IN RELEASING HAFIZ SAEED, PAKISTAN CHALLENGES INDIA AND US

 Pakistan has been a reluctant player in the global war against terrorism. This is not something which is not known to the world. But the frequent flip-flops by world powers have only emboldened Pakistan to carry out with its state policy of sponsoring terrorism with impunity. With unflinching support from its all-weather ally China, which has often misused its position of veto power at the Security Council, Pakistan does not care too hoots to reported threats or warnings. Pakistan has once again thumbed its nose to India and the United States by releasing terror mastermind Hafiz Saeed from house arrest.

The Desi Times

Pakistan may fend off criticism by saying that it is the court which has decided to free him and not the government. But it surely cannot escape blame for not presenting its case properly in the court, facilitating Saeed’s release from house arrest.  In fact, India has presented voluminous evidences to Pakistan for his role in the deadly 2008 Mumbai attacks. Pakistan’s feeble defence that Saeed’s release could invite economic sanctions did not cut ice with the court.

 Hafiz Saeed’s release is no doubt a setback for India, but it also sets Pakistan on a collision course with the United States which has announced a $10 million bounty on his head over the 2008 Mumbai attack that killed 166 people, including six Americans. It should be recalled that the United States Department of the Treasury had designated Saeed as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist under executive order 13224 in May 2008 before the Mumbai attacks happened. And a month later the November 26, 2008 Mumbai attacks, Saeed was also individually designated by the United Nations under UNSCR 1267. Ironically, Saeed had been moving freely in Pakistan ranting against India and the United States for more than eight years before his so-called house arrest in January this year. That Pakistan has allowed him to carry on with his anti-Kashmir agenda speaks volumes about its so-called seriousness as far as the war against terrorism is concerned.

Had the US been really serious about Saeed, it could have easily put pressure on Pakistan to act. But Saeed is a lesser threat to the US in comparison to India. That explains the reason why the US is not matching its words with action. The case in point is al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden who was smoked out from his safe compound of Abbotabad in Pakistan's Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province in May 2011 by the US elite forces.  The US had named Laden as the chief conspirator of the deadly September 11, 2001 attacks.

The US announced the bounty on Saeed in 2012 for information leading to his arrest and conviction four years after he was designated as a global terrorist. But the leader of Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD), which has been a front for the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) militant group, had been roaming free and giving hatred speeches against India and the US. While it took nearly 10 years for the United States to locate and kill Laden, Saeed has presented himself before the media and the people of Pakistan several times. If the US wanted, it could have easily eliminated Saeed. Who is playing the joke as far as bounty on Saeed is concerned? Pakistan or the United States, or both! The US reacted to Saeed’s release by making a supine statement. “The Pakistani government should make sure that he is arrested and charged for his crimes,” U.S. State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said.

It was only after India launched a major diplomatic drive against Pakistan for allowing the release of Sayeed that the US tempered its language the next day. A White House statement warned of repercussions for US-Pakistan relations and for Pakistan’s global reputation unless it took action to detain and charge Sayeed. Unlike the US State Department, the White House statement was very critical of Pakistan and warned that the relations between the two countries depended largely on the latter’s conduct. The White House said Pakistan’s failure to charge Saeed sent “a deeply troubling message about Pakistan’s commitment to (combating) international terrorism,” adding that it also was counter to Pakistan’s claim that it did not provide sanctuary to militants.

Unlike his predecessor Barack Obama, President Donald Trump has been vociferous in his criticism against Pakistan for its failure to take action against militants engineering attacks on Afghanistan and India from its safe sanctuaries. “We can no longer be silent about Pakistan’s safe havens for terrorist organisations,” Trump said while unveiling his administration’s policy for south Asia in August, adding that Pakistan would have “much to lose” if it did not comply. But such warnings have had little effect on Pakistan.

There is no doubt that Pakistan has, of late, fallen out of favour of the United States which accuses it of pocketing billions of dollars meant for anti-militant operations against Afghanistan. The US is fighting a war in Afghanistan against the very militants who have been trained and financed by Pakistan, and who continue to find safe sanctuary in Pakistan after carrying out attacks in Afghanistan.  The ties between the US and Pakistan have worsened further after the later moved closer to China in the last few years.

slate.com

If President Trump really wants to live up to his image and his words, then he should decide once and for all whether to continue ties with a country which has been playing a double game as far as the war against terrorism is concerned or to amend his administration’s decades-long carrot and stick approach. To begin with, Trump can revoke Pakistan’s non-NATO ally status. Though symbolic, it will deal a big reputational blow to Pakistan. Non-NATO ally status is conferred on countries which have a strategic working relationship with US forces but are not members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The then George Bush administration had designated the non-NATO ally status to Pakistan in 2004 for helping the US in its fight against al Qaeda and Taliban militants in Afghanistan. If Pakistan is still unmoved by this action, then President Trump will have to take a final call what Mr Bush famously used the phrase after the 9/11 attacks that “Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.”  

CHINA DRAGS ITS FEET ON FIGHT AGAINST TERROR

fortune.com

Can China be a trusted ally in the global war against terrorism? The question assumes significance as it continues with its steadfast protection for chief of Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammad Masood Azhar from being declared as a global terrorist by the United Nations Security Council. India has accused the JeM and its top leader, Masood Azhar, of masterminding several attacks, including a deadly assault on an Indian air base in January last year. Six Indian soldiers and five gunmen who stormed the Pathankot airbase were killed.

youtube.com

China’s opposition to proscribing Azhar is perplexing given that Jaish-e-Mohammad has already been blacklisted by the 15-nation Security Council of which China is one of the five permanent members. If China is party to the decision to outlaw JeM, then its decision not to let its leader bracket in the same category is beyond any logic. It is high time the United Nations reconsider its original charter which gives veto power to five permanent members under which any one permanent nation can prevent the adoption of any substantive resolution. The rule of the majority within the five permanent members should follow. Otherwise, the international community will always be found wanting in its fight against terrorism due to double standards by some countries.

This is the second time in as many years that China has blocked a combined bid by the United States, France and the United Kingdom to declare Azhar a global terrorist saying “there is no consensus” in the 1267 Committee of the UN Security Council.  Where is the question of consensus if one country (read China) continues with its unwavering support for a dreaded terrorist like Azhar just only to please its ally Pakistan? China is the lone wolf in the Security Council. Last year also, it was the odd nation out in the 15-member Security Council to thwart India’s bid to place Azhar on the 1267 sanctions list that would have entailed his travel ban and freezing of assets. India’s application had the approval of all the other 14 members of the Security Council. Needless to say, China is misusing its veto power.

China’s support for Azhar, therefore, raises suspicion about its commitment to fight terrorism. Barely a few months ago, it was a signatory to the Xiamen Declaration which had called upon the international community to establish a "genuinely broad" international counter-terrorism coalition. Not only that, it was also a party to a decision of the five-member BRICS nations summit which called for decisive action against militant groups based in Pakistan terming them as a security concern in the region.

The groups named in the declaration included Taliban, (Islamic State)..., Al-Qaeda and its affiliates including Eastern Turkistan Islamic Movement, Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, the Haqqani network, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammad, TTP and Hizb ut-Tahrir. Both Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad are anti-India groups based in Pakistan and have routinely carried out militant attacks in Kashmir and elsewhere in the country. India has accused LeT of carrying out the deadly terror attacks in Mumbai in 2008 in which at least 166 people were killed. JeM is also accused of masterminding the audacious attack on Indian Parliament in 2001.

Masood  Azhar is undoubtedly the prized asset for Pakistan. Not only has he meticulously planned several terrorist attacks against India, he has succeeded in creating an army of jihadis who are ready to lay down their lives at his command. His importance lies in the fact that Pakistan government along with its army and notorious Inter-Services Intelligence had made several attempts to get him released from a jail after he was arrested in Kashmir in 1994. Five years later, the Indian government was forced to release him and two others -- Mushtaq Ahmed Zargar and Omar Sheikh -- in exchange for the safe release of passengers of the Indian Airlines flight -814 which was hijacked and taken to Kandahar in Afghanistan.

If Azhar is declared a global terrorist, the government of Pakistan will be forced to arrest him and seize his assets. This is something the government does not want for two main reasons. Azhar has in the past threatened the government of violence if it made any such misadventure. Secondly, he enjoys the support of the Pakistani army. Therefore, the Pakistani establishment is cagey while taking any action against him, because it does not have the spine to challenge its own army. China, too, understands the predicament of its all-weather ally.  Therefore, it has been repeatedly blocking any attempt to outlaw Azhar even at the expense of its own image. For, China has in the past made several statements that there should be no double standards on counter-terrorism. China’s action belies its alleged commitment against terrorism.

It should be understood that China has its own compulsions as far as protecting Azhar is concerned. It is more to do with returning favours to Pakistan. Pakistan has in the past come to the rescue of China in the powerful Organisation of Islamic Cooperation which was critical of the latter’s repression of the Muslim Uighur community in Xinjiang province. In the last two years, hundreds have died in unrest in Xinjiang. Activists have accused China of curtailing commercial as well as cultural activities of Uighur. In fact, a 2013 report of the Amnesty International was highly critical of China’s handling of the situation in Xinjiang. It said authorities criminalized “what they labeled ‘illegal religious’ and ‘separatist’ activities” and clamped down on “peaceful expressions of cultural identity.”

As far as terrorism is concerned, China’s definition is completely at variant with the world. While the world recognizes the exiled Dalai Lama as the Tibetan spiritual leader, China considers him as a “dangerous separatist”. The Nobel Peace Prize recipient, who fled into exile in India in 1959 after a failed uprising against Chinese rule, has repeatedly said that he is simply seeking genuine autonomy for his homeland. China is accused of turning a blind eye to more than 150 Tibetans who have publicly immolated themselves over the years. Beijing is miffed with New Delhi for allowing Dalai Lama live in India. And that is also one of the reasons why it has been stonewalling New Delhi’s attempts to sanction Azhar to get even with it.

It is amply clear that China does not want to walk along with the rest of the world in the fight against terrorism. It chooses to define terrorists according to its own understanding as has been the case with Pakistan. It is high time China realizes the perils of differentiating between terrorists. Otherwise, it risks global isolation.

  

CAUGHT, STUMPED, HIT WICKET: RED CARD AWAITS PAKISTAN

The United Nations General Assembly session proved to be a proverbial sticky wicket for Pakistan as it was all at loss, and was out for a duck.

Of late, Pakistan has been failing to read the new pitch laid out by the United States. Accustomed to playing on a placid wicket with straight deliveries, Pakistan has been facing bouncers since the ascendency of Donald Trump as President of the United States. An overly aggressive and intimidatory President Trump has queered the pitch for Pakistan by bowling “Bodyline” deliveries, threatening diplomatic relations between the two countries.

Caught unawares

Taking off from his offensive statements while announcing the US administration’s Afghanistan policy last month, Trump trumped Pakistan again during his maiden speech at the United Nations General Assembly. Though he did not hit Pakistan directly, its inconvenience was obvious.  

 “We must deny the terrorists safe haven, transit, funding, and any form of support for their vile and sinister ideology,” Trump said adding “we must drive them out of our nations. It is time to expose and hold responsible those countries who support and finance terror groups.” No prizes for guessing who was on the firing line. While staving off the bouncer, Pakistan took a body blow and dropped to its knees in agony.

Pakistan might have brazened it out, but Trump had succeeded in inflicting excruciating pain on its no-more ally.  By naming the Taliban and al-Qaeda along with Hezbollah, the message was clearly directed at Pakistan and Iran. That Pakistan has been providing sanctuary to the first two militant groups along with several others who are active in Afghanistan jeopardizing the US interests is now an open secret. Afghanistan has not missed any opportunity in naming and shaming Pakistan at all international forums for aiding and hosting militants who carry out attacks on its territory. Trump’s fresh denunciation of Pakistan came a month after he had singled out it for harbouring Afghan Taliban and other militants while unveiling Afghanistan policy.

Early this year, the US administration had rattled Pakistan when the Pentagon refused to pay $350 million in military aid to it for not doing enough to tackle terrorism. But Islamabad chose to gloss over it as a “wide delivery” as Washington had often suspended and waived off its aid to its once close ally several times in the past.

But recent developments don’t augur well for Pakistan. The new US dispensation is unlikely to allow itself to be blackmailed as Pakistan has been doing in the past. 

Stumped!

While Pakistan was still smarting from verbal missiles from the US President, the Chinese policy on Kashmir came as a rude shock. China stumped Pakistan by refusing to bat on behalf of its all-weather ally over Kashmir. Pakistan Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi’s demand that the UN Security Council resolution on Kashmir should be implemented did not curry any favour from China, which instead called upon New Delhi and Islamabad to resolve the Kashmir issue bilaterally. 

Within hours of Abbasi’s address at the UN session, Chinese foreign ministry dismissed calls for implementation of the UN resolution on the Kashmir issue. “The Kashmir issue is left over from history. China hopes India and Pakistan can increase dialogue and communication and properly handle relevant issues and jointly safeguard regional peace and stability,” Chinese foreign ministry spokesman said.

China has steadfastly maintained its position on Kashmir refusing any sort of intervention. In fact, way back in 2009, it had turned down the demand of the Indian Kashmiri separatist outfit, the All Parties Hurriyat Conference, which had claimed that Beijing had a role to play in Kashmir as part of the disputed region was under its control.

Pakistani prime minister’s googly was well read by China as it saw through its game plan of trying to fish in the troubled waters in the wake of mistrust between Beijing and New Delhi over Doklam issue. That the two countries could resolve the over two-month-long Doklam issue peacefully ahead of the BRICS summit, caused more anxiety to Pakistan. China had earlier yorked Pakistan when it along with four other BRICS nations named militant groups based in Pakistan as a security concern in the region and sought decisive action against them. Some of the terror groups named were Taliban, Al-Qaeda, the Haqqani network, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammad, all hosted by Pakistan.

Dismissed hit-wicket

If that was not enough then Pakistan's Permanent Representative to the United Nations Dr. Maleeha Lodhi got her country dismissed hit wicket by holding aloft a photograph of a severely injured young girl, claiming that she was a Kashmiri victim of Indian atrocities. “This is the face of Indian democracy,” she claimed while showing the photograph. As it appeared, the girl in photograph was not a Kashmiri as claimed by Lodhi but a citizen of Gaza who suffered injuries during Israeli air raids in 2014. The photo was taken by award winning photo journalist Heidi Levine in a hospital in Gaza.

Lodhi’s goof-up not only embarrassed Pakistan, but it invited criticism from all quarters, including people from her own country. Pakistani citizens took to twitter and other social media platforms to lambast Lodhi for bringing disrepute to the country and showing it in a poor light. Her action certainly defaced Pakistani democracy. To make matters worse for Pakistan, UN General Assembly President Miroslav Lajcak has said that he would certainly think about suggestions to prevent the platform from being used to depict fake pictures.

After suffering humiliation from all quarters, the red-faced Pakistan has no option but to surrender. Alas, Pakistan continues to refuse to listen and learn. Even on the back foot, it tried to play to the (domestic) gallery by painting the US as the main villain for the growth of militant groups. In a Q&A session at the Asia Society in New York early this week, Pakistani foreign minister Khawaja Asif said by "wrongly" supporting the US in a "proxy war" in Afghanistan against the Soviets in the 1980s, Pakistan paid a very high price. Jihadist elements were nurtured by both the US and Pakistan during this conflict. "Don't blame us for Saeed (referring to Hafiz Saeed, the mastermind of the Mumbai terror attack that killed 166 Indians and foreigners), these people were your darlings 20 years ago, they were being dined and wined in the White House. Now you say go to hell, Pakistan," said Asif.

Faces red card

It is high time Pakistan learns its mistakes from the past and joins the global campaign against terror. Times have changed. There is growing clamour against terrorism. If Pakistan does not want to play ball, then it stares at facing red card. The ball is in Pakistan’s court.

SWACCH BHARAT ABHIYAN GIVING WINGS TO BAPU’S DREAM OF CLEAN INDIA

It will be a stock-taking exercise for the government when India celebrates Mahatma Gandhi’s birth anniversary this year as it will also mark the completion of three years of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s flagship cleanliness drive – the “Swacch Bharat Abhiyan”. The Modi government has set an ambitious target of Open Defecation Free India by October 2, 2019 when Gandhi’s 150th birth anniversary will be celebrated.

DNA India

Given the giant strides made in a short span of three years, the government seems headed towards meeting the 2019 deadline of providing toilets to every household. Under the Swachh Bharat campaign, more than 4.90 crore toilets have already been constructed since October 2, 2014. According to Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation, more than 2.44 lakh villages have been declared open defecation free and 203 open defecation free districts as on September 24, 2017. What makes the programme noteworthy is that several public sector as well as private institutions have joined hands with the government to make it a grand success. Many business houses have adopted several villages in this connection under the Corporate Social Responsibility. It is no surprising then that the country’s sanitation coverage has leapfrogged to more than 68 per cent compared to just 38 per cent in 2012. But still much more needs to be done.

Keeping this in view, the government has launched a fortnight long 'Swachhta Hi Seva' (Cleanliness is Service) campaign which will culminate on Gandhi Jayanti next month. Under the campaign, several programmes have been planned to give a fillip to the nationwide cleanliness drive. The purpose is to reinvigorate the “Swacch Bharat Abhiyan” which was started as a national movement three years ago. The Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation, which is spearheading the campaign, has been joined by various other ministries, government departments and non-government organizations to spread the awareness of cleanliness.

October 2, 2014 will go down in the history books as the biggest campaign for “Swachh Bharat” when Prime Minister Modi himself wielded a broom and swept the dirty streets of New Delhi. The people responded to his clarion call to join him in this endeavour to give a fitting tribute to Mahatma Gandhi, who wanted to make sanitation a priority for India more than a century ago. The campaign aims to end the wide-spread practice of open defecation, build more toilets and improve waste management, among other goals.

While underlining the importance of cleanliness, the Prime Minister has often said that the idea of Swachh Bharat has nothing to do with politics, as it is inspired by patriotism. One is reminded of Gandhi’s saying that “Sanitation is more important than independence.”

While the father of the nation championed the cause of self-service in cleanliness and end the despicable practice of untouchability, the movement faltered after his death. Though several programmes were undertaken since then by several governments, it is a sad commentary that the twin issues of sanitation and untouchability continue to haunt the country even almost 70 years  after Bapu’s death.

Poor sanitation leads to several health-related diseases and untimely deaths. A charity organization “WaterAid” had painted a grim situation in one of its reports in 2014. It had then reported that less than a third of India’s 1.2 billion people had access to sanitation and more than 186,000 children under the age of five used to die every year from diarrhoeal diseases caused by unsafe water and poor sanitation.  It has its economic pitfalls also. It is estimated that the country is losing 6.4 percent of GDP annually as poor access to sanitation results in diseases and deaths. But all that is set to change now as various government agencies are working on war footing to meet the challenge.

Quoting the World Health Organization, the Prime Minister has said in the past that an average of Rs. 6,500 per person is lost in India due to lack of cleanliness and hygiene. He said Swachh Bharat would therefore make a significant impact on public health, and in safeguarding income of the poor, ultimately contributing to the national economy. He said sanitation should not be seen as a political tool, but should only be connected to patriotism (rashtrabhakti) and commitment to public health.

United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), which carried out a survey to estimate the cost of benefits of the Swachh Bharat Mission, has in a recent report said one rupee invested in improving sanitation helps save Rs 4.30. It said that each household could save Rs. 50,000 every year if there is Open Defecation Free society because the medical costs will come down, the value of time savings and the value of mortality will be averted. It also said the benefits are highest for the poorest quantile of the population.

But to make the programme successful, the Modi government will need to redouble efforts to create more awareness and educate people to change their age-old attitudes towards hygiene and purity. There is still widespread belief in the hinterland that it is unclean to defecate inside and that only “untouchable” low cases should deal with excrement.

Until and unless there is a change in the mindset of the people, the programme can’t be a success. The government and business houses may construct toilets, but one needs to draw people out from the open fields to the confines of a toilet in order to realize the full health and economic benefits of sanitation. In the interiors, a large section of the people still prefers open defecation even though they have functional toilets at home. This is because they consider it to be more comfortable and convenient. In such a scenario, there is an urgent need to educate people through awareness campaigns to help eliminate such negative notions. The success of the programme will be largely dependent on people’s participation. It is therefore imperative that people rise to the occasion to make India clean and healthy.

WILL CHINA WALK THE TALK ON TERROR?

Unpredictability seems to be the mantra of China’s foreign policy. To everyone’s surprise, China joined hands with the four other BRICS nations recently naming militant groups based in Pakistan as a security concern in the region and sought decisive action against them. It not only shocked Pakistan, but baffled foreign policy experts in China as well. Because it represented a marked departure from China’s long-standing approach towards militant groups active in Pakistan. In the past, China had stonewalled all efforts to censure Pakistan-based militant groups. Therefore, China being party to the Xiamen Declaration, calling upon the international community to establish a "genuinely broad" international counter-terrorism coalition, was something unexpected.

financialexpress.com

Expectedly, there was a sense of disbelief and unease in Pakistani establishment. The next day Pakistan’s Defence Minister Khurram Dastagir Khan categorically rejected the statement and said no terrorist organization had any complete safe havens and was operating freely inside Pakistan. But its nervousness was palpable. The government decided to rush Foreign Minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif to Beijing.

And lo! China sprang another surprise. Within days of BRICS leaders demanding that patrons of militant groups based in Pakistan be held to account, China extolled Pakistan’s role in the fight against terrorism. Soon after meeting his Pakistani counterpart, Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi had this to say at a press conference. "The government and people of Pakistan have made huge sacrifices in the fight against terrorism and such efforts and sacrifices are there for everyone to see," adding “the international community should recognise that... and give Pakistan the full credit it deserves."

By revisiting its position on Pakistan’s involvement in terror activities twice in four days, China has only managed to send confusing signals to the international community about its intent to walk the talk on terror.

If China were to give a clean chit to Pakistan, then why did it agree to sign the Xiamen Declaration in the first place? China has always come to the defence of Pakistan whenever India tried to isolate it at various international fora. It has repeatedly rebuffed India’s attempt to get the chief of Jaish-e-Mohammad Masood Azhar added to a U.N. blacklist of groups linked to al Qaeda. India has accused the JeM and its top leader, Masood Azhar, of masterminding several attacks, including a deadly assault on an Indian air base in January last year. Six Indian soldiers and five gunmen who stormed the Pathankot airbase were killed.

The political pundits were also baffled as the Xiamen Declaration came within days of India and China agreeing to defuse a crisis over Doklam where the forces of the two countries were engaged in a dispute for more than two months. Given the bitter rhetoric the two countries were involved in, it was nothing more than a surprise that China agreed to name several terror groups based in Pakistan. The groups named in the declaration included Taliban, (Islamic State)..., Al-Qaeda and its affiliates including Eastern Turkistan Islamic Movement, Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, the Haqqani network, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammad, TTP and Hizb ut-Tahrir. Other than Eastern Turkistan Islamic Movement and Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, the groups named in the declaration are engaged in terror activities both in Kashmir as well as in Afghanistan. Both Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad are anti-India groups based in Pakistan and have routinely carried out militant attacks in Kashmir and elsewhere in the country. Indian investigating agencies have blamed LeT for the deadly terror attacks in Mumbai in 2008 in which at least 166 people were killed and hundreds others wounded. JeM is accused of masterminding the audacious attack on Indian Parliament in 2001.

The censure of the groups came as a rude shock to Pakistan which was rattled by US President Donald Trump who singled out it for harbouring militants fighting against US military forces in Afghanistan. In a televised speech last month, Trump came down heavily on Pakistan as a fickle ally while announcing a new policy on Afghanistan. In the last few years, the relations between the United States and Pakistan have muddied and Washington has linked its military aid to Islamabad on its commitment to take action against the Haqqani network militants. The US has often accused Pakistan of hosting Haqqani group militants who are helping the Taliban in launching attacks in Afghanistan. Pakistan denies the accusation and portrays itself to be the biggest victim of terrorism claiming that it has suffered more than 60,000 casualties since 2001. Pakistan’s claims that Afghan Taliban militants do not enjoy a safe haven on its soil flew in the face last year when the then adviser to the Prime Minister on foreign affairs, Sartaj Aziz, admitted that Islamabad had considerable influence over the Taliban because its leaders live in the country.

What added to discomfiture of Islamabad was the inclusion of Pakistan-based Eastern Turkistan Islamic Movement, which China accuses it of fomenting trouble in Xinjiang, home to the Muslim Uighur people. In the last two years, hundreds have died in unrest in Xinjiang. China has often pressured Pakistan to take action against Uighur militants who are believed to be hiding in a tribal belt bordering Afghanistan.

Beijing is also facing heat back home after the abduction and killing of a Chinese couple in southwestern Pakistan. The Chinese were outraged as the killing came at a time when Beijing was pumping billions of dollars under the One Belt, One Road initiative, also known as the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, in Pakistan. Earlier also, several Chinese engineers involved in the project have been attacked and abducted, and later released by militants active in the restive Balochistan. There is apprehension among the people in the restive Balochistan, the resource-rich province of Pakistan, that the project will change the demography of the region and reduce the locals to minority in their homeland. The killings, though claimed by the Islamic State, led to souring of ties between the two countries.

Pakistan faces a diplomatic dilemma. The BRICS declaration, in a way, has supported India’s stand that Pakistan-based terror outfits pose a serious threat to regional security and that the world cannot afford to have double standards in the fight against terror. Washington has for long been ticking off Islamabad for not doing enough against militants ensconced there. Now with China also expressing its concern about JeM and LeT, the pressure on Pakistan to act against these groups is likely to build. However, it remains to be seen whether China will really put pressure on Pakistan to act against the terror groups active in Kashmir and Afghanistan. China’s flip-flops within a week on the issue do not inspire much confidence. 

DEMONETISATION SINKS INDIAN ECONOMY, FOR NOW

Well, the numbers tell the story. The government data has demonized the demonetization, which was touted as the panacea for all the ills, affecting the economy as was the country’s internal security. The country’s economic growth slipped to a three-year low in the last quarter. The 5.7 per cent Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth in the last quarter (April-June), the slowest since the January-March quarter 2014, is a matter of serious concern.  What is most shocking is that the economy grew at a healthy 7 per cent in the fiscal third quarter last year despite Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s out-of-the-blue decree to withdraw high denomination bank notes.

SlideShare

The Central Statistics Office (CSO) figures came as a double whammy for the government as a day earlier the Reserve Bank of India said in its annual report that all but one per cent of the estimated 15.4 trillion rupees of demonetized bank notes had returned to the banking system. This was a big setback as the government had sniffed windfall gains expecting that between 2 to 3 lakh crore rupees would never return to the banking system. To the contrary, the so-called black money, on which the government had planned surgical strike, became legit. This raises a serious question on the intent of the government.

Why I say so? The government invalidated 500 and 1000 rupee notes on the surmise that the large denomination currency notes were being used to stockpile black money and evade tax. If one buys the government theory, then it defies all logic when it introduced even a bigger currency note of Rs 2,000. Which is the larger denomination currency – a 1,000 rupee currency note or a 2,000 rupee currency note? Won’t it be easier to stash black money in the form of 2,000 rupee notes than the 1,000 rupee notes? Therefore, the government’s reasoning is far from the truth. This is no way one can stop generating black money. One can draw only two plausible conclusions behind this exercise. Either the government was ill-advised or it was a deliberate attempt to convert the alleged black money into white.

The jury is still out whether the economy has bottomed out. No one knows for sure where the economy will gather steam from here onwards. For, the first quarter of the current fiscal presents dismal picture. The private consumption has seen a dip of 0.6 percent at 6.7 per cent. The continuing woes of cash crunch and massive job loss are seen as main villains behind the falling consumption. Almost all sectors, with the exception of services, have shown deceleration.  The agriculture sector, which was showing signs of revival in the last quarter of 2016-17 with 5.2 per cent growth, slumped to 2.3 per cent. So is the industry sector which registered a decline of 1.5 per cent in the same period.  Sentiment remains depressed in mining, manufacturing and construction sectors even nine months after Mr. Modi declared the high currency value notes as illegal accounting for 86 per cent of the currency in circulation. The manufacturing sector took the maximum hit which slowed to 1.2 percent in the June quarter from a 10.7 percent growth last year. The only silver lining is Services which registered a growth of 1.5 per cent compared to the last quarter of 2016-17.

It now becomes clear that demonetization is proving to be “monumental mismanagement” as the former Prime Minister and eminent economist Dr Manmohan Singh had predicted during his speech in parliament. He had termed the move “organized loot and legalized plunder” drawing sharp opposition from the treasury benches. One hopes his warning that "For those saying this is good in the long run, it reminds me of John Keynes' words, 'In the long run we are all dead” does not turn out to be true.

With economy in complete mess, let’s now focus on other key areas which Prime Minister Modi cited during his famous November 8 address to the nation. While comparing demonetization to a “mahayagna”, Mr. Modi said it would purify the country from corruption, black money, fake notes and terrorism.  The latest Transparency International report released on September 1 has dubbed India as the most corrupt Asian country. With a bribery rate of 69 per cent, India leads the dubious list. In fact, our neighbor Pakistan fares better than us. As far as black money is concerned, how much of it is left in the hands of individuals, the RBI report has wisened us. The fake new currency notes continue to be printed across the border and smuggled into India as several government agencies have seized them from time to time. With regard to terrorism, the less said the better. The terrorism related incidents have only spiked in Kashmir since then. In fact, the new 2,000 currency notes were recovered from one of the slain militants in Kashmir within a week of their introduction.

In a nutshell, the move to demonetize higher currency notes does not seem to have the desired results as the government had tom-tommed. The country is still struggling to come out of the shock which has caused more pain than gain.

HARYANA GOVT MUTE SPECTATOR TO ORCHESTRATED VIOLENCE

NDTV.com

Everything went according to the script. There was no element of surprise. Hundreds and thousands of armed followers were allowed to congregate at Panchkula days before the special CBI court was to announce verdict on the self-claimed godman. These followers knew very well that their Baba was a rapist and the court verdict would go against their “Bhagwan”. Otherwise, what is the raison d'être of his “bhakts” arming themselves with sticks and weapons?

And as was to happen, happened! Minutes after the court found him guilty in a 2002 rape case, Baba’s followers went into a rampage. They were uncontrollable. Police was helpless. And the administration bewildered. It was an abject surrender by all those supposedly responsible to maintain law and order. It was a free run. The goons in the garb of followers of the rapist went about their job clinically, targeting innocents, media and the establishment.

The toll, over two dozen, could have been much higher had the army not come to the rescue of a hapless administration which was simply clueless.

The role of the administration is highly questionable. The violence was anticipated. There were intelligence reports warning of violence. And still the administration chose to sleep over the issue. Why did it allow Dera followers to congregate in large numbers when Section 144 was imposed? Why no attempt was made to disperse the rowdies then? And that too when they were openly flashing the sticks they were carrying? How can the administration allow such a large number of people occupy every nook and corner of Panchkula, be it parks, pavements and roads? 

Was the administration lulled into believing that the armed followers will respect the court order and leave peacefully? Its height of administrative as well as political incompetence!

Or the reason is something else? Was Manohar Lal Khattar government hesitant to take action against the followers of the rockstar “Baba” who played a crucial role in the formation of the first BJP government in the state in 2014? The “Dera”, which has a large following among the dalits, has often been courted by politicians from neighbouring Punjab. But it was in 2014 that the “Dera” decided to put its might behind the BJP, which resulted in its humungous victory.

Whatever may be the reason, the fact is that so many innocent people have been killed and several hundreds injured. And property worth millions of dollars has been destroyed. Who will take the responsibility? Somebody has to be made accountable.

An embattled Khattar promised compensation to the families of those lost their dear ones in the mindless violence. Will a few lakh of rupees heal their loss? Sorry, Mr Khattar, you have no moral right to continue. You have proved your ineptness not once but twice. Six people died in 2014 when another self-styled guru Rampal Maharaj had turned his ashram into a garrison town by storing stones, petrol bombs and weapons to ward off an arrest warrant. It is high time you accept your failure and resign.

WHY DONALD AS PRESIDENT IS ANTITHESIS TO TRUMP?

nbcnews.com

In one of the most blatant reversals, President Donald Trump has promised increased troop numbers in Afghanistan, where the US is far from winning the war. While the decision, no doubt, is a welcome step, it also exposes his penchant to flip-flops.  His gaffes, by now notorious, seem to be part of his split personality. And he is unabashedly unruffled!  

If one pores over his earlier tweets, Donald Trump comes across as a person who was dead against committing troops in the war-torn country and pooh-poohed the then President Barrack Obama for his administration’s decision to keep at least 9,800 troops in the Central Asian nation through most of 2016, with at least 5,500 of them till the end of 2017. Throughout his campaign rhetoric, Trump committed to withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, which went down well with the US citizens.

And eight months into his presidency, Trump has chosen to eat crow.

“We have wasted an enormous amount of blood and treasure in Afghanistan. Their government has zero appreciation. Let's get out!” said Trump in a series of tweets on November 21, 2013. And he followed it up with another tweet. “Do not allow our very stupid leaders to sign a deal that keeps us in Afghanistan through 2024-with all costs by U.S.A. MAKE AMERICA GREAT!”

Ten months ago (September 12, 2012), Trump had tweeted: “84% of US troops wounded & 70% of our brave men & women killed in Afghanistan have all come under Obama. Time to get out of there.”

But in a televised address on Monday, he announced a new “fight-to-win” strategy for Afghanistan. There are also reports that he is considering sending more troops to Afghanistan.

"The consequences of a rapid exit are both predictable and unacceptable," President Trump said. "A hasty withdrawal would create a vacuum that terrorists, including ISIS and al Qaeda, would instantly fill."

It was unbecoming of a presidential candidate to use derogatory language against the then President of the country of his origin also. Has Trump not bloodied his nose today by committing more money and forces in Afghanistan?

“Why are we continuing to train these Afghanis who then shoot our soldiers in the back? Afghanistan is a complete waste. Time to come home!” tweeted Trump exactly five years ago (August 21, 2012) drawing a howl of protests from Afghani leaders and people.

So, will President Trump tell his nation the reason behind his change of heart when he said:  "The stronger the Afghan security forces become, the less we will have to do. Afghans will secure and build their own nation and define their own future. We want them to succeed."

The list is endless. Now his positions on China, Syria, NATO, to name a few, are in stark contrast to what he thundered before the people of the US elected him as their president.

Therefore, it is not surprising then that Trump’s approval ratings are slipping every time he opens his mouth. He will perhaps be the only US president who is not approved by the majority of the people within one year of his office.

WHY US CURBS AGAINST HIZBUL NOT A BIG DEAL?

Does India have any reason to rejoice after the United States added Hizbul Mujahideen to its blacklist of nearly 60 terrorist organizations and designated it as a foreign terrorist organization? Will it any way help India in its fight against terrorism in Kashmir where Hizbul, one of the largest and oldest militant groups, is fighting against Indian security forces?

How does it make any difference if the US freezes any assets of Hizbul Mujahideen it may be holding there, and barring US citizens from engaging in any transactions with the group? The US move is nothing but to please the Indian leadership while doing little to put pressure on Pakistan to rein in militants operating from its soil.

Moreover, how does the US’ latest action help India in its fight against terrorism? Do terrorist organizations maintain bank accounts in their names? It’s a known fact that most of the terror activities are financed through cash and that too through illegal hawala transactions.

Also there is a widespread practice among Muslims of donating money to charities which have over the years played a major role in financing terrorist groups. Charities based in Saudi Arabia for long were involved in sponsor and financing of terrorist organizations before the government launched a crackdown against them under pressure from the US. There is no denying the fact that several charity organizations in the Muslim world diverted “zakat” to finance “jihad” (the so-called holy war).” “Zakat, considered to be one of the five pillars of Islam, was meant to giving alms to the poor and needy and spread the message of Islam. But the money was grossly misused by charities in the Middle East.

Then there is drug money. Reams of reports are available to link the billions-dollar opiate trade to terror groups. Al-Qaeda’s rapid growth in Afghanistan was directly linked to the illegal opium trade.  According to a report by the United Nations, Afghanistan’s poppy crops were the major source of terror funding and Al-Qaeda was the main beneficiary from the illegal drug trade in the late nineties before the collapse of the illegitimate Taliban government in 2001.

Of late, the Islamic State has emerged as the wealthiest terror group by engaging in illicit trade in oil after it occupied vast tract of territories in Iraq and Syria. According to conservative estimates, the group makes as much as $ 3 million a day, a huge amount compared to a paltry amount needed to carry out acts of terror.

Therefore, it is amply clear that the US move claiming “such designations are aimed at denying individuals and entities access to the US financial system” will have any impact as far as the insurgency in Kashmir is concerned.

Had President Donald Trump lived up to promises which he made during electioneering, the war against terrorism could have taken a paradigm shift? "We will defeat radical Islamic terrorism when I’m president. We will stand shoulder to shoulder with India in sharing intelligence and keeping our people safe mutually," Trump had said during electioneering. But all those promises seem hollow now.

Pakistan made a mockery of the US by allowing Syed Salahuddin, the head of Hizbul Mujahideen, to address a press conference at Muzaffarabad’s Centre Press Club soon after he was named as a specially designated global terrorist by the US department of state on June 26 this year.

Both Salahuddin as well as India’s most wanted terrorist, Hafiz Saeed, who also carries a $10 million bounty on his head by the US, have been openly holding rallies spewing venom against India and the US. Had the US been serious in its fight against terrorism, it could have easily put pressure on Pakistan to take action against them. If the US could enter Pakistani territory and smoke out al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in May 2011, mastermind of the deadly September 11 attacks, could not it do the same with Salahuddin and Saeed? It is not that the US can’t, but it won’t do it. For, Laden was a direct threat to the US as his jihadis were fighting against the US military forces in Afghanistan. As far as Salahuddin and Saeed are concerned, they don’t pose any threat to the US as both have been carrying out terrorist operations in Kashmir.

The US is more concerned about Afghanistan than Kashmir where its forces are in direct line of fire. And it knows it very well that it cannot ensure a decisive victory in Afghanistan without the help of Pakistan. Otherwise what explains the US decision to continue patting Pakistan occasionally in spite of Laden being provided a safe sanctuary by Pakistan?

Therefore, India should do well not to rejoice at such theatrics and sharpen its own strategy to meet with the challenge. Militancy in Kashmir is India’s own headache and it has to win this war without anybody’s help.

INDIA DRUB LANKA 3-0: A TALE OF TWO CONTRASTING TEAMS

photo courtesy : Oneindia

The sorry saga of Sri Lanka’s shambolic performance continued in the third test as well as it crashed to an innings defeat and 171 runs against India exposing major chinks in its batting as well as bowling arsenal. Since the retirement of Tillakaratne Dilshan, Kumar Sangakkara, Mahela Jayawardene and Lasith Malinga from Test cricket, the Sri Lankan team has been down in the dumps.  One expected that it will put up at least a symbolic resistance to India on its home soil. Alas, it was not to be.

LAMB TO THE SLAUGHTER

“The Lions”, ironically, walked like lambs to the slaughter the day Virat Kohli-led Indian team set its foot on the Lankan soil.  What was so pathetic about the Lankan performance during the entire three-test match series was that the team did not even resist subjugation by the rampaging India. After losing the first two test matches inside four days, the Lankans allowed themselves to be annihilated by India inside the third day of the final match making the humiliation complete. The 3-0 whitewash on its own soil tells the tale of two contrasting teams.

LANKANS NO MATCH

If the Indian performance was of the highest quality, the Sri Lankans were plain mediocre.

Had Kohli enforced the follow-on in the first test match at Galle, the Lankans would have recorded their worst series defeat by losing all the matches with innings defeat. Sri Lanka totaled 536 runs in its two innings in the first test against India’s first innings total of 600 runs. That match also could have folded in third day itself, had Kohli not opted to bat again in the second innings.

ABJECT SURRENDER

One expected that the Lankans would rise from the ashes after suffering a bloody defeat in the first test match. But not only did they lose the plot, they surrendered with their tails between their legs. This was something unexpected of them.

Given the all-round failure in all departments of the game, the home team gave a sense that it was not at all in the competition. Except for the second innings of the second test match at Colombo, where it showed some character by playing more than 100 overs (116.5 overs to be precise), there was no serious attempt to stay put in the wicket.

 While Indians played 133.1 overs in the first match to score 600 runs, the Sri Lankans played a combined 129.5 overs in the two innings of the match to score 536 runs (291 in the first innings and 245 in the second). The home team gave its best performance of the series in the second innings of the second test by playing 116.5 overs and scoring 386 runs. In the first innings of the match, it could not even last 50 overs as it was bundled out for 183 runs in 49.4 overs.

Refusing to learn from its mistakes, the Sri Lankan batting slumped once again in the first innings of the final match as it was dismissed for paltry 135 runs in 37.4 overs in reply to India’s first innings total of 487 runs. In its second essay, the team did try to stretch a bit longer (74.3 overs), but collapsed to 181 runs all out handing India a convincing victory of an inning and 171 runs.

HUMILIATING DEFEAT

This is the second time Lanka has faced a humiliating 3-0 whitewash on its soil. Shane Warne-led Australia was the first team to record a 3-0 clean sweep in 2003-04.

Sri Lankans were also done in by injuries to wicket takers Nuwan Pradeep and Rangana Herath, and the weak bench strength further compounded their problems. On the contrary, India faced a problem of plenty as bowlers Ishant Sharma and Bhuvneshwar Kumar and batter Rohit Sharma could not make it to the playing eleven in any of the match. Interestingly, opener Shikhar Dhawan, not an original choice and a replacement for Murali Vijay, emerged as the top scorer with 358 runs with two scintillating centuries under his belt.

As captain Chandimal rightly said after the loss of the match and the series, “Our batting and bowling was below-par through the series,” one hopes his team will put up some semblance of fight in the five one-day internationals and a Twenty20 beginning Sunday. 

NITISH RESIGNATION A BOLD STATEMENT

Nitish Kumar’s decision to resign as chief minister of Bihar has put Rashtriya Janata Dal president Lalu Prasad Yadav in a tight spot. For, he will be seen by people as a villain for the fall of the government as he put up stiff opposition to the resignation demand of his corruption-tainted son Tejashwi Yadav. In one masterstroke, Nitish has shown to the people of Bihar and the country that he could sacrifice his government than let anybody cast aspersions on his image. There is no doubt that his political stock has gone up several notches.  In fact, Nitish was not very comfortable to share political space with his one time friend-turned-foe-turned-friend Lalu who has several corruption cases stacked against him. But he was forced to be part of the “mahagathbandhan” or grand alliance to keep the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) from coming to power in Bihar. The thick-skinned Lalu’s insistence not to drop his son from the government forced the hands of Nitish who did not want to be seen as compromising with corruption.

What happens next? 

Will the alliance partners elect a new leader minus Nitish and Tejashwi as proposed by Lalu to save the government? It looks unlikely as Nitish decision to resign to set high moral grounds would then appear to be a political stunt. Moreover, Nitish would have consulted his Janata Dal United party before taking this far-reaching decision. Therefore, Lalu’s proposal falls flat. The arithmetic is such that RJD, which emerged as the single largest party in the 2015 elections, can’t form the government even if it secures the support of the Congress.

There are two possibilities. The BJP, which has already announced that it is against mid-term polls, may agree to prop up the Nitish government by offering outside support. But it remains to be seen whether Nitish would be agreeable to the offer from his former ally whom he divorced in 2013. Of late, Nitish has been seen cosying up to the BJP by throwing his weight behind the NDA presidential candidate Ram Nath Kovind causing consternation among the anti-NDA partners. It should not be difficult for Nitish to revisit his decision and break the bread with the BJP again as there are not permanent enemies in politics. Moreover, Narendra Modi has emerged as a no-nonsense prime minister who is seen as pushing aggressively for economic reforms without inviting any stain of corruption against any of his cabinet colleagues. The BJP would also like to see Nitish at the helm without Lalu. It will be like killing two birds with one stone. Not only will Lalu lose his face and the next elections, it will also spell doom for the Congress party which is clutching on to these regional parties to stay relevant. But a lot will depend on Nitish if he has to accept the BJP offer. For, the 2015 Bihar verdict was clearly against the BJP-led NDA.

The next possibility could be a rebellion in Lalu’s party. Some of the RJD MLAs, who are not comfortable with the stranglehold of Lalu and his family on the party, may rebel and join hands with Nitish. This makes sense as they also know it well that the Lalu and his family is fighting a lost battle. With the CBI filing a case against Lalu, his wife and former chief minister Rabri Devi, their son Tejashwi and others against irregularities in awarding the tender for development, maintenance and operation of hotels in Ranchi and Puri in 2006, it will be difficult for the RJD to approach the next elections with conviction. This is one of several corruption cases filed against Lalu and his family. And if the snap elections are to be held now, the RJD is bound to suffer an ignominious defeat. This will certainly weigh heavily on them if they decide to continue with the party. Moreover, some of them would not like to lose the perks as the next elections are due only in 2020. So, why would they spoil their political career by siding with Lalu and seen as a party to corruption? By now, they must have known the pulse of the voters who defeated the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance in the 2014 general election. That vote was against the corruption.

India gets its new President

The election of Mr. Ram Nath Kovind as the 14^th President of the country was a foregone conclusion given the brute majority the Bharatiya Janata Party and its allies command in Lok Sabha and the states ruled by them. His victory against the Congress party-led opposition candidate Meira Kumar was emphatic as he secured 65.65 percent votes of the electoral college with a total vote value of 702,044. Kumar ended up getting 367,314 votes representing 34.35 percent of the total votes polled.  The electoral college consisted of 4,896 voters --- 776 elected members of parliament and 4,120 members of legislative assemblies.

This is for the first time that a leader associated with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh or RSS will occupy the highest office since independence.  Mr. Kovind also becomes the second President representing the low-caste Dalit community. Mr. K. R. Narayanan was the first Dalit to be President of India. He will replace Dr. Pranab Mukherjee who demits office on July 24 after completing his five-year term. Mr. Kovind will be sworn in the next day.

The 71-year-old Mr. Kovind comes from a very humble origin from Kanpur as his father was a farmer.  After completing his graduation in law, Mr. Kovind moved to Delhi to prepare for the civil services exams. He cleared the exam in his third attempt but did not join as he was selected for the allied services.  Thereafter, he began practising as a lawyer in the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court before he joined politics.  He also served as a Central Government standing counsel in the Supreme Court from 1980 to 1993. He also has the reputation of representing India in the United Nations, and even addressed United Nations General Assembly in October 2002.

In 1991, he joined the BJP. Seven years later, he was made president of the BJP Dalit Morcha. He was also president of the All-India Koli Samaj. His political career did not start on a happy note as he made an unsuccessful bid to parliament from Ghatamur in Uttar Pradesh in 1990 on a BJP ticket. In 2007 UP assembly polls, the BJP fielded him from Bhognipur constituency, but he finished third. However, his two consecutive stints as a Rajya Sabha member from 1994 till 2006 give him an added legislative experience which will come in handy while discharging his duties as the President of the country.  He also served on several parliamentary committees as a member of parliament. He was also governor of Bihar before he was picked by the BJP to contest the presidential election.

Though the President’s role is largely ceremonial in India, but as the custodian of the constitution the President has to play a crucial role in times of uncertainty. However, in Mr. Kovind’s case, his stint is likely to be largely predictable as the BJP-led NDA commands absolute majority in the Lok Sabha and if political pundits are to be believed the alliance has fair chance of returning to power when the next general elections are held in 2019. Having its nominee at the Raisina Hill will also be a comforting factor for the Prime Minister Narendra Modi government in getting assent on key bills, particularly the ordinances. The Modi government has often taken the ordinance route while heralding several economic reforms to bypass the Rajya Sabha, where it does not have a majority.

Now that the suspense regarding who will occupy the top constitutional post is over, it would have been better had there been a consensus candidate for the highest seat of power. For, the President does not belong to a particular political party. He is the first citizen of the country. The political parties will do well in future to present a united candidate rather than just putting up a candidate for the sake of opposition. This should be the ideal situation.  In fact, this has happened in the past when Mr. Sanjiva Reddy was elected unopposed in 1977. But all said and done, both Mr. Kovind and Mrs Kumar should be commended for leading dignified campaigns in the run-up to election. Both of them represent the backward Dalit community and have set the highest traditions by not getting involved in mud-slinging. In Mr. Kovind, the country can be reassured that the rights of the poor, downtrodden and the marginalized sections of the society will be secure.