|
|
Utterly irresponsible
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Outrage of a nation
New terror laws
Mumbai attack and Pakistan
Stray dogs
Killing terrorists will not destroy terrorism
Setbacks to rule of law in China
Beyond home loan package
|
Utterly irresponsible
Union Minister for Minorities Affairs A.R. Antulay has reportedly sent in his resignation to the Prime Minister. That was the least that he could do. And the least that the Prime Minister ought to do is to accept it at once. In fact, what Mr Antulay actually deserved was expulsion, considering that his insinuating remarks that Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) chief Hemant Karkare was not killed by terrorists during the Mumbai multiple terror strikes on November 26 was an insult to the entire country.
He not only cast aspersions on the police force but also indirectly gave a ring of authenticity to the canard being spread by forces inimical to India that the Mumbai attack was nothing but a drama enacted by India to discredit Pakistan. No wonder the Pakistani media is making ample use of his statement. When Antulay raised doubts over the killing of Karkare by Pakistani terrorists, suggesting a link with the Malegaon blasts that were being investigated by him, he did so without any facts to back the allegation. This was the height of irresponsibility just not expected from a Cabinet-rank Minister. To make matters worse, he remained adamant even after the furore that his remark understandably generated. Here were highly trained terrorists sent from Pakistan who butchered hundreds mercilessly, and Mr Antulay was to cast aspersions on his own countrymen and trivialise the sacrifice of brave security personnel. No doubt, his own party men were as vociferous as the Opposition in demanding his scalp. Those who score self-goals — and then even try to justify them — have no right to stay in the team. Mr Antulay has been in politics long enough to know that politicians as a class had emerged as an object of contempt and ridicule from the Mumbai carnage. Well, he has tarnished their image still further. |
|
Outrage of a nation
The Indian team will not be touring Pakistan in January as scheduled, and this cancellation comes as no surprise, given the mood of the people after the Mumbai terrorist attacks. The government took the right decision in advising the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) to take this action, the tone for which had been set by the recent remarks made by the Sports Minister, Mr M.S. Gill, who had virtually ruled out the tour.
The deterioration of the bilateral relations is a direct consequence of the Mumbai attacks, as well as a stubborn refusal of the Government of Pakistan to acknowledge the origin of the terrorists, and take steps to address international concerns about the proliferation of terrorist and fundamentalist groups in the country. The Government of Pakistan has been indulging in double speak and naturally, this has further inflamed the situation. Surely, there can be no “business as usual” with Pakistan at this time and External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee’s measured response, ruling out war but pausing the peace process, is an indication of mature handling of this crisis by the government. Even the security of the Indian players would have been a serious concern, given the present mood and the weakness of the government in handling radical elements in Pakistan. Indian cricketers have risen to the occasion many times by playing at venues like Zimbabwe which other teams avoided due to security concerns. When England, Australia and South Africa balked at touring Pakistan for the tri-series, the Indian team went ahead with the tour. However, here the issue is not the team’s willingness to play cricket; we need to forcefully convey the outrage of a nation that has been attacked by cross-border terrorists, and is in no mood to play ball with the terror-tainted. |
|
|
New terror laws
The passage of two crucial Bills by Parliament — the National Investigation Agency Bill 2008, and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act Amendment Bill 2008 — shows its firm resolve to combat and prevent terror following the Mumbai attack. Some political parties like the Shiromani Akali Dal and the Left, despite their reservations, have joined all others in approving of the Bills in the national interest. If implemented properly, the new laws will strengthen the Centre-state relations in combating the scourge of terrorism. As the two pieces of legislation grew out of an atmosphere of insecurity, official insensitivity and general apathy, they will find wider acceptance by the people because Parliament is now committed to act tough on terror. This should not be viewed through the narrow prism of state autonomy.
Clearly, the Centre alone can tackle and prevent terrorism and not the states which don’t have adequate expertise and resources to deal with it. Moreover, the new laws also aim at checking militancy, insurgency and Naxalite extremism. The National Investigation Agency will have overriding powers to investigate any terror offence. It can take over a case from the state police for investigation and its own fast track courts will try cases on a day-to-day basis. Under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, if fingerprints, bloodstain, DNA and weapons of offence are recovered from the crime scene, it will be the court’s duty to presume the offence. Those who fund terror may get life imprisonment. There is no timeframe for trial but the judge will have to complete it faster. The Centre claims that provisions for regular bail under the new Act are not as stringent as they were in TADA and POTA. Union Home Minister P. Chidambaram has also said that the Act strikes a balance between the requirements of law and security agencies and principles of natural justice, reasonableness, fair trial and human rights. However, despite the Centre’s professed intentions, it is easier said than done. Consider how both TADA and POTA were misused earlier. During the debate in Parliament, some members had voiced concern about it. The Centre should allay genuine apprehensions in this regard and the enforcement authorities, particularly at the cutting-edge level, will have to ensure that the new laws are not applied against innocent persons or for partisan ends. |
|
|
He who refuses to embrace a unique opportunity loses the prize as surely as if he had tried and failed.
— William James |
Mumbai attack and Pakistan
Two major issues have emerged after the latest, most audacious and daring terror attack in Mumbai on 26/11. These are (a) poor infrastructure and systemic failures in India’s ability to counter terror, and (b) how should India respond to repeated terror attacks originating from Pakistani soil. The first issue, more important, requires professional advice and the political will to institute corrective measures. The failures are not because of non-availability of advice but due to vested interests, bureaucratic sloth and turf interests. Unfortunately, the political leadership till now has used terrorism as a tool for electoral advantages rather than a serious national security challenge. Hopefully, the public anger reflected in “enough is enough” will make every one sit up now, and the government will do what should have been done a long time ago. That the Mumbai attack originated from Pakistan is not in doubt. But blaming radical outfits like the LET and JEM only for this incident would not be correct. Their extensive and visible training, operational infrastructure, the sophisticated and meticulous planning and execution of attacks in Mumbai, Kabul and earlier, cannot happen unless there is official conspiracy or complicity in Pakistan. It is a well-known fact that the Pakistan Army maintains its unholy alliance with Jehadi terror organisations through the ISI. A few months ago, General Musharraf called the ISI as Pakistan’s first line of defence. The Pakistan Army has refused to place the ISI under civilian controlled Interior Ministry, or to expose its head to foreign questioning, because the ISI is its non-transparent arm to implement military strategies and look after vested interests. Ever since inception, the Pakistan Army has used terrorists as its extension. It used them against India in 1947-48 war, for Op Gibralter in 1965, in Punjab in mid 80s, and in J & K since 1989. It used them for Kargil war although the actual infiltration was carried out by the Northern Light Infantry and other regular Army units. That is how mullah-military nexus and India-focused terror outfits — supported, autonomous, or viewed blindly — such as LET, JEM, HUM have flourished in Pakistan. Having failed to achieve success in conventional war against India, the ISI uses these outfits, and people like Dawood, to wage a proxy war of “thousand cuts”. Terror targets are carefully selected to cause insecurity and damage India’s image and economy. Many Pakistani writers admit that the ISI often indulges in autonomous handling of foreign relations, toppling civil governments, rigging elections, even vigilantism, picking up people and making them disappear. Shuja Nawaz, in his book “Crossed Swords”, writes of a sworn affidavit filed by Pakistan’s Defence Secretary in a High Court stating that “his ministry had no operational control over the two rogue agencies (ISI and ISPR) and therefore was unable to enforce the court’s orders on either agency in matters relating to detentions.” Any military and diplomatic options to stop cross-border terrorism should be considered in this full picture. India’s last military response to a major cross-border terror act was Op Parakaram. The military was deployed on the Western border for 10 long months. It was withdrawn after we extracted some half-hearted promises from Pakistan. These promises, later converted into “joint declaration” and many lip-serving confidence-building measures, have failed to check cross-border terrorism. The intensity and frequency of terror attacks has increased. A military option, if adopted, should demonstrate India’s will and capability and hurt the intended targets without drawing India into a nuclear exchange or a costly ground war. The response must rise above the symbolic. In examining such military options, beside political and economic implications, we have to factor in the possible Pakistani military reaction, international support, and its impact on US, NATO and Pakistan military deployments on the Pakistan-Afghan border. Other than a war, such military options could be (a) air strikes on militants’ camps (their precise coordinates must be known to achieve the desired results and minimise collateral damage) or strategic targets, along with/without commando raids on some military installations close to the border or LoC (b) capture one or two terrorists’ launch pads in Pakistani territory in a surprise attack to put political pressure (c) a naval blockade or action on the high seas. The last one would impact Pakistan’s economy as well as the logistic lifeline of the US and NATO troops fighting in Afghanistan. Strategic implications of such an action in Pakistan would be: It will lead to withdrawal of one or two Pakistan Army corps from its Western border. There would be a Pakistani riposte for which our civil and military have to be prepared. A close monitoring and political oversight will be required over the escalation ladder, which can move very fast. The government will need to manage the domestic and international opinion. It will require political will and political consensus, often seen lacking these days. It will give further excuse to the jehadi groups and Pakistan Army to work jointly against “India’s hegemonic designs”. During and after the military confrontation, if there is a standoff between the Pakistan Government and its Army, we know who will be shown the door. Such a limited confrontation, for which India has the capability, will certainly convey a strong warning to Pakistan. However, none of us can be certain that it will stop militants’ activities and cross-border terrorism. Let us look at the diplomatic options. India has pro-actively engaged Pakistan on political, economic and security related issues, including cross-border terrorism. Direct bilateral discussions in Simla, Lahore, Agra, Islamabad; indirect discussion through the US and the UK; multi-lateral discussions in the UN and SAARC; hundreds of track 1 and 2 level dialogues have not convinced Pakistan to stop cross-border terrorism or to take worthwhile action against jehadi outfits and their infrastructure. Analysed more realistically and less emotionally, it is apparent to anyone that these engagements and strategic Indo-Pakistan hyphenation benefit Pakistan more than India. We lose the advantage of a secular democratic nation, seven times economically stronger, progressive nation. On cross-border terrorism, our pro-active engagements with all types of governments in Pakistan have got us only denials, double speak, false promise, back-stabbing, and made us more vulnerable. Terrorism from Pakistani soil has increased, not decreased. In dealing with Pakistan on cross-border terrorism, diplomatic options would definitely be preferable to any military option. The latter should be the last resort. Long ago, I had stated that a proxy war on the sub-continent can easily lead to a conventional war. In the current security environment, caused by the continuing terror war, our forces should remain alert for protective as well as pro-active responses. We should also remember Kofi Annan’s advice, “You can do a lot with diplomacy but of course you can do a lot more with firmness and force.” The writer, former Chief of Army Staff, is President, ORF Institute of Security Studies, New Delhi. |
||
Stray dogs
I
had
seen him wandering around the campus, a small furry creature of indeterminate breed, hopping along on his tiny legs, like a cuddly little bunny rabbit. My heart had warmed to him but since I already had three dogs of my own I couldn’t adopt him. At the same time I couldn’t let a stray dog wander around the campus. I spoke to the Bursar and when I did not see him for a number of days I was sure that a home had been found for him. But then, a few weeks later, on a visit to the area behind the mess, I saw one of the waiters playing with the little dog. Not only was the dog being fed by the mess staff but it had been adopted by the boarders, who had named him Fluffy. I gave instructions that Fluffy should be removed. But this time a group of weepy little boys begged that they be allowed to keep the dog.
“We promise Sir, he will not bother anyone,” they said. I knew that there was a certain point of time by which pups had to be given away or else it became impossible to give them away. Obviously, here, that point had been crossed. I also knew how important it is for little children to grow up with a pet. I looked into those tear-filled, expectant eyes and weakened.
“You can keep Fluffy”. I said. It was heartening to see how the little blighters organised themselves to feed Fluffy, to bathe him, to take him on controlled walks, and to the vet for his various vaccines. They found emotional strength in looking after the dog. They were happier children and their performance in all fields improved tremendously. I could not help but be thankful for the stroke of luck which had brought the dog to the campus. Then, six months later, tragedy struck. Two boys fought over the dog, each trying to pull him in his direction. Confused and afraid the dog bit one of them. The dog had had his rabies shots and the boy was treated for the injury. But obviously he was upset enough to inform his parents. They descended upon the school the next day and threatened to take legal action against the school unless I got rid of the dog. The school lawyer, when consulted, pronounced that I was on a very weak wicket. Sadly I let the dog go. That was 17 years ago. Yesterday while going around the school, I saw four puppies hopping around, with a handful of boarders playfully chasing them. My heart warmed to the scene and I remembered, with a pang, how good Fluffy had been for those little boys. But then, I remembered too, the threat the parents had made and the lawyer’s opinion. With a heavy heart I asked the Bursar to get rid of the little puppies and, this time, I ensured that he did, indeed, get rid of
them. |
||
Killing terrorists will not destroy terrorism
Announcing this week that British troops will leave Iraq by the middle of next
year, Gordon Brown and the Prime Minister of Iraq, Nouri al-Maliki, spoke about
“building a democracy for the future and defending it against terrorism”. Yet, if the
war in Iraq has proven anything, it is the utter ineffectiveness of using military
power to counter terrorism. US President-elect Barack Obama has also pledged to withdraw troops from Iraq and I warmly welcome moves in this direction. My fear, however, is that a key motivator behind this approach is the desire to bolster troop numbers in Afghanistan. While the original Taliban regime may have been ousted, the movement itself continues to threaten that country’s future security. Yet not only does an even more visible military presence further increase the risk of fuelling extremism, it also distracts attention and resources away from strategies far more likely to be effective at tackling terrorism. For example, there must be an immediate ceasing of air strikes on targets in Afghanistan and Pakistan, in preparation for more long term measures. These should include support for negotiations between all parties involved in the conflict, reform of humanitarian aid and reconstruction funding to prioritise Afghan organisations over foreign contractors, and investment in the kind of lasting aid that increases self-reliance, not least in sustainable agriculture initiatives, for example. In Afghanistan, women have played a key role de-escalating the violence, as they have in other conflict zones like the Balkans, Somalia and Northern Ireland. However, despite being a signatory to United Nations agreement to include women in preventing and resolving violence, Britain is reluctant to engage with what this means in practice – be it training significant numbers of police women or supporting their role in development and education. This aversion means losing out on opportunities to deliver a powerful kind of “human security”, based on addressing human needs and grievances that, if frustrated and ignored, may fuel violence. Paul Rogers, Professor of Peace Studies at Bradford University, uses the term “liddism” to describe the
current mindset. He defines this approach as “keeping the lid on things rather than acknowledging the underlying problems”. Britain’s commitment to nuclear weapons, for example, stems from a belief that one day we may need to contain all kinds of unimaginable horrors and will require the ultimate in force to do so. Yet for most people the greatest threats they face are socio-economic and environmental. The global economy has failed miserably to deliver global justice. Around one billion people in the world live fairly comfortably – the remaining five billion do not. As Archbishop Desmond Tutu explains, “the real threat to global peace is failing to recognise our interdependence”, and we do this at our peril. As worldwide recession takes hold and the consequences of environmental crises like climate change are felt, many hundreds of millions of the world’s poorest people will be marginalised even further. History shows that when this happens, violent social movements can materialise, often provoking a repressive backlash in return. In other words, self-fulfiling cycles of violence are established, breeding terrorism rather than countering it. In the pages of The Independent newspaper Howard Jacobson has accused me of being complicit in terrorist atrocities. Why? Because I do not acknowledge that seeking to unravel complex grievances is the same as justifying violent action in pursuit of them. Killing terrorists will not destroy terrorism and I argue, instead, that the answers are more complex, less reactionary and, ultimately, far more difficult. The only people to blame for terrorism are the terrorists themselves, and they must in all circumstances be held to account – be they individuals, established governments or insurgent groups. This is only the beginning of the process. Increased international efforts to solve festering conflicts and strengthen failed states, development assistance, promoting democracy and equality, effective and equitable resource management, consensus building, multilateral activity and strengthening the UN apparatus all have a role to play too. Surely the war on terror will only ever be won when we replace a culture of fear with one of respect, engagement, vigilance and solidarity? — By arrangement with
The Independent |
|
Setbacks to rule of law in China
Thirty years ago this week, the epochal Third Plenum of the Eleventh Communist Party began the process of making the Chinese people far freer economically and politically than previously imaginable. Sadly, on this anniversary, the trends set in motion then appear to be reversing - with ominous implications for China and the global community. In 1978, Deng Xiaoping announced, along with other significant changes, a new legal policy summarized in 16 Chinese characters: “There must be law to rely upon; these laws must be followed; enforcement must be strict; violations must be corrected.” Deng’s goal was to change the system, redress Cultural Revolution abuses and support ambitious economic reforms. Within months, China enacted its first criminal codes and a foreign joint-venture law. For a quarter of the world’s people, this was momentous political upheaval. Since that time, China’s legal development has been inconsistent. While commercial and administrative law developed considerably, China’s stunted judicial system remained pervasively corrupt and ineffective. Individual political prisoners, targeted religious and ethnic groups, and ordinary citizens continued to experience unlawful abuse. Free expression lacked protections; arbitrary arrests and detentions persisted. Yet, until the past few years, it could be argued that China’s post-Mao legal order kept on getting better. Progress even resumed soon after the massacre in Tiananmen Square in 1989 and lasted more than a decade. China’s opening to the outside world revealed lingering abuses and provided new avenues for external pressure. Overall, the trajectory was positive. For several years now, however, there has been considerable backtracking. Setbacks in the rule of law have occurred in many areas. Most significant has been the systematic intimidation and prosecution of the few Chinese lawyers willing to represent unpopular clients in politically sensitive cases. Defense lawyers have been “warned,” placed under house arrest or imprisoned on trumped-up charges. Some have even been beaten and severely injured as warnings to others. One prominent example, Gao Zhisheng, is a Beijing lawyer who defended underground Christians, Falun Gong practitioners, dissidents and detained lawyers. In 2006, Gao was convicted of “inciting subversion” and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. Previously, he served periods of house arrest and detention and faced harassment; his license to practice law was revoked, and his firm was shut down. In 2007, his open letter to the U.S. Congress seeking expressions of concern about Chinese human rights before the Beijing Olympics led to his being abducted and, reportedly, tortured. Today in China, tens of thousands of incidents ranging from isolated protests to widespread riots requiring police and paramilitary intervention occur annually. These stem from the failure of the legal system to address unauthorized land seizures,
illnesses and deaths caused by contaminated products, and environmental disasters that result from China’s rapid, unregulated industrialization and that affect millions of
citizens. Absent opportunities for redress in the country’s tightly controlled lower-level courts, few peaceful alternatives to violent disturbances exist for airing grievances. This year, the well-educated reformer heading China’s judiciary was replaced by a new Supreme People’s Court president who is neither a lawyer nor a judge but a former police official and party apparatchik. Only last week, activists were detained for using the 60th anniversary of the United Nations’ adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to release “Charter 08,” a petition recommending constitutional reforms to make the ruling Communist Party more accountable. Liu Xiaobo, imprisoned 20 months for joining students in the Tiananmen Square protests, was arrested for “inciting subversion of state power.” Before recent reversals, China still had far to go to become a “country ruled by law” - a goal enshrined in its constitution since 1999. Nonetheless it had ceased to be the totalitarian dictatorship of the Maoist era. Now, the Chinese rule-of-law experiment is at a crossroads. Is it merely experiencing delay on the road of progress, or will repression get the upper hand? The answer is crucial, and not just for the Chinese. Many developing countries see China as a model for political and economic development distinct from Western neoliberalism. Authoritarian regimes and weak democracies hope to copy China’s economic success but may misconstrue
lessons about political and legal reform. — By arrangement with LA Times-Washington Post |
|
Beyond home loan package
The recent stimulus package offering refinance facility to the National Housing Bank and priority sector status for housing loans up to Rs. 20 lakh with reduced interest rates constitutes a good starting point for easing the liquidity crisis in real estate though it is insufficient to rejuvenate the depressed market. Take the case of Rs. 20 lakh ceiling for home loans under the priority sector. Considering that the minimum ticket size of loans in the metros and big tier 1 and tier 2 cities is Rs. 35 lakh, the government’s incentive may well bypass millions of middle-class buyers. There is, therefore, a need to raise this ceiling for affordable housing along with further reduction in interest rates. Tax waivers and liberalised FSI for affordable homes, restoration of benefits under 80 IB of the IT Act, cheaper loan to builders, incentivising home buyers for rental housing, reducing the taxes and revamping the institutional financing mechanism are the other much-needed measures that the government must adopt if it wants to realise its dream of housing for all. But while officially much needs to be done to boost housing, the developers also cannot escape their responsibility to put the sector back on rails. Today they are paying the price for profligacy, including Rs. 1 crore-plus salaries with Mercedes Benz cars for their top
executives and purchase of expensive land, that made their projects financially unviable. The over-leveraging further added to their woes. And it’s their speculative activity that hiked property prices to unsustainable levels, thereby creating asset bubble. The developers, who made handsome profits during three years of boom time, need to reduce their profit margins and offer lower rates both to restore property buyers confidence and boost sales. But it’s unfortunate that developers, despite pleas made by their industry bodies, NAREDCO and CREDAI, are not prepared to offer relief to buyers. Developers need to realise that the lowering of interest rates alone won’t spur sales as buyers are unwilling to purchase at the current price, especially as the input (steel, cement etc) costs are going down. Moreover, they just can’t expect quicker moves from the RBI to further ease liquidity as loose monetary policy runs the danger of creating a price bubble. Today there is a serious crisis of confidence among property buyers as over-leveraged and cash-strapped developers are defaulting on project delivery. So much so that now prospective buyers are scared of investing in properties under construction. Looking at the enormity of the crisis, the government should also realise that time has come to usher in long-awaited reforms in the sector — according industry status to real estate, formulating a national land acquisition policy and a progressive and efficient regulatory mechanism — to ensure a speedier growth of the sector with the interests of the developers and consumers evenly balanced. |
|
|
|
| HOME PAGE | |
Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir |
Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs |
Nation | Opinions | | Business | Sports | World | Letters | Chandigarh | Ludhiana | Delhi | | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |
