 |
|
Going berserk in UP Worry over Pak nukes |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Cars for
the people
US at wits’ end
When men
cry
The signal from New
Hampshire Ethnic divide
sharpens in Pakistan Delhi Durbar
|
Going berserk in UP THE situation in the most populous state of the country, Uttar Pradesh, is getting messier. Criminalisation of politics has reached the stage where being a “big leader” only means being a big ruffian. With “bahubalis” emerging as politicians, even political parties are modeled after mafia gangs. It is rare to find a party which does not boast of a large army of musclemen. One will have to really rake one’s brain to recall when he heard a memorable speech in the UP Assembly. But to recall an illegal act by even well-known leaders — if not inside then outside the Vidhan Sabha — one would only have to go back a week or so. Unfortunate that the tension and violence all over the state following the clashes between Samajwadi Party activists and the police are, they are not really a new phenomenon. They are just the manifestation of the antagonistic brand of politics that has come to prevail in many states. Who gets to bear the brunt of police brutality depends on which party happens to be in power. Since they take turns at the treasury benches, they are always eager to take revenge on the rivals. Right now, it is the turn of Chief Minister Mayawati to be a forceful disciplinarian. But it would be desirable if she did not make it into an us-versus-they kind of fight to the finish. Making the police go all out to get the protesters can be as bad as letting loose your own party “workers” on the opponents. If things are this ugly at this stage, one shudders to think what will happen as the Lok Sabha elections draw nearer. It will be self-defeating to continue with this politics of the street, because development work is almost at a standstill. Somebody has to rise to the level of a statesman to break the vicious cycle. Right now, everybody justifies the clashes by saying that the other side started it. Lumpen elements will always lead a party or a government in the direction in which they can dominate. It is for the top leaders to resist their pressure and to set their own course. Such essential course correction cannot wait for even one day more.
|
|
Worry over Pak nukes THE killing of 26 people, mostly policemen, in a suicide bomb blast in Lahore on Thursday can be cited as fresh proof of the escalating extremist violence pushing Pakistan into an abyss of uncertainty. In such a situation, one question that has often been raised is: how safe are Pakistan’s nuclear weapons? One can imagine the consequences of these falling into the hands of extremists. World leaders and security experts have been expressing concern at this looming danger for some time. The latest to voice such concern is Dr Mohamed ElBaradei, chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN nuclear watchdog. The world cannot afford to keep quiet when he says, “I fear that chaos … or an extremist regime could take root in that country which has 30 to 40 warheads.” He has in his mind elements connected with Al-Qaida and the Taliban. Mr ElBaradei is known for his independence of views. His opinion on Iraq under Saddam Hussein, accused of being in possession of nuclear weapons, or the Iranian nuclear issue has been different from that of the US. Again, his stand is contrary to that of the US about the safety of nuclear weapons in Pakistan. Mr ElBaradei is worried, but the George Bush administration reportedly believes that Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is safe at this stage. Of course, only time will tell who is right. It is possible the US is secretly helping Pakistan in ensuring foolproof security of its “strategic assets”. The US has rarely questioned President Pervez Musharraf’s assertion that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are as safe as those of any other nuclear power. The real problem, however, remains unresolved. Pakistan is passing through a period of worst socio-political crisis, particularly after the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. There are areas in the NWFP where Islamabad’s writ does not run. These areas serve as a safe haven for extremists belonging to the Al-Qaida and the Taliban. There is no dearth of sympathisers for the extremists in the Pakistan establishment, including the Army. Is the world ready to tackle the horrifying situation that may come about if President Musharraf happens to lose control over his country?
|
|
Cars for the people THE Tata Group has unveiled Nano, its people’s car, at the 9th Auto Expo that began in New Delhi on Thursday. Priced at Rs 1 lakh, exclusive of taxes, it will be the cheapest car in the world. For comparison, it is half the price of Maruti 800, which has been ruling the roads of India for the last nearly two decades. Nano will be the most affordable four-wheeler, particularly for those using two-wheelers. At this level of price, few companies can compete with Tata, a fact admitted by none other than Maruti Suzuki. Small wonder that car companies the world over have been waiting with bated breath to see whether Tata Group chairman Ratan Tata would be able to deliver on his promise. The Auto Expo has already seen a number of companies, including Maruti Suzuki, Ford, Tata-Fiat, Bajaj and Skoda announcing small cars which will hit the roads in a couple of years. These cars are no patch on Nano in terms of price. They are all in the mid-hatchback segment, i.e. for those who want to graduate from the entry level. There are two main reasons for the car explosion in India. With the Indian economy growing at a double-digit rate, there is a huge potential market for cars in India. Also, India, where the cost of labour is comparatively cheap, can become a major production centre for foreign carmakers. Already, companies like the South Korean Hyundai are exporting cars like Getz, manufactured in India, to all over the world. On the flip side, the new cars will add to the traffic congestion in cities like Delhi and Chandigarh, which have the highest car-resident ratio. There are not enough roads and parking slots to accommodate the ever-increasing number of vehicles. Equally significant, the announcements about the new vehicles have come at a time when the crude oil price has hit the $100 per barrel-mark. This is bound to impact the oil import bill. All this, however, does not detract from the point that the new cars, some of them planned and engineered in India, reflect the technological and economic strength of India and it is, therefore, something to be celebrated, rather than deprecated.
|
|
It is hard for a woman to define her feelings in language which is chiefly made by men to express theirs. — Thomas Hardy
|
US at wits’ end Pakistan’s
post-Benazir scene is becoming more and more dangerous, indeed alarming. Remarkably, like the man responsible for the great and growing turmoil, the recently retired General Pervez Musharraf, his mentor, the United States, is also tormented deeply. Both are groping in the dark even though the objective of both is to prolong President Musharraf’s precarious hold on power. Washington’s relentless drive to arrange a political marriage of sorts between Pakistan People’s Party leader Benazir Bhutto and President Musharraf was based on the calculation that while the retired General alone would not be able to stabilise the country, a partnership between him and her might. This plan, dubious at the best of times, now lies buried at Larkana. It is against this backdrop that the latest Pakistani developments fall into place. One of these is President Musharraf’s belated and grudging admission that Benazir Bhutto might have been shot dead. Up to now he and his tainted administration had been insisting that no shots were fired. Clear and convincing evidence to the contrary has demolished their false claim. Yet, Mr Musharraf curiously asserts still that Benazir was “responsible for her own death” though he does not explain how the AK-47-wielding assailant could get to the slain leader at point blank range. No wonder, a majority of Pakistanis believes that the government had a hand in Benazir’s elimination. Her son, Bilawal, said this in so many words at his maiden Press conference in England. It has also not gone unnoticed that while Mr Musharraf did not display even the elementary courtesy of making any gesture to the bereaved family, the new Chief of the Army Staff, Gen Ashfaque Pervaiz Kiyani, conspicuously sent a wreath. Seasoned observers are watching carefully how the new relationship between the civilian President and the new Army Chief develops. As The New York Times has reported, the White House and the Pentagon are already looking on General Kiyani as Pakistan’s “new hope”. Closely linked to this and crucially important is the second development — the dynastic succession to Benazir, so manipulated by the family that the PPP’s leadership has passed from the late Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto’s slain daughter to her widower, Mr Asif Ali Zardari, via Bilawal. During the young man’s absence at Oxford, Mr Zardari would be a regent of sorts to his son. He has already started comparing his role to that of Mrs Sonia Gandhi in this country. But so malodorous is his image that even in the midst of genuine and widespread grief over Benazir’s assassination, people in Pakistan are joking that “Mr 10 Per Cent would soon become Mr 20 per cent”. The third major new development, not sufficiently noticed yet, is arguably the most significant in some respects. It is the forced resignation of the Governor of the North- West Frontier Province, retired Lieutenant-General Ali Mohammed Jan Orakzai. Whatever the pretence, the reality is that President Musharraf has had to ease Mr Orakzai out at America’s behest. This is so because Mr Orakzai, a Pushtun and a former Commander of the Peshawar Corps, has been the author of the policy of negotiating with the tribal leaders in Waziristan and other lands along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. He has been totally opposed to Pakistani military action in Waziristan or elsewhere, and this understandably infuriated the Americans. Interestingly, the mutual dislike of Mr Orakzai and the Americans was heightened when, during a visit to the US, he was strip-searched before being allowed in! Mr Orakzai’s removal has coincided smack with the publication of reports in respected American newspapers that the US military and the CIA are planning to embark on unilateral covert action against the Taliban and Mr Al-Qaeda in Pakistan’s borderlands. The official spokesman of the Pakistani Foreign Office has expectedly declared that this was not at all acceptable. But all this could be a smokescreen for what is really afoot. If the Americans had come to the conclusion that they must take unilateral covert action on Pakistani soil, they wouldn’t have advertised their intention on the front pages of leading newspapers. Their concern about the future of Pakistan, especially about the danger of the Islamist fundamentalism spreading from the borderlands to the heartland of the country, is genuine. As is their fear that jihadi terrorists might gain control of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. But none of these causes is served by clinging to Mr Musharraf. A prominent Democrat, Mr Peter Galbraith, is on firmer ground when he demands that the US should stop considering Pakistan’s “discredited dictator” a “key ally” in the “war on terror” but should dump him at once and let Pakistan elect a civilian government freely. Yet, the moronic “neo-conservatives” in the dying Bush administration continue to regard President Musharraf as their “best bet”. Even they are aware that Mr Musharraf has been playing both ends of the street — helping the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan and occasionally arresting an Al-Qaeda leader and handing him over to the Americans. Even so, while remonstrating with him in private, they have been praising him in public. Now necessity appears to have made them partners again in an interesting crime. The Americans realise that in order to get a hung National Assembly that would enable him to remain dominant as a civilian President acceptable to the army, Mr Musharraf would have to be allowed to rig the February 18 elections up to a point. Evidently, they would let him do so and ask of a quid pro quo: joint military action in tribal areas by Pakistan and the US forces. From all accounts, President Musharraf has promised to work with the Americans as required. But it is certain that he would renege on his promise after his purpose has been served. After all, as respected Pakistani commentator Ahmed Rashid has pointed out, in relation to the vigorous American campaign to promote a Benazir-Musharraf power sharing compromise, President Musharraf “fooled both Benazir and the Americans”. Moreover, there can’t be “limited rigging”, just as there cannot be limited pregnancy. From Kenya to Georgia, consequences of rigged polls are becoming clear as daylight. In Pakistan itself, Zulfi Bhutto eventually paid for rigging with his life. Mr Musharraf is thus impaled on the horns of a painful dilemma. If he doesn’t rig the elections, the newly elected assembly could impeach him; if he does rig them he might invite an explosion in a country already on the brink. In short, he is damned if he does, and he is damned if he
doesn’t.
|
When men cry My
teenaged son had been the undefeated champion in the 100 metre dash for the last three years. Every year, after the sports day finale, when we went to collect him from the stands, his chest covered in gold and silver medals, it was evident that the medal that brought him the most satisfaction was the dash. On the D-Day this year, instead of the sports staff, the school had engaged professionals to identify the winners in each race. They stood confused, being nudged by the students holding the finishing tape, the official photographers, and eager parents being shooed away by stern school marms. Our son ran a magnificent race in the outermost lane. We watched him take the lead and maintain it to the finish. As we waited for him to take the victory stand along came the googly. We watched in surprise and dismay as the so-called professionals completely ignored him and put him nowhere among the top three. This was not a case of “participating and losing” but of “winning and losing”. Whatever happened, was all we could ask in shocked dismay. While we as parents were outraged what of the child who had run and won? The school staff, sensing the little commotion, stepped in with its damage control. “We shall look into it”. “Rest assured, we shall see that justice is done”. While our senses rankled at the injustice done, what of the young man-child? School rules did not permit parents to have any contact with the child until after the function. But his teachers later told us he cried. For a teenager there is nothing more sissy than tears. He would rather be caught with his pants down, than with tears in his eyes. Feeling let down, vulnerable, and despondent, our son wept like a baby. His slight, weary face awash with saline, his bewhiskered teenaged cheeks furrowed with fat tears. It was a measure of his dejection and disappointment that he succumbed to the tears he so despised and did not run the next event. I remember responding to a senior officer’s diktat with a “…but that’s not fair” remark, only to be snubbed with the cynical response of, “…it’s an unfair world, and I am surprised that you have come this far without realising it”. This was how my husband responded as did indeed some of the teachers there: No platitudes, the world is a harsh, unfair place and the sooner our children learn this, the better for them. With all of them, I beg to disagree. Childhood and innocence deserve to be cherished. Our children need to be nurtured in an atmosphere where righteousness, fairplay and integrity rule their little worlds, so that they grow up believing that justice and truth always prevail and that wrongs will be righted. Only then will they emerge strong, brave and armed to face the onslaughts of unfair reality. Only then will they be audacious and indeed courageous enough to pick up the gauntlet to constantly challenge and fashion a better reality. To allow the cynicism of an unfair world to scar their childhood, is to crush their idealism in the bud and train them to submit to the status quo and the dumb charades that we as adults acquiesce
in.
|
The signal from New Hampshire
What
happened? Even in this roller coaster US presidential campaign that admits of no pause, let us stop for a moment to wonder how on earth Hillary Clinton pulled out the win over Barack Obama in the New Hampshire primary that almost certainly saved her candidacy from collapse. It wasn’t only the polls and pundits that were confounded. So too were the Clinton and Obama campaigns. Both were openly expecting an Obama victory. She was poised to shake up her team of advisers, and already pleading with all-important financial backers to keep the faith. He was a candidate transformed by his success in Iowa’s caucuses a few days before, not so much a man as a movement, that would sweep all before for it. “Something’s happening,” Obama would say, too confidently sensing a tidal wave of support that would sweep him all the way to the White House. Then came the juddering shock of Tuesday, of which neither anecdotal evidence nor the final polling gave the slightest forewarning. But the lesson is clear. In politics, if not in nature, tidal waves can be halted. But again, how? I’m sure that the moment, shown again and again on TV, when the eyes of America’s Iron Lady welled with tears, and her voice choked, had something to do with it. We knew she was tough, and fearsomely competent. But now the woman who never let her emotions show, had proved she was as human as the rest of us. Maybe this in turn caused women voters, one of Hillary’s core constituencies, to return to the fold, after their flirtation with Obama in Iowa. Undoubtedly, the powerful counter-attraction of the Republican John McCain to independents, who can vote in either primary in New Hampshire, also played a part. Had McCain not been fighting for his own political life, independents might have voted overwhelming for Obama, just as they did in Iowa. But I see it in classic historical terms. An ornery and contrarian little state has again done its appointed job. The New Hampshire primary is so important because its voters take their role so seriously. They hate being told what to do, they hate being seen as predictable. Instead their collective judgement has sent a message for which America should be profoundly grateful. In 1968, New Hampshire told Lyndon Johnson the game was up. In 1992 it awarded Bill Clinton a second-place finish, urging the rest of the country that for all his sins, the then Arkansas governor was worth another look. A third example was 2000. By giving McCain a massive upset primary victory over George W Bush, they gave the latter a taste of defeat – and sent America a warning. Don’t blame New Hampshire that the country didn’t listen. This time the message is no less precious. By rescuing Hillary Clinton at the eleventh hour, New Hampshire has served notice that an Obama coronation – which a victory for the Illinois Senator would probably have guaranteed – would be as unhealthy for the US democratic process as the Clinton glide to victory that for most of last year seemed pre-ordained. Barack Obama may yet win the nomination. His life story is inspiring. The hope and excitement he generates, not least among young people, is remarkable. So is his extraordinary appeal across traditional political divides, and his ability to make the country feel good about itself at a moment of extreme doubt and self-searching. All of the above remains true, unaffected by one very narrow loss (which the polls incidentally were exactly predicting, until Iowa rudely intervened), and Hillary Clinton cannot match them. But all of the above has also meant Obama has been given kid-glove treatment by the media. To read about him in the past few days, he comes across as a mix of Martin Luther King, JFK and Mahatma Gandhi. If that’s still not enough star power, throw in a dash of George Clooney for good measure. But thanks to the absence of scrutiny, Obama is still a largely unknown quantity. Strip away the fuzzy feel-good rhetoric and the substance of what he says is pretty banal. Yes, as Hillary found out, experience and mastery of the issues are not everything. But the notion of someone with just three years on the national stage as a US senator (and not a very distinguished senator at that) being catapulted into the most important job in the world, no questions asked, was always as absurd as an effortless dynastic restoration, achieved by a woman whose main claim to fame was being married to Bill Clinton. New Hampshire has made sure neither will happen. Yes, American presidential election campaigns go on for ever, and cost an obscene amount of money. But they are protracted and all-examining for a good reason – to provide the fullest possible audition of a candidate for a job for which no previous training can ever quite prepare him (or her). Now, this confused and exhilarating campaign is even more confused and exhilarating than ever. On both sides, there is an embarrassment of riches, and also of possibilities. In Clinton and Obama, Democrats have two exceptionally strong candidates. And for all the grumbling at the Republican field, it too is pretty impressive. We have a principled and independent-minded war hero in John McCain, who was counted among the political dead until his own resounding victory in New Hampshire. There is a proven big city mayor (Rudolph Giuliani), a former successful state governor and businessman (Mitt Romney), and an engaging Christian conservative populist (Mike Huckabee) – to name just the four leading candidates. None of them is perfect. But each has a chance of winning the nomination. Whatever else, you can’t complain of a lack of choice. On the Democratic side, matters will probably be settled in the next four weeks, above all on 5 February when 22 states vote. But so scrambled is the Republican field that we may well be treated to the forgotten thrill of a brokered convention, when the party gathers in Minneapolis in early September with its choice of nominee still in doubt. Predictions are impossible, but I’ll make one nonetheless. There won’t be a third-party candidate. The results in New Hampshire have scotched that possibility. Having written that of course, and given what happened in New Hampshire, I’ve probably made sure that Bloomberg will enter the fray. 2008 is that sort of year. By arrangement with
The Independent
|
|
Ethnic divide sharpens in Pakistan KARACHI – To Khaled Chema, an unemployed 32-year-old living in a sprawling slum of this mega-city by the sea, Benazir Bhutto wasn’t assassinated because she opposed extremism and advocated democracy. She was killed because, like him, she was a Sindhi. And just as her father did before her, Bhutto died a long way from home – in the back yard of the Punjabi establishment. Her assassination has inflamed long-simmering resentments among ethnic minorities toward the dominant Punjabis. In Pakistan – a federation of four provinces, each associated with a different ethnic group – the issue of ethnic identity has long been troublesome, imperiling the unity of the state. In Baluchistan, many people are in open revolt. Pashtuns in North-West Frontier Province have joined their clansmen on the Afghan side of the border in a bloody insurgency against both governments. Now, Bhutto’s assassination in Rawalpindi, a key city in Punjab province and the home of the military, has endangered the uneasy balance in which Sindhis suppressed their ethnic-nationalist desires because they knew that one of their own was among the most popular politicians in the country. At Bhutto’s funeral in rural Sindh province last month, there was hardly a Pakistani flag to be seen, and Sindhi mourners chanted, “We don’t need Pakistan!” Sindhis also attacked Punjabi targets in the three days of rioting that followed news of her killing. Meanwhile, some here in Karachi, capital of Sindh province, are threatening to wage war against the Pakistani army unless Sindhis win more power in elections scheduled for next month. Punjabis have long been overrepresented in the army, which is widely blamed here for Bhutto’s death, despite the government’s insistence that Islamic extremists were responsible. “The army is unable to work in Baluchistan and the North-West Frontier Province. Sindh is next,” said Bashir Ahmal Haleemi, a trucker and longtime Karachi resident. “The people in Sindh hate the Punjabi establishment. Not the common man from Punjab, but the Punjabi factor in the army. Now the hatred is growing.” President Pervez Musharraf has acknowledged the backlash, appealing for calm in a nationwide address Wednesday and reaching out “especially to my Sindhi brothers and sisters.” Pakistan was cobbled together more than 60 years ago as a homeland for Muslims of the Indian subcontinent. While religion was a common bond, the country’s multilingual and multiethnic nature has never been successfully addressed by any of its leaders. The ethnic strife peaked in 1971, when Bengalis revolted and Pakistan split in half with the creation of Bangladesh. Few believe the country is in imminent danger of fracturing again. But Bhutto’s death has exacerbated ethnic tension in at least two ways: It has angered non-Punjabis because of her status as a member of a minority, and it has eliminated one of the few Pakistani politicians whose reputation transcended ethnicity. At a time of constant upheaval in Pakistan, when religion, education levels and party affiliation are all sources of conflict, ethnic identity is just one more layer of division. Asma Jahangir, an internationally renowned human rights advocate, said she first grasped the depth of the current ethnic tension when she attended Bhutto’s funeral and heard crowds at the airport shouting at soldiers: “Leave Sindh! We don’t want to be part of you! You can keep your generals!” “It’s an extremely fearful atmosphere in Pakistan,” Jahangir said. “There is terrible resentment in Sindh, and if Musharraf’s government stays it will just keep getting worse. I have never been this pessimistic. I have never been this depressed about Pakistan.” Bhutto herself believed ardently in the unity of Pakistan and enjoyed nationwide support. While other parties appealed to particular ethnic groups, her Pakistan People’s Party had backing across the country. After her return from exile in October, she crisscrossed Pakistan. The crowds were especially large in her native Sindh, but they were sizable in the other provinces, too. Bhutto’s successors at the head of the party now have to strike a difficult balance, acknowledging the anger felt by Sindhis but also preventing that anger from becoming so strong that it makes other ethnic groups feel unwelcome. “She was the leader of Pakistan, but she belonged to Sindh,” said Nasreen Chandio, a lawmaker from the Pakistan People’s Party in Karachi. “Now the people of Sindh have become orphans.” Chandio said calls for a separate Sindhi nation have grown among her constituents since Bhutto’s death, “but we respect her will to unite the federation, despite all of our anger.” Sherry Rehman, spokeswoman for the party, said party leaders have been “appealing to our Sindhi supporters not to blame the Punjabis, to see them as our brothers,” adding, “We are seeking to unite the country.” But that will be difficult. Resentment of Punjab is widespread in the other provinces, which feel they supply more than their fair share of natural resources and get little in return from the Punjabis, who run the army and, by extension, the country. “Pakistan is like a house,” said Haleemi, the trucker. “It was established for us. But when the army was building it, they didn’t give us any choices. They chose the color of the carpet, the design of the kitchen, the style of the windows. We have to live there, but they make all the selections.” Some believe the only solution is for Sindh to break away from Pakistan and form its own nation, but the more common view is that Sindh, Baluchistan and North-West Frontier Province only need greater autonomy from the central government. Emily Wax in Lahore, Imtiaz Ali in Peshawar and Robert E. Thomason in Washington contributed to this report. By arrangement with
LA Times-Washington Post
|
|
Delhi Durbar UP Chief Minister Mayawati is on luncheon diplomacy these days. Though she avoids mediapersons and declines to give interviews, she takes care to treat them to dinner and lunches. The other day, when she decided to launch a salvo against the Congress and the UPA from the national capital, she first invited journalists in Lucknow for dinner. She observed that though she has nothing special by way of information for the media, she wanted them to enjoy dinner from a five star hotel. Similarly, she told mediapersons the next day in Delhi that they should enjoy the wide spread and refrain from asking questions beyond her main focus of charging the Congress and the UPA of being involved in hatching a conspiracy aimed at eliminating her physically.
Abdullah’s advice Former Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Farooq Abdullh, who is a cricket enthusiast, was among the few political leaders who advocated India’s pulling out of the Australian cricket tour if the BCCI’s concerns over poor umpiring coupled with the decision against Harbhajan Singh in the controversial Sydney test were not met. Abdullah, who was in the capital on Monday to take part in a meeting with leaders of the fledgling UNPA, felt it was a question of the country’s honour and the BCCI should take a firm stand.
Freeloaders Come the exhibition season and out come the free loaders who claim to be journalists and crowd the arenas. The start of Auto-Expo 2008 has been no different. While genuine scribes had a real struggle on their hands even to get hold of the press release, the free loaders had a whale of a time collecting the innumerable takeaways that were being distributed by the car manufacturers displaying their new models. Whether it was Maruti Suzuki India limited, General Motors, Skoda India or Honda Scooters. the PR agencies handling the press conferences found things going horribly wrong in identifying whether the journalists were genuine or fake. The end result was bedlam and complete confusion.
RJD’s troubles The results of the Lok Sabha byelection in Bikramganj have come as a shock for the RJD, which had put in a lot of effort to get the seat back from the JD (U). The RJD, which wanted the bypoll result to signal that the party was on the comeback trail in Bihar, will have to wait for another opportunity. The Nitish Kumar government in the state has won all the six byelections since it came to power about two years ago. The RJD’s cause has not been helped by Ram Vilas Paswan’s Lok Janshakti party, which has toed an independent line in the state. Contributed by Satish Misra, Prashant Sood and Girja Shankar Kaura
|
| 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 | |
