 |
|
Why can’t heads roll? Minority or not |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Life for Pravin
A Tribune Debate
He is watching
Talking to the Taliban Tejeshwar Singh, a writer’s publisher Inside Pakistan
|
Why can’t heads roll? Just
two days after the sensational Dantewada jailbreak in Chhattisgarh in which nearly 300 inmates, including 110 naxalites, made good their escape on Sunday, naxals went on a hunger strike and broke kitchen utensils at Patna’s Beur jail on Tuesday, alleging that they were not treated well. Such diversionary tactics are routinely used by criminals to extract concessions from the authorities which they later utilise to their own advantage. The Burail jail escape by Beant Singh killers was a classic example where the jail authorities had virtually surrendered before the prisoners. In Dantewada, the man who overpowered the guards was acting as a compounder and mobile phones were frequently used by the prisoners while the authorities conveniently looked the other way. The “chalta hai” attitude of the rulers has reached such dangerous proportions that even the Prime Minister’s security was breached in Himachal Pradesh on Monday when a helicopter landed at the venue of Dr Manmohan Singh’s rally. If indeed the helicopter was cleared by the air traffic control and air defence authorities as claimed, that makes a mockery of the entire security setup — even of the Prime Minister. As it normally happens after all embarrassing failures of governance, one DIG and some other policemen down the line have been suspended and the jailor arrested in the wake of the sensational jailbreak. Obviously, no minister — leave alone the Chief Minister — has owned up even constitutional responsibility for criminal lapse and offered to resign. It is as much a failure of the police officials as of the state government. But since severe action is generally not taken, the malaise is spreading. Besides affecting the enforcement of law, the utter disregard for rules is hampering the governance of the country in a million ways. Now that the jailbreak has burst on the face of the Chhattisgarh government, there is no hiding the fact that this was waiting to happen.The Chief Minister of the state promised an inquiry and what is called “necessary action”— the glib bureaucratic phrase often used to putting off tackling a problem. Unless heads roll at the highest level, the jailbreak will remain just one more link in the never-ending chain of inaction and worsening governance. |
|
Minority or not THE decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court declaring as void the Punjab government notification about the minority status of the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandak Committee-run educational institutions in
Punjab is unlikely to be the end of the matter. The state government will, in all likelihood, challenge the order in the Supreme Court, which will have to decide whether minorities as defined in the Constitution or as interpreted by the National Minorities Commission should prevail. Whatever be the case, there is no disputing that education has not been getting due attention in Punjab where, schools, colleges and professional institutions are either insufficient or their standards are so low that students from the state who can afford migrate to other states and countries for higher education. Unfortunately, even the SGPC-run institutions are also not known as centres of excellence. This is despite the fact that the SGPC is a cash-rich organisation which can generate any amount of additional resources by issuing just an appeal to its members. Yet, education has not been one of its priority areas. As a result, there are many areas in the state which are deficient in opportunities for higher education. It should not only set up new institutions of national, if not world, renown but also improve the standards of its existing colleges. The SGPC owes this much to the community it represents, which has done well in all spheres of life. That it can do well even in the field of higher education is borne out by the success of the Punjabi diaspora in the West. It can do well in Punjab also if better opportunities are made available at all stages of education. Instead of lamenting the fact that the High Court decision will take away certain rights and privileges from the SGPC, it should see it as an opportunity to concentrate on improving the standards of education in its institutions. At the last count, there were as many as 35 lakh Punjabi youth, who were unemployed. They would surely have done well in life if their energies were channeled properly. Experience has shown that it is education which sets the people free. |
|
Life for Pravin The
sentence of life imprisonment awarded to Pravin Mahajan by Mumbai’s trial judge Srihari Daware on Tuesday for having killed Pramod Mahajan in Mumbai in April last year does not come as a surprise. Pravin deserved this punishment for the crime. Justice would have failed had the trial judge showed any leniency towards the accused. People should understand the true value and essence of human life, more so the worth of close relations such as parents, brothers and sisters. Clearly, it was a pre-meditated act. As Pravin willfully decided to take Pramod Mahajan’s life without any second thoughts, he merited life imprisonment so that it would act as a social deterrent. A death sentence is awarded only in the rarest of rare cases. In various rulings, the Supreme Court has been reiterating this. No doubt, Pravin’s act was cold-blooded and unusual in planning and execution. While accepting the prosecution’s thesis that Pravin’s act underlined the “extreme brutality” of the murder, the judge ruled that Pravin plotted the murder in a manner that he got to Pramod’s home at an early hour with a revolver when Pramod would be at his most “vulnerable”. Still, the judge did not deem it fit to award capital punishment to Pravin since he felt that it did not fall into the rarest of rare category. Significantly, the judge has not spelt out the motive behind Pramod’s murder, even though the motive is not essential to be proved for awarding life sentence (or death) to a murder convict. Nor has he referred to Pravin’s statements in camera which could have thrown some light on the actual circumstances leading to the murder. Nonetheless, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses along with the circumstantial evidence, medical reports, ballistic reports all proved Pravin’s involvement in the crime. Pravin will get an opportunity to go on appeal to the Mumbai High Court against his conviction. |
|
If hopes were dupes, fears may be liars. — Arthur Hugh Clough |
A Tribune Debate
Unusual
but well-meaning observations made suo motu by Mr Justice A.K.Mathur and Mr Justice Markandey Katju in a simple service matter have had the desired effect. The question before the Supreme Court was whether a civil court could direct the employer to create a post for an employee on daily wages who had been working as a tractor driver since 1989. Allowing the appeal of the employer, they declared that a court could not direct the creation of a post; only the executive or the legislature could do it. After disposing of the appeal, the Judges felt compelled to indicate the limits of judicial powers to the following effect. Judges must not try to run the government. They must respect the separation of powers under the Constitution and not encroach into the legislative or the executive domain. They must not embarrass the administrative authorities. Recently the courts strayed into the executive dominion in matters of policy, e.g. certain orders passed by the Delhi High Court dealing with 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, etc. Judges cannot create a law and seek to enforce it. The directions given by the Supreme Court in the cases of the UP and Jharkhand Assemblies are examples of deviation from the constitutional scheme of separation of powers. If the legislature or the executive are not functioning properly, it is for the people to correct the defects by exercising their franchise properly in the next election. If the judiciary does not exercise restraint and over-stretches its limits there is bound to be reaction from politicians and others. The politicians will then step in and curtail the powers, or even the independence of the judiciary. There are mixed reactions to these profound observations made with deep concern for the judiciary and the Constitution. Politicians are happy. The media has given wide coverage. Editorials supported the views expressed. The lawyers are surprised by the manner in which the observations were made by the two Judges, inter alia, disapproving of the directions given by three-Judge Benches in the U P and Jharkhand Legislative Assembly cases. High Court Judges are perplexed, not knowing what to do now with PILs. A coordinate Bench (Mr Justice S.B. Sinha and Mr Justice H.S. Bedi) has promptly referred the issue to a larger Bench. Presiding over a three-Judge Bench, the Chief Justice of India has clarified that the said observations were not binding on them. Even otherwise, observations made after disposing of the appeal on merits are not a “law” declared by the Supreme Court under Article 141 and have no binding effect. However, they cannot be ignored by the High Courts. A serious debate has started and it will continue till the highest court clears the confusion. The observations are to a large extent correct, but they need to be qualified having regard to the fact that there is no strict separation of powers in India. In Ram Jawaya Kapur’s case, the court had declared: “The Indian Constitution has not indeed recognised the doctrine of separation of powers in its absolute rigidity but the functions of the different parts or branches of the government have been sufficiently differentiated and consequently it can very well be said that our constitution does not contemplate assumption, by one organ or part of the State, of functions that essentially belong to another”. Traditionally, Judges declare the law, but do not make it. However, the constitutional mandate of Articles 32 and 226 to enforce the Fundamental Rights constrains the judiciary, at times, to formulate and issue binding directions which will operate till the legislature enacts a law. The Supreme Court has resorted to interim legislation in a few cases in areas not covered by any Act or executive instructions, e.g. sexual harassment of women at work places, adoption of abandoned children by foreign or Indian parents, arrest and detention of persons, etc. In Vineet Narain’s case, the court observed, “it is now a well-settled practice which has taken firm roots in our constitutional jurisprudence. This exercise is essential to fill the void in the absence of suitable legislation to cover the field.” The court added: “It is the duty of the executive to fill the vacuum by executive orders because its field is coterminous with that of the legislature, and where there is inaction even by the executive, for whatever reason, the judiciary must step in, in exercise of its constitutional obligations under the aforesaid provisions (Article 32 read with Article 142) to provide a solution till such time as the legislature acts to perform its role by enacting proper legislation to cover the field.” The legislature and the executive have accepted such interim legislation made by the judiciary by not enacting laws till now to replace judicial legislation. The doctrine of implied powers is well recognised. The power to enforce the Fundamental Rights includes the power to employ all the means that are necessary to the exercise of the power. Moreover, Article 142 of the Constitution empowers the Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction to pass any order for doing complete justice in a case. Over the years, the Supreme Court has expanded the scope of the Fundamental Rights liberally. The apprehension that the judiciary’s independence can be curtailed by politicians is unfortunate. Independence of the judiciary being a part of the basic structure of the Constitution, it cannot be abridged even by an amendment of the Constitution. While a retired Judge or Chief Justice is free to criticise any judgement or order of the Supreme Court, sitting Judges are not expected to do so except in an order of reference to a larger Bench for reconsideration of an earlier decision or while over-ruling an earlier decision sitting in a larger Bench. I entirely agree that the directions given by the three-Judge Benches in the U P and Jharkhand cases are clearly violative of the scheme of separation of powers, which is also a basic feature of the Constitution. Even so, it is for a coordinate or a larger Bench to deal with them. The separation of powers in the Constitution cannot be put in a straightjacket. Law should be clear and certain. The observations in question have made the position uncertain. They have an unsettling effect. The High Courts will now find it difficult to exercise their jurisdiction to enforce the Fundamental Rights. By airing their personal views, the learned Judges have set in motion a judicial review of the earlier decisions, some of which have crossed the Lakshman Rekha. Public interest warrants an authoritative declaration of law by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court at the earliest.n The next article by Rajindar Sachar, retired Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, will appear tomorrow as part of the Tribune Debate.
|
He is watching
How
do you manage to afford such a lavish lifestyle?” asked an amazed desi dignitary supping with his counterpart in a foreign land. The flattered host hospitably got up, took the guest to a window overlooking the highways and pointed to a river. Host: “Can you see that bridge across the river”? Guest: “Wow, it is a marvel in metal”. With a glint in his eye, the host muttered: “Ten per cent”. Fast forward to the return visit paid by the foreign dignitary the following year. Business of the day over, the host threw a grand reception in honour of the distinguished visitor followed by a gala party at former’s sprawling farmhouse. As the party mood heightened, the guest signalled the host aside and expressed envy and admiration at the dazzling display of wealth. The host ushered the mesmerised guest out of the banquet hall and motioned, “Can you see that bridge?” Unable to sight it, the guest pulled out his binoculars but to no effect. “Hundred per cent”, whispered the host! This was of a piece with the volley of anecdotes and jokes thrown up at a workshop held during the recently concluded Vigilance Awareness Week. Reminiscing how values were inculcated through generations in the sixties, the chief guest dwelt upon a cash-carrying envelope which his honest train ticket examiner (TTE) uncle found surreptitiously concealed in a box of sweets exchanged during the Divali festival. Fret and fume he did but soon collected his wits. Not only did he relate this cowardly act of an unidentified person to everyone he knew around but also baptised his teenage son and daughter into the values his forefathers had upheld. That envelope today finds a pride of place in the house of his distinguished judge son. The message immortalised ! How the war-ravaged Germany and Japan rose from the ashes to become leader of Europe and Asia respectively speaks volumes of their citizens’ strength of character which Indians would do well to imbibe, was another exhortation made at the workshop. Summing up the proceedings, the anchor recalled a story of a poor farmer who having fallen on bad days due to repeated crop failure, decided to break in the granaries of the rich farmers. Around midnight he awakened his little daughter and embarked upon their nocturnal journey. She was asked to stand guard while her father filled up his bags with grains. Come the first farm and the man got into the act. A minute later the girl whispered, “Somebody is watching”. In no time her father retreated and moved on to the next halt. No sooner did the father get ready to steal the stuff than the girl mumbled, “Somebody is watching?”. “Nobody is there. Are you dreaming?” countered the father. Same sequence was repeated twice over thereafter. Twisting her ear, the red faced father chastened the little thing, “Show me who is watching. Are you crazy? How will I feed you all?” With tears rolling down her cheeks, she looked skywards and said, “He is watching”.n |
Talking to the Taliban The Taliban’s former chief spokesman has revealed that top-level talks are being held between the Afghan government of Hamid Karzai and key lieutenants of the former Taliban leader Mullah Omar. His disclosure that the Taliban “cabinet in exile” is engaged in negotiations appeared to contradict the statement to the British Parliament recently by Prime Minister Gordon Brown that hardline Taliban leaders would be isolated from talks over the future of Afghanistan. Mr Brown confirmed a report in The Independent earlier that he had said that it was time for the Karzai government to engage Taliban fighters in talks as part of a shift in strategy for winning the support of the Afghan people. But he insisted there would be no negotiations with the hardline leaders of the insurgency. “Our aim is to isolate and eradicate the Taliban insurgency, and to isolate the leadership,” said Mr Brown. “We are not negotiating with the leadership, but we want to support President Karzai in his efforts at reconciliation. If he is successful in bringing across those members of the insurgency who then declare that they will give up fighting and support democracy and be part of the system, then these are efforts at reconciliation that are important to the future of the whole country.” Mr Brown gave the impression that only rank-and-file members of the Taliban would be involved. However, Mullah Mohammad Is’haq Nizami, the former spokesman for the Taliban’s supreme leader, Mullah Omar, said he has been relaying messages from Kabul to insurgent commanders in Pakistan for months. Mullah Nizami, who also ran the regime’s radio station, said Mr Karzai was trying to isolate Mullah Omar by wooing his lieutenants in the Quetta Shura, a council of elders in neighbouring Pakistan, which controls insurgents in Kandahar and Helmand. He said: “Karzai is trying to get the 18 people in the Quetta Shura. If he succeeds it will be a defeat for Mullah Omar. The Taliban and the government are tired of fighting and they want to negotiate. “We are trying to find a way to talk to the government officially, to find a solution to the problems they are both facing.” When Mr Brown visited Afghanistan on Monday, Mr Karzai admitted he had met a number of senior Taliban commanders in person to negotiate a mass defection. Mullah Nizami, once a close friend of Mullah Omar’s, fled to Pakistan in 2001 when the Taliban regime collapsed. But he returned to Kabul earlier this year under an ongoing reconciliation programme, in an effort to open talks. He said he relays messages to a number of prominent ex-Taliban figures, including the former Supreme Court chief justice, Maulvi Noor Mohammad Saqib, and the former minister for repatriation, Haji Abdul Raqib. “These are talks about talks,” said one senior NATO official. “It might not be the beginning of the end, but it’s the end of the beginning. It’s not official. It’s representatives of representatives, like the role the Church played at the start of the Northern Ireland peace process.” British diplomats are cautiously optimistic about the talks. They see negotiations as part of the solution. American officials fear the idea will be “radioactive” to voters back home. A senior presidential aide said the Taliban was divided. He said: “They are tired of fighting. They want a better life. We need to find ways to guarantee they will be safe if they come back and there will be no revenge.” It is understood talks will continue “under the table” until the two sides can agree something to warrant a public announcement. “The Taliban want to take part in government,” said Mullah Nazimi. “They want sharia law, and they want the withdrawal of international forces. But not at once.” The Taliban have also insisted the UN scraps its blacklist which requires member states to freeze the assets and restrict the movement of 142 former Taliban officials, including Mullah Omar, before negotiations officially start. Mr Brown also used his statement signalling a shift in strategy from war-fighting to nation-building to attack Nato allies for their failure to provide more support for the security of the country. He revealed Nato chiefs will be seeking more offers of men, equipment or cash from countries that have failed to provide support for Afghanistan so far at a Nato meeting in Edinburgh tomorrow. Lord Ashdown is expected to be announced as the UN super-envoy to Afghanistan shortly, to act as a co-ordinator for future developments with the Karzai government. He will be overseeing the three-point plan announced by the Prime Minister for security, reconciliation and economic development. Mr Brown announced the British taxpayer will be providing £450m in aid between 2009 and 2012, in addition to £490m already spent over six years for rebuilding the country. Aid is also to be targeted at farmers to try to stop them producing poppy harvests for the illegal heroin trade. The Taliban “spin doctor” Mullah Mohammad Is’haq Nizami ran Afghanistan’s state radio station, Voice of Sharia, until 2001 when the regime fell. The station mainly broadcast religious texts and hardline sermons and poetry. The Taliban outlawed most music. He fled to Pakistan in November 2001, during the US-led invasion, but continued to act as chief spokesman for the movement’s leader, Mullah Mohammed Omar. Mullah Omar, the one-eyed “commander of the faithful”, rarely agreed to meet non-Muslims, leaving much of the regime’s reputation in Mullah Nizami’s hands. In Pakistan, Mullah Nizami ran an underground Taliban magazine, called Sirek [Shine], and he continued to meet exiles. He returned to Afghanistan in June under a reconciliation programme. Since his return, he claims the government has reneged on a promise to give him money and a job. By arrangement with
The Independent
|
|
Tejeshwar Singh, a writer’s publisher THE
information about Tejeshwar Singh’s very untimely demise came as extremely unwelcome news. Tejeshwar was a Doordarshan newsreader who left an indelible impression on the Indian public with his superb, masculine voice. My interaction with Tejeshwar started more than three decades ago. My first encounter with him was when Macmillan published a book of mine in 1978. But we intensely interacted during 1985-86 when I was Secretary General of the XI World Congress of Sociology held in New Delhi in August 1986. Tejeshwar managed to get the Programme Book of the Congress which had nearly three hundred A-4 size pages printed with “brutal” efficiency; brutal because the material was given not in one go, not even sequentially, but in different installments as and when it was prepared, to be fitted into different sections of the Book. And yet, when the production was over, the document was perfect! I told myself: “Only Tejeshwar could have done such a professional job”. Although Tejeshwar set up Sage India in 1981 I started publishing with Sage only in 1990. During the fifteen years from 1990 to 2005, I have published seven books through Sage. Understandably, we have had very close interactions during that period. Two of my books, both collections of my own research papers, were published in 1990 by Sage. When I submitted the manuscripts for consideration the busy Editor came and met me at Jawaharlal Nehru University, where I was teaching those days, to say that Sage cannot publish them. Admittedly, I was upset and insisted on an explanation. His answer was simple and forthright: Sage does not publish collections of research papers by a single author. But I argued that it is a wrong policy and Sage should revise it. I suggested that he could submit the manuscript for the most rigorous peer-review. Tejeshwar relented and the rest is history, in that some of the most successful books by Sage are such collections. My last book published by Sage in 2005 is somewhat topical: Crisis and Contention in Indian Society, released by a former Lok Sabha Speaker. Neither Tejeshwar nor me was enthusiastic about release functions and this is the only book of mine published by Sage which was subjected to such an ordeal. Speaking on the occasion he remarked: “Both me and Prof. Oommen lost count of his books published by Sage”, to everybody’s delight. Indeed Tejeshwar had a sense of humour often soaked in sarcasm. Professional editors in the world of scholarship are indeed a vanishing species in India: from Samuel Israel through Ravi Dayal to Tejeshwar Singh, one can count them on one’s fingers. As we are creating a knowledge society they are indeed indispensable at present. Hence the sense of great loss in Tejeshwar Singh’s sad and sudden departure. I hope that his role as a professional editor will inspire many young, talented youth to pursue a career adopting him as a role model. The writer is Professor Emeritus, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi
|
|
Inside Pakistan Before withdrawing the emergency on December 15 President Pervez Musharraf amended the constitution of Pakistan to seek indemnity from the National Assembly (parliament) for all the ordinances and orders he had issued under the so-called Provisional Constitution Order (PCO). All that he did under the PCO during the period of suspension of the constitution was aimed at ensuring his continuance in power as President. The amendments have been unalterable, according to Attorney-General Malik Abdul Qayyum. This has led to a debate with most of the opposition parties and many legal luminaries asserting that the new parliament can, without doubt, undo the controversial amendments introduced through presidential fiats. As Business Recorder points out (Dec 17), “they say these ordinances are merely lines etched in sand, reminding that parliament, which has the sovereign right to amend the constitution, can also undo amendments, including those ordinances which are being projected by the government as equal to constitution amendments.” The situation may take an interesting turn after the elections, particularly if the Musharraf-backed PML (Q) fails to form its government. According to Dawn (Dec 16), “… all indications are that the January 8 elections will give a hung parliament… What position the PML (Q) will have in the assembly is difficult to say, but it should not be beyond the President’s power to manage a two-thirds majority with the help of the King’s party and those willing to go along. That the President chose not to do this, and the amendments have already become part of the constitution show that he has decided not to give the assembly even rubber-stamp status.” Disappearing liaison In the run up to the January 8 elections, almost all the opposition political alliances seem to have disappeared. If any of them are managing to survive, they are there only in name. The News carried an interesting write-up on December 17 on the history of these political formations. The All Parties Democratic Movement (APDM), which was giving sleepless nights to Gen Pervez Musharraf (retd) till a few days ago, is finished because of serious differences among its constituents over various issues. The failed drive for boycotting the elections caused it the maximum harm. Today most of the APDM constituents are in the poll fray. Those boycotting the elections like the Jamaat-e-Islami and Mr Imran Khan’s Tehrik-e-Insaaf have a very limited following. As a report in The Frontier Post (Dec 17) says, “after Mian Nawaz Sharif’s PML (N), Maulana Fazlur Rehman’s JUI-F and Mr Afsandyar Wali Khan’s Awami National Party left the alliance, it now comprises 29 parties, most of which exist only on paper.” The six-party religious alliance, the MMA, has been a major loser. It had performed spectacularly during the 2002 elections. According to The News, “the MMA believed it was likely to produce similar, if not better, results compared to that in 2002, but its collapse will inflict a huge damage to the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (JUI) of Maulana Fazlur Rehman. The JUI is the only worthwhile party with votes left in the alliance, but its prospects have been considerably damaged because of the departure of the Jamaat-e-Islami of Qazi Hussain Ahmed, that is boycotting the elections.” The Alliance for the Restoration of Democracy has been a victim of the love-hate relationship between Mr Nawaz Sharif and Ms Benazir Bhutto. The PPP leader’s efforts for striking a deal with General Musharraf killed the Charter of Democracy Ms Bhutto had signed with Mr Sharif. PML (N), PPP strategy Ms Benazir Bhutto and Mr Nawaz Sharif seem to have realised that they must have some kind of understanding for contesting the elections to prevent President Musharraf-backed PML (Q) from coming back to power. That may be the reason why the PML (N) has set up a committee for seat-to-seat adjustment with the PPP, as disclosed by Mr Shahbaz Sharif. According to Daily Times (Dec 18), the committee would review the situation in a constituency before a decision to cooperate with the PPP is taken. The development is bound to affect the electoral prospects of the PML (Q), which has a 33 per cent vote bank in Punjab, the maximum following in any province. A report in Business Recorder quoted a US International Republican Institute survey as saying that 36 per cent voters in Punjab are with the PML (N) and 24 per cent with the PPP. The PML (Q) share is 30 per cent.
|
| 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 | |
For those who are in the world of social science scholarship Singh was a bi-word for Sage Publications, although he started his career as an editor with Macmillan India.