Editorial
Govt’s port use optimisation plan smacks of short-sightedness
THE Awami League-led government’s plan to let India, Nepal and Bhutan use the Chittagong and Mongla ports – as articulated in the 50-point Dhaka-New Delhi joint communiqué at the end of the prime minister’s recent visit – seems to have been premised on its possible economic returns. According to a report front-paged in New Age on Sunday, the prime minister expounded the rationale during a news briefing at her office on Saturday about her recent visit, saying Bangladesh ‘will definitely earn a lot of money by optimum use of the ports.’ Certainly, economic benefits can be, and need to be considered, before a country enters into an agreement with another, be it related to trade and commerce or transit/transhipment or use of its facilities by the other. However, when the agreement concerns the use of such key-point installations as seaports, economic returns cannot be, and must not be, the overriding consideration; political and strategic dimensions must also be factored in. The prime minister’s assertion tends to indicate that her government may not have taken these two factors into its consideration before agreeing to let India, Nepal and Bhutan use the Chittagong and Mongla ports.
Sadly still, the government might not have done any study so as to ascertain the potential benefits and come up with its own projections. In fact, in the words of the prime minister, its projections are based on newspaper reports that ‘businessman have estimated the possible income at some 100 crore dollars.’ The government hopes, again in the words of the prime minister, will ‘get an idea about the exact figure after the use of ports [by the three countries] is made effective.’ To sump up, not only the government has apparently not done any comprehensive study on the issue but it may also have premised its revenue projections on what may very well be wishful thinking of some businessman. In other words, the entire affair smacks of short-sightedness on the part of the government.
The agreement that Bangladesh signed with India with regard to concerns combat against international terrorism could also be attributed to similar short-sightedness. Since the text of the agreement is yet to be made public, it is not clear how ‘terrorism’ has been defined. As recent developments in different countries across the world show, the state tends to brand the struggle of a particular segment of the population for autonomy or independence as ‘terrorism’. Besides, New Delhi’s perception of terrorism is decidedly in line with the US-Israel paradigm and there is hardly any reason for Bangladesh to be drawn into it.
As for the plan to allow India, Nepal and Bhutan the use of the Chittagong and Mongla ports, it would hopefully be debated, in the parliament and outside, before it is put into effect. Meanwhile, the government needs to initiate a comprehensive study on the possible consequences of its plan – economic, political and strategic – and, importantly still, consultation with experts in relevant areas. After all, such an important decision must not be premised on economic considerations, that too formed by the predictions of some businessmen.
Donning death shroud is not an
acceptable way of protest
EXPRESSION of grievances and protests is part of normal functioning of democracy. Even non-democratic and autocratic regimes do not clamp a blanket ban on protests and movements as long as politics is not sensitised and the ruling philosophy is not under attack. Since our country is a democracy (at least in form, if not in substance) it is expected that rights and privileges of the hitherto exploited or neglected sections will be established and the movement towards egalitarianism will receive a boost. The rights of farmers and workers should almost be held sacrosanct in a progressive democratic society and are expected to be given top priority in nation building. In all movements of workers and their agitations which appear to us to be justified our support is unreservedly extended. However, in this erratic and shapeless world no pre-set and universally-applicable policy can be followed disregarding the peculiarities and particularities which a case may present.
Dock workers of Chittagong had been agitating for realising their demands which include reinstatement of retrenched dock workers and reactivation of dock workers’ management board. At the call of Dock Sramik Oikya Parishad dock workers abstained from work last Tuesday and consequently loading and unloading of cargo was disrupted on the day. They also laid siege to the main gate of the Bandar Bhaban. Such actions are justified only when normal negotiations fail, but that is not our main point. The media displayed photograph of agitating workers laying themselves near the gate clothed in death shroud. This cannot be an acceptable method of registering a protest or realising a demand. Nothing has happened to land the protestors in such desperate and macabre state. A new date for negotiation with the authorities has been set on January 25. This means the path of negotiation has not been closed.
Even if strike and agitation become unavoidable, donning death shroud will not endear the agitators to the people. This is emotional violence and may increase tension quite unnecessarily. There were many other groups, many other victims of injustice who did not have recourse to such nerve-racking exercise. Unsympathetic quarters will get an opportunity to call this action spiritual blackmail. To us it appears that clothing oneself in death shroud to draw attention or support compromises the agitator’s dignity. No departure should be made from sense of proportions and the universal norms of lodging protest. In defence of the dock workers it can be said that they are not the first to adopt this repellent stratagem. A few years ago non-government schoolteachers marched the city streets dressed in this fearful robe to press their demand for more pay. Since then some other groups followed suit and we are afraid this is becoming a new political culture. Everybody who believes that there are rules of the game should dissuade innovators of this variety.
Military ties unlimited: India and Israel
by Rahnuma Ahmed
Our ties with India don’t have any
limitation…
Benjamin Netanyahu
Israeli prime minister (1997)
ARIEL Sharon was the first Israeli prime minister to visit India. It was 2003, and the Financial Times, while reporting on the impending visit, had this to say: it is ‘one of the world’s most secretive relationships.’ As for the reason of the visit: it was to be a ‘coming-out party’ (‘India and Israel Ready to Consummate Secret Affair’, September 4). The party, unfortunately, was cut short by two Palestinian suicide bombings in Jerusalem which killed 16 people.
Many more parties have been held since, but neither side has cared to shed any light on the nature of their relationship. It has remained a secret.
A status that has been vetted and certified by Mark Sofer, Israel’s ambassador to India. I quote his memorable words: ‘We do have a defence relationship with India, which is no secret. On the other hand, what is a secret is what is the defence relationship. And with all due respect the secret part of it will remain secret’ (Outlook India, February 18, 2008).
What is one to make of that? That defence and intelligence cooperation, which includes sales of high-tech weapons systems and mutual access to military facilities and training, is mere surface? What lies underneath then? Something which is so hidden, so momentous that His Excellency needed to utter the word ‘secret’ four times?
Whatever be the true nature of this ‘limitless’ relationship, it took time to develop, to mature. Full diplomatic relations were established in 1992, a good forty-two years after India had recognised the state of Israel. And, why?
Earlier, India had been supportive of anti-colonial struggles. It was one of the first non-Arab states to recognise Palestinian independence, to allow the setting up of an embassy. There had been tactical reasons, too. To counter Pakistan’s influence in the Arab world. To safeguard its oil supplies. To ensure jobs for Indian migrants in Middle Eastern countries. Also, out of respect for its alliance and friendship with the Soviet Union. After all, those were the good old Cold War days and as a founder-member of the Non-Aligned Movement, India had maintained a self-respecting distance from US imperialism. But not everyone will agree, pointing instead to prime minister Indira Gandhi’s instructions to Rameshwar Nath Kao, founder of RAW (Research and Analysis Wing), way back in September 1968. Cultivate relations with Mossad, she had said. It’ll help monitor developments likely to threaten both nations.
Everyone agrees however that the Kargil war (May-July 1999) ‘cemented’ the relationship between the two nations. Israel had leapt to India’s assistance. As Air Marshal PS Ahluwalia puts it, it had not been very easy to locate Pakistani intruders. They had merged into the stony terrain. Tel Aviv assisted with unmanned reconnaissance aircrafts. These UAVs, or drones, could not only fly longer, i.e. 24 hours, but were able to ‘sense even simple movements on the ground.’ The Israeli Heron and Searcher UAVs are now flown by the Indian armed forces. It had also, reportedly, provided an emergency shipment of artillery shells to India, on credit.
These cementing steps were preceded by events which had caused alarm in New Delhi had led to strategic re-assessments. Guerrilla warfare had begun in the state of Jammu and Kashmir in the late 1980s, this had coincided with the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan in the face of the ISI-trained and CIA-sponsored mujahideen insurgency, the subsequent collapse of the USSR. New Delhi’s re-assessment of its relationship with America and Israel led to the discovery of convergences; these mirrored assessments arrived at in both Washington and Tel Aviv. Realignments followed soon, ones that were vigorously pursued by Indian and Jewish lobbies in the US.
To modernise its Soviet-era arsenal, India plans to spend $100 billion on defence over the next decade. Having overtaken Russia, Israel is now India’s No 1 supplier of arms and ammunitions; 50 per cent of Israel’s defence exports are to India, which relies on Israel for 30 per cent of its imports. Israel supplies a range of defence products, which include Barak missiles, assault rifles, night fighting devices, radar network, hi-tech warfare systems and information technology related equipment. The growing defence ties were expressed by India’s launching of Tecsar, an Israeli spy satellite (also known as Polaris), from Sriharikota launch site, in 2008. According to Israeli press reports, the satellite will improve Israel’s ability to monitor Iran’s military activities. In early November last year, the signing of a $1.1 billion contract was announced while India’s army chief General Deepak Kapoor was in Israel for high-level talks. The sale of Barak-8 systems, an upgraded tactical air defence system, is expected to be delivered to India by 2017. Since Kargil, India has bought $8 billion worth military hardware and software from Israel. Some of the defence contracts, however, have been dogged by controversy surrounding alleged kickbacks (the name of a London-based businessman cropped up in the Barak deal; the director of India’s Ordnance Factory Board was arrested with others, on corruption charges).
Militarisation, armament, as feminists argue, is deeply gendered. The Israeli armament company Rafael, unveiled an ad at the Aero-India show in Bangalore (2009), a dance and music video, Bollywood style, to woo the Indian defence establishment. The 3 minute 21 second video shows a man (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktQOLO4U5iQ), presumably Rafael (Israel) wooing a woman (India) singing a song, accompanied by dancing shokhis:
[Man] “We have been together for long...
Trusting friends and partners...
What more can I pledge to make our future strong?”
[Woman] “I need to feel safe and sheltered...
security and protection, commitment and perfection,
defence and dedication.”
[Chorus] Dinga-dinga, dinga-dinga, dinga-dee.
Some of the shots show missiles, part of the set design, around which the dancers gyrate their bodies. The phallic symbolism was surely not lost on India’s elite defence establishment. A senior defence officer—probably distraught at India’s depiction as a helpless woman, in need of a manly man, one that goes against its image as an emerging superpower, one which India would like its less fortunate South Asian kin to revere—told the Times of India, the ad was ‘quite tacky’. Like a ‘C-grade Hindi movie song’. The Times was more sophisticated. Its headline said, the ad had ‘raised’ Indian eyebrows.
Arms sales can be tracked, says Vijay Prasad. ‘But this counterterrorism relationship is very, very covert.’ Prasad’s suspicions reverberate when Richard Boucher, US assistant secretary of state—described as the Obama administration’s point man for South Asia—says India will be ‘a key stakeholder’ in Obama’s so-called Af-Pak strategy. After all, ‘They’ve made an important contribution in Afghanistan—I think their total (contribution to the rehabilitation and reconstruction in Afghanistan) is up to about $1.2 billion. They’ve been very instrumental in key areas like training, civil service, and helping build Afghan institutions,’ but ‘they will not do anything militarily or put boots on the ground’ because of regional issues involved with Pakistan.
The left’s opposition to India’s ‘limitless’ relationship with Israel seems to have died down after the Mumbai attack in November 2008, India’s 9/11. A fact compounded by the electoral results last year, one of the biggest wins for the Indian National Congress, ‘no longer under the pressure of the left front.’ The Mumbai attack has made it easier for sentiments about Israel-India’s similarities to be voiced: both are targeted by Islamist fundamentalists. In one case, Palestinians/Hamas, in the other, Pakistanis/jihadists.
But, Jeff Gates writes, as Afghanistan and Pakistan join other nations in being destabilised one cannot help but raise questions about how the crises which have wracked the subcontinent in recent years were so ‘well-timed’: Benazir Bhutto’s murder, Musharraf’s departure, the terror attack in Mumbai which served to draw Pakistani forces away from the western tribal region. Incidents which served the tactical goals of both Muslim extremists and Jewish nationalists. Did Mossad have any role to play? asks Gates.
Israeli writer and peace activist Gideon Levy recently wrote, the time has come to send Israel for observation. Only psychiatrists can explain Israel’s behaviour. Its acts have no rational explanation. It suffers from a loss of touch with reality. Temporary or permanent insanity. Paranoia. Schizophrenia. Memory loss. Loss of judgement.
Maybe, not having ‘any limitation’ is not a good idea, after all. Maybe, there is still time for India to part company with Rafael. To retrieve its sense of judgement.
MAIN PAGE | TOP
|
|
