English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

Saving Kulbhushan Jadhav

Published

on

MERE PROTESTATIONS? Members of the BJP’s minorities wing protest at Azad Maidan in Jadhav’s hometown Mumbai demanding his release, UNI

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]What can India do to bring the former Indian Navy officer home?

By Sujit Bhar

The capture of a “spy” on foreign land is not steeped in historic uniqueness. It is not the same as the live capture of a terrorist who had killed and maimed hundreds and destroyed humongous property as Ajmal Kasab, member of the Lashkar-e-Taiba Islamist group, did in the Mumbai terrorist attacks in 2008.

There are two things to be considered in the capture of Kulbhushan Jadhav, allegedly in the Balochistan area of Pakistan. First, he is not a terrorist and deserves more than a half-baked military court (which the entire Pakistani defence establishment is) to pronounce judgement on a crime that he has not committed. And secondly, diplomacy is not yet dead between the two countries. There can always be a diplomatic solution to tricky situations. It serves both ways.

Lets us put it on the table. If Pakistan has consistently denied that Kasab was a Pakistani citizen (which he certainly was), then Jadhav cannot be a tit-for-tat for that hanging. Secondly, the Pakistani Supreme Court’s decision that a Pakistani army Field General Court Marshal is valid even if it gives a death sentence to a civilian, smacks of a dictatorial approach. In such a case normal processes – India has attempted 14 failed consular interventions – would not work.

If Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s relations with his Pakistani counterpart Nawaz Sharif is as good as Modi wants the country to believe, why is he not opening lines of communication with him? Or is it that these lines of communication are as useless as Modi’s lines of “communication” with Chinese President Xi Jinping? Xi had come to India, sat on the jhula with Modi and shared a Gujarati meal. And then, quietly but sternly, Xi had thrown India’s claim to the Security Council seat out of the window. China has snubbed India on several occasions since.

India’s kindergarten learning curve continues.

So what options lie in India’s path in the Jadhav case?

Let us consider some earlier instances of spy captures.

FAILED OVERTURE: A photo of the Indian PM’s much-talked-about birthday greeting meet with his Pakistani counterpart

FAILED OVERTURE: A photo of the Indian PM’s much-talked-about birthday greeting meet with his Pakistani counterpart

The spy-exchange mission

In 1962, a US spy Francis Gary Powers was released by the then Soviet Union after having held him for two years when his plane crashed during a spying mission across the USSR. He was convicted of espionage, “a grave crime covered by Article 2 of the Soviet Union’s law ‘On Criminality Responsibility for State Crimes’, as the Soviets put it.

Diplomacy won, finally, with Powers being exchanged for Soviet KGB Colonel Vilyam Fisher, known as “Rudolf Abel” in early 1962.

CIA got agents return after 19 years

A documentary released by the CIA in 2011, showed how two of their agents were captured – their plane was shot down in an ambush – by the Chinese in 1952 and released only in 1971 when relations between the two countries “warmed”. The Chinese held them hostage for so long to hold a political advantage. The problem with Pakistan is that its diplomacy is ruled by the military, and when no administration is sure of its next month under the army’s thumb, it cannot even think of long term diplomatic solutions.

The failed mission

Robert Levinson, a former FBI official and an off-the-hook CIA agent was picked up by Iranian security from a resort island of that country in 2008 and has not even been heard of since 2010. The CIA claimed in 2013 that they had not even heard of the existence of Levinson till eight months after his disappearance. That was almost as far-fetched an explanation as Pakistan’s denial to acknowledge Kasab. In the end, diplomacy failed and Levinson is presumed dead.

His family members are said to have secretly paid $ 2.5 million to secure his release, all in vain.

Sarabjit’s death

Sarabjit Singh, an Indian farmer, who had allegedly strayed into Pakistan territory in 1990, was caught by Pakistani Rangers and charged and convicted with terrorism and spying by a Pakistani court.

The Pakistani Supreme Court, which is no more than a spineless adjunct of the Pakistani army, held a “trial” and implicated him in the series of bomb attacks in Lahore and Faisalabad (14 bystanders died) in 1990, saying Sarabjit was an undercover agent of India’s Research and Analysis Wing.

He was sentenced to death in 1991, but while waiting for his execution (it was postponed several times by the government) at Kot Lakhpat jail, Lahore, he was brutally assaulted by fellow inmates and died in a hospital in 2013.

No bargaining chip

It would have been to Pakistan’s advantage had they declared the capture and held the bargaining chips. Diplomacy in Pakistan is not even in its nascent stage, all of it under army control. Relations are not at a comfortable stage between the two countries, but we are not at war. So negotiations can still happen. Balochistan is a thorn in Pakistan’s flesh as Kashmir is of India’s. But that means little to the small minds that rule that country.

Only posturing

On India’s part, Modi’s posturing has done little to sensitise Pakistan. His strange jump-down from a foreign trip to wish Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif on his birthday now seems an obtuse act. India has not been able to stop the brutal beheadings of Indian jawans by Pakistani soldiers. India has not opened channels of conversation with the people who matter in Pakistan, its army generals. How long does it take to realise that the Pakistani politicians are no more than puppets in the hands of the armed forces? What was the point of chasing good relations with such spineless politicians?

[Here is a bit of information, provided without comment: Sharif is also a steel tycoon. For all practical purposes he is a billionaire, and has huge business interests in India.]

It has become an international norm – institutionalised by the US – to not go into dealings with non-combatant individuals caught in the line of action, in the face of quid-pro-quo demands. Will India, too, consider this as another collateral damage, like our beheaded soldiers? It is clear that Pakistani generals are corrupt and work only for money. They can be bought. They have been bought in the past by foreign forces. This is an open secret. Does not India, the great nation, have any underground channel open to address this monetary situation? It could save a citizen’s life.

What responsibility does this government have towards its citizens, one wonders? What responsibility does it have towards its jawans and towards its covert operatives in the field of action?

If India keeps treating a failed state like Pakistan like a superpower, that failed state will see no wrong in behaving like one.

One guesses, protecting cows and strange international business interests have become more important in this dispensation than protecting the country’s soldiers, operatives and people on the border.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

India News

Rahul Gandhi attacks G RAM G bill, says move against villages and states

Rahul Gandhi has criticised the G RAM G bill cleared by Parliament, alleging it dilutes the rights-based structure of MGNREGA and centralises control over rural employment.

Published

on

Rahul Gandhi

Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi has launched a sharp attack on the Modi government after Parliament cleared the Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Employment and Livelihood Mission (Rural) Bill, commonly referred to as the ‘G RAM G’ bill. He described the proposed law as “anti-state” and “anti-village”, arguing that it weakens the core spirit of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA).

The new legislation, which is positioned as an updated version of MGNREGA, was passed amid protests by opposition parties and is expected to replace the existing scheme once it receives presidential assent.

‘Bulldozed without scrutiny’, says Rahul Gandhi

Rahul Gandhi criticised the manner in which the bill was cleared, saying it was pushed through Parliament without adequate debate or examination. He pointed out that the opposition’s demand to refer the bill to a standing committee was rejected.

According to him, any law that fundamentally alters the rural employment framework and affects crores of workers should undergo detailed scrutiny, expert consultation and public hearings before approval.

Claim of dilution of rights-based guarantee

Targeting the central government, the Congress leader said the proposed law dismantles the rights-based and demand-driven nature of MGNREGA and replaces it with a rationed system controlled from Delhi. He argued that this shift undermines the autonomy of states and villages.

Rahul Gandhi alleged that the intent behind the move is to centralise power and weaken labour, particularly impacting rural communities such as Dalits, OBCs and Adivasis.

Defence of MGNREGA’s impact

Highlighting the role of MGNREGA, Gandhi said the scheme provided rural workers with bargaining power, reduced distress migration and improved wages and working conditions, while also contributing to rural infrastructure development.

He also recalled the role of MGNREGA during the Covid period, stating that it prevented crores of people from slipping into hunger and debt. According to him, any rationing of a jobs programme first affects women, landless workers and the poorest communities.

Opposition to name change and provisions

The Congress has also objected to the renaming of the scheme, accusing the government of attempting to erase the legacy associated with Mahatma Gandhi. Opposition MPs staged a dharna within the Parliament complex, questioning provisions of the bill that they claim dilute the “soul and spirit” of the original law enacted in 2005.

Under MGNREGA, the government guaranteed 100 days of work in rural areas along with an unemployment allowance if work was not provided. The ‘G RAM G’ bill proposes to raise the guaranteed workdays to 125, while retaining other provisions. However, critics have flagged concerns over employment being linked to pre-approved plans.

The bill was cleared after a midnight voice vote in the Rajya Sabha, following its passage in the Lok Sabha amid protests and walkouts. It will become law once approved by the President.

Continue Reading

India News

G RAM G bill replacing MGNREGA passes Parliament amid opposition walkout and protests

The G RAM G Bill replacing MGNREGA has been passed by Parliament after overnight debate in the Rajya Sabha, triggering protests and walkouts by opposition parties.

Published

on

Parliament

Parliament has cleared the Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Employment and Livelihood Mission (Rural) Bill, commonly referred to as the G RAM G Bill, paving the way for the replacement of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA). The legislation was passed within two days amid sharp political confrontation, walkouts and overnight protests by opposition parties.

The bill was approved by the Lok Sabha despite repeated disruptions and protests. In the Rajya Sabha, the debate stretched beyond midnight, with voting held around 12.15 am. The bill was eventually passed by a voice vote after opposition members staged a walkout, leaving the ruling alliance members present in the House.

