March 1, 2021
Dear Readers,
Greetings!
The ongoing farmers’ stir shows a serious “trust deficit” between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the agitating farmers. The Central establishment has dubbed the agitation as part of “international conspiracy”. This is being said because the farmers’ cause is drawing global support. The real problem is that Prime Minister Modi is oriented towards the corporate sector. He hardly tries to understand the farmers’ demand for the safety cushion of the MSP. He ought to create the right atmosphere for a meaningful dialogue with the farmers to resolve the issue with them. At stake is the eroded public image of the Indian Prime Minister.
Farmers’ problems apart, the country saw a devastating glacier burst on February 7, 2021. This is not a new phenomenon. Uttarakhand has undergone a series of environmental disasters in the past. The warning signal for the authorities is sharp and clear: thoroughly study afresh the fragile nature of ecological and geological systems as well as lopsided development activities in the region and draw a new blueprint for a disaster resistant Uttarakhand.
Following the stand-off between Chinese and Indian troops in the Pangong Tso area since May 2020, a phased process of disengagement in Ladakh Line of Actual Control (LAC) is almost over. However, a number of friction points at Gogra Post, Hot Springs, Depsang and Demchok remain to be sorted out to maintain peace and tranquility in the border area. We have to be alert and vigilant since China is known for its old game of doublespeak and betrayal.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Hari Jaisingh
Trust Deficit between PM Modi and agitating farmers
Prime Minister Narendra Modi has made the farmers’ issue a matter of prestige for his government. This shows how he has got delinked from the country’s grassroots realities. It has also eroded his earlier projected image of being the most powerful Prime Minister of India. He is now being seen as weak and directionless. Kissan Sabha leader P. Krishnaprasad is not off the mark when he claims that the government has turned “the protest sites into open air prisons”. In fact, the protest sites have a semblance of a fortress as the police continue to block access to one and all, with concrete barricades, barbed wires, spikes and trenches across the approach roads that are backed up by heavy security.
P. Krishnaprasad says that “even the British did not do that”. This does not speak well of the Modi establishment. It is reported that more than 200 farmers have died amidst the on-going harassment. Government authorities claim that the agitation is mainly confined to Punjab, Haryana and parts of Uttar Pradesh. However, the issues raised by the farmers find echo in several states across the country.
There is a visible ‘trust deficit’ between the government and the agitating farmers since they fear increased control by the private sector, which would take away their meager resources and the land that they possess. The government has also failed to consult the state governments, which are important stakeholders in farmers’ issues. It is no wonder that six states have already passed separate pieces of legislation in their assemblies, thereby negating the three Central Acts.
The point is: how committed is the central authority to bridge the existing trust deficit? Going by the current state of affairs, nothing seems to be reassuring right now.
The three-hour long chakka jam (road blockage protest) by the farmers went off peacefully. What is noteworthy here is the large participation by women in the chakka jam at the Medina toll plaza on the National Highway-9 in Rohtak district of Haryana.
Ironically, the authorities have dubbed the farmers’ agitation as part of an “international conspiracy” against the Modi establishment. This has to be seen in the light of the support extended to the farmers’ protest by several well-known global personalities such as pop icon Rihanna and youth climate activist Greta Thunberg on the social media. Even the US government has spoken up asking New Delhi to start dialogue with the farmers.
The Delhi police cyber cell has, however, registered an FIR and proposes to investigate the theory of “international conspiracy”. The Centre is unnecessarily getting lost in theories and counter-theories of global conspiracies, whereas the need of the hour is to hold a serious dialogue with the protesting farmers.
The Modi government says that it is open to holding talks. At the same time, it has made it clear that it is not in favor of scrapping the farm laws. The three farm laws have been projected as major reforms in the agriculture sector. They are supposed to remove middlemen and give farmers the freedom to sell their produce anywhere in the country. However, the farmers feel the new laws would pave the way for “eliminating the safety cushion of the MSP”. The laws will also do away with the mandi (wholesale market) system, leaving the farmers at the mercy of large corporates. It is also claimed that the corporate sector would turn agriculture into “a capitalist hegemony”.
In this context, I wish to recall the advice given to the Central authorities by Meghalaya Governor, Satya Pal Malik. He has rightly stated that farmers cannot be insulted and forced to step back. He has asked the Centre to talk to them and resolve the ongoing crisis. A jat leader from UP, Satya Pal Malik has said that the issues can be resolved if the government shows its genuine intent. The farmers “are open to resolving the issue, if the government has the intention”, he says.
Will the Modi government come out with an “open mind” for discussions with farmers? It seems unlikely since the Modi outfit seems to be caught in a confused state of mind and intent on retaining the laws. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has, however, told the Rajya Sabha on February 8 that his government is open to talks with farmers. He has given assurance that the minimum support price (MSP) for crops “was, is and would remain in force”.
Leaders of farm unions have dubbed PM Modi’s speech in Parliament as full of insults and empty talks. They have added that if the government is serious about resuming talks on the three laws, then it should take concrete steps to do so.
“Without an MSP law, his assurance is empty talk. It is the same with negotiations. If the government really wants to restart talks, let it send an invitation without terms and conditions”, says Rashtriya Kisan Mahasangh spokesperson Abhimanyu Kohar.
The Prime Minister has, of course laid out the need for farm reforms. At the same time, he has to find a way out to reach out to the agitating farmers for credible dialogue. For this purpose, he needs to build bridges of mutual confidence rather than mocking the agitating farmers as “andolanjeevi” (professional agitators) and “parjeevi” (parasites). Such remarks are not in tune with the dignity of the office he holds. Prime Minister Modi certainly needs to correct his public image as the protector of the corporate sector.
(February 12, 2021)
Warning signals from the Uttarakhand disaster
The Uttarakhand disasters of 2010 to 2013, along with yet another devastating glacier burst of 7 February 2021, have thrown up a number of questions about uncertainties, preparedness, and disaster risk reduction. Each disaster in different areas within Uttarakhand has to be viewed with divergent characteristics. They do not fall under a homogenous category. Each disaster has a different perspective, while common points can be drawn from the multi-dimensional challenges facing the region.
First of all, it needs to be appreciated that Uttarakhand is one of the most disaster-prone states of India. Another point that must be kept in mind is that this Himalayan state has tremendous spiritual, religious and ecological richness and diversity. Viewed in this light, we must critically examine the fragile nature of ecological and geological systems, which directly affect the life and wellbeing of the people, as well as of the pilgrims, coming from different parts of the country.
Experts from the National Institute of Disaster Management have carried out a comprehensive study on Uttarakhand’s fragile ecological system with a detailed analysis of development projects. It needs to be pointed out that lopsided development activities have added to the frequency and intensity of ecological disasters.
The range and dimensions of Uttarakhand disasters show serious gaps between economic development and natural hazards of the mountains, which have undergone constant changes under the impact of warming climate. In fact, they have played havoc with a number of hydro-electric dams. The disaster of February 7, 2021 virtually destroyed the Rishi Ganga Power Project and severely damaged NTPC’s Tapovan Vishnugad project, currently under construction; it has caused flooding in the Chamoli district, and most notably in the Rishi Ganga river, Dhauliganga river, and Alakananda.
It is no secret that new towns have come up around the dams, adding to related development activities that have led to this tragic fallout. In the wake of the 2013 disaster, the Supreme Court had pointed out the increasing risks of the hydro power project in high mountain areas. Thousands of people lost their lives in the process and as many as ten hydroelectric projects were damaged. The apex court thereafter prohibited permits for new power projects in the region.
The question is: why were power projects allowed despite the Supreme Court’s clear instructions? Could it be because the country is power-hungry and the ruling authorities do not seem to care about the consequences of new projects in sensitive environs? Safety guidelines have clearly been ignored as the current disaster reveals.
It must be stated that setting up new hydroelectric power projects at safer locations would require close coordination between credible scientists and policymakers since only certain locations could be more safe than others for such projects.
Local activist Dhan Singh Rana says that communities in the region are in favour of small-scale micro-hydro projects over bigger dams given that such small ventures would meet the required energy needs of mountain communities without much of an environmental impact.
Fabian Walter, a glaciologist at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, says that disasters happen and continue to happen always. What is not being realized is that climate change could make the situation much worse. A landslide expert states that big mountain landslides have become more common to the Himalayas because of permafrost and intense storms. Warning signals from environmentalists are clear and sharp. The sooner we act on the warning bugle, the better off we would be.
Viewed in this context, Scientific American, a popular American science magazine, has done a good job on the range and dimension of Uttarakhand disasters. Indeed, the February 7 flood in the Dhauliganga, Rishi Ganga and Alakananda rivers have, understandably, triggered widespread panic. Even the Geological Survey of India (GSI) has found 13 of 486 glacial lakes in Uttarakhand to be vulnerable. A glacial lake can breach causing outburst flood like the one we saw in Chamoli.
A study published in the journal, Science Advances, in June 2019 has underlined the warning that the Himalaya glaciers have been melting twice as fast since the start of this century due to climate change. The study, spanning 40 years of satellite observations across India, China, Nepal and Bhutan, indicates that climate change is eating the Himalayas’ glaciers. Therefore, the right answer to such disastrous happenings is a fresh review of power projects in the ecologically sensitive mountains.
In fact, we must not go in for new power projects on the Ganges and its tributaries. It must be said to the credit of Uma Bharti, a former water resources minister, that she had once spoken clearly against such ventures. The central and state authorities ought to take such warning signals seriously. What is needed is a prompt action to put a stop to power projects in the ecologically sensitive mountains. Over to the Modi government.
(February 19, 2021)
Ladakh disengagement: Can India trust China?
Communist China, to use the Churchillian famous phrase in a different context, is an enigma wrapped in a riddle. My critical assessment of Beijing over the decades has been that the country and its leadership must not be trusted both in times of peace or war. Its track record with this country has been rather dubious.
Broadly speaking, despite its traumatic experience in the past, India has followed a cordial path with China. However, during the height of tensions, New Delhi has been left with no choice but to play tough and change its political and economic policies accordingly. These include blocking Beijing from participating in government tenders for new business deeds. In that situation, New Delhi’s foreign investment rules have been changed to the disadvantage of China. New Delhi has also blocked Beijing’s 150 proposals worth USD two billion. This
has definitely hurt business plans of Chinese companies in India. The idea here has been not to allow any investment proposal that does not stand the test of national security yardsticks.
New Delhi’s change in attitude towards China has come about in the
wake of Beijing’s disengagement process from the Pangong Tso area in the Ladakh region following the nine-month long standoff and clashes between the neighbouring countries during the 1962 episode. Right now, the disengagement process is restricted to the north and south banks of Pangong Tso Lake. There are still a number of friction points that remain to be attended to. This will be done in a phased manner and China and India have to mutually agree that the area between Finger 3 and Finger 8 become “a non-patrolling zone temporarily”.
The north and south banks of Pangong Tso emerged as the most significant and sensitive regions following the recent stand-off that began in May 2020. What made these areas around the shores of the lake so sensitive and critical were the clashes in this zone at the start of the stand-off; the Chinese troops came around eight kilometers deep according to India’s traditional perception of the LAC.
To neutralize the Chinese intrusion, Indian troops got into action in late August and gained strategic advantage by occupying certain high altitude peaks, outwitting the Chinese. Indian troops entrenched their positions on the heights of Magar Hall, Mukhpari, Gurung Hill, Tazang La. This was, understandably, not relished by the Chinese commanders since India could dominate strategic areas of Spanggur Tso. New Delhi was thereby in a position to launch an offensive, as China had done in 1962. This also gave New Delhi the most critical advantage of having a direct view of China’s Moldo garrison.
It needs to be appreciated that India waited for China to clear the north and south banks of Pangong Tso before reciprocating the first phase of disengagement agreement between the two countries in eastern Ladakh. This was the right approach since China is known for going
back on its words. Therefore, this time, New Delhi decided to slow down the withdrawal and wrapped up the process only on the last day.
Incidentally, this time the Chinese showed alacrity and withdrew at “an enhanced pace than the daily target”. This was officially confirmed by New Delhi. According to an Indian official, the clause “temporary moratorium” on patrolling has been linked in the final agreement. It has been clearly emphasized that Indian troops could resume traditional patrolling in the Finger area after a final decision has been taken at the political and diplomatic level.
Former Foreign Secretary and former National Security Advisory Board Chairperson, Shyam Saran, has expressed reservation on a “phased withdrawal” of troops on the LAC. He has pointed out that setting up buffer zone (no man’s land) in the Finger area, could mean not returning to the status quo ante. That is, position prior to April 2020. How smoothly the remaining friction points at Gogra Post, Hot Springs, Depsang and Demchok would be sorted out to maintain peace and tranquillity in the border area, remains to be seen.
I, however, appreciate the statement of Defence Minister Rajnath Singh in Parliament that no one could take over one inch of India’s land. Keeping this objective in mind, we have to be alert and vigilant all the while since China is capable of playing its old game of doublespeak and betrayal. New Delhi therefore has to push for a mutually acceptable solution for the remaining issues.
Indian and Chinese commanders are already on the job. They have discussed pullback of troops from the friction points at Hot Springs, Gogra Post and Depsang plains in Ladakh. It is said that broad contours have been drawn for discussion. Still, the whole exercise is not going to be easy. According to a senior official, the key areas in the disengagement exercise at Hot Springs and Gogra Post have remained partial. This is besides the longstanding issue of patrolling rights
in the Depsang plains.
Over the past three years, even the grazing rights of our people of Demchok have faced opposition from the Chinese. These outstanding issues are quite complicated, and our military and political leaders need to handle these intricate matters with tact.
What is particularly disquieting at this juncture is the Indian decision to vacate the Kailash Range heights, including Rezang La and Rechin La, during the first phase disengagement. Shyam Saran rightly states: “If we have vacated these heights, and later on, we find that our expectations of Chinese disengaging is not borne out by what happens on the ground, then, yes, we would say that this was not such a clever move on our part”.
We have be cautious before drawing a final balance sheet of the disengagement exercise in Ladakh LAC.
(February 26, 2021)