 |
|
Ire against Girlfriend Left to die |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Mama mia Even Atal has yummy pasta AT 7 Race Course Road Mr Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s personal staff had to run faster than their boss did to stop him from invading his own larder.
The domicile rule
Reviews and reviewers
Kargil in proper perspective Starvation death reports
have Leftists on the mat
|
Ire against Girlfriend THIS is a “cultural revolution” with a difference: so-called cultural organisations thriving by unrelenting attacks on all forms of cultural expression. Be it a film, book or a work of art, anything that smacks of what they deem to be a violation of “Indian culture” becomes a target for violence. This time around, the ire of the Shiv Sainiks has been aroused by Karan Razdan’s “Girlfriend”, a film about an intimate relationship between two women. Hindutva vigilante groups, of the same feather under different names — Shiv Sena, Bharatiya Vidyarthi Sena, Kranti Shiv Sena and Bajrang Sena — are on the rampage in Mumbai, Bhopal and Varanasi, among other places, forcing theatres to stop the screening of the film. Why? Because the film “violates the country’s culture”, argue these self-appointed guardians of values and morality. Yes, they are the same lot, by whatever name they appeared, that ransacked MF Husain’s paintings because it offended “Hindu sensibilities”; they are the same gangs that targeted Deepa Mehta’s “Fire” featuring Shabana Azmi and Nandita Das; they are the same “cultural activists” who scuttled Deepa Mehta from shooting her film “Water”; more recently, they demonstrated their supreme authority over scholarship when they wrecked the Bhandarkar Institute in Pune. Cultural organisations, by definition and description, ought to be promoting cultural expressions in a myriad forms, especially in India that is home to a civilisational heritage of amazing, inclusive diversity. Yet, these cultural outfits indulge in hooliganism, suppression of any form of cultural activity, terrorising institutions, intimidating film-makers, artistes, writers and scholars, destroying works of art and burning books. As another just-released film, “Dev”, tells us, there are no structures of authority within the state to defend our constitutional rights and freedoms. Elections may change the helmsmen, but the great unwashed masses continue to be at the mercy of political thugs in a culture intolerant of pluralism and diversity. The resistance, like the onslaught on our freedoms, also ought to emerge at the popular level. Only then would the authorities be stirred to safeguard our rights and recover the public spaces from those who have hijacked it. |
|
Left to die STARVATION deaths in India no longer shock anyone and are often explained away officially as malnutrition-induced fatalities. Still, reports of starvation deaths in West Bengal’s tribal village of Amlasole have greatly embarrassed the Leftists, who claim that their pro-poor policies and rural land reforms have helped them stay in power in the state for years. The CPM-led coalition government of Mr Buddhadeb Bhattacharya admits to “conditions of starvation” in the area, but blames the five deaths that took place over a period of three months on some illness. The self-proclaimed champions of the “wretched of the earth” cannot easily accept the stigma of starvation deaths in their land. Nevertheless, this is bound to bruise their “pro-poor” image and puncture their credibility. Many would expect the Leftists first to set their own house in order before imposing their so-called poverty-alleviation agenda on their unwilling coalition partners at the Centre. With 60 MPs, Comrades Harkishan Singh Surjeet, Sitaram Yechury and A.B. Bardhan have decided to reset the national economic agenda and yet not to be a part of the government. All this is being done in the name of the poor, who are getting increasingly marginalised in the Leftist fiefdom. Contrary to the recent anti-reform pronouncements of these leaders in Delhi, the Buddhadeb Bhattacharya government is trying hard to set the state economy in order. The Chief Minister makes it a point to be seen in the company of multinational foreign investors. While openly admonishing irresponsible trade unions, he encourages foreign firms to invest in the state. He has laid off surplus workers and is pushing the closure or privatisation of unviable public sector units. The benefit of the reforms, however, is yet to percolate down to the poor. Much remains to be done. To prevent starvation deaths in the country, the public distribution system needs to be restructured to target the needy. Infrastructure building projects can be undertaken in the rural areas to provide employment and purchasing power to the villagers. Starvation deaths are a shame for a nation hoping for an 8 per cent GDP growth and a respectable place in the international community. |
|
Mama mia AT 7 Race Course Road Mr Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s personal staff had to run faster than their boss did to stop him from invading his own larder. One wonders whether Mr Ashok Tandon, Mr Vajpayee’s faithful media adviser, maintained a diary of the number of jalebis and gulab jamuns the venerable head of the shrunk Sangh Parivar used to gobble up when no one was looking. However, he should be politically sensitive about the message a lasagna dish could send to rivals. Who can forget the stink over Mrs Sonia Gandhi’s Italian past? Mrs Sushma Swaraj and Ms Uma Bharti, with Mr Govindacharya thrown in for male effect, between them had issued dark threats if bambino Rahul Gandhi’s mom was not stopped from occupying Mr Vajpayee’s chair. They forgot that Madam Gandhi had claimed in one of her rare television interviews that “arhar ki daal” and boiled “chawal” were her favourite dishes. Those who are familiar with an old Indian saying about the importance of “apna khana” and “apna gana” would appreciate the “tyag” she had made to establish her credentials as a true Indian. From Prini has come the news about Mr Vajpayee committing what would amount to an act of culinary treason. An alert reporter caught him having pizzas and pasta at an exclusive Italian joint in Manali. Mama mia, can the story get any tastier? The Italy-born bahu of the Nehru-Gandhi “khandan” had made the supreme sacrifice of giving up “apna khana” in favour of the humbler eastern UP fare. What purpose did it serve? It would have been more delicious had Mr Vajpayee conveyed his fondness for Italian food to 10 Janpath when he was Prime Minister. The Paparazzi would have gone to town with the story of Mrs Sonia Gandhi receiving long distance tips from a village in Turin on how to make pastas that would make Atalji join her party. |
|
Laws were made to be broken. — Christopher North
|
The domicile rule THE Supreme Court’s vacation of its interim order on the elections to 65 seats of the Rajya Sabha may have helped avert a constitutional impasse. But the last word is yet to be said. The court has given a rider that if any candidate has flouted the domicile clause, his/her election would be subject to its final order on the petition challenging the constitutional validity of the domicile clause. In his petition, Mr Kuldip Nayar, veteran journalist, has pleaded that the Representation of People (Amendment) Act, 2003, is unconstitutional as it seeks to destroy the basic structure of the Constitution. Significantly, the Supreme Court has admitted the petition for wider consideration. It may be referred to the full Constitution Bench. A close look at the impugned legislation seems to prove Mr Nayar’s thesis. The dice is heavily loaded against Parliament. There is reasonable ground for the court to declare it null and void as Parliament has committed a fraud by amending Section 3 of the Representation of People Act. This Act imposes the condition that a candidate seeking a seat in the Rajya Sabha should primarily be a resident of the state from which he/she was trying to get elected. The amended Act now makes the contest open for a person to contest from any state. This, Mr Nayar feels, is unconstitutional and liable to be struck down because the very position of the Rajya Sabha as Rajyon ki Sabha or the Council of States has come into question. In the Indian Constitution, both Houses of Parliament — the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha — have been assigned distinct functions. Their structural composition being different, both cannot be treated on an equal footing. In the Constituent Assembly, the members had examined the nature and composition of the Rajya Sabha and implicitly accepted it as the Council of States. Except on money bills, it exercises “coordinating powers” with the Lok Sabha. Under Article 352 (7), the Rajya Sabha may not enjoy the Lok Sabha’s power of disapproving the continuance of an emergency by a resolution making it obligatory for the President to revoke the proclamation. However, in addition to its power regarding a Bill seeking constitutional amendment under Article 368, the Rajya Sabha’s special powers under Articles 249 (to make laws on any matter enumerated in the State List) and 312 (to create one or more all-India services common to the Union and the states) reinforce its status as the Council of States. Dr B.R. Ambedkar says: “Ex-hypothesi, the Upper Chamber represents the states and, therefore, its resolution would be tantamount to an authority given by the states”. The issue in question is that even though under the amended Act, a candidate for the Rajya Sabha would represent a state, he need not necessarily be a domicile of that state. This, in effect, dilutes the character of the Upper House. True, every political party has been flouting the domicile clause with impunity. Its brazen abuse shows the pitfalls created by distortions introduced by partisan politics. However, Parliament cannot legitimise a wrong practice by scrapping or whittling down the clause. In short, Parliament has no right to amend the Constitution at its whim. Under Article 368, an amendment will have to be in conformity with the due process of law and the letter and spirit of the Constitution. Otherwise, the Supreme Court is bound to strike it down as null and void. The basic structure of the Constitution has a wider connotation. It is not confined to Part III alone (dealing with fundamental rights). It encompasses essential features of the Constitution. These include, among other things, the supremacy of the Constitution, the dual and federal structure of the Union and the states, the sovereignty and integrity of the country, the balance between the three organs of the government, a free and independent judiciary and, above all, the amendability of the Constitution under Article 368. Doubts have arisen on the legitimacy of the amendment passed in August, 2003, because by one stroke, Parliament sought to change the federal character of the Rajya Sabha. Surely, by changing the qualification of the candidates for election to this House, under Article 84 (c), Parliament has disturbed federalism, which is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. The Supreme Court’s stand on the basic structure is well known. In the Golak Nath case (1967), the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973), and the Minerva Mills case (1980), it had ruled that Parliament has no right to meddle with the basic structure. Parliament’s right to amend the Constitution is not absolute as it is only a creature of the Constitution. To quote the late Nani A. Palkhivala, ours is a “controlled Constitution”. Thus, it is circumscribed by certain inherent limitations. The country was witness to an ugly confrontation between the government and the judiciary during the Emergency. Indira Gandhi characterised the basic structure as an “invention of the Judges” while her Law Minister, H.R. Gokhle, asserted that Parliament could amend even the “non-existent basic structure”. Mr Siddharth Shankar Ray, another architect of the Emergency, went a step further and spoke of Parliament’s power to “correct the judiciary”. By all accounts, the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy is a myth. “We have passed the Bill by a two-thirds majority”, claimed Congress General Secretary Ambika Soni, in an interview to a TV channel. She would have us believe that Parliament is the chief repository of people’s will and the supreme law-making body of the country. This is true and there is no dispute about it, but Parliament cannot amend the basic structure as it is the sanctum sanctorum of the Constitution. It is with a view to checking an overzealous legislature from riding roughshod over the statute book that the Constitution has bestowed upon the High Courts and the Supreme Court the power of judicial review. The Supreme Court has untrammeled powers to review a law enacted or amended by Parliament. It has never failed in its duty to declare a bad law ultra vires of the Constitution. Consequently, it has lived up to its reputation as the sentinel and interpreter of the Constitution. While exercising its power of judicial review, the Supreme Court is guided by five time-tested doctrines: the doctrine of legislative competence (also called the doctrine of pith and substance); the doctrine of severability; the doctrine of progressive interpretation; the doctrine of the spirit of the Constitution; and the doctrine of the presumption in favour of constitutionality. The last doctrine is significant because it represents positive thinking and the constructive approach of the court. Under this doctrine, for instance, while taking up a case for review, the court will not hold it to be null and void unless the invalidity is clear beyond all doubts. The court would start hearing a case with the impression that there would always be a presumption in favour of its validity. The Supreme Court’s rider, in its June 9 order, on the final outcome of the verdict has expectedly given rise to anxiety and concern among some of the contestants of the Rajya Sabha elections, scheduled to be held on June 28. The court should examine the constitutional validity of the impugned legislation expeditiously and pronounce its
ruling. |
Reviews and reviewers WHY do people write reviews? The answer to this question is as complicated as the answer to most questions in life. Some write reviews as an exercise in writing, young would-be writers grabbing this opportunity to hone their skills. Their reviews are fresh, spontaneous and breezy and a delight to read. Another set of people writes reviews to see their names in print. These are people with failed aspirations as writers. They have either written something, which for reasons unknown, has failed to be published or else have always wanted to write something, but again for reasons unknown, have failed to make the quantum jump from thoughts in their minds to words on paper. Their reviews are always cruel and unkind, no matter how good the book may be. A third group writes reviews to show off their knowledge. They take their work seriously and write each review with the certainty that, eventually, it will find its place in the textbooks for the criticism paper in postgraduate courses in English Literature. These reviews are always obtuse and it is a sharp intellect, indeed, which can unravel the meaning of each convoluted sentence. We never know if the writer has liked the book he is reviewing. The fourth set of reviewers is the well-known, established writers and columnists. These reviews always tell you more about the reviewer than about the book. The praise, if any that the reviewer gives to the writer is lost under the weight of the opinions and knowledge on subjects other than the book, that the review displays. There is a fifth category of reviewers who review books for ulterior motives. This lot never read the book they review — they don't need to. I became aware of this category through my own very limited experience as a writer. I once had a book of short stories torn to shreds. The stories were with a few exceptions, dull and the book should never perhaps, have been published. I knew this and yet the cruelty of the review cut me to the quick. I read it again and again. On the third reading I realised the reviewer had not read the book — the review spoke in generalities and made no reference to a specific story, a specific incident in a story or a specific character. A little probing revealed that in my role as Headmaster of a residential school I had taken severe disciplinary action against the reviewer's brother: this was her revenge. Two weeks later I was delighted by a review of the same book in another paper. This one was flattering and poured fulsome praise both on the stories and on my writing ability. It was balm to my bruised soul. Soon I realised that this review too spoke in sweeping generalities and made no reference to anything in the book. The reviewer obviously had not read it. This time I did not need to probe because I recognised the name of the writer. I had just offered admission to his elder child while the younger child was on the waiting list. The review was obviously to thank me for one admission and to ensure the
second. |
Kargil in proper perspective
THE in-house Army report on Kargil, ostensibly circulated for the information of Army commanders, but somehow leaked to the media, has stoked the old controversy all over again. The report surprisingly pins all the blame on the IAF’s so-called “delayed entry” into the conflict instead of looking rationally at the reasons for its failure on a number of fronts that led this otherwise avoidable extended war and consequent heavy casualties. The inability to detect the widespread intrusion initially, failure to assess its magnitude in time, undue initial bravado and panic reaction once the reality dawned led to the debacle. The attempt to cover up whilst hastily trying to contain the situation and wanting the IAF to join hands to help tide over it without the knowledge of the government that had so far been kept uninformed of the fast deteriorating situation, in fact, led to heavy casualties as well as the IAF’s delayed entry into the conflict. If the casualties were high, it was because of the Army’s own tactical decision of resorting to persistent frontal attacks in the face of heavy resistance, and not because the air strikes had come late. The Subrahmanyam Committee report also states quite clearly that “there was still no clarity in the assessment of the magnitude of the intrusion and the composition of the intruders”. Fortunately for many, the committee was asked to merely establish the facts without apportioning blame or responsibility on any individual or organisation. In fact, it was a cover-up of the war by the government itself. There is a need to put the entire Kargil episode in a proper perspective. Musharraf had started the deployment by November, 1998. By the time India came to know of it in May, 1999, the incursion across the LoC was complete in all respects. The intrusion was first discovered by Army aviation pilots of 663 R and O Squadron on May 8 after the Army had lost two patrols in the Kargil sector. Realising its limitations to cope with the task of evicting the well-entrenched enemy, the Army sought help of armed helicopters from the Air Force on May 11, 1999, but the government permission could only be obtained for employment of airpower on May 25. By this time, two crucial weeks had been lost. It is of interest to know what transpired during these two weeks. Fortunately, anticipation by the Air Force in completing mobilisation of its forces by May 15, that is, well before the government permission could be obtained on May 25, was the saving grace in offsetting further delay. Realising the near impossible nature of the task of evicting the enemy and alarmed at the mounting
casualties, the Army wanted to induct armed helicopters to take on the enemy from above. Since Mi-35 armed helicopters under the Army’s operational control could not take on these high-altitude targets because of their low operating ceiling, the Army approached the IAF for help on May 11. But the Air Force had reservation on the employability of helicopters and instead recommended the use of fighters. But that required the government’s authorisation. The Army, however, persisted with its demand for helicopters only. Lack of adequate understanding of helicopters’ capabilities and vulnerabilities in hostile air defence environment on the one hand and the desire to quickly contain the deteriorating situation without alarming the government on the other was perhaps behind the Army’s insistence for armed helicopters. The Air Force was clear that if the air power was to be used, fighters alone had to be employed. And since the use of air power widens the scope of the war and brings the entire country under threat, political clearance was mandatory. Besides, all precautionary measures had to be taken in case the situation escalates into a full-fledged war. Whilst the Army-Air Force parleys were going on, the Air Force continued to mobilise and adopt necessary precautionary measures. By May 22, the situation had literally become perilous. The Chiefs of Staff Committee finally met on May 24 and the IAF’s viewpoint was finally accepted. The government was approached and appraised of the gravity of the situation. The government gave the go-ahead immediately. The IAF went into action by dawn next morning. The Air Force struck enemy dispositions with its Mig-21s, 23s and 27s at 0630 hrs on May 26. By June 6, Mirage-2000s were also inducted with their Laser Guided Bobs (LGBs). Muntho Dhalo, Tiger Hill and Point 4388 were literally decimated to facilitate the Army’s walk-over. These aircraft played an important role in the over-all success achieved by the Army. The air strikes caused considerable enemy casualties, hampered evacuation and caused shortages of ration, water, fuel and ammunition. The use of air power gave a momentum to the Army’s operations and degraded enemy combat potential. The IAF ultimately helped the Army to wind up the Kargil conflict expeditiously with comparatively lower attrition. The enemy morale received a severe jolt. The Chief of the Air Staff’s insistence for political clearance cannot be faulted nor for that matter his contention for taking precautionary measures against strikes by the enemy on IAF bases, defence installations and industrial complexes. The IAF, as also the Army, had to be ready for a total war before committing the air power into action. Simply because the implications of air power use are all pervasive. It’s rather unfortunate that caution on the part of the IAF is being projected as its reluctance to enter the war in support of the Army. The writer is a former Director General, Defence Planning Staff, MOD |
|
Starvation death reports have Leftists on the mat REPORTS of starvation deaths in a West Bengal village are predictably raising a storm in Kolkata with opposition parties seeking to put the ruling Communists on the mat over their "failure" to care for the poor. The Trinamool Congress, fumbling for an issue to revive its political fortunes following a rout in last month's parliamentary poll, is preparing for a sustained agitation focussing on it. Media reports had last week alleged that starvation and malnutrition had killed at least five people over the last three months in Amlasole, a tribal village in Midnapore (west) district about 250 km from Kolkata. Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharya admitted that "conditions of starvation" existed there, but did not say the deaths were because of hunger. His Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPI-M), which heads the state's ruling coalition, maintains that the deaths were because of illness. Amlasole is a village of about 20 families, where people have given up trying to cultivate the arid soil and mostly live by selling forest products. Surviving has become difficult because of restrictions on the collection of firewood and increased police vigil on Maoist rebels who use the jungles in the area to hide. The oldest of the five dead was 67 and the youngest 30. At least two of the dead belonged to the same family. Most villagers of Amlasole were surviving on jackfruit, wild oats and roots. "We eat jackfruit in the morning, jackfruit at night. Don't know what will happen once we have eaten all of them," one of the villagers was quoted as saying. But opposition parties allege that the government is trying to hide facts. Both Trinamool and the opposition Congress had sent their teams to Amlasole to investigate conditions in the village. "The deaths were definitely from starvation. There is no food or healthcare facility in Amlasole," Trinamool leader Nirbed Roy, who inspected the situation in the village, told IANS. The party plans to turn the deaths into a political weapon to strike the Leftists with. Trinamool chief Mamata Banerjee is planning rallies in district towns and villages and demonstrations outside the food department office in Kolkata. The party hopes to draw mileage from the issue in the upcoming elections to 18 municipal bodies. "We have always said that the poor and tribal villagers are being neglected. Only now has it has all come to the limelight," Banerjee told reporters. The Congress, which is being supported by the Leftists at the federal level, has also planned agitation programmes. "We will decide on our agitation programmes within a few days," said Congress leader Manas Bhuniya. Voluntary organisations have set up camps to distribute food and medicines to the villagers of Amlasole. "Deaths are unfortunate and death from starvation even so," Bhattacharya had said. He announced that the government would expedite development programmes for the region, including in the agriculture, irrigation, drinking water and health sectors. Bhattacharya hopes to spend Rs.450 million on these development plans over the next three years. Streams of government officials and even a minister have visited Amlasole to inquire after the villagers. Doctors, too, have been sent after the starvation deaths were reported.
— IANS |
The contented ones who dwell upon none but the truest of the true, serve Him only. They do not tread the path of evil. They do good and practise righteousness. They loosen wordly bonds and eat and drink in moderation. — Guru Nanak Don’t worry thinking, what shall we eat? Or what shall we drink or what shall we wear? For your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. — Jesus Christ The spiritually-minded belong to a caste of
their own, beyond all social conventions. — Sri Ramakrishna Whoever offers Me a leaf, a flower, a fruit or water with devotion, I accept that devout gift of the pure-minded. — Sri Krishna |
| HOME PAGE | |
Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir |
Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs |
Nation | Opinions | | Business | Sports | World | Mailbag | Chandigarh | Ludhiana | Delhi | | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |
