired at American targets during the 1991 Gulf War. GPALS was active until 1996 and then stymied due to heavy maintenance costs and the fact that the Russian threat had almost evaporated.

BMD
BMD is an ambitious system, integrating NMD and Theatre Missile Defense (TMD) in a single project focusing on the use of a plethora of land, sea, air and space resources to destroy enemy missiles in the three flight phases (initial, mid-course and final). To destroy missiles in the initial phase, a period of time less than 300 seconds in which the rocket gathers the speed required to reach its target, the US is developing an Air-Borne Laser (ABL), flown in a Boeing 747, which will locate, track and destroy all short, mid and long range missiles, along with a Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI) mounted on land or marine platforms and able to hit to kill by impact. Two initiatives are being developed with a view to intercepting enemy missiles in the central flight phase deploying sensors and interceptors in the Czech Republic and Poland respectively. In order to intercept enemy missiles in their final phase, a brief period running from the entry of the warheads into the atmosphere to their impact on the target, the US is developing and integrating four systems.

BMD project seeks to protect the US, its allies and American forces deployed abroad against a hypothetical limited ballistic missile strike from a rogue state such as Iran and North Korea, or even terrorists who have managed to acquire these nuclear enables assets. The BMD is later proposed to be extended to cover a higher number of threats over the coming decades; to become a global anti-missile shield. The first of these shields systems was declared operative in 2006 and the aim is for most of the remaining devices to be functional by the end of the present decade.

While it is generally accepted that nuclear and ballistic proliferation constitutes a threat of a global nature, the American anti-missile shield may upset the global strategic balance. Furthermore, although BMD’s main aim is to eliminate the North Korean, Iranian and terrorists’ ballistic threat, the American commitment to facilitate Japan and Australia with theatre anti-missile defence systems and to station warning and monitoring systems on their territory, on the one hand, and the recent agreements reached with the Czech Republic and Poland to install monitoring and intercepting devices, on the other hand, have raised Chinese and Russian fears that the anti-missile shield is directed against them.

American Justification for Missile Shield
Another ugly and more potent threat had begun to surface in late 1990s; the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and means for launching them by rogue states. Initial studies indicated that these nuclear weapons and the means of launching them could begin appearing in around 2003, with Iran and North Korea taking the lead.

The Gulf countries are reviewing the utility of the United States as the sole security guarantor, and contemplating a collective security mechanism that involves a host of international players. With the region rich in hydrocarbon deposits, the situation is unacceptable to the US.

The possibility of terror elements inimical to the US getting hold of some of this destructive apparatus from Pakistan was also taken into account. The proliferation activities of the Pakistani AQ Khan network later confirmed US’ worst fears. The US accordingly formulated its strategic aims, military resources and capacities to face the new challenges in the future. Intensification of anti-proliferation and counter-proliferation measures, the strengthening of dissuasion and creation of an anti-missile shield formed part of the US strategy. Ballistic Missile Defense Program was ordered and the implementation of this anti-missile system was to be operative by 2000.

The US deployed devices to detect the launch of missiles, monitor their course and intercept them during the central phase of flight in California, Alaska, the UK, Greenland and via resources in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, and also negotiated with allies in the region –Japan, South Korea and Australia– for them to join the initiative. By 2004, National Missile Defense (NMD) capable of defending the US against a limited ‘accidental, unauthorized or deliberate’ strike of between five and 20 ballistic missiles, was in place as part of land and naval based anti missile resources.

At the end of 2004, President Bush asked the Department of Defense to complete the deployment of an anti-missile shield capable of protecting the US, its deployed forces, and allied countries against ballistic missile strikes. This system would be called Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD).

Russian Objections
NMD caused deep unease in China and Russia, who felt that this system was directed against them, and that its deployment would alter the existing strategic balance between the US and the two countries. In Russia’s case, this argument lacks substance in view of the fact that the country could easily saturate the system with the 300 ballistic missiles that it maintains. Russia has suspended the FACE treaty and is threatening to review its military policy. But the actual fear stems from when it is not just two facilities (the anti-missile base in Poland and the radar site in the Czech Republic) but a global system. Perhaps if the US’ anti missile facilities were to be deployed in Turkey or Italy, the Russian reaction would have been muted but still negative.

China, however, only possesses 20 ballistic vectors capable of reaching the American continent. Beijing issued a warning that NMD would force it, both to develop active means to target destruction of American detection and monitoring satellites and to increase its ballistic arsenal. China has already demonstrated its anti-satellite systems by destroying a decoy satellite in Jan 2008.

The US also commenced dialogues with Moscow to modify the ABM treaty and thereby allow for the development of the American anti-missile shield. In September 2000, the US already had the technical capacity available to develop and launch NMD within six years and proceeded to deploy the system regardless of international criticism and Moscow’s reservations with modification of the ABM treaty, from which it eventually withdrew at the end of 2001, three months after the September 11 terrorist attacks in the US.

The UN Stand
In 1999, the United Nations passed a resolution urging the US to abandon its plans to build this system.

Conclusion
The BMD has already achieved short-term results and is currently on course to achieve its final goals. If a global anti-missile system becomes a reality, the nuclear capability of Russia, China and other countries will be undermined. Russian President Vladimir Putin’s criticism of the US reflects the views of all those who are not US allies.

There is no doubt the programme has invited heated opposition from Russia, China and a host of other players. However, given the current US’ threat perception, one shared by the West, the US has no other alternative but to go ahead and develop the BMD to ensure its protection against emerging new threats.

