Tilts And Strategic Tie-ups A Twilight Zone

By M.R. Josse

ONE wonders why these days one hears so much, so frequently, about actual or perceived tilts, paradigm shifts and strategic partnerships, strategic dialogues, or strategic alliances.

TILTS & SHIFTS: Whatever the reasons, there is no denying either that verbal phenomena — or, indeed, the great difficulty of separating myth from reality in that twilight zone.

To begin, it is widely perceived that after American President Bill Clinton’s South Asian tour, US’s erstwhile “pro-Pakistan” tilt, considered to have been most operative during the Nixon-Kissinger era, has now been replaced by an “pro-India” one.

In fact, many Americans seem genuinely to believe that, post-Cold War, a congruence in US and Indian security interests is evident, shaped, among other factors, by “changing global realities.”

Yet, not everyone is convinced that such a “paradigm shift” has actually taken place just as, for example, there is no unanimity whether the rationale of such a perceived tilt is for America to replace Pakistan with India; to displace Russia from the Indian scheme of things; or for Washington to create a new Asian balance of power with India cast in a China-balancing role.

Teresita C. Schaffer, director, South Asia Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington, for one, downplays the possibility of a future “Indo-US alliance” now being referred to by US Congressman Frank Pallone and others.

“I don’t envisage a relationship like India had with the USSR. The circumstances are different. The military supply dimension won’t be there, certainly not anything like the scale practised by the former Soviet Union...The US isn’t looking to take sides, not between India and China, nor India and Pakistan.”

On the other hand, less than two weeks before Clinton descended on South Asia like a ton of bricks, noted Indian strategic thinker K. Subrahmanyam penned an op-ed piece in The Times of India, focusing on a perceived US-Pakistan-China axis!

If the “paradigm shift” proponents are correct, one must then assume that, in one fell swoop, America has not only distanced herself from Pakistan in India’s favour, but also from China — once again, in India’s interest.

Mind you, less than two short years ago, after Pokhran-II Harvey Stockwin, The Times of India’s man-on-the-spot in Hong Kong, had perceived a blatantly “pro-China” tilt on the part of Washington, as far as India was concerned!

Indeed, in a write-up entitled, India and the Clinton tilt, Stockwin lamented: “The hard fact remains. Clinton has tilted so far towards China, that India is inevitably placed on the defen-sive...Essentially, the Clinton tilt is a wake-up call for Indian democracy and its casual attitudes toward foreign policy.”

STRATEGIC DIALOGUE: A few weeks before that, the premier Indian daily had referred in its leading article to “the possibility of a Sino-US condominium in Asia”, taking exception to a Clinton speech in which he has said that “China had a key role to play in the resolution of problems between India and Pakistan.”

Moving on from “tilts” to “strategic dialogue”, one may now refer to the fact that after Indian Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh’s two-day visit to China in June 1999 — following the then Pakistani Foreign Minister Sartaj Aziz’s dash to Beijing — a number of important decisions were announced, including the establishment of a “strategic dialogue” between India and China.

Did that suggest a budding alliance between the two Asian giants, with Beijing tilting away from Pakistan towards India? Hardly.

As Cheng Ruiseng, a former Chinese ambassador to India, told AFP then, the “strategic dialogue” agreed upon during Singh’s visit, in fact, only consisted of “joint working group discussions on ways to resolve outstanding issues.”

Incidentally, Cheng, a senior advisor at China’s Institute of International Studies, also indicated that China had a “general interest” in Kashmir where, according to India, she continues to hold on to 4,000 sq. km. of territory ceded to China by Pakistan.

Even more to the point, perhaps, is the Chinese analyst’s observation that the relationship between India and China is “not mature enough” for a strategic partnership.

That ought to be self-evident considering that the two countries are no closer to resolving their border dispute today than they were when they went to war over it in 1962.

Another interesting episode that may be recalled is the proposal made by the then Russian Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov when he paid an official visit to India in December 1998.

Primakov began his sojourn by thus proposing a strategic alliance between Russia, India and China: “A lot depends in the region on the policies pursued by China, Russia and India. If we succeed in establishing a strategic triangle, it will be very good.”

NO DICE: Primakov’s proposal cut no ice. It found no place in the joint statement issued at the end of his visit, the adjective “strategic” appearing in conjunction only with an envisaged two-way Indo-Russian partnership, not with a three-way strategic alliance including China!

It was also out of touch with efforts of an Indian school of thought desirous of a US-India-Japan strategic axis to offset a resurgent China. Prior to Pokhran-II, a string of senior American officials had visited India and advocated an Indo-US strategic partnership.

Yet, Primakov’s Indian journey resulted in a 10-year Indo-Russian military pact allowing for Indian purchases of Russian military hardware until 2010. Wasn’t that a kind of “strategic” tie-up?

In any case, it should be interesting to note if terms such as “strategic partnership” will be evoked when Indian President K.R. Narayanan visits China next month or when Russian President Vladimir Putin comes to India in due course.

House Business Was Victim

By Prakash Rimal

The 17th session of Parliament ended in a bitter note last week, leaving a number of businesses unfinished. The winter session of Parliament, also known as the working session, was far from satisfactory in terms of performance. The session started with just a handful of bills, which later increased to 17. When the House was called off, only three bills managed to get through. The winter session this time is all about that ñ the business was the victim.

Stalemate

On April 5th, Speaker Taranath Ranabhat and National Assembly Chairman read a royal circular that said the King had prorogued the
winter session of Parliament. When that notice came, the session had been stalemated for a week as main opposition Communist Party of Nepal (UML)
had been demanding the dismissal of State Minister Mohammad Aftab Alam. UML claimed Alam’s involvement in the abduction of its party worker in Rautahat.

The UML has criticised the way the House was called off. The party’s Chief Whip Bharat Mohan Adhikari in a statement assailed the government for closing the session without reaching to the conclusion of the principal issue ñ Alam’s expulsion. The press reports have also criticised the government for pre-empting discussions on the main opposition party’s prestige demand, which actually was responsible for the deadlock that led to the end of the session.

But was the opposition party’s call for the State Minister’s departure rational? Should Alam have offered to step down since his conduct was in question? Should the government have sacked or suspended him under those circumstances? These issues should have come up for debates during last week when there were all-party meetings aimed at overcoming the impasse.

The government and the opposition parties sat across the table a good number of times, but all talks between April 1 and 5 failed to reach a compromise. The House tried to sit a couple of times in between, but the whole concentration was in stalling the proceedings. The disruptions of parliamentary proceedings made news, but did not lead things to any logical conclusion. Why?

The opposition and the ruling parties need to re-asses their role in view of their activities during the past few weeks. Let’s start with the opposition first. The UML, which has spent most of its time as an opposition party, somehow, seems to have been misguided about its role. The party seems obsessed with disruptions as the effective forms of opposition. That’s what the UML did for 10 days during the 16th session of House until Prime Minister Krishna Prasad Bhattarai announced the formation of a committee under him to advise measures to make the future election free, fair and impartial. Disruption was what the UML thought instantly when Alam’s resignation or expulsion did not come the next moment it demanded.

If that’s what it is, the party needs to get over the hang that disruption of the parliamentary proceedings and forcing adjournment of the House session are the only ways of successful opposition. The opposition does not and should not only mean it has to stand squarely against the ruling party.

Let’s move on now to the ruling party. The Congress party has been in power almost all the time since 1991. By now the party should acquire the art to deal with the opposition parties. Because the party is in power, the NC should play a more responsible role. To go back to the latest episode surrounding the opposition party’s call for Alam’s removal, the government should have, at least, issued a plain statement expressing its concern over the kidnapping of the UML worker. That would probably have satisfied the opposition and convinced it to wait till the probe committee submitted the report. Neither happened.

Besides, the lawmakers representing any particular party in the House are no less responsible at individual level for the parliamentary proceedings. The lawmakers as well need to realise that and try to come clean in case of charges, particularly if they involve their conduct. In this particular case, Alam should have volunteered to step down and wait for the recommendations of the probe committee just as Dr Ram Sharan Mahat did when he was implicated in the foreign currency accounts. Perhaps, that’s the path former Minister Bal Bahadur K. C. should have walked along when he was charged with manhandling a married woman months ago. Somehow, tendering resignation here means “accepting the charges,” which is not the case. The offer to quit should be considered differently ñ the willingness of the person in question to allow impartial investigations into the charges he/she has been labelled. And if acquitted, the party labelling charges against the person should be fined for an attempt to assassin the character. That provision should also check reckless charges or accusation for the heck of it. All this seems far from happening, at least at the moment.

Right Move

For the moment, one may need to be satisfied with the democratisation process that has started in the Congress party, where Sahamati amongst the leaders reigned supreme. Amid repeated disruptions and failed talks between ruling and the opposition parties to reach a compromise, the closure of the businessless session would be the right move, only if the note were not bitter. 

To Bear And Gaze

By Smriti Jaiswal

NOW what do you make out of this? In our college we don’t have set teachers for set subjects. Why, there are some teachers who have just begun to drop in our class to say hello! We saw some of them for the first time, two and a half months after classes began. Well, this is not so bad when you consider the number of them who have been around but who have been unable to take classes because maybe they had to go shopping just that day at just that moment.

It’s an exasperating situation. Being a student of conscience I find it difficult to miss college even though I know we will have no more than maybe two classes a day, i.e. out of five. The rest of the free three, the meager number of us present (I don’t blame those who don’t want to attend, I quite empathize with them) either spend by gazing at the walls, or chatting away like old gossips. It’s more of a picnic place than a college and the canteen is more popular than the classrooms

Of course, I don’t say all professors are irresponsible or something. In fact, there are a few who are so regular you want to think them a thousand times, but their tiny number dissolves in the huge crowd of ineptitude.

There is another whale size problem we learners have to face. We are told one thing but some other thing is always taking place. For example we are informed that a certain book will be dealt by a certain professor. At once our minds began to ready themselves to be tutored by say Mr. Y but the next day Mr. Y comes to class and says rather apologetically, “Look, I and not going to do that book with you.”

“Why Sir?”

“Because Miss. R insists she wants to do it.”

And we are ruined because we know Miss R is not capable of dealing with that particular book. But you see it’s no use complaining. We have no say in all these matters. The authorities set it all and though it is we who are ultimately going to gain lose from it, we cannot influence their decisions. Their decisions are final, it cannot be modified.

I feel awfully sorry for the students who have to struggle on so meanly. It’s amazing that a college of such repute should harbor such a ridiculously pathetic library. Boy, you should see the library, there aren’t 20 books worth reading in there. If you step into that room you come out within no time because one sweep of the eyes and you’ve seen all you need to see.

It’s such a crazy muddle in there, it would be quite a comedy if it was not so serious a matter. Sometimes all of us present in class sit discussing how we could maybe reform the system but just then a head pops in and says “OK students, I am Mr so-and-so and I am going to teach you Critical Foun-dation.”

We groan aloud. You know this Critical Foun-dation is a book with over 170 chapters, 1271 pages, takes up more space than a full size dictionary, has a vocabulary which could make you run for you life — we have God knows how many teachers assigned for it but we have not finished four chapters so far. And by and by, it has been told us that our exams will be held in June-July!