Israeli legislator pushes for ban on hiring of size-zero models

New Delhi
22 April 2010

Rachel Adatto, a member of Israel's parliament and the chair of the
Israel-India Parliamentary Friendship League, is pushing for a domestic
legislation banning advertisement agencies from hiring underweight or
'size-zero' models.

The Bill proposes to prohibit agencies from hiring anorexic models or
using digital imaging software such as Photoshop to make the models in
advertising campaigns look thin around the waist. It defines an
underweight model as one whose body mass index (or BMI) is lower than
18.5. BMI is a number calculated from a person's weight and height.

Adatto, who was recently in India to renew contacts with Indian
parliamentarians, says the need for the Bill was felt because
malnourished models inspire young girls to diet so they can look
skinny. The Bill is likely to be put to vote in the forthcoming session
of the Israeli parliament (Knesset).

She is a first-time MP who won the 2009 election as a candidate of
Kadima, the main Opposition party. She can be described as a
professional in politics, combining her knowledge in medicine and law
(and a management degree to boot) to make her contributions inside and
outside Parliament.

In an interview to this newspaper in New Delhi, Adatto spoke about her
support for a legislation to ease the restrictions on Israeli women
donating and receiving eggs. Currently, the Israeli law allows only
women undergoing fertility treatment to donate ova, or women who could
benefit medically by having their eggs harvested. The restrictions
forced women seeking egg donations to obtain them abroad. A committee
is now working out the details of the Bill so that it could be voted
upon.

She says the main purpose of her visit to India is to build on the
relations between the two countries and to re-establish connections
with her Indian counterparts. She is also keen to correct any
distortions that might have crept into Indians' perceptions of her
country.

Israel is not all about guns, she cautions.

During her stay here, Adatto called on Lok Sabha Speaker Meira Kumar,
Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Sushma Swaraj, members of civil
society and young industry representatives.

As a member of the Opposition Kadima party, she naturally does not see
the peace talks with Palestinians in the same way as the government of
Israel led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu does, but she is
hopeful that a resolution is achievable.

"The Palestinian issue will be resolved but it will take time," she
says, hinting that the far-right-wing government headed by Netanyahu
may be a part of the problem. However, she attributes the delay in the
West Asia peace process to Iran, which she describes as a "hidden
partner" in the "background", trying to scuttle any moves by
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

"The main problem is Iran ... not only to Israel but to India and the
rest of the world," she asserts, adding that Iran is the source of
evil, standing as it does behind groups such as Hizbollah and Hamas.
She goes on to observe that Israel is acutely aware of the dangers
posed by loose nukes falling into the hands of terrorist groups such as
the Al-Qaeda, Hamas or Hizbollah.

Adatto is also the chair of the Israel-Nepal Parliamentary Friendship
League. Prior to her India visit, she travelled to Kathmandu where she
called on the Nepalese leaders. Her visit to the Himalayan republic
coincided with the 50th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic
relations between Nepal and Israel.

'26/11 was the low point of my stay in India'

New Delhi

28 May 2011

The battle against terrorism will require concerted international action of all like-minded

countries because it is a battle that we cannot afford to lose, says Mark Sofer, Israel's

ambassador to India, in an interview to Ramesh Ramachandran as he prepares to demit

office after a nearly four-year tenure in India. Excerpts:

Q: How would you describe the Israel - India relations today, and what are some of the

high and low points of your tenure?

A: It is a relationship in motion, which started before I came of course, but, clearly, it has

an enormous dynamic of its own. If you look at the basic facts and figures, the bilateral

civilian trade has reached five billion dollars. We are working on a free trade agreement

(FTA). Next year will be the 20th anniversary of the establishment of India - Israel

relations, and, hopefully around that time, we will be able to conclude the [FTA]

negotiations. Some experts estimate that the bilateral civilian trade is expected to triple

in the next three or four years, so we are talking 15 billion dollars worth of civilian trade.

And the trade is finely balanced in terms of imports and exports, and it will include such

things as investment, services, and goods. In agriculture, a centre of excellence is

already up and running in Karnal, Haryana; a second centre will open in Sirsa, also in

Haryana, and a third probably will be in Nagpur in Maharashtra. We are also looking at

Tamil Nadu. I mean the sky is the limit. And, now we are embarking on a new negotiation

process for an MoU (memorandum of understanding) in dairy farming, etc. So, basically,

in every field of human endeavour, this relationship is in a dynamic mode. It didn't start

with me and it won't end with me; I am just in the middle of it. So this is a relationship

that is going places. One of the real high points in my four years here has been the

opening of the agricultural centre in Haryana. A vast population of India is dependent on

farming. At the end of the day embassies and countries interact to better the lives of their

peoples, and if we can cooperate on the main issue which faces the Indian economy and

social world, which is agriculture of course, this gives me the greatest pleasure. There is

nothing more inspiring or heart-warming than seeing farmers from far and wide coming to

look at Israeli technologies and incorporating them into their own small holdings. We all

like to deal with geostrategic issues, but, sometimes, it is these things, the nitty gritty,

that make a term of duty the beauty that it is. If you ask me, it has been the most

wonderful four years of my life working with the Indian government and people on not

just issues related to West Asia but related to the welfare of people, such as water,

alternate energy, agriculture, technology, and industry. I think that there is no doubt in

my mind that the low point of my stay here was the Mumbai attacks; of that there is no

doubt. Our prayers are with the families of those Indians that were killed, but the Jewish

people also were specifically targeted in that atrocity.

Q: How will the killing of Osama bin Laden affect the war on terrorism in general, and the

situation in West Asia in particular?

A: The world is a better place now that Osama bin Laden is no longer with us. But does it

mean the end of terrorism? Of course, it does not. Other such fanatics will come out of

the woodwork, they are already coming out of the woodwork, already planning new

attacks. The way to tackle it is concerted unified international action of all like-minded

countries. This is a battle that we cannot afford to lose.

Q: United States President Barack Obama's speeches on the West Asia peace process

have not gone down well with the government of Israel. How do you see the Israel -

Palestine peace process progressing going forward?

A: This relationship is rock-solid. There is no rift. There are differences of opinion, which

are natural; there are differences of opinion between friends and even inside a family.

That is a normal process; so one should be careful not to over dramatise it. If someone

is trying to find fissures [between the US and Israel], it will be very hard to find them, but

that is not to suggest that we agree on everything. But, yes, we are at a crossroad. We

do believe strongly in Israel that we urgently need to get back to the negotiating table.

There is no point in putting preconditions down because if we all start doing that, then we

are predetermining the outcome of the negotiations before they actually have taken off in

any seriousness. So we really have a great deal of difficulty in understanding in all

honesty why all of a sudden Palestinian Authority has placed this condition or that

condition. Secondly, this agreement between Palestinian Authority and Hamas is

something that places us backwards. Hamas, in a way, is West Asia's Al-Qaeda. It is an

extremist organisation dedicated to the eradication of the state of Israel and anti-Semitic

by its own charter and it has not moved one iota from the demands of the international

community that it accept Israel's existence, that it accept previous agreements reached

between Israelis and Palestinians, and stop massacring people. I must stress that these

are not conditions placed by Israel; these are placed by the Quartet, by the international

community, on the Hamas, and they have not met them. We do see in Mahmoud Abbas a

serious and pragmatic partner, we do see in PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organisation)

an institution with which we can achieve peace, but we do not at this stage at all

[visualise] the Hamas entering into that arena.

Q: How does Israel view the Palestinians' move to seek a vote in the United Nations

recognising Palestine as a sovereign country?

A: We, of course, disagree with it entirely. We don't have dozens of countries that will

support us. A former foreign minister of Israel, Abba Eban, has said that if Israel were to

propose in the UN that the world was round, the UN will vote that it was flat. Anything we

do in the UN is a priori geared against Israel. We believe that the way for the

establishment of a Palestinian state should be through negotiations between Israelis

and Palestinians, that is the way to move forward. Actually we are not that afar apart: We

both agree on a two-state solution. But, of course, the devil is in the details. A lot of

discussion is necessary, and it is not going to be easy, but scoring points is not going to

move forward any type of peace process in West Asia.

Q: How do you see the emergence of representative governments post the popular

uprisings in Israel's neighbourhood?

A: I think a moving away from authoritarian leadership towards democracy is almost

automatically positive. It cannot be negative when people are able to find an expression

of their views and freedoms that were denied to them. This has to be positive and I think

there will be positive spin-offs as well.

Q: The US and European Union have imposed further sanctions on Iran. How would you

describe the current thinking in Israel on the issue of Iran?

A: There is a difference between the people of Iran and the regime, and one must make

this distinction. It is so tragic that they have at the helm a leadership of hate, a regime

dedicated to destruction of Israel, denying the Holocaust, striving for nuclear arms in

order to carry out the destruction of the world's only Jewish country. Why should we sit

idly by when this is happening? And we won't. The Jewish people have suffered

throughout history at attempts to annihilate. Our supposed annihilators have always

been annihilated. We will never lose in this struggle against those who would do us ill.

When we say never again after the Holocaust, we mean never again. And when [Iran

talks about] killing and murdering Israelis, it is something that we cannot of course take,

and watch idly as it does this.

EU legislator wants to enquire into funnelling of Chinese weapons to Indian insurgents in the north-east

New Delhi

11 April 2011

The issue of reported funnelling of Chinese arms to the insurgents operating in India's north-eastern states bordering China has aroused the interest and concern of a European parliamentary group.

Graham Watson, chairman of the European parliament's delegation for relations with India, says he would be interested in taking the matter up at the appropriate levels in India and, possibly, China, in order to gain a better understanding of the issues involved and to facilitate an informed debate among the 27 European Union member-states.

In an interview to this newspaper in New Delhi, Watson said the issue of arms getting into the wrong hands was an important one for democratic societies, and he intended to discuss it at some time in the future.

The remarks by the British member of the European parliament came on the eve of
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's visit to China where he was expected to hold
conversations with President Hu Jintao on the margins of the inaugural BRICS
summit to be at China's southernmost city of Sanya on the island province of Hainan.

Watson was visiting India to re-engage with a cross-section of Indian ministers,

parliamentarians, and representatives from industry and civil society, on issues ranging

from trade and climate change to energy security and counter-terrorism.

Watson also happens to be a member of the European Parliament's delegation for

relations with China, which was expected to visit China in August this year.

Beijing has denied any involvement, but Indian media reports have indicated the

possibility of Chinese elements reaching out to newer terrorist outfits in India's north-

east, beyond the usual contacts with the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (Isak-

Muivah).

In February, the National Investigation Agency exposed an arms nexus between persons

of Chinese origin and the United National Liberation Front, a banned outfit operating in

Manipur.

In 2007 the European Parliament set up a specific delegation for relations with India,

which until then was grouped with countries of south Asia and the South Asian

Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC).

Piracy: 'It is really a slap in the face'

Commodore C Uday Bhaskar (Retd)
director of National Maritime Foundation and formerly interim head of Institute of Defence Studies and Analyses

New Delhi

12 March 2011

Piracy has security and economic implications for India, and, therefore, the Government must step in to combat piracy and to uphold the safety and welfare of the seafarers, says Commodore C Uday Bhaskar (Retd), the director of National Maritime Foundation and a former officiating director of the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA), in an interview to Ramesh Ramachandran. Excerpts:

How serious is the problem of piracy for India?
Piracy is as old as seafaring, but it is arousing interest today in the
audio-visual media and in Parliament because of the pressure that the
families of the hostages have brought to bear. There still are over 50
Indian hostages on different ships. Piracy has security and economic
implications for India. By the end of 2010, the pirates had become so
audacious that they were moving to east of Lakshadweep and Minicoy
islands, meaning that they were actually in the Indian backyard. That
is also the time when the global community decided that this area is
risk-prone. The JWC (joint war committee, which represents London's
marine insurance community and independent security consultants) put
out an official advisory saying that from 1 January 2011, the Arabian
Sea up to 75 degrees east longitude is risk prone, meaning that the
Arabian Sea which is India's backyard is now considered to be a low
security area. As a result every major ship that is now sailing in
these waters has to pay a much higher insurance. That insurance money
is actually adversely impacting India's trade and economy, and the net
result is that the common man pays more for everything that is coming
by sea. It is very adversely affecting India's image, too. You can't
say that you are an emerging power when waters 12 miles beyond your
territorial limit are deemed to be risk-prone. I mean it is really a
slap in the face and I don't think anyone in this country has realised
the enormity of all of this.

Why can’t India take actions unilaterally or in consonance with the
international community, and what are the constraints in doing that?
Unfortunately, we have not learnt anything from the "Alondra Rainbow"
experience. (The vessel, MT Alondra Rainbow, was hijacked by pirates
but it was intercepted and captured in October 1999 in a coordinated
action by the Indian Coast Guard and the Indian Navy and then towed to
Mumbai.) We did not review our legislation; we did not review our law
enforcement procedures; and we did not draw up a proactive response. If
you look back, I think for India the issue of piracy acquired the
equivalent of a tipping point in October 2008 when the Indian Navy
started anti-piracy operations in the Gulf of Aden. In the same month,
INS Tabar sank a Somali pirate ship but, regrettably, that became a
stand-alone kind of an incident. Having said that, the problem is
complex because the legal provisions currently are very tangled. A
reason is that today a merchant ship is a prime example of the
diversity of globalisation. A ship may be owned by one entity,
registered in another country, the crew will be drawn from different
nationalities, cargo is committed to some other party in some other
country, and it is quite possible that mid-voyage the vessel can change
ownership depending on the markets and so on. So globalisation is best
reflected in a merchant ship, and, therefore, different kinds of
legislation are applicable. Hence, India's ability to do something is
limited. At the same time, it is not enough to have a law; you must be
able to enforce it. Today seafarers are not just Indians. There are
Filipinos, Pakistanis, etc, but there is no viable equitable protection
for them. Technically the ship owners should be looking after the
welfare of the seamen but the State must, I think, step in, because you
cannot let your people just go defenceless into the outside world and
say sorry it is not my responsibility. Today the Government of India is
legally right to say that once an Indian national goes out, whether as
a tourist or as a worker, the State cannot take the responsibility.
But, I think that is a very insensitive approach.

What do you suggest the government should do?
I think India should first of all review piracy because not only is
piracy affecting the lives of Indian seamen but it is also affecting
the economy. One way to deal with it, I think, is to set up a
commission that would look at piracy across the board and all its
strands – operational, legal and administrative. The government should
talk to all the affected parties – the Indian Navy, the Indian Coast
Guard, ship owners, ports, chambers of commerce – and then come up with
a whole range of measures.

What could some of those measures be?
Operationally we should be seen to be playing with the other powers in
dealing with piracy. You can't say until Somalia stabilises we will
live with the piracy problem. You have to be innovative and proactive
and use the global community because everyone has a common interest
here. If pirates force insurance premiums to go up, all the major
importers are going to be affected. My suggestion is, why don't we try
and quarantine these pirates and prevent them from coming out? Let
there be the equivalent of a no fly zone, maybe a no sail zone, but you
need international legislation for that to happen, which means going to
the United Nations (UN) and looking at the UN Convention on the Law of
the Sea. Secondly, rules of engagement for pirates should be reviewed.
The Indian Navy should be given a certain amount of operational
directive and freedom so that when there is an exigency they can invoke
necessary laws. At the moment a Naval ship will open fire in self
defence. But what do you do with criminal activities at sea? The only
thing you can do today is apprehend them and bring them to shore and
charge them but the charges are difficult to sustain. Also, to deal
with piracy there needs to be adequate deterrent punishment. We caught
the “Alondra Rainbow” pirates in 1999 but in 2006 a higher court just
said let them go now. Thirdly, why doesn’t India get into an
arrangement with Kenya? Some countries are paying Kenya a fixed sum
every year so that when they catch pirates they deposit them in Kenya,
and then Kenya goes through the legal process, which means you need to
have a bilateral protocol. Fourthly, why doesn’t India think about of
having a semi-permanent Naval or Coast Guard presence, maybe in Kenya?
For instance, the Indian Navy took charge of Mozambique's sea security
during the African Union summit there in 2003. Fifthly, India has to
review its binary position of either UN or nothing. India has this very
curious position that its Indian military will operate outside only if
it is under the UN flag or alone. And, sixthly, in a globalised world
we have all kinds of mechanisms such as WTO (World Trade Organisation)
and ILO (International Labour Organisation) to protect the rights of
our workers. The seafarers are almost like migrant labour, but they
have no bargaining power because they sign what are called as personal
indemnity bonds and therefore many of their rights are diluted. So we
have to now learn how to negotiate with the major multinationals. Today
there are only a few multinational companies that control global
shipping. The safety and welfare of seafarers has to be taken care of.

EU must keep borders open to people fleeing Libya: UN official

New Delhi

31 March 2011

Europe has a moral responsibility to keep its borders open for people fleeing

Libya and some other African countries, United Nations under secretary general for

humanitarian affairs and emergency relief coordinator Valerie Amos said in an interview

to this newspaper.

"Borders should remain open. Europe has a moral responsibility to help people who

have far less than they do. Tunisia and Egypt [have] kept [their] borders open. [Europe]

needs to do exactly the same thing," Ms Amos said towards the end of the first-ever visit

to India by a head of UN office for coordination of humanitarian affairs (UNOCHA).

Her remarks came at a time when the European Union was fighting off accusations from

Italy and international humanitarian organisations alike for not doing enough to manage

the exodus from north Africa, particularly Libyans who would qualify for asylum or

refugee status, unlike the economic migrants from other African countries.

Italy has accused France of not showing solidarity in allowing Tunisians to enter French

territory from the Italian border town of Ventimiglia. Italy says it has already received

thousands of Tunisians and many more persons from Libya were expected as the

situation deteriorated in that country; therefore, other European countries must share the

burden of taking care of the influx of immigrants.

Compounding the woes of Italy was a simmering anti-immigrant sentiment and

Islamophobia in Europe. A French politician, Ms Marine Le Pen, who recently travelled to

the southern Italian island of Lampedusa has warned that Europe could no longer accept

the wave of immigrants from Africa. Lampedusa was only a few hundred-odd kilometres

from Tunisia's coast and the number of immigrants on the island had exceeded the local

population. On Thursday Italy began relocating the migrants from Lampedusa to the

mainland.

The UN's inter-agency missions had entered eastern Libya through Benghazi for

assessing the humanitarian situation there, but they had not been able to travel to the

Western part of Libya held by Muammar Gaddafi's forces. "We are continuing to try to

negotiate [for] unhindered access in the west," Ms Amos noted.

'An era is ending and we must be on the right side of history'

MK Bhadrakumar

a former Indian diplomat

New Delhi

27 February 2011

MK Bhadrakumar, a former Indian diplomat with considerable experience of West Asia, says an era is ending in West Asia and it is necessary for India to be on the right side of history. Here are excerpts from his interview with Ramesh Ramachandran:

Given the fact that India has millions of its citizens living and working abroad, particularly in the Gulf and the Maghreb countries, do you think the Indian Government has a workable evacuation plan in place when situations like this erupt?

Even if we had an evacuation plan it would have gathered dust, and its relevance to the actual ground situation would be questionable because there is nothing like an ideal evacuation plan. In a broader context, we could have imagined that West Asia and the Persian Gulf inherently is an unstable region and that there was a kind of a crisis brewing, because even former US president George W Bush had spoken of a new Middle-East. But, even as of today, no one can tell what forms the unrest is going to take. Definitely there is an Arab revolt in the sense of a certain awakening, a certain surge of popular aspirations and hopes for a different kind of political system, regional environment and governance. This will take different forms in different countries. In Egypt and Tunisia the old regimes made an exit with some grace, and there was no bloodshed. But, in Libya, it has taken a different form. Again, in Bahrain, where the regime is spoken of as being headed by a relatively young, Western-educated, forward-looking, modern and progressive monarch, one sudden unexpected outburst of violence disproved all those theories about him. So how different regimes are going to react, and in what form these developments unfold, is going to have a bearing on evacuation plan. In some cases evacuation is not necessary, like in Egypt. In the case of Libya, the Western oil companies operating there had contingency pans but now suddenly they have realised that those plans have absolutely no relation to the kind of ground situation developing because Libya has shown tendencies towards a fragmentation between east and west and on tribal lines, which, I don't think many people anticipated. If the central authority collapses, it could cause anarchy, then who you relate to? This kind of problem arises. So at the end of the day I would not put blame on the Government of India if it lacks one. I would not put blame on Government of India also if its contingency plan, if there is indeed one, is not found to be suitable to the ground situation.

India is being criticised by critics as not being vocal enough in openly slamming the regimes of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt and King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa of Bahrain. There is another view that India cannot be too harsh on some of these regimes in the Arab world as the livelihoods of Indians who live in those countries is at stake. Also, India sources most of its oil and gas from the Arab world. Do you think India has been right to be so cautious?

I think one era has ended, and it is necessary for us to take a progressive view, and to be on the right side of history. Most certainly the initial reaction to the Egyptian situation was over-cautious to the point of being timid. But then we corrected ourselves and the external affairs minister salvaged the situation. Now we have spoken about Libya, and I have noticed that we have spoken in a strong language. I can put it in a context because India would have had to take a position in the United Nations Security Council where this matter has reached, so maybe that is the compulsion under which India has spoken. But, I would have liked India to take a stance on this. India does not have a position even today in the sense that, does it see the writing on the wall of history at all? Does it think that this is something that will fizzle out and the ancient regimes will continue and it will be business as usual? Or is it that we will only follow the West's footsteps? Obama said harsh things about Libya, and Western policy became very tough, and so India spoke out. But violence was let loose in Bahrain, where half the population of Bahrain is Indian and half of it actually from Kerala, and we didn't say anything. Frankly speaking, I have no idea whether we really have a big picture in mind. And it is very important that we have one. This is not a situation where you think in terms of evacuation, a few hundred thousand barrels of oil, and so on. We have to look at it in terms of the forces of history, in terms of the new forces that will emerge in the region and what their expectations will be, and whether we are acclimatising ourselves with these winds of change. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening in Delhi.

Does our West Asia policy need a complete overhaul?

Neither the Gulf countries nor the rest of the Arab world have paid India much attention post-Jawaharlal Nehru and even less so post-Indira Gandhi. Pakistan has successfully sold the Arab countries the lollipop that India's policies in Jammu and Kashmir are anti-Muslim. The only reason that the Gulf countries have reached out to India is because of the marked US tilt towards India as evidenced by the nuclear deal, and that India is a growing economy that can no longer be ignored. Our pro-Palestine policy, which could have won them over, was limited to the Indira-Arafat hug! Is it not time we crafted a credible West Asia policy, and what should it be? We can best approach it in terms of the problem areas. Let me first speak of the positive aspects. It is a region inhabited by people who are on the whole favourably disposed towards of us. I can't see them being swayed by Pakistan against India. Clearly there is no historical backlog we are carrying; we've never been an invader; we've never been prescriptive; we've never been exploitative; and I think the Indian expat community has acquitted itself well, by and large. Also, there is a fair awareness in the region that India is an emerging power, and it is useful from their point of view to have a good relationship with India. Now, to speak of the problem areas, I think in the recent past our West Asia policy underwent a big shift towards stengthening relations with those regimes which were pro-West. To illustrate my point, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh visited Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar, but he is adamant in his refusal to visit Iran. So, India is consciously looking for tie-ups, alliances and strategic understandings with pro-Western regimes in the region. It is no secret, and it has not gone unnoticed in the region. The Iranians and others know that this is the general Indian disposition. So, if tomorrow these regimes get replaced and a representative rule comes, I'm not going to say that they will be anti-West, but they won't be pro-West either. The successor regimes will definitely reflect the popular opinions on regional and international issues. For example, I think they will take a more genuine position on the Arab-Israel and Israel-Palestine issues. Broadly, all Arab regimes are supportive of the Palestinian cause verbally, but there's been a lot of doublespeak; now that doublespeak will not happen. Secondly, there are strong feelings about seamless US support for Israel, about Israeli belligerence, about arbitrary fashion in which regardless of international law Israel acted in what it considered to be its best interests and insisted that the Arab world accepted it, all on the basis of an unassailable military superiority thanks to very generous US military and financial help. There is also the issue of overall US military presence in the region. Even if new regimes are not going to be anti-US or anti-West, these are templates, and we will see a lot of dynamism on these templates. So India's problem would be where India is spotted. Now, one major problem for India would undoubtedly be its relationship with Israel. On the Arab street they are astonished and bewildered why India should do this. Their concept of India is different from their concept of Israel and so they think, what has India got to learn from Israel in terms of security cooperation? I have talked to Palestinians who visited Delhi, who said that Indian security people have been seen in Israeli prisons where Palestinians are interned to learn "efficient interrogation methods". This does not cast us in a positive light. In 2008, we had the Israeli army chief coming here and for no consumable reason we took him to Jammu and Kashmir. Now, linking Israel with the situation in Jammu and Kashmir was in my opinion downright stupid. Why this was done, and for what tangential gains, I can't understand. Hacing said that, I don't know how India can roll back its ties with Israel because there is a big military relationship and vested interests have accummulated on both sides, including in our security and defence establishments. A third problem area for India is the way we allowed our relationship with Iran to be degraded. The sum total of the developments in West Asia, in geopolitical terms, is that Iran's rise has become unstoppable and US policy to contain Iran is completely unravelling. There is no way the US can put together a phalanx of Arab regimes to put a quarantine around Iran. It's not going to be possible, and therefore if there are regime changes in places such as Bahrain, and its shadow falls on other countries where there are Shi'ite populations such as in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Yemen, then the Shi'ite empowerment would mean Iran's leadership role becomes even more pronounced. There's an interesting detail: in 2010, Europe's imports of oil from Iran actually increased by 37 per cent, so it's a very substantial source of oil for Europe; therefore Iran can't be easily touched. This is something which we could have easily foreseen; that it is a genuine regional power and containing such a regional power is against the grain of history, and political realism should have demanded that we kept our relationship with Iran going. This is not the first time we came across American or Israeli pressure but we have behaved in such a supine way that we have found it difficult to handle relations with Iran. American armtwisting has always been a fact of life -- from Indira to Rajiv to Rao they all faced it, but the government of today has chickened out.

In your assessment, how far-reaching are the Arab uprisings; which countries are vulnerable and why?

There is no carbon copy; in different countries it will change in terms of circumstances, but broadly it is clear that the faultlines are Yemen, Bahrain, Jordan and it can spill over into Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. This is the kind of pattern one can see. But the West will not easily allow the regimes to go away because the West sells arms to them and there are financial stakes, too. Bahrain has majority Shia population but it has a Sunni ruler. Change is inevitable there, but the Americans are trying to establish a dialogue with the Shia forces, and it is trying to put the revolution in slow motion in Bahrain so that when tomorrow dawns, they are on talking terms. Shia empowement will cast its shadow on Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Kuwait, which have got sizeable Shia populations. The eastern regions of Saudi Arabia which are Shia dominated are also the oil-rich regions, so the struggle is going to be I think quite violent. Saudi Arabia is an arbitrarily put together country. Unfortunately the propensity will be to use violence of a very extreme kind like in Libya, but, unlike in Libya, the West may acquiesece with it. So these are things which we can very well anticipate. It is not going to be an overnight explosion in Saudi Arabia; I think it will simmer for some time because there is no unified opposition. Over a period of time these things may gain traction. So the Saudi leadership has got some time available to it for reform. Whether it is capable or willing is a different matter. What complicates the situation is that all this is unfolding on the regional landscape at a time when Saudi Arabia is in the midst of political transition. King Abdullah is not going to be hold the levers of power for ever; he is 86 and terminally ill. Crown Prince is battling cancer. The next in line, Prince Nayef (76) is notionally in charge when King Abdullah travels abroad for medical treatment, but he's also ill; therefore the actual power lies with his son, the interior minister, who is regarded as the de facto ruler of Saudi Arabia. There is going to be a power struggle within the royal family and possibility of a coup is possible from within the royal family, not in terms of the line of succession but in terms of faction or clique or family branch that is able to muster power. So there are question marks. Incidentally, 22 per cent of Saudi population is below its poverty level. Also, unemployment is close to 20 per cent. And the Shi'ite population is not only persecuted politically but lives in an economically backward area. So there is a class dimension to it, too. The government in Lebanon more or less enjoys legitimacy. Similarly, I don't see colour revolution breaking out in Iran,despite the propaganda. I don't see a problem in Iraq either. Yes, to some extent, there has to be a question mark over Syria. So I would probaly delist Iraq, Iran and Lebanon. For the rest it may be a matter of one month or one year. Some may be bloody, some may be peaceful.

The US seems to be backing all the uprisings in West Asia, but its critics say that Washington, in its blind backing of the toppling of autocrats, has not fully realised the implications of the unrest. Many of the regimes under threat have stood as the Sunni bulwark against the Iran-backed Shia arc of Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Palestine. Should India follow suit, or should it -- in private -- build bridges with the new forces?

Of course, it goes without saying. It is quite clear that whatever changes take place in the region, the Indian expat work force will continue to be of interest and use to them. So India should try to build bridges with the new forces that are emerging and ensure that our interests are secured. Then, we should factor in the popular opinion in the region about Israel. And, in the quickest possible way we should rebuild our relations with Iran. So a course correction is definitely required on our part.

'The liberal elements in Pakistan need encouragement of India'

K Shankar Bajpai

a former Indian ambassador to Pakistan, China and the US; and a former chairman of the National Security Advisory Board

* 'A problem is that the instruments of State action in India have become rusted and inefficient'

New Delhi

11 February 2011

K Shankar Bajpai, a former Indian ambassador to Pakistan, China and the US and a

former chairman of the National Security Advisory Board, says liberal elements in

Pakistan need encouragement of India if there is to be hope for Pakistan to become a

modern-minded, democratic country. "If India can have a catalytic effect to encourage

Pakistan to draw back from extremism, we should try it [dialogue]," Mr Bajpai says in an

interview to Ramesh Ramachandran. He cautions that the onus of the success of the

talks lies on Pakistan. Excerpts:

How do you view India's decision to resume peace talks with Pakistan?

The Government of India is quite right in saying that dialogue is the only way forward

with Pakistan if one wants solutions. The only worrying question is does the other side

wants solutions. Since its inception, Pakistan's policy has been determined by people

who saw no benefits to themselves in pursuing good relations with India. I don't see any

force at work in Pakistan today which wants to change that policy. Therefore it is very

clear that if talks is the way forward then the onus is on Pakistan to carry it forward. Let's

see if they mean it. I have my own doubts but let's see. At the same time, by saying no

to talks for the last few years India has neither been able to force Pakistan to change its

policy nor make amends for the terrorist attacks against India. So our policy of no talks

was leading no where. It is an open question, but there is no harm in trying to talk to

Pakistan, but we may have to face a stalemate. In short, seeking solutions is the right

objective for India though we have to also adjust to situations on the ground i.e.

objective and activity may not always be in tune.

What has changed between November 2008 and now to warrant a resumption of the

talks?

Time is change in itself. We should not lose sight of the rise of fundamentalism in

Pakistan. The assassination of Salman Taseer has been applauded by the lawyers who

are seen as a liberal-minded section of Pakistan. If that is so, then the liberal elements

in Pakistan need encouragement of India if there is to be hope for Pakistan to become a

modern-minded, democratic country. I have doubts about that myself but there is no

harm in talking. Let us see if we can get anywhere. Time brings its own change. We are

trying it out because things happening in Pakistan cause problems to India. If India can

have a catalytic effect to encourage Pakistan to draw back from extremism, we should try

it. We need to adapt to change but along with change in Pakistan's attitude it is the

changes within Pakistan that should concern us.

India says the proposed talks should not be called composite dialogue but how is it any

different when its structure resembles that of the composite dialogue?

Labels don't mean anything. Although the media likes them, the point is what are the

issues to be discussed and in what format; whether X number of issues are discussed

simultaneously or separately; or X is changed to Y, are matters of diplomatic

convenience and suitability rather than of high policy. Both sides know what X and Y

issues are, and can approach them in different ways at different times; it hardly matters.

Does it not mean a reversion to the Sharm-el-Sheikh joint statement, which said that

"action on terrorism should not be linked to the composite dialogue process and these

should not be bracketed"?

India has always said that all issues will be discussed, but Kashmir should not be the

overriding condition. We have never said that we will not talk about all issues.

Is there a climate for the talks today because issues such as price-rise and corruption

seem to occupy the government's attention?

Climate does vary but if Pakistan is now interested in talks of the kind we are ready for, I

suppose the climate can be said to be favourable enough to try it. However, we are a

huge country with huge preoccupations so all these other issues naturally need our

attention.

Do you see international pressure on India to resume the talks with Pakistan?

What else can the international community say other than to make up with Pakistan?

Nobody can twist our arms if we are strong enough to ignore what is called pressure. We

have to deal with our problems by first putting our house in order. Also, the political

spectrum within India should not indulge in cheap politics on issues of national

importance or allow damage to our national interests.

Does India have leverages over Pakistan to impose costs on it if it does not give

satisfaction on the issue of terrorism?

When we talk of leverages we must understand that India is four times the size and

power of Pakistan. Our problem is that the instruments of State action have become

rusted and inefficient; therefore, we need to become an efficient State. Leverage depends

on your ability to use your power.

How would you respond to the talk of various scenarios such as a two-front war with

China and Pakistan?

Every analyst would want the government and people of India to be constantly aware of

the fact that we have two neighbours with whom we have unsettled problems and they

have the power and possible reasons for conflict with India. Therefore, it is perfectly

natural to have contingency plans. That does not mean conflict will erupt but it has to be

considered a possibility and prepared for. If we are really strong it would not be a worry.

We need to show we are capable of dealing with such challenges.

How do you view reports that Pakistan is expanding its nuclear weapons programme?

We must organise ourselves. We must not take 20 years to decide which arms to

purchase !

Khurshid Mahmud Kasuri, a former Pakistan foreign minister, says that the Pakistan

army was on board the backchannel talks with India, but Pakistan army chief Gen Ashfaq

Parvez Kayani has said that the military will remain India-centric until outstanding

issues are resolved. Your view.

It is so obvious this is the army's view they need not say it. Unfortunately they are not

open to reason. As I said before, things change but Pakistan refuses to recognise the

change. India has in the past few decades shown it has no desire to attack or undermine

Pakistan but elements in Pakistan seem determined to undermine India.

Do you subscribe to Mr Kasuri's view that both sides had come very close to a

resolution of some of the issues?

On the basis of available information, indications are that the backchannel talks made

enormous progress on arriving at a basis for a new relationship. But the situation

changed within Pakistan and then people there were not interested.

Looking back at your long career in which you served in Pakistan on two occasions, from

1962 to 1965 and later as ambassador (Pakistan was not a member of the

Commonwealth then) between 1976 and 1980, what are some of the pitfalls of negotiating

with Pakistan?

The biggest problem in negotiating with Pakistan is that our own political parties find it

very difficult to conduct negotiations confidentially and not make everything known to the

public. Agreements must be open but they cannot be openly arrived at.

'India, US, Israel need not fear the coming change'

Chinmaya Gharekhan

a former special envoy of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh for West Asia and the West Asia peace process, and a former permanent representative of India to the UN

New Delhi

4 February 2011

Chinmaya Gharekhan, a former special envoy of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh for

West Asia and the West Asia peace process, and a former permanent representative of

India to the United Nations, believes that an outcome of the popular movement in Egypt

will be more power to the people, and, to that extent, India's statement calling for a

resolution acceptable to the Egyptian people should be welcomed. Speaking in an

interview given to Ramesh Ramachandran on Thursday, Mr Gharekhan also said that a

future dispensation in Cairo can be expected to be more sympathetic to the Palestinian

cause. Excerpts:

Why do you think Egypt and what is happening there today should matter to India?

Egypt is the most populous Arab country. Its intellectuals, music and movies dominate

the Arab world, so obviously if you want to have relations with the Arab world, Egypt is

indispensable. It is important because of the energy factor and also because our

economic relations with Egypt has increased of late. IFFCO (Indian Farmers Fertiliser

Cooperative Limited) has a 800 million dollar project there. Egypt was and still is active

in the Non Aligned Movement (NAM). India is a co-founder, with Egypt, of NAM. So we

have many links with Egypt. And, now as we go ahead and look for a permanent seat in

the United Nations Security Council, Egypt again becomes very relevant there. So there

are many reasons for us to be deeply interested in what is going on in Egypt.

What are the likely implications, if any, of the unrest for India?

We still have to wait for the denouement of what is going on in Egypt. One thing is clear

that the end result will be more power to the people of Egypt, more participatory role for

the Egyptian people in the governance of the country. Our bilateral relations will remain

healthy and mutually beneficial, so I don't think we not need to worry about the state of

bilateral relationship with Egypt. However, at the same time, if we were to not show any

interest in the developments going on in Egypt then it would be unfortunate. We were

rather silent in the beginning and then we made some statements which did not really

mean very much. But I think the statements made by external affairs minister SM

Krishna on television removed all doubt about where India stands. He made it very clear

that India is with the people of Egypt and any solution must satisfy the aspirations of the

people of Egypt. He even referred to the writing on the wall, so I think his statements

have been very good.

How do you see the leader-less movement playing itself out in Egypt?

It seems it was very spontaneous. According to an article in the International Herald

Tribune (IHT), apparently a 26-year-old woman (Asmaa Mahfouz) started it. While people

had long been suppressed in Egypt, and it has been a pretty ruthless regime in terms of

political freedoms, it seems that this woman almost risked her life and she put herself in

front of the camera and she asked every one to come out in the streets and protest. It

was very risky for her to upload her own video on the internet because she could have

been arrested and anything could have happened to her but she said she must do what

she thinks she has to do. She shared the video on Facebook, which is read by hundreds

of thousands, so others took courage, and that's how it started. But it had been boiling

for a long time. There was a political movement called Kefaya (Arabic for enough) but

since there is heavy censorship and movements are restricted it does not do well in

elections. So the protests we are seeing today is a genuine popular movement.

How will a potential rise in influence of the Muslim Brotherhood affect Egypt and the

region?

Certainly Israelis would worry about that and there I would agree with them that they

have cause for concern if Muslim Brotherhood comes to power or at least form part of

any future government there. That's understandable because Hamas is an offshoot of

Brotherhood. So I think any future dispensation in Cairo will be much more sympathetic

to the Palestinian cause than the Mubarak regime has been. Of course every Arab

government has to support the Palestinian cause because peoples support the

Palestinians much more than their governments, so to that extent I think the Israelis

might be concerned, but then there is no peace process. There has been no peace

process for some years between the Israelis and the Palestinians so we can't say that it

will affect the peace process. There is no peace process to be affected. Also, in the

neighbouring countries in the Arab world they might get worried and I can understand

that. This is a new force. Then, Muslim Brotherhood, which has been suppressed with an

iron hand in the Mubarak regime, would have more free hand in future. What that has

done immediately is of course to make all these other autocracies realise the dangers to

them and so they are all now coming out with so-called reforms. So I think that's not a

bad thing. Muslim Brotherhood has declared repeatedly, we don't know how long they

will keep to that word, but they say they are against violence and they believe in

democracy.

How likely is it that a future government in Egypt will continue its policies with regard to

Israel or the US?

I'm not an astrologer but any government in Cairo will respect the [1979] peace treaty

with Israel. I totally disagree with Israelis when they say that peace treaty might be

[threatened.] Of course they felt comfortable with Mubarak; he did provide stability and

continuity for a number of years but the treaty was signed by the then Egyptian president

Anwar Sadat and Mubarak only carried on with it. The peace treaty is as much in Egypt's

interest as it is in Israel's interest. It's because of the treaty that Egypt is getting two

billion dollars from the Americans and people of Egypt are not stupid or foolish. But yes,

a future government will certainly be more supportive of the Palestinians.

How would you describe the US response to the unfolding situation in Egypt?

The Americans are the most important external factor. They started off very cautiously

because they didn't know how long it will last but very soon they woke up to the realities

on the ground and now they have taken a very forthright position.

How will the developments in Egypt affect the region in general and Israel - Iran relations

in particular?

The Israelis have to thank themselves for Iran's increasing influence in the region. They

pushed Hamas into Iran's embrace. If the Hamas movement, which won a majority in the

2006 elections, had not been ostracised by the Israelis, and under Israeli pressure by

others, then Iran would have had no foothold with Hamas. So I think Israelis should do

some introspection themselves and see what is at the root of all this: it's the continued

occupation of Palestine, plus their deliberately pushing Hamas into isolation and hence

into the arms of Iran. They have to take responsibility for that.