THE SHANGHAI COOPERATION ORGANISATION

Introduction
In 1996 China by sponsored the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), consisting of four adjoining countries: Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan. The SCO started as a cooperative organisation with a focus on countering drug-smuggling and terrorism. Later, the SCO invited Uzbekistan to join, even though it does not abut China. In 2003, the SCO broadened its scope by including regional economic cooperation in its charter. That, in turn, granted observer status to Pakistan, India, and Mongolia — all adjoining China, and Iran which does not. SCO has evolved from Shanghai Five grouping to include a range of security and economic issues. There are many overlapping structures in the fields of security and economy in SCO which has the effect of diluting the unity of purpose and missions as envisaged in SCO charter.

In this uncertain and dynamic environment where each member is looking to maximise its gains from evolving situation, achieving cooperation amongst the members would be a complex task. Has it been able to gain credibility as a security provider to the Central Asian Region (CAR)? Is it poised to enlarge its scope and missions? Is it moving towards becoming a military alliance or will it remain an anti-terrorist coalition? How can it promote better economic integration between its member states and other regional groupings? How can it promote cooperation rather than competition especially for hydrocarbon and other resources in the region? It is critical to examine the degree of success which SCO has achieved so far in the roles set out by it.

The Maturing of SCO
Uzbekistan’s entrance to the club of five signified that the grouping had enlarged its interests to strategic cooperation in the region and had progressed beyond the border security issues. In the last six years, SCO has matured and acquired the ability to deal with the problems bedeviling the CAR and its neighborhood. However, it is still to achieve the required degree of credibility as a multi-lateral structure. In the post Cold War era, after dissolution of Soviet Union, American intervention in Afghanistan was the second most defining event.

The SCO members were happy to accommodate the American interests because Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) also addressed their concerns on terrorism, and instability being exported from Afghanistan, and Pakistan. During heydays of Taliban regime (1996-2001), Afghanistan and Pakistan had become epicenters of terrorism with sanctuaries and training facilities being provided to likes of Al Qaeda, Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) and holy warriors from Chechnya and CAR countries. Islamic militant groups of all hues had found ready sanctuaries in these countries and established effective terror infrastructure in these countries. Even China felt threatened from fundamentalist Muslim elements because of its proximity to Pakistan and vulnerabilities in Xingjian.

Russia and China raised no objections to the US being granted air bases and logistics facilities for OEF by Central Asian nations since it suited their strategic interests. SCO at this stage was in infancy and did not present a credible and coordinated alternative against security threats. Both Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan had pro-western orientation and were keen to obtain economic and security dividends from their association with the West through various groupings like NATO’s Partnership for Peace Programme. However, by the time SCO summit of 2005 took place a variety of factors resulted in SCO asking the USA to set a timeline for withdrawal of their bases from CAR. This declaration was one of the first steps towards assertion by the SCO as a multilateral institution on security issues.

Decline of Western Influence
Aggressive democratic practices by the USA and policy of extreme unilateralism in pursuance of its national interests led to disenchantment of CAR countries. As a throwback to Andijon violence of May 2005 in Uzbekistan and severe criticism of the Uzbek government actions by the USA; Americans were asked to vacate their base in Uzbekistan. This call was also echoed by the SCO in July 2005 which required US to vacate its bases in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan. Tajikistan also provides the USA military and NATO fly-over rights and a small contingent of French troops is based there for OEF. Kyrgyzstan had also demanded vacation of its air base by the USA but agreed to extend the lease with multifold increase of the lease money. By 2005, Central Asian countries had realised that envisaged economic benefits from the West were not substantial and were contingent upon many conditions including promotion of democratic norms as interpreted by the EU and the US.

SCO summit in July 2005 was important because it brought in India, Iran and Pakistan as observers, thus expanding its geographical reach and adding the possibilities of improved cooperation on economic and security affairs. Admission of the aforesaid observers in 2005 and Mongolia in 2004 may have resulted from some degree of confidence that SCO’s strategic and economic interests could expand beyond CAR. Though America and the West continue to exercise substantial influence in CAR affairs, 2005 marked the beginning of decline of the strategic influence of the USA in CAR.

SCO’s summit in Beijing in June 2006 was noteworthy for many reasons. It emphasised the leading role of China in imparting direction to the organisation. Documents signed included a joint communiqué on closer cooperation, a statement on information security, a resolution on fighting terrorism, separatism and extremism from 2007 to 2009, an agreement on joint terrorism actions among member countries and cutting off of infiltration channels of terrorists, extremists and separatists. Joint declaration also indicated determination of SCO to prevent interference in its affairs by outside powers.

An important aspect of the summit was the Russian proposal for creating an energy club under the aegis of SCO. The SCO consists of both energy deficient and energy surplus members and cooperation on energy issues can be mutually beneficial to all the members and observers.

Relevance and Effectiveness of SCO
While China has been the driver of SCO, Russia created its own grouping of Central Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO) in 2002, which includes all SCO members less China. Russia and China do create apprehensions among the smaller members of SCO because of their power differential between them.

Central Asian nations are still attracted towards the West for both political and economic reasons. All of them continue to pursue multi-vector policies to exploit the emerging strategic space to the maximum in furtherance of their respective national interests. For example, all CAR nations are members of Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and NATO’S ‘Partnership for Peace’ Programme. Kazakhstan is looking forward to becoming chairman of the OSCE in 2009. Uzbekistan has not given up on improving its relations with the EU and the USA. In order to assuage their concerns, Uzbek President had sacked Andijon Governor thus attempting to put the blame on local/ provincial authorities for Andijon incident. But this was not bought by the EU which continues to place restrictions on trade with that country.

The USA has become more pragmatic in criticising the deficiencies in the democratic and political processes in CAR countries. For example, the USA refrained from criticising election of Kazakhstan President Nursultan Nazarbayev in November 2006 in order to gain access to hydrocarbon riches of Kazakhstan. Similarly Kyrgyzstan, where Seventh SCO summit was held in August 2007, and which is the only country where a democratic government is functioning, has been recipient of considerable economic aid from the West and the USA. USA is still maintaining a base there for its operations in Afghanistan.

The presence of Turkmenistan President at the Seventh SCO summit points towards a shift in its erstwhile policy of ‘positive neutrality’. Its membership would be a boost for the SCO since it is the only CAR nation which remains outside the group. Turkmenistan has concluded a number of agreements with both Russia and China on gas supply which point towards rising influence of Russia and China and tilting of Turkmenistan away from the USA and the West.

China’s fast economic growth and appetite for natural resources and raw materials is viewed with consternation by other SCO members and they remain wary of being exploited by a large powerful neighbor. CAR nations aspire for an all round development which is yet to take off. Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan have been the two most pro-west nations in CAR but in the post-Soviet era. However, the Western economic aid has not been up to their expectations. Even though the complementarities of economy exist in CAR, the goal of achieving regional economic integration and political harmonisation seems to be far away.

SCO and CSTO signed an agreement on cooperation in security affairs in Aug 2007. This has several implications on the emerging strategic situation in the CAR. First, it signifies the cementing of strategic relationship between Russia and China in the CAR. Second, this security combine encompasses a vast region from the NATO in the West to China in the East, prompting comparisons with the Warsaw Pact of the Cold War-era and can turn into a NATO of the East. Third, the CSTO is more of a defence pact with the members required to come to each others aid in certain contingencies, while the China-led SCO is not a defence pact. Both China and Russia have emphasised that the SCO has no plans to become a military bloc.

At the international and regional levels, SCO has also established relations with regional cooperative structures like ASEAN, Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), and Eurasian Economic Community, besides the CSTO. During the seventh summit, SCO had proposed an Afghan Contact Group in 2005; protocol for the same was signed the next year. Because of the worsening security situation in Afghanistan and resurgence of Taliban with concomitant likely adverse effect on stability and security in CAR, SCO in its joint communiqué of August 16, 2007 has indicated the possibility of enhancing its role in the region. This may not be taken kindly by the USA or NATO; yet this is an exhibition of SCO’s willingness to be a net contributor to the regional security.

In the ultimate analysis, though SCO has come of age and has achieved a certain degree of maturity, it has yet to evolve as an effective regional organisation. It has still to achieve the required degree of harmonistion of competing interests of its members as well as interests of regional and outside powers. At the international level it has improved its image (SCO’s seventh summit was attended by United Nation’s Under Secretary for Political Affairs, Lynn Pascoe) but it is yet to be given due recognition by either the USA or NATO.

India’s Standing in the SCO
India was admitted as an observer in the SCO in its fifth summit meeting in 2005. India considers Central Asia as its strategic neighborhood and has been endeavoring to develop economic and trade relations which, to a large extent, are being hampered by lack of a direct route to CAR.

India looks at Central Asian oil to diversify its gas and oil imports. Further, India prefers stability of the current regimes and favors peaceful change rather than promotion of any aggressive democratic practices. India is, Therefore, considered a friendly partner by Central Asian states and a country which can play a balancing role in fierce power play taking place in CAR.

India shares the goals of anti-terrorism, security and stability in Central Asia along with the curtailment of drug trafficking in the region. India supports the objectives of SCO which seek to ensure stability in the region, combat terrorism and extremist view points and is keen to play constructive and active role in SCO. India favours construction of gas pipelines from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan and Pakistan to India. Turkmenistan has indicated that there is enough gas in Turkmenistan to meet the demands of Pakistan and India. From India’s point of view the formulation of SCO Energy CLUB would be beneficial, if all the members and observers are able to evolve a win-win situation and there is more cooperation than competition in the field of energy. India had lost to China in its bid for an oil contract in Kazakhstan towards end of 2005 because of some extraneous reasons.

India’s economic cooperation with CAR nations also remains at a low. Trade between Central Asia and India is largely circumscribed by the unstable situation in Afghanistan and obtuse policies of Pakistan in not allowing the Indian goods to pass through its territory. The need to develop a North-South Transit corridor, which provides a shorter and more efficient trade route to Russia and landlocked Central Asia, can not be overemphasised.

There is also a moratorium placed on admission of new members in the SCO. Unlike Iran and Pakistan, India has not expressed any intention of becoming a member of SCO. India would do well to abstain from full membership, if it perceives SCO evolving into a military alliance.

Conclusion
SCO has acquired increased confidence and prominence as a multilateral organisation. Even though it has shared goals of stamping out terrorism, extremism and radicalism in the region with other organisations like NATO, it is not seen as a complimentary security structure by the NATO or the USA.

Raj Thackeray, Abu Azmi Arrested

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Raj_Thackeray_Abu_Azmi_arrested/articleshow/2780007.cms#write

Like the Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister R R Patil admitted, Raj Thackeray's arrest shows that government will not let anyone take law into his own hands. It was just that, a show! Why did it take the Maharashtra Government so much time to take any action? Why else has Raj Thackeray been granted bail sooner than later? Raj's arrest led to MNS goons blocking roads, pelting stones at buses damaging several vehicles and public property. It is certain that the State Government will wait until tempers cool to brush the incident under the carpet. We have the example of the Communist Government in West Bengal bending backwards to please Muslim arsonists to throw Taslima Nasreen out of the state. Then again, it was the fear of MIM goondas taking law into their own hands in Hyderabad that had led the Andhra Pradesh Government to acquiesce and quickly dispatch the firebrand writer out of the state.

The application of law has to be immediate for it to be effective. ‘McGregor’s Red Hot Stove Principle’ on application of law advocates that action against a defaulter must be immediate and without consideration of who the defaulter is – like anyone touching a red hot stove getting a burn almost immediately. Only then can law and order situation in the country be conducive for the common man to exist normally and without fear. Only then can the fear of law be instilled in politicians like Raj Thackeray who incited violence in Maharashtra by his outrageous statements, and Deputy Chief Minister RR Patil who has made a show of arresting him.

Delaying firm action only results in prolonging the life of a problem! It is a sign of weak governance to permit violence to be used as an effective tool for gaining media attention and the government to listen, and must be dealt with firmly and without any dithering by authorities that be.

PAKISTAN ELECTIONS: FEB 2008

http://www.elections.com.pk/
http://www.electionguide.org/election.php?ID=1368
Background
The run-up to the Feb 18th elections to the national parliament and the provincial assemblies has been marred by several controversies, including President Musharraf's dismissal of over half the country's top judges. He did that to secure his own re-election from a lame-duck parliament and to forestall any challenges to its legality. Earlier former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto was assassinated in a gun and bomb attack on 27 Dec 2007 and the government postponed the elections from 8 January to 18 February, citing as a reason the riots that followed Ms Bhutto's death. With the current turmoil in Pakistan, elections may be the best bet to ward off future trouble. Fair and free elections and a smooth transfer of power will help integrate the fractured nation and help isolate militants from the mainstream.
As elections approach, the north-west is slipping under the influence of Islamic militants, while a lesser insurgency by nationalists threatens peace in Balochistan province, the largest in terms of land and natural resources. With almost every election rally having resulted in bomb blasts and civilian casualties, public enthusiasm for the elections is much dampened.

Position of Political Parties
Main parties in the run include:
Benazir Bhutto's Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP).
The Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz (PML-N) of former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif.
The governing Pakistan Muslim League Quaid-e-Azam (PML-Q)
The Jamiat Ulema-I-Islam (JUI-F) of the Islamist cleric, Maulana Fazlur Rahman.
The Karachi-based Mutahidda Qaumi Movement (MQM).
The Awami National Party, a Pashtun nationalist organisation from North West Frontier Province.

The All Parties Democratic Alliance (APDM), a grouping of several opposition parties, has decided to boycott elections.
Musharraf's main allies are PML-Q and MQM. The PML-N, which Mr Musharraf ousted from power in the October 1999 army coup, is his staunch opponent. The PPP has also been critical of Musharraf's government and blames him for Benazir Bhutto’s assassination and for failing to contain militancy. However, it advocates phased withdrawal of the military from political power instead of Musharraf's immediate ouster. The PPP is still willing to work with President Musharraf provided the elections are free and fair.

Subdued campaigning
Security concerns have minimised wider voter mobilisation through processions and public rallies. Huge billboards and party flags seem to be the only indication of elections in the country. The election commission of Pakistan is accused of not enforcing its own directives issued late last year. There are also complaints of interference by district governments in the election process.

Election Monitors
There is worldwide interest in Pakistani elections, and several countries and organisations intend to monitor the vote. Number of observers' missions are already in the country, including one from the European Union.
A network of non-governmental organizations (NGOs), affiliations with or funded by non-profit groups and think-tanks based in Europe and the US is also monitoring the pre-poll situation.

Army’s Likely Role
The army under its new chief, Gen Ashfaq Pervez Kayani, is keen to restore its image following the drubbing it received from the public, largely because of Musharraf's controversial role in politics. The army had also been criticised for encroaching onto the civilian domain such as the civil administration, business and industry, banking as well as the real estate sector. In Jan, Gen Kayani announced pull out of hundreds of military officers from civilian positions in the administration, indicating a lesser role for the army in the country's affairs.

On the face of it, the Army is unlikely to overtly support any political party. But behind the scenes most of the military is likely to support Musharraf, if only for the sake of stability which they believe he provides.

The Strength of Islamist parties
The election scene is very different from 2002 when six religious parties representing various groups united to form a permanent alliance called the MMA. This was when the US had just invaded Afghanistan and anti-American sentiment was at its peak. The two major opposition parties, the PPP and PML-N, were leaderless and in disarray with their leaders living in exile.
Both those parties are in the field now. Nawaz Sharif is spearheading the campaign of his PML-N party while the PPP hopes to make the most of a sympathy vote following Ms Bhutto's assassination.
Some MMA components, including Jamaat-e-Islami (JI), are boycotting the elections, whereas JUI-F is contesting the polls despite death threats to its leader, Maulana Fazlur Rahman. The alliance stands practically dissolved.

Post- Elections Power Equation
Most political parties oppose Musharraf because of a set of constitutional amendments he recently made through executive orders. These amendments give him discretionary powers to dismiss governments and assemblies. They also empower him to appoint heads of the armed forces and administrative services. Since Pakistan is a parliamentary democracy in which the president is indirectly elected by the parliament, some fear he may act against a government which in any way upsets the military.
During nine years between 1988-97, successive presidents armed with these powers, and backed by the army, have dismissed four directly elected governments. Irrespective of the election results, the Army is unlikely to give up its hold on power in Pakistan.

PAKISTAN AND ITS ILLUSIONS

Background
In the early 1940s, the Muslim League rejected the idea of the Indian sub-continent being governed by a constitution, which enshrined secular values. It pressed for partition of India and, under the leadership of Mr Mohammed Ali Jinnah, took the communal path and proclaimed that it was the sole representative of Muslims in the subcontinent. Muslims who supported the secular Congress Party were branded as Hindu chamchas [yes men] and traitors to Islam. By this logic, Pakistan claimed that Jammu and Kashmir being a Muslim majority state should be part of Pakistan. Thousands of armed Pakistani guerrillas crossed the border into the Kashmir valley. They were under the illusion that one Pakistani was equal to ten Indians. Their slogan was “Has kar liya Pakistan, lar kar lenge Hindustan”. The trucks in which they came were marked ‘Chalo Delhi’.

After a thorough beating, when the Indian Army was poised to clear the whole of Jammu and Kashmir, Pakistan accepted a United Nations cease fire. This was to be followed by a withdrawal of Pakistani forces and a United Nations (UN)-supervised plebiscite to decide the will of the people. Pakistan was afraid to allow a plebiscite to be held as they knew that Shiekh Abdullah and his National Conference party would sweep the polls. Thus, Pakistan refused to withdraw and no plebiscite could be held. Pakistani propaganda kept repeating that India was refusing a plebiscite. However, Jinnah saw the reality and on his deathbed admitted to his doctor that the creation of Pakistan was the biggest disaster of his life.

The Indo-Pak Wars
Pakistan realized that its armed forces were too weak for them to force a military solution in Jammu and Kashmir. Pakistan joined US-led anti-Soviet military pacts. In return, it received significant military supplies. By 1964, Pakistan's armed forces had a military edge over India in three vital areas: the air force, armour and artillery. This once again fired their illusions. Mr Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, the then Prime Minister of Pakistan, persuaded President Ayub Khan to focus attention on Jammu and Kashmir as there was little risk of provoking a military show down. Indian Prime Minister Shastri warned Pakistan that any violations of the Cease Fire Line (CFL) would be treated as a violation of the international border and India would be compelled to take appropriate action to counter this.

Ignoring his warning, Pakistan launched an armoured division across the CFL, captured Chhamb, threatened Akhnur and the road communications from Jammu to Naushera and Poonch. On 6th September 1965, Shastri ordered the Armed Forces to counter this aggression and cross the international border if necessary. The Indo-Pak War of 1965 resulted in a military and political defeat for Pakistan. In the battles which ensued, Pakistan lost the cream of its armour in the Punjab. Pakistan's political aims had been countered. An emergency was declared in Pakistan. President Ayub Khan resigned. A UN imposed cease fire resulted in the re-establishment of a mutually agreed Cease Fire Line [CFL].

Pakistani propaganda claimed that India had wanted to overrun Pakistan and that their aggressive plans had been crushed. This illusion is perpetuated to this day, and 6th September is celebrated as "Save Pakistan Day". But Pakistani generals know the reality. They know that they cannot defeat India militarily. They have decided to "bleed" India by arming and training terrorists in occupied Jammu and Kashmir, and employing them for trans-border terror attacks. Pakistani propaganda claims these people to be freedom fighters. That explains the existence of terror infrastructure inside areas under Pakistani control.

Meanwhile, it had become apparent that there were strong cultural differences between East and West Pakistan, which could not be overcome by Islam. When the East Pakistani electorate, led by Mujibur Rehman, gained a lead over West Pakistan's Muslim League, the latter was not prepared to accept Mujibur Rehman as the Prime Minister. The President proclaimed martial law in East Pakistan, appointed Bhutto as Prime Minister, arrested Mujibur Rehman and began arresting and killing Bengali intellectuals and other prominent leaders.

Millions of Bengali refugees poured across the border into India where a provisional Bangladesh government in exile was established. Bengali guerrillas were recruited, organised, armed and trained. Soon the whole of East Pakistan was up in arms. Pakistani military positions were isolated and were faced with an impossible military task. Forces in West Pakistan, out of sheer desperation, launched futile air attacks across the western border against targets in India. In the ensuing Indo-Pak War of 1971, Pakistani armed forces in East Pakistan capitulated. 93,000 prisoners were evacuated to prison camps in India. East Pakistan was proclaimed as a sovereign state, Bangladesh. India declared a unilateral cease fire.

Bhutto released Mujibur Rehman and began negotiating for the repatriation of 93,000 prisoners of war. India demanded that the CFL be demarcated by a joint team. India wanted this to be treated as an international border, but Bhutto apparently pleaded that this decision be delayed until he had consolidated his position in Pakistan. India agreed and the prisoners were repatriated; the CFL was thereafter referred to as the Line of Control [LOC]. The Pakistani military was subdued after this defeat in Bangladesh but it was not prepared to allow Bhutto to consolidate his political power. Bhutto's opponents accused him of murdering a political rival. Bhutto was arrested, tried, found guilty and hanged. The military once again became the power behind the political throne in Islamabad.

Rise of SectarianismPartition had deeply affected the demographic balance of some areas of Pakistan. The majority of the migrants who went from India were Sunnis who were either serving in the armed forces or working as farm laborers. Many started working on the farms of Pakistani Shia landlords. Their poverty led to deep resentments and created an angry group deprived of resources and political representation.

Fearful of Shia activism following the 1978-79 Islamic revolution in Iran, General Zia Ul Haq inflamed Sunni fears and militarised Sunni militants. With the praiseworthy exception of Nawaz Sharif, all successive Pakistani governments have continued to manipulate sectarian tension for political purposes. With the assistance of Inter-Services Intelligence [ISI] successive governments also used sectarian elements to sustain Pakistan's interests in the conflicts in Jammu and Kashmir and Afghanistan. The Army has been accused of having encouraged sectarian conflict, which it can no longer control. Yet careful examination shows that the army has always been able to maintain sectarian violence at an acceptable level by fostering infighting between groups and even eliminating key leaders whenever an organisation or individual became too difficult to control.

Army’s Hold on Power
Historically the Army has been able to remain in full control of the country since 1947 in one form or the other. It has occasionally withdrawn behind the scenes whenever it could not fulfill the economic, social and political expectations of society or when the Army suffered a major military set back as happened in 1971 when East Pakistan broke away from Pakistan and became Bangladesh. But the Army never really gave up power. After every crisis the Army was able to control power while civilians had to bear the burden of governance.

The military regime formed an alliance with religious organisations and made them an integral part of the military system of dominance. Thus, the emergence of the Muttahid Majlis-e-Ammal MMA (a combination of several religious organisations) as a political force in the North West Frontier Province (NWFP) did not impose any constraints on the government. On the contrary, the MMA split the votes of the other political parties and allowed Musharraf to pass the constitutional amendments necessary to transform the parliamentary system into a presidential one and institutionalise the political role of the army through creation of a National Security Council.

Although General Pervez Musharraf's role as a liberal moderniser is accepted by many, we should not exaggerate the dangers, which could arise by the possible assassination of the General. Notwithstanding the human tragedy of such a loss, his absence is unlikely to shift the power centre of the country. A suitable relief would be found by the military. The policies on Jammu and Kashmir and Afghanistan would continue and security of Pakistan's nuclear weapons would remain under army control.

Illusion of Democracy
The military knows that the illusion of formal democracy is an essential facade when it deals with the west. It, therefore, perpetuates a political party system and elections. The military continues to hold the reins of government while letting politicians deal with the difficulties of governance. Thus, free and fair elections and the formal transfer of power to a civilian head of state, though a necessary first step in the restoration of democracy, will by itself not result in the democratisation of the country. After they form a government, civilians will face an almost impossible task of balancing the priorities of civilian politics with the "demands" of the military. Lacking true autonomy, civilians will not be able to perform better than the military. At the same time, civil helplessness in the face of orchestrated sectarian violence will reinforce the army's role as the only institution able to physically control it. This is one of the main reasons why democratic politics have been repeatedly discredited in Pakistan.

Prominent Pakistani politicians have understood this. In May 2006, long time exiled rivals Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif got together in London and signed a "Charter to Democracy" for their country. This Charter envisages bringing the military under civilian control, disbanding the National Security Council, bringing the defence budget under parliamentary oversight and throwing out military officers who occupy civilian posts. An independent election commission would conduct polls and independence of the judiciary would be restored. This effort, if accompanied by sustained economic growth, will result in the emergence of a substantial middle class with a democratic character. It is this element that is likely to demand more participatory governance and evolve a democratic tradition. Significantly, the MMA has accepted reality and also declared its support for the Charter.

General Musharraf's position has been eroded considerably since his coup in October 1999. His propaganda machine is finding it difficult to project him as a knight out on a mission to rid Pakistan of corrupt politicians, or to rid the country of internal sectarian violence or to protect Pakistan from Indian aggression. Terrorists in Jammu and Kashmir can no longer pretend that they are freedom fighters and that their violence is directed at assisting the political aspirations of the people. Kashmiris have begun to see the reality of their situation. They have at last understood that Pakistan's game plan undermines their prosperity, without achieving any political gains. The West too has understood that the risk of an Islamist take over in Pakistan is a myth created by the military to consolidate its hold on power. Propaganda on all these connected issues no longer works.

The Army knows that it can no longer rely on full support from Sind, Baluchistan or the North Western Frontier Province (NWFP). It clings to the illusion that as long as Punjab continues to remain pro-army, and it can prevent the exiled politicians from establishing a working coalition, there is little that they can do to oust the army. To dispel this illusion, the opposition must sweep the polls and make the Charter work. Politicians have one big advantage. The common man has dispelled many old illusions. The army's propaganda machine no longer works.

Musharraf knows that this is a battle for the hearts and minds of the people. This is an internal struggle for power and Pakistani strategists will welcome an opportunity to somehow involve India. By supporting the opposition, India would be playing into the Army's hands. This would help the military to win public support on the grounds of national security against their arch rivals – devious Hindu infidels who want to break up Pakistan.

Erstwhile Pakistan Army Chief General Aslam Beg had publicly announced that any threat to Pakistan's security, no matter by whom, would evoke a nuclear strike against India. Could an internal political "threat" against military authoritarianism be treated as an Indian inspired threat? It is difficult to know what desperate power hungry generals will do when they sense that they are losing power. It is necessary that Indian Armed forces be prepared for any eventuality. At the same time it would be prudent to remind Pakistan that in the event of a nuclear threat, India has the power to wipe out Pakistan.

Pakistan Army's best bet would be to avoid a direct confrontation with India and continue sponsoring terrorist attacks. The aim is to provoke communal riots, create several mini-Pakistans within India and to prove to their people that secular governance doesn't work in India. India's response to this is to keep cool and improve its intelligence and security, and deal swiftly with those who plan and execute such attacks.

The Rising Baloch Insurgency
On 26 August 2006, Pakistan army launched a heliborne commando raid on a Baloch stronghold north-west of Quetta. The ensuing battle left Nawab Akbar Bugti, his guards and about 20 Pakistani soldiers dead. This incident has given a fresh lease of life to Balochistan's long simmering insurgency and put further strain on Pakistan's fragile nation state. It is clearly not in India's interest to get involved with Balochistan insurgency.

Indian Options
Under these circumstances, India should not only continue its "peace talks" with Pakistan but should prepare and plan for a post-Musharraf future and an inevitable structural change in Pakistan. Cynics will scoff at the talk of democracy in Pakistan. The question is not whether Pakistan will forever be under the thumb of the Army but whether India is preparing itself for inevitable changes in Pakistan.

Like all the other friends of Pakistan, India too must insist on an electoral process being 'free and fair'. These small steps could set the tone for a more assertive Indian policy towards Pakistan that will benefit the people of both countries

India is rightly taking pains to ensure that its empathy for the Baloch cause does not give an opportunity to Islamabad to either discredit the movement or divide opposition leaders by laying them open to the charge that they are toe-ing the Indian line.

While adopting a realistic approach towards Pakistan, India would do well to further develop strategic relationship with the US and the West. This is bound to offset any advantage that Pakistan derives from similar efforts.

US AND RUSSIA: ALTERING EQUATIONS

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6726839.stm
http://www.usiofindia.org/frame.htm

Background
With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the United States stood tall—militarily invincible, economically unrivalled, diplomatically uncontestable, and the dominating force on information channels worldwide. The next century was to be the true “American century,” with the rest of the world moulding itself in the image of the sole .

Surprisingly, a new and increasingly potent multipolar world has surfaced within a decade, in which new powers are challenging different aspects of American supremacy — Russia and China in the forefront, with regional powers Venezuela and Iran forming the second rank primed to erode American hegemony.

Military Misadventures
The phenomenon behind the world evolving in this way so soon is intriguing. The Bush administration’s misadventure in Iraq is clearly a major factor in this transformation, a classic example of an imperialist power over-extending itself. The Iraq fiasco has demonstrated the striking limitations of power of the globe’s highest tech-savvy and most destructive combat machine. In Iraq, Brent Scowcroft, National Security Adviser to two U.S. Presidents, concedes in a recent op-ed, “We are being wrestled to a draw by opponents who are not even an organised state adversary.”

The invasion and occupation of Iraq and the mismanaged military campaign in Afghanistan have crippled the credibility of the United States. The scandals at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, along with the widely publicized murders of Iraqi civilians in Haditha, have badly tarnished America’s image. In the latest opinion poll, even in a secular state and member of NATO like Turkey, only 9% of Turks have a “favorable view” of the U.S (down from 52% just five years ago).

Other Factors
Other explanations include the tightening market in oil and natural gas, which has enhanced the power of hydrocarbon-rich nations as never before; the rapid economic expansion of the mega-nations China and India; the transformation of China into a global manufacturing hub; and the end of the Anglo-American duopoly in international television news.

During the 1991 Gulf War, only CNN and the BBC covered Operation Desert Storm. The international TV audience saw the conflict through their lenses. When the Bush administration invaded Iraq, Al Jazeera Arabic, funded by the hydrocarbon-rich emirate of Qatar, broke this duopoly. It relayed images that contradicted the Pentagon’s versions. Soon France 24 came on the air, broadcasting in English and French from a French viewpoint, followed in mid-2007 by the English-language Press TV, which aimed to provide an Iranian perspective. Russia was next in line for 24-hour TV news in English for the global audience. Funding for these TV news ventures came from soaring national hydrocarbon incomes — a factor draining American hegemony not just in imagery but in reality.

Resurgent Russia
Under President Vladimir Putin, Russia has more than recovered from the economic chaos that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. After effectively renationalising the energy industry through state-controlled corporations, he began deploying its economic clout to further Russia’s foreign policy interests. In 2005, Russia overtook the United States, becoming the second largest oil producer in the world. Its oil income now amounts to $679 million a day. European countries dependent on imported Russian oil now include Hungary, Poland, Germany, and even Britain.

Russia is also the largest producer of natural gas on the planet, with three-fifths of its gas exports going to the 27-member European Union. Bulgaria, Estonia, Finland, and Slovakia get 100% of their natural gas from Russia; Turkey, 66%; Poland, 58%; Germany 41%; and France 25%. In 2006, the Kremlin’s foreign exchange reserves stood at $315 billion, up from a paltry $12 billion in 1999. In July 2006, on the eve of the G8 summit in St Petersburg, Putin rejected an energy charter proposed by the Western leaders.

