|
BJP should keep the faith of the secular
The destruction of Babri Masjid was a watershed in our country’s ethos of pluralism
Kuldip Nayar
I
may question the timing, practically on the eve of polling for the Lok Sabha elections, of the disclosure of the conspiracy behind the demolition of Babri Masjid at Ayodhya in 1992. I do not know how this has helped the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) at the polls during which it shed the development factor and came out in its true colours, the pro-Hindu stance. Its election manifesto is a bit accommodative on the mandir and seeks a solution within the constitutional framework. But the BJP remains adamant on Article 370, which is an integral part of the process of Jammu and Kashmir’s accession to India.

Secularism was not mentioned in the BJP’s manifesto. The party’s prime ministerial candidate Narendra Modi (R), party president Rajnath Singh (C), and senior leaders Lal Krishna Advani and Sushma Swaraj at the release of its election manifesto. PTI |
The other main party, the Congress, did not lag behind in communalising the environment. The party marshalled Shahi Imam Bukhari and other Muslim clerics behind it and did not care about the oft-repeated allegation against it that the Congress goes out of the way to appease the Muslims. Yet, I commend the meticulous job of piecing together the bits of information through sting operations spread over three years to bring to light the plan to destroy the masjid. The news portal, which has divulged the details, says that the demolition was an “act of planned sabotage.” It was meticulously planned, rehearsed and executed. This confirms what Justice M.S. Liberahan had said in his report on the demolition. He has reiterated in a press interview: “It stands beyond doubt that the events of the day were neither spontaneous nor unplanned, nor an unforeseen overflowing of the people’s emotion. Narendra Modi was part of LK Advani’s rath yatra in support of the mandir.” What has pained me is the fact that both Atal Behari Vajpayee and Advani knew about the proposed demolition — the plan and the exercise carried out for demolition. I was honestly taken in by Vajpayee’s argument that it was an act of people’s spontaneous emotions and had no prior planning behind it. When Advani resigned from the Lok Sabha taking moral responsibility, I really believed that he was speaking the truth. I feel cheated. The alacrity with which he withdrew the resignation within 24 hours indicates the hypocrisy. And Vajpayee still plugs the line that it was a spontaneous reaction of the crowd. This is not true because half a million sewaks had assembled from different parts of the country, particularly Maharashtra, on December 6, 1992. The Justice Liberahan report is an indictment of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which has taken 22 years to complete the probe as it claims to have done. More than that it is an indictment of public figures that were part of the conspiracy but parade themselves as apostles of virtues. Other BJP leaders, some of whom I see on television channels, do not minimise the sin by arguing that no sting operation has been carried out in the case of corruption deals by the Congress. This can be done even belatedly. But the Sangh Parivar cannot be absolved of its nefarious activities. I knew all along that Narasimha Rao, the then Congress Prime Minister, had blessed the destruction. He had the Army deployed in the vicinity and was bound to use it when the Supreme Court had said the status quo should be maintained, that is, to protect the Babri Masjid. Not a single soldier was moved to defend the mosque, nor was there ever a proposal to surround the structure with tanks to ward off any attack. What socialist leader Madhu Limaye had told left me with no room for any doubt about Rao’s involvement. Limaye said that when the demolition began, Rao sat for puja. There were frantic calls from his colleagues who made an effort to reach out to him and ask him to take action against those who were engaged in destroying the mosque but he had instructed that he should not be disturbed. When the destruction was complete, Rao’s aide whispered into his ears that the process was complete. Rao finished his puja. The demolition was followed by communal riots, particularly in Mumbai. Rao invited some senior journalists to seek the media’s help to normalise the situation. I was one of the invitees. I asked Rao how a small temple had come to be built overnight when the centre had taken over the administration after dismissing the state government ruled by the BJP. He answered that the temple would not be there for long. Twenty-two years have gone by since the demolition. I had reminded Rao of his assurance on several occasions when he was still in power. But no action has been taken despite my repeated writings. The small temple stands there even today and the talk to accommodate the Muslims by building a mosque next to the mandir is not heard anymore. I can understand and even appreciate the arguments of those who claim that it was the Ram janmabhoomi and not the Babri Masjid. But when lakhs of Ram sewaks gather there and even beat up a few Gandhiites who objected to violence, the dictum sought to be proved is that the majority community would have its way through peace, if possible, or by force, if necessary. The Babri Masjid’s destruction is a watershed in our country’s ethos of pluralism. The Muslim community began to tilt on the side of extremists since. Its faith in secular society was shaken and it went even to the extent of not protesting against the terrorists. If I were to trace militancy among the Muslims, I would find the demolition of Babri Masjid as the beginning. The community feels insecure, particularly at the prospect of Modi becoming the prime minister. All I can say is that India has been a multi-religious society for centuries and we have learnt to live that way. If Modi tries to undo the reality, he will find defiance all over. He may even jeopardise the country’s integrity. I wish the BJP’s election manifesto had mentioned secularism once. The new converts to the BJP argue that when the party swears by the Constitution, it expresses its faith in secularism without spelling it out. I wish it were so because when the Babri Masjid was demolished it was done despite the Constitution.
