A question of accountability

What is the relationship between political and civil servants? Though the relation cannot be defined clearly, we can at the least see the difference arising in the type and extent of this relation. Once the gap between the administrators and politicians was large and was bridged only by the mutual trust and respect of one another's role, but the times have changed from 1980's onwards. Uprising of several regional parties, which had no long term goals, hence lesser respect for rules and regulations, gave a way to the current system where civil servants are ought to do what they are told do. The mere puppet image of civil servants with strings being pulled by political leaders, is quite clear with examples at hand, such as of the suspension of an officer in Uttar Pradesh and action against other in Haryana and several others.

The Supreme Court's recent judgement, on the basis of demand by several retired senior civil servants, to rule in greater order and transparency in transfers and postings is highly welcomed by the media and other bureaucratic members of the society and its institutions. However, it won't be an easy task to implement its instructions. The author discusses the various reasons why the task at hand is a difficult one-

First, there is a serious disjoint between the political hierarchy and the administrative sector. The recent scams such as the 2G case, Coal and mining scandals, and Commonwealth Games case are the correct mirror of the current status of this relationship. Secondly, the problem is of politicisation of the civil services. Close proximity of civil servants with the political parties can result into compromise in decision-making. And finally, the biggest question arises that who is accountable? As long as the wrong-doer doesn't gets punishment for it, the system won't change and neither will they fear the consequences of there choices. The strings have to be taken from the hands of political governance and civil services be left free, for the betterment of the society as well as the democracy.

Post-Taliban Afghanistan, 12 years on

The author here tries to find the answers to some long and wary questions about the past, present as well as future of Afghanistan. First of all he answers that why did the United States and its allies go to Afghanistan at all? Well, with the aim, to weaken the roots of terrorism and make a global impact in mind, U.S troops were sent to get rid of Al Qaeda. For this the operation Enduring Freedom was launched against all terrorist groups and allies.

The United Nations Security Council made ISAF(International Security Assistance Force) for the security of Kabul and surrounding regions, in 2001. Even after such large number of trained troops and their unending efforts, Afghanistan remains in shabbiness of terrorism. Why? The major reason can be attributed to the initial neglect of Afghanistan by The U.S and shifting its attention to Iraq, leaving the conditions worse at Afghanistan. It was wrongly believed that the leftover in Afghanistan will be taken care of by Pakistan, which undoubtedly led to more terrorists trained, nursed and infiltrated into Afghanistan.

In 2002, Afghanistan was ready for any changes coming its way. But instead of an action by the U.S military troops then, change came with Taliban restructuring itself bringing the worse old days back. 

Also, there has been seen leakage in the system of United States acting against these terrorists. The 2008 U.S Commission reported a fraud of $12 billion, of which some is said to have benefited the terrorist groups.

Of the many important questions, the one inevitable to ask is what stance does the world take on Afghanistan as a community? The least that can be said is that it must not be abandoned, rather be supported and be relieved from the control by the outside powers. India too must act on this soon enough to prevent it from turning into a nightmare similar to Pakistan.

For Afghanistan to be economically sustainable, it must become a hub to fulfill needs and create demands, along with acting objectively on the issues of terrorism.

Opinion polls: the way forward

The recent proposal of completely banning the opinion polls hasn't received good public or parties(other than proposing it) reviews. The act casts a shadow on the existence of freedom of expression and thereby on the persistence of a better democracy. Some of the facts appropriately discussed by the authors throw a better light on what is the importance of opinion polls and what problems are in the way of genuine and reliable poll industry.

First is that a democracy certainly needs a systematic collection of public opinions. Many a times people need to understand what and how others are thinking, to make up their decision. And this is the only way by which the poor and the unrecognised can have an equal say, especially in a society like India where often the news is made on the views of the few elite. Secondly, opinion polls are quite an exact way of data collection. Though such polls do not affect the winning or losing side by much, but it somewhat aids the poll winner by getting some attention. And then finally, we look at the problem of non-transparency and non-professionalism in case of some poll holders. The polling agencies are unwilling towards revealing their polling methods and factors on which the results are produced. So, this causes rogue polls mixing up in the wave of genuine polls, making the reliability of opinion polls weaker.

Though whatever be the motive of proposing  parties behind the ban, some intervention is definitely required in this sector. Banning the opinion polls totally wouldn't be the right way out, rather generating fixed guidelines and rules on running the polls would definitely regulate the system. Some mandatory disclosures which can be asked of the polling agencies as proposed by the author are the ownership details of the polling organisation, details of sponsors, sampling frame and size, social profile etc. So, what matters is regulating the system in the right direction instead of framing a total ban on it.

Seven billion people, seven billion terrorists

The author condemns the act of spying on nations by the NSA(National Security Agency) in the name of security. The documents leaked by Edward Snowden show that almost all ally countries of U.S and other big names in the world, including the not so big names i.e the whole population of certain areas have been under a secret lens of NSA. And the spy game has a long time dimension. Personal phone calls of German Chancellor Angela Merkel have been followed for over a decade. Though she was ridiculed of not taking a stance against NSA until she realised that she herself was under the monitor. With millions of phone calls and e-mails been monitored, Spain and France are also big-time victims. Officials of EU countries too had their phone bugged by them for a long time.
Where are they searching for criminals, when they can find them right in the mirror. Not only the security services but the telecommunications corporates and internet giants like Google, Microsoft, Facebook etc. are also guilty, as they provided data which they are not supposed to.
GCHQ (British Government Communications Headquarters) are now finding ways to keep their ways out of courts, because they know they'll be deep into legal challenges over the clauses of Human Rights Act.
There had been one other whistleblower named Peter Wright, an ex-MI5 officer, who published his memoirs to take a revenge to his unsettled dispute over his pension with his former employers.
Though a review of NSA activities report to be submitted to Barack Obama is due on Nov. 11, we see a little to come positive as only a part of the content would me made available to Congress for the report and the panel includes largely of former security officials.
What's needed is to ask them that do they have the right to peek into our personal calls and e-mails and still wander off easily? Do they have the right to overrun our rights? And foremost what is the limit of a nation's security agency, does it exceed the borders and our personal domains? The author calls the NSA a modern-day-cyber-Taliban, which we all shall totally agree to.

Al-Qaeda's corridor through Syria

In this article the concern revolve around the present war-stricken situation of Syria and Iraq, due to the ever-growing hold of Al-Qaeda there; as well as Syria becoming a ground for al-Shams and ISIS leaving behind the Free Syrian Army. 

The author starts to explain the current situation by citing the example of ISIS attacks on Iraq checkpoints along Highway 11 and another unsuccessful attack to take hold of Highway 12. In the attack on Highway 12, the ISIS had a plain usual but threatening strategy of using gunmen, suicide bombers and other weapons. 

ISIS has been reigning the country which has an already stabbed body, and trying to take it over by any means. And its missions have been successful, like its Expunging Filth operation of expelling Free Syrian Army units from northern Syria. According to the International Crisis Group, ISIS is the most powerful group in northern and eastern Syria. What ISIS benefits from, is the peaceful relations between other Islamist groups.

The recent mission led by ISIS to free 500 prisoners from Iraq's Abu Ghraib jail by using car bombs, suicide bombers, and gunmen was a hit and turned these prisoners into Al-Qaeda's fighters, definitely a calculated profit. The money coming from foreign fighters and the already warriors of Syria have been ISIS's greatest advantage. 

Despite all this happening in Syria and borders, Saudi Arabia would maintain its stance and won't allow ISIS overthrow its government. But, the change of destiny of Syria, of not being attacked by U.S has definitely disappointed Iraq. History as well as present has been bloody there, and no one sees anything better coming in near future. 

A blot on progressive societies

The author terms death penalty as a blot on our progressive societies which still haunts the most important and basic right of humans in several places around the world- Right to Live. According to the statistics, 150 of the 193 member-states of United Nations have abolished the death penalty. The stance of countries being abolitionist (in favour of abolition of death penalty), retentionists (against abolition of death penalty) or de-facto abolitionists (which have not abolished death penalty by law, but in fact do not practice it ) is widely varied throughout the globe.

Countries in South and Central america were the first ones to enter the list of abolitionists. Still large variation in can be seen among United States on their stance on the subject. Most of the Caribbean countries have not seen a case of death penalty since many years. Europe, with an exception of Belarus, is totally abolitionist. On the other hand, the statistics are high on Asia, with China, Iran, Korea, Iraq, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Vietnam on the top of the list. There has also been a shift in the voting in U.N General Assembly towards abolishing death penalty, as countries realise the soul importance of right to life.

Now, the still retentionist countries, must realise that death penalty is not a punishment but a consequence of not being able to deal with the crimes. It is the most immoral and also an irreversible punishment, which does not do justice to the laws of nature.

A pound of flesh to feed the poor

The Doha Development Round at WTO(World Trade Organisation) has been on the table since a decade, with no forthcoming results. The West demands developing countries like India, Brazil and China to remove the import barriers and allow more access to their markets; whereas developing countries demand the West including US and EU to remove the large subsidies they provide to their rich farmers. But neither bargain has been fruitful. Now, is the time when US can win on both sides because UPA is ready to bargain on any terms to have its Food Security Act get working before the upcoming elections.

Mr. Jayant Dasgupta, India's permanent representative to the WTO in Geneva, states that this bargain has nothing in it for the developing countries. Still, to ensure that their election campaigns go wild by the Food Security Act and India commits under the WTO AoA(Agreement on Agriculture), UPA is definitely laid down. This has many concerns coming up, of which the primary would be that the deal is unequal on the balance, and another important factor would be that it will affect the diplomatic relations with other developing countries having the same demands.

WTO has a limit set on the amount of support countries can provide  for an agricultural product under AMS(Aggregate Measurement of Support). But the AMS rule is obsolete as the 'external reference price', an important factor in deciding the amount of support, is based on 1986-88 levels when the world food prices were low. Any alternative solution can be found only when these prices are updated to the current global prices. Also, UPA has to look far beyond the elections, towards what's good for the nation.