 |
Monday,
February 4, 2002, Chandigarh, India  
|
Bid to
exploit SYL verdict Mandir not on BJP
radar |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Dithering
on deterrence
From
Operation Trident to Operation Parakram
SYL
canal: Supreme Court acts beyond jurisdiction
Daily
chores more difficult for elderly diabetic women
1992, Literature: DEREK WALCOTT
|
Bid to exploit SYL verdict THE Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) election manifesto released on Saturday shows that the party has acquired fresh vigour to challenge the Opposition, trying to cash in on the anti-incumbency factor. Most of the promises made have nothing new in them. The fresh strength to the SAD has been provided by the January 15 Supreme Court ruling on the SYL canal issue. It is an emotional matter involving Punjab and Haryana, and SAD chief Parkash Singh Badal knows more than anybody else how to make political capital out of it. Hence his assertion that he is prepared to defy the order of the highest court of the land. He is trying to convey the message that he can make any sacrifice for safeguarding the interests of Punjab, even commit the offence of contempt of court. The court can only send him to jail; it "cannot kill" him, as he points out. Even if that happens, perhaps Mr Badal thinks it will only help him in projecting himself as a benefactor of Punjab and Punjabis who is different from the others in the political arena. It is not without reason why he has declared through the manifesto that the SAD represents the aspirations of all sections of the population, and not only of the Sikhs as believed earlier. Whatever his tactics, his stand on the SYL issue reflects his desperation. His simultaneous declaration that a review petition can also be filed indicates that his hardline approach is basically meant for election purposes. What he will ultimately do will be known only after the Assembly elections are over. But one thing is certain: in the process of exploiting the SYL canal verdict for political gains he has not only put the SAD ally, the BJP, in an awkward position but also provided the Opposition with more effective ammunition to upset the applecart of the ruling alliance. The Congress-led front, which has acquired an edge over the SAD-BJP alliance, can now tell the electorate that its slogan, "Freedom from corruption and freedom from bankruptcy", has become more meaningful. One indulges in corruption when one has no respect for the law of the land. Nothing can justify a political organisation's refusal to respect the apex court's ruling. The most honourable method of dealing with the situation created by the judgement is to approach the Supreme Court with a review petition, as promised by Mr Badal earlier. This stand finds mention in the Congress manifesto quite clearly, but the SAD and the BJP talk of it through their manifestos in a muted tone. It seems the SAD chief has decided to change his party's approach thinking that this single issue is enough to turn the tables on the Opposition, particularly the Congress. That is why the party manifesto is silent on the Anandpur Sahib Resolution, though it does mention the issue of greater autonomy for the states. The SAD also perhaps realises the futility of providing any sop to the voters like the one it did in 1997 — free power supply to farmers. This time it is content with saying that there will be no hike in the power tariff for five years in the case of domestic consumers, etc. But can the SAD make the voters forget how careless the coalition government has been in managing the state's finances, showing indifference to the common man's problems, including the disappearing job opportunities? Emotive issues do help at an election time. But at this stage it is difficult to believe that the Punjab voters' decision will be influenced by such factors. |
|
Mandir not on BJP radar THE Ram Mandir issue was the BJP’s mascot in the 1997 election in UP; it is proving to be an
albatross around its neck this year. It is one of the party’s dilemmas as it seeks a mandate in the most crucial state in the country. The Sangh Parivar, this time led by the aggressive Vishva Hindu Parishad and sants and sadhus, wants to start building a magnificent structure from March 12, Mahashivratri Day. The RSS is fully behind this idea. But the political arm, the BJP, has its extreme limitations. It is leading an alliance government at the Centre, and its partners are noisily secular and do not want to get coloured as communal. They can do or undo the alliance and thus hold the trump card and right now do not want a grand temple which will alienate the minority Muslim community and the majority Hindu secular feelings. Hence the strange spectacle of the VHP organising a Sant Chetavani Yatra from Ayodhya to New Delhi last week and spitting fire at a public meeting and the Prime Minister openly rejecting the demand. Thus the BJP has it both ways. Its one face is secular — that as a governing party — and another is the VHP-linked Sangh Parivar member. It can thus ride the NDA bandwagon and also keep its seat in the Parivar warm for the day when it loses power. All this comes out clearly in the election manifesto released by the UP unit of the party. The 32-page document devoted just five lines to the mandir issue and in a noncommittal manner to the issue. But it spends much time and energy on attacking the Samajwadi Party and the Congress on this issue. It wants to trap the two parties on their old stand that they would rebuild the Babri Masjid at the demolished site. It is a loaded question and will hurt either way. It is also a clear indication of the basic problem the BJP faces in opinion polls in UP. What is remarkable is that the BJP is soft, very soft, on the BSP led by Ms Mayawati and her party in its manifesto. Does it hope for a secret understanding? With the Congress spitting venom on the Samajwadi Party and the BJP and the BSP coming together, Uttar Pradesh may throw up a new political game. |
Dithering on deterrence OVER a decade of insurgency and years of cross-border terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir and other places in India reached an unacceptable point on December 13, 2001 with the attack on the Indian Parliament complex. India’s cup of patience overflowed, and the government felt that enough was enough. It called for some strong action as mere rhetoric, such as, “hot pursuit”, “zero tolerance”, etc, had simply failed to produce results. After all, if America could hunt out the Al-Qaeda cadres and liquidate the Taliban, then why could India not do something similar, though on a smaller scale. But there were obvious faultlines in this course of action. Nevertheless, we went ahead with a series of actions at the diplomatic level. The Samjhauta Express and the Lahore-Delhi bus service were terminated. Restrictions were placed on visa facilities. The staff at the Indian High Commission in Pakistan was reduced and the High Commissioner recalled, and Pakistan was told to do likewise. Some barriers on trade between the two countries were raised. We pleaded with America to put pressure on Pakistan to terminate cross-border terrorism. Later, leaders from various political parties were despatched to different capitals to apprise them of Pakistan’s direct involvement in cross-border terrorism. To further pressurise Pakistan, India mobilised its armed forces, moved troops even from the North-East and deployed the offensive formations as well. It was all part of coercive diplomacy and a plan to throw up clear signals that India has the will and the resolve to apply the full potential of its military power to dissuade Pakistan from continuing with cross-border terrorism. This message could not have got across effectively if we had initiated diplomatic steps alone and relied on the USA to put pressure on Pakistan, or merely committed the defensive formations. The aim obviously was to deploy the unfettered power of the Indian war machine, in its full range and scope, to bring into play the complete deterrence potential. All this had to be backed by an unmistakable and demonstrative resolve of the Indian political leadership that it was serious about mounting an offensive in the event Pakistan failed to mend its ways. Unless India convinced Pakistan that it was determined to tighten the screws, the exercise of mobilising troops and bringing offensive formations in their concentration areas was futile. The military build-up did seem to create the desired effect, and discernible signals of course correction from Pakistan were in the air. Then the Indian Communications Minister and BJP spokesperson informed the international community, the visiting British Prime Minister, Mr Tony Blair, and the nation that the Indian deployment was “two hundred per cent defensive”. Mr Mahajan’s message unhesitatingly neutralised the coercive and deterrent value of the forward concentration of the country’s strike formations by exposing the Indian defensive mindset and the inability to appear firm. It, in fact, attempted to placate Pakistan and tell the British Prime Minister that the Indian deployment was purely defensive in character and that it had to take these steps due to its fears of an attack from the enemy. So that is Mr Mahajan’s and, in fact, India’s concept of deterrence. Instead of Pakistan calling India’s bluff, this country seems to have done it itself. Then came the famous speech of January 12 by General Musharraf, essentially for the benefit of the USA and some other western countries. He appeared set to chart a new course, away from fundamentalism, jehadi culture and the climate of violence in Pakistan. It had in the past nurtured the Taliban, who in turn provided a favourable environment for the growth and spread of Al-Qaeda. So, yet another U-turn by General Musharraf, this time within Pakistan, away from religious fundamentalism and terrorism, was music to the US ears. Jehadi culture being bred in Pakistan could, directly or indirectly, reach the far off shores of America, so any move to arrest and eliminate this climate of terrorism was in the US interest. The speech was welcomed in India too, though it had very little to offer in specific terms. Mr Mahajan’s assertions that Indian troop deployment was “two hundred per cent defensive” must have had some bearing on General Musharraf’s speech as it pertained to issue effecting India. Thus Pakistan’s moral, political and diplomatic support to the “freedom struggle in Kashmir” was to continue. Yet there was hope that Pakistan would put an end to cross-border terrorism. We had to only wait for the results on the ground. Mr Selig Harrison, Director of National Project at the Centre for International Policy in Washington, considered extremely influential among the think-tanks, is sceptical about General Musharraf putting an end to infiltration in J and K. He is of the opinion that General Musharraf has attempted to put up a smoke-screen of action with respect to Kashmir by talking of a crackdown on indigenous groups within Pakistan. Indian Service chiefs in a recent deposition before a parliamentary committee have stated that there is no decrease in infiltration into J and K. The data related to terrorist activity along the LoC is quite disturbing. For the month of January during the years 2000, 2001 and 2002 incidents on the border numbered 16, 153 and 412 (till January 23). RDX seizures were 14kg, 159kg, 225kg and AK-47 figures for the same month being 86, 74 and 112. Infiltration will continue because we thoughtlessly dithered on deterrence. Two more events of significance took place. One, when the Chief of Army Staff conveyed to Pakistan through a Press conference India’s unequivocal and firm position on the nuclear issue, etc, the Defence Minister decided to publicly denigrate him. Second, the government in its infinite wisdom sacked the commander of the more potent offensive corps, allegedly at the behest of the US Secretary of State, Gen Colin Powell. The corps commander had allegedly carried out movements, though within own territory, but close to the border. Pakistan appeared to have protested to America against forward movements of Indian troops. The sacking of the GoC, 2 Corps, is being linked to this chain of events. The government utterly failed to come clear on this issue and, therefore, the rumour mill did roaring business. The recent statement by the Defence Minister, as part of damage control exercise, that the move of the GoC 2 Corps, is a normal posting has come a bit too late, and does not seem to wash. In any case, the damage has already been done. Together, these two incidents pointed to serious faultlines in the politico-military set-up in the country. Strike formations are held well back and there is no possibility of their moving close to the border unless they are actually on their way to mounting an offensive, consequent to the start of a war. So, the story of the elements of this corps moving too close to the border simply does not jell. If some movement had taken place in the rear, for whatever reason, the act of sacking the corps commander, besides its debilitating effect on the morale of the army, amounts to an apology to Pakistan for the mistake of an erring corps commander. These two events — the denigration of the Army Chief and sacking of the GoC, 2 Corps — have sent out wrong signals to Pakistan on our ability to deter it from cross-border terrorism. Clausewitz’s dictum that “Surprise is the most powerful element of victory” is all the more relevant to the Indian setting, where operations would be launched under conditions of parity. Consequently, Indian success in any future war will greatly depend on the surprise it is able to achieve. Surprise is easier achieved at the tactical level than at the strategic plane. Surprise at the strategic level will be contigent on the secrecy of the place and timings of the employment of our strike formations. In a war situation, Pakistan’s C-in-C would give his right arm to know which strike formations of the Indian Army would be launched where. Pakistan’s C-in-C need not put himself to such great trouble. The Indian Press will tell him all. It tells us that X strike corps from Y station has been moved to Z location to be employed in A sector and much more. The whole scheme of defence reporting has been turned on its head. Young and raw journalists have been let loose and are constantly snapping at the heals of the Army with little or no idea as to what is defence news and what could mean a breach of security. The ban on their movements in the border districts has not come too soon, as some damage has already been done. But their compatriots continue to do their bit from the rear. Sensationalism is not good reporting on defence matters. A TV programme anchor, reporting on the Kargil war, tells us ad nauseam that she is “reporting from the bunker”, little knowing that a war cannot be reported from inside a bunker. If the aim of this expensive exercise (besides turning a few million people into refugees) of mobilisation of the military was, ostensibly, to put pressure on Pakistan and deter it from undertaking cross-border terrorism, then that purpose stands defeated on our own accord. First by Mr Mahajan’s assertions of our adopting purely defensive posture; second by chiding the Army Chief and then, finally, by the sacking of a corps commander. We can now fight the “war of lists” of wanted persons by each country and learn to live with cross-border terrorism. This means we will continue to bleed. We lacked resources, but more vision and the will to create a powerful military which could have put the fear of Allah into Pakistan and to make it desist from continuing with the proxy war against India. The other possibility was to have looked afresh at the Indus Water Treaty, as suggested in these columns on August 22, 1998. The commencement of work on the tunnel to divert the waters of the Chenab itself was enough to bring Pakistan on the right track. Finally, we seem to depend more and more on America to put pressure on Pakistan to stop cross-border terrorism. While India will have to fight its own battle, America will directly or indirectly get increasingly involved with the Kashmir problem. It already wants the FBI to investigate the shoot-out at the American Information Centre at Kolkata. While the Indian government agreed to this proposal, it was the firm stand by the West Bengal government which stopped this transgression of the Indian sovereignty. The writer, a retired Lieut-General, was a Deputy Chief of Army Staff. |
From Operation Trident to Operation Parakram HOW political tension leading to military mobilisation is a recurring phenomenon in Indo-Pak relations. In 1952, while Liaqat Ali showed his proverbial “mailed-fist”, the small army hurried to the border. The year 1984 saw most of us dash off to Punjab and remained there until the police was rejuvenated. Umpteen alarms and the Army is mobilised umpteen times. The Army is back to the border this time as a response to the serious Pak-promoted terrorism which hit the Parliament House in Delhi on December 13. One is not certain if the present mobilisation for war codenamed Operation Parakram or Sangram is fairly symbolic of both valour (Parakaram) and war (Sangram), but it is nonetheless, a courageous posture for heightened belligerency from Pakistan. This very situation, I recall, had brought us from the North-East to the West in Punjab and Rajasthan in 1987 as part of Operation Trident. While today it is the Pak-promoted terrorism, it was Brass Tack, a brainchild of late General Sunderji, the then Army Chief, that set the ball rolling. General Sunderji, decidedly a strategist, who, if death and circumstances of the sub-continent had not cut short his life, would have rubbed shoulders with BH Liddel Hart, if not with Napoleon. In 1986, he had concentrated all the Army’s peace time formations and a large part of the Air Force in the southern part of the Rajasthan desert, almost 200 km west of the border. The exercise setting aimed at testing the doctrine of mechanised warfare at the largest scale, under both nuclear and conventional threats. Pakistan, then under General Zia-ul-Haq began to create a bigger rumpus as it was assumed by the Pakistani ISI that the exercise might well turn into an offensive into Pakistan, by just changing axis of “advance” into “attack”. This assessment drew its historic inspiration from what the Egyptians-Syrians did during the 1973 Yom-Kippur War in which they lulled the Israelis on the Bar — Lev Line defences into believing that all that was happening was a “manoeuvre” and not concentration for war. This brought the Pakistan Army on to the border while Zia threatened to teach New Delhi a lesson. With the American and Chinese on his side in the ongoing proxy war against the Russian invasion of Afghanistan from 1979, General Zia’s threat was no rhetoric. As principal operational staff officer of 3 Corps, I was moved to the Army Headquarters, New Delhi, with Gugi Vohra, the Corps Commander. We were hastily briefed by a very stiff VR Raghavan, then Deputy Director at DMO’s office. Before one said “Jack Robinson”, we were told to move to Chandimandir to be briefed by Lieut-General PN Hoon, the Army Commander, under whom we would be launched into Indian Army’s occasional but favourite hunting grounds in Pakistan. Formations after formations built up, some by air, others by military special on red hot priority; plans were made, vetoed and modified. However, Punjab was gradually returning to the older times when the whole village would run after an army jeep to insist on its occupants drinking a glass of
mattha or eat a quick serving of makki di roti and sarson da
saag. Politics took its turn. The two belligerents grew wary of too many troops on the border. Zia was a pastmaster of histrionics. In an apparent masterstroke of statesmanship, he declared: “We go back, but do follow at our heel — go back to your side.” Rajiv Gandhi reciprocated. Soon terrorism in Punjab eased off and we of 3 Corps were on our way back. Zia scored a coup de grace by inviting himself to an Indo-Pak cricket match. After the match, where Rajiv and Sonia had joined, he was heard saying: “I had told you at the funeral of Indiraji that you can trust me. There will be no war.” “Only cricket”, chuckled Rajiv, who needed some tension — free moments. And what happened to General Sunderji’s dream manoeuvre — Ex Brass Tack? It was drastically scaled down much to his chagrin. But soon he would commit the Indian Army in a bizarre peacekeeping operation in neighbouring Sri Lanka. If history is a teacher and intuition still has a place in human affairs, my hunch is that Operation Parakram, despite all the drum beatings by Generals Musharraf and Padmanabhan should — and would — end up as an Indo-Pak cricket match with Benazir and Atalji as umpires! Then perhaps there may be a beating the retreat in the Red Fort, followed by a dinner in the Army Battle Honours Mess at SP
Marg. |
SYL canal: Supreme Court acts beyond jurisdiction POLITICAL histrionics over the SYL canal case reached a desperately feverish pitch last week. Releasing the party’s manifesto for the coming Assembly elections, Punjab Chief Minister and Shiromani Akali Dal president Parkash Singh Badal not only threatened contempt of court but actually committed it at Chandigarh on February 2. “If need be,” he said, as reported by The Hindustan Times, “we would defy the apex court’s order on construction of the SYL canal to ensure that not a drop of water flows out of the state”. Whether the rhetoric survives the election remains to be seen but it could not have been clearer for the moment. They would be filing a review petition before the Supreme Court, said the Chief Minister, but would defy the court’s directions if the same was rejected. Heads I win, tails you lose. “We will not go a step forward on the construction of the canal,” he added, and are prepared to go to jail for contempt of court. Rarely has a Chief Minister spoken so bravely, and with such complete irresponsibility. Given the severe limitations on the review jurisdiction — “A plea for review,” ruled the inimitable Justice Krishna Iyer in 1980, in the Northern India Caterers case, “unless the first judicial view is manifestly distorted, is like asking for the moon” — Punjab’s laboured emphasis on filing a review petition is more a declaration of intent than a promise of performance. But whatever whit of a chance the state had by way of review was destroyed by the Chief Minister on February 2. Can the Supreme Court now review its judgement without giving the impression that it has yielded to Punjab’s pressure? Apart from other things, its anxiety to dispel such an impression is likely to ensure that the review petition is dismissed out of hand. Regardless of whether judges admit it or not, the psychology of the judicial process is a major determinant of its ultimate outcome. The Chief Minister’s reaction to the judgement is, therefore, as ill-advised as the Supreme Court’s assumption of a jurisdiction which does not belong to it. An assumption of jurisdiction which cannot be legitimised merely because a political leader, caught on the wrong foot on the eve of election, regards defiance of the judgement resulting
there from an indispensable part of his election manifesto. “Controversies between the states,” ruled another federal apex court, the Supreme Court of the United States, in 1906 in one of its earliest and most authoritative opinions on the subject, “are becoming frequent, and, in the rapidly changing conditions of life and business, are likely to become still more so. Involving, as they do, the rights of political communities which in many respects are sovereign and independent, they present not infrequently questions of far-reaching import and of exceeding difficulty.” “It is well, therefore,” it said (in Kansas vs Colorado), “to consider the foundations of our jurisdiction over controversies between states.” The controversy in question was the clashing claims of the states of Kansas and Colorado to the waters of the Arkansas river. Speaking generally, said Justice David Josiah Brewer for the court, “it may be observed that the judicial power of a nation extends to all controversies
justiciable in their nature, and the parties to which or the property involved in which may be reached by judicial process, ....arising within the territorial limits of the nation...” Clearly, he ruled, the dispute over the Arkansas river is one of a justiciable nature, the right to the flow of a stream being one recognised at common law, for a trespass upon which a cause of action existed. Equally clearly and indubitably, however, this general principle of jurisdiction stands superseded, under our own Constitution, in respect of inter-state water disputes. “Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution,” reads Article 262, Clause (2) of the fundamental parchment, “Parliament may by law provide that neither the Supreme Court nor any other court shall exercise jurisdiction” in respect of any dispute or complaint relating to the use, distribution or control of the waters of any inter-state river. As early as in 1956, Parliament ousted, pursuant to this constitutional mandate, the Supreme Court and all other courts from the adjudication of any such dispute referred to a tribunal under the Inter-State Water Disputes Act adopted that year. “Notwithstanding anything in any other law,” reads Section 11 of the 1956 Act, “neither the Supreme Court nor any other Court shall have or exercise jurisdiction in respect of any water dispute which may be referred to a Tribunal under this Act.” By any norm of construction, an ouster of jurisdiction accomplished by one non obstante clause piled on another — non obstante is Latin for “notwithstanding” — Article 262 followed by Section 11, deserves to be treated as complete and conclusive. That is precisely what a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, answering a Presidential Reference under Article 143, did in 1991 in the Cauvery water dispute case. “The effect of the provisions of Section 11 of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act read with Article 262 of the Constitution,” ruled Justice P.B. Sawant for the court, “is that the entire judicial power of the State and, therefore, of the courts including that of the Supreme Court to adjudicate upon (any) original dispute or complaint with respect to the use, distribution or control of the water of, or in, any inter-state river or river valley has been vested in the Tribunal appointed under Section 4 of the said Act.” One cannot emphasise enough the expression “entire judicial power of the State” employed by the Supreme Court. The words “use, distribution and control”, added Justice Sawant, are of “wide import.... and clearly indicate the amplitude of the scope of adjudication inasmuch as it would take within its sweep the determination of the extent, and the manner, of the use of the said waters and the power to give directions in respect of the same.” And yet a decade later, the selfsame court, sitting in a smaller Bench, and premising itself on a wholly indefensible (as I had shown last time) view that the “construction of the SYL canal has absolutely no connection with the sharing of water between the States” of Punjab and Haryana, a view that even the most ardent admirers of the judgement in Haryana would not be able to support, enters the prohibited area and exercises its judicial power to issue a time-bound direction which, however unwittingly, has the potential to set the Thames — I beg your pardon, the Ravi and Beas — on fire. As I said last time, it is a judgement we could well do without. Yet more on the SYL case next week. |
Daily chores more difficult for elderly diabetic women OLDER
women with diabetes may have more difficulty performing daily tasks than their healthier counterparts, a recent study covering three states in the USA has found. More than 8,000 diabetic women over age 65 were tested for the ability to perform basic functional tasks like walking, climbing
steps, completing household chores, shopping and cooking meals. In each case, the women with diabetes were twice as likely to be unable to perform the task, as against those without diabetes. Even after the investigators controlled for significant health problems like arthritis, heart disease, stroke and visual impairment, the association between diabetes and functional disability remained strong. While the association between diabetes and other health problems is a major concern for doctors, patients are often more worried about the loss of independence, physical disability and diminished quality of life associated with the disease. The current study suggests diabetes leads to functional disability. These findings have prompted study authors to identify several areas of potential new research, including the effectiveness of physical activity and weight loss, as well as different treatments for arthritis and heart disease. Researchers say, “The burden of disability is likely to be of increasing concern in future decades due to the aging of the population, indicating a need to respond by tracking levels of disability and implementing interventions for prevention”.
ANI One pill can be used for back aches and depression Popping anti-depressants can bring some relief to patients with chronic back pain, says a recent study, but the side effects may outweigh the benefits. US Navy and Army researchers have reviewed data collected from nine different trials between 1966 and 2000 to evaluate the use of antidepressants in patients with chronic back pain. While the medications seemed to alleviate back pain significantly, they did not improve a patient’s ability to return to the functions of daily life any sooner. Those people with persistent and chronic back pain regularly suffer serious disability, often accounting for huge medical costs. While a variety of therapies may help prolonged back pain including acupuncture, narcotics, and electrical nerve stimulation, conflicting evidence has suggested antidepressants may provide relief as well. Researchers note there are several theories why antidepressants may work, such as altering a patient’s perception of pain, treating an underlying case of depression, or improving sleep.
ANI |
|
Even the sages receive barks and fruits from trees for clothing and food; Do servants get anything more from their masters? The world becomes hot by fire and cold by wind; how could he, the ascetic, be made warm who can keep cool even beside fire. He whose head is bald is already shaved by fate. When your honour is lost, you should give up your country if not your body. It is lovely country, we say, not because of its rivers, its ponds, lakes, gardens, nor woods, O fool, it becomes lovely only by the noble who live there. —
Apabhramsha verses of Hemachandra Suri (12th century Jain scholar) *** Accept what is ordained and act
in obedience to His will. When the secret of implicit obedience to the Divine Will is known, self assertion goes. — From Japji Sahib *** Freedom from anger, from exultation, from grumbling, from covetousness, from perplexity, from hypocrisy and hurtfulness; truthfulness, moderation in eating, silencing slender, freedom from envy, self-denying liberality, avoiding to accept gifts, uprightness, affability, extinction of the passions, subjection of the senses, peace with all created beings, concentration (of the mind on the contemplation of the soul), regulation of one's conduct according to that of the Aryas, peacefulness and contentedness — these (good qualities) have been settled by the agreement (of the wise) for all (the four) orders; he who, according to the precepts of the sacred law practises these, enters the universal soul. —
Apastambiya Dharmasutra, passage 1.8.23 |
 |
| 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 | | 122 Years of Trust | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |
