A brief history of Telangana movement

After the formation of Andhra Pradesh state, the people of Telangana expressed dissatisfaction over the implementation of the agreements and guarantees.
In December 1968 OU students organised a rally to protest against discrimination in government jobs against Telangana people and irrigation.
Discontent intensified when some of the guarantees agreed upon were supposed to lapse in January, 1969. Student agitation for the proper implementation of the guarantees began at Osmania University in Hyderabad and spread to other parts of the region.This agitation came to an end in September 1972 with the merger of Telangana Praja Samithi with Congress and people realised that the Prime Minister was not inclined towards a separate state of Telangana.
Due to Jai Andhra agitation in the Seema-Andra region in 1973, protesting against the protections (mulki rules) given for Telangana region, the Government of India diluted the protections in Gentlemen's agreement by initiating the six point formula.
Various political parties were formed on a platform of pursuing for separate statehood for Telangana region, including the Telangana Praja Samithi party in 1969, which won 11 out of 13 Parliamentary seats in 1971

SIX POINT FORMULA ON ANDHRA PRADESH FORMATION

On 21 September 1973, a political settlement was reached with the Government of India with a Six-Point Formula. It was agreed upon by the leaders of the two regions to prevent any recurrence of such agitations in the future.

1. Accelerated development of the backward areas of the State, and planned development of the State capital, with specific resources earmarked for these purposes; and appropriate representation of such backward areas in the State legislature, along with other experts, should formulate and monitor development schemes for the areas. The formation at the State level of a Planning Board as well as Sub-Committees for different backward areas should be the appropriate instrument for achieving this objective.
2. Institution of uniform arrangements throughout the State enabling adequate preference being given to local candidates in the matter of admission to educational institutions, and establishment of a new Central University at Hyderabad to argument the exiting educational facilities should be the basis of the educational policy of the State.
3. Subject to the requirements of the State as a whole, local candidates should be given preference to specified extent in the matter of direct recruitment to (i) non-gazetted posts (other than in the Secretariat. Offices of Heads of Department, other State level offices and institutions and the Hyderabad City Police) (ii) corresponding posts under the local bodies and (iii) the posts of Tahsildars, Junior Engineers and Civil Assistant Surgeons. In order to improve their promotion prospects, service cadres should be organised to the extent possible on appropriate local basis up to specified gazetted level, first or second, as may be administratively convenient.
4. A high-power administrative tribunal should be constituted to deal with the grievances of services regarding appointments, seniority, promotion and other allied matters. The decisions of the Tribunal should ordinarily be binding on the State Government. The constitution of such a tribunal would justify limits on recourse to judiciary in such matters.
5. In order that implementation of measures based on the above principles does not give rise to litigation and consequent uncertainty, the Constitution should be suitably amended to the extent necessary conferring on the President enabling powers in this behalf.
6. The above approach would render the continuance of Mulki Rules and Regional Committee unnecessary

The Telengana issue (Hindu Article)

HARDENING STANCE: Telangana Rashtra Samiti president K. Chandrasekhara Rao with BJP leader Bandaru Dattatreya at a dharna in Hyderabad on Thursday. Both parties are firm on the demand for a separate Telangana State.    NEW DELHI: The Srikrishna Committee has favoured maintaining the status quo of a united Andhra Pradesh and described the demand for a Telangana State as the “second best option.”

In its report, which was made public on Thursday, the Committee found the option of a united Andhra Pradesh the “most workable” in the circumstances and in the best interests of the social and economic welfare of people. “In this option, it is proposed to keep the State united and provide constitutional/statutory measures to address the core socio-economic concerns about the development of the Telangana region,” it said.

The report was submitted to Union Home Minister P. Chidambaram on December 30.

The 461-page report lists six options —

(I) maintaining the status quo;

(II) bifurcation of the State into Seemandhra and Telangana, with Hyderabad as a Union Territory, and the two States developing their own capitals in due course; 

(III) bifurcation of the State into the Rayala-Telangana and coastal Andhra regions, with Hyderabad being an integral part of Rayala-Telangana; 

(IV) bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh into Seemandhra and Telangana, with an enlarged Hyderabad metropolis as a separate Union Territory; 

(V) bifurcation of the State into Telangana and Seemandhra as per the existing boundaries, with Hyderabad serving as the capital of Telangana, and Seemandhra having a new capital; and

(VI) keeping the State united by simultaneously providing certain definite constitutional/statutory measures for socio-economic development and political empowerment of the Telangana region — creation of a statutorily empowered Telangana Regional Council.

Union Home Minister P. Chidambaram addresses the media in New Delhi after meeting political parties from Andhra Pradesh on the Telangana issue.    The Committee found the fifth option the “second best,” with a rider that separation “is recommended only in case it is unavoidable and if this decision can be reached amicably among all the three regions.” Considering the option of bifurcating the State into Telangana and Seemandhra as per the existing boundaries, the Committee felt that the continuing demand for a separate Telangana had some merit, and “is not entirely unjustified.” In case, this option was exercised, the apprehensions of the coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema people and others who settled in Hyderabad and other districts of Telangana about their investments, property, livelihood and employment would need to be absolutely addressed.

“Considering all aspects, the Committee felt that while the creation of a separate Telangana would satisfy a large majority of people from the region, it will also throw up several other serious problems. Therefore, after taking into account the pros and cons, the Committee did not think it to be the most preferred, but the second best option,” the report said.

Maintaining the status quo was the least-favoured option. It also found the second and third options “not practicable.” The Committee felt that the fourth option of bifurcating Andhra Pradesh into Seemandhra and Telangana, with an enlarged Hyderabad metropolis as a separate Union Territory, was likely to meet with stiff opposition from the Telangana protagonists, and it might be difficult to reach a political consensus on making this solution acceptable to all.

On the sixth option of keeping the State united, the Committee said it could be done through the establishment of a statutory and empowered Telangana Regional Council with adequate transfer of funds, functions and functionaries. “The Regional Council would provide a legislative consultative mechanism for the subjects to be dealt with by the Council.”

 
The Committee felt that with firm political and administrative management, it should be possible to convince the people of the importance keeping the State united, as this option would be in the best interests of all, and would provide satisfaction to the maximum number of people. “It would also take care of the uncertainty over the future of Hyderabad as a bustling educational, industrial and IT hub/destination.”

Dwelling further on the sixth option, it said that for managing water and irrigation resources equitably, a technical body — water management board — and an irrigation project development corporation with an expanded role were recommended. This should meet all the issues raised by the Telangana people satisfactorily, it said. Flagging socio-economic development and good governance as the core issue, the Committee, keeping the national perspective in mind, was of the considered view that “this option stands out as the best way forward.”

The five-member Committee, headed by the former Supreme Court judge, B. N. Srikrishna, was appointed on February 3, 2010. It examined in detail the issues pertaining to the current demand for a separate Telangana as well as the demand for a united State. The Committee examined all aspects of the situation. Keeping in view the local, regional and national perspectives, it gave the six options.

It examined such parameters as regional, economic and equity analysis, education and health, water resources, irrigation and power development, public employment. It also looked into the issues relating to Hyderabad and the sociological and cultural issues. In the past 11 months, it consulted representatives of industry, trade, trade unions and organisations of farmers, women and students, and all sections of the people, especially the political parties.

The National Food Security Act has failed to reform the discriminatory public distribution system

A concept note on the proposed National Food Security Act circulated to all states continues to push for a targeted public distribution system instead of a universal one, and proposes to reduce the issue of foodgrains to 25 kg per BPL household, completely ignoring the contentious issue of who is poor and what an adequate and nutritious diet consists of.

At a public hearing on the public distribution system (PDS), held before the Justice Wadhwa Committee in Bangalore in December 2008, Sarojamma, a single parent with four children (one of whom is mentally disabled) pleaded for a below the poverty line (BPL) ration card. She had been given an above the poverty line (APL) ration card as she is a garment worker earning Rs 3,500 per month. The APL ration card fetches her only kerosene and no foodgrain in Karnataka.

To be eligible for a BPL card, Sarojamma needs to be earning less than Rs 17,000 per year, or less than Rs 1,500 per month. At today’s prices, the rent alone for a measly 10 x 10 sq ft space in Bangalore is upwards of Rs 1,500 a month. So, to be considered poor, the state expects its citizens to be living on air and to have no other needs such as health and education.

Eeramma, who has been a single parent for 20 years with six children, was seen pleading for anAntyodaya Anna Yojana (AAY) card that would entitle her to 10 kg more foodgrain than her BPL card. Her BPL card gets her a maximum of 25 kg of foodgrain, or around 3.5 kg per person per month for her household of seven.

Insufficient food for the poor

One would have thought one needed at least 15 kg of cereal per person per month to provide 2,400 calories per day merely to exist, let alone eat a balanced diet consisting of pulses, oil, fruit and vegetables that is necessary to grow to one’s full potential and lead a healthy life. The present PDS expects you to become food secure by merely eating an inadequate quantity of cereal!

There were others like Arthiamma and her husband, both blind, and Ritu (name changed) who is HIV+, who had been given APL cards. Their social and physical vulnerability did not make them eligible for special consideration by the state.

"Almost 50% of its children are malnourished and 75% of its women suffer from anaemia; and per capita food availability has actually decreased"

What is incredible about ‘Incredible India’ is that while it sports a high growth in GDP, it ranks 66th in a list of 88 countries on the World Hunger Index. Almost 50% of its children are malnourished and 75% of its women suffer from anaemia; and per capita food availability has actually decreased between 1991 2004-05.
“Food security refers to a situation that exists when all people at all times have physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life,” says an FAO report ‘State of Food Insecurity in the World, 2001’.

As reflected in these examples, India’s current public distribution system does not seem to be fulfilling any of the above criteria to ensure the right to food expected of a just and humane society.

Flawed concept note

However, into this gloomy scenario comes the UPA government’s hopeful promise of enacting a National Food Security Act. A concept note on the proposed Act, circulated to all state food secretaries by the food secretary, GoI, cites the above FAO quotation and says: “To ensure food security to all citizens of the country based on a rights approach, there is need for providing a statutory basis to food security.” And, “the nutritional status of individualhousehold members is the ultimate focus,” (emphasis added).Although these pious statements give the impression that here, at last, is an attempt to address shameful deficiencies in the country’s food security situation, the rest of the concept note is more in the manner of a preamble to a National Food Insecurity Act!

While civil society is clamouring that the PDS be universalised, without any distinctions between BPL and APL, so that the poor get self-selected as it was earlier when the country was growing at the Hindu rate of growth of about 3%, the concept note seeks to make the targeted PDS statutory.

"If universalisation of the PDS is not accepted, those earning less than the minimum wage need to be considered poor"

The targeted PDS is costly and gives rise to a lot of corruption in the process of trying to decide who is and who is not poor. This results in the genuinely poor being left out whilst the ineligible get several cards. Economists like Jayati Ghosh say that the cost difference between a universal and targeted PDS is not very great. So what happens to the aim of covering all citizens?

Currently, the limits of annual income required for a household to be declared BPL are illogical. In Karnataka, for instance, the figures are Rs 11,000 and Rs 17,000 in rural and urban areas respectively. That means that a household of five people in Bangalore would have to be living on around Rs 47 per day, or about Rs 10 per person, on which even a beggar would not survive.

Rising hunger and malnutrition problem

In other words, a person would have to be earning less than half the minimum wage of Rs 88 (which itself is inadequate) to be considered poor. If universalisation of the PDS is not accepted, those earning less than the minimum wage need to be considered poor.

The concept note assumes without any justification that the nation may not be able to procure the required amount of foodgrain or bear the cost of a food subsidy. It is therefore proposing to reduce the scale of issue to 25 kg per BPL household, or 5 kg per person. This, despite the Supreme Court ruling that every BPL family shall be given 35 kg, and that no changes shall be effected in any food-related scheme without its permission. This will result in families having to buy 10 kg from the market, paying more for the same amount of food than earlier.

Taking all this into consideration, the Wadhwa Committee recommends that “the income criterion needs to be revisited” and that “estimation of poverty should not be made on a criteria (sic)which is less than the minimum wage fixed by the state for agricultural labourers”. Also, that “the government may also consider using calorie intake per person per day as an indicator of poverty”.

The People’s Health Movement has demanded that every person be given enough foodgrain to ensure 2,400 calories per day. Moreover, the predominance of cereals and lack of adequate pulses, oil, fruit and vegetables in the diet of most Indians is what is causing high levels of malnutrition among them. We need to find ways to get these items to the populace through the PDS, if malnutrition is to be addressed.

The concept note does not mention the word ‘malnutrition’ at all; it completely ignores the contentious issue of defining who is poor and how much and what constitutes ‘adequate and nutritious food’.

It does not recognise anywhere that entitlements should be linked to levels of malnutrition, if food security is to be achieved. It concentrates wholly on how to reduce the number of BPL families, reduce entitlements, and reduce subsidies. A great way indeed to ensure food security and raise India’s position on the World Hunger Index!

Binding clauses
Further, the concept note seeks to take away the freedom enjoyed by the states until now to: (1) fix the numbers of those who are BPL in their respective states; (2) decide the amount of foodgrain to be given to them, and (3) fix the rate at which these shall be provided. As a result of this freedom, the note says, the actual number of BPL ration cards issued by all the states is 10.68 crore while the accepted figure of BPL households by the Centre is 6.52 crore, resulting in an excess of 4.16 crore BPL cards. Tamil Nadu, for instance, has universalised the PDS, while Karnataka has issued BPL cards to 85% of households.

"The Centre is planning to bring in an enforcement mechanism that will monitor the states’ adherence to the Centre’s fiats and penalise those that transgress them"

The Centre is planning to curtail this right and insist that all states abide by the levels of poverty fixed by the Planning Commission, and that the Centre shall decide the numbers of poor that shall be eligible in each state, the amount of foodgrain that shall be given, and the rates at which these shall be issued to families.

To ensure that states do not defy these restrictions and fix their own entitlements, the Centre is planning to bring in an enforcement mechanism under the Food Security Act that will monitor the states’ adherence to the Centre’s fiats and penalise those that transgress them. Here is a blatant attempt not only to centralise decision-making and curtail the freedom of the states in a federal set-up, but also to reduce the basic entitlement to food of a hungry and malnourished nation.

The present allocation under the TDPS to the BPL and AYY categories is 277 lakh tonnes which entails a “huge commitment on the central pool for BPL families,” the concept note adds. The Planning Commission’s latest poverty estimates, according to 2004-05 figures, reveal that the country’s BPL population is only 27.5% whereas it was 36% according to 1993-94 figures.

As per the above, the number of BPL families (including AAY) will come down from 6.52 crore to 5.91 crore, and the number of APL families will go up from 11.52 crore to 15.84 crore. In view of this, based on the current scale of issue, annual allocations of foodgrain for AAY and BPL categories may come down from 277 lakh tonnes to 251 lakh tonnes, and for the APL category it will go up from 162 lakh tonnes to 202 lakh tonnes, the concept note estimates.

However, in view of this increase of 40 lakh tonnes for the APL category, the concept note makes the categorical statement that “the central government will not be able to guarantee distribution/supply of any quantity of foodgrain for the APL category from the central pool,” and that the “APL category may be excluded from TDPS,” except for APL families in some food-deficit and inaccessible states/union territories. This reasoning fails to recognise that there will be a saving of 26 lakh tonnes of foodgrain as a result of the reduction in BPL numbers.

The effective increase in foodgrain allocation to the APL category will thus only be 14 lakh tonnes. To use this reasoning to restrict the PDS only to 27.5% of the population is to deprive the rest of the population, which is unable to meet the requirement of 2,400 calories per day, of the right to food. Researchers like Utsa Patnaik estimate this number to be 70% of the population.

While civil society demands that BPL cards be updated every year in order to capture those who have slid back into poverty due to various exigencies like debt, drought, displacement, etc, the Centre is talking about annual updation only to seek out those who have risen above the poverty line, with the aim of taking away their BPL cards.

The concept note recognises that some households may have more than the average number of persons whereas others may have less than the average. But nowhere does the Centre make a commitment to provide foodgrain to every individual in a family, whether it has five or 10 members. It continues to think in terms of an upper ceiling of five units per household as the maximum that a family can receive. What happens to the guarantee of having the “individual as the focus”?

Schemes/ Yojana's for addressing hunger

Even more worrying seems to be the Centre’s intent to do away with other food-related schemes such as the Annapoorna Yojana for elderly destitutes and supply of foodgrain from the central pool to welfare institutions, hostels, etc, in the name of avoiding multiplicity of schemes, as beneficiaries of these schemes may already be covered under the TDPS.

By mentioning the school midday meal scheme, the ICDS scheme, and the nutrition programme for adolescent girls as schemes that cause multiplicity, the Centre is hinting that these too may be curtailed or done away with altogether. Or, at the very least, that it is keeping its options open. There goes the hope of 50% malnourished children and anaemic adolescent girls of ever leading a full and healthy life. In the same breath, the Centre is proposing that the Antyodaya sub-category within the BPL also be done away with on grounds that sub-categories are unnecessary.

"With this, the government seemingly wishes to wash its hands of any accountability ensuring the right to food to all its citizens"

The Centre doles out a plethora of excuses as to why it may not be able to obtain or sustain current levels of foodgrain procurement at minimum support prices, or sustain their distribution at current levels. And that all this uncertainty could necessitate the import of foodgrain.

The Centre also hints that if the issue price of rice and wheat are fixed at Rs 3 per kg for all BPL families, the annual food subsidy may go up from the current Rs 37,000 crore to Rs 40,380 crore. And that continuing to provide foodgrain for the APL category would further affect this figure. Nowhere is there an acceptance that these costs have to be borne as a matter of course if food security is to be ensured. The possible increase in cost is spoken of more in the nature of a looming threat to the economic health of the nation, which needs to be avoided.

The only good points in the concept note appear to be the government’s commitment to ensuring doorstep delivery of foodgrain to all fair price shops (FPSs), monitoring FPSs and certification of issuance of foodgrain by local vigilance committees, social audit by local bodies, computerisation of operations, effective grievance redressal mechanisms, and the setting up of food security tribunals at the taluka level, and appellate tribunals at the district level.

The piece de resistance of the concept note lies in the statement: “In case a state/UT government is unable to distribute the entitled monthly quantities of foodgrain to eligible BPL families/individuals, such families/individuals will be entitled for payment of a food security allowance.” With this, the government seemingly wishes to wash its hands of any accountability in the matter of ensuring the right to food to all its citizens.

Activists see the proposed Food Security Act as a gimmick to win future votes, just as the NREGA was seen as the reason for the substantial mandate given to the UPA in the last elections. The government will be seen to have done something pro-poor even though it will only be a mask behind which it quietly carries on its real agenda of neo-liberal reforms.

The Sino-Indian Border dispute: You Scratch my Back, But I Won’t Scratch yours

The two Asian Giants are still not able to figure out the line dividing them – in the longest running border dispute in modern history. This dispute offers interesting lessons on how to, and how not to, handle boundary issues. The analysis of Chinese behavior in the negotiations is doubly important given China’s perception in the west of its ‘flexing its muscles’, and China’s theory of ‘Peaceful Rise’.

About a century ago, Sir Henry McMahon, the then British Foreign Secretary, took a think red pencil and sketched a line between India and Tibet on a map - a line thathas resulted in the two most populous nations in the world going to war, costing more than 2000 lives; and that has created enormous mistrust on both sides, especially in India. 

Consequently, on the 3rd of July, 1914, was signed one of the most bizarre and controversial agreements ever known to man - The Simla accord, the complexities of which have yet to be unraveled. 
It was signed at a conference in the Indian mountain town of Simla that was attended by representatives of the British Empire, the newly founded Republic of China, and the Tibetan government at Lhasa.

It is on this extremely controversial treaty that the entire negotiating stance of the Indian government is based. It recognizes the McMahon line as the legal international boundary. The legality of the Simla accord is disputed. If it is legal, then it serves India's cause; if it is illegal, China's.
The border negotiations have been going on since 1981, making them the longest boundary negotiations in modern history.  The dubious record includes,
1)  8 rounds of senior-level talks between 1981 and 1987,
2) 14 Joint Working Group meetings between 1988 and 2002,
3) 14 rounds of talks between the designated Special Representatives since 2003.

Disputed Territories

The major territories that are disputed between these two countries can be divided into two distinct parts:

1) The Western Sector - Aksai Chin, which lies to the east of the Kashmir valley, covering an area of about 37,250 sq.km (14,380 sq.mi) - currently occupied by China.

Territories disputed between India and China

2) The Eastern Sector - Most of the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh, that China calls South Tibet, covering an area of 83,743 sq.km (32,333 sq.mi) - currently occupied by India.
 

China's boundary settlements with other countries

Western and Indian analysts and journalists frequently accuse China of having a new-found self-confidence, call on Obama to "burst Beijing's bubble" (The Washington Post), call its statements "harangue" and its behaviour "hubris" (The Economist), and accuse it of possessing an increased "assertiveness" (Almost everyone!).
Even a 2005 Pentagon report on Chinese military power expressed concern that “conflicts to enforce China’s [territorial] claims could erupt in the future with wide regional repercussions."

J. Mohan Malik, an expert in Asian Geopolitics and  Proliferation, proclaims, "Having wrested substantial territorial concessions from Russia, Vietnam, and Tajikistan in their land border disputes with China, Beijing is now expecting the same from India."

Although a thorough analysis of China’s border disputes merits a separate blog post, only a summary is sufficient here to put things in perspective.

China has had land border disputes with every country which it bordered. However, it has resolved 12 out of the 14 disputes quite remarkably, giving remarkable concessions in each of them.
In its border negotiations with different countries, China has pursued compromise and offered concessions in most of these conflicts. China’s compromises have often been substantial, as it has usually offered to accept less than half of the contested territory in any final settlement. It has also not reiterated its claims on a majority of the territory which was seized from it by the so-called 'unequal treaties'.

According to M.Taylor.Fravel, a premier expert on China's border disputes,

"Contrary to scholars of offensive realism, ......China has rarely exploited its military superiority to bargain hard for the territory that it claims or to seize it through force. China has likewise not become increasingly assertive in its territorial disputes as its relative power has grown in the past two decades. Contrary to others who emphasize the violent effects of nationalism, which would suggest inflexibility in conflicts over national sovereignty, China has been quite willing to offer territorial concessions despite historical legacies of external victimization and territorial dismemberment under the Qing."
 ".....China has not issued demands for large tracts of territory that were part of the Qing dynasty......"

 "China only contested roughly 7 percent of the territory that was part of the Qing dynasty at its height"

In the adjoining map, the grey area was part of the Qing dynasty during 1820, claims that China did not pursue.

China's land border negotiations with neighbouring countries offer a startling revelation. Portions of the total disputed territories that China received as part of its boundary negotiations with 12 of its 14 neighbours are as follows:

Afghanistan  -  0%

Tajikistan      - 4%

Nepal            - 6%

Burma          - 18%

Kazakhstan  - 22%

Mongolia      - 29%

Kyrgyzstan   - 32%

North Korea  - 40%

Laos             - 50%

Vietnam        - 50%

Russia          - 50%

Pakistan       - 54%

(Pakistan was a special case in which China received 60% of the disputed land but transferred 1,942 square kilometers of separate land to Pakistan. In Tajikistan’s case, the figure refers to the 28,000 sq.km of the disputed Pamir mountain range, other sectors were divided evenly. In the case of Vietnam, in addition to this settlement, China transferred, apparently without any strings attached, the White Dragon Tail Island to (North) Vietnam in 1957)

According to Fravel, "Analysis of China’s dispute behavior bears directly on the future of peace and stability in East Asia. Behavior in territorial disputes is a fundamental indicator of whether a state is pursuing status quo or revisionist foreign policies, an issue of increasing importance in light of China’s rising power."

China's recent 'assertiveness'

On a recent visit to the US, the Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said, "There is but a certain amount of assertiveness on the Chinese part. I don't fully understand the reasons for it".

He was referring, among other things, to Chinese objections to the PM's and Dalai Lama's visit to Arunachal Pradesh and China's attempt to stall an ADB loan, part of which was earmarked for Arunachal Pradesh.

There has also been some media hype among the Indian media about unconfirmed reports of border incursions (which The Economist calls the 'picking up (of) fights' by China) . But since the Line of Actual Control (LAC)  is not clearly defined, incursions often take place on both sides; and it was dismissed by the Indian government as inconsequential.

Dr Fravel argues that "China has beefed up border security and associated infrastructure along all of its borders, not just the one with India." Now since its border with India is not clearly defined,  a perceived incursion to one side is simply a normal border patrol to the other. Even the Indian government has said that the LAC is perceived differently on both sides.

According to Fravel, "...often times the Indian government denies that incursions have occurred when local officials in India report that they have occurred.

What is clear is (that) Chinese activity on the border has increased in the last several years. What I mean here is the frequency of its patrols, and that in itself is threatening to India if it cannot patrol at the same level of frequency." (my emphasis)

India significantly beefed up the number of troops on its border with China after these reports.

Although this is not the appropriate place for a detailed analysis of these accusations, it is clear that China's recent behaviour does NOT indicate that it wants Arunachal Pradesh per se, it simply means that its claim is still alive, which it always was. That Arunachal Pradesh is disputed (but not Chinese per se) territory has been its official position since before the 1962 war.

China in fact only 'attacked' India in 1962 only to get it to negotiate.  After occupying Arunachal Pradesh for a short period, it declared a unilateral ceasefire and withdrew - thus maintaining the same status quo as that prior to the war.

'Facts of History'

History is History. It cannot be changed. But what we can change is its effect on the future. China understands this perfectly.
It refers to the McMahon line and the other aspects of the dispute as 'a fact of history' or 'a fact leftover by history' (two favourite phrases of the Chinese government). It is willing to forget history and move forward, even if it means offering significant concessions.

China seems to have mastered the art of giving remarkable concessions and settling disputes peacefully. (So much so that it seems to border on an obsession of resolving land border disputes as quickly and amicably as possible), characteristic of which is its 'One country, Two systems' approach, which resulted in the successful and peaceful transfer of Hong Kong and Macau to China. By contrast, India had to 'invade' Goa, another Portuguese colony like Macau, to liberate it.

This is in stark contrast with India, where apparently Foreign Policy is merely a vote-grubbing exercise. It would be political suicide for any Indian government if it were to 'settle' any dispute with mutual concessions. In fact, it would not be an over-exaggeration to say that while Chinese Foreign Policy is about surviving the next century, Indian Foreign Policy is about surviving the next election.

In 1960, Zhou Enlai offered Nehru a bargain that was in India's favour by a land area ratio of about 3:1 - China would drop its claim in the Eastern sector if India would drop its claim in the Western sector. But Nehru rejected this package solution, and later also refused to negotiate with the Chinese, until it vacated 'illegally occupied' Indian territory (As if there'll be anything left to negotiate then!).   

Deng Xiaoping again offered a similar deal to India on a number of occasions in the late 1970s and early 1980s, but they were again rejected by India.

In contrast, India has chosen to adopt a sector-by-sector approach, negotiating each of the two distinct sectors separately.

As China expressed a willingness to drop its claim in the Eastern sector, Fravel thinks that "India believes that it can use this strategy to maximise concessions from China. Because China has already suggested dropping its claims in one sector, India can also seek concessions in the Western sector. China has opposed this and one reason why China has increased the prominence of Tawang (a district/town in Arunachal Pradesh or South Tibet with close links to Tibet) is because India prefers to pursue a sector by sector approach. China is signaling to India that if a sector by sector approach is pursued, China will expect concessions in both sectors from India." (my emphasis)

Needless to say, even in this sector-by-sector approach, there is no evidence that India is willing to offer any concessions.

In the official statements of these two countries, the differences of their respective approaches seem to stand out. While India refers to Arunachal Pradesh as an 'integral part of India', China refers to it as 'disputed territory' - thereby indicating that although China has a claim on that territory, it recognizes and respects the fact thatIndia also has a claim on it. It doesn't refer to Chinese occupied Aksai Chin as an 'integral part of China' and South Tibet (or Arunachal Pradesh) as being under 'illegal occupation' by India. 

The above facts have been completely missed by the Indian media as well as the general public and politicians, who put the blame squarely on China for the dispute remaining unresolved. 

Recently The Times of India published an article by Dilip Hiro, a journalist andanalyst specializing in India, which stated, "Although China has settled its land border disputes with all other neighbours it has refused to do so with India". Indian analysts are often quick to claim that China has 'refused' to settle its border dispute with India because it is afraid of India's rise, conveniently forgetting the fact that the same argument can apply to India too.

You can scratch my back, but I won’t scratch yours.

Historians on both sides can offer arguments and analyses to support their claims and debate till the cows come home. But while the Chinese government is willing to forget history and even recognize the McMahon line in the eastern sector, the Indian government remains stubborn, risking a political fallout and a huge backlash fueled by a brainwashed Indian public, which is in turn fueled by false and exaggerated  media reports. The current Indian government is often compelled to succumb to the people's prejudices. Nationalistic fervour and zeal run so high in Indian minds that it clouds rational thinking in the national interest.

In fact, after losing the war in 1962, Nehru and his government; along with the Indian media, succeeded in portraying India as the innocent 'victim' of Chinese 'aggression' and 'betrayal'. Even today, a look at media reports and even MP's speeches in parliament clearly shows that this fiction is still maintained in the Indian mindset.

The words of a 1964 CIA report still ring true today,

    "A political settlement, which could not be negotiated when Sino-Indian relations were still to some degree friendly, will be even less likely now that relations are completely antagonistic."

Needless to say, it is in India's long-term national interest to resolve the dispute quickly. However, it is not in the government's interest to offer any sort of compromise, and hence it wouldn't touch the issue with a bargepole (A textbook example where national interest is superceded by political interest in a democracy).

It is abundantly clear that China wants the dispute resolved as quickly as possible (For one, it doesn't have such a strong and ill-informed public opinion to contend with). It understands that friendly relations between neighbours cannot be fully achieved as long as the mutual border is not clearly demarcated. It has offered significant concessions to India, keeping only the territory that is strategically important to it (because of the Aksai Chin road). It is willing to recognize Indian claims on the populated portion of the disputed territory, keeping only the barren desert land of Aksai Chin, where according to Nehru himself, "Not even a blade of grass grows".

Unfortunately, the Indian government seems to think that it has a mandate from heaven to keep ALL the disputed territory for itself, and will not offer any concessions whatsoever. It will not accept 74% of the total disputed territory that was part of the deal offered by China (heck, it won't even accept 99.99% of the territory if China offered it!), but wants the ENTIRE disputed territory for itself!

India at the Shanghai World Expo 2010 and its significance in Sino-Indian Relations

In the midst of the concrete and steel jungle that is the Shanghai World Expo, stands the Indian Pavilion, the 'greenest' of them all, built entirely of environment-friendly materials, showcasing India's unique brand of Culture, History and Soft Power and offering an unprecedented opportunity to further improve Sino-Indian relations and India's Soft Power in China.

The Expo has finally come to China. A largely-forgotten event in most parts of the world, it has been rejuvenated, on a scale which no other country could even dream of. A record number of 192 countries and 50 organizations have registered, the highest in the Expo's history. Most people hadn't even heard of the expo until it came to China. 

The verdict is clear - The Expo needed China as much as China needed the Expo.

It has been described by the Chinese government as "a great gathering of world civilizations",  and is an excellent opportunity to improve ties between two of the oldest - India and China.

The Indian pavilion

The Indian Pavilion is a massive stupa (pronounced stuup, with an slightly elongatedu), resembling specifically the Sanchi Stupa built during the Maurya Dynasty (322-185 BC) by King Ashoka (pronounced  Ashok). 

  

In what is one of the greatest examples the diversity and plurality of Indian history and culture, the dome is shaped like the Taj Mahal Mausoleum (which, commissioned by the Mughal Emperor Shah Jahan and completed in 1653, is one of the seven wonders of the world) and the inspiration of its design comes from theSanchi Stupa (that was completed in the third century BCE and is a UNESCO World Heritage Site).

Taj Mahal

Sanchi Stupa

The Indian Pavilion

As the world moves towards urbanization, the idea behind the Indian pavilion successfully blends the concepts of sustainable ecological development with modern technology and town planning - which is accentuated by the theme - Cities of Harmony.

And what better model than ancient India, where the Indus Valley Civilization (3300–1300 BCE), whose cities, most notably - Harappa and Mohen-jo-daro, reached a level of urban planning and technological sophistication which was unparalleled during the time. As a matter of fact, the sheer brilliance and superiority of those prehistoric cities would put Mumbai to shame, whose streets flood every couple of years due to heavy rains and poor town planning coupled with inefficient drainage systems, not to mention 55% of the city's population living in slums! (In the words of India's Environment and Forests Minister, Jairam Ramesh, if there is a Noble Prize for filth, India will win it!)

The Indian Pavilion is built entirely of bamboo and other environment friendly materials like solar panels, windmills,  plants, water cascade and earthen tiles; and is the 'greenest' and most eco-friendly pavilion at the expo. Over 60,000 saplings, including many herbal medicinal plants, have been used in the roofing panels, which also collect rainwater for use in the pavilion. Over 30 kms of bamboo (which came from eastern Chinese forests) has gone into its construction. It is in fact the world's largest Bamboo Dome - 35 meters wide and 18 meters tall, and contains an interlaced network of more than 500 pieces of 20 meter-length rods of bamboo.

Completely rewriting China's architecture rulebook, it will be spared demolition unlike the other pavilions (excluding China's), dismantled and then reconstructed in Wushi, Zhejiang Province. The Indian architects had to prepare the first ever bamboo construction plans and code and then get the Chinese to approve it before proceeding.  

According to the official website:

The concept and theme of India Pavilion will revolve around journey of Indian cities from ancient times to medieval period to modern India. This journey is full of glorious peaks and downs in the medieval period. The concept of urban planning was known to India as back as the times of Mohan Jo daro and Hadappa (dating back to 2000-3000 B.C. Circa), the twin cities that were discovered by British archaeologists. These cities had well laid out streets at right angles, underground drainage and water supply system with common public areas.

As urban life spread among Indian people, we find cities with specific sectors, which were known as Mohallahs, where people belonging to a specific guild or trade used to live, such as, Kapda Bazaar (cloth market) where textile merchants had their shops and living quarters;Sarafa Bazaar (jewelery market) where all jewellers had their shops and living quarters, Katras (grain and eatables market) and so on. New urban centres were set up by Mughal emperors spanning throughout India based on specialized trade and services on the lines of modern Special Economic Zones, e.g., Varanasi became known for silk and silk embroidery; Mysore for special silk and sandlewood work; Calicut for muslin cloth and jewelery; Moradabad for brassware; Aligarh for locks; Agra for footwear and marble works etc. During the medieval period also, ambitious kings planned ambitious cities, such as, Jaipur, which was laid in a very scientific manner with entire city being painted in one colour for which it is still known as ‘Pink City’.

The highlights of the pavilion include the 'Tree of Life' carving by the Sidi Saiyyed Mosque in Ahmedabad, a 'Zero-Chemical Area', which displays many energy efficient technologies, a traditional 'Indian Market' or Bazaar, and a Holographic projection showcasing India's evolution from the Indus Valley days to modern times.

And in the Urban Best practices Area (UBPA), which offers a platform for differentcountries to propose their solutions to the urban issues from different perspectives, two role models from India — one from Ahmedabad and the other from Pondicherry— are being showcased with 34 others as experiments in improving urban life. The Ahmedabad initiative is focused on clean and green economic development, while Pondicherry focuses on heritage preservation along with economic growth.

The Indian pavilion also features authentic Indian cuisine, Indian cultural programmes, including dances (some of which are so diverse and different from the others that I'm quite sure some people will wonder whether they are from the same country!), and of course - India's latest soft power export - Bollywood. The organizers have roped in 50 performers, backed by a team of film technicians and choreographers to act out 40 years of classic moments in Indian cinema. And Yoga (pronounced Yog) - the single most popular aspect of Indian culture and soft power abroad - is also on the cards.

Where's India's other achievement?

While all this should certainly be applauded, what is surprising is that a presentation of the other aspect that India is known for around the word - its IT prowess - is nowhere to be seen. A combination of culture, environment friendly urban planningand India's IT and software industry prowess would have been a great and unique combination. Not to mention the fact that this is one of the few advantages which India has over China.

Strengthening  Sino - Indian Relations and India's Soft Power

As the two most populous countries in the world and rising powers, India and China have a responsibility to maintain healthy relations, not only towards themselves but also towards the whole world. And the expo offers an excellent opportunity for India to increase the people-to-people contact between these two countries and awareness about Indian culture in China.

The India pavilion has become one of the most popular spots at the expo with an average of 25,000 visitors every day.

The huge line of visitors queued up to get inside the Indian pavilion as seen above speaks for itself.

Many countries are increasingly realizing that Soft Power can be a very effective tool for increasing their influence, especially countries with rich histories and cultures like India and China. They have a lot to export in that direction; and can use Soft Power very effectively to project an image. Pavan Varma, the head of the Indian Council on Cultural Relations, has argued that “Culturally, India is a superpower.”

Unlike China, India has lacked the initiative and aggression to effectively use Soft Power as an instrument of Foreign Policy.  For example, while the Chinese government has established 295 Confucius Institutes in 78 countries, the Indian Equivalent - Indian Cultural Institutes - number only 20. Most of India's Soft Power abroad is promulgated through private individuals and enterprises, like Bollywood, and the so-called 'Indian Gurus', like Deepak Chopra.

This year is the 60th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between two countries. In China, interest in Indian culture and History is on the rise.

The Indian President, Pratibha Patil, on a recent visit to China, unveiled the first Indian Style Buddhist Temple in Luoyang in Henan province after a gap of 1900 years, when two Indian monks Kashyapamatanga and Dharmaratna helped establish the first Buddhist shrine. This temple was at the same site as the White Horse Temple, built in 68 AD, the first Buddhist Temple in China,  and is  part of anIndia-China Cultural cooperation initiative. She also unveiled a statue of poet and Nobel Laureate Rabindranath Tagore in the heart of old-town Shanghai, which the poet visited in the 1920s and left a strong influence on a whole generation of Chinese intellectuals and writers.

Tourism is another important aspect which has been neglected. In 2008, Chinese arrivals to India made up less than 2 per cent of the total number of foreign travelers. India's lack of adequate infrastructure, a lack of awareness about Indian Tourism among common Chinese are just two of the many problems which are at the heart of the asymmetrical tourist flow. With China slated to become the  world's fourth-largest source of outbound tourists by 2020, it is a market which India, like any other country, cannot afford to take lightly.

Hence, the Shanghai World Expo becomes all the more important and it is an opportunity that simply could not be ignored. The Indian government has taken unprecedented advantage of this situation, by not only showcasing India's Soft Power through its unique culture and history, but also various green initiatives coupled with technology and urban planning - a pavilion built entirely with environment friendly materials and with zero carbon emissions which is a welcome change amidst the steel and concrete jungle of the expo, and an endeavor which has the potential to drastically strengthen Sino-Indian Relations like no other.

Kya Congress Mukesh Ambani Ki Dukaan Hai?

• In 2006, Mani Shankar Iyer was removed and Murli Deora brought in to increase RIL capex from $ 2.39 billion to $ 8.8 billion and to increase gas price from $2.34 per mmBTU to $ 4.2 per mmBTU.
• In 2012, Jaipal Reddy has been removed and Moily brought in to increase gas prices from $ 4.2 per mmBTU to $ 14.2 mmBTU and to condone RIL’s blackmailing of reducing gas production.
• Huge benefits given to RIL in last one decade despite flagrant violations of various agreements by RIL. Benefits to RIL causing serious price rise in the country.
• Both BJP and Congress involved. BJP signed a sweet deal with RIL in 2000. Congress faithfully implemented it.
• If RIL demand of increasing the gas price to $ 14.2 is accepted, it would lead to shut down of several gas based power plants and increase in power and fertilizer prices. It would result in Rs 43,000 crores of additional benefits to RIL.

In the Nira Radia tapes, Ranjan Bhattacharya (Vajpayee’s son in law) is heard telling Nira that Mukesh Ambani told him –"Congress to ab apni dukaan hai." Facts below show that both Congress and BJP are in his pocket.

NOTE : All documents available on India against corruption website ...

Reliance Industries Ltd (RIL) has the contract to extract oil from KG Basin. Under an agreement of 2009 with the government, they are supposed to sell gas at $ 4.2 per mmBTU upto 31st March 2014. Midway now, RIL is demanding that the price be increased to $ 14.2 per mmBTU. Jaipal Reddy resisted that and he was thrown out.

Jaipal Reddy had prepared a note for EGOM, in which he mentioned that acceptance of RIL’s demand would mean an additional profit of Rs43,000 crores ($8.5 billion) to RIL(in 2 years) at current levels of low production. Most of this gas is used in fertilizer and power production. Increasing gas price would mean an additional financial burden of Rs 53,000Crores ($ 10.5 billion) on central and state government (copy of relevant page of EGOM note is attached as annexure 1). This would in turn mean higher electricity and fertilizer prices in the country or a higher subsidy burden.

In order to pressurize the government, RIL substantially reduced its production of natural gas. Total consumption of natural gas in the country is 156 mmscmd. According to agreement, RIL was supposed to produce 80mmscmd (more than 50% of the total demand) from 2009. However, they are producing just 27 mmscmd, almost a third of their commitment. Production has been artificially kept low to blackmail the government. They are not just hoarding the gas, but also forcing various consumers to buy gas from abroad. Gas from abroad costs around $ 13 per mmBTU.

RIL’s stand is simple – "hum to gas $14.2 par hi denge, lena hai to lo, nahin to jao." Who does this gas belong to? According to Supreme Court of India and the Indian Constitution, this gas belongs to the people of India. Complete surrender of UPA before RIL indicates UPA’s inability to run governance in accordance with the Constitution.

Drastic reduction in production has forced many gas based power plants in the country to shut down or run at much lower capacity. According to media reports, almost 9000 MW of gas based power plants are lying idle.

Today, power from gas based power plant costs around Rs 3 per KWH. If gas price is increased from $ 4.2 to $ 14.2 as demanded by Reliance, power rates would go upto Rs 7 per KWH. That’s too expensive. At that cost, most of these plants would have to permanently shut down.

This is not the first time that a union minister has been eased out at Mukesh Ambani’s insistence. In 2006, when RIL had to get its capex increased from $ 2.39 billion dollars to $ 8.8 billion dollars, Mani Shankar Iyer was removed and a more Reliance friendly MurliDeora was brought in.

Brief history:  

RIL got this contract during NDA regime in the year 2000. The contract was meant to favor RIL right from the beginning. In any business, increase in costs means decrease in profits. However, the NDA government , signed a contract dictated by RIL wherein an increase in cost by one rupee meant additional profits of RIL by almost Rs 2.2. Isn’t it strange? A parameter called Investment Multiple has been defined in the contract as under:

Investment Multiple (IM) = Total Revenue / Total Investment

According to the contract, till IM is below 1.5, RIL takes away more than 80% of profits and government gets less than 20% of profits. It is only when IM becomes more than 2.5 that government gets 85%. This means, RIL has a huge incentive to keep IM below 1.5 by increasing the expenditure artificially. Thus if Reliance were to increase expenditure from 1 Billion to 2 Billion on a revenue of 5 billion, their own net income would go up from 1.6 Billion to 3.5 Billion. This is what the CAG has stated in para 8.1 of its performance Audit of Hydrocarbon PSCs. (extract from executive summary of CAG as annexure 2)

In 2004, RIL submitted an Initial Development Plan (IDP) saying they would produce 40 mmscmd for an investment of $ 2.39 billion. All this happened when Ram Naik was the petroleum minister in Vajpayee regime.

Within 2 years, RIL submitted another plan saying they would produce 80 mmscmd for an increased investment of $ 8.8 billion. Doesn’t that sound strange? To double production, you increase your investment by four times? Having put the initial infrastructure in place, it should have cost lesser to create additional production capacity.

Mani Shankar Iyer, who was the then Petroleum minister, would not have allowed this. So, Mani was shunted out of petroleum ministry and Murli Deora, famous to be Reliance man, was brought in January 2006. Despite strong protests by some MPs like Tapan Sen, Deora approved $ 8.8 billion expenditure. By

allowing $ 8.8 billion expenditure, in effect, Deora allowed a future revenue of over Rs 1 lakh crores ($ 20 billion dollars) for RIL.

CAG has remarked that there is strong evidence that RIL is gold plating its capital expenditure. Expenditure has been artificially increased (for reasons mentioned above). For instance, RIL is required to place orders for its plant, machinery and other requirements through international competitive bids. CAG alleges that bids were arbitrarily rejected to favor some parties. Just one company namely Aker group got many contracts (see annexure 3, which is an extract from CAG report). Is this group related to RIL? Is RIL siphoning off money through this method?

RIL’s pressure tactics:  

RIL signed a contract with NTPC in 2004 to supply gas for its power plants at $ 2.34 per mmBTU for 17 years. It signed a similar contract with RNRL to supply gas at $ 2.34 per mmBTU. However, RIL went back on its word. Under RIL’s pressure, EGOM headed by Sh Pranab Mukherjee, revised gas price in September 2007 to $ 4.2 per mmBTU. NTPC and RNRL were forced to accept gas from RIL at revised price. By doing this, Pranab Mukherjee headed EGOM gave an undue benefit of Rs8000 crores to RIL.

What is RIL’s actual cost of production?  

Cost of production is much less than $ 2.34 per mmBTU. (Copy of extracts from an SC order Annexure 4).RIL had actually signed long term agreements with NTPC and RNRL for supplying gas at that rate for 17 years. This means that at $2.34 per mmBTU also, RIL was making adequate profits. India is getting gas at $ 0.9 per mmBTU from Oman. Gas rates in Canada are at $ 1.74 per mmBTU. This means that at $ 2.34 per mmBTU also, RIL was making huge profits.

RIL sold out nation’s resources:  

Ownership rights of this gas belong to the people of India. RIL is just a contractor hired by GOI to extract gas. Strangely, RIL sold 30% stake in 21 of 29 oil blocks to British Petroleum in July 2011 at $ 7.2 billion. Government gave approval to RIL to do that. How can they do that? It is almost like – I hire a driver to drive my car and that driver sells off my car after a few days.

Performance of RIL so far has been much worse than perhaps the worst performing government department.  

1. 4 times cost escalation within 2 years from $ 2.39 billion in 2004 to $ 8.8 billion in 2006.
2. Increase in gas price from $ 2.34 per mmBTU in 2004 to $ 4.2 per mmBTU in 2007 to the present demand of $ 14.2 per mmBTU.
3. Capacity created for producing 80 mmscmd after incurring such a huge cost ends up producing just 27 mmscmd after 12 years.
4. 31 oil wells should have been in production till now. Out of them, just 13 are functional.

Has any government department fared as badly? If this had happened in any government department, it would have been ripped apart by all government agencies and media.

RIL scam akin to coal scam:  

This scam is on similar lines as Coal block allocation scam. Coal blocks were given away saying that coal production was less in the country and private sector participation would increase coal production. Rather than produce coal, the private parties hoarded coal blocks to sell them at appropriate time in future.

In this case also, oil blocks were given away to RIL on the excuse that oil and gas production in the country was less and private sector participation would bring "efficiency". Rather than the production going up, RIL is hoarding the gas.

Role of PM:  

RIL’s request for increase in gas prices was turned down by Ministry of Petroleum under Jaipal Reddy and EGOM several times in the last 2 years. EGOM had fixed $ 4.2 per mmBTU price for RIL upto 31.3.2014. When Jaipal Reddy did not budge, RIL approached the PM. PM was very sympathetic to RIL. PM requested Ministry of Petroleum to seek AG’s opinion on whether gas prices could be increased midway as demanded by Reliance. It is strange why did the PM not show similar concern when NTPC was forced to accept higher gas price from RIL? Why is the PM not pulling up Reliance for not producing 80 mmscmd gas as per their commitment? Why did the PM not seek legal opinion when country’s interests were at stake? Why is PM showing so much interest when RIL interests are at stake?

Notice to RIL by Jaipal Reddy:  

When RIL failed to meet its production targets, Jaipal Reddy decided to disallow their capital expenditure. In the first instance, a notice for disallowance of $ 1 billion expenditure was sent to RIL (Annex 5). This would mean a loss of $2.2 (11,000 Crores) billion to RIL, if we consider IM ratio. Next year, this disallowance could be $ 1.5 billion, which would mean a loss of $ 3.3 billion (16,500 Crores) for RIL.

That is the reason why Mukesh Ambani got restless. And that is the reason why Jaipal Reddy was transferred out.

Real reasons for price rise in the country:  

This episode explains the real reasons for price rise in the country. The government seems to be succumbing to illegitimate demands of some powerful corporates in the country (like RIL in this case). Benefits provided to RIL in this case contributed to price rise in power and fertilizer sectors. Similarly, on one hand, government says that they do not have Rs 35,000 crores to provide LPG subsidy to the people, on the other hand, the government bends backwards to provide benefits to these corporate.

Questions:  

1. Who is running the government? It appears that telecom companies select their own nominee as Telecom minister and RIL selects its own person as Petroleum minister.
2. So, is this government being run by powerful corporates?
3. Is Dr Manmohan Singh succumbing to corporates under some compulsions or out of ignorance? What are the compulsions, if any?