Tasks before the nation
NOW that the elections are over and a new government is in place, it is time to wage other battles, some of which have not even been joined in right earnest.

Sir Syed's dream
THIS year's Sir Syed Day celebrations on October 17, 1999, at Aligarh Muslim University were no different from the festivities associated with the birth anniversary of the founder of the institution.

IMPERATIVES OF PAK SOCIETY
44 families call the shots
by Sultan Shahin
PAKISTAN is once again in the clutches of military rulers. Gen Pervez Musharraf has appointed himself as the Chief Executive of his country. Perhaps he wants to run the country’s terribly messy affairs with the help of technocrats, bureaucrats and military leaders on the lines of a multinational. Looking at the nature and dimensions of the problems Islamabad faces, running the country is not going to be an easy exercise, for the core problem—the Pakistani establishment —remains.

Senate rejection of CTBT
by A. Balu
JUDGING from the opinion columns in the American media in the wake of the rejection by the US Senate of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) on Wednesday last, it is reasonable to conclude that the USA has lost its clout in trying to lead the world in nuclear nonproliferation and global arms control.

Oasis of democracy; keep it that way
by Anupam Gupta
“IT takes years,” said the Supreme Court in 1982, referring to the Election Commission, “to build up public confidence in the functioning of constitutional institutions, and a single court hearing...to sully their image by casting aspersions upon them.”

Govt’s first test — threat to Pope visit
by Humra Quraishi
THE ongoing political adjustments could take a back seat and the real crisis for this government would emerge if factions of the Sangh Parivar sticks to their threat of causing disruption during Pope John Paul II’s visit to the Capital.

The Russian connection
by K. Rajbir Deswal
MIKHAIL Gorbachev’s photograph appeared in the newspapers after a very long gap following his wife’s death recently. With his daughter standing by his side, Gorbachev was seen wiping tears from his eyes. The dark, ink-spread-looking spot on his forehead was very familiar, and this set rolling certain flashes in my mind of the days gone by — the Russian connection we Indians once proudly boasted of.

75 Years Ago

October 18, 1924
The Kohat tragedy
IT is about a fortnight now since Mr Bray, the Home Secretary to the Government of India, returned from his visit to Kohat but no official report has been issued on the subject.

Tasks before the nation

NOW that the elections are over and a new government is in place, it is time to wage other battles, some of which have not even been joined in right earnest. Prime Minister Vajpayee drew the people’s attention to these unfinished tasks and pledged his government’s determined efforts to make India a better place to live. The problem areas have been neatly identified — lack of basic amenities in vast stretches of the land, persisting terrorism, creeping intolerance and disregard for secularism, competitive political antagonism and, finally, a moribund administrative structure which breeds corruption and inefficiency. He has set the right tone — seeking cooperation and constructive criticism of the opposition parties. He has also invited the private sector to do its mite in mitigating the miseries of the masses. This tone should reflect itself in putting in place a meaningful mechanism to consult and coordinate with all key players both within Parliament and at the political level. This is the crucial first step to launching an attack on age-old social injustice and latter-day distortions. Finally, the people, all people, should be sensitised to the urgency of ending social and economic oppression and must be involved as energetic fighters and not remain apathetic or grumbling onlookers.

All this will need more than one thanks-giving address to the nation, and listing the priorities, promising early initiatives and using US-style rhetorical flourishes. This is harking back to the just ended election campaign mode. The Prime Minister should borrow the other American tradition of fireside chat, converse directly with the rural masses in a confessional style. During the past five decades or more, the nation has made progress but a majority of people have stagnated with more than 70 per cent of the population being poor or very poor, illiterate or barely literate, roofless or slum-dwellers, sick or malnourished. The severe social ills the Prime Minister counted are a direct offshoot of this ugly reality. Mr Vajpayee rightly stressed on a new mindset for the new century. Hopefully, it should touch the rulers and other political leaders as well. To start with, their old and so far unproductive attitude of “we do, the people benefit” should be cast aside. This way the government does not do and people do not benefit. The idea is to turn it around: the people do and the people benefit. This is not such an unrealistic dream as it would appear at first sight. Some non-government organisations (NGOs) practise this method and quite successfully. Anyway, those who went among the people garnering votes know that the people are angry and sullen. What this means is that they are aware and impatient. This mood can be used to motivate them and make them full partners in their progress. This is the certain road to a kinder and gentler India which banishes intolerance and its more gory manifestation, terrorism. The new government has its tasks cut out.

Sir Syed's dream

THIS year's Sir Syed Day celebrations on October 17, 1999, at Aligarh Muslim University were no different from the festivities associated with the birth anniversary of the founder of the institution. It was the last such celebration of the millennium. It was an ideal occasion for those charged with the responsibility of carrying forward the mission of Sir Syed Ahmed Khan to unfold for the benefit of the Indian Muslims the educational agenda for the 21st century. The Indian Muslims are, perhaps, more confused today than ever before since Independence. Their confusion is reflected in the demands they have raised through various forums. In May a group of self-styled Muslim leaders "adopted" a "declaration of empowerment of the Muslims Indians". Among other things the document demanded their equitable representation in the country's legislatures. There are no prizes for those who identify Syed Shahabuddin as the central figure of the misguided initiative on behalf of the Indian Muslims. The kind of unpleasant noises a number of Muslim organisations generated in the run-up to the just concluded elections too deserve attention. In the long run, their utterances would cause as much damage to the secular fabric of the country as strident advocacy of Hindutva had caused at the height of the Ayodhya movement. The country today needs more than ever before a Sir Syed and not a potential Jinnah for articulating and finding solutions to the genuine concerns of the country's nearly 15 crore Muslims. The Sir Syed of today need not be a Muslim.

In fact, it would be the best tribute to the country's composite culture as also to the memory of Sir Syed if the task of reviving the spirit of the Aligarh Movement— which resulted in the birth of Mohammadan Anglo-Oriental College, later growing into Aligarh Muslim University—is performed by a group of people whose commitment to fighting obscurantism and bigotry is absolute. After all, Sir Syed's primary objective in establishing the educational centre was to help members of the Muslim community get out of the "madarsa" mindset. He had to pay a heavy price for his advocacy of Western education and the importance of interacting with members of other communities as equals. He endured the stigma of being declared a non-Muslim for his views on education but did not abandon the mission of making members of the Muslim community defy the Mullah-imposed restriction on seeking knowledge from other sources. Unfortunately, the university which he helped found has, instead of carrying his mission forward, fallen on bad days. Today, AMU exemplifies anything except the pursuit of knowledge. It is not the centre of academic excellence it was over two decades ago. Syed Hamid was the last of a galaxy of illustrious vice-chancellors, including Dr Zakir Hussain, Col Bashir Husain Zaidi, Ali Yavar Jung and Badruddin Tyabji, who had somewhat succeeded in restoring to AMU its position as a globally respected centre of learning. Today the institution is in a state of free-fall. The implementation of the agenda for the educational and resultant economic empowerment of Indian Muslims would become somewhat difficult without a serious thought being given to rejuvenating the university which provided quality education at a nominal cost to a large number of Muslim children whose families live in abject poverty.

IMPERATIVES OF PAK SOCIETY
44 families call the shots
by Sultan Shahin

PAKISTAN is once again in the clutches of military rulers. Gen Pervez Musharraf has appointed himself as the Chief Executive of his country. Perhaps he wants to run the country’s terribly messy affairs with the help of technocrats, bureaucrats and military leaders on the lines of a multinational. Looking at the nature and dimensions of the problems Islamabad faces, running the country is not going to be an easy exercise, for the core problem—the Pakistani establishment —remains.

Whether we like it or not, we will have to continue to deal with it in the foreseeable future. We must, therefore, seriously study the imperatives of Pakistani society, its politics, its economics and the role of the military-bureaucratic-feudal-industrial oligarchy that has been ruling it.

For the uninitiated, one of the mysteries of Kargil is how a ‘failing’ State running a ‘failed’ economy could afford such a hugely expensive misadventure. Pakistan’s dying economy is on artificial respiration, being provided by the IMF for the 17th time. Most of its budgetary allocations are sucked up by debt servicing and defence.

Occupying new areas in Kashmir or going to war with India was the last thing on the minds of the Pakistani people. In fact, common people in Karachi, Peshawar, Rawalpindi, Islamabad and Lahore were eagerly expecting Mr Nawaz Sharif to fulfil his election promise of “speedy normalisation” of relations with India. One refrain even in Punjab was: why should we compete with India which is seven times bigger than us? Another question on their minds was: why should we have an army of the same size that we had before the secession of Bangladesh when we were more than double the present size?

That the Pakistani people do not care two hoots about jehad in Kashmir should not be in doubt. Never mind the TV pictures of jehadists shouting inflammatory slogans on the streets of Lahore. These people have enormous resources and can organise any number of street demonstrations using the unemployed youth.

Look at the Economic Survey, 1998-99, on the basis of which reports in the Pakistan media itself record the failure of the economy to achieve any of the vital targets of growth. The year has been the most difficult one in Pakistan’s history. Most of the difficulties were compounded by the total unpreparedness of the economy’s managers to cope with the consequences that were to flow from the fateful action of May 28, when Pakistan went nuclear in response to a similar move by India a fortnight earlier.

Mr Sharif’s government had clear four weeks for preparation and necessary adjustments before the presentation of the budget. The economy that had become addicted to heavy doses of foreign loans was suddenly deprived of its life-sustaining transfusions the suspension of which was easily predictable. And when the crunch came in the form of sanctions, the economy was caught wholly unprepared and in a state of utter panic.

Driven by the desperation of the new situation, they then set out to take a series of “saving” measures in quick succession which complicated the situation still further. The crisis afflicted the economy mainly via the external sector. The year, however, ended with the immediate impact of the crisis being brought under control, as luckily the sanctions were short-lived and the resumed inflow of loans was on a larger scale than usual. But, meanwhile, considerable damage had been done.

And yet the Pakistani establishment could afford to embark on this suicidal venture, completely oblivious of popular sentiments. This paradox can only be explained by the fact that it is only a small group of people — among them politicians of all hues, bureaucrats and army officers, apart from industrialists and feudal lords (Waderas) — who virtually own Pakistan.

The notorious 22 families that ran the country until the sixties have now expanded to 44, largely through splits to avoid nationalisation in the Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto era. Members of these families are known as robber barons of Pakistan. None of these families has come up by dint of sheer hard labour or business acumen.

These families have grown from small-time businessmen in pre-Partition India to their present position of eminence, largely through manipulating the government machinery, the banking system, land grab and unimaginable exploitation of the poor (known as Haarees, the defeated and conquered). No wonder, they were great believers in the two-nation theory that led to the creation of Pakistan.

Just one landlord (Wadera), Ghulam Mohammad Mehr, owns 100,000 acres of land, and Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi owns 80,000 acres when agricultural reforms restrict land holding to 150 acres. The House of Habib has about 90 units in its fold. Mian Mohammad Mansha is the director of the boards of 45 companies. Mr Nawaz Sharif’s Ittefaq group controls at least 29 industrial units. Mr Sadruddin Hashwani has 25 companies. Monnoos have 18 textile and sugar mills.

Mr Farooq Hassan of Hassan Associates lives in a house insured for 4 million dollars. The house built by Mr Bashir Ahmad of the Escorts group over 40,000 square feet in Gulberg, Lahore, has a library custom-made in London. Ms Farida Saigol lives in a house sprawling over 68 kanals of land in a plush locality. Seth Abid has invested Rs 5 million in real estate in Lahore and his front men control the Lahore Stock Exchange.

One can have some idea of how this banana republic actually functions from the following:

One, 1,500 individuals and firms make use of 80 per cent of the total bank credits. Rs 130 billion is stuck up in bad loans and Rs 8.2 billion has been written off. While the public demands the recovery of the struck-up loans, the government has come out with schemes to reschedule the loans and grant new loans to the same defaulters.

Two, a business shark managed to secure 38 loans, totalling Rs 3.5 billion, through fake collateral and escaped when his trickery was exposed. He is living happily abroad.

Three, an unknown entity was granted a loan of Rs 1.18 billion without any collateral on a telephone call from Islamabad and the banker who sanctioned the loan ended up as a federal minister, instead of ending up in prison.

Four, all five loans worth Rs 500 million of a robber baron heading the Pakistan Chamber of Commerce Committee for the revival of sick industrial units were written off.

Five, eighty industrial units, including 32 big units set up by public and private sectors in the last 50 years, were sold for a paltry amount of Rs 10 billion. New owners are defaulting in the payment of Rs 4 billion to the Privatisation Commission and the liabilities of the privatised units worth tens of billions in local and foreign currencies were being paid by the Government of Pakistan, that is the tax-payers.

Signals about a massive concentration of wealth started coming as early as 1959, when a Credit Inquiry Committee of the State Bank of Pakistan revealed that just 222 depositors were making use of two-thirds of the total credit facilities offered by the banking system; that 43 families controlled 98 of 197 non-financial companies, accounting for 53 per cent of the total assets. The top four (Saigols, Dawood, Adamjee and Amin) controlled 20 per cent of the total assets, the top 10 families accounted for one-third, while the top 30 owned over half the listed assets.

Zulfikar Ali Bhutto took over power on December 21, 1971, and on January 1, 1972, his government promulgated the Nationalisation and Economic Reforms Order. In the six years that followed, 31 key industrial units, 13 banks, over a dozen insurance companies, 10 shipping companies and two petroleum companies were nationalised out of which at least 22 industrial units, nine banks, nine insurance companies, three shipping companies and both petroleum companies belonged to the 22 families.

Initially, nationalisation did curtail the financial powers of the 22 families. But it had some side-effects which seriously afflicted Pakistan’s economy in the long run. Industrial outfits disposed of industries that escaped nationalisation and self-imposed moratorium on new projects. Investors lost the urge to use their money in Pakistan. Most drastically, each of the 22 families, in an effort to avoid nationalisation, adopted a strategy to appear small by dividing into several groups. Thus, today, the initial 22 families run as 44 separate units.

