 |
|
Gandhi to Osama Deal can’t be
reprocessed |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Outrage at
Faridabad Trains are not for stoning Facilities for passengers at railway stations are not what they ought to be. Trains also have this habit of being late many a time. Yet, the method of protesting against these shortcomings which the Faridabad commuters chose on Friday last was reprehensible. They not only waylaid a Rajdhani Express but also indulged in stone-throwing at it, injuring many.
No to domicile
Maths of ICS topper
Dateline
Washington September
11 Chatterati
|
|
Deal can’t be reprocessed Atomic
Energy Commission Chairman Anil Kakodar has made it clear that India must be allowed to reprocess spent fuel from nuclear reactors, in an interview to The Hindu. The message is essentially meant for the US. Spent fuel refers to the uranium fuel that has been used once in a power reactor. The draft legislation in circulation in the US Congress attempts to restrict reprocessing of spent fuel by India and block access to reprocessing technologies under the agreement. Mr Kakodkar has stressed that a situation where spent fuel must simply be allowed to accumulate without proper disposal is unacceptable to India. Reprocessing has always been contentious. Since reprocessing of spent fuel produces
plutonium, which is bomb material, the non-proliferation lobby in the West is strongly against it. For India, however, it is very much a part of its three-stage nuclear programme. While India has meagre uranium reserves, a key fact which makes a nuclear cooperation deal with the US timely and necessary, it has large thorium reserves. Plutonium can be used in fast breeder reactors to breed a uranium isotope from thorium, which can then be used in advanced heavy water reactors (AHWR). Construction for a 500-MWe prototype fast breeder reactor has already begun at Kalpakkam, and a 300-MWe AHWR is in the final design stage. This was also the reason why India wanted its indigenous fast breeders out of the ambit of safeguards. Dr Manmohan Singh, in his address to the Rajya Sabha, has also made it clear that India expects “full” civilian nuclear cooperation, including on reprocessing. He also added that our strategic programme and “the integrity of our three-stage nuclear programme will not be affected.” Opponents of the deal in the US say that even a supportive Bush administration may not agree for access to reprocessing technologies. But given the separation plan and the safeguards agreements, it does not make sense for the US to block reprocessing. The question of “safeguards first” or “lifting of restrictions first” need not be as contentious as it is sometimes made out to be. A way to move together on that can always be found once trust has been established. |
|
Outrage at Faridabad Facilities
for passengers at railway stations are not what they ought to be. Trains also have this habit of being late many a time. Yet, the method of protesting against these shortcomings which the Faridabad commuters chose on Friday last was reprehensible. They not only waylaid a Rajdhani Express but also indulged in stone-throwing at it, injuring many. Worse, the scare that they caused among the passengers was nightmarish. The irate commuters of a passenger train thus not only targeted fellow-travellers whose only fault was that they happened to be on another train, but also damaged public property which is built out of the money paid as tax by men like them. The violent means did not hasten trains in any way; on the contrary, these delayed even other trains. There is a bigger dimension to the condemnable mode that they chose to vent their anger. The authorities will now be forced to provide security at various railway stations just to ensure that the waiting passengers elsewhere do not emulate their Faridabad counterparts. Obviously, such a large number of security personnel can be posted at railway stations only at the cost of other buildings and installations. That will mean that vigilance against the terrorists, who are hyperactive all over the country, may get compromised. While the guilty must be punished, one hopes that the dangers inherent in their ill-advised violence would have dawned on the protesters themselves and they will desist from repeating it. At the same time, the railway authorities too must take punctuality as a creed. They must realise that thousands of persons travel to work on local trains to big cities like Delhi. If a train is late, all of them will be reaching their offices or places of work
late, causing widespread disruption. Delay because of unavoidable reasons once in a while can be understandable. But if trains run late almost every day, there is bound to be resentment. When the government talks of decongesting metros by developing towns nearby as counter-magnets, it must ensure that suburban trains are run on time. |
|
Writing, when properly managed (as you may be sure I think mine is) is but a different name for
conversation.
— Laurence Sterne |
No to domicile
The
Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has rightly upheld Parliament’s right to amend the Representation of People Act and dispense with the domicile requirement for candidates contesting Rajya Sabha elections. The judgement holds immense significance for the federal polity because the Bench has not only settled the law once and for all but also dispelled doubts among various sections about the Rajya Sabha’s structural composition vis-à-vis the Lok Sabha and Parliament’s power to amend the existing provisions. Significantly, it was a high profile case. The fate of over 50 MPs depended on its outcome. The main petitioner, Mr Kuldip Nayar, is a veteran journalist. Counsels, Mr Fali S. Nariman and Justice Rajindar Sachar (retired), are reputed jurists. They have a high public standing and are respected for their knowledge and deep understanding of the constitutional law. Equally talented are Solicitor-General G.E. Vahanvati, representing the Union of India, and senior advocates Ram Jethmalani and Arun Jaitley. A careful reading of the 317-page judgement convinced this writer of why the Bench has rejected the learned petitioners’ submissions for quashing the amendment as ultra vires the Constitution. There is no doubt that Parliament is vested with the power to amend the law relating to elections as and when necessary. The five-member Bench consisting of Chief Justice Y.K. Sabharwal, Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, Justice S.H. Kapadia, Justice C.K. Thakker and Justice P.K. Balasubrahmanyan unanimously held this view. The grounds on which the amendment was opposed were many. These were, among other things, the issue of “strict federalism”; domicile as a constitutional requirement for contesting the Rajya Sabha elections; the Upper House as a champion of the states’ interests; the linkage between Articles 79 and 80 in the present constitutional scheme; the basic structure of the Constitution; the candidate’s representative character before being elected to the Rajya Sabha; the territorial link between the voter and the candidate; and the very meaning of the nomenclature, the Council of States. The Bench closely examined the points of law involved in the question. Some of the reasons that had a bearing on the judgement need to be elucidated for proper understanding of the case. According to the Bench, unlike in the US, in India, domicile or residence is not considered a constitutional requirement under Clause (4) of Article 80. As it is a matter of qualification, it comes under Article 84 which enables Parliament to prescribe qualifications for candidates from time to time. This is borne out of parliamentary history. For instance, the Fourth Schedule (adopted by the Constituent Assembly on July 28, 1947) that dealt with Parliament’s composition clearly mentioned that apart from citizenship and qualifications, Parliament could prescribe any other qualification “as may be appropriate”. More important, Paragraph 6 of Part I of the Fourth Schedule appended to the first draft of the Constitution provided for the qualification of residence in a state for candidates contesting for the Rajya Sabha. Clause 60 of the first draft Constitution stated that all matters relating to or connected with elections to either House of the federal Parliament shall be regulated by the Fourth Schedule, unless otherwise provided by the Act of the federal Parliament. However, on February 11, 1948, the Drafting Committee dropped the Fourth Schedule. And with this deletion, the domicile requirement was also dispensed with. It would be difficult for one to endorse Justice Sachar’s submission that the amendment violated the basic structure of the Constitution. Residence is not an essential feature of all federal constitutions. It becomes an explicit constitutional requirement “only if it is so expressly stated” in the Constitution. In this context, the Bench referred to the Irish and Japanese constitutions and said that India does not have “strict federalism”, a point referred to by Mr Nariman in his submission. If a Rajya Sabha member does not “ordinarily reside” in the state from which he/she is elected, the Indian Constitution does not cease to be a federal Constitution. “Residence is not a prerequisite of federalism”, it said. Mr Nariman’s reference to the “territorial link” between the Rajya Sabha member and his position as a “registered elector” in any panchayat or municipal area in that state is noteworthy. He emphasised that this is an important part of the constitutional scheme and that the structural composition of the Council of States will be at stake if this link was snapped through the amendment. The Bench, however, found this point “devoid of merit” for various reasons. Four of these merit attention. One, the territorial link applies equally to the members of the Lok Sabha and state legislatures, not just the Rajya Sabha. Two, the purpose of this linkage is to equip the members (of all representative institutions) with knowledge about local problems and to strengthen democracy. Three, the enabling provisions depend on the provisions enacted by the respective legislatures from time to time for each state. If a Rajya Sabha member is registered as an elector within a panchayat or municipal area, there can also be another member of the same House not so registered as an elector within a panchayat or municipal area. And four, there is no explicit constitutional provision prescribing the requirement of residence to the qualification for membership. One reason that prompted Parliament to dispense with the domicile clause is the manner in which candidates contesting for the elections to the Upper House have been submitting false declarations of residential proof “brazenly and with impunity”. The Bench was shocked to take note of these aberrations. However, it maintained that it was not concerned with the political compulsions of the issue. If Parliament had decided to bury the domicile clause, it could not be quashed in the absence of any law or provision prescribing the domicile requirement as an essential qualification for the Rajya Sabha membership. The Bench is right that burying the domicile clause is not the be-all and end-all of the problem. Parliament has an obligation to precisely define the expression “ordinarily resident” as this is essential for the registration of a person as an elector in a particular constituency. It would be in the fitness of things if the Union Government and Parliament explored the possibility of defining the expression “ordinarily resident” properly and comprehensively under the relevant provisions of the law. This will leave no scope for any ambiguity or confusion in the law and help contribute to the growth and enrichment of the world’s largest
democracy.
|
Maths of ICS topper The
year was 1914. Madras University had announced the matriculation results. Kumar Padmanabha Sankara, a 16-year-old youth from Ottapalam in Palakkad district of present-day Kerala, was not at all shocked to see his score. He had failed in maths. His marks in other subjects were prodigiously high. The teenager from Ottapalam had to appear before the university authorities for a final decision about his result. He wrote to the then Chancellor of Madras University, who was also the Governor of Madras Presidency, Lord Petland. Lord Petland met the teenager and magnanimously gave him grace marks. Thus the young Sankara passed his matriculation. After his graduation from Madras he did his Masters from the University of Oxford and then stood first in the 1921 batch of the I.C.S. He thus became the only Indian topper of the heaven-born service of the British period. Incidentally, the famous freedom fighter Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose who was Congress president in 1938 and 1939 had stood fourth in the batch of 1921. He reported at Hailbrey for training but later resigned. Kumar Padmanabha Sankara remained there and passed out. He served in various positions during British rule, including Administrator of Baluchistan in 1938-1940 with headquarters at Fort Sandeman. He became independent India’s first Foreign Secretary from 1947 to 1952 and later Indian Ambassador to the Soviet Union. Kumar Padmanabha Sankara Menon known as KPS Menon had married Saraswati Amma (Anuji), the daughter of Sir Chettur Sankaran Nair, who was second Indian after Lord Sinha to become a member of Viceroy’s executive council from 1914 to 1919 and had resigned because of the Jallianwala Bagh incident. Viceroy’s Executive Council had six civilian members at that time for whole of India. KPS Menon had six children and one of his sons KPS Menon (Junior) joined the IFS in 1950 and became India’s Foreign Secretary in 1987. One of his daughters Malathy married a bureaucrat of the 1947 batch (Mr KP Menon) who was India’s Ambassador in Hungary but died in service. His son Shiv Shanker Menon joined the I.F.S. in 1972 and is going to be India’s Foreign Secretary. He is married to another 1947 batch officer Ram Datatrey Sathe’s daughter, who was India’s Foreign Secretary in 1979-80. One sometimes shudders to think that had Lord Petland not been kind to the young man from Ottapalam and had not passed him in his maths paper; how would India have got such
diplomats? |
Dateline Washington On
the morning of September 11, 2001, as hijackers crashed airplanes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania, few would have guessed the dramatic repercussions of these actions on West Asia. In the five years since the attacks, President George W. Bush’s ‘Middle East policy’ has transformed from one of indifference to a frenzied drive to reform and democratise the region. For decades, U.S. policy in West Asia has been governed by America’s dependence on oil. Successive American administrations have been eager to prop up regimes – some far from the democratic models Washington now desires – to ensure an uninterrupted supply of this resource. But this strategy backfired. In a speech in August, Mr Bush admitted an American policy aimed at achieving peace through stability had resulted in a lack of freedom in West Asia. “We saw the consequences on September the 11th, 2001, when terrorists brought death and destruction to our country, killing nearly 3,000 of our citizens,” he said. September 11 has become a catchphrase for the Bush administration, defining its actions on the world stage. Mr Bush came to the White House with what some analysts describe as a “detached Middle East policy.” This disengagement, they believe, was in part to blame for the spiraling crisis in the region. Marina Ottaway at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington contends violence there tends to flare up when peace negotiations stop. “The historical record is clear. So there is a relationship between the disengagement of the Bush administration and the present crises,” she said. “Mr Bush has neither the knowledge, nor the willingness to acquire it, which is needed to become actively involved in finding a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict,” Ms Ottaway said. Mr Bush’s initial indifference to the Middle East still rankles many in Washington. But not everyone believes the president dropped the ball when he came to office in 2001. Tamara Wittes, director of the Arab Democracy and Development Project at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, points out that West Asia was a region that had occupied a huge part of President George W. Bush’s attention in office, “and Bush’s own experience in the energy business sensitized him to the importance of the region.” It was Mr Bush’s ambitious domestic agenda, Ms Wittes said that motivated him, and he wanted to differentiate his presidency from the two post-Cold-War presidencies that preceded it by focusing on domestic issues. September 11 changed that fundamentally and permanently. “The present problems did not arise wholesale on September 11th, or on the day the U.S. invaded Iraq, however, they existed before and we should not ignore that. But there is no question that the events of 9/11 and the Bush Administration’s response to those events exacerbated this problematic trend,” Ms Wittes said. The Bush Administration failed to recognize that danger and continued to deal with the issue only at a minimum level. Meanwhile, the Bush administration’s ‘Middle East Initiative’, intended to spread reform in the region and sow the seeds of democracy, has met with varying degrees of success. Dr Louay Bahry at the Middle East Institute in Washington believes it will be a long time before West Asia has the kind of democracy that exists in the U.S. “It’s not that democracy is needed - but we have to encourage the foundations of democracy,” he said. There are steps that are achievable, he says. Giving more freedoms to people, providing services and ensuring human rights and education for all are just some of these. “I think the Bush Administration means well – they want to encourage the establishment of structures of democratic institutions in the country, but they have to realize that this will take time,” said Dr. Bahry. Ms Wittes doesn’t believe that Mr. Bush’s goal of advancing regional democracy is one that even he expects to be realized during his own term in office. The relevant question, she contends, is whether the changes Mr. Bush has made in U.S. policy toward the region have laid a sufficient foundation to promote democratic change in the longer term. “Has American aid policy been sufficiently changed to ensure that we are not giving succour to dictators or rights abusers, that we are supporting democratic change? Has America’s diplomatic dialogue with regional leaders changed enough to persuade them of our seriousness in this endeavor, and to induce them to begin planning for a democratic future? In other words, is there some real policy change behind this very bold American rhetoric? I think the answer is: there has been some progress, but not enough, not yet,” she said. Dr N. Janardhan, a political analyst at the Gulf Research Center in Dubai, believes democratizing the region is not unrealistic. “To be fair, 9/11 helped, but when democracy takes shape in the future, it will not be because of the U.S., but despite the U.S.,” he said. This is a view echoed in Washington by Ms Ottaway. There is a lot of domestic tension in West Asia, civil society is becoming more active, people are striving to form political parties of all types when possible, she said, adding, “The outcome of these activities, not Bush’s policy, will determine the political future of the Middle East.” |
|
September 11 Since
Sept. 11 ...” The phrase has been uttered countless times during the last five years. Since Sept. 11, airport passengers slip off their shoes without a second thought. A war rages; casualties mount. This much is indisputable. But with the passing of each anniversary, so much else has been hung on that phrase. Since Sept. 11, the stories have gone, Americans have been buying up real estate, swathing themselves in cashmere and furnishing their homes with luxuries. The US indulged in comfort foods like never before, visited psychologists and ingested anti-anxiety pills in new numbers. Can it be a coincidence that each of these hypothesised social trends is tied to spending? Is this the marketing of September 11? “9/11 is a very powerful marketing tool,” says branding expert Rob Frankel. “It’s a touchstone to get closer to the buying public – everyone connects to it on an emotional level. Mention 9/11, and I’m that much closer to making a sale.” One would think some things, a national tragedy of this scale, are left sacred. “As long as people can make money off on T-shirts and shot glasses and movies – no, nothing is sacred,” Frankel says. Recall the vendors who swiftly set up shop near ground zero, peddling postcards, pictures and T-shirts – anything bearing an image of the World Trade Center towers. Vultures, B.L. Ochman calls them. She lived three blocks from the towers and was in the street when the first plane struck. She saw the people jumping. She doesn’t need a souvenir to remember. “It’s ghoulish. It’s disgusting that someone would try to make money off of that,” says Ochman, a strategist who blogs on Internet marketing trends at whatsnext.com. Even in subtle nods to the attacks, “Our emotions have been played on.” Whether it’s a company’s trumpeting its Sept. 11 fundraising efforts in its advertising campaign or a product newly packaged in stars and stripes, Ochman says, “No amount of connection is the right amount of connection.” Now, at the five-year mark, a wave of commemorative plates and coins is washing up on the nation. For $29.95, collectors can buy a new coin featuring a standing imprint of the towers, said to be made of silver recovered from ground zero. Five dollars from each order is said to be donated to “official 9/11 family charities and memorials.” After the attacks, Dana Heller, author and director of humanities at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Va., was troubled to see the speed with which the event was packaged by American popular culture. She explored the phenomenon in a book of essays, “The Selling of 9/11: How a National Tragedy Became a Commodity.” The selling of items on eBay, the president’s urging Americans to spend, the logos on cable news networks, the beer commercials that referenced patriotism – “9/11 became part of our consumer culture ... and on the one hand, I found that difficult and disturbing,” says Heller. “On the other hand, I saw it as part of a long tradition in our history ... as a genuine process of grieving.” Marketing, consumption and popular culture, she came to realize, “is how we as Americans make sense of things, how we construct meaning and narrative. And we have to see it as a legitimate, unique strategy in our history, something that defines us as a people and our distinctive national character.” By arrangement with LA-Times–Washington Post |
|
Chatterati At the recent fashion week in the Capital, chaos reigned as usual. Undoubtedly, the king of fashion is still Rohit Bal. The Indian fashion industry somehow has not been able to cater to international standards. Western buyers were hardly spotted. Whether this is due to the finishing or an un-professional approach is the question. Can we not sell our rich heritage of woven fabrics, intricate embroidery and flowing designs? It is another matter that international designers like Armani and Versace have hijacked our bandgalas and ladies kurtis and are a sell-out abroad. Well, so what if the fashion week may not get the business. It is a time for fun, partying, smooching, mingling and networking. The ever green Farooq Abdullah attended a couple of shows and Robert Vadra has been faithfully visiting his dear friend Ashish Soni for many years now. Well, this time, accompanying him at the party after the show, was the prince Rahul Gandhi himself. There were enough “botoxed” and stretched new faces in the front lines of the show but the regular page 3 faces of Delhi society were some how missing. Have they matured or has the fashion week becoming boring? Stately achievement The annual survey conducted by the India Today group on the performance of the states gives us an insight into the progress of the states and the ground realities. Must say hats off to the two Maharajas, Amarinder and Virbhadra Singh. They managed to steal the show with each winning five awards in different fields. Even Gulam Nabi Azad managed to pick up an award in a short tenure of six months as Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir. This shows that to get things done you need total commitment to achieving the goals. Delhi, Pondicherry and Goa took home some awards. For some reason Hooda’s Haryana could not make it to any category, despite being portrayed as the state aiming at the mega cities of the future. Shiela Dixit also managed an award despite being inundated with the bijli, pani and demolition problems in Delhi. Back-breaking In a debate on centre-state co-ordination, Mulayam Singh Yadav said the only problem in his life was the centre imposing “back-breaking” problems on him. Clearly inattentive, or English not being his strong point, he misunderstood populism for population and went off on a tangent, drawing a couple of laughs from the audience. He diverted the debate to the plight of the girl child in India. The Congress guys had to say they were happy with the centre’s co-operation. Ahem! Ahem! The lovable President Kalam’s presentation to the Chief Ministers was precise and intuitive as usual. He is undoubtedly the cutest in looks and mannerisms, and is always dignified. |
|
From the pages of
In remembering Jayaprakash Narayan one thinks of him broadly in five main phases. He first came into the focus of national attention as the youthful revolutionary whose energy, dynamism and courage lent to his patriotism an uncommon drive which knew no half-way compromises. The escape from Hazaribagh jail and his underground revolt during the “Quit-India” movement typify the first phase. Then followed a period of uncertainty during which he led, rather fruitlessly, a Socialist Party whose main identity was the colour of the caps its members wore. But a measure of fulfilment came soon after in the third phase in association with Acharya Vinoba Bhave. He became the great instrument for the change that came about in early 1977, bringing down with one irresistible sweep the authoritarian structure that Indira Gandhi and some of her supporters had considered indestructible. Then came the fifty and final phase of Jayaprakash Narayanan’s career, and this was undoubtedly the least rewarding and probably the most depressing chapter of a long and, on the whole, a highly purposeful life. The Janata Party — present and past — has failed Jayaprakash Narayan. There is little doubt that the last year of his life was filled with disappointment, and occasionally much pain, over the performance of political leaders whom he had provided with an opportunity to build a better India.
|
Let us not use bombs and guns to overcome the world. Let us use love and compassion. — Mother Teresa You’re damn right it’s possible. If you’re the only person who can say, “It’s impossible.” — Carlo Menta He who serves Him is honourable. Guru Nanak advises us to sing His praises for our quest for excellence ends with Him. — Guru Nanak Listen to me, my inside—the greatest spirit—the Teacher is near, wake up, wake up! — Kabir Believe it! High expectations are the key to everything. — Eleanor Roosevelt |
| 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 | |
