The Tribune, Chandigarh, India

Hard options in budget

FOR the second time in two weeks Finance Minister Yashwant Sinha has warned of hard decisions in the coming budget. He says these harsh measures are imperative to accelerate growth, to attack poverty and ultimately to make India the latest Asian Tiger. Such a warning from a Finance Minister during the heyday of socialist development would have meant massive taxes on everything remotely looking like a luxury item. Today, ironically, the same warning clearly indicates the opposite — a duty-driven price cut. There is a paradox here and two pet theories of Mr Sinha explain it. One is his oft-repeated reference to the feel-good factor and the other is his firm opposition to increasing any levy. Anyway he is under pressure from both domestic and foreign lobbies to rationalise the tax structure, which in plain language means cutting down the rate and number of tax slabs. Last year he slashed excise duty rates from nine to three and this year he is thinking of pruning it to just one rate, most probably to the mean rate of 16 per cent or near about it. Were he to do this, commodities which now attract duty at the maximum rate of 24 per cent will cost less. These are what some decades ago would have carried the tag of luxury goods and hence a fall in their prices will benefit the higher income groups. This is not likely to trouble the Finance Minister’s mind; on the contrary, he will list it in the feel-good factor file. Also, India is obliged to calibrate its excise and import duty to the level in South-East Asia and that warrants a downward revision of the levy on several products.

If the Minister intends to reduce taxes, what does he mean by hard options? This too is easily explained. The budget has two sides — revenue and expenditure. If he cannot, or does not want to, drastically change the figures on one side, he can always concentrate on the other. His options seem to be restricted to cutting expenditure. Here he has problems. Most of the items on this side of the budget just do not brook any decrease. In the current financial year, with an estimated revenue of about Rs 1,82,000 crore, interest payments will take away Rs 88,000 crore, defence Rs 49,000 crore, food and fertiliser subsidy Rs 24,000 crore, pension Rs 10,000 crore, central police force Rs 6,000 crore and statutory grant to states Rs 10,000 crore, for a total expenditure of Rs 1,87,000 crore. It is self-evident that he cannot save even a paisa out of these, except from subsidy. Mr Sinha’s deputy in the Ministry has disclosed that concentration will be on thinning out excessive and non-essential spending. Commonsense says he means the subsidy amount. Simultaneously there is talk of directing the assistance to the consumer through a coupon system. Andhra Pradesh, the state which is closest to the World Bank ideal, issues coupons to the poorer family to receive kerosene at a subsidised price. The government reimburses the trader later. This, the dot-com Chief Minister points out, has drastically cut down leakage to the open market and that has saved money for the government. The Centre may like to bring fertiliser sale under a similar scheme. Foodgrains supply through fair price shops is being denied to income tax payers and simultaneously the price is being increased by a hefty 40 per cent. Education will receive slightly more than 2.5 per cent. At this point of time — 20 days before the B-Day (b for budget) — this then is the vaguest outline of what the stars and Mr Sinha foretell for the coming financial year. For the sake of the long suffering poor, many would hope that all this proves wrong on February 29.

Pilot shows the way

MR Rajesh Pilot deserves to be complimented by honest Indians for having the courage to actually practise what other politicians merely preach. By keeping the wedding of his daughter a simple family affair {barring non-political personal friends} he has set a healthy precedent not only for fellow politicians but other "impressionable" Indians. A large number of very ordinary Indians may indeed have begun to feel extremely small when Mr Mulayam Singh Yadav and Mr Laloo Prasad Yadav broke all norms of simplicity in arranging the wedding receptions of their children. In fact, the two champions of social justice, which includes bridging the gap between the rich and the poor through encouraging everyone to follow a frugal lifestyle, set new standards in vulgar ostentation. Mr Rajesh Pilot is as tall a politician, and perhaps a little more level-headed, as the tallest in the land. It sounds almost unbelievable that only about a 100 family members and close friend were invited to the wedding of his daughter Sarika, a mass communications graduate from St Xavier's, Mumbai. When the order for only 150 cards was placed the printer thought that Mr Rajesh Pilot must be arranging the wedding of an adopted daughter. The printer had evidently not heard of the multi-crore rupees wedding extravaganza arranged by Ms Jayalalitha for her foster son in 1995. Today she has been convicted in one case of corruption and cases of similar nature are either under investigation or pending before the trial courts. Mr Laloo Yadav's name too is not taken with respect although he is yet to be convicted in the cases of corruption, including the fodder scam, pending against him. Mr Mulayam Singh Yadav's political image too needs close scrutiny.

The fact of the matter is that even if Mr Rajesh Pilot had wanted to give a lavish wedding reception to match the ones thrown earlier by Ms Jayalalitha, Mr Sharad Pawar, Mr Madhvarao Scindia, Mr Karan Singh, Mr Mulayam Singh Yadav and Mr Laloo Prasad Yadav he would have had to beg, borrow or steal or sell his conscience. It would have been too heavy a price to pay for turning a family affair into a revolting show of undeserved pomp and splendour. He must have spent sleepless nights pondering over whether to invite at least Mrs Sonia Gandhi because he had been to her daughter's wedding. But in the end his humble roots prevailed upon him and he decided to keep the wedding reception as simple as it should be in tune with the modest standard of living of most Indian households. A major reason why he did not invite anyone from his own profession may have something to do with the fact that the credibility of the politicians has become suspect in the eyes of the people. The most important dignitary at the reception was retired Air Marshal Arjan Singh who was technically his boss when Mr Rajesh Pilot joined the Air Force. That he has neither forgotten nor abandoned his roots was evident from the presence of of a number of guests at the reception whom he had befriended during the period when he used to go from house to house selling milk. Confident and upright persons seldom feel the need to deny their humble past. But upstarts have no compunction in making money by hook or by crook for burying their modest backgrounds in a make-believe world of pomp and splendour. Mercifully, Mr Rajesh Pilot has not allowed his success as a politician to turn him into an upstart. But even he cannot match the humility of Karpoori Thakur who as Chief Minister of Bihar could not afford a wedding reception in which the Governor could be invited. Nevertheless, by keeping the guest list down to 100 Mr Rajesh Pilot has set a healthy example for those who believe in simple living but end up aping the wrong set of politicians. The newly weds can count on the blessings of 1000 million very ordinary Indians with whom Mr Rajesh Pilot established an emotional bond by not turning the wedding into a carnival for the high and mighty in the land.

Benazir’s babbling

HAVING seen a society of sheep getting a government of wolves in her country once again, Ms Benazir Bhutto, Pakistan's former Prime Minister, misses no opportunity for oneup(wo)manship and for getting some pictorial advertisement for herself. Now in "self-exile", according to her own face-saving perception, and in the status of a fugitive in the assessment of the Nawaz Sharif and Pervez Musharraf governments, she manages to get herself reported or projected by the media during her endless leisure. The latest chance came her way two days ago. She had spoken many times on Kargil and Kandahar self-righteously earlier. But she never revealed that she ever had, in the interest of India-Pakistan amity (to which she was consistently opposed as Pakistan's political leader), shot down a military plan to execute a Kargil-style misadventure in early 1996. If one is to believe her, one has to imagine a dramatic scenario: She was "invited" to a briefing at the General (Military) Headquarters. In the presence of about 60 officers, she was given a briefing with maps and screen-slides. At the end of the show, she "vetoed" the ready-for-implementation blueprint. How magnanimous of her, indeed! The BBC's ace interviewer brought her on record saying a few more cheerful things. For instance, she wanted "an open-border policy with India". She would be willing to visit Kashmir as part of such a "process". "The time has come to have open borders and open exchanges and to free (out?) people.... The Indians would have their assembly. The Pakistanis would have theirs. The assemblies would meet to monitor the Line of Control. They might want to be two assemblies with a super assembly or come together in one assembly.... But first we should put aside our prejudices and begin to open up. Then we would look at things differently". All this was followed by a grandiloquent metaphysical statement: Ultimately, everything is how you see it.

Of course, no one takes Ms Bhutto's statements seriously. At this point of time, the Benazirs of Pakistani politics have to hear Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee ("Talk only about vacating the aggression.") and to General Musharraf ("I am ready to travel to Delhi but the talks would be only on a plebiscite in the Muslim-dominated state. Pakistan would use the nuclear option whenever it wants".) The Mujahideen would get continuous material and military support. If the proxy war fails, "other methods" would be used.... Ms Bhutto indulged in fire-eating, fundamentalist rhetoric repeatedly when her government was in danger of being toppled in 1990. And earlier, as representatives of a new generation of politicians, both Rajiv Gandhi and she showed promise of resurrecting the moribund Shimla spirit. Pakistani mischief grows in direct proportion to the lack of firmness displayed by India, even when attacked, by not asking for a whole jaw for a sole tooth. Ms Bhutto, please stay in the limelight and in circulation now and always hereafter. But don't tell unbelievable tales to the world through the media which works by the clock and time often till nemesis comes.

ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Can it be restructured?
by K. Muthukumar

IN the statement of Objectives and Reasons underlying the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, it was envisaged that the setting up of such tribunals to deal exclusively with service disputes would go a long way in not only reducing the burden of various courts but also providing speedy relief to the persons covered by the tribunals. It must be remembered that this enactment was necessitated mainly to tackle the problem of backlog of cases in the High Courts.

Commissions of enquiry like the Justice Shah Commission and the Administrative Reforms Commission favoured the setting up of special tribunals. The importance of expeditious disposal of disputes between civil servants and the government was succinctly put by the apex court in K.K. Dutta vs Union of India (1980) 4 SCC38: “There are few other litigative areas than disputes between members of various services inter se, where the principle that public policy requires that all litigation must have an end can apply with greater force. Public servants ought not be driven or required to dissipate their time and energy in court room battles. Thereby their attention is diverted from public to private affairs and their inter se disputes affect their sense of oneness without which no institution can function effectively. The constitution of service tribunals by state governments with an apex tribunal at the Centre, which, in the generality of cases, should be the final arbiter of controversies relating to the conditions of service, including the vexed question of seniority, may save the courts from the avalanche of writ petitions and appeals in service matters.”

The 42nd Amendment of the Constitution inserting Articles 323 A and 323B, empowering Parliament and state legislatures to enact appropriate legislation for setting up such tribunals, was a significant development. The Central Administrative Tribunal came to be established in 1985 after the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, was put in the statute book. The tribunal has run its course for almost 15 years now. In a manner of review of the objectives and functioning of the tribunal, the apex court had occasion to deliberate twice, the first time in 1986 in Sampath Kumar vs Union of India (1987) 1 SCC 124 and later in 1997 in Chandrakumar vs UOI JT 1997(3) SC 589. While in the first case, the apex court upheld the constitutional provisions and the Act as agreed to be amended by the government, in the latter case, the apex court held that Clause 2(d) of Article 323A and Clause 3(d) of Article 323B to the extent they exclude the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226/227 of the Constitution are unconstitutional. The result of the judgement in Chandrakumar is that the decisions of the tribunals will be subject to the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226/227 of the Constitution. The court, however, held that the tribunals are competent to hear matters where the vires of statutory provisions are questioned and in discharging this duty, they cannot act as substitutes of High Courts and the Supreme Court.

The apex court’s ruling in Chandrakumar vs Union of India is a high watermark in the history of judicial pronouncements on the validity and role of the tribunals set up as alternative modes of dispute resolution as envisaged in the constitutional provisions. But there are still problems in realising the full objectives behind setting up the administrative tribunals. Matters in appeal to the High Courts from the decisions of the tribunals are bound to increase in number and will prolong the delays in the final settlements of the disputes. Conflicting rulings of different High Courts on the same questions of law will ultimately have to be resolved by the apex court. This is apart from the normal appeals under Article 136 of the Constitution against the decisions of the High Courts.

The concept of alternative dispute resolution by other judicial and non-judicial bodies is not new as stated by the apex court itself in Chandrakumar’s case. The rule of law, of which the judicial review constitutes an integral part, is a basic feature of the Constitution. The constitutional provisions under Article 323A and Article 323B have clearly preserved the judicial review of the apex court in service law disputes. But in Sampath Kumar’s case the apex court felt, and rightly so, that if the tribunal becomes “a real substitute for a High Court not only in form and de jure but in content and de facto”, then the tribunal can be an effective alternative mechanism or an arrangement for judicial review for which Parliament can make necessary provision. The court was largely guided by the observations of the Constitution Bench in K.K. Dutta vs the Union of India and was concerned with the problem of backlog of cases pending in the High Courts.

The court observed: “The debates and deliberations spread over almost two decades for exploring ways and means for relieving the High Courts of the load of backlog of cases and for assuring quick settlement of service disputes in the interests of public servants as also the country cannot be lost sight of while considering this aspect” (i.e. exclusion of jurisdiction of High Courts).

“It has not been disputed before us — and perhaps could not have been — that the tribunal has been contemplated as a substitute and not as a supplement to the High Court in the scheme of administration of justice. To provide the tribunal as an additional forum from where parties could go to the High Court would certainly have been a retrograde step considering the situation and circumstances to meet which the innovation has been brought about. Thus barring of jurisdiction of the High Court can indeed not be a valid ground of attack.”

But the larger Constitutional Bench in Chandrakumar, however, held that the exclusion of jurisdiction of the High Courts would be unconstitutional. The Bench noted the observation of the Andhra Pradesh High Court that the theory of alternative institutional mechanisms enunciated by J. Bhagwati in his minority judgement in Minerva Mills case (which was relied upon in Sampath Kumar’s case) and was not supported by or even mentioned in the majority judgement in that case, but pointed out rightly that both C.J. Bhagwati and J. Mishra had in their separate judgements relied on the observations in the minority judgement in Minerva Mills case to lay the foundation of the theory of alternative institutional mechanisms. But, unfortunately, what is not conceded is that this mechanism can be a complete alternative mechanism to the extent of even excluding the jurisdiction of the High Courts as originally envisaged in the constitutional provisions.

The court wanted to examine to what extent the tribunals, which were established more than a decade ago, functioned in practice and observed that it did not have the benefit of study of the Law Commission of India or any other expert body on the functioning of the tribunals to understand how the theory of alternative institutional mechanism had worked. It, however, adverted to a report of the Arrears Committee (1989-90) popularly known as Malimath Committee. The court appears to have relied on some of the observations of this committee and has extensively extracted these observations. It must first be appreciated that this committee was basically concerned with the pendency and arrears in various courts in the country.

The report related to the periods prior to (1989-90) when the Administrative Tribunals had barely been functioning for three-four years. The court noted the observation of the committee: “What is needed in a tribunal which is intended to supplant the High Court is legal training and experience, and judicial acumen, equipment and approach. The protagonists of specialist tribunals with their establishment who want the writ jurisdiction of the High Courts in regard to matters entrusted for adjudication to such tribunals ought not to overlook these vital and important aspects. It must not be forgotten that what is permissible to be supplanted by another equally effective and effecacious mechanism is the High Courts and not the judicial review itself.”

The committee had observed that any such tribunal must retain its basic judicial character and inspire public confidence, and that any scheme of alternative mechanism in substitution of High Courts must pass the aforesaid test in order to be constitutionally valid. Thus it would appear that the committee was of the opinion that so long as the tribunal retained its basic judicial character and inspired public confidence this could be an effective alternative institutional mechanism and the jurisdiction of the High Courts could be simultaneously ousted. No doubt, the committee expressed its dismay at the overall not-so-encouraging picture in regard to what it termed as tribunalisation of justice.

The apex court in Chandrakumar’s case while referring to the observations of the Malimath Committee made about more than 10 years ago, did not have any fresh material to examine whether the tribunal had retained its independent judicial character, and whether it had inspired public confidence in an overall review of the picture in the last 10 years or so. At least there is no such reference to such material in the judgement. It is also unfortunate that the apex court has made a sweeping generalisation. This could be due to the inadequate representation before the court on behalf of the tribunal. However, conceding that the reasons for which the tribunals were constituted still persist and that those reasons are even more pronounced, the apex court goes on to observe, “drastic measures may have to be resorted to in order to elevate their standards to ensure that they stand up to constitutional scrutiny in the discharge of the power of judicial review conferred upon them.” From these observations it is clear that the Administrative Tribunals per se are empowered to exercise the power of judicial review and pass appropriate orders in the nature of writs, say, of mandamus or prohibition or even quo warranto in certain circumstances as they are already doing so. That being so, the necessity to invoke the writ jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226 may not be necessary for a litigant as he is free to obtain the same kind of order from the tribunal itself. The provisions for ousting the jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 323A and Article 323B somehow proved to be an irritant although there are other provisions of the Constitution and statutes like TADA which have excluded the jurisdiction of the High Courts. Even the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as amended by the Act of 1993 has not provided for the High Courts’ adjudication of consumer disputes. The Act is self-contained in that it provides for initial trial by the District Forum and appeal to the State Commissions and the appeals against State Commissions’ order to the National Commission and appeal against the National Commission’s order to the Supreme Court.

In all these statutes, it cannot be said that judicial review is not available to the citizens seeking redressal of their grievances under the relevant law. The constituent power of Parliament to exclude the jurisdiction of any court is not in doubt except when it seeks to include provisions in the Constitution which would violate the basic structure of the Constitution as finally clarified by the apex court in Kesavananda and Minerva Mills and other cases. Be that as it may, after Chandra-kumar’s case the invoking of the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 for a writ in the nature of certiorari or other writs can be in exceptional circumstances. For instance, (1) where the tribunal entertains an application on a matter which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the tribunal at all; (2) where a tribunal decides a case against a party without due notice to that party; (3) where it acts contrary to the provisions of the administrative tribunal’s Act; and (4) where vires of statutes are alleged to be unconstitutional. But such instances will be very rare and exceptional.

References to the Division Benches of the High Courts against final orders of the tribunal take the whole question of expeditious and speedy disposal of civil service disputes back to the original problem or situation of backlog of cases in the High Courts. Without excluding the jurisdiction of High Courts in exceptional circumstances as mentioned above, there should be no difficulty in providing for a speedier judicial machinery within the framework of the administrative tribunal by suitable amendment to the Administrative Tribunal’s Act for providing an appellate forum. In this manner, the tribunal could be restructured so as to fully realise the original objectives and reasons for establishing it.

The restructuring can be on the following lines:

(1) The chairman of the tribunal should be a retired judge of the Supreme Court to be nominated by the Chief Justice of India. (2) There should be four Appellate Benches of the tribunal in the four zones — north, east, west and south. The Appellate Benches should be empowered to dispose of all the appeals against the orders of the tribunal on the original applications. (3) The Appellate Benches should ordinarily be presided over by the chairman who could be redesignated as president of the tribunal and should consist of three judges, including the president, in each zone of the Appellate Bench. The other two judges could be retired Chief Justices of High Courts or retired member or vice-chairman of the tribunal with a distinguished record of service. The other members of the Appellate Bench could be designated as vice-presidents. (4) The president and all the members of the Appellate Benches shall hold office for five years or up to the age of 70 whichever is earlier, and shall not be eligible for reappointment. (5) It is preferable to redesignate the present vice-chairman as a senior member of the tribunal. (6) The Appellate Benches will hear all appeals either in the zonal headquarters or at circuit benches at the stations within the zone where the tribunals are located. As the president will have enough administrative responsibilities, he may not hear matters in the Principal Bench and this will also obviate the need to hear orders in appeal where he would have been a party. Whenever required the president will have the power to constitute Appellate Benches presided over by the seniormost vice-president. (7) It should be provided that as far as possible the tribunal Benches should finally hear and dispose of the original applications within six months of their filing and the Appellate Benches should dispose of appeals within four months. (8) Appeals against the orders of the Appellate Benches should lie with the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. (9) The rest of the existing organisational structure of the tribunal can remain as it is.

In this restructuring the burden on the High Courts of Civil Service disputes will be eliminated and the tribunal will provide an effective and efficacious machinery for the judicial redressal of grievances of civil servants.

(The writer is a former Member, Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Branch, New Delhi).

In Soviet custody
by P.H. Vaishnav

THE late Engineer-in-Chief of Haryana, Mr I.C. Gupta (Guptaji to friends), was an engineer-administrator of distinction and a gifted raconteur with an engaging sense of humour. An amusing experience he narrated in his inimitable style is worth a recall although when he was undergoing it, it must have been far from amusing. Nor can that amusement be captured entirely in print.

It was the year 1980. Mrs Indira Gandhi had made her dramatic return to power. With that the abandoned proposal to host the Asiad-82 was revived. Haryana too staked its claim for holding some events at the Motilal Nehru School of Sports, Rai, not far from Delhi. A delegation of officers, including Guptaji, was sent to Moscow to study how the Russians had organised the 1980 Olympics. Through the good offices of our embassy, the delegation went through the immigration without hassle.

The next day, the delegation proceeded to the venue of the games, all agog with excitement to see the spectacular opening ceremony. They were far too thrilled to anticipate that something unexpected could happen. But it did.

At the gate, the security policeman asked to see the passports. The passport photographs have a way of differing with your actual appearance. Taken long ago, they do not reflect the changes that have come over your face. Guptaji’s thick crop of hair had all but gone. He had meanwhile grown a moustache which made all the difference. His face had filled out. The policeman grew suspicious of Guptaji’s identity. He asked Guptaji to step into the police car to take him to an interrogation centre. Not all the persuasion of the other delegates made any difference. In fact, the argument that the airport immigration had obviously cleared Guptaji made him more determined to go deeper into the mystery.

Resigned to his being carried away, with folded hands Guptaji told Misraji (the leader of the delegation): “Misraji agar main wapas na aya to gharwalon ko bata dena ki main Russi harasat main hun” (If I do not return, tell my people that I am in Soviet custody).

So Guptaji was driven away to the interrogation centre full of fearful thoughts of being despatched to the Gulag. The language difficulty added to his woe. He spent an hour on a rather basic kind of bench, no different from those in our thanas. As an act of courtesy, he was given that day’s local newspaper, needless to say in Russian.

The policeman then returned after verification to tell him that he was free to go. He did not even say “sorry”. In return for his precious freedom, Guptaji excused the cop’s want of courtesy. Now that he had missed the opening ceremony, he thought he might as well do some photography. He could not make out that a Russian signboard a little outside the centre prohibited photography. The cop who had not yet taken his suspicious eyes off Guptaji dashed back to him, took out the reel from his camera and confiscated it.

Out of a wish to be rid of him and not from any consideration for Guptaji he drove Guptaji to his hotel of which fortunately he remembered the name and address.

Will Nigeria be partitioned?
From Chris McGreal in Lagos

THE END of military rule nine months ago has unleashed a store of bitter resentments in Nigeria that have fuelled ethnic massacres, the rise of militant regional organisations and a rush to introduce Shariat law in the Islamic north over the virulent protests of Christians.

It has all raised a question no one has dared contemplate seriously since the bloody civil war over Biafra 30 years ago: is it time to dissolve Nigeria?

The recent troubles come on top of long-standing grievances and divisions.

The east, which tasted separation briefly as Biafra during the war, provides the country’s massive oil revenues but has little to show beyond devastating pollution. The south-west — home to 20 million Yorubas and the commercial hub, Lagos — claims to have been robbed of political influence by decades of northern-dominated military rule. The northern Hausa-Fulani protest that southerners own the economy.

Years of military rule and plunder have taken their toll on Nigeria’s standing in the world. But at home a grand conspiracy by their compatriots is what the various of Nigeria complain of most.

At the heart of the south-west’s burgeoning ethnic nationalism is the Oodua People’s Congress (OPC), a Yoruba separatist movement founded six years ago to oppose military rule. It is blamed for much of the killings of hundreds of Hausas and eastern Igbos in and around Lagos in recent months, provoking retaliatory massacres of Yorubas in other parts of Nigeria.

The OPC is scorned by many businessmen and mainstream politicians. But the organisation’s popularity has surged among the mass of poor in Lagos keen to find someone to blame for their plight. One of its leaders, Gani Adams, is a folk hero after eluding capture even though the police put a price on his head for leading ethnic killings.

The OPC has some prominent supporters. Its treasurer is Beko Ransome-Kuti, a former political prisoner of the military whose late brother, Fela Kuti, was Nigeria’s most famous and politicised singer.

“This concept called Nigeria is of very doubtful viability,” Mr Ransome-Kuti said. There is just nothing you can call one Nigeria and the earlier we appreciate that the better or we’ll end up in dire straits ... Everything revolves around the ethnic factor.

“The north wants to control everything. The OPC is here to make sure that the south-west, or the Yorubas, are emancipated from northern oppression.’’ Regional rivalry is partly driven by differences over how Nigeria is governed. The north, with few resources, backs big government and shared national wealth, particularly the oil revenues. It relies on the civil service to provide jobs and views the fashion for privatisation as a threat to its hegemony over vast state enterprises.

The south-west is scornful of the pervasive federal administration, blaming it for corruption, inefficiency and the collapse of much of Nigeria’s infrastructure.

Mr Ransome-Kuti says the OPC favours a return to the handful of large self-governing regions that existed when the army first seized power in 1966. If it cannot win agreement on devolution, he says the organisation will declare independence.

But if the south-west were to win even a measure of autonomy it would help galvanise the demand for self-government among the splintered ethnic movements in the oil-rich Niger delta. That is one of the north’s great fears because oil underpins the economy.

The OPC’s rise has provoked the creation of a rival organisation, the Arewa People’s Congress, to “safeguard northern interests”. Its chairman, Sagir Mohammed, accuses the OPC of “unleashing terror”. When the police offered a 100,000 naira (US$9,600) reward for Mr Adams’s capture, the APC doubled it.

“Our motto is to preserve the territorial indivisibility of the country,” Mr Mohammed said. “No matter how peaceful you may want to be, you may find you have been pushed to the limit and you are forced to respond with violence. The OPC’s long-term objective is the balkanisation of the country. This is a threat to our nascent democracy.”

Southern suspicions have been fuelled by the spread of Shariat law. Although Islamic courts have existed for years in the Muslim north, they have heard civil cases only. Now one state, Zamfara, has made shariat the principal criminal code and used it to close bars, segregate schools and transport, and enforce a dress code. Five other states with significant Christian minorities are moving in a similar direction.

Underpinning the rise in Yoruba nationalism is disappointment with President Olusegun Obasanjo’s democratic government, which took office last May, and fears of a return to military rule.

Mr Obasanjo, whose status as a Yoruba and a former military ruler puts him in both camps and neither, has been attacked by all sides. The north complains his government has too many Yorubas; the south-west protests that he constantly bows to northern pressure on issues such as Shariat.

Mr Obasanjo has skilfully neutralised the army for now. But the OPC says that if the government fails to deliver, the military will be back.

“I know some of their fears,” said the President. I tell them that you don’t solve that problem by severing ties. You solve that by strengthening the institutions that prevent a repeat of the past.

“I will admit that people have reason to be suspicious. The ethnic differences are there. Religious differences are there. But there are more important things to worry about, like injustice and poverty.” — By arrangement with The Guardian

Hijackers loyal to Ismail Khan
From Jason Burke in Islamabad and Richard Norton-Taylor in London

HOSTAGES released from the hijacked Afghan airliner, which is on the ground at Stansted airport, east of London, said the six young hijackers, armed with pistols and knives, are loyal to Ismail Khan, a leader of one of the many Afghan opposition factions who have fought against the Taliban.

One hostage released in Tashkent, who gave his name as Najib, said they were from Afghanistan’s Tajik ethnic minority and spoke a dialect of Persian. Ismail Khan is Tajik and speaks Persian.

Khan, 58, has been in jail in Kandahar — the southern desert city which is the headquarters and spiritual home of the Taliban — since being betrayed by another opposition commander in 1997.

He is seriously ill and is held in harsh conditions. The Taliban have refused him medical attention in the past.

Hostage-taking is a traditional tactic in disputes in Afghanistan. One former Mujahideen commander, now based in Pakistan, said: “My feeling is that they are some of [Khan’s] former troops who saw how successful the Indian [Airlines] hijack was and thought they would have a go themselves.”

Khan is a veteran of the resistance war fought by the Afghans between 1979 and 1989. A former Afghan army officer — and conservative Muslim — he joined the Mujahideen after Soviet and Afghan forces massacred an estimated 25,000 people in Herat, where he was based, during the first uprising against the then communist government in 1979. He led a counterattack, recaptured the town and seized the local garrison’s armoury.

Sometimes described as the Lion of Herat, he led a series of successful raids against Russian troops, including an attack on the Shindand air base in 1985, destroying more than 20 MiG planes.

“He [Khan] is an excellent commander who did very well against the Russians in the Jihad years,” a spokesman for the Taliban in New York said.

In the years that followed the departure of the Soviets and the collapse of their puppet regime, Khan joined a Mujahideen group, the Jamiat-e-Islami, establishing a fiefdom in the west of the Afghanistan.

Ismail Khan’s rule was famous for its tolerance and stability. Most warlords at the time were known merely for their violence and rapacity. However, Khan was a popular leader who inspired strong loyalty in the men who fought for him.

He became a significant political figure in 1987 when he organised a conference of the disparate Mujahideen factions to agree on the future structure of the country and demand the unconditional surrender of Russian forces.

After the defeat of the Communist regime led by Najibullah in 1992 and the withdrawal of Soviet forces, Khan strengthened his position as unopposed warlord in the Herat region.

He was credited with beginning the post-war rebuilding process in the area and in 1994 held another “shura” or conference of Mujahideen political and religious leaders to decide on the government of the country.

However, his political ambitions were thwarted by the emergence of the Talibans, created and developed by the ISI, the Pakistan intelligence service.

In September 1995 Khan’s troops were unable to hold back the Taliban onslaught and Khan fled to Iran and thence — with Iranian backing, according to western diplomats — to opposition controlled areas in northern Afghanistan. It was from one of these enclaves that he was captured by the Taliban when he was betrayed by a fellow opposition commander.

Mullah Mohammed Omar, the cleric who leads the Taliban Islamic militia, blamed Ahmed Shah Massoud, the most powerful of the many opposition leaders in Afghanistan, for the hijacking . Massoud’s spokesmen denied any involvement. — By arrangement with The Guardian.