 |
|
Litigation as a weapon Satish Sharma again! Chautala’s sops |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
CBMs not enough
Cover story — 1984
Palestinians gripped by fear Awaiting death, he writes poems
|
Litigation as a weapon
THE Punjab and Haryana High Court’s strictures against the Punjab Government for indulging in wholly unnecessary litigation are timely and a blow for justice. The case pertaining to two workmen whose services were terminated by Punjab’s Animal Husbandry Department, which the High Court has dismissed, is a classic example of how a state government can go to any length to deny justice to poor workmen and prolong litigation wantonly. A close look at the case history would suggest that the state government had adopted every stratagem at its command to demonstrate its uncompromising attitude and scuttle justice even though there was no point of law involved. Its justification for filing the special leave petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court on the ground that the “main thrust” of the government had not been argued “inadvertently” in the Division Bench was untenable and without any basis. It cared two hoots about the Supreme Court’s ruling which dismissed the SLP in January this year and declared the sacking of the workmen as null and void. Amazingly, there was no limit to the state government’s extent of vindictiveness. While fighting against injustice, one of the petitioners died, leaving behind his young widow and a five-year-old son. The widow was running from pillar to post for justice but in vain because of the government’s callous posture. Even though the court has “strongly recommended” consequential benefits to the widow of the deceased workman as also the reinstatement of the other workman, who will compensate them for the mental trauma and torture they were forced to undergo all these years? The High Court has rightly directed the state government to order a proper inquiry and fix accountability on those responsible for this “relentless litigation”, including the officer who had peremptorily dismissed the workmen. The government has also been ordered to recover any loss caused to it from the salary of the officers responsible for this litigation. Clearly, occasional exhortations for speedy justice by the President, the Prime Minister and the Supreme Court Chief Justice will carry little value if the state governments are not sensitive towards employees and are bent upon harassing them by continued litigation which they can afford at the cost of public exchequer and poor employees cannot. The ruling given by Justice S.S. Nijar and Justice J.S. Narang should serve as a significant benchmark if it helps in sensitising the governments which ought not to use litigation as a weapon against the
weak. |
|
Satish Sharma again! THE UPA Government appears to have come up with a clever solution for dealing with tainted politicians, particularly if they are Congressmen: remove the taint and accommodate the tainted. Of a piece with this approach is the Union Government’s refusal of permission to the CBI for prosecuting former Petroleum Minister Satish Sharma. In a “closure report” moved in a Delhi court before Special Judge Pratibha Rani, the CBI has sought to close 15 cases against Mr Sharma relating to irregular allotment of petrol and gas agencies. The CBI’s petition is admittedly at the behest of the Union Home Ministry. It was on the complaint of an NGO, Common Cause, made in January 1996 that the CBI had registered the 15 cases against Mr Sharma on charges of criminal conspiracy, criminal breach of trust by a public servant and sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In 1996, the Supreme Court held the allotments made by Mr Sharma – who was Minister for Petroleum and Natural Gas from January 1993 to May 1996 – to be arbitrary and discriminatory. The Court ordered him to pay a fine of Rs 50 lakh “as exemplary damages to the Government Exchequer”. The cases against Mr Sharma have been controversial and not only because of his political connections. In August 1999, acting on a review petition, another Bench of the Supreme Court revoked the fine of Rs 50 lakh imposed on Mr Sharma. Although the Bench found his “wanton exercise of power” in making the allotments to be “atrocious” and “wholly unjustified”, it held that Mr Sharma’s conduct fell short of “malfeasance in public office”; and that a court cannot direct the government to pay exemplary damages to itself. That judgment, which came in for criticism from eminent jurists, was seen as a blow to public interest litigation. Five years on, there is a change in the political climate. The CBI instead of being empowered and encouraged to pursue cases of corruption, favouritism and nepotism is being ‘guided’, if not leashed. It is most unfortunate that this should happen under Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. |
|
Chautala’s sops FEW can challenge the rationale behind the Haryana Day giveaways Chief Minister Om Prakash Chautala announced at Kaithal on Monday, but the timing and the motive were certainly questionable. The assembly elections are a few months away and the Chief Minister wants to play the politics of appeasement to the hilt before the Election Commission steps in and ties his
hands. The media splashed the populist announcements without calculating how much these will benefit the citizens and cost the exchequer. The quantum of relief may not be much and the actual number of beneficiaries not too large, but political advantage from the played-up sops will not be that insignificant. There is nothing wrong in raising the old age pension from Rs 200 to Rs 300. But is that enough to survive in the present hard times of high inflation? Do the aged have sufficient social security? The unemployment allowance for the educated blind has been raised. But why leave out the uneducated blind? Anyway, how many blind youth have done postgraduation or even matric? How much revenue has the state government sacrificed by waiving the sales tax on shoes and chappals costing up to Rs 200? Hardly worth the publicity generated! The DA hike for the aided college staff is a routine affair, but it has been clubbed with the other sops for wider media effect. Voters are too clever these days to get carried away by pre-election benefits—what should have been their right anyway. There is no substitute for good governance and providing an administration responsive to the citizens’ needs and demands. A government is judged usually by what it does during its entire term, not just by the benevolence it bestows on the voters on the election eve. Mr Parkash Singh Badal lost the last elections despite massive cash dispersals through the last-minute “Sangat Darshan” programme. He left an empty treasury for his successor. Captain Amarinder Singh also went on giving sops before the Lok Sabha elections, but lost several seats to the Opposition. Mr Chautala also seems to be treading the same path. |
|
And life is given to none freehold, but it is leasehold for all.
— Lucretius
|
CBMs not enough PRESIDENT Pervez Musharraf is pressing ahead with his campaign to create and demonstrate flexibility in Pakistan’s traditional Kashmir stance, the perceived core of all problems with India. He has built upon what he had told some Indian journalists that, given flexibility and sincere resolve, the Kashmir problem can be settled in one day. He has now flashed up the idea and given a methodology: take the various options, strike out those not acceptable and agree on one. He implies several ambiguous possibilities. His preferred methodology is divide Kashmir into seven geographical regions, demilitarise one by one and agree on which to go to whom. Probably the Valley in mind, he talks of possibilities ranging from more autonomy to independence, probably with condominium or joint control. He strongly recommends both sides to give up their “maximalist courses”, as neither can dictate to the other. The purpose should be to expeditiously resolve disputes and prevent a ruinous arms race in the subcontinent. What are the “maximalist courses” in the Pakistan President’s view? General Musharraf attaches much importance to two subjects: Kashmir and the security environment. India’s maximalist position vis-à-vis Kashmir can be crudely reduced to “we keep what we have”; no change in its constitutional status is acceptable to any Indian government. Pakistan’s maximalist positions on both issues are known. On security issues — the two nuclear deterrents staring at each other from close quarters — the position apparently is a happy one, as stated by Ambassador Shaukat Umar in the First Committee of UN General Assembly: both India and Pakistan are committed to working for strategic stability and have declared that “their nuclear capability is a factor for stability in South Asia. They are committed to taking measures necessary to reduce the risk of an accidental or unauthorised use of nuclear weapons”. But this happy position is not unqualified. Mr Umar called upon India to accept new confidence building measures (CBMs) to enhance strategic stability in the conventional forces and to avoid an arms race, temper its weapons acquisition and maintain an “acceptable” ratio of forces with Islamabad. He noted that a “durable peace and security in South Asia will require an earnest effort to: one, resolve the outstanding disputes, particularly Jammu and Kashmir; two, promote mutual nuclear restraint; and three, maintain a balance of conventional forces between Pakistan and India”. Despite these prerequisites of stability not having been met, Pakistan concurs with India that “nuclear weapons in South Asia were essential for regional stability”. The foregoing is Pakistan’s maximalist position. India has its own realistic hardliners. They do talk of stability and peace. But all these maximalist demands of Pakistan are likely to be rejected by them. They have their own maximalist positions: basically the status quo on Kashmir, CBMs about the nukes are negotiable, no agreed balance of power with Pakistan in any field is desired, while the other six disputes can be discussed — with India negotiating from a position of strength. The Pakistani realists, sans idealism, need to reflect on what is the incentive for India to do what Pakistan wants it to do, now that India cannot be coerced. How and under what pressure or inducement would an Indian government change the stance on Kashmir, for instance? The idea of strategic balance of power with Pakistan is anathema to Indian realists. They want India to be a pre-eminent power in South Asia primarily in military strength, conventional and atomic. They would hate to be bogged down into any agreed balance of power with Pakistan. Pakistani realists have also to reflect on why India would stop acquiring the sinews and currency of power for becoming a great power — for the greater glory of the Indian nation, irrespective of how it is defined. There seems to be consensus on this among large swaths of Indian opinion, mainly the middle class. The BJP is all for the glory of the Indian nation it defines as Hindu Rashtra. For much of the Congress, national glory is the goal but the nation does not exclude Muslims, though for some unavowed, soft saffronisation is
cosier. Even some workers of the Left are no longer as secular as they used to be. So, what India gets in return for what Pakistan demands, even in its attenuated versions, needs to be ascertained. That is where idealism comes in. Pure realism leads to the acquisition of strength and with it comes the motivation and ability to take advantage of the weak. That is what realpolitik is: the strong can and will seize what advantage other’s weakness offers. We can foresee what will be India’s answer. India is a larger country with larger responsibilities and it has to keep pace with China and other great powers. Why should Pakistan or other SAARC members trap it into regional balances of power? By introducing some idealism, the “vision thing”, one only recommends realism to be informed with morality and international law. It includes offering to India something in return for what we demand of it: Pakistan’s demands cover solutions to all eight problems. These should be based on international law and fairplay. It is not easy to think how one can produce sweet reasonableness among Indians for accepting the demands of international law and morality. That is the mischief of pure realpolitik, given the asymmetry in military strengths. Looking closely at the European model of regional integration, it is based primarily on the people-to-people reconciliation between France and Germany in accordance with an elaborate plan of producing more understanding and adding new commonalities. The vision of common prosperity of people can be acceptable to all SAARC members. Harder thinking is needed on this “vision thing”. It must aim at something specific — constructive and worthwhile in itself. SAARC should adapt a programme of banishing dire poverty through a progressive social security system for all the inhabitants of the region in a given timeframe. The commitment should be legally binding which will force all states to reorient their priorities and this would become priority one. National security can be left to attenuated armies. A huge shift is required. Can it be done? It is even more difficult than the difficulties being experienced in resolving the eight problems. All that can be said is that if the ruling classes of the seven states can be persuaded into adopting this new aim in place of today’s selfish realpolitik, there would be hope. It is feasible. Only political will is required. Means can always be found and, in any case, the goal is to be achieved progressively over years, not in one go. The hardest subject concerns nuclear weapons. Both India and Pakistan are of one mind regarding them: they are claimed to be necessary for their security and peace. It is non sequitur. It is a huge mistake. No one in India can sleep without worry so long as nuclear weapons in Pakistan wait to wreak havoc in India. Conversely, which Pakistani general can be complacent about Indian nukes? There is no defence against these weapons. These are for mass murder and aggression. Their very presence creates profound mistrust. Both countries have proposed CBMs supposedly as a solution of the problem. They are nothing of the kind. CBMs can only ensure that accidents and unauthorised launching of nuclear weapons will become more difficult. Just that much. CBMs are a sort of pain-killers. They are not a solution to the problem of two hostile nuclear deterrents sitting cheek by jowl in India and Pakistan. The kind of crises that led to countless military tensions, three regular wars and several quasi wars, including Kargil, cannot be prevented by CBMs. The worry is about such situations. |
Cover story — 1984
THOSE days buying a Single Lens Reflex camera was not easy. Either you paid through the nose in the black market or imported through a visiting relative by paying a hefty customs duty. So when a customs official said a confiscated SLR camera was available for just Rs 4,400, I did not think twice. It was a vintage manual Nikomat camera from the famed Nikon stable with a powerful 1:1.4 normal lens. The only drawback it had was that it lacked a case, without which I feared the button battery would fall off. “You may have to get a camera case custom made by an expert shoe mender” suggested the friendly customs official, who had no clue how the case got separated from the camera. No shoe mender in the town I lived in at that time was able to make a camera case, either for love or for money. On my relocation to the Capital a couple of years later, I made a round of Chandni Chowk and met many camera dealers and repairers. None of them had a case that fitted my camera. It was then that my photographer friend K. Gopi, who managed a colour lab in Delhi, volunteered to help. He spread word among cameramen who frequented the lab that he wanted a Nikomat case. He soon realised that it was a tall order. Lo and behold, one fine evening, Gopi called to ask me whether he should purchase a case for Rs 150. The deal was too good to believe. “Made in Japan”, it was the original case of a Nikomat camera. Why did the owner sell it? I was curious while Gopi had no answers to proffer. But he promised to meet the person again and get me all the details. As it turned out, the camera case belonged to the seller’s brother, a photographer, who had died in tragic circumstances. It was this day 20 years ago that the photographer, his wife and child were burnt by a mob for no other reason than that he sported a beard and a turban. The mob looted all his belongings, including his camera and lenses. Before they left, they also put the torch to his humble house in one of the “Puris” in east Delhi. A few days later, his brother and other survivors of the carnage rummaged through the remains of the house and recovered a few things. The camera case, which escaped the fury and the fire, was one of them. With little else to do, he decided to follow in the footsteps of his slain brother and become a photographer. The camera case remained with him as a reminder of the macabre incident. He had no use for the case as the Japanese firm had stopped producing Nikomat. So when he heard about my search for a Nikomat case, he decided to sell it to me. Every time I pick up my camera, the picture that comes to my mind is that of the Sikh photographer in flames. While others use cameras to tell stories, mine narrates a story of its own. |
Palestinians gripped by fear His boss, Wael Nasrawi, a supporter of Yasser Arafat, was just as fearful, and much more lurid, in describing what he expected if the great survivor’s battle with a two-week-old illness did turn out to be his last. “What is going to happen will make the
(Israeli) occupation seem easy by comparison,” he said. There might or might not be a Palestinian “civil war”, but “all the traitors, collaborators and sons of dogs” with scores to settle against the followers of the PLO chairman would “play their role”. The men on the pavement outside the Nazareth were wholly cynical about reports on radio and television - reinforced by bland interviews with Palestinian Authority (PA) ministers - that Mr Arafat’s illness was not life-threatening. All those in the Arafat entourage - apart from the president - were corrupt, Mr Nas- wari said. “If he was corrupt, he wouldn’t have been imprisoned in the Mukata for three years,” interjected his friend, Mohammed Juma, referring to the compound to which Mr Arafat has been restricted. So who, if the worst happened, would Mr Naswari like to see as the new president? “Anyone clean,” came the reply. Was there such a person? “No”, shot back Mr Naswari, before correcting himself to mention the name of a popular Fatah leader on many lips. “Marwan Barghouti is the only one I can use the word about, but he is in [an Israeli] prison and I can’t help him.” Mr Naswari was at one extreme of the spectrum between apprehension and mute indifference on the streets of Ramallah to the drama unfolding behind the concrete and barbed wire defences of the battered Arafat compound, streets on which, in stark contrast to the frantic media circus around the Mukata itself, life continued with utter normality. The proprietor of the Salaaneh Shwarma shop, who declined to give his name, was at the other extreme. “I don’t want to speak about this,” he said. “I like to do my work and go home to my family.” But the PLO leader might be dying. “Well, my father died too. I don’t think he is a better man than my father.” But Mr Naswari was far from alone in considering what might happen in a still scarcely imaginable post-Arafat era. Saleh Abdul Jawad’s roots as a PLO comrade of Mr Arafat go back to Lebanon in 1973. He is now among a small group of half a dozen vigorously pro-reform democrats on the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) in favour of passive rather than armed resistance to the Israeli occupation, and rather less willing than Mr Naswari to exempt Mr Arafat from charges of corruption. For Mr Jawad, there are two possibilities: one, infinitely preferable to the other, is that the PA would conform with its own basic law, under which the speaker of the PLC would assume office for 60 days then call for free national elections for a new president. The second is the rumoured installation of a three-man committee including the prime minister, Ahmad Qureia, and his predecessor, Abu Mazen, Mr Arafat’s successor as PLO chairman. Such a device, a “violation” of the constitution, would be acceptable to Mr Jawad only if it, too, set a date for free presidential elections. If it did, it could herald a clean break with the past corruption and chronic delivery failures of the PA. If it did not, a bloody internecine struggle in which the faction with the “most power and resources” would rise to the top could follow. In this, as in so much else, Mr Jawad, who said it was too early to say he might be a candidate, believes Mr Arafat and a corrupt PA have suited the policies of Ariel Sharon, the Israeli Prime Minister, providing an “umbrella” for committing continued “war crimes” against Palestinians and refusing negotiations. As a result, Israel might resist the opening of roads and checkpoints necessary for fully successful national elections to preserve the status quo, perhaps using the device of three-man transitional leadership to promote its favoured candidate. Mr Jawad was not convinced that Mr Barghouti represents a clean break with Mr Arafat’s methods but acknowledged that if the Israelis released him he would be a “real contender”. He had similar “mixed” feelings about Abu Mazen, whom Israel did woefully little to help when he was trying to reform the PA as prime minister last year, but he freely acknowledged him as a “willing democrat”. Ali Jarbawi, a political scientist at Bir Zeit University, supports Abu Mazen, to whom he predicts real power would be transferred if Mr Arafat dies or becomes incapacitated, because the differing Fatah groups are likeliest to coalesce around him. But he did not rule out problems and “political violence with some groups attacking other groups. We have so many splits that this a serious threat”. Professor Jarbawi was less worried about a closed, PLO-conducted succession “because we are dependent on personalities and if we want to transfer power from personalities to
instititutions, it is the personalities that have to bring it about”. Mr Jawad agreed with Professor Jarbawi about the dangers of a vacuum. “Arafat always leaves things as if he is eternal,” he said. The international attention focused on the Muqata as darkness fell last night was a reminder that he is nothing of the sort. Possible successors Jibril Rajoub, former head of the Preventative Security Service in the West Bank, is widely tipped as one of the most likely contenders. Ahmad Qureia (better known as Abu Ala), was the Palestinian prime minister since 2003. Mahmoud Abbas, who also goes by the name of Abu Mazen, is another moderate who has frequently negotiated with the Israelis. A power struggle with Yasser Arafat led him to resign as Palestinian prime minister in 2003 and he is now secretary general of the PLO Executive Committee. Marwan Barghouti is widely seen to be the most popular Palestinian politician next to Mr Arafat. Another local leader who has come to the fore during the current intifada, Mr Barghouti was the head of Fatah in the West Bank but is currently in an Israeli jail serving five consecutive life sentences.
— By arrangement with The Independent, London |
|
Awaiting death, he writes poems TEN years ago 40-year-old poet V. Radhakrishnan murdered a gangster in a village in Kanyakumari district of Tamil Nadu. The gangster had slaughtered his friend’s cattle and threatened his wife with widowhood. Ayyavoo, being a gangster, was regularly in and out of jail. Radhakrishnan with the help of another man killed Ayyavoo when the latter was being produced in a court. Radhakrishnan, his friend whose wife was threatened, and the third man were booked for murder and sentenced to death. During the last decade the death row of Salem Central Prison saw the metamorphosis of a man who is a murderer in the eyes of the law. Radhakrishnan started writing poems on various issues and, ultimately, these were published. The anthology ‘Sirai Muthukkal 3450’, meaning Prison Pearls and 3450 being his identification number, contains poems penned by him on various national and international issues and personalities like the war on Iraq, Osama bin Laden, LTTE supremo Velupilai Prabhakaran and US President George Bush. While he condemned bin Laden for the 9/11 attacks on the twin towers in New York, he did not spare President Bush for his war on Iraq. The 46 poems have been hailed as a literary masterpiece by celebrated Tamil poet Suradha and the top most Tamil film lyricist Vairamuthu. The poems are so good that even politicians buried their hatchets and wrote in his praise. DMK President M. Karunanidhi even wrote a preface to the collection of poems. Jana Krishnamurthy in his foreword to the book, has said, “It is astonishing that from the heart of a man awaiting the gallows so much of poetic outpouring has come forth. His poems prompt us to pray that let not his body hang in the rope, let this lyrical mind flourish.” Radhakrishnan’s mercy petition was turned down by the Tamil Nadu Governor three years ago and he is now awaiting clemency from President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam. But a socio-political storm is brewing in Tamil Nadu over Radhakrishnan’s death sentence. Even those who are in favour of capital punishment say Radhakrishnan’s case can certainly never be equated with Dhananjoy Chatterjee, hanged to death recently in Kolkata for raping and murdering a 14-year-old schoolgirl. These people, some of whom are lawyers and former police officers argue that according to our penal law, the death penalty is pronounced only in the “rarest of rare cases”. They point out Radhakrishnan’s case is certainly not rare and his crime was neither for lust nor any personal gain. His action was more like that of a man driven by his personal ideals, loyalty and friendship. Two wrongs do not make a right. But his action in killing a gangster who slaughtered his friend’s cattle and later threatened his wife was more out of anger. In legal parlance it sounds more like culpable homicide not amounting to murder than murder as defined in Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Yes, certain amount of planning was there as he killed Ayyavoo on the court premises. Radhakrishnan cannot be reached easily like any acclaimed poet since he is awaiting death in a condemned cell but the hearts of the people of Tamil Nadu have reached out to him as they are reading his ‘Prison pearls 3450’. Will President Kalam, who hails from a neighbouring district of Ramanathapuram in Tamil Nadu, accept his appeal for clemency? |
For spiritual realisation, one must receive the mercy of a bona fide spiritual master who imparts the science of devotional service to the student. The student receives this knowledge through submissive aural reception, and then it is the student’s duty to faithfully carry out the master’s instructions. In doing this, one must be careful to avoid all offences and obstacles on the path to pure devotion. — Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu The long estrangement of the soul and the supreme soul ends in their union through the contemplation of the True Word. — Guru Nanak Rama is the ancient idol of the heroic ages, the embodiment of truth, of morality, the ideal son, the ideal husband, the ideal father, and, above all, the ideal King. — Swami Vivekananda A monk ever vigilant in his moves while he stands, sits, sleeps, eats and talks — is not bound by evil karmas. — Lord Mahavir Discretion in speech is more than eloquence. — Bacon |
| 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 | |
MUSTAFA Abu Shawari did not pause from slapping dough for the traditional qatayef of Ramadan on to the hob outside the Nazareth restaurant in Ramallah as he considered the fate of the sick old man in his bed some 400 yards away. “We may lose him,” he said. “We should pray to God about the consequences.”