 |
|
The President speaks US at it once again |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Big or small
The Communist connection
That four-letter word
DOCUMENT Nuke deal unlikely during Bush visit Inside China’s angry villages
|
The President speaks THE President’s Address to Parliament on Thursday makes three key economic announcements: a 10-year national manufacturing initiative, a common market for agricultural produce and special zones for petroleum, chemicals and petrochemicals. The detailed policy framework for these is expected in the coming Budget. Although manufacturing has lately picked up, lack of funds, outdated machinery and inflexible industrial laws are still hampering its growth. The advantage of cheap labour is wasted by low productivity and general inefficiency. Global quality standards and uninterrupted production will have to be ensured along with an end to red tape and inspector raj. The establishment of China-like special economic zones is an attempt in this direction. A common market for agricultural produce will help remove price distortions, shortages and market manipulations by traders. The case of high wheat prices due to its shortage in southern states indicates how barriers raised by states hamper the free movement of agricultural commodities. Besides, farmers will be free to sell their produce wherever they get right prices. The Finance Minister is expected to announce sector-specific investment regions to boost the oil and petrochemical sector and attract some $10 billion investment at each location. The idea has come from certain NRIs and is pragmatic. It is not possible to delink the announcement of upgrading the airports at Chennai and Kolkata from the coming elections in Tamil Nadu and West Bengal. The President skipped any reference to subsidy cuts to respect the Leftist sensitivities though he did say the FDI policy will be guided by “enlightened national interest,” an expression the Prime Minister fondly uses to defend his foreign policy. The river-interlinking project, the President has made it clear, is very much alive. His rosy economic picture is justified — 8.1 per cent GDP growth this fiscal, low inflation despite high oil prices and high saving and investment rates. The address reflects the mood of the nation on the move.
|
|
US at it once again THE Americans have put up another spectacular display of their legendary arrogance to demonstrate why it is difficult to love them. Just when their relations with India were improving, they have spoiled things once again by denying visas to two of the top Indian scientists on flimsy grounds. Not only that, they have even had the cheek to suggest that one of them, Prof Goverdhan Mehta, former Director of the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, was working in “chemical warfare and bioterrorism”. This despite the fact that all his academic research relates to “new molecular entities” and is not even remotely connected with chemical warfare. Professor Mehta is not only one of the world’s top scientists in organic chemistry but also a member of Prime Minister’s Scientific Advisory Committee. By denying – or delaying – visa to him, the US has all but accused the Indian government of having bioterrorists in its ranks. The US embassy’s feeble clarification that no final decision has been taken on Professor Mehta’s visa application pending receipt of additional information necessary to process his visa request is more by way of whitewashing. The other scientist, Mr Placid Rodriguez, is equally eminent. The Raja Ramanna Fellow is a former Director of the Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research, Kalapakkam. Both have travelled to the US many times in the past. Even if there were certain additional visa restrictions in the wake of 9/11, these could have been easily waived in deference to their stature. But then, the US is very unflinching in its resolve to rub everyone the wrong way, be he a friend or a foe. That is why it has more critics than admirers in the world. What it should not forget is that India is too large a country to fit under its thumb. The public opinion here is not exactly overflowing with genial feelings towards the “ugly Americans” (yes, that is how they are seen everywhere thanks to their own antics) after their ambassador issued a vote-with-us-or-else threat on the Iran issue. Such repeated provocations will only derail the strategic partnership that they want to have with this country. And all this too on the eve of President Bush’s possibly, a landmark visit to India!
|
|
Big or small THURSDAY’S Supreme Court order directing the owners of all big showrooms located in Delhi’s residential areas to vacate their premises within 30 days or face action has far reaching implications for the Capital. Clearly, the big fish have been brazenly violating the rules of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and doing business in the residential areas due to their unholy nexus with politicians, engineers and officials. Such is their clout that the MCD is apparently scared to touch the showrooms in Lajpat Nagar, Green Park, Greater Kailash, Defence Colony and West Patel Nagar. Despite the Delhi High Court order, the MCD has been trying to save the big fish by following a pick and choose policy and floating such fanciful categories as “major” and “minor” violators, “need-based” and “greed-based” encroachments, buildings on “sarkari” land and so on. The apex court ruling has virtually sealed the fate of these showrooms. A directive of this kind from the Supreme Court was long overdue because encroachers have defiled the face of Delhi with impunity. In the past four decades, they have made a mess of things by putting a severe strain on basic civic amenities like roads, water supply, electricity and sewer lines. While cracking the whip on big showrooms, the court has made it clear that it will take up the case of small shops later. More important, it emphasised that it will examine the issue of bringing to book all the violators. The present mess in Delhi is mainly because there is no fear of law catching up at least with those people who do not adhere to the rules and regulations. Surely, it is a dangerous trend if the people don’t have either respect for or fear of law primarily due to non-enforcement of law. The rot in the Capital would have been stemmed long back if the Delhi Government and the MCD had sincerely enforced the rules regarding illegal constructions and encroachments.
