My recent reading of an article detailing the amount of money squandered on the cleanup of the Ganges River prompted me to look into the conundrum. The Ganges is one of the most critical rivers in India – economically and culturally. It begins its journey in the Himalayas and ends up in the Bay of Bengal.
Along its over one and a half thousand miles long course, it serves as a source of irrigation for most of the farmland in the plains of North India, hosts large population centers, and draws in millions of religious Hindus and foreign tourists every year.
As expected with any major river supporting commerce, urban centers, and tourism, the Ganges is one of the most polluted rivers in the world and has stubbornly maintained its notoriety for many decades.
According to one estimate around $735 million has been spent on the cleanup of the Ganges River since 1986. Narendra Modi’s appointment as the Prime Minister of India in 2014 saw a budgetary allocation of $3 billion towards bringing the much-revered river back to life. Over two years in, the cleanup operation is behind schedule and rudderless, while having utilized a billion dollars of the allocated money.
This comes as no surprise because that’s how government projects unfold. They are third party purchases where the government uses money it doesn’t own to buy goods and services that it doesn’t consume. Neither does it care about the price, nor does it obsess over the quality.
Bureaucrats burned over $65,000 (a significant sum in the Indian context) on holding a meeting to discuss the cleanup project. A large chunk of the sum was spent on paying for officials’ travel expenses. Floral decorations, an unnecessary fixture, cost 10 times what it would have cost on a first party purchase.
In an exhaustive article published in The New Yorker, George Black, meticulously walks the reader through the details of pollution, while weaving in the political and cultural forces that are intricately connected to the current morass.
The origins of the Ganges’ pollution can be traced back to four chief activities: waste (human and non-human) from religious rituals, crematory debris, industrial effluence, and raw sewage from urban population centers on the banks of the river.
The Ganges is the one of the most sacred elements of Hindu mythology. It’s no wonder that it is often apotheosized and is referred to as ‘mata,’ meaning mother. Hindus from all over the country descend upon the Ganges at specific points along its course (which happen to be major population centers) to pay homage and wash themselves (literally) off their sins. The result is heaps of paper, plastic, flower petals, and other materials that make up a standard religious offering, clustered at the banks, forming a thick layer on the water, disrupting the flow. Not to mention, people don’t hesitate to relieve themselves whilst standing in the water.
For a devout Hindu, being cremated on the banks of the Ganges is the most sublime farewell they can hope to get. Thus, the riverbank, at certain locations, is dotted with funeral fires with ashes flying around and settling on the water, giving the surface a matt grey appearance. Once the fire dies out, the leftovers – a mix of ash, un-burnt wood, and human remains – are thrown into the water.
The riverbanks are a perfect place for setting up industries and factories. With a large, unmonitored flowing body of water available to the factory owners, disposing of industrial waste is a breeze. The bustling city of Kanpur along the banks of the Ganges is famous for its leather tanneries – a multi-billion dollar export industry. But the tanning process is chemically intensive and heavily polluting. Only a third of the tanneries treat the waste before dumping it into the river. The others just let it run off untreated through open surface drains/gutters and sluiceways.
Varanasi (Benares) is a city of immense religious importance to Hindus. This city exemplifies the ‘Indian exotica’ that many tourists come over to visit. But built in ancient times, it’s full of narrow alleys that make up a Byzantine network. Due to structural impediments and a deeply corrupt and incompetent government, the city doesn’t have a sewer system and relies upon open surface drains, natural gradients, and sluiceways to direct untreated, raw sewage into the river.
In some ways, the Ganges suffers in a similar manner as did the River Thames in the mid-nineteenth century. And just like the inept British government at the time failed to clean up the Thames, so does the inherently corrupt, incompetent, and indolent present-day Indian governance flounders with the Ganges.
And just like a radical reform helped clean up the Thames, a similar profound change of gears might just revive the Ganges. I am speaking of using the principles of free markets and limited government to tackle this sticky and stinky problem.
The first major step will require ‘privatizing’ the Ganges. Although its sounds heretical, we need to be realistic and take note of the fact that places of worship under private management are often maintained in pristine condition.
The course of the river could be broken down into segments based on the purpose it serves and could be leased out to companies that specialize in clean up and management of natural resources. The bidding process should be accessible to both domestic and foreign competitors. Firms should be free to manage the allotted segments as they wish so long as they don’t hurt the environment, neighboring businesses, and people’s religious sentiments. The firms could generate revenues out of making access to the riverbanks a paid and gated affair. They should also be free to impose reasonable restrictions on activities that produce huge cleanup costs and untoward environmental consequences.
Thus, private firms will treat the land and water resource as business, attempting to reap profits out of managing them, and in turn achieving the desired environmental goals.
Segments that are utilized for irrigation and industrial setups should be leased off to appropriate contractors, perhaps in the waste management and irrigation solutions industries. The tanneries could be introduced to contractors in waste treatment to come up with mutually agreeable solutions to tackling waste dumping. Mandating tanneries to have their own treatment solutions could incentivize a cooperative effort between them and the waste treatment firms.
Using a private-public partnership model (PPP), a modern underground sewage system, including treatment plants, could be planned out for the numerous population centers that dot the banks of the Ganges.
Oversight of the above contracts and processes should be handled by environment watchdogs, comprised usually of concerned private individuals, or by professional private auditors. The overseers should report to the independent, constitutionally-sanctioned environmental watchdog and judicature – the National Green Tribunal (NGT).
The NGT, at present, doesn’t have the judicial prowess and reach of a court of law. With ambiguity surrounding the jurisdiction and judicial reach of the NGT, the legal framework for environmental crimes is fraught with loopholes and question marks.
Conferring the NGT with judicial legitimacy, clarifying its jurisdiction, and ordaining it as an environmental crimes’ special court will go a long way in ensuring compliance on the part of all actors in the marketplace.
Appointing a diverse jury of civil engineers, activists, environmental engineers, and scientists will help develop a well-rounded perspective on cases.
Big-box contractors should be introduced to startups, of which there are quite a few, to develop innovative solutions to commonplace problems like water surface litter management and leaching of industrial chemicals in the water amongst others.
While the free markets aren’t a panacea to all problems, they have shown to produce better results than central planning or the lip service of a politician occupying the bully pulpit. With the government failing to deliver results after over thirty years of different attempts at the hands of several administrations and bucket loads of money thrown down the drain, it’s about time to give the ‘invisible hand’ a try.
The man who saved the world from Pakistan
But for a few brave souls like Frits Veerman, Pakistan would have become the world’s most frightening nightmare. Not that it is not today but it could have been worse: we could have been facing a nuclear Armageddon now.
Veerman, a professional photographer in Amsterdam, was one of the first to ring warning bells about Pakistan’s skullduggery in stealing nuclear documents, materials and technology to build its own nuclear bomb. His warnings were brushed aside, he was forced to keep quiet, sacked and harassed to no end for speaking the truth. In a just world, he should have been hailed as an icon of courage. He died in relative obscurity recently.
His story will, however, continue to live, a story of courage to speak out in a world where truth often falls to realpolitik. When Pakistan was running a big nuclear smuggling ring from its diplomatic missions and other agencies, governments and security officials in different parts of the world chose to look the other way. In fact, many connived in the colossal thievery. They knew what Khan and his associates were doing but business and political interests trumped over reason.
Veermen was the only one to say that `the emperor was naked`. He could have easily succumbed to pressure or greed but he did not, and even at a great cost to his life, he chose to speak out, rather than keep quiet.
Veerman discovered the Pakistani game when he was a young professional photographer in Amsterdam. He used to work at a consultancy firm, FDO (Fysisch-Dynamisch Onderzoek), as a technical photographer. An important client of FDO was Ultra Centrifuge Netherlands which was part of a top secret project run by a consortium of Dutch, British and German scientists at a nuclear plant in Almelo. In May 1972, a young and charming Pakistani scientist, Abdul Qadeer Khan joined the team as a translator of technical documents. He soon became friends with Frits Veerman. He took pictures of centrifuges for him. The two shared an office and met at dinners in the evening. Veermen was introduced to Khan’s wife and two daughters and often went to their house for dinner.
Khan quickly expanded his circle of friends and he would freely access areas at the nuclear plant which were hitherto prohibited. It was sometime in 1973, a year after the Pakistani joined the consultancy firm, that Veermen had his first doubts. He thought there was something fishy about the manner in which the Pakistani was charming his way through the rank and file of the establishment.
It was two years later that Veermen’s suspicions became stronger. He realised that the young Pakistani was in fact a thug–he was stealing classified papers from the plant. This happened one day when he went to Khan’s house near Schiphol airport for dinner.
What he saw took his breath away. He saw top secret centrifuge drawings lying around in Pakistani scientist’s house. They were supposed to be at the plant and locked up in vaults. As Veerman later recalled in an interview with BBC, “That was my biggest worry, what was he doing with those drawings? All the little pieces of the jig-saw put together made me come to the conclusion that Abdul was spying.“ Khan asked him to photograph the documents for him but Veermen refused. He also happened to overhear a telephonic conversation between the Pakistani and his old professor in Leuven about sensitive centrifuge matters. Veerman lost no time in reporting the matter to his superiors. His seniors heard him out and told him to keep quiet. He was asked not to speak about what he saw and found to anyone.
In late 1975, when AQ Khan realised that he was coming under greater scrutiny from a multitude of agencies, he took leave from the office, and along with his family flew back to Pakistan. He never returned. What many did not realise for some time was that Khan had smuggled out precious drawings and a no less useful rolodex of key suppliers of nuclear material and technology in Europe and elsewhere.
But Veerman had not heard the last of Khan. From Pakistan, his former friend wrote to him frequently seeking answers to technical questions about nuclear technology. When he showed one such letter to his superiors, he was asked to burn it. Less than a year after Khan fled Amsterday, FDO held a meeting on the issue where Veerman repeated his assertion that Khan was a spy. Veerman later gave a statement about Khan to Dutch police. But, as Veerman were to find out later, his blunt accusations did not endear him his superiors or others in the government. In fact, the nuclear consortium and consultancy firm, FDO, were delighted when Khan sent his emissaries with a long list of items and work he wanted to contract to European firms. Soon after, Khan’s technicians began arriving at FDO to take a “ “a course in ‘how to build an ultracentrifuge’’, Veerman commented.
In 1978, Veerman lost his job. No reasons were given but he knew he was being sacrificed for speaking out against Khan’s smuggling ring and the complicity of the nuclear plant officials as well as government authorities. The powerful nuclear industry lobby did not want any investigation because it would have exposed its laxity and complicity. The government too was not keen on any probe because it would have been embarrassing and would have impacted diplomatic relations with some countries. So they all kept quiet. The one man who spoke was asked to shut up.
In 1983, during a meeting with FDO officials, when he realised that his only crime was his outspokenness, Veerman was furious and decided to tell the story to a Dutch newspaper. But nothing came out of his expose and he quietly retreated to a lowly paid job and into obscurity. The state, however, chose to punish him further–he was put on an international watch list and for many years questioned by police whenever he travelled abroad. He was stalked by the police. In one such instance, his family in a car was stopped by armed police.
It was only in 2016 that his role in breaking the world’s most dangerous nuclear smuggling network was acknowledged by the authorities. The Whistleblowers Authority, a Dutch institution created in 2016, came to the conclusion that Veerman was unfairly treated at the time, as it considered it likely that whistleblowing was the reason for firing him in 1978. A recent report of the Huis voor Klokkenluiders, the Dutch Whistleblowers Authority, showed that the agency had finally absolved Veerman of any charges and in fact pointed out hy he, and not Khan, was punished.
In many ways, Veerman’s honesty and tenacity saved the world from even a more dangerous Pakistan. His act of courage deserves international recognition.
Pakistan and Germany are keen to Sustain Multifaceted and Mutually beneficial Cooperation
Pakistan has varied history of relationship and cooperation with other countries in international arena. Despite of proactive foreign policy Pakistan has been struggling to acquire global or regional status as a major power. Now in the age of globalization, the foreign relations between states have become more significant than before. Global and regional organizations, societies, economic zones and countries have network to attract and develop relationship among them. A major goal of Pakistan’s foreign policy is to develop good relations with international community and to handle global and regional issues. Activism of Pakistan‘s foreign policy reflects on the domestic socio-economic development. The national interest of Pakistan also support to regulate inputs from the external atmosphere into internal situation and to strive security and territorial integrity in the region and glob which always remained top concern of Pakistan. As bearing geo-strategic position, Pakistan seeks good relations with regional and global powers like America, China and European Union. Within European Union Germany has emergence as the developed economy in Europe. It is not only playing vital role within European Union but at the global level. Pakistan is also enjoying cordial relations with Germany on the base of common interest and perception on all international issues. Germany is also very keen to see sustainable development in Pakistan and acknowledges that the Pakistan is playing constructive role for regional peace. Germany greatly values Pakistan intense to strengthen multifaceted and mutual beneficial cooperation. Both the countries have been engaged on political, economic and socio-cultural partnership.
In past, East and West Germany had tilted towards forming alliance with India in 1950s but in 1960s, President Ayob Khan‘s visit to West Germany established economic relation between both the countries. Post Pak-India war 1971, East Germany was the first country of the Europe who recognized Bangladesh. During 1990s, Pakistan and Germany established Pakistan German Business Forum and Germany had become the fourth largest trade partner of Pakistan in 2000. Germany also was ally of Pakistan in the war against terrorism in the north-west part of the country. Since the last few years, both the countries developed trade relations as well as Germany invested in the field of science and technology in Pakistan. On August 24, 2014, Germany built Pakistan Gate in Berlin to provide business and trade facilities to the businessmen of both the countries.
In November 2018, Pakistan offered Germany to join CPEC and to invest in the Special Economic Zone (SEZs). The mutual trade between both the countries enhanced to 3.0 billion euro in 2019.In 2021, Both Pakistan and Germany are celebrating 70th anniversary of establishment of bilateral relationship. Both the countries are planning to undertake several activities in this regard. Last month German Ambassador visited Karachi Chamber of Commerce and industries to call German companies, entrepreneurs and investors to earn from the potential and opportunities which are available in Pakistan and to bring business communities of both the countries more closer as well. Foreign minister of Pakistan has visited to Germany and meeting with business and members of Pakistani community. The foreign Minister held meetings with the leadership of Germany and repeated the desire of expansion of bilateral economic activities and exchange of technology. Both sides also discussed rapidly changing situation of Afghanistan and South Asian region. During the discussion, Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi and Foreign Minister of Germany Heiko Mass, Pakistan and Germany agreed to review the entire gamut of Pakistan-Germany relationship and tools of further deep bilateral cooperation in the field of trade, investment security and defense, health, education, tourism. The mass of both the countries want to utilize the potential of good relationship but it is observed that both sides have lack of political hierarchy, dedication and sincerity in past. The development and expansion of bilateral relationship lies on the path of peaceful coexistence and serious changes in the socio-economic structure is needed. Peace process with the neighboring countries like Afghanistan and India may attract Germany to invest in CPEC projects and other local project of education, vocational training, dam construction, tourism and economic activities in Pakistan. There is a need to organize a forum for the students and scholars of both the countries could interact and exchange their expertise for academic, economic and technology growth. There is potential of people to people interaction and development of cooperation between Pakistan and Germany. Pakistan may be more benefit from the relationship with Germany if the serious efforts be made on government level.
Modi’s Illiberal Majoritarian Democracy: a Question Mark on the Future of Indian Minorities
The word majoritarian is an adjective which relates to or constitutes a majority, majoritarian politics, or majoritarian democracy. It can be defined as a traditional political idea, philosophy or a practice according to which any decision whether political, social, or economic of an organized society should be made by a numerical majority of that society or it can be defined as a traditional political philosophy that stresses that a majority usually branded by religious, language, social class that also includes other recognizing factors of individuals in a society are subject to a level of superiority in a society because of which they have a say in every affair of a society. The concept of majoritarian dispensation in India under Narendra Modi has deep links with four other political philosophies i.e. Populism, Nationalism, Authoritarianism, and Sultanism. Before exploring Narendra Modi’s majoritarian policy of governance in India and its effects on the future of Indian minorities, I will first uncover the link of majoritarianism to political philosophies as mentioned.
A majoritarian leader is actually a populist leader who works hard for the concerns of people that who thinks are being ignored by the established elite groups in a society, and who always present himself as a new man mostly of a modest and plebeian background against old political establishment, in spite of the fact that who is a seasoned political figure, but usually not centre stage. This is exactly what Narendra Modi is, because in his 2014 election campaign, he presented himself as a new man against the Ghandi’s family’s old political system despite the fact he was CM Gujrat at that time. He also presented himself as someone who belongs to a very plebeian background that he had to work in his father’s tea shop when he was a child. Whereas, nationalism is a political idea or a philosophy that promotes and protects the interests of a particular nation, nationalism is the bedrock of most of the populists and NarendraModi is no exception. NarendraModi is a majoritarian national-populist leader who since his childhood has been the member of RSS, and now is a full time pracharak of RSS ideology that stresses that Hindu are the true and only sons of this Indian soil.
Majoritarian national- populist leaders like Narendra Modi are basically authoritarian leaders who reject political pluralism, and this is exactly what Modi is doing in India.Modi and the BJP has made it clear that no other party should compete with it, or is even needed, as indicative from its slogan of a ‘Congress Mukt Bharat’ (a Congress-free India).Whereas, Sultanism is a form of authoritarian government and according to Max Weber NarendraModi is a new sultan of India who is pushing India towards illiberal democracy by rejecting all kind of civil liberties particularly of Indian Muslim minority.
Modi’s majoritarian policy of governance in India is basically the promotion of majoritarian democracy that asserts Hindus a special and superior status in India because they constitute 80.5% of total Indian population and that this majoritarian policy protests Hindutva ideology that stresses that Hindus are the only sons of this soil and that strengthen the Hindu community. This majoritarian democracy is a big question mark on India as the world biggest liberal democracy because continuous violence, rejection of civil liberties, and crimes against the minorities that are Muslims, Sikhs, and Christians have been on the increase. About 1.8 million people who are minority communities are tortured in police custody every year. The word murder of minorities has been replaced by the term encounter killings. Torture have increased to such a huge extent that it questions the credibility of the rule of law and criminal justice. Hindu nationalists are revolting all around India especially against Muslims because they are the largest minority in India constituting 13.4% of total population and because Hindus have resentment toward their religion, Christians and Sikhs are no exception to their violence because they too constitute 2.3% and 1.9% of total Indian population.
Unfortunately, India under Narendra Modi is crawling from the world’s biggest liberal democracy to illiberal majoritarian democracy which is promoting and safeguarding only Hindu’s civil rights and liberties and that which is negating minority’s civil liberties and civil rights especially rights and liberties of Muslims of India. One such example of this is the Citizenship Amendment Bill (CAB).Under the act, for the first time in India, religion is a basis for granting citizenship. According to some this citizenship amendment bill by BJP is an intentional act in order to marginalize Muslims from mainstream politics. In addition to this, Muslims are not only being tortured at their religious places for their religious affiliations, but they are also being tortured at their educational institutions which is evident from a video of 15 December 2020, where Delhi police brutally tortured Muslims students of Jamia Millia Islamia university.
Keeping in mind Narendra Modi’s illiberal majoritarian democracy, the future of liberal democracy or pluralistic India appears to be gloomy, where the future of Indian minorities especially Muslims is a big question mark.
Virtual-Reality Leaderships Await Digital-Guillotines
When national leadership starts acting more as if Virtual-Reality based illusionary leadership games, it calls immediate testing to ensure digital...
How COVID- 19 weakened American leadership
Unlike Hollywood movies where Americans have the lead in saving the world, the crisis of the corona virus pandemic has...
Moroccan-African Diplomacy in King’s Mohamed VI Era
Incredibly, every move and shift in Moroccan politics has been attached by the irresistible projection of foreign policy in terms...
Africa – A Continent with No Desire to Develop Economic Independence
After the Soviet collapse, Russia has maintained strong and time-tested relations with African countries, and of course, the Soviet Union...
North Korea’s Nuclear Threat and East Asia’s Regional Security Stability
Authors: Raihan Ronodipuro& Hafizha Dwi Ulfa* The East Asian region’s anarchy system is colored by mutual distrust, which makes the...
Suez Canal Shutdown revealed the importance of the Middle Corridor
On March 23 of 2021, a container ship called the “Ever Given” ran aground in Suez Canal, one of the...
U.S. Gov’t. Walks Back Lie Against Russia But Says that Russia Must Be Apologizing
On April 15th, the Biden Administration, which has been saying that Russia probably placed a “bounty” on corpses of U.S....
Americas3 days ago
Biden’s Dilemma: Caught Between Israel and Iran
Intelligence2 days ago
Covid 19 and Human Security in Anthropocene era
New Social Compact2 days ago
Athletes knock the legs from under global sports governance
Africa1 day ago
Russia reappears in Africa
Defense1 day ago
Pakistan Test Fire of Shaheen 1A: Revalidating the Minimum Credible Deterrence Posture
Defense1 day ago
A Provident Posture for Israel: Facing Nuclear Iran as an Intellectual Problem
South Asia1 day ago
The man who saved the world from Pakistan
Russia1 day ago
Reigniting the Civil War in Donbas: Reminiscence of the Crimean Annexation