 |
Thursday, January 17, 2002,
Chandigarh, India  
|
A canal of
controversy US intentions on
arms deal |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Tricolour’s
moment of pride THE decision to allow the over one billion citizens of India to fly the National Flag, more popularly known as the Tricolour, warrants a second round of celebration on the same scale that was witnessed across the country on August 15, 1947. The date on which the right becomes available to the citizens should go down in the history of the Republic as a second Independence Day. So far the hoisting of the National Flag is not the birthright of every citizen. It is restricted to a select group of people, including all those whose role as public servants is recognised by the Constitution.
The
message from Kathmandu summit
BJP’s
most controversial ex-ideologue
Indus
water treaty: some facts
No more
fasting to test undiagnosed diabetes
Knowing
true happiness
1977, Physics: VAN VLECK, MOTT & ANDERSON
|
A canal of controversy IT is a long story with its origin in 1974. The question of sharing Ravi-Beas water between Punjab and Haryana has been a perfect political football between the two states and between the Akalis, on one side, and the Congress and the Centre, on the other. The Supreme Court has now intervened, directing Punjab to build its part of the 121 km-long canal from the Nangal Dam within a year. It is an angry verdict and castigates Punjab, the Centre and the tribunal headed by a former Supreme Court Judge V. Balakrishna Eradi. The apex court is irritated that the political leadership of the two states and the Centre have miserably failed to solve an issue that is very vital for the region, including Delhi. Delhi has a major drinking water problem and the Satluj-Yamuna Link (SYL) canal will partly solve it. Haryana needs water to irrigate the arid southern districts both to diversify and increase farm output. But Punjab has always maintained that it has no water to spare and only when the Ranjit Sagar Dam is completed, can Ravi water be diverted to Haryana. But the state’s most logical point has been based on internationally accepted principle of riparian status. Under this only those areas which fall in the course of a river can lay claim to draw water. For instance, Punjab can lay canals to feed areas not falling in the natural course of a river and hence the criss-crossing of cement concrete-lined canals and near 100 per cent irrigation. Haryana, on the contrary, has ensured water to agriculture only in a few districts and therefore its hunger for more supply. The Supreme Court’s directive is likely to both create problems and carry the possibility of being ignored. As an expert has pointed out, the Punjab part of the SYL canal cannot be, even with unusual enthusiasm, completed within a year. The canal built earlier at considerable expense has fallen on disuse and sand clogging the cement lining has to be removed manually and it is a time-consuming job. As one report has pointed out, land falling on key portions of the canal is yet to be acquired and the alignment will prove very difficult since it has to pass through places of worship in Ropar district. The court has said that the Centre will take over the job if Punjab drags its feet. But it has not laid a timeframe for the Centre to decide when it should intervene. Then there is the problem of Punjab filing a review petition and demanding urgent hearing. Normally it takes months, thus reducing the one-year time limit. The Supreme Court has not reckoned with it, but its judgement has become a very emotive electoral issue. The ruling SAD is on the defensive and the Congress is accusing it of betraying the vital interest of the state. In the days to come the air will be filled with calls for protecting the farmers and safeguarding the God-given gift of abundant water. Politicians of all hues love to exaggerate issues for a fistful of votes. And this is election year in Punjab. |
|
US intentions on arms deal DESPITE
all efforts by New Delhi that this country should not be equated with Islamabad, and that the USA and India being two great democracies can be natural allies, there is something that prevents the right message from reaching Washington. Even after September 11 when the fight against terrorism tops the national agenda of both countries, America continues to suspect India. Or, perhaps, a militarily and economically resurgent India does not fit into the US scheme of things in South Asia and Central Asia. This is the only conclusion that can be drawn from the US attempt to deny India the three Phalcon AWACS and some Arrow-2 missiles for which it has entered into a deal with Israel. During his visit to New Delhi last week the Israel Foreign Minister, Mr Shimon Peres, made it clear that his country had no problem in supplying these weapons needed by India for strengthening the fighting capability of its Air Force. He also mentioned that the USA should have no reason to press the alarm button because India had started the negotiations for the two advanced weapon systems much before the September 11 tragedy which forced America to make Pakistan a member of anti-terrorism international coalition. But the
leadership in Washington thinks that its strategic calculations go against India's plan to purchase the weapon systems so essential for its defence from a willing Israel. America does not want to hurt the sentiments of the Pakistan establishment in view of Washington's geopolitical interests. Hence the message to Tel Aviv to maintain a "low profile" on the deal. Israel has been told that the Arrow sale will violate the Missile Technology Control Regime, but what about the Phalcons? If the argument is that the Israeli version of the American AWACS is too sensitive an item to reach India when there is military tension in the subcontinent, why did the USA keep quiet when Pakistan received some important military hardware from China the other day? This is nothing but a crude display of double standard. One doubts the American intentions vis-a-vis India not because of this single incident. When India began to negotiate with Israel some time ago Washington expressed its reservations immediately, saying that the deal could escalate tension in the subcontinent. But India did not lose hope and kept pressing its case. The result was positive. In December America cleared the sale and informed the Israeli Defence Ministry that it could go ahead. In the meanwhile something happened and a review began in the Pentagon. This
happened after the Israeli Foreign Ministry sought further clearance in view of the China factor. The USA had earlier stalled the Phalcon supply to Beijing on some pretext. Now the report comes that Israel cannot oblige India under the circumstances. Even if the sale is cleared after a fresh review, which is a possibility, it will have created an avoidable history of bitterness. This reminds one of the cryogenic engine deal India had finalised with Russia a few years ago. America put its foot down to deny what this country needed so desperately at that time. That Indian scientists found their own answer to the problem is a different matter. In the changed global scenario the USA must shed its pre-Cold War angularities to play a fair role as a super power. |
|
Tricolour’s moment of pride THE decision to allow the over one billion citizens of India to fly the National Flag, more popularly known as the Tricolour, warrants a second round of celebration on the same scale that was witnessed across the country on August 15, 1947. The date on which the right becomes available to the citizens should go down in the history of the Republic as a second Independence Day. So far the hoisting of the National Flag is not the birthright of every citizen. It is restricted to a select group of people, including all those whose role as public servants is recognised by the Constitution. On hindsight it can be said that the political leadership made a grave error of judgment by denying to the people of India the right to hoist the National Flag that they were otherwise expected to show reverence to. It is possible that the Indian position was influenced by the British and European traditions. In most parts of what has now evolved as the European Union the right to fly the country's flag is restricted to government functionaries. And this position can be traced to the autocratic rule in most parts of Europe before the advent of democracy via the American sub-continent. It is a pity that the Indian leadership did not on its own realise the need to correct a blatantly indefensible position it had taken on the issue of the right to display the National Flag. In August, 2000, the usually affable Union Petroleum Minister Ram Naik created an avoidable stink by objecting to the placing of rose petals in the National Flag at the Red Fort Independence Day function. He, of course, realised his mistake and apologised to the Prime Minister for it. It has taken the political leadership over 54 years to correct the "Ram Naik" attitude that public servants are encouraged to display. Hats off to Mr Navin Jindal, an enlightened citizen, for plucking the courage to challenge in the Delhi High Court the rules that placed unreasonable restrictions on the right of the citizens of India to display the National Flag on their dwelling units and place of work. The Delhi High Court allowed the petition. However, instead of accepting defeat and remove the restrictions, the Centre decided to challenge the Delhi High Court order in the Supreme Court. The apex court upheld the interpretation of the lower court and thus was born the historic moment that would make every Indian shed his myriad identities — religious, regional, political and social — under the symbol of the country's unity and integrity. It is strange why the people were denied the right to hold aloft the most powerful symbol nationhood for so long. There have been unhappy cases of not showing due respect to the National Flag. But in most cases the disrespect was unintended. The National Flag also represents the essence of democracy . Therefore, the day the citizens formally earn the right to display the National Flag would also be the day when democracy itself would become complete. |
The message from Kathmandu summit DRAMATICS often overshadow concrete results in contemporary diplomacy. This is precisely what happened at the eleventh SAARC summit in Kathmandu. The author of the Kargil aggression and the erstwhile ardent advocate of jehad, Pakistan’s Gen Pervez Musharraf sought to steal the limelight by the melodramatic gesture of extending his hand of friendship to India’s Atal Behari Vajpayee. Not surprisingly, the invariably soft-spoken and courteous Vajpayee responded by calling on General Musharraf to rein in the jehadis and terrorists the world knows he sponsors and assists. Mr Vajpayee pointedly reminded the General: “I went to Lahore with the hand of friendship. We were rewarded with aggression in Kargil and the hijacking of an Indian Airlines aircraft. I invited President Musharraf to Agra. We were rewarded with a terrorist attack on the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly and, last month, on the Parliament of India.” The summit was thereafter virtually hijacked by the issue of whether or not the Foreign Ministers of India and Pakistan would meet. Washington was making it clear that it was anxious that such a dialogue should take place; as a conflict between India and Pakistan would seriously undermine its war effort against Osama bin Laden, Mullah Omar and their fanatical supporters. Other SAARC members were equally keen that this issue should be sorted out to prevent the SAARC summit from becoming yet another messy Indo-Pakistani spat. New Delhi should have anticipated all this and readily agreed to a meeting between the two Foreign Ministers where it would discuss nothing other than the action it expected Pakistan to take to ban, disarm, disband and effectively block the financing of all terrorist groups acting from its soil in Jammu and Kashmir and elsewhere in India. What happened instead was that Mr Jaswant Singh and Mr Abdul Sattar met for over an hour, even as India was destroying its own credibility by claiming that no such meeting took place. One hopes that our diplomacy would be conducted in future with greater finesse and credibility. Amidst all this “tamasha” the other members of SAARC were showing that they were one with India in enhancing cooperation in the “core areas” of trade, finance and investment. It is Pakistan alone that has dragged its feet in moving ahead on these issues while pursuing a political agenda of labelling India as “hegemonic” and wanting all attention to be focused on its “core issue” of Kashmir. The SAARC leaders have now agreed that they will move ahead to establish a South-Asian Economic Union in a phased and planned manner. More importantly, the SAARC leaders have now committed themselves to finalising the text of a Draft Treaty for a South-Asian Free Trade Area by the end of 2002. This development has been possible mainly because countries like Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Nepal see the benefits that they will derive by free access to the Indian market. Pakistan will do its best to stall the movement forward on this issue as it has done in the past during negotiations on a South Asian Preferential Trade Area (SAPTA). But New Delhi should now undertake a meaningful effort with Bangladesh, Bhutan, Nepal, Maldives and Sri Lanka to see that this Pakistani effort does not succeed. Given our own less than helpful approach in granting trade concessions to neighbours, we should leave this effort to be undertaken primarily by Bangladesh and Sri Lanka who have far more liberal trade regimes than us and not by the ever protectionist and short-sighted mandarins of our Commerce Ministry in Udyog Bhavan. The Kathmandu SAARC summit has also agreed on the need for a regional framework for promoting investment. There is a commitment to cooperate on issues of poverty alleviation, empowerment of women and children and the social and cultural sectors. India found support from Sri Lanka and Nepal in securing a strong reference to the scourge of terrorism. But this is by no means a substitute for relentless international efforts combined with military and diplomatic pressure from India that have to be maintained to force General Musharraf and his military establishment to see reason. While certain aspects of his address of January 12 are no doubt welcome, India should not lower its guard till we are firmly convinced that support for cross-border terrorism has been finally and irrevocably ended. Because of our political leadership’s preoccupation with Pakistan, we are unfortunately not devoting enough attention to issues of sub-regional cooperation involving Nepal, Bhutan and Bangladesh in the “Growth Quadrangle” on our eastern borders. Our policy of rejecting any role for financial institutions like the Asian Development Bank in assessing projects, especially on issues of water resources, is counterproductive and needs to be reviewed. Both Bhutan and India have benefited immensely from cooperation in hydroelectric projects. But we have to acknowledge that our smaller neighbours feel more comfortable when they are reassured by organisations like the ADB while dealing with us on projects affecting their long-term interests. A similar project-oriented approach is needed to lend dynamism to the BIMSTEC regional grouping bringing together Bangladesh, India, Myanmar, Sri Lanka and Thailand. We are now seeing the emergence of a distinct South Asian identity through expanding non-official contacts between writers, poets, scholars, doctors, Rotarians, chartered accountants and human rights activists. This is a welcome development. But we need to look beyond the boundaries of SAARC and see how we can develop new dimensions of economic cooperation with our neighbours both to our west like Afghanistan and to our east like Myanmar and other ASEAN members. Should we not give some thought to considering the admission of Afghanistan to SAARC at an appropriate time? Further, have we studied the adverse implications to our exports to South-East Asian markets as China moves in to conclude a free trade agreement with ASEAN? Given Pakistan’s reservations on trade, investment and economic ties with India, it is imperative that we should conclude free trade agreements with Bangladesh and Myanmar while simultaneously looking beyond our land borders. ASEAN economies are moving ahead on the road to recovery. They are likely to revert to the high growth path that made them the envy of the world within a short time. Countries like Thailand and Singapore are even now interested in seeing that China’s economic influence is balanced by having free trade agreements with India. But rather than view these developments as opportunities to be availed of, the mandarins in Udyog Bhavan are getting into a defensive mode and failing to see the adverse long-term implications of giving China a free run on the markets of South-East Asia. We are displaying the same shortsightedness in our trade relations with South-East Asia as we have shown in our dealings with neighbours like Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. It is precisely because of this protectionist approach that we are not particularly welcome in forums like APEC, where removal of trade barriers and trade liberalisation are articles of faith. Even when negotiating free trade agreements we seem to focus more on “negative lists” as non-tariff barriers on the exports of our neighbours, while protesting against non-tariff barriers that others impose. It is true that drastic reforms in the power and other infrastructure areas and in the small-scale sector are now essential if Indian industry is to be internationally competitive. New Delhi must firmly tell our industrial houses that they must set their house in order and “compete or perish”, instead of constantly seeking shelter behind high tariff walls. It is ludicrous to claim to be a regional power on the one hand while closing our markets to competition from the countries in the neighbourhood on the other. The first ASEAN-India summit is to be held shortly. Prime Minister Vajpayee should seize the initiative and tell ASEAN leaders that India is ready to conclude free trade agreements individually and collectively with the members of the grouping. A nation that showed the courage to go nuclear cannot promote its interests by closing its doors to exports from its neighbourhood. |
BJP’s most controversial ex-ideologue A simple man with the looks of an ordinary village school master, Mr Govindacharya has not changed despite the BJP’s rise to power over the years. He is reported to have called Prime Minister Vajpayee as a mukhota (mask) of the Sangh Parivar which apparently led to his decline, notwithstanding his clarification on the issue. After this controversy, he had almost been banished from the BJP forcing him to proceed on a two-year study leave. Whether he has called Mr Vajpayee a mukhota or not, one thing is clear: it was Mr Govindacharya who predicted in early 1989 that, if the BJP came to power, Mr Vajpayee would be the “natural candidate” for prime ministership and that Mr
L. K. Advani would be the Home Minister. Mr Govindacharya found himself isolated in the party for his “perceived incompatibility” with Mr Vajpayee. He was once sent to Chennai on a “punitive assignment”. He was in Bihar for a shortwhile to look after party affairs. He was divested of his role as the party general secretary during Mr Kushabhau Thakre’s presidentship. Later, Mr Bangaru Laxman did not select him as an office-bearer. He was even thrown out of the room he had occupied at the BJP headquarters. Despite all this humiliation, he seems to be as determined today to pursue his avowed goals as earlier. In the last one year of his sabbatical, he has been studying the fallout of the politics of globalisation. He has spent the past six months in sadhana avkash (spiritual solitude) in Varanasi, though during this period he visited Tirupati. Mr Govindacharya was closely associated with the formulation of two basic documents: the Virar Biathak recommendations (1997) on evolving ways and means for imbibing idealism and ideology in the party; and the Jana Krishnamurthy Report on evolving mechanisms for better coordination between the government and the party. He feels if these two become the “guiding documents”, they will change the BJP’s chaal, chehra and charitra. His relationship with Union Minister of State for Sports Uma Bharati had become an interesting topic of gossip in social and political circles. He has, however, clarified that she was his good friend and that he had immense respect for her ever since she became a sadhvi in 1992. He maintains that those trying to link her with him in any other way were doing an injustice to her. Mugabe’s plan to muzzle the Press The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Bill will affect the functioning of all correspondents for foreign news organisations and newspapers outside state control. Zimbabwe’s Legal Resources Foundation, for instance, has called the controversial Bill as “ill-conceived, badly drafted and dangerous”. It has also maintained that most of the controls the Bill seeks to impose are unconstitutional. As if this is not enough, President Mugabe is contemplating yet another draconian legislation — the Public Order and Security Bill. This piece of legislation seeks to give sweeping powers of detention and seizure. It is said that the two pieces of legislation, viewed together, will complete the transition from a form of democratic society to total dictatorship and the establishment of a fascist state. In the past few months, Mr Mugabe seems to have developed paranoia for various reasons. His government is said to be mismanaged. He has to face elections in March which he is not sure to win. Mr Mugabe feels that the Press is not projecting correct news. He says that the greatest threat to regional peace and stability comes from the “apartheid Press and its British sponsors”. The coming days will reveal Mr Mugabe’s further plans to suppress democratic dissent in the country and perpetuate his rule. However, it remains to be seen how he would tackle the widespread resentment against his plans to gag the Press. |
|
Indus water treaty: some facts BECAUSE
of the present tension between India and Pakistan, the issue of abrogating the Indus Water Treaty of 1960 between these two countries is in the news. Unlike most of the treaties, which are capable of being violated by either of the two parties, this one can be done so only by India and not Pakistan. This is so because of the six rivers of the Indus basin whose waters it aims to divide, the three eastern ones i.e. the Sutlej, the Beas & the Ravi, whose total water is allocated to India, are at a lower level than the three western ones i.e. the
Chenab, the Jhelum and the Sind, whose total water is allocated to Pakistan. In other words, the water of only a Pakistani river can be diverted to an Indian one and not the vice versa. It is because of this topographical advantage in India’s favour that this treaty has not been violated by the terrorists of Pakistan, otherwise they would not have hesitated to inflict a crippling blow to the irrigation and power infrastructure of India. Its economic effect would not have been less devastating than that of the terrorist attack on the WTC in New York. Even though the terms and conditions of this treaty were harsh to India and it did not get the quantity of water it deserved, it had reconciled itself to this and had closed this chapter once for all; even though it fought two wars with Pakistan after 1960, not even once did it think of violating it. The violation of an international treaty like this one is not a simple affair. In this case, besides coping with adverse international opinion, India will have to spend a huge amount of money on the construction of the necessary infrastructure. The resultant economic benefits have, therefore, to be calculated very carefully. The two states near the border which alone can utilise the water accruing from the violation of this treaty are Punjab and Haryana. Neither of these has yet been able to utilise even its such rain water as is available free of cost and is going waste via a network of drains. It is, therefore, a moot question if time is ripe for India to undertake such an adventure for the sake of more water for these states. The recent acts of terrorism by Pakistan have added a new dimension to this treaty because its violation has a wonderful potential for being used as a weapon for deterring Pakistan from its evil design against India. All that is required to be done is to keep in readiness a gated tunnel for diverting the water of the Chenab river, now flowing to Pakistan through Himachal Pradesh, to the Ravi in Indian territory, and opening it at selected times. The recently constructed dam on the Ravi near Pathankot can easily take care of all such water. Such a tunnel is technically feasible and its length would be much less than that of a similar one constructed by India for diverting the water of the Beas into the Sutlej near Mandi. This innovative strategy, if adopted, would not mean any bloodshed or crossing of the LoC and will yet be more effective than the termination of the bus and train services. Incidentally, it can also provide a first class insurance for the safe passage of the proposed Iran-India gas pipeline, which is to pass through Pakistan. The writer is a former Engineer-in-Chief, Irrigation, Haryana. |
No more fasting to test undiagnosed diabetes DIABETES, a disease that could go undiagnosed for years, damaging organs throughout the body until symptoms appear, can now be detected with a simple blood test given in the doctor’s office. Earlier screenings relied on a blood sugar test that requires several hours of prior fasting and could not always be administered on the spot. David Edelman, M.D., of the Durham Veterans’ Affairs Medical Centre and Duke University Medical Centre and his colleagues have devised a test (HgA1c) that accurately indicates blood sugar levels over the previous two to three months and can detect at least 75 per cent of cases of diabetes, but does not require fasting. Edelman administered this test to 1,253 patients during regular visits to their physicians at a Veterans’ Administration medical centre. The participants, primarily men, were aged 45 to 64 and had never been diagnosed with diabetes. Later, the investigators performed a more definitive test for diabetes — the fasting glucose test — on as many participants as possible who scored high on the first test. The research, reported in Science Daily, found that 4.5 per cent of the study participants had diabetes, which had gone undetected even though they were under medical care.
ANI Blocking hunger signals key to weight loss Scientists have been able identify a compound responsible for preventing mice from recognising hunger signals, thus profoundly suppressing their appetite and causing weight loss. The research could help in understanding pathways that triggers eating in humans, and consequently in developing methods to control obesity, the major public health problem linked to diabetes, stroke and heart disease. An experiment conducted by scientists at Johns Hopkins in US successfully figured out how an experimental compound prevents mice from recognising that it’s time to eat. The compound, called C75, alters the natural balance of brain messengers that normally send signals of hunger during fasting and of satiety when full. In both lean and obese mice, C75 affects those signals, according to a report in Science Daily.
ANI |
Knowing true happiness HAPPINESS means different things to different people. To some money is happiness. To others happiness lies in fame, power, devotion or something else. For certain persons happiness has come to mean what it is not and what it cannot be. There are four main sources of happiness — body, mind, money and spirit. Physical happiness is attained by self-restraint, eating simple, balanced, and nourishing food and daily exercise. Mental happiness comes from contentment, reading scriptures and good books and keeping the company of godly people. Material happiness comes from earning one’s living by honest and hard work, simultaneously increasing one’s ability. Money thus earned should be spent judiciously and some part of it should be given in charity. A part of it should also be saved for the proverbial rainy day. Spiritual happiness is experienced by universal love, selfless service to society and spiritual sadhana. A noteworthy point is that happiness thus attained cannot satisfy a man beyond a limit. Howsoever a man may concern himself with the happiness of the passing moment, there is an instinct in him which craves for pure, lasting happiness with no trace of sorrow. Viewed in this light, the issue boils down to “being happy” as opposed to “becoming happy”. Man cannot understand the nature of such happiness which is qualitatively and quantitatively different from what happiness commonly stands for till he has known his own nature. The difficulty in being happy is not so great as it is in knowing what true happiness is. Its main cause is man’s ignorance. He thinks he is body while actually he is spirit. Man has to transcend his body consciousness before he is able to realise that he is divine by nature. The opposite of “I am unhappy” is not “I am happy but “I am divine”. This self-realisation cannot come overnight. It requires several years of dedicated meditation and following the path of righteousness, always acting according to the dictates of one’s conscience. To sum up, happiness is a state of enlightenment and not of enjoyment of sensuous pleasures. Pleasure and pain are two sides of the same coin and are passing phases. Let them come and go without being affected by them. Always concentrate on your inner reality, your divinity. Maintain equanimity of mind under all circumstances. Whatever good or bad happens in man’s life is the result of his own actions but the timing of the reaction (fruit) is so set under the law of the grace of God that they accelerate his progressive human evolution. Nothing can equal this grace of God. However, people who do not understand its significance often accuse Him of His delayed justice. |
|
Repentance keeps the soul refreshed and helps in forgetting one’s sins. —
Ananda, A study of the Vedantic Outlook of Sufi Sadhana *** The repenter is the beloved of God. — A Sufi Injunction *** Repent is a translation of a Greek word metanoia; metonia means turning in; metanoia means meditation. Repent also means return — return to the source. It has nothing to do with the idea of repentance... taught in churches.. “Repent” means: Turn in! Return back! Come to the very core of your being. — Osho, The Fish in the Sea is not Thirsty *** If they repent and amend let them be. Verily God is He who relenteth. he is merciful. — The Quran, Surah iv. 20 *** Be ye wholly turned to God, O ye believers, and it shall be well with you. — The Quran, Surah XXIV, 32 *** Whose hath repented and hath done what is right, he verily it is who turneth to God with a true conversion. — The Quran, Surah XXV, 71 *** Remorse sleeps during prosperity but awakes to bitter consciousness during adversity. — Rousseau, Confessions *** Religion is the reaction of human nature to its search for God. — Alfred North Whitehead, Science and the Modern World *** In my religion there would be no exclusive doctrine; all would be love, poetry and doubt. — Cyril Connolly,
The Unquiet Grave *** The test of a religion or philosophy is the number of things it can explain. — Ralph W. Emerson, Journals |
 |
| 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 | |
IT is an irony that Mr
K. N. Govindacharya is known more for his controversies than his political contributions. The 56-year-old leader, who joined the BJP on October 4, 1988, on deputation from the RSS, has played a pivotal role in party politics as its ideologue. In the BJP coming to power at the Centre, defeating the Congress in the general election in 1989, Mr Govindacharya’s role cannot be lost sight of. He was instrumental in electoral adjustments between the BJP and other non-Congress parties and consequently facilitating one-to-one contests in the Hindi heartland with a view to avoiding a division of non-Congress votes.
Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe’s plan to muzzle the Press through a controversial law has evoked loud protests from various sections. The proposed legislation requires all foreign journalists to acquire licences. They will have to get the licence renewed every year. It will not be a blanket or proforma renewal; any renewal of licence will be at the sole discretion of Information Minister Jonathan Mayo.
