The Tribune, Chandigarh, India

On retirement age
Court shocker to teachers

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the Union Government decision to raise the age of retirement of university teachers from 60 to 65 is not applicable to Panjab University, Chandigarh, since it is neither a Central university nor a Centrally funded university under any law.

Now it is for the Human Resource Development Ministry to clarify whether it treats Panjab University as a Central university. Quite a number of teachers who had attained superannuation moved the court to continue in service beyond 60 basing their claim on the Central decision. Their disappointment with the court order is understandable.

However, the universities in Punjab and the state government are free to raise the retirement age. The issue is: Should they? Reeling under the financial burden of the revised pay scales, the Punjab government had weighed the option of retiring its staff at 60 instead of 58 so that it did not have to pay retirement dues for two years. But it stuck to 58, and rightly so, given the alarming level of unemployment and shrinking job opportunities. One can appreciate talented and skilled staff such as medical college and management teachers continuing in service beyond 58 or 60. Why everybody? Several states had opposed the Central decision to link the issue of retirement at 65 to the UGC package to teachers.

It is true life expectancy has gone up and people in general are capable of working for longer years. Society can also benefit from their experience and wisdom. But governments and universities have to strike a balance so that young India’s aspirations are not thwarted by the elders’ hold on decision-making. Prolonged unemployment breeds social unrest and violence. Disparities are already growing along with GDP growth. The need is to ensure social security for vulnerable elderly people. Salaries and pensions should be good enough so that no one has to work for survival beyond 60.

Reconstitution of CWC
Loyalists rewarded, special skills recognised

The Congress Working Committee revamp effected by party president Sonia Gandhi on Friday offers a peep into who’s in favour in the main constituent of the ruling coalition and which functionaries are no longer in the high command’s good books. As it appears, even a hint of dissent or dissidence has been taken note of. That explains why Andhra Pradesh’s representation has been whittled down.

While G. Venkatswamy has been shown the door ostensibly for his recent attack on the party leadership, and K. Keshav Rao’s belligerence on the Telangana issue has cost him his seat, V. Kishore Chandra Deo and N. Janardhan Reddy have been dropped too leaving only G. Sanjeeva Reddy to represent the Congress bastion. Old warhorses Pranab Mukherjee, A.K. Antony and Motilal Vora have been retained while Home Minister P. Chidambaram makes it to the key group. Satyavrat Chaturvedi who has often been found to exceed his brief finds himself out while Veerappa Moily has been eased out ostensibly on the one man one post principle. Two names that have bounced into limelight are Mohan Prakash who has been given charge of the crucial state of Karnataka and Shakeel Ahmed who will look after Bihar.

That former Haryana finance minister Birender Singh has found a place in the CWC despite being looked upon with suspicion by State Chief Minister Hooda is a balancing act by the high command. The fact that he has been entrusted with managing the states of Himachal, Delhi and Uttarakhand speaks of the trust reposed in him. In Punjab, it is Mohinder Singh Kaypee who has been included in recognition of his acceptability among the lower castes, but those in Punjab cannot be happy about the induction of the controversial Jagdish Tytler who is still under a cloud for his alleged role in the Delhi anti-Sikh riots after Mrs Indira Gandhi’s assassination. From Himachal, it is Colonel Shandil whose army service in the north-east has been taken into account in making him incharge of Arunachal, Meghalaya and Mizoram.

All in all, the new CWC is well-thought-out with an eye on reinvigorating the party organization. Loyalty has been rewarded and special skills taken into account in giving charge of states.

Thought for the Day

Success always occurs in private and failure in full public view. — Anonymous

ARTICLE

Disturbing aspects of Godhra
It may damage BJP’s poll prospects
by T.V. Rajeswar

The Godhra case arose after the blaze in coach S-6 of Sabarmati Express on February 27, 2002, resulting in the death of 59 persons, who were reportedly karsevaks returning from Ayodhya. In September 2004, when Mr Lalu Prasad Yadav was Railway Minister, the UPA government constituted a committee headed by a former judge of the Supreme Court, Justice U.C. Banerji, to probe the causes of fire in Sabarmati Express.

In his report submitted in January 2005, Justice Banerji held that the blaze was an accident and there was no possibility of inflammable liquid being used. He also held that the fire originated in the coach itself without external input.

However, the Gujarat government of Mr Narendra Modi appointed a commission presided over by Justice Nanawati to probe the sequence of events that led to the fire and the deaths. The Justice Nanawati Commission concluded that the fire was not caused by any accident, but because of the petrol thrown at the coach concerned from outside.

Following the Sabarmati Express disaster large-scale violence broke out throughout Gujarat in the subsequent weeks. The Supreme Court appointed a Special Investigation Team headed by a former CBI Director, Mr R.K. Raghavan, on May 1, 2009, and entrusted the team with nine highly sensitive cases of communal violence, including the Godhra train carnage case.

According to the SIT findings, the prime accused or conspirators, including Maulvi Umarji, who allegedly stopped the train and broke into coach S-6 and committed arson. However, the Special Court acquitted Maulvi Umarji due to lack of evidence. While the principal conspirators were acquitted due to lack of evidence, several alleged perpetrators of the crime were convicted among the 31 held guilty. As many as 63 persons were acquitted and they had spent nine years in jail, pending disposal of the case. The judge pronounced the quantum of punishment on March 2 by sentencing 11 persons to death and the remaining 20 to life imprisonment.

Mr Raghavan, heading the SIT, reportedly submitted a 600-page enquiry report to the Supreme Court in May, 2010. The SIT reported on the serious communal riots which took place in Gujarat in 2002 and cited several instances, which show Mr Narendra Modi’s true character and the manner in which he handled the communal holocaust.

The report says that in spite of the fact that ghastly and violent attacks had taken place on Muslims at Gulberg Society and elsewhere, the reaction of the government was not the type that would have been expected by anyone. Mr Modi’s comments that “every action has an equal and opposite reaction” was not expected of a responsible Chief Minister.

The SIT report mentions “Modi’s implied justification of the killings of innocent members of the minority community, read together with an absence of a strong condemnation of the violence that followed Godhra, suggest a partisan stance at a critical juncture when the state had been badly disturbed by the communal violence”.

The SIT report says that Mr Modi displayed a discriminatory attitude by not visiting the riot-affected areas in Ahmedabad where a large number of Muslims were killed, though he went to Godhra on the same day, travelling almost 300 km on a single day. Mr Raghavan has also commented that Mr Modi did not cite any specific reasons why he did not visit the affected areas in Ahmedabad city as promptly as he did in the case of the Godhra train carnage.

Mr Raghavan’s report states that the Gujarat government did not take any steps to stop the bandh called by the VHP on February 28, 2002, and, on the contrary, the BJP had supported the bandh. It was during the bandh when Hindu mobs carried out massacres at Naroda Patiya and Gulberg Society on February 28, 2002.

Mr Modi prematurely dissolved the Assembly on August 19, 2002, nine months before the expiry of its five-year term, and demanded an early election. The SIT chairman has commented that the BJP clearly wanted to take electoral advantage of communal polarisation. The SIT found that the state police had carried out patently shoddy investigations in the Naroda Patiya and Gulberg Society massacre cases, ignoring cell phone records of Sangh Parivar members and the BJP leaders involved in the riots. Many senior police officers who were being investigated by the SIT for their suspected complicity in the riots were rewarded by Mr Modi with plum postings while those who carried out their duties correctly were shunted out to useless posts.

The SIT report also says that at a law and order meeting held by Mr Modi at his residence late in the evening of February 27, 2002, he allegedly instructed the Chief Secretary, the DGP and other senior officers to allow majority community to vent their anger against Muslims in the wake of the Godhra incident. Mr Raghavan, however, says that the allegation was not established since the officers who participated in the meeting declined to state the facts on one pretext or the other.

On the horrible massacre of innocent Muslims in the Gulberg Society complex, Mr Modi stated in a TV interview that it was Ahsan Jafri, a former MP, who first fired at the violent mob and this provoked the mob which attacked the society flats and set these on fire. The SIT has commented that the Chief Minister had tried to water down the seriousness of the situation in Gulberg Society, describing it as an instance of a reaction unbecoming of a Chief Minister.

Mr Modi had exposed his true character also on some other occasions. Addressing a Gaurav Yatra in communally volatile Mehsana district on September 9, 2003, he said, “What brothers, should we run relief camps? Should I start children-producing centres? We want to achieve progress by pursuing the policy of family planning. Which religious sect is coming in the way? If we have five, they have 25.”

Mr Raghavan, an IPS officer from Tamil Nadu cadre, had served in the IB for many years before he became the Director of the CBI. He was known for his analytical skills and sober and balanced views. He would not rush to conclusions unless they are fully supported by substantive evidence.

What the Supreme Court says on this report remains to be seen. However, the SIT report has given numerous instances of Chief Minister Modi’s acts of omission and commission which have exposed his controversial conduct. The SIT has said enough in its report, which would warrant further action against Mr Modi. The final verdict of the apex court is now eagerly awaited.

More than anything else, people at large in the country would now know Mr Modi’s dark side as revealed by the numerous instances in the SIT report. It may damage the BJP’s electoral prospects.n

The writer is a former Governor of UP and West Bengal.

MIDDLE

“Hum-Suffer”
by Mahesh Grover

Two decades back, I queued up for a ticket for an A.C. coach for my trip to Delhi when a Sikh gentleman came and asked me: “Are you alone?”“Yes”, I nodded. “You can accompany me in my car,” he said.I vacillated but accepted the offer, hoping for a quicker end to the journey.No sooner did I approach the intended vehicle for the journey – an old rickety “Fiat” with doors secured with ropes — that I realised my folly, just as the coach went by, closing all options on me.

“Please come,” he said.Resignedly, I slipped in. The windscreen was a kaleidoscope of innumerable stickers plastered all over, with an impeded view.

Settling down, he said exuberantly, “Last time, it was birds, birds and birds, this time it is aeroplanes and aeroplanes,” and stuck a few more stickers crowding the view further. His eccentricity and my stupidity stood out starkly.

Engine fired, the car went into motion, as he hummed and the car creaked in unison.Barely had we reached Ambala, when I heard the sound of metal scraping against the road with sparks flying. It was the silencer that dragged loosely.

On alighting he thoughtfully looked down, searching for a solution, and then removed the laces from his shoes, and turned a wanting gaze onto my shoes, while I cringed. Reluctantly, I freed my shoes from their bondage and handed the laces to him. He strung them together to secure the silencer to the rear bumper.

“Crank but ingenious,” I thought of him.The journey then resumed, but a while later, I noticed motorists whizzing by, gesticulating wildly at our car while my companion drove on in blissful ignorance. Finally, a motor-cyclist drove up to the window and shouted that we had a flat tyre, which by now had become evident as the car wobbled and swerved uncontrollably.

I grimaced and cursed my luck, but the gentleman displayed no sign of despair and rubbing his hands, said, “Now, it won’t go further. Let us take a lift,” and gesticulated to a small truck passing by which stopped. The driver consented to our travel in lieu of some amount. There was only one seat in the cabin onto which I jumped while my companion uncomplainingly set himself down in the rear cargo portion, and a bumpy ride began.

I glanced back to see him reclining, cheerfully singing a Hindi song.

“Kisi rah me, kisi mor par, mujhe chal na dena tuh chhor kar — mere humsafar — mere humsafar”.

I shuddered to think of myself as an object of his allusion.

The truck reached Karnal where I noticed the AC coach, parked at ‘Oasis’ and lunged towards it. Fortunately it had one seat vacated recently and with a sigh of relief, I settled down for my remaining journey, as the moral of episode sunk in: Be it life or a short journey, choose your Hum-Safar carefully, lest he becomes “Hum-Suffer”.

OPED

Pakistan’s enemy within
What has appalled analysts is the extent to which fanaticism and bigotry have forced liberal and secular segments of Pakistan’s society to beat a retreat and feel terrorised. Any rational discussion or debate has been brutally stifled.
Afzal Khan writes from Islamabad

(
Shahbaz Bhatti

The brutal murder of Pakistan's only non-Muslim federal minister Shahbaz Bhatti last week adds another high-profile scalp to the blasphemy law controversy after the assassination of Punjab Governor Salman Taseer by his own bodyguard. Bhatti was a moderate, modest but an outspoken advocate of the rights of minorities.

He campaigned for reviewing the blasphemy law to prevent its misuse, which has led to a lot of bloodletting ever since it was promulgated by military dictator General Zia in 1985.

The law mandates death sentence for any derogatory or insulting remarks against Prophet Mohammad, the Quran or the Prophet's companions. It adds a provision to the original law that was enacted by the British in the 19th century prohibiting defiling or insulting of any religion, its revered founders, teachings or worship places. Zia amended it to focus on derogatory comments against Prophet Mohammad and the death penalty was introduced for those found guilty.

The procedure for registering cases against any accused was so lax and open-ended that little emphasis was made on solid evidence. No penalty was proposed for making a false accusation. The onus of proving innocence was mainly left on the accused once some witnesses filed a complaint against the person.

The blood-stained car of Pakistani Minorities Minister Shahbaz Bhatti, who was assassinated in Islamabad on March 2. AFP photo

It is pertinent to mention here that only one case of blasphemy was registered between 1947 and 1985. But once Zia promulgated the amendment, over 4000 people have been charged with having violated the law. Most of them have been given the death sentence by lower courts but not a single person has been executed since then. Almost all appeals were granted by high courts for want of evidence while some are pending judgment. It is a testimony to the accusation by human rights bodies that the lower courts work under immense duress and threats hurled by extremists.

Another significant feature of the entire controversy is that the majority of the blasphemy cases involved Muslims. It involved only 21 per cent non-Muslim communities that include Christians, Ahmedis, Hindus and Sikhs. In the case of the last two categories, a total of 11 cases have been registered so far. Human rights advocacy groups, which have been calling for either total repeal of the law or amendment in procedures to prevent abuse, point out that most of the cases relate to settling personal scores or grabbing properties.

The registration of cases apart, mobs have acted on their own to dispense justice. Persons accused of blasphemy have been killed outside courts or whenever anybody is acquitted. Shahbaz Bhatti was also fighting against another ominous development— holding the entire community for the presumed crime of one individual for collective punishment. Christian residential settlements in Gojra and Sangla Hill in central Punjab and some other places were attacked and their houses were burned along with residents by angry mobs.

What has appalled analysts is the extent to which fanaticism and bigotry have forced liberal and secular segments of society to beat a retreat and feel terrorised. Any rational discussion or debate has been brutally stifled. The extreme right even justified the assassination of Salman Taseer and glorified his killer, Mumtaz Qadri. However, nobody has applauded the murder of Shahbaz Bhatti.

The state itself has abdicated its responsibility and surrendered almost completely to the religious zealots. Salman Taseer was virtually abandoned to fend for himself by the ruling Pakistan People's Party (PPP) that claims to be a progressive and secular party . Prime Minister Gilani dissociated himself from his stance on blasphemy and failed to even condole with his family after the murder. Mr Gilani emphatically declared several times in Parliament that the blasphemy law would not be reviewed at all. Interior Minister Rehman Malik said he would personally shoot anybody who violated this law while Law Minister Babar Awan proudly announced that the blasphemy law could be reformed only over his dead body.

Shahbaz Bhatti was first assigned by President Zardari to contact religious scholars and others to review the procedures prescribed in the blasphemy law. But the panel was never constituted, and the government declared that no such panel was planned. Ms Sherry Rehman, former Information Minister, had planned to move an amendment in the blasphemy law to guard against its abuse by providing a more stringent procedure for the registration of cases. But the PPP has directed her to take back her amendment proposal.

Bhatti's murder has further enhanced threats to many other people for propagating liberal views. A highly respected religious scholar, Allama Hamid Ghamdi, left the country last month and settled in Malaysia after receiving threats for contesting the claim that Islam provides for death penalty for those indulging in blasphemy against the Prophet. He maintained that the Quran preached clemency.

The top authority on Sunni Islamic jurisprudence, Imam Abu Hanifa, issued an edict that no non-Muslim could be convicted even if he passes a derogatory remark against the Prophet. For Muslims there is an option to retract from any deliberate or unintended remark.

How France can help India’s infrastructure growth
Thierry Mariani

A loyal and solid friendship unites France and India. The precious ties between our two countries, which we must maintain staunchly, were founded on a commonality of values based on an attachment shared by both our States to democracy, multilateralism and dialogue between civilisations, which requires a sustained policy of cultural exchanges.

The richness of this multi-faceted partnership is especially illustrated in the sector of sustainable development and transport.

This year, the joint efforts of both our States to render the G20 an efficient instrument of regulation and economic cooperation capable of rising to the challenges of the 21st century will be decisive. Monetary instability, economic imbalances, the volatility of the raw materials market, and developmental gaps with regard to infrastructure constitute the major challenges for the overhaul of the international economic system. Such was the purpose of the working visit, from December 4 to 7, 2010, of President Nicolas Sarkozy, who wished to respond to the invitation of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and conduct a series of intense discussions with him on bilateral, regional and international issues of common interest.

In this regard, I would like to stress on our common resolve to attain a thorough reform of the United Nations in order to make the Security Council more representative of the current international scene, France having also lent its support to India for obtaining the status of a permanent member of an expanded Security Council. Thus, our two States will be able to pursue dialogue and cooperation within multilateral bodies, be they on regional crises, terrorism, climate change, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, or disarmament at the global level. This presidential visit was crowned by an Indo-French joint statement, dated December 6, 2010, which gives a fresh boost to the strategic partnership between our two States.

Further, this partnership approach covers challenges as essential as civil nuclear energy, counter-terrorism, and cooperation in the areas of security and defence as well as space. But France and India have also developed bilateral trade, be it for leased aircraft operation, satellite launch, recording biometric data, energy, all forms of transport or urban planning.

Our common ambition is illustrated at the institutional level with the implementation of joint working groups in charge of identifying good practices that will provide future economic cooperation with a solid foundation. But we must also offer all possible opportunities to help nurture a truly decentralised cooperation. In this regard, we must hail the first Indo-French seminars on decentralised cooperation, held in New Delhi from January 15 to 17, 2010, under the aegis of the Ministry of External and European Affairs and with the support of the French Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development, Transport and Housing, on the one hand, and the Indian Ministry of Urban Development, on the other, through their joint working group for urban development (founded in 2003). These seminars, which brought together 80 French representatives of self-governing bodies and an equal number of high-ranking local Indian officials, were a great success. New prospects of collaboration emerged on the themes of urban development and transport.

The next cooperation seminar between French and Indian states, regions and local self-governing bodies will be held in France in 2012. What a path we would run if we have the opportunity of welcoming a large Indian delegation on
this occasion!

I would, naturally, like to salute India’s economic vitality, which has witnessed a strong growth – an average of 6.5 per cent per annum between the fiscal years 1991 and 2010. Despite the global economic and financial crisis – which did not spare India – this country resisted well and posted a growth of 8.2 per cent in the fourth quarter.

This economic dynamism spurs a reflection on the crucial challenges of sustainable development, be it with regard to poverty alleviation, food security, or access to water. The fight against climate change is, obviously, a challenge of shared mobilisation between our two States. In this context, it is a pleasure to observe that the concept of sustainable mobility to which India subscribes will help develop types of transportation that reduce CO2 emissions, whether they concern public rail or eco-friendly modes of transport.

Further, India is undergoing a rapid urbanising process, a McKinsey report predicting a flow of 215 million new inhabitants towards Indian cities by 2025. India has been able to meet the challenge of accelerated urbanisation by launching an ambitious infrastructure programme. I believe that the French Development Agency (AFD) can be an important lever for financing these future expenses allied with the know-how and excellence of French companies established on Indian territory. Besides, France also possesses real expertise in innovative financial solutions, such as Public-Private Partnerships, which will constitute one of the highlights of this working visit – the first since that of the President of the French Republic.

Lastly, I believe that the Indo-French partnership is enriched by the development of economic and commercial exchanges, which must be further intensified. In this regard, I am pleased with the substantial investments made by French companies in India, be it the public service of water, construction material or rail transport, urban planning and housing.

This strategic partnership must be given a fresh boost so that the Indo-French friendship flourishes in all areas!

The writer is the French Minister of Transports