WHY I AM AGAINST DYNASTIC POLITICS?

My main objection is purely ideological. The basic premise of a democracy is ‘equality of opportunity’. Dynastic politics is a total negation of the basic tenets of a really democratic society. However, I must admit some dynastic politics is unavoidable.
Children growing into a particular environment tend to pick up some of the traits of the parents and grandparents. A son or a daughter growing up in a political family grows up not only in the company of the political parents and grandparents but also the friends and relatives who may be politicians. If they come from a high-placed political family, they have a chance of meeting foreign dignitaries. Pomp and ceremony surrounding such meetings are often intoxicating enough to snare a young mind. Parents and grandparents, even if high-minded, create such situations to groom their children to succeed them. An idealist like Pundit Jawaharlal Nehru could not check the temptation; he invariably used Indira as hostess in his Delhi household or took her as his travel companion on his official tours. He knew perfectly well, (and after Feroz Gandhi’s death expressed some remorse as well) that it was undermining her marriage.
Dynastic succession happens in other professions as well. Doctors’ or lawyers’ etc children often follow in the footsteps and profession of their parents or grandparents. As do the children of actors and sportsmen. In any case, I would not like to penalise any citizen of a democratic country to be debarred from competing for office because of the accidents of birth. On the other hand, I would not like to see someone with a head start in politics because of the accidents of birth. I have a much greater reservation, distaste even, for a politician in power who attempts to groom his or her sons or daughters for succession, however misfit, he or she may be. In this context, political families are a special case unlike any other non-political dynasties such as doctors, lawyers or actors. In the latter cases I have a choice; I can consult a doctor of my choice, or engage a lawyer I want. I can decide not to watch the performance of any actor if I don’t like to. But I have little choice, at least for a number of years, in removing an incompetent or corrupt ruler for whom I may not even have voted. George W. Bush is a case in point; he was considered the worst American president for a century if not more; he was seen by the world to be a greater threat to world peace than the North Korean or the Iranian presidents but he could not be removed. The America Constitution provides for impeachment but it requires sixty per cent of the votes in the Senate which the Democrats could not obtain. They were also worried about losing conservative votes in the ensuing election. Bill Clinton was tried for a most laughable crime, but George W. Bush escaped even a trial for his culpability for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Arguably, children from political families are elected and therefore have a popular mandate. Of course, but if they come from an ordinary family they may not even get a party ticket. Elections, these days cost money, reportedly 60 per cent of Congress candidates fighting the 2009 elections had declared assets worth over a crore (ten million) of rupees; how much more they have otherwise, God only knows. Under the circumstances, candidates from a political (rich) family have considerable advantage over their poorer counterparts. This applies as much to the United States as to India. Particularly in India, even if one accepts-and I am prepared to do so-that the majority of politicians are honest, yet there are many politicians and their criminal allies who have considerable ill gotten gains which gives their children definite advantage over their less privileged counterparts.
People in power have other advantages too. Given state resources they can nurture a constituency by development projects as well as patronage to local leaders who can then be tapped to support the candidates from political families. Political families also have the privilege of placing advertisements in convenient news media and punishing those unduly critical. This has been done by governments in India and elsewhere. As Kuldip Nayar points out in his book The Judgement: inside Story of the Emergency in India
(New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House, 1977) how Bansi Lal, at one time Haryana’s chief minister and a close confidant of Sanjay Gandhi during the Emergency, had ‘set the Tribune at Chandigarh right by denying it government advertisement and having the police penalize the vehicles that carried the paper to Haryana or passed through the state.’ (p.25) Mrs Indira Gandhi firmly believed that the people from the press, both journalists and the owners of the press, were purchasable. Reportedly, Lalit Narayan Mishra had told her how he had kept many journalists on his side “through whisky, cash and suit-lengths” (p.22). The political party in power can also bestow honours such as Sir, OBE, or Padma Shree etc, even offer a Rajya Sabha seat to convenient journalists. Some journalists can be favoured by regular invitations to special occasions while others can be left out. The favoured journalists can easily give major media attention to political families rather than to other people. Sometimes candidates from political families receive more than their fair share of criticism too, but this does not often happen to powerful families or the politicians connected to criminals.

Self-censorship in journalism is a well-known phenomenon in many countries; Indian journalists are human beings too. As anywhere else, some are brave and despite the odds they do not compromise their integrity. But there are others who are as interested in self-promotion as anybody else, and pamper the people in power. This has a serious consequence. Often the wrongdoings of the people in power or their children, are ignored, reported in such brevity or mentioned on pages and columns which escape serious attention. Nevertheless, there are a few brave journalists who risk bringing out the misdeeds of the rulers. For instance, without the unwavering efforts of Chitra Subramanium of the Indian Express and N. Ram of The Hindu, the Bofors Scandal, which continues to cast its shadow on the ruling family, would not have seen the light of day. Much in the same way, it was the Tehelka journalists who had exposed the corruption in defense procurements, which ultimately forced the defense minister to resign. It was closed down by the government for a time but was re-launched as a weekly in 2003. Again in 2007, Tehelka journalists, in an elaborate sting operation captured on hidden camera several perpetrators of the 2002 Gujarat riots who admitted their horrendous crimes, and revealed that the riots were a part of a well-planned conspiracy involving state authorities. There was a time when well-principled politicians exposed unsavoury facts regarding the government and the business. One such leader was Feroz Gandhi who did just that in 1958; he exposed the Haridas Mundhra scandal in parliament which involved the government controlled Life Insurance Company. This came as a huge embarrassment to Prime Minister Nehru's government and led to the resignation of T T Krishnamachari, then finance minister in the central cabinet.
In spite of some brave investigative journalists, many economic and political crimes involving the power elite or their friends and relatives go unsolved. Reportedly, several allegedly political murders remain unsolved even after a quarter of a century. I have mentioned one case of Mr L N Mishra, the railway minister who was assassinated in 1975, but the culprits have not yet been found. Whether this happens because the party in power likes people to forget such incidents because these might cast an undesirable light on the people in power at the time, or because of the sheer incompetence of the law enforcing authorities who fail to apprehend the criminals is difficult to guess. The use of law enforcement and intelligence services for political ends is not only India’s monopoly. We now know that both George W Bush and Tony Blair used their intelligence services improperly to fulfil their own agendas; it is possible that this is being done in India too. India may not have the transparency required or there may be a conspiracy of silence on the part of the government.
The relatives and children of the power elite can influence appointments, promotions and transfer of civil service personnel, this can have a demoralizing effect on the administrative machinery. Such children may have access to government documents which might jeopardize not only the day to day administration of the country but also compromise the national security. Once again, the experiences during the Emergency are a good guide. Sanjay Gandhi had no official position in the government but most official files passed through him and even the senior officials had to consult him on major decisions. For those who might be sympathetic to dynastic succession in India, Nayar’s book may be an eye opener.

I am not yet sure, but it seems that public opinion in India is becoming much more conscious of its rights, as reflected in media comments and on the Internet; this might some times force the ruling elite to change their minds. This happened recently when the CBI exonerated two politicians of their involvement in the Sikh pogrom in the wake of Mrs Gandhi’s assassination. The question being asked was not whether the CBI was right or wrong in exonerating these politicians, it was the sheer fact that the exoneration came at a time convenient for those exonerated to get party tickets. There was a major outcry all over India, let alone the Sikh community. In fear of losing votes, Congress got cold feet and the two candidates were persuaded to withdraw their candidature.

Coming from Bihar, I had a chance to meet President Rajendra Prasad who in jest told us, there was a time when rich people kept elephants as a demonstration of their opulence, now they have universities. If he were alive today he might have seen how people now demonstrate their opulence and power by owning political parties. A dynasty now uses a political party as one uses a poodle. Having a poodle and puppets on strings is not only the privilege of the Indian National Congress – a pale shadow of the Congress I knew – other leaders in many parts of India have their own poodles and puppets. They have their own anointed crown prince and princesses being groomed to succeed them. The rot began soon after independence. In spite of his high-minded idealism, Nehru did not oppose Indira Gandhi being the Secretary of the Congress while Nehru himself was the President of the party. On many matters on which he felt the Party was going in the wrong direction, he would threaten resignation as Mahatma Gandhi threatened fasting. But, on the issue of Indira’s secretary ship, Nehru remained virtually mute; and when Mrs. Gandhi divided Congress and created Congress (Indira), the poodle was born.

In conclusion, I must admit, I would like to see an end to dynastic succession. In a country like India, we worship personalities—more often their stone statues— more than the principles they stand for, therefore, dynastic politics will remain for the foreseeable future. To argue that children of political families are tested in an election does not mean they are necessarily worth the office they aspire to. Criminals and demagogues can be, and have been, easily elected. After all, Adolf Hitler came to power on the strength of his victory in an election. Supporting a dynastic succession purely on the grounds of electability would clearly be a mistake. Even though I have distaste for dynastic politics; I welcome the emergence of regional dynasties with regional political parties and a regional agenda. This process, by undermining the mystique of national level dynasties, inhibits to some extent, the national parties freedom to profit from such dynasties and thereby helps the democratic process. To argue that regional parties care only about regional issues is inconsequential. Regional parties are as serious about national security as national parties. They are anxious to fight poverty, deprivation and unemployment even more than the national parties because the main brunt of the ire of the local population falls on the local leadership. Delhi is a far distant land for most people – the Delhi elite care little about the underprivileged except at election times.

Alleged Political Murder Remains Unsolved after 35 Years

Shree Lalit Narayan Mishra was railway minister of India from 1973 to 1975 who died in 1975 in a bomb blast. After all these years the probe in his death still remains unresolved. Since he was one year senior to me in Patna College (Patna University) where both of us were completing our Masters in Economics, I knew him reasonably well. We had both taken part in active students' politics as Congress workers. He was much more active and had decided to take part in politics while I had made up my mind to be a professor under the inspiration of Dr. Gyanchand, a leading Indian economist of the time, well known for his book 'Teemimg Millions in India.'
Lalit, as we knew him,graduated in 1948 and joined actively the Indian National Congress party and became a member of the Lok Sabha and remained so for two terms. He, over time, held several other posts in the party and the government. He became Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Planning, Labour and Employment in 1957, Deputy Minister for Home affairs in 1964, Deputy Finance Minister in1966, Minister of State for Defence Production in 1967. He was Minister of Foreign Trade between 1970 and 1973. In 1973 he became the Cabinet Minister of Railways in Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's cabinet. Mrs. Gandhi , to the best of my knowledge, liked him. He also acted as one of the main fund raisers for the Congress.
In his capacity as the Minister for railways, he visited Samastipur on 2 January 1975 to inaugurate the opening of Samastipur-Muzaffarpur broad gauge railway line. He was seriously injured by a granade thrown on the dais. If I remember correctly, another friend of mine, a senior member of the Indian Police Service also died because of the blast. After all these years, I have failed to understand why a seriously injured VIP was taken to Danapore (quite a distance from Samstipore), a relatively deprived railway town with a poorly equipped railway hospital. One must be reminded that only 30 minute away from Samastipore, there is a long-standing Medical College with Post-Graduate teaching facilities and a large hospital. Many of the students who graduated from that college work in hospitals in the UK and elsewhere. I have discussed this with my younger brother, now a Retired Professor of Surgery in the Medical College and he cannot see any sense in taking Lalit to Danapur. Strangely enough, there is another Medical College in Patna as well. Before going to Danapore one has to pass through Patna.Lalit should have been taken to Darbhanga Medical College hospital where there were several reputed surgeons in addition to my brother. Darbhanga Medical College attracts students and patients even from Nepal. After all these years of reasonably dispassionate thinking I have not come to a conclusion. I am not yet sure whether this was a botched decision-making or a pre-meditated politically conspired murder.
It could be, as I say a botched up policy decision, but conspiracy theorists would see it,--in fact the younger brother of Lalit, who became one of Bihar;'s chief ministers considers it--v as a politically motivated murder. It was the time that the Congress was in total disarray; it was the same year that Mrs. Gandhi had declared a national emergency and had become a virtual dictator. Lalit , as a fund-raiser for the Congress must have had some access to secret sources of funding for the Party. It is conceivable that some one did not want such secrets to be known publicly. But who? The question remains unanswered after all these years. I generally, do not believe in conspiracy theories; and am prepared to accept a verdict which might suggest a 'botched up' decision-making under panic conditions but I find it a travesty of justice that the mystery remains unsolved after all these years. It is not only a sad commentary on the condition of the judicial system in India but a shadow on the ruling party, if it cannot get the mystery of the death of an important minister in the Central cabinet cleared and culprits brought to justice, what chances are there for an ordinary Indian citizen to obtain justice in India. I beg the in-coming Chief Minister of Bihar to take up the matter seriously and get it resolved.

For more details about Mr. L.N. Mishra please see Wikepedia.

The Great Betrayal: Wall Street and the Washington Ruling Elite Sell Out America?

The Wall Street Watch, a project jointly sponsored by the Consumer Education Foundation and Essential Information, both non-profit public interest groups, released a 231 –page report ‘Sold Out: How Wall street and Washington Betrayed America?’ The report points out that between 1998 and 2008 Wall Street investment firms, commercial banks, hedge funds, real estate companies and insurance conglomerates gave $1.725 billion in political contributions to buy influence at the White House and Capital Hill in order to remove or undermine Federal regulations. They also spent $3.4 billion on nearly 3,000 officially registered lobbyists to attain their aims. The report mentions a dozen cases of financial deregulations. Such deregulations not only permitted the mergers of commercial and investment banking but also allowed the banks to maintain off-balance sheet accounting which enabled banks to hide their liabilities. In addition came the deregulation of financial derivatives which led to massive speculation. In 2004, the surveillance of investment banks by the Securities and Exchange Commission was substituted by a voluntary regulation scheme enabling the banks to incur massive debts. Commercial banks were also allowed to determine their own capital reserve requirements, based on their internal risk assessments. Federal regulators not only refused to block widespread predatory lending practices either by refusing to issue appropriate regulations or by enforcing existing ones. They also prevented states’ regulators to enforce consumer protection laws that could have restricted predatory lending and other abusive practices. Federal rules also prevented victims of abusive loans from suing firms involved in predatory practices. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two largest government sponsored mortgage lenders in the United States, were allowed to extend beyond their traditional business by entering the subprime market, which ultimately led to the virtual collapse of the world financial system costing taxpayers round the world hundreds of billions of dollars. The government also abandoned antitrust regulatory regimes that led to a merger mania and the creation of mega banks willing to take unwarranted risks. In addition to this, the Security and Exchange Commission was prevented from properly regulating the private credit rating firms, thus enabling them to incorrectly assess the quality of mortgage-backed securities.
Both political parties are equally blamed by the authors of the report. During the ten year period between 1998 and 2008, Republicans received 55 percent of the political contributions from the financial sector, Democrats received 45 percent. However, in the election cycle 2008, Democrats received a little more than half of the total political contributions.
Securities firms donated as much as $504 million in campaign contributions and spent an additional $576 million in lobbying. The insurance companies gave $218 million in campaign contributions and spent as much as $1.1 billion on lobbying. Commercial banks’ contributions to campaign finance totaled $134 million with an additional $363 million in lobbying. Accounting firms contributions to campaign finance at $68 million with $115 on lobbying was more modest.
The political leadership colluded with the financial sector by appointing Wall Street expatriates to top official positions including the post of Treasury Secretary. Both Robert Rubin and Henry Paulson were former chair persons of Goldman Sachs. Similarly, many of the lobbyists used by the financial sector were at one time senior government officials. The report found that as many as 142 of the lobbyists employed by the sector were previously high ranking officials either in the Executive Branch or Congress.
This tradition of officials from the government and big business changing position has become entrenched over the years and has come to be known as the ‘revolving chair.’ This tendency is reinforced by the constitutional provision that the senior officials appointed by the outgoing president leave with him and the new incumbent appoints his own team whose tenure lasts as long as the new president. Clearly, those appointed to high official positions know that their tenure, at best, lasts for eight years (maximum tenure of a president) after which they have to return to their old or similar firms. As a result, while in office they tend to promote or safeguard the interests of the big businesses. The practice of senior officials turning into lobbyists is also very well entrenched. Some of the heavy weights such as Henry Kissinger, Cyrus Vance, Lawrence Eagleberger, Alexander Haige, George Schultz, Edmund Muskie and Warren Christopher, all of whom had held the office of secretary of state at one time or another, have been acting as lobbyists for China.
In the words of Harvey Rosenfield, president of the Consumer Education Foundation, the regulatory mechanisms ‘that would have prevented the financial meltdown that began last year were dismantled, and the warnings of those who foresaw disaster were drowned in the ocean of political money. Americans were betrayed, and we are paying the high price—in trillion of dollars—for that betrayal.’ One might add, it was not just the betrayal of America, it was the entire world which became the victim of the greed of American big business and the Washington ruling elite.
The question remains whether the political culture of the United States will ever be reformed. President Barak Obama promises a change but his own record in this context is rather dubious. He has tried to distance himself from the Washington lobbyists and has attempted to marginalize their influence. On the other hand instead of setting an example, he declined to receive federal funding for election expenses which would have restricted his freedom to collect campaign finance. In spite of his widely advertised claims that much of his campaign finance came from small donors, it is now known that much the same as George W. Bush, only 20 percent of his campaign donations came from the small donors, the remaining 80 percent came from the very traditional sources that had funded other politicians. True, he did not accept donations from Washington lobbyists but he did accept donations from law firms connected to the very same lobbyists. In fact, in the 2008 election cycle he was often the largest or second largest recipient of campaign donations from the financial sector firms which subsequently received massive bail out by state funds. President Obama has also, certainly not as much as George W. Bush, appointed big business executives in senior positions. His Deputy Secretary of State Jacob Lew comes from Citigroup. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., comes from the D.C.-based law firm Covington & Burling. Deputy Attorney General-nominee David Ogden has been a partner in the WilmerHale law firm Defense Department General Counsel-nominee Jeh Johnson has been a partner in Paul, Weiss, Rifkin, Wharton & Garrison LP. Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Mary Schapiro was a board director at Kraft Foods. As the Washington Times reported on February 8, 2009, Jacob Lew reported a seven-figure compensation deal with one of the nation's biggest recipients of bailout cash. This certainly undermines the president’s desire to cap the executive compensation to only half a million dollars. Almost all the above Obama appointees have come with compensations above that limit. Given the president’s need for a second term--one term president is considered a failure in the United States—and the need to maintain a Democratic majority in Congress in 2010, it is highly unlikely that the president will kill the goose that lays golden eggs for him and his party.

Can President-elect Obama Rise to the Occasion?

The world, rightly or wrongly, has high hopes from President-elect Obama. During his election campaign he promised to change the world. I do believe he means it but I am not sure whether he fully understands the implications There is another important question too. Even if understands the implications of his promise of changing the world, will he be able to deliver anything meaningful? Let us look at some of his major challenges.

The most important foreign policy challenge before the President-elect is whether he can recover the credibility of the United States as a country which believes in the “Rule of Law?’

Most American presidents since the Second World War have used the international law and institutions when it has suited America and discarded them when it does not. The President-elect has to convince the world that America will henceforth abide by international law even if it goes against American interests.

He may be sincere about fighting terrorism but he must realize that terrorism in one form or another will continue until a just solution is found for the Palestinian crisis. My guess is that with his close association with the Israeli lobbies in America, not many people in the world, let alone in the Islamic world, can believe that he is capable of taking an even-handed approach to solve the crisis and help to secure a just solution. His appointment of Hillary Clinton as the Secretary of State confirms such feelings. Admittedly, the Palestinian problem is not easy to solve, since the political power in Israel has been taken over by the right-wing elements who dream of a Biblical Israel. It is this group which is supported by the right-wing Israeli lobbies and the Evangelical Christians in America. To the best of my knowledge, the majority of Israeli and Palestinian people are more moderate in their views and are prepared to make sacrifices for peace in terms of ceding land. Jerusalem may be a sticking point. Even on this issue there may be some scope for flexibility Jerusalem, being the birth place of three religions could be declared a religious city state like the Vatican, run and managed by a democratically elected government by the people living in Jerusalem. The rest of the disputed territories could be divided between the Israelis and the Palestinians by negotiations, both states with security guarantees from the United Nations.

I, being a Gandhian, dislike any country having nuclear weapons. So I am with the Preisdent-elects in his efforts towards dissuading Iran from having nuclear weapons, but then I would like him to persuade other countries including Israel to give up nuclear weapons. Will he support the Middle East being declared a non-nuclear zone, an idea supported by many countries in the region?.

Will he take the lead in giving up American nuclear weapons? Will he stop the development and production of new nuclear weapons such as ‘bunker-busting’ nuclear devices?

With wide spread poverty and destitution around the world, there is a crying need for a drastic reduction in the military budgets internationally. The United States military budget exceeds the total military expenditure of the world as a whole. Will he take the lead in reducing the US military budget significantly (simply by closing down of many of the military bases abroad) and divert the money to reducing domestic poverty and destitution? Not many Americans realize that such bases are often humiliating (or at least an irritant) to the local population and serve no real purpose. Peace can be guaranteed by a reinvigorated UN system and the supply of natural resources can be ensured through trade.

One of the ways of fighting against terrorism is to fight against poverty, hunger and deprivation. This can be done by diverting money from defense expenditure to economic development. One way of doing this is to combine the NATO forces and the UN Peace-keeping forces under the UN banner.. This would not only provide teeth to the UN operations, it would have a major psychological impact internationally. In the Third World NATO forces are seen as a means of colonial control of the resources of the Third World for the colonial masters; Merged with the UN forces this stigma loses force. Such a merger allows America to handover troubled areas like Iraq and Afghanistan to the UN without losing face. I see no reason for the American influence being undermined in this arrangement.


Many countries, including China and Russia are opposed to the weaponization of Space. It is the United States which has been reluctant to support such moves. Will the President-elect take the lead against weaponization Space?

Such decisions are not easy. If the President-elect has the courage and succeeds in his efforts he will have succeeded in changing the world as he promised during his election campaign and he will go down in history as one of the greatest statesman of the twenty first century. But the chances are that he will not be forgiven by the conservatives in America. This may cost him his second term. Whether the gamble is worth taking, is the greatest choice facing the Preident-elect.

The Mumbai Carnage

It is not just the loss of innocent lives that pains me, it is the attack on India's very philosophy of open society, its multicultural life style and the age-old tradition of religious tolerance that is at stake. Those fanatics in India, Pakistan or elsewhere who blame India for mistreatment of minorities have only to walk the streets of Delhi near the Jama Masjeed at night and see the freedom enjoyed by the Indian Muslims. If you wish to see India's treatment of minorities you can see not only the composition of the governments at various levels of India but its cricket team, its film stars and other social and cultural luminaries. This religious tolerance goes far back in history. Thousands of Europeans came and lived in India much before the British began to rule India. These were the Europeans who fled Europe because of religious persecutions. It is this tolerance which is put to test when such carnage takes place. The terrorist hope to drive a wedge between the Indian communities on religious lines. In most cases such attempts have failed. Politically motivated religious riots (encouraged by home grown fanatics on all sides) have occasionally taken place in India but none of the terrorist acts have led to inter-religious strife. All communities all over India have denounced this cowardly killing of innocents in Mumbai.
In fact, this carnage may even bring India and Pakistan closer. After all Pakistan is suffering from similar acts of terrorism. It goes without saying that some elements in both countries do not want to see the warming of relationship between the two countries and they may be behind this carnage. One suspects that some rouge elements of the ISI may be behind such acts. It is important therefore that the present government of Pakistan flushes them out. It is also important that the Pakistan Government also closes down training camps which are openly run in Pakistan under the direct patronage of the ISI. Pakistan must learn from the mistakes of the American administrations which created the Taliban , Osama bin Laden and other terrorists elswhere. It is the terrorists created by the CIA world over that now hauns America and its allies.
So far as India is concerned, the leadership both at the Central as well as local levels, which has clearly shown its incompetence in securing India's security must take stand not only against terrorism but also against any kind of religious bigotry. There is a time to think of abolishing religious schools and strengthening secular and multicultural education in schools. There is also a need for enacting an uniform civil code for all the Indian citizens irrespective of religious beliefs. Minority rights, religions and cultures must be protected but pampering of any group for electoral consideration is bound to be counter-productive. The government must have the courage to take drastic measures against fundamentalists in any community. All the community leaders, particularly, those from the minorities must come in full force to denounce such wanton killings and isolate such forces that encourage such acts of terrorism. Minorities may have genuine grievances; in a democracy like India there is a lot of scope for peaceful protests. Force is not an answer. Even the partition of the country and the resulting millions of deaths and transfer of population did not solve the problem. So let us not acty in a way that intensifies hate on both sides of the divide.

Pot Calls the Kettle Black: George W Bush, the Greatest Living Epitome of Human Rights Violations Criticizes Chinese Record

The harsh treatment of Tibetan activists in Beijing on the eve of opening of the Olympics has drawn world criticism, and very rightly so, yet a criticism from George W. Bush seems to be nothing but comical. Here is a person who is guilty of gross violations of human rights both at home and abroad. Had America been a lesser country, he would most certainly be tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity and with overwhelming evidence against him, possibly convicted. His intervention is patently surreal also because he does not seem to realise that the American record of human transgressions is no less sordid than the Chinese, particularly, if one takes account of American human right transgressions outside America. Of course, George W. Bush has made the record decidedly worse. He is possibly the greatest living epitome of human rights violations in the present day world.

As Kenneth Roth, the president of the Human Rights Watch (HRW) pointed out, ‘Quite apart from the fall out of its ill-fated Iraq invasion, its (US) credibility as a proponent of human rights has been n tarnished by the abuses it practices in the name of fighting terrorism. Few ambassadors dare to protest another government’s harsh interrogations, detention without trial, or even “disappearances” knowing how easily an interlocutor could turn the tables and cite U.S. misconduct as an excuse for his government’s own abuses.’

He further added:

‘…the last year dispelled any doubt that the Bush administration’s use of torture and other mistreatment was a matter of policy dictated at the top rather than the aberrant misconduct of a few low level interrogators. The administration claimed to foreswear torture but refused to classify mock execution by drowning—the classic torture technique now known as water boarding—as prohibited torture. Despite the absolute treaty prohibition on cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, the administration claimed it could impose such abuse so long as the victim was a non-American held outside the United States—a position it abandoned only after the US Congress adopted the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 by a veto-proof majority.…

When the news of atrocities committed by the US armed forces in Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq became public, the administration claimed such incidents as aberrations. However, it is commonly known that such techniques have been part and parcel of military interrogation in America and was part of the training program of the school of Americas, a training school funded by Congress for Latin American military personnel. Some of the military personnel trained in this school turned to be the worst human rights violators in Latin America.

Unfortunately, it is not commonly recognized either within America or outside that in spite of legal and constitutional safeguards, a vibrant media and numerous public interest groups monitoring and exposing human rights violations, torture, inhuman and degrading treatment of convicts, including women and children, are daily occurrences in American prisons. In this web log, an attempt is made to highlight some of the major human rights abuses practiced within America. This section draws extensively on the reports of the Amnesty International and the Human Rights Watch (HRW). However, one of the most instructive documents is the State Department’s Initial Report submitted to the UN Committee against Torture in
October 1999. This report candidly concedes that ‘there continue to be areas of concern, contention, and criticism. These include instances of police abuse, excessive use of force and even brutality, and death of prisoners in custody. Overcrowding in the prison system, physical and sexual abuse of inmates, and lack of adequate training and oversight for police and prison guards are also cause for concern.’

The Amnesty International’s Report 2001 covering the year 2000 pointed out that the, police brutality continues. In 2000, police shot unarmed suspects at the end of vehicle pursuits, during traffic stops, or during police street patrols. A disproportionate number of the victims came from ethnic minorities, the Afro-Americans and the Latinos. As one example of excessive use of force by the police, Amnesty International quoted the highly publicized case of Amadou Diallo, an unarmed West African immigrant, who in 1999 was shot forty-one times outside his home. The four New York Police Department (NYPD) officers were acquitted of all criminal charges.92 According to the Human Rights Watch (HRW) most police officers violating departmental rules or the law go without punishment for lack of adequate investigative and disciplinary arrangements. Victims
who complain are subjected to overt intimidation. During the fiscal year 1999, of nearly 12,000 civil rights complaints brought to the Department of Justice, only thirty-one officers were either convicted or pleaded guilty to crimes under the civil rights statute. The Amnesty International Annual Report 2006,mentions continued reports of ill treatment and death in police custody as a result of excessive use of force by the police. It reported sixty-one deaths resulting from the police use of lasers;
as many as 142 people died as a result of the use of lasers by the police between 2001 and 2005.

Death Penalty

According to the AI Report 2006, in 2005 as many as 60
convicts were executed in the United States. Since 1976 when the Supreme Court lifted a moratorium on executions, a total of 1006 convicts have been executed. In March 2006, the Supreme Court banned the execution of Child offenders under 18 at the time of committing the crime. But the execution of convicts with mental disorders still continues. This is in violation of international standards.

The death penalty is permissible in 38 states of which 29 have conducted executions since 1977; the majority of death penalties have been given in the states of
Texas,Virginia, Florida, Louisiana, Maryland, and Georgia. In fourteen states, offenders aged less than 18 at the time of committing the capital offense cannot be subjected to the death, penalty. Twenty states allow the death penalty if a prisoner convicted of a capital crime has reached the age of 16; in four others, the age is 17. Although U.S. law prohibits the execution of the legally insane, the standard for judging mental competence varies among states. Only twelve states and the federal government specifically prohibit the execution of the mentally retarded.

Cruelty in Prisons

Both Amnesty International and the Human Rights Watch
report on cases of torture and ill treatment, of both adults and juveniles, in prisons and in juvenile detention facilities. Such cases include beatings, use of excessive force, sexual misconduct, misuse of electro-shock weapons and chemical sprays, and the cruel use of mechanical restraints, including holding prisoners for prolonged periods in a four-point restraint. The conditions are particularly cruel in super-maximum security (supermax) prisons, where prisoners are kept in prolonged isolation. Most prisons in the United States use electro-shock weapons, including stun belts, stun shields, and stun guns. Contrary to the claims of manufacturers of such weapons, experts suggest that such weapons ‘can be harmful, even lethal, for people with high blood pressure, for pregnant women and for those suffering epilepsy and some other conditions. In light of this, stun weapons have been banned for law enforcement use by a number of countries, including Canada and most West European countries, as well as some U.S. states.’ One of the devices, remote controlled electro-shock stun belts for use on U.S. prisoners, is of particular concern. Pushing a button from a distance activates this belt, causing severe pain and instant incapacitation; when activated it
can cause the person to defecate or urinate. This belt is being used by the U.S. Bureau of Prisons, the U.S. Marshall’s service, and more than 100 county agencies and 16 state correctional agencies. It is also used on prisoners during judicial hearings, which is a contravention of international standards on the treatment of prisoners.

The AI Report 2001 also notes that the use of excessive force, restraint devices and stun-devices has led to deaths of prison inmates. The AI Report 2006 mentions that as many as 7000 police and correctional agencies used electro-shock weapons. 61 people in custody died as a result of the shocks received from such weapons. The number of such deaths between 2001 and 2006 totaled 142.

Cruelty to Women

Various reports by Amnesty International, the Human Rights Watch and other human rights related public interest groups repeatedly refer to ill-treatment of women inmates, including sexual abuses by male guards, including rape, parading partially naked in front of male inmates; forced strip searches by male guards, and fondling by male officers while dressing. AI’s Rights for All report points out that it is not only female inmates who are coerced into having sex by male staff; sexual coercion by female staff against both male and female inmates, and by male staff against male inmates are not uncommon. This happens because the U.S. prisons employ both men and women to supervise prisoners of the opposite sex, allow them to undertake searches involving body contact, and to be present when inmates are naked. The practice of employing male staff to supervise female inmates is contrary to international standards.

Women inmates have to suffer the indignity of being shackled even when they are pregnant; sometimes they remain shackled while in labor or are re-shackled shortly after. This practice has been denounced by a Washington D.C. court as ‘inhumane’—yet the practice continues.

Cruelty to Children

In as many as 20 states, children can be convicted as adults
and be imprisoned in adult prisons and housed with adult
inmates in violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and other international standards, which require that juvenile prisoners should be kept separate from adults. Juveniles can be treated as adults only in exceptional circumstances. Nevertheless, many states are legislating to broaden the circumstances in which children may be prosecuted as adults and held in adult prisons. A special AI report on the ill-treatment of children in U.S. prisons states that children are often held in cruel conditions in overcrowded facilities, deprived of adequate mental health care, education and rehabilitation programs. They are also subjected to cruel punishments, including shackles, chemical sprays and electro-shock devices. Children are also kept in solitary confinement in violation of international standards. In a lawsuit against the State Training School in Plankinton, South Dakota, a juvenile detention facility, it emerged that children are placed in punitive handcuffs and shackles and forced to lie spread-eagled in four-point restraints for hours at a time, even through the night. It is common for male staff to forcibly strip girls while held in four-point restraint. Children, including those who are mentally ill, are routinely held in isolation for 24 hours a day, sometimes for months at a time.

According to the HRW there are as many as 2,225 child offenders in the United States who are convicted for life without parole. Over half of them are first time offenders. The United States is one of the fourteen countries which allows for such convictions. Reportedly, only twelve child offenders outside the United States are serving such sentences. The Convention of the Rights of the Child, ratified by all countries in the world except the United States and Somalia, bans such punishments.

Ethnic Minorities

In view of the widespread geographic and racial disparities in the application of the federal death penalty nationwide, the AI report, Rights for All, calls the application of the death penalty ‘to be racist, arbitrary, and unfair.’ The American criminal justice system’s vulnerability to personal or social prejudice is clearly unfair to minorities, particularly to African Americans. The fact that such an injustice takes place is confirmed by the State Department’s report to the UN Committee against Torture. It concedes that ‘African Americans are disproportionately more likely to be sentenced to death and executed than other racial or ethnic components of the U.S. population.’ The minorities have also suffered disproportionately as a result of the war on drugs. African Americans, constituting only 12 per cent of the total population accounted for 46.5 per cent of state prisoners and 40 per cent of federal prisoners convicted for drug offenses. For the country as a whole, African American men were eight times more susceptible to imprisonment than white men, with an incarceration rate of 3408 per 100,000 African American male residents, as against only 417 per 100,000 for white males. In eleven states, the African American incarceration rates ranged between twelve and twenty-six times those of white men. In September 2000, in its Initial Report to the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial
Discrimination, the U.S. Department of State conceded the persistence of racism, racial discrimination, and de facto segregation in the United States. It pointed out that ‘while the scourge of officially-sanctioned segregation has been eliminated, de facto segregation and persistent racial discrimination continue to exist. The forms of discriminatory practices have changed and adapted over time, but racial and ethnic discrimination continues to restrict and limit equal opportunity in the United States.’



Asylum-seekers

Highlighting the human rights violations of asylum-seekers
in the United States, Rights for All pointed out that an increasing number of asylum-seekers are, on arrival in the USA, often detained indefinitely, confined with criminal prisoners and are held in inhuman and degrading conditions. They are liable to be stripped and searched; shackled and chained; sometimes verbally
or physically abused. They are often denied access to their
families, lawyers and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and even telephones. They cannot even receive letters. The passing of the new Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) in 1996 has led to a considerable rise in detentions. People without valid documents can be summarily sent back under the ‘expedited removal provisions’ of the act114 International law provides an opportunity for a review of the decision to detain depending on the merits of the case, taking into account the overall circumstances of the asylum-seeker, not just procedural correctness. U.S. practice does not allow for such an examination.

Foreign Nationals

In violation of the Geneva Convention, foreign nationals
have been executed in the United States without being given their treaty-based consular rights. These rights have been denied to as many as 90 foreign nationals on death row in the U.S.A. In a case brought to the International Court of Justice in The Hague by Germany in the context of the execution of two German nationals in Arizona in 1999, the Court, with an overwhelming majority, found the United States in violation of the Vienna Convention on consular relations.

There are many other areas of concern in so far the protection of human rights is concerned. In both China and America there are sufficient legal and constitution provisions to safeguard human rights of individuals. It is the implementation of laws that is often at fault. The enforcement agencies have low paid and inadequately trained people to implement legal and constitution provisions. At times, policies such as ‘zero tolerance’’ or ‘strike hard,’ go against the safeguarding of human rights. Lack of transparency is a major issue in China. It is imperative for the government to allow independent non-governmental organizations to monitor the progress of implementation of legal provisions. The Chinese do not need sermons from America. In fact, guaranteeing basic minimum needs, the Chinese have gone much beyond what Americans have done in spite of their wealth. Unfortunately, there has been a retardation in this respect because of the adoption of the so-called liberalization as a result unemployment and inequality of income and wealth has increased in China, so has crime and corruption. If this trend continues there is risk of further undermining of human rights.

For a more detailed analysis please see Radha Sinha, ‘Sino-American Relations: Mutual Paranoia,’ (paperback), (New Delhi, Atlantic Publishers and Distributors, 2008) Ch. 6.

The End Does Not Justify the Means; Violation of Human Rights in Xin Jiang

The Chinese official media claims that two Uighur (a Muslim ethnic group in Xin Jiang) men drove a dump truck into a group of jogging policemen on Monday August 4, killing 16 police officers, Such an act of terrorism, coming four days ahead the opening of the Beijing Olympics, is clearly an attempt by the dissidents to highlight their cause of separatism, as the Chinese government claims, or saving their cultural identity as the Uighurs claim. Whatever the objectives of the dissidents, violence is not justifiable. Violence brings about reprisals and counter-violence leadings to mindless killings and the cause, however genuine, is lost sight of. It goes to the credit of Rebiya Kadeer, a prominent Uighur dissident who issued a statement condemning all acts of violence.

There is no doubt that the Chinese government has attempted or allowed its agencies to undermine the ethnic culture and literature and in the name of war on terrorism to violate the basic norms of human rights in Xin Jiang. This is testified not only by the US State Department’s country reports on human rights but also by prestigious independent human rights related public interest groups such as the Amnesty International and the Human Rights Watch (HRW). The present blog draws heavily on the reports from these organizations to draw attention to human rights infringements in Xin Jiang.

The Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, in northwest China, is a vast region, with almost one-sixth of China's land area. It is strategically important to China because it borders several countries, not all friendly to China. Xin Jiang is also expected to become the biggest petroleum and gas production base in China. Xinjiang has a population of 18 million many of whom are of Turkic-speaking Muslim ethnic groups. The Uighurs, numbering eight million,
\are the largest ethnic group, the second largest group being the Kazakhs numbering 1.2 million. The ethnic Chinese (Han) accounted for only 6 percent of the population in 1949; their population, thanks to the state sponsored transfer of population, has now risen to 7.5 million accounting for 40 percent of the total population of the region.

As the Human Rights Watch (HRW), writes ‘Chinese authorities have not discriminated between peaceful and violent dissent, however, and their fight against "separatism" and "religious extremism" has been used to justify widespread and systematic human rights violations against Uighurs, including many involved in non-violent political, religious, and cultural activities.’

Many Uighurs complain of racial abuse and discrimination against ethnic minorities, and the lack of equal opportunity in education, health care and employment. Unlike their Chinese Han institutions, Uighur schools and hospitals are poorly equipped, with some Uighur village schools so poor and short of equipment that the pupils have to sit and write on the earthen floor. Many hospitals reportedly give preferential treatment to Han Chinese patients and top jobs to Chinese doctors at the expense of their Uighur counterparts.

The opportunities afforded by the economic development have benefited mainly Han Chinese. Many Uighur farmers have become so impoverished due to discriminatory policies, the multiplication of taxes, and corruption that they have to sell their crops to state agencies at lower prices than those of the free market, whereas Chinese farmers are reportedly allowed to trade on the market. Many Uighur farmers are forced by circumstances to sell their land and joined the ranks of the unemployed and vagrants. Han Chinese are the major beneficiaries of the newly created job opportunities in the new oil fields and other enterprises in the north. In the south, many enterprises which have been privatized are now under Han Chinese management which prefer Han Chinese over Uighur workers. With increasing unemployment, there has been an increase in crime, drug addiction and prostitution have become widespread among the unemployed.

As a result of the "open door" policy launched in the late 1970s mosques were reopened and some Islamic countries were allowed to fund the construction of mosques and to establish Koranic schools and import religious books. In the late 1980s the restrictive policies brought back amidst fears that Islam might provide a rallying point for ethnic nationalism. It was also feared that Islamist movements abroad might inspire young Uighurs who had studied in foreign Islamic schools. These fears were apparently reinforced by the protests and rioting in Baren, near Kashgar in 1990, reportedly led by members of an Islamic nationalist group, which resulted in many deaths. New restrictive policies include closure of mosques and Koranic schools, banning of the use of the Arabic script, the tight control, including dismissal and arrests, of the Islamic clergy, and religious leaders and the prohibition on practising religion by Muslims working in government offices and other official institutions.

There has been a curtailment of social and cultural rights as well. In Urumqi, the regional capital, some Uighur entrepreneurs have bee n harassed for manufacturing traditional ethnic clothes or for being involved in social activism. Some entrepreneurs were forced to close down their businesses. In cities in the north, some people have faced harassment or even detention simply for displaying signs of their ethnic or religious identity, such as headscarves for Muslim women.


All this has resulted in an exacerbation of long-standing ethnic tensions between Uighurs and Han Chinese in the region which is behind the escalation of violence in recent years. The number of violent incidents has increased significantly. These include violent clashes between small groups of Uighurs and the security forces, attacks on government officials and bombings by underground opposition groups. The government’s response, as usual, has been harsh repression by launching a ’hard hit’ campaign against ‘ethnic separatists’, imposing new restrictions on religious and cultural rights and resorting increasingly to executions, show trials and arbitrary detention to silence real and suspected opponents.

Both the HRW and the Amnesty International points out that people not involved in violence are also victims of human rights abuses. Attempts by Uighurs to air their views or grievances peacefully and to exercise their most fundamental human rights in constitutional manner have attracted government repression. In doing so the government is inevitably inviting violence. One recognises that Xin Jiang, bordering several countries not all friendly to China, is strategically important; vast amount of petroleum and gas makes the region economically valuable as well. Therefore, its security and the maintenance of law and order are of paramount importance to the Chinese government. But the answer is not in repression which would exacerbate the cycle of violence and counter-violence. While the government must take a hard line against terrorists and violent elements, it must not alienate those who abhor violence.
As the HRW points out, there has long been strong Uighur opposition to Chinese rule in Xinjiang. The effective control of the region by the central government was achieved only after the founding of the Chinese People’s Republic in 1949. In fact, between 1944 and 1949, a short-lived independent East Turkestan Republic ruled the region. It was backed by the Soviet Union. Today, the Uighur opposition-in-exile is based in Turkey, Germany and the United States, and remains overwhelmingly pan-Turkic. The East Turkestan National Congress, based in Munich, Germany, a federation of most of the Turkish and European Uighur associations, consistently advocates peaceful means to achieve a ‘real autonomy’ or ‘independence’ for the region.
Likewise, Uighur organizations in Central Asia, such as the Kazakhstan Regional Uighur Organisation in Almaty or Kyrgyzstan Uighur Unity in Bishkek believe in democracy and secularism.
In Xinjiang itself, there is no unified movement. Pan-Turkic movements like the East Turkestan Party (Tengri Tag), and the Uighur Liberation Organization are the most structured organizations, and are active mainly in urban areas like Yining, Urumqi, Korla, and Kucha. More religiously-oriented groups are active in the southern part of Xinjiang, notably in the Kashgar and Hetian areas. Such groups advocate the establishment of an Islamic state in Xinjiang and oppose Chinese domination, but as the HRW points out there is no evidence that they are either associated with the Taliban or draw inspiration from them. As the HRW points out, the pro-independence groups, whether religious or secular, are mainly ethno-centric movements, not religious ones. There is no evidence of significant cooperation among Xinjiang's different Muslim ethnic groups of Kazakhs, Mongols, Tajiks, and Uighurs on religious lines.
The Chinese government’s’ claim, that these groups are in league with fundamentalist Islamic groups, at least at present, cannot be easily substantiated. A continuing repression may in the long-run prove to be counter-productive since it may lead to a greater cooperation among these disparate groups and then the Chinese government may find it difficult to deal with these groups. It is imperative that the Chinese government begins a meaningful dialogue with the dissidents in Xin Jaing, Tibet and other areas. If repression silenced or eliminated dissent, the Chinese Communist Party would not have come to power in the face of Chiang Kai-shek’s repressive policies.