 |
Saturday,
July 26, 2003, Chandigarh, India  
|
Pointless boycott Healing touch City not so beautiful |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Significance of PM’s China visit
The lure of junk
Kargil: did we play our cards properly?
Leadership issue
in Congress
|
Pointless boycott UNFORTUNATELY, there is no end in sight to the stalemate over Defence Minister George Fernandes. The Congress has more or less rejected the compromise formula worked out by the Vice-President and Presiding Officer of the Rajya Sabha, Mr Bhairon Singh Shekhawat, under which the party would have ended the boycott of the Defence Minister following a short-duration discussion on Tehelka in the Upper House on July 28. This was to act as a face-saver for the Congress-led Opposition. Now the Congress wants a full-fledged debate in both Houses of Parliament. It is now two years since the Opposition began its boycott following Mr Fernandes' return to the Cabinet even before the inquiry ordered into the Tehelka scam had completed its work. The Opposition was incensed as the minister had announced that he would return to the government only if he was given a clean chit by the inquiry commission. But within a few months of his resignation, the Prime Minister took him back, much to the consternation of all those who believe in probity in public life. During the last two years, there were umpteen occasions when the Opposition staged a walkout the moment Mr Fernandes stood up in the House. Opposition members consistently refused to ask him questions thereby denying the House the benefit of information. By stretching the boycott for so long, the Opposition was also guilty of shirking its own responsibility in a parliamentary system. Ideally, it should have withdrawn the boycott once it had made its point. After all, it is the prerogative of the Prime Minister to choose his own Cabinet colleagues. And if the Prime Minister was not bothered about the image of a senior colleague, the Opposition could have done nothing except express its viewpoint. However, the Congress even went to the extent of taking disciplinary action against a member, who happened to be the Whip, for the crime of sitting in the House when the Defence Minister made an intervention. Nothing much can be expected from the debate even if it takes place. At best, the Opposition will get an opportunity to berate the Defence Minister. In any case, Tehelka is all set to become a footnote in history. Save the defence personnel who were caught accepting bribe, all the politicians involved in the scam have virtually gone scot-free. The news portal which did the explosive story has been ruined with many of its staff rendered jobless. The inquiry has gone the way the government wanted it to go. Now, not only is the motive of the journalists who did the story investigated but even the genuineness of the tapes is questioned, though almost all the accused at one time or the other had admitted that they were caught unawares by the Tehelka team. Needless to say, the state did not crown itself with glory by the manner in which cases were flung at those who ran Tehelka. But that is not an excuse to continue the boycott of Mr George Fernandes. |
|
Healing touch INDIA
has shown political maturity in retaining its faith in the healing touch policy in spite of acts of grave provocation by Pakistan-sponsored terrorist groups. The December 13-like attack on the Army camp had the potential to kill the nascent peace process even before the High Commissioners of the two countries had opened their baggage. A day after the ghastly incidents in Jammu and Kashmir caused global consternation, the nation was waiting to hear the news of an "adequate response". Foreign Minister Yashwant Sinha ended the suspense by announcing a comprehensive "Noor Fatima process" for mending relations between the two countries. A mature democracy does not indulge in sabre-rattling for the benefit of the domestic audience. The 20 Pakistani children who have been cleared for treatment for various ailments in Indian hospitals should, according to the Malthusian principle, help change public opinion in their country in favour of durable peace in the subcontinent. It is not going to be an easy task considering the anti-India poison that has been injected into the minds of most Pakistanis by the politicians and the military establishment. But now Noor Fatima has emerged as a promising symbol of the power of love, compassion and service in turning yesterday's foes into today's friends in the subcontinent. Allowing more Pakistani children to come to this country for treatment shows India's willingness to give the Noor Fatima process an honest chance for healing the wounds that the political-military leadership has inflicted on the psyche of its people. However, it would be unwise to go overboard with joy over the prospect of removing the poison of hate from Pakistan's veins with gestures of love. What is needed is clarity in working out the details of the healing touch policy. Instead of announcing an arbitrary figure of 20 children, the government should have unfolded a clear policy for dealing with similar requests. In its present form the well-intentioned gesture can be misinterpreted. For instance, why not extend the same facilities to all Pakistanis wanting to visit India for medical treatment, irrespective of their age and status? The government should also not have offered to bear the cost of travel, stay and treatment of Pakistani children. This task should have been left to the NGOs to perform. A large number of Indian patients, of all ages but mostly from poor families, die for want of basic healthcare facilities. Is the government in a position to make a matching gesture for their treatment even in ill-equipped state-run hospitals? |
