 |
Sunday,
January 13, 2002, Chandigarh, India  
|
When fate & destiny conspired against Sikhs’ victory War alone is no solution to the menace of terrorism |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Time to resolve Kashmir tangle forever Let better sense prevail
Harihar Swarup
Another Cabinet expansion in the offing
Humra Quraishi
|
When fate & destiny conspired against Sikhs’ victory IN 1879 just before the Anglo-Zulu war, officers of the HM 24th Regiment drank a toast, looking forward to the 30th anniversary of the battle of Chillianwala on January 13, 1849 when the regiment had fought a disastrous battle against the Sikh Army in India having been ordered to charge a Sikh artillery battery at bayonet point and had been shot to pieces; losing 500 officers and men. The colours — the focus of regimental pride and symbol of their allegiance to the Queen — were lost on the battlefield. “They drank to Chillianwala - that they may never again, get into such a mess”.
Ranjit Singh became the unquestioned ruler of the Punjab from 1799 to 1839, his kingdom being the last bastion to hold out against the British — a symbol of their incomplete conquest of India. Displaying rare courage, his warrior nation extended its Empire from the Sutlej to Kabul in Afghanistan and from Ladakh to Iskardu and Tuklakote in Little Tibet. Every invasion of India till then, starting with the Aryans in 2000 BC had been from west to east, across the Indus. For the first time in history, an Indian, Ranjit Singh, went westwards, crossed the Indus River in 1826, going right onto Kabul. The splendour of the Sikh Durbar ended with Ranjit Singh's death in 1839. He left behind seven sons, but none capable of ruling his kingdom. Intrigues, betrayals and assassinations attended his succession, the Army becoming an uncontrollable and dissatisfied centre of power, eager for war.
This led to the first Sikh war comprising the battles at Mudki, Ferozeshahr, Aliwal and Sabraon, brought on by the British fishing in the troubled waters of the Punjab, increasing their force from 17,000 to 40,000 with the intention of crossing the international boundary along the Sutlej. The Punjab Durbar reiterated its right to passage to its possession across the river. The Punjab Durbar army numbering five divisions of 50,000 men and 800 guns was assembled on the right bank of the Sutlej, in a brilliantly conceived plan to intercept the main British Army with positioning of foot soldiers, to provide accurate fire backed by guns and hemmed in by a cavalry charge. However, in a sordid tale of treachery, two Sikh Commanders, Lal Singh and Tej Singh, both Brahmin converters, colluded with the British, giving away the complete detailed battle plans with sketches to Sir Henry Hardinge the Governor General and Lord Hugh Gough the C-in-C. There could have been no worse treachery in history. Consequently, despite a strategy which had a touch of the late Ranjit Singh's French Generals and shades of Napoleon's battle plans, the British force under Gen Littler was deliberately allowed to slip away and join Gough and Hardinge. However, British casualties at Mudki were heavy. At Ferozeshahr, the British suffered terrible casualties. Every single member of the Governor General's staff was either killed or wounded. That frosty night “The fate of British India trembled in the balance”. Sir Hope Grant, one of the British General bloodied in the Anglo-Sikh Wars recorded: “Truly the night was one of gloom and foreboding and perhaps never in the annals of warfare has a British Army on so large a scale been nearer to a defeat which would have involved annihilation”. Lord Harding sent back his sword and instructions, that the situation being so desperate, if the morning attack failed the British planned to burn all papers and be ready for an unconditional surrender. However, in the morning, both Lal Singh and Tej Singh treacherously withdrew their forces, thereby betraying their soldiers. Despite an overriding strength of 37,000 with 67 guns compared with the 15,000 of the British, Sabroan was a repeat of treachery with Tej Singh deserting the army and cutting the boat bridge linking his forces to the main Sikh forces on the opposite bank. Describing the battle at Sabraon as the “Waterloo of India”, Lord Gough paid great tribute to Sikh soldiers: “Policy precluded me from publicly recording my sentiments on the splendid gallantry of our fallen foe, or to record the acts of heroism displayed not only individually, but almost collectively, by the Sikh Sirdars and the Army: and I declare, were it not for deep conviction that my country's good required the sacrifice, I would have wept to have witnessed the fearfully slaughter of so devoted a body of men”. General Sir Joseph Thackwell who witnessed the battle wrote, “Though defeated and broken, they never ran, but fought to the last and I witnessed several acts of great bravery in their Sirdars and men”. Lord Hardingee, who saw the action, wrote: “Few escaped, none it may be said, surrendered. The Sikh met their fate with the resignation which distinguishes their race”. This was a major British victory against a people afflicted with internal treachery and treason and was the beginning of the end of the Great Sikh Durbar.
