 |
|
Intolerance unlimited SC message timely |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Veteran’s dilemma
Parliament vs judiciary
Fair bargain
Asian ascendancy is inevitable On the road to democracy Chatterati
|
Intolerance unlimited TODAY, it seems like a worn-out fairytale that Indian culture has been marked by abundant tolerance. We are moving in the opposite direction. As a people, we are perpetually on a short fuse and are willing to protest about virtually everything under the sun. One day, it is about “historical inaccuracies” in a purely fictional film like “Jodha Akbar”. Yesterday, it was about Taslima Nasreen’s writing. The day before, it was the paintings of M.F. Hussain which “hurt the sentiments” of a community. In a democracy, protest is an established form of dissent, but not necessarily the violence and the unwillingness to accept the other persons’ right to dissent. The point is why governments at the Centre and in the states have often to succumb to the pressure tactics so miserably. Whenever a mob wants to hijack reasoning, the state governments and sometimes the Centre take the line of least resistance, and lend a helping hand to the elements who want to force their prejudices on others in society. It can be terribly frustrating for all right-thinking persons when the rule of unreason and set beliefs is allowed to prevail under threat and intimidation. Things go completely out of hand when the governments themselves become an accomplice in this psychology. Remember the way the films of Aamir Khan were targeted in Gujarat when he “dared” to utter a few words against the Narmada dam? That was a mobocracy at its worst and the Modi government looked the other way. Every such incident encourages lumpen elements to go even further. The irony is that at times even the lower judiciary also falls a prey to their machinations. There are always professional petitioners who are willing to file one PIL or the other for the sake of their 15 minutes of notoriety. Every time a film or a book does well, there will be tens of cases being filed against it across the country. Their sole aim is to either gain cheap publicity or to harass the film-maker or a writer into making some settlement out of court. Despite the Supreme Court warning the subordinate judiciary not to entertain PILs bordering on the trivial, the menace continues. It seems the dice is loaded all the way in favour of the rowdies and not in favour of free expression and dissent that are the salt of democracy.
|
|
SC message timely THE Supreme Court has rightly denounced Maharashtra Navnirman Sena leader Raj Thackeray’s brand of politics and warned that balkanisation of the country will never be allowed. A three-member Bench consisting of Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, Justice R.V. Raveendran and Justice Markandey Katju has ruled that Raj Thackeray’s sons-of-the-soil theory was repugnant to the Constitution and hence totally unacceptable. Going a step further, Justice Katju said that “we are one nation” and the MNS leader had no right to systematically target North Indians in Mumbai. The Bench may have refused to pass any direction to the Maharashtra government fixing accountability on Raj Thackeray and his goons for the recent violence perpetrated by them in Mumbai, Nashik, Aurangabad and other places. However, significantly, it underlined every citizen’s constitutional right to move, reside and work in any part of the country. This should be reason enough to goad Raj and his men to shun their politics of hate and violence. One cannot find fault with the apex court for having expressed its inability to entertain a public interest litigation either to derecognise the MNS as a political party or direct the Maharashtra government to award compensation to the victims of violence. The Election Commission and the state government are the appropriate authorities to deal with such matters, it ruled. At the same time, the Bench clarified that if the state government failed to address the issue of compensation, the petitioners could knock at the doors of the Bombay High Court. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court’s strong repudiation of the ways of Raj Thackeray is in sharp contrast to the total failure of the law and order machinery when the MNS activists attacked innocent taxi drivers and rehriwallahs. While the police looked the other way, the Chief Minister and his mandarins abdicated their responsibility to protect the life and property of Mumbaikars. Even Raj Thackeray’s belated arrest was a farce. Continued police bias and governmental inaction will only encourage an outfit like the MNS (or even the Shiv Sena) to behave as a state within a state and challenge the rule of law and the authority of the government. The sooner these outfits act in accordance with the Supreme Court’s message, the better it will be for the country.
|
|
Veteran’s dilemma IN these times, the inimitable T.N. Seshan had once said, the only titans left are watches. Debatable as that may be, few would disagree that Jyoti Basu, unarguably, is the nearest this country has to a political titan; a colossus who strides the political stage unwithered by time and age. Nothing testifies to this more than the fact that the CPM, even under a new-generation leadership, is most reluctant to let Mr Basu retire officially. At 94, the veteran Marxist, who had stepped down as West Bengal Chief Minister in 2000, has asked that he be relieved of membership of the party’s Politburo on grounds of age and health. Whether the party bows to the stalwart’s wishes this time — as it had failed to oblige Mr Basu when he had made a similar request in the past — is immaterial, given his legendary influence over the CPM, which is less than half his age. It may appear paradoxical that the party, which accords primacy to ideology over individuals and policies over personalities, should set such store by Mr Basu. The fact is that he is not a cult figure, but a much-respected patrician who holds sway over differing groups within the party and, at the same time, commands national respect across the political spectrum. During his long innings at the helm of the Left Front in West Bengal, he reined in the hotheads, bridged differences within the state unit, between the state and the Kerala units and, in times of crisis, prevailed with his line at the national level. Of course, the one time he could not stand taller than the party was the “historical blunder”, when the CPM leadership vetoed the proposal of his choice as Prime Minister. Mr Basu and Mr Harkishen Singh Surjeet are the only two members in the CPM Politburo from the time the party was formed in 1964. These two, with their enormous trans-party influence and acceptance to even sections that have been traditionally hostile to the Left, represent a pragmatic facet the party needs at all times; especially in times of coalition politics at the Centre. With Mr Surjeet no longer active, letting Mr Basu also retire would change more than just the profile of the Politburo.
|
|
A difference of taste in jokes is a great strain on the affections. — George Eliot
|
Parliament vs judiciary
PROTECTION and promotion of the people’s democratic rights have been one of the prime objectives of our freedom struggle. Our founding fathers ensured that certain rights, which should be inalienable to all citizens, are protected against state infringement by their incorporation into the list of rights recognised as fundamental by the Constitution, subject to certain defined reasonable restrictions, and insulated them against unauthorised infringement from any quarter. They also provided that in the protection of the rights germane to a democracy and other elaborate and constitutionally guaranteed rights of the people, all the three organs of the State — the legislature, the judiciary and the executive — would have their distinct roles to play. The doctrine of separation of powers is an inseparable part of the evolution of democracy itself. It provides for checks and balances among the organs of the State. Supreme Court Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan says, “the Constitution lays down the structure and defines the limits and demarcates the role and function of every organ of the state, including the judiciary, and establishes norms for their inter-relationships, checks and balances.” Our great leaders who framed the Constitution were able to foresee that excessive power, if vested with any of the three organs of State, could possibly lead to unwarranted situations of conflict, which could compromise the quality and content of our democracy itself. Accordingly, they visualised that all organs of the State would need to co-exist harmoniously in a joint and participatory role and with mutual respect among them so that they could work in a smooth and coordinated manner in the areas demarcated for them for the larger national weal. In our constitutional scheme, there is no exclusive primacy for any one organ nor will it have absolute power, which is anathema to democracy, as former CJI Justice J.S. Verma has observed. As the Constitution ordains, it is Parliament that enacts laws; the executive implements them; and the judiciary is the independent authority interpreting them. Thus, Parliament has been entrusted with the task of formulating the legislative policies and making laws to give effect to the same and it is for the executive to enforce them. Our Constitution-makers ensured that the people’s rights were preserved and protected effectively against any legislative or executive excesses. With this objective in mind, the judiciary has been conferred power to decide about the validity of the laws passed by Parliament, apart from deciding disputes between the citizens according to the laws of the land. The scope of judicial review is confined to see whether the impugned legislation falls within the legislature’s competence or is consistent with the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution and its other mandatory provisions. The Constitution contemplates that the courts will only interpret and scrutinise the constitutionality or validity of laws and executive action and not decide what the law should be. It was explicitly stated in the Constituent Assembly that the doctrine of judicial independence was not to enable the judiciary to function as a kind of a “super legislature” or a “super executive”. To quote Jawaharlal Nehru’s wise and profound observations in the Constituent Assembly: “No Supreme Court and no judiciary can stand in judgement over the sovereign will of Parliament representing the will of the entire community. If we go wrong here and there, it can point it out, but in the ultimate analysis, where the future of the community is concerned, no judiciary can come in the way…ultimately the fact remains that the legislature must be supreme and must not be interfered with by the court of law in measures of social reforms.” The preference for legislative pre-eminence in parliamentary democracy is an offshoot of the basic postulate of constitutional supremacy. By its very representative character, in a democracy, no organ other than the legislature is better placed to understand the people’s priorities. The framers of our Constitution also took great care to provide for an independent and impartial judiciary as the interpreter of the Constitution and as the custodian of the rights of the citizens. The judiciary has earned the people’s respect and confidence for the manner in which it has been discharging its duties and functions, particularly, its paramount function of judicial review. The Supreme Court has itself construed that the concept of separation of powers is a “basic feature” of the Constitution. Thus, each organ of the State has separate areas of functioning into which no other organ can enter or intervene, unless permitted by the Constitution itself, and if it so does, it will be contrary to one of the “basic features” of the Constitution, including the judiciary. The Constitution contemplates “judicial review” and not “judicial activism” which is of recent coinage and extends, as one finds, much beyond review. It does not contemplate a super-organ nor does it confer an overriding authority on any one organ. No organ has any power to superintend over the exercise of powers and functions of another unless the Constitution strictly so mandates. The Jagadambika Pal case of 1998, involving the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly, and the Jharkhand Assembly case of 2005 are two glaring examples of deviations from the clearly provided constitutional scheme of separation of powers. The interim order of the Supreme Court in these two cases upset the delicate constitutional balance between the judiciary and the legislature. These were instances of unfortunate intrusion by the Supreme Court into well-demarcated areas of powers of the legislatures, contrary to the provisions of Articles 122 and 212 of the Constitution. Justice Verma has recently described the orders in the UP and Jharkhand cases as judicial aberrations and has expressed his hope that the Supreme Court would soon correct them. There is some cynicism among our people about the way our institutions function, particularly Parliament and the executive. Many a time the judiciary is applauded for its interventions in forcing the executive to do or restrain it from doing certain things. People appreciate it, at least, that is what the media reports. Criticisms of the executive and legislatures from time to time have been made from the Bench in very strong words while hearing what are described as public interest litigations. The contention that the judiciary should take on itself the onerous responsibility of the country’s governance, in matters which the Constitution has imposed on either the executive or legislature, has serious implications. Administration of justice derives its strength only from the people’s confidence in the system. The loss of that confidence can lead to instability and threaten the edifice of democracy. The most important way in which the judiciary can maintain the people’s confidence is by providing speedy and effective justice to them. Ultimately, all constitutional entities — be it the legislature, the executive or the judiciary — should ever remain sensitive both to the Constitution that created them and to the people’s hopes and aspirations for safeguarding their interests and rights. While considering the respective role and relevance of two of the fundamental organs of governance in a democracy, the legislature and the judiciary, we have to weigh them against this yardstick. In a democracy, the biggest safeguard against the arbitrary exercise of power by people’s institutions is the vigilance of the people
themselves. The article has been excerpted from the N.L. Belekar Memorial Lecture on “The role of legislature and judiciary in protecting and enhancing the people’s rights in our democracy” delivered by the Lok Sabha Speaker at a function organised by the High Court Bar Association, Nagpur, on February 18.
|
Fair bargain EVEN up to the late-1970s, one could see quaint small cars
like Hillmans, Morris Minors and Chryslers on the roads of Calcutta. There was also a sprinkling of Austin Sevens, called Baby Austins in common parlance. These were the cutest contraptions on four wheels and calling them small is being too generous. When my friend Rohan graduated from his humble two-wheeler Lambretta
to an equally humble four-wheeler, it was undoubtedly an occasion
calling for some celebration. I do not know how much money changed hands but the bargain that
he struck with one Mr Thomas, an old Anglo-Indian gentleman, for his meticulously maintained Baby Austin
was satisfying to both. After his retirement from Cossipore Gun & Shell Factory, Mr Thomas was migrating to Australia with his wife and had to leave behind his most treasured possession. Then one day at Chowringhee, a gleaming Mercedes pulled up beside Rohan’s Baby Austin parked opposite Metro cinema. The gentleman was charmed. The shining winged fairy mascot above the radiator grill was
fascinating. Eureka! That’s what he had been looking for to participate in the forthcoming annual vintage car rally organised by The
Statesman. Without mincing words, he directly came to the point. He offered an Ambassador car, said to be in excellent condition,
in exchange for the little wonder. Needless to say, the offer was too lucrative to be missed. Rohan accepted the offer on the spot. It was a
windfall for my friend who suddenly became the proud owner of a current model,
still seen on Indian roads. Ever since his new acquisition, he had been itching for a long
drive. On a pleasant Sunday morning, from his Dum Dum road residence in north Calcutta, he first drove
to the meandering Hooghly to savour the fresh riverside breeze. Then passing by the side of Fort William and Victoria Memorial, he called on a
friend in south Calcutta who, wide-eyed, listened to the car’s interesting story, not so much like the rags-to-riches one but verily Rohan’s own brand of a
fairy tale. Rohan continued to drive aimlessly till late in the evening. Finding an empty road, he would accelerate to feel the power of the engine and then slow down. It was late in the evening when he decided to return
home. From the arterial road, he took a short cut. Then it happened. Suddenly, without warning the engine groaned and sputtered.
The car stopped at a secluded spot. Rohan tried hard to restart the engine but
failed. Feeling tired, he walked over to the main road to get a mechanic.
But no help was available as most shops had closed. He returned to make renewed efforts to revive the stalled car. One by one he started checking the fan-belt, battery wiring, spark plugs and the
carburettor. Just then there was some commotion from the rear. He straightened himself and was
astonished to find a man bending over the wheel. Rohan shouted at the man, “What the hell you are doing?” While moving to
the other wheel, the man uttered, “Shh! Don’t be stupid. You may remove the battery, I am only taking away the
hub-caps.”
|
Asian ascendancy is inevitable
WE are entering a new era of world history: the end of Western domination and the arrival of the Asian century. The question is: Will Washington wake up to this reality? When the new US president meets with schedulers in January, will he or she say, “Cut down on the visits to Europe. Send me across the Pacific, not the Atlantic. The G-8 represents a sunset process. Let us focus on the new sunrise organizations in Asia.” If such a shift seems inconceivable, it shows how much old mental maps continue to cloud the vision of leading Americans. The West has so dominated world history for the past 200 years that we forget that from the year 1 to the year 1820, the two largest economies in the world (as demonstrated by British economic historian Angus Maddison) were China and India. A study by Goldman Sachs in 2003 confidently predicted that by 2050 the four largest economies in the world will be China, the United States, India and Japan, in that order. A more recent evaluation by Goldman Sachs showed that this could happen sooner and that the Indian economy could surpass that of the United States by 2043. The changes will be dramatic and happen quickly. Economist and former US Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers put it this way: During the Industrial Revolution, the standard of living rose at a rate of maybe 50 percent during a person’s life span. Asia’s current growth rate represents an unprecedented 100-fold (that is, 10,000 percent) rise in standards of living during one lifetime. The paradox about the American inability to recognise this great shift is that the United States has done more than any other country to spark this Asian revival. In the 19th-century era of European domination, Asia was subjugated and colonized. As the United States became the dominant power, Asia progressively was liberated. More important, before World War II, conquest and/or colonization were the only ways for a nation to expand its power and influence. With the creation of the United Nations in 1945 and the formulation of the rules of trade that followed – efforts advanced by the United States – a country could grow its economy without conquering new territory. This rules-based system leveled the international playing field, allowing nations such as Japan and Germany to economically re-emerge without massive disruption to the world order. In this century, it may be China and India that peaceably emerge as world powers. That would be a historic achievement. All previous shifts in global power (with the sole exception of the transition from Pax Britannica to Pax Americana) have been accomplished through conflict. In the 21st century, we will have a great opportunity to avoid this – if we continue to abide by the 1945 rules. One key element of this 1945 package is trade liberalisation, an approach the world has sustained since the creation of the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs, or GATT, in 1947. Unfortunately, calls for protectionism are rising in the United States and Europe. CNN’s Lou Dobbs has created a cottage industry by railing against unfair Asian competition. Similar voices are emerging in Europe. The first line of defense against any potential shock to the global economy is to resist these calls for protectionism. The defeat of the populist and protectionist John Edwards in the Democratic presidential primaries fortunately shows that the United States is still resisting the slide down the slippery slope of protectionism. At the same time, as new Asian powers emerge, the architecture of the world order will have to be re-engineered. Take the case of the two most powerful international economic organizations of the world, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. There is a 60-year-old tradition that the head of the IMF has to be a European and the head of the World Bank an American, a practice reaffirmed by appointments in 2007. Representatives of Asian nations, which make up the majority of the world’s population, do not qualify. But Asia is now home to the world’s fastest-growing economies, which have accumulated more than $3 trillion in foreign reserves. It is absurd to exclude Asians from the leadership of the IMF and the World Bank. Such anachronistic policies must be discarded if we are to engineer a smooth transition to the Asian century. Similarly, the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council (which has the capacity to make decisions binding on all countries) should reflect the great powers of the future, not the victors of World War II. One simple, common-sense step would be to have a single European Union seat on the council in place of two seats for Britain and France, as there will be a single EU foreign policy in January 2009. In private, virtually all thoughtful observers agree that this is the only logical solution. In public, no American policymaker dares ruffle feathers across the Atlantic. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is absolutely right when he says that change is imperative. In our lifetime, as Summers has indicated, we will see more change than in any previous era. So, will the United States, under its new president, be a force for change and forge new relationships across the Pacific? Or will it become an obstacle oriented stubbornly toward the Atlantic? The choice will determine the course of 21st-century history, for if the United States chooses to work with Asia as it rises, we will sail into a more peaceful era. The writer is dean of the school of public policy at the National University of Singapore and author of “The New Asian Hemisphere: “The Irresistible Shift of Global Power to the East.”
|
|
On the road to democracy Pakistan’s transition to democracy is essential to achieving reconciliation among our people. The government worked tirelessly to ensure that last week’s vote would be free, fair, transparent and peaceful. A broad range of new procedures were put in place – such as the public counting of ballots at each polling station – to make certain that this would be the fairest election ever held in Pakistan. The historical significance of this election makes this the right moment for an honest discussion of the challenges and opportunities confronting both Pakistan and the United States, whose interest in a stable, democratic government in Islamabad is matched by that of the Pakistani people. Our nation faces three main tasks: defeating terrorism and extremism; building a stable and effective democratic government; and creating a solid foundation for sustained economic growth. Because these goals are shared by the vast majority of Pakistanis, I am certain we can and will accomplish them, and I stand ready to work with the newly elected Parliament to achieve these objectives. Do we still face challenges? Of course. Do great opportunities lie ahead? The answer is an emphatic yes. Our economy is strong – and growing stronger. Our armed forces are dedicated, professional and committed to maintaining both public order and the integrity of our political system. Most important, the overwhelming majority of our 160 million people are firmly committed to a moderate view of Islam and to the national prosperity that only modernization can bring. On terrorism, let me be perfectly clear: Pakistan faces and fights this menace with full dedication. How could we not? Al-Qaida and its affiliates have declared war on the civilized world, and the moderate government and people of Pakistan are prime targets. Some have questioned our commitment to the fight against extremism. In fact, more than 1,000 Pakistani troops have lost their lives fighting al-Qaida and Taliban forces over the past four years, and 112,000 troops are fully engaged in the regions along our border with Afghanistan. We will continue to work closely with our longtime American allies in our common struggle to rid Pakistan and the world of militant extremism. But as the U.S. experience in Iraq has shown, military force alone is not sufficient. A successful counterinsurgency requires a multi-pronged approach - military, political and economic. Our political strategy emphasizes separating terrorists from those citizens living in the regions bordering Afghanistan. Our economic strategy is bringing education, economic opportunity and the benefits of development to those same areas. As history has clearly taught us, when people see improvement in their daily lives and the lives of their children, they turn away from violence and toward peace and reconciliation. But our success will require the continued support of the United States. I would ask Americans to remember that building democracy is difficult in the best of conditions; doing so in a complex country such as Pakistan – with its uneasy political history, with its centuries-old regional and feudal cleavages, and with violent extremists dedicated to the defeat of democracy – is even more challenging. As history has shown, a peaceful transition to democracy requires the leadership of government and the willingness of the population to embrace democratic ideals. The people of Pakistan on last week demonstrated that willingness; now it is time for government leaders to work together and do our part.
|
|
Chatterati RAHUL Gandhi is choosy with the company he keeps. And why not? This has made lots of young MPs quite angry. So they have resorted to ingenious methods to penetrate the charmed circle. Recently, one such MP got to know that Rahul was to dine at a South Delhi restaurant with his ‘gang.’ So, the man parked his jeep a few yards away from the restaurant and waited until Rahul entered. Shortly thereafter, he walked in with a look of surprise as he “bumped” into the babalog. He was politely invited to join the gang. He jumped at the opportunity and he was a happy young lad that night. Now, our youngsters have developed a sudden liking for 5-star hotels. Many Delhi-based Congressmen have begun frequenting 5-star hotels, clubs, gyms and up-market restaurants. Socially upward mobility has something to do with the young Gandhis. Desperate to meet Rahul and his sister Priyanka, Congressmen depend on hearsay to be at the “right place at the right time”. Some are lucky and others just end up wasting a lot of money! Dynasty calls Political ‘son rises’ (and a few daughters too) have been seen in the north, west and south but belatedly though, it is happening in the east too. The former Lok Sabha speaker, P.A. Sangma, who split from the Congress and joined Sharad Pawar’s NCP, is contesting the Assembly elections from Meghalaya. That’s only expected, but what comes as a surprise is that his two sons, James K Sangma and Conrad K Sangma, are also in the fray, aiming to become first time legislators. Now we know why Sangma Sr. only criticised Sonia Gandhi’s Italian ancestry when he walked out of Congress, but not the party’s dynastic politics. Sharad Pawar can do it, so can M. Karunanidhi, Bal Thackeray, Mulayam Singh Yadav, and others. So why can’t Sangma? Doggie fashion Every dog has his day. And J.J. Valaya’s sure made it a great day. Designer J.J. Valaya’s Valaya Magic Foundation supports and educates more than 100 girl children. He hosted a unique Haute Carnival Dog Show where dog owners brought their pets to walk the ramp to raise funds. Pets were in their finest gear. Dog owners shelled out a whopping Rs 5000 to get their pets to walk the ramp, at a quaint farmhouse in Chhatarpur. The dogs were then judged on the basis of their personality, grooming, looks and obedience, with the winner in each category earning a crystal collar, made especially by Swarovski for the occasion. There was a special menu for the guests too. The afternoon saw participation from socialite Nafisa Ali, furniture designers Raseel and Naveen Ansal, designers Gauri and Nainika Karan as well as Ashish Soni, all of whom came with their dogs. A chow-chow named Jack bagged the Champion of Champions award along with a sterling silver trophy. Now, that sure was a day tailor made by our designers for man’s best friend.
|
| 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 | |
AFTER months of turmoil, including the death of an important national figure, Benazir Bhutto, and the civil unrest that followed, Pakistan has successfully carried out a critical election – balloting that was a milestone in our nation’s 60-year history.