The Tribune, Chandigarh, India

Walk to freedom
Need to meet Moily’s deadline for undertrials

Union Law Minister M. Veerappa Moily’s communication to all chief justices of high courts to take measures by July 31 to obtain the release of 1.25 lakh undertrials languishing in various jails in the country for petty offences is welcome. If his advice is implemented in toto, it will not only provide justifiable relief to many undertrials but also ease congestion in the jails. Of the 3.5 lakh prisoners in the country’s 1500 jails today, 2.45 lakh are undertrials. Surprisingly, 1.7 lakh of them, booked for petty offences, have already undergone the maximum punishment they would have got if convicted or served most of their sentence. Clearly, keeping them in jail without trial is not only unjustified but also a violation of their constitutional right to life and liberty.

Significantly, Mr Moily, in his communication, has suggested various methods by which the undertrials could be released within six months. These include the introduction of plea bargaining and holding day-to-day trial in the jail premises and video-conferencing. There is a need to introduce plea bargaining in all the states because of its advantages. Under this system, the undertrial accepts guilt and the court records conviction and releases him/her by sentencing him/her to the period of imprisonment already undergone.

Unfortunately, though these measures were proposed earlier, the authorities concerned have done little to implement them. The result: the number of undertrials has been increasing with no hope of freedom in the already packed jails. A few years back, former Chief Justice of India Justice A.S. Anand had ruled that special courts must be set up in all district jails so that the prisoners involved in petty offences and willing to confess could be tried expeditiously. Why has this order not been implemented? Overcrowding has led to many problems including lack of basic amenities and sanitation. There is a need to ease congestion in jails by implementing various alternatives to imprisonment like making certain offences bailable under the IPC and the Cr PC, releasing undertrials on probation and increasing the number of judges and magistrates in reasonable proportion to the general population.

Veil of secrecy
Even 1947 documents are not declassified

All governments swear by accountability, transparency and efficiency. But when it comes to putting these ideas into practice, they are found to be wanting. Take the case of the Public Record Rules 1997 which specifically mention that records that are 25 years or older must be declassified and preserved in the National Archives of India. Yet, there is extreme reluctance to declassify even those records that date back to 1947. This veil of secrecy has become so pervasive that Cabinet Secretary K M Chandrasekhar has been forced to write to all ministries pulling them up for not initiating steps in this direction and asking to transfer about 90,000 old records to the NAI by May. According to him, approximately five lakh records are lying with various ministries and should be declassified by the end of 2010.

Although it is a time-bound action plan, and the Cabinet Secretary will take a monthly progress report, the vested interests can be depended upon to drag their feet, considering that even the PMO, the Defence Ministry and the Ministry of External Affairs have not been forthcoming in declassification. There is particular resistance to declassify the 47-year-old Henderson-Brook committee report that looked into the debacle of the 1962 Sino-Indian war. Even the PMO has declassified only 62 files in the past three years.

Such secrecy is totally out of place in the era of the Right to Information Act. What the government must realise is that by denying access, it is giving rise to unsubstantiated rumours about history. In fact, good lessons need to be learnt from mistakes and that can be done only if the documents are put in the public domain. It is paradoxical that except for the official history of the 1947-48 Kashmir war with Pakistan and the Kargil Review Committee report on the 1999 Kargil war, all the other official war histories – of the 1962 war and the India-Pakistan wars of 1965 and 1971– have never been officially released. It is another matter that they are freely available on the Net because of exposes by the media.

Thought for the Day

Cynicism is intellectual dandyism without the coxcomb’s feathers. — George Meredith

ARTICLE

Talking about talks
What about the risk of terrorist attacks?
by K. Subrahmanyam

The Pakistani leadership, liberals, civil society organizations and influential media personnel on both sides of the border have been urging India to recommence the composite dialogue process snapped after 26/11. Many of them, particularly the Pakistani leadership, never tire of pointing out that the refusal to restart the dialogue amounts to playing into the hands of terrorist elements, and commencement of the dialogue will strengthen the hands of the democratic government in Pakistan.