In an amazing coincidence, the Chillianwala Battle was fought in almost the same area where Porus, with his elephants, chariots and archers, had fought Alexander's cavalry 2175 years earlier. Sher Singh displayed exceptional skill by judiciously selecting his position which was protected on the left by a low ridge of hills intersected with ravines and the main stream of the Jhelum, the right being posted in different villages enclosed by a thick jungle. On January 13, 1849 the British launched their attack. Their artillery advanced to an open space in front of Chillianwala and opened fire on the Sikh artillery. The Sikhs replied with a vigorous cannonade. As the fire ceased the British drew up in order of battle and charged at the enemy's centre in an attempt to force the Sikhs into the river. The assault was led by Brigadier Pennycuick. For the Sikhs, the conditions were made to order. Scattering into the brushwood jungle they began their hit and run tactics, their snipers taking a heavy toll of the British cavalry and infantry. Those that got through the brushwood and the ravines were easily repulsed in the hand to hand fighting with the main body of the Sikh troops. Brig. Pennycuick leading the Brigade in the front fell, as did his son. Four British guns and the colours of three British Regiments fell to the Sikhs and the British registered nearly 3,000 dead or wounded in the area around Chillianwala. A testimony left by a British observer says: “The Sikhs fought like devils, fierce and untamed... Such a mass of men I never set eyes on and a plucky as lions: they ran right on the bayonets and struck their assailants when they were transfixed”. But, once again, as at Ferozeshahr, the Sikhs failed to drive their advantage. Having suffered considerable losses themselves, they were not aware of the magnitude of the punishment they had inflicted on the British. It then poured incessantly for three days — which kept the Sikhs separated from their quarry — and on the fourth day as the sun shone again, the British had pulled out and retreated across the Chaj to the banks of the Chenab. The Sikhs never realised this, having thought that they had lost. The Attariwalas sent George Lawrence, who was their prisoner, with the terms for truce, which included the investment of Dalip Singh as Maharaja. This, however, the British did not accept. Once more, the fate and destiny had conspired against a victory for the Sikhs, bringing into mind Shah Mohamad's words: “We won the battle but we lost the fight”. From the ashes and dust, rose a proud nation whose gallantry and steadfastness against fearful odds soon filled the ranks of the new Indian Army. They have proved their loyalty and gallantry to the salt they swore, by being bestowed more gallantry awards than any other region and people. A difficult people to understand — and not everyone understood them — led a seasoned British Commanding Officer of the Sikhs to write an introduction for newly commissioned British officers assigned to the Sikhs: “There cannot be a more horrendous people when honour is at stake. Yet, put your arms around the man and hug him like a brother and apologise. Before you have finished, he has melted like butter and is ready to take on the world for you”. Ranjit Singh is no more but the spirit of the Khalsa continues to live, not only in the battlefields of valour but in the ability of these people to reach the highest levels of excellence in every sphere, all over the world. The writer, a retired Lieut-General, has been researching on the Anglo-Sikh Wars. He is the only Indian and a former Indian Army officer who is feted by the people of Chillianwala on January 13 every year. Today, he is not able to keep his date with the people of Chillianwala because of current conditions. |
|
War alone is no solution to the menace of terrorism BARRAGE of telephone calls from President Bush and “calming mission” of Prime Minister Tony Blair, followed by visits to America of the Home Minister L.K. Advani and Defence Minister George Fernandes are among the many moves on the diplomatic front that have lowered the tension on the borders and reduced the prospects of a war between the two nuclear neighbours. There is universal sympathy for the deep hurt to the sentiments of India following the December 13 incident. But there is also a universal concern over the possibility of it seeking expression through another Indo-Pak war. To what use India can put the universal sympathy for its sentiments? How far India should go for retaliatory action against Pakistan, to which the culprits of December 13 outrage belonged and which has been sponsoring terrorism in India for the last two decades? With international support or without? Why should not India follow the USA precedent and attack the country which has been and is still harbouring the terrorists acting in Kashmir the way America did? Is it because the rules of international behaviour are different for a superpower and a much less powerful country like India? Or because difference between the comparative strength of America and Afghanistan and between India and Pakistan is too big? Is it a question of double standards or merely a pragmatic and realistic compulsion? Before we develop a feeling of self-pity, to which we are prone, due to either of the reasons, let us examine more closely the way America reacted to the challenge of terror and decide what are the best options which are available to India and which suit its national interests. First, despite being the mightiest power of the world, America took one month to mobilise diplomatic support for its action in Afghanistan. In particular, it took extraordinary efforts to neutralise the hostility of the Muslim countries to win over the fencesitters. Secondly, it continued to draw a distinction between the people of Afghanistan and its Taliban rulers. Thirdly, it started exercises for cobbling a coalition that was to be installed in Kabul after starting military action in Afghanistan. India had a more convincing case than America. The bodies of terrorists were a more eloquent evidence of their Pakistani origin whereas America could only hypothesise about the origin of the perpetrators of the crime in America. But India started with army buildup on the borders and was only dragged to the diplomatic front mainly by America and Britain. Still no initiative has so far been taken to mobilise support of the Muslim countries. Instead publicly upstaging the level of Indo-Israel understanding as the welcome to Israel Foreign Minister revealed was clearly a net diplomatic loss in dealing with Pakistan as it facilitates its efforts to win sympathy of the Muslim countries. Secondly, taking a clue from America's strategy, India need to take note of contradictions that exist within Pakistan. To hold Pakistan government and General Musharraf responsible for the attack on Parliament House, for which no evidence has been cited, is to ignore the open conflict between Musharraf and the terrorist camp that started ever since he joined the America-led war against the Taliban. The murder of the brother of the Interior Minister of Pakistan, who was responsible for putting curbs on terrorist camps is an indication of such a clash. Then there is a liberal constituency in Pakistan that has been emboldened with the collapse of the Taliban which should need not be dismissed. The current rhetoric against Pakistan in India presumes a unity within its government, army government and its democratic opponents, liberals and radicals, which does not exist. Instead of treating Pakistan like any other country, Pakistan has acquired in Indian psyche a status of an eternal and monolithic enemy. Thus unlike America which narrowed down its target to one man, Osama bin Laden and to the Taliban who harboured him, India is trying its best to enlarge the target and unite all contradictory elements against itself. Finally, those who clamour for a final war to the finish with Pakistan must ponder over the question: Will India be able to, or allowed to, subdue Pakistan as easily as America did in fragile Afghanistan and, if India succeeded in doing
so, does it have in mind any people like Zaheer Shah, Karzai, Qanooni and Adbullah who replaced the Taliban to replace Musharraf in Pakistan? Thus war alone cannot solve the problem of terror in India. Let India count its plus points and aim at achievable objectives. First, India has a more credible evidence to identify the culprits. Secondly, India demonstrated no less unsuccessfully than America, the strength and maturity of its democracy by forging a rare unity of all parties in meeting the challenge of terror. Both the ruling coalition and the Opposition dropped contentious issues that were blocking the working of Parliament and abstained from making political capital out of the crisis. The mechanism of consensus building is kept in tact. The government resisted the temptation of using the favourable atmosphere for passing POTO — which would have compromised democracy a little — showed that it preferred unity and democracy to its prestige. Democracy and terrorism are two opposite ideologies. India's greatest assets in its fighting against terrorism, and also in its rivalry with Pakistan are its democracy and pluralism; for which it is receiving attention and support of world powers. It was on account of moral and political strength of India's case and favourable diplomatic response that as the New York Times reported: “In effect Bush has told Pakistan that after 50 years of batting India over Kashmir, it must now abandon the armed struggle there, and rely henceforth on political means”. Within Pakistan also a realisation is drawing about the consequences of a conflict with India. Representing such a realisation Najam Sethi writes in Friday Times: “We have managed to survive destablising debacle in Afghanistan. But we might not be so lucky in the event of a conflict with India over Kashmir”. A cool, self-confident and determined resolve, supported by a calibrated pressure may continue to ensure that terror as a political weapon becomes totally ineffective. But care should be taken not to lose the international goodwill India already has earned. At a time when Pakistan is passing is trying to recover from its humiliation on their reversal of its Afghanistan policy, from its economic nadir and its international isolation, it does not behove a country of the size, strength and prestige of India to betray signs of nervousness and panic. Let us not overdramatise and glorify act of a few mad men. Most powerful men and nations in history are known to have become victims of such acts of desperate fanatics. Their main target is not some persons but a system and morale of the nation. If the system and morale are in tact, there need not doubt India's ability to win the war on terror and Pakistan's ability to sustain it too long. But let there be no illusion that defeat of terrorism alone will solve Kashmir problem; though it will become lot easier to do so. It will be a real test of Indian statesmanship. |
|
Time to resolve Kashmir tangle forever THESE are especially telling times for India. It has been put in a situation from where it can come out successful and unscathed provided it played its cards right. It can resolve the problem that has continued to dog India since its Independence. It can finally get the monkey off its back and work without distraction towards economic, technological, and social progress to turn India into a power that it potentially is. However, it has to strategically manoeuvre the situation to turn this challenge into a great opportunity like the one it has not encountered since the establishment of the Line of Control in Kashmir. Bush doctrines make it plausible for India to do things in this regard that were unacceptable to the civilised world in the pre-September 11 period. Now, India can also “bring the terrorists to justice or bring justice to them”. Further, it can use the second Bush doctrine to impress on America and the world that “if you are not with us, you are with the terrorists” — A slogan that still echoes in America. American Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has openly stated that every country has a right to defend itself. Moreover, a country does not require any permission from the United Nations to do that, and, that, it may involve it crossing over into other countries in pursuit of those who threatened its security? It is as if you are going after those who are waging war on you. However, like the USA, India has to portray its concern to the world community. It has to build a coalition that understands and conveys India’s status to others. India may do that by seeking the help of some public relations firm in America. India has to make the world accept that had the mitigating circumstances of December 13, the early adjournment of Parliament and the electricity failure in New Delhi not occurred, the attack on Indian Parliament could have been more fateful than the World Trade Center attack of September 11. It had the potential of virtually eliminating Indian Prime Minister, a number of his Cabinet members, and Members of Parliament. This will give India sufficient advantage in the eyes of the world to undertake an operation in the Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir (PoK) of the scale that America is doing in Afghanistan. India’s strategy should be to use this situation to
resolve the Kashmir issue. India has two choices: it may embark on this right away, if it is ready to execute this operation like the USA executed its attack on Afghanistan, or, it may opt to respect the USA’s sanctions against LeT and wait for them to attack one more time. The latter will be particularly recommended since it will give India some time to plan this operation and build undaunted support in the USA and the rest of the world since these terrorists will not cease terrorising India no matter what. Neither General Pervez Musharraf nor any other political leader really controls them. Pragmatically, if India does not put away these fundamentalist Islamic bigots ruthlessly, they will be back. It does not matter what name they assume? Jaish-e-Muhhamad, Harkat-ul-Mujahidin, Lashker-e-Taiba or another fancy new one. Nevertheless, whenever India undertakes this operation, it must cross the LoC. It has to clear the PoK of these terrorists, dug in their, establish its hold, and never give it up. Treat it like its homecoming. The reaction from the world community will be very much muted since the American war against Taliban will still be on to justify India’s actions in its defense paralleling those of the USA. There is one thing noteworthy about the Bush Administration; it is not hypocritical. It is India’s second strategic move that will truly require building political alliances in India and developing an understanding of India’s outlook on Kashmir in the world community. If India believes that Kashmir is an integral part of India, it would now be the time to give credence to this chime. India must legally, fully integrate Kashmir with India; take away all the distinctions and protections that perpetuate its separation from the rest of the country. The next move should be to give special incentive to Indians to settle in Kashmir. It would be how America populated its West during its founding. This requires making hard choices and sacrifices; however, the rewards are proportionate as well. This kind of terrorist attacks on India from these same classes of raiders and invaders are not a 10-15-year or even 50-year-old problem. They had been doing this to India for the last 900 years. This is the time to put them away. India has never been better prepared to carry out this operation ever in its history. India must understand how to deal with America. America pays attention to either those who incite American pity or those who raise their shoulder and look into America’s eyes. India’s strategy in dealing with America should follow from how the brave deal with the brave that is, with strength and courage. Americans love braves and America respects strong people. India does not have to be afraid to be brave. It must smartly plan, organise, and execute its attack. The attack should be swift, decisive, and focused. In fact, it has already done something like this. The world knows it; India’s Bangladesh War is one of the most successful wars in modern history. It has just to do it one more time. Settle the Kashmir dispute forever. Get this thorn out of your bleeding wound so the healing can begin. The writer is Professor, Strategy and Policy, Seton Hall University, South Orange, NJ, USA. |
|
Let better sense prevail GEORGE Fernandes is ready. Ready for war. His men are ready, too, and even eager, or, as George puts it in an interview with a newspaper, ‘raring to go’. ‘Everyone is raring to go — from the ordinary jawan to the mid-level officer to the men at the top. This applies as much to the Army as to the Air Force. In fact, something that actually bothers them is that things might now reach a point where someone says there will be no war.’ That, indeed, would be a tragedy for George and his merry men. How are they going to deal with a situation in which there isn’t going to be a war! Anyway, how could George, on fleeting trips to the frontline be sure that they are raring to go? Does he expect these young soldiers to tell him, ‘No, I hate war, I’d rather go home and see my wife and children?’ It’s a crazy world. When faced with a crisis, everything is turned upside down. War is peace. Ignorance is bliss. George is also ready for a nuclear exchange. He boasts: ‘We could take a nuclear strike, survive and then hit back. Pakistan would be finished.’ He is, of course, boasting on our behalf. Does he think we would want to survive, with our charred skins peeling off, as we’ve seen with the survivors of Hiroshima? And those who survive, are they supposed to feel happy, while they await their slow deaths, that Pakistan is finished? George and people who think like him in terms of mega deaths and second strikes ought to be certified mad. Even the worst morons in the Pentagon don’t talk like that any more. Imagine, two of the poorest and most illiterate nations in the world talking about mutual annihilation as though they were discussing a football match! The rhetoric of politicians, theories of defence analysts and bombast of generals, these will mean nothing the moment we talk the language of nuclear war. Deterrence as an abstraction may have some validity, but translated into mega-deaths and mega-devastation it becomes an obscenity. This kind of deterrence sends a chill down my spine. Those who talk about deterrence and at the same time about the feasibility of a nuclear war are, in the words of Arundhati Roy, ‘pitifully behind the times — not just scientifically and technologically, but more pertinently in our ability to grasp the true nature of nuclear weapons. Our comprehension of the Horror Department is hopelessly obsolete.’ In her remarkable essay, ‘The End of Imagination’, written after the Pokhran tests of 1998, she wrote: ‘If only nuclear war was a war in which countries battle countries and men battle men. But it isn’t. If there is a nuclear war, out foe will be the earth itself. The very elements — the sky, the air, the land, the wind and water — will all turn against us. Their wrath will be terrible. Nuclear bravado is stupid in the current situation on the sub-continent. Moreover, millions are still starving, millions of children still have no schools to go to and millions still die for want of medical care. Is it too late to retrieve the situation? Is it too late for India and Pakistan to agree to give up their nuclear arsenals and to begin cutting down on their dangerous and useless military rivalry? Better sense would tell us it is not. Let better sense prevail. |
A friend of India in its fight against terrorism IT was not just a coincidence that Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres and PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat were awarded Nobel Prize for Peace in December 1994. Their achievement as well as tragedy was that they negotiated a peace agreement, which made them Nobel Laureates, but never brought peace. Shimon’s words at that time were: “It is fitting that the Prize has been awarded to Yasser Arafat too. His quitting the path of confrontation in favour of the path of dialogue, has opened the way to peace between ourselves and the Palestinian people, to whom we wish all the best in the future”. Even before the ink on the truce had dried Israelis blamed Arafat for failing to repress Islamic groups and zealots of Islamic Jihad dubbed him as “a treacherous lackey of Israel”. The Nobel Peace Prize, the highest honour of the world was, as if, shred to pieces when Israeli missiles, in retaliation to suicide bombings last month, blew up various establishments of Arafat’s Palestinian Authority. Nobel Laureate Shimon Peres was in Delhi last week as “a friend of India” in its fight against terrorism and hogged headlines. A likely outcome of the visit is finalisation of sale to India pending Phalcon early warning radar system. It involves three advance warning radar-equipped planes and a Russian transport Illyushin-76 aircraft with sophisticated AWACS warning
equipment. The system, no doubt, is badly required by India in its ongoing conflict with Pakistan. Shimon Peres, who began his second tenure as Foreign Minister in July, 1992, is the architect of Israel’s nuclear programme and closely associated with the development of his country’s defence capabilities. Now known as elder statesman, he was the Prime Minister for short terms twice. He joined the “Haganah” (defence forces) in late forties and assigned the responsibility for arms purchase and recruitment. During and after the “War of Independence”, he served as head of naval services, joined the Defence Ministry in 1952 and a year later appointed Director General. Only 29 at that time, Shimon was the youngest leader to hold the coveted position and remained on the post till 1959. He was elected a member of “Knesset” the same year and has been a member ever since. Though 79-year old, Shimon is perfectly fit, walks fast and says: “A man may feel as old as his years, yet as young as his dreams. The laws of biology do not apply to sanguine aspiration”. He was born in what he calls “a small Jewish town in White Russia” in 1923; the place was, in fact, Byelorussia. He was only nine years old when his family immigrated to Palestine and he grew up in Tel Aviv. He says: “My family’s dream, and my own, was to live in Israel, and our voyage to the port of Jaffa was a dream that came true. Had it not been for this dream and this voyage, I would probably have perished in the flames, as did so many of my people, among them most of my own family”. Shimon’s early education was in a school at an agricultural youth village which was fenced by barbed wires. In the morning the students would go out to the fields with scythes on their backs to harvest the crop and in the evening ventured out with rifles on their shoulders to defend their lives. In Shimon’s own words: “On Shabbath” (religious rest day for Jews) we would go out to visit our Arab neighbours. We would talk with them of peace, though the rest of the week we traded rifle fire across the darkness”. When he with his comrades went to Kibbutz town in the Lower Galilee, they have no houses, no electricity and no running water. Shimon considers legendary David Ben-Gurion as his philosopher and guide and says “he was the greatest Jew of our time and from him I learnt that the vision of the future should shape the agenda for the present; that you can overcome obstacles by dint of faith; that you may feel disappointed but never despair”. A bitter lesson that Shimon has learnt from his long years of struggle and strife is that “aggressors do not necessarily emerge as the victors and victors do not necessarily win peace. It is not the rifle but the people who triumph, and the conclusion from all the wars is that we need better people, not better rifles — to avoid wars, to win peace”. He says: “Slings, arrows, gas chambers can annihilate man, but they cannot destroy human values, the dignity and freedom of the human being”. This is what both India and Israel face as they confront the worse menace the world has ever seen — the threat of terrorism. |
Another Cabinet expansion in the offing THE long wait for Mamatadi is set to be over soon. Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee is tipped to undertake yet another expansion of his Council of Ministers. And Mamata Bannerjee, chief of the Trinamool Congress, is going to be inducted. Finally. The Cabinet expansion is likely to take place before January 26. Apart from Mamata, her party colleague, Sudipt Bandopadhyaya, is tipped to be rewarded with a ministerial berth. The PMK is also to get representation in the Cabinet expansion. PMK supremo K. Ramdoss may keep himself out and suggest the name of one of his colleagues for the ministerial job. P.C.Thomas of Kerala Congress is another MP who is likely to be inducted into the Union Cabinet. Thomas has cobbled up a 7-member group of Lok Sabha members. But there is a catch for Mamata Bannerjee. She is not going to get her favourite portfolio — Railways. Nitish Kumar has put his foot down and decried the tendency of being treated like a football, kicked from this ministry to that. So, Mamatadi would have to be content with a less important portfolio. Sangh’s
Krishna Union Home Minister Lal Krishna Advani has had many roles to play in his long political
career along with many titles added to his name. He came to be identified as Lord Rama when he embarked upon his famous Rath Yatra to Ayodhya in the early nineties. Then as the BJP moved towards power, Advani became the Home Minister and was eulogised as Sardar Patel II by his well-wishers in his party and the Sangh Parivar. With the fight against cross-border and international terrorism becoming the main plank of the party in the coming Assembly elections, Advani is now being projected as Lord Krishna. This is the indication one gets by seeing the portrait put up in the media briefing hall at the party headquarters at 11 Ashoka Road. Advani has been painted as Lord Krishna with Sudarshan Chakra in his hand and the famous quote from Bhagvad Gita in which Lord Krishna says: “Hey Arjun! Whenever righteousness declines, and whenever unrighteousness is on the rise, then I create myself, for the protection of the good and destruction of the evil, to reestablish dharma once more, in every era I arise”. Swinging
sides It was a virtual volte-face by six Congress MPs from Punjab when they joined hands with Jagmeet Singh Brar on the issue of getting tickets for their relatives and confidants after having demanded his removal as convener of the Punjab Congress Parliamentary Party. It was party MP Balbir Singh, who in a move widely believed to enjoy the backing of PCC chief Capt.Amarinder Singh, sought to replace Brar just at the time when the party was to decide its candidates in Punjab. Almost forgetting about the issue of replacement of Brar as soon as names of party candidates started figuring, the MPs made a common cause on the issue of tickets for their relatives and had regular meetings with AICC treasurer Motilal Vora. It was also said that some of the MPs had filed applications of their close relatives after getting an assurance from Capt Amarinder Singh. When they found that the PCC chief was not backing them on the issue, they did not waste time in joining hands with Brar whose brother was a candidate from Muktsar. The MPs were also heard saying that Capt Amarinder Singh had got his brother Malvinder Singh to file nomination papers from Samana just as a ploy to silence his critics. But the high command, not willing to deviate too much from the party guidelines which discourage inexperienced relatives of leaders from getting tickets, could do little to please all the MPs. Common
cause The National Commission for Women (NCW) began the New Year calendar with great motivation and cheer. Cherie Blair, Barrister wife of British Prime Minister Tony Blair decided to take time off her hectic schedule during a four-day official visit early this week to gain insight about the incidence of domestic violence in India from none other than NCW Chairperson Vibha Parthasarathy. Mrs Blair who takes up cases related to women and child abuse showed keen interest in the contents and status of the Domestic Violence Bill, the participation of women in governance at the local level following 33 per cent reservation in the Panchayati Raj system and the training imparted to them by the Commission. During the one-hour interaction described as “warm, fruitful and relaxed”, Mrs Blair also said that the use of street theatre in India as a medium of disseminating social messages is worth emulating by her home country. She showed interest in the Commission’s efforts to find out if various organisations were following the Apex Court’s directions on combating the problem of sexual harassment. She candidly observed that sexual harassment at workplace is not uncommon in UK either. Tailpiece Who else could have been a better choice to give a befitting blow to General Pervez Musharraf than our own Army Chief General S Padmanabhan? Remember Musharraf travelling to Kathmandu for the SAARC summit via China and reaching there late by several hours which also delayed the commencement of the summit by a day? In response to a question on China-Pakistan relations at his press conference on Friday, Gen Padmanabhan remarked that India had its own relationship with China. “Our air routes are reasonably straightforward”. Contributed by Rajeev Sharma, Satish Misra, Prashant Sood, Tripti Nath and T.V. Lakshminarayan. |
Of dance recitals, food festivals & writers’ meet THERE begins a new trend here — a dance for very occasion .Though I am not absolutely ancient, as far as I can recollect at least till the last couple of years classical dance went solo, in the sense of not accompanying any other occasion. Not so anymore. Last week Madhavi Mudgal performed for the release of ‘The books of Indian Gods and Goddesses’(Penguin) and these books are on Ganesha, Devi, Shiva, Vishnu, Krishna, authored by Royina Grewal, Bulbul Sharma, Namita Gokhale, Nanditha Krishna, Pavan K Varma respectively. There comes in another invite by the well known dancer Geeta Chandran for next week’s launch of the book ‘Celebrating Krishna’ (authored by Shrivatsa Goswami with photographs by Robyn Beeche). No, though the invite does not get specific about her dancing on the occasion, chances are that she would dance that evening. As would Sonal Mansingh on this Republic Day evening. But Sonal does specify that for more than two decades she has danced on every January 26. This year the theme that she has chosen for her dance is ‘Mukti’,with an explanation to boot. “Mukti is here and now contrary to the popularly held belief that it is attainable only after death ...from nothing to all things, Mukti covers every aspect and dimension of life. It is an awareness, a consciousness that vibrates in every pore, every moment, whether married or single, young or old, rich or poor...” And there comes another invite — Kathak dancer Shovana Narayan would be dancing to the verse of Khalil Gibran on
January 17. I have a copy of Gibran’s ‘The Prophet’, and after going the invite, I took to reading his verse and somehow I am not too sure whether dance movements would jell with the verse. Those Gibran lines are best understood and get filtered in when read in solitude, all by oneself. For Gibran himself was a recluse, a loner who valued his privacy to the extent of not only living alone and holding on to companion Mary through the written word — a correspondence that stretched over two decades and discovered only after his death through the letters exchanged between the two. Anyway, let me wait till January 17 evening and then get back to you on what the evening held out ...one aspect that I’m positive about is that there will be no dearth of viewers— what with the heady combination of Gibran, Shovana and of course, the host for the evening, Lebanese Ambassador to India Jean G. Daniel. A splendid man and credit must be given to him on bringing about focus on Gibran (last year held a seminar on him at the Sahitya Akademi and now this dance) and also on the Lebanese cuisine. The whole of last year luxury hotels here have held food festivals focusing on Lebanese cuisine and what satisfied exclamations they drew! And Daniel would definitely do us Indians great service if he reads out passages from Gibran’s particular verse that focuses on religion, work and the so-called verdicts that we tend to pass on people without pausing to reflect that — “As a single leaf turns not yellow but with the silent knowledge of the whole tree, so the wrong doer cannot do wrong without the hidden will of you all. ..and when one of you falls down he falls for those behind him, a caution against the stumbling stone .... when the black thread breaks, the weaver shall look into the whole cloth and he shall examine the loom also”. (Gibran).
SAARC writers SAARC seems to have become such a formality (because the shots are being called from far beyond, from the USA...) that even in the current Indo-Pak crisis, none of the SAARC leaders could play a role. That’s why it shouldn’t really be surprising to know that the recently concluded SAARC writers’ conference (held here in the second week of December) brought in no strong voices that could override the political voice, that seems bent on coming up with those war cries. Going through the list of the writers from the SAARC countries that had been invited to attend this conference, I am surprised that not one voice could over-ride the doublespeak of the politicians who are now getting notorious with triple speak. |
 |
| 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 | |
