Asian Voice - Saturday 20th February 2010
COMMENT
Indo-Pakstan bedevilled by Islamist terrorism India's Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh is in a bind: just as he had ageed to a resumption of the Indo-Pakistan dialogue in Islamabad came yet another bombing in India, this time in a popular restaurant in Pune. Nine people perished in the blast, among them two foreigners - an Italian woman and an Iranian male - while over 50 people were injured. Pro-western voices in India have been clamouring of late for the IndoPakistan talks to resume. Dr Singh decided to despatch a delegation of his senior foreign ministry officials to test the waters in Islamabad. The Pune outrage must surely make him think again. A decade ago, one of his predecessors, Atal Behari Vajpayee, journeyed to Pakistan on a high profile search for peace. His hosts repaid his trust with a stealthy occupation of the Kargil heights from which their forces had to be forcibly ejected. It turned out to be a costly miscalculation for both sides: the Pakistani military and intelligence services and their craven political allies believed they had India by the throat in Kashmir; they knew better after being booted out with heavy losses. But India too paid dearly, losing some 700 soldiers in the conflict, victims of serious political misjudgment in Delhi. Preliminary findings on the likely source of the Pune attack will shortly be with the Indian prime minister. He has then to come to a decision on the projected Indo-Pakistan talks. There is a terrorist alert throughout India, with airports and railway stations and other sensitive centres under heavy security surveillance. Democratic societies will always be vulnerable to terrorist attacks on soft targets, there being no foolproof protection against them. India is the victim of an undeclared war conducted for the most part from across the border. Pakistan has been an Anglo-Amercan client for the past half century. It is also a closer and more sinister Saudi-Chinese tool. Such are the ground realities that face India. They constitute
the greatest challenge to the security and existence of the Indian state since its creation in August 1947. Indian statecraft has to be an amalgam of hard power and dissuasive diplomacy. Trust can only be vested in countries which make no allowances for the incubators and abettors of terror. In this context one must mention the Bollywood megastar Shah Rukh Khan and his public outburst against the exclusion of Pakistani cricketers from India's IPL Twenty20 cricket competition. He was well within his rights and good taste in simply lodging a protest. But in high dudgeon, he chose to describe Pakistan as “a great neighbour,” just as India, he exclaimed, was a “great country.” Mr Khan had clearly forgotten that this “great neighbour” was responsible for the terrorist slaughter of 26/11, surely the the most terrible day in Mumbai's history. He lives in the city and feeds on its acclaim, its riches and robust multi-ethnic and multi-cultural life without the slightest sensitivity for its terrible ordeal.Mr Khan preposterously lent moral eqivalence to India and Pakistan. On the BBC's Jonathan Ross TV show, he claimed he had only expressed support for cricketers from abroad to come and play in India. Like hell. He didn't have the guts to repeat the weasel words that have enraged so much of India. Trust the British press to reduce this to a Shiv Sena- Shah Rukh Khan conflict. Few decent men and women would have a good word for the Sena and its thuggish ways. But Shah Rukh Khan's offensiveness transcends the Shiv Sena. India is a tolerant place. If millions of Indians have voiced their disgust at the verbal antics of a Bollywood star, more millions of their countrymen and women, including Hindus, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains and atheists have defended his freedom of speech. They have all done India proud.
ECB arrogance impedes English cricketet Michael Vaughan, England's former Test captain, and Paul Collingwood the current star, are both agreed that English cricketers are losing out in their earnings and cricketing experience by not being able to participate in the Twenty/20 in Champions League. As a cricket commentator, Vaughan was more forthright. The title of his column in The Daily Telegraph said it all - “We're arrogant for not embracing India.” He explains: “The Champions League is not for international players. It is for the county lads to earn a few quid and get a massive buzz from playing in big grounds in front of decent crowds, something they never experience at home. It means a little more employment for guys who face winters that are long and hard and full of nothng but netting from October to March. Now because it clashes wth the end of the County Championship they could miss out.” The logjam can be resolved with common
sense, clearly an uncommon commodity at times. Lalit Modi, the Champions Legue Commissioner is well aware that for the tournament to prosper in the long-run the participation of English county sides is imperative. However, it is the present situation that has thrown up the seemingly immovable object, Vaughan writes, “I hate the fact that in this country we are arrogant and stubborn. We say 'we are not letting India rule the world.' Yet everyone else manages to build a relationship with India and makes a nice living too....We cannot accept in this country that India are the market leaders in world cricket. We resent the fact they match the passion and fans with the financial muscle. It's time to stop fighting and build relationships.” These wise words should be heeded – sooner rather than later. England invented this great game, and it is in England's gift to enrich it and take it to greater heights.
Tackling Naxalite violence Naxalite Maoist violence in India has many roots, some complex, others less so. Naxalites have tapped into the discontent of marginalised communities in the impoverished eastern and central regions of the country. Some of this unrest stems from the unjust land tenure system, and some are incubated in the immemorial poverty and discrimination suffered by tribal groups whose welfare has long been ignored by mainstream society. It is right that the authorities in Delhi and the affected states seek an equitable solution to this festering crisis by offering a package of economic measures which will go some way to correct old wrongs. A meaningful dialogue coupled with real changes on the ground is an imaginative way forward. However, it would appear, that the Naxalite rank and file are hostage to the vaulting ambition
of their leaders whose goal is nothing less than the overthrow of the Indian state and its replacement by a Maoist dictatorship. They and their flock have taken recourse to mindless violence in the deluded belief that such action will end in a resounding for their benighted cause. It certainly will not. The government's velvet glove conceals an iron fist. It would be a terrible pity if Naxalite militancy leads to an armed confrontation, in which there can only be one winner. India is an upwardly mobile society. Many of those who were once unable to benefit from India's economic boom are now beginning to prosper. Opportunities are opening throughout the land. The bullet and bomb will not lead to a classless nirvana but to a harvest of sorrows. Let good sense prevail before it is too late- on all sides.
www.abplgroup.com
3
Thought for the Week The one important thing that I have learned over the years is the difference between taking one's work seriously and taking one's self seriously. The first is imperative and the second is disastrous. - Margot Fonteyn (1919-1991)
Barry Gardiner MP Member of Parliament for Brent North
Beware of Children Asking Questions! Every parent has had that totally unnerving experience: when their toddler asks a seemingly innocent question that it is just not possible to answer. No, I don't mean the "How are babies made?" sort of question. I'm talking about the ones that are much deeper and more difficult to answer than with mere biology. The events of the past week have reminded me of when my daughter once asked me "What is the price of money?" At first I remember thinking that she had simply made a mistake and didn't understand that money was the mechanism by which we calculated price and that it did not itself have a price. But the more I tried to explain the deeper I got into trouble. I realised that this is a very profound question indeed as the Greeks and the rest of the Eurozone have been finding out in the past 10 days. The Euro has lost almost a third of its value over the past few months. It is now priced at just over $1.35. (A great time to buy currency if you are planning on a holiday on the continent) But that is not the serious issue here. Why is the Euro now priced so low? Why is this money so cheap? The answer is that the Euro is a currency without a government. "Money makes the world go round A Mark, a Yen, a Buck, or a Pound" Those words ofthe old Cabaret song are now out of date. Each one of these currencies used to have its own separate government. But the Mark was replaced by the Euro as was the Franc, the Peseta and the Lire and now in the Eurozone there are many governments. But currencies really need just one government that can adjust the economic levers to keep the currency stable. That is what almost every other currency in the world has: a single government that decides how to keep the different parts of its economy synchronised so that the rest of the world has confidence in the coun-
try's capacity to pay its debts and in the value of its money. But the Greek government has taken very different political decisions in its part of the Eurozone from the decisions the German government has made in its part. They have paid their workers more than those workers have produced and been able to sell. They have borrowed to the point where they may not be able to repay and so the rest of the world has lost confidence in their currency. In effect the decisions the Greeks made have affected or perhaps I should say infected the Germans, the French and all the other countries of the Eurozone as well. It was always a risk that this might happen. Indeed it was this fear that some would say lay behind the French and German desire to have a New European Constitution. But that constitution fell and was replaced by the much weaker Lisbon Treaty. Europe has not become one country with one government and that is why the Euro is now tearing the Eurozone apart. In Britain we know what it is to have a two speed economy. London often overheating whilst the North east is unable to keep up. The skill of government is in trying to spread jobs and opportunity throughout the area of its currency to harness all regions and keep a strong economy. A single government can do that with difficulty. For the multi-government eurozone it is almost impossible. As Chancellor, Gordon Brown set strict economic tests that have kept Britain out of the Eurozone. Each day as we see the Pound strengthen against the Euro we may come to think of this as one of his greatest economic achievements. And the answer to the question? Simple really: "The price of money is tough political decisions that create stability and confidence."