|
City not so beautiful IS Chandigarh heading towards what Mr M.N.Sharma, the first Indian Chief Architect of the city, called in an interview with The Tribune this week a “catastrophe-like situation”? Or is it just another false alarm to preserve the city for the elite class? Those who believe the city should have grown as much and in the manner as planned by Le Corbusier are sure to be disappointed. Chandigarh was originally planned for half a million population. The 1991 census puts the figure at 7.5 lakh. Now it can be over a million. Mohali and Panchkula have also contributed to the pressure on the city’s infrastructure. The wild growth in the number of vehicles has made the city roads congested and unsafe for vulnerable sections like the aged and the children. The first blunder was to make Chandigarh a seat of three governments. That brought in hordes of employees. Protests and demonstrations followed. Locating all major government departments in the city did benefit the ruling politicians and bureaucrats, but it inconvenienced ordinary Punjabis and Haryanvis visiting Chandigarh from far-off places for official work. The second mistake was the permission to set up the two satellite towns in violation of the Periphery Act. The third was to allow encroachments and illegal slums to come up and their subsequent regularisation under political pressure. The builder-bureaucracy-politician nexus has profited hugely from real estate deals by legalising illegal housing colonies. The latest example is the scuttling of the recent encroachment demolition drive by ruling politicians. How to stop the mushrooming of slums, control the influx of migrant labour and regulate the city’s growth are issues that worry every Chandigarh well-wisher. In a democracy there can’t be a ban on the entry of any section of society. There can’t be islands of excellence in a sea of misery. Balanced development is required. The laws, bylaws and urban planning norms must not be violated to make space for future vote-banks. Smaller cities, towns and villages must also grow simultaneously, get equal attention, facilities and fund allocations, and provide for means of livelihood to local populations to stem the continuous migrations from rural to urban India. Thought for the day Man is by nature a political animal. — Aristotle
|
Significance of PM’s China visit CHINA'S
decision in the 1980s to supply to Pakistan nuclear weapons technology and missiles capable of delivering nukes over long distances was intended to bind India down in a South Asian strategic impasse and constrict India’s larger role in Asia and the world. China achieved only partial success in that objective. Its military-political support for Pakistan only steeled India’s political will to face their combined hostility and strengthen its defence capability. India’s international stature has actually been growing, especially after the unshackling of its economy in the 1990s and its conduct as a responsible nuclear weapon power. If China had ever contemplated a peace role in South Asia, it has lost it; and its Pakistan policy has placed a ceiling beyond which its political and security relationship with India cannot rise. Within these constraints, however, scope exists — and efforts are needed from both sides — for an expanded and more cooperative relationship in economic, commercial, social and cultural fields. India must also engage China in a sustained political dialogue for the simple reason that in diplomacy in a globalising world there is no room for nursing old grievances in sullen resentment. Besides, such a dialogue is necessary for reaching a settlement of the boundary problem. Viewed in this light, Prime Minister Vajpayee’s June visit to China assumes special significance. A good part of the credit for the success of this visit goes to the new Chinese leadership, which also seems to have opted for a tangibly improved relationship with India of which the concession on Sikkim’s status as a part of India is valuable evidence. In the MOU signed in Beijing on trade there is fairly explicit recognition of Nathu La as a pass on the India-China border, not Sikkim’s border with Tibet or China. The designation of Chhangu in Sikkim as the trading venue is equally significant. China’s proposal for opening of the Nathu La trade route had been on the table for 10 years: China had been