Bilateralism berated
BY ignoring the NAM tradition of not including contentious bilateral issues in its agenda, Mr Nelson Mandela, the South African President and new Chairman of the international forum, has reduced the stature of the great constructive body.
The face of poverty
POLITICIANS have the habit of remaining on the lookout for an opportunity to exploit any development, even if it is a matter of simple statistics. But sometimes they expose themselves or their party to public ridicule.

Playing with Kashmir
by Hari Jaisingh
WHITHER NAM? It is once again at the crossroads. The Durban summit has thrown up a number of new pointers and issues which will have a bearing on the nonaligned movement's future.

Ecological vandalism
by Anurag
IT is now the turn of, some would say, the ecological extremists to train their guns on the votaries of that brand of development which promotes crass consumerism.

. The choice before Pakistan By M.S.N. Menon PAKISTAN is at the crossroads of its history. Before it are two options: it can be at peace with India, be a progressive state, and seek salvation within South Asia, or it can opt for hostility with India, be medieval and seek a destiny outside South Asia. What will it choose? It is time to make the choice. Speech taken as read by R.N. Sharma I HAVE no idea whether in the early sixties the ministers used to have speech writers. But the speech I am referring to was written by Prof Humayun Kabir himself, the then Minister of State for Education and Cultural Affairs.

75 Years Ago

Dateline Simla
Strange remarks
LORD AMPTHIL’s remarkon Kenya affairs that “it was right within the Empire to treat Indians well where they were few, and ill where they were many,’’ have created a feeling of resentment and distrust in the Indian circles here.

Bilateralism berated

BY ignoring the NAM tradition of not including contentious bilateral issues in its agenda, Mr Nelson Mandela, the South African President and new Chairman of the international forum, has reduced the stature of the great constructive body. NAM is a movement and one of its major beneficiaries has been Mr Mandela as a symbol of resurgent South Africa. Why did he choose to forget that even a more politically oriented body like SAARC had kept itself away from bilateral problems? Third-party mediation has been the main aim of the USA and Pakistan all these years on the non-issue of Kashmir. Is it necessary to reiterate that the state of Jammu and Kashmir is, and will remain, an integral part of India? The real problem about it is that of Pakistan-sponsored cross-border terrorism. Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee must have found his praise for the South African hero's sagacity and wisdom, contained in his formal speech, rather excessively emotive in retrospect. The veteran freedom fighter wants the full backing of all members of NAM for his ill-conceived idea of third-party intervention "in the resolution of disputes between India and Pakistan." Mr Vajpayee rightly says that during a large part of this century, South Africa had dominated the agenda of NAM as a victim of repression. He has happily conveyed the feeling of the Indian people that "it is in the fitness of things that the wheel of history has turned full circle and South Africa will now lead the movement into the next century as a multi-racial democracy". Mr Vajpayee has promised to cooperate fully with South Africa to revitalise the "NAM agenda". But if bilateral disputes are included in the plan for future action under Mr Mandela's stewardship, will it be possible for India to see an individual's perception as NAM's diktat?

Mr Vajpayee has registered his protest in a mild manner because Mr Mandela, the current Chairman, is the host. Durban was certainly not the place to air the differences between India and Pakistan. The two countries had evolved the mechanism of dialogue and discussion for resolving the issues affecting them. Once upon a time, A.N. Kosygin, Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the erstwhile USSR, sat with Mohmmad Ayub Khan, the President of Pakistan, and Lal Bahadur Shastri, the Prime Minister of India, in an hour of humiliation for Pakistan and said: "We always came out not only for the strengthening of friendly relations between the Soviet Union and India and Pakistan, but also for the reign of peace and friendship between these countries themselves....Today, as in the past, only enemies of Pakistan and India may be interested in a clash between them." A series of discussions followed over the years and there came another hour of disgrace for Pakistan after Bangladesh became an independent nation. A salient feature of the Simla Agreement, signed by Z.A.Bhutto and Indira Gandhi after the Indo-Pak war, stressed the following method of reconciliation: ".... The two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by another peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them." Mr Vajpayee had recently met Mr Nawaz Sharif in Colombo and discussed various problems bedevilling the relations between the two countries. They had decided to "continue the dialogue". Even in Durban, India and Pakistan did not stop talking. What was the motive that made Mr Mandela inflict a feeling of hurt on a long-time supporter of the oppressed in South Africa? It is hoped that the members of NAM would have the wisdom to make amends for the unstatesman-like utterances of a veteran leader of the movement. The damage has been done. Mr Vajpayee has said this with magnanimity: "As a figure who has played a historic role in the 20th century, it is fit and a matter of pride that Mr Nelson Mandela will guide the destiny of the movement now...." Over to Mr Mandela.

The face of poverty

POLITICIANS have the habit of remaining on the lookout for an opportunity to exploit any development, even if it is a matter of simple statistics. But sometimes they expose themselves or their party to public ridicule. Exactly that is what may happen if Congressmen make too much noise on the figures of poverty in India at the Panchmarhi conclave of the party as some of them have threatened. Their contention is that the poverty figures for 1993-94 — 33.26 per cent — as calculated by the Department of Statistics of the Ministry of Planning for the rural areas are being suppressed by the government as this will prove that the economic schemes launched by the Congress regime in 1991 were quite successful in poverty alleviation. The statistics for 1993-94 released in 1997 by the Planning Commission showed the number of those below the poverty line in rural India as 37.27 per cent — 4.01 per cent higher than that provided by the Department of Statistics. The country then had the United Front government, which, too, the Congressmen allege, tried to suppress the actual position. Their argument is that both coalition regimes have tried to deprive the Congress of the benefit of the success of its policies in tackling poverty. Politics aside, one fails to understand why there is so much hullabaloo over statistical jugglery. It all depends on what methods and the data base one adopts in the calculations, as the Planning Commission says. The commission has got its sanctity, which should not be diluted. A change of government should not make one doubt the picture it presents of the country’s economy.

As far as the state of poverty is concerned, the truth is that figures can never provide the real picture of the situation. In 1993-94 India had the same number of people below the poverty line — 320 million — in absolute terms as it had in 1973-74, though there was a decline of at least 19 per cent, statistically speaking. Today the figure could have gone up to 500 million. Is that a happy situation? Whatever the factors (as one may say the culprit is the growth in the population), there can be no justification for such a large number of Indians having no means to get the minimum calories required to remain above the poverty line? How does it matter if the figure comes down to, say, 450 million? The poverty estimation in India has so far been based only on calorie intake, which is a case of severe deprivation, called by academicians as “absolute poverty”. But there may be a greater number of people unable to fulfil their minimum requirement in terms of clothing, safe drinking water, sanitation, electricity, education, health care, etc. These people, suffering from “relative poverty”, do not figure in the scheme of things of those officially assigned the job of poverty measurement. “This is a conceptual underestimation of the magnitude of poverty in India”, as stated by two noted economic experts — Mr P.K. Gopinathan, State Coordinator of Urban Poverty Alleviation of Kerala, and Dr V.L. Srilatha, Project Officer, UNICEF, Chennai — in their recent study. Thus there is no point in fighting over a small change in the figures. Poverty is a big curse for the country. It has got no political colour. We should feel ashamed of the fact that even after 51 years of Independence, nearly half of the population lives below the poverty line!

Playing with Kashmir
Mandela hurts India and NAM

by Hari Jaisingh

WHITHER NAM? It is once again at the crossroads. The Durban summit has thrown up a number of new pointers and issues which will have a bearing on the nonaligned movement's future.

First of all, some harsh facts. Divergent views exist among the NAM nations on the nuclear issue. A number of countries, headed by South Africa, view the Pokhran tests through the Western eyes which ignore India's basic sensitivities.

Of course, the world has to move towards the elimination of nuclear weapons within a credible time-frame. Here NAM can play a crucial role in ushering in a denuclearised global order under the UN auspices. This will require coordinated and concerted efforts.

This will not be easy in today's unipolar world. Nonalignment, after all, is not an ideology. It is a broadbased movement having certain common goals. Even those common goals no longer unite the NAM countries since the rich and powerful nations exercise a disproportionate influence on the world and that too most negatively.

Viewed in this light, the indirect presence of the USA at the 12th NAM summit, courtesy Mr Nelson Mandela, sets a new trend.

This brings me to the second most vital issue from India's point of view. And this relates to Kashmir. Mr Mandela went out of the way to raise the Kashmir issue in his inaugural address to the summit. He said: "All of us remain concerned that the issue of Jammu and Kashmir should be solved through peaceful negotiations and we should be willing to lend all strength we have to the resolution of this matter."

Mr Mandela is known as the African Gandhi. He is probably the tallest of all NAM leaders today. His utterances, therefore, on the sensitive issue of Kashmir will not go well with the people here. He should have seen the problem in a wider context, especially the role Pakistan has been playing to destabilise the subcontinent through acts of terrorism. In any case, what help can he provide? If he means well, he should tell Pakistani leaders to behave. But by raising the issue at the NAM gathering he has only helped Islamabad. New Delhi will surely not relish this.

How do we look at this development? The failure of Indian diplomacy? Or, could it be part of hardening of attitudes of certain US-led nations towards India? Such inferences may not be out of place in the circumstances. One thing is clear: India's is no longer a predominant voice at NAM.

As it is, the nonaligned movement has grown considerably. It has 113 members in its fold against the UN's 185. It needs to be acknowledged that the nonaligned have no powers of their own. They have to work through the UN. It is a different matter that the UN has steadily lost its importance. Today, for all practical purposes, it works as a special cop under US directions. No wonder, grounds for intervention have increased, for example, on human rights, terrorism, etc. The American bombing of Afghanistan and Sudan provides the latest example of these unilateral interventions.

Unipolarity is a dangerous principle. It cannot go on without challenge. For the present, the US-sponsored world order hardly faces any challenge.

Be that as it may. At NAM, South Africa has emerged as a major moral force, thanks to the unique position enjoyed by Mr Nelson Mandela in global diplomacy. His perception on a number of sensitive issues is different from that of India. This is clear from the deliberations of the summit and the position the South African Government has taken on a number of issues.

It is a different matter that Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee could intelligently manage to neutralise much of the negative influences which could have caused considerable embarrassment to this country.

It must be said that the presence of Pakistan at any global forum adds to India's discomfiture. The Durban summit is no exception. In fact, the running acrimony between New Delhi and Islamabad has deprived India of much of the natural role it could play as a nation of substance. Pakistan takes away its attention and effort, leaving this country with little choice to take major initiatives and carve out for itself a special position.

This is a pity that India's own interest in the movement has undergone a change. Not that New Delhi's basic commitment to the ideals of the movement has softened. But in the post-Cold War period, India's experience with NAM members has been disappointing. They have neither tried to evolve effective ways for development nor have they been willing to cooperate among themselves. That is why India has to be careful in what it seeks to promote in future.

NAM has indeed been undergoing a rapid transformation. So has the world order. Globalisation, which was imposed on the world by the great powers, has altered the structure of the economy. As a result, several regions are going through unprecedented crises, causing untold misery to millions of people, especially of the developing countries.

Even Asia, which was till recently hailed for its growth, is going through severe crises. Africa too has gone back by decades. The nonaligned countries cannot and should not remain mute witnesses to this decline. However, before they stir themselves into action, they have to give up some of their old pre-conceived notions.

The world cannot be changed with slogan-mongering; nor can the anti-imperialist ideology bring about the desired changes. The nonaligned world must be guided by pragmatism backed up by a firm commitment to economic goals and targets. What matters these days is economic collaborations and hence the importance of South-South cooperation.

As already stated, nonalignment is not an ideology. Its earlier objective was to prevent the newly independent nations from being sucked into military alliances. But today's goals have to be different. Stress now has to be put on economic wellbeing. Unfortunately, the developing nations are invariably taken for a ride. They are told of the advantages of free trade that globalisation could bring. But what are the facts? Twenty per cent of the world's rich still account for the bulk of production. Their income share went up from 70 per cent to 85 per cent between the 60s and the 90s. The benefits of globalisation have largely gone to them.

High levels of poverty have only led to high levels of politicisation of society. Certain people have welcomed it. But as interest groups multiply, the state tends to ossify and stagnate. India today is witnessing precisely that.

At Durban, India's quiet diplomacy has been at work to explain its position on Kashmir, terrorism and the Pokhran tests. In fact, terrorism is a major issue and NAM ought to raise a united voice against it. Actually, it is one area where it can play an effective role. In this context the adoption of the Egyptian proposal for an international summit under the auspices of the UN to formulate a global strategy to fight terrorism is a major step forward. This is in tune with India's thinking in the matter.

Similarly, New Delhi will have to relentlessly fight for a denuclearised global order. It has rightly demanded an international conference on the nuclear weapons convention.

Prime Minister Vajpayee has said that the core issues before NAM remain the same, that is, peace, disarmament and development. On this there can be no dispute. But problems arise when packages are made for each issue. For example, he called for a new agenda for the South. He should have known that NAM's failure in ensuring South-South cooperation has been the principal cause for its overall poor show.

It is doubtful if NAM leaders have learnt their lessons at Durban. They have not yet given an impression of being alive to their basic problems of poverty and development.

If the movement was wanting in effectiveness before it was for lack of unity among its members. And if it fails in future, it will be for the same reason. Without unity, they can achieve nothing. Equally critical is the need for a strategy to win. The Durban deliberations once again expose NAM's serious limitations. It remains an unwieldy group without a defined direction. Otherwise, a leader of Mr Mandela's standing would not have fallen in the US trap and raised the Kashmir issue in his inaugural address. The South African President has not only hurt the feelings of the Indian people but also caused a major setback to the movement.

Ecological vandalism
by Anurag

IT is now the turn of, some would say, the ecological extremists to train their guns on the votaries of that brand of development which promotes crass consumerism. No doubt, indiscriminate deforestation, quarrying, construction and depredation of the Himalayan grass cover caused so much discord with the nature that Malpa had to appear on the disaster map of India.

If it was the tragic loss of a few hundred lives of pilgrims and others that made Malpa infamous this August, let it be remembered that many a Malpa may be in the making. The Garhwal region too bore the brunt of landslides with horrendous consequences. The rehabilitation of the locals who lost their home and hearth is going to be an uphill task. What if the mighty Ganges were to be blocked by a mountain slide and the improvised dam had burst? Sure enough, a major portion of the Indo-Gangetic plain would have been washed away! Should this call for yet another review of the controversial Tehri dam?

This is not to canvass a counsel of despair but to sound a note of caution. The young fold mountains of the Himalayas are so soft that they absorb water and simply slide down. Their tectonic plate is moving very fast. Clumsily planned and executed excavations, use of high intensity explosives to blast rocks, felling trees with robust roots that provide a grip to the soil and rocks, dumping debris on steep slopes thereby choking the drainage of subsurface water flows, unscientific methods of mining, road building and booming construction activity constitute an open invitation to disaster.

The faulty forest policy pursued by the British led to the replacement of the local trees like oak and rhododenron by the chir and pine trees which grew fast and fetched better returns but didn’t allow any other tree to grow under them. And the felling of pine trees, so rampant in the Uttarakhand region, rendered the hills barren and prone to landslips and floods. This was made worse by the fast disappearing grass cover, thanks to the massive goat-herding in the Himalayas, that left the soil cover extremely loose.

Given the gravity, rain and tectonic movements, landslide cannot be prevented totally. But wanton vandalism of the Himalayan resources acts as a catalyst to precipitate calamities in the region. This is precisely what happened at Malpa, Rudraprayag and elsewhere in the Uttarakhand region.

Curiously enough, India accounts for 18 per cent of the world population, and 15 per cent of the world’s livestock but only 2 per cent of the geographical area, 1 per cent of the forest area and 0.5 per cent of pasture land. The per capita availability of forests in India is 0.08 hectare as compared to the world average of 0.8 hectare. As against, our rural population’s annual requirement of 157 million tonnes of firewood, the production is only 58 million tonnes. The balance being met by illegal felling of trees. It is alarming to note that more than 130 million hectares of land, about half of our geographical area, is affected by substantial soil erosion. Soil is a non-renewable natural resource and it takes almost a thousand years to form a 2.3 cm thick layer from weathered rocks. And the loss of 1 mm of cultivable soil could cost 10 kg of nitrogen and 2 kg of phosphorous!

In our quest for economic growth and development over the past 50 years, ecological issues got neglected so much so that some of them might have been irredeemably lost. We ought to have a system of accounting for the costs of ecological degeneration, something akin to the wear and tear in the man-made capital reflected in the form of depreciation. The effect of the environmental resource depletion may be outside the profit-loss account of a firm but not outside the accounts of society or humankind. Such accounting can alter our perceptions as to what kind of development is desirable and in turn our policy preferences.

The preparation and periodical publication of such natural resource account would bring the much needed accountability and provoke a well-informed debate on public policy. About nine months ago, noted agricultural scientist M.S. Swaminathan had called for the setting up of a Cabinet committee on ecological security, to be assisted by a technical advisory group which would analyse trade-offs and policy options available in dealing with major investment decisions such as dams. The group’s mandate would be to raise the necessary financial, technical and management resources to make a national ecological security plan.

Malpa is neither the first nor the last tragedy of its kind. But we can certainly endeavour towards minimising the risks and the resulting misery. Disaster mitigation and management remains a neglected area even though the United Nations declared the ninetees as the “Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction”.

Speech taken as read
by R.N. Sharma

I HAVE no idea whether in the early sixties the ministers used to have speech writers. But the speech I am referring to was written by Prof Humayun Kabir himself, the then Minister of State for Education and Cultural Affairs.

The Indian Council for Cultural Relations had organised the Asian History Congress in December, 1961, which was to be inaugurated by Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru. Professor Kabir was to read the keynote speech highlighting the salient features of the AHC.

The minister had started working on his speech a month ahead of the congress. As the one who was looking after the publication work of the ICCR, I was told that the printed copies of Professor Kabir’s speech should be ready for circulation among the delegates and special invitees at least two days before the inauguration.

The “first” draft was made available about 10 days before the inauguration day. The Press had already started composing when the message came that the minister wanted to make some “changes”. The “second” draft was received the next day. The Press had already composed and sent us the “galley” proofs when I was informed that the minister would like to make some more “changes”. The “third” draft was received only a day before the inauguration.

The Press was asked to treat it as an “urgent” job and send the proofs immediately. But before we could give the “print order”, the minister had expressed the desire that he would like to see the “proofs”. The proofs were received back from the minister only late in the evening. But what shocked me was that he had made “drastic changes” even at this stage. It was almost a “new draft”.

Overnight the corrections were carried out and the print order given. The printed copies of the speech were received only two hours before the inauguration of the congress.

The Prime Minister was in time. But immediately on his arrival he expressed the desire that he would like to leave the venue early. That was why he spoke only for about 10 minutes.

Professor Kabir was very keen to read his speech, so painstakingly prepared by him. But as the Prime Minister was in a hurry to go, he (Professor Kabir) had to content himself by saying that his “speech” might be taken as “read”. I could see that he was really disappointed.

Later on, it transpired that an urgent meeting of the Union Cabinet had been called to discuss the Indian Army’s “action” in Goa. As a matter of fact, the Indian Army had entered Goa on that very day to liberate it from the Portuguese occupation.

However, I had my own doubts whether anybody even cared to give a “cursory glance” at the minister’s “speech”, leave alone “reading” it, because after the delegates and the special invitees had left the pandal, I saw the printed copies of the “speech” lying scattered all over the place. I am sure the “dull and drab” speeches of the ministers (probably prepared by speech writers) meet the same fate these days also.

The choice before Pakistan
By M.S.N. Menon

PAKISTAN is at the crossroads of its history. Before it are two options: it can be at peace with India, be a progressive state, and seek salvation within South Asia, or it can opt for hostility with India, be medieval and seek a destiny outside South Asia. What will it choose? It is time to make the choice.

Both Pakistan and India are now armed with the ultimate weapon. But as Einstein said: “The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking, and we thus drift towards unparalleled catastrophe”. There is no change yet in the way of our thinking. More so in that of Pakistan.

But as long as nuclear bombs are ticking away in India and Pakistan, we cannot sleep in peace. The bombs must be defused. But how?

Pakistan has reached parity with India — an objective it really craved. But what next? Can it use the bomb? It cannot. If war is thus unthinkable, to hold on to the bomb is not logical. We must try out ways of peace. And if we truly put our faith in peace, then it may even become a habit with us. But it seems, for the present, we are paralysed by the ticking of the bomb.

Let us stretch the logic a little further. Till now, nations sought victory in war. But there can be no victory or defeat in a nuclear war, no victor or vanquished either. We can have only one goal before us: how to prevent the war.

It is not enough if we destroy the nuclear arsenals, for they can be rebuilt. There is only one way to resolve this problem: nations must disarm, they should give up war, they should not make weapons of mass destruction. This calls for great political will.

The conflict between India and Pakistan has its roots in religion. It is religious leaders who are leading this conflict. But have they ever thought that they are taking from God what is for God alone to decide? “In weighing the fate of the earth, and with it our own fate, we stand before a mystery, and in tampering with the earth, we tamper with that mystery”, says Jonathan Schell, author of “The Fate of the Earth”. Do the religious leaders of India and Pakistan have the mental capacity to understand what Schell is saying? I have my doubts.

If the nuclear logic is an absurdity, the doctrine of deterrence is worse. If it is “balance of terror” that ensures peace, we should not tamper with that balance, for whether we reduce the terror or increase it, the other party will be tempted to strike first. Hence the argument for equal security. It is dangerous to pursue military “superiority” in the nuclear age.

The nuclear terror is psychological. You know that the bomb cannot be used. You know that it is only a deterrent. But what you do not know is whether the man at the button is sane or insane. Is Nawaz Sharif a sane man? Is General Karamat a sane man? How can we ever know? There is no way, and that is the final absurdity of the situation, for if we really want the deterrence to work, we must put at the helm an insane man, an unpredictable man! Can a sane man (say Inder Gujral) deter anyone? He cannot. He is not supposed to press the button. Only if we give the button into the hands of an insane man can we strike terror into the hearts of our opponents. But, then, our opponent, out of sheer fright, may strike first!

Pakistan was born of hatred. But must it continue to hate? Perhaps it is the logic of its birth. A mark of Cain? To live in love and harmony with India is to disprove the main thesis of Pakistan — namely that Hindus and Muslims cannot live together. To say otherwise today is to admit a great historical error, to admit the error of the founding fathers — a matter of shame to the nation.

But, for some, hope remains eternal. There are people, more so in India, who still think that the two nations can live in amity. But that precisely is the problem: our very expressions of concern are considered a conspiracy to undo Pakistan!

Let us not wallow anymore in these sentimental offtakes. They have no basis in reality. Indians have little to do with the Baluchis. Hindu Pathans hardly make a visit to the Frontier. And the same can be said of Sindhis. But not so the Punjabis, who, at the drop of a hat, recall their life in Lahore or Rawalpindi. It is they who keep a lively interest in a common culture — of Punjabiat. Pray, what is common in Ghouri and Shakti? They recall two distinct sources of inspiration.

Pakistan is not looking to India. Not even to the Indian Punjab. It is looking to the Muslim world, above all to the Arab world, where the holiest place of Islam is situated. As for the Muslim aristocracy of Punjab, they are happier to trace their ancestry to the Afghans, Turks and Central Asians (Mongols) who conquered India. Never to an Indian ancestry. They are the ones working for a “greater” Pakistan.

Pakistan wants to be the leader of the Muslim world. (This takes it away from South Asia). It is, of course, natural. Its people have great abilities. They dominated Islamic scholarship for more than a century. But a perverse destiny seems to be at work today. Pakistan has become the main centre of Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism. It is providing the training centres and inspiration for a Muslim resurgence. It wants to “Islamise” the Muslim world. (Where does “composite” culture fit in this scheme?) Nawaz Sharif has just introduced a law to create a new Islamic order in Pakistan and establish a whole legal system based on the Koran — a step which will take the country to medieval times. In this process, it is turning the whole world against Pakistan and Islam. It is inviting a “civilisational conflict”. This is the new tragedy that the children of Jinnah are going to bring about — this time on the entire Muslim world.

No, let us no more talk of our sentimental attachments to Pakistan. A country dedicated to secularism, plurality and open to the different winds of the world can have nothing to do with a medieval Pakistan.

What of Indian Muslims? Akbar Ahmad, the Pakistani scholar, writes of the efflorescence of Islam in contact with Hindu and Buddhist civilisations. That is one course open to Islam in India. In the final analysis, one can only say this: Indian Islam has to find a way to flourish within the great diversity of India.

There is the other course — that of “Islamisation”, which seeks to purge Islam of all “foreign” elements. It calls for an “Islamic society”; it calls for separation from others.

Pakistan chose this course. With what consequences we all know today.

75 YEARS AGO
Dateline Simla
Strange remarks

LORD AMPTHIL’s remarkon Kenya affairs that “it was right within the Empire to treat Indians well where they were few, and ill where they were many,’’ have created a feeling of resentment and distrust in the Indian circles here. The remarks are deplored especially from a gentleman who has eaten India’s salt for several years as Governor of Madras from 1855-1906 and Viceroy and Governor-General of India (Pro tem) in 1904. If the ex-satraps, it is said, work as propagandists in a place where the redress is to be sought how can justice be meted out to this country?

India’s attention should first of all concentrate to establish her citizenship within her own borders. Then the outer problems will solve automatically.

* * *

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Imperial Independent Rents Sub-Division, is busily engaged in ejecting the temporary residents out of the Orthodox and Unorthodox Members’ quarters with a view to having the places cleaned, white-washed and well/fitted for occupation for the honourable (MLA) visitors who are pouring in daily.

The Members will find a great relief with regard to the weather conditions which have considerably improved. Lately the weather was as hot here as in the plains owing to the complete absence of rains. The rains do visit us now either in the evening or in the night but the sultriness is still felt.

* * *

The election of the District Congress Committee, Simla, which was postponed for some time owing to some unavoidable reasons took place in the City Congress and the Khilafat Office on Sunday and the following were elected office-bearers:-

Pandit Ganga Mall — president; Hafiz Abdul Ghani and Sardar Dalip Singh — vice-presidents; Maulana Mohd Umar Neomani — secretary; Lala Dina Nath and Syed Azam Shah — Asst. Secretaries and Lala Dina Nath — treasurer.