EDITORIALS

Q. Khan had his day
Surely, Pakistan knew it all

PREDICTABLY, the sacking of Abdul Qader Khan as scientific adviser to the Pakistani prime minister has lit a political fuse. The country's clandestine nuclear operations, from acquiring technology, material and expertise to exporting these to 'states of concern' such as North Korea and now Iran, have been long known. Yet, if the evidence was ignored and little done to restrain Pakistan, it was because the international community, namely Washington, had tolerated the nuclear black market. New Delhi's persistent attempts, over the years, to focus world attention on this as a prime proliferation concern were ignored as being driven by South Asian rivalry. It is only after 9/11 that the US and the West have woken up to the alarming ramifications of this spreading menace of the transfer of nuclear technology. Regardless of the impulses that have now made the world community exert pressure on Pakistan, the development deserves to be welcomed.

However, to take cognisance of Pakistan as a proliferator is only one step. To blunt the lethal edge of this business is a different and tricky matter, as events in Pakistan suggest. Dr Khan, the father of Pakistan's N-programme, is a national hero and has been embraced thus by the state as well. Despite the revelations of his alleged greed in the form of flourishing commercial ventures abroad and money stashed away, his dismissal and the investigations have raised hackles in Pakistan. General Musharraf's present moves to address proliferation concerns are seen as making Dr Khan a scapegoat at the behest of western powers.

This is the result of Islamabad projecting that Dr Khan acted on his own to achieve his ambitions and enrich himself, which are irrelevant. The issue is covert trade in nuclear technology with governmental sanction. Nuclear technology transfer is generally not for private trading with the state remaining ignorant about it. Pakistan cannot afford to turn a blind eye to the dangers of such proliferation, especially the likelihood of extremists benefiting from Pakistan's unlawful nuclear deals.

Wise gesture
It will help in promoting harmony

THERE is a lot of gain in going by the traditional wisdom that inter-community interests are best served through the spirit of accommodation and mutual respect. It is, perhaps, most true in the case of a country like India where different religions and cultures have taken root and grown to their potential for centuries. This ethos was reflected to a large extent through the issue of a fatwa by the Darululoom, a top Muslim religious body based in Deoband, against the slaughter of cows on Id-ul-Zuha. The edict, issued on the eve of the festival, showcased Islam's leitmotif of peaceful coexistence and tolerance. The three-member body of the Darululoom said that the ban on cow slaughter on Id had been decreed in deference to Hindu religious sentiments. Though the fatwa may seem a small step to some, it is the first significant move that has the potential of resolving the cow slaughter issue which has been agitating some Hindu religious and political parties for years. Of course, the Muslims are not the only ones who eat beef, and, as the respected cleric Maulana Mehmood Madni pointed, it forms a part of the dietary habits of many other communities, too. But by making the announcement, the Darululoom has set the ball rolling for promoting communal harmony.

Expectedly, the goodwill gesture has been hailed and supported by different Hindu religious and political organisations. The RSS and the BJP have been quick to put on record that it will encourage greater brotherhood among the two communities. Maulana Madni and his fellow committee members have in fact established a laudatory precedent by sitting down with the RSS leaders and taking their talks to a logical conclusion. It augurs well for the more emotive issue like the Ayodhya imbroglio.

Discussions without preconditions and a flexibile approach often lead to reasonable solutions. It is a road less travelled by but is worth the time and effort. It is also the most pragmatic route to resolution of the Ayodhya conflict, which has been a source of serious tensions in the country.

The tragedy at Mecca
Better crowd management required

ONCE again, tragedy has struck the Haj pilgrimage, claiming the lives of 244 worshippers. This is by far the highest toll in the last 14 years. A stampede occurred when devotees pushed forward towards the Jamarat bridge in Mina, near Mecca, to take part in the ritual stoning of the pillars symbolising the Satan. Last year, too, 14 pilgrims were trampled to death, while in 2001, again in a stampede, 35 were killed. In 1998 as many as 119 worshippers lost their lives at the same spot. The ritual marks the first day of Id-ul-Zuha. After prayers at night, pilgrims carry pebbles in the morning to throw at the pillars. They repeat the act seven times, chanting "Bismillah" and "Allahu Akbar".

So frequent have been the deaths in stampedes at the same place during the same ceremony that it is surprising that the Saudi authorities have failed to make fool-proof arrangements to avoid such incidents. No doubt, the task of crowd management becomes a daunting one with some 20 lakh Muslims gathering there. The authorities did take the usual precautions. The crowd was monitored from the air. They set quotas for pilgrims from each country and also got the Saudi citizens to register for the pilgrimage. After the ceremony, pilgrims walk to Mecca for the Tawaf, the circling of the holy stone known as the Kaaba. The worst tragedy was in 1990, when 1,426 pilgrims were crushed to death in a tunnel in Mecca.

"All precautions were taken to prevent such an incident, but this is God's will," Iyad Madani, Saudi minister responsible for the Haj arrangements, reportedly told a press conference. "Caution isn't stronger than fate." Safety, however, is too serious a matter to be left to fate, and better expertise is required to prevent the loss of human lives.

Thought for the day

Education is what survives when what has been learned has been forgotten.

— B.F. Skinner

ARTICLE

Congress dependence on one family
It’s both a blessing and a curse
by S. Nihal Singh

POLITICAL dynasties are as much a part of the Indian scene as they are in the rest of South Asia and perhaps farther afield. They reflect an individual’s primary obligation in a traditional society to his family’s welfare before his region, party or country. If a doctor or engineer wishes his progeny to emulate his career, why should a politician be discriminated against?

The father-son or father-daughter phenomenon prevails in varying degrees in every political party in India. The controversy over the induction of Mrs Sonia Gandhi’s son Rahul and daughter Priyanka into the Congress arises because it is seen as throwing a lifeline to a beleaguered mother and a reminder that the Congress remains the only national party in independent India largely identified with one family.

Nobody turns a hair if a Chandrababu Naidu or a Jayalalithaa or a Patnaik rule their states by virtue of their relationship to, or intimate association with, a departed worthy. But the possibility of Rahul or Priyanka, or both, entering the political fray arouses deep emotions. In the party’s ranks, there is an almost Pavlovian reaction in welcoming them, becoming in a sense a touchstone of a Pradesh Congress’s loyalty to the leader. Party spokesmen gingerly tiptoe around the problem of dynastic rule by pointing to the sacrifices of the Nehru-Gandhi family.

For many in the Congress, the Fifth Generation starting with Motilal Nehru (to borrow a Chinese idiom) could help energise the party, which is undergoing its most serious crisis since Independence. By the same token, street fighters in the Bharatiya Janata Party such as Mr Pramod Mahajan have taken to voicing a starkly racialist theme by declaring that anyone aspiring to the highest office must be born of Indian parents. Next the BJP would want to study the family tree of every candidate for office, an impossible task because science has proved there is no such thing as a pure race.

Exploiting the foreign provenance of Mrs Sonia Gandhi because it jars on Indian middle class sensibilities is one thing; carrying out a witch hunt against a family quite another. It merely highlights the vulgar streak in the BJP and its determination to use all means, however unfair, to try to defeat its main rival, the Congress party. It also promises to hinder the BJP’s studied march to the centre of the political spectrum in its effort to displace the Congress as the country’s natural ruling party.

For the Congress, the pre-eminence of one family has been both a blessing and a curse. The Family has done the country yeoman’s service, but Morarji Desai died nursing the grievance that Jawaharlal Nehru adroitly kept him out of the highest office. (His ambition could be fulfilled only with the defeat of the Congress.) More recently, Mr Sharad Pawar formed a splinter Congress because he felt that his legitimate claim to leadership was being frustrated by imposing Mrs Sonia Gandhi on the party. And the long stints of family rule have inevitably bred a court culture of sycophancy, making the party’s transition to a changing India that much more difficult.

In hindsight, Indira Gandhi seems to have left a more lasting legacy for the Congress than her more illustrious father Jawaharlal. For one thing, she proved a more proficient practitioner of realpolitik, with her decisive and astute conduct of the Bangladesh war, after beating the party’s old guard with a mixture of feints and modern propaganda. Her tryst with the Emergency regime was a reminder of her mettle and amorality. But she was both the creator and the destroyer, sacrificing the grassroots for wheeler-dealers and gearing the party for anointing son Sanjay, prematurely killed in an air crash.

Son Rajiv, emphatically riding to power on mother Indira’s assassination, was learning the ropes before his life was cut short by a suicide bomber, but in death he gave the Congress another lease of life. Mr P.V. Narasimha Rao was in power for a surprising full term, ultimately cobbling a majority. After him, in defeat, the Congress could think of nothing other than reverting to the Family for resuscitation. Thus far, Sonia has proved unequal to the task.

Assuming that Rahul or Priyanka, or both, enter the electoral fray, what can they achieve? Rahul is an unknown political phenomenon, but Priyanka, during her forays into her mother’s constituency Amethi, has shown traces of her grandmother’s common touch in reaching out to and empathising with voters. But how potent is the magic of the Family in today’s India? She can perhaps help the Congress to get a few more seats in Uttar Pradesh or perhaps even in the South, but is unlikely to make a material difference to the overall results.

Rather, the attempt to bring in Rahul and Priyanka is a desperate ploy to throw in all the assets the party can muster at a time its fortunes are at their lowest ebb. Take Mrs Sonia Gandhi’s frantic efforts to tie up as many electoral pacts as she can after leaving the question of the leadership of a winning combination open. She is even attempting to square the circle by seeking arrangements with the Samajwadi Party and the Bahujan Samaj Party. Indeed, in this respect, the Congress is in overdrive.

If the Congress attempt is to reach out to the young through Priyanka and Rahul, the party is misjudging the temperament of the new voters. The young seem to be less impressed by family links — the exploits of Nehru and Indira are history for them. They are fired by adventure and role models of success. Neither member of the Fifth Generation has striking achievements to his or her credit to set the young on fire.

Indeed, the only magic that can transform Priyanka and Rahul into great vote-getters for the party is Mr Mahajan’s rhetoric. Many young people as well as others in the country will be repelled by the BJP’s efforts to tar the young Gandhis for no fault of their own, that their Indian father had married an Italian-born woman. Mr Mahajan says he has no regrets in proclaiming his racialist beliefs. Perhaps his party might have a few down the road.

MIDDLE

The rich at play
by Raj Chatterjee

THE very rich have a way of spending their money which to those of us who have their options limited in this respect appear to be signs of eccentricity, vanity or just plain lunacy.

To be fair, no one should cavil at a rich man indulging in his fads so long as they don’t harm others. We may laugh at them even though, sometimes, our amusement is tinged with a bit of envy.

There was that fabulous American, Howard Hughes, who spent his fortune on buying hotel chains, airlines, newspaper empires, islands in the sun and a lot else. Not that any of these acquisitions were made to flaunt his wealth. He preferred, on the other hand, to live like a recluse, behind heavy security, but with pretty female companions whom he changed from time to time.

And there was the Texan oil tycoon who bought an old castle in Scotland, had it dismantled brick by brick, shipped to America and reconstructed it on his estate exactly as it had been except for the introduction of “mod.cons” and air-conditioning.

The castle, incidentally, was his second choice. He had wanted to “transplant” London Bridge and he might have had his way but for strong opposition from the London County Council.

We too have had our wealthy eccentrics, and not only in the days when our princes had full access to their purses.

I know a man in Delhi who, a few years ago, went on an European tour which included a visit to West Germany. While there, he dropped in at the Mercedes-Benz factory and bought himself the latest model which he paid for in hard currency earned from his exports.

When the car arrived in Delhi he was able to “persuade” the Transport Authority to allot it the number ‘11’ which also happened to be the number of his house.

I was stationed in Kanpur from 1939 to 1942 for most of which time, being single, I had free access to my purse and could afford to go to an English tailor in Lucknow, a town I visited every month.

The proprietor of the establishment in Hazratgunj, a rolly-polly of a man, lived at the Carlton Hotel where I also stayed on my visits. His cutter, a Scotsman by the name of McGregor, had a flat at the back of the shop. Come April and M/s Bishop and McGregor would move up to Nainital, lock, stock and barrel.

On one occasion I was buying myself some imported ties and socks when a prison van stopped outside the shop. A short, fair, good-looking Indian stepped out from it closely followed by an Anglo-Indian police sergeant. The two walked straight into the fitting room. Half-an-hour later when the party left the shop I asked McGregor what was going on.

“That was the Raja of H . . .” said Mac. “He’s appealed against his conviction for poisoning his wife. He doesn’t like his prison garb, so he’s asked us to copy it, in velvet.”

I was so taken aback that I forgot to pay for my purchases. But Mac, being a Scotsman, called out to me before I could step out.

OPED

DATELINE WASHINGTON
Opportunities for peace ‘wasted’ in South Asia
US ‘should not take any position’ on Kashmir dispute
by Ashish Kumar Sen

Mr Vajpayee recognises that India cannot emerge as a truly great Asian state if it is dragged down by the Kashmir conflict and if Pakistan remains openly hostile to it.

AS India and Pakistan make bold strides toward dialogue, the United States is in a dilemma over whether it should leave the two neighbours to make peace or continue to treat them like errant schoolboys.

In spite of New Delhi’s stated aversion to mediation, the Bush administration and Washington’s policy wonks are deeply divided on whether the U.S. should don the mantle of peacemaker in South Asia.

On a recent visit to Washington, Foreign Minister Yashwant Sinha underscored New Delhi’s determination to settle its own disputes. “There can be no other way to arrive at durable solutions to the problems of the region,” the minister told a gathering of the city’s foreign policy analysts.

Later, following meetings with President George W. Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell, he reiterated this sentiment, saying the question of mediation did not arise. “There was curiosity, there was inquiry, and that is fair enough.”

In interviews early in January, the Secretary of State had proudly highlighted Washington’s role in calming tensions in the Subcontinent. On Capitol Hill, he has been criticised for flaunting America’s foreign policy successes.

In a thinly-veiled reference to Mr. Powell’s remarks, Frank G. Wisner, a former U.S. Ambassador to New Delhi, said: “Our best interests are served by discretion, not claiming credit for gains registered, nor articulating outcomes the parties have not accepted.”

Mr. Wisner’s views are representative of those in Washington who believe India and Pakistan capable of brokering peace without foreign mediation. “While we have an important stake in peace between India and Pakistan, we are not mediators,” he asserted in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee earlier this week. Mr. Wisner pointed out that though Washington had strong ties to both governments, its image in the region “is open to contest.”

Instead of mediation, he suggested a less intrusive “facilitation.”

“We can facilitate a reduction of tensions in the region and the pursuit of negotiations, but we cannot make or even broker peace between India and Pakistan.” To be successful facilitators, he suggested it was incumbent upon the United States to first build its influence in both countries.

Not everyone advocates this approach. Prof. Stephen P. Cohen, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, says the United States can and should do more in the Subcontinent. “It has mostly been a bystander… but in the final analysis it will be up to the Indians and Pakistanis to determine whether their debilitating rivalry will continue for another fifty years. This rivalry is costly to them, but it also places important American interests at risk.”

While Mr. Powell claims credit for the present dialogue, the Ministry of External Affairs in New Delhi has downplayed the American role.

“If there was an important U.S. role, it should not have been the subject of a public boast so soon after the Islamabad summit,” Prof. Cohen said. “However, a somewhat more active role is welcome, and long-overdue.”

Noting that outside powers have played little, if any, role in advancing dialogue between India and Pakistan, he told the Senate committee the United States has intervened several times in times of crisis, but never developed a strategy that might promote and sustain a real peace process.

Committee chairman Senator Richard Lugar agreed only India and Pakistan could resolve the issues between them. Yet, he added, it was more important than ever that the United States sustain active engagement in South Asia to encourage continuation of this positive momentum. “We have seen opportunities for peace squandered in South Asia in recent years.”

As part of its role, Prof. Cohen suggests the U.S. not take any position on the shape of a final settlement of the Kashmir dispute. However, it should support the view that Kashmir is a human rights issue, not merely one of territory or international law.

This position, he explained, maximises the interests of all parties and would make a final settlement easier: “Pakistanis can claim their struggle resulted in more humane treatment of the Kashmiri people, even if they do not join Pakistan or become independent; Indians will remove a blot on their democracy and the Kashmiris, of course, will recover a semblance of normal life.”

Equally important is focus, pointed out Mr. Wisner. “[K]eeping a close watch on the situation, engagement at highest levels, at carefully considered moments and pursuing relations with both New Delhi and Islamabad, but not linking the progress in our relationship with one party to the imperatives of our ties with the other.”

Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee recognises that India cannot emerge as a truly great Asian state if it is dragged down by the Kashmir conflict, and if Pakistan remains openly hostile to it, Prof. Cohen said.

He called Mr. Vajpayee’s improbable dialogue partner, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, something of a puzzle. “Musharraf lacks strategic vision, he is a bad listener and he believes that ruling Pakistan is like running an army division. However, after four years he may have learned that this approach does not quite work.”

“One suspects he is tired of water issues, sectarian rivalries and diplomatic double-talk.

Even the strategy of using militants to force the Indians to the negotiating table has failed.

Now that the militants are more interested in his death than victory in Kashmir, he may have second thoughts,” he said.

Mr. Wisner is cautious in his predictions. “It would be foolish to argue that the road ahead is either safe or easy. It is decidedly not, and given history of past Indo-Pakistani negotiations, there will be setbacks, including dangerous ones,” he said.

As the two neighbours prepare for the February 16 meeting in Islamabad, policy analysts and administration officials in Washington prescribe caution, realising that peace in the region is intricately linked to America’s safety.

Said Mr Lugar: “India and Pakistan have often seemed far away. But problems that start on the Subcontinent.

DELHI DURBAR
Amar Singh’s birthday party

ONE man in the news last week was Samajwadi Party General Secretary Amar Singh, not because of political reasons but the bash on his 50th left the assemblage heady. The hoi polloi, India Inc, political bigwigs of all hues and shades as well Bollywood was represented. From the best of the celluloid world (Aishwarya Rai, Sanjay Dutt, Hrithik Roshan, Amitabh and Abhishek Bachchan) to the top notch of India Inc (Anil Ambani, Adi Godrej, Subroto Roy) as well as playback singers. Politicians were also at hand, including those from the ruling NDA, to wish the emerging new face of the political spectrum a happy birthday.

Amar Singh went round meeting all those present. As he cut the three-layered cake with his wife and twin daughters, Sonu Nigam and company did the honours with Brian Silas on the piano. But what caught everyone’s fancy was the heavyweight welcome lineup at the entrance. Anil Ambani, Subroto Roy, Amitabh Bachchan and Abhishek Bachchan all stood with folded hands to welcome the guests most of whom felt embarrassed.

Managing the media

When it comes to media management, the systematic approach being adopted by the BJP will put many other political parties in the shade. The other day as part of its two-day media management convention, party leaders had a special question-answer session for all its state unit spokespersons. Those providing tips on managing the media put all kinds of nagging questions to the BJP media managers in the run-up to the elections and sought their responses. Handycams were at hand to record the interface to rate the performance of each spokesperson. In this professionally-run dummy-run, the Uttar Pradesh spokesperson was rated the best while his Jharkhand counterpart was found wanting. Of course, the cadres had in attendance two mediapersons to work out the rough edges.

Coal Secretary post in demand

With Trinamool Congress leader Mamta Banerjee taking over the Ministry of Coal, the post of Secretary is going to fall vacant in next few days. The post appears to be in great demand with many senior IAS aspirants vying for the post. Clearly, the fiesty Mamata will have her say who she wants as the Coal Secretary, especially in the wake of her announcement that Rs 10,000 crore will be spent to perk up the coal sector.

The feel-good factor

The great hype about the “feel-good factor” is becoming a butt of jokes in cocktail and political circles. A top bureaucrat was overheard reciting popular Urdu poet Amir Minayi on the feel-good element. “Aache Aisa ho, mariyon ka khayal aacha hai Hum mare jaa rahe hain Aur tum kehte ho haal aacha hai.” (What a good prophet you are, you take care of the sick, we are dying and you proclaim my condition to be good).

Lawyer becomes chief editor

After making his mark as a successful criminal lawyer of the country and having entered politics by becoming a Rajya Sabha MP, R K Anand is now making a foray into an altogether different field, the media, by launching a news agency, South Asia News Network International. The agency with Anand as its Editor-in-Chief would provide a package of political, investigative, financial and legal stories as well as graphics and photographs to subscribers in South Asian countries.

Contributed by Satish Misra, Girja Shankar Kaura, Prashant Sood, Gaurav Choudury and S. S. Negi

REFLECTIONS

Those whose consciousness is unified, abandon all attachment to the results of action and attain supreme peace. But those whose desires are fragmented, who are selfishly attached to the results of their work, are bound in everything they do.

— Shri Krishna (Bhagavadgita)

Only through work can one remove the bondage of work. Total detachment comes later. One should not be without work even for a moment. Work helps one to fend off idle thoughts.

— Sarada Devi

What is the good of telling people they are weak? Criticism and destruction are of no avail. We must give them something higher; tell them of their own glorious nature, their birthright.

— Swami Vivekananda

She alone is blessed

Who becomes One with the Lord.

— Guru Nanak

Pray without ceasing,

In every thing give thanks.

— I. Thessalonians