 |
| Saturday, March 25, 2000, Chandigarh, India  
|
Secularism
shall triumph |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TAG
OF “ROGUE STATE” India-China
security dialogue
Baaja baj gaya — a red alert
Indian
perception of USA has changed
March 25,1925
|
|
SECULAR India has not allowed the communalists to succeed after experiencing the trauma of Partition. Therefore, Monday's massacre of 35 Sikhs by Pakistan-sponsored mercenaries in Chatti Singhpura must not provoke the true secular Indian. Anger and anguish are natural mass reactions in such situations. But leaders with a holistic vision should convince the people of their areas that violence cannot be ended with violence. The four-day long curfew in Jammu and the turmoil in certain pockets of Delhi have sent disturbing signals. Neither the administrators nor the security forces have been able to bring total peace to certain localities. Society in Jammu and Kashmir has remained well-knit in spite of the proxy war. The uniting factor has been Kashmiriat. Continuous blows have been given to our harmonious socio-cultural fabric by Pakistani terrorists, mercenaries and misguided young people over the past 11 years. Pandits were among the early batches of the migrants. Hindus belonging to other organised groups also left their hearth and home. They are living in exile in their own country. For them, the Chatti Singhpura episode is not the first of its kind. Cases of kidnapping and murder had come to light even in the early 1990s. Remember Mr S. Doraiswamy, the then General Manager of the Indian Oil Corporation? He was kidnapped and tortured by savages trained in Muzaffarabad and other towns under Pakistan's occupation. The latest massacre should not be seen in isolation. General Pervez Musharraf's men targeted Sikhs this week in South Kashmir, thinking that the eventual death and destruction would provoke many Kashmiris living in the state to rise against the Farooq Abdullah Government on the occasion of the visit of US President Bill Clinton to India. But this is not the time
to get angry. Believers in the words of the Gurus have
been taught from childhood to take violence perpetrated
on them in their strides. Curfew-bound Jammu, which has a
large number of Sikhs and Hindus, is seething with rage.
The Union and State governments have done well to take
adequate preventive steps and violence has been
controlled. In Srinagar, Anantnag and Baramulla, Muslims
have gone on strike to protest against the barbarity of
the Pakistani agents. This is a positive sign, but there
is a limit to the patience of the deliberately victimised
section of the composite community. The Chatti Singhpura
killings were planned and executed with a purpose. The
mercenaries and militants had thought that the disquiet
caused by them would lead to riots in large northern
States spontaneously. Although there have been loud
protests in Delhi and Jammu, Punjab has kept its cool.
The resolution of transporters in Jammu "to cut the
supply lines (of essential commodities) to the
valley" is not in accordance with the traditional
magnanimity of our tolerant existence. We would like to
advise the State Administration to assure the
transporters that safety would be provided to them in
transit and that the goods carried by them would go into
the right hands. The militants and the mercenaries bring
with them enough ration from Pakistan. However, the
common Kashmiri does not get rice, sugar or pulses even
on the ration card. The Public Distribution System is
non-existent. Now is the time for the Union Government to
inform the residents of Jammu and Kashmir that they would
not go without the necessities of daily life.
Public-spirited leaders of all communities should put
their heads together and destroy the canker of
communalism. Happenings in Delhi are painful indeed
because whatever happens in the Capital of India is
generally followed by the residents of other major
cities. Communalism must be crushed with an iron hand.
The shoot -at-sight order should not be directed at the
public; it should be directed at the militants and their
masters. Pakistan is putting our secularism on trial
after destroying ethics, humanism and democracy within
its boundaries. |
|
FRIDAY, the last day of President Clinton’s state visit, was dedicated to institutionalising the statement of vision signed on Tuesday. As many as 15 agreements were concluded between the visiting official delegation and Indian state-owned agencies. Important among them was the one IDBI entered into with the US Exim Bank to open a credit line of $ 500 million to lubricate imports to this country. The amount may seem small considering that the two-way trade is worth over $ 10 billion. But it is credit and like bank overdraft facility indicates the ceiling at any time and not the total availability. The Exim Bank has so far financed exports valued at $ 300 billion over the past 25 years by offering credit of such small amounts. Another document of equal importance is on power, an area of vital interest to this country. All this comes close on the heels of the one initialled by Mr Jaswant Singh and Mrs Madeleine Albright on energy and environment, and also a clutch of collaboration contracts including one to set up power plants. More than their cumulative trade and investment benefits, the bunching of the signing in the presence of US Commerce Secretary William Daley and Deputy Trade Representative Susan Esserman will have the potential to unlock the years of reservations and fear of risk felt by US industry. It will sort of press the right set of buttons to kindle interest in doing business with this country. The US Administration is not a big industrialist; in fact it buys even its top secret weapons and equipment from private builders. But an enthusiastic nod from the government at the end of a high-profile presidential visit should do the trick. Buoyed up by this hope, Indian officials are talking of bilateral trade going up to $ 25 billion in the next five years. If India removes the few remaining irritants and if key officials shed their indifference, this target will be within reach in half the time. Both countries have set
up the machinery to cooperate in shaping their policies
on World Trade Organisation-related issues. Within three
months the commerce departments of the two countries will
create a cell to exchange notes and identify the crucial
conferences to attend and also to work on joint
positions. These two groups will also get into action to
clear any hurdles in trade matters. It is more akin to a
mini secretariat exclusively to remain in touch with the
other country. Lest the swadesh-wallahs shout sell-out,
the “friends of Bill club” have discovered a
major shift in Mr Clinton’s stance on trade. His
fire-eating speech at the Seattle WTO conference and his
threat to impose sanctions on those not agreeing to the
labour and environment clauses, is being dismissed as
gross misreporting. What he said was different and his
real position is available in his speech to the Indian
Parliament tarians. He still wants the benefits of free
trade and globalisation to reach the poor, but that
desire should not be turned into an instrument of
“rich country protectionism”. His colourful
prose is more effective: “Trade should not be a race
to the bottom in environment and labour standards but
neither should fears about trade keep part of our global
community forever at the bottom.” This sentence is
quoted to support the about-to-be-born Indo-US consensus
on trade issues. India also seems to have wrenched a
concession on tariff. In his talks with Mr Daley, Finance
Minister Yashwant Sinha explained why India has to erect
a high customs duty wall — as much as 100 per cent
— to keep out foodgrains, sugar and edible oil since
all import restrictions have to go by April next year.
International prices are low and even after paying 50 per
cent import duty, Australian white wheat can be sold in
Indian market at less than Rs 600 a quintal. Surely that
is the road to green counter-revolution! The red flag is
in order. |
|
IN 1998 Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee gave the country the slogan of "Jai Vigyan" after Pokharan II to go with Lal Bahadur Shastri's post 1965 Indo-Pak war slogan of "Jai Jawan, Jai Kisan". In one respect the timing of the slogan Mr Vajpayee gave to the nation was flawed, because the accomplishments of Indian scientists go beyond fine tuning the nuts and bolts of nuclear technology. The slogan should have been coined when India commenced its space exploration programme from a make-do facility at Thumba. Today the country's scientists are globally respected not for what they were made to do in Pokharan but for their impressive achievements in the expanding field of information technology. President Clinton's decision to see for himself the state of robust health of India's cyber "lungs" during his visit to Hyderabad {Bangalore is the cyber "heart"} should be seen as the willingness of the global community to say "Jai Vigyan" for the positive role India has played in the expansion of the information-related technologies of which the space programme is an important component. The successful launching of INSAT-3B from Kourou in French Guyana on March 22 is the continuation of the space odyssey Jawaharlal Nehru had dreamt of for the country as free India's first Prime Minister.There have been some disappointments for the country's space scientists during the fascinating journey from Thumba to the launching of the second generation of INSAT. But the gains cancel out the failures in putting satellites in space. The new satellite is
expected to bolster the existing capacity the scientists
have built up for improving the facilities associated
with instant communication. The new and improved features
in the spacecraft are expected push up the quality of
broadcasting and weather forecasting. To the
post-liberalisation business community the augmentation
of the capacity of Very Small Aperture Terminals {VSAT}
holds out the prospect of more efficient global linkages
with partners and agents anywhere in the world. But all
good news concerning achievements in the field of space
science and technology usually comes with a few warnings
in bold print. At the launching of INSAT-3B the Chairman
of ISRO, Dr K. Kasturirangan, did well to point out that
the hurling of the satellite in orbit by the Ariane 5
launch vehicle has been successful, but some more
challenging tasks, including the third firing of the
liquid engine on March 26, remain to be performed. Even
the formal launching had its moments of tension
compounded by the uncertainty caused by an electrical
storm. Another source of worry for Indian space
scientists is the continued dependence on other countries
for the launching of satellites. This dependence should
hopefully end if and when the Geo-Stationary Launch
Vehicle {GSLV} project is completed. The project has been
delayed because of the stopping of the supply of
cryogenic engines by Russia under US pressure. The GSLV
will not only help India take a giant leap into space but
will also earn dollars for the country through the
collection services charges from countries wanting to use
the facility. |
TAG OF
“ROGUE STATE” TOO long and too stridently have representatives of the Government of India been demanding that Pakistan be declared a “rogue state” or terrorist state by the USA. Going by past records this is an utterly meaningless exercise. In 1986, the US State Department designated seven countries as terrorist: Cuba, Iran, Libya, Iraq, North Korea, Sudan and Syria. Neither economic sanctions nor military reprisals have proved successful in bringing about positive changes in these countries’ policies on terrorism. Adding Pakistan to this list, as India has been insisting after Kargil, is thus futile. According to Prof Samuel P Huntington, Director of the Institute for Strategic Studies and Chairman of the Harvard Academy for International and Area Studies and a renowned intellectual; “The more the USA attacks a foreign leader, the more his popularity soars among his countrymen who applaud him for standing tall against the greatest power on earth. The demonising of leaders has so far failed to shorten their tenure in power, from Fidel Castro (who has survived eight American Presidents) to Slobodan Milosevic and Saddam Hussein. Indeed the best way for a dictator of a small country to prolong his tenure in power may be to provoke the USA into denouncing him as the leader of a ‘rogue regime’ and a threat to global peace.” (“Foreign Affairs” March-April 1999.) No country listed as a sponsor of terrorism has ever been removed from the list by the USA, nor has any one of them renounced their role of sponsorship or denounced terrorism as a tool of its foreign policy. In 1986, the USA launched air strikes against Libya. They proved counter-productive. It induced Gaddafi to undertake even more serious and heinous acts of terrorism against the USA. He also increased his supply of weapons to the IRA to punish Britain for allowing the USA warplanes to take off from bases in the UK to bomb Tripoli and Benghazi. Iran, which the USA considers to be the premier state sponsor of terrorism, is stated to provide about $100 million a year to various Islamic terrorist organisations all over the world. Even though Syria, Cuba, North Korea and Sudan are not active sponsors of international terrorism today, they do abet and facilitate terrorist operations. They provide training facilities, safe havens and other passive forms of support. If the USA had not punished Saddam Hussein in the brutal manner it did with sanctions and bombings of his alleged hideouts of arsenals and biological warfare production units, he might not have been able to stay on this long at the head of an impoverished country. Our strategists at the Ministry of External Affairs should also take note of Huntington’s analysis: “In acting as if this were a unipolar world, the USA is also becoming increasingly alone in the world. American leaders constantly claim to be speaking on behalf of ‘the international community’. But whom do they have in mind? China? Russia? India? Pakistan? Iran? The Arab world? The Association of Southeast Asian Nations? Africa? Latin America? France? Do any of these countries or regions see the USA as the spokesman for a community of which they are part? The community for which the USA speaks includes, at best, its Anglo-Saxon cousins (Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand) on most issues, Germany and some smaller European democracies on many issues, Israel on some Middle Eastern questions, and Japan on the implementation of UN resolutions. These are important states, but they fall far short of being the global international community”. Huntington also warns: “Political and intellectual leaders in most countries strongly resist the prospect of a unipolar world and favour the emergence of true multipolarity. At a 1997 Harvard conference, scholars reported that the elites of countries comprising at least two-thirds of the world’s people — Chinese, Russians, Indians, Arabs, Muslims and Africans — see the USA as the single greatest external threat to their societies. They do not regard America as a military threat but as a menace to their integrity, autonomy, prosperity and freedom of action.” He adds: “They view the USA as intrusive, interventionist, exploitative, unilateralist, hegemonic, hypocritical and applying double standards, engaging in what they label ‘financial imperialism’ and ‘intellectual colonialism,’ with a foreign policy driven over-whelmingly by domestic politics. Huntington warns: “The USA can deny India its objectives and can rally others to join it in punishing India.” Even if one were to concede the status of the USA as the world’s super-policeman its capacity to check or fight terrorism in any part of the world is clearly limited. The State Department compiles statistics going back a quarter of a century. Yet, terrorism has been around for much longer, whether in the Balkans, Tsarist Russia or in Palestine. The changing methods that terrorists employ have added a new dimension to an old threat. Terrorists operate on an international level, not just one region or country. The world watched stunned when Palestinian terrorists attacked the Israeli Olympic team in Munich on September 5, 1972, killing 11 Israeli athletes, merely to capture the world’s attention by striking at a target of inestimable value (a country’s star athletes) in a setting calculated to provide the terrorists with unparalleled exposure and publicity. It was a spectacular publicity coup. The undivided attention of 4000 print and radio journalists and 2000 television reporters came to be focused on the Palestinian problem. Over 900 million people all over the world became aware of this issue overnight. The Palestinians made a strong case for themselves: “We are neither killers nor bandits. We are persecuted people who have no land and no homeland. We are not against any people, but why should our place here be taken by the flag of the occupiers? Why should the whole world be having fun and entertainment while we suffer with all ears deaf to us?” The Palestine Liberation Organisation remains the first truly international terrorist organisation, which consistently embraced a far more terrorist image than most other terrorist groups. By early 1980, at least 40 different terrorist groups from Asia, Africa, North America, Europe and West Asia had been trained by the PLO in its camps in Jordan, Lebanon and the Yemen, among other places. They have been charged between $5000 and $10,000 per student for a six-week programme. They were also employed later with Palestinian terrorists in joint operations. By 1981, the PLO had active cooperative arrangements with 22 different countries and their terrorist organisations that had benefited from Palestinian training, weapons supply and other logistical support. The first active terrorist outfit, the PLO, began accumulating capital and wealth as an organisational priority. By mid 1980, it was estimated to have an annual income flow of $600 million of which some $500 million was derived from investments. Today, under the chairmanship of Yasser Arafat, the PLO is a major force in international politics. The PLO remains the major terrorist organisation in the world and Arafat a proclaimed terrorist. President Clinton flies half way round the world to discuss the Palestinian problem and he is given great honour and diplomatic courtesies when he visits the USA. It must, however, be
said to the credit of President Clinton that he has acted
as an honest broker in West Asia as in Ireland and the
Balkans — neutral and impartial negotiator. He
cannot be expected to adopt such a role in Indo-Pak
affairs. He will not brand Pakistan a terrorist state and
in any case, that would make little difference to the
situation in the sub-continent. |
Baaja baj
gaya — a red alert WE all have some favourite phrase or muttered words, that spontaneously leap to our lips when facing an unpalatable twist in the situation. Baaja Baj Gaya was my favourite twist. This phrase gives different meanings which are left to one’s imagination. I heard little voices say that intellectual is born and not made. When my three and a half year-old grand-daughter Mehak exclaimed Baaja Baj Gaya as soon as her younger sister started crying in her cradle, that was the most glorious hour in my history. I realised here was one who combines myth and reality and had broken the norm by merging the barriers of time and generation. The talent had percolated down the dynasty. A few days earlier she had uttered the same words when her grandmother had hurt her finger in the kitchen while experimenting the latest recipe from khana khazana. I have been in perpetual search for its history and was wondering how this phrase entered into my blood and bone. The scattered portions of life were scanned when suddenly a ray of light appeared through the mystic cloud and the mystery was solved. More than 50 years ago this phrase was muttered in anger, anguish and despair. It was during my school days when major portion of the day would be consumed in playgrounds rather than in the pursuit of academic excellence through prescribed textbooks. In this process I was declared the best sportsman. This proud distinction and a robust and tough exterior would be the family’s choice for undertaking all types of arduous domestic duties which others had refused. For instance in a wintry evening with biting cold wind blowing, I would be called, patted and would be directed to go on the cycle and bring the tonga (a horse driven carriage) as I was a sportsman. This conveyance was required to enable our distinguished guest to catch the only down train from the railway station “ Baaja Baj Gaya” had automatically come to my lips and uttered much to the disliking and discomfort of all. At times I would be reading the borrowed fiction hidden in the midst of the textbook and away from the piercing views of the elders when the call would come and the onerous work would be assigned to me, being a sportsman. My phrase would spontaneously come out and used loudly as I would be reprimanded and cautioned to be careful. During my wedded life, this phrase would be my only explanation wherever I was caught for not having reminded the cooking gas agency to replace the empty cylinder or failed to bring home some urgent consumable items etc. This would always be acceptable. The other day my
daughter rang me from Sweden that the little Mehak has
asked for a computer and insisting for its speedy
installation. It was astounding to feel how fast this
technology is occupying the development maps of the world
as even a three and a half year- child wants a computer
now. Baaja Baj Gaya was my immediate reply at the spur of
the moment which travelled thousand of miles through
clouds, mountains, roaring waves of sea, the dancing
daffodils and crashlanded as there was a burst of
laughter at the other end. |
India-China
security dialogue WITH the conclusion of the first round of India-China security dialogue in Beijing earlier this month, India has now opened bilateral security dialogues with all the five nuclear weapons countries. These are the five countries that have been so recognised under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). These are also the same countries that occupy the five permanent seats at the UN Security Council that represents the ultimate in international power elite known as the N&P-5. It is this group that has spearheaded a campaign against India’s decision to exercise its nuclear option that was held in abeyance for the last 24 years. With the backing of other members of the N&P-5 elite, it is Beijing that has so far been at the forefront of this international campaign that seeks to ensure that India agrees to a rollback on its nuclear weapons programme at the earliest possible. This has since come to be one common contention that combines these five countries vis-a-vis New Delhi. India, on the other hand, has been trying to deal with each of them at bilateral forums and with this security dialogue in Beijing, India now has on-going security dialogues with all these five N&P-5 countries. As could be expected, of all these five powers, China had so far been the one most reluctant in extending such an opportunity for India to discuss its post-nuclear equations at bilateral forums. This is simply because, India’s nuclear deterrent remains clearly geared towards China which makes Beijing the most directly affected party, if India finally puts in place its minimum nuclear deterrence in the coming years. Also, given China’s emerging new power profile and consequently its changing new equations amongst this international power elite, China’s response to India’s nuclear policies and programmes has had an expected impact in determining the larger international response to India’s post-nuclear policies. This has had a direct impact in determining the trends and tenor of India’s similar bilateral security dialogues with other N&P-5 countries who have shown varying degree of reluctance in endorsing India’s decision to weaponise its nuclear deterrence. But going by the track record of India’s dialogues with each of these countries their positions have definitely shown a greater understanding of India’s policies and the same is also expected to happen as India-China security dialogue proceeds in the coming months and years. Especially, given the complicated background of India-China relations as also of more recent campaign against India’s nuclear weapons, the fact that India and China have finally succeeded in opening their security dialogue marks an important landmark in India’s post-nuclear foreign policy. At least tacitly, this underlines China’s increasing acceptance to open dialogue with a post-nuclear India and this also includes a willingness to discuss all nuclear issues in the coming rounds of this purely bilateral forum. To recall, China had always disagreed to allow India-China bilateral forums for discussions on nuclear matters simply on the pretext that India was not a nuclear-weapon state. This had always deprived India from bringing matters of nuclear disarmament into Sino-Indian negotiations or in emphasising that China’s nuclear arsenals were part of India’s periphery which impacted on India’s security environment and security policies. But, at the same time, a lot remains to be desired from this dialogue, to begin with, both sides have only reiterated their well-known positions, except that this time they were talking at bilateral forum directly to each other. While China has repeated its suggestions that India should oblige by resolution 1172 of the UN Security-Council and roll back its nuclear weapons programme and sign the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon country. India has broadly explained that once detonated and developed, nuclear weapons can not be dis-invented any more and that the world will have to come to terms with this new reality. Another thing that also indicates to China’s continued reluctance is the fact that India-China security dialogue has been pegged at a relatively lower official level than India’s security dialogue with other four nuclear weapon countries. This time round, the two delegations were led by a Joint Secretary from the Indian side and a Deputy Director General from the Chinese side of their foreign ministries. By comparison, India has already had 12 rounds of high-profile talks with the USA. These have been led by India’s Minister of External Affairs, Mr Jaswant Singh. Similarly, India’s security dialogues with Russia, France and Britain have been conducted by Prime Minister’s Principal Secretary and National Security Advisor, Mr Brijesh Mishra, who again has had half a dozen such meetings. As a result of this the response of these other N&P-5 countries has shown a certain gradual evolution during these last two years. This may also have been a factor in relenting the Chinese from not directly talking to India. To put them in order of precedence in terms of their acceptance levels towards India’s nuclear posture they can be placed now as Russia on the top followed by the USA, France, Britain and China with decreasing levels of acceptance in that order. However, comparing China’s acceptance to other countries has its limitation. And while comparing this exercise to the general trends of down swing in Sino-Indian ties during these earlier two years following India’s decision to exercise its nuclear option in May, 1998, the security dialogue does indicate an improvement in India-China ties. It is in this backdrop that one needs to appreciate the significance and success of this first round of India-China security dialogue and here it does indicate a positive beginning from a variety of earlier non-starters that have marred their interactions and policies. (The writer is
from the Institute for Defence Studies and Analysis). |
Indian
perception of USA has changed BEFORE sitting down to write this week’s column I spent a few moments thinking of a single word that would describe the general Indian reaction to Bill Clinton’s visit to our fair and wondrous land and the one I came up with was: bedazzled. Mr Clinton may be a lame duck President back home, his image may still be clouded by memories of Miss Lewinsky, but from the moment Air Force One touched down at Delhi airport a ripple of almost palpable excitement seemed to course through the veins of this city. It got reflected exuberantly in the media. So, we had moment-to-moment coverage on most of our television channels and print journalists, desperate to complete, filled acres of column space with every trivial detail they could come up with. While junior reporters raced around digging up details of the food he ate in the Bukhara restaurant, the Kashmiri carpets he bought and even the conversations he had with Indians he met, more ponderous hacks dwelled at length on the intricate nuances of what the visit meant politically and economically. There were some days last week when entire front pages of most of our national newspapers contained only Clinton news. It was almost as if there was nothing else happening in the world at all. So much so that even the massacre of the 40 Sikhs in Kashmir did not get the kind of attention that in more ordinary weeks it would have. As someone who has covered a lot of other state visits to Delhi, including that of the last American President who came here 22 years ago, I can say without hesitation that no other foreign dignitary has been received with quite so much enthusiasm. It made me wonder why and the conclusion I reached was that it was a reflection of how much the Indian perception of the United States has changed in the past ten years or so. And, it has changed not just because cable and satellite television now brings us American soaps on a daily basis but mainly because of the opening up of the Indian economy. Until P.V. Narasimha Rao opened India to foreign investment we seemed to live almost on another planet. Nearly all our trade was with the Soviet Union and its various communist satellites. We sold them our shoddy, little consumer goods, because those were the days when a lack of competition, resulted in only second-rate products, and we bought their weapons in exchange. It was only when the economic reform process began that we discovered other markets and have now reached a stage when America is our largest trading partner. It is also much more than that if you consider that most Indian children when they finish school, and if their parents can afford it, now head towards the United States for further studies rather than to Oxford and Cambridge as they did in the past. We also like American movies, American rock stars, American hamburgers and Coca Cola. So much so, in fact, that our self-appointed culture policemen believe that Indian civilisation is now under severe threat. In short, there could not have been a better time to a new beginning in our relationship with the United States which has been, to say the very least, deeply troubled in the past. But, has Mr Clinton’s visit laid the ground for this new beginning? He made an eloquent speech in Parliament’s Central Hall in which he detailed our common values and emphasised that the world’s most powerful democracy and the most populous one were natural allies. An expression he borrowed from our own Prime Minister. He condemned terrorism in strong words and said he understood why India would be worried about the course that Pakistan was taking. He also, expressed outrage at the killings of the Sikhs in Kashmir but, alas, because he did not recognised that this was an act of terrorism sponsored by Pakistan all his fine words fell slightly short of removing the backlog of mistrust between our two countries. Already his failure to name Pakistan is being interpreted in that country as evidence that he still on their side. Within an hour of his speech in Central Hall I came upon a discussion on Pakistan Television that sadly proves this point. The discussion was a typical Ptv propaganda exercise and participating in it was a General F.S. Lodhi (retd) and a lady professor of International relations called Talat Wazarat. Both of them pointed out that the reason why Mr Clinton has not recognised the killings as an act of Pakistani-sponsored terrorism was because he seemed to accept that it was the Indian intelligence agencies who were responsible. The General said; “Eyewitnesses have said that the killers wore army uniforms and that they were drinking. No Mujahideen drinks and specially not in the middle of an operation. This is an Indian Army attack strategy — they give their soldiers lots to drink before sending them into battle because they need the drink to build up their courage”. The General backed up his theory that the killers were Indian soldiers by pointing out that CNN has reported that they wore Indian Army uniforms. How could ordinary Mujahideen get army uniforms? The lady professor provided the even more extraordinary information that this was part of a post-Kargil Indian strategy which had begun with the hijack of the Indian Airlines plane from Kathmandu. Pakistanis appear to believe this kind of absurdity although even minimum analysis should have led them to conclude that if we had hijacked our own plane then we could have released our passengers without putting them through days of torture and terror. And, we would have ensure that nobody got killed. The lady professor, however, said she had proof that it was Indian intelligence agencies who had put a bomb on the Air-India plane in 1985 which killed more than 300 people. “They did it that time to discredit the Sikh independence struggle so if they can kill 300 people why should they not be able to kill 40 more to discredit the Kashmiri struggle”. From an Indian point of view this kind of argument may seem completely bizarre but it has a credibility in Pakistan that is quite widespread. For reasons we, with our much free press, can never understand Pakistanis find it hard to believe that their government has been directly responsible for terrorism in Kashmir. So, despite our growing
fondness for the United States, despite the enthusiasm
with which Bill Clinton has been received, it would have
helped enormously if during his stay in India he had been
more open in his condemnation of Pakistani terrorism. His
hesitation to do so will remind Indians of our history of
mistrust and will be interpreted in Pakistan as
recognition that it is not a state that sponsors
terrorism. We may be, then, on the road to a new
beginning but new beginning yet the Clinton visit has not
quite been. |
March
25,1925 HOWEVER much we have been and still are opposed to filing suits against defaulters, the change in the law of limitations governing such cases, that will take effect from May of this year, leaves up no other alternative but to seek the aid of a court of law in realising our dues from those who do not care to pay amicably. The fact cannot be sufficiently deplored that there is a tendency on the part of a large number of defaulters to withhold payment of our dues till the last moment or, when called upon to pay, to take shelter behind frivolous pretexts. The Tribune newspaper is managed by a public Trust and all its profits are devoted, under the express provision of the Trust Deed, to the betterment of the paper itself. The management has never issued appeals for funds, as is the practice with other national papers in time of need, but has always tried to support the paper out of its current revenues. It is, therefore, a
matter for deep regret to find that there are persons
among us who, after having received the paper for long
periods, put forward all sorts of excuse to refuse
payment. It has been decided to institute something like
twelve hundred suits during the course of this month and
we still hope that those who do not like to be burdened
with costs will adjust their account out of court. |
 |
| 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 | |
