|
|
Date with
the moon Line of
Commerce |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Setback
for Modi
Myth of
Pashtun invincibility
Diwali
gift
The
losing battle When Jet
Airways panicked America's
useless terrorism list
|
|
Line of Commerce
It
is a historic moment by any reckoning. The opening of the trade routes between the two sides of Kashmir after 61 years of tension and strife is a highly welcome development, which the residents of the state had been waiting for all these decades. Nations had chosen to separate but the people were facing difficulties on both sides of the LoC. Many of them had family members and relatives on both sides of the border, who had been torn apart by a line drawn by circumstances as they unfolded. The LoC drawn on the maps had made them strangers. Now that it is possible to travel across this border and also send in merchandise, the hope of making this line less relevant when human beings are concerned has become more pronounced. No doubt, India has claim over the area across the LoC. But diplomacy demands that as long as the border is there, it should be a line of peace and not friction. The restoration of the trade can not only be a big confidence-building measure, complementing the goodwill generated by the “Karavan-e-Aman” which has been running since April 7, 2005, it can also improve the financial condition of the people of the border areas who have very few avenues to market their produce. People-to-people contacts can show the way to peace and progress. What has happened in Kashmir can be a model for other nations of Asia. Some day, it may be possible to travel from one end of the subcontinent to another without hindrance. Now that the ice has melted among the two nations, there is need to expand the trade to the maximum extent possible. Right now, only 21 items are being traded. The list can be vastly expanded. There is also need to exchange trucks more often than twice a week as at present. There are many other routes in Jammu and Kashmir which can be similarly utilised for expanding trade, particularly from the Jammu region. A concerted attempt must be made to open all of them as soon as possible.
|
|
|
Setback for Modi
TUESDAY’S Supreme Court ruling that the POTA Review Committee’s findings dropping charges against 131 accused in the Godhra train carnage case under the repealed anti-terror law would be binding on the authorities is indeed a serious setback for Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi. Significantly, a three-member Bench consisting of Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, Justice R.V. Raveendran and Justice Dalveer Bhandari has ruled that the accused in the case involving the burning of 59 kar sevaks in the train at Godhra in 2002 will not face trial under POTA, as the Modi government had charged them, but under provisions of the normal Indian Penal Code. It made it clear that once a POTA Review Committee finds no prima facie evidence against a person charged under the anti-terror law, the “inevitable fallout” was withdrawal of the terror charges for which there was no need for taking the consent of the public prosecutor or the state government. It is worth recalling that many of the accused in the Godhra case had petitioned the apex court, challenging the Modi government’s decision to prosecute them under POTA even after the review committee held that the offence under the anti-terror law could not be made out against them. They charged the state government with fabricating evidence to frame and prosecute them. The Gujarat High Court had earlier dismissed their petitions. The High Court didn’t even entertain their applications for bail. Upholding the constitutional validity of the 2004 Act brought for repealing POTA, the Supreme Court Bench has ruled that while courts cannot adjudicate the opinion given by the POTA Review Committee, the decision was open for judicial review. The apex court ruling may have come as a big relief for the 131 accused, but the trouble for them is far from over because the trial has not begun even after six years of the tragedy. They have been languishing in the jail all these years with no prospects of trial. Despite the good news that the terror cloud is at last off their shoulders — thanks to the Supreme Court — they don’t know when the trial would begin, and end. Perhaps, the apex court will have to intervene for their speedy trial and fair dispensation of justice.
|
|
|
My nature is subdued/ To what it works in, like the dyer’s hand. — William Shakespeare
|
Myth of Pashtun invincibility If
wars are won and lost, first in the head and after that on the battlefield, then Pakistan and perhaps the West, too, might be on the verge of losing the war on terror. Despite all the resources available to the forces battling terror, psychologically the terrorists are dominating their rivals in this war. One manifestation of this is the constant refrain inside Pakistan that this war cannot be won by force alone, that the warring Pashtun tribesmen can never be subdued by an alien force, that peace will not become possible as long as the foreign troops don’t leave Afghanistan, and that Pakistan will have to reach out to the combatants and negotiate with them if there has to be peace in that country. The psychological ascendance of the Pashtun insurgents can also be gauged from the response of the Pakistani society to the devastating suicide bombing of the Marriott Hotel in the heart of Islamabad. Instead of the outrage stiffening the resolve of the people to wipe out these jihadi killers, the predominant opinion inside Pakistan is to make peace with them. At the same time, the collateral damage caused by the Pakistan Army’s operations inside the troubled tribal areas has also led to uproar in Pakistan. It is almost as though the critics seriously expect military operations in an antiseptic environment! On the other hand, the civilians caught in the crossfire in the tribal areas, instead of being despondent, are yearning for revenge, not against the Taliban but against the Pakistani state. In the midst of all this is the Pakistan Army which still has a large number of people who are still not convinced about fighting against the Taliban and who continue to see the Taliban as Islamic warriors. Many in the Pakistan Army feel that they are fighting an unpopular war on the side of the “hated” Americans against their own countrymen, who are also fellow Muslims. It is another matter that the Pakistan Army felt no such compunction when it butchered the Bengalis in the erstwhile East Pakistan or when it massacred the Baloch. Actually, the right-wing supporters of the Islamists, who are functioning as the “over-ground face of the underground”, are playing a big role in undermining the quest for a coherent national policy against the terrorists by questioning Pakistan's participation in the war on terror. To say that this is not Pakistan's war and Pakistan should not fight this war is nothing but an advocacy of the cause of the Taliban and an invitation to them to take over Pakistan. Even more galling is the nonsense being peddled that this war is not winnable and that the Pashtun lands are the graveyards of empires past and present. Not only is this historically incorrect, it is also a self-created, self-serving and self-perpetuated myth. The fact is that the Pashtuns are eminently beatable and have been beaten many times in the past. Alexander, Timur, Nadir Shah, Maharaja Ranjit Singh, and the British, all have defeated the Pashtuns and established order in the Pashtun lands. Lest it be forgotten, the Sikhs followed by the British had defeated the Pashtuns so comprehensively that for almost 150 years now, relative peace and order has prevailed in the Pashtun lands. True, the British suffered the occasional setback but they eventually managed to subdue the Pashtun tribes. Had the British wanted they would have also continued to rule Afghanistan; only they didn’t find it worth their while and preferred to let it remain a buffer between India and Russia. The Russians, too, would never have been defeated had the Soviet economy not collapsed (and it didn’t collapse because of the war in Afghanistan) and had the Americans not pumped in weapons and money to back the so-called Mujahideen. No doubt, the Pashtuns are a very turbulent race. Not only have they crafted treachery into a fine art form, they have also used it to great effect in the way they fight against their rivals. But while they are terrific warriors for whom warfare is a way of life, they have always succumbed to superior force and superior tactics, not to mention the lure of money. The Pashtuns have never been known to stand against a well-disciplined, well-equipped, motivated and equally ruthless force. But a set-piece army is only partially useful against the Pashtuns; it must be backed by highly mobile troops who can chase the guerrillas and hunt them down. To an extent, the pilotless drones do this job, but these need to be backed by troops on the ground. A piecemeal application of force of the type being used by the Pakistanis and the Americans can never succeed against the Pashtuns. Application of force must be total and must aim at wiping out the opposition. For the Pashtuns, human life - theirs and the enemies’ - has little value and they follow the logic that even if they kill one enemy for every 10 of their men, they will still win the war. They are a people who have nothing to live for but everything to die for - they don’t seek paradise in this life but in the life hereafter. If the Pashtuns see opposition as being namby-pamby, then of course they will exploit it to the hilt, as they are doing with the Pakistanis. But if the opposition they face is as brutal and ruthless as them and gives back much better than they get, then the Pashtuns are quite amenable to a peaceful settlement, more so if they feel they have no chance of winning. Over the years many things have changed in Pashtun society. The decades of settled living has changed the attitude of many Pashtuns, especially those who are not living in the wild and lawless tribal region straddling Afghanistan. Unlike the tribal belt where life has been very harsh and tribal traditions have remained unchanged for centuries, the people of the settled areas have been softened by the “settled existence” and will not find it easy to confront the state and risk losing all their worldly possessions. The fact that Pakistan has been quite successful in integrating the Pashtuns in the power structure of the country will also come handy in fighting the Islamic insurgents. And then there are the tribal rivalries that can always be exploited to raise a counter force against them. Of course, all this requires a determination to defeat the terrorists, no matter what the cost. For the moment, the Pakistanis have not been able to demonstrate this determination. It is also not clear how long the Americans will stay the course in this war. The worry really is not so much that the Americans have got into a war they cannot win; rather it is that like that of then Soviet Union the American economy, too, might not be in a position to bear the cost of this war for very long. No doubt, if the Americans leave without finishing the job in Afghanistan they will be doing this at their own peril. In the globalised and borderless world of today, the US doesn’t have the luxury that the British enjoyed of leaving Afghanistan to its own devices. The objective conditions have changed and if the sole superpower leaves Afghanistan that country will become a base for an international jihad, and destabilise the entire West Asia, Central Asia and South Asia. And then, of course, the Pashtuns will claim to have defeated yet another super
power.
|
|||||
Diwali gift A
pretty
and rusted box hidden behind the books that Istumbled upon during a cleaning operation opened a pandora’s box of memories to me. The cleaning spree I was on (with the festival season in mind) proved to be a blessing, indeed. Its slipping out of my hands and spilling a treasure worth millions nothing on earth can match, literally mesmerised and transported me to a world radiant and warm with love and affection. Wow! Finding precious possessions of my daughter Fiza’s childhood days was a heavenly joy. Popping their heads were bright red, glittering orange and lovely baby pink clips. My goodness, along with matching ribbons. She loved these like anything. Must wear them on special occasions. Forgetting my mission and sitting glued to the floor swept over by nostalgia was an experience in itself. A mere toddler and she wanted the “bindis” and bangles of all the aunties. one can well imagine her craze when she grew up. Still lost in the fantasy of nostalgia, I started picking up the spilled treasure, piece by piece. There were rainbow-coloured marbles clamouring for immediate attention. Some with dots, others with slanting lines in contrast colour imprinted on them. Took me back years and years in a split second. My mother’s beaming face flashed before me. Vividly do I remember she had bought these shiny ones for me at the Baisakhi fair in our native town. Nurturing them as a treasure trove close to my heart after her sudden passing away, handing over to Fiza when she grew up and telling her of my fathomless emotional attachment to them — all flashed before my eyes. How nice of her to have taken special care of them. There was something else too to catch my fancy. A piece of pink flowery georgette (O ! it used to be my dupatta once) greeted my eyes. Something wrapped in it! A cute doll in scarlet bridal suit and jewellery hidden in it. Instictively, my thoughts went to the day we celebrated the marriage of Fiza’s doll. Such commotion and revelery in the house! When the “doli” was to leave tears trickled down the eyes of hubby and myself. Invariably, we had in mind the day Fiza too would leave us like that. Just cann’t tell how long I sat there caressing all the fascinating tokens of love. Sheer ecastasy it was. I put then in the same box that had hidden a host of tales and warm feelings. Did n’t feel like changing it. To me it stood for the good old days that had left an everlasting imprint on my mind. Fiza might like to show them to her kids and pass on the legacy of the family. All this had made my Diwali ahead of it. Isn’t
it?
|
|||||
The losing battle
It
is time to face facts in Afghanistan: the situation is spiralling downwards, and if we do not change our approach, we face disaster. Violence is up in two-thirds of the country, narcotics are the main contributor to the economy, criminality is out of control and the government is weak, corrupt and incompetent. The international coalition is seen as a squabbling bunch of foreigners who have not delivered on their promises. Although the Taliban have nowhere near majority support, their standing is growing rapidly among some ordinary Afghans. In Kabul, foreign delegations huddle behind concrete and barbed wire, often with the Afghans' main roads shut. That causes jams throughout the city, exacerbated by convoys of armoured four-wheel drives loaded with bodyguards that push their way through the traffic. These vehicles carry warning signs telling ordinary Afghans that the occupants reserve the right to shoot anyone who comes within 50 metres. Afghans veer between resentment of the high-handed foreigners and fear of the Taliban, who appear to be inexorably seizing the provinces around the city. The regime we are defending is corrupt from top to bottom. While the President's brother faces accusations of being a drug baron, some three-quarters of the Afghan National Police actively steal from the people. The irony is that Afghan expectations of government are traditionally low, and their faith in President Hamid Karzai was initially high. The government appears to have been run for the financial benefit of 20 families. From the allocation of mineral rights to the awarding of contracts, ministers frequently intervene to favour families and friends. Even more disturbing, the beneficiaries of this corruption are old-time warlords and faction leaders responsible for past atrocities. Today, they operate with impunity, even over acts of violence and attempted murder. Many public officials, from police chiefs to governors to ministers, have acquired multi-million dollar fortunes in office. This angers the ordinary Afghan, whose family may have to get by on £10 a week. The government exercises enormous patronage through the appointment of officials, most notably governors and police chiefs. A chief of police post in a district which includes a narcotic trafficking route can sell for $150,000. The new chief recovers his "investment" by demanding a cut in the proceeds of corruption from his juniors. At the bottom of this pyramid, officers make money out of ordinary Afghans by exacting "tolls"at roadblocks and by straight theft and extortion. An Afghan trying to take produce from Lashkar Gar to Kandahar will typically pay at 12 roadblocks – destroying any value he might gain from growing anything other than opium. It can be worse. An Afghan doctor was stopped and arrested by police, who demanded a $20,000 ransom – a fortune. He borrowed the money and paid. The alternative was death. For an ordinary Afghan trying to scratch a living out of the arid soil, this must be almost unbearable, particularly so when he sees rapists and murderers, even failed suicide bombers, released without charge after payment of a bribe. That is the regime we are defending and are perceived to be supporting. The Taliban play on this. They offer a system of courts which is fast, decisive, and effective. An Afghan living in a non-Taliban part of a southern province, who has a dispute – over property, immigration rights, or a criminal matter – is quite likely to go to the Taliban area and ask them to arbitrate. They will summon both parties, hear their petitions and then issue, and enforce, a judgement. They can be vicious and evil at times. They hanged an old woman for the crime of talking to a foreign development officer. They behead people who oppose them or help Nato. These executions are carried out in town centres, where they strike most terror. The Taliban make about 40 per cent of their funds from drug trafficking, which Nato, and the UK, facilitated by initially naive and incompetent policies. This allows the Taliban another grip on the rural population. So the ordinary Afghan must feel caught between competing protection rackets in the police, the Taliban, the narco-bandits and the warlords. There are glimmers of light. The Afghan Attorney General is in a battle with warlords and cabinet ministers, although, without action from the President, he cannot win. Afghan despair at the breakdown of justice has been a factor in the Taliban resurgence. In the past few years, it has led to 14,500 deaths. Monthly deaths of Allied soldiers here now exceed those in Iraq. Aid workers are being kidnapped and killed. The major road network is largely unusable because of risk of attack. In Helmand, we control five town centres, but rural areas and roads are dominated by the Taliban. Kandahar is little better. The problem is spreading. So we need a new strategy. It should include a new command structure that co-ordinates the various forces. Short term, we need more coalition troops – ones that will fight, unlike some Nato forces. In the longer term, we need a bigger Afghan National Army – one British officer said at least double its projected size. To match Iraq it would need to be at least five times its projected size. Most of all, we must deliver a much better life for ordinary Afghans. That requires better justice. At the national level, the impunity of the drug barons, warlords, and political influence peddlers must be broken. This will take high-profile trials of powerful people. At the local level, it means a quicker, more traditional justice by councils of tribal elders. And it means root and branch reform or replacement of the Afghan National Police. — By arrangement with
The Independent
|
|
When Jet Airways panicked The
sacking of Jet Airways staff is a case of mismanagement and a blot on the Indian aviation canvas. Only two years back civil aviation was a buoyant sector with 40 per cent growth and unprecedented opportunities. The government decision, permitting 40 per cent equity and 100 per cent investment in aviation without any prior approval led to the mushrooming of new airlines and hectic buying of aircraft. India was one of the largest buyers in the market and tourism seemed to boom. Jet had been in dire financial straits till it got the rights to fly abroad. Under bilateral agreements with different countries Indian aviation companies could fly to foreign destinations and those countries’ airlines were permitted to fly into India. These slots had remained unutilised due to Air India’s limitations. As a Director on the Board of Air India, I had in the past opposed this non-utilisation as a loss to the country. With the government decision, fresh opportunities opened up. Jet started growing ambitiously and Kingfisher followed. Thousands of young people pitched their dreams on this growing sector with opportunities to see the world. Air India’s market share went down and the government continued to subsidise it purely for the personal benefit of politicians and bureaucrats, who are the major beneficiaries of its privileges. Civil servants without any stake in the survival or profit of the company continued to rule it for the benefit of the privileged class of government servants and the party in power. Professionalism is on the decline in government sectors. Jet and Kingfisher indulged in unbridled expansionism and price-cutting expecting the boom to continue unabated till US fall. As a contrast, Indigo followed a lean, low-cost strategy and managed well. But both these companies ruled the government decisions as they squandered money .The result is that the industry is close to losing US$ 1.2 billion, besides its debt of fuel bill of an equal amount payable to the oil companies. Jet is a closely managed company, which has an eye on profits and the market rather than fairness to its employees or customers. It is unthinkable that a decision to sack 1,900 young people could have been taken without the knowledge of its Chairman as was revealed by him in his U-turn. He had himself come on the television channel to say so. The management has totally lost credibility in the eyes of the public. Had he given enough thought to the issue instead of following the US system blindly, he could have found other ways to reduce the costs. But Jet panicked on the US meltdown. He should have known that the Indian system is widely different from the US, where social security exists. One could be so heartless to throw young people with dreams on the road without any qualm. Air India was close on heel to follow it by its holiday plan for 5,000 people till the Civil Aviation Minister, who knows its repercussions on politics immediately denied it. Kingfisher played a wiser game and announced no retrenchment as it had no surplus staff. It also scored in the PR exercise and is taking other measures to reduce the costs. The Indian industry should follow the Japanese practice of life-time employment rather than aping the US practice without having the US social-security system. I always taught M.B.A. students cultural differences in countries and advocated the need for new humanism in my book “Eastern and Cross Cultural Management”. The book has a story of Matshushita. Long back when National – a well-known Japanese company – faced a similar situation, its Chairman, Matshushita, over-ruled the board decision to sack 50 per cent of its employees. The company’s inventory was choked and sales of its fans were slow. The board wanted a 50 per cent cut in production and an equal reduction in the staff strength. The Chairman reduced the production to half and appealed to the employees to help the company, which was going under. Thousands of employees came forward on a voluntary basis and worked over time to sell its products. The company was saved and made a name in the world. There are imaginative and innovative ways of managing companies. Even Delta followed a similar approach to tide over the crisis. Unfortunately, the routine business schools do not teach such things and our old-generation managers ape the US without understanding the problems of India, where unemployment and poverty are widespread. The worst fallout of the Jet case is that Raj Thackeray had to intervene to save the youngsters and set a bad precedent as the government remained a mute spectator. The management was heartless and politicians were indifferent but a regional leader with local dadas took up a right cause with a threat which worked like magic.
|
|
America's useless terrorism list The
State Department's list of "state sponsors of terrorism" is one of the biggest farces of U.S. foreign policy. Started in 1979 for nations designated by the secretary of State "to have repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism," the rationale behind the list is far from any high moral purpose to rid the world of terrorism. This blacklist exists solely to punish the US enemies, not to cajole them to stop sponsoring terrorists. Landing on it places limits on the size and scope of arms, economic aid and other financial transactions a country can have with American citizens. By promising to remove a country from it, we dangle a carrot in front of the North Koreas and Libyas of the world to try to exact behavioral change and wrest concessions. Although in theory that might be a useful tool, it ignores the need to work with our international allies to apply pressure on these states and does not tackle the socio-economic causes of why terrorism takes root in the first place. The terrorism blacklist only reduces our foreign policy to the petty thinking of a clipboard-toting nightclub bouncer, who gets to whimsically decide who is allowed in and who is not. It fits snugly into our with-us-or-against-us view of world affairs, not to mention our one-size-fits-all preference to lump all terrorist groups under one umbrella. "The very concept of a binary list, with countries either on it or off, is flawed and often does more harm to U.S. interests than good," terrorism expert Daniel Byman of the Brookings Institution said in an analysis paper in May. Washington, for example, only removed Iraq from the terrorism sponsor list in 1982 so the U.S. could supply military technology to Saddam Hussein in the early days of Iraq's war with Iran. Iraq was put back on the list after it invaded Kuwait in 1990 -- which was an act of aggression, to be sure, but a move that had nothing to do with its support of terrorism. Meanwhile, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia -- all allies of the United States -- never have landed on the terrorism list, despite mounds of evidence that elements within their governments at one time or another abetted terrorists. The list's membership, which has shifted over the years, is puzzling. The inaugural members in 1979 were Libya, Iraq, South Yemen and Syria, and the current ones are Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Syria. Why is Cuba, whose sponsorship of terrorists has been dormant since the Cold War, on the list but not Venezuela, which actively supports FARC, the leftist rebel group that seeks to overthrow Colombia's government? Why is Sudan, which partially collaborated with Washington to weed out Islamic extremism in parts of Africa, on the list but not Somalia? Of course, some will stress the importance of the list as leverage during negotiations. But we have lots of other levers to pull for that purpose. And most countries fully understand how politicized the list has become, thus watering down its effectiveness. — By arrangement with
LA Times-Washington Post
|
|
|
|
| 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 | |
