O P I N I O N S

Guest Column
Pakistan hawks prevail over its doves
The dialogue with Pakistan will remain one-sided, with the country expecting concessions from India but not feeling obliged to make any itself.
Kanwal Sibal
India-Pakistan relations are exceedingly difficult to manage because the two countries look at each other very differently. Both affirm the need to live in peace, resolve outstanding differences, give up past attitudes, strengthen expanding peace constituencies amidst them and attach priority to the task of eradicating the shared problem of poverty. But when it comes to concrete steps in this direction by decision makers, a huge gap between what each side expects of the other emerges.

Guest Column
The name Chandigarh stands for a whole concept
Chandigarh is something special. No one should try and cut it down for commercial gains by matching the name with Mullanpur. Punjab should not play the game of name stealing.
Rajindar Sachar
THE Punjab Government’s insistence on naming Mullanpur as New Chandigarh is deeply flawed. I am not entering into any discussion about whether Chandigarh should go to Haryana or Punjab, or remain a Union Territory. That aspect, the jingoists in the respective states can fight over. My objection is on a specific point.

Why Iraq is again key to India’s energy needs
For India, Iraq is important not just for its potential to meet a substantial portion of our energy needs for decades but also for our food security in the form of fertiliser supplies at competitive prices. It also provides a useful balance in the Middle-East.
Raj Chengappa
With all the brouhaha over the escalation of tension on the Line of Control between India and Pakistan, the visit of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki received far less attention than it deserved. It was the first state visit by an Iraqi Prime Minister in a decade since the US-led invasion of 2003 and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. Since then Iraq has struggled to find its feet and al-Maliki, who became Prime Minister in 2006, has had to continuously put down sectarian violence even as he worked to restore its shattered economy.

Guest Column
Pakistan hawks prevail over its doves
The dialogue with Pakistan will remain one-sided, with the country expecting concessions from India but not feeling obliged to make any itself.
Kanwal Sibal

Uneasy head: Pak PM Nawaz Sharif

India-Pakistan relations are exceedingly difficult to manage because the two countries look at each other very differently. Both affirm the need to live in peace, resolve outstanding differences, give up past attitudes, strengthen expanding peace constituencies amidst them and attach priority to the task of eradicating the shared problem of poverty. But when it comes to concrete steps in this direction by decision makers, a huge gap between what each side expects of the other emerges.

Pakistan still believes that it is a victim of India's hegemonist and hostile policies. It hold India responsible for stalling progress towards normalisation, not reciprocating Pakistan's conciliatory gestures, and defeating the efforts of the peace lobbies in Pakistan by not responding even minimally. It puts the burden of trust building on India's shoulders.

The Pakistanis want us to move beyond the Mumbai episode and be less fixated on Hafiz Saeed. They deny that Pakistan, being a greater victim of terrorism than India, has any interest in supporting 'jihadi' activity. The steadily declining infiltration figures prove, they argue, that Pakistan's military has clamped down on anti-India activity, and if incidents such as the recent killing of five Indian soldiers on the LoC occur, the responsibility lies on Indian policies in J&K.

The dialogue with Pakistan will thus remain one-sided, with Pakistan expecting concessions from us but not feeling obliged to make any itself. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has repeatedly announced his intention to focus on Kashmir. In his address to the nation this week he has referred to Kashmir as the "jugular vein" of Pakistan, implying that India's throttling grip over Pakistan has to be unloosened. If he needs such rhetoric to cover his flanks, the implication is that powerful forces in Pakistan need to be appeased, even if the armed forces are now supposedly on board to improve relations with India.

For trust building, Pakistan expects concrete Indian steps to satisfy Pakistan on outstanding issues, whether Sir Creek, Siachen, water-related issues or our policies in J&K, especially on human rights and treatment of the separatists. Under these conditions we cannot ever earn Pakistan's trust.

If trust building means that Pakistan should do what any normal country should do, namely, give up the use of terrorism against us, dismantle the infrastructure of terrorism that still exists on its territory, curb the 'jihadi' groups operating against India and expel or extradite Indian terrorists given shelter by it, then the principal onus for removing distrust lies on Pakistani shoulders instead.

Yet, despite the UN Security Council declaring Jamaat-ud-Dawa a terrorist organisation and putting its leader Hafiz Saeed on its list of terrorists, Nawaz Sharif's brother, the Chief Minister of Punjab, gives the organisation almost 60 million rupees from government funds for charitable work, besides allowing Hafiz Saeed to lead the Id prayers in Lahore's Gaddafi Stadium a few days ago. For us, trust building would also include tangible progress on the trial of those accused of the Mumbai terror attacks.

If Sir Creek and Siachen are doable according to the Pakistanis and Indian peaceniks, why is curbing Hafiz Saeed, making some progress in bringing to justice those responsible for Mumbai, or not permitting the so-called non-state actors from crossing the LoC, not doable? Nawaz Sharif's government has now announced that granting MFN treatment to India is not presently under consideration. For a leader supposedly committed to strengthening trade ties with India, even this "doable" step has been shelved.

Pakistan uses the dialogue platform to press India for concessions, whereas, by delinking dialogue from terrorism, we have lifted pressure on Pakistan to make the vital concession we want. Having a dialogue also attenuates international pressure on Pakistan on terrorism, besides allowing it to claim its readiness to negotiate positively only if India would be less rigid.

The government is keeping the doors open for a meeting between the two Prime Ministers in New York next month. If that happens, Nawaz Sharif will press for a joint statement which will, of necessity, incorporate all that Pakistan wants, including the resumption of the composite dialogue, with India including some ritual references to creating congenial conditions for such a dialogue by controlling terrorism, etc. In other words, we will revert to our failed policies based on the discredited premise that we have no option but to have a dialogue with Pakistan.

Naturally, the politically inane who believe that our dialogue with Pakistan should be "uninterrupted and uniterruptible" and some foreign policy illiterate former media advisers who, for perverse ideological reasons, want India to be punished for Pakistan's misdeeds, would be delighted to see another India-Pakistan embrace at New York. It is a peculiar syndrome that makes these deluded Indian doves coo even as Pakistani hawks deplume their Indian prey.

— The writer is a former Foreign Secretary.

Guest Column
The name Chandigarh stands for a whole concept
Chandigarh is something special. No one should try and cut it down for commercial gains by matching the name with Mullanpur. Punjab should not play the game of name stealing.
Rajindar Sachar

THE Punjab Government’s insistence on naming Mullanpur as New Chandigarh is deeply flawed. I am not entering into any discussion about whether Chandigarh should go to Haryana or Punjab, or remain a Union Territory. That aspect, the jingoists in the respective states can fight over. My objection is on a specific point.

I believe Chandigarh has a distinct and exclusive position in the world of architecture. The example of Mumbai or Navi Mumbai is totally inapposite. There are some names which cannot be fiddled with by politicians with an eye on commercial gain. Can anyone, for example, dare to think of naming a new township near Amritsar — the city of the holy Golden Temple and the immortal sacrifice of Jallianwala Bagh — as New Amritsar, or can you think of Agra of the Taj Mahal fame having the next village named New Agra.

The Lahore of 1947 was ill planned. The post-1947 extension of Lahore has excellent planning with a new international airport. But no one has dared to suggest that this beautifully planned extension be called New Lahore — Lahore still is proudly associated with the name of Anarkali Bazaar and Lahori Gate.

These instances would show that some names have a distinct and special significance and must not be played around with. Let me recall some essential peculiarities connected with the history of Chandigarh. A lot of controversy had originated right from the beginning when the concept of a capital for Punjab in the post-Partition period was being worked out. In 1949, when even the land was still being acquired for the capital, the then Chief Minister of Punjab in a meeting with Jawaharlal Nehru suggested that building a capital will necessarily take time and the rehabilitation of those displaced from West Punjab was being delayed. The Chief Minister suggested that if Old Delhi, from a little beyond Delhi University campus towards Karnal, could be added to Punjab, the rehabilitation could be quick. Nehru, half seriously and half jokingly, immediately retorted: “No, never, I know you Punjabis, today you are asking for part of Old Delhi, but I know you will in short time occupy the rest of Delhi.” So fortunately Chandigarh survived and has become a special city with a deep message in architecture at the international level.

Of course, we have had some problems with Corbusier’s concept of the city. I remember when we moved from Simla, some of us suggested to Corbusier that the Bar Room at the High Court was too small. He enquired how many lawyers were members. At that time we were about 50, so we told him may be 150 in a couple of years. On hearing this he said we did not need a bigger Bar Room. His logic was that surely in a membership of 150 lawyers, not more than 50 could want to have drinks at the same time! Evidently, Corbusier was of the impression that a Bar Room was not a place for lawyers to work and meet clients but rather a chamber where members could relax and have a drink. You may certainly accuse Corbusier or even make fun of his lack of familiarity with the working of a High Court, but there is no reason to destroy the unique identity of Chandigarh.

Another serious conflict was that when lawyers had to go to courts other than the Chief’s on a rainy day, they would be exposed to rain. So they wanted a covered verandah outside the entrance gate of the Judges’ Courtroom. But Corbusier would hear nothing of it. According to him, the straight line of view from the Secretariat to the High Court would get obstructed and spoil the sweep of the place. Finally the lawyers were able to get the ear of Indian architects, who appreciated the problem. So a half conspiracy was worked out. Corbusier regularly went to France for a couple of months. This window was used to build a verandah. Thankfully, the verandah has stayed.

So Chandigarh is something special. No one should try and cut it down for commercial gains by matching the name with Mullanpur. The Punjab Government should not play the game of name stealing. Were Chandigarh the name of a product, could anyone have marketed a similar product by calling it ‘New Chandigarh’? No court would permit such piracy, because the Patent Act forbids it. If a party were to persist, the court would impose exemplary damages. I do not know why public interest litigation has not been filed to awaken the state from such fantasy.

Deputy Chief Minister Sukhbir Badal is a dashing, innovative and resourceful politician. I am quite sure he will appreciate that his energies need to be concentrated on other urgent issues concerning Punjab — like eradicating the menace of drug abuse among the youth or the desperate condition of millions of marginal farmers.

Please spare the pride of the country, a unique adventure of the city of Chandigarh. Do not take away its uniqueness — this will be apostasy to the new wave of architecture set in motion by Chandigarh.

— The writer is a former Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court.