Power play over Iran

The news from Lausanne is confusing. But that is only to be expected in the complex endgame that is being played out between the P5+1 and Iran over the latter’s nuclear programme. We are at an inflexion point in the geopolitics of West Asia, if not the world. On one side we have the resilient Islamic Republic of Iran, an Arab world assailed by Sunni extremism. So important is the negotiation, that it has featured the US Secretary of State John Kerry and the foreign ministers of China, Russia, UK, France and Germany getting together to negotiate with the Iranian delegation led by Foreign Minister Javad Zarif.

 

On Saturday there were reports that the two sides were close to a deal after 18 months of tortuous negotiations, with Iran agreeing to reduce its centrifuge holdings and shipping its stocks of enriched uranium out of the country. However, on Sunday this was denied by the lead Iranian negotiator, Abbas Arachi who said there was no question of shipping stocks out of the country, though in his view, the deal remained “doable”.

Some brinksmanship is inevitable in a negotiation such as this, whose aim is to produce a framework agreement by Tuesday evening, and a final more detailed agreement by June this year. The agreement will be a phased one with Iran scaling back its nuclear programme, with a reciprocal phased lifting of sanctions. The deadlines have been moved twice before, but the Obama Administration does not want to move them further. Obama is aware of the pressure he faces from the hostile US Congress, which is determined to press for tougher sanctions by mid-April if the deal falls through.

The issue is the nature of the Iranian nuclear programme. For the past ten years or so, the US and other western countries have accused Tehran of making nuclear weapons. Iran had concealed a massive nuclear programme from the world and there are as yet unexplained aspects of the programme, though Iran denies that it is aiming to build nuclear weapons. So serious was the issue that the UN Security Council has passed a series of resolutions tightening the sanctions against Tehran. The negotiations now are about reaching an agreement which will ensure that the allegedly civil nuclear programme cannot easily break out and become a military one. The issue is not so much that Iran will abandon its pursuit of nuclear weapons, but of the warning time that would be available, were Iran to decide on a breakout. In exchange, the western countries will lift their crippling sanctions on the country. Given Iran’s record of prevarication in the past, the world needs a sound and verifiable deal.

It is no secret that there are powerful forces opposing the deal, in the main Israel which considers Iran as an existential threat and would be satisfied with nothing less than a complete dismantling of the Iranian programme. Backing Israel are powerful elements of the US Republican party, which recently invited Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address the US Congress over the head of the Obama Administration. On Sunday, even as rumours of a deal swirled in Lausanne, Netanyahu frantically dialled the US Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell and expressed his concern over the agreement emerging. Neither the US nor Israel factor in Israel’s own nuclear capabilities in the equation. What the Republicans and Netanyahu have not done is to provide a practical alternative: All they want is an Iranian surrender.

The Iranian negotiations come at a particularly complicated conjuncture. On one hand, West Asia seems to be in the grip of a civil war pitting the Sunnis against the Shias. In Yemen, Shia Houthi rebels have overthrown the government headed by Ali Abdullah Saleh, an old American and Saudi ally resulting in a joint American-backed Arab intervention led by the Saudis. On the other hand, in Iraq, the US is providing air support to Iraqi and Iranian Shia militias to take on the Islamic State. There is turmoil across the Arab world which has featured the collapse of some states like Somalia, Libya, Syria and Iraq. In all this, Iran looks like an island of stability and while on one hand it is accused of backing the Hezbollah of Lebanon and Houthis of Yemen, it is also part of an informal American alliance fighting the Islamic State on behalf of Iraq.

US sanctions against Iran have been in place since 1979, but the more draconian UN sanctions since 2006-2010 have been more effective. As a result, Iran has not been able to modernise its oil industry or effectively exploit its natural gas resources. The negotiations also come at a time of falling oil prices, which makes Tehran more amenable for a deal.

With or without nuclear weapons, Iran is a major power in the Persian Gulf and both Israel and the US have, in the past, been allies of Tehran. If anything it is Washington’s cynical policies in the region that have driven Tehran to the nuclear path. The US backed Saddam Hussein’s wanton war against Iran, a conflict that left over 250,000 Iranian dead. Subsequently, the Americans went to war against Saddam, whose horrific consequences are still unfolding before us. Hopefully though, this time around, Washington will play a more responsible role than it has played in the region in the past.

Any failure of the negotiations arising out of unreasonable American demands will not quite take the situation back to square one. China and Russia have participated in the negotiations till now, but they are not bound to stick with the US and the Europeans, should the more hard-line Republican views prevail. If the P5+1 unity frays, we could end up with a whole new ball game in West Asia.

Mid Day March 31, 2015

China's rise is a worry for 'flat-footed' US

The decision of key American allies like the UK, Germany, France, South Korea and Australia to join the Chinese-led Asian Infrastructure Development Bank (AIIB) marks another step forward in the shaping of a Chinese-led Asian economic and, possibly, security order. It also underscores the missteps of the US in dealing with the consequences of the rise of China. 

The Obama Administration actively discouraged its allies from participating in the AIIB, in which countries like India are founder members. The US appears to be defensive in trying to preserve the American-led Bretton Woods system that dominated the world order since its creation in the wake of WW-II.

The AIIB, capitalised at $50billion, is no threat to either the Japan-led Asian Development Bank, or the US-led World Bank, which have higher assets. 

But the US has been tone-deaf in hearing the voice of the emerging countries call for some readjustment of the world financial order. 

Crisis 

The G-20 was recast by the 2008 financial crisis with a view of promoting coordination between the G-8 and the emerging economies, but while declarations have been many, there has been little action. 

The gridlocked US political system contributes to the US’ sticky footing. 

Flush with cash, China is seeking to internationalise its financial clout. In the past year it has helped create the BRICS bank (aka New Development Bank) and laid down $40billion for the One Belt One Road Silk Route initiative. 

This process should be welcomed, rather than be opposed. 

Right from the outset, the US assumed AIIB would not have transparent lending practices and it would be an instrument of Chinese foreign policy. 

President Barack Obama toured the Great Wall in China in 2009. The US has continuing frictions with 

China over cyber issues, as well as its territorial claims in the South China Sea

Both charges may have some truth in them, but opposing it was not the best strategy. By joining the bank as founder-members, the various countries will have a say in its running and the ability to shape its behaviour. 

The problem with the US is that even though its economy is closely intertwined to the Chinese, it seems to be committed to a strategy of countering China through initiatives like the Trans Pacific Partnership which excludes China. 

The US has continuing frictions with China over cyber issues, as well as its territorial claims in the South China Sea. No matter how you look at it, American policy seems to suggest that its goal is to contain China. 

But there is another way of looking at the Asian giant. This is as a country which is desperately seeking to ensure that it does not become old before it becomes rich and whose foreign policy imperative is to ensure stability and prosperity of the country as a guarantor of the continuing rule of its Communist Party. 

Investment 

It is to this end that the goal of the Party leadership is to shift its economy from an investment and labour intensive model, to one that emphasises innovation and entrepreneurship. Those who are looking at the “Make in India” plans of the Modi Government will be surprised to note that the workshop of the world—China, too, is raising the slogan for “Made in China 2025”. 

China’s prowess in manufacturing is well established. But equally, it is well known that China is often the integrator of goods made by others. The best example, perhaps, is the IPhone. Its chips and touch sensors are made in Taiwan, display panels in South Korea and Japan, Sony supplies front and rear cameras, TDK Japan provides inductor coils, Toshiba and Hynix of south Korea the storage, and the whole thing is assembled in China. The whole phone costs around $200-250 to make, of which the Chinese reputedly make just $6. 

Well, the Chinese are now focusing on moving up the manufacturing food chain. 

Earlier this month, during the annual meeting of China’s parliament, the National People’s Congress, Premier Li Keqiang unveiled the “Made in China 2025” policy along with an “Internet Plus” plan which will centre around innovation, smart technology, mobile internet, cloud computing, big data and the internet of things. 

In the meantime, China is undertaking reform of its state owned enterprises. Discussions are afoot to merge the two high-speed rail manufacturers, the China North Railway and the China South Railway. 

A reshuffle of top leaders at the country's two state-owned shipbuilders indicates the government is looking for a merger here as well. 

Production 

As ‘The Economist’ pointed out, the era of cheap Chinese labour has passed. In its time it was this cheap labour that gave a fillip to the notion of China being the factory of the world. 

But as we have seen, China was really the low-cost integrator, dependent on complex supply chains. But now, average Chinese wages are surpassing those of the ASEAN. 

Chinese manufacturing is also getting better at producing home-designed goods, an example being the Xiaomi smartphone. 

A lot of low-wage Chinese production is shifting to countries like Vietnam and Indonesia. In an important speech to the Boao Forum on Saturday, China’s president Xi Jinping struck an “Asia for Asians” line emphasising his government’s goal to use China’s economic might to shape a new Asian economic and security order. 

In the past few months we witnessed a shift in Chinese policy towards creating financial instruments to promote Asian integration. 

At the same time, the Chinese are also trying to reshape the security arrangements in the region. 

Last May, Xi had called for the Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia (CICA) to come up with a new security architecture for Asia. 

Compared to China, the moves of the US appear flatfooted and confused. 

Mail Today March 30 2015

Same Same But Different: Parliaments of India, China and Japan are all pushing reforms but guess who's ahead?

The buzzword across three principal Asian countries ­ India, China and Japan ­ is `reform'. It's clear that their impulses are interlinked and have consequences for the world. Coincidentally, all three have been having key annual sessions of their respective Parliaments whose proceedings provide us some markers as to their respective priorities.

Chinese Premier Li Keqiang's opening speech at the annual National People's Congress in early March laid out the agenda for transforming China into a middle-class nation, by creating an economy based on consumption and innovation, rather than merely investment and export.Arun Jaitley's budget is seeking to initiate his government's huge agenda in a modest and workmanlike fashion. As for Japan, the challenges are different ­ structural change is needed to give a second wind to an advanced economy trapped in multiple layers of regulation and red tape.
For both India and Japan, China is a benchmark of sorts. Growth of Chinese power has implications for them. Both have outstanding boundary disputes that periodically flare up. But equally important are their concerns relating to the economic and military rise of China.
India, whose economic size approximated that of China in the 1980s, may not be able to match China in this century, with attendant political and strategic consequences. Japan, which has had a troubled history with China, worries about the consequences of Chinese hegemony in East Asia.
What is striking is the clarity with which China is adjusting to what President Xi Jinping calls the `new normal' ­ economic growth slowing to 7.4% in 2014 and possibly 7% in 2015. Beijing has clearly understood that it needs to become an economy based on entrepreneurial skills and better off consumers. NPC is likely to follow the recommendation of the National Reform and Development Commission, China's Niti Aayog, which has proposed cutting down the number of restricted areas in investment from 79 to 35. Xi told a group of Shanghai parliamentarians on the sidelines of NPC that China will quicken the pace of creating free trade zones and make institutional innovation key to development. `Innovation' has become the new motto of the Chinese, whether it relates to economy or foreign policy.
In his remarks Li also noted that China has taken steps to cut red tape for private companies, permit online retail to expand.He promised that China will make it even easier to do business. Currently China is listed 90th among 189 nations in terms of ease of doing business; we are listed at 142.
China's strategic goal is among the first of Xi's four comprehensives: “To build an all-round well-off society by 2020“. Recall, in 2012, the key word was “moderately“ well-off society. The second is to comprehensively deepen reform, the third to create a society which works under the rule of law, and the fourth to “push for stricter governance“ of the Communist party itself. The last may sound innocuous, but anyone who has observed the Chinese anti-corrup tion campaign, knows that it means business, given the list of the high and mighty `Tigers' who have been brought low.
The test for China is tough enough, but the challenge for India is far tougher. Most Indians are desperate to see PM Modi's government succeed, if only because it is India's last chance at getting onto the high-growth track which can help eliminate poverty by 2030. But what is absent is a sense of self-confidence and clarity over the direction we are headed. As of now we have a slogan: Make in India. Yet it is not even clear as to what this means.
As for policies, government is still grappling with the problems of the past.Recently it passed an insurance reform bill pending since 2008; likewise an overdue mines bill has been passed as well, though the crucial land acquisition bill remains to be passed.
But equally important steps such as the need to cut through the thicket of regulatory regimes that plague India are not yet on the agenda. Whether it is universities, banks, airports, India is one of the most over-regulated countries in the world, a consequence of government's desire to retain the levers of power through regulators, who are almost always former civil servants.
There are no signs, as of now, that the Modi government has a plan to reform the administrative and regulatory system of the country, an important element in any `ease of business' strategy. It is one thing to say that India will enhance the ease of doing business in the country, quite another to clearly spell out the steps that will be taken and their timeline. As for eliminating corruption, that item seems to be absent from the current government's agenda, though it remains a real problem for the common man.
As for Japan, PM Shinzo Abe has promised “the most drastic reforms since the end of the Second World War“. But his efforts have been tangled in the politics of the country and its powerful lobbies ­ of doctors, farmers, bureaucrats and workers. In the current Diet session, he has slashed the powers of the agriculture lobby, but he still has a long road ahead. Two of his “three arrows“ of reform ­ higher government spending and massive monetary stimulus ­ have been blunted and the third, structural reform, remains in his quiver.
One reason for the energy that Beijing exhibits is that the consequences of failure there will be severe ­ probably the collapse of the Communist party rule. India and Japan only risk the possibility of sinking back into the torpor of low growth or deflation.
Times of India March 30, 2015

Tweet-for-Tat Diplomacy:   How an egocentric former general set back the PM's India-Pakistan initiative

Prime Minister Narendra Modi is unlikely to be amused at the spectacle his minister of state for external affairs, General V K Singh, has made of himself this week. In a surprise move of the kind that has characterised his foreign policy , Modi ordered the ex-Indian Army chief to attend the Pakistan Day reception on Monday , March 23. His plan was to signal both toughness and accommodation towards Islamabad by having the general represent India at the national day reception. Unfortunately , the headstrong minister torpedoed the plan by tweeting his “disgust“ at having had to attend. Through another tweet, he indicated that he had done so out of a sense of “duty“.
Part of a Jigsaw
Attendance at such events is voluntary for most invitees, but it is customary for countries who maintain diplomatic relations to send representatives, their levels being based on reciprocity . In sending Singh, the PM wanted to signal his desire to enhance the India-Pakistan relationship.
No doubt, he wished to pick up the threads of the relationship that were disrupted after New Delhi's cancellation of the foreign secretary-level talks in August 2014, which followed the meeting between Pakistan High Commissioner Abdul Basit and representatives of the Hurriyat. Subsequent to this, the situation on the India-Pakistan border in Jammu deteri orated sharply , with border forces on both sides aiming mortars and machine guns at each other.
After the situation cooled down, Modi signalled a shift by sending his new foreign secretary , S Jaishankar, to Islamabad as part of a tour of Saarc countries. This was the outcome of the important one-on-one talks he had with his Pakistani counterpart Nawaz Sharif at the retreat during the Kathmandu Saarc summit.
Singh's duty , then, was to further the prime minister's aims, not to undermine them as he did. It would be surprising if Modi is not hopping mad at the downright stupid display of ego by a junior minister. If Singh has actually done what he has done as “duty“, he has egregiously insulted Islamabad -by first accepting an invitation to attend a national day function and then announcing to the world that he was “disgusted“ at having done so.
Modi's Pakistan policy is not a stand-alone affair. It is part of a wider policy that involves the maintenance and furtherance of peace in Jammu & Kashmir, as well as coordinating a complex policy with the US of promoting peace and stability in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
It is no secret that the BJP-PDP government in Srinagar has been crafted by the PM himself. Left to itself, the BJP would not have touched the PDP with a barge pole. But Modi realised that the only way the electoral verdict could be respected and peace be maintained was for a shotgun wedding with the `soft-separatist' PDP .
Likewise, Modi knows that there is really no long-term solution other than to maintain the policy of flexible containment -or engagement -with Pakistan that has been in place ever since Kashmir exploded in 1990.As part of this policy , different Indian governments have absorbed everything that Pakistan has thrown at it. And even then, New Delhi sought to engage its neighbour in a bid to find that elusive middle ground.
No matter what the hawks say , Ind ia can neither isolate Islamabad nor make war on it. Indeed, Pakistan's shifted stance on Afghanistan has been welcomed by Washington and Beijing. It would be New Delhi that would be alone if it sought to pursue of policy of relentless hostility.

The Great Wall of Pakistan
The government is also aware that the old policy of engaging Islamabad in a composite dialogue has reached a dead-end. That was premised on the belief that if the countries could settle smaller issues such as Siach en, Sir Creek and water resources, they could develop confidence in res olving the bigger ones like Kashmir. However, Pakistani actions have torpedoed it. First, the Kargil adven ture made it difficult for India to set tle on Siachen. By Pakistan claiming that the Line of Control was fuzzy in Kargil -when, in fact, it wasn't -it made it difficult for New Delhi to take Islamabad's word that its forces would withdraw from the area adja cent to Siachen, were Indian forces to demilitarise the glacier without a formal demarcation of their respec tive positions.
The second were the terrorist stri kes on India through a variety of non state actors. The 2008 Mumbai attack was a watershed that hardened Indi an positions on Pakistan because there is evidence of involvement of some Pakistani state actors in the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) plan.
So, any new round of talks would have to be on an entirely new basis. It would have to be not just commitme nts, but also actions on the part of Pa kistan on the issue of terrorism. Th ere are signs that Islamabad may be willing to play ball, at least in a limit ed fashion, because of the terrorist onslaught that it is being forced to confront itself.
This is what Modi is hoping to build on. And this is what has recei ved a needless setback by the gener al's silly actions.
Economic Times March 28, 2015

Modi's faultless footing in foreign policy

Whatever you may say about the slow pace of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s promises on the economic front, his stepping in the area of foreign policy has been faultless. The recent tour to the Indian Ocean region is a case in point.

He was the first PM to visit Seychelles in 33 years, the first to go to Sri Lanka in 28 years, and the first to Mauritius in a decade. Modi believes that India’s foreign policy must pivot on strong ties with its neighbours on the land or across the seas. But it is also a response to the strong surge of Chinese interest, which has manifested itself in substantial infrastructure investment, high-level visits and naval movement in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR).

Prime Minister Modi with former cricketer Arjuna Ranatunga. Events and actions of countries in the IOR littoral have security implications for India. Pic/PTI

It is not just that 90 per cent of our overseas trade passes through the IOR, that makes it important for us. Events and actions of countries in the IOR littoral have security implications for India. In addition, we have an interest in the welfare of significant chunks of the Indian diaspora who are scattered across the region from South Africa to Oman.

There was a time when naïve India sought to keep out foreign navies from the Indian Ocean. But today it realises that in a globalised world, others too have important reasons to be in the IOR, even the Chinese. Yet, we have a paramount responsibility to keep peace and promote stability in the region because of our location. The Chinese or the Americans can, if compelled, do without the IOR; we don’t have that option. Developments in the ocean and its littoral have a direct impact on our security and well being.

An important building block of our efforts are plans to establish coastal surveillance radars in a number of island states-8 in Mauritius, 8 in Seychelles, 6 in Sri Lanka, 10 in Maldives. These will be linked to the 50-odd sites on the Indian coast and, in turn, linked to the Gurgaon based Integrated Management Analysis Centre and be part of the Navy’s Maritime Domain Awareness project.

India’s security ties with Mauritius gathered steam following the 1981 attempted coup in Seychelles by South African mercenaries, which nearly led to the hijack of an Air India aircraft at the Seychelles airport. To prevent such an action in Mauritius, India helped it create a Rapid Mobile Force, as well as strengthen its police force and coast guard.

India is now seeking to consolidate its relations with Mauritius, a key gateway for foreign investment in India. This involves plugging the loopholes in the Double Tax Avoidance Agreement and the deferment of the anti-avoidance tax rules till 2017, besides providing an additional $ 0.5 billion line of credit for infrastructure development in the island.

On the security front, the Indian built CGS Barracuda, launched by Prime Minister Modi, was only the latest manifestation of the long-standing security ties between the two countries going back to the mid-1970s when India gifted the INS Amar to the Mauritian Coast Guard. It is significant that during the Modi visit, the two sides signed an MOU to develop the aviation and port infrastructure of the strategic Agalega island.

In the case of the Seychelles, India has been involved in a security partnership since 2003, when the two sides agreed to have the Indian Navy patrol its territorial waters. In 2003, the Indian Navy presented the Seychelles coast guard the INS Tarmugli to do the job itself and also gifted some helicopters and Dornier surveillance aircraft to the island nation.

Modi announced the gift of another Dornier aircraft this time. The two countries also signed an agreement for a hydrographic survey of the islands, as well as one for developing the air and sea infrastructure on Assumption Islands. There was no offer of a Line of Credit, since an earlier one of $ 75 million remains to be fully utilised.

The most complex visit was to Sri Lanka because of its importance to India’s economic and security interests. Here, the effort was two-fold. First, to reinvigorate ties that had stalled during the presidency of Mahinda Rajpakse and, the second, to reconnect with the Tamil minority of the island, which has an important emotional connect with India. A $318 million Line of Credit will be used to modernise the Sri Lankan railway system and India has committed to develop the port of Trincomalee as a petroleum hub. In the early 1980s, the Sri Lankans baited India by offering the old petroleum tank farm there to a US company. Modi’s visit to Jaffna, the first by an Indian PM was an important signal that India would stand up for the rights of the Tamil minority which has been battered by the brutal civil war.

The IOR tour was not just about declarations and MOUs, proof of this is that New Delhi has put down money through Lines of Credit for infrastructure development in various island states. The challenge now is to ensure that it is effectively utilised. This is one area of weakness on our part which must be remedied by creating appropriate project management vehicles. 2014 marked just the beginning of Chinese naval forays into the Indian Ocean. In the coming years we can see a marked increase as its $40 billion Maritime Silk Route initiative gets underway. Countries of the IOR will not hesitate to play off New Delhi against Beijing, we would be naïve to think they won’t. They will seek to advance their national interests, just as we must serve our own.

Mid Day March 17, 2015

Whatever you may say about the slow pace of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s promises on the economic front, his stepping in the area of foreign policy has been faultless. The recent tour to the Indian Ocean region is a case in point. - See more at: http://www.mid-day.com/articles/modis-faultless-foreign-policy/16067197#sthash.ojp8wi44.dpuf

Why the PDP was right to release Alam

This country is a nuclear weapons state, with a huge standing army. 

Terrorism is in remission, and the country most responsible for it is itself mired in violence. 

Yet, the sense of insecurity rides high in India. Indeed, there seems to be a touch of hysteria in the public discourse. 

Its more malign manifestation has been the mob lynchings that have taken place in two disparate parts of the country – Nagaland and Uttar Pradesh. But equally it was visible in the over-the-top response to the release of Masarat Alam, a separatist leader in Jammu and Kashmir. 

Grounds 

When Alam was released on March 7, the new Chief Minister Mufti Mohammed Sayeed was attacked for ordering his release as part of his alleged separatist agenda. The word “traitor” resounded in some TV debates. 

As the issue rocked Parliament, few bothered to note that his release was based on a letter from the state’s Home Secretary Suresh Kumar to the Jammu District Magistrate on February 4, before Mufti took over as the CM, saying the September 2014 detention order against Alam under the state’s draconian Public Safety Act (PSA), had become void. 

His release was ordered when the district magistrate determined that there were no fresh grounds to keep him in jail. 

 

The guidelines of the Supreme Court prohibit the detention of any person for the same offence more than once. Alam had to be released as no charge under the state’s Public Safety Act could be reframed against him, and there was a limit to detain someone under the Act. 

Alam has spent nearly 15 years in jail without any criminal charge ever since his detention under PSA for the first time in 1990. To keep him in jail, successive state governments slapped PSA on him from time to time. Since 2008, the PSA had been slapped on him more than 13 times. 

This is clearly against both the letter and spirit of the laws, and the Constitution. 

There is no doubt that the stone-pelting incidents that rocked Kashmir in 2010 were a serious challenge to the authorities, as was Alam’s alleged role in encouraging them. But stone pelting is not the same as firing guns and setting off explosives. It had several causes, not in the least the lack of adequate training and equipment of the local police to deal with street protest. 

In any case, 2015 was not 2011. The purpose of Alam’s detention had been served once the uprising wound down by 2012. 

Punishment 

Another political prisoner, dedicated to a movement that wants to overthrow the state, Kobad Gandhy, has been in jail for five years without being convicted of any crime. He belongs to a banned organisation, but nothing in our law says that you can incarcerate any person indefinitely without trial. 

In any case, he has already served the maximum punishment of 2 years imprisonment prescribed in the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act for being a member of a banned organisation. 

There is another category of people jailed for long periods before being imprisoned of any crime. These are under-rials who do not have the means of posting their bail. 

In yet another category comes the likes of Sahara chief Subrata Roy, who is presumably in jail on grounds of contempt of court. But the proceedings appear more a means of extracting Rs 10,000 crore from him, whereas the proper course would have been to try him for fraud, convict him and attach his assets. 

Repeated judgements of the Indian courts have made it clear that detention without trial goes against the law of the land, which has been shaped by the long stretches of imprisonment that our freedom fighters had to endure at the hands of the British. Bail is viewed as the right of a person. 

Terrorism 

Dealing with terrorism, or armed insurgencies such as those of the Maoists, does represent a challenge for a democratic polity. This is best evidenced by the dilemma of the US which has used a foreign territory – Guantanamo Bay in Cuba – to indefinitely incarcerate those it says were involved in terrorist acts. 

However, it is well known that the only crime of a lot of the detainees was to have been at the wrong place at the wrong time. 

That Guantanamo is a blot on America’s claim to be a country that lives under the rule of law is recognised by many Americans, including President Obama, but he finds it difficult to do anything about it. 

India has tried to grapple with the issue by passing tough legislation like TADA and POTA to deal with the threat. However, in both instances, the Ministry of Home Affairs came up with legislation which was so draconian and open to misuse, that it came apart under its own weight. 

In dealing with separatism, social protest and public anger, what the state requires is a subtle, rather than a heavy hand. 

In the era of instant communication and smart phones, the need for a refined strategy is even greater. Whether it is Kashmir or the Maoist heartland of Chattisgarh, using a sledgehammer to stifle protest is a bad idea. 

What is needed is a policy that combines elements of toughness, with strategies that promote trust and reconciliation. 

India faces no existential threat from either the separatists in the Valley, or the Maoists in Dantewada, so why the hysteria? By defining the discourse as between “nationalists” versus “traitors” and “terrorists”, a divide is created which cannot be bridged. After all, how can you reconcile such categories? 

Sadly, the TRP-driven media is oblivious to this. On one hand it enhances the paranoia and insecurity of Indians, and on the other it seems determined to tip the frazzled patient over the edge. 

Mail Today March 16, 2015