Madame Speaker,
I rise to participate in this debate by endorsing the motion of thanks to Respected Rashtrapati for her Address to Joint Houses of Parliament.
The President’s Address is essentially a report card of the Government’s activities in the previous year. It also provides a glimpse of the Government’s plans for the ensuing year. The format of this debate is such that both Houses unanimously vote for the motion of thanks. However, within the debate there is wide plurality of views expressed by members, who either support or criticize the government of the day depending on their – and their parties’ – assessment of the working of the government.
I do not believe that these views should always be expressed in black and white terms, with the Opposition criticizing everything the Government has done and the Treasury Benches opposing everything the Opposition says. Such an attitude would not be healthy, nor conducive to the growth of democratic culture in the country.
When it comes to the progress made by the nation, there should be no partisan considerations in acknowledging it and taking pride in it. Because, the NATION belongs to all of us, as much to party A as to party B. Indeed, interests of the Nation must come First, in whatever we do as the party of the Government or the party of the Opposition.
Promote defence indigenization on a war footing
Therefore, in the President’s Address, I was as happy as any other Honourable Member of this House to hear about the successful launch of the Agni-III missile. Our scientists and engineers who made this possible deserve our praise and gratitude.
Of course, we must remember that we have a long way to go to achieve the goal of maximum self-reliance in production of defence equipment and ammunition. A country as large and populous as India, and a country with such a vast pool of scientific and technological talent, must not remain excessively dependent on imports for our defence needs. India is currently on a $50-billion dollar push over five years to modernise its military. Much of it will be spent on imports. Apart from a drain on our precious national resources, it is also not good for our defence preparedness.
Some of the countries from which we import defence systems, also supply arms to Pakistan. What an irony it is that we buy arms with our hard-earned money from countries that then provide arms as part of an aid and grants programme!
India’s domestic industry is now big enough and sufficiently advanced to play a major role in defence indigenization. In addition to our defence PSUs, companies like L&T, Tatas, Godrej, Mahindras, etc, should be supported to expand India’s footprint in defence production in a big way. I urge the Government to take up this transition on a war footing.
I rise to participate in this debate by endorsing the motion of thanks to Respected Rashtrapati for her Address to Joint Houses of Parliament.
The President’s Address is essentially a report card of the Government’s activities in the previous year. It also provides a glimpse of the Government’s plans for the ensuing year. The format of this debate is such that both Houses unanimously vote for the motion of thanks. However, within the debate there is wide plurality of views expressed by members, who either support or criticize the government of the day depending on their – and their parties’ – assessment of the working of the government.
I do not believe that these views should always be expressed in black and white terms, with the Opposition criticizing everything the Government has done and the Treasury Benches opposing everything the Opposition says. Such an attitude would not be healthy, nor conducive to the growth of democratic culture in the country.
When it comes to the progress made by the nation, there should be no partisan considerations in acknowledging it and taking pride in it. Because, the NATION belongs to all of us, as much to party A as to party B. Indeed, interests of the Nation must come First, in whatever we do as the party of the Government or the party of the Opposition.
Promote defence indigenization on a war footing
Therefore, in the President’s Address, I was as happy as any other Honourable Member of this House to hear about the successful launch of the Agni-III missile. Our scientists and engineers who made this possible deserve our praise and gratitude.
Of course, we must remember that we have a long way to go to achieve the goal of maximum self-reliance in production of defence equipment and ammunition. A country as large and populous as India, and a country with such a vast pool of scientific and technological talent, must not remain excessively dependent on imports for our defence needs. India is currently on a $50-billion dollar push over five years to modernise its military. Much of it will be spent on imports. Apart from a drain on our precious national resources, it is also not good for our defence preparedness.
Some of the countries from which we import defence systems, also supply arms to Pakistan. What an irony it is that we buy arms with our hard-earned money from countries that then provide arms as part of an aid and grants programme!
India’s domestic industry is now big enough and sufficiently advanced to play a major role in defence indigenization. In addition to our defence PSUs, companies like L&T, Tatas, Godrej, Mahindras, etc, should be supported to expand India’s footprint in defence production in a big way. I urge the Government to take up this transition on a war footing.
I have recently read that, perturbed at the delays in defence acquisition that cause the surrender of large sums of money every year, the finance ministry has mooted a change in policy that will empower Defence Minister A K Antony to clear defence projects up to Rs 1,000 crore, bypassing the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS).
I welcome this move, with two caveats. Firstly, such empowerment should not dilute transparency and accountability in the ministry of defence. Secondly, let the ministry of defence use this autonomy to clear defence indigenization projects.
One Rank One Pension
Madame Speaker, I was also happy to know about the acceptance of the recommendations regarding the pensionary benefits of personnel below officers rank and commissioned officers.
I do not know if this means full acceptance of the ‘One Rank One Pension’ demand of ex-servicemen. I hope that it is so. I had personally backed their agitation over this demand last year. It was distressing to see that a large number of officers and jawans honoured for their bravery had returned their medals in protest. A broad consensus has now developed over this issue. I do hope that we never again allow such situations to crop up that breed discontent among the guardians of our national security.
I do not know if this means full acceptance of the ‘One Rank One Pension’ demand of ex-servicemen. I hope that it is so. I had personally backed their agitation over this demand last year. It was distressing to see that a large number of officers and jawans honoured for their bravery had returned their medals in protest. A broad consensus has now developed over this issue. I do hope that we never again allow such situations to crop up that breed discontent among the guardians of our national security.
NDA Govt laid the foundation for India’s spectacular telecom and highway revolution
Let me give another example of India’s spectacular achievement that should bring pride to one and all in this House. The President’s Address states that our country now has 57 crore telephone connections. An unprecedented 2 crore connections were added in the month of December 2009 itself. This makes India the fastest growing telecom market in the world.
Precisely because India is now the fastest growing telecom market in the world, the Government should introduce a policy to encourage Indian companies to manufacture mobile phones and telecom equipment. India has achieved a lot in IT software, but we have lagged behind in IT hardware manufacture.
To people of my generation, India’s partial transition from an Economy of Scarcity to an Economy of Surplus is almost unimaginable. Until the late 1990s, getting a telephone connection was so difficult and the waiting period was so long that Members of Parliament who are old-timers, such as Pranab Babu or A.K. Antony or Mulayam Singh Yadav, will remember that one of the main expectations that people had from MPs was to give recommendations for telephone -- and also gas -- connections.
Of course, I would like to remind the Treasury Benches that this is achievement was made possible by the radical telecom reforms that the NDA Government initiated. Government is a continuing entity. The good policies of a previous Government help the incumbent Government to show results. Similarly, the good steps taken by the incumbent Government bear fruit during the tenure of a future Government.
These days, I hear my friend Shri Kamalnath, the Minister of Surface Transport, talk about the Government’s determination to construct highways at a speed of 20 kms per day. I wholly commend this ambition and determination. But the Government should remember that this progress too has been made possible because of the strong foundation in highway construction laid by the Government of Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee.
Indeed, the NDA Government derived inspiration for the National Highway Development Project from the pioneering Mumbai-Pune expressway built by Maharashtra’s then PWD minister Shri Nitin Gadkari, who has now become the all-India president of my party.
Madame Speaker, what is the larger message for all of us from the example of the Telecom Boom? It is just that India has immense potential to overcome problems of underdevelopment inherited from the past. If we have made scarcity in telecom connectivity history, if we have made scarcity in highway connectivity history, then WE CAN ALSO MAKE POVERTY IN INDIA HISTORY. This should be our collective determination.
Congress party is afflicted with the disease of Nomenclaturitis
I want to make an important point here. If all of us accept that the Nation should come First for all the political parties, if it is true that a Nation’s progress is due to the good work of successive governments, and if it is also true that a Nation’s progress is the sum total of the good work done by Central Governments as well as State Governments, then I cannot understand why the UPA Government tries to attribute all schemes and programmes to members of just one family – the Nehru Family.
Let me give another example of India’s spectacular achievement that should bring pride to one and all in this House. The President’s Address states that our country now has 57 crore telephone connections. An unprecedented 2 crore connections were added in the month of December 2009 itself. This makes India the fastest growing telecom market in the world.
Precisely because India is now the fastest growing telecom market in the world, the Government should introduce a policy to encourage Indian companies to manufacture mobile phones and telecom equipment. India has achieved a lot in IT software, but we have lagged behind in IT hardware manufacture.
To people of my generation, India’s partial transition from an Economy of Scarcity to an Economy of Surplus is almost unimaginable. Until the late 1990s, getting a telephone connection was so difficult and the waiting period was so long that Members of Parliament who are old-timers, such as Pranab Babu or A.K. Antony or Mulayam Singh Yadav, will remember that one of the main expectations that people had from MPs was to give recommendations for telephone -- and also gas -- connections.
Of course, I would like to remind the Treasury Benches that this is achievement was made possible by the radical telecom reforms that the NDA Government initiated. Government is a continuing entity. The good policies of a previous Government help the incumbent Government to show results. Similarly, the good steps taken by the incumbent Government bear fruit during the tenure of a future Government.
These days, I hear my friend Shri Kamalnath, the Minister of Surface Transport, talk about the Government’s determination to construct highways at a speed of 20 kms per day. I wholly commend this ambition and determination. But the Government should remember that this progress too has been made possible because of the strong foundation in highway construction laid by the Government of Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee.
Indeed, the NDA Government derived inspiration for the National Highway Development Project from the pioneering Mumbai-Pune expressway built by Maharashtra’s then PWD minister Shri Nitin Gadkari, who has now become the all-India president of my party.
Madame Speaker, what is the larger message for all of us from the example of the Telecom Boom? It is just that India has immense potential to overcome problems of underdevelopment inherited from the past. If we have made scarcity in telecom connectivity history, if we have made scarcity in highway connectivity history, then WE CAN ALSO MAKE POVERTY IN INDIA HISTORY. This should be our collective determination.
Congress party is afflicted with the disease of Nomenclaturitis
I want to make an important point here. If all of us accept that the Nation should come First for all the political parties, if it is true that a Nation’s progress is due to the good work of successive governments, and if it is also true that a Nation’s progress is the sum total of the good work done by Central Governments as well as State Governments, then I cannot understand why the UPA Government tries to attribute all schemes and programmes to members of just one family – the Nehru Family.
In the President’s Address itself, three new schemes have been mentioned that bear the name of the Dynasty. The UPA Government had named the Urban Renewal Mission after Jawaharlal Nehru. Now it has one more scheme: the Jawahar Lal Nehru National Solar Mission. After Indira Awas Yojana in rural areas, we now have a new scheme for urban housing and slums: the Rajiv Awas Yojana. The UPA Government had already launched the Rajiv Gandhi Grameen Vidyutikaran Yojana. Now a new scheme for rural LPG distribution has been named after the former Prime Minister -- 'Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitarak Yojana'.
Madame Speaker, this is really SICKENING. I call it a certain NOMENCLATURAL DISEASE – call it, Nomenclaturitis -- which used to be found in communist countries like the Soviet Union where the only statue one saw in city after city was that of Lenin, or in other authoritarian countries like Iraq under Saddam Hussein, where the dictator’s statues and photos loomed large everywhere.
Shri A. Suryaprakash, a veteran journalist, last year prepared a compendium of all the central and state programmes, schemes, stadiums, airports, hospitals, universities, etc. that have been named after Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi. The number totalled up to 450 Now, many new ones have been added.
Does the Congress think that India has a one-party system? Why are the contributions of other former Prime Ministers, and great chief ministers and leaders of other political parties, never acknowledged and recognised?
The other sad and alarming aspect of this disease is that the Congress party has been systematically marginalising or erasing the memory of great names from India’s past. For example, a couple of months ago, the Government of Karnataka launched a campaign to commemorate 500 years of the kingdom of the great King Krishnadeva Raya. His kingdom, which straddled present-day Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh, is associated with a golden age in India’s medieval history. Many contemporary foreign travellers have chronicled the fact that Krishnadeva Raya ruled over a land that was more prosperous than countries in Europe at that time. Even today, the relics of the temples and market places in Hampi and Hospet give a glimpse of the bygone glory.
I am sad to note that the President’s Address made no mention of this being the 500th year of the reign of Krishnadeva Raya. This is because the UPA Government treats it as just a regional issue. And since Hampi falls in Karnataka, which has a BJP government, the UPA Government feels further justified in ignoring this event.
I see behind this a Congress mindset that believes that only the Nehru family is to be identified with the national, and all other names from the modern or medieval or ancient era are to be relegated to the regional identity. Thus, Sardar Patel is to be associated only with Gujarat, Subhas Bose to be identified only with Bengal, Ahilyabai Holkar to be identified only with Madhya Pradesh, Rana Pratap to be identified only with Rajputs in Rajasthan, Sankara Deva to be identified only with a section of Assam, and so on.
Madame Speaker, the time has come for this House to debate and formulate a National Policy on Naming Government Schemes and Projects after National Leaders. The policy should be equitable and broadbased in nature, reflecting the rich socio-cultural-political plurality of India. Based on this national policy, all the existing schemes and projects should also be renamed, so as to reduce the nomenclatural domination of the Nehru Family.
Poverty is on the rise, as threat to food security grows
Madame Speaker, While the President’s Address presents the Government’s achievements in glowing terms, it economises the truth in dealing with the Government’s failures. Take, for example, the problem of price rise that is affecting the poor and the middle classes the most today. The President’s Address tries to shield the Government by saying: “Higher prices were inevitable given the shortfall in domestic production and prevailing high prices of rice, cereals and edible oils globally.”
Madame Speaker, While the President’s Address presents the Government’s achievements in glowing terms, it economises the truth in dealing with the Government’s failures. Take, for example, the problem of price rise that is affecting the poor and the middle classes the most today. The President’s Address tries to shield the Government by saying: “Higher prices were inevitable given the shortfall in domestic production and prevailing high prices of rice, cereals and edible oils globally.”
To say that price rise was “inevitable” is cynical, to say the least.
Why is it inevitable? What was the Government doing to strengthen the security net?
What is also shocking is the manner in which the Government is escaping the responsibility for the shortfall in domestic food production. Disingenuously, the President’s Address does not even mention the quantum of the shortfall.
What is also shocking is the manner in which the Government is escaping the responsibility for the shortfall in domestic food production. Disingenuously, the President’s Address does not even mention the quantum of the shortfall.
Shouldn’t somebody be held accountable for the shortfall and for keeping India dependent on imports?
What should be a matter of concern for the entire House is that food prices have risen steeply at a time when poverty is also on the rise. A committee headed by Prime Minister's Economic Advisor, Dr. Suresh Tendulkar, has revealed recently that the population of the poor in India has risen by 10 per cent. Furthermore, it has stated that poverty in rural India stands at 42 per cent, and not 28 per cent as was estimated earlier.
This is corroborated by the disclosure last month by the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). Its data contradicts the UPA government’s claim that India remained fairly untouched by last year’s global economic crisis. UNDESA data has revealed that, in 2009 alone, 1.36 crore more people became poor.
This being the harsh truth, how can the Government claim that it is a Government of and for the Aam Aadmi?
Break the back of Maoism
This being the harsh truth, how can the Government claim that it is a Government of and for the Aam Aadmi?
Break the back of Maoism
Madame Speaker, I’ll now come to the important issue of threats to India’s internal security, which the President’s Address mentions in its very second paragraph. It is disappointing to see that there is no specific mention of the death of 24 security personnel in last month’s Maoist attack on the police camp at Shilda in West Bengal. By any reckoning, this is the most murderous act so far by Maoists specifically targeted at our security forces. Would the Home Minister care to enlighten the House as to why this was not mentioned? Or is it to shield the Left Front government’s failure in tackling the Maoist menace in West Bengal?
The fight against Maoism-inspired Left-Wing extremism cannot be episodic. It must be sustained, and it must also frontally counter the ideology that feeds this extremism. It is necessary for this august House, therefore, to unitedly accept that Maoism is not a war on poverty but a war on the Indian State. It is a war on the unity, integrity and sovereignty of India. It is an assault on our democratic system. It is also a war on India’s cultural and spiritual heritage. How can we tolerate a foreign ideology like Maoism to violently challenge our society, our culture and our state?
I am sorry to say that some people in the UPA did not remain vigilant when Maoists went on a rampage in neighbouring Nepal. India is paying the price for it now.
Nevertheless, even at this stage, I appeal to the Prime Minister, the Home Minister and the entire UPA Government to face the Maoist threat by seeking full cooperation from, and giving full assistance to, all the state governments. As far as the BJP is concerned, I assure the Government of our complete support and cooperation in breaking the backbone of the Maoist challenge.
Pakistan: UPA Govt’s approach is deeply flawed
The fight against Maoism-inspired Left-Wing extremism cannot be episodic. It must be sustained, and it must also frontally counter the ideology that feeds this extremism. It is necessary for this august House, therefore, to unitedly accept that Maoism is not a war on poverty but a war on the Indian State. It is a war on the unity, integrity and sovereignty of India. It is an assault on our democratic system. It is also a war on India’s cultural and spiritual heritage. How can we tolerate a foreign ideology like Maoism to violently challenge our society, our culture and our state?
I am sorry to say that some people in the UPA did not remain vigilant when Maoists went on a rampage in neighbouring Nepal. India is paying the price for it now.
Nevertheless, even at this stage, I appeal to the Prime Minister, the Home Minister and the entire UPA Government to face the Maoist threat by seeking full cooperation from, and giving full assistance to, all the state governments. As far as the BJP is concerned, I assure the Government of our complete support and cooperation in breaking the backbone of the Maoist challenge.
Pakistan: UPA Govt’s approach is deeply flawed
Madame Speaker, I was also disappointed to see a somewhat cavalier mention of Pakistan in the President’s Address. All it says is: “India is ready to explore a meaningful relationship with Pakistan if Pakistan seriously addresses the threat of terrorism and takes effective steps to prevent terrorist activities against India.”
It appears that the Government deliberately wants to say as little as possible on what it is doing, and what it is planning, with Pakistan.
The Government resumed secretary-level talks with Pakistan even after the bomb blast in Pune on February 12, which has so far claimed 17 lives.
It is clear that the Government has made up its mind to delink the issue of terrorism from the bilateral talks with Pakistan. This, after all, was the crux of the joint India-Pakistan statement issued at Sharm al-Sheikh in July 2009, in which it was said: “Both Prime Ministers recognised that dialogue is the only way forward. Action on terrorism should not be linked to the composite dialogue process and these should not be bracketed”.
Barely a month earlier, Dr Manmohan Singh had bluntly told the Pakistan President, Mr Asif Ali Zardari, in Yekaterinburg in Russia: “My mandate is limited to telling you that the territory of Pakistan must not be allowed to be used for terrorism against India”.
We again hear contradictory statements from the Government after the terrorist strike in Pune last month.
What exactly is the Government’s strategy as far as the dialogue with Pakistan is concerned? I would like the Prime Minister to explain it explicitly in the House. Parliament has a right to know the Prime Minister’s mind on this vital issue.
It appears that the Government deliberately wants to say as little as possible on what it is doing, and what it is planning, with Pakistan.
The Government resumed secretary-level talks with Pakistan even after the bomb blast in Pune on February 12, which has so far claimed 17 lives.
It is clear that the Government has made up its mind to delink the issue of terrorism from the bilateral talks with Pakistan. This, after all, was the crux of the joint India-Pakistan statement issued at Sharm al-Sheikh in July 2009, in which it was said: “Both Prime Ministers recognised that dialogue is the only way forward. Action on terrorism should not be linked to the composite dialogue process and these should not be bracketed”.
Barely a month earlier, Dr Manmohan Singh had bluntly told the Pakistan President, Mr Asif Ali Zardari, in Yekaterinburg in Russia: “My mandate is limited to telling you that the territory of Pakistan must not be allowed to be used for terrorism against India”.
We again hear contradictory statements from the Government after the terrorist strike in Pune last month.
What exactly is the Government’s strategy as far as the dialogue with Pakistan is concerned? I would like the Prime Minister to explain it explicitly in the House. Parliament has a right to know the Prime Minister’s mind on this vital issue.
It seems to me that the UPA Government’s approach suffers from a lack of clarity due to pulls and pressures in different directions. At least some of these pulls and pressures are coming from foreign quarters, which are influencing both the timing and direction of the talks.
The dominant thinking in the Government seems to be guided by three beliefs:
The dominant thinking in the Government seems to be guided by three beliefs:
- Both India and Pakistan are equally victims of terrorism, and therefore need to cooperate.
- The threat of terrorism comes from non-state actors in Pakistan. Therefore, continuation of talks with the Government of Pakistan should not be “bracketed” with the issue of terrorism.
- The solution to the instability in the Af-Pak region lies in solving the Kashmir problem. Therefore, India should be willing to discuss and settle Kashmir if it wants an end to the menace of terrorism.
In my view, Madame Speaker, all three beliefs are deeply flawed. They seriously endanger India’s interests.
Firstly, just because terrorist acts are being committed in Pakistan, leading to the loss of hundreds of innocent lives, does not mean that there is some kind of equivalence of victimhood between India and Pakistan. India is a victim of terrorism that has its ideological and operational origins in Pakistan. But the vice versa is not true. Pakistan is not a victim of terrorism that is exported from India. Pakistan is paying the price of feeding and encouraging a Frankenstein Monster, which was meant to create trouble only in India, but which sometimes draws blood in Pakistan too.
The flaw in the second belief is that it is not all true that terrorism in Pakistan is exclusively the handiwork of non-State actors. We have read from media reports that, at the February 26 secretary-level talks in Islamabad, India has asked Pakistan India has asked Pakistan to hand over 33 terrorists, including LeT chief Hafiz Saeed, who is believed to be the mastermind of the 26/11 terror attack.
But that is not all. India has also asked Pakistan to hand over two Pakistani Army officers, who are suspected to be involved in the 26/11 terror attack in Mumbai.
The two Army officers have been identified as Major Iqbal and Major Samir Ali. The role of Major Iqbal is believed to have been revealed during the interrogation of US terror suspect David Headley.
I would like the Prime Minister to confirm or deny this. If it is indeed true, then it knocks the bottom out of the theory that terrorism in India is only the handiwork of non-state actors in Pakistan.
Let me now come to the flaw in the argument that “the solution to the instability in the Af-Pak region lies in solving the Kashmir problem” and “therefore, India should be willing to discuss and settle Kashmir if it wants an end to the menace of terrorism.”
“The road to peace in Kabul runs through Kashmir”
It would be a sad day for India if the Government accepted this argument, which some quarters in Washington and Islamabad are assiduously pushing.
But this is the direction in which the UPA Government’s Kashmir policy seems to be moving. A recent article in Newsweek (issue dated
Firstly, just because terrorist acts are being committed in Pakistan, leading to the loss of hundreds of innocent lives, does not mean that there is some kind of equivalence of victimhood between India and Pakistan. India is a victim of terrorism that has its ideological and operational origins in Pakistan. But the vice versa is not true. Pakistan is not a victim of terrorism that is exported from India. Pakistan is paying the price of feeding and encouraging a Frankenstein Monster, which was meant to create trouble only in India, but which sometimes draws blood in Pakistan too.
The flaw in the second belief is that it is not all true that terrorism in Pakistan is exclusively the handiwork of non-State actors. We have read from media reports that, at the February 26 secretary-level talks in Islamabad, India has asked Pakistan India has asked Pakistan to hand over 33 terrorists, including LeT chief Hafiz Saeed, who is believed to be the mastermind of the 26/11 terror attack.
But that is not all. India has also asked Pakistan to hand over two Pakistani Army officers, who are suspected to be involved in the 26/11 terror attack in Mumbai.
The two Army officers have been identified as Major Iqbal and Major Samir Ali. The role of Major Iqbal is believed to have been revealed during the interrogation of US terror suspect David Headley.
I would like the Prime Minister to confirm or deny this. If it is indeed true, then it knocks the bottom out of the theory that terrorism in India is only the handiwork of non-state actors in Pakistan.
Let me now come to the flaw in the argument that “the solution to the instability in the Af-Pak region lies in solving the Kashmir problem” and “therefore, India should be willing to discuss and settle Kashmir if it wants an end to the menace of terrorism.”
“The road to peace in Kabul runs through Kashmir”
It would be a sad day for India if the Government accepted this argument, which some quarters in Washington and Islamabad are assiduously pushing.
But this is the direction in which the UPA Government’s Kashmir policy seems to be moving. A recent article in Newsweek (issue dated
February 22, 2010) was titled “The Road to Kabul Runs Through Kashmir”. It said:
“Sometime in the last year, secret back-channel talks between India and Pakistan over Kashmir restarted, say U.S. and Indian sources. The countries were reportedly on the verge of a breakthrough when Musharraf was ousted in August 2008. Then the Mumbai terror attacks that November badly frayed relations. For negotiations to resume now—open talks are also being discussed—would represent a huge boon for the region.And not just there. The payoff would stretch all the way to Washington. Peace between India and Pakistan could help unlock another conflict with even higher stakes for the United States: the war in Afghanistan. Indeed, a growing chorus of experts has begun arguing that the road to Kabul runs through Kashmir—that the U.S. will never stabilize the former without peace in the latter. Suddenly, bringing India and Pakistan together seems to be very much in America's interest.”
It is instructive to see why the unnamed experts in Washington and Islamabad think that Kashmir is so important to Afghanistan.
“Start with the fact that the U.S. can't defeat the Afghan insurgency without Pakistan's help. Pakistan midwifed the Taliban and continues to provide it with shelter (and, allegedly, support). And that won't change until Pakistan resolves its rivalry with India. For Pakistan's Afghan strategy is based on the idea that it needs a pliant regime there to give it "strategic depth": room to retreat in case of an Indian invasion. Fear of India also keeps Pakistan from putting enough troops on its 2,250-kilometer-long Afghan border, which the Taliban still cross at will. As Strobe Talbott, who was Bill Clinton's envoy to India and Pakistan, says, "The Pakistani military is so obsessed with India that it hinders their ability to deal with other real threats." The only thing that might ease that obsession is peace with New Delhi.”
The Newsweek article continues:
“The possible resumption of India-Pakistan talks suggests a growing constituency for peace on both sides. India, preoccupied with its economic boom, is especially eager to make the issue go away. A hard push from Washington could make the difference—especially if handled in a way that assuages India's fears. Were Obama to symbolically elevate the U.S.-India relationship to the level of the U.S.-China dialogue, it could give Washington much greater leeway on Kashmir. So would pressing Pakistan to cooperate on the Mumbai terrorists. Better still would be helping New Delhi grab two prizes it desperately covets: entry into the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council. As Sumit Ganguly of Indiana University puts it, "If that were to happen, India would roll over on any issue."“This message seems finally to be sinking in in Washington: According to one high-level U.S. official, "People keep saying we have to deal with Kashmir. The buzz is in the air, and it's not like we're not hearing it."
Madame Speaker, I have read out longish excerpts from the Newsweek article because I strongly suspect that the UPA Government is preparing for a clandestine deal on Kashmir. There is talk of giving autonomy to Kashmir, even restoring Jammu & Kashmir’s pre-1953 Constitutional status.
This would be surrender, clear and simple. This has precisely been the aim and objective of Pakistan’s use of terror as state policy to achieve Kashmir’s secession. The talk of autonomy is nothing but a smokescreen for secession.
I would like to warn the Prime Minister that any deal that dilutes India’s already diluted sovereignty over Jammu & Kashmir – or any part thereof – would mean that the UPA Government should be prepared for the greatest ever nationwide mass protest seen in the history of independent India.
Madame Speaker, with these remarks, I end my intervention in the debate. I support the Motion of Thanks.
This matter was subsequently considered also by the Indrajit Gupta Committee on election expenses.
I feel time has come for our country to take a bold decision in this regard and accept that election expenses should be publicly funded. Many leading democracies in the world including Germany have adopted this approach since long.
Talking of poll reforms I feel happy that Gujarat has taken an initiative to introduce compulsory voting in their local body elections. Not many may be aware that as many as 25 countries inhibited by more than 700 million people and including countries like Australia, Argentina, Italy, Brazil, Mexico, Turkey, Singapore, Thailand have compulsory voting even for their parliamentary elections. I have seen a lot of literature on the functioning of democracies where concern is being expressed over the declining turnout of voters in some of the important democracies of the world like Canada, U.K. and France and in these countries the demand for compulsory voting has been slowly gathering strength.
This would be surrender, clear and simple. This has precisely been the aim and objective of Pakistan’s use of terror as state policy to achieve Kashmir’s secession. The talk of autonomy is nothing but a smokescreen for secession.
I would like to warn the Prime Minister that any deal that dilutes India’s already diluted sovereignty over Jammu & Kashmir – or any part thereof – would mean that the UPA Government should be prepared for the greatest ever nationwide mass protest seen in the history of independent India.
Madame Speaker, with these remarks, I end my intervention in the debate. I support the Motion of Thanks.
*****
I have been in Parliament for nearly 40 years now. Since 1970 when I was first elected to the Rajya Sabha I have been taking interest in the issue of electoral reforms. It was my senior colleague and leader Shri A.B. Vajpayee at whose initiative a Joint Parliamentary Committee on Poll Reforms was constituted in 1970 itself. I was privileged to serve on this Committee as also another similar Committee formed in 1971, and later in the Dinesh Goswami Committee. This Committee made several changes in the election law. It also recommended that election expenses in a democracy should be in principle a charge on the public exchequer and that poll expenses to day borne by the parties or the candidate should be progressively shifted to the State.This matter was subsequently considered also by the Indrajit Gupta Committee on election expenses.
I feel time has come for our country to take a bold decision in this regard and accept that election expenses should be publicly funded. Many leading democracies in the world including Germany have adopted this approach since long.
Talking of poll reforms I feel happy that Gujarat has taken an initiative to introduce compulsory voting in their local body elections. Not many may be aware that as many as 25 countries inhibited by more than 700 million people and including countries like Australia, Argentina, Italy, Brazil, Mexico, Turkey, Singapore, Thailand have compulsory voting even for their parliamentary elections. I have seen a lot of literature on the functioning of democracies where concern is being expressed over the declining turnout of voters in some of the important democracies of the world like Canada, U.K. and France and in these countries the demand for compulsory voting has been slowly gathering strength.
No active record(s) available currently for this section.
To Write Comment Please Login
.gif)
