Norway killer tried to woo Hindu extremists in India

Hindutva link in Norway mass murderer's manifesto

A few uncanny links have emerged between India and Anders Behring Breivik, the Norwegian mass murderer who killed 93 people in twin attacks on Saturday. Not only Breivik's combat symbol -- the badge of the Justiciar Knight -- hails originally from Varanasi and his 1,500-page manifesto, titled '2083: A European Declaration of Independence' -- mentions India and Hindutva on more than 102 pages.

Speaking to a prominent English daily, Mohammad Aslam Ansari -- properitor of the Indian Art Company in Varanasi -- said that he had designed the symbol for a Sacndinavian customer about a year ago. According to The Hindu, Ansari, who has designed various advertisements in the past, was contacted by e-mail from Norway. He later received payment of $150 for two badges via a Western Union money transfer. The Knights Templar badge depicts a white skull, marking communism, Islam and Nazi symbols, with a dagger pierced by a head.

Moreover, according to a report in The Christian Science Monitor, Breivik apparently has found some “common ground” with right-wing Hindu nationalists over their mutual contempt and fear of Muslims. The Monitor reports: "Breivik in his manifesto wrote that he acquired some 8,000 e-mail addresses of “cultural conservatives” not just across Europe but North America, Australia, South Africa, Armenia, Israel, and India – ensuring scrutiny of anti-Muslim groups far beyond Europe. Breivik’s primary goal is to remove Muslims from Europe. But his manifesto invites the possibility for cooperation with Jewish groups in Israel, Buddhists in China, and Hindu nationalist groups in India to contain Islam."

In the manifesto, points out the Monitor, Breivik references India dozens of times. He included a five-page paper written by a man named Shrinandan Vyas that argues the Muslim invaders committed a “genocide” of Hindus in the Hindu Kush region of present-day Afghanistan. Efforts to track down Vyas have failed. Invasions by Muslims into South Asia did include bloodshed, but use of the term “genocide” is highly controversial.

Breivik expressed his explicit support for Hindutva. “India will continue to wither and die unless the Indian nationalists consolidate properly and strike to win,” he wrote. “It is essential that the European and Indian resistance movements learn from each other and cooperate as much as possible. Our goals are more or less identical.” He added that he supports “the Sanatana Dharma movements and Indian nationalists in general.”

Breivik seems obsessed with how the presence of Muslims in any society leads to violence, subjugation, domination and a sharp decline in the population of other peoples, citing several historical examples, including Pakistan and East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) following the partition of British India in 1947.

Breivik declared: “Saffronization is a political neologism [after the saffron robes of the Hindu clerics], used to refer to the policy of right-wing Hindu nationalism [or Hindutva] which seeks to make the Indian state into a ‘Hindu nation’ and its Sikh, Buddhist and Jain minorities incorporated into Hinduism. These nationalist movements are also called Sanatana Dharma movements. A related term, the Saffron Brigade, is used as a descriptor of people and organisations in India that promote Hindu nationalism such as the Sangh Parivar by their critics, who allege a militant Hindu agenda. The Sanatana Dharma movements or Hindu nationalists in general are suffering from the same persecution by the Indian cultural Marxists as their European cousins.”

The current UPA government, he wrote, “relies on appeasing Muslims and, very sadly, proselytising Christian missionaries who illegally convert low caste Hindus with lies and fear, alongside Communists who want total destruction of the Hindu faith and culture.” Even though Hindus who are living abroad “get an eagle's view of what's happening in India, Indian Hindu residents don't see it being in the scene.”

Breivik's manifesto hails Hindu groups who “do not tolerate the current injustice and often riot and attack Muslims when things get out of control,” but says, “this behaviour is nonetheless counterproductive.” “Instead of attacking the Muslims, they should target the category A and B traitors in India and consolidate military cells and actively seek the overthrow of the cultural Marxist government. It is essential that the European and Indian resistance movements learn from each other and cooperate as much as possible,” he concludes. “Our goals are more or less identical.”

Breivik lists the websites of the Bharatiya Janata Party, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, the National Volunteers' Organisation, the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad as resources for further information. His manifesto envisages that this future organisation would hand out a “multi-cultural force medal,” which would be awarded for “military cooperation with nationalist Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish and/or atheist forces (non-European) on Hindu, Buddhist or Jewish territory."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik
http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/blog/andie531/norway-killer-tried-woo-hindu-extremists-india

-------------------------------------------

Breivik posing in a compression garment in the photo above, was released six hours before the attacks. The insignia on his left shoulder reads: "Marxist Hunter - Norway - Multiculti Traitor Hunting Permit"

IP contributor meets Hillary and her men..

INDO –US relation a vision for 21^st century

Hillary Clinton began her speech with ”Vannakam” in Tamil and shared opinion of President Obama on “how US Looks at India today”. Gone are those days where Indian diplomatic position in world stage was considered to be just another nation. What is perceived now is India the nation. It is of this significance what India and Asia has risen itself into in the past decade. That makes the sub-continent nation as the new hotspot of the world.

The only foreign relation where people to people contact drives the government to government relation is seen in Indo-US relation. The rising power of India as knowledge economy plus an emerging economy puts India into the league of nation which drives the geopolitical balance of the world. India’s relation with its neighbours and other central Asian nation is of utmost value to Americans. India –Burma relation, Indo- Iran relation, Indo-Afghan,  Indo-Kazhakistan relation and Indo-ASEAN relation was some of which was referred by Ms Hillary as valuable in maintaining the Asian balance.

