 |
| Saturday, January 20, 2001, Chandigarh, India   
|
It
pays to act tough Militancy back in J & K |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
10 years after Gulf war
VAJPAYEE'S
SUBMISSION KASHMIR Peace process is everything
Bye Bill!
Kashmir crisis:
peace hiccups
by Tavleen Singh
Men as victims of violence
|
|
It pays to act tough THE
reaction of the global community to India's test-firing of the 2000
kilometre-range Agni II missile on Wednesday has followed a
predictable pattern. The genuine peaceniks, which includes Japan and
with a bit of reservation even Australia, have valid reasons to be
unhappy with the development. No other nation other than Japan knows the diabolically destructive potential of nuclear warfare. Australia, which had led the campaign for punishing India after Pokharan II, has evidently realised the folly of acting tough, specially against a country which is set to become an economic power few countries would like to irritate. It did not go beyond regretting the test. However, the peaceniks need to be told politely, but firmly, that India too is not interested in starting an arms race in the region or the world. It was only after the Nehruvian approach to disarmament and global peace came unstuck that Indira Gandhi fine-tuned the nuclear policy which Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee has merely carried forward. The global community criticised him for all the wrong reasons. He even received a lot of flak at home for Pokharan II. However, it can now be said without fear of contradiction that the policy of talking from a position of strength has begun to pay. Look at Pakistan Chief Executive General Pervez Musharraf's response to the testing of Agni II. Mind you, he is the same General who had masterminded the Kargil intrusions for derailing the Lahore process. In an interview to the state-controlled television network he was seen as speaking the language of peace. Nothing wrong with that, because that is exactly what India wants Pakistan to get interested in. But it is doubtful whether his tone would have been as soft as it was in the interview had India been both economically and militarily weak? There are a number of other factors which have forced General Musharraf to not over-react to the firing of Agni II. Pakistan's economy is on the verge of collapse and sabre rattling by the General at this juncture would give impetus to the demand for a matching response. Pakistan had conducted the nuclear tests in Chagai in answer to Pokharan II by taking away food from countless hungry mouths. Besides, General Musharraf had promised to rebuild the country's economy after replacing Mr Nawaz Sharif in a bloodless military coup. The economy is in much worse shape than it was under Mian Nawaz Sharif. For India it is a waiting game, now that it has acquired both economic and military muscle, for making Pakistan talk peace. General Musharraf in the television interview said that China should feel more threatened with the Agni ii test. But even the Chinese leadership now realises that talking tough to India will not pay. Its reaction was, therefore, unusually guarded. And the good news is that even the USA has begun to realise the importance of keeping India in good humour. At the Senate hearing Gen Colin Powell, who will replace the hawkish Ms Madeleine Albright as the Secretary of State in the Bush Administration, spoke openly about the need to speak "more wisely" with India. He gave three reasons for the respect the USA must show to India. Reason number one - it is the largest democracy. Reason number two - it is a growing economy. Reason number three - it is a "nuclear-armed country". It is ironical that when the history of global disarmament is written India's decision to go nuclear may be cited as a major reason which expedited the process. |
|
Militancy back in J & K DARK clouds have gathered over the peace process horizon in the Kashmir valley. Prime Minister Vajpayee leads those who doubt the intentions of the Hurriyat and Pakistan and question the very wisdom of persisting with the nearly two-month old cease-combat operations orders to the Army. Home Minister Advani has come close to echoing the demands of Chief Minister Farooq Abdullah that the Hurriyat should be sidelined and the ongoing process suspended after January 26. The Army Chief, Gen Padmanabhan is all for extending the limited offensive/defensive by the uniformed forces. But he said this before the suicide attack on the Srinagar airport and the two blasts in Pulwama. What he thinks now is not known. Another vote for peace has come from Hurriyat chief Abdul Gani Lone who is very confident that the government’s peace gesture will produce results. But this has to be taken with a pinch of salt since the outfit is in a bit of a disarray and it seems the hawk of all hawks, Syed Ali Shah Geelani, is unlikely to get travel documents. It is not so much a cacophony as ringing declarations of conflicting or contrasting perceptions of those directly involved in handling the problem. What is clear is that the bright chances of ending the decade-old murder and mayhem in the state have given place to pessimism if not despair. The situation is inching back to square one with certain unpredictable consequences. One of them is the effectiveness of the militants, particularly the Lashkar-e-Toiba, in derailing the process which has evoked near unanimous endorsement of the people. Will that make it more feared or hated? It will have opportunities to kill and destroy when panchayat election enters the valley. The Lashkar has opposed the poll and has called a boycott. Some intimidatory murders are on the cards. Ideally the para-military forces should hold the fire until then to present the militants with a dilemma, but maybe they would not. They are now the vicious targets and feel highly vulnerable. Surface specialists see a hardline — softline division on this issue. This is based on two premises. The Shiv Sena is against the ceasefire and later the BJP too asked for a review. Abdullah has always been against the Hurriyat, seeing in it a potential rival for power. Mr Advani is a tough-minded Home Minister and his first preference is the danda. But the Prime Minister? He holds the patent for the peace process and its extension by a month. Clearly he is losing patience. The return of deadly violence and the unwillingness of the neighbour to rein in the blood-thirsty men have shocked him and he, perhaps, feels betrayed. This is evident from the way he spelt out his thoughts at Udupi in faraway Karnataka. It is characteristic of him to insert one softening layer in an otherwise hard policy sandwich. He has offered to meet Gen Pervez Musharraf if the scale of violence comes down and infiltration from across the border thins out. Not unreasonably he holds the Pakistan government responsible for all this. And he is not far wrong. It needs two parties to bring peace to the hapless people of the valley and India can do only that much. In the shifting situation the Hurriyat is getting marginalised. It has to stay afloat if it wants to be relevant. Re-reading Mr Vajpayee’s statements, it appears — just that — he wants the conglomerate to tilt in favour of peace and lean on Pakistan and use whatever influence it has to stop militant violence. This way, he has given a new turn to the peace process and has not disowned it. |
|
10 years after Gulf war TEN years ago, when the US-led coalition started bombarding Iraq with furious zeal, it was boasted that the resistance wouldn’t last more than a few days. The battle went on for six weeks. At its end, it was thought that there would be a popular uprising against President Saddam Hussein. Ten years down the road, the man whom the then US President George Bush had described as “worse than Hitler” is very much in the saddle. The pockets of resistance against him are neither big enough nor enjoy much credibility. Instead, he is a hero to his people and also the Palestinians. Iraqi flag flutters everywhere in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. President Saddam Hussein provides $ 10,000 to every Palestinian family whose member is killed in the skirmishes with Israeli authorities. As if to mock the Americans, he has even donated $ 95 million to “poor Americans”. The only ones who have really suffered because of the sanctions are the poor Iraqis. So tight has been the siege that even humanitarian aid has not been reaching them. A modern city like Baghdad has been reduced to medieval existence. But Iraq is as defiant as ever. Now that George Bush Jr is taking up residence in the White House for the next four years, the sanctions are likely to become even tighter. Gulf war hero Gen Colin Powell (retd) is coming back as the US Secretary of State and has already announced that the sanctions will be re-energised. Given the current US thinking, no thought is likely to be given to the futility and utility of the restrictions. What, however, is noteworthy is that the support to the sanctions by the US allies is crumbling. Next month, Iraq and the United Nations Security Council will begin discussion on a 1999 Security Council resolution that promises a suspension of the sanctions if Iraq allows the weapons inspectors to continue. So much for the never-say-die spirit of the Iraqi dictator. But his defiance also hides the aggressive streak which precipitated the Kuwaiti crisis in the first place. On the occasion of the 10th anniversary of the Gulf war, he has described the outcome as an outright victory for his country. Signals from other Iraqis have been even more ominous. His son Uday, who is a member of Parliament, has called for a map incorporated in the Iraqi Parliament’s emblem to be redrawn to include Kuwait as part of “greater Iraq”. This is seen as a proof of Baghdad’s territorial ambition to incorporate Kuwait. The Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Tariq Aziz, has described the comments as Uday’s personal view, but has not helped assuage feelings with his own comments: “Iraq was a victim of conspiracy against its sovereignty and its national interests, and Kuwait was part and parcel of that conspiracy. So Kuwait deserves what it had in 1990”. Such fiery statements may be meant for domestic consumption, but do nothing to build confidence regarding Iraq’s intentions and its commitment to stability in the region. What causes concern is the suspicion that Baghdad’s WMD (weapons of mass destruction) capability is still considerable. |
|
VAJPAYEE'S
SUBMISSION KASHMIR IT is typical of the growing trivialisation of the purpose and functions of the media that the selective release of the Prime Minister’s Musings from Kumarakom has provoked more comment than the contents of the disquisition, particularly and most disturbingly his utterances on Kashmir. This abdication of duty by professional commentators and analysts, along with the supreme unconcern of the rest of the self-serving political establishment, is what has allowed this government to go ahead with its actions on and in Kashmir, actions which betray at best a fumbling-bumbling strategy, but more likely the contours of a blueprint which will be gravely inimical to our territorial integrity and our national interests and values. There are already abundant signs on both counts. When Mr Vajpayee undertook the bus journey to Wagah, official and non-official media alike hailed it as a U-turn in the half-century of India-Pakistan animosity, the beginning of a brand new era of friendship and good-neighbourliness at last. In a commentary at the time I regretted our “penchant for seeing rainbows in sunless skies” and warned: “Our euphoria is not just premature; it is a sign of immaturity. India-Pakistan problems are not a schoolboys’ quarrel. There are serious issues involved, deadly serious issues, and these cannot be resolved by sentimental outbursts or make-believe rapprochement.” In not sharing the almost hysterical optimism over the bus diplomacy I found myself virtually in a minority of one — until Kargil erupted. If that exposed our criminal naivette, the hijacking episode revealed a State with a spine of jelly. As if Kargil to Kandahar was not bad enough, the attendant and subsequent events seem to suggest not just incompetence but an inexplicably defensive, almost cowardly, mindset — traits tailormade to ensure subservience to superior brain or brawn. The subservience is not confined to economic policies which are so demonstrably injurious to the interests of the masses; what the government is doing in, to and about Kashmir threatens to be even more injurious to our nationhood. Tragically for India and tragically for the once peaceful and harmonious people of Kashmir, every single government beginning with Jawaharlal Nehru’s has in one way or another blundered on
Kashmir. When the BJP-dominated regime came to power, the general expectation was that it would take a clear and no-nonsense stand on the matter, that it would deal with the local traitors and imported terrorists as any self-respecting government would, viz, with all the necessary firmness and force, that it would take countervailing measures and make it very costly for the mullah-military complex in Pakistan to continue with their bloody mischief, that it would also make it clear to foreign busybodies that Kashmir is non-negotiable and that they had better lay off — and that, as a result of all this, Kashmir would regain its beautiful and rightful place under the Indian sun. Sadly and surprisingly, none of this has happened. Nor are the available portents propitious for such a denouement. In fact, the evidence is all to the contrary: Pakistan continues to be at it and has indeed further enlarged its bloody machinations to other parts of the country and struck even at Delhi’s Red Fort, the celebrated symbol of Indian independence and sovereignty; terrorists continue to kill Indian soldiers and civilians and now attack even military bases; ordinary Kashmiris continue to suffer — and the issue stands internationalised as never before. The “credit” for this deplorable scenario goes to our policy-makers, to their misguided decision to tie themselves, and the country, to the apron strings of the Clintonian dispensation (now about to go into terminal obscurity). To illustrate how we let Washington do our thinking for us, witness how within days of the Clinton visitation the government decided to release the Hurriyat leaders — avowed secessionists who overnight became, in L.K. Advani’s words, “our own dissidents”! It has been a string of defensive responses and bewildering, self-damaging initiatives ever since. The Ramzan ceasefire and its baffling extension even before the initial period was half-way through and even as terrorist groups responded by continuing to kill our people (more than they killed in the preceding month!), and the decision to let secessionist leaders go consult their mentors in Pakistan are moves intriguing in their purpose and direction. And now, instead of telling his countrymen what his government is up to in Kashmir, Mr Vajpayee’s “vision” utterances from Kumarakom have only added to the mystery — and apprehensions. On a conservative estimate more than 25,000 Indians — soldiers and civilian, men, women and children — have lost their lives in the Pakistan-perpetrated violence in Kashmir. Will these deaths be avenged? Will these supreme sacrifices in the cause of the nation not be allowed to go in vain? There is no answer to these questions in the Prime Minister’s discourse. Only that his “heart shares the agony” of the bereaved families. On another tragedy, Mr Vajpayee “feels the pain and anguish of those Kashmiris who have become refugees in their own motherland”. So, will the government ensure that these original and rightful inhabitants of the valley, scattered hither and thither in India and living in miserable conditions, return to their homes and homeland? Not a word on this either. Instead, the very next sentence speaks of the government’s resolve soon to start talks with the secessionist and terrorist organisations in the state. And not only them — the Prime Minister has also categorically signalled his readiness to talk with Pakistan too. This talk about talks has evoked predictable applause both in Washington and in certain air-conditioned seminar rooms in Delhi. I, and I believe all Indians, will readily join the clapping orchestra if the government answers a few obvious questions — questions which arise from its “initiatives” and now more pointedly from the potently worded operative part of Mr Vajpayee’s brief reference to Kashmir in his musings: “In our search for a lasting solution to the Kashmir problem, both in its external and internal dimensions, we shall not traverse solely on the beaten track of the past. Rather we shall be bold and innovative designers of a future architecture of peace and prosperity for the entire South Asian region. In this search the sole light that will guide us is our commitment to peace, justice and the vital interests of the nation”. Words worthy of the Nobel Prize — except for the contradictions and questions. Not to traverse solely on the beaten track of the past — what does this mean? What is this beaten track — that Kashmir is an integral part of India? That the only issue is to regain the area seized by Pakistan through the ‘47-48’ invasion, as all past governments said and as our sovereign Parliament solemnly resolved? What would the implied deviation from this path mean? The question assumes added urgency considering this government has given up the legitimate condition of “talks within the Constitution”. What does being “bold and innovative designers” of peace mean, imply, entail? What innovation can there be in the matter of the territorial integrity of the country? If the planned innovation is to do with autonomy, then why did this government so summarily shoot down the state assembly resolution to that effect? If, on the other hand, the innovation involves division of the state with the Muslim-majority valley ceasing to be an integral part of India (as some American think-tanks have suggested and as, incredibly enough, RSS is alleged to favour), how would this square with the nation’s “vital interests”? Where would this leave the five lakh Kashmiri pandits who aspire and have an inalienable right to go back to their ancient homeland? And what would it mean for our secular fabric and for the 22 crore Indian Muslims? If these questions have no basis in the “future architecture” of Kashmir, then could the government please tell the country what it has in mind when it talks of “a lasting solution”, tell us what the proposed talks are to be about and what boldness and innovation it has up its sleeve? A government which assumed power swearing by not only national interests first but transparency and accountability, owes it to the country to answer these questions. |
|
Peace process is everything IT’S futile to guess the final outcome of the various moves which are afoot today to resolve the Kashmir conflict. The statements of Syed Salahuddin, the Chief of Hizbul Mujahideen, or those of Syed Ali Shah Geelani, head of the J&K Jamaat-e-Islami, would suggest that these efforts would yield nothing. But if one listens to what Abdul Gani Lone or the JKLF Chief, Yaseen Malik and Amanullah Khan (PoK based) say, one would conclude that it’s worth striving for peace. When it comes to Kashmir, we should think like the German revisionist Marxist thinker, Edouard Bernstein. He said,”revolution is nothing. It’s the movement towards the revolution that is everything.” Bernstein desired a worker’s revolution in Germany in the wake
of its defeat in World War I; but for him it wasn’t the actual revolution but the movement towards it that was everything. Let’s welcome the peace moves that various parties have made to resolve the Kashmir conflict. Only an incurable optimist or a knave would believe that these moves would end in a neat and clean solution of so knotty a problem as Kashmir. It’s a problem caused by the clashing conception of nationhood of India and Pakistan. Neither can give up its conception without inviting its dissolution as a nation. The best way to tackle a problem like Kashmir is not to think of its ultimate solution but to think of small ways of easing the problem. Even if the various peace moves initiated by the Vajpayee government and most constituents of the All Party Hurriyat Conference (APHC) can result in attenuating violence in the valley, that itself will be a major achievement of these peace moves. And they have paid off. The Army Chief, Gen Padmanabhan, speaking on Army Day said that infiltration in the valley was at its lowest in years and he has recommended the extension of ceasefire. The Vajpayee government has earned the plaudits from all major world powers for a unilateral declaration of ceasefire. It has taken the Kashmir problem out of the postkargil freeze. But the largest peace dividend is the rift between the Kashmiri resistance and the jehadis, Kashmiri or foreigners. When Syed Ali Shah Geelani of the Jamaat-e-Islami rails against peace talks the Hurriyat has undertaken by talking of the unity of the Muslim “millat”, he is expressing his fears that peace talks might succeed. What would happen to his idea of the unity of all Muslim millat should Kashmiri Muslims choose to stay in India or be independent? The same is the case with the two wings of the Hizbul Mujahideen, one based in the valley and the other based in Pakistan. The ceasefire of last August was acceptable to Abdul Majid Dhar, the Hizb chief in Kashmir but not to Syed Salahuddin, the Hizb chief in Pakistan. But then Pakistan itself was opposed to the Hizb’s announcement of ceasefire. Pakistan’s role is important but not vital to the continuation of the peace process. In saying this I want to stress a fact that is often ignored here: a majority of the valley and the resistance groups who have taken arms against the Indian state want azadi or autonomy within the Indian
Union. They don’t want Pakistan to define their future. Yet, Pakistan is important for the continuance of the peace process. The Vajpayee government belatedly recognises this and in his musings from Kumarakom the Prime Minister has indicated his willingness to have a India-Pakistan meeting at the highest level. Masood Ijaz in his article strongly pleads for a India-Pakistan dialogue. He is an investment banker in New York who claims to have direct access to President Clinton and he takes credit for arranging the Clinton-Sharif meeting of July 4,1999. It was at this meeting that Nawaz Sharif agreed to respect the LoC. No one in Delhi for certain knows what Masood Ijaz does or what weight he carries in Washington. But his reading of the Post-Kargil situation in Pakistanis insightful. He thinks that Musharraf alone can carry through the peace process and that’s why India must deal with him. It’s worth engaging in a dialogue with Musharraf’s Pakistan, but without any hope or delusion that this would bring peace. Prolonged talks between the APHC members and the jehadis and India and Pakistan would — the two ought to be kept separate — present the Pak regime with an ineluctable choice: engage with India to find a solution of Kashmir problem or engage in a jehad. All along it has avoided choosing between these two imcompatible policy courses; in fact it has pursued both without any success. I think the peace process initiated by Vajpayee will affect Pakistan: it could become a normal state or a font of religious crusades and jehads. A normal state could indeed pursue its security and economic interest but it cannot aim at the destruction of another state. The Jehadis want the destruction of the Indian state. In the process they are destroying the Pakistani state. Asma Jehangir, the courageous human rights activists, deeply fears the Talibanisation of the Pakistan state. A Pakistan turned into an Afghanistan or Sudan will be a hell for its people and a great menace to its neighbours. By making jehad a tool of its policy Pakistan has let loose forces that threaten the bases of the Pakistani state. General Zia-ul-Haq cynically used the Islamic card to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan in the eighties. He had the American support by way of money and aims; but he did not know then that the predator of Islamic fundamentalism he reared would one day begin to eat the Pakistan state. This is what Amanullah Khan, JKLF chief in other Kashmir, fears. At that most political of the weddings in Kashmir, marriage between Amanullah’s daughter and Abdul Gani Lone’s son, Amanullah said: “We do not want Kashmir to be turned into Afghanistan or Iran”. Pakistan’s Kashmir policy not only risks Kashmir turning into Iran or Afghanistan, but the whole of Pakistan going the Afghan way. Remember Pakistan was the first country since the end of World War II to break up — in 1971. Since then many ethnic and religious minorities have been restive, many of them wanting to separate themselves from the Pakistani state. All this is because of the jehadi mindset of the Pakistani leadership. If Pakistan responds to our peace initiative it has a chance of keeping at bay the forces of hate and destruction. We should go ahead along the road to peace, undisturbed by small road blocs. Saving Pakistan form jehadis is in our interest. |
|
Bye Bill! WILLIAM
Jefferson Clinton was sworn in as the American President in January, 1993. Today, he lays down his office. At the age of 54. Having completed two terms. On the passing of eight eventful years. To be the youngest living former President. He goes a richer man. The whole world owes a debt of gratitude to him. Even while getting ready to leave, he has been good and graceful. In his inimitable style, he gave the world a parting gift. Bill Clinton led everyone on a conducted tour of the White House. Gave the whole world a good peep into the American Presidential palace. With the first lady Hillary Clinton coming in now and then. Each of them giving a good description. Of course, on television only. Yet interesting. The well laid out lawns. The open terrace giving a good view of the surroundings. The immaculately furnished rooms. The priceless collection of curios. The rare pieces of art. The old paintings. The portraits of successive Presidents like George Washington, Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln. The bust of Harry Truman. The collection of 400 coins. The old desk in the Oval office. Vintage 1850. From the Victorian era. A gift from Her Majesty the Queen of England. As a token of appreciation for the help in salvaging an English ship. The family portraits and pictures. And a lot more. All very well displayed. Well kept. For a moment, everything appeared to be almost real. The “house” has been a home for the successive Presidents. Today, Bill leaves the American Presidential palace. His years in office have been full of hope and promise. For his country and countrymen, he was always concerned and considerate. Tried relentlessly to improve the lot of the average American. He was always eager to protect his people’s interests. And undeniably, the American economy improved appreciably. There was a big boost. For the world, he was a friendly policeman. He strived for peace. Everywhere in the world. He did his best to make the world a heaven for human beings. He would be really remembered for his efforts. Yet, he could be even totally ruthless. When American interests were even remotely at stake. Like, while dealing with Saddam Hussain. The brave people of Iraq would not be able to forget the dark days of the war. The roar of the bombers must be still sending a chill down their spines. Even today. And the country is still facing the after effects. The tall and handsome man. The smiling and sensitive face. There was an air of sincerity in his speech. He could hold any audience spellbound. We saw him address the joint session of Indian Parliament. Enchant the village belles. Dance with them in Nyala. He was good to even those who could do nothing for him. Or to him. He could live and laugh. Even in the midst of the Monica mess. Rendered messier by the “excesses of the information technology”. A man with amazing abilities. The White House would not have the like of him. Not in the foreseeable future. Probably, never again. The whole world would miss him. Not merely because he has been the President of the oldest democracy in the world for two terms. Nor because, he wielded tremendous power. But because, he was different. He was human. Like you and me. Like any man. And he is humane. He tried to make the world a better place to live in. For everyone. He did more for the world than the world did for him. The big boy Clinton lays down his office today. But he would continue to live in the hearts of people. Even of those who would never meet him. He would be remembered by all. And for long. For he is intrinsically good. Bye Bill! |
|
Kashmir crisis:
peace hiccups PERHAPS for the first time in the history of blood-soaked state of Jammu and Kashmir diplomatic moves have inspired some hope for peace. There is considerable optimism, and if no one plays foul, some compromises may be possible. This may open ways for a lasting solution to the vexed question. But right now no one has any cut and dry solution for a permanent peace in the troubled valley. Most commentators in the mainline Pakistani newspapers holding different views also have no fixed solution to offer. The road map to peace which India has unfolded in a limited way through its ceasefire initiative also does not indicate what future course the events would take. This is in response to the strong desire for peace among the hapless people of the valley. India is being seen as a keen party to peace by many observers. At least the logjam is being broken. It is better to talk about peace than to fight with guns for thousand years as once Z.A. Bhutto, the then Prime Minister, threatened. Look what his daughter, Ms Benazir Bhutto, has to say now. It was a bloody mistake to have responded to the peace efforts of the late Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi in that fashion. Major newspapers like Dawn and Jung have taken a very reasonable position and supported the peace process. Two points emerge from their comments. Pakistan has become a hostage in the hands of jehadis not only in Kashmir but also in the neighbouring Afghanistan. It has lost its autonomy to deal with India. It will be worthwhile to quote from these two leading papers. Dawn said, some recent developments in South Asia should provide food for thought for the government. First, there has been the nine-day visit to India by Li Peng, the second highest ranking Chinese leader. From the statements made by both sides, it is clear that this exercise in diplomacy signifies a turning point in the context of interstate relations in the region. Secondly, the peace initiative in Kashmir has virtually been thrown in the doldrums. Thirdly, there is the stalemate in Afghanistan where the UN-sponsored peace process has virtually been derailed as sanctions have been imposed on that strife-torn country. Fourthly, the Central Asians, notably the Shanghai-5, have shelved Pakistan’s application for membership. “What does one make of all these developments? Cumulatively, they do not augur well for Pakistan’s foreign policy and security. True, Beijing still remains a good friend of Pakistan. But it would be unwise to test this friendship by demanding Chinese support for some of the adventurist moves being mounted from Pakistani soil. Li Peng very categorically spoke of joining hands with India to fight terrorism in the region. With their border dispute well on the way to a solution and their trade ties growing rapidly, India and China can be expected to coordinate their South Asian policies which have begun to converge to quite an extent. This will deny Pakistan the countervailing support it needs vis-a-vis New Delhi. “A breakdown of the peace process in Kashmir, which is becoming likelier by the day, will leave Islamabad totally isolated. India’s unilateral ceasefire in the occupied valley and the relaxation of its restrictions of the Hurriyat Conference leaders was expected to get the peace process rolling. Pakistan reciprocated by pulling back its troops from the LoC and announcing a policy of “maximum restraint” along the border. But it has failed to restrain the militants who have been operating from Pakistan and launching attacks against India not just in Kashmir but also elsewhere in that country. Since they have been openly claiming responsibility for their so-called jihadi operations, it is Pakistan which is technically held responsible. Clearly, there is a price to pay for allowing the country’s Kashmir policy to become hostage to the whims and caprices of the militant of groups who have not even spelled out their final goal and how it is to be achieved. “The Afghan imbroglio has already brought disaster to Pakistan and the worse is still to come. The never-ceasing influx of refugees from across the Durand Line has created serious problems for this country. Then we have the menace of drug-trafficking, the proliferation of arms, the spillovers of lawlessness and terrorism from their sanctuary in Afghanistan and the smuggling of food and other goods which has hit Pakistan’s economy. None of these can be checked if the Afghan pot continues to boil, which it will in the absence of a final settlement and the establishment of a broad-based government in Kabul. The sanctions will accentuate some of these difficulties which will compound the problems Pakistan faces. By blindly supporting the Taliban, Islamabad has put the country’s internal and external security at risk. “It is not surprising that Pakistan is being marginalised in this situation. Its failure to enter Shanghai-5 — which comprises China as well as three Central Asian Republics apart from Russia — the countries with which Islamabad has been seeking to engage itself, should come as a clear pointer to our shrinking in the region. Even on Kashmir, the world sympathy could swing in favour of India which can now claim with some credibility that the problem is largely the result of ‘cross-border terrorism’ and indigenous only secondarily. Has Islamabad pondered the consequences of the cul-de-sac it is moving into? It is time to do some real hard thinking on the foreign policy goals and whether they can be realised by the strategy adopted.” Another popular and highly respected newspaper has this to say: “The mujahideen could well be playing into the hands of the hardliners in New Delhi in the midst of attempts to piece together a new peace process to stabilise the region, a main character in the Kashmir drama had a close shave with death. The Chief Minister of Indian-held Jammu and Kashmir, Farooq Abdullah, escaped an assassination attempt on his life when two rifle-propelled grenades exploded near the place where he was addressing a gathering after inaugurating a bridge in Srinagar on Sunday. Farooq Abdullah’s reaction has been to call on New Delhi to launch a manhunt for the culprits, members of the Hizbul Majahideen, which has already claimed responsibility for the attack. “The matter, however, is not as simple as it seems. Farooq Abdullah’s whole policy on Kashmir has naturally made him a target of attack by the Kashmiri mujahideen. He has been urging New Delhi not to talk with leaders of the mujahideen groups and has also been making provocative statements about the latter. The latest such remarks made to reporters were that the police had been given directions to ‘kill militants at sight’ because ‘there was no room left for them in jails’. After Sunday’s abortive assassination attempt, the Hizbul Majahideen vowed to continue such attacks on Farooq Abdullah and other such pro-India
Kashmiris. |
|
Congress Party & sycophancy LET’S start with a small riddle. I shall give you a few lines from an advertisement in the Indian Express of January 12, 2001 and you will have to guess who they could have been written in praise of. You have thirty seconds, your time starts now: “Future hope of Bleeding India, Illustrious daughters (sic) of the soil. Great visionary and statesperson. Great luminary, incisive thinker, Pride of India”. Well? All right, then, fifty-fifty. Sonia or Priyanka? Although, if you have even a passing familiarity with Indian politics you would have guessed by the time you got to “great visionary and statesperson” that this could only be the handiwork of some Congress worker in praise of either his supreme leader, Sonia Gandhi, or his deputy supreme leader, Priyanka Gandhi Vadra. And, you would be right. They were in praise of Madame Junior and came in a paid advertisement from a “humble Congress worker”, Dr Satwant Singh ‘Mohi’, MBBS, PCMS (1) (Ex), FRSH (London), MLA (Ex). He may not be a famous politician yet but if he keeps up this high quality sycophancy he will end up appointed at some future moment to the Congress Party’s highest offices, even perhaps the Congress Working Committee. Every member of the Gandhi family that has ruled the Congress Party has gone out of their way to pronounce against sycophancy. Even in the days of “Indira is India and India is Indira” Mr Gandhi frowned when sycophants sang their paeans in her presence but, somehow, the sycophants were never dismissed from the court. Some like Sitaram Kesri, so cringe-makingly sycophantic that he was called the party’s drummer boy, rose to ranks of ministerial grandeur without the smallest hint of the political base. Dev Kant Barooah was certainly no loser for having invented the “Indira is India” slogan and humble stenographers like R.K. Dhawan and Yashpal Kapoor rose to extraordinary heights only because their servility was beyond reproach. And, speaking of stenographers what is it with our leading political dynasty and stenographers? First, we had Jawaharlal’s strangely close relationship with M.O. Mathai, then Indira and her Dhawan and Kapoor, then Rajiv and V. George and now Sonia and V. George. You could say that the most upwardly mobile job in the Congress Party is that of the humble steno. To return, though, to the importance of sycophancy and the Gandhi family we had Rajiv protest against it but favour only his courtiers when it came to dishing out jobs and deals to the boys. And, now, Madame Sonia who protests verbally, on a regular basis, against sycophancy while shamelessly encouraging it by her actions. To give you only one example. At a recent Delhi event I was accosted by a large, noisy Congress woman MP, whose reason for accosting me was apparently to inform me that she objected to the press always talking about Madame’s need for sycophants. This is how the conversation went. Congress MP: “You people in the media think that Madame only wants sycophants around her. But, I tell her to her face exactly what I think I say even things like Madame how could you say that and Madame you are wrong about this”. Me: “Really”. Congress MP: “Absolutely. She welcomes criticism. She likes people who tell her the truth”. Me: “Why doesn’t she kick the sycophants out? Why doesn’t she surround herself by people who tell the truth?” Congress MP: “Oh, she does. Its just that you people in the media don’t want to see it”. A few moments later I saw the said Congress MP in conversation with ‘Madame’ and she was as fawning and servile as her compatriots are in the presence of the leader. Those who are regular visitors to 10 Janpath come back with reports of how Chief Ministers and former Cabinet Ministers, princes and satraps, are sycophantic not just in the presence of Madame herself but even before V. George. They wait for hours, I have been told, just for an audience with George so that they can come out and pretend that they have met Sonia. In such an atmosphere what is so surprising about the fact that elections to the party’s highest decision-making body, the CWC, have been jettisoned in favour of appointment by Sonia Gandhi? Yet, reams of newsprint have in recent weeks been wasted on analysing why such a thing was allowed to happen in India’s oldest, and once most powerful, political party. Why are we surprised when we have known ever since Sonia entered politics that Congress is Sonia and Sonia is Congress and the only person who might be able to take her place one day is that “great visionary and statesperson, great luminary, incisive thinker, pride of India” Priyanka Vadra. The tragedy is that there may not be much left of the Congress Party to inherit unless Mr Vajpayee really messes things up and even then the Congress may only be able to lead another coalition. Times are, indeed, bad for the Congress but they could change easily if Sonia encourages a few non-sycophants in her party to come and talk to her and if she really listens to what they say. If she did she would hear that no matter how effective her so-called “mass appeal” is, no matter how many polls in how many magazines say that the people of India think of her as the best alternative to Vajpayee, she is a liability as the party’s candidate for Prime Minister. She is a liability not just because she is Italian but because she is an inexperienced, politically ignorant Italian to boot. So, the party ends up with egg in its face no matter what it tries to do. The last session of Parliament may have been brought to a standstill over the Ayodhya issue but few failed to notice that Sonia herself sat silently through the proceedings, clearly unable to find anything to say. This was only the most recent in a long saga of embarrassing situations. Remember all that dithering over President’s rule in Bihar in early 1999, one moment Madame berated the government for not dismissing Rabri and the next moment she was suddenly against President’s rule? Remember all those tea parties with Jayalalitha? Remember then that famous moment when she brought Vajpayee’s last government down to find that she did not have the “272 MPs and many more coming” that she had boasted so proudly of ? Sonia does not know it because nobody dares tell her but there is hardly anyone in her party who thinks of her as a real leader any more. The problem is that when a political party’s very soul has become a sniveling sycophant who is there left who would dare speak the truth? Perhaps the ‘future Hope of Bleeding India’ will one day but it could be too late by then. |
|
Men as victims of violence MEN are prime suspects in most crimes but a closer look at the statistics reveals that men also make up the largest group of victims. Despite this there is little talk in society about men’s experience of violence. “Violence is a male thing and claims male victim,” says Gerd Ferdinand Kirchhoff, professor of law at Technical University of Niederrhein in Moenchengladbach and President of the World Society of Victimology. The BKA in Wiesbaden — Germany’s answer to the FBI — counted 4,20,836 acts of actual bodily harm last year, 66 per cent of which were inflicted on men. There is a taboo about discussing the high victim-rate among men because of the cliches which dictate male behaviour, says sociologist Bastian Finke. Finke runs the “Schwule Ueberfalltelefon’’ (gay attack hotline), in Berlin, where he counsels nearly 300 male victims of violence every year. “Men who talk about their feelings or reveal they are feeling weak are seen by society as “weaklings”,” says Finke. Hans-Joachim Lenz, a sociologist from Eckenhaid, Bavaria, believes: “The concept of a male victim represents a paradox. Either someone is a victim or he is a man.” Men, he continues, are expected to be in control of others and themselves. “Big boys don’t cry” is the standard phrase used to forbid males of all ages from crying and showing their feelings. “But when men become victims, the cultural myths of the ‘strong man’ to which the victims themselves adhere no longer apply,” says Kirchhoff. “They have proved themselves incapable of meeting the male standard.” And it is precisely this feeling that can bring on the shame which is an obstacle to discussing pain they have suffered. Although every man deals with violent experiences differently, very few ever take up the offer of professional help in coming to terms with it. In many respects, they come for consultation “at the last minute,’’ says Peter Giese, who works at the Victim Advice Bureau in Hamburg. “The interesting thing is that men will seek expert advice as a matter of course in many problems — for example when their car goes wrong — but when they have problems themselves, they shy away from seeking competent help.” Giese’s work brings him into contact with this fear. It seems as if men cannot bear to experience their helplessness, but even in these situations — in contrast to women — they feel they have to stay the “on top”. Finke says it is worth asking “whether the concept of trauma counselling is at all relevant to men.” Another problem facing male victims is that the victim-advice centres for men employ more women than men. Although they do their work just as well, the clients often prefer a male to discuss their deeply personal topics with. It appears male helpers find it easier to work with abused young women and male perpetrators than with same-sex victims, says Lenz: “The male counsellors do not want to see these victims because they seek to avoid being seen from their own weak, ‘feminine’
side.”— DPA |
|
Music is the art of the prophets, the only art that can calm the agitation of the soul; it is one of the most magnificent and delightful presents God has given us. Next to theology I give to music the highest place and honour. And we see how David and all the saints have wrought their godly thoughts into verse, rhyme and song. — Martin Luther (1483-1546) ***** Music is well said to be the speech of angels.... It brings us near to the Infinite. — Thomas Carlyle, "The Opera" ***** Take a music-bath once or twice a week for a few seasons, and you will find that it is to the soul what the water-bath is to the body. — Olive Wendell Holmes, sr., Over the Teacups, 5 ***** Music is the language of emothim.... Emotion is connected with thought.... Thought is connected with action.... Action deals with conduct and the sphere of conduct is connected with morals.... If your emotions or feelings were always wisely directed, life would be more free from the disorders which disturb us. The great disorders of our age come not from the possession of emothinal feeling, but from its abuse, its misdirection and the bad use of it.... Music.... not only has the power of expressing emotion, of exciting emotion, but also the power of disciplining, controlling and purifying emotion. When you listen to a great symphony of Beethoven you undergo a process of Divine restraint. Music is an immortal benefactor because it illustrates the law of emotional restraint. — Rev. Dr H.R. Haweis of London, "Music, Emotion and Morals", Paper read at the World's Parliament of Religious, Chicago (1893). ***** In the vat of the body Egoism is the wine, Desire and low carvings Are its companions. The cup of ambition is Abrim with falsehood. And the God of death Is the cup bearer; By drinking this wine, O Nanak, One gathers multiple sins. — Sri Guru Granth Sahib, Var, Bihagra, page 553 |
 |
| Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir | Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs | Nation | Editorial | | Business | Sport | World | Mailbag | In Spotlight | Chandigarh Tribune | Ludhiana Tribune 50 years of Independence | Tercentenary Celebrations | | 120 Years of Trust | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |
