Tuesday, 6 November 2012

Haqqani network hit with U.N. sanctions: U.S. envoy - chicagotribune.com

Haqqani network hit with U.N. sanctions: U.S. envoy - chicagotribune.com

Haqqani network hit with U.N. sanctions: U.S. envoy

U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice speaks with the media after Security Council consultations at U.N. headquarters in New York
U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice speaks with the media after Security Council consultations at U.N. headquarters in New York (ALLISON JOYCE, REUTERS / June 7, 2012)

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The U.N. Security Council's Taliban sanctions committee on Monday added the Pakistan-based Haqqani network, accused of high-profile attacks in Afghanistan, to a U.N. blacklist, the United States said.

The Security Council committee's move also singled out Qari Zakir, an operational commander involved in many of the network's highest-profile suicide attacks, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice said in a statement.

"These sanctions oblige all U.N. member states to implement an asset freeze, travel ban and arms embargo against Zakir and the Haqqani Network," Rice said.

New additions to the Taliban sanctions list are relatively rare, since such moves are usually agreed upon unanimously. Council diplomats said it was especially significant that Pakistan, a member of the 15-nation council until the end of 2013, did not stand in the way of the moved.

The U.N. blacklist now contains 131 individuals, including Zakir, and three entities, one of which is the Haqqani network.

The United States designated the Haqqani network as a terrorist organization in September, a move the group's commanders said proved Washington was not sincere about peace efforts in Afghanistan.

U.S. officials have long accused Pakistan of supporting the network, an allegation Islamabad denies.

The Haqqanis, who are allied with the Afghan Taliban, are some of the most experienced fighters in Afghanistan and have carried out several high-profile attacks on Western targets.

"Today's action by the Security Council expands upon these (U.N.) sanctions and confirms the international community's resolve to end the Haqqani Network's ability to execute violent attacks in Afghanistan," Rice said.

"It also reflects the Security Council's commitment to use and enforce sanctions against those who threaten peace in Afghanistan, in conjunction with a strong commitment to support Afghan-led peace and reconciliation," her statement added.

Rice said that as well as organizing suicide attacks, Zakir had trained militants to use small and heavy weapons and improvised explosive devices.

The U.S. State Department said separately on Monday that it added Zakir to the U.S. list of specially designated terrorists, a move aimed at freezing any property he might have under U.S. jurisdiction and prohibiting any U.S. transactions with him.

"He has been involved in many of the Haqqani Network's high-profile suicide attacks and is partially responsible for making some of the final determinations on whether or not to proceed with large-scale attacks planned by local district-level commanders," the State Department said in a statement.

It said attacks using personnel selected and trained by Zakir included the 2010 attacks on coalition force bases in Afghanistan, the June 2011 attack on the Intercontinental Hotel, and the September 2011 attack on the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, which killed 16 Afghans, including at least six children.

(Additional reporting by Andrew Quinn in Washington; Editing by David Brunnstrom)

Monday, 5 November 2012

Free Exchange: What to expect tomorrow: The Economist

Forecasting

What to expect tomorrow

Nov 5th 2012, 15:47 by R.A. | WASHINGTON
TOMORROW Americans will go to the polls to select a new president. (Technically, they'll go to the polls to select a slate of "electors", who will in turn choose the president, because that's just how clever the founding fathers were.) Months—years actually—of intense polling on how Americans are likely to vote will finally be put to the test; have the pollsters been measuring opinion accurately or not?
New research from David Rothschild and Justin Wolfers suggests that however accurate the polling, it's less accurate than it could be if opinion firms asked different questions. In particular, they should worry more about what voters think will happen than what voters intend to do themselves:
We find robust evidence that polls probing voters’ expectations yield more accurate predictions of election outcomes than the usual questions asking about who they intend to vote for. By comparing the performance of these two questions only when they are asked of the exact same people in exactly the same survey, we effectively difference out the influence of all other factors...
Our alternative approach to political forecasting also provides a new narrative of the ebb and flow of campaigns, which should inform ongoing political science research about which events really matter. For instance, through the 2004 campaign, polls of voter intentions suggested a volatile electorate as George W. Bush and John Kerry swapped the lead several times. By contrast, polls of voters’ expectations consistently showed the Bush was expected to win re-election. Likewise in 2008, despite volatility in the polls of voters’ intentions, Obama was expected to win in all of the last 17 expectations polls taken over the final months of the campaign. And in the 2012 Republican primary, polls of voters intentions at different points showed Mitt Romney trailing Donald Trump, then Rick Perry, then Herman Cain, then Newt Gingrich and then Rick Santorum, while polls of expectations showed him consistently as the likely winner.
The intuition behind the result is that expectations polls are tapping into a broader vein of information. Individuals responding to polls actually know much more about the election than just their own voting intentions. They also have a sense for how people across their social networks are leaning. Aggregating this broader information flow in a poll is more informative and useful than just collecting from respondents comparatively meagre data on how they intend to vote.
The logic is similar to that underlying prediction markets, for which Mr Wolfers is an evangelist. The authors note that prediction markets like Intrade often outperform inidividual polls and even forecasts built on skillfully aggregated polls. Participants in prediction markets not only provide their own assessment of the probable outcome of a question, but provide information weighted by conviction, measured monetarily.
As of this moment, Barack Obama is favoured to win across several betting markets and in polls of expectations. Most polls of voter intentions give Mr Obama a slight edge, but are comparatively unsure about the race; some continue to show a lead for Mitt Romney. And so tomorrow will provide a bit more information on how best to assess the state of critical political races.

Diplomatic Diary: Terrorism can cause delay in elections? Roznama Dunya

Roznama Dunya

Sunday, 4 November 2012

Little Describes Pentagon's Benghazi Decision Process

 
11/02/2012 02:19 PM CDT

Little Describes Pentagon's Benghazi Decision Process

By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Nov. 2, 2012 - Two U.S. service members did participate with a CIA team in the mission to rescue Americans in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, 2012, Pentagon Press Secretary George Little told reporters today.
Little spoke of the events of that night during a press availability in his Pentagon office. Four Americans -- including the U.S. Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens -- were killed in a terror attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi that night.
The two American service members were based in the Libyan capital of Tripoli and volunteered to join the team that traveled to Benghazi. Little could not say what position the service members held, but did say DOD is proud that they volunteered to perform the mission.
Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey and U.S. Africa Command commander Army Gen. Carter F. Ham discussed the situation in Benghazi soon after they were notified of the assault.
"There were discussions here at the highest levels including the secretary as to what kind of response we might be able to provide," Little said.
"The secretary ordered appropriate forces to respond," he said. "Those forces included FAST (Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team) platoons from Europe, a special operations unit in Central Europe, and another contingent of U.S. troops from the United States."
It takes time to notify troops, organize them and then transport them, Little said. It also takes time to develop an intelligence picture of what they might face on the ground.
"The fact of the matter is these forces were not in place until after the attacks were over," he said. "Let me be clear. This department took swift action. We did respond. The secretary ordered forces to move. They simply were not able to arrive in time."
DOD was preparing for a range of contingencies that day.
"We were readying for the need to augment security measures at our facilities in Libya, we were prepared for the possibility of a hostage situation as well," Little said. "These were all the things we were looking at in the midst of an event that we did not know was going to happen in Benghazi that night."
Little put one rumor to rest. There were no AC-130 gunships anywhere near the continent of Africa the night of Sept. 11, he said. 
Related Articles:
Secretary, Chairman Respond to Reporters on Benghazi Attack 

