THE HINDU EDITORIAL- MARCH, 22, 2022
|
A default choice N. Biren Singh’s role in winning BJP a
stable majority helped him return as Manipur CM In choosing to retain Norgthombam
Biren Singh as the Chief Minister of Manipur, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)
has decided to go with continuity in a State where only one former Chief
Minister, i.e., Okram Ibobi Singh of the Congress, had managed to carry on
after a full five-year term. This should not come as a surprise even though
there was speculation in the run-up to the announcement that other contenders
had thrown their hats into the ring. It was under Mr. Singh’s leadership that
the BJP not only increased its seat share in the Manipur Assembly, from 21
(in 2017) to 32 (in 2022), but had also managed to weather several storms
while running a minority government in the last five years. Unlike 2017, when
the BJP formed the government in dubious circumstances – the Congress had
emerged as the single largest party with 28 seats – the ruling party had a
clear-cut majority on its own this time. Besides, the BJP government has
received post-election support from the Janata Dal (United) and the Nagaland
Peoples’ Front, with six and five MLAs each. The clear verdict from the
electorate this time should help Mr. Singh run a stable government free of
the shenanigans that dominated his previous tenure. Mr. Singh also ran a
spirited campaign to secure an electoral majority for the BJP, with some of
his initiatives such as the “Go to Hills” and “Go to Villages” bearing fruit.
The stable majority should give Mr. Singh the ballast to focus more on
governance and address the immediate need of the State. Manipur has a higher
literacy rate – 79.8% compared to the country’s average of 74.04% - besides
achieving a medium human development index of 0.697, as of 2019. Only Sikkim
and Mizoram have better indices in the North-east. But chronic unemployment,
especially of the youth, remains a key concern that needs to be tackled by
the Government. The recurring border conflicts in villages in Manipur and
Nagaland, with strikes and blockades, need to end quickly, and a majority
government will be better placed to address this ticklish problem. While the
BJP remained silent on the unpopular Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act in the
course of the election and still managed to win handily in the State, it
cannot assume that the electorate agreed with the views of the Union
government and the party on the Act. This could come up as a problem, yet
again. As for the weakened Opposition in the State, the BJP’s facile victory
opens up fresh challenges for the Congress’s beleaguered leadership even as
smaller parties such as the National People’s Party have tried to warm up to
the BJP by offering outside support. Manipur is a vital border State, with a
history of extremism and ethnic violence whose embers still remain. While a
stable government is best placed to work out a lasting peace and focus on
livelihood issues, it will be in the Opposition’s best interests to keep the
Government on its toes by acting maturely. On target Lakshya Sen looks set for glory if he
is able to add strength to mind and body Lakshya Sen’s run to the final of the All England open Badminton Championships
should rank high in the long list of great Indian sporting achievements. His
crushing 10-21, 15-21 loss on Sunday to World No.1 and reigning Olympic
champion Viktor Axelsen should not detract from the perception of his overall
success. In terms of quality and prestige, no tournament quite comes close to
All England. One of only three BWF super 1000 tournaments – the crown jewels
of the sport – it attracts the world’s best. And like Wimbledon in tennis, it
is the first among equals, the oldest badminton tournament in the world with
more than a century’s history. Indians have long had an emotional connect
with All England, the acme of which came with the legendary Prakash
Padukone’s stunning come within one match of emulating his mentor, belying both
his age and experience, is an astonishing feat. Lakshya is all of 20 and this
was only his third-ever appearance at All England. But he shed the big-match
nerves with ease, as he beat world No.3 and World Championships bronze-medallist
Anders Antonsen (round-of-16), and World No.7 and defending champion Lee Zii
Jia (semifinal) to go into the history books as the youngest of four players
from independent India to reach the All England final (others being Padukone,
P. Gopi Chand and Saina Nehwal).
It is fair to say that Lakshya has been building up to this. He was
marked out for success since young, and he lived up to that promise with
medals at the Youth Olympic and juniors is no harbinger of success at the
senior level, Lakshya, under the tutelage of Dronacharya awardee U. Vimal
Kumar, has transitioned rather well. The last four months performance, in
fact, proves this. In December 2021, he secured a bronze medal at the World
Championships to join a select band of seven Indians to have stood on the podium
at the Worlds. In January, at the India open, he beat the reigning World
Champion, Loh Kean Yew, to win his first BWF Super 500 title. In the German
open earlier this month, he defeated Olympic bronze medallist Anthony Ginting
and then shocked Axelsen himself en route to a runner-up finish. He is no
longer just an object of observation but the provider of that emotional hook
for many a young Indian fan and player. Elite badminton is no doubt an
unforgiving and unrelenting genre, as he found out against Axelsen on Sunday.
But if Lakshya continues to sharpen his game, spruce up his body and develop
a champion’s mindset, the possibilities are endless. |
A Ukraine peace
plan that needs a U Thant The elements of viable peace exist,
and all that is required is for someone to step forward and pursue it with
urgency SHASHI THAROOR One of the questions longtime watchers
of the United Nations like myself kept asking as the Ukraine crisis unfolded
was what the UN Secretary-General, the able former Portuguese Prime Minister
Antonio Guterres, was doing. When the Americans were crying themselves hoarse
about an imminent invasion for weeks before it actually happened, did the
Secretary-General seek to use his “good offices” to resolve the crisis? Did
he send an emissary to Moscow to find out its intentions and understand its
irreducible demands, then have the same person try in Kyiv to get Ukraine to
agree to the terms of a compromise? Hardly inspiring While such efforts do not necessarily
have to be public, there was no evidence of any “shuttle diplomacy” conducted
by the UN Secretary-General. Indeed, there seems to have been no high Un
official sent in the couple of months preceding the Russian invasion to
either capital, nor even to Washington DC or the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO) headquarters in Brussels. Unlike the legendary U Thant,
who intervened between Moscow and Washington during the Cuban Missile Crisis
in 1962 (albeit through telegrams rather than travel), Secretary-General
Guterres seems to have limited himself to earnest exhortations to Russia to
observe the peace it had already violated when he spoke. The implication that
when a permanent Member is a belligerent, the Un is reduced to helplessness
is inaccurate. The Secretary-General can act. In 1998, when the United States
was about to bomb Iraq, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan unilaterally
undertook a trip to Baghdad (I was with him) to stave off the resort to war.
If the UN thought that brokering peace was a hopeless undertaking,
this does not seem to have deterred Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett,
who did travel to Moscow and is reported to have proposed a 15-point peace
plan to his interlocutors. It seems to include provisions that would deny
Ukraine the right to join NATO, disallow any foreign troops on its soil, and
enable the Russians to keep some presence in the east While withdrawing the
bulk of their forces and stopping their assault. The Ukrainians are already
saying that this is a catalogue of Russian demands and does not fully reflect
their point of view. Putin and his
objectives I have long been of the view that
having undertaken such a highrisk enterprise as launching a military
invasion, Russian President Vladimir Putin is unlikely to stop before his
strategic objectives are realized. But what exactly are those objectives?
Ending any prospect of NATO troops and weapons on his doorstep is obviously a
priority. But to ensure that, does he aim to bring about “regime change” in
Kyiv, replacing the defiant Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky with the
pro-Russian deposed former President Viktor Yanukovych? Does he intend to
annex some of Ukraine’s territory? Is his aim to create a “buffer state” in Ukraine
between Russia and the West? Or could he, as the Chinese did to India in
1962, declare that his enemies had been “taught a lesson”, decide to cut
short his losses and unilaterally withdraw?
No one really knows, not even our omniscient mandarins in South Block.
Russia is already paying a huge price, economically, geopolitically and
diplomatically, for its Ukrainian adventure. The higher the price goes up,
the greater will be Moscow’s unwillingness to end the conflict without some
tangible gains that it can point to, in order to demonstrate to its own
people that the price was worth paying. What might the key gains be that
would fulfil Moscow’s war aims? On neutrality The first basic requirement for peace
appears crystal clear: a declaration of formal, binding neutrality for
Ukraine. Finland and Austria already have such neutrality embedded in their
constitutions, as do Switzerland and Sweden by long-standing policy, and this
has worked well, allowing these nations to appear indistinguishable from
other western democracies while at the same time having no military
relationship with NATO. Russia had believed it had assurances of Ukrainian
neutrality in the past, but Kyiv’s flirting with NATO had raised the spectre
of those assurances unraveling. Having them in writing, enshrined in
Ukraine’s Constitution and guaranteed by other powers, would seem to be a
sine quanon for Moscow to end its military campaign.
But would neutrality alone (which President Zelensky has reportedly
indicated his willingness to concede) be enough? I imagine that while
Ukraine, as a sovereign state, would retain its army and related defence
forces, Moscow would also want restrictions on the kind of weapons Ukraine
could station on its soil, their power and range. Missiles that can strike
Moscow, for instance, could be outlawed. Just before Russia invaded Ukraine
on February 24, Moscow officially recognized the independence of the two
separatist provinces of Luhansk and Donetsk in Ukraine’s eastern Donbas
region. Preserving that arrangement or at least ensuring de facto Russian
control over the Donbas region, to which Luhansk and Donetsk belong, by
retaining Russian “peacekeepers” there, would give Moscow the buffer zone it
seeks. Moscow would probably also wish to achieve formal international
recognition of its 2014 annexation of the Crimean Peninsula, which did not
attract the kind of condemnation its current actions have – since Crimea’s
residents do largely see themselves as Russians, unlike the people of the
rest of the country. A comprehensive peace settlement would probably have to
include Crimea too.
A settlement covering the above elements would probably be enough for
the Russians to declare victory and go home, but would Ukraine accept it? This
is far from clear, as initial reactions to Mr. Bennett’s efforts suggest. And
if Ukraine did – just to stop the suffering and destruction – what would they
want in exchange? Some suggest Kyiv would only accept formal neutrality
provided there were assurances from powerful western countries (especially
the United States) to come to its aid if it were attacked in future. That, in
turn, is unlikely to be acceptable to Moscow, which would see western
security guarantees as the thin end of a NATO wedge into its neighborhood.
Could the United Nations be an acceptable alternative as a guarantor of
Ukraine’s neutrality? That would have the merit, as well as the disadvantage,
of involving Russia also, in committing itself to upholding such a guarantee
of security. EU membership Ukraine may also seek to trade surrender
on NATO membership for a path towards joining the European Union (EU). Russia
has so far said no to Ukrainian adhesion to the EU as well, but if peace is
in the interests of both sides, this could be the one issue on which Moscow
would have to concede. After all, Austria, Finland and Sweden have stayed
neutral while serving as flourishing members of the EU. Perhaps Russia could
bargain for an end to sanctions that are currently crippling its economy and
trade, in return for making this concession.
In other words, the elements of a viable peace plan exist. What is
needed is for someone to step forward and pursue it with urgency. Russia is
already paying a higher price than it expected to, suffering greater
battlefield losses than it anticipated, and making much slower progress than
most experts had predicted when the invasion began. It may soon realise that
winning the war militarily will take too long and cost too much to be
worthwhile. That is the moment for a skilled peace-maker to move.
Mr. Secretary-General, could you get on a plane please? Realising the
potential of ‘maitri’ and ‘mateship’ Deepening investments in
Australia-India strategic, economic, and community ties highlight their stronger
relationship BARRYL O’FARRELL Australia is celebrating India’s 75
years of Independence by making the largest singly investment in our
bilateral relationship.
We do so because Australia and India share a long and special
relationship, one we are now working together to make even stronger. Deep histories We are natural partners because we are
each ancient and modern countries and cultures, vibrant and full of energy
and optimism.
Australia recognizes the depth and diversity of India’s magnificent
culture. We know the importance of connection to history.
Like India, Australia’s story stretches back tens of thousands of
years. Australia’s Indigenous peoples are custodians of the oldest continuing
civilization in the world: which is why the Australian government was
delighted to return 29 culturally significant artifacts to the people of
India this month.
Even our words for friendship have a similar ring: India says maître,
Australians say mateship. Both stand for respect, understanding and equality.
Friends looking out for each other.
That is the warm friendship share between our Prime Ministers, The Hon
Shri Narendra Modi and the Hon Scott Morrison MP.
On March 21, the two prime Ministers held their Virtual Summit and
took stock of the remarkable pace we are implementing the Australia-India
Comprehensive Strategic Partnership. To drive closer cooperation and
regularly review relations, the Prime Ministers also established an Annual
Summit mechanism.
Since we elevated our relationship in 2020, we have advanced practical
actions on cyber and critical technologies, maritime affairs, defense ties,
economic and business links and Quadrilateral cooperation.
The Virtual Summit market another milestone as our prime ministers
announced a range of tangible and practical initiatives spanning the breadth
of our share economic, strategic, and regional interests.
These initiatives are investments into promise and potential of our
nations. They address the most pressing challenges and opportunities of our
time.
Because when it comes to friendship, we know actions speak louder than
words.
Together, we are harnessing the technology, the talent, and the
trading spirit of our people to deliver resilience, prosperity, and security.
Together, we are focused on the Future. Technology and
research We are working on a new and renewable energy
partnership, to support the development of technologies such as green
hydrogen and ultra-low cost solar. We are also supporting research an investment
to unlock Australian critical minerals for Indian advanced manufacturing.
We will boost collaboration on innovation, science and
entrepreneurship, to scale up ideas that address global challenges.
We are also increasing investments into our countries’ rapidly growing
space sectors.
And we are establishing the Australia-India Centre of Excellence for
Critical and Emerging Technology Policy – and a Consulate-General – in
Bengaluru.
Our governments know that resilience relies on strong economies.
We have made significant in-roads on negotiations on a deal that will
open new two-way trade and investment opportunities, build more secure supply
chains, and unlock our complementary economies, increasing the flow of goods,
services and people. Focus on students We are investing in India’s talented
young people through our new Future Skills Initiative between education and
training providers and industry.
This complements the Australian government’s significant new Maitri
scholarships and fellowships, giving Indian students and researchers the
chance to experience Australia’s world class education system.
Australians value highly the Indian Diaspora and student contributions
to our community – whether economic, social, or cultural.
Prime Minister Morrison announced dedicated Centre for Australia-India
Relations to deepen that friendship between our communities.
Australia and India are also working to ensure a peaceful and stable
region.
We are each committed to a free and open Indo-Pacific. We are
advancing our cooperation all the way from the Indian Ocean to the Pacific
Islands.
Last month we announced initiatives to enhance Australia’s engagement
in the Northeast Indian Ocean in Support of India’s natural leadership.
In our defense relationship, we are enhancing information sharing and
operational cooperation.
Such arrangements also help us continue delivering quality
humanitarian support to the region, seen recently when Indian helped Australia’s
Pacific family, Tonga and Kiribati.
Finally, Australia was saddened at the tragic loss of Chief of Defense
Staff General Bipin Rawat last year. Our governments are recognizing his
contributions by announcing an Australia-India Young Defense Officer Exchange
Program named in his honour.
These investments in our strategic, economic, and community ties show
what we can achieve when two multicultural democracies join in a spirit of
trust and understanding.
Australia knows that in India we have a natural partner who will help
build a region where every nation can prosper.
I hope India sees a similar friend in Australia.
We are closer than ever and our transformational commitments and
collaborations will continue to bring us together. We are realizing the
potential of our maitri and mateship. |
