E D I T O R I A L   P A G E

EDITORIALS

Pardon, slip is showing
THE release on “compassionate grounds” of five Latvians sentenced to life imprisonment in the sensational 1995 Purulia armsdrop case is liable to send wrong signals. Official agencies may insist that the rare clemency has been granted on the appeal of the Russian government only because one pilot has developed TB and the other has had two heart attacks, but in the public mind it might rankle as a case of succumbing to foreign pressure. 

 

OPINION

India and Shanghai-Five
Articulating policy objectives
by Swaran Singh
DURING the recent annual summit of the leaders of Shanghai-Five at Dushanbe in Tajikistan, Mayak Radio reported that India, along with Iran and Uzbekistan, was seeking the membership of this forum. It comprises Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, and has been extremely successful in putting in place a series of very impressive confidence-building measures (CBMs), thus successfully resolving their border disputes and other inter-state problems for the last few years.

MIDDLE

POINT OF LAW

DIVERSITIES — DELHI LETTER

 

SPIRITUAL NUGGETS

Jethmalani and the law 

BEING independent-minded is a rare virtue among Indian politicians, but former Law Minister Ram Jethmalani is too independent-minded to conform to collective responsibility. So he had to resign, but the curious aspect of his going is that the Prime Minister asked him to step down. In other words, he has been sacked from the Cabinet. And for eminently justified reasons. First, he went out of his way to defend his old friend, and benefactor, Mr Balasaheb Thackeray, and then took on the apex court when it indirectly pulled him up. The verbal skirmish started last Friday when the Supreme Court expressed its displeasure over Cabinet Ministers voicing opinions different from what a government affidavit clearly stated. That, the Chief Justice of India said, betrayed the absence of collective responsibility. Mr Jethmalani is one of the three Union Ministers who have differed with the affidavit and tilted in favour of the Shiv Sena chief by saying that either the case against him is time-barred or the Centre should mount pressure on the Maharashtra Government not to arrest him. That was bad enough when the Srikrishna Commission report, which has accused Mr Thackeray of inciting communal passions during the riots in 1992-93, is before it and the earlier BJP-led government has disawoved any role in giving effect to the commission’s findings. And for the Union Law Minister to air a view contradicting the affidavit irritated the court. The Minister made it worse by retorting that “the learned Chief Justice should at least have realised that he was making comments about a Minister who knows his law as anyone else.” That was both personal and very sharp. At the next hearing, this blunt remark is bound to be taken note of by the court and the Advocate-General, Mr Soli Sorabjee, may be asked to explain it. Probably, Mr Sorabjee had brought this to the Prime Minister’s notice and requested him to seek the Minister’s resignation to avoid that embarrassment. In his first reaction to the acceptance of his resignation, Mr Jethmalani told a television channel that the Prime Minister should “choose between a pliant Advocate-General, and a blunt-talking Minister.

This is not the first time that Mr Jethmalani has defied a Cabinet decision. A few days back he told reporters that there was no need for TADA-II, a law dear to the Home Minister’s heart. As a Minister the proper forum to express his views is a Cabinet meeting and once the government takes a decision, he is duty-bound to defend it or if his conscience demands, he should quit to become free to press his viewpoint. It is not right to be in the Cabinet and yet oppose a government proposal. Still earlier as the Urban Development Minister he changed several rules without going to the Cabinet and was about to overrule his secretary about cancelling the allotment of land to build a five-star hotel in South Delhi when he was shifted. He is not being controversial but has a mind of his own and enjoys talking freely. He is not the only one, but others do not attract prompt media attention. Part of the problem lies with the coalition nature of the government and partly with conflicting opinions individual Ministers hold. The solo flights of a Ram Vilas Paswan or the stiff resistance of others to disinvestment are only outward symptoms of a deeper malaise. Mr Jethmalani’s departure will not change it.

Pardon, slip is showing

THE release on “compassionate grounds” of five Latvians sentenced to life imprisonment in the sensational 1995 Purulia armsdrop case is liable to send wrong signals. Official agencies may insist that the rare clemency has been granted on the appeal of the Russian government only because one pilot has developed TB and the other has had two heart attacks, but in the public mind it might rankle as a case of succumbing to foreign pressure. The fate of the Latvians had become an irritant before the scheduled October visit of Russian President Vladimir Putin and there was apparently considerable armtwisting, to which India yielded. In the Russian media, the bunch of five was projected as innocent. All the focus was on the horrible conditions in the prison in which they were kept. There was hardly any mention of the fact that they were guilty of dropping a huge cache of arms and ammunition from their AN-26 aircraft on Jhalda, Ghatanga, Belamu and Maramu villages in Purulia district of West Bengal on the night of December 17, 1995. That constituted a very serious offence. The Civil and Sessions Court sentencing them to life imprisonment had described the case as “rarest of rare” and a clear case of putting the safety and security of the country at stake. Now that the Russian Government has thanked India for this humanitarian gesture, would it clarify whether it would show the same “mercy, compassion and humanism, so typical of Mahatma Gandhi’s country” towards many Indians who are in Russian jails for various offences, which are far less serious than waging a war against a country. Whatever the international compulsions and nuances responsible for the release, the clemency strengthens the already prevalent impression within the country that you can go scot-free after committing even the most heinous crime if only you have right connections at right places.

The precedent that has been set may create many complications. It has not been clarified whether similar clemency will also be granted to Peter Bleach, the lone non-Russian crew member. If the British national is not released, it may become an “irritant” in the relationship with the government of his country, just as the arrest of the five was with the Russian Government. Interestingly, they are not even Russian nationals. They are Latvians who took up Russian citizenship only after their arrest, in the fond hope that Moscow would get them out of prison. Their clever strategy has worked. The armsdrop case has not only highlighted the inordinate delays in handing out punishment but has also exposed the mess that exists in jails. Above all, it has projected the prosecuting agencies like the CBI in bad light. In fact, it is the glaring failures of the CBI which limited Indian manoeuvrability vis-à-vis Russia. Thanks to it, the real criminals are free and the hired mercenaries went in jail. There was no word about who the real beneficiaries of the armsdrop were. Initially, it was said that the arms were meant for Anand Margis but the evidence was so weak that the court threw the charge out. In countries like Russia, this bungling was projected as an attempt to protect Indian citizens and implicate “poor, innocent” Russians. The Latvians-turned-Russians have walked out of Indian prisons for some undisclosed give and take. The only consolation that India can have is that Latvian law will not be quite so easy on them. It stipulates that foreigners sentenced to more than three years in jail are not allowed to enter Latvia. They are now Russian citizens and may find it impossible to reunite with their families inside Latvia, which is a separate country after the disintegration of the USSR.

India and Shanghai-Five
Articulating policy objectives
by Swaran Singh

DURING the recent annual summit of the leaders of Shanghai-Five at Dushanbe in Tajikistan, Mayak Radio reported that India, along with Iran and Uzbekistan, was seeking the membership of this forum. It comprises Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, and has been extremely successful in putting in place a series of very impressive confidence-building measures (CBMs), thus successfully resolving their border disputes and other inter-state problems for the last few years.

Their problems had been complicated with the collapse of the former Soviet Union and the emergence of five new Central Asian republics three of which shared their borders with China. But starting from its first summit at Shanghai during April, 1996, this forum has virtually resolved all their border-related disputes and has since expanded its agenda to larger issues that impinge on the security and stability of the larger Asia-Pacific hemisphere.

As for New Delhi, this indeed falls in line with India’s continuing initiatives towards evolving closer ties with Central Asian republics as also towards pursuing its goal of evolving a Sino-Indian-Russian strategic triangle, a debate on which has been going on for quite some time. India has clearly for long had ties with both China and the former Soviet Union. The only difference since the early 1990s is that India now has to deal with Central Asia directly rather than through the Moscow regime.

Though India’s interaction with these newly independent Central Asian republics has only been recent from this new viewpoint, New Delhi has clearly tried to revive its ancient cultural connections with Central Asia and use these as a potent tool for evolving its more contemporary geo-economic and political ties. And having overcome the initial difficulties in finding new ways and means to bypass India’s established routes to Central Asia through Moscow, New Delhi has gradually redefined its Central Asia policy.

Besides, New Delhi has also been contemplating evolving a strategic triangle with both China and Russia. Obviously, India’s membership of Shanghai-Five is bound to facilitate such a strategic triangle, especially because both forums stand firmly in support of multi-polarity in international decision-making. Therefore, it is in this larger context of India’s foreign policy objectives that the Shanghai-Five forum has become particularly attractive for New Delhi.

In fact, during their last summit at Dushanbe on July 5, involving the three countries mentioned above, the President of Uzbekistan, Mr Islam Karimov, took part as an observer for the first time. More than this, he was able to make a major contribution to their final communique which included a demand for a Central Asian Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone on his initiative. As regards New Delhi, it has still to take any concrete initiative in this regard though its interest in Shanghai-Five has been tremendous at least for the last few years.

The same has also been true of the existing members of Shanghai-Five. Right since its inception, these countries have extended an open invitation to all other countries to participate in their efforts towards stability and peace. This time, looking at the interest shown by India, Iran and Uzbekistan, Russian President Vladimir Putin, in fact, formally proposed that they should consider changing their name from Shanghai-Five to the Shanghai Forum and extend its participation to other countries. Considering that their agenda has since expanded to a variety of issues from security to cooperation in other political, economic and ecological areas in the larger Asia-Pacific region, this becomes imperative for them to expand its membership if they wish to make their voice more effective. And it is in this context that the membership of the countries like India can facilitate a change in their existing power profile.

Briefly looking at the nature of the issues that dominated their last summit at Dushanbe, this marked the first summit meeting between Chinese President Jiang Zemin and Russian President Vladimir Putin. As we know, Mr Putin was elected Russian President early this year. Both of them seemed extremely concerned with America’s continuing efforts at building a National Missile Defence (NMD) programme. This issue was particularly precipitated by President Bill Clinton’s recent request to US Congress to allocate additional $2. 2 billion for the development of these anti-missile systems as also by the third test of their missile-killer, scheduled during the next two days of this summit.

Accordingly, both China and Russia reiterated their opposition to the US attempts at developing a ballistic missile defence (BMD) shield, which, they said, would violate the US-Soviet Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty of 1972. They also cautioned the USA that its persistence with this programme would unleash an arms race among all the major powers in the Asia-Pacific. Both China and Russia have been particularly concerned about the extension of these anti-missile systems to their neighbourhood in Japan and Taiwan and this issue was clearly the most dominant theme throughout this last summit of Shanghai-Five.

Also, in view of their expanding agenda and activities, these countries had their first ever Foreign Ministers meeting which preceded their summit. It is at this Foreign Ministers forum that they issued a detailed communique enumerating various issues considered important and on which consensus was sought to be built among the Shanghai-Five countries. As a first step, Shanghai-Five agreed to make this ministerial meeting an annual feature that will operate as a regular coordination mechanism to evolve joint strategies to deal with various international and regional issues.

Each of these countries will also establish their national coordination councils and formulate their national charters to strengthen their regional security and stability and accelerate their social and economic development in line with globalisation trends that increasingly define inter-state ties. All this clearly indicates their ambitious attempts towards redefining their role beyond their immediate periphery. They also expressed their deep worries about the increasing activities of national separatism, international terrorism and religious extremism.

All of these issues have clearly been priority areas of India’s foreign policy. Moreover, India has already been deliberating these issues with most of these countries albeit individually. Becoming part of a collective forum like Shanghai-Five or the Shanghai Forum may, therefore, facilitate India’s initiatives and make its voice far more effective. The onus, however, lies on New Delhi as to how strongly it wants to pursue these policy objectives and how much effort it wishes to make for joining other like-minded countries. Joining the Shanghai-Five forum can be one obvious choice as this seems not only a very appropriate but also a willing forum to promote India’s policy objectives.

The writer is associated with the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses.

A conflict between history & geography
by S. P. Seth

AUSTRALIA is at a crucial point in its nationhood. A century ago, in July, the British Parliament approved the Australian constitution to establish a federation. The federation itself came into existence on January 1, 1901. To celebrate the centenary of Australia’s federal constitution, Prime Minister John Howard led a large cavalcade of his countrymen to the “home” country. These included four former Prime Ministers. The trip, costing a couple of million Australian dollars, has been described by sections of the media as an expensive junket at the tax-payers’ expense. But, according to Mr John Howard, they are simply trivialising an important historical event.

Mr Howard’s mission, in this and other things (like his opposition to an Australian republic), is to ground Australia firmly in its British/European tradition and heritage. It is not just a matter of Westminster democracy. It is much more than that. It is a strong belief and commitment to Western civilisation and its universal relevance. Australia’s location in Asia is rather a plus point to uphold and promote Western values, like the old missionaries spreading the Christian gospel.

Therefore, Australia doesn’t need to choose between its history and geography. As Mr Howard told Bulletin weekly correspondent Fred Brenchley, “We should be ourselves in Asia”, occupying as Australia does “that special place — we are a European Western civilisation...”; not seeking to become Asian but draw strength from Australia’s own European character and heritage.

Mr Howard seems to believe that Australia was losing its bearings during his predecessor Paul Keating’s Prime Ministership. There was too much talk of Australia’s Asian identity (and increased Asian immigration), besmirching of its history and achievements by highlighting Aboriginal dispossession and decimation, push towards a republic, playing up Australia’s multiculturalism and, by implication or otherwise, denigrating Australia’s British heritage. Australia, therefore, seemed on the defensive, as if on a whole range of issues. This was “political correctness” gone mad, in Mr Howard’s view.

Therefore, ever since coming to power in 1996, Mr Howard’s government has been seeking to recreate Australia in its old image as a proud and confident outpost of European civilisation. This is no easy task, requiring a new national assertiveness without apologies to domestic and regional audiences more used to Keating-type “political correctness”. On Asian immigration and the Aboriginal issues, for instance, he effectively neutralised Mr Pauline Hanson’s racism card by translating her political rhetoric into effective policies. And on republic, he very successfully managed to scuttle the issue for a long time to come.

As for Canberra’s engagement with Asia, he tended to balance it by refocusing on his country’s historical, cultural, economic and other ties with the West. In the process, he appeared to be downgrading Australia’s Asian emphasis. For instance, he sought to debunk the whole notion of forging special relations with Asian countries.

Therefore, when Mr Howard led his large team on a pilgrimage to the “home” country for what looked like thanksgiving, it was a continuation of his policy of grounding Australia in its old British traditions and heritage.

Mr Howard distrusts social and cultural change. He distrusts the bona fides of people pushing such change. They seem to be taking Australia into uncharted waters, with no clear direction and goal. Their diversity appears disruptive and destructive. For him, any change simply for the sake of it can be dangerous. Therefore, it is important to him that Australia keeps on an even keel to avoid unnecessary and dangerous rocking.

It is not that he is against change per se. For instance, he has pushed radical changes in taxation and industrial relations. But these changes are not meant to alter Australia’s social and cultural landscape. These are within the parameters of the Western market economy.

This raises an important question? Is it possible to maintain Australia’s, more or less, static position as a European outpost in an Asian neighbourhood? It is not that Australia’s European heritage is problematic. What is problematic is the perceived superiority and hauteur associated with it. In Indonesia and Malaysia, for instance, Mr Howard is seen as a colonial relic of the 19th century, overseeing the “natives” to ensure that they adhere to “civilised” norms.

And the problem becomes even more acute when Mr Howard sees Australia in the role of a regional deputy to the USA’s global policeman role. Indeed, a number of Asian countries favour America’s military presence in Asia and are its military allies. Some of them even have defence arrangements with Australia. But none would feel comfortable with Mr Howard’s self-advertised role for Australia as the US deputy sheriff.

Mr Howard’s Australia looks like caught between its history and geography, with a clear tilt in favour of history. Otherwise, how would one explain his remarks to a British interviewer when he reportedly said, “Most Australians still regard our relationship with Britain as the most important.” Which is patently absurd unless one were to completely ignore the existence of a very large population of Irish Catholic origin, and other significant chunks of non-Anglo Australians.

Mr Howard has this notion that he understands and reflects Australia’s mainstream. Which leads him to confuse most, if not all, of Australia’s population with the country’s British origin as a colonial settlement. He, therefore, regards criticism of his trip to the “home” country as “adolescent” behaviour. Even otherwise, his claim about the importance of Australia’s British relationship is stretching the imagination. Clearly, since World War II, the USA has supplanted Britain as Australia’s most important political, strategic and even cultural partner.

Despite the pull of history, geography cannot be wished away. Hence the need for even Mr John Howard’s government to emphasise, now and then, that “Australia’s most important strategic and economic interests lie in the Asia Pacific.” Not surprisingly, it only adds to the confusion regionally about which is the real Australia. Is it Mr Howard’s Australia with its heart in Britain/Europe, or its continental mass located in Asian neighbourhood. Unless this conflict is resolved, Australia will always remain at sixes and sevens.

This doesn’t mean that Australia has to become culturally Asian. It simply means that Canberra will need to come to terms, sooner or later, with its geography, and all it entails. Obviously, this is not going to happen with Mr Howard, an ardent monarchist, as Australia’s Prime Minister. 

Wit past the post 
by Shriniwas Joshi

THE Subordinate Services Selection Board at Hamirpur had recently asked a graduate student: “How would you explain— He met his Waterloo at Panipat?” His reply was, “Sir, it is idiomatic English for — He urinated at Panipat.” Waterloo was “watery loo” for him. I do not know whether it was a calculated witty reply or an idiotic answer.But I do remember how my friend Mahesh Sharma wriggled himself out of a no-win situation in the UPSC. They asked him: “Name the President of America who was present during the Treaty of Versailles and had secured the inclusion of the League of Nations in the peace treaty.” The name completely slipped off his memory. A member gave him a hint: “Two Ws.” Even the hint failed to work. Mahesh, at once, came to his normal self and said, “Two Ws, at present, remind me of Wine and Woman.” There were pleasing smiles on all faces and, today, he has retired as one of the most decorated Director Generals of Police.

Subramanyam, another witty friend of mine, could find his name in the list of successful candidates after an interview for a commissioned rank in the Army. His quick reply for “What is fortification?” was “Double of twentyfication.” I lost trace of him after he had joined the Army but, I believe, that he must have been a real sure shot. Another one walking towards the members of the Board to appear in an interview suddenly twisted his foot. He lost his balance. There were voices, “Oh, what’s that?” With mental balance aplomb, he, at once, replied, “That is a Pronoun, Sirs.” He was selected and did very well in the IAS.

Wit alone, however, cannot win the battle. It “is the salt of conversation, not the food”. To be used sparingly. Mark Twain says that “it is the sudden marriage of ideas which before their marriage were not perceived to have any relation.” I was, then, the Honorary Editor of the journal that the IAS fraternity in Himachal Pradesh brings out for its members. I went to the then Education Secretary and requested him for an article. He jocularly but instantly said: “Please put up draft.” The prompt reply using the official jargon for an article to be published in an in-house journal pleased both of us and gave meaning to Twain’s words.

A few days back I met a long lost friend of mine who, in his youth, was real wit. He was a winner in the social circle. His witty one that he would like to go to hell after death because he would meet Marilyn Monroe there had stayed with me ever after. I could see that his grey hair had not snatched an iota of wit from him. He told me that his grandson was even sharper than what he used to be in his childhood, “He is hardly three, yaar, but can spell his name backwards too.” I said, “Really! Beats Grandpa! What is his name?” “Bob,” he replied with a meaningful smile.

But wit was always not what you and I infer from its meaning today. Before Christ, it was being used as an offensive weapon in upper social circles and Aristotle had defined it as “educated insult”. It was from the seventeenth century onwards that a shaft of wit was considered as both entertaining and intellectually adroit. But it was not there to be laughed at. It was to be appreciated by a nod of head or lift of an eyebrow or half-smile. Today, it has the tonic effect — even honks of uncontrollable mirth are welcome.

Call wit by whatever name given to it by the known writers — “instant wisdom” or “the dandyism of mind” or“levity with brevity”. If you have it, you are the winner.

The constitutional solidity of Art 370
by Anupam Gupta

“THE State shall combat....fanaticism, communalism, racialism....and shall seek to foster brotherhood and equality among all communities under the aegis of a secular State.”

That is Section 25 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir. The last section in Part IV of the State Constitution. Modelled on Part IV of the Constitution of India, the part enunciates certain directive principles of state policy which, though not enforceable by any court, are nevertheless “fundamental in the governance of the State”, it being the “duty of the State to apply these principles in making laws”. Combating fanaticism and fostering brotherhood and equality among all communities under the aegis of a secular State is, in the context of Kashmir and the past one decade of militancy, perhaps the most important State duty of all.

“The laissez faire policy towards what fanatics call ‘religion’,” writes Prof P.N. Dhar, head of Indira Gandhi’s secretariat and one of her closest advisers through the 1970s, in his recently published memoirs, “combined with permissive democracy, has put secularism upon its head.” The respect for all religions enshrined in the Constitution, he says, has turned out to include respect for all varieties of fanaticism and obscurantism. “The democratic government of India is reduced to the position of the colonial British government, which gave up further attempts at social reform after 1857 because it believed that the Mutiny was the result of injured religious sentiment.”

Nothing exemplifies this laissez faire policy more than the manner in which the entire Indian secular establishment turned its back on the violent, hate-soaked expulsion of Kashmiri Pandits from the valley in the 1990s, Section 25 of the J&K Constitution notwithstanding.

Wholly consistent with this inaction of the rest of India (the judiciary included) is the total silence maintained by the authors of the autonomy report, adopted by the J&K Assembly on June 26, on the issue of the Kashmiri Pandits, their return and resettlement.

As argued by me in my last two articles, the autonomy report does not, and cannot (in view of the J&K Constitution), reopen the question of Kashmir’s accession to India. But even its demand for “autonomy” for Kashmir cannot, despite the reopening of dialogue between Mr Farooq Abdullah and the Centre, yield any results unless tempered and matched by a sincere commitment to restore secularism in Kashmir.

Having said that, one must in all fairness acknowledge that at least one recommendation, the very first recommendation, made in the autonomy report not only deserves to be accepted but has, in fact and for all practical purposes, already been accepted in the Kashmir Accord of 1975.

The recommendation that the word “temporary” in the heading of Article 370 be deleted (and replaced by the word “special”).

“The State of Jammu and Kashmir which is a constituent unit of the Union of India (reads the opening clause of the Kashmir Accord) shall, in its relation with the Union, continue to be governed by Article 370 of the Constitution of India.”

The “essence of the accord,” P.N. Dhar writes in his memoirs, and I entirely agree, “was acceptance of the finality of the State’s accession to India and a fortification of the special status of the State as enshrined in Article 370 of the Constitution of India.”

There can be no other interpretation of the phrase “shall...continue to be governed”.

There is, of course, nothing very revolutionary in this phrase employed in the Kashmir Accord. For even on its own terms, Article 370 is, in any case, unrepealable.

“Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this Article,” reads Clause (3) of Article 370, “the President may, by public notification, declare that this Article shall cease to be operative or shall be operative only with such exceptions and modifications and from such date as he may specify.”

So what is the problem, you might ask. Why, then, can’t Article 370 be repealed or notified to be inoperative by the President of India?

The problem lies in the proviso to Clause (3), a necessary pre-condition for the exercise by the President of this power, a pre-condition beyond fulfilment.

“Provided that (says the proviso) the recommendation of the Constituent Assembly of the State...shall be necessary before the President issues such a notification.”

Convened by Yuvraj Karan Singh in 1951, and elected through universal adult franchise, the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir was dissolved in 1957 after completing its task: the framing of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir. Like the Constituent Assembly which framed the Constitution of India, it has passed into history. Any attempt to “convene” a new Constituent Assembly for Kashmir will be as unconstitutional as an attempt to convene a new Constituent Assembly to frame another Constitution of India.

Whatever else it might be, India is not Fiji.

A Hungarian view of India over 70 years
by Humra Quraishi

THOSE “happening” days are here again. So here we go around town. Last weekend there was a dinner, qawwali, birthday cake and also Khushwant Singh at Ashwini Kumar Minna’s house. The cake was for Minna’s wife, Kiran (it happened to be her birthday), and the dinner and qawwali were in honour of Khushwant getting the Honest Man of the Year Award.

In fact, most of the guests had come directly from the award presentation venue and those to be spotted at this dinner were — H.K. Dua, Kuldip Nayar, K.P.S. Gill, Vinod Dua, Pavan Varma — J.S. (Africa Desk), G.S. Sharma — J.S. (NRIs), Ajeet and Arpana Caur, Richard Crasta, Sheela Reddy, Malavika and Tejbir Singh, and Kaamna Prasad.

One missed spotting Chandrababu Naidu who seemed to have simply vanished soon after presenting this award and delivering a crisp speech. And though the rumour around was that Priyanka and Robert Vadra would definitely drop in for some time (after all they are neighbours of the Minnas) but didn’t. These days, a pregnant Priyanka isn’t spotted at social get-togethers.

Moving ahead, thankfully a totally different set of people were to be spotted at the Iraq’s national day reception hosted by the Iraq ambassador on July 17. The chief guest was Vice-President Krishna Kant, who seemed to be in his element, talking, laughing and generally looking very relaxed. Others to be spotted were ambassadors of several West Asian and African countries besides the ambassador of Pakistan.

Prominent Indian guests were Ghulam Nabi Azad, Sahib Singh Varma, and Bhishma Narain Singh. And though it was pouring that evening, and as most of us were grumbling about the downpour the Iraqi ambassador simply looked towards the sky and said “rains are a blessing....a good sign!” Probably it’s this positive attitude that has kept the Iraqis going on amidst continuing sanctions.

Let’s go to the ongoing exhibition of the 90-year-old Hungarian artist, Elizabeth Brunner, at the Lalit Kala Akademi. I think in one of my earlier columns I have written about Elizabeth Brunner, who, for the past several decades, has made India her home and even her country (she has taken on citizenship). Along with her mother she had set sail for India in 1930 at the invitation of Rabindranath Tagore and since then stayed on and, even to this day, talks very emotionally about those personalities she had painted — Mahatma Gandhi, Rabindranath Tagore, Jawaharlal Nehru, Padmaja Naidu, etc.

And today she is ill, confined to the wheelchair but it’s those memories that are still vibrant — the way her eyes light up recounting the circumstances under which she drew Gandhi’s portrait, or how she interacted with the Nehru clan, or the manner in which she and her mother lived and interacted with Tagore at Santiniketan.

The exhibition took off with a panel discussion on “India through Brunner’s eye”. Rightly so, for this elder has seen India in those decades and still revels in those warm memories.

Move against death penalty

A national conference on “Against Death Penalty” was held here on July 22 and 23. As I am filing this column before the conclusion of this conference, all I can state is that Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer (chairperson of the Campaign Against Death Penalty) and members of the national committee are working towards persuading the government to sign the “Optional Protocol 11 of the ICCPR, amend Section 302, IPC so as to delete the word ‘death’ from the punitive provision and also to exclude provisions that sanctions death penalty in other laws....”

The list of speakers is impressive — they’re people from different fields who have been working to give us a better tomorrow.

Hopefully they would be able to persuade the government to do away with the death penalty and these include Justice V R Krishna Iyer, Justice Rajinder Sachar, Mohini Giri, K G Kannabiran, Asghar Ali Engineer and Rajeev Dhavan, Nitya Ramakrishnan, Kuldip Nayar, Indira Jaisingh, Justice H. Suresh and several others. One noteworthy aspect is that there are several from the judicial sphere who are closely involved with this campaign and are coming out with reasons on irrelevance of the death penalty.

“A monsoon dinner”

Installation artiste Naresh Kapuria is hosting what is called “A monsoon dinner” on July 24. What if it doesn’t rain that day? One needn’t worry, dinner will anyway be there and, of course, the who’s who of the Capital will recount details of their latest travels in and around Europe.

Still ahead, the Academy of Arts and Literature is hosting their bi-monthly literary meet — ‘Dialogue’ which is a unique writers’ forum in which writers, painters, theatre artistes, singers, musicians and dancers meet on the last Saturday of every month. And the chairperson of this academy, Ajeet Cour, says at latest meeting on July 29, well-known Hindi poets Ashok Vajpayee, Manglesh Dabral and Vishnu Nagar would recite new poems and Hindi novelist Asghar Wajahat would read out a chapter from his yet untitled novel.

And on July 28, Mr Edmund Marsden, Minister Cultural Affairs of the British Council, is hosting an exclusive preview of “Goodbye Desdemona”, which is conceived and directed by Roysten Abel and it is play revolving around two men talking of love in contemporary India. Should we say these are signs of the abnormal times we are living in?

SPIRITUAL NUGGETS

Meditation is an unbroken flow of thought toward the object of concentration.

— Swami Prabhavananda, The Yoga of Meditation