 |
|
Dishonourable MP NRI husbands beware! |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
India grows
Limits of power — A Tribune debate
'I plan to return to Pakistan this year irrespective of whether there is an understanding or not' Benazir Bhutto: First, a clarification: the department established to pursue a political vendetta against me has not been shut down. It is called the National Accountability Bureau and is still pursuing fabricated criminal cases against me. An official was changed but that is neither here nor there, as officials were changed several times over the last decade.
|
Dishonourable MP LOK Sabha Speaker Somnath Chatterjee’s “request” to BJP MP Babubhai Katara not to attend the House session till party leaders decide on the course of action in his case is well-intentioned. But it falls short of the desired action by Parliament against the member who is facing serious criminal charges. Maybe this is an interim action the Speaker has taken before the House takes a substantive decision. The MP from Gujarat was caught with a woman and an adolescent boy whom he was taking abroad on the strength of the diplomatic passport issued to him and his wife. It was an alert Air-India ground staff, who detected the fraud when he and his “family” were about to board the aircraft after clearing the immigration and customs clearance desks. All this is incontrovertible and nobody has any doubt about his involvement in the illegal trafficking. Of course, it is for the police to investigate the case, produce evidence before a court of law and get him convicted. While the MP’s trial will take time, his presence in the House will be a disgrace to the august body. After all he was misusing a privilege he had obtained by virtue of being a Member of Parliament. As for a precedent, Parliament had at the first available opportunity expelled those members who had shocked the nation when they were caught on camera accepting money for asking questions in the House. It should be recalled that the members concerned are yet to be tried and convicted in a court of law. Yet, the Supreme Court upheld Parliament’s decision to expel them when they questioned it there. In other words, Parliament is empowered to expel members who in public perception have lowered the dignity of the House by their unbecoming act. Having laid such a lofty benchmark, it would be quite appropriate for Parliament to expel Babubhai Katara from the House. As regards the question raised by some party leaders whether the JMM MPs, who were accused of receiving huge bribes, for voting in favour of the ruling party during a trial of strength, they too could have been expelled. For the present, the party leaders would do well to expel the dishonourable MP as early as possible. It will be a warning to the black sheep among the MPs who continue in the House only because they have not been caught like Katara. |
|
NRI husbands beware! COMPREHENSIVE legislation to tackle the menace of NRI men jetting in on short vacation and solemnising quick weddings with innocent brides, only to abandon them, is still in the works. The government and its police are also only slightly better than silent spectators. But a ray of hope has emerged with the victimised brides themselves standing up to the tyranny. One 44-year-old UK-based bride seeker, Gurbind Singh, was all set to marry allegedly for the third time near Mullanpur Dakha on Thursday when his abandoned wife, Tejinder Kaur, landed there to tell her tale of woes. She narrated how the man had lived with her for only 10 days and she had been waiting for his return for 10 long years. The relatives and parents of Gurdeep Kaur, the 22-year-old bride-to-be, still wanted her to go through the rituals, but the brave girl stood up to them all and refused to marry the person in question. The NRI landed in lockup. While it is imperative that there should be stringent laws to punish the guilty husbands, the problem can be tackled effectively only if the public resolves to call the bluff of the tricksters. In the first place, the parents of girls should resist the temptation of somehow sending them abroad. The lure of a green card is dangled before them like bait and many swallow it innocently. If such a wedding is unavoidable, it should be finalised only after proper verification. Unfortunately, it is not only some NRIs who have been trying to take gullible girls for a ride. There are enough prospective grooms within the country itself who are out only to get a fat dowry or a sex slave. The social status of women in India being what it is, most girls tend to grin and bear it. Fortunately, some have shown the courage of sending such greedy people packing. If Pooja of Charkhi Dadri (Bhiwani) forced her baraat to return two years ago, Minnie of Malerkotla did exactly the same this very month. If society learns to treat such broken marriages as a social stigma on the grooms and not on the brides, there can be a dramatic change in the situation. |
|
India grows INDIA has become a trillion-dollar economy. There are 10 other countries which have achieved this distinction. The US leads this elite club which comprises Japan, Germany, China, the UK, France, Italy, Spain, Canada and Brazil. With the rupee appreciating against the US dollar, India’s GDP is now worth Rs 41,00,000 crore (one trillion US dollars). The list of landmarks is growing. The wealth of the country’s 20 million NRIs is also estimated at $1 trillion. Whatever the condition of roads, India has the second largest network after the US. India is fifth in the world in power generation and third in transmission and distribution. The telecom market is also the fifth largest globally. Whenever any milestone is crossed in this country, there appear on the street hordes of spoilsports who point to all that is wrong and come out with poverty figures as a proof of its backwardness. They see only problems instead of challenges and achievements. Building a reliable infrastructure by 2012 alone requires $400 billion. Public health and education require greater state spending and focus. Lifting agricultural growth is another formidable challenge. Efforts are on and the goal is clear. The last Union Budget paid special attention to education, health and agriculture. It is the states that have to contribute to growth more vigorously. The 1991 reforms that put India on the fast track have slowed down a bit because of compulsions of coalition politics. Heated debates and scattered protests over policy matters are inevitable in a democracy, but there is a broad political consensus on the economic agenda. India’s growth story is believed and appreciated outside the country too. The continuous inflow of foreign direct investment, which now amounts to $200 billion, is a proof of that. An economist of the Aditya Birla group has put it succinctly: “We are a nation of one billion people, a $1 trillion economy, a $1,000 per capita income. That is the way we should think”. |
|
Remember, the greatest gift is not found in a store nor under a tree, but in the hearts of true friends. — Cindy Lew |
Limits of power — A Tribune debate
AS is well-known, the doctrine of separation of powers is an inseparable part of the evolution of democracy itself. No democracy contemplates conferment of absolute power in any single authority. Separation of powers with the system of checks and balances is one of the most characteristic features of our constitutional scheme. Our institutions of governance have been intentionally founded on the principle of separation of powers as a bulwark against tyranny of any or more organs of the State and the Constitution does not give any unfettered power to any organ and all the three principal organs are expected to work in harmony. The obvious consideration before the Constituent Assembly was to preserve and protect the freedom and democratic rights of the people and the supremacy of the popular will in our system of governance. The legislature has been accorded a pre-eminent position in our constitutional and political setup, with power inter
alia, to make laws, to exercise control over the nation’s purse, to make the executive accountable to the popular House, and when considered necessary, also to amend the Constitution. But obviously the legislature has to function within the parameters laid down by the Constitution. The framers of our Constitution took infinite care to provide for an independent and impartial judiciary as the interpreter of the Constitution and as the custodian of the rights of the citizens through the process of judicial review, which gives the mandate to the judiciary to interpret the laws but not to make them, nor to lay down general norms of behaviour for the government or to decide upon public policy. The concept is “judicial review” and not “judicial activism” which is of recent coinage and extends, as one finds, much beyond review. The scope of judicial review is confined to the enquiry as to whether an impugned legislation or an executive action falls within the competence of the legislature or of the executive authority or is consistent with the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Constitution or with its other mandatory provisions. The Constitution does not contemplate a Super-organ nor confers an over-riding authority on any one organ. No organ has any power to superintend over the exercise of powers and functions of another, unless the Constitution strictly so mandates. The Supreme Court has itself construed that the concept of Separation of Powers is a “basic feature” of the Constitution. That being so, necessarily, each organ of the State has separate areas of functioning, into which no other organ can enter or intervene, unless permitted by the Constitution itself, and if it so does, it will be contrary to one of the “basic features” of our Constitution and that includes the judiciary also. There was a lot of appreciation when our Supreme Court was pleased to hold that justice can be provided, through an innovative procedure, to the oppressed citizens, especially those belonging to the vulnerable sections of the community, who have no means, no facilities and, in fact, no possibility on their own to approach the court even in cases of glaring injustice and discrimination, by giving a liberal meaning to the concept of locus standi, without in any way, entering into the areas preserved for the legislature or the executive. But today, there is a considerable feeling even in well-meaning quarters that we have travelled a long way from that objective. On many occasions, the Supreme Court itself has felt it necessary to condemn motivated and frivolous approaches to court in the garb of PIL which goes much beyond the scope of judicial review. There are umpteen instances where the judiciary has intervened in matters entirely within the domain of the executive, including policy decisions. Recently, a media correspondent has compiled a list of issues and matters in which the courts have apparently, if not clearly, strayed into executive domain or in matters of policy. He has noted that the orders passed by the High Court of Delhi in recent times dealt with subjects ranging from age and other criteria for nursery admissions, unauthorised schools, criteria for free seats in schools, supply of drinking water in schools, number of free beds in hospitals on public land, use and misuse of ambulances, requirements for establishing a world class burns ward in the hospital, the kind of air Delhiites breathe, begging in public, the use of subways, the nature of buses we board, the legality of constructions in Delhi, identifying the buildings to be demolished, the size of speed-breakers on Delhi roads, autorickshaw overcharging, growing frequency of road accidents and enhancing of road fines. And I am sure, there are umpteen such instances in the records of other high courts as well. The Jagadambika Pal case of 1998, involving the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly and the Jharkhand Assembly case of 2005, to my mind, are two glaring examples of deviations from the clearly provided constitutional scheme of separation of powers. The interim order of the Supreme Court in these two cases upset the delicate constitutional balance between the judiciary and the legislature. I feel that these were instances of unfortunate intrusion by the Supreme Court into well-demarcated areas of powers of the legislatures, contrary to the provisions of Articles 122 and 212 of the Constitution. In a democracy, where rule of law and not laws of men prevail, for its every action or inaction, the executive authority must be and is accountable to the people. But where the judiciary interferes with policy decisions of the executive and takes decisions clearly of administrative nature, I feel that it may then be proper to ask: is the judiciary accountable to anyone for the discharge of functions of executive nature and what are the constitutional and legal sanctions behind such orders made and directions given by courts, by way of judicial activism? I would humbly refer to what I consider some very important issues in connection with the exercise of an activist role of the judiciary: a) What are the laws, legal principles or authorities which will be applied or followed by the judiciary in deciding matters which will require exercise of jurisdiction assigned to some other organ or authority? Would that depend on the ipse dixit of the learned judge or judges when the matter is res integra? and b) What is the method or procedure provided by the Constitution or any law for enforcement of such orders? The large number of arrears pending in
almost all the courts is affecting the people’s faith in our justice-delivery system. These issues require to be given very serious attention not only by the legislature or the executive but also by the judiciary. One has to admit that in many instances the judiciary (without attributing any fault to it) is not able to cater to the needs of the common people of the country in adequate measure. Now, in such a case, can any other organ of the State take up on itself the right to exercise judicial powers on the plea that judiciary has not adequately been able to do so? Obviously neither the legislature nor the executive can do so, because it has no such power under the Constitution. There is definitely sufficient space in our system for all the institutions to co-exist and work together for the common weal. The people look up to the courts, which are temples of justice, with great expectation, hope and confidence. Similarly, people look up to Parliament and state legislatures, of which the executive is a part, with as much, if not more, expectation and hope, because under the Constitution, Parliament is the supreme legislative institution of the country, the people’s institution par excellence, through which laws for the people are made and executive accountability is enforced. We must recognise that Constitution is the supreme law and no organ of State should go beyond the role assigned to it by the Constitution.
| |||
'I plan to return to Pakistan this year irrespective of whether there is an understanding or not'
Benazir Bhutto signals her determination in an exclusive interview with
The Tribune’s Washington Correspondent Ashish Kumar Sen
Excerpts from the interview: Benazir Bhutto: First, a clarification: the department established to pursue a political vendetta against me has not been shut down. It is called the National Accountability Bureau and is still pursuing fabricated criminal cases against me. An official was changed but that is neither here nor there, as officials were changed several times over the last decade. I am the only political leader in Pakistan, with my party supporters, who are being persecuted. The rest of the politicians who had cases against them have either been pardoned or had the cases dropped. The nuclear scientist [A.Q. Khan] who admitted to selling nuclear parts internationally admitted guilt has been pardoned. The cases against me are for the purposes of diverting attention from the institutionalised corruption of the military regime and for hobbling my leadership. The charges are fallacious and ten years of investigation has failed to provide a shred of evidence. It is important to note that having a committee by itself demonstrates the bizarre level of personal vendetta that this regime is willing to take to discredit the Pakistan Peoples Party and myself. Q: Has General Musharraf shown any indication that he would welcome you back to Pakistan? Are you working on a deal? A: General Musharraf’s regime has sent feelers to Opposition parties, including the Pakistan Peoples Party since it seized power. However, despite the passage of many years, the PPP and General Musharraf’s team have failed to reach an understanding as yet on a transition to democracy. I plan to return to Pakistan this year irrespective of whether there is an understanding or not. I realise that in the failure of an understanding, I run the risk of being arrested on fallacious charges. I plan to take on the challenges knowing my life is dedicated to the restoration of democracy. Elections in Pakistan would not be credible without the free participation of all personalities including myself. It would certainly damage General Musharraf’s standing if the elections are manipulated to deny the people of Pakistan the right to determine their own destiny through free and fair, internationally-monitored general elections. Q: Would you run for the office of prime minister, if given a chance? It would be an honour for me to serve the people of Pakistan as Prime Minister, were they to elect me to the office. My party and I have a popular base, we have the experience and the team. Q: Has President Bush’s administration been supportive of your desire to return to Pakistan? A: From his visit to Pakistan and other public statements, I believe President Bush understands and supports the call for genuinely free and fair elections, which means an election run under the auspices of an impartial caretaker government, controlled and supervised by a truly independent election commission, open to the participation of all political parties and leaders, and monitored by international observers. U.S. actions are increasingly encouraging. We welcome the Congress’ support and hope that the General will listen to these calls and follow through on his promise of “enlightened moderation.” Democracy in Pakistan is not just important for Pakistanis, it is important for the entire world. The root of stability in Afghanistan really lies in the border and tribal areas of Pakistan. Q: Since September 11, 2001, attacks on America, General Musharraf has been hailed as an indispensable American ally in the war on terror. A: The PPP and I are worried that despite General Musharraf’s declarations of support in the war against terrorism, the situation domestically in Pakistan is worse than it was following the events of 9/11. The religious parties have risen to power for the first time in the country’s history, suicide bombings have occurred, again for the first time in Pakistan’s history. Moreover, the then defeated and demoralised Taliban have now re-established themselves in the tribal areas of Pakistan. Further, it appears that they have established a safe haven from where they collect taxes, dispense their form of justice and run an irregular army. Elsewhere in Pakistan, more militias hiding under the name of Madrassa have been established since 9/11. The Jamia Hafsa Madrassa in Islamabad is one example. It was constructed on illegally occupied government land. It’s frightening to think how many such hidden sleeper cells have been created since 9/11 housing armed persons who can take on the state at any time. The Islamabad Madrassa, allied with a government appointed cleric, is now threatening barbers, beauticians and the entertainment industry while the regime says it is helpless to act. The general elections of 2007 could turn out to be a last chance to save a moderate Pakistan from the creeping Talibanisation that is taking place. If anything the years since 9/11 has demonstrated that a military regime is unsuccessful in undermining the forces of terrorism, extremism and militancy. In fact the PPP believes that it is democracy alone which can undermine the forces of terrorism and extremism. In 1993 Pakistan was about to be declared a terrorist state following the first attack on the World Trade Towers. However, I was elected soon thereafter and with the help of the people of Pakistan and the international community, my government stopped the spread of terrorism. After my overthrow, the terrorists regained the upper hand and planned the second attack on the World Trade Towers. Q: If you were elected prime minister, would you reconsider Pakistan’s role as an ally in this war - given its unpopularity in Pakistan? A: There is absolutely no doubt amongst ordinary Pakistanis that we need to get rid of the extremists from our land. There is no difference of policy objectives with the West. With the resurgence of the Taliban along the border of Afghanistan, and the recent spread of extremists into more settled areas like Tank and Islamabad, it is necessary that Pakistan do as much as it can to rid the country of hate-mongers. We have a common purpose in undermining the forces of terrorism. Former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s party, as well as the parties of the ARD [Alliance for the Restoration of Democracy] have committed themselves to fighting terrorism and building peace in the Charter for Democracy signed in the summer of 2006. It would be easier for a democratically elected government led by the PPP to involve the people in building peace and fighting terror. The reason for America’s unpopularity in Pakistan is that democratic development in Pakistan has rarely been a priority for the U.S. Ordinary Pakistanis feel alienated and therefore we see rising anti-American sentiment in Pakistan. The U.S. government must support democracy and give democracy time to flourish. Q: How much control does a leader of Pakistan have over the tribes in the North West Frontier Province? A: A leader elected or unelected, controls the tribal areas through the Governor, political agents, paramilitary forces and the tribal elders. An elected government has the advantage of controlling the tribal areas through popular support and acceptance. Basically ordinary people need protection from warlords, be they drug war lords or pro Taliban warlords. During both of my terms as Prime Minister, my government sent law enforcement under civilian control to these same “ungovernable” areas, to rid them of then-rampant drug problems and militants. These drug lords and militants were no less brutal than today’s reemerging Taliban/al Qaeda. The issue in my view is not the ability, but rather the willingness of the Federal government to keep the tribal areas free from anti state elements. Q: Do you believe a democratically elected leader can be a more useful US ally in this war on terror? A: Absolutely. Dictatorships such as the military regime currently in power in Pakistan suppress individual rights and freedoms and empower the most extreme elements of society. Governance is neglected and the political madrassas exploit this by promising three meals a day, food, clothing, shelter and education to the economically disadvantaged groups. They then brainwash them into extremism. I believe that restoring democracy through free, fair, transparent and internationally supervised elections is the only way to return Pakistan to civilisation and marginalise the extremists. A democratic Pakistan, free from the yoke of military dictatorship, would cease to be the breeding-ground for international terrorism. That is the only long-term solution. Q: To what extent has the ISI been responsible for the resurgence of the Taliban? In January 2007, The New York Times reported that Pakistani intelligence agencies - and in particular the Inter-Services Intelligence - are promoting the Islamic insurgency. Reporters who worked on this story were harassed, beaten and imprisoned and Pakistanis who acted as sources have, in the fashion of intelligence, “disappeared.” I am unable to say whether the ISI is directly involved presently. There are a plethora of military intelligence groups in Pakistan which spring from the Intelligence corp. established after the overthrow of my first government in 1990. My experience was that when I reined in the ISI in 1989, the military hardliners turned to the MI – military intelligence – to overthrow my government. Nowadays it is said that most of the operations are being carried out by the Intelligence Bureau headed by a retired army officer who was involved in the Afghan Jihad of the eighties. Irrespective of which particular branch of intelligence is being used, the Taliban could not have re-organised, rearmed and re-asserted themselves without covert state support following their defeat in 2001. Q: General Musharraf has struck “peace deals” with the tribes in A: I don’t believe in signing “peace deals” with terrorists. I believe that such deals only embolden terrorists and allow them a breathing space to rest, rearm and re-engage. The PPP and I have made a commitment to the people of the tribal areas to provide them peace and security so that development can come to them and their children can get jobs. We have announced a tribal areas policy to bring political reforms to the area as well as called for a lifting of the ban on political parties from participating as parties in the tribal areas. Q: What is your assessment of the current state of Pakistan’s relationship with India? A: I believe that Pakistan and India have definitely missed opportunities to establish a strong relationship. We believe that in order to ensure permanent peace and friendship with India, it is essential first, for Pakistan to root out of terrorism and militancy, and restore democracy. Q: In his memoir, General Musharraf says you were “chairperson for life” of the PPP, much in the “tradition of old African dictators” and calls your time as prime minister “sham democracy.” A: Old African dictators relied on repression to stay in power. I have always relied on the love and affection of the people of my country. That love and affection is more important to me than political power. The PPP would not have won the majority votes in 2002 despite it being an openly rigged election if our democracy was a “sham democracy”. We win elections because we represent what a common Pakistani wants, which is jobs and education. Talks of Islamisation/radicalism/ military might can only get you that far in Pakistan. Q: What has life in exile been like for you? Has it taken a toll on you and your family? A: Since November 4, 1996, I have spent difficult years being persecuted by the regime. My husband spent eight years in prison. He was tortured and nearly died under torture. I raised small children on my own. My opponents subsidised their political vendetta against me with state funds. My reputation was slandered. It has been and continues to be a time of uncertainty and worry. For example, I never knew whether my passport would be renewed or whether I would be able to travel. I was upset when I was hauled up before a Magistrate’s court in Geneva and missed the prayers for my murdered brother’s death anniversary for the first time as the dates coincided. As I walked on the Rue du Rhone, I remembered how once my family had lived together in exile in Geneva in 1984. Instead of being happy at being together, we moaned, “when will we all be together in Pakistan so that we can be happy?” Well, we never were together in Pakistan. One brother was killed in 1985. We should have lived in the present and valued what we had. |
| 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 | |
