 |
|
Who rules Haryana? The wretched guillotine |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Security or status?
Obama’s overtures
Lasting solution to all the evils
Kargil was a success: Musharraf Inside Pakistan
|
Who rules Haryana? Haryana has drifted a step further towards lawlessness after angry villagers lynched a youth, right in the presence of the police, for marrying a girl of the same “gotra”. A warrant officer of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, who had been drafted to help the husband bring back his wife from her parents’ house in Singhwala village of Jind district, was rescued by the police but was injured. The youth was simply killed because of the failure of the district police to intervene effectively and forcefully. The police would have acted firmly had the state government continuously not been a mute spectator to the running of a parallel system of justice by the khap panchayats. Politicians belonging to the ruling party as well as the opposition parties have, over the years, watched in silence and helplessness the khap panchayats usurping the authority of the state and delivering their own brand of cruelty passed on audaciously by the khaps as justice. Lack of decisive action by the successive governments in Haryana has contributed to the rise of the Jat-run khap panchayats, which, incidentally, are also a major vote bank. That is why the Hoodas and Chautalas of the state do not come out openly against the ruthlessness of khap panchayats, which issue fatwas as to who can marry whom and who should live and who should die. The state government has willingly surrendered its authority and even diminished the status of the high court. This is mainly because the political leadership treats the khap’s writ as a social phenomenon and not as a challenge to the law and the Constitution. The failure of the authorities to help the couple and save the life of the husband is inexcusable. The spread of education and awareness about one’s rights and increasing opportunities of interaction for youngsters have led to a growing number of inter-caste marriages and, consequently, “honour” killings in Haryana, Punjab and elsewhere. The khap panchayats have refused to change with the times. They have become not only irrelevant but also dangerous to social harmony. Their disruptive role needs to be countered with a heavy hand. Exemplary punishment to those violating the law of the land should deter others from taking law into their own hands. The least the Hooda government can do is to take severe action against the policemen and officers who failed to protect the youth. The government’s resolve will be tested how soon it hauls up the killers — whatever their number — for the punishment they deserve under the law for what is nothing but a sheer murder with a vengeance.
|
The wretched guillotine It is unfortunate that MPs are increasingly becoming apathetic to the general budget which touches the lives of the people, as to other serious parliamentary business. Indeed, the cut and thrust of parliamentary debates is diminishing with each passing year. A recent study by the PRS Legislative Research, a voluntary body dedicated to parliamentary research, of the trends over the last 25 years revealed that the hours MPs spend deliberating on budget provisions are coming down year after year. The members spent the maximum time, 134 hours, on it in 1985, while the least time they gave to the budget was 7.2 hours in 2004 when the first budget of the previous Lok Sabha was passed virtually without discussion, with the BJP as the principal opposition in its wisdom chose to abdicate its responsibility and boycott the entire session. This time around the newly-constituted Lok Sabha has had to apply guillotine to pass without discussion demands for grants of all but five ministries. With the vote-on-account adopted by Parliament before the last Lok Sabha election having allowed the government to draw money from the Consolidated Fund of India only until July 31, there has been a scramble to complete the budgetary process before that date. With new Standing Committees not yet constituted in the new House, the vital element of scrutiny of expenditure of ministries by the respective committees had to be dispensed with. Sadly, there was no conscious effort by the Congress and opposition benches to make the best of the limited time available this time. While the Congress MPs were still savouring their victory, the dissensions within the BJP had a bearing even on its participation in the debates. In the Lok Sabha, former Finance Minister Yashwant Sinha declined to lead the debate on the finance bill. Another stalwart, Jaswant Singh, also stayed away. In the Rajya Sabha, it was former Disinvestment Minister Arun Shourie who declined the invitation to lead the debate from the opposition’s side. The result was that the main opposition party completed the formality without any meaningful contribution. Parliament has, in fact, passed the entire budget without scrutiny, which is its constitutional obligation.
|
|
Security or status? Thursday’s uproar in both Houses of Parliament over the Centre’s plan to downgrade security to some politicians was unjustified and unwarranted. Parliament could resume normal business only after the government’s assurance to members that the present security cover being provided to leaders like Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mayawati, Samajwadi Party leader Mulayam Singh Yadav, former Railway Minister Lalu Prasad Yadav and BJP leader Murli Manohar Joshi will not be scaled down. The government has rightly decided to continue security to these leaders who really think they face threat to life. But there are politicians who don’t face any threat, but continue to enjoy the security cover. The problem is particularly acute for the National Security Guard (NSG). After 26/11, its responsibility for swift and decisive anti-terror operations in the country has considerably increased. As four new hubs have come up, the NSG authorities want the Union Home Ministry to release the 3,000 commandos presently on VIP duty and redeploy them in their respective hubs. It is a specialised force and meant to face threats posed by terrorists. Its energy should not be diverted to provide security to VIPs. There is a need for the Centre and the states to make judicious use of the police and other forces at their disposal and rationalise security. For many political leaders, who think they are VIPs, security is a status symbol and the nation has to spend a lot of money to boost the image of themselves. The country can be spared at least of some expense on their account.
|
|
| Don’t care what others think of what you do; but care very much about what you think you do. — St. Francis Desalles
|
Obama’s overtures Recent developments in Iraq, Iran and Af-Pak provide enough evidence to measure the success of Barack Hussain Obama (he specifically used his middle name in his Cairo speech) friendship offensive on the Muslim world and to reflect on its inadequacies. His most radical departure from the policy of his predecessor George Bush was on Iraq. American attack on Iraq, in retaliation of Al Qaeda-sponsored attack on New York, in retrospect, has proved to be a monumental blunder. As Iraq was being ruled by Saddam Hussain, who claimed to be a socialist, it could not even remotely be connected with Islamic extremist Al Qaeda. Another excuse for the attack on Iraq was the assumption that it possessed weapons of mass destruction, which was later proved to be false by American intelligence agencies themselves. It was a costly gamble. An estimated 100,000 Iraq civilians were killed in Operation Iraq. From American point of view, what mattered was that a trillion dollars of taxpayers’ money was spent and 4000 American soldiers were killed. The way Guantanamo and Abu Garib interrogation centres were run undermined American standards of democracy and human rights. However, it also exposed fissures in Iraqi society, which were kept under check by Saddam Hussain, though he used authoritarian methods. Baghdad city is now completely divided between Shia and Sunni parts. Most symbols of Iraq’s glory and its precious common heritage have been destroyed. The occupying power did not attempt to make constitutional or institutional arrangement to facilitate living together of the two main religious denominations. Nor could an arrangement be made for the satisfaction of the aspirations of the ethnic minority of Kurds, who have raised a banner of revolt. In no case, Shia-Sunni differences and Kurdish revolt are covered by Obama’s appeal for friendship with Muslims. Obama also extended his hand to Iran and appealed to it to unclench its fist. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad responded positively to his appeal. But the June election not only divided Iran but also strained the Iranian government’s relations with the West, which had sympathies with the opposition candidate Mir Hossian Mousavi considered as liberal and modern. It also believed that the election was rigged in favour of the present president. The orthodox opinion in Iran and Muslims elsewhere was further alienated. The spiritual head of Iran Ali Khamani declared election to be valid and threatened American and its Western allies of united action against them for their interference in the internal affairs of Iran. It is not the question of fairness of election or supporting one party or the other. The real question is of legitimate interests of Iran, which should be respected. In this context, reported permission by Saudi Arabia, a close ally of America, to permit passage to Israel for nuclear attack on nuclear installations of Iran is ominous. Iran’s right for having nuclear energy for purely peaceful purposes and protection against threats should be considered. Iran is a predominantly Shia country and is unlikely to he influenced by Afghanistan-based Al Qaeda who are Sunni extremists. The recent killing of 14 Sunnis belonging to the Balochi ethnic minority in Iran shows degree of intolerance between the two sects of Islam. Instead