|
|
|
|
|
Onion on the boil
Tough justice
Racist blinkers |
|
|
|
The message from a concert
Dying relationships
Tri-service ‘jointmanship’ is inevitable
|
Onion on the boil
Price
rise is one issue that can unsettle governments. It is expected to be one of the hot election issues in 2014. Yet the UPA has not shown any sensitivity to the relentless rise in food prices. Vegetable prices in general and those of onion in particular have spiralled beyond control. Some half-hearted steps like income tax raids on onion traders in Nashik and elsewhere, curbs on exports of onion and some modest imports have been taken but the problem is too big to be solved by such small measures. A few state governments have even resorted to direct selling of onions. Onion being in the open general licence category, anyone can import it. Yet neither Nafed nor private traders have imported the commodity enough to tide over the crisis. The arrival of the fresh produce in Maharashtra, the biggest producer in the country, too has not dampened the prices. Instead there was a spike in retail prices, which ranged from Rs 50 to Rs 80 a kg. Union Food Minister K.V. Thomas has discovered what is common knowledge: hoarders and cartels of traders are driving up prices. Instead of making concerted efforts to break the cartels or resorting to imports soon after reports of shortage surfaced, the Food Minister has held out the assurance to the consumers across the country that onion prices will normalise after a fortnight or so when the new produce will arrive in Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. This gives the hoarders and traders more time to carry on their job of fleecing customers without check. Although it is not just the Centre’s duty to check prices, states too are expected to pitch in but state leaders have mostly watched quietly the countrywide loot of the consumers. The long-term solution of price fluctuations is to invest in cold storages. Fruits and vegetables being perishable, some 30 per cent goes waste in the absence of adequate infrastructure. It is not enough to produce more, post-harvest handling is equally important.
|
|
Tough justice
Bangladesh's
Supreme Court has sentenced a senior Jamaat-e-Islami leader Abdul Quader Mollah to death. In an unusual and controversial move, the court toughened the sentence awarded to him in February by Bangladesh's International Crimes Tribunal, which had sentenced him to life imprisonment. The 65-year-old Mollah is the fourth-highest leader of the Jamaat-e-Islami party and was known as the “Butcher of Mirpur” during the 1971 war of independence in Bangladesh. The charges that he has been convicted of include committing crimes against humanity, murder and rape. Bangladesh is finally addressing the issue of mass killings and other atrocities that were committed during the struggle for independence, by the Pakistani Army and its local supporters. Jamaat-e-Islami sided with Pakistan during the liberation war. Even as it denies any role in war crimes, two war crimes tribunals set up by the government have given judgments in cases against six former and current Jamaat leaders. All have been convicted. Mirpur, a suburb of Dhaka, was the scene of particularly heinous crimes. Mollah, who was a physics student at Dhaka University, has been held responsible for the killing of more than 350 unarmed Bengali civilians, a poet and a top journalist. After the war crimes tribunal awarded him a life sentence, Mollah emerged smiling and flashed a victory sign. Pictures of him taken at that time sparked off a public outrage that eventually resulted in the government amending the laws and allowing for both the defence and the prosecution to appeal against a sentence awarded by the tribunal. On the other hand, Jamaat and its student cadres went on a violent spree that cost many lives and caused a great deal of damage to property. While Jamaat supporters allege a political agenda and pick holes with the war crimes tribunal, the tribunal enjoys popular support. An estimated 30 lakh persons were killed in the Bangladesh liberation war, and over 2.5 lakh women were raped. People are now demanding conviction and punishment of those accused of these crimes, even if it leads to violence, which it often does when such sentences are pronounced.
|
|
|
Racist blinkers
It
was a moment of glory, not just for 24-year-old Nina Davuluri who was crowned as Miss America 2014, but equally significantly for the United States of America. However, before the country that has sent an Afro-American to the top post for the second consecutive term could pat itself for its openness and plurality, its racist tribe quickly moved to twitter to vent its venom. In the process it has not only exposed Americans’ racial prejudices but also their lack of awareness. How else could they call an American of Indian origin “Miss Al Qaida” or “Miss Arab”? Of course, those who could differentiate between an Arab and an Indian were no less biased. They were audacious enough to connect her to what they perceive as down-market convenience stores. This is not the first time the US's racist underbelly has surfaced. There have been instances of hate crimes against Sikhs, Hindus and Arabs, particularly post 9/11. Beauty pageants have censured previously too. Racist slur marred the victory of Lebanese origin beauty Rima Fakih, who won the Miss USA title three years ago. Haters tried to link her to the militant group Hezbollah. Nina might have dismissed the spiteful remarks of the bigoted, America can no longer afford to brush aside the vengeful verbal attacks against its own citizens. A country of people from dozens of nationalities not only needs to introspect and take off its blinkers, but also celebrate its diversity. Besides, in times when American profile is changing rapidly, what with more babies being born to minority groups, there is a need to understand the import of what the newly crowned beauty queen said, “Miss America is always evolving.” Misguided Americans must realise that beauties may come in different colours and shapes, none of this makes them any less American. However, the fact that two of the runners-up this year, Crystal Lee and Rebecca Yeh, have Asian roots, indicates that not all Americans think otherwise.
|
|
|
The day, water, sun, moon, night — I do not have to purchase these things with money. — Plautus
|
The message from a concert ZUBIN Mehta, before leaving for Srinagar to conduct his orchestra, said: “There will be no violence.” German Ambassador Michael Steiner, who facilitated the concert, said at Srinagar that the world was watching Kashmir. Both observations have a ring of truth. The success of concert has proved that. If New Delhi has been able to put across a message, the Hurriyat leaders have to blame themselves. They, also known as the separatists, unnecessarily made the concert an issue by playing up their boycott. If they had ignored the event, it would have passed without much notice. This was not the first concert. The late Jagjit Singh gave a gazal programme in the heart of Srinagar. A band from Pakistan played at Srinagar the other day. New Delhi was wise enough to treat it as a routine matter and gave the musicians visas. Nobody took any notice of it. The media too paid no heed. The Hurriyat, still equivocal about its demand for “azaadi” (independence), voiced no protest against the Pakistan band. This only underlined the impression that the Hurriyat tended to tilt towards Pakistan. The Hurriyat is a divided house. Some, led by Syed Shah Gillani, want the state to ‘join’ Pakistan. And the others, led by Yasin Malik, demand “azaadi”. Then there are those who are confused. Not long ago, when most Kashmiris, alienated from India as they are, favoured the integration with Pakistan, the Kashmiris would have voted for Pakistan if there had been a plebiscite. Today, a preponderant majority of Kashmiris, want “azaadi”. Yasin Malik has been able to veer them round from being pro-Pakistan elements to making them accept the demand for an independent, sovereign state. Yet what the Hurriyat does not realise is that “azaadi” is an ideal, not a feasible proposition. When the British left India in August 1947, they gave the princely states an option to stay independent and they did not want to join either India or Pakistan. Maharaja Hari Singh, the then Jammu and Kashmir ruler, declared that he would stay independent. The land-locked state had to have the support of both India and Pakistan for access to the outside world. He did not want to depend on one. With the Muslims in a majority in J and K, Pakistan expected its accession. When it did not take place, Pakistan sent its irregulars, backed by the regular troops. The Maharaja sought the help of India which insisted on the accession before sending its troops. He had to sign the Instrument of Accession Act. The task of the Hurriyat is more difficult than that of the Maharaja. The two parts of the states are against “azaadi”. Jammu, the Hindu majority part, would like to stay with India. The Buddhist majority Ladakh, the other part, wants to be a Union Territory of India. Therefore, the demand for “azaadi” is essentially that of the valley which has nearly 98 per cent Muslims. When India is in the midst of an endeavour for polarisation and when a political party is playing the Hindu card, it is difficult to imagine that the ruling Congress or other political parties, including the Left, would support the Hurriyat. Even otherwise, all political parties are opposed to the demand for independence, although some may go to the farthest in giving powers to the state. After 66 years of Partition, the wounds inflicted because of the division have not healed yet. How does the Hurriyat expect the people in India to reconcile to another partition, however genuine and strong the sentiments of the Kashmiris may be? If partition is again on the basis of religion, the secular state may not survive as it is. True, the 15 crore Muslims in India are equal citizens and they cannot be treated as hostages. But the valley’s secession may have such repercussions which are dreadful to imagine. The constitution, guaranteeing equality to all Indian citizens, may be of no avail. India and Pakistan have fought two regular wars on Kashmir apart from a mini misadventure in Kargil. The valley continues to remain part of the Jammu and Kashmir state. Several thousand Kashmiris have died for the cause of “azaadi”. For India, they were insurgents. They were crushed by the security forces which too lost thousands. Even now some militants from across the border attack some places but are rebuffed. For example, on the day of Zubin Mehta’s concert, a post of the Central Reserve Police Force in southern Kashmir was targeted with rockets. There was a “hartal” in Srinagar. But this exercise has been gone over by many a time before. Yet both countries signed an agreement in 1972 at Shimla to end hostilities. They pledged to sort out their disputes, including Kashmir, through bilateral talks. This has held the ground for the last 31 years. A few meetings between the two countries have been held since. By all means they should hold further talks on Kashmir. But they cannot fructify unless one of them changes its stance. New Delhi considers Kashmir as its integral part and Pakistan would like to have the valley to merge with it. The Hurriyat continues to expect a solution which does not seem possible. Six decades have gone by. There is yet nothing on the horizon. International opinion is mute and it has left the matter for the two countries to settle. The Hurriyat has to introspect and change its tactics. It has to prove that it counts. It should capture the state assembly if the Kashmiris are with it. It can have its own chief minister who could forcefully articulate the demand for “azaadi”. But does it have the following? It is easy to gather the crowd but difficult to convert it into votes. The Hurriyat, it seems, is riding too many horses at the same time. It wants to mean everything to everybody in the valley. And then it wants Jammu and Ladakh to stay with the valley. If it wants a sway over the entire state, it should win over Jammu and Ladakh, which oppose the Hurriyat tooth and nail. To represent Kashmir, it has to have Jammu and Ladakh with it. Then the Azad Kashmir under Pakistan would also listen to the Hurriyat. The valley by itself has a weak
case.
|
||||||
Dying relationships
A
tree of relationships can be planted only with seeds of love. Alas, the seeds of love are being damaged by the termite of greed. A colleague of mine once told me how a physician broke the doctor-patient relationship to pieces. Actually, the father of my colleague was in hospital. He was on a ventilator. A month elapsed but the patient did not show any sign of recovery. Frustrated with the line of treatment of the hospital my colleague decided to shift his father to another hospital. But the hospital authorities were not willing to do so. The authorities prevailed upon my colleague to keep his father in their hospital. But he asked for a re-examination of his father by another doctor. First, they protested but later agreed to the genuine demand of my colleague. The other doctor, after examining the patient, approved the line of treatment of the hospital. But the condition of the patient showed no signs of improvement. One day the sweeper of the hospital spilled the beans. He told my friend that his father had died a fortnight ago. He was kept on a ventilator to make more bucks! My friend as taken aback; he tried to pay to the sweeper. But he refused. There is another incident. One day I received a call from my friend and he told me that her granny was seriously ill. Actually, she wanted that I should request my uncle who happened to be a top surgeon of the hospital in which her granny was admitted to provide her the best treatment. I recommended his case to my uncle. The very next day my surgeon uncle came to my home. After exchanging pleasantries, I asked him about the well-being of the granny of my friend. My uncle replied in a low tone, “She has been murdered”! His statement came as a big shock to me. I curiously asked, "How come that!" What my uncle told me was both horrible and unbelievable. "The grandmother of your friend was suffering from acute appendicitis. She was to be operated upon. His son was told that if an emergency operation was not done to excise the inflamed appendix, she would die. When his consent to remove her mother’s appendix was sought, he refused to sign the papers, saying ‘she was already 90. What special feat would she accomplish if she completed a tonne”, said my uncle in a sad tone. “But this does not amount to murder. The law gives a choice to the attendant of a patient to take a decision he deems fit with regard to the line of treatment of his patient,” I told my uncle. “You are right,” my uncle retorted. “How is it then a murder?” I asked curiously. “The son of your friend’s grandmother was to get a 50 per cent share of his mother’s property after her demise. So he let her
die”.
|
||||||
Tri-service ‘jointmanship’ is
inevitable
Jointmanship
is an expression
used to describe command and control through cross service cooperation
in all stages of military processes. It is to command the integration
of the doctrines of each of the combat arm for combined operational
benefits to achieve military objectives. The integration of the combat
arms means integration of the concepts, strategies, competencies and
capabilities of land, air d sea and aerospace power to excel in the
battlefield. The basic concept for jointness means how forces will operate in response to a wide variety of security challenges. It suggests how the future joint force commander will combine and subsequently adapt some combination of all basic categories of military activities, combat, security engagement and internal security issues in accordance with the unique requirements of each operational situation. Jointness is considered essential not only for current strategic guidance, but because it looks to the future. It was seen that all operations fought jointly and in an integrated manner during and after the Great War were successful. The unsuccessful operations world over have only proved the significance of integrating the forces and fighting jointly by raising the institution of the Chief of Defence Staff. India too has to look prudently in this manner. It was also realized that the success in the concept of wars on campaigns combined with the strategy of active defense depends upon achieving a high level of joint capabilities. It has been observed that nearly 143 countries comprising of 28 in Asia, 28 in Africa, six in North America, 15 in South America, 12 in Australia, 29 in Europe and 19 in Central America have not formally adopted the combined arms concept. India is an exception with reasons both historical and political for not going in for the institution of Chief of Defense Staff. Corroborating the significance of Goldwater Nicholas, the Forbes magazine had commented that the Act helped ensure that Iraq War had less inter service infighting, less deadly bureaucracy, fewer needless causalities and more military cohesion than any other major military operation. Australia with much lesser force operationalised Jointmanship in 1976 through an Act of Parliament. The Russian Duma passed it in 1983 whereas Germany has been practicing jointmanship since World War--II, though intensifying it more in the present time. China also initiated military jointness as a sequence of its military modernisation programme that began in 1978, whereas the Pakistani armed forces are enjoying its 14th Joint Chief of Staff. In France, the Unified Command Structure was adopted in 1980. According to the Israeli Defence Attaché, jointness is a difficult and a challenging task though a matter of common knowledge and managing expectations are evolved over a period. It has been determined that CDS is a political decision and not an organisational one. It was seen that only the legislature could enhance its authority and effectiveness. Further, in case of the United States, where the national military strategy revolves around concepts with respect to overseas presence and power projection, the military jointness gets strengthened by synchronisation of the chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, the theatre commanders-in-chief and their joint commanders. It achieves unity of efforts in support of national military objectives through effective coordination, command and control assigned to the subordinate elements of the military services. In this scenario, another power centre, that of the theatre commander, emerges, who reports directly to the elected head of the state, thus retaining the political control. Tri-service jointmanship has become a stark reality presenting itself as fait accompli to armed forces the world over and India is no exception. The larger attributes however indicate to build on the positive aspects of integration to meet the imperatives and necessity for jointness arising out of strategic vision and examining future operational environment in the Indian context. Jointness has been put in place in all the countries in a top-down approach. This is regardless of the fact that the joint training is emphasised at the lower level. However, keeping in view, the civilian nature of politicians who are not experts in matters military, the jointness to be successful must trickle down from the top to bottom. To promote joint operational requirements, most of the countries like UK, France, Germany, Australia, Italy, Russia and the US have established joint headquarters tasked exclusively for training and operations. Joint training in all such countries practicing jointness begins at the rank of major and its equivalent at combined staff / defence colleges, with the next course at the National Defence College level. This comes closer to our level of configuration which though has a combined course construct but sans joint behavior subsequently. Further, no regulatory selection criteria is followed for the appointment of CDS, notwithstanding, the merit and professional competence as the key determinants for the appointment of CDS/CJOs. Moreover, CDS are generally from the army though the other two services have also contributed significantly to the profile of this appointment. However, keeping in view the perennial conflicts arising from the appointment of CDS/CJO amongst the three services in most of the countries, it is suggested that in such arrangement a power sharing mechanism could be promoted. For example if the CDS appointment is enjoyed by an officer from the air force or the navy, there must be an appointment of Vice Chief of Defence Staff held by an army officer. The CDS is the operational head of all the three services and empowered to choose the operational commanders given the geo-strategic responsibilities. Further, the creation of a joint defence structure does not mean abolition of the authority of the service chiefs. Their significance lies in maintaining service character, training and force providers for facilitating joint operational engagements, though not always cherished. Joint
warfare is an ancient concept earlier having a lesser scope, but
appeared gradually in the modern militaries with wider degrees and
much broader in scope. According to Admiral Edmund P. Giambastiani,
"Joint transformation does not happen overnight. It is a
learning, developing, cultural change process — to progress through
phases of de-conflict to coordinate and Integrate, and ultimately
coherently joint." The twentieth century saw the emergence of air power in the battlefield. Earlier, jointness in arms was seen as amphibious assault as there was no air power. As far back as 1911, bombs were dropped on enemy positions using military balloons. However, the use of aircraft for tactical retribution and strategic purposes in war began with the bombing on August 14, 1914, of German Zeppelin hangers at Metz-Frascat by the French Voisin biplane. Others including the Germans, Russians, English and Italians soon followed suit. Until World War--II, joint operations were conducted without permanent agreements and thus never resulted in a lasting culture of jointness. After the war these ad hoc arrangements proved ill-suited for the complexity of modern military operations. In 1986, by signing the Goldwater Nicholas Act, the US Congress codified joint doctrine by specifically tasking the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff with developing a doctrine for the joint employment of the armed forces and formulating policies for coordinating the military education and training of the members of the armed forces. According to Gen Colin Powell, former Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, the performance of armed forces in joint operations has improved significantly and Goldwater Nicholas deserves a great deal of credit. Later, it was further concurred by General John Shalikashvili that no other nation can match the US ability to combine force on the battlefield and fight jointly. No armed forces in the world have achieved jointness without intervention from the highest political levels. The turf war is not peculiar to India alone. In the United Kingdom, it was the Heseltine Reform of 1985 establishing a permanent joint headquarters for joint military operations. Interestingly, it has been found that in most of the countries the jointness is so entrenched and strong that it was seen difficult to conceive operations without the joint structure. For instance, jointness is so meshed into the German armed forces that the rise in career span of a German soldier is linked to his appointment with joint forces. Jointness helps to generate and employ affective multi-purpose combat capable forces in Canada, optimising resource use and promoting efficiency and cost effectiveness. The British official position, on the contrary, continues to highlight the strength of the single service despite emphasising on more jointness. This is a system inherent flaw which could not eliminate the counterproductive inter-service rivalry visible even in the US. Citing the example of India, jointness is viewed with great enthusiasm by middle and junior ranking officers of the three services. But at the senior level there is little evidence of jointmanship. Further, information regarding plans, acquisitions, new raisings, etc. are carefully kept away from the sister services. In India, the Chief of Staff Committee (COSC) is required to convert the abstract political aims of war to achievable military aims and objectives under the chairmanship of the senior most service chief who really has no power to interfere in the affairs of other services. This system works till such time when there is a very clear political leadership and direction as was in the case of Israel with Moshe Dayan or Ariel Sharon or Barak heading the defence ministry. Those leaders understood the nuances of the forces and could be effective planners of military operations. The system also works till such time the decisions do not involve or impinge much upon the inter-service resources and personal aspirations. However, in the absence of the above, the present system is nothing but a sham and may not result in desired output during trying times. The Kargil conflict of 1999 is the best example best to cite in this regard. There
have been a lot of discussions on jointness and many suggestions have
been made that instead of a full time chief we may have a tri-services
joint headquarters operating or there may be selective leadership like
an operational force commander, keeping the type of operation in view.
But experiences have proved that these are all ad hoc measures and
would achieve only partial jointmanship. The writer is Chairman, Department of Defence and National Security
Studies, Panjab University
|
|
| HOME PAGE | |
Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir |
Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs |
Nation | Opinions | | Business | Sports | World | Letters | Chandigarh | Ludhiana | Delhi | | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | E-mail | |
All
countries practicing jointmanship have an appointment of chief of
defence staff (CDS) chief of general staff (CGS) or chief of joint
operations (CJO), providing a single window advice or more correctly
synergised institutional advice to the government. The appointment of
such CDS is validated in all the countries as an legislative act. In
this regard, the Goldwater Nicholas Act serves as a watershed
principle in making jointness mandatory in the US, followed by the
Heseltine reforms in the United Kingdom.