insisting that Kalimpong —a venue in India, but outside Sikkim — be designated as the “venue for border trade market”, which demand the Indian side had firmly rejected. The change in China’s position in this regard is a notable development. Clearly, this has nothing much to do with India’s reiteration of its oft-stated position on Tibet. On four or five occasions since 1954, we have used slightly varying formulations to say the same thing; namely that Tibet is an autonomous region of China and, that Tibet, indeed, is a part of China. The June Declaration says no more, no less. But if the Chinese take same satisfaction in this reiteration of the same reality in a varying juxtaposition of words now and then, so be it. Tibet never was India’s to hold or to give away. Only a sophist would see some kind of a surrender here on Mr Vajpayee’s part. The agreement to give political push to border talks is another positive step. Wrangling between officials of the two sides has never in the past led to the least progress on the border issue. Defining the LoAC at any rate is an exercise in futility. In all sectors of the border, the two armies are firmly entrenched in the areas under their occupation, and both recognise that further encroachment by either side is out of the question. Therefore, a boundary settlement can now come only out of a political decision acknowledging and accepting the reality on the ground. The credit for proposing the appointment of political-level special representatives to “explore the framework of a boundary settlement” goes to the Indian Prime Minister, who did it, characteristically, on the spur of the moment, without prior internal discussion or intimation to the Chinese side. That the Chinese responded positively, after a short interval of quick reflection, is indicative of the new regime’s pragmatic and constructive approach to relations with India. Legal niceties apart, China needs Aksai Chin as a vital link with Tibet; and India cannot give up Arunachal Pradesh. The question Brajesh Mishra should pose to his counterpart is: does China really need all the area it has occupied in Aksai Chin beyond its claimed traditional and customary line? And that, if India guarantees the security of Chinese roads in that region, will it return some part of that territory to placate public opinion in India in favour of “a fair, reasonable and mutually acceptable” settlement. The agreement on six-month, multiple-entry business visas, which has received little attention in our media is likely in my view to prove of critical importance to the expansion of trade, investments and industrial collaborations between the two countries. Complementarities exist between the two economies which need to be exploited to increase exchanges for mutual benefit. The proposed appointment of a Joint Study Group of officials and economists, and enhanced direct air and shipping links etc. will help achieve that objective only if there is a positive attitudinal change in our bureaucracy’s outlook on this issue and a policy review actually encourages Indian business and industry to actively explore avenues of heightened economic and trade activity. Obviously, there was some discussion on Pakistan’s proxy war in J & K: a Chinese commentator is reported to have spoken of the visit’s likely “positive impact on Pakistan-India relations”. The Chinese may well advise Pakistan — as they have been doing since Jiang Jemin’s visit to Islamabad in 1996 — to find a “peaceful solution to the Kashmir problem… through talks… in a conducive atmosphere”. There is no ground for us to expect much more from Beijing in this regard. Pakistan is central to China’s South Asia policy and China is not going to give up. The Joint Declaration — itself a novelty in India-China diplomacy — outlines a refreshing new framework of a cooperative relationship in a number of new areas; e.g. globalisation, WTO, environment, cultural exchanges, regional cooperation etc. But the following comment on UN reform is of special interest: “They (China & India) are determined to continue their efforts in strengthening the UN system. They re-affirmed their readiness to work together to promote reform of the U.N. In reform of the U.N. Security Council, priority should be given to enhanced representation of the developing countries.” An interesting formulation, which, nevertheless, leaves a great deal unsaid! Obviously, Japan is excluded from the purview of the contemplated expansion of the Security Council’s permanent membership: but is India included? Is the contemplated enhanced representation to be in the council’s permanent membership or an addition to its rotating segment? In the former case, will additional members have veto power? Only time will answer these
riddles. The writer is a former Foreign Secretary of India |
The lure of junk IT is paradoxical that the junk things of life should hold such a strong lure for human beings. Take, for instance, the love for junk food, like fried fingers, burgers, pizzas, cookies, candies, colas, etc. According to medical opinion this stuff is unusually high in salt, sugar, fat and calories, but low in minerals, vitamins and fibre, and hence, not much good for health. However, the reality is that it is the rage with students, officegoers, people out shopping, tourists on the move, and children of all ages. No amount of condemnation can whittle or take away the popularity these victuals enjoy. You often receive in your letterbox unsolicited publicity material, called “junk mail”, telling you how and where to become computer savvy, tone up your sagging figure, spend less and get more, celebrate the weekend, overcome thinning hair and growing amnesia, and, hold your breath, revive you waning virility! Your first impulse is to throw away these handbills, but you don’t always act that way. Rather, you keep them by, select those of interest to you, and many a time base your operational decisions on the information so received. The “personal junk”, both physical and mental, has its own sway. Consider the former first. Driven by the constraint of space, you decide one day, to get rid of the odds and ends you have accumulated over the years. To help you in separating the few items you really need, from the many you wish to discard, you rope in your wife and children. After a gruelling hour on the job you find, like Ronald Thorn, that the “throwaway” pile is all but non-existent, while the “keep” pile looms higher. “This is ridiculous!” you shout. “Why should we save things we haven’t used for years?” “My dear,” remonstrates the wife, “you haven’t the haziest idea of running a home! You never know when these things will come handy”. Feminine logic, you realise, is hard to beat. As you pout in silence, you open a battered box to relieve it of its contents. And what do you chance upon? A heap of ageing trophies and medals you had won as a student! They have no utility left; your hour of glory is past. But, you abandon your better judgement, give the trophies an endearing look, and stow them away. From another box you retrieve a handful of crude crayon drawings done by your first-born in his kindergarten days. Mere scribbles and blobs! Even so, in a surge of parental affection, you reverentially secure them in a folder. The same goes with the file of old newspaper clippings, the collection of pinups of your favourite heroines, and the sheaf of letters from old heartthrobs, dates and friends. By and by, you find that every object that was torn, broken, worn out, unused, neglected or abandoned, and that should have been summarily weeded out, becomes and acquisition too dear to part with. Masculine logic, you grudgingly concede, is not much different from the feminine one. Consider now the mental rubbish i.e. feelings of resentment, hatred and revenge you laboriously harbour; thoughts of lust, aggrandisement and duplicity you lovingly entertain; memories or bruised ego, and dreams of unquenched passion that nestle in your breast. You fasten this junk to your bosom with all your might. You haven’t the heart to throw it out, have you? You further load up, says Jerome, the boat of your life, with a store of foolish things — fine clothes, big houses, useless servants, and swell friends; with expensive entertainment, formalities and fashions; with pretence and ostentation; with luxuries that only cloy, with pleasures that bore, and with empty shows that ache. It is lumber, he says, all lumber! If you want happiness, Jerome goes on to advise: “Throw the junk, the lumber over! Let your boat of life be light, packed with only what you need — a homely home and simple pleasures, one or two friends worth the name, someone to love and someone to love you, a pipe or two, enough to eat and enough to wear... You will find the boat easier to pull then, and it will not be liable to upset.” The reader is free to accept the advice or reject it, to cast away the junk or cling to
it. |
|
Kargil: did we play our cards properly? JULY
26, 2003, marks the fourth anniversary of the end of the Kargil conflict. Enough time has elapsed for us to establish what we gained from the war, and what we could have gained had we played our cards somewhat differently. At the end of April or in early May, 1999, the enemy incursion into our side of the Line of Control (LoC) was an accepted fact. Soon it became evident that a substantial number had intruded into our area across a considerable length of the LoC. Much has been written as to why the crossing of the LoC at so many locations remained undetected for so long. The purpose of this article is to analyse if a different approach would have been more beneficial. Earlier in the year, our Prime Minister had taken the bold initiative of bus ‘diplomacy’ to ease Indo-Pak tensions. The Lahore Declaration was a triumph that was applauded by the international community. In this environment, the intrusion came to light. The enemy action was without any possible justification, unacceptable, and blatantly against the recently concluded Lahore Declaration. It was a breach of trust, and so recognised by the world. Pakistan’s attempts to term the action as non-state sponsored were too weak; even the normally credulous did not believe it to be the case. Under these circumstances, any action taken by us would have been accepted as legitimate; the gravity of the situation and the possible fallout was not lost on anybody. Since Independence, we have always been militarily and economically stronger than Pakistan. Now we had the edge even diplomatically. Politically, the country was unanimous in censure of Pakistan’s nefarious designs. There was, therefore, an opportunity to take the offensive and inflict a major defeat on the enemy. In my view, if we were not ready for an orchestrated offensive, Pakistan was even less prepared. They were militarily weak and could not deploy forces earlier to advantage as we would have been alerted, and surprise was an essential element in the Pakistan design. Possibly, it was some time before the full extent of the threat was known. The immediate requirement was to stem the rot and keep the Srinagar-Leh highway open. When the permission to launch air attacks was accorded on May 25, the embargo on crossing the LoC was possibly avoidable. The Air Force had been ready for some days, and attacks on enemy supply routes across the LoC would have straightaway carried the war into the enemy controlled area. Such attacks would have increased the pressure on the intruders who would have begun to fear that with supply lines cut, their position would soon become untenable. There are many historical precedents to such an assumption. Most notably, during the Yom Kippur War of 1973, the Syrians were set to take Golan Heights but, almost inexplicably, their armoured division withdrew. Later it was established that they withdrew because of the mere threat that the Israeli air force would cut their line of supply from Damascus. To my mind, there was no diplomatic or military compulsion not to cross the LoC. Militarily, we were stronger and the embargo reduced our strength markedly. We handed over the initiative willingly and unilaterally to the enemy. The one possible reason for doing so was the apprehension that the war could escalate and we were hesitant to permit such escalation. To me, it appears that we miscalculated. Had Pakistan been strong enough, it would not have been a mute spectator when we started to combat its troops. The only reason for such restraint after the high stake gamble launched was the fear that in case of any further support to the intruders, we would launch attacks across the LoC. It was Pakistan that was hesitant to escalate the conflict. It was safer from their point of view to sacrifice the intruders. The plan adopted by us was far from optimum. It involved frontal assaults against well-entrenched opposition, and resulted in our taking heavy casualties. Our Air Force was seriously hamstrung. Finally, it needed deft diplomatic manoeuvring rather than military action to push the enemy back across the LoC. In some quarters, our resolve came under question and the appellation of a ‘soft’ state was attached to us. More importantly, we unilaterally established a precedent that we would not cross the LoC but Pakistan made no such commitment. Since July, 1999, cross-border terrorism has not abated, the enemy actions are becoming bolder and cover increasingly greater geographical area. We have forced ourselves into a defensive posture, and now it is expected of us that we adhere to the self-imposed restrictions. There have been some diplomatic gains but, such gains would probably have come our way in any case. Since 1999, other intrusions have come to light like Machal, Hilkaka etc and the defensive approach implies that we continuously try and plug all possible loopholes — an impossible task. More importantly, since 1999 we have markedly increased our forces in J&K, created a new corps but the essential stance remains defensive. The economic costs of such deployment are also very high. Operation Parakaram also comes to mind, but that is another story. The military option of choice must be to lift the embargo on crossing the LC. At least air action should be permitted, as it is considered as less escalatory. If this is accepted we need not maintain such large forces arrayed along the LoC at some considerable cost. A limited number of troops, duly kitted and acclimatised, would need to be deployed, and regular ground and airborne surveillance carried out. The stated position could be that in case of detection of intrusion across the LoC or a terrorist attack anywhere in India, we will immediately take appropriate action on both sides of the LoC. We must not shy away from any threatened military action. Otherwise, the price we pay in the long term is much greater. Pakistan’s threats to use nuclear weapons should be treated with the contempt they deserve. Their quaint logic that any action on our part in response to Pakistan’s actions will invite the use of nuclear weapons is manifestly irrational and of no deterrent value. We should publicly state our position on the subject. In 1999, Pakistan gave us a great opportunity for a military victory. Even if the ground forces were less ready, the Air Force should have been permitted to use air power optimally. Had we done so, we would have exhibited strong resolve, gained greater international respect, and carried the impact of war onto the other side as well. Possibly as a result of a clear military defeat, Pakistan’s support to cross-border terrorism would have reduced, and there would have been no need to deploy so many additional troops along the LoC at such a high cost. Interestingly, it was also more than likely that after a military defeat, Musharraf would not have been able to effect the coup that propelled him into power. The writer, retired Vice Chief of the Air Staff, has closely seen the |
Leadership issue in Congress WHILE there is no disputing who is the leader in the Congress, there is a silent but highly discriminating section which insists there was no need to have projected Sonia Gandhi as the Prime Ministerial candidate. It would have been better for the Congress strategists to have held their horses at the Shimla conclave because there has never been any doubt or ambiguity in the Indian National Congress on the leadership question. This section argues that even if the Congress think-tank, most of whom enjoy no mass base, were keen on the announcement it should have been made after the outcome of the Assembly elections later this year. Should the Congress manage to retain power in Delhi, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Chattisgarh, then it would have been an altogether different ball game for Sonia Gandhi and her troubleshooters. Forging alliances and influencing like-minded parties would have been that much easier which is definitely not the case at present. The party managers have needlessly created an issue which has provided the necessary lever to the BJP and the vociferous Sangh Parivar. It is apparent to these Congressmen that the gambit of projecting Sonia Gandhi as the INC’s Prime Ministerial candidate is primarily intended to snuff out any power centre emerging in the party either in the run-up to the assembly elections later this year or the Lok Sabha poll in 2004. Caught on the
wrong foot The BJP media managers, who had ensured to keep the newshounds at an arm’s length in the name of security, were taken aback when they discovered that a news channel was able to telecast Vajpayee’s speech on the second day of the National Executive meeting in Raipur almost verbatim. An enquiry was launched and the BJP bigwigs discovered that the news channel had used the latest tools of information technology to report Mr Vajpayee’s criticism of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, which the media managers wanted to keep under wraps. Jaswant Singh
turns spiritual? Is Union Finance Minister Jaswant Singh joining the bandwagon of politicians of all hues and colours visiting places of worship and seeking the blessings of godmen? It seems so. Mr Singh was recently seen at a function with a tika and holding a rudrakshamala in his hand. Then he specially went to Kancheepuram for an audience and to seek the blessings of the Kanchi seer, who was actively involved in finding a way out of the Ayodhya imbroglio. It was widely believed that Mr Singh had specially gone to Kancheepuram for discussions with Shankarachaya Jayendra Saraswathy on the Ayodhya issue. However, a reliable source in the know insists that Mr Singh had desired going to Kancheepuram on a purely religious mission. Jogi’s worry Chattisgarh Chief Minister Ajit Jogi is having a lot to explain these days. First, it was his unravelling of a purported intelligence agency document at the AICC office in New Delhi that had the party leadership squirming. Now the party’s central leadership has told him to revise his BJP-like plans for rallies from temple towns in the state. The Congress leadership appears to be distancing itself from the CBI probe into allegations levelled by Jogi about a central intelligence agency having prepared “documents to tarnish his image.” Contributed by TRR, Satish Misra, Girja Shankar Kaura and Prashant Sood |
That pleasure alone is excellent which encourages one to surrender one’s body and mind to the True Friend. Slok, 1410 The pleasures of the world are false and transitory like the colour of the saf-flower which fades within few days. Suhi, 751 He who forgets God and indulges in sensuous pleasures, suffers from pains from within. Guru Nanak, Malar, 1256 Pain is the poison, God’s Name is its antidote. Pound it on the stone of patient contentment with the hand of charity. Take it daily so that your body is not torn away and even the Regent of Death is struck down at the end. O, ignorant man, take such a medicine so that you could be purged of all evils. Malar, 1256 |
 |
| Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir | Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs | Nation | Editorial | | Business | Sport | World | Mailbag | Chandigarh Tribune | Ludhiana Tribune 50 years of Independence | Tercentenary Celebrations | | 123 Years of Trust | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |
