The Tribune, Chandigarh, India

Soft verdict in Grover case
Killing was unusually gruesome

Usually, crime stories do not have a happy ending. Going by the verdict announced on Neeraj Grover’s gruesome killing, this one does, for the culprits. A local court in Mumbai let one of the two accused, Maria Susairaj, walk free on Friday. The court convicted her only for destruction of evidence, for which the maximum punishment is three years of imprisonment, time she had already served as an undertrial. The verdict on this much-talked-about killing for its heinousness has triggered sharp reactions. The ambitious, glamour-struck, small-town, small-time Kannada actress Maria, who was already in a relationship with a former Navy officer, Emile Jerome Matthews, started dating Neeraj Grover, a senior TV executive, hoping to get a ladder for her TV career. While Grover was murdered by her fiancé Jarome, Maria helped him chop his body into 300 small pieces, and stuffed these into bags to be dumped and burnt. She also went to a neighbouring mall to buy a butcher’s knife, two big sports bags and borrowed a friend’s car to dump the body. All this, certainly, was not the doing of an innocent mind.

Telephone conversations established the fact that Grover had come to help her settle in her new flat. In her confession, she said, Grover started ‘acting funny’ on May 7. When Jerome, who was then in Cochin, called her, he found Grover was with her in her flat. Without informing her, he took a flight to Mumbai, entered her flat early morning on May 8, found Grover sleeping in her bed and killed him with a kitchen knife. The brutality with which the two disposed off the body after what the court termed as not a pre-meditated murder, had shocked the nation.

Jarome received only 10 years of imprisonment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Perhaps, how a body is treated after being killed holds no relevance in the eyes of the law. The court held them guilty of lesser offences as the motive behind the crime remained inconclusive. The course of law is long and winding, but, as they say, what goes around, comes around.

Women under duress
Must be enabled to cope with stress

Traditionally women have borne the brunt of many social changes. Now as societies in emerging markets are in the throes of transition it seems women are not only experiencing freedom and emancipation but also paying the price for it. While stress is a universal phenomenon and cuts across gender too, it is distressing to note that Indian women are most stressed. A survey spanning 21 developing and emerging countries has revealed that a staggering 87 per cent of Indian women feel stressed most of the time and 82 per cent have no time to relax.

Stress might seem like an innocuous phenomenon and in small doses can actually enhance performance and motivate people to do their best as well as meet challenges. However, if it becomes an all-consuming aspect of one’s life, it is not only debilitating but also has many health hazards. More so since studies have pointed out that woman respond to stress differently. Work-related stress doubles their risk of heart attack and other cardiac problems. It’s not work alone that generates stress but also demands of home that exacerbate duress. Often, women find it to tough to do the balancing act. The superwoman model fuelled by the media puts additional pressure on women to excel on all fronts. Working women constantly feel the need to prove themselves at the workplace without forsaking their responsibilities as mother and wife.

The independence that women have gained has also brought in financial stability and more opportunities for them as well as their daughters which is without doubt a heartening development. Since the clock cannot be turned back to the time when roles were clearly divided on the lines of gender, society has to create mechanisms to help women cope with stress. While both society, particularly family and co-workers, must create support systems to help women, the fairer sex too need to identify the causes of stress and learn to be more organised and systematic. Besides, they should not strive to be perfectionists and set realistic goals. To err is human, women included.

Thought for the Day

It’s every man’s business to see justice done. — Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

ARTICLE

Beginning of the endgame
Even a super power cannot have its way
by H.K. Dua

Even super powers, real or presumed, come to realise, sooner or later, that there are limits to their power and ability to shape events abroad.

Nowhere else has this proven true than in the mountainous terrain of Afghanistan. Historical precedents apart, the Soviet Union, in recent times discovered to its cost that it could not sustain its influence, or armed intervention, in Afghanistan for long.

Now the mighty United States has discovered that the war in Afghanistan has shown up once again to its embarrassment that there are limits to its power in this part of the world. International implications apart, its Afghanistan venture has also begun to affect domestic politics.

After a decade-long engagement in Afghanistan, Washington has come to recognise that it cannot sustain a state of war against the Taliban. Mighty armies, equipped with most effective of weaponry, can also suffer from battle fatigue. And scenes of coffins wrapped in the Stars and Stripes are never welcome in US homes.

The US has been going through an economic recession during the last few years, and the $2 billion a week it has been spending in Afghanistan cannot bring comfort to the people as well as the US administration.

Electoral compulsions have always influenced war-and-peace decisions in the US. President Barack Obama’s Democratic Party has told him that it simply does not want him to continue fighting in a distant land. Both in his party and among the people Obama’s popularity graph has been soaring after the killing of Osama bin Laden, and beginning a pull-out from Afghanistan will now serve Obama’s bid for a second term in the White House.

No one in the world is hence surprised about President Obama’s announcement that the US will begin pulling out troops from Afghanistan this month. He will call back over 30,000 troops in a year’s time; and, if all goes well, would like to complete the withdrawal by 2014.

While pulling out troops from Afghanistan will save the US a lot of money and help him win the next election, President Obama cannot afford to convey the impression that the US during his tenure is becoming an isolationist power, or is giving up on its strategic responsibilities in the world.

Hence, the spin in his address announcing his plans last week is on “drawing down” of the US troops, not on a “withdrawal” of troops. What apparently is being sought to be conveyed is that the US would call back the troops in measured instalments to be completed in 2014. He is trying to impress on the international community and the voters at home that the Supreme Commander of the mighty US Army is not running away from what has come to be known as Obama’s war. Apparently, he does not want pullout from Afghanistan, regarded as Obama’s Vietnam.

Nevertheless, guessing games are already on in many world capitals as to what happens in Afghanistan after 2014 when the US and NATO countries would have completed their withdrawals. The vital issue is: Will there be a vacuum in Afghanistan and who will fill the vacuum?

In a weak country like Afghanistan, and strategically placed, filling the vacuum can be tempting for other nations in the neighbourhood — immediate and otherwise. Geopolitics still matters a great deal even if the world order is said to have become fairly global.

Washington is perhaps aware of the danger of the Taliban again filling the vacuum in Afghanistan, wiping off whatever gains the US-NATO made in the war waged against it during the last decade. The Taliban is certainly looking eagerly towards 2014.

Also, Pakistan has been wanting to fill the vacuum in Afghanistan through the Taliban. Islamabad may be, or may not be, giving up its fascination for acquiring a “strategic depth” in Afghanistan, but it would certainly like to see someone amenable to its advice take over in Kabul.

So are perhaps the Russians, the Chinese and the Iranians who have always been wanting the US to reduce its presence in the entire region.

Geopolitical and strategic reasons apart, Afghanistan’s minerals, its closeness to the Arabian Sea and the oil-rich Persian Gulf make it vulnerable to an inter-play of conflicting ambitions.

President Obama and his advisers are perhaps aware of the post-2014 situation. That is why the US will decide not to withdraw totally from Afghanistan even in 2014; the character of its presence in the country will change in a big way, instead.

Come to think of it, last week’s announcement means that only 30,000-odd troops are returning in a year’s time and Barack Obama will still have more troops there than he inherited from George W Bush Jr. He cannot afford to risk all the gains getting frittered away. Hopefully.

Indications are that the US, while pulling out most of its troops, will establish military bases in Afghanistan. These will be more than just garrisons, meant to project the US military presence in the region and also to prevent Moscow, Beijing and Teheran from pulling Afghanistan into their area of influence.

Whether the five military bases will wield authority in the rest of the country remains to be seen. The Taliban groups are not going to relish the presence of American troops within the boundaries of military bases. After all, President Obama has struck a blow against Osama bin Laden; he is yet to gain a big success against the Taliban.

There are shortcomings in the American strategy, dependent as it is, based on launching an occasional drone attack out of the military bases at Taliban positions. It would be again a prolonged hide-and-seek extension of the war, and eventuality President Obama would not like.

May be, that is why there are reports that Washington is already talking to the Taliban, although at lower levels directly or through the British. Didn’t Obama once say that there were “good” Taliban and “bad” Taliban. He had not defined what makes a “good” Taliban. In diplomacy, loose definitions are convenient, to be suitably adjusted for exigencies.n

The writer is a senior journalist and now a Member of Parliament.

MIDDLE

Poor ‘workmanship’
by Harish Dhillon

There was a time when people took such tremendous pride in their work that examples of poor workmanship were extremely rare. It was just work ethics: if you were doing something you did it to the best of your ability. The rare examples of poor workmanship that did occur were because of a lack of experience and expertise. The workman admitted his mistake and was ready to redo the work all over again. Not anymore.

My first recognition of this change came in the late sixties. A friend I had gone to visit in Poona bought me a length of material for a pair of trousers. We went to the best drapers in town. Imagine my horror when I went to try them on and found that they were extremely tight at the crotch, the left leg was longer than the right leg and the waist was at a point well below my navel on one side at a point half way up my chest on the other. They said there was nothing they could have done about this as that was the way my body was shaped. I do have a very lopsided body and was left with no leeway for an argument. I never wore that pair of trousers.

The second memorable instance of this occurred when I was Principal at YPS, Patiala. For some reason the geyser in my bathroom would not work. The school electrician tinkered with it without success. I let the matter ride till one day I touched the flush cistern and almost burnt my back. I realised that the geyser did work but that the hot water came only to the cistern. The electrician found an ingenuous solution to the problem - he connected a pipe to the cistern which would draw the hot water out for my bath into a bucket. At the same time he warned me not to touch the cistern.

The final instance happened just last month. While at my sister’s farm I developed a terrible toothache. It was the second tooth from the right and I knew I could afford to lose it without it making any difference to my denture, which was anchored on the last tooth. I was given a pain blocker and the dentist pulled my tooth out. I can see him vividly even now, looking down at the tooth he had extracted in a kidney tray and saying that it could have lasted a little longer. I realised that he had pulled out the wrong tooth. He did a second extraction to deal with the offending tooth. The result was that my denture no longer had the tooth that anchored it and I could no longer use it. When I finally returned home, my little granddaughter, Inaaya, took one look at me and ran screaming out of the room. I know now that till this poor workmanship is rectified, I have little chance of winning back the interest and attention of the little child.

OPED GOVERNANCE

That there will be a consensus on Lokpal is not in doubt. The real issue is what kind of Lokpal will get a consensus — perhaps not the one that might have the potential to make a real difference to the functioning of the establishment
Lokpal needs teeth to bite
Jagdeep S. Chhokar

The empire strikes back", 'Divide and rule' triumphs". These could well be the headlines towards the end of British rule in the subcontinent. Interestingly, substituting "empire" with "establishment" could make it a headline appropriate for the situation today. Having succeeded in first propping up Baba Ramdev, thus dividing what was labelled as a "civil society", then discrediting him and now in hyphenating Ramdev and Anna Hazare, the glee in the "establishment" is hard to miss.

In hyphenating Baba Ramdev and Anna Hazare (above), the glee in the establishment is hard to miss Photo: Reuters

Who or what is this "establishment"? In most discussions on the issue, it is often referred to as "the government". Even an editorial in The Tribune on June 14 ends on a pious note, saying "The country must be tired of the daily discourse on corruption and probity in public life. It is time to act and the government will do well to forge a consensus among all political parties on how to combat corruption before Parliament's monsoon session begins."

Lifting the veil

Using the corporate law provision of "lifting the corporate veil" in which the persons actually behind the artificially created corporations are identified in exceptional situations, it is time the nation looked behind the corporate veil of the government: where does the government come from? It comes from Parliament because members of the political executive come from amongst the members of Parliament.

Continuing with the lifting of the veil, where do the MPs come from? Yes, in theory, "We, the People" elect them but before "we" can vote for or against the candidates contesting elections, who decides who can be candidates? Yes, in theory again, anyone can be a candidate but in practice, one needs the nomination of a political party to become a candidate with a realistic chance of being elected. So, behind "the government", there are political parties.

So, does "the establishment" consist only of political parties? Not really. Only one section of society, however powerful, cannot hold society to ransom, to use a strong expression. "The establishment" actually consists of the political parties in collaboration (collusion will again be a strong expression) with the bureaucracy and big business.

The glee, therefore, is not confined to the government; it extends to all political parties, the bureaucracy and business. This is what the Jan Lokpal Bill is up against. Yes, a Lokpal Bill will be introduced in the monsoon session of the Lok Sabha, and it might even be passed, even unanimously, with "consensus among all political parties", as the editorial on June 14 advised. But what is that likely to be? Let us look at some examples of issues on which there has been a consensus among political parties in the past.

Instances of increasing the MPLAD Fund amount and the salary for MPs are too obvious and well known to be mentioned. So let us stick to three instances arising out of personal experience.

The first was in 2002 when the Supreme Court ordered a mandatory disclosure of criminal, financial and educational antecedents of the candidates contesting elections to Parliament and state assemblies, and the Election Commission issued orders to implement the Supreme Court's decision.

It was decided at an all-party meeting on July 8, 2002, that this would not be allowed and the Representation of the People Act will be amended in that very session of Parliament. The amending Bill was ready by July 15, in seven days flat, but could not be introduced as Parliament was adjourned due to the petrol pump scam when Ram Naik was the Petroleum Minister. The government was not deterred.

The Cabinet decided to issue an Ordinance. When the newly elected President, Abdul Kalam, "returned" the Ordinance without signing, it was sent to him again, and he had to sign. The Ordinance was finally declared "unconstitutional…null and void" by the Supreme Court on March 13, 2003.

The second instance was in 2007-08 when the Income Tax Department refused to provide copies of income tax returns of political parties in response to an application under the Right to Information Act because political parties objected to it. The objections were despite the fact that political parties were claiming, and getting, 100 per cent exemption from income tax under a law that Parliament had enacted.

In the hearing of an appeal to the Central Information Commission (CIC), ten lawyers showed up to represent various political parties, including some who had flown in from outside Delhi, to oppose the disclosure. Fortunately, the CIC decided that copies of IT returns had to be given.

The third, and the latest, started in 2009, and culminated on June 03 this year. The Committee on Ethics of the Rajya Sabha instituted a "Register of Interests" of members, in which the financial, business and other commercial interests of members were to be recorded. The stated purpose of the register was to avoid potential conflicts of interest while members of the Rajya Sabha participated in debates in the House and in the formation of standing committees on various issues.

When copies of the register of interests were requested under the RTI Act, these were refused. The response of the Appellate Authority in the Rajya Sabha Secretariat, received on November 23, 2009, to the first appeal was that "the Committee on Ethics, Rajya Sabha,…taking a unanimous view claimed exemption from furnishing the desired information…the decision not to allow the information asked for is that of the Committee on Ethics, Rajya Sabha, which has the endorsement of the Chairman of the Committee" (italics added). Once again, the CIC, on second appeal, decided on June 03, 2011, that the information should be provided.

Politics of consensus

These three instances prove, beyond doubt, that our political parties have no problem in arriving at a consensus and acting unanimously provided (and this is critical) the issue is of their interest. And obviously, these are not the only instances. Consensus and unanimity are also visible when 17 Bills are passed in eleven minutes. What that shows about the application of mind and the quality of scrutiny and discussion is a separate issue.

That there will be a consensus on a Lokpal Bill is not in doubt. The real issue is what kind of a Lokpal will get a consensus: one like a plethora of existing institutions that have acquiesced in corruption becoming rampant at the behest of the establishment, or the one that might have the potential to make a real difference to the functioning of the establishment, and an "effective" Lokpal with teeth that can actually bite.

The writer is a former Professor, Dean and Director of the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad.

There is conflict of interest

Now that there are two Lokpal Bills -- the Jan Lokpal Bill (JLB) and the Government Lokpal Bill (GLB) -- what is likely to happen? Political predictions obviously are always unreliable and also hazardous, but one plausible scenario is the following. Both the Bills will be presented to the Cabinet. The Cabinet has members of parties other than the Congress too. Depending on the clout of the non-Congress Cabinet members (which is not overwhelming, if it is there at all), there might be some changes in the GLB.

The Cabinet will decide which one of the Bills, or both of them, should be put first to the all-party meeting, and then to Parliament. All-party meetings, particularly on crucial national issues, usually do not produce a consensus as we saw again on the women's reservation issue, and it seems unlikely that the opposition parties will like to allow the UPA to get credit for introducing a credible Lokpal.

A big risk unlikely

That will leave it to the UPA to decide what to put before Parliament. Given the complexity as well as delicacy of the current socio-political situation, and going by its past record, the UPA is unlikely to take a big risk by taking a definitive stand.

Even if the above scenario is unlikely, let us for the moment assume that the two Bills, the JLB and the GLB, are put to vote in Parliament. Which way is the vote in Parliament likely to go?

Before the above question can be answered, let us continue with the "lifting of the veil". What is Parliament? It is comprised of its members. But who are its members?

With due respect to Parliament as the highest democratic institution in the country, some bitter facts stare us in the face. On the basis of data taken from sworn affidavits submitted by members of Parliament as part of their nomination papers while contesting elections, 162 out of 543 members of the current Lok Sabha (2009) have criminal cases pending against them in which charges have been framed by the court of law and the punishment for which is two or more years of imprisonment. This number, based on the same source, was 156 in the earlier Lok Sabha (2004).

The same source shows that there are 315 crorepatis in the current Lok Sabha (2009), whereas this number was 128 in the earlier Lok Sabha (2004). While estimates differ depending on which economist one consults, the proportion of people who are below the poverty line (which is around Rs.12 per day) is said to be between 37.2 and 77 per cent. If we combine it with the fact that almost two-third of the members of the current Lok Sabha (2009) have been elected with more votes cast against them than for them, reasonable, if not serious, doubts arise about the representational legitimacy of such members.

Given the above characteristics, how does one expect the vote in Parliament to go? Expecting parliamentarians to vote against their personal and party interests, in the so-called national interest, seems highly over-optimistic and idealistic. We do not live in an ideal world; we live in a practical and real world. And this is what creates a national conflict of interest.

Two options

Is there a way out? There has to be, else we, as a nation, would be doomed to sink deeper and deeper into the morass created by the all-pervasive corruption, large and small. There seem to be only two options. One is an opportunity for the elected representatives, however questionable their representative legitimacy be, to regain lost ground and establish their legitimacy by giving primacy to the national interest by voting in a strong and effective Lokpal Bill, even independent of and combining the best of both, the JLB and the GLB.

If that does not happen, then possibly the Rubicon would have been crossed. There may then be no alternative but to ascertain the opinion of "We, the People" by way of a referendum for which we do not have a provision…yet. But then, don't extraordinary situations require extraordinary responses?

— Jagdeep S. Chhokar