 |
|
Tackling Naxalism Yes to dancing |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Farmers’ woes A comprehensive policy is overdue The fourth report of the National Commission on Farmers has been submitted to the agriculture ministry.
Nuclear deal
Long live the government!
Mac’s Window of opportunity Who has the right to the child?
|
Tackling Naxalism In his day-long meeting with six Chief Ministers of states plagued by Naxalism, Mr Manmohan Singh spoke with candour and clarity. As the head of the country’s administration, Dr Singh unhesitatingly acknowledged that Naxalites constitute the biggest internal security threat. The Maoists, as the Naxalites now call themselves, have carved out a “Red Corridor” covering 160 districts – almost a quarter of the country. Their strategy, tactics and style have radically changed: from isolated hits by ideological rebels to coordinated assaults on crtical targets by cadres trained in weapon use. The administrative challenge, he suggested, could be met through a joint unified command to make counter-Naxalite measures more successful. Politically, he prescribed that police action should be backed by a liberal surrender and rehabilitation policy. Yet, Dr Manmohan Singh was also speaking as an economist, who could see the causes and conditions on which the Maoists were feeding to enlarge their spheres of influence. He referred to factors such as exploitation, socio-political inequalities, joblessness, low wages and lack of land reforms as contributing to the spread of the Naxalite movement. He underscored that the genuine needs and aspirations of the poor and marginalised, especially in the countryside should be addressed with care and sympathy. In essence he was emphasising that while policing must put down the violence, the socio-economic conditions in which Naxalites thrived call for a superior political response. It is just as well that the Prime Minister has articulated both the vision and mission, and called for a unified approach. Otherwise, each of the affected states were going their own way and often persuaded into futile exercises such as negotiations, which was only utilised by the Maoists to seek legitimacy for their armed struggle. Now it is up to all political parties to close ranks behind the Centre on this issue. For its part, the government must monitor the implementation of its suggestions with the urgency the situation calls for. Fighting Naxalites is no longer a party issue; nor it is a Centre versus States question. They are posing a serious threat to political stability and progress of the country. It cannot be taken lightly.
|
|
Yes to dancing Dancers have always been around, as Puranic myths and courtly epics testify, and they have always occupied an ambiguous place in the collective psyche of society. This schizophrenic attitude towards them was reflected both in the Maharashtra government’s attempt to ban dance bars in the first place, and the manner in which they went about it. “Independent” dance performances in the sophisticated setting of a theatre, say an Odissi recital by a Padma awardee, was fine. A presumably less edifying swish of skirts in a “three star and above” hotel setting was fine too. But dancing at bars, they said, was immoral, and had to be banned. The Mumbai High Court rightly found the whole logic unsustainable and discriminatory, not to mention unconstitutional, though it did not agree with the petitioners’ contention that the ban violated fundamental rights to free speech and freedom of expression, and the right to life. The court also did well to focus on the issue of minors in the trade, and the need to rescue and rehabilitate those children. The two central concerns here are to do with questions of obscenity and exploitation of women. The court did not buy the exploitation argument as it did not see a distinction between dancers and other women workers at hotels and bars. Exploitation can be difficult to tackle. A sex worker may maintain that she is carrying on her trade of her own volition, but because of circumstances. The seedy image and the risky associations of a subaltern life indeed render bar girls vulnerable. But moral policing and dubious laws will only serve to worsen the problem. Laws made to prevent exploitation, like the one on immoral trafficking, have been often used to the disadvantage of helpless women. As for obscenity, every society has to decide where to draw the line – and where it may indeed begin to impinge on fundamental freedoms. The State’s role simply lies in preventing coercion and criminal activity. It remains to be seen whether Maharashtra will appeal against the High Court judgement. But it still retains the power to make licensing of the dance bars more stringent, ensuring employment of women without the risk of exploitation.
|
|
Farmers’ woes The fourth report of the National Commission on Farmers has been submitted to the agriculture ministry. The enthusiasm reflected in the report’s stated ambition of initiating a national policy for farmers, “the first of its kind in the 10,000-year history of Indian farming,” is unfortunately not commensurate with the kind of attention the commission’s reports have been receiving. In fact, the fourth report follows hard on the heels of the third one, presented to the ministry just three months ago in December. This is a pity, for while no one understates the importance of farming to this country’s economy, the sector badly needs to take informed policy debate to a higher level. In December, the NCF, headed by M.S. Swaminathan, talked about the need to set up an Indian Trade Organisation specialising in WTO affairs, which would act as a “friend and guide” to farmers, particularly the smaller ones, besides tackling relevant trade and subsidy issues. The year 2006-2007, starting from Baisakhi, was supposed to be for an “Agricultural Renewal Movement”. Not much has been heard about that since. The fourth report has now proffered a Draft Mission Statement for farmers. The mission statement’s goals of ending farmers’ suicides and completing the “unfinished agenda” of land and aquarian reforms are indeed welcome, but in the absence of a roadmap and concerted effort, little can be achieved. Commissions do seem to have an obsession with setting up new institutions and this may be coming in the way of goal-oriented implementation. The fourth report, for example, talks about the need for a “Livestock Feed and Fodder Corporation,” a “National Agriculture Bio-security System.” A single spearhead organisation may indeed help, as will the articulation of a clear policy. For a start, the agriculture ministry would do well to generate a debate on the Draft Mission Statement. And both the NCF and the ministry need to favour setting up flexible networks rather than hierarchical institutional structures, which will give the farmer the support he needs, when he needs it.
|
|
A house is not a home unless it contains food and fire for the mind as well as the body. — Benjamin Franklin
|
Nuclear deal According to the US establishment, the geostrategic benefits of the nuclear deal with India (which is likely to sail through Congress) outweigh any risks of proliferation. The antagonists of the deal call this a bold gamble. The underpinnings of a strategic partnership between India and the US have always been there — you only have to recall history and the less-known military engagement between the two sides when all else had ceased. Even the Framework Agreement on Defence preceded the nuclear energy deal in Washington last year. Imperceptibly, defence cooperation has been the spur to an evolving strategic relationship. The 1998 nuclear tests were ironically the one single event that turned relations around, while at the same time slapping hurting sanctions on India. Soon after Pokharan I and the Emergency in India, this writer was at Fort Leavenworth (US) where officers of the two elite 101 and 82 US Airborne Divisions were in the majority. They would wonder why our countries — the world’s two biggest democracies and speaking the same language — were politically so far apart. Relations were excellent till 1962 when after the Chinese drubbing, US military helped transform the Indian Army. USS Enterprise had entered the Bay of Bengal but only after the Chinese unilateral withdrawal. President Kennedy even considered use of nuclear weapons to deter a second Chinese attack. Cold War saw both countries make their fateful choices and go estranged. The sanctions regime which hurt India badly began during the 1965 India-Pakistan war, went on and off till Pokharan II when all contact except defence exchange ceased. There were times when American lawmakers had to reconcile India’s need for $ 150 million in aircraft while it was also receiving $ 190 million in food aid. Enterprising defence initiatives like the 1984 MoU on technology transfer, 1987 Lindstrom report, 1991 Kickleighter proposals and 1995 agreed minute on defence, driven entirely by the US, kept military relations alive but without any strategic architecture. US had always recognised Indian military expertise both at the high and low end of conflict especially its excellence in high-altitude warfare, peacekeeping and counterinsurgency. While US military was keen on interoperability, India coveted US high technology and advanced weaponry. Unfortunately, the history of mistrust and suspicion is deep-rooted. Not long ago, Indian Navy Westland — Sea King helicopters bought from the UK with US parts had to be cannibalised due to sanctions. Fortuitously, the evacuation of a US officer from USS Hewitt in the Indian Ocean for emergency medical treatment by an Indian Sea King helicopter led to lifting of sanctions on Sea King spare parts. In the AJT Hawk contract with the UK signed in 2004, India incorporated a clause that there would be no US parts. US clearance for classified briefings to Indian officials on the advanced Patriot missile system took three years and only after India had signed the general security of military information agreement. US officials, including Ambassador David Mulford, have given assurances on future defence supplies and spares. As late as September last year, Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee, commenting on the defence agreement he signed with his counterpart in the US, Donald Rumsfeld, emphasised that it was aimed at securing high technology and ensuring diversification of military inventory. He downplayed its strategic content but events have moved surprisingly rapidly and beyond anyone’s expectations. US defence companies are eyeing the annual $ 2 billion Indian arms market with strong competitors like Russia, Israel, South Africa and France. Lt-Gen Jeffery Kohler of the Defence Security Cooperation Agency has visited Delhi four times in the last 10 months with a vast range of US equipment on offer. For the last 40 years, Indian armed forces have relied singularly on Soviet/Russian/Eastern origin military hardware. A strategic equation has always existed in this partnership. The equipment-intensive Navy and Air Force rely almost 80 per cent on their ships and aircraft, spares and life-cycle support. So does the Army for its tanks, artillery and air defence. In the past India also enjoyed the luxury of counter-trade for buying medium-tech, rugged and moderately priced eastern equipment. All that could be changing. The equipment transition and product support from eastern to western will not be easy and will require a long-term transition and phasing out plan. This will be a nightmare for defence planners who have not even known a long-term perspective and acquisition plan but had to make do with the annual plan. The Israelis who had hit a goldmine in Indian defence market over the last decade and had proved their strategic bonafides during Kargil fear they will be displaced by the US. Not to mention India’s original strategic ally, Russia, which has already sent 60 tonnes of nuclear fuel for Tarapur is reconsidering leasing a nuclear-powered submarine (not the old Akula II but the new Amur) and helping in the Navy’s indigenous Advanced Technology Vessel programme, pseudonym for the nuclear-powered submarine, the platform for the country’s ultimate nuclear deterrent. In the meantime India is going ahead placing nuclear weapons on conventional submarines. Until recently, there were serious misgivings about any India-US defence partnership taking off without an overarching strategic architecture. The mistrust of the Cold War, US reputation as a fickle strategic partner, its short attention span, bias for Pakistan and an unreliable supplier during crises were among the many Indian complaints. In March 1999, at an international symposium on peacekeeping held in Delhi, Army Chief, Gen VP Malik criticised the US for its unilateralism and upset senior US Generals present. After 9/11 with India’s carte blanche support on terrorism and missile defence, Indian naval ships escorting US vessels through Malacca Straits and intensified service-to-service training exercises, the strategic outlook brightened. US reluctance to side with India during the India-Pakistan military confrontation of 2001-02, India’s rejection of troops for Iraq but IAEA vote against Iran are recent events driven by each other’s national interest. Despite this mixed record, military engagement has always been the cornerstone of the strategic matrix. This month alone, the US has done more to promote the cause of India as a responsible global player than at any time in the past. Whether it was the President’s India Civilian Nuclear Bill in Congress or the National Strategy Document 2006, India was up for high praise. The strategy document noted: “India now is poised to shoulder global obligations in cooperation with the US in a way befitting a major power”. In one month and one landmark nuclear agreement the US is seeking to change the world order. The India-US strategic partnership is not a case of either-you-are-with-us-or not-with-us scenario. It is a 21st century architecture based on accommodating each other’s enlightened self-interest. The challenge will be in managing this relationship. Military engagement will be the
catalyst.
