DICTATOR KEJRIWAL HAS HIS WAY

By Vikas Khanna

Finally, the “dictator” Arvind Kejriwal has his way!

A day before a sting carried out on Kejriwal quoted him as saying : “The two (Prashant Bhushan and Yogendra Yadav) would have been kicked out had they been in any party)”, the founding members alongwith two others were literally booted out by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) from the national executive.

A badly-scripted drama went horribly wrong. There was nothing constitutional about the meeting. Kejriwal came, addressed the meeting for 35 minutes, and then left.  The message was clear. Its my way or the highway.  The other side represented by Bhushan and Yadav was not allowed to speak and both the leaders were booed and their supporters manhandled. Within a few minutes, a hastily moved resolution was passed to expel Bhushan, Yadav, Anand Kumar and Ajit Jha from the national executive. It all went the way Kejriwal wanted. The duo was forced out from the national executive with complete humiliation.

That Kejriwal was in no mood even to listen to the dissenting voices speaks volumes about the arrogant attitude of the person who till a few months ago appeared to be a man next door. Does the former bureaucrat consider himself to be above the party or he thinks that he is the party? There is no doubt that he was the face of the party. Therefore, a larger responsibility lay on him to ensure that he carried along all voices within the party. But the way he has behaved in his second avatar as chief minister of Delhi – be it restricting the media (which, incidentally, made him what he is today) or resorting to complete turnarounds on the lofty promises that he made during his first stint as chief minister. Unfortunately, he is riding the proverbial coattails of an established name and probably fooling people.

While political opponents would savour with absolute relish the rumblings within the AAP, one wished the situation would not have turned ugly and come to such a sorry pass. It reflects the nascent party in a very poor light that it could not keep its house in order within months of coming to power with a brute majority.

As charges fly thick and fast, it is difficult to point out who is speaking truth and who is lying? But one thing is certain that there is trust deficit between the two factions which seem to have widened in the last couple of months.  But what is surprising  what could be the trigger which created so much of animosity between Kejriwal and Bhushan-Yadav duo?

The charges leveled by Kejriwal and his cronies that the duo rebels conspired for the defeat of the party appear to be shallow. The contribution of Bhushan and Yadav was equally important as that of Kejriwal and others in building the party from nowhere.

On the contrary, the issues raised by Bhushan and Yadav seem to hold water as they talk of transparency, accountability and internal Lokpal among others. But whether they used the issues as a ruse to some kind of bargaining as alleged by Kejriwal camp is something hard to digest.  

The first casualty of the latest drama is veteran social activist Medha Patkar who decided to quit the party in protest against the way the two founding leaders were publicly humiliated. More than a dozen activists have already left the party alleging high-handedness of Kejriwal in running the affairs of the party. And if the party continues to be run the way Kejriwal wants, then similar like-minded people will have no option but to bid goodbye to the party which they built with toil and tears.

AAP NOT A VIRGIN PARTY AS ONE THOUGHT IT TO BE..

By Vikas Khanna

One hoped the two-year-old Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) to be virgin, untouched by sharks of corruption and personal ambitions. But alas, that was not to be. It turned out to be no different from any other political party. Political machinations and chicanery, common in other parties, have subsumed the new born party. That the internecine battles would become public so soon was something least expected of a party, which piggyrode on the promises of providing an honest, transparent and corruption-free administration. It would be too early to be judgmental on the track record of its administration skills, but the way dirty politics is being played out by various actors in the party smacks of a power-hungry organization, each demanding its pound of flesh. A few gentlemen are out to deflower the party before it could be blossomed.

In the midst of allegations and counter-allegations by two groups, nobody outside the periphery of “Dirty Picture” knows absolute truth. The common man, disenchanted with the ongoing murky politics by various political parties, saw a hope when the movement under the banner of “India Against Corruption” decided to take a political plunge to cleanse the way the politics was being conducted in the country since independence.

 But once the people of Delhi decided to give the nascent party a second chance to form a government, disorder became the order of the day. Some of the tallest leaders within the party, who helped it grow in just a short span of two years, were sidelined. A concerted attempt was made to oust the duo of senior lawyer Prashant Bhushan and psephologist-cum-social activist Yogendra Yadav from the party. The party’s Political Affairs Committee (PAC) armed with supporters of Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal packed them off by a humiliating vote even though the two leaders offered to resign from it.

So far, Kejriwal has not come out in the open to make public his stand. He has been firing from the shoulders of his cronies. But as things stand today and whatever little has come out in the public domain, it becomes clear that Kejriwal wants a complete stranglehold on the party, brooking no dissent. If some rebels, according to pro-Kejriwal gang, are to be believed, the chief minister seems to be engineering a coup against Bhushan and Yadav so that he can have a free rein in the party.  With both the groups making wild and largely unsubstantiated charges against each other, it is difficult to sift out truth from falsehood.

But why is Kejriwal silent so far? There are some questions which he alone can answer. Why is that so many leaders, who were once associated with the party before it was formed, decided to leave? And the charges against Kejriwal are serious. Most of the people, including Shazia AImi, Captain G. R. Gopinath, Vinod Kumar Binny, Ashok Agarwal, Surajit Dasgupta, Madhu Bhaduri, Nutan Thakur, Maulana Maqsood Ali Kazmi and not to mention Anjali Damania, quit the party citing differences with the party leadership and lack of internal democracy in the party. There has to be some truth behind their resignations. Were all of them who decided to quit the party wrong and Kejriwal and his cronies right?

It should be recalled that former police officer and social activist Kiran Bedi, who in the initial days of movement against corruption had worked closely with Kejriwal, decided to part ways with him when he decided to turn the people’s movement into a political party. Even his guru, the anti-corruption crusader Anna Hazare, also disproved of his action. But it became clear that Kejriwal had political ambitions.  And he created a history by returning to Delhi with a thumping majority with very little space for the opposition. In the process, the Congress, which ruled Delhi for uninterrupted 15 years, bit the dust by getting no seat. The BJP, banking on the charisma of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, too, was bruised badly with three seats out of 70 in its kitty.

But all said and done, the latest developments don’t bode well for the party. The people had high hopes of the party and looked upon it as an alternative to the two main parties – the Congress and the BJP. It would be a sad commentary if personal ambitions and egos consume this party. The party was born out of a movement. Lakhs of volunteers joined it in the hope of a better future. Nothing should be done to breach their trust. Otherwise, the same people will turn their back on it.   

WHY MUFTI IS IN A HURRY TO WITHDRAW AFSPA?

BY VIKAS KHANNA

Last two days, two terror attacks in Kashmir. And more to follow! The attacks, which come after a lull of about three months, should ring alarm bells to the authorities in Kashmir, particularly Chief Minister Mufti Mohammed Sayeed, who has been championing the cause of withdrawal of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act or AFSPA.

One can understand the “uncalled” for hurry with which Mufti wants to implement his agenda. Revocation of AFSPA, release of political prisoners and simultaneous talks with separatist Hurriyat Conference and Pakistan were the issues core to him and which fetched him political dividends in last year’s state elections. Mufti would do well to understand that he has got the mandate only in Kashmir valley on the issues close to his heart. The views of people of Jammu and Ladakh can’t be brushed aside while implementing his agendas.

It should be noted that the number and intensity of attacks will increase in the coming months when snow in the upper reaches of Kashmir starts melting. This is the time when militants with active support of Pakistan army and its intelligence unit, ISI, begin a major push to infiltrate.

At a time when Pakistan continues with its policy of bleeding India, the state should not be seen as adamant to pursue its agenda which runs against national interests. There is no doubt that the controversial act has generated a heated debate with two extreme view points. Human rights activists, who dub AFSPA as “draconian”, allege that the act empowers the security forces to indulge in arbitrary killings, torture, inhuman treatment and enforced disappearances of innocent people. They say there is an urgent need to revoke the Act since it is prone to abuse. There is no doubt that there are some allegations of excesses against the Indian army.

But the army defends the Act saying it would not be possible for it to operate without it in states like Jammu and Kashmir and northeast.  While it does admit to some lapses on the part of some personnel, the Indian army says it has dealt with human rights abuse cases whenever found to be true.  

There is no doubt that the arguments in favour of the withdrawal of the Act far outweigh those in support of it. But the immediate withdrawal of the Act may boomerang if state police are not equipped to deal with militancy-related cases. It has been found that the police, which is mainly tasked to maintain law and order, is found wanting at major operations against militants.  The oft-repeated comments by the new chief minister that time has come to withdraw the Act from some places which have not reported any militant-related activity for the past few years need to be taken with a pinch of salt. Mufti’s statement on Friday that “we will start gradual process of scrapping of AFSPA” was greeted with a militant attack on the same day in Rajbagh police station in Kathua in which seven people, including two security personnel and two militants, were killed. The militants followed it up with another attack on an army camp in the Samba district the following day.

Mufti would do well not to make it a political issue and rather leave the matter to security forces who are risking their lives in battling insurgency. Time is still not ripe to lift the AFSPA from the state when militants with active support from across the border continue to target Indian security personnel and key government installations.

BJP-PDP honeymoon turns sour

By Vikas Khanna

A series of faux pas by the new chief minister of Jammu and Kashmir, Mufti Mohammed Sayeed, has put a question mark over the survival of the People’s Democratic Party-Bharatiya Janata Party alliance, which was majorly born out of political opportunism rather than any ideological belief.

Within ten days of the swearing-in of the new government after two months of hectic parleys, serious differences have come to the fore, with some BJP leaders even threatening to sacrifice the alliance in the national interest.The BJP today finds itself in the dock after the unilateral decision of the Mufti government to release hardcore separatist Masarat Alam from jail. The decision, though well within the rights of the state government after various courts permitted him bail, however, has caused major embarrassment to the BJP, which swears by its nationalist credentials.

The issue gave fodder to the rudderless opposition Congress party, which alongwith other like-minded parties, has forced adjournment of parliament several times, severely derailing the government’s business agenda. The BJP’s alliance partner, Shiv Sena, added insult by demanding a case of treason against Sayeed as it felt that Alam’s release was a threat to the nation.

Forced into a corner, Prime Minister Narendra Modi had no option but to condemn the state government’s action, but by then, the damage had already been done. Three days of dilly-dallying by the BJP spurred the PDP to announce the release of the remaining political prisoners who had completed their sentences. With the BJP keeping mum, an impression was gaining ground that it was left with the only option of either pulling out of the alliance or owning up to the anti-national move.

There is no doubt that Mufti had stumped BJP strategists. With Mufti repeatedly testing the patience of the BJP, the latter decided to issue a stern warning to the state government, which backed down immediately.

Sensing the BJP’s rising temper, the PDP government released a statement that no political prisoner would be released in future without consulting its alliance partner. The latest is that both the parties have decided to form a screening panel which will decide the release of political prisoners. The new arrangement is again a victory for the PDP.

Both the parties are heaving a sigh of relief over a temporary truce being achieved and the alliance being saved. But the BJP is being seen as the biggest loser since it decided to join hands with the PDP. Not only did it have to eschew its most ardent demand of revocation of Article 370, on which it had built its entire campaign in the state, it is also being seen as pandering to the PDP in resuming talks with Pakistan on which it had taken such a tough stand. Even without getting any encouraging signals from Pakistan, the Modi government has launched a political as well as cricket diplomacy to break bread with Pakistan.

It should be recalled that the alliance had started showing signs of strain within hours of the political marriage. One was expecting birth pangs, but that the troubles will start so soon even before the marriage was consummated, only confirms fears that the two are not meant for each other. The two month-long courtship leading to a hurried and a largely put up marriage with teething issues buried under the carpet is something beyond logic. Its survival is bound to be short-lived. That the alliance could not even enjoy the honeymoon speaks volumes about its inherent contradictions.

The warmth in the hugs between Modi and Sayeed during the latter’s swearing-in ceremony as the new chief minister melted within hours even as Kashmir Valley was experiencing fresh rains and snowfall plummeting temperatures to sub-zero levels. Hardly had Modi dashed out of Kashmir, Sayeed lobbed a bombshell. The peaceful elections and the high voter turn out, we were told, was not because of the efforts of the country’s Election Commission and the security forces. Had Pakistan, militants fighting the Indian rule and separatists, who have lost their significance, not remained quiet, the democratic process in the state would not have succeeded!

All said and done, the recent utterances by Sayeed are nothing but a carefully-drafted agenda of the PDP to pander to its domestic constituency which does not gel with the ideology of the BJP, which fancies its chances of expanding its scope in the state. That the BJP registered the maximum gains in the Hindu-majority Jammu region and drew a blank in the Muslim-majority Kashmir Valley sums up the equations. It is clear that the Kashmr Valley views the BJP with suspicion. It remains to be seen how the two parties can continue their unholy alliance and further their respective agendas.

WHY SOME IN WEST DO NOT WANT CEASEFIRE IN UKRAINE TO SUCCEED

BY VIKAS KHANNA

The European Union is in a dilemma.  It just does not have any roadmap to confront Russia as Ukraine continues to burn. About 6,000 people have been killed since rebels backed by Russia launched an armed struggle in Ukraine last year after Moscow-backed president Viktor Yanukovich was forced to flee in the wake of massive protests and the installation of a new pro-European government. Since then there has been a tug of war between Russia and the West. Both the West and the Kremlin have their own agendas in Ukraine. Both accuse each other of destablising Ukraine.  While, Russia says it is the West which is pursuing a dangerous policy in the region, the West accuses Russia of orchestrating events in the east. 

Even as the ceasefire signed in Minsk last month appears to be holding despite sporadic violations, comments made by Britain’s foreign minister Philip Hammond and NATO military commander U. S. General Philip Breedlove threaten to contaminate the environment. Will somebody please tell Mr Hammond that diplomacy does not work on ifs and buts?  Mr Hammond jumped the gun by commenting that the European Union would prepare possible new sanctions on Russia if the Minsk ceasefire agreement is broken?

 

If that was not enough then super hawk NATO military commander General Breedlove went a step ahead and made exaggerated and unfounded claims that the self-defence forces, with the assistance of Russia, have prepared “over a thousand combat vehicles” and “sophisticated air defence, battalions of artillery” in the south-east of the country. He went on to add “What is clear is that right now it is not getting better, it is getting worse every day.” Interestingly, Germany, which is part of the NATO, slammed the commander terming his comments as “dangerous propaganda”. The unnecessary and hawkish comment came on a day when the OSCE (Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe), which is monitoring the truce, said there was a decline of ceasefire violations and both pro-Russia rebels and Ukraine government were removing heavy weapons from the front line.

Does one then induce that both the United States and Britain have some designs to thwart diplomatic efforts of Germany and France which not only staved off the crisis but helped pave the way for a ceasefire last month? Hammond has gone on record saying that Britain does not have immediate plans to supply Kiev with weapons but it is “not ruling anything out for the future” as the situation in east Ukraine remains “dynamic”. It should be recalled that NATO military commander General Breedlove’s comments last month that the West should use “all the tools in the tool bag” had created a flutter as several European leaders were opposed to sending heavy weaponry to Ukraine.

NATO has also pointed finger at Russian President Vladimir Putin for the murder of Kremlin critic Boris Nemtsov. Last week, NATO deputy secretary general Alexander Vershbow told members of parliament from EU countries at a conference in Riga that “President Putin’s aim seems to be to turn Ukraine into a failed state and to suppress and discredit alternative voices in Russia.” It has not been known who pulled the trigger on Nemtsov. Kremlin has denied any involvement saying the killing was a provocation to discredit Putin.

Interestingly, there are deep divisions within the European Union also whether to slap more sanctions on Russia or even to extend the existing ones. While Britain, Poland and the Baltic states favour more and tougher sanctions, some other members, including Italy, Austria, Cyprus and Greece have blinkered view about sanctions. There is no doubt that while sanctions have started bleeding Russia, the European Union is also feeling the heat as several members of the bloc are dependent on Russia for their energy needs. 

As things stand today, there does not seem an immediate solution to the crisis. With suspicion running deep between Russia and the West, it is highly unlikely that any of the parties will climb down from their respective positions. However, it is imperative that the hostilities do not escalate further and attempts are made to maintain peace in the region. A permanent solution can be found only if there is a lasting peace. (ENDS)