The Tribune, Chandigarh, India

Bhopal gas tragedy
Cabinet seal on GoM report unconvincing

The truth about why and on whose authority Union Carbide Corporation chief Warren Anderson was allowed to flee India after he was mysteriously freed from house arrest which had been ordered by a court in the wake of the world’s deadliest chemical disaster in Bhopal, and whether an all-clear signal was flashed to the Dow Chemical Company by the Indian authorities when that company was in the motions of buying UCC would perhaps never be authenticated. After the Group of Ministers appointed by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh skirted these issues in its recent report, the Union Cabinet has put the seal of approval on the whitewash job. Strangely, the Group of Ministers did not carry out its own fact-finding. It relied instead on “contemporary media reports” to claim that the then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi was briefed on the matter of the UCC chief’s arrival, arrest and departure “after Anderson left the country.”

The Cabinet has evidently tried to deflect attention from Anderson by announcing a fresh compensation package, but that relief has been confined to the kin of 5,295 dead, 3,199 permanently disabled, and 3,000 affected by either cancer or renal failure. A large number of people who continue to seek medical treatment 25 years after the disaster have been categorised as “temporarily injured” and denied compensation. There is no word on allowing the CBI to execute the letter rogatory issued by a Bhopal court 22 years ago for investigations in the US. While the Cabinet decision to undertake “environmental remediation” to clear the ill-fated site of toxic wastes is a welcome move, the question of liability of UCC and its present owner, the US-based Dow Chemical Company, has not been adequately addressed.

If public faith in the government’s version of events is to be established, it is indeed vital that responsibility be fixed for the manner in which Anderson left the country. It is also incumbent on the government to hold Dow liable for cleaning up the toxic remains in the Bhopal Union Carbide plant which is a job that requires huge expenditure. If Dow was told that it would have no spillover liabilities, that needs to be unravelled.

Fighting corruption
Need to empower Lok Ayuktas in states

Karnataka Lok Ayukta Justice Santosh Hegde’s resignation from his post on the ground that the state government is not cooperating with him in curbing corruption suggests that this institution has failed to deliver the goods because of the government’s reluctance to arm it with adequate powers. Justice Hegde, a former Supreme Court Judge, had been carrying on a relentless campaign against illegal mining of iron ore and corruption in the state. He revealed how nearly five lakh tonnes of iron ore worth Rs 200 crore, which was seized by the forest staff at Belikeri port in February following a Lok Ayukta report, mysteriously vanished. He has also taken exception to the reinstatement of a Bangalore City Corporation official within days of his suspension after his team caught him while taking bribe. His complaints that over 8,000 cases are pending due to the government’s refusal to appoint an Upa-Lok Ayukta and harassment of his officers fighting corruption are very serious.

Unfortunately, the plight of the Lok Ayuktas in 16 other states is no better. No government has armed them with teeth to bring culprits to justice. In Punjab, the Lok Pal is a toothless tiger. In Haryana, he works more like a forum for the redressal of grievances against junior employees rather than fighting corruption and catching the big fish. In Himachal Pradesh, as in most states, the Lok Ayukta has only recommendatory powers. He neither has adequate infrastructure nor powers to deal with complaints against higher-ups, including politicians.

Even at the Centre, the fact that the government’s actions would come under public scrutiny has invariably discouraged successive governments from enacting a Lok Pal Bill. Each government is fearful that the Bill would boomerang on it. However, the mere creation of this office — or that of the Lok Ayukta in states — can hardly guarantee an effective solution to public grievances unless the incumbent is allowed to act independently with adequate powers, staff and infrastructure. It is a moot point whether Justice Hegde would heed Union Home Minister P. Chidambaram and Karnataka Governor Hans Raj Bhardwaj’s appeals and continue in office. However, in view of the increasing cases of corruption and nepotism in the government, we need Lok Ayuktas like Justice Hegde to stem the rot in the system.

Thought for the Day

Death and taxes and childbirth! There’s never any convenient time for any of them. — Margaret Mitchell

ARTICLE

Question hour in Parliament
How to deal with disruptions
by K. Subrahmanyam

Lok Sabha Speaker Meira Kumar spoke about some important decisions taken on the conduct of question hour from the fifth session of the 15th Lok Sabha in her address to the 75th All-India Presiding Officers Conference in Jammu on June 20. She said question hour had a special significance in the proceedings of the House, particularly in ventilating the grievances of the public on matters concerning the administration and the working of the ministries and their allied departments and organisations. She also indicated that she will be discussing with party leaders the growing tendency to disrupt question hour and the need to check it.

The rules of business of both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha state that unless the Speaker/Chairman directs otherwise, the first hour of every sitting shall be available for the asking and answering of questions. In the context of the frequent disruption of question hour in both Houses of Parliament, it would seem logical to shift question hour to a later part of the day to avoid the disruption, and it may seem surprising that the legislature parties are not too keen on it.

However, a closer analysis may reveal why. It is by now quite evident that question hour by itself has nothing to do with the disruption of the first hour of the sitting. If question hour was held at 12 noon and instead laying of papers and special mention/zero hour (presently scheduled for 12 noon) took place at 11 a.m., the scene at 11 a.m. would probably be no different.

Secondly, it must be pondered over that if parties are giving up their valuable right to ask questions and enforce accountability of the government in favour of something else through disruptive behaviour, it must be a matter of considerable importance (to that party). After all, politicians are hard-headed and calculating people. The very fact that despite the inevitable adjournment, if the party persists with the strategy this means it perceives the strategy as having paid off in terms of publicity for the cause in question.

As such, it must be expected that even if question hour is fixed, say at 12 noon, the proceedings at 11 a.m. are likely to be disrupted unless, at the very least, the oxygen of publicity through live TV and media coverage is cut off. Even curbing the oxygen availability may be no guarantee in some situations!

It would seem, therefore, that the better strategy would be either or both of the following: Stopping live TV coverage of the proceedings in the case of disruption, ordering of expunction and editing out of the disruption from the Official Records (Live Webcast may, however, continue). This can be done by an order of the Speaker/Chairman, but tradition demands that all parties should be fully aware that this will be done, and done as a systematic practice.

Interchanging question hour and special mention/zero hour; and allowing the 11 a.m. special mention/zero hour to be liberally used for the parties wishing to make their point. Here again, parties need to be aware that this is being done to facilitate them in making their point of view heard in respect of matters of “urgent public importance”.

It is important that the Presiding Officers (and the media) stop treating the issue as one of “law and order”, and approach it as a “governance” issue, and, therefore, desist from playing to the gallery through meaningless gestures meant for public consumption. The stillborn idea of “automatic suspension” of members rushing to the Well of the House, though possibly actuated by the sincerest of intentions, is a case in point. The fact is that it is practically difficult for a Presiding Officer to actually enforce discipline except possibly through reprobation of the conduct.

Certainly, any formal punishment in the form of admonition, reprimand, withdrawal or suspension, which requires a resolution to be moved and passed by a vote, is almost impossible in today’s circumstances in respect of such disruption, which is always a party-level strategy rather than an individual-level misconduct. How difficult the task is may be gauged from the experience that the person who headed the list of the expelled members from the House for disruptive conduct in the early nineties became a distinguished and conscientious Speaker of the Lok Sabha years later.

It is likely that parties bent on making demands such as votable motions on an issue or at a time when the government is not confident of defeating the motion (particularly in the Upper House when it may not enjoy a majority, and even in the Lok Sabha because of differences among coalition partners), will continue to lead to the disruption of the House. But this is inevitable when we have a coalition government of disparate parties. Indeed, as a strategy, the Opposition cannot be faulted; it is only on the extreme nature of the methodology that the objection can be sustained.

Is there a way out of this vicious circle where all parties behave in the same way when in power and when in the opposition? There are many who still remember the resolution passed unanimously in a special session of both Houses on the occasion of the Golden Jubilee of Independence in 1997, solemnly affirming the inviolability of question hour along with several other pious declarations. No doubt, had the parties now in government set the example when they were in the opposition, they would have today a stronger case. It would seem, therefore, that we are condemned to see this continue as long as coalition governments are there.

The best that can be done is to attempt to reduce the legitimacy of the strategy of disruption through various devices which, needless to say, have to be parliamentary in character. The Press and public opinion can help accelerate the process of delegitimisation only if the unreasonableness of the disruptive strategy is fairly evident in relation to the issue in question, and in relation to the response of the government of the day.

The governing party must realise that in spite of seeming ideological differences, the Opposition parties are part of governance and, therefore, the imperatives of good governance should supersede competitive partisan politics. The leading Opposition parties which have a stake in the governance of the country as a whole should not only be involved but also seen to be involved in the process of governance. It is sad to state that our political parties are yet to mature to that level of democratic culture.

MIDDLE

Dead men tell many tales
by R. Vatsyayan

ON my trips across various places in India and abroad, I have always been tempted to visit monuments and mausoleums. On my visit to Hyderabad last week while having a hurried round of the famous Hussein Sagar Lake I came across a signboard — PV Gyan Bhoomi. Inquisitively alighting from the car I along with my wife went inside that non-descript park and found it to be the samadhi of PV Narasimha Rao, the tenth Prime Minister of India.

Known as the father of Indian economic reforms, PV would have turned 89 today. Presiding over an eventful time of country’s history, he was often referred to as the Chanakya of modern India for his ability to steer through tough economic and political legislation through Parliament. Practicing the ‘sam-dam-dand-bhed’ policy in true sense he ran a minority government for full five years during the time which was dotted with so many good and bad events.

The inscription at the memorial described him — apart from being an economic reformer — as a linguistic scholar who knew 13 Indian and foreign languages, a great visionary, a master political strategist, an unwearied diplomat and a man of unparalleled intelligence. Initially a freedom fighter and later Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh Narasimha Rao rose to national prominence in 1972 and held many important portfolios in the Cabinets of Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi.

While I was standing at the samadhi, many events of recent history flashed into my mind making me think how luck and destiny play their role in building or destroying the profile of a person. PV had almost retired from active politics when the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi made him stage a comeback and that too to become the Prime Minister of the country. It was the demolition of the Babri Masjid and later the infamous JMM bribery scandal which tore down all the positive aspects of the person and the politician called Narasimha Rao.

Many people believe that providence chases a person even after his death. Some of our Prime Ministers or other politicians are known to have committed greater blunders. The aftermath of those continue to torment our country even many decades later. But they were lucky in their lifetimes and more so later. Perhaps Rao fell in the category of those unlucky leaders whose all achievements were deliberately undermined by his own party to facilitate a new order.

As I was leaving the samadhi, my wife reminded me of two sad events that happened just after the death of Narasimha Rao. His body was denied entry into the AICC office at Delhi. Later a TV news channel which is notorious for telecasting stories of occult forgot to pay even the scant respect to the former Prime Minister. It repeatedly and shamelessly showed the half burnt mortal remains of Narasimha Rao as the firewood on the pyre was not sufficient for the cremation.

OPED WORLD

Gen. McChrystal's ouster
The dramatic dismissal of the US General has lessons for both military and civilian authorities, writes P.R. Chari

General McChrystal

President Obama cannot be faulted for taking the harsh decision to accept General Stanley McChrystal's (forced) resignation after the latter made derogatory references about the American civilian leadership in an interview to the left-of-centre magazine Rolling Stone. The magazine cited General McChrystal saying President Obama seemed "uncomfortable and intimidated" during their first meeting, referred to Vice President Biden as "Bite Me," and called the Chairman, Joint Chief of Staff, General James Jones, a "clown."

No Government-civilian or military-can afford to let its serving officials-civilian or military-speak out in public mocking the leadership and thus display insubordination or criticising national policy. Accepted bureaucratic practice, however, allows debate, often acrimonious, within the confines of the government. But debate cannot proceed in the public space; otherwise the anonymity required for objective decision-making would get compromised. Besides, discipline within the bureaucracy would collapse, a crucial requirement for the armed forces, given its hierarchical command structure. More significantly, the hallowed tradition of civilian control over the military would be eroded, which is the basic principle on which democratic societies are designed to function. All these are settled issues, and can hardly become the subject of a new debate.

US troops in Afghanistan

Within the American experience itself, the cases of Generals Patton, Stillwell and MacArthur have been recalled to illustrate these settled principles. All of them were removed from office after making indiscreet remarks or questioning the decisions made by the civilian leadership in public. General McChrystal and his staff officers were hardly unaware of these rules of the game.

Why then had General McChrystal and his aides deliberately made these derogatory statements that had rightly inflamed the American leadership? How can their conduct be rationally explained? Pique? Frustration at not being able to press their viewpoint? Concern that the logistic support required for the American war effort in Afghanistan was faltering? All of the above? Or, was the reason something quite different, relating to the hiatus that had developed between the military and civilian authorities in their understanding and approaches to the Afghanistan imbroglio.

The President's special envoy, Holbrooke, for instance, is known to be abrasive and overbearing and very difficult to work with. It is possible that the on-going Marja operations in Afghanistan having met a stumbling block, the existing differences between the civilian and military leadership had dramatically widened. No doubt, more authentic accounts to explain the aberrant conduct of General McChrystal and his aides will surface in the fullness of time. General McChrystal might also feel impelled to pen his memoirs in the established American tradition sooner or later.

The more relevant operational issue is that changing the military leadership during the Afghanistan operations conveys the wrong message to both friend and foe. President Karzai and elements in the Pakistani leadership have already voiced their dismay. The Al Qaeda and Taliban, it can be assumed, would sense confusion and demoralisation in the American ranks and that would boost the morale of their militant followers.

Significantly, General McChrystal was executing a new counter-insurgency policy in Afghanistan devised by General Petraeus; which seeks to restore normalcy in Afghanistan and permit a withdrawal of the U.S. forces by 2011.

However, replacing General McChrystal with General Petraeus is most appropriate, since the latter is the architect of the strategic policy that was devised for Iraq, and is being currently pursued in Afghanistan. .

And, what is this Petraeus strategy? One, the population has to be won over by living among them, and by respecting their rights, including those suspected of being insurgents. He believes in following the doctrine, "Live your values." The damage done by Abu Ghraib is permanent; since "The human terrain is the decisive terrain." The theater of operation thus becomes the whole country, Such "Full Spectrum Operations" require all available resources to be utilised, including the military but also the civilian agencies, armed militias and NGOs.

Apparently, the figures for Americans killed in Iraq and violent incidents have fallen dramatically in Iraq after this new strategy was put in place. Basic utilities have been restored and life is returning to normal. Quite evidently, suicide bombings continue in Iraq and the Al-Qaeda remains a disruptive presence. But, President Obama is confident that he can shift out American troops from combat missions and reduce their overall numbers by end-August, which is a fair indication of the success achieved.

Can this success be repeated by General Petraeus in Afghanistan ? The Marja offensive in February was premised on these principles in action. It was announced months in advance to allow civilians to leave the impending theatre of operations if they wished. Civilian deaths could not be avoided, which is unavoidable in urban fighting but were much less than what could otherwise have been expected.

Moreover, these casualties could not be exploited by the Taliban to channel public opinion against the United States. Currently, the Marja operations can only be considered a partial success since the Taliban are staging a comeback. But, it could be reasonably expected that the U.S. operations in Afghanistan will gain new vigor with Petraeus replacing McChrystal, although it should be assumed that the Al Qaeda and Taliban have also learnt their lessons.

So, what are the wider implications of the McChrystal ouster? The most obvious is that policy differences within the higher command apparatus for defence should not be aired in public. The 'No Comment' modality has its uses in conflict situations. The military should also realise that it will always come out second best in public encounters with the civilian leadership, particularly in democratic cultures. Nevertheless, this does not justify the civilian leadership displaying insensitivity towards the military's problems and their advice.

The strange aspect of the McChrystal affair is that nobody from the civilian side has been indicted for letting matters deteriorate to reach this pass. Civilian control over the military cannot mean civilian dictatorship over the military.

( The author is associated with the Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies )

Uphill task for US General in Obama's Vietnam
US troops are in Afghanistan for almost nine years
By Patrick Cockburn

David Petraeus

General David Petraeus has a deservedly high reputation with an acute sense of US politics combined with a realisation of the importance of understanding the politics of Iraq and Afghanistan. His great achievement in Iraq was to persuade Americans that they had won the war when, in fact, they were withdrawing with little achieved.

He was able to sell the "surge" as a triumph of military tactics when in reality its most important feature was that Sunni insurgents allied themselves with American forces because they were being slaughtered by the Shias.

Some US diplomats are astonished at the willingness of Congress and the US media to accept the Pentagon's version of what happened and the belief that the same success could be replicated in Afghanistan. One American diplomat said: "I am appalled ... It is like going back to pre-Vietnam days, when Americans accepted that what the military said was true."

An important aspect of the Iraq and Afghan wars is the degree to which US foreign policy has been militarised, with the State Department and civilian agencies playing only a limited role. This helps explain the lack of caution shown by General Stanley McChrystal in openly bad-mouthing civilians from President Barack Obama to the US ambassador in Kabul.

I first met General Petraeus in January 2004, when he was commander of the 20,000-strong 101st Airborne Division based in Mosul in northern Iraq. He was one of the few Americans in Iraq who showed any inkling about the ethnic and communal minefield in which the US had landed.

In Baghdad, the US envoy, Paul Bremer, had banned Baath party members from state employment, which meant that thousands of former Iraqi officers were ready recruits for the growing insurgency. General Petraeus was quietly sabotaging official policy. He was getting former officers to turn up in batches and renounce the Baath party and all its works.

He made other astute moves. He prevented returning exiles from getting positions of power. I asked him what would be his most important advice to his successor and he replied that it was "not to align too closely with one ethnic group, political party, tribe, religious group or social element".

This is what will be so difficult to do in Afghanistan. Already, suggestions that the Afghan government should talk to the Taliban is frightening members of the administration in Kabul who are not Pashtun. Last year, General Petraeus gave the impression that the Iraq troop "surge" could be restaged in Afghanistan. But conditions are very different in the Pashtun south and east of Afghanistan.

A problem for General Petraeus is that the Taliban appear to think they are winning and that their own "counter-surge" has been successful. General McChrystal's heavily publicised takeover of Marjah did not evict them permanently. When the US ambassador, Karl Eikenberry, and US envoy, Richard Holbrooke, both maligned by General McChrystal in the Rolling Stone article, visited Marjah a few days ago, their helicopter was shot at and suicide bombers blew themselves up.

In Iraq, General Petraeus was able to take advantage of local political conditions to claim success for a military strategy that was mostly an illusion. In Afghanistan, the problem is not that the Taliban is so strong but that the government is so weak.

(By arrangement with The Independent)

VIGNETTES
Stalin statue shifted

Georgian authorities in a secret, midnight operation removed a massive statue of Joseph Stalin from the main square of his hometown, Gori. The statue was put up in 1952, a year before Stalin's death.The statue will however adorn the Stalin Museum located a Kilometre away. A new monument will be built to honour those who died in the war with Russia in 2008.

Georgia's relationship with its most famous son has changed markedly over the years. Since Georgia's independence in 1991, he has been increasingly associated with foreign occupation. "We know that his roots are Georgian, we can't deny that," says Gigi Tsereteli, vice speaker of the Georgian parliament. "But we also can't deny the terrible things he did to Georgia." Stalin is vastly more popular abroad than at home. In a 2009 TV show designed to find "The Greatest Russian", Stalin came third; in the Georgian equivalent, he was outside the top forty. But some in Georgia still revere the Soviet strongman, especially in Gori, where residents laid flowers at the foot of the statue on Stalin's birthday. Georgia's tiny Communist Party is also outraged by the decision

More on Julia

The new Australian Prime Minister, Julia Gillard (48) is an industrial lawyer. She had joined a leading law firm, Slater & Gordon, after qualifying and became the firm's youngest partner at 29. She entered parliament in 1998, after three unsuccessful attempts.

Her family migrated to Australia when she was just four. A former university activist, she had to fight long and hard to make her mark in politics. She endured insults from her political opponents, who have called her a union stooge and a communist. One conservative backbencher even accused her of being "deliberately barren". Her childless, unmarried status (she has a long-term partner) has attracted much comment, along with her hairstyle, her fashion sense and her lack of interest in cooking.

Generally unflappable, Ms Gillard has a fiery nature to match her red hair, according to her mother, Moira, who told a recent documentary, "Julia is very easy-going but when something does upset her, just look out. She gets into a temper, just like a sleeping volcano."

Racist attacks rise

Researchers at the Institute of Race Relations (IRR) in Britain analysed 660 racist attacks last year and found growing evidence to suggest that violence against minorities has shifted to rural areas and towns. The IRR said hatred and bigotry had spread in less than a generation thanks to the influx of asylum seekers, migrant workers, overseas students and the movement of settled ethnic minority families. Prejudice was also being fanned, they concluded, by mainstream political parties competing with one another over which could cut immigration the fastest.

They found asylum seekers, newly-arrived migrant workers and people who look Muslim are most at risk of attack, while trades that isolate individuals, such as cab driving, serving in takeaways and staffing small shops were found to be the most dangerous.

In 1999-2000, London recorded 23,401 racist incidents, 49 per cent of the total. But by 2007-08 that number had dropped to 9,866, a 58 per cent reduction. Last year, however, Greater Manchester, West Midlands, West Yorkshire, Thames Valley and Lancashire accounted for 28 per cent of the national total, a 103 per cent increase in 10 years.