Artwork & temple emerge during repairs of 12th century Ekamreswar shrine | |
| BIBHUTI BARIK Wednesday , August 28 , 2013 | |
Bhubaneswar, Aug. 27: Conservation workers of the State Archaeology have unearthed a portion of a temple near the 12th century Ekamreswar shrine on the premises of the Lingaraj temple administration office here. The chance discovery happened a few days ago when workers restoring the Ekamreswar temple stumbled upon the monument while digging earth. However, they confirmed the presence of the temple only yesterday. Sculptor Nirmal Chandra Maharana is leading the team carrying out the repairs at Ekamreswar temple. B.P. Ray, superintending-archaeologist in charge of State Archaeology told The Telegraph: “The conservation work sponsored by 13th Finance Commission has been under way since December last year. It involves repair of the main temple as many portions were showing deep cracks. But as the repair needs to be done till the base of the temple, we had to dig in phases. In the first phase, we stumbled upon the small temple near the basement of Ekamreswar.” Ray said the temple was most likely a parswa deula or side temple within the precinct of the main temple. Usually, in ancient architecture found in the state there are three parswa deulas—temples of Ganesh, Kartik and Parvati—near a Shiva temple. So, more temples could be present under the soil. “We will write to the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to grant us a licence to carry out excavation in the area. There is a possibility of the presence of a greater temple complex, which might have gradually got buried because of rapid urbanisation.” Sculptor Maharana said: “Traditionally, Shiv temples in the state have a mandap or central stage in front of the main temple. We can confirm the presence of a bigger temple only after more excavation.” Galpik Pratihari, a sculptor working under Maharana for conservation of the Ekamreswar temple, said: “According to legends, the Ekamreswar was the prototype of Lingaraj temple. So, like Lingaraj temple, there could be an equal number of parswa deulas around Ekamreswar too.” Many people interested in history, monuments and archaeology thronged the Ekamreswar temple premises to have a look at the site. “It is interesting that the conservation workers have came across this temple. I hope more such discoveries are made,” said Akshaya Mishra, a resident of Old Town. According to legend, Bhubaneswar had nearly 3,000 temples. But because of rapid urbanisation, the number has now come down to just about 300. Many monuments are still under private control, though the majority is under the state archaeology and ASI. The discovery of this temple is the second most important finding after the discovery of a human skeleton near Jatni, around 15km from Bhubaneswar. In February this year, a team of archaeologists, anthropologists and students stumbled upon the remains of an adult human skeleton at a mound south of Banga village near Harirajpur. The team was led by Kishore Kumar Basa, professor in the department of anthropology, Utkal University and R.K. Mohanty, professor in the department of archaeology, Deccan College. NEW FIND Conservation workers of State Archaeology come across buried temple near Ekamreswar temple on premises of Lingaraj temple administration office Conservation experts and engineers start removing debris two days ago for repairs (grouting) of Ekamreswar temple New structure came to light on Monday Small temple (parswa deula) and drainage outlet (paduka kunda) from sanctum sanctorum are clearly visible Drainage outlet surfaces to east of Ekamreswar lNo clarity on which temple’s sanctum sanctorum the drainage outlet is linked to Archaeologists believe there might be more small temples buried under the earth around Ekamreswar A large temple complex near Ekamreswar could also be a possibility Excavation could unearth artwork of 12th century Ekamreswar temple State archaeology to seek permission from Archaeological Survey of India for extensive excavation near Ekamreswar temple Discovery of temple is second major archaeological achievement this year after unearthing of a nearly 4000-year-old skeleton from a village near Jatni on outskirts of Bhubaneswar |
↧
Artwork & temple emerge during repairs of 12th century Ekamreswar shrine - Bibhuti Barik
↧
Contradicting Centre, CBI says no sanction needed for prosecution in court-monitored cases
NEW DELHI, August 27, 2013
Updated: August 28, 2013 00:28 IST
Contradicting Centre, CBI says no sanction needed for prosecution in court-monitored cases
J. VENKATESAN
Union government tells court Inter-Ministerial Committee has been set up to locate missing files relating to coal blocks allocation
Taking a stand contradicting the Centre, the CBI on Tuesday made it clear that prior sanction from the government was not necessary for prosecution of senior officers in court-monitored cases.
In its affidavit in the Supreme Court in the ‘coal case’, the CBI said if the government held that sanction was mandatory, it would amount to suspension of the power of courts to monitor the investigation in the interregnum.
The Centre had maintained that sanction for investigation or prosecution was a necessity. “It is the administrative ministry which has the best domain knowledge to take a clear view on the involvement of an officer in any given set of circumstances.”
“Objective achieved”
Rejecting this stand, the CBI said, “No sanction under Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act is necessary where cases are monitored by a constitutional court. The objective behind enactment of Section 6A is to give protection to officers at the decision-making level from the threat and ignominy of malicious and vexatious inquiries/investigations and to relieve them of the anxiety from the likelihood of harassment for taking honest decisions. In court-monitored cases, the courts act as a guardian/custodian of the right of citizens. Therefore, the said objective is fully achieved in court-monitored cases.”
The CBI wanted the court to interpret Section 6A of the DSPE Act to mean that prior sanction was not necessary for prosecution of senior-level officers.
In a previous order, the court had restrained the CBI from disclosing the status report with any person or authority, including any Minister or Law Officer. In the present application, the agency said facts of the cases were required to be discussed with in-house prosecutors (except the Director of Prosecution and Law officers who are appointees of the Law Ministry) for filing the charge sheet as investigation in respect of given regular cases had almost been completed.
The CBI reiterated its demand that its Director be granted the status of ex-officio Secretary to the government which would empower him to expeditiously put up disciplinary matters in respect of Group A officers in the CBI to the DoPT Minister/Prime Minister.
Centre files affidavit
Meanwhile, the Centre informed the court that an Inter-Ministerial Committee had been constituted to locate missing files and applications on coal blocks allocation.
An affidavit filed by the Coal Ministry said: “The Committee has been directed to hold meetings on a weekly basis and issue directions to all concerned to locate the documents in a fixed time frame. The Committee has also been directed to accomplish the exercise as far as possible in a month’s time.”
Giving details, the affidavit said, the CBI had sought 43 files; 19 applications of coal block allocatees/applicants; 157 applications of private companies which had applied for coal blocks prior to 28.06.2004 but have not been allocated blocks; 17 other documents; and clarifications on 9 points.”
“Of the 43 files, 21 have already been handed over to the CBI, 15 are available for handing over. Efforts are being made to locate the remaining 7 files.”
The affidavit detailing the number of files and documents is identical to the statement Coal Minister Sriprakash Jaiswal made in the Rajya Sabha on August 23.
The Ministry said: “As on today, 178 coal blocks stand allocated to government and private companies. Of these, 12 have been earmarked for allocation to ultra mega power projects through competitive tariff-based bidding route. Four of these 12 blocks, involving 2 projects, have already been awarded. Two blocks have been allocated to private companies for Coal to Liquid projects based on recommendations made by the Inter-Ministerial Group.
One hundred and eight blocks had been allotted to private and government companies through the screening committee route and 56 blocks to government undertakings through government dispensation route.
The Ministry said allocation of a coal block was only the first step and the allottee, thereafter, had to obtain necessary clearances and submit a mining plan.
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/contradicting-centre-cbi-says-no-sanction-needed-for-prosecution-in-courtmonitored-cases/article5065106.ece?homepage=true
↧
↧
Ex-babus' pension to double on turning 100
Ex-babus' pension to double on turning 100
Vishwa Mohan, TNN | Aug 28, 2013, 04.28 AM IST
The change will benefit retired government officials who had been part of elite All India Services like Indian Administrative Service (IAS), Indian Police Service (IPS) and Indian Forest Service (IFoS).
The change will benefit retired government officials who had been part of elite All India Services like Indian Administrative Service(IAS), Indian Police Service (IPS) and IndianForest Service (IFoS).
Retired government servants of other 37 central services have been covered under similar pension facility for long.
Syncing pension rules for IAS, IPS and IFoS with that of retired babus of other central services, the ministry of personnel had last month brought amendments in the All Indian Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules.
The amended rules have provision of graded pensions. It has now putretired bureaucrats in distinct categories as per their ages. Under the new rules, they will get 20% more of their basis monthly pension if they turn 80.
The amount will further increase once they cross 85 years. They will get 30% additional pension between 85 and 90 years; 40% more from 90 to less than 95 years; 50% more from 95 to less than 100 years and 100% raise once they turn 100.
The amended rules say, "In case a member of the service retires in accordance with the provisions of these rules after completing qualifying service of not less than 10 years, the amount of pension shall be calculated at 50% of emoluments or average emoluments, whichever is more beneficial to him\her, subject to a minimum of Rs 3,500 per month and a maximum of Rs 45,000 per month."
Officials explained that the decision has been taken in view of recommendations of various pay commissions over the years, which had emphasized on the upgrade for additional monthly pension in view of longevity of Indians along with spurt in inflation.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Ex-babus-pension-to-double-on-turning-100/articleshow/22109299.cms
↧
Concerns over inscriptions at Shiva temple
Concerns over inscriptions at Shiva temple CHENNAI, August 28, 2013 D. MADHAVAN
For years, devotees at the ninth century Adipuriswarar (Shiva) temple in Tiruvottiyur walked on granite slabs with rare inscriptions that dated to the Chola and Vijayanagara empires.
The slabs had been laid on the floors of the temple as part of a renovation carried out some centuries ago. Over the past fortnight, hundreds of such slabs and pillars, covered with inscriptions, were removed from the floor for preservation.
The slabs had been laid on the floors of the temple as part of a renovation carried out some centuries ago. Over the past fortnight, hundreds of such slabs and pillars, covered with inscriptions, were removed from the floor for preservation.
On Tuesday, a dedicated team of archaeologists led by the government-designated consultant, K.T. Narasimhan, and the commissioner of the Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) department, P. Dhanapal, inspected the renovation work and the rare Chola era paintings discovered by a research scholar of the state archaeology department a day ago.
“As against the single stone image of Lord Shiva, the main deity at the temple was built with two stones and this has led to a doubt whether the idols had been damaged during the ongoing renovation work,” said Narasimhan, former superintending archaeologist of ASI (Chennai Circle).
After years of usage, the inscriptions on the granite slabs are worn out. Nevertheless, archaeological experts and officials of the HR&CE department want to the preserve the rest of the inscriptions on the slabs. The flooring will be replaced with marble slabs.
The stone inscriptions on the floor near the Durgai Amman Sannidhi in the Adipuriswarar shrine were removed so they could be reinstalled in a suitable spot. Similarly, lingams behind the Adipuriswarar Sannidhi were removed to a dais. Incidentally, in most cases, the inscriptions are found on the walls of old temples. It is believed that they were placed wrongly on the floor during an earlier renovation.
According to the Madras Government Epigraphists’ version, the deity in the central shrine was named Adipuriswarar and it was said the linga therein is in the form of an ant hill. It is in the presence of this god (Shiva) that the Hindu saint Sundarar is said to have accepted Sangili, with whom he had fallen in love in this temple, as his consort.
The temple, archaeologists said, might originally have been a brick structure in the 7th century and would have been rebuilt by later dynasties including the Cholas.
The temple’s significance was evident from the fact that even the Chola kings, based in the south, attended festivals here.
For instance, Chola koing Rajadiraja – II (1163 – 1178 A.D) attended a festival in the ninth year of his reign. Likewise, his predecessor Kulottunga - II (1133 – 1150 A.D), in the 19th year of his reign, held a durbar to look into the petitions relating to the temple lands lying waste.
↧
PC spits against the wind, blames Pranabda for the battered Rupee - R. Jagannathan. Will PC know that its time for him to quit?
Rupee at 68: Sorry Chidu, you are as responsible as Pranab
by R Jagannathan 58 mins ago August 28, 2013 12:21PM
It is never a good idea to spit against the wind. And yet, P Chidambaram tries to do precisely that. He has been repeatedly telling us that the rupee is undervalued at a time when the global winds are blowing against us. He is being proved wrong on a daily basis.
On Wednesday (28 August), as the rupee breached 68 to the US dollar in the face of global uncertainties, including the building confrontation with Syria, Chidambaram was again quoted in the media as saying the rupee is undervalued. The fact is currencies have a price based on demand and supply. The only relevant value for any currency is the one you get when you want to buy or sell it.
Is the economic whirlwind we are reaping today the result of the negative winds sowed by Pranab Mukherjee alone?
And right now there are more sellers for the rupee and buyers for the dollar than Chidambaram would like. The rupee will correct when the sentiment reverses, and till that time Chidambaram must focus on doing what is right for the economy and not give daily opinions on the right price for the rupee. There is no correct price.
The Economic Times carries Chidambaram’s opinions not only on the rupee’s undervaluation, but who’s to blame for it all. His finger seems to be pointing in the direction of his predecessor, Pranab Mukherjee, admittedly a less credible reformer than Chidambaram himself.
Speaking to calm the markets on Tuesday when the rupee and stock indices were going down in flames, Chidambaram clearly admitted that our problems are partly homegrown. He said: “There are not just external factors, there are also domestic factors. We recognise that there are domestic factors.”
So far, so good. An admission that we did things wrong is the first step towards correcting them.
But what he said in the next sentence is reason enough to withhold the pat on the back. Chidambaram said: “One of the domestic factors is that we allowed the fiscal deficit to be breached and we allowed current account deficit (CAD) to swell because of certain decisions that we took during the period 2009 to 2011.”
Pardon? Is the economic whirlwind we are reaping today the result of the negative winds sowed by Pranab Mukherjee alone?
Absolutely not, and here are the facts.
The fiscal profligacy of the UPA began well before Mukherjee entered the picture. It started right under Chidambaram, when, in 2008, the Congress party announced huge increases in minimum support prices (MSPs) for foodgrain (whopping 30-75 percent increases), huge farm loan waivers (Rs 72,000 crore) and and large increases in pre-election NREGA spending.
As V Kumaraswamy wrote in Business Standard, “In just one year – 2008-09 – MSPs of most foodgrains have been increased by 30 percent to 75 percent. The steep increase in 2008-09 could only be the result of political arithmetic with ensuing elections. This genie is not the handiwork of market forces where either demand grows faster, leading to supply shortfalls, or cost inflation in key inputs (which) create price spirals: it is solely the by-product of administrative action.”
So while Mukherjee can be blamed for excessive fiscal stimulus and not tapering it quickly enough, the real rot started under Chidambaram. While Mukherjee can at least claim that he was trying to counter the post-Lehman decline in business confidence with his extended stimulus, it was Chidambaram’s unwarranted pre-Lehman stimulus that provided the backdrop for the inflation to come.
Chidambaram is to blame not only for starting the fire, but feeding it. Today, he is being seen as the man drawing red lines around the fiscal deficit and CAD, but who was the finance minister who actually started the whole business of breaching the Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management Act (FRBM)? Chidambaram himself. And he did it not once but twice.
In 2004, in the first budget of UPA-1, Chidambaram said: “Under the FRBM Act, I am obliged to wipe out the revenue deficit by 2007-08. However, the NCMP (National Common Minimum Programme of UPA-1) has proposed that we do so by 2008-09. In my view, 2008-09 is a more credible terminal year; it will also coincide with the term of this government. Hence, I propose to move an amendment to this effect through the Finance Bill. I am committed to implementing the FRBM Act. The elimination of revenue deficit will open up fiscal space up to 3 percent of GDP for enhanced public investment without undermining fiscal prudence.”
Let’s assume that new governments need some leeway to make good on their promises to the electorate. But did Chidambaram keep his promise to parliament that he made in 2004 to eliminate the revenue deficit by 2008-09, the last year of UPA-1? (The revenue deficit is the budget deficit excluding capital receipts and expenses).
Not quite. This is what he said in his 2008-09 budget speech: “In the case of revenue deficit, I will meet the target of annual reduction of 0.5 percent. However, because of the conscious shift in expenditure in favour of health, education and the social sector, we may need one more year to eliminate the revenue deficit. In my view, this is an entirely acceptable deferment.”
Why is this “entirely acceptable deferment?” And entirely acceptable to whom? Sonia Gandhi or the nation?
Not only that, it is worth cutting some slack for Mukherjee, too. He deserves credit for at least bringing out the fiscal mess to public view when he decided that oil subsidies should not be hidden under the carpet. He made Chidambaram’s implicit, and hidden, oil subsidies, explicit. While Chidambaram understated his fiscal deficit by issuing government bonds as compensation for the losses made by the oil marketing companies, Mukherjee brought the subsidy directly to the budget. That’s how we knew how bad the situation was.
Coming back to the rupee, it is obvious that the country has a finance minister who understands what the real problems are. But he should not be pretending he did not contribute to the rot. That is the best way to lose credibility. If he has any doubt, he should ask Manmohan Singh, who is no longer seen as even a good economist, never mind his reformist credentials.
Ruchir Sharma, head of emerging markets at Morgan Stanley Investment Management, wrote in The Times of India today in an article titled, Breakout to Breakdown Nation: “Prime MinisterManmohan Singh, an economist, has been consistently wrong on the economy. He has assumed strong investment and savings rates would keep growth above 8 percent, and dismissed inflation as the natural price of prosperity and crony capitalism as a normal symptom of early-stage growth, rather than recognising it as the cancer it is that leads to a backlash against wealth creation.”
If Chidambaram wants to retain his reputation and lose it like his boss, he should focus on what needs to be done, and not on who is responsible for the mess. He too is responsible for bringing on the crisis. He has to share the blame along with Mukherjee.
↧
↧
FCA fines and bans Tariq Carrimjee L. 89,004, for assisting Goenka to manipulate Gazprom and Reliance Securities in 2010
Full text Decision Notice of Financial Services Authority dated 26 March 2013 issued to Tariq Carrimjee, 91-93 Baker Street, London W1U 6QQ FSA Ref. Number: TXC0-1113.and to Somerset Asset management, LLP 91-93 Baker Street, London, W1U 6QQ FSA Ref. Number: 448781.
http://www.fca.org.uk/news/fca-decides-to-fine-tariq-carrimjee
FCA decides to fine Tariq Carrimjee in relation to market abuse committed by Rameshkumar Goenka in October 2010
Published: 08/08/2013
PRESS RELEASE
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has today published a Decision Notice for Tariq Carrimjee of Somerset Asset Management LLP in relation to assisting Goenka.
Carrimjee has referred his Decision Notice to the Upper Tribunal (the Tribunal) where he and the FCA will each present their case. The Tribunal will then determine the appropriate action for the FCA to take. The Tribunal may uphold, vary or cancel the FCA’s decision. The Tribunal’s decision will be made public on its website.
The Decision Notice to Carrimjee, which reflects the FCA’s view of what occurred and how the behaviour is to be characterised, states that the FCA has decided to fine Tariq Carrimjee £89,004 and ban him from performing any role in regulated financial services for recklessly assisting Goenka in his plan to manipulate Gazprom and Reliance securities in 2010.
The FCA considers that Carrimjee introduced Goenka to a firm of brokers for the specific purpose of trading in the LSE closing auctions; he then participated in discussions about trading and assisted with arrangements for the trading. The FCA further considers that Carrimjee did so despite suspecting that Goenka held structured products related to the trading and despite suspecting that the objective of Goenka’s plan was to secure the price of Gazprom and Reliance securities at a false or artificial level.
The FCA considers that the fine and the prohibition sought reflect the serious nature of the actions set out in the Decision Notice and should act as a deterrent to other market participants.
Carrimjee held Significant Influence Function (SIF) positions at Somerset at the relevant time and was responsible for compliance oversight. The FCA therefore considers his conduct to be particularly serious.
The FCA has, in addition to the Carrimjee Decision Notice, today published two Final Notices also in relation to the Goenka market manipulation.
Notes for editors
- The Decision Notice for Carrimjee.
- On 17 October 2011 Goenka was fined US$ 9.6 million for manipulating the closing price of Reliance GDRs on the LSE. The Final Notice issued to Goenka in October 2011.
- The two Final Notices referred to for Davis and Parikh.
- In April 2010 the Financial Services Act 2010 amended section 391 of FSMA giving the Authority the power to publish decision notices. This power became active in October 2010.
- The Authority’s approach to publishing decision notices was explained in Policy Statement 11/3 published in January 2011.
- The relevant securities were Global Depository Receipts (GDRs). These are parcels of shares in a particular company which are listed and traded on international exchanges separately from the company’s shares. In publishing the Notices, the FCA is not in any way criticising Reliance or Gazprom.
- On the 1 April 2013 the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) became responsible for the conduct supervision of all regulated financial firms and the prudential supervision of those not supervised by the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA).
- The FCA has an overarching strategic objective of ensuring the relevant markets function well. To support this it has three operational objectives: to secure an appropriate degree of protection for consumers; to protect and enhance the integrity of the UK financial system; and to promote effective competition in the interests of consumers.
- Find out more information about the FCA, as well as how it is different to the PRA.
http://www.fca.org.uk/news/fca-decides-to-fine-tariq-carrimjee
↧
Sonia Gandhi’s $20bn bid for Political Security. Inept BJP -- Pratap Bhanu Mehta
Once upon a food bill
Pratap Bhanu Mehta : Wed Aug 28 2013, 02:58 hrsCongress has a story around the welfare state. What's BJP's response?
The passage of the food security bill in the Lok Sabha is a political victory for the UPA. Its passage reveals much about the character of Indian politics. The bill will not ensure a favourable electoral outcome for the UPA. That is still an open question and will depend on lots of things. But it is a political victory in three respects: it reasserted the fact that the Congress, for good or for ill, can still get things done; it exposed the BJP's spectacular ineptness; and it showed the ideological incapacity of those looking for an economic framework beyond the Congress.
Whatever one thinks of the bill, the fact that the UPA could get Parliament to debate and pass a bill of this magnitude is something of an achievement. Parliament has been in perpetual logjam. The government's word carried no weight and credibility. At one stroke, both of these impressions have been dispelled. Whether the UPA appealed to the good conscience of legislators or arm-twisted them is beside the point. The BJP's trump card was to say that the government is dysfunctional in a major way and has no authority. That trump card is gone.
The BJP's political ungainliness was revealed at every turn. The illusion that the party has an alternative economic vision for the poor has been dispelled. If anything, this passage underscores how much more economic consensus than contestation there is in Indian politics. It has punctured, for the moment, Narendra Modi's leadership claims in a very subtle way. He cannot even seem to keep his own party together on a single message. By contrast, Sonia Gandhi's unchallenged authority came across very powerfully. It is a pity that she has used it seldom and not always for the right cause. But there is no doubt who is in charge. It is a fact that she remains a greater political asset to the UPA than anyone else. Despite some wonderful interventions, it was the BJP that looked leaderless and confused. It gives the impression of a party that now has no core convictions and therefore works at cross purposes. It even voted against the clause in the bill that would have given some flexibility on direct benefit transfer. One powerful objection to the bill was its implications for federalism. But a so-called coalition of chief ministers and ex-chief ministers could not take a stand that matched their rhetoric.
Sharad Pawar, who had cogent objections about the implications of the bill for agriculture, went along. In politics, standing for what you promised counts for a lot, and on this one the Congress scored.
The Congress has something of a narrative around the welfare state. It can run the story that, at least in formal terms, it has secured the basics: guaranteed employment, housing, food and education. It is trying to keep one part of the social contract. Its problem is that it faltered on the other part: creating the conditions for deeper participation and sustained growth in the economy. And no matter what high decibel critics might say, it is a welfare story whose appeal is hard to resist. The problem with much of the right-of-centre economic discourse in India is three-fold. First, it does not have much of a sense of history. Has any modern society evolved without robust welfare protection? It is not an accident that even so-called rightwing politicians, from Bismarck to Churchill and Nixon, have supported an efficient and humane basic income guaranteed by the state. Second, the right was caught in its own bad faith. On one hand, it wanted to critique entitlements and rights per se, on the other hand, it wanted to embrace direct cash transfers as an alternative. So in the end its arguments against redistribution ended up sounding more like lawyerly bad faith than a principled position. There are some things that may not matter for pure intellectual argument. But for building public credibility they do. The fact of the matter is "right"-of-centre economists, for various reasons, tend to fritter away their public credibility rather swiftly. This is not just because the left is intellectually better organised; it is because the right has not managed to link its purely economic arguments with an effective moral framework. Third, there was a spectacularly self-defeating political language that smacked of elitism. And the BJP walked right into the trap. It is cute to call the bill a vote security bill. It is easy to reduce it, as every newspaper will, to a pure calculus of votes. But what are we saying in saying this? That politicians responding to what they think voters will go for is a bad thing? Implicitly, this sends the message that we either think voters are stupid or we don't care for democracy. Arguments would dignify the voter more if they concentrated on the substance. If the left can be accused of sometimes doing the poor harm in the name of speaking for them, the right can match it by its subtle show of contempt for the ordinary voter. The right will need to change its game considerably.
Where do we go from here? The bill was a missed opportunity in that it did not bring clarity on some vexed issues, particularly our contorted targeting strategy. It will, in practice, neither be as revolutionary as its supporters contend nor as catastrophic as its critics claim. I think one change that caught those who debated the bill off guard was the fact that, in some areas, there have been genuine improvements in the state, often pioneered by BJP state governments. The right's position on many of these issues stems from defeatism about the state's capacity: that the state can never deliver. This again is an own goal for two reasons: as improvements in the PDS were beginning to show, this is not always the case, and defeatism about the state is a recipe for paralysis. If the bill is a reality, rather than rue its existence, we now need to work on getting the most out of it.
But if the UPA has any sense, it will use this sliver of authority it has garnered, and leverage it for both more robust administrative action and other reforms that matter for long-term growth.
The undoubted surge for Narendra Modi made the BJP act as if it had won the race. The Congress must not confuse momentary authority with victory: its backlog of perfidies ensures that it still has a steep hill to climb.
The writer is president, Centre for Policy Research, Delhi, and a contributing editor for 'The Indian Express'
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/once-upon-a-food-bill/1160880/0
Sonia Gandhi’s $20bn bid for Political Security
John Elliott, August 28, 2013
Politicians in India usually give bangles, saris, electrical goods and even lap tops away at election time in order to woo voters. Sonia Gandhi has raised the bar this week with a $20bn-plus handout that has taken several percentage points off the value of the rupee and the stock market, and demolished successful efforts last Friday by Palaniappan Chidambaram, the finance minister, to halt the slide in the country’s economy.
She did this on Monday night (below) by pushing through the Lok Sabha a Food Security Bill that is primarily aimed at giving her dynasty and the Congress Party political security by persuading India’s poor that Congress is their best bet for a better life. Her eyes are on the general election due next March or April, and she hopes that bags of grain will wipe away memories of slowing growth, rising prices, endemic corruption, somnolent government, and all the other economic problems that have beset the coalition that she heads.
Sonia Gandhi in Parliament
This drove India’s currency to record low yesterday of Rs66.24 against the dollar and Rs105 against the pound sterling, compared to the levels of Rs63.3 and Rs98.5 that Chidambaram’s measures and statement had achieved last Friday. Today more records have been broken – over Rs67.5 and Rs106.5.
“Madam Gandhi must have been quite a force to reckon with,” historians will say, when hearing about such a sacrifice for the poor and its impact on India’s uncomfortably high current account deficit!
Cynics would say that it would be brave for a dynasty that is set on perpetuating its rule to do anything else but to perpetuate the conditions that enable it to present itself as the guardian of the poor and under-privileged. Is it instinctive for an elite to maintain conditions as they are, modulating progress so that the apple cart on which it is perched does not topple over? I am not suggesting that Sonia Gandhi consciously plots policies that would keep the poor poor, but that is the logic of what she has done in recent years, advised by her aid-oriented National Advisory Council that designed this bill, instead of pushing reforms and subsidy cuts that would spur economic growth (now down to near 5% from 9%).
And whether it is conscious or instinctive, as I wrote on this blog last year, Rahul Gandhi has been heard saying that the way to keep Congress in power is to channel subsidies and funds to the poor, irrespective of how wasteful that could be, while discouraging growth-oriented economic reforms that might do short-term harm to Congress’s pro-poor image.
food queues![]()
The Bill guarantees 5 kg of rice, wheat and cereals per month at fixed low prices to some 70% of the 1.2bn population. Government estimates suggest that this will cost Rs 1,24,723 crore per year (around $20bn and £12bn) but other estimates go as high as twice that. Surjit Bhalla, a economics commentator, puts the figure at’ Rs 3,14,000 crore or around 3% of GDP.
That is on top of a hefty government budget for food allocation and subsidies, much of which is wasted or siphoned off by corrupt officials as the money travels down to villages. The government admitted in parliament this week that 20% to 30% of food is lost with leakages from the public distribution system.
The Food Bill is of course an easy high profile measure to introduce, emulating the way that politicians lay foundations stones without worrying about whether projects are actually built and well maintained. The much harder task would be to tackle what really ails the poor, which is malnutrition and the supply of clean-safe drinking water, improved sanitation, and piped sewerage or other hygienic systems to avoid outbreak of water-borne diseases.
Food schemes can be administered efficiently, as has been shown in the state of Chhattisgarh the management of the public distribution system’s ration shops was shifted from private licensees to community-based organizations such as gram panchayats (village councils,) female self-help groups and co-operative societies. “We organize a Chawal Utsav (Rice Festival) at each ration shop during the first week of every month, which helps to ensure that all food items are adequately stocked in each shop by the last day of the previous month,” Raman Singh, chief minister, told the Wall Street Journal. Food is delivered direct to the shops to help curtail leakages and the system is computerised. That policy was adopted in Chhattisgarh as part of a broad approach to economic change and was not a stand-alone policy like Sonia Gandhi’s.
Sonia publicly launched the Food Bill last week (as part of the Congress Party platform for coming assembly elections in the state of Delhi) on the birth anniversary of her husband, Rajiv Gandhi, even though he focussed in the 1980s as prime minister on more constructive economic growth policies. So this measure is not really a credit to his memory. I wonder if he would approve!
http://ridingtheelephant.wordpress.com/2013/08/28/sonia-gandhis-2bn-bid-for-political-security/
↧
US strike on Syria imminent
Bomb Syria, Even if It Is Illegal
By IAN HURD
EVANSTON, Ill. — THE latest atrocities in the Syrian civil war, which has killed more than 100,000 people, demand an urgent response to deter further massacres and to punish President Bashar al-Assad. But there is widespread confusion over the legal basis for the use of force in these terrible circumstances. As a legal matter, the Syrian government’s use of chemical weapons does not automatically justify armed intervention by the United States.
There are moral reasons for disregarding the law, and I believe the Obama administration should intervene in Syria. But it should not pretend that there is a legal justification in existing law. Secretary of State John Kerry seemed to do just that on Monday, when he said of the use of chemical weapons, “This international norm cannot be violated without consequences.” His use of the word “norm,” instead of “law,” is telling.
Syria is a party to neither the Biological Weapons Convention of 1972 nor the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993, and even if it were, the treaties rely on the United Nations Security Council to enforce them — a major flaw. Syria is a party to the Geneva Protocol, a 1925 treaty that bans the use of toxic gases in wars. But this treaty was designed after World War I with international war in mind, not internal conflicts.
What about the claim that, treaties aside, chemical weapons are inherently prohibited? While some acts — genocide, slavery and piracy — are considered unlawful regardless of treaties, chemical weapons are not yet in this category. As many as 10 countries have stocks of chemical weapons today, with the largest held by Russia and by the United States. Both countries are slowly destroying their stockpiles, but missed what was supposed to be a final deadline last year for doing so.
There is no doubt that Mr. Assad’s government has violated humanitarian principles throughout the two-year-old war, including the prohibition on the indiscriminate killing of civilians, even in non-international conflicts, set out in 1949 in the Geneva Conventions. But the conventions also don’t mean much unless the Security Council agrees to act. It is an indictment of the current state of international law that there is no universally recognized basis to intervene.
Arguably, the key legal obligation of nations in the post-1945 world is adherence to the United Nations Charter. It demands that states refrain “from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.” The use of force is permitted when authorized by the Security Council or forself-defense (and countries like Jordan and Turkey are considering this route to justify joining an anti-Assad coalition) — but not purely on humanitarian grounds.
Of course ethics, not only laws, should guide policy decisions. Since the Rwandan genocide and the Balkan mass killings of the 1990s, a movement has emerged in support of adding humanitarian intervention as a third category of lawful war, under the concept of the “responsibility to protect.” It is widely accepted by the United Nations and most governments. It is not, however, in the charter, and it lacks the force of law.
This was evident in Kosovo in 1999, when NATO bombed Yugoslavia without United Nations authorization. Then, as now, Russia and China were unwilling to grant Security Council approval. America and its allies went ahead with what the Independent International Commission on Kosovo later called an “illegal but legitimate” use of force. In that case, NATO accepted implicitly that its act was illegal. It defended it in moral and political language rather than legal terms.
Norms and institutions of international criminal law, including 11 years of experience with the International Criminal Court, have strengthened since then. Special tribunals for Cambodia, Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia reflect a growing consensus that perpetrators of atrocities should be punished.
But if the White House takes international law seriously — as the State Department does — it cannot try to have it both ways. It must either argue that an “illegal but legitimate” intervention is better than doing nothing, or assert that international law has changed — strategies that I call “constructive noncompliance.” In the case of Syria, I vote for the latter.
Since Russia and China won’t help, Mr. Obama and allied leaders should declare that international law has evolved and that they don’t need Security Council approval to intervene in Syria.
This would be popular in many quarters, and I believe it’s the right thing to do. But if the American government accepts that the rule of law is the foundation of civilized society, it must be clear that this represents a new legal path.
Ian Hurd, an associate professor of political science at Northwestern, is the author of “After Anarchy: Legitimacy and Power in the United Nations Security Council.”http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/28/opinion/bomb-syria-even-if-it-is-illegal.html?ref=global-home&_r=0&pagewanted=print
US strike on Syria could come within days as military assets 'ready to go'
Defence secretary says resources have been moved into place, but White House says options do not include 'regime change'
Paul Lewis in Washington theguardian.com,
Defense secretary Chuck Hagel in Indonesia on Monday. US forces are now ready to act on any order to strike Syria, he said. Photograph: Achmad Ibrahim/AP
The United States military has provided Barack Obama with a range of options for launching an attack on Syria and is "ready to go" with an offensive, the US defence secretary has said.
There is now a growing belief in Washington that a US strike against Syria, possibly involving cruise missiles or long-range bombers, could take place in the next few days.
Chuck Hagel said military officials had presented the US president with "all options for all contingencies" and put resources in place to take action against Syria over its purported use of chemical weapons.
"We are prepared, we have moved assets in place to be able to fulfil and comply with whatever option the president wishes to take, if he wishes to take any of the options he's asked for," he told the BBC. "We are ready to go, like that."
The White House insisted on Tuesday that Barack Obama had still not made a decision about the use of military action, but stressed that "boots on the ground" was not an option being contemplated. "The options that we are considering are not about regime change," said White House spokesman Jay Carney.
He declined to say whether the US Congress would be required to authorise any military strike, or be recalled as has happened in Britain's parliament, but insisted the White House was consulting with leaders in the House and Senate and communicating with the chairmen of relevant congressional committees.
He said a US intelligence assessment of the chemical attack in a Damascus suburb would be published "this week".
In a sign that Obama believes he has the legal authority, independently of Congress, to launch a strike, Carney said that allowing the chemical weapons attack to go unanswered would be a "threat to the United States".
US defence officials recently said a destroyer armed with cruise missiles – one of four warships in the region – has been stationed in the eastern Mediterranean sea. Military transporters have also been spotted at Britain's Akrotiri airbase on Cyprus, less than 100 miles from the Syrian coast.
Reports from the region suggest the US is gearing up for a swift military action, possibly as soon as Thursday, in a punitive show of force against President Bashar al-Assad. Syria has denied its forces were responsible for a chemical attack in a suburb of Damascus, which is believed to have killed hundreds.
Jo Biden, the US vice-president, has become the most senior member of the Obama administration to blame the Syrian government for the attack.
Addressing a group of veterans in Houston, he said there was "no doubt who was responsible for this heinous use of chemical weapons in Syria: the Syrian regime".
He added that "those who use chemical weapons against defenceless men, women and children ... must be held accountable".
The Syrian opposition has been told to expect a strike against Syrian forces within days, according to a Reuters report of a meeting that took place on Monday. The meeting with the Syrian National Coalition took place in in Istanbul, and included senior western diplomats including Robert Ford, a top US official with responsibility for Syria.
"The opposition was told in clear terms that action to deter further use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime could come as early as in the next few days, and that they should still prepare for peace talks at Geneva," a source at the meeting told the news agency.
The chairman of the Joints Chief of Staff of the US military, General Martin Dempsey, told Congress last month that even "limited standoff strikes" against Syria would require hundreds of aircraft, ships and submarines and could cost billions of dollars.
While such action would "degrade regime capabilities" and lead to defections, Dempsey told the House Foreign Affairs committee, there was a risk of retaliatory attacks and "collateral damage impacting civilians". He also warned of "unintended consequences" of any military intervention in the complex civil war.
In Britain, there were strong signs military action could be imminent, after the prime minister David Cameron announced parliament would be recalled to vote on a motion about the country's "response to chemical weapons attacks in Syria" on Thursday.
The US would be expected to have laid out preliminary plans for any military attack, or at least expressed a clearer intent over the use of force, before any foreign government voted on on whether to support such action.
World leaders have issued a string of bellicose statements in the last 24 hours, with Iran and Russia standing alongside the Assad regime against an emerging western alliance led by the US, UK, France and Australia. Iran's foreign ministry spokesman, Abbas Araqchi, intimated that Tehran would respond, should the west strike.
US secretary of state John Kerry said on Monday that Syria had committed a "moral obscenity" and Obama was preparing a co-ordinated with response with international allies. "Make no mistake," Kerry said. "President Obama believes there must be accountability for those who would use the world's most heinous weapon against the world's most vulnerable people."
The White House, which has long been reluctant to become militarily involved in the Syrian conflict, appears to have shifted its position over the weekend, after a top intelligence officials presented evidence of the chemical attack, arguing it could only have been administered by Syrian forces.
The administration is preparing to release parts of its intelligence assessment in the coming days, as it attempts to build congressional and public support for tough action against Syria. "I think the intelligence will conclude that it wasn't the rebels who used it, and there'll probably be pretty good intelligence to show is that the Syria government was responsible," Hagel said. "But we'll wait and determine what the facts and the intelligence bear out."
He added: "In our opinion, I think the opinion of the entire world community, Syria used chemical weapons against its own people.
"I think most of our allies, most of our partners, most of the international community that we've talked to – and we have reached out and talked to many – have little doubt that the most base international humanitarian standard was violated in using chemical weapons against their own people."
Hagel's comments about Syria's "violation" of an international human rights standard echoed the language used by the State Department and White House. It suggests the US will attempt to mount a legal justification for any strikes, outside a UN framework, by arguing Assad's forces were responsible for a breach of humanitarian law.
Strong opposition from from Russia and China means it is highly unlikely the US will receive support for military action from the UN security council.
Although the US stresses the administration is seeking a broad coalition of partners for any action, the UN is being increasingly sidelined. Carney said on Tuesday the work of weapons inspectors now was Damascus was "redundant" because it has already been established that chemical weapons were used by Syria on a large scale.
In a further blow to the inspections process, the UN said on Tuesday that its inspectors had postponed their visit to one of the affected sites for 24 hours amid concerns for their security.
An sniper attack on the UN team on Monday led to substantial delays.
"Following yesterday's attack on the UN convoy, a comprehensive assessment determined that the visit should be postponed by one day in order to improve preparedness and safety for the team," the UN said in a statement.
Israeli intelligence 'intercepted Syrian regime talk about chemical attack'
Information passed to US by Israeli Defence Forces's 8200 unit, former official tells magazine
An Israeli soldier rests on his armoured bulldozer in a deployment training area in the Golan Heights near the border with Syria. Photograph: Menahem Kahana/AFP/Getty
A team of United Nations inspectors have resumed their second day of investigations at the site of an alleged chemical weapons attack outside Damascus, as western leaders moved towards military action in response to the Syrian regime's reported use of chemical weapons against civilians.
The UN team left their Damascus hotel early on Wednesday after the operation was suspended on Tuesday following a sniper attack on its convoy on Monday.
The bulk of evidence proving the Assad regime's deployment of chemical weapons – which would provide legal grounds essential to justify any western military action – has been provided by Israeli military intelligence, the German magazine Focus has reported.
Binyamin Netanyahu said Israel was 'prepared for every scenario'. Photograph: Yossi Aloni/AFP/Getty ImagesThe 8200 unit of the Israeli Defence Forces, which specialises in electronic surveillance, intercepted a conversation between Syrian officials regarding the use of chemical weapons, an unnamed former Mossad official told Focus. The content of the conversation was relayed to the US, the ex-official said.
The 8200 unit collects and analyses electronic data, including wiretapped telephone calls and emails. It is the largest unit in the IDF.
Israel has invested in intelligence assets in Syria for decades, according to a senior government official. "We have an historic intelligence effort in the field, for obvious reasons," he said.
Israel and the US had a "close and co-operative relationship in the intelligence field", he added, but declined to comment specifically on the Focus report.
Senior Israeli security officials arrived in Washington on Monday to share the latest results of intelligence-gathering, and to review the Syrian crisis with national security adviser Susan Rice.
In northern Israel, a military training exercise began on Wednesday in the Golan Heights, Syrian territory that has been occupied by Israel since 1967. There have been numerous incidences of mortar shells and gunfire landing on the Israeli-controlled Golan over the past year, prompting return fire by the IDF on occasion.
The Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, was due to convene the security cabinet on Wednesday to discuss impending US military intervention in Syria. Officials are assessing the chances of Syrian retaliation against Israel following US action.
An unnamed senior Syrian army officer told the Iranian news agency Fars: "If Syria is attacked, Israel will also be set on fire and such an attack will, in turn, engage Syria's neighbours."
Israel was "prepared for every scenario" and would respond forcefully if necessary, Netanyahu said after the meeting.
Later, Benny Gantz, the Israeli chief of staff, said: "Those who wish to harm us will find us sharper and firmer than ever. Our enemies should know that we are determined and ready to defend our citizens by any action necessary, against any threat and in any scenario we will face."
The likelihood of Syrian retaliation depended on the scale of the US attack, said military analyst Alex Fishman.
"If it is decided to fire several dozen Tomahawk missiles at military targets, there is a chance that the Syrians will succeed in containing the attack, presenting the offensive as a failure and praising the staying power of the army and the Syrian people; however, if it is decided to fire hundreds of missiles and significantly harm its strategic assets, the Syrian need for an act of revenge will heighten," Fishman wrote in Yedioth Ahronoth.
"The formula is simple: The more threatened the Syrian regime feels, the greater the chance that it will fire at its neighbours," he added.
Meanwhile, demand for gas masks and protection kits from the Israeli public continued to rise. The Israeli postal authority said telephone inquiries had increased by 300% and queues had formed outside distribution depots.
According to a report in Ma'ariv, Israel's home front command is grappling with the problem of providing gas masks to men with beards, extremely common among ultra-Orthodox Jews. A special mask, which can accommodate a beard, is available but the high cost means it is only distributed to men over 65 or whose beards are for health reasons.
"Men who grow beards for religious reasons will have to shave in the event of a chemical attack," Ma'ariv reported.
↧
Congress ka haath $ ke saath, Rupee in tailspin
Rupee in tailspin, Sensex tumbling
Rupee took its worst hit since 1991, as it crashed to a life-time low of 68.85 against the dollar and closed at 68.80, registering its biggest single-day loss of 256 paise on Wednesday as global oil prices jumped, and concerns were raised about the current account deficit and capital outflows.
At the interbank foreign exchange market, the rupee opened at 66.90 a dollar against 66.24 previously and dropped to 68.75 in late morning deals. It recovered some ground in the afternoon after the central bank was said to have intervened but dropped to an all-time intra-day low of 68.85 before ending at 68.80, a fall of 256 paise or 3.86 per cent.
While market experts now term it as the worst performing currency in the world and maintain that volatility factor is extremely high, it has dipped nearly 25 per cent since the beginning of the year. Former Finance Minister and BJP MP, Yashwant Sinha said that it is difficult to say how low rupee will go after 68. Let’s go for elections or we’ll suffer even more.
In three trading days in a row, the rupee has lost 560 paise, or 8.86 per cent, against the dollar. So far in August, it has tanked by 840 paise, or about 14 per cent, and in the current year by 1,381 paise or over 25 per cent.
“There is a shortage of dollars in the market as participants are expecting the rupee to fall to 70-72 level,” said Naveen Raghuvanshi, associate vice-president at Development Credit Bank. “Even corporates are not willing to sell dollars at these levels. Whatever small supply of dollars is seen today, it is coming from the nationalised banks.”
Oil prices climbed on fears of a Military strike against Syria for alleged use of chemical weapons against civilians would disrupt crude supplies from West Asia. Higher oil prices and a declining rupee are a double whammy for India, which imports 80 per cent of its crude needs.
The dollar strengthened overseas on likely tapering of bond buying by the US Federal Reserve from next month, putting pressure on the rupee. Sentiment was also hurt by increased capital outflows and fears of a rising subsidy burden with the passage of the Food Security Bill.
The benchmark S&P Sensex, which was down by 519 points in late morning deals, recovered and closed up by 28 points.
The Finance Ministry on Wednesday described the sharp fall in the rupee as a reflection of ‘irrational sentiment’ and said there is no need to panic.
As the rupee continued its free fall against the dollar, cars, TVs, washing machines and other home appliances are set to cost more, with companies set to hike prices to offset the impact on their margins.
Brent oil prices climbed to as much as $117.34 a barrel in London.
The dollar index was up by 0.30 per cent against its major global rivals.
Foreign institutional investors continued their selling spree and withdrew a net Rs 1,120.43 crore of stocks on Wednesday, as per provisional data with the stock exchanges.
“Foreign investors sold $ 1 billion of equities in the past eight days,” said Pramit Brahmbhatt, CEO of Alpari Financial Services (India). “Dollar demand from oil importers as well as foreign investors will force the rupee to trade towards 70 levels in coming days.”
Forward dollar premiums remained firm on continued payments from banks and corporates.
The benchmark six-month forward dollar premium payable in January hardened to 246-1/2-250-1/2 paise from 238-1/2-243-1/2 paise previously. Far-forward contracts maturing in July rose further to 465-470 paise from 459-464 paise.
The RBI fixed the reference rate for the dollar at 68.3611 and for the euro at 91.4682.
The rupee tanked further to 106.33 against the pound sterling from 102.80 earlier and nose-dived against the Japanese yen to 70.64 per 100 yen from 67.76. It stumbled to 91.85 per euro from 88.36.
(With inputs from agencies)
UPA responsible for Rupee crisis: Experts and politicians
↧
↧
At 68, fingers are crossed on 70-plus and dreaded 1991. PC is yet to resign.
At 68, fingers are crossed on 70-plus and dreaded 1991 | |
| OUR SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT | Thursday , August 29 , 2013 | | |
Mumbai, Aug. 28: The UPA government and finance minister P. Chidambaram loathe Cassandras and their dire prophesies about the Indian economy. But the Oracles were swarming the Street on Wednesday, painting gloom and doom scenarios as the rupee plunged to a 20-year low at 68.85 to the dollar. They suggested that only a “Shock-and-Awe” strategy from the Reserve Bank of India could now save the country from floundering in the morass of its worst economic crisis since 1991. Shock and Awe is a military doctrine prepared by US strategists Harlan K. Ullman and James P. Wade in 1996 to describe a spectacular display of military might to paralyse an adversary and sap its will to fight. It became a buzzword after the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 and its use gained currency in commercial contexts soon after. Today, the rupee recorded its biggest single day fall of 256 paise, or 3.86 per cent. Although the RBI intervened to bring some stability to the volatile forex market, pressure built up again in the last half hour of trading, ensuring that it closed weak at 68.80. BNP Paribas economist Richard Iley said: “With little genuine support from the ministry of finance, the RBI has been left trying to frame monetary policy across too many dimensions and fundamentally backing the ‘wrong horse’.” “The recent liquidity squeeze (referring to the capital controls slapped on August 14 and the decision to float cash management bills to suck money out of the system) is the wrong solution to the wrong problem and risks proving entirely counter-productive,” Iley wrote in a note. “The RBI has unwittingly created the worst of all possible worlds: a monetary tightening that has not failed to staunch the selling pressure on the rupee but rather has intensified it.” The verdict on the Street on Wednesday was that the rupee could hurtle past 70 to the dollar unless the RBI policymakers delivered a “full-bloodied and decisive policy tightening that breaks the expectations loop”. There are two developments on the horizon that will now shape the course of the rupee in the immediate term. On Friday, the Central Statistical Organisation will release the first quarter GDP growth figure – which isn’t expected to dispel the gloom. Chidambaram has already played down expectations by suggesting that GDP growth in the first quarter would be “flat” but rise in subsequent quarters. Market economists challenge that assumption. BNP has now trimmed its GDP growth forecast for the current fiscal to 3.7 per cent from its earlier projection of 5.2 per cent – way below the RBI’s forecast of 5.5 per cent. On August 9, Morgan Stanley chief economist Chetan Ahya warned that India was in real danger of slipping back to a Hindu rate of growth that characterised the pre-liberalisation era. Ahya said India’s GDP growth could plummet to an abysmal 3.5 to 4 per cent if the weak growth trend persists over the next four to five quarters, which more or less ties in with Iley’s forecast. The RBI headquarters on Mint Street will see a change of guard on September 5 when Raghuram Rajan takes over as the central bank’s governor. Nobody is realistically expecting Rajan, a highly acclaimed MIT-educated economist, to pull off a “Jedi-mind trick” like the one that European Central Bank governor and fellow MIT-ian Mario Draghi hatched last year to yank Europe back from the brink of a bond crisis that had erupted in Greece and Portugal. Rajan has a tricky inheritance and will have to wrestle with the RBI’s conflicting policy objectives: first stabilise the rupee, then squelch inflation and also ignite growth in a faltering economy. But the bigger problem that Chidambaram and Rajan will have to grapple with is over the twin deficits – fiscal and the current account deficit (CAD) – which have now started to feed off each other, tipping the economy down a vicious spiral. How? With foreign investors pulling money out of Indian markets and oil importers scrambling to scoop up dollars, the rupee has gone into a tailspin. Oil prices have surged past $117 to the barrel, forcing oil importers to pay more for oil – and that can only widen the current account deficit. Last year, it had ballooned to $ 88.2 billion. This year, it is projected at $ 70 billion but many believe it will be slightly higher. The thumb rule is that a one rupee move in the Rupee-US dollar exchange rate adds Rs 8,000 crore to the fuel subsidy bill, which has been projected at Rs 65,000 crore this year. Experts believe that the oil subsidy bill will swell to Rs 1.4 lakh crore, more than twice the budget projection. A rising oil subsidy will throw the fiscal deficit out of whack. The budget arithmetic has already been thrown into a wrench because of the additional spending on food subsidy to support the Food Security Bill this year. If the government isn’t able to raise the prices of diesel and urea because of the compulsions of an election year, the overall subsidy bill could top Rs 3 lakh crore against the budget assumption of Rs 2.2 lakh crore. Chidambaram said in Parliament yesterday that the fiscal deficit would be capped at 4.8 per cent. Many believe that this is not possible. “Chidambaram’s target …looks increasingly unobtainable. Without remedial action, a 6 per cent (fiscal) deficit looks possible,” said the BNP Paribas note. The last-gasp resort to save the rupee would be to go in for an IMF loan – as India did in 1991. There has been some desultory talk on the subject on the Street. “Loan from the IMF would be a last resort. But there is a reputation issue here, considering that India is not really in a desperate situation as in 1991. Also for a nation that is to be a global economic leader in the years to come, going to the IMF may not send the right signals to the world,” said Madan Sabnavis, chief economist at CARE Ratings. Sabnavis felt the more likely option would be to go in for a currency swap arrangement with another central bank. India already has one with the Bank of Japan. Late today, the RBI opened a currency swap window to meet the daily dollar requirements of three state-owned oil marketing companies. http://www.telegraphindia.com/1130829/jsp/frontpage/story_17285644.jsp#.Uh6WU9Kw2So How far is the rupee from reaching its bottom?Gaurav Choudhury, Hindustan Times New Delhi, August 29, 2013As the rupee hit a new low of 68.85 to a dollar on Wednesday, from the man on the street to the money market professionals and policy makers all seem to have one question in mind: How far is the rupee from reaching its bottom? Only a week ago, analysts had forecast that the rupee would fall up to 70 against dollar in the next three months, partly mirroring the government’s and the Reserve Bank of India’s (RBI’s) inability to control a free-falling domestic currency.  That seemed to have arrived a few weeks too early. Having cantered close Rs. 70 to a dollar, the debate now is veering around the next psychological barrier. Analysts warned that worst may not be over yet implying you may have to brace yourself for a life of 70-plus value to dollar. “Downward pressure on asset prices is unlikely to abate until the rupee becomes decisively cheap (maybe above 70) or the authorities deliver ‘shock and awe’ tightening,” said Richard Iley, Chief Asia Economist, BNP Paribas. Finance minister P Chidambaram, told Parliament on Tuesday that more reforms were the answer. He listed out ten steps including promoting of manufacturing sector and exports to boost faltering growth, which needs to be raised to its potential rate of 8%. And he hinted at the possibility of a sovereign bond to bring in more dollars. The rupee’s value has eroded more than 15% since July 15 – the day when RBI announced the first major string of steps to arrest the currency’s slide. Currency markets, pretty much like other commodities, are a function of the laws of demand and supply. Stronger demand for the currency pushes up its price and vice versa. There is speculation that the US central bank will start unwinding its stimulus programme, which will push up interest rates at US banks. Besides, demand for dollars have risen as portfolio investors start withdrawing money from emerging markets such as India and park funds closer home. There are also signs of recovery in Europe and Japan that will move funds away from Indian markets pushing up demand for dollars. Analysts warned of more pain ahead as the RBI and government move in to cool prices and prop up the currency. “Taming inflation or the currency (as is the case currently) may require policies that result in increasing the economic misery for people in the near term. "Unfortunately, we see no short cuts,” said Sonal Varma, economist at Nomura. Over the last few weeks, the government and RBI has taken a raft of measures to boost the currency including easing FDI rules, making funds costlier for banks and slapping foreign exchange controls on individuals and firms. There is bated anticipation that new RBI governor Raghuram G Rajan will usher in a pro-growth tilt in India’s monetary policy. However, analysts are of the view that there is little that the new central bank chief can do differently from his predecessor to steer the economy caught in a pincer attack of a falling rupee, sliding growth and high inflation. “The most important problem that the RBI governor will have to address is that of managing the current account deficit (CAD). It’s a far deeper structural problem of which the falling rupee is a symptom,” said a senior policy maker, who did not wish to be identified. The government has hiked import duty on gold to make you bear the cost of a creaking foreign exchange deficit and stabilise a weakening rupee. India is also set to float a first-of-its-kind a proxy sovereign bonds that will allow the government-owned companies to dig deep into the pockets of foreign pension and institutional funds to stem the rupee’s slide, raise funds for building highways and also test international investors’ confidence in the economy that has been the target of unsparing criticism of global credit rating firms. But analysts said that more urgent measures were required to arrest the fall. “An emergency package of measures that includes modest tax increases like excise duties and reduced current account spending combined with long promised legislative action on further FDI liberalisation (insurance and pensions) and the land acquisition bill would fit the bill,” said Iley.  |
↧
Indian Mujahideen chief Yasin Bhatkal arrested from Nepal border
Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad chief Rakesh Maria releasing the sketch of top IM operative Yasin Bhatkal at a press conference in Mumbai. File photoIndian Mujahideen chief and German bakery blast accused Yasin Bhatkal arrested from Nepal border
Indian Mujahideen chief Yasin Bhatkal, accused of masterminding series of deadly bomb blasts in the country over the years, has been arrested, sources said.
Home Minister Sushilkumar Shinde said that Bhatkal was arrested last night and is in the custody of Bihar Police.
The 30-year-old engineering graduate-turned-terrorist from Karnataka, playing hide and seek with security agencies for years, was arrested near Indo-Nepal border close to Gorakhpur in Uttar Pradesh, by National Investigation Agency (NIA) team.
Efforts are being made to extradite him to India.![]()
Bhatkal is a prime suspect in several terror attack cases across the country, including the twin blasts in Hyderabad in February 2013, the blast outside Delhi High Court in September 2011 and Pune's German Bakery blast case in February 2010.
According to sources, Bhatkal was arrested near Indo-Nepal border close to the Gorakhpur city of Uttar Pradesh.
Sources also said National Security Adviser Shivshankar Menon has briefed Prime Minister Manmohan Singh about the arrest.
Bhatkal's arrest comes a week after Delhi Police nabbed Laskar-e-Taiba bomb-maker Abdul Karim Tunda.
Bhatkal was first arrested in Kolkata in 2009 but let off after a few days in a fake currency case. He wad wrongly identified as Mohammed Ashraf of Darbhanga, Bihar and only booked for theft. He soon jumped bail and vanished.
In 2011 too, he came close to being arrested in Chennai but escaped again.
"It is a very, very significant catch," former Intelligence Bureau chief Arun Bhagat told Headlines Today.
"Tunda and Bhatkal can be confronted and they give important information on their tie-ups with other terror groups like Jaish-e-Mohammed and the Pakistani establishment," he said.
Another former IB chief Ajit Kumar Doval said Bhatkal's arrest showed the improved coordination between the intelligence agencies and the security agencies in the country.
Home Minister Sushilkumar Shinde said that Bhatkal was arrested last night and is in the custody of Bihar Police.
The 30-year-old engineering graduate-turned-terrorist from Karnataka, playing hide and seek with security agencies for years, was arrested near Indo-Nepal border close to Gorakhpur in Uttar Pradesh, by National Investigation Agency (NIA) team.
Efforts are being made to extradite him to India.
Bhatkal is a prime suspect in several terror attack cases across the country, including the twin blasts in Hyderabad in February 2013, the blast outside Delhi High Court in September 2011 and Pune's German Bakery blast case in February 2010.
According to sources, Bhatkal was arrested near Indo-Nepal border close to the Gorakhpur city of Uttar Pradesh.
Sources also said National Security Adviser Shivshankar Menon has briefed Prime Minister Manmohan Singh about the arrest.
Bhatkal's arrest comes a week after Delhi Police nabbed Laskar-e-Taiba bomb-maker Abdul Karim Tunda.
Bhatkal was first arrested in Kolkata in 2009 but let off after a few days in a fake currency case. He wad wrongly identified as Mohammed Ashraf of Darbhanga, Bihar and only booked for theft. He soon jumped bail and vanished.
 Yasin Bhatkal is accused in German bakery blast case. Date: 13.02.2010 Place: Pune Casualty: 17 dead, 56 injured The Pune German Bakery blast of February 2010 in which 17 people were killed. The police are still clueless. |
In 2011 too, he came close to being arrested in Chennai but escaped again.
"It is a very, very significant catch," former Intelligence Bureau chief Arun Bhagat told Headlines Today.
"Tunda and Bhatkal can be confronted and they give important information on their tie-ups with other terror groups like Jaish-e-Mohammed and the Pakistani establishment," he said.
Another former IB chief Ajit Kumar Doval said Bhatkal's arrest showed the improved coordination between the intelligence agencies and the security agencies in the country.
↧
Ishrat Jahan’s terror links proven! -- Kartikeya Tanna
Ishrat Jahan’s terror links proven!
Earlier today, the Indian Express reported that Gujarat IPS officer NK Amin, an accused in the fake encounter cases, submitted a letter to the Supreme Court which throws further light on Ishrat Jahan’s terror links. This letter is written by the legal attaché of the US embassy Daniel C Clegg to the Intelligence Bureau sharing information on Ishrat Jahan.
Niti Central has now accessed that letter dated June 25, 2010 (Sub: 415E-CG-130854 2041 NL C46 Request to share information related to threat against Hindu temples) written by Clegg to the IB.
This letter quotes as under:
“Zaki told Headley about a female suicide bomber named Ishrat Jahaan (Jahaan) who was recruited by Muzammil. Jahaan was killed by the Indian police during the attack. Zaki mentioned Muzammil’s plans to attack Akshar Dham temple, Sommnat [Somnath] and Siddki [Siddhi]temples. The attacks were revenge for the 1988 attack on the Mosque in Yuppe [UP].”
This letter carries significance on two counts.
First, as per the IE report, Daniel Clegg is reportedly the pointsperson for the Federal Bureau of Investigation in India and a “key liaison officer for Indian security agencies on terrorism issues after the 26/11 Mumbai attack.” Therefore, Clegg’s letter on this issue cannot be ignored or brushed away.
Second, the much-referenced letter by DP Sinha, Additional Director, Intelligence Bureau to the Special Director CBI dated February 28, 2013 quotes the contents of Clegg’s letter as one of the IB’s bases for stating that it had intelligence inputs on Ishrat being a Muzammil recruit. Niti Central has also accessed a copy of Sinha’s letter to the CBI. The relevant portion is on pages 2 and 3 (Paragraphs 5 & 6).
As this author has reported earlier, it is pretty surprising why the NIA did not retain Headley’s references to Ishrat Jahan in the NIA interrogation report it made public. This letter by Daniel Clegg provides one more piece of evidence on the terror links of Ishrat Jahan and the inexplicable and ambiguous stand of the NIA as well as the Ministry of Home Affairs on this issue which is jeopardising India’s national security.
BJP condemns CBI for framing Modi in Ishrat Jahan Case (Video)
↧
Syria conflict. Israelis' stoic view. Obama's botched intelligence?
Amid Chaos, Israelis Take a Stoic View
By JODI RUDOREN
JERUSALEM — The retired men who parse politics on Monday mornings over cappuccino at the Hadar Mall here have watched all manner of war, uprisings and chaos. To them, the chemical attacks to the north in Syria and the military crackdown against Islamists to the south in Egypt are almost comforting, a confirmation of a common Israeli view that their Arab neighbors are unready for democracy, while also offering a diversion from their own conflict with the Palestinians.
“We’re going to have quiet for many years — we can take money from the security budget and put it in education,” said Edward Reuven, 73, a former bus driver who, like the others in the cabal, is from a family that has lived in Jerusalem for generations. “I can sleep easy. They’re busy with themselves. Their armies are weakened. The world will become preoccupied with them and leave us alone.
“In Hebrew, there’s a saying,” Mr. Reuven added: “We survived Pharaoh, we’ll survive this, too.”
Not far from where the men were gossiping, the authorities distributed gas masks: by Wednesday, amid rising expectations of an American attack in Syria and attendant threats of retaliation against Israel, they had trouble keeping up with multiplying demand and fights erupted in some places. But even many of those lining up to collect the kits sounded more stoic than scared. “Just in case something happens, you have the tools in your hand,” Ariel Garcia Lozano, 31, said with a shrug, lingering for lunch with his new bride, gas mask at their feet.
Israel’s leaders have convened emergency cabinet sessions in recent days and ratcheted up home-front preparations, with military reservists being called up and air-defense systems readied on Wednesday. Still, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a statement, “There is no reason to change daily routines.”
The Israeli public remained preoccupied with the start of school on Tuesday morning, the finale of the show “Big Brother” on Tuesday night and preparations for the Jewish New Year next week. Recent rocket attacks from the Sinai Desert and from Lebanon were like background noise after so many years of the same. Though Israelis have “the best seats in the house” on the current chaos, as the satirist Lior Schleien put it in an interview, there is relief that for now, the problems are other people’s.
With concern growing about Israel’s international isolation after Europe’s recent move to ban the financing of Jewish institutions in the occupied West Bank, some hoped that the brutality and instability in the region might create sympathy abroad for Israel’s geopolitical challenge. At the same time, others worried that the changes in the neighborhood would make Israelis even more wary of the concessions necessary to make peace with the Palestinians — and that pressure on them would be relieved just as the American-brokered negotiations are getting under way.
“It’s another nail in the coffin in the vision of the left,” lamented Eva Illouz, a sociologist who is president of the Bezalel Academy of Arts and Design here.
“It’s going to rigidify the already powerful racist tendencies in Israeli society,” she said, worrying. “Most people are bad historians. They tend to ascribe the same logic to things that are not necessarily connected. That’s what I think is going to happen in the minds of most people. They’re going to comfort that Netanyahu narrative of ‘They all want us out, and we need to be very strong.’ ”
In conversations with two dozen people this week, many said this summer had spawned an “I-told-you-so” sensibility among Israelis, who had been far more skeptical than Americans and Europeans about the Arab Spring. There were repeated invocations of Ehud Barak’s infamous statement that Israel is a “villa in the jungle,” which caused controversy in 2006 but now is gaining traction even among liberals most sympathetic to the Arab cause.
“I don’t like this metaphor; it’s very colonialistic,” said Dorit Rabinyan, a celebrated young novelist. “But this is the state of mind of Israelis, especially the last two or three generations. I think this metaphor has some sort of truth in it.”
Ariel Brantz, a restaurant cook who was collecting a gas mask at the mall, said he hoped “this will open the world’s eyes and they understand who it is they’re dealing with.”
Mr. Schleien, host of the satirical television talk show “State of the Union,” said that “what’s going on in Egypt and Iran and Syria” should make people “wake up and smell the napalm.”
After months in which the skyrocketing death toll in Syria’s civil war spurred relatively little reaction here, the apparent gas attacks outside of Damascus struck a deep chord in a country still largely defined by memories of the Holocaust. Several people interviewed said they imagined their own relatives who perished in Nazi concentration camps when they saw the faces of the dead Syrian children lined up last week.
“Enemy or not enemy, it’s horrific,” said Etti Vashdi, who was visiting a promenade overlooking the Old City with a group of religious Jews from the small community of Elyakhin, in the country’s center. “I hope they would feel the same about us, but I’m not sure.”
Elyakim Haetzni, a former right-wing politician, wrote one of several op-ed articles that pointed to the world’s silence during the Holocaust to demand international action now. “Mass killing by gas makes it impossible for any of us to remain indifferent,” he said. “Every Jew must forever consider himself to have stood in line to the gas chambers.”
Still, there is a sense of satisfaction for some in watching the enemy implode. Raymonde Elul, one of three grandmothers sharing sandwiches at the mall, said: “They’re not our brothers. The more of them that are killed the better.”
Mr. Reuven, the retired bus driver, and his friends, have spent the summer jokingly saluting a member of their group whose nickname is Sisi, like Gen. Abdul-Fattah el-Sisi, the military leader behind Egypt’s new government. They are happy with the result in Egypt, but wary of the method, and even more shocked by what they see in Syria. “They killed their own women and children,” Mr. Reuven said. “If heaven forbid we were to fall into their hands, they would slaughter us like chickens.”
Still, most of those interviewed Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday said the events had intensified Israelis’ feelings of isolation. They were critical of the Obama administration’s Middle East policy, and wary of a world they believe demonizes them. As for the prospect of Syrian or Iranian attacks on Israel in response to an American strike — like Saddam Hussein’s sending of Scud missiles to Tel Aviv in 1991 — it seemed to generate a kind of pride in resilience.
“When Israelis go to the shelters, then the spirit of Israel rises again, and we are all united and we have this tremendous solidarity as the persecuted people,” said Hannah Naveh, a professor of literature and gender studies at Tel Aviv University.
“We’re post-traumatic as a regular mode of living,” she said. “I’m 65 years old, I was born with the state, and it’s 65 years of living post-trauma. We don’t move from trauma to trauma. We don’t get over anything.”
Isabel Kershner and Jonathan Rosen contributed reporting.
U.S. Facing Test on Data to Back Action on Syria
By MARK MAZZETTI and MARK LANDLER
WASHINGTON — The evidence of a massacre is undeniable: the bodies of the dead lined up on hospital floors, those of the living convulsing and writhing in pain and a declaration from a respected international aid group that thousands of Syrians were gassed with chemical weapons last week.
And yet the White House faces steep hurdles as it prepares to make the most important public intelligence presentation since February 2003, when Secretary of State Colin L. Powell made a dramatic and detailed case for war to the United Nations Security Council using intelligence — later discredited — about Iraq’s weapons programs.
More than a decade later, the Obama administration says the information it will make public, most likely on Thursday, will show proof of a large-scale chemical attack perpetrated by Syrian forces, bolstering its case for a retaliatory military strike on Syria.
But with the botched intelligence about Iraq still casting a long shadow over decisions about waging war in the Middle East, the White House faces an American public deeply skeptical about being drawn into the Syrian conflict and a growing chorus of lawmakers from both parties angry about the prospect of an American president once again going to war without Congressional consultation or approval.
American officials said Wednesday there was no “smoking gun” that directly links President Bashar al-Assad to the attack, and they tried to lower expectations about the public intelligence presentation. They said it will not contain specific electronic intercepts of communications between Syrian commanders or detailed reporting from spies and sources on the ground.
But even without hard evidence tying Mr. Assad to the attack, administration officials asserted, the Syrian leader bears ultimate responsibility for the actions of his troops and should be held accountable.
“The commander in chief of any military is ultimately responsible for decisions made under their leadership,” said the State Department’s deputy spokeswoman, Marie Harf — even if, she added, “He’s not the one who pushes the button or says ‘go’ on this.”
Administration officials said that communications between military commanders intercepted after Wednesday’s attack provided proof that the assault was not the result of a rogue unit acting against orders. It is unclear how much detail about these communications, if any, will be made public.
In an interview on Wednesday with the PBS program “NewsHour,” President Obama said he still had not made a decision about military action. But he said that a military strike could be a “shot across the bow, saying ‘stop doing this,’ that can have a positive impact on our national security over the long term.”
The bellicose talk coming from the administration is unnerving some lawmakers from Mr. Obama’s party, who are angry that the White House seems to have no inclination to seek Congress’s approval before launching a strike in Syria.
“I am still waiting to see what specifically the administration and other involved partners have to say about a potential military strike, but I am concerned about how effective such an action could be,” said Representative Adam Smith, a Washington Democrat who is the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. “I am worried that such action could drag the United States into a broader direct involvement in the conflict.”
Despite the Obama administration’s insistence that the graphic images of the attack go far in making a case for military action in Syria, some experts said that the White House had its own burden of proof.
Anthony H. Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies said that whatever evidence the administration put forward would be the American intelligence community’s “most important single document in a decade.”
The Obama administration, Mr. Cordesman said, needs to use intelligence about the attack “as a key way of informing the world, of building up trust in U.S. policy and intelligence statements, and in moving U.S. strategic communications from spin to convincing truth.”
And yet it appears that the public presentation of the Syria evidence will be limited. Instead of the theater of Mr. Powell’s 2003 speech — which included satellite photographs, scratchy recordings of conversations between Iraqi officials and a vial of white powder meant to symbolize anthrax — American officials said the intelligence assessment they are preparing to make public will be similar to a modest news release that the White House issued in June to announce that the Assad government had used chemical weapons “on a small scale against the opposition multiple times in the last year.”
Based on that conclusion, Mr. Obama authorized a limited program of supplying the Syrian rebels with arms, which have yet to arrive.
As the White House now considers direct military action in Syria, something it has resisted for two years, Speaker John A. Boehner wrote a letter on Wednesday to Mr. Obama asking the president to provide a “clear, unambiguous explanation of how military action — which is a means, not a policy — will secure U.S. objectives and how it fits into your overall policy.”
The discussion has even brought in former officials intimately involved in making the hurried public case for the Iraq war. In an interview with Fox Business Network, Donald Rumsfeld, who was defense secretary at the time, said Wednesday that “there really hasn’t been any indication from the administration as to what our national interest is with respect to this particular situation.”
Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican, has been scathing in his criticism of Mr. Obama for the opposite reason — that the president in his view has not taken enough action. Mr. McCain has said that doubts about military action expressed by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, have emboldened the Syrian government to use chemical weapons and that Mr. Obama, having allowed Mr. Assad to cross his “red line” on the use of these weapons on previous occasions, had little standing now.
“Now this is the same president that two years ago said that Bashar Assad must leave office, and so where is America’s credibility?” Mr. McCain said on Fox News. “Where is our ability to influence events in the region? And I promise you that those who say we should stay out of Syria do not understand that this is now a regional conflict.”
The administration plans to brief leaders in the House and Senate with a classified version of its intelligence assessment about the attack, according to Congressional aides.
Americans over all have been skeptical about the United States getting involved in Syria’s civil war, although surveys show they are more open to a limited strike on Syrian targets using cruise missiles or drones.
There has not been a major poll released since last Wednesday’s chemical attacks, but a poll published by Quinnipiac University last month found that 61 percent of people said it was not in the national interest to intervene in Syria, while 27 percent said it was. By a similar split, 59 percent opposed providing weapons to rebel forces, while 27 percent were in favor. But 49 percent of people said they would support missile strikes against government forces if the strikes did not endanger American lives, while 38 percent said they were opposed.
It is the fear of the United States getting dragged into yet another Middle Eastern war that before last Wednesday had animated opposition — both inside the White House and across the country as a whole — to American military intervention in Syria.
Even as he now contemplates getting deeper into a war he had long resisted, Mr. Obama appears to be mindful that the opposition remains. “We can take limited, tailored approaches, not getting drawn into a long conflict,” he said Wednesday on “NewsHour.” He added, “Not another repetition of, you know, Iraq, which I know a lot of people are worried about.”
This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:
Correction: August 28, 2013
An earlier version of this article reversed the percentage of respondents in a Quinnipiac University poll last month who said they were in favor of, and opposed to, providing weapons to rebel forces in Syria. Twenty-seven percent were in favor of providing the weapons, and 59 percent were opposed to it.
29 August 2013 Last updated at 07:24 GMT
What first?
Assad's options
Law matters
How it happened
Damascus 'is nervous'
US: 'No decision yet' on Syria
Crisis 'dangerous for region'
UN chief: 'A most serious moment'
Syria military intervention explained
Mid East opinion split
US 'ready' to launch attack
Desperate plight of child refugees
'Chemical attack hits Damascus'
A look inside refugee container
Syrian odyssey to Europe
How do arms reach Syria?
↧
↧
Is America addicted to war? -- Stephen M. Walt
Obama Lies America Into Another War
Posted By Daniel Greenfield On June 17, 2013 @ 12:56 am In Daily Mailer,FrontPage | 216 Comments
Around this time two years ago, Barack Obama delivered a prime time speech in which he told viewers waiting for him to shut up and make way for American Idol, “We have spent a trillion dollars on war, at a time of rising debt and hard economic times… America, it is time to focus on nation-building here at home.”
Even while he was delivering a speech promising to begin nation-building at home, the warplanes he had dispatched to Libya were bombing government targets in support of the Islamist uprising.
A month earlier, Obama had told Americans that he had a duty to protect “Benghazi, a city nearly the size of Charlotte”. Given a choice between nation-building in Charlotte and Benghazi; Obama chose Benghazi.
In September 2012, Obama gave yet another speech calling for a withdrawal from Afghanistan and nation-building at home. Ten days later, the diplomatic mission in Benghazi came under attack by militias and terrorists who had been allowed to take over the city by Obama’s Libyan intervention.
At the presidential debate, despite the broken promises on Libya, Obama once again brought out his “nation-building at home” card.
In response to a question about the challenges of the Middle East and the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Obama speechified, “The other thing that we have to do is recognize that we can’t continue to do nation building in these regions. Part of American leadership is making sure that we’re doing nation building here at home.”
The response should have come with a laugh track. Eight months later, the Nobel Peace Prize winner is preparing to lead America into his second Arab Spring war.
The script has already been written and it’s the same script that saw airtime in Libya. Claim an imminent threat to civilians that is actually a threat to the terrorists. Carve out a No Fly Zone. Arm the terrorists. And then sit back and wait for the next Benghazi.
To invade Libya, Obama lied and told the American people that the residents of Benghazi were about to suffer a massacre that would stain “the conscience of the world.” No such massacre had taken place or was ever going to take place. The only innocent people who wound up massacred in Benghazi were the Americans sent there by Hillary Clinton.
This time, swap out Aleppo or Homs for Benghazi as the cities badly in need of American protection. Never mind that the Christians of Aleppo and Homs, the only innocent parties in a religious war between a Shiite government and Sunni terrorist groups, are in far more danger from the Islamist Sunni terrorists that Obama is proposing to arm.
The Free Syrian Army’s Farouq Brigades went door to door expelling Christians in Homs. Of the 160,000 Christians in the city, there are now barely a 1,000. Christians in Aleppo have faced kidnappings and car bombings. Some have chosen to arm themselves against the rebels.
“We see on TV armed young men with beards shouting, ‘Allah is great!’ and calling for jihad. We have the right to defend ourselves,” one Christian in Aleppo said. But Obama won’t be supplying the Christians with any weapons. Those are reserved for the bearded young Allah-shouters.
In Qseir, the city recently recaptured by the Syrian Army from the Sunni militias, whose loss partly triggered the rush to war by the Western allies of the Muslim Brotherhood, most of the Christians had fled a place where they were once 10 percent of the population following Sunni Muslim persecution.
The 10,000 Christians of Qseir were ordered to leave the city by loudspeakers on mosques. If Obama’s intervention helps the Islamist militias retake Qseir; there will soon be no Christians left in the city at all. And the same goes for Homs and Aleppo.
Intervention in support of the Islamist militias in Syria is nothing more than a Christian ethnic cleansing project. And those supporting it should be treated like any other advocates of ethnic cleansing.
Obama’s intervention in Libya turned Benghazi over to Islamist militias who have persecuted Christians. His intervention in Syria will ethnically cleanse Christians while rewarding the Muslim Brotherhood with another building block for their caliphate plans.
The Syrian War, like the Libyan War, is built on a pyramid of lies. There are no good options in Syria and nothing we do will help anyone there.
Despite the belated declaration that the Syrian government had breached a Red Line by using chemical weapons, the evidence points to chemical weapons use by both sides.
Obama is choosing to hold only one side accountable for actions that both sides have taken. While the Sunni rebels who used chemical weapons will be armed and aided, the Shiite government which used chemical weapons will get bombed. That’s not human rights; it’s cynical hypocrisy.
The vaunted “Red Line” was and is irrelevant. The White House delayed taking a position when the evidence of a breach first came in and dispatched its media allies to make excuses for not taking an immediate stand because the line was never the issue. The determining factor was whether the Sunni rebels could win on their own or not.
The Libyan intervention had nothing to do with protecting the people of Benghazi and everything to do with protecting the Islamist militias in Benghazi which were in danger of losing the city. The Syrian intervention has nothing to do with whether Assad used chemical weapons, but the worry that the Sunni militias will lose Aleppo and Homs the way that they appear to have lost Qseir.
It was only when it became clear that the Sunni rebels were being rolled back by government forces, that the Red Line began flashing in the White House. And if there is any doubt of that, Politico quoted an administration official as saying, “The decision was ultimately driven by the discovery Assad used [chemical weapons], but there were a number of other factors in place that were also important… “Would we have made [the determination Assad had breached the red line] even if we didn’t have the evidence? Probably.”
Had an official of the previous administration made such a statement around the Iraq War, there would have been talk of impeachment, but the media has long since gotten used to swallowing the bizarre lies put out by an administration that ended the Iraq War twice and kept insisting that Al Qaeda was on the run even as it was expanding across North Africa.
Obama lied the country into war in Libya. Now no one even blinks as an official admits that he was prepared to lie the country into war in Syria.
Before the campaign, Obama yammered about nation-building at home. Libya isn’t home. Neither is Syria.
While Obama botched Afghanistan, he has insisted on committing the United States to intervening in every nation-building war that the Arab Spring can throw up. Despite slashing the military to the bone, he hasn’t slaked his appetite for new wars. Even though he has dismantled the ability of the FBI to track Islamic terrorists at home, he has busily devoted government resources to helping them win abroad.
Syria is not America’s war. It is the Muslim Brotherhood’s war. Instead of nation-building at home, Obama is caliphate-building abroad.Even while he was delivering a speech promising to begin nation-building at home, the warplanes he had dispatched to Libya were bombing government targets in support of the Islamist uprising.
A month earlier, Obama had told Americans that he had a duty to protect “Benghazi, a city nearly the size of Charlotte”. Given a choice between nation-building in Charlotte and Benghazi; Obama chose Benghazi.
In September 2012, Obama gave yet another speech calling for a withdrawal from Afghanistan and nation-building at home. Ten days later, the diplomatic mission in Benghazi came under attack by militias and terrorists who had been allowed to take over the city by Obama’s Libyan intervention.
At the presidential debate, despite the broken promises on Libya, Obama once again brought out his “nation-building at home” card.
In response to a question about the challenges of the Middle East and the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Obama speechified, “The other thing that we have to do is recognize that we can’t continue to do nation building in these regions. Part of American leadership is making sure that we’re doing nation building here at home.”
The response should have come with a laugh track. Eight months later, the Nobel Peace Prize winner is preparing to lead America into his second Arab Spring war.
The script has already been written and it’s the same script that saw airtime in Libya. Claim an imminent threat to civilians that is actually a threat to the terrorists. Carve out a No Fly Zone. Arm the terrorists. And then sit back and wait for the next Benghazi.
To invade Libya, Obama lied and told the American people that the residents of Benghazi were about to suffer a massacre that would stain “the conscience of the world.” No such massacre had taken place or was ever going to take place. The only innocent people who wound up massacred in Benghazi were the Americans sent there by Hillary Clinton.
This time, swap out Aleppo or Homs for Benghazi as the cities badly in need of American protection. Never mind that the Christians of Aleppo and Homs, the only innocent parties in a religious war between a Shiite government and Sunni terrorist groups, are in far more danger from the Islamist Sunni terrorists that Obama is proposing to arm.
The Free Syrian Army’s Farouq Brigades went door to door expelling Christians in Homs. Of the 160,000 Christians in the city, there are now barely a 1,000. Christians in Aleppo have faced kidnappings and car bombings. Some have chosen to arm themselves against the rebels.
“We see on TV armed young men with beards shouting, ‘Allah is great!’ and calling for jihad. We have the right to defend ourselves,” one Christian in Aleppo said. But Obama won’t be supplying the Christians with any weapons. Those are reserved for the bearded young Allah-shouters.
In Qseir, the city recently recaptured by the Syrian Army from the Sunni militias, whose loss partly triggered the rush to war by the Western allies of the Muslim Brotherhood, most of the Christians had fled a place where they were once 10 percent of the population following Sunni Muslim persecution.
The 10,000 Christians of Qseir were ordered to leave the city by loudspeakers on mosques. If Obama’s intervention helps the Islamist militias retake Qseir; there will soon be no Christians left in the city at all. And the same goes for Homs and Aleppo.
Intervention in support of the Islamist militias in Syria is nothing more than a Christian ethnic cleansing project. And those supporting it should be treated like any other advocates of ethnic cleansing.
Obama’s intervention in Libya turned Benghazi over to Islamist militias who have persecuted Christians. His intervention in Syria will ethnically cleanse Christians while rewarding the Muslim Brotherhood with another building block for their caliphate plans.
The Syrian War, like the Libyan War, is built on a pyramid of lies. There are no good options in Syria and nothing we do will help anyone there.
Despite the belated declaration that the Syrian government had breached a Red Line by using chemical weapons, the evidence points to chemical weapons use by both sides.
Obama is choosing to hold only one side accountable for actions that both sides have taken. While the Sunni rebels who used chemical weapons will be armed and aided, the Shiite government which used chemical weapons will get bombed. That’s not human rights; it’s cynical hypocrisy.
The vaunted “Red Line” was and is irrelevant. The White House delayed taking a position when the evidence of a breach first came in and dispatched its media allies to make excuses for not taking an immediate stand because the line was never the issue. The determining factor was whether the Sunni rebels could win on their own or not.
The Libyan intervention had nothing to do with protecting the people of Benghazi and everything to do with protecting the Islamist militias in Benghazi which were in danger of losing the city. The Syrian intervention has nothing to do with whether Assad used chemical weapons, but the worry that the Sunni militias will lose Aleppo and Homs the way that they appear to have lost Qseir.
It was only when it became clear that the Sunni rebels were being rolled back by government forces, that the Red Line began flashing in the White House. And if there is any doubt of that, Politico quoted an administration official as saying, “The decision was ultimately driven by the discovery Assad used [chemical weapons], but there were a number of other factors in place that were also important… “Would we have made [the determination Assad had breached the red line] even if we didn’t have the evidence? Probably.”
Had an official of the previous administration made such a statement around the Iraq War, there would have been talk of impeachment, but the media has long since gotten used to swallowing the bizarre lies put out by an administration that ended the Iraq War twice and kept insisting that Al Qaeda was on the run even as it was expanding across North Africa.
Obama lied the country into war in Libya. Now no one even blinks as an official admits that he was prepared to lie the country into war in Syria.
Before the campaign, Obama yammered about nation-building at home. Libya isn’t home. Neither is Syria.
While Obama botched Afghanistan, he has insisted on committing the United States to intervening in every nation-building war that the Arab Spring can throw up. Despite slashing the military to the bone, he hasn’t slaked his appetite for new wars. Even though he has dismantled the ability of the FBI to track Islamic terrorists at home, he has busily devoted government resources to helping them win abroad.
http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/obama-lies-america-into-another-war/
BY STEPHEN M. WALT | APRIL 4, 2011
The United States started out as 13 small and vulnerable colonies clinging to the east coast of North America. Over the next century, those original 13 states expanded all the way across the continent, subjugating or exterminating the native population and wresting Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California from Mexico. It fought a bitter civil war, acquired a modest set of overseas colonies, and came late to both world wars. But since becoming a great power around 1900, it has fought nearly a dozen genuine wars and engaged in countless military interventions.
Yet Americans think of themselves as a peace-loving people, and we certainly don't regard our country as a "warrior nation" or "garrison state." Teddy Roosevelt was probably the last U.S. president who seemed to view war as an activity to be welcomed (he once remarked that "A just war is in the long run far better for a man's soul than the most prosperous peace"), and subsequent presidents always portray themselves as going to war with great reluctance, and only as a last resort.
In 2008, Americans elected Barack Obama in part because they thought he would be different from his predecessor on a host of issues, but especially in his approach to the use of armed force. It was clear to nearly everyone that George W. Bush had launched a foolish and unnecessary war in Iraq, and then compounded the error by mismanaging it (and the war in Afghanistan too). So Americans chose a candidate who had opposed Bush's war in Iraq and could bring U.S. commitments back in line with our resources. Above all, Americans thought Obama would be a lot more thoughtful about where and how to use force, and that he understood the limits of this crudest of policy tools. The Norwegian Nobel Committee seems to have thought so too, when they awarded him the Nobel Peace Prize not for anything he had done, but for what it hoped he might do henceforth.
Yet a mere two years later, we find ourselves back in the fray once again. Since taking office, Obama has escalated U.S. involvement in Afghanistan and launched a new war against Libya. As in Iraq, the real purpose of our intervention is regime change at the point of a gun. At first we hoped that most of the guns would be in the hands of the Europeans, or the hands of the rebel forces arrayed against Muammar al-Qaddafi, but it's increasingly clear that U.S. military forces, CIA operatives and foreign weapons supplies are going to be necessary to finish the job.
Moreover, as Alan Kuperman of the University of Texas and Steve Chapman of the Chicago Tribune have now shown, the claim that the United States had to act to prevent Libyan tyrant Muammar al-Qaddafi from slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent civilians in Benghazi does not stand up to even casual scrutiny. Although everyone recognizes that Qaddafi is a brutal ruler, his forces did not conduct deliberate, large-scale massacres in any of the cities he has recaptured, and his violent threats to wreak vengeance on Benghazi were directed at those who continued to resist his rule, not at innocent bystanders. There is no question that Qaddafi is a tyrant with few (if any) redemptive qualities, but the threat of a bloodbath that would "[stain] the conscience of the world" (as Obama put it) was slight.
It remains to be seen whether this latest lurch into war will pay off or not, and whether the United States and its allies will have saved lives or squandered them. But the real question we should be asking is: Why does this keep happening? Why do such different presidents keep doing such similar things? How can an electorate that seemed sick of war in 2008 watch passively while one war escalates in 2009 and another one gets launched in 2011? How can two political parties that are locked in a nasty partisan fight over every nickel in the government budget sit blithely by and watch a president start running up a $100 million per day tab in this latest adventure? What is going on here?
Here are my Top 5 Reasons Why America Keeps Fighting Foolish Wars:
1. Because We Can.
The most obvious reason that the United States keeps doing these things is the fact that it has a remarkably powerful military, especially when facing a minor power like Libya. As I wrote a couple of weeks ago, when you've got hundreds of planes, smart bombs, and cruise missiles, the whole world looks like a target set. So when some thorny problem arises somewhere in the world, it's hard to resist the temptation to "do something!"
The most obvious reason that the United States keeps doing these things is the fact that it has a remarkably powerful military, especially when facing a minor power like Libya. As I wrote a couple of weeks ago, when you've got hundreds of planes, smart bombs, and cruise missiles, the whole world looks like a target set. So when some thorny problem arises somewhere in the world, it's hard to resist the temptation to "do something!"
It is as if the president has big red button on his desk, and then his aides come in and say, "There's something really nasty happening to some unfortunate people, Mr. President, but if you push that button, you can stop it. It might cost a few hundred million dollars, maybe even a few billion by the time we are done, but we can always float a bit more debt. As long as you don't send in ground troops, the public will probably go along, at least for awhile and there's no danger that anybody will retaliate against us -- at least not anytime soon -- because the bad guys (who are really nasty, by the way) are also very weak. Our vital interests aren't at stake, sir, so you don't have to do anything. But if you don't push the button lots of innocent people will die. The choice is yours, Mr. President."
It would take a very tough and resolute president -- or one with a clear set of national priorities and a deep understanding of the uncertainties of warfare -- to resist that siren song.
Of course, like his predecessors, Obama justifies his resort to force by invoking America's special place in the world. In the usual rhetoric of "American exceptionalism," he couched it in terms of U.S. values, its commitment to freedom, etc. But the truly exceptional thing about America today is not our values (and certainly not our dazzling infrastructure, high educational standards, rising middle-class prosperity, etc.); it is the concentration of military power in the hands of the president and the eroding political constraints on its employment. (For an elegant skewering of the "American exceptionalism" argument, see Andrew Sullivan here).
PETER PARKS/AFP/Getty Images
2. The U.S. Has No Serious Enemies.
A second factor that permits the United States to keep waging these optional wars is the fact that the end of the Cold War left the United States in a remarkably safe position. There are no great powers in the Western hemisphere; we have no "peer competitors" anywhere (though China may become one sooner if we keep squandering our power foolishly); and there is no country anywhere that could entertain the idea of attacking America without inviting its own destruction. We do face a vexing terrorism problem, but that danger is probably exaggerated, is partly a reaction to our tendency to meddle in other countries, and is best managed in other ways. It's really quite ironic: Because the American homeland is safe from serious external dangers (which is a good thing), Americans have the luxury of going abroad "in search of monsters to destroy" (which is not). If Americans were really worried about having to defend our own soil against a powerful adversary, we wouldn't be wasting time and money on feel-good projects like the Libyan crusade. But our exceptionally favorable geopolitical position allows us to do these things, even when they don't make a lot of strategic sense.
A second factor that permits the United States to keep waging these optional wars is the fact that the end of the Cold War left the United States in a remarkably safe position. There are no great powers in the Western hemisphere; we have no "peer competitors" anywhere (though China may become one sooner if we keep squandering our power foolishly); and there is no country anywhere that could entertain the idea of attacking America without inviting its own destruction. We do face a vexing terrorism problem, but that danger is probably exaggerated, is partly a reaction to our tendency to meddle in other countries, and is best managed in other ways. It's really quite ironic: Because the American homeland is safe from serious external dangers (which is a good thing), Americans have the luxury of going abroad "in search of monsters to destroy" (which is not). If Americans were really worried about having to defend our own soil against a powerful adversary, we wouldn't be wasting time and money on feel-good projects like the Libyan crusade. But our exceptionally favorable geopolitical position allows us to do these things, even when they don't make a lot of strategic sense.
3. The All-Volunteer Force.
A third enabling factor behind our addiction to adventurism is the all-volunteer force. By limiting military service only to those individuals who volunteer to do it, public opposition to wars of choice is more easily contained. Could Bush or Obama have kept the Iraq and Afghanistan wars going if most young Americans had to register for a draft, and if the sons and daughters of Wall Street bankers were being sent in harm's way because they got an unlucky number in the draft? I very much doubt it.
By the way, I am not saying that the AVF is a bad idea that should be chucked, as there are a number of good arguments in its favor. Nonetheless, the AVF is one of those features of the contemporary U.S. national security order that makes the frequent resort to force politically feasible.
4. It's the Establishment, Stupid. A fourth reason we keep meddling all over the world is the fact that the foreign-policy establishment is hard-wired in favor of "doing something." Foreign-policy thinking in Washington is dominated either by neoconservatives (who openly proclaim the need to export "liberty" and never met a war they didn't like) or by "liberal interventionists" who are just as enthusiastic about using military power to solve problems, provided they can engineer some sort of multilateral cover for it. Liberal interventionists sometimes concede that the United States can't solve every problem (at least not at the same time), but they still think that the United States is the "indispensable" nation and they want us to solve as many of the world's problems as we possibly can.
These worldviews are developed, promulgated, and defended by a network of think tanks, committees, public policy schools, and government agencies that don't always agree on what should be done (or which problems deserve most priority) but that are all committed to using U.S. power a lot. In short, our foreign policy is shaped by a bipartisan class of foreign policy do-gooders who spend years out of power maneuvering to get in, and spend their time in office trying to advance whatever their own pet project(s) might be. Having scratched and clawed to get themselves on the inside, the people who run our foreign policy are not likely to counsel restraint, or to suggest that the United States and the rest of the world might be better off if Washington did a bit less. After all, what's the point of being a big shot in Washington if you can't use all that power to try to mold the world to your liking?
Compared with most Americans, this is a wealthy, privileged, highly educated group of people and most of them are personally insulated from the consequences of the policies they advocate (i.e., with a few exceptions, their kids don't serve in the military -- see No. 3). Advocates of intervention are unlikely to suffer severe financial reverses or face long-term career penalties if some foreign war goes badly; they'll just go back to the same think-tank sinecures when their term of service is over.
By the way, lurking underneath the Establishment consensus on foreign-policy activism is the most successful Jedi mind trick that the American right ever pulled. Since the mid-1960s, American conservatism has waged a relentless and successful campaign to convince U.S. voters that it is wasteful, foolish, and stupid to pay taxes to support domestic programs here at home, but it is our patriotic duty to pay taxes to support a military establishment that costs more than all other militaries put together and that is used not to defend American soil but to fight wars mostly on behalf of other people. In other words, Americans became convinced that it was wrong to spend tax revenues on things that would help their fellow citizens (like good schools, health care, roads, and bridges, high-speed rail, etc.), but it was perfectly OK to tax Americans (though of course not the richestAmericans) and spend the money on foreign wars. And we bought it. Moreover, there doesn't seem to be an effective mechanism to force the president to actually face and confront the trade-offs between the money he spends on optional wars and the domestic programs that eventually have to be cut back home. Which brings me to No. 5.
5. Congress Has Checked Out.
The authority to declare war is given to Congress, not the president, but that authority has been steadily usurped ever since World War II. Although the Constitution could not be clearer on this point, modern presidents clearly feel no constraints about ordering U.S. forces to attack other countries, or even to fully inform Congress as to what we might be doing in secret. In practice, therefore, the vaunted system of "checks and balances" supposedly enshrined in our Constitution simply doesn't operate anymore, which means that the use of America's military power has been left solely to the presidents and a handful of ambitious advisors (see No. 4 above). This is not to say that public opinion doesn't figure into their calculations (i.e., they've got pollsters and political advisors too), but it is hardly a binding constraint.
The authority to declare war is given to Congress, not the president, but that authority has been steadily usurped ever since World War II. Although the Constitution could not be clearer on this point, modern presidents clearly feel no constraints about ordering U.S. forces to attack other countries, or even to fully inform Congress as to what we might be doing in secret. In practice, therefore, the vaunted system of "checks and balances" supposedly enshrined in our Constitution simply doesn't operate anymore, which means that the use of America's military power has been left solely to the presidents and a handful of ambitious advisors (see No. 4 above). This is not to say that public opinion doesn't figure into their calculations (i.e., they've got pollsters and political advisors too), but it is hardly a binding constraint.
I've no doubt that one could add more items to this list (e.g., the passive press, the military-industrial complex, etc.), but the items already noted go a long way to explaining why the supposedly peace-loving United States keeps finding itself in all these small but draining wars.
Back in the 2008 campaign, Barack Obama said that his favorite movie was The Godfather. And if I recall correctly, he said his second favorite movie was The Godfather, Part II. But his presidency is starting to play out like Part III of that famed trilogy, where Michael Corleone rails against the fates that have foiled his attempt to make the Corleone family legit.
I can just hear Obama saying it: "Just when I thought I was out … they pull me back in." Precisely.
Stephen M. Walt, the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international affairs at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government and a contributing editor atForeign Policy, is the author of Taming American Power: The Global Response to U.S. Primacy and, with co-author John J. Mearsheimer, The Israel Lobby. He blogs at walt.foreignpolicy.com.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/04/04/is_america_addicted_to_war
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/04/04/is_america_addicted_to_war
↧
Outgoing RBI governor Subbarao blames govt for sinking rupee. Will PC resign, SoniaG quit politics?
| Friday , August 30 , 2013 |
![Subbarao blames govt for sinking rupee]( "Subbarao blames govt for sinking rupee")
RBI boss delivers a parting kick | |||
| OUR SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT | |||
Mumbai, Aug. 29: Outgoing RBI governor Duvvuri Subbarao today launched a blistering attack on the UPA government for failing to respect the autonomy of the “apolitical” central bank and trying to circumscribe its role. Delivering his last public lecture before retiring on September 4, Subbarao said: “It is important that the mandate of the Reserve Bank of India is written into the statute so that it is protected from the political dynamics of changing governments.” The statement is significant since Subbarao has always believed that the RBI was being forced to carry the can for the government’s failure to put its finances in order and frame appropriate fiscal policies to kick-start a stuttering economy and slam a lid on its burgeoning deficits. The comments came on a day the markets stanched the bleeding and the Prime Minister conceded that domestic factors were also responsible for the economic “difficulty”. The rupee today soared by 225 paise to end at 66.55 against the dollar and the sensex jumped by over 400 points on the back of the RBI opening a special dollar facility for state-run oil companies. The Federal Reserve in the US, for instance, has a dual mandate that is clearly spelt out: it must control inflation and ensure job creation. Subbarao said: “Central banks make macroeconomic policy that influences everyday life of people; yet they are managed by unelected officials appointed by the government. Such an arrangement is deliberate, based on the logic that an apolitical central bank, operating autonomously within a statutorily prescribed mandate and with a longer time perspective, is an effective counterpoise to a democratically elected government which typically operates with a political mandate within the time horizon of an electoral cycle.” In 1977, the US Congress amended the Federal Reserve Act, stating that the monetary policy objectives of the US central bank were to “promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices and moderate long-term interest rates”. While doing so, the Fed must balance the “long-run growth of the monetary and credit aggregates” with the “economy’s long-run potential to increase production”. This is often called the “dual mandate” and guides the Fed’s decision-making in the conduct of its monetary policy. With no clear mandate set out in the RBI Act, the government has been able to blame the Indian central bank and its monetary policy for all the ills that have beset the economy over the past 12 months. “An autonomous and apolitical central bank is a delicate arrangement… and will work only if the government respects the autonomy of the central bank, and the central bank itself stays within its mandate, delivers on that mandate and renders accountability for the outcomes of its policies and actions,” the RBI chief added. Subbarao also waded into the contentious debate over whether or not the RBI’s monetary tightening had driven down growth without squelching inflation. He said it was “inaccurate, unfair and misleading” to attribute the moderation in India’s economic growth — which tumbled to 5 per cent in the year ended March 31 from 6.5 per cent in 2011-12 — to the RBI’s tight monetary policy. Growth had slowed because of a “host of supply-side constraints and governance issues” which were clearly beyond the purview of the RBI, he said. If the repo rate was the only factor inhibiting growth, he wondered why the economy hadn’t shuddered to life when the RBI cut the policy interest rate by 125 basis points between April 2012 and May 2013. He said the critics of the RBI’s monetary tightening policy “must also note that our degrees of freedom were curtailed by the loose fiscal stance of the government during 2009-12”. With the benefit of hindsight, he admitted that the economy would have been better served if the monetary tightening had started sooner and stronger. “I say that because we now know that we had a classic V-shaped recovery from the crisis (of 2008).” Growth had not dipped as low as feared after the Lehman crisis and growth in the subsequent two years had been stronger than earlier expected. Subbarao said the RBI’s anti-inflationary stance in 2010 and 2011 should be evaluated against a backdrop where food inflation led to wage inflation and then blew up into core inflation. He said this transmission was institutionalised in the rural areas because of the rural job scheme, MNREGA, where “wages were formally indexed to inflation”. The wage-inflation dynamic played itself out in the context of consumption-led growth, large fiscal deficits and implementation bottlenecks, creating a “potent cocktail for core inflation” which rose from 3 per cent at the start of 2010 to almost 8 per cent by the end of the next year. He said it was misleading to attribute the speed and timing of the rupee depreciation in recent weeks to the so-called “tapering” of the US Fed’s quantitative easing programme. The root cause of the rupee’s slump were domestic structural factors. “We have been running a current account deficit (CAD) well above the sustainable level for three years in a row,” he said. The CAD was estimated at $88.2 billion, or 4.8 per cent of the GDP, in 2012-13, far above the RBI’s comfort level of 2.5 per cent. He said the only way to reduce the CAD was to finance it through non-debt inflows. The outgoing governor said the mechanisms for the RBI’s accountability were also inadequate. He suggested that India would do well to emulate the US example where Fed governor Ben Bernanke explains to the US Congress the nuances of the Fed’s monetary policy. “Perhaps, we should institute an arrangement whereby the governor goes before the parliament standing committee on finance twice a year….” He also had a word for his bitter adversary, finance minister P. Chidambaram. Subbarao said: "I do hope finance minister Chidambaram will one day say 'I am often frustrated by the Reserve Bank, so frustrated that I want to go for a walk, even if I have to walk alone. But thank God, the Reserve Bank exists'." |
Printed from
![]()
Outgoing RBI governor Subbarao blames govt for sinking rupee
MUMBAI: On a day when the Reserve Bank of India engineered a 223-paise pullback of the rupeeto 66.60, outgoing governor D Subbarao squarely blamed the government for the domestic currency's travails which he attributed to domestic structural factors. He also said the loose fiscal policy adopted by the government between 2009-2012 had constrained the RBI's monetary policy.
Subbarao chose his address under the 10th Nani Palkhivala memorial lecture — his last public address — to tear into the government for misreading the economy. He lambasted the finance ministry's attempts to impinge on the RBI's autonomy through the Financial Stability and Development Council.
The governor came down strongly on the attempt by certain sectors to attribute volatility to 'misbehaving markets' and which he compared with God.
Subbarao chose his address under the 10th Nani Palkhivala memorial lecture — his last public address — to tear into the government for misreading the economy. He lambasted the finance ministry's attempts to impinge on the RBI's autonomy through the Financial Stability and Development Council.
The governor came down strongly on the attempt by certain sectors to attribute volatility to 'misbehaving markets' and which he compared with God.
The financial markets on their part had responded extremely positively to the RBI's move to lend dollars to state-owned oil companies. The rupee's gain from its historic low of 68.83 on Wednesday bolstered equity markets with the sensex rising 405 points.
The governor also took a direct dig at finance minister P Chidambaram who in October 12 very vocally expressed his disappointment with the governor for not abiding by his call for a rate cut. The FM had said that "if the government has to walk alone to face the challenges of growth, we will walk alone". Subbarao said that "I do hope Chidambaram will one day say: 'I am often frustrated by RBI, so frustrated that I want to go for a walk, even if I have to walk alone. But thank God, the Reserve Bank exists'."
Reacting to the attack, the finance minister said in Delhi that Subbarao's comments were no different from what he said on Tuesday. Speaking in Parliament on Tuesday, Chidambaram attributed the current woes not just to external factors, but to domestic factors allowing the fiscal deficit to be breached and the current account deficit to swell because of decisions taken during 2009-2011, a period when Pranab Mukherjee was the finance minister.
Reiterating RBI's decision to shun capital controls, Subbarao said it had no intention of targeting a level of exchange rate. "I've heard people say that the markets are misbehaving, that the markets do not understand our policies. I think the problem is the reverse, that we do not understand the markets. We should be able to take the market behaviour as a given, not to dictate how the market behaves," said Subbarao. The governor sought to draw a parallel between his response and the conversation between Albert Einstein and his physicist friend Niles Bohr. In response to Einsten's famous comment, "God does not play dice", Bohr had said "Albert, don't tell God what to do."
Subbarao said that if the RBI had erred at all, it was in not adopting a hawkish stance earlier. "I must admit in all honesty that the economy would have been better served if our monetary tightening had started sooner and had been faster and stronger," said Subbarao. But even here he indicated that the RBI was hamstrung by the absence of reliable data. "Just as an aside this episode highlights the importance of faster and more reliable economic data for effective monetary policy calibration," he added.
Another regret expressed by the governor was that he chose 'baby steps' to hike rates in 2009. "I will probably be remembered as baby-steps Subbarao, but if the RBI had acted more decisively, inflation could have been brought under control much sooner." Subbarao attacked proponents of the theory that the RBI had no role to play in inflation caused by supply side shocks. "In a $1500 per capita economy—where food is a large fraction of the expenditure basket—food inflation quickly spills into wage inflation and therefore into core inflation. In rural areas where MGNREGA wages are indexed to inflation such transmission is institutionalized," he said, adding that MGNREGA had pushed up rural incomes without commensurate increase in productivity.
"In 2008 there was enormous pressure on the RBI to emulate central banks in America and the UK, which resorted to quantitative easing to loosen monetary conditions, raise inflation expectations and lower real interest rates. We realize that the strategy was effective in the short term, but the excess liquidity has raised inflation pressures," said Subbarao. On the attempt to clip the RBI's wings by restricting its mandate to only monetary policy, he said, "We must ask repeatedly if reducing the mandate of central banks, when everywhere else their mandate is being expanded, is the right way to go." The governor also said that the government cannot use financial stability as an excuse to override the authority of financial regulators. "The governor must normally leave the responsibility to the regulators, assuming an activist role only in time of crisis."
The governor also took a direct dig at finance minister P Chidambaram who in October 12 very vocally expressed his disappointment with the governor for not abiding by his call for a rate cut. The FM had said that "if the government has to walk alone to face the challenges of growth, we will walk alone". Subbarao said that "I do hope Chidambaram will one day say: 'I am often frustrated by RBI, so frustrated that I want to go for a walk, even if I have to walk alone. But thank God, the Reserve Bank exists'."
Reacting to the attack, the finance minister said in Delhi that Subbarao's comments were no different from what he said on Tuesday. Speaking in Parliament on Tuesday, Chidambaram attributed the current woes not just to external factors, but to domestic factors allowing the fiscal deficit to be breached and the current account deficit to swell because of decisions taken during 2009-2011, a period when Pranab Mukherjee was the finance minister.
Reiterating RBI's decision to shun capital controls, Subbarao said it had no intention of targeting a level of exchange rate. "I've heard people say that the markets are misbehaving, that the markets do not understand our policies. I think the problem is the reverse, that we do not understand the markets. We should be able to take the market behaviour as a given, not to dictate how the market behaves," said Subbarao. The governor sought to draw a parallel between his response and the conversation between Albert Einstein and his physicist friend Niles Bohr. In response to Einsten's famous comment, "God does not play dice", Bohr had said "Albert, don't tell God what to do."
Subbarao said that if the RBI had erred at all, it was in not adopting a hawkish stance earlier. "I must admit in all honesty that the economy would have been better served if our monetary tightening had started sooner and had been faster and stronger," said Subbarao. But even here he indicated that the RBI was hamstrung by the absence of reliable data. "Just as an aside this episode highlights the importance of faster and more reliable economic data for effective monetary policy calibration," he added.
Another regret expressed by the governor was that he chose 'baby steps' to hike rates in 2009. "I will probably be remembered as baby-steps Subbarao, but if the RBI had acted more decisively, inflation could have been brought under control much sooner." Subbarao attacked proponents of the theory that the RBI had no role to play in inflation caused by supply side shocks. "In a $1500 per capita economy—where food is a large fraction of the expenditure basket—food inflation quickly spills into wage inflation and therefore into core inflation. In rural areas where MGNREGA wages are indexed to inflation such transmission is institutionalized," he said, adding that MGNREGA had pushed up rural incomes without commensurate increase in productivity.
"In 2008 there was enormous pressure on the RBI to emulate central banks in America and the UK, which resorted to quantitative easing to loosen monetary conditions, raise inflation expectations and lower real interest rates. We realize that the strategy was effective in the short term, but the excess liquidity has raised inflation pressures," said Subbarao. On the attempt to clip the RBI's wings by restricting its mandate to only monetary policy, he said, "We must ask repeatedly if reducing the mandate of central banks, when everywhere else their mandate is being expanded, is the right way to go." The governor also said that the government cannot use financial stability as an excuse to override the authority of financial regulators. "The governor must normally leave the responsibility to the regulators, assuming an activist role only in time of crisis."
↧
PM incompetent, SoniaG has no qualification to rule the country -- Chandrababu Naidu
PM a puppet, incompetent: Chandrababu Naidu
Hyderabad: Telugu Desam Party president N. Chandrababu Naidu on Thursday demanded the resignation of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh for his failure to run the country effectively.
Addressing a press conference here, Naidu described the Prime Minister as a 'puppet' in the hands of Congress president Sonia Gandhi. He alleged that Singh was not in a position to take decisions on his own and failed to perform his duties as the Prime Minister independently.
Describing him as 'incompetent', he said that entire country was pushed into crisis by Congress President Sonia Gandhi who is controlling the government through remote control.
Reacting on the fall of Rupee, Naidu said that despite being an economist, the Prime Minister failed to control both external and internal factors that led to the collapse of currency. Stating that except her surname, Sonia Gandhi had no other qualification to rule the country.
He said misadministration and indifferent attitude led to rampant corruption across the country. The situation is so worse that the Prime Minister is unable to take action against his cabinet colleagues who were involved in corruption.
The TDP chief also slammed the Prime Minister for his silence on the Samaikhyandhra agitation going on in coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema regions.
↧
Yasin Bhatkal's road to forming an 'Indian' terror group -- Mateen Hafeez & Deeptiman Tiwary
How Yasin Bhatkal managed to slip away every time
For someone who claimed to be an engineer, Yasin Bhatkalshook off agencies by staying off phones and used modern means of communication sparingly.
RELATED
MUMBAI/NEW DELHI: Yasin Bhatkal must be the only terrorist to have played such a long hide-and-seek game with Indian agencies despite being in the country all along.
Unlike most top terrorists, who invariably melted into Pakistan or West Asia after terror strikes or after their names cropped up on agency radars, Bhatkal chose to stay back and conducted blast after blast for five years despite every agency trailing him.
For someone who claimed to be an engineer, he shook off agencies by staying off phones and used modern means of communication sparingly. Sources in the security establishment doggedly tracking Bhatkal for years, say he seldom made calls. When he did, he used public booths. On rare occasions when he used cellphones, the numbers were obtained on fake identities. Worse, the phones weren't used for too long.
Most of his important communications were through chat services like Nimbuzz and Yahoo. "These he used sparingly—only when an operation had to be put in motion and instructions given. He believed in meeting people personally and discussing plans. He moved with a core group that acted together and personally planted bombs," an officer tracking him said.
![]()
Security agencies tracked several of his calls, mostly after he stopped using the number. Many of his chats were flagged, but by the time agencies cut through the red tape to seek information from foreign servers, Bhatkal had not only moved to a new thread online but also to a new location physically.
"This explains why we came close to nabbing him several times but failed. Whenever he used mobiles, conversations were brief and snappy. By the time we tracked the chatter, he had moved on," the officer said.
It explains how Yasin remained holed up in a Darbhanga village for more than a year before conducting the 2011 Mumbai blasts. He planned the conspiracy at the village, testing bombs in a mango orchard and test-firing guns, but no one ever got to know.
Once he was nabbed in Kolkata but walked free pretending to be the son of a businessman. In November 2011, IB learnt he was at the house of suspected IM operative, Abdur Rehmand at Selaiyur, Chennai. The IB team reached half an hour too late. Check points at railway and bus stations were in vain. In October 2008, he escaped when Karnataka Police delayed a raid on a hideout near Kopa in Chikamagalur after raids on IM operatives in Mangalore.
In December 2011, he gave the slip to Delhi police special cell and Maharashtra ATS when they laid a trap outside Mumbai's Habib Apartment thinking he would return. He saw more than 100 plain clothes cops outside the building and never returned.
![]()
![]()
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/How-Yasin-Bhatkal-managed-to-slip-away-every-time/articleshow/22154539.cms
Unlike most top terrorists, who invariably melted into Pakistan or West Asia after terror strikes or after their names cropped up on agency radars, Bhatkal chose to stay back and conducted blast after blast for five years despite every agency trailing him.
For someone who claimed to be an engineer, he shook off agencies by staying off phones and used modern means of communication sparingly. Sources in the security establishment doggedly tracking Bhatkal for years, say he seldom made calls. When he did, he used public booths. On rare occasions when he used cellphones, the numbers were obtained on fake identities. Worse, the phones weren't used for too long.
Most of his important communications were through chat services like Nimbuzz and Yahoo. "These he used sparingly—only when an operation had to be put in motion and instructions given. He believed in meeting people personally and discussing plans. He moved with a core group that acted together and personally planted bombs," an officer tracking him said.
Security agencies tracked several of his calls, mostly after he stopped using the number. Many of his chats were flagged, but by the time agencies cut through the red tape to seek information from foreign servers, Bhatkal had not only moved to a new thread online but also to a new location physically.
"This explains why we came close to nabbing him several times but failed. Whenever he used mobiles, conversations were brief and snappy. By the time we tracked the chatter, he had moved on," the officer said.
It explains how Yasin remained holed up in a Darbhanga village for more than a year before conducting the 2011 Mumbai blasts. He planned the conspiracy at the village, testing bombs in a mango orchard and test-firing guns, but no one ever got to know.
Once he was nabbed in Kolkata but walked free pretending to be the son of a businessman. In November 2011, IB learnt he was at the house of suspected IM operative, Abdur Rehmand at Selaiyur, Chennai. The IB team reached half an hour too late. Check points at railway and bus stations were in vain. In October 2008, he escaped when Karnataka Police delayed a raid on a hideout near Kopa in Chikamagalur after raids on IM operatives in Mangalore.
In December 2011, he gave the slip to Delhi police special cell and Maharashtra ATS when they laid a trap outside Mumbai's Habib Apartment thinking he would return. He saw more than 100 plain clothes cops outside the building and never returned.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/How-Yasin-Bhatkal-managed-to-slip-away-every-time/articleshow/22154539.cms
↧
↧
Its time to undo the economic emergency created by SoniaG chamchas' governance -- Dr. Subramanian Swamy, Avay Shukla and others
BJP leader Subramanian Swamy (L) and columnist S Gurumurthy (C) share a light moment during a function organised to launch a book by M R Venkatesh titled 'Manmohan Singh - a wasted decade', in the city on Sunday, as journalist Kanchan Gupta looks on P. Jawahar
HINDUS MUST VOTE FOR BJP: SWAMY
Monday, 02 September 2013 | Kumar Chellappan | Chennai
In run-up to the 2014 Lok Sabha elections, senior BJP leader Subramanian Swamy exhorted all Hindus to cast their votes en masse to the BJP candidates.
“It is time Hindus unanimously cast their votes to save India and Hinduism. Muslims and Christians unitedly cast their votes to candidates fielded and approved by their respective clergies. Time has come for the Hindus to vote for candidates who openly declare that they would protect Sanatana Dharma and Indian nationalism,” said Swamy while releasing the book Dr Manmohan Singh; A Decade of Decay authored by MR Venkatesh, a chartered accountant-turned-columnist.
A jam packed audience including hundreds of Congressmen gave a standing ovation to Swamy at the end of his 70-minute speech justifying his demand that the Hindus in the country elect candidates who would safeguard the interests of India and the Hindu religion. He paid glowing tributes to the “illiterate North Indians” who saved the country from the tyranny of a dictatorial regime in 1977 by voting out the Congress Government and ushering in the first non-Congress Government at the Centre.
The former Harvard economist pointed out that the present leadership of the country has become the embodiment of corruption, anti-nationalism and inefficiency. “Pakistani soldiers trespass into our territories and chop off the heads of Indian soldiers. Our Prime Minister is still extending hand of cooperation to his Pakistani counterpart revealing his weakness. Nawaz Sharif, the Prime Minister of Pakistan is a stooge of the ISI, al-Qaeda and the Taliban. The Taliban has declared many times that India is the unfinished chapter in Islamic history. Only an Indian Government with focus on Sanatana Dharma and Hinduism would be able to save the country from the evil designs of the Islamists and the Chinese,” declared Swamy.
He said he was sure about the BJP getting absolute majority in the 2014 Lok Sabha elections. “The BJP alone could save the country from an impending disaster and bankruptcy. The only thing Manmohan Singh has done is that he did not resign from the prime ministership,” he said. According to Swamy, the degradation of the Indian economy began during the Rajiv Gandhi administration (1984 to 1989). The VP Singh Government too failed to resurrect the economy. “It was during the first phase of PV Narasimha Rao Government that the economy could be brought back to normality.
But by the third year of his prime ministership, Rao, the best Congress Prime Minister till date, was isolated and harassed by the acolytes of Sonia Gandhi. Immediately after the 1991 Lok Sabha elections, Sonia Gandhi appointed an ailing Rao as Prime Minister in the hope that he would die within months and she could take control of the Government. But surprisingly, Rao’s health improved considerably much to the consternation of Sonia Gandhi,” revealed Swamy, a close confidant of Rao. Whenever Swamy referred the name of Rao, hundreds of Congressmen in the audience clapped their hands and raised the slogan ‘Narasimha Rao amar rahein’.
Retaliate against Chinese incursion, Subramanian Swamy tells govt
Its time to go Mr Prime Minister
BY: AVAY SHUKLA AUGUST 28, 2013 16:44
Dear Prime Minister,
In Hindu tradition and culture the concept of renunciation has always been valued more than the idea of acquisition, and even though you may not accept this for fear of offending your party’s minority vote bank, let me allay your fears by reminding you that this is something preached by the Abrahamic religions also.
I would, therefore, urge you to seriously consider this option in your own interest as well as in the larger interest of this unfortunate country.
The government headed by you has already taken the country back to 1990 in sheer economic terms, and in terms of other social and public values we have reached the nadir of the Dark Ages.
The country had great hopes from you when it voted you to power in 2004, and even higher expectations when it renewed your mandate in 2009 after your sterling display of vision and courage in the nuclear deal. But you only flattered to deceive, and for reasons which are now becoming obvious, relinquished any pretense of leadership or governance.
A big ship needs a strong hand at the rudder-your hand- but you have handed it over to a motley crew of rank opportunists and faceless lascars who can only run it aground.
You were never a politician- a positive for most of the voters – and the two qualities that made us repose our trust in you were your honesty and your acknowledged status as an eminent economist. Today, both lie in tatters- you have betrayed our trust, not substantially but wholly, and therefore you must go.
Time to go Mr Prime Minister
Honesty is not divisible, and for those who exercise power there can be no nuances between personal honesty and public honesty. A person who allows others to loot cannot be honest. A Manager who does not raise his voice when illegalities are being committed by his subordinates cannot be honest.
A law maker who protects criminals cannot be honest. And a Prime Minister who does all this simply to remain in power cannot be honest. Your honesty has already cost the country dearly, Mr. Prime Minister, and we cannot sustain this cost any longer.
Your reputation as an economist may still follow you to Harvard or to the LSE after your retirement, but in this country its devaluation is proportionate to the devaluation of the Indian rupee. Where did you lose the plot?
You had everything going for you when you took over in 2004– an economy growing at 8-9%, a Current Account SURPLUS of US$ 10.56 billion, Foreign Exchange reserves in excess of US$ 400 billion, a comfortable net INFLOW of Foreign Direct Investment.
After nine years of your being at the helm, the growth rate is down to between 5% and 6% and falling, the Current Account has gone into a DEFICIT of US$ 20 billion and increasing, Foreign Exchange reserves are down to seven months’ import and depleting, the Fiscal Deficit is going to hit 6%, Foreign Exchange reserves are down to US $ 200 billions (with repayments of US$ 150 due before March 2014), there is a net OUTFLOW of FDI funds to the tune of almost US$ 7-10 billions every month.
The Rupee has reached an exchange rate of 65 to the dollar. Nobody believes Mr. Chidambaram anymore, the RBI Governor can only hyper-ventilate, and you, of course, continue to maintain your sphinx-like silence.
In the meantime inflation continues unabated, jobs are being lost by the millions ( unemployment actually rose by 2% between July 2011 and June 2012), Indian industry prefers to take its money abroad, infrastructure projects languish somewhere between Messers Jaiswal, Jyotiraditya Scindia and Montek Singh Ahluwalia, and a litre of cooking oil now costs more than two litres of beer! (Can you imagine, Mr. Prime Minister, what a field day Marie Antoinette would have had with this?!).
And this is at the precise time when the rest of the world is coming out of its downturn! No, sir, you and your band of forty thieves have been so busy with your petty politicking, with ensuring the survival of a particular dynasty, securing the financial well being of future generations of your party colleagues and allies, dividing communities and classes, that you have had no time for planning and taking decisions.
The only decisions you HAVE taken boggle the mind. We are already spending 75000 crores every year on our Public Distribution System: every single survey indicates that at least 40% of this, or 30000 crores is siphoned off by politicians, bureaucrats and middle-men. And now your govt. is determined to pour another 50000 crores into this bottomless pit through the Food Security Act! What for?
The BPL( Below Poverty Line) families and the Antyodaya (poorest of the poor) families are already covered under the existing PDS-the FSA will make no difference to them. Govt.’s own figures state that only 27% of our population is now below the poverty line; why then do you want to bring 67% of the population under the FSA, and spend a whopping 50000 crore on people who do not deserve this largesse?
And that too at a time when you have no money for infrastructure development or health and education( in both of which we now lag behind even Sri Lanka and Bangladesh!). Is it worth destroying a country just so your motley crew can win another election? Is this honesty, Mr. Prime Minister?
Had it been only the economic downturn we could perhaps have been more generous. For economics, as we all know, is not only a dismal science, it is also an uncertain one: as they say, even if one were to lay down all economists end to end, we still wouldn’t reach a conclusion!
After all, if Mr. Amartya Sen and Mr. Bhagwati cannot agree on what is good for India we can hardly expect you to have the answer. No sir, the economics is only a part of the mess: let me recount what the others are.
You have systematically sought to destroy every fibre of the democratic fabric of this nation. Constitutional authorities have been attacked publicly by your minions and sought to be humiliated at every turn: remember the diatribes against Vinod Rai and the Central Information Commissioner?
Statutory authorities like the CBI and the office of the Attorney General have been subverted and made to fall in line, your party’s line. Your oath of office demanded that you protect them, but you remained mute, as is your wont.
You have even done the unthinkable: set the Intelligence Bureau against the CBI, ensuring for ever that our premier intelligence agency will never cooperate with our premier criminal investigating agency- every terrorist, insurgent and crooks of all assorted types must be lining up outside Teksons to buy ” thank you” cards for you!
Such is your hubris that you have shown contempt for the orders of the Supreme Court even. The Court’s judgments, instead of being respected and seen as a matter for serious contemplation, are publicly criticised and sought to be by-passed by the collation of a consensus of those affected by the judgments (!) and a brute legislative majority.
So criminals can continue in Parliament. Merit will find no place in the selection of Doctors (at the senior most, Professor, level) even in Super specialty disciplines; minorities will get reservations in government jobs even though the Constitution forbids it.
This lack of respect for the final arbiter of the Constitution and the law is not only breeding a competitive defiance of the Court among other political parties but is also setting the stage for a show down with the judiciary a-la Pakistan and other banana republics.
This lack of respect for the final arbiter of the Constitution and the law is not only breeding a competitive defiance of the Court among other political parties but is also setting the stage for a show down with the judiciary a-la Pakistan and other banana republics.
You behave as if the Opposition is not part of the democratic process, that it is a nuisance that is best ignored; consequently, all communication between the two has now snapped, and the nation is a helpless witness to a Parliament that resembles a rugby locker room in both language and action and is in a permanent state of adjournment.
All parties are to blame for this, of course, but it is your party which laid down the rules of engagement. By refusing to walk the extra mile to accommodate even the legitimate demands of the Opposition, and by sabotaging time and again the Committees of Parliament, you have eviscerated this vital organ of democracy which under you has become as vestigious and irrelevant as your appendix.
Practically no legislative work has been done in the last two years: there are 116 bills pending in both Houses, of which 19 and 21 relate to financial and educational reforms, respectively, two of the areas that need immediate attention.
But your lack of concern is matched only by your shocking sense of priorities: instead of trying to push these bills, you have instead chosen to concentrate your fading energies on two other amendments that can only make politics murkier and more criminalised: removing the disqualification of convicted legislators, and exempting political parties from the RTI Act!
Perhaps the biggest price for your incompetence and your colleagues’ venality is being paid by our defense forces: all three are many years behind in terms of armaments and weaponry ( because another ” honest” Minister, Mr. Antony, will neither effect purchases from abroad nor allow FDI in defense production) and their very capacity to defend the country has been seriously eroded.
Who will defend our borders in such a scenario, Mr. Prime Minister- the lethal barbs of Mr. Manish Tewari, or the boomerangs of Mr. Digvijay Singh or the IEDs of Mr. Mani Shankar Iyer? Even worse, you have demoralized our armed forces by the constant interference of your Ministry and completely taken away their operational and tactical independence.
A succession of retired Army commanders have said so in recent times and the pusillanimous approach of our troops in response to violations of the LOC testify to this. (Of course, these same Army Commanders who have suddenly found their conscience and their voice also need to explain why they didn’t defend their operational independence more vigorously when they were enjoying the perks of their office!).
Under you we have become a whining nation- we whine when Pakistani troops shoot our soldiers, we whine when Chinese troops camp on our territory for weeks on end, we whine when Italian marines shoot our sailors, we whine when the Sri Lanka navy arrests our fishermen, we whine when our ex-President is frisked at an American airport.
Under you a once-proud nation is being kicked around by even a Maldives or a Bhutan. What in God’s name have you done to our image?
In communal terms we have always been a fractured society. But true leaders have in the past tried to bridge these fissures. To you, however, will go the dubious credit of widening and deepening these cracks between communities and castes.
In order to survive, your party has countenanced the retrograde decisions of allies that can only raise the confrontational pitch: earmarking of state budgets for a religious minority, reservations in jobs for the same community (which goes against the express provisions of our Constitution), reservations in promotions (which has been struck down by the courts), setting up of a central Commission to review the (criminal) cases of suspects of one community only.
It is your party which has put communalism at the center of the campaign for next year’s election, not the BJP or Mr. Modi. The former has consciously downplayed the Ram Mandir issue, and Modi had made it clear that development was going to be his plank. But this did not suit you since your party couldn’t possibly debate him on this plank, what with your miserable record of the last five years.
So you deliberately inserted the communal element, as did your allies, by harping only on the 2002 Gujarat riots. To his credit, Mr. Modi has so far not agreed to stoop so low, and I do not think your strategy will work.
But you have in the process vitiated the atmosphere for a long time to come, reopened old wounds that were beginning to heal, and provided a legitimate space for hot heads on both sides of the divide.
How much damage to the country is one Parliamentary seat worth, Mr. Prime Minister? How many more Partitions will you recreate to satisfy your party’s lust for power?
Your opportunistic creation of Telangana has sown the seeds of disputes and blood-letting in all parts of the country that will sorely test the federal integrity of our country for many years to come. There are twenty one more statehood specters waiting in the wings and by the time they are exorcised we may have ceased to exist as one nation.
How much damage to the country is one Parliamentary seat worth, Mr. Prime Minister? How many more Partitions will you recreate to satisfy your party’s lust for power?
Your opportunistic creation of Telangana has sown the seeds of disputes and blood-letting in all parts of the country that will sorely test the federal integrity of our country for many years to come. There are twenty one more statehood specters waiting in the wings and by the time they are exorcised we may have ceased to exist as one nation.
Do I need to refer to the endemic corruption that your government has been indulging in these last ten years? And to your pathetic attempts to distance yourself from them, even though it is gradually becoming clearer with each passing day that you were aware of what was happening and did nothing to stop it? Why?
The quality of honesty, like that of mercy, cannot be strained: one cannot be honest and yet knowingly allow dishonesty on one’s watch.
Even worse, your increasing brazenness in the face of evidence against you boggles the mind: the Minister who doctored the Coalgate report has been made Special Envoy to Japan, a Minister whose nephew sold posts in The Railways for crores has not even been named in the charge sheet, the Minister on whose watch files relating to YOUR period of the coal scam have gone missing continues to bestride Shastri Bhavan like a colossus.
Who is this Faustian devil you have sold your soul to, Mr. Prime Minister?
Your deafening silence on all these matters-you have spoken in both houses of Parliament only fifty times in ten years-defies logic and conventional wisdom. And that leads me to speculate whether we are underestimating you.
Is there, after all, a method in your madness? Could it be that you are reconciled to losing the next elections and are therefore deliberately implementing a scorched earth policy?
That you will leave behind as a legacy for the next government an India that is bankrupt, ungovernable, riven by caste and communal conflicts, all its institutions destroyed?
An India that will soon be on its knees, begging for your party- the lone horseman riding in from the sunset, in Mr. Rahul Gandhi’s words, don’t forget-to take over the reins again, and save the country from perdition? But I forget, you never speak- so we’ll never know till the horseman is upon us.
Mr. Prime Minister, your party has stripped this country like a cloud of locusts. You have sown every type of poisonous seed known to your ilk and we shall be reaping the bitter harvest for many years hence. You have engendered an atmosphere of uncertainty,venality, indecision, communalism, opportunism, criminalisation and defiance of constitutional and statutory institutions which cannot be allowed to continue, for that way lies certain disaster.
Elections are nine months’ hence but we cannot allow this conception to come to full term: the seed sown by you can only destroy this country and must be aborted. The time has come for you to go, Mr. Prime Minister, and to go immediately.
Call for elections now, end the uncertainty, let us get on with our lives, give this country a chance to redeem itself. Do one last service to this nation, sir- stand not upon the order of your going, but go!
With best wishes,
your’s sincerely,
A VOTING STATISTIC
The author retired from the Indian Administrative Service in December 2010. He is a keen environmentalist and loves the mountains- he has made them his home.
↧
What Sanskrit has meant to me -- Aatish Taseer
17 August 2013
What Sanskrit has meant to me
105 comments
↧
We will oppose govt's move to take over gold from temples: BJP
We will oppose govt's move to take over gold from temples: BJP
HYDERABAD: The BJP will oppose government's reported move to take into possession the gold belonging to some temples in a bid to mitigate the crisis caused by the yellow metal, Subramanian Swamy, former union minister and BJP leader said here on Saturday.
HYDERABAD: The BJP will oppose government's reported move to take into possession the gold belonging to some temples in a bid to mitigate the crisis caused by the yellow metal, Subramanian Swamy, former union minister and BJP leader said here on Saturday.
Recently, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said that the current account deficit is mainly on account of huge imports of gold, coal and higher cost of crude oil. Recently, RBI has also imposed certain curbs to discourage gold imports. All these measures were aimed at strengthening the rupee against the dollar.
"Government should not take gold from temples. These (acts) are anti-national. We will all oppose it. We will challenge it in the court. They already tried to gold-coat the Tirupati temple, but courts have stopped it," Swamy told reporters on the sidelines of a meeting here.
Referring to media reports that RBI is discussing with banks on how to convince temple trusts to deposit their hoard of idle jewellery that could be converted into bullion, Swamy said if the government is serious about solving the foreign exchange crisis, it should ask the people at the helm of affairs to return the deposits they made in foreign banks.
Earlier, delivering a lecture on 'Declining Rupee value-UPA Government Failure', Swamy suggested that RBI should take initiative to sell at least $20 billion of its foreign reserves to tame dollar.
"They should do it in one blow so that it comes down to Rs 50 (per dollar) in which ways all these profiteers will lose their wealth," Swamy opined. Currently the dollar is trading at Rs 65.70.
He also suggested that the Government should abolish P-Notes which are said to be root cause for the forex crisis. P-Notes or participatory notes are the instruments used by investors or hedge funds that are not registered with the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) to invest in Indian securities.
The BJP leader said these notes are one of the reasons for rupee fall and hence the government should discourage them.
Describing the UPA government as "failure" in handling the financial crisis, Swamy opined that large-scale corruption has contributed to rupee fall.
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-08-31/india/41641133_1_subramanian-swamy-gold-imports-bjp-leaderRBI -Tool of Congress to demolish hinduism
MUMBAI : With all efforts to arrest the rupee's slide coming to a naught, policymakers now plan to knock on the doors of temples — from Tirupati to Shirdi — seeking a boon to feed Indians' fetish for gold without importing it.
The Reserve Bank of India, which has been making gold imports more difficult through a series of restrictions, is discussing with banks on how to convince temple trusts to deposit their hoard of idle jewellery that could be converted into bullion, said two bankers familiar with the matter.
They refused to be identified because of the sensitive nature of the issue. The Tirupati temple in Andhra Pradesh, Shirdi Sai Baba temple in Maharashtra, Siddhivinayak at Mumbai and Padmanabhaswamy temple in Thiruvananthapuram are among the richest in India with huge reserves of gold and precious metals.
In fact, the roofs of many temples, such as the Nataraja temple in Chidambaram, Tamil Nadu, and Tirupati are covered with gold. RBI is counting on banks handling the accounts of these temple trusts to convince them to convert their huge gold deposits into cash, the bankers said.
No certainty of any deal
But there is no certainty of any deal with the temple trusts, given the diverse nature of these trusts and the local politics involved. "The idea is that a designated bank may buy gold from a temple trust and the ornaments will be converted into bullion. These may be bought by RBI by selling rupees," said one of the bankers quoted above. RBI did not respond to an email seeking comment.
Gold imports worth $53.6 billion last year are blamed for the rupee's slide, accounting for 61% of the current account deficit in fiscal 2013. Although the government and RBI acknowledged that high inflation provoked investors to chase gold, both have of late been trying to discourage imports of the precious metal. The rupee lost nearly a quarter of its value this year, but has since recovered.
"The finance minister and RBI governor should jointly — and immediately — approach the trustees of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD)," said Jamal Mecklai, chief executive of Mecklai Financial. "Three of these (trustees) are state government appointees, and given the current political dispensation this is a distinct advantage. They should, of course, offer prayers. That will be an opportunity for the hugely rich trusts to make additional amounts of money."
Tirupati is among the world's richest temples with an estimated gold hoard of about 1,000 tonnes, nearly double of India's estimated imports this year. The country, as a whole, is estimated to have a gold stock of 18,000-30,000 tonnes. The temple trusts, however, do not seem inclined towards such a plan, at least for now.
"There are no plans to do such a thing. There have no discussions with RBI," said a spokesman at TTD. Some banks run gold deposit schemes where individuals deposit the yellow metal for 3-7 years.
↧