April 2016 Archives

The Greed for Timber, and Climate Change, Have Made Himalayan Foothills a Tinderbox

Unlike many other disasters, the toll of this one is ecological. To prevent fires in the future, it is imperative that ‘fire-lines’ are cut in the hills, apart from punishment to those who set off fires.

Fires near Nainital. Credit: Sanjay Chatterji

Bhimtal (Uttarakhand): You fight a forest fire with fire. Stopping a forest fire is no easy task. Locals use rakes, blankets, anything they can get their hands on, to cut a fire line around the fire. They then set fire to the dry grass within the line, burning up everything combustible – which is everything on the ground in the May heat. This is what locals in Sat Taal near Nainital in the Kumaon region of Uttarakhand have been doing, for the past few days.

More than a week ago, residents of Sat Taal heard of the hills being on fire. Others have reported that fires started three weeks ago in various parts of Kumaon and Garhwal in the state. There are almost 400 fires in the Himalayan foothills currently, which have killed five people and finished off at least 19 square kilometres of forest. The National Disaster Response Force has been deployed to put out the fires.

The timber mafia, and ordinary folks, are known to illegally set fire in the Himalayan foothills, to fell trees, almost annually. But this year’s scale is that of an emergency. While the fires show us the worst side of human greed or negligence – with mostly animals and forests being gutted – the uncontrollable nature of this year’s blaze also points to the environmental and micro-climatic changes in the lower Himalayas.

“The fires are set off usually by locals who want to conceal illegal tree cutting,” a divisional forest officer told The Wire. “Usually the forests stop burning after a point. This year, it’s different, and uncontrollable.”

A thick smog has settled over the area – and residents of Naukuchiatal, Bhimtal and Saat Taal find their throats full of smog. Some 250 kilometres away, the hills of Chamoli are burning too. Locals have reported animals fleeing the fires, many getting burnt alive, unable to escape. Rows of nightjars, a local bird, are on the road, trying to save themselves. The scale of destruction is akin to the November 2015 Indonesian forest fires which were reportedly set off by timber mafia, destroying broad swathes of ancient forest, burning Orangutans, and triggering off massive air pollution.

NASA satellite imagery of the fires. The areas marked red are “fires and thermal anomalies”. Credit: NASA

“Fires can only start in a few ways. One, is naturally, when animals drop rocks, or dew creates a magnifying glass effect, or lightning.” Right now, there is no dew, and no lightning, and its unlikely animals can set off these many fires. “A second reason is burning agricultural fields to clear crop fields, but that is usually restricted to fields. The third reason is timber contractors. They set fires around trees, weaken the base, and wait for them to fall in the rains. It makes a pretty penny,” says Bhimtal resident Gauri Rana, who also runs an adventure camp.

But the extent of the fire is also a barometer for many insidious changes in the hills. This year has seen a dry winter. Manali saw lesser snow than normal. Rain has been observed to be unseasonal. This changing weather pattern is incompatible with established practices in the area. Whoever is starting these fires, it’s becoming impossible to contain them. The fire epidemic is not an ‘Uttarakhand problem’, it’s connected with the weather patterns all over North India.

With climate change and global warming, the hills are getting drier, and tree-lines are pushing up. People are increasingly diverting water sources for tourism and extensive human use, causing more dryness in the soil. People are also planting more pine. Pine trees are commercially important – and also highly flammable. The politics of planting more pine in the mountains, is similar to growing more sugarcane in areas with drought. Not only do pines burn like tinderboxes, they also do not support as much biodiversity as an oak forest. Further, when forests burn, the dried soil aids more invasions by pine – setting up a vicious cycle. Apart from being flammable, pine forests also support lesser plant communities. For a biologically important place, this is bad news for many endemic species. There are more than 500 bird species in the Sat Taal forests, and some of it is also tiger range.

“Natural oak forests have thick leaf litter, and complex branches. They support a high density of shrubs and are associated with healthy hydrological services. Typically, you will find a stream in an oak forest. Pine trees need drier soil, and are also known to dry out the soil. Fires exacerbate the spread of pine. Oaks support more floral biodiversity and with the pines coming in, we have a net loss of biodiversity and a loss of niches for species,” says Ghazala Shahabuddin, senior fellow at the Centre for Ecology, Development and Research (CEDAR), Dehradun.

Fires burning near Nainital. Credit: Sanjay Chatterji

There are also other indications of warming in the hills – species found in the plains, such as Asian koel, common pigeon, house sparrow, collared dove are now being seen high above their normal altitudinal range. There are strong perceptions of warming in the farming community and more frequent drought conditions, Shahabuddin adds.

To prevent fires in the future, it is imperative that ‘fire-lines’ are cut in the hills, apart from punishment to those who set off fires. Unlike many other disasters, the toll of this one is ecological. We don’t count the dead birds and we certainly don’t count the dead trees. But it is unlikely that the Himalayan ecosystem will be able to survive more such onslaughts, without getting irreversibly degraded.

Karn Kowshik is a former journalist turned mountain guide. He spends a large amount of time outdoors, and lives in a village near Bhimtal

Neha Sinha is a Delhi-based conservationist

Interlinking of Rivers, Which Could Solve Drought Problems, Faces Trouble in BJP’s Home Turf

Are major faultlines within the BJP leadership coming in the way of the implementation of the grand inter-linking of rivers (ILR) project?

The interlinking of rivers project is facing some hurdles in BJP-ruled states. Credit: Wikimedia Commons

Are major faultlines within the BJP leadership coming in the way of the implementation of the grand interlinking of rivers (ILR) project? While misconceptions and genuine doubts persist over the feasibility of the project and its impact on the lives of those it would impact directly or indirectly, Union Water Resources Minister Uma Bharti’s fervent appeal to the states, including those ruled by the BJP, to expedite the clearances of the ILR projects indicated that getting it off the ground is proving to be a major challenge.

The need for the project has never been felt more than it is now as parts of the country are dealing with severe droughts, coupled with one of the hottest summers in over a century. The proponents of the ILR scheme argue that since the country receives rain only for three months in a year, there is a need to store water adequately for the rest of the year.

It is also ironic that while about 40 million hectares of the country’s area experiences periodic flood, with about 1500 human lives and one lakh cattle lost to it every year, the country is not able to divert or store much of this water. On the other hand, about a third of the total population resides in areas that are drought prone, spread over nearly 108 million hectares.

It was in light of this dichotomy that the Supreme Court had on February 27, 2012, directed the Centre and concerned states governments to implement the ambitious ILR project in a timely manner, and had also asked the Centre to appoint a high-powered committee for the planning and implementation of the project.

The project was, however, not devoid of shortcomings. Many experts feared that diverting water would lead to newer problems, deprive the Adivasi and other tribal communities of their land holdings and may even cause flooding and soil erosion problems.

Some like Eklavya Prasad of Megh Pyne Abhiyan, which has been working in the field of drinking water and sanitation in flood-prone north Bihar where the ILR is expected to first cover the districts of Khagaria, Samastipur and Begusarai, questioned how can one expect much from it when the Kosi canal system built by the British was not able to prevent misery from floods.

But the Centre is moving ahead as the gains or the reduction in pain due to the ILR far outweighs any negative consequences. Far too many lives are being lost each year to floods and droughts and the economic cost of these too is prohibitive.

Realising that the misconceptions and political opposition is holding the project back, at the ninth meeting of the special committee for ILR, Bharti said the drought had necessitated the need for the removal of the misgivings and the quick implementation of the ILR. The interlinking of rivers can prove effective in dealing with such situations, she said.

“Inter-linking of rivers will not affect flow of sweet water in the rivers. We are not stopping the flow of sweet water of the rivers, but will only be transferring the extra water of these rivers which comes during monsoon and floods to those rivers which have less water. This will not affect the flow of water of any river in the country,” she assured.

Many states like Odisha have raised doubts about the project. Referring to it, Bharti said there were many misconceptions about the Mahanadi-Godavari link in Odisha. “People used to believe that Mahanadi does not have sufficient water and even then its water is being transferred to Godavari. But when it was explained to them that first extra water will be brought to Mahanadi through Subern Rekha-Mahanadi link, it helped in removing their misconceptions about the Mahanadi-Godavari link,” she said.

Similarly, referring to the Ken-Batwa link as the first project to go onstream, Bharti expressed the hope that work on the first phase will start within three months. However, she urged the government of Madhya Pradesh to provide necessary forest clearance at the earliest so that work on the first phase of the project could begin soon. That she had to make the appeal showed that Shivraj Singh Chauhan, who had succeeded Bharti as the chief minister of the state, has not facilitated her dream project in any way.

That the water resources minister has also not received adequate support from the other BJP-ruled states of Gujarat and Maharashtra became clear when Bharti urged these governments to provide their clearance to the Daman Ganga-Pinjal and Par-Tapi-Narmada link projects.

The Daman Ganga-Pinjal link would enhance the supply of water to Mumbai. From Pinjal dam, this link would carry 3,741 million litres per day of water. Now compare this with each of the two water trains that were sent to Maharashtra recently. They carried just 2.5 million litres of water each. The link would supply nearly 1500 train-loads of water daily..

Bharti said she would discuss the two projects with Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis in Mumbai on May 3. The minister acknowledged that as issues pertaining to tribal areas are coming in the way, she would visit the affected areas and sit with officials of both states to resolve them.

Director General of National Water Development Agency (NWDA) Masood Husain said the National Institute of Hydrology, Roorkee, has submitted the draft report on a water balance study of the Mahandi-Gadavari link project to the Odisha government and after obtaining its views will submit a final report to the special committee.

Status of intra-state link projects

Husain also provided the status of the intra-state link projects. He said 46 proposals for such links have been received from nine states, namely Maharashtra, Gujarat, Jharkhand, Odisha, Bihar, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Chhattisgarh. “The pre-feasibility report (PFRs) of 35 intra-state links have been completed. The DPR of two intra-state links for Burhi Gandak-Ganga and Kosi-Mechi received from Bihar are under consideration with Central Water Commission.”

However, the delay at the end of the Central Water Commission was highlighted by the representative of the Bihar government who charged that the proposals has been pending with the Commission for over two years.

For the ILR programme, which seeks to ensure greater equity in the distribution of water by enhancing its availability in drought-prone and rainfed area through interlinking of rivers, 14 links have been identified under the Himalayan rivers component and 16 links under peninsular rivers component for inter-basin transfer of water. These links have been identified on the basis of field surveys, investigation and detailed studies.

Twenty one months have passed since the union cabinet approved the constitution of a special committee on the ILR to expedite the projects, but progress has been slow. And if Bharti is to be believed, the BJP’s own state governments can remove many of the obstacles coming in the way of the project.

Former Indian, Pakistani Envoys Spar – and Talk – at Mother of all Track-IIs

Fifteen former high commissioners (six from Pakistan and nine from India) participated in a Track-2 dialogue to take stock of the current state of bilateral relations, and to find a clearer path to meaningful talks.

Former Indian and Pakistani envoys have urged both governments to keep the communication channels open. Credit: Wikimedia Commons

New Delhi: It may not be the equivalent to his secret rendezvous with a cigar-loving former Pakistani diplomat to find a roadmap to resolving the Kashmir imbroglio, but former prime ministerial special envoy Satinder Lambah managed to get together an extraordinary Track-2 event, which seemingly has official blessings.

For two days last week, six former Pakistani high commissioners and nine former Indian high commissioners sat down for the first time not only to take stock of the current state-of-play in bilateral relations, but also to find a clearer path to lower the bilateral temperature and foster meaningful talks.

The significance of the event was not just the high-profile battery of former top diplomats, but also their official interlocutors in Delhi. The 15 former envoys had a dinner at Hyderabad House, the foreign ministry’s venue for state banquets, hosted by the MEA’s secretary (economic relations) Amar Sinha. Thereafter, they met with national security advisor Ajit Doval – perhaps the second-most important Indian player on the India-Pakistan front right now, after the prime minister himself. Besides, they also had a talk with former Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh and vice president Mohammad Hamid Ansari.

The Track-2 project was put together by the Ananta Aspen Centre, of whose board Lambah is chairman. Lambah served as Manmohan Singh’s special envoy from 2004 to 2013, and was the key Indian interlocutor for back-channel talks with Islamabad. He was earlier the Indian high commissioner to Pakistan from 1992 to 1995.

The Mumtaz hall at the Taj Palace reverberated with bonhomie and the smartest of Oxbridge accents as members of this select group took part in the gathering’s only public event – an interaction, which was partly televised. The only missing member was former foreign minister K. Natwar Singh, who had been Indian envoy to Pakistan from 1980 to 1982.

The ball was set rolling by Ashraf Jahangir Qazi, Pakistan’s envoy to India for five years, who asserted that the bilateral relationship “continues to live in interesting times”. When moderator Karan Thapar asked whether he would characterise the current state as ‘dancing on a pinhead,’ Qazi laughed and said, “that is perhaps the most accurate”.

According to Shiv Shankar Menon, former NSA and high commissioner (2003-2006), Pakistan gave “mixed signals” post-Pathankot. He cited Pakistani public statements on the joint investigation team (JIT) and Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) chief Masood Azhar as positive, but didn’t take the bait on the question from the moderator on whether he thought the JeM leader was really in detention. “I have no idea. I have not been to the country in seven years,” Menon said.

Of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Lahore on Christmas day to meet his Pakistani counterpart Nawaz Sharif, Menon said it was “worth trying”. “Today, you have the opportunity of moving forward because of that visit,” he said. “But it is hard for me to say conclusively that it worked”.

Sailor, Spy

Unsurprisingly, all the former Pakistan envoys emphasised the importance of the arrest of Kulbhushan Jadhav – the former naval officer who Pakistan claims is an Indian intelligence agent – and who has been accused of “subversive activities” in Balochistan, Karachi and other areas.

“In Pakistan we have been talking about Indian interference in Balochistan for a long time. Only thing is we didn’t get any substantive evidence. Now for the first time, we have substantive evidence. A chap has been caught,” said Aziz Ahmed Khan.

Similarly, Salman Bashir (Pakistan’s high commissioner from 2012-2014) added that Jadhav’s arrest “amplifies” Pakistan’s long-standing claims and both countries should jointly investigate the matter. “Both sides should cooperate on this. In Pakistan, there was a sense of Indian interference in internal affairs. This particularly amplifies things. I think it is important to have more communication on incidents like this,” he noted.

G. Parthasarathy (1998-2000) scoffed at the ‘story’ about Jadhav. “I don’t think that Indians can carry a passport to hand it over… As bad as our intelligence is, we aren’t dumb. I am not persuaded. Iranians have told us that there have been attempts to kidnaps Indians in the past”. Indian Foreign Secretary S. Jaishankar had made a similar argument to his counterpart Aizaz Ahmed Chaudhury when they met on April 26, on the sidelines of the Heart of Asia senior officials meeting.

