The Burhan Wani Phenomenon

Today's news is that a protest march is organized in commemoration of Burhan Wani, a Hizb-ul-Mujahideen mercenary who was liquidated in a government operation and it was led by his father. Yes, he is a mercenary, not a terrorist or a freedom fighter or a jihadist. He is a paid employee of Hizb-ul-Mujahideen, which offers gun for hire services to anyone who pays it to disturb communal peace. First thing to note is that the press has done a disservice to India by giving that massive coverage to a day-to-day operation of Indian Armed Forces and unwittingly, helped making him a martyr. His role in Kashmiri movement was a mercenary handler - get new recruits and he was killed in that process, which is a regular risk associated in his profession.
Now, coming to the actual topic. This is a very interesting shift we are seeing in the Kashmiri protests. Was India wrong, was Kashmiri politicians wrong, was Pakistan wrong is all secondary. Why are the politics played on the blood of innocent Kashmiris who don't have a proper guide to lead them to the right path is the real question. Burhan Wani's father comes in public and leads a protest march and says he is ready to offer his only living child, a daughter to the movement. First of all, it is ironic and hypocritic to see such a stand from a person who is a teacher by profession. I will rather call him a failure by not stopping his son turn into a monster. He lost his another son because Burhan was a mercenary. Was he not able to see the change in his son? How many Kashmiris excelled in academics and why was he not able to bend his son to that? What has he got by holding a gun, that too for better future prospects fully knowing that he will be liquidated one day? Every movement spreads by public support, not through a handful of safe houses. People in Kashmir are cowed, they don't support this movement. After all, no father wants to be in a situation where his small daughter asks him to take her to a park once he turns back from office and there is no guarantee whether he will turn back. Goering's quote, Naturally, the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. …voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country is more apt here.
Burhan Wani's father drew more crowds than the established Kashmiri troublemakers today. This is a great news in two ways. First, it will reveal the hypocrisy of these Kashmiri troublemakers. As it looks, very few in their subsequent generations are in the movement and most are are leading happy and cozy lives everywhere. Highlighting that single point - they are keeping their families safe all the while lighting pyres in other's houses is going to be their undoing. This brings to the forefront, people like Muzaffar Wani. He is on the roads today exhorting people to sacrifice their children for the movement. How many will? Surely, they don't want their sons to die in their prime for a few coins of pocket change. And it is a tectonic shift from a person who said, months before, "I am waiting for the body of Burhan. A militant does not live more than seven years. Burhan has already lived six of those. So I know his time will come"
Now, what is the real problem of Kashmir? No jobs and no hand over of benefits of being Indian. Very few Kashmiri leaders bleating Kashmiriyat in the name of Article 370 understand that it's the same 370 which is ensuring there are no jobs in Kashmir. Under 370, no non-Kashmiri can buy property and when he cannot, why would he be interested in setting up a business venture there? No business ventures, no jobs and no jobs, popular discontent. But, does any Kashmiri has got a guts to question the relevance of 370 in a global world? I would like to draw a comparison between Chandra Babu Naidu and Farooq Abdullah as administrators. Chandra Babu Naidu went extra mile to bring investments from overseas and wean off investors from other states making Hyderabad one of the top most cities of the world. Can we say, did Farooq Abdullah(and all those who came before and after him) did any such for Kashmir? The problem for Kashmiris lies in their leadership who is using them as cannon fodder for votes and nothing else.
Another interesting point is that Kashmir Valley, today, has a lesser population than Jammu. Then, why is there no delimitation to readjust the boundaries? There was a proposed delimitation in 2012 but it was put off amidst massive protests. Are we saying that protests are a way to subvert legality in governance? Why should people of Jammu and Ladakh, who, now constitute a majority, be the scapegoats of the derelict policies over which Kashmiri politicians operate? Don't they have any voice whatsoever?
Slowly, as people start moving into other parts of India for better opportunities, there is a shift in perception as to what India is, in the eyes of the Kashmir. The days where the only information people get is from rabble rousers is gone. One remark in a group discussion against India where one of them, just returning from Delhi or Mumbai counters it, stating India is not a devil as you are told to believe, is sufficient to force a hundred to introspect. Day by day, these numbers are growing and combined with the enhanced educational levels, let's hope Kashmir will become the paradise which it once was.

Indian Hockey - The Slide to Abyss

Possibly, it’s the most pertinent time to talk about this. There used to be a superpower in international hockey by name India, completely different from the India we see today. It entered with a bang and maintained the gusto for 32 long years before becoming just another B-grade team. India entered Olympics in 1928 and conceded just 9 goals in a total of 7 olympics with no more than 1 goal in any match while scoring 187 goals in total trashing countries all over. USA was the worst hit in that Indian tornado where they were trashed 24-1 in 1932, the worst defeat ever handed over to any team in international hockey and then by 16-0 in 1956. It is said that, the previous victor, Britain refused to contest in 1928 because they know for sure, they will be defeated by Indians, their subservients. The stats till India was the world champion is below.

Even, 1960 was OK. It lost just a single match and conceded two goals in total. What just happened between 1960 and 1964 because of which India's slide was starkly visible? Why are we in a state today where we signed off India, a team which gave six back to back golds as a serious contender for the gold medal? Is it because of the callousness in our managing of our institutions? Is it because of corruption and cronyism? Is it because of lack of funding or sponsorship? Is it because our focus is only on one particular sport, viz. Cricket?
Not just hockey, we will have to look into all our sports and try to correct what went wrong. For a country of a billion, bleating in joy on getting six medals including only one gold is never going to be a source of pride.

Rajya Sabha - The Harangue Continues

I was hearing to a small part of a debate in Rajya Sabha over special status to Andhra Pradesh. The person speaking was Venkayya Nayudu and the person on the opposite side was Jairam Ramesh. In the meanwhile, there was a scroller at the bottom over something said by Ghulam Nabi Azad pertaining to this discussion. Now, let’s look at each of the three. Naidu, though he is from Andhra Pradesh, he is a Rajya Sabha MP from Rajasthan. Before, he was from Karnataka. Same goes for Jairam Ramesh - from Karnataka, currently MP from Karnataka, last time from Andhra. Ghulam Nabi Azad is slightly different - he was defeated from Udhampur, but is a Rajya Sabha MP. Let’s add Arun Jaitley to the list as well - Defeated from Amritsar, made a Rajya Sabha MP and Central Cabinet Minister.
All of them may be eminent and extremely capable. The question is this - two of them lost the elections and two chickened out from contesting. What right have they got to be ministers? Are there no people in the 543 elected who can perform the role of a minister? How correct is it to rub losers on our heads? The point is simple. If you lost Lok Sabha, you are not eligible for Rajya Sabha for the complete term of Lok Sabha. If you haven’t contested, you don’t have the right to be a Minister. And there should be no hopping between states for Rajya Sabha - once you are an MP from a state, you cannot shift to a different one. Also, there should be a limit to the number of times a politician can become a Rajya Sabha MP.
Next, let’s move towards the Parliamentary debate. The bill didn’t pass. It can also mean that Jairam Ramesh, as an MP from Andhra Pradesh is not capable enough to get the  bill passed. Since he is elected by the Legislative Assembly of Andhra Pradesh, can the Assembly of Andhra Pradesh excercise it’s right to recall him from Rajya Sabha and replace him with someone else? Else, are we saying, once elected, we don’t have any option but to tolerate him till the end of his term, even if he is nominated? May be, the same thing can be extended to any nominated position - the right to recall a non-performer. It will surely open a can of worms where opposition nominateds can be forced to march back just because they are of a different party and what not, but this can be a start to make the composition more rational and responsible.

Medical Facilities - Essential Services or Business Opportunities?

दानधर्मतपस्तीर्थस्नानादिक्लेशवर्जितम् |
प्रदर्शयन्ति लोकेभ्यः स्वर्गमार्गं चिकित्सकाः ||

Yesterday, I thought to go to a hospital to get my eyes checked. Searching for the route, first, I went to Sankara Netralaya. Well, as usual, you can’t go there without an appointment. Then I checked if there are any other good ones. I found another eminent chain, with multiple branches. First I tried Kilpauk. Though the address is given on the main road, it was no where to be seen. Then, directly, I went to Vadapalani thinking it to be either the Chennai main branch or one of the primary branches of Chennai. After all, the number of search results I was getting for this branch made me think so. Now, enter the hospital. Not so big, I immediately got a doubt but took the plunge. Next doubt when told that they take only cash - not debit cards. An eminent hospital chain in India, even though, an acquired branch, you take only cash? Is there no standardisation? No one was ready to listen to my problem. They got a sight check, which I know, is slightly less than .25 - this was done three times, as if that’s the only things the doctors and the attendants know in the hospital. Then, they gave some eye drops. It took almost five hours after that for my vision to be normal. My situation was that bad that I had to ask my friend who accompanied me to dictate the menu in the hotel. Then, I go to the doctor. The problem was eye spasms - is it blepharospasm, is it due to worklife stress, is it vertigo, is it something else, he doesn’t bother. The answer, it’s a habit, you should control it. What the hell? If it is a habit, why would I go to an opthamologist? I would rather go to a neural. I came here because this is a neuro-opthalmic problem, not because I am bored or I have got money to waste. Every chain going on an acquisition spree should note this fundamental thing - it’s quality for which people come to you. Be ready to boot out the doctors who don’t confirm to your standards and maintain similar standards all across your hospitals.

Now, add two more news articles which came today - a person by name Archana Ramachandran who flunked twelfth but by impersonating someone long dead, became a doctor. She was finally caught and was debarred. Now, the question is, a person, who is not able to pass twelfth, how did she pass MBBS and may be advanced medicine? What went wrong in our checks?

Next one, over the demand that medicines should be bought only in the associated medical shops. What is the modus operandi? There is a medicine A for 10,000 rupees and a generic B for 2000 rupees. There can be another medicine C given by the same company which provided A for 3000 rupees. Because it’s on a bulk procurement, I get A for 6000 rupees - 4000 margin on a single shot of the medicine. I will not get this margin on B or C. Also, there is a possibility, if I go to open market, I can get the same medicine for 9000 - I know of cases where people go to known pharmacists to get it slightly cheaper than the hospitals. By forcing the patients to buy medicines from the associated medical shops, you are forcing the customer shell may be 8200 rupees - you haven’t told them about B or C, you haven’t given them an option of buying outside. And, generally, how does this operate? The medicine is too costly and too slow moving for a small time pharmacisit to stock ensuirng that the hospital has a monopoly. These sort of things come out when you are forced to go for B or C or some D because you are away from your hospital and had to get an alternate, which generally is city dependant. One of my friend’s brother rejected an offer in a premier hospital chain because of the condition that he should make a monthly prescription bill of 2 lakhs(this was some 10 years ago). No wonder, pharmacies are contributing to almost 15-20% of overall revenue. And this mode, does it not reek of cartelization?

All this forces us to think about the lack of an effective monitor over medical facilities in India - cost monitoring, procurement, options, facilities, centralized medical history and standardisation. These are some of the main things which are mandatory for India to be called a developed nation. It’s a different thing altogether that, medicine, education and public transport should always have government monopoly and we failed there miserably due to complacency and non-accountability. 

Arunachal Crisis - Who is Correct?

A classic example of how complicated legal position is, comes from Mahabharata. Whose right is more valid to ascend the throne? Is it that of the king or is it the son of someone who ruled sometime before if his son is elder than the ruling one’s son? While Suyodhana staked his claim because his father is the king, Yudhistira staked his claim stating the fact that his father was one of the kings of the kingdom and he is elder to Suyodhana. Else, Bhishma, Drona and the other heavyweights wouldn’t have looked at the Pandavas as rebels. Staring into past, we have got sufficient information to assess the story, but people contemporary, were they in a position to decide?
Now, take a look at the Arunachal crisis. 21 MLAs out of 47 from the ruling Congress wanted the Chief Minister Nabam Tuki to get down and gave a no confidence motion. The Speaker, Nabam Rebia, a cousin of the Chief Minister refused to convene the session and gave the date of convening as 14 Jan, exactly six months after the motion date while mandate states that a no confidence motion should be addressed in six months. And to break the opposition, the speaker dismissed 14 MLAs as against the 21 since any number less than 16 is valid for anti-defection law. May be, he planned, once the 14 are out, the balance 7 can be booted out. The MLAs went to the Governor complaining about this and the Governor preponed the Assembly to Dec 16. The ruling party led by Nabam Tuki and Nabam Rebia resisted physical access to the Assembly forcing the MLAs to convene at a different location under the aiges of the Deputy Speaker who was also in the rebel camp. As expected, the Speaker was impeached and the CM brought down in a no confidence motion. The Speaker went to the Courts and High Court rejected his case. He then went to the Supreme Court which ordered that Nabam Tuki and Nabam Rebia should be reinstated and asked the Governor not to meddle into political discussions. In the meanwhile, when the new CM, Kalko Phul was ruling, the Nabam Tuki camp created massive disturbances forcing the Governor to recommend President’s rule. Supreme Court’s judgement reinstated Nabam Rebia stating the Governor doesn’t have the right to force convene the Assembly because some MLAs are discontent. In simpler words, the Governor decided that the Speaker and CM are hand in glove running a minority government and took law into his hands. Can he or can he not??
Now, a few questions arise here -
1. If the speaker or Cabinet refuses to convene the Assembly, what is the redressal? Can a Governor intervene?
2. 21 out of 47 MLAs rejected the CM. Can the Speaker decide that only 15 defected and dismiss them(in this case it was 14) since that is the maximum number which disqualifies them under anti-defection? Once the number is down, can he disqualify the balance 6 as it is less than 26? What is the redressal the MLAs have got in this regard?
3. What is the basis for overturning of a President’s rule, especially if it is related to degradation of law and order? For that matter, what is the basis for imposing President’s Rule? Are there any clear cut guidelines?
4. What sort of action should be taken if physical access to government property is denied?
5. Now, if again, the Speaker refuses to summon the Assembly, what should the MLAs do?
6. Can the Governor decide the agenda of the Assembly in case the speaker is not interested in attending the Assembly?
May be, the Law Ministry or someone should bring out a clear cut procedural guidelines as to what should happen if there is dissent. Else, these sort of chaotic cases turn up every now and then.

