http://www.nepalnews.com.np/archive/2007/others/guestcolumn/may/guest_columns_08.php
From smuggling to criminal activities, extortions and terrorism, Nepal’s southern border has been facing all kinds of destabilizing activities
By KESHAB POUDEL
Cadres of Jwala Singh-led Jantantrik Terai Morcha traded gunfire with security personnel at Sitlapur Barganiya village development committee Rautahat, close to Indian border - The Himalayan Times (May 14, 2007)
Five members of a family were injured when a group of dacoits attacked them at Miguliya VDC in Morang district - Kantipur (May 13)
There were celebrations in Birgunj when one of the dreaded criminals Chhotelal Sahani was killed in India. Sahani was extorting money and kidnapping Nepalese businessmen from across the border in India. (Gorkhapatra May 10)
An engineer of district road office Navaraj Bista was shot dead by Terai Jantantrick Mukti Morcha (Goit) in Lahan and they kidnapped two others. (Kantipur May 12)
Ajaya Yadav, district president of Jwala Singh, was shot dead by Goit group in Rautahat district. Similarly, an unidentified gunman killed 23 years old Dilip Raya in Sarlahi.
Proprietor of a medical store in Bara, Hridaya Narayan Yadav who was abducted by an unidentified group on April, fled from the clutches of the kidnappers from unknown location in India. (The Himalayan Times May 15)
More than nine tons of red sandalwood was discovered in Swayambhu. In Imadole of Lalitpur, over ten tons of red sandalwood was seized. The smuggling of sandalwood is reportedly carried out from Indian state of Andhra Pradesh to smuggle to Tibet.
After upsurge of smuggling activities in border, chief district officer of Morang constituted five members coordination committee. According to Chief District Officer, everything is coming from Indian border to Nepal. (Annapurna Post May 13)
A group of Maoists were detained in Nautunwa when they were traveling to Gorakhpur, India carrying Maoist literature. (Nepal Samacharpatra).
These are some sporadic news coming out in major newspapers from Nepal’s southern terai. One can read these kinds of news every day in various newspapers. From robbery to act of terrorism, extortion and kidnapping, such things have become commonplace in Nepal’s southern border and plain areas.
Incidents of killings, extortions, rapes and heinous crimes of this nature have become everyday news in the country. It is said that this upsurge is for liberation of suppressed populating in Madhes, which is in the south of Nepal. Some times it is seen as an ethnic cleansing against the population of hill but the violence has no border and no identity as a race or the region.
Lots of Madhesis many of whom are supposed to be of the Indian origin are also facing same kinds of cruelties and kidnappings along with the population of hilly origin. “The open border between Nepal and India has been one of the main contributing factors to the increasing magnitude of international migration. Illegal trade associated with free movement of people across the border has been a matter of grave concern for both countries. It is therefore necessary to regulate the movement of people along the border between Nepal and India,” late Dr. Harka Gurung had recommended in his study on internal and international migration.
After the atrocities and destructions unleashed by one decade long Maoist insurgency, all had expected that peace had come to Nepal and it would prevail. Sadly, this is not turning out so.
“After a series of arguments and discussions, ultimately, Maoists have procured substantial share in parliament of nominated persons as well as in the government. Soon after the announcement of the end of insurgency by arrangement of interim constitution on January 15, another phase of violence has erupted as a bolt from the blue. Nobody had any apprehension that a new kind of violence and insurgency would erupt in whole of southern belt of Nepal under several leadership with similar motto. All are preaching violence, extortion, kidnapping and crimes of these natures,” said a political analyst.
Beside various criminal groups, Madheshi Tiger, Terai Cobra, Jantantrik Terai Mukti Morcha - Goit and Jawala Singh, Chure Bhawar Ekata Samaj, Nepal Defense Army (a religious group more active in Birgunj), Madhesi Janadhikar Forum, Terai Army (which owned up the responsibility for exploding a bomb in Chandranigahapur of Rautahat on May 14 injuring 14 persons), TM Don Group (active in far western terai region) have been launching violent activities.
“Outwardly, it does not seem like calculated and coordinated terror. But whatever general idea one has about the method of terrorism as a weapon of extracting concessions from a regime, is clearly seen in this situation. This is a completely new experience of terrorism for Nepalis,” said the analyst.
A veteran Indian journalist Rajinder Puri describes the situation as, “The silent cooperation between terrorist groups with diverse aims.” The inference is that these groups function under a central command. In his recent write-up in The Statesman regarding terrorism in India, Puri writes, “Broadly there are three kinds of terrorists. The dupes who believe in a cause and are the cannon fodder for terrorism; the criminals who take to extortion, murder and rape under protection of political banner; finally there are the few moles that are aware of hidden agenda of their masters. The hidden agenda of terrorism here is to destabilize and weaken India.”
What Puri diagnosed in Indian condition is as much appropriate in the case of Nepal. Nepal has been suffering from the curse of terrorism since a decade. Now a new dimension has been added in this crisis under the garb of regionalism, ethnicity, religion and language.
The country was supposed to have a lasting peace to get rid of poverty and illiteracy and usher a new Nepal- a credible Nepal.
“All didn’t share that kind of wishful thinking and day dreaming. The root cause of one decade long terrorism was not at all any upsurge of any ideology and noble ideals. It was an outcome of disguised conflict based upon strategic interest of broader dimensions. The new phase of political instability and rampant lawlessness and violence is the continuation of the same design under new facets and jargons. What veteran Indian journalist Rajinder Puri in his recent article in The Statesman ‘Anatomy of Terror’ had explained is not only the problem with India. All neighbors of India suffer from almost similar problems,” said the analyst.
Nepal had very peaceful borders with its neighbors in the past which is now a matter of history. It has two most powerful neighbors both economically and militarily powerful compared to which no security arrangements of Nepal can effectively insulate troubles from across the border. During the past one decade, slowly and gradually, Nepali border with the south became very fragile and uncontrolled as most of the police posts and check points were destroyed and devastated by Maoists. Although an effort was made to restore them following the ceasefire, last Madhesi uprising again devastated it.
The situation is now that there are virtually no police post and custom office in the Nepalese side of border where any element can come and go without any identification.
“We will take necessary steps to strengthen the security in terai. The government will prepare a log term security plan for terai,”said Home Minister Krishna Prasad Sitaula.
According to the analyst, when Nepal was being burned by Maoists, all prominent Maoists leaders had enjoyed safe haven in India - which is an open secret now. Even Maoist leaders who have returned back to Nepal have revealed as much.
In the last few months after the upsurge of new violence under the name of Madhesis, Maoist cadres have become the first target. What happened in Gaur in March was quite cruel and dreadful.
“After all what all these great games are gaining on at the cost of lives of the common people and their peace and self respect. One need not go far away to find a clear perception of this crisis,” said the analyst. “There are some respectable columnists who have expressed their anguish while analyzing the violence of Nepal.”
Swapan Das Gupta, in Pioneer (29 May 2005), had long backed this view when he stated, “However, that does not gave it right to undertake a covert war in Nepal. How is this any different from the operation mounted by Pakistan, in Jammu and Kashmir and north India?”
“In one stroke, heads of intelligence service and the MEA have demolished ethical grounds of India’s diplomacy. We too are guilty of encouraging terrorists and acknowledging them as freedom fighters,” writes Gupta.
“These are some highly sensible and respectable Indians analysts who see troubles in Nepal as an outcome of a covert operation to promote an ulterior interest which is unethical and in the long run counter productive to them,” said the analyst.
In his recent article in Indian Defense Review, its editor Bharat Verma writes,” By humiliating its national army and making them surrender their weapons, Koirala government has opened itself to Maoist blackmail. It is a matter of time before the gun-wielding Maoists throw Koirala and rag -tag liberal political parties out of power. In terms of Indian foreign policy, it is blunder of epic proportions. The stark question is, if New Delhi cannot handle Nepal then what exactly can it do?”
A peaceful neighbor is the best guarantee of one’s security. Destruction in the neighborhood ultimately engulfs key players, too.
“ Nepal is not an isolated case in crisis rather it is more orderly and peaceful than any other smaller country of this region. Nepal has open and unguarded border due to which any disorder and violence in Nepal may ultimately spill away beyond its territory. It will be too late if the border with Nepal is kept unsafe and unguarded as it is at present – despite a huge deployment of Indian paramilitary border force SSB and all security system in the Indian side of border,” said the analyst.
The SSB came into the limelight for the first time through a report in Times of India supplement in 30 August 2001 soon after the Royal Palace massacre in Nepal. That dispatch reveals that it was created to use for subversive and clandestine activities deep within the Tibet. As the relations between India and China had improved, it was withdrawn from that task and deputed into a new task of guarding India’s border with Nepal against the ISI’s threat.
“After its deployment, there has not been any sensational news in the Indian press regarding ISI activities from Nepal’s border. But since then Nepal itself had become much more disturbed and chaotic in many respect,” observes the analyst.
“Now the question is of the statesmanship from big neighbor who could see that the border between the two countries is guarded properly and convincingly. Politicians in a democratic order are accountable to the people as well as their representatives. Therefore, they have to prevail over all kinds of administrative and security agencies,” said the analyst.
Courtesy : Spotlight
Sunday, May 20, 2007
'India is located in tough neighbourhood'
K Anurag in Guwahati
http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/may/17uk1.htm
May 17, 2007 19:23 IST
The United Kingdom seeks cooperation with India in fighting terrorism even as it reiterated its support to India's claim for a permanent membership in the United Nation's Security Council.
Britain's Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Kim Howells, who was in Guwahati to inaugurate the British Information Centre for the North East India on Thursday, said, "We are facing with similar problem of terrorism and we will benefit from sustained sharing of information and intelligence in fighting the menace of terrorism."
Howells pointed out that India was located in a 'tough neighbourhood.'
"India is surrounded with countries with great problems. If those states transform into failed nations, it will pose a threat not only for India but the entire world. India has already suffered much due to the confusion in Kashmir, problems in Afghanistan and Taliban movement along the border with Pakistan," he added.
In response to a question whether Britain will put pressure on Bangladesh and Myanmar to respond to India's request for eviction of North East Indian militants' camps in those countries, Howells said the interim government in Bangladesh had shown positive attitude in this respect.
He hoped that the new government that will be installed in Bangladesh after elections will continue with the attitude of the interim government.
Regarding Myanmar, however, Howells said, "Britain has poor relations with Myanmar due to the tyrannical rule in the country. They treat their own people in a very brutal manner and Britain can never support it."
He said killing of innocent people in conflict-ridden North East India should stop and that his government was extending cooperation to New Delhi to tackle the situation.
"India shares borders with countries like Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nepal and Bhutan. It should share any information of suspicious movement of terrorists in those countries in the interest of global security," Howells said.
http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/may/17uk1.htm
May 17, 2007 19:23 IST
The United Kingdom seeks cooperation with India in fighting terrorism even as it reiterated its support to India's claim for a permanent membership in the United Nation's Security Council.
Britain's Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Kim Howells, who was in Guwahati to inaugurate the British Information Centre for the North East India on Thursday, said, "We are facing with similar problem of terrorism and we will benefit from sustained sharing of information and intelligence in fighting the menace of terrorism."
Howells pointed out that India was located in a 'tough neighbourhood.'
"India is surrounded with countries with great problems. If those states transform into failed nations, it will pose a threat not only for India but the entire world. India has already suffered much due to the confusion in Kashmir, problems in Afghanistan and Taliban movement along the border with Pakistan," he added.
In response to a question whether Britain will put pressure on Bangladesh and Myanmar to respond to India's request for eviction of North East Indian militants' camps in those countries, Howells said the interim government in Bangladesh had shown positive attitude in this respect.
He hoped that the new government that will be installed in Bangladesh after elections will continue with the attitude of the interim government.
Regarding Myanmar, however, Howells said, "Britain has poor relations with Myanmar due to the tyrannical rule in the country. They treat their own people in a very brutal manner and Britain can never support it."
He said killing of innocent people in conflict-ridden North East India should stop and that his government was extending cooperation to New Delhi to tackle the situation.
"India shares borders with countries like Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nepal and Bhutan. It should share any information of suspicious movement of terrorists in those countries in the interest of global security," Howells said.
India objects to Kashmir reference in Islamabad declaration of ICFM
http://www.newkerala.com/news5.php?action=fullnews&id=30595
New Delhi, May 17 : India has objected to the reference of Kashmir in the Islamabad Declaration of the Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers (ICFM) that was adopted on Thursday.
"We note with regret that the Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers (ICFM) has once again chosen to comment upon Jammu and Kashmir in the Islamabad Declaration adopted by the ICFM," official spokesperson of the Ministry of External Affairs said here today.
"Jammu and Kashmir is an integral part of India and the OIC has no locus standi in matters concerning India's internal affairs. We reject all such references or resolutions on Jammu & Kashmir," the spokesperson added.
The annual meeting of foreign ministers of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) today ended in Islamabad calling for greater social and economic development of its 57 member countries, and tackling the growing 'Islamaphobia' in the world.
The declaration stated that the conference was committed to defend the Muslim world's major causes, in a range of world conflicts, from the Middle East to Somalia to Afghanistan to Jammu and Kashmir.
The Contact Group of Organisation of Islamic Conference - on Kashmir, which met under the auspices of the ICFM on Wednesday, expressed its full support for the right to self-determination of Kashmiri people.
New Delhi, May 17 : India has objected to the reference of Kashmir in the Islamabad Declaration of the Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers (ICFM) that was adopted on Thursday.
"We note with regret that the Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers (ICFM) has once again chosen to comment upon Jammu and Kashmir in the Islamabad Declaration adopted by the ICFM," official spokesperson of the Ministry of External Affairs said here today.
"Jammu and Kashmir is an integral part of India and the OIC has no locus standi in matters concerning India's internal affairs. We reject all such references or resolutions on Jammu & Kashmir," the spokesperson added.
The annual meeting of foreign ministers of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) today ended in Islamabad calling for greater social and economic development of its 57 member countries, and tackling the growing 'Islamaphobia' in the world.
The declaration stated that the conference was committed to defend the Muslim world's major causes, in a range of world conflicts, from the Middle East to Somalia to Afghanistan to Jammu and Kashmir.
The Contact Group of Organisation of Islamic Conference - on Kashmir, which met under the auspices of the ICFM on Wednesday, expressed its full support for the right to self-determination of Kashmiri people.
Pak need not suspect US ties with India: American scholar
Islamabad, May 20 (ANI): A senior fellow for US Foreign Policy at Brookings Institution and a former director of European Affairs at National Security Council under US President Bill Clinton has said that Pakistan should not suspect Washington's growing relations between India.
Dr. Philip Gordon said that ties between the U.S. and India should be simply seen as America wanting to be a friend to the world's biggest democracy and having access and exposure to the important South Asian free market.
Speaking at a roundtable here, Gordon was quoted by the Dawn as saying that, "It is in America's own interests to have good relations with such a free market. It does not mean we give preference to India over Pakistan, but the US foreign policy can't revolve merely around a single country no matter how important that country is."
He also claimed that many people in Pakistan looked at the present India-US relations with glasses of religion and consider it as America's anti-Islam agenda, which was wrong.
Such an impression could not be substantiated as the war on terror had nothing to do with Islam as religion, he added.
Replying to a question on the Taliban, Gordon said the Taliban could not be termed as representatives of Pakhtuns and giving them any chance to re- emerge would not only put the security of the region at risk but, in fact, the whole world at risk.
"The Taliban have been tested in Afghanistan and, we have seen how regressive such people could be when in power. We had tried our best to separate Taliban from the Al-Qaeda but it proved futile," he observed.
http://in.news.yahoo.com/070520/139/6g0la.html
By ANI Sunday May 20, 12:46 PM
Ironically, none of the dozen veteran diplomats who had gathered around a huge wooden table could convince Dr Gordon that Taliban were a legitimate part of Afghan crisis.
Explaining US policy towards Iran, Dr. Gordon said that a nuclear Iran was a threat to its neighbours and could put the whole region into a race for nuclear technology. Iran could even transfer its nuclear technology to its neighbours.
He said the US was against the proposed Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) gas pipeline because of the designs of Iran to become a nuclear power, which, if materialised, could destabilise the whole region.
The US still saw Pakistan as a vital partner in the War on Terror and wanted long-term relations with it, he said. (ANI)
Dr. Philip Gordon said that ties between the U.S. and India should be simply seen as America wanting to be a friend to the world's biggest democracy and having access and exposure to the important South Asian free market.
Speaking at a roundtable here, Gordon was quoted by the Dawn as saying that, "It is in America's own interests to have good relations with such a free market. It does not mean we give preference to India over Pakistan, but the US foreign policy can't revolve merely around a single country no matter how important that country is."
He also claimed that many people in Pakistan looked at the present India-US relations with glasses of religion and consider it as America's anti-Islam agenda, which was wrong.
Such an impression could not be substantiated as the war on terror had nothing to do with Islam as religion, he added.
Replying to a question on the Taliban, Gordon said the Taliban could not be termed as representatives of Pakhtuns and giving them any chance to re- emerge would not only put the security of the region at risk but, in fact, the whole world at risk.
"The Taliban have been tested in Afghanistan and, we have seen how regressive such people could be when in power. We had tried our best to separate Taliban from the Al-Qaeda but it proved futile," he observed.
http://in.news.yahoo.com/070520/139/6g0la.html
By ANI Sunday May 20, 12:46 PM
Ironically, none of the dozen veteran diplomats who had gathered around a huge wooden table could convince Dr Gordon that Taliban were a legitimate part of Afghan crisis.
Explaining US policy towards Iran, Dr. Gordon said that a nuclear Iran was a threat to its neighbours and could put the whole region into a race for nuclear technology. Iran could even transfer its nuclear technology to its neighbours.
He said the US was against the proposed Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) gas pipeline because of the designs of Iran to become a nuclear power, which, if materialised, could destabilise the whole region.
The US still saw Pakistan as a vital partner in the War on Terror and wanted long-term relations with it, he said. (ANI)
Appeal for peace in South Asia
Feb 1, 2000, 18:57
http://www.tamileelamnews.com/news/publish/tns_6357.shtml
In a joint statement issued by the participants for the South Asian countries who attended the Neelan Tiruchelvam Commemoration Program in Colombo have made an urgent appeal to the leaders of India and Pakistan to take decisive measures to defuse the tensions before it is too late and to revive the Lahore process so that both Indian and Pakistan along with other South Asian neighbours march together building a vibrant and prosperous south Asian community.
The first signatory of the statement is a former Indian Prime Minister I. K. Gujral. Several other prominent personalities from Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and India have also signed the statement.
Excerpts from the statement are given below:
At the 1999 Lahore Summit, the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan initiated a process for peace and co-operation. They demonstrated their political commitment to transcend the burden of their tension ridden relations of the pass fifty years.
The people of both countries and indeed of all South Asian countries were heartened by the historic development and perceived that a new dawn of hope and harmony will usher in the new era of prosperity and well being. Within less than a year the vision for a better and peaceful future has become a distant dream. Peace is once again in peril in the subcontinent raising grave apprehension of the imminent danger of outbreaks of armed conflict between India and Pakistan. Such a path will result in unimaginable human and material destruction not only in the two neighbouring countries but also in the entire region.
South Asia is already marginalized in the world community and an armed conflict will only retard ,if not reverse even the faint hope of the South Asian people , who constitute one-fifth of the total world population, to respond to the challenges of the emerging interdependent and globalized world community.
Time has come for South Asia to make a critical choice between war and peace, destruction and development, poverty and prosperity.
Therefore, we the participants for the South Asian countries who have assembled in Colombo to honour the memory of a colleague who sacrificed his life for peace, make an earnest appeal to the leaders of India and Pakistan to take urgent and decisive measures to defuse the tensions before it is too late and to revive the Lahore process.
http://www.tamileelamnews.com/news/publish/tns_6357.shtml
In a joint statement issued by the participants for the South Asian countries who attended the Neelan Tiruchelvam Commemoration Program in Colombo have made an urgent appeal to the leaders of India and Pakistan to take decisive measures to defuse the tensions before it is too late and to revive the Lahore process so that both Indian and Pakistan along with other South Asian neighbours march together building a vibrant and prosperous south Asian community.
The first signatory of the statement is a former Indian Prime Minister I. K. Gujral. Several other prominent personalities from Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and India have also signed the statement.
Excerpts from the statement are given below:
At the 1999 Lahore Summit, the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan initiated a process for peace and co-operation. They demonstrated their political commitment to transcend the burden of their tension ridden relations of the pass fifty years.
The people of both countries and indeed of all South Asian countries were heartened by the historic development and perceived that a new dawn of hope and harmony will usher in the new era of prosperity and well being. Within less than a year the vision for a better and peaceful future has become a distant dream. Peace is once again in peril in the subcontinent raising grave apprehension of the imminent danger of outbreaks of armed conflict between India and Pakistan. Such a path will result in unimaginable human and material destruction not only in the two neighbouring countries but also in the entire region.
South Asia is already marginalized in the world community and an armed conflict will only retard ,if not reverse even the faint hope of the South Asian people , who constitute one-fifth of the total world population, to respond to the challenges of the emerging interdependent and globalized world community.
Time has come for South Asia to make a critical choice between war and peace, destruction and development, poverty and prosperity.
Therefore, we the participants for the South Asian countries who have assembled in Colombo to honour the memory of a colleague who sacrificed his life for peace, make an earnest appeal to the leaders of India and Pakistan to take urgent and decisive measures to defuse the tensions before it is too late and to revive the Lahore process.
'World bank can now refocus on poverty in South Asia'
IANS[ SATURDAY, MAY 19, 2007 12:00:07 PM]
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News/International__Business/World_bank_can_now_refocus_on_poverty_in_South_Asia/articleshow/2061169.cms
WASHINGTON: The resignation of World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz would help the institution battered by a crisis of governance to resume the battle against poverty in South Asia, according to a senior bank official.
"The World Bank is an institution committed to helping developing countries in the battle against poverty," Praful Patel, Vice President, South Asia Region said Friday.
"For over a month - while our work has continued strongly - the institution has been battered by a crisis of governance. The decision that has been reached to make space for new Bank leadership allows us to draw a deep breath and return our full attention to continuing the development work at hand," he stated.
Never before have the countries of South Asia had such a great opportunity to end mass poverty, he said. Reforms have resulted in over a decade of sustained growth which in turn has opened new pathways for South Asia to accelerate growth to new highs of 8 to 10 percent.
"Reducing poverty on this scale is a huge challenge which will also require deep progress in human development; it will require that all South Asian citizens have a chance to improve their lives irrespective of gender or caste or religion," Patel said.
"It will require massive investments in infrastructure and improvements in the investment climate. And as the World Bank itself has experienced these past painful weeks, it will require a vigilance over the systems of governance that we all have in place, whether we be institutions like the Bank or nation states," he said.
"The Bank's governance system has allowed us to reach a resolution to the crisis we faced but it has also challenged us to make improvements. The system has been stress tested and we now know we can do better," Patel said.
Similarly in countries, the systems that are put in place to govern expenditures, to ensure transparent human resources policies, to manage power in ways which do not give favour to some and exclude others, are all questions of good governance, Patel said.
"While government partners welcome our advice on how to manage procurement well, on how to ensure sound financial checks and balances, there are sometimes sensitivities. We hope that by sharing global good practices we can demonstrate the advantages of transparent government."
"The messy nature of our own governance crisis these past weeks has humbled us by how difficult it is to always get this right; and it has convinced us how necessary it is to try," he said.
As a development partner the Bank engaged the countries of South Asia on issues key to their development agendas. And as a global institution it also bring shared experience on challenges like HIV/Aids, on avian flu, on finding ways to mitigate the effects of climate change.
"We have heard much recently from both critics and supporters of the Bank and its development work. We welcome both for this is not a simple business with easy solutions," Patel said.
"We are a small player, along with many partners, in the face of enormous global challenges and in the aftermath of our own governance crisis, we recommit ourselves to the work of South Asia and the wider world," the official said.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News/International__Business/World_bank_can_now_refocus_on_poverty_in_South_Asia/articleshow/2061169.cms
WASHINGTON: The resignation of World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz would help the institution battered by a crisis of governance to resume the battle against poverty in South Asia, according to a senior bank official.
"The World Bank is an institution committed to helping developing countries in the battle against poverty," Praful Patel, Vice President, South Asia Region said Friday.
"For over a month - while our work has continued strongly - the institution has been battered by a crisis of governance. The decision that has been reached to make space for new Bank leadership allows us to draw a deep breath and return our full attention to continuing the development work at hand," he stated.
Never before have the countries of South Asia had such a great opportunity to end mass poverty, he said. Reforms have resulted in over a decade of sustained growth which in turn has opened new pathways for South Asia to accelerate growth to new highs of 8 to 10 percent.
"Reducing poverty on this scale is a huge challenge which will also require deep progress in human development; it will require that all South Asian citizens have a chance to improve their lives irrespective of gender or caste or religion," Patel said.
"It will require massive investments in infrastructure and improvements in the investment climate. And as the World Bank itself has experienced these past painful weeks, it will require a vigilance over the systems of governance that we all have in place, whether we be institutions like the Bank or nation states," he said.
"The Bank's governance system has allowed us to reach a resolution to the crisis we faced but it has also challenged us to make improvements. The system has been stress tested and we now know we can do better," Patel said.
Similarly in countries, the systems that are put in place to govern expenditures, to ensure transparent human resources policies, to manage power in ways which do not give favour to some and exclude others, are all questions of good governance, Patel said.
"While government partners welcome our advice on how to manage procurement well, on how to ensure sound financial checks and balances, there are sometimes sensitivities. We hope that by sharing global good practices we can demonstrate the advantages of transparent government."
"The messy nature of our own governance crisis these past weeks has humbled us by how difficult it is to always get this right; and it has convinced us how necessary it is to try," he said.
As a development partner the Bank engaged the countries of South Asia on issues key to their development agendas. And as a global institution it also bring shared experience on challenges like HIV/Aids, on avian flu, on finding ways to mitigate the effects of climate change.
"We have heard much recently from both critics and supporters of the Bank and its development work. We welcome both for this is not a simple business with easy solutions," Patel said.
"We are a small player, along with many partners, in the face of enormous global challenges and in the aftermath of our own governance crisis, we recommit ourselves to the work of South Asia and the wider world," the official said.
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
India-Pakistan relations in a changing world
VIEW:—Dr Ayesha Siddiqa
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007%5C04%5C30%5Cstory_30-4-2007_pg3_2
Monday, April 30, 2007
Although India has a long way to go in perfecting the Cold Start concept, the model does change the military-strategic scene and poses the question to Pakistan regarding signalling to India about its threshold in response to the latter’s new military doctrine
General Pervez Musharraf has hailed Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh’s recent statement about a plan to divide the Indian-held Kashmir into three parts as recognition of Pakistan’s proposed solution of the dispute. Discussions are already underway regarding a possible de-militarisation (reduction or re-location) of Jammu & Kashmir, which will, hopefully, improve relations between India and Pakistan.
Although the talks are highly secretive, one can already guess that a solution is not likely to involve any territorial adjustments favouring Pakistan. During my two recent visits to Delhi I met a few Kashmiri people who were equally upset with Pakistan for willingly surrendering a claim, which in their view, was never Pakistan’s to decide. However, what the Kashmiris feel is a different issue. More important is the fact that many in Pakistan will also classify a deal as a sell-out.
Whatever might be the perception of the Kashmiris, an administrative-cum-political adjustment on both sides is likely to put an end to the territorial dispute between the two South Asian neighbours. The question, however, is: will the solution naturally result in normalising relations and ushering in a new era of peace and tranquillity between them?
Leaving aside the issue of analysing the rights and wrongs of Islamabad’s approach, it is interesting to evaluate the argument regarding a deal with India as signifying a paradigm shift by the Pakistan army. Many analysts believe this policy indicates the re-structuring of the army’s strategic vision. Is that correct?
From a tactical perspective, a possible deal might not necessarily indicate a policy shift. After all, the Pakistan army has politically conceded more to India than it ever did during a war. Incidentally, territorial concessions were always made after defeat in a war or a major military operation. For instance, the defeat in 1971 led to the Simla agreement. Another situation in which the army has conceded territory to India without fighting for it is in situations when the GHQ Rawalpindi was up till its eyes in politics. The best example is General Zia’s period when India managed to make territorial gains in the Qamar sector without Pakistan really batting an eyelid. It is worth noting that throughout his reign Zia did not really mention Kashmir in his discussions with India.
So, there is nothing queer about General Musharraf willing to write-off the political claim on Kashmir after he had undertaken the Kargil operation. Every time the Pakistan army fights a war on the territory, it realizes that military operations are hardly the way to change the status quo.
Does this mean Pakistan will begin to look at India differently? Will the states and the militaries now consider each other as long-lost distant cousins who must live peacefully? From Pakistan’s perspective, there is no fundamental paradigm shift as far as perception about India goes. The larger neighbour remains an enemy and will continue to be mistrusted.
However, what is different is the appreciation of the changed strategic and geo-political environment. The fact is that since the nuclear tests, and as the two countries negotiate the nuclear CBMs, they realise that a conventional medium-intensity war cannot be fought in the region. Even though both India and Pakistan continue to maintain large armed forces, the fact remains that war in South Asia has changed. This is not the age where two traditional rivals will be able to fight a 10-15 days war or hope to gain territories to be mutually exchanged during peace talks. They cannot even afford to fight wars of direct contestation over territories.
India has announced its future battle plans through its strategy of Cold Start in which the aim will be to remain grouped for a short and swift attack across the boundary to eliminate targets and withdraw rather than taking territory which would then give Pakistan cause to push the nuclear button. The four scenarios given by Lt. General Khalid Kidwai have caught the military-strategic imagination in Delhi even though General Kidwai has often said that he was misunderstood by the two Italian analysts who spoke with him.
Although India has a long way to go in perfecting the Cold Start concept, the model does change the military-strategic scene and poses the question to Pakistan regarding signalling to India about its threshold in response to the latter’s new military doctrine.
Two issues are worth considering; they also seem to point to the fact that what we are witnessing may be are military-strategic adjustments rather than a paradigm shift.
First, since the competition between India and Pakistan is no longer territorial and has become increasingly ideological, the generals in Rawalpindi would like to stress strategic equality. The confusion in the minds of military personnel regarding parity and equality makes them nervous about India’s growing strategic prowess and also motivates them to compete.
What the generals have definitely understood is that a competition will not be possible without building sufficient economic muscle for which they are willing to create ‘controlled’ conditions in the country and the region at large which might make it possible for capital to flow from India as well. However, the movement will have to be select and controlled by the state bureaucracy. It is uncertain that the discussions on trade will eventually lead to a situation where the common people of India and Pakistan will freely build financial stakes in each other’s countries.
Second, Pakistan would like to define or carve out a role for it self in the world not entirely dominated by India. Resolving the Kashmir dispute will not mean that Islamabad will give up the claim over its share of Afghanistan’s geo-politics and Central Asia or not want to play the role as a key between two strategic regions that is the Persian Gulf/Middle East and Central Asia. This statement does not mean that Pakistan is already playing that role or that it will seek to do so through military means alone.
What is being argued is that these two factors are critical to the evolving strategic vision, supposedly in sync with the changing realities of the India-Pakistan bilateral linkage. A power-play between the two rivals on issues not directly impinging on their core interests might be less likely to provoke a direct conflict. Therefore, while the competition and rivalry will continue alongside cooperation and confidence building, the fundamental character of the relationship might not change.
It could then be argued that the region is looking at a paradigm shift as far as strategic objectives and the nature of war is concerned. That might not necessarily be construed as a fundamental alteration in the nature of the relationship. Like in the US-USSR Cold War, this is a case of technology being the driver in determining the perimeters of conflict and competition.
The writer is an Islamabad-based independent defence analyst and author of the book, Military Inc, Inside Pakistan’s Military Economy
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007%5C04%5C30%5Cstory_30-4-2007_pg3_2
Monday, April 30, 2007
Although India has a long way to go in perfecting the Cold Start concept, the model does change the military-strategic scene and poses the question to Pakistan regarding signalling to India about its threshold in response to the latter’s new military doctrine
General Pervez Musharraf has hailed Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh’s recent statement about a plan to divide the Indian-held Kashmir into three parts as recognition of Pakistan’s proposed solution of the dispute. Discussions are already underway regarding a possible de-militarisation (reduction or re-location) of Jammu & Kashmir, which will, hopefully, improve relations between India and Pakistan.
Although the talks are highly secretive, one can already guess that a solution is not likely to involve any territorial adjustments favouring Pakistan. During my two recent visits to Delhi I met a few Kashmiri people who were equally upset with Pakistan for willingly surrendering a claim, which in their view, was never Pakistan’s to decide. However, what the Kashmiris feel is a different issue. More important is the fact that many in Pakistan will also classify a deal as a sell-out.
Whatever might be the perception of the Kashmiris, an administrative-cum-political adjustment on both sides is likely to put an end to the territorial dispute between the two South Asian neighbours. The question, however, is: will the solution naturally result in normalising relations and ushering in a new era of peace and tranquillity between them?
Leaving aside the issue of analysing the rights and wrongs of Islamabad’s approach, it is interesting to evaluate the argument regarding a deal with India as signifying a paradigm shift by the Pakistan army. Many analysts believe this policy indicates the re-structuring of the army’s strategic vision. Is that correct?
From a tactical perspective, a possible deal might not necessarily indicate a policy shift. After all, the Pakistan army has politically conceded more to India than it ever did during a war. Incidentally, territorial concessions were always made after defeat in a war or a major military operation. For instance, the defeat in 1971 led to the Simla agreement. Another situation in which the army has conceded territory to India without fighting for it is in situations when the GHQ Rawalpindi was up till its eyes in politics. The best example is General Zia’s period when India managed to make territorial gains in the Qamar sector without Pakistan really batting an eyelid. It is worth noting that throughout his reign Zia did not really mention Kashmir in his discussions with India.
So, there is nothing queer about General Musharraf willing to write-off the political claim on Kashmir after he had undertaken the Kargil operation. Every time the Pakistan army fights a war on the territory, it realizes that military operations are hardly the way to change the status quo.
Does this mean Pakistan will begin to look at India differently? Will the states and the militaries now consider each other as long-lost distant cousins who must live peacefully? From Pakistan’s perspective, there is no fundamental paradigm shift as far as perception about India goes. The larger neighbour remains an enemy and will continue to be mistrusted.
However, what is different is the appreciation of the changed strategic and geo-political environment. The fact is that since the nuclear tests, and as the two countries negotiate the nuclear CBMs, they realise that a conventional medium-intensity war cannot be fought in the region. Even though both India and Pakistan continue to maintain large armed forces, the fact remains that war in South Asia has changed. This is not the age where two traditional rivals will be able to fight a 10-15 days war or hope to gain territories to be mutually exchanged during peace talks. They cannot even afford to fight wars of direct contestation over territories.
India has announced its future battle plans through its strategy of Cold Start in which the aim will be to remain grouped for a short and swift attack across the boundary to eliminate targets and withdraw rather than taking territory which would then give Pakistan cause to push the nuclear button. The four scenarios given by Lt. General Khalid Kidwai have caught the military-strategic imagination in Delhi even though General Kidwai has often said that he was misunderstood by the two Italian analysts who spoke with him.
Although India has a long way to go in perfecting the Cold Start concept, the model does change the military-strategic scene and poses the question to Pakistan regarding signalling to India about its threshold in response to the latter’s new military doctrine.
Two issues are worth considering; they also seem to point to the fact that what we are witnessing may be are military-strategic adjustments rather than a paradigm shift.
First, since the competition between India and Pakistan is no longer territorial and has become increasingly ideological, the generals in Rawalpindi would like to stress strategic equality. The confusion in the minds of military personnel regarding parity and equality makes them nervous about India’s growing strategic prowess and also motivates them to compete.
What the generals have definitely understood is that a competition will not be possible without building sufficient economic muscle for which they are willing to create ‘controlled’ conditions in the country and the region at large which might make it possible for capital to flow from India as well. However, the movement will have to be select and controlled by the state bureaucracy. It is uncertain that the discussions on trade will eventually lead to a situation where the common people of India and Pakistan will freely build financial stakes in each other’s countries.
Second, Pakistan would like to define or carve out a role for it self in the world not entirely dominated by India. Resolving the Kashmir dispute will not mean that Islamabad will give up the claim over its share of Afghanistan’s geo-politics and Central Asia or not want to play the role as a key between two strategic regions that is the Persian Gulf/Middle East and Central Asia. This statement does not mean that Pakistan is already playing that role or that it will seek to do so through military means alone.
What is being argued is that these two factors are critical to the evolving strategic vision, supposedly in sync with the changing realities of the India-Pakistan bilateral linkage. A power-play between the two rivals on issues not directly impinging on their core interests might be less likely to provoke a direct conflict. Therefore, while the competition and rivalry will continue alongside cooperation and confidence building, the fundamental character of the relationship might not change.
It could then be argued that the region is looking at a paradigm shift as far as strategic objectives and the nature of war is concerned. That might not necessarily be construed as a fundamental alteration in the nature of the relationship. Like in the US-USSR Cold War, this is a case of technology being the driver in determining the perimeters of conflict and competition.
The writer is an Islamabad-based independent defence analyst and author of the book, Military Inc, Inside Pakistan’s Military Economy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)