The Modi Era Begins by Manoj Thulasidas

Table of contents

Meet Modi’s Cabinet Modi cabinet lacks wow factor: But here’s why it’s promising

Minimum government is not the same as Modi’s lean govt

Picking Heptullah, Baliyan: Is this Modi secularism at work?

Media and Narendra Modi’s cabinet: How he did a Steve Jobs

HRD for Smriti, 1 berth for Sena: Mysteries of Modi cabinet solved

From Cabinet to swearing-in: How PM Modi sticks to weapon of surprise

Some Early Stumbles Muslims are not minorities: Najma’s right, timing is wrong

Article 370: Why the debate shouldn’t be about J&K alone

Smriti vs Madhu debate: It’s okay to ask why Irani got the job

Repealing Article 370: Why J&K’s special status is a political tinderbox

Sena tantrum: What Uddhav doesn’t get about the Modi govt

The Indo-Pak Win-Win Why Modi-Sharif meet is a ray of hope for Indo-Pak ties

Welcome mat for Sharif is ok, but we shouldn’t let our guard down

Modi needs to put Pakistan on back burner for now

Meet Modi’s Cabinet

Modi cabinet lacks wow factor:

But here’s why it’s promising R Jagannathan May 27, 2014

admit to have been a trifle underwhelmed by Narendra Modi's choice of ministers. If one sets aside the all-star cast at the top Rajnath Singh, Arun Jaitley, Nitin Gadkari and Sushma Swaraj - and some promising artistes lower down the order (Smriti Irani, Piyush Goyal, Harsh Vardhan), there was no wow factor to the ministry. (For the full cabinet list, read here) How, I thought, was Modi going to deliver with this motley bunch, given the electorate's skyhigh expectations?

ing his second-rung ministers from relatively obscure quarters and paying little heed to the claims of people with bigger reputations and egos, Modi has effectively flung a challenge to both his stars and his newbies. The new ministers, given a big chance now, will not only owe allegiance to Modi, but will be fighting to prove their worth. And the high-profile stars who will be handling finance, home, et al, will find that they have to try even harder to maintain their reputations. Modi has effectively flung the gauntlet to his own team: show me that you can deliver.

One would have also expected to see competent people like Arun Shourie and Suresh Prabhu in the ministry - they were among the best performers in the Vajpayee cabinet. Why didn't they make it in a BJP government that isn't exactly spoilt for choice in terms of talent? And what do you make of choices like Narendra Singh Tomar, Thawar Chand Gehlot, Sarbananda Sonowal, Shri Nihalchand, GM Siddeswara, Mansukhbhai Vasava, Raosaheb Danve, Vishnu Deo Sai or Krishan Pal? Who are these people, and how did Modi even come by these names? But then, a day later, I am more optimistic about Team Modi. Reason: a team becomes a team only if big egos do not get in the way of performance and every member believes he has something to prove and contribute. It's like the Avis ad: "We're No 2, so we try harder". By pick-

There are, of course, other reasons why Modi may have done what he did. For example, by putting fresh faces in key ministries like railways (Sadananda Gowda), HRD (Smriti Irani), agriculture (Radha Mohan Singh), petroleum (Dharmendra Pradhan), commerce and industry (Nirmala Sitaraman), power and coal (Piyush Goyal), Modi has done a smart thing: the new ministers will effectively be led by Modi's own preferences in these sectors and will be eager to implement his policies. These are, effectively, ministries that Modi will influence directly or indirectly. He can challenge them to come up with great ideas, but he will guide them in the direction he wants. Even smarter, Modi has put many untested leaders in full charge of their ministries, even while attaching them to some larger ministries. For example, Nirmala Sitaraman is in independent charge of commerce and industry, but she will be minister of state in Arun Jaitley’s finance ministry, handing corporate affairs and finance; Gen VK Singh is minister of state with independent charge of the north-east, but he will be under Sushma Swaraj handing external affairs and overseas Indian affairs; Prakash Javadekar has independent charge of the Information and Broadcasting ministry and also environment and forests, but he also gets parCopyright © 2012 Firstpost

liamentary affairs, where he will operate under Venkaiah Naidu. This is innovation, Modi-style. By giving his junior ministers both independent charge as well as a reporting structure in other areas, Modi has ensured two things: the ministers have areas where they can make a mark, but they have to also learn to work together for the larger good. For the senior ministers, this is a double-challenge – they have to learn to engage and ensure the cooperation of their junior ministers and not just assume they can tell them what to do. Also, they know that their own performance will be measured by the yardstick set for their junior ministers. If the junior ministers outperform the seniors in the areas of independent charge, they may get promoted. Never have the stars been put on watch on strongly. Where do the allies get into the Modi scheme of things? Once again, Modi has done clever things. There are only four allies in government as of now - one each from the Akalis (Harsimrat Kaur), Telugu Desam (Ashok Gajapati Raju), LJP (Ram Vilas Paswan), and Anant Geete (Shiv Sena). The message is clear: even for allies, performance is the key to more responsibility. This message has been sent by giving some of the BJP ministers extra ministries to handle – which obviously will be shed when the ministry is expanded. The allies have to work for obtaining more ministries. The Modi ministry also subtly reinforces the Prime Minister’s statement that he wants to

develop India in a partnership with the states, especially state Chief Ministers. Portfolios like agriculture, rural development, urban development, food, women and child development, food processing, social justice, tribal affairs, education and health cannot be driven purely by the centre. These are largely within the legislative powers of states, and if the centre wants anything done, it has to work with the states and not impose schemes from above. This is where the UPA failed – it imposed legislation (food security, land acquisition) from above, and the states took the centre’s money without being grateful for it. Thanks, but no thanks. By putting low-profile, low-ego ministers in charge of some of these ministries, Modi has probably tried to ensure that his ministers do not get into needless tussles with state governments, especially if they are run by opposition parties. Putting a combative and free-talking Gadkari in charge of urban development could have led to more tussles with states than a Venkaiah Naidu; a Radha Mohan Singh in agriculture would be less likely to develop airs about his importance than someone with a higher profile. There is clearly a method to Modi’s choices. There may be no wow factor to the cabinet, but there is a new energy in it. A wow factor would have ended up raising expectations ever further, and Modi has ensured that his team is less preoccupied with show than substance. Good move.

Minimum government is not the same as Modi’s lean govt Seetha May 28, 2014

arendra Modi's 45-ministry government has attracted a lot of attention. It is also being hailed as the first step in what could be his signature style of governance – minimum government, maximum governance. Sorry, but it isn't.

Modi's government is certainly a lean government, but it isn't a minimum government. Let's not confuse the two concepts. A lean government is about size and numbers. A minimal government is about a philosophy, a certain view of the role of the state. A minimal state, as defined in the classical liberalism lexicon, is about the state confining itself to just a few areas. There is consensus on two – defence of external boundaries and enforcing law and order as well as upholding the rule of law. There are departures from this point on details. Some liberal streams include the provision of public goods as a responsibility of the state and there are differences on the definition of public goods as well. But the broad point is this: the state should not get into too many areas and most definitely not in areas where people are able to manage their own affairs through their own individual enterprise.

