Clinton under trial
THE year began badly for President Clinton with his Monica Lewinsky chapter bobbing up and threatening to bring him to book.

Reforming power sector
THE 12-point action plan adopted at Friday’s conference on power in New Delhi, held at the behest of the Centre, has, as it appears, only one major target to achieve: to ensure an adequate inflow of foreign direct investment in the highly significant areas of electricity generation, transmission and distribution.

This gold is not just a medal!
Dhanraj Pillay and his boys have done India proud. They have brought back to the country the hockey gold after its being in depressing wilderness for 32 years.

Conceptual study of key issues
By Shrikant Paranjpe
THERE are two distinct approaches used to interpret the rationale and the implications of the nuclear tests conducted by India and Pakistan in May, 1998.

Angola: UNITA’s belligerency
by Hari Sharan Chhabra
THE recent arrest by UNITA rebels of 10 Indian peacekeepers working for the United Nations in Angola highlights the extent of lawlessness in that civil war-torn country.

Judicial impartiality, or agent of change?
Barely three weeks after its epochal pronouncement in General Augusto Pinochet’s case , England’s highest court, the House of Lords has vacated the verdict and ordered a fresh hearing because justice must not only be done but must seem to be done.

Depressing atmosphere at Iraqi Embassy
I have been in touch with the Iraqi Embassy’s Charge d’Affaires, Mr Mohsin Al Hadi, and even right now when I last spoke to him, minutes before keying in this column, his tone and utterances remain unchanged. Sad, upset and definitely angry.

Levity in brevity
ON most occasions when I step into the bathroom after a reposeful night’s sleep I remember the old fairy tale and ask: “Mirror, mirror on the wall/Tell the truth about us all”.

75 Years Ago

Are ladies safe on the border?
IN concluding his research paper, Sir Hamilton Grant said that as one who had spent many years in the region, he was constantly asked whether the Frontier was any longer safe for English ladies.

Clinton under trial

THE year began badly for President Clinton with his Monica Lewinsky chapter bobbing up and threatening to bring him to book. The year is about to end on a disastrous note, with a wrenching trial staring him in the face. He would like to believe that he is the President of the mighty USA, who can on his own punish a distant country, but many in his country believe that he is a moral cripple and deservedly an undertrial. An undertrial, that sadly and shockingly is the constitutional and legal position. President Clinton can still escape, as he has done a dozen times in the past. But he stands badly bruised, with his image much dimmed and the prestige of the White House and the office of President considerably weakened. He has bluntly refused to resign, a course that an unillustrious predecessor, Mr Richard Nixon, took when he too faced a similar fate. Of course, Mr Clinton is not a traditional politician, not having grown up in an environment of restraint, abstinence and morality. And the nemesis has caught up with him. He will yet fight to the bitter end, if his track record is anything to go by. And given the balance of votes and the rules of the Senate, he may even beat back the motion of impeachment by the skin of his teeth. That would not wash away the Lewinsky stains, but will only underline how the mandatory two-thirds majority and the presence of 45 Democratic Senators will help Mr Clinton squeeze himself out through the loopholes, and not walk through honourable doors. The consistently high rating of his performance in opinion polls has been of much help, but if the demand for his resignation to avert the destabilising effects of a protracted and rancorous Senate trial picks up momentum, all this would change rapidly.

The latest evidence of his unconcealed trait to misuse his office to serve personal ends came even as the House of Representatives was debating the four articles of impeachment. He called in Mr Richard Butler, the chief of UNSCOM for Iraq, asked his senior officials to dictate his report and even before the UN Secretary General had a look at it, unleashed death-dealing aircraft and missiles to flatten Baghdad. That reckless action, bordering on international brigandage, provided him with one day of reprieve, just one day. Within hours of the frustration of his attempts delaying the House vote until January 6 when the newly elected House of Representatives comes into existence, he called off the Iraqi mission. The interrelation between the brief but brutal bombing and the impeachment proceedings is too obvious to miss. As one wag bitterly commented, the Lewinsky affair is with a bimbo and the Iraqi raid is with bombs. He wanted to offset the ill-effects of an immoral liaison with a miss by launching missiles. The tradeoff has failed and there is a moral lesson in this.

Reforming power sector

THE 12-point action plan adopted at Friday’s conference on power in New Delhi, held at the behest of the Centre, has, as it appears, only one major target to achieve: to ensure an adequate inflow of foreign direct investment in the highly significant areas of electricity generation, transmission and distribution. There is no harm in alluring independent power producers to invest with an assured return on their capital, as India needs a massive dose of funds — Rs 2,50,000 crore by 2000 — for its power projects. But this should not be the end of all. There should be no discrimination against the consumers of power. The deliberations at the day-long conference and what Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee has stated show that only the industrial consumers’ interests are being taken care of. The farming sector has been projected as being partly responsible for the unending illness of the State Electricity Boards. This is unfair, to say the least. Power supply to the farming sector has been treated as a non-priority activity. It gets its requirement of electricity mainly during the night-time, and that too is switched off at the slightest provocation. One may agree that there should be no free power supply to the farmers, but they have every right to get it at highly subsidised rates. The reason is simple: they use power at a time when it could have otherwise gone waste. The truth is that no farmer would grudge paying for his power requirement at a minimum rate as agreed upon, provided he is assured of sufficient supply and without the long periods of power cuts, mostly unannounced. The Prime Minister’s call for a national consensus on fixing a minimum tariff for the farming sector should also include the rider that in that case the agriculturists will be treated on a par with the industrial power consumers. It is unfortunate that while laying the entire blame on the farmers for the annual loss of Rs 10,000 crore to the SEBs, it has been forgotten that this is mainly because of transmission losses and theft on a large scale.

The plan to boost hydroelectricity generation by levying a cess at the rate of 5 paise per unit deserves greater attention. India has an estimated potential of 84,044 MW hydel power generation though only 15 per cent of it has been tapped so far. This may require technology upgradation and at a faster rate. It is essential to ensure that power generation must grow at least by 1.5 times of the GDP growth rate to sustain a reasonably high level of industrial development. According to one estimate, power availability must increase by 9 per cent if there is a 6 per cent growth in GDP. This will mean a massive investment, beyond the capacity of any government. However, arranging the required funds is not enough. Projects, when cleared, should be implemented quickly to avoid cost overruns. There are a number of projects on which work began years ago but they are yet to be completed. This defeats the very purpose of the schemes. Thus the 15 power projects on which work will begin in March next year should be asked to reach the commissioning stage by the fixed deadline in any case. One hopes the government’s action plan will soon follow a comprehensive energy policy to create an attractive climate for private investment but without compromising the interests of the power users.

This gold is not just a medal!

Dhanraj Pillay and his boys have done India proud. They have brought back to the country the hockey gold after its being in depressing wilderness for 32 years. It was in 1966 that India last won the Asian Games hockey gold, with Balbir Singh scoring the winning goal. All these years, the masters of traditional hockey remained in the limbo --- getting through to the final and meeting their superior "match". The six occasions were 1970, 1974, 1978, 1982, 1990, and 1994. But prior to 1966, India were the undisputed world champions. Who can forget the names of Dhyan Chand, K.D. Singh Babu, Prithipal Singh, Balbir Singh, Dharam Singh, Udham Singh and Tarlochan Singh Bawa? Theirs was the golden era of Indian hockey. Balbir Singh brought gold for India in three successive Olympics. India experimented with the European style of hockey, forgetting its own traditional manner. And it paid a heavy price! The masters gave way to the Europeans as Holland, Australia, and Germany came on to the Olympic gold bandwagon with their fast and rough game. On the Asian scene, South Korea flexed their muscles when they defeated both India and Pakistan in the Seoul Games in 1986. The Asian gold on Saturday came India's way when goalkeeper Ashish Ballal stopped two strokes in the tie-breaker after the two teams tied 1-1 after regular time. That India played immaculate hockey can be gauged from the fact that the team had defeated South Korea in the league round earlier. The victory has ensured India's entry into the 2000 Sydney Olympic Games. The last Olympic gold win for India was a fluke in the 1980 Moscow Olympics when the European teams had boycotted the Games. Saturday's victory is a boon for the team. They have got out of the defeatist syndrome and an Olympian quagmire. If we could do it in Bangkok, there is no reason why we cannot do it in the 2000 Olympics. Nothing succeeds like success, indeed!

