Categories
Asia360 News (Singapore) Journalism

Bridge Over Troubled Waters (News Report)

The fate of Bangladesh’s biggest infrastructure project hangs in the balance

DHAKA — Asian funding agencies, The Asian Development Bank (ADB) and Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) provided much needed, albeit temporary relief to the government on July 31 choosing not to cancel their loan for the US$2.9 billion Padma bridge project, for another month.

The Padma bridge project has been in peril since the World Bank cut its US$1.2 billion credit line for the 6km-long road-rail bridge over the Padma River on June 30, citing corruption concerns, in particular the government’s failure to investigate claims of high-level fraud in connection with the project.

Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina had accused the World Bank of treating the country as “guinea pigs” and defiantly announced that Bangladesh would finance the project itself.

Apart from the US$ 1.2 billion that is to be provided by the World Bank, the ADB, JICA and the Islamic Development Bank have pledged to lend the government US$ 615m, US$ 400m and US$ 140m respectively for the project.

“[The] ADB and JICA have extended their loan agreement deadline by a month. It’s good news for us. Now, let us see what the World Bank does. I believe the World Bank has to come back,” Finance Minister AMA Muhith told reporters on July 31.

The government however is still under pressure to address the issues of corruption raised by the World Bank by the end of this month, failing which the ADB and JICA have warmed that they would not fund the country’s largest infrastructure project.

The two agencies would consider funding the project even without the World Bank if the corruption issues are properly dealt with senior government officials told local newspaper The Daily Star after talks between ADB, JICA and Bangladesh’s Economic Relations Division (ERD) on July 31.

In the meantime, Information & Communications Technology Minister Syed Abul Hossain who is at the heart of the corruption controversy has been asked to step down. Other senior officials working on the project have also been asked to go on leave.

The Padma bridge project is a key part of the ruling Awami League’s 2008 election manifesto and is Bangladesh’s most ambitious infrastructure project to date aimed at delivering development to the poor southern part of the country.

It is estimated that some 30 million people in the region could directly benefit from the new road and rail connection.  At present all traffic across the Padma River has to rely on ferries, which are infrequent and often unsafe.

The bridge will  also connect Bangladesh’s principal seaports and provide a direct link to the Dhaka-Chittagong Highway.

Categories
Huffington Post (UK) Journalism

An Even Match

[This article was first published here on The Huffington Post]

A November 2011 report by the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, a US congressional advisory panel, urged the White House and US Congress to scrutinize China’s military expansion and pushed for a tougher stance against, what it dubbed as, anticompetitive Chinese trade policies.

While China’s military, which benefited from a threefold increase since the 1990s in the military budget to about US$160 billion in 2010, does not pose a threat to the US, it does so to many nations in the region. Apart from building ports (also known as ‘pearls’) across the Indian ocean that form as its security eyes, China has, over the years, taken measures to boost its control of maritime resources in the East China Sea and the South China Sea.

At the same time, China invested substantial efforts in the last decade in building economic relations with East Asian nations via regional bodies like the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), the ASEAN+3 (ASEAN, plus China, Japan, and South Korea), and the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF).

With the help of the regional arrangements, China is replacing the United States as the economic engine of Asia. It buys up huge amounts of raw materials, goods and parts, and pours in large amounts of foreign investment into its Asian neighbours.

In that backdrop, the US government, in 2011, decided in favour of a renewed focus on Asia by hastening its decisions to forge relations with multilateral organisations in the continent from both economic and military standpoints.

In November 2011, Obama declared that the US hoped by December 2012 to see the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), now being negotiated, become a high-quality trade and investment platform that will include the major economies of the Asia-Pacific.

The principles of TPP, which does not include China in the initial group of countries, greatly differ from China’s approach to trade, and are being structured around values that the US champions in terms of, amid others, transparency and protection of intellectual property.

In the same month, the US formally joined the East Asia Summit (EAS) in Bali, Indonesia. President Obama used his inaugural speech to guide the EAS towards focusing on prickly security issues in the region, especially those involving maritime security. The suggestion was not to Beijing’s liking, but was supported by EAS participants that have disputes with China on the issue of dominion over South China Sea waters and regions.

The US continued its activism in the region in 2011 with a very high-profile engagement with the Myanmar regime in December 2011 via a visit by US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. The visit, the first in 50 years by a US secretary of state to Myanmar, was significant as it marked US having a dialogue with a regime that it not only does not officially recognize – on account of democracy and human rights violations by the military rulers – but also that has been supported by China during the last two decades of political isolation.

Continuing the surge in the region, the office of the US government spokesperson, in a press release in December 2011, informed that the US hosted Japan and India – both traditional rivals of China – for the first ever trilateral dialogue to “exchange views on a wide range of regional and global issues of mutual interest”.

The renewed, and frantic, US interest in the region – from South Asia to the Asia Pacific – and, more importantly, the growing relations between US and other Asian nations has not gone unnoticed in China, naturally.

But even as China has not so far made any comment on the developments, state-run China Daily, reacting to the emerging alliance of Asian nations with the US, reported, “Japan’s cooperation has been moving from bilateral to multilateral, trying to include the United States, Australia and India in its Arc of Freedom and Prosperity.”

It is difficult to predict the Chinese responses in 2012 to the current US crusading in the region. Much will depend upon China’s own economy and the preparedness of the smaller nations in the Asia-Pacific and East Asia to engage further with the US even at the risk of earning China’s wrath.

For the moment, the US is on an overdrive and China is observing the situation. The game is on.

Categories
Asia360 News (Singapore) India Journalism

Embracing the Last Resort (News Report)

India’s anti-graft crusaders hint at taking the fight against government into the political arena

NEW DELHI — Marking a departure from its traditional stand of staying “completely apolitical”, India’s ongoing anti-corruption movement on July 31 appeared to lean towards formation of a political alternative.

Addressing a crowd of thousands at Jantar Mantar Square in New Delhi, Prashant Bhushan, eminent lawyer and a senior member of Team Anna, the group leading the movement under the leadership of veteran social activist Anna Hazare, said, “It is time for an alternative politics to shape up. Power should return to the hands of the people.”

“Anna Hazare, Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and Gopal Rai [all senior members of Team Anna] should give up their fast. Their lives are very valuable and are needed to form an alternative political forum,” he added.

Others like former cop Kiran Bedi and Kumar Vishwas declared the movement’s growing political slant saying the movement’s mission is to ensure that “new and apt people” come to power in the 2014 polls by defeating the Congress-led ruling United Progressive Alliance (UPA) coalition.

The team also attacked the main opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) alleging that its earlier support for the movement was based largely upon political opportunism.

Appearing to have lost mass support in recent months, the movement got a fresh lease of life on July 29 when Anna sat on an indefinite hunger strike at Jantar Mantar to press for his team’s demand of passing of Jan Lokpal [(anti-corruption) Ombudsman Bill] in the parliament and investigation into cases of corruption involving senior politicians, including 15 federal ministers.

But even as the 74-year-old activist’s fast entered the third day and the health of two of his aides – especially that of Kejriwal, who has been fasting since July 25 – worsened, the government showed no signs of relenting on Team Anna’s demands.

On July 30, India’s Information and Broadcasting Minister Ambika Soni even went to the extent of accusing Team Anna of resorting to blackmail tactics.

Similarly, when asked whether he would appeal to Team Anna to call off its agitation, senior lawmaker from the ruling Congress party Satyavrata Chaturvedi replied in the negative.

“Activists have their own agenda and I don’t want to appeal to them. They cannot challenge the independence of the House [parliament]. The House is supreme. Other views too need to be respected. There is no point appealing to them. They can do what they like.”

But an official statement from the government on July 31 said that the Prime Minister’s Office sent two letters to Anna under the advise of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, urging the veteran social activist to take the path of negotiations with the government.

Anna was quick to react. Addressing his supporters at Jantar Mantar, Anna said he would not talk to anyone in the government — including the Prime Minister — until his demands were met.

“This movement will continue till politics is cleaned up. Our struggle has not lost its way — I am clear that if the Jan Lokpal Bill is passed, at least 70% of corruption will end in the country,” he said amid loud cheers from thousands of his supporters.

He said he would sit on fast again and again till there is ‘flood of good politics’ in the country.

Though Anna Hazare has ruled out the possibility of him joining politics, he has indicated that his team members might contest the next parliamentary polls against the mainstream political parties.

He even threatened to return the Padma Bhushan, India’s third-highest civilian award.

Earlier in the day, government-appointed doctors reached the venue to advise Arvind Kejriwal and Gopal Rai — both fasting since July 25 — to get medical treatment as their health had become cause of concern.

The two rejected the appeal, telling the supporters that they were “not cowards who will give up because of health concerns”.

“I am warning the government not to try to arrest us and force us to go to hospital,” Kejriwal said.

The principal disagreement between Team Anna and the government lies in arriving at the scope of the proposed anti-graft Ombudsman, under the Jan Lokpal Bill.

Team Anna believes the Ombudsman should be empowered to probe and prosecute politicians, including public administrators of all levels, higher judiciary, parliamentarians and even the prime minister.

The government, on the other hand, feels this will create a parallel government and run against the basic premise of checks and balances Indian democracy is based upon.

With the government appearing ever more reluctant to engage Team Anna, the activists now seem to be formulating a new strategy that may lead them to fight the battle politically.

Categories
Asia360 News (Singapore) Journalism

Forgetting Nehru

Forty eight years after India’s first prime minister passed on, Jawaharlal Nehru is remembered when expedient and forgotten when convenient.

Nehru’s chequered legacy is used selectively by no less than his own party, the ruling Indian National Congress (INC).  Putting an abrupt end to his socialist programs with economic liberalisation policies in 1991, the Congress party nonetheless chose to kick-start its political campaign for the recent Uttar Pradesh (UP) state elections, with Nehru as a poster child.

Congress general secretary and the iconic leader’s great grandson Rahul Gandhi started his campaign from Phoolpur in UP, the seat that Nehru represented in India’s parliament, invoking Nehru’s socialist ideals to get the largely poor electorate to vote for his party.

In the posters and banners across Phoolpur it was Nehru and Rahul Gandhi that took centre stage. The party even replaced its traditional slogan “Congress ka haath aam aadmi ke saath” (Congress’ hand is with the common man) with “Nehruji ko yaad karenge, Rahulji ke saath challenge” (Will walk ahead with Rahul on the path shown by Nehru).

But the strategy backfired. The party performed abysmally, and saw the regional Samajwadi Party (SP) – ‘Samajwadi’ means socialist – appropriate its pro-poor posture and come to power with a two-thirds majority.

While the Congress’ poor showing in UP – where it has been out of power since 1989 – was not surprising, the stinging defeat renewed debate on Nehru’s legacy and his socialist ideas.

A renowned Indian historian and intellectual, Dr Ramachandra Guha believes that India’s ingrained democracy, distinguished centres of higher education, pluralistic ethos and bold reforms such as giving equal rights to women would not have been possible without the foundation laid by Nehru’s inclusive, social democratic vision.

But none of that seems to matter to most in India any more. Popular media are replete with instances of today’s increasingly unforgiving generation describing Nehru as “the root cause of all of India’s current problems”.

Free-market economy advocates – including the main opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) – hold Nehru’s insistence on the Soviet socialist model responsible for India being stuck in the ranks of the Third World 65 years after independence from British rule.

The contrasting estimations of Nehru legacy stems partly from a cluttered understanding of socialism and Nehru’s own interpretation and execution of it.

For the record, to debunk popular misconception, India was officially not a socialist state during Nehru’s era. Also, Nehru was not the architect of the ‘closed economy’ that India ended up being an ideological prisoner of. That was his daughter, Indira Gandhi’s doing in the late 1960s and the 1970s when she was prime minister. She was also the one who introduced an official reference to socialism in the Indian constitution.

For Nehru, socialism stood as the prototype of an ideal society that avoided the excesses of both the unchecked capitalism of the West and the economic totalitarianism of the East.

So, for him, state-owned enterprises became the brick and mortar of the Indian economy that had to be generously nurtured to put the country on the path of progress and modernisation.

To be sure, he was not against private enterprise, but they were not to be given a free hand. He once told the parliament, “private enterprises have a very important task to fulfill — provided it works within the confines laid down and does not lead to the creation of monopolies and other evils that the accumulation of wealth gives rise to.”

The socialistic ‘something for all’ approach was readily accepted by an overwhelming majority during his 17-year rule because it suited the social and economic circumstances of an incredibly heterogeneous country, especially in the early years of independence.

“Those were different times. We [India] thought, in the 1950s that Russia was doing very well. We did not know the problem with state planning and so on. After all, Russians put Sputnik in space before the Americans. So we thought the State is very important for economic growth and technological development. Nehru reflected that popular mood,” said Guha.

But the fall of the Soviet Union and the near bankruptcy of India in 1991 changed all that.

Suddenly, Nehru – and socialism – could stand for no good in a society that was getting increasingly exposed to the riches of the western world, especially the United States.

The socio-political churnings in India around that time saw the BJP, and many regional parties emerge as serious political contenders, gaining currency by attacking everything that the Congress stood for over the decades.

From its empty public coffers to the conflict with Pakistan over Kashmir, border disputes with China, federal-state relations and the establishment of dynastic politics, Nehru started coming under attack for almost every decision that he took – and also for the ones that he did not.

By the mid-1990s, India had started to reap the early benefits of becoming a more market-friendly economy, giving more credence to the theories that debunked Nehru’s socialist experiments.

Today, 21 years after Nehru’s Congress party opted for economic reforms, India looks almost unrecognisable from the Nehruvian era.

Government controls over industries are being dismantled and private enterprises are actively encouraged by all, even the communists, and expanding faster than ever before.

The country which is home to a third of the world’s poor now boasts more billionaires than England, India’s ruler for close to 200 years. The appetite for acquiring private wealth in India seems insatiable. Nehru has been regarded either as a misguided ideologue who shackled India’s material progress, or a hero who laid the foundation for a modern India. But for now, the country seems most at peace with forgetting him.     AR

Categories
Asia360 News (Singapore) Journalism

At the Stroke of Capitalism

1991 goes down in history as the year that marked the ideological defeat of socialism in India at the hands of economic realism.

After more than four decades of socialism, India was days away from bankruptcy and forced to turn to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for a bailout. The condition? That India abandon its socialist economic structure and pursue capitalist reforms.

There was little choice. India’s economy was in a shambles, with fiscal deficit at an unsustainable 8.5% of the economy and the current account deficit touching 3.5%. With total external debt at US$72 billion, India had become the world’s third largest debtor after Brazil and Mexico.

Investor confidence in India was at an all-time low and both the World Bank and the IMF were reluctant to sanction new loans. Meanwhile, foreign suppliers were refusing to honour letters of credit issued by Indian banks that were not approved by a foreign bank.

By January 1991, foreign exchange reserves had dropped to US$1.2 billion; by June, this had halved and was barely enough for roughly three weeks of essential imports. For the first time in history, India was on the verge of a debt default.

In technical terms, India was experiencing a classic example of balance of payment crisis: high fiscal and current account deficits, external borrowing to finance the deficits, rising debt service obligations, rising inflation, and inadequate exchange rate adjustment.

In non-technical terms, the country of 846 million — also the world’s largest socialist democracy — was going bankrupt.

Though the crisis was primarily due to the ballooning of fiscal imbalances over the 1980s, two significant world events precipitated the unprecedented crunch in 1991.

First, the Gulf War increased petroleum import costs in 1990-1991 by half to US$5.7 billion. The government had to bear the additional burden of airlifting and rehabilitating more than 100,000 Indian workers from the Middle East as well as suffer a big drop in remittances from the region.
The second cause was the global recession: world growth had declined to 2.25% in 1991 from 4.5% in 1988. Export growth in the US — India’s largest market — turned negative in 1991. Even more damaging were the events that led to the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union, once a major patron and supporter of India.

Domestically, India was also suffering from political instability.

In the summer of 1990, the National Front coalition government was facing violent nationwide protests by students over its affirmative action policies. In November, the coalition collapsed when the Bharatiya Janata Party pulled out over a disagreement about the building of a temple. The new government was formed, only to also collapse barely four months later, leaving India without a government at its most crucial hour. In May 1991, while campaigning for the federal elections, former prime minister Rajiv Gandhi, leader of the Congress party, was assassinated.
In reaction, and in parallel to these developments, the economic situation worsened.

To keep the foreign reserve ratio above US$1 billion, the caretaker government sold 20 tonnes of gold to obtain a loan of US$240 million. The new government, which took office on June 21, 1991, pledged a further 20 tonnes of gold to Union Bank of Switzerland and 47 tonnes to Bank of England as part of a bailout deal with the IMF.

But the IMF wanted more; it wanted India to undertake a series of structural economic reforms. Many in India, which considered itself the leader of the non-aligned world, viewed the potential arrangement with pain, even embarrassment. Forced between retaining a populist socialist economic structure and introducing reforms at the cost of public anger, prime minister Narasimha Rao chose the latter.

He directed his finance minister Manmohan Singh, the present prime minister, to initiate wide-ranging policy reforms. Steps were undertaken to reduce excessive government controls, liberalise trade, allow foreign investment, encourage private sector business, and gradually embrace globalisation.

The crisis of 1991 thus gave birth to a new India, a capitalist India.   AR

Categories
Asia360 News (Singapore) Journalism

To Each His Own Parenting

There is no one perfect way to raise model children

I must admit I am terribly scared of leaving my one-year-old daughter alone with my wife. And I blame Yale Law School professor Amy Chua for my paranoia.

My little one was born barely three months after Chua horrified the Western world with her parenting memoir, “Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother”, which unapologetically presumed the superior efficacy of harsh, traditional Chinese parenting. In the bestselling book, Chua listed all the fun things she denied her daughters, which many in the West consider to be essential ingredients of childhood.

She also proudly mentioned subjecting her daughters to hours of academic and music drills with no water, dinner or bathroom breaks, and lashings of public shame — including calling her daughter “garbage” in front of many at a dinner party.

Harried mums around the Western world were soon threatening their children with making “Aunt Amy” adopt them if they did not listen to their mummies.

I neither share Chua’s Chinese parenting methods nor the Western world’s outraged reaction. I am an Indian. But what left me — a self-confessed cuddly, teddy-bear dad — worried about my daughter’s growing years was Chua’s recent remark that India’s tiger mums may outnumber China’s.

Hold on, I do not hear anything from the other room. Let me check what my wife and baby are doing.

All is fine; they are both sleeping. Phew!

Anyway, if Chua’s belief is accurate, it would mark a tectonic shift in the make-up of an Indian mother, eternally glorified by Bollywood films as a doting, protective and weepy mortal who makes a living out of begging her husband to forgive her child for all the mistakes that the little one may or may not have committed.

It has historically been the job of an Indian father to be the tough taskmaster, to instill discipline into children and make sure that they adhere to familial hierarchy and societal order.

The general belief in India is that ‘the arrangement’ has worked out just fine for Indian families.

But that does not stop most Indian mums from believing that every single Indian dad does cross the line of ‘healthy control’ at least once in his lifetime — especially when it comes to his daughter’s marriage or son’s career.

So this February, despite knowing me for about a decade, my wife started getting suspicious all over again about my parenting instincts when she saw a video of a Chinese businessman forcing his four-year-old to run nearly naked and do pushups in the New York snow. The boy’s crying pleas to stop did nothing to melt his dad’s heart.

“When the old eagle teaches its young, it takes the young eagles to the cliffside, beats them, and pushes them to teach them to use their wings,” the father told a Chinese newspaper.

As I said, I am not that kind of father. But whoever said escaping a stereotype is easy, especially if it gets reinforced by a global sensation — which, these days, seems to mean everything Chinese.

So there we are — an Indian household where both partners suspect the other one of being a tough Chinese parent beneath the brown skin. At times it gets to a point where our baby almost begins to get confused about her roots.

Putting my strange little world aside however, normally it is the confusion in parents’ minds that gives birth to most parenting-related debates — confusion about the best method to enable children to evolve into culturally well-groomed, financially self-reliant and socially well-respected adults.

In her book, Chua tries to distinguish Asian parenting from that in the West by highlighting the difference between the ‘degree of strictness’ that the two sets of parents make use of. She says that her Western friends who consider themselves strict make their children practice their instruments 30 minutes every day, or an hour at most. “For a Chinese mother,” she writes, “the first hour is the easy part. It’s the second and the third hours that get tough.”

Alan Paul, author of “Big in China: My Unlikely Adventures Raising a Family, Playing the Blues and Becoming a Star in Beijing”, believes the approach stems from the historical structure of the Chinese society.

“It’s easy to understand a traditional Chinese drive for perfection in children: it is a huge nation with a long history of people thriving at the top and scraping by at the bottom without much in between.”

In India, it is science textbooks instead of instruments. Parents often ask their children to immerse themselves in equations and theories, especially around the times of numerous weekly and monthly tests. The pitch gets raised just prior to the big annual examination, leading to an embargo on sports and television.

But while Indian parents (generally) indeed go harder at their children than their Western counterparts, they do not tend to match up to the Tiger Mum or Eagle Dad stereotypes of Chinese parents.

Part of the reason behind the approach can be explained again in the historical context. India has a well-entrenched caste system, which for many centuries decided the future of every child born. So worrying too much about the child’s predetermined place in society as an adult did not make much sense.

“Let her (or him) be; it’s the age to enjoy” is one of the most common responses across India whenever questions are raised about less-than-perfect conduct of a young adult.

That particular aspect, interestingly, brings Indian parenting slightly closer to Western parenting attitudes than the Chinese model. Myth of a common Asian parenting style, anyone?

Clearly, most parenting styles, if not all, draw heavily from socio-historical context. The outward manifestations may not necessarily reflect the latent intent of the method.

In her book, Chua writes, “Many Chinese secretly believe that they care more about their children and are willing to sacrifice much more for them than Westerners, who seem perfectly content to let their children turn out badly. I think it’s a misunderstanding on both sides. All decent parents want to do what’s best for their children. The Chinese just have a totally different idea of how to do that.”

And therein lay the crux of parenting for me: Good advice can be found in various styles of parenting. No parenting style — neither Western nor Asian, if there is any such monolith after all — is perfect. And there is therefore no such thing as the perfect parent.

For now, my wife and I have made a pact. To begin with, we will trust each other with the baby. And then work towards coming up with our own style of parenting for the best of our child.

Would that be an Asian style of parenting? Who cares!   AR