The political messages, such as the repeal of the draconian POTA without compromising in the fight against terrorism is heartening. It means that there would be continuity of policy in areas such as Jammu and Kashmir and the North-East, but no resort to partisan excesses of the kind witnessed in the use of POTA. On the vexed and divisive Ayodhya issue, the UPA government is also committed to await the outcome of the judicial process but inclined to resolve the conflict through negotiations acceptable to all parties. Contentious issues like the creation of a separate Telengana state are kept in view, but clearly not a priority.

It is interesting to note that the two factions of the Hurriyat Conference — one led by Moulvi Abbas Ansari and the other by hardliner Syed Ali Shah Geelani — are showing signs of coming together with Mirvaiz Moulvi Umer Farooq likely to replace Mr Ansari as the chief of the principal Hurriyat group. Mirvaiz Farooq, who is easily acceptable to all separatist leaders, has been the most vocal advocate of ending the Kashmir crisis through talks. This is the main reason why he has been on the hit list of militants, who first killed his father and then his uncle recently. But this has only added to his following, as the people in general too want the problem to end through dialogue.

Public health authorities have failed to provide clean drinking water. In certain areas, water has been found to have been contaminated with sewage. It is really shameful that 57 years after Independence people have to live without safe drinking water. This results in several deaths every year because of water-borne diseases like gastroenteritis and cholera. Sometimes officials point out that handpumps are being used in certain areas, and thus untreated water is being consumed. This is happening because of the dismal failure of the administration in providing safe piped drinking water to such areas.

True, there were efforts by both sides to put the Iraq issue behind them and there was some tactical mending of fences by President Bush and his European counterparts, with Britain’s Tony Blair uncomfortably suspended in mid-air. But the basic reasons for the falling out between the traditional Atlantic allies are too complex and dependent upon a more sociable and more considerate United States to be resolved in a hurry.

With the fall of the Berlin Wall and the demise of the Soviet Union, the trans-Atlantic relationship was bound to change. Western Europe no longer needed American protection to live in peace and whatever its failings, the European enterprise has been a striking success in building a new Europe and the remarkable transfer of sovereignty from national governments to Brussels, the seat of the European Union. Arguments about how much more sovereignty to part with in foreign policy and security fields are legitimate and will take time to resolve.

For a Europe at peace with itself, but for the turmoil in the Balkans, the advent of President Bush was bad news. An administration dominated by neoconservatives grasped Nine Eleven with both hands to lay out their scheme for world domination. They claimed the right to strike any nation pre-emptively and preventively and the differences in their ranks concerned only the type of imperialism they wished to create — of the missionary Wilsonian variety or one grounded in realpolitik of the Jacksonian kind.

There is enough evidence to suggest that the toppling of the Saddam Hussein regime was a priority agenda for President Bush before the Nine Eleven tragedy struck the American mainland. For personal and historic reasons, the Bush neoconservatives were raring to go to implement their fantasy vision of a world dominated by America acting as the Second Roman Empire. The neoconservative philosophy is that there is little point in amassing unsurpassed military power if America cannot mould the world according to its desires and interests

The Iraq war represented a breaking point in trans-Atlantic relations because the United States not merely revelled in unilateralism but also sought to divide Europe into “old” and “new”. The neoconservatives had little patience or time for dissenters at home or abroad, and the very success of the military operation in Iraq bolstered their belief in their vision.

As things worsened in Iraq, with a growing insurgency and increasing numbers of deaths of American soldiers, the US priorities underwent changes, advancing the date for returning sovereignty, in however limited a fashion, to Iraqis. More spectacularly, the contempt displayed by the Bush administration towards the United Nations was suddenly replaced by an eager wooing of the world organisation to gain a measure of legitimacy. The Bush administration at the same time sought to control events by getting their favourite envoy Lakhdar Brahimi as the UN representative in Iraq to help with government formation. The squabbling over the presence of occupation forces after the transfer of sovereignty is an indication of US efforts to retain a dominant position in Iraq.

The 60th anniversary of the Normandy landings was an attempt by President Bush to try to smooth over ruffled European feathers without giving away anything of substance. At the Vatican, Mr Bush had to endure listening to the Pope decry America’s Iraq policies. And in Paris, President Jacques Chirac rejected the comparison made by Mr Bush between the events of 60 years ago to the “war on terror”. On his part, Mr Bush continued to maintain an optimistic view of America and the world.

What stands out is that Europe and the United States have been drifting apart because they are being divided by the American goal of repudiating aspects of the Enlightenment that bound the two societies. The secularism preferred by Europe is coming into increasing conflict with the religiosity so favoured by Mr Bush for personal and tactical reasons. Americans refuse to give up enforcing the death penalty while its abolition is an article of faith for the European Union. Besides, the repudiation of the International Criminal Court and the Kyoto treaty on the environment has not endeared the neoconservatives to Europeans.

For US neoconservatives, Europe has gone soft. Europe’s response is that the use of force can be justified as a last resort and is bound to prove counter-productive if it is used as a first option. Europe argues with justification that raw power has its limits, unless tempered by diplomacy and legitimised by the consent of partners and allies and the only representative world organisation, the United Nations. The Iraq mess and America’s blundering ways have registered on the American screen but has failed to change the neoconservative vision.

The Bush administration and the US must understand that their ability to browbeat others to follow an American agenda is limited by the inability of any one power to run the globe and the need for a consensual approach.

Unless Mr Bush and the neoconservatives learn the lessons of Iraq, they will provoke further crises. New words of endearment will be taken as empty words unless President Bush matches his new rhetoric with action.

My friend Rohtas, now retired, related to me his own story. While serving as a Superintending Engineer in an administrative office at Vishakhapatnam he happened to meet Mr Gibson who was carrying out a large and costly contract of dredging out silt, mud and sand from the harbour bottom in connection with expansion of harbour facilities.

There was considerable bonhomie between the two families. The relationship was purely on the social level as my friend dealt with maintenance and repairs to servicemen’s accommodation and offices and contracts like harbour dredging was not in his domain.

As time passed Gibson made trips to Scotland — his wife was Scottish — and there was no social interaction between my friend and Gibsons. Meanwhile, my friend, in a routine manner, got transferred locally to the dockyard expansion project in the same rank. The new job required responsibilities pertaining to dredging, equipment, boiler shop, machine shop, pipelines, heavy dockside cranes, etc. This change of place of duty of my friend went unnoticed by the Gibson family.

About a month after this new appointment my friend remembered Gibsons and decided to call on them. One Sunday morning he had to go to the Palm Beach Hotel close to Gibson’s bungalow on the beach. It was 8.30 in the morning when my friend and his wife were welcomed by Mrs Gibson and ushered into their sitting room. During all this time Mr Gibson was having his morning bath in the adjoining bathroom, the door of which was half cut from below to have privacy as well as free flow of fresh air.

Mrs Gibson and Mr Rohtas exchanged pleasantries and recalled their common links with Scotland. Mrs Gibson was informed that the purpose of this unannounced visit was just to call on an old friend like Gibson and nothing more.

The design of the bathroom door enabled him to listen to all the conversation taking place in the sitting room. The Rohtas couple sat there and continued to talk on various subjects for about half an hour while Mr Gibson continued to have his quiet Turkish Bath musing at the loud conversation between the Rohtas couple and his wife.

After a cup of tea eventually both got up to leave. The Rohtas thanked Mrs Gibson saying, “Thank you for your kind hospitality. Regret we could not meet Mr Gibson. Please convey to him that Superintending Engineer Rohtas from Directorate General, Dockyard Expansion, had called on him.”

Hardly had Mr Rohtas completed the last word of his sentence when he saw the door of the adjoining bathroom fling open with a loud thud. It appeared as if door planks had come out of their hinges. Simultaneously, he saw Mr Gibson rushing out of the bathroom with traces of soap on his wet body and a towel wrapped around him, barefooted. As he closed on Mr Rohtas he apologised profusely for not attending to him and thanked him for informing him about his new appointment. He also said that soon he would be calling on him in his office.

His vast experience of working with various governments at the Centre as Additional Solicitor-General, especially as the Solicitor-General, the second top law officer of the country, for three years from 1986 and in 1989 when the Rajiv Gandhi government faced the Bofors onslaught, is believed to have gone in his favour. The Congress-led United Progressive Alliance government brought him back to the constitutional post even as several top advocates were in the race.

Born on September 27, 1929, to the country’s distinguished academician, Prof A.C. Banerji, who had been the Vice-Chancellor of Allahabad University and President of the Indian Science Congress, Milon, a brilliant student, passed his B.Sc in 1948 and LL.B in 1950 from Allahabad University. He got his LL.M degree in 1953 from Clare College of Cambridge University. His mother, Probha Banerji, was appointed the first honorary lady magistrate in India.

After enriching his legal knowledge by specialising in the field of International Law and the jurisdiction on the High Seas under the supervision and guidance of Cambridge University Professors Hersch Lauterpacht and Robert Jennings, respectively, Banerji was called to Bar in 1953 in London by Loncoln’s Inn. On return to India, he was enrolled as an advocate in the Allahabad High Court in January 1955, the Calcutta High Court in March 1956 and in the Supreme Court in May 1960.

Banerji’s first reaction on being given the responsibility of carrying the burden of the new government’s legal problems as Attorney-General was that he would ensure speedy disposal of the cases pending in the courts, especially those affecting the interests of the common man. He said his endeavour would be to advise the government to speed up the appointment of Judges in the High Courts so that the burden of pending cases is reduced.

The legal acumen of Banerji, who represented the Centre in the vexed Ayodhya case in 1992 before the demolition of the Babri Masjid would again prove to be a testing ground for him on the same issue when it would come up for hearing before the Supreme Court after the current summer vacation. However, the plea this time relates to various legal questions about the trial procedure being followed in the cases against top BJP and Sangh Parivar leaders in the Ayodhya demolition.

Soon after taking over, Banerji has to engage himself in a very important contitutional matter relating to the deletion of the mandatory domiciliary condition for the Rajya Sabha members after the Supreme Court had stayed the election process for electing 57 MPs to the Upper House on June 4.

At the request of the Union Government and the Election Commission, the Supreme Court has now fixed the hearing of their petition for vacation of the stay on June 9.

Banerji’s experience in handling the Ayodhya matter may come handy to the Manmohan Singh government. It may be noted that he had in clear terms cautioned the Supreme Court during the all-important hearing on November 24, 1992, when kar sevaks had started arriving at Ayodhya, that “the situation there had reached a boiling point and any inaction by the court would make the situation irreversible and the court will be faced with a fait accompli.”

His warning came true as the huge assembly of kar sevaks in Ayodhya became uncontrollable both for the security forces and the organisers, resulting in the demolition of the Babri Masjid, complicating the issue further.

But the credit goes to him for astute handling of the case in the aftermath of the demolition, as he strongly defended the Union Government’s decision in acquiring a certain area adjacent to the disputed Ram Janambhoomi- Babri Masjid site under the Ayodhya Act, 1993. This had prevented the Ayodhya issue from escalating tension in the country, which had witnessed communal riots in various parts.

Another significant contribution of Milon Banerji was the apt handling of a communally sesitive case arising out of a petition before the Calcutta High Court, seeking a ban on the “Koran”. His strong arguments had resulted in the dismissal of the petition. Similarly, he also had stoutly dealt with another sensitive case relating to the alleged mixing of “beef tallow” in “vanaspati ghee” in the early eighties by defending the ban on its import after the controversy broke out.

More to the point, he had immensily contributed in getting verdicts from the courts in favour of improving the environment, especially with regard to quarrying in famous tourist destinations of Dehra Dun and Mussoorie.