Time to untie the knot

THERE are two parts of what the prime minister’s adviser on finance, Dr. Salman Sahah, told this newspaper the other day. One good and the other not so good. He says disagreement still persists between the centre and the provinces over the new NFC award, but, at the same time, he also contends that a broad consensus has been reached on the issue. According to him, the president was now actively working to narrow the differences between the centre and the provinces and overcome the funding gap in the new formula. Asked about the horizontal distribution of resources among the provinces, he said this was expected to be sorted out by the provinces themselves before the announcement of the new award by the president. In a nutshell, it appears that we are still standing where we had left off the debate on the NFC some months back. The federal government seems to have agreed to share the resources with the provinces on a 50:50 basis, but only gradually. This graduated process which could last five or even ten years is believed to have been necessitated by the gap that is expected to emerge between the demand and supply of resources at the federal level after 50 per cent of resources from the divisible pool are allocated to the provinces.

The federal government seems to have some ideas on how to cope with the situation, one of which is perhaps to pass on to the provinces some of the budgetary burdens for development projects now being implemented by the federal government. It is not easy to understand how this could be possible without first rationalizing the concurrent list. Next, so far Punjab has given no indication that it is prepared to accept a new formula of division of resources among the provinces based besides on population, area, backwardness and revenue collection. Nor have the three smaller provinces so far indicated that they are now ready to agree to the continuation of the old formula based solely on population plus ‘generous’ grant-in -aid to the smaller provinces. So, Dr. Shah’s expectation that these issues would be sorted out by the provinces appears to be based on some information which we are not privy to. As it is, a new confrontation is brewing on the provincial horizon on the issue of the Kalabagh dam which Punjab wants to be built at the earliest while other provinces are dead set against it. In such a situation, one can hardly expect the three smaller provinces to agree to continue with the old resource distribution formula.

There was a remote hint in what Dr. Shah said of a search for a compromise on the basis of give-and-take with Punjab giving up the population formula as a quid pro quo for support for Kalabagh dam. But one would like the federal government to tackle the two issues separately with the NFC award taking precedence over the Kalabagh issue, as the latter has become too contentious to be resolved very quickly. Even before the NFC award one would expect the government to take a fresh look at the concurrent list and sort out the issue to the complete satisfaction of the all the four provinces. It is only after the four federating units have obtained a fair degree of financial, political and administrative autonomy that they will look at the issues such as Kalabagh in a rational manner and with a sense of freedom.

Unwise, unwarranted

ISLAMABAD has done well to reject New Delhi’s charges concerning the situation in Balochistan and called Indian comments “unwarranted and baseless”. The words used by the Indian foreign ministry spokesman about what is Pakistan’s internal matter are shockingly provocative and come at a time when the two countries are seriously engaged in a constructive dialogue. The process of normalization currently in progress is unlike any other attempt at a rapprochement in the past, for it has yielded results beyond normal expectations. Far from what it was in the summer of 2002, when the two countries were locked in an eyeball-to-eyeball military confrontation, the situation today is one of normality. The confidence-building measures taken by the two sides are in place and more are likely to be agreed upon. That at such a time New Delhi should choose to make intrusive remarks on Pakistan’s internal affairs is indeed strange and shows what the Pakistan foreign office spokesperson called India’s “unacceptable proclivity” to interfere in its neighbours’ internal affairs. Regrettably, the Indian statement has not served to strengthen the spirit of ditente that at present characterizes their relationship.

As the foreign office spokesperson said, the Indian statement was all the more surprising because it was coming from a country which has committed “systematic and serious human rights violations” in occupied Kashmir. However, Kashmir is a disputed territory where Indians have never felt any qualms about what they do to the people of occupied territory. But even elsewhere in India, especially in its north-east, paramilitary forces have used excessive force and resorted to violations of rights to suppress separatist movements. For this India has been censured by Amnesty International and by India’s own rights groups, which point out that the Armed Forces Special Powers’ Act authorizes troops to shoot to kill even in a non-life threatening situation, and gives immunity to soldiers from prosecution. India would do well to restrain its security forces from rights’ abuses in occupied Kashmir, start the talks process with Kashmiri leaders, and sort out the situation in the north-east by peaceful means instead of interfering in Pakistan’s internal affairs.

Exit Kerry Packer

TRIBUTES have been pouring in from across the cricketing world on the death at 68 of Mr Kerry Packer, the man who revolutionized the sport 28 years ago by initiating his World Series matches in 1977-78. This he had done because he was refused television rights for his Channel Nine. A season later, he won his battle against the Australian Cricket Board for broadcasting rights. He was, as he once admitted ‘academically stupid’ but dramatically innovative in the two passions of his life, cricket and gambling.

Kerry Packer hit the headlines after almost a hundred years of Test match cricket. The years between 1876 and 1948 may be called the classical era when only gentlemen were supposed to play the game. In white flannels and with a degree of aplomb, cricket was a way of life and any deviation from the rules of the game was looked down upon. All that has changed in the last three decades. Packer turned cricket into a thoroughly professional sport. There is more money in the game today than ever before. Packer was the richest Australian and has been described as the greatest name in the game since Bradman. He will primarily be remembered for his contribution to the one-day format of the game. He introduced colourful uniforms which were ridiculed to begin with but are now accepted as the norm. For the purist, Packer may not be such a good name but he was perhaps inevitable in an era of crass commercialism. Packer stormed the cricketing arena in 1977 and the game has never been the same again. And it will never be. As Iqbal said once, the only constant factor in life is change. Who knows how will cricket be played in, say, thirty years from now.

India’s achievements in 2005

THE well-known American scholar on South Asia, Professor Stephen Cohen, in his definitive study on India published in 1996, had described the country as an “emerging power”. This appellation had raised some eyebrows, for while India had been doing well, many analysts were not sure whether, at that point in time, it could be considered as an emerging global power. Now, there are no such doubts.

The year ending has been a successful one for India. It is now a recognized player on the world stage, influential both in the realm of politics as well as in global trade deliberations. The graph started going up earlier, when after the June 2004 general elections, western observers were deeply impressed by the quiet dignity with which Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee acknowledged the popular will, and even before the election commission had announced the results, decided to tender his resignation. This was democracy at its best.

Thereafter, the Congress-led coalition government headed by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, succeeded in staving off pressure from its left-oriented coalition partners, particularly regarding economic liberalization policies. Resultantly, the Indian economy has continued to grow at nearly eight per cent per year.

But it is in the field of foreign policy that the year under review has been a remarkable one for India. Its stable polity and investor-friendly policies, coupled with a strong leadership, have resulted in a conscious effort by the world’s major powers to woo India, not only to take advantage of its increasingly attractive economic opportunities, but also to ensure that its voice and vote remain on their side.

India’s relations with the US have registered visible progress. The year began with the US and India signing an agreement in January, to facilitate greater trade and economic cooperation between them. Then, after months of intense diplomatic negotiations, India and the US signed a 10-year defence arrangement in June 2005. It will be recalled that because of the dynamics of Cold War politics, India’s security planners had either opted for the domestic production of defence weapons or depended on the former Soviet Union for these.

But Indian force requirements prompted an increase in defence ties with Washington. The latter offered top of the line systems such as the F-18 Super Hornets along with co-production possibilities, and also sold sophisticated Firefinder radar systems, while approving the sale of Israeli-made Phalcon airborne warning systems, making India one of the few countries to have this capability.

While the world was still in the midst of appreciating the scope and scale of this agreement, Prime Minister Singh’s visit to Washington on July 18 resulted in another agreement that both sides claimed would raise bilateral ties to an unprecedented level and accord it a strategic dimension with global reach. While political pundits differ on the details, there is near unanimity regarding the driving motivation of the two countries in reaching this agreement. If approved by the Congress and endorsed by other nuclear powers, it would remove the ban on civilian nuclear technology sales to Delhi. India could then obtain nuclear fuel and nuclear components from the US and other countries, though it would have to allow international inspections and agree to safeguards on its civilian nuclear facilities.

The agreement, therefore, is significant as India is closer to gaining near-formal acceptance as a nuclear weapons state. Incidentally, these actions were in line with the recommendations of the influential think tank Carnegie Endowment that the administration strengthen India to prevent Chinese domination of the region, and to this end, allow the sale of dual-use technology, including nuclear equipment to India, while abandoning Washington’s historic quest to maintain a military balance between India and Pakistan.

Although Singh did not receive everything he wanted, including Washington’s public support for its bid for a permanent Security Council seat, Bush’s agreement to supply nuclear fuel and technology was a historic breakthrough in US-India relations and confirmation of Delhi’s emergence as a major world power. Earlier, the CIA had described India as the most important “swing state” in the international system and a country that could tilt the balance between war and peace.

Under-Secretary Nicholas Burns, in a policy statement, declared that the US “looks upon India as a natural partner” that is likely to be “a rising global power”, which will “require substantially greater US attention” in the coming years. Washington’s message is that it now considers India its closest ally in this part of the world.

Admittedly, India may find aspects of the agreements irksome as they may impinge on New Delhi’s freedom of action. After all, American scholars have admitted that the administration’s emphasis is on building up India as “a potential hedge against a rising China”. China poses no threat to the US either today or in the near future, and yet is portrayed as one. This is because even if China is not a threat today, it could, at some point in time, become a rival to the US, in economic and military terms and is likely to challenge the US in its quest for the world’s natural resources. As China rises like a colossus on the world stage, the US would like to see a stronger India that can keep the Chinese off balance. This is how the US used China to balance the Soviet Union in the ‘70s and the ‘80s.

The Chinese have reacted to these developments with their usual cool detachment, neither ignoring nor panicking at the emergence of the Washington-New Delhi axis. Instead, Beijing has chosen to counter this development by strengthening its own relations with its southern neighbour by seeking to remove irritants in relations with India, while identifying new areas of economic cooperation. China no longer considers India a rival, but a competitor, with which it seeks meaningful political dialogue and mutually advantageous economic collaboration.

In fact, the Chinese are the ones who have taken the initiative to focus on the commonality of interests and views with India, rather than on their differences. Prime Minister Wen Jiabao surprised the Indians during his official visit to India in April, when he referred to Sino-Indian relations as “strategic”.

He also drew attention to the far-reaching benefits that could accrue to both countries from a close collaboration between their IT firms, pointing to the global impact of mating “Chinese hardware with Indian software”. Recently, China joined with India to purchase major stakes in Syrian oil fields, the first time the two Asian rivals in the race for global energy resources, have worked in tandem.

As India’s traditional friend and its primary benefactor over decades, Russia could not countenance being left behind in the race to curry favour, nor could President Vladimir Putin allow a friend in whom his country had invested so much time, energy and money, to drift apart. During Singh’s visit to Moscow earlier this month, Putin repeatedly referred to the “strategic relationship between the two countries”. He agreed to maintain trade benefits that New Delhi had been enjoying for years and also recognized India’s need for advanced weapons at the usual favourable terms.

The European Union remains conscious of the need to establish long-term, comprehensive relations with New Delhi. It, therefore, not only maintained its summit level dialogue with the Indian leadership, but chose to enter into a wide-ranging action plan, which it calls a “strategic partnership”. It also emphasizes that “there are few major countries in the world with whom the EU has more in common in terms of fundamental values” than India, adding that Delhi is “a major force for stability in South Asia and beyond”.

What will be India’s attitude to US wishes in the region? India is a huge country, with enormous resources and a certain sense of pride as one of the world’s ancient civilizations. This will inhibit any inclination to act at the behest of the US. But when India and the US agree to “collaborate in limited international operations, when in their national interest”, it is time for other states, especially India’s neighbours, to take serious note.

In any case, there is considerable political space between that of a proxy state and one working in close concert to promote those interests that are to their mutual advantage (India’s vote on Iran at the IAEA is a pointer of things to come). If the US wishes to promote India as the pre-eminent power in the Indian Ocean littoral and in South Asia, which Delhi, in any case, regards as its sphere of influence, there is no reason why India should shy away from it. Of course, as regards relations with Beijing, India will do nothing to arouse Chinese hostility while quietly encouraging Washington’s fears and misgivings about China.

Pakistan is not only a neighbour of both China and India, but in the very vortex that is likely to emerge because of the increasingly complex relationships developing in the region. It is also not unlikely that both the US and India will try to take advantage of their emerging entente to seek unfair advantages from Pakistan. This could be in the field of commercial or political relations. It is, therefore, incumbent on our leaders not only to resist such prospects, but to strengthen our linkages with all major power centres, so that our concerns do not disappear from the radar screens in these capitals.

But most importantly, we must refrain from any action that could even remotely hurt our relations with China. Time and events have proven the value and worth of our ties to Beijing.

The writer is a former ambassador.