 |
Monday, September 24, 2001,
Chandigarh, India  
|
Terrorism in Kashmir Easing US sanctions
Proving more loyal than the king |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The quarantine
opportunity
Anupam Gupta
90 pc diabetes preventable
|
Terrorism in Kashmir US Secretary of State Colin Powell has finally admitted that the problem of terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir is within the scope of the America-led campaign — Operation Infinite Justice — against the international scourge but without disclosing its broad parameters. This is where the trouble lies. What Mr Powell has said is not enough to satisfy India, specially keeping in view the US attitude in the past. India's concerted efforts to convince the USA that the decade-old terrorist crisis in this country had its roots in Pakistan were in vain till the monster hit the superpower in an unimaginable manner on September 11. India's cry that the terrorist training camps in Pakistan and the occupied part of Kashmir being run by various notorious outfits under the overall supervision of the ISI must be eliminated along with Osama bin Laden's network in Afghanistan was never taken with deserving seriousness. New Delhi provided enough proof to stir the conscience of the Americans but nothing could force them to see the horrifying scenario in right perspective. Now when the international community has vindicated India's stand, the US concentration is only on the activities of Osama's Al-Qaeda outfit. The Afghanistan-based network has contributed to the unending terrorist violence in Jammu and Kashmir, but the major culprits are in Pakistan, busy finalising their strategies to escape the wrath of the anti-terrorism coalition. The American indifference in the case of the Pakistan connection of the menace has provided an opportunity to the masterminds running the numerous subversive organisations and their cadres to go underground. Since Islamabad is part of the international coalition, it is difficult to believe at this stage that the Pakistan-based murderous networks formed in the name of false jehad in Kashmir will have their infrastructure destroyed beyond repair. Of course, India will have to fight its own battle to bring lasting peace in Kashmir as Home Minister L. K. Advani has re-emphasised in an interview with TV channel Aaj Tak. But America and the rest of the world out to stamp out terrorism from the face of the earth must not forget their obligation to take care of the Pakistan angle equally seriously. Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf should be told in unambiguous language that all killer outfits justifying their activities in the name of religion will have to be brought to justice, and their arms and ammunition seized. The time has come when these elements must be made to pay for their role in the elimination of thousands of innocent lives in the valley and elsewhere. |
|
Easing US sanctions PRESIDENT
Bush has recommended the lifting of military and economic sanctions imposed on India and Pakistan from time to time, saying that these are no more in the interest of the security of his country. He was off target since the truth is that the lifting of the embargo on Pakistan is very much in the interest of his ongoing policy of waging a war on terrorism. Pakistan has emerged as the most important ally in this grand campaign and in the face of opposition from a section of its population and in the hope that the dollar kingdom will throw an economic lifeline. It has offered the free use of its air space and its Quetta air base built and used by the USA during the cold war days. It will also share the information it has on the Taliban, including the military bases and the hideouts of Osama bin Laden. It expected and deserved a reward and it has got it. Pakistan Finance Minister Shaukat Aziz angrily refutes that the US action is a buy back but readily admits it will give a big boost to the country’s economy (and an equally big boost to General Pervez Musharraf). It hopes to receive a long-term low interest loan of $ 600 million this year compared to $ 154 million last year. The World Bank and IMF are expected to sanction anything between $ 3 billion and $ 5 billion in the next two years. With the sanctions gone, the USA will fully participate in the meetings of the World Bank, IMF and the Asian Development Bank and clear the pending applications for loans. There will be similar benefits from the Paris Club, a group of rich countries to help in Pakistan’s developmental efforts, which is expected to reschedule the outstanding loan of $ 30 billion. With the economic restrictions gone, Pakistan looks forward to a generous inflow of investment capital in oil and textile sectors and creation of thousands of new jobs. Imports from the USA will surge, spurring industrial revival. The country will have access to precious spare parts for its tanks and aircraft and perhaps also the so-called custodial safeguards to protect its nuclear installations from sneak attacks. But the sanctions imposed in the wake of the Glenn amendment after the military coup will remain as those relating to the blatant violations of the missile transfer technology regime. As for as India is concerned, the fallout is nominal. Economic sanctions did not affect seriously and this country received $ 3.9 billion in aid during the past two years. But the real gain is in allowing 39 companies to import technology by scrapping the banned entities list. There are still some sanctions which Congress has imposed and they will be in force even beyond the global war against terrorism. |
Proving more loyal than the king AT the time of writing this, one week after terrorists struck in New York and Washington, the USA is poised to avenge the death, destruction and humiliation that Osama bin Laden and his suicidal cadres have so stunningly inflicted on it. The character and magnitude of the revenge will be known in the coming days and weeks. So will the nationalities and numbers of the birds that the enraged sole superpower will kill or want to kill with its lethal stone of retaliation — retaliation based on the belief that terrorism, like peace, is indivisible and must be attacked at all locations and in all manifestations. However, even as the USA realises this, there has been nothing whatsoever to suggest that those who have masterminded and directed the terror war against India figure in the American hit list. Barring some fanatic elements, everyone in this country was shocked and saddened by what happened on September 11, and not because many Indians died in the bombings — that hugely incremental sadness came later. Unfortunately, we are used to such tragedy, having been at the receiving end for so many years. The currently outraged world opinion of course never recognised the gravity of the anti-India terrorism. The USA, far from encouraging us to retaliate and root out the scourge, has all along advised us to exercise restraint and seek peaceful ways to resolve the problem. How one wished Indian leaders had the spine — or sense of humour, if you please — to advise President Bush to hold talks with Osama bin Laden to resolve their conflict! In fact, our government has chosen to be more loyal than the king. Look at its instant and enormous reaction to the terrorist strike in America: crime against humanity, against democracy, against civilisation — this and much else that has never come forth throughout the two decades of such crimes against our own country. No Indian Prime Minister has never gone on the air when massacres took place in Punjab and Kashmir. But the bombing in America prompted Mr Vajpayee to do so, and ask the nation to observe two minutes silence in memory of the estimated 5,000 victims. Tens of thousands of Indians — 53,000 according to the Prime Minister — have died at the hands of terrorists in India, and the number is rising by the day. Has there ever been an officially-sponsored two minutes silence for them? Was there any such exhortation when hundreds died in the Bombay blasts (or when 50,000 Indians perished in the Gujarat earthquake and twice as many in the Orissa cyclone)? This is one side of the government’s pro-West sychophancy. The other is even worse: total and unconditional support to whatever the Americans do or don’t do in retaliation. Time and again, our two-in-one Minister of External Affairs and Defence has expressed India’s readiness, indeed keenness, to cooperate with the USA, even to provide “logistic support” — which the Washington Post said meant allowing bases for American troops and equipment — and has told the nation, via Doordarshan and MEA spokespersons, how grateful the Americans are to India for this. One believed him till one saw a clip of the US Secretary of State saying that they “are pleased” with India’s response. In other words, good boy, this is what we expect of you, but we don’t quite need your support! And look whose “cooperation” they want — a country which is principal hub of transnational terrorism. Instead of seeing Pakistan as part of the problem, indeed as the heart of the problem, they have asked for the support, and apparently got it — but not readily and not unconditionally. Keep India (and Israel) out of it, Pakistan told them; do something in our favour in Kashmir and, yes, write off our debts! The Bush administration’s response remains to be seen, but American diplomats in Delhi have officially denied, as they would, that any such demands were made by Islamabad. So have, obliquely, some sections of the Indian officialdom. But who would concoct such a report? In any case, that some such conditions, demands, requests — call them what you will — were in fact made by Pakistan is indicated by Mr Colin Powell’s remarks (to the CNN) that Washington “understands the sensitivities that would be involved in anything that might involve India or Israel” in a military coalition against Afghanistan. Another indication came from an official of the PMO itself: “It is clear that Musharraf has spoken about preconditions to make his acceptance of US demands more palatable domestically”. In all our recent foreign policy blunders, particularly in regard to Pakistan and Kashmir, the guiding force has been the decision at the highest levels to kowtow to the USA with eyes wide shut, with disastrous results that are too obvious to need any labouring. But we persist in this one-sided love affair. Witness how, while the government shouted total support to the USA after the bombings, Washington did not even acknowledge it for several days. India and the USA “are in close touch”, said the government, but India did not figure anywhere in the reports that President Bush was consulting world leaders, making it clear that Mr Vajpayee is a world leader for his party and government associates, not for the world. Even when the US President did ring up Mr Vajpayee, our Prime Minister, the leader of the largest democracy, was in such august company as General Musharraf and the Saudis! And President Bush said later that “they were all positive in their response.” None of this has dimmed our official ardour; we keep believing that Washington is looking for India’s “critical support”. “India to help if US strikes” screamed a banner headline in a premier Indian daily, obviously conveying New Delhi’s resolve. The absurdity of this unilateral and unsolicited declaration becomes even more obvious if one realises that throughout the 20 years of Pakistan’s terrorist depredations in India, never have we seen in any American paper an officially-sponsored headline saying that “the US will help if India strikes” — or an American President proclaiming that the people of the USA are with the people of India, as our Prime Minister has proclaimed in reverse! But why blame them when we on our part do not do all that we should, diplomatically and militarily, to deal with Pakistani terrorism? Even now there is nothing but nothing to indicate that we have made any suggestions, let alone demanded, that even as the USA is preparing to wage a “global war” against terrorism, it should ask Pakistan to hand over to India, “dead or alive”, such known terrorists and terrorist leaders as Azhar Mahmud, Dawood Ibrahim and the Kandahar sky jackers and, more importantly, strike at the terrorist camps in PoK and Pakistan. Actually, there should be no question of India needing to make this suggestion/demand. If the USA is honest about ridding the world of terrorism, it should eliminate the Pakistan-sponsored and Pakistan-based terrorist organisations. To kill Osama bin Laden and the hardcore among the Taliban will not end the scourge. All terror outfits have to be eliminated root and branch, and the Americans know as we do that the roots are in Afghanistan as well as in Pakistan. As things stand at the time of writing, however, the “cooperation” sought and received from Islamabad by the USA strongly suggests that Washington has no plans of acting against the Pakistani organisations. Will the USA do so if India presses for it? Banish the thought. After all, the Lashkar-e-Toiba, the Jaish-e-Mohammad and the rest of them have not harmed the Americans, not yet. Osama bin Laden has. Hence the focus on him, “dead or alive”. So much for the global war against terrorism, so much for the “concert of democracies, so much for the “qualitative transformation beyond recognition” (Mr Jaswant Singh’s words) of Indo-US relations! |
The quarantine
opportunity SCHOOL hostels are very vulnerable to certain epidemics. Even if one resident contracts either measles or chickenpox or mumps, the sickness spreads like wildfire. Or so it was in the days before the discovery of some of the new vaccines, when the general attitude of the parents was “It is good if the child gets it and is done with it”. One bout of any of these illnesses was considered enough to ensure a lifetime immunity. The beauty of these ailments was that the fever lasted only for the first two or three days and after that a few weeks of restful segregation followed. If, perchance, the quarantine period coincided with the school examinations and presented an opportunity to skip them, it was considered the ultimate in good fortune. Such an opportunity arose once towards the end of the academic year in the mid 50s. Well into the final term, with the examinations looming ahead, we learnt that one of the boys had gone down with chickenpox. The previous year about a dozen hostelers had been blessed with the coincidence of their “indisposition” with the final test. Therefore, those who had not contracted the illness earlier now began hoping. Next day the prayers of five of us were answered as we were marched off to the school sanatorium. In our small hostel in Modern School, New Delhi, in the little hospital had accommodation for about half a dozen students. But before long three times that number had reported sick. Not many more beds could be put up in the sanatorium so the change rooms in the swimming pool next door were requisitioned. It was, in any case, off season for swimming. The balmy sunshine and the mild weather were just right for recuperation, and not entirely unsuitable for some fun and games either. As each of us emerged out of the two-day spell of fever, he joined the others in all manner of non-academic pursuits. The whole day would be spent playing the fool. A variety of sports were adapted to the dry sloping bed of the pool. Someone even managed to get a pair of roller skates and rolling on them down the slope became one of the most sought after diversions. But to our Housemaster, Mr Chowdhry, it was quite unacceptable that a bunch of seemingly able-bodied youngsters should duck studies in this manner. So, one day he decreed that, quarantine or no, we had to study. And he did not waste any time in sending piles of books and notebooks to each one of us. The atmosphere was, however, not conducive to any academic activity. Our only hope was the sanatorium incharge, Sister Edwards, an elderly lady of English descent. On the subject of studies she was neutral, if not sympathetic. All she was interested in was that her wards return hale and hearty to their dormitories at the end of the mandatory stay. In any case, she was hardly the best person to monitor a bunch of very non-academically inclined students. She had no idea that the notebooks we received were being torn and used to make paper airplanes, which were flown around when no one was looking. As each day drew to a close they were sent to rest in the skylight, where they remained undetected. When the weather turned a little warmer Sister Edwards marched in one day and asked one of the staff to open the skylight to let in some fresh air. As the cord was pulled to open the overhead frame, a gust of wind blew through it and with it about a dozen aircraft. Despite their different flight paths, for some peculiar reason, they all zeroed in for poor Sister Edwards. Seeing a squadron of aircraft zooming in her direction, she shrieked. But that moment of panic passed all too quickly. And in that brief instant we realised that we had lost her to the enemy camp. Once she regained her composure she blew the whistle on us. More than anyone else it was she who made sure that not a single student in quarantine that year skipped the annual examination.
|
Much has been said, yet much remains to be said ANYTIME
and anywhere, quashing the appointment of a Chief Minister would be no mean judicial act but three things conspired to render the Jayalalithaa judgement last Friday a whimper rather than a bang. One, the Supreme Court’s own and entirely ill-advised loud thinking and louder speaking on the subject during the hearing of the case, leaving no one in any suspense about the verdict and destroying its impact in advance. Two, the unfolding global crisis triggered off by America’s Black Tuesday, a crisis that threatens to turn India’s neighbourhood into an Armageddon and drown out all other concerns, including such “minor” domestic problems as the legality of a Chief Minister’s appointment. Three, the remarkably unruffled way in which Ms Jayalalithaa responded to the Supreme Court’s verdict on September 21 and rendered it redundant by getting her party to immediately instal a proxy Chief Minister in her place. For all the determination shown by the Supreme Court, all then that it has managed to achieve in the immediate practical sense of the term is a man called Panneerselvam in place of a woman called Jayalalithaa as the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, all and everything else remaining the same. A reminder, despite the rejection of the argument, that the “will of the people” does actually matter much more in a democracy than courts of law would like to believe. And that while the judiciary can by interpretation alter the conditions of participation in public life, it cannot, do what it will, alter the quality of that life itself. And yet, what Jawaharlal Nehru said about lawyers in Parliament in 1951, while speaking on the very first amendment to the Constitution, could well and truly be said about the country’s politicians today. “Somehow we have found,” he said, “that this magnificent Constitution that we have framed was later kidnapped and purloined by the lawyers.” Replace “lawyers” by “politicians” and you would have grasped the major inarticulate premise of why the Supreme Court decided Jayalalitha’s case as it did last Friday, rejecting the “will of the people” as a guide to the interpretation of the Constitution, on the one hand, and adopting an interpretation aimed at enhancing the quality of popular representation, on the other. An interpretation based essentially on the doctrine of implied limitations, first firmly planted and anchored in Indian constitutional law by the Kesavananda Bharati case of 1973. “Nothing can better demonstrate,” holds Justice S.P. Bharucha, speaking of Kesavananda Bharati, “that it is permissible for the Court to read limitations into the Constitution based on its language and scheme and its basic structure.” Even as Parliament’s power under Article 368 to amend the Constitution is not absolute despite the express language of the Article — for the power to amend is not the power to destroy — the Governor’s power under Article 164 (4) to appoint a non-legislator as Minister or Chief Minister for six months is subject to implied limitations. “A Minister,” reads Article 164 (4), “who for any period of six months is not a member of the legislature of the State shall at the expiration of that period cease to be a Minister.” “Necessarily implicit” in sub-Article (4), says Justice Bharucha, speaking for the Court, is the requirement that a Minister who is not a member of the legislature must seek election to it and secure a seat therein within six months; or else, he must cease to be a Minister. “The requirement of sub-Article (4) being such,” he holds, “it follows as the night (follows) the day that a person who is appointed a Minister though he is not a member of the legislature shall be one who can stand for election to the legislature....” In other words, he explains, he must be one who satisfies the qualifications for membership of the legislature contained in the Constitution (Article 173) and is not disqualified from seeking that membership by reason of any of the provisions therein (Article 191) on the date of his appointment. Sub-Article (4) of Article 164, feels the Supreme Court, is meant to provide for a situation where due to “political exigencies” or to avail of the services of an expert in some field, it is necessary to induct into the Council of Ministers a person who is not then in the legislature. That he is not in the legislature is not made an impassable barrier. We cannot, however, accept the submission, says the court, that sub-Article (4) must be so read as to permit the induction into the Council of Ministers of “short-term Ministers.... not required to have the qualifications and free of the disqualifications in Articles 173 and 191 respectively.” What the sub-Article does, it holds, is to give the non-legislator appointed Minister six months to become a member of the legislature. “Necessarily, therefore, that non-legislator must be one who, when he is appointed, is not debarred from obtaining membership of the legislature; he must be one who is qualified to stand for the legislature and is not disqualified to do so.” It would be “unreasonable and anomalous” to conclude, the court adds, that a Minister who is a member of the legislature is required to meet the constitutional standards of qualification and disqualification but that a Minister who is not a member of the legislature need not. Logically, it says, the standards expected of a Minister who is not a member should be the same as those required of a member, if not higher than them. The court then proceeds to draw support from Ambedkar’s oft-quoted speech in the Constituent Assembly in defence of an identical provision for appointment of Ministers at the Centre. “(I)t is perfectly possible to imagine,” said Ambedkar on December 31, 1948, “that a person who is otherwise competent to hold the post of a Minister has been defeated in a constituency for some reason which, although it may be perfectly good, might have annoyed the constituency and he might have incurred the displeasure of that particular constituency.” “It is not a reason,” said Ambedkar, “why a member so competent as that should not be permitted to be appointed a member of the Cabinet on the assumption that he shall be able to get himself elected either from the same constituency or from another constituency. After all, the privilege that is permitted is a privilege that extends only for six months. It does not confer a right to that individual to sit in the House without being elected at all.” It is apparent that Ambedkar is using the word “competent” here more in the sense of ability than eligibility and the word, therefore, hardly provides a clue to his intention insofar as eligibility is concerned. But read as a whole, his intervention on the point clearly and indubitably shows that the beneficiary of the privilege must ultimately get elected. He starts, in fact, by referring to a Minister who has already contested the elections (but lost). In either event, it cannot be denied that Ambedkar assumed or pre-supposed that the beneficiary would be eligible to contest. No less important than the inarticulate moral premise of the judgement — the falling standards of India’s politicians — is the openly and expressly stated premise of patriotism, which all newspaper reports of the judgement have missed. A person shall not be qualified to be chosen as a member of the State legislature, says Article 173, unless he is a citizen of India. A person shall be disqualified for such membership, says Article 191, putting it the other way round, if he is not a citizen of India. If Article 164(4) of the Constitution is not read subject to Articles 173 and 191, as the Supreme Court has done, it would be open to the Governor to appoint a non-citizen or foreigner as Chief Minister of the State for six months if the majority party so recommends. A consequence which India’s apex court clearly recoils from. If the majority party in the legislature, the court reasons, decides upon the appointment of a “citizen of a foreign country” as the Chief Minister under Article 164(4) — who is not a member of the legislature and who can not be a member thereof — and the Governor is obliged to comply; and if the legislature too is unable to vote out the “foreigner Chief Minister” in the face of his majority backing; the “foreigner Chief Minister would be ensconced in office until the next election.” “Such a dangerous — such an absurd — interpretation of Article 164,” concludes the Supreme Court, “has to be rejected out of hand.” The prospect is not that dangerous, of course, for an appointment under Article 164(4) cannot outlive six months in any case and no question of a foreigner Chief Minister remaining in office for a full term of five years arises. But for whom is this patriotic barb meant, for whom does the bell toll here? |
In the latest report of the progress of the Agricultural Department of the Central Provinces it is stated that the affiliation of the Agricultural College at Nagpur to the University has resulted in a rush of students to the College and has altogether changed the aspect of agricultural education in the Province. If university control of agricultural education induces to the greater popularity of agricultural studies and also to the greater freedom in the work of research and experiments, we do not see why a similar change should not be effected in other provinces. It is only reasonable that veterinary and agricultural education should be under the control of Indian universities, the departmental control being both unpopular and unprogressive. |
90 pc diabetes preventable Nine out of 10 cases of adult diabetes could be prevented if people exercised more, ate healthier food, stopped smoking and adopted other healthy behaviour, according to a new study published in New England Journal of Medicine. The findings suggest behaviour is the main culprit in type 2 diabetes, also known as adultonset diabetes, and that 91 per cent of the diabetes cases that appeared among 85,000 female nurses “could be attributed to habits and forms of behaviour.” “The majority of cases of type 2 diabetes could be prevented by the adoption of a healthier lifestyle, said the research team, led by Frank Hu of the Harvard School of Public Health. Type 2 diabetes is responsible for 90-95 per cent of blood sugar problems in the US population, according to the American Diabetes Association. The new study was an attempt to find out which types of behaviour increased the risk. Using diet, and lifestyle questionaires, the Hu team compared the date from the 3,300 nurses who developed diabetes over a 16-year period to the rest of the nurses who did not. The most important risk factor, they found, was being overweight. The heavier a nurse was, the greater the chance of having blood sugar problems.
Reuters
British men are not just after sex. In fact what they really hanker for in a relationship is love and affection, according to a survey published for a men’s magazine. In the survey of 3,000 men for FHM Bionic health magazine, 88 per cent of men said love and affection was “the most important thing” in a relationship, while 70 per cent said friendship with their partner was more important than sex. Some 87 per cent of men thought fidelity in a relationship was important, while 85 per cent thought sex with a partner stay good forever. More than three-quarters of men said they would leave their woman if she was unfaithful. The magazine, which described some of the findings as “staggering,” said the survey showed that families and fidelity were “cool again.” David Beckham, the Manchester United and England football star and pin-up husband of pop star Posh Spice, was credited with popularising family life among males. “The family man is cool again,” said Phil Hilton, the magazine’s editor-in-chief. “Beckham personifies the new dad who no longer buys his clothes from a camping shop and squanders his time in a shed. Modern men aspire to packed lives with a great relationship and a brood of energetic children.”
Reuters |
|||||
The whole world is impermanent, In it no abiding friendship can be found, Why love that which is not permanent? — Sri Guru Granth Sahib, Sri Rag M.1 ***** Whosoever has come must go, Everyone has his turn, Why forget the Lord, Breath and life are His. — Sri Guru Granth Sahib, Var Asa M.2 ***** In eating, drinking, sleeping and laughing death is forgotten. Evil is the result of forgetting the Lord, a wasted life and no lasting gain. — Sri Guru Granth Sahib, Mallar M.1 ***** Thou art compassionate and I am lowly, Thou art generous and I a beggar; I am a well known sinner, Thou the remover of accumulated sins. Thou art the Lord of the destitute, Who is more destitute than I? No one is more miserable than I, Nor is there a destroyer of miseries like Thee. Thou art Brahman (God) and I am jiva Thou art Master and I Thy servant. Father, mother, teacher, friend art Thou; Thou lookest after my welfare in every respect. Many ties exist between me and Thee, Accept whichever Thou carest for. But O kind one, however it may be, Let Tulasi find shelter at Thy feet. — Goswami Tulasi Das, Vinaya Patrika, Song 79 |
 |
| Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir | Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs | Nation | Editorial | | Business | Sport | World | Mailbag | In Spotlight | Chandigarh Tribune | Ludhiana Tribune 50 years of Independence | Tercentenary Celebrations | | 121 Years of Trust | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |
