 |
Monday,
March 24, 2003, Chandigarh, India  
|
No consensus Gold in times of war
The US-Iraq confrontation |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Frosty flight to Singapore
Anupam Gupta
Madonna forced to
re-shoot video
|
No consensus It is no surprise that Saturday’s all-party meeting failed to evolve any consensus on adopting a joint resolution on the US attack on Iraq. The line taken by various parties was so different that there was little scope of evolving a compromise. While the left parties wanted to go hammer and tongs against the Americans, the ruling parties were more circumspect about the kind of language that should be used. The government was prepared to “deplore” the military action against Iraq by the USA, whereas the Opposition insisted on condemning it outright. That may only appear to be a matter of semantics to a lay person but when the operative word is uttered by a country, it makes a significant difference. In the end, they all held on to their respective stand. That is rather for the overall good of the country because its response needed to be predicated to its principles and long-term national interests. India cannot ignore the reality of international terrorism spreading in its neighbourhood. Small parties have every right to go off the tangent, but what mattered most was that the major ones like the BJP and the Congress should react in a responsible way. The most sober was the response of the Leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha, Dr Manmohan Singh, who said that the parties had expressed themselves on the issue and should leave the rest to the government. As the Prime Minister, Mr Atal Behari Vajpayee, pointed out, there is no question of India endorsing the action of the USA and its allies against Iraq, but our words, actions and diplomatic efforts should be aimed at trying to achieve a pragmatic approach rather than creating a rhetorical effect. When he pointed out that “quiet diplomacy is far more effective than public posturing”, he was only underlining the fact that international diplomacy needed to be conducted in an extremely subtle manner. Various pros and cons have to be carefully weighed. For instance, those insisting that the USA should not have bypassed the UN must remember that only recently India was all set to take on Pakistan without UN sanction for its unforgivable role in the attack on Parliament and many other similar provocative acts. India does not gain anything by shouting from the housetop. It can exert greater influence by calibrating its response more judiciously. The response has to be in keeping with its aspiration to become a global power rather than a regional satrap. The future strategy will depend on how the war unfolds in the days to come. The USA knows that its aggression has not been popular around the world. That is why it is keen to wrap up the operation in the shortest possible time. |
| Gold in times of war When there was talk of war, the prices of gold, like that of oil, started rising. Despite many other attractive options for investment, most people like to covert their spare cash into gold for family security during war, a natural calamity or a similar crisis. The day the war started, the gold prices registered a decline, validating the truth behind the long-tested investment rule: ‘Buy the rumour, sell the fact”. The reduced demand was on the expectations that the US-led war on Iraq would not last long. In the Indian bullion market the price of the yellow metal closed notably lower on the day one of the war at Rs 5,380 per 10 gram, down by Rs 50. Since the operators had discounted the war factor in gold trade and the demand had reached almost its peak, the actual start of the US offensive came hardly as a
surprise to anybody and hence traders deemed it fit to offload their stocks. A similar trend of weak demand and falling gold and silver prices was witnessed in the international markets also. “Opinion is growing that the war will be over very quickly and this is limiting the safe-haven value of commodities such as gold and oil”, observed James Moore of
TheBullionDesk.com. Market observers feel the current high prices are not sustainable and should fall further in the next few days. India is a major market for gold and people in general, irrespective of their religious leaning and social background, like to hoard gold in the shape of ornaments. According to one estimate, there may be some 10,000 tonnes of gold in the country lying largely in the form of ornaments. The country imports, on an average, 1.5 tonnes of gold each day to meet its annual domestic demand of about 800 tonnes. The State Bank of India floated a gold deposit scheme four years ago, offering 1.2 per cent return on gold deposits, but in a country with vast reserves of gold in private hands, the bank could not collect more than seven tonnes. The tradition-bound people in India do not like to part with this symbol of family security, passed on from generation to generation, for sentimental reasons. Others stayed away from the SBI scheme for fears of income-tax raids. Maybe the returns were not perceived as lucrative enough. But the potential to bring into the market the large unaccounted reserves remains untapped. The Finance Minister did make an announcement in the Budget to encourage gold trading and make the country a hub of global gold trade, the response to the proposal was lukewarm. Indians, by temperament, are gold hoarders, not traders. |
The US-Iraq confrontation Truth can be interpreted or misinterpreted as the leaders seek to put forward their case or to justify their actions. Why has this confrontation between the USA and Iraq been allowed to grow. It seems that the countries like France, Russia and Germany have indirectly led Iraq up the gum tree, hoping that the USA will not attack. France has about 14 per cent Muslim population of Algerian origin while Germany has a fair number of Turkish population. As far the Russians, the Central Asian states have 100 per cent Muslim population while some Russian states like Caucasus also have a fairly large number of Muslims. It seems Germany with its strong economic clout does not want the UK to dominate the NATO leadership along with the USA, which has been the case so far. It wants to have its own leadership to enjoy the international respect and honour which has been denied to Germany so far, even though it is the strongest economic power in Europe and one of the strongest economic as well as military powers in the world. It seems that a US-UK friendship while keeping Germany in the background is no longer acceptable to the upcoming German generations. They cannot pay for Hitler’s mistakes for all times to come. As far France, it looks for international respect and support and does not use the USA for its economic and military support. The demise of the Soviet Union has meant the demise of NATO also. The USA is bound to feel this change and may alter its strategy in Europe, for the US forces suffered more in the battles for the liberation of France from Germany than the French armed forces in World War II. Well, change is the order of the day in the international arena. In future, the USA is likely to attach for less importance to NATO, it may even pull out many of its forces from Western Europe, shift them to South Asia or East Asia in order to contain Russian and Chinese influence. It is obvious to the USA that old Europe (France, Germany and the UK) does not attach the same importance to international terrorism as does the US government. The USA has not only suffered terribly at the hands of terrorists from West Asia but also runs the risk of more such attacks from “suicide bombers”. The rulers of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and other prosperous Arab countries may be pro-USA but the population is totally against America. So the Arab nations can be against the USA if they become strong enough by getting latest military weapon systems from Russia and Western Europe. They have tremendous financial resources and if somehow get nuclear and chemical weapons, they can threaten the USA. If the Europeans, Russians and Chinese can help Pakistan and North Korea with nuclear weapons and missiles, why can’t West Asian countries like Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia be denied such weapons for all times to come. The USA is genuinely concerned about this development. So, the USA wants to station its forces in West Asia like in Afghanistan or otherwise have a strong influence in West Asian countries by applying economic and military pressure. Since Iraq has been the worst US enemy in West Asia, it is paying the necessary price. Pakistani rulers are wise to accept US economic and military help to sort out their problems with India, which they perceive is their main enemy, and keep quiet about US attempts to deal with Iraq and its unpredictable President, Mr Saddam Hussein. As for India, it has to please both sides. It knows that morally it is not correct for the USA to invade Iraq, which may collapse quickly. But, then, it is the strategy and economic issues which guide the national interests and not moral notions. If Hitler would have won World War II, he would have certainly hanged Churchill and Stalin. But like Mr Saddam Hussein, Hitler decided to fight the strongest powers and paid the price. We have our interests in the oil business of West Asia while a few lakh Indians are serving there, earning the much-needed foreign exchange. But India cannot take on Pakistan backed by the USA and China. So, it has to look after the country’s national interests, strengthen its armed forces and not surrender Rs 9,000 crore which was earmarked to buy the latest weapon systems. One wonders if the Ministry of Defence ever consults our senior Generals/Air Marshals/Admirals. Our newspapers have commented that our senior armed forces officers fight very well on the borders but seemed to behave in a bit too gentlemanly manner before the Ministry of Defence officers as well as the politicians running the Defence Ministry. Our political leaders must learn that if they want to be remembered in history, they have to take correct decisions to look after the national interests. The leaders must be courageous and take decisive actions to look after the national interests as they perceive them. Look at the way President Bush has taken tough decisions one after another. And if Mr Saddam Hussain does not surrender, the USA would quickly over-run Iraq, notwithstanding the objections of so many other countries. Our leaders did not allow our forces to go across the LoC in the Kargil conflict. They were scared of Pakistani nuclear weapons. When Pakistani terrorists attacked our Parliament, we decided to teach them a lesson by talking of “Aar ya Paar” — whatever it means — and kept our forces on the border but did nothing more than make strong statements. The only bold decision was to sack a corps commander which, according to our newspapers, had gone too close to the international border! This is not the way our leaders should take decisions. They can, therefore, learn lessons from the US leaders’ way of taking strong and timely decisions. Since the USA has total command of the skies its air force will quickly smash the armour component of 19-division-strong Iraqi army. The Iraqis are very fond of defending big cities or capturing the same in battle, as they tried to do in the 10-year-long battle with Iran. The Iraqi army will defend their capital and other major cities but will have little chance of success. One of the US Divisions (Third Division) poised on the southern Iraq border has over 238 latest tanks. It is true that the Iraqi army has in all 2400 tanks but most of them are old and out of date and will be quickly disposed of by the US air force and the latest model of its tanks. The best chance for Mr Saddam Hussein is to run away to some other Arab country or to France which may accept him to embarrass the USA or display its moral courage. Pakistan has wisely given the USA so many bases, which provide the American forces logistics support, including petrol. The USA does not require any fuel, etc, for its aircraft from India. There is, therefore, no need for Indian leaders to say that they will not supply fuel to US aircraft. In return, the USA is likely to provide Pakistan with better weapon systems and economic aid. Our government should try to strengthen our armed forces by equipping them with better weapon systems and make less statements regarding the US-Iraq conflict on the same lines as the Chinese leaders are doing. Silence can be the best answer in delicate situations. The writer is a retired Major-General. |
Frosty flight to Singapore Just two months ago when City Beautiful shivered we decided to flee to a place with a human face. Since even the thought of cold was traumatic — with those chilblains on the feet—we flew to the frost-free Singapore, 137 km north of equator. We had been hearing about the city-state from friends and relatives who waxed eloquent about its food courts, Tiger beer, composite culture and two stores called Mustafa and Ikea. As we landed at the Changi international airport, we felt rather sorry about the Indira Gandhi international airport in New Delhi. Nowhere did we come across any sign of patriotic outburst as you see at our airport hailing our land as “Incredible India.” It was a clean, well-lighted place with clear directions and efficient travellators. Immigration counters neither rattled nor intimidated the passengers. Indoor plants were there in plenty to cheer the two frost-bitten sexagenarians from India. Just the next day we made it very clear to our young nephew and his charming wife that we had come to hibernate in Singapore and not to comb the shopping malls. Perhaps the best way to spend time would be to enjoy the flora and fauna in the “city of lions.” The idea pleased them since they too were keen to get off to the zoological gardens and take us on the Night Safari. By the time we got into the monorail to go around the zoo and see different animals from different climes it had grown dark. The commentary in the monorail was helpful. For instance, before we moved to the Himalayan species we were told about tigers and elephants from India. And we saw them in their habitat, unmindful of the visitors from home. The high point of the safari was the animal show at the end. We sat in the amphitheatre to witness the feats of otters and civet cats. For me the most memorable experience was to caress the python that the commentator was coolly carrying around his neck. “Touch it; it’s soft,” he said when he stood in front of us. Being curious by nature I ran my hand on its skin and found it, indeed, silken and soft. This silken and soft touch made me compliment myself on being a daring old man, capable of biting a bullet. The sights and sounds of Singapore made me realise that the tiny state had an impressive scoreboard: number one airport, number one airline and the busiest port in the world. It had also set up the world’s first night safari of which we have had the first hand experience. As I mentioned at the outset, we had fled to Singapore to escape the frightful cold in the country. We enjoyed our five-week stay visiting in between the Twin Towers in Kuala Lumpur and the massive Reclining Buddha in Bangkok. It may sound paradoxical, but what we really missed in these south Asian lands was the Delhi cold. Yes, we feared it but the utter niplessness in the region made us nostalgic about the friendly February at home. |
The continuing duel between Supreme Court and Parliament “With rare exceptions,” wrote that intellectual titan H.M. Seervai in 1993, and again in 1996 before he passed away, “the standard of Supreme Court judgements on questions involving constitutional and administrative law has continued to fall steeply...” The concurring opinion of Justice P. Venkatarama Reddi in the electoral reforms case last fortnight is one such exception. Joining hands with his colleagues, Justice M.B. Shah and Justice D.M. Dharmadhikari, in striking down Section 33B of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 — introduced last year as a half-hearted, grudging response to the court’s earlier decision of May 2, 2002, mandating disclosure of the criminal antecedents, educational qualifications and financial
assets and liabilities of candidates — on the ground that it violates the voters’ fundamental right to information under Article 19 (1) (a), Justice Reddi displays an understanding of the Constitution not generally found in the corridors of judicial power nowadays. Both more radical and more conservative than Justices Shah and Dharmadhikari in his approach to electoral reforms, he also brings to bear on the subject a detachment lacking in the other two opinions handed down on March 13. Racing against time and jostling for space with more important international and national news, press reports cannot, of course, be faulted for failing to grasp the nuances of Justice Reddi’s opinion. But the historians of the Supreme Court will, I hope, accord it the attention — and the credit — that it deserves. “It is not a proper approach,” says Justice Reddi, gently chiding his colleagues, “to test the validity of legislation only from the standpoint whether the legislation implicitly and word to word gives effect to the directives issued by the court as an adhoc measure when the field was unoccupied by legislation.” “The wholesale adoption of the court’s diktats .... while enacting the legislation,” he adds, “would have received public approbation .... It would have been in tune with the recommendations of various Commissions and even the statements made by eminent and responsible political personalities.” Those recommendations and statements are catalogued at length in the opinion of Justice Shah, who had also authored the earlier decision of May 2, 2002. Evident throughout Justice Shah’s opinion is a sense of pique at the government, and the legislature, presuming to question not only the wisdom of the May 2 directives but also the competence of the court to issue them and the attempt made, via Section 33B, to set them at naught, at least in part. Such sparring is, of course, of the very essence of the institutional engagement between the executive and the legislature, on the one hand, and the judiciary, on the other, on the constitutional turf of separation of powers. But neither the political class nor the judiciary have, in recent times, distinguished themselves by a balanced, impersonal perspective of this problem inherent in the very nature of a written Constitution. The May 2 directives, rules Justice Reddi (in a welcome departure and correctly interpreting the earlier decision), were intended to operate only till law was made by the legislature and were, in that sense, pro tempore in nature. They reflected the “perception and tentative thinking” of the court at a point, when the legislature had not addressed itself to the question and there was a vacuum in the field. When once the Parliament stepped in and passed a legislation providing for the voters’ right to information, “the void must be deemed to have been filled up and the judgement works itself out”, though the interpretation therein of Article 19(1) (a) would hold good. And now the new legislation must be tested on the touchstone of that Article rather than any judicial directions. No less important than this emphasis on not losing the wood for the trees — the constitutional wood for the judicial trees, as it were — is the statement in Justice Reddi’s opinion, the first time by an Indian judge, that the right to vote is a constitutional right. Formulated most clearly by none other than Justice Chinnappa Reddy, a judge of no mean talent, way back in 1982 in Jyoti Basu’s case, the dogma in this branch of jurisprudence, scrupulously adhered to till March 13, is that the “right to elect, fundamental though it is to democracy, is, anomalously enough, neither a fundamental right nor a common law right. It is, pure and simple, a statutory right.” The unstated but necessary implication being that it can be tinkered with by statute at the will of the legislature. That is not a very comforting implication for the world’s most populous democracy and Justice Reddi does well, extremely well indeed, to shatter the dogma. “With great reverence to the eminent Judges (who have held to the contrary),” he observes, “I would like to clarify that the right to vote, if not a fundamental right, is certainly a constitutional right.” The right originates from the Constitution, he adds, and in accordance with the mandate in Article 326 has been shaped by the Representation of the People Act. “It is not very accurate to describe it as a statutory right, pure and simple.” Further, the voter “speaks out by casting a vote”, by expressing his choice or preference for a candidate. This freedom of expressing onself in relation to a matter of prime concern to the country and the voter himself, holds Justice Reddi, is a species of the freedom of expression under Article 19(1) (a), carrying it with the “auxiliary and complementary” right to secure information about the candidate, his antecedents, assets and liabilities. Looking back, one of the greatest mistakes made by the founding fathers was the decision to shift the provisions relating to franchise and elections out of the chapter on fundamental rights to another place in the Constitution (Part XV, comprising Articles 324 to 329), despite a consensus on their being fundamental to the governance of the country. Taken by the Advisory Committee on Fundamental Rights in April, 1947, in the teeth of fierce resistance by Dr Ambedkar, the decision has served only to obscure the importance of the right to vote from generations of Indian judges and scholars, accustomed to viewing as fundamental only that which finds place in the chapter on fundamental rights. In removing that anomaly and resurrecting the right to vote as a constitutional, nay, a fundamental right, Justice Reddi has done signal service in the cause of democracy. |
Madonna forced to re-shoot video Washington Liz Rosenberg, Madonna’s representative, has admitted that the scenes are being “fine-tuned in light of recent events.” “Madonna is being sensitive to what’s going on in the world right now. There will be some minor alterations. What might have looked right two weeks ago might not look that way now,” Rosenberg was quoted as saying by PeopleNews. The video is expected to be out in the first week of April.
ANI Meg Ryan’s film shelved New
York: War against Iraq has an unusual victim. A film has been shelved indefinitely because the studio wasn’t sure of its promotion owing to the 24-hour coverage of the conflict in the Gulf. The movie was “Against the Ropes”, in which the nation’s favourite blonde Meg Ryan featured as non-romantic boxing manager. But the dodge-and-weave action now won’t be seen since Paramount Pictures developed cold feet. The release was originally slated for April 25. With regular TV programming interrupted and many networks running commercial-free broadcasts, Paramount decided to delay the release instead of buying advertising time on television and risk losing their investment, Nancy Kirkpatrick, a spokeswoman, was quoted as saying by Eonline.com. According to her, the issue is the advertising gets preempted and “you end up losing your message.” She, however, added that the decision can always be re-evaluated from time to time.
ANI
|
Choose your enemies even more carefully than you choose your friends. Fight only him you can love. Even in your worst enemy Recognise the Divine friend. It is when God comes in the form of an enemy That he brings with him his supreme favours. —Paul Bible, Proverbs 25:21 |
 |
| 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 | | 123 Years of Trust | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |
