The High Court has rightly struck down the IAF Board’s promotion policy of March 15, 2002, as it had given greater weightage to the “discretion” of the Board than to the time-tested policy of seniority-cum-fitness. Clearly, whenever discretion plays a major role in the exercise of one’s powers, there is scope for arbitrariness coming into play at the cost of merit. The Board’s abuse of discretionary powers is evident from the fact that though Air Vice Marshal Chattwal and Air Vice Marshal Masand had a better career record than the four promoted Air Marshals, the marks scored by them were disproportionate to their overall record and performance.

India has already been the largest trading partner of the EU with its exports estimated at Euro 13.5 billion. The volume is bound to rise with the EU having become a 25-member grouping (till early this year it had only 15 members), accounting for over 28 per cent of the world’s GDP. The new beginning in the India-EU relations may speed up India’s economic advancement, as the country has been attracting the maximum FDI from the EU.

A dilemma that stares all house loan takers in the face is: should they continue with the floating interest rates or shift to the fixed rates? Most of the loanees have opted for the variable interest rates. Even banks encourage this to guard against any unforeseen cost escalations. When it became clear that the interest rates would harden, certain public sector banks and the HDFC raised the fixed interest rates on home loans on August 30 this year. Before shifting to a fixed rate loan, one has to calculate the cost of conversion as also the future scenario. That is a tough task. Very few bankers, leave alone ordinary citizens, can predict accurately which way the interest rates would move.

Now when the talks look like throwing up a solution, we should not be seen flinching. The international community is watching the progress on Kashmir anxiously. We should not be found wanting. Moreover, this is an opportunity the two countries cannot afford to miss.

General Musharraf has set the ball rolling. He first told two Indian journalists that the solution of Kashmir lay in identifying the area, demilitarising it and giving it a status. Subsequently, he gave shape to his proposal by specifying seven areas: the plains, including Jammu, the foothills up to 7,000 feet, Pir Panjal, the valley, the Great Himalayan zone, the upper Indus valley and the Northern Areas, the Karakoram, parts of which are with China.

For the first time, a Pakistan ruler has proposed independence for Kashmir, besides joint control or UN mandate. General Musharraf must have done the rethinking after talking to the Indian journalists, including myself. At that time, when he said that the Kashmiris wanted independence, he meant that they would “step back” once concrete proposals were on the table. This might still happen. But independence is an option as of now.

New Delhi has not yet reacted to General Musharraf’s proposals in any significant manner. In the past, there have been remarks like “the sky is the limit.” Still India has been fiercely supporting and sustaining the status quo — the four corners of our policy on Kashmir.

The Home Ministry has a department on Kashmir which does not believe in having any input from outside. Politicians in power and bureaucrats in the department work out a strategy, not policy, as and when the situation demands. A few former bureaucrats are thrown in as interlocutors every now and then to know the minds of the leaders in the valley. The department often gets it wrong.

What General Musharraf has proposed is a re-division of Jammu and Kashmir. This is something to which none in the government — the Opposition or even the experts — has applied his mind, at least not methodically or seriously. Even if they had, I do not think any government in New Delhi can sell to the country a proposal which suggests a division on the basis of religion and throws out the status quo completely. True, a sterile policy is worth jettisoning, but when the price demanded is a seven-tier state, the suspicion heightens.

I believe that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh proposed to discuss certain options when he met General Musharraf in New York, putting two riders: one, no territorial adjustment, and two, no division on the basis of religion. General Musharraf’s proposals eschew the word “religion”, but the geographical changes he suggests are primarily on that basis.

An unsteady secular polity like ours cannot accept this. Any division or even a hint of it may revive the horrors of Partition. The defeated BJP is only looking for a semblance of a chance to revive Hindutva which, at present, does not arouse any response.

Still General Musharraf’s seven-region proposal should not be rejected outright. It can be made the basis for riveting a setup which may ultimately overcome the objections voiced by India, Pakistan and the Kashmiris. Why not merge the seven regions into two units so that they are viable and, at the same time, can pass the muster to be acceptable to the majority?

I have a proposal. Having been associated with leaders and people in the state for more than four decades, I consider myself competent as well as involved enough to suggest a wayout. Once youthful Kashmiri leader Yasin Malik advised me not to make any proposal on Kashmir so that I might one day help the process of negotiations. My profession of writing demanded me to react to the situation prevailing at a particular time. If that rules me out, I cannot help.

The crux of the problem is the valley. The Indian Parliament has also asked the government to take up “the other Kashmir under Pakistan’s occupation.” So there are two units: Kashmir and “Azad Kashmir”. They have established their identity in the last 55 years — the first is Kashmiri-speaking and the second Punjabi-speaking.

My suggestion is that both Kashmirs should be given autonomy. The governments in these two regions should enjoy all subjects except defence, foreign affairs and communications. The three subjects were the ones which the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir gave to New Delhi when he signed the Instrument of Accession to integrate his state with India. “Azad Kashmir” is directly under Islamabad and enjoys only the crumbs of power thrown at it. My proposal gives it full autonomy like the one in Kashmir on the Indian side.

The border between the two Kashmirs should be made soft so that the citizens of the two sides travel freely, without any passport or papers, in both parts. (I hope terrorism will be over by that time). The status for these areas is that of an autonomous unit. The three subjects — foreign affairs, defence and communications — will vest in the government in New Delhi as far as Kashmir is concerned and Islamabad regarding “Azad Kashmir.”

Both Kashmirs should be demilitarised, India withdrawing its forces from the valley and stationing them at the valley’s border. Pakistan will do a similar thing regarding "Azad Kashmir". The UN and major powers should be individually or collectively involved to guarantee the demilitarisation of the areas if and when a final settlement is reached.

The settlement should be final. There will be no reopening. Both countries should withdraw their complaint from the UN and other international bodies. All the 72 confidence-building measures — India has increased the number from eight to 72 — should be implemented straightaway so that people-to-people contact increases and trade gets going.

I know General Musharraf is allergic to the line of control (LoC). But there has to be some line drawn to demarcate the border. The LoC can be straightened as Prime Minister Indira Gandhi had suggested to the then Pakistan Prime Minister, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, at Shimla. Islamabad knows it well that the international community is in favour of the LoC becoming a permanent border, with minimum changes.

There were only three survivors – the driver, conductor and I. The first two were grievously injured.. A passenger from another bus gave me a dry kurta-pyjama and a ten-rupee note and then we were alone in the small, rural dispensary in Ramban. My hunger returned with a ferocious intensity but there was little I could do about it.

At three there was a flurry of activity: the Transport Minister had arrived, accompanied by officials, press reporters and hangers on. He stood besides my bed and the cameras clicked furiously.

“Is there anything we can do for you?” The Minister asked.

“I am terribly hungry,” I said “I had my last meal 30 hours ago” The Minister turned to the doctor: “See that he gets something to eat.” More flashbulbs exploded and then the Minister was gone.

“Aren’t you ashamed of yourself?” the doctor said later “There are two men dying in the next room and all you can think of is your stomach”.

This scene was repeated again, with the clockwork precision of an army drill, when the Minister of Tourism, and later, the Chief Minister visited. They stood on the same side of my bed, asked the same question, gave the same response to my answer which produced the same reaction from the doctor.

And as the night came on I knew for the first time in my life the pain that real hunger can cause. They had a constable on duty, Ram Singh by name, who finally took pity on me and brought me a bowl of dal and three chapattis. I wolfed this down and tried to force my ten-rupee note upon him. He was embarrassed.

“No, its nothing really. The dal was left over from lunch and no one would eat it at dinner. The chapattis were so badly burnt that my wife said even the dog would not eat them.”

Without proper consideration, the Parliament of France has passed a law prohibiting all signs of outward manifestation of any religious faith. The reason given for passing such a law is that any human being having allegiance with a particular group with collective or religious interest, cannot be a good citizen. Since a good citizen does not belong to anyone.

The definition of secularism or State neutrality, as developed in France, is totally opposed to the definition of secularism as understood in the common law countries.

The purpose of such a law is to “Frenchify” the population of France and to impose on it one single culture, one language, one way of thinking, irrespective of various distinct identities of the people.

From this point of view, it is clearly an instrument of internal and external colonisation and imperialism.

The turban is much more than a head-dress, as it is an integral part of the Sikh religion and inseparably connected with the Sikh baptism and the Sikh code of conduct.

Therefore, France’s law should not be used to take away the inalienable right of the Sikhs to wear the turban.

The legal question regarding the turban first arose in the 1970s in the face of the law by which wearing crash helmets were made compulsory while riding a motor-cycle in England. The Sikhs protested against that and a Bill to exempt the Sikhs was introduced in the House of Commons.

There was a long debate on this subject in the House of Lords. Lord Mowbary and Lord Stourton, defending the right of the Sikhs to wear the turban, said, “The question of Sikhs and crash-helmets has aroused some interest and public discussion over the last few months, not only in the Sikh community, where, as we know, feelings run very high, but also the country at large.

“Some commentators have on occasions questioned the exact theological status of the turban and whether it is absolutely binding on a Sikh to wear one.

“However, I would suggest that this is not a fruitful line of discussion. The study of other religious systems is not one that can be mastered in a short time, and this is perhaps particularly true of the great oriental religion. However, as in all cases involving religious convictions of others, we must respect even when we do not necessarily understand. Also we ought to be guided in matters concerning other faiths by the members of those faiths themselves.

“When in the case of the Sikhs you find a whole religious community united in its strength of feeling on a given issue, it would seem to be most foolish to question their judgement. I would submit that so far as concerns the Sikh religion we should accept what the Sikhs themselves say”. After a long debate, the House of Lords passed the law to exempt the Sikhs from wearing crash helmets when driving motor cycles instead of their turbans. The bill was passed on 15th November, 1976.

Another controversy regarding the turban arose in the schools of England in 1982. Lord Denning MR rejected the case of the Sikhs to wear the turban in the schools of England as they were not a racial group.

On appeal, the House of Lord reversed the judgement of the Court of Appeal holding: “they are more than a religious sects they are almost a race and almost a nation.” Therefore, their right to wear the turban is protected under the law.

Unfortunately, after such a judgment of the House of Lords and the courts of many other countries, the controversy once again has again arisen in France after almost 21 years. The Sikhs’ search for justice does not seem to have come to an end in this regard.

Schools in Tower Hamlets, the London borough with the highest concentration of Muslims in Britain, were accused of insensitivity after letters were sent during the holiest month of the Muslim year restating their dress code.

The letters, which made clear that wearing the jilbab - an ankle-length dress which covers the body except for face and hands - was not permitted, led to three girls at one school being withdrawn in protest.

Others pupils are understood to have protested about the letters with some requesting to be moved to different schools.

Muslim leaders last night called for national guidelines to be drawn up on appropriate dress for Muslims after a series of clashes between pupils and school governors across the country on the issue. This summer a 15-year-old student from Luton lost a High Court action after she argued that her human rights were infringed when she was excluded from lessons for wearing the jilbab.

Under current rules, dress codes are decided by the headteacher and governors of each school in accordance with guidelines provided by local authorities and central government.

Inyat Bunglawala, spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain, said: “The current situation is causing chaos. Islam is a diverse faith and some people feel that their faith requires them to wear the jilbab.

“We feel that those who wish to wear jilbab should be able to do so. But the Government’s policy is that dress codes are open to interpretation by each school and that is why we have got this mess.

“It seems that the Government needs to set out precisely what is and is not acceptable.”

The latest row erupted after a number of secondary schools in Tower Hamlets, including Morpeth mixed comprehensive and the Central Foundation Girls’ School, sent letters last month restating a dress code policy agreed with local mosques.

The policy allows pupils to wear a tunic and headscarf but bans the jilbab and burka on health and safety grounds. Tower Hamlets, with a large Bangladeshi community, counts 36 per cent of its population as Muslim.

Rifat Akhtar, 13, a pupil at the Central Foundation school, said she was considering a move to a different school. She said: “The jilbab is part of my religious belief. It makes me confident and gives me an identity as a Muslim.” Critics said that despite the policy, girls had been wearing the jilbab in Tower Hamlets for several years and the enforcing of the ban during Ramadan was poorly timed.

Oliur Rahman, a Tower Hamlets councillor, said: “This will be seen as an attack on Muslims and their wider community.”