A ONE-MAN inquiry commission by Justice Manmohan Singh Liberhan set up ten days after the demolition of Babri Masjid has submitted its report to the Indian government. It took 17 long years and 48 extensions to complete the inquiry.

The report which was presented on June 30 is expected to come up before parliament during the winter session. But some sections of the report have been leaked by Indian Express.

Babri Masjid-Ramjanambhoomi controversy dominated Indian politics for about a decade and became a burning issue. It was so controversial and rooted in communal politics that it polarised Indian nation on religious lines for the first time since independence. The campaign was aimed at seeking political power and the BJP did achieve its objective towards the end of the nineties.

It is an open secret that the leaders of the Sangh Parivar were responsible for demolition of Babri Masjid and the chief architect of this project was L.K.Advani who took out Rath Yatra from Somnath to Ayodhya to mobilise mass support of Hindus.

The Rath Yatra turned into a ‘blood yatra’, a term used by the Times of India because nearly 3,000 small and not so small riots took place. Bloody riots had erupted in several major cities of the country and the Mumbai and Surat riots in December and January 1992-93 exceeded all limits of brutality, killing and raping.

By any account, Babri Masjid’s demolition and subsequent riots remain the shame of modern secular India and this hate venture was engineered to fulfil the lust of a political party to enter corridors of power.

According to the excerpts published in Indian Express the Liberhan Commission has indicted 68 people including the top leadership of BJP and surprisingly Mr Atal Behari Vajpayee’ name is included.

So far he had been spared of any charge but only in a report published in the Outlook magazine long ago Vajpayee was mentioned as one of those who were aware of the conspiracy to demolish the mosque.

It is somewhat surprising that Justice Liberhan has directly blamed the former prime minister and Mr L.K.Advani for conspiring to demolish Babri Masjid because there were reports in the media about a controversy between Mr Anupam Gupta, the lawyer for the Commission and Justice Liberhan on culpability of Advani. Gupta later resigned because as he had alleged that Justice Liberhan wanted to be soft towards Mr Advani.

In an interview Justice Liberhan had maintained that his integrity was beyond question and he has indicted people strictly on the basis of evidence before him and that he has not spared anyone. This he said after he submitted his report. What he had told media has now been borne out? He has indicted not only Advani but also A.B.Vajpayee.

On the basis of evidence that includes witness statements and official records, one of the key conclusions of the Commission is said to be that the entire build-up to the demolition was meticulously planned. And there was nothing to show that these leaders were unaware of what was going on or were innocent of any wrongdoing.

Mr. Advani had claimed that demolition was a ‘spontaneous’ event and that he was very sorry for that. He claimed he even wept for what happened.

However, the Commission has rejected this claim and holds him responsible for what happened.

The Commission has probed the sequence of events leading, and all facts and circumstances included, to the occurrence at Ramjanambhoomi-Babri Masjid complex on December 6, 1992 — the day the mosque was brought down by karsevaks.

The Commission, according to the Express report, is learnt to have said that despite claims to the contrary, the Ayodhya campaign did not enjoy the voluntary support of the common masses, particularly Hindus. In fact, Liberhan is reported to have observed that demand for a temple never became a mass movement.

The campaign only ended up silencing the voices of sanity and shaming them into joining the movement.

What Justice Liberhan says is true. It was never a spontaneous demand of common Hindus to construct Ramjanambhoomi temple, much less after demolishing Babri Masjid. In fact in the speeches delivered by Mr Advani and other Sangh leaders Hindu masses were not informed that the Sangh Parivar proposes to demolish Babri Masjid. This, in all probability, would not have been acceptable to Hindus.

It is also true that the Ramjanambhoomi campaign assumed such proportions that it aroused acute frenzy among members and supporters of the Sangh Parivar. It became difficult for voice of reason and sanity to be raised by Hindus.

They were almost intimidated into submission. This is what happens when a fascist movement becomes strong and no space is left for dissent or protest.

Liberhan Commission is also learnt to have said, as per Indian Express report, that despite claims by Advani and Vajpayee that they had no role in the demolition, the two leaders cannot be absolved of the responsibility for what happened.

Advani, when he appeared before the Commission, had claimed that he was pained by the events at Ayodhya on December 6, 1992.

What is interesting to note is that Liberhan says that none of them had the courage to defy the orders of the RSS as that would have damaged their political future.

By implication Justice Liberhan has suggested that to demolish Babri Masjid was a decision made by the RSS and it was executed by the BJP leaders and hordes of VHP and Bajrang Dal.

The Liberahan Commission goes much further in indicting the Sangh Parivar for its complicity in the demolition.

The Liberhan Commission is reported to have said that certain leaders can’t be given the benefit of doubt or absolved of culpability.

They are Vajpayee, Advani and Murli Manohar Joshi. It is very strong indictment indeed.

The Commission is also said to have concluded that the diversion of funds to Faizabad and Ayodhya just before the karseva, mobilisation of karsevaks as well as arrangements made at the site with military-like precision, clearly proves that the plan was just not limited to symbolic karseva, as stated by Sangh and BJP leaders.

Mr Vajpayee himself had committed in the session of national integration council that the karseva would be symbolic and yet he did nothing to fulfil his commitment to the nation and hence what Justice Liberhan says is quite correct.

Under the cover of symbolic seva it was planned to bring down Babri

Masjid and all arrangements were made with ‘military-like precision’.

The Hindi media consistently described this demolition of vivadit dhancha (controversial structure) as if it was not a legally constructed mosque.

Liberhan further says that the small number of karsevaks with hidden faces who actually carried out the demolition and eventual installation of idols in the makeshift temple clearly show that the whole exercise was carried out with painstaking preparation and planning.

The Commission also feels that the elite leaders of the Muslim organisations constituted a class of their own and were neither responsible to nor were they caring for the welfare of those they claimed to represent. These leaders, according to the Commission, failed the community by failing to put forth a logical, cohesive and consistent point of view on the dispute, both inside and outside the courts.

There were sane voices among Muslim community also but the way a section of Muslim leadership aroused emotions in the community, it became difficult for ordinary Muslims to listen to reason.

For them too it became a sentimental issue. Logical thinking and action became very difficult, if not impossible. Thus it should be clear to all of us that raising a historical controversy to high emotional pitch does nothing but harms the community and only unscrupulous elements gain from it.

It may be difficult to agree with Liberhan Commission when it observes that Central government cannot be blamed for the happening.

According to the constitution, no action could be taken by the state governor without seeking consent of the Centre for taking the required action.

To dismiss Kalyan Singh government was perhaps not possible but Narsimha Rao government could have saved Babri Masjid, if it had ordered the Rapid Action Force positioned just 11 kms from Ayodhya to move in and save the Masjid.

DIG, RPF, himself told me later in a seminar that we could have saved the Masjid, if only orders had been received in time to act. We only wondered why no orders came from the authorities. Muslims also alleged that Narsimha Rao was not interested in saving the mosque.

Now it remains to be seen what action the central government takes on the Liberhan Commission report before it submits it to parliament.

It is a matter of time. Also, one has to see how the leaders of the Sangh Parivar react to this report. We are certainly in for a political controversy. The BJP is already in the doldrums and it will certainly be another blow to its declining fortunes.

The writer is chairman of the Centre for Study of Society and Secularism, Mumbai.

DURING his recent meeting with President Obama in Washington, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh sought to solidify a relationship transformed under the Bush administration from mere friendship to that of a ‘key ally’ that led to nuclear cooperation deal and unprecedented security collaboration. He is also reported to have sought Obama’s support for his bid for a permanent seat in the UN Security Council. He was given assurances that the US will not neglect India while pursuing close ties with Pakistan and China.

Senators Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden played a key role in bringing the two countries closer to serve each other’s agendas during Bush presidency. India needed western technology; the US needed the Indian market. India had regional aspirations, a nuclear and military strength which it was keen to expand and had estranged relations with China; the US under Bush needed a regional ally ready to contain China and serve as its proxy for policing the region. And with 9/11, came a new role that India could play for the US in Afghanistan.

Both Pakistan and China carefully watch the changing dynamics of this deepening relationship which affects not only South Asia, but also China. They feel that if this partnership becomes too cozy for the comfort of others in the region, it will not serve peace that is already uneasy.

Pakistan has felt uncomfortable that India is receiving US assistance in the development of nuclear power industry even though India has refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Obama’s assertion that ‘Indian leadership is expanding security across the region’ will find no supporters in Islamabad or Beijing.

The acrimonious relationship between Pakistan and India over several disputes and India’s blatant role in dismembering Pakistan in 1971 has been exacerbated due to India’s refusal to engage in a meaningful dialogue with Pakistan.

As an old American ally, Pakistan’s concern over the increasing US ‘tilt’ towards India, was quite natural. Pakistan’s own relationship with the US has kept swinging from being the ‘most allied ally’ to being the “most neglected ally” and then to being the ‘most sanctioned ally’, depending upon how much the US needed Pakistan’s services at a given time. Pakistan fears more belligerency from India in view of American support despite Pakistan’s sensitivities.

The announcement by President Obama that his administration would begin to pull out its troops from Afghanistan after 18 months has given rise to apprehensions in Pakistan that he may install India as a proxy power to protect US interests.

Motivated by its sinister designs to weaken Pakistan, India is actively promoting an East Pakistan style insurgency in Balochistan. Once its military gains a foothold in Afghanistan it will squeeze Pakistan from the western border, while using rogue elements from the tribal belt, which it has already recruited, to destabilise Pakistan. Ample evidence of these activities was handed over to Indian prime minister by his Pakistani counterpart.

The US-Indian belief that India can hold the fort for the US in Afghanistan is a fallacy. The Afghans being fiercely opposed to foreign occupiers, it would be naïve to expect that Indian forces would be welcome to stay after the Americans withdraw. Notwithstanding the support of the Northern Alliance and Karzai’s weak government, The Taliban, who are bound to gain political influence in Kabul sooner or later, will reject Indian military presence on their soil, as it will represent American interests.

As of now in the current US matrix, cordial Sino-US relations are very important, mainly owing to American reliance on Chinese economic support that is not going to end any time soon. Obama cannot promote relations with India at the cost of its relations with China.

Besides, the US cannot also ignore that China has an abiding interest in South Asia due to its regional security concerns and close relations with Pakistan.

Given the history of Sino-Indian rivalry this is unpalatable for India, which considers South Asia as its exclusive domain. Only recently the Indian officials, says a Washington Post report, in an outburst of Brahmanic self-importance expressed concern that New Delhi has been relegated to the second tier of US-Asian relations because Obama did not mention India in his speech on US relations in Asia recently. The speech, delivered in Tokyo, focused on the Asia-Pacific region and not South Asia. This, the Indians believe, is Obama’s failure to recognise India's broader regional aspirations. The Indians were upset that “Washington was leaning too closely to China”.

Then to India’s chagrin, in the joint statement on conclusion of Obama’s visit to China, Obama suggested that Beijing mediate between India and Pakistan. “China and the United States”, the statement said, "are ready to strengthen communication, dialogue and cooperation on issues related to South Asia and work together to promote peace, stability and development in that region."

"A third-country role cannot be envisaged nor is it necessary" to solve disputes between India and Pakistan, was the immediate Indian Foreign Ministry response.

Ashley Tellis of the Carnegie Endowment said, "The joint statement prompted new fears that somehow the United States and China would collude to manage events in South Asia."

Tellis said this has caused neuralgia in India because tensions between Beijing and New Delhi have risen over border claims. India is also upset over Chinese plans to divert Brahmaputra River that originates in Tibet and flows into Northeastern India. In addition, Indians are concerned that the Obama administration, unlike the Bush administration, views India as part of the South Asian problem, which includes the instability in Pakistan.

These Indian sensitivities will keep the US on the edge. Since both seek to serve their respective geopolitical objectives, which are very divergent in nature, the relationship will neither be smooth nor lasting. In a sensitive region, where the US must protect its own bilateral interests with China and Pakistan, tantrums on the part of Indian leadership could make the new partnership difficult to sustain.

Therefore, before rushing into a collaborative arrangement with India and offering highly sensitive nuclear technologies, Washington will be well advised to first test out the prickly world of relations with New Delhi.

The US need not be impressed with the tall claims about India being the biggest democracy. India’s human rights record is dismal, particularly in dealing with minorities. It has a long way to go in ensuring equal social status to Dalits (untouchables) who form 20 per cent of the population. Ethnic and religious cleansing of minorities remains a common occurrence.

If the US could make a political issue out of Tiananmen Square and Obama could refer to human rights issues during his China visit, why India should not be held to the same standard during Singh’s visit.

As for the Indian request for a permanent seat in the Security Council, India’s own involvement in Kashmir dispute that is pending before the Security Council and whose Resolutions it has refused to honour, cannot be ignored. This dispute has led India to fight three wars with Pakistan and one with China. Its security forces subjugate the people of Kashmir, killing thousands and sexually abusing thousands of their women.

In response to a similar bid earlier, India was advised to first settle the Kashmir dispute. Then the US -India relationship had just begun to take shape with limited US influence over India. But now that the US enjoys a greater clout, it could more effectively pressure India for a negotiated settlement, which is in every one’s interest, including regional peace.

PRESIDENT Obama couldn’t have chosen a more befitting and more relevant venue than West Point — the US Military Academy in New York State — to announce yet another — his 2nd in nine months — surge of troops for Afghanistan. The hallowed precincts of West Point have trained and turned out generations of fighters to constantly fuel the juggernauts of the most war-addicted country in the world.

The announcement of his decision to further beef up the already sizeable US military presence in war-torn Afghanistan by as many as 30,000 additional troops was quite anticipated; the whiff of it had been in the air for several days. That President Obama has opted for a more robust military presence in Afghanistan is no surprise at all. He came to the White House with an articulated sense that the Afghan theatre of war had been neglected and down-graded by his predecessor in favour of Iraq, and deserved to be quickly rectified.

Within weeks of settling down in the Oval Office he had rushed 35,000 soldiers to Afghanistan — bringing the troop level to its present strength of 68,000; with this hefty addition of 30,000 more, the US military boots on the ground, in Afghanistan, would swell to nearly a hundred thousand.

That’s the number of only those in uniform. However, as ruefully reported by the non-establishment media opposed to the war in Afghanistan, there are more American combatants, sans uniform, taking into account the burgeoning ranks of mercenaries and military contractors. Critics of war are arguing that by the middle of next year, there will be as many as close to half-a-million American men in the two-war theatres of Iraq and Afghanistan.

But more serious and ominous than the numbers game is the sense which any independent observer of what Obama has been saying and doing in regard to Afghanistan would derive; and that’s that in sticking to his campaign rhetoric that the war in Afghanistan is winnable, and George W. Bush’s second-guessing of it was dead wrong, Obama is getting sucked into a quagmire.

This quagmire may not entirely be of his making. The generals and war-mongers in the Pentagon have been tugging at his sleeves and breathing down his neck for sometime, as have been the Republicans whose predilection for the use of force has been a bane of American history, especially since WWII.

There’s no doubt that by succumbing to their pressure Obama has taken a very costly insurance policy. The Pentagon cabal seems to be working on him just the way it did on President Johnson when he was cornered, in the mid-60s, to send more troops to Vietnam. By pandering to them, and to the likes of his presidential race-rival, Senator John McCain, who don’t want to hear any mention of an end-game in Afghanistan, Obama has categorically signed on to their agenda and has conceded to play ball according to their choice.

In his West Point address, Obama pooh-poohed any comparison with Vietnam and insisted he wasn’t Vietnamising the war in Afghanistan. But comparisons are quite appropriate in the way the war effort is spinning out of control and also the way this war is dividing and polarising the Americans.

War weariness among the American people is a natural phenomenon after more than eight long years of relentless conflict in not one but two countries. On top of it, the way these wars have bled the American economy the American people can’t be faulted for turning their ire toward Obama the way they did toward his inane and clueless precursor in the Oval Office. Obama’s public approval rating has dipped, for the first time since he won the presidency, to below the 50 percentage points. This should be a cause of concern to not only him but also to the Democrats in Congress. 2010 will be the year of mid-tern elections in the US and many a pundit are already predicting a rout of the Democrats.

By letting himself manipulated by the war-mongers on Afghanistan, a la Johnson on Vietnam, Obama is clearly not only raising the ante of doubts about his agenda but also opening himself to the kind of criticism that Bush had been pelted with. Obama is, unconsciously, walking the plank that doomed Bush. He’s making the war in Afghanistan as much his war as Bush had made Iraq his main war of aggression.

The choice of the military academy at West Point couldn’t be anything other than a conscious Obama effort to send a loud signal to those Americans addicted to perpetual conflict that he wasn’t a softie on war as his Republican detractors have been painting him.

But this gung-ho Obama is the antithesis of that peacenik Obama the majority Americans had voted for in November last year.

Obama, no doubt, has strived and strained to still project himself as a man firmly committed to peace by blending the stick of war with the carrots of a projected commencement of withdrawal of forces from Afghanistan, starting in July, 2011. He has also not given in entirely to the generals’ demand for an additional 45,000 troops, obviously to not ruffle the feathers too much in the peace camp.

But Obama’s calibrated nuances are more of a ruse than reality.

As far as the withdrawal of troops is concerned, there’s no deadline of completion for the process. Obama, for the record, is saying that he’d bring all the “troops home” from Afghanistan before the end of his presidency. But that could easily be seven years hence, given a likely second term for him.

As for the troop strength demanded by his generals, Obama is leaning hard on his Nato allies to make up the difference with at least 10,000 more Nato soldiers in Afghanistan. But he’s likely to be frustrated by his allies on that account: except for an ever-obliging Britain, none of the other major European allies would be inclined to stick their neck out for him.

Obama’s three-pronged strategy on Afghanistan, on the basis of which he is plunging head-long into large scale military offensive is dubious.

The first prong of his strategy hinges on containing the Taliban challenge and rolling it back. But that’s deeply flawed, given the ground realities in Afghanistan. The Taliban are in control of far more territory today than they were ever before in the eight years of American military presence in Afghanistan. With his own 100,000 troops and nearly half of that number from Nato, Obama could, at best, hope to keep them out of major cities, which would still be open to Taliban-inspired sabotage and acts of terror, as so amply demonstrated in recent months.

Knowing the limits of military performance, Obama’s men are already talking, behind the scene, with the Taliban, with some input from the Saudis. The idea is to cull the ‘bad Taliban’ and do business with the ‘good ones.’ Taliban like Mullah Zaeef, former ambassador to Pakistan, are being seen as ‘kosher’ to cut a deal with. However, the Taliban supremo, Mullah Omer, is believed to be reluctant to play ball as long as the American and their allies are present on the Afghan soil.

Mullah Omer could well be reflecting the sense of most ordinary Afghans to whom any invader, from Alexander-the-Great to Bush-the-insignificant, is a trespasser on their land and untrustworthy to do business with.

The second prong of Obama’s strategy is equally flawed. He’d want the Afghan army to be trained to a level where it could take on the burden of managing their combat burden. But the Afghan army is already deeply suborned by the Taliban and the annual rate of desertion in it is as high as 25 per cent.

Obama also covets a corruption-free Afghan government under Karzai. But that’s hoping for the moon. His rhetoric of “no blank cheque” for the Afghan government may have sounded good to his domestic audience but wouldn’t win many friends among the Afghan kleptomaniacs.

The third Obama prong concerns Pakistan, to whose leaders and people he is offering a ‘partnership’ long beyond the guns in Afghans have fallen silent, because this war is as much Pakistan’s, in his vision, as anybody else’s. That may be adrenalin to a beleaguered Zardari but is empty rhetoric to a layman because Obama still expects Pakistan to ‘do more.’

One can’t be unmindful of the fact that Obama doesn’t define the contours of his partnership with Pakistan but expects a Pakistan that has been paying an exorbitant price for its gratuitous ‘alliance’ with US in Afghanistan to still shoulder a burden far greater than its capacity. The implied threat in Obama’s discourse about the ‘known sanctuaries and intentions’ of the terrorists on the Pakistan side of the border can’t be lost on any Pakistani with a sense of national dignity and honour.

Obama is clearly a man-in-hurry, if not in distress. He’s fast-forwarding additional troops to Afghanistan because he wants quick results, while his supporters and detractors alike want ‘positive’ results.

Therein is a Catch-22 situation for him because of varying interpretation of ‘positive result’ for each group. To his supporters, a positive result means a quick end to the war and withdrawal with alacrity. But to his detractors, a positive outcome is outright victory over the Taliban and annihilation of Al Qaeda. Obama is proverbially caught between the rock and a hard place.

But think of the subtle irony ahead: Obama will be heading to Oslo, next week, to accept the Nobel Peace Prize conferred on him, gratuitously. Peace prize for a man who has just made a huge leap forward on the war front!

thank you sir for these useful articles.my question to you is that y pakistan does not create a hype against india when we get proofs of indian conspiracies in pakistan??as they did in case of ajmal kasab.

Salam
Well its seems like our faulty policies inside the country are creating much confusion and we as a member of International community have not been able to defend our stand in this War on Terror.
We the actual victims have somehow become the perpetrators of terror?? its sad and the higher cohorts are busy in all too irrelevant issues. There is evidence that India is using its presence in Afghanistan to send insurgents in Balochistan, but why we have left these pockets for them to use and destabilize Pakistan in the first place. We have not been able to project our case as strongly as we should have. While on the other hand India is pretty much successful in conveying to the world that they are victims like the case of Mumbai attacks, through their baseless nefarious propaganda, they are making most of the volatile and precarious situation in Pakistan.
Internal or domestic weakness and fissures give room for extraneous elements to create chaos and terror, that’s pretty much what India is doing right now.


Regards

]

Its 101% true that zardari is making too many enemies.It is time to realise the reality and act sensibly.
More on Zaradari at :
More on Zardari

JAMIAT-ULEMA-I-HIND passed a resolution on November 2 urging Muslims in India not to recite Vande Matram, the country’s national anthem, on the ground that some of its verses are against the tenets of Islam. A similar fatwa was also passed by Darul Ulum Deoband three years ago when this controversy had raised its head for the first time. Incidentally, the same organisations have also passed a fatwa that terrorism was against the spirit of Islam.

Hell broke loose in certain circles with the passage of this resolution. The self-appointed custodians of Indian nationalism and some sections of media began attacking the JUH and Muslims in general saying that this ‘fatwa’ was unpatriotic and against national unity. Earlier, Shiv Sena had in an open threat told Indian Muslims that ‘Is Desh Mein Rahna hai to Vande Matram Kahna Hoga.’ So, the Muslims are finding themselves helpless between the two edicts, one asking them not to sing Vande Matram and the other asking them to leave the country if they do not sing it.

There is, however, another opinion espoused by moderates. Most of the Muslim participants in the television talk shows and Muslim leaders, including the minister for minority affairs, Salman Khursheed and some Muslim intellectuals are of the view that that the JUH resolution or fatwa was not acceptable to them, nor should it be given any importance because the Indian constitution has settled the matter long ago: the first two stanzas of the song, which are free from the Hindu imageries, are to be sung by the Muslims. Then, another school of thought asserts that the singing of any song cannot be imposed on the people as that violates the freedom of religion guaranteed by the constitution.

So, there are three shades of opinion on the song issue. One, Muslim orthodox-conservatives like Jamiat-Ulema-i-Hind are against singing the song on religious grounds. Moderates amongst both Muslims and Hindus do not consider someone’s singing or not singing it is a big issue. In fact, majority of Muslims are reported to be of the opinion that they have no problem in singing the song and will continue to sing it. On the other extreme is the RSS fatwa, intimidating and assertive, that the song must be sung.

The song has a complex history. It was written by Bankim Chandra Chatterjee who later made it part of his novel Anand Math. This novel has strong anti-Muslim rhetoric. The song was very popular with a section of society but the Muslim League strongly objected to the song on grounds that it compares India with goddess Durga. Islam being a monotheistic religion does not recognise any god or goddess other than Allah. Many others belonging to monotheistic religions also had a problem with this song. In 1937, the Song Committee of the Indian National Congress with Nehru and Maulana Abul Kalam Azad amongst its members selected Jana Gana Mana as the national anthem and picked up first two stanzas of Vande Matram as national song.

The Supreme Court had also to deal with this issue. School children from the ‘Jehovah's Witnesses faith’ had refused to sing the Vande Matram because they claimed their religion forbade them to sing it. As a result, the school expelled the recalcitrant students. The matter went to the Supreme Court, which observed that a secular court cannot enquire into the correctness or otherwise of religious beliefs and that not singing this song due to religious beliefs was not against Indian constitution. The ground on which the court gave its verdict was the assessment whether the belief is genuinely and conscientiously held by a sizable section of the community, and that the belief is not opposed to public order and morality. The Supreme Court struck down the students' expulsion as violative of their freedom of religion guaranteed by Article 25 of the constitution and students were taken back.

Soli Sorabjee, an eminent lawyer, takes the cue from Justice Chinnappa Reddy to explain the rationale of the judgment: "Our tradition teaches tolerance; our philosophy preaches tolerance; our constitution practises tolerance; let us not dilute it". The controversy has been raging since 2006 when the UPA government called for singing of the song in schools.

Even the Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee had asked Sikhs not to sing Vande Matram, but most of the Sikhs defied that and continued singing the song. One of the most touching rendition of Vande Matram, Maa Tujhe Salaam has come from none other than A.R. Rahman, the celebrated Indian music maestro.

One may note that Jamiat-Ulema-i-Hind is one such organisation which stood solidly with the concept of composite Indian nationalism, opposing India’s partition, rejecting the two-nation theory. And there are several shades of opinion amongst Muslims. Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madni and many other Muslim clerics went along with the idea of singing first two stanzas of the song. Legally while constitution recognises Vande Matram as a national song, it also gives Indians the freedom of religion, and the Supreme Court judgments have struck down the extreme position that Anthem-Song must be sung.

Mahatma Gandhi, the father of Indian nation, also came to the conclusion that Jana Gana Mana and not Vande Matram, should be the national anthem. Some reports say that this view was not acceptable to Nathuram Godse to the extent that he made this as one of the reasons to assassinate Gandhi.

If India is able to create conditions under which minorities can live with security, dignity and equity, such ‘fatwas’ will be of little relevance. We have seen that in the case of the Sikh community, the mandate of SPGC, was totally ignored. And even now most of the Muslims are hardly impressed by this JUH fatwa.

THE latest report from Transparency International on corruption perception index 2009 (CPI) and the disembodiment of NRO warrants a brief discussion about corruption in Pakistan. The word corruption is used to mean different things in different countries but interaction of power and wealth remains as the core issue. In most cases, it refers to use of public office for private gain, engaging in under-handed private enrichment.

A typical example is where members of the ruling elite at the top siphon off legitimate income to personal accounts through commissions, bribes and shares, etc. usually held abroad. This would deprive the state not only of the legitimate revenue but also would serve as a capital export, a drain on balance of payments.

The above definition can be extended to explain interaction of power and wealth at various levels of the society, especially, bureaucracy and the business sector. Economists expound this kind of corruption by referring to rent-seeking pursuits created by market imperfections.

Whether it is what may be called undeserved personal gains derived by bureaucrats and businessmen or the state treasury manipulated by the ruling class at the top, the consciousness of individuals about corruption is the product of evolution of democracy in modern times.

In the old days, the kings and absolute rulers, or the dictators, would pass on to their subjects what they considered was necessary to do and hold on to what they deemed as their right to enjoy. The power and perks would be showered by them at their discretion. These rulers directly exercised their responsibility for what social values to chose. In today’s world there are prototypes that would fit this description, but are developmental with pseudo- patrimonial political economy.

China with its ‘one country, two systems’ deserves a separate discussion.

With the rise of democracy, the awareness of the individual about the question of responsibility of public office as a service for the general good has been taking hold among the people at large. This point gives us a clue to the perceived or real causes and consequences, as well as remedies to control corruption. In other words, there is a direct relation between the system of government based on rule of law and the effectiveness of governance. When the government in power is weak and/or corrupt, not much can be expected from it, notwithstanding all the paraphernalia of accountability established by it.

This scenario would present a challenging situation. Would a vigorous focus on corruption, for example, cause political instability and open the door to undemocratic rule which may be lurking in the trenches? This question has been raised with regard to the current situation facing Pakistan. My argument would be that this contention is based on a totally false paradigm. Tolerance of corruption at high places is not an option; the need is to improve governance, by strengthening parliament, the executive and the judiciary. Those who choose to become rulers in a democracy, for them it is a matter of image of integrity and of impeccable reputation. We need to pursue this question a step further.

If we examine the relevant data, we notice that the developed countries enjoy lower CPI and higher GDP. Similarly for the least developed countries the reverse is the case. The countries in the middle, however, present a mixed picture. It would be hasty to suggest from these observations that corruption might play a positive role in promoting economic growth. And some observers do use examples of East Asian countries to support this connection. The situation is more complex than that, however.

When Park Chung-Hee took over the government in South Korea in 1961, for example, he embarked upon a comprehensive plan to promote economic growth in the country, mixing state capitalism with free enterprise, i.e., private conglomerates, chaebols, and public corporations, supplemented by export policy for labour-intensive goods. There were reports about corruption lubricating relations between public and private enterprises but the evidence remained sketchy.

The main point, however, is that corruption in South Korea could not have been more than a temporary phenomenon. There were other factors which served as effective checks and balances such as strong judiciary, an active parliament, and president directly elected by the people and sensitive to public opinion and one of the most literate populations in the world. There is an irony in this story that in 1961 South Korea was lagging behind Pakistan in economic growth and its economists were using Pakistan as a model for their country.

But similarity with Pakistan is sadly mistaken, with literacy rate one of the lowest in Asia, and with corruption a way of life for sixty years of the country’s existence, since the days of Malik Ghulam Mohammad, the first finance minister of the country turned Governor General by miracle of musical chairs played by the ruling elite including himself. (‘I will not resign; they will have to carry my dead body.’ And that is how his era came to an end).

The fact is that corruption would affect efficiency in the economy, as the ‘cost’ of transactions would increase. The tax-GDP ratio would remain low as bribes would tend to eat up legitimate revenues. The rules and regulations imposed by a weak government would increase opportunities for rent-seeking. ‘Speed money’ would be used to create further delays in moving files, instead of expediting them, as pointed out by Gunnar Myrdal (Asian Drama).

As for the effects of corruption on economic growth, no studies are available with respect to Pakistan. The data for some other countries indicate that there is a relation between real GDP per capita and CPI, similar to the general ranking as mentioned above. It is negative; countries with lower per capita income tend to have higher corruption. Similarly, corruption seems to have a significant negative impact on the ratio of investment to GDP. And it has also been suggested that corruption has negative impact on the flow of direct foreign investment. (Information drawn from various IMF Working Papers).

What can be done to improve governance in the country? I would briefly outline my response to this question by broadly following a model adapted from the work of Susan Rose-Ackerman of Yale University. Corruption depends on organisation of both electoral and legislative powers and the extent to which wealthy seek benefits from the political system. Democratically elected leaders of political parties would tend to be sensitive to grass roots opinions; president with defined powers directly elected by the people would act within the limits of his mandate; independent judiciary would interpret the law and protect the constitution; the electoral reforms would promote democracy and increase checks and balances on excessive use of powers and on deviations from the criteria of integrity required of the elected officials; and the standards set by the political elite would also establish a framework for bureaucracy, for the military, and for the policemen.

There is no guarantee that democratic reforms can completely solve the problem of corruption. The electoral system, for example, can be vulnerable to special interest groups. But the experience of other countries tells us that corruption can be effectively controlled. The PPP alliance government under President Zardari, therefore, faces a serious challenge. It has to be concerned about its image which is marred by the fact that a majority of senior members of government have been the direct beneficiaries of the NRO, including himself. And he has been very reluctant to re-establish the 1973 constitution and to accelerate the pace of democratic transition.

One cannot but notice the incongruity of the situation that the ‘pro-West’ Zardari government is under siege from the opposition and is lacking in moral standing to cope with challenges facing Pakistan. But then the imperial nations play the game about corruption by different rules at home than abroad: promote NRO if it fulfils their foreign policy objectives.

MANMOHAN Singh’s Washington visit (November 22-24) was both substantive and symbolic in terms of pomp and protocol. However, no major grounds were broken between the two counties. It was Bush’s 2006 visit to New Dehli that had paved the way for a big boost in bilateral cooperation and collaboration. The landmark agreement, however, was the civil nuclear cooperation of July 18, 2005.

How India has developed strategic relationship with US makes an interesting study. Having been a friend and ally of Soviet Union for half a century, India has quietly but significantly shifted its priorities and polices. Just within a decade India has became an “indispensable” and “natural ally” of the US without disrupting its friendly relations with Moscow.

Towards the end of the 20th century, the demise of communism and breakup of Soviet Union changed the political landscape, internationally, and provided a strong stimulus to the US and India to forge closer relationship. India’s phenomenal economic growth and political stability were other contributing factors. Bush administration reckoned the benefits of courting India as a bulwark against China and an economic bonanza for US investors. Two events — agreement on nuclear cooperation in 2005 and President Bush visit to New Delhi in March 2006 were the catalyst. The visit underlined the key areas of mutual cooperation.

Manmohan Singh’s visit had no major issue on the agenda. He explained the purpose of his visit was “to reaffirm the shared value of democracy, pluralism, rule of law, respect of fundamental human freedom. We have created a partnership based upon these principles and my visit is to build upon those successes. We seek to broaden and deepen our strategic partnership”. President Obama was equally effusive. In his welcoming remarks he mentioned India as a “rising and responsible global power” and the bilateral relations as “one of the defining partnership of 21st century”.

Besides its strategic importance the nuclear agreement was seen as a major economic gain for Washington. India plans to import eight nuclear reactors by 2012 estimated to cost $20billion, and US expects a fair share in the deal. America’s increasing fondness for India can not only be seen in the context of war against terror but is also a recognition of its increasingly credible role in the world affairs. Bush had in 2005 declared US intension to help India become “a major world power in the 21st century”.

The salient features of the historic accord are: 1. India will place 14 — 22 nuclear power reactors under international safeguards; 2. India currently has 15 nuclear power reactors that produce 3,310 megawatts of electricity and seven others under construction that would increase output to 6,730 megawatts; 3. Six of the fourteen slated for civilian designation, including two under construction, are already under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards. The rest will be deemed civilian under a phased programme to be completed by 2014.; 4. The other power reactors will be classified as part of India’s military programme.

It was agreed that if one country stops supply of nuclear fuel, India will be able to access fuel from another country. Washington also accepted India’s position that New Delhi would not place an experimental plutonium-based fast breeder power reactor programme under outside inspection. Plutonium can also be used to make nuclear weapons.

The deal places a “credible” number of power plants, some of which have a dual use in its weapons programme, under IAEA safeguards in exchange for being allowed to buy civilian nuclear technology which has been denied by the 45-member Nuclear Suppliers group since 1974 when India first tested nuclear weapons.

New Delhi accepted international inspections of its civilian nuclear facilities in “perpetuity” if India was assured permanent nuclear fuel supplies; this was conceded by the US. India insisted at its discretion to deem future reactors civil or military, a proposal Washington accepted. At no point was India’s strategic nuclear programme discussed.

The nuclear agreement has conferred the status of a nuclear power on India and accepted it as the hegemon in the region. This agreement has been further reinforced by growing economic links and shared values of liberal democracy and a responsible nuclear power.

Obama administration was expected to herald a change in foreign policy, but in terms of its relations with India, it is following the recommendations made by five former US secretaries of states — Henry Kissinger, James Baker, Warren Christopher, Madeline Albright and Colin Powell. In a roundtable discussion entitled bi-partisan advice to the next administration, just before the November elections, the five discussed in detail the terms of engagement with India and how to proceed to expand this strategic relationship.

The following seven-point agenda for the Obama Administration emerged from the roundtable discussions, with comprehensive notes explaining the range and impact of each: strengthen strategic ties; increased strategic cooperation in counter-terrorism; underpinning the strategic partnership with deeper commercial ties; pursue a broader nuclear dialogue as a follow up of the obligations under the strategic nuclear accord; higher education collaboration; support to India's quest for permanent membership of the Security Council; collaborate in the neighbourhood and advance peace process between India and Pakistan.

The engagement agenda also recommended that improvement of relations with India should not be a part of China-containment policy but a cooperative triangle. These recommendations cover all aspects of bilateral relations and with the stamp of approval from the five most experienced top diplomats and foreign policy experts across the bipartisan spectrum now constitute the basic framework of US policy under the Obama Administration towards India, acknowledging it as a partner in global affairs.

The emerging relationship between Washington and Dehli needs to be watched by our policy planners. Pakistan’s relationship with the US is based primarily on its role in the war against terror. Obama’s new strategy and the surge of troops would put Pakistan under serious stress and may create crisis in their relationship already deficient in mutual trust. The circumstances demand a thorough revision of our foreign policy and redefining of relations with the US.