 |
|
Deaths in custody |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Prices move up Webside manners
Leave armed forces alone
Cheap money
Reluctant democracy R.M. Lohia, revolutionary
and mentor Chatterati
|
Deaths in custody The
data on custodial deaths in India released by the National Human Rights Commission is shocking, to say the least. In 2005-06, as many as 106 persons died in custody in Punjab alone. Worse, 100 of these deaths were in judicial custody, despite the fact that when an accused is in judicial custody, he cannot be interrogated. Police officials assert that a large number of deaths in custody are due to “natural” causes and, therefore, the officials cannot be held responsible for these deaths. Even if that is true, it is a sad commentary on the state of affairs existing in prisons. And, in any case, the condition in prisons is just one of the reasons, not the only reason. There are a large number of cases where the cause of death is, indeed, police brutality. It is not only in Punjab that the situation is so bad; in fact, it is an all-India phenomenon. Punjab is at number five in the dubious list, with Uttar Pradesh being at the very top with as many as 277 custodial deaths. But, in some measure, that may be attributed to the size and population of the state. Regardless of these varying factors, the rising trend of custodial deaths underscores that the police continues to be an instrument of repression, as it was meant to be during British rule. Third-degree methods are the very first to be resorted to by the men in uniform. Inevitably, there is no love lost between the khaki force and the public. Ironically, Punjab Chief Minister Parkash Singh Badal is talking of upgrading the Punjab Police Academy at Phillaur to the status of a full-fledged university, as if that can solve the problem in any way. What is lacking is the sincerity to transform the police into a people-friendly force which targets only crime and criminals. Politicians who can bring about the change seem to have their own vested interests for persisting with the prevalent police methods. Unless the mindset is changed, the brutal practices cannot be put an end to. There have been numerous initiatives and suggestions during the past several decades for reform of the police as well as prisons. However, precious little has been done on the ground to set things
right. |
|
Prices move up One issue that may spoil all the goodwill that the 2008-09 Union Budget has generated through liberal giveaways is the rising prices of essential commodities. Finance Minister P. Chidambaram’s recent explanation in the Lok Sabha that the domestic price rise was a result of an abnormal increase in commodity prices in global markets brings little comfort to the poor. The spurt in the prices of foodgrains, edible oils and pulses has hit such people particularly hard as have no access to the public distribution system. It is not a sudden development; the price rise has been expected, especially after the recent increase in the domestic oil prices. Yet the government has been only talking about steps it proposes to take. The government has four options. One, it can cut the duty on the import of edible oils, pulses and other items contributing to the price rise. This is under active consideration of the government. Two, it can slap more curbs on the export of food items. Three, as foodgrain production is stagnant and demand is on the rise, the government can go in for import of wheat. This has the possibility of further pushing up global wheat prices. Local farmers, in turn, could press for a further hike in the minimum support prices. Only last year the government had raised the wheat MSP to a record Rs 1,000 a quintal. Finally, the government may pass the buck to the Reserve Bank of India. The RBI is set to review the monetary policy in April. Going by its track record, the apex bank is unlikely to cut the interest rates as inflation is now above its comfort level. It cannot afford to raise the rates either. This will dent the growth prospects, which are far from rosy. Besides, tinkering with the monetary policy will have a limited effect. The problem is essentially how to maintain sufficient supplies of food items. This may require checks on hoarding and speculative activity. The long-term aim for a country of India’s size should be to achieve self-sufficiency in food. |
|
Webside manners Beware, of what you post on the Internet—it may be read by your grand children. This note of caution comes from Tim Berners-Lee, who invented the World Wide Web nearly two decades ago. Many people put their personal information online. We all need to be conscious that whatever we put online can and will be read by all kinds of people. Personal data should not be put on websites, certainly not social networking websites, unless you are willing to share it with the world. Recently, Bilawal Bhutto Zardari found the media and others picking on for details of his personal life posted on Facebook and MySpace, the two top social networking websites. He got into trouble with fundamentalists about a picture that purportedly portrayed him as “devil” in a Halloween costume. Ashley Dupre whose tryst with the disgraced New York Governor Eliot Spitzer cost him his job, found her personal details and photographs, that were, posted online, flashed the world over. TMI, or too much information, is a recognised problem online where people often share more details of their lives than they would do in normal social interaction. There is no doubt that there is very little privacy over the Internet. There can be anonymity, only till the time someone develops an interest in you. Once the spotlight is turned on, personal details are endlessly replicated and acquire a momentum of their own. It is, therefore, wise to remember that what you place online is public, and not private. It can be read by anyone—your parents, children, friends and enemies—who chooses to take an interest in your details for whatever reason. The global cyber village has an increasing number of Indians in it, and Tim Berners-Lee’s note of caution should be paid heed to. |
|
Never mistake motion for action.
— Ernest Hemingway |
Leave armed forces alone
Recently a major topic of discussion in Army messes and ex-servicemen gatherings was former Cabinet minister Jaswant Singh’s remarks about the serving Indian Army Chief on the floor of Parliament. During the motion of thanks debate, Mr Jaswant Singh said, “Very recently, and repeatedly, some most unwanted, unwise and also, if I might say so, irresponsible and, therefore, unacceptable statements were made by the Chief of the Army Staff on television …. The Chief of the Army Staff is certainly not the authority to comment or rule on the importance of encroachments on the border and what the response ought to....... It is unbecoming, unwanted, and irresponsible and it is harmful for the dignity not just of the high office that he holds but also for the total responsibility that he carries and for the security of the country.” No one can ever forget the immense contribution that Mr Jaswant Singh has made for the armed forces and the nation during his service in the Army and later as a political leader and Cabinet minister. No one also expected a person of Mr Jaswant Singh’s stature and experience to comment on the responsibility, professionalism and character of the Army Chief and chastise him on the floor of Parliament in this manner. As per Indian military tradition, a Chief reflects the image and reputation of his service. Any derogatory remarks on him in Parliament are bound to affect his morale and that of the people he commands. The fact that these remarks were passed by a former minister without even watching the impugned TV interview — as per his admission — makes it worse and sound casual. The questions being raised are: were these remarks called for? And there are larger and more important issues. Why do India’s political leaders belittle Army Chiefs in Parliament? Do they realise its adverse impact? Is it desirable to muzzle the armed forces and their Chiefs? What course should be adopted if an MP has reservations about a serving officers’ act or public utterances? It would be ridiculous to question an Army Chief’s qualification to speak on the disputed border issue. Most of the politico-military discussions, particularly where settled or unsettled borders are an issue, are held in the military operations room of Army Headquarters. Not only that, the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) and the Ministry of External Affairs, as Mr Jaswant Singh knows better than most people in India, depend upon the Army to provide geographical, tactical, operational and strategic details. Moreover, the present Chief in his earlier appointment as Vice Chief was a member of the China Study Group, the senior-most group of executives who either lay down or recommend policies on the Sino-Indian boundary to the political leadership in the CCS. In our system of governance, no committee of Parliament can call a service officer to address or give opinion without concurrence of the government. In Parliament, the members discuss policies of the government, including acts of omission and commission. As a professional apolitical person, the Chief must follow the policies of the government of the day. If he violates government policies or says something different to a stated policy, it is for the government to take action against him. It is unfair to discuss his professionalism and character in Parliament. Everyone is aware that MPs enjoy parliamentary privileges. A serving officer does not. He cannot defend and save his honor in Parliament. Also, he cannot lobby in public in the manner our politicians do. In my opinion, therefore, MPs, particularly those belonging to the Opposition, who most of the time oppose government policies and its acts of omission and commission, are not justified in passing remarks in Parliament that would affect the reputation and effectiveness of the officer. It is not only unethical and unfair but also, more seriously, would lead to erosion of the apolitical ethos of the armed forces which can never be in our national interest. During my tenure as Army Chief, the then Prime Minister often called the three Chiefs to brief political leaders from all parties on the Kargil war and other operational incidents. He would invariably ask us to leave the chamber during political discussions or when there was any likelihood of political allegations and counter-allegations to avoid any embarrassment to us. As far as I know, no service Chief in India has ever spoken against a government policy to the media. But when policies are not clear, kept deliberately vague and ‘perceptional’ differences affect its implementation on the ground, as in this case, it becomes necessary for the Chief or his representative to clarify the situation. Sometimes, it has also become necessary to state the adverse consequences of poor implementation of a policy that affects the armed forces. Such clarifications/statements, obviously, are in the national interest. Pandit Nehru acknowledged this in Parliament after the 1962 war. My own remarks, “we shall fight with whatever we have”, though not palatable to many in the government, had led to reviewing of policies on arming and equipping the forces during and after the Kargil war. In a robust democracy, particularly in this information age, professional muzzling would be unthinkable. The media seeks professional views and comments because professionals have “on hand” experience, they are accountable for the implementation of the policies, and carry greater credibility than most political leaders. On the flip side, they do create “differences” sometimes. But the advantages of public awareness, clarity and accountability far-outweigh the “narrow vision” disadvantages. What if a political leader does pass such remarks in Parliament, as it happened in this instance? I believe it is then the responsibility of the Defence Minister or his colleagues to defend the serving officer, as has often been done in the past. In April 1999, former Prime Minister H.D. Deve Gowda, during his speech on the confidence motion in the Lok Sabha, had passed such remarks and named a serving Deputy Chief of the Army. I brought this to the notice of the President (Supreme Commander) and the Defense Minister; not merely for defending the honour of the officer involved but also to reiterate the apolitical stature of the Army. The Defense Minister wrote a letter to the Speaker. In the letter, he mentioned the impeccable credentials of the officer concerned, conveyed strong resentment within the Army and urged the Speaker to expunge the adverse references. India’s democratic values and systems have ensured that its armed forces remain apolitical. While many central and state services in India are getting more and more politically influenced, the armed forces are among the last bastions to have escaped this trend. The credit goes not only to the military and its traditions but also to the political leadership, our egalitarian society and other well-established democratic institutions. If we wish to see the men and women in uniform remain professional and apolitical, the nation will need to be vigilant and help them to maintain such a tradition. Our political class, our defense establishment, and our media, all have to realiSe this
responsibility. The writer, a former Chief of Army Staff, is currently associated with the Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi. |
Cheap money
Several
years ago I had visited Harare, capital of Zimbabwe, in Africa while visiting the Victoria falls. Later my grand daughter travelled to Harare several times to look after her property there. Meanwhile, I had occasions to relate to her my stories of witnessing high inflation and currency exchange rate problems prevailing in countries like Poland, Mozambique and Argentina. She also heard what transpired at Buenos-Aires in Argentina during early seventies when after facing very high inflation the government suddenly demonetised all currency, closed all banks without prior notice and thereby withdrew all money from market. This was a very panicky and hasty step as public was left with no cash to buy anything. People came out on streets. Strangest scene that could be witnessed was that topmost officers of government came out of their cars with steel handles and tried to break open banks and government treasuries. It was unbelievable to see chiefs of justice and police departments together with some ministers breaking banks’ windowpanes. But what my grand daughter experienced during her recent visit to Zimbabwe was perhaps equally unprecedented. Before boarding her flight from Addis Ababa for Harare she became aware that there was some monetary problem brewing in Zimbabwe but what she experienced after landing was a veritable fairy tale. As she disembarked and crossed the customs she was surrounded by touts. Normal official bank rate was 250 Zimbabwe dollars per one U.S. dollar in cash. However, open market offered 1,00,000 Zimbabwe dollars for a US dollar instead. It was fantastic and was soon confirmed by even better offers. A room was already booked by her through a European agency which intimated that now she had just to pay five US dollars in cash for her 10-day stay, including board and lodging in the same hotel as well as daily free taxi service up to 80 km per day. Currency devaluation against foreign money was above 1,00,000 per cent. Local currency had lost almost all value. All those who did not have access to foreign currency could not dream to have essential medicines and basic needs. Shops had their shelves almost empty. Regarding currency matters the police did not interfere knowing the cause of the problem. Hotels seemed to function as usual surviving solely on foreign currency being brought by visitors. For foreign visitors there was no problem to buy what they wanted as goods would appear suddenly from somewhere. Prior to departure it is customary to tip at least the room attendant. My grand daughter gave him one kg. bundle of Zimbabwe dollar currency notes equivalent to half a U.S. dollar! She also noticed that the cashbox in reception having Zimbabwe currency remained unlocked
always! |
Reluctant democracy THIMPHU, Bhutan – In this idyllic Himalayan country that measures progress by its “gross national happiness” index, the traffic signal did not make the grade.
Residents here in the capital complained that Bhutan’s one and only automated traffic signal was too impersonal. It was taken down. Now, a white-gloved police officer gracefully directs motorists. A lone man in charge: That’s what most Bhutanese want when it comes to how their country is run, not merely a single intersection. But their beloved king, the man in question, has other ideas. On Monday, Bhutan is set to become the world’s newest democracy, with the first general elections in this isolated Buddhist kingdom. At the heart of this brave new world lies a paradox: It is people power by royal decree. The Bhutanese are choosing their leaders because, essentially, they were told to by their king. He intends to bow out as an absolute ruler and turn Bhutan into a modern constitutional monarchy. But the changes afoot have produced ambivalence in a traditional, largely rural populace more inclined to see democracy as a Pandora’s box apt to bring dissension and other nasty influences to their placid, cohesive society. “I feel maybe we’re too early for democracy,” said Wangchuk Wangdi, 47, a tour operator who was dressed for work one morning in a colorful striped “gho,” the traditional knee-length robe worn by Bhutanese men. “Till now, we’ve been under five kings. All have been good.” Few people here seem particularly thrilled about the prospect of governing themselves, preferring to remain subjects under direct rule by the Golden Throne, which has guided the Land of the Thunder Dragon for the past 101 years. But spurred by devotion and duty to the king, they say they will do their best to fulfill his vision of a shiny new Bhutan. “We are reluctant democrats,” said Sonam Tobgay Dorji, a candidate for parliament. “It’s been forced on us, and we have to embrace it.” No one knows with certainty why Bhutan’s fourth “Dragon King,” Jigme Singye Wangchuck, decided a few years ago that the time had come to limit the monarchy and impose democracy. (The monarchy was established in 1907 after centuries of feuding between chieftains and religious leaders.) Turbulent experiments in democracy – and dismal results – in some other South Asian countries such as Pakistan and Bangladesh were less than encouraging. On his nationwide tour to explain his decision, some of his subjects wept and begged him to reconsider. Almost to a person, the Bhutanese credit the king’s wisdom and ability for the impressive strides in literacy rates, life expectancy and other social indicators the nation has made since he inherited the “Raven Crown” as a teenager in 1972. New hydroelectric projects, partly funded by energy-hungry India, which buys up all the power, are bringing in revenue to what remains a fairly poor country of mostly small farmers who plant rice, wheat and other crops. Annual per capita income is more than $1,400 – high for the region but low by international standards. Some speculate that the example of another Himalayan kingdom might have triggered the push for democratic reform. In April 2006, a violent popular revolt forced the king of Nepal to end absolute rule; that country now stands on the verge of abolishing the monarchy altogether. In Bhutan, the royal palace has, in effect, opted for peaceful evolution now rather than possible revolution later. After setting the democratic process in motion, the fourth king abdicated in December 2006, handing the throne to his Oxford-educated son, Jigme Khesar Namgyal Wangchuck, then 26. “We are blessed to do this peacefully, literally as a gift from the king. Everywhere else it’s at the point of a gun,” said Ugyen Tshering, a candidate for the DPT in north Thimphu. In many ways, the carefully planned transition to democracy is the most daring leap into modernity for a country whose diplomatic and physical isolation had, in the eyes of most residents, been pretty splendid for much of its history. Sandwiched between Asia’s two giants, India and China, Bhutan has fiercely guarded its independence and held itself aloof from the rest of the world, establishing ties with only a handful of nations, which do not include the United States. It has a population of less than 700,000 and most are devout practitioners of a form of Buddhism believed to have been introduced to Bhutan in the eighth century. Television, including satellite channels, and the Internet were gingerly allowed in only in the past decade, and only after great debate. Even then, authorities banned MTV and a sports channel that broadcast professional wrestling because of their potentially deleterious effect on youth. Protecting Bhutan’s spectacular natural environment – glacial lakes, fertile valleys and towering forests of blue pine, oak and cypress – is one of the pillars of public policy here. So is preservation of its cultural heritage, which includes the elegant native dress, the Dzongkha language and, many say, the Buddhism-inspired social harmony that is now under threat from the evils of Western-style party politics. Newspapers have shuddered at the negative campaigning between the two new parties: the Druk Phuensum Tshogpa, or DPT, and the People’s Democratic Party, or PDP. But even Bhutan’s gloves-off politicking seems more akin to a sandbox squabble than the mudslinging common in the West: A typical dispute centers on one party’s use of yellow in its logo, which the other side indignantly points out is the king’s color. In reality, little separates the two parties. Neither dares deviate from the blueprint for increasing “GNH” – gross national happiness – laid out by the king, based on sustainable development. The politicians’ promises are of the usual kind in the developing world: more roads, reliable electricity, better sanitation, safe drinking water. But to an electorate afraid of change, both parties also preach stability. By arrangement with
LA Times-Washington Post |
|
R.M. Lohia, revolutionary
and mentor March 23 was Dr Ram Manohar Lohia’s birthday. We remember him with affection as one of the top leaders of the socialist movement. He had a multi-faceted personality. He was different from our other leaders like Jayprakash Narayan. We had a reverence for J.P., a certain kind of awe in his presence. There was no question of levity or extra talk – it was only the vision of a just socialist society that we listened to. But with Lohia, while the philosophy, politics and theory of socialist thought were constantly discussed, there was a lightness of conversation, a banter, and even a little bit of cynicism, but never without venom. It was fortuitous circumstance that brought me near Lohia. In May 1949, the Socialist Party under Lohia’s leadership held a demonstration before the Nepal embassy at Bara Khamba Road, New Delhi, to protest against the take over of the Nepal government by Rana and the forced flight of the King. About 50 of us were arrested, including Lohia. A policy decision had been taken that none of us would be asking for bail. Our prosecution was being done in jail – apparently the government was too embarrassed to prosecute Lohia in open court. So we remained in jail for a month and a half. There is a wrong impression that Lohia was personally hostile to Jawaharlal Nehru. The fact is that Lohia had his earliest lessons in politics under Nehru’s leadership, and openly acknowledged that Nehru, “was at one time my leader and teacher.” In 1951, before Lohia’s visit to the USA, he had come to Delhi. I remember that we were talking in the sitting room when some one told him that there was a phone call for him. Lohia went to the other room. When he came back I asked who called him. He said, Pt. Nehru. What did he say, I asked. Lohia in half-annoyance repeated the conversation thus: Nehru: “Ram Manohar, I hear you are going to USA.” Lohia: “Yes” A pause. Then Nehru asked: “When?” Lohia: “Next week”. Pause. Then Nehru said: “Alright”, and hung up. Lohia only in half-banter said: “You know, he wanted to tell me, Ram Manohar you are going abroad, do not criticise the government when abroad, but did not have the guts to tell me.” said “What strange behaviour – does he think I will talk ill of the government when abroad?”. Such was their closeness, and yet they were so apart. It must be recognised that the reverence and hero worship for Nehru was normal and strong not only for people of Lohia’s generation, but even of my generation, who had been brought up on the heroism, sacrifice and intellectualism of Pt. Nehru. I remember the awe, inspiration, admiration and respect with which all of us felt in his presence. I am mentioning this to highlight Lohia’s strange love-anger relationship with Nehru. I remember, however, a very pained Ram Manohar Lohia when he was staying with me on one of his visits to Chandigarh in the sixties. News had come that Anti-Hindi agitators in South India had burnt Hindi periodicals. I still see him sitting quietly with a sad took on his face, in the verandah of my house at Chandigarh, and telling me softly: “Rajindar, the movement for Hindi is dead – when it will be revived I do not know’. Lohia was not a Hindi chauvanist. He was all for state languages - he believed that the presence of an English knowing minority, which even now is only around 4 per cent will never let the poor become the vehicle of politics. His greatest contribution to political thought is his analysis of the role of caste in Indian politics, with is universally accepted. March 23rd was also the martyrdom of one of the greatest revolutionaries of our age – Sardar Bhagat Singh. I have no doubt that he and Lohia would have been the closest of kindred souls, as they shared their compassion for the poor and their determination to fight for their rights and enable them to get their just dues in society. |
|
Chatterati L.K.
Advani’s book release is currently the hot topic in the capital. The whole function was seen more as a show of strength. The who’s who were in attendance, starting from former President Abdul Kalam and former Vice-President Bhairon Singh Shekhawat, to RSS functionaries, NDA Chief Ministers, industrialists like Sunil Mittal and Anil Ambani, and surprisingly, Sanjay Dutt. The well-attended function had many wondering as to the timing of the book release, with general elections perhaps around the corner. The UPA on the whole was missing, except for Sharad Pawar. Did Advani’s spin doctors think that the written word would address certain controversial events like Ayodhya, Kandahar, Gujarat riots, and the Jinnah episode, in a positive light? Well, he has given the common man an insight into his true self, as he claims that he does miss his old friend Vajpayee and has declared Narendra Modi a leader of tomorrow. This book is surely going to open up whole new controversies. Priced at Rs 501 for a thousand pages, let us hope this book will not raise more questions than answers about the Prime Minister-in-waiting.
Gloom in Goa Goa
has been in the news due to the homicidal death of a British teenager, Scarlette Keeling. The rape and murder of a 15 year old girl evoked deep sympathy and shock, and rightly so. The cops finally cracked the case and gory details are now coming out of the closet. The initial charge by mother Fiona Mackeown against the police for not moving ahead on the case was well taken. The media’s full blast coverage of the case gave an impression that the entire Goan government was to be blamed for the incident. Is this the true picture? The 15-year old was a confirmed drug addict. Can you imagine in India leaving a young daughter and that too less than 16 years of age, with unknown people? In which part of the world can a single woman go to a lonely, isolated place, in the wee hours of the morning? The Goan singer and a foreign tourist, now turned Goan after buying land in Goa, along with others who accused the government for everything in the world on TV channels, should thank their stars that they are in a country where the true spirit of democracy can be liberally abused. Such sloganeers who start chattering the moment they see a TV camera, hate to queue up even for five to ten minutes for exercising their vote. Then how about setting up Civil Vigilante Squads? How about becoming honest and forthright and a little sensitive too, towards our fellow beings? In short, how about becoming good citizens ourselves? The criminal who raped and killed Scarlette should be hanged to death but instead of blaming the government for everything, let us try and blame ourselves also for the rot in our society. Let us do some serious introspection, but also speak the truth by laying some blame on the errant mother as well. |
| 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 | |
