 |
|
Justice retrieved Off target Hassle-free admission |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Re-emergence of Taliban
Cry of an unborn daughter
Adversarial media good for democracy JD(S) gets a lesson in secularism Japan debates the nuke option
|
Justice retrieved NOW that Santosh Kumar Singh has been convicted of raping and murdering Priyadarshini Mattoo 10 years ago, there will be a surfeit of “justice delayed, but not denied” statements. But there is need to take a hard, dispassionate look at the criminal justice delivery system in the country. It is really scandalous that the father of a raped and murdered girl should have to wage a 10-year-long grim battle to bring a killer to justice. There is need to find out why the lower court had acquitted the killer in the first place, a
judgment about which the High Court has now said: “By acquitting respondent despite being convinced that there was no doubt in the prosecution case (at least for the offence of murder), the trial court has mauled justice. Its decision has shocked the judicial conscience of this court”. Apparently, the investigation was done exceptionally shoddily. If it is mere ineptitude, how come such bungling takes place only in cases in which the suspects are rich and powerful? The U-turn in the
judgment would, perhaps, not have come about had it not been for the public uproar and the media glare. Ironically, while the official investigation seemed to be tailor-made to save this son of a senior police officer, it was the Press which tried to ferret out the ugly truth. Priyadarshini’s father, Mr Chaman Lal Mattoo, has also castigated the lackadaisical attitude of the law-enforcing agencies, while thanking the men on the street for speaking in his support. But the point is: why should the public faith in the justice delivery system be shaken time and again? The Mattoo case was only one out of a long list of those in which the perpetrators managed to go scot-free. The Jessica Lall murder case and the Best Bakery carnage are among the burning examples. Now that the judicial conscience has been pricked, there are reasons to hope that the efforts of the influential to hoodwink the law will be frustrated. There are only two places fit for the killers: jails or the gallows. Civilised society owes that much to innocent citizens.
|
|
Off target THE Trishul missile defence system has long been an embarrassment and even its parent, the Defence Research and Development Organisation, should have preferred to give it a quiet burial rather than go in for a notional one-year extension. Its status as a mere “technology demonstrator” after two decades of development is in itself a pointer to the abysmal failure of the project. A missile defence system, which has to track and destroy a moving missile in the air, is inherently more complex than a point-to-point missile like the Agni or Prithvi. After repeated trials, Trishul’s failure rate has been so high that no user would be inspired to buy it. Reports also suggest that the launcher is far heavier than it should be and even its partial successes have been due to an amalgamation of imported technologies. It is no surprise, therefore, that the Navy opted for the Israeli Barak system, which, by all accounts, it is happy with. Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee has made it clear that the CBI probe is not about the merits and demerits of the Barak, but rather into alleged kickbacks. Yet, the CBI was ill-advised to point to the “over-ruling” of the Trishul as one of the reasons why the Barak deal was suspect. This lack of appreciation of the ground reality is not to be expected from the premier investigating agency and in the interests of hassle-free defence procurement, the CBI should explore setting up a special cell with expertise in defence matters. Of course, whatever the excellence of the equipment, it cannot justify irregularities of any kind. And while the Navy cannot be blamed for preferring a working imported system to a dud, there is a consensus that continued import dependence is not in the nation’s interest. Army Chief J.J. Singh has emphasised the importance of indigenous capability in the ongoing modernisation efforts and many a service chief has supported important programmes like the Tejas, precisely with this in mind. It is a pity that the DRDO has not been up to the job. The death of Trishul is an opportunity for a drastic overhaul.
|
|
Hassle-free admission THE Delhi High Court is to be commended for barring nursery schools from conducting any kind of interviews or interaction with kids or their parents during the admission process. It has accepted the report of the committee headed by CBSE Chairman Ashok Ganguly, the court had set up to ascertain the criteria for admission to nursery classes. The court has correctly laid stress on the neighbourhood school model, according to which priority must be given to children who live within a three-km radius of the school that they have applied to. The 100-point system assigned by the court gives 20 points to such children and the points decrease as the distance from their home to the school increases. A disabled student or a girl child gets extra five points. The children of teachers and former school students also get some preference. The schools, too, will have their say in deciding their own parameters for admission, but only to the extent of 20 per cent of the total. While parents have reason to welcome the court’s order, there has been some opposition from school authorities. They are unhappy that the geographical constraints imposed by the court would decrease the chances of a student getting admission simply because he or she lives far from a good school. The neighbourhood school model which is widely accepted internationally is largely confined to public schools, not private schools. No doubt there will be some loopholes but the court order has finally made nursery admissions of children more transparent and made schools more accountable. It is something that needs to be adopted nationwide so that admission to schools does not become a testing time for parents and their children.
|
|
A singing army and a singing people can’t be defeated. — American proverb
|
Re-emergence of Taliban Ever since American forces entered Afghanistan and removed the Taliban from power, Indian foreign policy has been based on the premise that the US and its NATO allies would restore peace, stability and moderation in Afghanistan. The fundamental basis of our Afghanistan policy, which presumed that the Americans would not permit the Taliban to return to centre-stage and allow Afghanistan to become a client state of Pakistan yet again, is now coming unstuck. A series of American strategic and tactical blunders has now led to the resurgence of a well-armed and well-trained Taliban in Afghanistan, which is incrementally establishing control over the war-torn country. General Musharraf has outflanked and outwitted President George Bush and Mr Tony Blair. The Americans, British and NATO are today even considering the possibility of seeking arrangements with the Taliban similar to those negotiated by General Musharraf with pro-Taliban tribal leaders in Waziristan. Under these agreements concluded in Waziristan by General Musharraf, the Pakistan Army has withdrawn from the area and even handed over the arms it had captured to the local Taliban leaders. Waziristan is now a “liberated zone” for the Taliban, its Chechen and Uzbek allies and members of Al-Qaeda. There is a strange situation wherein President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair sing songs of praise of their favourite military ruler, while at the same time, American, British and NATO field commanders in Afghanistan and President Karzai hurl epithets at Pakistan for providing sanctuaries, weapons, motivation and training to Taliban cadres across the entire Durand Line. It became clear during the recent visit of the British Army NATO Commander, Gen David Richards to Islamabad that the British and NATO forces are not averse to reaching Waziristan-style agreements with the Taliban, under which they would allow progressively increasing areas of Afghanistan to come under Taliban control, as General Musharraf has done in Waziristan. British forces already have such an arrangement in Musa Qala, where eight British soldiers were killed in clashes with the Taliban. The ISI is obviously calculating that within the next few years its Taliban allies will progressively take control over large parts of Afghanistan, leading to the establishment of a Government in Kabul controlled by pro-Taliban elements. Lashing out at Pakistan during the funeral of Abdul Wali Khan on February 17, 2006, President Karzai warned: “If they (Pakistan ) don’t stop (support for the Taliban) the region will suffer equally with us. In the past we have suffered alone. This time everybody will suffer with us. Any effort to divide Afghanistan ethnically, or weaken it, will create the same thing in neighbouring countries”. Responding, General Musharraf proclaimed: “He (Karzai) is like an ostrich with his head buried in the sand”. Sadly, President Karzai has been unable to establish effective governance or provide development at the grassroots level to his people, thereby strengthening pro-Taliban sentiments among Afghan Pashtuns, who constitute 42 per cent of the population. India should have no illusions about the impact of a return of the Taliban to power for its national security, given its experiences during the IC 814 hijacking and the facilities provided by the Taliban for ISI-backed jihadi groups operating in J&K. We also cannot ignore the brutal killings of Indian road construction workers and Taliban attacks on our consulates in Jalalabad in 2003 and Kandahar on October 12, 2006. An effective strategy needs to be put in place even now to cater for future developments in Afghanistan. A far more serious and sustained dialogue is required with White House, the State Department and the Pentagon, making our concerns clearly known to our American friends, pointing out to them that over the last five years we have supported and complemented their efforts in Afghanistan, with substantial economic assistance to the beleaguered Karzai government. At the same time, a far more intense dialogue is needed with countries like Russia, Iran, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan to evolve a common approach to a possible strengthening of Taliban influence in Afghanistan , with American and NATO acquiescence. Finally, we need to ensure that our Pashtun, Tajik, Uzbek and Hazara friends in Afghanistan are reassured that they will not be left to the tender mercies of the Taliban, should the NATO phase out its troop deployment. Defensive responses alone would not be enough to deal with an aggressive Pakistan determined to get “strategic depth” by establishing a client regime in Kabul . The entire Pakistani strategy since the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979 has been to project itself as a champion of the Pashtuns. This was primarily in order to undermine Pashtun nationalism and turn Pashtun anger northwards against the Soviet Union, thereby undermining and shifting attention away from Pashtun demands for a homeland, fondly described by Pashtun leaders as “Pashtunistan” or “Pakhtunkhwa”. In recent days, Pakistan has consistently sought to focus Pashtun attention northwards, alleging discrimination against the Pashtuns and preaching hatred against Tajiks and Uzbeks in Afghanistan. It needs to be remembered that Afghanistan never accepted the Durand Line as the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan. It claimed that the Treaty of 1893 demarcating the Durand Line as the border between British India and Afghanistan was imposed by the British. The Afghans claim that this treaty lapsed when British India handed over power to the new State of Pakistan. Determined to prevent Soviet inroads into the sub-continent, Lord Mountbatten and the British Governor in Peshawar, Sir Olaf Caroe, rejected this legitimate Afghan grievance. In these circumstances, why should New Delhi support Pakistan and show the entire area between the Durand Line (that runs through Baluchistan, the North-West Frontier Province and North and South Waziristan) and the Indus river as a part of Pakistan? Should we not, as a first step, show this entire frontier as being disputed in our maps and official presentations? Is it not in the interest of the entire international community that Pashtuns on both sides of the Durand Line should return to their earlier approach of tolerance, rather than defining their identity by embracing extremism of the Taliban variety? As a move towards a neutral position on the Durand Line by India will involve a large portion of Northern Balochistan also being depicted as “disputed”, we need to have a close look at the manner in which the Khan of Kalat was overthrown and Balochistan taken over by an invading Pakistan army. Pakistan depicts Junagadh and Hyderabad as being separate from India in its maps. Is there any justification for our showing Balochistan as an integral part of Pakistan in our maps, especially in the light of the suppression of the Baloch people by the Pakistan
army?
|
Cry of an unborn daughter Feeling triumphant you must be
|
Adversarial media good for democracy Andhra Pradesh
has been witnessing a confrontation between those in power and the news media. A classic one at that. Both have responsibilities and their respective constituencies. One gets elected to perform and to do so transparently. The other derives its strength from the numbers it reaches on a daily basis, with certain concerns and responsibilities. They need to maintain their relationship in such a way that each one does the job in the best possible manner. Neither derives credibility or moral superiority by taking a stand of arrogance or self righteousness. If I understood the accusations of the Chief Minister pointing to specific newspapers in the context of the “outer ring road controversy” and the earlier instances, including in the State Assembly, the anger was more about the scale of coverage and the hype. Being a regular reader of Eenadu and also a researcher on the subject, I am not surprised the newspaper sustains its durability and credibility too. Why else would the Chief Minister have bothered to name it?. But I see a certain lack of understanding of the compulsions of individual news media and the information order in the new media paradigm. For, the new regime is driven by 24-hour news channels and formulation of public policies and discourse under the constant glare of cameras. With plurality in news media, Gobelism no longer works today. Transparency has a better chance. In a democracy political leaders come and go, while news media continues to serve as institutions. The political leaders are expected to have their distinct styles and strategies to deal with such adverse coverage with certain finesse and sensitivity. They could as well gain from the examples set by our leaders. In tact and courage there is no one to match, till date,
Mrs. Indira Gandhi. In 1977 she braved the worst antagonists - the newspapers - and went to polls, brushing aside forewarnings of public opinion surveys of this author; notwithstanding all she said about the news media earlier. Recall how after the initial antagonism between Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and the famous cartoonist Shankar Pillai, their relationship blossomed with neither one yielding. And how Rajiv Gandhi backtracked honorably and, in the process elevated himself in political sagacity by reversing, not once, but a couple of times, important initiatives during his regime - bowing to news media’s fierce criticism. Today more effective tools are available for elected leaders to deal with, and often benefit from such situations. More specifically, in the present case, the situation is being further complicated by one’s own making. For, it was the same newspaper which gave all out coverage for the padayatra and the groundswell that the long march created helped install
Dr. Rajasekhar Reddy firmly in power. That being the case, a political leader is expected to have some wit and be magnanimous and try to get the most out of such adverse coverage. For a mass leader with firm grounding in grassroots politics, like
Dr. Reddy, adversorial relations with news media would be more desirable than support and cooperation from the news media. There are nevertheless certain genuine concerns about the way the news media in general functions today in the country, as if liberty of the press is not “subject to restrictions operating in a very narrow sphere”. It, of course, assumes that media is fair, free and responsible and operates under certain checks and balances, a hallmark of the Indian Constitution. It is expected that media observes certain standards of objectivity and responsibility and be responsive as is inherent in the concept of Fourth Estate. That is what the Lakshman Rekha is all about. Freedom and democracy requires both a certain responsibility to the larger public and certain standards of behaviour — both on the part of the elected leaders in decision making and the news media. It is often however the news media that is accused of violating the “Lakhshman Rekha” and called upon not to cross such a line. The concept of Lakshman Rekha implies that there is need for certain equilibrium between relationships and responsibilities of various pillars of democracy and that each of them should restrain themselves from going overboard or loose track of boundaries separating their functioning, within the parameters of the Constitution, written and unwritten. A Lakshman Rekha implies operating not only with certain responsibility and accountability but also with certain concerns for the consequences of what is being done, or not done today, on the larger values concerning freedom, objectivity, equity and ethics. Lakshman Rekha involves both legal and ethical dimensions. Nevertheless, most elected democracies in the world have one or other restraint on the operations and priorities of the media. The role and relevance of news media relate to their concerns and contents. Until a few years ago, these were to do with the “Fourth Estate” notions and media’s stand as a “watchdog”. For, that is how the news media has been enjoying certain privileges and societal status. The news media are expected to have larger and long range concerns, not just market compulsions or go by competitive pulls or personal scores. This is where Eenadu has scored and distinguished itself. But a new definition, new news values and new priorities dictate the media today in the country. It is in this process that the question of a Lakshman Rekha arises. In the long run, news media will be credited far more for their role in deepening democracy in India and for enhancing its very scope and significance.
|
|
JD(S) gets a lesson in secularism Seven months back when he was about to take over the reins of Karnataka, H D Kumaraswamy said he did not understand what the word “secular” stood for. “You explain it to me” the Chief Minister designate said in apparent disgust at the manner in which the word was being bandied about to discredit his Janata Dal (Secular) breakaway group’s alliance with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Today the word is coming back to haunt him and his alliance government with secular forces rallying together to urge him not to succumb to pressure from the BJP to allow observation of Dattatreya Jayanti in honour of Lord Dattatreya, an incarnation of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva at the dargah of sufi saint Baba Budangiri in Chikmaglur district. Kumaraswamy flip flopped on the issue but finally managed to persuade senior BJP leaders from congregating at the shrine to show solidarity with the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and the Bajrang Dal who organised a Datta Mala Abhiyan despite prohibitory orders in the area. The ‘abhiyan’ is a tradition started five years back under which devotees walk to the shrine wearing ‘garlands’ signifying religious purity. The ‘abhiyan’ passed off peacefully with BJP President Sadanand Gowda being arrested alongwith hundreds for carrying out a religious procession despite prohibitory orders on October nine. Though the issue has been managed for the present, the BJP finds itself in a tight spot with various saffron organisations asking it to explain its stand. The party has announced that it is committed to holding of the Datta Jayanti celebrations in December which will put the coalition government under strain again. The history of Baba Badungiri Datta Peetha goes back to the tenth century when Hazrath Dada Hayath Meer Qalandar settled here after coming from West Asia. In the seventeenth century one of his followers Baba Budan settled down in one of the caves atop the hills. Both Hindus and Muslims have traditionally worshipped at the shrine where Lord Dattatreya is also said to have meditated. The saffron brigade started holding Datta Jayanti functions each December from 1984 onwards. The issue captured the national spotlight in 1998 when the BJP was in power at the centre with yatras being organised to the shrine, in an apparent attempt to ‘liberate’ it. Subsequently the S M Krishna government allowed “yagnas” to be organised at the shrine besides installations of idols. The Supreme Court has ruled that both communities have a right to worship at the shrine and only those practices which were prevalent before 1975 are allowed at the shrine. The J D (S) has used this for acting firm on not allowing the Datta Mala celebrations and is likely to take the same stand later in December when the Datta Jayanti is scheduled. Former Prime Minister H D Deve Gowda has said the party would rather choose its secular ideology than stick on to power. His son H D Kumaraswamy has also indicated that he now understands the secular ideology of the party and has reiterated his father’s stand much to the discomfiture of the BJP who had laughed off Gowda’s threat by saying it had an understanding with Kumaraswamy and not the former Prime Minister.
|
|
Japan debates the nuke option TOKYO– The prospect of a nuclear-armed Japan is at once unimaginable and obvious. It’s hard to believe, because the only country bombed with atomic weapons carries a survivors’ burden to make the moral case against using them again. Yet it’s a natural development, because North Korea’s recent entry into the Nuclear Club leaves Japan facing an arc of nuclear-armed countries with whom it has testy relations. So it was perhaps inevitable in the wake of the North Korean nuclear test that a senior Japanese government official would openly muse about the prospect of Japan acquiring its own nuclear deterrent. “We need to find a way to prevent Japan from coming under attack,” Shoichi Nakagawa, chairman of the governing Liberal Democratic Party’s policy council, told a weekend TV talk show. “There is an argument that possession of nuclear weapons is one such option.” His remarks rippled through nervous capitals, with President Bush warning that China was “deeply concerned” about the advent of a regional arms race. And Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice alluded to the dangers of a building momentum for other countries to go nuclear, warning en route to Tokyo on Tuesday, “An event of this kind does carry with it the potential for instability in the relationships that now exist in the region.” Other administration officials have made the case this week that Japan, like South Korea, is already protected by the U.S. nuclear umbrella. “Why would Japan be more secure if it had nuclear weapons?” asked Thomas Schieffer, the U.S. ambassador to Japan. “If somehow we were at this point in time and the alliance was wobbly, you’d have a whole different context. But the alliance has never been stronger.” Nakagawa restated his position, saying he did not favor a nuclear Japan and had only been calling for a debate on all security options. And Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe reaffirmed the pledge he made to parliament last week that Tokyo would abide by the three principles of nuclear non-proliferation that are a cornerstone of the nation’s foreign policy: a pledge against building nuclear weapons, possessing them or allowing them to be stationed on Japanese soil. Abe wants the world to be focused on the dangers of a real North Korean bomb – not shift its attention to the implications of a potential Japanese weapon. Japan has the necessary uranium and plutonium stocks and the advanced technology to build a bomb quiet easily, most experts say. But a Japanese bomb also would stoke the anti-Japanese embers in China and South Korea, where many profess to worry about every sign of Tokyo ending its post-war pacifism and sense of responsibility for its imperial history. Those who argue that Japan must rely on its own defenses downplay the dangers of an arms race. They contend that mutual nuclear deterrence between the U.S. and the Soviet Union kept the Cold War cold. And they say that a nuclear balance in Asia, in which Taiwan and South Korea as well as Japan would join the nuclear club that already includes China and Russia, could do the same. But the new prime minister has tried to crush any suspicion that he favors taking Japan nuclear. Abe wants to avoid creating an atmosphere that could imperil his ambitious conservative agenda of domestic reforms. The core of his program, from rewriting the pacifist constitution to restoring patriotism and traditional Japanese values in education, are radical challenges to the post-war order that is the legacy of the American occupation. To pave the way, Abe has moved within his first month in office to assuage criticism that he is a hawk whose policies will lead to a renewed Japanese militarism. He made widely lauded trips to Beijing and Seoul that, on the surface at least, have improved Japan’s relations with those capitals. Keeping the Chinese relationship on track is particularly crucial to Abe, and news reports here this week said the prime minister had assured visiting Chinese officials that Japan has no intention of developing a nuclear arsenal. The North Korean bomb offers those three countries a window to broadly come together against a new threat, even if they disagree on the details of how to discourage Kim Jong-il. Keeping the focus on North Korea’s capabilities also provides Japan with political cover to continue modernizing its military. North Korea’s summer missile launches and the nuclear test this month also effectively created a consensus that possessing a missile defense system in partnership with Washington is a must-have option. And it has been a boon to Japanese defense companies, offering them lucrative contracts from American companies.
By arrangement with LA Times-Washington Post
|
Our nature inclines us towards different things. These inclinations nurture desires which in turn make us crave for them while leading us away from the Truth. These inclinations make us dislike the person who tries to show us the truth. Then we try to avoid him. Fearful of the consequences of his deeds, man goes to many refuges—to sacred trees, to holy rivers, to remote ice-capped peaks. But none of these can deliver him from pain. None of these are safe refuges. Be they Muslims, Jews, Christians, or Sabians, those who believe in God and the Last Day and who do good have their reward with their Lord. They have nothing to fear, and they will not sorrow. And among humankind are those who say they believe in God and the Last Day but they do not believe. They try to deceive God and those who believe, but they do not deceive anyone except themselves, although they do not know it.
|
| 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 | |
