In My View

1-2-3, Cha, Cha, Cha

The Indo-US nuclear deal is looking less and less like a tango and more like an African hula dance. While the main aim of the US government is to bring India into the ambit of the global nuclear regime, and thus restrict its manoeuvrability, India looks at it as an escape hatch through which the country can slip into the market for nuclear commerce and access of hitherto forbidden technology.

In the process, the current negotiations on what is called the ‘123 deal’ or more formally, a Peaceful Nuclear Cooperation Agreement – under the sec 123 of the US Atomic Energy Act of 1954 – is about getting the semantics right so that the final agreement not only conforms to the assurances given by the Prime Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh to Parliament but also, to the India-specific law, passed by the USCongress called the Hyde Act. A tall order, indeed!

Yet, notably the US president has the right to waive much of the limitation that can be imposed by the Congress under sec 128 and 129 of the Atomic Energy Act, because of failure of “full scope safeguards” of the IAEA on the recipient, and/or termination of peaceful nuclear material and technology on account of “material breach” of a Peaceful Nuclear Cooperation Agreement. This can be only on account of US presidential determination that, “cessation of such exports would be seriously prejudicial to the achievement of United States nonproliferation objectives or otherwise jeopardise the common defense and security.”

Crucially, India has concluded strategic partnership agreement, called the Defence Framework Agreement, with the USA two years ago. India has already received the generosity of the US legislatures once when the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee observed that India could not be provided exemption by the US president under the provision of the sec 123 of the US Atomic Energy Act. The result has been the Hyde Act.

While doing the same, the Act had still imposed certain conditions, much of it is well known in the Indo-US strategic circles. In terms of exporting Uranium enrichment and reprocessing technology technology, the US domestic bar is really technical in nature as any other country could export the technology to India after the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group (NSG) regulations are relaxed. Though the USA still maintains a certain control through influence on the NSG’s decision to supply them through a third country.

Notwithstanding the feel-good nature of these aforesaid provisions, there are two important caveats. The first is an attempt at transforming India’s voluntary moratorium on nuclear weapon testing into an international commitment of no further tests. The second is of more fundamental nature. Sec 108 of the Hyde Act states that it directs the US President to inform the US Congress of the construction of a nuclear facility in India, and significant changes in the production by India of nuclear weapons or in the types or amounts of fissile material produced.

This would necessitate an amount of intrusive oversight by the American government on the Indian nuclear programme, both civil and military.

Chairman of the Indian Atomic Energy Commission, Dr Anil Kakodkar had been talking about the proposed agreement to “explicitly state” all the safeguards that the country needs to maintain its vital interests.

He had also stated that the prime minister’s statement of concern in Parliament on 17 August, 2006, needs to be reflected in the 123 agreement as concrete provisions addressing them.

Some of those concerns are worth recounting. They are,

(a) Dr Singh had stated that the requirement by the US president for annual certification to the US Congress of India’s compliance with the “non proliferation and other commitments” changes the nature of “permanent waiver” to India to an “annual waiver.”

(b) He had also said, “We have made clear to the US that India’s strategic programme is totally outside the purview of the July (2005) (Joint) Statement, and we oppose any legislative provisions that Mandate scrutiny of either our nuclear weapons programme or our unsafeguarded nuclear facilities.”

(c) “We will not allow external scrutiny of our strategic programme in any manner, much less allow it to be a condition for future nuclear cooperation between India and the international community,” Dr Singh had assured the country.

The question may thus arise, why should the USA or the members of the NSG be interested to do a deal with India, under the circumstances, if it were to leave significant elements of the Indian nuclear programme outside of the purview of international scrutiny?

No Indian leader has yet addressed this issue. They have not stated, what are the benefits the US seeks from bringing India into the fold of the global nuclear regime? Some rationale has been provided by the US strategic analysts. They have stated that by bringing India – an important hold-out country of the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons Treaty (NPT) - into international fold, the US hopes to achieve its strategic goal of strengthening the exclusionary clauses of the current nuclear regime.

If one were to follow from that rationale, then India’s stated intransigence about its strategic nuclear programme could only add to the uncertainty that rules the nuclear realm, especially after the fracas with the Iranian and North Korean nuclear programme.

In other words, if the 123 agreement has to address the Indian concerns, it will have to do so at the cost of its most important strategic goal.

