The Tribune, Chandigarh, India

EDITORIALS

Consumer is the king

The Atal Behari Vajpayee Government has taken a significant step by amending the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The various changes made in the Act reinforce Mahatma Gandhi’s famous opinion that the “consumer is the king”. Over the years, there has been an impression that the Act lacked teeth. Consumer fora at the national, state and district level were constituted by an Act of Parliament. However, such was the condition and status of these fora that they were unable to even requisition the services of the police and enforce their orders. These fora came to be regarded as no more than toothless tigers as it had become impossible for them to bring the culprits to book. This also led to the gradual decline of these institutions which were primarily set up to safeguard and protect the rights and interests of the consumers. Frequent transfer of cases from the consumer fora to judicial courts and/or tribunals affected the legitimacy and relevance of the Act itself. The consumer welfare bodies, public-spirited organisations and NGOs in various states and Union Territories have been urging successive governments at the Centre to amend the 1986 Act so that these statutory fora would be able to do justice to the consumers, but in vain. It is in this context that the Vajpayee Government’s initiative deserves commendation. The new amendment to Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act reinforces that if the opposite parties do not comply with the orders of the consumer courts, they can face imprisonment. Consumer welfare organisations in the country have hailed this amendment as they feel that it would now be possible for the consumer fora to ensure that consumers get back their money swiftly from opposite parties.

Hereafter people can file complaints against lawyers, doctors, builders, shops and any other party to whom they have paid money as consumers and once a complaint is received, it shall not be transferred to any other court or tribunal. Complaints shall be heard as expeditiously as possible. The new amendment recognises the importance of the district fora. It empowers them to pass interim orders whenever required. For instance, Section 14 of the Act envisages that if a district forum is satisfied that the allegations contained in a complaint are proved, it can issue orders directing the opposite party, inter alia, to pay punitive damages, cease manufacture of hazardous goods and refrain from offering services which are hazardous in nature, pay not less than 5 per cent of the value of defective goods sold or services provided where the loss or injury has been suffered by a large number of consumers, and to issue a corrective advertisement to neutralise the effect of the misleading advertisement. The new amendment expands the scope of the state commissions too. Their jurisdiction has been raised to help them entertain consumers where the value of goods or services and compensation claimed exceeds Rs 20 lakh but does not exceed Rs 1 crore. Complaints above Rs 1 crore will have to be filed with the national commission. The consumer has, no doubt, emerged victorious following the amendment. However, its success will depend on the extent to which it safeguards his/her rights.

Uplinking policy

While carrying out vital changes in the policy for satellite uplinking from within the country, the Union Cabinet has sought to bring the print and electronic media on an even keel. The line taken by the Information and Broadcasting Ministry and the External Affairs Ministry has prevailed and a cap of 26 per cent on foreign investment has been introduced. The I and B Ministry had opened up satellite uplinking completely in July, 2000, but last year decided that the applications made by media baron Rupert Murdoch's wholly foreign owned Star TV to uplink from Indian soil beginning this April following the end of its contract with NDTV, and by two other partially/wholly foreign news channels were indicative of the complications that could arise later. It, therefore, referred the matter to various ministries for consultation so that a collective decision could be taken. The Home and Finance Ministries were for 49 per cent foreign holding to uplink from India, while the Communications Ministry supported continuation of the existing policy. Recognising the importance of news dissemination, and to ensure that the editorial control remained in Indian hands, the cap has been kept at 26 per cent. But in the case of entertainment programmes, those uplinking from India will be allowed 100 per cent foreign equity.

The guidelines for editorial and managerial which are to be notified shortly will also strive to make sure that foreign elements do not succeed in airing news content that is detrimental to India's interests. To make sure that there are no loopholes, it has been clarified that 26 per cent equity would include investments made by NRIs, overseas corporate bodies as well as foreign institutional investors. The Cabinet has also decided to ask the Communications Ministry to streamline its policy vis-à-vis use of VSAT for broadcasting purposes in line with the changes in the uplinking regime. Broadcasting companies with foreign equity of more than 26 per cent have been given one year to bring it down. The biggest fallout of the decision would be on Star News which has 100 per cent foreign investment and Zee, which has 57 per cent stakes. The former will have to give up 74 per cent equity to Indian promoters. With things in such a flux, it is unlikely that Star will be able to launch its own news channel from next month. And as far as Zee is concerned, it has two options before it. Either the Indian promoters can pump in fresh funds to bring down foreign equity to 26 per cent or foreign holders can disinvest their stakes in favour of Indian retail investors.

China’s new leaders

How does one measure the success of a political system? Its ability to ensure balanced and sustained growth in key sectors like health, education, trade, production and infrastructure development should be a reliable indicator of the success of any political system. On a scale of 10 the Chinese model should walk away with the top honours. Those who scoff at the absence of Westminster type process of parliamentary democracy in China should have a close and objective look again at how it works. The Chinese have mixed socialism with key elements of capitalism for putting into place a mechanism that has transformed economic profile of the country. It has astounded copybook economists who thought that Marx could not compete with Keynes and Adam Smith. The Chinese have also perfected the art of political change that is more smooth and effective than the one that works the over-rated institution of parliamentary democracy. In what was evidently a smooth transition, some would say along expected lines, a new generation of leaders took upon themselves the responsibility of guiding the economic destiny of China as its President and Prime Minister. Speaking for the first time at the concluding session of the the 15-day long annual session of the National People's Congress, the country's parliament, President Hu Jintao and Prime Minister Wen Jiabao pledged to pursue the path of modernisation and reforms without compromising the political and social stability of China. The experience of the past shows that the Chinese leaders seldom make extravagant promises.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. China is, perhaps, the only country that commands the respect of the only and most arrogant super power. The Americans may still see "them damn communists" with a degree of distrust, but they know that China is the only country that can turn their dollar kingdom into dust through clever improvisation of their own rules of the game of profit-making. That too without diluting its commitment to socialism. Between the two new leaders China's policy of pragmatic economic development is expected to remain on course. The overwhelming support for Mr Hu Jintao as the country's next President and rejection of Mr Zeng Qinghong brought into sharp focus the delegates' disapproval of Mr Jiang Zemin's manipulative tactics. That the eyes of the new team are firmly on economic growth was evident from the fact that when the new leadership put the finishing touches to its agenda it did not forget to appoint, for working the modified the capitalist model, the first-ever commerce minister. A former ambassador to the USA was appointed foreign minister whose first formal statement asked America to stop the military action in Iraq and give peace a chance for achieving the objective of disarming President Saddam Hussein.

OPINION

Summer in Jammu and Kashmir
Will terrorist violence increase or decrease?
V.P. Malik

In all the din of the war in Iraq, the World Cup, Mayawati tapes, and the ministry crisis in Jharkhand, I wonder if anyone has considered the security situation in Jammu and Kashmir during the forthcoming summer. From past experience, we know that with the melting of snow, enabling greater foot mobility in the state, the level of infiltration as well as terrorist violence usually goes up. An analysis, based on the factors stated below, shows that Pakistan is likely to step up state sponsored terrorist activities in Jammu and Kashmir in the coming months:

Pak politico-military infrastructure, its mind-set and policies.

Negative impact of the prolonged Indian border deployment on the Pakistan mind.

Frustration and impatience caused by India’s current policy of “No Talks” and “Ignore Pakistan”.

Improvement in socio-political situation in J & K, which does not suit Pakistan’s policies.

The ongoing US- Pak inter- dependent relationship, which gives greater latitude to the Pakistani politico-military establishment to pursue its Kashmir policy.

Pakistani establishment’s requirement to appease its radical mullah community to be able to pursue its relations and objectives with the USA.

While there is no need for alarm, the country needs to be prepared to meet any contingency with necessary political, diplomatic and military measures.

Pakistan cannot hope to capture Jammu and Kashmir or any of its part by an open military aggression. Ever since 1989, it has endeavoured to do so through a policy of “political dialogue backed by jehadi terrorists pressure”. This Pakistani policy was followed through the1990s by successive governments led by Gen Zia-ul- Haq, Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif. In 1998-99, when the jehadi instrument was getting blunted and not resulting in adequate pressure on India to budge on this so-called core issue, the Pakistani military establishment attempted to use its army in the garb of militants to capture parts of the Kargil sector and thus put greater political pressure on India. It was a desperate act of an ambitious, motivated but rash new (then) Army chief, Gen Pervez Musharraf, who also happens to be President of Pakistan now. What happened during and consequent to the Kargil war is now history; rather sad for Pakistan. However, Pak military was able to cover and distort the Kargil truth after the military coup in October, 1999. It has continued to pursue India-related policies in the manner that it knows best; through violence, or diplomacy backed by violence.

The terrorists’ attack on the Indian Parliament on December 13, 2001, and consequent deployment of the Indian military on the western border was a turning point in Indo-Pak relations. This 10-month-long border deployment and coercive diplomacy by India resulted in (a) India refusing to have any official dialogue with Pakistan unless it gave up support to jehadi terrorists and ended their violence, (b) Pakistan getting away with the impression that it was able to “defeat” the enemy without fighting a war, and (c) Pakistan feeling secure that India is unlikely to repeat Operation Parakaram type strategy and deployment in the immediate future.

Despite several significant statements made by General Musharraf last year to get the heat off on account of the Indian military deployment, and for the international community to pressurise India to resume a political level dialogue, Pakistan has continued to support and use jehadi militants in Jammu and Kashmir and elsewhere. The terrorist violence in Jammu and Kashmir last year resulted in about 2,800 deaths, which included about 800 civilians, 450 security personnel, and 1550 terrorists. The months of February and June witnessed some respite because of international pressure and the fear of attack by India. But September and October saw maximum death rate because of the spurt in violence connected with elections. As against the average monthly death rate of 253 during the period January to November, the month of June saw 170 deaths while two months of September and October saw 305 and 292 deaths, respectively.

The pattern clearly shows that the Pakistani military establishment controls the terrorist violence in Jammu and Kashmir to suit its political and security requirements. In this context, it is worth recalling the statement made by Lt Gen Mohammad Aziz Khan, then Chief of General Staff of Pak Army, in the famous intercepted telephone conversation during Kargil war that “...the militants’ tooti (scruff of their neck) is in our hands, and whenever you want (he tells others), we can regulate it”.

Ever since December 13, 2001, India, more due to its futile experience and frustrations, has followed a “No Talk” and “Ignore Pakistan” policy. This Indian policy has now started reflecting the failure of Pakistan’s core domestic and foreign policies. The question now is; can the Pakistani politico-military establishment afford that? If so, for how long? Pakistan’s frustration is already becoming evident from its desperate appeals and interventions all over the world and also in the Track 2 meetings.

Another factor is the new political dispensation in Jammu and Kashmir, the policies that it has been following, and the decision of the Centre (after consulting the State Chief Minister) to appoint Mr N.N. Vohra as the interlocutor for greater devolution of powers to the State. After Chief Election Commissioner’s strictly supervised, most transparent election held in the state so far, the legitimacy of the new state government is well recognised within Jammu and Kashmir and by the international community. The new government is following the correct policy of “healing touch for the public” and “iron hand for the terrorists”, which is now fully supported by the Centre. The state governance also appears to have generally improved. All this runs counter to Pakistani policies and cannot be to the liking of its rulers.

A word about the US- Pak inter-dependent relationship! Despite full knowledge that the commitments of the Pakistani army and its intelligence agencies to fight against the Taliban and Al-Qaida cannot be taken at face value, the USA continues to believe that Pak support for its regional policies is indispensable. In a move that will add to the improved US-Pak bilateral political relations, the US President George W Bush has waived sanctions against Pakistan making it eligible to receive millions of dollars in economic assistance. Such moves result in making Pakistan confident that the USA will not let it down, and occasional American diplomatic pressure notwithstanding, it has enough space for continuing its policy towards India of “diplomacy and dialogue backed by jehadi terrorists pressure.”

An opinion poll conducted by The Herald in January, 2002, in major urban centres of Pakistan indicated that 64 per cent people feel that Pakistani national security interests were served by supporting jehadi outfits in Jammu and Kashmir. In a recently published paper, Prof Satish Kumar, Editor-in-Chief, India’s National Security Annual Review, has stated: “Islamic extremism and militancy have become as important a reality in Pakistan as the army in Pakistan. Both of them are durable. There is a symbiotic relationship between them, which cannot be wished away. Both of them are hostile to India and acting in unison their hostility will remain formidable”. In the post 9/11 and 12/13 period, Pakistan’s military rulers have maintained a double face on the Kashmir issue, seeking a dialogue with India and continuing the so-called moral, political and diplomatic support to the terrorists trained by their mullahs.

This so-called support is nothing but a well-crafted strategy of using terrorism as sub conventional warfare in the name of jehad. The Pakistani politico-military establishment has been quite successful in running with the hare and hunting with the hounds: selectively supporting the USA in their campaign against Al-Qaida, and also the radicals on jehad in Jammu and Kashmir. Whenever a well-publicised action is taken against these radicals at the instance of the USA, it is quietly undone after sometime. Sometimes, demonstrations by the latter are also used to show high risks on the domestic front being taken by the establishment to support the USA. In the coming months, for supporting (or quietly acquiescing) the US policy on Iraq, and handing over arrested non-Pakistani Al-Qaida leaders to the USA, the Pakistani establishment is likely to go soft on the mullahs and use the symbiotic relationship between them on their Jammu and Kashmir policy.

Pakistan continues to believe that it has been able to prevent India from taking a strong military action against it because of its nuclear threat. On December 13, 2002, Gen Pervez Musharraf, while speaking at the Artillery Regimental Centre at Attock, claimed that Pak armed forces had earned the distinction of “defeating the enemy without fighting a war”. In another gathering he said that, “I personally conveyed messages to Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee through every international leader who came to Pakistan that if Indian troops moved a single step across the international border or the LoC, they should not expect a conventional war from Pakistan”. This irrational nuclear rhetoric and logic reflects a mindset, which believes that Pak military can wage a proxy or a limited Kargil type war against India but its reverse cannot happen.

What the Pak politico military establishment knows better than anyone or anything else in that country, is to wage a war or to raise the level of terrorists’ violence (which is also an instrument of state policy) to assert a political point. The analysis above shows that this strategy will continue to be used to highlight “Jammu and Kashmir dispute”. It would, therefore, be advisable for security forces in Jammu and Kashmir to remain alert, and for the State and Central Governments to be prepared for any contingency on the military, political and diplomatic fronts.

While addressing the 29th convocation of Punjabi University, Patiala, on March 15, India’s External Minister, Mr Yashwant Sinha, is reported to have said: “If only Pakistan would be willing to shed hostility and stop using terrorism as an instrument of national policy, there can still be a new dawn in our relationship”. However rational this statement may be, the new dawn appears to be a wishful thinking at present. So let us be prepared.

The writer is a retired Chief of the Army staff.

COMMENTARY

Has India a meaningful role to play in the Arab world?
M.S.N. Menon

The world dominated by America is no more. Its place has been taken by a multilateral world. And in this multilateral world, the world of Islam, with 1,400 million believers, is going to be important. More so, the Arab world. And in the Arab world, Saudi Arabia.

For good or bad, Saudi Arabia will count. For three reasons: 1) it has enormous oil resources, 2) as keeper of the holiest Muslim places, Mecca and Medina, it is the beneficiary of a huge revenue from pilgrims and 3) it is home of the Wahhabi Sunni sect, the largest Muslim group in the world.

One day, Saudi oil resources may exhaust, but not the revenue from pilgrims. It will keep growing. That is why the Saudis naturally exert a measure of influence on Muslims all over the world. Not because of religious factors, but because it disperses funds to the needy. It can fund the wrong people, as it has already done. That is why we must know this country more intimately.

With held its population of 21 million young (below 20 years) Saudi Arabia's future is unpredictable. Its young are in revolt. But their options are limited. They cannot turn against America or the West (who will buy the oil?). And they cannot play down the religious element (for, in that case, they may lose the pilgrim revenue).

There is an impression that Saudi Arabia is very rich. It is true, its revenue is still high, but its per capita income has fallen from $ 28,000 (equal to that of the USA) to $ 7000 in the last two decades. And its indebtedness is astronomical: 171 billion dollars domestic and 35 billion dollars foreign.

Saudi Arabia is a country of drones. There are 7000 princes. And the people maintain a high standard of living through imports. Thus, it is profligate state and has wasted much of its revenue in ostentatious living.

But spending on arms is the most irrational part of it, when the country has a guarantee of US protection. Between 1987 and 1999, Saudi Arabia spent on arms about $81 billion, of which arms worth $45 billion came from America. These arms deals hide a variety of dubious scams.

Arms have, however, not deterred the Opposition. The first challenge to the Saudi royalty came from the tribal-based Ikhwan in 1928-29 in the name of religion. It was crushed by the army. There was never an effort to talk to the Opposition. Our former Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, M.H. Ansari, writes: “A conformist state of this nature had no place for meaningful dissent.” There is no democracy anywhere in the Gulf.

In 1979 the Grand Mosque of Mecca was under seige and it had to be liberated by French para-troopers. The latest challenge has come from Osama bin Laden. And it is more serious, for he has considerable support among the youth of Saudi Arabia. But can the youth lead the way as they have done elsewhere?

In 2000, Mia Yamani, a Saudi anthropologist, did a study on the Saudi youth (15-30 age group). It was found that they were most concerned with their identity and they wanted space for their own views without the overbearing presence of the state and mullahs. In short, they are only asking for a share of power.

Ever since 9/11, the Saudi authorities have given much thought to the image of the Arabs. On January 14, 2003, the Crown Prince Abdullah launched a new Arab Charter to change the Arab image. It called for political participation of people. The long-term plan is to create an Arab Free Trade Area by 2005 and an Arab Common Market in ten years. One never knows whether these will come about or not. But they can be momentous.

Saudi-US relations are no more what they were. The intimacy is gone. Much of it has been hidden in secret deals. For example, the Saudi-US military relations. This is kept secret because of popular opposition.

It was the continuing presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia after the Gulf war that made Osama bin Laden an enemy of the royal family. But in keeping its troops in Saudi Arabia, the real motive of America is to prevent a takeover of the kingdom by Islamic radicals, not so much to protect the royal family.

The Saudi establishment has little influence over the jehadis. Nor has the Imam of the Grand Mosque at Mecca. This became evident from the attack on the World Trade Center. But the jehadis are financed by Saudi.

In December 2001, Mohammed al Sabil, the Imam of the Grand Mosque, denounced suicide killings of civilians. It is not permitted in the Sharia. But such killings have gone on without respite in Jammu and Kashmir.

When he was reminded of a pronouncement of the Rector of the Al Azhar University that “the views and beliefs of Osama bin Laden have nothing to do with Islam”, Laden replied: “The fatwa of any official religious-legal scholar (alim) has not value for me.” He claims direct authority from the Quran.

The fact is: Muslims do not admit any central authority of any upstart who is ready to assert his views with violence. For example, Osama bin Laden. Mullah Omar. This leads to anarchy. The world cannot allow this, for there can be more of such 9/11 attacks. Riyadh has, therefore, a great responsibility. It must establish a central authority and stamp out the upstarts. It must use its financial clout for this sensible project.

India has had an unhappy relation with its Muslim invaders. It is still trying to live down that hurt. It is no easy matter.

Coming to terms with our history is, however, important, for Muslims constitute a large segment of India’s population — as many as 120 million, the second largest Muslim group in the world. But as a community, it has no influence on the Muslims of the world. More often, it is ready to take orders from others. This is very unfortunate.

As citizens of a great power (No Muslim country is going to be a great power) Indian Muslims must seize the leadership of the Muslim world — of a progressive Muslim world. I have my reasons. Remember, Indian Muslims cannot have the luxury of reverting to orthodoxy and obscurantism. That is the perilous path of conflict with Hinduism. Muslims must avoid it. They must evolve into a progressive force both at home and abroad. And they must begin their work first in the small Gulf states. We have good relations with them.

Saudi Arabia will always be a force of conservatism. Of even fundamentalism. That gives Indian Muslims an opportunity.

SIGHT & SOUND

The war and media games
Amita Malik

This is being written a few hours before President Bush's ultimatum to President Saddam expires, and brings back awesome memories of the Gulf War waged by his father and how it transformed the media.

For the first time in media history we witnessed actual action during a war in our living rooms, as if it were a tennis or cricket match, but of course with censorship limits to how much could be shown. So awesome was the visual effect CNN created in our minds that the technical wonder of the operation almost drove the human aspect out of our minds. The untold suffering of unarmed and innocent civilians, men, women and children, who were being subjected to the cruellest forms of modern onslaught by the most powerful nation in the world shook us. The same thoughts now spring to mind, the thoughts of all those Iraqi children dying of undernourishment and cancer patients dying without treatment because of a power-hungry nation which could not possibly be threatened by such a comparatively small and weak nation. Politics is, indeed, an inhuman and dirty business. And absolute power corrupts absolutely and lets bullies feel free to act against world opinion.

But the media war which the Americans tried out in Afghanistan remains in our memory, where hundreds, if not thousands of innocent civilians, including marriage parties and tiny villages were mercilessly bombed from the air allegedly "by mistake", sometimes it was even claimed to be justified. In Afghanistan also they dropped thousands of leaflets to a largely illiterate population, and Osama bin Laden, which the campaign was said to be targetting, is still at large. Anyway, the first step mentioned in TV this time is the launch of what is cynically called the Psyco-Op, meaning psychological operation. Apart from the leaflets urging the military not to fight and telling civilians what punishment to expect if they support Saddam, they are also broadcasting radio programmes from satellites hovering over Iraq which are using a mixture of pop music and propaganda. Wonder how far it will work, because it did not work much in Afghanistan (they should have tried with Indian filmi geet). Psyc ho-Op is always a chancy business. As much as fiercely non-veg Afghans being air-dropped peanut butter sandwiches, complete with paper plates and napkins. Well, let's wait and see.

I have held up my copy to be in time to catch the first moments of the war against Iraq. I can just mention the highlights. The most disillusioning sight for me was a comic moment seized by the BBC when Bush was sitting in the Oval office to make his telecast to the nation and what he also called "the world". There he was, about to kill hundreds of innocent Iraqi civilians and fussing about his make-up. First they carefully patted his hair into place, taking extra care over his side burns. Then a woman's hand appeared from one side and started taking caste of his facial make up. He looked quite nonchalant throughout and even smiled. I could not help remembering the famous Nixon-Kennedy debate on TV when Nixon had on so much pancake make-up that hundreds of American women voted against him and Kennedy became President.

The Americans have their own quaint phraseology and it becomes even more bizarre when there is a war on. The early phrases I picked up were "decapitation attack" for the attack to kill Saddam Hussain and alternatively Leadership Target, which I feel has a double meaning. The first attack, according to their military leadership, was on "A Target of Opportunity". And later, "Select Targets of Military Importance" (which it should be and not mix up civilians in the target).

However, the Americans did what everyone, from political dictators to military usupers do. It was for instance, the first thing Musharraf's soldiers did when he seized power. And that is, take over the radio station. The Americans immediately took over Iraq's state radio frequency, installed a substitute announcer and at least the state radio was out of Iraq's hands although Saddam's son made a broadcast, ending with God Bless Our Leader, in the nick of time. Even during the Bangladesh war, Major Zia, later to become President Zia, set up a clandestine radio transmitter near Chittagong and kept people informed about the onslaughts of the Pakistani army and the progress of the Indian army. I wonder if Iraq has set up some such stations to elude the Americans.

My last most important news item, only mentioned about not shown on the screen, was that hundreds of Americans were demonstrating against the war, even after it started, in Los Angeles and the police were baton-charging them. The voice of American honour and decency which Bush claims for himself, with rather less credibility.

Cricket became more important than both the state elections and the budget for many Indian viewers. There are so many lessons, moral, political and otherwise in this war, for India and the world, and even more the dubious reasons given for it, one being justice given by Bush, that I think viewers of all ages should be following the debates on the war with care. The final speeches at the UN by the German, French and Syrian representatives had their valuable points to make about total lack of necessity for this war and the awesome effects it will have on the future of humanity and the lack of respect for America as a world power. Those speeches alone made watching TV imperative.