 |
|
Beginning of end Number game |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Wolf, wolf!
For whom the bell tolls
Donkeys on the campus
Manekshaw’s moves Northern Ireland all set for a
new beginning Legal
notes
|
Beginning of end RJD MP Mohammad Shahabuddin has been a law unto himself for so long that it is hard to believe that he has finally been sentenced to life imprisonment in a case of kidnapping and alleged murder of a political party worker eight years back. This is one of the rarest of rare instances of an MP belonging to an important ally of the government at the Centre being awarded life imprisonment in a criminal case. On March 2, he was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment in a case related to the attack on the CPI(ML) office at Kurmabad in Siwan town on September 19, 1998. To that extent, the year 2007 has been an unusually grim one for the criminal-turned-politician who had been a terror in Bihar for more than a decade. He has nearly 35 cases pending against him involving murder, attempt to murder, kidnapping, illegal possession of foreign-made arms and ammunition, intimidation, theft of vehicles and what not. He could do all this and get away only because of the full backing he received from the RJD. Instead of being treated as a criminal that he was, he was deified as a star. That is what emboldened him to engage even police officers in gunbattles. The Lalu-Rabri government sided with him, making him the uncrowned king of the area. Two former ministers appeared as defence witnesses in the case, which has ended in life term for him. The change of regime has made sure that he is given no special treatment. The results are there for all to see. He has avenues of appeal but now that the cases against him are being heard by special fast-track courts, this appears to be the beginning of the end for the “bahubali”. There are far too many Shahabuddins in the political system today and the RJD is not the only party propping them. Their ascendancy is bringing a bad name to the whole political class. His incarceration will, hopefully, encourage other backers of criminals to do a rethink and purge them out of the mainstream. |
|
Number game WITH the conclusion of the seven-phase polling in UP’s month-long elections, it is time to have a closer look at the possible permutations and combinations. Going by the exit polls, Ms Mayawati’s BSP is set to emerge as the single largest group, but unlikely to be in a position to form a government on her own. She may have to look for coalition partners, and the Congress can be one obvious choice. But it all depends on the results; how the BSP and the Congress perform. If the Congress score remains around 30 seats in a 403-member Assembly and the BSP does not do as well as some pollsters think it will, it may not be averse to seeking the BJP’s support. It is a different matter that Ms Mayawati may have to pay heavily for any arrangement with the saffron party. The Congress-led UPA government at the Centre may try to tighten the screws on the BSP leader using the Taj Corridor case. Pollsters see Chief Minister Mulayam Singh Yadav’s Samajwadi Party as the major loser, but it is unlikely to be pushed beyond the second position. He appears to have paid for his poor record on the corruption and law and order fronts. His Muslim-Yadav combination also got weakened because of his alleged proximity to the BJP. Yet, he has the capacity to prove the pollsters wrong. If the BJP does even slightly better than what has been shown by the exit polls, it will be an interesting scenario to watch. Whatever happens, voters do not expect much from their representatives. Their apathy is clearly reflected in the poor voting percentage — below 50. As they see it, the situation may remain unchanged irrespective of which party or combination of parties comes to power. The people want a life free from any law and order problem, enough job opportunities, adequate power and water supply and better roads. They want a government that concentrates on the state’s development. But such expectations do not matter to politicians. Their only interest is in grabbing power. That is why they did not hesitate in playing the caste and community card or fielding notorious criminals as their nominees. There does not seem to be any redemption for the voters. |
|
Wolf, wolf! WORLD BANK President Paul Wolfowitz is clearly at the end of the road. Ever since the scandal about exorbitant pay hikes and promotion guarantees given to a female friend of his in the bank broke, his position has been fairly untenable. Bank staff have staged open revolts and many European officials would clearly like him to go. The committee constituted by the bank’s board of directors has found him guilty of breach of ethics. Mr Wolfowitz, on his part, has denied any violation and has stated that the bank’s ethics panel knew of the pay hikes. Of course, the ethics panel had, in fact, ruled that Ms Shaha Riza, the lady in question and Wolfowitz’s friend before he became bank chief, would have to leave the bank during Wolfowitz’s tenure, but could stay on the bank’s pay roll. Much of the violations seem to centre on the amount of the hike and other incentives. Mr Wolfowitz took over in July and in September 2005, Ms Riza was deputed to the State Department. Her salary was raised from $132,660 to $193,590 by 2006, widely reported as being far more than what US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice earned. Automatic promotions and 8 per cent annual raises were also thrown in as additional sweeteners. Europe has made no secret of its distaste for Mr Wolfowitz. All of it may not be related to this scandal. Many apparently believe that Wolfowitz was too much an instrument of American foreign policy to be able to effectively carry on the job of fighting world poverty. Reports suggest that European countries are willing to let America again choose a successor if Mr Wolfowitz is ready to go quietly — they were earlier campaigning for an end to the prerogative that has rested with the US since Bretton Woods. The sordid drama may go on for a while, but Mr Wolfowitz in the end may have no choice but to go. |