Pinaki Bhattacharya, currently located in Kolkata, is Special Correspondent with the Mathrubhumi (Kerala). He writes on Strategic Security issues. He can be contacted at pinaki63@dataone.in

God's Own

Roy Zimmerman

In My View

Pakistan vs Musharraf: Play for Rule of Law

Pakistan’s celebrated columnist, Ayyaz Amir, had called it a “judicial Kargil.” From an Odissi dancer in Lahore to a businessman in the city’s market, the unceremonious removal of the Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP), Justice Ifthikar Hassan Chowdhury, had smacked of authoritarianism.

While that was familiar territory for them, the straw had still to break on the camel’s back. Mr Chowdhury was called to the famous Army House, where Gen Musharraf resides, and asked to resign at the end of a four hour long meeting.

According to some versions, the general had tried to strike a deal. He wanted the highest judicial officer of the country to go easy on his government.

The latter had lately been proving to be an irritant; not just for Musharraf government’s attempts to sell off public assets to private buccaneers, but also by claiming habeas corpus rights on people gone missing in the famous US-sponsored ‘War on Terrorism’ (WOT).

Whether Justice Chowdhury’s removal was an expression of good intent by Gen Musharraf towards the Americans – especially after the Cheney diatribe of late February - only those knowledgeable in Pakistan can tell.

But the people of Pakistan have spoken almost in one voice. They expressed their anger at the decision to remove Justice Chowdhury. Lawyers, judges and others took to the streets. Even though the journalists were slow in reacting – initially taken in by the government’s campaign of calumny against the CJP – they too pulled up their socks quickly. Across the board, they condemned the act of Pakistan’s president

Justice Chowdhury is a Punjabi Baloch. In an ethnically stratified society like Pakistan; with Balochistan and North West Frontier Province in turmoil, he quickly picked up support. Pakhtoonkhawa Milli Awami Party, reportedly the largest in the province, called for a general strike on the issue.

But many others had a different point of view. Some felt that the judiciary in Pakistan had it coming. They had turned over far too often at the behest of the military leadership. As Mr Hadi Shakil, president of the Balochistan High Court Association, put it: that with a general elections looming on the horizon, Pakistan’s president wanted the judiciary under his “full control.” “A message has been conveyed to all the judges of the Supreme Court and the high courts that they should blindly support each step taken by the military regime. Otherwise, they will meet the same fate as the CJP,” he was reported as saying.

Even the charges against Justice Chowdhury were instructive in their content. He was accused of demanding helicopters, aircrafts and Mercedes Benzes at the drop of the hat. His son, a junior bureaucratic factotum was apparently favoured with promotions and prized postings at his bidding. The prestigious Daily Times of Pakistan had even speculated that he might have been fired for accepting a gift of a BMW car from a private individual.

There is a lesson here for Indian judiciary. When society gives some the right to pass judgment over others, it usually expects a standard of probity to be set – almost like ‘Caesar’s wife,’ beyond reproach. Clearly, Justice Chowdhury was not of that ilk, much likes his caped brethren across the border. So when he passed judgments over the acts of omission and commission of the government, they found it convenient to tar his image a wee bit.

Still, he has become a cause celebre in Pakistan. For his case has come up at a time when diverse political forces in the country are turning inimical to Gen Musharraf. With the impending polls, the otherwise discredited political parties – on numerous charges against corrupt leaders – like Pakistan Peoples’ Party and Pakistan Muslim League or the Jamaat have found a cause that resonates with the people. The case has even provided ammunition to those sections of Pakistan’s securocracy who would like to think that Gen Musharraf’s time was up.

They have watched with chagrin how Gen Musharraf had turned his back on the jihadi commerce, at least for a while. A distinctly possible peace with India could take away much of their privileges they enjoyed till now. Even the large defence appropriation on national resources could significantly decline, thus cutting short many ‘empires’ within Pakistan’s army and the hydra headed Inter Services Intelligence (ISI).

On the other hand, Gen Musharraf too appears to be losing his deft touch visible in the way he had dumped Taliban after 9/11 or had sought to cap the increasing secessionist pressure in the country’s north-west. He has sought to postpone the final indictment of Justice Chowdhury by the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) of the country. The SJC has adjourned till April the hearing of the case.

Ayyaz Amir had predicted that the impact of this “judicial Kargil” could be far more damning for the general as this was closer home politically than the chilling heights of Kashmir. Indeed, some human rights activists have speculated that the rescheduling of the case would give them more time to rally bigger numbers and regroup with added vigour.

If that happens, whatever be the outcome, rule of law in Pakistan will win for the first time in its history. And that would be salutary for the public opinion across the divide. Unless, of course Pakistan’s army steps in to stymie a democratic exercise, we will know for whom.

