Mehbooba Mufti’s tough task (Editorial THE HINDU 11/01/2016)

Mufti Mohammad Sayeed, who passed away on Thursday, leaving a vacuum in the mainstream politics of Jammu and Kashmir, had for months been preparing for his political exit. In November 2015, just eight months after he took over as Chief Minister to head what had seemed an impossible coalition of his Peoples Democratic Party and the Bharatiya Janata Party, he had begun to prepare for the succession, saying that his daughter, and PDP president, Mehbooba Mufti deserved to be the Chief Minister. She had worked in the party organisation and was better connected than he was with the people, he had stressed, while adding that she had the experience of being both an MLA and an MP. There were indications at the time also of discussions within the PDP as well as with the BJP leadership on the issue of Ms. Mufti being her father’s chosen successor. Of course, there were murmurs of dissent within the PDP and some unhappiness in the BJP State unit as she had always been less conciliatory than her father, especially when it came to her views on the role of the security forces and issues of human rights violations. On her part, Ms. Mufti had voiced her reluctance about becoming Chief Minister. In fact, staying out of the administration formally, her supporters felt, allowed her to carry along a wider cross-section of political opinion in the State. But now, the moment of truth has arrived — and the challenges before her as she readies herself to take charge of Jammu and Kashmir will be enormous.

Running J&K has never been an easy task. But after a short spell of Governor’s Rule to accommodate her wish not to take charge till the period of mourning for her father is over, Ms. Mufti will take over its reins at a particularly difficult moment in its history. In recent months, thanks largely to the role played by the BJP, the State has been divided on the beef and dual flag controversies. There has also been a spike in militancy: indeed, in the PDP strongholds of Anantnag, Shopian, Kulgam and Pulwama in southern Kashmir, there has been a more than a week-old hartal demanding a memorial for slain militants, a fallout, many say, of local unhappiness with the PDP’s alliance with the BJP. Ms. Mufti will have to balance the interests of the people of the Kashmir Valley with those of Jammu while dealing with the Army and the security agencies. In the months to come, friends, allies and rivals alike will watch the State’s first woman Chief Minister for the slightest misstep. She will have to temper her politics to ensure that the coalition stays afloat, even as she combines assertiveness and diplomacy to keep her own flock together. Ms. Mufti has both qualities of head and heart to be Chief Minister, but she may also need a big dose of luck for what is one of the toughest jobs in the country. 

Sri Lanka’s historic opportunity (Editorial THE HINDU 11/01/2016)

It is a moment of great hope and some fear in Sri Lanka. As it takes the first step towards drafting a new Constitution, there is renewed hope that the island nation will be able to reinvent itself as a modern state, one that brings economic prosperity and national unity. At the same time, it is also difficult to ignore the fear that yet another opportunity presented by history may fail owing to political opposition, ethnic extremism and an entrenched, if not systemic, resistance to change. President Maithripala Sirisena’s address to Parliament on the occasion of the tabling of a motion to create a Constitutional Assembly was bold in its invocation of past failures. His candid reference to the failure to implement past agreements as the origin of the protracted civil war showed deep understanding of his country’s situation. Laced with justified apprehensions about the likely impediments, Mr. Sirisena has warned his countrymen against attempts to raise the bogey of external pressure and an alleged threat to the special status of Buddhism in Sri Lanka. He is aware of the presence of extremists on both sides of the ethnic divide. He has asserted that a constitutional solution will be indigenous. The process of constituting the entire membership of the current Parliament as a Constitutional Assembly has begun. A steering committee will be tasked with drafting a new Constitution while inputs from outside the parliamentary structure will be in the form of a ‘Public Representation Commission’.

For those familiar with the peace and reform processes of the last quarter century, it may appear that all talk of national unity and a non-discriminatory system is not new. It is a measure of how much the events of the recent years had turned the clock back on the discourse to resolve the national question that each time an incumbent President or Prime Minister spells out a new vision, it is accompanied by new hopes and fears. The broad contours of an alternative constitutional framework are known. To many, it lies in abolishing the executive presidency and reforming the electoral system. In recent years, promoting good governance by strengthening democratic institutions, a comprehensive rights regime and substantive power-sharing arrangements involving all ethnic minorities have been understood to be necessary elements. The path is clear, and the pitfalls are known. The process may be long and the effort to secure a two-thirds majority in the Assembly, followed by a similar special majority in Parliament and approval in a referendum, will require political will and hard work. The emergence of a new order since 2015 under President Sirisena and Prime Minister Wickremesinghe provides a setting conducive for positive change, after the first few years in the post-conflict phase were lost in triumphalist and nationalistic rhetoric. It is a historic opportunity for all stake-holders, including Tamils, Muslims and plantation Tamils, to participate in the process. It is time all sides left their nationalist rhetoric of the past behind.

Time for questions on Pathankot (Editorial THE HINDU 07/01/2016)

There is much relief as quiet finally returns to Pathankot. However, the immediate questions that need to be asked are about the way the security operation was carried out from the moment a specific intelligence alert came to the Centre about the possible targeting of the Pathankot airbase. This newspaper has already reported that by Christmas, a foreign intelligence agency had passed on a tip-off about terrorists planning to attack the base. Was that not treated with seriousness because most intelligence alerts do not mean anything? Is the response a reflection of the poor quality of general intelligence alerts? On January 1, early morning, the abducted Superintendent of Police, Salwinder Singh, reported to the local police that his vehicle had been snatched. By afternoon, the government at the Centre had confirmation about the presence of terrorists in Pathankot. What the security establishment did from that moment raises several questions. A meeting chaired by the National Security Adviser and attended by, among others, the chiefs of the Army and the Air Force, decided to rush NSG commandos from Delhi. How did they take that decision, when it was clear that an airbase had to be protected and terrorists could be anywhere in the district? Does this reflect the poor thinking of senior members of the security establishment? Or does it hint at autocratic decision-making in New Delhi without professional participation?

Over the last few days, the government has been making a desperate effort to defend the course of action that was followed in fighting terrorists. From informal briefings in New Delhi to the formal briefing on Wednesday evening by Lt. Gen. K.J. Singh, General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Western Command, the government has been putting up a spirited defence of the operations. Gen. Singh admitted that the first to react to the terrorists were the DSC (Defence Security Corps) and Garuds, but added that the second contact was the Army columns. As Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar did on Tuesday, Gen. Singh claimed that there was total operational synergy, and he justified the time taken by saying that forces had to be applied sequentially, and not simultaneously, and they were also careful to avoid a hostage situation and other eventualities. However, all this does not answer the basic criticism by military veterans and security experts: despite the Pathankot airbase being at shouting distance from thousands of Army soldiers trained to deal with terrorists, why were they not even called in to provide perimeter security to the base? What was the need to send the NSG into a military installation where the Army’s para commandos and quick reaction teams would have been more familiar with the terrain? Why was the operational command not handed over to the senior-most Army commander on the ground? The answers should not only inform decisions to hold those responsible accountable for the mis-step in operations, but also lead to an upgrade of existing protocols. 

Think different on infrastructure (Editorial THE HINDU 07/01/2016)

When the going gets tough, public investment must be stepped up to pump-prime a slow-moving economy facing uncertain headwinds of low commodity prices and faltering international trade. When the going is good, the private sector would also have a role to play, Finance Minister Arun Jaitley has said, vowing to ramp up infrastructure investments in 2016-17. Ten months ago, in his first Budget for a full financial year, Mr. Jaitley had scaled up such investment to Rs 1.25 lakh crore, two-thirds of which was earmarked for road and railway projects. In the coming year, he has indicated that the priority will be rural infrastructure as the stress in India’s villages after two bad monsoons has hit demand. This is deterring fresh private investment, with many firms still struggling with past investment plans that are stuck or have become unviable. While economists debate whether the government should stick to its fiscal consolidation road map or scale up public expenditure to spur the economy, nobody will mind if a slightly higher fiscal deficit leads to more jobs while creating useful public assets. Low oil and commodity prices offer the chance to build more infrastructure at a far lower cost, but as Mr. Jaitley said, “We must have the intellectual honesty to analyse our shortcomings and improve them.”

So have higher allocations to infrastructure spending this year helped? Anecdotally, a few signs are positive. Demand for bitumen, a key ingredient for building roads, has risen, as have enquiries for construction and earth-moving equipment. Paying private contractors to build highways has boosted cash flows and enabled a few to re-enter the fray for new projects. But all is not well yet. Core sector performance hit a decade’s low in November 2015. “Though public investments have started to gain traction, this is yet to reflect in the performance of investment-linked sectors,” rating agency Crisil said, as demand remains weak in end-user sectors such as real estate, with overcapacity in others. Of course, this is partly the lag effect — infrastructure projects take time to show results. Yet, an honest introspection should reveal the need to utilise public infrastructure budgets more effectively without the cost- and time-overruns associated with the government’s ‘business as usual’ approach. Take India’s largest industrial infrastructure project, the Delhi-Mumbai Industrial Corridor, set up as a special purpose vehicle to shed the legacy burdens of departmental decision-making. It’s crawling, though all the States along the corridor except Delhi are run by the BJP. Or the Project Monitoring Group under the Cabinet Secretariat tasked with resolving stalled projects, on which not much has been heard in months. Could the fact that these bodies were left without a head through most of 2015 have affected performance? Tapping the Consolidated Fund of India as well as innovative vehicles such as the National Investment and Infrastructure Fund is laudable. Perhaps, it is also time to find a few good men who can get the job done on the ground, grant them autonomy and fix accountability for outcomes. 

 

For justice in equal measure (Editorial THE HINDU 08/01/2016)

News that Bollywood actor Sanjay Dutt will be released by the end of February after serving a five-year prison term for being in possession of an AK-56 assault rifle over 20 years ago will surely draw contrasting reactions from the film industry on the one hand and wider society on the other. His peers in filmdom and his legion of fans may see cause for great happiness in his impending release. However, there may be a larger section of society that may wonder whether justice will truly be served if Mr. Dutt, who is already seen to have enjoyed generous spells of furlough and parole while serving his sentence, is being treated in a special way by his release being advanced by about eight months. Given the widespread perception — reinforced by the recent acquittal of another film star, Salman Khan, in a hit-and-run case — that the system will work only to the advantage and benefit of celebrities, questions will naturally be asked whether Mr. Dutt is being treated preferentially. Arrested in the aftermath of the 1993 Mumbai blasts, he spent 18 months in prison before getting bail. In March 2013, the Supreme Court confirmed a lower court conviction, but reduced his jail term from six to five years. After being given time to wind up his film commitments, he began to serve the 42-month remainder of his term in May 2013. Even then, citing reasons as trite as that he was married and had children, and that he had depicted on screen a form of Gandhian protest, many had appealed for pardon on his behalf. The Maharashtra Governor, however, did not succumb to the demand for preferential treatment to him solely on the basis of his popularity.

In the normal course, a prisoner’s release eight months ahead of the completion of his term will not give rise to unusual scrutiny. Good behaviour is reason enough for routine remission for all convicts, and there may be no cause to suspect that Mr. Dutt has been chosen out of turn. Yet, the State government will have to be cautious and scrupulous in computing the exact number of days he is legally entitled to, mainly to dispel the popular impression that he is being favoured. The actor may have spent as many as 146 days on parole or furlough since May 2013. In law, a furlough is an entitlement earned by spending specified periods in jail, while parole is granted only in an emergency. Both are considered necessary to help prisoners maintain continuity in their family life and help them avoid the ill-effects of protracted incarceration. Comparisons are also bound to be drawn between Mr. Dutt’s case and that of Zaibunissa Kazi, a septuagenarian fellow-prisoner who is also serving a five-year term in the same case. It will only be fair to expect that the rules of remission will apply in equal measure to all prisoners regardless of their social stature or background. 

North Korea’s provocative move (Editorial THE HINDU 08/01/2016)

The underground nuclear test by North Korea that apparently used a hydrogen bomb has expectedly aggravated tensions in East Asia. South Korea, which called the explosion an “unpardonable provocation”, has already cancelled cross-border initiatives. Japan has termed it a “serious threat” to its national security. Most major global powers, from the United States to Russia and even China, have condemned the explosion. The provocation is likely to invite more economic punitive measures by the United Nations Security Council. The North Korean economy is going through a tough phase, and any further sanctions would jeopardise it further. Why Kim Jong-un took the extreme step now is anybody’s guess, though the move itself was not surprising given the regime’s sinister, paranoid ways of operating. Ever since Mr. Kim became North Korea’s leader after his father’s death in 2011, he has flexed the country’s military muscle and caused provocations without hinting at any tangible foreign policy goal. He ordered the country’s third nuclear test, which led directly to additional UN sanctions. Tensions escalated between the two Koreas last year after they exchanged artillery fire. With the latest hydrogen bomb explosion claim, he has upped the ante in this game of provocations.

Mr. Kim’s aim could be to tighten his grip of power over the state. The number of executions in North Korea reportedly rose under his watch, triggering speculation over whether the regime is facing internal strains. In 2013, Mr. Kim had ordered the execution of his uncle and former mentor. He may also be playing a high-stakes diplomatic game for an Iran-like deal where he could swap his country’s nuclear arsenal for international recognition and economic partnership. The third and more likely explanation is that Mr. Kim is sending a message to South Korea and the West that his regime is ready to go to any extreme in the wake of military hostilities. This clearly demonstrates the failure of the nuclear diplomacy which the U.S. and other major powers were involved in for the past several years. Whatever Mr. Kim’s real intentions, his moves come at the cost of regional stability, and pose dangerous portents for the world. The only country that could reason with North Korea and persuade it to join back talks is China. Even for Beijing, despite its historical ties with Pyongyang, it is a daunting task. Mr. Kim does not seem to be particularly interested in the “China-ally” tag. In September, he refused an invitation from Chinese President Xi Jinping to attend celebrations marking the end of the Second World War. Four years after coming to power, he is yet to visit Beijing. Despite his detachment and potential militarism, the world doesn’t really have any option but to resume talks with Pyongyang. China has the historical responsibility to lead the efforts to solve the crisis on the Korean peninsula, much like what the Russians did in securing the Iran deal.