|
|
|
|
|
Land sharks in net
Killings of two sisters
Last journey |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Egyptian uprising
Old gold
Pak nuclear card limits
Indian anti-terror options
|
Land sharks in net
IN a landmark judgement the Supreme Court has declared as illegal the state orders allotting village common land to private persons or commercial enterprises. There is a nexus of politicians, officials, builders, property dealers and criminals that grabs public land wherever available in cities, towns and villages. Representatives of panchayats and municipalities too sometimes share the loot. The opponents are silenced by “orders from above” since the land mafia enjoys political patronage. The rules are bent or changed as the guardians of public property turn robbers of public trust. Precious pieces of land are passed on to private persons on token payments. In such a scenario the judiciary is the only institution that can stop the proliferation of gangsters. In the given case it is the illegal occupants of a village pond who had the temerity to approach the apex court for “justice”. They had challenged the move to evict them from the village common land. The court also took note of the role of the Patiala Collector, who instead of helping the village get back its land, directed the panchayat to recover the cost of the land based on the Collector’s rates. This is just one small example of land grab in Punjab. If a survey is done by a competent authority, there would hardly be a village, town or city in Punjab where the land mafia has not captured or encroached upon public land. NRIs are an easy target. Though the Bench comprising Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Mishra has directed the Chief Secretaries to ensure speedy eviction of all illegal occupants, the bureaucrats’ efforts might be scuttled by their political bosses. The court will have to monitor such cases regularly — a formidable challenge in itself — and launch contempt proceedings, where necessary. Otherwise, the land-grab issue would meet the fate of police reforms, which states like Punjab have failed to implement despite instructions from the Supreme Court.
|
|
Killings of two sisters
THE way two innocent sisters in their teens were forcibly taken out of their house and then gunned down by suspected members of the Lashkar-e-Toiba on Monday evening in Sopore town, near Srinagar, shows that terrorists continue to pose a serious threat to the lives and liberty of people in the Valley. Painting a rosy picture with officially provided figures will not do. Surprisingly, the horrifying incident occurred despite a large presence of the security forces in the state. The killings deserve to be condemned in strongest terms by one and all. Contrary to this, there is only “muted condemnation” by some people. Most people, including those who are always in search of some pretext to blame the security forces for any incident of violence, have preferred to keep quiet. This is really “unfortunate”, as Chief Minister Omar Abdullah pointed out on Tuesday. The Chief Minister is right when he says that had there been even the slightest allegation against the security forces, the entire Valley would have risen in revolt. Remember what happened when a teenager, Tufail Ahmed, died in a stone throwing incident in June last year. The police and paramilitary forces had a very tough time controlling the agitators who indulged in stone throwing in Srinagar and many other towns. Where are the so-called leaders who claim to be the “real” representatives of the people in Kashmir? Monday’s incident has exposed their double standards. These elements prefer to raise their voice against any incident or development that suits their separatist agenda. That is why they are not protesting against the killing of the two innocent sisters at the hands of LeT terrorists. It is time people saw through the designs of the separatist elements and refused to support them on any issue. The separatists and extremists are the enemies of Kashmiris and deserve to be rejected. For them human lives have no value. They are interested in only creating chaos and misguiding people so that their narrow interests are served.
|
|
|
Last journey ONE does not require a special warning that one must not travel on the roof of a train. The activity is suicidal, period. Yet, hundreds of youth desperate to get a job in the ITBP did exactly that on Tuesday and at least 19 paid with their lives. They fell to their death from Himgiri Express and Triveni Express while returning from the ITBP recruitment camp in Bareilly. Many others received serious injuries. As if that was not tragic enough, other job aspirants took out their anger by running amok at Shahjahanpur station of Uttar Pradesh, assaulting the driver of Himgiri Express and torching two bogies of another train. In fact, they had gone on the rampage earlier also at the recruitment venue in Bareilly, setting on fire several vehicles after they failed to submit their forms due to alleged mismanagement of the authorities. Travelling atop trains is banned, but is a common sight all over the country. This tendency becomes all the more pronounced when a large number of people have to converge on a certain place, for a test or interview by a large organisation like the ITBP or the Railways. That only shows the extent of unemployment in the country. The least that happens at such places is a law and order problem. Yet, no one has cared to take any remedial measures. True to form, a blame game is now on. The Uttar Pradesh government says that although around 1.5 lakh job aspirants were called from 11 states by the ITBP authorities, they did not coordinate with the local administration. On the other hand, Home Minister P. Chidambaram insists that the state police was informed well in advance and yet it provided minimum security. Yet, even he is silent on whether there should be special travel arrangements for lakhs of job seekers. Anyway, who is right and who is not is of no consequence to those who have died. Such loss should at least wake up the country to ensure that anything similar does not happen again.
|
|
|
If you care at all, you’ll get some results. If you care enough, you’ll get incredible results. — Edward Simmons
|
The Egyptian uprising
TWO facts stand out in the unprecedented turmoil in Egypt: the days of President Hosni Mubarak are numbered and a new wave of change has been set in motion by the Tunisian upsurge which forced its president of 23 years to flee his country and seek refuge in Saudi Arabia. In geopolitical terms, Tunisia was on the periphery of the Middle East and North Africa —West Asia for us — but Egypt lies at the heart of the Arab world. The region’s oil wealth and Western interest in it, combined with American nurturing and protection of Israel, helped to freeze the Middle East into an authoritarian mould in which the West, led by Washington, cultivated a cosy relationship with a succession of autocrats. Egypt was the first Arab state to enter into a peace treaty with Israel, followed by Jordan, and has been receiving an annual aid kitty of $1.3 billion, the second highest after Israel. The whole structure and ability of Israel’s continued occupation of Palestinian land and blockade of Gaza was built around Egypt’s acquiescence. After Nine Eleven — the terrorist strikes against high profile targets in the US in 2001 — the traditional coddling of Arab rulers took on a new dimension, together with maintaining an Arab coalition against Iran in its incarnation as a theocracy. President George W. Bush unfurled the banner of democracy for West Asia but blotted his copybook by invading Iraq; with consequences his country is still living with, including the enhancement of Iran’s regional influence by creating a second Shia-majority state. Thus for the US, the protection of Israel was folded into support for autocrats. The Tunisian upsurge started with the suicide of a vegetable seller in an obscure town after local police confiscated his unlicensed vegetable kiosk and, according to one account, slapped him. It lit a match to the tinder of frustrations among a largely young population, many of them unemployed and with poor prospects of finding a job. A further provocation was the President’s family, in particular his wife and her relations, sequestering much wealth and often flaunting ostentatious living. Outside the oil- and gas-rich Gulf monarchies, which can insulate their small populations with generous subsidies, the predominant young of the Arab world live in strictly censored military-supported states with elites cornering much of the wealth and the people enjoying little freedom. The Tunisian example was infectious because, contrary to the usual Arab script, the young made secular demands of freedom and dignity using modern technology of Facebook and Twitter to gather support and succeeded in forcing the long-time ruler to flee. The ripples of the so-called jasmine revolution spread across the Arab world. Masses of unemployed youth were inspired to think the unthinkable: if the Tunisians could do it, why couldn’t they? Circumstances, of course, vary from state to state. Tunisia has a small, largely literate population and although the youth bulge is common, levels of literacy are not always high. In Egypt’s case, its traditional primacy in the Arab world has lately taken a beating. But it has a population of nearly 83 million and apart from having the strongest Arab army, it retains its soft power. What happens in Egypt, therefore, matters. President Mubarak has sought to confront the problem, his severest since he came to power 30 years ago, by using the traditional police and security apparatus leading to many deaths. When his opponents refused to give up, he brought the army in, but contrary to other countries, the army is held in high esteem. Although military tanks rolled on to the Tahrir Square in central Cairo and in adjacent areas, they did not use force against the people, despite curfews being violated. And last Monday it declared on television that it would not use force against civilians. President Mubarak sought to diffuse the crisis by appointing a vice-president — his security chief — for the first time in 30 years and reshuffling his Cabinet under a new prime minister, removing a hated interior minister. These actions failed to pacify the people and the momentum kept on growing, with one cry repeated a thousand times, “Mubarak Go”. The United States is left with the embarrassing position of having to dance on a pin, seeking “an orderly transition” on the one hand and trying to shore up Israel’s interests on the other. Americans are hoping against hope that the situation will allow President Mubarak to stay on till the scheduled presidential election in September after the recent parliamentary election was widely pronounced as having been rigged. At the very least, the US and Israel will be hoping that if Mubarak has to go soon, his chosen vice-president will take over. Neither of these outcomes seems likely. Given this background, what will future look like? The amazing aspect of the Egyptian uprising and the preceding Tunisian tsunami is that these are spontaneous movements with no designated leaders. While an interim arrangement is holding the fort in Tunisia with elections promised in six months, Mr ElBaradei, the former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, has been brought in as the agreed interim leader, being blessed by the Islamic Brotherhood, among others. In fact, the last, the most organised of the opposition parties, has been playing catch-up with the movement as have other opposition parties. Events in Egypt are sending shock waves to other Arab rulers, but it is surely ironical that the greatest supporter of President Mubarak is Israel, which is afraid of democracy breaking out there. A more democratic dispensation in the Arab world would be less obliging in protecting Israeli interests and more muscular in promoting Palestinian nationhood. At present, Egypt polices the Gaza Strip, blockaded by Israel on land, in the sea and over the air. Will a democratic government do so in future? And what happens to America’s grand architecture? These are portentous
questions.
|
||||||
Old gold IT was a pleasant surprise indeed to see Waheeda Rehman figure in the list of Republic Day honours this year. This Padma Bhushan, coming after a really long 39 years of her Padma Shri, in 1972, may be a way of recognising her lifetime achievements and contribution to the world of art and cinema. At the time of her earlier Padma award in 1972, she was almost at the pinnacle of her career, fresh from her 1971 National Award of ‘Reshma aur Shera’ and the earlier two best actress awards for ‘Guide’ (1966) and ‘Neel Kamal’ (1968). Filmfare had honoured her with a lifetime achievement award in 1994, and thereafter usually one is supposed to retire honourably, but after the death of her husband, Waheeda picked up the threads from where she had left, with influencing perforamces in ‘Rang De Basanti’, ‘Delhi-6’ etc. Unless one is a fan of classics, the present generation may not be able to fully appreciate the depth of talent and strength of Waheeda Rehman. In her very first film, ‘CID’ (1956) where she was given the difficult role of a vamp, she was able to leave an indelible impact. As you name Waheeda, the first image that comes to mind is that of Rosie Marco, of ‘Guide’, and then comes Kamini of ‘CID’, and her play of eyes with a hide and seek game of light and shade in ‘kahin pe nigahen kahin pe nishana’. Guru Dutt often used to say that an actor has to act 80 per cent with eyes, and Waheeda followed her mentor to a tee. Gulab of ‘Pyassa’ (1957) does not open her mouth, but the intensity of expression in her eyes is most eloquent. The picturisation of “Aaj Sajan Mohe Ang Laga Lo” says it all, where Gulab emotes and expresses her love, longing and helplessness all through her eyes. The same extraordinary mobility of her face and eyes is visible when she does not speak a word but is seen to invite Vijay (Guru Dutt) of ‘Pyassa’ (Jane kya Tune kahi Jane kya mene suni). As is well known, Guru Dutt and Dev Anand were close chums from Prabhat Studio of Pune (1948), and, may be, this was the reason that despite being a find of Guru Dutt, Waheeda did almost all of her initial films either with Dev Anand or Guru Dutt e.g. ‘CID’, ‘Pyassa’ , ‘Solva Saal’, ‘Kala Bazar’, ‘Roop ki Rani Choron ka Raja’, ‘12 ‘O’ Clock’, ‘Baat Ek Raat ki’, ‘Kagaz ke Phool’, ‘Chaudhvi ka Chand’ and ‘Sahib Bibi aur Ghulam’. It is a fact that she came to Guru Dutt’s notice through the success of her dances in Telugu Film ‘Rojulu Marayi’ (1955), but as a true connoisseur, he never gave prominence to her dancing talent, instead concentrating on the romanticism of her eyes. It was left to Dev Anand to truly measure her dancing potential in ‘Guide’ (1966) and ‘Prem Pujari’
(1970).
|
||||||
Feeble diplomatic moves and half-hearted military posturing have not only failed to deter Pakistan from sponsoring terrorism, but have instead vindicated the effectiveness of Pakistan’s nuclear deterrence against any punitive move by India. If we are serious about putting an end to such terrorist attacks, we must call off Pakistan's nuclear bluff and confront it squarely and retaliate appropriately against any act that is detrimental to India’s national interests
Pak nuclear card limits Indian
anti-terror options If the aim of Operation Parakam, launched after the terrorist attack on the Parliament in 2001, was to coerce Pakistan and deter it from sponsoring terrorist attacks, then the manner of implementation of this operation conveyed a different message. Civil rail and road traffic was not to be disrupted and consequently it took rather long to concentrate troops at their battle locations. Since there was no urgency, it gave the impression that India was not serious and was merely saber-rattling. At the same time, Pakistani intelligence had that much more time to gather information on the movement and forward locations of these formations. Later, some on this side opined that India missed a “window of opportunity”, though no one defined this “window”. Even under the best conditions for mobilisation, when the highest priority over road and rail traffic is accorded to the military in India, Pakistan is still able to mobilise in about half that time because of shorter distances and the advantage of operating on interior lines in that country. So, per se, Pakistan will leave no “window” open for India to exploit. Nor was there any such “window” during Op Parakaram. The term “window of opportunity” was brought into use to cover up certain other failings. In the Indo-Pak context, a “window” will have to be created by holding back strike formations at locations from where multiple options for offensives are available. This will keep the enemy guessing and, in fact, bring in uncertainty and put him on the horns of a dilemma. Thereafter, through surprise and deception, create that “window” in the enemy’s defences and then with rapid movement of troops and competent generalship fully exploit the developing situation. Gen J.N. Chaudhuri did this in the 1965 war against Pakistan. Concurrently, some defence experts and perhaps those at Army HQs and the Training Command propagated another concept, “Cold Start”. Reference to this recently surfaced in the Wikileaks expose, where the US ambassador to India talked about India adopting the Cold Start concept, and that was the excuse Pakistan advanced for not shifting more troops from its eastern front against India to the AF-Pak border for anti-Taliban operations. Cold start implies that offensives can be launched “at a moment’s notice”. This would require either pre-positioning of offensive formations well forward or their components grouped with defensive elements for a quick but limited offensive. In both cases the enemy can acquire information regarding their presence and take adequate counter-measures. Further there will be no surprise in such type of operations. Splitting resources of strike formations and locating these with defensive elements have their own implications. Be that as it may, the Army Chief has stated that the army does not subscribe to such a concept. Some other armchair experts have been propagating that a number of battle-groups should be launched over a wide front. Perhaps they are ignorant of the time-honoured principal of concentration of forces and the prospects of defeat in detail. Defensive formations would merely unbalance themselves were they to undertake any offensives, even a limited strike, on their own. Indian defence experts have been seeking solutions to problems and scenarios of their own making but missing out on the core issue of factors inhibiting military response to continuing Pakistani mischief. India’s option for punitive military action is completely overshadowed by Pakistan’s threat of retaliation by nuclear weapons. Pakistan is well aware that threat of nuclear strike frightens India. This deterrence works well on India, because we have some how convinced ourselves, that Pakistan will be rash enough to press the nuclear button, as soon as an Indian offensive takes off. Equally, some in Delhi feel that it is the Pakistani military that controls the nuclear button and would act on its own. Some experts have been talking of air strikes on terrorist training camps. In this case the Indian intelligence is more likely to have incomplete information on their exact location, number under training, routine at these camps or the best time for an air strike. These camps have hardly any infrastructure and what air strikes may eventually achieve is, knocking out some rudimentary obstacle course or result in civilian casualties. In any case, even punitive action in the way of air strikes or limited ground action is stymied by the apparition of a nuclear retaliation. A Catch-22 situation of our own making! Kargil presented a great opportunity to put an end the repeated needling by Pakistan once for all, but unfortunately the weak politico-military leadership proved quite incapable of grasping it. In fact, the leadership showed extreme pusillanimity. It was left to a brigadier from the Pakistan army to spell out in the Dawn newspaper, an appropriate Indian response and the great opportunity India missed - to settle the Siachen problem and gain control over the Northern Areas. This would have forestalled Chinese troops moving into this area and casting an altogether new dimension to the Kashmir problem. Failure to deal appropriately with Pakistan at Kargil led to more terrorist attacks, in J&K and elsewhere. It also resulted in deploying additional troops by India in an area of no strategic importance and the consequent heavy financial burden. It reconfirmed that Pakistan’s nuclear deterrence works well and it can continue terrorist attacks on India. India has mainly relied on feeble diplomatic moves and half-hearted military posturing to make Pakistan desist from terrorism. These efforts have had little or no perceptible effect on a recalcitrant and hostile Pakistan. Though, that country itself has become the target of the same set of terrorists, Pakistan finds them a useful tool to keep targeting India. Therefore, if India is serious in putting an end to terrorist attacks by Pakistan inspired elements, it must call off this nuclear bluff by Pakistan. It must be made clear to Pakistan, in unequivocal language, that in the event of a nuclear strike against India, we will retaliate immediately and massively, which would reduce Pakistan into a wasteland. Further any terrorist attack on India, sponsored or emanating from Pakistan, will surely invite Indian military reaction. Sooner than later, India will have to bite the bullet and bring to end this continuing perfidy by
Pakistan. The writer is a former Deputy Chief of the Army Staff
|
|
|
| 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 | |
ITS three decades since Pakistan has been fermenting trouble in India. It started with Punjab and later in Jammu and Kashmir, followed by sporadic terrorist attacks in rest of India. While it is a cheap option for Pakistan, it has cost India thousands of lives and has been a heavy burden on the exchequer. India has failed to deter Pakistan from pursuing this nefarious activity. Pakistan’s policy of bleeding India by a thousand cuts has never been suitably addressed by us. There have been somewhat feeble and ill-conceived attempts, both military and diplomatic, to make Pakistan desist from is activities, but to no avail.