Others argue that there is no alternative to dialogue and the Government of India will have to reopen the process sooner or later and, therefore, why not do it earlier. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has said that once the state of Pakistan gives up the use of terrorism as state policy, India will start the dialogue. His statement implies that he is not persuaded that Islamabad has given up its policy of using terrorism as an instrument of foreign policy. The Prime Minister has also added that he receives intelligence regularly about the plots to unleash terrorist attacks on India. Home Minister Chidambaram has disclosed that with the help of US intelligence, many possible terrorist attacks have been foiled in the last one year.

An American analyst, Daniel Markey of the Council of Foreign Relations, has raised a very pertinent point not figuring in the debate in the subcontinent. He argues that any resumption of the dialogue between India and Pakistan increases the risk of terrorist attacks on India and has made a number of policy recommendations to the US government in regard to the policies to be pursued by Washington. There can be no doubt that this will be a very relevant consideration for Delhi in considering the reopening of the dialogue, how much the risk of terrorist attack will be raised by that move. This should, in fact, be a valid consideration for Pakistan as well.

Daniel Markey has dealt with the consequences of such a terrorist attack, the likely Indian and Pakistani responses and Washington’s options.

In the light of this, will it not make sense for Delhi to discuss with Pakistan the risks of threats likely to arise if talks are to be resumed and the joint action that Pakistan is willing to undertake with India in that event? These talks can be at the level of the NSA of India and his analogue in Pakistan. Pakistanis argue that they themselves are victims of terrorism and they have initiated military action against the Pakistani Taliban and, therefore, their bona fides should not be doubted. Obviously, the Pakistani actions so far have not created adequate credibility in Delhi. For this, there are very valid reasons, and it is a pity that these are not discussed in the media debates of either country.

The best-known victim of terrorism in Pakistan was former Prime Minister and leader of the Pakistan People’s Party Benazir Bhutto. The elected Pakistani Government approached the United Nations to appoint an enquiry panel to go into the circumstances of her assassination. The UN has appointed a panel with Ambassador Haraldo Munoz of Chile, Marzuki Darusman, former Attorney-General of Indonesia, and Peter Fitzgerald, an Irish police officer. The panel is now in Pakistan. While President Zardari and General Musharraf (retd), among others, appeared before the panel and gave their depositions, it has been refused access to Army officers and those belonging to the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).

Here is a government which moves the UN to set up a panel to enquire into the assassination, as it believed that the country’s own enquiries earlier conducted were not credible. And when the panel arrives in Pakistan it is unable to order its Army and intelligence officers to depose before it. This happens in respect of the terrorist assassination of the tallest leader of the ruling party and the wife of the present President. According to the earlier versions, the assassination was carried out on the orders of Baitullah Mehsud, the leader of the Pakistani Taliban, who has since been killed in a US drone strike.

Pakistanis highlight that their Army is fighting the terrorist Pakistani Taliban. Why then are the Pakistan Army and the intelligence network fighting shy of deposing before the UN panel? If the Pakistan Government cannot discipline the Army to depose in a case of assassination of the ruling party’s leader what credibility does that government has in fighting terrorism?

While Pakistan is maintaining that the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT) was banned in 2002, the FBI of the US has filed its indictments against David Headley and Tahawwur Rana that they were financed by the LeT to carry out the reconnaissance which ended in the 26/11 attack in Mumbai. The US President has named the LeT as one of the five organizations which have to be disrupted, dismantled and defeated. While Pakistanis talk of the Army’s campaign against the Pakistani Taliban, one does not hear anything about its actions against the LeT. Nor has Pakistan reacted to David Headley being brought into the 26/11 case and the US court indictment of co-conspirators who are LeT members resident in Pakistan

These issues relate to the basic credibility of the Pakistani claim that they are fighting terrorism, and the relationship between the elected government and the Army. The inability of the Pakistan government to make available witnesses from the Army and the intelligence network to the UN panel would indicate that the Government of Pakistan had been overruled by the Army. Such an action humiliates the Pakistan government before the UN and the international community. Presumably, that is not a major concern for the Army nor could it care less that its refusal to appear before the UN panel will lead to adverse inferences in view of the letter written by Benazir Bhutto before her death that she feared for her life due to the likely actions of certain individuals associated with the intelligence network and named in her letter.

The Army went on public record on its dissatisfaction with the Kerry-Lugar-Berman Act extending aid to Pakistan, though the US legislation was finalised after elaborate discussions with the Pakistan government with the Army being kept informed fully. Washington had to dispatch Senator John Kerry to meet the Army Chief and mollify him. The US Secretary of State held her longest discussion in Islamabad not with the President, the Prime Minister or the Foreign Minister but with the Army Chief and his Intelligence Chief. It is in the light of this reality the US Congress has asked for half-yearly certification from the US Secretary of State on the Army-government relationship in Pakistan.

In a country where the Army can overrule the government, with whom should another sovereign government conduct negotiations? This is the problem facing the Indian Prime Minister. In any case, before recommencing the composite dialogue let us start with the joint assessment of the increased risks of terrorist attacks that will arise for India if the dialogue is restarted. India should invite Pakistan for such a discussion.

MIDDLE

Living with Jyoti Basu
by Trilochan Singh Trewn

It was late 1946 when I went to Calcutta for the first time as a guest of my friend and naval colleague Bhabesh Roy Choudhery near western end of the Howrah bridge. My friend’s father was a Superintendent of Police in the Calcutta administration. He was an unassuming, quiet and efficient officer whom I had not met before.

The residence had four bedrooms, including two on the first floor. I was to stay in a ground floor room with my friend for four days and leave for Punjab after visiting the famous botanical garden, Victoria Memorial, Birla Museum and the planetarium.

I entered the residence of my friend in the evening and soon got engrossed in endless talks on various matters. During dinner tasty dishes were served.

After dinner my friend showed me the house and the rear garden facing the Hooghly river. A cool breeze from the river front made me wish to go on the first floor too and enjoy the view from there. After a slight initial reluctance the SP father of my friend gave a nod and we proceeded to the first floor.

While advancing towards the large terrace I noticed two bedrooms on my left. The first bedroom was closed but the door of the second bedroom was wide open. I could see an almost 30-year-old man sitting on a chair and having his meal. I came near and insisted to be introduced to this gentleman. My friend told me that he was his daddy’s friend Jyoti Basu who was a social worker.

Mr Basu appeared to be a lively and well-read personality and had about dozen books on Karl Marx and Ravindra Nath Tagore on his bookshelf. Clad in white kurta-dhoti he asked me to come in and sit on his bed. Meal over, he started talking about my friend and his will to lead an adventures life in the Navy.

Soon he started to talk about the pathetic plight to common man who worked and toiled in streets of Kolkata. During those days it was quite common to see barefoot humans manually puling hand-driven rickshaws at a fraction of the price of a motor-driven rickshaw. He appeared to be a quick witted, kind-hearted person who could speak readily on most subjects. We became good friends despite ideological differences. Then we parted. I noticed that he avoided coming out of his room.

While accompanying me to Howrah station to see me off next evening my friend revealed that Mr Basu was an active communist fugitive from the police. He was hiding in his father’s police residence itself, being his childhood friend! He forbade me to tell anybody about this, and I never did.

OPED

Contrasting neighbours
Bangladesh warms up, Pakistan non-cooperative
by B.G. Verghese

Sheikh Hasina’s visit to Delhi marks the opening of a new chapter in cooperative relations between two close South Asian neighbours. Long separated by an avoidable degree of mistrust, these mutually hurtful stances, partly a product of internal political compulsions, have given way to a new spirit of accommodation.

This has largely been brought about by the posture of the current administration in Dhaka after the Awami League’s massive electoral victory just a year ago.

Prime evidence of this are the steps being taken to restore the secular, democratic character of the original Bangladesh constitution. The distortions woven into the country’s post-liberation history are being sought to be removed by taking action against those responsible and bringing to trial those charged with war crimes.

The earlier visit of the Bangladesh Foreign Minister to India a couple of months ago set the stage for a broad understanding on a number of long outstanding issues. Some of these were firmed up, most recently on water resources cooperation, and have now been signed by the two prime ministers.

A Teesta-sharing agreement is to be expedited on the basis of accepted river discharge readings and India has given assurances of no harm to its neighbour from the proposed Tipaimukh dam, which, on the contrary, would confer substantial benefits on Bangladesh in terms of flood moderation, upgraded navigation and fisheries, and lean season salinity control.

Climate change concerns in fact demand greater cross border and indeed basin-wide cooperation in the management of disasters from aberrant and extreme events.

India is to supply 250 MW of power to Bangladesh with technical studies to points and alignments of proposed interconnections. This could signal the beginning of an eastern SAARC energy exchange, including hydrocarbons and coal.

India is also to give Bangladesh transit rights for land and power connectivity with Bhutan and Nepal through its own territory, thus paving the way for a new transit regime between the two countries without demanding reciprocity as a prior condition.

This is wise and harks back to the once-criticised and mistakenly abandoned so-called Gujral doctrine. Once India takes the lead, Bangladesh is bound to follow and permit transit, including passage to Chittagong port, all of which would earn it valuable transit and service charges.

A flyover or underpass is also to be constructed by India across Tin Bigha to give Bangladesh 24x7 access to these enclaves in fulfillment of an agreement signed as far back as 1958.

The final demarcation of the remaining 6.5 km of land boundary and exchange of other enclaves in adverse position of either side also needs to be speedily completed so that this petty irritant is removed and the underlying human problem is resolved.

India has submitted its claim on the maritime boundary to the UN agency concerned and Bangladesh is to do so this year.

But irrespective of international law, there is every reason for India to offer Bangladesh a compromise settlement which will mean a lot to the latter in terms of an accretion of its limited EEZ without much loss to India, with the condition that fishing rights and any undersea mineral discoveries in this area will be jointly exploited.

Bangladesh has at long last barred its territory as a sanctuary for Northeast insurgent groups and has delivered Arbinda Rajkhowa, the ULFA chief, and some of his aides to India. An extradition agreement has now followed.

The influx of migrants into India from across the border has not been specifically mentioned.

But the answer to this is not border fencing but larger market opportunities for Bangladesh in India and more Indian investments in that country so as to stimulate employment and income generation that will diminish the reasons for out-migration.

In this context, the substantial grant in aid made by India to Bangladesh could set the process in motion.

On the western front, India continues to face the fallout of Pakistan’s fragile and confused political situation. The overturning by the Supreme Court of the national reconciliation ordinance has exposed Zardari and some central ministers to pressure with the prospect of criminal prosecution causing them to fight back.

Just weeks ago, a government lawyer told the Supreme Court that the army and the CIA posed a threat to the country’s democracy.

Addressing the PAK Assembly and Council in Muzaffarabad more recently, Zardari harked back to Kashmir’s right to self determination and its being Pakistan’s “jugular vein”, reiterating Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto’s flamboyant rhetoric of waging a 1,000-year war in this cause, though this time by means of peaceful struggle rather than war.

However, jihadi infiltration and encounters across the LOC have increased and the militants killed include Pakistani nationals whose intercepted communications revealed that they were receiving instructions and encouragement from Pakistani handlers during these engagements.

Obviously there are elements spoiling to sabotage the internal peace process in J&K and block further withdrawals of Indian troops in J&K as is under way. Neither process should be stopped.

On a different plane, however, there is reason to be disappointed by the report submitted by the PM’s long-dormant task force on autonomy led by Justice Shaghir Ahmed which is not only well behind developments that have taken place while he was strangely in hibernation but appears to have been drafted unilaterally behind the backs of the other members. The blundering around the bush of Indian justices is fast becoming proverbial.

In the light of all of this, Pakistan appears to be protesting too much about the Indian Army Chief, Gen Deepak Kapoor’s remarks at a seminar of India’s need to prepare to fight a two-front war on the west and north even under a nuclear hangover.

This is not belligerence but a defensive statement in the context of much hidden and open belligerence, double talk and military cooperation by Pakistan and China.

The homeless on winter nights
by Bharat Dogra

A large number of deaths have been reported in the recent cold wave sweeping North India. One important reason for these deaths is that the number of homeless people in India is quite high and there is a glaring shortage of night shelters for both the local homeless people and travellers who have come to the city for a short while. India badly needs a cooperative effort of the government and the civil society to meet the basic needs of homeless people, particularly to provide them permanent and well-equipped night shelters.

So far the scheme for night shelters has made very tardy progress reaching less than 10 per cent of the homeless people in the country. What is more, some of the existing night shelters are so dirty and insecure that people prefer to shiver under the open sky instead of spending their nights in these shelters.

In fact, at present even reliable estimates of homeless people in different cities do not exist on the basis of which planning of night shelters can proceed. As census estimates have not been able to count homeless people (without any address) property, special efforts need to be made to prepare more accurate estimates of homeless people.

Till such reliable estimates become available, we can proceed on the basis of a rough estimate that the homeless constitute about 1 to 2 per cent of the total urban population in India. This implies that night shelters which can accommodate about 3 to 5 million homeless persons have to be provided in the near future. A time-bound programme of about five years should be prepared to provide access to shelters to all homeless persons.

Speeding up the work of creating night shelters does not mean that quality aspects can be neglected. In fact, past experience has shown that unless certain minimum norms of hygiene and security are met, people do not come forward to make use of night shelters.

Special needs of groups like rickshaw-pullers and handcart pullers should be kept in mind. They are unlikely to use night shelters unless safe parking of their livelihood-earning assets is provided. Special needs of homeless women and children should also be kept in mind.

To overcome financial constraints in speeding up this work, the government can consider, at least on a temporary basis, the night-time use of existing government owned buildings for providing shelter to homeless people. Those government-owned buildings which can be used as night-time shelters can be carefully identified using certain criteria. Tents can be also be provided as a temporary shelter, particularly during winter, till such time that permanent shelters are not created.

Some shelters which can function during day as well as night are also needed. These will be particularly useful for homeless workers who are employed in night shifts and so badly need rest during the day time. The usefulness of night shelters will be increased if canteens which serve cheap but nutritious food on a no-profit, no-loss basis can be added to them.

Homeless people do not have an address and they face difficulty in getting treatment at government hospitals. Therefore, visits by doctors to night shelters will be very useful for them. These doctors can give them papers recommending further treatment in government hospitals which should be honoured in government hospitals.

The distribution of sweaters and blankets among the homeless and the poor is a good first step; it is the most obvious way of saying we care but clearly something more is also needed. After all, we do not even know whether the child to whom we give a blanket will be able to retain it or whether it will be snatched away from him.

The homeless badly need more secure conditions of shelter in which they can face weather extremes, but as they live on the margins of society they are at present not in a strong position to assert their right to shelter. So other citizens should help them to secure their shelter rights. Apart from exerting pressure on the government for proving shelter to the homeless people, citizens can also help provide some badly needed services.

Ashray Adhikar Abhiyan, a Delhi-based organisation, has successfully tried to obtain the involvement of citizens and citizens’ groups in diverse activities relating to the welfare of homeless people. It has approached schools and colleges to get volunteers for this effort, it has approached doctors and health organisations for medicare and de-addiction work, it has approached media organisations repeatedly to highlight the genuine problems of homeless people.

When it was necessary to oppose the injustice of some government actions, Ashray Adhikar did so, but on other occasions it also tried to get the broad-based support of government departments and organisation for many sided welfare of homeless people. Ashray Adhikar also knocked at the doors of courts, and tried to protect the human rights of homeless people, particularly those who were arbitrarily arrested under unfair laws.

By involving several sections of citizens and civil society in diverse welfare activities of homeless people, Ashray Adhikar has established a model of helping homeless people in Delhi which can be replicated in other cities. An important component of this model is that homeless people should themselves be encouraged to assert their rights.

Thus several activists are emerging from among the homeless people, helped by a training programme arranged by Ashray Adhikar. This effort has received financial assistance from Action Aid. However, it should be possible to start such efforts also on the basis of local donations.

Delhi Durbar
‘3 Idiots’ on Sibal’s agenda

Ever since filmmaker Vidhu Vinod Chopra released his film “3 Idiots”, he and his crew have been concerned about whether the film has been viewed in the right circles.

That explains the persistence with which actor Aamir Khan, the protagonist in the blockbuster, has been following up the issue with Minister of Human Resource Development Kapil Sibal. Since the film is about undue pressures which the education system exerts on students, Aamir wants policymakers to see it.

It is learnt that he even sent across a DVD to Sibal, who was very clear where he would watch the film. “I will watch it in the theatre after I return from my UK trip,” he said last week.

‘Parcha, churcha aur kharcha’

After conquering the world of commerce, industry, glamour and politics, Amar Singh seems determined now to capture the world of prose and literary writing.

Since initially there may not be many takers for his variety of literature, he has found an easy way out by starting his own blog. And the blog is increasingly read by people across the world. In his blog, Amar Singh has disdainfully mentioned how the SP socialists were cringing before him for a few crumbs off his plentiful plate.

There is some truth in his claims that the SP suffered him this long because of easy availability of finances through the Thakur.

In fact, the other day a fellow politician asked Mulayam Singh Yadav what was the secret of Amar Singh and a relaxed Mulayam told him: “Parcha, charcha aur kharcha.”

“Parcha”, he elaborated, meant the newspapers or rather Amar Singh’s ability to manage the media, “charcha”, was Mulayam’s appreciation of how Amar handled all the TV debates and scored a point over his rivals and naturally “Kharcha” was his ability to raise finances for the party whenever need be.

Chinese find Indian food too spicy

Amid the hullabaloo over India’s complex ties with China, a delegation of senior journalists from China was in India last week on a familiarisation tour. Members of the delegation met many of those who matter in the corridors of power in Delhi.

It was not difficult for them to answer probing questions from Indian journalists on Sino-Indian ties at a lunch hosted for them by Unity International, an organisation devoted to promoting India’s ties with other nations. However, it was the spicy Indian food they found too difficult to digest.

The common refrain among them was that the Indian media goes overboard in reporting even a small problem that arises between India and China. “India is too big a country for any other nation to pose a threat to it,” said one young journalist as he proposed regular exchange of media personnel between the two nations to know about each other’s sensitivities and difficulties.

And to emphasise that relations are only improving, a Chinese official said the Deputy Chairman of China’s National Commission on Development and Reforms would be in Delhi later this month for a meeting of the BASIC group on climate change. President Pratibha Patil and Foreign Minister SM Krishna will also visit Beijing later this year.

Contributed by Aditi Tandon, Faraz Ahmad and Ashok Tuteja

Corrections and clarifications

The headline “Minorities support Sister Sebastina” (Page 17, January 18, Chandigarh Tribune) conveys the impression that there was a majoritarian-minority divide. The report, however, talks of a cross-section of people from different religions expressing solidarity with her.

In regard to the PTI report “China wants to ‘extend control’ till Indus” (Page 2, January 18), the Directorate of Public Relations, Ministry of Defence, Udhampur, has clarified that there is “no change to the existing claim lines and boundaries along the Line of Actual Control in Ladakh region”.

In the headline “Govt schools no good! think again” (Page 1, January 17) a question mark after “no good” would have been more appropriate than an exclamation mark.

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
Editor-in-Chief