|
|
Big catch Rajkhowa
Kashmir initiatives |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Resignation or impeachment
Seven dossiers and still waiting
Fashion sense
Obama’s Afghan strategy
Copenhagen: Don’t forget water
Generating power from waste in Punjab villages Corrections and clarifications
|
Big catch Rajkhowa Arabinda Rajkhowa, chairman of the outlawed United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA), is listed as one of India’s most wanted separatist leaders. As such, his arrest in Bangladesh can indeed be called a big catch. There is no official confirmation whether he has already been handed over to the Indian authorities along the India-Bangladesh border in Tripura. The government is perhaps keeping quiet on the issue because he can be instrumental in opening peace talks at least with the moderate faction of ULFA.
A hint in this regard was given in the Rajya Sabha by Union Home Minister P. Chidambaram on Wednesday when he said that the ULFA top leadership would make a political statement in the next two days. Mrinal Hazarika, leader of the pro-talks ULFA faction, has said that the faction is with him if he takes the initiative to engage in peace talks with the government. Hazarika, along with about 150 rebels of the Alpha and Charlie companies of ULFA, two most potent striking units of ULFA, had declared a unilateral ceasefire in July last year. How far these talks are successful in bringing about peace is debatable, considering that ULFA commander-in-chief Paresh Baruah and his deputy Raju Baruah are still at large and are learnt to be shuttling from one place to another in China, Malayasia, Thailand and Bangladesh. But they are the only leaders of note who are still in a position to keep up the armed struggle. All others like general secretary Anup Chetia, vice-president Pradip Gogoi, finance secretary Chitraban Hazarika, foreign secretary Sashadhar Choudhury and political adviser Bhimkanta Burogohai are already in custody. Many of them have been accounted for thanks to the cooperation of Bangladesh under Sheikh Hasina Wajed. Sashadhar Choudhury and Chitraban Hazarika were handed over by the Bangladesh authorities to India last month and now it is Rajkhowa, along with several other senior ULFA leaders. Sheikh Hasina had pledged that she would not let terrorists use Bangladesh territory for their nefarious activities and she has fulfilled that promise. Other countries like China and Myanmar should also realise that such elements are nobody’s friends. Only international cooperation against them can keep them under check.
|
|
Kashmir initiatives Union Home Minister P. Chidambaram’s announcement of a reduction in the deployment of armed forces in Jammu and Kashmir as a response to the incidents of violence being the lowest in 2009 during two decades of Pakistan-sponsored militancy is doubtlessly a bold move. By his own admission, it could be a risky step but it stands to reason that such a step be taken with adequate safeguards built in so that law and order as a subject could progressively be restored to the state police as is the case in other states.
It goes in Mr Chidambaram’s favour that in the one year that he has handled the Home portfolio, there have been no major incidents of terrorist attacks both in Kashmir and the rest of the country. The situation in Jammu and Kashmir has improved substantially with a growing number of tourists, both Indian and foreign, making a beeline for the ‘Switzerland of the East.’ It is indeed noteworthy that the Manmohan Singh government has, in conjunction with a reduction of troops, signalled its willingness to engage in talks with all shades of opinion, including those who are considered hardline separatists. There is a fresh earnestness to find a peaceful solution to the Kashmir imbroglio which deserves to be welcomed. With Pakistan being pre-occupied with its own survival in the wake of Taliban and Al-Qaeda attacks on it, this is a time when outfits like the ISI have loosened their sinister grip on Kashmir separatists. It is, therefore, prudent to deal with misguided groups and to seek to bring them into the mainstream now. It is understandable that Mr Chidambaram has favoured “quiet” talks and “quiet diplomacy”, away from media glare. All this is not to detract from the need to tread with utmost caution. The reduction of troops must be a gradual and well-calibrated process. The government must be ready to send reinforcements anytime on short notice. Any attempts at third-party mediation must be resisted and the Pakistan government must be kept at bay. The effort being made to solve the long-festering problem could well be worth the while. |
|
|
Resignation or impeachment
It is surprising that Karnataka High Court Chief Justice P.D. Dinakaran continues in office despite serious charges of corruption levelled against him by eminent jurists, the Supreme Court Bar Association, the Bar Council of India and the advocates’ associations of both Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. Following two reports by the Tiruvallur District Collector confirming his involvement in the encroachment of government land in Kaverirajapuram, the Supreme Court collegium has put his elevation to the apex court on hold. Chief Justice of India K.G. Balakrishnan has sought a report from the Survey of India too. Once this report is released, the collegium can expedite a decision on Justice Dinakaran. Even as the nation is anxiously awaiting the collegium’s decision, questions have been raised on Justice Dinakaran’s moral authority in continuing in office. Mr Fali S. Nariman, the Bar Association of India president, and Mr M.N. Krishnamani, the Supreme Court Bar Association president, met the CJI on Wednesday and appealed against his elevation. Whether the charges against him are conclusively proved or not, Justice Dinakaran is looked upon by people at large as an epitome of corruption. In the circumstances, the best course for him is to quit the high office gracefully and protect the image and prestige of the judiciary. In the event of Justice Dinakaran’s refusal to quit office, the collegium would do well to take cognisance of reports of land grabbing by him and advise him to quit forthwith. If impeachment is the only way out, Parliament may have to step in though this process is cumbersome. If Parliament had failed to impeach Justice Ramaswami of the Supreme Court in 1992, it was because MPs from his home state of Tamil Nadu decided to vote against the impeachment motion and the ruling Congress abstained from voting. One wonders what fate would befall Justice Dinakaran if it comes to that.
|
|
|
A statesman... must wait until he hears the steps of God sounding through events; then leap up and grasp the hem of his garment. — Otto von Bismarck
|
Seven dossiers and still waiting
The
country has relived the horror of 26/11 a full year after the event, vainly waiting for Pakistan to respond with more than empty words, counter- accusations and injured innocence. Seven dossiers later, Pakistan is still brazenly waiting for more evidence while prime movers like Hafez Saeed, the former LeT head and now the chief of the Jamat-ud Dawa, a wolf in lamb’s clothing, walk free. Meanwhile, it faces punishment in the Talibanised inferno of its own creation. It is the innocent who bleed while the ideologues, the military and hapless civil-political regime they manipulate watch and wait for something to turn up. Far from fighting the so-called war on terror, Pakistan is an epitome of world terror, having nurtured this scourge over the years, earlier, with American assistance and silent approbation, to finetune it into an instrument of state policy under the protection of its own nuclear umbrella, which too it was allowed and assisted to create by China and America for short-term collateral gains unmindful of huge future collateral damage from which India has surely been the worst affected. Hillary Clinton formally described this as a period of incoherence in America’s AfPak policy. This incoherence clearly remains as General Stanley MacCrystal, the US commander in Afghanistan, has high praise for Indian humanitarian assistance to that devastated country and yet asks Delhi to be solicitous of Pakistan’s sensitivities even as Washington periodically arraigns Pakistan for thwarting, if not aiding, the Taliban in Afghanistan. The Pakistan calculation is that sooner or later, the Americans will tire of Afghanistan and once again walk away after proclaiming some kind of victory, leaving the field clear for it to use that unhappy land as a strategic asset and the Taliban as its sub rosa strike force in pursuit of its eastern ambitions. Obama has now joined with Hu Jintao, the Chinese Premier, to call for “more stable and peaceful relations in South Asia”. This is a gratuitous barb - coming just as A.Q. Khan has again reminded the world through the Pakistan media that Beijing assisted Islamabad with enriched uranium and the blueprint of a tested nuclear weapon in 1982 - notwithstanding the further remark that neither Afghanistan nor Pakistan “can or should be used as bases for terrorism”. Even as Ajmal Kasab’s trial continues in Mumbai, new evidence keeps surfacing of other sinister players operating out of Pakistan or with Pakistani connections. Headley, an American, and Rana, a Canadian, both of Pakistani origin, increasingly appear to have been involved in the Mumbai terror plot or were possibly planning more mischief elsewhere in India. Evidence points to their having been in touch with the same Pakistani handlers as the 26/11 terrorists. Meanwhile, more arrests have been made in different parts of the country and huge caches of arms found. Much of this evidence might yet be circumstantial, but as the dots are joined, the emerging picture suggests that the Pakistani state and not just non-state actors remains active and working to a plan to wage a terrorist jihad in India. It might be argued that a distinction must be drawn between Islamabad and rogue elements within the state and genuine non-state actors, former protégés now out of control and creating mayhem within Pakistan itself. Such subtleties provide cold comfort. Even if their background is ignored, the Pakistan state refuses to take on these ideologues and cover organisations. The trial in Rawalpindi of Lakhvi, Zarar Shah and five others for their role in 26/11 inspires little confidence as it proceeds fitfully in camera, with long adjournments under different judges, one of whom recused himself as he was under threat. Pakistan’s defence is now offence. It has charged India with assisting those perpetrating terror in Balochistan and within the Federally Administered Tribal Area through Afghanistan. The Americans and others have publicly pooh-poohed such fantasies and have, on the contrary, accused Pakistan of colluding with the Taliban in Afghanistan while selectively fighting it in Pakistan and of harbouring the Quetta Shoura and other Taliban and Al-Queda leaders within its territory. The Pakistan Prime Minister, Yousuf Raza Gilani, farcically asserts he has clear evidence of India’s complicity but will only reveal details “at the right time”. Such humbug fools nobody, not even Pakistanis themselves. The problem is that nobody quite knows who is in charge in Pakistan. Not Asif Zardari who has his back to the wall especially after his National Reconciliation Order indemnity against corruption charges was rescinded. Gilani? The military, with the ISI in tow? Sundry ideologues in cahoots with rogue elements within the civil establishments and military? External players like the Saudis, who have guaranteed all manner of deals and provided massive (possibly non-state) funding for the spread of madarsas and the Wahabi-inspired Taliban ideology? The Americans are hoist with their own petard and afraid that if they push too hard Pakistan might collapse under the weight of its many contradictions in which scenario desperate men might use or sell nuclear material to dubious elements even if the actual nuclear arsenal can be protected in these circumstances. What then should India do on the first anniversary of 26/11? Not rant and rage or encourage chauvinist bravado. Nor refuse to engage Pakistan quietly. Merely sitting on its hands is no policy. It must endeavour to strategise to assist incipient civil, democratic forces in Pakistan to rally and build themselves to reclaim the state. This will include educating the Americans and Europeans, especially about the deeper identity crisis in Pakistan which is at the root of its misbegotten militarisation and Islamisation, and regionalising the AfPak solution with international guarantees to create a neutral Afghanistan. Pakistan has to find its soul, not in enmity but in friendship with India, ending the trauma of Partition and the negativism and hate inherent in its founding philosophy. For its part, India must go forward boldly with a Kashmir settlement, internally certainly and externally if possible on the lines of the Manmohan-Musharraf package of cohabitation between the two parts of J&K, making boundaries (the LoC) irrelevant, but retaining the existing twin sovereignties. This was first enunciated by Nehru and Sheikh Abdullah in 1964 in an embryonic confederal idea that could evolve over time.n
|
||
Fashion sense
How
do you like this dress?” my better half asked me. As all husbands know, this question, like the unanswerable question ‘have you stopped beating your wife?’ is a potential trap from where it is very difficult to escape. Having recently become a fan of the TV channel showing fashion around the world, much to my wife’s discomfort and despite her snide remarks about my age, I thought I would try the knowledge gained to impress her. I said instead of a traditional dress why don’t you go in for fusion style like Indian prints with western silhouette or contemporary style with old world glamour? Alternatively the dress could be a fusion of antique embroidery and handlooms with futuristic cuts. Warming up to my brilliance (foolishly, I was to realise later) I said the dress you choose must reflect all the energy, vibrancy and chic of a modern metro. It should be glittery, high on funk, studded, beaded, draped and flouncy! She turned around and asked me if I was feeling OK. I said I was fine and that elegance is not an attitude but a way of life and it must get reflected in the clothes that you wear. I suggested that she look for something with plenty of shoulder and sleeve effects with soft feminine details in a transparent and water like fabric which should be colourful, dramatic and versatile! On the other hand she could look for something where the accent could be on minimalism, in colour, fabric and furbishing. The quality of the cloth should be that it defines elegance — timelessness; a quality that conveys permanence in a world infatuated with the temporary. The glare I got from my wife would have been a warning enough for a lesser man, but having decided to exhibit all my knowledge in front of her friends I continued bravely unmindful of the consequences. The dress, I said could be a juxtaposition of fabrics, intriguing drapes with the subtlest hint of sparkle and shine. Foliage embroidery, with just a hint of peach would create a delicate harmony which would be difficult to match. As far as the colours were concerned they could either be in pinks and oranges or greens and aquas with a subtle base of pewter . It could also be a deep blue-black offset by cream to create lot of character and give a more saturated look than a simply contrasting stark black and white. The colours could be in harmony with each other or, preferably, clashing so as to bring out the character of a modern woman! By this time she had had enough of my unwanted suggestions, and in a tone, which experience had taught me never to disregard ,she suggested that I stick to what I did best, that is wait for her and her friends in the car, till she finishes buying a dress. The consequence of my indiscretion is another story, which I cannot share with others, but the silver lining is that I am spared from driving her to the market when she now goes shopping for her clothes. Though my stock has gone up with her friends but it has nosedived with the woman that matters the most to me!n
|
||
Obama’s Afghan strategy
In
crafting his new Afghanistan policy, President Barack Obama borrowed liberally from an unlikely source: the playbook of George W. Bush. Obama was an outspoken critic of the former president's decision to increase troop strength in Iraq in early 2007, a point nearly four years after the U.S.-led invasion when the country was in the midst of sectarian war. He maintained his opposition throughout the presidential campaign, shrugging off Republican criticism that he was overlooking the subsequent decline in violence. The Afghan strategy Obama announced Tuesday shares similarities with the Iraq "surge": a fast push into the country, a limited duration, an emphasis on training local forces and a hope of flipping the allegiance of insurgents. But experts say there are key differences between the two countries, particularly in the nature of the insurgency, the terrain, the quality of security forces and the political atmosphere. Some of what worked in Iraq is likely to prove more difficult in Afghanistan, they say. And even in Iraq, a year and a half after the added troops left, the gains are not necessarily secure. "It is a concept very similar to the Iraq surge," said Frederick W. Kagan, a military scholar who helped conceive the Iraq build-up strategy and advised Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top U.S. and allied commander in Afghanistan, on his assessment of the war there. Scholars and defense officials have debated which factors were the most critical in Iraq. What is not in doubt is that violence levels in Iraq fell quickly, positioning the U.S. to begin the withdrawal of the large military force that remains, which is to begin after parliamentary elections early next year. The buildup was supposed to give "time and space" for Iraqi security forces to develop, and for Iraqi politicians to make compromises on key legislation meant to reconcile sectarian factions. While the security forces improved, reconciliation remains elusive. Obama was dismissive of the "time and space" argument as a senator, but on Tuesday officials from his administration used the same language, arguing that Obama's plan would allow the Afghan government to develop its security forces, enact reforms and fight corruption. Senior defense officials said they looked carefully at the strategies that worked in Iraq, while crafting the new Afghanistan policy. Testifying Wednesday before the Senate, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates wryly drew some comparisons between the two deployments – including the need to explain the strategies in front of skeptical lawmakers. "This is the second surge I've been up here defending," Gates said. One of the most important developments in Iraq began largely independent of U.S. actions, when Sunnis turned against militants. Sunni insurgents who had been fighting both Iraqi Shiites and foreign forces broke with the militants. Sunni tribal leaders who either had sympathized with the insurgency or feared speaking out against it quickly sought out an alliance with U.S. forces. The Americans then helped organize them into local security forces and, in essence, paid them not to fight the U.S. or Iraqi militaries. As violence ebbed, there has been some success in bringing the former fighters into the political process. But relatively few have been given jobs in the security forces, as promised. Many of the original leaders of the Sunni revolt in Baghdad have been arrested, are in hiding or exile, or face legal proceedings. In Afghanistan, it may prove more difficult. Military officials have been trying a variety of pilot projects aimed at getting Taliban foot soldiers to change sides and support local government elders. "I think they should be faced with the option to come back; if they are willing to come back under the constitution of Afghanistan," McChrystal told reporters in Kabul after Obama's speech. Stephen Biddle, a military analyst who advised Gen. David H. Petraeus during the Iraq buildup and McCrystal on Afghanistan, cautioned that Taliban foot soldiers may not switch allegiance as easily as Sunni fighters in Iraq did. Sunnis, Biddle said, had been defeated in a sectarian civil war in Baghdad and soured on their alliance with al-Qaida in western Iraq. The Taliban, in contrast, believe they are winning. "The key Taliban factions have just not been beaten on the battlefield," Biddle said. Defense officials and military experts caution that other differences between the two countries will be very important. Unlike Iraq, which has a well-developed infrastructure, Afghanistan is rural and rugged, with very few usable roads. That leaves coalition troops far more dependent on air power and travel on remote rural tracks that the insurgents seed with roadside bombs. "The situation in Afghanistan is a lot more complicated than Iraq, primarily because of the geography," said David Sedney, a senior defense official. "In many cases, you are almost fighting a different war every valley." Mark Moyar, an expert on counter-insurgency and a professor at the Marine Corps University, said other differences mean it will be difficult for the Afghanistan build-up to show results as quickly as the Iraq surge. "Afghanistan's population is highly dispersed, whereas Iraq's is concentrated in cities," Moyar said. "Thirty thousand troops can secure far more people when the population is concentrated than when it is spread out," Moyar said. The effort to strengthen Afghan security forces depends at least partly on the credibility of the central government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who was re-elected this year in an election tainted by fraud. U.S. officials have roundly criticized his administration for being ineffective and corrupt. In Iraq, many politicians now view Bush's gamble in 2007 as a success. But they are skeptical that the lessons can be applied to Afghanistan. "The equation in Iraq was more realistic, and we are more open to the outside world," said Ali Alaaq, a Shiite lawmaker from the ruling Dawa party. "Iraq has political potential and talent ... that the other country lacks."n — By arrangement with
|
|
Copenhagen: Don’t forget water Climate
change conjures up factory smoke, corn ethanol, cap-and-trade, hybrid cars. It also evokes Al Gore, drowning polar bears, African famine and Hurricane Katrina. All these triggers and the issues they invoke, backed by mounting evidence of irreversible risks to humankind, will converge next week in Copenhagen. Our collective political will may yet secure the Earth's equilibrium through an overarching deal – although short of a treaty – by the end of the U.N. climate-change conference there. Or it could all come unglued. Delegates chosen to decide our fate deliberately have removed the one element that can tip the scales. We know fossil fuel emissions matter immensely. But the most volatile chemical compound isn't methane, nitrous oxide or even carbon dioxide. It's water. Scientists stress water's profound link with climate change, and how wise water management could bind global efforts to cool our warming planet with local efforts to absorb its unavoidable shocks. Even the public gets it. Yet our delegates wallow in denial. In a misguided effort to avoid dissent, they have erased water from their working draft, forgetting how water is the planet's one common denominator. Start with the atmosphere. Climatologists differ on some science but agree on this: The most potent greenhouse gas – more than double the impact of carbon dioxide – is water vapor. As CO2 begins to concentrate, global warming rapidly evaporates more surface moisture. Up there, rapidly accumulating water vapor magnifies the greenhouse effect. Back down here, water is also the medium for adapting to those greenhouse effects that are well underway. Virtually every effect we dread – urban heat waves, melting snowpack, longer droughts, increased wildfires, drying reservoirs, rising sea levels, desiccating soils – boils down to the loss of fresh water. Even regions feeling more sudden, torrential rain can't use their extreme runoff; to absorb unpredictable floods, dam operators must empty their reservoirs. So whenever we say climate volatility, we really mean water volatility. That truth goes beyond semantics. The lack of secure water unravels development as billions lose access to clean, healthy lifelines. Unstable water undermines food security because of drier farms, eroded topsoil and diminished irrigation. And it cripples energy security, with less water to turn turbines, cool nukes, pump oil or boil into steam for generation by coal, solar and geothermal plants. Geopolitical concerns alone should compel Copenhagen's delegates to make water adaptation strategies their top priority. But rather than defuse it as a threat multiplier, or integrate it in coping mechanisms, negotiators surgically deleted all references to water from the draft text. Some estimate that for every thousand clean-energy and carbon-mitigation obsessed delegates descending on Copenhagen, fewer than a dozen deal with adaptation through water. Having dehydrated the negotiations, no one can discuss how all the planet's thirsty species, including 6.8 billion humans, will cope with the water volatility that is inevitable even if all emissions ended today. Yet even as delegates repress water's strategic import, the world does not. A Pew Research poll found that, over the past 18 months, Americans' concern about climate change has evaporated from 44 percent to 35 percent; a GlobeScan/Circle of Blue international survey found 87 percent of those polled worried about increasing freshwater shortages, up 5 percentage points from 2003. The inverted priorities reveal three things. First, to regain public trust and reestablish their democratic legitimacy, climate delegates must restore water to its rightful place at the fulcrum of decisions. If voters don't fully value the invisible, silent and delayed effect of burning coal and gasoline, they definitely grasp how humans both affect and depend on an increasingly volatile water cycle. In the face of extreme instability, society demands a route to resilience. Second, climate resilience can't be regulated from above but can be encouraged to emerge from below – through water. Water can be more securely stored in the efficient "natural infrastructure" of flood plains, groundwater and aquifers, rather than sacrificed to the sun in shallow evaporation reservoirs. Human ingenuity can be tapped through judicious conservation incentives that instill a stronger sense of local water ownership in us all. Finally, water must be the delegates' most compelling political catalyst. Even climate skeptics see the risks of scarcity and the virtue of securing water for human use. By embracing water as the tangible link between global vapor up there and local river basins down here, delegates could forge a more integrated, meaningful treaty that endures. It's not too late. Water remains a magically cohesive element without which all life withers. To replenish the Earth, in the next round of negotiations, Copenhagen delegates must just add water.n — By arrangement with
|
|
Generating power from waste in Punjab villages A total sanitation campaign (TSC) is being initiated in south-west Punjab to ensure better public health. The brainchild of Punjab Finance Minister Manpreet Badal, the campaign aims to provide clean drinking water, access to health care and sanitation in villages. Already a success in Bangladesh and African countries, the TSC will start in Kotbhai village in the Gidderbaha assembly segment. The TSC comes after the success of Reverse Osmosis (RO) plants, which provide safe drinking water to cancer-stricken villages in south-west Punjab and the Telemedicine project for villagers who cannot afford to go to cities for treatment. With over 130 towns and 12,500-plus
villages and a population of 2.5 crore, Punjab annually generates 3.5 million tonnes of solid waste apart from an additional 35 million tonnes of livestock waste (cow dung) and 40 million tonnes of agro waste (wheat straw, paddy stubble etc). Says Apramjeet Singh Ghuman, a US-based engineer, who is closely associated with the project, “A solution to the problem of rural waste is necessary if we want to reduce child mortality and combat disease.” Much of agro waste is either burnt in the fields, causing air pollution, or mixed with cow dung and conserved for use as manure. The TSC aims to improve the quality of life through awareness about sanitation and health. It also aims at covering schools and “anganwadis” to promote sanitary habits among students. “The TSC will try to eliminate the practice of open defecation to minimise the risk of contamination of drinking water sources and food,” says an expert. Adds Ghuman, “The sanitation model has to be sustainable and will require the collective will of the community to do away with some prevailing practices and require collective behavioural change”. Under the TSC mini power generation plants will come up on vacant lands Once the pilot project at Kotbhai village takes off, it is proposed to group several villages into clusters so as to form viable waste-to-energy units elsewhere in Punjab. “If 50 per cent of the livestock and agro waste generated by Punjab is tapped, we will be able to generate 500 MW of electricity that can used by the 1.8 crore village population, assuming electricity usage at 100 units per month per five-member household,” says Ghuman. Villagers will have to be trained to maintain the sanitation facilities and the maintenance expenses will be borne by them. The cost of community sanitary complexes will be met by panchayats and Self Help Groups (SHGs), which have a very successful run in districts like Muktsar, where the TSC is being initially started. Institutions and organisations operating and maintaining the sanitary complexes may collect suitable
user-charges.
|
|
|
Corrections and clarifications
n nThe headline “Himachal stare defeat” (Page 16, December 3) is incorrect. It should have been “Himachal face defeat” or “Himachal stare at defeat”. nIn second para of report “Hold video conference with Karzai” (Page 1, December 2) the word tonight has gone as tonite which is wrong. nThe headline “Govt to own up NREGA failure” (Page 5, December 2) should instead have been “Govt to own up to NREGA failure”. Despite our earnest endeavour to keep The Tribune error-free, some errors do creep in at times. We are always eager to correct them. This column appears twice a week — every Tuesday and Friday. We request our readers to write or e-mail to us whenever they find
any error. Readers in such cases can write to Mr Kamlendra Kanwar, Senior Associate Editor, The Tribune, Chandigarh, with the word “Corrections”
on the envelope. His e-mail ID is kanwar@tribunemail.com.
H.K. Dua
|
|
|
|
| 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 | |
