|
|
|
|
|
Nitish’s
ultimatum Building ties with
Iran |
|
|
Gender anarchy
Appointments to
rights bodies
Not so smart
Nuclear North Korea
courting trouble
|
|
Building ties with Iran The interest showed by India to invest around $100 million in the development of Iran’s Chabahar seaport reflects a slight shift in the thinking in both New Delhi and Tehran. The US factor in any major deal with Iran seems to have weakened. Actually, any step that is in India’s long-term interest must be taken irrespective of how a third country looks at it. India has all the wherewithal needed for transforming Chabahar into a world class port, and sooner the two countries sign an agreement for the purpose, the better. Being strategically located, the port will provide the much-needed easy access to Afghanistan for India, which had been finding it difficult to safeguard its interests in the war-ravaged land-locked country because of Pakistan’s unhelpful policy. India and Iran have always had friendly relations, though the situation slightly changed after the 1979 Ayatollah Khomeini-led revolution in the Persian Gulf nation. Iran started looking at India from a different angle, yet the two maintained reasonably cordial ties. Developments relating to Iran’s controversial nuclear programme made India find itself in a camp not friendly with Tehran. This situation came about when India voted against Iran at an International Atomic Energy Agency meeting, but purely as a matter of principle. India, being a nuclear-weapon country with an impeccable non-proliferation record, could not afford to go with Iran so long as it was clearly established that Tehran’s nuclear programme was for peaceful purposes. Happily, the two countries appear to have kept that issue aside while going ahead with the plan to cooperate in a major port project. If Tehran needs New Delhi’s technological and financial assistance for Chabahar, India under the circumstances cannot find a better route for easy entry of its goods into Afghanistan and the former Soviet republics in the region. The Delaram-Zaranj highway project in Afghanistan, completed in collaboration with India, connects Afghanistan with Iran where Chabahar port is located. After reaching a pact on the port project India and Iran should start fresh negotiations for reviving the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline project. It is already in the process of being built to supply natural gas to Pakistan. The factors which prevented India from becoming a partner in the ambitious project can be handled with a little give-and-take by both sides.
|
|
|
Gender anarchy There
is an uncanny feeling that since the laws have been made gender-sensitive, atrocities on women have grown manifold. The paradox of the ongoing discourse on women empowerment has become obvious even to the blind. The daring arrogance of the law-breakers now throws up a new challenge for the entire law-enforcing machinery. On the one hand, gender sensitive laws are framed and need to be implemented to help democracy take its true shape, on the other hand, young women are abducted in broad daylight from highways, are forced into marriages, raped and maimed, proving that molesters and rapists in this country care two hoots for the law. If this is not anarchy, what else would be? The situation is not going to change unless some kind of semblance is achieved in women’s status in their public and private spheres. As long as women are not given their due within the four walls of their homes, their status in the public sphere will remain dependent on the law for their safety and security. That women are not only sex objects but have the equal right to share all other social, economic and political spaces need to be drilled in the minds of macho men, who want to enjoy the fruits of democracy along with eating the rotten fruit of patriarchy. The two cannot be digested together. It calls for a change at deeper social and psychological levels in the way masculinity is perceived. It needs to come through a paradigm shift in the gender roles. As long as men will bloat in their ignorance-pumped arrogance of muscle power, and will harbour a conceited belief that a woman’s place can be shown by physically harming her — by abduction, molestation or rape — women will depend on law enforcers, who unfortunately come from the same stock. Till the men of this land undergo a change of mind, all the acts of abduction, molestation and rape should be treated like acts of terrorism against fellow citizens unsparingly.
|
|
|
The hardest thing to understand in the world is the income tax. — Albert Einstein
|
Appointments to rights bodies
One
of the tragedies of modern politics is that politicians have no embarrassment in speaking in one way and acting in the other. Dr Lohia, the late socialist leader, always maintained that if there is to be people’s politics that can only happen when there is total approximation between what politicians say and how they act. In this he was only echoing Gandhi’s insistence that politics and morality must go together. That there is cynical flouting of these norms in present-day politics is a daily occurrence. The latest instance is of BJP leaders Arun Jaitley and Sushma Swaraj objecting to the proposed appointment of Mr SC Sinha, chief of the National Investigation Agency, to be a member of the National Human Right Commission of India (NHRCI) on the ground that by doing so the ruling regime is setting a dangerous precedent. Appointing heads of the country’s premier investigating agencies to such posts after their retirement would have a negative impact on the neutrality of such agencies. The point is well taken and I totally agree. But I would like to refresh the BJP memory with regard to setting a precedent and the matter relates to the BJP-led Central government in 2003. The BJP forgot this moral stand when it appointed Sharma, who had retired as the Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in December 2003 to the NHRC. Of course, it sought and obtained the consent of Sonia Gandhi, the then Leader of Opposition in the House of people and Dr Monmohan Singh, the Leader of Opposition in the Council of States. The People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), founded by Jayaprakash Narayan in the dark days of the Emergency in 1976, challenged the appointment of Sharma in the Supreme Court. It made it clear that it raised no personal objection to Sharma, nor was it talking of his competency or impartiality as an individual. Its objection was on the basis of a fundamental issue that no one from the police or security forces (or in any case on the touchstone of confidence-building measures in the working of the NHRCI) should be appointed to a body which was meant to give relief to the people from the peculiar working of police and security forces. The PUCL drew to its aid the strong concern expressed by the Supreme Court “at the growing incidence of torture and deaths in police custody”. It relied especially on the Paris Principles endorsed by the UN General Assembly wherein the criteria for the composition of the National Human Rights institutions were adopted — autonomy from the government. Especially in regard to the composition of the Human Right Commission, the principles specifically ruled out government departments’ representatives from the membership of the commission. But such are the dual standards that when the matter came up for hearing, the BJP-led government threw its full weight justifying the appointment. The matter initially came up before a two-judge Bench comprising Justice YK Sabharwal (as he then was) who held as follows: “The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) is a high-powered statutory body to act as an instrument for the protection and promotion of human rights. The credibility of such an institution depends upon a high degree of public confidence. It cannot be overlooked that notwithstanding the exemplary role of the police and security forces, there have been many instances of excesses by the members of the forces leading to public unrest and deteriorating public faith. The issue is not whether all are fully true or not, but what exists in the public mind and whether there is some justification therefore. After all, it cannot be denied that predisposition or subtle prejudice or unconscious prejudice or what is called “sanskar” are inarticulate major premises in the decision-making process. Thus, construing Section 3(2)(d) of the Act, a police officer would be ineligible to be appointed as a member of the NHRC.” The other justice dissented. The matter was then heard by 3 a three-judge Bench which took a contrary view and held that the appointment of a police officer to the NHRC was legal and permissible though it conceded that it cannot take any exception with regard to the remarks made in many of the Supreme Court cases that the judicial and public perception of the police force is considered to be the biggest violators of human rights. The unfortunate effect of this judgment has been that since then almost every State Human Rights Commission (HRC) has at least one, sometimes two members, from the state police force as members. Imagine the irony and the discomfort of human rights activists who have been fighting against the police excesses for a long time to find that his remedy provided by law is from the very machinery of police personnel now sitting in the NHRC or state HRCs. In this matter both Congress and BJP- ruled states have a commonly shared preference for police personnel and allergic to any improvement in the working of the NHRC or the State HRCs. This is evident from the fact that the recommendations for improvement in the NHRC made by a committee headed by former Chief Justice Ahmadi as far as 15 years ago have remained in cold storage under both Congress and BJP governments. As I said, it is not the actual prejudice or the unfairness by a police officer, but the perception of it that is the problem. I, therefore, feel that in spite of the court having held
that there is no disqualification of a police or security officer from being appointed as a member, both the Congress and the BJP should agree to debar police and security personnel from the membership of the NHRC and State HRCs. In this connection let me quote the precedent. Gandhiji had selected a person to be a member of the Congress Working Committee. But before he could be appointed, information was sent to Gandhiji that in a suit filed against that gentleman for the recovery of a loan taken by him, he had replied (Of course drafted by his clever advocate) that he had not taken any loan, hence nothing was payable and, in the alternative, even if he had taken, he was not to pay back because it was now barred by limitation.” Gandhiji tersely remarked, “If no loan has been taken, then he is right in denying it. But if he has taken it but is refusing to pay because of limitation, then such a person cannot be a member of my working committee.” Here was a meaningful distinction between what may be legally right can be morally wrong. This is the justification for excluding police and security forces from the membership of the NHRC and the State
HRCs. The writer is a former Chief Justice of the Delhi High
Court
|
||||||
Not so smart
Heads
down, busy fiddling with zany handheld gadgets, almost every college-going youngster, who possesses a smart device, looks more like a moving zombie. Galaxy, iPods and iPhones have so sucked in their new masters that they now remain oblivious of the surroundings. I don’t know how it is shaping up in India but this certainly is an issue of concern in North America, the part of the globe where I reside. Especially, in desi families, where the constant clash between Indian sanksar and Western culture is all so pervasive. The problem is more pronounced among teenagers. They text while on the move and listen to music while on a walk. They ‘socially network’ virtually while actually being a disconnected recluse in the real world. These smart devices have made neo-users dumb to the extent that the former now enslave the latter. There is now an app for almost anything and everything under the sun. Kids are too much reliant on them. There was a time when my father knew log tables by heart. Today, my son needs an app to solve a math equation. If a family friend comes calling, their teenies interact intermittently personally while checking handhelds frequently. Ill-manners, is how we old-schoolers interpret it but is trendy for them. Visit a place thronged by youngsters and you’ll find almost everyone ‘wired’. Those dangling earphone wires are a must-have accessory. To beat it, these now come in all-possible apparel-matching shades. Good job, marketing guys. I remember how, not long ago, I actually had to tap the shoulder of a youngster on a transit train to let him know that a few coins had fallen off his pocket. The guy hadn’t noticed just because he was so immersed in smartphone and thus immune to external sounds. He looked at me, picked up those coins and reverted to his microcosm. Expecting a thank you? Well, don’t ask for the moon. Texting plus Facebook is ‘Textbook’. That is the new study smart mantra if, at all, they get down to study. Laptop to type in course notes, assignment by the side and handheld devices atop them. The buzz and beep sound keeps them abreast with what’s happening in their ‘peerville’. That’s the current study environment. In class, they don’t take notes. They just click a photo of what teacher scribbles on the board, later sending it to their buddies to discuss and interpret what she taught in class. Sure, classroom teaching, too, has come a long way from those chalk-duster days. According to a study by the Pew Research Center’s Internet and American Life Project, mobile access is a teenager's lifeline to the Internet. The survey of teens, ages 12 through 17, in the US found that 78 per cent have a cellphone, with nearly half of those being smartphones. I am sure the affluent class in India must be catching up fast. They should soon constitute a qualitative research on how many hours of concentration do teenagers lose due to
these distractive devices. I am sure the results would be an eye-opener. It’s not that these devices are bad. In fact, they are the future. What’s bad is the way they have gobbled up the new generation, enslaving them with all the enticements when these growing bodies need physical and brain-racking real-world exercises and experiences. The other day, my younger son bragged about all the apps his iPod had. The next day, he misplaced his assignment notebook. “Do you have an app to find that too?” Yes, I was sarcastic when I parried him. There are so many things that smart devices can’t have an alternative for, and addicted youngsters need to understand
this.
|
||||||
Nuclear North Korea courting trouble
Nuclear weapons place new complexities on the table for military and political leaders. North Korea has shown that even in an asymmetrical power balance, nuclear weapons can be the great equaliser on the strategic poker table.
The
rapid escalation of the crisis in the Korean peninsula has left analysts, policy-makers and military minds scrambling to understand the situation better. There are conflicting opinions within the US on dealing with the situation. North Korea has found innovative ways to raise the escalation thresholds on multiple fronts. It has deployed its missiles in a launch mode, its army and navy are in operational postures. It has asked its own citizens to evacuate the coastal areas in anticipation of military conflict, and it has advised foreign embassies to move out. It has even declared itself to be in a state of war. US Secretary of State Kerry has visited Seoul and Tokyo to reassure US support and has visited China for high-level meetings, seeking to place pressure on Pyongyang to desist from its reckless activities. There are multiple states pursuing their individual interests on the Korean peninsula. The difficulties faced in building a six-party response to North Korea's nuclear aspirations - now in fact a reality after its claims to have tested nuclear weapons -- and their responses over the years to pronouncements from Pyongyang confirm the reality of too many cooks having turned the broth into a muddy brew. China's actions have pointed to its limited leverage over Pyongyang, evidenced by its late and ineffective 'rebuke' to the effect that no country has a right to disturb the status quo. As things are, no country can claim to understand Kim Jong Un's, or, his possibly divided military hierarchy's strategic objectives or military plans. Kim Jong Un, the cherubic North Korean leader, is estimated by most observers as being under pressure for many reasons. The country is under UN sanctions, the economy is in truly poor state with little prospects of foreign aid and its military is reportedly divided on policy issues.
US not to pay twice for
the same horse After its experience of the six-party talks where North Korea reneged on its promises, the US has been unwilling to trust negotiations. Former Secretary of Defence Gates has stated that the US is not going to pay twice for the same horse. Secretary Kerry has announced that the US will not accept nuclear weapons in North Korea. He has demanded that North Korea should "denuclearise" itself, and referred to the Chinese concurrence on it. Kim Jong Un is not in a position to accept that demand. He cannot conceivably give up nuclear weapons which are his father's and grandfather's legacy to the country. Such irreconcilable positions do not augur well for a mutually agreeable outcome. Yet Secretary Kerry has said in Tokyo, "Our choice is to negotiate, our choice is to move to the table, and find a way for the region to have peace." The situation raises critical questions on the strategic outcomes in and outside the Korean peninsula. South Korea, in the precarious position of being within North's artillery range and facing a large military adversary, its dependence on the extended nuclear deterrence of the US, which itself has a limited military presence, has few independent choices . The US as the principal security guarantor for South Korea, Taiwan and Japan finds itself in an unenviable state. The US faces the deterrence conundrum of "Never and Ever", in which as the possessor of nuclear weapons, it must see that such weapons are never used and yet be ever ready to use them.
No clear ideas to deal
with the situation The top US commander in Korea, Gen J. Thurman, and influential Senators and Congressmen have said the situation is extremely dangerous, with no clear ideas to deal with it. The US military response has, however, been mature and limited to flying bombers closer to North Korean air space, and forward deployment of missile defence elements. The primary question is of the decision matrix Kim Jong Un will use to come to critical decisions. If the Kerry statement provides Kim Jong Un the opportunity to show to his military that he has forced the US to come to the table, he may choose to lower the tension. He will, however, seek to get the US to pull back the missile defence and air force elements away from the scene, and he will certainly want the UN sanctions lifted. Some other scenarios might play out in the Korean scene. The possibility of medium range missile test by North Korea remains high. North Korea will use it as demonstrable proof of standing up to international pressures. Such a test in international waters may or may not be conducted over Japan or South Korea. In either event, it will be a provocative act and will make matters worse for all powers involved. If the US responds to it by shooting down the missile, as some senior US politicians have recommended, it will be close to an act of war.
Beijing losing patience
with Pyongyang Most analysts and policy-makers have cautioned against it. If the US limits its action to merely remonstrating or applying yet more sanctions, its allies in the region will come to their own conclusions about relying on US guarantees. Beijing's patience with Pyongyang is also running thin, yet it would not wish to be seen as being unable to reign in Kim Jong Un. China will want to secure a continuing major role in managing the North Korean affairs into the future. Beijing, however, needs to be sure of being able to control the North Korean military, of which there is little evidence. It is useful to remember that North Korea's nuclear and missile capability is a product of many acts of commission and omission by states which employed the outmoded balance of power policies. There would have been no nuclear and missile capable North Korea without China and Pakistan forming a nuclear ménage a trois with Pyongyang. The US is no less responsible by having succumbed in this to Pakistan's shenanigans as a front line state in Afghanistan. Since no one country is now in a position to demand compliance from North Korea, a multi-state effort is urgently needed. The price for it would be accepting Pyongyang's nuclear and missile reality, legitimising Kim Jong Un's rule and removing the economic sanctions. The Korean scenario is changing the notion of deterrence from the traditional Cold War model of nuclear weapons having led to strategic stability. Nuclear weapons, and even the idea of their presence now place new complexities on the table for military leaders and their political bosses. North Korea has shown that even in an asymmetrical power balance, nuclear weapons can be the great equaliser on the strategic poker table. Their shrewd use puts the onus of use of military power on the stronger side, in this case on the US, to prove the usefulness of extended nuclear deterrence, and more importantly its credibility as a major power. It will also need to come to terms with the paradox of strengthening the hands of Kim Jong Un domestically. It will not be the first time the US would choose to do so. Lt Gen (retd) VR Raghavan was a Commissioner on the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission and an Adviser to the International Commission for Nuclear Non-Proliferation & Disarmament. Email:
genraghavan@yahoo.com
|
|
| 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 | |
