Where are India's Democratic Values? (Photo: BBC)

While the international community was quick to react to the recent violent crackdown on pro democracy protesters in Burma, the most obvious voice, the voice of India, the world's biggest democracy, was missing. The first ever statement that appeared from the neigbouring nation appeared on Wednesday, that too, in response to pressure from the West urging India, along with China, to use its influence in support of people of Burma.

"We are concerned at the situation in Myanmar and are monitoring it closely. It is our hope that all sides will resolve their issues peacefully through dialogue," said External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee in a short public statement made on the subject so far. "As a close and friendly neighbor, India hopes to see a peaceful, stable and prosperous Myanmar, where all sections of the people will be included in a broad-based process of national reconciliation and political reform. Myanmar's process of national reconciliation initiated by the authorities should be expedited."

The statement comes from the same nation, which was once the first neighbouring country to criticise the Burmese military government during the 1988 people’s uprising. It was India that backed the democracy movement led by Aung San Suu, the celebrated opposition leader, who was awarded the Jawaharlal Nehru Award in 1993.

So what has changed? India reviewed its policy towards Burma in the early '90s and shook hands with the military regime. The world's second most populous country’s interest in defending its political and financial gains was motivated by Burma's importance to its rival – China. India is competing with China to gain access to Burma's sizeable gas and oil deposits, as well as expanding trade with the regime in quite a few other areas such as arms, telecommunications, according to campaigner Matthew Egan. They are also issues with a cross-border insurgency movement where the regime has cooperated to help tackle insurgents in the north-east of India.

"It is very disheartening to see such a (cold) stance," said Egan, who is involved with Burma Campaign UK. "If India starts to criticize the Burmese government they fear that they will lose economic and political influence to the Chinese in Burma, despite the fact that they are a democracy themselves."

"They do have an opportunity to use their leverage as a major investor in Burma to help bring about a move to a national reconciliation by encouraging the military to release all political prisoners and start a meaningful dialogue with Aung San Suu Kyi and her supporters," he added.

India is becoming one of Burma’s largest export markets. India and Burma have set a $1 billion bilateral trade target in 2006-07, almost double their trade in 2004-05.

Some campaigners fear that most of the investment into the country is not spent on the population, but is seen as a means to provide a lifeline to the regime, to solidify their own position.

"An effective array of economic sanctions and arms embargo might be the only way in getting the regime to shift and start talking, as currently they are quite secure as they as foreign investment allows them breathing space.”

India should be setting a good example by upholding democratic values, rather than allowing human right abuse, or else, its image as the world's largest democracy would not only be tarnished, but will also be questioned, both at home and internationally.

Playing Cricket or Politics (Photo:Flickr)

A Bangladeshi friend, consoling me over India’s knock out from the World Cup, said to me, “Hey, don’t be mad. The Pakis are gone as well.” His comment made me wonder if the elimination of Pakistan (our arch rival, as most Indians would say!) from the tournament was really going to do the magic for me and make me think any less about the disasters of our team? More than that, has the dirty politics preyed upon our minds?

Almost 60 years after the independence, relations between India and Pakistan still remain hostile. The issues regarding the most debated region, Kashmir, still remain unresolved. The Pakistanis argue that Kashmir should have become part of Pakistan at the time of partition due to its Muslim-oriented population. India claims Kashmir to be their part because of the Instrument of Accession signed by Maharaja Hari Singh in October 1947. The dispute on the territory has caused two of the three India-Pakistan wars: the first in 1947, the second in 1965.

Due to this historical anonymity, governments of both nations have continuously blamed each other for any terrorist attacks in their respective countries, making the other one look like the culprit. Many patriotic Bollywood, commenly referred to as "Hindi cinema," often shows Pakistan playing “the villain,” promoting terrorism in our country and killing our people.

Absorbing everything we are fed with bodes well for the politicians, who have built their careers on the rhetoric surrounding the Kashmir issue and nationalism. We allow them to play with our unquestionable nationalistic sentiment and before we know it, it is reflected even in cricket. Of course, it is a different story when there is a battle between India and Pakistan on the cricket pitch, but we can not even bear the thought of our neighbor-country winning against another far-stretched country simply because we are out.

I hope that our cricket team isn’t going to use my friend’s rationale in making themselves feel good, but rather going to take their ouster from the World Cup as an opportunity to reflect on their weaknesses and do something about their performances in the future.

I also hope that we question these politicians, who are good at blaming others for all their policy failures, and not doing much to resolve the issue itself. All we need is peace and not a political agenda that provokes our nationalistic sentiment.

Your Stunts (Photo:Flickr)

Chancellor Gordon Brown on Wednesday laid out the budget plans for 2007. While his intentions may have been to “expand prosperity and fairness for Britain's families,” there was a bigger motive behind it all.
That motive was to appeal to majority of Britons to win back support from his opponent David Cameron, leader of the Conservative Party. Not a bad stunt, Chacellor!

After 10 years in power, the ruling Labour party is trailing terribly in the polls and is trying its best to be in the power after Tony Blair resigns in September. Majority of Britons have condemned the government for the Iraq war, hike in council taxes and scandals involving the “cash-for-honours.”

Cameron has battered Brown's support in polls both in popularity and reputation for managing the world’s fifth-largest economy. An opinion poll by ICM Ltd. showed 41 percent of voters support the Conservatives while Labour had 31 percent.

The Treasury, which has been in deficit for the past five years, is struggling to pay for Brown’s programs while meeting rules to keep a lid on debt. The government's deficit will total 118 billion pounds in the fiscal years through April 2011. In December, when Brown announced an extra 7 billion pounds in borrowing, he said there would be a 108 billion-pound shortfall over that period.

While Brown is appealing hard to gain votes, he really needs to convince Britons that he will be able to make a difference in their lives. Making an excellent speech isn’t going to trick many, he needs to convince the people that he is here to make a difference and will “build a stronger shared national consensus around future priorities,” as he promised in his speech. Easier said than done - good luck, Chacellor!

Past is Past (Photo:Flickr)

Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe earlier this month said there is “no evidence” that women were forced to become sex slaves by the Japanese army during World War II.

It is indeed embarrassing when the premier of a nation makes such ignorant remarks, while his government in the past has recognized its atrocities and apologized for running brothels for its Imperial army troops. Not only that, the government also set up a special fund in 1995 to compensate women affected during the WWII.

An estimated 200,000 women from Asia – mostly Korean and Chinese - were forced to work as sex slaves during the WWII.



Some in the government probably realize that Abe`s comments were not appropriate considering the strained relations Japan has with its neighboring countries. Therefore, a Japanese Cabinet spokesman appeared later to play down Abe's comments by saying the premier stood by an apology made by the government in 1993 for the use of so-called "comfort women".

While my advice to Abe would be to be consistent with the government’s stance and to embrace the truth, I would also like to advise China and South Korea to move on.

I am not trying to ignore the gravity of the problem, but I would stress that while the new generation should know how ruthless the Japanese were during the war, they should not be paying a price for it.

Germany committed ghastly crimes during the WWII and killed millions of Jews, but they don’t apologize anymore. Past is past, and while we should embrace and accept it, without denying it, we should also learn to move on and not dwell on it.