 |
|
Justice in Canada Rice is nice |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Gorby’s glasnost
Shaking hands with US
Another time, another man
Why crop diversification will get stuck Bush’s choice for World Bank risks outcry Delhi Durbar
|
Justice in Canada Twenty years of investigation and 19 months of trial have come to a naught with a Canadian judge acquitting Indian-born Ripudaman Singh Malik and Ajaib Singh Bagri in the Kanishka bombing trial on Wednesday. The shock and disbelief on the faces of the relatives of the victims of the world’s worst airborne terror strike prior to the attacks of September 11, 2001, is palpable. What is beyond doubt is that the Air-India plane did not explode on its own. It was targeted by terrorists. If it was not Malik and Bagri, it was somebody else. He or they are still out there somewhere. Unless they are brought to justice, other such killers will continue to sit smug that they can blow up planes, kill innocent people and nothing would happen to them. That is exactly the lament of the relatives of the victims after the unexpected turn to the most expensive trial in Canadian history. But British Columbia Supreme Court Justice Ian Josephson in his own wisdom has held that, one, the Crown has not proved its case against the suspects beyond a reasonable doubt because the evidence is only circumstantial and, two, key prosecution witnesses surfaced “too late to be credible”. What has been ignored in this judgement is that when such a devilish conspiracy is hatched, it is next to impossible to get any direct evidence. The argument that the witnesses were brought in too late is even more ominous. In future, the killers can easily keep the witnesses gagged for a sufficiently long time, knowing full well that their testimony will be worthless after that. The prosecution can go in appeal only if it is able to clearly establish that the judge erred gravely in reaching his conclusions. The chances of that happening are very bleak. The victims’ families will have to nurse their wounds forever, with the added heartache that nobody has had to pay a price for snatching away their near and dear ones so cruelly. Nothing could be more unfortunate. |
|
Rice is nice THE interactions US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had with Indian leaders during her brief visit to New Delhi suggest that there has been a significant change in the US perception of India. She is known for her view of encouraging “new centres of stability, new centres of prosperity” which obviously includes India. That is why when India expressed its concern over the promised sale of F16 aircraft to Pakistan, she did not brush aside India’s sensibilities. Of course, Pakistan would get its supplies. But India has been offered 125 F16s against 25 for Pakistan. The manufacturers, Lockheed Martin, may get permission to set up shop in India for a joint venture for the purpose as part of the new US policy to co-produce defence equipment. The F16s meant for India fall in the most sophisticated category. This is not all. Ms Rice has assured India that the US is willing to provide the kind of nuclear power plants which it has supplied to China. India needs them because of its growing energy requirement. One can argue that this generosity is basically aimed at persuading India to dissociate itself from the Iranian gas pipeline project. Whatever the truth, the availability of the latest nuclear power technology — which means the cleanest and cheapest energy — may revolutionise industrial development in the country. So far as the Iran gas pipeline project is concerned, Pakistan too is a partner in it and the US would do well to first discuss its concerns with that country before asking India to ignore the Iranian offer. India and the US have almost similar views on the Nepalese situation. Both want restoration of the democratic process at the earliest. King Gyanendra, who has suspended the functioning of the democratic institutions, has been feeling emboldened after Pakistan’s offer of defence supplies to Nepal. The US would be serving the cause of democracy if it forcefully tells Pakistan not to do anything that may dampen the spirits of the democratic forces in the Himalayan Kingdom. |
|
Gorby’s glasnost Asked for his views on the French revolution, some 50 years back, Mao Tse-Tung retorted that it was too early to comment. Distance being critical to judge events and history, the Bolshevik revolution is still a dozen years away to stir any centennial reflection. Hence, it would be certainly hasty, if not hard as well, to say anything conclusive about Mr Mikhail Gorbachev’s perestroika, just 20 years after the winds of change swept through the land of Lenin and Stalin. It was this month in 1985 that Mr Gorbachev was elected General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. He was the last one to hold that all-powerful post at the head of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), but the first one to unleash changes of such staggering scale and magnitude, that the effects are yet to settle. Glasnost (openness) and perestroika (restructuring) were the twin pillars of his “New Thinking” that made the USSR break with its long Stalinist history as well as break up into its component republics. The withdrawal of Soviet forces from Afghanistan, the fall of the Berlin Wall, the waves of freedom that unshackled Eastern Europe, ending the Cold War and, above all, dismantling the totalitarian regime are but a few of his tangible accomplishments. Looking back, there are many whose mindsets, especially in the former Soviet Union, have not changed. It is only to be expected that there would be political forces and sections of people who yearn for the “good, old days of socialism”. The point they miss is that the Soviet Union was collapsing under the weight of its own economic contradictions and political compulsions. Mr Gorbachev did not hasten it, but his thinking and vision served as catalysts in the inevitable historical process. It would be irrational to lay the blame at the doorstep of Mr Gorbachev for the ills that afflict Russia and the former Soviet republics today, as those with Pavlovian reflexes are wont to do. The positive dynamics of the transformation Mr Gorbachev enabled far outweigh its deleterious consequences. |
