Health

Take care of your health

Nature of life

It goes on.

Future

welcome to the future

Present

Future just ahed

Feel

Save Nature

Monday, 1 February 2016

‘Bid to make non-Dalit a Dalit’

ABVP activists burn Congress vice-president Rahul Gandhi in effigy for his alleged mockery on Rohith Vemula's suicide issue, in Bhopal on Sunday.

A day after External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj said that Rohith Vemula — the Hyderabad University student who allegedly committed suicide — was “not a Dalit,” BJP spokesperson Shahnawaz Hussain saw the political controversy around his death as a bid “to make a non-Dalit a Dalit.”

“We are not doing any politics on it, but people are showing a non-Dalit as a Dalit. We are just responding to the political propaganda,” Mr. Hussain told The Hindu. “For us, as the Prime Minister said, Rohith Vemula was a son of Mother India.”

Political parties are generally not keen to take a line contrary to the dominant public discourse on an issue seen as related to Dalit sensitivities, and the hardening of the BJP’s line is surprising observers. Some Dalit leaders within the BJP had also been uneasy with the party’s bid to brazen it out after Mr. Vemula’s death.

The party defended Labour Minister Bandaru Dattatreya’s letter to Human Resource Development Minister Smriti Irani and the HRD Ministry’s missives to the Hyderabad University as routine official letters on complaints.

BJP insiders explain that the party sees the controversy as part of a sustained attempt to malign the government by painting it as either anti-minority or anti-Dalit. “There is a conspiracy to malign the government on issues that have nothing to do with the Centre,” BJP secretary Shrikant Sharma told The Hindu. “From the fake campaign around Church attacks, to the returning of awards, to the death of this student, there is a conspiracy to allege a BJP design in everything wrong. While we are saddened by the student’s death, we strongly disapprove of attempts to politicise it.”

The gale called Bernie Sanders


When a breath of fresh air shows signs of acquiring gale-force proportions, a nation sits up and pays attention. Thus it is with the U.S.’s only Democratic Socialist contender in this year’s race to the Oval Office, Bernard ‘Bernie’ Sanders.

Mr. Sanders, who has risen sharply in the pre-primary polling to pull up alongside arch-rival Hillary Clinton in Iowa and outstrip her in New Hampshire, has always been something of an enigma, both for his politics and his origins.

The U.S. Senator hails from Vermont, home to numerous frosty delights including the world-famous Ben and Jerry’s ice cream, heavenly ski slopes, and also the least religious population of any American state.

Though his antecedents may be cool, his energetic campaign to take on the runaway machines of rugged American capitalism and fight for the welfare of the middle class has fired up his supporters across the nation and put Ms. Clinton, the Washington insider, on notice.

It is evident from the Democratic debates held so far that Mr. Sanders easily combines a folksy appeal — the likes of what George W. Bush had — with his socialist vision for a more equitable American economy, whether in terms of free tuition at public universities, campaign finance reform, or single-payer health insurance.

An undefined “socialism”
However, it would be wise to not get carried away by what “socialism” means in Mr. Sanders’ paradigm, for if it ever became a reality, it would be a far cry from Vladimir Lenin’s Russia, or even Jyoti Basu’s West Bengal.

Yes, unchecked income inequality has consistently been a target of Mr. Sanders; yet he is hardly what one would describe as a radical leftist, certainly not compared to the Western European notion of that concept.

Mr. Sanders has almost deliberately shied away from offering a clear definition of his socialism, and his remarks so far reflect that he is aware of his audience’s general discomfiture with the term.

“When I use the world socialist — and I know some people aren’t comfortable about it — I’m saying that it is imperative [that we] create a government that works for all and not just the few,” Mr. Sanders said in November 2015.

Yet, earlier this month, the depth of his “socialism” was critiqued in an article by The Atlantic’s Ta-Nehisi Coates, who condemned Mr. Sanders’s dismissal of the idea that reparations should be paid to the descendants of historic racial injustice in the U.S.

Mr. Coates wrote, “What candidates name themselves is generally believed to be important... Is shy incrementalism really the lesson of this fortuitous outburst of Vermont radicalism?”

Indeed, it is quite possible that when Mr. Sanders announced his candidacy for the presidential nomination, he embraced socialism out of sheer pragmatism, as a label that would emphasise that he was cut from a different cloth of liberalism, and that would thus help him evade the inevitable comparison to Ms. Clinton.

However, this has left him vulnerable to penetrating questions from liberals regarding a range of issues on which his progressive credentials remain unproven.

Take gun control reform, an issue that has seared the conscience of the U.S. in recent years in the wake of a series of devastating shooting rampages at schools, houses of worship and other public spaces. Mr. Sanders came under a volley of criticism from Ms. Clinton early on in the debate season for his decidedly illiberal decision to vote in favour of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which was passed in 2005 and gave broad legal immunity to gunmakers and dealers from demands that they make their products safer or their sales better monitored.

In late January 2016, he backtracked and agreed to co-sponsor a bill that would repeal this very law he voted for, one that the National Rifle Association’s Wayne LaPierre described as “the most significant piece of pro-gun legislation in 20 years.” As a footnote, Ms. Clinton voted against the law.

On another hard-fought liberal issue, women’s reproductive rights, Mr. Sanders stood on firmer ground for always voting pro-choice in the U.S. Congress, but found himself tested last week when Planned Parenthood, a large, national federation of healthcare agencies catering primarily to women, issued a presidential endorsement of Ms. Clinton.

Mr. Sanders responded to the endorsement by calling non-profit organisations such as Planned Parenthood a “part of the establishment” that he was seeking to challenge, a war cry that puts a premium on being an Obama-esque outsider to the stilted politics of Washington’s Beltway.

Succeeding Obama
Is Mr. Sanders the true inheritor of U.S. President Barack Obama’s mantle of “hope and change?”

While the answer would depend on whom you asked, Mr. Obama appeared to teeter on the brink of revealing his preferred candidate when he met Mr. Sanders at the White House on January 27.

He said in an interview just before that meeting, “Bernie came in with the luxury of being a complete long shot and just letting loose. I think Hillary came in with the both privilege — and burden — of being perceived as the front runner… You’re always looking at the bright, shiny object that people haven’t seen before — that’s a disadvantage to her.”

In some ways, going by his campaign promises, Mr. Sanders is the better man to take the agenda of the Obama years forward, especially if that means filling some gaping holes that emerged during Mr. Obama’s reign.

One example would be going after what Mr. Sanders called the “casino capitalism” of Wall Street banks that resulted in the Great Recession of 2008; another, fulfilling that heretofore unrealised Obama promise to shut down Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba; a third maybe his call to let regional powers play a greater role in the fight against the Islamic State.

Contrarily, Ms. Clinton is the leader who would hold the nation firm to the Democratic Party’s broader agenda of supporting the middle class during tough economic times, protecting the American labour force from foreign competition, strengthening the government’s backing of women’s reproductive rights, and much more.

Face-off with Trump
A critical factor influencing Mr. Sanders’ surging popularity on the eve of the primary elections this week is the rise of Republican renegade and surprise front- runner Donald Trump.

Even as Mr. Trump has systematically denigrated Muslims, Mexicans and women, among others, Democrats close to the political middle, who fear a broader American swing to the right, may seek safe haven in the arms of the Vermont socialist.

However, if we step back from philosophical and policy issues, tactical voting logic favours Ms. Clinton as long as she and Mr. Trump continue to be the overall front runners.

Wavering Democrats may have no choice but to back her when they realise that for their party to mount a credible challenge to Mr. Trump’s far-right track, they must coalesce around the candidate closest to the political centre.

Only a candidate with the broadest appeal across the political spectrum could win over undecided and independent voters when they go toe-to-toe against Mr. Trump.

But even the canniest observers of the U.S. elections will concede that no outcomes, howsoever strongly suggested by opinion polls, can be assumed until the final votes have been tallied.

Mr. Sanders may or may not blaze a path to the White House but in winning even as much support as he has so far, he has tilted the political firmament in this election towards a more humane, less bigoted idiom, and that is welcome.


Greece’s crisis is an institutional one

George Papandreou, former Prime Minister of Greece during an interview to The Hindu in New Delhi. Photo: V. Sudershan

Former Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou was voted into office in 2009 and within a short period he was forced to seek international bailouts of 250 billion euros and embark on an austerity program to fend of a debt crisis. In an exclusive interview The Hindu, Mr. Papandreou talked about how the Greek debt crisis unfolded, the current situation of the country's economy and the eurozone’s economic problems. Edited excerpts.

How severe is the eurozone’s debt crisis now?

Europe is still battling between recession, deflation and very slow growth. There has been a gap between the more competitive economies and high-surplus economies. For example: Germany has bigger surplus than China which it should invest even if it invests just only in its own infrastructure which would create more stimulus, more jobs which allows for more consumption and that will help the European economy. In the view of the markets the crisis has been mitigated if not completely solved. However if you look at the debt of certain countries, for example Greece, if you don’t have growth in Europe we are getting into a spiral of cutting, further recession, more cuts… and that just means that the debt is just growing.

Greece has capacity for investment, it is a small country but still we have millions of tourists. Tourist industry… food industry is a growth industry — particularly, the types of foods which are based on our traditions. That is becoming a niche in many parts of the world. And if you combine that with health and tourism, culture…renewable energy… we have a lot of sun, wind and geothermal. We are No. 1 in Europe in exports of fisheries. Greece has a very educated younger generation. Many of them have left for other countries but if investment comes, they could return.

In Europe, we started the quantitative easing (QE) seven years after the crisis. There are two basic issues in Europe. First of all, Europe is at a turning point as far as its own basic structure is concerned. Secondly, there is a problem with the architecture of having a common currency with different economic policies and different levels of economies. We were a less competitive, less developed economy, than say Germany, and this meant that with common currencies we could not keep up. That was a structural problem.

Is it right to say that your fiscal policies were not integrated?

That’s right. This means that we have reached a crossroad where we say either we go into a deeper integration or we start feeling the pressures of splintering and going our own way. Some countries were worried to pull their own resources, I would say pool their risks in a common European Union, which then moves toward a banking union. That means then that whether you have your money in a Greek bank or an Italian bank or a German or French bank your euros are equally valuable and equally guaranteed. We haven’t reached there but we have done the first few stages, which is the monetary, the resolution mechanism. Now we have to get the guarantee. Guarantee, of course, means pooling risk.

An insurance company pools risks of thousands of people to give insurance to people who need it and that creates a sense of security. However, some countries say why should we put in our own capacity in pooling this risk, particularly, if we see ourselves as very separate nations. That’s the first problem. Second problem is the sense of can we become one family.

Q: At the height of the crisis, Greek people couldn’t withdraw their savings from their bank accounts, firms couldn’t make payments…

When the crisis began in 2009-10, I took the measures in order to avoid a run on the banks and therefore a need for capital controls. Unluckily, every government tried to do their own thing. I do hope now we are moving to a final stage of stabilisation and moving out of this crisis. Greece has made the deepest and quickest fiscal adjustment of any OECD country ever and that has taken a toll on not only the Greek economy but Greek families. 25% loss of GDP in these years, which is a huge loss but of course, has meant that moving away from a more nationalist based outlook of each other’s interests. Unluckily what happened with this sovereign debt crisis is that we started blaming each other rather than looking at how we solve the problem and we have heightened nationalism. That I think is a rising threat around the world, at a time we need more cooperation. Because of insecurities, changes, fluctuations of the markets, major technological changes our societies are going through contortions. Part of our societies can adapt quickly to these global economic changes other parts are feeling left behind. Some politicians like to tap in to that, through populism, through fear, renewed nationalism, tribalism, religion... Europe is not immune to this particularly because Europe is an experiment in how we can get beyond borders. This is the second problem: Europe is in transition in many ways. It was not accepted that a stimulus would be a good policy. This was done by the U.S., China. India also had a different approach. In Europe, the idea that austerity will bring …and everything will be fine did not convince the markets and helped very few economies. So we have been in a sort of a permanent borderline either a recession and now a deflation and this has been a drag on the world economy. These two elements have been playing together. If you inject into that the problem of the refugees, it becomes a huge problem and not a simple one. When we talk of one million people coming in last year and doesn’t seem like there would be an end. This is another thing that has stretched the capacity of Europe to work together. Some may take some refugees. Some may close borders…it’s like sort of your neighbour’s problem you throw it on to your neighbour but then this just moves the problem around and exacerbates it.

Is the banking crisis a less severe constraint now on the Greek economic recovery?

We just recently recapitalised our banks. The problem of the banking crisis …this is not just the Greek problem…has been so since 2008 is that even though at some point we did calm down the markets the banks became very reticent in investing. They would rather hoard the money to make sure that their accounts look good but that’s not their purpose. It is in fact to invest, take some risk and that’s what helps the economy. For a number of years now in many countries in Europe banks were slow to invest.

And if you particularly think of areas where we should… like small medium sized companies, start-ups, venture capital and so on that is riskier and that is an area which would create more employment, more innovations and so on…banks have been very risk-averse in that area. So that has been a drag on the economy. In Greece, we had an extra problem. All the discussion about leaving the European currency, the euro, made it more difficult. You can imagine having a euro or dollar, living somewhere and thinking maybe in the next few days or next few months or so this will be converted to a much cheaper or much less valuable money then you pull your money out of the bank you will hide it under the mattress and maybe take it to another country. You will not invest, you will not consume. Banks will not borrow or lend. And international investors, FDI will not come because investors will wait and see if they go to a cheaper currency I will have much better price.

There was such a freeze in Greece and what steps did you take to overcome them?

There was a freeze and that hit the economy…that by itself, while we were adjusting and making very very difficult sacrifices, the climate around Greece was devastating. So this is where I will say it is partly Greece’s problem but it was also very the responsibility of our common family called European Union to basically guarantee and say they are doing their job here we will not even discuss the idea of them leaving the currency. Had that been done at an early stage we would have been in a much better situation. But even till last year there was this discussion. So six years of insecurity is not good for any economy.

Take Greece as an example: we have done much which has been positive but the way the European community reacted, I think there's a lesson to be learnt. When Draghi [European Central Bank President Mario Draghi] in 2012 finally said we will do whatever it takes, we will even buy bonds of some of these countries to make sure the prices are low, he basically proved that fact that if we work together and consult and have strong reactions to some of our problems. In this case, it was the fears of the markets, which were overblown. You can deal with these issues. Maybe not completely solve them, but you can deal with these issues.

How difficult is it for politicians in Europe to sell this to the voters in their countries?

Of course, I had to…first of all when I was elected (in late 2009) I was saddled with the debt of the previous government.

Did you know this at that time? When did you first come to know of the actual size of the budget deficit?

No, I didn’t. And that was one of the problems. Well, in the first two-three weeks when the finance minister started gathering the data. Unluckily they had false reports from the previous government on what the level of deficit was. While they said that it was 6.5 ([% of GDP) officially just before the elections it ended up to be 15.6 (% of GDP) which is a very big difference. Actually, the difference was part of the problem but the fact that they had been misrepresenting the deficit was an even bigger problem because that created a deficit in credibility. I always say, having gone through this crisis, we had a deficit in our competitiveness, current account deficit but the worst deficit was the deficit of credibility and trust. So we had to restore that. To do that I had to take very difficult measures.

How soon did you reveal the real level of the government deficit?

Well, quite soon. I didn’t think that there was any reason to hide it because if I did hide it, it sooner or later it would be revealed. It would have been counter productive …and I would have undermined my own credibility and my country’s credibility. The message, I always say, is that this crisis is an institutional one. It was not so much an economic one but how we governed, how we managed the country. We have resources, we have capacities, we have human capacity…how we manage this country is really the issue. Therefore, brining in transparency in statistics… We have an ancient Greek word we call it ‘parrhesia’ which, if you Google it, means having the obligational responsibility of telling the truth even at the risk of your own life. So I knew I was taking big risk. Had I not done that I wouldn’t have been able to push reforms.

The first thing we did is we built up a statistical bureau which was completely independent of the government so that nobody could question the numbers. We put all the resources online — all the expenditures of local and central government were put online. We started dealing with the waste of resources, even some times corruption… electronic prescriptions for medicine. For example, a doctor would prescribe and you give him or her a kickback of some sort and they would over-prescribe that would then go to be paid by the public system. The electronic prescriptions we put in cut the cost by half, which was still half a billion euros. We cut it by 200 million euros, which was exactly the money we made by property taxes. So this is not just cutting, it is basically more transparent and more efficient government structures. When I did take on the prime ministership, I had to face very difficult decisions, be very honest and at the same time of course in order to cut the deficits and give the sense that they won’t just balloon. I also had to take very difficult measures in cutting salaries and wages. I didn’t have the luxury or the tool of the [currency] devaluation of the euro. We had to do what is called the internal devaluation. While other Prime Ministers will say the Turkish lira, the peso or something… we let it drop and you are still getting say 1,000 peso a month and it has less purchasing ability. I had to actually go and cut salaries. That hurts more politically. People see this: I was getting 1,000 now I am getting 700. Who is to blame? Prime Minister. I had to make those decisions. I knew they will cost me politically. Had I not done that Greece would have been in default and gone through a catastrophic spiral. Still the hit has been huge. Many mistakes have been made along the way, I’d say some times because of the ignorance. I think what we did in Greece was very much what was expected of us but …we took a number of decisions in Europe which were wrong …this has been a test for Europe. Europe is at a crucial turning point. Basically at crossroads of how we can integrate into a more federal type system.

What would that entail?

It will entail more common economic policies that we look at each other not so much as nations but as citizens. So if somebody’s unemployed then we give unemployment benefits not through the Greek government but through the European structures. A political system, which will be more transparent. For example we have to elect (election by the citizens) the head of Europe rather than sort of appoint. It could be by a parliamentary system or a presidential system but I would say bring in a democratic legitimacy. Europe has also been a bit of a project of the elite. It was there as a very grand and very important idea of never have walls again and link each other…

What sort of opposition is the idea facing?

Lot of opposition unluckily because of the crises… economic, financial, climate, the issue of movement of populations, whether they are migrants or refugees, conflicts also and there are pressures on our societies to adapt. Europe is still an attraction to so many people because of its social systems, health systems, employment systems, and so on. Lots of people are saying oh what we need to do is go back to our tribal instincts. Lets close our walls, lets close our doors. There is still a majority in Europe that is saying that but the forces of nationalism and populism, xenophobia, racism and so on are on the rise. The extreme case is Syria.

How long before we begin to see some semblance of normalcy? Will it get worse before getting better?

Some times, the governments are motivated to respond when they are in face of a crisis. That’s what happened in the sovereign debt crisis. We created new institutions which we wouldn’t have done otherwise. I want to believe that we don’t need to have another crisis in order to move forward but unluckily in politics some times a crisis is needed to give the opportunity to leaders ... Right now we have the refugee crisis. The economic crisis remains as a problem, not as severe. It could be months, it could be years but this is a historical period which would be the true challenge to see if the European experiment can succeed or will fail. My hope is it will succeed because I believe it is an experiment for the world. If we can succeed in one region of the world, working together beyond our differences, our cultures, our historical animosities and deal with the problems of the world not simply passively adapting to them but actually taking the lead and saying there’s an environmental crisis, lets lead globalisation, lets humanise globalisation, lets see how we fight inequality…

Maruti Suzuki’s sales dip 2.6% in January

Maruti Suzuki India said the sales of passenger cars declined 1.4 per cent to 87,757 units. Photo: Manoj Kumar

Maruti Suzuki India reported a 2.6 per cent decline in total sales in January at 1,13,606 units as against 1,16,606 units in the same month in 2015.

The company said its domestic sales increased marginally by 0.8 per cent to 1,06,383 units as against 1,05,559 units in January 2015.

Sales of passenger cars declined 1.4 per cent to 87,757 units compared with 89,014 units in the year-ago month, the carmaker said in a BSE filing.

The company said sales of utility vehicles, including Gypsy, Grand Vitara and Ertiga, jumped 26.2 per cent to 8,114 units last month from 6,432 units in the corresponding period last year.

Sales of vans — Omni and Eeco rose 3.9 per cent to 10,512 units last month compared with 10,113 units in the year-ago period.

The company said “domestic sales would have been higher but lesser number of working days in January 2016 impacted overall production and dispatch.”

Exports during the month declined 34.6 per cent to 7,223 units as compared with 11,047 units in January 2015, the company said.

Bajaj Auto unveils new bike ‘V’

Bajaj Auto's new motorcycle

Bajaj Auto on Monday unveiled a 150 cc bike ‘V’, which contains metal from India’s first aircraft carrier INS Vikrant.

The commuter segment bike is expected to be priced between Rs 60,000 to Rs 70,000.

Sales of the bike would commence from March and the final pricing would be announced at that time.

“The Bajaj V shall usher a new era in commuter motorcycling. We believe the Indian customer buying a commuter motorcycle deserves something that is substantial, solid, and which moves with a sense of purpose,” Bajaj Auto President (Motorcycle Business) Eric Vas said.

The V has been designed and built to be “invincible and will change the experience of commuter biking” much like the Pulsars changed sports biking, he added.

Bajaj Auto Managing Director Rajiv Bajaj said: “We will start with a capacity of 20,000 units month and should demand exceed that, there is no problem in enhancing the capacity further.”

He added that the company would first like to focus on the domestic market for the sale of the new product.

“We would first like to focus on the domestic market. The commuter segment is very strong here with market of over five lakh units. Some time down the line we might start exporting it as well,” Bajaj said.

On pricing of V, he said: “It would be between Rs. 60,000 and Rs. 70,000. Most probably it would be closer to Rs. 60,000 than Rs. 70,000. We will announce the pricing details at the time when we start deliveries in March.”

Bajaj Auto purchased the Vikrant metal and processed it to be a part of V motorcycle.

INS Vikrant was commissioned as the first aircraft carrier of Indian Navy in 1961. After years of distinguished service, it was decommissioned in January 1997 and served as a museum till 2012.

In November 2014, the aircraft carrier was dismantled and sold as scrap metal.

“We are proud that lakhs of Indian citizens can now touch the metal of the legendary INS Vikrant,” Vas said.

Pak. to seek more proof from India on Pathankot attack

A file photo of JeM founder Masood Azhar. India has identified Azhar and his brother Abdul Rauf Asghar among the handlers of the Pathankot IAF base attack.

With no headway made in the probe into the Pathankot terror attack, Pakistan plans to seek more evidence from India, a media report said on Monday. This comes days after Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif said the outcome of the investigation into the assault would be made public soon.

A Pakistani Government team, which is investigating the attack, will ask the Foreign Ministry to seek more evidence from India.

“The team has almost completed its investigation into five cellphone numbers [allegedly used for making calls from Pakistan to India] provided by the Indian government. No further leads were found from these numbers because they were unregistered and had fake identities,” Dawn quoted a source as saying.

“The probe is not heading further. The team needs more evidence. Therefore, it has written to the Government to speak to India and apprise it of the situation and demand more evidence to move forward in investigation here.”

Answering a question about the people, including Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) chief Maulana Masood Azhar, detained in connection with the incident, the source said “Let first more evidence come from India.”

Mr. Sharif had formed the six-member investigation team headed by the Additional Inspector General of Punjab’s Counter-Terrorism Department (CTD) in the second week of January to look into the allegations that the JeM was behind the attack.

“Whatever facts come out we will bring them forth before everyone,” Mr. Sharif said, adding that Pakistan would go to “any length” to uncover the alleged use of its soil in the Pathankot attack.

“It is our responsibility to uncover if our soil was used in the attack. We will do this and the ongoing investigation will be completed soon,” he said.

The team headed by AIG Counter Terror Department, Punjab Rai Tahir has so far held two meetings.

Meanwhile, law enforcement agencies have not produced before court any of the suspects arrested in connection with the attack over the past two weeks since their detention.

The Government has not disclosed the number of suspects detained. Punjab Law Minister Rana Sanaullah only confirmed that Maulana Masood Azhar had been taken into “protective custody”, along with some of his “accomplices“.

PDP, BJP alliance reaches make-or-break point


Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) president Mehbooba Mufti said the Central Government should take substantive measures towards implementation of the PDP-BJP “Agenda of Alliance”.

While the Peoples Democratic Party on Sunday once again made its issues with coalition partner BJP public, including “trust deficit” and “poor headway on the joint agenda”, the outcome of the PDP’s legislative party meet on Monday will be a make-or-break point for the 10-month-old coalition in Jammu & Kashmir. All eyes are on PDP’s legislative party meeting, scheduled for 2.p.m where a final call on the government formation is likely.

If there is a consensus on the coalition, the meet may see the nomination of PDP president Mehbooba Mufti, also an MP, as head of the legislative party, a prerequisite for taking over as Chief Minister of J&K, which has been under Governor’s rule since January 9 in the wake of the demise of the then sitting Chief Minister and PDP patron Mufti Muhammad Sayeed.

The PDP saw the first formal talk on government formation at Sunday’s meet of senior party leaders, including zonal and district-level leaders, where Ms. Mufti lamented the poor coordination from the BJP.

“Mufti sahib took a courageous, although unpopular, decision of aligning with the BJP with the hope that the Central government headed by Narendra Modi will take decisive measures to address the core political and economic issues concerning J&K and its people,” Ms. Mufti told the meeting.

“Unfortunately, instead of partnering with and implementing Sayeed’s vision of bringing peace, stability and prosperity to J&K, certain quarters, both within J&K and in New Delhi, started overtly and covertly triggering frequent controversies over avoidable contentious issues resulting in wastage of the State government’s energies in fire-fighting and propitiation,” she alleged.

Talks tough

Hardening her position, Ms. Mufti said in such “violative circumstances”, her party “has to reassess whether it can absorb the shocks that Mufti had to do frequently in his effort to forge reconciliation between the regions and the people of the State.”

She said the Government of India shall have to take substantive measures towards implementation of the PDP-BJP “Agenda of Alliance” in the interest of peace and stability in J&K and “for this the PDP needs a set timeframe to be worked out.” “The PDP will have to reassess whether the Centre is ready to trust the people of J&K and carry out the implementation with sincerity of purpose,” she said.

‘An attempt to test people’s patience’

Criticising the delay in government formation in Jammu and Kashmir by the Peoples Democratic Party president Mehbooba Mufti, the National Conference on Sunday termed it “contemptuous attempt to test the patience of the people and called the PDP’s alliance with the BJP “as Mufti Mohammad Sayeed’s final and definitive political legacy.”