 |
|
She left indelible imprints on many minds
Atul Khanna
My
father was completely in awe of Mrs Kaushalya Atma Ram, the eminent educationist, who passed away recently. From the much-admired principal of two government colleges, she became the Director Public Instruction, Punjab. There were anecdotes about her as a disciplinarian and a strict administrator, one who did not mince words or pander to authority unless convinced. So intimidating was her persona that when I was summoned one morning by my father and instructed to go to her for lessons in expression and writing, to say I was terrified would be an understatement. But he was not the one to take ‘no’ for an answer. I mustered whatever courage I could and went to her house. Imagine my surprise when I found that she was not just amiable and witty but also put the other person completely at ease. I honed my written skills, learnt to frame official letters, draft proposals, read between the lines and frame responses to the most obtuse comments in a non-threatening manner. She regaled me with stories of the 1960s and 1970s, of her students and her many trysts with the local administration. I was also privy to her dabbling in poetry and literature. Had she not been an educationist, she would have been a writer or a poet. She was a regular at our cultural concerts, especially the ones in which leading Indian classical musicians. She could sing quite well herself. Surprisingly, while she could have always asked for special seats, often I would run into her in the audience. Clearly, she was not one to use clout to get special favours. An institution in herself, her stellar career spanned five decades in different official capacities. Over another three decades, she also contributed in honorary roles and helped to shape the educational landscape of Chandigarh and Punjab. Labelling her as an academician par excellence would not be doing justice because her contribution went beyond mere academics. Progressive, creative with her ideas and bold in executing them, she won the admiration not only of her students and staff but also government officials, bureaucrats and politicians. Her qualities won her the unflinching loyalty of those fortunate enough to work with her. As my involvement in running schools, a cultural centre and managing activities of our NGO grew, she lent her expertise to the administration. She was seen as a firebrand who would, on her scheduled visits, ask the most pointed questions to ensure that what was being claimed in terms of results was actually being delivered on the ground. An institution builder in the real sense of the word, Mrs Atma Ram left an indelible imprint and the city would do well in creating some a memorial for a woman who was way ahead of her times. She made significant changes in the way girls were taught and groomed at college. Her presence was so commanding that only a rare person would play truant in her company. It was easy to fall in line with what she said, pretty much the way I did, many summers ago when I made that first trip to her house, with a notebook and pen in hand. In her inimitable way, she taught me so much about life and yes, English expression too!
 |
|
Curbs against Russia an exercise in futility
The crisis over Crimea is, arguably, the worst to hit Europe in this century. In the current case, sanctions against Russia are widely regarded as more bark than bite. The EU simply cannot afford sanctions, unless Europeans want to commit economic suicide and freeze in their homes as the second Ice Age descends on them.
Pinak Ranjan Chakravarty
the
face-off between the US-led western powers and Russia over the annexation of Crimea seems to have cooled somewhat. Both sides appear to be backing off and President Putin has had the fifth telephone conversation with President
Obama, this time initiated by the former. Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov and US Secretary of State Kerry have met again in Paris, presumably to explore avenues to defuse the crisis.

Pro-Russian demonstrators in eastern Ukraine are demanding integration with Russia. Reuters |
Putin has ordered a partial withdrawal of Russian troops along the eastern borders of Ukraine that are poised as a warning to Ukraine to roll back its moves to join NATO and deal with its Russian minority sympathetically. Russia has also raised the price of gas that it supplies to Ukraine as a punitive measure. US Secretary of State continues to maintain that the Russian takeover of Crimea is “illegal and illegitimate”, but both sides have talked about using diplomatic means to resolve the crisis. This is shorthand for continuing talks and hoping that the crisis does not exacerbate. Meanwhile, the western powers have scrambled to provide support to the Ukrainian government struggling to maintain its writ over its Russian-dominated eastern region. After much posturing and rhetoric, the US and EU have resorted to sanctions against Russian officials and selected individuals, and Russia has retaliated with its own sanctions against US and European politicians and individuals. UN sanctions A noteworthy feature of this confrontation is the imposition of sanctions by the West and retaliatory sanctions by Russia. The nature of sanctions has also generated mocking comments from Russian and US politicians. Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin mocked the visa ban imposed on him, saying he had no intention of visiting the US. Senator John McCain, whose chest-thumping militarist posturing in defence of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity has attracted much attention, mocked the sanctions imposed on him, saying that his Siberian holiday has been put on hold and his “secret account” in Russia frozen. International economic sanctions have been in use for a long time. Truly effective sanctions are those imposed by the UN Security Council when there is consensus among its permanent members. It has imposed such sanctions twice in the first 45 years since it was established — against Rhodesia (now Tanzania and Zimbabwe) in 1966 and apartheid South Africa in 1977. During the 1990s, it imposed partial or comprehensive sanctions over 16 times. The UN and US imposed comprehensive economic sanctions against Iraq for its invasion and annexation of Kuwait. After a period of diplomacy and military buildup, the first Iraq war led to the liberation of Kuwait and the defeat and overthrow of the Saddam Hussain regime.
About sanctions A sanction imposed unilaterally or multilaterally is a penalty levied on a country. It is a diplomatic tool and an instrument of foreign policy and economic pressure.
It is akin to a carrot-and-stick approach in dealing with a crisis caused by infringement of established practice in international law.
The earliest recorded use of sanctions was in 432 BC, when Pericles — the tallest Greek/Athenian leader — issued the Megaran decree, imposing restrictions on Megara’s products.
Over 165 cases of economic sanctions have been imposed between 1914 and 1998.
The US has been the most prolific with 115 of these sanctions (68 unilaterally).
The Russian Federation has used sanctions on 35 occasions between 1992 and 1997.
|
Military implications During and after the Cold War, the US has led the field in imposing sanctions in pursuit of its global geo-political goals. Such sanctions signal the US resolve to maintain the current global order without taking the route of military action. Smaller nations are never immune from western military actions (Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and Syria) but larger more powerful nations deter the military option. Thus Russia, China and India have all faced sanctions on different occasions. The US imposed economic sanctions against the Soviet Union in 1983 after the downing of the South Korean airliner that had strayed into restricted Soviet airspace. The Tiananmen Square incidents led to the US imposing sanctions to assuage domestic US opinion and to make a moral statement. US sanctions against India after the 1998 nuclear tests were also designed to force India to sign the CTBT unconditionally. India was also sanctioned after the 1974 “peaceful nuclear explosion” and several technology denial regimes were created by the US and allied nations to coerce India into falling in line and sign the
NPT. None of these sanctions achieved their objectives. Stick to India The US is currently engaged in targeting the Indian pharmaceutical industry with threats of sanctions because it sees a threat to its pharmaceutical companies from generic drugs. It has used various methods to ban the export of drugs from Indian companies to warn against compulsory licensing and the refusal of the Indian judiciary to approve evergreening of patents. The US and India are friendly democracies with converging interests but that does not prevent the US and its bureaucracy, under the influence of powerful commercial lobbies, to target friends and foes alike. Such is the nature of a predatory global power, defending its waning hegemony in the global power hierarchy. More recently the UNSC and separate US sanctions against Iran, for its nuclear weapons
programme, have had adverse economic effects on Iran. US financial sanctions have led to reduction in imports of Iranian oil by many countries, including India. As long as tit-for-tat sanctions remains on the books against individuals, not much damage will be done, except to hit individual Russian billionaires and give an ego boost to the sanctioned individuals, as is evident from the reactions of US politicians. Counterproductive If real sanctions are imposed against Russia, they would hurt the West too, particularly Europe. Sanctions have always been seen as double-edged, hurting the economic interests of all concerned, living as we do, in a highly integrated world. If the US and EU decide to sanction Russia’s financial, energy and mining sectors, the entire situation will turn very nasty. Take the energy sector for example. Russia exports around 130 billion cubic metres of gas to the
EU, via pipelines, sections of which run through Ukraine. Banning gas imports will certainly hurt Russia to the tune of over $70 billion but it will also devastate EU countries that depend on Russian gas to the extent of 30 per cent. Poland depends on Russian gas to the extent of 91 per cent and Hungary for 86 per cent. Some countries like Greece, already reeling under an economic crisis, will simply collapse given its dependence on Russian gas to the extent of 55 per cent. French banks’ exposure is to the tune of over 20 per cent of their overall lending to Russian companies, 68 Russian companies trade at the London Stock Exchange and over a million Russian tourists keep the Italian tourist industry afloat. The EU will have no appetite for taking a masochistic approach to diplomacy. Germany, the largest economy in the
EU, can hardly stop consuming Russian gas (30 per cent) or risk putting $1.1 billion invested by its engineering giant Siemens in Russia. Punitive sanctions in the energy sector will impact US energy companies such as
ExxonMobil. For example, ExxonMobil and Rosneft of Russia signed an agreement in 2011 for oil drilling in the Arctic worth around $500 billion. If ExxonMobil has to abandon this agreement and other agreements with Russian companies, it will suffer a grievous blow and cause a huge upset in the global oil and gas market. There will be too many losers. Nor can the US replace Russian gas, though it has dangled the issue of exporting surplus shale gas and hinted that the EU should overcome its environmental-led diffidence in permitting exploration for shale gas in Europe. The infrastructure of exporting US gas to Europe cannot be created overnight. LNG terminals are highly capital intensive and building undersea pipelines can take decades and face technological challenges. The US companies are eager to open up the EU market for gas and have stared lobbying lawmakers, as is the military-industrial complex that seems to have smelt a golden opportunity to roll back cuts in defence expenditure by the Obama administration. UN
resolution Putin understands the challenges and vulnerabilities of the US and
EU. As a permanent member of the UNSC, Russia vetoed the resolution introduced by the US, calling upon countries not to recognise the Crimean referendum, though 13 countries voted for it, with China, another permanent member, abstaining. In a subsequent vote in the UN General Assembly, 100 countries voted against Russia, 11 for and 58 abstained in the 193-member Assembly, with 24 countries not voting. India abstained and has announced that it will not participate in any sanctions regime against Russia, while reaffirming its commitment to sovereignty and territorial integrity of nations. The West made much noise about Russia’s isolation. The fact remains that the UNGA resolution is symbolic and non-binding and has no effect on sanctions or anything else. Moreover, the large emerging economies like Brazil, China, India and South Africa
(BRICS), the countries of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) and many other countries will continue to ignore sanctions against Russia. Russia also holds other cards. Its gas will flow into China when Gazprom signs the deal for supplying 3.75 billion cubic feet of gas for 30 years, beginning 2018. This deal could be worth over $1 trillion. India will also look forward to investing more in the Russian oil and gas sector to meet its energy requirements. Russia and China may well decide to deal in either yuans or
roubles, severely undermining the petrodollar that has ruled the roost. This would be another step towards nudging the dollar of its perch as the international reserve currency. Most countries would agree that Russia violated international law by sending military personnel into Crimea and “arranging” the referendum for annexation. There would be consensus that western nations have intervened in Serbia, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and Syria. The West takes the moral high ground when its suits its interest and pretends that its intervention is good for rights, democracy, open markets and a liberal order. Yet the outrage against Russian annexation makes it a champion of hypocrisy. Crimea was a part of the Russian empire since 1783, and in 1921 it became a Soviet autonomous republic. In 1954, the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev, a native Ukrainian, decided to hand over Crimea to the Soviet Socialist Republic of Ukraine. In 1991, Crimea became a part of independent Ukraine. Russia’s takeover was not inevitable but the West crossed a line when, after months of unrest, it caused the overthrow of the pro-Russian Ukrainian President. The prospect of Ukraine joining NATO was too much of a provocation for Russia to swallow and that explains its reaction to protect its interest in Crimea. Russian troops remain deployed along Ukraine’s eastern border. The writer is a former ambassador and has served as a Secretary at the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, besides Indian Missions abroad.
 |