|
|
The final lap Kayani’s
outburst |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Dubious
litigation
No vivisection of
India
Sarkar vs Raj
Monumental blunder US using predator
aircraft in Pakistan Children we abandon
at our peril
|
|
Kayani’s outburst
PAKISTAN Army chief General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani’s strongly worded statement asking foreign troops to keep off is aimed as much at the US as it is at the new government. Coming soon after reports that a secret understanding had been reached between the government and the Bush administration for US troops to carry out attacks on Pakistani territory, the General has sent a chilling message to the government not to get too close to the US. Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani has had to clarify that the Army chief’s statement “was reflective of government policy”. In Pakistan, it is the army which rules the roost, whether there is an elected government in the saddle or not, and the army is said to be fuming at the increase in the incidents of unilateral attacks by the US and coalition forces inside Pakistan. Significantly, General Kayani fired his salvo at the corps commanders’ meeting, showing that he has the full support of his men. Pakistan’s problem is that it has been a namesake partner in America’s war on terror. There is growing realisation all over the world that while it grabs as much money and arms and ammunition as it can in return for its support, it clandestinely backs the militants. That is one of a piece with its policy in India also where its patronage of terrorists has been long and consistent. The New York Times recently carried a report saying that President Bush had in July approved orders allowing American Special Operations forces to carry out ground assaults inside Pakistan without the prior approval of Islamabad. According to the paper, the Pakistani government had privately consented to the general concept of limited ground assault. US officials now admit that this is the only way to start winning the war in Afghanistan considering that the ties between the ISI and the militants are strong in the tribal areas. Not only that, the paper has said that analysts at the CIA believe that the attack on the Indian Embassy in Kabul was aided by the ISI, and was in the knowledge of the topmost military officials, including General Kayani. But then, the US reacts only when its own interests are hit.
|
|
|
Dubious litigation
THE Punjab and Haryana High Court has delivered a directive to the Punjab government, which should be a cornerstone of public policy and emulated by all states in the interests of the people. The court directed the Revenue Secretary of the state to deposit a month’s take-home salary as costs for causing needless litigation. This should have a salutary effect on officials who stonewall the public by refusing to carry out lawful acts and compel them to take recourse to litigation; this, in the knowledge that the official will not be inconvenienced in any way and will not have to pay for denying citizens their due. While the official leaves it to the government’s legal bureaucracy to deal with the litigant, the hapless citizen is forced to pay for justice, which often comes after years. The momentous directive came in a case where a petitioner, who had availed of bank credit by mortgaging his property, asked the tehsildar to enter a mutation on the basis of the mortgage. The village patwari declined to do so necessitating the petition for a directive to the authorities concerned to enter the mutation. The Bench comprising Justice J S Khehar and Justice Nirmaljit Kaur not only passed favourable orders on her petition — for making the necessary entry in the records within a week — but also directed the Revenue Secretary to pay the costs. The Bench took the view that if the official had applied his mind fully, it would not have been necessary for the matter to come to the court. Instead of contesting the writ petition, had the official exercised due diligence, the litigation and unnecessary waste of court time could have been avoided. The principle established by the court in this case should make for greater diligence on the part of officials in discharging their duties. The Punjab Government must embrace this principle and reinforce it in a manner as to make officials comply with not only the letter of the court’s directive but its spirit as well.
|
|
|
Do not believe that possibly you can escape the reward of your action. — Ralph Waldo Emerson
|
No vivisection of India In
recent weeks, a seditious assault has been launched on the will of the Indian nation by rootless liberals, “mobile republics”, and amoral columnists, who are exhorting India to “think the unthinkable” and concede the demand for Azadi in Kashmir. There are two ways of responding to those who advocate Azadi for Kashmir. The first way is to gun them down, throw a grenade on their house, kidnap their children and then slit their throats, threaten to rape their wives and daughters, or drive them forcibly out of their homes. This is precisely what was done to Kashmiris — Muslims and Pundits — who opposed the so-called “freedom fighters” in Kashmir, whose brief these faux-intellectuals hold. Of course, the moment any of these steps is taken, these same people will demand protection from the very law-enforcement agencies that they so ardently revile. At the same time, there will be a manufactured uproar by the NGO industry over how voices of dissent are being stifled. Only, those shouting about their right to dissent seem to readily acquiesce when dissent is brutally throttled in Kashmir by the jihadists and separatists. There is, however, a more civilised way of answering those who propose a vivisection of India. This is the way of an “argumentative Indian”, a way that is in keeping with the “Idea of India”. As it stands, the Idea of India is good and noble. It is an idea that is progressive, inclusive, pluralistic, tolerant and accommodating. Above all, it is a Republican idea which holds the ideal to be more important than the extant beliefs of the common herd. Compare the idea of India with the idea of a talibanised Kashmir (as professed by the Geelanis, Salahuddins and their ilk), or even the idea of Pakistan — denominational, exclusivist, reactionary, intolerant and very violent. No doubt, there is a lot of prejudice and discrimination still present in India. But the task of nation building in India is a “work-in-progress”. Countries like the US are over 200 years old and have not yet solved all their social and communal problems. The important point is that the Idea of India must prevail over the idea of exclusivist and regressive states like Pakistan or its fan club in Kashmir. The campaigners for Kashmir’s Azadi (especially those based in Delhi) should perhaps be sent on a year-long study tour of Waziristan, Swat and Bajaur (with a week in the Lashkar-e-Taiba camp in Muridke thrown in as bonus) to make them understand why Kashmir cannot be abandoned for the Taliban and Al-Qaida-inspired “freedom fighters”. The proponents of Azadi and their apologists misuse, if not abuse, concepts like secularism and democracy that embody the Idea of India to undermine India. Frankly, India does not need certificates on democracy and secularism from anybody in the world, least of all from Kashmiri separatists and their supporters and sponsors who while mouthing these concepts are totally unfamiliar with the meaning, much less the practice, of these words. Nor does India need to amputate a part of herself simply to prove her commitment to democratic values. Accepting Azadi will mean subscribing to the doctrine of Clash of Civilisations, the fundamental assumption of which is that pluralistic societies are a quirk of history and will not be able to survive the assertion of primordial identities. This was exactly the logic that created Pakistan. It is hardly important that the bacon-loving Jinnah didn’t want a theocratic state; the talibanisation of Pakistan is a logical outcome of the demand for a Muslim state. If today we accept that logic, then India will become a country only for Hindus. The argument that granting Azadi will be the democratic thing to do is even otherwise totally specious. What is it that prompts some people to give more weightage to what 5 million Kashmiris want (assuming they all want Azadi) than the desire of 1 billion people who don’t want a communal division of India? How can we be so cavalier about the security, safety and well being of 165 million Indian Muslims for the sake of 5 million Kashmiris? Secularism in India is bound to suffer if we accede to Muslim communalism in Kashmir. The forces that will be unleashed by another communal division will be beyond the control of arm-chair intellectuals. After all, if we are willing to give one small part of the population the right to secede, how can we deny a larger population the right to decide who stays and who is forced to leave India? Perhaps the democratic urgings of the faux-intellectuals will be satisfied by nothing less than a billion “independent, mobile republics” in India. Other than Muslim exclusivism, what is the justification for the demand for Azadi in Kashmir? Kashmiri separatists normally give three or four reasons in support of their demand. The first is that Kashmir was sold to the Dogra rulers by the British. But surely acquiring territory for a state by purchasing it is far more civilised and legitimate than military conquest. In any case, the cut-off point of history on which they base their case cannot be arbitrarily and self-servingly selected by the separatists. The second argument given is that Kashmir is a disputed territory. Well, in South Asia a legal dispute can be created out of nothing at all, so this argument doesn’t hold any water. Thirdly, it is said that Kashmiris are a distinct and homogenous ethnic group and as such are entitled to Azadi. The answer to this is that every ethnic group in India is distinct and if this argument is to be extended then tomorrow a condominium complex in Gurgaon or cooperative society in Mumbai could demand independence on the same grounds. Finally, the separatists talk of how much they have sacrificed for Kashmir’s Azadi. But then Indian sacrifices in men and material for Kashmir are far greater. Another false argument in favour of Azadi is that India is unnecessarily spending billions to keep Kashmir in India and will be better off without it. But let’s extend this argument a little further: Why should we spend money in the North-East? What are we getting out of it? So, let’s give Azadi to the North-Eastern states as well. And, while we are at it, how about throwing UP and Bihar out of the Indian Union? Aren’t these two states a huge drain on India’s resources, and dragging India down? Ultimately, Kashmir is a question of national will. If Indians lose the will to keep Kashmir today, it won’t be long before they lose UP tomorrow and Bengal the day after. It is therefore time that India starts “thinking the unthinkable” to end Kashmiri separatism. If the case for Kashmir’s Azadi rests only on numbers, then let us change the numbers in Kashmir. If this means settling people there from other parts of India, then so be it. Kashmir is no anthropological laboratory that must be preserved from outside influences. The law forbidding non-state subjects from settling in J&K was a law made by the Dogra kings (so detested by the Kashmiris today) to protect their own interest. There is no reason why this law should not be repealed and Kashmir thrown open to every Indian — Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Christian —who wants to settle there. At the same time, any Kashmiri who considers Pakistan the Promised Land should be allowed, nay encouraged, to go and settle there; just make sure to shut the gate after they cross
over.
|
|||||
Sarkar vs Raj The
time for reality checks is long past. This is the age of reality shows. Which explains the clamour, especially of politicians in Mumbai, for a role in these shows. Not all those who are left out of these shows — even if they have been tipped for a role and then rejected —take to attacking the television channel’s office. There are other, not necessarily better, ways of finding your own audience and putting up a real show. It is more engaging than role-playing in reality shows, and assured of headlines. Thus we have sarkar man K L Prasad, Mumbai’s joint commissioner of police, and Raj Thackeray of Mee Marathi fame getting real with each other in a way that no reality show can ever capture. These days there is a lot of confusion over who owns Mumbai. Few remember that decades ago there was a dispute over whether Mumbai should go to Maharashtra. Like all history, that is irrelevant in politics. Students of politics believed that the ownership of Mumbai had been settled conclusively in the late 1960s, when the Shiv Sena’s Bal Thackeray roared and struck terror in the meek Madrasi inhabitants of Bombay. He made it plain that they were outsiders and that Bombay belonged to the meeker Marathi Manoos. The Madrasis carried on as before, learnt Marathi and even started calling Bombay as Mumbai. They accepted Bal Thackeray as the metro’s undisputed overlord. Even those from Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, not to mention Afghanistan and Iran, found the city livable and good for a livelihood. Now along comes Raj Thackeray, muscling in on Uncle Bal’s territory and claiming that it is he, and not the Shiv Sena boss or even his son, who calls the shots in Mumbai. With all these competing claims over territory, someone had to clear the air. Prasad said it loud and clear: “Mumbai kisi ke baap ka nahi hai” (Mumbai does not belong to anyone’s father). One would have thought that this was only a reiteration of a known historical fact, when there is a state government and a municipal corporation presiding over the affairs of the city at least on paper. Raj being not one to take things lying down — or, for that matter, let sleeping outsiders lie — retorted that Prasad should come out of his uniform and post, and then he will know whose father owns Mumbai. Presumably, this was said in Marathi. Bollywood must be really jealous at such gems being delivered by those who cannot be hired to write dialogues. Even the most memorable of filmy lines sound flat in the face of such robust dialogues between a cop and a politico. The sad part is that the Big B, known for his repertoire of dialogues on and off screen, could not even get a good line in before buying his peace with Raj. Raj’s rhetorical threat to reveal who owns Mumbai has everyone flummoxed. Does the city belong to his father or to his uncle? If it is, indeed, his father’s property, then he shouldn’t be making a mess of
it.
|
|||||
Monumental blunder
Panjab
University feels misled and betrayed. The hostility shown by some academicians against the letter issued by the Punjab government that it has no objection if Panjab University is granted Central university status is unsubstantiated and short-sighted. These former vice-chancellors and others have linked the grant of Central status with the loss of Chandigarh. They also bemoan that with this gesture “Punjabiat” will die and Punjab itself will be ravaged. The Panjab University teaching fraternity is infuriated by the subsequent volte-face of the Punjab government, the way in which it has buckled under pressure by a handful of the so-called intellectuals. This has resulted in retracting the no-objection certificate sent to the Central Government, which had endorsed the university’s claim of Central university status. The offensive turnaround goes against the very fundamentals of any commitment made by the political leadership to the teachers who belong to the oldest university in the region. It is apparent to all of us that just as the issue was about to be clinched, all rationality stood superseded by political expediency. In the face of the monumental blunder of the Panjab government with its temperamental pendulum swings, the teachers of Panjab University are vehemently asserting their right to ask for the status of a Central university (and not Central funds) that rightly belongs to them. Let the government realise that the cultural impact of this U-turn will have far-reaching consequences on the academic environment in the region and the community on the whole. The claim for Central university status is based on reasons that are utterly academic and keep in view the nature and future of higher education in Punjab, particularly and more so, in the North. The university as well as its faculty and students envisage an era of economic security and academic advancement necessary for complex societal needs of Punjab. The service quality it provides as well as the learning climate the students experience depends on the maintenance of international standards. Its age-old traditions, academic achievements, internationally renowned faculty, all indicate credentials which make it at once eligible for this status. The history of Punjab is incomplete without the significant contribution made by this university, its oldest centre of higher learning that has occupied a position of pride and scholastic excellence. Undeniably, the university stands at the centre of the academic world, not only in the state, but nationally and internationally. Therefore, it deserves to be allowed to shed its ambiguity of being 40-60 per cent financed by the state and the Centre, a duality that is retarding any forward movement. The state funding has been irregular and now stands fixed at Rs 16 crore, which, too, is more in the nature of frail promises. Uncertainties in grants coupled with the need to keep education affordable have seriously diminished the financial resources of Panjab University as well as imperiled its accessibility and quality. How can the territorial claim of Punjab over Chandigarh get diluted if a university located within the state attains the status of a Central university? The Central university status of Panjab University has no bearing on whether Chandigarh goes to Punjab or not in the same way that Central universities that are in the making in Bathinda and Amritsar will not affect their being integral to Punjab.When Haryana withdrew from Panjab University, it surely did not forsake its claim to Chandigarh by that logic. It must be made clear to the academicians who have provoked the Punjab government to recant that Panjab University has always catered to the needs of Punjab and will continue to do so even after it becomes a Central university. And if, some day, Chandigarh should go to Punjab, the state would have not one, not two, but three Central universities. The status of the colleges and their affiliation with Panjab University will remain as firm and lasting as ever. With adequate funds provided regularly by the Central Government, Panjab University will begin to not only attract more talent to its teaching staff, but also help in pursuing work of exceptional quality that would bring benefit to the wider Punjabi community as well as to the institution itself and the student body. The writer is a Professor of English, Panjab University, Chandigarh
|
|
US using predator aircraft in Pakistan As
part of an escalating offensive against extremist targets in Pakistan, the United States is deploying Predator aircraft equipped with sophisticated new surveillance systems that were instrumental in crippling the insurgency in Iraq, according to US military and intelligence officials. The use of the specially equipped drones comes amid a fundamental shift in US strategy in the area. After years of deferring to Pakistani authorities, the Bush administration is turning toward unilateral US military operations — a gambit that could increase pressure on Islamic militants but risks alienating a country that has been a key counter-terrorism ally. In an indication of the priority being given to the Pakistan campaign, US officials said that the specially equipped aircraft are being pulled from other theaters to augment aerial patrols above the tribal belt along Afghanistan’s eastern border. Pakistan’s government has found itself caught between Washington’s demands for action and the unpopularity of the US campaign, which has included half a dozen Predator strikes and a ground raid in the last few weeks. In addition to militants, Pakistanis complain that civilians frequently die in the raids. Pakistani forces also are carrying out their own campaign against the militants and say they have killed hundreds in the past month, making the US raids unnecessary. US officials requested that details of the new technology not be disclosed out of concern that doing so might enable enemy operatives to evade US detection. But officials said the previously unacknowledged devices have become a powerful part of the American arsenal, allowing the tracking of human targets even when they are inside buildings or otherwise hidden from Predator surveillance cameras. Equally important, officials said, the technology gives remote pilots a means beyond images from the Predator’s lens of confirming a target’s identity and precise location. A military official familiar with the systems said they had a profound effect, both militarily and psychologically, on the Sunni insurgency in Iraq. “It is like they are living with a red dot on their head,” said a former U.S. military official familiar with the technology who, like others, spoke on condition of anonymity because it has been secret. “With the quietness of the Predator, you never knew when a Hellfire (missile) would come through your window.” The new Predator capabilities are a key ingredient in an emerging US military offensive against Taliban strongholds and al-Qaida safe havens in Pakistan. Previously, the United States’ main focus in Pakistan’s tribal territory was gathering intelligence that could be used to direct raids by the Pakistani military, or occasional missile strikes from CIA-operated Predator planes. Intelligence activities will increasingly be geared toward enabling US special forces units — backed by AC-130 gun ships and other aircraft — to carry out operations on Taliban and al-Qaida operatives, officials said. The change in strategy reflects mounting frustration within the Bush administration over Pakistan’s failure to root out insurgent groups or disrupt the flow of militants who launch attacks in Afghanistan and then retreat to sanctuaries in Pakistan. The New York Times reported Thursday that President Bush signed an order in July authorizing US special operations forces to conduct missions inside Pakistan without asking for permission. A former senior CIA official said similar proposals had been in circulation as early as 2003. A Pentagon proposal to make wider use of special operations forces in Pakistan, forwarded to the White House earlier this year, was debated for months by the National Security Council, according to a government official. But until this summer, President Bush was reluctant to authorize the action in part out of loyalty to former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, who was forced from office last month. At the same time, rising numbers of American soldiers being killed in Afghanistan caused a shift of thinking among many in the Pentagon. There have been 113 US soldiers killed in the country so far this year. In response, the United States, has stepped up the number of Predator strikes. But the clearest signal of a new strategy came when about 20 people were killed in a raid on the village of Musa Nika by US special operations forces flown by helicopter from a base in Afghanistan. That operation, and the turn in Bush administration policy, have been condemned by senior Pakistani officials including the Army chief of staff, Gen. Ashfaq Kayani. Kayani’s statement was his first public criticism of the US military, and his stance on the raids was regarded in Pakistan as a watershed because he had made a point of steering clear of politics during his nine months on the job. Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani issued a statement Thursday saying that government policy forbids American military incursions into Pakistan. By arrangement with
LA Times-Washington Post
|
|
Children we abandon at our peril ACROSS Britain, children are half-gleeful and half-groaning as they finally head back to school. But amidst the bustle of the school-run, they are being denied an education and set up to fail for life. The children left outside the school gates fall into four quite different groups and each one is a scandal. The Untaught One: the home schooled. Contrary to popular belief, you don’t have to send your kids to school in Britain. If you decide to keep your child indoors and uneducated, you don’t have to inform the local authority and nobody will come looking. As a result, we have no idea how many children are kept at home. Nobody is counting. But the current estimate is 50,000. Of course, some of these kids are well-taught but there is disturbing evidence they are a minority. When the investigative journalist Rob Blackhurst journeyed into the world of British home-schooling, he discovered 12-year-old children who had not been taught to read. The most detailed survey of British parents teaching their kids at home found that 50 per cent don’t believe in teaching literacy to eight-year-olds. This leaves Britain with a weirdly divided school system. The majority of kids are constantly cooking on the SAT-grill, endlessly tested while this minority are totally unwatched. This means children can even disappear. Seven-year-old Khyra Ishaq, who was found starved to death in her home in Birmingham earlier this year, had been withdrawn from the school system to be home-schooled. For precisely this reason, home-schooling is illegal in Germany. The law here needs to be altered so local authorities regularly interview home-schooled kids. If they aren’t being properly taught, they should be required to enter the normal school system immediately. The Untaught Two: the permanently excluded. Over 10,000 children in Britain have been chucked out of school for bad behaviour, and can’t make their way back. I know a 13-year-old boy, Peter, who was expelled for kicking his teacher. He was obviously disturbed: his parents would hit him and even lock him out. Sometimes he can be thoughtful and gentle; but he can fly into paroxysms of rage at nothing. The expulsion should have been a flashing-red warning sign he was hurtling towards criminality. The education authorities should have swooped in with intensive tuition and counselling. Yes, this is expensive but it costs a lot less than prosecuting and imprisoning Peter intermittently for the rest of his life. The opposite happened. He was abandoned by the local authority and left to move around the streets untaught. This isn’t unusual. The Doncaster Free Press recently decided to track down all the children who had been permanently excluded from their town’s schools. They found one third were like Peter, receiving no education, left to kick around the streets all day. Many of the rest were being kicked from pillar to post, attending pupil referral units that were not fit for purpose, poorly managed (and with) horrible conditions. By arrangement with
The Independent
|
|
|
|
| HOME PAGE | |
Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir |
Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs |
Nation | Opinions | | Business | Sports | World | Letters | Chandigarh | Ludhiana | Delhi | | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |
