|
|
|
|
|
Storm in a tea cup
No blood for blood |
|
|
Avoidable deaths
Why weaken the judiciary?
Witty and wonderful
The report of the interlocutors appointed by the Centre to get the dialogue going in J&K has been looked upon by various parties
in the state on regional lines. Sticking to their respective party stands, leaders, especially outside Kashmir, condemn it as an attempt to appease those in the Valley. The Tribune gets the views of ruling as well opposition parties
|
Storm in a tea cup
Much
of the first day of the Lok Sabha was lost in a pointless standoff over BJP leader L.K.Advani’s off-the-cuff remark calling UPA-II “illegitimate”. Initiating the discussion on the ethnic clashes in Assam under an adjournment motion, which was defeated later, Advani weakened his own argument on Assam by diverting to an unrelated subject, got confused, admitted the mistake and withdrew the comment but not before wasting a lot of precious time of the House. It is clear the criticism of his recent blog weighed on his mind and he launched a poorly worded attack, perhaps to display his lately unused fire power. No longer in the reckoning for the post of Prime Minister, Advani had blogged a few days ago that neither the BJP nor the Congress would be able to form a government or pick up the next Prime Minister in 2014. On Wednesday he tried to recoup the lost ground. Normally, a gaffe from a senior leader should not cause such a political storm. But a usually cool and sombre Congress president Sonia Gandhi took everyone by surprise as she turned combative and egged on her party men to protest against Advani’s barb. Even Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who measures every word he utters, was constrained to call it “disgraceful”. What followed was the usual noisy confrontation. Even if unfortunate, did Advani’s digression deserve such notice, resulting in the waste of so much precious time of the Lok Sabha? To its credit, the young brigade of MPs led by Rahul Gandhi quietly watched the unpleasant goings-on. Only in May this year, when both Houses celebrated the 60th anniversary of the first sitting of Parliament by holding a special session, had MPs expressed their displeasure at frequent disruptions of parliamentary proceedings and called for greater tolerance of dissent. They may be reminded that each minute of Parliament’s session costs Rs 18,430 to the taxpayer. The government has lined up 31 important Bills, some of which need Opposition cooperation to get through. What was the gain at the end of the day?
|
|
No blood for blood
NRI Sikhs in the US have appealed to members of the community back home not to hold violent and aggressive protest demonstrations against the Wisconsin gurdwara massacre, as it would convey a wrong image of them abroad, that too at a time when Sikhs are getting a much-needed positive coverage. That this appeal had to be made should make the people responsible for flashing swords and burning the US flag cringe at the damage they have done to their own community. If nothing else, they could have taken a cue from the Sikhs in the US holding peaceful candlelight vigils. American people as well as the government have taken all the right actions and made the right statements that could have been. As the shooting took place, the police responded to an SOS call in under five minutes. President Barack Obama ordered the national flag to be flown at half mast for five days and the FBI has classified the attack as “domestic terror”. As any small-time leader aspiring to get a picture into the media is wont to do, some little-recognised Sikh groups turned out in Delhi, marching aggressively towards the US Embassy. While people in India would dismiss this as idle posturing, the images reaching the US may not be seen as that innocent. It is the white supremacy philosophy in the US that triggers such killings, and by showing violence here, Sikhs would only give the bigoted lot justification for their actions. Prominent NRI Darshan Dhaliwal, with a wife from Wisconsin, described the killings as an act of “insanity”. That’s how it should be treated. Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney said: “Sikhs are the most peaceable and loving individuals”. It is time to build on such publicity that is coming in right now to spread awareness of how productive and sociable Sikhs are. As the history of ages has demonstrated back home — and in the US — hatred only begets hatred.
|
|
|
Avoidable deaths
Very
few incidents of death caused by medical neglect get wide publicity. Relatives and friends of the person concerned are often too traumatised by the shock of death to demand inquiries or pursue legal battles. These casualties do not even contribute to the national data on deaths caused by medical neglect because we have none. This leaves little scope to compute and compare incidents of medical neglect between private and government hospitals. And in the absence of laws on hospital infections in India, it is hard to fix accountability. To keep public anger at bay after a case is highlighted by the media, committees are constituted. Sometimes there are multiple committees to procrastinate accountability. In the case of death of Anupama, a 16-year- old student from Chandigarh who died allegedly due to medical neglect after she met with an accident, a ‘fact-finding’ committee was constituted, which failed to fix responsibility. This was followed by setting up of another ‘probe panel’. In the case of an infant’s death at Jalandhar Civil Hospital due to the alleged callousness of a nurse who demanded Rs 200 for providing an incubator to the baby, the health authorities are involved in an exchange of letters, which have emerged out of differences of opinion on the formation of committees and their reports. The pressure of population on health infrastructure is a major excuse offered in defence of the increasing number of deaths caused by medical neglect. At the same time, ‘committees’ are not the answer to this growing problem. Over 300 infants had died in the past five months in Srinagar allegedly owing to medical negligence. In West Bengal, 107 babies breathed their last at Malda Medical College and Hospital in January while nine died in Murshidabad. In Mumbai, a Right to Information application brought to light the shocking figure of 11 per cent neonatal deaths in the ICU in two years at BMC-run King Edward Memorial Hospital, caused by hospital-acquired infections. In all these cases enquiries were ordered after committees were formed, but there were no concrete results.
|
|
|
The poetry of the earth is never dead. — John Keats
|
Why weaken the judiciary?
It
was thought the Central government had enough spat on its face in the shape of scandals concerning its various wings to which it should be giving maximum attention. But, sadly, it is preparing legislation to further emaciate the judiciary, obviously with a view to increasing the executive clout. I am referring to the reported announcement by Veerappa Moiley, a former Law Minister, that the government would constitute an All-India Judicial Service (AIJS) on the pattern of the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) to fill 25 per cent of the posts in the lower judiciary in the states. The new recruits in the age group of 24-32 years will be posted as district judges. In its favour it is argued that this will improve the functioning of the High Courts and Supreme Court which will have younger judges. This is so notwithstanding the objections that have been registered by 11 out of 17 high courts and seven out of 20 states. At present the control on the subordinate judiciary is vested exclusively in the respective High Courts. By creating an AIJS, motivated efforts are being made to take away the control of the High Courts over the District Judges and vest it in the National Commission which would include members of the executive — an undesirable development. Earlier attempts made to constitute an AIJS in 1961, 1963 and 1965 failed because more than half of the states and the High Courts opposed it. In August 1969, then Chief Justice of India said that the proposal was not feasible in the face of the then obtaining provisions of the Constitution. Even after the amendment of Article 312 by the forty-second amendment, expressly providing for the formation of an AIJS, the opposition to this idea from several High Courts and state governments has not abated. The matter was considered at the Chief Justices’ conference in 1985 but it was unanimously rejected as impractical. The National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution raised serious doubts about the feasibility of the AIJS. It posed the question (relevant even at present) that already states are complaining of trespass on their rights by the Centre. In its opinion, it is not advisable to diminish them further by taking away the power of selection from the High Courts and by vesting it in a Central body. It highlighted the dangerous consequences if this proposal is carried out. If the idea is to induct bright and young persons to the service from the age group 24 to 32 years, such persons have to be posted soon after selection and training as district judges. District judges not only try serious criminal cases like murder and dacoity but also exercise appellate jurisdiction in both criminal and civil matters. They also exercise original jurisdiction in certain civil matters. Would it be advisable to entrust the direct recruits of the said age group with such vast powers and would they be able to handle such a task? Another grave consequence of selecting district judges at the level of persons in the age group of 24 to 32 years would be that they would be ripe for being considered for appointment to the High Courts even before they may have reached the age of 40. Desirability of such possibility should also have to be kept in mind, particularly in view of the fact that the nature of the work at the level of the High Court is of a varied character involving fields not dealt with by district judges in the subordinate courts. The proposal for creating an AIJS poses a grave danger to the independence of the judiciary by taking away the power of disciplinary action and control of the lower judiciary from the respective High Courts (which daily see their judgments in the course of their work) and vest it in a body like the National Judicial Commission, a Central organisation – the latter would have no competence to judge the nature and quality of subordinate courts. This AIJS proposal is a scarcely concealed attempt at trying to dominate and control the lower judiciary of all the states and take the disciplinary power away from the High Courts in which at present it vests. Frankly, I fail to see the wisdom of abandoning the present practice. At present, one-third of the vacancies of district judges are filled through selections from the practicing lawyers made by all the High Court judges. This practice assures certain accepted standards of competence and good moral character by daily observing them rather than though a casual interview. The question of unfamiliarity with the state language is impossible to overcome unless it is suggested by the insensitive bureaucracy-dominated government that we should go back to the period when India was a colony and accept English as a court language in all the states – an absurd and insulting suggestion. To take a practical look at the situation, at present all proceedings up to the district level are done in the state language. Some states like UP, Bihar and MP have Hindi as their state language. But in the rest of the country each state has a language of its own and is proud of it – a judge from outside the state would be a misfit. Judgments of the courts determine the liberty and rights of citizens – proficiency in language is a must. Their work is not like the noting done by administrative officers, who, though a person from outside the state,
may acquire rudimentary working knowledge of the local language for their day-to-day work. Though at present the language used in the High Courts is English, all records, including judgments from lower court, are in the local language. A district judge from outside the state will not be in a position to give satisfactory performance resulting in dissatisfaction both among the litigants and the lawyers. In fact, in the US, in many states the State Supreme Court justices,
whether elected or appointed, are not posted outside the state even when there is common language —- English. No one has found fault with this practice. As it is, already, our judiciary is taunted with the backlog of arrears in the courts – the Supreme Court (52592 cases),
High Courts (4017956) and lower courts (27119092). The total comes to 3.12 crore cases – this is mainly because of the refusal of the governments to sanction an additional number of judges as persistently asked by the various High Courts. Why then is this plan to further defame the judiciary by the government’s own misconceived idea to constitute the unworkable AIJS. The writer is a former Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court.
|
|||
Witty and wonderful
Wit
and wisdom are twins. The
presence of mind is another great virtue. No amount of education or
study can help anybody in acquiring such traits, which are God-gifted.
But the most significant trait is the ability to ensure the presence
of mind in all circumstances. It pulls people out of tricky
situations. A witty person with the presence of mind can save
the day for himself. Now everyone knows how great a scientist was Albert Einstein. He was a German physicist who developed the Theory of General Relativity, causing a revolution in physics. After he won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1921, he was flooded with offers from the University of Zurich, the Prussian Academy of Sciences, Charles University in Prague and other seats of learning to deliver lectures. Einstein travelled extensively to dwell on his theory which changed the very concept of science. However, what we do not know is that during these lecture tours, Einstein had a steady companion, not his wife Mileva Meric but his driver, who bore striking resemblance to Einstein. He drove Einstein to all destinations. At conferences and lecture halls, the driver, who was otherwise blessed with a sharp mind, always listened to the lectures of his master with rapt attention. Slowly and steadily, he grasped every topic the celebrated physicist spoke on. One
day, when Einstein was preparing a lecture to be delivered later
during the day, the driver made a weird request to his master, saying
that since he (driver) knew as much as Einstein did about the latter’s
theory and related research, he should allow him to lecture the elite
audience in his place. Initially, the scientist was aghast.
But after the driver convinced him of his ability to speak
verbatim, Einstein agreed, though reluctantly. Now, Einstein got
himself dressed in the uniform of his driver and the driver in the
guise of Einstein drove to the conference hall where the driver
lectured with authority, which drew lusty applause from the audience.
However, a few zealous reporters sought to spoil the show by asking
for a Press conference to quiz “Einstein” on other mysteries of
science. On hearing this, the real Einstein, who stood as a
driver, trembled fearing the fatal consequences, but the driver held
on to his nerves and sat cool and composed. The science
reporters posed a number of tricky questions to the driver while the
worried Einstein looked in disbelief. But when all questions were put
and none was left, the driver, waving his right hand in contempt,
stunned the reporters, saying that these questions were too ordinary
and silly to reply. Even my driver could reply to these queries.
“He” then called his driver (the real Einstein) who stood in
a corner to reply to all those silly queries, which the latter
explained with utter ease.
|
|||
The report of the interlocutors appointed by the Centre to get the dialogue going in J&K has been looked upon by various parties
in the state on regional lines. Sticking to their respective party stands, leaders, especially outside Kashmir, condemn it as an attempt to appease those in the Valley. The Tribune gets the views of ruling as well opposition parties
None of the interlocutors was a resident of Jammu and Kashmir. As the Central government appointed them, it alone has to take a decision on their report. There is nothing new in the report, suggestions given by the interlocutors had already been incorporated in the Greater Autonomy document of the National Conference. All problems of Jammu and Kashmir can be solved by properly implementing the Delhi Agreement of 1952, and the Greater Autonomy report — unanimously passed by the Ninth Legislative Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir with two-thirds majority. Indian Parliament had endorsed the Delhi Agreement, while the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly had passed the Greater Autonomy resolution, which suggests some measures under the purview of the Indian Constitution. While I do not give much importance to the report, however, the interlocutors have made certain positive suggestions too, which should be given a serious consideration. The suggestion given by the interlocutors that the state’s distinctive status guaranteed under Article 370 of the Constitution must be upheld, and its erosion over the decades must be re-appraised to vest it with such powers as the state needs to promote the welfare of the people on its own terms. The National Conference had also given such suggestions in its Greater Autonomy report. I also endorse the statement of the interlocutors that a political settlement in Jammu and Kashmir could be achieved only through dialogue between all “stakeholders”. I, however, do not subscribe to the view that all stakeholders, including those who are not part of the mainstream, be involved in the dialogue process. Those who are not part of the mainstream are not stakeholders in the dialogue process. Only those who have proved their representative character are the real stakeholders in the dialogue process. Pakistan is a stakeholder in the problem, and its involvement is thus must in finding a permanent solution to this issue. There is a suggestion in the report that a Constitution Committee be set up to review all Central Acts and Articles of the Constitution of India extended to the state after the signing of the 1952 agreement. It has been the stand of the NC that only the Delhi Agreement can solve this problem. Instead of constituting another committee, it is necessary to implement the Delhi Agreement in letter and spirit. Most of the suggestions made by the three Centre-appointed interlocutors in their report have already been given by the National Conference in its Greater Autonomy report. There was no need for writing such a big report. The Greater Autonomy report, which was passed by the Legislative Assembly, has constitutional and legal significance. The entire report can be summarised in one page. By suggesting that diverse aspirations of the three regions, Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh — and of the sub-regions and various ethnic and religious groups — must be addressed, the interlocutors want to give an impression that some regions have been facing discrimination. By making such insinuations they are trying to divide the state. The interlocutors are neither doing the country nor the state a service by making such suggestions.
If you look at the reactions of various groups in the Jammu region and the Kashmir valley, you would realise that the report has been appreciated in neither of the areas. During meetings with a delegation of our party (NPP), we had raised specific issues like discrimination against the Jammu region in all spheres of life and delimitation of Assembly segments. Not even a single concerted suggestion has been given in the report to stop that discrimination against Jammu. I regret the NPP submitted data to the interlocutors to substantiate allegations of regional bias against Jammu in every sphere of life, as they have made only passing references to the issue in the report. The National Panthers Party had also informed the interlocutors how Article 370 had been abused in the state, especially by the ruling elite. Peoples’ issues have not been addressed in the interlocutors’ report, because of which our party is not giving any importance to this report. The fate of the report would be the same as the reports of various other commissions and interlocutors. It is loaded with anti-Jammu and anti-Ladakh bias, and is full of discrimination against the people of Jammu Pradesh and Ladakh.
I strongly object to the use of the term “Pakistan-administered Kashmir” in the report. India calls it the “Pakistan-occupied Kashmir”. How can the interlocutors use such an expression? This term is used by separatists. We have been fighting in the United Nations for 64 years to stress that Pakistan is the aggressor, and we the victims. Pakistan has never referred to this region as Pakistan-administered Kashmir; they call it “Azad Kashmir”. Whatever has been written in the interlocutors’ report suggests that Jammu and Kashmir is not a part of India, which is a very serious matter, and every nationalist citizen has raised his voice against this. Right from 1947, we have made supreme sacrifices with the motive of bringing this border state more and more close to the Indian Union, and it is the result of this continuous struggle that many laws were extended to Jammu and Kashmir, besides extending the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, Election Commission of India and other organisations to the state. The interlocutors in their report have sent out a wrong message across the country. The Union Government has to explain how the interlocutors it appointed on state payroll could be allowed to go scot free even after using unofficial and extra-constitutional expressions like “Pakistan-administered Kashmir” in place of “Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK)”. The Bharatiya Janata Party has already launched a nationwide campaign against the interlocutors’ report, and in the days to come, the movement would be intensified to mobilise public opinion against this anti-people and anti-national document.
Instead of accommodating the wishes and genuine aspirations of all sections of society, the report is biased in one way or the other and incomplete. Basic issues like discrimination against Jammu have been ignored in the report. I suspect the interlocutors have prepared the report just to appease the Kashmir-based ruling elite. It is unfortunate that instead of addressing the basic issues, the interlocutors have tried to further the agenda of the National Conference and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). The interlocutors have not suggested any measures to solve the problems of refugees, especially the West Pakistan refugees who have been struggling since 1947 for citizenship rights. The denial of citizenship rights to these refugees is a glaring example of human rights violations, yet the interlocutors have not suggested any serious measures to address such issues.
|
|
| 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 | |
