 |
Monday,
March 11, 2002, Chandigarh, India  
|
Yet
another trap Politics
of steel
Judging
the judgement |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
‘A
writer is not above the law’ Ashwini Bhatnagar and Aruti Nayar
recorded the views of eminent writers on the subject, specially in the
context of the Arundhati Roy case. The first three interviews were
recorded before the SC judgement while that of Gurdial Singh and Dalip
Kaur Tiwana after Roy had served her sentence.
The
cycle of hate
Spiritual
faith helps fight depression
|
Yet another trap The trouble with Pakistan is that it expresses its desire to hold talks with India at every available occasion but does little at the ground level for creating a conducive atmosphere. Using the opportunity provided by the SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation) Information Ministers’ conference in Islamabad, it has come out with another idea: the need for the two neighbours to have an extradition treaty to tame the demon of terrorism. The very context in which such desires are being made public shows that Pakistan is not serious about anything. The unholy purpose is to hide its real face at the international level. Pakistan stands cornered by India because of Islamabad’s own doings. As part of its Kashmir policy, it depended on terrorist outfits created in the name of false jihad. The destructive elements, with encouragement from Islamabad, did not spare even the democratic institutions of India—the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly complex first and then the Parliament building. In the process, however, these forces of evil landed their mentor, Pakistan, in serious crisis. Though the world began to listen to India’s arguments on terrorism seriously after the September 11 cataclysmic event, the case of pinning down Pakistan if the menace was to be dealt a final blow got added strength after the December 13 attack on the Parliament complex. Indian and Pakistani armed forces are now in an eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation position at the border, with New Delhi having given a list of wanted terrorists enjoying Islamabad’s hospitality. Of course, there is very little likelihood of the outbreak of a full-scale war, the troop deployment at the border is enough to send disturbing signals to the world community as also the concerned Pakistanis who realise that a military conflict will paralyse their country when its economy is barely sustaining itself. The military regime, perhaps, believes that holding talks, even if nothing concrete comes out of such an exercise, will enable it to arm itself with the argument that Pakistan wants peace with India and hence the dialogue. If it fails to produce the desired results, which can be easily predicted under the circumstances, Islamabad will save its skin by blaming India, as it did in the context of the Agra fiasco, for all that goes wrong. This may also help divert the attention of the Pakistani public getting sick of the hollow promises made by the Pervez Musharraf government. But India is not going to fall into the General’s traps. Who will believe him when he says something today and does something else next day. He promised to come down heavily on terrorist outfits in his much-publicised January 12 speech. But when even two months have not elapsed he has announced general amnesty for most of those put behind bars. If General Musharraf thinks that he can fool the world by indulging in such tactics, he must be day-dreaming. The truth is that he has exposed his lacklustre approach on the issue of containing terrorism. His extradition treaty idea is mainly aimed at telling India to forget about its list of wanted terrorists. This too has come about when the military regime has failed to produce its own threatened list. The cause of peace in the subcontinent demands that Pakistan totally dissociates itself from terrorism-promoting activity and this must show results in Jammu and Kashmir and else where in India. Only then should it think of its wishes vis-a-vis India fulfilled. |
|
Politics of steel By adopting protectionist measures against imported steel, the USA risks losing much of international support and goodwill it had drummed up in the fight against terrorism. Its one-time strong allies like the European Union, Australia, South Korea, China, Japan and Brazil have denounced the US punitive tariffs of up to 30 per cent, effective from March 20, to protect its ailing steel-makers. They have, in fact, threatened to drag the world’s sole super power to the World Trade Organisation (WTO). President Bush has taken the punitive action in response to what he regards as unfair global trade in steel. He wants to give the US steel industry at least three years to recover and insists the protectionist step is in accordance with the WTO rules. However, the EU Trade Commissioner, Mr Pascal Lamy, who represents the 15-nation bloc which accounts for 25 per cent of the US steel imports, does not buy this argument. He contends that the WTO safeguard clauses are intended to protect markets from import surges whereas the US steel imports have been actually declining over the years. The US allies are justifiably infuriated. If other countries also start taking similar protectionist measures to promote their self-interests and protect their domestic industries, the whole purpose of having a global player like the WTO to regulate international trade will stand defeated. Besides, if referred to the WTO, the case would drag on and jeopardise whatever little progress had been achieved at the Doha summit. The Indian steel producers have a reason to feel relieved as the US safeguard duties will not be applicable to most of steel exports from India under the developing country exemption clause. This is no special favour to India in particular as press reports about the announcement by the Indian Embassy in Washington tried to convey. Indian steel exports constitute barely 3 per cent of the US imports. Indian companies’ steel exports to the USA amounted to $ 320 million in 2000. And cumulative exports from the developing countries do not go beyond 9 per cent of the US imports. The export of carbon flanges will, however, be adversely affected. This does not mean the end of trouble for Indian steel companies. The unilateral closure of the US market to a large number of steel exporters will create a surplus situation in the international market and the prices of steel products will plummet. Part of the excess steel supplies from the European Union may find their way into India and other steel importing countries. Indian steel exporters are already suffering under a heavy burden of anti-dumping and countervailing duties imposed by the USA on hot-rolled coils and wire rods, which have brought the export of these items to the zero level. So, the Indian industry will have to steel itself to face the emerging situation. |
Judging the judgement “(C)riticism, wild or valid, authentic or anathematic,” said Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer in 1978 in Mulgaokar’s contempt case, must have “little purchase over the mood of the court. I quite realise how hard it is to resist, with sage silence, the shafts of acid speech; and how alluring it is to succumb to the temptation of punishment, but then the thorn, not the rose, triumphs.” That is precisely what happened last week when, stung by the Booker Prize winner’s impassioned response to a contempt notice, the Supreme Court sent Arundhati Roy packing to Tihar Jail albeit for a day. The three paragraphs of her seven-page affidavit, which made the court see red, draw a rather unflattering picture of judicial priorities: “On the ground that judges of the Supreme Court were too busy”, the writer charged, “the Chief Justice of India refused to allow a sitting judge to head the judicial enquiry into the Tehelka scandal, even though it involves matters of national security and corruption in the highest places.” “Yet, when it comes to an absurd, despicable, entirely unsubstantiated (contempt) petition”, she said, “the court displays a disturbing willingness to issue notice.” “It indicates (she continued) a disquieting inclination on the part of the court to silence criticism and muzzle dissent, to harass and intimidate those who disagree with it. By entertaining a petition based on an FIR that even a local police station does not see fit to act upon, the Supreme Court is doing its own reputation and credibility considerable harm.” We have tried to balance, ruled the Supreme Court on March 6, the two public interests involved, the freedom of expression and the dignity of the court, but find it difficult to “shrug off” such comments. “She has accused courts of harassing her as if the judiciary were carrying out a personal vendetta against her. She has brought in matters which were not only not pertinent to the issues to be decided but has drawn uninformed comparisons... about this court”. Such an expression of opinion, it held, “in relation to a pending proceeding before the court ... amounts to a destructive attack on the reputation and the credibility of the institution and undermines public confidence in the judiciary as a whole...” Fair criticism of the conduct of a Judge or the institution of the judiciary and its functioning is permissible if made in good faith and in public interest. But to ascertain good faith and public interest, “the courts have to see all the surrounding circumstances, including the person responsible for (the) comments, his knowledge in the field regarding which the comments are made and the intended purpose sought to be achieved.” All citizens, it ruled, cannot be permitted to comment upon the conduct of the courts in the name of fair criticism which, if not checked, would destroy the institution itself. In her second affidavit, the court added, filed in justification of the first, the respondent had not shown any repentance. Rather, “(s)he wanted to become a champion of the cause of writers by asserting that persons like her can allege anything they desire and accuse any person or institution without any circumspection, limitation or restraint.” That is certainly not what Arundhati Roy asserted in her second affidavit, the actual contents of which the Supreme Court nowhere discloses in its lengthy, 76-page judgement replete with citations on contempt jurisprudence. Like the judgement itself, and like all documents, both affidavits — the first as much as the second and the second as much as the first — have to be read as a whole and in their entirety for a true and proper understanding of Arundhati Roy’s position. Reading the judgement and the affidavits as a whole, it is impossible to resist the conclusion that both the Supreme Court and Arundhati Roy have been rather, and needlessly, tactless in dealing with each other. Arundhati Roy in addressing the court as she would any other reader and the Supreme Court in treating her as it would any other litigant. Taut, even edgy, both have occupied the same high moral ground, refusing to concede the other even an inch of space. Cases like this, however, do not end with the judgement. “I spent a night in prison,” Arundhati Roy said on March 7, on her release from Tihar, “trying to decide whether to pay the fine (of Rs 2000 imposed by the court) or serve out (an additional) three-month sentence instead. Paying the fine does not in any way mean that I have apologised or accepted the judgement.'' “I decided (she said) that paying the fine was the correct thing to do, because I have made the point I was trying to make. To take it further would be to make myself into a martyr for a cause that is not mine alone. It is for India’s free Press to fight to patrol the boundaries of its freedom which the law of contempt, as it stands today, severely restricts and threatens. I hope that battle will be joined.” As one who joined that battle almost a decade ago, that too as a member not of the free Press but of the not-so-free Bar strapped to the Bench by a million invisible strings, I have, I believe, a certain right to say what I am saying. “The hydraulic pressure of your speech,” Fali S. Nariman wrote to me in late 1993, referring to my speech at Chandigarh in the presence of the Chief Justice of India and paying me a compliment I have always cherished, “precipitated the implementation of the transfer policy.” Few citizens in the history of independent India have addressed the judiciary as critically as I did that year on August 28, speaking of the “privatisation of the judicial process” and all that, while looking the Judges straight “in the eye” (the test that Arundhati set for herself in her March 7 statement). Even so, I would disagree with a fundamental postulate of Arundhati’s approach to the judicial process, a postulate that she repeated on her release from Tihar. “Anybody who thinks (she said) that the punishment for my supposed crime was a symbolic one day in prison and a fine of two thousand rupees, is wrong. The punishment began a year ago when notice was issued to me personally in court... In India, everybody knows that as far as the legal system is concerned, the process is part of the punishment.” That is a superbly elegant phrase, of course, and shows Arundhati’s literary craft at its best, but to see the process itself as punishment, even in India where the process takes so frustratingly long, is to obliterate the distinction between means and ends, the law being nothing if it is not a means to an end. For all its travails and limitations, the ultimate utility of the judicial process, both in free and unfree societies, is the process itself. No system of justice can rise above the ethics of those who administer it, nor perhaps above the ideology of the age — “Ach, mon dieu,” Karl Marx exclaimed in 1848, reacting to an assurance of justice in a jury trial based on the ‘conscience’ of the jury, “conscience depends on consciousness and on the entire way of life of a man” — but the culture of reasoned argument or dialogue at the Bar which is the hallmark of the judicial process is also its principal accomplishment. “(A)ll the pleasing mummery in the courtroom, all our political insulation, indeed all our power,” said American judge Irving Kaufman, “is designed to support a message: Whichever side you are on, we are not on your side or your opponent’s side; you must persuade us not that you’ve got money or that you’ve got votes, but that your cause is lawful and just.” The trouble with Arundhati Roy’s position as set out in her two affidavits lies not in the sharp institutional critique that she offers of the Indian judiciary — a critique written in prose so brilliant that it cannot fail to impress — but in that she reacts, and reacts so violently, to the mere issuance of a judicial notice. Even as the trouble with the Supreme Court of India, the court which Krishna Iyer once adorned, is that it has moved since then from strength to strength so inexorably that it mistakes sometimes the rose for the thorn. |
‘A writer is not above the law’ Is a writer a recorder of events or an activist? Should the writer use his writerly position to make an issue out of a perceived cause? Is Arundhati Roy right or wrong in taking up the Supreme Court in terms of the contempt proceedings that ended with a one-day jail sentence for her? Can the writer deem himself/herself above the law and move in a manner that can be construed to mean denigration of established institutions? Or the ‘pain of the poet’s conscience’ should prevail over the letter and spirit of the law? PB Shelley called poets ” the unacknowledged legislators of the world” and their vision beyond the comprehension of the state. Though this can be true to a very large extent, it is equally true that an organised society has to function in a predetermined and well spelt out manner. Ashwini Bhatnagar and
Aruti Nayar recorded the views of eminent writers on the subject, specially in the context of the Arundhati Roy case. The first three interviews were recorded before the SC judgement while that of Gurdial Singh and Dalip Kaur Tiwana after Roy had served her sentence. Sir VS Naipaul Vikram Seth Amitava Ghosh Gurdial Singh As I see it, it is not the question of the right to expression either by the author or by the Press. Arundhati has done nothing as an author in her present position. Her case is that of a leader of an organisation fighting for those ousted by the construction of the Narmada Dam by the Maharashtra government. We know the Apex Court asked the state government about the resettlement of oustees of the Narmada Dam. We also know that the ruling classes do not bother about such directions even by the court of law. There are innumerable cases about the Centre and state governments concerning the negligence of duties by the government. We also know that even more than 50 years after Independence crores of people are not getting even drinking water. They lead subhuman lives, without food, shelter or medicines. Thousands die due to diseases and of hunger but no government even accepts the plight of the unfortunate masses, leave alone talk about the duties of the ruling classes. The question is not of the right of freedom and the Apex Court of law. Arundhati and Medha Patkar are fighting for the right to live for the wretched. The fight is against the inefficient, corrupt ruling classes who never care about the rights of the people as citizens of India. Our law-making institutions like the Parliament have never cared to pass a bill about the right to work and the right to live. Crores of men and women have no work, no food, no shelter. Who is responsible for all odds faced by people? People who take up their cause are those who are hungry for political power and they never think about the people. India is one of the most unfortunate nations where the ruling classes have done nothing for the marginalised. Nothing about the population explosion. The most disgusting is the role of the intelligentsia which does not spare a thought to the stark future of the country. Only in seminars and symposiums do they sit and talk of ways and means of making India the number one nation in the world. Dalip Kaur Tiwana The principle of civil disobedience holds that an individual has the right to take on the state in a civil and non-violent manner if her conscience or consciousness so demands and accept the consequences of her action. Arundhati has done exactly that, she questioned the propriety of the Supreme Court judgement and willingly swallowed her cup of poison. Individual conscience vs the State is an old, recurrent and intractable issue—from, say Antigone and Socrates to Jesus Christ, Guru Arjan Dev and Mahatma Gandhi in modern times, all of whom fought against the State in their own ways and died as martyrs for dharma, justice and civil society. In spirit, if not in magnitude she is in the same tradition. Sikhism teaches us that only God is the true king and whenever the State deviates from morality and religion, it is the duty of its citizenry to rise against it. The critique of the State, including its courts, is not born out of hubris, power-seeking or similar other motives. It is indeed ennobling as it enlarges the scope of individual freedom and moves the human society towards self-rule and seek reform. I think Arundhati’s basic motives and stance are noble. If I had to choose between the Supreme Court and Arundhati Roy, I would cast my vote in her favour. We need more of Medha Patkars and Arundhati Roys in India and in the world. |
The cycle of hate Are mian hai mian! The mob shouted with a triumphant joy. They were beside themselves as finally they had got a prey to burn. Their eureka was that of a hunter, who armed with rifles, spotted a deer and shot it. Ahmedabad is a slaughterhouse today. The city has become a litterbin of arms and broken bonds — enough to make Sultan Ahmed Shah, after whom the city is named, turn in his grave. The 15th century ruler placed his culture and Gujarati pride even above his religion. Circa 21st century” Quo vadis? Gujarat. The cycle of hate is continuing. Is there anything new in this storm over a few teacups? No. Every now and then, some worthy in the name of Ram or Allah ignites the fire of hatred and shouts a la Mark Anthony: “Now let it work. Mischief, thou art afoot/Take thou what course thou wilt.” The following incident is part of the same mischievous, nay pathetic course. A person, this time, was humming and laughing amidst riotous flames, reminding one of an emperor making merry while his empire was on fire. Walking along one side of the road, he was singing “Tu tu tu tara”. On the other side was a naked display of “danse macabre”. Suddenly, a scooter broke down nearby. The scooterist kicked desperately in order to start the engine, but in vain. The skylarker came to him singing, Tu tu tu tara”. The scooterist, riot-beaten sufficiently, asked the man to go home as there was danger to his life. After warning him, the scooterist again tried to start the engine. The merrymaker, still singing his song, gestured to the scooterist, asking him to check the petrol tank as a part of it might have been used for igniting the riotous fire. After a while, fortunately for the scooterist, the engine started and he went away leaving the “world-weary” person behind. A police jeep soon came and warned him to go home. “Where’s your home? asked a cop dutifully. The man put his hand in the pocket and took out a pinch of ashes. “This is my house,” he said, showing the ashes repeatedly. “This is my wife and children.” Having said this, he sang: “Tu tu tu tara/Jal gaya ghar hamara.” Almost the same story was repeated in the 1984 pogrom. We were returning home at night in an official car when we saw bodies of victims burning. There was a maniacal thirst for human blood. And we just watched like the “Tu tu tu tara” man. The only difference was that he had lost everything in the riots and was singing, and our brothers were losing everything while we just stood and watched. Fie on me! Fie on others! The same story was repeated in Maharashtra and in ....ad nauseum. All religions lead to one God. Still we fight and hurt other’s feelings. Rightly said a wise soul: “When a man points at the moon, the idiot looks at the finger. The Sufi bard of Punjab, Bulleh Shah said about four centuries ago: Mandir dha de, masjid dha de, Dha de jo kuchh dhenda, Ik kisse da dil na dhanvin, Rab dilan wich
rehnda. (Pull down a temple or a mosque or whatever you can; but don’t break somebody’s heart, for God Himself resides there). Amen. |
Spiritual faith helps fight depression Elderly people who are spiritually strong and believe in a meaningful life are less likely to suffer from depression or mental health problems even after the loss of their spouse. Research, which explores the lives of recently bereaved older people, found a clear association between level of belief, personal meaning and well-being. The study by Prof Peter Coleman, University of Southampton, is part of the major research programme "Growing older: extending the quality of life", funded by the Economic and Social Research Council. The research reveals that other people, similarly bereaved, with weaker beliefs, were more likely to show depression symptoms. The sample of 28 recently bereaved people's experiences were analysed as individual case studies. The participants were drawn from three areas in south of England. They took part in three in-depth personal interviews conducted by a counsellor, which were scheduled for the first anniversary of the spouse's death, six months later and after the second anniversary. Evidence was taken on. Consideration for each person's need for counselling, including pastoral care, was taken into account. Out of the 28, nine indicated low or weak spiritual beliefs, 11 moderate levels of beliefs and eight had strong beliefs. The researchers were particularly interested in those whose score was moderate and in how spiritual help might be made most relevant to these people. Eight of the 11 people with moderate beliefs thought that their lives had lost meaning and purpose and several showed depressive symptoms during the second year after losing their spouse. The remaining three in the 11 moderate belief category were equally interesting, however, showing differently the value of spiritual belief. The decline in the practice of religion, which has been apparent among older people as well as the rest of the population in the last 20 years, does not mean that spiritual beliefs have declined, says the report. A large part of the population still believes in some sort of transcendent power or in God, the reports added.
ANI
Tomato checks prostate cancer Tomatoes and tomato-based foods such as ketchup and spaghetti sauce help prevent prostate cancer, according to results of a new study. The study, published on Wednesday of 47,000 American men by the National Cancer Institute in Washington showed that two servings of tomato soup or tomato sauce a week are effective in cutting the risk of prostate cancer by 24 to 36 per cent. Dr Edward Giovannucci of Harvard University attributed the anti-carcinogenic properties to levels of blood lycopene, a compound derived predominantly from tomatoes.
DPA
US air strikes behind quake? A severe earthquake which recently hit Afghanistan, Pakistan and was felt as far away as India, may have been caused by the powerful bombs used in US air strikes, a Russian news agency said on Tuesday. A geophysicist quoted by the news agency said the tremors which originated in the Hindukush mountains were unusually long and powerful and that the disaster was unprecedented in Afghanistan. “It is not unlikely that the massive use of powerful bombs by US troops led to the quake,” the expert said, though some bombs were known to provoke landslides. The quake, which measured 7.2 on the Richter scale, according to the US Geological Survey, triggered landslides in Dahani Zoa in northern Afghanistan, burying houses and damming up the river, which then flooded other houses. Afghan state television said on Monday that 150 people had been killed and about 100 houses destroyed, while another 400 homes were flooded.
ANI |
Serve a true Master; For he gives protection. He comes at the time of death, And takes one along with Him. — Sri Guru Granth Sahib, M-1, Maru Var page 1284 When He is kind, One meets a Master. One remembers Him, And becomes one with Him. — Sri Guru Granth Sahib, Malar, page 1257 When the Lord is kind, The Master is kind, A wanders in many births, but the Master rescues him By means of the Shabad — Sri Guru Granth Sahib, M-1, Asa Var, page 465 Gurdev is unseeable and imperceptible; All the three worlds become known through his service. It was a gift of his own bounty That I could find the unimaginable and imperceptible. — Sri Guru Granth Sahib, Bhairo, page 1125 The wonderful form is blissful; It is shown by the Perfect Master. — Sri Guru Granth Sahib, M-1, Maru Sorath, page 1041 Disciples are many; so are gurus. No release is possible through an imperfect Master. — Sri Guru Granth Sahib, M-1, Ramkali 932 O Nanak, the Satguru unites all to the Lord. — Sri Guru Granth Sahib, Sri Rag, page 72 The perfect Master attunes us to the Shabad; He is all powerful and all-pervading. He is above the illusion of maya. And has not an iota of greed in him. — Sri Guru Granth Sahib, M-1, Maru, page 1021 Act according to the directions of the Master; Let the Nam dwell in your heart; Sing of the Word, Sing the praise of the Lord. — Sri Guru Granth Sahib, M-1, Gauri 222 |
 |
| 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 | |
The writer’s role is not deliberate. It cannot be deliberate. But if the writer writes fairly and accurately without prejudice about the present, the role is there. However, prejudice means having political views and if the writer has them they commit you to distorting (reality) in all sorts of ways. It distorts what you are observing. This is not what a writer should be doing — distorting what he is observing. But if you observe fairly and without prejudice and put it down, the future is contained in what you (writer) observe because the future is hatched out from the present. The writer’s role is very limited. He should not be involved. He should be aloof.
It is only once that I had put down my name on a petition. That was when the Babri Masjid was demolished. I don’t get too involved in all these things. There are writers who are much more activists and there are others, who for the lack of a better word, are much more quietist. There is a place for every kind of writer. You might say that since I wrote an animal book, I could be taken to be an activist for animals. But that would not be true. I wrote the book and that’s about it. I don’t go about promoting animal rights. May be, it is because of the type of the person that I am. One writer may want to take this role seriously. It is up to that person. I cannot make general comments about what the Supreme Court may have done or not done. But as far as I am concerned, I get involved in the characters that I have before me as well as the story and if a message comes out of that it is only secondary in nature. 
I don’t think that a writer has a particularly privileged position in relation to politics or that a writer is either above the law or has a special relationship with the law. I think that a writer’s role comes from his role as a citizen and if some one were to circulate a statement on something it is up to each one of us to react or not react to it. But I don’t think that involvement or reaction is necessary just because we are writers. 
As far as contempt of court is concerned, it is simply a question of judgement by the court of law and also the affidavit submitted by her. There might be a difference of opinion about her detention and the fine she paid but as far as law of the land is concerned, nobody should be allowed to challenge it in any way or form.
Arundhati Roy’s critique of the Supreme Court judgement on the Narmada Dam was consistent with the spirit of civil disobedience as legitimated by the Father of the nation, Mahatma Gandhi.