Tharoor’s remark that Saudi Arabia could be an interlocutor for talks between New Delhi and Islamabad was embarrassing.

Tharoor may be indiscreet but I suspect that somehow, he got the impression that the prime minister would go along with him. True, an interlocutor is not a mediator. But he participates in talks.

Indians and Pakistanis are the best of friends when they are not talking at each other. –Photo by AP

Tharoor’s observation did not work due to a strong reaction against it in the country. India’s enunciated policy after the Simla conference in 1972 has been to talk to Pakistan, without involving a third party. Has there been some rethinking? Whatever the import of Tharoor’s observation, it gives oxygen to the dead dialogue between the foreign secretaries of India and Pakistan.

Islamabad’s reaction to Tharoor’s remark was on expected lines: it was ready for talks without conditions. This throws light on the talks held last week in Delhi. No doubt, Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao made it clear to her Pakistani counterpart Salman Bashir that the talks would be confined to terrorism. But Salman Bashir touched all points, including Kashmir and water, although not at great length. Yet the whole dialogue was cursory.

The talks must have been a formality because a few hours later I found both foreign secretaries sitting separately, engaged in an animated discussion, at the Pakistan House in Delhi for dinner. There was no recrimination, no rhetoric, no raising of voices. They talked about confidence-building measures and conciliation.

This is how the two sides behave when they are relaxed and when they have no agenda to sell, no government message to convey. In fact, Indians and Pakistanis are the best of friends when they are not talking at each other.

However, the talks show that both countries are prisoners of mistrust and hostility. The reason why the two remain distant lies in their inability to overcome the prejudice they have nourished against each other for decades. The two foreign secretaries did not know what their political masters were contemplating. Still, had they fixed a date for the next meeting in Islamabad, people on both sides would have taken a positive view of the talks.

How far Salman Bashir could go was known to him because before arriving in Delhi he had met the high-ups. Bashir was surprised by India’s allegation of involvement of Pakistani army officials in the Mumbai carnage as was Nirupama Rao by the charge that New Delhi was involved in Balochistan.

The arrest of Hafiz Saeed, the Jamaatud Dawa chief, is New Delhi’s criterion to judge Pakistan’s sincerity in fighting the terrorists who are reportedly operating in India. New Delhi concedes that the law courts in Pakistan are independent but wonders why he is free to threaten war against a neighbouring country.

What may have made the otherwise suave and soft-spoken Salman Bashir lose his cool was the strong message that national security adviser Shiv Shankar Menon gave him. Menon reportedly did not mince his words in accusing Pakistan of sending terrorists to India as part of Islamabad’s state policy. He repeated many a time that he was the prime minister’s adviser.

Since the meeting with Menon was before the press conference, Salman Bashir did not maintain the equanimity which he showed during talks with Nirupama Rao. Phrases like ‘don’t lecture us’ were probably meant for Menon. Yet his observation that India’s dossier against Saeed was ‘literature’ was indiscreet. The Pakistani foreign secretary was quiet when he met the national security adviser. Was Menon conveying New Delhi’s thoughts? I have my doubts because Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is considered a dove. He reiterated in Riyadh that he was willing to go the extra mile to make up with Pakistan.

Since Manmohan Singh’s government is increasingly on the defensive because of the inflation, I do not think that it is in a position to take bold initiatives on Pakistan. The opposition, led by the Bharatiya Janata Party, has created an atmosphere where it is difficult for New Delhi to depart from the status quo. This should not surprise either Islamabad which is prepared for a long haul or Washington which is more focused on Kabul and Islamabad than New Delhi.

The silver lining was Prime Minister Singh’s reiteration that there was no option other than talks and that the two countries must come to an agreement to live like good neighbours. In the years since independence, both countries have gone down the same path, knowing that it leads to nowhere. Maybe both have no fresh ideas. Maybe both have come to accept their inability to solve the problems which confront them.

Perhaps civil society on both sides can help. Some persons who have been working on the improvement of relations between India and Pakistan for years can meet to see if they have some new ideas on which they agree. The proposals made by them may change the situation which remains frozen.

The governments on both sides would find it difficult to reject the suggestions if they have unanimous backing. Ultimately, the pressure of the public on both sides will make the governments relent. Are ordinary people committed to rapprochement between India and Pakistan and ready to go through fire and water to prove their credentials?

Author:Kuldip Nayar

A number of people are pessimistic about the future of democracy in Pakistan. There is an incessant campaign against the political leaders and democratic government by some judges of the superior judiciary and the intelligence agencies. The Jamaat-I-Islami and Imran Khan engage in massive propaganda against the PMLN and the PPP leadership in a bid to project themselves as the third option. The PPP and the PMLN periodically engage in mud-slinging against each other.

Democracy appears to be in serious trouble when we apply the ideal criterion to judge the performance of the current democratic experiment. Since it is far short of the ideal situation we tend to think that there is no democracy.  We expect that one day genuine democracy will suddenly come into existence.  If we follow this approach we will always have been disappointment because the ideal system of government will never be established.

Democracy should be seen as a process. You move from less democracy to more democracy and this process needs mid-course corrections all the time.  Democracy is achieved through a graduated process when the leadership and the people at large are equally keen to move in the direction of more democracy.  It requires commitment to the ideals of democracy and equal citizens. The society as a whole has to work towards achieving democracy rather than expecting the leaders to deliver democracy on their own initiative. Democracy requires self-restraint and patience on the part of citizenry.

Democracy does not simply mean the holding of the elections, although elections are one of the requirements of democracy. Other requirements of democracy are constitutionalism, the rule of law, civil and political rights, accountability of the rulers and independent judiciary.   All the state institutions have to perform their role within the frame of the constitution and law rather than one institution trying to dominate the other.

Democracy recognizes the primacy of the elected institutions and leadership. This primacy is pre-requisite for parliamentary democracy. It means that the elected legislature and executive have a clear edge over other institutions. However, all institutions must stay within their constitutional limits.

Independent judiciary is needed for democracy but it is not the only condition for democracy. It cannot and should not expand its domain of authority by undermining other institutions of the state.

When we talk of interaction among the institutions of the state it implies interaction among the people holding the key positions in these institutions. Institutions do not mean bricks, walls, furniture and files. When someone interacts with institutions or institutions deal with each other, the individuals occupying the key positions matter. Their disposition and agenda as well as how these change over time influence institutional disposition and agenda. The survival and collapse of institutions depend on personal, group, corporate and professional interests of the key individuals in these institutions. It is not possible to delink individuals from institutions and if the key position holders in an institution perceive themselves under siege from other institutions or power-players the disposition of that institution is affected.

The PPP-led federal government, especially President Asif Ali Zardari, faces a siege like situation due to the subtle behind-the-scene moves by the military top brass, the political fall-out of the Supreme Court judgment on the NRO, and the off-again, on-again pressure by the PMLN that often results in polemical verbal exchanges between the leaders of the PMLN and the PPP.

One can apportion some blame of the PPP’s current predicament to its poor governance, inability to address the socio-economic problems of the common people, the attempts to run the coalition government as a single-party government and the failure to maintain working relations with the PMLN.  These factors increased problems for the government. However, Zardari’s political future was not jeopardized until he developed policy differences with the military top brass and alienated the superior judiciary by unnecessarily delaying the restoration of the chief justice and some of the judges.  A new controversy developed when Zardari attempted to by-pass the recommendation of the Chief Justice for the appointment of the judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts of the Punjab and Sindh.

The Supreme Court judgment on the NRO was a major embarrassment for the federal government. It left enough space for the opposition to continue targeting the federal government, especially Zardari. While ignoring the constitutional immunity from criminal proceedings to the president the judgment has asked for revival of the cases against the president in Switzerland.

Nawaz Sharif has demanded on more than one occasion that the national wealth hidden in Swiss bank account should be returned to Pakistani state. This is a direct attack on Zardari and this has adversely affected the relations between the PPP and the PMLN, although Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani has attempted to defuse the tension.

The PMLN and the PPP have to recognize that a free-for-all struggle against each other will undermine democracy. They need to work out their differences within the democratic framework. Any attempt to seek the removal of Zardari or the government through the superior judiciary or the military will be counterproductive to the goal of sustaining democracy.

The success and failure of democracy depends on how the political forces interact with each other. If they engage in bitter fight against each other, the initiative can shift to non-elected state institutions.

Author: Dr Hassan Askari

TheConservative government has unveiled initiatives in its speech from the throne last week and has then revealed its budget. Since then the opposition has charged the government for not doing enough on job creation, on climate change and overdoing corporate tax cuts for big oil companies and changing lyrics of the Canadian national anthem. The opposition also accuses the Conservatives of damaging the Canadian democracy by proroguing the Parliament twice in a two-year time period.

“Opposition says what it says,” says Mr. Paul Calandra, the Member of Parliament from Oak-Ridge-Markham. “We have been consulting our constituents and Canadians about what they want in a budget. We were trying to charter the course to bring the budget back into the balance. We wanted to do so while working with our provincial and municipal partners..to make Canada a superior destination for foreign investment,” the rookie MP fires back.

Eventually the government wants to balance a $56 billion budget by cutting back on its own finances: freezing the salaries of the Prime Minister, the Cabinet Ministers, the members of Parliament and the money given to the cabinet offices. “We want to bring down expenses; we don’t wanna do what we did in the past. When the Liberal government wanted to reduce the budget in 1990s, they cut the money from education and health…we won’t do it that way. We looked at all the avenues of red tape to cut the budget from excess government,” says Mr. Calandra who has also has served as Chief of Staff to MPP Steve Gilchrist, former Minister of Municipal Affairs & Housing, Chair of the Red Tape Commission and first Commissioner of Alternative Energy. He agreed though that “ the governments are huge enterprises and there are going to be areas where the money is not spent wisely. We’re looking into the areas where the money can be spent more wisely..because public wants us to balance the budget.” He applauded Finance Minister Flaherty on being the best Finance Minister in international community, expressing full confidence in his ability to balance $56 billion budget over the next few years.

The 39-year old MP believes that the government has invested billions of dollars in post secondary and apprenticeship programs for youth. He noted the millions of dollars have been invested in University of Toronto and colleges for Canadian youth to be able to compete internationally and for others to look into second careers if they need to change careers. “We have asked the institutions to tell us what do they need to be the best in the world, to identify the areas where they need funding, and we have given tools to our youth to be the best educated people in the world. These investments are making Canada the most competitive jurisdiction of the world,” Mr. Calandra says.

In a 451-page budget, opposition says there are no new dollars for overseas visa offices to expedite immigration of parents and spouses from overseas. The government recognizes that Canada seeks qualified people from all over the world, but does not recognize their credentials when they come here. MP Calandra notes that the federal government has been working with its provincial partners to recognize foreign credentials. MP Calandra, who sits on Standing Committee to Citizenship and Immigration, says that the government has made drastic changes to make immigration to Canada “faster and more responsive to what Canada needs.”

“We have given parents’ the choice to choose when it comes to early child care,” Mr. Calandra says. Liberals have been promising change in child care for years without doing anything about it. They have never come up with a plan that suggests where the dollars for child care would come from. He says the federal government continues to work with provincial governments to give more options to families. He points out that the federal government has given tax cuts to working families and has reduced GST. Nonetheless, the opposition is firm in saying that the Conservative government has done next to nothing for working families and everything for big oil companies who do not need government’s support as much as the working families do.

When it comes to climate change, he says that Canada is working with the US and its international partners to develop green technology, to invest in chemical energy to provide funding for the improvement of the Great Lakes and to work on targets that can be fulfilled.

Many newspaper articles have been written on how the Conservative government’s two attempts to thwart the Parliament can hurt the Canadian democracy that we so much believe in. MP Calandra says “the first prorogation was the direct response to the opposition parties’” to throw the government. And so the Prime Minister has to do it. “It’s part of our constitution and every government has used and every government will continue to use it,” he says. Mr. Calandra notes that the government wanted the MPs to work in December, however the opposition members of Parliament unanimously voted against it. Back in June, the government wanted to extend the days of the Parliament, however the opposition members of Parliament refused at that time also.  And the Conservative government is working aggressively to bring about democratic reform in the Senate, he says.

Author: Asma Amanat

Of all the long laundry-list of things mentioned in the throne speech and budget, the most talked about was the possible changing of the lyrics to our national anthem. I prefer to discuss the budget and the lack of details the Conservatives offered.

The Governor General delivered a lengthy throne speech – the fifth from Stephen Harper’s government. It was 23 pages of rhetoric with no substance, clearly an attempt to justify their unnecessary and unneeded prorogation. This was followed by a budget that outlined the financial priorities of the Conservatives.

Sadly, they continue to favour the big banks and oil companies by handing them more tax cuts on a silver platter. This comes at a time when Canada’s banks are already reporting doubled profits over last year and now they’re getting billions more in tax giveaways. I don’t know why this government keeps dishing money to those who don’t need it while ignoring those who do. These billions in tax cuts to the big banks won’t help one senior in poverty and won’t create a single new job for an unemployed Canadian. And the worst part is that we are going deeper into debt to give it to them.

In their budget announcement, the Conservatives failed to address climate change, failed to protect private pensions or improve public pensions, and failed on job creation.

The Conservatives did take a few modest steps in the right direction. They claim they will create a new civilian, independent review and complaints commission for the RCMP. We’ll just have to wait and see whether it’s going to be another toothless watchdog.

We’re pleased that the government sees the Child Tax Benefit as inadequate, but an extra $3.25 a week isn’t going to help struggling families. This is clearly insufficient. Why don’t they give that $3.25 to the banks and give the billions to the families?

I noticed there were many other important issues not addressed, including no funding for a homelessness strategy, no funding to study climate science, no funding or plan for maternal health or childcare (although the Prime Minister loved chatting about both last month in Davos, trying to convince the world he cares about women and children in developing countries).

As the budget is written, there is no way the NDP can support it. Our party just can’t support something that doesn’t help the innocent victims of this recession but rewards those who brought it on. We want to make Parliament work for all Canadians so we’ve moved an amendment to the budget, calling on help for seniors, shelving the corporate tax handouts, investing in job creation and strengthening our commitment to a clean-energy future.

As with the throne speech, the budget lacks a coherent vision. This was an opportunity for the Conservatives to make important choices – stay the course with its current failed policies or ensure Canadians benefit in the economic recovery. Again I note, the Prime Minister made women and children from developing countries a priority for the G8 agenda just last month in Davos, but there is nothing in this budget to help them here at home.

And how can we even take him seriously on democratic reform, considering he’s prorogued twice in the past two years and has appointed his pals into the unelected Senate, which he promised to eliminate?

The Parliamentary Budget Officer already blames reckless tax cuts for a structural deficit as deep as $19 billion. Yet the Harper government is promising yet more spending on corporate tax cuts that will total more than $6 billion in the next two years. They’re robbing our economy of stimulus, and they’ll leave another generation of Canadians to cope with the consequences – unemployment and deteriorating services.

Mr. Harper, banks and big oil don’t deserve more of the government’s generosity.

And don’t get me started on changing the national anthem!

Author:Rupinder Kaur

Even though it makes my job as a member of the Official Opposition a little easier, I am genuinely disappointed that this Conservative government didn’t hold true to the principles that brought it to power.

And I’m not even talking about their abject failure to be fiscally responsible, their total inability to be smarter and leaner with government spending, or their enthusiasm for patronage and pork. I’m referring to the basic premise of the old Reform Party, the call for a government that is open, accountable, and respectful of democratic values and the rights of its citizens.

Instead, over the past 4 years, Stephen Harper has carefully nurtured and encouraged a level of cynicism about politics and politicians heretofore unseen in Canada. With only lip-service to the actual Conservative principle of less government, he uses his petty group of yes-drones to make people believe less in government.

Simple, short-term policies chosen for maximal communicability with minimal real impact were the first step (think GST cuts instead of income-tax cuts, or 100$ child-care cheques instead of actual child-care spaces). Add to that a propensity to launch vicious personal attacks on anyone –politician or citizen– with the temerity to disagree with them, and the tried and true Bush-era tactic of loudly repeating semi-truths and falsehoods often enough for them to take hold, and it’s no wonder that a weary populace has been turning away from the goings-on in Ottawa.

The fact that Stephen Harper didn’t anticipate the strength of the prorogation outrage is proof that he overestimated the effectiveness of his campaign of induced cynicism. And, yet again, he underestimated Canadians’ faith in our democracy. Because for all the undeniable short-term voter-suppressing impacts of wedge issues, of attacks ads, and of the politics of division, Canadians resist because we know that we deserve better.

We are a people of differences, in languages, religions, backgrounds, histories, cultures, and colours, but we are a people bound together by values that run deeper. We are open, compassionate, and generous. We seek justice, liberty, and opportunities for all. But above everything, we respect each other, and demand that respect in return.

And that’s why Stephen Harper’s strategies of secrecy, small-mindedness, and cynicism will ultimately fail, because simply put: Canadians will never trust a government that does not trust Canadians.

Author:Justin Trudeau, MP for Papineau,Elected on October 14th 2008 as Member of Parliament for Papineau, Justin Trudeau is passionate about engaging young Canadians in politics.

The 32 year old baby-faced Toronto City Councilor Adam Giambrone is back in his office, still retaining his position as a Chair of Toronto Transit Commission (TTC). He broke down in a press conference after a sex scandal broke out. He was also a Toronto mayoral candidate. His campaign evoked images of Mr. Barrack Obama’s presidential campaign of “yes we can.” His campaign spoke to youth in an environment where people especially youth are apathetic to political process. Youth was hoping to follow him on Twitter and to grow farms at Farmville and to watch him on youtube. All these hopes shattered when his campaign wrapped up without completing ten days. Ambitions of youth fell apart. He could have been an inspirational and motivational politician for next generation to look up to.

But that did not happen. In fact in a few seconds politicians made statements discrediting his services, pointing fingers at his incompetence and so on. Wasn’t there a time not too long ago whereby seniors and adults were there to advise and to teach their juniors.

Adam Giambrone’s fall is not his alone. It is of next generation of aspiring politicians’ also. His demise has a greater impact for youth who are struggling – extremely hard – to make mark in their communities. And I wonder if I am even right in considering Giambrone a member of Generation Next. Because when we tell advertising agencies and corporate clients and the members of community that we represent young adults and young professionals in their twenties and thirties, Generation Next – the only South Asian magazine targeting and reaching out to these young professionals – is disregarded as a “kids’ magazine.”

Of course some of it is a ploy used by competitors who would use any dirty tricks to degrade Generation Next and thus the next generation. Some of it is ignorance of how big a consumer market young adults make and how the future of our community, our nation and our country rests on South Asian young adults. These young adults are the builders of the nation as we have a greater number of people retiring. These young professionals would be building a stronger Canada by working in telecom industry, in cable companies, in banks, in hospitals, in schools, in sports, in fashion, in arts, music and theatre. Yet, Generation Next is told – especially by the advertising agencies handling corporate clients like banks and telephone companies – that their client is not interested in targeting youth. Isn’t this unbelievable? Shouldn’t this outrage all of us? Shouldn’t this infuriate our parents who work so hard so that their kids can be educated and get jobs, however the government and the corporate Canada that deals through advertising agencies – which do not, by the way, do their homework – thinks that youth is not work investing.

I am curious to know if anyone – in Canada and abroad – can disregard Sidney Crosby, a 23-year-old player that hit the winning stroke in Canada’s national game in Olympics. I would really like to know an agency, a sponsor, an individual who would not want to invest in this young man or in his team for that matter. I would be grateful to anyone who can explain to me why corporate Canada has not launched any media campaign to outreach to the youth, to the South Asian youth, to a community that is a fastest visible minority growing in Canada, or is the decision left up to ill informed planning/advertising agencies who do not bother to do their home work.

I would like to note that my sister has graduated with a major in accounting. She is 21. She has been offered a $40,000 job as a beginner. She is using a cell phone that she thinks suits best for her; she chose the network she will buy it from at the age of 18; we are the ones who highly suggested to our father that he buy a Toyota that we should have a cable that has desi channels and HBO and in another couple of years, she would be buying a condo of her own, looking for mortgage companies, car of her own and an insurance company that fulfills her need. And, yet, youth is not a consumer and corporate Canada and the government does not feel that money should be invested in the youth, and the magazine that represents them.

In one of media get-togethers, the Honourable Jason Kenny, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and Multiculturalism, honoured the community press for highlighting the issues of the community, issues that the mainstream media does not cover. Well, Minister Kenny, I am raising another issue here. Why is youth being disregarded? Why is a paper that wants to engage youth at all levels of society humiliated by being labeled as a “kids’ magazine?” And why are a bunch of ill-informed people being allowed to make decisions on Canada’s future.

And, we all know that it is a politically correct thing to say that youth is our future and we should invest in them, yet when the time to invest comes, youth is not a buyer, not a consumer, nowhere.

I don’t believe we can make Sidney Crosby by having this attitude. And I am sure many – almost everyone – would agree.

Author:Asma Amanat

The Bharatiya Janata Party has triumphed with its tactics. It has emerged as the real opposition. After losing in the last parliamentary election it was keen to win over the Left which could give the BJP, rightist in outlook, an image of being liberal in economic matters.

The BJP has triumphed with its tactics. It has emerged as the real opposition: Kuldip Nayar. — Photo by Reuters

It has finally duped the communists into believing that its agenda on India’s development is more or less what the Left is following. In fact, efforts to woo the communists began in the last session but bore fruit only during the budget. Both found common ground in their hurt.

This was visible in parliament when the BJP and the Left rose together in the two houses against government price hikes, shouted in the same vein and walked out hand in hand on the first day of the budget session. It was more or less the same story on subsequent days. Apparently, the two had met beforehand and consulted each other to finalize their strategy. Both parties were seen coordinating on the floor, suggesting who would speak when from amongst them.

No doubt the topic was the inept handling by the inept government of price increases and abnormal inflation. The BJP also brought the India-Pakistan secretary-level talks into the discussion. Yet the Left did not realize that making common cause with the party that has communal credentials may rub off on the secular ideology of the communists. Why couldn’t they retain their identity in parliament and still criticize the government? They would have found support in Mulayam Singh’s Samajwadi Party and, possibly, Lalu Yadav’s Rashtriya Janata Dal.

It is not known what advantage the communists saw in diluting their identity through association with known rightists. But the BJP leaders have already gone to town propagating that the Left has come to their side. People are confused because they cannot reconcile themselves to what they have seen on television: the BJP and the communists thumping the table to congratulate each other’s speeches, attacking the treasury benches in tandem and jointly raising anti-government slogans.

When the vision gets blurred and when political parties think of their immediate gain, the pluralist Indian nation has every right to be worried. It has seen the communists hugging BJP members who swore at their Indore sitting a few days ago to build the Ram temple where Babri Masjid once stood, to have a common law in place of personal laws and to abolish the constitution’s Article 370 which gives Jammu and Kashmir a special status. The communists forgot to underscore any of these points during the debate and did not realise that their bonhomie cannot disguise the BJP’s parochialism. There is no change in the party’s core agenda.

The BJP’s appeal to Muslims to allow the building of the temple may have been worded differently but the content remains the same. The party should recall that it came to power only when it put aside its three-point agenda. In doing so, the BJP got the much-needed credibility to attract secular parties, except the Congress and the communists, to support a government led by the relatively moderate Atal Behari Vajpayee. True, the BJP honoured its promise of not touching the issues of mandir, common law and Article 370. Yet the party ‘saffronised’ all other fields, particularly education and the information and broadcasting ministry.

It looks as if the communists have let the BJP off the hook on communalism. Battering the government for its non-performance is justified but not so sharing the platform with a party, which has been openly taken over by the RSS. Surely the communists, after the rout in the Lok Sabha elections, have not strayed from their ideological moorings so much that they want support from known communalists. How does the Left square with a party which hates communism and all that it preaches?

Word also has it that the entire opposition revolved around the India-Pakistan talks. Even if the communists have a different viewpoint, they have not made it clear. They looked like going along with the BJP’s haranguing. Talks between the two countries are yet to get into stride. The communists should have stood at a distance when the BJP spouted venom. Meanwhile, Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi has unnecessarily introduced China in the bilateral talks. He has given a “blank cheque” to China to play a role in improving Indo-Pak ties, knowing well New Delhi’s stand against mediation.

Unfortunately a Muslim gathering, the National Meet of Reservation Activists (NMRA), has given more fuel to the BJP and the Shiv Sena by passing a resolution demanding that 10 per cent of seats be reserved for Muslims. Even a banner at the meet said: National Movement for Muslim Reservation. Backwardness can be a criterion but not religion. Some high courts have already rejected religion as a basis for reservation.

The constitution makes it obligatory for the government to address the problems of poverty and educational backwardness. The NMRA should have concentrated on getting reservations on non-religious grounds. The RSS, the BJP’s mentor, has now begun propagating that reservation will lead to another partition and induce Hindus to embrace Islam and Christianity.

The Sachar Commission on the plight of Muslims was correct in diagnosing the malady. It pointed out how the community had been denied a proportionate share in education, economic benefits and services. However, the subsequent Ranganathan Commission recommended reservations for all minorities on the basis of religion.

India is a pluralistic society and it cherishes diversity in the name of religion, language and customs. The community consciousness which the reservation activists are trying to arouse may deliver a serious blow to pluralism. The same old question of separate identities will come to the fore when there should be only one identity: Indian. Reservation for Muslims may open a Pandora’s box of communal and divisive politics.

Yet the 12 to 13 per cent Muslim population in India should be reflected through its numbers in employment in the government and private sectors. The community’s share should also be tangible in the economic field. There is no alternative to affirmative action. The government has done little since the submission of the Sachar Commission report two years ago.

However, mixing the genuine aspirations of Muslims with religion will be misdirecting the effort to find a remedy to long-time neglect. The louder the reservation activists raise their voice, the more favourable will be the fallout for the BJP. A pluralistic India cannot afford it. Nor can its Muslims.

Author:Kuldip Nayar

Anti-Americanism has always existed in Pakistan. One can explain this with reference to a number of factors, especially the divergence in the perspectives and goals of a superpower like the United States and a developing country like Pakistan that has regional/local interests.  As a matter of fact, both countries often complain about each other’s policies.

We do not intend to get into the history of the relations between the United States and Pakistan to understand why despite cooperation in many fields both diverge in some policy matters. The focus of this article is on the developments in their relations in the present-day context and why has anti-Americanism increased in Pakistan over the last couple of years.

A current controversy in Pakistan pertains to the presence of United States private security personnel in Pakistan. The polemical exchanges on this issue caused temporary strains in the relations.

The criticism of the presence and activities of United States personnel in and around Islamabad, Peshawar, Lahore and, occasionally elsewhere is not merely limited to Islamists. A large number of others in the politically informed circles express varying degrees of apprehension of what they view as unjustified and unnecessary American presence in Pakistan.

A combination of Islamist and nationalist sentiments on these issues has provoked ultra-nationalism in many parts of Pakistan, especially in the Punjab, where Islamist and rightist sentiments are relatively strong.  This disposition expresses serious doubts about the United States policies towards Pakistan.  This perspective is also supported by a section of liberal/left that continues to entertain the old-fashioned notion of the United States as an Imperial Power.

Such anti-U.S. sentiments run deep into official civilian and military circles where strong doubts are raised about the U.S. policies towards Pakistan and especially about the increased presence of U.S. personnel in Pakistan.  The intensity of criticism varies. Most Islamists describe the U.S. presence in Pakistan as a major threat to Pakistan’s internal security and especially to Pakistan’s nuclear program. Others are less suspicious but their skepticism is noticeable.  Some Pakistanis with military and intelligence background view American personnel as a possible source of rogue operations and one of the possible causes of the suicide attacks at the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad and Pearl Continent Hotel in Peshawar.

Islamic parties and groups are in the forefront of anti-American campaign. There are two major reasons for the resentment of Islamic groups and parties.

First, the Islamists have been the main losers of Pakistan’s participation in the U.S. sponsored ‘war against terrorism.’ They were the main allies of the U.S. until 1990 when the U.S. pulled out of Pakistan. However, most of them continued to enjoy the support of the Pakistani state because Pakistan was relying on different Islamic groups for advancing its foreign policy agenda in Indian-administered Kashmir and Afghanistan. Pakistan was the main supporter to the Taliban movement (1994-2001). Pakistan joined the war on terrorism and turned its back the Taliban which made the Islamic groups unhappy. However, the government did not push the Taliban very hard and kept good relationship with the MMA, a coalition of 6 Islamic parties. It was from 2007 that the relations began to deteriorate between the Taliban and the government of Pakistan.  The Islamic parties opposed Pakistan’s counter terrorism policy because they lost their importance. They thought that Pakistan was doing this on the behest of the U.S. and thus also turned their guns against the U.S.

Second, the Jamaat-i-Islami and other Islamic parties openly opposed the security operation against the Pakistani Taliban in Swat. However, the public response was not favorable to their support for Taliban. They changed gears and began to target more the U.S in order to cash on anti-U.S. sentiments. They argued that the Taliban are friends of Pakistan but those engaged in bombings and other violent activities are not real Taliban but the hired agents of the U.S., India and Israel that want to destabilize and undermine Pakistan.

These parties get more response for criticizing the U.S. rather than on criticizing the Pakistan military for its anti-Taliban operations.  Some of anti-Americanism can be attributed to the failure of the government of Pakistan to explain the issue of presence of U.S. private security personnel in Pakistan.

It seems that sections of the Pakistan government, especially the ISI want anti-America sentiments to stay strong in order to counteract the repeated U.S. demand to Pakistan to “do more” for counter-terrorism and periodic complaints of alleged ISI links with some Taliban and other militant elements. The ISI has used its links in the media and with some sections of the political activists to play up the criticism of the U.S. This discourse also focuses on the drone attacks in the tribal areas and the case of Dr. Afia Siddiqui.

It is interesting to note that in the recently held by-elections in Rawalpindi the candidates of the Jamaat-i-Islami and the Pakistan Tehrik-i-Insaf (Imran Khan) lost miserably. Both parties are known for sympathy for the Taliban and anti-U.S. sentiments.

Anti-America sentiments are expected to persist in Pakistan but their intensity will dilute as the Pakistan military secures more successes against the Taliban in the tribal areas and the U.S. initiates more human welfare and development projects in Pakistan.

Author:Dr. Hasan Askari

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police; just saying their name brings the iconic image to mind: a tall man in scarlet, on a horse with his Stetson firmed on his head. This is probably the most recognized image of Canada after our flag, totem poles, canoes and zamboni machines.

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police needs to look like Canada

The RCMP was created in 1873 – a Canadian institution that is now 137 years old. Over those years, it grew from policing on the Prairies, focused on cracking down on illegal whisky trading, and bringing law and order to the Klondike gold rush – to becoming a federal police force with jurisdiction in eight provinces and three territories, and operations directed at organized crime, terrorism, drugs, white-collar crimes and protecting the integrity of Canada’s national borders.

I was surprised to learn that their work isn’t just limited within Canada. During the 1990s, the RCMP significantly expanded its peacekeeping role in countries such as Haiti, Namibia, Kosovo and East Timor.

With such an expansive responsibilities across the country, the RCMP needs to boost its ranks by 5,000-7,000 and hire more women and people from diverse communities. All Canadian institutions should prioritize the need to reflect Canada’s changing population. Women have been shattering the glass ceiling over the past decades and now it’s time to extend a hand to Canada’s minority groups and encourage them to break their glass ceilings.

Earlier this week, Liberal Senators released a report with several recommendations on how to improve the RCMP. Many those recommendations echo the NDP’s proposals, including ways to improve leadership, accountability and morale at the RCMP.

The RCMP is facing some serious challenges. It needs to improve public confidence, and to bolster morale within the force. The NDP has identified five key improvements that need to be made. These include implementing full civilian oversight and allowing independent investigations into allegations of police wrongdoing; improving the leadership within senior management; and halting the closure of rural detachments and increase staffing levels to at least three members in all detachments.

To increase staff levels and include minorities and women, the RCMP should hire from those non-traditional groups.

A proud moment for Sikhs, not only in Canada but around the world, came when Baltej Singh Dhillon was allowed to serve as an RCMP officer with his turban in the 1990s. He started chipping away at the glass ceiling and now it is crumbling and allowing more fresh faces into the force.

Born in Malaysia and immigrated to Canada in the early 1980s, Mr. Dhillon had ambitions to become a lawyer. He volunteered in the community, helping the RCMP launch a Block Watch program. He was eventually recruited and hired by the force.

I wish the story was that simple. Sadly, it’s not. Although Mr. Dhillon met all the physical and psychological requirements to become an officer, the RCMP had a policy that would not allow turbans. Then-RCMP Commissioner Norman Inkster sided with Mr. Dhillon and started putting pressure on the federal government to change its policy.

As you can imagine, this created a storm of controversy. The ignorant opposed the change and believed the Stetson was an integral part of the uniform and that allowing the RCMP to change that would forever tarnish the face of our national icon.

Countless petitions were sent to MPs – both pro and con of the change. Heated and hostile debates took place all across the country from radio stations to kitchen tables.

Finally, on March 15, 1990, the federal Solicitor General, Pierre Cadieux, announced in the House of Commons that the policy would be amended to permit Sikhs the right to wear the turban while on active duty.

Today, these proud moments and victories continue but not at the rate of Canada’s growing diversity. The RCMP is a celebrated institution in this country – it’s about time it realized the glass floor beneath its feet no longer exists.

Author: Rupinder Kaur

It was just days after the Conservatives took office when the Harper government affirmed its position on early learning and childhood education. In a press release issued by the Conservative party, they claimed their plan would “let parents choose the child care option that best suits their family’s needs.”

It was a clever way to create misconceptions about early learning and childhood education that would win them political points. By suggesting that the cancellation of the national program gave working families a real choice with their children, they could imply that any government initiative for early learning was imposing one standard, big government approach to early learning and childhood education that did not reflect the needs or values of working families in communities across this country.

Now, with young two income families still bearing the brunt of the effects of the recession, it might be high time to debunk the myths and take a good hard look at how successful their approach has been after four years in government.

Myth Number One: This is not about your child – it is big government stepping in where it has no place.

Let’s be clear, what matters most are the best interests of our children. That’s something on which we can all agree. By starting your child’s education at an earlier stage it gives them a head start – one they’re going to need to reach their full potential and compete with kids around the world for the jobs of tomorrow.

In study after study, the evidence is conclusive: early learning and childcare programs only benefit our children’s learning and development experience and will only help them excel later in life. Our children are the future of our country; they deserve the best possible start.

Myth Number Two: Working families lose the option to raise their kids the way they choose.

A Liberal plan for early childhood education has always been about choice, but the difference lies in it being real choice, grounded in a fundamental respect for families. In order for any early education program to be successful, it will always have to be coordinated at the local level, more specifically by the communities who are actually faced with delivering these programs. Early learning and childhood development must be implemented by those who know best – those who live and work in the neighbourhoods across this country. It is the community that implements the national standards; it will always be the cornerstone of any successful early learning strategy.

Myth Number Three:  A plan like this means more government spending at a time when we can least afford it.

What the Conservatives don’t want to tell you is that they never really did the math. Well, we did.

For every $1 million invested in early childhood education, we create 39.54 jobs; this is almost 10 times the number of jobs generated by $1 million invested in construction spending.

It’s an investment that will actually pay for itself and more. The most reliable Canadian study reveals that for every $1 invested, it will return more than $2 to the economy through increased workforce participation of mothers and reduced expenditures on informal care.

Myth Number Four: Four years later, their plan is a success.

The Harper government has been claiming their plan, in concert with the provinces and territories, has been responsible for increases in childcare spaces ever since they took power. However, the numbers say something different when you factor in the crucial issue: increased demand. In 2007, there were 837,923 regulated child care spaces in Canada, representing an increase of 26,661 spaces since 2006. In comparison, between 2004 and 2006, supply grew by an average of 32,668 a year and between 2001 and 2004 by an average of 50,831 a year. When contrasted with the real demand for childcare spaces, we’re falling far behind.

Just how far was illustrated by a 2008 UNICEF international study, Canada’s provision of early childhood education and care ranked at the very bottom of 25 developed countries.

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development also affirms that federal investment in early childhood development and the percentage of children in regulated spaces is one of the lowest of the thirty member nations.

We can do better. We owe it to our kids to give them a fighting chance to compete for the best opportunities in a global economy.

A national program for early learning and childhood education has never been about big government deciding what is best for you. It’s about choice, it’s about communities, it’s about letting our kids become the best they can possibly be.

Author:MP Mike Savage is the Official Opposition Critic for Human Resources and Skills and is the Chair of the Liberal Caucus Committee on Post-Secondary Education and Research.