|
|
|
|
|
The DNA of politics Worries over monsoon |
|
|
Wise stand on Sri Lanka
Voice sweet, actions may not be
Sam Manekshaw: An icon of Indian Army
|
The DNA of politics A
casual count has put the number of sons and daughters of politicians contesting the Lok Sabha poll at around 50. Assuming half of them will win, the strength of such members in the House would be around 5 per cent. Not all of them will be bad public representatives either. So is 'dynastic politics' really bad, or even an issue? Everyone has the right to pursue a calling of his choice. And it is very natural for a person to be motivated by the world he grows up in. Being the child of a politician should definitely not be a discredit per se. After all, democracy means equal opportunity to all. That is where the trouble begins. Often, the progeny of people in power are promoted at the cost of other meritorious candidates, who are kept out by restrictive party
practices. As long as a candidate is measured for his own worth, and can lay claim to a chance on the basis of public service rendered, his lineage should not matter. 'Measuring the worth', however, is a process that needs to be institutionalised in political parties, which would be good not only for democracy but also for stability in the parties themselves. Rahul Gandhi has started an experiment by using the electoral means to decide candidates. The ultimate test would lie in the process becoming the only means to selection and, what's more, Rahul himself finding his position in the party as a result of the process. This is something for every party to
follow. The hatred for dynastic politics also stems from the fact that the electoral system itself requires a candidate to have deep pockets. The legally allowed expense for a Lok Sabha candidate now is Rs 70 lakh, which practically becomes the minimum cost of contesting. Add to it the muscle power required. This ensures a 'common man' stands no chance. AAP is a product of that frustration. Strict implementation of the poll code, sweeping electoral reforms that keep criminals out and a vigilant eye on illegitimate expenses undertaken by cash-rich parties and candidates will make for a somewhat level-playing
field.
|
|
Worries over monsoon Living up to expectations, the RBI has kept its key rates unchanged. Governor Raghuram Rajan says interest rates cannot come down unless inflation becomes manageable. The RBI's projections for the year ahead are worrying, even though in the current upbeat mood investors and analysts have chosen to ignore them. The damage from the weak monsoon forecast, based on the El Nino phenomenon, has not yet been fully understood: It can push up commodity prices, revive inflationary concerns, which had just started receding, and unsettle hopes of buyers and industry for lower interest
rates. Another downside of Tuesday's monetary policy review is the projection of a growth rate of 5.5 per cent for the new financial year. This is only marginally higher than the sub-5 per cent in the current year. This means regardless of the combination of parties that forms the next government at the Centre, it would have a limited say on the growth front. Industrial growth would not perk up unless capital becomes cheaper. Agriculture too would take a hit if rain is deficient. Foreign investors might be putting their money in stock markets betting on Narendra Modi and the promise of a stable, strong government. The RBI clearly does not share their optimism. Along with the RBI, the new government will have to grapple with the problem of
inflation. There are two positive developments that deserve notice. One, the RBI has barred banks from insisting on a minimum balance in a savings account and imposing fines on customers in case of default. They have been told to curtail services for such accounts if the balance is inadequate. Two, the Election Commission has allowed the RBI to issue licences for new banks. Once the apex bank finalises the guidelines, bank licences will be available on demand, subject, of course, to the fulfilment of the prescribed conditions. This will promote financial inclusion. Right now only 35 per cent adults have access to formal banking services.
|
||
|
Thought for the Day
I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it.
— Mark Twain
|
||
Government and the census work THE question, how far the Government is to be held responsible for the free expression of opinions and sometimes even attacks and innuendos in the census reports, has been raised by the reply given by the Punjab Government to the Secretary of the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, Punjab. The latter object to certain statements made about the Arya Samaj in the Punjab census report as being not only incorrect in fact but also as disparaging to their community. The Punjab Government in their reply observes that “the opinions expressed in the report are those not of Government but of the Census Superintendent.” It is possibly so; but are we to believe that the great work of the decennial census is undertaken at immense trouble and cost to the public merely that the one man, who is appointed as Census Commissioner by Government, may express his own private and personal opinions on the various subjects investigated? Small municipal towns in England and India IT would be interesting to note the differences between small municipal towns, having a population of 3,000 in England and in India. In the Punjab, for instance, we have Khudian in the Lahore District, Dalhousie in Gurdaspur, Mithankot in D.G. Khan and Alipur, Khangarh, Karor in Muzaffargarh as municipal towns having about 3,000 population. What municipal conveniences are provided in these places are well known. In an English municipal town, Oundle, which has a population of 3,000, we understand the area under control is 2,076 acres and the rateable value is £13,000. The town is the centre of an agricultural district and its only industry is a brewery. It has a good drainage and water supply. The town water is supplied to nearly all houses in the area and the average daily consumption per head is 30 gallons. The house refuse is collected from the houses twice weekly. The town is lighted with incandescent burners.
|
Wise stand on Sri Lanka AT the annual meeting of the Geneva-based 47-member United Nations Human Rights Council last week, India abstained from voting on a resolution, vigorously sponsored by the United States and the European Union, that not only denounced Sri Lanka's record on human rights since the last phase of the ethnic civil war but also called for an "independent" international inquiry into Lanka's alleged human rights abuses. This was the right thing to do for more reasons than one. No wonder it has been widely welcomed except for some shouting against it in Tamil
Nadu. Also, for this time around this country was on the same side as all other Asian countries which, with the sole exception of South Korea, either voted against the resolution or abstained from voting.
This, however, is only a part of the story. There is a second and important reason why this country has changed, indeed corrected, its stand on Sri Lanka. The blunt truth is that Indian voting on the UNHRC resolutions previously was based not on the content or merit of the resolution as on the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance government's political problems at home. It was virtually forced to vote against Sri Lanka under pressure from its coalition partner in Tamil Nadu at that time, the DMK. Other Tamil political parties were of the same view. That was not all. The chauvinistic Tamil parties even compelled Dr Manmohan Singh not to go to Colombo to attend the Commonwealth Heads of Governments Meeting.
Thankfully, that problem ended because the DMK walked out of the UPA for reasons of its own, and no other Tamil party has bothered to enter into an alliance with the Congress. South Block was, therefore, able to correct its past mistake and make a new start that should improve this country's disturbed equation with the island republic that is our closest neighbour and the relationship between the two countries dates back thousands of years. It is sad that a single state in the Indian Union should be able to compel the Indian state to forsake national
interest. Let me add that Tamil Nadu is not alone in adopting this dangerous and unacceptable approach. West Bengal's mercurial Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee also has successively sabotaged Indian relations with Bangladesh by vetoing the agreement on the Teesta waters. Sadly, it is doubtful whether this problem can be finally got out of the way easily. After all, the next government, too, will be a coalition, vulnerable to the tantrums of every partner.
To revert to Sri Lanka, the UNHRC resolution itself admits that the recommendations of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC), appointed by Colombo in 2010, are "constructive". If so, should not the UN body confine itself to giving technical assistance to Sri Lankan institutions to give effect to those LLRC findings that haven't yet been implemented and to investigate credibly alleged human rights
violations? Ambassador Sinha pointed out that some of the LLRC recommendations such as trilingual policy and promotion of official use of the Tamil language had been implemented and had done a lot of good. The other recommendations that should now be enforced speedily relate to missing persons, detainees and lands needlessly occupied by the
military. Elections in the Northern Provinces, which have given this Tamil-majority region a popular government headed by Justice Vigneswaran, were held under the 13th amendment of the Sri Lankan constitution. Time has, therefore, come for the full enforcement of the 13th amendment so that the critically important issue of devolution of powers can be addressed. Too much time has already been
lost. It is also pertinent to point out that the US and its allies that are all the time shedding crocodile tears over the human rights in Sri Lanka have done nothing to help the luckless victims who need relief, reconstruction and rehabilitation. By contrast India has made massive efforts - worth Rs, 7,800 crore or $1.3 billion - in this direction. This country has built 50,000 houses for those rendered homeless and provided material for the repair and restoration of 43, 000 damaged abodes. It has also built infrastructure for a port and for an airport in Jaffna that had been rendered unusable by the civil war lasting nearly three
decades. All this could not have been done without cooperation between the Indian and Sri Lankan governments. The US and its allies should realize, therefore, that a consensual approach with Sri Lanka would be much better and more effective than insisting on an international probe that is almost certain to be
resisted. Finally, the Indian refusal to go along with the US over human rights in Sri Lanka will add to the strains in the Indo-American relations underscored by the most deplorable, two-stage Devyani Khobragade episode. Things have evidently worsened now and have led to the resignation of the US Ambassador to this country, Nancy Powell. The new government in New Delhi, to be formed after the elections, would be burdened with too many urgent tasks. It would do well, however, to ensure two things: First that its foreign policy can't be taken hostage by one state government or the other. Secondly, the US has to be told that it has to show greater sensitivity to our relations with such immediate neighbours as Sri Lanka and Bangladesh.
|
|||
Voice sweet, actions may not be Like the uniqueness of one's face, one has a unique voice. The voice of a male is generally loud and deep whereas that of a female is soft and gentle. But at times you can come across people who have voices of the opposite gender. A woman with a male voice is tolerated but a man with a female voice appears really very funny.
A fruity voice is a pleasant voice whereas a grating voice is quite annoying. Guttural voice appears to come from the back of the throat. A high-pitched voice is a sound that is very high. People who have an orotund voice speak loud and clear. Some people can speak loudly appearing like a foghorn, whereas others speak in a low hushed voice so that others cannot hear them.
However, some persons are really soft-spoken and are known to have a sotto voce. Some people speak in a sing-song way and are described as having a musical voice, whereas others have a raucous voice that sounds loud and rough. There are yet many ways that voice can be described such as shrill, monotonous, or penetrating, but I do not wish to put my readers into a quandary as to worrying about their voice type.
During my college days I recorded in my own voice several songs which I had composed on my own, on a tape. But when I played the cassette I could not recognise the voice. Somebody was weeping in the cassette! Thus our own voice may appear very melodious to us but may sound different to people who hear us. However at present times we have fake voice software that contains several options to modify the voice. Thus one can transform one's voice into that of a young child, or that of the opposite gender or even like that of a robot to fool one's family and friends. This tool can also modify one's voice to match one's personality. Built-in-voices and sound effects make this voice-changer so convenient to use.
Nonetheless one must train one's own voice by speaking in a natural sound and just thank God that we have a voice to raise! Men do not like women raising their voice. But just see what happened to the husband when his wife had lost her voice. He rushed to the doctor and pleaded, “Doctor, my wife has lost her voice. What can I do to help her get it back?” The doctor replied, “Try coming home at 3 in the morning!”
|
|||
Sam Manekshaw: An icon of Indian Army TO Sam Manekshaw fame and power came naturally, the reward of a hugely successful career and the validation of great professional competence, impeccable personal character and indomitable courage. The admiration, affection and confidence he evoked were unparalleled in the history of our armed forces leadership. He was appointed Chief of Army Staff in May 1969 and his Special Order of the Day on assuming command was a model of brevity: "I have today taken over as Chief of the Army Staff. I expect everyone to do his duty."
The period up to March 1971 saw a rapidly increasing tempo. Commands would be grilled over their daily situation reports which he saw first thing every morning, directors and principal staff officers at Army Headquarters got to see his phenomenal memory when he would quote assurances given and not yet fulfilled, if he did not understand some subject or was dissatisfied with a draft, he would pick up the file and march at this customary 140 paces to the minute to the officer concerned who would get a shock seeing the Chief entering his office and sitting down opposite him to question and advise. The bureaucracy was cautioned that a case under the Chief's signature would bear notings by the Defence Secretary only. Concurrently, re-organisation and re-equipment of the Army was taken up. A massive construction programme was launched to overcome the huge deficiencies of accommodation. Orders were issued that allotted funds must be expended in full and in time, cautioning that the time honoured practice of saving allotted funds and then expecting a pat on the back would, instead, get a rap on the knuckles. A widely welcome change in the retirement age of personnel was that it would be by age replacing the existing ad-hoc tenure system wherein no one knew when the retirement axe would fall. Three incidents Three incidents from this hectic period deserve mention. One, while returning from Palam one evening he noticed that the exterior upkeep of Sardar Patel Officers Quarters was shoddy. The next morning the Quarter Master General and the Engineer-in-Chief were directed to visit the site and report back within two hours with a corrective plan. Two, while inspecting new construction coming up in Jaipur, he expressed annoyance over the lack of attention to detail. The accompanying garrison engineer (a Major) bore the brunt of his criticism but retained his cool and pointed out that plans emanated from Delhi and he was not empowered to make any changes. Some months after this visit, promotion board proceedings were put up to the Chief for approval. When the proceedings came out there was a remark in red ink against the same Major who had not been cleared by the board. "Clear him. He had guts to stand up to me," Sam remarked. Three, visiting a battalion of the Garhwal Rifles he asked the Commanding Officer what action was taken against a soldier who contacted a venereal disease. "We get this head shaved off," said the officer, who did not know where to look when the Chief retorted, "But Sweetie, he did not do it with this head." Busy as he was with this hectic schedule, he still found time to notice that the civilian staff of his secretariat warmed their lunch boxes on the stove. They get a hot
box. Sam enjoyed excellent rapport with the then Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi. Following the Kamraj Plan re-shuffle, she was a bit apprehensive of some senior ministers ganging up against her. Her solution: Get the Army Chief to visit her office, have a one to one meeting after which he would leave with everyone trying to guess what the two had discussed. In one such meeting she remarked that there were reports that he was planning a coup. With a smile he said, "You do your job and let me do mine.' While on the subject, another incident comes to mind. In an interview, Abu Abraham, the famous cartoonist, asked, "Can the Army stage a coup?" The answer was, "The question is grammatically incorrect. Can implies capability and of course the Army can, but it never will." Despite the rapport with the PM, Sam was constantly emphasising the need for correctness while dealing with civilians. "We serve, but we are not sycophants." This was highlighted in a dramatic manner one day. The Defence Secretary was chairing a meeting in the Ministry's conference room. It was a warm day and as the Secretary entered, he shouted at an officer sitting next to a closed window, "You there, open that window." Before the officer could react came another command, "Please sit." This was from the chief who had entered through another door. He then turned to the Secretary and said, "You will never address an officer of mine as 'you there'. A very useful lesson was learnt by all that
day. We come now to March 25, 1971, and his crowning achievement. That day the Pakistan Army cracked down in what was then East Pakistan. Later in the evening, the Prime Minister was briefed by the Chief. She heard him out in silence and then asked if we could do something to help. The Chief replied that he had not been allowed to recruit 'Badmashes' (crooks). if he had some of these, they could have been sent in. The PM gave her enigmatic smile and with a "Thank you," departed. During the next few days pressure mounted, demanding military intervention culminating in a meeting of the Cabinet where the Chief, also Chairman, Chiefs of Staff Committee by now, was invited. Every minister was for immediate military intervention and finally the PM asked the Chief for his views.
Advice to Indira Gandhi Then followed a brilliant oration counseling delay citing valid reasons. The Army was widely dispersed overseeing elections in Assam and Bengal; it would take time to concentrate. The monsoon was due shortly and the flooded terrain would make movement very difficult for the attacker. The Himalayan passes were opening and Chinese intervention was a distinct possibility. Public opinion, both domestic and foreign needed to be moulded to understand and accept our concerns because otherwise, the world viewed the uprising as an internal affair of Pakistan. Addressing the ministers concerned, he pointed out that despite the services asking for more funds for modernisation and the urgency of making up glaring deficiencies and creation of infrastructure, the allotted funds fell far short of demand. Time was required to make up deficiencies by increasing domestic production and imports. He concluded with the words that immediate intervention would invite defeat. Given time, he could guarantee success. The PM, the statesman as she was, saw the merit in this argument, closed the meeting and directed the Chief to have his way. The next few months saw an incredible increase in activity where his leadership qualities came to the fore --guiding, checking, correcting and ever impatient with delay and indecisiveness. He selected his subordinates, discussed operational plans in detail and made certain every commander knew what resources he would have and what his job
was. He visited all formations and spoke to the officers and men, exhorting them to win as ours was a just cause. This was when two famous quotes were created -- "If anyone says he is not afraid, he is either a liar or is a Gorkha," and "There will be no molesting women. If the urge strikes, put your hands in your pockets and think of me." Infrastructure in Tripura was improved to permit opening another front. A critical decision whether to employ the Mukti Bahini (Freedom Fighters) along the border or in the hinterland was discussed. It was decided to adopt the former and when the war came, this resulted in Pakistani forces being widely
dispersed. On December 3, 1971, Pakistan attacked and the war was on. The Chief’s re-action, when news came in, was, "The moment we were looking forward to has arrived. Now let us get them." After some time he went home, changed and took a drive in his private car up to Palam, got back, changed again and was off to a party. That is confidence. A typical day during the war would be: Office at 8 am to peruse a synopsis of the preceding day’s events, a chat with the Director, Military Operations and then off to brief the PM. During the day the Defence Minister would be briefed followed by a meeting of the Chiefs of Staff Committee. Here, after reviewing the past activities, plans would be fanalised for the next 24 hours. Then a call to all the Army Commanders with advice, encouragement and sometimes, a rebuke.
The strategic vision of Sam Manekshaw, the meticulous planning, full support of the PM and professionalism of the services ensured that except for a couple of inevitable hiccups, everything went according to plan. On December 16, 1971, Pakistan sought and was granted a ceasefire. Over 90,000 combatants surrendered making this, after Chandragupta Maurya's victory over Selecus in 303 BC, the next truly great Indian victory. The PM was keen that Sam proceed to Dacca to take the surrender. Gracious as ever, he declined stating that it was Lt Gen JS Aurora's victory and he should get the honour. This act will give the lie to the canard that the two did not get
along. The Simla Agreement unwittingly provided another feather in the over-laden cap of Sam Manekshaw. Though both countries agreed to vacate all territory occupied during the war, Pakistan refused to return a 14 square kilometer enclave, Thako Chak near Jammu. When all efforts failed the PM asked the Chief to proceed to Lahore and resolve the issue. The visit ended in a stalemate. After a few days the PM met the Chief and directed that he go again and, if need be, hand over Thako Chak to Pakistan. On his query why the Foreign Minister could not do this, he was told that handing over by a politician would be indefensible in Parliament. The same act by the Chief would be acceptable. This visit was a huge success as Pakistan agreed to vacate the
enclave. In April 1972 Sam was completing his age of superannuation and was keen to retire. The PM, on the other hand, was adamant that he continue. In one heated argument, she remarked that she was so angry she felt like slapping him. The reply that if she did, he would still love her, brought the temperature down. She had her way, however, and an announcement was made that Sam Manekshaw would continue to serve at the President's pleasure. Apart from the Padama Vibhushan he was awarded, the PM was keen to promote him to Field Marshal. The first effort in early 1972 was aborted by the bureaucracy by the simple expedient of citing avoidable inter-service friction. Towards the end of 1972 she had her way. He was promoted and she asked him to remain in Delhi after relinquishing office on January 15, 1973, as she wanted to appoint him as Member Defence in the Planning Commission with cabinet rank. This will answer the allegations that surfaced later that he was hankering for a job. However, before this could fructify, the politician-bureaucrat nexus spread the canard questioning his loyalty and Indianess. Hurt that the PM did not defend him in parliament, he quietly packed his bags and left for Coonor. The totally unfounded apprehension that his shining too bright and burning too hot would consign the politician to his shadow deprived the country of his continued services.
Professional competence What can we learn from the man? The first quality we see is professional competence. He did not take kindly to 'passengers', saying, "Everyone is paid and everyone has to do his job 100 per cent." Before a meeting, he would insist on detailed briefings so that he was fully prepared. I once asked him about this and was told that, as Director, Military Operations, he had seen generals of the calibre of Thimayya being outwitted by bureaucrats who were better prepared. "No one is going to make a monkey out of me," he would
say. The next quality that stood out was character. Recall how he stood up to the Prime Minister and the entire Cabinet for what he saw was correct. Isaiah Berlin, the philosopher once remarked that one should never underestimate the role of shame and humiliation in human affairs. A Court of Inquiry ordered against him in 1962 on frivolous grounds, with the more serious and devious motive of removing him from the scene to clear the path for the appointment of Lt Gen BM Kaul as Army Chief, saw 3-4 officers giving evidence against him. The inquiry eventually exonerated him. A normal man would have remembered and taken revenge when he was in a position to do so. Sam did not victimise or harass anyone. When someone who has been shamed and humiliated, refuses to inflict his pain and anguish on others, we witness moral greatness and the creation of an aura that endures. There is of course, much more -- Strategic vision, loyalty, trust and so. I cannot miss his bubbling sense of humour exemplified by the following incident. What a man! *
In contrast to the scams and delays one hears about these days in acquiring new equipment, a simple expedient was resorted to. He would walk into a meeting of secretaries and announce, "Gentlemen, I have obtained the PM's approval to import/acquire so and so in so much quantity by so and so date. I now leave you to work out the details and I will check with you next week." There were no delays and no scams; perhaps there is a lesson in this
somewhere! * The PMO sent an anonymous complaint alleging nepotism in the Army, citing the appointment of Maj Gen Das as Director, Weapons and Equipment. No reply was called for, but he responded, saying, "The Oxford Dictionary defines nepotism as undue favourtism to relatives. Das is a high caste Hindu and I am an equally high caste Parsi. So there is no religious relationship. The General is 52 years of age whereas I am 58. Though I was always a precocious child, I could not have sired him. Therefore, there is no family relationship." There was no reply from the PMO
The writer was Military Assistant to Sam Manekshaw
|
|
| 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 | |
Notably, the West-sponsored resolution this year is different from those in 2012 and 2013 that India voted for, much to Sri Lanka's annoyance and even criticism at home. In the previous two years there was no mention of an “intrusive” investigation into a sovereign country's internal affairs. This year there is a clear demand for such an intrusive probe to be arranged by the Office of the Human Rights Commissioner, Navi Pillay. India has been totally and consistently opposed to any such international action for any reason, and the Indian Ambassador to the UNHRC, Dilip Sinha, minced no words to drive this home to the assembled delegates.
Voice has various descriptions. Some people have an extremely melodious voice that you want to keep on hearing, even though their actions may not be as sweet. Thus you cannot trust the person with honeyed voice. Some others have very gruff voice. Such people with a croaky voice speak in a low rough voice that sounds as if they have a sore throat. People with nasal voice appear to speak through their noses. People having brittle voice sound as though they are about to cry.
