B.RAMAN
Dear Mr.Prime Minister,
Like millions of ordinary Indians, I too watched from the beginning till the end your televised interaction with selected journalists from the electronic media on February 16,2011.
You had never spoken to us, the ordinary people of India, on the various scams which have rocked the country one after another since August last year. Our only source of information has been the media.
As the citizens of this country who put your party in power, we had a right to expect that you will talk to us and explain to us what is the truth and how you intend arresting and reversing the rot that has set in and the continuing decline in the credibility and image of India as a result of the stories of these scams .
These stories---whether correct wholly or only partly--- have brought out one thing loud and clear--- the ineptitude and incompetence of your Government, the poor supervision which seems to prevail in many Ministries and offices, including the Prime Minister's Office, and the insensitivity of many senior members of your Cabinet to public concerns over these alleged scams.
Corruption is nothing new, but the magnitude of it as seen since you came to power has been highly disturbing . What is new is the ineptitude, the incompetence and the lack of supervision which seem to prevail since you came to power--- the like of which one had not seen under any other Prime Minister of India since we became independent in 1947.
You try to blame your difficulties and embarrassments on your having to run a coalition. You are not the first Prime Minister having to run the country at the head of a coalition. V.P.Singh, Chandrasekhar, Deve Gowda, Inder Gujral and Atal Behari Vajpayee headed coalitions too. Despite this, they gave us a government which worked as a team and which did not pull in different directions. I can't recall any instance under the previous coalitions where a Minister repeatedly circumvented the instructions of the Prime Minister, without fearing the consequences of his action.
All the previous Prime Ministers, who headed coalition Cabinets, made it clear to their political associates who the boss was and who would take important decisions. They never tolerated anyone who sought to circumvent their instructions. They never let their political allies dictate terms to them.
This is the first time we are seeing a Prime Minister, who tries to earn not the confidence of the people by projecting himself as a strong leader who will not tolerate any nonsense from his coalition partners, but the pity of the people by projecting himself as a helpless leader, who has nothing but to do what his coalition partners ask him to do.
We watched in utter amazement for one hour on February 16 not the rallying cry of a leader, who has realised the magnitude of the rot and who is determined to set it right whatever be the consequences to his position as the Prime Minister, but an exercise in self-pity of a leader who is at the mercy of his coalition partners and does not have the courage to call them to order.
This was the first time we had an opportunity of listening to you on the State of the country in the light of these scams. We were looking forward not to excuses and pretexts to explain away the sins of commission and omission of your government, but to a bold re-assertion of your leadership as the Prime Minister of this great country, who has the courage to face the people of this country in their eyes and reassure them: Thus far and no further.
I have no doubt in my mind that many right-thinking people of India, like me,must have felt ashamed and enraged as they saw the Prime Minister of this country giving out one excuse after another for not being able to govern effectively and for not being able to prevent blatantly wrong decisions and corruption.
You let us down badly, Mr.Prime Minister. You let us down badly.
Warm regards,
Yours sincerely,
B.Raman, Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Monday, February 14, 2011
CAIRO LAVA FLOWING IN UNEXPECTED DIRECTIONS
B.RAMAN
The lava from the people's volcano in Egypt has started flowing in unexpected directions.
2. It did flow to Yemen and Algeria as widely expected, but on February 14 it started flowing in a totally unexpected direction towards Iran---a non-Arab country.
3. It is no longer a purely Arab anger. It is no longer a Muslim anger towards the West and Israel as Al Qaeda and the Ayatollahs of Iran had wanted it to be.
4. It has become the anger of the masses wherever people's rights are suppressed and people are subjected to hardships by uncaring rulers. One does not know when the lava will lose speed and stop and in which directions it will flow. Before it stops, the world is going to see changes in the political landscape of all countries where people are suppressed---- whether Arab or non-Arab, whether Muslim or non-Muslim, whether West, South or East Asia, whether Myanmarese or the Hans. The lava is going to be no respecter of rulers and regimes and their religion.
5. It could sweep everything before it. It could temporarily damage the global economy yet to recover fully from the recent economic melt-down.
6. We in India cannot afford to be over-confident that it can't affect us. It can. If it does due to our insensitivity and self-complacency, it will not have a pan-Indian impact. It will be an impact felt in some pockets where there is already people's anger as in the North-East or Jammu & Kashmir or in the tribal areas of central India.
7. We have to be alert. Being alert does not mean more security forces. It means actions to monitor the grievances and anger of the people and timely steps to address them.
8. If the protests succeed in Yemen and Algeria, the impact on India will most probably be minimal. If they succeed in Iran, the impact could be considerable. It could become worse if the lava further flows into Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
9. There were protests in Iran on February 14 in solidarity with the Egyptian people. There have been calls for more protests on February 15.
10. The Mubarak regime committed a serious mistake in underestimating the force of the people's anger. The Iranian regime will be committing a similar mistake if it under-estimates the force of the anger of its people. ( 15-2-11)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
The lava from the people's volcano in Egypt has started flowing in unexpected directions.
2. It did flow to Yemen and Algeria as widely expected, but on February 14 it started flowing in a totally unexpected direction towards Iran---a non-Arab country.
3. It is no longer a purely Arab anger. It is no longer a Muslim anger towards the West and Israel as Al Qaeda and the Ayatollahs of Iran had wanted it to be.
4. It has become the anger of the masses wherever people's rights are suppressed and people are subjected to hardships by uncaring rulers. One does not know when the lava will lose speed and stop and in which directions it will flow. Before it stops, the world is going to see changes in the political landscape of all countries where people are suppressed---- whether Arab or non-Arab, whether Muslim or non-Muslim, whether West, South or East Asia, whether Myanmarese or the Hans. The lava is going to be no respecter of rulers and regimes and their religion.
5. It could sweep everything before it. It could temporarily damage the global economy yet to recover fully from the recent economic melt-down.
6. We in India cannot afford to be over-confident that it can't affect us. It can. If it does due to our insensitivity and self-complacency, it will not have a pan-Indian impact. It will be an impact felt in some pockets where there is already people's anger as in the North-East or Jammu & Kashmir or in the tribal areas of central India.
7. We have to be alert. Being alert does not mean more security forces. It means actions to monitor the grievances and anger of the people and timely steps to address them.
8. If the protests succeed in Yemen and Algeria, the impact on India will most probably be minimal. If they succeed in Iran, the impact could be considerable. It could become worse if the lava further flows into Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
9. There were protests in Iran on February 14 in solidarity with the Egyptian people. There have been calls for more protests on February 15.
10. The Mubarak regime committed a serious mistake in underestimating the force of the people's anger. The Iranian regime will be committing a similar mistake if it under-estimates the force of the anger of its people. ( 15-2-11)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
CAN RAYMOND DAVIS CASE TRIGGER EGYPT-LIKE SITUATION IN PAKISTAN?
B.RAMAN
In response to readers' questions, I had earlier ruled out the possibility of an Egypt-like mass uprising in Pakistan despite the economic hardships being faced by the people. In support of my argument, I had, inter alia, referred to the disorganised state of the youth and trade union movements in Pakistan.
2. As I monitor the public anger building up in Pakistan over what growing sections of the people see as the bullying tactics adopted by the US Government to secure the release and departure to the US of Raymond Davis a member of the staff of either the US Consulate-General in Lahore or the US Embassy in Islamabad (one does not know which), who allegedly shot dead two Pakistanis in Lahore on January 27,2011, I am no longer that certain that there cannot be an uprising in Pakistan.
3. Yes, I still feel there cannot be an uprising in Pakistan over domestic issues and the style of governance. But if the public anger over the Davis case continues to build up as a result of the surprising mishandling of the case by the US State Department, one may be faced with a mass uprising over the issue of the country's relations with the US.
4.The Egyptian people rose in revolt because they were fed up with the dictatorship of Hosni Mubarak and his corruption and insensitivity to the economic hardships of the people. The US failed to read the writing on the wall. In Pakistan, large sections of the population---including the youth--- are showing signs of getting fed up with the way they think the US has been treating their country as evidenced by its alleged bullying tactics to secure his release and departure.
5. Facts are no longer the issue disturbing the people----whether Davis is a diplomat or not; whether he enjoyed diplomatic immunity or not; whether he is a CIA employee or not. The real issue has become the way the US is seen to be treating Pakistan. Normally, one would have expected the State Department to engage in quiet discussions with the Governments in Islamabad and Lahore and persuade them to let him go in return for an apology by the US Government for his act in allegedly killing two Pakistanis and compensation for the families of the Pakistanis killed. Instead of doing so, the State Department continues to adopt tactics which are seen in Pakistan as nothing but bullying.
6. "No more bullying by the US"----that is the mounting cry in Pakistan. The Drone (pilotless planes) strikes in the tribal belt caused sporadic ant-US anger in the tribal belt, but it remained confined to the tribal areas. It did not spread to the rest of Pakistan. The anger over the Davis case has been in the whole of Pakistan. The elite as well as the common people, the religious as well as the liberal sections of the population are resentful of the manner in which they see the US as dictating terms to their Government.
7. There is an urgent need for the US to make changes in the way it has been handling the case. Otherwise, the public anger could lead to unpredictable consequences creating further instability in Pakistan and making it difficult for the Government to co-operate with the US on issues viewed as affecting Pakistan's sovereignty and self-respect.
8. Previously, critics of the Drone strikes used to accuse the US of not respecting Pakistan's sovereignty. Now critics of the US handling of the Davis case are accusing it of not caring for the dignity and self-respect of the Pakistani State and people. (15-2-11)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute for Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
In response to readers' questions, I had earlier ruled out the possibility of an Egypt-like mass uprising in Pakistan despite the economic hardships being faced by the people. In support of my argument, I had, inter alia, referred to the disorganised state of the youth and trade union movements in Pakistan.
2. As I monitor the public anger building up in Pakistan over what growing sections of the people see as the bullying tactics adopted by the US Government to secure the release and departure to the US of Raymond Davis a member of the staff of either the US Consulate-General in Lahore or the US Embassy in Islamabad (one does not know which), who allegedly shot dead two Pakistanis in Lahore on January 27,2011, I am no longer that certain that there cannot be an uprising in Pakistan.
3. Yes, I still feel there cannot be an uprising in Pakistan over domestic issues and the style of governance. But if the public anger over the Davis case continues to build up as a result of the surprising mishandling of the case by the US State Department, one may be faced with a mass uprising over the issue of the country's relations with the US.
4.The Egyptian people rose in revolt because they were fed up with the dictatorship of Hosni Mubarak and his corruption and insensitivity to the economic hardships of the people. The US failed to read the writing on the wall. In Pakistan, large sections of the population---including the youth--- are showing signs of getting fed up with the way they think the US has been treating their country as evidenced by its alleged bullying tactics to secure his release and departure.
5. Facts are no longer the issue disturbing the people----whether Davis is a diplomat or not; whether he enjoyed diplomatic immunity or not; whether he is a CIA employee or not. The real issue has become the way the US is seen to be treating Pakistan. Normally, one would have expected the State Department to engage in quiet discussions with the Governments in Islamabad and Lahore and persuade them to let him go in return for an apology by the US Government for his act in allegedly killing two Pakistanis and compensation for the families of the Pakistanis killed. Instead of doing so, the State Department continues to adopt tactics which are seen in Pakistan as nothing but bullying.
6. "No more bullying by the US"----that is the mounting cry in Pakistan. The Drone (pilotless planes) strikes in the tribal belt caused sporadic ant-US anger in the tribal belt, but it remained confined to the tribal areas. It did not spread to the rest of Pakistan. The anger over the Davis case has been in the whole of Pakistan. The elite as well as the common people, the religious as well as the liberal sections of the population are resentful of the manner in which they see the US as dictating terms to their Government.
7. There is an urgent need for the US to make changes in the way it has been handling the case. Otherwise, the public anger could lead to unpredictable consequences creating further instability in Pakistan and making it difficult for the Government to co-operate with the US on issues viewed as affecting Pakistan's sovereignty and self-respect.
8. Previously, critics of the Drone strikes used to accuse the US of not respecting Pakistan's sovereignty. Now critics of the US handling of the Davis case are accusing it of not caring for the dignity and self-respect of the Pakistani State and people. (15-2-11)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute for Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
Sunday, February 13, 2011
MY CANCER COUNT-DOWN
B.RAMAN
This is the week of my quarterly cancer check-up. Due on the 18th when I will also be given my quarterly injection.
2. I had my tests on February 10. Everything seems normal. But one never knows with cancer. The doctor wanted me to have a scan too. That I will avoid. If the scan result is negative, that could affect my morale. I am living on my morale.
3. Learnt in October 2009 that I can hope to have a maximum of another three years of life. Sixteen months are already over. A maximum of 20 months more remains.
The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep.
---- Robert Frost
This is the week of my quarterly cancer check-up. Due on the 18th when I will also be given my quarterly injection.
2. I had my tests on February 10. Everything seems normal. But one never knows with cancer. The doctor wanted me to have a scan too. That I will avoid. If the scan result is negative, that could affect my morale. I am living on my morale.
3. Learnt in October 2009 that I can hope to have a maximum of another three years of life. Sixteen months are already over. A maximum of 20 months more remains.
The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep.
---- Robert Frost
EGYPT: AS SEEN FROM NERVOUS BEIJING
B.RAMAN
In its issue of February 14,2011, the "Global Times" of Beijing, which is controlled by the Chinese Communist Party, has come out with a commentary on the success of the Revolution in Egypt. It is worth reading in full and is hence reproduced below:
Egypt has won a battle, but not the war
* Source: Global Times
*February 14 2011
*
Street protest put the Mubarak's rule to an end. The regime change may bring progress for Egyptian society, though there is also worry over the prospects for the country and the entire Arab world.
The first test Egyptian society will face is whether Mubarak's domestic and foreign policies based on rationalism become national policies in a democratic way. Egypt's middle class is weak, bureaucracy and corruption are prevalent and the income gap between rich and poor is huge.
These problems cannot be solved by democracy itself. They require a hard process of economic and cultural development throughout Egyptian society. Egypt's real risk is that it has not formed a stable pillar to support democratic governance. Revolution broke out and changed the country, but there is no force to sustain that change. Therefore, the country is temporarily under the control of the military. However, in the months to come, the leader will still be elected from the old forces in the Middle East country, since there is still no new force to take over.
Egypt has a population of more than 78 million. With underdeveloped industry, it produces far less oil than Gulf countries. It is the US' largest aid recipient country in the Middle East and the US ensured that the Mubarak regime was pro-American.
If Egypt's future national path is chosen with the help of the United States, the significance of Mubarak's stepping down will be greatly reduced.
If the Egyptians carry out elections by themselves, and encourage the Middle East to make its own choices, nobody could foretell the lasting consequences of this revolution.
Various forces in the Middle East, including extremist forces, will engage in a brand-new competition to imprint upon Egypt's new social makeup. Egypt may well be the first chapter in a regional saga in this light.
As the Middle East is still an important balance point for major forces in the world, the region's governance, democratic or not, will have wide-reaching impacts.
The temporary takeover by the military can be seen as a response to global concerns. However, it is only a transitional military regime, lasting a few months,before the Egyptian society gets ready for democracy.
Therefore, when the military regime returns the regime to the people, it could really show the difficulty facing the Egyptian revolution.
In its issue of February 14,2011, the "Global Times" of Beijing, which is controlled by the Chinese Communist Party, has come out with a commentary on the success of the Revolution in Egypt. It is worth reading in full and is hence reproduced below:
Egypt has won a battle, but not the war
* Source: Global Times
*February 14 2011
*
Street protest put the Mubarak's rule to an end. The regime change may bring progress for Egyptian society, though there is also worry over the prospects for the country and the entire Arab world.
The first test Egyptian society will face is whether Mubarak's domestic and foreign policies based on rationalism become national policies in a democratic way. Egypt's middle class is weak, bureaucracy and corruption are prevalent and the income gap between rich and poor is huge.
These problems cannot be solved by democracy itself. They require a hard process of economic and cultural development throughout Egyptian society. Egypt's real risk is that it has not formed a stable pillar to support democratic governance. Revolution broke out and changed the country, but there is no force to sustain that change. Therefore, the country is temporarily under the control of the military. However, in the months to come, the leader will still be elected from the old forces in the Middle East country, since there is still no new force to take over.
Egypt has a population of more than 78 million. With underdeveloped industry, it produces far less oil than Gulf countries. It is the US' largest aid recipient country in the Middle East and the US ensured that the Mubarak regime was pro-American.
If Egypt's future national path is chosen with the help of the United States, the significance of Mubarak's stepping down will be greatly reduced.
If the Egyptians carry out elections by themselves, and encourage the Middle East to make its own choices, nobody could foretell the lasting consequences of this revolution.
Various forces in the Middle East, including extremist forces, will engage in a brand-new competition to imprint upon Egypt's new social makeup. Egypt may well be the first chapter in a regional saga in this light.
As the Middle East is still an important balance point for major forces in the world, the region's governance, democratic or not, will have wide-reaching impacts.
The temporary takeover by the military can be seen as a response to global concerns. However, it is only a transitional military regime, lasting a few months,before the Egyptian society gets ready for democracy.
Therefore, when the military regime returns the regime to the people, it could really show the difficulty facing the Egyptian revolution.
Saturday, February 12, 2011
NEED FOR INDO-PAK VISION STATEMENT
B.RAMAN
Political and non-governmental reactions to the agreement reached by India’s Foreign Secretary Mrs.Nirupama Rao with her Pakistani counterpart Mr.Salman Bashir during their meeting at Thimpu in Bhutan on February 6 have been mixed. The details of the agreement, which must have been finalized by the two Governments before the two Foreign Secretaries met at Thimpu in the margin of a SAARC Foreign Ministers’ meeting, were announced simultaneously in the two capitals on February 10. The text of an Indian news agency report on the subject is annexed.
2. The agreement provides for a series of meetings between the concerned officials of the two countries on various contentious issues, which formed part of the so-called composite dialogue, culminating in a visit by Pakistan’s Foreign Minister to New Delhi in July to review jointly with his Indian counterpart Shri S.M.Krishna the results of these meetings. These meetings, which were being held periodically with little forward movement, have been in a state of suspension since the 26/11 terrorist strikes in Mumbai by a group of terrorists of the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET).