Khan countered that there could be a plausible explanation for the Indian travel document. “Why wouldn’t he have an Indian passport? It is a good cover. He can say that he was on bird hunting or some other purpose, and just strayed across the border. I dealt with the area as additional secretary in the foreign affairs ministry. So this is not a new game,” he insisted.

While he said that spies were dime-a-dozen among neighbours, Parthasarathy acknowledged that “if espionage is the cover of terrorism, that is a serious thing”. “The fact is that he (Jadhav) is not the LeT (Lashkar-e-Tayyaba) massacring 164 in Mumbai, a Dawood Ibrahim killing over 250 in the Mumbai blasts or a Jaish-e-Mohammad killing scores in India”.

NSAs channel the key

Interestingly, Bashir stressed the importance of the communication channel opened between the two NSAs, which has kept the recent crisis at bay. “I think that this dialogue has managed the explosiveness of such incidents be it Pathankot or the [Jadhav] arrest,” he said.

He added that their discussions with Indian officials here indicated that they were “were more than fully satisfied” with Pakistan on the JIT. Bashir’s contention that India has told them that the JIT process has been “satisfactory” is certainly a step up from the reticence of South Block to term it as a success. Indian officials have so far preferred to bide time until the JIT submits its final investigation report and Pakistan gives a formal response to a request for a National Investigation Agency team to visit that country in the future.

Khan said that besides the NSAs discussing “these sensitive issues”, there should be dialogue between the security agencies too. Here, he was echoing Parthasarathy, who had proposed that if Pakistan wanted to discuss Jadhav, then there should be direct talks between the Indian RAW chief and his counterpart.

Just after Mumbai 26/11, the Pakistani government had first agreed to send the ISI chief to India for talks but pulled back under pressure from the military.

Commenting on the latest talks between the foreign secretaries, Lambah said that while they didn’t appear to have taken the process forward, the meeting was “very important and useful” as it was the first such contact since the Pathankot terror attack. Later, Riaz Mohammed Khokhar described the outcome as “love all”.

Lambah was scathing about the release of a statement by the Pakistani side “just six minutes” after the start of foreign secretary talks that the Kashmir issue had been brought up. “In our talks also yesterday, I said that such actions should be avoided. We should not make ourselves a laughing stock. This doesn’t show seriousness,” he declared.

Bashir tried to explain that the breach in diplomatic protocol was a result of the media intrusion. “If both sides are concerned about how the talks will be played in the media, then this will happen,” he averred.

He even went to the extent of saying that there had been an impression that the Modi government did not have a Pakistan policy. “There had been such extensive talks on the back channel under Lambah, but all of that seems lost. I hope that it is not loss… We were at a loss if there is a Pakistan policy,” explained Bashir.

The Hurriyat and ‘Rawalpindi’ factors

He pointed out that the Pakistani high commission had always remained in touch with the All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC). “The assumption was that once the back channel got mainstreamed, the APHC would take part in some sort of form”. The Modi government had called off the first foreign secretary-level talks in August 2014, after the Pakistan envoy to India had met with Hurriyat leaders. Then last year, the NSA-level talks were cancelled after India prevented Hurriyat leaders from meeting Sartaj Aziz by putting them under house detention.

Much water has flowed down the Indus since then, with the Indian government not having lost too much sleep after Hurriyat leaders had meetings with the Pakistan high commissioner and attended Pakistan Day celebrations last month.

This is perhaps best reflected in a written answer to the Rajya Sabha on April 28, which repeated India’s position that there was no role for a third party in the bilateral dialogue. But, the reply submitted by minister of state for external affairs V. K. Singh also noted that since the Hurriyat leaders were “Indian citizens, there is no bar on their meetings with representatives of any country in India”.

Rawalpindi’s ‘veto’ in bilateral relations was defended by former Pakistani high commissioners. “The army already has its hand full (domestically),” said Khan, referring to the Zarb-e-Azb operation against the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan. “They have been successful in security its people and hence have a say in national security policymaking. Nothing more”.

When Thapar mischievously asked Satinder Lambah whether he wanted to correct Kanwal Sibal’s impression that his back channel talks were basically about “swanning” around in various world cities, he snapped, “No. I don’t want to add to his ignorance,” much to the amusement of the audience.

Echoing those words, Qazi said that there “was no doubt that the Pakistan military is a strong institution and its point of view does impact on policy”. But he cautioned, “Whenever things go wrong, it will be too simplistic to say that the military is behind it”. He pointed out that there was also a rather hardline sentiment prevalent in Pakistan about India, which cut across both civilian and military classes.

Thapar referred to an analysis in The Hindu by Ayesha Siddiqa in which the Pakistani author had concluded that there were ingredients available for a military “coup”. “In the new Pakistan, security analysts are allowed their flights of fancy,” Khan responded, when asked for his views.

The other Pakistanis on the panel agreed, but also justified the fact that the Pakistan army will keep giving its ‘inputs’. “In our case, the army is a superb institution. They have delivered on security and external affairs. And they give their inputs,” said Bashir.

About the extent about Sharif’s influence on foreign policy, Qazi pointed out that his interest in improving relations with India cannot be doubted. “People tend to suggest that he doesn’t have a hand on all the levers. But he seems to be quite constant on driving the relationship, even if he is not always successful due to various complex reasons,” he said.

Looking toward the future, Menon felt that even if bilateral relations remained “accident prone” and it seemed that both have “gone through several cycles”, “it doesn’t mean that we stop talking”. “It is in our interest to keep making the effort,” he said.

Terror’s impact on political space

But Menon pointed out that the “most successful period” in bilateral talks was from 2003-5, when the border ceasefire worked and cross-border terrorism was at its “lowest level”.

After the border is quiet and terror drops, “then we can think of a modus vivendi where we can build something in which we can live with each other, even if we don’t solve everything,” he added.

“You were able to discuss Jammu and Kashmir when there was no tension on the border,” Parthasarathy concurred. “After Mumbai, with all respect to Shiv Shankar Menon, there was no political space for Dr Manmohan Singh to go forward.”

“(Indian) public opinion has had enough of terrorism. He (Modi) has to function in that environment. PM Modi has no political space to move. Hence, it is in our interest to keep talks away from the glare of media,” claimed Parthasarathy, even as he suggested that NSAs, foreign secretaries and even director generals of military operations should meet each other regularly.

Lambah also defended Modi’s commitment to take the relationship to new plane. “Let me tell you. His (Modi) election speeches very different but he did call me the day before he took over…and he wanted to take the relationship forward”.

He spelled out the the conditions for the formal talks, now renamed the Comprehensive Bilateral Dialogue, to restart. “For the dialogue to continue, few things are important. Peace on the border and Line of Control. No cross border terrorism. Early, satisfactory completion of Mumbai trial and the Pathankot investigation. Guilty people, whether state or non-state should be caught. After that everything can be discussed,” Lambah said.

When Bashir demurred that “core issues” have to be discussed, Lambah retorted, “I have discussed their core issue (Kashmir) with them”.

Lambah’s advice – “Engage, keeping our interest in mind”.

Kashmir and the Kashmiris

Former Indian Foreign Secretary Kanwal Sibal, known for his hawkish positions, claimed that the Kashmir issue has been an older dispute between the neighbours than that of cross-border terrorism. “Terrorism is easier to handle than Kashmir. But, if the two are interlinked and terror is used to pressure India, it (talks) won’t go anywhere,” he said.

When Thapar mischievously asked Lambah whether he wanted to correct Sibal’s impression that his back channel talks were basically about “swanning” around in various world cities, he snapped, “No. I don’t want to add to his ignorance,” much to the amusement of the audience.

During the question and answer session, an insistent young man tried to get the attention of the moderator. When he finally caught Thapar’s attention, he identified himself as “Junaid from Kashmir”.

“When I hear everybody here (talk about Kashmir), I want to ask whether you are talking about the land or the people. I feel that my house is on fire, but I am locked inside and others are talking about me,” he said, adding, “I am from downtown Srinagar, and the only thing they want is self-determination”.

“Everything that we do as diplomats has to have a positive aspect on the people,” replied Menon. “Territorial issues are zero sum. Invariably you win or lose. So what we tried to make sure is to make borders irrelevant. If you look at what was done during that period, that’s what it was about. Stop making it a territorial policy.”

Parthasarathy interjected in support to provide the example of Northern Ireland. “The problem of Northern Ireland lasted 400 years. They came to a solution when both of them joined the EU, which allowed for smooth movement of people,” he said.

“I visited Northern Ireland.. what we were attempting here, and I have to give Dr Singh credit here, was to make borders irrelevant.”

He added that the Northern Ireland equivalent in Kashmir would be a “substantive economy”. “But all that is premised on the end of terrorism,” Parthasarathy cautioned.

Menon then mentioned the famous quote by US Senator George Mitchell, architect of the Irish Good Friday agreement, “We had 700 days of failure and one day of success”. “So, don’t give up,” the former Indian NSA advised. “We won’t,” Junaid Katju, a former journalist with a Srinagar-based English newspaper, added quietly.

At the end, there was unanimous consensus in the house that there was no alternative to talks between the two countries

“There is no substitute for talking to each other. Even if we agree to disagree,” said Shahid Malik.

Humayun Khan, probably the most senior among the Pakistani diplomats, said that the desire of the delegation to visit India was “not to defend or criticise policies”. “We came here as individuals who collectively represent 50 years of diplomatic postings in each other countries… Basically, we realised that in the long run, India and Pakistan have no option but to live in peace with each other. In the short term, we have to take steps to avoid major conflict,” said Khan, who came to New Delhi as Pakistan’s envoy in 1984.

Similarly, K. Shankar Bajpai felt that that the group’s discussions had been “extraordinary frank and friendly, and genuinely constructive”.

“We need to focus beyond the tu tu main main (he said, she said). We were genuinely concerned about what are the issues behind the subjects and what are the ways to overcome them. There are forces in both countries which prefer tension. It is incumbent on people like us to whittle away at those forces,” asserted Bajpai, who was high commissioner to Pakistan from 1976 to 1980.

Parthasarathy pointed out that there were “some issues that we are going to solve in our lifetime”. As a veteran of several Track-2 events, he described the discussions with Pakistani interlocutors this week as unusually candid. “In the 16 years since I retired, this was very different”.

The Spurious Debate on Bhagat Singh and Terrorism

A group of historians, academics and artists has issued a statement on why the controversy over references in a history book to Bhagat Singh and other freedom fighters as ‘revolutionary terrorists’ is nothing to get upset about.

A group of historians, academics and artists has issued a statement on why the controversy over references in a history book to Bhagat Singh and other freedom fighters as ‘revolutionary terrorists’ is nothing to get upset about.

In the wake of the attack on Bipan Chandra and other authors of India’s Struggle for Independence by politicians and commentators on TV and its subsequent withdrawal from Delhi University, a group of historians, academics and artists has issued a statement on why the controversy over references in the book to Bhagat Singh and other freedom fighters as ‘revolutionary terrorists’ is nothing to get upset about.

The statement has been issued by SAHMAT and is reproduced below.

In recent days it seems to have become a habit of some latter-day “nationalists” to raise divisive or non-substantial issues to parade their patriotism.

The most recent example of this is the attack on a major history of our national movement authored by the distinguished historian Professor Bipan Chandra and his colleagues, titled India’s Struggle for Independence, published 28 years ago in 1988.

The objection is that Shaheed Bhagat Singh and his comrades have been described there as “revolutionary terrorists”. The critics, however, forget that this was really a term the martyrs had practically used for themselves.

The Hindustan Socialist Republican Association, to which Bhagat Singh and his colleagues belonged, said in its Manifesto (1929):

“We have been taken to task for our terrorist policy. No doubt, the revolutionaries think and rightly that it is only by resorting to terrorism that they can find a most effective means of retaliation… Terrorism has its international aspect also. England’s enemies, which are many, are drawn towards us by effective demonstration of our strength. That in itself is a great advantage”.

To Gandhiji’s critical article ‘Cult of the Bomb’, the Association answered through a statement titled “Philosophy of the Bomb”.

Here it was asserted that it was owing to British repression that “terrorism [has] been born in this country. It is a phase, a necessary and inevitable phase of the revolution. Terrorism is not the complete revolution, and the revolution is not complete without terrorism”.

It is true that in his later phase Bhagat Singh stated: “Apparently, I have acted like a terrorist; But I am not a terrorist”. Clearly, two definitions of the word ‘terror’ were already at work, and Bhagat Singh was being influenced by his reading of Lenin’s teachings against individual terror. But the main point is that the entire movement to which Shaheed Bhagat Singh belonged, terror had till then seemed a revolutionary path that they were wholly committed to.

Their conception of “terror” as a method of revolutionary action actually derived from a tradition that went back to the Russian revolutionaries’ struggle against Tsarist tyranny. Now, however, in the last two or three decades, terror has come to mean almost all over the world the killing of innocent men, women and children. And it has thus assumed a heavily pejorative sense, not necessarily borne by it in the 1920s and 1930s.

Clearly, today many of us would not like to call our national heroes – Bhagat Singh or Surya Sen or Chandrasekhar Azad – “terrorists”. But if we claim to be nationalists, we should at least know more about our national movement and not forget that there was a time when this tag was borne with pride by people who actually died for the cause of this country. And so let us not go about demanding changes in books, or banning them altogether and so display our own ignorance to the world.

The withdrawal of the translation of the book by the Delhi University and the hounding of the authors on TV shows and at law courts that has now begun is particularly odious and only too characteristic of such campaigns by the RSS and its various fronts.

Irfan Habib
Amar Farooqui
Arjun Dev
B.P.Sahu
Biswamoy Pati

D N Jha
Iqtidar Alam Khan
K M Shrimali
Lata Singh
Prabhat Shukla

R C Thakran
Shireen Moosvi
Suvira Jaiswal
Vishwamohan Jha
Romila Thapar

Gopinath
R P Bahuguna
K L Tuteja
Rajesh Singh
Kesavan Veluthat

A K Sinha
Santosh Rai
Shalin Jain
H C Satyarthi
V Ramakrishna

Ramakrishna Chatterjee
Arun Bandopadhyaya
S Z Jafri
Vivan Sundaram
Prabhat Patnaik

Mushirul Hasan
Mihir bhattacharya
Sashi Kumar
Ram Rahman
Sukumar Murlidharan

Anil Bhatti
Anuradha Kapur
Archana Prasad
Badri Raina
C P Chandrasekhar

Geeta Kapur
Indira Chandrasekhar
Jayati Ghosh
M K Raina
Madangopal Singh

Madhu Prasad
Malini Bhattacharya
Moloyshree Hashmi
N K Sharma
Nilima Sheikh

Nina Rao
Parthiv Shah
Praveen Jha
Rahul Verma
S Kalidas

Saeed MIrza
Saif Mahmood
Shakti Kak
Sohail Hashmi
Javed

Ari Sitas
Thierry Costanzo
Veer Munshi
Vikas Rawal
Indira Arjun Dev

S Irfan Habib
Shireen Gandhy
Rajat Datta
Mukul Kesavan
Zoya Hasan

Tadd Fernee
Shantha Sinha
C P Bhambri
Rahul Mukherji
Krishna Ananth

Chandi Prasad Nanda
Shri Krishna
Pritish Acharya
Neerja Singh
Najaf Haidar

Bhupendra Yadav
Richa Malhotra
Richa Raj
Deepa Sinha
Amit Mishra

Rashmi
Rizwan Qaiser
Bodh Prakash
Himangshu
Rakesh Batabyal

Mahalakshmi
Saurabh Bajpai
Ranjana Das
J V Naik
Ajay Patnaik

Subodh Malakar
Girish Mishra
P. Bilimale
Sujoy Ghosh
G. Arunima
Ayesha Kidwai

Uttarakhand: Forest Fire Claims Five Lives; NDRF Forces Deployed

Locals have being told to report a fire incident to the district magistrate concerned as soon as they sight it so that it can be controlled in time.

Pauri, Tehri and Nainital are the worst hit by these fires in Uttarakhand. Credit: PTI

Dehradun: Raging forest fires in Uttarakhand have killed five people and blighted 1890.79 hectares of forest land in Kumaon and Garhwal regions prompting Governor K. K. Paul to seek deployment of three National Disaster Response Force (NDRF) companies to douse the flame and conduct rescue operations.

Since early February, 922 cases of forest fire incidents in the state have occurred killing five people, including three women and a child in separate incidents, and injuring seven, Principal Conservator of Forest (PCF) B. P. Gupta said.
Pauri, Tehri and Nainital are the worst hit by these fires as they abound in Cheed and Sal trees, which are highly inflammable.

“The NDRF companies, assisted by experts, will launch fire extinguishing and rescue operations in affected areas immediately,” Chief Secretary Shatrughna Singh said, adding precaution is a must to minimise loss to forest wealth and wildlife.

Inspector General Sanjay Gunjyal has been asked to coordinate with the NDRF, the district magistrates concerned and the PCF to supervise the rescue operations, he said.

Locals have being told to report a fire incident to the district magistrate concerned as soon as they sight it so that it can be controlled in time.

“Uttarakhand Governor K.K. Paul convened an important meeting of officials concerned on April 29 evening to review the steps being taken to control the forest fires spreading to residential areas,” Gupta, who is also the nodal officer for fire incidents in Kumaon and Garhwal regions, said.

The governor has doubled the number of personnel deployed from 3000 to 6000 to control the fire and asked all agencies, including the State Disaster Response Fund, district administration and the rural population to contribute their bit, he said.

Forest fires are natural during summer but this time they have occurred on a bigger scale as the fire season, which normally begins by February 15, began on February 2 when two women were charred to death in the jungles of Uttarkashi, the PCF said.

The three other casualties, including that of a woman and her six year old child, were reported from Nainital and Pauri districts, he said.

The PCF said the scale of forest fires in Uttarakhand this time has been bigger due to little or no rain during winter at most places.

Pre-fire alerts listing possible fire points over the next seven days in forest areas are being made available in the Forest Department website.

Former Chief Minister Harish Rawat has asked the governor to declare Uttarakhand as a fire-disaster stricken state and involve locals in fire extinguishing efforts.

Two Degrees of Separation: The Controversy Over Modi’s Educational Qualifications Explained

Why was the PMO reticent in providing information about Modi’s degrees? And what could be the political fallout? The Wire breaks it down.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi in a file photo. Credit: PTI

Update, May 1, 2016: ‘Modi Got First Class in MA from Gujarat University’, VC Says

The controversy over Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s educational qualifications taken centre-stage once again after the Central Information Commission (CIC), acting at the behest of a RTI application by Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, directed the Prime Minister’s Office to provide ‘specific roll number and year’ of the prime minister’s degrees from Delhi University (DU) and Gujarat University (GU).

The CIC said that this would help them locate Modi’s records easily, following which the universities could provide relevant information about his degrees to the public.

The debate over Modi’s educational qualifications started last year after various RTI applications seeking details about his degrees were refused by the universities and the PMO.

This had led to suspicion among Modi’s political opponents that he may have provided wrong information in his election affidavits. His election affidavits mention that he finished his undergraduate degree through a distance learning programme from DU in 1978 and his MA from GU in 1983.

The debate has fuelled yet another spat between Aam Aadmi Party leader Kejriwal and the BJP machinery. When did this controversy erupt? Why was the PMO reticent in providing information about Modi’s degrees? And what could be it political fallout? The Wire breaks it down.

Neither the constitution nor the Representation of the People Act specify minimum educational qualifications for getting elected as an MP or even becoming prime minister. So why is a fuss being made about Modi’s degrees?

The emerging controversy over Modi’s degrees is not about whether he his qualified to serve as an MP or prime minister but whether he made a false statement on oath in an affidavit that is a crucial part of the election process. Not having a degree does not disqualify a candidate in any way but if a candidate says he has degrees which he does not possess, then that would amount to having made a false declaration and misled voters.

When did the controversy begin?

Modi, in his affidavit for the 2014 general elections, acknowledged having been married to Jashodaben for the first time. In his earlier affidavits for the Gujarat assembly polls, he had claimed to be unmarried. This had led to a huge political furore in the campaign leading up to the general elections. Modi’s inconsistent claims regarding his marital status fuelled further doubts about his educational qualifications. Moreover, the controversy around Minister of Human Resources and Development Smriti Irani’s fake Yale University degree goaded many of Modi’s political opponents to probe his educational qualifications in 2015.

Consequently, a number of RTI applications were filed in the PMO, GU and DU to scrutinise Modi’s claims of education. His election affidavits in the 2014 parliamentary polls claimed he had undergraduate and postgraduate degrees. Likewise, his election affidavits for the 2012 and 2007 Gujarat assembly polls claimed the same.

So what was the response of the PMO and the two universities?

In response to an RTI filed on the matter, the PMO advised the RTI activist to approach the Election Commission of India (EC) and refused to divulge any information. The PMO said in reply to the RTI request, “The information about the PM’s education qualification is available on the PMO’s website http://www.pmindia.gov.in under the hyperlink ‘Know Your Prime Minister’ which can be accessed by the applicant,” and asked him to get the required information from the EC.

The EC too added to the mystery by saying that this information was not available with them and the applicant could access them by visiting “http://eci.nic.in under the head Affidavits of candidates.”

Following this, a Gujarat-based social activist filed another RTI at GU seeking details of his masters degree, which was again denied by the university. The university sent a one-line reply in Gujarati, “Under the RTI Act of 2005, this information can’t be made public.”

But the RTI Act allows for appeals if the information sought is denied. Was an appeal filed?

When the activist, who chose to remain anonymous, moved the appellate authority against GU’s reply, he was asked to file the RTI requests all over again and told the PMO was not obliged to provide any information if GU does not have the requisite information. The appellate body, headed by S.E. Rizvi, said, “A public authority is obliged to provide information, which is held in its records and, in the matter in hand where the requisite information does not form part of office records, the contention that the PMO should provide the same is not correct.”

The appellate authority interpreted section 2 (J) of the RTI Act to relieve the PMO from divulging this information. It said that since no minimum educational qualification was required to become the prime minister, the PMO is not under any obligation to possess details about Modi’s educational degrees.

The secrecy around Modi’s degrees was further magnified when DU also denied any information on his undergraduate degree details in April 2016. To Delhi resident Hans Raj Jain’s RTI, the DU said that the information sought is too general and cited its inability to find any information without a roll number. DU’s plea was accepted by the CIC, which dismissed the case.

Why did the controversy come to the limelight again?

After Jain’s plea was rejected, Kejriwal on April 28 wrote a strongly-worded letter to Chief Information Commissioner M. Sridhar Acharyulu.

“According to some reports (details are attached), Prime Minister Narendra Modi is preventing the concerned department from releasing details about his educational qualification. Allegations are being made that the PM has no qualification and degree at all,” said the letter, written in Hindi, which also questioned the CIC’s autonomy.

Kejriwal in his letter said, “Nation has the right to know the educational details of the Prime Minister. His educational qualifications should be released in the public at earliest. The RTI Act gives us the right to know the qualifications of the person holding the position of the Prime Minister.”

Thereafter, the CIC treated this letter as an RTI application and directed the PMO to give Modi’s roll numbers to the universities so that they could find out the details of his degrees.

“Not prescribing the education (degree based) qualification for contesting electoral offices is one of the great features of Indian democracy. What is needed is education and not degrees. However, when a citizen holding the position of Chief Ministership wants to know the degrees-related information of the Prime Minister, it will be proper to disclose. The commission directs the CPIOs of Delhi University and Gujarat University to make best possible search for the information regarding degrees in the name of ‘Mr Narendra Damodar Modi’ in the year 1978 (Graduation in DU) and 1983 (Post-Graduation in GU) and provide it to the appellant Mr. Kejriwal as soon as possible,” the CIC order said.

What impact will this controversy have on national politics?

Both Kejriwal and Modi have been attacking each other in public rallies for a long time. Apart from the public spat in rallies, Kejriwal has been accusing the Central government of intervening in the daily affairs of the Delhi government. His party has made it out to be a political attack by the BJP, which the AAP defeated in the Delhi assembly elections comprehensively.

In the recent past, Kejriwal and AAP have been the most vocal opponents of the BJP regarding the Union government’s handling of political and administrative affairs. Clearly, Kejriwal is trying to propel himself and his party as the political alternative to the BJP. The AAP’s long-standing campaign has been to target non-transparent governments, be it during the Congress-led UPA government, or now. The AAP has built its support base by rallying against corruption and opacity in governance. Therefore, Kejriwal has successfully catapulted the reluctance on the part of PMO to divulge details of Modi’s educational qualifications into a campaign against an opaque government.

In its political fight against the BJP, the AAP has relied not on big exposes against the government but on its small governance failures that have a cumulative effect on people. With the CIC granting Kejriwal’s request, it is a small victory for the AAP over the BJP. Kerjiwal’s deft handling of the issue of Modi’s educational qualifications is sure to get him more friends than enemies.

What happens if DU and GU are unable to confirm the award of degrees to Modi, or say categorically that no degree was awarded by them to Modi in the years mentioned by the prime minister in his election affidavit?

At present, giving false information on oath is listed as a criminal offence in the Section 191 of the Indian Penal Code. It says:

“Giving false evidence. -Whoever, being legally bound by an oath or by an express provision of law to state the truth, or being bound by law to make a declaration upon any subject, makes any statement which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, is said to give false evidence.”

A little bit of history on election affidavits may be worthwhile to understand the legalities of the process. Following a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms in 1999, election affidavits were first put in place after a series of court orders by the Delhi high court and the Supreme Court in the early 2000s. After these judgments, the EC made election affidavits that required each candidate to declare his/her criminal, financial, and educational background mandatory.

At present, the EC does not have any exclusive punitive powers if a candidate is found to have provided false information. There are no verification procedures to ensure that candidates do not provide wrong information in election affidavits. The ADR, an advocacy organisation for electoral reforms, has been demanding the Election Commission of India develop a proper verification mechanism for election affidavits.

However, given the constraints of time and resources, the EC has not been able to do much about it. Jagdeep Chhokar of the ADR told The Wire: “The EC does not verify.To our demand in the court, the SC had said that the EC should take the help of intelligence agencies to verify the information. However, the Union of India filed a petition in the SC saying that it should not be done. The EC gave an affidavit saying that it was impossible for it to verify information of so many candidates in such a short span of time.”

Chhokar said that the problem the EC faces is actually serious. “There are 7000 candidates in a general elections. In 15 days, you cannot expect the EC to do the verification. Following the EC’s and the government of India’s petition, the SC in 2002 said that verification cannot be done. Subsequently, we have been asking the EC to verify the information of only the winners within six months of their election. The EC has been saying that it sends the entire lot of affidavits to the income tax department for verification. However, the income tax department is not willing to do that.”

If the EC can’t act, are there other legal penalties for making an incorrect declaration in an election nomination-related affidavit?

At present only IPC Section 191 lists wrong information on oath as a criminal offence. The Representation of People (Amendment) Act, 2010 under which elections are held does not list out any penalty against submitting a false election affidavit. The courts have intervened occasionally. For instance, when Modi in his Gujarat assembly elections had left the column of his marital status blank, the SC, hearing a petition filed by Sunil Sarawagi in 2013, ruled that a candidate’s nomination can be rejected by the EC if a column is left blank. In his 2014 parliamentary election nomination, Modi was, therefore, forced to declare that he was married to Jashodaben.

The EC is demanding some reforms in the whole process but thinks that the verification of so many affidavits is not feasible. “The EC has no way to verify. We got only two hours to accept or reject a nomination. But what we do is to put all the election affidavits in the public domain so that citizens can themselves verify. However, we had been demanding that the EC may have some punitive powers for candidates who lie in affidavits. This will act as a deterrent. The Justice A.P Shah Law commission report released in February 2014 also recommends some of these reforms.,” former chief election commissioner S.Y Qureshi told The Wire.

The Law Commission has recommended amending the RP Act on the issue of filing false affidavits. It has said that false affidavits could be grounds for disqualification, that it should ‘qualify as corrupt practice under the Act.’ It also said that the maximum punishment prescribed at present should be increased from six months imprisonment to a minimum of two years. “Consequently, trials of cases in relation to false affidavits must also be conducted on a day to day basis. Further, a gap of one week should be introduced between the last date for filing nominations and the date of scrutiny. This would give adequate time to file an objection on nomination papers,” the commission recommended.

However, given the pressures it may create for legislators, it looks highly unlikely that the BJP-led government would implement these recommendations in the near future.

Prime Minister Modi Could Have Done With Some Firm Presidential Advice

The country expects a president to behave with a little more gumption than Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed could summon back in 1975.

The country expects a president to behave with a little more gumption than Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed could summon back in 1975

The constitution of India does not envisage any kind of presidential activism. Nor is the president encouraged or expected to become a rival or even a countervailing centre of power.

We have by design a Westminster model of cabinet government which firmly puts the prime minister at the head of a council of ministers, as the real source of action, power, patronage and political and policy initiative. It is the prime minister and his or her cabinet who are answerable to the Lok Sabha and to the electorate at large. And, though as per Article 74(1) of the constitution, the prime minister exercises all this authority in the name of the president, that still does not make the rashtrapati, a referee nor does he or she get to have any yellow or red cards to flash before this or that offending member of the council of ministers. But, then, prime ministerial authority is not exactly unlimited; it has to be exercised within the four walls of the constitution.

Is there any kind of presidential role in ensuring that the prime minister stays strictly within those four walls? The conventional formulation, chiselled over the years by wise constitutional experts, has the president perform the role of a “friend, philosopher and guide” to the prime minister. In reality, each president-prime minister equation gets defined by the political context of the day.

The quantum of advice a president is willing to shove to the prime minister — and equally, the quantum of advice a prime minister may be inclined to lump from the president — is predicated on the number of boots the prime minister has in the Lok Sabha. A weak prime minister — especially one lacking a clear majority or dependent upon a bevy of coalition partners — finds himself being mindful of the presidential ‘mood.’ On the other hand, a strong prime minister, ipso facto, tends to take presidential consent for granted even for his most wayward proposals. But, then, can any president be taken for granted?

The issue can be framed slightly differently. Assuming there is a strong prime minister, is the president condemned to be just a rubber stamp in the face of the ruling party and its expedient political calculations and requirements? There are no easy answers. But it is not for nothing that our collective memory still riles at the recollection of President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed signing the Emergency proclamation while in a bath-tub.

The country has come a long way since then and expects a president to behave with a little more gumption than Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed could summon back in 1975.

Second term itch?

In the present context, for example, could the president have not signed the March 28 proclamation on Uttarakhand when the assembly was due to conduct a floor test within the next 24 hours?

The last time the country had a prime minister with a clear-cut majority in the Lok Sabha, we saw him get into an unseemly wrangle with the president. The Zail Singh-Rajiv Gandhi confrontation tested the institutional balance as also the political class’s constitutional morals and manners.

After a long gap we have a prime minister who is entitled to feel that he has an unambiguous mandate from the electorate to change a few things around; and, if in the process, a few institutional toes get trodden upon, so be it. The resentment against the Rajya Sabha has already been articulated by the very able and very articulate finance minister. The judiciary has also been made to feel the weight of the executive’s indifference and non-cooperation. The president, too, is being tested. We may never know fully the nature of his co-existence with the NDA government.

Fortunately, Pranab Mukherjee is not a total stranger to power politics. In fact, many of his critics have, over the years, been forced to acknowledge grudgingly his superb craftiness at playing the political game. He is ideally equipped to explore the unexplored areas of presidential power.

In the same breath, let it also be acknowledged that he is not a man without ambition. No one would construe it as any insult to his intelligence or disrespect to his office if it was suggested that like all previous occupants of Rashtrapati Bhavan, he too could be calculating the probability of a second term.

And, it is entirely possible that the prime minister and his advisers — all very shrewd and cunning men in their own right — have sensed a “second term” itch; and, they do know a thing or two about whetting appetites. Still, it is difficult to comprehend, leave alone appreciate, the president’s thought processes in signing on the March 28 proclamation.

A question of political balance

Had President Mukherjee decided to sleep over the March 28 recommendations of the cabinet, he would have spared the country quite a bit of constitutional commotion. No great or clear-cut political morality issues were, or are, involved. There is very little to recommend about Harish Rawat, and even less so about Vijay Bahuguna, the man who non-presided over the 2013 floods disaster. There are no obviously right or wrong choices in terms of good governance and good men. Somehow it is difficult to avoid a feeling that the president did not apply himself fully to the situation.

Constitutions are operated through political balances. A healthy polity thrives on healthy conventions. Even after these 60 years we find an acceptable balance eluding us. It is no consolation to us that increasingly all democratic polities find themselves almost overwhelmed by partisan men and their partisan calculations. The American arrangement is becoming more and more precarious by the day. For example, the Republicans are simply unwilling to start the Senate confirmation process for President Obama’s nominee to fill a Supreme Court vacancy. A grand violation of the American constitutional arrangement.

Here at home, small men with their smaller calculations are not proving to be the best custodians of federal principles or constitutional values. The Centre is charged with the “duty” to protect the states against internal or external break-downs.
As early as 1982, President Sanjeeva Reddy had diagnosed the problem: “A central authority cannot claim greater competence, wisdom and objectivity or greater immunity from extraneous influences.” Since then things have not improved.

The president has influence, his office has an aura and respectability that he can always tap — that too, without getting into any kind of confrontation with the prime minister. At times, the president has refused to go along with the prime minister’s advice. V.V. Giri did it, so did R. Venkataraman, and so did K.R. Narayanan and A.P.J. Abdul Kalam. Zail Singh did use a “pocket veto” against the Postal Bill. In recent years, presidents have been known to quietly dissuade prime ministers from making poor appointments in the higher judiciary.

As the head of the republic, the president has to provide the balance. That means, at times he would be called upon to see to it that there is no imbalance. Constitutional statesmanship requires a continuous vigilance in defence of national equilibrium.

Harish Khare is Editor-in-Chief of The Tribune.

Courtesy: The Tribune

Libya’s Collapse Into Chaos Is Not an Argument Against Intervention

Key to the failure in Libya has been the influence of state interests, from the US’s wariness of over-committing, to the UK’s distraction by events elsewhere, to the overt hypocrisy of Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies.

Representational Picture. Credit: EPA/ The Conversation

Libya is mired in crisis – a “shit show” according to US President Barrack Obama. Many have declared that the 2011 intervention shouldn’t have been launched , and that the Libya campaign is reason enough to put an end to the practice of “humanitarian intervention”.

These arguments are superficially convincing, but they presume a counterfactual history with little supporting evidence – and ultimately amount to an intellectual dead end.

Critiques of the intervention in Libya generally hinge – though not always explicitly – on a key tenet of the “just war” tradition: “reasonable prospects of success”. This holds that force should only be used if, on the basis of available knowledge, it will not make a situation worse. Events in Libya since 2011, critics argue, show that this standard was not met.

But this argument overlooks the fact that contemporary critics have a distinct advantage over those who supported intervention in March 2011 – the benefit of hindsight.

In March 2011, there was unprecedented global consensus on the need to act, with the UN Security Council, regional organisations, and the anti-Gaddafi rebels all supportive of the intervention. Evidence at the time suggested that not acting would have led to an escalation in suffering, especially given Gaddafi’s threat to “show no mercy” on the eve of an attack on the rebel stronghold of Benghazi.

Much of the contemporary criticism, however, presumes a counterfactual historical narrative where intervention did not occur and the situation in Libya did not degenerate. Though obviously a possibility, proponents of this view must advance some basis for this presumption; few in fact do.

Libya is today plagued by civil war, governmental collapse and the increased presence of Islamic State. Would declining to intervene have prevented this? Unchecked oppression by Gaddafi’s forces would inevitably have led to the death of civilians, which would probably have inspired the rebels to fight on.

With the financial and military support of regional allies opposed to Gaddafi, the east of the country – long hostile to rule from the capital Tripoli – would no doubt have remained a zone of conflict. This would have led to the weakening of the central state, infrastructural collapse and lawlessness. It is surely likely that IS would have sought to exploit this situation, just as it has now.

Indeed, Syria is experiencing the same problems as Libya’s on more a horrific scale. Can we be sure that non-intervention would not have precipitated a Syria-like scenario in Libya?

First, do no harm?

The idea that because the intervention in Libya failed, intervention more generally should never again be launched without a guarantee of success is also flawed. This argument fails to appreciate the distinction between doing the wrong thing and doing the right thing in the wrong way.

One easily can avoid all risk of failure – by never acting. This has been presented by some critics of intervention generally in terms of the Hippocratic oath’s injunction to “first, do no harm”. Prudence is obviously sensible, but if we interpret this injunction too literally, we find ourselves supporting perennial inertia; no doctor would ever perform any surgery if they were forbidden from doing something that might go wrong.

If the potential for failure is grounds for forestalling action then of course it is impossible to envisage a situation where a humanitarian intervention will ever be launched. This would, however, mean a world in which states are free to slaughter their own people with impunity.

Some may see this as preferable to the potential disorder wrought by humanitarian intervention. I argue that it’s the triumph of indulgent fatalism.

Another way

The chaos that engulfs Libya today doesn’t necessarily mean it was wrong to intervene in 2011. Clearly it suggests that the action taken was deeply flawed, but it doesn’t imply there was no need to act. Likewise, the failure of the intervention can’t reasonably be used as an argument against external military intervention in general. That risks conflating the specific mistakes made in 2011 with the fundamental flaws of all interventions past and future.

This argument is set to surface again. Given the proliferation of “spiralling” humanitarian crises and a precipitous rise in global state oppression, it seems inevitable that the world will soon be confronted by intra-state crises that potentially warrant external military intervention. When that happens, many onlookers will use Libya to argue that external military intervention doesn’t work.

But it’s surely incumbent upon serious analysts to do more than simply point to Libya and declare “Look at the mess they made! Never again!” This may win cheers of approval from those ideologically opposed to intervention, but in a broader sense, what does it achieve? Better, surely, to identify and support a different kind of intervention – one that could save us from having to choose between a repeat of Libya-style failure or the horrors that resulted from Rwanda-like inaction.

Key to the failure in Libya has been the influence of state interests, from the US’s wariness of over-committing, to the UK’s distraction by events elsewhere, to the overt hypocrisy of Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies. The perennial problem of state interests clearly necessitates an alternative means by which to respond to intra-state crisis.

If we wanted to look beyond the Western state-led model of intervention and come up with a different means, we could (for example) get behind the establishment of an independent, permanent UN rapid reaction force, one capable of coming to the aid of besieged populations. This is obviously an idealistic proposal, and it’s been debated for a long time with little movement. But a proper debate over the merits of this or related proposals is surely preferable to counterfactual conjecture and self-righteous fatalism.

Aidan Hehir, Reader in International Relations, University of Westminster.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Satnam, Revolutionary Author of Jangalnama, Passes Away

A committed activist and writer, he dedicated his life to working with the disenfranchised.

The Punjabi writer and leftist activist Gurmeet Singh, popularly known by his pen name Satnam, spent two months with Maoist guerrillas and adivasis in Bastar in the year 2001. Three years later, he published a remarkable travelogue called Jangalnama based on this experience, which was hailed as a unique and humane portrait of some of the most vilified people in one of the most misunderstood parts of the country – the ‘liberated zone’ of Bastar.

In Jangalnama, Satnam wrote: “People in the jungle don’t know who Nehru was, or what happened in 1947. Nor do they know about the change of rule from the Whites to the Browns. For them, “Dilli” (Delhi) is only a word associated with the government, and to them, the government means greedy contractors, repressive police, displacement and harassment.”

Satnam was found dead in his house in Patiala on the morning of Thursday, April 28. He was 64 years old. He took his own life after a battle with depression, leaving his last book unfinished. The Hindustan Times quotes his friend Bawa Singh as saying that Satnam was feeling “both personal and political despair.”

Satnam was born in Amritsar, and joined the Naxalite movement in the 1970s, and subsequently dedicated the rest of his life to radical leftist politics. He worked with marginalised communities, including religious minorities and dalits. He was involved in the work of various Muslim democratic organisations following the Gujarat riots in 2002, and was a member of the People’s Democratic Front of India and the Mumbai Resistance 2004. He spoke out against human rights abuses in Kashmir, and was one of the leaders of the movement against Operation Green Hunt, which was launched in 2009.

In his obituary for Satnam published in The Tribune, Vishav Bharti, who translated Jangalnama into English, writes that Satnam “…lived many lives. Sometimes as an underground Maoist guerrilla, sometimes as a democratic rights activist on fact-finding missions on human rights violations in Kashmir and Gujarat genocide, or as a creative writer, who would write with equal felicity in Punjabi, Hindi and English.” Bharti says that Satnam continued to write short stories and political commentary along with being a committed activist. He was a member of the editorial boards of several magazines, including Lok Kafila and Jan Pratirodh.

About Jangalnama, Bharti writes: “People were for the first time reading accounts from the jungles of Bastar that the Maoist movement was not only about Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) or killing security personnel, but it was also about how people were struggling to change their fate when the state is absent.”

Satnam, who was separated from his wife, is survived by his daughter. A gathering in his memory is being held on May 8 in Patiala.

Enid Blyton, Moral Guide

The unfashionable world of Blyton’s school stories still has much to say about what it means to live an ethical life.

Original artwork by Mary Gernat for ‘First Term at Malory Towers’ by Enid Blyton. Photo courtesy theartofenidblyton.com.

Alan Bennett describes the experience perfectly: you’re halfway through a book by a long-dead stranger, and there it is: an idea or feeling ‘you had thought special and particular to you… set down by someone else … as if a hand has come out and taken yours’. I remember the first time this happened to me. Growing up as a bookish boy in a house with few books, I had learnt to be indiscriminate: the back of the proverbial cereal box, my father’s Soviet manual of civil engineering, or – as on this occasion – whatever my sister had brought home from the school library.

First Term at Malory Towers (1946) opens with an image of its heroine, 12-year-old Darrell Rivers in front of a mirror, pleased at the look of her new school uniform. ‘It’s jolly nice,’ she says to herself, ‘I like it.’ What will her first term at boarding school be like, she wonders. Like something in a school story? Probably not: ‘I expect it won’t be quite the same at Malory Towers.’ Straightaway, Darrell and her creator – the prolific and much-maligned children’s novelist Enid Blyton – own, and promptly disown, their literary inheritance: the British boarding-school novel. Like thousands of other Indian (or Australian or South African or Singaporean) children, I learnt from her books that there was such a place as Britain, that some children there went to boarding schools, and that other people wrote books about them.

The tradition of the boarding-school novel begins, more or less, with Tom Brown’s School Days (1857), that classic of hearty didacticism set in Rugby School when that most eminent of Victorians Thomas Arnold was headmaster. Its author, Thomas Hughes, made no apologies for all the moralism: ‘Why, my whole object in writing at all was to get the chance of preaching!’ he said to an imagined critic. Tom Brown has most of the tropes that would come to distinguish the genre he invented: the pre-prepubescent naïf leaving home for the first time; the bully; the climactic cricket match; the intense friendship and the equally intense rivalry; and, in all this, the fate of our young hero’s soul hanging in the balance. Will he choose the way of virtue or vice? Or will he become that awful thing, a prig, a contemptible parody of the good man?

For the rest of the article, click here.

This article was originally published in Aeon Magazine.