 |
Monday,
April 1, 2002, Chandigarh, India  
|
Beware of terrorist designs Giving peace a chance Will Iraq suffer another war ? |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fools’ day and me
Public Service Commissions: stemming the rot
Warning on energy drinks
Tension in town
|
Beware of terrorist designs SATURDAY'S suicide (fidayeen) attack at Jammu's Raghunath Mandir, resulting in the death of four policemen and four civilians besides two militants, seems to be aimed at whipping up communal frenzy, as Minister of State for External Affairs Omar Abdullah has rightly said. There is, therefore, urgent need for preventing the people from getting emotional at this hour of crisis. Expression of anger is natural in such situations, but it should not be done keeping in view the claim made by an organisation called the Islamic Front. Islam does not teach showing disrespect to places of worship belonging to any faith. Thus, any reaction on communal lines will amount to falling into the trap of terrorists or their masters sitting across the border. The desecration of the temple, built by Raja Pratap Singh about 150 years ago, is an act in desperation. For quite some time the security forces had almost succeeded in immobilising the different terrorist outfits operating primarily in Jammu and Kashmir with all kinds of assistance from Pakistan's ISI. These merchants of death and destruction are, perhaps, realising that they are, in any case, fighting a losing battle with the US-led international campaign against terrorism remaining intact. There is a clear sign of desperation and despondency in their ranks as proved by the intercepted messages emanating from Lashkar-e-Toiba founder Hafiz Mohammad Sayeed. Owing to the mounting pressure from the security forces, terrorists these days are not successful in misusing religious places, including mosques. On March 27 Army sharp-shooters laid a six-hour siege to a mosque in a village when a militant on the run took refuge in it. He was ultimately eliminated without causing any harm to the place of worship. The security forces should be ruthless in their continuing drive, of course, without hurting the religious sentiments of the local people. Terrorists, whether indigenous or of the mercenary variety, deserve no mercy. All efforts should, however, be made to ensure that no innocent person is harmed. The storming of Jammu's historic temple by militants falls in the category of highly serious incidents. It must have been planned and executed with the help of local destructive elements, though the "fedayeen" were believed to be mercenaries. What were our intelligence agencies doing? Why could they not get the scent of the dangerous plan? All efforts of the security forces get weakened in the absence of adequate intelligence back-up. The major intelligence failure at Jammu deserves to be quickly investigated to fix responsibility to punish careless functionaries and weed out those, if there are any, helping the cause of terrorists. Under no circumstances should those behind suicide attacks be allowed to feel that they can get away with their dirty designs. |
|
Giving peace a chance REPORTS of face-to-face talks between the Sri Lankan government and LTTE leaders planned for May in Thailand need to be welcomed as the negotiations, if pursued on the right lines, are expected to yield rich dividends and bring peace to the strife-torn island nation. In fact, recent events are significant pointers to a better tomorrow. The sweeping victory of Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe’s United National Party in the local body elections preceded by the former’s historic visit to Jaffna after 20 years, the return of exiled LTTE leader Anton Balasingham to Lanka to hold talks with his leader, Velupillai Prabhakaran, on the peace initiative and the continued efforts by the Norwegian team to put in place a concrete plan of action to bring both sides across the table seem to suggest that Sri Lanka is moving in the right direction. Mr Wickremesinghe’s visit to Jaffna, after his uncle, J. R. Jayewardene went there as President as far back as 1982, was a success inasmuch as it reassured the people of this region about the government’s commitment to peace. The visit should not be strictly seen as a personal triumph of the Prime Minister or as a political victory of the government over the LTTE as there are reports of implicit cooperation, understanding and goodwill between the two. Viewed against this background, it could well be said that the right time for initiating the talks between the government and the LTTE is now and both sides should seize the opportunity. The fact that the LTTE has finally agreed for talks with the government is itself a realisation on its part that the time has come for both groups to join hands and give peace a chance. According to the available indications, talks are likely to start around May. It is said that Thailand could be the likely venue. But before that Norwegian Deputy Foreign Minister Vidar Helgesen will visit Colombo on April 17 to strengthen the preparations already in progress for talks with the LTTE. The Norwegian leader’s visit will help identify preliminary issues like the agenda and the sequence for substantive discussions. True, there are some imponderables like the LTTE’s insistence on its deproscription, which has been an emotive issue among the Sinhalese majority. Mr Balasingham is reported to have set three pre-requisites to be fulfilled for beginning the talks — full implementation of the present ceasefire agreement, lifting the ban on the LTTE and return of normalcy in the North and the East. However, all these demands should not necessarily create hurdles because Mr Wickremesinghe has made it clear that he will consider anything other than a demand for a separate state. It is in this context that Constitutional Affairs Minister G. L. Peiris’ statement that both sides should first arrive at an agreement on the agenda, what should be discussed and the sequence, assumes special significance. Earlier, two peace attempts failed before they could reach this stage. The Norway-brokered peace process is attempting to end an 18-year-old bloody ethnic war that has claimed over 64,500 lives. The world will be watching the laudable efforts with great interest. |
Will Iraq suffer another war ? IF President George W. Bush attacks Iraq in the autumn, as many observers in Washington and London are convinced he will, Britain’s Mr Tony Blair will naturally leap behind him with alacrity. But other world leaders, especially Mr Atal Behari Vajpayee who is anxious to consolidate his new cordiality with Washington, will be hard put to reconcile hostilities with international justice and national and Third World sentiment. The challenge for India will become all the more acute if Pakistan’s General Pervez Musharraf, who is not obliged to respect domestic public opinion or abide by any ethical norms, readily throws in his lot with the Americans. Meanwhile, we can expect the Western propaganda machine to churn out more and more allegations to show how gravely President Saddam Hussein’s continuance in power threatens the peace and security of the rest of the world. Mr Bush’s Vice-President, Mr Dick Cheney, and the British Foreign Secretary, Mr Jack Straw, have already launched into diatribes further to demonise the man whom the Americans hold up as the real patron of global terrorism since, unlike Osama bin Laden, he commands state power. We have been told, for instance, that notwithstanding all the prying and probing and the seven years of demolition work by the United Nations Special Commission, Baghdad will be able to threaten its neighbours with a homemade nuclear bomb in four years. We are told, too, that Mr Saddam is planning a missile attack on Israel, though nothing is said of how the Israelis notoriously destroyed Iraq’s nuclear reactor in a lightning raid. More alarmist reports are bound to follow since the logic of enmity demands that Mr Hussein must be thoroughly discredited before he is destroyed. The Iraqi ruler may be everything that his detractors say he is. Even so, it is a measure of the extent to which lone super power unilateralism has come to be accepted that no one asks whether another invasion would be morally just and whether the Americans have any right to openly plot the removal of the head of a foreign state. “If I found in any way, shape or form that he was developing weapons of mass destruction, I’d take him out,” Mr Bush boasted not long ago. True, developing weapons of mass destruction would violate Iraq’s commitment to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty of which, unlike India, it is a signatory. It would also breach undertakings at the end of the Gulf War to surrender all such weapons, not to build any more, refrain from conflict with neighbouring countries and respect the rights of the civilian population at home. But these were the victor’s terms forced on a defeated nation and their validity is, therefore, in doubt. The Chinese certainly had no qualms about rejecting what they called “unequal treaties”. Even if the terms were legal, they may not be politically wise. It is widely accepted that German militarism before World War II was rooted in the 1919 Peace of Versailles that inflicted such harsh punishment that German national self-respect demanded a revanchist war. In any case, it is for the United Nations — not the USA — to take note of offences though the three key members of the Bush administration who played a leading role during the Gulf War may not appreciate this. Mr Cheney was then Defence Secretary; Secretary of State Colin Powell was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice was a presidential adviser on foreign policy. The second Bush administration thus epitomises continuity in belligerence. Mr Bush himself demonstrated all his Texan limitation of understanding when he said of Mr Saddam Hussein’s, “I’m surprised he’s still there. I think a lot of other people are as well.” What he means is that he cannot understand how the Iraqi President remains in power despite the millions of dollars that the American Central Intelligence Agency spends on trying to topple him. First, the CIA promoted the Wafiq opposition consisting of former members of Mr Hussein’s old Ba’ath Party. Then it turned to the Iraqi National Congress whose leaders, especially Mr Ahmed Chalabi, are frequent visitors to Washington where they are briefed, funded and feted. Mr Chalabi is regarded as Mr Cheney’s protégé. Dr Khidir Hamza, considered the father of Iraq’s nuclear programme, is another American favourite. He defected to the West in 1994, has been presented to UN Security Council members, and says whatever his hosts expect him to. Most reports we hear of Baghdad abusing the Aid for Food programme to rebuild its military, of repression of the civilian population, and of clandestine production of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons come from these tainted sources. Whether they lack public support in Iraq, or whether Mr Hussein is too well entrenched, but these straw men of the opposition have little hope of dislodging him. A rebellion that the USA sponsored in 1993, probably under the direction of Mr James Woolsey who then headed the CIA, was a dismal failure, and hundreds of Iraqi conspirators were caught, tortured and executed. Five years later, the American Congress passed Senator Trent Lott’s Iraq Liberation Act, which provides for funding a change of regime in Baghdad. The pointsman now is reportedly Mr John Rendon of the US Office of Strategic Influence. Iraq seems to inspire bipartisan consensus in America. The Clinton administration authorised a series of military raids in December, 1998, and rigorously enforced the “No fly” zones in the north and south which leave only a central strip under Mr Hussein’s unquestioned jurisdiction. In February, 2001, within a month of starting his presidential term, Mr Bush authorised strikes on a radar system near Baghdad. The purpose of both operations was to cripple Iraq’s military capabilities. The US Special Forces continue to operate in northern Iraq. But there is hope yet for the Iraqis. For one thing, Mr Bush’s inner circle of advisers is divided on strategy. For another, the international climate may not be conducive to overt aggression. Mr Cheney and some Pentagon hawks, including the Defence Secretary, Mr Donald Rumsfeld, want all-out war to oust Mr Hussein. Mr Powell and the State Department would reportedly prefer a more limited engagement to enforce the 280-page final report that the UNSCOM inspectors compiled after they were forced out in 1998. Even if differences at home are resolved, Mr Bush can hardly plunge into another war while troops are still engaged in Afghanistan amidst mounting suspicion that some Islamic fundamentalists may have taken refuge in Indonesia and the Philippines. If the American forces pursue them there, neglect of Pakistani-sponsored terrorism in Kashmir will seem all the more blatant. Nor can the USA expect any West Asian support this time until it demonstrates some willingness to restrain Israel and guarantee Palestinian rights. If implemented, Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah’s plan for an Israeli withdrawal to pre-1967 borders in return for full diplomatic recognition and assured security would win Arab gratitude and might allow Mr Bush a free hand in Iraq. Without a just settlement, he cannot expect any Arab help at all. This might suggest to the cynical that it is in Mr Saddam Hussein’s interest to keep the Israel-Palestinian pot simmering. But statecraft is not only realpolitik. It involves human issues as well, and no Asian leader can ignore the suffering that sanctions are inflicting on Iraqis, especially children. Another war would compound their plight. It would also demonstrate that the blanket mission to eradicate terrorism that Mr Bush has assumed is only another means of reinforcing Pax Americana or his father’s dream of a New World Order. It cannot mean what it says so long as he turns a blind eye to Kashmir. |
Fools’ day and me APRIL, the fourth month of the Gregorian calendar, has 30 days. The first day of the month has a special significance for obvious reasons. Mark Twain, said in good humour: the first of April is the day we remember what we are the other 364 days of the year. Unfortunately, I am reminded of what I am the rest of the year even on this day, for it is on April 1 that I was born. It was the worst April fools’ day my parents must have suffered. According to an authority, the custom originated in Greece. It is said there lived a man who boasted of being the most intelligent person in the country. People were fed up with his “intelligence”. One day they hit upon an idea to teach him a lesson. Some friends prevailed upon him that there lived a god on a mountain with whose blessings every wish of a person could be fulfilled. He listened to his friends with rapt attention and made way to that particular place. He waited there impatiently for a long time but there was no god in sight and he decided to leave the place. When he returned home he found his friends waiting for him and laughing at him. The man learnt a lesson and took a vow to refrain from frivolity. That day was the first of April. Hence the beginning of the custom of April Fools’ Day! However, April Fools’ Day is better known for the custom of playing practical jokes or sending friends on a fool’s errand. It resembles the Holi festival in India. Its timing seems related to the time when nature “fools” mankind with sudden change in the weather. It is stated that you can fool some people for some time but you cannot fool all the people all the time. But April 1, every year, at least in my case, falsifies this saying. My destiny seems permanently linked to this day. Yes, friends, for some reason the management chose April 1 as the day of my retirement. I shall miss you all, and this is not an April 1 joke! |
Public Service Commissions: stemming the rot “THE Chairman of the Public Service Commission is in the position of a constitutional trustee,” ruled the Supreme Court but two years ago, “and the morals of a constitutional trustee have to be tested in a much stricter sense than the morals of a common man in the market-place.” The character and conduct of the Chairman and all the members of the Commission, the court said, must, like Caesar’s wife, be above board. But a “most sensitive standard” of behaviour is expected from the Chairman, in particular. “His behaviour (it said, in Ram Ashray Yadav’s case) has to be exemplary, his actions transparent, his functioning has to be objective and in performance of all his duties he has to be fair, detached and impartial.” The arrest last week of the Punjab Public Service Commission chairman Ravinder Pal Singh Sidhu, caught red-handed while taking a bribe of Rs 5 lakh, dramatically exemplifies the enormity of the crisis — truly and literally a crisis of character — that has overtaken this fundamentally important institution of the Constitution, the Public Service Commission, and turned it inside out, as it were. For the State Vigilance Bureau to deem it politic to lay a “trap” — a perfectly legal and time-tested way of nabbing corruption in the act, far better than an enquiry into “disproportionate assets” with its nebulous boundaries and inchoate jurisprudence — for a constitutional trustee is a sad enough commentary on the working of the Constitution and its state of moral repair. But for the State’s Chief Minister to deem it necessary to publicly describe the trustee in question as an “epitome of corruption” or as one whose corruption had become “legendary” (this paper, March 28) compels a search for correctives unhindered by the doctrinal limitations of the principle of separation of powers. “(W)here the highest seats of power do not guard against these evils,” wrote Justice Krishna Iyer on behalf of a Constitution Bench in 1973, dealing with Public Service Commissions, “no constitution, no law, no court can save probity in Administration.” Both in the Supreme Court Reports (SCR), the journal officially reporting judgements of the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court Cases (SCC), a leading non-official publication, the text of Justice Iyer’s judgement in State of Mysore vs R.V. Bidap employs a capital “A” in “Administration” but significantly omits to employ a capital “C” while referring to the constitution and the court in the passage quoted above. A nuance in contrast that is, given Justice Iyer’s stylistic and literary skills and his mastery of the word as a vehicle of thought, just too important to miss. The message clearly is that probity in administration is a capital requirement that transcends all constitutional powers, including the power of judicial review. Recognising the urgency of corrective action when the rot spreads to the Commission itself, Article 317 of the Constitution empowers, in Clause (2), the President of India, in the case of the Union Public Service Commission, and the Governor, in the case of a State Commission, to suspend the Chairman or any other member of the Commission during the pendency of a reference to the Supreme Court under Clause (1). Clause (1) of Article 317 enables the President (and only the President, not the Governor) to refer the “misbehaviour” of the Chairman or any member of any Public Service Commission, Union or State, to the Supreme Court for inquiry. And, on receipt of a report in the affirmative from the Supreme Court, to order his removal on the ground of such misbehaviour. Contrary to popular impression, this is not akin to but much less than the procedure for impeachment of a High Court or Supreme Court Judge. The difference is obvious not only from a comparison of Article 317 with Article 124, Clauses (4) and (5) of which provide for impeachment, but from a comparative examination of the constitutional provisions for removal of the Chief Election Commissioner and the Comptroller and Auditor-General of India. “(T)he Chief Election Commissioner shall not be removed from his office,” reads the proviso to Article 324, Clause (5), “except in like manner and on the like grounds as a Judge of the Supreme Court....” Article 148 of the Constitution uses identical language with regard to the Comptroller and Auditor-General of India. “There shall be a Comptroller and Auditor-General of India,” reads Clause (1) of Article 148, “who shall be appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal and shall only be removed from office in like manner and on the like grounds as a Judge of the Supreme Court.” In like manner and on like grounds as a Judge of the Supreme Court (or as a Judge of the High Court, for Article 218 applies the provisions of Article 124(4) and (5) to High Court Judges as well). These words, carrying the portentous flavour of formal legal language apposite to the high office to which they pertain, are completely missing in Article 317. Or in the preceding article, Article 316, proviso (b) to Clause (2) of which says simply that “a member of a Public Service Commission may be removed from his office in the manner provided in ...Article 317.” Look a little more closely, as students of the Constitution must, and you will see that, in addition to the words “in like manner and on like grounds as a Judge of the Supreme Court”, there are two other important omissions as well. Neither the word “only” used in Article 148 — the Comptroller and Auditor-General “shall only be removed...” — nor the prohibitory language of Article 324 — the Chief Election Commissioner “shall not be removed...” — both emphasising the imperative of removal only through impeachment and not otherwise, are employed in Articles 316 or 317. There is yet another significant semantic distinction. (The semantics of the Constitution is the stuff of which great forensic and public debates are made). The impeachment of a Judge requires, under Article 124(5), the “investigation and proof” of the misbehaviour of a Judge. Article 317 uses, on the other hand, the much milder word “inquiry” in lieu of investigation and omits altogether the conjunctive expression “and proof”. While, therefore, a Judge can be removed by the President (after a parliamentary motion or address in that behalf) only on the ground of “proved misbehaviour”, as expressly stipulated by Clause (4) of Article 124, the Chairman or members of the Public Service Commission can be removed by him (without any parliamentary intervention) merely on the “ground of misbehaviour” as found by the Supreme Court on reference. Trifling as the distinction between “misbehaviour” in Article 317 and “proved misbehaviour” in Article 124 might seem, it is a distinction noticed by the Supreme Court itself in Justice V. Ramaswami’s case as a consideration reinforcing the relative stringency of the impeachment procedure. Or the higher burden of proof required to impeach a Judge, if one may take the liberty of putting it more accurately. More next week. |
Warning on energy drinks ENERGY drinks should carry official health warnings similar to those on cigarette packets, as fears grow that they could pose major health risks, say medical experts. Scientists have demanded an international investigation into the effects of the drinks and warned users to exercise caution when mixing them with alcohol. Millions of young people down the drinks each weekend, mixed with spirits such as vodka, to get an energy boost in nightclubs and bars. But a report by Ireland’s Food and Safety Promotion Board has issued the starkest official warning yet on the dangers of so-called stimulant drinks and has called for an investigation, backed by top British medical experts. Researchers said the effects of mixing high-caffeine drinks with a depressive drug like alcohol could have unknown effects on people’s hearts. ‘If you already had an underlying heart problem, drinking a lot of this stuff could be the thing that tips you over the edge,’ said Catherine Collins of the British Dietetic Association. Sales of stimulant drinks, led by Red Bull, have taken off in recent years to become a multi-million pound industry. The FSPB report also advised that stimulant drinks could cause increased “irritability or anxiety” in children under the age of 16. It also slammed the stimulants drinks makers for not recommending upper consumption limits and associating the drinks with sport. The report said that stimulant drinks should ‘not be consumed in association with sport and exercise as a thirst quencher’. The study was carried out after an 18-year-old Irish student collapsed and died during a basketball game after drinking up to three cans of Red Bull. A jury found there was no evidence the drink was responsible for his death but ordered the inquiry. The move came after concerns were raised by Swedish medical researchers after three people died — two after mixing drinks with vodka and one after downing several cans following a gym workout. Red Bull already carries a label advising pregnant women, diabetics and those with a low tolerance to caffeine not to drink it. A Red Bull spokesman pointed out that other high caffeine drinks, like coffee or Coke, are also mixed with alcohol. ‘Red Bull is a non-alcoholic drink. It is used for energy by many leading athletes. It has always been marketed in this way and not as a thirst quencher,’ he said.
The Observer |
Tension in town A
mild sensation prevails today among the Hindu community of Sitabaldi, a suburb of Nagpur, over an incident that a cow was found stabbed and dead near a Mohammedan’s house. The cow was sent for a post-mortem, which declared the death of the cow by a pointed weapon. The police enquiry is going on. |
The lover who wants to have a sight of the Lord has no desire for heaven or mukti. — Sri Guru Granth Sahib, Asa MII, page 360 Pour out your waves of beneficence, O Guru and grant me the Four powers. Pour out your waves of beneficence, so that I can transform my body into a Divine One. Pour out your waves of beneficence so that I can dissolve the illusion. Pour out your wages of beneficence so that I can see the profound emptiness in myself. Pour out your waves of beneficence, so that I can reach in this very life the state of Buddha. — Prayer to the Progeny of Gurus (in Buddhism) It is, O monks, a realm where there is neither earth, nor water nor fire nor wind; it is not the realm of infinite space, nor that of infinite consciousness nor the realm of nothingness, nor a realm without perception or the absence of perception nor this world or the other, nor sun or moon. I speak of this realm as neither leaving nor coming nor contributing, death or rebirth, because it has no cause, no progression and no support: it is the end of suffering. — Udana, VIII, I Praise to you remover of the pain of the three worlds O Lord Praise to you stainless ornament of the earth's surface. Praise to you supreme Lord of the Triple World. Praise to you O Jina you dry up the ocean of rebirth. — Manatungasuri, Bhaktamara Stotra verse 26 Only names differ, Beloved! All forsooth are but the same. Both the ocean and the dew drop But one living liquid frame! — A Sufi couplet |
 |
| 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 | | 122 Years of Trust | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |
