Search Results

Upon an analysis of economic security missions in contemporary India, I was made aware of their various manifestations. In accordance with their political pros and cons, they take highly diverse forms and shapes as they attempt to balance politics along with solid execution. For an able and sagacious politician, it will be an act of utter ignorance to be unaware of the political implications of imporper implementation of economic security missions. In addition, (s)he must also be aware that they may necessitate the changing of the gears of the economy, and this may even be for the betterment of the country at large. Vice versa, ignorance is not bliss for many. A politician’s ability to adroitly fine tune economic security missions and change these gears contributes to his political success and makes him a leader. In contemporary India, Mr. Modi’s government has been accused of being pro-business and anti-poor by the Opposition. The question that can be raised here is : is being pro-business the same as being anti-poor? In response to this, one wonders if Mr. Modi will commit such a faux pas by being pro-business and anti-poor when the poor too form a considerable part of the electorate. It appears to me that this will affect his future political career to a great extent. So the question that can now be framed is : why is Mr. Modi not capitulating in front of his ‘enemies’(the opposition parties in the parliament)? He seems to be obstinate and determined to make his own plans, which have the sartorial appearance of being “anti-poor” for the opposition, but “welfare for all” for many of the neoliberals. The reason lies in his political inclination towards neoliberalism as postulated by John Locke and other political scientists of a similar inclination. His fundamentals are drawn to a great extent from that ideology, which in turn makes him believe in the adage “Government has no business to be in business.” However, in my own opinion, this is in a limited way, enabling a fine tuned balance between public and private enterprise. This corresponds with what was postulated by the maker of the BJP’s ideology, Deendayal Upadhaya, who is said to have propounded the doctrine of integral humanism. This, I suppose, has influenced Mr. Modi’s thinking and hence he is going in for increased privatisation in various sectors of the economy and at the same time, synthesising new economic security schemes and national welfare missions. Let posterity be the judge for his actions and see whether he fulfills what he has promised.

By Urvi Khaitan, IInd History The eyes of the Indian media were drawn more towards the meeting between Modi and Nawaz Sharif, Prime Minister of Pakistan, than to the actual summit. “The meeting was held in a cordial atmosphere,” say Pakistani Foreign Secretary Auzaz Ahmad Chaudhry and Foreign Secretary Subrahmanyam Jaishankar of India in a joint statement. “They agreed that India and Pakistan have a collective responsibility to ensure and promote development. To do so, they are prepared to discuss outstanding issues,” it continues, in the usual style of diplomatic hogwash. However, a five point agenda was stressed on: a meeting to discuss all issues linked to terrorism; meetings on border security; releasing fishermen in each other’s custody; religious tourism, and expediting the Mumbai case trial. Barring the rhetoric, this meeting harbours far more for India’s government. Foreign policy is supposed to be the baby of the Ministry of External Affairs(MoEA), with bilateral talks carried out between the countries’ foreign secretaries. Talks between the foreign secretaries had been abruptly called off on August 19 last year because the Pakistani High Commissioner met Kashmiri separatists. However, Modi insisted at Ufa that talks must now take place between National Security Advisers – signalling that the Prime Minister’s Office will have control of foreign policy rather than the MoEA. The PMO’s desire to control foreign policy is not new and not without reason. When Natwar Singh was External Affairs Minister in 2004, he was deliberately kept out of the loop over talks between then PMs Manmohan Singh and Pervez Musharraf, over fear that he would attempt to subvert them. The agenda was decided not by the Ministry, but by the National Security Advisers, and a decision of sorts was reached on the Kashmir dispute. The present PM too seems to have finally established a firm grip over something other than his fashion sense. Modi espoused the merits of collaboration and cooperation. He spoke of “Dus Kadam“, or 10 steps for boosting cooperation including a BRICS trade fair, railway and agricultural research centres, cooperation among supreme audit institutions, a digital initiative, a forum of state/local governments among the BRICS nations, cooperation among cities in the field of urbanization, a sports council and an annual sports meet, the first major project of New Development Bank to be in the field of clean energy and a film festival. This received lukewarm praise, with teen of the dus being agreed to. India, the BRICS chair for 2016, will be hosting the first BRICS trade fair, a film festival and an under-17 football tournament. One assumes that the spirit of healthy competition and a shared appreciation of popcorn will bind the nations closer together. Apart from this, there were developments on the Ukrainian front, with the BRICS declaration expressing deep concern about the deadly conflict in eastern Ukraine which is pitting government forces against pro-Russian separatists. It called on both sides to abide by a cease-fire signed in February by Ukraine, Russia, the rebels, and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). Putin said BRICS nations stood united in countering terrorism, battling drug trafficking, piracy, and what he called the “revival of Nazi ideology,” construed by many as a veiled jab at the pro-Western leadership that came to power in Ukraine following protests that toppled Russia-friendly President Viktor Yanukovych last year. The BRICS declaration urged the international community to avoid what it described as “political approaches” in fighting terrorism, a rather nebulous term as it gave no further details. This seems to be a diplomatic victory for Russia, as the BRICS bloc opposed the Western sanctions placed on her in view of the Ukraine issue. The Iranian nuclear issue was also on the agenda. Negotiators from Iran, Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia, and the United States are currently working in Vienna to strike a deal to curb Tehran’s controversial nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. The declaration said a nuclear agreement with Iran “is meant to restore full confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program.” It signals increasing friendliness to Iran, who has previously exressed interest in joining BRICS. Iran’s close ally, Russia, has long insisted that Tehran’s nuclear program poses no threat despite Western concerns that it is a cover up to build nuclear-weapons capability. (NB. The Vienna talks resulted in a landmark nuclear deal struck yesterday aiming at reining in Iran’s nuclear programme while removing her from isolation, and Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu has called it a historic mistake.) The most momentous development was the outlining of the functioning and stakeholdership of the BRICS Bank, or the New Development Bank(NDB). The NDB was first agreed to in 2013, and came into being in 2014. K.V. Kamath of India has been appointed its first President this year. The reason for the NDB’s importance lies not just in the collective economic clout of the BRICS nations but also in the fact that the Bank’s rules are a sharp break from those of the International Monetary Fund(IMF). The IMF is based on a principle of giving voting and borrowing rights to its member countries on the basis of their share in the Gross World Product about twenty odd years ago. Thus most of the clout is wielded by the USA and the OECD and it fails to take into account the phenomenal rise of economies like India and China. This summit slammed the USA for blocking IMF reforms. The NDB, on the other hand, is based on a principle of equality and will give its first loan on April 1, 2016. The initial capital of $50 billion has been created by equal contributions. A contingency reserve fund of $100 billion will be set up to meet currency crises and balance of payments contingencies. The NDB may not insist on conditions like those imposed on Greece. Significantly, it will work to promote trade between member countries in their respective currencies instead of the dollar. With the entry of China and Russia into a 30-year gas sharing arrangement denominated in their currencies, some feel that the dollar could gradually lose its pre-eminence. However, one must not be fooled by this egalitarian façade, as China is clearly the dominant partner. She hopes to earn a better return on her reserves than she is currently making through her investments in US treasuries. Chinese Premier Xi Jinping spoke of China’s Belt and Road initiatives, the establishment of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and the $ 40 billion Silk Road Fund. China is the key player in the AIIB, and ensured that it would not compete with NDB. India, the second largest stakeholder in AIIB, must beware of China’s expanding financial footprint and movement towards hegemony. Nevertheless, it is a good opportunity for the Reserve Bank of India to diversify its currency holdings, most of which are firmly plonked in US treasuries. The larger number of multilateral financial associations will help India obtain better credit, but we must also be guarded and careful about where we lay our eggs. All in all, the VIIth BRICS Summit saw a greater focus on mutual cooperation between member nations, with a token consideration given to problems of the environment and a burgeoning world population. The construction of new efficient transport and logistics chains to link the rapidly growing markets in Asia and Europe’s economies was stressed on. The biggest takeaway would be the decisions regarding the NDB and the use of national currencies in mutual trade transactions between the BRICS countries. The issue of the Greece crisis was addressed only by Putin, who questioned the European Commission for not taking adequate measures to salvage the situation during the previous Greek government. Putin deserves a pat on the back for his performance at Ufa. In comparison to Russia and China, India fared poorly as she received nothing she wanted when it came to terrorism, as the BRICS declaration ignored the vital UN Resolution 1267 dealing with suppression of financing and other forms of supporting terrorists and principles of respect for the sovereignty of the states. India’s efforts in this direction were blocked by China, though she was more successful when it came to bilateral relations with Pakistan. Modi and Sharif’s meeting could promise a period of bonhomie, coming after the former’s acrimonious comments in June 2015 about the “nuisance” which “promotes terrorism”. Sharif seems committed to bettering ties with India, and Modi has the backing of a strong mandate, which indicates that they are in a better position than their predecessors. There is hope. If that doesn’t brighten your day, Mr. Modi’s selfies will. Not.

By Harshajith Harindran, IInd B.A Programme (In the month of May, thousands of Rohingya Muslims fled from their homelands due to civil strife. When no country showed mercy to take them in, they stayed in the sea for weeks, without food or sanitation. Many died. Many cried for help at the sight of passing ships. Yet, the humanity of which our civilization seems to boast about never came. As no news came of their acceptance by any country, reflections on the virtues of empathy on which the basis of species is built upon came in. The look in the eyes of the exiles seemed to be speaking of an ebbing sense of the same. While we harp about the exponential rate of progress that humans are achieving as a species, it once more substantiates how we have failed to envision humanity above anthropogenic barriers of race and religion. And that becomes a very, very serious issue, when their eyes speak of lost hope. That look takes away the hope of collective survival in the coming centuries. It speaks a lot more than what is apparent. It prophecies death and doomsday. We are probably not going to perish in fire or spine chilling cold, but in the crude selfish evil of shrinking to our own worlds.) Sometimes, even as Death, With its nauseating stench Infects me, I wonder about them. How would it be, To live on land-Hard, solid land, And walk among the woods? Freely, as a man Of your own country? Sometimes, even when Life, with all its brutalities And ugliness, still tempt us, I wonder how it’d be for them To wander among the cities- Cities full of people – all kinds of them – With a conviction that you are as safe As a baby in its mothers embrace? Sometimes, as I see a ship Near the far horizon, I wonder if they even wonder That how it’d be for us? How would it be for us, To be in some fishing boat In some unknown waters Sans food, water and identity? How would it be, To be forced from your own country, To flee, while it is torn apart, Only because of your sect? Both, I didn’t choose-I had no choice. Do they ever think, how would it be, To stay in a stagnant boat, For seven humid hot days Surrounded by shit, urine and sweat stench? To see people cry for each other And fight for food at the same time? To see those who loved you And whom you loved to be a part of you, Drift away dead, In the slow sea current? To be exiled from one country And to be barred from others? To deprive us even land, On which we could stand and shout -if not survive? To sway in a stranded boat And beg for food from passing ships? And when there are none, or we get none, To drink one’s own urine? I smell the sea reek, Boil and slime But I swear I’ve Killed albatross none. Like tortured convicts’, Our faces are void of emotions. It shows none- not even fear. All these people have is that distant look By which they search for ships. That hopeless look of hope Men, women and children die here in hunger and thirst We have nowhere to go We have no place to live All we do is to cry for help that never comes. Since I see no shimmer In these dark waters I lie down slowly staring the sky. I see stars, So many solemn stars, Floating in the stark black cosmic sea. As I close my eyes, My lips smile mockingly at me. How can they wonder, you fool, It’s us, not them.

By Jasroop Singh Walia, IInd B.A. Programme. You know times have changed, when DU issues anti-Holi advisory ( no water, no color ) and prohibits its celebration on campus. Nevertheless, childhood memories abound when I sit down, reminiscing about the festival of colors. How it meant, imploring dad  to take us to the market on Holi eve, where we used to take our own sweet time deciding which ‘pichkaari’ to buy. The one in orange, or the one with a longer range, or the one with multiple punctures, or those expensive reloading gun pichkaaris, it was always tough to close down on one. Parents took extra care while buying colors (herbal only, they used to say). A couple of hours were always spent filling up the water balloons and stockpiling them before going to bed (you had to be ready with the arsenal before going to war). The same routine was followed by waking up early morning, with special instructions to fill up just half of the balloon with water (it increases its impact potential,FYI). Mother made us battle ready; cutting big polythene bags in the shape of our vests, which fit perfectly over our frail bodies. She used to apply oil on our faces, hair and ears for protection, though it seemed like a ritual preceding the chant, Vijaye bhavo ( May Victory fall on you). Weapons at hand, we then marched out onto the street. Friendly fire used to greet us, where it was customary that comrades in our camp pour a bucket full of colored water, hit balloons at all the right and wrong spots, and unload the pichkari at our face, point blank range with full force. Now that we’re officially into the camp, we plotted and attacked every passing soul with a barrage of balloons and water hits. One used to be kind to those unlucky uncles, all dressed up in formal shirt and trousers, going to work on their two wheelers, but all those multi-coloured big boys shouting on kinetics and motorcycles were attacked with full vigor. It used to be a different matter if they stopped their bike and got down to avenge the assault. The initial few seconds were spent in going for a  full throttle attack, and thereafter, retreating to the comfort of one of the homes. A parent would then be summoned to be a savior, and they used to sort those big boys out ( parents were serious people, no one messed with them). Whenever our confidence and arsenal was high enough, we used to muster up courage to charter into new territories, attacking new neighborhoods. Head-on battles were always about making the most important decisions of your life. To save your life and run away from the oncoming onslaught, or to use up those 5 precious seconds in retrieving one of your rubber chappal which slipped away. After every Holi, I ended up buying new chappals though, but as a punishment, had to scrub the color off the house walls. I smile and smile and smile, thinking how carefree those days used to be. The days when you’d forget home beckons you. I spend my Holi eves now,  completing one assignment or the other, remembering still, the hours spent stockpiling the water balloons. Let me be a child again. I wish.

By Kunal Chaturvedi, IInd B.A. Programme. The proposed beef ban is an agenda that is being debated hotly at the present time. While being insignificant in itself, this agenda has larger implications on Indian society, because it raises the question of a minority’s voice being trampled over by the swaying majority in a democracy ? Along with this uncomfortable, but unavoidable, question, this agenda is also concerned with the foundations of Hinduism, and what it really is. On this note, I’ll try to put forward my arguments against the proposed beef ban on two frontiers, the historical-religious aspects and the politico-sociological aspects of the agenda. It has been oft quoted that Hinduism is not a religion, it is a ‘way of life’. However, what is surprising is that this statement has strong historical basis, and is not just glorifying propaganda. The first appearance of the word Hinduism on the scene is a fairly late occurrence, somewhere in the 18th century. What we know today as Hinduism emerged as a collection of various tribal sects and cults that persisted in the subcontinent since the Harappan times. Unlike the Christians, who have The Bible, or the Muslims, who have The Quran, we don’t have any one single text that lays down strict rules of conduct for every Hindu, and neither do we have a founder-prophet that is a characteristic feature of almost all major world religions. And due to this style of origin and the flexibility in the form of absence of a fixed canon, we have always been an accommodating religion, as is evident from immense contradictory aspects present in the modern day Hinduism. On the one hand, the Vaishnavas consider the concept of ahimsa as supreme, and on the other, the Shaivites such as Aghori and Kalamukhi indulge in cannibalism and necrophilia. In Hinduism comes together the worship of the ascetic celibate Brahma as well as creative energy in the form of phallic symbols of Shiva Linga and Yoni. In fact, we have very conveniently accommodated Buddha, whose entire doctrine was based on a criticism of Brahmanical religion, within our pantheon, as an avatar. Its because of this reason that I believe that not being accommodating to people’s personal beliefs will be a disgrace to our Sanatan Dharma. It must also be noted here that despite having no fixed canon, the source of authority of all religious scriptures are the Vedas. Therefore, it should be kept in mind that the original Vedic religion was based purely on sacrifice, and that included the bovine family as well. Another fact that is of importance here is that the Vedas never mention the cow as being sacred to Hindus. The first such mention comes from later parts of the Mahabharata, dated to the 1st-2nd century AD at the earliest (The Vedas are estimated as being composed around 1000 BC). If we can justify killing of animals for sacrificial purposes, I believe feeding a stomach is a much more noble cause. Also interesting is the legend of Mahishasur Mardini, which  is based on the killing of a buffalo-demon, a close cousin of the cow. However, what I am unable to understand is, that why was there a need for me to provide arguments on the religious front, despite living in India (Or is that the reason why I had to provide these arguments ?). The constitution of the country mandates that the Indian state will be a secular, democratic republic, and that means that the state can not promote one religion over others. I don’t believe that the guiding principles of democracy allow the state to intervene in the private life of an individual, and I believe that food preferences fall under the category of private life. While it is true that we live in a country that is equally governed by communitarian laws as democratic ones, still, this ban would result in a large segment of population not being able to get their favourite food, which is not acceptable at all. I would also like to point out that there has been such a ban on killing animals in the history of the subcontinent, and that was implemented b y King Ashoka. However, his dynasty came to an end soon after him because of a coup by the commander of the army, who was a Brahman. Historians claim that that coup was a result of Ashoka’s patronage of the heterodox religions and his policy of banning the killing of certain animals did not sit well with the Brahamans, whose livelihood depended on the sacrifices. While there are many other reasons for the decline of the Mauryan empire, this fact clearly proves that intervention in the private life of an individual is not tolerated in a monarchy as well, let alone a democracy. If the present government bans beef, it will easily lose the votes of the minorities and a large amount of the Hindu youth in the next elections. And I believe that the top leadership of the government is recognising this fact, therefore they are solely focusing on developmental agendas and distancing themselves from the statements of the parent right wing organisations.And even if such a ban is implemented in India, we can never stop beef eating in remaining parts of the world. Let alone remaining parts, no ban can stop this from happening in India itself, as clear from the (illegal ?) availability of beef in Maharashtra and liquor in Gujarat. I’d also like to point out that most of the beef that is produced in the country comes from cows that farmers sell to the butchers, and these cows are generally decrepit and have outlived their utility. A ban on beef would also result in taking away this chance from the farmer of earning a little more from an animal that is otherwise useless. Supporters of the ban claim that they are not concerned with what people eat, rather their concern is the violence and cruelty against animals. But if the problem is only with cruelty and violence, why not extend the ban to all non-vegetarian food, and not only cows ? I still don’t understand how killing a cow is more cruel than killing any other animal, after all, the same life given to us by nature lives in each and every living being. Hindus might claim that cow is emotionally close to them, and you don’t kill your mother, but we have to keep in mind that these sentiments are only of the Hindus, and that too only to the devout ones, and not the remaining communities. I personally, am a big animal lover and a vegetarian (My family, friends and earlier notes can testify) and am completely against any kind of cruelty against any animal. But I believe that I have no right to impose my views on anyone, just like a Muslim can’t force me to eat the mutton on Eid, or a Christian can’t force me to have wine on Holy Communion (both of which I believe to be an absolute delight to the appreciators). If tomorrow the Jainas argue that hurting plants is against their religious sentiments, will we stop having delicious vegetables and daal as well ? While it may be claimed that beef consumption is against the sentiments of more than 80% of the population of the country, but being Hindus, I think our sensitivities should be a little more accommodating, and wouldn’t it be much better if our sensitivities were hurt more due to crimes against women and the sub-standard living conditions of a large number of our countrymen, who are forced to survive on rats, rather than what the other person’s tastes are ? FOOD FOR THOUGHT ! (Strictly vegetarian)

By Rishi Bryan, IInd English “What is Love? Baby don’t hurt me, don’t hurt me, no more.” goes the astoundingly catchy Haddaway song. But Haddaway is unable to answer the question that haunts him and this drives him mad. There used to be a time when I used to meditate about the true nature of love, being equally confounded. Now that I have acquired understanding, I have attained serenity and peace.  Amour is a French word which captures with great aesthetic beauty the sexual passion which one human being feels for another. This word is, however, often mistranslated into English as ‘love’. That is not what it means. Before I get into differentiating the two, it is essential that some basic ideas be established. Ever felt the compulsive need to be with a woman or a man with such passion that you have glorified the object of your desire into something unearthly, something celestial and something that is faultless and flawless? I have; and I will attempt a causative explanation for this phenomenon. What is every human being hardwired with, even before they are born? The collective burden of mankind to procreate and survive, as a species. Not only this, but to procreate in a manner which would produce the fittest offspring. People are most attracted to the person who has a gene pool that combines with theirs to form the best possible combination. And this is, evidently, subjective as all people can never agree on deciding who is the most attractive. A man from Morocco may find an Australian woman the most attractive because his subconscious instinct knows that as the diversity of the gene pool increases, so does the chances of the would be offspring to survive, imbibing the ideal elements of both races and genotypes. Ever heard the theory that the most attractive people on the planet are those who have an ethnically and racially diverse lineage? (Think Lebanese women. See what I’m talking about? No? Keanue Reeves. There.) When you find someone who is perfectly configured to give you the best offspring possible, your mind forces you to believe that this person is flawless and convinces you of the need to have them and fall in love with them. This phenomenon is many a time referred to sheepishly as ‘love at first sight’. Trust me, if you find someone attractive and good-looking at first sight, they always have genes that can dance well with yours. Besides this, there is the quintessential desire of the human being to attain pleasure and this is the same with food and sex and everything else that pleases the senses. Fornication is not essentially always tied to the utilitarian function of reproducing. It is also about attaining pleasure and having fun. (Contraception, anyone?) But then if this is not love, and is lust (which is a cruder word to denote this innate craving of the human individual), then what does the word love mean, as it is suppossed to be used? Well, to see what love means, look at the old couple, both in their 60s, holding their hands as they cross the road. There is an earnest sense of the need to care for and be affectionate to another person, that is built with time. This feeling, love, is what remains after raw passion has burned out in time. This does not mean that two people who once lusted after each other, cannot love each other later. Sure they can, but this happens when the courtship period is over, both have seen all of each other’s flaws and faults and still feel the sense of one’s own and belonging, with the other. Only then do two people ‘love’ each other. This is the same feeling that one has for one’s true friends, parents and relatives. The feeling of ‘however imperfect they maybe, they are mine’. And as such, the ideal romantic relationship is love thrown into heaps of amour. There, that should make it clearer. Some people say that lust and love are the one and the same thing, but I beg to differ. That is all. Warning: In the Indian context, whenever two persons feel amourous about each other, they scream out ‘I love you’ and run towards each other in slow-mo, crossing a field full of blooming yellow lilies in the process, to extremely cheesy and amateur bollywood music; like this. Ignore.

By Aniket Baksy - Economics III, Divya Murugesan - Economics III, Prashant Kumar - Economics III and Usman Zafar - B.A. Programme I Months of  vigorous campaigning, blame-game, mud-slinging and obnoxious advertisements have, finally, ended. The battle for Delhi was fought on 7th February 2015 with the largest voter turnout (of 67%) since the past few years. With most exit polls projecting an outright win for the AAP and with the Congress almost written-off, will the final verdict end up surprising us? Here’s presenting a contrast in the shades of BJP, AAP and Congress as they participate in the dance of democracy in Delhi. The journey of AAP started from the Lokpal agitation which shook the nation but sadly, with the agitation bearing no substantial fruit, Arvind Kejriwal decided to plunge to ground-zero level to clean up the ‘bhrashtachaar’ from our political system and hence, the Aam Aadmi Party came into existence. The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) deserves a solid round of applause – from fleeing a position of power granted to them by referendum to the ignominy of a near washout in the Lok Sabha Elections, the party has managed not only to bounce back, but is stronger than ever before. If the pre-election polls predicting a significant victory for the AAP, capturing as many as 40 seats out of the 70 are borne out on the 10th of January, it will be historic – a party with barely any history, a shoestring budget and a volunteer base composed largely of first-timers who’ve barely seen politics before this, will have garnered a stunning mandate to govern, and will have won it largely without appeals to religion or caste. Against the backdrop of this incredible achievement, the BJP’s own campaign appears to have lost whatever steam it ever had. The forceful vision of sweeping development appears to have been lost. The party has campaigned with intensity nowhere close to the AAP’s tireless and heartfelt pleas for support. Whereas afflicted early on by internal conflicts over chief ministerial candidacy, the introduction of Kiran Bedi as the candidate was clearly ill-conceived – while it’s possible that the choice of Kiran Bedi was motivated by her visibility, her perceived integrity and the possibility of embodying female empowerment through her, the fact remains that she was not up to the task of leading a campaign against a resurgent AAP, with “Paanch Saal Kejriwal” beginning to overtake the shadow of its infamous 49 day exit. While Kiran Bedi was always going to face difficult questions owing to her past statements about the BJP and its internal corruption, these questions would need to be tackled in much the same way ex-AAP members like Shazia Ilmi, who made the switch to the BJP as well did. Notwithstanding the BJP’s inherent contradictions, its one-man army structure, its instability and its excessive reliance on anti-social elements of society, a BJP government at the state Vidhan Sabha cannot be ruled out. There are several reasons why a BJP win might benefit Delhi. Firstly, a BJP government at the Delhi state level would be in tandem with the centre, allowing for minimal state-centre conflict when it comes to Delhi’s governance, an issue of importance, given Delhi’s relatively low revenue productivity and skewed distribution of responsibilities of governance. Second, all facts considered, the BJP’s vision document represents a more comprehensive plan for urban renewal than the AAP’s manifesto, which represents the short-run measures the party proposes, most of which essentially view subsidies to be the solution to scarcity induced by supply constraints and hoarding. Third, the practicability of the BJP’s policy plank – that of responsible governance – actually squares well with the reality of governing the NCT – the local government here has very limited power in actually setting the agenda forth, with policies largely being carried over more or less automatically from the centre. In this environment, some level of continuity and uniformity is necessary which the AAP seems to lack. The AAP’s reactionary brand of policymaking, evident in its urgent need to provide subsidies as to reduce prices as quickly as possible, regardless of long term inefficiencies involved, is evidence of this – and yet, the ability to understand these long term costs is probably beyond voters, who’d be swayed by falling prices today. Though the AAP has been accused of resorting to populist measures and is termed ‘inexperienced’ by many, its manifesto has some vital points, important for the development of the capital. Their manifesto touches upon most of the problems that continue to ail the Delhi-ites. These policies were on ground earlier also. But what the AAP asserts is their intent of implementing these policies efficiently and transparently, an intent which was exhibited in their short tenure of 49 days in 2013. Some promises that stand out in their manifesto and give Delhi-ites a ray of hope are as follows: firstly, enacting a Jan Lokpal bill which is stronger, stricter than and not as toothless as the one passed by the UPA. Secondly, the Swaraj Bill which will enable people through Gram Sabha in villages and Mohalla Sabha in urban areas to carry out their development priorities by allocating funds and helping people’s grievances reach the government. Thirdly, to ensure women’s safety, installation of 15 lakhs CCTV camera for women’s.  The AAP also promises universal education and coverage of health services which should be the prime responsibility of the government given exorbitantly high Out of pocket cost in the private health care units. The party also aims to promote social security for the elderly, promote honest business, and most importantly, control corruption and curb black money transactions. The AAP’s fight against corruption has become highly relevant against the background of the Congress government’s scams in Delhi as well at the national level like the CWG scam, Spectrum allocation scam etc. This feeling of frustration with the Congress party’s corruption and nepotism is clearly reflected as none of the exit polls predict more than 5 seats for the Congress this time. But still, in the 15 years of Congress rule in the past, Delhi has seen quite some progress. The party is accredited with the development of the largest network of metro railway in the country (of over 186 km with almost 28 lakh people travelling by it every day). The Congress also brings in an element of stability which the AAP has seen to be lacking in the past. Moreover, against the backdrop of numerous churches being vandalised in Delhi,  instances such as ‘accidently’ terming north-eastern people as immigrants and  the RSS and VHP carrying out their Hindutva agendas like ‘Ghar Vapsi’, the religious and other minorities in Delhi view  the Congress party as lesser of the two evil. BJP’s slashing of funds for health and education even when these are areas of utter importance provides a platform for Congress party to take a lead with its socialist policies like regularization of unauthorized colonies, providing shelters to slum-dwellers, more disabled-friendly measures for handicapped people and increased compensation for the soldiers of the armed forces who die on duty. Also, with increasing instances of safety of women in the being compromised, installation of CCTV cameras in all public transport vehicles comes as a reassuring promise from the Congress party. Even with some sound policies and 15 years of development of Delhi to its credit, the mood of the voters is certainly swayed away from the Congress party. Though the socialist hand is nowhere to be seen in the picture, it is never wise to write-off any party in politics. The Congress may rise again in the future like a phoenix from its ashes! Amidst this battle between the Kamal ka button,  the Jhaaroo and the socialist hand, there still remain a few others who see no hope in any of the above. “If voting made any difference they wouldn’t let us do it.” they feel. Many in the capital believe in the Elitist theory of democracy which propagates that political power remains in the hands of a selected few who form the elite. It isn’t too far-fetched to claim that even though change is happening, it isn’t happening because of our votes, but in spite our votes! With such feeling, slowly spreading, specially, among of the youth of the capital, it is important to bring in the relevance of the NOTA option. This option was introduced in the electronic voting machines in India after the landmark judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in PUCL vs. UOI. The right to vote in India is a statutory right. The converse of this, i.e. the right not to vote, while maintaining secrecy was claimed vide a petition to the Supreme Court by PUCL. The NOTA is an added privilege to the Right to Vote as it gives a greater mark to express our discernment about the politicians; that none of them deserve to lead us ahead. But, though such an option gives the voters the right to express their disapproval with the candidates being put forth by the political parties, it is quite toothless at the moment as the candidate securing the highest number of votes would be declared elected even if the number of electors going for the NOTA option surpasses the votes polled by the electoral contestants. The NOTA option can be useful to a certain extent in conflict-hit zones, such as Jammu and Kashmir, where if more than half the voters go for the NOTA option button, the international bodies will claim that the people have no faith in the Indian democracy. It is indeed sad to see that many in the capital don’t have any leader to look up to and have to settle in for the lesser of the evil, since the NOTA option, too, is isn’t particularly useful! With varying sentiments across the population of the capital, the battle for Delhi has never been so interesting before. This election season in the capital has been one of U-turns and eating ones’ previously uttered words, of cleverly crafted man-of-the-masses image countered by the projection of a Chai-wallah who rose to be the supreme leader and of promises and pointing fingers. In the end, all we can hope for is that the demands of safety, development, transparency and stability are fulfilled, irrespective of whichever party comes to power.

By Pratishtha Mamgain, II year Economics Since September 2014, Hong Kong has witnessed unprecedented widespread protests that reiterate the importance of equality and democracy. These demonstrations not only symbolise people’s resentment over Beijing’s tightening grip on the city’s politics. They also throw light on the growing sense of anger at the economic changes that have transformed Hong Kong in the 17 years since it returned to Chinese control, especially the idea that wealth inequality and economic opportunity have taken a dramatic turn for the worse. Economic inequality in Hong Kong is the highest in the developed world, and among the highest in East Asia. One in five lives below the poverty line. In recent years, the Gini coefficient has risen to a record high- reaching 0.537 in 2011.This coefficient is a measure of income disparity based on original household income where 0 represents total equality in a society and 1 represents complete inequality. A figure of 0.4 is generally regarded as the international warning level for dangerous levels of inequality. This development comes when Hong Kong has consistently done well in fostering business- in the annual “Ease of Doing Business” report compiled by the World Bank, Hong Kong ranks third for 2015. Clearly, this economic dynamism has come at a price. There’s no capital gains tax, there’s no dividend tax, there’s no tax on interest- so the wealthy are free to expand their wealth through investment devoid of any taxation. The tax rate for the highest-earning group is 15% which is significantly lower than the OECD average of 41.5%. And naturally, lower tax revenues also mean lower government spending. A serious problem that people face is the lack of affordable housing. Real estate has long been considered a relatively ‘safe’ investment tool because overpopulation has led to demand exceeding supply of housing, pushing house prices up. The increased demand for properties has also raised the rents. This further distorts equality in the society as these rents become a source of unearned income for the owners of properties. As migration of unskilled workers seeking better job prospects from China is common, competition for unskilled work is also high. This drives the wages for unskilled work down, further increasing the disparity between the incomes of individuals in society. Even as it disenfranchises the lower classes, the property boom has enriched Hong Kong’s upper classes – helping to push Hong Kong to the top of The Economist’s “crony-capitalism index” in 2014. The index looks at the prevalence of rent seeking- ‘grabbing a bigger slice of the pie than making the pie bigger’. Rent seekers use means like lobbying and forming cartels in order to secure their business interests. These numerous signs should ideally set alarm bells ringing. But the administration has chosen to react by turning a blind eye. There is widespread resentment against C.Y. Leung, Hong Kong’s current chief executive and a member of the business elite who have benefitted from closer ties with the mainland. In October 2014, Leung in an interview with the media remarked that complete universal suffrage (the model the protestors are seeking) would risk turning Hong Kong into a welfare state as poor people gain more influence in politics. “If it’s entirely a numbers game and numeric representation, then obviously you’d be talking to the half of the people in Hong Kong who earn less than US$1,800 a month [HK$13,964.2],” Leung said in comments published by the Wall Street Journal, Financial Times and the International New York Times. As shocking as his remarks are, they emphasize how far apart the government and protestors are, in terms of philosophy as well as on the issue of concrete demands. He clearly feels that democracy is dangerously close to mob rule, and thus a major threat to Hong Kong’s economic future. But for protestors, it will provide the much-needed check on Hong Kong’s leaders.To Leung, democracy is a problem; to the protestors, it is the solution.

By Roy Joseph, Economics (Hons.) IIIrd year The Indian Armed forces have protected the frontiers of the country valiantly and courageously for years. India is precariously flanked on the eastern and western front by China and Pakistan respectively. And, the fact that India doesn’t share the best of relations with either of them compounds the issue further.  The armed forces thus play an absolutely crucial role in warding off threats originating from these countries. Modernisation is essential to ensure an edge. The fact of the matter remains that the transition of the armed forces has been a painstakingly slow process. We haven’t kept pace with the rapid progress that our neighbours have made, especially China. In this article, I intend to take up the major challenges that lie ahead for the Indian Armed Forces in its quest to protect the country. There is no doubt regarding the capabilities of the Indian Armed Forces, often considered one of the most potent standing armies in the world. For the 1.2 million strong behemoth force that it is, the armed forces still has a long way to go as far as battle preparedness is concerned. Modernisation is the need of the hour. And the slow pace at which the transition towards modernisation is happening is alarming. Tejas is India’s indigenously developed Light Combat Aircraft (LCA). The LCA programme was announced in 1984. Even today, the fighter has still not been inducted into the Indian Air Force. The project cost has escalated manifold and the aircraft has, at present, managed to get two out of three levels of operational clearance. Word has it that the fighter will be inducted by 2016. The Indian Air Force meanwhile has been grappling with squadron strength issues. Currently, the squadron strength is 34, way below the required 42. The importance of a competent Air Force cannot be stressed enough. We have been overly reliant on the ageing Soviet era MiG 21s for long now. The Medium Multi Role Combat Aircraft deal has now been in the pipeline for long. After an arduous and detailed selection process, India chose to sign the deal for 126 French made Dassault Rafale fighter aircrafts in a deal worth $20 Billion. However, the final hurdle has not been cleared yet, further delaying the deliver of the first batch of 18 aircrafts that will come in flyaway condition. The rest of the 108 aircrafts will be manufactured in India under Transfer of Technology. The Indian Air Force has played an immensely significant role in most of the wars that India has fought, many-a-times clinching crucial battles, be it in the heights of Kargil or the deserts of Rajasthan. The squadron strength will be corrected only by 2017 now, or so it seems. The Indian Army too is facing severe shortcomings in its modernisation and expansion drive. China’s rapid infrastructure development all along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) is alarming. The LAC has for long been a bone of contention. The Chinese have never shied away from staking claim to parts of Arunachal Pradesh often showing it to be a part of their country in official maps. China has roads right up to the area bordering India and this is a major cause for concern. We on the other hand have done little. India has identified 73 strategic roads which are nowhere near completion with environmental clearance being a hurdle. It is beyond my understanding as to why strategic projects with national security ramifications should be subject to environmental clearances, particularly when Chinese soldiers can mobilise 3 soldiers for every Indian solider should there be an aggression. This is an alarming statistic indeed. There have been 400 instances of incursion by Chinese troops this year alone. The Daulat Beg Oldi in 2013 incident marked the worst standoff between the two forces. Chinese soldiers set up an encampment 19km inside Indian Territory. ITBP troops set up tents 300m away from the Chinese. The ITBP incidentally hasn’t purchased any weapons for the last 3 years. Not to forget the Army’s proxy war in J&K against terrorist and infiltrators backed by the Pakistan Army, all this against the backdrop of the Army facing massive weapons and ammunition shortage. War Wastage Reserves (WWR) are not even enough to sustain a full-fledged war for 20 days, less than half the required level of 40 days of intense fighting. And the required level will only be attained by 2019, or again, so it seems. The Indian Navy has faced massive losses in the recent past. There have been 22 deaths and 11 accidents in the past seven months bringing to the fore questions regarding the condition and operational efficiency of these Naval Submarines and Ships. The navy is heavily dependent on age old Russian discard material. India is still reliant on INS Viraat which was India’s flagship aircraft carrier. INS Viraat was originally launched in 1953 and commissioned into the Indian Navy in 1987. India’s indigenously made aircraft carrier, INS Vikrant, is still years away. For me, the need of the hour is not for the government to promise a war memorial. The need of the hour is to provide the forces with the best weapons and equipment to fight with. India is the world’s largest arms importer in the world. India accounted for 13% of the arms imported in the world between 2009 and 2013. We need to look to invest heavily in indigenisation of weaponry and equipment. Given the kind of defence demand that our nation generates, indigenisation will give a huge fillip to the economy. On many instances, our weapons providers look to gain maximum leverage from these deals by delaying the process of Transfer of Technology (ToT) and thereby escalating costs. Many of the deals are plagued by corruption charges. Thus, we are looking at humongous amounts of expenditure being undertaken with nothing much to show for. It is imperative to avoid snail paced bureaucracy and red- tapeism in defence deals. This will seriously hamper military preparedness. The modernisation process is continuous, one that has no scope for delays and hindrances. Investing in an indigenous defence industry will go a long way in reducing India’s dependence on other nations. While it is easy to suggest this, the questions regarding quality and reliability come to the fore. Let’s hope for the best and see how things pan out under the able guidance of the BJP government.

“You are a black stain on Hinduism if you love a Muslim man.” “I won’t let you marry a Muslim.” “Muslims are terrorists.” While studying logic, we were taught a theory about the conversion of a statement. It goes like this: Take any statement, for eg: ‘All terrorists are Muslims.’ If this statement is true, then its converse will be ‘Some Muslims are terrorists.’ and not ‘All Muslims are terrorists’. We often choose to forget this fact, take to stereotyping and generalise all Muslims and the whole of Islam, to be connected with terrorism. In a poem I had written a while back, I wrote ‘I love a Muslim man’, and though this was not even the premise of the poem, some people took to selective reading and picked on this very line, and came up with horrid responses like: “Muslims are not to be trusted”, “You mustn’t marry a Muslim man as he will make you convert your religion, but won’t let his own daughter do so if she likes a Hindu/ Christian man”. My poem was about the Peshawar killings. That is how much these people digressed. What is the problem, behind everything? Is it the very presence of numerous religions? Well, this has been a long drawn debate- the very futility of religion and sects has been thought upon, but to no avail. We cannot do away with the sects and their related norms which have become ingrained in our society. It is very much like the process of fossil-making which takes years and years to get its final shape, and it is hard to remove from just the surface. So then, what can be questioned? If people cannot be swayed from thinking in terms of religion, or comparing themselves or two groups of people on the basis of religion, what can be done? I think it is high time that we stop misinterpreting religions and making individual acts look like they are stemming from some religion’s statutes. ‘Islamophobia’, is a term which surfaced after the 9/11 attacks.  Several consider it a form of racism, a type of racial prejudice against Muslims, and some find it connoting a social anxiety against Muslims, stemming from the extreme psychological fear after the attacks, which were headed by Bin Laden. Many contentious terms like ‘Islamo-prejudice’ and ‘Anti-Muslimism’ were coined with the social stigma of Muslims being a fear-inducing race behind their etymological formation. Islam, is often seen as a religion spread by war and force, and is seen as a static, never-changing formation which is orientalised as a savage, barbaric religion inferior and dangerous to the West.  But, even if a large number of terrorists are Muslims, we still cannot resort to saying that Islam is the reason behind propagating terrorism. We should get our facts right before we make such claims because they do not help anyone, and unnecessarily create chaos, which the world can do much better without. Who is to be considered guilty, then? It is not untrue that a shockingly high number of terrorist organisations do have Muslim foundations, but is it right to generalize a civilian Muslim, perhaps a Muslim student in your classroom, to be a potential terrorist? Some people will find it hard to say ‘No’. One will go on to put forth the fact that in places with high Muslim population, people are discontented, that they are not a happy population in Gaza, Libya, Morocco, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon etc. Are we saying that Muslims living with fellow Muslims in itself is a big problem? What can be said easily, and more correctly, is that some individuals, following this religion, have been misguided and are misguiding other followers and in doing so, have totally corrupted what their religion stands for. If the love for their religion and their urge to protect their own, was the very basis  upon which organisations of terror were founded, why did the Peshawar killing take place where the children who were killed worshiped the same God as the terrorists did? Something is very wrong. Selfish interpretations of religious texts and justifying barbarous acts through them, has led to the generalisation of a whole sect. It is high time we check our own religious books which we superficially say we follow. And, if we cannot follow them the way they need to be followed, do we really need some religion to guide us, when our own actions in the name of religion are a façade?

On numerous accounts, the popular saying “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind” has been proven right, but not as accurately and brutally as on 16th December 2014, when terrorists belonging to Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) killed 132 children (among 141 others). As we weep for the loss of innocent souls and keep them in our prayers, we also ought to understand the gravity of the attack and must take up the responsibility of preventing such dark days for humanity in the future. This is certainly not the first time that children have been targeted by militant groups to achieve a certain objective, one of the goriest being the killing of 186 children (out of a total of 385 deaths) in Beslan (Russia) in 2004 after the Chechen rebels took the school children hostage in order to achieve the independence of Chechnya from Russia. The killing of children evokes the ire of people the most, and naturally so! There is definitely no reason, no argument of seeking revenge or justice that can justify the ruthless killings of unarmed, innocent children. But then, why do we shy away from expressing the same feeling for those unarmed and clean-handed children and kin of the terrorists who are targeted? Is it because we are too weak to fight terrorism without creating ‘necessary’ collateral damage? We can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs, it is so said. But if we continue to break the bird’s eggs, the bird will most certainly continue to peck us! And that is exactly the reason Muhammad Umar Khosarani, Taliban spokesperson gives: “We selected the army’s school for the attack because the government is targeting our families and females. We want them to feel the pain.” There might be other reasons which could’ve come into play while deciding the target of the attack, like the TTP’s need to demonstrate its power to the government, or the need of one of their many factions to do the same, but, let’s say we were to believe in the line of reasoning given to us by Khosarani. Were they right in killing children to seek revenge? No. Can their attempt to redistribute the pain of their loved ones be justified under any circumstances? No, absolutely not. Yes, the smallest coffins are the heaviest. Yes, we are right in condemning such attacks. Yes, we are right in hating terrorism. But does hating/abusing terrorists and hanging them solve the problem? Does the benefit from the collateral damage in terms of unnecessary body counts offset the damage we are inflicting? For terrorist groups to achieve their goals, whatever they might be, some important pre-requisites like lack of government control, available leadership and very importantly, a vulnerable population need to exist. Though in the case of the Pakistani Taliban, a large support base in terms of a vulnerable population seems to be missing, but we cannot overlook the Pakistani government’s support in funding and sheltering them. It is they who’ve helped create this Frankenstein’s monster which has now turned against them, just like the Taliban in Afghanistan who were funded by the US in order to advance their political interests against that of the erstwhile Soviet Union. This is definitely not a good time to antagonize the population inhabiting FATA region (Federally Administered Tribal Areas), which is the stronghold of the TTP. It is imperative that the Pakistani government handles the Pashtuni population in the area with extra care and builds a relationship of trust with them. Counter terrorism fights must be about giving the population a reason to want to see the terrorism fail, they must be co-opted into the fight since terrorism can become very difficult to tackle if the common man believes that he has more  to gain by resisting the government rather than supporting it in its counter terrorism fight. Yes, interrogating the terrorists and his family members may yield information which could be highly valuable to military intelligence but killing or hanging them or harming their family members is not a very smart idea to tackle terrorism. Killing and hanging terrorists does instill a fear of loss of life upon being caught, but do you think a man with a suicide vest on, is afraid of death? It is time we face the real problem. It is an idea (in this case, that of revenge) that sticks in their head and drives them to do psychotic things. Imagine an illiterate man who manages two square meals a day for his family, courtesy, the Taliban organisation which has recruited him. His son goes to the nearest Madrassa, also run by the Taliban. One day, the son doesn’t return home and his body is found along side that of many others killed in a drone attack. Well, there, I just sketched a terrorist for you.Do you think he will hesitate, even for one moment, seeing the innocent faces of other children while killing them? Isn’t revenge a prime human instinct? Is it pragmatic to expect everyone to offer their left cheek after being slapped on the right one, like Gandhi? Don’t get me wrong, I don’t mean to justify their act of violence. Avenging a loved one’s life by taking someone else’s may be an overpowering instinct, but is definitely not the right approach (actually, a pretty sick approach!). All I’m trying to say is that, it is high time that we look into the real problem, the circumstances that drive one to take up arms and surrender all of one’s humanity. Maybe it is time, we stop being myopic and delve deeper. Only then can we find the road to humanity and happy days. Let us ask ourselves a basic question: How is the Taliban able to muster support to carry out their activities? The funding part seems clear to us, but why would any sane/rational man be willing to blow himself up along with many others? That all terrorists are ‘insane’, ‘psychotic’ and ‘need mental help’, are absurd assumptions to make. This is where E.A. Bucchianeri comes to our rescue by saying, “If there are damned souls in Hell, it is because men blind themselves.” Men have been blinding themselves since time immemorial. They have been carrying out crusades and holy wars in the name of God or Allah who they believe wants them to do so. The problem lies in what they are taught, told and hence what they end up believing. I firmly believe that education leads to liberation from all the problems that are ailing us today. If everyone was educated enough to think for themselves, question things that are usually taken for granted, make decisions rationally by weighing all pros and cons before arriving at a decision, the world would indeed be a better place. Unfortunately, for many people, the only lessons they receive teach them that Allah will reward them for blowing up a school. And in believing so, they think that they are doing the right thing. Brainwashing is feasible when a man struggles to feed himself and his children, let alone provide for their education, when he himself never knew what going to a school feels like, when he struggles to put words together to read a sentence and hence, takes whatever interpretation of the Quran he is taught at face value. He is not psychotic, you see, but just a man who finds himself in chains of poverty, illiteracy and hunger all intertwined and weighing him down like an anchor. It is such men who are easily exploited in the name of religion. And all we are doing is making matters worse by antagonizing and provoking him by killing his kin and torturing him rather than working out a long term solution. Numerous researchers use regression of determinants like income, economic inequality, unemployment, political instability, etc. on measures of terrorism like number of terrorist activities, etc. Gurr (1970) identified that poverty; income inequality; relative deprivation and political violence are major determinants of terrorism whereas the school of thought led by Tilly (1978) revealed that violence and terrorism increases due to political opportunistic structure. Moreover attempts have also been made to see how variables like number of drone attacks in tribal areas in Pakistan affect terrorism and the correlation is expected to be a positive one. Empirics also suggest that increasing political rights of the people can check terrorism. With the meshing of many factors, the solution is of course not that straightforward. By making education easily available and freely accessible, ensuring food security and employment, one of the main requisites for terrorism, namely a vulnerable population, can be dealt with. Providing the population with adequate political rights and a mechanism to voice their concerns and dissents would help further. But a lot remains even then! The issue of the state being hand-in-glove with the militant groups complicates things much further. I hope Pakistan wakes up from its deep slumber and realizes that thousands of innocent people will continue to be sacrificed if it doesn’t act immediately. I hope this incident sends out a strong message to countries against funding and supporting (either covertly or overtly) militant groups for advancing their own political interests. The state of Pakistan needs to make a firm resolution to eradicate terrorism starting from the grass root levels. This will require tactful state intervention, provision of better security and most importantly, humanity. Let’s not forget that it is circumstances which shape men to be who they are, that any sin that any sinner ever committed, every sinner under proper provocation could commit. Let’s change the circumstances. And what better arms to fight the bullets than pens and ballots!

Truth is a dangerous thing, and revealing it to the world, even more so. As a first year in my first month of College, the last thing I anticipated was getting the opportunity to sit on a panel with Mr. Natwar Singh, one of the most well known Stephanians. The month before College began, Mr Singh was a staple on the front page of the newspapers, and his tell-all book, a rage on national television. The nation demanded answers. They received several, though there was often a disconnect between the questions and the answers. His knowledge on international relations is formidable, as is his experience in the field. At the ripe old age of 83, the fact that he possesses such a sharp mind, with an active life, is testimony to that. His diplomacy and tact, possibly originating from his IFS days, have enabled him to deflect questions that put him in a spot. But politics has not been as kind to him. His closeness to the Nehru-Gandhi family is why he stayed on in mainstream politics for as long as he did, but the culmination of that loyalty led to his allegedly being used as a scapegoat by none other than Mrs. Sonia Gandhi in the infamous Oil For Food Scandal. He, along with the Congress party, was indicted in the Volcker report on the scam for having purportedly made illegal payments to Saddam Hussein’s government. External Affairs Minister at the time, he was rudely woken up after a trip to Moscow and told to pack his bags. Seemingly disgruntled by this and charges of nepotism, Mr. Singh decided to pen down his rich experiences in his new book. (Aside: His book is not a book on Sonia, as he is eager to explain. It merely contains one chapter on her.) On the 22nd of August 2014, Mr. K. Natwar Singh, former bureaucrat, diplomat and minister, politician, and now writer, visited St. Stephen’s College to give a talk on the topic “Revisiting the Mandate : The Demise of the Congress.” The panelists were Michelle Cherian (IInd Economics), Rohan Talwar (IInd History) and myself. He walked into a crowded Seminar Room, dapper in a white kurta and sleeveless jacket, which had to be consequently abandoned because there was no electricity. After much drama over microphone batteries that did not work and a fellow panelist’s emergency requirement of wet wipes, the talk proceeded without a hitch (almost). Mr. Singh readily reminisced about his college days when he was SUS President and had college colours in 6 different sports, all the while maintaining a good academic record. He spoke of being a Cambridge boy, his interaction with E.M. Forster, being the first batch of civil servants and Nehru rising to greet each of them after their selection. He answered the question on everybody’s minds – will the Congress collapse without a leader from the Gandhi fold? He was extremely clear on this – the Congress would split up into several factions if there were no Gandhi at the centre. He touched upon a variety of topics (I hear staying on topic is a rare phenomenon on this campus), ranging from the Indo-US Civil Nuclear Agreement to Sonia Gandhi, China, his crucial role in shaping Indian foreign policy and of course, his book, “One Life is Not Enough.” Well, one session was definitely not enough to extract the wealth of information Mr. Singh has, especially given the skirting-the-point answers provided by him. After a 40 minute talk, Mr. Singh faced a few questions from the Panel. The first was a question on his opinion on Nuclear Disarmament with regard to the Indo-US Nuke deal (as I felt he had made a minor contradiction on his role in relation to that in his speech) and the reasons for the Non-Proliferation Treaty being “flawed”. While he spoke of his being the man responsible behind the deal, and his change in policy with regard to the USA, he did not elaborate on reasons for having done so. The second question focused on International Relations – India’s relationship with China and Pakistan. Mr. Singh brought in his Chinese diplomatic experience (he was posted first to Beijing), parties with Mao and also spoke of the recent entry level talks between India and Pakistan. According to him, they should not have been cancelled by the Indian Prime Minister, but postponed. He was asked about Israel as well and gave an extensive background to the issue starting from India’s being against the Partition of Israel to present day friendly relations. The next question was a little controversial – he has often spoken about Rajiv Gandhi’s crucifixion in the Bofors scandal despite not having received a penny. My question to him was whether Mr Gandhi knew about the several pennies received by other parties and yet his doing nothing about it. He declined to answer and after much scrambling by the panelists, a replacement question was asked while we breathed a sigh of collective relief that he had not walked out. The audience had several questions to ask as well, ranging from India spying on other nations (to which Mr. Singh replied saying that while India spied on no one, others spied on India) to the Volcker report and his book. He signed off on a note similar to previous interviews where he said he would write another book after Mrs. Gandhi’s proposed tell-all book hits the stores(because Stephanians are allowed to be “mischievous”). In all, Mr. Singh is inspiring in terms of his achievements, the various hats he has worn and the courage it must’ve taken him to write such a book. I did not get the answers I was searching for, for some questions, but I did learn a lot, both from him and from the research that went in before the talk. There w contradiction and circumlocution, but one cannot help but admire him because he is, as someone said, a “very nice old man”.