|
|
|
|
|
Justice delayed again On track |
|
|
Govt spending in election years
‘As sure as death’
Nehru & Abdullah: An intricate bond
|
Justice delayed again It
took the justice system 25 years to convict three former policemen. The family that has lost a son is unhappy with the punishment of just five years' jail and plans to challenge it. Like Kuljit Singh Dhatt, many youths had disappeared in Punjab during the days of militancy. Policemen who eliminated youths in fake encounters have escaped punishment or got away lightly. Among those fighting for justice is Shaheed Bhagat Singh's sister as Kuljit was her son-in-law's brother. Even her age (she is 96) and social status on account of being the martyr's sister have not helped her. She moved from court to court for a faster trial. The victim's family has learnt the hard way that regardless of the party in power, government machinery usually comes to the rescue of accused policemen. How can one expect policemen to prosecute their own even if accused of committing heinous crimes? People have paid a heavy price for bad governance and the near absence of the rule of law in Punjab for long years. On the one hand, the Punjab government has set up a fund to help policemen charged with staging encounters and eliminating those they believed were militants or criminals, on the other it is supposed to ensure that those who suffer at the hands of the law-enforcement agencies are delivered protection and justice. The Punjab government has not only kept in service convicted police officers but also promoted and decorated some of them. S.S. Saini was made the DGP despite facing a murder case. Displeased with the Punjab government reinstating police officers convicted by courts of law, the then acting Chief Justice M.M. Kumar of the Punjab and Haryana High Court had told the state in one case: “Are you going to continue with these police officers? The cases which we are looking into are of rape, murder, abduction…. Take some action otherwise we will come down heavily on the state”. Frequent court indictments and alarming figures of human rights violations have not resulted in any clean-up of the system.
|
|
On track The
tragedy of the missing Malaysian Airlines flight MH-370 highlighted a gaping hole in tracking civilian aircraft. There has been no news about the passengers and crew aboard the flight, which disappeared on March 8. It is still not sure where the aircraft went, in spite of extensive international efforts to find it. The missing flight, and a wide swath that was cited as a search area, provided a grim reminder of how little the world knew about flight MH-370's whereabouts. Almost three months after the event, and an extensive search mission, we all know that not only are there big gaps in surveillance systems like radars, but also the online systems of reporting the aircraft's position did not work in this case. The inability to locate the aircraft came as a shock to people, especially air-travellers, and it is only logical that international aviation bodies tighten up the regulations and device better systems to report the position of an aircraft. Even as the issue is taken up internationally, the Directorate General of Civil Aviation has taken a positive step in demanding real-time tracking of aircraft by operators. For this they can use the on-board aircraft communications addressing and reporting system or the automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast system, failing which they would have to resort to manual reporting every 15 minutes. The DGCA's order will ensure more accurate reporting within the present framework. At the same time, it is widely expected that the bodies like the International Air Transport Association will soon make recommendations for better real-time tracking. In spite of this massive tragedy, air travel continues to be safe in no small measure because every air accident has been used to make the required improvements. It is very unusual for large commercial aircraft to go missing without their position being known, but now that it has happened at least twice in the past five years, it is imperative that systems be put in place to prevent any recurrence of such events.
|
||
|
Thought for the Day
If at first you don't succeed, blame your parents.
— Marcelene Cox
|
||
Plague in the Punjab
IN reviewing the Appropriation Report for 1912-13, the Punjab Government explains that the lump sum provision of Rs. 10.32 lakhs for sanitation was not disbursed in full and there was a saving of one lakh in grants for medical purposes "owing to a lull in the bubonic plague." This year we have bubonic plague and septic plague with a vengeance, and mortality is now greater in the Punjab than in the United Provinces with their teeming millions. During the week ending 2nd May the Punjab reported 5,749 seizures and 4,789 deaths as compared with 4,150 seizures and 3,662 deaths in the United Provinces. If there is a lull in the plague in any one year it does not follow that money set apart for it should be annexed to the treasury. There is no reason why the allotment should not be spent in the next year on preventive measures. The South African Indians
COMMENTING on the report of the South African Indian Commissioners, the Englishman, with its characteristic prejudice against Indians, says that the Indians had no case of cruelty and their decision not to give evidence before the Commission was due to there being no evidence. On the other hand, even on the one-sided statements of the police and others who shot down Indians labourers, it is plain that the Indian were shot at without their provoking and in some cases the Commissioners hesitated to justify the shooting. Though the Commissioners have on the whole justified the action of the authorities, it is plain that the Indian were most cruelly and unjustly dealt with and the recommendations made to remove most of their grievances prove this.
|
Govt spending in election years The
Indian economy is presenting signs of slowdown just prior to the formation of the 16th Lok Sabha. It is debatable here if there is some correlation between a general election and the pace of the economy. A study of key economic variables over the past 20 years indicates that economic activity lost stride considerably every time there was a general election. Government spending went up in an average election year, which tended to fuel inflation and just provide a temporary boost to the economy, suggesting that the extra public expenditure ahead of the polls was largely wasteful. The slowdown in investment and economic activity, however, is more pronounced this election season because the government failed to take policy decisions in the past couple of years while battling a tranche of corruption charges. First, the consumption of steel, for instance, slowed every time India had an election in the past two decades. The average growth in steel consumption in an election year is 5.94 percentage points lower compared with a non-election year in this period. This year, the fall has deteriorated because of the overall economic slowdown, with steel consumption falling 6.6 per cent
in 2013-14. Secondly, new project additions dry up in an election year. Investors and businessmen postpone key decisions till a new government is formed, and wait to gauge what the future policy environment will be before launching major projects.
Thirdly, the pace of industrial credit growth decelerates. Industrial credit growth slows down as there are fewer industrialists lining up for bank loans ahead of elections. The average rate of industrial credit growth in election years was 1.92 percentage points lower in the past two decades compared with non-election years. Policy indecision may not be the only reason for the drop in consumption of raw materials such as steel and cement. Cement consumption declines ahead of elections as builders divert funds to illicitly fund political campaigns. Government spending rises in election years although that affects inflation more than real economic activity. There's a clear spike in both total and revenue spending in election years. Fourthly, the average increase in nominal government spending during election years is 17.04 per cent compared with 12.71 per cent for non-election years. The effect of government spending also clearly expressed in the fiscal deficit numbers. The average fiscal deficit for the election year is 5.95 per cent compared with 5.03 per cent for the non-election years. To be sure, the fiscal deficit and government spending numbers don't seem to follow the pattern in 2013-14. However, this year the government's hands were tied by threats of a downgrade by rating agencies. Fifthly, in many cases, government intervention in an election year is designed to cater to special interest groups rather than to provide a boost to the overall economy. This study finds that politicians manipulate fiscal policies before elections to provide targeted favours to specific interest groups, possibly in exchange for campaign support. The amount of farm loans given by state-owned banks was 7-12 percentage points higher in election years than in years following an election. In election years, more loans are made to districts in which the ruling state party had a narrow margin of victory in the previous election. This targeting does not occur in non-election years. These politically motivated loans are costly as they are less likely to be repaid, and election year credit booms do not measurably affect agricultural production. Sixthly, given that government spending is usually opportunistic ahead of elections, the spike in spending fails to lift the economy and instead fuels the fires of inflation. Inflation measured by the gross domestic product deflator spikes up around national elections. The average inflation during election years has been 8.97 per cent since 1990, compared with 7.37 per cent for non-election years. This time government spending on elections, including the Election Commission's spending of $163m (Rs 1,000 crore), is expected to be in the order of about another $800m-1.2bn (Rs 5,000-7,000 crore). Albeit temporarily, some of the businesses such as media, transport, liquor and hospitality will get a boost. The coconut sellers, the public address system operators, caterers and drivers alike also bank on elections to make quick money. This boost will be a temporary thing, like a shot of adrenalin. But it (the economy) will go back if there is no stable government after the results. What the economy needs is a political direction. I doubt if we will get a decisive result. The writer is a Professor in the Department of Economics, Kurukshetra University
|
||||
‘As sure as death’ We prepared hard, yet pinned our hopes on the thin compendium of probable questions tightly wrapped in polythene papers or stapled hard to prevent free access to their contents. Their cost did not trouble the fond parents to pay for these almanacs. These were there in all stationery shops, with newspaper vendors, at bus stand shops and in book stalls on railway platforms, but never allowed on the school premises. And what hopes did they arise! What visions of passing the exam and winning approbation of the public and parents. The grading given by the 'Pandits' who selected the questions brought success within grasp of the examinees. This lifted their spirits. Assiduously these students prepared and used mugging, the most effective weapon in their armour with utmost effort. Nothing was left to chance, especially as far as the category of questions 'As sure as death' was concerned. Some sympathetic teachers who got a hint of guess papers were more than willing to prepare model answers for their pupils. This they did even though they openly denounced the guess papers. This was, perhaps, due to their own desire to enhance their reputation as good teachers. Guess papers were so blindly trusted that none could notice that they encompassed almost all that was in the syllabus and, thus, the gullible little souls worked hard on all probable questions. Preparations, therefore, were nothing short of a renewed attempt at revising all that one had been taught. But the pull of the guess papers was so irresistible that even the boys who had a disdain for guess papers looked stealthily at them to enhance their scope of achieving excellence. But if destiny smiled on those who put all their trust in guess papers only, they, in their score, could outsmart even those bright scholars. Such was the magic of the guess papers. Then came the examination --- that horror of all horrors was first established in ancient China in 605 AD by the Sui dynasty. It was then introduced for the limited purpose of selecting the best ones for the civil services. But in subsequent centuries this fiend enlarged its territory like a colonialist and spread over the entire globe. There were no guess papers then, I guess. Coming back to the matriculation examination one walked into the examination hall with lot of anxiety. After the question papers were distributed, a mix of fillings of fear and expectation of the guessed questions seized the examinees and caused untold nervousness. Some candidates prayed with their eyes closed while some others looked up to invoke their family deities to reveal the truth of guess papers. Those who found what was promised, it was a dream come true. Without wasting a minute they poured all their knowledge down on their answer sheets, for others less fortunate it was ordeal to tackle the questions. But a tragedy befell the rest who could not find anything predicted in their guess papers. Crying in sobs out of their helplessness and fear of failure seized the young aspirants. Total dependence on these forecasts proved to them as ruinous as death but guessing is human nature and believing in guess work is their second nature.
|
||||
Nehru & Abdullah: An intricate bond Jawaharlal
Nehru was, perhaps, the only trusted and dependable friend that Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah had among the centres of power in New Delhi. On his part, Nehru, too, had much warmth and regard for the Sheikh. But Nehru died a sad man — feeling let down, perhaps even betrayed. Cutting across political boundaries, it was widely accepted that the Sheikh had political ambitions that were in sharp conflict with the Union (of India).
Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah, the ‘Sher-e-Kashmir’ as he was commonly addressed, often said that “even though he was born into a faith that was in common with Mohammad Ali Jinnah, but he had dreams that were common with Jawaharlal Nehru” (Flames of the Chinar, p. 71). Nehru and Abdullah had met for the first time in 1937. But it was in 1938 when Abdullah joined Nehru and the Frontier Gandhi, Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan on a visit to the Frontier province that they came close to each other. What appears to have left a lasting impression on Nehru in these early days was Abdullah’s opposition to feudalistic politics and princely rule and even more so his socialistic approach to economic issues. Abdullah, an M.Sc. in chemistry and almost 16 years younger to Nehru, obviously looked up to him. Abdullah could not have escaped Nehru’s intellectual charm. Nehru was also happy by the manner in which Abdullah convinced his party to replace its name from Muslim League to the National Conference ( June 11, 1939). Nehru took this, as a sign, of the Kashmiri populace joining the national main stream. When Abdullah invited Nehru to address the National Conference (August 4, 1945) Nehru used the term Sher-e-Kashmir to address Abdullah.
Abdullah, who had earlier been arrested in 1938 for organising an agitation against Maharaja Hari Singh, was arrested again on May 20, 1946, on the orders of the Maharaja as he was on his way to meet Nehru. An angry Nehru decided to appear in defence of Abdullah and accordingly proceeded to Kashmir. On the orders of Hari Singh, Nehru was, however, stopped at the border (July 1946). For five hours, Nehru sat on dharna at the border and was allowed to enter Kashmir only after Viceroy Wavell had personally intervened in the matter. Abdullah was released from detention in September 1947. Some days later, Nehru invited him to New Delhi and even broke protocol to personally receive him at the airport. Abdullah was naturally for Maharaja Hari Singh enemy number one. Yet Hari Singh had no choice but to recommend Abdullah’s name to head the Emergency government, when he announced the state’s merger with the Union of India. Abdullah, who enjoyed widespread goodwill among the people also now, had Nehru’s support. But as things turned out, Abdullah, who took charge on October 30, 1947, soon learnt that but for Nehru and to some extent Gandhi, he did not have much support in New Delhi. On countless occasions in the years that followed, Nehru came to stand out in Abdullah’s support, often in isolation. On November 13, 1947, for example, Nehru wrote to Hari Singh, advising him of how in his (Nehru’s) views: “Abdullah was the only person who could deliver the goods in Kashmir”. In this letter he even advised the Maharaja to repose full confidence in Abdullah and: “to deal with him directly rather than through intermediaries”. Nehru’s handling of Abdullah was in sharp contrast to Sardar Patel’s perception of things. Patel’s basic problem with Abdullah was that he believed that Abdullah repeatedly shifted his stand on key issues relating to the accession of Jammu and Kashmir with the Union. Nehru was an idealist, Patel a pragmatist. To Patel, Kashmir was just another princely state that had merged with the Union — why the special provisions. He refused to acknowledge the extra political weight that Abdullah claimed to possess. Not surprisingly, Abdullah in the evening of his life while penning his autobiography noted: “The Sardar disliked my friendship with Nehru and counted me among his opponents” (Flames of the Chinar, p. 56). Nehru, however, believed that Abdullah was in a position to ensure mass support for India’s cause. His handling of Abdullah as such was both political and personal. For example, when he learnt that Srinagar was likely to be in danger from the Pakistan-sponsored tribal invasion, he specially deputed Pandit Kachru to assist Brig. Hira Lal Atal in arranging for the safe evacuation of Abdullah’s family (Atal, Nehru’s Emissary. 1947). On Abdullah’s part, he frequently supported Nehru’s policy on Kashmir. In the context of plebiscite, for example, Abdullah, often said that: “Nehru was in favour of a plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir because of his (Nehru’s) immense faith in the Kashmiri people”. Several contemporaries have also explained that Nehru was keen on a plebiscite because he did not want a Muslim majority province to accede to India without support of its people. It was this conviction that fitted Abdullah into his (Nehru’s) scheme of things — support of the people. Much has been written on the subcontinent and in the West discussing the circumstances in which Abdullah began to harden his stand, tone and tenor on key issues, such as the status of post-accession Jammu and Kashmir and, of course, the working and implementation of the contentious Article 370. The Praja Parishad movement (winter 1952) that targeted Abdullah is commonly cited as the turning point. Nehru strongly disapproved of the Parishad movement particularly for the divisive impact it was said to have had in the Valley. The Praja Parishad’s version, of course, charged Abdullah for steps that were against the interests of the minorities in the state. As Abdullah’s actions and statements appeared to put in doubt his unambiguous support to Jammu and Kashmir’s accession to the Union, Abdullah was deposed and arrested on August 9, 1953. Most political parties in India welcomed the arrest, but Nehru “was furious” (Brig. Atal, Nehru’s Emissary) Y.D. Gundevia, another ‘insider’ of the period has dismissed M.O. Mathai’s version that Abdullah was arrested with Nehru’s specific consent. M. J. Akbar, who has written extensively and with authority on the issues, has suggested that the detractors of Nehru by facilitating the arrest of Abdullah had indirectly hit at Nehru. Nehru who was otherwise a frequent visitor to the Valley did not do so even once for as long as the Sheikh was in detention. He flew into Srinagar only in December, 1957. Abdullah was released on January 8, 1958, only, of course, to be rearrested about a year later (April 30, 1958). Even as Nehru’s health had begun to fail, the Sheikh’s detention continued to weigh on him. As a file that was linked with the proposed release of Abdullah was delayed, Nehru had angrily told Home Minister Gulzari Lal Nanda, “Let the file go to hell…. I want him released”. As influential political lobbies in New Delhi continued to oppose Abdullah’s release (Hindustan Times, April 30, 1964), Nehru was increasingly put under pressure. Such was reported to be the stress that he lost his cool even with Lal Bahadur Shastri, a man who was held in very high esteem by Nehru. Referring to the charges against Abdullah, Nehru angrily told Shastri: “If a damn thing can’t be proved in four years, obviously there is nothing to be proved” (Gundevia, Sheikh Abdullah, p. 121). Abdullah was released from detention on April 8, 1964. More than 5,00,000 people lined up to receive him in Srinagar (The Tribune). It was with this background that Nehru invited Abdullah to New Delhi as a personal guest soon after his release. Abdullah spent a week at Teen Murti with the Prime Minister’s family. During these days, he travelled to Waradha to meet Vinoba Bhave and to Madras to meet C. Rajagopalachari. He also met Jayaprakash Narayan. These were all people whose advice Nehru had greatly valued. Nehru spoke in the Lok Sabha on Jammu and Kashmir for the last time on May 8, 1964. As he praised Abdullah for his commitment to secularism and opposition to the two-nation theory, his address resulted in an insightful and historic intervention by the then young and brilliant parliamentarian Atal Bihari Vajpayee. Vajpayee had cautioned the Prime Minister on his handling of the Sheikh. Incidentally, it may be of interest to know that Nehru greatly admired Vajpayee’s skill of parliamentary oration. On an earlier occasion, he had after listening to Vajpayee in the Lok Sabha commented that in the young Vajpayee, he (Nehru) saw the glimpse of a future Prime Minister. In sum, S. Gopal, the acclaimed historian and biographer of Nehru, has explained Nehru’s handling of the Sheikh by suggesting that Nehru was sad and remorseful to see Abdullah repeatedly alter his stand on key issues particularly Article 370. Gopal has cited a letter by Nehru to Girija Shankar Bajpai. Referring to Abdullah’s shifting stands on critical issues, Nehru had written: “I cannot explain his (Abdullah’s) new attitude except on the uncharitable assumption that he has lost grip of his mind”. Abdullah was in Pakistan (with Nehru’s knowledge) when he learnt of Nehru’s death (May 27, 1964). A witness has recalled that, on learning of the Prime Minister’s death, Abdullah’s eyes went moist, he sat dumb-founded. He immediately returned to New Delhi for Nehru’s funeral. He was accompanied by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. In Nehru’s death, Abdullah had lost his only friend in New Delhi. Lal Bahadur Shastri, who succeeded Nehru as Prime Minister, was cast in a different mould. In less than a year of Nehru’s death, Abdullah was again arrested. This time he would be detained for almost three years to be followed by yet another arrest some years later.
What they said
The writer is a senior professor of modern history, Kurukshetra University
|
|
| 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 | |
The
What