3.India had been insisting on effective action by Pakistan against the LET and the Pakistan-based conspirators of the 26/11 terrorist strikes before the dialogue process can be resumed. Pakistan had been insisting on a resumption of the dialogue process without linking the resumption to the progress of the trial against the LET conspirators. Last year, two meetings between the Foreign Secretaries in New Delhi and Islamabad, a bilateral meeting between Shri P.Chidambaram, our Home Minister, and Mr.Rehman Malik, the Pakistani Interior Minister, in the margins of a SAARC Interior Ministers’ meeting in Islamabad and a visit by Shi Krishna to Islamabad in July to meet Mr.Shah Mehmood Quereshi, the then Pakistani Foreign Minister, could not break the deadlock.
4. The efforts to find a way out of the deadlock were stymied by the intemperate language against Shri Krishna used by Mr.Quereshi at an Islamabad press conference after the visit of Shri Krishna and his insistence on a prior agreement for a resumption of the dialogue process in a time-bound manner before he could visit Delhi to reciprocate the visit of Shri Krishna. When everybody was expecting the deadlock to continue at Thimpu, there has been a surprising agreement to resume the talks without linking the resumption to the pre-26/11 composite dialogue. An attempt has been made to project the forthcoming resumption as a fresh start towards finding a solution to the various bilateral issues and not as a continuation of the old process.
5. In two interviews to Barkha Dutt of NDTV--- one before the announcement and the second after it--- Mrs.Nirupama Rao sought to project the agreement on the resumption as an indicator of the pragmatism characterizing the Indian policy towards Pakistan and as presaging a serious, sustained and comprehensive effort to move the process forward while continuing to stick to our strong stand on counter-terrorism.
6. The critics of the agreement have projected it as a climb-down by India in accepting the Pakistani insistence on a prior agreement on the resumption before the Pakistani Foreign Minister could visit New Delhi. Whether one calls it a climb-down or not, it is a major concession by India to the Pakistani point of view. Such concessions are part of pragmatic diplomacy and should not be seen in negative light provided they do not affect our basic national interests.
7. The major concession made by India has interestingly coincided with the removal of the Foreign Affairs portfolio from Mr. Quereshi in a Cabinet reshuffle, which followed the day after the Indo-Pak announcement. Mr.Quereshi has reportedly refused to join the new Cabinet if the Foreign Affairs portfolio is not restored to him. Hina Rabbani Khar, who was Minister of State for Finance in the outgoing Cabinet, has been asked to look after the Foreign Affairs portfolio for the present .Mr.Quereshi was reputed to be close to the Army leadership and his erratic handling of Indo-Pak relations and his intemperate language against our Foreign Minister were attributed to his anxiety to please the Army. Will the Army intervene to have the portfolio restored to Mr.Quereshi? Or will it insist on another hard-liner enjoying the Army’s confidence being made the new Foreign Minister? Who is appointed as the new Foreign Minister will indicate what we can expect in the months to come.
8. A new ambiance, a new lingo, a seeming bonhomie characterized the Thimpu talks between the Foreign Secretaries. Mr.Salman Bashir , who in the past never missed an opportunity to throw stones at India, was unusually and pleasantly restrained. He did not utter a single controversial remark in public. He declined to comment on the progress of the investigation in India into the explosion on board the Samjauta Express train in 2007 in which a large number of Pakistanis were killed. He resisted from linking the terrorist attack on the train to any religion. Mrs. Rao also tried to project an optimistic, forward-looking and not backward-bound posture.
9. All this showed that before the Foreign Secretaries met considerable spadework had been done through various channels to remove the poison that had been injected by the attitude of Mr.Quereshi towards India. One can keep on arguing whether the concession apparently made by India to Pakistan was wise. A more important question is whether the forthcoming talks will prove to be any different from those held before 26/11. A fresh start alone will not help unless there is a fresh mind-set. Mrs.Rao talked of a new pragmatism. Are there indicators of a similar pragmatism in Pakistan? One will know when a new Foreign Minister gets going in Islamabad. Indian pragmatism alone will not do unless reciprocated by an equal Pakistani pragmatism.
10. During her interaction with the media at Thimpu, Mrs. Rao referred to the difficulties faced by us in harmonising vision and the ground realities in Indo-Pakistan relations. The ground realities have not changed. Pakistan continues to sponsor terrorism against India. It has not expedited the trial against the 26/11 conspirators. It has refused to act against the anti-India terrorist infrastructure in Pakistani territory. It continues to create difficulties for India in Afghanistan. It continues to build up its military capability, including the nuclear capability, with Chinese assistance. It has granted the Chinese troops a growing presence in the Kashmiri territory under its occupation.
11. Is it realistic to talk of an Indo-Pakistani vision for their future relations in the face of the continuing ground realities such as these? Is it possible to have a shared vision for the future when the ground realities vitiate the atmosphere for such a vision? These are very valid questions. Equally valid is the fact that all Indo-Pakistan attempts for a forward movement in the bilateral relations have failed so far due to a lack of a shared vision for the future within the parameters of which the dialogue can be held.
12. Instead of re-starting the dialogue process under whatever name and reaching the same dead-end through a different route, should we not first reach a shared vision for the future and make the dialogue a natural flow from the vision? Such a shared vision cannot come from meetings at the level of officials and in political contacts in the margins of multilateral conferences. It can come only from direct, face-to-face meetings between the two Prime Ministers in each other’s capitals.
13. A bilateral visit by our Prime Minister to Islamabad is long overdue. The two bilateral visits of Gen.Pervez Musharraf, when he was the President, to India have remained unreciprocated. Of course, Shri Atal Behari Vajpayee, as Prime Minister, visited Islamabad in January 2004, but that was for a SAARC summit. It was reported in the past that the Prime Minister, Dr.Manmohan Singh, was of the view that a bilateral visit by him to Islamabad would be meaningless unless there was a prior agreement of a substantive nature at least on one of the issues affecting the bilateral relations.
14. The time has come for a re-look at this policy and to start thinking in terms of a bilateral visit by our Prime Minister to Pakistan for discussions with Prime Minister Yousef Raza Gilani and President Asif Ali Zardari on a single-point agenda of seeking a shared vision for the future. I know this idea will be criticized and ridiculed by the no-changers, but that is not a reason for not proposing it and for avoiding a debate on it. ( 13-1-11)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
ANNEXURE
TEXT OF A PRESS TRUST OF INDIA REPORT ON INDO-PAKISTAN TALKS
Unveiling the road-map for resumption of a comprehensive dialogue with Pakistan, India today announced that the Home Secretaries of the two countries will hold talks on counter-terrorism, including progress on 26/11 trial in Rawalpindi court, ahead of Foreign Minister S M Qureshi's visit here by July.
In a statement 'Agreed Outcome of India-Pakistan Foreign Secretary-level talks in Thimphu', Ministry of External Affairs said Secretary-level talks on the issues of counter-terrorism (including progress on Mumbai trial); humanitarian issues; peace and security, including CBMs; Jammu and Kashmir; promotion of friendly exchanges; Siachen and economic issues will be held in the next few months.
Discussions on issues such as Wullar barrage or Tulbul navigation project and Sir Creek will be at the level of Additional Secretaries or Surveyors General.
List of issues mentioned in the statement are same as in the Composite Dialogue, that was halted by India after the 2008 Mumbai attacks.
The ministry said, "the Foreign Secretaries of India and Pakistan met in Thimphu on February 6, 2011 to carry forward this process. They briefed their respective Governments."
The agreed statement was issued simultaneously both in New Delhi and Islamabad today.
About the schedule of the meetings, the ministry said dates will be fixed through diplomatic channels. But given the fact that the two sides have just few months left before Qureshi's visit here, the series of interactions are expected to start shortly.
In pursuance of the mandate given by the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan, following their meeting in Thimphu in April 2010, the two Foreign Ministers had met in Islamabad in July 2010 to review the current state of the bilateral relationship and discuss steps to promote trust and confidence between the two countries, it said.
After the meeting of Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao and her counterpart Salman Bashir last Sunday, India and Pakistan have agreed to resume dialogue on all issues following the spirit of the Thimphu meeting between the two Prime Ministers.
"The Foreign Minister of Pakistan will visit India by July 2011 to review progress in the dialogue process with his counterpart. This will be preceded by a meeting of the two Foreign Secretaries," MEA said.
"They have agreed that prior to the visit of the Foreign Minister of Pakistan, meetings at the level of respective Secretaries will be convened on counter-terrorism (including progress on Mumbai trial); humanitarian issues; peace and security, including CBMs; Jammu and Kashmir; promotion of friendly exchanges; Siachen; economic issues; Wullar Barrage/ Tulbul Navigation Project; and Sir Creek (at the level of Additional Secretaries/Surveyors General)," it said.
Political and non-governmental reactions to the agreement reached by India’s Foreign Secretary Mrs.Nirupama Rao with her Pakistani counterpart Mr.Salman Bashir during their meeting at Thimpu in Bhutan on February 6 have been mixed. The details of the agreement, which must have been finalized by the two Governments before the two Foreign Secretaries met at Thimpu in the margin of a SAARC Foreign Ministers’ meeting, were announced simultaneously in the two capitals on February 10. The text of an Indian news agency report on the subject is annexed.
2. The agreement provides for a series of meetings between the concerned officials of the two countries on various contentious issues, which formed part of the so-called composite dialogue, culminating in a visit by Pakistan’s Foreign Minister to New Delhi in July to review jointly with his Indian counterpart Shri S.M.Krishna the results of these meetings. These meetings, which were being held periodically with little forward movement, have been in a state of suspension since the 26/11 terrorist strikes in Mumbai by a group of terrorists of the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET).
3.India had been insisting on effective action by Pakistan against the LET and the Pakistan-based conspirators of the 26/11 terrorist strikes before the dialogue process can be resumed. Pakistan had been insisting on a resumption of the dialogue process without linking the resumption to the progress of the trial against the LET conspirators. Last year, two meetings between the Foreign Secretaries in New Delhi and Islamabad, a bilateral meeting between Shri P.Chidambaram, our Home Minister, and Mr.Rehman Malik, the Pakistani Interior Minister, in the margins of a SAARC Interior Ministers’ meeting in Islamabad and a visit by Shi Krishna to Islamabad in July to meet Mr.Shah Mehmood Quereshi, the then Pakistani Foreign Minister, could not break the deadlock.
4. The efforts to find a way out of the deadlock were stymied by the intemperate language against Shri Krishna used by Mr.Quereshi at an Islamabad press conference after the visit of Shri Krishna and his insistence on a prior agreement for a resumption of the dialogue process in a time-bound manner before he could visit Delhi to reciprocate the visit of Shri Krishna. When everybody was expecting the deadlock to continue at Thimpu, there has been a surprising agreement to resume the talks without linking the resumption to the pre-26/11 composite dialogue. An attempt has been made to project the forthcoming resumption as a fresh start towards finding a solution to the various bilateral issues and not as a continuation of the old process.
5. In two interviews to Barkha Dutt of NDTV--- one before the announcement and the second after it--- Mrs.Nirupama Rao sought to project the agreement on the resumption as an indicator of the pragmatism characterizing the Indian policy towards Pakistan and as presaging a serious, sustained and comprehensive effort to move the process forward while continuing to stick to our strong stand on counter-terrorism.
6. The critics of the agreement have projected it as a climb-down by India in accepting the Pakistani insistence on a prior agreement on the resumption before the Pakistani Foreign Minister could visit New Delhi. Whether one calls it a climb-down or not, it is a major concession by India to the Pakistani point of view. Such concessions are part of pragmatic diplomacy and should not be seen in negative light provided they do not affect our basic national interests.
7. The major concession made by India has interestingly coincided with the removal of the Foreign Affairs portfolio from Mr. Quereshi in a Cabinet reshuffle, which followed the day after the Indo-Pak announcement. Mr.Quereshi has reportedly refused to join the new Cabinet if the Foreign Affairs portfolio is not restored to him. Hina Rabbani Khar, who was Minister of State for Finance in the outgoing Cabinet, has been asked to look after the Foreign Affairs portfolio for the present .Mr.Quereshi was reputed to be close to the Army leadership and his erratic handling of Indo-Pak relations and his intemperate language against our Foreign Minister were attributed to his anxiety to please the Army. Will the Army intervene to have the portfolio restored to Mr.Quereshi? Or will it insist on another hard-liner enjoying the Army’s confidence being made the new Foreign Minister? Who is appointed as the new Foreign Minister will indicate what we can expect in the months to come.
8. A new ambiance, a new lingo, a seeming bonhomie characterized the Thimpu talks between the Foreign Secretaries. Mr.Salman Bashir , who in the past never missed an opportunity to throw stones at India, was unusually and pleasantly restrained. He did not utter a single controversial remark in public. He declined to comment on the progress of the investigation in India into the explosion on board the Samjauta Express train in 2007 in which a large number of Pakistanis were killed. He resisted from linking the terrorist attack on the train to any religion. Mrs. Rao also tried to project an optimistic, forward-looking and not backward-bound posture.
9. All this showed that before the Foreign Secretaries met considerable spadework had been done through various channels to remove the poison that had been injected by the attitude of Mr.Quereshi towards India. One can keep on arguing whether the concession apparently made by India to Pakistan was wise. A more important question is whether the forthcoming talks will prove to be any different from those held before 26/11. A fresh start alone will not help unless there is a fresh mind-set. Mrs.Rao talked of a new pragmatism. Are there indicators of a similar pragmatism in Pakistan? One will know when a new Foreign Minister gets going in Islamabad. Indian pragmatism alone will not do unless reciprocated by an equal Pakistani pragmatism.
10. During her interaction with the media at Thimpu, Mrs. Rao referred to the difficulties faced by us in harmonising vision and the ground realities in Indo-Pakistan relations. The ground realities have not changed. Pakistan continues to sponsor terrorism against India. It has not expedited the trial against the 26/11 conspirators. It has refused to act against the anti-India terrorist infrastructure in Pakistani territory. It continues to create difficulties for India in Afghanistan. It continues to build up its military capability, including the nuclear capability, with Chinese assistance. It has granted the Chinese troops a growing presence in the Kashmiri territory under its occupation.
11. Is it realistic to talk of an Indo-Pakistani vision for their future relations in the face of the continuing ground realities such as these? Is it possible to have a shared vision for the future when the ground realities vitiate the atmosphere for such a vision? These are very valid questions. Equally valid is the fact that all Indo-Pakistan attempts for a forward movement in the bilateral relations have failed so far due to a lack of a shared vision for the future within the parameters of which the dialogue can be held.
12. Instead of re-starting the dialogue process under whatever name and reaching the same dead-end through a different route, should we not first reach a shared vision for the future and make the dialogue a natural flow from the vision? Such a shared vision cannot come from meetings at the level of officials and in political contacts in the margins of multilateral conferences. It can come only from direct, face-to-face meetings between the two Prime Ministers in each other’s capitals.
13. A bilateral visit by our Prime Minister to Islamabad is long overdue. The two bilateral visits of Gen.Pervez Musharraf, when he was the President, to India have remained unreciprocated. Of course, Shri Atal Behari Vajpayee, as Prime Minister, visited Islamabad in January 2004, but that was for a SAARC summit. It was reported in the past that the Prime Minister, Dr.Manmohan Singh, was of the view that a bilateral visit by him to Islamabad would be meaningless unless there was a prior agreement of a substantive nature at least on one of the issues affecting the bilateral relations.
14. The time has come for a re-look at this policy and to start thinking in terms of a bilateral visit by our Prime Minister to Pakistan for discussions with Prime Minister Yousef Raza Gilani and President Asif Ali Zardari on a single-point agenda of seeking a shared vision for the future. I know this idea will be criticized and ridiculed by the no-changers, but that is not a reason for not proposing it and for avoiding a debate on it. ( 13-1-11)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
ANNEXURE
TEXT OF A PRESS TRUST OF INDIA REPORT ON INDO-PAKISTAN TALKS
Unveiling the road-map for resumption of a comprehensive dialogue with Pakistan, India today announced that the Home Secretaries of the two countries will hold talks on counter-terrorism, including progress on 26/11 trial in Rawalpindi court, ahead of Foreign Minister S M Qureshi's visit here by July.
In a statement 'Agreed Outcome of India-Pakistan Foreign Secretary-level talks in Thimphu', Ministry of External Affairs said Secretary-level talks on the issues of counter-terrorism (including progress on Mumbai trial); humanitarian issues; peace and security, including CBMs; Jammu and Kashmir; promotion of friendly exchanges; Siachen and economic issues will be held in the next few months.
Discussions on issues such as Wullar barrage or Tulbul navigation project and Sir Creek will be at the level of Additional Secretaries or Surveyors General.
List of issues mentioned in the statement are same as in the Composite Dialogue, that was halted by India after the 2008 Mumbai attacks.
The ministry said, "the Foreign Secretaries of India and Pakistan met in Thimphu on February 6, 2011 to carry forward this process. They briefed their respective Governments."
The agreed statement was issued simultaneously both in New Delhi and Islamabad today.
About the schedule of the meetings, the ministry said dates will be fixed through diplomatic channels. But given the fact that the two sides have just few months left before Qureshi's visit here, the series of interactions are expected to start shortly.
In pursuance of the mandate given by the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan, following their meeting in Thimphu in April 2010, the two Foreign Ministers had met in Islamabad in July 2010 to review the current state of the bilateral relationship and discuss steps to promote trust and confidence between the two countries, it said.
After the meeting of Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao and her counterpart Salman Bashir last Sunday, India and Pakistan have agreed to resume dialogue on all issues following the spirit of the Thimphu meeting between the two Prime Ministers.
"The Foreign Minister of Pakistan will visit India by July 2011 to review progress in the dialogue process with his counterpart. This will be preceded by a meeting of the two Foreign Secretaries," MEA said.
"They have agreed that prior to the visit of the Foreign Minister of Pakistan, meetings at the level of respective Secretaries will be convened on counter-terrorism (including progress on Mumbai trial); humanitarian issues; peace and security, including CBMs; Jammu and Kashmir; promotion of friendly exchanges; Siachen; economic issues; Wullar Barrage/ Tulbul Navigation Project; and Sir Creek (at the level of Additional Secretaries/Surveyors General)," it said.
Friday, February 11, 2011
EGYPT: AN UNCERTAIN TRANSITION
B.RAMAN
Some have termed the departure of President Hosni Mubarak from office on February 11,2011, as a resignation. Some others have called it waiving the office or powers of the President. The Egyptian Constitution provides for both contingencies. When a President resigns, the Constitution requires that he should address his letter of resignation to the President (Speaker) of the Parliament. When he stops exercising the powers of the President, he addresses his letter to the Vice-President. Article 82 provides for this interesting contingency of the President leaving office without formally resigning. It says: “If on account of any temporary obstacle the President of the Republic is unable to carry out his functions, he shall delegate his powers to a vice-president.”
2.Mubarak, while leaving office much to the jubilation of the protesters, did not inform the President of the Parliament and submit a formal letter of resignation as required under the Constitution. Nor did he ask the Vice-President Omar Suleiman to take over. Instead, he asked the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces to take over. It is a coup without seeming to be a coup.
3. One can go on analyzing the circumstances of Mubarak’s departure. Whatever be the circumstances, Mubarak is gone from office for ever. It is time to discuss what next. Egypt is now in a state of transition under the leadership of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, which consists of the following:
* Field Marshal Mohamed Hussein Tantawi, who has been the Minister of Defense and commander-in-chief of the Egyptian Armed Forces since 1991. He has been a Field Marshal since 1989. After the protests broke out on January 25, Mubarak promoted him as Deputy Prime Minister and asked him to continue to hold the defence portfolio. He visited the Tahrir Square on February 4 and met the troops deployed there as well as the protesters. He is the Chairman of the Supreme Council.
* Air Marshal Reda Mahmoud Hafez Mohamed, the chief of the Air Force since March 20,2008.
* Lieutenant General Sami Hafez Anan, Chief of Staff of the Army.
* Lt. Gen. Abd El Aziz Seif-Eldeen, Commander of Air Defense.
* Vice Admiral Mohab Mamish, chief of navy.
4. Is Lt.Gen. Omar Suleiman, the Vice-President, who made the televised announcement regarding Mubarak leaving office after handing over his powers, a member of the Supreme Council? The position is not clear. Al Jazeera says he is. Others do not say so. However, since he is only a Lt-Gen and since the Supreme Council is headed by a Field Marshal, it stands to reason that Suleiman may have to work under the orders of the Supreme Council and not vice versa.
5. What next? The present Constitution has become untenable since the post-Mubarak transitional arrangements are not in accordance with the Constitution. This gives rise to the possibility that the Supreme Council may suspend the Constitution and dissolve the Parliament. Mohamed El Baradei has said that Egypt will now have a provisional Constitution.
6. What will be the duration of the transitional arrangements? Till September when the election of a new President is due or for a longer period? The political elements, who participated in the protest movement, are already saying that it may not be possible for the Supreme Council to restore political and economic normalcy before September and, hence, according to them, it should be for a longer period. El Baradei has been quoted by the BBC as stating as follows: “ "What I have been proposing is a transitional period of one year. We will have a provisional constitution. We'll have a transitional government, hopefully a presidential council, including a person from the army and a couple of civilians. The main idea is that the army and the Egyptian people will work together in a systematic way for a year to reach the point where we can hold a genuine free and fair election, a parliamentary election and a presidential election. I think the people of Egypt, who have been suppressed for at least 30 years, are ready to wait for a year as they see things are going in the right direction."
7. The younger non-political elements, who played a leading role in the revolution, have not clearly indicated their view on this subject apart from expressing their trust in the Army. Wael Ghonim, the Egyptian Google executive, who is credited with rallying many young people behind El Baradei, has tweeted to his followers as follows: “The military statement is great. I trust our Egyptian Army”.
8. The Armed Forces’ statement to which he had referred said the Supreme Council would lift the country's emergency law but only "as soon as current circumstances end". It also said that the "Armed Forces make a commitment to caring for the people's legitimate demands, and to seeking to follow their implementation within the time frames with full precision and resolution, until the complete transfer of power, and the achievement of the democratic free society which the people aspire to". It pledged not to prosecute "the honest men who called for an end to corruption and for reform". While it spoke of time-frames for the transition, it refrained from specifying those time-frames. If Ghonim comes out ultimately in support of El Baradei’s call for a longer transition, will other youth leaders support him?
9. Who will be in any transitional Government or council that may be constituted? Everybody wants that it should be a civilian council possibly headed by El Baradei and including a representative of the Armed Forces. It is not yet clear whether the Supreme Council would accept a transitional council of which the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) is a member. The MB has been supportive of El Baradei till now. He has been advocating a role for the MB in the transitional set-up, but the MB has said it does not want any role. The youth leaders are not opposed to it. The Supreme Council has not yet spelt out its views.
10. What now of Mubarak? Will he be allowed to lead a quiet life in Sharam-el- Sheikh, where he has reportedly taken up residence or will he face further humilitation. The youth elements want him to be held accountable for his alleged misdeeds and enquiries ordered against him. This is clear from the following Tweets of Ghonim to his followers: “Soon the ugly face of the regime will be supported by documents and evidence “ and “the money Mubarak and his family stole out of the Egyptian people should go to families of martyrs and to reconstruct Egypt.” The Supreme Council and El Baradei have kept quiet on any further action against Mubarak,but the youth leaders are now saying that now that Mubarak is gone, they should focus on action against his dictatorship. It is evident they want action against all those closely identified with Mubarak. Omar Suleiman was very close to Mubarak for 20 years. He was part of the Mubarak dictatorship. Will they demand action against him?
11. Ghonim emerged as a legendary leader of the youth component of the revolution. But he was also a senior executive of a US multinational (Google). Some of his statements could now be interpreted as business and corporate houses friendly. One of his Tweets says: “ Lets work on raising 100 Billion EGP from Egyptians to rebuild Egypt. Talked to one business man and he is ready to put the first 1 B”. Will other young leaders, who come from middle and lower middle class families, feel comfortable with his policies towards the business world? All the business families, which minted billions, were with Mubarak.
12. What are the chances of the prairie fire of revolution spreading to other Arab countries? The immediate danger is to Yemen, Algeria and Libya. Ghonim has already tweeted as follows to anti-Govt protesters in Algeria: “My heart and prayers to the Algerian brothers and sisters. “ Yemen has been in turmoil for nearly three weeks now. There have been sporadic protests in Algeria and Libya. Developments in these countries can move fast now. ( 12-2-11)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
Some have termed the departure of President Hosni Mubarak from office on February 11,2011, as a resignation. Some others have called it waiving the office or powers of the President. The Egyptian Constitution provides for both contingencies. When a President resigns, the Constitution requires that he should address his letter of resignation to the President (Speaker) of the Parliament. When he stops exercising the powers of the President, he addresses his letter to the Vice-President. Article 82 provides for this interesting contingency of the President leaving office without formally resigning. It says: “If on account of any temporary obstacle the President of the Republic is unable to carry out his functions, he shall delegate his powers to a vice-president.”
2.Mubarak, while leaving office much to the jubilation of the protesters, did not inform the President of the Parliament and submit a formal letter of resignation as required under the Constitution. Nor did he ask the Vice-President Omar Suleiman to take over. Instead, he asked the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces to take over. It is a coup without seeming to be a coup.
3. One can go on analyzing the circumstances of Mubarak’s departure. Whatever be the circumstances, Mubarak is gone from office for ever. It is time to discuss what next. Egypt is now in a state of transition under the leadership of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, which consists of the following:
* Field Marshal Mohamed Hussein Tantawi, who has been the Minister of Defense and commander-in-chief of the Egyptian Armed Forces since 1991. He has been a Field Marshal since 1989. After the protests broke out on January 25, Mubarak promoted him as Deputy Prime Minister and asked him to continue to hold the defence portfolio. He visited the Tahrir Square on February 4 and met the troops deployed there as well as the protesters. He is the Chairman of the Supreme Council.
* Air Marshal Reda Mahmoud Hafez Mohamed, the chief of the Air Force since March 20,2008.
* Lieutenant General Sami Hafez Anan, Chief of Staff of the Army.
* Lt. Gen. Abd El Aziz Seif-Eldeen, Commander of Air Defense.
* Vice Admiral Mohab Mamish, chief of navy.
4. Is Lt.Gen. Omar Suleiman, the Vice-President, who made the televised announcement regarding Mubarak leaving office after handing over his powers, a member of the Supreme Council? The position is not clear. Al Jazeera says he is. Others do not say so. However, since he is only a Lt-Gen and since the Supreme Council is headed by a Field Marshal, it stands to reason that Suleiman may have to work under the orders of the Supreme Council and not vice versa.
5. What next? The present Constitution has become untenable since the post-Mubarak transitional arrangements are not in accordance with the Constitution. This gives rise to the possibility that the Supreme Council may suspend the Constitution and dissolve the Parliament. Mohamed El Baradei has said that Egypt will now have a provisional Constitution.
6. What will be the duration of the transitional arrangements? Till September when the election of a new President is due or for a longer period? The political elements, who participated in the protest movement, are already saying that it may not be possible for the Supreme Council to restore political and economic normalcy before September and, hence, according to them, it should be for a longer period. El Baradei has been quoted by the BBC as stating as follows: “ "What I have been proposing is a transitional period of one year. We will have a provisional constitution. We'll have a transitional government, hopefully a presidential council, including a person from the army and a couple of civilians. The main idea is that the army and the Egyptian people will work together in a systematic way for a year to reach the point where we can hold a genuine free and fair election, a parliamentary election and a presidential election. I think the people of Egypt, who have been suppressed for at least 30 years, are ready to wait for a year as they see things are going in the right direction."
7. The younger non-political elements, who played a leading role in the revolution, have not clearly indicated their view on this subject apart from expressing their trust in the Army. Wael Ghonim, the Egyptian Google executive, who is credited with rallying many young people behind El Baradei, has tweeted to his followers as follows: “The military statement is great. I trust our Egyptian Army”.
8. The Armed Forces’ statement to which he had referred said the Supreme Council would lift the country's emergency law but only "as soon as current circumstances end". It also said that the "Armed Forces make a commitment to caring for the people's legitimate demands, and to seeking to follow their implementation within the time frames with full precision and resolution, until the complete transfer of power, and the achievement of the democratic free society which the people aspire to". It pledged not to prosecute "the honest men who called for an end to corruption and for reform". While it spoke of time-frames for the transition, it refrained from specifying those time-frames. If Ghonim comes out ultimately in support of El Baradei’s call for a longer transition, will other youth leaders support him?
9. Who will be in any transitional Government or council that may be constituted? Everybody wants that it should be a civilian council possibly headed by El Baradei and including a representative of the Armed Forces. It is not yet clear whether the Supreme Council would accept a transitional council of which the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) is a member. The MB has been supportive of El Baradei till now. He has been advocating a role for the MB in the transitional set-up, but the MB has said it does not want any role. The youth leaders are not opposed to it. The Supreme Council has not yet spelt out its views.
10. What now of Mubarak? Will he be allowed to lead a quiet life in Sharam-el- Sheikh, where he has reportedly taken up residence or will he face further humilitation. The youth elements want him to be held accountable for his alleged misdeeds and enquiries ordered against him. This is clear from the following Tweets of Ghonim to his followers: “Soon the ugly face of the regime will be supported by documents and evidence “ and “the money Mubarak and his family stole out of the Egyptian people should go to families of martyrs and to reconstruct Egypt.” The Supreme Council and El Baradei have kept quiet on any further action against Mubarak,but the youth leaders are now saying that now that Mubarak is gone, they should focus on action against his dictatorship. It is evident they want action against all those closely identified with Mubarak. Omar Suleiman was very close to Mubarak for 20 years. He was part of the Mubarak dictatorship. Will they demand action against him?
11. Ghonim emerged as a legendary leader of the youth component of the revolution. But he was also a senior executive of a US multinational (Google). Some of his statements could now be interpreted as business and corporate houses friendly. One of his Tweets says: “ Lets work on raising 100 Billion EGP from Egyptians to rebuild Egypt. Talked to one business man and he is ready to put the first 1 B”. Will other young leaders, who come from middle and lower middle class families, feel comfortable with his policies towards the business world? All the business families, which minted billions, were with Mubarak.
12. What are the chances of the prairie fire of revolution spreading to other Arab countries? The immediate danger is to Yemen, Algeria and Libya. Ghonim has already tweeted as follows to anti-Govt protesters in Algeria: “My heart and prayers to the Algerian brothers and sisters. “ Yemen has been in turmoil for nearly three weeks now. There have been sporadic protests in Algeria and Libya. Developments in these countries can move fast now. ( 12-2-11)
( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com )
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)