|
|
Everything that is really great and inspiring is created by the individual who can labour in freedom. — Albert Einstein
|
The Communist connection THE newspapers bristled with headlines like “Left”tells PM and Sonia its patience is wearing thin; slipping on secularism? “Left” tells the UPA it will have to do better against the BJP or as the Hindi daily Hindustan put it, “Leftists” threaten to review their relationship with the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) Government. Leave aside the effrontery of the Communists usurping the appellation of Leftists despite being congenital apologists of the Stalinist system and unabashed votaries of state capitalism. Leftism, on the other hand, has an aura and record of commitment to social justice and social control of means of production and distribution within a larger loyalty to the nation from the time of the French revolution over two millennia ago. The Communists, both the pro-Moscow CPI and its blood brother, the CPM, have never been guilty, jointly and “severally”, of such values in the last 80 years of their existence as a party in India. No wonder, therefore, one of their veterans, M.Basavapunaih, lamented in 1955 that they would never outgrow their pressure group mind set and functioning! True to their wont, the Communists have picked on India’s vote against Iran at the IAEA governing body meeting, as a bone of contention, among others, against the leadership of the ruling coalition. The Communists’ other grouses are 51% foreign direct investment (FDI) in retail trade and “privatisation” of Mumbai and Delhi airports. The so-called privatisation of the airports is more practical than ideological since government management of vital travel and trade facilities is causing deplorable operating conditions at principal airports and the resultant impediments to our export growth. Other developing countries, including China, have gone in for such modernisation. The Communists’ charge of the government “slipping on secularism” is incredible and betrays that their allegiance to parliamentary democracy is only skin-deep. Otherwise, how can they crib against the BJP and its allies winning elections, securing majority and forming governments in Bihar or Karnataka? In Bihar especially it was not for want of trying by the government and its Governor, Buta Singh, that Nitish Kumar and his party, the JD (U), in collaboration with the BJP, has formed the government after winning a convincing majority in the assembly elections. That the Election Commission had succeeded in holding free and fair polls was also a factor. Apparently, the Com-munists would like to reduce the rest of the country to the plight of West Bengal in this respect! As if on a cue from the Communists the government has since appointed a former Congress party leader as an election commissioner. The CPM supremo, Prakash Karat, has, meanwhile, gratuitously reassured Sonia Gandhi and Dr Manmohan Singh that they had no intention to bring down the government, as if anybody, much less the two leaders, had apprehensions on that score. Pressure groups are notorious for being anxious to strike but afraid to wound. Specifically in the present case, the Communists would not hack down the branch on which they have been cozily parked. It could mean undoing eighty years of Communist ‘movement’ in India! Further, it was fortuitous that the CPM and its allies have found themselves with a whip hand over the Congress party in the present Lok Sabha. Following the December 2004 general election the Congress party had emerged as the largest party but with a wafer-thin edge over the BJP and its depleted flock of allies. Thanks to the first- past-the post electoral system and gains in West Bengal and Kerala the Communists have a sizable group of MPs, next only to Lalu Yadav’s Rashtriya Janata Dal. The cumulative situation is too good for the Communists to risk. What are the alarums and excursions in aid of, then? The Communists want to rub the nose of its dependent UPA government in the mud by staging a Parliament discussion mainly on the Iran vote and gaining brownie points over Dr Manmohan Singh and his party. The purpose is to demonstrate that the Prime Minister has to be beholden to the Communists for being what he is. In that context, the CPI leader, A.B.Bardhan, has come out with an original idea of parliamentary veto on government’s foreign policy, which is unthinkable in a parliamentary democracy! At another level, Communist trade unions fomented violent agitation by employees of the Airport Authority of India even in Delhi and Chennai, besides of course Kolkata, against privatisation of airport management in Delhi and Mumbai. Passengers were subjected to harassment at the airports, forcing the government ultimately to agree to unconditional talks with the employees. That is not all. There is the coup de grace of a third front to replace the present government without letting the BJP move in. Who will be its constituents? Hold your breath. Mulayam Singh Yadav, Telugu Desam Party (TDP) leader Chandrababu Naidu, besides, of course, Lalu Prasad Yadav in tow and presumably Ram Vilas Paswan who fought the Bihar election on the plank of a Muslim, any Muslim, Chief Minister! Mulayam has come down heavily on the government’s Iran vote apparently with a view to firming his Muslim vote bank, under the impression that our predominantly Sunni (Muslim) population can be roused against letting the
U.N. Security Council pry the controversial Iranian nuclear programme. Chandrababu Naidu, similarly, has been feverishly wooing both the Communists and Muslims to retrieve his lost position in Andhra Pradesh. Hopefully, overdoing vote bank politics would not provoke Shia-Sunni trouble in Lucknow and reopen the recent faction feuds in
Ladakh.
|
That four-letter word THE Almighty, in his infinite wisdom, blessed my parents with only one son. Growing up with no one whom I could call “brother”, and being of an amiable disposition, I took to addressing my friends as ‘sala’ which means brother-in-law. ‘Sala’ or ’shala’ as my Bengali friends pronounce it, is a word that has acquired a somewhat unsavoury reputation. It has come to be equated, quite unfairly I think, with terms of derision or contempt such as twerp, cad, twister, pest, pain in the neck, humbug and the like, all of which are far removed from the basic and legal connotation of a short, simple word employed in referring to one’s wife’s brother as distinct from one’s sister’s husband who is called a “behnoi”. I don’t quite know how this came about. After all, if one’s wife turns out to be a poor cook, or a shrew, one can hardly blame one’s brother-in-law for one’s misfortune. Likewise, if she is a jewel, one can’t elevate her brother to a higher position by addressing him as “sala sahib” or “sala bahadur”. But the really interesting thing about the word “sala” is its ready adaptability. Gujaratis and, in particular, Parsis, use the word as a common figure of speech. In fact, it is difficult for them to carry on a conversation without interjecting the word in almost every sentence. In Bengal, on the other hand, the word is mostly used when expressing strong disapproval. The best example of this I can give concerns a Bengali soldier in World War II. Wanting a breath of fresh air, he raised his head over the side of the trench. Just then, an enemy bullet whizzed past him almost grazing his ear. In great indignation he shouted at the unseen marksman. “Hey, shala, dekh ke maro. Abhi hum ko lag jata.” (You stupid fellow, shoot with your eyes open. You nearly hit me.) Punjabis, a robust, hard-swearing people, pack the world with a great deal more punch when they use it. For one of them to call a man a ‘sala’ is to imply that his credibility is a matter of some doubt. Even those people who speak the kind of Urdu that was heard in Delhi prior to its conquest by the Punjabis and can still be heard in Lucknow, are not averse to bringing in an occasional “sala” in their conversation. I remember a story about the late Nawabzada Liaqat Ali Khan whose speeches in English or Urdu never failed to delight his listeners. Once, at a public meeting, he was asked to thank the guest of honour who had sat down after making a long and boring speech. The Nawabzada spoke for about three minutes in highly eulogistic terms regarding the VIP. Then he suddenly bent down to his neighbour on the dais and whispered, “Sale ka nam kiya hai?” (What’s the fellow’s
name?)
|
DOCUMENT
Taking into account the concerns that have been raised about India’s vote on the Iran nuclear issue at the meeting of the Governing Board of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, on February 5, 2006, I rise to apprise this august House of the facts of this matter. Let me begin by affirming that India’s vote on the IAEA resolution does not, in any way, detract from the traditionally close and friendly relations we are privileged to enjoy with Iran. Indeed, India-Iran ties, as we have repeatedly emphasised, are civilizational in nature. We intend to further strengthen and expand our multifaceted ties with Iran to mutual benefit. Let me also state that the importance of India’s relations with Iran is not limited to any single issue or aspect. This relationship is important across a wide expanse of cooperation, both bilateral and multilateral. We also cooperate on regional issues. We value this relationship and intend to do what we can to nurture our bilateral ties. Let me reiterate in this context that we are committed to the proposed Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline. The economics of this project is currently under professional investigation by internationally reputed consultants. This is a necessary step in taking the pipeline project forward. On the specific issue of Iran’s nuclear programme, let me reiterate what I have said publicly on several occasions. As a signatory to the NPT, Iran has the legal right to develop peaceful uses of nuclear energy consistent with its international commitments and obligations. It is incumbent upon Iran to exercise these rights in the context of safeguards that it has voluntarily accepted upon its nuclear programme under the IAEA. These rights and obligations must also be seen in context of developments since 2003, when IAEA began seeking answers to a number of questions arising from Iran’s nuclear activities, some of which were undeclared to the IAEA in previous years. Subsequently, in context of these demands, Iran did extend cooperation to the IAEA in investigations of its some of these activities. In November 2004, Iran agreed with the EU-3 (France, Germany, and the UK) to voluntarily suspend all enrichment and reprocessing activities until questions relating to its past nuclear activities were clarified by the IAEA. However, since August last year, Iran has renewed production of uranium hexafluoride and thereafter, has resumed uranium enrichment. Successive reports of the Director General of the IAEA have noted that while Iran’s cooperation has resulted in clarifying a number of questions, there remain many unresolved questions on key issues. These include the use of centrifuges imported from third countries, and designs relating to fabrication of metallic hemispheres. Hon’ble Members are aware that the source of such clandestine proliferation of sensitive technologies lies in our own neighbourhood, details of which have emerged from successive IAEA reports. This august House will agree that India cannot afford to turn a blind eye to security implications of such proliferation activities. The objectives of upholding Iran’s rights and obligations and our security concerns arising from proliferation activities in our extended neighbourhood have shaped our position. Therefore, our approach has been consistently in favour of promoting all efforts to find a solution, based on acceptable mutual compromises, in which Iran’s interests and the concerns of the international community would be addressed. We have consistently worked to promote a consensus in the IAEA towards this end. This has been the logic of our stand at the IAEA Board of Governors Meetings both in September 2005 and earlier this month. I might remind Hon’ble Members that it is only on these two occasions that the Resolution that resulted has not been a consensus one, and a vote has been necessary. Despite that, in the latest vote this month, the Resolution not only had the support of all P-5 countries including Russia and China, but also of important NAM and developing countries such as Argentina, Brazil, Egypt, Ghana, Singapore, Yemen and Sri Lanka. The resolutions passed in September last year and earlier this month underlined the need for time to be given for diplomatic efforts to continue. The recent resolution of February 5 asks the Director General of IAEA to inform the UN Security Council of the status of negotiations with Iran, and the steps that Iran needs to take to address these questions. It calls for continued diplomatic efforts including through exploration of the option provided by Russia, which we have supported. Hon’ble Members are aware that Russia had offered to locate a joint venture project on Russian soil to address Iranian needs for enriched uranium, provided Iran suspends its enrichment programme to increase international confidence regarding the unresolved questions of the last two decades. Russia and Iran are currently in discussions on the subject, and we remain hopeful of a positive outcome. It is our hope and belief that the issues that have arisen can still be resolved through discussion and dialogue. I have set out the background in which we have taken a position at the IAEA. I would like to reiterate our unshakeable conviction that such a sensitive issue, which concerns the rights and international obligations of sovereign nation and a proud people can only be addressed through calm, reasoned diplomacy and the willingness on all sides to eschew confrontation and seek acceptable compromise solutions. We are therefore deeply concerned by escalating rhetoric and growing tensions and the possibility of a confrontation over this issue. This is a matter of concern for us as tensions in this region where our vital political, economic and security interests are involved affects us directly. The region hosts 3.5 million Indian citizens whose welfare is a major concern of my Government. We therefore call upon all concerned to exercise restraint, demonstrate flexibility and continue with dialogue, to reach an amicable solution. As I mentioned, there will be another meeting of the IAEA Board in March this year at which a full and regular report will be presented by the IAEA Director-General. In the days to come, we will support diplomatic efforts in this regard, drawing upon our friendly relations with all the key countries involved. The Government is conscious of the need to balance several important considerations in this regard. We have a strong and valuable relationship with Iran which we would like to take forward in a manner that is mutually beneficial. We have great respect and admiration for the Iranian people with whom our fraternal ties go back several millennia. We have every intention of ensuring that no shadow is cast on these bonds. In the overall context that I have outlined in detail, I am confident that this august House will agree that the stance taken by this Government has been consistent and in keeping with our own well considered and independent judgment of our national interests. I am confident that this policy will receive the support of this House and our nation.
|
|
Nuke deal unlikely during Bush visit American analysts and experts familiar with South Asian affairs have expressed scepticism over India and the United States finalising their July 18, 2005 bilateral civilian nuclear accord before or even during President George W. Bush’s first visit to India in the first week of March. Though preparations are in high gear for the historic visit to India and Pakistan, there has been a near unanimous expression of doubt about the future of the landmark deal that till now has been touted as the centrepiece of Mr Bush’s trip to New Delhi. Now Washington-based analysts remain unconvinced about anything being accomplished, other than Mr Bush making historic stops in India and Pakistan. “This is President Bush’s first trip to the subcontinent, so this visit will be an opportunity to meet the region, and not just its leaders. It will be important for him to accelerate the positive and to stay clear of tendentious issues,” Mr Michael Krepon of the Henry L. Stimson Center told Asian News International. Mr Stephen Cohen of the Brookings Institute in Washington agrees, “I’m baffled by this trip — the one thing that they wanted to do, the nuclear deal, will probably not be doable, at least by the time he goes, and they’ve done so much else, I would be surprised to find out that there’s anything more to agree upon.” Most say that the nuclear deal has gotten hung up on delicate negotiations. They question whether American law will be changed, and key members of the U.S. Congress have been quite sceptical about the details. In an editorial in the January or February issue of Arms Control Today, Daryl Kimball, the association’s executive director argues, “It is the responsibility of the president and the U.S. Congress not to aid and abet any other state’s nuclear bomb program and unravel the non-proliferation system.” In the same issue, Zian Mian of Princeton University and M.V. Raman of the Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies in Environment and Development in Bangalore argue that the U.S.-India civilian nuclear deal has many flaws. “It undermines the aspirations of the vast majority of nations seeking global and regional nuclear disarmament. The deal also will create the potential for the rapid buildup of a much larger Indian nuclear arsenal. It will bail out a failing Indian nuclear energy program, but with little benefit to the poor and likely detriment to the environment and economy,” both said. In an article for the International Herald Tribune, Brahma Chellaney of the Center for Policy Research, New Delhi observes, “Unless the United States rolls back its demands, it is almost certain that no formal nuclear agreement will be ready for signature when President George W. Bush arrives in New Delhi on March 1. A barren U.S. presidential visit would ensure a slow death for the accord.” Mr Bush’s visit to Pakistan is also being viewed with some amount of scepticism. Some of the analysts interviewed by ANI have wondered if the recent violence in Pakistan over the Danish cartoons would cause the White House to cancel the trip. What will be the purpose and achievements of the Bush visit to India and Pakistan? In the February 6 online issue of the New Yorker Magazine, reporter Steve Coll said: “The Indians and the Pakistanis have long experience with the West or with Russia coming into their disputes, and they’ve become quite sophisticated about how to manage this kind of intervention. They use it to achieve their goals. In this case, the Indians used American diplomacy to try to coerce Pakistan into reducing its support for jihadi groups. “Equally, the Pakistanis used the Americans to put pressure on India to resolve the underlying problem of Kashmir, and also tried to make themselves indispensable to the Americans in Afghanistan. So there was a kind of a multiple-level chess game going on. “And yet at the heart of it was a basic threat of war, which neither side ever relinquished; both India and Pakistan felt quite emotional about these issues even as they were manipulating the chessboard.” So while prospects for the US India civilian nuclear deal are gloomy, it is expected that America’s growing relationship, both diplomatically and economically will be
stressed. — ANI
|
|
Inside China’s angry villages AT a roadside store across the street from a kindergarten in Panlong village, a local man sat beside his motorcycle having a soft drink and chatting with a visiting reporter on the recent violence the village had experienced. “Does political power really come from the barrel of a gun?” he asked, questioning Chairman Mao’s famous dictum. “Is the gun pointed at the enemy or at the people?” Such talk seems out of place in Panlong, in the heart of the Pearl River Delta. The delta is in southern Guangdong province, one of China’s wealthiest, most industrialized regions. The Cantonese focus on making money instead of talking politics, and their resistance to central government control, is aptly summed up in the popular saying, “The sky is high and the emperor far away.” But Panlong is just the latest village in Guangdong to be racked by violent protests. Peasants blocked a highway to protest what they saw as inadequate compensation for land seized from them by the government. Riot police broke up the demonstration. Similar clashes erupted in December in Dongzhou village and last summer in Taishi village. Is Guangdong’s turbulent present a preview of the rest of the country’s future? One recent academic study found that as industrialization and urbanization increase the demand for rural land, developed coastal provinces like Guangdong are increasingly becoming the site of violent clashes over land-use rights. And unrest is clearly on the rise in China as a whole. There were 87,000 civil disturbances last year — 238 a day — compared with just 8,700 in 1993, according to police statistics. Many involve peasants protesting the confiscation of their land for development purposes, but they are often equally angry about environmental degradation and official corruption. Protests by the urban poor against large-scale layoffs and predatory developers are common. The rural clashes are evidence of the government’s failure to allow farmers the means to resolve their grievances through the press or the courts. They also bespeak a failure of the government’s standard tactic for quelling mass dissent: punishing protest organizers while buying off rank-and-file demonstrators with concessions. In the villages, it’s not hard to see the tension below the calm surface. Police and security agents sit in booths at the entrances to Panlong and Taishi, although most people can enter during the day. Dongzhou reportedly remains surrounded by checkpoints where police search vehicles for fugitives. Even if spending in rural regions is increased, much of it is unlikely to filter down to the peasants, given the endemic state of official corruption. Chinese experts are pessimistic about the central government’s willingness to break the entrenched alliance of local business interests and corrupt officials. Until that happens, local officials will continue to pocket bribes in exchange for giving state-owned land to developers at cut-rate prices, leaving farmers landless, destitute and angry. The government could do a lot to alleviate rural tensions by increasing farmers’ rights: the right to move to the cities without being denied the same benefits as urban dwellers; the right to form farmers’ associations to protect their interests; and the right to recall elected village officials who fail to represent those interests. Last year, residents of Taishi tried to exercise that very right, which is already enshrined in national law. The government responded with riot police.
— LA Times Washington Post
|
|
From the pages of Action against press
THE district authorities of Lahore have given ample proof of their thoroughness in fishing for “objectionable” advertisements in the columns of newspapers, and netting as many of them and as many members of their staff as they could possibly do. The thoroughness with which they went about this task is evident from the large crop of cases against Lahore newspapers, in which not only the publishers but also editors have been hauled up before courts under sections 292 and 294-A of the Penal Code. The authorities at Rawalpindi have gone a step father; they prosecuted not only the editor, printer and publisher of the weekly “Shahab” for the publication of an advertisement alleged to be obscene but also arrested and challaned the two sub-editors of that newspaper. As was to be expected, both of them were acquitted; but the prosecuting authorities did not hesitate to do their work with the utmost thoroughness, no matter if it involved any inconvenience or harassment to the innocent sub-editors. This is thoroughness with a vengeance.
|
Intoxicants and games of chance are only uncleanness, the devil’s work so shun it that you may succeed. — Islam Tame the mind. This is the greatest challenge before you. It rushes here and there, swifter than the wind, more slippery than water. If you can arrest the flights of the mind to your will, happiness will be assured to you. — The Buddha Let him say to God, ‘O Lord, I will not repeat such an action’, and he need not be afraid of anything. — Ramakrishna The boundary of one’s jurisdiction ends with the completion of one’s duty. Do your duty to the best of your ability with your mind attached to the Lord, abandon worry and attachment to the result. Remain calm in both success and failure. Such selfless service brings peace and equanimity of mind. — Bhagvad Gita A Hindu believes that the universe undergoes endless cycles of creation, preservation and dissolution. — Sanatana Dharma He alone is a true Brahman who contemplates the Supreme Being and so saves himself and all his kin. — Guru Nanak
|
| HOME PAGE | |
Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir |
Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs |
Nation | Opinions | | Business | Sports | World | Mailbag | Chandigarh | Ludhiana | Delhi | | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |
THE following is the text of the suo motu statement on Iran the Prime Minister made in Parliament on Friday: