|
|
|
|
|
Arms and the act
Karnataka set for polls |
|
|
Dropping divorce petition
Bhagat Singh’s sacrifice
Football, American style
The worries in Afghanistan
The Taliban threat to elections
Window on Pakistan
|
Arms and the act
Anti-hero
Khalnayak or the affable Munnabhai, however you look at him, there is a man inside the star; and that man falters just as any other would. But this one mistake of Sanjay Dutt has been found serious enough by the Supreme Court to send him behind bars for five years. No one would argue with the legal merits of the sentence, but many a heart would go out to the father of a grown-up daughter and twin tiny tots resigning to the pain of his own doing. Initial reports quote him as saying he accepts the ruling ‘as it is’. That perhaps is the best way to prepare for the more than three years he may yet have to spend in jail. Acceptance does mitigate distress. Sanjay is a star, has been involved in charity work, was born into a family as respected and celebrated as it gets. His conduct since his bail in 2007 — and even earlier, barring the one mistake he is paying for — gives no reason to suspect he holds any threat to society. Yet, to say that he need not be sent to jail because he seems a ‘good man’ would be presumptuous to the extent that it would amount to giving a certificate of character to a man because he is in a certain position. It is not the posturing or proclamation of good intent that make a man, but his actions. And here he is, found possessing illegal weapons, procured from people of patently sinister character. There is no denying that Sanjay’s has been a life of extraordinary emotional upheavals — drugs, a mother dying of cancer while he was still in his early twenties, a wife dying, a divorce, and now imprisonment. And that perhaps makes him the tragic hero for us, who otherwise should have lived nothing but a high life. His fate should also serve to bring us all — forever looking for that forbidden thrill — down to mother earth. Even more, it would be people in his station who would do well to get in touch with reality.
|
|
Karnataka set for polls
The
announcement of elections to the 224-member Karnataka assembly marks the end of a sordid story of corruption, infighting and non-performance. The first BJP government in South India saw three chief ministers in five years and their record is out and out dismal. The state that has built a global reputation for excellence in IT has witnessed a sharp slowdown in growth and a decline in governance. Whenever the BJP launched a battle against graft, fingers were pointed at its corruption-ridden regime in Karnataka. Corruption is a key issue in the state. Charges of nepotism, motivated land-denotification, preferential allotment of land and plots have been levelled off and on. The Reddy brothers' mining scandal has hit headlines at the national level. Every party has leaders who have been investigated or indicted by a proactive Lokayukta. Chief Minister Jagadish Shettar is under the Lokayukta radar and so are former chief ministers N. Dharam Singh and H.D. Kumaraswamy. B.S Yeddyurappa had to quit as Chief Minister after the Lokayukta indicted him in the Rs 16,000 crore mining scam. Last December he floated his own Karnataka Janata Party (KJP) and the BJP leadership did not know how to handle him. Yeddyurappa is likely to spoil whatever chances the BJP have of a second term. The recent elections to the urban local bodies dealt a humiliating defeat to the BJP in its strongholds and the Congress was a surprise gainer. The Janata Dal (Secular) is the fourth contender for power in the May 5 single-phase elections. Caste equations play a key role in the state politics. Both Yedderuppa and Shettar represent the Lingayats, who form 21 per cent of the population followed by the Vokkalingas (18 per cent), the Muslims (12 per cent) and the backward classes (40 per cent). If the voters wish to purge politics of corruption, they will have to throw out tainted leaders regardless of their caste and political colour. Bangalore has a reputation to protect.
|
|
|
Dropping divorce petition
Is
it another way to check the growing divorce rate that is shaking the solid foundations of the much glorified Indian family structure? Notwithstanding “The War of the Roses”, the marital dispute that almost always seem to get fuelled with the passage of time, Indian courts have now decided to come to the rescue of warring couples, if they decide to burry the hatchet. Though India is facing one of the lowest divorce rates among the developing societies, the courts are still shy of putting across the data on the rate of divorce. Some agencies have worked out the increase in the divorce rate in urban areas to be 100 per cent in the past five years. Most of the marriages that come to the brink of breaking up are between upwardly mobile urban middle class working couples. These couples may not exactly be the prototypes of “Mr and Mrs Smith” hungry for each other’s blood, they end up splitting their marriage because the pressure of modern workplace has made an unprecedented difference in their lifestyle — both men and women. Their marriages are very different from all their referral points; of their parents, grand parents, uncles and aunts. More time and energy is consumed in making a career than nurturing a relationship, which results in a break-up. It was due to this phenomenal increase in the divorce petitions that lately the government decided to make the divorce process easier by bringing in several amendments to the laws on divorce. Now, the courts want to be sympathetic towards the warring couples if they wish to give a second chance to their divorce petitions. Exercising their inherent powers under Section 482 of IPC, the High Courts can now quash the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint if the couples want to patch up and wish to withdraw dowry harassment and other criminal complaints. The courts want to encourage couples to settle their domestic issues with the least intervention of the legal machinery that is already overworked.
|
|
|
I wish that all of nature's magnificence, the emotion of the land, the living energy of place could be photographed. — Annie Leibovitz
|
Bhagat Singh’s sacrifice Even Mahatma Gandhi had a tendency to mix religion with popular movements. True, it aroused wide response but in the process it also sowed narrow religious feelings in the minds of people and destroyed the secular ethos of the land. Ram Rajya was a concept of an ideal state in Hindu religion. It was like Palto’s Republic, not attainable. And terms like Ram Rajya sowed suspicion in the minds of minorities, making them feel that Hindu ideology was being imposed on them. A pluralistic society required a secular approach; even a bit of bias could contaminate the nation. Bhagat Singh, who was hanged on March 23, 1931, studied Bakunin, the anarchist leader, much of Lenin, Trotsky and others. They were all atheists. Bhagat Singh, whose death anniversary falls this week, had once been a devout believer, an Arya Samajist, although his father was a Sikh. His hair was long, unshorn and unclipped, till his teens. But he could never believe in the mythology and doctrine of Sikhism or any other religion. By the time he came to shoulder the responsibility of revolutionary work, he had undergone a change. It was in the name of God, Bhagat Singh recalled, that Hindu-Muslim riots broke out after the non-cooperation movement. He had been horrified. How could two communities, who had sunk their religious differences years ago and fought side by side to oust the British, thirst for each other’s blood to support the Caliphate in Turkey? Not that he believed it was a correct cause to take up. What disappointed him was the ferocity with which members of the two communities jumped at each other’s throats after sharing the same ideals, the same campaigns and even the same jails. They had participated in the movement together yet remained strangers. They never fought as Indians, never as human beings on the grounds of humanity. Religious, political or personal considerations had brought them together. But at heart, they remained biased and bigoted, Hindus and Muslims till the very end. It seemed strange to Gandhiji that the revolutionaries, who fought against prejudice all their lives, fell victim to it before dying. He was thinking in particular of the revolutionaries in the Kakori case. That they funded revolutionary activities through dacoities was completely acceptable to him, as it was to Chandra Shekhar Azad and some of his comrades. But the cult of martyrdom was what Bhagat Singh liked most in Sikhism, the faith that he was born into. He would often recall the words of Guru Gobind Singh, the tenth Sikh Guru. “It is incumbent on people to sacrifice their life to strengthen the cause they uphold.” He derived inspiration from the Guru’s words: “Chidiyan noo baaz nall ladaoon, taan Guru Gobind Singh kahalson.” (Only when I make sparrows fight with eagles, can I be called Guru Gobind Singh.) But Bhagat Singh did not believe in the cult of Sikhism or, for that matter, any other religion. For him religion was a disease, born out of fear. It was the opium of the masses. He remembered the words of Karl Marx: “Man makes religion, religion does not make man.” Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah too advised people after founding Pakistan that religion should never be mixed with politics. In fact, when he was the Central Assembly member before Partition, he fought for better rights for Bhagat Singh and his colleagues who were in jail and agitated against the treatment meted out to them. Like the Bahgat Singh hanging 82 years ago, the Jalianwala Bagh tragedy on April 13 will be recalled. Jalianwala Bagh is the place where General E.H. Dyer ordered the killing of peaceful protesters, Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims, including women and children. The shooting was not stopped until the last bullet was exhausted. Some 1500 people were killed. It is a matter of pride that Dyer was killed by martyr Udham Singh at London several years later. Both events are etched on the minds of elderly people of the country. How to evoke the same sentiments among the younger generation is the problem. The government pays only lip sympathy to the pre-Partition icons. But were they to propagate even Bhagat Singh’s thoughts on Hindu-Muslim unity, the problem of communalism which is troubling India would be easy to solve. The least the government can do is to remember the revolutionaries and their sacrifices. But, unfortunately, the government has neither organized any meeting nor seminar to remember Bhagat Singh or revolutionaries like him who contributed to the unity of the country. Bhagat Singh was only 23 when he went to the gallows fighting against the British rulers. He had no politics other than the politics of sacrificing one’s life and freeing India from bondage. The best way to keep their sacrifices alive is to commemorate the memory of such icons of
yesteryears.
|
||
Football, American style There is a sport which Americans call football and I have always marvelled at their audacity in doing so. This is a game in which the ball – if the oval object can be so called – is carried or thrown by hand all the way, while they insist that the one in which the ball is actually dribbled by feet be called something else. Therefore, when my host in Columbia, the capital of South Carolina, suggested that I time my visit to be there on a Saturday because that is when the big games are played, initially I balked at the idea. But I was promised an unforgettable experience, and since it can only be seen live in America, I complied. And memorable it was. One, it was the sheer physicality of the contest which, once its rules were explained, seemed like two armoured regiments in close combat on a chessboard. Even more eye-catching were the aerobatic cheerleader girls, very unlike the hip-jiggling hippos of IPL cricket. It was a senior division university match – which is just below the national professional league – between South Carolina and Tennessee. The game involves, roughly speaking, scoring goals which they call touchdowns, by advancing in units of minimum ten yards in sets of four attempts by turn. So fierce is the man-to-man marking that sometimes getting the ball even one yard ahead becomes impossible. It is in blocking the advancing team that the real action lies. This is also when the injuries take place and what excites the spectators most. Barring actual kicking and punching, everything goes. Even these fouls are not uncommon as the referee cannot see what goes on as the players pile upon each other and the ball in the scrimmage. Despite helmets, in every season a few players die of head injuries and thousands suffer concussions. Shoulder and knee pads are included in the body armour. And tooth guards dangle on chains from the helmets, to be worn every time the players get set for the scrimmage charge. Naturally, the crowd gets very excited when the action is on. We were with a group of Indian origin. It is only the frenzy of a football game that can transform gentle and genial desi housewives into spewers of graphic Punjabi invective. Despite the protection, in the game I saw, two players limped off the ground, before a third, Marcus Lattimore, a promising quarter-back (something akin to a centre-half in hockey) was hit so badly on his knee during one of the ball snatching melees that he had to be carried off in a cart. Throughout the day people were lamenting the probability that a potentially highly successful career (which means earning millions of dollars every year) had been nipped in the bud. The actual playing time in the match is one hour, comprising four quarters. But there are so many breaks and interruptions—for injuries, substitutions, time-outs, stops after each touchdown, scheduled intervals and even for TV commercials to get over—that the game seldom finishes in less than three hours. The home side won the match narrowly. After the game, during the drive back, on the car radio, at home at the dining table and on the TV subsequently, the only thing they talked about was the game, and Maurice
Lattimore.
|
||
The worries in Afghanistan IN the days that have passed since American Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel visited Kabul and received a less than cordial welcome from President Hamid Karzai, there has been no visible improvement in relations between the Karzai administration and the International Security Assistance Force. The fact that two Americans and some others were killed in a "green-on-blue" attack the day after Karzai made his speech criticising America and the Taliban was probably a coincidence. But the speech itself blaming the two for colluding to create security conditions to justify a continued American presence was deemed provocative. US and Nato commander Gen Joseph Dunford issued an advisory to his commanders in the field asking them to be extra alert after what he termed an inflammatory speech that could trigger insider attacks by Afghan forces against Westerners. He even went on to say that "he [Karzai] may issue orders that put our forces at risk". It is difficult to think of anything else that could better describe how precarious the Afghan-American relationship has become. After a call from US Secretary of State John Kerry, Karzai did acknowledge the importance of working with America and maintained: "My recent comments were meant to help reform, not destroy the relationship." He did not, however, retract his charges of Taliban-American collusion or change his adamant stand on the transfer of Bagram's Parwan prison unconditionally to Afghan authorities. In subsequent conversations with Dunford, Karzai's office claimed it had been agreed that the transfer would be completed within a week but the American statement on the subject went no further than stating that the next week would be used to work out the issues. It does not seem likely that the Americans will agree to the transfer unless they are given assurances that the three dozen or so prisoners the Americans regard as "enduring security threats" will not be released by the Afghan judicial system. And therein lies the rub. If one understands Karzai it would appear that beyond the publicly stated position of asserting Afghan sovereignty Karzai does want to release these mostly Pakhtun prisoners because of the influence they enjoy in the Pakhtun-dominated areas of south and east Afghanistan. Perhaps he believes that these prisoners will on release become the vehicle for dialogue with the Taliban leadership that Karzai says he desperately wants as a means of advancing reconciliation. More likely he hopes that they will galvanise support in the Pakhtun belt for the candidate he puts forward for next year's presidential election. In the meanwhile, Karzai's speech has provoked reactions both within Afghanistan and in the West. In Washington a senator, Lindsey Graham, involved in Afghan policy has been quoted as being ready to "pull the plug" on assistance to Afghanistan. The New York Times in an editorial has called Karzai's behaviour "appalling" and opined that "it will make it harder for Mr Obama to argue compellingly to keep a smaller counterterrorism and training force in Afghanistan into 2015 and beyond". In Kabul, a group of representatives from 14 political parties - most of them opposition groups but several with members in government - held a news conference to denounce the president's stance. On the other hand, there have been demonstrations in Maidan Wardak and Kabul calling for the immediate implementation of the Karzai order to remove all American forces from Wardak. The Afghan Ulema Council, all government appointees, have made a similar demand in a statement which called the Americans "infidels" and threatened that if they [the Americans] did not "honour their commitments then this [their presence in Afghanistan] will be considered as an occupation, and they may expect to see a reaction to their action". The Americans currently are adamant that this contretemps will not affect their military plans but the truth is that if there is an increase in "green-on-blue" attacks it is not only a residual presence but also an orderly American withdrawal that will become a nightmare. British commentators are grimly recalling the fate of British troops in the First and Second Afghan wars. The accepted axiom that "retreat is often the most dangerous part of a deployment especially when the military falls below the critical mass required to protect itself" will certainly apply if by April 2014, 34,000 troops are withdrawn. This would leave half the number to carry out their own withdrawal and that of the $48 billion worth of equipment currently in Afghanistan, which would require the movement of 95,000 containers and 35,000 vehicles. America will do what it can to avoid such a situation. One way is to pursue reconciliation with or without Karzai. The Afghan president's opponents have now made public their efforts, undoubtedly with American support, to seek recon-ciliation with the "armed" opposition. An Associated Press story by Kathy Gannon, easily the Western correspondent with the best connections with Afghan politicians and knowledgeable Pakistanis, recently said that the 20-party Council of Cooperation of Political Parties which counts among its numbers some heavyweight Afghan politicians, many part of Karzai's administration, is reaching out to both the Taliban and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. And that two senior Taliban officials have indicated the group is willing to pursue talks. The problem is that, to my mind, these parties all have different agendas and while they could come together to frame a "charter of democracy" in September 2012 laying down reasonable conditions for Afghan elections, they will have very different views on how negotiations with the Taliban should be conducted and what the outcome of these negotiations should be. It is difficult to imagine that they can sink their differences and reach a solution. The outlook is bleak for Afghanistan and therefore for Pakistan. Can we do something about it? And if not, can we make whatever effort we can to insulate ourselves from the turbulence that is to begin in Afghanistan? The writer is a former Foreign
Secretary of Pakistan.
By arrangement with Dawn, Islamabad.
|
|
The Taliban threat to elections HAVING divided the political class and once again confused society with talk of talks, the TTP has now “suspended” its offer of negotiations with the government. Ehsanullah Ehsan, the TTP spokesperson, has claimed that the government’s lack of seriousness about negotiations with the Taliban is behind the TTP’s move. More realistically, the TTP has achieved much of what it set out to do by mooting the idea of talks. In the two craven multi-party conferences that took placein quick succession, the religious right and large segments of the political mainstream all but suggested that the state give up on the idea of Pakistan as a modern nation-state with a monopoly over legitimate violence and in which the citizenry enjoy freedoms and rights. Given that the TTP’s offer of talks coincided with a wave of militant violence, it never really appeared to be a meaningful offer. What the focus should switch to now is how best to secure the upcoming elections from militant violence. Ehsanullah Ehsan’s warning to the public to stay away from electoral activities is particularly ominous because the TTP has already made it clear that it regards elections as un-Islamic and that it will target “secular” politicians during the campaign. The mere threat of violence by the TTP is enough to potentially skew elections in parts of the country because both the voter and a certain kind of candidate in areas such as Fata and parts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Balochistan, Punjab and Karachi may opt to stay at home, opening the door further to pro-Taliban political forces that will be able to campaign and vote more freely. If the TTP is to be stopped from indirectly shaping the composition of the elected assemblies, a comprehensive security plan must be drawn up — one that will require close cooperation between the Election Commission of Pakistan, the caretaker governments and security apparatus. Securing the election from militant threats is neither beyond the realm of possibility nor something we can afford to overlook. True, elections by their very nature present a plethora of potential targets to those bent on violence and there is a trade-off between security and openness. But the stakes are too high to let a business-as-usual attitude prevail. The ECP, already burdened with a number of duties and crises, needs to put security near the top of the list of its priorities — and win the cooperation of the necessary institutions as quickly as possible. —
An edit in Dawn, Islamabad
|
|
Window on Pakistan
That
democracy has come to stay in Pakistan has never been as much talked about as is being done today. The occasion has been provided by the completion of the five-year term of the Pakistan National Assembly (parliament) and the provincial assemblies for the first time in the history of a country ruled by military dictators more than elected representatives of people. Democracy lovers in Pakistan and the rest of South Asia could not ask for more. It will not be an exaggeration to say that Pakistan’s media, judiciary and civil society have played an admirable role to ensure that an atmosphere is created in which military dictators can never again gather courage to capture the levers of civilian power. A strong, independent and vibrant media, judiciary and civil society are essential for the survival of democracy. Another interesting development has happened now when efforts are on to instal a caretaker government for holding elections and running the administration till a new elected political dispensation is not in place. The Election Commission of Pakistan has come out with the idea of new nomination forms prepared in accordance with the provisions in Articles 62 and 63 of the constitution. According to a commentator of The News, Shakeel Haider Sayyed, “The new nomination forms will be helpful in sifting lawmakers from lawbreakers at the very first instance of the electoral contest. Questioning the integrity of candidates through information about their academic qualifications, tax returns, loan defaults, etc, will help sensitise all the political parties --- including those who appear to oppose it --- to the significance of transparency in establishing their credibility. This will then strengthen the role of lawmakers in the long term.” However, Pakistan has made this singular achievement despite the PPP-led government doing little to strengthen the roots of democracy. The Nation newspaper commented, “But whether the completion of its (the National Assembly’s) term could guarantee a Bonapartist army head stepping once again in the corridors of power, as the Prime Minister (Raja Pervaiz Ashraf) has said, is an open question; for the government made no effort to establish genuine democratic traditions, but rather did everything positive to tear apart the already existing ones…. The outgoing government, instead, presented the worst possible model of a corrupt regime with an inevitable consequence of misgovernance.” The way attempts are being made to find a caretaker head of government also does not provide proof that the political class is seriously working for strengthening democratic traditions. As The News has pointed out, Pakistan is “not exactly presenting a beautiful face of democracy at work. Consensus and transparency are badly needed, notably on a caretaker government… Continued chaos is simply not good at all, particularly in the current circumstances…” The elected government has survived not because of the exemplary conduct of President Asif Zardari of Pakistan as a democratically elected leader. His Prime Minister, Yousuf Raza Gilani, lost his job owing to the fact that the higher judiciary refused to function as a pliable judiciary. The person who replaced Gilani, Raja Pervaiz Ashraf, barely escaped meeting the fate of his predecessor. In fact, the PPP-led government would have been replaced by a military regime after about a year of its formation --- in 2009 --- when the army offensive was launched against the Taliban in the Swat valley in Waziristan. But the Pakistan Army, in the process of what it did, became so unpopular among the masses that it could not gather enough courage to re-capture the reins of power. The army began to be hated like any other institution during the regime of Gen Pervez Musharraf who blatantly used it to sustain his rule. The chances of his successor in the army, Gen Ashfaque Kayani, overthrowing an elected government were scuttled because of the actions of the armed forces themselves. Thus, the army’s loss is democracy’s gain but unwittingly. Democracy enthusiasts have benefited by default. Yet it is a happy development for the entire South Asian region because a democratic government in Pakistan can be expected to behave more responsibly than an administration run by a military dictator.
|
||
|
| 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 | |
It does not seem likely that the Americans will agree to the transfer unless they are given assurances that the three dozen or so prisoners the Americans regard as "enduring security threats" will not be released by the Afghan judicial system.
