Life Term for Social Activist Vinayak Sen

The voices against the life term awarded to a human rights activist, Vinayak Sen, by a Chhattisgarh court are multiplying by the day. It is a reflection on the weakening of the judiciary, as the tradition of not speaking one's mind on a decision and ruling of the court is weakening it. Intellectuals as well as the common man have begun to feel that if a ruling does not come up to the basic needs of justice and fails to pass the criteria of fairness, one should raise one's voice against such a ruling and decision.

Allegation Against Sen
Vinayak Sen was arrested on the allegation of sedition and waging war against the state in 2007. He has been active in the Naxal infested areas in Chhattisgarh. While arresting him, the police alleged that he has been patronizing, harboring and helping Maoists. He was further accused of acting as an intermediary between a Maoist leader and a businessman.

A Chhattisgarh court awarded him life imprisonment for helping Maoists and waging a war against the state. Ever since he was awarded the punishment, criticism continues at both the national and international levels against it. After criticism by important persons in the United States and the Amnesty International, a human rights organization, voices began to be stronger against the decision of the court.

The statement made by former chief justice of the Delhi High Court, Justice Rajinder Sachar, assumes greater significance in this regard. He maintains that there can be no other such decision that lacks total sagacity. I feel ashamed, after the pronouncement of the ridiculous verdict, that I have been associated with the judiciary? In addition to justice Sachar, others, including Romila Thapar, Prabhat Patnaik, Ashok Mitra, and Mushirul Hasan, have demanded Sen's release. A leading social worker, Swami Agnivesh, has gone on a dharna (sit-in protest) at the Jantar Mantar, against the pronouncement of the court verdict against Vinayak Sen.

Criticism Against Ruling
All these reactions go to prove that the tendency of testing a court verdict by the people is on the rise. Justice Sachar has specifically reacted to it sharply. The criticism that he has made against the ruling of a Chhattisgarh court amounts to a sarcastic comment on unjudicial and nonsagacious mentality, a mentality that remains confined to the surface and lacks understanding of the true spirit of law to reach a decision. It also reflects lack of spirit of providing true justice to an accused. Understanding the true spirit of law, while hearing and considering such cases is imperative. The objective of the judiciary is not just to respect laws and regulations, but to provide justice in the true sense.

As far as the case of Vinayak Sen is concerned, the allegations against him, firstly, are very weak and should one take all these allegations for granted that Vinayak had indeed worked as an intermediary between Maoists and a business man and that he did carry the message of the Naxalite ideologue, Narayan Sanyal to fellow Maoists, the crime is not such a serious one that he should be awarded life imprisonment by the court.

Faith in Judiciary
In a country where those responsible for the gas leak in Bhopal, which killed thousands of people, get the term of imprisonment for only two years each, that too after prolonged hearing spanning over twenty five years, how it is justified that a person accused of carrying a message to Maoists be awarded such a stringent punishment to languish behind the bars for his entire life?Such a verdict, naturally, raises eyebrows against the judiciary. That is why Justice Sachar is feeling ashamed for his association with such a judiciary. His remarks are not mere activism or a strong reaction. Instead, it is the expression of the pain that a person who loves justice, feels.

It is an expression of sympathy for those who fell victim to the strong handedness of law, and is a reminder to those at the helm of the affairs, to think and act wisely. It calls upon those in power to strive seriously to bring about a change in such a scenario before the people lose faith in the judiciary.

Tension Rises in Korean Peninsula

The South Korean military has recently conducted a live-fire drill on Yeonpyeong Island in the Yellow Sea, several kilometers from North Korea. The reclusive state did not respond militarily, despite initial concern that its possible retaliation could cause a new explosion in the tinderbox region. For now, the crisis appears to have passed.

However, there is no assurance North Korea will stop its acts of armed provocation against the South. Future prospects for the Korean Peninsula still look uncertain. Nations around the world, including Japan, cannot afford to let their guard down regarding that regime.

About a month ago, the North Korean military launched an artillery attack on Yeonpyeong, killing four South Koreans, including two civilians. Pyongyang defended its action, insisting the shelling was a response to what it said was a South Korean artillery strike on North Korean territorial waters.

The two Koreas still disagree over the military demarcation lines drawn by each nation in the waters near the frontline island, a situation that has given rise to frequent armed skirmishes between them.South Korea's latest firing exercise was the continuation of military activity that it had been forced to suspend because of the North's artillery attack last month. In explaining why it did not respond to the live-fire drill, the North's Supreme Command of the Korean People's Army said it 'did not feel the need to retaliate against every despicable military provocation.

Did the statement mean no artillery shell fired from the island reached North Korean waters? Was Pyongyang influenced by Seoul's avowed readiness to take strong action -- even conduct an air raid--if North Korea struck the South during the firing exercise?

Examine Actual Motives

Whatever the case, the true aim of any North Korean action must be calmly analyzed. That country's recent conduct appeared to be a calculated attempt to upset South Korea. The unpredictable nation first made a military provocation, and then issued a threat that proved to be an unloaded gun.

Bill Richardson--a former US ambassador to the United Nations and a diplomatic troubleshooter--has said Pyongyang agreed to allow inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency to inspect its uranium enrichment facilities. He also quoted Pyongyang as saying it would start negotiations over the sale of unspent plutonium fuel rods that could be used to build nuclear bombs.

Furthermore, the North has agreed to implement confidence-building measures aimed at averting military conflicts in the Yellow Sea. If North Korea honors these pledges, it would appear to mean that country had taken concrete steps to demonstrate a genuine commitment to denuclearization. Japan and other participants in the six-party talks over the North's nuclear weapons program have demanded such measures be implemented in exchange for returning to the negotiation table.Northern Promises UnreliableHowever, it should be remembered that Pyongyang has repeatedly broken its promises, reducing those pledges to waste paper. Given this, the details of the latest accord need to be closely examined while also trying to determine the true motive behind North Korea's agreement to the aforementioned measures.

The UN Security Council had to abandon efforts to issue a statement on the increasing tensions on the peninsula caused by North Korea's shelling. This was because China opposed wording the statement in a manner that denounced the North for its artillery assault on the South, despite most council members -- including Japan and the United States -- demanding the use of such language.As circumstances stand today, no progress can be expected in resolving the North Korean problem even if the six-nation talks are restarted.Japan, the United States and South Korea should further increase their cooperation in dealing with the North -- through both dialogue and deterrence.

Another important task for Japan will be to reconsider the Guidelines for Japan-US Defense Cooperation in preparation for any military contingency.

Inter-Korean Trade Falls Sharply
Inter-Korean trade has fallen about 30 percent this year, largely affected by South Korea's move to cut almost all business relations with North Korea after the North sank one of its naval ships in a torpedo attack in March. According to data provided by the Korea Customs Service (KCS), trade between the two Koreas amounted to $464 million during the January-November period, down from $649 million recorded a year earlier.

In May, a multinational team of investigators released a report saying that North Korea torpedoed the South Korean warship on March 26 near their disputed western maritime border, killing 46 sailors. The North has denied any involvement.In response, the Seoul government suspended almost all business relations with Pyongyang on May 24 with the exception of the industrial complex in the border town of Kaesong, where South Korean firms are doing business in cooperation with workers from the North.

South Korea's exports to the North came to $130 million during the cited period, down 28 percent a year earlier, while imports dropped 29 percent on-year to $334 million. Despite such a sharp shrinkage, trade through the Kaesong industrial complex, tallied in a separate statistic, remained robust. Trade amounted to $1.31 billion during the 11-month period, up 62 percent from a year earlier.

Seoul Should Regain Initiative in Fight and Talk

After a month of live-fire artillery drills and life-taking real attacks, the West Sea has calmed down -- for now. But the brief relief among South Koreans has quickly been replaced by a constant sense of apprehension about North Korea's next provocations.

The pseudo-peace cannot and should not last long. Seoul must relieve this uneasy calmness through its own initiatives.As some North Korea experts predicted, the reclusive regime returned to the dialogue phase of its two-track diplomacy just now. It was a vintage Pyongyang move when it proposed UN monitors' inspection and the sale of spent nuclear fuel rods following a deadly shelling on a populated island.

Seoul is right to doubt the sincerity of the North Korean proposal. Unless the communist regime allows the UN officials to inspect its uranium-enrichment facilities, the visit would end up as much ado about nothing. Nor has the belated fuel sale much meaning for the same reason.But these are no reasons for the Lee Myung-bak administration to spurn them as just political gestures, but to seize them as opportunities for a diplomatic counterattack.

Seoul, instead of adhering to the five preconditions it has set for resuming the six-party talks, will need to be bolder by accepting the dialogue offer and including the inspection of uranium power plants in inspection targets, to send the ball back to the North's court.The key lies in Seoul returning to the center of the diplomatic stage instead of shying away from it and only calling for the change in Pyongyang's attitude.

However, South Korea has maintained its own version of the 'strategic patience'-- waiting for either the North's voluntary denuclearization or implosion -- Pyongyang has gone even more wayward to insult Seoul with unprovoked violence, while the two Northern partners of China and Russia have come to admonish the South on self-restraint, unreasonably treating the villain and victim as the same. There is no reason whatsoever for South Korea to endure this insult and humiliation by remaining as a passive player.

The time has long passed for the South to drastically enhance both its defense and diplomatic capabilities. In any all-out war, the South is certain to win over the North, as there is more than 40 times' the gap in the economic powers of two Koreas. But an eventual reunification of the Korean Peninsula should be through cooperation and reconciliation, not through violence and war.

To persuade China and Russia that the Koreas' reunification under Seoul's control will not be harmful to them, the South needs a far more active and skillful diplomacy with the two northern powers. And such efforts should begin now by more flexibly responding to their proposals for regional dialogue. Seoul should of course maintain and even enhance military alliances with the United States and Japan, but that should be no reason to alienate Russia and China at least diplomatically.

Russian President Visits India

After the successful back-to-back visit to India by US President Barack Obama and Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev's visit can be termed significant in view of the fact that the two countries have renewed their relations in the light of the global situation. India has specifically conveyed to Russia that its increasing closeness with the United States and China would, in no way hamper or affect India-Russia relations. India further conveyed that it is seriously determined to strengthen and expand their mutual relations.

Important and Significant Agreements
During the Russian president's visit, several important and significant agreements were inked between the two countries. These agreements reflect the deep desire to further strengthen the relations. The statement made by the Russian president on terrorism endorses the Indian stand on the menace and gives a hint of closer ties on this particular issue.

The two countries have set a target to increase bilateral trade up to $20 billion by 2015. It is the manifestation of Russia's acknowledgement that India is a fast emerging economy in the world. It, further, reveals Russia's desire to maintain closer cooperation with India in the economic sector. The two countries have recognized the need of a more inclusive and expansive agreement to carry their economic ties to new heights. The useful discussions the two leaders had on investment in the private sector promise better outcome and greater possibilities in the near future.

Strategic Partnership
The way the two countries have recognized that cooperation in the nuclear energy sector is the significant part of a strategic partnership, reveals that despite having entered into a civil nuclear deal with the United States, India attaches great significance to its trusted and old friend in this sector. India, in fact, wants to keep all options open as far as nuclear energy is concerned and is viewing the nuclear sector as greatly significant in renewing old relations with Russia. Russian expertise in the nuclear sector is globally acknowledged. Though some doubts and apprehensions were being cast prior to the visit by the Russian president but it has become absolutely clear after his visit that the two countries would progress in the field of nuclear cooperation as well.

During Medvedev's visit, India and Russia signed 30 agreements, which include, defense, nuclear cooperation, technology, strengthening diplomatic relations and improved relations in trade and commerce. In view of the increasing defense and security needs of India, an agreement on fighter planes, worth over $30 billion, was also signed. It makes it abundantly clear that Russia continues to be an important and trusted ally of India in the field of defense. The two have also expressed unanimity on development and research on peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

UN Role Against Terrorist
The two countries have also agreed to simplify the procedures for grant of visas so as to further cement their diplomatic relations and bringing the peoples of the two countries closer. Yet another significant agreement was reached on hydrocarbons, pharmaceuticals and gas under which both intend to extend their cooperation in these fields. Though the Russian president did not comment on the issue of India's inclusion in the UN Security Council, Russia had already extended support to India on the issue.

The harsh stand that the Russian president has adopted against terrorism in indeed sweet to ears of Indian leadership. The most significant aspect of it is that the Russian president clearly gave an indication to make UN role against terrorist organizations more effective, imposing stringent sanctions and bans by international organization on terrorist outfits. He even stressed the need of simplifying international procedure on the issue of extradition.

In short, the visit by the Russian president can be easily called an attempt to give a new direction to the mutual friendship, and a positive progress in their relations.