 |
|
Bhagat Singh’s trial and execution Profile |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Nandigram and the Left’s decline A step closer to missile defence On Record
|
Bhagat Singh’s trial and execution The
issue of Mahatma Gandhi’s attitude to Bhagat Singh’s trial and execution has sparked much controversy among historians and writers. Some writers allege that Gandhi could have saved Bhagat Singh’s life if he had wished, but regrettably, he didn’t and wouldn’t, and his failure in saving Bhagat Singh’s life from the gallows leaves a black spot on his political career. On the other hand, Gandhi’s own party workers, followers and some writers clarify that Gandhi failed not because of his lack of interest in the wellbeing of Bhagat Singh, but because of the conditioning circumstances which lay beyond his control. I think that this controversy which has stimulated much literature on the subject needs further clarity and understanding. From the review of the historical literature produced on Gandhi’s attitude to Bhagat Singh’s death sentence, three views emerge: firstly, that Gandhi had made serious efforts to save Bhagat Singh’s life but he failed because the Viceroy betrayed him by giving him false hopes, and Gandhi fell in his trap. Secondly, it is argued that Gandhi’s own commitment to non-violence, and his anxiety to save his pact with the Viceroy from being wrecked, dampened his enthusiasm to support the commutation of Bhagat Singh’s death sentence. Thirdly, it is mentioned by some historians that Gandhi had reached an agreement with the Viceroy on the commutation of Bhagat Singh’s death sentence, but this inside information was divulged publicly in a spirit of bravado by a member of the Congress Working Committee. The disclosure of this secret deal triggered off a strong reaction from the British civil servants who threatened to resign if Bhagat Singh’s death sentence were commuted. Under such circumstances, the Viceroy felt helpless, and he declined to commute the death sentence. Studies dealing with the commutation of Bhagat Singh’s death sentence generally assume that Gandhi, the most influential political leader in the country, and Irwin whose government was extremely executive in its concentration of power, were free and strong enough to commute Bhagat Singh’s death sentence when they were negotiating a settlement of the political issues facing the country in the Viceregal Lodge. I think this assumption is questionable. There is no point in playing the praise — and — blame game. To understand Gandhi, we have to relate his negotiations with the Viceroy to the political climate of the times, the pressure of public opinion, the role of the Viceroy, and the working of the British bureaucracy, and Imperial system in India and England. There was no question of Gandhi’s approving or commending Bhagat Singh’s killing Saunders, or his throwing bombs in the Central Assembly Hall. His soul revolted against such brutal deeds. Because of his firm adherence to his doctrine of non-violence, which he regarded as an article of his faith, and a master-passion of his existence, he could never make the commutation of Bhagat Singh’s death sentence a precondition for signing his pact with the Viceroy Irwin. Subhas Chandra Bose wrote in his autobiography that he pleaded with the Mahatma to break with the Viceroy on the question of Bhagat Singh’s death sentence. Why couldn’t the Mahatma break the pact, Bose asks? Bose’s poser needs an answer. Nearly three decades earlier in 1909, Gandhi had denounced severely Madan Lal Dhingra’s killing of Sir William Curzon Wyllie, ADC to the Secretary of State, Lord Morley, on 1 July 1909 in London. Gandhi regarded Dhingra a misguided youth, whose sacrifice was futile and who gave his body (he was subsequently hanged) in a wrong way and its ultimate result was mischievous. All his life Gandhi stuck to the path of non-violence with iron-will. He regarded non-violence a Religion, a way of life, and the central organising principle of Hinduism, which embodies the highest human values such as compassion. Gandhi took up the question of Bhagat Singh’s death sentence on 18th February 1931. Irwin’s notes makes it clear that Gandhi was opposed to capital punishment in principle, but the Viceroy writes that at their first meeting Gandhi did not ask for the commutation of Bhagat Singh’s death sentence. Gandhi then thought it proper to move in the matter cautiously, though he pleaded that the commutation would have “influence”, and further, that on his own he would have commuted Bhagat Singh’s death sentence. In his interview to the press, he criticised the “evil of capital punishment”, which disables a person to reform himself. He also assured the public that on the Bhagat Singh case “I put it (to the Viceroy) as a ‘humanitarian issue’, and desired the ‘suspension’ (of death sentence) so that there may not be turmoil in the country”. Asaf Ali, a prominent member of the Congress party, acted as Bhagat Singh’s lawyer in the Central Legislative Assembly Bomb case. In fact, he was present in the Assembly when bombs were thrown. Recollecting the past events leading to the Gandhi-Irwin Pact, Asaf Ali acknowledges that Gandhi did whatever he could to persuade the Viceroy to commute the death. Aruna Asaf Ali, who was sitting in the Visitors’ gallery when the bombs were hurled into the Assembly Hall, emphasises that “Gandhi had interceded, though letters, and in person for securing commutation of the death sentence that was passed on Bhagat Singh. Mira Behn, Gandhi’s confidant, reminiscing Bhagat Singh’s execution wrote: Bapu (Gandhi) did his best to obtain a reprieve, and though the Viceroy could give no definite assurance, still Bapu hoped and believed the remission would be granted. From the extracts of Gandhi-Irwin correspondence and other contemporary evidence, it is clear that Gandhi was deeply interested in saving Bhagat Singh’s life, and was consistent in his appeals to Irwin not to hang him. He disapproved of Bhagat Singh’s action, and thought it ruinous for the freedom of the country. He drew a clear distinction between Bhagat Singh’s intentions and his action. In the case of Madan Lal Dhingra’s killing Sir Curzon Wyllie, Gandhi had made a scathing denunciation of his action. But that was not Gandhi’s attitude to Bhagat Singh’s shooting! I have outlined what seems to me the causes for not saving Bhagat Singh’s life from the gallows. It would be difficult, and probably unnecessary to weigh their relative importance for they interacted upon one another so as to form a single whole. The role of each of these important agencies was dependent on the weight of the imperial control operating in India and England. As argued above, despite his disapproval of Bhagat Singh’s action and constrained as he was by his commitment to non-violence, Gandhi did whatever he could to persuade the Viceroy to commute Bhagat Singh’s death sentence. This writer has reasons to believe that though Bhagat Singh had challenged the Gandhian political morality, Gandhi, despite his disapproval of Bhagat Singh’s action, regarded his sacrifice a patriotic one, and Gandhi would not mind many Bhagat Singh’s dying for the freedom of the country and sacrifying themselves. Didn’t the Mahatma sacrifice all he had for the country? A sacrifice never goes in vain. There is a great lesson to be learnt from “constructive destruction”. The flower must die to yield its place to the fruit, and the flower must perish for the seeds to come out again. The cycle of History moves on.n The article is based on the address by the writer at the international conference on “Bhagat Singh and his times” organised by the Indian Council of Historical Research in collaboration with the Institute of Punjab Studies, Chandigarh in September. |
|
Profile In
cricket-crazy India, motor sport is the least known. It is considered a hobby of the most affluent section of society. A car continues to be a status symbol but using it for racing purposes is, possibly, little known; more so, for those who have known, besides cricket, only hockey and football as sporting events. Narain's historic victory in motor sport, believe experts, might change the face of motor sports in India. Car-racing organisations now hope to stage a Grand Prix in India. The 2010 Indian Grand Prix has become a reality and the event will be held on the outskirts of Greater Noida, near Delhi. Motor sport management has entered into an agreement with an Indian company to build the racetrack in time for the 2010 season. The event will be watched on TV channels round the world. Already viewers of motor sport have been pretty high on satellite channels. There are going to be a lot more Indians watching the breathtaking event in which Narain may be a participant. This may be a start for motor sports to grow bigger in India, experts feel. Narain has been quoted as saying that motor sport at some point needs to grow in more Asian countries, and India is the perfect place. It needs support of the government. It would be a great achievement to have car races in India. Narain's father, G R Karthikeyan, has been his "guru" in motor racing and he is proud of his son's achievements. Himself a racer and for years Indian National Rally champion, elder Karthikeyan motivated his son from a very young age to take to motor sport. Narain was barely 16 when he sent him to Elf-Winfield Racing School in France. True to his father's assessment, Narain showed natural talent for motoring and reached the semi-finals in the "Pilote Elf Competition" in Formula Renault cars. Narain, as his father puts it, "picked up experience all over the world. He is a lucky chap, who at 16 knew what he wanted to do" Narain has driven eight variants of Formula racing and has advantage of driving almost everywhere. Car sport has now become both a passion and profession for Chennai-born Narain. Having studied Business Administration in London, he took to racing under patronage of his father in 1993. The year 1997 was one of his best years. He competed in the Formula Vauxhall Opel and won the prestigious Donington Park race with a lead from start to finish. This amazing victory prompted the much-acclaimed Auto Sport magazine to declare in bold headlines: "The Indian Prince rules in the rain". Narain was once asked by an international magazine – what makes him more nervous, driving on the track or driving on Indian roads? "Driving on Indian roads" was his prompt reply. "Foreigners always ask me which side of the road do you drive in India? Do you have right-hand drive or left-hand drive? I tell them whichever side you want", he reportedly told the magazine (21-12-2007).n |
|
Wit of the week
— Princess Diana —
Bangladeshi writer Taslima Nasreen — Amrita Singh, daughter of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and a Staff Attorney for American Civil Liberties Union. Security forces should be led by capable, highly motivated officers who can imbue the necessary fighting spirit in their personnel. — Prime Minister Manmohan Singh addressing Chief Ministers on the challenges Naxalites pose. — Rahul
Dravid, former India Captain currently on tour in Australia. — Aamir Khan, cine star, on his directorial venture, Taare Zameen Par. — Kamal Nath, Union Minister for Commerce and Industry. |
Nandigram and the Left’s decline Events
in Nandigram have shocked most people. The events reflect the deep changes taking place in our politics. It is another watershed, like the Emergency in 1975, the New Economic Policies launched in 1991 and the demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992. Each of them were a reflection of the ongoing changes in Indian society and led to realignments and shifts in the politics of the land. Each of them forced society to rethink and reassess critical aspects of our democracy. What has transpired in Nandigram was not expected in a Left-ruled state. Nandigram also represents the increasing frequency of constitutional breakdown in the country with a ruling party taking the law into its own hands and making the state machinery stand by as a mute spectator. The CM and defenders of the Party are arguing that what happened in Nandigram recently was ‘fair’ or even-handed. They argue that earlier, the anti-CPI (M) people had chased away the CPI (M) supporters from their homes and now it is the other way around. In other words, the recent violence let loose by the CPI (M) cadres is ‘justified’. The West Bengal Governor, who went public with his views about what was happening, was criticised by not only the Government of West Bengal but also by liberals, for constitutional impropriety. The CPI (M) has argued that the SEZ issue was dead after the CM announced in February that the chemical hub would not be set up in Nandigram. They ask, then why were the people of Nandigram area being so militant as to not allow the CPI (M) supporters and the state administration to enter the area till the November episode of forcible entry? The sequence of events suggest that it is not just an issue of some people simply regaining control over their home and hearth from which they had earlier been driven out by some anti-social elements. The issue is one of democratic functioning in the state and the revolt of the people of Nandigram against an insensitive party and an administration coerced by the dominant party in power to act in a partisan manner. Those who revolted against the CPI (M) were its former members who know how the party functions and who did not trust it anymore. The issue is then not one of ‘even handedness’ but of people losing faith in the leadership, a breakdown of democracy and a loss of credibility of the state administration. In a democracy, there can be no justification for the state not to act to protect its citizens. This is true even when the CPI (M) supporters were chased out of their homes earlier. However, there is an asymmetry between what happened earlier when the CPI (M) cadres were chased out and what has happened now. Both the times the state government acted in a partisan manner in favour of the cadres of the ruling party. It is for this reason, an unprecedented one, that the Governor was constrained to speak out. It is clear that in his judgment, a private communication to the CM, who by his own admission was acting in a partisan manner, would have had little effect and the people would have continued to suffer. Is the CPI (M) from now on not going to highlight the problems faced by the people due to the misrule of, say, the Congress? By raising the bogey of the Maoists, the CPI (M) cannot absolve itself of its anti-people acts in Nandigram. The Home Secretary had initially said in November that there was no evidence of presence of Maoists in the area. The party needs to ask why its supporters became its opponents. Finally, reports suggest that the BUP Committee is not just Trinamul or Maoists but a People’s movement. Today, the people of Nandigram are terrorized and those who have visited the area say that there is a deathly silence. People are often afraid to talk since they fear reprisals. Nandigram is a symbol of growing criminalization of our politics. The statements from the CPI (M) leadership exposed their attitude. For instance, one leader suggested that the people opposing them were like ‘insects to be crushed’ (kire makore). Another national leader suggested just a few days before the push to ‘recapture’ the area in November that the opponents be administered ‘Dum Dum Dawai’. No wonder the isolation of the Left parties in the area is such that the local MLA did not visit the area. The strong arm tactics adopted by the CPI (M) is not only to teach the people a lesson and send a message to others that if they oppose the party they would also meet the same fate, but has a link with the coming Panchayat elections in May 2008. A deeper underlying cause of what has transpired in Nandigram (and earlier in Singur) is that the CPI (M) is in a confused state with few principles left to guide its actions. Ideology is being given a go bye for expediency so that narrow considerations dominate. On the economic front, it does not have a development path of its own which it could follow. Hence mistakes are repeatedly being made. The West Bengal government’s push for SEZs is a reflection of its confusion about the development path that would be consistent with its ideology. It is equating industrialisation with big business and large scale industry. Any one suggesting an alternative is dubbed as anti-industry or a Luddite. It does not consider the small scale industry route as a feasible option. Nandigram has become a new symbol of partisonship of a state government and of the extent to which a Left party can act against people struggling for their rights. There are small and big Nandigrams taking place all over the country. Significantly, it represents the culmination of the process of weakening of the Left forces in the country, a process witnessed earlier in Europe and the rest of the world. The most visible example of this is the Labour Party in England. Today, the tragedy is that in spite of the struggles the people are involved in, when the elections come, who do the people vote for? For the same set of political parties and leaders who repress them.n |
|
A step closer to missile defence The DRDO is on a roll. After all the flak that it had received in recent times, it seems it is trying hard to redeem itself and the recent spate of announcements and tests all signal a new resolve. After successfully testing a hypersonic interceptor missile a few days back, came the announcement that India should expect to have its home-grown, militarily usable, missile defence system in three years. It was also declared that India would be improving the range and efficacy of its long-range ballistic missiles, especially focusing on the design of its longest-range ballistic missile, Agni-IV. The hypersonic interceptor missile test consisted of a modified ‘Prithvi’ missile flying in as a hostile missile, with a range of 300-1000 km, fired from the interim test range. Subsequently, this missile was tracked by long-range tracking radar (LRTR), which was developed with Israeli assistance. Finally, the interceptor missile, known as the ‘endo-atmospheric interceptor’ intercepted the hostile missile at 15 km altitude at high supersonic speed to destroy it. Thus, all aspects of Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD), such as Long-Range Tracking Radar, Multi-Function Fire Control Radar, and Mobile Launcher, participated successfully in the mission. This test follows an interception in exo-atmosphere at an altitude of 50 km a few days earlier. It was about a year ago that the missile defense capabilities of the DRDO first came to light and the DRDO now claims that it has the technology to develop a potent missile defence shield for the nation. The ambition is to eventually develop a two-tier ballistic missile defense system that can intercept missiles at both the mid-course and terminal phases. The Advanced Air Defence (AAD-02) missile, as the new interceptor missile is called, is capable of intercepting M-9 and M-11 class of missiles and compares well with the US PAC-3 (Patriot Advanced Capability). In fact, it is being touted as superior to PAC-3 in interception, range and altitude. It remains unclear though what the Indian government’s position is on the issue of missile defence. While the government has continued to allow the DRDO and the armed forces to receive briefings from the US teams, a few weeks back the Indian Foreign Minister was quoted as saying that India does not support the BMD. It seems that the government does not have a well-thought policy on the issue. This lack of clarity is disconcerting because it weakens India’s nuclear deterrence posture. Given India’s No First Use policy, a BMD capability makes sense for India as it will increase the uncertainty for Pakistan’s first strike and reinforces Indian deterrence. India’s test comes at time of great turmoil in neighbouring Pakistan with questions rising about the ability of Pakistani military to control its nuclear and missile assets. It’s prudent to think of a missile defence capability to counter this threat. Unfortunately, the debate on missile defence for India has become a debate about India’s burgeoning ties with the US, as opposed to a serious analysis that flows from India’s own security imperatives. Ideally, India would like to have the know-how that can help in the destruction of hostile missiles, while they are still at the launch pad, as the time taken for a missile launched from the sub-continent to impact India is less than five minutes. Also, from the perspective of nuclear command and control, India should have the ability to shield its ultimate decision-making authority from a bolt-from-the-blue nuclear strike, either through missiles or a low-level penetration aerial strike. A missile defense for India’s national decision-making apparatus, and some part of its retaliatory second-strike capability, would make India’s no-first use posture more credible. It would enhance the uncertainties of India’s potential adversaries, irrespective of the degree of effectiveness of missile interception and would act as a disincentive to their resort to nuclear weapons. This in no way implies that India has crossed all the technological hurdles. The latest test confirms the gradual and steady advances made in the Indian missile program. However, BMD technologies are technically very complex and require a constellation of early-warning sensors for a huge country like India. This also increases the costs associated with building and maintaining such a system. A ballistic missile from Pakistan (Sargodha) would reach India (Delhi) in about 5-7 minutes. The first step here would be to detect the missile once it has been launched. The LRTR, assumed to be placed somewhere near Ambala, can detect the missile a minute and half after it has been launched. This detection would be a preliminary detection. The confirmation of the signal would take longer, creating potential hazards. For instance, in 2003, the advanced version of the Patriot system generated many false radar signals. As the major powers reduce their arsenals missile defence will become increasingly rational. Ultimately, technology will determine whether it will be fully deployed or not, rather than arms control considerations. India cannot afford to be behind in this race but the government will have to come up with a coherent policy on missile defence
first. G. Bharath is a Research Fellow at Cornell University and Harsh V. Pant teaches at King’s College London
|
|
On Record
Veena Nayyar
is the Founder and President of Women’s Political Watch, an international non-government organisation that spearheaded the movement for 33 per cent reservation for women in Parliament and state assemblies. Founded in 1995, the organisation strongly believes that political parties should open their minds to the idea of women in power. The NGO enjoys special consultative status at the ECOSOC (Economic and Social Council of the UN). Nayar holds two postgraduate degrees, one in Business Administration and the other in English literature. She has taught in various institutions and been an entrepreneur. She believes that economic independence is the key to true liberation of women. Excerpts: Q: You have demanded a concrete policy commitment in the Eleventh Five-Year Plan to make women partners in development. What has come out of your representation to the National Development Council? A: If you see the chapter for women in the XIth Plan, women’s development has not been seen within the ambit of the overall plan goal of faster and inclusive growth. The four goals spelt out in the plan are victim-centric. The plan commits to make a provision to reduce the sex ratio, maternal mortality, and the drop-out rate by 10 per cent at the end of the Eleventh Plan, and ensure that at least 33 per cent of women are direct and indirect beneficiaries of all government schemes. Our contention is that women should be accommodated as part of the growth story at a time when the plan is projecting a 9 to 10 per cent GDP growth rate. Q: What are the deficiencies in the Eleventh Plan for women? A: When the government talks of creating 70 million new jobs, they should spell out how they plan to equip women to access these jobs. They have increased the budget for education to 19.8 per cent from 7.8 per cent. We need to know how women will benefit from these. The government should tell us the strategy that it has in mind in a disaggregated way. They cannot ignore hard facts. There is 70 per cent dropout rate of girls at the primary level. The literacy gap between men and women is 21.7 per cent even 60 years after Independence. 191 million women in the country are illiterate according to the 2001 census. There is no strategy and action policy behind the Plan. Q: What about the schemes for women in the Plan? A: Most of the schemes for women are a continuation from the Tenth Plan. If you look at the implementation track record of these schemes you will notice that in all the five schemes, the targets are low compared to the population of women. For example, they were supposed to set up hostels for 12,500 women but they set up hostels only for 6,976 women in the country. The new schemes include provision for maternity benefits and relief and rehabilitation of rape victims. What is lacking is specificity. You cannot hold them to anything. Q: How do you assess the performance of women in the limited work force of the country? A:
About 75 per cent of the women in the work force are stuck in the declining agriculture sector. The contribution of the agriculture sector to the entire GDP is 18 per cent compared to the services sector (50 per cent) and manufacturing sector (30 per cent). The presence of women in these two sectors is negligible. Where is the strategy to move women from the agriculture sector to the manufacturing and services sector? They are training women in peripheral areas such as beauty and haircare and tailoring instead of training them in the rising sectors like IT, BPOs, Aviation and Hospitality. Q: What are the obstacles to empowerment of women? A: There is lack of policy. Women are not a development priority even when they are half a billion -- half of the country’s population. How can you have sustainable development when half of the nation’s population is marginalised? The Eleventh Plan commits to ensuring that at least 33 per cent of women are direct and indirect beneficiaries of all government schemes. The growth of a country is unthinkable if women are left out. Q: Should the women of India forget about the Women’s Reservation Bill? A: How can we forget about it? The Bill’s opponents who believe in monopolising power. There is no way women will give up the struggle for the Bill. Women cannot be limited to just being
voters. |
| 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 | |
Yet, if India produces a motor sport prodigy, it is considered a miracle. Thirty-year-old Narain Karthikeyan is such a wonder, having acquired the reputation of the "fastest Indian on wheels" which he has demonstrated in China last week. He earned India its first-ever A1Grand Prix race win in an incident-packed race at the Zhuhai International Circuit last week.
Camilla is nothing but a decoy, so we are all being used by the man in every sense of the word.
In the name of security I have been put into solitary confinement. I have not done anything wrong. Why should I not be able to meet my friends and relatives in Kolkata.
I am comfortable doing any role that is given to me by the team management. If they feel that the best chance for us to do well here lies in my opening the batting, that is fine with me.
The concept of success in our society has to change. It can no longer be measured by money or social status or marks in class. Every individual is important and special.
India of 2007 is more confident, more enterprising and more competitive. There are, however, a number of issues which the governance of the country has to address and address
quickly.