O P I N I O N S

EDITORIALS

Decks cleared for Lokpal
But CBI control may still queer the pitch
THE Union Cabinet’s clearance of the draft Lokpal Bill on Tuesday and Team Anna’s scathing comments on it even before it had seen the approved draft, point to an impending confrontation between the two sides all over again.

Faith and politics
Judgement a blow to SAD
THE Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision to quash a notification denying voting rights in Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee (SGPC) polls to Sehajdhari Sikhs will have political and religious impact.

‘Unattached’ legislators
Haryana Speaker has propriety on hold
THE Punjab and Haryana High Court declaring “unattached” five “defecting” MLAs in the Haryana Assembly — thereby rendering the Congress government four seats short of the halfway mark in the 90-member House — may have touched the sensitive line separating legislative and judicial territories.

• Thought for the Day

ARTICLE

Effect of Iranian N-ambitions
US, Saudi Arabia and Israel together
by G. Parthasarathy
ON December 6, Prince Turki Al-Faisal, the powerful Intelligence Chief of Saudi Arabia, asserted: “Our efforts and those of the world have failed to convince Israel to abandon its weapons of mass destruction, as well as Iran.

MIDDLE

The tamed tiger
by Raj Kadyan
I was on short winter leave from Nagaland where I had been commanding a battalion. My family was in government quarters in Delhi Cantonment. Telephone connections those days were hard to get, and we were lucky to have one. It was also used by many of our neighbours.

OPED — DEBATE

‘It’s the faith that matters, not form’
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed a 2003 Central notification that denied Sehajdhari Sikhs the right to vote in the SGPC elections. The personal opinion of a cross-section of the community reveals the majority is pleased over the development, regardless of what the political class may hold

EDITORIALS

Decks cleared for Lokpal
But CBI control may still queer the pitch

THE Union Cabinet’s clearance of the draft Lokpal Bill on Tuesday and Team Anna’s scathing comments on it even before it had seen the approved draft, point to an impending confrontation between the two sides all over again. With the government having agreed to the inclusion of the Prime Minister under the Lokpal with some riders and also given in on Team Anna’s insistence on Group C government employees coming under the Lokpal’s purview, the sticking point remains the CBI. While the government is unwilling to give up control over this potent weapon in its armour, the civil activists are deeply resentful that the government has, under the draft bill, retained administrative control over CBI and its finances and that the CBI will retain its autonomy of investigation, but would only report to the Lokpal in cases referred to it by that body. The worry for the government is that even the principal opposition party the BJP is uncompromising that CBI must be independent of the government in every way.

While the speed with which the Cabinet has acted on the Lokpal Bill has been impressive, procedurally its way of dealing with it was manifestly improper. It is common practice for draft bills to be circulated to ministers beforehand so that there can be meaningful discussion at the Cabinet meeting. However, in this case the Lokpal draft was circulated at the meeting itself. It is small wonder then that there was virtually no discussion over it. The fact that the draft Bill includes a provision for setting up Lokayuktas in the states which was not there in the original draft Bill is reason enough for it to go back to the standing committee. As for Team Anna it must rue the fact that it cried ‘wolf’ once too often. Its effectiveness has undoubtedly suffered some damage.

It would be difficult to deny that the government has been conciliatory in general. Some of the differences between civil activists and the opposition on one side and the government on the other can still be sorted out without recourse to extreme steps like ‘jail bharo’ that Anna Hazare is talking about. The opposition must also get its act together rather than finding excuses to put the government on the mat. It is time that the Lokpal Bill be taken to its logical conclusion after honest deliberation.

Faith and politics
Judgement a blow to SAD

THE Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision to quash a notification denying voting rights in Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee (SGPC) polls to Sehajdhari Sikhs will have political and religious impact. The judges, however, carefully confined themselves to judging the legality of the notification which had been issued by the Centre at the behest of the Shiromani Akali Dal in 2003. They overturned the notification through which Sehajdhari Sikhs were not able to vote in the SGPC polls in 2004 and 2011.

Sehajdharis, literally slow adopters, have long been a part of Sikh ethos, especially before Partition when they formed a significant section of the Sikhs. While there is no official definition of Sehajdhari Sikhs, they are non-Sikhs who seek to adopt Sikh religion and believe in the Sikh Gurus even as they do not have the visible symbols of the Sikhs like long hair. The judgement now opens the way for them to participate in SGPC elections. The number of Sehajdhari Sikhs has been declining since Partition, and they do not constitute a significant voting bloc. People born into Sikh families who have cut their hair are not regarded as Sehajdhari Sikhs, but as ‘Patit’ Sikhs, or as those who have transgressed.

It is for the adherents of the religion to settle who is part of the community and who is not. It will not be an easy task to decide who fits into what category and there is no doubt that it will be difficult to define these classes. The High Court judgement has, in a way, restored the earlier status quo. The SGPC has, historically, had a role that is much larger than managing gurdwaras, as its name implies. It would thus be prudent for the organisation to get wide opinion and deliberate over the long-term implications of making changes to what is commonly accepted, before actually doing so.

‘Unattached’ legislators
Haryana Speaker has propriety on hold

THE Punjab and Haryana High Court declaring “unattached” five “defecting” MLAs in the Haryana Assembly — thereby rendering the Congress government four seats short of the halfway mark in the 90-member House — may have touched the sensitive line separating legislative and judicial territories. The ruling, however, was only to be expected, given the fact that the court had on more than one occasion asked the Speaker to take an early decision on Haryana Janhit Congress (BL) president Kuldeep Bishnoi’s plea to disqualify the MLAs under the anti-defection law.

While the politics of numbers in the Assembly can take its own course, the ruling — which gives de facto approval to the MLAs’ presence in the House — has set the stage for an issue larger than mere disqualification of legislators. How far the judiciary can, and should, go in upholding the Constitution is the question. The court has for the second time this year asked the Speaker to decide the matter within four months to “save the sanctity of the democratic institution”. The Tenth Schedule of the Constitution is clear that the Speaker has the last word on a disqualification plea against a member. But then the court has only set a deadline for the Speaker to take a decision. If the Speaker does not comply, will the court take another step? The matter is balanced precariously.

The debate, inadvertently, has also brought focus on the Speaker’s handling of the disqualification plea. He is well within his rights to decide the way he wants, and go about the process as he deems fit. Yet, keeping the case pending for two years does seem an “unnecessary delay”, as the court has observed. A prompt and just decision would have raised the office of Speaker above party politics. There could be two explanations for the delay — the anti-defection law is far too complex to take a quick decision, or the Speaker is not comfortable with the outcome of the decision he may take as per law. Either way, it does seem that he is taking his legislative liberty a little too literally. When we begin to test the boundaries of democracy, we also begin to fail the high ideal.

Thought for the Day

It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.

— Charles Darwin

ARTICLE

Effect of Iranian N-ambitions
US, Saudi Arabia and Israel together
by G. Parthasarathy

ON December 6, Prince Turki Al-Faisal, the powerful Intelligence Chief of Saudi Arabia, asserted: “Our efforts and those of the world have failed to convince Israel to abandon its weapons of mass destruction, as well as Iran. It is, therefore, our duty towards our nation and people to consider all possible options, including the possession of nuclear weapons.” Oil-rich Saudi Arabia currently has plans to build 16 nuclear reactors over the next two decades at a cost of $80 billion.

Prince Turki’s assertion came in the aftermath of the latest International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report on Iran’s nuclear programme, which has predictably produced a hysterical American reaction, leading to moves for the imposition of further banking sanctions on Iranian oil exports.  Tensions between the UK and Iran have also escalated after the UK unilaterally announced new and stringent financial sanctions imposed on Iran.

Most analysts agree that it would take Iran anywhere from three to eight years to build a nuclear weapon. In the meantime, key Iranian nuclear scientists have been assassinated in Tehran and a “Stuxnet” computer virus mysteriously introduced into Iran’s nuclear facilities, resulting in their being crippled for several months.  The widespread belief is that these developments have evidently been engineered jointly and separately by the US and Israel. Matters have now again come to a head after the recent IAEA report alleging that a foreign scientist had helped Iran to develop and design a nuclear explosive device.

The IAEA report alludes to information provided by unnamed foreign intelligence agencies, evidently from the US, the UK and Israel.  Its credibility and accuracy have been widely questioned.  Both Russia and China will, however, oppose any move by the US and the UK to impose any further economic sanctions on Iran.

American journalist Seymour Hersh pertinently observed that the “carefully hedged” IAEA report had raised concerns merely about the “possible existence” of undeclared nuclear facilities in Iran. Observers have not failed to note that it was precisely such “unverified” information about Iraq’s alleged nuclear facilities that provided the excuse for the American invasion of Iraq in 2003. The recent IAEA report oddly states that some activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device “may still be on-going”.

Interestingly, a rattled Iran had almost immediately agreed to suspend its nuclear enrichment programme and to stringent IAEA inspections soon after the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Ever since then it has been a cat and mouse game between the Americans and the Iranians on controversies over Iran’s nuclear enrichment programme. Iran recommenced its uranium enrichment in 2005 and the IAEA declared that it was in violation of its obligations as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Australian academic Ramesh Thakur pertinently observes: “Iran can no more prove a negative than Iraq could in 2002-2003: that it does not have hidden proliferation activities.”

While there is no evidence to establish that Iran is on the verge of developing nuclear weapons, the very fact that it appears to be moving towards developing nuclear weapons production capability has brought together an alliance of the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia to sound alarm bells about a country that has rather provocatively called for Israel to be “wiped off the map,” outrageously denied Hitler’s genocide of Jews and supported radical movements in the Arab world, raising concern in several “moderate” Arab countries. Moreover, Shia-Sunni rivalries and differences have assumed greater salience across the Gulf and West Asia. There is little doubt that the Saudis would be delighted if the Israelis chose to act to decapitate Iran’s nuclear programme. When Israel’s Air Force destroyed Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981, its aircraft flew across Saudi Arabia.

While explaining the rationale for Pakistan’s nuclear programme, its then Prime Minister Z.A. Bhutto noted that while the “Christian, Jewish and Hindu” civilisations had nuclear weapons capability, it was the “Islamic civilisation” alone that did not possess nuclear weapons. He asserted that he would be remembered as the man who had provided the “Islamic civilisation” with “full nuclear capability”.

Bhutto’s views on Pakistan’s nuclear weapons contributing to the capabilities of the “Islamic civilisation” are shared by Pakistan’s nuclear scientist Sultan Bashiruddin Mehmood who, along with his colleague Chaudhri Abdul Majeed, was detained shortly after the terrorist strikes of 9/11. Mehmood described Pakistan’s nuclear capability as the property of the whole “ummah”. It is precisely such ideological leanings that prompted the commencement of Pakistani assistance to Iran’s enrichment programme over two decades ago. Iraq and Libya sought similar Pakistani assistance. The nuclear ambitions of both Arab countries were thwarted by Western pressures and invasions. The Iranians are, however, made of a different mettle.

Given growing Shia-Sunni rivalries in the oil-rich Gulf region, how will Saudi Arabia respond in the event of Iran going nuclear? Saudi Arabia lacks manpower and technological skills of Iran. The only Islamic country that can provide the Saudis with a nuclear deterrent is Pakistan, whose nuclear arsenal is rapidly exceeding what it needs for its own security. Saudi Arabia’s Defence Minister Prince Sultan was given unprecedented access to Pakistan’s nuclear weapons facilities in Kahuta in March 1999. Dr A.Q. Khan thereafter paid a visit to Saudi Arabia at the invitation of Prince Sultan in November 1999. Khan’s visit was followed by a visit to Pakistan’s nuclear facilities by Saudi scientists who had been invited by him to Pakistan.

Given these developments and the fact that China has supplied long-range CSS 2 missiles to Saudi Arabia, there is interest about the precise directions that nuclear and missile collaboration between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia could take. Pakistan could, for example, justify the deployment of nuclear weapons and missiles on Saudi soil by asserting that this was akin to the deployment of American nuclear weapons and missiles on the soil of its NATO allies. It did not, therefore, constitute a violation of the NPT. The only alternative for the Saudis would be an American nuclear umbrella, whose reliability would be questionable, especially when there is growing US unpopularity in the Islamic world.

Despite Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto’s dreams of Pakistan’s bomb contributing to the glory of the “Islamic civilisation,” his cashstrapped and growingly dysfunctional country may end up being drawn into the rivalries between Shia Iran on the one hand and the Sunni Arabs on the other. What he described as the “Christian, Jewish and Hindu civilisations” can only watch this drama if and when it is played out. Pakistan’s long-term dreams of uniting the Islamic world against India will inevitably run into the wall of civilisational and sectarian rivalries and tensions to its west.

MIDDLE

The tamed tiger
by Raj Kadyan

I was on short winter leave from Nagaland where I had been commanding a battalion. My family was in government quarters in Delhi Cantonment. Telephone connections those days were hard to get, and we were lucky to have one. It was also used by many of our neighbours.

It was early in the morning when the telephone rang. My wife sent the domestic help to call the girl from across the road. The call was from her father who was commanding a division in Ladakh. I knew the General. As a Captain he had been our platoon commander in the Indian Military Academy. He carried a very high professional reputation. But he was a stickler for discipline and his temper was always on short fuse. As cadets, we unofficially had prefixed “terror” to his surname.

The girl came shortly, wearing her gown. She was an airhostess. Her somewhat dishevelled state showed that she must have been on a late night flight and was pulled out of bed by the call. She also carried a bad cold. She took the phone. It had been over five minutes since the call came. The operator told her that the General had perhaps left for the office and that she should hold on. Another two minutes of silence, broken only by the hapless girl’s sneezing.

The operator came on the line again to say that the General had not reached the office and, perhaps, had gone to the officers’ mess. The operator said he was searching for him and that the madam should remain on the line. After all, the operator could not afford to keep the General waiting. More silence and sneezing followed. It must have taken nearly 10 minutes before the General came on the line. Then all hell broke loose.

“Look here”, the daughter said in a raised voice, “I don’t care what General you are in the Army. Next time you want to talk to me, you better come on the line first.” It was fortuitous that we did not hear the voice at the other end. It would have been unsavoury to hear a grovelling father, that too a “terror” General of the Army. We could only hear the daughter letting him “have it” through her tears and sobs. Out of the epithets she used, ‘bullshit’ was perhaps the least offending.

My wife did her best to play a motherly role. After the call she gave her coffee and an arms-around comfort. I could not help looking at our carpet-crawling nine-month-old daughter and wondering what lay in store for me as a father.

It did not take me many summers to experience the unbounded pleasure of being bullied by a daughter.

OPED — DEBATE

‘It’s the faith that matters, not form’

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed a 2003 Central notification that denied Sehajdhari Sikhs the right to vote in the SGPC elections. The personal opinion of a cross-section of the community reveals the majority is pleased over the development, regardless of what the political class may hold