The Tribune, Chandigarh, India

Khalsa heritage
Keep Anandpur Sahib complex apolitical

It was with lofty aims that the Khalsa Heritage Centre at Anandpur Sahib was conceived. The plan envisaged a museum and a cultural centre, and was meant to showcase the socio-religio-cultural evolution of Punjab, from before the birth of Guru Nanak to the present times. Anandpur Sahib, given its historical importance and easy connectivity with Chandigarh, is indeed the ideal choice for such a complex. It is thus with great hope that the people of Punjab waited since 1998 for what was claimed to be the eighth wonder of the world. The wait has been long and even now there is not much to show, since only a part of the complex will be opened to public.

Instead of being united in an endeavour to showcase the culture and heritage of the Khalsa, political leaders have turned this venture into a political battleground. The interim period has been marked by lack of vision on the part of the leaders of the state. There was no sense of continuity as local officials were transferred and the international experts originally hired for the job left the project. There were construction delays, lack of funds and a sense of drift even among those who were still involved in the project. Thus, even the completion of a part of the complex seems like an achievement now.

However, controversy continues to dog the Khalsa Heritage Centre. The vortex of the politicking that the forthcoming Assembly elections in the state have sucked this important project in it and thus there has been a virtual war of words between the Akali Dal and the Congress regarding the invitation to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to inaugurate the complex. Naturally, this has further vitiated the atmosphere in the state which is already suffering from a high-decibel political one-upmanship jousting. The Khalsa Heritage Complex should not be mired in any patrician politics. It has already suffered a lot; even now, it can be salvaged and made into a 21st century showcase of the heritage of the people of this region. It is late, it should now be great.

Eve-teasers become killers
Need for laws to stop the menace

The brutal killing of two young men by a group of rowdies on a Mumbai street after they objected to their women friends being harassed brings back unpleasant memories of the New Year eve of 2007. In that incident, outside JW Marriott Hotel in Mumbai, 60 to 70 men saw two women come out of the hotel with their male friends, hounded, teased and ‘felt’ them. This was New Year merriment for some men that the entire country watched on their TV sets the next day, with horror. Debates ensued — whether women should stay outdoors late at night, whether they should wear ‘objectionable’ clothes, etc. Some women decided to learn a lesson from such incidents and curtailed their own hard-earned freedom.

In Indian popular culture, wooing is substituted by teasing. No wonder, the euphemism of eve-teasing, which is unique to India, acquires a kind of social acceptance. Our hero, who eyes the damsel on the campus, does not hesitate in making lewd remarks, teasing her and winning a bet with friends for subduing her haughtiness. In the recent blockbuster Dabaang the hero makes an entire police station narrate cheap jokes to make the heroin laugh. Despite these rude overtures, our heroine unfailingly loses her teased body and heart to this rogue. This must be encouraging to all those rowdies who do not find a reference point to treat a woman with respect.

Though, laws are often not of much use, a beginning was made in the 60s to bring some kind of punishment mechanism for the so-called mild offenders of eve-teasing. With the efforts of some women’s organisations The Delhi Prohibition of Eve-Teasing Bill 1984 was passed. But, so far, it is only in the state of Tamil Nadu that eve-teasing is a non-bailable offence. Since eve-teasing has so far not found entry in the IPC, it is dealt under different Sections like 298 A and B, 292 and 509. Even in the absence of law, the good news is that committed men and women have started online help, on websites like fight-back.net and in this case Keenan Santos on Facebook to fight the menace.

Thought for the Day

If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your enemy. Then he becomes your partner. — Nelson Mandela

ARTICLE

Mercy petitions, House resolutions
States have no role to play
by P.D.T. Achary

Recently the Tamil Nadu Assembly passed a resolution requesting the President of India to consider favourably the mercy petition by the accused in the Rajiv Gandhi murder case. A similar resolution was introduced in the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly in favour of Afzal Guru, who was sentenced to death in the Parliament attack case. Of course, this resolution could not be passed because of the pandemonium that broke out on the floor of the Assembly. These developments in the legislative assemblies have caused a considerable amount of consternation in parliamentary and political circles.

These resolutions raise serious constitutional and political issues. Under the constitutional scheme, state legislatures have been given exclusive legislative powers in respect of items in the State List. They can also legislate on matters in the Concurrent List, and the only limitation on this power is that in the case of repugnancy the law made by Parliament on that subject will prevail. The rules made by an Assembly for the conduct of its business under Article 208 regulate the business of the House. These rules define clearly the scope of various procedural devices contained therein.

Under these rules the admissibility of each notice given by the members of the House is decided by the Speaker. Rules of admissibility in respect of motions or resolutions clearly show that a resolution can’t deal with a matter in respect of which there is no ministerial responsibility. The basic question here is one of jurisdiction of the state. Rules of procedure and conduct of business are more or less the same in Parliament as well as the state legislatures. According to these rules, a state legislature can consider a matter through a resolution only if it is within the jurisdiction of the state. Through a resolution a legislative House calls the attention of the government to a matter or a situation for consideration by that government. The government, it goes without saying, can consider the same only if the matter concerns it, constitutionally speaking.

It seems there is a certain amount of confusion in the minds of Speakers on the competence of state legislatures to consider such resolutions. Unlike in the US, where the residuary powers vest in the states, in India the Constitution vests the residuary powers in Parliament only. So, the state legislature cannot deal with a matter which is outside the area assigned to it by the Constitution. Of course, it is not being suggested here that state legislatures are totally barred by the Constitution from considering resolutions where there is no ministerial responsibility involved.

In certain contexts the Constitution permits the state legislatures to consider the resolutions having the subject matter that goes beyond the jurisdiction of the state governments. For instance, under Article 169 of the Constitution, the Assembly of a state can pass a resolution for the creation or abolition of the Legislative Council on which action has to be taken by Parliament. Similarly, under Article 252 a state legislature can pass a resolution requesting Parliament to legislate on a subject in the State List. But such resolution needs to be adopted by at least two state legislatures in order for Parliament to be able to legislate on behalf of those states.

In yet another context where the state legislature considers a resolution without being constrained by the jurisdictional limitations imposed by the State List in the 7th Schedule is when it considers a resolution for the ratification of an amendment to the Constitution under Article 968(2). These are statutory resolutions which the state legislatures are required to consider.

But by no stretch of the imagination can we think that the state governments have the jurisdiction to consider the resolutions brought before these two assemblies seeking presidential clemency for the convicts and can act on them. The President acts on the advice of the Union Council of Ministers and not that of the Council of Ministers of a state. In respect of mercy petitions also, the President acts on the advice of his Council of Ministers. So, what is the role of a state government in this matter? Nothing.

Since the government of a state has no constitutionally sanctioned power to request the President to consider the mercy petition, the Assembly cannot perform that role. In other words, the Assembly of a state has no power to request the President to consider a mercy petition in a particular way.

Politically, such resolutions may bring about unintended consequences. Legislatures of states are important constitutional bodies which have a crucial role to play in the lives of the people they represent. An Assembly reflects the collective will of the people of a state and is mandated to perform the functions assigned to it by the Constitution. Of course, issues may arise which may be important for political organisations and, may be, they do not want to miss an opportunity to do grandstanding. Whatever be the political compulsions, a legislative body is required to function within the framework of rules. Passing a resolution by an Assembly seeking presidential clemency for a convict is an act without a precedent. In our democracy, there are many pressure points. There is an irresistible temptation among our political class to succumb to such pressures. Rule of law is what steers the ship of democratic institutions out of the turgid waters of sectarian pressures. A precedent, once set, is followed by others in future.

Generally, presiding officers of the legislatures exercise a great amount of care while dealing with issues of constitutional significance. Passing a resolution by an assembly seeking presidential pardon for someone who did an act of terrorism is tantamount to saying, “He is our terrorist, therefore, please spare him.” This message goes across the world.

The writer is a former Secretary- General of the Lok Sabha.

MIDDLE

Wrong place!
by Rajbir Deswal

We being used to freebies, it didn’t come as a surprise to me when a fellow officer asked the front desk female attendant in a hotel in Cambridge if the ironing-board that I had asked for my room came gratis and complimentary with our stay. That the woman on the counter could make nothing out of his silly query and faulty pronunciation was the saving grace.

Later, in the crime-prone suburb of Manchester — Salford — in the news for fierce rioting recently, what we encountered was a funnier situation. After being accosted in patrol cars, with flashing lights and sirens turned on, as and when warranted, we were taken to a police station that looked more like a hotel with innocuous façade — easily mixing up with other unimposing buildings.

The sight of a Chief Superintendant sipping tea with a Sergeant, with no qualms and complexes of being senior and junior, was something we had by then conditioned ourselves with, and digested it too, mentally, but what happened in the “Custody” — lock up — was quite embarrassing for the entire group.

A patrol officer brought a teenager accused of mugging and started briefing the Sergeant for taking him in custody. They began completing the formalities. All this while the offender kept looking all around, and at us, more amazed and less amused, for we were watching the goings-on with eyes opened a tad wider.

Our group split into two’s and three’s when the entire “Custody” seemed to be taken over by us. We were clicking photos with an armed tactical squad commando, who posed for us. We also took pictures of the graffiti inscribed on the iron-door of the cells. Besides, we were making enough noise. The remorseful accused had tears in his eyes when he was handcuffed to be taken to his cabin. And then we started taking pictures of him.

“Oh Gosh! Is it a bloody police station or a studio? What place am I in?”— shouted the teenager, suddenly regaining himself and looking very annoyed, even wronged. Obviously. We felt more embarrassed when the Custody Sergeant too gestured at us almost into “behaving”.

On an earlier occasion, we were about a dozen officers on as assignment at the Louisiana Police Academy in Baton Rogue (US) in 2002. They have a system of employing the under-trial prisoners into services analogous in status and delivery, with what we call the Fourth Class. We were though cautioned into reporting anything that was bad about them, but what happened left us sulking.

Finding the academy’s regular recruits hindered by our huddle, in the line up to the shelves, where food was kept in the canteen, an under-trial in his green uniform felt enough uncomfortable since we were not giving the way to anyone, and were discussing the possibilities of finding vegetarian food, at least minus beef and pork.

“Hey guys! Can’t you all fall in a line here and let others also eat their food?” yelled the yanky from behind one of the shelves, when all the generals of the prestigious Indian Police Service, immediately formed themselves in a single file, thus being snubbed by a convict — a fact rued less for its obtainment and more for juxtaposition — cop vs convict!

The best is yet to come. A recently introduced acquaintance was sitting in my office who had on his cell phone turned down a call thrice. I politely asked him to relax and take the call. When the bell rang the next time, he pressed the answer button to say, “I’ll call you later, yaar. I am sitting at a wrong place!”

OPED THE ECONOMY

CREDIBiLITY required TO SURVIVE CRISIS
The latest 'Greek tragedy' has raised questions related to governance, competence and credibility like never before at the G20 summit at Cannes. All countries can draw lessons from the eurozone crisis.
M. Dejevsky

Trauma, tragedy, crisis, catastrophe.... Has there always been something about Greece in the Anglo-Saxon mind that explains why these theatrical expressions of woe were absorbed in English ? But there comes a point, even in the most distressing of tales, where things can hardly become any worse. In this year's euro drama, that point may have been reached between Wednesday night and Thursday afternoon.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh with International Monetary Fund chief Cristine Lagarde at the Cannes summit this week

When the Greek Prime Minister, George Papandreou, announced that there was to be a referendum on the eurozone rescue package, the response of other EU leaders, inside and outside the eurozone, was consternation. The British Chancellor, George Osborne, hardly bothered to disguise his frustration in the House of Commons - and neither he nor British Prime Minister David Cameron were even among those who had negotiated the deal. The rage of its two leading architects, Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy, was palpable, when they appeared together soon afterwards.

Guide to the summit
After the 2008 financial crisis, the G20 came into its own as leaders from China and India worked alongside those of the West to head off a global financial meltdown. But in more recent years, leaders have found it increasingly difficult to find common ground over economic and trade adjustments.
The key issues in 2011
The eurozone. And the global economy. According to the International Monetary Fund among others, the global economy is precariously teetering on the edge of another recession.
Why should the G20 care?
What happens in Greece raises questions about the eurozone as a whole. European banks have lent a lot of money to Italy and other troubled eurozone governments. And other banks throughout the world have lent a lot of money to Europe's banks. So the debt crisis in Europe threatens a possible chain reaction of government and bank failures similar to what happened in 2008.
Why would India or China help?
If the eurozone unravels - for example if Italy went bust - it could result in another global financial crisis and recession, which is not good for anyone. But China may attach strings to its loans, such as being given more access to European markets or getting political support in its disputes with Taiwan or the US.
It is also possible that China would demand guarantees from Germany and other stronger eurozone countries for any money it lends. Some economists say that China also has an interest in buying the euros it would need to make the loans, as this would tend to push up the euro's value, giving Chinese exports a competitive advantage.
What about the rest of the world?
The US and UK economies have slowed sharply in recent months, and there are fears of a recession irrespective of what happens in the eurozone.
China and India meanwhile are having to deal with the dilemma of high inflation coupled with a stagnant manufacturing sector. Another financial crisis and global recession could expose large bad debts in China, tipping its economy over the edge and risking social unrest.
What can G20 do to avoid recession?
Last time the world faced crisis and recession in 2008-09, the G20 came together to agree big spending increases by governments and interest rate cuts by central banks. However, both policies are much harder this time round.
Many governments either cannot spend more (Italy), are afraid to do so (the UK), are already spending flat-out (China), are sceptical of the merits of government spending (Germany) or face major political obstacles at home (the US).
Meanwhile, it is much harder for central banks in the UK and US to help their economies, because interest rates are already practically zero and cannot be cut any further. They can print more money - through "quantitative easing" - but if it is not coupled with more government spending, the effectiveness of this policy may be limited.
The European Central Bank has the most scope to stimulate its economy. It could cut its interest rate from the current 1.5% to zero. And it could print money and buy up the debts of Italy and other countries. But the man of the hour - Mario Draghi - has only just been installed as the ECB's new president, and nobody is entirely sure what he thinks or whether he could convince others at the bank to change course even if he tried.

The usually unflappable German Chancellor had gone to all the trouble of steering advance approval through a restive German Bundestag - and for what? The French President was seeing a minutely prepared spectacle of pre-election statecraft - "his" G20 summit in Cannes - smashed to smithereens before his very eyes. And then there was an entirely unapologetic Papandreou, talking about democratic mandates and popular consent.

But there was something beneficial, even - it might be said - cathartic, in these reactions. There was no beating about the bush; euphemisms would no longer suffice. Three national leaders had forsaken the careful, and often disingenuous, language of politics to call things by their proper names. At a late-night news conference, Merkel and Sarkozy laid it on the line: Greece had a choice. It could stay in the euro or it could leave.

There is something shocking, but admirable and refreshing, too, about leaders speaking, and behaving, like human beings. Spontaneity is a quality that today's politicians, trained to cope with the 24-hour news cycle, have beaten out of them early on. It surfaces only when the circumstances are so adverse, so extreme, that there is no template of restraint to match.

The paradox is that, when scared enough, yanked from familiar moorings and faced with a quite unforeseen turn of events, elected leaders may not do a bad job. Early reactions to the financial meltdown, in which the then Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, played a big part, showed international politicians at their hands-on, responsible best. The collapse of communism across Europe, which culminated in the largely peaceful break-up of the Soviet Union 20 years ago, threatened dangers that were at least as great, but were successfully averted by wise counsel and an acceptance of the unheralded reality.

When the risks are recognised as genuine, the political games have to stop. This is where Greece and the leaders of the eurozone found themselves, when Papandreou suddenly shortened his timetable for a referendum, his Finance Minister rejected the whole idea, and his cabinet split down the middle, opening the way for what could be the optimum solution: a broad-based government able to convince angry and aggrieved voters that it can do the right thing - and do it well.

A population polarised - between a feather-bedded public sector, and a largely tax-delinquent private sector with only a negligible stake in the state - queers the pitch for any prime minister seeking to unite the country and carry the voters with him. The key, though, has to be competence - a quality whose absence has so distinguished a succession of Greek governments. Unless it is perceived to be equal to the task, no government will inspire the confidence of the people. The political roller-coaster of the past week, with the on, and now off again, referendum, leaves Papandreou looking both maladroit and isolated.

In another example of the brutal honesty brought forth by genuine political crises, the French President earlier let slip that he thought it had been a mistake to admit Greece to the eurozone. There is a clue here to some of what must happen next. If Greece decides, after a snap election, or under the aegis of a unity government, to remain in the euro, it will have not only to accept the terms of the prescribed rescue, but to complete the course of induction that it should have passed - but apparently did not - before joining the euro in the first place. It will be on probation, in a way that neither Ireland nor Portugal - which are successfully meeting the terms of their bailouts - was required to be.

Even so, the Greek predicament is not completely without precedent. Parallels have been drawn with the plight of Latvia, which teetered on the edge of bankruptcy in 2008-9. Hugely over-borrowed in euros, the largest Baltic state was the "new" European country worst affected by the international financial crisis. Presented with a choice between drastic austerity and devaluing the currency - which would have ended their ambitions to join the euro - Latvians voted in a broad coalition that promised austerity administered with iron discipline, fairness and competence. This was a government committed to behaving as though Latvia was already in the euro, without the escape route of devaluation.

What followed was a year and a half of severe hardship; the public sector was slashed; wages were cut, or fell, across the board, and there was a sharp rise in unemployment, albeit tempered by a job-creation programme. Within that time, the economy started to grow, joblessness fell, exports were up and - in what was hailed as the supreme vindication - the government was re-elected. Latvia now sells itself as a success, and the ultimate example of how the euro-medicine can work.

Any treatment that awaits Greece will be similar. But in a considerably larger country, without the same level of social cohesion, without the same acute sense of national purpose, without recent memory of times that were much, much worse and without any tradition of fiscal discipline or administrative rigour, even more will depend on the competence of the government and its capacity to win national and international credibility.

Such signal differences may not inspire optimism about the eventual success of the endeavour, assuming that Greece chooses to remain in the euro. But it is just possible that Greeks could be persuaded to come together in a therapeutic programme - if it were ambitious, and inclusive, enough - that would amount to a prescription for national renewal. Therapeutic, incidentally, being another idea that the English-speaking world owes to Greece. (The Independent)