 |
|
Punjab can be No. 1 Not by wear and
tear |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Boom and gloom
SEZ is where truths
collide
Feast of Fools
News
analysis Inside
Pakistan A cry for Zimbabwe
|
|
Not by wear and tear The
Supreme Court has given a new interpretation to the law by granting divorce to a couple on grounds of mental cruelty. It restored the decree of divorce granted to an IAS officer from West Bengal by a trial court on the ground that his wife, also an IAS officer, refused to cohabit with him and had unilaterally decided not to have a child as that would adversely affect her career. Holding that this amounted to mental cruelty, a three-member Bench consisting of Justice B.N. Agarwal, Justice P.P. Naolekar and Justice Dalveer Bhandari set aside the Calcutta High Court’s order that had reversed the trial court’s ruling. Having expanded the scope for mental cruelty, it ruled that the same law would apply in the reverse. If a husband undergoes a sterilisation operation without any medical reason and if this decision is hidden from the wife, this will be construed as mental cruelty and a valid ground for divorce. Similarly, if the wife undergoes a vasectomy operation or abortion without informing her husband, it will be a valid reason for divorce. Interestingly, the Bench has laid down 14 guidelines wherein divorce on grounds of mental cruelty could be considered. These include, among other things, not having intercourse without physical incapacity or valid reason; sustained reprehensible conduct; actions aimed to derive sadistic pleasure; abuse and humiliation; sustained unjustified conduct affecting the spouse’s physical and mental health; and frequent rudeness, indifference and neglect. While maintaining that there can be no fixed parameters for determining cruelty, the Bench ruled that these guidelines could be treated as some instances of human behaviour which may be relevant in dealing with cases of this nature. The Bench said that each case of divorce should be adjudicated on its peculiar facts and circumstances. As marriage is a delicate human and emotional relationship, it demands mutual trust, regard, respect, love and affection with sufficient scope for reasonable adjustments with the spouse. That’s why, the Bench said that “mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of married life…would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty.” The court has indeed shown a great deal of respect for the institution of marriage, but has tried to add clarity to the law without making it absolute in nature. |
|
Boom and gloom A silver lining is at best confirmation of the cloud as the ‘India story’ shows. The ‘India story’ today means the country is on a long-term growth path, it promises good returns on investment and offers more to cheer than fear. The 9 per cent growth rate is cited as proof of ‘Shining India’. What about inflation, soaring prices of essential commodities, which have put dal and vegetables out of the common man’s reach? Well, with 9 per cent growth, you get 6.25 per cent inflation, too! In the name of protecting people’s interest, the economists assert, pursuing anti-inflation measures would mean slowing down growth. There cannot be growth without inflation, these being two sides of the same coin, say the economists. Now, if you possess a coin, then you keep both sides of it; and if you are poor and don’t have a coin, why worry about either side of it, is the irrefutable logic. Those who have currency notes, even wads of it, are not any happier. Actually, they should be because the Indian rupee is said to be now stronger than it was at any time in the last eight years. If the rupee is stronger, it can buy more for less and make imports cheaper. Perhaps. Yet, the day the rupee rises in value, against the US dollar, the stock markets don’t cheer, but fall in fear. It means fewer rupees for the dollar. Since IT companies earn in dollars, these fetch a smaller stack of rupees, although not for a large number of people. No matter what turn the economy takes, one section or the other is bound to get hurt and begin screaming. Even the communists have learnt this, in Singur and Nandigram. They are damned if they don’t allow investment and damned if they do. The RBI faces the same dilemma over whether to let the rupee rise or fall, whether to control inflation or not. This may be the crisis of capitalism at least outside West Bengal. Those with capital are complaining as much as those bereft of it. Poor P. C. Chidambram! He is to reconcile contradictions of all sorts, besides his accounts book. |
|
Don’t aim for success if you want it; just do what you love and believe in, and it will come naturally.
— David Frost |
SEZ is where truths collide Overriding
the local protest in West Bengal against the proposed SEZ at Nandigram, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and the CPM chief, Mr Prakash Karat, have spoken out strongly in favour of SEZs as a device for industrialising India. Both have promised to remove such defects as the device may have. But both have pronounced the policy behind it to be indispensable. The Prime Minister said so in his address to the India Today conclave on March 23, and Mr Karat a few days earlier in his party’s main forum, People’s Democracy. But despite such backing, the real content of an SEZ remains hazy. What is worse is that Nandigram is only one small specimen of a problem which has replicas all over the country. While the West Bengal government was trying to cope with angry demonstrations at one end of India, at the other end, not far from Mumbai, crowds were jamming roads in protest against another one of the nearly 400 SEZs to which governments have given the nod in various ways. The main opposition party in Parliament, the BJP, has not said much about them so far. But being in power mostly in states which are backward in industry, it will soon have to face a choice between letting a piece of land remain under agriculture, however inefficient, or releasing it for industry, whether in the form of SEZs or in some other way. The choice is relatively simple and is easily made where (i) the land in question is eminently better suited for its current use than for another, because then its usage need not be disturbed; or (ii) the existing owner does or does not wish to change it from one purpose to another, for then he can exercise his preference as the laws allow; or (iii) his preference is not illegal but goes against the public good, for then his preference must prevail until, perhaps by engaging his personal interest in the public good, he can be persuaded to change it ; or (iv) it is urgently needed for what is clearly an essential public purpose, for then a public authority can “acquire” it for that purpose under the law . These choices are essential truths about land ownership and usage in a democratic system. But at Nandigram they collided because of the way they were invoked, or ignored, in trying to change land usage. Neither were they clearly put before the people for a sufficient and systematic public debate for changing the preference of the cultivators, nor was their personal interest harnessed for a public good, and large numbers of them were left unconvinced that the “good” was indeed “public”. In the meantime an impression grew that Chief Minister Mr Bhattacharya, projected in the media for months as a friend of capitalism, was going to acquire farming land for the benefit of some industrialists to set up a hub for chemical industries. After serious violence had raged for some days at Nandigram — and the impression fanned by it had reached Mumbai as well — the Chief Minister of Maharashtra, Mr Deshmukh, promised his government would not “come in the way” of negotiations between those wanting to buy and those willing to sell their land. Perhaps he overlooked the fact that those who had elected him expected something more than such neutrality on his part in their efforts to protect their livelihood. But then the Prime Minister also indicated a “ go slow” at Nandigram and improvements and corrections in the whole SEZ policy. On the other hand, the long article by Mr Karat confirmed that because of acts of omission and commission by various public authorities, people at Nandigram did get the impression that land was going to be acquired for an SEZ. Mr Bhattacharya did say on February 9 that “no land would be taken from Nandigram if the people do not want it.” But that assurance came a month after trouble had started at Nandigram itself. Both Mr Bhattacharya and Mr Karat know very well how much trouble can be brewed in a month by those interested in brewing it, and it is also known to both where the trouble-makers of today learnt the tactics of making trouble. They also know why and how the West Bengal High Court “in an unprecedented step, without even asking the state government for a report, ordered a CBI inquiry” into some events at Nandigram. The step is not “unprecedented”. It has been taken in the past by other High Courts too in states in which the actors were different. Perhaps, the CPM can recall what was its own position in those instances. One asks that only for the reason that sometimes political parties which vehemently oppose a course of action in one instance, such as dismissal of a state government at the behest of the Central government, do demand the same action in another. But whatever be the record of whichever party in those cases, the merits of the present case do not invite those objections. There is a good case for encouraging at least, if not requiring, the owners or cultivators of land which is no longer fit for profitable agriculture to shift to other occupations. The CPM, particularly in West Bengal, has a good record of persuading inefficient cultivators of poor agricultural land to shift to better land or to better methods. That is how it converted West Bengal from a laggard in agriculture to a good performer. There is no reason to doubt that it can also make a success of converting poor farming land into better industrial holdings. The CPM will certainly continue to be obstructed by parties, be they its own distant cousins, which are more interested in turmoil than in productivity, either in agriculture or in industry. It has shown ability to keep factories and farms from being converted into centres of unjustified unrest. But if it is to do the same while converting bad farms into good factories it must keep its own credentials clean. That means that the kind of assurances which Chief Minister Bhattacharya gave to farmers a few weeks ago, for example that no land will be taken over through acquisition and no SEZ will be set up where people do not want it, should be given in time and fully respected. Otherwise the party might have to go the way it forced other parties to go in the 1970s and 1980s. As it is, it has had to bemoan the loss of its support among the people precisely in those parts of south-west West Bengal where communalists began to rule the roost some years ago and the Maoists have been increasingly doing so of late. That requires strict avoidance of any “acquisition” of land for any except a clearly “public
purpose.”
|
Feast of Fools All
Fool’s Day is almost here. Its origin lies in the adoption of the Gregorian calendar in place of the old Julian calendar in 1582 by King Charles IX. The reform of the calendar shifted New Year’s Day to January 1st. When news travelled by foot, many people did not receive the news for several years. Others refused to accept the new calendar and continued to celebrate New Year on April 1. The general populace labeled these backward folk fools. They were subject to some ridicule. Over time, this practice evolved into an annual tradition when people migrated to Scotland and England during the eighteenth century. Later British and French travellers introduced the practice to the American colonies. In many cultures tradition dictates the pranking must expire at noon on April 1, but such restrictions are rarely followed. In 1992, radio programme “Talk of the Nation” revealed that Nixon was running for president again. His voice was impersonated as “I did not do anything wrong and I won’t do it again”. It was announced only in the second half of the show that it was a practical joke. The tradition of the day devoted to foolery has ancient roots. As we look back in time we find many ancient predecessors of April fool’s day. Speculations that all Fool’s Day originated in the Hindu festival of Holi makes me believe “Mera Bharat Mahan”. In Scotland April Fool’s Day is celebrated for two days. Mexico’s Fool’s Day falls on December 28. The Bible says that blessed are those who are suffering. But in a tension-dominated world, those are also blessed who are befooled by their acquaintances. Tomfoolery seems to be the foolproof rescue from the menace. For it is better to be a fool than to be
dead. |
News analysis The
government of every party that has assumed office in Punjab since the early 1980s has repeatedly raised the bogey of infringement of the rights of the people, especially the farmers of the state, via-a-vis the waters of the rivers that flow through Punjab. There have been court cases, both by the government and farmers’ organisations, challenging Sections 78 to 80 of the Punjab Reorganization Act, 1966. Simply put, Section 78 says that, subject to certain conditions, all rights and liabilities of the pre-partition Punjab in relation to the Bhakra-Nangal Project and the Beas project would stand transferred to the new states in a fixed proportion. The latest move with regard to the “anti-Punjab” clauses in the Reorganisation Act has been orchestrated by Chief Minister Parkash Singh Badal, who has announced that his government would challenge the Act in the Supreme Court. His theatrical move follows the embarrassing situation that arose after he publicly announced within days of taking over as Chief Minister for the fourth time that his government would repeal Section 5 of the Punjab Termination of Water Agreements Act. Section 5 maintains the existing level of river water supply to Haryana and Punjab, though the main Act has scrapped all inter-state river water agreements. Following intense pressure by the union government as well as advice tendered by lawyers appearing for the state before the Supreme Court in various river water-related matters, the government put its decision on the backburner. While government functionaries deny this, sources have told The Tribune that at least one senior Supreme Court lawyer, who is representing Punjab in the ongoing proceedings pertaining to constitutional validity of the Punjab Termination of Agreement Act, 2004, categorically told the government that if any fresh legislation was introduced with regard to the river waters, he would disassociate from the proceedings. He also pointed out that since the entire matter was sub-judice, the apex court might not take very kindly to any attempt by the government to tinker with the Punjab Termination of Agreement Act, 2004. In fact, a detailed note in this regard has already been sent to Punjab advocate-general Hardev Singh Mattewal. The note points to the “embarrassing” public statements of Badal. Mattewal has been asked to seek the views of legal luminaries on the issue. Interestingly, time and again, successive Punjab governments have also taken the stand that river water disputes can’t be placed before any court, including the Supreme Court, as Article 262 bars “inter-state” from being raised by private parties. Article 262 says that Parliament may by law provide for the adjudication of any dispute or complaint with respect to the use, distribution or control of the water of, or in, any inter-state river or river valley and that notwithstanding anything in the Constitution, Parliament may by law provide that neither the Supreme Court nor any other court shall exercise jurisdiction in respect of any such dispute or complaint. Thus the Parliament is competent to make laws for the adjudication of disputes relating to water of inter-state rivers or river valleys. According to highly-placed sources, at a meeting chaired by the Punjab chief secretary on April 14, 2005, to review the progress of the special leave petition filed by Punjab against a judgment of the Rajasthan High Court on a PIL filed by one D.M. Singhvi, senior Supreme Court lawyer A.K. Ganguli had clearly told the officers that the apex court was peeved with Punjab with regard to the Punjab Termination of Agreement Act, 2004. Incidentally, despite spending crores of rupees fighting the legal battles over the issue of its share of river waters, Punjab has received many setbacks. On January 15, 2002, a Division Bench of the Supreme Court held that the construction of the SYL Canal had absolutely no connection with the sharing of water between the states and as such it was not a water dispute. It directed that the canal should be completed and made functional within one year. Subsequently, the review petition filed by the Punjab government was dismissed. The government is also paying high-profile lawyers lakhs of rupees to put forth its opposition to the continuation of the Eradi Tribunal, which was constituted as part of the Rajiv-Longowal Accord of 1985 to adjudicate the issue of sharing of the Ravi-Beas water by Punjab and Haryana. The Punjab Government wants the tribunal to be disbanded as the water flow in the Ravi-Beas basin has declined from 17.17 MAF in 1981 to 14.37 MAF now. On January 13, 2003, the Punjab government had also moved a compliant under Section 3 of the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956. Citing changed circumstances, the complaint seeks a new tribunal to decide allocation of river waters. It is also important to see what the stand the BJP, which is the junior partner in the Badal government, takes on the issue of sharing of river waters, abrogation of Section 5 of the Punjab Termination of Water Agreements Act, as well as the proposed challenge to Sections 78 to 80 of the Punjab Reorganization Act, 1966. Apart from the fact that it is in power in Rajasthan, which gets a major share of Punjab river water, the BJP is also a serious player in neighbouring Haryana and Delhi, both of which will be effected if Badal actually goes ahead with his plans and manages to convince the court about Punjab’s case. This is a scenario that the BJP might not relish the thought of. But, as for now, it will be worth watching what advice the legal luminaries tender to Badal and what course of action the Chief Minister, who is considered a very astute politician, takes. |
|
Inside Pakistan The
Taliban as an extremist movement is gaining fresh strength in the land of its birth – Pakistan. Supporters of the ideology have made their presence felt even in the federal capital – Islamabad – for some time. Commenting on what happened this week, a Dawn editorial on Friday said: “Scenes of utter lawlessness staged by Lal Masjid seminary students in Islamabad on Wednesday came as a warning, yet again, that the monster of extremism has to be reined in to keep any semblance of sanity in society. Armed zealots have held the federal security apparatus virtually hostage since January 21, when women students of Madarsa Hafsa had first occupied a children’s library to push for their demands aimed at ‘Islamisation’ of the social order.” Far away from Islamabad, in parts of the North-West Frontier Province, the Taliban is re-emerging as a powerful socio-political force. If Taliban activists, described as local militants, fought pitched battles with terrorists from Central Asian countries a few days ago in the Azam Warsak area, they attacked security forces in the Tank area, near Dera Ismail Khan, on Tuesday and Wednesday. At least 25 militants and a jawan of the security forces lost their lives, according to Daily Times. A Dawn report said: “Militants stormed the town (Tank) to avenge the killing of their two accomplishes by the police on Monday when they tried to force the management of a private school to allow them to take away students for training.” The school principal, who informed the police about the forcible recruitment of students for “jihad”, was kidnapped by the militants. In another area called Bannu, as reported by The News, Taliban activists prevented women from casting their votes at a polling station. They locked the female polling staff in a room and tore off the ballot papers. That the Taliban writ runs in many areas in the NWFP goes without saying. Debate over disappearances The suspension of Chief Justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry has led to a major debate over the mysterious disappearance of at least 400 persons. Many people believe the action against him was linked to the habeas corpus petitions filed by relatives of these unfortunate people. The Pakistan Human Rights Commission, too, has submitted a list of 141 missing persons, mostly Sindhi and Baloch nationalists, to the Supreme Court. The government allegedly acted against Justice Chaudhry swiftly, despite its denials, because it expected a highly damaging ruling. Who are these “disappeared” persons? Did they pose any threat to the regime in Islamabad? Or were they under the influence of an extremist organisation and joined the ranks of the “jihadis”? A Daily Times (March 29) editorial quotes the Human Rights Commission to prove that “over 70 per cent of the list comprises people who could not be labelled jihadi, meaning that they were not wedded to the aggressive Islamism or Talibanisation that General Musharraf talks about.” Yet it is true that “a large number of people in Pakistan have gone and joined various jihadi organisations. When they were recruited from such Punjab cities as Gujranwala, Multan or Jhang the government of the day did not analyse the consequences of its jihadi policy.” Among the “disappeared” persons are also those who were picked up by security and intelligence agencies. “There are two types of such disappearances”, as Daily Times points out. “Often ‘thanedars’ will pick up people on some pretext to extract ransom from their families. Many ‘disappeared’ cases belong to this category.” There are cases of “political disappearances” too. “All one can say for sure in such a situation”, as The News commented on Thursday, “is that even if one holds extremist or anti-state/government views it does not mean that one should indefinitely held incommunicado without being told of the charge for which one has been detained.” A country whose libraries are among the most neglected institutions cannot promote scholarship and excellence. Libraries can also help in popularising General Musharraf’s idea of “enlightened moderation”. Yet libraries in Pakistan are starved of funds. They also have very few readers. That is why people were surprised when a minister mentioned the existence of 28,000 public libraries at a recent conference. A Dawn editorial said that “it is time to voice concern over the authorities’ obsession with numbers and their disregard for other crucial factors such as the proper upkeep and the funding of these repositories of knowledge.” Pakistan has a very poor reading habit because of an “abysmally low literacy rate”. The absence of a library culture also contributes to this state of affairs. |
|
A cry for Zimbabwe Zimbabwe, long plagued by the repressive leadership of President Robert Mugabe, has reached the point of crisis. Leaders of the democratic opposition were arrested and beaten, and one was killed, while attempting to hold a peaceful prayer meeting on March 11. Morgan Tsvangirai, head of the Movement for Democratic Change, emerged from detention with a swollen eye and a fractured skull. Several days later, Nelson Chamisa, the movement's spokesman, was stopped en route to a meeting with European officials and beaten with iron bars. Other activists have been prevented from leaving the country to seek medical treatment for wounds inflicted by police. Unrest has continued, as have the violent crackdowns. Mugabe, stubborn and unrepentant as ever, has vowed to ``bash'' protesters and dismissed international criticism as an imperialist plot. Although anti-government feelings are prompted by the regime's lack of respect for human and political rights, Mugabe's poor management of the economy is also to blame. The inflation rate, more than 1,700 percent, is the world's highest, while an estimated four out of five people are unemployed. Zimbabwe, once Africa's breadbasket, has become, under Mugabe, a basket case. The crisis in Zimbabwe raises familiar questions about the responsibilities of the international community. Some argue that the world has no business interfering with, or even commenting on, the internal affairs of a sovereign state. This principle is exceptionally convenient for dictators and for people who do not wish to be bothered about the well-being of others. It is a principle that paved the way for the rise of Hitler and Stalin and for the murders ordered by Idi Amin. It is a principle that, if consistently observed, would have shielded the apartheid government in South Africa from external criticism and from the economic sanctions and political pressure that forced it to change. It is a principle that would have prevented racist Rhodesia from becoming Zimbabwe and Robert Mugabe from ever coming to power. We are not suggesting that the world should intervene to impose political change in Zimbabwe. We are suggesting that global and regional organizations and individual governments should make known their support for human rights and democratic practices in that country, as elsewhere. We should condemn in the strongest terms the use of violence to prevent the free and peaceful expression of political thought. We should make clear our support for the standards enshrined in the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights and in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Given Mugabe's consistent unwillingness to respect the legitimate complaints of his people, this is not the time for silent diplomacy. This is the time to speak out. It is especially important that members of the African Union and Southern African Development Community (SADC) raise their voices, for they have the most influence and can hardly be accused of interventionism. As the examples of Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela remind us, it is never inappropriate to speak on behalf of justice. As in South Africa, the solution to the economic, political and social quagmire in Zimbabwe is open dialogue -- perhaps facilitated by the SADC--that includes all relevant parties and leads to an understanding based on support for democracy and respect for the legitimate rights of all. To this end, the government of Zimbabwe should cease its abusive practices, repeal draconian laws and bring the electoral code into line with regional and international standards. Presidential and parliamentary elections that are transparent and considered to be legitimate by the people of Zimbabwe and by local and international observers should be held. Should Mugabe decide to run for president again, as he has said he might, the world will have to make an effort to ensure that balloting is fair. However, Mugabe's own party, which includes responsible and moderate elements, might well consider whether the time has come for a new leader. With crisis comes opportunity. This is the moment for political and civic leaders in Zimbabwe to unify around a common goal: a peaceful and democratic transition. Members of the opposition would be well advised to overcome their differences and to speak with a single, strong voice. In this way, reformers can demonstrate to the people of Zimbabwe and to the world that there is a viable and patriotic alternative to the repressive and misguided leadership under which the country has suffered for so long. *
* * * Desmond Tutu, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1984, was archbishop of Cape Town (1986 to 1996). Madeleine Albright served as secretary of state under former US President Bill Clinton. By arrangement with
LA Times-Washington Post |
| 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 | |
