CHINA,THE LAMA AND KADEER

In a statement issued on 10 March the Dalai Lama explicitly expressed his support to Urighurs in China. Expressing his ‘solidarity’, the Lama said he ‘stands firmly’ with the people of ‘East Turkestan’. Earlier he had a meeting with Rubiya Kadeer the leader-in-exile- of the Urighurs. She lives in the U.S. The coming together of two leaders-in-exile- could cause immense trouble for China.

The envoys of the Lamas had met the representatives of the Chinese government in the last days of January in China. Prior to the meeting The Chinese Communist Party and the Tibet Congress had discussed the Chinese policy towards Tibet in detail.Hu Jintao the Chinese President accused the Lama of trying to incite violence in Tibet. He also declared a developmental plan for the whole of Tibet. Padma Choling was appointed as the governor of TAR.

The Chinese media criticized the Dalai Lama for describing himself as a ‘son of India’. The Lama was not interested in China or even Tibet. He is deliberately misleading the Chinese people to derive political mileage. The media even questioned his religious loyalty. According to it The Lama has forgotten the link between the Tibetan Buddhism and Chinese Buddhism. The Lama’s visit to Arunachal Pradesh was also run down. It wondered how the Lama who described Arunachal Pradesh as a part of India can take care of the interests of Tibet?

The Chinese told the envoys of the Lama that their demands must be within the Chinese Constitution. China made it clear that it is not going to change its policies towards Tibet. China reminded the envoys that the Lama was subject to the Chinese law as the Lamas are recognized since the time of Qings. The Chinese asked the Lama to solve his problems in his life time. It urged the Tibetan people to think about their future after the death of the Lama.

However, the wind seems to have changed direction. The American President Obama, who had earlier declined to meet the Lama, met him. The Americans have also begun making noises about the human rights violations in China. And if the Lama and Kadeer join hands it would cause immense trouble for China.

GIRIJA PRASAD KOIRALA

The death of Girija Prasad Koirala has deprived Nepal of one of its tallest leaders. Though he has not built and nurtured any democratic institutions n Nepal his contributions to democratic process in that country cannot be over looked. Throughout his life he fought against the army, The Maoists, the monarchy and many others who did not want democracy to take root in Nepal.

Koirala came from a politically enlightened family. His father and brother were active in politics. The Ranas ruled Nepal with iron hand. With the help of the colonial Britain they suppressed the Nepali people. His father was exiled and brother put behind the bars for their agitations. India’s struggle for freedom from the British and the Indian national congress inspired the Koiralas much. Their struggle backed by the people bore fruit when Nepal’s first Democratic Government assumed office in 1959. Though the government headed by B.P.Koirala the first Prime Minister of Nepal was short lived, it instilled in the people of Nepal a yearning for democracy.

Unfortunately the Koiralas did not a get a chance to build democratic institutions to safe guard the fledgling democracy. King Mahendra displaced Koirala and captured power. The Koiralas were put behind bars. However, the hold of monarchy on power was weak. Riding on the crest of another movement for democracy G.P. Koirala was able to come back to power in 1991. However, his detractors were more powerful and he lost power again. The political instability that verged on anarchy proved a fertile ground for the radical movement that has now emerged as a power to reckon with. The Maoists.

ELECTIONS IN IRAQ

Many all over the world heaved a sigh of relief as the Iraqi election went off fairly peacefully on March 7. Indeed no one expects the election to solve all the outstanding issues soon. It would take years for democracy to take roots in Iraq which was under authoritarian rule for decades. All the same, the fact that people turned out to vote to elect their ruler is a positive sign indeed. Election results are to be welcomed by all as there has been no report of rigging from any part of the country.

The major political parties in the fray are the State of Law led by the incumbent Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a group led by the anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr and The Iraqi National Alliance and the Iraqi National Movement.

The State of Law of the incumbent Prime Minister who is fighting to hold on to power is facing stiff competition from his powerful opponents. The Iraqi National alliance is the main rival of the Prime Minister. Maliki had talked about the improved law and order situation in the country. However, the recent blasts that shook many cities including Baghdad disprove the claim. His government has not been successful in dealing with the water shortage in the country. He has also failed to fend off the corruption charges against him. Some have even accused him of fostering sectarianism to ensure his hold on the country.

The Iraqi National Alliance the main rival of The State of Law, is made up of Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council and the Sadrists. It enjoys the support of the Shia clerics. In the first election held in Iraq after the removal of Saddam Hussein, al-Maliki was with the United Iraqi Alliance. The alliance later came apart and Maliki joined other political formation. As the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council is close to Iran, victory of the Alliance could cause immense problems for the Americans. The Sadrists have considerable followings as they have carried out developmental works in the cities.

The group the anti-American cleric Moqtada Al-Sadr is leading a real threat to al-Maliki. His rabid anti-Americanism has won him a vast following in the country. Al-Sadr has been campaigning for the ouster of the American army from Iraqi soil.

The Iraqi national Movement is the third contender for power. It is a coalition of secular Sunni and Shia groupings. It is led by a former interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi. Earlier he had connections with the CIA. He has good relations with The Islamic Republic of Iran. The Americans have accused Iran of fomenting troubles in Iraq. Christopher Hill, the American Ambassador to Iraq charged Iran with trying to ‘frustrate the U.S. and Iraqi common goals’.

The Americans want the ‘The State of Law’ in the saddle. The failure of al-Maliki would jeopardize the American interests in the region. The election results would tell the future course of development of the war torn Iraq. Let us hope it will herald a new era in Iraq

TALKS BETWEEN INDIA AND PAKISTAN

The bilateral talks between the Foreign Secretaries of India Mrs. Nirupama Rao and her Pakistani counterpart Salman Bashir, in New Delhi on 25 February, did not produce any light. It did not produce any heat either. The talks lasted just three hours. Nirupama Rao told the newsmen that the ‘time is not ripe’ for a composite talk with Pakistan. She described the talks as the ‘first step’ towards building confidence between India and Pakistan.

The bomb blast in Pune on 13 February had cast a shadow over the proposed talks. The Indian government dispelling all doubts declared that the talks would be held as per the schedule. All the same the Cabinet Committee on Security told Nirupama Rao to raise the question during the talks. However, none had expected that the talks would yield any result. New Delhi had declared that its focus would be on the issue of terrorism, especially the terrorist activities emanating from Pakistani soil. The Pakistani side said that it would not allow the issue of terrorism to divert the attention from all the other issues.

Till recently the Indian position was that it would not talk to Pakistan unless the latter take effective and visible action against the perpetrators of the Mumbai terror attack. Indian Home Minister P. Chidambaram said that Pakistan had not done enough to deal with the terrorist activities from Pakistani soil. Many believe that India softened its stand under pressure from The U. S.

After the talks Mr. Salman Bashir said that Islamabad was of the view that the issue of terror should not withhold the two countries from talking to each other. He said Pakistan wanted a ‘result-oriented and meaningful dialogue’ with India. Islamabad wanted to talk about the ‘core issue’ a euphemism for the question of Kashmir. The sharing of the Indus waters has also become a hot issue between India and Pakistan.

India handed over three dossiers to Pakistan. India expects more cooperation from Pakistan in tracking down the terrorists, India believes, hiding in that country India also demanded that Ilyas Kashmiri, a militant who is said to have connection with the Al Qaeda. He had earlier vowed to disrupt the sporting events in India. However, no one believes that Pakistan would act on Indian request. Chidambaram had said the early March that India had provided ample evidence to prove the involvement of Hafiz Saeed in the Mumbai attack. Salman Bashir described the evidence as ‘literature rather than evidence in legal sense’.

As of now, there seems to be no way out of the stalemate between India and Pakistan.