She also stressed on the student exchange between America and India. It was clear that the foreign university bill that India is still to pass would help American university to open shops here. It will be the determinant of knowledge exchange and research programs ahead.

A 6 hours stoppage in Chennai before the 2^nd round of Strategic Dialogue was completed has become the hottest topic of town. The city itself has number of American MNC operating their manufacturing units like Ford motors. Indo-US relation certainly speaks of new vision of 21^st century.

---------------------

IP contributor Abhilash Mohapatra can be seen in a Stripe Blue shirt and a spotted white tie. If you wish to know more on Hilary's Chennai visit, you can mail him at indianpolicy2010@gmail.com

Gadgil - 2

-- This is a continuation of Gadgil -1 --

Modified Gadgil Formula

The formula was modified on the eve of the formulation of the Sixth Plan. The 10 percent indicator for ongoing power and irrigation projects was dropped and the share of per capita income was increased to 20 percent, to be distributed to those states whose per capita incomes were below the national average. The modified Gadgil formula continued for the Sixth and the Seventh Plans. Compared to the allocations in the Fourth and Fifth Plans, the allocations during the Sixth and the Seventh Plans show a definite shift in favour of the poorer states. All the low income states, except Tamil Nadu, received Plan assistance higher than the average income of the 14 states taken into consideration at the time. This can certainly be attributed to the higher weightage given to per capita income as per the modification. Per capita income serves as a suitable proxy for changes in the economy. If the states are ranked according to their per capita income as well as their per capita Plan assistance and the rank correlation coefficient is worked out, it should give a fair idea of the effectiveness of the modified Gadgil Formula in terms of progressivity.


The rank correlation coefficients worked out for the four Plan periods are as follows:

Significant at 1 percent level

The low income states received better allocations during all the four Plan periods, as there is a negative correlation. However, for the Fourth and the Fifth Plans, the correlation coefficients are not significant, which shows that allocations in these periods were only marginally progressive. In the Sixth and the Seventh Plan periods, there was a marked improvement in the progressivity of Plan allocations, as can be deduced from the statistically significant correlation coefficients. Therefore, the modified Gadgil formula resulted in a more progressive distribution of Central Plan assistance. In the period spanning the beginning of the Fourth Plan to the Seventh Plan, the dependence of the states on Central Plan Assistance for financing their Plan outlays has been declining for all states. Despite this trend, the low income states depended heavily on Central Plan assistance for funding their outlays, despite this assistance increasing considerably after the modification made to the Gadgil formula.

Also, it has been seen that the states with a higher per capita outlay are usually the high income states. Therefore, unless the distribution of the Central Plan assistance is made sharply progressive, narrowing down of inter State differentials in per capita outlays will be impossible. While Plan outlays have increased by over nine times, Central Plan assistance has increased only by half the amount from the Fourth to the Seventh Plan period. This is the reason for persistent inter state inequality. The Centre has resorted to funding states for the implementation of Centrally Sponsored Schemes, which form 80 percent of Plan Assistance. This has led to the sidelining of the states’ own Plan outlays. Due to the problem of increasing gaps between the assistance provided and outlay of the states, calls for further revision of the Gadgil Formula increased, which resulted in the next revision of the formula in 1990.

Gadgil-Mukherjee Formula

The National Development Council (NDC) meeting held in October 11, 1990; discussed and approved a New Revised formula. The new revised formula is popularly known as Gadgil-Mukherjee formula after the name of then deputy chairman of Planning commission Dr. Pranab Mukherjee. The new revised formula as approved by NDC is given in the following table. Criteria for inter-state allocation of Plan Assistance.

Under the new revised formula, Population was given maximum weightage by considering it as most important factor for the allocation of central assistance, but in comparison with old Gadgil formula the weightage has been reduced by 5%. The share of Per Capita Income has increased from 20% to 25%. Out of 25%, 20% will continue to be allocated on the principle of The Deviation method (The per capita state domestic product is calculated by taking an average of per capita state domestic product whose actual data are available, for the latest three years.) to those states whose per capita income is below the average national per capita income and the rest 5% will be allocated to all states on the principle of The Distance method (The distance of per capita income of each state from the state which has the highest per capita income is calculated, then these values are multiplied with the respective value of the population of each state. This was done to meet the objections like, less developed states were allocated less and given low weightage, also the states whose per capita income were slightly higher than the average national per capita income, were deprived of share under this particular criterion.

Fiscal management, as a new criterion has been introduced with 5% weightage by discarding the earlier Tax effort criterion which was given 10% weightage in old Gadgil formula. Fiscal management criterion is to be assessed on the basis of a state’s actual resource mobilization for its plan in comparison with the target agreed upon the Planning Commission. Therefore this criterion is considered to be more comprehensive for fiscal efficiency than The Tax effort criterion. The Fiscal Management was given only 5% weightage due to the danger arises from the manner in which it is defined. It can develop an unhealthy competition among the states to show their resources less at the time of preparing initial resource estimates. The remaining 5% weightage of Tax effort has been given to The Special problems criterion due to which its weightage increased from 10% to 15%. The NDC has defined special problems under these seven heads:


i. Coastal areas
ii. Flood and drought prone areas
iii. Desert problems
iv. Special environmental issues
v. Exceptionally sparse and densely populated areas
vi. Problem of slums in urban areas
vii. Special financial difficulties for achieving minimum reasonable plan size.

By comparing the new revised Gadgil formula with the old Gadgil formula as a whole, only 85% of the total central assistance has been distributed on the basis of four well defined criteria, whereas, in the old Gadgil formula these criteria were given 90% weightage.

The Gadgil Formula in 2000

At the advent of the 21st century the formula was reviewed and the component of ‘performance’ by the respective states was adopted. The allocation accruing to the states under this head was 7.5 percent. Within this, 2.5 percent of the allocation was based on tax efforts of the states, 2 percent for fiscal management at state level and 1 percent for undertaking population control measures. Special attention was also paid to the sluggish improvements in female literacy and 1 percent allocation was set aside taking female literacy into account. Timely completion of externally funded projects and land reforms undertaken accounted for the remainder of the 7.5 percent figure.


Source : Wikipedia

--------------------

Centre State relations have always served as a question mark on the federal character of our constitution. The Gadgil formula is one of measures aimed at its minimisation.

Gadgil - 1

The Gadgil formula is due to D.R. Gadgil, the social scientist and the first critic of Indian Planning. It was evolved in 1969 for determining the allocation of central assistance for state plans in India. Gadgil formula was adopted for distribution of plan assistance during Fourth and Fifth Five Year Plans.

Gadgil Formula

The Gadgil formula was formulated with the formulation of the fourth five year plan for the distribution of plan transfers amongst the states. It was named after the then deputy chairman of the Planning Commission Dr. D R Gadgil. The central assistance provided for in the first three plans and annual plans of 1966-1969 lacked objectivity in its formulation and did not lead to equal and balanced growth in the states. The National development council (NDC) approved the following formula:

1. Special Category states like Assam, Jammu and Kashmir and Nagaland were given preference. Their needs should first be met out of the total pool of Central assistance.

2. The remaining balance of the Central assistance should be distributed among the remaining States on the basis of the following criteria:

(i) 60 per cent on the basis of population;

(ii) 10 per cent on the basis of tax effort, determined on the basis of individual State's per capita tax receipts as percentage of the State's per capita income;

(iii) 10 per cent on the basis of per capita State income, assistance going only to States whose per capita incomes are below the national average;

(iv) 10 per cent on the basis of spill-over into the Fourth Plan of major continuing irrigation and power projects;

(v) 10 per cent for special problems of individual States.

Reasoning behind the given weights:

i. Population

In a country like India population acts as an apt measure to represent the requirements of the people because a major portion of the population lives below the poverty line. This proposition was also supported by the empirical data which showed a negative correlation between population of states and their per capita income.

ii. Tax effort

This is an important factor to measure the potential of the state as far as its own resources are concerned. This relative measure incentivizes the states to undertake measures to increase their own potential through various tax measures.

iii. State per capita income

A problem regarding unequal development amongst the states was faced in the earlier plans because of larger states with their large plans were able to get a larger share of resources from the centre. This led to increased inequalities amongst the states. Therefore, to make the distribution fairer to the smaller states with a lesser than national per capita average income were given extra share in the resources.

iv. Special Problems

This factor was introduced so as to provide enough resources to states to overcome problems like droughts, famines etc. In the absence of this share, such states would have suffered huge losses because of these problems and the implementation of their plans could have been hindered. This was a discretionary element in the formula which required proper scrutiny of the states situation by the Finance Commission.

v. Irrigation and power projects

These projects have been in the process of implementation before the fourth plan was formulated. They needed extra resources for the successful completion of these projects.

Background

The offer of financial assistance from the centre to the states for implementing planned development has been an extremely important matter right from the beginning of the Indian Planning process. The constitution divides the responsibilities between the Union government and the state governments. There was an imbalance between responsibilities assigned to the states and the revenue resources possessed by them to carry out those responsibilities. The transfer of resources for development purposes under the Plans came to be made under Article 282 of the Constitution. The states were highly dependent on the Union government for financing their development plans because the extra resources on which states could bank on were largely concentrated with the Union government.

There was a need for a separate body to look into the division of resources. Therefore the finance commission was appointed in 1951 for the allocation of resources of revenue between the central and the state governments. It was held responsible for examining their liabilities, the resources of the states, their budgeted promises and the effort undertaken to fulfil their commitment. Each five year, the finance commission puts in its recommendations on the proportion of the total collections to be allocated to each of the states. The Planning Commission which was formed soon after the framing of the constitution of India looked into the problems of financing development, which had added to the old problem of financial relations. It came into being because the issue of formulating development plans and implement them efficiently for the development of the economy was not only a very important but also a necessary one. This commission provides for a settlement between the Centre and the states in two categories:

a) Division of revenues

b) Grants in special cases

The centre adds to state resources by conferring fixed percentage of revenue from taxation and from other sources to the states. However, this does not ensure a proper balance in distribution. There are states which are poorer or more backward than the others and therefore require central finances on a much larger scale than the others. This is why recommendations for special grants were introduced. Hence in this manner, the extra resources controlled by the centre were shared with the states to finance the state plans. However, this system in turn induced the states to undertake those schemes in which they got a higher share of the central finances and therefore a steady central assistance was given to the states for a planned period. The grants were supposed to be given to the states which did not have enough capital assets that would have earned them enough money to pay for loans taken from the centre. They were provided to the states outright according to their needs. But in reality, no correlation was found between grants and the need for them.

The first Five Year Plan had provision of only a marginal central assistance which did not play an important part. Due to this, in the second five year plan, substantial importance was given to it. And in the third five year plan, the states had laid more stress on planning and had become critical. In fact, they were given a choice set of various schemes with various proportions of grants and loans attached. This led to an obvious result. The states with larger resources and power could choose schemes with a greater share of grants in them. On the other hand, poor states had to finance almost all their plans by the loans given by the central government. Consequently, there were huge variations in the averages of grants and loans received by the states. A developed state which had resources got 40% as grants; an under-developed state which had no resources got 12% as grants while the average was 22% . The commissions did not have a distinct criteria which was used while allocation of resources. As a result, the states were dissatisfied when they realised that the larger states were getting a bigger share in the pie.

Problems faced

Therefore, in 1965 when the fourth plan was being thought of, the states demanded for a set of firm objective criteria for the distribution of central assistance. The planning commission left it on the states to decide on the criteria. But no agreement was reached in the National Development Council (NDC). Thus, the planning commission thought of an award system, where the finance commission had the discretion to award states in times of need after a proper scrutiny of their situation. In 1968, Planning Commission induced the state governments to come to an agreement. The system of varying proportions of grants and loans from scheme to scheme was abolished. Central assistance to states was now given uniformly in blocks. Each state got 70% loans and 30% grants. There was no special manoeuvrability and therefore no special advantage on the part of the bigger states. This type of settlement also faced problems because of the artificial division between the plan and the non-plan expenditures. The former type of expenditure was to be looked after by the finance commission awards and the latter by central assistance given by either NDC or the Planning Commission. The loan part which was given to the state had gotten accumulated and for some of the states the loan obligation and repayments were bigger than the assistance they got. In 1969, after the draft the fourth five year plan was presented, the Planning Commission officially discussed with the states the impact of the Finance Commission Awards on their finances. Great variations in the provision of these awards were witnessed amongst the states. Some states had a substantial surplus and other states could not even meet their budgetary responsibilities.

Another problem was of the ways and means advances. To overcome the temporary difficulties faced by the state governments, the Reserve Bank of India provided this facility so that the states could balance their balance sheet and remain solvent. This was the extra debt that was to be cleared quickly. After the droughts and famines hit India, states had huge overdrafts year after year. Therefore it was recommended by the Planning commission that resources must first be set aside for meeting the deficits of the states and then help in enabling states to put the new resources into their plans. This was an effort towards bringing non plan and plan expenditures together. This has partially helped in solving the problem of artificial division of expenditures into plan and non-plan expenditures.

The other problem was that the total division of resources did not lead to equality in the development in the states. The larger states with their own resources could have a larger plan and the states with less of own resources at their disposal could only have smaller plans. This led to unequal patterns of development in the country. This problem was partly solved by providing 10% of the total resources to states with lesser per capita income than the national average in the formula. This solution led to two other problems:

The states at the margin suffered a loss due to this as the state, even marginally upper than the national average could not avail of its rightful share

Even after giving no central assistance to certain states, their per capita plan expenditure was larger than those states which entirely depended on central assistance for the finance of their plans. And it was inevitable for the government not to give any central assistance to these states

The Gadgil Formula, though well intentioned, did not achieve much success in reducing inter State disparities. For instance, Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu, which came under the low income category at the time, received below average Plan assistance and Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, just managed to get Plan assistance equal to all the States’ average. Therefore, there was an increasing clamour for modification of the formula, especially from the economically backward states.

Source: Wikipedia

------------------------

This post talks about the Gadgil formula. Watch out for this space for the modified Gadgil formula.

 

Salwa Judum and the Supreme Court

http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-opinion/article2222834.ece

July 13, 2011 Salwa Judum and the Supreme Court - Madhav Khosla

The Supreme Court's decision in Nandini Sundar and Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh is no ordinary one and, unsurprisingly, it has invited mixed feelings. The Court declared the State of Chhattisgarh's appointment and arming of Special Police Officers (SPOs) to be unconstitutional, and many have taken pride in its defence of civil liberties. Simultaneously, though, there is some discomfort over the decision's grand rhetorical narrative and its seemingly ideological framing. The Court travelled considerable distance to attack the State's ‘amoral' economic policies and the “culture of unrestrained selfishness and greed spawned by modern neo-liberal economic ideology.” Animated though these views are, mixed feelings over the decision are largely unwarranted and it is important to explain why.

The Court's rhetoric in Nandini Sundar makes for lively conversations but it shouldn't obscure the significance of the order or the importance of the issues at stake. The central concern in the case was the State of Chhattisgarh's creation and arming of a civilian vigilante group — the ‘Salwa Judum' — in the battle against insurgencies by Maoist/naxalite groups. Thousands of tribal youth were being appointed by the State as SPOs, and allegedly being called to battle. For the State, this presented one of the only ways in which the Maoist threat could be met, and SPOs were defended as being merely guides and sources of intelligence; they were apparently provided firearms only for their self-defence.

The petitioners, on the other hand, argued that the true story was darker, the entire policy lacked legal sanction, and that it had led to gross violations of human rights in the Dantewada district and other parts of Chhattisgarh. The SPOs were being casually trained and armed, and were engaged in unrestrained acts of violence; all being carried out under a stealthily created legal framework.

One of the major legal troubles here was excessive delegation from the legislature to the executive. The SPOs were appointed under the Chhattisgarh Police Act, 2007. But the Chhattisgarh Police Act said little, leaving far too much in the hands of the executive. No details or limitations were provided on the number of SPOs who could be appointed, their qualifications, their training, or their duties. The blatant vagueness of the law stood, as the Court observed, in sharp contrast to the Indian Police Act, 1861, which also provides for SPOs. Despite being a colonial law, beset with its own problems, the Indian Police Act nonetheless contains certain safeguards. It requires, for instance, the appointment of SPOs to receive approval from a magistrate.

Contrary to the State's assertions, the Court found that SPOs were playing a major combat role in counter-insurgency operations, and that their brief was not limited to non-combative assignments. The Court's findings paint a disturbing picture. Youngsters, with poor training, were being recruited by the State to engage in dangerous and deadly operations. They lacked both the legal and professional education necessary for their tasks. In about two dozen, hour-long periods of instruction, they were trained in all relevant criminal laws such as the Indian Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the Indian Evidence Act. Another 12 hours were devoted to the Constitution and human rights. In fact, their education was so modest that the Court rejected the State's argument that the SPOs were being armed for self-defence on, inter alia , the ground that they did not even possess the necessary judgment to determine instances of self-defence.

In arguing its case, the State government put forth a desperate and churlish set of arguments. It sought to reduce its culpability by asserting that the youngsters appointed had voluntarily sought to engage in counter-insurgency operations, almost as if to suggest that it is consent which was at issue here. It further asserted that by providing such youngsters employment, the State was giving them livelihood and the promise of a better future. The Court was rightly aghast at such a suggestion, observing that it “cannot comprehend how involving ill-equipped, barely literate youngsters in counter-insurgency activities, wherein their lives are placed in danger, could be conceived under the rubric of livelihood.”

We often witness the Court making such majestic statements but in Nandini Sundar it walked the talk. These strong words were backed by strong remedies. The SPOs were expected to perform all the duties of police officers but were paid only an honorarium. This, and the arbitrary and vague nature of their appointment and functioning, was held to violate the equal protection guarantee in Article 14 of the Constitution. Article 21, the right to life clause, was also hit, as the State displayed insensitivity towards the lives of SPOs, placing them in danger without giving them the necessary education and support they needed. There was some clever craftsmanship here, but perhaps also a deeper point, with the Court regarding the SPOs as victims rather than perpetrators. The appointment of SPOs was thus struck down, and the State of Chhattisgarh was asked to “immediately cease and desist from using [them] in any manner or form.” The Union was also barred from funding the project; all arms were to be recalled; the SPOs were to be given appropriate security; and, most important, the State of Chhattisgarh was asked to ensure that no private group engaged in counter-insurgency activities. Finally, the Court ordered the Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate alleged acts of violence.

On each of these issues, the Court's view was crystal clear and powerfully articulated. The ratio of the interim order, i.e. the operative part of a legal decision which binds further state action and future cases, is carefully constructed, and holds important implications for the exercise of executive power. There are other legal aspects of the decision that merit reflection. Article 355 of the Constitution, an often forgotten provision, mandates that the Union ensure that every State government acts in accordance with the Constitution. The Court correctly criticised the Union's hands-off policy on SPOs, which involved funding the project but no follow through on how precisely these forces were functioning.

Sadly, though, these legal niceties have been nicely ignored in much of the public debate the judgment has triggered. Many commentators appear far too fascinated with the rhetorical flourish with which the decision begins, rather than the true legal character of the order. Admittedly, the widely publicised, ideologically-ridden narrative is bewildering and was unnecessary; it had no bearing on the dispute being debated. But it is also precisely for this reason that we ought not to belabour it. The affinities of individual judges can help us develop some sort of institutional sociology of the Supreme Court. Such a sociological study would be illuminating, but we mustn't confuse it with the legal impact of the case, and fail to appreciate the varying significance of these issues. The anti-neo-liberal lecture in the case binds no one, not even the judges themselves. The ideological position espoused in the preamble may have generated a fierce debate, yet the character of the battle against insurgency operations is more important than it. The ratio of the judgment in Nandini Sundar will outlive its rhetoric. Many have criticised the judges as being a little too judgmental. As we unpack the details of the decision, we ought not to be guilty of the same charge.

(The author is at the Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi.)

-------------------------------

The carefully constructed decision to disband the untrained force of young Special Police Officers in Chhattisgarh holds important lessons for the exercise of executive power.

Athens forgot a country isn't a company...

Athens forgot a country isn’t a company

NEETIKA KAUSHAL, MANSI KEDIA JAJU

Greece knocking on the doors of IMF and the EU for another 60 billion euros of assistance feels like déjà vu. About a year ago, these two institutions had jointly structured a bailout package of a whopping 110 billion euros for Athens. Bailout packages in the absence of structural adjustment treat only the symptoms and not the underlying disease. What Greece needs is serious restructuring that will necessarily involve major and tough lifestyle changes.

How did Greece come to such a pass? Available evidence has confirmed that Greece raised high levels of debt through fraudulent practices and misrepresentation of public data under the benign supervision, indeed connivance of the EU. It violated the EU Stability and Growth Pact’s budget deficit criterion (of no more than 3% of GDP) for the majority of the last decade, except in 2007-08. In order to cover its initial error of admitting Greece into the European Monetary Union (EMU), the EU has been compelled to humour Greece and often looked the other way when censure would have been the more appropriate response.

There are striking similarities between Greece and the few large and disgraced financial institutions that were the fountainhead of the recent economic meltdown. Many years ago, Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman had warned us of the dangers of running a country like a company in his celebrated Harvard article “a country is not a company”. The Greek crisis brings this debate to the forefront again. Is Greece being run like one of those collapsed corporations and if so, what dangers does this present?

We now have enough evidence to implicate a few of the large US-based financial institutions in the global financial crisis of 2008. The modus operandi, while not exactly a Ponzi scheme, used a series of questionable methods of misrepresenting financial statements and inflating profits to justify higher bonuses and compensation for company executives. Not only were the auditors hand in glove, as is usually the case in financial scams, so was the ‘revered’ economic policy establishment. Charles Ferguson has taken enormous pain and flack to demonstrate the involvement of key US economic decision-makers in the scam in his popular and frightening documentary Inside Job.

Long before the financial crisis, Greece had similarly manipulated national statistics (public debt, budget deficit, etc) to secure entry to the coveted EU in 1981 and to the EMU in 2001. On both occasions, it was frugal with ‘truth in reporting’ and concealed the dangerous levels of debt it had accumulated. The EU could have, but chose not to dig deeper into the quality of Greece’s statistics. Greece is one of the poorest members of the EU, with services contributing the lion’s share of its GDP (close to 75%), especially tourism, which accounts for about 15% of GDP. Despite its lack of diversity and competitive advantage, Greece has prospered due to subsidisation from other EU members (EU aid equals about 3.3% of its annual GDP) to boost its standard of living, which is much higher than what its current GDP would suggest. Perhaps, a decline of 30-40% in standard of living will generate adequate resources to repay the outstanding debt.

That ‘moral hazard’ played a critical role in both episodes is now a given. Greece and the financial institutions were reasonably confident of escaping in case of a default. Predictably, after the crisis the too-big-to-fail institutions were either bought or bailed out. Greece took advantage of its association with the EU, which in consultation with the IMF doled out a structured bailout package to relieve the government’s debt burden within days of the crisis being declared. In both cases, the inherent security of being rescued by a giant institution at the time of a crisis encouraged gluttony.

It is, of course, easier to gamble with someone else’s money. Most of the troubled financial institutions participated actively during the financial boom years of 2003-07, piling up huge amounts of subprime mortgages including bad loans. Company executives prospered while the companies sank. Similarly Greece, with the powerful EU backing it, improved its credibility and attracted vast amounts of foreign institutional investment. The profligacy of the Greek government increased when the EU membership gave it the luxury to raise new debt without worrying about higher interest rates.

Engaging in short-term profit maximisation is arguably a strategic and legitimate goal for a company, but clearly not for a country. Although borrowed billions allowed some Greeks to live beyond their means, it ultimately compromised economic stability, an indisputable objective of nation states. In a closed system that an economy is, excesses in one component quickly show up elsewhere, corroborating Krugman’s thesis that one cannot run a country as you would a company.

If Greece defaults on sovereign debt, as seems imminent, it will trigger a deep crisis in the world economy. CM Reinhart and K Rogoff note in This Time Is Different that Greece has spent half of the past two centuries in default. As against the US where only 3% of sovereign debt is held by financial institutions, in Europe almost 30% is held by European banks (including European central banks), insurance companies and pension funds. Following the European Bank Capital Regulation, these institutions treated the Greek sovereign debt as riskless reserves to hedge against riskier high-yielding assets. Such concentration of sovereign assets has raised alarms that banks may be undercapitalised to bear the losses in case of default, and generate a need for government recapitalisation. The Greek crisis will not only have a direct impact on the European countries but an additional indirect impact on emerging economies that trade extensively with the Eurozone. This not only threatens the future of EU but also increases the possibility of relapse into a global recessionary phase.

Given its history, it is unlikely that a second bailout will be adequate to address the problems facing Greece, unless packaged with austere regulatory and implementation measures to reduce the fiscal deficit. Moreover, it may trigger a domino effect where other failing countries like Portugal, Ireland will also approach EU for financial aid and, in turn, set poor precedence for other nations in the longer run. Whatever the outcome of this crisis, an enduring lesson is that while moral hazard plagues both countries and companies, the implications are vastly different. A company’s profligacy could end with its demise, whereas fiscal irregularities of governments could have profound social and economic ramifications on its own current and future generations. The crisis in Greece, hence, needs a much more serious intervention than that for bankrupt institutions but, much more importantly, the economy needs to be run with a deeper understanding of a closed system.

The authors are researchers at ICRIER

Types of Diplomacy - 2

-- This is a continuation of the post Types of Diplomacy - 1--

9. The term Multi-track diplomacy is based on the original distinction made by Joseph Montville in 1981 between official, governmental actions to resolve conflicts (track one) and unofficial efforts by non-governmental professionals to resolve conflicts within and between states (track two).

Track II diplomacy is a specific kind of informal diplomacy, in which non-officials (academic scholars, retired civil and military officials, public figures, and social activists) engage in dialogue, with the aim of conflict resolution, or confidence-building. This sort of diplomacy is especially useful after events which can be interpreted in a number of different ways, both parties recognize this fact, and neither side wants to escalate or involve third parties for fear of the situation spiraling out of control.

The informal nature of Track II diplomacy allows serious and potentially dangerous issues to be discussed in an open, non-official forum.

Lady Nixon viewing the Panda



10. Panda diplomacy is China's use of Giant Pandas as diplomatic gifts to other countries. The practice existed as far back as the Tang Dynasty, when Empress Wu Zetian (625–705) sent a pair of pandas to the Japanese emperor.

One highlight of panda diplomacy was the Chinese government's gift of two pandas, Ling-Ling and Hsing-Hsing, to the United States in 1972 after President Richard Nixon's historic visit to China (President Nixon reciprocated by sending back a pair of musk oxen). Upon the pandas' arrival in April 1972, First Lady Pat Nixon donated the pandas to the National Zoo in Washington, D.C., where she welcomed them in an official ceremony.

11. The concept of Para diplomacy refers to the international relations conducted by subnational, regional, local or non-central governments on their own, with a view to promoting their own interests. This feature appears to be an aspect of the overall process of globalisation, under which a number of non-state actors plays an increasingly influential role in the international arena. Regions, federal states, provinces and cities seek their way to promote trade, investments, cooperation and partnership in a long list of subjects and account for a significant part of today’s cross-borders contacts.

Other current denominations for paradiplomacy and related concepts are: “multilayered diplomacy”, “substate diplomacy” and “intermestic affairs” . This latter concept expresses a growing trend to the internationalization of domestic issues, which takes local and regional concerns to the centre stage of international affairs.

12. Ping pong diplomacy refers to the exchange of ping pong players between the United States and People's Republic of China (PRC) in the 1970s. The event marked a thaw in U.S.–China relations that paved the way to a visit to Beijing by President Richard Nixon.

Nixon and Mao



From the early years of the People's Republic, sports had played an important role in diplomacy, often incorporating the slogan "Friendship First, Competition Second". On April 10,1971 the team and accompanying journalists became the first American sports delegation to set foot in the Chinese capital since 1949. Nine American players, four officials, and two spouses stepped across a bridge from Hong Kong to the Chinese mainland and then spent their time during April 11–17 playing fun matches, touring the Great Wall and Summer Palace, and watching a ballet.

13. Preventive diplomacy is action to prevent disputes from arising between parties, to prevent existing disputes from escalating into conflicts and to limit the spread of the latter when they occur. It is an action taken in vulnerable places and times to avoid the threat or use of armed force and related forms of coercion by states or groups to settle the political disputes that can arise from the destabilizing effects of economic, social, political, and international change.

Preventive diplomacy actions can be implemented by the UN, regional organizations, NGO networks and individual states. Measures include: early warning, fact-findings, early deployment, demilitarized zone, confidence building measures.

14. Public Diplomacy refers to government-sponsored programs intended to inform or influence public opinion in other countries; its chief instruments are publications, motion pictures, cultural exchanges, radio and television.

One of the most successful initiatives which embodies the principles of effective public diplomacy is the creation by international treaty in the 1950s of the European Coal and Steel Community which later became the European Union. Its original purpose after World War II was to tie the economies of Europe together so much that war would be impossible. Supporters of European integration see it as having achieved both this goal and the extra benefit of catalysing greater international understanding as European countries did more business together and the ties among member states' citizens increased. Opponents of European integration are leery of a loss of national sovereignty and greater centralization of power.

15. Regional diplomacy refers to the conduct of relations between states that belong to an identifiable geographic region. Regional diplomacy (RD) has become a strong force in international relations. Globalization and interdependence have made all states aware, that neighborhood cooperation works to mutual benefit. Small countries see the benefit of numbers, for economic and political advantage.

Many regions attempt to emulate successful exemplars, such as the EU, and ASEAN, with varying degrees of success.

16. Science diplomacy is the use of scientific collaborations among nations to address the common problems facing 21st century humanity and to build constructive international partnerships. Many experts and groups use a variety of definitions for science diplomacy. It has, nonetheless, become an umbrella term to describe any number of formal or informal technical, research-based, academic or engineering exchanges.

In January 2010, the Royal Society and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) noted that "science diplomacy" refers to three main types of activities:

“Science in diplomacy”: Science can provide advice to inform and support foreign policy objectives.

“Diplomacy for science”: Diplomacy can facilitate international scientific cooperation.

"Science for diplomacy”: Scientific cooperation can improve international relations.

17. Shuttle diplomacy is the action of an outside party in serving as an intermediary between (or among) principals in a dispute, without direct principal-to-principal contact. Originally and usually, the process entails successive travel ("shuttling") by the intermediary, from the working location of one principal, to that of another.

The term was first applied to describe the efforts of United States Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, beginning November 5, 1973, which facilitated the cessation of hostilities following the Yom Kippur War.

Negotiators often use shuttle diplomacy when the one or both of two principals refuses recognition of the other prior to mutually desired negotiation.

18. Transformational Diplomacy is a diplomacy initiative championed by former United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for reinvigorating American Foreign Policy and the United States Foreign Service.

Rice's Transformational Diplomacy involved five core elements:

a) Relocating American diplomats to the places in the world where they are needed most, such as China, India, Brazil, Egypt, Nigeria, Indonesia, South Africa, and Lebanon.

b) Requiring diplomats to serve some time in hardship locations such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, and Angola; gain expertise in at least two regions; and become fluent in two foreign languages, such as Chinese, Arabic, or Urdu.

c) Focusing on regional solutions to problems like terrorism, drug trafficking, and diseases.

d) Working with other countries on a bilateral basis to help them build a stronger infrastructure, and decreasing foreign nations' dependence on American hand-outs and assistance.

e) Creating a high-level position, Director of Foreign Assistance, to oversee U.S. foreign aid managed by the two agencies that manage the majority of foreign aid, the Department of State and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). However this new entity would not directly supervise foreign aid managed by other U.S. Government agencies or departments such as the Department of Defense or the Department of Agriculture.


Source: Wikipedia

-----------------------

If you wish to add more on types of diplomacy, you can mail Indira Mukherjee at indianpolicy2010@gmail.com

Types of Diplomacy - 1

Last week, I read about various types of Diplomacy over the net and found it so interesting that I thought of compiling a short piece on them. There are more categories but I have chosen 18 [ evident from the image below ] - 8 will be discussed in this post and the remaining 10 in the next. For the sake of simplicity, I have arranged them alphabetically.

1. Citizen diplomacy is the political concept of average citizens engaging as representatives of a country or cause either inadvertently or by design. Citizen diplomacy may take place when official channels are not reliable or desirable; for instance, if two countries do not formally recognize each other's governments, citizen diplomacy may be an ideal tool of statecraft. Citizen diplomacy does not have to be direct negotiations between two parties, but can take the form of: scientific exchanges, cultural exchanges, and international athletic events.

One of the pioneers of citizen diplomacy, physicist Robert W. Fuller, traveled frequently to the Soviet Union in the 1970s and 1980s in the effort to alleviate the Cold War.

The phrase "citizen diplomacy" was first coined by David Hoffman in an article about Dr. Fuller's work which appeared in Co-Evolution Quarterly in 1981.

2. Cowboy diplomacy is a term used by critics to describe the resolution of international conflicts through brash risk-taking, intimidation, military deployment, or a combination of such tactics. It is criticized as stemming from an overly-simple, dichotomous world view. Overtly provocative phraseology typically centralizes the message, such as George W. Bush's "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists."

One of the earliest known applications of the term was in 1902, when it was used by Jackie Lawlor from Westford, Massachustts and the American press to describe U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt's foreign policies. Roosevelt had at the time summarized his approach to international diplomacy as "Speak softly and carry a big stick".

The idea of negotiating peacefully, simultaneously threatening with the "big stick", or the military, ties in heavily with the idea of Realpolitik, which implies an amoral pursuit of political power that resembles Machiavellian ideals.

This is also called Big Stick diplomacy.

3. Cultural diplomacy specifies a form of diplomacy that carries a set of prescriptions which are material to its effectual practice; these prescriptions include the unequivocal recognition and understanding of foreign cultural dynamics and observance of the tenets that govern basic dialogue.

It is the exchange of ideas, information, art, lifestyles, values systems, traditions, beliefs and other aspects of cultures.

4. Dollar diplomacy is the term used to describe the effort of the United States — particularly under President William Howard Taft — to further its aims in Latin America and East Asia through use of its economic power by guaranteeing loans made to foreign countries. The term was originally coined by President Theodore Roosevelt. It was also used in Liberia, where American loans were given in 1913. It was then known as a dollar diplomacy because of the money that went into being able to have soldiers paid without any fighting; as most people would say was quite small wage.

The term is also used historically by Latin Americans to show their disapproval of the role that the U.S. government and U.S. corporations have played in using economic, diplomatic and military power to open up foreign markets.

5. Economic diplomacy is concerned with economic policy issues, e.g. work of delegations at standard setting organizations such as World Trade Organization (WTO). Economic diplomats also monitor and report on economic policies in foreign countries and give the home government advice on how to best influence them. Economic diplomacy employs economic resources, either as rewards or sanctions, in pursuit of a particular foreign policy objective. This is sometimes called "economic statecraft".

Economic diplomacy is traditionally defined as the decision-making, policy-making and advocating of the sending state-business interests. Economic diplomacy requires application of technical expertise that analyze the effects of a country's (Receiving State) economic situation on its political climate and on the sending State's economic interests.

6. The term Facebook diplomacy was coined sometime in October 2008 in casual notes exchanged on Twitter, in connection to U.S. President Barack Obama's electoral political campaign's keen use of Facebook and other social network websites. The term Facebook diplomacy was further introduced and elaborated to describe the potential 'soft power' that can be created with Internet social networking tools like Facebook to counter terrorism, and interfere with repressive governments and militant groups in a discussion at a social networking and technology conference in December 2008 in New York.

In general, Facebook diplomacy is a user created hybrid of public diplomacy and citizen diplomacy as applied in the Facebook social networking platform, other lesser known terms that have also evolved here in this diplomacy category include Twitter diplomacy, Google diplomacy and digital diplomacy.

7. Freelance Diplomacy is a form of self-financing diplomatic representation used by countries who as a general rule, could not afford to hire expert diplomatic consultants full time.

A 'Freelance Diplomat' is hired for a specific task or may sometimes be contracted on a permanent basis to run a Delegation, Mission or Embassy. They may also used to promote investment into the country they work for. It is understood to be a performance based relationship, where the diplomat is paid on results only.

Prominent Freelance Diplomats include:

Carne Ross former British diplomat.
Colin Evans recognized to be the world's leading trade diplomat.
Jimmy Carter former President of the United States.

SMS Panther



8. In international politics, Gunboat diplomacy refers to the pursuit of foreign policy objectives with the aid of conspicuous displays of military power — implying or constituting a direct threat of warfare, should terms not be agreeable to the superior force. The term comes from the period of colonial imperialism, where the European powers would intimidate other states into granting trade or other concessions (unequal treaties) through a demonstration of their superior military power.

Notable example is The Agadir Crisis, also called the Second Moroccan Crisis, or the Panthersprung, was the international tension sparked by the deployment of the German gunboat Panther, to the Moroccan port of Agadir on July 1, 1911.

Source: Wikipedia

-----------------------------------

Indira Mukherjee found Cowboy and Gunboat diplomacy particulary interesting. Watch out for the next post which talks about Shuttle, Ping Pong and Panda Diplomacy.