|
Men enter local politics solely as a result of being unhappily married. |
For whom the bell tolls THE world’s scientists have set a deadline. Humankind has another eight years, barely 2900 days, within which collectively to come to order and cool things down. If we falter, we are on notice that things may get just a little too warm for comfort. Life may go on; but a lot of people, especially in the poorer, tropical, Third World may not find it an enjoyable existence even compared to the miserable lives many lead today. The fourth assessment report of the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IGPCC), released a couple of months ago, declared with a 90 per cent level of confidence a measurable acceleration in global warming. The full IGPCC, headed by India’s R.K Pachauri, has now put its imprimatur on that assessment and issued a global alert. The message is simple. Anything beyond a two-degree Celsius rise in global warming could prove catastrophic if unchecked. With business as usual, this threshold will be reached eight years from now. But meaningful and concerted global action from now on can contain temperature rise to within that critical two-degree margin at a cost of no more than 0.12 per cent of the world’s annual GDP. This is a small burden to bear to save the planet and its ecologically vulnerable population located in the tropical latitudes that are scientifically more susceptible to climate change. However, none anywhere will be altogether spared. It would be irresponsible to argue that none of these dire warnings are proven and that other causes may be and are locally responsible for current aberrant weather events and glacier-polar melt we are witnessing. Global studies and measurements must be extended and refined but the high uncertainty so manifestly evident calls for immediate and sufficient insurance before disaster strikes. It would be immoral for richer or less vulnerable nations to plead the triage doctrine of superior survivability. That can scarcely be a prescription for preserving civilisation, especially as the “healthier” of the species have historically contributed most to global warming, maybe only because they progressed earlier and more rapidly than the rest, irrespective of the means employed. Nor can those with a lesser responsibility for global warming refuse to do whatever little they can. John Donne said long ago, “Send not to ask for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee.” One has seen a callous world and callous nations turn their backs on those less fortunate than themselves, some from a fatigue of giving. This is evident in the aid story — an international assistance commitment of 1 per cent of the GDP, and then a lower percentile, promised and unfulfilled by the rich nations despite the admitted acts of generosity. This applies not only as between rich and poor nations as between rich and poor people and regions within nations, for there is a north and south in all societies. The United States, which accounts for the largest slice of global warming emissions, has spurned the Kyoto Protocol. It continues to drag its feet on the ground that the jury is still out on climate change and that the emerging large economies of the Third World, especially China and India, constituting a third of mankind, must pull their weight. The point is well taken provided the burdens are differentiated. This has been accepted. China and India have been coy, arguing that they cannot decelerate growth just as they are beginning to overcome poverty. They are right to demand differential treatment and access to environmentally clean energy and other technologies so that their progress is not unduly impeded. The US-Japan-Australia-India quadrilateral commitment on combating climate change is useful but clearly insufficient. The global atmosphere and weather cannot be neatly compartmentalised and little cabals cannot forge the grand global coalition required to beat climate change. So, as India prepares to launch on its 11th Plan and target ten per cent growth, it must ask whether it is doing enough to combat global warming. The imperative of escaping from poverty cannot justify ostentatious consumption or a higher count of billionaires. Thus far the argument has been that poor nations like India must produce more in order to be able to distribute. It is time to consider both production and distribution in tandem in order to build a just and contented society rather than one with an unbalanced load of riches while the other half decays. We have to be concerned with sustainable life styles and trajectories and, beyond a threshold, social consumption more than self-indulgence. Official policies in India remain altogether too cautious about both the looming problem and the possible solutions. There is also need to carry South Asia along as we are part of a vulnerable ecological entity. We need allies to strike the right collective bargains in international fora and to trade progressive action at home with legitimate demands for access to clean technology and global assistance without the kind of somewhat self-righteous and condescending American ifs and buts that have latterly come to inform the Indo-US nuclear negotiations that were meant to be about energy, not
weapons.
|
Donkeys on the campus
A
news item about a donkey branded as the Vice-Chancellor of Punjabi University being paraded on the campus recently had me thinking. What is it about Punjabi University and other such institutions in the country that evoke such extreme acts? Politicisation of the campus is obviously the ready answer. There was complete discipline on the campus till two months back. Vice-chancellor Swaran Singh Boparai had done this by effectively wielding the stick. Come the assembly election and an Akali-BJP victory and the situation is back to square one courtesy a few remarks by Sukhbir Badal stating the government would look into complaints against Boparai. The “protestors” now know they have complete freedom to agitate and nothing is taboo, be it banging on the door of the VC or holding processions with donkeys on the campus. The district police follow the time-honoured practice of twiddling its thumbs awaiting “orders from above”. My thoughts go back to interactions with the VCs of the university. I would like to forget the interactions with Dr Jasbir Singh Ahluwalia. He never interacted. He only played politics to get you under his thumb. However, like Boparai, Dr Joginder Singh Puar was different. I went to Patiala at a time when he was at the fag end of his tenure. Like what Boparai is facing, the movement against Puar got a shot in the arm when the Akali-BJP government came into power and saw Dr Ahluwalia being appointed VC. I contacted Puar and Ahluwalia for brief interviews. While Ahluwalia did not say anything much, Puar was forthright in his comments. Giving his take on the agitators, he said he was being criticised for taking on people who did not want to teach and insisting on discipline on the campus. The interview came up between us a few years later when I met him by coincidence. He was in Patiala to defend himself in a vigilance case. The former Registrar accompanying him immediately vent his anger against me for all I was writing about the case. I looked at Puar expecting the same but he only said “I am thankful to you for raising my esteem by bringing out the essence of my thinking through your interview”. On a similar scale, but without the acrimony, was an interaction with Boparai. I did an oped article on the student agitation on the campus in which I gave my bit of unsolicited advice against high-handedness. I received a call next morning from Boparai saying he had liked the oped. He only asked me one thing. “Do you think discipline is of paramount importance and must be maintained at all costs”? I could only say yes. Here in Bangalore I got around to interviewing Prof R.P. Singh, the Vice-Chancellor of Lucknow University. Dr Singh, whose name was proposed by Mulayam Singh for the post, told me that soon after joining the campus he realised that student leaders were running a virtual mafia on the campus which was supported by the Samajwadi Party. The Professor went about dismantling the mafia against all odds. The campus is peaceful now with the expulsion of around 200 students. The tailpiece of this middle has ironically been supplied by Boparai himself. When asked for his reaction to the latest protest he told The Tribune one of the spectators called him and said “he could not decide as to which one was the real donkey, the agitators, which included university professors or the poor animal”. He went on to add “I cannot say anything more than that”. But to maintain discipline you have to, Mr Boparai. If it is still
important. |
Manekshaw’s moves CAPTAIN Gohar Ayub Khan’s revelation (or allegation as many Indians would prefer to call it) about Sam Manekshaw having sold India’s military plans as they existed when he was Director of Military Operations has understandably evoked great outrage in this country. As is to be expected, Sam’s military colleagues as well as numerous admirers in this country have denounced this allegation as baseless and have highlighted that Sam was a man of honour and his patriotism has never been in doubt. It is to be recalled that Sam was subjected to a court of inquiry when he was the Commandant of Staff College, Wellington and he should have been thoroughly investigated by the Intelligence Bureau at that time. In those days, especially after General Ayub Khan’s coup in Pakistan, our Intelligence Bureau was extra vigilant in respect of our senior officers, especially those who did not behave wholly ‘Desi’. Sam was always considered as being a ‘Sahib’ of the British Raj tradition. Therefore he had to face the wrath of Krishna Menon. Some people have raised pertinent questions on the credibility of Gohar Ayub’s allegation. Sam was the Director of Military Operations in the early 1950s. One presumes that the Indian military plans of that time were prepared taking into account Pakistan’s forces, equipment and deployment at that time. By 1965 there were very major changes in the force levels and equipment of the forces of the two countries and the military plans of the two neighbours could not have been static. Pakistan received US military aid beginning in the second half of the 50s when Sam was no longer the Director of Military Operations. India received its Centurion tanks, Canberra and Hunter aircraft also after the mid-1950s. The AMX-13 tanks also came in at that time. Not only that, the landscape physically changed in Punjab between the time Sam was DMO and 1965. The Indus Waters Treaty was signed in 1960 and canals were dug and completed before 1965. When during the war in 1965 the Pakistani tanks came through the underpasses below the canal aqueducts the Indian Army accused the IB of intelligence failure. The IB in turn reminded the Army HQs that they had obtained all blueprints of the Ichogil canal from Washington sources and supplied them to the Army HQs well in time. The Indian Armed Forces chiefs, to my knowledge, had exaggerated ideas of US military aid to Pakistan .When the aid actually amounted to around $800 million they estimated it in terms of billions of dollars. The Indian Army had also expanded during 1963-64 with the raising of six more mountain divisions. In these circumstances how could any reasonably competent military leadership assume that Indian military plans of the mid-1960s would by and large be the same as those formulated during the time when Sam was DMO? If there had been such an assumption it would reflect very badly on that military leadership. That would reveal a lack of flexibility of mind on the part of that leadership and its totally unjustified assumption that the other side would be equally inflexible and would not have radically revised its plans over the decade as circumstances changed. It is one of the oldest ploys in military strategy to trick the adversary into believing something not real and then outsmart him. The Trojan Horse easily comes to one’s mind. In 1942, just before the “Operation Overlord” the allies carried out a brilliant deception plan. They arranged to get a body of a dead British Major to float on to the beaches of Spain, which under General Franco’s rule, was very friendly to Germany. They stuffed the pockets of the dead Major’s uniform with plans which revealed that the allied landings would be on Pas de Calais while the real plans were to head for the beaches of Normandy. The plans reached the German Headquarters in France and even an astute General like Rommel came to believe that the allied invasion would strike the beaches at Calais. Supposing Manekshaw, with the approval and encouragement of Indian Intelligence, had passed on some bogus plans to Pakistan – he would not talk about it nor would the Indian Intelligence. Obviously the so-called plans of the early 1950s could not have been of much use in 1965 and they were not. What is the point in Gohar Ayub Khan boasting about Ayub Khan’s foolishness some 40 years later? The 1965 war was totally different from all scenarios and plans envisaged in 1950s. At some later point in the Diary, General Ayub was reported to have stated that while Indian plans were regularly available to Pakistan, the Indians had presumably been suspicions of possible leaks and therefore often changed them. Supposing the plans were deliberately leaked. Then they were bound to change. Pakistan lost the 1965 war in spite of superior US equipment, and surprise in planning the attack. General Ayub Khan boasted that he would be in Delhi in a couple of days. Even the Americans believed, as had been portrayed in the book Crisis Game by Sidney Giffin, which outlined the politico-strategic game they played in Washington in March 1965, that Pakistanis would emerge victorious in the conflict. The story of having obtained Indian military plans in the 1950s is not something to boast about in the light of what happened at Asal Uttar on 8-9 September, 1965. Apart from that, it does not reflect well on Ayub Khan as a military leader. |
|
Northern Ireland all set for a
new beginning BELFAST, Northern Ireland – A militant preacher of the Free Presbyterian sect and a former leader of the Irish Republican Army were sworn in as the joint heads of a new government in Northern Ireland on Tuesday in a move to conclude more than 30 years of conflict between Protestants loyal to Britain and Catholics who fought for a united Ireland. The two still-suspicious new government leaders did not single out each other in the giddy handshakes shared among the new Northern Irish officials. But as the Rev. Ian Paisley of the Democratic Unionist Party and Martin McGuinness of Sinn Fein took their oaths, both sides hailed the day as the final end of the Troubles that took more than 3,500 lives between 1969 and 2001. In taking office, the two swore to oppose discrimination, promote connections with Britain and Ireland and uphold the work of the police. The event marked a ‘crowing achievement’ for British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who has spent 10 mostly frustrating years of his premiership pushing the parties toward peace. He is expected to announce his resignation this week having brought the conflict’s most intractable activists into a common government. “Northern Ireland was synonymous with conflict. People felt that it could not be done, indeed sometimes even that it shouldn’t be done, that the compromises involved were too ugly,” Blair said. “Yet in the end it was done. And this holds a lesson for conflict everywhere.” Paisley, the 81-year-old Protestant leader of Northern Ireland’s pro-British hard liners, for years was known as “Dr. No” for his opposition to making peace with Catholic republicans who favor leaving Britain and joining the Irish Republic. His most famous words are his declaration of “never, never, never” in response to the agreement in 1985 between Britain and Ireland that set the course for self-determination and gave Ireland an advisory role in Northern Ireland. He recalled that he was detained temporarily by civilian authorities on the night in 1998 when the peace process here took one of its first major steps forward with the so-called Good Friday agreement. “If anyone had told me that I would be standing here today to take this office, I would have been totally unbelieving. I am here by the vote of the majority of the electorate of our beloved province,” he said. In the final rounds of negotiations leading up to Tuesday’s ceremony, Paisley won what he viewed as his most important concession – McGuinness’ oath to support the police and urge his community to support them as well. For years, many of the province’s Catholics saw the police as parties to the conflict. McGuinness served six months in prison in the Republic of Ireland for possession of explosives and ammunition, and later was banned from entering Great Britain under terrorism laws. Sinn Fein, the political arm of the now-disbanded IRA, is increasingly turning its attention to elections in the Republic of Ireland, which covers the southern four-fifths of the island, as a step toward winning its goal of a united territory. Thus, Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams nominated McGuinness, his deputy, as deputy first minister in the new government. “The road we are embarking on will have many twists and turns,” McGuinness said. “It is, however, a road which we have chosen and which is supported by the vast majority of our people.” The Good Friday agreement, whose parties were pushed to a settlement by U.S. Sen. George Mitchell, D-Maine, under the Clinton administration, set the course for self-determination and gave Ireland an advisory role in Northern Ireland. The agreement led to a change in the constitution of Ireland removing that nation’s claim to the territory and created a new Northern Ireland Assembly. Both sides renounced violence as a means of settling the conflict. The moderate Protestant and Catholic leaders who helped negotiate the agreement won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1998. But the two, David Trimble, then head of the Protestant Ulster Unionist Party, and John Hume, former leader of the Catholic Social Democratic and Labor Party, were beset with opposition from radicals within their own movements. In the end, it took the naysayers, Paisley and Adams, to negotiate what looks to be a durable peace. Under the agreement, Northern Ireland remains part of Britain unless – Sinn Fein would say until – a majority in the province vote to leave Britain and join Ireland. But Ireland and Britain have a role in the province through separate north-south and east-west councils. By arrangement with
LA Times-Washington Post |
|
Legal
notes AS revelations about the fake encounters in Gujarat have once again highlighted the menace of custodial killings, a representation has been sent to President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, by a widow from Punjab. She is seeking suspension of top ranking police officer S S Saini against whom charges have been framed in a case where her son, son-in-law and their driver went missing from the police custody in 1994, when he was the SSP of Ludhiana. The memorandum to Kalam from 85-year-old Amar Kaur sought suspension of Saini under the All India Serivce (Discipline and Appeal) Rules after the charges were framed against him and two other former officers – S.S. Sandhu, then SP city and B.C. Tiwari, SHO. Amar Kaur said the charges were framed in the case after a protracted legal battle fought by her. The case was transferred to Delhi on the orders of the Supreme Court allowing Amar Kaur’s petition as she feared that due to influence wielded by the police officers, a fair trial was not possible in Punjab.
Denial of pension President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam’s intervention has also been sought in another case of denial of pension to a poor industrial worker from Haryana, who claimed that his case fell through in the Supreme Court because the state government’s Industrial Department had “misled” it about his qualifying age for the grant of pension. Vidya Sagar, suffering from various ailments, said in his representation to the President that though he had served the Haryana government for over 33 years the apex court was informed by the state that he served it only for 9 years and 10 months, which was less than the 10 years mandatory period for making him eligible for grant of pension. As a result, he was paid a small sum of gratuity but his pension claim was totally ignored.
Workplace discipline Workers found guilty of assaulting their superiors at the workplace cannot escape disciplinary action by their employers, even if they were let off on probation without punishment by a court, while deciding the criminal case against them. This has been laid down by the apex court in an important ruling while deciding the question whether release on probation precludes the department from initiating the disciplinary action after the case had got finality. The Court held that indiscipline at workplace has been considered a serious offence by it particularly when the matter relates to a physical assault of a higher authority. The ruling came on an appeal of the Punjab Water Supply Sewerage Board against the order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court directing reinstatement of some of the board’s workers after they were released by it on probation, even when a trial court had convicted them for assaulting one of their senior officer. The workers had assaulted him while agitating against transfer of one of their colleague in 1994. |
Let there be no distinction between rich and poor, high and low. |
| 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 | |
