 |
|
Poverty of Congress Son-struck |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
By all means Keep IAF fighting fit CHIEF of Air Staff Air Chief Marshal S.P. Tyagi’s candid admission that he has been saying “soon” for two years now with regard to forward movement on the acquisition of 126 multi-role combat aircraft (MRCA) for the IAF, belies the brave face the IAF is putting up with regard to dwindling squadron strength.
Indo-US nuclear deal
A torrent of abuse
Musharraf’s plan to
destabilise Afghanistan Latent violence in US culture INSIDE PAKISTAN
|
Poverty of Congress LESS than two decades after promising to lead India to the 21st century, going back to the 1970s — and resurrecting the Garibi Hatao and the 20-point programme — is resounding proof of the Congress party’s poverty of policies. Doubtless, the substitution of Garibi Unmoolan (Poverty Alleviation) with Garibi Hatao (Banish Poverty) is to test the efficacy of the slogan in the state assembly elections in the first half of 2007. But this repetition of history is worse than farce: it is pathetic self-caricature by a party acknowledging that, leave alone ideas, even in the matter of slogans it cannot come up with something new. Old wine, old bottle, old label, inspired by the same old dynasty, where the fourth generation waiting to be politically anointed has to fall back on grandma’s recipe. This seems to be a case where bad politics and bad economics are perfectly matched by the bankruptcy of both ideas and ideology. And this is not even the second or third, but the fourth, time that the 20-point programme has been exhumed. A product of the infamous Emergency, the Indira regime’s plan premised on the Stalinist assumption of people’s preference for bread over liberty, was revived in 1982 by a “government that works”; son Rajiv Gandhi, at the helm of a “government that works better” picked up the discarded prop again in 1986; and now under the leadership of Mrs Sonia Gandhi it is to be brandished as a magic wand for the elections in Uttar Pradesh, the playground for son Rahul Gandhi. Family heirloom is all very well but it is odd when it extends to slogans, that too, as a substitute for policy in governance. Apart from the authoritarian flavour associated with the 20-point programme, the return to these slogans of the past is an admission that the Congress has failed to address — by alleviating or eradicating — poverty with any measure of seriousness during its long and several innings in power. The world has changed much since 1971, and so have politics and economics though poverty remains the biggest issue for India. Yet, the fact that the poor are nothing more than grist for the slogan mill exposes the cynical politics of the Congress party as well as why poverty has not been eradicated. At least, the poor have their uses, as political fodder for electoral battles.
|
|
Son-struck NO
tears are likely to be shed over the resignation of Mr Venod Sharma from the
Haryana Cabinet. Taking him in the ministry despite the involvement of his son
Manu Sharma in the Jessica Lall murder case was in itself not a very sagacious
decision in the first place. His continuance in the exalted post had become all the more untenable following revelations that he had used his influence and money power to the hilt to bail out his son. The party knew that the taint he had acquired was doing it great harm but still remained a silent spectator all this while. Rather, Mr Sharma struck a defiant note two days ago when he sent a legal notice to the news channel which had telecast a programme claiming that three eyewitnesses had
resoled from the testimony given before the police “under threat, coercion and inducement” by Mr Venod Sharma and his family. He will, perhaps, still press on to defend his son but in politics what matters most is the public perception. Far too many skeletons have already tumbled out of the family’s cupboard to convince the man on the street fully that the rich and powerful use means fair and foul to hoodwink the law of the land. Unfortunately, there are far too many Venod Sharmas in the corridors of power who have no business to be there. Everyone laments the criminalisation of politics but no one does anything about it. The real blame lies at the doorsteps of political parties. They deliberately patronise certain undesirable elements, knowing full well their shady past. The winnability factor is considered the sole criterion. That is why a politician is a hated and ridiculed figure today. As the ruling party, the Congress must take the lead in getting rid of such persons. This cleansing operation will not damage its electoral prospects in any way. On the contrary, it may win back the respect of a large section of people sickened by the shocking decline of values. Leaders are supposed to lead by personal example.
|
|
By all means CHIEF of Air Staff Air Chief Marshal S.P. Tyagi’s candid admission that he has been saying “soon” for two years now with regard to forward movement on the acquisition of 126 multi-role combat aircraft (MRCA) for the IAF, belies the brave face the IAF is putting up with regard to dwindling squadron strength. It is a simple fact that there are not enough aircraft coming in to replace the ones that will be phased out over the next few years, unless action is taken now. Interim measures like augmenting the Mirage fleet and advancing the Sukhoi-30 delivery dates on the 140-aircraft HAL order, will certainly help. And sure, the Hawk 100s will start to come in, as will more Jaguars, sundry helicopters, Israeli air defence missiles, and even a few LCAs, for whatever they are worth. But they are not enough. Reports have it that Pakistan will soon have 36 new F-16s with an upgrade programme for the existing 32. “We will take it into account, but it is not a worrisome development,” is all that the Air Chief would say on the issue. Of course, the IAF will jolly well be taking into account even a single rivet that the PAF buys. Apart from the public posture of “a mature understanding” of the government’s problematic acquisition procedures, Tyagi had better, behind the scenes, be doing something about putting them on the fast track. An IAF with an eroding combat potential is the last thing India needs. However complex a document the Request for Proposals (RFPs) is, it should have gone out by now. Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee and the system have clearly been dawdling. Money is indeed a major factor. The 126-strong MRCA deal is huge, in the region of nine billion dollars, and will have the world’s top manufacturers, not to mention sundry wheeler-dealers, drooling. But it will be one of the most important acquisitions that India will undertake and one that will have far-reaching implications for the IAF’s future combat-worthiness. Above all, India must ensure that the deal firmly puts Indian aeronautics in the fifth generation, bringing capabilities on a par with those of frontline countries.
|
|
Turning points announce themselves through a variety of vague symptoms: deep restlessness, a yearning with no name, inexplicable boredom, the feeling of being stuck. — Gloria Karpinski
|
Indo-US nuclear deal
RARELY if ever has India had as impressive a debate as the recent one on the Indo-US “nuclear deal”. Yes, there have been some which were as animated as this, for example on the linguistic re-organisation of states half a century ago, and a little more recently on “reservations” and on relations with Pakistan or China. But they were less erudite, did not demand as firm a grasp of a deeply technical issue, were less vigorously independent of the government’s position, and because of all that they had a much smaller role to play in shaping the national position. In fact, the debate on the “deal” is the best Indian example of a modern polity making up its mind on a far-reaching subject after a highly educated and educative debate among experts as well as lay persons, in the media as well as on the other forums of public opinion which can only be sustained by a mature democracy. The greater, then, is the pity that another great democracy has now relegated this grand debate to the “lame duck” phase of its decision-making process. Up to almost the end of September there was a strong expectation that the deal would be spared the lingering death which might await it in the “lame duck” chamber. The basis of the expectation was that since the deal had been approved by a good majority at a special session of the full House of Representatives, and also by a safe majority in the most relevant committee of the Senate, the full Senate might also give it a nod of at least provisional approval on the last remaining day of its regular session which was still going on then. The process of joint consideration and approval by the two houses could then be taken up after the US Congress returned from its customary recess in October. The deal would thus escape the dim light of the lame duck session which will begin after the recess, and also escape the uncertainties of the congressional elections which will be held after that session. But none of that was to be. The expectation was dashed by the same intra and inter party differences which dash similar expectations in India as well. Of course, there is nothing to prevent the Senate from taking it up during the lame duck session, which will last several weeks. Nor is there anything to prevent the two houses from jointly going through the same processes later which have been laid down for ironing out the differences, if any, between their respective positions. But the political setback already suffered by the deal is not to be underestimated. The decisions of a lame duck session do not have the same political weight and momentum as decisions by a regular session have for overcoming such resistance as those decisions may face in the country at large, and the nuclear deal will certainly face quite a few when it emerges from Congress. There are also deficiencies in such approvals as the full House and the special committee concerned of the Senate have given to the deal so far. Each approval has conditions. These do not bind India to anything at all. But they can certainly tarnish the quality of the approval the American people may give, if they give it at all, to the decisions the outgoing US Congress may take regarding the deal at the urgings of President Bush. The authority of his promptings might also be affected in the meantime by the nature of the vote the American people may cast on the impending Congressional elections. The vote might add further weight to the “conditions”. A matching setback might also be suffered by what seems to have been an underlying and unstated objective of the Bush administration in pushing the deal. Of late America has appeared to be viewing India in two roles. First, and as thought up by Kissinger many years ago, as a foot soldier for protecting American positions in the Asian, African and West Asian regions. And second, and if the foot soldier proved good enough to be promoted in rank, as a counterpoise to countries which America may see as strategically hostile to it from time to time. India might not fancy itself much in either of these roles. But there is an impression in America, encouraged by many people in India itself, that given suitable inducements India might be willing to go along. However, their job will become very difficult if it turns out that after the US government had walked India thus far towards the deal, the American people have ditched India as well as the deal. But none of what has happened so far, or can be expected to happen in the coming weeks, needs to be taken as a reflection on the handling of this matter either by Mr Manmohan Singh himself or by his government or party. Apart from some wavering here and there by a few, they have stuck to their positions whether it be with regard to India’s energy needs and its plans for meeting them, or its strategic defence needs and the place of nuclear capability in meeting them, or the major parameters of its foreign policy such as relations with China and with America itself, or in the pursuit of such bread and butter partnerships as with Japan and Europe, or in handling such prickly pears as relations with Pakistan or events in Iraq or relations with Iran. Some choices were difficult to make and some chances escaped before they could be seized. But on the whole the job has been done as smartly as any in our history. If the deal really collapsed, whether during or after the lame duck phase, would there be anything that India could rescue from the debris? Yes. Without committing itself to anything which would harm the essentials of its strategic or developmental nuclear interests. India has secured recognition of both, if not acceptance of either, by the executive head of the government which counts for most in this respect throughout the world, and at least partial acceptance of these essentials by the elected Congressional representatives of both the main political parties in America. Will all that count for much in future if the lame duck now or the regular Congress later on did not endorse even this presently partial acceptance? Yes. First, it will be difficult for a future American government to disown this acceptance entirely, partial though it be so far, and in that sense it will be the starting point for any discussion that may take place with a future American government. Second, it will be difficult for America to press an entirely negative view of the Indian position on other countries, seeing that one of its own governments had taken a positive view, be it a conditional
one.
|
A torrent of abuse
IT required quite an effort to procure two tickets for the night show of “Omkara”. My wife and I had barely settled in our seats, when it came like a rocket. As if the full-mouthed abuse was not bad enough, the actor started elaborating on its meaning. In the pitch darkness of the hall, one could feel everyone squirming. Thereafter, it was an unending torrent of abuse; the male superiority asserted through abuse targeted at degrading women, be it mother, sister or wife. Non-stop use of abusive language reminded me of my early years in police service. Every profession acquires a reputation/notoriety for certain traits. Though allotted to Haryana cadre, our batch was asked to report at Phillaur Police Training College, for a three-month crash course on completion of training at National Police Academy. Punjab Police (pre-partition Punjab) had acquired a strong reputation for effectiveness, and result-oriented approach right from the early days of British Raj. It continues till today. The ustads (instructors) at Phillaur would drive the hell out of us. During one of the weekends, I decided to visit a school-time friend at Ludhiana. After exchanging pleasantries, my friend’s father surprised me: “Kaka, couldn’t you get a better job than this? Policemen are too abusive. And tell me,”he carried on, “do you have special classes at Phillaur to train you in abusing?” All my protests and explanations had no effect and everyone had fun at my expense. A few years later, I was Superintendent of Police of a district. One handled many agitations, but tackling students’ agitation was the most challenging. Young and rowdy, they would use foul language and make vulgar gestures to instigate policemen so that they over-react and agitation becomes messy. (Thank God! there were no women protesters in those days.) On one such occasion, the student leaders decided to take out a procession through the streets of the town which the administration didn’t want. Apprehending serious confrontation, I went to police lines to brief police force personally. “Look! students would try to provoke you. They would hurl abuse at you; make vulgar gestures. Don’t get provoked. Just smile back at them. Keep your cool. We got to use minimum force. Any doubt? If no, say yes.” I shouted. There was a muted, reluctant yes to my command. One young ASI slowly raised his hand and said: “Sir, we are loyal and disciplined. But can’t stand filthy abuse”. “Bakkal phod deinge” (Smash them into pulp), he added in chaste Haryanvi. As I got red in face, an experienced DSP intervened. By afternoon, there was a big confrontation with students and scores of them lay injured in the hospital and I was busy putting papers in order to face the impending inquiry. Listening to abuse on the screen, irrespective of acting talents, was getting intolerable and we walked out of the
hall.
|
Musharraf’s plan to
destabilise Afghanistan AN angry General Musharraf told the BBC recently, when confronted with the allegation that his government was not fully cooperating on the “War against terror”, that the West would be brought to its knees without his country’s support. He added, “If we were not with you, you won’t manage anything,” rejecting the report by a British Intelligence official which accused the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) of indirectly supporting terrorism and extremism. Though US Generals, media and academia have voiced complaints about inadequate cooperation from Pakistan, General Musharraf is confident that his assertion will not be contradicted by President Bush or Prime Minister Blair. General Musharraf, in his recent book In the Line of Fire has claimed that Pakistan has shattered the Al Qaida network in the region, severing its lateral and vertical linkages. Pakistan has captured more Al Qaida cadres and has incurred more casualties than any other nation in fighting terrorists. This is not a propagandist statement but represents the truth. At the same time it is a fact that Osama Bin Laden, Ayman Al Zawahiri and Mullah Omar are free and are directing their followers. While the rest of the world believes they are in Pakistani territory General Musharraf argues they are in Afghanistan. The implication is that since Afghanistan territory is under the control of US and allied NATO forces, they have not been competent enough to capture these leaders. Obviously the allied commanders who are complaining of Pakistani territory being used as a safe haven are not lying. Nor is President Karzai when he asserts that the Taliban attacks cannot be tackled in Afghan territory alone and its infrastructure outside Afghanistan has to be dealt with. General Musharraf in his book has focused on Al Qaida and Pakistani action against it. He has, somewhat untruthfully, argued that Taliban was an indigenous phenomenon and Pakistan had nothing to do with it. He has projected that relations between Taliban and Pakistan were not cordial in the days prior to 9/11. The understanding of the world is very different. Benazir Bhutto’s interior minister, General Nasrullah Babar, boasted of establishing the Taliban and called them his children. It was known that Pakistani ex-servicemen and service men fought against the Rabbani government and replaced it by the Taliban. All Pakistani servicemen and civilian officials working with the Taliban regime had to be hastily evacuated when the US offensive swept through Afghanistan. Today General Musharraf talks of Talibanisation as the biggest threat to the region. He expressed this view while addressing the European MPs in Brussels. There is no doubt he does not himself want Talibanisation either in Afghanistan or regions of Pakistan. At the same time he argues that because of President Karzai’s wrong policies the Pakhtuns in Afghanistan have become alienated and the Taliban has become more popular. He is in favour of Karzai accommodating more ex-Taliban people and reducing the influence of Northern Alliance in his government. The disagreements between Musharraf and Karzai have been deep and fundamental. President Bush had to mediate in a dinner. It is not known whether he succeeded in his mediation mission. Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader in the US Senate has come out during a visit to Afghanistan with the statement that it might be necessary to negotiate and accommodate Taliban in an Afghan government. He belongs to the same party as President Bush. Speaking to the Military Officers Association on 5th September, 2006, President Bush strongly denounced the Taliban ideology: “Under the rule of the Taliban and Al Qaida, Afghanistan was a totalitarian nightmare”. Obviously Senator Frist is not in sync with the President. It is clear that the Taliban fighting today in Afghanistan could not have recruited additional men, trained them and equipped them without the connivance of Pakistan. General Musharraf talks of a people’s war in Afghanistan if President Karzai does not focus more on Pakthun grievances. It would appear Pakistan is trying to create a situation in Afghanistan where Karzai will be replaced by a Pathan dominated pro-Pakistan government which will accommodate a large number of ex-Taliban people. A number of observers in India interpret Senator Frist’s statement as the first sign of the US doing a Vietnam in Afghanistan and retreating. President Bush has declared that neither he nor any future US President could afford to allow the extremists to win in Afghanistan or Iraq. Apart from the US not wanting to withdraw from Afghanistan without neutralizing Taliban it is not in Pakistan’s interest that US does so. One of General Musharraf’s nightmares is the repetition of 1990 when the US walked away after the Soviet withdrawal. Musharraf in his book attributes all the disastrous consequences that followed, to that US disengagement. Would Musharraf consider it in his interest to have US withdraw in disgrace from Afghanistan and walk away? Then how will he be able to milk US for billions of dollars of economic and military aid? How will he be able to boast that Pakistan’s economy is better than it has ever been? His plan is to keep US engaged and focused on Pakistan. In addition he would like to have a pro-Pakistan government in Kabul. Considering what his situation was on 9/11 and what it is today he perhaps feels confident that he can achieve his aims. That calls for some amount of blood-shedding of US and NATO troops, some terrorism in Afghanistan and destabilization of the Karzai government. The General himself is beyond punishment by US in view of the subtle nuclear blackmail he exercises. After him nuclear weapons and materials may fall into the hands of jehadis, is the threat. In that blackmail, free Osama and Zawahiri are valuable cards. Musharraf is playing a skillful and dangerous game. In his book he has quoted the saying “Short term gain for long term pain?” He is no doubt reaping short term gains and hoping for more. Only history will tell whether that will lead to long term pain for him and Pakistan as it did earlier.
|
|
Latent violence in US culture America’s gun culture is in the news again with the latest in a seemingly never-ending string of spectacular mass murders to hit the headlines in the United States. Last week, a gunman in the Colorado Rockies burst into a schoolroom and killed a student before turning his weapon on himself. Seven years ago, we had the bloodbath at Columbine High School. We’ve had disgruntled ex-employees shooting up their former workplaces, shootings in fast-food restaurants, and a parishioner in Fort Worth, Texas, shooting up his local church. Each time it happens, a panoply of reasons comes to the fore. Gun-control activists blame the phenomenon largely, if not wholly, on easy access to firearms. Cultural conservatives like to blame Hollywood for its violent movies and video games. Other frequently identified causes are the prevalence of antidepressant prescriptions, the peculiar alienation of new white suburbs and the warp-effect of the media. Is it about the guns? There’s no question that the gun culture – stemming back to the frontier spirit of the 19th century and justified, at least by gun-ownership advocates, by the Second Amendment of the Constitution – plays a major role in perpetuating the high numbers of violent deaths. In the US, there are roughly 17,000 murders a year, of which about 15,000 are committed with firearms. By contrast, Britain, Australia and Canada combined see fewer than 350 gun-related murders each year. And it’s not just about murder. The non-gun-related suicide rate in the US is consistent with the rest of the developed world. Factor in firearms, and the rate is suddenly twice as high as the rest of the developed world. Children are affected particularly hard. An American youth is murdered with a firearm every four and a half hours on average. And an American youth commits suicide with a firearm every eight hours. Why is gun control so ineffective? Any adult with a clean criminal record can buy a gun in the US with relative ease. Gun shops and dealers will conduct mandatory background checks - introduced under the 1993 Brady bill, named after the White House Press Secretary James Brady, who was hit and disabled during an assassination attempt on President Reagan in 1981. But dealers at gun shows - popular throughout the heartland - are exempt from the federal law, making it easy for criminals or children to lay their hands on whatever they want. The semi-automatic TEC-9 machine pistols used by Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold at Columbine were bought at a Colorado gun show. Federal law, more generally, is subject to constant pressure from the National Rifle Association, the powerful gun-ownership lobby group, which has the influence to run elected officials out of office if they dare to challenge its agenda. That explains why a nationwide ban on semi-automatic assault weapons, introduced during the Clinton administration, was allowed to expire on the eve of the 2004 presidential election - despite the abiding fear of
al-Qa’ida sleeper cells possibly operating in the US and planning another attack. State by state, gun-control laws vary widely. California is relatively strict. Colorado closed the “gun-show loophole” in the wake of Columbine, and Oregon has followed suit. Seven states have assault weapon bans, and 19 have laws making it a crime for gun owners to leave weapons in places where they might fall into the hands of a child. Pennsylvania, with its hunting and shooting traditions (the movie The Deerhunter was set there), has one of the worst gun-control regimes. What about the broader culture? Donald Sutherland, the Canadian-born actor, once pointed out it is almost as easy to buy a gun in Canada as it is in the US, yet the incidence of gun-related deaths in Canada is dramatically lower. He argued that both countries have a frontier spirit, only that the iconic figure of the Canadian West is the Mountie - a law officer - while the iconic figure of the American West is the outlaw. Gangsters and crime syndicates have flourished in the US, and Hollywood has certainly done its bit to glamourise the empowerment of a man wielding a firearm. Even the most ardent gun-control advocates will acknowledge there is more going on than just access to deadly weaponry. Tom
Mauser, who lost a son in the Columbine shootings, sees a latent violence in the culture, spanning everything from television shows to the uncompromising rhetoric of talk-radio to the eruption of road rage.
By arrangement with
|
|
INSIDE PAKISTAN For some time Pakistan’s notorious intelligence agency, the ISI, has been in the thick of a controversy following its own doings as well as the utterances of General Pervez Musharraf. During his recent interactions with the media he accepted as well as denied the “accomplishments” of the ISI depending on what suited Pakistan. When he was in Washington recently he had to answer all kinds of questions relating to the ISI’s role in aiding and abetting terrorism in India, Afghanistan and elsewhere. His utterances evoked strong reactions in Pakistan. Referring to the General’s stout defence of the ISI, particularly after the revelations made in a research paper released by the British Ministry of Defence, Mahir Ali, in an article in the Dawn of October 4, said that General Musharraf’s use of a “threatening language” was a “sign of desperation”. The writer found no logic behind the General’s loud claim made in the course of an interview with the BBC that “If we were not with you, you won’t manage anything… And if the ISI is not with you, you will fail… Remember my words: if the ISI is not with you and Pakistan is not with you, you will lose in Afghanistan.” In an interview with The Times of London, General Musharraf said: “The ISI is a disciplined force; for 27 years they have been doing what the government has been telling them; they won the Cold War for the world. Breaking the back of Al-Qaida would not have been possible if the ISI was not doing an excellent job.” Now read Mahir Ali’s comment in the Dawn: “If the ISI won the Cold War, one can only wonder why such a crucial accomplishment has been kept secret for so long. It must have caused Musharraf a certain amount of consternation to discover that his revelation more or less coincided with a statement by Mumbai’s Police Commissioner A.N. Roy who claimed that the train blasts that killed 186 innocents in the Indian metropolis in July were planned by the ISI and carried out by the Lashkar-e-Toiba with the assistance of the Students’ Islamic Movement.” Mahir Ali puts the General in a tight spot by pointing out that “… Islamabad has, albeit grudgingly, offered to investigate the allegation and India has promised to share the evidence on which it is based. Should it turn out that the charge isn’t altogether frivolous, Musharraf might feel obliged to retract his comment that the ISI only follows the instructions of the government of the day.” With regard to General Musharraf’s efforts to shift the blame for the ISI’s activities in post-Taliban Afghanistan to its retired officers, former ISI chief Gen Hamid Gul, a strong critic of the present regime in Islamabad, questions the veracity of his statement by saying: “As retired officers, we have very little space for manoeuvre; we have to stand in a queue even to deposit our electricity bills; where is the question of assisting the Taliban?”
Another deal in the pipeline Ignoring the flak the Pakistan government has been receiving after the controversial deal with the remnants of the Taliban in North Waziristan, there is a plan for another such “peace accord” with the militants in South Waziristan. A report in the October 4 issue of the Dawn says: “The NWFP Governor is already at it and work is in progress.” The paper quotes a senior military official to claim that “the effort is on to do it as soon as possible.” Interestingly, the deal in North Waziristan was believed to have been signed after it was okayed by the illusive one-eyed Taliban chief, Mullah Omar. While no one knows where exactly Mullah Omar is hiding, he would not have put his stamp of approval on the deal unless it suited the Taliban. Reports in the Pakistani media have it that Mullah Omar had assigned the task of finalising the agreement to one of his most trusted commanders, Mullah Dadallah. He is reported to be leading the Taliban campaign in South Waziristan. An article in The Friday Times by Moeed Yusuf says: “Predictably, the government is facing criticism (for the deal in North Waziristan) from political opponents who are portraying the agreement as de facto acknowledgement of the failure of the (military) operation and, by that logic, a victory for the militants. The thrust of the criticism is that the deal shows the military-led government to be weak…” Moeed, a consultant on economic policy at the Sustainable Development Policy Institute in Islamabad, ultimately defends the agreement with the Taliban but raises a pertinent question: “If the government has realised the futility of attempting to solve the problem of militancy through the use of force, why is it adamant on continuing with the use of force in
Balochistan?”
|
As a blind man led by another blind man loses his way, so does a man led by Priya go astray.
|
| 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 | |