|
Any general statement is like a cheque drawn on a bank. Its value depends on what is there to meet it. — Ezra Pound |
Shaking hands with US THE US Secretary of State, Dr Condoleezza Rice, during her first visit to India indicated two likely changes in the US policy towards India. The US is offering civilian reactor technology which would mean complete lifting of all nuclear sanctions imposed on India since the first Pokhran nuclear test in 1974. It may be recalled that civilian nuclear energy was one of the subjects covered under the “Next Steps in Strategic Partnership” (NSSP). Secondly, the US was also prepared to sell F-16 aircraft to India. In this country, among sections of our elite, there is considerable distrust of the US on such deals in view of past history. The US Congress had imposed sanctions on India in respect of military equipment supplies and, therefore, some military men and defence bureaucracy feel that the US is not to be trusted as a reliable supplier of defence equipment. Though the Atomic Energy Department has had equally disappointing experience about the US reneging on its contractual obligations on the Tarapur Reactor, the Department of Atomic Energy is not as negative in its approach to procuring civilian reactors from the US as some of the former Generals and Air Marshals are in respect of purchase of US defence equipment. Long ago Bhishma taught that for a king (read modern state) no one is a friend and none is an enemy by himself. Only circumstances make friends and enemies. The same principle was echoed millennia later by Lord Palmerston when he said that in international relations there were no permanent friends and permanent enemies but only permanent interests.This is treated as axiomatic by students of international relations. Therefore, in India, we should not go merely by our experience with the US in the past and treat the US as permanently untrustworthy. Lessons of history of the last century validate the above proposition. In the fifties the US and China fought a war in Korea and thereafter till the early 1960s the Chinese ran campaigns of “hate America” among their people. Chinese communism and US capitalism were considered irreconcilable and Mao pontificated that there was a permanent antagonistic contradiction between the two. In spite of all this, in 1971 both countries did a U-turn and joined hands against the Soviet Union. China and Vietnam were described by Chinese Premier Zhou en Lai as being as close as lips and teeth in the early 1970’s. They fought a war in 1979. Vietnam was considered an implacable enemy by the ASEAN countries. Now Vietnam, with the same communist leadership, is part of ASEAN. The US supported the Mujahideen and Pakistan in the eighties. The Taliban and Al-Qaeda sprang out of the Mujahideen and Pakistan provided the infrastructure for jehadi terrorism which carried out the 9/11 attack. Japan and the US fought the Pacific war and the US used atomic bombs on Japanese cities. Now they are close allies. The former enemies of Germany are its allies today. The US was not so much hostile as indifferent to India after this country suffered the 1962 military debacle. In those days there was an expectation, partly inspired by their association with Pakistan, that Indian unity would not last, India would not be able to feed itself and India was doomed to the Hindu rate of growth — 3.5 per cent. There was also a misperception about our relations with the Soviet Union, their adversary, especially after the 1971 Indo-Soviet treaty. They played a war game in 1965 and came to the conclusion that in a war, India would lose to Pakistan. The US indifference was such that after President Carter it took 22 years for another US President to visit India. James Baker, as Secretary of State (1988-92), never bothered to visit India even once. All this changed after the Shakti tests, Indian economic reforms, India becoming a high growth nation, piling up a foreign exchange reserve of $ 130 billion, emerging as an IT power and above all, the Indian community in the US making a vital contribution to American science and technology. Pakistan is now seen as a possible failed state. There are speculations in the US intelligence community of China overtaking the US in aggregate GDP by 2040 and thereafter rapidly closing the technology gap. The US may not have changed in its basic behaviour. It still wants to be the pre-eminent power with its citizens enjoying the highest per capita income in the world. But the circumstances have changed compelling the US to revise its attitude towards China, Pakistan and India. Therefore, as Bhishma highlighted, the changed circumstances have led to the US looking upon India with greater friendliness and on China and Pakistan with greater suspicion. The offer of F16s and nuclear reactors should, therefore, be evaluated with reference to the US stakes and interests in India under the changed circumstances and not in terms of experience of a by-gone era. Our evaluation should focus on whether the US stakes in India would continue. There are some people in India who argue that the US interest in this country is to enlist India to contain China and we should not succumb to US blandishments.They would quote Dr Rice’s article in Foreign Affairs magazine in 2000. However, increasingly military power is losing its significance as currency of power. The US worry about China is not going to be in military terms but in respect of China catching up with the US in aggregate GDP in the next three or four decades and overtaking the US as the pre-eminent power in science and technology as mentioned above. If the US is to avert this contingency and keep its lead in the world it will need India on its side both as a partner in knowledge acquisition and as a source of supplementary brainpower. The US will also require the continued import of Indian brain power. In such circumstances the chances are the US will continue to have a stake in strengthening its relations with India. Therefore the likelihood of its behaving as it did vis-ŕ-vis India in the last century is negligible. India can take the risk of trusting the US in respect of defence and nuclear deals. It is only by taking such a first step it is possible to cultivate mutual trust and make India the most desirable destination for foreign direct investments. India needs that to step up its growth rate and accelerate its poverty alleviation
programme. |
Another time, another man
I
have had the privilege to serve as Secretary-General, Rajya Sabha, when Justice M. Hidayatullah was the Vice-President and Chairman of the Rajya Sabha. I fondly recall a few incidents, which put Justice Hidayatullah in a class apart. It appears that his generation of men and women is an endangered tribe. While sitting in my office one day I get a call on my direct telephone line. On the other end is Justice Hidayatullah stating “Mr Agarwal: this is Hidayatullah, I want a small favour from you”. I was a bit baffled: “Kindly tell me Sir what can I do.” He said, “Can I use the Rajya Sabha photocopying machine”. I said, “Sir all Rajya Sabha equipment is at the disposal of the Chairman”. He said “No, no, I am doing some work for the Supreme Court Bar Library”. “I want about 100 sheets to be photocopied. I will send the paper; I only want to use the photocopier”. Till this day, I have been wondering how many of us in high offices would think and act in that fashion. On another occasion I went to the Chairman’s residence to discuss a file with him. Justice Hidayatullah was busy putting his second signature on a number of traveller cheques. I asked him as to why he was doing so. He said he had drawn some foreign exchange for his visit to Geneva to attend a meeting of the International Red Cross and that he was returning the un-spent foreign exchange traveller cheques to the Reserve Bank. I mentioned to him that I too draw my entitlement of foreign exchange for my travels abroad on parliamentary delegations and that I have never returned the leftover dollars to the Reserve Bank and have used them to pick up something for the family on my next visit. This prompted him to take me through a corridor and through his bedroom to the box room where he showed me five or six large cartons, which bore the seal “Goods inspected at the Geneva Airport.” On his way to Geneva he and his wife had stopped in Jordan to spend a few days with his niece and her husband who was then the Crown Prince of Jordan. His niece had given large sized plastic toys, including a plastic motorcycle, for his grand children, which they carried up to Geneva. “Mr Agarwal I got my luggage inspected at the Geneva Airport by the customs people. I did not want Air-India staff and other people whispering after I left that the Vice-President was carrying four VCRs, two TVs and three VCPs”, he said. The airport staff inspected and certified that the big boxes contained only plastic toys. Such was the sensitivity of this great man that he would want to protect his unimpeachable reputation for integrity at all times and in all situations. On another occasion, a Friday, I was with him to discuss some matters pertaining to the Rajya Sabha. He told me: “Arshad (his son) is coming this afternoon and is spending the weekend with us”. I asked him: “Is Arshad coming from Bombay”? He said: “No, Arshad has been here for the last three days”. “He is staying in a hotel; this afternoon he is finishing his work in the Supreme Court and spending the weekend with us”. I asked, “Doesn’t Arshad stay with you when he is in Delhi for professional work”. He said, “No, never. Arshad would not want half a client (sic) to move around the Vice-President’s house to meet him for professional work.” I am not unaware of cases when the lawyer sons stay with judge fathers in their official residences with the free flow of clients having access to the judges’ house. His office at 6, Maulana Azad Road had a window-type airconditioner fixed in a wall diagonally opposite of his office table. Whenever he would want to leave the office, he would walk across to the other end and switch off the airconditioner, switch off the table lamp light, then move out. I remember him once saying: “One light less in Vice-President’s house would mean one more bulb in a hut”. How many of us in positions of power display that kind of concern and sensitivity”! The writer is the Governor of Uttaranchal.
|
Why crop diversification will get stuck Supporters of the crop diversification programme (Johl, February 11, 2005 and Aulakh, February 25, 2005) and opponents (Shergill, February 18, 2005) agree on the point that the present cropping pattern dominated by wheat-paddy rotation is highly economical and also complimentary to national food security requirements and is ensured by the MSP and the government procurement system. Thus, the farmers are following a rational choice of growing wheat and paddy. The programme of crop diversification was launched by the Government of Punjab in 2003 to persuade farmers to divert their cropping pattern away from wheat and paddy. This was intended to sustain ecologically/environmentally the agriculture of the state in the long run and introduce new crops which were considered to be more remunerative than wheat and paddy. The working of this programme shows that it has not succeeded. The area under wheat-paddy rotation has increased and contract farming has not worked on the desired lines and has produced results to the disadvantage of the majority of farmers. Some farmers organisations are also opposing this programme. In the wake of the adverse experience, a number of issues need to be debated. The foremost among them is the original design suggested by the Johl committee, 2002. This design has not been accepted by the Government of India and it has proved to be non-feasible under the present socio-economic and political conditions. The main reason remains to be a big element of direct subsidy (Rs 1,250 crore), which is non-acceptable in the new policy regime initiated in the country since June, 1991, and its possible spillover effect on other states like Haryana, U.P., Rajasthan and Andhra Pradesh demanding such subsidised programmes from the Centre. As a consequence, this could have really threatened the country’s food security, which is fragile when looked from a long-term perspective. The implementation of the modified recommendations of the Johl Committee, especially contract farming with the involvement of private agro-processing/trading national and multinational companies, has produced results to the disadvantage of the farmers on expected lines, given the past experience and the present administrative and political environment in the state. The experience of contract farming of vegetable growers in the state with Pepsi Company in the 1990s did not work properly because of lack of a contract enforcement mechanism/agency in the state. In the absence of creation of such mechanism/agency, this was supposed to produce the same results. A cursory evaluation of the working of contract enforcement shows that such contracts are broken both by big private as well as public enterprises in the state involved in the purchase of sugarcane (sugar mills both private as well as co-operative) and vegetables, making farmers to wait for months and years to get payments for the sale of their products. In spite of such a negative experience in the state and numerous such experiences of farmers with MNCs in a number of developing countries, if a group of intellectuals/a committee makes such a suggestion, it is most unfortunate. Either such intellectuals are not in close touch with the ground reality or are making recommendations on ideological grounds. The latter seems to be the consideration as contract farming has been recommended in the National Agriculture Policy 2000 and similar suggestions are also coming from international institutions like the World Bank. The committee, in fact, did not discuss in detail the complexities of contract farming. It did not examine the administrative environment and the absence of the any agency in the state to enforce such contracts in case of any dispute arising between the contracting parties i.e. farmers and agri-business companies. The committee also did not examine the issue of costs of contract enforcement in the eventuality of disputes. At the same time, the issues of risks and uncertainties were not examined by the committee. Uncertainties of the market reflected in gluts and scarcities or risks caused by weather changes in the form of excessive rain or floods, extreme cold/hot conditions, affecting the quality and quantity of the produce are very well known. The committee, therefore, has no recommendations on these issues. In the current debate the failure of the diversification programme to take off in the state has been attributed to “total lack of co-ordination” among various departments headed by bureaucrats (Johl February 11,2005). This seems to miss the most important issue of behaviour of the monoposonic market structure dominated by private corporate enterprises using their market power in buying/selling transactions to their advantage. In the absence of countervailing power of the farmers (with the assistance of the government), the transactions would work in the same way as it has happened during the last two years. This is one of the faults of the design of the programme of contract farming in the context of the political, social and administrative environment of the state. Bureaucratic apathy and misgovernance are very well known. After the restoration of the elected governments since 1992, this apathy has not been controlled/corrected in Punjab by the political parties which headed the governments. This is a part of the current social reality and is a factor in the social and economic drift of the state away from the all India average. A policy design has to take into consideration this reality and save the farmers from major frauds from any corner. At the same time, the whole thrust of ecological sustainability is discussed in view of the paddy crop, but such arguments are extended to wheat, the natural crop of this region. It is neither creating water scarcity nor environment pollution. Its clubbing with paddy (Aulakh 2005) ignores the fact that wheat straw converted into fodder is suited to dairy as a subsidiary occupation for many farming households. Given the natural resource base of the state and its growing vulnerability and stagnation in productivity, there is an urgent need to devise ways to increase the productivity of existing crops and introduce new crops with high productivity and which put less pressure on the fragile natural resource base of the state. The programme of diversification would succeed if the new recommended crops give a higher income to farmers than from the existing crops. There are problems associated with the lack of MSPs of these crops, the absence of proper market clearance and storage facilities as such infrastructure is not available in the state. This would require careful planning. The agri-business companies have not invested in such infrastructure. They have also not invested in the development of agricultural research infrastructure as per agro-climatic requirements of different zones of the state. In the absence of such pre-requisites, the recommended crops would not succeed. The success of contract farming would require the creation of elaborate legislative and administrative arrangements for contract enforcement, quick redressed of grievances of the contracting parties and insurance against risks and uncertainties. It is known that agri-business companies generally resort to collusion sooner or later and create monoposony in the market. This has natural tendency to work to the disadvantage of farmers. It would require a state regulatory mechanism to safeguard the interests of farmers. The present nodal agency (PAFC) has no technical and administrative capability to assume this rule. This programme, therefore, needs to be transferred to the Agricultural Department in co-ordination with PAU for providing necessary research backup. Along with the establishment of a contract farming regulating agency with adequate legislative and administrative support, this has also to be backed by huge investment in the development of market, storage and processing infrastructure in the state. Without making a grand plan for diversification and elaborate arrangements for implementation, this programme would not succeed even in a limited way. The writer is a Professor of Economics at Punjabi University, Patiala |
|
Bush’s choice for World Bank risks outcry President George Bush risked the ire of the international community for the second time in as many weeks on Wednesday as he nominated his administration’s leading neo-conservative hawk, Paul Wolfowitz, to be the head of the World Bank. Barely eight days after he nominated John Bolton, a hotly anti-United Nations State Department official as US ambassador to the UN, the President’s choice of World Bank president seemed virtually guaranteed to raise hackles in diplomatic circles, and among development professionals who believe Mr Wolfowitz — currently Deputy Secretary of Defence — is unqualified for the job. The nomination still needs to be ratified by the World Bank’s board and participating states. But by tradition the job is filled at the pleasure of the US alone, and a fight appears unlikely. Mr Wolfowitz is not only an international lightning rod because of his central role in mounting the Iraq war. The appointment of a conservative ideologue with no direct experience of the financial world is also likely to be unsettling to Tony Blair and Gordon Brown as they seek G8 backing to cancel debts in the world’s poorest nations. Jeffrey Sachs, a Columbia University economist and adviser to the UN secretary general Kofi Annan, described Mr Wolfowitz’s nomination as “surprising and in many ways inappropriate”. “He is a defense specialist, he is a military specialist,” Professor Sachs said. “This is not a qualification to head the World Bank.” President Bush tacitly acknowledged the contentiousness of his choice, telling reporters he had called several world leaders to explain his decision before making it public. But he added that Mr Wolfowitz was “a compassionate, decent man who will do a fine job”. The outgoing World Bank president, James Wolfensohn, was similarly gracious. “He is a person of high intellect, integrity and broad experience in both the public and private sectors... I look forward to a successful transition.” But Germany’s development minister, Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul, said: “The enthusiasm in old Europe is not exactly overwhelming.” The choice of successor to Mr Wolfensohn, who steps down in May after 10 years, was the subject of furious speculation. Other names circulated included Carly Fiorina, the former chief executive of Hewlett-Packard, and Bono, the lead singer of U2 and a passionate advocate for the poor and dispossessed of the world. Mr Wolfowitz, a lifelong academic and diplomat, has consistently pushed for an end to the US doctrine of international containment and believes the US has the right to take pre-emptive action wherever it sees fit and extend what he has called a “benevolent hegemony” over the rest of the world. The invasion of Iraq, which he had championed since the early Nineties, was the moment his vision became reality and his view of international affairs became official White House policy. As a hardline conservative, Mr Wolfowitz is much more likely to favour a return to the austerity of so-called “structural adjustment” programmes than he is to continue Mr Wolfensohn’s softer approach. So far, the US has shut the World Bank out of the reconstruction process in Iraq, a decision in which Mr Wolfowitz was almost certainly involved. Much of his credibility in the new job is likely to rest on his ability to bring the World Bank back into that process. With his experience of six US presidential administrations and management experience at the Pentagon, Mr Wolfowitz knows his way around large public bureaucracies. He also served as US ambassador to Indonesia in the Eighties, giving him first-hand experience of a large developing nation.
|
||
|
Debate on rail budget Railway Minister Laloo Prasad Yadav appears to have struck a special bond with Congress President Sonia Gandhi. While winding up the debate on the Railway budget in the Lok Sabha with the Opposition having staged a walkout he stressed that the interest of every state — be it Kerala, UP, Maharashtra or Uttar Pradesh — will be adjusted. Mrs Gandhi welcomed this by thumping the desks. Speaker Somnath Chatterjee was heard remarking that the Kerala MPs should feel satisfied as the Railway Minister had instantly accommodated all their demands. When others got up, the Speaker sought to restrain them saying “in the 35 years of his parliamentary experience, no Railway Minister has been able to praise all sections of the House.”
Bhattal has complaints Former Chief Minister Rajinder Kaur Bhattal has been seen in the Capital interacting with Ambika Soni, who has the eyes and ears of Congress chief Sonia Gandhi. It has obviously led to the speculation that she has come to Delhi with a litany of complaints against the Punjab Chief Minister. Ms Bhattal has assiduously refrained from offering any comments about her visit to Delhi. Interestingly, PPCC chief HS Hanspal was also in the Capital on one of his breezy visits. It is apparent Ms Bhattal is using all her charm with the Congress high command to redress her genuine grievances.
Photographers click non-royals Tired of waiting for more than an hour for Prince Philippe and Princess Mathilde of Belgium at a local hotel, some photographers mistook ordinary mortals on the stage to be the royals. They were soon joined by their colleagues. The occasion was the signing of a memorandum of understanding between the Archaeological Survey of India and Janssen Pharmaceutica, Belgium, for the conservation of Tipu Sultan’s Palace and Hampi monuments. Had it not been for the timely intervention of a representative from Janssen Pharmaceutica, the photograpahers would have got all the wrong persons in the frame. The representative told them politely “please liberate the area for the arrival of the Prince and the Princess. We will indicate to you when they arrive.” Contributed by Satish Misra, Prashant Sood and Tripti Nath. |
The nearer you come to God, the less you are disposed to questioning and reasoning. — Sri Ramakrishna Self, that which seems to those who love their self as their being, is not the eternal, the everlasting, the imperishable. Seek not self, but seek the truth. — The Buddha Whatever pleases God’s will, that alone prevails. — Guru Nanak Be not attached to friend or foe, to son or kinsman, to peace or war. If you aspire for Vishnu’s realm, look upon all things as of equal worth. — Sri Adi Sankaracharya If any man sues you at the law, and takes away your coat, let him have your cloak also. — Jesus Christ The greatest name man ever gave to God is Truth. Truth is the fruit of realisation; therefore seek it within the soul. — Swami Vivekananda The most superb task, the truest deed, to be done in this world, is the praise of God. — Guru Nanak Control the Self, restrain the breath, sift out the transient from the True. Repeat the holy name of the Lord and still the restless mind within. To this, the universal rule, apply yourself heart and soul. — Sri Adi Sankaracharya  |
| 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 | |
