|
|
|
|
|
Tricks of drug trade FDRs as surety for love |
|
|
|
Bangladesh's badly marred election
Once in US, who wants to go back?
Making sense of the Kishenganga final award
|
Tricks of drug trade After a brief lull, the drug scandal in Punjab is back in news with prime accused Jagdish Singh Bhola making dramatic allegations of Bikram Singh Majithia and other state ministers being involved in the narcotics trade. Majithia's defence is that this a canard spread by a criminal to save his skin. This is a valid argument. But the question is how does it save the accused? Is it a contention that Bhola will be able to save himself by getting the investigation transferred to the CBI? There is way too much evidence against him to escape. But if he believes he can scare the Punjab investigators or the government with the CBI 'threat', he probably has some information that he thinks the Punjab leadership would not like to leak out.
Investigations in the case had brilliant successes at the start, including the arrest of people embarrassingly close to certain SAD leaders. The police had given the public to believe this was just the tip of the iceberg. Bhola is nobody to decide who should investigate the case, but the need for a Central agency to be involved has been felt right since the start. The reasons are simple: One, some rogue elements within the Punjab Police are likely to be involved, who may hamper investigations. That there is political involvement, even if at a lower level, is already established. The scale of the investigation needed, spread across multiple states and countries, is such that the state police may not be able to handle it well. The CBI, with its quicker channels to the Interpol, DRI, BSF and other state governments becomes the natural choice to probe the matter. Politically, too, this becomes an imperative for the SAD leadership, as Majithia has long been battling the credibility crisis. He has himself said he is open to any independent probe; the state government should use the opportunity to establish its sincerity in the anti-drug campaign. Bhola may be playing tricks, but it could cost SAD dear with the Lok Sabha polls and AAP both closing in.
|
|
FDRs as surety for love Troubles of runaway couples never seem to end. Now, under a court order they will have to pay a heavy 'price' for falling in love. Going by the decision of a Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, young men will have to produce FDRs (fixed deposit receipts) worth Rs 2 lakh for three consecutive years to prove their love for their sweetheart! Couples will find themselves in a situation akin to out of the frying pan into the fire, if they approach courts for protection. In a judgment that reads like a testament of vintage patriarchy, Justice Paramjeet Singh refers to stereotyped expressions like "being robbed of chastity" and "safety and purity of womanhood," which can be taken as derogatory by young thinking women. He should appreciate that runaway couples cross the boundaries of caste, creed, religion and other narrow considerations, including matching of the financial status of the two families. By demanding money as a condition to prove sincerity, the court is pushing them to abide by the same narrow considerations the runaway couples are trying to defy. They need to be applauded for rebelling against regressive traditions like dowry. Is it not reverse dowry if men have to pay money to prove their worth? It also implies women cannot look after themselves. If some common sense could prevail, the court would know, most young men in their twenties do not earn enough to save Rs 2 lakh a year in the absence of family support as is the case with runaway couples. Courts have no business to act like the very parents the runaway couples are seeking protection from. Despite their patronising intent towards the 'vulnerable' women, they can't be callous to the security of the lives of the couples hounded by blood-thirsty relatives and caste leaders. Money alone does not ensure a happy, lasting marriage, ask Hrithik Roshan.
|
||
|
Thought for the Day
There is much pleasure to be gained from useless knowledge.
|
||
Literature in the Punjab THE number of books registered in the Punjab under Act 25 of 1867 and Act 10 of 1890 during the quarter ending 30th September 1913 has exceeded 500 and a brief account of each of them has been published in the Punjab Gazette. The majority of them are of course in the Punjabi and Urdu languages and we notice very few books in Hindi. Hindi literature dealing with purely religious subjects seem to have had some encouragement. The language that appeals to the bulk of the reading public is Punjabi in Urdu characters, though the same in Gurmukhi characters is also increasing in popularity. The choice of subject does not show any refined taste in the people yet and there is reason for the complaint that love stories of a debased kind and love songs are much in demand. Among the medical literature also we find certain subjects dealt with which one greatly hesitates to place in the hands of boys and girls and one would not regret if some kind of restrictions were applied on a particularly undesirable class of books being produced. Wheat crop of the Punjab THE first forecast of wheat crop in the Punjab says the season was unfavourable. In August there were only two well-defined periods of wet weather, viz., from the 2nd to the 8th and the 25th to the 30th, and the distribution of rainfall was very irregular, Ambala, Lahore, Rawalpindi, Khushab and Multan receiving more than their normal quantity, while the rest of the Province had a deficit. The monsoon gave no rain over the Punjab after September 2nd, and the total rainfall for the month was much below normal everywhere, except in parts of Hissar, Shahpur, Rawalpindi, Attock, Mianwali, Montgomery and Jhang, the favourable condition of the northern districts being due to disturbances of extra Indian origin.
|
Bangladesh's badly marred election AS was only to be expected, the tenth general election in Bangladesh has been badly marred by deadly violence, a low voter turnout and the conversion of the whole electoral exercise into a one-horse race because of the poll boycott by the main opposition party, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), led by Khaleda Zia. She is the arch rival of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, whose party, the Awami League, has secured a two-thirds majority in Parliament for the second time in succession - a first in the country's 42-year history. But this victory is worth little because it lacks legitimacy and the threat of even worse violence and chaos emanating from the BNP and its ally, Jamaat-e-Islami, equivalent of the Thereek-e- Taliban-e- Pakistan, is real.
Something has got to be done, and done urgently, to prevent total disaster which requires that both the battling Begums rethink their respective stands, talk to each other and arrive at a consensus on the future course of action. Unending hatred between these two, who have alternated as prime ministers in the past and never hesitated to muster muscle power in the street against each other, cannot but be suicidal. Both the enormity and complexity of the grave crisis Bangladesh faces are obvious. Violence of the most virulent kind began long before the demand for the postponement of the election until a neutral government took over became an issue. The Jamaat and other new Islamists had started large-scale killings as a protest against death sentences awarded to Jamaat leaders for their crimes in the 1971 war for the independence of Bangladesh, and this orgy of murders reached a crescendo after the execution of Abdul Qader Mollah, also known as the "Butcher of Mirpur". Those who collaborated with the Pakistani army in its Nazi-like atrocities in 1971 do deserve the worst punishment. But they have become more and more defiant because of the protection and encouragement they have received not only during Begum Zia's years in power but also during the fifteen years of military dictatorship from 1975 to 1990. It should not go unnoticed that the hanging of Mollah was strongly condemned by Pakistan's Home Minister Chaudhury Nisar. Unfortunately, some Bangladeshi and foreign observers feel that the composition of the War Crimes Tribunal had left something to be desired. As for the controversy and conflict over the election Sheikh Hasina might have been correct strictly according to the letter of the law but wrong politically. She was also against the spirit of democracy. She had used her two-thirds majority to abolish the constitutional provision that before every election the government should cede power to a neutral authority. She had opted instead for an all-party government headed by her. Begum Zia had every right to reject this. But she made things worse by flatly refusing to meet the Prime Minister to discuss the matter. Sheikh Hasina even made a phone call to her rival but their 36-minute talk unsurprisingly turned out to be a dialogue of the deaf. Early in December when Foreign Secretary Sujatha Singh went to Dhaka, her advice to all concerned was that, as a "fellow democracy", India wanted Bangladesh to have elections that were "free and fair" and in which there was widest participation. Thereafter, New Delhi's position changed to giving Sheikh Hasina full support. For this there were several reasons: an election before January 24, 2014, was a "constitutional necessity". It was not merely a question of the election's timing but Bangladesh had to "preserve" its identity as a secular entity and not allow jihadi Islamists to take over. In other words, the country had to complete the "unfinished business of 1971". Another reason for the policy of "all support to Sheikh Hasina" was what Western powers, especially the United States and some members of the European Union and the Commonwealth were up to. They not only pressured the Bangladesh Prime Minister to postpone the election and come to some agreement with Begum Khaleda, but also refused to send observers to witness the January 5 poll and threatened not to recognise the post-poll government. These arrogant powers have yet to explain why they never took such a strong line in 1996 when the roles of Sheikh Hasina and Begum Zia were exactly the reverse. None of these factors can be brushed aside. But, as against them, the grave dangers confronting Bangladesh also need to be faced squarely. Few would take the Awami League government Mark-2 seriously, and indeed there might be divisions within it. A former military ruler, Gen H. M. Ershad, founder-president of the Jatiya Party, Bangladesh's third largest, was a staunch ally of Sheikh Hasina until about a month ago. Then he joined the other side in boycotting the poll. Strangely, his wife, Raushan Ershad, led a dissident faction of his party into the election and won 12 of the 147 seats for which elections were held. The Awami League had won unopposed 153 seats in a House of 300. But of the 147 seats that were contested it won only 95 and in these it faced "formidable competition" from "rebel Awami Leaguers". This pales, however, compared with the consequences of almost certain violence that looms ahead in our eastern neighbour. The threats to the country's unity and integrity and of Islamic extremism overshadowing Bangladeshi secularism and liberalism cannot be ruled out. Moreover, the likely damage to the Bangladeshi economy could be enormous, perhaps unbearable. Most people remember Henry Kissinger's jibe that Bangladesh was a "basket case". In recent years, however, the American investment house, Goldman Sachs, has been listing the country among "Asia's Emerging Tigers". The Dhaka Chamber of Commerce has estimated that the disturbances during 2013 have cost Bangladesh $4 billion, a fourth of it to the manufacture of garments, a sector in which Bangladesh is second only to China. Much of the Bangladeshi economy is at a standstill because of strikes and blockades. Extended lawlessness could be catastrophic. In the circumstances, the time has come when New Delhi should advise Sheikh Hasina to reach out to Begum Zia and other opponents and work out a settlement with them. She has publicly stated that fresh elections can still be held. Let these wise words be translated into action.
 |
|||
Once in US, who wants to go back? Bhaaji,
kithon aa rahe ho?” (Brother, where are you coming from?) I had begun to doze off when this sudden remark stirred me out of my reverie. I had not expected to hear Punjabi from a stranger in the middle of Manhattan. On gathering my wits, I realised that it came from the driver of the yellow cab we had hired at Penn Station to take us to our hotel in mid-town Manhattan. We had just got off the train which had ferried us back from an exciting but tiring tour of the Niagara Falls. My two colleagues had, thus, nodded off immediately on boarding the taxi. “Niagara Falls ton” (from Niagara Falls), I ventured, hoping to cut the conversation short. A quick glance at the identification papers pasted on the car dashboard had revealed that the name of the driver was Gurmej Singh. Gurmej then wanted to know what had brought us to New York. I explained to him briefly the reason for our being in his city and added that we were on the verge of departure now. “Tusin agle hafte waapis chale jaoge!” (Will you return next week?) It was more of an incredulous exclamation than a question. Since I realised that there was little chance of getting a peaceful ride, I asked him to tell me about himself. Gurmej told me that he along with a group of about twenty young men had been promised a passage to the US by a travel agent and had been put on a flight to Athens one February night in 1989. That marked the beginning of an incredible journey which took Gurmej from Greece to Malta by boat and then further on to Sicily. From Sicily he crossed the Mediterranean Sea into Tunisia. He finally managed to reach Cuba and then Bahamas from where he along with a few others surreptitiously slipped into the USA through Florida. By now Gurmej had me completely engrossed. I asked him what happened on his entering the US. “Pher ki si, aapan slip maar gaye.” I gathered that this particular phrase of his meant that he went underground. He further explained that during his initial days he was supported by his acquaintances till he finally managed to get his legal papers. Presently the cab ground to a halt in front of our hotel. My two colleagues gathered their bags and groggily made their way into the lobby while I stayed behind to settle the taxi fare. Before I could offer him money, Gurmej held me by my arm and took me aside. “Bhaji,” he whispered in my ears when we were beyond earshot, “Amrika aa ke vi koi waapas jaanda hai? Slip maar jao. Baaki asin sambhal lavange” (Brother, why would anyone want to go back from America? Go underground. We will take care of the rest).
|
|||
Making sense of the Kishenganga final award “The Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) was a great achievement of Pakistan and India and of the World Bank, and it remains so… and these proceedings are an illustration of its continuing vitality," said Judge Stephen M Schwebel, chairman of the seven-member Court of Arbitration (CoA) in the Indus Waters Kishenganga Arbitration that delivered the final award on December 20, 2013. The court, based at the Permanent Court of Arbitration, The Hague, has adjudicated upon the dispute concerning the Kishenganga Hydroelectric Project (KHEP) raised by Pakistan. It has conceded that the right of India to divert waters from the Kishenganga (called Neelum in Pakistan) for power generation is protected by the 1960 IWT. However, it added a caveat that this right is not absolute and India is under an obligation to maintain the minimum flow to be released downstream from the KHEP dam at 9 cumecs. The court has not accepted India's argument for the usage of the drawdown technique for flushing sediment accumulated in the reservoir except in the case of “unforeseen emergency”. The award is a landmark for legal governance of shared trans-boundary water resources. The dispute has raised important questions on the relevance of the IWT; model of development adopted by building large dams and reservoirs for hydro-electric power with environmental consequences; application of international environmental obligations and adequacy of existing international courts; and tribunals to settle complex water disputes.
Indus Waters Treaty Despite the history of animosity, trust deficit and inhospitable hydro-political climate, India and Pakistan remained engaged in the trans-boundary Indus Basin water-sharing cooperative framework through the IWT. The treaty regime has survived wars, shrill calls for abrogation, political instability and helped, to some extent, in containing water disagreements. It has also served as an important function of allocation of river waters as well as providing an inbuilt framework for the settlement of disputes. The Baglihar Dam case, referred to the neutral expert, was a testimony of its effectiveness and resilience. The Kishenganga case marks the first instance in the history of the IWT when a CoA was constituted. The proceedings have arisen out of a dispute concerning the implementation of the treaty in relation to the construction and operation of the KHEP. The primary subject of the arbitration was the KHEP, currently under construction by India on the Kishenganga, a tributary of the Jhelum. The KHEP is designed to generate power by diverting water from a dam site on the Kishenganga (within Gurez Valley, an area of higher elevation) to the Bonar Nullah, another tributary of the Jhelum (lower in elevation and located near Wullar Lake) through a system of tunnels, with moving water powering turbines having a capacity of 330 MW.
The dispute For the management of sedimentation in the reservoir, India intended to employ the technique of drawdown flushing that consists of drawing the water in the reservoir down to a level close to that of the riverbed by releasing water through low-level outlets in the dam. These were the issues raised by Pakistan. In view of the technical nature of the dispute, the court visited project sites at Neelum-Jhelum and Kishenganga. It highlights difficulties surrounding the technical nature of the disputes and perceived lack of expertise for the adjudication of such projects having environmental consequences. It heard the matter in 2012 and gave a partial award on February 18, 2013. The partial award provided that India may divert water from the Kishenganga for power generation and deliver the water released below the power station into the Bonar Nullah. The issues of India's obligation to maintain a minimum flow of water in the Kishenganga; and usage of drawdown flushing to an extent that would entail depletion of the reservoir below dead storage level (portion of storage not used for operational purposes) became highly contentious during the proceedings. The court decided to do a tightrope walk to ensure the balance of interest for both parties. It conceded priority right to India since it crystallised KHEP before Pakistan resorted to the NJHEP. Still such a right to develop a hydroelectric project has been sought to be circumscribed by ensuring a minimum flow in the river and rejection of the drawdown flushing technique. India sought clarification concerning the permissible use of drawdown flushing technique in the future run-of-river projects on the western rivers (allocated to Pakistan). The court stated: “(T)he prohibition on the reduction below dead storage level of the water in the reservoirs of run-of-river plants on the western rivers, except in the case of unforeseen emergency, is of general application.” The moratorium issued in the award would be applicable to all future run-of-the-river projects to be carried out by India, sowing seeds of potential difference.
Permanent Indus Commission The court analysed the data with regard to the impacts of a range of minimum flows to be discharged at the KHEP dam. It decided "a minimum flow criterion of 9 cumecs at KHEP is a relatively severe criterion with respect to environmental flow, but would nevertheless be sufficient to maintain the natural flows". It has recognised that a degree of uncertainty is inherent in any attempt to predict environmental implications such as the flows in the Kishenganga. In its view, the appropriate mechanism for the reconsideration of minimum flow, exchange of data and monitoring of the parties' usage on tributaries of the Indus is the Permanent Indus Commission (PIC). The ball is back into the court of the IWT mechanism of PIC. That brings under scanner the efficacy of the IWT in resolving disputes. The final verdict vindicates the obligation for peaceful settlement of disputes enshrined under the UN Charter. However, the growing number of disputes arising under the IWT underscores distrust between the parties. Ironically, Pakistan's invoking of the IWT mechanism shows its inability to resolve bilateral disputes through negotiations and ineffectiveness of PIC that led the matter to highly expensive international arbitration proceedings even as both countries are facing extreme poverty. It raises a question on the working of PIC to resolve disagreement. Some perceived challenges could arise due to the pressure of population and developmental needs as well as shrinking water availability in the Indus Basin due to a host of factors including climate-induced changes. But it does not affect the utility and effectiveness of the IWT as it provides multiple methods to resolve issues. It is time to use cutting-edge technologies and hardware such as remote sensing satellites and geographical information systems that play a vital role in the planning, construction and maintenance of such projects. It could help in jettisoning rumours, ignorance and emotions from taking hold in the absence of hard data.
Losing the vision The fact that parties have turned, time and again, to the IWT mechanisms - and not the use of force - itself speaks volumes for the existing legal governance of Indus waters under the treaty. However, complaints by Pakistan that India is violating the IWT and its efforts to drag the matter to an international forum emanates from deeply entrenched distrust and compulsions of domestic politics. The IWT has withstood the test of time in showcasing the spirit of cooperation. Many demand re-negotiation of the IWT, which they argue is the need of the hour (after working for 53 years) under changed circumstances. Still, considering the current realities, it is a remote possibility. It is hoped that wiser counsel will prevail to resolve water disputes in the larger interest of the teeming millions on either side. In order to harness the huge hydro potential of shared water courses in the Indus Basin, both countries shall have to learn from world history and rise to the occasion to consider joint designing and implementation of projects that take a holistic hydrological view and maintain environmental integrity of the basin without compromising developmental needs.
The edict *
The award is a landmark for legal governance of shared trans-boundary water resources. *
India's right to divert waters from the Kishenganga for power generation is protected by the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty. But it is under obligation to maintain the minimum flow to be released downstream from KHEP dam at 9
cumecs. * Argument by India regarding the use of the drawdown technique for flushing sediment accumulated in the reservoir has been rejected. It can be done only in the case of an emergency. *
The dispute has raised important questions on the relevance of the Indus treaty; model of development by building large dams and reservoirs with environmental consequences; application of international environmental obligations; and adequacy of existing international courts to settle water disputes. The writers are Chairman of Centre for International Legal Studies at JNU, New Delhi; and Executive Director, Centre for Advanced Study on Courts & Tribunals, Amritsar, respectively.
|
|
| 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 | |
It was late October in 1994. I was part of a small group of officers on a six-week assignment to the United Nations in New York and had taken the weekend off to see the Niagara Falls. 