Saturday, 3 November 2012

China’s new leadership: Vaunting the best, fearing the worst | The Economist

China’s new leadership: Vaunting the best, fearing the worst | The Economist

China’s new leadership

Vaunting the best, fearing the worst

China’s Communist Party is preparing for its ten-yearly change of leadership. The new team could be in for a rough ride


FEW Chinese know much about Xi Jinping, the man who will soon be in charge of the world’s most populous country and its second-largest economy. This makes the inhabitants of the remote village of Xiajiang, nestled by a river amid bamboo-covered hills in the eastern province of Zhejiang, highly unusual. They have received visits from Mr Xi four times in the past decade. Impressed by his solicitude, they recently erected a wooden pavilion in his honour (above). During his expected decade in power, however, Mr Xi will find few such bastions of support. The China he is preparing to rule is becoming cynical and anxious as growth slows and social and political stresses mount.
Mr Xi’s trips to Xiajiang, a long and tortuous journey past tea plantations and paddy fields in a backward pocket of the booming coastal province, were part of his prolonged apprenticeship for China’s most powerful posts. They took place while Mr Xi was the Communist Party chief of Zhejiang from 2002 to 2007. He had just turned 50 when he made his first trip, continuing a tradition started by his predecessor as Zhejiang’s chief, Zhang Dejiang, who now also looks likely to be promoted to the pinnacle of power in Beijing. Mr Zhang’s idea was to visit a backward place in the countryside repeatedly to monitor its progress over time. Xiajiang was the lucky target. When Mr Xi adopted it, villagers found themselves with a sugar daddy of even greater power: the scion of a revolutionary family. His father, Xi Zhongxun, was one of Mao’s comrades in arms, but later fell out with him and spent much of the next 16 years in some form of custody. Since 2007, when Mr Xi was elevated to the Politburo’s Standing Committee, no one has ever seriously doubted that he was being groomed for the very top.
Villagers say Mr Xi helped Xiajiang secure funding and approvals for its projects, which included pooling village land to grow grapes and medicinal plants. It is unclear how much Mr Xi was actively involved, or whether his mere interest in the village inspired lower-level officials. It is known that he took a keen interest in converting the village to the use of biogas. “A master of building methane-generating pits,” Mr Xi jokingly called himself on one visit, referring to his similar efforts back in the 1970s during the Cultural Revolution when he worked in a People’s Commune in northern Shaanxi. Recalling his dusty labours there, he wrote in 1998: “I am a son of the yellow earth”—as if he, a “princeling” of one of Communist China’s most powerful families, was just a common man.

Xi, the new enigma
Mr Xi kept in touch with Xiajiang’s officials even after he became President Hu Jintao’s heir-apparent. A large copy in bronze of one of his letters, written in May last year, adorns the new pavilion. “I hope you will thoroughly implement the concept of scientific development,” he urges them. By this he means development that is fair to all, environmentally friendly and sustainable.
In a room in the village headquarters, Mr Xi’s face is all over the walls. Officials have recently given a few honoured residents large portraits of Mao Zedong to hang in their living rooms, as well as photographs of Mr Xi touring the village. (The two men look fairly similar, with their portly frames and full cheeks.) The exhibition calls the village “Happy Xiajiang”.
At the party’s 18th congress, which begins on November 8th and is expected to last about a week, it is a foregone conclusion that Mr Xi will be “elected” to the party’s new central committee of around 370 people. This will then meet, immediately after the congress, to endorse a list of members of a new Politburo. Mr Xi’s name will be at the top, replacing that of Hu Jintao as general secretary. He might also be named as the new chairman of the party’s Central Military Commission, replacing Mr Hu as China’s commander-in-chief. In March next year, at the annual meeting of China’s rubber-stamp parliament, the National People’s Congress, he will be elected as the country’s new president.
Mr Hu’s speech at the 18th congress will thus be his swansong (even if he keeps his military title for a year or two, as predecessors have done, he will probably stay out of the limelight). It will be suffused with references to the signature slogans of his leadership: “scientific development”, “building a harmonious society”, “putting people first” and generating “happiness”. (Indices measuring which have become a fad among officials in recent years, their credibility somewhat undermined by repeated findings that Lhasa, the troop-bristling capital of Tibet, is China’s happiest city of all.) Xiajiang knows the slogans well. A billboard on the edge of the river urges villagers to “liberate [their] way of thinking, promote scientific development, create a harmonious Xiajiang and bring benefit to the masses”. Mr Hu will proclaim success in endeavours like these across the country. Having presided over a quadrupling of China’s economy since he took over in 2002, he has reason to crow. In the same period China has grown from the world’s fifth-largest exporter to its biggest.
Mr Hu, aided by his prime minister, Wen Jiabao (who is also about to step down), can also point to progress towards helping the poor. During the past ten years fees and taxes imposed on farmers, once a big cause of rural unrest, have been scrapped; government-subsidised health insurance has been rolled out in the countryside, so that 97% of farmers (up from 20% a decade ago) now have rudimentary cover; and a pension scheme, albeit with tiny benefits, has been rapidly extended to all rural residents. Tuition fees at government schools were abolished in 2007 in the countryside for children aged between six and 15, and in cities the following year (though complaints abound about other charges levied by schools).
In urban China there have been improvements, too. These include huge government investment in affordable housing. A building spree launched in 2010 aims to produce 36m such units by 2015 at what China’s state-controlled media say could be a cost of more than $800 billion. Over the past five years more than 220m city-dwellers without formal employment have been enrolled in a medical-insurance scheme that offers them basic protection (though, like the rural one, it provides little comfort for those needing expensive treatment for serious ailments and accidents). This means that 95% of all Chinese now have at least some degree of health cover, up from less than 15% in 2000.
Mr Hu is also likely to highlight China’s growing global status: its rise from a middle-ranking power to one that is increasingly seen as second only to America in its ability to shape the course of global affairs, from dealing with climate change to tackling financial crises. Its influence is now evident in places where it was hardly felt a decade ago, from African countries that supply it with minerals, to European ones that see China’s spending power and its mountain of foreign currency as bulwarks against their own economic ruin. It is even planning to land a man on the moon. In July the People’s Daily, the party’s main mouthpiece, called the last decade a “glorious” one for China. “Never before has China received so much attention from the world, and the world until now has never been more in need of China.”
The people’s mistrust
Unfortunately for Mr Hu, as well as for Mr Xi, the triumphalism of the People’s Daily does not appear to be matched by public sentiment. Gauging this is difficult; but the last three years of Mr Hu’s rule have seen the opening of a rare, even if still limited, window onto the public mood.
This has been made possible by the rapid development of social media: services similar to Twitter and Facebook (both of which are blocked in China) that have achieved extraordinary penetration into the lives of Chinese of all social strata, especially the new middle class. The government tries strenuously to censor dissenting opinion online, but the digital media offer too many loopholes. One of the greatest achievements of the Hu era (though he would claim no credit) has been the creation, through social media, of the next best thing to a free press. China’s biggest microblog service, Sina Weibo, claims more than 300m users. This is misleading, since many have multiple accounts. But nearly 30m are said to be “active daily”, compared with 3m-4m copies of China’s biggest newspaper, Cankao Xiaoxi.
Chinese microbloggers relentlessly expose injustices and attack official wrongdoing and high-handedness. They help scattered, disaffected individuals feel a common bond. Local grievances that hitherto might have gone largely unnoticed are now discussed and dissected by users nationwide. Officials are often taken aback by the fervour of this debate. Sometimes they capitulate. In September photographs circulated by microbloggers of a local bureaucrat smiling at the scene of a fatal traffic accident, and wearing expensive watches, led to his dismissal.
Many of the most widely circulated comments on microblogs share a common tone: one of profound mistrust of the party and its officials. Classified digests of online opinion are distributed among Chinese leaders. They pay close attention.
Stemming this rising tide of cynicism will be one of Mr Xi’s biggest challenges. Dangerously for the country’s stability, it coincides with growing anxiety among intellectuals and the middle-class generally about where the country is heading. Even in the official media, articles occasionally appear describing the next ten years as unusually tough ones for China, economically and politically. In August official-media websites republished an article, “Internal Reference on Reforms: Report for Senior Leaders” that was circulated earlier in the year in a secret journal. Its warning about the “latent crisis” facing China in the next decade was blunt. “There are so many problems now, interlocked like dogs’ teeth,” it said, with dissatisfaction on the rise, frequent “mass disturbances” (official jargon for protests ranging in size from a handful of people to many thousands) and growing numbers of people losing hope and linking up with like-minded folk through the internet. It said these problems could, if mishandled, cause “a chain reaction that results in social turmoil or violent revolution”.
The author, Yuan Xucheng, a senior economist at the China Society of Economic Reform, a government think-tank, proposed a variety of remedies. They ranged from the liberal (such as easing government controls over interest rates, which act as a way of subsidising lending to state enterprises at the expense of ordinary savers) to the draconian (beefing up the police and “resolutely” clamping down on dissidents using “the model of class struggle”). The next ten years, argued Mr Yuan, offered the “last chance” for economic reforms that could prevent China from sliding into a “middle-income trap” of fast growth followed by prolonged stagnation.
Mr Xi is likely to share his concerns about the economy. They are similar to those raised in a report published in February by the World Bank together with another government think-tank, the Development Research Centre of the State Council. This rare joint study, produced with the strong backing of Li Keqiang (who is expected to take over from Mr Wen as prime minister next March), also raised the possibility of a “middle-income trap” and called for wide-ranging economic reforms, including ones aimed at loosening the state’s grip on vital industries, such as the financial sector. It gave warning that a sudden economic slowdown could “precipitate a fiscal and financial crisis”, with unpredictable implications for social stability (though World Bank officials tend to be optimistic that China can avoid a slump).
Dangers pending
Mr Xi is being besieged from all sides by similar warnings of possible trouble ahead. A recurring theme of commentary by both the “left” (meaning, in China, those who yearn for more old-style communism) and the “right” (as economic and political reformers are often termed) is that dangers are growing at an alarming rate. Leftists worry that the party will implode, like its counterparts in the former Soviet Union and eastern Europe, because it has embraced capitalism too wholeheartedly and forgotten its professed mission to serve the people. Rightists worry that China’s economic reforms have not gone nearly far enough and that political liberalisation is needed to prevent an explosion of public resentment. Both sides agree there is a lot of this, over issues ranging from corruption to a huge and conspicuous gap between rich and poor. Hu Xingdou of the Beijing Institute of Technology says it has become common among intellectuals to wonder whether 70 years is about the maximum a single party can remain in power, based on the records set by the Soviet Communist Party and Mexico’s Institutional Revolutionary Party. China’s party will have done 70 years in 2019.
Chinese intellectuals and officials have a habit of worrying. They did a lot of it after the Tiananmen Square protests, as instability swept the communist world. In the early 1990s many wondered whether China could reach the end of the decade without experiencing another upheaval itself. But the forecasters of looming chaos proved dramatically wrong. They failed to predict the economic spurt in 1992 that propelled China free of its planned-economy moorings. By the turn of the century this momentum began to create a middle class whose members had a stake in keeping the growth-loving party in place.
This middle class, however, is now beginning to worry about protecting its gains from the whims of law-flouting officialdom and the caprices of the global economy. It frets about the environment and food contaminated with chemicals. Even if China’s economy, as some analysts expect, continues to grow at strong single-digit rates for the rest of the decade, most agree that the heady double-digit days of much of the past ten years are over.
China’s media censors do not want the supposed difficulties of the next few years blamed on the outgoing leadership. They were very unhappy with an essay written by one of the party’s own senior theoreticians which was published in September on the website of Caijing, a Beijing magazine. The scholar, Deng Yuwen, who is a senior editor of the party journal, Study Times, wrote that the Hu era had possibly created more problems than it had solved.
The party, he said, was facing “a crisis of legitimacy”, fuelled by such issues as the wealth gap and the party’s failure to “satisfy demands for power to be returned to the people”. Mr Deng’s views were deleted from the website within hours. On his Sina Weibo microblog (with around 6,600 followers: not bad for someone whose job is to write for party insiders) he describes himself as one who “cries out for freedom and struggles for democracy”.
Despite the censors, Mr Deng’s views continue to be echoed by party liberals. In mid-September the National Development and Reform Commission, the government’s economic-planning agency, convened a meeting of some 70 scholars in Moganshan, a hillside retreat once beloved of Shanghai’s colonial-era elite. “I strongly felt that those with ideals among the intelligentsia were full of misgivings about the situation in China today,” said Lu Ting, an economist at Bank of America Merrill Lynch, who took part. Several of the scholars, he wrote for the website of Caixin, a Chinese portal, described China as being “unstable at the grass roots, dejected among the middle strata and out of control at the top”. Almost all agreed that reforms were “extremely urgent” and that without them there could be “social turmoil”.
Liberals have been encouraged by the downfall of Bo Xilai, who was dismissed as party chief of Chongqing, a region in the south-west, in March and expelled from the party in September. Leftists had been hailing Mr Bo as their champion, a defender of the communist faith. They accused the right of inventing allegations of sleaze in an effort to prevent his rise to the top alongside Mr Xi. The authorities have closed down leftist websites which once poured out articles backing him. But they have not silenced the left entirely: on October 23rd leftists published an open letter to the national legislature, signed by hundreds of people including academics and former officials, expressing support for Mr Bo. The question is, what does Mr Xi think? Will he heed the right’s demands for more rapid political and economic liberalisation, maintain Mr Hu’s ultra-cautious approach, or even take up Mr Bo’s mantle as a champion of the left?

Happy Xiajiang?
There is little doubt that Mr Xi is more confident and outgoing than Mr Hu. His lineage gives him a strong base of support among China’s ruling families. But analysts attempting to divine his views are clutching at straws. A meeting in recent weeks between Mr Xi and Hu Deping, the liberal son of China’s late party chief, Hu Yaobang, raised hopes that he might have a soft spot for reformists. Mr Xi’s record in Zhejiang inspires others to believe that he is on the side of private enterprise (the province is a bastion of it). His late father, some note, had liberal leanings. The Dalai Lama once gave a watch to the elder Mr Xi, who wore it long after the Tibetan leader had fled into exile. This has fuelled speculation that Xi Jinping might be conciliatory to Tibetans. Wishful thinking abounds.
The visitor to Mr Xi’s adopted village, Xiajiang, might be encouraged that it has tried a little democracy. A former party chief there says candidates for the post of party secretary have to have the support of 70% of the villagers, including non-party members. During his apprenticeship, however, Mr Xi has been wary of going too far with ballot-box politics. In a little-publicised speech in 2010 he attacked the notion of “choosing people simply on the basis of votes”. That is not a problem he will face at the party congress.

Indian Way of Honouring Nobel Laureat VS Naipaul

Girish Karnad takes on VS Naipaul – TheKooza.com

Girish Karnad takes on VS Naipaul


MUMBAI: At the Tata Literature Live! Festival here Friday afternoon, playwright Girish Karnad surprised audiences with an unexpected and elaborate criticism of author VS Naipaul, who was awarded the festival’s Lifetime Achievement Award on Wednesday night.
Karnad, whose session was announced as a master class where the playwright would talk about “his life in theatre”, spoke instead about Naipaul’s mis-characterizations of Indian history and the politics of giving him an award in spite of his widely quoted remarks about Indian Muslims, especially in light of Mumbai and India’s recent history.
Edited excerpts from his remarks:
Why is Naipaul being honored?
At the Mumbai literature festival this year, Landmark Literature Live! have jointly given the Lifetime Achievement Award to Sir Vidia Naipaul. The award ceremony, held on the 31st of October at the National Center for the Performing Arts, coyly failed to mention that Naipaul was not an Indian and has never claimed to be one. But at no point was the question raised, and the words Shashi Deshpande, the novelist, had used to describe the Neemrana Festival conducted by the ICCR (Indian Council for Cultural Relations) in 2002 perfectly fitted the event: “It was a celebration of a Nobel Laureate…whom India, hopefully, even sycophantically, considered an Indian.”
Apart from his novels, only two of which take place in India and are abysmal, Naipaul has written three books on India and the books are brilliantly written — he is certainly among the great English writers of our generation. They have been hailed as a continued exploration of India’s journey into modernity, but what strikes one from the very first book, ‘A Wounded Civilization’, is their rabid antipathy to the Indian Muslim. The “wound” in the title is the one inflicted on India by Babar’s invasion. Since then, Naipaul has never missed a chance to accuse them of having savaged India for five centuries, brought, among other dreadful things, poverty into it, and destroyed glorious Indian culture.
A point that strikes one immediately about these books is that there is not a single word in any of these books on Indian music. And I believe that if you cannot respond to music, you cannot understand India. Music is the defining art form of the Indian identity. Naipaul’s silence on the subject when he is exploring the whole of modern Indian culture proves to me that he is tone deaf — which in turn makes him insensitive to the intricate interweaving of Hindu and Muslim creativities — through the Bhakti and Sufi movements — that have given us the extraordinary heritage, alive in the heart of every Indian home.
Despite this lack, however, Naipaul borrows a great deal of his theories of Indian culture from the British musicologists of the 18th and 19th centuries, like William Jones. These scholars were acquainted with many other ancient civilizations, such as the Egyptian, the Greek and the Roman. But they were intrigued by the fact that while with these civilizations, their musical traditions were entirely lost, the Indian musical tradition was alive and thriving. They concluded that this once pure-and-pristine music must have been, at some point during the course of its long history, corrupted and mauled — and they found the villain in the invading Muslim. So, according to them, once upon a time there was a pristine Indian musical culture, which the Muslims had molested.
In his analysis of Indian culture, Naipaul simply borrows this line of argument and re-employs it — as his original perception and not for the first time.
Naipaul accuses RK Narayan of being indifferent to the destruction and death symbolized by the ruins of Vijayanagar, which to him was a bastion of Hindu culture destroyed by the marauding Muslims. But he gets this interpretation of the history of Vijayanagar ready made from a book by Robert Sewell called ‘A Forgotten Empire’, published in 1900. Naipaul, as always in awe of his colonial sources, simply borrows the theory and recycles it wholesale as his own. That historians and archaeologists working on the site during the last century have proven the situation to be much more complex and have shown that religion had little role to play in the conflict is irrelevant to him.
Of the Taj, probably the most beloved of monuments in India, Naipaul writes: “The Taj is so wasteful, so decadent and in the end so cruel that it is painful to be there for very long. This is an extravagance that speaks of the blood of the people.” He brushes off historian Romila Thapar’s argument that the Mughal era saw a rich efflorescence of the mixture of Hindu and Muslim styles, by attributing her judgment to her Marxist bias and says, “The correct truth is the way the invaders look at their actions. They were conquering. They were subjugating.” To Naipaul, the Indian Muslim remains an invader forever, forever condemned to be condemned, because some of them had invaders for their ancestors. It is a usage that would yield some strange results if applied to the USA.
As for Naipaul’s journalistic exploration of modern India, mainly in the form of a series of interviews conducted with Indians right across the board, one must confess they are supremely well written and he is a master in drawing sharp and precise visuals of the people he talks to and of the places he visits. What begins to bother one after a while, however, is that he invariably seems to meet brilliant interviewees whose answers to his questions are expressed with a wit and elegance that match his own mastery of the craft. Even half-literate interviewees suffer from no diffidence in their expression.
How reliable are the conversations he records? In a well-known essay Naipaul describes his visit to the National Institute of Design, Ahmedabad, where he stayed with his friend, Ashoke Chatterjee, the director of the Institute. In a recent email to me, Mr Chatterjee said that the essay was “a scenario that could have been but was not what he (Naipaul) actually saw. Fragments of reality, selected and put together into a collage of pure fantasy.” Chatterjee’s friendship with Naipaul came to an abrupt end when Chatterjee told Naipaul that his book, ‘A Wounded Civilization’, should be classified as fiction.
In a recent book, Naipaul takes up for examination the autobiography of Munshi Rahman Khan, who immigrated to Suriname at the end of the 19th century, and contrasts it with Gandhi’s. Sanjay Subrahmanyam, the historian, has reviewed the essay, and it doesn’t take him much effort to establish that Naipaul could only have read a third-hand translation of the text. “It is as if a reader in Gorakhpur was reading Naipaul in Maithili after the text had passed through a Japanese translation.” That doesn’t prevent Naipaul from commenting even on the style and linguistic usage of Rahman Khan.
The question surely is, by giving him the Lifetime Achievement Award, what statement is being made by the Award givers. As a journalist, what he writes about Indiais his business. No one can question his right to be ignorant or to prevaricate.
But the Nobel Prize has given him a sudden authority, and his use of it needs to be looked at.
One of the first things Naipaul did on receiving the Nobel Prize was to visit the office of the BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party) in Delhi. He who had earlier declared that he was not political, “that to have a political view is to be programmed”, now declared that he was happy to be politically “appropriated”. It was then that he made his most infamous remark: “Ayodhya,” he said, “is a sort of passion. Any passion is creative. Passion leads to creativity.”
Salman Rushdie’s response was that Naipaul was behaving like “a fellow-traveler of Fascism and (that he) disgraces the Nobel Prize. For a foreigner, Ayodhya may be an amusing proof of some abstract theory he has concocted (or perhaps found readymade). But in the wake of Ayodhya, close to 1,500 Muslims were slaughtered in the streets of Bombay alone. I was attending a film festival in New Delhi when the riots broke out and received anguished calls from my friends in Bombay to say Muslims were being pulled out of their homes or stopped in the streets to be killed. I rang my Muslim editor to say he and his family could use my flat, in a predominantly Parsi building, until the situation became safe. The great Marathi actress, Fayyaz, whom I finally located after a week in a corner in Pune where she had fled in distress from Mumbai, described how Shiv Sainiks had thrown firebombs into Muslim slums and how, when the inmates of the houses rushed out in terror, they were shot down by the police as troublemakers.”
Seven years later, in cold blood, Naipaul was glamorizing these events as “passion”, as “a creative act”.
It is significant that this part of Naipaul’s sociologizing was not mentioned in the citation of the award, or by Farrukh Dhondy, who while interviewing him, mentioned the book, ‘Among the Believers’ and then quickly moved to a long-winded account of how he had helped Sir Vidia adopt a cat which 13 years later was put to sleep while lying on his lap — giving Naipaul another chance to burst into sentimental tears. Presumably Dhondy was trying to prove how “human” Naipaul was.
But Landmark and Literature Live who have announced this award have a responsibility to explain to us where exactly they stand with regard to Naipaul’s remarks. Do they mean to valorize Naipaul’s stand that Indian Muslims are raiders and marauders? Are they supporting his continued argument that Muslim buildings in India are monuments to rape and loot? Or are they by their silence suggesting that these views do not matter?
If the givers of this award are deliberately keeping silent about their opinion of this outsider’s criminalization of a whole section of the Indian population as rapists and murderers, then let me say the silence is more than irresponsible. It is shocking.
Of the award itself, one can only call it shameful.
Source: http://www.livemint.com

Berlusconi is taking revenge cursing everyone around him

Silvio Berlusconi is taking revenge cursing everyone around him

http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21565674-silvio-berlusconi-taking-revenge-cursing-everyone-around-him-bribesville-ii?fsrc=nlw|hig|11-1-2012|4003157|106923250|AP


ITALIAN politics has come full circle since the day in 1994 when Silvio Berlusconi announced that he would enter politics: “The old Italian political class has been overwhelmed by events and overtaken. The self-destruction of the old rulers, crushed by the weight of public debt and the system of illegal financing of political parties, left the country unprepared and uncertain in the difficult time of renewal and the transition to a new Republic.”
The footage of the dashing entrepreneur promising hope, renewal and good government now seems surreal. These days it is Mr Berlusconi who, having dominated Italian politics for nearly two decades, personifies a tired old political class. He is even more discredited by scandal than his predecessors. He has only added to Italy’s burden of debt. And he leaves a wreckage that hampers Italy’s recovery from its financial and economic crisis. The “second republic” that he embodied is dying; the third republic that will follow is uncertain.
Though he surrendered the prime ministership last year to a technocratic government led by Mario Monti, Mr Berlusconi poses a danger in his political death-throes. In his latest TV appearance, a waxen-faced Mr Berlusconi (some thought he resembled Egypt’s ailing former president Hosni Mubarak) cursed all around him. Just a few days earlier he had announced he would not stand for election again, to help the creation of a grand centre-right alliance. In private he had even asked Mr Monti to lead it. Now he denounced Mr Monti for bringing recession; and Germany for its hegemony. Above all, Mr Berlusconi took aim at the judiciary, after a court had sentenced him to four years in prison for tax fraud. As with his previous three convictions (two overturned on appeal and one lapsed thanks to the statute of limitations) he is unlikely ever to go to jail. He still faces another trial on charges of paying an under-age girl for sex. What especially offended Mr Berlusconi was the judges’ view that he had “a natural capacity to commit crime”. Mr Berlusconi certainly has a knack for grabbing headlines and causing trouble. He warned that his People of Liberty (PdL) party could vote down Mr Monti, in effect disowning his senior PdL lieutenants who had been trying to regroup under the aura of the respected professor. The talk in Rome is that Mr Berlusconi may launch a new and more Eurosceptic party, reclaiming the old name of “Forza Italia” (some mock it as “Forza Silvio”). If so, expect a season of bitter infighting. Italian politics is thus returning to the chaos of the early 1990s when the ruling class was shattered by corruption scandals. Then, as today, Italy faced a financial crisis and crashed out of the euro’s precursor, the Exchange Rate Mechanism. Then, as today, Italy sought salvation in a technocrat, Carlo Azeglio Ciampi, the governor of the Bank of Italy. At least there are no mafia bombs now.
The 1990s Tangentopoli (Bribesville) scandal had been mostly about financing political parties using kickbacks for public contracts; now it is more about private enrichment with taxpayers’ money. In the 1990s the ex-communists offered an alternative, and Mr Berlusconi espoused a free-market alternative to the feared left. These days the opposition Democratic Party, heir to the communists, is less implicated in scandal but hardly immune. It is in decline, not least because of its internal power struggles and its unwillingness to dump more radical allies.
The election on October 28th in Sicily was a warning of wider fragmentation. The PdL, once unchallenged there, came third in the ballot for the regional assembly and, in a separate vote, its candidate for the governorship came second. More than half the voters abstained. Of the ballots cast, the biggest number (15%) went to the Five-Star “movement” of a comedian, Beppe Grillo, whose web-fired campaign denounces all parties and promises not to ally with any of them. Mr Grillo is alarmingly thin on policies and wants a referendum on leaving the euro. Some call his movement the “anti-party”; others the “Fuck Off party”.
Monti descends from the mountain
Amid disgust and disintegration, the softly spoken Mr Monti seeks to bring some sobriety. Despite austerity and other unpopular reforms, opinion polls show many Italians give him grudging support. Mr Monti says he has defied the curse of Jean-Claude Juncker, the prime minister of Luxembourg, who famously noted: “We all know what to do, we just don’t know how to get re-elected after we have done it.”
Yet Mr Monti’s popularity is partly due to the fact that he does not intend to run in the general election, scheduled for April. He, too, is an anti-party figure of sorts. And the rise of Mr Grillo raises the chances of Mr Monti staying on after the election, if not as prime minister then perhaps as president of the republic. Enlisting Mr Monti again may reassure markets and European partners, but it would be another indictment of Italian politicians.
Restoring Italy to health will be long and hard, requiring the legitimacy of a proper government. A better option would be for mainstream parties to show that politics can work. They should commit themselves to preserving, and indeed furthering, the “Monti agenda” of fiscal discipline and liberalising the economy.
Mr Monti will soon have to take a big decision: should he trigger the European Central Bank’s offer to help push down Italy’s borrowing costs by applying for a euro-zone bail-out and submitting to an externally monitored EU reform programme? Like Spain, Italy fears humiliation and the prospect that markets will see it as even more of a problem. But such is the uncertainty that many leading figures, across the spectrum, think he should take the risk as the best way of enshrining the “Monti agenda”. Even sensible Italian politicians worry they cannot be trusted to reform on their own.
Economist.com/blogs/charlemagne

Moving the conversation forward on Muslim women’s rights by Sheherazade Jafari - Common Ground News Service

Moving the conversation forward on Muslim women’s rights by Sheherazade Jafari - Common Ground News Service

Moving the conversation forward on Muslim women’s rights
by Sheherazade Jafari



l
Kuala Lumpur - Muslim women’s rights. These three words— whether uttered by religious fundamentalists, progressives, politicians, activists, believers or nonreligious people in the West or the East — have been debated, co-opted, claimed, defined and redefined, and are at the heart of some of today’s most contentious debates worldwide. Indeed, these three words are central in my own advocacy work and scholarly pursuits. A fascination for some and a threat for others, Muslim women’s rights are receiving attention worldwide – as they should.

But too often this happens for the wrong reasons.

From Egypt to Malaysia, women in Muslim-majority countries are experiencing new social and even legal pressures not felt in decades to preserve so-called religious and cultural norms through restrictions of their rights and roles.

In the West, the pervading depiction of Muslim women is one of women in need of rescue from an inherently misogynistic religion. According to traditional Western thought, only a secular liberal human rights framework can bring gender equality and women’s rights to Muslim women. Yet casting rights as a Western secular concept—and therefore a foreign imposition—is one of the most popular strategies used to deny women their rights in many Muslim contexts.

Muslim women activists, however, are already claiming their rights through strategic local and transnational organising, knowledge-building and advocacy. A far cry from the passive actors of both the religious fundamentalist and traditional Western imagination, their rights are not defined by violent and misogynistic interpretations, but from a religion that serves as an important source of empowerment, purpose and dignity in the lives of millions of women and men.

It has never been more crucial to pay attention to, learn from and support Muslim women’s transnational efforts against rising extremism and religiously based violence. But how?

The organisation Musawah, which means equality in Arabic, defines itself as “a global movement of women and men who believe equality and justice in the Muslim family are necessary and possible”. Led by a network of Muslim women “who seek to publicly reclaim Islam's spirit of justice for all”, Musawah works with both religious and secular actors to integrate Islamic teachings, universal human rights and national constitutional guarantees of equality with women and men’s lived realities. They are forging bridges across the so-called religious-secular divide, demonstrating the many shared goals and room for collaboration among Muslim, non-Muslim, religious and secular human rights advocates.

Another example, Women Living Under Muslim Laws (WLUML) is “an international solidarity network for women whose lives are shaped, conditioned or governed by laws and customs said to derive from Islam”. One of its key objectives is to build and strengthen connections between women within Muslim contexts and global feminist and progressive groups, providing opportunities to share “information and analysis that helps demystify the diverse sources of control over women’s lives, and the strategies and experiences of challenging all means of control”.

By paying attention to the critical work of Musawah and WLUML, among others, we can glean a few steps that Western-based and secular women’s rights advocates can take to be more effective partners.

First, we would all do well to recognise the diversity of Muslim expression, interpretation and experience, and that women are agents of their own religiosity. By assuming Islam is inherently misogynistic, we dangerously lend support to extremists’ redefining of religion and claims of Muslim women’s passivity and subordination, while alienating the many women whose religion is a core part of their identity and source of strength.

Second, we can acknowledge that while certain rights are universal and fundamental, there is not one path to attaining them. A religious framework for women’s rights can be complementary to a secular framework and reflect universal principles, while addressing the particular needs of religious communities at the same time.

Third, we must recognise that true partnerships are a two-way street of knowledge sharing and solidarity. Sources of oppression for women in Muslim-majority countries may not be that different from sources of oppression for women in other countries: cultures of patriarchy, unequal legal and economic opportunities, and a rise in extremist ideologies. There are many opportunities for Western and/or secular women’s movements to strengthen their efforts by learning from movements in different cultural and religious contexts.

The most important actors to give meaning to those three words — Muslim women’s rights — are Muslim women themselves. Transnational partnerships that honour this fact can give us hope for a world that is just and peaceful for all.

###

* Sheherazade Jafari is a Ph.D. candidate in International Relations at American University in Washington, DC. She is currently in Malaysia conducting research on women’s rights advocacy across religious and secular differences. This article was written for a series on religion, globalisation and peacebuilding for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).

Friday, 2 November 2012

State Alumni: Your Global Community - Donald M. Payne International Development Graduate Fellowship

State Alumni: Your Global Community - Donald M. Payne International Development Graduate Fellowship

Donald M. Payne International Development Graduate Fellowship


Job Location: United States of America
Type: Fellowship
Description:
The Donald M. Payne International Development Graduate Fellowship seeks to prepare young people for careers in international development as Foreign Service Officers in the U.S. Agency for International Development.  
The Payne Fellowship Program provides benefits of up to $90,000 over two years toward a two-year master's degree, arranges internships on Capitol Hill and at USAID missions overseas, and provides professional development and support activities leading to employment in USAID.  
Fellows may use the fellowship to attend a two-year master's program in a U.S. institution to study an area of relevance to the USAID Foreign Service, including international relations, public policy, business administration, foreign languages, economics, agriculture, environmental sciences, 
health, or urban planning at a graduate or professional school approved by the Payne Program.   
At the end of the two-year fellowship, Fellows enter the USAID Foreign Service. Applicants must be college seniors or graduates looking to start graduate school in the fall of the year they apply, have GPAs of at least 3.2 and be U.S. citizens. The program welcomes applications from those with any undergraduate major.  

Information and application materials for the program is at www.paynefellows.org.  

The application deadline is January 23, 2013.

Deadline: 2013-01-23
Contact Name:
Contact Email:
Company Name: Donald M. Payne International Development Graduate Fellowship
Website: http:// www.paynefellows.org
 

Five Truths About India -Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Five Truths About India
-

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace


Five Truths About India

Milan Vaishnav Article, November 2, 2012
For over sixty years, India, a low-income country occupying a sprawling geography and serving as a home to a dizzying diversity of ethnic and linguistic groups, has managed to survive—indeed, thrive—as a functioning democracy. Its political system in particular has the capacity to confound even the most knowledgeable and insightful Indian, so it should come as no surprise that for outsiders, interpreting Indian politics can be downright daunting.
India: State Capacity in Global Context
But trying to fit India into neat categories to get a handle on the South Asian behemoth misses much of the nuance at the heart of the Indian polity. For instance, India’s politics have grown more regionalized, yet powerful forces of centralization remain intact. Old caste divides have lost social relevance but often thrive in the domain of politics. Five trends playing out in India today highlight the tensions between continuity and change in the country.

India’s party system is fragmented, but centralization has not disappeared

A dominant narrative about Indian politics over the last few decades has been the increasing regionalization of the political party system. One way to measure this fragmentation is to compare political competition in India’s first general elections in 1952 to the most recent parliamentary elections of 2009. In 1952, 55 parties contested general elections, and in 2009, there were 370 competitors (see figure 1).

Of course, these numbers overstate the level of fragmentation because they do not account for the actual support political parties have among the electorate, but the changes remain large even when parties are weighted by the actual seats they win. In 1952, this measure of effective number of parties in parliament stood at 1.7, and it has exhibited a more-than-fourfold increase over the past six decades, reaching 6.5.
The emerging federal nature of India’s electoral politics was given a shot in the arm in the early 1990s thanks to the rise of coalition governments in New Delhi, which provided a new set of incentives for aspiring regional politicians to abandon the dominant national parties and establish their own political outfits. While some of these new “regional parties” have strong links to subnational, separatist, or regional cultural markers, most simply draw support from a narrow (subnational) geographically defined territory. In this sense, several Indian parties formally classified as “national” by the Election Commission of India are actually regional in nature, such as the Nationalist Congress Party, whose success is largely confined to the state of Maharashtra. As a result of these shifts, state-level politics are now the principal settings for political contestation, while national elections are increasingly “derivative.” While this does not mean that national elections are merely a sum of state-level contests, state-level politics is often the prism through which voters make decisions about national elections. For example, when state-level elections are held less than two years prior to national elections, voters are prone to reaffirm their state-level decisions when they vote in parliamentary elections. But when national elections take place midway through a state government’s tenure, more often than not voters punish the ruling state party or parties in national polls.
Moreover, fractures have developed within the two major national parties. Fragmentation within the ruling Indian National Congress (Congress, for short) is largely due to the leadership’s “dyarchic” nature. Ever since the Congress Party’s current president, Sonia Gandhi, refused to assume the position of prime minister after the Congress came to power in 2004, handing over the reins to former finance minister Manmohan Singh, dual power centers revolving around these two figures have persisted. In reality, Singh occupies the throne, but Gandhi is perceived to wield the power. The wheels came off the arrangement during its second term. Now, the “divided leadership” within the Congress Party may be the most significant political hurdle to implementing badly needed political and economic reforms.
The problem for the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is far more complicated. The party boasts a surfeit of leaders clamoring for the post of prime minister. Many of the BJP’s most well-known personalities continue to jockey for greater visibility and stature within the party hierarchy—leading to frequent internal disputes. Complicating this picture even more is the fact that the BJP exhibits a significant amount of diversity at the state level. In the words of scholar Pratap Bhanu Mehta, the BJP “is, for all practical purposes, a collection of six or seven state parties.” Furthermore, the leaders of the BJP in the states pledge their political loyalties to different national-level BJP leaders.
Yet, it would be premature to sound the death knell for the two major national parties. In the 2009 general elections, the Congress and BJP won a combined total of 322 seats—or 60 percent of the overall count (543). Indeed, Congress’s vote share in national elections has essentially remained constant since 1996—hovering around 28 percent. (Yet due to the peculiarities of India’s winner-take-all electoral system, the number of seats the Congress has won with a roughly similar vote share has fluctuated wildly from election to election—see figure 2.) Both parties also continue to have a considerable presence at the state level. Nearly two-thirds of states (19 of 30) are presently governed by either Congress or BJP chief ministers, though several are in a coalition with regional parties.

States are the solution to India’s policy dilemmas, but also the problem

When India’s central government is unwilling or unable to take action on policy reform, its states are often heralded as the solution to gridlock or “policy paralysis” because Indian federalism gives the states considerable space for policy innovation. When the center fails, the respective states can usher in and lead intra-Indian competition for resources, investment, and talent, which produces a dynamic process of policy diffusion.
What complicates the picture is that the degree to which “good policies” are adopted often varies considerably within states. For instance, Gujarat has enjoyed fantastic economic growth rates and enormous investment inflows under Chief Minister Narendra Modi’s tenure. In this sense, it is one of India’s most highly developed states. Yet, while Gujarat’s economic “model” is heralded, it a lags on health and family welfare, scoring near the bottom of India’s states on basic indicators of malnutrition.
The coexistence in Modi’s Gujarat of economic vitality with endemic malnutrition illustrates, in a nutshell, the promise and the peril of state-level leadership. Indeed, while there is a generally positive correlation between the level of development and malnutrition across India’s states, the states that thrive economically often “underperform” on addressing malnutrition (see figure 3 with Gujarat highlighted in red).

And when it comes to natural resource management states have strongly opposed reforms that would minimize their discretion and, therefore, their rent extraction possibilities. Consider the recent corruption scandal known as “Coalgate.” A blistering report from the comptroller and auditor general accused the central government of using an opaque, uncompetitive, and ad hoc discretionary process for allocating nearly 60 licenses for captive coal mines across India. The report estimates that the policy led to $33 billion in lost revenue.
The central government is surely to blame for dithering in establishing a new, competitive policy for allocating coal licenses. But the states themselves played a starring role in the scandal. The chief ministers of several mining-intensive states strongly opposed a change of policy and lobbied the government to maintain the status quo. And state governments played a prominent role in recommending which private sector firms should receive licenses.

The Indian state is often overbureaucratized yet undermanned

Given the corruption, cronyism, and abuse of government authority that have come to light in recent years—ranging from the discretionary allocation of licenses governing 2G telecommunication spectrum to the procurement scandals which plagued India’s hosting of the Commonwealth Games—there is a strong sentiment within India that the powers of the bureaucracy have to be substantially curbed. There is certainly a considerable need to curtail the worst excesses of the state, especially where the state’s heavy-handed role distorts economic incentives. For instance, transactions involving land—construction, mining, and infrastructure—remain a hotbed of corruption and malfeasance. The regulatory intensity of the state with respect to land is extremely high, allowing politicians and bureaucrats to trade regulatory forbearance for bribes and kickbacks.
Yet, while the Indian state needs to cede authority over certain realms, it simultaneously needs to expand its authority in others. Notwithstanding the widely held image of India as a country overburdened by a massive bureaucracy, India has one of the lowest rates of per capita public sector employment of any G20 country. Furthermore, government employment in India (across local, state, and federal levels) is in decline.
The Indian state suffers from debilitating weaknesses that hinder its ability to raise revenue, adjudicate disputes, guarantee public order, and provide public goods. It has the lowest tax-to-GDP ratio of any BRIC country (a grouping that also includes Brazil, Russia, and China). Indeed, it has one of the smallest ratios of any country in the G20. Admittedly, it is difficult to disentangle issues of policy choice from capacity, but there are ample signs that India is failing to enforce the taxes that are on the books. For instance, a new investigations unit of the income tax department dedicated to recovering lost tax revenue has barely gotten off the ground one year after setting up shop thanks to a personnel shortfall.
The relative incapacity of the judiciary has been well documented. The Supreme Court reported in late 2011 that the country’s courts are saddled under the weight of 32 million pending cases. Courts at all levels—the Supreme Court as well as various high courts and district and subordinate courts—see their dockets grow rather than shrink year after year.
Meanwhile, India’s security forces suffer from endemic personnel shortages. As of the end of 2011, only 77 percent of available posts in the civil police force were occupied according to the National Crime Records Bureau. Even if the state governments were to boost their recruitment and close the vacancy gap, India would still have one of the smallest ratios of police per capita anywhere in the world. The armed forces too struggle with manpower shortfalls: the Indian army faces a shortage of 12,000 officers, or roughly 20 percent of its overall sanctioned strength.
Finally, India also struggles in its ability to provide basic services such as healthcare and education. On education, for instance, it is true that India is growing ever closer toward achieving universal primary enrollment. Yet, the quality of those activities that regularly take place in schools is, on average, abysmal. According to the last several rounds of the Annual Status of Education Report conducted by the nongovernmental organization Pratham, the proportion of children aged six to fourteen who can read a simple paragraph has stagnated around 40 percent—with only marginal improvement over the past several years.

India’s economic crisis is largely self-inflicted

After over a decade of booming growth, the Indian economy was recently brought down to earth. In the quarter ending in June 2012, the economy grew at a rate of 5.5 percent—down from 8 percent the same quarter one year ago. While the International Monetary Fund now projects that growth in 2012 will dip below 5 percent, most independent observers forecast a quick rebound in 2013. A sustained period of growth at 5 percent or below, if such a situation materialized, would constitute a serious social and economic crisis for India.
In many ways, the particular success of India’s economy may have planted the seeds of its future slowdown. Reforms of the early 1990s, which involved industrial delicensing, reducing tariffs, and removing barriers to foreign capital flows, created a powerful new class of entrepreneurs who leveraged their political connections to entrench their positions in a newly liberalized economy. These private sector winners, and their political allies, believed it was in their self-interest to obstruct follow-on, second-generation reforms that would further increase international competition in the economy or introduce more transparent and competitive processes for natural resource contracts. Crony capitalism may have helped fuel rapid economic growth, but the rot in the system now threatens to swallow the whole thing up as the economy struggles in the wake of revelations of gross misgovernance and corruption.
There is also a perception that the roots of the current economic malaise are deeply political, from two years of unrelenting corruption scandals to a divided ruling party. The situation was further compounded by the government’s missteps on key policy issues at critical junctures. For instance, the government announced aggressive new anti-tax-avoidance policies that would retroactively levy taxes on business deals it perceived were structured to circumvent tax compliance. This move rattled investor confidence and contributed to an atmosphere of heightened private sector uncertainty.
In an encouraging move, in mid-September the government announced a slew of long-awaited reforms, notably raising the price of diesel (which is heavily subsidized) and increasing foreign investment caps in a range of sectors such as broadcasting, multibrand retail, and civil aviation. The government referred to these reforms as a “big bang,” but the current changes can best be described as a collection of modest steps. Most political parties acknowledge the need for more fundamental structural reform; India’s administrative, regulatory, and legal machinery is hopelessly out of date. Yet the implementation of such reforms carries with it great political risk, discouraging bolder action.

Caste in India is declining socially, but remains strong politically

Social relations in India have long been defined by the peculiar tenets of Hinduism’s hierarchical caste system. But according to a recent study, the social inequalities that have historically defined relations between Dalits (lower castes) and non-Dalits have declined precipitously in the market-reform era. Indeed, India now boasts a talented crop of “Dalit millionaires” who have formed their own Dalit Chamber of Commerce. Moreover, several groups have benefitted from reservations (or ethnic quotas) in government jobs, higher education, and political representation.
Yet caste hierarchies are alive and well in other areas. In one study, economists sent fictitious online job applications to firms, randomly manipulating the caste-based surnames of the fake applicants. Large and significant differences in the treatment of applicants was seen in competition over call-center jobs, where “soft” or intangible skills are difficult to effectively signal through resume credentials alone, suggesting the persistence of discrimination against disadvantaged groups in certain sectors.
And there can be no doubt that a significant amount of political mobilization still occurs along caste or communal lines. This is most glaring in north Indian states such as Uttar Pradesh, where rival political parties vociferously court opposing “vote banks” and speak of “caste equations.” Yet, political mobilization along identity lines is hardly confined to north India: politically motivated communal violence in Kerala and the persistence of political divisions between the Kamma, Reddy, and Kapu communities in Andhra Pradesh are evidence of this.
Moreover, caste seems to still influence voter behavior across India. Some observers have heralded the delinking of ethnicity and vote choice by examining national-level aggregates of voter behavior, finding little evidence to suggest that a majority of any given ethnic community favors one political party over another. But when one disaggregates the data at the state level—which is the prime venue for political contestation—a majority of a caste group in many states votes in favor of one political party.
A closer look at state-level realities also suggests that some prominent leaders who have been celebrated for their perceived willingness to transcend caste divides in fact embrace caste—albeit in less overt, divisive ways. One prominent leader who is said to have risen above caste politics is Chief Minister Nitish Kumar in the state of Bihar. In reality, Kumar has not ignored caste; he has simply played the caste card shrewdly. In his first term, Kumar instituted a “Mahadalit” scheme—earmarking government transfers for certain Dalit segments, namely those that fell outside of the traditional vote banks of his opposition—and established quotas in government jobs for lower caste Muslims.

Looking Ahead

Over the past two decades, India’s politics have grown far more complex. Economic liberalization, growing political competition, and increasing decentralization have fundamentally remade India’s political economy. Yet these new shifts have not completely displaced prevailing ideologies and proclivities.
In today’s India, liberalization coexists with the remnants of state-driven planning. Regionalization has expanded but has not completely taken over. And the bureaucracy’s authority has receded in many domains while becoming more entrenched in others. Those looking to make sense of where India’s political project is headed in the years to come would be well-served to heed the words of Cambridge economist Joan Robinson: “Whatever you can rightly say about India, the opposite is also true.”
The author thanks Reedy Swanson for excellent research assistance, Ashley Tellis and Frederic Grare for comments, and Devesh Kapur for useful conversations.

Making Media Development More Effective | Center for International Media Assistance

Making Media Development More Effective | Center for International Media Assistance

Making Media Development More Effective




CIMA is pleased to release a special report, Making Media Development More Effective, by Tara Susman-Peña, a media development and communications consultant. She was the director of research for Internews’s Media Map Project, which informed this paper. A wealth of research demonstrates that a healthy media sector is consistently paired with better development outcomes and can contribute to better development. However, media development–donor support for strengthening the quality, independence, and sustainability of the news media–has comprised only about 0.5 percent of overall aid to developing countries. Should media development’s track record earn it a more central place in international development? A strong evidence base of original research conducted for the Media Map Project, a collaborative effort between Internews and the World Bank Institute, funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, provides the opportunity to analyze the extent to which donor support to media has helped the media sector fulfill its promise to strengthen development. This report points out that donors to media development have a number of blind spots that prevent their interventions from being more effective and that media development stakeholders could improve their efforts by applying aid effectiveness principles to their practice.
Read Full Report in PDF Format
Read Highlights of the Report