of encouraging Iran’s relations with a moderate country like India, America discouraged it to build a gas pipeline with Iran. India has the largest Shia population after Iran and both had close interaction in the field of literature and philosophy ever since pre-Islamic days. Obama is concentrating his entire attention in crushing terrorism in Afghanistan, which extends to Pakistan. The principal terrorist outfit is Taliban, which consists of Pushtoon community in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The effectiveness of all the military might and money that Obama intends to use to eliminate the nucleus of terrorism in the world would be multiplied if ethnic urges of Pushtoons divided between Afghanistan and Pakistan by Durand Line are satisfied. Instead of a centralised Afghanistan, a federal and decentralised system recognising Pushtoon as well as other ethnic communities, which are roughly half and half, is more feasible. Similarly, the promise that Benazir Bhuttoo made during election campaign to give NWFP and Balochistan autonomy should be implemented and freer movement of Pushtoons across Durand Line should be considered. In the rest of Pakistan also non-religious ethnic identities need to be recognised. Otherwise, Islam, in a more and more extremist form, may be the only unifying factor in the country. Federalism can be a more effective and less divisive way to do so. If Bengali urge for autonomy had been recognised, Bangladesh may not have seceded in 1971. Sub-national identities of Pakistan share common cultural heritage with their counterparts in India and are the best guarantee of Indo-Pak friendship. Many Pakistani intellectuals have raised their voice against Arabisation of Islam in their country. For instance, the Urdu (as also Persian) phrase Khuda Hafiz (God be with you) is being replaced by Arabia phrase Allah Hafiz. Salafi or Wahabi Islam is the greatest export of Saudi Islam, backed with money power, under the patronage of America. It is trying to replace Sufisim which originated in Iran or Central Asia and incorporated local religious thoughts and cultures of South Asia. Other schools of Islamic thought, in the subcontinent like that of Deoband are more tolerant of other religions. Alama Iqbal, the greatest influence on Muslims of Pakistan, had declared that Islam in India (undivided) had an Aryan soul and Semitic body the growth of which “was stunted by Arab imperialism”. Arabs are a tiny fraction of the Muslim world. All schools of Islam must recognise indigenous traditions of Islam. Indonesia, which has the largest Muslim population in the world, is not noticed by American policymakers. With a long tradition of living together of different religious communities, Indonesia has become the target of Islamic terrorism in the recent years. India has the second largest Muslim population. Its contribution to Islamic thought is second to none. Why Obama failed to take notice of Islam in India and Indonesia? India’s Minister for Minority Affairs Salman Khurshid specifically pointed out India’s omission. Well-intentioned polices of Obama to befriend Muslim world tries to homogenise Islam and fails to recognise its diversities and ethnic dimension. It is for this reason that revolt of Uigher Muslims in Xinjiang is being dismissed as an extension of Al Qaeda whereas it is mainly due to suppression of their Turkic identity. While trying to reject Huntington’s theory of “Clash of Civilisation,” Obama’s approach still recognises religion as an exclusive basis of identity, which is far from the reality. The writer is Director, Institute of Jammu and Kashmir Affairs, Jammu
|
||
Lasting solution to all the evils I was thrilled to receive an old pal at my place last week. But the purpose of his visit raised all my hair, whatever little I am left with, at 90o. He was in fact requesting me to verify the antecedents of a boy for a matrimonial alliance. Negative thoughts started flooding my mind since I knew he had only one daughter who was married a couple of years ago and settled happily. She might have been cheated by her NRI husband or rendered a widow, I wondered. I recapitulated the great bard, T. S. Eliot that fortune turns like a wheel! “Alliance for whom”, I somehow managed to muster courage to ask him. Though he evaded a direct reply initially, he gave in when pestered further. Amid incessant sobs, he started unfolding about his son being a gay who developed intimacy with his classmate while living in a residential school. He said that he was against this alliance initially but he has now reconciled to the union, which has been validated by the Delhi High Court in a recent judgement. Being a close family friend, I could feel the Shakespearean “to be or not to be” in his eyes. The “evolution” of man from “Adam-Eve” union to the same-sex-matrimony left me baffled. Why is man trying to give a drab to the law of nature about the woman being his ardhangani? Is this the marriage that is ordained in heaven but solemnised on earth as philosophised by Manu? After initial hiccups, the father composed and started counting the gains of a gay marriage. In view of dwindling sex ratio, thousands of boys are “deprived” of their brides and remain unmarried. What is the harm if they canalise their energy this way? These “have-nots” will at least no longer “hunt” the innocent victims in the streets. Our womenfolk would be able to walk freely even at the “noon” of night. The traditional “saas-bahu” and “bhabi-nand” rivalries will vanish from society, he continued. Siblings will stop fighting on trivial property claims. There would be peace in every home. Listening to his sweet rhetoric I could feel Keats in him who had penned that lips that can’t kiss begin to sing. Is this the lasting solution to all the evils, I thundered. But he was firm in his approach. With a twinkle in his eyes, he got up from his seat and made a prophecy that this was the only way we could attain the “zero” level of population. Philosophically, he concluded that change is the law of nature and we must change with the times. While the issue of “national” importance was being debated, another friend from the police who was posted with me in the district dropped in as if the climax was awaiting him. He added a new twist by declaring that even the police would also heave a sigh of relief since no rape victim will ever venture to commit suicide outside their office. I too nodded my head and spontaneously uttered — what an idea, Sir ji!
|
||
Kargil was a success: Musharraf The former Pakistani President and military ruler, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, speaking about the Kargil operation on its 10th anniversary, has called it “a big success because it had (an) impact even on the attitudes of the Indian side”. It was because of Kargil that India agreed to “discuss Kashmir”, he added. In an interview with Karan Thapar for CNN-IBN’s programme “Devil’s Advocate”, to be broadcast on July 26 at 8:30 p.m., the General defended the controversial Kargil operation for which Pakistan was widely criticised and which, in due course, led to the overthrow of the Nawaz Sharif government. Excerpts from the interview:
Karan: So in other words, Kargil changed the Indian attitude and response to Kashmir? Musharraf: Yes, many things (did) – Kargil, mujahideen activity, India-Pakistan confrontation. All that, yes. (As a result) the Indian leadership perceived that Pakistan is now beyond coercion. And therefore there has to be some political negotiated settlement of this dispute.” Questioned about the impression created by Chapter 11 (page 91) of his memoirs, ‘In the Line of Fire’, that the Pakistani forces were involved in the Kargil operation – thus giving a lie to the earlier Pakistani claim that Kargil was conducted by alleged freedom fighters and the Pakistani army was not involved – the General stood by what he has written in his book published in 2006. All he claimed was that these were “second line forces”. Musharraf: “What I have written is final. I am not going to get into the details at all. Karan: You are not revoking or going back on what you have written? Musharraf: No. Not at all. Karan: So if the impression from Chapter 11 of your memoirs is that the Rawalpindi Corps and FCNA played a critical role in the planning and execution of the Kargil operation, you stand by that? Musharraf: You must understand the arrangement. The Rawalpindi Corps has divisions under it and one of them is FCNA (Force Command Northern Areas). FCNA has under it the NLI (Northern Light Infantry), a second line force. Anywhere other than Siachen, it was the NLI which was deployed, which are the second line forces.” Musharraf claimed that Kargil ended with the Pakistani forces in a “very favourable” position: “It was certainly very favourable. It was not supposedly favourable. Because if you are talking about India-Pakistan, Indians had moved all their forces against Kargil and there was (as a result) weakness elsewhere. So we knew what the Indian forces are capable (of) and what we are capable (of) … the situation was very favourable in Kargil, in Kashmir and on the entire border. We were capable of responding to any Indian action.” In his memoirs, ‘In the Line of Fire’, General Musharraf reveals that on two occasions former prime minister Nawaz Sharif asked for his advice whether to declare a ceasefire and on both occasions the General refused telling him that the decision was his. Asked why he left the decision to Nawaz Sharif and didn’t argue against a ceasefire, even though he (Musharraf) believed that the military situation was favourable, General Musharraf said: “One, there was a ground military position, the other is that there was a lot happening internationally. Internationally there was the United States element putting a lot of pressure on the government to stop or whatever. So there was international pressure. And then there was the (domestic) political pressure. Whether the political situation was good enough to sustain that pressure. I therefore decided to only talk of the military (situation). Karan: So you are saying militarily there was no need for a ceasefire but politically, given the international pressure, given perhaps the weakness of the government itself, the situation may have been different and there may have been a good case for a ceasefire? Musharraf: Those are the decisions of the prime minister. What kind of pressure he can sustain and what is the political picture. He knows it better. I only talk of the military side and I told him there’s no problem on the military side. Karan: In other words, what you are saying is the prime minister couldn’t sustain the political pressure? Musharraf: Well you can take it as you think. Yes.” Musharraf also spoke about the circumstances behind his resignation in August 2008. He was first questioned about the decision to sack the Chief Justice (March 2007) which led to a cascading series of events culminating in his resignation. Whilst insisting that the decision to sack the Chief Justice was legal and constitutional and that he stood by it, he readily accepted that the handling of that decision was bad. Asked if he would today accept that it was a mistake to sack the Chief Justice, the General replied: “No. What happened after that was bad. It led to a lot of turmoil in Pakistan. Certainly. But if you say it was a mistake – no. I took action which was absolutely constitutional and legal. Karan: So you stand by the decision to dismiss the Chief Justice? Musharraf: Absolutely. Karan: Even if the decision itself was correct, could it have been handled differently? Musharraf: Yes. The handling, I would say, was shabby. Certainly. Handling of the Chief Justice was shabby. Karan: Do you blame yourself? Musharraf: No. I don’t blame myself because I don’t get into the nitty gritty of which Deputy Superintendent of Police was rude to him, some cars were taken (away) or something of that sort. Now I am not passing such orders at all. Musharraf was also questioned about widespread reports that he had a secret agreement or understanding with the late Benazir Bhutto which facilitated her return to Pakistan in October, 2007. Musharraf: “There was an understanding. I did talk to her, yes. I had been talking to her twice. She was not supposed to come back before the elections. Karan: So there was talk (between you), there was an understanding but she broke that understanding to come back in October, 2007? Musharraf: Yes, absolutely. Karan: Would you say (that) if she hadn’t broken that understanding but had fulfilled whatever terms of agreement you had with her she would have lived? Musharraf: I think so. I think so. Absolutely. She would have lived. Karan: If Benazir Bhutto had lived to become prime minister again would Gen. Pervez Musharraf still be president of Pakistan? Musharraf: I think I would have been. Yes … if she did get elected and she did become prime minister I would have continued as the president. Because I was elected by the (then) Parliament. So that would have continued.” Asked if his resignation in August, 2008, was a voluntary decision or if he had been pushed aside, the General replied: “A combination. The environment had become such that remaining a rubber-stamp President with nothing to do literally was absolutely counter-productive and the political situation was evolving in a manner that my continuation was amiss, was purposeless”. Karan: So circumstances developed in such a way that you were gently eased out? Musharraf: Yes but I took my own decision, yes, to leave. Questioned if there was any deal or understanding between the civilian government and the Pakistani army to grant him indemnity against future prosecution for his actions in office, the General insisted that he didn’t know of such an understanding. Musharraf: “I didn’t get involved in any such understanding at all. Karan: When you say you didn’t get involved, does that also mean there wasn’t such an understanding or just that you were not involved? Musharraf: Not to my knowledge. Not to my knowledge at all. Karan: You mean there could be indemnity but you’re not aware of it? Musharraf: I absolutely am not aware of it and I don’t know it.” However, the General made it clear that he was prepared to fight any legal cases brought against him. As he put it: “One has to face realities on (the) ground and I will face them. I am not a man who runs away from realities. Let them bring law suits and (try to) prove anything against me.” Karan: “In this situation, where the political parties aren’t together and their rivalry is destabilising the country, what are the chances of another military takeover? Musharraf: I wouldn’t like to comment on that. Karan: Are you ruling it out? Musharraf: No comments. No comments. Karan: That’s a very interesting answer: No comments. I specifically asked if you are ruling it out and you don’t want to say you are ruling it out! Musharraf: (The) army has to ensure the integrity, territorial integrity and security, of Pakistan. So it’s entirely the army’s decision and the Chief’s decision. But (so far) they go along with the government. I don’t want to comment. These are sensitive issues.
|
Inside Pakistan Gen Pervez Musharraf, who had reportedly been trying to take a plunge into politics full time through the PML (Q), the party he once patronised, is faced with a tricky situation today. He has been asked by the Pakistan Supreme Court to defend his controversial actions like the imposition of the November 3, 2007, emergency following a petition filed in the court to challenge the non-confirmation of the services of two judges appointed in 2007. Most Pakistani newspapers have reported that the former military ruler is consulting legal experts in this regard. Whatever is the verdict of the court, which will hold next hearing on July 29, there is a strong anti-Musharraf sentiment throughout Pakistan. People want him to be given exemplary punishment for his trampling of the constitution for eight years. Even the Army seems to be in favour of allowing the law to take its own course. The Army, as is the general belief, does not want to do anything that goes against the prevailing mood of the people. Former officers of the armed forces are furious. According to Nawa-e-Waqt, the Ex-Servicemen’s Society wants General Musharraf to be brought back to Pakistan from London, where he is staying currently in a flat he has purchased, and tried for his “unjustifiable” actions. Nemesis, it seems, is fast catching up with General Musharraf. Tikka Iqbal case The Nation highlighted the convergence of views between the judiciary and the executive on the question of making General Musharraf pay for his arbitrary rule. After Pakistan Attorney-General Sardar Latif Khosa deposed before the Supreme Court on Tuesday, Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, according to The Nation, remarked that “he saluted Parliament for not validating the constitutional amendments made by Gen Pervez Musharraf under the PCO (Provisional Constitutional Order). There were hints that the court could revisit the Tikka Iqbal case that validated the emergency.” Giving his verdict in the case, then Chief Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar, appointed by General Musharraf, had justified all that the former General did to remain in power. There are enough indications that the former General is going to be nailed down by the Justice Chaudhry-led 14-member Bench of the apex court. It will be interesting to watch what President Zardari does under the circumstances. His future, too, may be threatened if all major decisions General Musharraf took are nullified. Power pangs Pakistan witnessed, perhaps, the worst kind of protests against an acute power shortage in the country on Tuesday. Demonstrators indulged in setting on fire everything that came their way. In Karachi, angry people burnt the electricity suppliers’ office furniture and disrupted rail and road traffic. In Lahore, there was an exchange of brickbats between two groups of traders over power shutdown, which continued for days together at many places. Business Recorder says, “The fact is that our government has miserably failed on all three important fronts: it has not been able to carry along the IPPs (independent power producers) to produce to the optimum level of their installed capacities; failed to arrest the line losses; and did not plan in time to instal additional capacity. “In fact, even now the kind of effort and commitment that should go into overcoming the curse of power outages is more an exercise in public relations than a concrete result-oriented programme. Isn’t it a cruel joke that more than a decade on, we still hear buying power from Tajikistan?” |
| 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 | |
Musharraf: “Yes, indeed, it was a big success because it had (an) impact even on the attitudes of the Indian side. How did we start discussing the Kashmir dispute? How was it that the Indians agreed that we will discuss Kashmir and there must be a negotiated settlement? Before this there was no such thing at all. Kashmir couldn’t be spoken. Kashmir must not be mentioned even in the United Nation’s speeches by our leaders. This was the Indian side. (So) how did the Indians come to the negotiating table on Kashmir?