P A G E
Monday, June 7, 1999
today's calendar
|
E D I T O R I A L P A G E |
Monday, June 7, 1999 |
| weather n
spotlight today's calendar |
||
|
Talking
to Pakistan
NEW
NUCLEAR DANGER |
 |
Sonia:
naturalisation by marriage
Fear
of Kargil warfare turning nuclear
Apprehensive
of Authority
All-India Maheshwari conference
|
||||||||
 |
|
Talking to Pakistan PAKISTAN Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has, on second thoughts, denied a report in the print as well as electronic media to the effect that he sees the possibility of an Indo-Pak war. He has done well! But he appears to be losing his hard-acquired cool. "Talking peace while waging war" has been one of his strategic psycho-pathological methods of survival amidst the grim situation in his country. Look at the signs of the recent times and his timidly opportunistic response to them. A few examples may make the Prime Minister's predicament clear. The Opposition is angry. The Judiciary finds his ways autocratic. The Dras-Kargil-Batalik misadventure, the script for which owes its origin to General Zia-ul-Haq's policies and planning, has failed and the people of his country are demanding a proof of transparent accountability for it. The preparation and execution of the current aggression has cost the exchequer dearly. The mercenaries holed up in the mountains on the Indian side of the Line of Control (LoC) since April under the direct surveillance of the accompanying Pakistani Army personnel-- including officers and men whose bodies and weapons are being retrieved from their temporary habitat by Indian troops daily -- have put a heavy burden financially as well as militarily on the ill-managed theocratic nation. With just one billion dollars left in reserve, Mr Nawaz Sharif's populous, poor and militarised fiefdom is in a state of near-insolvency. The man in the street does believe in the supreme dispensation of Allah but he does not trust the government when he is officially told that it is his duty to starve and face economic doom "to support aggression, de-establisation and terrorism". Kargil, as a
geographical entity, has seen many onslaughts by the
Pakistani Army. The area called "Point 13620",
situated on the Suru river near Kargil, has been wrested
repeatedly from the aggressors -- in 1948, 1965 and 1971.
It was under their control once too! But 1971 was a
defining year. It has not been occupied by the Pakistanis
since then. The gameplan this time has been close to the
traditional one. The purpose is, primarily, to breach and
occupy parts of the Srinagar-Leh national highway which
is the lifeline of the Ladakh division. This is not to
be. Why is Pakistan in such a tearing hurry to send
Foreign Minister Sartaj Aziz to Delhi? Because of its
being under American pressure? Or to trick our leaders
into "peace talks" and a cease-fire? India will
talk peace with anyone anywhere. But it must not become a
victim of sinister Pakistani designs once again. The
Nawaz Sharif Government has forgotten the norms of
international civility. Drifting pilots have been
captured and tortured during interrogation. Squadron
Leader Ahuja was murdered in cold blood in captivity and
Flight Lieutenant Nachiketa was tormented for six days by
his interrogators. (The Indian military authorities
should assess the damage caused to him physically and
mentally.) Meanwhile, an effective information mechanism
should be evolved by South Block to explain the actual
situation to the world. Mr Aziz has put a question mark
on the LoC which, according to the letter and the spirit
of the Simla Agreement, must be respected by both sides:
"Neither side shall seek to alter it
unilaterally.... Both sides seek to refrain from the
threat of the use of force in violation of this
line." If Pakistan is sincere about the proposed
peace talks on an early date, it should vacate the
aggression forthwith. |
Real crisis of Congress CONVENTIONAL wisdom said that the split in the Congress would marginally affect the party’s electoral chances in Maharashtra and to some extent in the North-East. This has turned out to be an underestimate of the adverse impact of the expulsion of Mr Sharad Pawar and two other CWC members. After a lethargic start, the Pawar camp is gathering strength at an astonishing speed in his state. The party organisation in several districts has pledged loyalty to him. Those who control the sugar mills in western Maharashtra have gone over to his side and they are a great source of political influence. A good part of the legislature party is in Mr Pawar’s camp as are a majority of the 33 party MPs. Obviously, the Sonia Gandhi loyalists led by such has-beens as Mr S.B. Chavan and Mr V.N. Gadgil and second-rung men like MPCC president Prataprao Bhonsle have been hopelessly wrong in their assessment of Mr Pawar’s hold and have been unequal to the task of containing the ill-effects of the split. They are also feeding the central leadership with patently wrong information. Today the official Congress is a weak third force in Maharashtra after the Shiv Sena-BJP alliance and the Pawar-led Nationalist Congress. To put it bluntly, the real Congress, in terms of organisational network and popular base, is the one which Mr Pawar heads and the Sonia faction is an emaciated splinter. This is what has already happened in West Bengal and Tamil Nadu. And true to its tradition, the Congress is likely to repeat all its mistakes which it made in these two states even in Maharashtra and with the same crippling effect. In West Bengal the party