Dialogue With Pakistan
Conceptual study of key issues
By Shrikant Paranjpe

THERE are two distinct approaches used to interpret the rationale and the implications of the nuclear tests conducted by India and Pakistan in May, 1998. One uses the regional security paradigm to analyse the causes of the tests and their implications, and the other attempts to place them in the global framework of the non-proliferation regime and the defiance of the technologically emergent Third World states. The former leads us to the compulsions of bilateral problems of India-Pakistan and India-China, and the need to initiate measures to reduce tensions that may eventually lead to a nuclear confrontation. The letter places the developments in India and Pakistan on the global agenda, and directs the two countries to seek a dialogue, not necessarily for nuclear non-proliferation, but for the need for these countries to position themselves as bargainers vis-a-vis the developed world.

Regional security problems have been articulated as some of the key determinants of the Indian nuclear tests. Both Indian and Western analysts have sought to highlight the threats from Pakistan and China. Implicit in this analysis is the argument that India would have to initiate a serious dialogue with Pakistan to reduce its tensions so as to avoid an escalation of a conventional conflict into a nuclear one. Kashmir has been highlighted as the critical element in the bilateral dispute. A variety of countries and the United Nations Secretary-General have shown eagerness to mediate between the two.

This approach has succeeded in confining the nuclear debate to the South Asian level. Such a confinement grants two advantages to the nuclear weapon states: one, it keeps the issue of global nuclear disarmament and the commitment to that end of the nuclear weapon powers outside the scope of the debate. Two, it becomes easier to discipline the “wayward” nuclear-capable states like India and Pakistan through the use of sanctions. By directing the two South Asian states to make efforts to avoid a nuclear confrontation over such issues like Kashmir the P-5 group is able to ensure the continuity of the nuclear non-proliferation regime.

A 1996 policy paper prepared on the subject of security threats to India had identified such non-military pressures like trade, intellectual property rights, environment and technology control as threats to national security. Non-strategic pulls and pressures by foreign nations that affect the nation’s economy should be looked upon as a security threat, and not as an isolated trade-related activity. Trade embargoes, technology control regimes and diplomatic pressures to sign various treaties were growing in recent times. This had an adverse impact on the Indian economy.

Restrictions on nuclear and related dual use technology had begun with the NPT in 1968. The Nuclear Suppliers Group, formed after the Indian test of 1974, had placed restrictions on the transfer of nuclear-related technology and material to such nuclear-capable states as India. The Missile Technology Control Regime instituted in 1987 had placed restrictions on the transfer of dual use technology related to missiles. It was under this regime that the Russians were forced to cancel the technology transfer agreement on the cryogenic engines for the ISRO programme. In 1995 came the Wassanaar Arrangement on the transfer of dual use technology. The CTBT and the proposed Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty further strengthened the non-proliferation regime. Besides these international arrangements, bilateral restrictions by the USA in the form of non-proliferation legislation have also affected India. Both India and Pakistan, as some of the other nuclear-capable states technologically have been at the receiving end of this G-8 sponsored regime.

Over the years these restrictions had come to symbolise the core of the G-8 status-quoist agenda. The first symbolic defiance of this restraint came in the form of the 1974 nuclear test at Pokhran. The May, 1998, tests by India and Pakistan represent this defiant independence at an age when the non-proliferation regime has become more stringent over the years. The Indian nuclear tests were a demonstration of capabilities — technological and political. The former in the context of the ability to develop in the face of restrictions; the latter was the demonstration of the political will to take on the G-8 regime. The Pakistani tests were also a demonstration of their defiance of the pressure instituted by the developed world in the form of the threat of sanctions. It is this reassertion of the ability to take independent decisions in the face of anticipated sanctions that makes the nuclear tests a symbol of a resurgent Third World.

Looked at through the conceptual lenses of this approach, the logic of the India-Pakistan dialogue takes a new form. This new form would have to be articulated at two levels: at the bilateral level and the global level.

The bilateral level dialogue would rest on the new equation of a nuclear weapon-capable India and Pakistan. The Western logic of deterrence has been based on the premise that the mutual vulnerability to attack proves a deterrent, and an eventual nuclear confrontation is avoided. This logic accepts that the number of weapons is not the real determinant, that the minimal nuclear deterrence is possible through even a single weapon with a reliable strike capability. Arguably, therefore, India and Pakistan would have achieved this mutual deterrence with their stated weapon capabilities. To extend this argument further, neither of the countries need to enter into the much publicised nuclear arms race to further their security. Of seminal concern is the fact that the crucial problems of security faced by both countries are in the area of internal security and not a border war. Insurgency, terrorism, low intensity conflict and such kinds of other internal security threats are not tackled by nuclear weapons; they require a combination of political, social and economic policies. The security level argument, therefore, does not lead one to fear the rapid escalation of or proliferation of nuclear weapons in an India-Pakistan scenario.

In the case of China, the Indian position is slightly different. Here, too, the key problems are in the area of internal security. Over the last decade or so, the arena of the border dispute has shifted to the discussion tables rather than the field-level skirmishes. The main arena of India-China confrontation remains the diplomatic one. At the nuclear level, India can only expect to create a minimal level deterrence against the vast Chinese capability. The main asset of the nuclear capability is to raise India’s diplomatic leverage in the bilateral dialogue.

It is at the global level that the parameters of an India-Pakistan dialogue become clear. In the post-test phase both India and Pakistan have had to face the brunt of international and bilateral sanctions. These have had an adverse impact on the economies of both countries. Both have been asked to accept the NPT - CTBT as a precondition to the lifting of sanctions. The success of G-8 in containing the spread of nuclear technology depends on the manner in which they are able to quarantine the two countries, raise their bilateral disputes to explosive levels and force a compromise on nuclear issues. It is in this context that India and Pakistan would have to realise their vital national interests and rise above these pressures to initiate a dialogue. This dialogue should enable them to co-operatively tackle G-8 rather than accept the G-8 agenda and comply.

The agenda for this dialogue has already been laid out in the framework of the preferential trading arrangement (SAPTA) made under the auspices of SAARC. The opportunity provided by the Colombo summit of July, 1998, for a forward movement to the Indo-Pakistan dialogue failed to materialise. A similar opportunity came to be missed at Durban since Mr Nawaz Sharif could not attend the NAM summit. The two countries would have to clearly delink their genuine security problems like Kashmir from the imperatives of economic cooperation. This is not a pacifist stance. The central argument lies in taking a two-level approach. One, accepting the imperatives of security and dealing with the problems through the diplomatic channels. The other, taking the incrementalist line and beginning a dialogue in the area of economics.

The key issues that confront South Asia and are likely to be part of an India-Pakistan dialogue are three. One relates to the question of the validity of the old model of hegemony in the understanding of the region of South Asia. The second is the impact of world economic considerations, especially the emergence of trade blocs. This should lead to the recognition of the need to cooperate on economic issues. The third is the question whether South Asia has a common civilisational tie that can be used for beginning a dialogue. It is these issues that would raise the India-Pakistan dialogue beyond the confines of the bilateral dispute perception that is sought to be imposed on it.

The author is Reader, Department of Defence and Strategic Studies, University of Pune.

Angola: UNITA’s belligerency
by Hari Sharan Chhabra

THE recent arrest by UNITA rebels of 10 Indian peacekeepers working for the United Nations in Angola highlights the extent of lawlessness in that civil war-torn country. Threats and condemnation from the UN headquarters in New York and the international community, however, forced them to subsequently release the peacekeepers unharmed. But it goes without saying that UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan is worried over the deterioration of the military and security situation in Angola.

Many deadlines contained in the Lusaka peace accord signed four years ago have come and gone, in particular, for ceding areas under UNITA control to the government in Luanda. With characteristic brinkmanship, the UNITA leadership has been asking for the extension of the deadlines and in the process military strengthening its headquarters in Bailundo. In effect, there are two governments functioning in Angola.

An exasperated Annan on November 30 asked for the extension of the mandate of the UN Observer Mission in Angola (MONUA) by “another short period of upto three months”. The mandate was due to expire on December 3. This request for extension is contained in the latest report of the UN Secretary-General to the Security Council. It is noteworthy that the term of the already several times extended mandate of MONUA was extended on October 15 by six weeks.

Seeking the previous extension of the mandate of MONUA, Mr Annan had warned in his report that if the pattern of UNITA non-compliance with the obligations under the Lusaka protocols were to continue after the expiry of the proposed extension, the UN would proceed in December with “immediate readjustment of its presence throughout the country,” concentrating on the deployment of its mission by the end of January, 1999, at six regional headquarters.

The present report of the UN Secretary-General paints a grim picture. “Since my last report dated October 8, 1998, there has been no progress in the implementation of the Lusaka protocol. The overall political, military and security situation in the country has further deteriorated. The dialogue between the government and Mr Jonas Savimbi and his movement (UNITA) has ceased.”

The most frustrated, however, is the Joint Commission, which overseas the implementation of the Lusaka protocol, and which consists of representatives of the UN, the Angolan government, the UNITA, the Russian Federation, the USA and Portugal. This commission, according to Mr Annan, is not functioning, and preparations for a military showdown continue.

The UN, it seems, is in a hopeless situation in Angola. The sanctions against UNITA imposed by the UN Security Council recently are ineffective and being openly breached, in particular, the ban on flights to UNITA-held areas and providing of access markets for diamonds illegally mined in UNITA-occupied territories. UNITA has recently purchased large quantities of arms from Ukraine.

It is clear that Mr Jonas Savimbi is still a force to be reckoned with even as there is a rift in UNITA. Many UNITA dissidents have repudiated the leadership of Mr Savimbi and formed themselves into a UNITA Renovada (Renovated UNITA). Meetings between the Angolan government and UNITA Renovada, however, have not weakended the position of Mr Savimbi. In fact, all moves to declare Mr Savimbi a “war criminal” have failed.

The Angola-Namibia Joint Defence and Security Sub-Commission recently decided to close the border between the two countries. The decision to close the frontier was taken for security reasons, citing increased military activity by UNITA forces in the area.

While a low-intensity war with Angolan troops continues, what is most disturbing is that UNITA forces keep killing civilians and destroying crops. The biggest killing took place at a village in Canfunfo, Luanda Norte Province, in which 100 civilians, mostly women and children were mercilessly killed. State Radio quoted an armed forces spokesman as saying the attack is the biggest massacre perpetrated by the UNITA since the Lusaka peace accord was signed. But a UNITA spokesman denied that his organisation was in any way involved. Instead, he blamed it on local bandits who he said were fighting for the control of the area, known for its rich diamond deposits.

Angola has been at war for 30 years, first with Portuguese colonialists and later with UNITA rebels. A mineral-rich country, its economy is today a shambles. But it is strange how the Angolan government has decided to send its MiG fighters and troops to support the inept and corrupt administration of Mr Laurent Kabila in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Does not the Angolan government in Luanda realise that its intervention in Congo makes its army’s presence thin in several parts of northern Angola, making Mr Savimbi feel safe and secure?

Levity in brevity

ON most occasions when I step into the bathroom after a reposeful night’s sleep I remember the old fairy tale and ask: “Mirror, mirror on the wall/Tell the truth about us all”. I am not daunted by my own unflattering image because I remember the verse which a former unhandsome President of the USA used to utter. He would say, “As for my face I don’t mind it/For I keep behind it/ It’s the people in front who get the jar”.

It is a hallowed moment for bright ideas. This time as I stood before the mirror, toothbrush in hand, I found my mind wondering over the comicality of the new designs of constructing toothbrushes. I was holding the latest in fashion in my hand where its manufacturer had cut down the bristles to less than half the usual spread and called it the latest in technological development. The briefer the bristles the more effective the exploration of nooks and cavities of the teeth and gums, it said. It is a far cry from the mouthful of chewed neem or kikar twigs with which I had cleaned my mouth and teeth in childhood. This technological advance towards brevity seemed to me like the homoeopathic principle where the potency of the medicine increases in proportion to its reduction in strength.

Brevity is the watchword despite the loquaciousness of politicians and long-winded diplomatic inanities. Look at the formerly free-flowing ample shirts of men which have been cut down to just enough to be tucked, somewhat precariously, into trousers. The half-pants have turned into shorts, and shorts into briefs. Gowns and skirts have shortened.Mini-skirts have touched new low (or rather a new high) and only a permissible legal minimum stands in the way of its progress towards a g-string.

Brevity, I reminded myself, has been the soul of wit. But was it now “soul” or “sole” — the bottomline of boots on which Shylock sharpened his knife and was told by Portia “not on thy sole, but on thy soul, harsh Jew, thou makest thy knife keen”. We are now sharpening our wits on this baseline.

Newspaper correspondents are asked to make their reports short. The condensation can reach abysmal depths as in the case of the lovely beach; beside a blue sea, full of colour and brightness where a young Casanova approached a pretty girl and was roundly slapped in the face. The report said: “Beach, peach, reach, ouch.”

Another one was about a lunatic making an escape from an asylum after molesting a female warder. The report said: “Nut, screws and bolts”.

Contrast these with the saner shortest short story which said. “Do you believe in ghosts? asked a fellow traveller in a coach, and vanished.” Or with the shortest poem about the “antiquity of fleas”.

“Adam

Had’em.”

Judicial impartiality, or agent of change?

IT is the best tribute British justice could have paid itself. Barely three weeks after its epochal pronouncement in General Augusto Pinochet’s case (assailed in this column last week), England’s highest court, the House of Lords has vacated the verdict and ordered a fresh hearing because justice must not only be done but must seem to be done. And it cannot seem to have been done in the Pinochet case if, as now transpires, one of the Judges on the Bench has links with Amnesty International, a prime campaigner for the General’s extradition and trial.

“I am satisfied that the earlier decision of this House cannot stand and must be set aside,” Lord Browne-Wilkinson ruled last Thursday, December 17, on behalf of a unanimous court, allowing a complaint by Pinochet’s lawyers. The Judge concerned, he said, had not disclosed to the parties his links with Amnesty and should not, therefore, have sat to hear the case. Detailed reasons for the decision would be given in the new year but it was essential that “the parties should know where they stand as soon as possible.”

The Judge concerned, Lord Hoffmann, is an honorary director of Amnesty International Charity Ltd, Amnesty’s fund-raising arm. Besides, his wife Gillian has been employed at the group’s London headquarters since 1977. Though not a party, Amnesty itself was an intervenor before the House of Lords and had been allowed to make oral submissions through Professor Ian Brownlie, a reputed authority on international law.

The original verdict in the Pinochet case was pronounced on November 25 by a three-to-two majority. Lord Hoffmann was a member of the majority and his “vote” tilted the verdict against General Pinochet, even though he merely agreed with one of his colleagues and did not deliver a detailed, separate judgement of his own. “I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead and for the reasons he gives I too would allow this appeal”, he had written. (Judges of the House of Lords customarily refer to each other as “my noble and learned friend” and to their judgements as “speeches”).

No amount of praise would be enough for the impartiality and detachment that the House of Lords has shown and the standard of judicial conduct that it has thereby set for the rest of the world where the rule of law prevails. Pinochet’s 17-year-long reign in Chile till his retirement in 1990 constitutes one of the bloodiest and most gruesome chapters in history since World War II, rivalled only by Pol Pot’s Kampuchea. The moral revulsion that dictators like him inspire can throw off-balance the most disciplined of legal minds. And yet, the House of Lords has given him the benefit of the paramount principle that justice must not only be done but seem to be done and vacated its November 25 judgement.

“It is essential to the stability of society,” Lord Devlin (who retired from the Bench in 1964 after three years in the House of Lords) said in 1978, delivering the Chorley lecture at the London School of Economics, “that those whom change hurts should be able to count on evenhanded justice calmly dispensed, not driven forward by agents of change.” The reputation of the judiciary for independence and impartiality, he said, is a national asset of such richness that one government after another tries to plunder it. “This is a danger about which the judiciary itself has been too easygoing. To break up the asset so as to ease the parturition of judicial creativity, an embryo with a doubtful future, would be a calamity.”

It is precisely such a calamity that Lord Devlin’s successors averted on December 17 and it cannot but redound eternally to their credit.

Let us revert now to the original verdict against General Pinochet. So startling are its implications for the comity of nations, including India, that it must continue to be discussed, and analysed, even though it has been set aside and the issue is open once again before the House of Lords. For, as I said last time, if the majority view be correct — that a former Head of State does not enjoy sovereign immunity from arrest and extradition for acts outlawed by international law — no Head of State anywhere in the world is safe once he steps down from office.

Most commentators, including the doyen of the Supreme Court Bar Fali Nariman, Attorney General Soli Sorabjee and former Solicitor General T.R. Andhyarujina, have hailed the majority view. And have, in their enthusiasm for this quantum jump in human rights jurisprudence, overlooked the fatal flaw in the logic that underlies that view, as have done the majority Judges themselves.

If, as the majority hold, acts like torture and hostage-taking cannot be deemed to be official functions of a Head of State entitling him to sovereign immunity because such acts are crimes under international law, how can the Pinochet ruling be restricted to former Heads of State?

The concept of an individual acting in his capacity as Head of State, says one of the majority Judges, Lord Steyn, in a crucial passage, “involves a rule of law which must be applied to the facts of a particular case. It invites classification of the circumstances of the case as falling on a particular side of the line.... If a Head of State orders victims to be tortured in his presence for the sole purpose of enjoying the spectacle of the pitiful twitchings of victims dying in agony (what Montaigne described as the farthest point that cruelty can reach), that could not be described as acts undertaken by him in the exercise of his functions as a Head of State.”

If this be true, how is a serving Head of State who revels in torture any better than a former Head of State? And should not international law, then, in its commitment to complete justice be expected to catch up immediately with a serving Head of State rather than wait interminably for him to resign or retire? Like the way Bill Clinton and Tony Blair have caught up with Saddam Hussein?

Fundamental and disturbing as these questions are, the majority in the House of Lords do not address them. Yet more next week.

Depressing atmosphere at Iraqi Embassy

I have been in touch with the Iraqi Embassy’s Charge d’Affaires, Mr Mohsin Al Hadi, and even right now when I last spoke to him, minutes before keying in this column, his tone and utterances remain unchanged. Sad, upset and definitely angry. “Even as of now (Friday afternoon) Baghdad continues to get bombed and bombarded by US missiles ....How can we retaliate when, contrary to the US and UK propaganda, we possess no missiles with which to hit back? They are criminals who have resorted to lies to attack us, killing hundreds of our civilians ...” Hadi reasons that the casualties are bound to be more than the low figures being circulated or broadcast “How can only 50 persons have died so far? Just imagine even if one missile hits one building, it is bound to kill several and wound many more and since this bombardment has been continuing unabated for over 36 hours so the numbers of those dead and injured are increasing every minute”. He rules out the much circulated rumour that the bombing could be halted by December 19 evening when the holy month of Ramadaan commences “These Americans are criminals of the worst form so what relevance would Ramadaan hold for them? When the death of so many innocent Iraqis is making no difference to them so how can the commencement of a particular month bring about a change?” He also seems upset by the rather lukewarm condemnation of this bombardment by the Arab countries. “The Arab people are definitely with us but their governments have political reasons for giving guarded or weak condemnations ...yes, from most of the Arab countries the condemnation hasn’t been strong enough”. And as I had written once before, it really is depressing to visit this Embassy’s premises. Before the 1990 war there were 44 Iraqi diplomats posted here and now there are only three diplomats. In fact, as of now the Ambassador’s post is also vacant — the previous Ambassador Mohammad Al Haboubi was transferred from here last month and his successor is yet to join in.

And as news came by that former Home Minister Subodh Kant Sahai has got stranded in Baghdad (where he had led a delegation to take part in a students’ organisation meet) it is impossible to verify details for his telephone seems to have been placed off the hook.

Our own realities

Last Saturday afternoon as one sat inside the Vithalbhai Patel House hall, listening to the accounts of Badruddin Umar (founder member of the Bangladesh Anti Fascist Democratic Alliance), Mubashir Hasan (founder member of Pakistan’s Human Rights Commission), Teesta Setalvad (Editor of Communalism Combat) and Nazir Ahmad Ronga (President of the J&K High Court Bar Association) of how human rights were being violated in each segment of this subcontinent there came in view that Dilip Kumar’s Bombay home had got besieged by Shiv Sainiks. And together with this also came in the news that over 200 writers, artists and activists were immediately setting off to Home Minister L.K. Advani’s house to protest against this act of vandalism or as they called it “onset of fascist activities in the country”. I could meet some of them only when they returned from the march at about 7 p.m. Needless to mention that what shocked most is not just the incident alone of harassing a person of the stature of Dilip Kumar (for the simple reason that he had shown support for the screening of Deepa Mehta’s controversial film Fire) but coupled with this the fact that there was the delayed police/government reaction to it. And as Javed Akhtar, Shabnam Hashmi, Shamshad Hussain, Jatin Das, Teesta Setalvad and several others sat concerned, others took to dialling the telephone numbers of the various Bombay film personalities to get the finer details of the ghastly incident.

And just yesterday came here one of the closest associates of Dilip Kumar and Saira Banu, who spent the last two days with them. He confided that the entire stretch in front of their home is flooded with bouquets and flower petals as well-wishers are continuing sending flowers. He also mentioned the names of some of Delhi’s so called VVIPs and political bigwigs who have been regularly calling up the couple, offering all possible moral support. Plainclothed policemen have been posted outside their home and the couple is moving around with security men, now being provided by the state government. And though Dilip Kumar is putting up a brave front and not showing any signs of apparent apprehension or tension but Saira Banu seems to have been affected and has taken to praying for most part of the day. Just pause here readers, to imagine what could possibly have been the plight of a lesser known or say a lesser connected person than the veteran Dilip Kumar.

Conditions unchanged

With the change in the government having taken place only a few days back it could be a little premature to expect any improvement. In fact, as of now New Delhi conditions continue to be as bleak as before. The effects of pollution could’t have been worse as is this weather — smog coupled with fog is hanging on the horizon. There are reports that a number of areas were without electricity. The prices of essential commodities remain unchanged.

And at a very prominent venue of the capital — JNU City Centre — three of the AMU junior doctors are sitting on an indefinite hunger strike against the Vice-Chancellor’s role. The condition of one is said to be very critical (and he may be forcibly shifted to a hospital by the time I finish this column) yet no intervention comes in from the HRD Ministry or from any other quarter ...Signs of our decaying times are writ large all over.

75 YEARS AGO

Are ladies safe on the border?

IN concluding his research paper, Sir Hamilton Grant said that as one who had spent many years in the region, he was constantly asked whether the Frontier was any longer safe for English ladies. He had always held that it was a great mistake to allow ladies to live in exposed trans-border outposts, not only because of the danger to themselves, but because of the fact that their presence must necessarily tamper the officers and garrisons in those places in the discharge of their ordinary duties.

But as regards the large cantonments within the border, he considered that ladies were just as safe as they were living in London and crossing the streets many times a day. The fact that one or two isolated atrocities had occurred must not be taken as an index of general insecurity.

The tribes as a whole had genuinely disapproved of these outrages, and the fact that tribal feeling was against the offenders had been a considerable asset in the handling of the situation by the local authorities.