 |
Sunday,
May 26, 2002,
Chandigarh, India  
|
GUEST COLUMN Beijing mind behind Pak’s prolonged conflict with India A POINT OF VIEW |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
KASHMIR DIARY
Qazi will miss his wide circle of friends
Abdul Kalam emerging as a dark horse?
NGOs come to the rescue of Gujarat victims
|
GUEST COLUMN AFTER Harry Truman’s monumental decision to drop nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6 and 9, 1945, the world has not witnessed any more use of the nuclear weapons. Truman’s decision might have been to shorten the agony of war or to save the lives of thousands and thousands of young Americans or born out of a complex background arising from major factors like military, domestic and diplomatic. After that, the world came close to nuclear holocaust in 1951 (Korean War) when the military situations looked particularly bleak for the USA and Truman was again ready to order nuclear weapons for possible use in the Korean War. He actually ordered the bombs to be sent across the Pacific but had second thoughts and stopped it. Then, it was in 1962 that the world again came perilously close to another nuclear war when American spy planes discovered Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba, just 90 miles from the USA. Many thought the world was at the brink of war. President Kennedy who inherited the ‘Cold War’ from Eisenhower, imposed a blockade of Cuba but promised not to
invade. Soviet Union dismantled the missile bases. Having seen the photos of the dismantling, Adlai Stevenson, Kennedy’s Ambassador to the UN famously said, “We are eyeball to eyeball with the enemy, and I think the other fellow just blinked. But it is President Kennedy’s famous statement that “those who seek our friendship will find it honorable and those who test our courage will find it strong” that still reverberates in our ears. The showdown was averted because the nuclear weapons were in the hands of responsible leaders. Time has changed and today there are nuclear weapons in the hands of nation qualifying to be called “rogue State” headed by a person who secretly planned to nuke India. The entire world heaved a sigh of relief when the ‘Cold War’ ended. But later we heard, through revealed secrets, that Warsaw Pact had even blue prints ready for a sudden nuclear Armageddon in Europe. We believed that the fear of a nuclear war has receded. But the Bruce Riedel revelation makes it clear that the Pakistan Army had actually planned to nuke India without the knowledge of its Prime Minister. And the person behind that plan is none else but the present head of Pakistani state, government and army. He has the power to use nuclear weapons. Also remember that since his taking over, he made two statements regarding the use of nuclear weapons against India which the world leaders bafflingly ignored. The Sunday Times of London’s disturbing disclosure, based on a paper to be published by the University of Pennsylvania was carried by the Indian Press. The disclosure:...Pakistan army had mobilised its nuclear arsenal during the Kargil war without the knowledge of its Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif”. Bruce Riedel, who was then adviser to then President Bill Clinton on India and Pakistan, recalled how the President was told that “there was disturbing information about Pakistan preparing its nuclear arsenal to strike Indian cities. A report by the CIA, Global Trends 2015, predicts that by next year, Pakistan is likely to have between 50 and 75 nuclear warheads. Adding another 50-75 nuclear bombs to the world’s already stockpiled (about 30,000 to 40,000) nuclear weapons — the equivalent of a million Hiroshima type bombs — enough for the annihilation of the population is not the real threat. The real threat is when even one of them remaining in the hands of an angry and undependable leader who is pushing the world to a MAD (mutually assured destruction) zone? Pakistan President’s first statement: “If Pakistan’s security is threatened, it could use its nuclear bomb”. His second statement: “Pakistan will use nuclear weapons, if necessary to resolve the Kashmir dispute”. Now read his mind in juxtaposition with the frightening disclosure made by Bruce Riedel. Has he not become a nuclear hawk? Does he realise the terrible consequences of a nuclear attack against India? Is he condemning the world to live with threats of nuclear weapon or is he taking the world at gunpoint? Does he know that the First World War killed more than 10.7 million and wounded more than 25.5 million (missing included) and the second an estimated 50 million people? The sheer destructiveness of nuclear weapons invokes a moral imperative on the part of President Musharraf to apologise to the world for what he had planned and what he had uttered. Sooner the world leaders recognise that Musharraf is a threat not for India alone but for the entire world, the better it will be for the mankind. Act before he gets a lot worse. Intelligence experts informed Riedel that “a Pakistani strike on just one Indian city, Mumbai, would kill between 150,000 and 850,000 alone. Urban conglomerations like Mumbai and Delhi have population of over 12 and 13 million respectively. Take a look at history’s flipside. The US B-29 bomber ‘Enola Gay’ dropped the “little boy” (uranium atomic bomb) on Hiroshima. The second bomb ‘fat boy’ made of plutonium was dropped on Nagasaki. The two ‘little’ and ‘fat’ boys killed as many as 240,000 Japanese citizens. Imagine the likelihood of the nightmare scenario planned by Musharraf coming true! Pakistan is emerging as a dangerous rogue state. The danger becomes greater when a dangerous General heading it envisions triggering the nuclear device. What, if Pakistan’s nuclear capability proliferate to the theocratic Muslim states ruled by dictators? Will not that create more small rogue states armed with nuclear capable missiles to bedevil the world? What the world leaders propose to do with his pronounced intention? Pontificate indefinitely? Or, are they waiting to act after he has carried out his threat? Peril is drawing closer and closer. Pakistan’s intention to flout international law and the will of the people is well known. Japan too, during World War II, abandoned all pretense of obeying international laws of warfare and ignored the ultimatum issued at Potsdam. Pakistan is showing similar behavioral streak. Beware! Pakistan is a nation that never gives peace a chance. Nuclear weapons are weapons capable of wiping out civilisations. How can one make statement about the use of such weapons so casually, without provocation and still get away with it? Remember what Truman said about nuclear weapons and its use: “Its production and its use were not lightly undertaken by this Government. But we knew that our enemies were on the search for it. We know now how close they were to finding it. And we knew the disaster, which would come to this nation, and to all peace-loving nations, to all civilisations, if they had found it first.” Let’s come to the question of security threat. If the General wanted to create a security threat, he can always do so. He planned Kargil and executed it. Later he planned and mobilised a nuclear strike but did not execute it. Security concerns are country-specific in nature. If few new arms or planes are added to India’s army or air force, Pakistan can claim that military balance in the region got altered. Then, Pakistan can always claim that its security is in peril and they have to defend it with their nuclear weapons. Can that bogey justify the use of nuclear weapons? But few days before Riedel’s disclosure, I wrote an article in which I said that what Musharraf unwittingly revealed through his two statements is that he will go for a pre-emptive strike against India when India least expects it. The world has witnessed enough individuals or groups indulging in mad suicide acts. Take a rear view of history. Two individuals’ acts caused two world wars. The world is too small for a similar mad act by a nuclear hawk for a third world war. The world has already seen that what tragedy an individual’s abhorrence towards ‘non-Islamic’ countries could bring even for the mightiest nation. Tomorrow it can be the turn of a rogue nation. No rogue, individual or nation should dare ever again to indulge in such heinous act. What is it that the world is waiting for? The king of terror to explode a nuclear weapon on India? The writer is Union Minister of State for Home Affairs. |
|
Beijing mind behind Pak’s prolonged conflict with India A recent Pakistan publication, “From a Head, Through a Head, To a Head,” authored by Mr F.S. Aijazuddin, says that it was the late Chou en-Lai who suggested to a Pakistani military delegation, which called on him in 1966, that instead of short-term wars, Pakistan must prepare itself for a prolonged conflict with India. For this late Chinese Premier advised the visiting Generals to raise a Pakistan militia to act at the enemy’s rear, to cut off its logistics, destroy strategic centres and prepare to take over operational control once the first line of defence broke off. Earlier, suggesting to Gen Ayub Khan, who felt panicked on the eve of the 1965 war, it was emphasised that Pakistan must resort to a long war with India, keeping in view the latter’s numerical military superiority. When the late Pakistan President explained that the flat terrain of Punjab was not suitable for mounting guerrilla attacks on an advancing enemy, he was told to use all the available natural obstacles like small rivers and high grounds as a cover. Above all, the author says that Chou en-Lai said that China would be maintaining pressure all the time. When asked categorically how long, the Chinese leader’s response was as long as necessary, but Pakistan must keep fighting. This concept of warfare involving the citizenry of Pakistan was totally alien to the Pakistan Generals. It was in contrast to the military doctrine they had learnt at Quetta. However, visualisation of using unorthodox tactics, the late Premier explained, was considered better suited to nations lacking military-industrial complex. The Chinese had learnt it from their long-drawn struggle for liberation, the author quoted. It thus become clear to Pakistan leaders that if they wanted Chinese support, they had to prepare for a prolonged war with India. In fact, Pakistan needed Chinese support much more than that of the USA who did not prove to be a friend in their wars against India. It was despite the fact that Pakistan was their military partner in CENTO, a frontrunner in the US’ war against Communism besides acting later as a bridge between China and America. China, on the other hand, was believed to be a natural ally with a commonality of interests. While friendly relations between the two varied initially depending on each country’s estimate of the utility of the other, their marked hostility towards India had remained constant. For instance, the creation of tension on Sikkim-Tibet border in September 1965 was to immobilise the India forces in the eastern sector. During Bangladesh war, Chinese support to Pakistan was equally vigorous. General Musharraf’s visit to Beijing, more recently when Pakistan was building defences in Dras, Kargil and Batalik sectors was to take the Chinese approval which was considered both essential and mandatory. Further, India has been fighting a low intensity war with Pakistan for well over two decades, proving the Chinese contention that it is only through prolonged conflict with India that Pakistan could overcome her military handicaps in the number game. On the contrary, the expedition in Kargil was another blow to Pakistan. In any direct war, a country must possess 3:1 superiority in military but by betaking irregular warfare against India, endorsing the Chinese strategy, Pakistan has not only surmounted conventional superiority of India but also circumvented the Indian nuclear deterrence. Keeping in view Pakistan’s
socio-economic perspective, the country is hard pressed in terms of economic growth, high inflation, rising debt, increasing poverty, growing unemployment and low literacy. It is, therefore, hard to believe that Pakistan is independently managing the confrontationist posture against India without outside help. On the other hand, the thrust of Chinese policy continues to rest on Mao’s dictum that power flows from the barrel of the gun. However, in their bid to prove to the world that China has matured politically, she has refrained from entering into a direct clash with other nations, unlike in the past. But given the geostrategic location of India, China has continued to nibble at India, which is meant to contain it only at the subcontinental level. From 1962, both countries have travelled a long way. Though there has not been a repeat of any direct conflict between the two, Beijing has persistently maintained the posture of a strategic adversary to India. After all, China continues to occupy 14,600 sq miles of the Indian territory annexed during the Sino-Indian war and is certainly in no mood to return it. She is a formidable neighbour and a security risk. Of late, China has started hitting at our domestic industry by flooding the Indian markets with Chinese goods. So when Mr George Fernandes speaks out on China being a potential enemy of India, echoing the voice of the late Sardar Patel, that India has to reckon with Communist China in the north which has definite ambitions, it carried the substance, however awkward it may appear in diplomatic jargon. Pakistan’s ongoing battle over Kashmir with India by fomenting cross-border terrorism is the last straw in the series of its devious gameplan as suggested by China. Its success lies more in intensifying it and fighting it on all fronts — military, political, economic, religious — and by gaining further international support by exploiting its geographical limit. Clearly, India’s size holds a threat for Pakistan and China remains a strategic partner. The writer is Reader, Centre for Defence and National Security Studies, Panjab University, Chandigarh. |
|
A POINT OF VIEW EVEN as the colossal tragedy in Gujarat has held centrestage in the national consciousness and even as we introspect and see what needs to be done to eliminate such ghastly aberrations from our justly proud social landscape, we must not overlook or underrate certain attendant doings and happenings at home and abroad that can distort our perspective and cause us to compromise our civilisational essence and our future. I am talking about the rank opportunism of our political parties, the busybody and hypocritical attitude of certain western powers, the biased and negative sensationalism of their correspondents in India and, last but not the least contemptible, the growing poodleism in sections of our own media. It is the fragmented and mutually accusatory picture of the Indian political leadership that has encouraged certain western governments and their organisations to tut-tut us on the Gujarat happenings and issue demarches. Not that they need any encouragement to see or show us in poor light. Given half an excuse their subterraneous inimicality towards this country comes to the surface. They just haven’t reconciled themselves to this old and resilient civilisation, this mosaic of diverse religions and cultures, this mass of one-sixth of humanity, half of who may be unlettered or undernourished but who have put satellites in space, whose scientists and engineers are as good as the best anywhere, who have a powerful defence apparatus with modern arms, who despite all their systemic ills and the ills of their politics, are destined to re-emerge as a great nation. So, whenever things go wrong, as in Gujarat, or whenever we do something they perceive as wrong for mere natives to do, as in developing nuclear capability, the inherent and intrusive arrogance and hypocrisy of these powers come into play. Aiding them in their consequent posturing and sanctimonious humbuggery are the reports that their correspondents file. Exaggeration and sensationalism are mild words to describe some of the stuff that has appeared in western media, including frequent use of the word “genocide” and comparisons with the Holocaust! I don’t want to lend further exposure to such despicable reportage by reproducing from these despatches. Suffice it to quote what one of their own tribals, a French journalist named Francois Gautier, has to say about them: “We, the foreign correspondents, have been propagating in the last few weeks a picture of an intolerant Hindu majority ruthlessly hunting down the Muslim minority.” Not only has this “falsified public opinion abroad” but it has given a handle to some governments to bring out “so-called human rights reports” on Gujarat. The enormity of the mischievous reporting on Gujarat is matched only by the average western correspondent’s habitually slated reporting on other similar happenings in India. There are examples galore but I shall cite just two. One, the Mumbai blasts which were, in Gautier’s words, “orchestrated by Indian Muslims with the active help of Pakistan and silent approval of Saudi Arabia, which took the lives of hundreds of innocent Hindus”. Conspicuously missing in the despatches by foreign correspondents at that time were words like slaughter, fundamentalism, fascism used in their Gujarat reports. The second glaring example of dishonest reporting relates to the killing of tens of thousands of Hindus by Muslim terrorists in Kashmir (and elsewhere in India) and the virtual silence on their bloody depredations against the Kashmiri Pandits, the original and rightful inhabitants of Kashmir, more of whom have been killed by Islamic fanatics that the number of Muslims killed in Gujarat. At the time of Independence there were more than 400,000 Kashmiri Pandits in the state. There are fewer than 400 of them now; the rest of them, those who survived, are scattered as refugees in their own country, thousands of them in inhuman conditions in camps. Yet, show me one report by a foreign correspondent which uses such words as genocide, ethnic cleansing, human rights — words they could have legitimately used to describe the plight of Kashmiri Hindus. Some foreign correspondent may turn round and ask: How many reports in the Indian media itself have so depicted and commented on the killings in Kashmir? Well, I will find it difficult to answer the question with any extensive or weighty evidence — and that is a shame. It is a shame ascribable to a misconceived sense of professionalism and a perverse sense of secularism on the part of some of our media commanders. In their scheme of things, communalism is a one-sided coin and anti-majorityism is courage. Their task is not to inform the people of India and the world but to impress their cosy circle of like-minded species at home and, even more, the great white masters of the universe yonder in Washington and their “pommy-ranians” across the Atlantic. If and when something they say or write gets quoted in American and British media, they find themselves floating on Cloud Nine. No, it is not only a matter of receiving what they consider the ultimate certificate of good journalism; involved here are frequent foreign trips for self and admissions and fellowships and jobs for the progeny and other kith and kin (and of course unending invitations to parties in the coveted precincts of foreign embassies). In the case of the one-sided and inflammatory reporting on Gujarat, the “top honours” may go to certain twinkle-twinkle little and not-so-little stars of electronic journalism, but some of our print jockeys are not far behind. While the former consider it high journalism to repeat gruesome visuals ad infinitum, the latter want all one billion Indians to indulge in non-stop self-flagellation. All this not because what happened in Gujarat is truly shameful (as are the unlamented killings of innocents in Kashmir and elsewhere) but because it has “marred our image abroad”. One columnist urged the government to forthwith undertake “damage control” to prevent drying up of foreign investments in Gujarat and thus avert “disastrous results”! One would imagine foreign investors are flooding Gujarat and if they stop coming the people of Gujarat will starve to death! (It is the same breed of journalists who — along with the Narasimha Rao-Manmohan Singh government — had decried opposition by saner elements to the entry of Enron, the gigantic fraud that the company was and has proven to be.) Other commentators are deeply worried about the frowns of western governments — so much so that when, in a rare exhibition of a bit of spine, the Indian government asked the Nosy Parkers not to interfere in our domestic affairs and save us their sermons on secularism, one editor went hammer and tong against the MEA, calling our stand “dumb and dangerous”. So steeped is this worthy in his subaltern mindset that he wondered what Jaswant Singh would answer if Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell (the two “coloureds” in the Bush cabinet) ask him if the Indian Cabinet has similarly “empowered” the minorities and dalits. One can’t imagine a more ignorant and more stupid rhetoric! Never mind the extermination of the Red Indians, never mind the two hundred years of black slavery, never mind the Ku Klux clan and others of the same ilk — never mind history; look at the scene today: Not only do ordinary white Americans suspect every Sikh to be an Osama, even shooting dead one of them, official America has no qualms in stopping, interrogating and humiliating Indians with Muslim or Muslim-sounding names, including Aamir Khan and Kamal Hassan; why, the police even prevented an American Sikh magistrate from boarding a plane because he wouldn’t unwrap his turban! As for “empowerment”, Powell and Rice are all very well, can the writer of the despicable drivel quoted above tell us how many blacks (and never mind other American minorities) have adorned the Cabinet in US history? And will he have the honesty to compare it with the number of ministerial and other high posts that the Indian minorities have held in government since Independence, not to mention in judiciary, armed forces, academia, business and industry? Does he know that we have had two Muslim and one Sikh President (of the nine so far) and that the President of India today is a Dalit? He can spot only George Fernandes and there too questions the minister’s loyalty to his faith because, hold your breath, Fernandes does not take his oath of office “in the name of God”! And why should a minister in a secular realm do so? Apparently because the American President does so! It is this mindset, this subaltern thinking, this scorpioid writing that is more lethal to secularism and social harmony than the communal virus. The writer is a senior journalist. |
|
KASHMIR DIARY I
was struck last Wednesday by the contrast between the almost riotous emotional demonstrations that marked the funeral of Abdul Ghani Lone and the serenity of the perhaps larger congregation at the Hazratbal shrine just a few kilometres away. Lone was an assassinated leader of the All Parties Hurriyat Conference. Some of his mourners raised raucous slogans and jostled, heaved and peered around his graveside, providing another unseemly glimpse of the awful saga of violence that has wreaked Kashmir over the past dozen years. At Hazratbal, the congregation was one with Kashmir's soul, which has worshipped rapturously at this shrine of the Prophet's relic for hundreds of years, particularly during the ten days leading up to the Prophet's birthday. Perhaps nowhere in the world is the festival of Milad-ud-Nabi such a fulsome celebration as it is at Hazratbal. A sea of humanity pours out to venerate the hair from his beard that is kept at this shrine. It is held up from the minaret of the mosque after every namaz during the ten days preceding the festival. There is a continuous religious vigil, as men and women in separate enclosures — spilling out from the mosque onto the surrounding lawns right down to the gently lapping water of the Dal lake — pray, sing Duruds in praise of the Prophet, and wait for the next namaz. At each deedar (viewing), Kashmiris old and young weep at the sight of the relic, holding up their hands and saying “Ya, Rasool Allah”, as if they were personally communing with the Prophet at that instant. This veneration unites the highest and the lowest of Kashmir's society. Lining the roads near Hazratbal at dusk that evening were an array of cars, ranging from a Ford Mondeo to horse carts. The richest halwa (a sweetmeat of flour) and paranthas, tea, soft drinks and toys and children's clothes sell at innumerable kiosks. Stalls providing medical aid, police assistance and other services also spring up every year. The festival of the Prophet may be the biggest but, in Kashmir's tradition of venerating holy men, similar festivals are held annually at other Kashmiri shrines. The most important ones are at the shrine of Makhdoom Sahib, the tomb of Sheikh Hamza, also known as the king of Kashmir, and Dastgir Sahib, where there is a relic of a holy man of Central Asia. These festivals have continued through most of the long years of violence as if they were a part of Kashmir's spirit that was untouched by political twists. They are not, however, for not even in the most unworldly strain of Sufi Islam is politics absent. Take the banners that have came up across the roads around Hazratbal a week or two ago. On black cloth, they spoke in Urdu of the most immediate political issues: “POTA (Prevention of Terrorism Act) is the reality behind the mask of India's democracy”, “Gujarat is the real face of India's secularism”, “Self-determination is the only way out” and “Blood of a martyr never goes waste”. Each banner quoted Kashmir's leading cleric, the Mirwaiz. Almost as if they were in tune with the subliminal nature of Kashmir's religious traditions, security forces seemed oblivious to these slogans as they kept watch for anyone carrying guns or bombs while soaking in the pleasant early summer sun. Those in power are obviously not attuned to Kashmir's ways the way the valley's tallest leader of recent times, Sheikh Abdullah, was. He knew the power that association with the relic and its shrine had over the hearts, and therefore the minds, of Kashmiris. He invariably chose the shrine to make his most impassioned political points. The family claims descent from Nooruddin Ashawari, an itinerant Kashmiri trader. They say he happened to help one Sayeed Hamid financially when the latter had come from Mecca to Jehanabad in the then Bijapur state during the seventeenth century. When the Sayeed revealed that he had several of the Prophet's hairs, given to his followers after his mehraj (ascent through the heavens), Ashawari obtained one of them in exchange for all his earthly belongings. As he carried it home to Kashmir, he gave people a view. When word of this reached the orthodox Mughal, Aurangzeb, he ordered that the man be imprisoned and the relic brought to him. They say that, by the time Aurangzeb was told by the Prophet in a dream that the relic must be sent to Kashmir, Ashawari had expired in prison. So, the emperor had the relic and Ashawari's remains sent under royal protection to the valley. Watching the pristine white dome and minaret of Hazratbal against the backdrop of an eternal lake, especially when it is bathed in delicate pink as a rising sun stands for a moment on the ridge of the Zabarwan range opposite, makes it possible to believe that time and space stood still during the Prophet's
mehraj. |
Qazi will miss his wide circle of friends Unlike most of his predecessors, Qazi has a sharp, analytical mind. Those who had dealt with him say “he could lay a negotiating table, map out an issue, presenting both the gloomy and the brighter sides and also suggesting a way out”. He stands out head and shoulder above his immediate predecessor, Riaz Khokhar, who too had made a mark in Delhi’s social circle and cocktail circuit. In popularity and diplomatic skill, Qazi could be compared to two popular High Commissioners of yesteryears, Abdul Sattar and Niaz Naik, who rose to the top on return to Pakistan. Having been already superannuated, one does not know how Gen. Musharraf would utilise Qazi’s talents. From India’s point of view, to quote a veteran scribe, the three diplomats were “vicious” but they had a job to do and they represented a regime generally hostile to India. Pakistan has always posted best of its diplomats to India. They become popular socially in Delhi because of the common heritage, language and culture. In his social life Jehangir Qazi had to face piquant situation twice — when Khushwant Singh planted a grandfatherly kiss on the envoy’s teen-age daughter; and when journalist Najam Sethi attacked Nawaz Sharif’s Government in his presence. Pakistan’s vernacular press (whom both Qazi and Singh later called gutter press) went berserk at the grandfatherly peck on the cheek of the teenager terming the gesture as “objectionable” and bringing “shame” to the Islamic country. Qazi was hauled up by his bosses in Islamabad for allowing his family to attend the event — the release of 84-year-old Khushwant Singh’s book titled, “In the company of women”. Incidentally, families of Qazi and Khushwant Singh have been long time friends. The expelled High Commissioner’s father was the Indian writer’s college mate in London. Another incident was much more bizarre involving the eminent Pakistani journalist on a visit to India. Najam Sethi brutally and frankly exposed the ailment of Pakistan’s polity — judiciary, economy, political goings on and the social evils — at the Kewal Singh Memorial lecture organised by the Indo-Pak Friendship Society. Had Jehangir Qazi not present among the audience, the outburst of Sethi might have been only taken note of by the ISI or authorities in Islamabad. The occasion, in fact, turned out to be a war of words between a noted journalist from Pakistan and the head of Islamabad’s diplomatic mission in New Delhi. In a report to his government , which he was duty bound sent, Qazi observed: “my own view is that Najam Sethi’s attempt to pose as a heroic liberal fighting against corruption and tyranny by portraying his country as an irrational, contradictory, corrupt, unstable and dangerous entity — and that too in India of all places — is an act of contempt against Pakistan amounting to the most contemptible treachery”. Sethi’s crime was that he talked of multifarious problems of Pakistan on the Indian soil and, to his bad luck, in the presence of Pakistan’s envoy. He had to pay the price on return, mainly because of Qazi’s adverse report. Qazi had, in fact, no diplomatic role in Delhi since the withdrawal of India’s High Commissioner in Islamabad in the aftermath of the attack on Parliament. The Ministry of External Affairs virtually de-recognised him and dealt with only his deputy but socially he was as important as eve, mingling freely with the elite and giving interviews to the media. Qazi will miss a wide circle of his friends here but, more sad than him, is Begum Jehangir Qazi who felt more at home in Delhi than her husband’s previous postings in China, Germany and Moscow. Socially as amiable as her husband, she says: “I will call this (posting) a challenging assignment…life in this country has so much in common with Pakistan; from language right down to food”. Marriage of her two grown-up daughters is now high on the agenda of Begum Qazi. Since there is no flight between the two countries, they may have to travel by road. Begum Qazi told a TV channel: “We may have to go by road from Amritsar to Pakistan border since all the flights have been suspended”. Bon Voyage Ashraf Jehangir Qazi and Begum Abida
Qazi. |
Abdul Kalam emerging as a dark horse? BHARAT RATNA A.P.J.Abdul Kalam is slowly but surely emerging as a dark horse in the Presidential race. He served the country in different capacities at top level and was closely involved in the Indian nuclear programme. Kalam’s name for the top job in the country came into reckoning when Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee met Samajwadi leader Mulayam Singh Yadav for consultations. While Vajpayee was trying to ascertain Yadav’s views on the name of Maharashtra Governor P.C. Alexander, the Socialist leader took the Prime Minister by surprise when he mentioned the name of Dr Kalam. Since then, even the BJP leaders who were determined to instal someone in the Rashtrapati Bhavan who was from their own ranks, are now finding it difficult to brush aside Kalam’s name. The reason: nominating the top scientist, who has done the country proud in the world, for the country’s highest office would send positive signals both domestically and internationally. While Kalam, a Muslim from Kerala, would silence the international criticism on Gujarat, he would also help in building the image of the BJP and wipe, to an extent, the slur that has come to stick on the party after post-Godhara communal riots. At the same time, Kalam’s elevation to the highest office would also serve as a bitter reminder to the Pakistan government that India knows to acknowledge the services of a nuclear scientist. But the Rashtriya Swyamsevak Sangh’s final nod is yet to come and the BJP high command has not yet had time to consult Sarsanghchalak. The RSS, a little bird tells us, is making its assessment of the pros and cons of getting Dr Kalam elected. PV vs
Arjun Interestingly, the moment the debate on the political resolution and Arjun Singh’s reply ended and former Finance Minister Manmohan Singh rose to move the economic resolution, Narasimha Rao made his way on to the dais and occupied a seat beside Congress president Sonia Gandhi. Even as gossip over Manmohan Singh’s proximity to Rao gained
momentum in the Press box at the far end of the Talkatora Stadium, the venue of the session, Arjun Singh was seen taking a seat at the rear end of the dais quietly. Are still PV and Arjun working at cross purposes? Winds of
change People were expecting the usual images of Congress members sitting on the floor at the CWC meeting. But there was quite a surprise when pictures of the CWC meeting were beamed by TV channels. The Congress president, it seems, is evolving a new culture for the 117-year-old party in the new century. IYC gesture The most usual practice for organisations wishing to empathise with victims of violence in Gujarat is to hold a seminar in the capital where speakers vent their anger at the “murder of secularism.’’ But the Indian Youth Congress did more. It held a seminar, no doubt, but also arranged 50 trucks of grains (500 tons) for victims of violence in Gujarat. One of the largest consignment of such relief material having been despatched to Gujarat, it was collected from thousands of households mainly in Haryana and Punjab. The relief material was flagged off by Congress president Sonia Gandhi. Next on the IYC agenda, says its president Randeep Singh Surjewala, is to send trucks of food material for border migrants in Jammu and Kashmir. Falling standards A majority of MPs, save a few exceptions, in the Rajya Sabha (once known for its quality of debate) seem uninterested in participating in meaningful debate and discussion. While ministers are either clearing files or leafing through magazines, ever restless MPs are changing seats. In the session just ended, one noticed Ambika Soni, Political
Secretary to Congress President Sonia Gandhi, fanning herself with sheaves of papers to beat the heat. There are days when one can actually count the number of MPs on the Opposition and the treasury benches. There have been numerous occasions when MPs belonging to the Opposition parties have had to request ministers to lend their ears to the issues in question. Not only this, some MPs only seem interested in seeing their mugshots on various television news channels and don’t lose any time in rushing out of the House to give their statements to TV journalists and camera crew outside. The slanging match between noted lawyers including Union Law Minister Arun Jaitley and Congress MPs Kapil Sibal and R.K.Anand makes one feel as if one were watching court proceedings. Sacrificial
lamb Union Minister of State for Shipping Sripad Naik was asked by the party high command to contest for an assembly seat in Goa. The man to be pitted against him is former Deputy Chief Minister Ravi Naik who resigned from the BJP at the last minute to rejoin the Congress. BJP’s troubleshooter and Man Friday Pramod Mahajan has asked Union Home Minister L.K.Advani to sound Sripad Naik for taking the challenge of Ravi Naik. Advani could initially convince the reluctant Sripad by offering him the bait of chief ministership. Sripad sent in his letter of resignation from the Council of Ministers and rushed to Goa for filing his papers. Later, the RSS lobby put pressure on Sripad to hold a press conference to clarify that he was not a chief ministerial candidate. This lobby, dominated by Chitpavan Brahmins, obviously prefers the present Chief Minister Manohar Parikar, a Chitpavan, to Sripad, who belongs to a backward class. Contributed by T.V. Lakshminarayan, Satish Misra, S.Satyanarayan, Prashant Sood, Tripti Nath and Rajeev Sharma. |
NGOs come to the rescue of Gujarat victims FIRST things first.With Prime Minister Vajpayee holidaying in Manali, I am reminded of this particular poetic verse of his, from his poem titled “Manali Mat Jaiyo” — Manali mat jaiyo/ Jaiyo to jaiyo/ Trishul baandh jaiyo / Milenge Khalistani/ Rajiv ke raaj mein...I know there’s no Rajiv raaj (and no apparent sign of Sonia raaj too). The Khalistan movement has also died down. So there’s every reason for the Prime Minister to go to Manali. With or without the Trishul. Healing time Let’s talk about the communal violence in Gujarat and its aftermath, especially the healing touch being provided by 30 NGOs, under the banner of Aman Samuday. Last month, these organisations got together and appealed for volunteers — Aman Pathiks — from both communities to work in the relief camps. It is heartening to know that the response has been overwhelming. Already over 200 volunteers — many from the majority community — have begun working in the various relief camps. Those of you who wish to provide the healing touch to the survivors of that horrible carnage can get in touch with the chief coordinator, Amar Jyoti. He is based in Ahmedabad and his office contact number is 079- 6300279. Qazi goes By the time you would be reading this column, Pakistan’s High Commissioner to India Ashraf Jehangir Qazi would have left for Islamabad, with the word ‘erstwhile’ added to the very designation. I had met himon the several dos hosted by the former UN Information Chief and Delhi’s top socialite BhaiChand Patel and at those receptions hosted by the various embassies and diplomats. Suave and sophisticated Qazi was one of those diplomats who was invariably accompanied by his spouse Abida. That’s precisely why at the farewell do hosted for him by Khushwant Singh, the very first question guests asked Qazi was, “Where’s Abida?”. His two daughters, Niloufer and Mahe, told us that she had just got back from Pakistan and was too tired to come along. Conversation moved along apolitical lines, with the girls telling us that they would be spending the next ten days in trying to pack and then move to Islamabad. Niloufer told me that she would continue working on various projects including the one for the Ford Foundation. Her sister Mahe would also continue working for the Afghan refugees. When asked whether they would be missing their stay in India, she said “Yes, we had made many friends here and they had been very warm to us. My sister and I had been planning to shift to Islamabad around March, but stayed back...anyway we are looking forward to getting back. Its our own home in Islamabad and my mother had recently spent two months doing it up”. When asked what she didn’t like about her stay here, pat came the reply: “You know all those write-ups in certain sections of the media about me and my sister. I wish facts are checked before people write...No, where could I have complained”. |
 |
| 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 | |
NO High Commissioner of Pakistan has seen so many ups and downs— hopes and aspirations of the people of the sub-continent kicked sky high and dashed to ground —as Ashraf Jehangir Qazi. His eventful five-year tenure, cut short by a tragic event, had seen Indo-Pak relations swing between expectation and disappointment. He had watched the regime of Nawaz Sharif, marked by the suicidal step to explode a nuclear bomb, to match India’s equally frightful Pokharan-II. Hopes of the people, cutting across the artificial divide, soared like a winged nightingale, when Atal Behari Vajpayee undertook his bus “Yatra” to Lahore and got in its aftermath the “Kargil”. Yet another event — the Agra summit and Gen. Musharraf’s visit to India — lit up the faces of both “Hindustani” and “Pakistani” but the gloom descended soon as the high level meet ended in an unmitigated disaster. Jehangir Qazi had been on centrestage in the tumultuous years as he watched democracy in his country stifled, giving way to military dictatorship. 
Whether it was intentional or a sheer coincidence, only former Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao knows. Rao, who apparently had differences with senior Congress leader Arjun Singh during his Prime Ministership, preferred not to be present at the AICC session on Friday when the debate on the political resolution moved by his former Cabinet colleague was being held.
Winds of change are sweeping in the Congress. It was a
departure from tradition which came as a surprise to many. The Congress Working Committee, which met last week to discuss resolutions of the AICC session, did not sit on the floor as usual. The CWC members, invitees and 13 party Chief Ministers sat across the table, interacting in the manner of corporate executives. In fact, these “corporate-style’’ meetings are a phenomenon being witnessed in the Congress after Sonia Gandhi became the party president and the party swept to power in state after state. A conclave of 14 party Chief Ministers was held in Guwahati recently in the setting of a top hotel. The Chief Ministers made presentations to a panel of senior Congress leaders (a la corporate world) with the panels later preparing reports. Sonia Gandhi gave the introductory and concluding addresses to the conclave.