Opposition objects to name change and provisions

The Congress and other opposition parties mounted a strong challenge to the bill, objecting both to the change in the scheme’s name and its revised framework. A key point of contention was the removal of Mahatma Gandhi’s name from the legislation, which opposition leaders said reflected an ideological shift rather than a policy necessity.

Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge launched a sharp attack during the Rajya Sabha debate, urging the government to withdraw the bill and warning that it would harm the rural poor. He accused the government of speaking in the name of welfare while undermining the interests of vulnerable communities, making an emotional appeal to reconsider the legislation.

Several opposition members initially demanded that the bill be referred to a standing committee for detailed scrutiny. When that demand was not accepted, they called for the bill’s withdrawal and later staged a walkout. Members of the Trinamool Congress and other parties subsequently sat on a dharna within Parliament premises.

Heated exchanges in the Upper House

The debate witnessed intense exchanges between the treasury benches and the opposition. Trinamool Congress MP Derek O’Brien linked the passage of the bill with developments in West Bengal, alleging that the Centre’s actions had consequences for the implementation of rural employment schemes in the state. He also referred to the state government’s decision to rename its employment initiative following the Lok Sabha vote.

As Rural Development Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan rose to reply, opposition members raised slogans demanding the withdrawal of what they termed a “black bill”. When the protests continued, opposition MPs walked out, allowing the bill to be passed without their presence.

Responding sharply, Chouhan criticised the walkout and accused the opposition of refusing to engage in debate. He defended the government’s move, arguing that the earlier scheme had suffered from corruption and inefficiencies, and said the new law was drafted after consultations with stakeholders.

Government defends overhaul of rural employment scheme

The government has maintained that updating the two-decade-old MGNREGA framework was necessary to address structural shortcomings and align it with current rural needs. According to the provisions outlined, the new law increases the guaranteed days of work from 100 to 125 while retaining key elements of the earlier scheme.

However, critics have pointed out that employment under the new framework will be based on pre-approved plans rather than demand-driven applications at the gram panchayat level. The work categories have also been streamlined into four segments—water security, core rural infrastructure, livelihood-related assets, and climate resilience—raising concerns that local flexibility may be reduced.

Opposition leaders have argued that these changes dilute the original spirit of MGNREGA, which was designed as a rights-based, demand-driven employment guarantee programme.

Protests continue after passage

Following the bill’s passage, opposition parties reiterated their charge that the legislation weakens the guarantee, livelihood assurance and social security that formed the core of the original programme introduced in 2005. Despite these objections, the government’s numerical strength ensured the bill’s smooth passage through both Houses.

With parliamentary approval now secured, the G RAM G Bill is set to replace MGNREGA, marking a significant shift in India’s rural employment policy framework amid continuing political debate.

Continue Reading

India News

Priyanka Gandhi meets Nitin Gadkari over Kerala road projects, light moments mark discussion

Priyanka Gandhi met Nitin Gadkari in Parliament to discuss road projects in Kerala, with the meeting marked by humour, political remarks and an informal food tasting.

Published

on

Priyanka Gandhi meets Nitin Gadkari (1)

Congress MP Priyanka Gandhi Vadra on Thursday met Union Road Transport and Highways Minister Nitin Gadkari at his office in Parliament to raise issues related to road infrastructure projects passing through Kerala. The meeting combined formal discussions with lighter moments, including a humorous exchange and an unexpected food tasting session.

Kerala road projects discussed at Parliament meeting

Priyanka Gandhi, the Member of Parliament from Wayanad in Kerala, discussed six road projects that pass through the state. During the interaction, Nitin Gadkari clarified that some of these projects fall under the jurisdiction of the Kerala government and therefore cannot be directly handled by the Centre. However, he assured the Congress leader that the remaining proposals would be examined.

According to those present, the discussion remained cordial, with both sides acknowledging administrative limitations while exploring possible ways forward.

‘Bhai ka kaam ho gaya’ remark draws laughter

The meeting also saw a light-hearted moment when Gadkari referred to a recent interaction with Rahul Gandhi, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha. He said Rahul Gandhi had met him earlier regarding road-related concerns in Rae Bareli.

In a humorous remark, Gadkari said that if work was done for the brother but not for the sister, it could lead to complaints. The comment prompted laughter from Priyanka Gandhi and others present in the room.

Congress confident of future action in Kerala

During the conversation, Priyanka Gandhi expressed confidence about the Congress party’s prospects in the upcoming Kerala Assembly elections. She indicated that proposals currently under the purview of the Left Front government in the state would be taken forward once Congress comes to power.

Her remarks reflected political confidence while keeping the focus on infrastructure needs in Kerala.

A homemade dish adds informal touch

Apart from policy discussions, the meeting included an informal culinary moment. Nitin Gadkari had prepared a rice-based dish after learning the recipe from online videos. Visitors to his office were offered rice balls served with chutney.

Gadkari encouraged Priyanka Gandhi to taste the dish, and she, along with Congress leader Deepender Singh Hooda, was seen sampling the food while continuing their conversation with the minister.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com