The Canadian Parvasi - Issue 94

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The International News Weekly Edit 06 May 17, 2019 | Toronto The w w w . canadianparv asi. c o m Publisher & CEO Associate Editor Editor (India) Online Graphic Designer Official Photographer Contact Editorial Sales Rajinder Saini Meenakshi Saini Gursheesh Kshitiz Dalal Naveen Bashir Nasir editor@canadianparvasi.com sales@canadianparvasi.com Breaking Free Confronting tough economic challenges, next government must demonstrate boldness and vision The din of a bitterly contested election has relegated economic news to the background. This reprieve won’t last. The budget – due in a few weeks when the next government is sworn in – will be prepared against worsening economic indicators. High frequency indicators show the economy has lost momentum. Retail sales of motor vehicles contracted by 8% in April, a sign of weak consumer demand. This signal is reinforced by slowing momentum in sale of consumer goods. A positive takeaway on the economic front for NDA was a perceptible drop in the rate of consumer inflation, helped by a fall in the price of oil and food. The next government may have a tougher time as the geopolitical situation in west Asia is deteriorating fast. It’s shown up in the form of a firm trend in oil price which today is around $70 a barrel. Independently, food prices have begun to rise again. In April, rate of food inflation at the wholesale level increased for the fourth straight month to touch 7.37%. In the face of big economic challenges, what is bound to flop is a business as usual approach by the next government. Incremental changes will not lift sentiments. Something must be done to ignite animal spirits in the economy, which India hasn’t seen for close to a decade. The next government should change the mood at one go with a move which transforms the optics. Air India should be privatised forthwith, as a signal of the government’s intent to sell public assets. Unlike the last unsuccessful attempt, no onerous conditions should be linked to its sale. Along with it, regulations which inhibit competition and investment in aviation and other sectors should be removed. This will not just lift the mood, it will also provide the government with additional resources to provide public goods in the form of infrastructure. Better infrastructure is the key to enhancing export competitiveness at a time of escalating trade tensions between the US and China. India will benefit hugely if it can position itself as an attractive investment destination for companies looking to relocate production from China. Slashing red tape and simplifying complex GST rules will also help. The next government must demonstrate the vision and courage to break free from the statist dogma which has held India down. TNN Obsessing On The Nehru-Gandhis If invoking them positively is kosher, then criticising their legacy has to be legitimate too Vaibhav Purandare A recent visit to the Nehru Memorial Museum in New Delhi made me think of how, after the death of India’s first Prime Minister, his successor Lal Bahadur Shastri wasn’t allowed to move into the PM’s official residence – Teen Murti Bhavan – owing to Indira Gandhi’s insistence that the house be converted into a memorial for her father. Teen Murti Bhavan, a verdant 30-acre property where peacocks still roam and mynas make their music, had been the residence of the commander-in-chief of the Indian armed forces during British rule, and Jawaharlal Nehru had moved there only in August 1948, for the first time occupying a space far grander than the bungalows other ministers in his government had (he had lived in one of those bungalows until then). The past has a strange way of impinging on the present. This 1964 incident instantly drew me back into the hubbub of the Lok Sabha poll campaign, bringing to mind Rahul Gandhi’s comment about the armed forces not being the PM’s “personal property”. The truth is that with Rahul as a contender for power, the past has a bearing certainly on the present, but on India’s future too. Rahul was chosen to contest the Amethi Lok Sabha seat in 2004 because he was a member of the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty, and he was later appointed Congress general secretary, vice-president and president on the same grounds, becoming the fifth member of the clan to occupy the party’s top post. If he’s making a claim to power today, it’s again on account of his being the son, grandson and great-grandson of former PMs. If lineage and the record of that lineage is a person’s calling card and family experience the sparkling point on his CV, then surely, in that same pack will be found by his political rivals other cards which would help them pose a challenge to the dynasty-led party. And if Congress’s assertions are about Nehru’s vision, Indira’s will and Rajiv’s ushering of India into the computer era, an opponent’s offensive would be centred around their flaws and foibles. Moreover, if the family’s been in power, directly or indirectly (counting the terms of Congress PMs like PV Narasimha Rao and Manmohan Singh and non-Congress ones like Chandrashekhar, HD Deve Gowda and IK Gujral) for over 50 years out of 72, an audit is both inevitable and imperative. That’s why those who are strenuously objecting to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s, and BJP’s, attacks on the Nehru-Gandhis are either missing the point or attempting to give credence to the dynasty’s misconceptions and denials. The Nehru-Gandhis and the so-called ‘left-liberal’ social-political-intellectual elite they’ve patronised are more than approving of a discussion on the dynasty’s legacy so long as it doesn’t get inconvenient. When Rahul and Priyanka Gandhi Vadra talk of their forebears’ contribution to India and their sacrifices, their admirers want more of it. When the Marxists, who’ve had a neat and successful pact with the Congress establishment on the capture of institutions and creation of national narratives, hold forth on the Nehruvian order and how it nourished institutions, the inheritors are delighted. The ‘cultural synthesis’ of the Marxists and the ruling establishment saw to it that the Nehru-Gandhis virtually monopolised free India’s consciousness. Textbooks were written to maximise their role in building India, while that of other eminent Indians was minimised; roads, places, landmarks and institutions named after members of the dynasty further amplified this image; and things reached a point where the dynasts were described, in strictly feudal terms ironic for those who swore by socialism, as India’s First Family. Revolutionaries, reformists and other Congress stalwarts of the freedom movement like Patel were made to appear smaller, and if Mahatma Gandhi still remained symbolically tall, it was because invoking his name – and surname – was hugely advantageous. Now, neither Rahul nor Priyanka can be blamed as individuals for where they were born. But they haven’t had issues with people’s “obsession” with their family if the result is abundant acclaim and applause, and there’s no denying the dynasty acquired, in time, a reputation for rewarding sycophancy and punishing non-conformists like Narasimha Rao. They themselves aren’t known for linguistic restraint either. In his first speech as Congress president, Rahul referred to VD Savarkar as someone who kowtowed to the British, and he’s kept up this criticism; Congress on Twitter labelled Savarkar a “traitor”. Rahul’s freedom to offer his interpretation of history is complete. But then how is it such a monstrosity if, the moment Rahul talks of India entering an era of dictatorship, someone reminds him of an era of constitutional dictatorship? Or if the minute he talks of an individual assuming far too much centrality in decisionmaking, DK Barooah’s “Indira is India, India is Indira” comment is pulled out? Or if, whenever Rahul mentions poverty, he’s told about a slogan raised nearly 50 years ago which had promised to end “garibi”? If national security’s an issue and 1971 a year to talk about, then 1962 can’t be too far behind; and if Hindu- Muslim tensions are up for discussion, then rivals can hardly be expected to help Congress skirt issues like Shah Bano, the ban on ‘Satanic Verses’ and reopening of the Babri Masjid’s locks. The same goes for a slur like “traitor”, thrown about carelessly by both sides. The level of discourse must indeed be debated, and criticism of crude remarks is only fair. What isn’t is the righteous indignation all around. Regardless of the outcome of these elections, there’s every reason for the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty to have been a subject of debate during the campaign. Source Credit: This article was first published in The Times of India. Parvasi weekly & people associated with it are not responsible for any claims made by the advertisement & do not endorse any product or service advertised in Canadian Parvasi. Please consult your lawyer before buying/hiring/contracting through the advertisement Publised in this newspaper. The Canadian Parvasi is in the business of selling space and the clains made by the advertisement are not tested/confirmed by an independent source.