Pinaki Bhattacharya, currently located in Kolkata, is a Special Correspondent with Mathrubhumi. He writes on Strategic Security issues. He can be contacted at pinaki63@dataone.in

skate. Dennis Busenitz

Penblunt & Hogwash

Lawyer's Paradise

PENBLUNT

I am soon going to become a lawyer, for sure!

Whether I want to or not.

Not a practicing lawyer, not even a law degree holder.

But the fact that this media business, especially TV has now so much to do with the courts, that I have per force to attend them, and to understand the legal battles, I have to sit down with lawyers and pick their brains.

They have got mighty bored with me by now, I must say. So usually these days, at the very sight of me they give this ‘court menace’ all that they can and enter the courtroom so they have some peace of mind!

Having done this for months, I am now fairly at hearing a case and midway be able to tell which party would most likely win. I can tell the mood of the expressionless judges from their body language, and so forth.

Like a case that is dealing with two broadcasters, who are also two separate and rival DTH operators: TataSky (read Star) and Dish TV (read Zee).

It is one of the most fascinating rallies of arguments I have heard, and I know which party will likely win. But I cannot say that, for that would be a massive contempt of court.

For months now, an erudite Sardarji and an equally erudite Tamil Brahmin have been at each others’ jugulars in court, though outside the court they share cups of tea and amusements. They are college mates, you see.

The crux of the matter is that Sardarji says his client can give its channels to TataSky but it must carry all its channels, and the Tamil Brahmin says, No, the law says that Sardarji’s client must provide all the channels but his client is not under obligation to must carry all of them.

The hearings have been a delectable curry of must provide and must carry. The arguments are over, and the right honourable judges have reserved their judgement for a later date.

But at the bottom of these arguments is a most seminal issue: the consumer’s choice. One party holds that on the DTH platform, because of space constraint on transponders, you cannot have must carry of “all the junk channels” that Sardarji’s client is providing, because that would use up all the space and leave nothing for other broadcasters who give popular channels… hence this is a denial of consumer choice.

The rival claim is that unless all his channels are compulsorily carried it amounts to denial of the consumer right of choosing from all the channels sardarji’s client is beaming for DTH platforms, and in any case the law says there is a must carry provision.

In effect, therefore, both parties are fighting for their sectarian interests but at the same time aiding my cause of right to entertainment.

It is interesting, therefore, to hear from both parties about an earlier judgement, in which the court had held that all DTH players must carry all the channels of all the broadcasters, otherwise the consumer is being denied a choice.

There has come a reinforcement from another corner: the framing of a law on the code of conduct for broadcasters.

The Union information and broadcasting ministry has apparently felt that adult content (not pornography, however) ought to be beamed but at late hours, when the kids have been put to bed.

The argument of the committee looking into this is, there are poor people who cannot afford the hugely expensive cinema hall tickets and so they are denied of their right to enjoy adult content!

This is OK by me, though I cannot see much weight in the argument behind late hours for adult content. Should kids grow up as adults without seeing bits of the adult world? This is the Internet and mobile phone age and kids are regularly watching porno stuff on MMSs and Internet.

But yet again, the emphasis is important: consumer choice, or the right to be entertained on a range of contents.

What surprised me, however, was that the court has already ruled that though strictly speaking, TV is not an essential commodity, seeing that there 68 million cable TV homes in this country, “it is almost an essential commodity”. Or so said the lawyers arguing this case.

This not just suits me, it is a vindication of my campaign: entertainment is fundamental issue and needs to be included as a fundamental right of the masses, and not just the upper classes.

Without the media, especially TV, there would be no reopening of the Jesicca Lall, or Priyadarshini Mattoo murder cases or exposure of the ghastly Nithari killings.

I am sure shame would not dawn upon the shameless CPI (M) had TV not shown the unthinkable police brutality in Shingur and now Nandigram in West Bengal.

Yet, just ask yourself: what would the millions of people living in the slums do after work, had there been no TV?

The answer is simple: tell your cablewallah to switch off the cable from your home for a week, and you will realise why cable TV must be an essential commodity and entertainment a fundamental right!

Postcript: HEARD IN COURT

As most people know, mobile phones are supposed to be kept switched off inside court rooms.

During a recent hearing in Delhi High Court, a mobile phone started ringing sharply.

Judge (furiously): Whose mobile phone is that? Court Master, sieze it!

Lawyer (meekly): Milord, I dare say it is your mobile!
Judge (again furiously): Is it? (and he pulled it out from his pocket... the lawyer was right) Court Master... sieze it!

Teenie Weenie Raw Flesh

In My View

The Sun and Pakistan: Mutual acquaintances?

Gen Parvez Musharraf has raised a sense of déjà vu. In the days of yore, when Pakistan was playing the role of a frontline state in the eastern fringes of the Cold War, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, and later his hangman, Gen Zia ul-Haq were a security overseer for the American client states in West Asia, like Saudi Arabia. They had the men in terms of one of the largest standing army amongst all Muslim nations; and they held the spectre of what they were wont to call, the ‘Islamic Bomb.’

Musharraf’s latest diplomatic contortion in the process of his high profile West Asia initiative – being called seven plus one process – is a natural step forward in the lines the history of the country has drawn on sand. The current general, a more sophisticated showman than his less illustrious uniformed predecessor has donned the velvet gloves in a changed global environment. He has turned peacemaker. In the process he would like to not just ensure Pakistan’s place under the Sun, but more importantly break the record of Zia ul-Haq as the longest serving general in Islamabad.

He has been pulled up by Dick Cheney, the US Vice President who likes to hunt quail, and has been asked to do more, and more.... Almost in tandem, such venerable symbols of American establishment like the New York Times have carried unsubstantiated reports, complete with names of possible successors, about how the various US government agencies are debating a life after Musharraf in Pakistan. One would not be surprised if Musharraf is not found up to the mark in their supposed assessment, one of the next assassination attempts against him might actually succeed. He has survived far too many of them, Cheney might have conjectured.

The straw that Musharraf grabbed is quite interesting in its content. He is stuck out in a minefield that is possibly more dangerous than any he might have found in the middle of west and east Punjab. Nor is it even the familiar territory of some drumbeating on Kashmir to rally the forces. He has waded into the territory of Israeli-Palestinian conflict where the latest spin is the close nexus developing between Riyadh and Tel Aviv on the issue of containing the rising influence of Iran.

Clearly, like a good general with a poor tactical record (witness Kargil!) Musharraf had sought to create a pre-emptive diversion even before Cheney could read him the riot act. Ironically, the Americans have already indicated that they do not feel he exceeded his brief. While the Foreign Ministry in Islamabad was less global in their claims, the US State Department was not under any such constraints. Sean McCormack, the State department spokesperson had said at a recent briefing, “President Musharraf has made some recent trips around the globe to Arab Muslim states and non-Arab Muslim states to talk about a couple of….issues…One, how they can band together to address the issue of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and also, two, how to, in some way, address the divide within the Muslim community between the Sunni and Shia.”

This rather detailed regurgitation of Musharraf’s agenda by a representative by of the Amereican government is an US endorsement of his actions. Naturally, the USA at the end of the tether with its efforts of reordering West Asia to its liking, would also like an outside chance to work, if its shows signs of success.

But for Musharraf the gamble is based on a ‘post-dated cheque on a failing bank.’ He also knows that neither al Qaeda’s operations nor Iraqi insurgency would stop at a time when the USA is hemmed in. He apparently found enough gumption to tell Cheney as much in his meeting. He had said that Pakistan has done “enough” in its fight against terror, and “joint efforts are required” for any further advances. He had even defended the agreement with the rebellious chieftains of north Waziristan concluded in September last. He apparently told Cheney that the chieftains need to be weaned away from al Qaeda by economic aid (financial bribes?) and political measures (restricted autonomy?).

For India, the first instinct would be to sit out the drama. But considering that it is an emerging power in the minds of its elites, the question to be asked is: should it? This could be the time when Musharraf would need some handholding. The process should begin to re-engage him on the issue that would gain him the stature to thumb his nose at his frayed American benefactors, and would be assasins: Kashmir. If New Delhi decides that this is the time to give Musharraf a fillip by abandoning, for the short term the gradualist approach, on the issue, and embark on some bold and open dialogues - beyond just niceties – about possible solutions.

This little initiative could well prove seminal in the long run in terms of relations with Muslims in South Asia. Musharraf too would gain the confidence of not toeing the Salafist ideology for the sake of survival and instead follow his original instincts of an Islamic reformer in the modernist mould. India would be a gainer by becoming the powerhouse fully engaged in the dynamics of the regional backyard.

Penblunt & Hogwash

CAS(H) Trouble
PENBLUNT

An interesting battle is evolving after the rollout of Conditional Access System, or CAS, which has been implemented by the government in certain limited parts of the three megapolises or Calcutta, Bombay and Delhi.

Local cable operators (LCOs) and Mutli-System Operators (MSOs) have aligned to fight for the implementation of CAS and make it a success, but then, some humpty dumpties have now started falling from the high wall they have been sitting pretty on.

The idiot box has started foxing every wise guy on the entertainment block, and the mighty broadcasters are scurrying to hide their clay feet.

For those newer than me on this issue, here’s a short primer

The cable network industry operates from ground, with which the LCO hooks homes in his neighbourhood to signals sent by the MSOs

The MSOs receive these programme signals from the broadcasters, say Sony, BBC or Zee

The broadcasters receive subscription fees from the MSOs for each home that the MSO is linking the broadcaster through the LCOs

The big issue that the broadcasters have been making over the years is that the LCOs and MSOs hugely under-declare the actual number of homes they are hooking to and keep most of the money, So, the broadcasters wanted an ‘addressable system’ through which these ‘crooks’ would not be able to under-declare and the broadcasters would get their genuine dues.

The government did just that: it has finally introduced CAS, in which, homes would get only those channels they pay for.

As part of the conditional access system, the government’s regulatory body, Telecom Authority of India, or TRAI, ruled that the price of pay channels in the declared CAS areas of southern parts of Calcutta, Bombay and Delhi would be Rs five; out of which the MSO-LCO combine would receive 55 per cent and the broadCASters 45 per cent.

Various people have agitated the courts on each of the issues, including the redoubtable Mr Harish Thawani, which we shall not deal with now. But the broadcasters got what they wanted: an addressable system and in the governed area under-declaration has stopped there.

But they are deeply unhappy. Here’s why.

One of the best known English news channel, declared last week that it would migrate from pay to free-to-air channel (FTA) in the CAS area.

Surprise, surprise, it blamed the CAS system, which it had been demanding along with other broadcasters, by saying that CAS rollout has been slow, there are no Set Top Boxes, and that CAS was reaching only 10 per cent of Calcutta homes and slightly higher in Delhi and Bombay, something like 15 per cent over all.

This is not correct: five lakh out of the 16 lakh cable homes in the CAS areas have received CAS STBs (not DTH, which is separate), which takes the overall CAS reach to 33 per cent or a little less, but surely not 15 per cent.

There is no shortage of STBs, as 1.85 lakh STBs are still readily available.

Then why the lies?

Because the truth is that these channels, who had been claiming so far that they have the highest television rating in terms of number of viewers, and thus claimed the largest share of the advertising pie, have turned into humpty dumpties crashing off the wall.

Because every STB has an embedded technology that records in detail which channels that particular home is watching and for how long. This is called the SMS, or Subscriber Management System.

Besides, the subscribers, under CAS, have to fill up forms indicating their channel choice, and would be receiving those channels alone that they pay for.

The MSOs have been telling me that the data from the forms filled up so far is devastating news for most broadcasters: the customers’ choices do not reflect the high levels of viewership they were claiming for themselves.

So, now?

CAS is bad, and DTH is good.

DTH also uses STBs for de-encrypting the signals that the broadcasters send into the skies and are downloaded through the dish antenna at your home. So these too have the embedded SMS technology and would be able to see (read, record) the actual viewership pattern.

The big difference is that under CAS, the MSOs are bound to feed the regulating authority with, inter alia, actual viewership, on a quarterly basis, so every four months the reality of the actual subscriber choice would be unravelled, demolishing the lies of the channels, if they had been lying.

But the DTH is so far a private operation and not under regulation of the government and would not have to reveal anything.

So DTH zindabad. (Long Live DTH)

The reason the news channel went FTA was not because CAS was a failure, but because it is a success, and the advertisers are finding out the lies about various channels’ claims. Many more holier-than-thou holy cows would soon migrate to FTA, just wait.

I am pitching for the success of CAS because it is the poor man’s entertainment route.

There is a lot more to say on this, but with 834 words on the slate already (my limit is 850 words), I can see Pinaki surreptitiously picking up the bludgeon, so see you next week.

In parting, however, this is part of my campaign for the right to entertainment of the man on the street.

Condi Rice Raps

In My View

Misguided Visions of ‘Yellow Peril’

While the American GIs have a particular talent for coining offensive, racist tags about ‘others’ – symptomatic of their non-cosmopolitan grounding in American culture – visions of ‘yellow peril’ was a product of their more erudite ancestors, almost dating back to the times the first Chinese immigrants landed in San Francisco, California in early 20th century. Last fortnight, much of that was in evidence in the remarks of US Vice President, Dick Cheney, while speaking at Sydney, Australia.

Finally, the rising crescendo reached a fever pitch this week when it was announced that Beijing would be raising its defence budget allocation for the current year to $ 44.94 billion or 17.8 per cent over the previous year’s allocation. Immediately, visions were invoked from Washington of a certain Chinese attempt at global dominance of the militarist kind. Even more dissonant were the Indian concerns - though belated, and clearly triggered by an ‘urgent need’ to play the regional foil to China - expressed by a spokesperson of the Union government.

To put the Chinese figure in perspective, here are some details:

The USA had a GDP in 2004 of about $ 11 trillion, while China’s was about $ 2 trillion i.e. the USA had an economy more than five times larger that of China.

American defence allocation for the current year is pegged at $ 440 billion (excluding separate allocation for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan) as opposed to China’s $ 45 billion i.e. ten times that of China.

India’s GDP, even in purchasing power parity (PPP) terms, is about 2.5 times smaller than China.

And India’s defence allocation of approximately $ 22 billion is just 0.5 times of that of China i.e. much higher in absolute terms, despite being 2.5 times smaller than China in terms of economic size.

The argument thus can run, why the commotion? The key possibly lies in China’s recent test of a anti-satellite (ASAT) missile that tweaks the nose of the American claimants belonging to its strategic community, who believe that their country should continue to dominate what are called in misleading international parlance, the ‘commons’: high seas, air and outer space. The Chinese test, unlike India that had meekly acquiesced with the US’s unilateral abrogation of Anti Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty under the erstwhile National Democratic Alliance government, has punctured a small hole in the National Missile Defence (NMD) programme of the George W. Bush administration. Indeed, Dick Cheney’s venom spewed in Australia was for that reason.

So are these early signs of a possible end to the Chinese long term cooperation with the USA? After all, US-based analysts point out that the younger generation of Chinese strategists, though schooled in Western theories of international relations, reject totally their notions of the world and instead, predict the rise of what they call “Chinese school of thought” in which such idealistic visions of individual and institutional
benevolence, altruism, interstate cooperation, moral international politics, harmony,
order, and an open international system, take precedence.

A realist understanding of the Chinese defence modernisation programme has to take into account that though it was made a part of the famed ‘Four Modernisation’ programme of the mid-1970s, the updating of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) was accorded the lowest national priority. Between 1979-1989, defence allocations actually declined.

The immediate trigger for the increased attention to PLA was the concern about developments concerning Taiwan, beginning in 1990s. Added was the motivation for securing the national economic assets which typically grew in areas adjacent to ocean-fronts. So emphasis was put on defensive, access-through-sea denial as opposed to more ambitious and aggressive, sea denial.

In fact, a recent American study shows that the entire fleet of Chinese submarines, 55 in number had conducted just two sea patrols in 2006. A patrol would normally mean “investigations to detect other submarines, participating in naval defense operations in coastal or outside coastal areas; or deployed for the purpose of gathering information or harassing (intrusive vessels.)” This leads one to believe that the Chinese fleet is geared not so much for power projection purposes as guarding coastal waters.

On the other hand, though China is modernising its strategic (read nuclear) force – so is the USA with its plan to introduce new designs of nuclear warheads for its missiles, called Reliable Replacement Warheads (RRWs) - its primary delivery systems remain short and medium range missiles that are more befitting as a deterrent to Taiwan, or South East Asia and Japan.

So does India need to worry about the Chinese defence modernisation programme? Ironically, the answer to that is to a great extent a product of India’s own making. As is noted by many analysts, the first configuration of the Chinese nuclear missiles were towards the Soviet Union; and then the USA in the 1980s and 1990s as capabilities improved. But with India exercising its option of weaponising its nuclear capability, it has now emerged on the Chinese crosshairs.

Hence, a sober Indian analysis would base itself not on the epistolary contortions of a Atal Behari Vajpayee but on the understanding that Jawaharlal Nehru had shared with senior officials of the government of India, a while before the 1962 war. He had apparently told them, as BN Mullik had recorded in his book that Chinese communists were nationalists first and communist later. Little has changed since then to believe the contrary even now.

Thus unless India feels it is in its national interest to attack the national boundaries of China, Chinese national interest in the medium term would possibly dictate that India be left alone even as a potential adversary. After all, the Chinese planners have been honed in the school of difficult choices, by which they have cooperated with the USA, while concurrently modernising their armed forces, amidst an environment of containment and encirclement.

Pinaki Bhattacharya, currently located in Kolkata, is a Special Correspondent with Mathrubhumi (Kerala). He writes on Strategic Security issues. He can be contacted at pinaki63@dataone.in .

Penblunt & Hogwash

Entertainment for the unwashed

PENBLUNT

Ninad Seth plonked himself on me, practically.

It was hot times with Nimbus Sports and the Information & Broadcasting Ministry at each other’s jugulars on the compulsory feed – to DD ‑ of ODI cricket matches involving India.

I was at the Press Club of India having a smooth vodka and biryani, when a scrubby looking young man with intensely powerful eyes and even more powerful eyeglasses came and crashed on the chair next to me, asking for a box f matches.

He said his name was Ninad, which sounded like an awful lot of noise, and he was noisy alright. Very intelligently, though.

I introduced myself as working with one of the top portals on the entire broadcasting industry.

Ninad said (without preamble) “Do you have the mobile of Harish Thawani?”

I gave it to him and he said: this solved a huge problem

He launched himself into how he would sc**w the government which had denied free market play to Nimbus. I did not argue… why give out my depth of ignorance? After all, he had been, he said, a business reporter and covered media a lot.

Subsequently, he kept calling me off and on, making demands and offering to wine and dine me at the India International Centre, a genuine no-conditions offer.

Three weeks later he said the same thing: Nimbus had been denied market play.

“Do you think Harish would be able to make all the money he has invested?” I asked

“No, don’t think so.”

“Well, then if Doordarshan is offering 75 per cent of the income generated by them through cricket revenue, why should he opt out?”

F**k, no one told me that… is that true?”

“Look here, if you cannot get the investments back, and DD offer you just two bucks they are generating, should you not take it?”

He agreed that that would be prudence, but he had another issue: why fix the price of something that is not an essential commodity?

“Is cricket not an essential commodity? After all, don’t people have a right to be entertained? Is it that just because most Indians are poor, is left to do manual and menial labour, come home, watch some low-IQ serial, or just copulate and crash for the night? I don’t think so.”

Being from the red background (Sorry, not CPI-M… more scarlet), I had once done a lot of reading on arts and the official Marxist position is we work to procure freedom from want so that we can not just procreate, but create.

In other words, to be entertained and to entertain is our birth right, which the classes deny the masses.

I would like to ask all of you: do you think just because a poor family in a bustee, chawl or slum has no money to subscribe Nimbus, they should be denied the right to watch cricket, though DD is willing to pay just for that purpose?

Cricket today is the highest and undoubtedly the cleanest (like any sport) entertainment available in the country. “And mind you, today even women in large numbers watch cricket,” my mentor in media reportage, Ashok Mansukhani had revealed to me sometime ago.

The minister had said that Nimbus was being ‘unpatriotic’ by denying the feed to DD, which is a free-to-air channel that even paupers having a TV set can watch. Was he being ultra-nationalistic?

I have never been a government Yes-man, but does Dasmunsi have a case here?

What is patriotism? Is it, going to Kargil and dying because some blubbering army bosses didn’t know Pakistanis had set up bases in India? If Amitabh Bacchhan acts in a film on Kargil and does not charge a penny, would not that be patriotism?

I support the minister.

What he probably meant (but in his seething anger could not articulate properly), is that denying the largest numbers of Indian TV viewers the spectacle of the century is unpatriotic, particularly because the government was shelling out its money to the ratio 75:25! Nimbus had not been asked to provide anything for free.

“Great point, dada,” yelled Ninad over the Press Club din generated by increasing volumes of alcohol was seeping into the scribes’ brains. “Write about this,” he Ninaded, (read hollered, a coinage reserved for him).

Well, I am fairly convinced we have a point here. Right to entertainment ought to be enshrined as a fundamental right.

I remember a landmark judgement of Bombay High Court (SC had upheld it): it was case of a peon attempting to self-immolate because of acute poverty, and the concerned commissioner refusing any abetment.

The cops filed the usual stuff: attempt to commit suicide; you cannot deny right to life even to yourself.

But his lawyer argued that it is better to die than live in his abysmal condition, so right to life included a right to life with dignity, and hence, implied a right to death if life is so inglorious.

I do not remember whether the last part was upheld by the court, but it did uphold that right to life implies life with dignity.

You cannot deny the right to entertainment, especially to the poor, especially when the exchequer is paying from its coffers.

Well readers, I place this for debate!

In My View

North Korea’s nuclear gambit pays off

The high trapeze game ended with… well, a whimper. A fortnight ago, the USA bought North Korea’s compliance with nuclear weapons’ non-proliferation principles. The George W. Bush Administration had to recant most of its dogged stands about North Korea: no bilateral negotiations with Pyongyang; and freeze on all aids to the country.

Ahead of the Beijing meeting that clinched the deal, Washington’s negotiator with North Korea Christopher Hill had a bilateral meeting with his counterpart, Kim Kye-gwan, in Berlin. And in the Budget Bush Jr presented to the US Congress an appropriation asked for $ 2 million as aid to the country, much before the Beijing Accord was inked. So what is this deal for which Washington bent its back so much? An understanding of this would only enhance one’s ability to comprehend what kind of a non-proliferation regime Washington is trying to erect on the decimated edifice of the Treaty on Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).

The deal has four key elements:

- The first is the important aspect of reciprocity in fulfilling the obligations of the Joint Statement of the Fourth Round of Six Party talks held in Beijing on 19 September, 2005. Earlier, the US government had insisted that North Korea should move first on the promises made in the joint statement.

- Most crucially from the Bush Administration’s perspective – the US President has called it a “breakthrough” - the North Koreans have agreed to “abandonment” of the Yongbyon 5-MW plutonium producing reactor facility. The latter has also agreed to invite back IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) inspectors and return to the mutually agreed “monitoring and verifications”

- The deal also clearly states that the two protagonist countries would begin talking bilaterally, thus addressing ‘pending’ issues bilaterally, progressing towards “full diplomatic relations.” Additionally, the US would start the process of dropping North Korea from the list of countries who are “state-sponsors of terrorism.” (Recall the ‘axis of evil!’)

- The Parties to the talks agreed to begin “cooperation” in economic, energy and humanitarian aid to North Korea. The first shipment of emergency energy assistance of 50,000 tonnes of Heavy Fuel Oil is to begin in the next 60 days.

Howls of protest have already surfaced not just in Washington, but from those who had been steadfast allies of the USA since the beginning of the Cold War – Japan and South Korea. Tokyo believes that Washington’s hurry to seal the deal in the Korean peninsula has left them in the lurch on the issue of their abductees, who they had alleged the North Koreans kidnapped over many years.

South Koreans believe this deal was merely an attempt to put a band-aid repair on the rickety structure of nuclear non-proliferation regime as it did not call for a complete reversal of North Korea’s nuclear weapons programme. In their words, the deal leaves significant gaps in terms of Pyongyang’s alternative, Uranium enrichment programme bought off-the-shelf from the AQ Khan enterprise of Pakistan. Beijing Accord does not say anything about that programme. Nor did it say anything about the existing nuclear weapons arsenal of the country believed to be in the region of about eight explosive devices.

Main motivation behind the Accord was the desire of all the major players in the region – China, Russia and the USA – to bring stability in the Korean peninsula. Each of them feels that their vital strategic interests tend to get jeopardised by North Korea’s increasing bellicosity. China feels that the North Korean situation seriously threatens their need to uphold peace and tranquility for atleast two decades. Nuclear weapons in North Korea could directly motivate Japan to seek some deterrence of their own, which could directly challenge China’s rise. On the other hand, China believes that the North Korean regime of Kim Jong Ill has proved its survivality and an economic blockade of the kind the USA desires could have unintended results. China is also leery about the American long term strategic goal in the area.

Over the years following the end of Cold War, Russia has also deepened its relations of the Pyonyang regime. It now feels that it can independently communicate with the North Korean leadership. And it has played the spoiler in the USA’s attempt to isolate the regime by backing it selectively.

But on the main non proliferation plane the three are together in maintaining their individual monopolies over nuclear weapons. And this deal leaves gaping holes from that perspective. The deal has shown the world that the US intransigence on the issue can be successfully challenged by a clear enunciation of a national will. This deal seeks to only cap, and not reverse the weapons development programme. In fact, many believe that if at a future date the North Koreans decide that they would like to return to the path of development of nuclear weapons, they could.

This step, to seriously threaten the ‘stabilty’ plank of major powers, could not be addressed by a piecemeal approach to uphold the nuclear regime. It can only be addressed if the latter chose to seek a permanent solution to the problem. That permanence can only come when the powers decide that the nuclear weapons have entered the region of diminishing marginal returns in the context of big power projection. They will have to acknowledge that the deterrence logic of the nuclear weapons have been completely upended by the proliferation of nuclear material and technology. And the NPT could not stop it.

Then the goal would lie in a universal nuclear disarmament that did not discriminate among the nations. From that perspective, it would seem that AQ Khan did more to the cause of denuclearisation of the globe than Albert Einstein could, with his moral indignation about weapons of mass destruction.

Pinaki Bhattacharya, currently located in Kolkata, is a Special Correspondent with the Mathrubhumi (Kerala). He writes on Strategic Security issues. He can be contacted at pinaki63@dataone.in