Stakes for Elections 2014: Secularism or Democracy - Mazher Hussain

Finally we seem to have succeeded in dividing India, a country of a billion plus, into just two groups. Both groups claim to be secular. The only difference is that while one group accuses the other of being communal, the other brands the first group of being pseudo secular.

Secularism and pseudo secularism have become major planks in India for acquiring political power. Congress, left and other “secular” parties and liberal social formations are trying to stop what appears to be a relentless Delhi March of the BJP led by Narendra Modi by proclaiming that secularism is in danger. Many respected Indian intellectuals from across the world and celebrities from Bollywood have also made appeals not to vote for communal parties (meaning BJP) and save secularism. On the other hand, BJP and its allies by questioning the duplicity and limitations in the practice of secularism by Congress and others seem to be succeeding in influencing the people on the street enough to make them equate secularism with Muslim appeasement and hence the increasing polarization and forward March to Delhi.

Secularism as Requirement of Muslim

The original meaning of the term secularism, that had its genesis in Europe, essentially meant keeping religion out of politics and statecraft. In the Indian context, with the prevalence of a multiplicity of religions, practice of secularism also came to require equal respect for all religions and complete freedom to practice one’s belief without hindrance from the state or society. But over time, the debate has degenerated to an extent where secularism in India has come to acquire a limited meaning of protection or favouring of Muslims -both in political discourse and popular imagination. Any talk of secularism immediately brings into focus and mostly revolves around the Muslim (and to some extent the Christian) community - excluding multitude of other religions, sects and social groupings that make up India and seems to imply that secularism is essentially a requirement of Muslims and not so much for other communities, especially the majority community, or for the country.

But is secularism in India (with its religious, caste, linguistic, ethnic and regional diversities) necessary only for Muslims and are secular credentials to be gauged by determining if you protect or harm Muslims?  

Are there any Secular Parties in India

The Hindutva forces comprising of RSS, BJP and myriad other formations have clear anti Muslim ideological pronouncements and active involvement in innumerable communal riots including the reprehensible Gujrat carnage of 2002 allegedly with the use of state machinery and complicity of Narendra Modi, the Chief Minister of the State. Such history and track record seems to make BJP a fit candidate to be labeled a communal group. But what about parties like the Congress, left, SP, BSP and others? Are they indeed secular? When can you accept a group as secular and when should it be condemned as communal.

Is the congress that is primarily responsible for the massacre of over 3000 Sikhs in 1984 and that unleashed innumerable communal riots across the country that mostly harmed and debilitated the Muslim community communal or secular? Is the TDP, that put an abrupt and unbelievable stop to the endemic of communal riots in Hyderabad (that had become a norm during the Congress rule in AP), but aliened with BJP in 2009 and now in 2014 and continued to support it even after the 2002 Gujrat carnage, secular or communal? Is the Samajwadi Party (SP), that came to power mostly due to the Muslim vote in 2012 but allowed over a hundred communal clashes within a year of its rule culminating in the reprehensible riot in Muzaffarnagar that killed more than 200 and displaced over 60,000 Muslims, communal or secular? Modi is indeed answerable for the Gujrat carnage as the Chief Minister. But why should not the Chief Minister of UP, Akhilesh Yadav, be held equally accountable for the riots in Muzaffarnagar also?

Is the CPM, that parades itself as the paradigm of liberal politics but totally sidelined the development of Muslims in West Bengal during three decades of its rule (where the development indicators for Muslims were much worse than those in Gujarat), secular or communal?  Is Shiv Sena communal when it targets Muslims and secular or at most sectarian when it is going after Malayalees or North Indians?  The list can go on and on and there seems to be no political party in India that is not guilty of sectarian practices and can be called truly secular.

When no political party in India is truly secular, then what justification can be there for an appeal to keep out BJP from power?  If BJP should not be in power because of its communal character, then most other parties, including the Congress, should also be kept out.

Danger to Democracy

It is important to understand that the danger from BJP lead by Modi is not just to the secular character of our country but more critically to the very core of democracy. A simple analysis of the build up and the conduct of the campaign for 2014 general elections reveals emergence of Narendra Modi as the preeminent leader sidelining all others, including stalwarts like Advani and subverting the party itself. If BJP indeed comes to power, then the character of the new government will not be defined so much by the party but by Narendra Modi. And the so called Gujarat Model provides us a glimpse of what could be expected:

Authoritarian rule centered around a single individual (no one else from  Gujarat Government is visible- kindly name one minister), subversion of constitutional institutions (Lok Ayukta and judiciary compelling the Supreme Court to transfer some riot cases out of Gujrat), misuse of government machinery (encounter killings, snoopgate); vindictive politics and eliminations of all oppositions both outside and also within Party (remember Hiren Pandya? and already there is talk of Accountability Commissions), curtailing of legislative process (average sittings of Gujarat Assembly for 30 days in a year during Modi’s rule- worst record in the history of Gujarat), crony capitalism (Congress is equally guilty of this), propaganda machinery that can rival the best in the world (if Gujarat Model indeed developed the state so phenomenally, then how come the difference in the vote share of BJP and Congress was just 3  percent during 2009 general  elections -BJP 46.53% and Congress 43.38%) and use of religious ideology and riots for political polarisation (Gujarat 2002, Muzafarnagar 2014 and many more).

Recipe for Fascism

When such dictatorial mindset and practice is back by an ideology (Hindutva in this case), it becomes an ideal recipe for a fascist state.  So what is at stake is not just secularism but the very continuation of democracy in our country. If there is no democracy, there can be no secularism, freedom of expression, entitlements and so many other values that are essential for any society to sustain and prosper.      

It is time people of India realize that in their mad scramble to vote for or against secularism, they should not end up sacrificing the very core essence of our nation: Democracy.

(Mazher Hussain is Executive Director of COVA) 

Why Do India and Pakistan Fight

Mazher Hussain

2013 is a unique year in the history of Indo–Pak relations. The first seven months of this year witnessed eight substantive peace initiatives with announcement of visa on arrival for senior citizens, announcement of release of all Indian fishermen from Pakistan jails, Chief Minister of Gujarat , Nardendra Modi, invites a delegation from the Karachi Chamber of Commerce and Industry to attend the sixth Vibrant Gujarat Investor Summit, expression of desire to work for peace with India by Nawaz Sharif even before formally taking over charge as the Prime Minister of Pakistan; meeting of Satinder Lambah Special Indian Envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan with Nawaz Sharif with a message from the Prime Minister of India on 27^th May and return visit by PakistanIndeed, whenever peace processes appear to be getting grounded and showing positive results, some stray incidents always seem to arise out of nowhere to derail the on-going dialogue, disrupt attempts at increased cooperation and the status of relations degenerates back to square one. envoy Shariyar M. Khan on 6^th July with a message from Prime Minister Nawaz to Dr. Manmohan Singh of “ Pakistan’s sincere desire to move forward on improving relations with India”; Agreement between India and Pakistan to hold Secretary level talks on the issues of Sir Creek, Tulbul Project and Wullar Barrage in August,  and an agreement for the Prime Ministers of both countries to meet on the side lines of UN General Assembly in September. Enough and more for India- Pakistan peace process to appear to be on track at last- firmly and conclusively.

But this is not to be. This same period also witnesses unprecedented escalation in cross border conflicts between the two countries with a record 57 incidences of attacks and counter attacks taking place between January and August this year that is an 80% increase over such incidences during the same period last year. This started with the killing of 2 Pakistani soldiers on 5^th January, killing and beheading of Indian Solders on 8^th January, and continued till the recent killing of five Indian soldiers in an ambush on 5^th August. All these incidences together seem to be succeeding in stalling the peace process with the demand to stop all dialogue. Advocates of aggression once again seem to be gaining a point that peace initiatives should not be attempted as they cannot last.

Indeed, whenever peace processes appear to be getting grounded and showing positive results, some stray incidents always seem to arise out of nowhere to derail the on-going dialogue, disrupt attempts at increased cooperation and the status of relations degenerates back to square one.But why should peace initiatives between India and Pakistan always stall? What makes India and Pakistan continue their fight?

Budgets and Conflicts

There appear to be some interesting correlation between conflicts and CBMs (Confidence Building Measures) between India and Pakistan during the past 25 years from 1988 to 2013. During this period, 18 conflicts have taken place including Kargil, attack on Indian Parliament, Mumbai terror strike along with ceasefire violations. Of these, as many as 13 (72%) have taken place between the last week of September and first week of January - mostly winter time and a period of only three and a half months while just  5 or 27% conflicts occurred in the remaining spans of eight and a half months. The only explanation for the concentration of so many conflicts in such a short span and that too in the difficult winter months is the annual budget of India announced in March and of Pakistan in June every year. Deterioration in relations with neighbours and escalation in conflicts during this third quarter of the financial year could produce desired levels of insecurity among the people and create appropriate conditions for escalation of defence budgets.

Further substantiation for this thesis can be obtained by the events between 2011 and 2013 when a phenomenal 31 agreements and peace measures were adopted by India and Pakistan leading to enormous confidence building and the possibility of permanent peace appearing realisable. The situation had become conducive enough for Mr. P. Chidambaram to make an announcement of reduction in the defence budget when he took over as the Finance Minister of India in November 2012. But in just over a month, with the killing of Pakistani and Indian soldiers in January 2013, followed by other conflicts along the border and in Kashmir valley after a lull of over 2 years, Chidambaram had to announce an increase of 5% in the defence budget for India in March 2013.

The five remaining conflicts that occurred between May and July in different years also appear to have been instigated with a direct objective of disrupting some specific peace initiatives.  The Kargil conflict of 1999 was in response to Bus diplomacy initiated by Vajpayee in February of that year that seemed to put the peace process on track at last. But within three months, the Kargil attack destroyed the whole momentum and the peace process could not be resumed for the next 5 years. May and June of 2002 also saw heavy shelling on the India –Pakistan border to coincide with the visit of David Rumsfield of USA who had come with the objective of restoring peace between India and Pakistan. Needless to say, his mission became a nonstarter. The fourth conflict in the form of another ceasefire violation was instigated on 30^th July 2008 immediately after India and Pakistan has signed on 24^th June a Joint Anti-terror Mechanism to prevent terror attacks and to frustrate talks on Multi trade agreement between India and Pakistan scheduled within 25 days on 25^th September. The final conflict outside the months of budgetary considerations was in May2011 to impact the talks on resolution of the Siachen issue that were scheduled in the same month. Of course the talks failed and Siachen continues to remain an issue taxing and draining both countries.

Hence, all the conflicts that have taken place between India and Pakistan in the last 25 years seemed to have disrupted some specific peace initiative or pushed up the annual defence budgets. Indeed there are many players who have high and profitable stakes in instigating conflicts and keeping them alive starting with the arms manufacturers, dealers, business groups, politicians, bureaucrats and some senior armed forces personal, intelligence agencies, militant and terrorist groups and even the media that may be advertently or inadvertently whipping up war hysteria either for TRPs and increased circulation or to serve the business interests of their corporate bosses. The losers in this game are the soldiers and officers stationed on the border who pay with their lives and common people who are brainwashed into surrendering the very basic amenities due to them from the government and the system all in the name of providing more budgets for national security.

Moral: If we still do not understand and continue to fight, then we are fools- dumb fools.

(Mazher Hussain is Executive Director of COVA, a national network working on issues of communal harmony in India and peace in South Asia.)

Press Release Condemnation of Blasts in Bodhgaya by Religious Leaders and Peace Activists from Across India

We the undersigned are horrified by the serial bomb blasts in Bodhgaya, Bihar, in the early hours of 7^th July 2013 in which 3 persons are injured and fortunately there are no reports of loss of life or damage to the holy shrine. We are deeply pained and shocked by this heinous terror attack on a place of worship of great spiritual and historical significance targeting innocent people and unequivocally condemn this dastardly act of crime against humanity.

Speculation has already started that this attack could be in retaliation for the attacks on Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar. We urge that all such speculations should be discouraged till such time as proper investigations are conducted and the identity of culprits is firmly established as this could be used to target the Muslim community in India, to gain political polarisation before the forth coming general elections, and also to unleash a new wave of violence against the Muslims in Myanmar who are already suffering grave violence and untold sufferings for years and lakhs had to flee Myanmar to save their lives over the past years. This mindless action, God forbidding, may also make scores of Rogingya refugees around the world vulnerable and open to retaliatory attacks in different countries where they have taken refuge.

We appeal to people in India and across the world to view this terror attack as an action by some misguided criminals and not to consider this as an act of vengeance by the Rohingya community or Muslims in general. We also urge the government to initiate a speedy, professional and thorough probe to apprehend the culprits and expose and punish both the perpetrators and conspirators of this dreadful act.   

Mr. Mahesh Bhatt, Film Maker, Mumbai

Swami Agnivesh, Arya Samaj, New Delhi

Dr. Mazher Hussain, COVA, Hyderabad

Dr. D. Yadiah, Boudhik Pramukh, All India Samata Sainik Dal

Dr. Binayak Sen, PUCL,

Kamla Bhasin, New Delhi

Maulana Syed Shah Hamid Hussain Shutari, All India Sunni Ulema Board

Fr. Dominic Emmanuel, Delhi Catholic Church, New Delhi

Dr. Ram Punyani, All India Secular Forum, Mumbai

Dr. Zafar Mahmood, Zakat Foundation, New Delhi

Prof. Ilina Sen, TISS, Mumbai

Prof. Hasan Mansoor, PUCL, Bangaluru

Dr. Sandeep Panday, ASHA, Lucknow

Mr. A. Faizur Rahman, Islamic Forum for Promotion of Moderate Thought, Chennai

Sardar Nanak Singh Nishtar, COVA, Hyderabad

Mr. Iqbal Ahmad Engineer, Center for Peace and True Message, Hyderabad

Appeal for Organised Zakat Distribution for Myanmar Refugees in Hyderabad

COVA, a national network working for communal harmony, peace and social justice is also collaborating with UNHCR (United Nations High Commission for Refugees) since 2010 to provide legal protection and facilitate support for survival and development to about 2000 refugees from 11 countries residing in Hyderabad. Refugees from Burma constitute the largest population with about 1500 members. Remaining 300 refugees are from Somalia, Sudan, Iran, Iraq, Eritrea, Afghanistan, Syria and Yemen.

During last Ramazan, many Hyderabadis came forward to distribute Zakat to the refugees generously that greatly helped them. However, as there was no organised way for distribution of Zakat, a number of serious problems were encountered. First, some of the active and able bodied persons were able to grab most of the Zakat that was brought for distribution while many others, including widows and aged persons, received very less and were deprived. This also led to fights among refugees leading to injuries and resulting in police cases. Most importantly, the refugees who go for work as labour stopped going to work during last Ramazan waiting for people who were coming to distribute Zakat at different times of the day and lost their daily wages amounting to Rs. 300 to 350. Finally, refugees from Burma are residing in different localities like Hafeez Babanagar, Balapur, Kishan Bagh, Sastripuram, Lal Dabha, No.9 and Shaheen Nagar etc and as people were bringing Zakat for distribution mostly in Balapur area due to the media publicity it received, refugees residing in other areas did not receive anything.

Considering all these and other problems being faced by refugees, COVA has facilitated the constitution of a Rohingya Refugees Committee comprising of refugee representatives from different localities and selected by the refugees themselves through a wide consultative process. This Rohingya Refugees Committee has already started work and is successfully settling and resolving minor disputes that arise among refugees from time to time and provide other support for livelihood, education etc. This Committee is also authorised by the refugees to collect all Zakat and other donations, give receipts to the donors and distribute all the material received to all the families equally once a week on every Sunday. Donors are also invited to be present on Sundays at the time of distribution to gauge and contribute to the propriety of the process.     

Refugees, especially from Burma, are in a very bad situation and deserve whatever help that can be provided. But in order to ensure that all the refugees receive support equally and there are no disputes and fights during distribution, we appeal to all philanthropists to approach and use the services of the Rohingya Refugee Committee for fair distribution of donation and Zakat. 

Address and contact number of the Rohingya Refugee Committee donations and zakat collection Centre is: 

Beside Al Hira School, Dargah Shareef Balapur, Hyderabad 500 005. Mobile No.9391148966

Mazher Husssain

Executive Director

COVA

Celebrating Asghar Ali Engineer: A Tribute by Swami Agnivesh and Mazher Hussain

Asghar Ali Engineer, the renowned religious reformer and peace activist breathed his last on 14^th May 2013 at his residence in Mumbai. Unlike most people he did not leave behind just two children but thousands of heirs to his ideology and legacy in India and other parts of the world who will carry forward his mission for a just, equal and harmonious world.

A soft spoken, gentle and unassuming person- always clad in a simple white kurta- pajama, Dr. Engineer had become an institution, a legend and the icon of religious reforms and communal harmony even during his life time. His extraordinary contribution to society received widespread acknowledgement and critical acclaim from across the globe and he was conferred many national and international awards including The Rights Livelihood (Alternative Nobel Prize), jointly with Swami Agnivesh (one of the author of this Tribute) in the year 2004 at Stockholm Sweden.

Acknowledged as a walking encyclopedia on the Holy Quran and related Islamic literature and practices, he emerged as a leading religious reformer in the Muslim community, especially in India. Accepting the centrality and inviolability of the Holy Quran for a Muslim, he was able to revolutionise the understanding and practice of Islam by initiating reformist processes even amongst the most conservative sections of society by developing and propagating the method of Creative Interpretation that took as an operating framework the values of equality, justice and contemporary social issues and dynamics. This novel approach of reading the Holy Quran reclaimed the essence of its original teachings to demonstrate that Islam is indeed a religion of peace that emphasizes the values of equality and justice. With this method, he was also able to establish the egalitarian and progressive teaching of Islam on issues of human rights, women, marriage, respect for all religious, communal harmony etc.

Son of a religious priest but a civil engineer by training, Dr. Engineer plunged into the issue of communalism after the riots at Jabalpur in 1961 that had a great emotional impact on him to change the very course of his life. Ever since, he has been traveling relentlessly all over India and other parts of the world to orient, train and motivate thousands of people including policy makers, religious leaders, politicians, police officials, academicians, journalists, students, youth and representatives of civil society etc, on issues of communal harmony and national integration.  

The year 1974 brought the second revolution in his life when in response to unrelenting repression of the Bohra Community by their religious priest, Dr. Engineer took up the cudgel of religious reforms to free the community from medieval oppression and thus became an authority on religious matters. But taking on an established and powerful clergy had its price and Asghar Ali Engineer was attacked 5 times in which he was seriously injured and his house totally ransacked in the year 2000. But after each attack he exhibited exemplary courage and strength of his conviction and redoubled his opposition to the reactionary forces to weaken them more and more.

Apart from conducting hundreds of workshops and seminars on issues of communalism and  religious reforms, Dr. Engineer amazed every one by his prolific writing that enabled him to publish over 70 books and thousands of articles on communalism and religious reforms at an average of at least 2 articles very week that were published in renowned national and international journals.   In the year 2011 he published his autobiography titled “A Living Faith: My Quest for Peace, Harmony and Social Change” that was an instant success and was reprinted in 2012 and translated into Urdu and Marathi. Translations in many other languages are expected to come out soon.

Asghar Ali Engineer and his wife (who died a few years back) not only struggled against oppression and injustice through their lives but also paid a price in death. Though Bohra Muslims, they were denied burial in the grave yard of their community and had to be laid to rest in a Sunni graveyard.  But their sacrifices shall not be in vain. Even in death, Dr. Engineer has inspired countless individuals who will continue to take forward his mission of engineering social transformation to doctor society to attain a state of perfect harmony and enlightened religious practices. 

Court Order Proves COVA's Point: Mazher Hussain Interviewed For CIVIL SOCIETY Magazine by T.S. Sudhir

Friends

Mr. T.S. Sudhir, a senior journalist of print and electronic media interviewed Dr. Mazher Hussain, Executive Director of COVA about the recent Direction of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in a Writ Petition filed by COVA and its implications for the implementation of 73rd and 74th Amendments to the Constitution of India and securing peoples participation in governance from grassroots,  

The Interview titled Court Order Proves COVA's Point is appended below:  

COVA Team

Court order proves COVA’s point

T.S.Sudhir

Hyderabad

On 10 December, the Andhra Pradesh High Court ordered the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) to activate Area Sabhas and Ward Committees in the city and ensure they hold regular meetings.  For the first time in India, proper implementation of the 73^rd and 74^th Amendments to the Constitution that takes governance to the grassroots is being sought.

The Andhra Pradesh government had issued a landmark order directing the formation of Area Sabhas and Ward Committees in February 2010 to enable citizens’ participation in civic affairs.  Ward Committees also had budgetary allocations enabling them to carry out development works without having to depend on the local elected representatives.

However, Ward Committees and Area Sabhas have not met regularly and are practically defunct.  It was the Confederation of Voluntary Organisations (COVA) that approached the Andhra Pradesh High Court.

COVA is a national network of 500 voluntary organisations focusing on issues of social harmony, peace and justice.  T.S.Sudhir spoke to Mazher Hussain, Executive Director of COVA, on the significance of the order for people’s participation in governance.

What difference will the High Court’s order make to our lives?

The judgment will enable better participation of the common people in matters of governance at the grassroots.  The 73^rd and 74^th amendments to the Constitution envisage the involvement of ordinary citizens in decision-making, especially in civic issues and welfare programmes.  But politicians and bureaucrats monopolise these decisions and the common man has to beg and plead.  This landmark judgment will transform the grammar of governance if it is used well by civil society.

But there is very little awareness about Ward Committees and Area Sabhas.  How do you overcome that?

In our writ petition, we have said that the meetings of the Area Sabhas and Ward Committees should be held regularly and according to the norms stipulated.  The newspapers should mention them in the engagements columns but as everyone does not read newspapers, mobile publicity as in posters on the back of autorickshaws should be used.

Do you think politicians have a vested interest in keeping the aam admi out?

Let us take the example of say a gas connection or old age pensions.  It should be decided at the level of the area sabha, not by the MLA or corporator of the area.  But it does not work that way.  Then, there is also the middleman syndrome where minor political functionaries do the wheeling and dealing.  They are usually flunkies of politicians so that the leaders do not get their hands dirty.  A study on the common minimum programme of the Andhra Pradesh Government conducted by research scholars of the University of Hyderabad found widespread unhappiness over the role played by middlemen.  It is the people who should decide who should get what.

Do you think citizens also don’t like to get involved? May be the attitude is that my work should get done and I do not care about the rest.

Yes, public social responsibility is at a premium.  It is what I call the ‘mein, meri jeb, mera baccha’ attitude (Me, my purse, my child).  What we have to instill is a spirit of selective assertion on specific subjects.  This won’t be a mass uprising or a revolution but if people can stress their demands effectively, the purpose would be served.

Will the politician get marginalised if the Area Sabhas or Ward Committees get more powers?

A change is needed in the political culture of our country.  At present, there is no political competition.  Once a person wins the election, the other candidates fall off the radar.  The winner has a monopoly even if he has won the election by a few hundred votes while the others are squeezed out.  What the High Court judgment will do it to encourage the Opposition parties to get the people to voice their demands because it will also help them in the next election.  Conflict is the essence of a functioning democracy while violence is not.  If we do not stand up for conflict, we will open the doors of oppression.

What are the lessons for other states in India from what has taken place in Andhra Pradesh?

Since Andhra Pradesh issued its order in February 2010.  Many other states also have issued similar government orders.  But most of them have been on paper and are very diluted versions of the Andhra order.  In Gujarat, for instance, very few powers have been given to the Area Sabhas.  Civil society can play a big role.  In Hyderabad, we have formed groups of 15 to 20 concerned citizens in each locality who walk around the area and identify problems that can be discussed at the meetings.  That is an effective way of identifying and solving problems.

MDGs Plus Frame: Addressing Global Poverty through Localised Initiatives

Dear Friends

Please find appended my Concept Note titled “MDGs Plus Frame: Addressing Global Poverty through Localised Initiatives” prepared for the Meeting of the High Level Panel of Eminent Persons (HLPEP) appointed by UN on Post 2015 Development Agenda for the Millennium Development Goals scheduled from 24-27 March 2013 in Bali, Indonesia.

In this Note I propose that along with the Millennium Development Goals adopted by the UN, an additional Framework is required to factor in the issues of human rights, democracy, social exclusion and security to eliminate poverty and deprivation in an effective and sustainable manner. 

Hoping my proposition is accepted.

In solidarity

Mazher Hussain

MDGs Plus Frame: Addressing Global Poverty through Localised Initiatives

Mazher Hussain

The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are eight international development goals that were officially declared by the United Nations in 2000, as part of the United Nations Millennium Declaration after a millennium summit. All 193 United Nations Member States and at least 23 international organizations agreed to strive to these goals by the year 2015. The eight goals are eradicating extreme poverty and hunger, achieving universal primary education, promoting gender equality and empowering women, reducing child mortality rates, improving maternal health, combating HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases, ensuring environmental sustainability and developing a global partnership for development.

Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are indeed a positive step in making the acknowledgment and elimination of poverty a formal global responsibility. The very intent of the MDGs program is laudable even if it could not achieve its targets completely within the stipulated time frame and United Nations has embarked on Post 2015 Development Agenda to strive for their attainment. The serious intent of the United Nations in its effort to address the issue of global poverty can be gauged from the fact that the Secretary General of UN has appointed a High Level Panel of Eminent Persons (HLPEP) on Post 2015 Development Agenda comprising of 26 eminent persons from civil society, private sector and the government from across the globe with President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono of Indonesia; President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf of Liberia; and Prime Minister David Cameron of the United Kingdom as three Co- chairs. The Fourth Meeting of this High Level Panel of Eminent Persons (HLPEP) on Post 2015 Development Agenda is scheduled to be held on 24-27 March 2013 in Bali, Indonesia and this Panel is mandated to produce a report on the post-2015 framework by May 2013.

While there are no reservations about the intentions of the UN or the 8 Millennium

Development Goals adopted, additional goals are being proposed by some people for the Post 2015 Development Agenda as essential for effective elimination of poverty and deprivation as envisaged. These additional goals being proposed include addressing social exclusion, issues of peace and security and promotion of democracy etc. Further, reservations are being expressed about the efficacy of the present framework of the MDGs (which is primarily economic) in eliminating global poverty and there is a growing demand for a rights framework that could ensure a minimum quality of life as an entitlement, rather than as a service that the state is expected to accept for delivery.

Core Contradictions

UN is a collective of nations with varied political systems ranging from democracies to monarchies to dictatorships etc. Hence a prescription by the UN for promotion and strengthening of democracy in the member countries for the realisation of MDGs may not be possible and permissible given its mandate. Further, a large number of non democratic countries (like in the middle- east) have low incidences of poverty and so it will be difficult to establish the strengthening of democracy as a precondition for elimination of poverty.

Discourse on social exclusion can also be problematic. First the reluctance by most states to accept the phenomenon of social exclusion within their own countries (as it could have far reaching political ramifications) and secondly consensus on the groups to be accepted as socially excluded.

Similarly, there can be no disagreement about the impact of conflicts on producing, promoting and perpetuating poverty. But most conflicts have states themselves as parties (due to a variety of political reasons) and to expect member countries to take directions from the UN to monitor and report reduction in conflicts in order to eliminate poverty may neither be viable or possible.

Need for Multiple Frameworks and Diverse Strategies

While it is true that democratisation of polity, inclusion of all sections of society and reduction in conflicts could greatly facilitate and accelerate the elimination of poverty but given the limitations in the mandate of the UN, member countries may not be willing to accept any prescriptions from the UN on any of these crucial issues. Similarly, the rights framework being proposed may also not be acceptable to a number of member countries given the nature and characteristics of their political systems. But it also appears that unless the crucial issues of democratisation, social inclusion and reduction in conflicts etc, are addressed and a rights framework is adopted, time bound and effective elimination of poverty does not seem possible or sustainable.

In such a scenario, a possible way out could be the adoption of two frameworks: one within the traditional ambit and mandate of the UN that could continue to focus on enhancing development initiatives for the elimination of poverty and a second framework to be evolved through a combination of UN Agencies, civil society groups and government ministries etc to address the issues of democratisation, social inclusion, conflict reduction and advocacy for accepting human rights as a paradigm for development discourse. This second, MDGs Plus Frame could facilitate intra country, regional or international collaborations between different stakeholders including, UN Agencies, Governments and Civil Society to address specific or multiple issues for the elimination of global poverty as envisaged.

As the MDGs Plus Frame can also have country specific interventions, it can effectively facilitate creation of conditions conducive for elimination of poverty in different countries by factoring in the prevailing political systems of the concerned countries for optimal results. Even the issues of democracy, security and social exclusion and rights etc. could be raised and addressed through the MDGs PLUS Frame, without the danger of these being taken as external interventions or impositions. Further, as the MDGs proposed are minimalistic and some countries have already surpassed some of these goals, the MDG Plus Frame could be used to encourage different countries to formulate their goals over and above the thresholds recommended by the MDGs.

Hence what seems to be required is a combination of MDGs mandated by the UN as a globally accepted imperative and the MDGs Plus Frame that could facilitate appropriate country specific discourses and initiatives. Finally, as the MDGs Plus Frame would be country specific, the ownership, targets and strategies could be localised leading to effective and accelerated elimination of poverty across the globe.

(Dr. Mazher Hussain is Executive Director of COVA, a National Network working

for communal harmony in India and Peace in South Asia and can be reached at:

mazherhussain11@gmail.com).