Indo-Pak talks end in a stalemate

From Shubhabrata Bhattacharya
Tribune News Service

COLOMBO, July 31 — The two-leg India-Pakistan showdown in Colombo has ended with India underscoring its points in the multilateral leg, namely, the 10th SAARC summit, whereas in the bilateral leg, despite show of mutual warmth by Mr Atal Behari Vajpayee and Mr Nawaz Sharif on Wednesday, a stalemate, resulting in a "washout" has been the result.

Use of cricketing parlance may not be out of place while this despatch is being filed from the land of the world champions, Sri Lanka. In the recent Singer Cup, matches were washed out by rain. Though the weather was minus downpours for the three days of the summit (it was mostly sunny), in both multilateral and bilateral legs, India and Pakistan could not come to a conclusion.

In the multilateral front, India can look back to Colombo with pride. Its penchant for keeping political issues at bay was appreciated and the SAARC Chairperson, Mrs Chandrika Bandarnaike Kumaratunga, blew the whistle whenever Pakistan crossed the 'Lakshman-rekha' of the SAARC Charter. In fact at Bentota yesterday she had stopped short of showing the "yellow card" to Mr Nawaz Sharif.

SAARC’s emphasis on economic relations and its appreciation of steps being taken by India to push the fast-forward button in the movement from the present preferential trade arrangement to free trade in South Asia (and in the interregnum, offer of bilateral free trade with those who want it) have been major achievements during Mr Vajpayee’s maiden trip to foreign shores.

On the bilateral plane, though, Mr Vajpayee seems to have misjudged the mood of Mr Sharif. As the Foreign Secretary-level talks could not produce a definite result in two days, Pakistan, in a statement, suggested that the announcement of the talks had been done "unilaterally" by Mr Vajpayee. (India, however, did not argue with this formulation.)

The Pakistani statement issued here today said: "The dialogue remains stalemated and no progress has been made in Colombo". The statement added: "At the heart of the problem lies the rigid and inflexible position which India continues to maintain in its refusal to address the issues of peace and security and Jammu and Kashmir dispute".

To make the matters worse, the Pakistani spokesman today circulated to the media a "non-paper" by Pakistan on confidence building measures in Jammu and Kashmir, which said:

"We proposed the following confidence building measures with a view to bringing about relaxation of tensions in Jammu and Kashmir: (a) the strengthening of UNMOGIP and authority to patrol on both sides of the LoC, with regular reports to the UN Security Council; (b) the release of Kashmiri detainees; (c) the removal of Indian army pickets in Srinagar and other Kashmiri towns and villages; (d) the phased reduction of Indian troops from IHK’s towns and villages; (e) the cessation of search/arrest operations; (f) the transmission of information about ‘missing persons’ in IHK; (g) the stationing of ICRC and UN human rights monitors in IHK; (h) the recognition of All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC) as legitimate Kashmiri representative".

It further said: "India should consider the above suggestions in the context of efforts towards seriously addressing the Jammu and Kashmir issue, which is the core problem between Pakistan and India".

India reacted calmy. A two-page statement released by Foreign Secretary, Mr K. Raghunath, said: "An obsessive focus on a single issue or a one-point agenda is as neurotic for individuals as for nation states".

For India, the Colombo Declaration issued by the 10th SAARC summit had been a decisive victory not only in the region, but in the global perspective. Categorically taking note of India’s irreducible security concerns, the Colombo Declaration also in effect endorsed India’s position on the NPT and the CTBT and echoed India’s Rajiv Gandhi vintage demand for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons.

Pakistan’s bid for a peace, security and development initiative for South Asia failed to take off at all. This, coupled with the SAARC’s endorsement of India’s irreducible security concerns (that nuclear weapons with China pose a threat; that the nuclear "haves" must talk of the CTBT and the NPT on equal terms, not from a position of advantage) was reflected in paragraph 78 of the Colombo Declaration, which said:

"The Heads of State of Government were of the view that stability, peace and security in South Asia could not be considered in isolation of the global security environment. Although great power rivalry which the NAM had consistently opposed, no longer posed a serious threat and the danger of a global nuclear conflagration had abated yet some states had sought to maintain huge arsenals of nuclear weapons. The NPT and the CTBT, to which some SAARC members were signatories, had not led to any progress towards nuclear disarmament nor prevented proliferation. They underscored their commitment to the complete elimination of nuclear weapons and the need for promoting nuclear disarmament on a universal basis, under effective international control. They recognised that global non-proliferation goals cannot be achieved in the absence of progress towards nuclear disarmament and in this context called upon all nuclear weapon states, whether party or non-party to the NPT engage constructively through a transparent and credible process of negotiations at the Conference on Disarmament".

The stalemate in Indo-Pak bilateral talks thus has to be viewed in the total perspective. Before Mr Nawaz Sharif embarked on his Colombo trip, he had a major reverse at home: the Pakistan Supreme Court questioned the justification behind suspension of fundamental rights under the emergency declared by Mr Sharif’s government in the aftermath of nuclear blasts. The Pakistan Supreme Court felt that financial emergency need not be accompanied by the suspension of fundamental rights.

Hence, Mr Sharif was besieged at home; he did not find any talkers for his line in Colombo (or during the retreat at Bentota). The atmosphere for creating a situation other than a stalemate, therefore, did not exist in Colombo when India and Pakistan got down to negotiations.

There is a silver lining: while announcing failure of the talks, the Pakistani spokesman said two things:

• "It is expected that the two Prime Ministers will have their next meeting at the sidelines of the NAM summit in Durban, South Africa".
• "We hope that the two sides will remain in touch through diplomatic channels to overcome the difficulties and resumption of the dialogue".

India and Pakistan, thus, have agreed to disagree. They have not said "no" to talks. India would like the talks to be bilateral; Pakistan is itching for the third party intervention.

India wants a "broad-based and composite" dialogue. As Mr Raghunath put it, "serious discussions can take place on foundations which are realistic and not on the basis of fantasies".

"Engaging in dialogue itself is a forward movement", the Foreign Secretary said and emphasised that there was no place for interlocutors. "There is no place for involvement of any party, whether call it mediation or use any other term", he clarified.

Thus, Colombo has not been the venue for a thaw in India-Pakistan relations. Yet there is hope. Free India and Pakistan owe their existence as independent nation states to developments in Durban, South Africa, from where the journey of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi began. Though Pakistan was born against the Mahatma’s wishes, in today’s reality, perhaps, both India and Pakistan can look to Durban with hope.

C'Swami's role to be probed
Jain report tabled in Parliament

NEW DELHI, July 31 (PTI) — The Jain Commission has said "a doubt does arise" about the complicity and involvement of Chandraswami in the conspiracy to assassinate Rajiv Gandhi while the government announced that a specialised agency would probe the panel’s comments in regard to Chandraswami, Janata Party president Subramanian Swamy and Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi.

The final report of the panel, headed by former Delhi High Court Chief Justice Milap Chand Jain which probed the conspiracy behind the killing of the former Premier nearly seven years ago, was placed on the table of both Houses of Parliament along with the government’s action taken report (ATR).

The government announced the setting up of a multi-disciplinary monitoring agency (mdma) in the CBI to monitor the movements of all accused in the case who were still absconding and undertake further probe into the activities of those against whom doubts had been raised in the final report.

The panel said "taking the entire evidence, material and circumstances brought on record into consideration, a doubt does arise regarding Chandraswami’s complicity and involvement and the matter requires further probe."

On Mr Karunanidhi, the ATR said it entrusted the mdma with the responsibility to decide how to proceed further in the matter.

Monsoon over Punjab, Haryana above normal
By Ajay Banerjee
Tribune News Service

CHANDIGARH, July 31 — This year's monsoon over Punjab and Haryana is above normal by 33 per cent and 52 per cent, respectively. On the other hand, rainfall has been below normal by 9 per cent in Himachal Pradesh while it has been 63 per cent above normal in the Union Territory of Chandigarh.

The first two months of the monsoon season ended today and the figures have been updated till yesterday, the local meteorological office said. In certain pockets of Haryana like Rohtak and Bhiwani the rain has been a shade below normal. It is 21mm below normal in Rohtak district. Same is true for Faridkot district in Punjab where it has been 34 mm less that usual.

On the other hand, Kurukshetra with 623 mm of rain is 393 mm in excess and Patiala, with 383 mm of rain is 128 mm in excess. Both towns top the list in Haryana and Punjab, respectively. The maximum deficiency recorded in the north western region is in Mandi, where the rainfall has been 302 mm below its normal quota of 635 mm.

Taking an average for the entire Punjab till July 30 the met office has calculated that the state received 290 mm of rain while the normal rainfall was 218 mm. In Haryana, the average rainfall throughout the state has been 326 mm while the normal level is 214 i.e 52 per cent in excess.

In Himachal, the rain has been 9 per cent in shortfall . The actual rainfall has been 383 mm while the normal quota should have been 419 mm in HP, the met office said. Despite the shortfall Dharamsala had received 1162 mm of rain i.e 60 mm above normal.

Explaining the phenomena how rainfall was not so widespread the met office said that it is not necessary that widespread rain will occur each time clouds form in one area. Thus below normal rain is being recorded even in Himachal officials explained. In Himachal rain has been below normal at almost all major stations . Figures ended July 29 indicate that Shimla, Mandi, Solan, Chamba and Hamirpur, among others, are falling behind on average rainfall.

Though some of these stations are listed as normal in the met parlance the rainfall is below normal. The meteorological department figures are taken as "normal rain" if rainfall is 19 per cent above or below normal. Rain is classified as excess if it is 20 per cent or more than normal. Deficient is classified when rainfall is between 22 per cent and 59 per cent below normal.

In Punjab towns like Gurdaspur, Hoshiarpur and Ludhiana have recorded rainfall above normal and is said to be good for the crops. Same is true for towns of Karnal, Gurgaon, Faridabad and Ambala, among other places.

The Union Territory of Chandigarh has been receiving very sharp showers at irregular intervals but there has been no long spell of rain which would usually carry on for a day or two. The same thing happened today when the city received very sharp showers but within two hours the sun was shining brightly.

The weather office explained that the cloud burst was due to no big organised formations of clouds. Changes like these happen routinely when rainfall is not uniform, however, moisture is there in the atmosphere.

Supreme Court stays HC order
on traffic regulations
by Prabhjot Singh
Tribune News Service

CHANDIGARH, July 31 — The Supreme Court today stayed the operation of the order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court of July 9, 1998, through which various directions were issued to the Governments of Punjab and Haryana, besides the Chandigarh Administration, for regulating vehicular traffic and pollution control.

The order of the apex court followed a special leave petition (SLP) filed by the Chandigarh Administration.

The administration maintained that the petition raised substantial questions of law of general public importance. These questions included whether the high court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 could have overlooked and ignored the provisions of law and given directions in complete violation of these provisions of law, including the Motor Vehicles Act, Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, and rules framed thereunder.

Whether the high court was justified in giving a direction to be implemented fort with, thus taking away the right of appeal of the petitioner, especially when an application was moved by the administration before the high court for grant of time for filing an appeal against the impugned judgement. In the SLP, the administration maintained that its officers had been called repeatedly to explain as to why the directions had not been complied with. The court later granted time up to today (July 31) and had called the officers on August 3 for apprising the court of the directions having been complied with or not.

The administration also questioned whether the high court had not committed a grave error in imposing its own pre-conceived notions and prejudices regarding urban planning and road planning in particular? For example, the SLP said, its order to make radical and totally unimplementable changes in the lay out, structure and road planning of the city, while overruling expert advice in making recommendations such as that one-way traffic shall be introduced virtually throughout the city, even though the city was planned on the basis of the inter-sectoral roads called V-3 roads and V-2 roads (major city thoroughfares), V-4 roads (commercial streets with shops deliberately kept on one side of the road behind a parking space), V-5 roads (being loop roads inside each sector) providing access to the lesser. It was improbable that there was any such city in the world consisting almost entirely of one-way roads as required by the high court.

The same question, the administration said, applied also to the directions that side lanes should be provided without exception to all "main roads" of Chandigarh, without even defining which category of roads were main roads for this purpose.

National hero unsung in hometown
From Jangveer Singh
Tribune News Service

SUNAM (Sangrur), July 31 — This town which once did not own its martyr Udham Singh, still finds it difficult to come to terms with his legacy.

While the people of Sunam disowned Udham Singh after he shot dead Michael O'Dyer at whose behest thousands of innocent people were killed at Jallianwala Bagh, they quarrelled over how he should be depicted and eventually erected two statues showing him as a Hindu and a Sikh, respectively.

The government, which did not want to be involved in the quarrel, erected a Flame of Liberty at the stadium here. It was here that Chief Minister Parkash Singh Badal and other people paid their respects to the martyr today.

The compounds of both statues, erected around 200 metres from each other, were bereft of any people today nor did the public pay obeisance at the two memorials.

Many people feel the controversy generated by erecting two kinds of statues has besmirched the lofty stands of secularism espoused by Udham Singh who called himself Ram Mohammad Singh Azad. They feel the controversy should be ended once and for all and a separate befitting memorial be constructed in the martyr's honour.

However, despite more than 30 years having passed since the construction of the statues, old sores remain. Vipan Kumar, a shopkeeper, claimed the issue was needlessly given a religious colour as the first statue was only an attempt to portray Udham Singh as he was arrested in London. However, another lobby feels a deliberate attempt was made to prove that Udham Singh was a Hindu which was untrue and could not be accepted.

The controversy started when Udham Singh's ashes were brought to Sunam in July, 1974. While a part of the ashes was kept at the local Shaheed Udham Singh College, other parts were immersed in the Ganga at Hardwar and at Kiratpur Sahib, besides being sent to the Jallianwala Bagh and the dargah at Sirhind. However the quarrel started when it was first decided that a statue of him as shown in photographs wearing a hat and suit when arrested after shooting Michael O'Dyer be constructed.

Though an attempt was made to arrive at a consensus by adding a Hindu-style turban and moustaches to the statue, another statue depicting the martyr with a turban and beard was also erected soon after.

There are also discrepancies in the two memorials. While the memorial depicting him as a Hindu proclaims his date of birth as 1889, that in which he is depicted as a Sikh has his date of birth as 1899. In the Flame of Liberty memorial, the date of birth is given as 1903.

Jagan Nath Sandha, who has penned a book on Udham Singh, has said that the controversy over the statues was raised for vested interests. He says little did people remember that Udham Singh had himself said," Na mein dharam ke bandhan mein hun, na mein mazhab ke kayal hun, mera to desh Bharat hai, sada iska mein sheda hun."