The International News Weekly world May 17, 2019 | Toronto 07 Trump to visit S Korea for talks on North’s nukes: White House Washington: President Donald Trump will visit South Korea in June to meet with his counterpart Moon Jae-in over their efforts to persuade North Korea to scrap its nuclear weapons arsenal, the White House has said. It will be the second meeting between the pair since the collapse of a summit between Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in Hanoi in February after they failed to reach a deal on denuclearisation. “President Trump and President Moon will continue their close coordination on efforts to achieve the final, fully verified denuclearisation of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea,” the White House said in a statement on Wednesday, using North Korea’s official name. The dovish South Korean president, who has long backed engagement with the nuclear-armed North, brokered the talks process between Trump and Kim, which led to their first landmark summit in Singapore last June. But security allies Seoul and Washington have at times appeared to diverge on their approach to Pyongyang, and Seoul’s simultaneous announcement of the visit was noticeably different in its phrasing. A statement issued by the South’s presidential office said the two leaders will discuss “establishing a lasting peace regime through the complete denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula”—rather than the North specifically. The “denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula” was the term used in the joint statement signed by Kim and Trump after their first summit in Singapore. But it is a phrase open to wide interpretation, and the process has become bogged down as the two sides disagree over what it means. In the past, Pyongyang has argued it must include the removal of Washington’s nuclear umbrella over the South and the 28,500 US troops stationed in the country. When US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo visited the North’s traditional ally Russia this week, Moscow’s veteran foreign minister Sergei Lavrov told him: “The leadership of DPRK expects certain guarantees of security of their country reciprocated by denuclearization, and that denuclearization should be expanded over the whole of the Korean Peninsula.” The White House said Trump’s trip to South Korea would combine with his visit to nearby Japan, where he will attend a G20 summit in Osaka on June 28-29. The Hanoi summit between Trump and Kim broke up after the pair failed to agree on what Pyongyang would be willing to give up in exchange for relief from sanctions imposed over its nuclear and missile programmes. Since then, Moon has tried to salvage diplomacy between the two mercurial leaders and flew to Washington last month for a brief meeting with Trump. His attempts have so far proved futile, with Pyongyang raising the pressure earlier this month week by launching short-range missiles in its first such test since November 2017. North Korea has repeatedly warned that it could take a different approach if Washington did not change its stance on sanctions by the end of this year. In a move that could further stoke tensions, the US announced the seizure of a North Korean cargo ship for violating international sanctions, which was slammed by Pyongyang as an “unlawful and outrageous act”. Abortion restrictions carry political risk for Republicans in 2020 Washington : The move by states like Alabama, Georgia and Ohio to impose drastic restrictions on abortion could bolster Republicans’ support from religious voters wary of President Donald Trump but risks alienating moderates, political experts said on Wednesday. Ahead of the 2020 election, when Democrats will try to parlay support among women voters to oust Trump from office, the issue of abortion is already featuring prominently in many Democratic candidates’ case to voters. Most of the Democrats seeking the party’s presidential nomination blasted the Alabama measure, which was signed into law by Governor Kay Ivey on Wednesday. The strictest US abortion law, it bans nearly all abortions in the state, even in cases of rape and incest. “This is risky for Republicans and could benefit Democrats,” said Joshua Wilson, a political science professor at the University of Denver who has written two books about the politics of abortion. Democrats have spent years arguing that Republicans are pursuing a “war on women,” trying to turn that fear into electoral support. Republicans have rallied their base by promising to roll back the legalization of abortion, building on strident opposition to abortion among evangelicals and the religious right. Democrats took control of the US House of Representatives in the 2018 midterm elections in a landslide fueled largely by strong support from women in suburban districts. “Republicans lost 2018 because of a record-breaking gap among women, and now they’re doubling down on that problem and pouring gasoline on the fire,” said Democratic strategist Jesse Ferguson, who worked for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign and on previous campaigns for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. The new hard-line abortion laws could bring some benefits to Republicans, however, said Andrew Lewis, a political science professor at the University of Cincinnati, who wrote a book about conservative Christian politics and abortion. Trump’s appointment of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court to replace Anthony Kennedy last year has created a conservative court that many activists believe may make overturning the 1973 landmark abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade a reality. “I expect that these strict restrictions on abortion will shore up any potential cracks in conservative Christian support for the Trump campaign,” Lewis said. “The momentum around conservative Supreme Court appointments and state-level abortion restrictions will justify why many have supported Trump.” The change in the court may be motivating Republicans to push through the bills more than electoral politics, said Claire McKinney, a professor of government and gender, sexuality and women’s studies at William & Mary College. Abortion foes say the various bills are intended to draw legal challenges, in hopes that a case will land before the Supreme Court. “This moment in abortion politics is unprecedented,” McKinney said. “I would speculate that these policies risk larger turnout in favor of Democratic candidates for the majority of Americans who do not support criminalizing abortion.” While there are strident opinions on both side of the abortion debate, most people operate in a “mushy middle,” the University of Denver’s Wilson said. They disapprove of abortion, but do not think it should be illegal. Those are the voters Republicans stand to lose by passing laws that legitimately endanger abortion rights, Wilson said. “If Democrats can really capitalize on that,” he said, “they could mobilize moderates against the Republicans.”
Page 1 and 2: www.luxurylights.ca 905-856-9999 La
Page 3 and 4: The International News Weekly Canad
Page 5: The International News Weekly May 1
Page 9 and 10: The International News Weekly india
Page 11 and 12: The International News Weekly May 1

The Canadian Parvasi - Issue 94

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?