 |
| Sunday,
July 29, 2001, Chandigarh, India   
|
India must expose Musharraf’s doublespeak Learning the limits of diplomacy
Significance of Shelton’s visit to India |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
A whiff of fresh air
Tuitions: pros and cons
Manmohan takes the cake at tea party
Obsessive streak continues
|
India must expose Musharraf’s doublespeak THE Agra Summit has been like a blind ‘date’ for India ending up in a dangerous liaison with Pakistan. Our Prime Minister is now committed to Summit II in Pakistan to continue the process of peace initiated by us despite the war of words launched by General Pervez Musharraf. Amidst Pakistan’s war of words and heightened militancy in Jammu and Kashmir, one wonders at our government’s sagacity in engaging in dialogue with a military dictator, we earlier couldn’t trust. May be we are talking to the wrong man, at the wrong time with the wrong agenda. Yet we have not only spread the red carpet, extending an extraordinary warm welcome to General Musharraf, but we have gone overboard making a series of unilateral declarations and concessions to Pakistan in the run-up for the summit— “No nuclear first use; the unilateral ceasefire in J&K; the invitation to Musharraf to the Agra Summit without pre-conditions; opening of new visa entry points for Pakistan including one in Kashmir; reservations of scholarships for Pak students to our technical institutes’ release of Pak fishermen takes prisoners in Indian waters. Our policy of unilateralism towards Pakistan boggles the political and military minds. While none of the concessions have accrued any peace dividends we are committed to dialogue with Pakistan at their terms and timings. This concept of unilateralism is possibly a corollary to the Gujral Doctrine, or a manifestation of our political hubris of being the largest democracy in the world. Such self-perceptions perhaps conjure exaggerated strengths of our growing economic and military power, generating a feeling of our moral ascendancy over our neighbours, leading to these acts of magnanimity. Pakistan in fact perceives these gestures as our signs of weakness. Not surprisingly, our acts of magnanimity have failed to make any impact on Pakistan. The unilateral ceasefire in Kashmir, boomeranged with heightened militancy, with the Jehadis exploiting the respite to consolidate, reorganise, and indulged in ethnic cleansing with impunity. The surprise invitation to General Musharraf to the Agra Summit provided him a godsent opportunity to emerge from his ‘labyrinth’ to legitimize his position and status in Pakistan by assuming the mantle of President in addition to his army status. Musharraf lapped up all the publicity and hogged the limelight exploiting the Agra Summit to his great advantage. The post-Summit period does not augur well for India to remain engaged with Pakistan, even with our deep desire for peace and amity. The militancy in Kashmir is on the rise, the ‘LoC’ has been activated by unprovoked shelling by Pak troops in a number of areas. The emerging scenario in J&K with Musharraf’s tough talk and hardening stand on Kashmir has a pattern. Musharraf realises that there is no meeting ground on Kashmir between the extreme and divergent stands adopted by the two counties. He doesn’t perceive any tangible results with the bilateral dialogue initiated. Yet his great desire for continued dialogue with India, is to once again seek centre-stage more to promote himself, to consolidate his power in Pakistan, and to legitimise his position and status, in preparation for the national elections scheduled in 2002. In the meantime if he is able to internationalise the Kashmir dispute that would further strengthen his rule. This is time for some introspection to review our Government’s policy towards the continuation of Indo-Pak Summit-level dialogue. We should allow Musharraf to continue his drama for the time being. If the dialogue is frozen for now — and the general has provided us enough reason to do so — all his melodrama will turn into frustration. Let the game of unilateralism be left to Musharraf to revive the peace process, through series of secretarial discussions forcing him to present a proper Agenda within bounds of legality and realpolitik; an agenda acceptable and workable for resuming a meaningful dialogue between the two leaders. Musharraf under pressure might even curb cross-border terrorism, without acknowledging his hold with the Jehadis. Meanwhile, we have to prepare to fight the militants with a firm resolve as the proxy war is likely to escalate this year. The need of the hour it to turn to serious dialogue with the people of Kashmir.
The Hurriyat must be taken off the high horse, and all legitimate parties in Jammu and Kashmir should be involved in intense dialogue. This exercise at this stage is going to require a huge effort, resolve and statesmanship, especially when Kashmiri psyche has been deeply affected by Musharraf’s over blown image of their new ‘Messiah’. We can only turn the people around if we give them some form of self rule within India’s sovereignty. The people of Kashmir through their genuine representatives should be seriously engaged in discussions to work out an accord for granting autonomy to the state. We also need to counter Pakistani propaganda and expose Musharraf’s insincerity and doublespeak on Kashmir with his continued support to cross-border terrorism. India must expose Pakistan’s involvement in such genocide and savagery, to touch the sensitive chords of the civilised world. The plight of the suffering minorities especially lakhs of Kashmir Pandits rendered destitute and homeless, must not remain a forgotten tragedy in history. If General Musharraf is indeed a man of peace, he will agree to moderate the tone and text of the new agenda, with full understanding of India’s secular sensitivities on the Kashmir issue, and of our deep concern for other imperatives linked with nuclearisation of the region. The peace talks can be set on the right track with Pakistan shedding its unifocal Kashmir-centric approach, condemning the brutal violence unleashed by the Jehadis, and creating a conducive environment to give peace a chance. The writer is a retired Lieutenant General and former Deputy Chief of the Army. |
|
Learning the limits of diplomacy THE Agra summit was the first summit in the history of summitry that was covered from minute and hour to hour on the television. No other summit, and there have been many summits which have had profound global impact, has had such a press and TV coverage as the Agra summit. I think it is the vastly exaggerated importance the media gave this summit that contributed in some measure to its failure. It is difficult to say that extent to which the media contributed to its failure. Surely Prannoy Roy’s televising of the meeting General Musharraf had with the Indian journalists on 16th morning became a turning point in the summit proceedings. No summit, however important for participating countries, is televised to the extent that the Agra summit was. There were basically two types of summits: working or exploratory summits and ceremonial summits. There was the exploratory summit meeting between the newly elected President Kennedy and Premier Nikita Khruschchev in Vienna in 1961. It broke up in great bitterness in a few hours and what followed it were the Soviet ultimatum of Berlin in November 1961 and a year later, the terrifying Cuban missile crisis. There are many such exploratory summits, some more successful than others, but basically exploratory in nature. They need not end in a joint statement, or a common declaration. Some time they end only with tease communique, saying both sides noted each other’s point of view. The ceremonial summits get a great deal of media average and of course politicians love them. The summit between President Nixon and President Leonid Brezhnev in Moscow in 1972, which signalled detente between the two, was a ceremonial summit par excellence. Every capital in world knew about its outcome, for it had been preceded by months of negotiations between Soviet and American officials. All that Nixon and Brezhnev did was to exchange the folders containing signed agreements and clink a goblet of champagne. The world press snapped the two traders toasting each other and every one went home happily. The Agra summit was decidedly an exploratory summit, held only to thaw the post-Kargil freeze. It was supposed to be a meeting that would give the Indian and Pakistani leaders a measure of each other, particularly after the war they fought with each other at Kargil. It was a summit to explore, most tentatively, whether there is any agreement, however small, on the Kashmir issue and whether on that measure of agreement something positive can be built upon. It was decidedly not a summit to produce an India-Pak joint statement or a declaration. Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh disclosed at the press conference he held on 17th July in Agra that there was no agenda for the Agra summit. He implied that it was because of this that the summit ended inconclusively. Should a summit level meeting have been held at Agra, so close to Delhi, and before such media glare? Closeness to the capital of a party to the summit exerts great pressure on that party to succeed. And success is measured by a joint statement or common declaration announcing some agreement between the parties to the summit. Otherwise, it is seen as a failure and a failed summit brings domestic advantage to anyone. Vajpayee’s standing in the party and vis-a-vis the Sangh Parivar has suffered as a result of the failed Agra summit. This compulsion to have a joint statement or any paper indicating a measure of agreement between the parties to a summit can seriously upset the course of a summit. P.N. Dhar gives cogent reasons why the Simla summit between Indira Gandhi and Z.A. Bhutto failed to resolve the Kashmir dispute. Dhar says that Indira Gandhi was so eager to have an agreement at Simla that she finally took Bhutto at his word that he would respect the LoC, a verbal understanding on which he went back as soon the international constellation forces turned in his favour: the Arab-Israeli war of 1973 and the successful demonstration of the Arab oil power. It is Indira Gandhi over eagerness to have a joint agreement, as P.N. Dhar with his usual tact says that wooden Pakistan foreign secretary, Aziz, so well exploited. He played the role of a rigid, humourless, overly correct diplomat and it worked. Who would have been more hurt by the absence of an agreement at Simla, IG or Bhutto? IG would have returned to Delhi and the opposition would have ridiculed her and said that she was inept. But Bhutto would have returned home without the 93,000 prisoners of war and territories lost to India. Absence of an agreement at Simla would have convinced him that IG would not give him his PoWs and the territory without a clear recognition of the LoC as an international boundary. At Agra too the television had raised sky high the viewers’ expectations of a joint statement. Every TV channel by Sunday evening and all throughout Monday kept saying that the issuing of a joint statement was only a matter of minutes. The television was a third participant in the summit between Vajpayee and Musharraf, and that affected for worse the course of negotiations between them. What was the need for a round the clock coverage of the summit? It is unheard off, and the media could have been persuaded by the government not to give the summit such publicity. A statement, perhaps two or three times a day, by the Indian and Pakistani high ranking officials informing the public of the broad course of negotiations and the issues discussion would have sufficed. Perhaps, and this is disturbing thought, the government here wanted such high publicity for the summit for domestic reasons. If that was one of its purposes, the Vajpayee government failed. Quiet negotiations between Vajpayee and Musharraf, accompanied by a few politicians and officials and far away from Delhi would have been better than such a heavily televised summit. Perhaps nothing tangible would have come out of such quiet negotiations, except the most important thing; whether our differences can be reconciled by diplomacy. Both would have learned the limits of diplomacy. The writer is a well-known political commentator. |
Significance of Shelton’s visit to India THE dust and din in the aftermath of the Agra summit-level meeting seem almost to have blurred the significance of the visit here of General Henry Shelton, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff. With it, what has apparently been blurred also, in general Indian consideration, is the context of interaction among concerned global powers which are watching developments in South Asia more carefully than some others. These are, primarily, Russia and China. The approach of the US seems particularly interesting. The Bush administration has decisively carried forward the policy-and-attitude that the Clinton administration began moving towards when its term was about to end. Among other things, the Bush administration has more or less — it is still in the process — liberated itself from the old, originally British-inspired mindset which insisted on seeing parity between Pakistan and India. This has of course been clear enough from President Bush's various statements on US relations with South Asia. But it has also been clear from statements of other key figures in his administration, even though there has been understandable emphasis simultaneously on the importance of the US' continuing friendly relationship with Pakistan — including Christina Rocca, US Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia, visiting India. Speaking to pressmen at Washington's Foreign Press Centre prior to her departure for South Asia — specifically to India, Nepal and Pakistan — Rocca indicated that both Washington and New Delhi were engaged in broadening bilateral agenda: "Our natural ties have taken too long to pick up. It started in the previous administration and we want to continue" on that path; this is "not directed at any other country". It is just "a natural evolution of two democracies that have a lot in common". Rocca also emphasized that terrorism in South Asia was of more than ordinary concern to the United States: "We see the entire issue of terrorism and counter-terrorism as an important one in South Asia. We continue to talk to both [Indian and Pakistani] governments about it. We think it is in the interest of Pakistan to work with us as well, and they do." To all this, add the terse and pointed comment of President Bush's National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice, in course of an interview with The Hindu: "India counts." But, clearly, to judge from Rocca's remarks, the US is primarily concerned with its own interests in South Asia. India will itself have to look — independently, shrewdly and determinedly — after its own interests, in and beyond South Asia. General Shelton gave practical shape to Rice's pointed comment when discussing with his Indian interlocutors in Delhi. He did of course indicate revival of US-Indian defence ties. He disclosed that the direction-giving Indo-US Defence Policy Group was expected to meet in December. A decision is, in addition, reported to have been taken to set up a joint Indo-US Centre for Counter-Terrorism. But more significantly, Shelton discussed with his Indian interlocutors the context of the world security situation and, especially, the situation prevailing in Central Asia and West Asia. In South East Asia, too where India has been attending the ASEAN Regional Forum, and where after Pokhran-2 criticism of India continued for some time, a change in attitude is perceptible as New Delhi's engagement with Washington grows. In addition to the security situation in Central and West Asia, there was, inevitably, reference in General Shelton's discussions to the international security framework in the context of Bush's Ballistic Missile Defence plan. India has been candidly positive in its response to the plan. The recent US missile defence test has not changed the Indian attitude. There was apprehension in some quarters that Delhi's positive response to the BMD would risk traditional Indian friendship with Russia. But even the Russian response to the BMD plan, never categorically negative or positive since the plan was revealed, has tended now to become relatively positive. Russia has also modified its stand on Bush's plan to abandon the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. On July 18, in course of a press conference prior to the G-8 meeting, Vladimir Putin notably ignored the US missile test and hardly said anything against the BMD plan — a fact noted with appreciation in New Delhi. He did not repeat his recently uttered threat to redeploy multiple nuclear warheads on Russian missiles if Bush were to go ahead with the BMD. Meanwhile, in Rome, Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov met US Secretary of State Colin Powell recently and among other things stated Moscow's willingness to start a "constructive dialogue" with Washington on strategic issues. Commentators have tended to dovetail this with Putin's reported wish for talks between American and Russian experts on new security threats and ways of meeting them. Recently, it may be recalled, China's President Jiang Zemin visited Russia where he and Putin signed a 20-year Russo-Chinese treaty of "good neighbourliness, friendship and cooperation". Russian officials then maintained that the pact was not aimed against any country. No matter what was said in Moscow during Jiang's visit, Putin at his press conference of July 18 tried decisively to dispel the impression of a joint response with China to the BMD plan and to the American intention of abandoning the 1972 ABM Treaty: a joint response, he said, may be possible "in principle. But in practice we do not plan joint actions with any country, including China. . . . Russia is strong enough to respond on its own to any changes in the sphere of strategic stability." Incidentally, on the day that China's Jiang Zemin arrived in Moscow — which was the Sunday when the Agra summit took off — Beijing's foreign ministry made a curious turn-around. It may be recalled that the Russian leaders once suggested a "strategic triangle" comprising Russia, India and China. Beijing decisively rejected the suggestion then — and in the bargain Chinese leaders were reported to have made some disparaging remarks about India. But on July 15 when the Agra summit meeting began and when Jiang arrived in Moscow, the Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Zhang Qiyue was reported unexpectedly supporting the "strategic triangle" idea. She was reported laying emphasis on "trilateral cooperation", and saying Beijing hoped "to further strengthen cooperation with Russia and India". But, although Jiang and Putin discussed in Moscow the American missile plan and the US intention to abandon the ABM Treaty, there has not been any report of either the Russian or the Chinese side bringing up the subject of a "strategic triangle". So, why did the Chinese foreign ministry make the suggestion — and so curiously-timed? Was some kind of message intended for Musharraf, to some such effect as "thus far and no farther"? Beijing can hardly be expected to give up its widely-remarked instrumentation of Pakistan so quietly and easily — considering its unconcealed aims and ambitions in South Asia! It remains to observe that, even while General Shelton discussed revival of India-US defence and other ties in the world security context, US Secretary of State Colin Powell was expressing disappointment in Washington over the non-success of the Agra summit-level meeting and offering US "good offices" for India and Pakistan to solve their "difficult outstanding differences" on Jammu and Kashmir and nuclear issues. But Rocca was reassuring on arrival in Delhi. She re-stated the US position that it would not mediate unless requested by both countries. In addition to a strategic relationship on security, the Bush administration seems greatly concerned also on establishing a strategic economic relationship with India. The US Trade Representative, who holds a cabinet rank in the Bush administration, Robert Zoellick, met India's Commerce Minister Murasoli Maran in Washington and is due to visit New Delhi in August. He pointed out when he met Maran that the India-US "relationship is one that the President [Bush] thinks is very important for the US.”
(Asia Features) |
A whiff of fresh air TO an occasional visitor in this city, one thing that strikes is the change in lifestyle. This being one of the conservative cities in the country, the change is coming gradually. This writer has been visiting it after every few years — the first time was about 40 years ago and the last few days back. A Tamil family, living in Delhi but with relations in and around Chennai, had arranged the wedding of their daughter here. The occasion was the mehendi ceremony — a South Indian ways of life. Young girls and even middle-aged and elderly ladies enjoyed getting henna applied in beautiful patterns on their palms. Some of them found it a little difficult to take dinner afterwards, some of them seeking help of their husbands while the more practical got mehendi applied to their hands only after having dinner. The dinner itself was a surprise, pure North Indian fare complete with dishes like mushroom-peas, paneer curry with thick gravy, spice-bhindi, dum aloo, pulav, tandoori roti and, of course, ras malai. Most girls wore salwar kameez though elders stuck to silk sarees. Important men among hosts and guests were in kurta suits, designer kinds with long, embroidered kurtas upto the knees. The women danced to the tune of Daler Mehendi, Jasbir Jassi and others played on popular Punjabi cassettes. Incidentally, this writer was the only North Indian present on the occasion. More came from Delhi and beyond two days later, that is, at the wedding reception where a city band played Tamil, Punjabi and English tunes and uttapam vied with masala channa for diners’ attention. There were jalebis with rabri and gulab jamun with ice-cream for the sweet tooth. Despite kurta suits are often seen in post restaurants, fashionable markets and social gatherings. However, men routinely confine to the good old collared shirts and trousers of simple and inexpensive cloth. Salwar-kameez with numerous designs has overtaken choli-skirt that used to be popular with young girls. At homes of the rich and even some middle-income families, jeans and shorts are the in thing. Of course, diamonds are forever and so is silk saree as a proper dress for women. Silk sarees have a greater range in designs and price. Nalli continues to be a place of pilgrimage for women. It is nice of the shop owners to have provided chairs for the escorts who find it difficult to park their cars. Nalli owners have a more spacious seven-storey outlet at some distance. They have also introduced paper bags along with plastic ones to accommodate environment lovers. Despite the changing city life, there is no respite from water problem in the city. The residents find water scarcity a source of tension while visitors consider it scandalous. There are prayers in temples — at least one of them was through music — and brawls in the street for water. There is an endless wait for many for a trickle in the taps, one house I visited in the posh locality of Alwar Pet had not got water for a fortnight. There is also the wait for the “tanker”. The poor see it once in a while in the form of a metro tanker on the roadside after hours of wait. Rich residents, of course, order for private tankers costing Rs 600 to 800 per 10,000 litres of water, which lasts them for a week or so. The private tanker that bring water from borewells in the vicinity of the city are doing a roaring business. Successive governments have thought of improving roads and building fly-overs. Business houses have come up with skyscrapers and beach resorts but little has been done to solve the water problem. Could there not be more borewells and better processing of water, even desalinization on a massive scale with funds sourced from national or international agencies? Any government, which does this, may earn the gratitude of the city population. And after this, it may give a thought to improving sanitation and other environmental aspects of Marina Beach, the longest but the dirtiest beach in the country. The Chennai railway station is cleaner and more spacious. It no longer stinks of fish nor has it any slush any longer around it. It can accommodate many more trains without overbridges and there is more parking space outside. Today there are more flyovers, better roads though road users have got more indisciplined and autorickshaw and taxi drivers have learnt to take you for a ride like elsewhere. Shopping has become easier. There is an efficient chain of Food World outlets in many areas. These outlets have a variety of fruit stalls where Banganpali mangoes American apples and Australian juices are available. Its outlet in Spencer Plaza is a treat to shoppers even though only three of the seven floors have been occupied by shops. New residential areas have come up and so have commercial complexes, all in modern and utilitarian architecture. The hoardings are increasing in number and size but are getting more attractive with pleasant female faces. Fast food is coming in competition with the traditional delicacies. Modernism co-exists with traditionalism. |
Tuitions: pros and cons NO doubt extra-coaching may be a necessity for some students to get suitably placed in the highly competitive professional market. But it also is no secret that tuition by and large today stands commercialised. More than guiding the young minds to excel academically and get high positions in professional institutions, it has become a source of minting underserved money. Herding 50-60 students in a small dingy and semi-lighted room and distributing photostat sheets at the end of ‘teaching’ is what tuitions have been reduced to. It is neither an extra sincere effort by such teachers nor would it be possible for them to pay personal attention and satisfy the academic needs of the students. Instead the lure of extra money rather inspires such teachers to add more numbers in a group and form more such groups. A teacher taking two or three groups of tuitions in the morning would feel mentally and physically exhausted and compelled not to do justice to his school or college teaching, particularly when he has another three to four groups to dispose of in the evening. Parents too are to blame in this mad race because it is they who compel a teacher to add their ward in an already unmanageable group of 40 to 50 students. No doubt taking tuitions may be a genuine need of some students in the highly competitive professional market. But this needs also to be sifted from the unethical practices being indulged in by many in the trade.
Ved Guliani, II Tuition is not a fashion. Instead it is a compulsion. The CBSE – as also state education boards – has overloaded children with heavy bags. Teachers enter classes without doing their home work. They lack Goethe’s book culture. Tagore says: “We cannot teach a student anything unless we ourselves first remain students. One lamp cannot light another lamp unless its own wick is burning”. Tired of their apathy and pressured by the unwieldy syllabi, students are left with no alternative but to take to tuitions. Many parents cut their needs to find money for tutorial classes. The tuition traders now want total fee for the whole session in one go – a new malady in academies. S. S. Jain, Chandigarh III I have read in detail both articles – one by Bhim S. Dahiya in favour of “private tuitions” and the other by Anuradha Gupta as “counterpoint” (The Sunday Tribune, July 8 and July 15). The arguments advanced by Anuradha Gupta against private tuitions clearly and decisively outweigh the plea made out in favour of it by Mr Dahiya. Her reasoning sounds very convincing when she says: “As per the UGC laid down code of conduct for teachers, it is mandatory for them to make themselves available to the students even beyond class hours and help and guide students without any remuneration or reward. In view of this, the justification offered by Mr Dahiya in support of teachers giving private tuitions on the ground – that this only entails extra earning by teacher’s own hard work and additional effort – does not hold good. Anuradha Gupta has also rightly highlighted: “Under the service rules, the teachers cannot undertake both public employment and private trade (tuition business). In the light of this, even if the best teachers, the best students and the best persons (parents?) are involved in this activity of private tuitions (as is maintained by Mr Dahiya), it cannot lend legitimacy to this activity and render phenomenon of private teaching a morally and ethically right act. On the very face of it, the contention of Mr Dahiya that “those who do tuition work are those very teachers who not only do teaching in their duty hours but also do it better than others” is far fetched and looks like a tall claim that has been rightly challenged by Anuradha Gupta. I am glad that Mr Dahiya admits the fact that those students not in a position to pay “extra” for the extra teaching remain deprived of the benefit. Now I ask Mr Dahiya, who is going to take care of these unlucky poor students? Anuradha Gupta has done well to remind the community of teachers concerned that teaching is a mission and not commerce – business of private tuitions will hardly leave with them any energy for regular teaching and for helping weak students after class hours. Private tuitions prompted by love and lucre is a menace that must be stopped. Onkar Chopra,
Ludhiana |
New Nepal PM marks change of generation THE election of Sher Bahadur Deuba as Prime Minister of Nepal marks the change of generation in troubled Nepal. Having actively participated in the “restore multi-party democracy movement” and known to be flexible and accommodating towards others, Deuba is barely 55. The 11-year-old democracy under a constitutional monarchy has been most unstable in the Himalayan kingdom and governments have come and gone, as if, by the drop of a hat. Deoba is the ninth Prime Minister and this is his second term in the high office. The late King Birendra had drafted him to head a shaky coalition in 1995 and he then took oath as the fourth Prime Minister. Barely 49, he was called by his colleagues “an impatient young man”. He could not sleep the whole night before he was to take oath. Earlier, he had a four-year stint, from 1991 to 1994, as the Home Minister and proved to be dynamic and effective in his actions. Deuba’s first declaration as the coalition Prime Minister was a promise to maintain equal relationships with both China and India, usher in liberal economic policies and set in motion a programme for safeguarding human rights. His fragile coalition lasted only for eighteen months and voted out in a no-confidence motion following “let down” by two of his colleagues who did not turn up at the time of voting. The two colleagues had, apparently, developed difference with him on certain matters. Deuba has gone through the rough and tumble of politics from an early age. During years of his struggle, spread over a decade, he was imprisoned several times for his belief which included onslaught on the institution of monarchy and the demand for the restoration of democracy in Nepal. He was in the forefront of the popular movement for democracy and lobbied for the objective in western countries. Deuba’s first act after taking over the Prime Minister’s office for the second time was his unilateral announcement crying halt to anti-insurgency operations by government forces and its immediate response by underground Maoist chief, Pushpakamal Dahal, popularly known as “Prachand” ( terrible). His call to guerrillas to suspend all armed operations was heartening indeed. On their part, Maoist insurgents promised to cease all pre-scheduled operations against personnel in “khaki”. Shortly before Deuba’s peace initiative Maoists had shot dead, at least, 17 policemen and grievously wounded five others. Observers say had former Prime Minister Koirala taken such an initiative, the rebels would have ignored it . Deuba had over the years maintained his contacts with the Maoists and many of them are his personal friends. Deuba is known to have a soft corner for China and he had visited that country twice, the first time when he was the Prime Minister and the second time in September, 1999, when he was only a leader of the Nepali Congress. In an interview to the People’s Review after the second visit he stated: “I have found that China has very respectful attitude towards Nepal. China is a good and helpful friend. Many Chinese are interested in investing in Nepal and the sectors they are interested include agriculture, industry and even hydro-power”. Asked if China was suspicious that Nepal may create security problem for China, he replied that Nepal had already accepted Tibet and Taiwan as parts of China and “I have assured the Chinese leaders that there will be no anti-China activity from Nepalese soil. That is what they want”. Shrewd, as he is, Deuba knows that relations with India are equally important for Nepal. It was, possibly, at his behest that Maoists have expressed the desire to have a dialogue with New Delhi whom till recently they dubbed as “South Asia’s big bully”. The rebels, having influence in 50 of 75 districts, claim that they represent the people of Nepal and want India to hold talks with them. Their other demand is that India should stop helping what they call “fascist and corrupt elements in Nepal”. Deuba’s success will depend on how best he reins in the Maoists and improves ties with India. |
Manmohan takes the cake at tea party IT
was a tea party that was supposed to stir up the Opposition. Instead, it left the principal Opposition party stirred. In an initiative to bring the Opposition together to adopt a coordinated approach in Parliament the Congress President, Mrs Sonia Gandhi, organised a tea party last week. It was also decided that Dr Manmohan Singh would coordinate with the Opposition members in the Rajya Sabha and that too by inviting them for a separate tea party. There was plenty to cheer in Dr Manmohan Singh’s cuppa as several Opposition members joined him for tea and discussed a coordinated approach on the floor of the House. Mrs Sonia Gandhi’s cup was full of woes as there were few takers for her
invitation. Barring the members of the AIADMK and the Rashtriya Janata Dal, there were not many to lend her support. The reason for the contrasting response to the invitations of two different leaders from the same party, according to observers, had probably something to do with their individual style of functioning. While Mrs Gandhi left the job of inviting the
Opposition members to her deputy in the Lok Sabha, Mr Madhav Rao Scindia, the leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha personally rang up his colleagues in the House to invite them for the tea party. In doing so, Dr Manmohan Singh was not doing anything out of the way. Callers at his residence are often surprised as it is the former Finance Minister who himself attends to the telephone calls. There are also those who are reading political meaning into the Left’s presence at one tea party and absence at another. “The Third Front has sent signals about lack of Mrs Gandhi’s acceptability as future prime minister,” said an observer. Phoolan politics The sensational killing of reformed bandit queen, Phoolan Devi, left her Parliament colleagues stunned but not for long. The immediate reaction among the members was that if it could happen to the Samajwadi Party MP then it could happen to anybody. Her party colleagues including party General Secretary Amar Singh immediately rushed to her residence soon after news of her killing spread. Amar Singh, however, could not resist making political capital from the tragedy. He promptly returned to Parliament and headed straight for a group of mediapersons who had assembled outside the main gate. He denounced the State BJP Government, the Vajpayee Government at the Centre and raised the issue of Phoolan Devi belonging to the most backward class, the trump card of the UP Chief Minister Rajnath Singh. When a scribe asked if the Thakurs could be behind the killing as a revenge for the Behamai massacre, Mr Amar Singh, who is also a Thakur: “retorted don’t blame the poor Thakurs”. The Behamai incident occurred several years ago and there was no reason for anybody to kill her now. It was a political murder, he maintained. However, when the alleged killer was finally caught and he confessed that he had avenged the Behamai massacre, Amar Singh was found fumbling for words. Kheer, Khichri and Kashmir Long after the Agra summit, details of the interaction between the two leaders continues to come in. It appears some sort of personal chemistry was struck between Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee and Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf during their first round of one-to-one talks at Jaypee Palace Hotel in Agra on July 15. Consider this. Immediately after the first round, the two leaders proceeded for a working lunch in company of their respective official delegates. As the lunch was being laid out, Musharraf stumped Vajpayee with an unexpected question. He said he had heard that the Prime Minister was a good cook. Vajpayee laughed off the query. When the Chief Executive persisted with his question Union Home Minister L.K. Advani intervened and told the General that his information was correct. In fact, the bio-data of Vajpayee circulated by the Press Information Bureau (PIB) does mention about the cookery skills of Vajpayee and also names two dishes he relishes most: kheer and khichri. Musharraf then asked Vajpayee which dish he enjoyed preparing. “Kheer”, was the prompt answer from the Prime Minister. This bonhomie proved to be shortlived. The Agra summit could hardly be remembered for kheer or khichri. The summit had been hijacked by the third “K” : Kashmir. Kashmir for fodder After the Agra summit turned the spotlight on the All Party Hurriyat Conference (APHC), the Hurriyat leaders are narrating a story to suggest a solution to the Kashmir problem. A man wanted to score a point over his smart servant. He handed a ten rupee note to his servant and asked him to get something which he could eat, his son could drink and their cow could feast on. The servant was far too intelligent than his master had thought him to be. He brought home a watermelon which was food and drink for his master and son and whose leftover was a feast for the cow. The moral of the story from the Hurriyat point of view: the Kashmir issue should be addressed as the servant responded to his master’s command. But who is the cow in this simile ? Amma Loyalist Tamil Nadu politicians are unable to get out of their regional leanings and this often leads to hilarious moments in Parliament. The other day the AIADMK’s newly elected member in the Rajya Sabha, Mr P.C. Narayanan, was to speak on the motion on President’s rule in Manipur. Instead, he digressed from the topic and preferred to express his loyalty to his party Chief and Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J. Jayalalitha. Even as the Speaker repeatedly asked Narayanan to speak on the subject of debate, he went on saying that he would remain loyal to Jayalalitha throughout his life for giving an opportunity to become member of the House and tried to raise the issue concerning the arrest of former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M Karunanidhi and hailed Amma. As the Speaker ordered expunging of the statements made by him relating to Karunanidhi’s arrest , a senior member of the House commented “you (Narayanan) have made your maiden speech into madam speech.” Contributed by T.V. Lakshminarayan, Rajeev Sharma, Prashant Sood and S.
Satyanarayanan. |
Obsessive streak continues OUR obsessive streak continues — this time it revolves around the murder of former bandit queen turned member of Parliament, Phoolan Devi. And this obsession is going to last for some weeks to come because of the political twists involved — for political reasons Samajwadi Party is working on a particular theory whereas BJP stalwarts are keen to project a different story altogether and needless to add each set would be using the official bandobasts at their disposal to highlight their version(s). So for days to come we will be hearing the so many confusing voices. And though legal experts point out that it is absolutely unethical for suspects to come out with statements while in police custody but the prime suspect in this murder — Sher Singh Rana alias Pankaj — is being made to come out with statements whilst still in police custody. Why don’t the legal bodies make a hue and cry of this practice? Surprisingly the only explanation they offer is that these statements are of no consequence as the suspect can give a fresh statement in court. Naively bypassing the reality — by then the suspect’s mental and physical balance will be dented by police inputs. And going by reports in certain sections of the media that Phoolan’s marriage was on the brink of breaking up (no, no great shocker ... I suppose it was following a pattern — going down like the great majority of the Indian marriages) there could be a third theory coming up too. But even here there could be camouflages as there is a strong rumour that her husband, Umed Singh, is keen to join active politics. He is the one who bypassed her mother’s wish for the cremation to be held in New Delhi and instead supported the Samajwadi Party leaders’ decision to take Phoolan’s body to Mirzapur and now he would be used in the coming UP elections. So while this great murder mystery gets solved lets sit back and take note of the jarring political notes coming from Uttar Pradesh, Uttaranchal and New
Delhi. The only uncamouflaged comments are the ones coming from the villagers of Bemai — they are coming up with apolitical comments on her murder, saying it all in an unaffected way and not like these politicians here, who are determined to put her on a pedestal. In fact, I was taken aback when one of the women activists said “See the way Phoolan had changed her forbearance, a bandit queen going through a bad marriage!” I have this vague suspicion that overnight we could make her into a semi goddess. Such is the level of hypocrisy. To be honest whenever I return (after visiting some other part of the country — this time it was Srinagar) I take time to adjust to the hypocrisies around here, in this capital city. And the one aspect that keeps bothering me and which I’m keen to offload is this — why is it that after so many years of our independence we haven’t been able to come up with a feeling/sense of nationalism — if Orissa is getting affected by floods or the North-East by a series of protests or another wing of the country by a sense of insecurity then why don’t we stand up and reach out. The fault could lie with the divisive political forces at work. Or is there something amiss with the very education system? Instead of making linkages it seems to be de-linking us from each other. I think in one of my previous columns I had mentioned that SAHMAT has organized a three day meet (to be held this coming weekend at the Constitution Club of India), with experts coming from all over the country to talk on the education pattern of today or what it lies reduced to etc. The other reality is that though there are people who want to talk about the various states or about the worrying developments in those regions but they end up talking to each other. In fact this coming fortnight there will be several discussions on the different aspects and the happenings around — Professor Sujata Miri from the North Eastern Hill University will be giving a talk on the ‘tribal views ‘and then several experts will be discussing “Pathan contribution to the Indian Freedom Struggle” and another high powered body will be talking on female foeticide. But, then, what can be termed unfortunate (alas, accompanied by a deep sigh!) is the fact that all these talks and discussions will be held in the air-conditioned environs of India International Centre, where you’d talk and I’d listen and then discuss those details with each other over the next few days... The masses are left to see the Bollywood people on big screen and the politicians and their foreign guests on those not- so-big ones. |
 |
| 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 | | 121 Years of Trust | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |
He replaces 76-year-old Girija Prasad Koirala who belongs to the outgoing generation and has been blamed for a series of lapses, the latest being the massacre of security personnel by Maoist rebels. What finally appears to have brought his downfall was his government’s failure to provide protection to the royal family which resulted in the gruesome killings of King Birendra, Queen Aishwarya and others.