 |
|
Needless confusion Gujarat’s
shame |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Barbie
queue
The Bofors verdict
Game Theory
Indo-Pak talks
begin in Islamabad today Consumer
rights
|
Needless confusion CRICKET lovers will be grateful to the government, particularly Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, for removing the uncertainty on the Indian cricket team's visit to Pakistan. This has brought to an end speculation in the media about the fate of the six-week tour beginning next month. It is for the cricket bodies of both countries to decide the finer details of the programme, whether the venues need to be changed or the number of one-dayers needs to be reduced. Anyway, cricket enthusiasts can now look forward to the pleasure of watching a memorable, first-class series. The excitement across the borders is primarily because it has been a long time since India and Pakistan played in each other's territory. While all is well that ends well, it still needs to be pointed out that the controversy about the cricket tour was totally unwarranted. Public opinion has been decidedly in favour of keeping to the schedule drawn up by the two countries following the Prime Minister's decision to resume cricketing ties with Pakistan as part of India extending a "hand of friendship" to the neighbour. What set off speculations was the Home Ministry's advisory to the cricket authorities on the security situation. It is apparent that some in the government wanted to shoot from the shoulders of the Board of Control for Cricket in India, which stood its ground and asked for a written order from the government to postpone the tour. Ostensibly, what forced the government to think in terms of deferring the tour was the fear of any incident of violence against the Indian team spoiling the so-called feel-good factor on the crest of which the ruling coalition wants to bounce again to power. Had the government fallen for such a specious argument, it would have sent a wrong signal about the Indian electorate as if it is fickle-minded and can be easily swayed. It would also have exposed our players to the charge that they are chicken-hearted like the Aussies, who have a history of backing out of tours in the name of security. In any case, India can't do much about security, which is purely the responsibility of the Pakistan government. |
|
Gujarat’s shame The arrest of three constables of Gujarat Police for trying to destroy the evidence in yet another riot-related mass rape and murder case is a chilling reminder of the notoriety of those in uniform who will do anything to circumvent the law and hoodwink justice. The incident once again reminds one of the horrendous outrages committed by the state police in the Best Bakery case. In the latest one, the Supreme Court had ordered the CBI to investigate the complaint of the lone surviving victim, Bilkis Yakoob Rasool. In her petition, Bilkis complained that she was gang-raped by a violent mob that had killed 14 people including her parents near Limkheda village in Dahod district. She alleged that the state police, instead of probing the case and bringing the guilty to book, had closed it and tried to destroy evidence. It is not clear what exactly the CBI has reported to the Supreme Court. But media reports suggest that it had given an account of how it dug out five skeletons from a mass grave. The state police is believed to have poured huge quantities of salt over the bodies, buried in the grave, to destroy vital evidence. The Gujarat police destroyed evidence and secured the acquittal of all the 21 accused in the Best Bakery case. But for the timely intervention of the Supreme Court, they would have succeeded yet again in the Bilkis case. Surely, one cannot blame judges for the collapse of the criminal justice system. The judges pronounce their ruling purely on the basis of the evidence produced before them by the prosecution. This was the reason why all the 21 accused were let off. But still, there is hope for justice as the Supreme Court has admitted a special leave petition against the judgement of the Gujarat High Court upholding the acquittal in the Best Bakery case. Now that the CBI has retrieved the evidence in the Bilkis case, every effort should be made to identify the guilty and bring them to justice. The rule of law will triumph in Gujarat only when the criminals in uniform, aided and abetted by those in power, are caught and punished. |
|
Barbie queue Valentine's Day brought good news for those who do not like waking up to the same face. It brought bad news to the conservatives wedded to the outdated concept of "till death do us part". Barbie and Ken had clearly begun to bore the new age bed-hopper. Fortythree years of living together without a decent spat was bad publicity for the most famous plastic couple. And bad business for their creators. The queue outside Barbie's boudoir at the International Toy Fair in New York left no one in doubt that men are men when it comes to dating a doll who has retained her youthful looks even after spending 43 years with just one guy. The BBC news reader apparently had to fight back tears to break the news. The kick that Ken received from his sweetheart would break any heart. It was delivered on a day when most couples are now manipulated by the market forces into spending fortunes for saying what was said without much ado in the good old days. The Washington Post and The New York Times forgot to put black borders to announce the death of their love, but still managed to make the news appear earth-shaking. They should have offered a free box of tissues with every copy to help the average American overcome the grief of love gone wrong on Valentine's Day. It is not clear what provoked Barbie to walk out on Ken. Some say she was inspired by Britney Spears. But if you believe in fairies, the reason could lie in what they wanted on their 43rd anniversary. Barbie was granted a round trip of the world with Ken; but he wanted a female companion who was 30 years younger. The fairy made him 30 years older than Barbie. Fox News quoted her promoters as saying that "Barbie is actually going through something difficult". Ken turned out to be a plastic skunk. |
|
|
Thought for the day No government can be long secure without a formidable Opposition.
— Benjamin Disraeli |
The Bofors verdict IN the olden days when the laboratory facilities were scanty, our genial village doctor used to advise excited recently wedded young women to visit his clinic again “next month” after prescribing a placebo. He would explain, “I know she is not pregnant - she will know she is not - but why rob her of the excitement today”. This article is not intended in any way to spoil the “feel good” factor generated by the recent judgement of the Delhi High Court in the Bofors case, but some caution may not be out of place. The judgement categorically reversed the order passed by the Special Judge which, in the words of the high court, “is replete with irrelevant inferences, conjectures, surmises and even highly unwarranted and uncalled for remarks and personal opinion about the persons and personalities involved and aspersions on the constitution of the Joint Parliamentary Committee which has been rightly opined by Mr Jethmalani and Mr Sibal (as) tantamounting to breach of privilege”. I fully agree with the judge, but the error of the trial court cannot be the sole foundation on which the revision court’s order can rest securely. I am afraid the celebrations may be a bit premature because the high court appears to have said more than what it could. The Bofors case is at the stage of framing of charges or indicting. The Code of Criminal Procedure mandates a judge at this juncture to consider the record of the case and the documents submitted. And after hearing all parties if he considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he “shall discharge the accused”. But if the judge is of the opinion that the accused has committed an offence, he shall frame charges. The special judge framed charges against the Hindujas and the Bofors company. He could not have framed charges against Bhatnagar, Win Chadha and Rajiv Gandhi because dead persons cannot be tried. Notwithstanding this clear position, the Special Judge wrote an order running into a few hundred pages - naturally not all pages could be filled only with good sense. The seasoned lawyers representing the accused before the high court used the roughage in the special judge’s order to their best advantage and made the charges to collapse under the weight of the blunders. The judge’s affectation appeared to be contagious - the high court devoted a full page and more to denounce the culture of trial by the media. At the very outset he said, “This is one of such cases where public servants who are no more have met somewhat similar fate being victims of trial by the media. They have already been condemned and convicted in the eyes of the public. Recent instance of such trial is of Daler Mehandi whose discharge is being sought a few days after his humiliation and pseudo-trial through the media as they have not been able to find evidence sufficient even for filing the chargesheet. Do such trials amount to public service? This is a question to be introspected by the media itself.” Thus, Daler Mehandi got a clean chit through the Bofors case pending investigations in Punjab! Rajiv Gandhi was given a cleaner chit. The question is whether the high court gave more than what was within its powers? No doubt, the order will be valid unless corrected by the Supreme Court. Public memory is not so short as to forget that Mr V.P. Singh became the Prime Minister solely on the foundation of allegations of corruption against Rajiv Gandhi. It was during his first month in office that the first information report (FIR) in the Bofors Case was filed and the criminal proceedings were set in motion. The trusted Finance Minister under Rajiv Gandhi gave a statement to the CBI in these proceedings, well after he was out of office that at Rajiv Gandhi’s bidding he gave an appointment to Quattrocchi with regard to the HBJ pipelines. And subsequently “Rajiv Gandhi asked him to examine the Bofors contract in the light of the suggestions and points he dictated and those points happened to be the same which were made by Quattrocchi, and this shows how Quattrocchi was close to Rajiv Gandhi.” This evidence among others relied upon by the CBI should be accepted as true at the stage of framing of charges. At the trial, the defence lawyers may prove him wrong or the witness may retract. Every citizen, including a witness, has the freedom of speech that includes the freedom to retract. The high court rightly felt concerned about the many years that have been consumed by this case. Hence a few hurdles that had come up need to be recounted. Win Chadha successfully approached the Delhi High Court during the last week of August 1992 with a petition to quash the FIR. That decision was, however, promptly set aside by the Supreme Court in December 1992 and thereafter the investigation could proceed leading up to the filing of the chargesheet in 1999. Thereafter some documents were received from the Swiss Authorities necessitating the filing of supplementary chargesheets - this time against the Hinduja brothers. They successfully moved the Delhi High Court for quashing the chargesheet on the ground that the Central Vigilance Commission was wrongly kept out of the proceedings. The CBI’s appeal before the Supreme Court was allowed on July 7, 2003, reversing the order of the high court. And several connected proceedings were in progress. All these events only underline the difficulties in prosecuting criminal cases involving foreigners. The standard of scrutiny of evidence by a court, including a high court, dealing with framing of charges, stands settled by several decisions of the Supreme Court. The very judgement relied upon by the high court in the present case (Prafulla Kumar Samal’s case) has warned as follows: “This, however, does not mean that the judge should make a roving inquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.” With great respect to the high court, one cannot escape to notice the impermissible type of inquiry and the insistence on direct evidence of bribery - appropriate for a trial. One of the conclusions was as under: “Aforesaid conspectus of facts itself shows that so far as public servants viz. the late. Rajiv Gandhi and the late S.K. Bhatnagar, are concerned, 16 long years of investigation by a premier agency of the country - the CBI -could not unearth a scintilla of evidence against them for having accepted bribe/illegal gratification in awarding the contract in favour of Bofors. All efforts of the CBI ended in fiasco as they could not lay their hands on any secret or known account of these public servants where the alleged money might have found its abode either in Swiss banks or any other bank or vault. However, their efforts, particularly due to the cooperation of the Swiss authorities and Swiss banks, fructified in tracing the money received as “commission” by middlemen/agents employed by Bofors for negotiating the contract. They are Win Chadha, Quattrocchi and the Hindujas.” The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and its successor the 1988 Act clearly provide that if a public servant by abusing his position obtains “for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage”, such a conduct would amount to an offence. It is not necessary that the pecuniary advantage must be for himself. In any event, all these are matters to be decided in a trial. Until disproved, at this stage of framing of charges, all witnesses including Mr V.P. Singh and records have to be believed. The other conclusions of the high court only confirm the suspicion that the court had no occasion to get familiarised with the intricacies of deals of this nature. There is a very large number of people in this country who firmly believe that Rajiv Gandhi was too noble and proud to make any illegal gain for himself, but some people around him exploited his goodness and innocence to help themselves to get rich. However, the decision of the high court that has provoked the celebrations may turn out to be another case that the village doctor saw. |
Game Theory I
have a good friend who is a visiting Professor of Mathematics at Yale. He was in Shimla recently and was explaining to me how the concept of Game Theory could be used for making transfers and postings in the government. Now, briefly put, Game Theory is a mathematical tool for optimising choices and selections. For example, in any organisation there are jobs that require certain skills, and there are also people with specific skills, aptitudes and preferences. Game Theory would sort through the various permutations and combinations and ultimately match each employee with each job, ensuring, said my friend, that the best persons are found for the different jobs, thus ensuring efficient governance. It took me the whole weekend to explain to my friend that governments in India are not about governance (which has been delegated to the Panchayats), that ministerial clout is determined by the number of transfers that he or she can order, that executive genius is indicated by the number of square pegs that can be driven into a corresponding number of round holes, and that therefore Game Theory would render most ministers under-employed and push them below the poverty line. Now, mathematicians, especially those who teach at Yale, are a bright lot and by Sunday evening my friend had understood the problem. And he came up with another idea — Disinvestment. The solution suggested by him was pure genius in its simplicity— Disinvestment of Transfers. It works like this — every year the government makes out a list of posts and then puts them to auction! Bidding would, naturally, be limited to government employees and the auction could be held immediately after the Excise auction in March (or maybe a few days later to let the employees recover from the excesses of the latter auction). The highest bidder gets the post of his choice and is given a fixed tenure of three years in which to recover his capital investment. One person can bid for a maximum of three posts. The advantages of such a system, as recounted by my friend with irrefutable mathematical logic, are immediately obvious. First the system would have the overwhelming support of the WTO since it would allow market forces full play. Second, it would fit in very well with the government declared policy on disinvestment, and would make up for the shortfall caused by the delay in off-loading shares of HPGL and BPS. Third, it would legalise a thriving underground industry (like the proposal to allow corporate donations to political parties) and permit the successful bidder to claim the bid amount as a legitimate expense. Fourth, given the colossal number of transfers made by state government every year, it would generate huge resources for them at a time when they are all facing sovereign bankruptcy. Fifth, it would allow ministers the time to concentrate on their genuine official work, for which they were elected in the first place — that is, bending the rules to do favours to their constituents. And finally, the government employees (or at least most of them) would be a happy lot and the Supreme Court would no longer have to spank them on their federated bottom. The “Spoils system” would have attained its apotheosis. There was, however, just one nagging doubt that my friend had — What about the public? He has gone back to Yale to try and figure that one
out.
|
Indo-Pak talks begin in Islamabad today
THE Joint Secretary-level talks between India and Pakistan are scheduled to be held on February 16 and 17. From India, the Joint Secretary in charge of PAI (Pakistan-Afghanistan-Iran) in the Ministry of External Affairs, Mr Arun Singh, will hold talks with his Pakistani counterpart, Mr Jalil Abbas Jilani. This is to be followed by the one-day talks on February 18 between Indian Foreign Secretary Shashank and his Pakistani counterpart Riaz Khokhar. It is understood that there will be no substantive discussions during these three days of talks. First, the Joint Secretaries of the two countries will conduct a thorough review of Indo-Pak relations, particularly since the April 18, 2003 peace initiative of Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee. The JS-level talks will focus only on the modalities and sequence of future discussions. During these talks, the two countries’ Joint Secretaries are likely to thrash out a time-frame for discussions. During the JS-level talks, contentious issues like peace and security and Jammu and Kashmir will not be discussed. However, a time-frame for discussing all eight issues during the Indo-Pak Composite Dialogue will come up for discussion. The then Indian Foreign Secretary, Mr K. Raghunath, and the Pakistani Foreign Secretary, Mr Samshad Ahmad, had met in New York on September 23, 1998, and agreed upon a mechanism to address all the outstanding issues. Eight issues were identified for commencing this substantive dialogue which came to be known as the Composite Dialogue. These eight issues are:
(i) peace and security, including confidence building measures (ii) Jammu and Kashmir (iii) Siachin (iv) the Wullar Barrage/Tulbul Navigation Project (v) Sir Creek (vi) terrorism and drug trafficking (vii) economic and commercial cooperation and (viii) promotion of friendly exchanges in various fields. Of these, the first two, according to the September 23, 1998 Indo-Pak joint statement, are to be discussed between the two countries at the Foreign Secretary level. Siachin is to be discussed between the two countries’ Defence Secretaries. For the rest of the five issues, the joint statement authorised senior officials of different ministries for holding discussions. The Wullar Barrage is to be discussed between the Secretaries (Water and Power), Sir Creek between the Additional Secretary (Defence)/Surveyor General, terrorism and drug trafficking between the Home/Interior Secretaries, economic and commercial cooperation between the Commerce Secretaries, and promotion of friendly exchanges in various fields between the Culture Secretaries. The Government of India is sanguine about the outcome of the February 16-18 talks in Islamabad, though it is not certain that the two sides will issue a joint statement at the end. The mood in the officialdom in Delhi is that of “we will cross the bridge when we come to it”. The two countries’ Joint Secretaries will strive to clinch a mutually acceptable time-frame for substantive discussions at a later date. How later will be that “later date” is only a matter of conjecture. A reasonable assessment is that the substantive talks between India and Pakistan will begin only after the Indian general election and the installation of the new government in New Delhi. The February 18 Foreign Secretary-level talks will be in the nature of an overall review of bilateral relations in general and a review of the JS-level discussions in the preceding two days in particular. If certain issues are not resolved at the JS level, it will be the endeavour of the two Foreign Secretaries to hammer out an agreement in these areas. The February 16-18 talks are taking place against the backdrop of several important developments in the region. First, the talks take place in the aftermath of two sensationally daring assassination bids on General Musharraf (December 14 and 25, 2003), which not only exposed the chinks in VVIP security in Pakistan but also demonstrated to the world the extent to which the jehadi elements have consolidated their grip within Pakistan. Secondly, these talks take place barely 10 weeks after the January 4 to 6 SAARC Summit in Islamabad which Prime Minister Vajpayee attended. Mr Vajpayee had also used this opportunity for holding bilateral meetings with his Pakistani counterpart, Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali, and Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf. The fact that Mr Vajpayee chose to travel to Pakistan barely 10 days after the December 25 failed assassination attempt on General Musharraf’s life demonstrated to the world that he was committed to smoking the peace pipe which he himself had lit on April 18 last year in Srinagar. Thirdly, and most importantly, the February 16-18 talks are taking place at a time when skeletons are tumbling out of the Pakistani nuclear cupboard. India has taken a stand that Pakistan’s nuclear proliferation is an international problem and an international threat and, therefore, has to be dealt with as such. It will be a folly to treat the sins of omission and commission of the Pakistan government on the nuclear issue as a bilateral Indo-Pak affair. A happy situation, however, is that the first-ever ceasefire between the Indian and Pakistani military forces, enforced since November 25, 2003, has been holding well. The infiltration of terrorists also is visibly down. There have been minor pinpricks, however, on this count. Four infiltration attempts and two exfiltration bids have been reported since the ceasefire. |
|
Consumer rights MS Kelki Devi and her husband had purchased 2,000 units of the GMIS 92 scheme launched by the UTI in 1992. When the scheme matured, the UTI sent a cheque, dated February 1, 1998, for Rs 20,800 , which however did not reach the addressee at all. When Kelki Devi complained about it, the UTI said it had sent the cheque by registered post and had also found, on reconciling their books, that the cheque had been encashed through Jain Cooperative Bank. Subsequently, following Kelki Devi’s complaint, the UTI lodged an FIR with the police against Jain Cooperative Bank and the Post Master, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, but said as far the consumer was concerned, the UTI had discharged its responsibility and had made the payment. If the cheque got illegally encashed by criminals during transit, the UTI could not be held liable.. Upset by the turn of events, Kelki Devi filed a complaint before the consumer court against the UTI, Jain Cooperative Bank, New Delhi and the Post Master, Vasant Vihar. Complaints such as this are not rare. Police investigations have in fact uncovered any number of cases of postal employees intercepting cheques, particularly those sent by companies to share-holders and encashing them with the connivance of bank employees. And in all such cases, companies say that they cannot be held liable if the cheque did not reach the consumer. And consumers say that as far as they are concerned, the company has not sent the money. So the decision of the apex consumer court in the case of Kelki Devi should help consumers in similar circumstances recover their money. In fact, the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, directing the UTI to pay the maturity amount to the consumer, is an extremely important one from the point of view of consumers. Following Kelki Devi’s complaint, the District Consumer Disputes Forum directed the UTI to pay the complainant Rs 20,800 with interest at the rate of 18 per cent, calculated from
February, 1998. If the amount is not paid within three months, the UTI will have to pay 24 per cent interest, the Forum said. It also awarded Rs 2,000 as compensation. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission upheld the District Forum’s order, except for the compensation of Rs 2,000. Aggrieved, the UTI filed a revision petition before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The UTI’s argument was that it had sent an account payee cheque that was non-transferable and non-negotiable through registered post to Kelki Devi. If it had not reached her, then it should have come back, but it did not and the cheque was also encashed. So as far as the UTI was concerned, it had paid the consumer . The National Commission said the argument of the UTI that it was not liable to pay the consumer was unacceptable. Besides, the consumer cannot be made to suffer for the lapses of the opposite parties —the UTI or the post office or the bank. Said the Commission: Whether the cheques are lost during transit or they are encashed fraudulently by the bank in collusion with some persons, it is not the concern of the consumer to go after all these agencies to get their rightful money. The consumer is entitled to get the maturity amount with interest. The UTI can retrieve the amount from the bank, which is an internal settlement between the UTI and the bank. The consumer cannot be made to suffer for the wrong encashment or fraud committed by the bank.
|
The tide of the common tasks of daily life must flow through the worship of God. Love of God is not an escape from the harshness of life but a dedication for service. — Dr Sarvepalli
Radhakrishnan in The Bhagavad Gita One of the greatest lessons I have learned in my life is to pay as much attention to the means of work as to its end. I have been always learning great lessons from that one principle, and it appears to me that all the secret of success is there: to pay as much attention to the means as to the end. — Swami Vivekananda She who is in love with the Lord Is infused with grace. — Guru Nanak Disease, decay and other troubles weigh me down, and give me enough sorrow. You are of indomitable valour. O compassionate one, grant me devotion to thy feet and love towards you. — Shri Adi Shankaracharya |
| HOME PAGE | |
Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir |
Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs |
Nation | Opinions | | Business | Sports | World | Mailbag | Chandigarh | Ludhiana | National Capital | | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |
