The Tribune, Chandigarh, India

Fearless learning
New bill to stamp out failure

Schools would not be able to fail a child up to Class VIII if the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Bill, introduced in the Rajya Sabha last week, is passed into law. The Bill is bound to spread cheer among schoolchildren, currently weighed down by irrational parental expectations and school pressure to show good results. The present system of examinations, inadequate and even defective as it is, exerts tremendous emotional pressure on children by forcing them to learn by rote. It actually hampers their creative growth and does not let them enjoy their childhood.

In case of poor performance in school, many a child is dubbed a failure, a tag that even grown-ups find it difficult to handle. Societies often reward success but not many teach how to handle failure. The effect on a child can be traumatic. The National Crime Records Bureau figures show a 7 per cent rise in student suicides in India between 2006 and 2007. Poor health and poverty also come in the way of success. Those differently equipped or under domestic pressure to work to supplement family income often end up with poor marks and, if not promoted to the next class, tend to drop out. That partly explains why the school dropout rate is so high at 50 per cent.

Private schools hold back or even expel weak students to keep up their image. Under the new Bill, such action would invite penalty. If a child does not come up to the required standards, the onus for his/her performance should be on the school. This may require close monitoring of every child on a weekly or monthly basis and tests, including the terminal examination, would be optional. The Bill aims to eliminate fear from the process of learning and create a stress-free environment in schools.

Salaam Mumbai!
Never-say-die spirit is intact

When Pakistani terrorists armed to the teeth sneaked their way into Mumbai on November 26 and killed innocent persons mercilessly, their aim was to cause as much fear, disruption and mayhem as possible so that the preeminent position the city enjoys as the financial capital of India is destroyed. They managed to shed blood aplenty, but their mission to bring the happening city to a halt has failed miserably. In less than a month, the city has bounced back to normalcy, and even the Taj and Trident hotels opened their doors to welcome the guests back on Sunday. It is a tribute to the guests too — both Indian and foreign — who came back in droves, and in the process gave a slap on the face of the merchants of death. It is a clear sign that life goes on despite the machinations of the devils.

The multi-faith prayer meetings that marked the occasion and the standing ovation given to the hotel staff who saved countless lives by putting their own in peril was proof that the terrorists had rather brought the nation together and increased its resolve to put the challengers in their place. The only thing that has changed is that the easy informality of these popular places has been replaced by tight security. But that is something the terrorists should not be proud of. Congenial air that a place exudes is not a sign of weakness, but just of a civilised way of life. What a pity that those who have no respect for it are out to destroy it!

While Taj Tower is back in business, the century-old main building will take months — may be even a year — to repair. Still, many of the priceless antiques for which it was famous, are gone for ever. For that too, the killers ought to be ashamed. They have proved that they are so blinded by hatred that they have turned into animals who can only kill, maim and destroy. It is poetic justice that they have paid with their lives for daring to ruin the Indian way of life.

Thought for the Day

For it is your business, when the wall next door catches fire. — Horace

ARTICLE

Getting the fundamentals right
Good policing a must to fight terrorism
by B.G. Verghese

The anger over Mumbai still appears to induce irrationality among sections of society as witnessed by the Shiv Sena threat to prevent any lawyer accepting a brief to defend Qasab, the one Pakistani terrorist apprehended alive in the recent attack. Legal defence is not tantamount to showing sympathy for the accused but a professional duty in accordance with the rule of law and in the interests of a fair trial and justice.

It will not do to argue that the crime was committed in full public gaze, now stands self-confessed and was in any event so heinous as to exclude due process. This would be a travesty of justice and would set a dangerous precedent in the wake of earlier threats against anybody defending alleged Muslim terror suspects, though some, including the Shiv Sena, rushed to defend so-called “Hindu terror” suspects. If the law is to take its course and the criminal justice system to enjoy credibility, due process must not be jettisoned. And those seeking to thwart it on “patriotic” grounds should be dealt with sternly.

Attention has turned to securing tougher laws to curb and try terror and strengthening the national security and intelligence apparatus. This is necessary as systemic flaws have been exposed in both cases. However, any superstructure must stand on sure foundations and not on sand as will be the case without basic police reforms as the primary basis of day-to-day security for the citizen, maintenance of the rule of law and good governance. This has scarcely been mentioned by the political parties or the government - and with good reason: none wants it.

Indeed, the criminalisation of politics and the politicisation of crime have gone hand in hand over the years, lubricated by corruption. In consequence, police reforms have been languishing ever since the National Police Commission reported 30 years ago. Successive review commissions have reiterated the same recommendations, the last being the Soli Sorabjee Committee.

The salient elements of reform were summarised by the Supreme Court which directed that these be implemented by the Centre and states by January 2007. Twenty months later, little has happened beyond some window-dressing. The plain fact is that the political class, irrespective of party affiliations, wishes to keep the police and intelligence services as handmaidens to further their personal and political interests and spy on and smite their opponents. This abuse has become endemic.

It was to stem this rot that the Supreme Court directed governments to constitute state security commissions to ensure unwarranted interference in the working of an independent police; ensure that the DG Police is appointed through an independent mechanism, selected on merit and, like other officers at the operational level, enjoys a minimum two-year tenure; set up a police establishment board to decide on all appointments, transfers and promotions of police officials; establish a national security commission to empanel and select chiefs of all central police organisations with fixed tenures; create independent police complaints boards at state and district levels to look into public complaints relating to misconduct, custodial deaths, grievous hurt or rape in police custody and other misconduct; and separate the investigative and law and order functions of the police. This charter, if implemented, would go a long way towards making the police a professional and citizen-friendly service.

The states have pleaded undue judicial activism, federal rights and invasion of their constitutional authority to stall progress. The monitoring committee appointed by the Supreme Court to oversee action taken has moved slowly but is now making more headway. Poor police emoluments and living conditions, exaggerated VIP protection and pomp and show duties, inadequate training and equipment for the tasks that confront the police today and lack of specialisation need attention. India is also greatly under-policed, the ratio of policemen per 10,000 population being 126 as against the modest UN-prescribed norm of 220.

Alarmed by this state of affairs, some 50 eminent citizens from different parts of the country recently signed a statement urging the Prime Minister, the Home Minister, the Chief Ministers and party leaders to act swiftly and treat police reforms as a non-partisan issue and ensure their earliest implementation (starting with Delhi and other Union Territories), even as the new national security superstructure is put in place.

Simultaneously, action must be taken to move on two other vital axes: rendering intelligence gathering, collation, analysis and dissemination more professional and free of motivated political influence. Equally, we must show zero-tolerance for corruption by removing the so-called single directive that requires permission to prosecute ministers and senior bureaucrats and incorporate the powerful UN Convention on Corruption into domestic law.

Automatic and independent prosecution machinery is required to obviate political discretion. The independence of the Vigilance Commission and the CBI too must be safeguarded, a Lok Pal appointed and the position of the Lok Ayuktas in the states strengthened. Political will and a commitment to the national interest are what is required, not more lame excuses.

Given police reforms and quick acting and independent appellate authorities, stronger laws as enacted will not derogate from human rights and need not brutalise society. Good policing is the first line of defence in the battle against terror. Otherwise, the rest is dross. Meanwhile, dangerously harebrained initiatives like the RSS plan to provide combat training to youth must be abandoned.

MIDDLE

Just a whistle gone by
by Ashima Bath

Mama that man whistled at me!” “Ma’am, you have no idea how the men catcall us.” Familiar cries of frustration from my students transported me back into my college days and the mind began to reminisce.

Walking back from college with a group of friends we were whistled at by a couple of young lads who were strutting about like peacocks in borrowed jeans. With all the arrogance of youth mustered, I, much to the amusement of my friends, as my spoken Hindi was a tad better than my Latin, turned to the boy and said: “Ghar mein Maa-Behan nahin hain kya?” I had waited for so long to use this proverbial Bollywood dialogue. Imagine my consternation when he replied, “Woh dono hein bus tum hi nahin ho!” I recall bursting out into laughter, which led to their hasty departure.

Years later with the incident long forgotten, my husband and I were walking on the Shimla Mall. On my husband’s shoulders sat our 15-month-old daughter that made his pace considerably slower and I marched along in my own world when suddenly flying out of a store landed a man in front of me and said: “Want to make family?” In hindsight I deduced that it was a great pick-up line. I mean, think about it. However, at that moment my reaction made him flee as I sat in the middle of the road laughing uncontrollably whilst people gathered around in astonishment.

Who are “their” scriptwriters?

There are two other incidents that remained vivid in my memory and often made me introspect, “Is it me?” “Is it them?” or “Why?”

On my first camps to Manali with my students, we were walking to Solang. Me being I, pointing out various birds and flowers to them finally cottoned on to the fact that a car was chasing “us”. As it stopped, with innocent ignorance I asked if I could be of assistance to which the pat reply was Aaja meri gaddi mein beth jaa. To his deep embarrassment and my goldfish mime the students began shaking with effortless mirth. Screech was all we heard.

What is the answer?

On one of our annual trips to Goa, an incident occurred that convinced me of my ability of two things: one, to attract “trouble” and two, that perhaps I appear totally dense. For those of you who know me, these questions are simply for myself. Walking in the flea market I got separated from my husband. Trying to swallow my rising panic and fear and looking for my better half I was accosted by a very strangely wonderful looking man who in all earnestness said to me:” Madam, I’m your Adam.” My husband traced me pretty quickly as the sound of my laughter drowned everything else.

Trance maybe?

I often tell my daughter who loves these anecdotes that perhaps I was lucky that I have the ability to see humour in a situation or perhaps could defuse the trigger and that has kept me safe.

What is the fact is that they make wonderful memories whilst my husband can still hear the ring of my laughter.

OPED

One missing word sowed seeds of catastrophe
by Robert Fisk

A nit-picker this week. And given the fact that we’re all remembering human rights, the Palestinians come to mind since they have precious few of them, and the Israelis because they have the luxury of a lot of them.

And Lord Blair, since he’ll be communing with God next week, might also reflect that he still – to his shame – hasn’t visited Gaza. But the nit-picking has got to be our old friend United Nations Security Council Resolution 242.

This, you’ll recall, was supposed to be the resolution that would guide all future peace efforts in the Middle East; Oslo was supposed to have been founded on it and all sorts of other processes and summits and road maps.

It was passed in November 1967, after Israel had occupied Gaza, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, the Sinai and Golan, and it emphasises “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war” and calls for “withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent
conflict”.

Readers who know the problem here will be joined by those who will immediately pick it up. The Israelis say that they are not required to withdraw from all the territories – because the word “all” is missing and since the definite article “the” is missing before the word “territories”, its up to Israel to decide which bits of the occupied territories it gives up and which bits it keeps.

Hence Israel can say it gave up Sinai in accordance with 242 but is going to keep East Jerusalem and much of the West Bank for its settlers. Golan depends on negotiations with Syria. And Gaza? Well, 242 doesn’t say anything about imprisoning one and a half million civilians because they voted for the wrong people. No one in 1967 dreamed that the Israeli-Arab conflict would still be in ferocious progress 41 years later.

And as an Independent reader pointed out a couple of years ago, the Security Council clearly never intended the absence of a definite article to give Israel an excuse to stay in the West Bank. Alas, our reader was wrong.

I’ve been going back through my files on 242 and discovered a most elucidating paper by John McHugo, who was a visiting fellow at the Scottish Centre for International Law at Edinburgh University. He points out that pro-Israeli lawyers have been saying for some years that “Resolution 242 unanimously called for withdrawal from ‘territories’ rather than withdrawal from ‘all the territories’. Its choice of words was deliberate... they signify that withdrawal if required from some but not all the territories”.

McHugo is, so far as I know, the only man to re-examine the actual UN debates on 242 and they make very unhappy reading. The French and Spanish versions of the text actually use the definite article. But the Brits – apparently following a bit of strong-arm tactics from the Americans – did not use “the”. Lord Caradon, our man at the UN, insisted on putting in the phrase about the “inadmissability of the acquisition of territory by war” in order to stop the Israelis claiming that they could cherry-pick which lands to return and which to hand on to.

Britain accepted Jordan’s rule over the West Back – the PLO were still shunned as super-terrorists at the time – but it did no good. Abba Eban, Israel’s man on the East River, did his best to persuade Caradon to delete both “the” and the bit about the inadmissability of territory through war. He won the first battle, but not the second.

That great American statesman George Ball was to recount how, when the Arabs negotiated over 242 in early November of 1967 – at the Waldorf Astoria (these guys knew how to pick the swankiest hotels for political betrayal) – the US ambassador to the UN, Arthur Goldberg, told King Hussein that America “could not guarantee that everything would be returned by Israel”.

The Arabs distrusted Goldberg because he was known to be pro-Zionist, but Hussein was much comforted when US Secretary of State Dean Rusk assured
him in Washington that the US “did not approve of Israeli retention of the West Bank”.

Hussein was further encouraged when he met President Johnson who told him that Israeli withdrawal might take place in “six months”. Goldberg further boosted his confidence. “Don’t worry. They’re on board,” he said of the Israelis. Ho ho.

It’s intriguing to note that several other nations at the UN were troubled by the absence of “the”. The Indian delegate, for example, pointed out that the resolution referred to “all the territories – I repeat all the territories – occupied by Israel...” while the Soviet Union (which knew all about occupying other people’s countries) stated that “we understand the decision to mean the withdrawal of Israeli forces from all, and we repeat, all territories belonging to Arab states and seized by Israel...”. President Johnson rebuffed the Soviets and bluntly refused to put the word “all” in the resolution.

Bulgaria, not surprisingly, said much the same as the Soviets. Brazil expressed reservations – rightly so – about “the clarity of the wording”. The Argentinians “would have preferred a clearer text”. In other words, the future tragedy was spotted at the time. But we did nothing. The Americans had stitched it up and the Brits went along with it. The Arabs were not happy but foolishly – and typically – relied on Caradon’s assurances that “all” the territories was what 242 meant, even if it didn’t say so. Israel still fought hard to get rid of the “inadmissability” bit, even when it had got “the” out.

— By arrangement with The Independent

The sky grew dark in 2008
by Bruce Anderson

Rarely if ever has the world seemed more unstable and more dangerous. Wherever one looks, the threats are manifold: the grounds for hope, elusive.

At the risk of writing history backwards, the Cold War was manageable. It did settle down into a regime of containment. Containment today: where would one start? Russia itself is difficult. A year ago, there were grounds for wary optimism.

Yes, Russia was being tricky, but surely this was less a return to super-power confrontation and more the truculence of a testosterone-charged adolescent. The West had no dog in a fight with Russia.

Since then, we have been foolish enough to offer a kennel to some wholly unreliable hounds. It was simply daft to tempt Georgia and the Ukraine with the hope of Nato membership. This emboldened the Georgians to behave as foolishly as the Western politicians who had encouraged them.

The Russian response was neither unpredictable nor unjustified. Indeed, it was almost Bismarckian. Clear objectives were achieved in a limited time by the ruthless use of overwhelming force. Yet there is a crucial difference between the Russians and the Iron Chancellor. He believed in ending his wars with a renewal of diplomatic order and an enduring peace. Russian diplomacy is almost an oxymoron.

A year ago, it was easier to disregard Russian assertiveness because the fundamentals appeared to be sound. Commodity prices were enabling the Russian government to outdo all its predecessors and offer its people the prospect of steadily rising living standards. That would promote social stability, as well as the indefinite re-election of Mr Putin and his friends. Now, everything is much more uncertain.

The same applies to China. Here again, there had been a decisive break with a history of scarcity and famine. For the first time, the Chinese had enough to eat – and every hope of rapid and continuing material progress. But much of that growth depended on export markets which have now been crunched. In response, the Chinese are not without resources.

Traditionally, developing economies import capital. It looks as if Beijing could now redeploy its cash at home. If so, there would be an enormous shortfall in Western capital needs. But it is even more important that China remains stable. With the – containable – exception of Taiwan, China has no strategic dispute with the West. But a Chinese government threatened by unrest would be unpredictable, at best.

Unlike China, India always wears its chaos on its sleeve. It is hard to see beyond that brilliant remark which is in danger of becoming a cliché. “Every generalisation about India is true. So is the opposite.”

Over the decades, and whatever the chaos, the Indian system has proved its durability, even when tested in extremis by Mrs Gandhi. But suppose, post-Mumbai, a bomb explodes in a crowded shopping centre (that is a tautology) in Delhi. Hundreds are killed. There appears to be a link with dissident elements in the Pakistani security services. What is the danger of a nuclear confrontation with Pakistan?

It could be argued that up until now, the balance of nuclear terror in the sub-continent has been a stabilising force. But there are a couple of problems. To judge by some of the official rhetoric, wild even by Indian standards, not everyone in Delhi accepts the glacial logic of mutually-assured destruction, while Pakistan is not a country to whom one would wish to entrust nuclear weapons.

Nor is Iran, yet we appear to be moving steadily in that direction. Eliot warned us that human kind cannot bear very much reality. If anyone felt it necessary to defend that self-evident truth, they could do worse than cite the West’s sustained and abject failure to evolve a policy on Iran. There might be a case for threats. There could be a case for talking. There is no case at all for vacillating between those two tactics with equal lack of conviction. Our blustering has merely managed to annoy the Iranians without frightening them, while our intermittent diplomacy has only conveyed the message that we cannot think what else to do: that we are hinting at talks, not because we want concord, but because we are weak.

So the Iranians, emboldened, extend their influence by sponsoring terrorism while awaiting the day when they too can play in the deterrence game. Let us hope that mutually-assured destruction does translate into Farsi, and that it does not only mean 72 virgins.

It is a mess, like all the rest of the Muddle East. We seem to be as far away as ever from a Palestinian state. It must be almost time for the next Intifada. If the world economy is in a mess, what must it feel like in Jordan and Egypt.

— By arrangement with The Independent

Delhi Durbar
‘Sorry Bhai’ song in courts

Have you heard of a Bollywood film releasing in two versions, one with an extra song, while real action is played outside a cinema hall? This is what happened to the recently released “Sorry Bhai.” It was due to a case filed by singer Rabbi Shergill in the Delhi High Court, suing the filmmakers for allegedly copying a song from his album.

Shergill won the first round with a single-judge Bench staying the release, but the second round honours went to the producers, who got the stay vacated by a Division Bench.

At one stage, the case was pending before both the HC and the Supreme Court. During arguments in the apex court, the judges asked why the film was being shown without the controversial song in some theatres.

“My lord, it is a tedious process to put back the song in the film once it is removed” (done apparently after the first round loss), the counsel for the producers explained, leaving those present in the court wondering whether fighting it out in courts was going to be easier. The onlookers proved to be right as the case was withdrawn from the apex court on December 19.

Soccer and terror

Sports seems to be on every politician’s mind. The other day the BJP’s prime ministerial candidate, L.K. Advani, sought to describe his party’s electoral defeats in Rajasthan and Delhi in the cricket jargon.

He said the Delhi loss was a hit wicket. Just a day after Advani displayed his élan in equating poll defeats with cricket losses, union science minister Kapil Sibal scored higher points than his adversary on the scale.

During the crucial debate on anti-terror bills in the Lok Sabha last week, Sibal ended up describing terrorism as a soccer game.

Fielded by the UPA to defend its new, mighty laws, Sibal said, “In soccer, you may save 100 shots, but the world will remember only the one shot you missed. The same goes for terrorism. That one shot was fired at us in Mumbai.”

Praise for Brinda

Articulate CPI(M) leader Brinda Karat earned a compliment from Home Minister P Chidambaram, albeit a left-handed one. As Chidambaram introduced amendments to the code of criminal procedure (CrPC), Karat suggested some very crucial amendments relating to women, which were applauded by the entire House cutting across party lines.

Chidambaram accepted the amendments and also heaped praise on Brinda Karat but observed that she was more reasonable when talking about these issues than commenting on financial matters.

Probably, PC had not forgotten how the Left parties stone-walled several of his financial proposals.

Contributed by R Sedhuraman, Aditi Tandon and Ajay Banerjee