The changing relationship between Moscow and Washington too has not gone unnoticed by policy-makers in the hydrocarbon-rich Persian Gulf region. Russia and Gulf Arab countries, once rivals from opposite ideological camps, had found a common agenda of oil, anti-terrorism, and arms sales. The Gulf countries are keen to keep all geopolitical options open, reviewing the utility of the United States as the sole security guarantor, and contemplating a collective security mechanism that involves a host of international players. A strong, more self-confident Russia has become an integral part of changes in the world.

The Hugo Chavez Challenge
Hugo Chavez, While visiting Moscow in June 2007, urged Russians to return to the ideas of Vladimir Lenin. He declared that the Americans don’t want Russia to keep rising and that Russia had risen again as a centre of power and the world needs Russia to become stronger. Chavez finalised a $1 billion deal to purchase five diesel submarines to defend Venezuela’s oil-rich undersea shelf and thwart any possible future economic embargo imposed by Washington. By then, Venezuela had become the second largest buyer of Russian weaponry. By 2006, Venezuela was giving more foreign aid to needy Latin American states than the US.

Chavez vigorously pursued the concept of forming an anti-imperialist alliance in Latin America as well as globally. He strengthened Venezuela’s ties not only with such Latin countries as Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and debt-ridden Argentina, but also with Iran and Belarus.

Stuck in the quagmire of Iraq and lashed by rocketing oil prices, the Bush administration’s area of manoeuvre has shrunk considerably, when dealing with a rising hydrocarbon power. The reason is the crippling dependence of the United States on imported petroleum which accounts for 60% of its total consumed. Venezuela is the fourth largest source of U.S. imported oil after Canada, Mexico, and Saudi Arabia; and some refineries in the U.S. are designed specifically to refine heavy Venezuelan oil.

China has played an important role in Chavez’s scheme to undermine the USA. During an August 2006 visit to Beijing, he announced that Venezuela would triple its oil exports to China to 500,000 barrels per day in three years, a jump that suited both sides. Chavez wants to diversify Venezuela’s buyer base to reduce its reliance on exports to the US. China’s leaders are keen to diversify their hydrocarbon imports away from the Middle East, where American influence remains strong. Along with a joint refinery project, China agreed to build thirteen oil drilling platforms, supply eighteen oil tankers, and collaborate with the state-owned company, Petroleos de Venezuela S.A, in exploring a new oilfield in the Orinoco Basin in Venezuela.

Rise of the Dragon
In 2007, the dramatic growth of the state-run company Petro China made it second only to Exxon Mobil in its market value among energy corporations. In fact, three Chinese companies made it onto the list of the world’s ten most highly valued corporations. Only the U.S. had more with five. China’s foreign reserves of over $1 trillion have now surpassed Japan’s. With its gross domestic product soaring past Germany’s, China ranks number three in the world economy.China broke new diplomatic ground in 1996 by sponsoring the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), consisting of four adjoining countries: Russia and the three former Soviet Socialist republics of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan. The SCO started as a cooperative organisation with a focus on countering drug-smuggling and terrorism. Later, the SCO invited Uzbekistan to join, even though it does not abut China. In 2003, the SCO broadened its scope by including regional economic cooperation in its charter. That, in turn, granted observer status to Pakistan, India, and Mongolia — all adjoining China, and Iran which does not. When the U.S. applied for observer status, it was rejected, a setback for Washington, which enjoyed such status at the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN).

In late 2006, as the host of a China-Africa Forum in Beijing attended by leaders of 48 of 53 African nations, China left the U.S. woefully behind in the diplomatic race for that continent (and its hydrocarbon and other resources). In return for Africa’s oil, iron ore, copper, and cotton, China sold low-priced goods to Africans, and assisted African countries in building or improving roads, railways, ports, hydro-electric dams, telecommunications systems, and schools.

To reduce the cost of transporting petroleum from Africa and the Middle East, China began constructing a trans-Burma oil pipeline from the Bay of Bengal to its southern province of Yunan, thereby shortening the delivery distance now travelled by tankers. This undermined Washington’s campaign to isolate Myanmar. Earlier, Sudan, boycotted by Washington, had emerged as a leading supplier of African oil to China. In addition, Chinese oil companies were competing fiercely with their Western counterparts in getting access to hydrocarbon reserves in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan.China’s oil diplomacy is putting the country on a collision course with the U.S. and Western Europe, which have imposed sanctions on some of the countries where China is doing business. China and the US are clearly headed into conflict over energy.

China’s rapid industrialisation and modernisation of its military, the test-firing of the country’s first anti-satellite missile, which successfully destroyed a defunct Chinese weather satellite in January 2007, dramatically demonstrated its growing technological prowess. An alarmed Washington had already noted an 18% increase in China’s 2007 defence budget. China’s declared budget of $45 billion was a tiny fraction of the Pentagon’s $459 billion one. Yet, in May 2007, a Pentagon report noted China’s “rapid rise as a regional and economic power with global aspirations” and claimed that it was planning to project military influence farther afield from the Taiwan Straits into the Asia-Pacific region in preparation for possible conflicts over territory or resources.

The American Options
This disparate challenge to American global primacy stems mainly from sharpening conflicts over the planet’s depleting natural resources, particularly oil and natural gas. The growing military commitments too have seen American national resources deployed in avoidable and wasteful adventures. The US will need to rework its global priorities, review afresh its international equations and marshal its tremendous economic potential to retain its position as a super power.