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.

BUILDING A BETTER FUTURE THROUGH CSR

Corporate social responsibility is a new concept in India.  India is perhaps the first country in the world to have CSR in statute. In just two years since the law came into being in April 2014, it is proving to be a game changer for the weaker and marginalized sections of the society.

India’s business houses deserve a special mention for partnering with the government to improve the health and welfare of socially-excluded populations through the corporate social responsibility (CSR). A country which grapples with multiple socio-economic challenges, the CSR has the potential to create sustainable development.

An estimated 23.6 percent of Indian population, or about 276 million people, continue to live below the poverty line with purchasing power parity of just $1.25 per day. And most of them come from the marginalized sections of the society such as tribes, dalits and lower castes. Though the government has been providing subsidy to them in various forms, those are either not enough or do not reach the needy due to red tape and corruption.

It is in this context that the parliament passed the bill in 2013 making it mandatory for some companies to spend 2 percent of profits on uplifting the poor. The proposal was first mooted in 2011 when the government came out with national voluntary guidelines (NVGs) which listed out social, environmental and economic responsibilities of businesses in India. But the NVGs were largely advisory in nature than mandatory. It was only with the new Companies Act, 2013, that CSR spending was made a statutory obligation for companies incorporated under the Act.

And in just two years, the initiative has touched the lives of millions of poor people and its benefits have percolated down to the lower strata of the society. Education and skills, healthcare, environment sustainability, gender equality and rural development are among several sectors which have been aggressively targeted by hundreds of business houses.  According to a PwC/CII report, this two per cent from some 6,000 companies in India may amount to as much as Rs 20,000 crore (Rs 200 billion) every year. This has the potential to address the country’s chronic problems in near future.

There were many who thought that the CSR was another form of tax which was introduced through back door. But figures suggest that the initiative has been well received by business houses. Out of a total 250 Bombay Stock Exchange-listed companies, over 100 firms spent either more than the prescribed CSR or spent exactly as prescribed. This shows that there has been explicit compliance to the government’s legislation. There were only 19 percent of companies which either did not spend on CSR or their contributions were between 0.1 percent and 33 percent of the prescribed amount.

In fact, some of the prominent Indian businesses have been involved in philanthropy for long and have done a commendable job in non-profit causes. Those firms had their own foundations which were involved in philanthropic works. But still there were companies which did not take upon the responsibility to make contribution towards the society. There was a growing demand that the business sector needed to do more for the country’ socio economic development. It was then that the need for legislation was felt. The new law required companies with market capitalisation of more than 5 billion rupees to spend 2 percent of their annual net profits on CSR, such as social work or charity.

Poverty eradication, promotion of education and skills, rural sports, environment sustainability, protection of national heritage and contributions to prime minister’s relief fund were among the measures suggested by the government. But companies have expanded the scope and have brought under preview of CSR healthcare, gender equality, rural development, technology incubation, armed forces to name a few.

A close scrutiny of sector wise CSR spend shows that healthcare and education got the maximum boost. Nearly one third of the total actual CSR spent in the 2014-15 fiscal year was reserved for healthcare which saw the launch of 924 projects. Education and skills followed with 29 percent of total spent amount attracting 1,144 projects. Environment sustainability, rural development and gender equality were the other targeted areas of corporate business houses. The 2014-15 figures show that 55.63 billion rupees were spent under the CSR head as against the prescribed spend of 70.40 billion rupees amounting to 79 percent, which is very encouraging.

But not all the states have reaped the benefits as CSR activities have not covered the entire country in an equitable manner. Maharashtra, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Gujarat and Uttar Pradesh, which already figure in the top ten states as far as GDP growth is concerned, benefitted the most as far as the number of projects is concerned. On the contrary, the remote northeastern states of Tripura, Nagaland, Mizoram, Meghalaya and Manipur saw very little CSR spend.  Maharashtra, which is the country’s leading industrial state and number one in terms of GDP, bagged the maximum 948 projects, according to Ngobox. The country’s eight northeastern states, which contribute just 2.64 percent to the national economy, invited very less CSR spend. One reason can be attributed to the fact that most of the business offices have their presence in industrialized and software hubs where it is easier for them to implement and monitor the projects. The government and the corporate sector should chalk out a strategy to address this anomaly.

There are many who believe that the CSR scope can be widened by getting more companies under its net if the government offers 100 percent tax exemption. So far, the government has   announced 100 percent tax exemption in CSR activities for Clean Ganga Fund and Swachh Bharat Kosh. Contributions to Prime Minister's National Relief Fund are allowed as 100 percent deduction. The government can consider widening the activities under the CSR ambit for tax exemption to encourage business houses to participate in the nation-building exercise on a sustainable basis.

Sinister campaign to paint army as villain in Kashmir

Who should be held responsible for the death of five innocent civilians in Kashmir Valley last week? The submission by a minor girl before a chief judicial magistrate that she was not molested by a soldier exposes a sinister campaign to discredit security forces. Kashmir was on the boil all through last week after a rumour spread that an Indian soldier had tried to molest the minor girl. Angry mobs were out on the streets, shouting slogans, pelting stones at security forces and police. Who instigated them to create a law and order problem in the Valley? 

As it appears, there was a deliberate attempt to vitiate the atmosphere. And those who did it knew very well how the security forces would react. And the security forces fell into their trap by opening fire on a rowdy crowd which led to the death of five people who perhaps were not party to the conspiracy.  Among those who died was a young boy who wanted to represent Indian cricket team one day. It just took one rumour and five innocent lives were snuffed out leaving behind their families to mourn their loss forever.

It is a well known fact that there are some forces which do not want the presence of Indian army in Kashmir. From time to time, there have been vicious campaigns against the army over its alleged excesses on “innocents” and human rights violations in Kashmir Valley. The same forces have become active once again to discredit security forces which have been battling against all odds to maintain law and order situation in the state.

But normalcy is anathema to a few in Kashmir who are working against the interests of their own brethren. As long as their personal interests are served, they don’t mind sacrificing the lives of others. Their personal interests are well served as long as Kashmir remains tense. Kashmiris should ask themselves whether they have benefited by frequent “hartal” calls given by separatist leaders. Why is that innocent people get killed and instigators remain confined in safe environs?

Who will explain the latest killings? It is very easy to put the blame on security personnel who were forced to open fire. But who provokes them? They are often abused and ridiculed. A recent video which went viral speaks volumes about how security personnel have to put up with humiliation. The video of a soldier, who was chased, thrashed and humiliated by a bunch of young boys, showed his helplessness.  How does one expect a normal human being to react when his honour is at stake? And security personnel are humans too.

The political leadership of the state rushes to New Delhi every time any such incident happens. Every time, the oft-repeated arguments against Armed Forces (Special Powers) Acts (AFSPA) are put forward before the federal government. No state favours special powers which give soldiers virtual immunity from prosecution. But can security forces fight insurgency with their hands tied down? In fact, Indian army has on occasions taken punitive action against its soldiers whenever they were found to have violated norms. But human rights activists and critics say the prosecution process is slow and not all cases are probed.

Here in lies an important question. If security forces can be accused of human rights violations then so are violent protesters.  If security personnel come under attacks, what are they supposed to do? Should they become sitting ducks? Does the constitution not give them right to defend themselves if their lives are threatened? This is a question which needs to be debated at length. The AFSPA, which covers large parts of northeastern India and Kashmir, gives security forces powers to search, enter houses and shoot-on-sight. Human rights activists say the soldiers misuse the law and commit abuses, whereas the army says it needs the law to tackle insurgency. Both sides have contrarian view points. Special powers come with some responsibilities as well. The army will do well to get such unsavoury incidents probed by an independent commission.

All said and done, the casualties could have been avoided had the situation been handled tactfully. Why rumour mongers were allowed to have field day in the first place? The local government is equally responsible for not acting fast and allow the situation to simmer. A video first released by the army wherein the girl denied molestation by a soldier was trashed. The protesters claimed that the girl gave the statement under duress. Among those who doubted the veracity of the army video were myriad factions of the Hurriyat Conference which brought the Valley on a standstill by giving “hartal” calls for days together.  Should the Hurriyat not be held responsible for letting the situation deteriorate? It is disheartening to see the innocent youth falling victims to separatists’ agenda and losing their precious lives.

CAN INDIA TAKE PAKISTAN AT ITS FACE VALUE?

Has India scored a self-goal by inviting Pakistani investigating team to Pathankot? It would be naive to expect from Pakistan to agree to any amount of evidence shared with it in terror-related activities in India. For, any kind of admission will expose Pakistan to be bracketed as a rogue state, inviting harsh sanctions. Therefore, Pakistan cannot be expected to make a complete turnaround from what it has been parroting for the last several decades that it does not allow its territory to be used against any country, more so against India, for terror activities.

As expectedly, Pakistan’s Joint Investigation Team (JIT), which was taken to a guided tour of Pathankot air base, has reportedly debunked India’s claims that the militants came from Pakistan. Seven Indian security personnel were killed in the attack which continued for almost three days. Pakistani newspapers quoting JIT sources have termed the entire operation “stage-managed” by New Delhi to malign Islamabad. In all probability, New Delhi will lodge a strong protest when the JIT report is made public as Indian investigators earlier claimed that their Pakistani counterparts were stumped when presented with irrefutable evidences.

What will it lead to? The governments of both the countries will start trading charges and blame each other for not serious in jointly fighting the scourge of terrorism. With such misplaced adventurism, India is to be blamed for finding itself in a corner. The idea of inviting Pakistani investigators to India was ill-conceived in the very first place.  As tit-for-tat sharp exchanges likely in the days to come, the initiative taken by Prime Minister Narendra Modi to drop in unannounced in Lahore on Christmas day to shake hands with his Pakistani counterpart Nawaz Sharif and give a kick-start to stalled talks will go waste.

Modi will be heckled by the Opposition for moving too fast to repair badly bruised ties with Pakistan. Already, knives are out even within his party for his style of diplomacy couched in secrecy. The party’s senior leader and former Foreign Minister Yashwant Sinha, though now a spent force, was most vocal about Modi’s Lahore trip. That Pathankot happened within a week of his meeting with Sharif is a telling commentary of Pakistan’s cat and mouse game as far as the fight against terrorism is concerned. The attack once again proves that Pakistani generals are certainly not on board as far as mending relations between the two countries is concerned. Indian claims, if true, that the attack was masterminded and carried out by Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) sums up the story.

Had Pakistan been honest in its intent, it would have by now arrested the head of Jaish, Maulana Masood Azhar, whom India suspects of masterminding the Pathankot air base attack as well as the most daring attack on Indian parliament in 2001.  Instead, it lobbied with China which vetoed India’s request to add Azhar in the United Nations’ al Qaeda-Islamic State blacklist. China’s move is understandable but perplexing as well. When Jaish-e-Mohammad has already been blacklisted by the 15-nation Security Council, so why can’t its leader be? It shows that Pakistan does not want any harm to be done to Azhar who it considers to be a very important asset.

In fact, Pakistan has been in denial mode since it began using militants as a proxy to launch a low-cost limited war against India. It has been assiduously following the policy of dictator Zia ul Haq who propagated bleeding India through thousand cuts. Since then, Pakistan has sought to colour terrorism in Kashmir as freedom struggle. Pakistan’s three misadventures by going to war with India led to a rethink among the political and military establishment that it could not take its neigbour militarily. Therefore, it crafted a new strategy whereby militants would do the bidding on its behalf.  It started supporting, financing and arming local insurgents besides offering open support to the All Parties Hurriyat Conference, a political platform of the separatist movement to keep the Kashmir issue alive internationally.

Since 1988, when militancy first reared its head in Kashmir, at least 6,193 security forces have died fighting militants. A Jammu and Kashmir Data Sheets report updated till April 3, 2016 shows that 22,996 militants have been neutralised since then. The figure is alarming as one Indian soldier died as against the 3.71 mortality rate of militants. During the period 14,725 innocent civilians also lost their lives.

While Kashmir was on fire, a vicious campaign was carried out against the minority Hindus or Pandits as they are called in the state. A spate of killings followed persecution and threats by militants which led to the exodus of Kashmiri Hindus. Though the exact number of Pandits leaving the valley is not clear, according to conservative estimates, at least 100,000 of them were forced to leave the state. Thousands of them continue to live in the dingy squalid camps set up by the government in the Hindu-majority Jammu.

While Pakistan succeeded in engineering exodus of Hindus from Kashmir, the separatist movement started losing ground in subsequent years as locals became tired of supporting militancy which had only exacerbated their misery. The last two state elections are testimony to people’s disenchantment with separatists as they turned out in large numbers to participate in the democratic process. Several local militants, who felt cheated, also turned themselves to Indian authorities and most of them have joined the mainstream.

This was a major setback for Pakistan. As its overt and covert operations to destabilize Indian part of Kashmir failed, Pakistan began turning to various militant outfits which it had created and trained at its backyard. It started sending in militants belonging to Hizb-ul-Mujahideen, Harkat-ul-Mujahideen, Lashkar-e-Toiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed and Al-Badr to name a few to Kashmir who carried out some of the most audacious attacks on Kashmir as well as different parts of India. While offering sympathy to India soon after these attacks, Pakistan would routinely strut out its oft-repeated statement that it had not role and that it could be the handiwork of non-state actors. But who has been hosting those non-state actors? The problem is that the so-called world powers, which often call for a global action against terrorism, have been found wanting in their responses whenever India bled.

Therefore, to expect something unexpected from Pakistan is futile. All these promises of dialogues and cooperation in terrorism are nothing but an absurd pretence intended to create a pleasant or respectable appearance before the international community to escape their censure and economic sanctions. The plain truth is that Pakistan has been increasingly enmeshed in its devious stratagem from which it is hard for it to escape unscathed. 

CHECKMATE FOR THE US AS IT LOSES THE PLOT IN AFGHANISTAN

 

It has been 15 years since the US-led NATO forces landed in Afghanistan and ousted the Taliban from power, but the situation in the war-torn country is as fragile as it was then.  The western powers are now desperate to leave. But they can’t!  The US’ frustration is writ large as it seeks an early dialogue between Afghanistan government and the very Taliban forces which it ousted. But the Taliban won’t play ball.  In fact, the US-led forces are in for a rude and harsh summer.  The US had banked on Pakistan to cajole the Taliban leadership to come to the negotiating table. But that is not going to happen, at least, very soon.

Since the withdrawal of the bulk of the international troops, the Taliban have notched up considerable gains. It has widened its control to nearly one third of Afghanistan. And with just 13,000 largely non-combatant international troops, the powerful Taliban know that they can easily test and overrun Afghan security forces. The brief capture of the strategic northern city of Kunduz last year was a major embarrassment for the Afghan security forces. They could reclaim the territory only after the US carried out major air strikes. Since then, the Taliban have opened several fronts from Helmand in the south to Jowzjan province in the north, inflicting heavy casualties on Afghan security forces.

Afghanistan is proving to be a political liability for the US. If it stays longer, it faces strong backlash back home and if it withdraws, the country will fall to the Taliban.  It’s a classical case of entering a blind alley but not knowing how to come out of it. Whatever may be its political designs, the US has been sucked badly into a country where exit routes are not easy and not too many.

The US has only two options -- either to go in for a full-scale war to annihilate the Taliban or to find a solution through political means. The US has already exercised its first option and the result is for everybody to see. Already the US has lost 2,300 of its men. And it has cost the US more than 110 billion dollars since its forces first landed in Afghanistan in October 2001. Other than dislodging the Taliban government, the US has not achieved anything other than propping up a weak government as a prized trophy. In fact, the situation is becoming more alarming now.

The UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan has claimed that there has been a four percent rise in civilian casualties in 2015 compared to the previous year after the withdrawal of most international troops. At least 3,545 noncombatants died and another 7,457 were injured in fighting last year. Thirty-seven percent of the civilian casualties were caused due to ground engagements whereas another 21 percent people were either killed or injured during roadside bombings. Suicide attacks led to 17 percent civilian casualties. There was a sharp spike of 28 percent casualties to pro-government security forces in last year. And most of the casualties happened in Kunduz and Helmand provinces where the Taliban engaged Afghan security forces. According to the UN, there have been 59,000 civilian deaths and injuries since 2009.

Desperate to leave the killing fields of Afghanistan, which is increasingly becoming a graveyard for its forces, the US has fallen back on Pakistan to influence the Taliban to rejoin the peace talks. By doing so, the US has not only realized its folly but has admitted its defeat. Interestingly, Pakistan, which claims to have “considerable influence” over the Taliban after its admission of playing host to them, has been snubbed by the militant group. Early this month, Pakistan's adviser for foreign affairs Sartaj Aziz made a 180-degree turn by admitting that it can influence the Taliban because its leaders live in the country. This is what the Afghanistan leadership has been crying for the last so many years that the Afghan Taliban enjoys safe sanctuaries in Pakistan, a charge the latter had been denying and the US supposedly believing it. Aziz also claimed credit for pressuring Afghan Taliban leaders to participate in the first direct face-to-face talks with Kabul last year.

But Pakistan has been left embarrassed by the Taliban who have refused to take part in the peace talks. It has set some pre-conditions, hard to be accepted by the western forces, before joining the dialogue. It wants occupation of Afghanistan to end and release of innocent prisoners.  The Taliban has intentionally put tough conditions, knowing well that they will not be met, because the militia is itself in disarray after the announcement of the death of its founder Mullah Mohammed Omar.  Mullah Akhtar Mansour, who has taken over the reign since Omar’s death, is himself battling infighting as several groups are not only opposed to his leadership, but to talks, as well.  Another major hurdle is that there is no Taliban as such. There are several splinter groups which operate separately. Even if some groups may be interested in joining the negotiating table at some stage, there would certainly be some others who would not, and they would continue to wage an armed struggle. The other rival group, headed by Mullah Mohammad Rasoul, and opposed to the leadership of Mansour, has rejected the peace offer. In fact, the two groups have been fighting between themselves for supremacy.

There are no easy solutions to the crisis muddled by several powers. Afghanistan views Pakistan with suspicion as it is convinced of its role in fomenting trouble and creating instability there. Pakistan’s recent admission of hosting the Taliban leadership confirms Afghanistan’s fears that its neighbour has been planning and launching attacks from its soil. Pakistan pleases the US leadership by launching on-and-off operations against Taliban forces in its territory, which are inimical to the western interests in Afghanistan.

Why Afghanistan will continue to bleed is that nobody is interested in finding a reasonable solution. Half of the problem can be solved if Pakistan either launches a major offensive against the Taliban sheltered in its territory or drives them away to Afghanistan. But can Pakistan afford to do it? Pakistan risks inviting trouble for itself if it turns against the Taliban! Therefore, it has no option but to play cat and mouse game in Afghanistan.

The US has a limited role as far as pushing Pakistan is concerned. Pakistan was a major conduit between the US and the Mujahedeen in driving away Soviet forces from Afghanistan. Today, the Taliban has become Frankenstein's own monster. Its checkmate for the US in Afghanistan!

F-16 SWEETENER! SUSPICIOUS US FLIRTS WITH PAKISTAN AGAIN

The United States’ policy towards Pakistan is quite enigmatic. Over the years, the US has been found vacillating in its approach towards Pakistan. The US’ public posturing does not match with its actions. Its decision to sell $700 million F-16 fighter jets to Pakistan has not only riled India but divided members of the US’ Congress as well.  The lame duck President Barack Obama administration’s decision to go ahead with the proposed sale despite lawmakers’ concerns about Pakistan’s nuclear proliferation programme and its not-so-convincing commitment against the war on terrorism defies all logic. President Obama alone can’t be faulted as his predecessors also followed the same ambivalent and ambiguous policies towards Pakistan. Slam Pakistan to please India and then pamper it with billions of dollars in cash and military equipment is how one can sum up the policy of Washington.

On December 22, 2008, the then Pakistani National Security Adviser Mahmud Ali Durrani was summoned to Washington and was told tersely that its “shifty and shifting position on the Mumbai attacks” was unacceptable. And just a week before Durrani got the dressing down, the then US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, in a speech at the Council on Foreign Relations said “you (Pakistan) need to deal with the terrorism problem. And it’s not enough to say these are non-state actors. If they’re operating from Pakistan, then they have to be dealt with,” referring to Pakistan’s failure to arrest those responsible for the Mumbai attacks.

Has Pakistan dealt with the problem of terrorism? Has it withdrawn its support to the non-state actors? On the contrary, the so-called non-state actors have carried out several daring attacks on India and Afghanistan with active support from Pakistan’s military and its intelligence agency.  Pakistan itself has brazenly admitted its support to militant groups fighting its proxy war in Kashmir.

In October 2010, former Pakistani military ruler Pervez Musharraf told the German magazine, “Der Spiegel,” that his forces trained militant groups to fight in Indian- administered Kashmir. This was the first time such a senior figure in Pakistan admitted to something which India had been crowing for the last several decades. But Indian concerns were not taken note of as Pakistan was being considered an important ally of the US for its’ supposedly fight against terror groups in Afghanistan. But senior US officials had altogether different take on Pakistan’s dubious role in Afghanistan.

On September 22, 2011, the outgoing joint chiefs chairman Mike Mullen accused Pakistan's intelligence agency of supporting a Taliban-linked insurgent group which had carried out an audacious attack on the American embassy in Kabul which happened a week ago. He had then commented that “Pakistani duplicity puts in jeopardy not only the frayed US-Pakistani partnership against terrorism, but also the outcome to the decade-old war in Afghanistan.” In the words of the then defense secretary Leon Panetta, “Pakistani intelligence is using the Haqqanis and other extremist groups as its proxies inside Afghanistan.”

Next year, Obama administration decided to withhold more than one-third of all military assistance to Pakistan worth some $800 million. It included funding for military equipment and $300 million for counter-insurgency programmes.

The relations between the two countries nosedived after the US raided Osama bin Laden's secret compound inside Pakistan in May 2011 without even bothering to inform Pakistani authorities. It could not have been more humiliating than this for any sovereign country. But the US suspected that some elements in Pakistan could thwart its attempts to get Laden either alive or dead.  In fact, in his first interview to “60 Minutes” days after the killing of Laden, President Obama said his administration thought that there had to be some sort of support network for bin Laden. "But we don't know who or what that support network was," Obama added.  The comments reflected the US’ frustration with Pakistan.

Surprisingly, the US aid resumed two years later in 2013 when it quietly decided to release more than $1.6 billion in military and economic assistance to Pakistan. One fails to understand what happened in those two years that the US again turned to its so-called ally! Was it because Pakistan had started moving closer to China? Interestingly, officials and congressional aides said ties have improved enough to allow the money to flow again. Even if one were to believe that ties had improved, then what made the US to slam Pakistan again within a year for using militant proxies against India?

In its November 2014 report on “Progress Towards Security and Stability in Afghanistan,” tabled in the U.S. Congress, the Pentagon said, “Afghan and India - focused militants continue to operate from Pakistan territory to the detriment of Afghan and regional stability. Pakistan uses these proxy forces to hedge against the loss of influence in Afghanistan and to counter India's superior military.”

The Pentagon report certainly was at variance with the Obama administration’s new-found love for Pakistan. The Pentagon’s critical report came in a year when Narendra Modi swept to power and the Obama administration began viewing Indo-US relationship as “one of the defining partnerships of the century”.

As the bonhomie between Modi and Obama grew, the US President once again bracketed Pakistan with Afghanistan and the Middle East and warned that these countries could become safe havens for new terrorist networks. In his final State of the Union address on January 13 this year, Obama said : “For even without IS, instability will continue for decades in many parts of the world -- in the Middle East, in Afghanistan and Pakistan, in parts of Central America, Africa and Asia. Some of these places may become safe havens for new terrorist networks.”

And President Obama followed it again after the terror attack on Pathankot air base early this January. Describing the terror attack on the IAF base in Pathankot as "another example of the inexcusable terrorism that India has endured for too long", President Obama told Pakistan that it "can and must" take more effective action against terrorist groups operating from its soil by "delegitimising, disrupting and dismantling" terror networks there. A very hard-hitting statement, indeed!

Are President Obama and his administration now convinced that Pakistan has delegitimized, disrupted and dismantled terror networks operating there? Has Pakistan, according to President Obama, taken effective action against terrorist groups to qualify for the renewed military assistance?

What is hard to digest is the US’ defence over sale of F16 fighter jets to Pakistan. The US State Department spokesperson Helaena W. White said:  “We support the proposed sale of eight F-16s to Pakistan to assist Pakistan’s counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency operations. Pakistan’s current F-16s have proven critical to the success of these operations to date.”

Who the US is trying to fool with such inane justification? It has been providing F-16 fighters to Pakistan since the 80s. Had Pakistan been using these fighter planes against militant groups, terrorism would have been on its last legs. In fact, these planes are being used against separatist insurgents in the restive province of Baluchistan, in Pakistan's North Waziristan regions. At a time when both India and the US are intensely engaged in fighting the scourge of terrorism, this decision will not go down well with New Delhi, which has rightly registered its strongest protest with Washington.

DO-OR-DIE BATTLE FOR BJP AND CONGRESS IN ASSAM

 

Election bugle has been sounded for four states and a union territory and Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s

Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) faces a daunting task after its two back-to-back humiliating defeats in Delhi and Bihar.  The party can fancy its chances in Assam only where Chief Minister Tarun Gogoi is battling anti-incumbency after staying in power for 15 years.  In the remaining states of Kerala, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal and union territory of Puducherry, it has very negligible presence.

The BJP is desperate to expand its footprint in the remote northeastern part of the country after its astonishing performance in Assam in the last general elections where it bagged seven out of the 14 seats. This time, the BJP has stitched together a formidable alliance by netting its off-an-on ally Asom Gana Parishad (AGP), a former ally of the Congress – Bodoland People’s Front – and dissident Congress leaders. The BJP’s state chief Sarbananda Sonowal, who has been declared as a chief ministerial candidate, was a long time associate of AGP before he joined hands with the saffron party.  It also embraced 10 Congress MLAs led by Himanta Biswa Sarma, an influential minister in the Gogoi cabinet, after their defections. The BJP will be banking heavily on the experience of Sarma, who oversaw the last assembly elections and engineered the Congress’ astounding victory when political pundits were writing the obituary of the grand old party in the state. The Congress triumphed in 79 of the 126 seats.

On the paper, the BJP looks set to upset the applecart of the Congress, which failed to strike a pre-poll alliance with Badruddin Ajmal-led All India United Democratic Front (AIUDF). Their common vote bank – the Muslim vote – is likely to be split as both the parties derive maximum political strength from Muslim-dominated areas. The AIUDF doubled its strength from 9 to 18 in the last assembly elections contesting on 77 seats.

The BJP has improved its vote share between the 2011 assembly election and 2014 general elections incredibly. From 11.5 percent, the BJP’s vote share jumped more than three-fold to 36.5 percent in the last parliamentary elections. In contrast, the Congress’ vote share fell down from 39.9 percent in 2011 to 29.9 percent in the general elections, a massive erosion of 10 percent in its vote share. It remains to be seen whether the BJP will succeed in repeating or improving its 2014 performance because the saffron party was helped largely by a massive wave in favour of Modi then. Much water has flown down the Brahmaputra since then. There has been dip in the popularity of Modi as he has struggled to implement any of his much flaunted promises. To make matters worse, the economy is not doing as well as one expected.

The BJP in Assam represents a rainbow party with members largely drawn from other parties. It has recruited Congress dissidents, members of the All Assam Students’ Union (AASU), the student wing of the AGP, and surrendered cadres of the United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA) which waged an armed struggle against the state. Even its face in the state, Sonowal, was president of AASU. It will be interesting to watch how this rag-tag bunch of politicians stays together as everybody will be demanding its pound of flesh.

As of now, it is advantage BJP as it has tied up with AGP and Bodoland People’s Front (BPF). All the three parties have a common cause as far as their opposition to the illegal immigrants from Bangladesh is concerned. But its decision to take the Congress dissidents in its fold, with complete different political ideology, will be tested in the polls. This is a major irritant in otherwise a perfect combo to take on the veteran Gogoi who will find the going tough this time. The AGP’s decision to flirt again with the Hindu party after burning bridges with it in the past underlines its desperation as its fortunes have been constantly on the downslide and is losing political space in the state. In fact, the BJP’s growth story in Assam has been largely at the expense of the AGP. Interestingly, both the parties have fared badly whenever they entered into an alliance in the past. Their first attempt to come together ended in a catastrophe in 2001 as the then ruling AGP was unseated by the Congress. In that election, the AGP managed just 20 seats whereas the BJP bagged eight seats. The two parties against decided to kiss and make up in the 2009 Lok Sabha elections. The decision boomeranged on the AGP which won just one seat whereas the BJP triumphed in four seats. In the last assembly elections, both the BJP and AGP went separately.  The AGP bettered BJP as it netted 10 seats out of 104 seats on which it contested whereas the BJP managed just five out of 120 seats on which it went to polls.

If one tallies the 2011 vote share of all the three parties which contested the elections separately – the BJP, AGP and BPF -- it was 33 percent, which was about six percent short of the Congress. The permutation this time favours the BJP-led alliance as Gogoi has been incapacitated due to defection by Sarma, considered to be the master strategist and architect of Congress victory in the last elections.  But predicting elections is not an easy task in India as several pollsters have burned their hands in the past with their prognosis going wayward.

Assam election is a do-or-die battle for both the Congress and BJP. Both the parties need to win this high stake election. The Congress has not won a single state election after its disastrous performance in the 2014 general elections, though it took some solace in last year’s victory in Bihar being part of the Grand Alliance.  Riding on the wave of Modi’s popularity in general elections, the BJP snatched some big wins in Haryana, Jharkhand, Maharashtra, and formed the government in Kashmir as a junior partner.  But it began with a disastrous note in the next year as it was annihilated completely first in Delhi by the rookie Aam Aadmi Party and then by the RJD-JDU-Congress alliance in Bihar.

The results in Delhi and Bihar are a big question mark on the popularity of the BJP whose career graph is on the downhill as the Modi magic has started fading. Therefore, both the parties will go for the kill in Assam to recover the lost ground. But will they be able to pull off an outright victory? I have my doubts. My bets are on a hung legislative assembly with no political party or group in a position to form the government.