|
Long live the government! There was a time when news reports and political analyses about a government’s performance were published on completion of one year in office. Gradually, this period came down to 100 days. Now it has shrunk further to just one month, as in the case of Karnataka Chief Minister H.D. Kumaraswamy. If this speeding up continues, we may soon get to read a news analysis in newspapers along the following lines: The state government reached a landmark today when, proving all detractors wrong, it completed one day in office. In these 24 hours, the Chief Minister has emerged much stronger. He had started off with a 32-party coalition, which has now swelled to 39, with the arrival of 12 parties and the departure of five. Today he holds all levers of power. His wife is Deputy Chief Minister. One son is Speaker, six sons are Ministers without Portfolio and nine daughters are
OSDs. Five of his brothers-in-law have been posted as Deputy Commissioners and nine sons-in-law are now district police chiefs following out-of-turn promotions. It is rather early to make a comprehensive assessment of his performance, but the decisions taken by him in these 24 hours stand testimony to his political astuteness. The very first order he passed was to declare that the posts of Chief Parliamentary Secretary and Parliamentary Secretary were not “offices of profit”. Not only that, he also ordained that Associate Parliamentary Secretaries, Deputy Parliamentary Secretaries, Assistant Parliamentary Secretaries and Sub Parliamentary Secretaries that his government was going to appoint — with pay and perks equivalent to that of a minister — too would be exempted. Board and corporation chairmen already stand excluded. To cast his legacy in stone, the Chief Minister laid the foundation stone of 23 projects on his first day in office and re-inaugurated 35 schemes completed by the previous regime . He also unveiled statues of his mother in 27 parks all over the state. In official Press notes, she has been described as an outstanding visionary, who had the foresight to give birth to a great leader like him. By a significant order, he released about 200 lifers and 1,400 other hardened criminals from jails. Since most of them are bound to join politics, he has developed a good support base for himself. His decision to increase reservations in all institutions to 99.99 per cent will also stand him in good stead. As no political party can afford to oppose reservation, the Bill is expected to have an easy passage, despite the hue and cry by the public. In a highly popular move cheered by the student wing of his party, who are the voters of the future, he has allowed copying in all exams. To silence criticism for sending his children to expensive boarding schools, he has abolished teaching of “elitist” subjects like English, maths and computers from all government and private schools in the state. Political pundits are of the view that due to such bold initiatives, it will be no surprise if the Chief Minister continues to be in the saddle for full one
month.
|
Mac’s Window of opportunity Those inside the castle thought they had a secure environment in which their creativity would flourish. Macintosh computers were definitely for the right-brainers, the creative types. The left-brained, more mundane multitudes, had the IBM-compatible, Windows OS–run machines. As we all know, creative, brainy kinds are rare; no wonder Mac has only 4-5 per cent of the share in the personal computer market. It has always been more expensive, but with that came elegance, and a special clubby feeling. This has been a period of flux for Mac users, not the Heraclitian version that you can’t step into the same river twice, but the Osho reinterpretation that you can’t even step into the same river once, because the river and you are both changing constantly. First, Steve Jobs announced in January that Mac computers henceforth would be Intel-based. Till now all Macs used Motorola chips and Intel and Windows were so closely knit together that the alliance was called Wintel. Intel and Apple engineers have worked overtime to rewrite software codes that made this switchover possible and the results have been great—tailor-made software runs far better on the new Macs. As for the old software, it runs just as fast as it did before the changeover. No doubt, in time, popular desktop publishing software, which helped the Mac consolidate its position as a graphics computer and the frontrunner in the desktop publishing market, will be reworked to run on the new Macs. Soon after this announcement in January, there were unofficial ways to work Windows on Macs. Recognising this inevitability, Apple has now released the Boot Camp software that can be freely downloaded. With Boot Camp, a part of the Apple hard-drive is converted into a Windows-compatible area, enabling it to run the operating system and various applications designed for it. Apple has made it clear that it will not support Windows and you have to buy your own software. Windows on a Mac? Many Mac-users would agree with Newsweek columnist Steven Levy that “It’s like Pepsi in a Coke bottle.” However, once the shock wears off, you realise that the taste might tickle the pallet differently. All said and done, the ingredients are not really that diverse, just put together differently. The not-so-smooth flavour of Windows, here the prejudice of this writer is showing unabashedly, is offset by thousands of applications that run only on Windows, which will now also be accessible to someone who is using the new Macs. This is a tremendous advantage, but it comes with some unwelcome baggage. The hitherto secure Macs will be open to virus attacks that plague Windows-run machines. Till now Mac users have been secure in their knowledge that there are less than a dozen viruses for Macs, but now their computers will be more vulnerable. How to combat this problem and its threat perception are topics much debated on the Internet these days. Now that Apple computers can run on two operating systems, why not three? OS X is based on BSD, which is an off-shoot of Linux. Some Linux editions that work on Power PC Macs are already available, and in fact, most Linux variants that have been made for Intel machines can be tweaked to work on Macs now. While this would make Mac a unique machine, capable of working with three operating systems, how this would empower users and be attractive to them remains to be seen. After all, computers are just not tools. Apple hit at the utilitarian perception of computers with its famous 1984 advertisement that showed a grey network of futuristic tubes connecting blank, ominous buildings. Inside the tubes were cowed subjects, except a young woman who hurled a hammer and shattered the TV image that showed a “Big Brother” addressing his subjects. A voice-over announced: “On January 24th, Apple Computer will introduce the Macintosh. And you’ll see why 1984 won’t be like ‘1984’.” The way computers have been perceived has also changed. In the 1970, they were seen as tools designed for particular tasks. Within a decade they had been morphed into cool consumer products with which the aspirations and hopes of the consumers were tied up. A computer was something that empowered the individual, allowed a person to assert his identity, much as the Internet would do so, later. Apple has always been good at identifying a vision of the future, but it lost out by not being open enough with its software. The new window into the Macintosh hardware could well turn to be a trapdoor that lures Windows users into a better environment. At least, that’s what Apple is betting on. As for customers, we love choices, and for us it is not a “Pepsi in a Coke bottle” situation, but more like the Daimler-Chrysler one, in which top marques and hitherto rivals become one, to take advantage of each other’s strengths.
|
|
Who has the right to the child? The world is a far smaller place now than it was a decade ago. International and intercontinental travel is easier and more affordable than it has ever been. As a natural corollary, there has been a rise in relationships leading to marriage between individuals of different nationalities and from different cultural backgrounds. International mobility, cross border migration and dismantling of inter cultural taboos are positive trends but are fraught with a new set of risks for children. Following a broken relationship, disputes over custody and relocation, problems of maintaining access or contact internationally, the uphill struggle of securing cross frontier child support, and the dangers of being “abducted” by a rival parent, loom large over them. Such problems have no readymade solutions in the conventional legislations prevailing within the legal system in India. In a recent decision dated March 3, 2006 of the High Court of Bombay at Goa on a dispute between a 62 year old American father and a 39 year old British mother resident in Ireland, who were litigating over the custody of their 8 year old minor daughter said to be illegally detained in Goa by the father, the Court, declining the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, held that the parties could pursue their remedies in normal civil proceedings in Goa. The Court, dismissing the mother’s plea for custody, concluded that the question of permitting the child to be taken to Ireland without first adjudicating upon the rival contentions of the parents in normal civil proceedings in Goa is not possible and directed that status quo be observed. This in effect means that the 8 year old minor girl continues to live in Goa without her mother or any other female family member in the father’s house. With increasing cross border migration, the Indian jurisdiction over the years has witnessed a large number of hotly contested illegal detention petitions filed in High Courts all over India both by foreigners and non resident Indian parents alleging inter-parental child removal from foreign jurisdictions. Till a few years ago, as per the law settled by the Supreme Court of India, foreign children born to one or both parents of Indian origin were normally returned to the country of their nationality and residence before removal. However, recent judgments have shown that the Indian Courts now consider a foreign Court order as only one of the factors in deciding inter-parental child custody disputes and adjudicate upon the matter afresh on the principle of considering the best interest of the child as of paramount importance. But then, can the best interests of a foreign child born to foreign or non resident Indian parents be best decided on local parameters and as per local conditions by an Indian Court in an Indian jurisdiction? The Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction came into force on December 1, 1983 and has now 75 contracting nations to it. The Convention secures the prompt return of children wrongfully removed to or retained in any Contracting State and ensures the rights of custody and access under the laws of such Contracting States. India unfortunately, is not a signatory to the Hague Convention and from practical experience it can be stated that the principles laid down in the Convention are not applicable in India. The above situation promotes and encourages child removal to India by an offending parent and deprives the child’s custody rights to be determined by the laws of the country where the child was normally resident. Child custody litigation in India gets converted into a fight about which of the parents’ have a superior right to the child, and the real issue of the welfare of the child becomes subordinate to it. Practical experience also shows that foreign courts now largely disallow children from overseas jurisdictions to be brought to India apprehending that children will not be returned to the country of their residence. It can be seen that in the absence of any Indian legislation on the subject, there is no uniform pattern of decisions to resolve issues of custody and contact which arise when parents are separated and live in different countries. The recent decision quoted above and another child custody dispute in the Supreme Court of India where a US Court declined the return of children to India despite the Supreme Court’s directions, shows that a time has now come for some international perspective in this regard. In January 2005, the British government appointed Lord Justice Thorpe as Head of International Family Law in the UK judicial system for promoting development of international instruments and conventions in the field of family law, with greater International judicial collaboration. Pakistan has signed a judicial protocol between the President of the Family Division of the High Court of London and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Pakistan for cooperation between judicial authorities of the two countries on such issues. The Hague Conference guides are a wealth of information on the subject. India has neither adapted to the same nor signed the convention. Though the jurisdiction of the High Court as an exclusive remedy for release from illegal detention in a writ of habeas corpus is not barred, but for a litigating parent from a foreign jurisdiction to convince the Indian Court to exercise such option is an uphill task. In the larger interest of children at risk, the conflict of jurisdiction of Courts must take a back seat. It is therefore, the need of the hour that the Indian legislature may consider enacting some legislation to protect the rights of the abducted child to resolve the clash between the rule of domicile and the nationality rule. May be, till this is done, the Supreme Court of India could well lay down some uniform guidelines to be consistently followed in inter-parental child abduction from foreign jurisdictions. India cannot be promoted as a haven for parking “removed” children. |
|
From the pages of The Vicious circle
While the Secretary of State successfully resisted the temptation of making a reference to the Congress decision to start civil disobedience if and when the conditions laid down by Mahatma Gandhi were satisfied, Sir Hugh O’ Neill did yield to that temptation. “If civil disobedience were resorted to,” he said, “the Government would be bound to take full measures to counteract it. Ordered government must be carried on, especially in time of war, and I cannot but believed that the Congress leaders themselves must recognise this to the full.” If Sir Hugh O’ Neill really believes what he says, why did he think it necessary to emphasise the obvious? In truth the remark was wholly uncalled for. Civil disobedience has no meaning unless those who resort to it know that they are incurring a civil liability by doing so and have no desire to evade that liability. But if civil disobedience, as we firmly maintain, does not by itself constitute a remedy for the present situation, no more will repression show the way out of it. All history testifies to the truth that the two move in a vicious circle, each strengthening and being strengthened by the other. For an appropriate remedy we must look beyond the circle.
|
The good worker uses his tools in the best way to do his work. Only then can a carpenter make a lovely piece of furniture or a well-maker dig a deep well where others may quench their thirst. The wise man uses his mind to fashion his way to knowledge and guide others. — The Buddha Peaceful is no doubt, a blessing for humanity and must be valued for the great good, wish proceeds from it. — Islam He permeates all things both within and without. — Guru Nanak A devotee who can call on God while living a householder’s life is a hero indeed. — Ramakrishna
|
| 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 | |
IT is a window into a forbidden castle. Apple Computer has released Boot Camp, a software programme that will allow Apple Macintosh computers to run the Windows XP operating system and associated programs. For decades, Macintosh computers were castles with wide moats and drawbridges drawn up—they existed to the exclusion of the world around them.