won a solitary Lok Sabha seat, thanks to the courtesy the
Trinamool Congress showed to the Malda patriarch, Mr
Ghani Khan Chaudhury. Real Congress votes went to the
party headed by Ms Mamata Banerjee. In Tamil Nadu, the
Tamil Maanila Congress is the real party and the official
outfit has drawn a blank in two successive elections. Its
fortunes are not likely to revive in a long time unless
the bigger and stronger Congress joins the mother party
and that cannot be smooth because of the bitterness
generated during the election campaign. What is more, the
permanent split in the party has opened the door for the
BJP to make its presence felt. In both states, the
saffron party has a chance to replace the Congress as the
national force and side with the regional outfits to
mutual advantage. The Congress cannot afford another
Tamil Nadu or West Bengal in Maharashtra. That means in
the short run it should not allow the split to benefit
the Sena-BJP combine. In other words, it should ensure
that every Congress vote is mobilised to fight the main
opponent. One way out is to seek an understanding with Mr
Pawar. At one time, the Congress sought a tie-up with the
Trinamool Congress but did not pursue it vigorously. It
is now eyeing a similar pact with the TMC. In the case of
Mr Pawar, this arrangement may be psychologically
unacceptable, but it may be politically feasible
provided. Mrs Gandhi and other Pawar-baiters look at the
long-term prospects of the party. |
Nigeria: dawn of new era NIGERIA, Africa’s most populous country (120 million), is once again on the way to establishing democracy with Mr Olusegun Obasanjo taking control of the reins of government. As a nominee of the People’s Democratic Party, he won the February presidential election with an impressive margin. The poll was held after a long gap of 16 years in a country which has been yearning for freedom from military rule after it secured independence from the British colonialists in 1960. The previous attempts to sustain democratically elected governments ended in a fiasco because of the intervention by the armed forces. But this time the situation is entirely different. The reason: the new President is the most respected leader post-independence Nigeria has produced. He is not Nelson Mandela. But he is as much respected in Nigeria as Mandela in South Africa. Though a former General who ruled his country earlier for a brief period as a representative of the armed forces, he has an entirely different image today. In 1975 Mr Obasanjo, then a serving General, found himself in the chair of the President accidentally when there was a vacuum following the killing of the Nigerian military dictator in an unsuccessful coup. But in 1979 he voluntarily relinquished the presidential position in favour of an elected leader. The new regime, however, could not survive, and Nigeria experienced military coups after coups. There was a sharp economic decline during this period of instability. Despite being the world’s sixth richest country in oil reserves, it has been going through a period of stark poverty. The condition is so pitiable that most of its towns are without electricity and water supply when it could emerge as the Malaysia of Africa. The country’s abundant oil reserves are enough to provide its people any modern facility they lack, but that requires a stable administration . In the absence of the much-needed stability the benefits accruing from the oil sector have been cornered by a few. An overwhelming majority of people still get their livelihood from agriculture, that too at a primitive stage. In June last year the Nigerian dictator, Gen Sani Abacha, died under mysterious circumstances and this revived the hope for the return of democracy. It was Abacha who had overseen the execution of well-known playwright Ken Saro-Wiwa, despite the appeal from different world leaders to save the life of a great Nigerian who had been raising his voice against the environmental damage to the oil-producing Niger Delta. The disappearance of General Abacha from the scene brought a former Army Chief of Staff, Gen Abdulsalami Abubakar, at the centrestage. The new strongman somehow found it difficult to continue as military dictator and began working for an elected dispensation. He released several jailed leaders, including Mr Obasanjo, who had been behind bars for the past two years. Mr Obasanjo, who has now
taken over as the third elected President of Nigeria,
enjoys the support of most retired Generals. He has
appointed Maj-Gen Victor Malu, one of the most respected
soldiers of Nigeria, the new head of the army. There is
every likelihood of the Obasanjo government to be allowed
to function without any fear of military takeover. He is
showing enormous confidence to emerge as Nigeria’s
man of destiny. Mr Obasanjo has already started taking
steps for rejuvenating the country’s economy. His
success on the economic front will provide him the
much-needed political longevity. |
NEW NUCLEAR DANGER THE situation could not have been more bizarre or surreal. Going by what Defence Minister Fernandes officially told 32 representatives of political parties on May 29, the mighty Indian Army only got to know about the Kargil infiltration as late as May 6 — through a shepherd! This, when intelligence agencies, including the Border Security Force’s unit, had reported militant activity weeks earlier and the Kashmir press did so throughout April. Then, on May 8, two Army patrols disappeared in Kargil. What was Mr Fernandes’s response? He flew not to Kargil, but to Bombay — for the silver jubilee of the 1974 railway strike! Mr Fernandes says the Army only informed his ministry of the infiltration on May 12. On that day, he flew to Leh, but strangely, gave Kargil a miss! By this time, the intruders had blown up a big ammunition depot at Kargil and were in occupation of 200 square km of territory. They had built many reinforced bunkers along the Line of Control (LoC). They clearly constituted a menace to the crucial Srinagar-Leh highway. Even so, on May 14, the Defence Ministry blandly stated that they had only occupied “some remote and unheld areas”. During the many weeks — if not months — that it must have taken the intruders to set up camps, Mr Fernandes was busy politicking and splitting rival parties. On May 16, when the Army finally acknowledged a threat to the LoC, Mr Fernandes took off for Dhanbad. Even after “Operation Vijay” was launched, he sent the Army Chief on a courtesy visit to Poland. The greatest diplomatic effort was needed just then. But Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh went to Central Asia and Russia. Just as the crisis escalated, Mr Fernandes gave a clean chit to Mr Nawaz Sharif, and to the ISI, of all agencies. Equally inexplicably, he offered “safe passage” later denied to the intruders. We don’t know if he unfairly blamed the Army for his own mistakes, but there can be no doubt that he has acted irresponsibly. Kargil is a story of irresponsibility and ineptitude rooted in the absence of a coherent Indian policy towards Pakistan. It shows this “caretaker” government is incapable of taking care of the nation’s elementary interests. Worse, Kargil highlights the dangers of ad hoc, arbitrary decision-making in a conflict which has every potential to escalate in our now-nuclearised subcontinent. This government must be compelled by public opinion to act cautiously and eschew the temptation either to play down the crisis, or to recklessly escalate it. This means there may be no alternative to sacking Mr Fernandes as Defence Minister. It is shameful that the Kargil crisis was allowed to snowball. New Delhi should have long ago launched diplomatic efforts to defuse it. Instead, it left matters to the Army, wrongly assuming that the intrusion was routine and small-scale. Even when it became evident that the Army would take months to dislodge the intruders, no effort was made to engage Pakistan diplomatically. It was not until May 25 that Mr Vajpayee called Mr Nawaz Sharif. Suddenly, the next day, he decided ad hoc, and without full deliberation — to launch air strikes, for the first time in 27 years on that border. This introduced a new high-risk element of speed and mobility. When aircraft fly at the speed of sound, even a little deviation from the set flight-path risks straying across the zig-zag border. Given that the LoC provides wide scope for ambiguity about violations, air strikes made escalation much more likely. This danger was starkly highlighted when two MiGs were shot down on May 27. At work in Kargil is a dynamic driven by India-Pakistan mutual suspicion, bitter differences over Kashmir, insecurity about each other’s military capacities and intentions, opacity in policy-making, refusal to share relevant information with each other and with the public and, above all, domestic politics, particularly the severe crisis of legitimacy of both governments. Kargil highlights three issues: the grave new nuclear danger in South Asia; further internationalisation of the Kashmir issue; and the fragility of the Lahore process of conciliation. Kargil demolishes the rosy assumption that nuclearisation would impart stability or maturity to India-Pakistan relations, or make conventional conflict between them unlikely. The assumption stems in the first place from Cold War dogma. In reality, nuclear weapons make war and conflict more, not less, likely. They do not prevent states from fighting conventional wars. The former USSR and China fought bitterly across the Ussuri for years. Nuclear deterrence is deeply flawed. Gen Lee Butler, who long commanded the U.S. nuclear arsenal, says it is not nuclear deterrence, nor calculation of “mutually assured destruction”, that prevented a catastrophe in the Cold War. It was luck, “the Grace of God”. India and Pakistan are especially vulnerable to a nuclear catastrophe. They have enough hotheads — Mr Fernandes not excluded — for whom one crucial assumption of deterrence (refusal to risk “unacceptable damage”) means little. Neither state has the command and control structures to prevent accidental, unintended or unauthorised use of nuclear weapons. Their history is replete with conflict escalation through war-mongering and pressure from fanatics, as well as misperception and miscalculation. In 1965, Ayub Khan thought that merely parachuting troops into Kashmir would trigger a popular anti-India rebellion. This started a bitter war which he did not win. In 1986-87 India’s exercise “Brasstacks” went out of control. Pakistan read its manoeuvres as deeply threatening. An eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation ensued. The most serious such crisis was in 1990 when another exercise spun out of control. Islamabad felt threatened and “brandished the nuclear sword.” It lined up trucks at the Kahuta enrichment plant to indicate its willingness to use the nuclear option. The crisis was defused only when the U.S.A. sent Mr Robert Gates to New Delhi and Islamabad. To believe that something like Kargil, in which the strategic stakes are much higher than in routine exercises, cannot escalate to the nuclear level, is to live in a fool’s paradise. If even a quarter of the stories put out by our own officials — Mr Brajesh Mishra, about the Pakistan army’s deep involvement in the months-long preparations for the infiltration are correct, we must be doubly alarmed at the possibility of nuclear adventurism. As far as Kashmir goes, New Delhi has failed to defeat Pakistan’s effort to put the issue on the global agenda. The air strikes have added visibility to the conflict which has cruelly displaced civilians. The world sees Kashmiris as hapless victims of Indo-Pak rivalry. The Kosovo-like images of wretchedly poor refugees fleeing the bombed-out moonscapes of Kargil and Dras are unlikely to vanish. A year ago the BJP internationalised Kashmir, linking it with nuclear weapons: Mr Advani famously warned Pakistan of a “pro-active” approach in the changed “geostrategic” situation. Kargil has taken the process further. The Kargil crisis exposes the limitations, even the flimsiness, of “bus diplomacy”. The Lahore accord was not about serious arms control. It was about the intent to improve relations, and about limited transparency — transparency through a very dirty looking glass. India and Pakistan did not agree bilaterally to reduce the nuclear danger, but only to “national measures” to reduce “accidental or unauthorised use of nuclear weapons.” They agreed not to suspend nuclear and missile programmes, only to inform each other of test flights, etc. They did not sign a no test pact. They agreed “to abide by their respective unilateral moratorium on conducting further nuclear test explosions — unless either side” decides otherwise in “its supreme interests”. This is taking back with the left hand what is given with the right. The Lahore MoU compares poorly with confidence-building measures between the USA and the former USSR even in 1971. We have to go much, much further than that. That means we must stop being rosy-eyed about Lahore. Lahore was welcome as a symbolic gesture. But substantively, it was no “historic” breakthrough involving a radical reordering of India-Pakistan relations or a sea-change in mutual perceptions. India must, of course, resolutely vacate the intrusion in Kargil. But it must do so without escalating and extending the conflict. It must use all available diplomatic-political means and leave room for further conciliation, for a Lahore-II. That means that the force deployed in the air strikes must be measured, with strict confinement to our side of the LoC. New Delhi must not resort to communal and jingoistic propaganda to boost its forces’ morale. The ruling coalition knows its actions do not command a national consensus. A majority of our parties have been sharply critical of it. There is widespread suspicion that it has not been above using Kargil to shore up its collapsed credibility. It must not play ducks and drakes with security any longer. The citizens of both
India and Pakistan must wake up to the new nuclear
danger. After the Pakistan Foreign Secretary’s May
31 threat to use “any weapon”, this is no
longer a remote possibility or a fantasy. India’s
and Pakistan’s future as nuclear rivals is grim,
shadowed by potential devastation. As non-nuclear
friends, however, their future may be bright. |
Elections: evading the real issues NO time is better than election time to take stock of the political parties and their leaders. So far as the issues in the coming Lok Sabha elections are concerned, three kinds of assessments can be made: that the issues are of national importance; that they are local and regional in nature; and that the polls this time will be fought without issues. In the last type of assessment, it appears that the ruling coalition and a splinter of the Congress have understandably become bereft of genuine issues, and their only agenda now is to capture power by raising the bogey of a fake and slanderous issue. At the moment, leaders of certain political parties are trying to cover up a genuine issue of political stability and good governance (on whose plank many of them had fought the previous elections) with another fake issue that an amendment be made in the Indian Constitution so that a foreign-born Indian citizen could be debarred from holding the three offices — that of President, Vice-President and Prime Minister. Surprisingly, this foreign origin controversy was further fuelled by three gentlemen (since expelled from the Congress) Mr Sharad Pawar, Mr P.A. Sangma and Mr Tariq Anwar. They wrote a joint letter to their former commander-in-chief, Mrs Sonia Gandhi, reminding her of three things. First, the Prime Minister of India should be an experienced person having some track record in public life. Second, only an Indian-born citizen should occupy the office of Prime Minister. And last, the Congress manifesto should suggest an amendment to the Constitution of India to this effect. They further went on to add, “as Congressmen, we look up to you (Sonia) as a leader who kept the party together and is a source of strength to all of us. We hope that you will continue in this role for many years.” A person having the slightest knowledge of the derailed Indian politics can easily read between the lines and derive a conclusion, though looking absurd but 100 per cent correct, and that is that “party ko mazboot aur uski sewa kare Sonia aur mewa khaye Sangma and company”. Along other faceless characters, this unmasked trio also accompanied the Congress brigade not only to bring a reluctant Mrs Sonia Gandhi into active politics but also installed her as Congress president just 14 months ago. Now one of them says, “haath pair jorh kar kharha hona parhta tha aur woh bhi ek videshi mahila ke saamne”. It is easy to backstab A, B and C but very difficult to convince the masses. Besides the trio, there were persons like Mr V.P Singh, Mr Chandra Shekhar and Mr Mulayam Singh who one after another asked Mrs Sonia Gandhi to take the initiative for the formation of government so that “communal forces” could be stopped in their tracks and didn’t come to power. Now all of them have taken complete somersault on the citizenship issue, the reasons best known to them. When an utterly despicable Congress party was licking dust under the stewardship of an experienced “swadeshi” Prime Minister, Mr P.V. Narasimha Rao, and later under Mr Sitaram Kesri, the bankrupt Congress leaders clutched at the only straw left of the Nehru family for survival. Now the same spineless people see in Mrs Sonia Gandhi a potential “videshi” prime ministerial candidate. Whatever critics may say, the foremost legacy of the Nehru parivar is that its members enjoy all-India acceptability and only this phenomenon either scares or attracts politicians of all hue. So far as the question of Mrs Sonia Gandhi’s foreign credentials is concerned, it had been settled long back by no less a person than a former Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi. Mrs Gandhi threw away from her house a “swadeshi bahu” and in her place handed over the keys of her household to a “videshi bahu”. It is shocking that men of letters are not educating the public about the real issues confronting the nation. They are instead concentrating their energies on the citizenship issue out of proportion like petty politicians. The truth is that people are disgusted with coalitions, fronts, alliances, morchas and mushrooming political outfits. Out of sheer frustration and cynicism, the senior citizens who were witness to foreign rule occasionally pronounce that the English rulers were far better than the present day “lootereys” — Indian politicians. Though politicians of
every shade are trying their level best to hoodwink the
masses by diverting their attention from the real
problems, the genuine issues of political stability and
good governance still remain upper most in their mind. |
Apprehensive
of Authority RETURNING from abroad, I always approach the immigration counter apprehensively. The official there, I understand, has some 30 Mohinder Singhs on his computer screen—the ones in government’s bad books. I know that in law the official cannot refuse re-entry to an Indian national. Yet I stand terribly tensed up till he clears me, after comparing my father’s name and date of birth with all those namesakes. The good wife goes in front or stands in another queue; she can clear herself earlier to unload our luggage making its rounds on the moving ramp. And I never fail to skip a heartbeat when moving through the Green Channel under the uncanny gaze of those white-uniformed officials. Indeed, filling the Customs form itself with “Nothing to Declare” is somewhat unnerving, even when there’s nothing worthwhile to declare. That way filling any government form makes me a little uneasy. Mind you, I myself have wielded considerable governmental authority in my 35 years of administrative service. And yet, now as an ordinary citizen keen to live an uncomplicated existence, I have come to fear authority. Is it something peculiar to me or do many citizens stay apprehensive of officialdom? I fear officials and organisations that can get at me. The monthly bill from Delhi Vidyut Board (carrying a boldly-typed threat of disconnection for default) is always read with trepidation; it could hold something monstrous. And getting a wrong bill rectified, I know from experience, can be an excruciating affair. I live in fear of M.C.D. Property Tax bills, happening to rent a part of the house. Notices from that authority do no good to my peace of mind. And then visits from their Inspectors, coming to “assess” the property. The tax collectors, of course, show no concern with the horribly pot-holed road in front. Any communication from the Income-Tax people I view with dread as if it was a notice for prosecution; it could actually turn out to be a small refund voucher. I presume, I’d be better off without uninvited communications from that quarter. Water bills aren’t large enough to be bothersome. But then someone comes alongwith for a “contribution”; he knows that the water meter has been out of order for years. How do they prepare bills is best known to them. Whenever a departmental official or “team” rings our bell, I feel jumpy. Are we in for a spot of trouble or an exaction? And I find myself mentally most unfitted to deal with such blokes. Often it is left to the good wife who seems to tackle the “fishing fleet” fairly well. She stays overtly polite, calls everyone Bhai Sahib, and offers chairs and soft drinks to roguishly-looking fellows. She tells me she sees them out in good humour, while parting with minimum money. I fear traffic police, despite priding myself as a rule-abiding driver. And keep on rehearsing ingratiating phrases in anticipation of being hauled up. But what I fear more is the regular police — the ones with whom I rarely come in contact. Recently we saw two policemen halt their motorbike in front of our entrance. I feared the worst, at least a summons to the police station, though I didn’t recollect doing anything lately that would have brought me to the adverse notice of authorities. But the policemen just wanted particulars of our live-in maid, as a routine measure, they said. Still, to be on the safe side, I volunteered the information that I was once a magistrate and dealt a good deal with police. They didn’t seem much impressed. Made me complete a form and rode away. Frankly I stay
apprehensive of all uniformed men guarding gates —
at airports, offices, hospitals. In fact, the only
authority figures in uniform that I am comfortable with
are airline attendants and nurses. |
Sonia: naturalisation by marriage
NOVEMBER 19, 1984. Indira Gandhi’s first birth anniversary after her assassination. Rajiv and I, says Sonia Gandhi in a poignant prologue to her 214-page, posthumous pictorial biography of Rajiv Gandhi (ghost-written by Manjulika Dubey and published by Viking in 1992), “drafted together identical and separately signed instructions for our children”. “In the event of my death as well as that of my wife, Sonia,” wrote Rajiv Gandhi — the document executed by Sonia repeating the words mutatis mutandis — “at or about the same time, at the same place or at different places, within or outside India, our bodies should be brought to Delhi and cremated together, in accordance with Hindu rites, in an open ground. In no circumstances should our bodies be burnt in a crematorium. According to our custom, our eldest child Rahul should light the pyre..... It is my wish that our ashes should be immersed into the Ganga at Triveni, Allahabad, where my ancestors’ ashes have been immersed”. A year and a half before she signed an identical document committing herself to being cremated according to Hindu rites in India, Sonia Gandhi had taken Indian citizenship in 1983. Married to an Indian citizen, she had opted for her husband’s nationality under Section 5(1)(c) of the Citizenship Act, 1955. Modelled on the British Nationality Act of 1948, the 1955 statute provides for citizenship alternately by birth, by descent, by registration (on various grounds including marriage, the ground invoked by Sonia), by naturalisation of foreigners belonging to non-Commonwealth countries — though “naturalisation” is also a generic legal term, meaning the admission of an alien to the status of a natural-born subject, and in that sense covers citizenship by registration as well — and by incorporation of new territory in the Union. Naturalisation by marriage is an established mode of acquiring citizenship in most countries of the world. In England, whose nationality laws bound inhabitants of British India before we adopted our own Constitution — Section 110 of the Government of India Act, 1935, expressly forbade Indian legislatures from making any law affecting the law of British nationality — the concept goes back more than 150 years to 1844. “Any woman married, or who shall be married (reads Section 16 of the Aliens Act of 1844), to a natural-born subject or person naturalised, shall be deemed and taken to be herself naturalised, and shall have all the rights and privileges of a natural-born subject.” This, the Aliens Act of 1844, has been described by Mervyn Jones, a leading authority on the subject, as the starting point of the modern law of British naturalisation. The “mere fact of marriage to a national,” says Mervyn Jones in his well-known work on British nationality law, has “always been held in practice to constitute a sufficient connection with the state of the husband” to justify the automatic acquisition by a woman of the husband’s nationality. The rational basis for this rule was the general subjection, under most legal systems, of the wife to the husband. This reason has rapidly lost its force in the modern world, adds Jones, with the juridical emancipation of married women. In the nationality legislation of many countries, therefore, marriage has ceased to produce any automatic effect on the nationality of women and has been replaced by the rule that marriage, as such, gives the wife only an entitlement to acquire upon application the nationality of her spouse. This is precisely the position now in India under the Citizenship Act of 1955, which is based, as I said earlier, on the British Nationality Act of 1948 (now replaced by a new Act of 1981, bearing the same title). Naturalisation by marriage under Indian law entails, in addition, compulsory renunciation of one’s previous nationality. Whether by marriage or otherwise, naturalisation, as the International Court of Justice observed in 1955 (in an opinion that has more than ordinary significance for Sonia Gandhi’s case) “is not a matter to be taken lightly. To seek and to obtain it is not something that happens frequently in the life of a human being.” Indeed, it “may have far-reaching consequences and involve profound changes in the destiny of the individual who obtains it.” The habitual residence of the individual concerned, said the court, handing down its judgement in the Nottebohm case, the leading international case on the subject, is an important factor in determining his real and effective nationality. But there are other factors “such as the centre of his interests, his family ties, his participation in public life, attachment shown by him for a given country and inculcated in his children, etc.” Her habitual residence, the centre of her interests, her participation in public life, the attachment of her children for India..... Can anyone, in an objective frame of mind, deny that Sonia Gandhi satisfies all these tests of “real and effective” Indian nationality? Benazir Bhutto
(Pakistan), Sheikh Hasina Wajed (Bangladesh), Chandrika
Kumaratunga (Sri Lanka), Aung San Suu Kyi (Burma), Sonia
Gandhi (India) — now in power, now in the
opposition, the democratic dynasties of South Asia are a
fact of life that cannot be wished away. And it would be
better to battle them in the open, the political open
where the people are their own masters and the ultimate
judges, than to try to oust them from competition by
bending the law and altering the rules of the game. |
Fear of Kargil warfare turning nuclear
THOUGH at this point of the ongoing warfare in the Kargil sector there seems no apparent apprehension of it going nuclear, but whilst talking to the New Delhi based German Television news producer Nicola Rewk one was told that there is apprehension and worry in Germany and in some other European countries that “since two nuclear powers are involved it could escalate into a nuclear war”. But some other foreign correspondents I spoke to, didn’t quite agree with the apprehensions of it escalating further or snowballing into some nuclear mess. However, they certainly stressed that reportage of this war had been given top priority. As VOA’s Bureau Chief J. Teeple told me: “We are doing about five stories on it everyday and the feedback we’re getting is that listeners of our Urdu service are particularly keen to hear the latest developments....” Anand Sagar, Bureau Chief of the Gulf News, said he had been concentrating on the build up and the ongoing battle as this was the top story and readers in the Gulf wanted to know what was happening in that sector. Similar views were expressed by the Bureau Chief of the London Times, David Orr: “Since I have taken over from Christopher Thomas only last weekend, so I haven’t been able to think in terms of going to report from Kargil but, yes, from here we are reporting rather extensively. For don’t overlook the fact that in England there is a big readership comprising Indians and Pakistanis.” MIND activists And whilst talking to some activists of the Movement in India for Nuclear Disarmament (MIND) there seemed apprehension that this war might escalate further. Said Praful Bidwai, co-convener of this movement which came into being last year after we went nuclear: “It is a grim situation. There is a distinct and serious possibility of escalation, which is not to be underestimated.” He had his reasons lined out. “I say this because there seems to be utter incompetence of the security decision-making apparatus in both countries. Imagine our Defence Minister openly saying that a shepherd first saw the intruders and he informed the Army about it on May 6, which in turn informed him on May 12. This is ridiculous and totally irresponsible! This war could now also escalate because of the air strikes that have been launched. Also, we have a history of miscalculations and strategic misperceptions and I am told that though DG Military Operations on both sides have a hotline which is to be used every week (every Tuesday to be precise) but it hasn’t been used for months now. Another fact that cannot be overlooked is that there are irresponsible politicians in both countries. For if the politicians at the helm were more responsible they could try to diffuse the situation diplomatically ... afterall, what are diplomats for? The situation has to be diffused diplomatically because people don’t want war, for once it escalates on either side there cannot be any defence against nuclear attacks.” Bus to everywhere And here in New Delhi together with the war details there is a balloon lookalike bus going around on the streets, subtly reminding the people of the fallout of the Lahore Declaration. Said to be the brainchild of balloonist Vishwa Bandhu Gupta this bus has ‘Delhi - Lahore - Kargil’ painted on it and after doing the rounds here it is likely to travel to other towns of the country. Probably the Congress wants to cash-in on the fallout of the Prime Minister’s hyped bus-dosti yatra to Lahore. Besides other fallouts of that dosti journey, the Prime Minister’s aides are said to be reconsidering the original programme of his going to Dhaka by bus. The latest from the PMO is that the PM would receive the bus load of passengers at Dhaka but refrain from stepping into it. And another fallout is that there are no further announcements of any bus-diplomacy journeys to Nepal,Bhutan and so forth. Some relief for the tax payer, but sighs all the way for all those big named socialites! Disability sector The latest from the disability sector is that the Disabilities Chief Commissioner B L Sharma has finally given up trying to get across to the minister concerned Menaka Gandhi that to shift the DCC office to Nagpur would be disastrous for the interest of those disabled . And on the June 7 he is shifting office from New Delhi to Nagpur. Sources add that though it is apparent that the disability sector will suffer by this decision to shift from the capital city to a town which is little known for anything except that it is the RSS headquarters, Sharma was probably left with no choice but to bow to political pressures. However, there has come
in a suggestion from a disability group that if Sharma
couldn’t fight Menaka he should revert to his army
uniform and fight the intruders in the Kargil sector.
This is in context of the fact that B L Sharma is an
ex-army officer who joined the IAS in the late sixties. |
All-India
Maheshwari conference Train Times THE Reception Committee of the All-India Maheshwari Conference, seventh session, humbly and respectfully begs to request all Maheshwaris to kindly attend in good numbers the forthcoming session commencing from Saturday, the 19th June. The Reception Committee
further wishes to inform the delegates about the arrival
of the trains as follows: — Victoria Terminus (Bori
Bunder) G.I.P. Ry: Nagpur Passenger 515, Nagpur Mail 7,
Delhi Express 9, N.E. Passenger 12-40, Calcutta Mail 13,
Punjab Mail 11.30, Madras Fast Passenger 21-40, Grant
Road B.B. C.I. Ry: Delhi Express 6.30; Kathiawar Express
7-21, Gujrat Mail 8-21, Bombay Peshawar Mail 10-59,
Passenger via Ahmedabad 5-54. |
 |
 |
| Nation
| Punjab | Haryana | Himachal Pradesh | Jammu & Kashmir | | Chandigarh | Business | Sport | | Mailbag | Spotlight | World | 50 years of Independence | Weather | | Search | Subscribe | Archive | Suggestion | Home | E-mail | |
