 |
|
Bal does a Raj Back to basics |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Democratic indecision
When Speaker warns
Red beacon syndrome
Cuba yearns for change Britain casts off blasphemy laws Delhi Durbar
|
Bal does a Raj
RAJ THACKERAY of the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena had plucked a leaf out of the sordid book of his uncle Bal Thackeray when he went hammer and tongs at the North Indians “invading” Mumbai and Maharashtra. Uddhav Thackeray mounted a virtual assault on the workers engaged in the modernisation of the Mumbai airport, only to steal a march over his estranged cousin. And now Shiv Sena supremo Bal Thackeray has himself taken a cue from his son and the nephew. This is parochial competitive tendency at its worst, as we had mentioned then also. The aim is to garner some more votes during the next elections. They are not bothered that the votes would come at the cost of the unity of the nation! In fact, the senior Thackeray’s “Saamana” piece about Biharis is far more incendiary and slanderous. Small wonder that there are widespread protests in Bihar and RJD MPs are coming up with a privilege motion. At least Bal Thackeray should have known that what he was doing was not only dangerous but also useless, considering that his earlier campaign against outsiders had fizzled out and he had been forced to talk of a more inclusive policy. The Thackerays are encouraged to spread so much hatred only because the governments are wary of taking them by the horns. Chief Minister Vilasrao Deshmukh used the kid gloves in the case of Raj. It is not doing anything different this time. The excuse trotted out is that he has been busy with a marriage in the family. The excuse just does not wash. The Congress high command and the Centre must see to it that such fissiparous elements are not allowed to have a field day. At the same time, it is the moral duty of the BJP to rein in its partner. Mr L.K. Advani had come out quite candidly against Raj Thackeray’s fulminations. A similar frankness is the minimum expected from him this time also. Or is it that he finds his voice only when commenting about a corporation partner of the Congress in Maharashtra but prefers the silent mode on the misdeeds of a companion of his own party?
|
|
Back to basics MR S. M. KRISHNA’S resignation from the post of Maharashtra Governor and his decision to return to active politics well ahead of the ensuing Assembly elections in Karnataka have geared up the Congress and other parties. His return to active politics has been on the cards for quite some time. Having felt like a fish out of water in Mumbai’s Raj Bhavan, he had made known his intention to join politics to the Congress high command. He left Karnataka politics after the 2004 Assembly elections when the Congress formed a coalition with the Janata Dal (S) to keep the BJP out of power. The Congress is hoping that his presence in the state will boost its chances in the elections. More important, Mr Krishna’s return is primarily intended to woo his Vokkaliga community and checkmate JD (S) supremo and former prime minister H.D. Deve Gowda who is also a powerful Vokkaliga leader. Even though a section of the Congress is opposed to Mr Krishna’s return, the party high command, apparently, feels that he is capable of preventing Mr Gowda from running away with the Vokkaliga votes as also apply brakes on the BJP’s advances owing to its sizeable Lingayat support base. As the election scene is yet to hot up, it may be too early for the political parties or psephologists to make any predictions. While the BJP hopes to win the elections because of what its leaders call a “sympathy wave” following the betrayal by the JD (S), which refused to hand over power to the BJP after its 20-month tenure, the JD (S) is yet to convince the people about its dubious role that triggered the crisis leading to the mid-term poll. Political instability has been haunting the state for the past five years. This has adversely affected development. Power cuts, bad roads and poor drinking water facility have all besmirched its image of being a progressive state. The political parties may have to do a lot of explaining on these issues when they seek votes.
|
|
Democratic indecision THE victory of Ms Hillary Clinton in Ohio and Texas — two major states —besides in the Rhodes Island has made her remain in the race for the Democratic nomination but that is not enough. Her rival, Mr Barack Obama, is far ahead of her with 1,477 delegates against her 1,391. She has temporarily stopped the march of Mr Obama, who scored 12 consecutive primary victories after his spectacular performance on Super Tuesday. But she has to struggle hard to reach the top where she had found herself in the beginning of the primary battle. Reports suggest that whatever strategy she may use, it is difficult for her to overtake her challenger unless the super-delegates favour her. The Democrats, despite having a clear edge over the Republicans, may not be able to launch their election campaign till their presidential nomination convention is over in August. The Republicans, who have quickly made up their mind in favour of Mr John McCain, are now free to concentrate on the real battle in November, when the voters will pronounce their verdict. They have enough time to devise a strategy to defeat the Democrats, the early favourites. It is in the Democrats’ own interest to end their indecision. One suggestion that has come after Ms Clinton staged a comeback for the Democratic nomination is that the party should settle for the Hillary-Obama team for the presidential poll. The problem is that the former first lady is not ready to settle for the top job for Mr Obama. She wants him to get ready for the vice-president’s post though, as most commentators concede, he has demonstrated enough capacity to capture the White House. He may also truly represent the change in the US administration as most Americans aspire for. Whatever their wishes, the Democrats must realise that in this cockfight between Ms Clinton and Mr Obama, the party may ultimately suffer an irreparable damage.
|
|
My nature is subdued/ To what it works in, like the dyer’s hand. — William Shakespeare
|
When Speaker warns
YOU are working overtime to finish democracy in this country,” remarked the visibly distressed Speaker of the Lok Sabha, Mr Somnath Chatterjee, to barracking MPs on February 28, a day before the presentation of the Union Budget. This was his strongest admonition during the 44 months through which he has striven hard but unsuccessfully to control those members who are evidently hell-bent on rendering dysfunctional the centrepiece of the republic’s democratic institutions. But, alas, like his past efforts, this, too, was to no avail. A pithy remark heard after he had adjourned the House was that had the same words been used by anyone else, he or she would have almost certainly been hauled before the Privileges Committee for “breach of privilege.” Yet strange things do happen. Some days later there was a breach-of-privilege motion in the Rajya Sabha against those who had disrupted the proceedings. Mr Hamid Ansari, Vice-President and Chairman of the Upper House, immediately referred it to the Privileges Committee. What the committee does remains to be seen. But it may be mentioned that Mr Ansari, a distinguished former diplomat, has been urging MPs to worry about the loss of Parliament’s credibility and prestige. Since the Lok Sabha episode, excitement over Mr P. Chidambaram’s please-all Budget seems to have overshadowed everything else. But the problem of restoring to Parliament at least a modicum of discipline, decorum, dignity and authority is too serious to be ignored. It is too late to dilate on the tragic trajectory of the reprehensible trend towards Parliament’s decline. Suffice it to say that the fine parliamentary traditions that won high national respect and enviable international acclaim ended with the era of their principal architect, Jawaharlal Nehru. Beginning in the mid-sixties and accentuated after the 1967 general election, the ascendancy of lung-power over brain-power, raucous shouting and lemming-like rush to the well of the House have become almost routine. Worse, all political parties – big, small or minuscule – are equally to blame for this despairing state of affairs. In the initial years of Indira Gandhi as Prime Minister, some uncouth Opposition members had treated her with egregious churlishness — to the obvious delight of her silent adversaries within the Congress party. But no sooner had she established her supremacy in 1971 than she started treating Parliament with the kind of disdain it had shown her. This was bad enough. To make matters worse, the then ruling party, inebriated by its overwhelming majority, started blocking discussions on some of its worst scams and lapses. On one occasion, the confrontation became so bitter that Morarji Desai threatened to sit on an indefinite dharna inside the House. Indira Gandhi averted this disaster through a deft last-minute compromise but the continuous nosedive of parliamentary standards was never stemmed. Today, the irony is not that Parliament is disrupted because the government refuses to allow a discussion but because some members just do not want it to discuss anything until their imperious demand for, say, an “apology” by the Prime Minister or “summary dismissal” of “tainted ministers” is met. Let us not forget that after the formation of the United Progressive Alliance government in May 2004, the principal Opposition party, the BJP, had paralysed Parliament through a whole session. The Budget of a billion-plus people had to be passed without a single minute’s discussion. Most shocking in this respect is the successful obstruction, for more than a decade, to even the introduction of the Women’s Reservation Bill, which, astonishingly, every party pretends to support. This time around the government appears to have forgotten its pre-session commitment to introduce the Bill, and the BJP its declared promise to support its introduction! There is an interesting difference of nuance between the latest disruption of parliamentary proceedings and countless previous ones. One of the worst-kept secrets in New Delhi for quite sometime was the UPA government’s decision to pull out all stops to present a populist Budget, with massive concessions to farmers, obviously with an eye on the general election that is likely to be advanced. Hence, the BJP-led Opposition’s stratagem to hold Parliament to ransom until a “package for the farmers” was announced “before the Budget and independently of it.” This motley crowd felt it could then claim credit for the much-needed relief to the poor farmers. Evidently, in its view, the Indian voter is not as wise and intelligent as he or she is made out to be by both politicians and pundits, but a gullible fool. A deeply disturbing element in the dismal drama in the first week of the ongoing session was the fate of the Speaker’s repeated appeals to leaders of political parties represented in the House to “restrain” their unruly members. It simply fell on deaf ears. At one stage Mr Chatterjee pointed out pertinently that several Congress MPs, instead of letting the chair conduct the proceedings, start rising and shouting back at the Opposition, thus aggravating the problem. But no one on the government frontbench made the slightest attempt to control the flock. This is, in some respects, the nub of the matter. The callous disregard of the most obstreperous and unworthy behaviour by leaders of the parties concerned has made any kind of disciplinary action against the wrongdoers impossible. There are ample provisions for this in the rules of procedure and conduct of business. However, the Speaker can use these to “name” the ringleaders of bedlam only if he is sure that the political parties and a majority of the House would support the necessary motion to suspend or expel the habitual and hard-core offenders. Parliaments in many countries have nipped the trouble in the bud by throwing out rowdy members, with the help of Marshals whenever necessary. In this country, however, everything goes. Members of Parliament must ask themselves that if the apex legislature becomes an arena of unacceptable indiscipline and worse, what would be its trickle-down effect all along the line. Indeed, it is no surprise that the country is fast becoming a lawless land. Students unhappy with a question paper or irked by the prohibition on copying simply burn down the examination hall with impunity. Any group with any grievance, real or imaginary, can start burning buses without any fear of punishment. And, of course, Mr Raj Thackeray of the Maharashtra Navnirman Samiti can incite his goons to attack “North Indian outsiders” and be feted at the house of Mumbai’s police chief. Where will this process
end?
|
Red beacon syndrome
I
was then the gun position officer (G.P.O.) of my field (Artillery) battery. An important training parameter was proficiency in night deployment which included low-noise speedy deployment, accurate and timely recording of guns and local defence. Local defence was to cater for any hostile raids on the gun position and therefore as soon as the guns were brought into action a quick reaction team (QRT) was kept ready to move and counter any hostile raiding party. Recording of the guns at night involved using pinpoint stationery red /blue/green lights atop stationery poles/trees as aiming points. Our second-in-command was a superseded officer Major J K. Notwithstanding his grey hair and serious looks his sense of humour was fantastic though occasionally sardonic. He was able to convince outsiders of what to us seemed ludicrous. The commanding officer of another regiment conducting our practice camp test exercise was the chief umpire. He had just picked up command and was very fond of his new status to include the “red beacon” on his vehicle. Major J.K received him for the night deployment. The chief umpire expressed a desire to visit the battery gun positions. Major JK was able to convince him not to use the vehicle with the plea that the gun positions were within walking distance and that as per latest orders all commanding officers could have their escort accompany them during night movement on foot with a red lit bulb held above the head. Unfortunately for me the chief umpire started moving towards my gun position. It just so happened that the chief umpire with his “red light” escort came in line with one of our aiming points. The local defence in charge JCO took the moving “red light” as the hostile raiding party stealing our aiming point. The JCO quickly got together the QRT and attacked and surrounded the chief umpire’s party. Since the JCO had never seen the chief umpire prior to this action he was sceptical to the plea put forward by the escort. The entire party was manhandled to my command post and in the meantime I had informed the regiment command post. Major J.K. arrived and needless to add was able to diffuse what could be a precarious situation for me. I would suggest that all VIPs permitted to use “red beacon” should also enjoy this privilege when they are walking in their domain/market by having their gunman carry the red light for
them.
|
Cuba yearns for change
MIAMI – With little prospect for change in Cuba on the horizon, inklings of discontent have begun to surface on the Communist-ruled island that analysts say could spread unrest or incite mass migration. No interpretation of the parliamentary decisions following the resignation of Fidel Castro signal a likelihood of more economic opportunity or personal freedom – the two greatest sources of young Cubans’ dissatisfaction. Coupled with newly named President Raul Castro’s call for his countrymen to speak candidly about the nation’s problems, the unmet expectation that reformers would succeed Fidel could unleash despair among Cubans over the likelihood of continued poverty and isolation. Fidel’s Cuba never experienced a military coup attempt or a major clash between its armed forces and the people. Demonstrations by the discontented were usually thwarted beforehand by secret police arrests of known instigators. But frustration with the status quo has been building in the 19 months since Castro began his departure from leadership. Cubans interviewed on the streets of Havana before and after the leadership shuffle expressed resentment over their inability to travel abroad, to access the Internet or to use facilities and services reserved for foreigners, even if they have dollars. “Why can’t the people of Cuba go to hotels or travel to other parts of the world?” Eliecer Avila, a student at an elite computer science school outside the Cuban capital, asked National Assembly speaker Ricardo Alarcon six weeks ago in a now-infamous exchange that visibly rattled the parliamentary leader. Clandestine video of that exchange has been circulating throughout Cuba, instigating discussion and discontent among young Cubans. In Santiago de Cuba, several hundred students marched in protest of a university regent’s handling of a sexual assault incident last month, the largest known defiance of an authority figure since the early 1990s. Smaller protests have been waged recently during soccer and baseball matches. “People are up to here with waiting,” a young taxi driver said of the desire for better living conditions, tapping his forehead with a leveled hand. Hopes that a post-Fidel leadership would embrace more economic reforms began swelling in July 2006, when the longtime leader temporarily ceded the reins of government to Raul. As it became clear that Castro’s departure would prove permanent, but not be the catalyst of major change, Cubans became increasingly impatient and cynical. One senior government official wrote to an exile friend in Miami in early February to complain that the island was consumed by inmovilismo – stagnation – as Cubans gradually ceased expecting significant change. Beyond the appointment of Communist Party hardliner Jose Ramon Machado as next in line to Raul Castro in the hierarchy, the parliamentary session elevated other old-guard stalwarts in the 31-member Council of State. The council was packed with Raulistas – loyalists of the longtime defense minister and men with personal wealth and power at stake should the country open the economic playing field to a wider sphere of Cubans. Two three-star generals of the Revolutionary Armed Forces were added to the council, joining two others that have served there for decades, along with Raul, the country’s only four-star general. “There’s been no rejuvenation of the top leadership in Cuba. The average age of Raul Castro and the six vice presidents is a little more than 70. It’s a gerontocracy,” said Brian Latell, a former Central Intelligence Agency Cuba desk chief and author of a rare biography of the younger Castro, “After Fidel.” “These old men will be dealing with the possibility of upheaval, levels of instability among younger generations of Cubans. That may be the most important problem they are going to be facing.” Andy Gomez, an assistant provost at the University of Miami and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute in Washington, said he has heard from Cuban contacts that young people have been arrested “for no reason except (regime) fear they might take to the streets and protest.” He said the testy exchange between the students and Alarcon showed that appeals for Cubans to speak up about the country’s shortcomings had been taken literally and hardliners have gained strength in a figurative circling of the revolutionary wagons. In the past two years, more than 70,000 Cubans have migrated, about half of them illegally, to the United States, Gomez said. Analysts fear that without prospects for change in Cuba, the number will continue rising, perhaps confronting the U.S. government with another migration crisis in the midst of a presidential election campaign. The 1980 Mariel Boatlift sent 125,000 Cubans to Florida, and tens of thousands more took to the seas in 1994, in the depths of post-Soviet hardships. “I can see an increase in some instability, demonstrations, a continuation of the out-migration. The outlook is not very optimistic for the future of Cuba,” said Jaime Suchlicki, head of the Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies at the University of Miami. He pointed to Raul Castro’s naming of Machado, who he described as “an unusually hard-line member of the Cuban Communist Party,” as an indication that there will be no relaxation of the tight party and military control of the population, never mind market economic reforms to allow Cubans to boost their paltry incomes. Jorge Salazar-Carrillo, an economic analyst of Cuba from Florida International University, believes Cubans will be too frightened of their powerful military to brave the kind of massive street protests that brought democratic governments to power in Eastern Europe two decades ago.
By arrangement with LA Times-Washington Post
|
|
Britain casts off blasphemy laws
LONDON – A funny thing happened last November when Britain launched a righteous protest over the arrest in Sudan of a British school teacher who was accused of insulting religion by naming a class teddy bear Mohammed. The Sudanese ambassador was summoned; Prime Minister Gordon Brown issued a protest. It didn’t take long, though, for someone to point out that Downing Street was standing on diplomatic quicksand: Britain itself has a law making blasphemy a crime. Thus began a period of collective soul-searching on free speech and secularism, traditional values and the church that anoints Britain’s queen. It culminated this week in a 148-87 vote in the House of Lords to abolish the laws on blasphemy after a wrenching, two-hour debate. “It is crystal clear that the offenses of blasphemy and blasphemous libel are unworkable in today’s society,” Kay Andrews said in introducing the government-backed amendment, adding that “as long as this law remains on the statute books, it hinders the U.K.’s ability to challenge oppressive blasphemy laws in other jurisdictions.” But in a debate that underscored Britain’s continuing strong roots in the Church of England, there was substantial doubt about the wisdom of abandoning what for many is a symbol of the increasingly multi-cultural nation’s reliance on Christian values as a foundation for law and society. “The essential question is: Should we abolish Christian beliefs and replace them with secular beliefs? As long as there has been a country called England, it has been a Christian country, publicly acknowledging the one true God,” said Detta O’Cathain, a Conservative member of the house. “Noble lords may cry freedom, but I urge them to pause and consider that the freedom we have today was nurtured by Christian principles, and continues to be guided by them,” she said. Most remaining blasphemy laws in Western democracies are either little used or, like Britain’s, on their way out. This week, the Massachusetts legislature began consideration of a bill to phase out that state’s blasphemy proscription, along with other outdated “blue laws.” Wednesday’s vote in the House of Lords was an amendment to a broad proposed law on criminal justice that must still go back to the House of Commons for approval before taking effect. Still, the vote was seen as a crucial hurdle in a process that is now all but assured. “The law on blasphemy will be abolished. And good riddance, is what we say,” Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society, said in an interview. “It’s an unusable law, as it stands at the moment, and in the past it’s been a very cruel law.” In fact, parliament has never passed a blasphemy law. It is a common law crime established centuries ago and clarified by judges in the 19th century to protect the beliefs of the Church of England; citizens may fall afoul if they insult God, Christ, the Christian religion or the Bible in a way that is scurrilous, abusive or offensive, or in a manner which may breach the peace. Attacks on other religions are not covered, a shortcoming which has prompted many critics to brand the law as discriminatory. In practice, the law has seldom been used, and in 2006 a new law making it a crime to incite religious hatred was adopted as a more equitable alternative. The last time anyone was imprisoned for blasphemy was in 1922, when a man was convicted after comparing Jesus Christ to a circus clown. The last successful blasphemy prosecution occurred as a result of a private complaint in 1977 against a gay newspaper for publishing a poem which describes a Roman centurion’s homosexual lovemaking with Christ’s dead body, and legal analysts say it is doubtful any new prosecution could survive under European human rights laws. Just this week, a Christian activist organization, Christian Voice, lost its appeal under the blasphemy laws of a challenge to the musical, “Jerry Springer: The Opera.” “Far from being abolished, the laws against blasphemy should be strengthened to remove the loopholes the courts have created,” Christian Voice’s national director, Stephen Green, said in an interview. The case of the teacher in Sudan, Gillian Gibbons, ended with a pardon and release after eight days in custody, negotiated in part by Muslim members of the British parliament. Gibbons said in a statement she had “great respect for the Muslim religion”, but protesters in Sudan continued to call for punishing her.
By arrangement with LA Times-Washington Post
|
|
Delhi Durbar IF there is one person who will be most pleased with the Supreme Court order lifting the ban on Jodha Akbar, it is none other than BJP’s Prime Minister-in-waiting L.K.Advani, who is a self-confessed film buff. Advani was apparently very keen to see the movie but was unable to do so as his own party’s chief ministers in Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan had banned the film to appease the Rajput community. In fact, Advani was so upset that he specially called them up to say that he did not agree with their decision. Recalling his short stint as information and broadcasting minister, the senior BJP leader said he never believed in banning films or books as this was against the very essence of freedom of speech. Advani though, clearly neglected to tender the same advice to Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi, when he banned the Aamir Khan starrer Fanaa and ensured that movie halls did not screen Parzania, a film on the post-Godhra communal violence.
Inventive logic Nobody can beat the Congress for sheer inventiveness. Take the case of the beleagured Maharashtra chief minister Vilasrao Deshmukh whose removal is being plotted by his detractors ever since he took up this post. However, his friends have been equally active in ensuring that he continues in office, for which they have come up with novel and creative arguments. They first said it would not be proper to ease him out as his son’s marriage was coming up. Now that the wedding is over, Deshmukh’s friends are arguing that it would be unfair on his newly-wed daughter-in-law if he is removed at this juncture as she would then be dubbed as being unlucky for her in-laws. If nothing else, at least for women’s empowerment, it is vital for him to remain in office, they maintain. With International Women’s Day coming up, it is difficult to argue with this logic.
Meritocracy Congress old-timer R.K.Dhavan and BJP leader Arun Jaitley were involved in an interesting spat earlier this week in Parliament. When Jaitley poked fun at Dhavan for the praise he lavished on the Nehru-Gandhi family while participating in the debate on the motion of thanks to the President, the Congress leader put it down to his hatred for the family. Not to be put down, Jaitley retorted,” The converse of sychopancy is not hatred but meritocracy.” Dhavan had no answer to that one.
Coalition lessons The Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), which is still in the process of firming up its tie-up with Nawaz Sharif, has been looking to India for tips on running a coalition government. Indian journalists who had gone to Pakistan to cover the elections were bombarded with questions from the PPP leaders on the various consultative mechanisms which have been put in place to ensure smooth functioning of the UPA government. The PPP was particularly interested and curious about UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi’s role in this dispensation, since they have to find a suitable role for Asif Zardari, who is controlling the PPP but is not a candidate for the Prime Minister’s post. Contributed by Anita Katyal, S. Satyanarayanan and Rajeev Sharma
|
| 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 | |
