 |
Saturday,
June 29, 2002, Chandigarh, India  
|
Travel politics Time for end-game The Cauvery imbroglio |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Musharraf takes world for a ride
Football World Cup for India
Changing policemen’s mindset with training
Free power supply a political gimmick
|
Travel politics The advice last month by the USA and other western countries to their citizens to get out of India and Pakistan quickly had caused more panic than even the amassing of the troops on the border. This official advisory was accompanied by inspired stories in the media about the millions that would die if the two countries pressed the nuclear button. Suddenly, this part of the world indeed appeared like the most dangerous place on earth. In a typical lack of sensitivity about matters Asian, the western press even tarred India as an irresponsible war-monger instead of a victim of terrorism. No thought was given to the fact that by thus spreading alarm, they were playing into the hands of Pakistan which had used the nuclear blackmail to its advantage. In place of disciplining it for threatening to use nuclear weapons brazenly, the misplaced ire fell on India. Even the article in Time on the health of Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee insinuating that nuclear weapons were not safe in the hands of an ailing man like him was part of a sinister campaign. This was like punishing the victim instead of the murderer. But that is how the western mind normally works. Nobody bothered about the consequences that would befall India. Delhi maintained a brave face, but the fact was that the hotel industry and the airline business was a shambles thanks to the advisory. At long last, the travel warning has been dropped, but only partially so. Now the word from the USA to its citizens is to defer all non-essential travel. The full withdrawal is not likely before August. It is doubtful if the tremendous impact of the advisory on bilateral trade and business relations will be removed soon enough. Most business deals depend on sentiment and that still continues to be greatly subdued. India has been categorical in its assertion about no first use of nuclear weapons. When the Pakistani perfidy in exporting terrorism crossed all limits, all that it had done was to send an ultimatum that if the mischief did not stop forthwith, India would have no option but to safeguard its interests militarily. By bringing pressure on Delhi to desist from doing even that, the western nations have conveyed the message that only the USA is authorised to use coercive means in its fight against terrorism. The rest are not allowed to go beyond issuing angry statements. This policy is short-sighted, to say the least. Terrorism knows no geographical boundaries. All that will happen now is that the enemies of humanity will gather and test their strength by targeting countries like India while leaving out the USA. Only when they have amassed formidable weapons and expertise will they go for the super power. Unfortunately, it will be too late by then for Washington to take remedial measures. All that because it has been making the inexplicable mistake of differentiating between terrorism against itself and other countries! |
|
Time for end-game More than the killings that took place on the Amarnath yatra route and elsewhere in Kashmir on Thursday, the cause for worry is the new contours that are emerging in terror tactics after the de-escalation of tensions on the Indo-Pak border. Hapless pilgrims, Gujjars and innocent citizens in cities and towns have always been soft targets for terrorists and will continue to remain so in the future too. The Amarnath route has been targeted specially in the past two years and the killings of three jawans, even before the yatra has formally begun, casts a dark shadow on the month-long annual pilgrimage from July 22. It is, therefore, not just a case of tightening the security cover as has been done in the past, but planning and executing the coup de grace that will knock out terrorism from the Valley, hopefully for ever. This seems plausible and necessary because the Government of India has itself admitted that infiltration from across the border has come down substantially. There are also valid and credible reports from the grassroots level that the sympathy for the terrorist, whether of the local or of the more exotic foreign variety, has almost dried up. Most groups are now operating in a near-hostile environment and tip-offs on their whereabouts are not as hard to come by as they were earlier. Besides, the deployment of the Army on high alert along the international border as in a war scenario has virtually sealed the border and made the crossings difficult. America’s pressure on Pakistan to close terrorist camps near the LoC has also helped matters to a large degree. Given these conditions, it becomes imperative on the part of the security managers to act quickly and decisively to rid the Valley of the scourge of terrorism as was done in the case of Punjab in the early 90s. However, a new dimension has been added by the presence of Al- Qaida activists in the Valley and in areas adjoining the LoC. These are the people who will give a new twist to terrorist activity in Kashmir and elsewhere in northern India. They specialise in creating terror at a mass level and across a huge geographical area. Right now, the killings are being viewed by the authorities as an attempt at disrupting the Jammu and Kashmir poll process by creating a climate of uncertainty and terror. This could be a crucial part of the strategy as a destabilised border provides sustenance to nefarious groups. But this cannot be taken to be their overall objective. The Al-Qaida men have the potential of carrying out spectacular attacks and their offloading by Pakistan into Indian territory is a potential threat to the entire nation. Their activity in the Valley would help Pakistan raise the bogey of an indigenous freedom struggle, while elsewhere they can keep the communal pot boiling. Given the intense international pressure on it, Pakistan has hurriedly deposited the monster created by it at India’s doorstep. It is now up to the Government of India to vanquish it before it spreads its poisonous tentacles and adds to the harm that has already been done to our body politic. |
|
The Cauvery imbroglio Even as Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee had directed Karnataka Chief Minister S.M.Krishna to release 3 tmc ft of Cauvery river water to Tamil Nadu and save the summer “Kuruvai” crop in the Thanjavur delta region, the manner in which Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa had withdrawn from the Cauvery River Authority (CRA) is unfortunate. Clearly, Ms Jayalalithaa’s action was hasty and unilateral and it will exacerbate the tension between the two states on the Cauvery issue. As Tamil Nadu did not get the stipulated 205 tmc ft of water from Karnataka during this water year (June 2001 to May 2002), as per the interim award of the Cauvery Water Dispute Tribunal (CWDT), Ms Jayalalithaa had first sought help from the Prime Minister, then withdrew from the CRA and would now like to knock the doors of the Supreme Court for justice. Tamil Nadu’s predicament in the present circumstances is understandable but one does not know how Ms Jayalalithaa’s actions in the last few days would help her State’s cause. It would have been better had she waited for Mr Krishna’s response to the Prime Minister’s request on water release. Mr Krishna has since told Mr Vajpayee that he will let him know in a day or two the exact position after studying the water levels in Karnataka’s reservoirs. He says Karnataka is no position to release more water to Tamil Nadu now as that would affect the interests of its own farmers because of poor rainfall in the Cauvery basin. Whatever the concerns and sensitivities of all riparian states involved in the emotive issue, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu cannot overlook the fact that as water available in the Cauvery river is not unlimited, it is simple logic that no State can claim unlimited irrigated area. Karnataka may have ambitious plans to improve the irrigation potential in the Cauvery basin. But this should in no way affect the interests of other riparian states such as Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Pondicherry. By the same token, Tamil Nadu also needs to formulate appropriate strategies on water management within the available resources. There is rationale in the argument that when Karnataka itself grows two crops in the summer, how can Tamil Nadu’s farmers go in for three crops which would naturally require more water. Another unsavoury episode is that both states differ on the very measurement of water storage and flow. While Karnataka wants the measurements to be carried out on a scientific and direct basis at the Biligundlu water gauging point of the Central Water Commission installed on its side of the border, Tamil Nadu wants the indirect method at Mettur on its side.The point is that both Karnataka and Tamil Nadu fail to appreciate each other’s problems and concerns. As both the state governments have so far failed to convince their farmers on how to manage water during their periods of distress, there is need for a more scientific method of assessing the water flow, mutually acceptable to both states without any reservations on the fairness of the measurement. Such a system can come in handy, especially for Tamil Nadu, at least in times of distress, in varifying the amount of water released by Karnataka. Meanwhile, Tamil Nadu should return to the CRA which was constituted in August 1998, with the Prime Minister as its chairman, for the sole purpose of resolving the differences among the riparian states on the Cauvery water issue and more important, for implementing the interim award of the CWDT, which specified the supply of 205 tmc ft of water to Tamil Nadu every year by Karnataka. Surely, withdrawal from the CRA will not help Tamil Nadu’s interests. |
Musharraf takes world for a ride Someone, somewhere, for some reason, has - to put it straight-deceived the Indian people, and they should get an explanation. Soon. A clever lawyer may yet quibble that no one has gone back in so many words, in quotes, on what he can be shown to have said earlier in quotes. That may be a fact. But the effect is different. The cause may well be the spin put upon words whether by the speaker or by the media; or by high-level carriers of confidential messages. But the effect is that for weeks people were given to understand something which now turns out to be something else, according to what has been said in so many words and in quotes. If words, as reported, mean anything, various American and British dignitaries who have been visiting India have been telling us for weeks that President Musharraf is changing his ways, not only about society and politics in Pakistan but also about terrorism against India by infiltrators from across the Line of Control in J&K. Some of them have also been assuring India that if we gave him more time he would stop the infiltration. Since we do not have a watchman of our own senior enough to read Musharraf’s mind, we have been reading his intention only through the perceptions brought us by the visitors. This culminated in the rare occurrence that on June 16 Home Minister L.K. Advani and Defence Minister George Fernandes said in identical words, as reported, that “a perceptible change” had taken place “in Pakistan’s attitude.” But just about the same day Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee gave an interview to Newsweek which, as published a few days later, quoted him as saying: “ There has been no change in Pakistan’s policy so far as cross-border terrorism is concerned.” Mr Vajpayee was not going by perceptions brought by travelling salesmen eager to sell their ware. He was speaking from visible and verifiable events happening on the Indian side of LoC. Therefore all three members of the Indian government need to tell the people how they came to be so inconsistent with each other, and ask their visitors how they reconcile their reading of Musharraf, as conveyed by them to India, to Musharraf’s flat denial of any intention or commitment to stop infiltration or to shut down his training camps for terrorists. True, there has been a flurry of reports that at the highest level America and Britain have ticked the General off, that he has re-affirmed the commitments he had earlier made to the visitors. But, first, these reports have come through the same filters as had the earlier reports of the “commitments” he made. Second, we have no word at the time of this writing about what exactly was said to him at these levels nor about what was his reply. Third, there is no public word yet about what exactly are the commitments he has re-affirmed. Fourth, we do not know whether this time too they leave him free to quibble tomorrow. Until India gets answers to these questions it cannot decide whether it can trust Musharraf’s latest “commitments” as reported on June 25. What India does know is that after he had chucked his earlier commitments out of the window, the US State Department could still say, on June 24: “ We have no reason to disbelieve him.” How consistent is that with the spate of Musharraf’s interviews to the contrary which have lately cluttered wires, screens, front pages in preceding days? Or how consistent with each other are America’s own assessments of the man when Rumsfeld says Musharraf cannot stop all infiltration even if he wants to, Powell says he can, and the General himself says he never said he would ? These inconsistencies ought to be rectified before people begin to doubt the candour or honesty of their own ministers or their ability to perceive things correctly or the bonafide of those whom Mr Vajpayee described in his excellently worded interview as “facilitators ... not mediators”. If the inconsistencies persist they will sour the very welcome and growing similarity of views in India, America and Britain, which has just been confirmed again by the reactions of all three countries to Musharraf’s latest volte face. Most Indians understand America’s right to have and pursue its own priorities, which are different from India’s, but they would not like America to mislead them. As for Musharraf, India has lived with Pakistan’s lies for long enough to know how to live with his. India has hitherto steered its policy very credibly through these rocks and shoals. And it continues to do so. Hence on the one hand India’s refusal to stand down on the border until Pakistan creates the right conditions for that, and its readiness on the other hand to talk with Pakistan after that. No new initiative is likely from either side until after the elections, due in a couple of months. Pakistan will continue to try to disrupt them, and will not want to let down the disruptors by being seen to be making peace with India before the poll. India will not want to give them any room for their tactics. But India does need to start looking soon beyond the elections. The army cannot remain on the alert indefinitely, and not only on the long and difficult border of Kashmir but also on the still longer and no easier border of Punjab, Rajasthan and Gujarat. It needs to develop an appropriate concept of border defence, match it with a suitable mix of manpower and technical means, and back up both with public opinion which understands what is at stake. Only then can India overcome three advantages — the third is most important — which Pakistan has in making war upon India through infiltration and disruption in the name of jehad. If India neutralises these, as it certainly can, it can reduce both communalism and militancy to pin pricks. First, Pakistan’s agents can find crevices in India’s social mosaic, from where they spread the tentacles of fanaticism. India cannot retaliate in kind. Nor should it even if it could. But surely India’s security requires that nothing should be done which makes the crevices grow wider, more fertile, more numerous. Therefore, India cannot afford the wrong ways the BJP is treating Kashmir, on the autonomy issue particularly, or is treating UP by choosing Vinay Katiyar as its face in India’s most populous state, which also has the highest number of Muslims. He may have been chosen because of his caste identity, but he also carries the hated smell of Bajrang Dal. The government must stay firmly on the secular plank, while cleansing it of the thick coat of prejudices which it has acquired. For the rest the loyalty of every Indian must be treated as leak- proof except where evidence shows it is suspect. Second, while Indian forces can only move in numbers which easily show up even under remote surveillance, Pakistan’s agents can slip across borders undetected, carrying weapons which are easily hidden and used. They cannot be stopped by any method which is both foolproof and affordable. No defending army and para forces can be strung out along a couple of thousand miles in an unbroken chain of eye contact, ready to ask for the ID of anyone in sight. That would be as foolish and wasteful a security doctrine as a military doctrine that the enemy must never be allowed to capture even an inch of territory, which is a sure way of losing a mile. India’s aim is to throw back the enemy, not to capture territory for any reason except for plugging a hole in defences. Therefore, using a mix of manual and technical surveillance, India must build a monitoring chain on the border and in the air above it which can detect any sizeable move by Pakistan. It needs to position military force only behind that chain, but with sufficient numbers and lateral mobility to repel any sizeable incursion. A retaliatory force only needs to be still farther behind that. In building an adequate detecting chain India should rely on its own technologies as far as possible. But it need not worry too much that those who supply such sensors as we may need will be able to use them for spying on our movements for the suppliers’ own purposes. If the supplier were America for example it would be able to use any of its many other means for watching our units closely enough for its own needs. Would America leak the information to Pakistan ? It did leak some to Israel about a surprise move by Nasser into Gaza. But that depends on the balance of its relations with India and Pakistan, and India has been playing this diplomatic game well enough for our needs.. But it is the third of Pakistan’s three advantages which is the most difficult and at the same time the most important to neutralise. However, if you neutralise it once you have ended it for ever. This advantage is that the Indian public, pushed by the media, over-reacts more often than not, and goes from panic at one extreme to an uncontrollable outburst at the other. This paralyses considered policy at both ends, because in a vigorous democracy policy cannot by-pass the public for long. This has convinced Pakistan that India is like a heap of tinder. You throw a matchstick, and it will burst into a conflagration. You do a Godhra through your agents and the whole of Gujarat will burn. You hijack an IAC plane and the wailing relatives of the passengers, wailing even louder on television than in life, will force the government to concede any demand. This is what has made the Pakistani militant more potent. The one you cannot stop at the border will sneak into a street and shoot off a dozen in a crowd. The public will cry the government has betrayed strategic national security, and if the army does not react drastically an impatient opposition leader will demand that the Prime Minister must resign. Others will float signals of a nuclear war. Interested powers will step in with their own agenda and demand control over our nuclear button. Thus the death of a few people at the hands of a single gun man who slips in can harm our national security more seriously than the death of many dozens in bus accidents all over the place. But if the country refuses to be stampeded by the terrorist, the army will remain free to choose its own time and place for a suitable retaliation. It is the terrorist who will then have died in vain, because found and shot he will be the next day or the next, and the war of terrorism will fizzle out. |
Football World Cup for India My friend Nirbhay used to be a strong votary of allowing books in exams when we were in school. His campaign did not gather steam and he had to say goodbye to studies before passing his middle standard exam. On becoming an MLA, he was elected president of the highly secret SPCP (Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Politicians) and was instrumental in derailing CBI enquiries against many of his brethren. Now that he has become the president of a sports federation, his one-point agenda is to bring glory to India. The other day he told me with a know-all look: “Didn’t I tell you that Turkey and South Korea will never make it to the football final? “So what, they lost to better-playing teams.” “No, no, no, you bird brain. This has nothing to do with the standard of the game. It is a result of a deep-rooted conspiracy against Asia. Well-entrenched powers are never going to let any outsider barge into this exclusive club.” “Even if it is true, what can be done?” I said half in jest. “A lot! We have to demand a revolutionary change in the format of the game.” “What?” “Yes, it is against the interests of the have-nots to choose the winner through such gruelling competition. The democratic way is to do it through nomination. That way, every country, big or small, powerful or weak, will have a chance to win the World Cup at least once.” “Wonderful,” I said, “But even under your format, India’s turn will come after many decades, may be even centuries.” “No, no, you moron, we will be the first ones to be blessed with the World Cup.” “How?” “Simply by sending me as the head of a high-powered delegation to FIFA headquarters to present our case. We will hold a dharna there to wake up the world.” “So what is India’s case?” “That it deserves the World Cup more than any other country. First, no Asian nation has ever won it. Two, it is such an ancient civilisation. Three, it has a population of more than a billion….” “All that is hardly relevant. In any case, China can stake a similar claim….” “Oh, don’t forget that they have many Olympic medals in their kitty. We have practically none. We are talking about the uplift of the poorest of the poor, after all.” “You have a point, but such an experiment has never been tried.” “A beginning has to be made some day.” “But if they don’t listen to you?” “Everyone listens when money speaks, yaar! Surely, FIFA has a Sidhu counterpart.” “I am certain bribery and corruption don’t work there,” I said indignantly. “In that case, we will also take representatives from the PWG, the Ranbir Sena and perhaps even the NSCN with us,” he said ominously. |
Changing policemen’s mindset with training Exactly one year ago we as trainers in the Delhi Police received over 1612 recruits (1528 men and 84 women) to be transformed into strong and able police officers. The youthful recruits came from the northern part of India, with different backgrounds and mindsets. After an intensive and gruelling one year of residential training, we asked them the following four questions to understand where they stood. The questions were (1) What was your mindset when you joined the Delhi Police and came for training? (2) What is it now? (3) Have you experienced any change in your original thinking and if so illustrate? (4) Which programme during the training influenced you the most in changing the original mindset? Here are some very interesting responses for us as a society to know as to what happened, what changed and why? Q.1 What was your mindset when you joined the Delhi Police and came for training? * “I joined the service to remove my unemployment and poverty. I used to hate the very name of the police. But I desired to wear a police uniform. Hence this became the major reason for entry into the police.” *
“I had only one point programme. Now that I have got employment, I will make a lot of money. I heard from some persons that the training will be very harsh and it will make us insensitive and heartless.” * “When I got selected in the Delhi Police my concern was only my immediate family”. * “I have seen the police department from very close quarters as my father is in the police. I had a very negative attitude towards this department which appeared to be full of individuals ‘with long moustaches, alcoholics and short-tempered’.” * “When I came to the police I was of the view that we will be maltreated during training and taught crude language by which I will lose my sensitive feelings”. * “I had only selfish motives to join the service. I only valued my own religion and hated all other faiths. I also was not careful towards my responsibilities”. Q. 2 How is your mindset now? * “The present mindset has changed from the earlier one. Our earlier thinking was to be employed and make money now that thinking has changed. Now, duty means welfare of the people to the maximum extent, seek people’s cooperation and be fair and just towards all - - - - to work as a servant of the people rather than their master and to reduce their grievances”. * “I have certainly changed. My earlier mind was that since I am a B.Ed. and was expecting to be employed as a teacher one day, I would move back to teaching. But now after training I feel this service gives me greater opportunity to serve the community and provide security to the society. * “Earlier I was mentally disturbed but training has helped me become punctual, responsible, honest, fearless and conscious towards my duties. I learnt to understand different challenges which I may encounter for which I feel prepared”. * “Now my mindset is not limited to my family but extends towards all segments of society. For me all of them are now my extended family whose security is my responsibility”. Q. 3 Have you experienced any change in your original thinking and if so please illustrate? * “I have felt considerable change in my thinking and attitudes. I have benefited maximum from spiritual discourses, Vipassana and art of living. For instance, earlier I was very short-tempered, now I have learnt self-control. I respect my parents more and also give due love and care to my wife which earlier I did not. In fact earlier I used to even beat her. I have become very sensitive towards injustice. I will now go to any extent to protect my country even at the cost of my own life”. * “Yes. I have changed. It is only after coming into this police training and its environment that I have realised that my life was without any direction. Now I realise I am living all over again, anew. For instance, I now realise my responsibilities as a son, a parent and a responsible citizen. Alongside I have imbibed the larger concept of a family which includes all the members of the society comprising of men, women, elders and children whose security is now my duty”. Q. 4 Which programme during the training influenced you the most in changing the original mindset? The analysis of all the 1,611 feedback forms clearly revealed that no training is complete without value education. We can teach people how to apply the law, arrest, search, investigate, prosecute and punish. But all this investment in training can go waste if basic human values of applying the knowledge is not given. What brought the attitudinal change in these 1,611 recruits (men & women) are (a) daily one hour of “parvachans” which were “Sarvadharam”, “art of living,’”, “yoga and Vipassana(meditation) courses (b) regular counselling and guidance by the supervisors through direct dialogue and interaction (c) close monitoring and supervision (d) welfare training with full discipline (e) students participation in regular feedback of the training and the environment they were living in (f) supervisors and teachers as role models. In fact I wonder if the training had not influenced and changed their earlier mindsets we would have perhaps aggravated, unknowingly, to the agony and grief in society by sending in many self-centred people in uniform. There are a lot of lessons to be learnt from this feedback-for trainers, educators, supervisors and parents. It clearly tells us why we have been failing and how to pass and succeed. |
|
|
Free power supply a political gimmick Determined as he is, Union Power Minister Suresh Prabhu admits that privatisation is not the panacea to all ills afflicting the power sector. He firmly believes that persistence with a particular style of management has not brought about the desired results. If not anything else, privatisation increases efficiency and injects accountability into the system, Prabhu says in an exclusive interview. Excerpts: Q: The power sector continues to face deficiencies even though the regulatory reforms process was initiated a decade back. The sector has not been able to attract adequate private investment because of financial unviability of the state electricity boards (SEBs). Your comments: Before answering this question, we must first put the issue into proper perspective. Today the real problems affecting the power sector in India are theft, poor quality, high tariffs, irregular supply and lack of commercial viability. We now need to ask, have we attacked these problems during the last ten years? I presume not. Therefore, it is wrong to assume that the process of real reforms in the power sector was initiated about a decade ago. Real reforms started only when we started addressing these problems and this has been taking place only during the last two-and-a-half years. The main problem area in structural reforms is that of distribution and this is directly associated with the issues that I had mentioned above. And the efforts of the last two years have started producing results. There are clear indications of the SEBs turning around. Q: Is privatisation the panacea for all ills affecting the power sector? No. Privatisation is not the only solution to all ills. But the issue is much larger than merely privatisation. The point is that we have persisted with a particular style of management for more than 50 years now. Unfortunately, it has not delivered. Privatisation, if not anything, increases efficiency and fixes accountability. Q: What are your views on the privatisation of power distribution in Delhi? In Delhi the losses are already 60 per cent. As I said we have persisted with a particular kind of management for several decades that had not delivered the results. Unless one takes care of vested interests, the required results cannot be achieved. Privatisation increases efficiency and increases accountability and the decision of the Delhi government to privatise power distribution is in complete conformity with the policies of the Central Government. A similar exercise has been extremely successful in Mumbai and there is no reason why it should not be successful in Delhi. This monopoly mentality of public enterprises have to end. Q: There has been a rather disturbing trend of promising free power to farmers in some states. What are your views on this? There is nothing called free power. Free power is a myth, it is not a reality. After all power is produced and then distributed. If the end consumer is not paying for it, then somebody else must bear the cost. If states like Punjab promise free power, they must first realise whether they have the money to do so. If the consumer does not pay for the use of power, then the state has to incur the cost. We are not a welfare state like Scandinavian countries which have the cushion of huge budget surpluses. In fact, free power amounts to no power, as it amounts to hoodwinking, as it results in erratic supply. In the final analysis people can see through the political gimmick as they get no power at all. Q: Which states have made significant progress in terms of reforms in the power sector? We do not want to give certificates on the basis of some ranking or any other methodology. In accordance with the M.S. Ahluwalia Committee Report, most SEBs would have signed a tripartite agreement to pay off their outstanding dues. It is now only a question of becoming profitable on the current account. We are also in the process of developing a reliability index which will primarily be an index whether the supply of power is reliable enough. It is being developed by the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad, in association with the Central Electricity Authority (CEA). We are also putting in place a national level regulatory framework where tribunals will be set up and the State Electricity Regulatory Commissions (SERCs) made accountable to the Tribunal. |
Make singing hymns in praise of the Lord your daily evening prayer. It is believed that the first two verses of this hymn were composed by Guru Ram Das in answer to his father Guru Amar Das’s request to spell out his wishes. The remaining three verses deal with the importance of keeping company with righteous men. We seekers of the Lord beseech you our true guru, To you who is truth personified we pray; We are but worms and vermin seeking your protection, Be merciful, illumine our hearts with your name. My friend and mentor, suffuse my heart with the name of Rama; Let teachings of the guru my life sustain Let singing praises of the Lord show me the way And be my evensong. Men of the Lord are fortune’s favourities They are ever firm in their faith And ever thirst for the Lord. Finding the elixir of the Lord’s name Their thirsts are slaked. In the company of holy men His virtues they praise. Most unfortunate are those, And caught in shackles of life and death, Who have not tasted the nectar of His name. Those who sought not the Lord’s protection Nor the holy congregation, Are damned in this life and for lives to come. Those devotees blessed with the guru’s companionship, Bear marks of blessed fate on their foreheads. Twice blessed is that congregation Where the nectar of the Lord’s name is found. There, says Nanak, The Lord’s name is illumined and enlightenment found. —Rehras, 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 | |
