The Tribune, Chandigarh, India

Custodians of information
Selection must be more broad-based

The appointment of Central Information Commissioner A.N. Tiwari as the Chief Information Commissioner at the Centre after the five-year term of Mr Wajahat Habibullah is questionable. Mr Tiwari, a retired Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Personnel and Training, has only three months to retire since he would be completing his five-year tenure in the commission on December 26, 2010. Considering that there is no dearth of talent in the country, this seemingly stopgap arrangement for the top post, that too, with a retired bureaucrat, is inexplicable. The Centre and the states would do well to stop appointing retired civil servants as information commissioners. The Right to Information (RTI) Act will lose its significance and utility for common citizens if these commissions are treated as parking lots and lucrative post-retirement hubs for bureaucrats.

There are complaints that these commissioners not only take a lot of time to hear the appeals but also subvert the very concept of the RTI under the influence of their former colleagues. Unfortunately, despite appeals by RTI activists and noted social workers such as Ms Aruna Roy and Mr Arvind Kejriwal, the governments of Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh have recently chosen retired Chief Secretaries — Mr K.S. Sripathi and Mr Jannat Hussein — as Chief Information Commissioners of the respective states. Moreover, eyebrows have been raised on Ms Omita Paul’s re-appointment as Adviser to the Union Finance Minister barely a month after she served as the Central Information Commissioner.

Section 15 (5) of the RTI Act enables the Centre and the states to select persons of eminence in public life as information commissioners with wide knowledge and experience in law, journalism, social service, education, management and science and technology. Consequently, why should the governments select retired bureaucrats alone? It is time to review the method and selection procedure of information commissioners. The Centre and the states need to evolve a clear eligibility criteria and make the whole process foolproof and transparent.

Myanmar charade
Suu Kyi, democracy can’t be jailed forever

The announcement that democracy icon Anug San Suu Kyi will be released next month is only a clever move by the ruling junta in Myanmar to deflect attention away from the sham poll that they will hold on November 7 to give a civilian façade to their blatant military rule. The Nobel Laureate is to be released only on November 13, a week after the election. The excuse is that her current term of house arrest expires only on that day. The bitter truth is that this is an unfortunate attempt to keep her and her party away from the election process. Her National League for Democracy (NLD) and nine other parties have been barred from the election, and as UN chief Ban Ki-moon has said categorically, the looming elections will not be credible without her participation.

Suu Kyi has spent more than 15 of the past 20 years under house arrest. It is remarkable that despite their best efforts, the ruling generals have not been able to break her resolve. They have ruled since 1988. The last time they held an election was in 1990 when the NLD won hands down. But Suu Kyi was jailed and her party was blocked from power.

Even now, the junta has adopted new laws which have been framed specifically to keep her and her party out of the electoral process. The draconian laws bar people currently serving prison terms from being party members. It was just a pretext to make the NLD drop its leader. But the party has stood firmly behind her and has since been decertified as a political unit, although it still exists as an organisation. The junta has won over some members of the NLD to its side but their participation would not fool anybody. Sooner or later, the junta, which has a horrifying human rights record, will have to free Suu Kyi and restore democracy. The sooner they do so, the better. They have pushed Myanmar back by centuries.

Thought for the Day

If I were damned of body and soul,/ I know whose prayers would make me whole,/ Mother o’ mine, O mother o’ mine. — Rudyard Kipling

ARTICLE

An unending dispute
The untenable Ayodhya verdict
by P.P. Rao

The long-awaited verdict of the Allahabad High Court’s Lucknow Bench in the four Ayodhya suits has evoked mixed reactions, but everyone has heaved a sigh of relief that no untoward incident happened notwithstanding the acute disappointment felt by many irrespective of the community one belongs to.

The disputed structure was erected in 1528 A.D. by Mir Baqi as directed by Emperor Babar. Many Hindus believe that this site is the birthplace of Shri Ram and that there was a temple earlier. Belief and fact are different. In 1885, it came to light that a portion of the compound of the masjid was occupied by Hindu structures — namely, Ram Chabutra and Kaushalya Rasoi. In 1934, the disputed structure suffered some damage during communal riots but it was repaired. In 1944, the structure and its appurtenant land were notified as a Sunni Muslim Wakf property. The notification was challenged in a court.

In 1975-80 the Archaeological Survey of India undertook excavations. The findings led to conflicting interpretations. On the night of December 22 and 23, 1949, Hindu idols were brought from the outer courtyard of the structure and placed under the central dome of the main structure. From the next morning, worship started. For maintaining law and order, the premises were attached under Section 145 Cr. P. C. In 1950, title suits were filed by two Hindus. One suit was withdrawn subsequently. The civil court granted injunction to allow puja and not to remove the idols which continued to remain there. In 1959, another title suit was filed by the Nirmohi Akhara, asserting its right to manage what it called the temple.

In 1961, the Sunni Central Wakf Board filed a suit for the declaration of the title and delivery of possession. On February 1, 1986, the District Judge ordered opening of locks to allow puja by devotees. In 1989, D.N. Agarwal filed a suit on behalf of Deity Bhagwan Shri Ram Virajman. All the suits were transferred to the High Court for trial. The court directed the status quo to be maintained.

In 1990, L.K. Advani organised a rath yatra from Somnath to Ayodhya mobilising Hindus in a big way. Riots took place in many places. Some persons hoisted saffron flags on the domes of the mosque after causing damage to the domes and the compound wall. In June 1991, the BJP won the elections and formed its government in UP led by Kalyan Singh. In October 1991, the state government notified acquisition of the land. The High Court prohibited permanent construction.

On November 2, 1991, Kalyan Singh gave a solemn assurance to the National Integration Council (NIC) that the state government would take full responsibility for the protection of the disputed structures and would ensure that the orders of the court were not violated. PILs (public interest litigation) were filed in the Supreme Court challenging the acquisition of the land. In its order dated November 15, 1991, the court treated the assurance given to the NIC as a representation made to the court as well and ordered that the State of UP shall remain bound by it. On December 6, 1992, the BJP government in flagrant breach of its undertaking, facilitated the demolition of the disputed structure by kar sewaks in broad daylight in the presence of the police and leaders of the BJP, the VHP, etc. Kalyan Singh did not allow Central forces to step in. He later resigned as Chief Minister.

In October 1994, the Supreme Court condemned his conduct and punished him for contempt, observing that the issues raised affected the very foundation of the secular fabric of our nation. President’s rule was imposed in the BJP-ruled states of UP, MP, Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh. The Supreme Court upheld it.

The demolition of the Babri Masjid was a severe blow to communal harmony and the trust reposed by Muslims. There were widespread riots. In Mumbai, the Justice Srikrishna Commission found Shiv Sena leaders guilty. Muslims all over the world were upset. India became the main target of cross-border terrorism. If only the then Prime Minister had acted swiftly by dismissing the BJP government and imposing President’s rule in time, the country would have been spared of all the trauma and agony. In the pending cases, attitudes hardened, ruling out settlement.

Now the verdict has come dismissing out of the four suits, three filed respectively by Gopal Singh Visharad, a devotee, the Nirmohi Akhara and the Sunni Central Board of Wakfs, but decreeing the suit of the Deity for restraining the defendants not to interfere in the construction of temple on the site where the deities are. Notwithstanding the dismissal of the suits filed by the Nirmohi Akhara and the Sunni Wakf Board strangely, the court declared that Muslims, Hindus and the Nirmohi Akhara are the joint title holders of the property in dispute to the extent of one-third share each for using and managing the same for worshipping. It is difficult to understand how and why the Nirmohi Akhara was not treated as part of the Hindus.

The court further directed that the portion below the central dome where the idols are kept will go to the Hindus, and the Nirmohi Akhara will be allotted land including Ram Chabutra and Sita Rasoi and, if minor adjustments are required, the land acquired by the Central Government could be allotted. The status quo is directed to be maintained for three months.

It appears that no documentary evidence of ownership was adduced by any plaintiff. There was no endowment of land in favour of the Deity. When a structure is built by the rulers, the presumption is that the land belongs to the state. On the one hand, the High Court rejected the claims of the Nirmohi Akhara and the Sunni Wakf Board and on the other declared them as joint title holders, each entitled to one-third share. One can understand the allotment of shares in a suit for partition of family properties, but not in independent title suits claiming exclusive rights. No party pleaded, argued or prayed for partition.

In Antulay’s case, it was held that any direction given without pleadings, issues, arguments and prayer is void. The High Court’s verdict is questionable. Its effect is to legalise an illegality and reward the trespassers who stealthily installed idols at the dead of night under the central dome with a declaration of title to that very land and treat them on a par with Muslims, whose mosque existed at the site for over 460 years.

Though innovative, the judgment cannot stand legal scrutiny. Even on the grounds of equity, is it fair to give two-thirds of land to the Hindus and only one-third to the Muslims?

This is not the first time that the Supreme Court would be dealing with the dispute. In November 1991, the judges who allowed bhajan by lakhs of kar sewaks were not shrewd enough to see through the game of Chief Minister Kalyan Singh and his party. They could have prevented the demolition by directing the Central Government to deploy its forces in Ayodhya and protect the monument.

In 1994, the Supreme Court upheld the Acquisition of Certain Areas at Ayodhya Act, 1993, but returned the Presidential Reference unanswered on the question: whether a Hindu temple existed prior to the construction of the Babri Masjid. Now the court will have to answer it unless the dispute is resolved by mutual settlement or through mediation or arbitration. To quote Dr Ambedkar, “Minorities are an explosive force which, if it erupts, can blow up the whole fabric of the State.” The Muslims should get their due in all fairness.

The writer is Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India.

MIDDLE

My own private India
by Neha Wattas

MY husband and I attended a dear Indian friend’s wedding to an American-Indian girl recently. It was a classy affair with a desi twist. The Moet et Chandon champagne paired perfectly well with the samosa chaat. The bride went down the aisle to the ‘mandap’ inside a colorful ‘paalki’. Witty speeches spilled the beans about the groom’s interesting past, followed by teary toasts on the bride’s side.

In typical American precision, the event was planned down to the minute, as noted in the detailed programme guide – “2:30 PM the horse starts trotting, 2:55 PM horse stops trotting”. Elegant white-gloved dinner service was only complemented by the rowdy mob around the ras malai buffet. All in all, a perfect blend of desi meets American.

When I first came to the US about six years ago for graduate school, my notions of the Indian Diaspora were associated with cultural alienation, homesickness and perpetual longing for Indian food. I also perceived among certain older Indians, a sense of denial of American culture, as exemplified in movies such as Bend it like Beckham. Being the only Indian student in my class, I was determined to break that hapless mould and blend in.

Ironically, six years later, I now feel more Indian than ever before and appreciate a more pluralistic definition of Indian-ness. I have been invited to Garba parties by my Gujarati friends, attended Durga Pooja in New Jersey and learned about esoteric festivals such as Ratha yatra in Nashville.

I also have gotten to know a somewhat Naipaulian collection of first and second generation Diaspora Indians in the US, such as, my husband’s Bangladeshi-Indian classmate whose family is now settled in the UK, my Indian-Nepalese grad school roommate who grew up in Botswana and our neighbour of Indian-Pakistani origin brought up in Kenya. The list only gets more and more exotic. As was proudly pointed out in one of the wedding speeches, there were Indians from every single continent at our friend’s wedding.

As the wedding’s signature drink, mango martini, flowed freely, live sitar and shehnai music turned into throaty bhangra and catchy American pop songs. At that point, everyone hit the dance floor and I realised that my initial perception about the Indian community in the US couldn’t be far from reality – words like ‘expatriates’ and ‘exiles’ with their undertones of disconnect sound outdated. Instead, a new, integrated sub-culture has emerged, one that that is neither apologetic for not being Indian enough nor is trying too hard to blend in.

While nothing can ever replace the flavours of home, I have come to identify well with this new sub-culture. Time magazine’s Joel Stein may disagree but this is my own private India.

OPED WORLD

The hope of a lasting resolution of conflict in the Middle-East lies in an Israel-Palestine two-state solution. This is the only way out of this rather long and never-ending history of death and suffering.
Peace initiative faces many stumbling blocks
Shelley Walia

When I asked Professor Noam Chomsky about the recent event of being questioned for three hours at the Israeli border and being denied entry to the West Bank, he wrote back: “The media reaction was mostly grotesque, apart from a few, some of them personal friends like Amira Hass (who was delighted, because it exposed some of what’s happening in the society). There was a public statement by many academics criticizing the decision. It’s just another small indication of the growing paranoia, hysteria, and irrationality of the society, which definitely is a danger — to itself and others.”

Arab League General Secretary Amr Mussa (left) met US Middle East envoy George Mitchell in Cairo recently to discuss the direct Palestinian-Israeli peace talks. —AFP photograph

This was indeed a blatant attempt to end freedom of expression and movement in the Middle East. Coming close on the heels of this insane fascist denial of entry was the unprovoked Israeli assault on the Turkish-owned flotilla Mavi Marmami carrying humanitarian aid to Gaza. Turkish autopsy reports show that nine of the dead were shot up to 30 times at point blank range amounting to piracy, armed aggression and abduction of foreign nationals. This tragedy undoubtedly hindered the efforts of President Obama and George Mitchell, US envoy to the Middle East, in bringing Israel and Palestine to the table. Paradoxically, the US stands for giving humanitarian aid to Gaza and yet does not desire to take any steps jeopardizing Israeli security. This is indeed a double-faced stance.

However, last week, the latest peace initiative of President Obama brought hope for a ‘historic compromise’ in the Middle East. ‘Too much blood has already been shed, too many hearts have already been broken’, said Mr. Obama. ‘This moment of opportunity may not return soon again.’ But the killing of four Israeli settlers on the West Bank on the eve of the negotiations cast its shadow on any optimism that world leaders might harbour. Peace in the Middle East is evasive and seeing the delicate issues, its seems the leaders have agreed to participate in the talks only to keep Washington pleased.

However, both protagonists, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority, seemingly expressed desire to push hard in making sincere efforts for a lasting peace though the outcome would depend on ensuring Israeli security and freezing Israeli settlements in the West bank. Nevertheless, it is a positive peace initiative, especially in view of the bleak scenario in the last few years when Israel abandoned any pretence of diplomacy and instead blatantly engaged in acts of provocation.

Gradually, Israel seems to be metamorphosising from a neo-colonial bully to an agreeable collaborator in the Middle-East peace endeavour. Pressure has steadily grown on Israel on the behest of President Obama and other neighbours like Egypt and Saudi Arabia whose political future depends on his success in ending the Middle-East conflict and the occupation of Iraq. It now appears to be a possibility that Israel will remain no longer unmindful of international condemnation and realise that its political stance coheres with its tactical interests in the region. Perhaps the recent tragedy may have moved Israel to introspect on its rather isolated position in the Muslim world.

Let’s face it. How long can the world tolerate the siege of Gaza, a glaring blemish on contemporary history? The end result of the blockade is a stronger Hamas, the people of Gaza are far from being starved and weapons are still being smuggled into Gaza via Egypt. Then to what purpose is the blockade useful? The only gain is wide-reaching antagonism.

The international community along with Israel’s ally, the US, are now trying to counter the Israeli infringement of international law and peace. Netanyahu and Obama are slowly digging themselves out of the quagmire of the never-ending problem of the Middle East. Recent months have seen the shifting balance of power in the Middle East. President Mubarak of Egypt seems at the moment to be the most assiduous and mature supporter of Israel and this could be a strategic move of using an important neighbour to facilitate the talks. Jordan too is vital as in redrawing the map of Palestine. Its a stakeholder and has used financial pressure tactics for persuading Abbas to come to the table.

There is also the serious issue of the recent move by Israel to build a Jewish suburb in occupied East Jerusalem. The present peace initiative must take into consideration this rather volatile issue which has the potential of jeopardising any meaningful solution.

Within America, the role of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in slowing the peace process needs to be countered. The Democrats in the US are divided in their support of the Israeli cause unlike the Republicans whose support for an Israeli independent state is literally an act of faith. At this juncture President Obama comes across as a serious exponent of peace ready to nudge Israel to go easy on Palestine. But the President has to overcome the rather fragile pressure Washington has put on Israel to end the gradual colonization of West bank, a sore thumb in any drive towards peace. As Rashid Khalidi, the Edward Said Professor of Arab Studies at Columbia University, put it: ‘So long as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu fails to break with settler leaders, including his own foreign minister, and the U.S. vacillates on this issue, a just peace is far away.’

I see only hope in a collective future. The possibilities of a peaceful resolution on the subject of Gaza and the occupation of West Bank can no longer be hindered as it has been regrettably by Washington and Tel Aviv. Hope lies simply in an Israel-Palestine two-state solution in this rather long and never-ending history of death and suffering.

What will be the contours of such a solution especially in the case of redrawing the map of the Jewish and Palestinian states? If settlement activity is resumed in the West Bank, will there be a danger of the talks getting derailed especially when the Israeli religious right is now a strong lobby and stands against any freeze of the settlements? How is it possible to convince Israel that the settlements in the West Bank go against international law? Haven’t the basic opinion of bringing to an end the colonization and scramble for ‘hilltops’ in the West Bank been accepted worldwide? And more than anything is Washington ready to accept this? These will be some crucial questions that the two leaders of Israel and Palestine will have to dwell on to end the Middle-East crisis.

PLO demands settlements freeze before talks
Palestinian leadership blames Israel for being obstructive as US mediators seek compromise
Donald Macintyre

Leaders of the main moderate Palestinian factions yesterday voted to oppose further negotiations while building continues in Jewish settlements, amid increasing US frustration at Israel’s refusal to prolong a 10-month moratorium on construction.

A Palestinian labourer stands atop a building under construction as a section of the controversial Israeli barrier is seen in the background in the West Bank Jewish settlement of Har Gilo near Jerusalem. — Reuters photograph

The Palestinian Liberation Organisation executive decided that any resumption of direct peace talks – the first for 21 months – “requires tangible steps, the first of them a freeze on settlements”. A senior PLO official, Yasser Abed Rabbo, said after yesterday’s meeting in Ramallah: “The Palestinian leadership holds Israel responsible for obstructing the negotiations.”

Although not unexpected, the move by the PLO underlines the depth of the crisis over the future of the talks after repeated efforts by the US, and the international Middle East envoy Tony Blair, to persuade the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, to prolong the partial freeze on settlements instituted late last year.

While the PLO is the over-arching body representing the main Palestinian factions, apart from Hamas and Islamic Jihad, the final response to Mr Netanyahu’s refusal to extend the freeze is likely to await a meeting of the Arab League. That meeting is currently scheduled for Wednesday, though there is increasing speculation that it will be postponed for another 48 hours, to Friday, to allow US mediators more time for the uphill struggle to promote an 11th-hour compromise to save the talks.

Diplomats report increased annoyance in Washington over Mr Netanyahu’s rejection of a draft letter drawn up by the State Department and a senior Israeli official promising – in return for a 60-day extension of the moratorium – massive military aid, a veto on any UN Security Council resolution criticising Israel over the next year, and support for a continued Israeli military presence in the Jordan Valley after the launch of a Palestinian state. The draft also reportedly contained a pledge not to ask for a further extension after the 60-day period ran out.

US presidential envoy George Mitchell and EU High Representative Cathy Ashton both visited the region last week in a vain effort to break the impasse.

Meanwhile, Mr Netanyahu has been pinning the blame for deadlock on the Palestinians, saying that the partial freeze had been ordered 10 months ago, but that Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian President, only agreed to direct negotiations starting last month. “Now I expect the Palestinians to show some flexibility. Everyone knows that measured and restrained building in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) in the coming year will have no influence on the peace map.”

Mr Netanyahu repeatedly says that he is prepared for talks “without preconditions”. But Mr Abbas and his negotiating team point out that they are asking for no more than did the 2003 internationally agreed Road Map, which called for a complete halt to settlement activity – which most of the international community regards as illegal under international law – and the withdrawal of settlement outposts illegal even under Israeli law.

But without an immediate end to the impasse in sight, yesterday’s PLO decision was endorsed publicly by Nabil Abu Rudeineh, spokesman for Mr Abbas, who told reporters after the executive meeting: “There will be no negotiations in the shadow of continued settlement.”

The PLO executive is dominated by Mr Abbas’s faction, but also includes a number of independents and smaller factions who have been vociferous in opposing a resumption of direct negotiations without a halt to building in the West Bank settlements. Failing a breakthrough, Mr Abbas has already been reported to be planning “a historic announcement” at the Arab League meeting. There is unconfirmed speculation that this could be a formal request to the 22-member league to ask the UN Security Council to condemn Israel’s settlement policy, or that it could be an imminent agreement with Hamas on inter-faction reconciliation, or both.

The first would cause a considerable headache for Washington, which would have to decide whether to veto such a resolution, while the second carries the risk that it could provide Israel with a ready-made reason - or excuse – for abandoning efforts to continue the talks.

— The Independent