Chameleon's last encore!
Changing loyalties like clothes, former RSS worker who rose to become CM, is singing Sonia’s paeans

(column by Sharad Gupta)

Ann Richards, former US politician had said; “…In politics, your enemies can’t hurt you, but your friends will kill you.” The new 35-yearold Jharkhand Chief Minister, Madhu Kora, a friend of the BJP, finally killed it. On September 18, Koda was sworn in as the Chief Minister of Jharkhand. Koda also became the first ever independent MLA to head a state. Koda is the youngest Chief Minister of Jharkhand.

Madhu Kora epitomises the politics of defections. Having grown up in RSS shakhas, he entered the State Assembly as a BJP member. Denied renomination by the BJP in 2005, he contested as an independent and won. Finding himself, along with four other independents, in an enviable situation as the balancing force in the Assembly, Koda refused to join the UPA Government led by Jharkhand Mukti Morcha Chief Shibu Soren after the polls.

He became a minister in Arjun Munda-led NDA government that followed the fall of Soren government due to its failure to prove majority. Within a year, however, he stabbed in Munda’s back and became Chief Minister with the help of JMM, Congress and Rashtriya Janata Dal, the very same parties, which he had ousted from power barely 12 months ago. It is ironical for Koda, having his roots in the RSS, to head a “secular UPA government.” The new Jharkhad Chief Minister began his political journey with the All Jharhand Students Union. But soon used the RSS ladder to get the BJP ticket for Assembly election. A BJP leader from Jharkhand describes Koda as a go-getter who strikes deals by the hour.

Madhu Koda was born in a farmer’s family at Patahatu village in West Singhbhoom district and had his early education in a village school surrounded by deep forests and hills. He completedhis matriculation from the zilla school in Chaibasa and graduation from Utkal University through a correspondence course. His father wanted him to become a policeman; instead Koda plunged into politics. His marriage broke down while he was a minister in Arjun Munda government. But that was not the end of the road for him. The most eligible bachelor in Jharkhand at this moment, Koda says, “I will get married soon.”

Having broken down before senior BJP leader, Yashwant Sinha, twice after being denied a BJP ticket in 2005, Koda was termed a political novice. But the fortunes changed hands. Koda is the now CM, while Sinha has gone into a political oblivion. His improved political acumen was again evident when unlike other independent ministers in the Munda cabinet, he never sulked publicly and never threatened to “bring down the government”. He struck only one blow, at the right moment, so severe that it actually resulted in fall of the Munda government. How else can one describe the person who used to idolise Atal Behari Vajpayee till last month, to sleep with Sonia’s men.

Once described as a simpleton, Koda is now known for his links with influential industrialists from West Bengal. He prefers swish designer clothes to khadi kurtapyjamas, bought from plush and glitzy malls and has been visiting Bangkok.

Poet, Carl Sandberg had said; "A politician should have three hats, one for throwing into the ring, one for talking through and one for pulling rabbits out of it, if elected." Koda has successfully performed the first two tricks; he now has to pull out the rabbits.

Footsteps

• 1990 – Joined All Jharkhand Students Union (AJSU)
• 2000 – Became MLA; a BJP ticket from Jagannathpur
• 2000 – Became Minister in the Babulal Marandi government.
• 2003 – Retained position when Arjun Munda replaced Marandi as Jharkhand Chief Minister.
• 2005 – Contested as an independent and won, became minister in Munda government.
• 2006 – Became first ever independent Chief Minister.

Urban plight; parties fight
Sealings have put Sheila Dixit’s political future at stake

(column by Nidhi Sharma)

Nikita Khrushchev once said, “Politicians are the same all over. They promise to build a bridge even where there is no river.” The saying categorically matches with the sealing of commercial establishments in residential areas being pursued in the country’s capital.

The Sheila Dixit Government in Delhi, which had promised a whole galaxy of mandates while seeking re-election, refutes the charges of being responsible for the city’s dismal state. The state of affairs where government has to demolish the illegal construction at court’s instructions and irate shop owners pelting stones at police force, speaks of the kind of control and governance in Delhi.

The nexus that allowed the mushrooming of these illegal constructions, however, continues to thrive freely. While the urban population, which was the beneficiary of the construction suffers, the government officials who turned a blind eye and abetted the illegal construction, obviously for a price, have got away without punishment.

Sheila Dixit’s claim of the issue being politicized is not enough to heal the wounds of the people. Damage to their livelihood, property and lives might see this government losing in the coming elections. The vote bank has turned hostile for obvious reasons. This socio-political issue should not merely be looked at with judiciary's perspective. The social cost is worth giving a glance before minds lessly altering the landscape of the city.

Responding by suggesting an amendment to the Constitution on this mass rage and dodging the court would only suppress a potential problem, while putting the party’s future at stake. A just and determined approach, which is considerate yet mindful of the social costs and future repercussions, is what can help the party save its face and stand up for another election campaign.

(End of Nidhi Sharma column)

Dialectical dilemma for Communists
Is Communist leader calling Jyoti Basu the God, beginning of a trend?

(column by Kalyan Upadhyay)

There is no god in Dialectical Materialism. And there is no room for sycophancy as well. Yet it couldn’t have been worse for the Communist Party of India (Marxist) as the very protege of the Jyoti Basu made a public mockery of the Marxist tenants that forbid its followers to accept anything beyond the theory of class struggle.

The controversy arose when Subhas Chakraborty, the Transport Minister in the West Bengal government paid visit to goddess Kali's Temple in Tarapith. This, along with his claims that he was a devout Hindu and Brahmin, did not go well with his comrades in Kolkatta. Yet, inspite of it, the party chose to play the matter down. However, he drew the wrath of his own mentor Jyoti Basu, when he praised him as “modern day Krishna.”

This was enough to draw verbal slander from the retired communist warhorse. Jyoti Basu reacted by saying that Chakraborty had “lost mental balance.” Basu tried to make it clear that he would not entertain any form of sycophancy. Not even from his protege.

Communism might have died years ago, but Indian communists wish to live in the past. Six months back, CPI(M) had to face humiliation when Brinda Karat tried to take on the Yoga guru, Ramdev. However, the party has not learnt its lessons.

Instead of issuing a warning to Chakraborty not to indulge in sycophancy, Basu simply chose to bad mouth him. Chakraborty might have violated the tenants of Communism, but the incident has exposed the fact that canonization of doctrine still exists in Indian version of Communism.

(End of Kalyan Upadhyay column)

Who's to blame? UNO or the Martians? Take a pick!
The whole is a sum of parts – when will the UN member states understand this?

The United Nations peacekeeping operations, now underway in Lebanon, offer a big opportunity for the UN to demonstrate its relevance and impact on the world stage in the 21st century. But yes, that’s only if the member states (who claim to be the UN’s biggest supporters) put their money where their mouths lie!

Many world leaders, particularly those in Europe, decry the Bush administration's undermining of the UN, especially since 2003. Yet leaders in France, who expressed their anger when the US sidestepped the UN and invaded Iraq without the international community’s blessing, also lived up to their promise of betrayal when instead of the promised 2,000 peacekeeping force (to intervene in southern Lebanon), they sent just a petty army of 200!

Fortunately, France is reconsidering, Germany will provide limited naval assistance, and Italy has stepped up to contribute 3,000 peacekeepers; but the response from rest of Europe (just like the US’ response in other cases) highlight a sad state of the UN's supporters and international institutions. And indeed, if we cannot do what it takes to make them more effective, we will increasingly find that nations will possibly bypass the issues altogether.

UN Security Council Resolution 1701 calls for Israel and Lebanon to support a permanent ceasefire. It thus set the stage for UN officials to set out the Rules of Engagements (ROEs) for its peacekeepers, which dictate when and under what circumstances can the UN troops fire their weapons to defend themselves. But as the current UN mission in Lebanon (UNIFIL) clearly demonstrates, defending yourself is obviously not the same as protecting yourself from hostile attacks.

In this context, the French are understandably worried about the fate of their soldiers – the soldiers charged with supporting the Lebanese government in their efforts to establish control over the Hezbollah-controlled south. The terrible French peacekeeping experience in Bosnia during early 1990’s (in which France lost 84 soldiers serving in a humanitarian capacity under restrictive ROEs), truly justifies that their fears do not arise out of context. But ROEs are only symptoms of a much more deeper problem. The real issue is a yawning gap between paper and practice. In the heat of an international crisis, the UN Security Council passes resolutions to great public fanfare, establishing an official UN mandate. But then the UN Secretary General is left, resolution in hand, to ask UN member states for the actual, tangible resources necessary to implement the needful. In the overwhelming majority of cases, those resources fall far short of what is required to successfully intervene in a crisis – a primary reason why the UNO was established!

A 2006, UN mandate review reveals that the UN member states adopt hundreds of mandates each year, conferring additional responsibilities with neither corresponding funds nor guidance on how resources should be used. In American domestic politics, these kind of commands from the US Congress to states are known as non-funded mandates ordering results without providing the resources necessary to achieve them. It is a political theatre – big and outstanding headlines but really small and invisible results!

The UN’s experience in Lebanon too is not encouraging. According to the UN’s Department of Peacekeeping Operations, UNIFIL has operated on an annual budget of $94 million and suffers chronic budget shortfalls due to unpaid assessments from member states. Now consider what an expanded UNIFIL is mandated to do under UN Security Council Resolution 1701 – the peacekeepers are obliged to monitor the ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah; support and accompany the Lebanese armed forces as they deploy in southern Lebanon; assist Lebanon’s government in securing the country’s borders and ports to keep illegal weapons from getting into Hezbollah’s hands; and help ensure humanitarian access to civilian population and the voluntary and safe return of displaced persons. This without a speck of doubt is a Herculean task, but what about the shameful fact that even a month after the resolution has been passed, less than 5,000 troops are deployed! Even if all 15,000 UN troops could be deployed, the challenges in Lebanon will remain daunting. The UN insists that Resolution 1701 does not mandate that the UN disarm Hezbollah; almost no nation other than Israel is willing to charge its soldiers with that task. Instead, the job falls back on the Lebanese government and defence, who need all the help they can get from the global community.

And that is only the military aspect of the peacekeeping effort. Lebanon’s infrastructure, especially in the south, has been decimated. Homes and livelihoods have been destroyed. Who will build or re-build hospitals? How will communications infrastructure be rebuilt? Who will repair Lebanon’s damaged bridges and roads? The mandate gap reflects the way the world has conducted business with the UN for decades – big promises, small pay-outs and scapegoating if the UN fails. Today, the international community has a tremendous opportunity to secure a small but significant peace in the Middle-East along the volatile border of Lebanon and Israel. How member states respond now, especially those who believe in the purpose and value of the UN, may help shape the outcomes of other ongoing regional conflicts, notably with Iran and Syria, both of which support Hezbollah.

The UN provides the mechanism for a global response, but as Kofi Annan often repeats, it does not exist apart from its member states. It is up to those members to provide both the necessary will and resources. And if it does not happen so, the UN will remain nothing more than just a handy mechanism for outsourcing political blame. Our commitment to bring peace to the Middle East, or Darfur, or Congo, or Kosovo, or Haiti, is not measured by words but by our wallets.