 |
|
The urban sweep Deepening divide Trailblazer Benegal |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Justice can’t go
pop
Declamation contest
Britain revisits
partition on 60th anniversary Delhi
Durbar Politics should
unite, not divide
|
|
Deepening divide The
Union Ministry of Human Resource Development’s advertisement inviting applications for the post of director in the Indian Institutes of Management at Ahmedabad, Bangalore and Kolkata has triggered a fresh controversy between the Centre and the IIMs. The IIMs’ directors, faculty councils, students and alumni associations have termed the move as direct encroachment upon their autonomy. Ahmedabad IIM Director Dr Bakul Dholakia does not object to the advertisement per se, but to the manner in which the HRD Ministry has sought to infringe upon their autonomy. He says that the consultation process to select directors should run concurrently with the advertisement so that the selection process is broad-based and not confined only to those who apply in response to the advertisement. The IIM faculty members fear that the very purpose of selecting highly qualified, competent and experienced persons to head the IIMs will be defeated if the government gained an upper hand in the process of recruitment. The IIMs are considered global brands and they can give their best only if they are allowed to enjoy autonomy in their day-to-day functioning. Governmental control should be kept to the minimum as otherwise it will impair their functioning. Unfortunately, neither Union HRD Minister Arjun Singh’s statement nor his ministry’s clarification will help resolve the confrontation. There is an elaborate procedure for the recruitment of directors to the IIMs. Though the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) selects the director from a panel of names suggested by the HRD Ministry, the ACC’s (or the ministry’s) role is essentially that of endorsing the final name recommended by the search and select committee after a comprehensive external and internal consultation process. With the government having invited applications through an advertisement, it is feared that the search committee will be given short shrift in the recruitment process — a step the government should avoid at any cost. If the then HRD Minister, Dr Murli Manohar Joshi, meddled with the IIMs in whatever way he could, his successor tried to impose quotas for the OBCs through a questionable Act which has been stayed, pending adjudication by the Supreme Court Constitution Bench. The Centre would do well to leave the IIMs alone. |
|
Trailblazer Benegal The
Dadasaheb Phalke award, given for lifetime achievement in cinema, is a rare honour. Rarer still is the honour of the award being bestowed on an active filmmaker as it is given when a master is in his twilight years with most of his life’s work behind him. Yet if Shyam Benegal is the exception that proves the rule it comes as no surprise, for he is an exceptional filmmaker who is looking forward to making more, and more meaningful, films in the years ahead. Awards and honours are no stranger to Benegal who has won recognition on a scale without precedence in Indian cinema. He pioneered a new wave in Indian cinema, known variously as ‘New Cinema’, ‘Parallel Cinema’ or ‘Middle Cinema’. The wave, beginning with Ankur (1974) — which has now gained the status of a classic —was followed by a succession of unforgettable films on a range of subjects that have made him an iconic figure. In the wake of Ankur came Nishant, Manthan, Bhumika and Junoon — all in the 1970s — and no decade in the history of Indian cinema since then has passed without stirring films from this sensitive master. The trailblazer that Benegal is, he did not stick to the genre of cinema he had started. He ventured off the path he himself had pioneered with Zubeida, which was cast in the popular mould but no less a thinking man’s film for that reason. His concerns, reflected in his feature films, also drew him to make documentaries on a number of contemporary themes. Here is a director who reflects mass concerns and yet caters to those who value class in cinema regardless of whether it is a documentary, a feature or a television serial. His long-running series based on Jawaharlal Nehru’s Discovery of India is only the best known of his much larger contribution to television. |
|
If a little knowledge is dangerous, where is the man who has so much as to be out of danger?
— T.H. Huxley |
Justice can’t go pop IN the midst of virtual madness — unleashed by Sanjay Dutt’s fans, page three socialites, hysterical TV anchors, indeed the bulk of the chattering and prosperous middle class — all clamouring for the actor’s immediate release from jail regardless of his sentence, former Attorney-General Soli Sorabjee’s is a voice of sanity. With restraint becoming of a jurist of his stature, he has advised those shedding copious tears because “poor Sanju” has to spend his days and nights in prison to let the law and justice take their course. He has also driven home the point that once Dutt was convicted under the Arms Act, Judge P. D. Khode would have committed an “illegality” if he had awarded the culprit a sentence of less than five years’ rigorous imprisonment, the minimum prescribed by the law. This should take care of the nonsensical argument being put forward by Dutt’s screaming supporters that possession of even such dangerous weapons as AK-56 attack rifles and grenades, brought to his house by the apparently welcome associates of Dawood Ibrahim, now Pakistan-based “most-wanted” outlaw, was “no big deal”. According to a 1994 unanimous judgment of a five-member bench of the Supreme Court, if a person was found in possession of a deadly weapon like an AK-47 or AK-56 rifle in a notified area (and Mumbai in 1992-93 was certainly notified), then the presumption must be that it was meant for a “terrorist act”. Moreover, if the sentence given to Sanjay is “harsh and excessive”, what does one say about other sentences, including 12 of death and 20 for life imprisonment? Even more to the point is Sorabjee’s call that under no circumstances should a signal go out to the people that there is going to be a “celebrity justice delivery system”. In other words, no one, irrespective of how famous, rich or well connected he or she might be, is above the law, and no amount of shouting and shrieking on behalf of a convict can brush aside this basic principle. Sanjay Dutt and his high-powered legal team have already filed an appeal in the Supreme Court not only for a bail for the actor but also against the sentence to him. All concerned should await the highest judiciary’s verdict. Instead, they have launched a campaign to influence, rather browbeat, the judiciary. Bollywood, the citadel of self-righteous arrogance and greed, is busy organising a “signature campaign”; some teenyboppers are collecting signatures on-line. An incredibly stupid argument being used by movie moguls, and constantly repeated by TV channels, is that “Rs. 100 crores are riding on Sanjay” because of the incomplete films “starring” him. Since thousands of crores “ride” on Dawood Ibrahim, does that entitle the dreaded don also to forgiveness? No wonder, the special public prosecutor in the 1993 Mumbai blasts case, Ujjawal Nikam, has protested and even indicated that he might initiate contempt of court proceedings against Sanjay’s strident supporters. In this dismal context, the performance of the Union Information and Broadcasting Minister, Mr Priya Ranjan Dasmunshi, has been nothing short of distressing. He lost no time after the trial court’s judgment to trash it, and proclaimed that, as minister in charge of films, he was “duty-bound” to “protect” Sanjay and, therefore, to support the appeal to higher judiciary. Almost immediately the official spokesman of the Congress declared that the Minister for I&B had spoken in his “personal capacity”, not on behalf of the Congress party. Even so, Mr Kapil Sibal, who ought to have known better because he is a distinguished lawyer besides being a minister, joined the crowd of Sanjay Dutt’s drumbeaters. What he said was elliptical but it added up to a clear negation of the Congress spokesman’s earlier statement. Twice he stated that it was the Congress’ duty to “rally round” the shaken Dutt family. Such ministerial intervention in what is a brazen drive to subvert justice, especially that of Mr Das Munshi, who is also Minister for Parliamentary Affairs, raises an even more painful question. Is there such a thing as collective responsibility of the Cabinet and, if so, what is the Prime Minister or, for that matter, the Congress president doing to enforce it? The entire Cabinet system in a democracy rests, of course, on the doctrine of collective responsibility. But it is fair to acknowledge that since the advent of the coalition era collective responsibility, like much else, has gone by the board. Ministers belonging to the parties allied to the Congress in the United Progressive Alliance run their ministries as personal fiefdoms. Congress ministers outdo them in disregarding or bypassing the Prime Minister. One of them, with unrealised aspiration to be President, has a single-point agenda: to undermine the Prime Minister as best he can. This is no secret but no one is in a position to do anything about it. It is an ill wind that blows nobody any good. Even the orgy of irresponsibility and worse sweeping the country simply because Sanjay Dutt has been meted out his just deserts has had one good consequence. All of a sudden the country has discovered that while the guilty in the March 1993 blasts have been punished, those responsible for the massacre in the Hindu-Muslim riots immediately following the demolition of the Babri Masjid in December 1992 continue to strut about merrily. Justice Srikrishna submitted in 1998 a thorough report on all those who had perpetrated this communal bloodbath. The report named 31 police officers and inspectors who personally took part in the riots. Except in one case, and that because the Supreme Court had made some stern remarks about it, no action was taken. The Srikrishna report also identified the leaders of the Shiv Sena and other Hindu extremist outfits who were manifestly culpable. They, too, remain untouched. No wonder, people are raising a pertinent question: If Sanjay Dutt is in prison for possessing dangerous weapons, why has no action been taken till today against, say, Madhukar Sarpotdar, the Shiv Sena leader who was indicted for distributing ammunition to the killers? The Maharashtra police withdrew two-thirds of the few cases that it had filed in courts of law. The crowning irony is that the BJP-Shiv Sena state government was voted out in 1999, and since then the Congress or a combination of the Congress and the Nationalist Congress Party have been ruling Maharashtra. What a comment this is on the “epic fight” between the standard-bearers of secularism and the “nefarious forces” of
communalism.
|
Declamation contest While
in college over 65 years ago, I had Hindi as my optional subject in the intermediate class. There were eight girls and 32 boys in this group. The college announced an essay writing contest to be held in Hindi. Our classmate Kamla (let us call her that) was endowed with an attractive personality. Our Hindi professor fancied her very much from the day she came to the class. The professor of Sanskrit and Hindi were to examine the essay scripts. To my surprise I happened to get 80 per cent marks and won the first prize while Kamla was second with 65 per cent marks. I was appointed editor of the Hindi section of the college monthly magazine. So while I was considered to be the leading Hindi activist in the college, the smart Kamla was the heartthrob of most students. Her fair complexion, her manner of speech, her dimples, her features and above all her doe-like eyes made students called her “mrignayani”. Next month, the college authorities decided to hold a Hindi declamation contest during Holi days on college premises. I had to organise this event. There were three girl contestants led by Kamla and five boys, including me. Two young male Hindi professors from other local colleges were invited to act as judges. Kamla was number four and the contestants finished their oration. They spoke, loud and clear, in real Devanagari pronunciation. The third male contestant spoke in “tarannum” and it appeared that no one could be better than him. The next contestant was Kamla. She got up and slowly moved towards the dais. As she stood gazing with her doe-like eyes towards the audience. There was a sudden applause. She was holding the script paper in her right hand. The audience applauded again when she adjusted her flawless white chiffon chunni on her head. Her voice was low. She faltered twice but apologised while the audience clapped in wide acclaim. The young audience wanted to reward her charming personality irrespective of her declamation talent. The two judges too seemed to admire her. The principal of the college who was presiding over the function saw the mood of the audience and the judges. He declared the contest closed after the audience went on clapping for 15 minutes continuously. The judges announced the results. Charming Kamla got 82 per cent marks and got the first prize while Manohar Lal, a second year student who spoke very eloquently, got the second prize with 58 per
cent! |
Britain revisits partition on 60th anniversary LONDON — It may be because of the obvious parallels with Iraq today, or the fact that there is now a whole new generation of young Britons of Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi descent who are interested in their parents’ past, but the 60th anniversary next week of the partition of the Indian subcontinent has already aroused an amazing amount of media coverage here. A great deal more coverage it should be said than even the 50th anniversary in 1997 or, for that matter, than in the countries concerned. That is not so surprising when you consider the consequent history of the countries concerned. Bangladesh, submerged by some of the worst floods in its history, is under military rule. So is Pakistan, further than ever from the democratic and multi-cultural (secular indeed) vision of its founder, Mohammad Ali Jinnah. As for India, basking under the praises of a Western world that has decided it is the next global super-competitor, the British inheritance and the circumstances of its birth just seem an irrelevance from the past. It may come as a shock to the British historians and writers intent on resurrecting the Empire as an exemplar of peace and prosperity (if only the US could model itself on it, is the implication), but to the Indian elite the two centuries of British rule have never seemed more than a small blip on their long history, the temporary intrusion of a foreign military rule. That is as it should be. Indian partition had huge consequences, still very much with us today. But the manner and matter of it was primarily a British responsibility, of historical concern to us more than the subjects of it. For most of the post-war period the British have congratulated themselves on giving up Empire, and in particular granting independence to Pakistan and India, as an unprecedented gesture of voluntary abnegation. The documentation as it has come out, however, paints a rather less flattering view of the dissolution of Empire. True we did give it up voluntarily and in rather better spirit and with less meddling than the Russians gave up the Soviet Empire after the fall of the Berlin Wall, for example. But in India at least the sordid truth is that we -- and in particular our last Viceroy, Lord Mountbatten – cut and ran. There were good reasons, no doubt. Britain was exhausted, and virtually bankrupt, by the end of the war. There was neither the will nor the means to hold onto a country whose leaders had been promised independence and were in no mood to wait. Sectarian conflict was already erupting in the major cities at the prospect of self-rule. The political leadership of the Sikhs, Hindus and Muslims was difficult to deal with, given to wild rhetorical demands, divided among themselves and often contradictory in their demands. Gandhi hardly helped with his impractical pronouncements from the sidelines. Expectations, and events, were gathering pace at such a tempo that independence, and partition, could not be resisted for long. All that is true from a British point of view. But it is also true that Mountbatten rushed into partition 10 months before the original due date with barely a thought, and certainly no properly prepared handover plan, for the consequences of his actions. Vain, duplicitous (it was said of him by General Montgomery – admittedly no praiser of fellow commanders – that “if Dickie swallowed a nail, he would shit it out as a corkscrew”) – and obsessed with his own reputation, the new Governor General came, saw and determined to get out before he could be blamed for what was bound to ensue. East Pakistan was casually determined when everyone knew it was unsustainable without a capital in Calcutta (Chittagong was never a substitute). The Punjab was divided up, with Lahore going to Pakistan partly to ensure that the Sikhs couldn’t have the separate state they wanted so dearly. Worst of all, the police and then the army were allowed to disband into separate religious arms well before partition actually happened. One of the perversities of the recent BBC series in which British people of Indian descent have turned to the subcontinent is the way in which the tales of horrors are always from people bewailing the past as victims of it. There is never any questioning of communities as perpetrators. Yet some of the worst massacres of all were carried out by the Sikhs as well as ordinary Hindu and Muslim villagers, swept along in a tide of unfathomable violence towards neighbours, friends and colleagues. Perhaps it was all inevitable. Maybe nothing that the British could have done would have prevented the sectarian catastrophe that followed on partition. Indian politicians still think wistfully of a better outcome had India been kept whole. Gandhi even suggested making Jinnah prime minister and having a Muslim-led government to achieve that end (the Congress party soon squashed that one). But the forces of separation were probably uncontrollable by then. Certainly neither Nehru nor Jinnah acted in a way that might have made a federal, greater India possible. If the Americans and British had read the history of partition, they would never have disbanded the Iraqi police nor the army in the way they did, nor would they have attempted to impose a skewed democracy based on sectarian division. Maybe sectarian violence and partition of Iraq are inevitable, as they seemed to the British in India. In retrospect (and to many at the time), we should have set a reasonable deadline for British withdrawal and then worked out an agreed plan for security and civil authority to take us to it. We cut and ran 60 years ago. It would be a terrible indictment of us if we did it again.
By arrangement with The Independent |
|
Delhi Durbar When
UNPA leaders sensed the possibility of the National Conference (NC) joining them before the presidential election, they avoided making any formal commitment. At the same time, enough indications were given by them that the NC will be a part of the so-called Third Front. The apparent hitch was NC leader and patron Farooq Abdullah being seen as “everybody’s friend” in the political arena. Keen not to be caught on the wrong foot, the UNPA leaders felt that any announcement about the NC joining the ranks of the UNPA should come from Abdullah himself. As it turned out, by the end of the Presidential poll, the NC had moved closer to the Congress, the party that the UNPA leaders are most bitter about and consider one of their main enemies. Jaitley’s challenge BJP leader Arun Jaitley is now finding the going tough in Gujarat and Uttar Pradesh, where he has been made election in-charge and national in-charge respectively. With dissident activities on a high in the BJP’s Gujarat Unit, that too ahead of the upcoming assembly elections in the state, Jaitley airdashed to Gandhinagar to sort out the issue and soothe the ruffled feathers. However, the top leaders of the party, like former Chief Minister Keshubhai Patel and erstwhile union minister Kanshiram Rana
boycotted the meeting convened by him, an obvious warning to him about the growing disenchantment in the Gujarat unit of the BJP. In Uttar Pradesh too, Jaitley is facing a challenge. During his recent visit for a brain-storming session on the party’s debacle in the recent assembly polls there, former UP Chief Minister and senior BJP leader Kalyan Singh chose to stay away from the meeting. Youth strength The Indian Youth Congress is planning to approach the Guinness Book of Records with its claim of being
the largest youth organisation in the world. IYC President Ashok Tanwar has set a target of taking the strength of the organisation to 2.5 crore during the membership drive which will end next month in September. The IYC, which has decided to give I-cards to all its members, wants to have a committee in every booth of the country. French Ambassador French Ambassador Dominique Girard’s successful five-year stint in India, the longest by any French Ambassador to this country, will be followed by the posting of Jerome Bonafont. Ambassador-designate Monsieur Bonafont has been the spokesperson of former French President Jacques Chirac and accompanied the latter on his visit to India last February. He is expected to present his credentials to India’s President Pratibha Devisingh Patil next
month. Contributed by Prashant Sood, S. Satyanarayanan and Tripti Nath |
|
Politics should unite, not divide It
has been a matter of great satisfaction that the Rajya Sabha has been engaged in constructive, effective and purposeful discussion and debate on key issues and challenges facing the nation. The heated debates were followed by humour and friendliness all around. I always believe that politics should involve debates without rancour, discussions without bitterness, criticism without creating adversaries. At the end of the day, we shall have an inner satisfaction that we have had our say, played our part well and contributed to the welfare of the nation and its people. We are now in the 60th year of our independence. How do we ensure that our democracy gains deep roots in our soil? How can governance in democracy hasten holistic welfare of the poor and the under privileged? I believe promoting welfare of the deprived sections acts as the fifth pillar of strength of the citadel of democracy. Alleviation of poverty has to be accorded highest priority. I believe in the Antyodaya philosophy which means that any programme for empowerment of the deprived should begin with the poorest of the poor. Foremost focus should be on enabling the deprived sections to have assured access in real terms to literacy, basic healthcare and shelter. Only by providing universal access to these basic amenities, we would be building an India in which the poor and the deprived enjoy their fundamental right to live with human dignity. The very Preamble of our Constitution calls for securing to all its citizens “Fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation.” Education is the most important element for the country’s growth and prosperity. Education is a fundament right of every Indian child; but the ground reality is somewhat disturbing. Today, 35 per cent of our people are illiterate and a vast segment of our children drop out of school. Unequal access to education and wide urban-rural disparity in infrastructure still prevail due to a variety of reasons. We need to address this problem with urgency and seriousness if we seek to establish an enlightened, progressive and inclusive society. Today, our country is faced with formidable challenges in achieving the goal of balanced growth and development, encompassing all sections of our society. Today, growth is not yet inclusive and has not permeated all sections of society. A vast segment of our population still continues to inhabit the margins of our society and economy. Our bulging population is a big challenge. The pace of development will be far too slow unless we are able to stabilise our population. There is the challenge to have a system of governance which is free from corruption and which provides common man a hassle-free and efficient delivery of goods and services. An integral aspect of good governance is providing assured security to all citizens by building an environment of peace and social harmony which is not tainted by specter of violence or terrorism. Electoral reforms are also a matter of urgency. We need to take the country out of the every-year-elections-syndrome by holding simultaneous elections to both Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies. Today, frequent elections adversely impact on the quality and content of governance. It is of critical importance to put a full stop on criminalisation of politics. We ought to take electoral politics and public life to a high pedestal of exemplary moral and ethical norms. In my view the most critical and important issue in facing various challenges and achieving key goals is to build a widely shared ethos of commitment to nation building. In democracy, our elective politics should not be divisive; we need convergence of mind on key issues of national importance. The task of nation building is often a painstaking process, like running a long race. We not only need to run together, but also run fast, to catch up with the rest of the developed nations. I have deep and abiding faith in the destiny of our great country. My confidence and faith are further reinforced when I look at the bright faces of the youth whose sparkling eyes always tell us that they have a dream, that they cherish the ambition to build a strong and prosperous India. The youth have the motivation as also commitment to achieve high aims and goals in life. Their only expectation is that we provide them a conducive environment for growth and development, a highway to progress that is free of hassles, obstacles and speed
breakers. The above is excerpted from the former vice-president’s farewell address to Rajya Sabha members on August 07, 2007 |
| 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 | |
