Tag Archives: Elections
Posted on 06 February, 2014, No Comments Comments admin
Political discourse, in the run up to a general election in particular, is best anchored in decency and decorum. Equally, the tendency to underestimate the knowledge of economics of one’s opponent and overestimate one’s own is best avoided.
Finance Minister P. Chidambaram’s assertion, in an interview to the BBC, that the knowledge of economics of Narendra Modi, the prime ministerial candidate of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), can be written on the reverse of a postage stamp, even if offered in a lighter vein, smacks of arrogance.
His subsequent question enquiring why Modi has not spoken about the fiscal deficit, the current account deficit or monetary policy is even more intriguing. Is an attempt being made to define the qualifications and terms of reference of a prime ministerial candidate or the finance minister’s own successor? Additionally, does the ability to govern rest on academic degrees and theoretical knowledge?
A look at the present Congress party-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) cabinet and the qualifications of its 31 cabinet ministers is instructive. Apart from the good doctor himself, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who has a Ph.D from Oxford, not one of his senior ministers has a formal degree in economics.
Many of them are students of literature (External Affairs Minister Salman Khurshid) and history (Communications and IT Minister Kapil Sibal) who then went on to become lawyers. The closest that any of them come to the study of economics are the luminaries who either studied commerce (Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kamal Nath), management (Chidambaram) and engineering (Rural Development Minister Jairam Ramesh).
Surely, it could not be this lack of formal training in the dismal science which explains the state of the economy today. Apart from earlier stints during the I.K. Gujral government, the present incumbent has been finance minister for six years.
During UPA-I and II, the overall growth rate has declined from a high of 9.6 percent to an estimated 4.5 percent for 2012-13.
Let us look at the individual sectors.
The prime minister, modest by nature, in his farewell press conference Jan 3, said: “I am concerned that we have not been as successful as we need to be in generating employment in the manufacturing sector.”
According to a joint study by Boston Consulting Group and the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) in November 2013, the share of manufacturing in India’s gross domestic product (GDP) declined to 15.1 percent in 2013, the lowest in the decade.
Even if this figure is tentative, the fact that the share of manufacturing in the GDP is declining strongly is not in any doubt. The new land acquisition law effective from Jan 1 makes land acquisition, essential for this sector – and something that can take 3-6 years from start to finish – cost two-four times higher.
Not only will the manufacturing sector not produce the hundreds of millions of jobs hoped for by 2025, but the Congress-led UPA government has succeeded in complicating the task for its successor. Course correction will require huge amounts of capital to be invested and policy induced encouragement to the sector, conspicuously lacking in the last decade.
The situation relating to agriculture is worse. More than 60 percent of India lives in rural areas and relies largely on this sector for survival. The contribution of agriculture to the GDP has been steadily declined from 19 percent in 2004-05 to 13.94 percent in 2012-13.
Pointing fingers at one’s opponents and hurling incentives is unlikely to alter the ground reality. The farmer is losing his land through manipulated processes of urbanization. The compensation that the farmer receives is way short of what the land mafia gets.
To try to explain food price inflation, from which the country as a whole is reeling in terms of more money in the hands of the producer, is strange. If this is so, how does one explain suicides by farmers. In Karnataka alone, where the latest invective was hurled, a total of 1,003 deaths were reported between 2005 and 2009. The number of deaths in 2012-13 were over 100.
And now inflation.
The figure was 3.8 percent in 2004 which increased to 12 percent in 2010 and is still around 11 percent. This level of inflation has the effect of nullifying almost all the other gains, especially since growth is around five percent.
The overall job creation in 2004-05 was 460 million. In 10 years, the number has only increased to 470 million. This also speaks for itself. A statistic on which the government has been conspicuously silent relates to Gini coefficient, which measures inequality. A Gini coefficient of zero expresses perfect equality and a coefficient of one expresses maximal inequality.
Those responsible for economic policy decisions would be well advised to look at the growing disparities. An increase in the Gini coefficient from 0.325 in 2004-05 to 0.39 in 2012-13 is alarming.
Given the overall fall of GDP growth from 9.4 percent to 4.5 percent, a decline in the share of manufacturing and agriculture in GDP and jobless growth from foreign investment in the services sector, which accounts for nearly 60 percent of the GDP today, should set the alarm bells ringing.
Along with rampant corruption and scams, this makes a toxic and highly combustible cocktail. What is required is urgent course correction and not vitriolic polemic.
Nothing is more galling than the use of government money to project half truths. Expensive half-page advertisements costing a fortune maintain that our exports increased from Rs.2.93 lakh crore (Rs.2.93 trillion/$47 billion) to Rs.16.34 lakh crore (Rs.16.34 trillion) in the last nine years. Not mentioned is that imports have gone up even faster, leaving us with a trade deficit of nearly $200 billion.
In 2004, our exports were $74 billion and imports $57.24 billion – a trade deficit of only $17 billion. In 2012-13, our exports were $306.6 billion and our imports $502.2 billion – a trade deficit of US$ 195.6 billion! The rupee meanwhile has gone from 44 to the dollar in 2004 and is inching up towards 63.
Senior economic managers of the UPA need to indulge in some introspection. Display of humility and less of hubris may actually go down well with those who have the votes.
(05-02-2014- Hardeep S. Puri, a retired diplomat, recently joined the BJP. The views expressed are personal. He can be reached at hardeepsinghpuri@yahoo.com)
Posted on 06 February, 2014, No Comments Comments admin
On July 27, 2008 three BJP MPs viz. Faggan Singh Kulaste, Mahabir Singh Bhagora and Ashok Argal were attempted to be bribed. They recorded the act of bribe giving wherein an offer was made to them to accept money and vote in favour of the Government in the vote of confidence taken on the Civil Nuclear Deal with the United States. After recording the act of bribe-giving they immediately went to Parliament; produced the money on the floor of the House; and exposed the fact that bribes were being offered to MPs to cross-vote in favour of the Government. The case was investigated by the Delhi Police and the three MPs as whistleblowers were charged for an offence for being a part of the conspiracy in giving and accepting bribe. Along with the alleged bribe-givers, three whistleblowers were arrested. Later on they were released on bail. A charge-sheet was filed before the Special Judge, CBI in Delhi. On November 22, 2013 Shri Narottam Kaushal, the Special Judge, CBI in Delhi discharged the three whistleblowers along with some others. The learned judge categorically stated-
“The meeting of minds or agreement between the accused, CNN-IBN team and three BJP MPs was only regarding collection of evidence on horse-trading and exposing leaders of Congress Party and Samajwadi Party, who were indulging in corrupt activity to lure vulnerable MPs of other parties. The said act cannot be said to be illegal or a legal act with illegal means; so as to attract a charge u/s 120-B IPC”.
The same order was also extended to two other whistleblowers viz. Sudheendra Kulkarni and Suhail Hindustani. The Judge in relation to these two accused further observed, “His presence with accused BJP MPs during later part of the events with the knowledge that proceedings were being recorded by CNN-IBN team and his active participation therein indicates that he was one of the actors playing his role in the drama being enacted to entrap bribe giver”.
This judgment was a significant victory for those who were campaigning for the rights of the whistleblowers and grant of protection to them. India needs more whistleblowers so that acts of corruption can be exposed. The Lok Sabha has already passed the Whistleblowers Bill and the same is pending before the Rajya Sabha. If there is any window of opportunities for legislation, which is available in this session, I do hope that this Bill can be passed at the earliest.
The newspapers today carry a detailed news item that the AAP Government has decided to appeal against this verdict. The AAP ostensibly claims to be a product of a movement which campaigned for the Lokpal and the Whistleblowers legislation. It, therefore, surprises me that one of the earliest decisions of the AAP Government would be to challenge the discharge of whistleblowers by a competent court. Admittedly, people cross voted in the vote of confidence in July, 2008. Admittedly monies were being offered to the MPs. Admittedly the three MPs with two of their colleagues enacted the whole drama of receiving bribe and getting an independent TV channel to record the same. They exposed one of the greatest scandals in independent India’s history. They were wrongly charged, and rightly discharged.
That Mr. Arvind Kejriwal and his government would now plead for prosecution of the whistleblowers comes to me and many others as a matter of surprise. But then political consistency is becoming unknown for some. Interestingly, Mr. Kejriwal is exhorting everybody to do sting operation on corrupt officials. But were the Aam Admi party’s standards to be applied to such cases, then everybody would be guilty under 120-B of IPC.
Posted on 05 February, 2014, No Comments Comments admin
The Home Minister Mr. Sushil Kumar Shinde today wanted the leave of the House to introduce the Prevention of Communal Violence (Access to Justice and Reparations) Bill, 2014. I objected to the introduction of the Bill on the ground of lack of legislative competence in the Parliament to enact the law. My opposition was based on the legislative entries contained in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. List II of the Seventh Schedule is the State list. Entry 1 deals with the Public Order. Entry 2 deals with Police and Entry 41 deals with the Public services of the States. These are matters exclusively within the domain of the State. The central legislature has no legislative competence to enact on these issues.
The Bill as proposed creates a new category of offences. It deals with declaration and notification of areas which are disturbed areas. It suggests steps for prevention of acts in relation to communal violence. It has a chapter dealing with maintenance of public order. It then deals with the compensation mechanism and action to be taken against officers of the state government and the penalties which can be imposed upon them. All these matters are exclusively within the domain of the state executive. The response of the union Law Minister was that federalism is not threatened as long as the power in relation to each of these subjects vests in the State executive. My response was that that there is a clear distinction between legislative power and the executive power. The legislative power is the power to enact a law. Executive power is a power under the legislation to undertake necessary steps. My objection was based on the lack of legislative competence. The Centre cannot say that by enacting, I am giving the power to the officers of the state because under List II, Entry 1, 2, 41 the power does not belong to the Centre in the first instance. Almost all Opposition parties supported the view taken by the BJP. The Bill has therefore rightly been deferred at the introduction stage itself.
Posted on 05 February, 2014, No Comments Comments admin
There are a large number of public appointments which are expected to be on non-partisan lines. Government is a political entity. Appointments which are exclusively made by the political executive in the government fail to inspire confidence. It is for this reason that the collegium system has been mooted in relation to several appointments. Currently, the chairman and the members of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), the Chief Vigilance Commissioner (CVC), Vigilance Commissioners, CIC and Information Commissioners and now the Chairperson and Members of the Lokpal are to be appointed by a collegium. The collegium for each of these appointments is differently constituted. The Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha is associated with each of these appointments. For the NHRC, even the Leader of Opposition in Rajya Sabha is a member of the collegium.
As Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh’s tenure comes to an end, it is time for him to introspect the damage he has done to the collegium system. He puts on a veneer of straightforwardness but he is excessively political. When Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee was the Prime Minister during the NDA regime, there was only one occasion where the two LOPs had dissented to an appointment. The appointment to which Mrs. Sonia Gandhi and Dr. Manmohan Singh dissented was that of the Chairman of the NHRC that the NDA had appointed. It is indeed embarrassing for Dr. Singh, along with his leader for having raised an objection to the appointment of Justice J.S. Verma as Chairman of the NHRC. There could not have been, at that stage, a candidate with better credentials that Justice Verma. His dissent was motivated by political considerations.
As a Prime Minister, he wanted to appoint a tainted person as the CVC. My colleague and the Leader of Opposition, Lok Sabha Smt. Sushma Swaraj dissented. Her dissent was upheld and the appointment of the CVC was struck down.
Even though the Lokpal law gives power to the four members to appoint the fifth member, the discretion of the four members was restricted for selecting seven members of the committee. The eminent jurist included Shri Mohan Gopal, a functionary of the Rajiv Gandhi Foundation. Smt. Swaraj is believed to have suggested that amongst the eminent jurists available, the best in the outstanding persons could be appointed. She suggested the names of the former CJI, Shri F.S. Nariman, Shri Soli Sorabjee, Shri K. Parasaran, and Shri Harish Salve. Smt. Swaraj would even have been agreeable to the names of Justice M N Venkatachaliah and Sh. K K Venugopal. The Prime Minister maintained a position that only one name could be considered that of Sh. P.P. Rao. None of the names suggested by Smt. Swaraj could be considered.
Sh. P.P. Rao is an honourable man. It is the Prime Minister’s insistence that none of the others could be considered and the government was only interested in P.P. Rao is what makes me doubt its intentions. The objective of having a Chief Justice or his nominee judge in the collegium was intended to maintain a balance. Ordinarily, in view of the divided opinion, the nominee judge was expected to come out with some outstanding name who would be acceptable by all. This did not happen.
Dr. Singh’s tenure as Prime Minister comes to an end soon. Amongst the various institutions that he has done damage to is the collegium system for making appointments to several public positions. As one of those who was actively involved in drafting of the Lokpal Law, I have started introspecting as to whether the collegium system can be so easily subverted in order to subvert the appointment of a Lokpal. The Prime Minister damaged the institution of Lokpal even prior to its appointment.
Posted on 04 February, 2014, No Comments Comments admin
Yesterday, when an Aam Aadmi Party MLA made some irresponsible statements without any supporting evidence dragging my name along with that of Narendra Modi in an unnecessary controversy, I had rubbished the charge. Today, to further pursue the allegations which the AAP has manufactured, they decided to hold a protest at my residence. I am convinced that AAP is a party of pathological liars. They create a falsehood and then convince themselves of its truth.
Let me now deal with the statement of the MLA named Madan Lal.
• Neither Narendra Modi nor I am aware of who is this Madan Lal, MLA.
• He claims that he was approached on telephone on 7th December,2013 with an offer to meet me.
• He does not know the name of the person who telephoned him. Nor does he know the number from where the phone came. He has not even checked his call data records to provide him the identity of the caller if such a call did exist.
• On 7th December,2013 the results of the Delhi election had not yet been declared. Madan Lal was not an MLA. Most people in Delhi did not visualize that he would be an MLA or that his party will get a sizeable number of seats. Why should somebody call him for a dubious purpose before his election as an MLA.
• He further claims that some 10-12 day ago some person from Gujarat approached him with a significant offer of bribe.
• He does not know the name of the person who approached him or his status or designation.
• He did not follow his party’s advice that bribe must be accepted and the bribe giver should be subjected to a sting operation.
• He chose to keep quiet for about 10 days.
• Curiously, the AICC General Secretary, Shakeel Ahmed made a statement about these incidents of alleged bribe giving an hour before Madan Lal’s Press Conference.
The absurdity of his claim is evident. The facts speak for themselves. But the AAP appears to be creating a falsehood, convince itself of its truth and keep pursuing the matter even if it is absurd and false on the face of it.
Posted on 03 February, 2014, No Comments Comments admin
Is the Third Front back? Who exactly is pushing the idea of the Third Front? What are its implications? The prime movers behind the idea of Third Front are the Janata Dal (United) and the Samajwadi Party. Both are facing a serious identity crisis. The JD(United) broke a long standing alliance with the BJP and faces the possibility of being squeezed out in the Lok Sabha elections. The party is essentially confined to Bihar. Its leaders took a calculated risk and had hoped that Lalu Prasad Yadav would be in prison and the minority vote would shift to them. The bail granted to the RJD leader destroyed the JD(U)’s calculations. The SP in the Uttar Pradesh is responsible for keeping both the UPA-I and UPA-II in power. On all crucial occasions it helped the UPA. The quid-pro-quo was help from the CBI for weakening the corruption cases registered against its top leaders and their family members. It is extremely difficult for the Samajwadi Party to project a credible political personality on the plank of non-Congressism. Its political strategy is always based on two vote banks—the Yadavs and the Muslims. The first is also partly voting for Narendra Modi and the second is completely disillusioned after the Muzaffarnagar riots. Both the JD(U) and the SP are potential losers in their areas of influence. Losers don’t become winners merely because they attempt to form a ‘losers front’.
The essential requisite of a Third front is equidistance from the Congress and the BJP. How can the JD(U) and the Samajwadi Party claim that? The JD(U) lost out to the RJD in a bid to befriend the Congress. The SP kept the UPA in power for Ten years.
Then, of course, there are regional parties in some States. These regional parties have a support base of their own. Within their States they are likely to win a reasonable number of Lok Sabha seats. These regional parties occupy the non-Congress space. They have in the past been identified with the NDA. Their politics can never be one of alignment with the Congress. That will dilute their political identity. The Congress, in any case, does not appear to be heading for a position where it can occupy the centre stage of a credible political alliance. It can at best be a fringe player not a formidable part.
There are the contradictions of the Third Front – the Trinamool Congress versus the Left, the SP versus the BSP, the AIADMK versus the DMK and the JD(U) versus the RJD. They constitute a political paradox which a Third Front can never resolve. The Third Front has no ideological coherence. It has no nucleus with a large political presence which can provide stability to the Front.
The disillusionment with the Congress-led UPA is clearly visible. To pull the economy out of the present mess, you need coherence, decisiveness and political stability. The Third Front represents the very opposite of all these. The more noise we hear about the Third Front, the greater will be the desire to elect Narendra Modi led NDA government which has an ability of its own to form a government.
Posted on 02 February, 2014, No Comments Comments admin
The revelation in ‘The Indian Express’ with regard to the Augusta Westland VVIP helicopter deal appears to be a repeat of what we witnessed in the late 1980s. Martin Ardbo’s diary was seized. He was head of the company which manufactured the Bofors Gun. Amongst various disclosures, the diary hinted at the protection of ‘Q’. Keen observers all knew who this ‘Q’ could be. In 1993, the Swiss authorities gave details of the bank accounts into which the Bofors kick-backs were paid. The beneficiary of one of the accounts into which significant sums had been deposited indeed was the well known ‘Q’. ‘Q’ was allowed to escape from India and the rest is history.
Admittedly, kick-backs have been paid in the VVIP helicopter transaction. The defensive UPA Government has cancelled the deal. The Indian Express in the first instance points out as to who calls the shots in the decision making in the Government of India. Even the Italian middlemen perceived that important decisions in India were being influenced by Mrs. Sonia Gandhi. The Prime Minister at best is one of the several advisors to her. The middlemen are clever people. They do their home work before coming to conclusions. The abbreviated initials mentioned on the account sheets remind me of Martin Ardbo’s diary.
Mrs. Sonia Gandhi should indeed be worried. How is Government of India perceived by people in India and outside? Is it a Government of gold diggers? Has the UPA which she heads subverted India into a kleptocracy? Is the Government which she controls a filth machine? The government indeed has a very corrupt image. Its performance on the economic front has been disturbing. The final data of 2012-13 have scaled down the GDP growth to 4.5 percent. UPA-II’s economic achievements, to borrow Mr. Chidambaram’s phrase, can be written on the back of a postal stamp. Recent election results presented a disturbing picture for the ruling combine. The leader that they have sought to project for 2014 General Elections is failing to make an impact.
Faced with these adversities, the UPA Chairperson resorts to the last refuge of the desperate. Her ‘poison cultivation’ remark is only intended to communally polarize an election which is otherwise being contested on a developmental agenda. Her desperation is understandable. It is a different matter that her attempt to communally polarize the election may yield no results.
Posted on 31 January, 2014, No Comments Comments admin
As the elections appear closer, the nervousness in the Congress Party has become more visible. Each one is frantically concerned about his own position rather than wanting the Congress Party to get ready for a spirited fight.
Amethi was a fortress of the Congress Party. It is Rahul Gandhi’s constituency. It has been nourished by the family for four decades. The very idea that the Raja of Amethi Sanjay Singh may contest against Rahul Gandhi was enough to scare the Congress Party’s de facto Prime Ministerial candidate. The Raja of Amethi had to be accommodated in the Rajya Sabha from Assam. A firewall of sorts has to be created around Amethi to secure the constituency. Additionally, deals are being worked out with the SP and the BSP not to put up candidate from the minority community against the sitting MP. In the process not only has the leader of the Congress Party displayed his personal nervousness but the party’s prospects in Assam have been considerably damaged. States in the North East and Jammu & Kashmir are particularly sensitive and want their own candidates to be elected to the Parliament.
Senior leaders from Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and Chhattisgarh who should have been leading the party’s campaign in this election have sought nominations for the Upper House.
The position of the allies is no different. The Trinamool Congress, the DMK and the TRS amongst the major allies have already drifted away from the UPA. Amongst the current allies the principal ones are the NCP and the National Conference. The NCP has been giving conflicting signals on a daily basis. The statements of its leaders on the 2002 Gujarat riots go contrary to the Congress Party’s line. The National Conference has realized that an alliance with the ruling party of New Delhi will be counter-productive to it in the Kashmir valley. It is preparing itself for a break.
No State unit of the Congress party in recent history had the courage to defy the Central leadership. Most Congressmen from Andhra Pradesh led by the Chief Minister have decided to defy the party line on Telengana. The next in store will be cross voting in the Rajya Sabha elections in Andhra Pradesh. All this could lead to split in a State which provided the largest number of seats to the Congress both in 2004 and 2009.
And finally my friend Mr. P. Chidambaram, the Union Finance Minister appears to be planning life after the North Block. He is an extremely competent lawyer. Parliament’s loss will be Supreme Court’s gain. From the kind of statements he is making and the academic questions he is posing to his opponents, I suspect that he is practising to get back to column writing. I am sure his columns will make an excellent reading.
Posted on 29 January, 2014, No Comments Comments admin
The Finance Minister Mr. P Chidambaram has commented that the amount of economics that Mr. Narendra Modi knows can be written on the backside of a postal stamp. This statement comes from a keen student of economics who can be credited with pushing India’s GDP growth to below 5%.
Mr. Chidambaram believes that he is a principal repository of all economic wisdom. It is a different matter that he along with the other members of the UPA’s dream team to manage the economy, have presented to the country not a dream but a nightmare. Political administrators who manage the economy are not known by their academic attributes. They are known by the footprints of performance they leave behind.
Mr. P V Narasimha Rao and Mr. Atal Behari Vajpayee had no claim to high levels of scholarship in economics. Experts are always available for special assignments in a Government. It’s a different matter that the Congress Party chooses to make them Finance Ministers. Political Leaders are expected to provide the leadership and decisiveness required for the management of the economy. They need to have a broad idea of the management of political economy. They are required to build consensus on economic issues. If consensus is not forthcoming they must assert themselves and overrule the critics. It is this quality that both Mr. Rao and Mr. Vajpayee had. It is for this reason that they find a special mention in history.
Mr. Narendra Modi does not claim to be an economist. The manner in which he has administered Gujarat for the past 12 years has demonstrated his decisiveness and ability. Gujarat is an industrial hub of India. It is a manufacturing State. Its agricultural economy has grown in double digits. Its growth figures are higher than those of the rest of the country. Unlike Mr. Modi, Mr. Chidambaram and his Prime Minister did not have the ability to overrule their critics. They caved in even when obsolete suggestions were made by their Party leadership. Observers today do not share Mr. Chidambaram’s opinion about Mr. Modi. In fact, the revival of the Investment cycle is being linked to a change in Government where Dr. Singh and Mr. Chidambaram go out and Mr. Modi comes in.
Mr. Modi has demonstrated his clarity and effectiveness in generating and expediting economic activity in Gujarat. His ability does not require certification of Mr. Chidambaram. But will Mr. Chidambaram with his customary wisdom educate us on the extent of economic knowledge and understanding his de facto Prime Ministerial candidate Mr. Rahul Gandhi possesses?
Posted on 29 January, 2014, No Comments Comments admin
A.G. Noorani belongs to a class of so-called thinkers/writers who thrive through pervert intellectualism and seek to stay relevant through outrageous postulations from time to time. The tone and tenor of Noorani’s discourse at a workshop held at Islamabad is yet again a manifestation of the same mind-set where he has once again resorted to his favourite Kashmir theme with anti-India overtones.
This is not the first time Noorani has expressed such views viz-a-viz Jammu and Kashmir but has infact been doing so for the last over three decades. This indulgence of his has endeared him to the separatist constituency in Kashmir valley as well as to the India baiters abroad.
Noorani’s self-righteous observation at the Islamabad workshop that “the right of the people of Kashmir to a plebiscite is an inherent right” is devoid of the understanding of political realities that have emerged in the Indian subcontinent after independence and partition.Just a four point rebuttal will suffice…
1) The reference to “plebiscite” or “referendum” made by Nehru to Liaqat Ali Khan, according to Noorani, was turned down then and there by Liaqat Ali himself.
2) Jammu & Kashmir acceded to India under the provisions of same Instrument of Accession and same legalities which were applicable to other princely states of the subcontinent. Thereafter, the acceptance of the constitution of India by the then Regent of J&K in November 1949 followed by endorsement of the same by the Constituent Assembly of J&K in February 1954 signified culmination of the process of determining the will of the people.
3) The UN resolution on “plebiscite” laid down two pre-requisites a) cease-fire and b) truce. When Pakistan failed to fulfill these pre-requisites, the UN Security Council in December 1948 stated that if Pakistan was not abiding by these conditions,the resolution was no longer a binding on India.
4) India is a federation and,according to International Law, “secession’ is not an option available in any federation.
Even as Noorani seeks to suggest new nomenclature of East Kashmir and West Kashmir for Indian part of Jammu & Kashmir and Pakistan occupied Kashmir (PoK) respectively, he conveniently remains oblivious of the fate of erstwhile East Pakistan and West Pakistan with the birth of Bangladesh quite in negation of the “two nation theory” which had inspired the concept of Pakistan.
Noorani is factually incorrect when he says that after, what he describes as “Agra rebuff”, Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee had nothing to offer Pakistan. The truth is that NDA regime under Vajpayee had relentlessly endeavoured to improve the relations between two countries despite a series of deterrents including the Kargil war.
Noorani’s suggestion that a peaceful solution to the so-called Kashmir problem must include India, Pakistan and people of Kashmir is nothing but an echo of the separatist rhetoric which has since been rejected.
As far as India is concerned, the only pending agenda over Jammu & Kashmir, as also endorsed by the 1994 unanimous resolution of the Indian Parliament, is to retrieve back the area of the State which continues to be under illegal occupation of Pakistan.
Noorani, would do well to understand the fact that end of hostility and export of terrorism is the basic prerequisite for ensuring peace in the region, and to that extent, he could have used his Pakistan visit to prevail upon the powers-that-be in Islamabad to stop sponsoring militancy on the Indian soil.