India is not familiar with the idea of a minimal government. Before 1947, it was used to a colonial-feudal set up and post 1947 that got converted into a mai-baap sarkar. The state kept assuming more and more responsibilities till it was present in practically every aspect of the lives of individual and enterprises, riding roughshod over personal and economic freedoms. And yet the size of the government remained relatively small. Indira Gandhi, remember, ran lean governments. The unwieldy size of ministries is a post-seventies phenomenon. Remember also that gargantuan cabinets continued even after 1991 even as the command-and-control economy structure got steadily dismantled. It was only the Swatantra Party that came close to articulating the idea of a minimal state. The second of the 21 principles of the party stated: '...The party stands for the principle of maximum freedom for the individual and minimum interference by the state consistent with the obligation to prevent and punish anti-social activities, to protect the weaker elements of society and to create the conditions in which individual initiative will thrive and be fruitful...'. It is unfortunate that the party did not get much traction. Modi's government doesn't quite pass this test. It will if his government decides that the state should not be running hotels, airlines and providing telecom services and gets rid of the public sector in these areas. Instead, Modi talks about strengthening public sector undertakings. It is not clear if the government will pursue an aggressive disinvestment agenda. It will pass with flying colours if the information and broadcasting ministry, steel ministry, culture ministry and the Planning Commission were disbanded. These are clearly, clearly relCopyright © 2012 Firstpost

ics of the socialist era. There are a host of other ministries that could make it to the axing list, but changing their role instead into a more of facilitating/regulatory role can be a subject of debate. Closing down these four is a complete no-brainer; no debate is needed. There are some who argue that since the increase in the role of the state led to the unwieldy size of the government, limiting the size of the government will automatically result in a reduced role for the state, since administration will be a challenge otherwise. This argument is flawed. One, as already noted, Indira Gandhi ran a tight ship but one which was omnipresent and omniscient. Two, reducing the number of ministries and departments will not lead to shedding of work. On the other hand, technology can make it easier for the state to have its tentacles everywhere â&#x20AC;&#x201C; far, far more easier than in the seventies. Though Modi's minimum government maximum governance idea does talk about the government moving from an interventionist to a facilitating role, the focus is more about using

technology to speed up processes, clearances and permissions and make them transparent. It does not question the need for the myriad procedures that any interface with the government involves. It does not question the number of points of interface with the government. It is about making the government efficient in its current role, not about questioning its role. Maybe that will come. Maybe Modi will realise that the problem with governance in India is that the state/government has taken on far more responsibilities beyond what should be its core responsibility of defence, law and order, upholding the rule of law and provision of public goods. Maybe he will realise the need for the state to focus on just these and do its job well. Modi must be persuaded into making the 45-ministry government the first step of an ideological leap of faith. A small government must also mean a small, but effective, state. Seetha is a senior journalist and author.

Picking Heptullah, Baliyan: Is this Modi secularism at work? Lakshmi Chaudhry May 27, 2014

s news reports dissect the number of women, the age and the regional affiliations of Prime Minister Narendra Modi's cabinet, the two names that seem to have escaped intense scrutiny are that of Najma Heptullah and Sanjeev Baliyan. The former has been appointed as the Minority Welfare minister, while Baliyan is the Minister of State in the ministries of Agriculture and Food Processing Industries.

Both represent, in different ways, the most disappointing picks in the Modi cabinet. Let's start with Heptullah, perhaps best known for publicly defecting to the BJP party after publicly denouncing Sonia Gandhi's leadership of the Congress party in 2004. She was one of the most prominent anti-parivar voices long before Modi came along. Heptullah has held several senior parliamentary positions during her long stint in the Rajya Sabha, and was promoted to party vice-president under Nitin Gadkari, a post she lost after falling out of favour with Rajnath Singh. Modi now has elevated her to the ministerial ranks, but in a manner that reduces a distinguished politician to a mere carrier of minority identity. The sole Muslim in the cabinet has been put in charge of minority affairs -- a dou-

ble whammy of tokenism. Surely, Modi could have found better use for Heptullah's talents, especially when he has been willing to bet bigger on far less tested faces, including the young Smriti Irani. If Modi included Najma as a gesture toward inclusion, then he ought to have entrusted her with a ministry that reflected her talent not her identity. Isn't that what Modi's version of secularism is all about? Why undermine that symbolism by relegating her to a ministry that signals Heptullah is on the cabinet not due to her skills or reputation but because of her religious identity? The message here seems to be: This is all Muslims are good for, looking after their minority interests, not those of the nation. Sanjeev Baliyan represents a different kind and order of error. The Muzaffarnagar MP is one of the accused in the recent riots. According to a Times of India report, "Baliyan was part of a mahapanchayat in September 2013 which was held despite prohibitory orders and allegedly inflamed tensions. UP police charged him with violation of prohibitory orders and promoting enmity between two communities." Baliyan won by a margin of close to 4 lakh votes in the 2014 Lok Sabha Elections. It is no secret that the BJP effectively won in the Muzaffarnagar-riot stricken area thanks to the polarisation of votes. In fact Baliyan had told the Hindu Business Line during the campaign that he was confident of getting 100 percent of the Jat vote. The party has predictably defended Baliyan and other Muzaffarnagar accused in the past, claiming that they were falsely charged under the National Security Act. BJP legislators Sangeet Som and Suresh Rana, among Baliyan's co-accused, were felicitated on stage at a Modi rally in Agra -- though they were careful to do it before Modi himself arrived. But in choosing Baliyanâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;from the 72 MPs from UPâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;Modi erased even that Copyright ÂŠ 2012 Firstpost

modicum of distance. And he has done so without any pretext about proven talent or background. Baliyan trained as a veterinarian and later shifted to real estate two years ago, when he also joined the BJP. So this isn't a reward for long proven loyalty either. For months now, Modi supporters have claimed

that his Hindutva signalling was just a campaign ploy, and that he would quickly pivot to a more inclusive and centrist position once he attained power. What Heptullah's portfolio and Baliyan's presence reveal is that Modi has neither learnt how to include minorities or to exclude the polarisers. Let's hope he learns soon.

Media and Narendra Modi’s cabinet:

How he did a Steve Jobs Anant Rangaswami, May 27, 2014

n a piece titled, “Steve Jobs's 7 Rules for Working the Media” , the author, Erik Sherman listed the following rules:

1) Be secretive 2) Pick your favourites 3) Punish those who don't cooperate 4) Learn how to leak 5) Plant disinformation 6) Perfect your presentations 7) Have something worth writing about

confidently asserting that various people, including Arun Shourie and E Sreedharan would find places in the cabinet. Now it seems that it was just disinformation, as highlighted in Rule 5. As far as Rule 6 is concerned, all those who have attended or seen (on TV) presentations at various Gujarat government events such as Vibrant Gujarat or Gujarat International finance Teccity (GIFT) would agree that great attention is paid to detail. The running of the election meetings, including the use of holographic images of Narendra Modi, underline the importance Modi pays to presentations. Modi, thanks to his secrecy, selective leaks and disinformation, ensures that media always finds him worth writing about, ticking off Rule 7. Finally, we come back to Rule 3. Modi has made it clear that he has his favourites – and his unfavourites in the media. Will we see Modi being interviewed by Karan Thapar again? Unlikely, unless it suits Modi.

Yesterday, the media had been speculating ad nauseam on a) how many ministers will be sworn in today b) who these ministers will be c) the portfolios that each minister will get

The media needs to do significant homework before they tackle Modi. The easiest way, of course, is what a lot of media professionals are trying to do now: working to get picked by Modi as a favourite.

The confusion and the conflicting reports about the cabinet that ruled the airwaves yesterday make it clear that Modi is a strong believer in Rule 1, being secretive. Now that the official announcement is made, we know the favourites that Modi has picked, following Rule 2. It is also a demonstration of Rule 4. We now know the extent of leaks and to whom these leaks were made to, with Times Now leading the pack. Over the past few days, we have seen the media Copyright © 2012 Firstpost

HRD for Smriti, 1 berth for Sena: Mysteries of Modi cabinet solved Sanjay Singh, 28, 2014

hen Narendra Modi met his ministers hours before they took the oath of office in the forecourts of majestic Rashtrapati Bhawan, his message was simple: Power should no longer be taken as a perk of office.

and our organisation’s historic triumph. The size of the ministries of so many of us will be bigger than ever before, but then the realisation of challenges, the tasks that lay before us was so overwhelming,” a newly appointed minister told Firstpost. The allocation of portfolios, officially released at around 9.45 am, suggest that the ability to deliver has been the abiding criteria. Arun Jaitley should be one of the busiest persons on earth, managing three important portfolios: Finance, Corporate Affairs and Defence. In less than a month’s time, Jaitley has to present his maiden budget, the first major policy statement of Modi government. While it is good to have corporate affairs merged with the Finance but the Defence ministry will surely need a full time minister in due course.

He didn’t talk about the power and the authority that a ministerial office brings but of the tremendous responsibilities they now bear. The nation had great expectations from all of them and their task was to fulfill those expectations. They should all expect to work for long hours, he said. Modi didn’t specify the hours but he made sure to tell them how he works, starting his day at 5.30 am and remaining at work till past midnight.

Portfolios of other party heavyweights are broadly on the expected lines, Rajnath Singh gets Home, Sushma Swaraj has Overseas Indian Affairs ministry combined with External Affairs ministry, Nitin Gadkari has Road Transport, Highways and Shipping, combined in one. Venkaiah Naidu has Urban Development, Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation, Parliamentary Affairs.

In a parliamentary form of democracy, the Prime Minister is considered the first among equals, but the 15th Prime Minister of India is more like a tough result-oriented head master or a growth-obsessed CEO. The ministers will get expert assistance from designated quarters but will have to meet set targets and goals.

The senior most BJP general secretary Ananth Kumar has been allocated the relatively less important Chemicals and Fertilizers. His name is 13th on the official press communiqué issued by the PIB. Rajnath Singh’s name, is of course on the top, signalling his position as notional Number Two in the Government, followed by Sushma Swaraj, Arun Jaitley, Venkaiah Naidu, Nitin Gadkari and so on.

This is perhaps one reason why the 45 chosen ones from the BJP and NDA benches who took oath of office at the Rashtrapati Bhavan looked so grim in a moment of joy. “We indeed were very happy. It was moment of personal glory

If one compares Ananth Kumar’s position -- or for that matter Kalraj Mishra’s Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises portfolio -- with that of youngest first time inductee Smriti Irani’s heavyweight HRD portfolio, the message is loud Copyright © 2012 Firstpost

and clear. What mattered more than seniority was the capacity to deliver and being in sync with Prime Minister’s vision. Smriti will preside over a ministry that has been held by the likes of PV Narshimha Rao (last ministry held before he became PM), Murli Manohar Joshi, Arjun Singh and Kapil Sibal. And yes, there is an inherent message for Gandhi family in her ascension. Next time nobody will ask Smriti who? Modi has made sure that everyone now knows her name. Ananth Kumar’s rise was attributed to LK Advani’s fondness for him. So was that of Venkaiah Naidu. Though both of them are energetic and committed to party’s ideals but Naidu’s exclusion from the Big Four and Kumar’s downgraded portfolio is yet another manifestation of demise of Advani era. Equally interesting is exclusion of Rajiv Pratap Rudi who defeated Rabri Devi in Chapra. Rudi, party general secretary and former civil aviation minister, had grown in stature as a stylish youthful politician because of the patronage of late Bhairon Singh Shekhawat and then Rajnath Singh. Modi, however, was said to be unhappy with his handling of affairs in Maharastra, where he was party’s in-charge. Modi instead chose a relative low key former Bihar BJP president Radha Mohan Singh (he and Rudi are from same Rajput community) to be his agriculture minister. Singh succeeds a UPA heavyweight Sharad Pawar in that ministry. Choice of the likes of Nirmala Sitharaman, Prakash Javdekar, Piyush Goel, Kiren Rijiju from Arunachal Pradesh Sarbananda Sonowal from Assam and Manoj Sinha from UP as ministers reflect Modi’s principle of rewarding merit. Sitharaman and Javdekar are not even MPs but both of them work diligently and deliver on tasks given to them. They will be inducted into Rajya Sabha from Karanataka and Madhya Pradesh where one regular vacancy and one causal vacancy are coming up. Javdekar will hold Information and Broadcasting (Independent Charge) Environment, Forest and Climate Change (Independent Charge) and Parliamentary Affairs. Sitharaman will have Commerce and Industry (Independent Charge) Finance, Corporate Affairs.

It is also interesting that almost all ministers of state (Independent charge) will work as a deputy to a senior minister, apart from handling of ministry, which they would command independently. Rijiju, for example, will be deputy to Rajnath Singh. He was considered a bright spark when he first became an MP in 1999 when Vajapee was in power. He was party secretary but quit BJP in 2009 to join Congress, but returned to BJP three years later. He has been consistent in raising issues relating to Chinese aggression in Arunachal Pradesh. Sarbananda Sonowal from Assam, the former All Assam Students Union President has been on the forefront in raising illegal immigrant issue. Manoj Sinha, a former BHU president, though a two time MP was initially not keen to contest these elections but was convinced by Amit Shah to fight the elections from Ghazipur. He won. He is a Bhumihar and was chosen over CP Thakur, Giriraj Singh and Bhola Singh of same community. Sinha will be MoS in the Railway ministry. The party is finding it difficult to explain why states like Rajasthan, Gujarat, Uttarkhand, Himachal Pradesh, which gave the party a clean sweep, have been so badly neglected. Shiv Sena and TDP are unhappy as they have just one representative in the Cabinet despite such a strong performance. Sources said a cabinet expansion should take place sometime next month -- may be after the inaugural session of 16th Lok Sabha -- to take care of regional imbalance and allies’ grouses, Shiv Sena and TDP included. And to end, here is one more interesting data point about Modi’s cabinet. The number of sworn-in ministers is 45; one more than the total number of Congress MPs.

From Cabinet to swearing-in: How

PM Modi sticks to weapon of surprise Dhiraj Nayyar, 27, 2014

hat Prime Minister Narendra Modi is a supremely gifted politician is unarguable. In the last week, since he won an unprecedented mandate to govern India, he has unleashed a potent new weapon from his political armoury. It’s called the element of surprise. It might yet become his most powerful tool as he moves from campaign mode to the tough business of Government. He will use it to wrong-foot his foes and sometimes his friends. He will equally use it to win friends and allies when you least expect him to.

Consider how Modi defied conventional wisdom by inviting the heads of all SAARC governments to his swearing-in. By inviting Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, he stunned and no doubt stunted (the power of) the hawks of the Sangh Parivar. By welcoming Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa, he snubbed his own allies in TamilNadu. Whichever way you look at it, he seized the initiative and drew a clean slate for his foreign policy in the neighbourhood when everyone else (including the leaderships of neighbouring countries) expected him to be hardline. There were surprises in store in Cabinet formation. For the first time, one in every four Cabinet ministers is a woman. And if reports are to be believed, some of the women in the council

of ministers hold weighty portfolios like External Affairs (Sushma Swaraj), Human Resources Development (Smriti Irani) and Commerce (Nirmala Sitharaman). This isn’t tokenism. And it is a surprise from a Prime Minister who has often been criticised for being patronising (rather than empowering) towards women. Add to that list, the appointment of Anandiben Patel as Chief Minister of Gujarat and the possible appointment of Sumitra Mahajan as Lok Sabha speaker and you see how Modi has quickly emerged as a champion of women’s empowerment, pulling the carpet from under Rahul Gandhi’s feet. The composition of his council of ministers also shows how Modi has sprung an element of surprise by cleverly mixing competence and ‘accommodation’. Contrary to speculation, he did not induct any non-party technocrats, not even those who have been ministers before like Arun Shourie or Suresh Prabhu. He inducted some people who have less than satisfactory past records in ministerial positions – like Uma Bharti, Maneka Gandhi, even Ananth Kumar. But then, if reports are correct, he assigned those “accommodated” for purely political considerations relatively low profile ministries, whether Water Resources to Bharti, Women and Child welfare to Gandhi, Heavy Industries to Kalraj Mishra or Minority Affairs to Najma Heptullah. In the crucial economic ministries, those which will have to deliver if he is to fulfill his mandate for change, he chose younger, more competent faces like Nitin Gadkari for Transport, Piyush Goel for Power and Coal, Sadanand Gowda for Railways, Prakash Javdekar for Environment and Forests, Smriti Irani for Education and Harsh Vardhan for Health. These younger, fresher faces, grateful for the high profile jobs they have been handed, are more likely to be responsive to Modi’s leadership. Of course, Modi did not take any risks with the top 4 jobs of Finance, Hone, Defence and External Affairs, but Copyright © 2012 Firstpost

he may yet spring a surprise when he appoints a full time Defence Minister. What is becoming clear is that Modi isn’t going to govern by any textbook. The element of surprise in his armoury – over the last ten days, he has sent the press corps into a dizzy spin with an almost “no-leaks” style of operation – will lend that extra edge of dynamism to a Modi administration. His critics, the opposition, even the leaderships of other countries, can try and slot him into convenient classifications (hawk, right-winger, authoritarian etc) but they would be making a grave mistake. Even his supporters would be foolhardy to pigeon-hole him. With Prime Minister Modi, there are likely to be several surprises around every corner. To keep pace, everyone has to start thinking out of the box. PS: In keeping with Modi's style, it would not be a surprise if some of the portfolio allocations mentioned in this piece turn out different when officially announced.

Some Early Stumbles

Muslims are not minorities: Najma’s right, timing is wrong R Jagannathan, 29, 2014

ajma Heptulla, the new minority affairs minister in the Modi government, surely kicked up a hornets' nest when she said it would not be right to term Muslims as minorities. She said her ministry was not a Muslim affairs ministry. Her exact quote runs thus, according to Mint: “This is not a ministry for Muslim affairs, but ministry of minority affairs. Muslims are not a minority. In fact, the Parsis are a minority and their number is dwindling. They need help so that do not diminish.”

will be seen as representing the regime's views rather than her own personal ones. In the context of deep Muslim suspicions about a Modi government, the statement is unlikely to set perceptional issues about the BJP at rest. The right time to bring up the definition of minorities would have been when Modi's policy of treating all Indians as equal citizens has had some time to play out and its impact recognised as genuine and non-discriminatory. That time is not yet. However, we do need to have this debate, and since Heptulla has already raked it up, there is no reason to pretend it is irrelevant. I believe that the concept of minority is the most abused one in the Indian context. Currently, a minority is only defined by arithmetic: if your population is less than 50 percent you are a minority. It doesn’t matter what the actual size of your population is. Look at the absurdity of it all in the Muslim context.

What she said was right, but politically unwise, for it left people wondering whether she was trying to align her views with that of the BJP and whether the new government has a hidden agenda on Muslims. At the outset, let us be clear that what Heptulla said was on the same lines as her grand uncle Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, Education Minister in Nehru's cabinet. He stoutly opposed partition and saw Indian Muslims as the country's second majority. Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, founder of the Aligarh Muslim University and father of the Muslim modernity project, called Hindus and Muslims "two eyes" of the nation - that is, equal and second to none. Heptulla was unwise to say what she did because as part of a BJP-led NDA ministry she

First, with a population of around 180 million, Muslims in India are too large to be called a minority. India has the second-largest Muslim population in the world after Indonesia, though Pakistan, with runaway population growth after the break-up with Bangladesh, bids fair to overtake us in the next decade or two. If India's Muslims were put into a geographically contiguous place, they would be the sixth or seventh largest country in the world. Second, if a religious group is defined as people professing belief in one god, then Hindus should be classified as several minority religions since every sub-segment has its own gods and belief systems. It is only culturally that Hindus can be defined as one entity, but this definition cannot exclude those who worship Allah or Jesus either. Hindus are hardly a majority if Copyright © 2012 Firstpost

we use the Abrahamic definition of religion and god. Third, minorities ought to be classified based on their innate ability (or inability) to safeguard their culture or numbers. In the Indian subcontinent, Muslims have grown their numbers everywhere – and faster. So, clearly, there is nothing artificially curbing their growth, their culture and share of the population. If any community is going down in numbers across India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, it is various groups of Hindus - and Heptulla’s Parsis. Muslims may need economic support, education and jobs because they have fallen behind, but not because they are minorities. Maybe their sense of victimhood is what is holding them back. Fourth, in large, populous countries, minorities cannot be defined only in proportional terms. The actual size of the minority also matters. In a country of one million, 200,000 can be a minority, since the other 800,000 can look threatening. This also makes sense if the 800,000 and 200,000 are both internally homogenous groups. But, in a country of 1.2 billion, to talk of 180 million as a minority is silly. The one billion so-called Hindus are not only not a monolith, but their sheer regional, linguistic, caste, class and ethnic diversities militates against organised oppression as a combined majority. This does not mean oppression does not take place, but the oppressive majority that matters here is the local one – in cities and villages - not the national one. Fifth, all majorities and minorities are contextual – and cannot be defined only on the basis of religion and language, as we do in India. Within the Muslim community, there are many more minorities – like the Shias, the Ahmaddiyas, etc. Then there can be minorities based on class. Then there are minorities based on sexual orientation – gays and lesbians face huge discrimination in all communities, but particularly in Muslim society religious injunctions are used against gays.

same goes for Jews in the US. The point is: relative numbers alone do not constitute a minority that needs official protection. Seventh, minorities can become majorities and vice-versa depending on the geography you use to work out their population numbers. Hindus are a minority in large parts of the north-east and Kashmir. Muslims are a majority (or near majority) in many districts of India, especially in Kerala and some parts of Bihar, UP, West Bengal and Assam. In Kerala, over the next two censuses, the Hindu population could well fall below 50 percent. Even Christians in Kerala worry about their declining proportions and many Kerala churches want their members to have more kids. The point: it is illogical to work out minorities in large territories like India. There can be numerous local and regional minorities. What I am driving at is this: if a minority in one social or geographical context can become a majority in another, the only logical way to ensure protection to all minorities is to use the citizen as the fundamental unit to confer rights on. The individual citizen is the minority to worry about. The individual citizen is the one who needs protection against discrimination, who needs to be the unit for defining poverty and well-being. The remaining minorities are fictional – and serve only a political purpose. Muslims in India will be better served as individual citizens rather than as a huge minority of 180 million. That number alone makes nonsense of the term minority.

Sixth, a smaller relative number should not automatically constitute a minority. Take Brahmins. They constitute a very small minority caste within the larger Hindu whole. But their clout is out of proportion to their numbers. The Copyright © 2012 Firstpost

Article 370: Why the debate shouldn’t be about J&K alone R Jagannathan, 29, 2014

itendra Singh, Minister of State in the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO), dropped a clanger on Day Two of his job when he talked about the need to rethink Article 370 of the constitution – the article that gives Kashmiris the right to decide which laws legislated by India’s Parliament will apply to them (outside the areas of defence, foreign affairs, communications and such-like subjects).

states. The truth is article 370 is an anachronism in today’s globalising world, where people and capital move freely pursuing their best interests. The law acts as an impediment to Kashmir’s economic and social integration not only with the rest of India, but the world. Secularists are as confused about Article 370 as the Sangh Parivar. Secularists, for example, pretend that free illegal immigration and movement of people from Bangladesh is fine and any opposition to that is communal even though this has changed the demography in the whole of eastern India. On the other hand, they think Kashmir’s artificial restrictions on Indians and non-Indians owning property or settling there are kosher. Article 370 in its current form promotes Kashmiri xenophobia and does need to be amended.

Almost immediately, a political storm broke out in Kashmir Valley, with Chief Minister Omar Abdullah claiming that either the article will remain on the statute book, or Kashmir won’t be a part of India. This is, of course, political posturing, but Prime Minister Narendra Modi needs to have a rethink on whether Article 370 is aids or hinders his plans to devolve more power to the states. This, after all, is his stated goal, and most chief ministers would want greater economic autonomy from Delhi. In my view, there are two ways to look at Article 370: one, that it is an unnecessary impediment to the true integration of Jammu & Kashmir with the rest of India, and two, it is an imperfect model for devolving more power to Jammu & Kashmir. Article 370 will need tweaks to become a model for devolving power to all Indian

However, there is another angle to Article 370 that is relevant to the whole of India. India is a Union of states. It is a combination of states that makes up India. The states are the primary route to social and economic advancement, but, unfortunately, it is the Centre which monopolises economic resources and imposes it will through one-size-fits-all legislation for all states. Jammu & Kashmir is the only state which does not have to suffer this imposition, thanks to Article 370. If Narendra Modi believes that power has to be devolved to states, and that the Centre must get into a partnership with Chief Ministers, then he should look at how the beneficial aspects of Article 370 can be extended to all states, even while negotiating with the Kashmiris for deleting the negative aspects of a law that prevents the country from becoming one. Article 370 is both a red line drawn across Copyright © 2012 Firstpost

India, and a green one that can bind India by making state borders porous. A diluted Article 370 that is applicable to all states will make India a true federation. The states will then drive Indiaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s growth. Maybe, this is the debate that must begin. How far can Article 370 be extended to other states, and how Kashmiris can learn to live with a more liberal rendering of the law. Article 370 certainly was not intended to artificially insulate Kashmir from the rest of India.

Smriti vs Madhu debate: It’s okay to ask why Irani got the job Sandip Roy, 28, 2014

et’s give it up for Smriti Irani, our new HRD minister.

She has managed to do the impossible - unite Narendra Modi’s most diehard fans and staunchest foes in common cause.

“Someone remind me. Did Rabindranath Tagore go to university? He certainly established one & had enlightened views on education,” tweets Swapan Dasgupta. From the other side of the ideological divide Kavita Krishnan tweets “Congress will never give up elitism! Why jeer at @smritiirani degree? Critique her politics; policies. ‘Qualified’ Sibal was disastrous HRD!” And from somewhere out in the Page 3 stratosphere Shobhaa De adds her two cents. “Smriti Irani, lagey raho. The real illiterates are your critics. Show them the true meaning of education – it goes with culture and decency.” Looks like our Tulsi bhi kabhi Munnabhai / Mark Twain/Rabindranath Tagore thi. Not bad going at all. But why this tizzy? First here’s what daring to question Smriti Irani’s qualifications to be HRD minister is not. It’s not elitist. The media has fixated on her degree or lack thereof. Madhu Kishwar kicked up a Twitterstorm by first dissing Irani as “merely

class 12 pass” and “fashion model” and “tv serial bahu”. But then she tried to explain her rationale by tweeting “Don’t mind if Irani made DeputyPM in recognition of exceptional talent. But to lead India out of current educational mess, need different type.” Kishwar was trying to say it's about expertise, not degrees and questioning her expertise should not be construed as class warfare. If the story was only a story about degrees, one could ask why Najma Heptullah, a Ph.D in cardiac anatomy was shunted into minority affairs or whether Arun Jaitley’s LLB would be especially useful in matters of high finance. It’s not sexist. While some of Irani’s more sneering opponents have gone the airhead bimbo route, raising questions about Irani’s qualifications is not automatically misogynist. In fact, it would be sexist and patronizing to give her a pass because she’s a woman. Just because she’s a celebrity does not mean she is an airhead. To be fair, Irani didn’t just parachute in from Tinseltown for this election like some other actors. She’s actually risen (very fast) through the ranks of the BJP and been vice president of the party’s Youth Wing in Maharashtra and headed the BJP Mahila Morcha. Let’s just say she’s not Hema Malini or a Moon Moon Sen whose electoral success is all about cashing in on their glamour and their leaders’ coattails (or pallu). And it’s not unpatriotic. Lord forbid that anyone, even Madhu Kishwar who made that starry-eyed 13-part home video on Modi should question our new PM. For many Modi supporters, his mandate means his decisions should be unquestioned. But in fact, it’s the size of his mandate that has spurred this debate. If he was heading a large unwieldy coalition like UPA2 people would understand that he had to accommodate all kinds of partners in his council of ministers and that meant many square pegs in round holes. Modi’s ministry picks are getting as much attention as they are because he actually has a much freer hand than his predecessors Copyright © 2012 Firstpost

in choosing the right people for the right job. So it’s perfectly valid to ask whether Smriti Irani’s main qualification is her “chhoti bahen” proximity to Modi or is there a secret white paper she has written about the state of our education that we don’t know about? There are really a couple valid questions to be asked about this whole HRD brouhaha. And neither of them involve comparing her qualifications to Sonia Gandhi's or Tagore's or Kapil Sibal's. Does a minister need expertise or an ability to listen and learn? Narendra Modi who has an MA in Political Science isn’t exactly a rocket scientist. But he is charge of space and atomic energy. But what Modi has already proven is that he has the ability to be a quick learner and bureaucrats have said that he listens carefully to good ideas. Many ministers come with zero competency in their particular ministries. But they have long experience as adminstrators, perhaps as chief ministers of a state, that stand them in good stead. In fact, while an Ajay Maken might sneer at her lack of degrees an unnamed Congress leader tells The Telegraph Smriti Irani as a “modern” person is not such a bad choice for a sensitive ministry. “The denial of the HRD ministry to hardcore RSS leaders like Murli Manohar Joshi, who played havoc with the education system during Vajpayee’s rule, is a positive signal,” the leader says. Irani clearly has political chops. She is a good communicator. She is a fighter. Does that automatically mean she’s ready to be cabinet minister and head such a big and policy-heavy ministry is the question? Or would she have benefited by being a minister of state first till she found her footing? Is the HRD ministry different from some other ministries? Academic Andre Beteille says “In the modern world, we need to have someone who has some grasp of the education system. He or she may not necessarily be a vice-chancellor. But it would not be easy to take charge as minister unless he or she has knowledge or experience inside the system.”

This competency has nothing to do with degrees per se. Mamata Banerjee has just taken higher education away from Bratya Basu, the theatreperson and college professor originally entrusted with the job. His college experience didn’t prevent him from messing up the Teacher Eligibility Test examinations in Bengal. Laloo Prasad Yadav does not have fancy degrees but he had the last laugh when Harvard and Wharton came knocking at his door asking him to explain how he turned around Indian railways. It is about interest and passion. Uma Bharti is 6th standard pass. But she has a demonstrated passion about cleaning up the Ganga and no one is really questioning that appointment. That’s where Swapan Dasgupta’s Tagore analogy falls flat. Tagore actually wrote and thought a lot about what he felt were the limitations of the kind of formal education he had to endure. Vishwabharati was his attempt to design a school that he would have liked to have had available to him as a student. Perhaps it was the failures of our education system that forced Smriti Irani to quit after XIIth standard. But Irani, to the best of our knowledge, has not shown any particular passion for discussing those failures as of yet. “Maybe she has a passion for education,” said Yashpal, the former UGC head. Maybe. We don’t know. Incidentally Uma Bharti too has been an HRD minister but in the preTwitter age. A degree by itself proves nothing. Rajnath Singh’s MSc in Physics will do little for him in the Home ministry. But the process of going through getting a higher degree hopefully enhances a person’s ability to reason, think, put forth an argument and absorb and analyze data. It doesn’t mean that someone without a formal degree cannot do any of that. It’s just something they have to prove. Ultimately that’s what a Smriti Irani will have to do. She will have to prove she can live up to her appointment. When he went to stump for her in Amethi, Modi said he was impressed by the work she did in Gujarat after he told her to take charge of some districts there. “Smriti Irani hai kaun?” Modi had thundered in response to Priyanka Gandhi’s dismissive comment about Irani. Then he’d answered his own Copyright © 2012 Firstpost

rhetorical question. Smriti Irani is a citizen of India. That’s good enough. That might be good enough to run for election. Whether it’s good enough to be HRD minister is up for debate. A debatable choice does not mean it’s the wrong choice. As of now, Smriti Irani, should get the benefit of the doubt. That does not mean the doubts go away.

Repealing Article 370: Why J&K’s

special status is a political tinderbox Sameer Yasir, 28, 2014

t was the very first statement by any minister of the newly elected Narendra Modi government about the state of Jammu and Kashmir. And not only has it not gone down well with political parties in the state, but common people in Kashmir too were shocked at the apparently unplanned, off-the-cuff comments about Article 370 made by Minister of State in the Prime Minister's Office Jitendra Singh.

continues, as Mehbooba Mufti, leader of the Opposition PDP in the state pointed out, there could be serious repercussions in Kashmir, including the potential disruption of a delicate peace. So it's not surprising that Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir Omar Abdullah reacted swiftly, warning the newly elected government that any attempt to revoke the special status to Jammu and Kashmir (read Article 370), could break the relationship between the state and the Union of India. “Mark my words and save this tweet-long after Modi Government is a distant memory either J&K won't be part of India or Article 370 will still exist,” Omar tweeted in his response to Singh’s statement.

Singh, a first-time BJP MP from Jammu who was unexpectedly appointed MoS in the PMO, suggested on Tuesday evening that a debate should be held on whether Article 370, which grants Jammu & Kashmir special autonomous status, should be revoked. In fact, he said stakeholders had already been consulted on the matter. “We are speaking to the stakeholders. Article 370 has done more harm than good. Having a debate doesn't mean we have deviated from what we promised. It just means convincing those who are not convinced,” Singh told CNNIBN. By "what was promised", he was referring to the Bharatiya Janata Party's stated position on Article 370, that it has harmed integration of the state with the rest of the country and that a debate on its abrogation is due. If more loose talk on abrogating Article 370

Omar said Article 370 was the "only constitutional link" between Jammu and Kashmir and rest of India, a stand many senior Kashmir scholars and historians concur with. “He (Omar Abdullah) is right,” said noted Kashmiri legal luminary Syed Tassaduq Hussein. “It means they want to break the constitutional link between the state and the Union. Even if they want, it won’t be easy. They have to first pass a resolution in Lok Sabha, then in Rajya Sabha, with two-thirds majority. Then it would come to Kashmir Assembly were they need to pass it again with two-thirds majority, which is not possible. It will be the demise of any political party if they dare to do that in Kashmir. Kashmir will be in flames if they attempt it," Hussein said. What is Article 370? Going back in history a little, when India become independent, the state of Jammu and Kashmir was not part of its territory. Following a tribal invasion by Pakistani raiders on OctoCopyright © 2012 Firstpost

ber 22, 1947, Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir Hari Singh asked for troops from India to assist. It took five days for the raiders to cover the distance between Muzaffarabad and north Kashmir's Baramulla town. When they finally reached on October 26, there was mayhem. By then, the Maharaja had made up his mind and signed the Instrument of Accession shortly thereafter, and thus the state acceded to the Dominion of India. This instrument of accession, however, was limited to a number of matters, including Defence, External Affairs, Communications and some other issues, with respect to which the Indian legislature could make laws for Jammu and Kashmir. Article 370 of the Indian Constitution is thus the reflection of this status of relations between India and Jammu and Kashmir. The powers of the Parliament to make laws in the state were limited to those matters in the “Union List” and the “Concurrent List”, the latter in consultation with the government of the state. Historians say Article 370 was a “temporary” and “transitional" provision of the Indian Constitution, limited to the provisions of the Instrument of Accession, because the time was not ripe for complete integration of the state. Kashmiri scholars now believe that as time passed, the autonomy of the state has actually thinned. “With passage of time, New Delhi eroded the autonomy of Jammu and Kashmir slowly. The President become the Governor, Prime Minister become the Chief Minister,” says Mohmmad Shafi Bhat, a Political Science researcher at Kashmir University. Political reality today “Only after obtaining the concurrence of the state government by virtue of Article 370 can Parliament legislate for J&K on matters other than those mentioned in the instrument,” Bhat adds. Sensing trouble that the debutant Minister of State Singh's statement could evoke in Kashmir, Mehbooba Mufti said she has urged Prime

Minister Narendra Modi to rein in the newly appointed minister before his utterances cause serious damage. “It is an established fact that Art 370 has acquired a permanent status in the Constitution of India, it is not advisable even to open a debate on it keeping in view its crucial nature in the relationship between the state and the union,” she said. The BJP may be riding high on its recent successes in Jammu and Kashmir, three MPs from the state being a first ever for the party. But these electoral successes have come in Jammu, which is not where the subject is contentious at all. In the valley, even potential BJP allies such as Mehbooba Mufti know discussions on abrogating Article 370 are political hara kiri. Has repealing Art 370 been attempted before? “He is taking about the abrogation of article 370, if he has guts, let him (Jitendra Singh) come to Kashmir and say this in public,” says Umar Altaf, a student of sociology in Amar Singh College, Kashmir. In April 1950 Dr Shyama Prasad Mookerji, the founder of Jana Sangh, after resigning from Jawaharlal Nehru’s Cabinet as Civil Supplies Minister, founded the right-wing organization Praja Parishad which supported the rightwing leaders' demand to do away with what they called a “republic within a republic.” “Ek desh mein do vidhan, do nishan, do pradhan, nahin chalengay,” that used to be the dominant slogan of the Parishad. During the peak days of the movement in 1952, the Sheikh Abdullah government in Kashmir reacted and police used bamboo sticks against Parishad activists and leaders, many of whom were arrested. During one of these tours Dr Mookerji, in May 1953, appeared in the winter capital of the state Jammu. Since he lacked a permit, which was required those days to enter Jammu and Kashmir, the police arrested him on May 11, 1953 from the Lakhanpur frontier area. He was driven to Copyright © 2012 Firstpost

Srinagar and lodged in a bungalow in Nishat, where a month later he died apparently because of a heart attack, on June 23, 1953. His death provided is understood to have given a chance for the Nehru government’s ‘policy of gradual assimilation’ of Kashmir into India.

Sena tantrum: What Uddhav doesn’t get about the Modi govt R Jagannathan, 28, 2014

rime Minister Narendra Modi needs to have a quiet chat with his key allies, the Shiv Sena, the Telugu Desam, the Akali Dal and the Lok Janshakti Party (LJP) of Ram Vilas Paswan. He could start with Uddhav Thackeray of the Sena, whose cabinet nominee Anant Geete was the first minister in Modi's two-day-old government to make waves with his petulant refusal yesterday (27 May) to take charge of his ministry - Heavy Industry and Public Enterprises. He has since changed his mind, but if his tantrum is a sign of things to come, corrective action needs to be taken.

Since Geete's petulance could only have been the result of what Uddhav Thackeray has whispered in his ear, Modi needs to do some of his own whispering in Thackeray’s ears to get the latter to wake up and smell the coffee. The Sena thinks that because it has 18 MPs in the coalition, it needs to have a proportionate share of key ministries and power. Outside commentators, including some in the media, have suggested that the BJP is flexing its muscles with allies because it does not need them to run a government. But this is not the point. A majority of its own may enable the BJP to assert itself with allies, but what the allies have failed to note is the paradigm shift that has taken place in the pol-

ity - which is what brought the Modi-led NDA to power in the first place. Expectations from the government are high, and the people are demanding governance and performance – not excuses. They may tolerate a bit of corruption, but not incompetence and failure. The only way the NDA can deliver on these expectations is by shifting the political imperatives of coalition management from the old approach of sharing the spoils of office to one revolving around delivery of governance. In this context, the allies need to ask themselves: what can my minister deliver in terms of governance and policy-making skills which Modi will consider useful? Uddhav Thackeray needs to ask his minister to deliver what the country needs, and not ask Modi to deliver what he demands. Uddhav. He needs to tell Geete who had not exactly distinguished himself in terms of performance in the Vajpayee ministry - to focus on doing a good job in the allotted ministry before demanding a more challenging ministry. Uddhav and the other allies also need to know that Modi is not using a different yardstick for judging his own BJP ministers. Many old faithfuls have been kept out to give MPs with a greater hunger for performance a chance to prove themselves. Experience of past office is no guarantee of performance in the current environment. Uddhav thus needs to think which Sena member is competent and capable of delivering good governance before demanding more ministries for his party. In the arbitrary decision-making world of his late father Bal Thackeray, the Sena pulled out the high-performing Suresh Prabhu from Vajpayee's ministry and inserted Geete. In his own Sena-BJP government in the 1990s, Bal Thackeray removed Manohar Joshi as Chief Minister for no particular reason and injected Copyright © 2012 Firstpost

the less credible choice of Narayan Rane - who happily quit the party when the Congress offered a better deal once the Sena lost power. The days of arbitrary decision-making are over. India is demanding more from its politicians and Uddhav Thackeray has to focus on this issue too. To get more ministerial berths he has to offer more credible candidates to Modi and show him what they can do for the NDA's performance scorecard. Ministerial berths cannot anymore be just about power, pelf and patronage. Those days are over. Geete should pipe down and get to work. He has a lot to prove before he can demand more.

Perhaps, Chandrababu Naidu is Modi’s best ally, as both leaders have been pro-development and governance in their own states. Together they can change the way parties and politicians think about power. It’s about using it to deliver the goods, not load oneself with goodies. Coalition dharna for more ministries is out. The new coalition dharma is about performance.

What applies to the Sena applies equally to the other allies – and most of them seem to get it, at least the power-shift part. If they have not made a fuss, it at least shows that they have acquired some maturity in how they deal with the issue.

The Indo-Pak Win-Win

Why Modi-Sharif meet is a ray of hope for Indo-Pak ties Rajeev Sharma, 28, 2014

e came like a gentleman; he talked like a statesman; and he went back home without throwing barbs at India.

This is the story of Nawaz Sharif, the Pakistani Prime Minister, who conducted himself like a well-meaning neighbour during his justconcluded 30-hour-long working visit to India in exactly the manner New Delhi would have wanted from him; but something that rarely happens.

was forward-looking his tone and tenor. Sample a few quotes of Sharif: "I conveyed to PM Modi that it was important for us to work together for peace. I urged that we had to strive to change confrontation to co operation. We hope our people overcome the legacy of mistrust and misgivings... I had a constructive meeting. It was held in a warm and cordial atmosphere. It should be historic opportunity for both our countries... I expressed to Modi that we have a common agenda of development that cannot be fulfilled without peace. PM Modi warmly reciprocated my sentiments and remarked that my visit to Delhi was seen as a special gesture by the people of India.â&#x20AC;? India couldnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t have asked for anything better from Sharif. For its part, the Modi government too conducted itself in a responsible and restrained manner.

This is unprecedented. First Narendra Modi behaved like a statesman and invited Saarc leaders, including Nawaz Sharif, for his inauguration. Sharif responded in equal measure and did not try to score brownie points. Even better, from the Indian point of view, he did not seek to meet the Hurriyat separatists.

Foreign Secretary Sujatha Singh, in her press conference shortly before Sharif read out his statement, declined to divulge anything about the specific points discussed between the two prime ministers on the terror issue, though she said Modi underlined Indian concerns relating to terrorism.

The Pakistani side had scheduled a press conference by Sharif in Taj Mansingh hotel where he was staying. But Sharif did not even hold the press conference. Instead, he just read out a statement and did not take any questions.

In her prepared opening statement, Sujatha Singh said: "It was conveyed that Pakistan must abide by its commitment to prevent its territory and territory under its control from being used for terrorism against India. We also expect that necessary steps will be taken in the Mumbai terror attack trial underway in Pakistan to ensure speedy progress of the case and the conviction of those responsible."

Even in this carefully worded statement, Sharif steered clear of contentious issues and said nothing that could have undone the statesmanship he and Modi had shown over the past two days. Sharif only talked of positive things and

She also said that the two prime ministers agreed that the Foreign Secretaries will remain in touch and explore how to move forward. She pointed out that Modi said that the two countries could move immediately towards full trade Copyright ÂŠ 2012 Firstpost

normalisation on the basis of the September 2012 roadmap and that India-Pakistan relations would progress in the economic, cultural and political fields in the same manner that India’s relations with her other SAARC neighbours have progressed in recent years. Modi shared with Sharif his vision of a SAARC region built on partnerships for development and mutual prosperity, Sujatha Singh added. The two prime ministers had “substantive” talks as characterised by the Indian foreign secretary. They clearly discussed all issues and each side flagged its own concerns and conveyed to the other side the expected deliverables. But the very fact that the Pakistani premier’s India visit passed off without any acrimony or ugly spats is itself a big achievement. If the Pakistanis were careful in not saying unpleasant things or touching on the raw nerves, the Indian side too was very cautious and restrained in ensuring that Sharif’s goodwill visit is not spoiled.

Both Modi and Sharif have come to power with a clear mandate and both have just begun their respective tenures. Modi has full five years while Sharif has four years left in his tenure. The two can carry forward the peace process but in IndoPak relations nothing can be said with certainty. Everything will depend on the Pakistan army and how the Pakistani military leadership assesses Sharif’s India visit. Even if no formal statements emanate from Rawalpindi on this in the coming days, actions will speak louder than words. Just one signal will reveal the Pakistani mindset in the coming days and weeks: whether unprovoked firing from the Pakistani side along the International Border and Line of Control stops or not. The writer is a Firstpost columnist and a strategic analyst who tweets@Kishkindha.

Sujatha Singh was repeatedly asked questions about the terror issue and about what the two PMs discussed on the terror attack on Indian consulate in Herat, Afghanistan, but she refused to get into details for the sake of confidentiality of discussions between the two leaders. What next? It will be premature to say that the India-Pakistan peace process is back on track, though Sharif’s India visit is definitely a good beginning and has the potential of turning around the bilateral relations.

Welcome mat for Sharif is ok, but we shouldn’t let our guard down R Jagannathan, 24, 2014

akistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s decision to accept Narendra Modi’s invitation to attend his swearing-in ceremony in Delhi is probably one surprise that Modi could have done without. While the domestic comments have been largely positive, establishing Modi as someone who is capable of reaching out to India’s enemies despite his image as a Hindu hardliner, the fact is beyond the optics, the gesture has limited practical value.

On the downside, the chances are that the Modi-Sharif vibes will become the focus of the swearing-in ceremony, and any meeting between the two, even if it involves only the exchange of pleasantries, will serve to raise expectations of some kind of breakthrough in this relationship in the near future. Worse, the India-Pakistan equation will end up denying importance to the other Saarc leaders invited, including Sri Lanka’s Mahinda Rajapaksa. This is not to say the gesture was wrong, just that it will serve no useful purpose beyond improving Modi’s public perceptions of flexibility. That said, it is clear that a lot can be achieved to improve the chances of peace and amity in the neighbourhood under Modi. This is not because of the invite to Saarc leaders and Sharif, but because Modi has several unique advantages that

Manmohan Singh didn’t. First, everyone knows Modi means business. Everyone also knows that he has the mandate to set his own foreign policy — and make it stick. With Manmohan Singh our neighbours always had to wonder if what he says will hold with Sonia Gandhi or the Congress party. In Modi’s case they know that he will be able to push his agenda with his party and parliament. As an able politician, he make the right judgments on what will work. Second, especially when it comes to Pakistan, a BJP-led government always has a better chance of working out a deal — even if takes a while. The reason is simple: as a Hindu-oriented party, and also with the public image of being a nationalist party, the BJP can afford to take bold decisions that a Congress government would never have been able to. While no Congress government can push a deal on Kashmir or Siachen without the BJP’s political support, the reverse is less true. As far as Pakistan is concerned, the BJP’s image gives it more leeway than the Congress. Third, our neighbours know that with a clear majority of its own, the BJP under Modi is in a position to resist pressures from allies who rule states. The decision to invite Rajapaksa, for example, has drawn vigorous protests from Tamil Nadu politicians, but Modi can ignore them and find ways to mollify them later. Manmohan Singh had to kowtow to Tamil political sentiment, however bogus or hypocritical it may be. Modi will thus have greater leverage with Rajapaksa, and may be able to pressure him to reduce Chinese influence in Sri Lanka and also do something worthwhile for the Tamil minority in that country. The same would apply to India’s relationship with Bangladesh, which has been held hostage by Mamata Banerjee. Fourth, the axis of Modi’s foreign policy is shiftCopyright © 2012 Firstpost

ing from west to east, from the US to Japan, Asean, Vietnam, and China. This shift — even though it won’t come at the cost of formal IndiaUS relations — will have a big impact on our neighbours and enhance India’s clout in the region. An India-Japan axis, and an India-China détente, will together combine to raise India’s profile in the growing parts of the world. This will have consequences for Indian and regional growth, enhancing our stature in south Asia. But there is a long way to go before all that happens. The road to a more peaceful south Asia calls for nuanced strategy, and painstaking dealmaking diplomacy. The prime strategy to adopt is to move quickly to reinforce our friendship with all neighbours, except Pakistan. This means making overtures to Bangladesh on Teesta waters and also the demarcation of the land boundary in north Bengal. It also means working out a sensible immigration and work-permit policy for Bangladeshi immigrants — both legal and illegal — in India, so that Sheikh Hasina remains a friend and continues cracking down on Islamic and Ulfa militants on her side of the border. In Sri Lanka, India needs to adopt a carrot-andstick approach where, in return for diplomatic support to prevent Sri Lanka from being isolated on the human rights issue, Rajapaksa should be asked to limit Chinese influence on the island and move towards giving the Tamils greater regional autonomy. In Nepal, India needs to be supportive of the government’s efforts to build a republic even while trying to limit Chinese influence in the country. On Myanmar, Modi needs to make strenuous efforts to open up the borders for trade so that India’s north-east can boom. The road to greater trade with south-east Asia leads through Myanmar. Trading more with Myanmar will also improve the willingness of Bangladesh to open up its borders to greater trade with India and invite Indian investment on better terms.

On Afghanistan, our current policy of helping them build their infrastructure and providing training is just about right. But this also means Pakistan-linked terror groups like the Haqqanis will try and target India and Indians — as the attack on our consulate in Herat yesterday (23 May) showed. We have to accept the reality of sporadic violence targeted at us. Which brings us to Pakistan. This is going to be a long, hard slog, as Pakistan has a dual power structure: the army and the civilian government. While the people may be longing for peace, especially given the depredations of the Pakistani Taliban, the power structure is not conducive to long-term peace between India and Pakistan. As long as the army remains the overwhelming power in Pakistan, we can’t expect cross-border terrorism to abate. The generals see support to terrorist organisations as critical to their strategy of containing India. We need to follow a four-pronged strategy with Pakistan. One is to improve relationships with all other neighbours, including China, so that Pakistan starts feeling the pressure. Two, we need to keep the optics of regular talks going, even if punctuated with terror attacks or provocations on the LOC. This will reassure the world that we are not war-mongers or inflexible. But we can’t expect too much to come from these talks till Pakistan is ready for forward movement. Three, we need to develop a covert intelligence and irregular attacks capability so that terrorism in India has consequences for Pakistan. Care needs to be taken to ensure that these retaliatory measures do not cross a threshold that will lead to all-out war. And four, at all times we need to keep the powder dry. The generals will always be plotting the next Kargil. We need to be prepared. So, if we are to evaluate the real meaning of Modi’s invite to Nawaz Sharif, it is this: it is good to resume the optics of talks. But we should never let our guard down. Jaw-jaw is better than warwar, but preparing for war-war will ensure that at some time, the jaw-jaw will be more productive.

Modi needs to put Pakistan

on back burner for now Rajeev Sharma, 28, 2014

heatrics are over. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has hit the ground running in his outreach to seven Saarc countries and Mauritius. His diplomacy of symbolism with his Pakistani counterpart Nawaz Sharif hit off quite well.

So is the case of Pakistan’s continued ceasefire violations along the International Border and the Line of Control. Last year there were 196 ceasefire violations by Pakistani troops, more than twice in 2012, as per the figures given by the then defence minister AK Antony. This year too, the same script is being followed. Yes, Nawaz Sharif may not have ruffled Indian feathers by not harping on the K-word, something for which the Pakistani media has hauled him over coals on Wednesday. Yes, Nawaz Sharif got an earful from Modi on Indian concerns about the terror issue and did not utter a word about Pakistani concerns during his India visit on 26-27, May. The Pakistani premier indeed sounded like a man of peace during his 30-hour stay in New Delhi.

Modi said all that he needed to tell Sharif on the all-important terror issue. But diplomacy needs to move beyond symbolism. It is all the more relevant in context of Pakistan. But it is unlikely to play out that way with regard to Pakistan. That is why Modi must press the pause button on engagement with Pakistan. Pakistan has been a difficult neighbour and has proven to be the graveyard of Modi’s two immediate predecessors’ Utopian ambitions of turning a new leaf with Pakistan: Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s famous bus ride to Lahore in 1999 and then the infamous Agra Summit of July 2001; and Manmohan Singh’s embarrassment at his summit meeting with his Pakistani counterpart Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, in July 2009. Besides, Pakistan’s shenanigans on the terror front, whether in India or on Indian interests abroad (like Herat, Afghanistan, recently) are unlikely to end.

But the hard fact remains that it is only the Pakistani military establishment, not the civilian government of Pakistan, which is capable of changing Pakistan’s India policy. Till that happens, if at all it happens, nothing will change on the ground in the India-Pakistan template. The two prime ministers talked about the need for boosting bilateral trade while the two governments navigate through contentious issues and their foreign secretaries meet and carry the process forward. But the ground realities are much different. Trade is very important nowadays for all countries and economic diplomacy is the most practiced form of all forms of diplomacy. However, the merits of economic diplomacy hardly come into play in the Indo-Pak context and bilateral trade is hardly a potential gamechanger.

Consider these facts. India’s total foreign trade in 2011-12 was a little less than $800 billion — almost $306 billion in exports and $489 billion in imports, as per the official statistics of the Indian ministry of commerce. Now consider the India-Pakistan bilateral trade share in this overall Indian external trade of $800 billion. This was a meager $2.6 billion in 2012-13, as per the website of Ministry of External Affairs on profile of Pakistan last updated in April 2014. The implication is clear. Indo-Pak bilateral trade comprises just 0.32 percent in the overall Indian external trade basket. The question is: does India really stand to gain anything from trading with Pakistan even if presuming that Indo-Pak trade ties take wings overnight and even quadruple tomorrow? Now here is a caveat. I am not arguing one bit that India should not smoke the peace pipe with Pakistan and should not normalise relations with this important contiguous neighbour. India should, but not now. This is hardly an opportune moment for that.

Now after the theatrics the ball is in the court of Pakistan Army. Everything is predicated on the next move from Rawalpindi. Modi’s sole mantra should be: trust, but verify. In any case, Modi’s foreign policy plate is already full and more pressing engagements are awaiting him with key countries like Japan and Russia, powerful neighbour like China, India’s immediate neighbourhood minus Pakistan, and of course the sole superpower of the world, the United States. Pakistan does not figure anywhere on Modi’s priority list. Last, but not the least, the Modi-led BJP was swept to power by the voters with a clear majority for the first time in three decades only on twin issues of overall economic development with a sharp focus on infrastructure and a clean, corruption-free government. Modi should accord top priority to these issues. The writer is a Firstpost columnist and a strategic analyst who tweets @Kishkindha.

The question is of priority. I do not see Pakistan anywhere on India’s must-do-now list of things. Modi has done well so far in reaching out to Modi and Nawaz Sharif has done even better in graceful accepting Modi’s invite to attend his inauguration ceremony even though Sharif himself was snubbed by the then UPA government when he had invited the then premier Manmohan Singh.

Scan or click to download our Android, iPad/ iPhone apps

iPad

Android

iPhone