P A G E
Monday, August 17, 1998
today's calendar
|
E D I T O R I A L P A G E |
Monday, August 17, 1998 |
| weather n
spotlight today's calendar |
||
|
Commitment
to freedom
Clinton’s
credibility |
 |
French
Economic Commission |
||||||||||||||||
|
|
Commitment to freedom THE culmination of the celebration of half a century of India's freedom has brought out the stark truth that the mere froth of souls in a celestial vacuum cannot mean translation of principles into practical human behaviour. The people's faith in themselves is the most important source of the strength that our democracy has and any sacrifice is not too big for the nation for salvaging this faith for restoring order throughout the country. President K.R. Narayanan spoke to the nation twice between August 14 and 15 — first through an interview telecast by Doordarshan and then through a frank speech delivered in the Central Hall of Parliament. Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee addressed the nation from the ramparts of the Red Fort and did a good bit of plainspeaking. The Head of State and the Head of Government emphasised India's resolve to live in peace and without fear as a proud nation amongst other sovereign nations. The President did not mince his words. Commenting on the argument of some political scientists that the age of sovereignty was over and that what was needed was a frontierless and borderless world, he said: "It is a very dangerous philosophy which may suit the most developed and powerful countries of the world, and not those which are small and developing." He also predicted that "communal mobilisation, in the long run, will not succeed in India because Indian society cannot be mobilised communally. Even the last elections have shown that communities (religious ones included) and castes did not vote solidly for one party....We have to adopt policies dictated by circumstances and the necessities of the times." Subsequently, he voiced his scathing criticism of the political order of the day: "Public office was regarded as a sacred space. Today it is regarded by an increasing number of wielders of it as an opportunity to strike gold and enjoy the loaves and fishes of power....Floor- crossings and cross-votings in power games are no longer rare transgressions of democratic norms." The President, who has refused to be a rubber stamp, has shown the path of realism and pragmatism to political masters and practioners of opportunistic and self-serving methods in socio-political life. He has, in effect, given a few deliberate shocks to the conscience of cunning individuals and manipulative groups to induce recuperative faith. No revivalism is called for and there is no escape from introspection. The Prime Minister has
refused to make any compromise on value-based issues and
sent clear signals to the allies. "Coalition
governments have their own dignity. History will not
forgive those who try to sabotage national
interests." He has said all that is necessary to be
said on behalf of the Union Government in the wake of the
nuclear blasts by India and Pakistan. This country's
success in making itself a nuclear power is backed by its
expectation of reciprocal assurances from other mighty
countries to the effect that the atom will never be used
for destructive purposes. He has done well to announce a
few workable schemes for the well-being of the unemployed
and the needy. The most important part of his utterance
is that in which he has depicted himself and his
government as custodians of a clear consensual continuity
in governance. He has invoked national symbols like Dr
B.R. Ambedkar and Jawaharlal Nehru. He has also
recognised the high place of Indira Gandhi in
contemporary history and committed his government to the
Nehruvian agenda of secularism, democracy, national
integration and unfettered freedom. But he has told his
detractors that enough is enough and that he won't beg
for political survival. People will quote certain
examples of his "yielding" to pressures and
pulls from allies; but the assertion that he would prefer
breaking to bending should be a strong signal. Those who
have learnt to think of Independence Day not only as a
day of obeisance to the entity which the National Anthem
describes as the ruler of the minds of all people and the
dispenser of India's destiny but also as an occasion for
the renewal of faith in the dignity of a sovereign
nation, cannot forget a precious and luminous fact: the
hearts of all Indians were brought into the harmony of
one life on August 15, 1947. They ask today: Has freedom
lost part of its meaning for us? Have we lost our
capacity to react to a dream immortalised by blood, sweat
and tears into a symbolic day? Or, is the world too much
with us? The historical experience of Indians as a people
indicates that building, rather than breaking, is their
natural trait. From Nehru to Vajpayee there is an
unbroken chain of ennobling thoughts of nationhood. The
dividing line between leading and misleading is
unfortunately disappearing and failures are generally
blamed on "We, the People". The President and
the Prime Minister have made us realise that even amidst
murky politics, the tense of our national thinking is not
past but future. |
In her majesty’s service TRANSFER is an occupational hazard of government employees, even of high-profile senior secretaries. Like Mr Montek Singh Ahluwalia of the Finance Ministry. His departure from the powerful and crucial post was expected for two reasons. One, he has been occupying the same chair for six years and has developed file fatigue, a mental condition caused by a sudden drying up of fresh ideas. In his case there is a painful edge to his continued stay in the old Ministry: he was being called upon to come up with solutions to the problems his own earlier policies had spawned. Two, he and his political boss, Mr Yashwant Sinha, operate on different wavelengths, leading to much embarrassment. There is also the hidden motivation. Mr Ahluwalia does not want to be in charge when the economy runs into a rough patch, as many experts expect it to do. He moved into the post during Dr Manmohan Singh’s initial and enthusiastic reform years, grew in his job and projected himself as a liberalisation crusader. And as a dynamic economic administrator. His successor, Mr Vijay Kelkar, is more of a theorist, who plotted the course of dismantling the administered pricing system of petroleum products. He is pro-reforms, but nobody is sure what kind of an impulse he would provide and how far he would go in stepping up the pace of reforms. It will take a few months for Mr Kelkar to reveal his beliefs and that would be an extremely significant period for the Indian economy. The exit of Mr Ahluwalia and the entry of Mr Kelkar will thus have a major impact on the health of the economy, but none on politics. This is not the case with
two other transfers among several — that of Revenue
Secretary N.K.Singh and Enforcement Director Bezbaruah.
Mr Singh became a familiar face because of his daily
appearance on the TV screen during the closing weeks of
last year’s voluntary disclosure of income scheme,
and with the same vigour he has been initiating action
against tax evaders of all types. One of them happens to
be Ms Jayalalitha and some senior bureaucrats of her
time, who face a total of 54 cases. She wanted wholesale
transfer of pursuing tax men but her instrument, former
Minister R.K.Kumar, could not deliver the goods or Mr
Singh proved to be a stumbling block. Mr Bezbaruah is
that dangerous type of officer who keeps himself in the
background allowing his action to speak. He has been a
tormentor of several leading businessmen, a leading
newspaper tycoon and at least two close friends of the
lady from Chennai, who ran JJ Television. From the
government, to Mr Fernandes (the self-styled spokesman of
Ms Jayalalitha in Delhi) to the lady herself all have
denied any hand in the two transfers. If it is indeed so,
there is a very strange coincidence. She sulks, the
BJP-led ruling combine pulls out all stops to buy peace
with her, she relents and the two key men whose names she
had circled for early punishment get the packing orders.
For the BJP the past 150 days have been an unbroken
autumn and its several claims to be different have been
falling like so many dried leaves. The party has said it
will fight corruption, whoever is involved; the two
transfers have raised several question marks. It is a
case of innocence lost! |
|
GENDER discrimination continues to be a major problem facing women. This harsh fact has once again been brought out by a recent study conducted by the National Commission for Women. As many as 50 per cent of the women employees in both organised and unorganised sectors are made to live with discrimination, which includes physical and mental harassment. This is despite the fact that there is a Supreme Court ruling, given in August, 1997, for the protection of female employees from sexual harassment at their places of work. But the tragedy is that nearly 85 per cent of them are unaware of this legal cover. Most of them, therefore, suffer the ignominy silently, without even protesting against this kind of behaviour by their colleagues or employers. The truth is that in most commercial organisations, particularly in the unorganised sector, they are not in a position to even lodge a protest. Protest in many cases would mean losing their jobs or inviting harm to their own professional career. In fact, in certain situations there is no way to tackle the problem because of jobs being scarce, and there is a compulsion on most women to supplement their family income. Among private companies, there is a growing practice to employ women for secretarial jobs. This is with a specific purpose and women know it, but they are helpless. Sexual harassment of women
is not confined to clerical-level positions or employment
in the private sector. It is almost in every area of
activity. The Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of
Administration's first survey on gender bias reveals that
the malady of sexual harassment is prevalent in the civil
services also where women go with the hope that they will
have a status which may keep them safe from this kind of
behaviour. It is so disgusting that senior officers go to
the extent of damaging the annual confidential reports
(ACRs) of their junior women colleagues when their sexual
overtures are not favourably responded to. Such practices
are noticed not only in India but also in the western
world. The truth is that no law or system can ensure that
members of the fair sex remain free from this kind of
treatment. There is need to create an atmosphere where
they are treated like other employees, or like human
beings. That will require the launching of a movement in
which women will have to play their role more
significantly. They will have to demonstrate first of all
that they are no different from men so far as their work
is concerned. And this has already been proved. |
Clinton’s
credibility THE two recent deadly bomb blasts at Nairobi (Kenya) and Dar-e-Salam (Tanzania) where the death toll could be more than 200 had some significance for the American policy-makers in Washington D.C. Both blasts were aimed against the USA, and it was only sheer good fortune that the death toll was not higher. The bomb blasts reveal a key factor. The US role as the world’s sole super power has taken a beating. Even US diplomats have admitted that the blasts and certain other happenings in different parts of the globe are a challenge to certain current trends in their country’s foreign policy. This was nothing unusual with the USA. Even in the past, during the zenith of the Cold War, the USA often found itself unable to carry its allies along with it on attacks against the Soviet Union. The “big bully” attitude of the USA in dealing with sensitive issues often boomeranged and reflected in voting patterns in the United Nations’ resolutions. Why did this happen? Though the USA called itself the most powerful democracy in the world, its actions in the international arena were often biased and slanted against smaller, independent-minded nations. The American government seldom appreciated the fact that these nations had their own internal problems and had to charter a course in bilateral relations with other nations which would be beneficial to them. Take the case of the West
Asian crisis which has been going on since the illegal
creation of Israel in 1948. Though America often assumed
the role of a negotiator in the dispute between the
Israelis and the Palestinians, everyone knew that the USA
was always heavily biased in favour of the Israelis. The
highly influential zionist lobby in the USA had too much
money, political clout and vote bank power. The
embittered Arabs in the region bitterly complained that
they could never rely on the USA to be honest and just in
dealing with the crisis. This was why the much-vaunted PLO-Israeli agreement signed on the Clinton White House lawns failed to take off. Of course, there was much provocation from the Arab hotheads, but the coming to power in Israel of right-winger Benjamin Netanyahu put an end to any effective hopes of a positive settlement. Goaded by fellow extremists in his government and party, the Israeli Prime Minister closed the door on the initiative, launched by Mr Bill Clinton. He had the backing of the powerful zionist lobby within the USA which included several senior Senators and Congressmen. Today West Asia remains as much divided as before, and the USA is helpless. Look at some of the other regions in the world. In spite of the obvious irritation in the USA, India and Pakistan exploded their nuclear weapons. Even the confirmed US ally, Pakistan’s Prime Minister, Mr Nawaz Sharif, was prepared to overlook the friendship of several decades with the USA, to be one up on India on the nuclear issue. The US intelligence, headed by the CIA, suffered a crippling blow when it failed to detect the preparations for the tests both in the USA and Pakistan. And they were caught napping once again as terrorist groups audaciously placed bombs very close to the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Who is afraid of Uncle Sam these days? Not many countries in the modern world. Both Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Iraqi President Saddam Hussein thumbed their noses at the US peace process and the arms inspection issue respectively. The US President’s much-publicised visit to China might have resulted in improved trade relations between the two countries, but there was no sign of China relaxing its policies on the human rights issue. Mr Clinton lavished praise on the leadership of President Jiang Zemin. But the Chinese responded by cracking down on 20 dissidents. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was forced to admit that the Chinese had effected a “big leap backward” on the human rights issue. In the case of other US Presidents, it was their arrogance and ignorance which led to such drawbacks. The US Presidents divided the world into “us” and “them”, and anyone who did not go along with them all the way was included in the second category. This situation had changed somewhat since the end of the Cold War. President Clinton had better understanding of foreign affairs than some of his predecessors, and scored significant successes in the expansion of NATO and the Northern Ireland peace accord. But Mr Clinton’s diminishing stature as the President following the never-ending sex scandals had proved to be a vital factor in the nose-diving credibility of the USA. As the President got ready
to videotape his evidence before the grand jury, there
was intense speculation in the USA over the confidential
testimony of Monica Lewinsky. It is now certain that she
and the President shared a sexual relationship spread
over several weeks. Though a majority of the US
population (54 per cent) has denied that the presidential
sex scandals will hurt his ability to govern the country,
this figure can go down in the days to come. Mr Kenneth
Starr’s probing into the President’s sex life
has limited his ability to move ahead and do “great
things” during his second term in office —
balancing the budget, creating an economic boom,
stabilising welfare programmes, cutting crime and taking
on the gun and cigarette lobbies. The sex scandal has
eroded Mr Clinton’s moral authority to a great
extent. He has also been forced to be constantly on the
move just to prove to his people that he is still in
charge at the top. Former White House Chief of Staff Leon
Panetta observed, “He is trying to job and weave as
opposed to moving forward.” The President is also in an unenviable position of having to devote some time to the issue of possible impeachment. He could not involve the US Congress in bruising battles over vital issues, because the same Congress would decide on the impeachment issue. With this thought weighing in his mind, Mr Clinton was forced to sit back as the tobacco Bill, introduced by Senator John McCain, went down. The Senate has strangled his campaign-finance reform move, which was close to his heart. With the sex scandals casting their shadows, Mr Clinton has slowed down considerably, both on the domestic and foreign fronts, on issues he was keen to implement and keep up his poll promises. Mr Clinton, by no means, is a lame duck President. The majority of the Americans may forgive him on the sexual adventures, provided he comes clean and proves in the court of law that he did not ask Monica Lewinsky on this issue. But here the President faces yet another problem. As discussed by Mr Andrew Ferguson in Time magazine, President Clinton is a master in the art of prevarication. Senator Bob Kerry told Esquire magazine that “Clinton was an unusually good liar”. Yet, like most politicians, he is much less proficient with the categorical lie! When he denied of having sex “with that woman” on TV, his performance was not convincing. The President is now caught in a criminal investigation, where the rules are quite different from the murky happenings in politics. The US President is in
such a situation where anything he said in the past may
be used against him. Mr Ferguson pointed out that during
a poll campaign in 1995 in the Iowa farmland, Mr Clinton
boasted that he was the only President who knew something
about agriculture. He conveniently forgot the fact that
several US Presidents were indeed farmers. Some of these
claims were childish, like the one he made when he said
that he had not eaten at McDonald’s (fast food
chain) a single time since he became the President. But
the President had sipped coffee there and had attended a
party for Senators which was catered by the fast food
chain. The American media is now picking all these up and
attacking Mr Clinton’s credibility. |
Performance audit of paramilitary
forces ONE often hears the criticism that there are too many central police organisations (CPOs), also known as paramilitary forces (PMFs) and that they should be wound up. The sterling role played, and is being played even today, by the paramilitary forces cannot be overstated. They stood as a bulwark against anarchy and disintegration, and protected our republic. Thousands of paramilitary personnel have laid down their lives in protecting the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the country from the forces of disruption. This does not mean that all is well with PMFs. They were created to meet specific threats at a given point of time and their roles kept on changing, and they expanded piecemeal. Though their numbers have swelled, there has been little attempt at systematising the command, control and development of these organisations. It is time we undertook “performance audit” of these PMFs to put them on a sound footing. There are seven basic
questions the “performance audit” should look
into. Are the roles of each PMF clearly defined, and are
there any overlapping and duplication? Are the PMFs
organised, structured, manned and equipped to fulfil
these roles? Do these PMFs have a well considered and
implemented programme of human resource management? Is
the tax-payers’ money well spent by these
organisations, and can there be economies without
sacrificing effectiveness and efficiency? Is there scope
for abolition, merger and reorganisation of the PMFs for
effective control, command and efficiency? Is it possible
to restructure and centralise training and welfare
functions of these organisations to reap the benefits of
economies of scale? What should be the organisational
structure for policy formulation and effective
governmental control, while allowing the PMFs’
“operational autonomy”? Without attempting an elaborate history of these organisations, it is necessary to keep the following developments in view while examining this issue. Prior to Independence, the British managed serious threats to law and order with the help of the Army, which was located in strategic cantonments to assist the civil power. The use of the Army in Jallianwala Bagh incident is one instance. Provinces were asked to look after law and order themselves, and the civil police had the District Armed Reserve and Special Armed Police Battalions to assist them. After the Mopplah rebellion, the Malabar Special Police was established in Madras Presidency and to help the princely states, the Crown Reserve Police was created. The police forces of India did well in dealing with the post-Partition situation. When insurgency erupted in the Northeast and communist uprising took place in the South, the CRP was expanded and India Reserve Battalions were raised. International borders were looked after by the respective states. For example, Punjab had the PAP to look after Indo-Pak border, Uttar Pradesh had the Indo-Nepal Border Police, West Bengal had the Eastern Frontier Rifles, etc. The oldest paramilitary force in India, the Assam Rifles, was considered, even today, as a military formation, as it is exclusively officered by the deputationists from the Army. The Assam Rifles generally took care of the borders in the Northeast. The Chinese aggression highlighted the need to intensively police the Indo-Tibetan border and the Indo-Tibetan Border Police was created. When the need to strengthen the Indo-Pak border was felt, the Border Security Force was established. Similarly, when the need to have a counter-terrorist commando organisation became obvious, the National Security Guards was formed. The CISF, the SSB, the RPF, etc, were created to deal with specific problems. All these organisations have predetermined roles and are functioning under specific enactments of Parliament. But the pressures created by the militancy in Punjab, the proxy war in Jammu and Kashmir, the ISI’s activities in other parts of India, insurgency in the Northeast, the LTTE’s activities in Tamil Nadu, the PWG terror in Andhra Pradesh, etc, have necessitated the Union government deploying these PMFs to play various roles not in accordance with their basic functions. Since these organisations have been raised and equipped to play a particular role, their deployment elsewhere results in many operational and administrative problems. The internal security situation in the next 10 years at least may not improve; perhaps it may even worsen. Prudence demands that the nation should make the best use of its paramilitary forces. An independent “Performance audit” by competent professionals covering the questions raised would enable the government to formulate a 10-year plan of development for the paramilitary forces. (The writer is a
former Director-General of the CRPF and the NSG.)
|
The illusive surname HISTORY has never been my favourite subject as every boy in school would say “History geography bari baywafa, saree raat yaad kari subah ko safa”. When I learnt that our cut off year from Bengal was 1845, I had to plunge into the family history, locate the fading scattered documents and consult my senior members. I discovered that a spirit of adventure and the love of the North had made my great-grandfather, a doctor by profession, to leave his comfortable house in a rural suburb of Calcutta and travel up the Ganges, by boat and bullock cart and move on to Ambala Cantt when it was established in 1845. The clinic completed a century in 1945. Naturally, my ability to converse in Bengali diminished with the passage of time, especially when Urdu was the language that was taught to us in primary classes which continued as the first language upto higher classes and was lavishly used. My surname has given me pleasure, excitement and fun. I qualified a test in Punjabi of matriculation standard way back in 1950 as an employee of the erstwhile Pepsu State. This was a sheet anchor for me when Punjabi was introduced by the Punjab government and its use was made compulsory. One incident is etched in my memory. While I was working as a staff officer with the then Chief Minister, two young smartly dressed Sikh gentlemen from Calcutta came to meet him and were made to wait in my room. I was engrossed dictating notes in Punjabi and discussing problems with the public. As soon as I was a little free, they enquired if I was the same person whose name plate was displayed outside the room. On getting a reply in the affirmative, they jumped from their seats, came near and told me that having been born and brought up in Bengal they could hardly speak Punjabi so fluently as Bengali had been their spoken language. They wanted to test my knowledge further and asked me to recite something. At the spur of the moment I could just murmur “Munda moh liya tawittan wala, damri da sak mal key” and had hardly started one of the choicest Punjabi abuses when they suddenly clasped my hands tightly, felt immensely happy and took my address. Ever since then both have never failed to send me New Year greetings. I was picked up out of other more eligible candidates for a liaison work and survey of market potentiality of a few products in rich coalfield area of Bengal and Bihar. My surname had weighed heavily on the selectors. I reluctantly accepted the offer as it was for a short duration only. I left for the once ancestral home but the journey was by train and not by the mode of conveyance of my great-grandparents. A quick survey of the area revealed that I was to be deprived of my “Dal makhni and chicken curry” and would have to contend myself with boiled rice and fish. My daily reports to Chandigarh, therefore, depicted a gloomy picture and there were a few takers of the products. Just then, while going through the bazar of Asansol, I noticed a board “Khalsa Sikh Hotel”. It was a dhaba and I could get “Mahan Parshad and dal”. I started visiting this place every day to take my one meal a day. My daily reports now started giving a bright picture of the takers of the products. This sudden change raised doubts and I was recalled. It was a challenging
assignment when I was nominated a member of the board of
studies in Bengali by a reputed university. This was a
golden opportunity to interact with eminent
intellectuals, famous writers and learned teachers. My
long experience of working with ministers, who were
prominent political personalities but were unexposed to
administrative functioning, came to my rescue. In the
very first meeting I was listening carefully to the
discussion, nodding in agreement and was the first to
sign the unanimous decisions in Bengali. That was the
first and the last time I brushed shoulders with famous
literary luminaries as , thereafter, I was either
indisposed or attending the board of directors meeting of
our firm at Delhi. |
BOMBAY: An Economic Commission from France consisting of about 1,500 persons is due to arrive here on the 31st instant by two French cruisers, “Jules Michlet’’ and “Victor Hugo’’. The expedition commanded by Admiral Gilly left its base early in July on 9 months’ cruise around the Indian Ocean. It has already visited several countries, including New Zealand and Australia. The Mission will study industrial, commercial and maritime conditions of India, its plans and organisations — particularly from the point of view of the French market, its resources and needs. The squadron will stay in Bombay for 12 days. The Bombay Government is making arrangements to show members of the expedition all possible hospitality and make their stay as pleasant as possible. The cooperation of various public bodies has been invited. It is proposed to arrange trips to places of interest in and around Bombay. The Mission will inspect
various public works, cotton mills and workshops and meet
representatives of commerce and industry. |
Days of presidential activism
PRESIDENT K.R. Narayanan has given notice. Notice that he is not content to remain a mere “ceremonial device on a seal by which the nation’s decisions are made known” (B.R. Ambedkar’s words in the Constituent Assembly, describing the titular role of the President). Notice that he has a personality, mind and conscience of his own which he would not suffer to be merged with that of “his” government. Few Heads of State in recent history, enjoying no real power in the system of government over which they preside, have spoken so openly of the ideals, goals and policies which they would like the nation to follow as President Narayanan has done over the last week-end. His “conversation” with Frontline editor N. Ram on the evening of August 14 and his address from the Central Hall of Parliament on August 15 — the latter no less an expression of personal opinion than the former — will engage constitutional observers and analysts for a long time to come. An anguished attack on wielders of public office who regard it as an “opportunity to strike gold and enjoy the loaves and fishes of power” and cat-calling, mike-snatching legislators, the August 15 address was, above all, an effort at “giving tone and dignity to the life of the State as a whole”. That is a proper, even though unusual, exercise of power by the Head of State both at the Centre and in the provinces, and I am indebted to Mr B.K. Nehru, a lawyer and former governor among other parts, for the insight. The institution of Governorship, wrote Mr Nehru in 1974, in an essay on the role of the Governor under the Indian Constitution, “has passed the stage at which it was merely a dignified ornament.’’ The Governor plays an important role while keeping himself in the background, furthering the interests of his State with the Centre, giving helpful advice to his Ministers without interfering with their sphere of responsibility, helping to ensure the stability of his government and “above all giving tone and dignity to the life of the State as a whole.’’ First published in the “Silver Jubilee Commemoration Volume’’ of the Guwahati High Court, the essay is perhaps the only one of its kind and highly instructive. A part of it which relies upon the Supreme Court’s 1971 judgement in Sardari Lal’s case, regarding the discretionary powers of the President, is no longer valid since the judgement was overruled in Shamsher Singh’s case three years later. And, paradoxical though it is, the area of discretion of the Governor under the Constitution is much larger than that of the President (if, at all, the President has any discretion). But there is no doubt that the President, no less than a Governor, would not be exceeding his limitations if, seeking to lend tone and dignity to the life of the nation, he gives voice to his inner anguish. That cannot be said, however, or necessarily about the President going public over his own policy preferences, however sound or sensible they might be. It is well for the President to remind the people (and his government), as Mr Narayanan did in his conversation with N. Ram, that “one idea alone does not run away with India.’’ But for the President to canvass, in full view of the nation and in the face of his government, his personal ideological and political world-outlook is, with great respect, a breach of the restraint imposed on him by the Constitution and the conventions of parliamentary democracy. The sovereign, says Vernon Bogdanor, Professor of Government at the University of Oxford, “cannot have a policy of his or her own independently of ministers.” The sovereign is “not entitled to make it known that he or she holds different views on some matters of public policy from those of his government. It is a fundamental condition of royal influence that it remains private.” Author of one of the
latest and most educative works on the subject, “The
Monarchy and the Constitution” published in 1995,
Prof Bogdanor is an admirer rather than a critic of the
British monarchy (on which the Indian Presidency is
modelled). He is convinced that the monarchy is not
merely a piece of constitutional machinery and that,
under late 20th-century conditions, constitutional
monarchy, far from being incompatible with democratic
government, serves both to stabilise and to sustain it. And yet, Prof Bogdanor is one with other constitutional lawyers in holding that the sovereign must observe a strict neutrality in public and that his “influence (on the government) operates best through stealth and suffers from visibility.” To be fair to President Narayanan, not all Heads of State have fully honoured this convention. And not only in India. Elizabeth II is perhaps the first sovereign, writes Bogdanor, combing British history, “never to have allowed any hint of her political views to reach those outside the circle of her ministers, her private secretaries, and her immediate family.” Nor is the Head of State an automaton. He is, after all, a human being with perceptions and interests of his own. The principles of the English Constitution, declared Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli in the 1870’s, “do not contemplate the absence of personal influence on the part of the Sovereign; and if they did, the principles of human nature would prevent the fulfilment of such a theory.” But neither in history nor on principle is there any justification for the President to go public on matters of policy and to rationalise his conduct by propounding a larger concept of a “working President” — a concept as inconsistent with the Constitution today as President Rajendra Prasad’s understanding of it in the early 1950’s during the controversy over the Hindu Code Bill. President Narayanan’s
commitment to the Nehruvian legacy has understandably
endeared him to the dwindling species of India’s
progressives, among whom this author would like to count
himself. But the Constitution exists as much for those
who are wedded to conservatism as for those inclined to a
radical social and political agenda. And what was wrong
for President Rajendra Prasad cannot be right for
President Narayanan. |
Promising the impossible
AS I am filing this column on August 14 noon so even though I may stretch myself silly I know I will not be able to fit in exact details of the Independence Day celebrations lined up at Rajpath for tomorrow evening. I think I did mention in one of my earlier columns that the Delhi administration together with the special secretariat for the Jubilee celebrations have arranged for a youth march, drum dances from different quarters of the country as well as from some SAARC countries, Vande Mataram renderings, some special dances by artists from Korea, Singapore and Sri Lanka (these are courtesy by ICCR). And as of date though the government buildings are looking outwardly all spruced up but even today their corridors stink. In fact that horrifying smell of stale urine emanating from clogged toilets hits the nose each time you are walking in those corridors of certain wings of Shastri Bhavan, Udyog Bhavan or even the Vigyan Bhavan Annexe where the specially setup secretariat for the Jubilee celebrations lies erected. As of date the so called leaders (I call them political opportunists) are promising the impossible in tall advertisements but even today an average citizen of Delhi isn’t even getting enough water to quench his thirst, power to light his home, security for his limbs and throat to remain intact or for that matter even medical services for the slit organs to be attended to. As of date the government
here is sitting mum on the Srikrishna Commission findings
of the 92-93 Bombay riots vis-a-vis what action needs to
be taken against the guilty, though certain organisations
under the umbrella “Citizens committee for secular
action” ‘met here to announce that they would
be sitting in dharna on Friday (August 21) from 3 to 5
pm, in front of Maharashtra Sadan. And as of date there
is no enthusiasm on the streets of New Delhi for the
Jubilee celebrations, rather the man on the street is in
a hurry to scurry back home before it gets dark for crime
tales are driving him crazy. Some more additions With this in the backdrop as one heard veteran actor AK Hangal and music director Anil Biswas speak at a book release function last week on the freedom struggle one could well sympathise with them — how both of them fought for our Independence and now the horrors they have to see and live with. Hangal was extremely forthright. In fact his opening sentence was “Kya kahoon ...? (what to say?). And with that he got on to talk about his role in the freedom struggle, that of a courier, whilst he was based at Peshawar, and at the Partition time how he sailed to Bombay in a state of penury — “with no more money on me I couldn’t travel any further, I had no choice but to settle down there ...” With the mention of Mumbai he took to recounting the decaying living conditions in that metropolitan and growing levels of intolerance, some of it responsible for the treatment meted out to Ghulam Ali “Ab woh Bombay nahin raha, Mumbai ho gaya hai. I was admitted in a hospital that time but even from there I issued my statement condemning that incident .... bechare Ghulam Ali kai saath kya hua ....” Hinting at Bal Thackeray’s “raj”, he sounded upset at the way the system is cracking up with no respite in the offing. Talking about the strength of the cinema which indeed cuts through boundaries he recounted that when the Indian Airlines plane in which he was travelling along with the then Speaker of the Lok Sabha Shivraj Patil, was diverted and had to make an emergency landing at Karachi it turned out to be the day the late President of Pakistan General Zia was to be buried. “Though their nation was in mourning but as soon as we sat down in a restaurant, people recognised me and took to asking Bombay filmi gossip. In fact, when one of them asked ‘Amitabh Bachchan aur Rekha ka kya chakkar chal raha hai’ I pointed out to them that they shouldn’t be asking these sort of questions whilst in mourning but they still insisted on knowing what was going on between the two ...” Anil Biswas lives in some sort of hibernation in Delhi but once he opened his mouth one was shocked, totally taken aback to hear what he had to go through during the freedom struggle. For the first time one heard the mention of a certain special home for adolescent boys where the sole purpose was to brainwash them against the freedom struggle and if they resisted they were thrashed badly “For four months till I ran away from that home I got slaps for breakfast, more slaps during lunch and some more solid thrashing during dinner .....” recounted Biswas and it is only when he hid in a prostitute’s house that he managed to escape, with the same prostitute finding an employment for him in a music director’s home. His tale sounds like an unsung hero’s sketch. Whilst on this function,
it was upsetting to see how frail the former President,
Dr Shankar Dayal Sharma, has become. It’s probably
his will power that makes him accept invitations to
preside and speak at functions. Another very frail
looking gentleman spotted that evening was the
90-year-old freedom fighter Rajeshwar Dayal, who in his
capacity as the then owner of Regal cinema theatre helped
in the freedom struggle by screening a particular film
which helped give impetus to the movement. It is another
tale how his theatre was prevented from closure by the
British, as certain Indians in key positions played their
part well and vetoed all action taken by the British. |
 |
 |
 |
| Nation
| Punjab | Haryana | Himachal Pradesh | Jammu & Kashmir | | Chandigarh | Business | Stocks | Sport | | Mailbag | Spotlight | World | 50 years of Independence | Weather | | Search | Subscribe | Archive | Suggestion | Home | E-mail | |
