Can Pacifists like Modi and Macron help to nudge the world towards peace?

War helps no one on this planet – specially not the people, plants and all living beings who inhabit it. One Vorld One Universe One Mankind is the guiding principle, which will help resolve all issues. One would like to promote world peace, but with dignity for all and without compromise to extremism. There are hardly any who talk about peace in the present scenario in Europe. However two leaders who stand out and are proactive about peace are undoubtedly Modi and Macron. PM Modi’s role came into limelight during SCO summit, but ever since war began he has been talking about peace privately to Putin and also Zelensky. On the other hand President Macron met President Putin in Moscow, way back in February 2022 aiming for a de-escalation.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s advice to Russian President Vladimir Putin over the Ukraine war during a bilateral meeting on the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit at Samarkand in Uzbekistan has created hopes that perhaps it might be a catalyst to the end of Russia-Ukraine war. While his intervention has received approval from the world leaders, it has also grabbed the attention of leading international press and media

Japanese publication, NHK headlined “Indian PM Modi tells Putin to pursue peace”, Even Chinese media approved of it as the Hong Kong-based l South China Morning Post reported: Now is ‘not a time for war’, India’s Modi tells Russia’s Putin who agrees to ‘end this as soon as possible.’

Politico from US reported; “India’s Modi tells Putin: This is ‘not the era for war” and US News headlines was “Indian PM Modi Tells Russia’s Putin Now ‘Is Not an Era of War”.

On Internationally telecast media, while expressing his concerns about the impact of the war on food and energy security, PM Modi told Putin, “Today’s era is not of war and I have spoken to you about it on the call. Today we will get the opportunity to talk about how we can progress on the path of peace. India and Russia have stayed together with each other for several decades,”

“We spoke several times on the phone about India-Russia bilateral relations and various issues. We should find ways to address the problems of food, fuel security and fertilizers. I want to thank Russia and Ukraine for helping us to evacuate our students from Ukraine,” the Prime Minister added.

International media appreciated PM Modi’s diplomatic tact, who in a friendly manner pushed the concerns of the world at large to its long-standing friend Russia.

CNN appreciated PM Modi’s understanding of the situation and reported ” Indian leader Narendra Modi tells Putin: Now is not the time for war”

Washington Post, headlined “Modi rebukes Putin over war in Ukraine”.

“India’s Leader Tells Putin That Now Is Not an Era for War,” The New York Times said in its headline

Following the SCO summit, India’s role as a peace maker was applauded at the 77th UN General Assembly by world leaders. French President Emmanuel Macron proclaimed that Indian PM Modi was right when he said that time is not for war, not for revenge against the west or for opposing the west against east. It is time for our sovereign equal states to cope together with challenges we face: . German envoy quipped “very well put” to PM Modis remark on the Russia Ukraine conflict. US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan cited Modi’s remark urging Putin to end the war. Other world leaders like Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelensky , Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov,also cited Modi’s advice in their speeches. Indian External Affairs Minister summarized; “I am concluding this week with the sense that India really matters more in this polarised world and much of that is also due to the Prime Minister’s leadership, his image, what he has done on the global stage,”

PM Modi also had a telephonic conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky wherein as per official sources, he conveyed India’s readiness to contribute to any peace efforts in the Russia-Ukraine crisis. he stated that there can be no military solution to the conflict and reiterated his call for early cessation of hostilities and the need to pursue the path of dialogue and diplomacy..

Unlike India, France did not take a neutral stand at UN and voted against Russia in the security council. Yet even before PM Modi’s advice to President Putin Macron has been advocating a reconciliatory approach. As reported by world media, including EuroNews

As far back as May 2022, French President Emmanuel Macron has warned against humiliating Russia for its invasion of Ukraine, if and when any peace settlement is agreed.

He told reporters in Strasbourg that once the war ends, Moscow and Kyiv will eventually have to sit down and negotiate with each other, so any further tensions will only serve to the detriment of the situation.

“We will have a peace to build tomorrow, let us never forget that,” Macron said on Monday. “I mentioned this earlier. We will have to do this with Ukraine and Russia around the table. The end of the discussion and the negotiation will be set by Ukraine and Russia. But it will not be done in denial, nor in exclusion of each other, nor even in humiliation.”

Macron also laid out his vision of a broader community of European democracies that would allow for deeper cooperation between non-EU countries. (EuroNews 9th May)

Even earlier on February 7, 2022 NY Times headline news was “Macron meets Putin in Moscow, aiming for a de-escalation”. It went on to add “President Emmanuel Macron of France, who has positioned himself at the center of Europe’s furious diplomatic maneuvering over Ukraine, said on Monday that the continent was at a “critical crossroads” as he met in Moscow with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia”..However there were murmurs of disapproval by some other countries watch the vido below to get both sided of the story.

Our Columnist Sunil Sarpal recalls the recent background to this war.

The war between USSR and Ukrain broke out approx. 6 months ago. The cause of disenchantment was that USSR did not want Ukrain joining NATO. USSR feared that if Ukrain, whose border separates the two nations, join NATO, other NATO affiliated nations’ forces could line up Ukrain border and intimidate USSR. As of now, the situation has unfolded that 20% Ukrain territory is under USSR control and the war goes on unabated. The devastation took place because of the war is unprecedented.

Is Zelenskey responsible for the war or Putin ?

Putin’s invasion of Ukrain proved a total miscalculation. As days progressed, it seems that the war will go on and on. Because Ukrain forces retaliated in such a manner that USSR forces ran away from the warring zone, leaving behind tanks, arma and others weapons in order to save their lives.

On both sides, the loss of lives and infrastructure took place as never before.

When war broke out an assurance came from none other than USA to Ukrain that they are whole-heartedly behind them, but USA never sent his forces to Ukrain. Of course, sanctions and war-related weapons etc have been supplied by them as well as by Germany. The fear factor on the part of USA could be that if their forces join hands with Ukrain, it would turn out to be a world war.

If Ukrain President Zelenskey is so very stubborn to prolong the war and asking for help from USA and other nations, then Ukrain inviting more trouble. The complete devastation of Ukrain could be averted if Zelenskey relents to Putin’s stand. On the face of USSR might, Ukrain’s defeat is on the cards whatever or how much coming their way.

In this war, both Putin and Zelenskey are held responsible because of their respective stands. Attempts have been made to kill both Putin and Zelenskey separately thru bombs but both escaped unscathed.

But will the momentum for peace, proposed by pacifists like Modi and Macron, gather pace or will temporary victories or setbacks of either side stall the move towards détente, remains to be seen – Manohar Khushalani.

Water Issues Between Riparian States : India and Nepal

Delhi: November 2011. Nepal with a geographical area of 1,47,480 sq km has been bestowed with an abundance of water resources in the form of glaciers, snow pack, ground water and river network which” contribute 200 Billion Cubic Meter (BCM) as surface runoff annually to the river basin system. The steep topography and high run-off offer opportunities of generating vast hydropower of the order of 83,000 MW, out of which 44,600 MW has been assessed as being technically feasible. At present, a total installed capacity of all the hydropower plants in Nepal is just over 600 MW that has been developed so far for internal consumption, due to limited financial resources of Nepal. On the other hand, India is short of around 70,000 MW of peaking power for which hydropower is the best option. Therefore, India can look forward to join hands with Nepal in harnessing the hydropower potential and after fulfilling all Nepal’s internal needs avail surplus hydropower from Nepal to meet its own power demand besides augmentation of river flows in non-monsoon period and considerable flood control benefits in monsoon season.

India has concluded several water and power sharing treaties with Nepal the treaties of Sarada (1920), Kosi (1954) and Gandak (1959) are the early examples. Other examples of water sharing is the ‘Mahakali Integrated Treaty (1996) for the integrated development of Mahakali River including the Sarada Barrage, Tanakpur Barrage and Pancheshwar Project. The DPR of the Pancheshwor project was agreed to be prepared within six months of the agreement made, but it has not yet been finalised. However one is told that major progress has been achieved, as the field investigations required for preparation of DPR are completed (except for some confirmatory tests). But mutually acceptable DPR could not be finalized due to differences on following contentious issues:

 Apportionment of project (capital) cost

 Stage based development

 Water availability & existing consumptive uses downstream of the Pancheshwar Dam

 Power benefits

 Re-regulating structure

There is a realisation now in India that one of the reasons for the stalemate in finalization of the DPR of Pancheshwar Project for the last five years, is the rigid position taken by technical experts on location of the regulating structure, stage based development and sharing of the extra cost chargeable to Irrigation. However, in the process, valuable time and the peaking power (over 10,800 Gwh annually) is being lost by delaying the decision; apart from perpetual flood losses and damage faced by Eastern Uttar Pradesh and Bihar every year during monsoon.

Apart from the fact that there has been no progress at technical level, due to law and order problem and Maoist agitation in Nepal for the last three years, any resolution on the above contentious issues appears to be difficult as the present joint mechanism(s) in vogue are not fully empowered to take independent decisions. A decision in this regards is imperative at the government level appropriately from both sides. A new approach has to be evolved to resolve these issues.

Ministry of Water Resources, Government of Nepal, brought out “Hydro Power Development Policy- 2001”. Its emphasis is on Private Sector participation in the development of hydropower taking into account internal consumption and export possibility.

Since the present atmosphere has become extremely vitiated, our study will examine whether this could perhaps be a key to a fresh approach on the matter. The private sector could be brought in, which could perhaps make Nepal more comfortable. Another approach that could be examined would be a tripartite negotiation by involving Bangladesh. Though the one valid objection to this approach is that tripartite negotiations invariably take longer and are often inconclusive. But, maybe, that could make Nepal more comfortable and less apprehensive in dealing with a larger neighbour. The other approach could be to acceding to Nepal’s demands, but perhaps it is too late for that approach. (October 2011)

Update (2017) :
Matters changed with a new Government at the center.

A revised second detailed project report for the multi-purpose ^*Pancheshwar dam project had finally been sent to the development authority, which was forwarded to the Indian and Nepalese governments for clearancehttps://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/revised-dpr-for-pancheshwar-dam-sent-to-project-development-authority-118090400608_1.html.

The approval of the two stakeholder countries will pave the way for the works to start on the long-awaited project which is expected to fulfill power andirrigation requirements for both countries.

A fresh,updated version of the second DPR, prepared by WAPCOS, was sent last month to Pancheshwar development authority (PDA) which will now forward it to the Indian and Nepalese governments for approval, ” a WAPCOS official at Pancheshwar site said Tuesday.

India and Nepal are the two stakeholders in the ambitious project and WAPCOS is the Indian company entrusted with the task of preparing the DPR.

The fresh DPR is the revised version of the second report sent to the PDA in June, 2017, about which both countries had some reservations.

^*

https://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/revised-dpr-for-pancheshwar-dam-sent-to-project-development-authority-118090400608_1.html

Water Issues Between Riparian States : India and China

Will the next decade be marked by confrontation over water and hydro energy, or will it be known for cooperation over sharing the natural resources? This is the second part of my series on India’s riparian relations with it’s neighbours
– Manohar Khushalani

Independent India’s first treaty with Communist China was marked by the 1954 Panchsheel Trade Agreement. This was the first official document signed with Mao’s China by a third party recognising Tibet as a region of the People’s Republic of China after the People’s Liberation Army’s invasion of Tibet in 1949. With this, India set its diplomatic relations with China on a weak footing, squandering the high ground of knowledge on the historic status of Tibet inherited from the British Empire.

China is the only neighbour, with whom India has geographically shared water resources, but there is no water sharing treaty so far. There seemed to be a great degree of timidity in this matter in the past, but it is changing now. The present government is now asserting itself as it holds national interest above everything else. The first written agreement pertaining to water is an MOU which the water resource ministries of the two countries have signed about provision of Hydrological Information of the Sutlej / Langqen Zangbo River in Flood Season by China to India. The MOU envisages provision of hydrological information in respect of the Sutlej / Langqen Zangbo River in flood season for flood control and disaster mitigation in downstream areas. The arrangement entailed building of a hydrological station by the Chinese side on the Sutlej / Langqen Zangbo River before the flood season of year 2006 and provision of hydrological information to the Indian side beginning the flood season of year 2006. The Chinese side was to bear the cost for setting up of the hydrological station and the Indian side would bear the cost for provision of the hydrological information and the operation of the hydrological station. The detailed implementation plan was to be finalised between the two sides.

According to the MOU, the Chinese side will provide information on any abnormal rise/fall in the water level/discharge and other information, which may lead to sudden floods on the basis of existing monitoring and data collection facilities on real time basis. Both sides will continue to discuss the possibility of providing hydrological information during flood season by China to India in respect of two more rivers – Parlung Zangbo¹ and Lohit /Zayu Qu.

One recalls some time back, a program on BBC wherein Chinese army was shown trying to drain out a dam created by an earthquake by directly using artillery fire. On the flip side it is rumoured that China appears to be perfecting a procedure of creating instant dams by setting up a series of explosion and triggering a man made landslide. This will help it to divert large quantities of river water at short notice. Apparently some officials from Nathpa Jhakri project were allowed, after much reluctance, to visit China, where they have physically seen a lake on Parechu River that the Chinese claim was created by natural landslides.

There is not much reliable information on the present or proposed water-related developments and projects in the Tibet region. In the last few years, some arrangements were agreed upon on receiving information on glacial lake outbursts in the upper regions of the rivers that flow into India from the Tibet region of China, but information on the manner of its implementation, its comprehensiveness and the effectiveness thereof are not available.

In 2002, the Government of India had entered into an MOU with China for sharing of hydrological information on Yaluzangbo²/ Brahmaputra river in flood season by China to India. In accordance with the provisions contained in the MOU, the Chinese side was providing hydrological information (Water level, discharge and rainfall) in respect of three stations, namely Nugesha, Yangcun and Nuxia located on river Yarlungzangbo/ Brahmaputra from 1^st June to 15^th October every year. The requisite data up to the year 2004 was received and the same was utilised in formulation of flood forecasts by Central Water Commission.

India and China have now signed the implementation agreement for operationalising the MoU on sharing flood-related hydrological data for Brahmaputra which was renewed during Pranab Mukherjee’s, the then External Affairs Minister, visit to China in 2008. Under the agreement, China will continue providing flood-related data of its side of Brahmaputra during June 1-October 15 period each year till 2012. After 2012, both countries will have to renew their MoU and finalise a fresh implementation agreement. During this time window every year, the Chinese side will provide these hydrological data from three identified hydrological stations twice a day to India to help better manage floods.

For decades it is known that a great possibility of harnessing significant extent of hydropower exists at the giant U bend between Tibet and Arunachal Pradesh, in the upper reaches of the Brahmaputra. How this matter is being pursued is not known. It is reported³ that Chinese engineers had informed the Chinese Academy of Sciences that the waters of the upper Brahmaputra could be diverted into the arid northwestern region and Gobi desert using nuclear explosives. Publically this has been denied by the Chinese Government, as well as experts. At the Kathmandu Workshop of Strategic Foresight Group in August 2009 on ‘Water Security in the Himalayan Region’, which was attended by leading hydrologists from the Basin countries, the Chinese scientists argued that it was not feasible for China to undertake such a diversion⁴. In a subsequent meeting of the scientists at Dhaka, 25 leading experts from the Basin countries issued a ‘Dhaka Declaration’ on Water Security⁵ calling for exchange of information in low flow period, and other means of collaboration.

It has also been mentioned by some that the possibility of diverting from Yarlungzangpo to the upper Arun Kosi or Gandaki have also been mooted. No detailed or reliable information on these developments are available. However, the idea of diverting water from the South to the north is not new in China. The Grand Canal is, basically, more than a thousand years old. At the World Water Congress held in New Delhi in November 2005 China’s Vice-minister of Water resources Dr. Jiao Yong highlighted their problem of uneven distribution of water resources. He reiterated that the government was planning and constructing the South to North Water Diversion project, which can ultimately relieve water shortage in north China and northwest areas. No specific details or the final scope were made available.

The Indian government has been relaying its concern to Beijing since 2006 on Chinese reports that China intended to dam rivers like Yarlung Tsangpo / Brahmaputra and divert its waters to its arid north-east. Although China officially denied such an intention, the evidence against such a denial continues to mount. Indian officials have said the reports continued to abound inside China, including a proposed construction time table which was to have begun in 2009. Recent reports indicate that Chinese engineers are reportedly lobbying Beijing to ignore Indian concerns and dam the upper Brahmaputra in Tibet⁶ with what they envisage as the world’s biggest hydroelectric project and several smaller dams and tunnels. Tibetan researcher Tashi Tsering at the University of British Columbia, posted online a map of potential sites reportedly sourced from Chinese government website. China is likely to build a 38,000 MW power station near Motua wrote Tsering. He told Hindustan Times over email that: “China is likely to hold back water when it’s most needed in India, during spring, and release more during the monsoon.” Zhang Boting, an official of the China Society for Hydropower Engineering, backing a 38,000 MW Motuo dam proposal to generate renewable energy equivalent to the oil and gas in the South China Sea. Zhang said the dam research has been carried out but plans are not yet finalised⁷.

Any major storage or run-of-the-river projects for hydropower or navigation purposes planned in the Brahmaputra within China need not create difficulties for India, so long as the re-regulated flows from the power houses are returned to the river. On the other hand, consumptive uses or long distance transfer of waters outside the Basin to, say, the arid north China will hurt the interests of India and also Bangladesh.

What is making India think twice about Tibet now are geopolitical issues — how India and its South Asian neighbours might be adversely affected by what Beijing plans in Tibet. China’s development schemes for the Tibetan Plateau include large-scale mining, clear-fell deforestation, infrastructure- and road-building and firming up a burgeoning tourism industry⁸.

Meanwhile, Indians living on the banks of the mighty Brahmaputra have been devastated by death and destruction as the river changes its course every season and is affected by floods due to heavy siltation caused by the ruthless deforestation of Tibet. Environmentalists fear even more devastation and drought if China implements its plans to divert a part of the Brahmaputra.

Obviously there is a need for Indian leadership to engage the Chinese. A simple denial from Chinese polity or Water Resources experts would not guarantee a safe future. Perhaps an iron tight international riparian treaty similar to the Indus Water treaty would go a long way in diffusing possibility of future conflict. Since India has been unsuccessful so far would a third party intervention from the UN help? A word of caution however, China was among the only three countries that voted in the UN General Assembly in 1997 against the Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Water Courses⁹.

¹ Parlung Zangbo River is a major tributary of the Yarlung Zangbo

² Due to lack of standardization, the Chinese equivalent of the Brahmaputra River is spelt in different texts in various phonetically similar sounding names such as; Yaluzangbo,Yarlungzangbo, Yarlung Zangpo, Yarlung Tsangpo, all the spellings have been used deliberately to be in consonance with the current usages.

³ Scientific American, June 1996

⁴ http://asiasecurity.macfound.org/images/uploads/news_attachments/Kathmandu_Workshop_Report.pdf [accessed March 18, 2010]

⁵ The New Nation, 17th January 2010 [ available at http://nation.ittefaq.com/issues/2010/01/17/news0350.htm [accessed on March 20, 2010]]

⁶ Reshma Patil report from Beijing in Hindustan Times, 26^th May 2010

⁷ The Guardian, 25^th May 2010

⁸ Hindustan Times, November 14, 2006

⁹ The other two were Burundi and Turkey

LokSabhaTV- Nirmala Sitharaman- Budget Provisions for Jal Shakti

A Panel Discussion was held on Lok Sabha TV at 1 PM and 4 PM on the 24th of January 2020 to discuss provisions for Water in Ms. Nirmala Sitaraman’s Budget Session in Lok Sabha due on 1st February. The Program was anchored by Parakram Singh Shekhawat. The panelists were Arun Tiwari, Manohar Khushalani and Himanshu Thakkar. They all went into their expectations from the budget with respect to Budget Provisions for Jal Shakti – Water.

The anchor began the discussion with a small introduction of the Ministry of water resources (Jal Shakti Mantraley), Mr. Gajendra Singh Shekhawat, the troubled state of water quality and availability through the country, and its ever arising complications. Mr. Arun Tiwari elaborated on our lack of efforts in successfully harvesting rainwater and sustaining groundwater levels, highlighting the lack of regulations surrounding these harvesting methods. The importance of sustainability was highlighted as well unless groundwater is recharged, regulated and the focus needs to be shifted to Sustainability.

The Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation, Ministry of Water Resources and Ganga Rejuvenation have been merged into the Jal Shakti Ministry under the second term of the Modi government and the Jal Shakti Ministry was allocated Rs 28,261 Crore, an 8% increase. A 10 pointer vision for the next decade was listed out by the Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman. She elaborated that the Jal Shakti Ministry will manage the country’s water resources and water supply in an integrated holistic manner, and will work towards supplying all rural households with water supply by 2024. In the LSTV discussion, Manohar brought forward a set of important points such as the minimal increase in the budget allocated, the unsanitary sewage system, and lack of stormwater drains. He also insisted that along with budget allocation, our national lakes need to be taken care of efficiently and resurrected, and the need for the development of rural handicrafts and the need for a River Basin Authority, for the systematic distribution of water.

The Atal Bhujal Yojna, is a scheme, also known as ‘Atal Jal’ will promote panchayat-led groundwater management and behavioral change with a primary focus on demand-side management. The scheme is aimed at

doubling farmers’ incomes,
promoting participatory groundwater management,
improving water use efficiency on a mass scale,
improving cropping pattern and
promoting efficient and equitable use of groundwater resources and
behavioral change at the community level.

Official estimates state that over INR 9 crores (90 million) toilets were constructed from 2014 when the Swacch Bharat Mission was launched under the Modi government as one of its flagship schemes. Yet, a government survey in 2017 showed that 6 out of 10 toilets built under the Swacch Bharat Mission did not have water supply, and were hence unusable.

The chemical fertilizer farming is allocated INR 80,000crores, while the green revolution farmers are allotted INR12,000crores but the Organic manure farming is allocated only INR 2 Crore, Manohar Khushalani pointed out, the obvious lack of financial support to organic farmers led to Cancer and other diseases in the cities of Punjab and Harayana, he insisted on the importance of WaterShed Management, an initiative taken by Anna Hazare previously.

The discussion shed light upon various important aspects of Budget allocation for water conservation and also examined the various areas where more efforts are required for sustainability.

You can watch the informative debate here .

You will find more details on the next debate on LSTV on the topic of Atal Bhujal Yojna, Please find the entire debate here.

A playlist of interesting panel discussions on conservation of Water.

Discussion on politics of Delhi’s dirty water | ABP Hindi News

*IIITD Student B.Tech Project. BTP Supervisor: Prof. Manohar Khushalani* *BTP Students: Sejal Kumar / Aysha Fazilath / Rahul Patwardhan / Vyshakh Dharan*

Professor Manohar Khushalani was invited on a panel discussion on ABP News with the anchor Romana Israr Khan on the segment ‘Samvidhan Ki Shapat’, on Monday, the 18th of November at 5 PM.

The panel began with an introduction about the political twist in the heated pre-election environment on the report on the quality of water in Delhi released by Ram Vilas Paswan, the Union Minister of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public distribution. The claims of terrible water quality were refuted and questioned by Arvind Kejriwal, of the Aam Aadmi Party.

https://youtu.be/FpmkR21XbEA?list=PLhUwzuRPD83JfAxltjZQrE2C2O6yCSib_

(Professor Manohar Khushalani with Mr. Harish Khurana, Mr. Haroon Yusuf, Mr. Raghav Chaddha and the anchor Romana Israr Khan)

Along with Professor Manohar Khushalani, the ex-director of National Water Academy, Mr. Harish Khurana, the spokesperson for BJP, Mr. Raghav Chaddha, the spokesperson for AAP and Mr. Haroon Yusuf, the spokesperson for INC were present in the panel debate.

The debate opened with Mr. Chaddha claiming that Mr. Gajendra Singh Shekhawat, the Minister of Jal Shakti had previously reported in September that the quality of Delhi’s water fared even better than the water quality in Europe and that Mr. Manoj Tiwari had agreed to the claims. AAP refuted the claims saying the samples were selectively chosen and misconstrued to present a defeating image, citing political reasons. It is important to remember that the World Health Organization states that 80% of India’s groundwater is contaminated by various organic and inorganic pollutants and that India is ranked 20th out of 122 countries in WaterAid’s water quality index. Mr. Khurana refuted the previous report by Minister of Jal saying his statements are being distorted to suit a narrative and the state of India’s water quality is grim and unfortunate. This discussion revolving Delhi’s water quality is of immense importance as approximately 2439 people have lost their lives in 2018 alone to various water-borne diseases such as Chlorella, Typhoid, Hepatitis amongst others. Mr. Manohar elaborated on the technicalities behind report finding and lauded the authenticity of the Bureau of Indian Standards but went on to state how 11 reports alone weren’t enough to gauge the quality of water, especially citing the lack of information surrounding the report. A very significant point was bought to notice by Mr. Manohar who reminded us of the importance Air and Water quality holds to the residents of every area, how previously our surface water was clean and the storm-water drains created during the British era were perfectly functional. But with the advent of covered up drains and Unauthorized colonies, Chemical farming, usage of fertilizers has led to a decrease in the quality of water and improper sewage system has caused our water to pollute.

The extremely heated and informative discussion ended with anchor divulging into the importance of Air and Water quality to the standard of living of the citizens of the country, and how it is important that the politicians look beyond the politics and genuinely improve the quality for the people. You can watch the entire discussion and find more information here- Panel Discussion on water

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpmkR21XbEA&list=PLhUwzuRPD83JfAxltjZQrE2C2O6yCSib_&index=7

You can find more relevant information and discussions surrounding Water on this playlist attached above.

UN Resolutions on Kashmir are Null & Void / Krishan Tyagi

Jammu & Kashmir – Ladakh Union Territories

Before discussing the UN Resolutions relating to Jammu & Kashmir and diagnosing the quagmire Pakistan is in, let’s have a quick look at Articles 370 and 35A of the Indian Constitution over the abrogation of which Pakistani PM Imran Khan and the Pakistani establishment are so “anxious and distressed”.

Article 370 in the Constitution of India which came into effect in 1949 gave a special status to the state of Jammu & Kashmir (J&K) under which the state had a separate constitution (written and adopted by a duly elected Constituent Assembly of Jammu & Kashmir in November 1956) and a separate flag. It allowed the state jurisdiction to make its own laws in all matters except finance, defence, foreign affairs and communications. That meant the residents of the state lived under different laws from the rest of the country in matters such as property ownership, employment and residency. The Article denied property rights in the region to the Indian citizens from outside J&K.

At the same time, the Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir 1956, that ran parallel to the Constitution of India in terms of their secular character and democratic system, in its Preamble recognised the accession of the state to India on 26^th October, 1947 through the Instrument of Accession signed by former ruler of Jammu & Kashmir Maharaja Hari Singh, committed to the concept of single Indian citizenship, and defined the state as an integral part of the Union of India.

The Article was drafted in Part XXI of the Indian Constitution: Temporary, Transitional and Special Provisions. Some aspects of Article 370 got diluted over the decades in the fields of judicial system and public administration.

Under the Article 370 of the Indian constitution, in 1954 another amendment in the Constitution was made, called Article 35A, through an Executive Order (called Presidential order), meaning without the approval of Indian Parliament. Article 35A permitted the legislative assembly of Jammu & Kashmir to define permanent residents of the region. The Article forbid non-J&K citizens of India from permanently settling, buying immoveable property, holding local government jobs, or winning educational scholarships in the state.

Article 35A, referred to as the Permanent Residents Law, also barred female residents of Jammu & Kashmir from property rights in the event that they married a person from outside the state. The provision also extended to such women’s children.

Evidently, the Article clearly discriminated against women. To quote an example, former chief minister of J&K Farooq Abdullah marrying a lady of British origin loses no property rights, but his daughter and Omar Abdullah’s sister Sara lost all her property rights in J&K because of marrying Sachin Pilot who is not from J&K.

Apart from the Article 35A discriminating against women, these Articles also created anomalies in the Indian democracy. While Indian citizens who were “Permanent Residents” of J&K could buy property, have government jobs and settle permanently in any other state of India, non-J&K citizens of India were not allowed to do the same in Jammu & Kashmir. Another problem emanating from Article 370, known in Britain as ‘the West Lothian Question’, was that the MPs and Union ministers coming from J&K could vote on legislation for the rest of India on subjects in the Union and Concurrent lists of the Constitution of India, the Indian parliament, ie, MPs from other states, had no right to legislate on those subjects for J&K.

As mentioned, Article 35A did not have any parliamentary sanction and was supposed to be temporary too.

The Government of India revoked Article 35A through a Presidential Order and abrogated Article 370 by passing an Act through the Indian Parliament in August 2019. In addition, the Indian government, using its Constitutional powers, reorganised the region into two Union Territories of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladhakh. It was in accordance with the long-standing demand for a separate UT status for Ladhakh, which has now become the only Buddhist majority unit in the federation of India.

Pakistan never recognised that Jammu & Kashmir enjoyed a special status in the Union of India through Articles 370 and 35A in the Constitution of India. Pak government, establishment and media call the Indian region of Jammu and Kashmir “Maqbooza Kashmir” (Occupied Kashmir), the formal phrase being “Indian Occupied Kashmir (IOK)”. But the moment the Modi government decided to abandon those provisions in the Indian Constitution, Pakistan decided it is a violation of some agreement with Pakistan! Pakistani establishment claimed the Article 370 could not be removed unilaterally by India. Why not? Was the Article introduced in the Indian Constitution under some mutual agreement between the two countries? Pakistani establishment cannot answer the question in the affirmative.

Yet Pakistan’s reaction was very shrill. Pakistan’s National Assembly in a joint session condemned India for unilaterally changing the status of Jammu & Kashmir. Pakistan downgraded the diplomatic relations with India by sending the Indian envoy back home; the trade with India has been stopped; the train and bus services between the two countries have been stopped; Pakistani airspace has again been restricted for Indian planes; and most importantly, Pakistan is taking the matter to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) and International Court of Justice (ICJ), if possible. Prime Minister Imran Khan has phoned world leaders and Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi has visited Beijing seeking China’s support at the UNSC to pressurise India to withdraw its measures in relation to Jammu and Kashmir.

However, there has been no response from the world leaders to Prime Minister Imran Khan’s SOS calls. Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Britain, France, Canada and other countries either ignored Pakistan’s requests for intervention or told Pak leaders that they were “watching the situation”! The European Union in response actually slammed Pakistan for exporting terror to India and Europe. Thinking that Pakistan might be useful to Americans in Afghanistan, US President Donald Trump flip-flopped between ‘being happy to mediate between India and Pakistan’ and ‘leaving it up to PM Modi to handle the situation’, that excited Pak leadership one minute and depressed the next.

China was the only country that extended somewhat visible but inconsequential support to Pakistan. It forwarded Pakistan’s letter for the UNSC meeting to discuss Indian government’s move to end the special status of Jammu and Kashmir, advanced Pakistani narrative at the closed-door meeting of the UNSC held on 16 August 2019, and after the 73-minute closed-door meeting the Chinese envoy used his newly acquired English language skills to not only criticise India, but to portray his own views as the views of the entire UNSC, even violating the principle of confidentiality of a closed-door meeting. But, the farcical utterances of the Chinese envoy impressed no one in the international community. People around the world were flabbergasted that a country that has trampled over human rights from Tibet to Tiananmen Square, has imprisoned more than one million Uighur Muslims and is facing a mass revolt to its rule in Hong Kong – if there is a plebiscite in Hong Kong tomorrow, it would vote unanimously to leave China – has got the nerve to talk about “human rights violations” in a democratic country like India!

Apart from that small achievement, whereafter Pak foreign minister bragged that “Kashmir issue has been internationalised”, Pakistan drew blank in the international diplomacy. Even the members of the Organisation of Islamic Countries (OIC) and other Muslim countries did not support Pakistan on the issue. Actually as a slap in the face for Imran Khan, the UAE made its stand loud and clear that the removal of Article 370 from its Constitution was India’s internal matter.

Despite getting cold-shouldered by the international community, one thing that Pak leaders keep on harping about is the UNSC Resolutions relating to Jammu & Kashmir, at least to their domestic audience. Quite disingenuously they give the impression to the people of Pakistan that the UNSC passed resolutions directing India to conduct a plebiscite in J&K whether the people there want to be with India or Pakistan. Also, generally people in Pakistan think the plebiscite was supposed to take place in the Indian region of Jammu & Kashmir only. But “defying UNSC, India did not carry out the plebiscite”, the people of Pakistan are told. And, that’s why quite “justifiably”, as mentioned, Indian region of Jammu & Kashmir is called “Indian Occupied Kashmir” in Pakistan.

Let us look at the UNSC Resolutions in detail and their brief background –

The hostilities in J&K started on 22 October 1947 when Pakistan’s Pashtun tribal militias crossed the border of the then independent state of Jammu and Kashmir. On Maharaja Hari Singh signing the Instrument of Accession on 26 October 1947 and its acceptance by Indian Governor General Lord Mountbatten on 27 October 1947, Indian forces arrived in Kashmir to push back the invaders, and the war between the two sides ensued. On 31 December 1947 India referred the Jammu and Kashmir dispute to the UN Security Council.

At the UN Security Council, in relation to the Jammu and Kashmir dispute, Resolutions 38, 39, 47, and 51 were passed in 1948, Resolution 80 was passed in 1950, Resolution 91 was passed in 1951 and Resolution 122 in 1957.

Among them, the main resolution was the UNSC Resolution 47, adopted on 21 April 1948, wherein the proposal to hold a plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir was made, that we will be looking in more details in the coming paragraphs.

Before that the Resolution 38 of 17 January 1948 called upon both India and Pakistan to take immediate measures (including public appeals) to improve the situation on the ground, and to refrain from doing anything which might aggravate the situation. Under the Resolution 39 of 20 January 1948, the UNSC constituted a Commission, called UN Commission for India and Pakistan, to resolve the dispute between them over the state of Jammu and Kashmir.

The Resolution 51 of 03 June 1948 was just a follow up of Resolution 47 directing the UN Commission to visit the areas of dispute. However, as detailed below, for years no progress took place on Resolution 47 and the story of further Resolutions is that of disagreements over the withdrawal of troops.

As said, the main Resolution in this regard was the UNSC Resolution 47, adopted on 21 April 1948, wherein the proposal to hold a plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir was made. The Resolution had recommended a three-step process for the resolution of the dispute between India and Pakistan. In the first step, Pakistan was asked to withdraw all its nationals from Kashmir, ie the parts of the state that it occupied through, as seen by the UNSC, an unlawful invasion. To quote the original text, the Resolution said: “The Government of Pakistan should undertake to use its best endeavours to secure the withdrawal from the state of Jammu and Kashmir of tribesmen and Pakistani nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the state for the purpose of fighting, and to prevent any intrusion into the State of such elements and any furnishing of material aid to those fighting in the State.”

In the second step, India was asked to progressively reduce its forces to the minimum level required for law and order. The Resolution said, “when it is established to the satisfaction of the Commission (UN Commission for India and Pakistan) set up in accordance with the Council’s resolution 39 (1948) that the tribesmen are withdrawing and that arrangements for the cessation of the fighting have become effective, the Government of India should put into operation in consultation with the Commission a plan for withdrawing their own forces from Jammu and Kashmir and reducing them progressively to the minimum strength required for the support of the civil power in the maintenance of law and order.”

In the third step, India was asked to appoint a Plebiscite Administrator nominated by the United Nations who would conduct a free and impartial plebiscite. “When the Indian forces have been reduced to the minimum strength”, outlining the conditions such as equitable representation of both India and Pakistan in the administrative bodies for a fair plebiscite the Resolution laid out the third step, “The Government of India should undertake that there will be established in Jammu and Kashmir a Plebiscite Administration to hold plebiscite as soon as possible on the question of the accession of the State to India or Pakistan.”

As can be seen from the original text of the Resolution, the proposed three steps to resolve the Kashmir dispute were to be taken in sequence, meaning the second step was to be taken up on the completion of the first one, and the third step was to be taken up on the completion of the second one.

But Pakistan never withdrew its nationals from Kashmir, the territory internationally called ‘Pak Occupied Kashmir’. And, because Pakistan did not take the first step that it was asked to, and thus even the first condition for conducting the plebiscite did not get fulfilled, things did not move further.

So, the reality of the UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir is that it was Pakistan that defied the UNSC directions and did not leave the parts of Kashmir that it occupied through an unlawful invasion, rendering the UNSC Resolution ineffective.

In fact, the founder and first Governor General of Pakistan Muhammad Ali Jinnah did not believe in a plebiscite. On 1 November 1947 Jinnah rejected Indian Governor General Lord Mountbatten’s proposal to decide the accession of Junagarh, Hyderabad and Kashmir by an ‘impartial reference to the will of the people’. His reply to Lord Mountbatten was that a plebiscite was unnecessary and states should accede according to their majority population. Jinnah was willing to urge Junagarh to accede to India in return for Kashmir. When Mountbatten suggested that the plebiscite could be conducted by the United Nations, Jinnah again rejected the proposal, hoping that the invasion would succeed and Pakistan might lose a plebiscite. According to constitutional expert AG Noorani, Jinnah ended up squandering his leverage.

Later for the plebiscite, Jinnah demanded simultaneous troop withdrawal, but it was not accepted as the UNSC accepted the legitimacy of Indian forces in Jammu and Kashmir because of the Instrument of Accession, while Pakistani forces invading the state was seen as an hostile and unlawful act. And thus Pakistan did not withdraw its nationals as directed by the UNSC. In fact, in a complete violation of the UNSC Resolution, in May 1948 the Pakistani army officially entered the conflict.

Now the Pak leaders cry foul that the UNSC Resolutions have not been acted upon. They say it is a failure of the United Nations that the Security Council resolutions have not been implemented. But the Resolutions could not be implemented because Pakistan did not cooperate with the Security Council. Despite the fact that India took the matter to the UN (and therefore was bound to accept the judgement of the UNSC) and itself being the invading party, Pakistan would not accept the minimal presence of Indian forces proposed under the UNSC Resolution. It was Pakistan that failed the United Nations. As many observers have concluded, the responsibility for the non-implementation of the UN Resolutions lies squarely with Pakistan. Pak leaders’ talk of UNSC Resolutions now is nothing more than hot air.

Even more importantly, legally speaking the fact is that the present state of Pakistan is not the state of Pakistan that was a party against the state of India in the UN Resolutions relating to Kashmir in 1948. THAT STATE OF PAKISTAN NO LONGER EXISTS. More than half of the population of that State of Pakistan transformed itself into another State called Bangladesh in 1971, a fully-fledged Member State of the United Nations in its own right since. So, a smaller part of the erstwhile State of Pakistan cannot claim itself to be the inheritor of that State of Pakistan which was the party to the dispute with India, even if it calls itself Pakistan, as the present day India cannot make claims on behalf of the India of Ashoka’s or even British times. In the concerned UNSC Resolution, present day Bangladesh, the then East Pakistan, was a joint claimant as a part of Pakistan. The present day Pakistan can only pursue that claim if Bangladesh joins it in pursuing that claim.

So, all the UN Resolutions relating to Jammu and Kashmir, where the State of India and the then State of Pakistan were the parties to the dispute, are null & void after the transformation of East Pakistan into Bangladesh.

And, even if we suppose the UNSC Resolutions are still valid and let’s imagine Pakistan’s request to implement the Resolutions is accepted by the UN, is Pakistan prepared and ready to follow the procedure laid out in the Resolutions? Pakistani withdrawal from Kashmir was the first condition of the Resolution passed by the UNSC in relation to Jammu & Kashmir, and it would always remain the first condition. Whether it was 1950 or it is 2050, if Pak leaders want the UNSC Resolution of 1948 to be executed, Pakistan has to withdraw from Kashmir.

Also, when Pak leaders talk of the UNSC Resolutions, they need to answer the question whether they are prepared to put the area of J&K under their control in the shape it was in 1947, as required by the concerned Resolution? Are they prepared to revoke the annexation of the former Northern Areas carried out in 2009 through the so-called Gilgit Baltistan Empowerment and Self-Governance Order 2009, despite the opposition from the people of the region? And, are the Pak leaders prepared to tell the Chinese to abandon CPEC and get out the area? Since their control over that part of J&K was self-admittedly disputed, Pak establishment had no right to authorise the Chinese constructing roads there. “Engineers” from the PLA cannot be stationed in Kashmir for a free & fair plebiscite to take place there. Pakistan’s “friends” would also have to return Aksai Chin to be included in Jammu & Kashmir.

This is the quagmire Pakistan faces that it fails to accept, in addition to be globally known for being a factory of terrorism and its collapsing financial system. No matter what way one looks at it, the UNSC Resolutions relating to Jammu & Kashmir are dead in the water. The earlier Pakistan learns it, the better.

An earlier version of this article was published in India Link International, Oct – Nov 2019

Don’t Mess With Modi in Texas / New York Times

An Oped by a New York Times columnist, Roger Cohen, suggests a change of outlook and an attempt to balance the anti India rehetoric that has been bane of this News Paper so far, on the Kashmir issue.

Talking about Imran Khan, Cohen is very scathing, he says in his Op. Ed, “Suggesting Modi has sympathy for the Third Reich, comparing him to a Fascist leader and stating that he may commit “genocide,” is to protest too much. Raising the possibility of nuclear war is reckless. All this suggests his bluff has been called.”

“If Pakistan is so concerned about Nazi Germany”, Cohen asks, “it might begin by recognizing the State of Israel. Whether Pakistan really wants a solution in Kashmir, the region that justifies its bloated military budget, and whether it can ever transparently demonstrate that its intelligence services have stopped finding uses for radical Islamism in its various violent forms, remain open questions”

Expressing concern about Pakistan’s Western neighbor, He postulates, “They are important questions for the United States, as it contemplates a military withdrawal from Afghanistan. A quandary for Trump now will be how to secure Pakistani support, rather than suffer an incensed Pakistan’s sabotage, if he moves forward with his promise to bring American troops home.”

“Modi will not turn back from his elimination of Kashmir’s autonomy. That phase of Indian history is over. Trump and Modi are both forceful, media-savvy politicians. But they are not alike. Modi, a self-made man from a poor family, is measured, ascetic, not driven by impulse. Trump was born on third base. He’s erratic, guided by the devouring needs of his ego. I’d bet on Modi to transform India, all of it, including the newly integrated Kashmir region.”

Read full NYT article

A wing and a prayer for ‘Howdy Modi!’ – The Hindu

Photo: Reuters

The die has been cast for a massive rally by Indian Americans in Houston on Sunday, September 22, 2019 to honour Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Rallies for Indian Americans have become larger each time Mr. Modi visits the U.S. ever since his appearance in the Madison Square Garden. No other Prime Minister of India has drawn as many people to such rallies as he has done in the United States.

An added attraction of the event is that President Donald Trump will become the first President of the United States to participate in a rally to honour a visiting foreign leader. He is likely to be accompanied by several Senators, Congressmen and others from both the parties. Several announcements, including some understanding on trade and other matters are expected. By all accounts, it is going to be game changing event in India-U.S. relations.

Read Source

RIP Articles 370 & 35 a / Krishan Tyagi

Krishan Tyagi a former BBC correspondent elaborates on the issue

The Article 370 in the Constitution of India, which came into effect in 1949, a special status to the state of Jammu & Kashmir (J&K) under which the state had a separate constitution (adopted in November 1956) and a separate flag. It allowed the state a jurisdiction to make its own laws in all matters except finance, defence, foreign affairs and communications. That meant the residents of the state lived under different laws from the rest of the country in matters such as property ownership, employment and citizenship. The Article denied property rights in the region to the Indian citizens from outside J&K.

At the same time, the Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir 1956 in its Preamble recognised the accession of the state to India on 26^th October, 1947 through the Instrument of Accession signed by former king of Jammu & Kashmir Hari Singh, committed to the concept of single Indian citizenship, and defined the State as an integral part of the Union of India.

Some aspects of Article 370 got diluted over the decades in the fields of judicial system and public administration.

The article was drafted in Part XXI of the Indian Constitution: Temporary, Transitional and Special Provisions.

Article 35A

Evidently, the Article clearly discriminated against women. To quote an example, former chief minister of J&K Farooq Abdullah marrying a lady of British origin loses no property rights, but his daughter Sara lost all her property rights in J&K because of marrying someone who is not from J&K.

Apart from the Article 35A discriminating against women, these Articles also created an anomalies in the Indian democracy. While Jammu & Kashmir’s “Permanent Residents” could buy property, have government jobs and settle permanently in any other part of India, nonJ&K citizens of India were not allowed to do the same in Jammu & Kashmir. Another problem emanating from Article 35A, known in Britain as ‘the West Lothian Question’ was that the MPs and Union ministers coming from J&K could vote on legislation for the rest of India on subjects in the Union and Concurrent lists of the Constitution of India, the Indian parliament, ie, MPs from other states, had no right to legislate on those subjects for J&K.

As mentioned, Article 35A did not have any parliamentary sanction and was supposed to be temporary too.

The Government of India revoked Article 35A through a Presidential Order and abrogated Article 370 by passing an Act through the Indian Parliament in August 2019.

Written by Krishan Tyagi, Editor, Mirror to Mirror (mirrortomirror.org)

No respect for beggars – Pak Paper reminds it’s Countrymen

Courtesy: Pakistan Today

Dawn newspaper publishes an article as a rare example of responsible and realistic journalism

“There is no respect for beggars in the international community, especially when our image is portrayed as a state marred by terrorism and economic failure” admits the columnist

“In these circumstances, none of the countries will dare stand with us in these testing times” he adds, “Therefore, the only way to come out of this Kashmir imbroglio is to improve our economic conditions.”

“The current government came to power a year ago with a lot of promises of economic prosperity and investment but it seems none of the targets is being achieved.”

“We tried options like resorting to direct military interventions and using proxies to liberate Kashmir, but all in vain. We did not manage to liberate Kashmir. Similarly, we outsourced jihad to various ‘jaishs’ and ‘lashkars’ but these outfits further defamed us.”