 |
| Thursday, February 3, 2000, Chandigarh, India  
|
First
step in statute change |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
‘THE
TICKING TIME BOMB’ China:
after Macau, what? Political
strategy must be evolved
Stealing
re(de)fined
February 3, 1925
|
First step in statute change HALF of the controversy over the government proposal to review the Constitution has disappeared with the formal Cabinet decision on Tuesday. The present parliamentary form will not be disturbed in any way. It means that the exercise will not extend to installing a presidential system. Also, the basic features of the Constitution are out of bounds for the 11-member committee. This again means that the government has given up its earlier desire to fix a five-year term for the Lok Sabha. These are the two areas which the opposition parties thought that the BJP-led alliance wanted to change as part of the Sangh parivar’s hidden agenda. The Congress which wants to use the proposal as one of the two issues to bounce back into reckoning, realises its own constraints. The Indira Gandhi government had set up the Swaran Singh committee precisely for this purpose in the mid-seventies, after rejecting the objections raised by the late P.B.Gajendragadkar, the then Chairman of the Law Commission. If the former ruling party raises the decibel of protest beyond a point, it will end up reminding the liberals of the trauma of the emergency days. The government’s decision to restrict the scope of review is credited to Mr Venkatachaliah, former Chief Justice of India. He insisted on these assurances before agreeing to head the review committee. It is reassuring that the government wants a man of his liberal and independent outlook to take up the job. One report says that it is also looking out for a few left-of-centre experts to join the panel to give it a broad national character. It is obviously a wise response to the agitated and somewhat skewed debate in the media. As a leading constitutional expert has said, the media blew up the differing views of the Prime Minister and the President and decided to see a brewing confrontation where none existed. When the President wondered “whether we have failed the Constitution” he was referring to all those who worked it during the past 50 years. He certainly did not have only the present government in mind. During this period the Constitution has been changed 79 times, on an average one every nine months. Some of these have been quite frivolous, some dangerous like the 42nd amendment and one Schedule is meant to shut out the Supreme Court. This amendment mania is easily explained. Every government in the past three decades has started with a fatal illusion that it has been sworn into not just power but unlimited power and that it has a mandate to indulge in its fads and fetishes. Thus was the Preamble scarred with the insertion of “secular” and “socialist” at a time when secularism was getting weakened and socialism was being abandoned. Herein lies the greatest weakness of Indian law-makers. They believe that a law is the cure for social ills; this only encourages a national tendency to break laws. Setting conventions and
respecting them is a better way of working the
Constitution. As an American expert on the Indian
Constitution says, Article 356 is being abused as a
routine. The Janata government dismissed nine state
governments in 1977 and the Congress government did the
same in 1980. Mr N.Sanjiva Reddy, who was the Janata
nominee for the President’s post, had to sign the
second batch of dismissals because of the bad precedent
set earlier. Governor has ceased to be an independent
authority and instances of Mr Surjit Singh Barnala
resigning rather than recommending the sack of the DMK
government are rarest of rare exceptions. Similar is the
needless need to amend the Constitution to reserve seats
for women or to deflect defectors. All that is necessary
is for the political parties to go ahead and nominate a
larger number of women to contest elections and pledge
not to admit footloose legislators. A convention can
achieve these two very desirable goals. Having said this,
it must be stressed that the time has come for the nation
to take a hard look at the constitutional provisions if
only to find out why things are what they are and why
several supporting institutions have developed severe
arthritis and socio-economic reforms have sputtered into
a stop. Finally there should be a constitutional
amendment to block efforts to build wrong conventions! |
Satanism trapped at last! AFTER hoodwinking, tricking or overawing the police and a considerable section of Orissa's tribal citizenry, Dara Singh, the main accused in the case of the murder of Australian missionary Graham Stewart Staines and his two sons, has been arrested on a remote forest patch close to Goriha village in Mayurbhanj district of Orissa. Staines was a leprosy worker. His family, particularly his wife Gladys, spread literacy and served sick people in government-forsaken areas. He generated love among the luckless, limbless and illiterate who lived and laboured in penury. As he began to be shaped in the perceptive public mind into a legend as a man of compassion, he created short-sighted enemies in unspiritualised society, some of whom thought of religion as a sectarian monopoly and of missionary zeal as the fountainhead of alien mischief. Staines became the prime target of hotheaded fundamentalists and pseudo-religious groups — both tribal and facilely modern. Dara Singh led the hate-Staines brigade. He had abundant satanical skill, being involved in at least 14 criminal cases before the Staines' murder and other killings done by him — like that of a Muslim petty trader, Sheikh Rahman, in a small "haat". Christian priest Arul Doss was, by all accounts, his victim. Marauding is not based on normal reasoning. It falls among the manifestations of abnormal psychology. Thus Dara Singh — who, after migrating from a criminal pocket of UP to Orissa, plundered traders of minority communities, helped needy regional families, which shared his so-called faith, and popularised an image of himself as a thoroughly perverted Robinhood. He had his base among tribal as well as non-Christian and non-Muslim villagers. Dara Singh was provided
with food and shelter by his beneficiaries. Look at the
location of the place where he was arrested. Gohira is
about 300 km from the district headquarters of Mayurbhanj
and 50 km from Keonjhar. The notoriously criminalised
Orissa-Bihar border is not far away. Credible reports
suggest that the police gave evidence of a culpably high
degree of inefficiency — and, perhaps, collusion
with lawless elements ruling the roost in Bihar, Orissa
and UP (the state of birth of the dreaded criminal).
Action must be taken, after an impartial judicial
inquiry, against the conniving or derelict police
officers and policemen and their politico-religious
protectors. While losing Staines, with his two children,
we lost a sacred part of our secular legacy and stained
our record as a tolerant people. Just two or three
accomplices of Dara Singh have been caught so far. He led
gangs and he must be made to reveal everything about the
crime-net he wove and maintained. Mrs Gladys Staines, the
magnanimous wife of Graham Staines, left the judgement to
God when her family's destruction was made known to her.
She is "happy". Why? Because "Dara, now
arrested, cannot kill more people"! She has gone to
the extent of saying scripturally: "Never take
revenge from friends but, instead, let God's anger do
it". This spirit is eminently and primordially
Indian. However, the law of the land should supplement
the divine dispensation. For His is the Kingdom and this
land, with its righteous culture. Everyone concerned with
Dara Singh needs exemplary punishment. |
Oh dear, oh deer ! THERE seems to be an unusual element of mystery in the story about a police constable being gored to death by a deer on the farmhouse of Congress leader Arjun Singh last week. As the saying goes there is more to it than meets the eye. The statement by Union Minister of State for Social Justice and Empowerment Maneka Gandhi demanding the arrest of Mr Arjun Singh has given a new twist to the story. There is no question of there having been any foul play resulting in the death of the policeman. The question which needs to be answered concerns Mr Arjun Singh’s claim that he had a valid licence for keeping protected animals on his farmhouse. There should be no doubt whatsoever that Ms Maneka Gandhi knows more about laws governing the protection of wildlife across the globe than Mr Arjun Singh knows about how to prevent even domesticated animals from causing injury to visitors and passers-by. Several instances can be dug up on the application of the law of tort in the West to prove the culpability of owners in the event of their pets causing nuisance in the neighbourhood or injuries to passers-by and visitors. In the present case, a policeman on duty on the farmhouse of the Congress leader, whose son Ajay Singh is a Minister in Madhya Pradesh, was actually gored to death by an animal known to be gentle by nature. Mr Ajay Singh has said that his father’s name should not be dragged into the controversy because he does not live on the farmhouse. His concern for the wellbeing of his father is touching, but he has not bothered to clarify whether the property where the strange accident occurred is in his name or in the name of Mr Arjun Singh. To put it simply, the
owner of the property is liable to pay damages, as
prescribed by law, to the family of the luckless
constable. As far as the question of keeping animals,
protected under the provisions of the relevant Act, on
his farmhouse is concerned no one should question Mr
Arjun Singh’s right to live the life of a feudal
lord while working for the upliftment of the downtrodden
as a senior member of the country’s oldest political
party. This aspect of the issue can only be settled
between him, his party and the people whom he seeks to
serve — that too only if the party and the people
decide to ask him to explain his anachronistic style of
living in a country where the chasm between the haves and
the have-nots has sharply increased after the opening up
of the economy as part of the liberalisation process. But
the larger issue on which both Mr Arjun Singh and his son
Mr Ajay Singh need to come clean concerns their claim
that they have a valid licence for keeping wild animals
on their farmhouse. According to Ms Maneka Gandhi, the
father and son should be arrested because the explanation
offered by them is not based on facts. animal rights
activists, in a statement addressed to Madhya Pradesh
Chief Minister Digvijay Singh, have categorically claimed
that “no licence can be issued {to anyone} after
1972. However, even if we presume that the licence was
given, the deer/ black buck that have been found at his
house are certainly not nine years old. The age can be
verified by any veterinary doctor in which case these are
not the deer for which the licence was issued”. She
has gone so far as to accuse Mr Arjun Singh of indulging
in the “reprehensible act of illegally keeping
protected animals on his farmhouse”. In the light of
the points raised by Ms Maneka Gandhi the best defence
for Mr Arjun Singh would be to produce the necessary
documents to prove his innocence. If he is able to do so,
it would be the turn of the Union Minister to explain why
she tried to give the controversy a political twist by
distorting facts. |
‘THE TICKING TIME BOMB’ IN less than a week the President, Mr K.R. Narayanan, has given the nation’s conscience and the political system’s leading lights as many as three sharp jolts on issues of the highest import. For his pains, he has drawn more than considerable flak. But at the end of the day cheers for him by the vast majority of the people have drowned the jeers emanating from a vocal but often motivated minority. Let the President’s pertinent message and its criticism be examined on merit, not on the basis of pride and prejudice or crass political or ideological biases. On the eve of the Republic’s golden jubilee, Mr Narayanan spoke about economic reforms, now in the second generation, and laid bare both their beneficial and baneful consequences. He made it clear that he did not want the reforms to be stopped or impeded. But he did want the country to take note of the wide and widening gulf between the rich and the poor, the privileged and the downtrodden. India today may have a middle class comprising 250 million people with a standard of living as high as that of the Italians. But it still is a small minority in a nation of a billion souls. The vast majority lives in appalling poverty, penury and neglect that are worsening by the day because of the utter insensitivity of the ruling classes to even dehumanising poverty and unspeakable suffering of the masses. The shocking treatment of women and massive exploitation of children are also a matter of crying shame. The imagery that the President invoked to hammer home his message could not have been more vivid. He welcomed the three-line super highway of “globalisation, liberalisation and privatisation” but asked for some space also for the multitude of pedestrians. Anyone who lives in Delhi and tries to cross a road even at zebra crossings amidst the murderous onslaught of shiny cars of myriad makes, merrily jumping the red light, knows how apt the apology is. Even more searing is Mr Narayanan’s statement about the rich “guzzling aerated drinks” while the poor to have to be content with a few “palmfuls of water from dirty ponds”. More often than not, humans and cattle drink from these filthy ponds together. It is in this context that the President reminded the smug and self-satisfied privileged classes to beware of the “patience” on the monk and take note of the “time-bomb” that is “ticking away”. How anyone can take objection to that is difficult to understand. But then critics are not lacking in ingenuity. They have pointed out that the only shocking state of affairs today is the result of the steady degeneration of political and public life over the past 50 years. And they have argued that since during the bulk of the period the Congress party, to which Mr Narayanan once belonged, was in power, he ought not to have voiced his criticism, valid though it is. This is more than sophistry that can be ignored. More revealing is the criticism of, indeed the attack on, the President for speaking out against the present ruling coalition’s move to have a comprehensive review of the Constitution. He did so at Parliament’s special session to celebrate the inauguration of the Constitution half a century ago. However, the Prime Minister, Mr Atal Behari Vajpayee, who spoke immediately after the President, reaffirmed his government’s decision to go ahead with such a sweeping review. Of course, Mr Vajpayee found it necessary to reassure the country, not just his immediate audience, that the basic structure of the Constitution would not be affected though he and his party people continue to be coy about what exactly they propose to do. Unfortunately, the assurance about the basic structure is meaningless. For, under the Supreme Court’s previous judgements any attempt to alter the basic structure would be unlawful and invalid anyhow. It cannot be anybody’s case that the Constitution in its present form is sacrosanct and should not be amended. It already has been more than 80 times, and some other proposed amendments have fallen by the wayside. More amendments to it, as needed, can