Paid Mercenaries or Cult Heroes?

A paid mercenary by name Burhan Wani is liquidated by Indian forces. It should have been something of an accolade for Indian forces. But, well, all stories don’t have a happy ending. In protest of his death, complete Kashmir Valley is boiling now. As is it’s won’t, Pakistan tried to fish in troubled waters terming him a Kashmiri Leader.
Well, this is a cycle we see after every mercenary of note is liquidated. Note that I am using the word mercenary, not terrorist. He is operating for money, money someone paid for his upkeep or in case he is liquidated, someone in his family gets the money. There is no ideology here. If the ideology is for independent Kashmir, we pity them for being that dumb enough not to understand Pakistan’s designs on Kashmir. If the ideology is for Pakistani integration, it means they are working under the influence of a foreign government which is helping them monetarily. This, again, makes them mercenaries and nothing more.
The only thing this time is, this round of protests and violence is too big. Why did we land in such a situation? What went wrong in this case?
1. This guy, whose name is not even worth remembering is a paid employee of Hizb-ul-Mujahideen, a mercenary force offering services to the highest bidder(well, in this case, there is only one). He is given undue importance by the media. A person who should be treated with contempt with media was made a hero by them. Wittingly or unwittingly, does it matter? Is TRP ratings more important or India’s territorial integrity?
2. The violence which erupted in Kashmir, are we doing a disservice to the territorial integrity of India by showing the protests happening there day in and day out? Is there any problem if the news is completely suppressed thereby giving the government a free rein to control the troublemakers?
3. Knowing that this person’s dead body is going to create trouble, why was his body handed over to his family? Being a foreign funded mercenary who was liquidated in a government operation, the government have got every right to dispose his body. A level of decency means summoning his family to the burial site and nothing more.
4. When the protests are spreading, why is there still mobile and internet connectivity available?
Are we saying that none of them can be avoided?
The crux of the problem of Kashmir is India’s incompetence in handling it. There are two aspects of it - Pakistani designs and public discontent.
Pakistan coveted Kashmir and it’s attempt to annex it by force was thwarted. A winnable war, Nehru took it to United Nations only to be left as a festering wound. The UN resolution over which Pakistan daily dances over for referendum clearly states Pakistan should vacate Kashmir and hand it over to India so that India can ramp down it’s forces and conduct a referendum to join India or Pakistan at an opportune time.
Note the things. Pakistan hasn’t fulfilled it’s bargain of vacating Kashmir. What right has it got to question India over Kashmir? Why is India not demanding PoK to be reverted back to India for a referendum? And actually, statistics show that PoK is no where compared to India in development statistics. It is interesting to note that Gilgit Baltistan has got vote to right only in late 1990s. Who in a democracy, except slaves and animals, don’t have a right to vote?
The source of discontent in Kashmir is because of the Article 370 which prohibits Indian investment into Kashmir. Though the reason provided is preserving the cultural purity of Kashmir, the real impact is much different. Article 370 prohibits any non-Kashmiri to buy land in Kashmir. No land means no investment, no investment means no jobs, no jobs means discontent. Though the root cause of all evil is Article 370, it is being projected as a messiah of Kashmiri virtues. These jobless youth, angry against India are the cannon fodder for Pakistan. After all, grass is always greener on the other side. Does it matter if the unknown devil is much worser than the known one, if the torment is powerful enough?
To resolve the Kashmiri isssue once for all, India should do a few things -
1. Raise the diplomatic pitch to demand Pakistan vacating PoK
2. Scrap off Article 370. Since only the Kashmiri Government can recommend scrapping it off, it is an interesting observation that, if a government opposes scrapping it, the Governor, on imposition of President’s Rule can recommend scrapping it off as he is the State Government of the day. Once it is scrapped off, pump in investments to create jobs for the Kashmiri youth. Breaking the valley ghetto by pumping in more people is the only way to sort the Kashmiri mess.
3. Term them as mercenaries and not terrorists and force every Indian, including the press to do that. The word mercenary is sufficient enough to bring shame to the movement - they are fighting for money, not for a cause.
4. Split off Kashmir from Jammu and Ladakh and focus all attention over Kashmir.
5. The bodies of liquidated mercenaries need not be handed over to the families.
6. There will not be any negotiations over Kashmir with anyone. Dismantle/ban Hurriyat and all those which profess Kashmiri independence or merger with Pakistan. Any arrests to be made should always mean permanent exile out of Kashmir. Let Geelani be sent to Lakshadweep and let him preach sedition to the fishes, but he should never turn back to Kashmir come what may.
7. A curfew needs to be a real curfew - no internet connectivity, no mobile connectivity and preferable, no power. Use that window of opportunity to liquidate a few more trouble mongers.
8. First of all, press should be more sane in reporting. Any violence in Kashmir should be blacked out. A single shoot of a person throwing stones at police is sufficient to incite a hundred.
9. Initiate a diplomatic offensive over human right violations in PoK.
10. Initiate a counter insurgency on the lines of Salwa Judum to take on these mercenaries.

Neighbourhood Affairs Ministry?

One of the main things regarding instability indices in today’s world is that they don’t consider the instability in neighbourhood. Take for example, Lebanon. The government in Lebanon is rock solid; no problem. But, can it survive the scare if Syria collapses completely? All this points out to focussing over a safer neighbourhood first and everything else later - a country’s foreign policy should aim at it’s territorial integrity, safer borders and economic well being primarily. The role of an international policeman or an international arbitrator comes only after this. In an area where there is one behemoth and many midgets, the hard fact is that India will have to be the big brother for all these countries surrounding it - help them in their economic and military succour without looking for returns. After all, developing these countries aids India in two different ways - strategic depth in case of an invasion whose probability of occurence is zero and widened scope of investment. In this regard, does it make sense to create a new neighbourhood affairs ministry dealing with the countries India interacts as neighbours? It doesn’t mean that those countries border India. Take for example, Afghanistan. Afghanistan has a de jure border with India but no de facto borders. But, it is more culturally integrated with India than many of the countries. Or for that matter, Iran, separated by Pakistan.
1. Create a new Neighbourhood Affairs Ministry with MoS portfolios in Defence, Finance and Foreign Affairs acting as a liasion with this ministry.
2. Maintain a Belligerent Nations List. This is applicable not just for Neighbourhood Affairs, but for the whole of Foreign Affairs Ministry
3. Allocate, say, 5% of India’s annual income to Neighbourhood countries - 50% to be transferred to the exchequer directly and 50% to be allocated to development activities funded and carried out by India. Distribution of money to the countries is to be based on a formula, with no country getting more than 20% of the total allocated sum. Any venture India takes up, it should contain a minimum of 30% Indian workforce and the balance from the home country.
4. If a country, say China, treats it as alms by India, first try to convince it as a goodwill amount towards a neighbour and if they still don’t bend, hold it in ae emergency corpus.
4.  Any country in the Belligerent Countries List will not get the money. It’s share will be diverted for domestic use.
5. Exploration of an open border system with these countries in a case-by-case basis. Technically, there shouldn’t be any issue whatsoever regarding Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Singapore and Mauritius today. We already have the same with Nepal and Bhutan; even, open borders with Bangladesh and Maldives can be explored.