 |
Monday,
June 24, 2002, Chandigarh, India  
|
Endless wait for Nag On the wrong track
The high cost of rigidity |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Bachelors Ahoy!
Bofors case: the Hindujas win but only for the present
Your computer tells your personality
|
Endless wait for Nag MISSILES are a high-tech item and every successful firing of them fills the common man with a sense of patriotism and pride. The test firing of the indigenously developed anti-tank missile Nag on Friday at a coastal range in Orissa’s Baleshwar district was no exception. Unfortunately, the reality is not quite as rosy as the gushing Press notes issued on the occasion made it out to be. The project is hopelessly behind schedule. Design work on the 6-km range missile started way back in 1988 and it was first test-fired in November, 1990. The first successful test-firing of the missile with an imaging infra-red homing guidance system with a fire-and-forget capability took place only in September, 1997. Till date, there have been 44 test-firings and yet the project continues to be plagued with many problems, especially in its guidance system. The situation is not much better in the case of the other four missile systems being developed by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) under its Integrated Guided Missile Development Programme (IGMDP). Had it been a civilian project, many eyebrows would have been raised because of the inordinate delay. But since it is a defence baby it is kept away from the prying eyes. Ironically, the defence forces are themselves most concerned about the never-ending wait. The Army needs 500 anti-tank missiles by the year 2004 while the Indian Air Force needs 100 of them by the same date. But it is doubtful if the makers would be able to stick to the deadline. Interestingly, the material published after the Friday launch does not make any mention about the likely date by which it would be formally handed over to the Army for field trials. In fact, these missiles are needed not only in 2004 but immediately, considering that war clouds are very much there on the horizon. If at all hostilities break out, the absence of a suitable anti-tank missiles would be felt greatly. The vintage Russian 9K113 Konkours and Euromissile Milan M2 anti-tank missiles that India has are hardly on the favourites list of the defence forces. They badly need the advanced third-generation missiles. The test-firing is only a case of so far, so good. What is essential is a quick removal of the numerous shortcomings that still remain and an equally swift handing over of the weapon to the Army. The experience so far is that many problems are detected in field trials even after the manufacturer has certified it to be “flawless”. |
|
On the wrong track DESPITE the claims often made by President Pervez Musharraf that he is all for a democratic setup in his country, he is doing everything possible to secure his position as an unchallenged ruler of Pakistan even after the promised October elections. Reports have it that he has decided to revive the controversial Eighth Amendment to the constitution which had been scrapped during the Prime Ministership of Mr Nawaz Sharif.The measure, which did not allow elected Prime Ministers to function independently and fearlessly, suits the present ruler, who wants to ensure that the government to be formed after the coming poll remains a puppet regime. Hence the General’s plan to reincorporate that hated law into Pakistan’s constitution soon. He will do this employing his usual method. First his handpicked Cabinet will put its seal of approval on it. Then he will approach the public with a televised address to falsely explain that this was in the larger interest of peace and stability in Pakistan----an exercise aimed at deceiving the people. In the process he will have acquired all the powers to function as a dictator with the facade of having an elected government at the federal and provincial levels. The controversial law will empower the President not only to sack a Prime Minister along with his entire Cabinet and parliament (National Assembly) at will but also to nominate a person of his liking to function as Head of Government. There will, however, be a condition that such a Prime Minister will have to get elected to parliament within six months, which should not be a problem with the patronage of the real ruler. Only General Musharraf knows what kind of a system he has in his mind. To the world outside Pakistan it will be the General’s government and he will have unbridled power to preside over the destiny of his people. The requirement of a recommendation of the National Security Council for the dismissal of the Prime Minister or any other such drastic step is meaningless as it will be packed with his “yes men” who cannot be expected to have the guts to go against his wishes. The General is endeavouring to strengthen his position in another way though quite dangerously. This is his usual practice of making anti-India statements. Being the ruler of a country regarded as India’s enemy number one, this is not unexpected. But he must be cautious about his utterances keeping in view the level of tension in the subcontinent. On the one hand he has been appealing to the world community to prevent the outbreak of a war with India and on the other he makes highly provocative statements as he has done in the course of his latest interviews with BBC Radio and Television. Whatever his domestic compulsions, he must understand that there is a limit to everything. How does he expect India to agree to hold talks, that too at the highest level at the initial stage itself, when he vitiates the atmosphere by indulging in irresponsible rhetoric? “We could not care less whether they de-escalate or not. We are totally prepared for them and we will teach them a lesson if they come out and cross the LoC. They dare not violate our international border.” The General should remember that he is not only the chief of his army but also the ruler of Pakistan. He should learn to behave accordingly. |
The high cost of rigidity A
former President of Finland, Mr Martti Ahtisaari, enjoys enviable reputation as a crusader for world peace. At present he chairs a reputed organisation called the International Crisis Group. Soon as he learnt about the fall of the twin trade towers on September 11, 2001, he did some counting of the beads. He foresaw the Al-Qaeda attack radically transforming the world relations: end of the Russo-American animosities and
dilution of the Sino-American suspicions. Subsequent events saw President Putin doing the impossible — Russia joining NATO, a Western alliance built primarily to contain the former. Another acknowledged authority on world affairs, Mr Gareth Evans, a former Foreign Minister of Australia, told the Monash Asia Institute’s Seminar in Italy that 9.11 (the September 11 incident) has generated a “....new sense of vulnerability (caused by) a handful of people willing to commit suicide employing zero primary technology and what would be the impact of a really full-scale attack going chemical, biological or even nuclear?” As if to endorse this apprehension the American intelligence has arrested a terrorist with a “dirty bomb”: a conventional device filled with the fissionable material. President Gareth articulated that “for the first time for many people globalisation moved from abstraction to reality. September 11 made abundantly clear that no country can immunise and isolate itself entirely from external events: grievances bred elsewhere can have catastrophic consequences half a world away... people in developing countries have long had the sense that their future was in the hands of those in other continents, but it came as a shock to the citizens of New York and London and Brussels that decisions directly and immediately affecting their own security can be made in the Hindu Kush.” And “... the 9.11 terrorists weren’t themselves poor or without influence, but they were supported by millions of people who resent perceived US support for their own corrupt and insensitive regimes. And indifference hitherto to the democratic vacuum which has existed from Morocco to Pakistan (though) 9.11 seem to have made some old problems easier to solve”. All the same time the India-Pakistan relationship remained mired in the past even when the epicentre of terror was located in the neighbourhood. Soon after the 9.11 round General Musharraf yielded to President Bush’s demand and promised to join the anti-terror coalition. But this was a typical case of double-speak. A Pakistani columnist wrote, “ In his speech on May 27, 2002, General Pervez Musharraf played down his campaign against domestic terrorism and simply repeated his assurance of January that the Pakistani soil would not be used for terrorism inside India-held Kashmir. He disavowed all connections with the incident of terrorism that took place in Jammu earlier in the month and stated that it was impossible for anyone to cross the well-guarded Line of Control (LoC) and so did not announce further measures to control terrorism inside Pakistan....” And so the “Groovy Sahib”, as he is called by some Pakistani scribes, kept his head buried in the sand till the terrorists struck again. This time they arrived at the US mission in Karachi. He would not realise that a duality of approach towards terror boomerangs ferociously. General Musharraf’s keenness to reach the “talks table” is understandable, though he should recall that the process of talks was snapped by his Kargil misadventure. When Mr Nawaz Sharif and myself initiated this process at Male, we shared the view that mutual trust was a must for any purposeful talks that climaxed with Prime Minister Vajpayee visiting the Minar-e-Pakistan in Lahore. Detente, even as a perception, did not appeal to the Pakistan brass hats. Hordes of unemployed Afghan jehadis are on a killing spree targeting Americans, French submarine technicians, the Shias and what not. During their recent visits, US Defence Secretary Rumsfeld and British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw saw these realities and redoubled their efforts to end this scourge. There are signs of a thaw setting in. But it calls for cautious optimism. It is now time that policy-makers gave added attention to socio- political alienations in the state. A foreign scribe asked me as to why the Indian policy-makers were unwilling to consider the J&K Assembly’s unanimous resolution seeking autonomy — not sovereignty, particularly when political leaders of the state are partners in the coalition government? Historically, the demand for autonomy is the fountainhead of disquiet since the days of the late Sheikh Abdullah. He had voluntarily endorsed the state’s accession and his cadres had valiantly fought back the tribal hordes in 1947-48. On several occasions he had led the Indian delegation to the UN Security Council to endorse the finality of the state’s accession to the Union. It is also worth recalling that on the eve of Independence he and his associates had disdainly rebuffed Jinnah’s enticements and refused to join a theocratic Pakistan. The agonising long tale of alienation continues to haunt the nation. At this stage, is it not desirable to defreeze our worn-out attitudes? Is it realistic to believe that the status quo in Jammu and Kashmir is sustainable — not in the context of what Pakistan seeks, but to accommodate the aspirations of our own people within the framework of the Indian Constitution? Some believe — and I think rightly — that our attitudinal rigidity is based on unfounded suspicions and distress causing immense harm to our national unity. The finality of the state’s accession is beyond doubt and is recognised by world powers. A recently published ball-by-ball account of the Nawaz Sharif-Clinton talks that had forced Pakistan to roll back from the Kargil heights endorsed the sanctity of the LoC. The Bush regime has sustained it. This provides the Union Government an opportunity to listen to our own people irrespective of their political affiliations. Foremost, we must ensure that the chapter of doubts regarding the fairness of polls ends finally to make the next election transparently credible, and in all circumstances the government will honour the verdict of the people. The initiative of the Chief Election Commissioner is commendable. He has promised that he would make the polling in the state open and transparent even to international observers. This will go a long way to pacify ruffled feelings. It is in our interest to obtain the endorsement of the world regarding the credibility of the elections. Minus this, the problems would get gravely intensified. Our civil society and a large number of NGOs in the world would be happy to watch the elections under the aegis of our independent Election Commission. This makes me recall my own experience of observing elections in Pakistan when some of us from South Asia were invited to observe the polls that — as we witnessed — were free. By opening the doors at that time Pakistan had
enhanced its prestige. Let us move with the times and not remain prisoners of the past. It bears repetition to say that we need not disdainly dismiss the National Conference election manifesto that seeks autonomy. Let the electorate debate it and see what parts of it are acceptable. The Union Government would be well advised to thrash out the issues with its NDA partners even prior to the polls. Let us learn from the remarkable flexibility shown by China. Hong Kong and Macao have been absorbed harmoniously on the basis of an unprecedented policy framework of “one country — two systems”, and this despite the known rigidity of a communist system. This enviable capacity to adjust has gone a long way to make China a formidable world power. It is time for us to realise that rigidity is our enemy! The writer is a former Prime Minister of India. |
Bachelors Ahoy! LIKE every married woman, I believe that there’s a perfect soulmate waiting out there for every eligible male. I am, much to my husband’s disgust, an inveterate matchmaker. It is with considerable concern, therefore, that I comment on the current scenario. Never before in the history of this wonderful land of Heers and Ranjhas , Sohnis and Mahiwals has there been a time such as this. Not one, not two, but three highly eligible bachelors looming large over the social horizon. A soon-to-be Prez, a PM and a Governor. There’s something wrong with the Indian Eve or else the institution of marriage is under siege. The latest Census figures are shocking— 933 women for every 1000 males, while in Punjab it is lower at 874 for every 1000. Notwithstanding the declining sex-ratio, there is an incredibly large number of eligible females. The long line of Indian lovelies, the Miss Universes, and Miss Worlds who have articulated over satellite television, that “the new Indian woman knows what she wants and how to get it”, should be training their sights on these irresistible men. Let’s take a look at the lineup. Heading the list is the man who reportedly doesn’t own many suits and shoes but will shortly be moving into the most coveted address in the country: Rashtrapati Bhavan. Nobel Laureate stuff, he’s called the father of India’s nuclear programme. His CV lists the development of SLV 3, Agni and Prithvi missiles and Pokhran. He’s responsible for India’s membership into the exclusive Nuke Club. Plays the veena and writes poetry. Put your hands together for the Presidential nominee and the confirmed long-haired bachelor lighting up our television screens. Keats, Tennyson, Wordsworth, and Shelley notwithstanding, poetry is not a preferred macho male activity. A man who writes poetry is usually a man in touch with his soul. Sensitivity and compassion are invariably the natural corollaries. The next bachelor on the list is a poet of repute, besides being the poster boy for the NDA combine. At home in a dhoti or a suit, a bandgala or chinos. Warm, witty, erudite and articulate, he is the gentleman Prime Minister of the country. A retired soldier and a gentleman who dwells in the stately splendour of the Punjab Raj Bhavan at Chandigarh. He is an immaculate dresser with an enviable collection of hats. A man of many parts, he takes his role as Administrator (UT) very seriously. What endears him is his special soft corner for the less privileged. So whether it’s the football academy or the night schools in the UT villages or a new wing for the City Museum and Art Gallery, the Governor tackles them all with indefatigable zeal. His latest quest to do away with the Inspector Raj by reviewing building bye-laws and zoning restrictions in Chandigarh should earn him a place for posterity even in the notoriously shortlived public memory. He is the Governor of Punjab. Three distinguished men, powerful and good-looking to boot. And in a world full of married men, breathtakingly single and fancy free. The road to success evidently requires sacrifices. Long, hard years of arduous work, take their toll of normal family life. But having climbed to the very top rung of the ladder of success, it would surely be nice to have someone with whom to share their achievements. So what are you waiting for ladies? |
|
|
Bofors case: the Hindujas win but only for the present BARELY a fortnight after it was handed down on June 10, it is now certain that the judgement of the Delhi High Court in the Bofors case, quashing the supplementary charge-sheet filed against the Hinduja brothers, will not be the last word on the subject. With both the Central Bureau of Investigation and the Chief Vigilance Commissioner announcing their decision to appeal against the judgement, the theatre of war in the nation’s most important corruption case now shifts to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court will now decide whether the initiative taken by the Delhi High Court in the matter of interpretation of the directions issued in the hawala case — Vineet Narain vs Union of India, decided in December, 1997 — stands the test of law. Intended for “rigid compliance till such time as the legislature steps in to substitute them by proper legislation”, a total of 36 directions were issued by the Supreme Court in the hawala case based largely on the recommendations of a high-level Independent Review Committee (IRC) set up by the Government of India three months earlier to examine the structure and working of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the Enforcement Directorate and related agencies. At the heart of the problem lies direction No 3, the direction which constitutes the ratio decidendi (the reason for the decision) of the June 10 verdict. The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), reads the direction, “shall be responsible for the efficient functioning of the CBI. While Government shall remain answerable for the CBI’s functioning, to introduce visible objectivity in the mechanism to be established for overviewing the CBI’s working the CVC shall be entrusted with the responsibility of superintendence over the CBI’s functioning.” The CBI (continues the direction) “shall report to the CVC about cases taken up by it for investigation, progress of investigations, cases in which charge-sheets are filed and their progress. The CVC shall review the progress of all cases moved by the CBI for sanction of prosecution of public servants which are pending with the competent authorities, specially those in which sanction has been delayed or refused.” Reading “no ambiguity” in the language used by the Supreme Court, and acknowledging that it was “impressed” by the submissions advanced on behalf of the Hinduja brothers by Mr Ram Jethmalani as to the binding nature of the directions issued in the hawala case, the Delhi High Court became on June 10 the first court in the country to quash a criminal trial — nay, the charge-sheet itself — on the strength solely of those directions and, more specifically, of direction No 3. “In the present case,” ruled the High Court, “the CBI on its own showing has not placed before the CVC the results of its investigation and has bypassed it by filing a charge-sheet before the learned Special Judge (trying the case), while the CVC has abdicated its functions which it was obliged to perform under the directives of the Supreme Court....” In view of the mandate of the Supreme Court, it added, the Special Judge ought not to have entertained the charge-sheet filed in violation of its directives. Accompanying this fateful conclusion, resulting in a partial abortion of the Bofors trial — the original charge-sheet against accused other than the Hindujas, filed before the Supreme Court’s judgement in the hawala case was pronounced, still survives — are some rather harsh strictures against the CBI. “The CBI (said the High Court on June 10) must not drag its feet or file half-baked chargesheets when (the) high and mighty are involved especially when in power; also it should not file frivolous cases against the innocent at the behest of those in power. I cannot be unmindful of the fact that the CBI has been under a cloud. It has been accused of being a political shield or a whip of the Government of the day.” Even if this insight into the use made of the CBI for political purposes (by every Government at the Centre) is not entirely off the mark, it is a bit odd that the High Court should have chosen to use such strong expressions while allowing a petition moved by the Hinduja brothers. But it is the concluding observation made by the High Court in the last, para 43 of its 32-page judgement which is the most curious. “In this view of the matter (ruled the High Court), I allow Crl. Misc. (M) 1354 of 2002, quash the cognisance taken by the learned Special Judge and all consequential proceedings. The prosecution would be free to file a fresh charge-sheet, if so advised, after following the procedure laid down by the Supreme Court (in Vineet Narain’s case). It would also be open to the prosecution/government to consider the feasibility of carrying on with this case in view of the circumstances and in accordance with law.” Even if the view taken by the High Court regarding the maintainability of the supplementary charge-sheet in the light of the hawala directions is well founded, what, pray, was the occasion for this parting advice on the merits of the Bofors charge-sheet? And what, pray, are the “circumstances” which militate against the “feasibility” of carrying on with the Bofors case on the merits? A closer look at the judgement in this context would take us back to para 39 at page 27, where the High Court notices, “in (all) fairness”, the Hindujas’ submission regarding the “(in)expediency of launching fresh prosecution” in view, inter alia, of the following facts: One, long delay; two, the findings of the Joint Parliamentary Committee (which reported on the Bofors case in April, 1988); three, the death of some of the main accused; four, that employment of agents and payments of commission in defence deals has recently been sanctioned by the Cabinet; and, five, that “earning commission is neither illegal nor morally wrong”. This is only a submission, of course, that the High Court notices and not the opinion of the court itself and one must not mistake the one for the other but it is impossible to make sense of the concluding reference to the “feasibility” of the prosecution on the merits except in the context of this submission noticed in para 39. And difficult, with great respect, if not impossible, to find any justification for the liberty granted to the prosecution or the government to withdraw from the case, as it were, or to drop it altogether, when the only question before the court was not the question of framing charges or granting discharge on the merits but the question whether the trial court could take cognisance of a charge-sheet filed by the CBI without consulting or taking the approval of the CVC. Both legally and morally, therefore, the invitation to reconsider the feasibility of carrying on with the Bofors case on the merits is the Achilles’ heel of the June 10 verdict. Wholly independently of this aspect of the matter, however, one must examine the basic question posed by the judgement — the “requirement” of the CBI consulting or taking approval of the CVC before filing a charge-sheet — in all its comprehensiveness. And, if one may be permitted to say so in all humility, with a certain degree of scholarship. More on that next week. |
Your computer tells your personality STRANGE but true, your computer narrates your personality, dreams and ambitions. According to psychologists, a computer’s virtual desktop reveals many aspects of a person. Ben Williams, a corporate psychologist, says, “How people prioritise the order in which certain things come on to their screensaver tells you about their priorities in their lives.” “You can tell whether they are proactive people who are going to make things happen or reactive people who wait for things to happen and then respond to them,” he told the BBC. Often, one of the first things people generally do with the computer at work is to try to make it their own, which psychologists say is to create a sense of control of their surroundings. “If you have cute pictures or toys on your computer, that says you spend a lot of time on the computer. It says this is my territory, look how exciting or dramatic it is,” explained Williams. He further said, “Mouse mats can display a lot about not only about your interests but also value system.” Analysing the computer screen, the images you use or simply the way you organise your icons can reveal much about your inner desires and ambitions. The appearance of the desktop may also provide powerful insights into how comfortable someone is with technology. ANI X-rated movies? Why not? New Indian censor board Chairman Vijay Anand proposes to clear films with extra doses of nudity and vulgarity with a special ‘X’ certificate. “There’s an audience for X-rated films. We can’t turn away from them. They go to Dubai and get their pornography. I don’t want my country to be hypocritical. What’s the point of having so many laws that can’t be implemented, when they’re corroding the film industry? “If people want to see X-rated films, we must let them,”
Anand, who has made classics like “Guide” and “Kora Kagaz”, told IANS in an interview. He said the proposed X-rating would monitor sleaze in two ways. Films with an X certificate will only be shown at select theatres. Due to its limited release, filmmakers would voluntarily shun vulgarity in their cinema. Anand seems determined to rid India’s archaic censoring codes of what he calls hypocrisy. “I’m touring the country. I’ve started a debate. I’ve got legal advisers. We’re reading the 50-year-old guidelines. “We need new guidelines to guide the censors for the next 50 years. We will soon have a President who’s a scientist. So let’s be guided by rationale rather than silly anarchic laws. The attitude of filmmakers must change along with the censor board. On our part, we promise to be liberal.”
IANS |
O Revered One, in this foul-smelling, unsubstantial body, a conglomerate of bone, skin, muscle, marrow, flesh semen, blood, mucus, tears, rheum, faces, urine, wind, bile and phlegm, what is the good of the enjoyment of desires? In this body which is afflicted with desire, anger, covetousness, delusion, fear, despondency, envy, separation from what is desired, union with the undesired, hunger, thirst, old age, death, disease, sorrow and the like, what is the good of enjoyment of desires? Verily all this world merely decays.... The great oceans dry up, mountains crumble, the polestar deviates from its place, the wind-cords are broken, the earth is submerged and the very gods are dislodged from their positions. In such a world as this, what is the good of the enjoyment of desires? —Maitri Upanishad *** Birth is sorrowful, growth is sorrowful, illness is sorrowful and death is sorrowful. Sad it is to be joined with that which you do not like. Saddar still is the separation fro that which we love, and painful, is the carving for that which cannot be obtained. —Paul Carus, The Gospel of Buddha *** The more one enjoys, the more the thirst for enjoyment increases like a leaping fire fed by melted butter. Renunciation alone is the source of eternal happiness. —Swami Budhananda, Prabuddha Bharata *** In sweetness and humility lies the essence of merit and virtue. —Sri Guru Granth Sahib *** The mind's diplomat (sutak) is avarice and the tongue's falsehood; The eye's sutak is coveting other's womenfolk's beauty and others' wealth. The ear's sutak is listening to slander. The sutak impurities are washed off by enlightenment of Divine knowledge. —Sri Guru Granth Sahib *** Hunger for the Holy Name consumes all sorrows. —Sri Guru Granth Sahib |
 |
| 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 | |