surely be made. But to have a commission with an open-ended mandate virtually to rewrite the Constitution is another matter altogether. It is bound to arouse gnawing suspicions about the real intentions and the hitherto hidden agenda of the powers that be. Especially in view of the goings-on in Gujarat and the ominous statements of the UP Chief Minister. Interestingly, no one has faulted the President on the strength of weakness of his arguments against an across-the-board constitutional review. His critics have lambasted him for being needlessly “activist” and for speaking against his own government. Ironically, almost all the critics belong to the saffron camp and include ladies and gentlemen who had practically abused the then President, Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, for failing to refuse to sign the Emergency proclamation placed before him by Indira Gandhi in 1975. In the late eighties, these very people had exuberantly urged Giani Zail Singh to dismiss Rajiv Gandhi as Prime Minister because of charges of alleged bribery in the Bofors deal. No one had done so more zealously than Mr Ram Jethmalani, Law Minister in the present government. He has now announced that the Constitution Review Commission will be in business within the next few days whether the President or the country likes it or not.The Union Cabinet has already taken a decision. In more recent times, the BJP’s drumbeaters had applauded Mr Narayanan for having returned to the Gujral government its ill-advised recommendation to impose President’s rule in UP by sacking the ministry of Mr Kalyan Singh. But a few months later, the Sangh Parivar was up in arms when the President refused to entertain a similarly improper recommendation for the imposition of Central rule in Bihar made by the previous Vajpayee government. A further quirk of irony is that an apparent objective of constitutional review initially was to replace the parliamentary system by a presidential one. The terms of reference, as finalised by the Cabinet, however, show that the controversial idea has been abandoned. Time was, during the Indira era, when the Congress party was keen on the presidential system and the BJP, led by Mr Vajpayee, used to oppose it vehemently. But there is a critical difference between the two situations. Indira Gandhi had the requisite two-thirds majority in both Houses of Parliament to be able to amend the Constitution at will. But ultimately she refrained from ushering in the presidential system or to convert Parliament into a new Constituent Assembly. Why? Because she knew that the motives of her powerful younger son, Sanjay, and the coterie around him in urging this course of action were highly suspect. The finger of suspicion now points to the crowd under Mr Vajpayee. But let that pass. What cannot be ignored is that the BJP-led coalition just does not have the numbers in Parliament to enact any amendment to the Constitution, leave alone a controversial one. Under the circumstances, to persist with the idea of a review commission is both rubbish and fatuous. It can also be very damaging to the polity. What the country is crying for is consensus on essential tasks ahead which include economic reforms with not just a human face but a strong element of humanity and genuine social justice. National security and foreign policies, particularly issues like the CTBT and dealing with Pakistan, also urgently require broad agreement among major parties, especially between the BJP and the Congress. Sadly, the BJP, instead of building up a consensus, is busy fuelling further the domestic discord. The understandable crusade against the reckless induction of Hindutva in BJP-ruled Gujarat, on top of other tussles, is a painful pointer to the direction in which the polity is moving. On the third act of the
Presidential speaking — his much-needed denunciation
of law’s egregious delays at the apex court’s
50th anniversary — there is absolutely no room for
difference of opinion. In fact, on an earlier occasion
the Prime Minister had spoken even more sharply on this
vexed subject. Millions of cases have been pending at all
levels for anything between two and 35 years. The Chief
Justice of India had pointed out then that one factor
behind delayed justice was the government’s failure
to fill 100 long-standing vacancies in various High
Courts. It is altogether typical of the abysmal state of
governance in this country that neither the judiciary has
accelerated its pace of work, nor has the executive shown
any alacrity in filling judicial vacancies. |
China: after Macau, what? BEIJING felt a great sense of elation with the return to China of the former Portuguese colony of Macau. Of course, China could take Macau anytime it wanted. But Beijing was in no hurry. Lisbon was, therefore, allowed to continue its formal control until the colony was due to be returned. Beijing, though, was keen to emphasise its historic symbolism. Macau was the last of the European colonial possessions in China. With its return, China cast off its past humiliation. And, more importantly for the regime in Beijing, it has all been achieved under communist rule. China’s communist rulers have always sought to emphasise their nationalist credentials, both before and after “liberation” in 1949. It is even more important for them now to highlight this, after having effectively ditched communist ideology but for their monopoly on power. Nationalism is their only source of legitimacy. In the process, they have conveniently juxtaposed communism and nationalism. Therefore, anyone questioning communist rule would instantly be branded anti-national. The hounding of the country’s fledgling democracy movement is a case in point. Even a non-political quasi-religious movement, like Falun Gong, is considered a serious threat, necessitating a nationwide witch-hunt to ferret out its members and put them behind bars with long prison sentences. Beijing wants total control. Its validation, though, requires China’s rulers to periodically stage events to mark themselves as custodians of national honour. Hong Kong and Macau’s reversion from colonial rule was important for this reason. The next important event in the communist national calendar will be the reunification of Taiwan. President Jiang Zemin pointedly emphasised this at the ceremonies marking the return of Macau. Taipei is offered the formula of “one country, two systems”, as in the case of Hong Kong and Macau. Which it rejects for a number of reasons. First, it is offended by being lumped with Hong Kong and Macau. Taiwan is not a colony like them, awaiting return to China by some due date. President Lee Teng-hui last July reiterated Taiwan’s sovereign status, emphasising that Taipei would deal with Beijing on a “special state-to-state” basis. With a population of about 21 million people, a prosperous economy and a healthy functioning democracy, Taipei can certainly claim greater legitimacy on its territory than the communist rulers of Beijing on the mainland. The communist rule of China has never been subjected to a popular verdict. The intractable problem between Beijing and Taipei, therefore, arises from their different political systems. Taipei is not against “one China”, but not under its self-appointed communist oligarchy. It would like to see democracy in China first, with people electing their own government. Taiwan could even become a model for the rest of China. In such a system, nationalism will cease to be the monopoly of the Communist Party. Like other parties, the communists will also have to take their chances to exercise power. However, with their monopoly over power and control of national affairs, the communists are able to obfuscate the issue of Taiwan’s reunification. They tend to show Taiwan in a bad light as opposing reunification. Which is not true. Taiwan simply is not willing to be annexed and ruled by the mainland’s communist government. And why should they when Taipei has a political system that allows its people much greater choice and economic prosperity then would ever be possible under communism! An argument, though, is made that Taiwan would enjoy maximum autonomy after reunification, like Hong Kong and Macau. Therefore, it shouldn’t stand in the way of doing its patriotic duty. But such rhetoric is simply an exercise in reinforcing Beijing’s nationalist credentials — that they are somehow super-patriots. Why should Taipei validate and legitimise communism as a national ideology when it regards it as positively harmful and dangerous for the nation? Therefore, any amount of obfuscation to cast aspersions on Taipei as anti-national will not work with the people of Taiwan. They know full well that reunification with China will simply mean living under communist rule. Where does Beijing go from here? China’s communist government obviously will not sign its death warrant by opting for democracy to court Taiwan. It is afraid of testing its popularity, aware that it will be resoundingly rejected. Therefore, Beijing might be tempted to use force to bring about reunification. Indeed, it is committed to using force, if necessary. The deployment of missiles targeted at Taiwan is a dangerous portent. But China will have to seriously consider its consequences. In the first place, Taiwan will not be an easy walk over. Second, it most probably would involve the USA and, eventually, its regional allies like Australia and Japan. In other words, it will fundamentally change the regional, if not global, strategic situation. Third, it will seriously damage China’s economic modernisation, possibly reversing its course. Fourth, a forced reunification, if at all achieved, will make the task of Taiwan’s integration all the more difficult. With a sullen and hostile population living under virtual occupation, Taiwan will cease to be the economic prize that China is hoping for. The best course for China, therefore, is not to force the pace for reunification. It should happen at its own pace, with the willing participation of the people of Taiwan. Beijing should stop questioning the patriotism of the people in Taiwan for failing to join communist China. At the same time, it should at least stop hounding the proponents of democracy within the country. China needs to relax and
be open to political reforms. But this will take time, as
the communists are not keen on sharing or losing power.
Therefore, Taiwan’s reunification must be a
long-term project when the Chinese nation has matured
politically and attained a certain level of nationwide
economic prosperity. Such a flexible long-term approach
will not only be good for China and Taiwan, but also for
the Asia-Pacific region. |
Stealing re(de)fined DICTIONARY meaning of stealing is to take another’s property without right or permission, especially in secret, with the intention of not returning it. Indian Penal Code regards such an act as “theft” and punishable under law. But that is a crude expression of a craft which can be practised in many a splendid and exquisite manner, without always inviting penalty. One such form, euphemistically called “shoplifting” is pinching little things from shops at peak hours. For the women, a “booster bra” comes handy, as none dare question or search. Some use little children as shield and accomplices. So often, practitioners are not just the professionals, but respectable people or teenagers, wanting to help themselves to goodies the easier way, or simply to get some fun or kick. Often, the act is dismissed as a “prank” or an “antic”. A warning, a reprimand, and return of merchandise may be the innocuous consequences of detection. Kleptomaniacs use many other stratagems. Pocketing spoons, forks, ashtrays from restaurants is an old sport. Most hostlers are either the victims or the perpetrators of minor acts of felony, like interception of moneyorders of fellow students, or clandestine removal of pens, instruments, books of unwary and trusting neighbours. Tales are also told of guests of five-star hotels who cannot resist the temptation of carrying off shampoos, soaps, perfumes, and shower caps, when vacating the room. All of them self-righteously assure themselves that they commit no indiscretion; all that they cannot repress is an itch. Literary theft, when a person steals the thoughts, writings of another and gives them out as his own, masquerades under the garb of plagiarism. Most protagonists get away with claims of originality and erudition, and exult over the ensuing success or acclamation. The few who get caught may have to pay, for their naivete, a small price in the shape of public censure or loss of image among peers. In film-making, music, painting etc, it is common for the artists to pilfer the plot, tune, or the concept. Some do it compulsively, even brazenly. But, the trait is loftily described as “inspiration”, “evolution” or “creative imitation”, with no stigma attached. In fact, all seem to be happy with the end product and enjoy it. There are several honourable forms of stealing in which you can indulge, without violating law. By launching a product earlier than your rival, you can steal a march over him, and be the first to capture the market. You may anticipate and forestall your competitor’s arguments and be the one to make a sensational effect; by thus pre-empting him, you steal the thunder. On another occasion, you may steal the limelight if you happen to be the focus of attention and receive maximum publicity. You can steal the show itself if your piece turns out to be the most popular and memorable item of the evening. Now, all along these acts, you have been only stealing, yet without attracting an iota of guilt. Rather, every time you have added to your balance sheet and each feat of stealing has enhanced your image. The path of romantic love is strewn with stealing. It starts innocently with stealing an ardent, amorous look. Then, nurturing, fosterling the tie, to gain enough confidence to steal a surreptitious kiss. Winning gradually, steadfastly the affections and insidiously, almost unknowingly, stealing away the heart. Finally, the marriage — secret, if necessary, or stealing it, as the phrase goes, in case parental opposition comes in the way. Shakespeare had altogether a different view when he said in Othello: “Who steals my purse steals trash ..., but he that filches from me my good name robs me of that which enriches him not and makes me poor indeed”. Usurpation of honour, to him, was the acme of piracy, of plunder, he set little by loss of money. Let me narrate here an
elegant example of the dexterous art of stealing. My
neighbour is an early riser and he puts this habit to
good advantage at my cost. He skips over the common wall,
picks up my newspaper from the portico where the vendor
has flung it across on his morning round, reads it with
relish, but has the good sense to restore it back to its
place before I stir out. Though I lose nothing
monetarily, yet when I glance at the crumpled paper, I
get an uneasy feeling that its freshness has been stolen;
it is stale, second hand. One would like to consider the
question: ‘Does my friend steal, or does he
not?’ Let the reader judge. However, I will leave
with him a profound observation of Emerson: “All
stealing is comparative; if you come to absolutes, pray
who doesn’t steal. |
Political strategy must be evolved THE Pakistani military dictator, Gen Pervez Musharraf, disowns responsibility for terrorist activities that have plagued Jammu and Kashmir for more than a decade now. He denies the existence of cross-border terrorism and asserts that no fundamentalist training centres operate out of Pakistan. He also sees no linkages between the Islamic fundamentalists of Pakistan and the Taliban of Afghanistan. Yet Maulana Masood Raza, the Harkat-ul-Ansar ideologue, whose release from an Indian prison was secured by the hijackers of the Indian Airlines plane at Kandahar as a quid pro quo for releasing the hostages, loses no time to surface in Karachi, finds time to take a bride for himself there and, pronto, repairs to Kandahar presumably to have his honeymoon in the company of Taliban militants who had played no mean part in getting him freed. Gen Musharraf is not convinced that the Maulana’s younger brother, whose travel documents, including those obtained from Kathmandu, have since been made public was the leader of the hijackers. Such allegations, says the General, are part of the Indian design to have Pakistan declared a terrorist state. And, somehow, the General seems to miss the point when, a few days later, he comes out with the astounding proposition that terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir will come to an end only if India agrees to a dialogue with him on Kashmir. If Pakistan has no control over the terrorist, foreign or the homegrown variety, how come Gen Musharraf knows the terrorists mind? Obviously an awkward question but one which Gen Musharraf might well consider answering. The presence of hundreds of Pakistani and Afghans among the terrorist gives the lie to his claim that the insurgency in Kashmir is a “local” problem, of India’s own creation. Let’s forget Gen Musharraf’s puerile assumptions. The truth is that in the aftermath of Musharraf’s debacle in Kargil we are currently faced with an unprecedented upsurge in terrorist activities in Jammu and Kashmir. And the Indian Government, too, finally appears to have woken up to the enormity of the problem. Gen Musharraf may not admit it but he has thrown a direct challenge to the sovereignty of India. And much as he may not like it, several countries are beginning to disbelieve Pakistani claims of innocence. Washington’s agreement to the setting up of a Joint Working Group (JWG) on terrorism with India, even if it may not be directly related to Kashmir, offers the most telling evidence of this. The USA may still be unwilling to by the Indian view that Pakistan be declared a terrorist State but the formation of the JWG does signal better appreciation of Indian concerns. But then we have to remember that our war against terrorism has to be fought and won by us alone. We can’t expect others to do it for us. It is in this context that one welcomes New Delhi’s belated moves to give a more purposeful turn to counter-insurgency measures in Kashmir. Whatever the ingredients of the new counter-insurgency plans, we must remember that there can be no lasting peace, no escape from the atmosphere of violence in the State, unless a sound political strategy is simultaneously evolved, a policy that embraces all sections of political, social and economic opinion in the State. Such a policy has to be something more than the present corrupt ad hocism of the Farooq administration. Any counter-offensive must, if successfully carried out, only lead to the point of containing violence and spread of terrorism. A sensible political strategy should unavoidably be integral to the new plans. In the light of the heightened militancy, triggered by large-scale intrusion of substantial numbers of foreign mercenaries in the wake of Kargil (given a boost by the Kandahar trade-off), it was inevitable for New Delhi to reassess its response. And the response, as it emerged after the high-level meeting chaired by the Prime Minister, should serve the purpose well, if it is implemented with the required sincerity of purpose. To set up another unified command north of Zojila pass became imperative after the Kargil experience but the question remains has a unified command, going by the previous experience, been an effective instrument. Soon after the Army’s triumph in Kargil there was occasion to hear senior Army officers in Srinagar speaking of the unified command as being anything but “unified”. The various agencies, involved in the command were pulling in different directions and, tragically, even working at cross purposes. The Chief Minister who was technically the head of the command rarely found time to take its meetings and instead nominated the Chief Secretary to deputise for him. To that extent it is happy augury that the new regime provides a role for the State Governor even as the Chief Minister stays as the head of the unified command. The problem in Kashmir, apart from terminating terrorism in the State, remains evolving a political strategy which addresses the peculiar needs of the State and its harried people. The unfortunate truth is that New Delhi has never over the past 50 years allowed an alternative to the National Conference to grow. The National Conference, under the leadership of Sheikh Abdullah has undoubtedly played a historic role. But even in the years following the Sheikh, who for his own reasons was averse to let national parties entering the State, none of the major political parties really showed any interest in involving itself in State politics. The BJP did put in an appearance but only confining itself to the predominantly Hindu areas, the Congress Party’s presence always depended on the state of its relationship it had with Sheikh Abdullah. Which more or less left the valley entirely to the National Conference. The NC could still be the most broad-based party in the State but the Farooq years have rendered it most ineffective and rudderless. It, more than ever, resembles a family fief. And what is worse for the party, Farooq has continued to be erratic and unstable as a leader. It’s unfortunate that every attempt by even pro-Indian combinations to form a rival political party have been thwarted by New Delhi by simple devices such as choosing to give poll time irregularities by the NC a blind eye and latterly giving Farooq a free hand to have his writ run. All this only aggravates the security challenge in Kashmir. Normally at a time when the Government has decided to give a new dimension to counter-insurgency operations in the State one would have expected the Chief Minister to set the agenda at the popular level, addressing social, economic and even political problems. Farooq Abdullah’s patriotic credentials stand unchallenged but it is his reckless inability to build bridges between his Government and the people that causes concern. Farooq Abdullah as Chief
Minister and the head of the unified command must be seen
by the people as a healer without compromising on
security and law order. Simultaneously, efforts must be
made to broaden the political dialogue in Kashmir,
involving all secular, pro-Indian elements including
among these even some from within the Hurriyet and the
long-suffering and the ignored Kashmiri Pundit migrants.
— Asia Defence News International |
February
3, 1925 AT the Legislative Assembly on the 2nd instant a number of questions relating to the railway administration were asked, but the Commerce Member had no patience with these questions and objected to interference in matters of detail regarding the railway administration. It is difficult to understand the official objection to questions raised regarding popular grievances. These questions are intended to elicit information and ascertain facts relating to administrative details. What interference can there possibly be in such questions? It is well-known that people in India are not at all satisfied with the way in which the railway administration is carried on and there are innumerable complaints of injustice, harsh treatment and lack of facilities and various forms of suffering. The public have a right
to demand from the authorities a more satisfactory
administration of the railways and when definite
irregularities are complained of it is the duty of the
officials either to set them right or to justify the
existing order of things. We are surprised that the
Commerce Member assumed an attitude of impatience and
tried to prevent questions being asked. |
 |
| Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir | Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs | Nation | Editorial | | Business | Sport | World | Mailbag | Chandigarh Tribune | In Spotlight | 50 years of Independence | Tercentenary Celebrations | | 119 Years of Trust | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |
