On mending fences with Nepal

The recent visit (February 19-24) of the Nepalese Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli has not quite restored the glow to India-Nepal ties. When Prime Minister Modi visited Nepal twice in 2014, he raised enormous expectations of a new era in India-Nepal ties which have never been as good as they should be, considering the unique relationship between the two countries. Geography has locked India and Nepal with each other and their historic and cultural ties have been burnished by the open border of a kind that no two countries in the world share.

However, things went downhill in 2015. First there was the devastating earthquake that hit Nepal. India played a major role in providing relief, but that effort was marred by some over-the-top Indian media coverage that seemed to rub Nepal’s nose in the dirt. This was followed by the crisis around the new constitution promulgated in October 2015, which still persists because Madhesis, Tharus (who live in the plains area of Nepal) and the low-caste Janjatis oppose some of its provisions.

The constitution appeared to be a deal between the three ‘pahari’ or mountain-dominated parties — the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist, UML), the Nepali Congress(NC) and the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoists). The three are traditional rivals, but they got together to foist a constitution which was deliberately weighted against the plains’ groups who now form anywhere between 30-50 per cent of the country’s population and have the capacity to play a “swing” role in Nepali politics. The resulting Madhesi agitation and blockade was supported by India, because New Delhi has long chafed at the attitude of the mountain parties who are all too ready to use anti-Indian rhetoric to score political points and, worse, use China to offset the Indian influence in Nepal.

Oli’s reaction to the Madhesi agitation was to take a hard-line position and accuse India of fomenting it. He sent several delegations to China to develop an alternate energy corridor. But China has always been cautious in taking on India in Nepal. It makes symbolic gestures, but when push comes to shove, it backs off for the simple reason that it is simply not worthwhile economically or politically to supplant India in Nepal.

Finally, on December 20, 2015, the Nepal Cabinet held an emergency meeting and agreed to make a deal with the Madhesi agitators on the issue of provincial boundaries and pass a constitutional amendment to provide for proportional inclusive participation of the Nepali people in the various state organs and the delimitation of the electoral constituencies on the basis of population.

Even then, India did not relent. It was only after the Nepalese Parliament endorsed the Constitution Amendment Bill that things began to move. Within hours of the end of the blockade on February 5, Nepal announced the visit of Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli to New Delhi. Oli said he was coming to India to remove the “misunderstanding” that had developed between the two countries. Later, he announced on February 19 that a high-level political committee would be set up to review provincial boundaries in a three-month time frame.

No joint statement issued following Oli’s six-day visit and officials say differences between the constitutional process to effect the changes that Nepal has promised remains. During the talks, the Nepali government gave assurances that the constitutional changes, the issue of boundaries and citizenship would be addressed in the coming months.

The Indian side welcomed the constitution, but noted that its success would depend on “consensus and dialogue” and the ability of the government to deal with the issues related to building the consensus. The Indian side also sought to learn a little bit more about the terms of reference of the mechanism that the Oli government had promised on December 20, 2015.

Both India and Oli have gained through the visit. Oli has signalled that he is acceptable to a key neighbour and hence, strengthened his own position within the Nepali politics. India, on the other hand, has managed to show that it can do business with Oli, and that China has not gained ground in Nepal at the cost of India.

The Modi government has also achieved its goal of convincing the Government of Nepal that India remains its primary interlocutor. India had pledged $1 billion in reconstruction aid, of which 40 per cent is in grants and the rest soft loans. During Modi’s visit in 2014 another $1 billion was promised over the next five years. India’s red line for dealing with Nepal relates to security. Given Nepal’s location, and the fact that the 1,800-km India-Nepal border is not militarily defended, means that India cannot afford to have a government in Nepal which is anti-Indian or, to be more precise, is not friendly to New Delhi.

Mid Day March 1, 2016

Dangerous drift in Kashmir: Why New Delhi cannot avoid its responsibility anymore

The report that a crowd of Kashmiri civilians cheered on the Lashkar-e-Taiba militants holed out in Pampore on the weekend – even as the Indian Army was carrying out an operation to deal with them – should set alarm bells ringing in New Delhi. But perhaps the Union home ministry is too busy bashing the sloganeers in Jawaharlal Nehru University to bother about it.
It is incidents like this and the crowds that participate in the funerals of militants that tell you the true state of Jammu and Kashmir, rather than election turnouts and the tourist arrivals.
By now, it should have been clear to all but the most obtuse intelligence, that the Kashmir problem consists of three parts.
First, the need to defeat armed militants, Pakistanis who come from across the border, as well as the Kashmiris who get arms and training in Pakistan.
The second is to win over the Valley Kashmiri Muslims, significant chunks of whom remain estranged from India. It is they who provide the environment in which these militants are embedded for long periods of time.
And the third is to neutralise Pakistan’s malign role which takes advantage of our inability to give adequate redress to the political aspects of the Kashmir issue.
Three prime ministers
A three-tier strategy dealing with these issues has been followed by all the prime ministers who have dealt with the issue.
Prime Minister PV Narasimha Rao famously noted that the “sky was the limit” when it came to discussing the subject of autonomy.
Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee made repeated attempts to engage the Kashmiris, including the Hurriyat leaders like Mirwaiz Umar Farooq and Maulana Abbas Ansari. Vajpayee had in April 2003, during a public rally in Srinagar, said that India would wish to resolve all issues confronting Kashmir on three principles of “Insaaniyat” (humanism), “Jamhooriyat” (democracy) and “Kashmiriyat” (Kashmir’s multiculturalism). Vajpayee also famously arrived at a modus vivendi with Pakistan and initiated a process that nearly resulted in a Kashmir settlement by 2007. And all this was being done even while the security forces steadily wore down the militant challenge.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh came up with the creative idea of convening a roundtable in 2006 which would bring together leaders of all parties to discuss the Kashmir issue. Three roundtables were held, and several working groups sought to offer recommendations on dealing with specific issues, including one on Centre-State relations which took up the issue of autonomy.
Missing political gesture
What is the reality today? Militancy has been largely defeated. From a high of 638, 590, 469, security force personnel killed in 2000, 2001, and 2002 the deaths are down to 51, 61 and 41, in 2013, 2014 and 2015.
What is missing today is that political gesture that characterised the past efforts to resolve the problem. In his July 2014 visit to the Valley, Prime Minister Narendra Modi spoke about the importance of development and said that he would take the Vajpayee initiatives forward. Subsequently, in the election campaign, he emphasised development as the key issue.
In his November 2015 visit, Modi did invoke Vajpayee’s “Kashmiriyat, Jamhooriyat and Insaniyat” mantra, but he chose to focus on an economic agenda, promising the state a Rs 80,000 crore development package, adding egregiously that he needed no advice from anyone in the world, when it came to Kashmir.
But, the problem in Kashmir is not development, but politics.
Realpolitik and Idealpolitik
From the outset, New Delhi has sought to deal with this through a mix of realpolitik and idealpolitik. On one hand, it has maintained an iron hand in ensuring its control over the state. On the other, it has offered Kashmiris a range of policies within which they can feel that there are no constraints to their freedom. These policies have sought to address both the real issues relating to autonomy, as well as the sentimental ones relating to the sense of Kashmiriyat. Having ensured that J&K is an integral part of the Indian Union, Pandit Nehru, wisely conceded the state a constitution of its own (the only state of the Union to have one), a flag of its own, as well as the nomenclature of “Prime Minister” for its chief minister and “Sadr-e-Riyasat” for its governor. (The contestation over nomenclature, which was changed in 1965, continues to this day.)
Events, not in the least Sheikh Abdullah’s flirtation with the idea of an independent Kashmir in cahoots with the United States of America, changed things. And Pakistan only compounded them. Today, both New Delhi and the separatists need to work out the 21st century version of autonomy. Kashmiris must ask themselves whether they would be better off with a supreme judiciary and election commission based in New Delhi, or in Srinagar. Or, whether they could really trust Pakistan, which has repeatedly taken recourse to arms to capture the state and is not committed to maintaining its ethnic and religious profile.
No movement
The Modi government has done little or nothing by way of revealing a Kashmir policy. They seem to believe that their work was done the moment they agreed to go into a coalition with the People’s Democratic Party. Now, that coalition remains unstuck, and signals from the ground suggest that the situation is drifting dangerously.
But, as indicated above, development is just one part of the Kashmir problem. The other part is the sentiment among the people of the Valley that they lack something in political terms. It is often expressed by the term “azadi”, and in other circumstances by the support given to militants fighting against India. There is little hope that we can have lasting peace in J&K, unless we understand this.
As for Pakistan, government policy is careening in all kinds of directions and we are yet to see some coherence there. But today, more than ever before, the tone and tenor of Pakistani voices on Kashmir have changed and there is no reason why we cannot move forward from the achievements of the 2004-2007 period.
Kashmir is a dance involving three parties – the Kashmiris, the Pakistanis and Indians. To restore peace and tranquility there requires careful choreography which needs the synchronised movement of all the three parties. Because of its size, and the legitimacy of its claim, New Delhi needs to be the lead dancer, it’s a responsibility it cannot avoid.
Scroll.in February 25, 2016

India needs to start thinking like a nuclear nation

Last week the Vice Chief of the Indian Air Force Air Marshal BS Dhanoa declared that India would not be able to fight a two-front war involving Pakistan and China.The IAF’s numerical strength is at an all-time low, and the Air Marshal has said that “our numbers are not adequate to fully execute an air campaign in a two front scenario.”

Taken by itself, it is an astonishing statement. Is it possible that any country possessing nuclear weapons would risk fighting an all-out war with another, leave alone two of them?

The Pokhran-II test site after a nuclear device was detonated underground

The chances are remote. But that was not just the Air Force speaking, but the considered view of the government of India framed in an operational directive given by the defence minister to the three services in 2009.

It urges them to be ready for a two-front war, never mind that the services have never in the past two decades been resourced to fight even one short war with one adversary.

Threats

There are several issues here. First, is the question of assessing the nature of threats to India’s security.

Surely, with a million plus troops in its Army, a 600+ fleet of combat aircraft and a powerful navy - India is not exactly a push-over, even for a Sino-Pak combination.

Second, the two-front scenario has been the proverbial nightmare that India has confronted since the mid-1960s.

It probably came closest to fruition in the September 1965 India-Pakistan war when China issued an ultimatum to India to cease fire, and also moved some forces in the Sikkim area to aid beleaguered Pakistan.

Our Soviet alliance checked China in the 1971 war, and there were never any serious indications that Beijing would indeed get into the fight, despite Henry Kissinger egging-on China to attack India. 

During the Kargil war when Pakistan sought Chinese help even the rhetoric was absent, and Beijing politely told Pakistan to get Washington to pull its chestnuts out of the fire.

Third, is the more serious issue of nuclear weapons.

Most reasonable people will assume that a state known to have nuclear weapons is likely to use them only in the face of mortal danger.

Even if India shot off just 10 nuclear weapons, they would be enough to destroy two major cities and kill tens of millions of people in Pakistan or China and, of course, the other way around as well. 

Which leader would contemplate such an outcome?

The Chinese are much more focused on this issue and believe that the chances of all-out war are remote. They prepare their forces to win what they call “informationised local wars”, whether on the seas or the land.

Weapons

India has been singularly unable to adjust its military thinking to the fact that it also possesses nuclear weapons. This is because politicians have decreed that nuclear weapons are not really weapons, they are political instruments meant to be used only for retaliation, or to prevent nuclear blackmail.

So, while the weapons delivery systems are embedded in the military, their command and control is entirely civilian.

Most military personnel do not know anything about India’s nuclear capabilities and act on the belief that their job is to fight a conventional war, while the government of the day will hopefully come through if it goes nuclear.

While the civilians must, indeed, command the nuclear forces, they must understand that they are, in the ultimate analysis, weapons, resting at the very top of the escalatory ladder.

Militaries may not control the employment of such weapons, but they should be fully cognisant about their use and integrate them in their planning scenarios.

'Campaigns'

One consequence of mentally separating nuclear and conventional weapons is that the outlook of the Indian military has not changed.

So, it still sees itself conducting World War II like “campaigns” against adversaries.

The Army continues to hold a large fleet of tanks in its armoury, even though the plans that were made for their use have been shelved because they will trip Pakistan’s red lines.

India need not unilaterally disarm, but it could consider a verifiable reduction of the most aggressive land weapons system with Pakistan.

Besides enhancing stability in India-Pakistan relations, the money saved could be utilised to enhance the mobility and firepower of our forces facing China.

The Modi government has a uni-dimensional focus on modernising the equipment of the military, perhaps it should provide some leadership in modernising their organisation and strategy.

And, in the meanwhile, initiate a conversation with China and Pakistan about nuclear weapons and their dangers.

Mail Today, March 14, 2016

The Chinese Great Leap that is Leaving India Further Behind

The government of India last month showed the world that it cannot maintain control over a minor law and order event just kilometres away from its headquarters on Raisina hill in New Delhi. Just how it proposes to fulfil its bigger plans for overhauling the country’s infrastructure and launching a manufacturing revolution is a bit of a mystery.
All this is more troubling when you look in your neighbourhood and see China purposefully guiding its economy to  a soft landing and laying the foundations for its next advance – to emerge as a rich country by 2050 when it expects its per capita GDP to be of the order of $60,000.
This is no pie in the sky because its building blocks are being placed before our eyes, even though the full fruit of the projects will unfold over the coming decades. The best symbol of this was the arrival of the first “Silk Road” train from Yiwu, in eastern China, to Tehran, through Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan, taking 14 days less than  it would have taken the same cargo to go from Shanghai to Bandar Abbas. These are early days for the ambitious Silk Road scheme, which has the twin goals of connecting China to the high-end markets of Europe, as well as make it the geopolitical anchor of Eurasia.





A second indicator is the complete overhaul of two hoary programmes that have provided sinew to China’s emergence as a technology and manufacturing power. The new national research & development plan unveiled on February 16 will streamline the many state-funded science and technology programmes that are related to agriculture, energy, environment, health and various facets of industry and innovation. Many have a key national security component as well.   And as of now the plan covers 59 specific areas which have been based on the older Projects 863 and 973.
“863” is the numeric rendition of the year (1986) and the month (March)  of the launch of  the State High-Tech Development Programme. This is when several top weapons scientists wrote to supreme leader Deng Xiaoping calling for special focus on a range of civilian technologies to boost China’s growth. The technologies chosen were  in biotech, space, information, lasers, automation, new materials, super computing, telecom, marine  and, since 2001, clean energy.

Project 973 launched in March 1997 was  the National Basic Research programme aimed at giving China a strategic edge in a number of scientific fields ranging from agriculture to rare earths, population, materials and energy.
863 and 973  based themselves on  the American model followed by the National Institutes of Health and the Pentagon, where expert panels worked out priority areas, called for bids and awarded grants and contracts to researchers, labs and companies. They avoided the old British model into which India remains stuck, where all the activity is done under an allegedly autonomous council for scientific and industrial research which owns the labs and the scientists are life-long government employees.
A third indicator of the new directions China is headed towards comes from steps being taken by the National Development Reform Commission to put up 400 billion renminbi ($61 billion) per quarter this year to finance the next layer of infrastructure development across China. The money will be offered in the form of bonds to local authorities.
The goal of the special bond scheme is obviously to serve as a cushion against the slowdown of the Chinese economy which will continue through 2016 as well. But it is also to further enhance urban and suburban services like broadband, public transportation, telecommunications and promote the use of green technologies.
One important area for investment is also underway – the creation of a grid of charging stations for electric cars being made by Chinese companies. As part of 863, China invested a great deal in electric propulsion for vehicles. As a result, it is a common sight to electric scooters and motor-cycles in the streets of Chinese cities. Now, the stage is being set to have a million electric cars on Chinese roads by 2020. For this, a network of charging stations is being organised in cities and on principal expressways. Having missed the internal combustion engine revolution, China intends to have its companies in lead positions in electric car propulsion.
The fourth area of focus is the internet. Chinese plans to emerge as an internet super-power are being operationalised through its 13^th five year plan. According to Wang Yukai of the China National Academy of Governance, its focus is on providing a high speed and secure broadband network throughout the country.
In 2015, China hosted the second world internet conference which was addressed by President Xi Jinping. That China has created a famously autonomous and huge internet system is well known, but what China is seeking to do now is to insist that the principles it has espoused – sovereign control – becomes a universal value.
Last year, China’s internet plans received key political direction from the fifth plenum of the Communist Party. In February 2014, it was announced that a new leading small group on internet security and information technology would be headed by Xi Jinping himself. These leading small groups are apex decision-making bodies, the equivalent of our erstwhile empowered group of ministers (EGOMS).
India, too has explored many of the ideas that the Chinese are working along. Rajiv Gandhi had established a number of technology missions in the late 1980s. But those programmes imploded along with the Rajiv prime ministership. Newer proposals are floating in the air with little direction. Having abolished the Planning Commission, the Modi government appears unclear as to what the Niti Ayog is supposed to do. In any case, unless it controls the money, as the Chinese NDRC does, its decisions will have little value. The unfortunate aspect of the situation today is that there seems to be a drift without any clear direction. Ministerial function may have improved in some areas, but long-range planning and marshalling of scarce resources is absent. As is social stability, but that is an entirely different issue.
The Wire March 8, 2016

Delhi police: Handmaiden to powers that be

The arrest of JNU Students’ Union President Kanhaiya Kumar for sedition, and its accompanying fallout is now descending into a tragicomic farce. The tragic happened on Monday when BJP party men and lawyers attacked JNU students at the Patiala House courts, reportedly with the police standing by. The comic happened on Saturday when seven students belonging to a theatre group were detained and interrogated in New Delhi, allegedly because they “looked like” JNU students. They were taken to the Parliament Street Police Station and let off later in batches. More than the alleged charges of abetting terrorists, the degeneration of the Delhi Police into a partisan body bodes ill for the future.

Leave alone reflect on issues, the police leadership has shown a marked tendency to adopt a completely partisan position on them. This is evident from the promptness with which the police arrested the JNU Students Union president on the basis of a complaint by a group of Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) students. Anyone with even the faintest acquaintance of Indian politics would know that Kumar, an activist of the All India Students Federation, close to the Communist Party of India, is unlikely to make common cause with any group of separatists. The AISF has been staunchly mainstream and has been a strong backer of the government on issues relating to separatism, unlike its cousin the Students Federation of India which has a nuanced stand supporting states’ rights.

Not surprisingly, the Patiala House incident was dismissed as “minor” by Delhi police chief B S Bassi, who has remained centre-stage in this whole affair. On Sunday he said that a Delhi Police alert based on a tweet allegedly from Hafiz Muhammad Saeed was issued to warn students to stay away from “anti-India” slogans.” The tweet on an account @HafeezSaeedJUD, spells Hafiz as “Hafeez”. Analysing the tweets, Praveen Swami pointed out in the Indian Express that it was not networked with other Jamaat ud Dawa accounts and that the @HafizSaeedJUD account had been suspended earlier along with some other accounts by Twitter.

Now, Bassi says that even a fake tweet merited attention because it was “sinister.” The uncharitable thought comes to mind that Bassi retires at the end of the month and has expressed his willingness to serve the nation even after retirement, if called upon to do so. As police chief, he would have served his office better by educating the public on the manner in which social media can be manipulated, rather than using a patently fake tweet to threaten students.

This is not the only controversy that has marred his term. At the end of last month, they were allegedly involved in bashing up a group of students protesting Rohith Vemula’s suicide in front of the RSS office in central Delhi. The brutal beating became public when a video showing some policemen, possibly, plainclothesmen beating up the students. Bassi says he has ordered a probe. A BJP-friendly daily next day showed pictures of police personnel who were allegedly injured by the students. So you can imagine where that inquiry is headed.

One feature that would be of keen interest to any police organisation that had a modicum of professionalism left, is to note how the social media is being used and manipulated to stoke protest. In the process tweets are being faked, and possibly video footage. It is unlikely that Kanhaiya Kumar was shouting any slogans in support of Afzal Guru, leave alone those allegedly calling for the destruction of India. Likewise a video purporting to show some ABVP activists shouting Pakistan Zindabad (Long live Pakistan) seems to be equally improbable.

These events have transpired in a university that is extremely small and diverse. But should this be repeated in other places and in a different setting, you could have a major law and order problem in your hands.

However, our police refuses to become a professional force and remains a hand-maiden of the powers that be. That suits the politicians and it is they who have consistently prevented any serious reform of the police system to take place. For this the BJP alone is not responsible, all political parties from the Congress to the CPI(M) have used and misused the police for their partisan purpose.

The saddest aspect of the whole situation is a word that will not be understood by our rashtravadi (nationalist) BJP. It is the word “bullying”. Taking on a handful of students and stomping all over them is no great sign of bravery. They show little of it in neighbouring Punjab, where the BJP forms part of the ruling coalition with the Akali Dal, and every now and then there are public functions where slogans in favour of Khalistan are raised, and killers of an Indian prime minister and a state chief minister honoured, yet, we don’t get a peep out of the bravehearts of the party.

Mid Day February 16, 2016

India has bigger issues than a few protesting students

At least when the police hit JNU on that hot summer night in July 1975, following the imposition of the Emergency, they came surreptitiously in the night. This time around their raids have been in broad daylight. 

Then, as now, they came invoking the law of the country. But where the Emergency, howsoever wrong, came through a Presidential proclamation under Article 352(1) of the constitution adopted by free India in 1950, the raid on February 12 to arrest JNUSU president Kanhaiya Kumar was on the basis of a sedition law passed by our colonial masters in 1870. 

Disloyalty 

This was a law drafted by Thomas Babington Macaulay in 1833, so there is great irony that a political tendency in this country which constantly inveighs against “Macaulay ki aulad” (children of Macaulay) is today invoking laws that originated with him. 

Sedition cannot be applied to mere words and statements, but only to actually waging war against the state

Not to forget, of course, that “disloyalty” in that law was to the Empress of India who sat in London. 

More than anything else, the incident reveals the immaturity of the ministerial team of the Modi government. 

Where Union Home Minister Rajnath Singh has taken the seemingly high road by calling for action against anti-national elements, his HRD counterpart Smriti Irani has taken the low one, claiming an insult to an abstract non-legal concept called ‘Bharat Mata.’ 

Both missed the point that, as it exists in the Indian law, sedition cannot be applied to mere words and statements, but to actually waging war against the state or abetting it.

In no way did slogans in favour of Afzal Guru, or even those allegedly calling for the destruction of India, meet that test. 

Indeed, given the very limited nature of the protest, there are no indications that the group of students were inciting the group to attack anyone. 

As for the barbad (destroy), it is used in public protests as a catch-all word like zindabad. So a slogan “x ho barbad”, where x can be the management of a factory, a vice-chancellor, America, Pakistan or whatever, means little. 

The two ministers have no understanding that young students will be volatile, excitable, rebellious, often irresponsible, and always ready to take up a cause. It is up to the government to channel their energies, not use the sledgehammer to swat them out. 

Neither do these ministers have the slightest inkling that dissent is central to democracy, not a peripheral issue. 

Authority 

The Sangh Parivar members, who have been thrust into important positions of authority in the country, are all afflicted with a great desire to exercise their power, never mind the spirit of the constitution and the law. 

You cannot get a better example of this from the Maharashtra BJP government’s September 2015 order that virtually conflates sedition with any attack on the government itself. 

In Gujarat, the BJP government has invoked the sedition law against Hardik Patel, who is leading an agitation favouring reservations for the Patel community for sending messages that use “offensive language against the Prime Minister, the state chief minister and BJP president Amit Shah.” 

This is the same tendency of using power that lead to the suicide of Rohith Vemula after being expelled by the University of Hyderabad. In that case, too, the ABVP which is leading the charge in JNU, was involved, claiming that Rohith had participated in the protest against the death penalty to Yakub Memon. 

Constitution 

What is really under threat is the right of the freedom of speech guaranteed by our constitution. By declaring people ‘anti-national’ or ‘seditious’, efforts are being made to abridge these rights. 

Where in the Emergency, the government invoked a provision of the Constitution to deny the right, albeit temporarily, here the effort is to shape the discourse in such a way that any view contrary to that of the Sangh Parivar becomes seditious. So you cannot oppose Afzal Guru or Yakub Memon’s hanging, and nor can you express contempt for BJP notables. 

Amazingly, this great defence of ‘nationalism’ and ‘nationalist values’ comes from a political ideology which had little role in the national movement that brought freedom to the country. 

At that time nationalism actually meant something, including the hardship of long terms in prison. Today all that it seems to be is a cudgel to belabour your adversaries. 

In the 69 years since India gained Independence, we have been through a lot - separatist movements in the North-east, Kashmir, Punjab and even for a while Tamil Nadu. There were wars, covert and overt, famine, economic distress and so on. 

Today in 2016 we have largely defeated all these challenges and stand tall as a nation. Our real task is the economic transformation of the country at the earliest. We need to get down to dealing with that, rather than get caught in hysterical protests against imaginary enemies.

February 14, 2016