On the economic front, Zia-ul-Haq maintained the status quo as bequeathed by the senior Bhutto. But after him, the first Nawaz Sharif government in 1990 brought about massive economic reforms on the pretext that “the inefficiency of the public sector has deprived the national exchequer of a large amount of funds which would have contributed to the social sectors and industrial growth.” Ms Benazir Bhutto, who came to power again in 1993, continued with the reforms.

These facts and figures have strategic implications. Clearly, the people of Pakistan (the Haarees, the conquered) simply do not matter. It is their conquerors who call the shots and it is they who we have to deal with. Peace with India will be a shot in the arm for the conquered people of Pakistan. That is why they gave a two-thirds majority to the first politician who put the possibility of friendly ties with India on his political agenda. But by the same token, peace will diminish the authority of the establishment, the owners and conquerors of Pakistan. We have to see how the author of Pakistan’s Kargil crisis, Gen Pervez Musharraf, conducts himself. Will he be more realistic in dealing with India? Well, South Block will have to keep its fingers crossed. (ADNI)

(The writer is an expert in Islamic studies.)

Senate rejection of CTBT
by A. Balu

JUDGING from the opinion columns in the American media in the wake of the rejection by the US Senate of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) on Wednesday last, it is reasonable to conclude that the USA has lost its clout in trying to lead the world in nuclear nonproliferation and global arms control.

The overwhelming opinion among analysts and experts in the field is that the Senate vote has sent out a message to the international community that the USA wants to exercise power without responsibility.

“This will be a vote heard around the world to the detriment of the United States,” Republican Senator Arlen Specter warned, while making a strong plea last week to Republican Senate leaders to call off the vote.

The Senate action in rejecting the CTBT has been described by the media and defence experts variously as “irresponsible”, “reckless”, “a shame”, “a disaster” and “a serious setback” to American foreign policy.

“The perception is one of disbelief,” Mr Andrew Brooks, a defence analyst at London’s International Institute for Strategic Studies, was quoted as saying by the Los Angeles Times. “This is the chance for the biggest superpower to freeze the nuclear mechanisms, and (it is) behaving like a small child.”

The paper quoted another expert, Mr Joseph Cirincione, who monitors arms control issues at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, as saying: “In a real sense, this vote places the USA in the position of becoming a rogue state.”

The Chicago Tribune said the treaty’s rejection, although does not mark the end of global arms control, was a “profound setback and a grievous blow to US foreign policy and moral leadership in a dangerous world.”

Roll Call, a publication on Capitol Hill, noted that the Senate, being hailed as the greatest deliberative body in the world, “failed miserably in its responsibility.” It blamed President Clinton for “botching” the issue by not launching an aggressive campaign to ratify the treaty until the last minute.

Why did it take the Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Republican Jesse Helms (a strong opponent of the CTBT) two years to hold a hearing on this grave issue, Roll Call asked and added: “With American prestige on the line, it is stunning that Helms let his committee to bury its collective head in the sand.”

Former National Security Adviser to President Bush, Mr Brent Scowcroft, told the Washington Post that the debate in the Senate has been “pathetic”. The problem, according to Mr Scowcroft, is that the Senate never quite got around to discussing what kind of nuclear arsenal America needs.

Mr Robert Strauss, former US Ambassador to Soviet Union and then to Russian Federation in 1991-92, wrote in The Washington Post that the Clinton Administration did a “poor job” of not informing the American public on this matter, which makes the debate or lack thereof in the Senate, even more shameful.”

“Between the administrative ineptitude and Congress’s partisanship and game-playing, Americans, and indeed, the world, have been treated to a potent and poisonous brew that could erode the credibility of the USA in the capitals of the world and indeed here at home,” Mr Strauss said.

There is regret and concern among Americans that the treaty rejection has come at a time when Pakistan, which joined the nuclear club last year, has fallen into the hands of military dictatorship, Mr Daryll Kimball, executive director of the Coalition to Reduce Nuclear Dangers, an alliance of 17 leading nuclear nonproliferation and arms control organisations, that has been working to secure approval of the treaty, said: “The Senate’s historic blunder sends a dangerous signal to those states who seek to acquire and further develop nuclear weapons.... The overthrow of the Pakistan government underscores the importance of establishing effective nuclear restraint measures, including test ban treaty, in South Asia and elsewhere.”

Mr Thomas Graham Jr, President of the Lawyers Alliance for World Security and Freedom, said the rejection of the treaty could unravel the fabric of the international nuclear nonproliferation regime and it leaves the door open to other states — like India, Pakistan, Russia and China — to resume nuclear testing.

It is to be noted that the USA is now the first nuclear power to explicitly reject the CTBT, completed in 1996. To take effect, the CTBT requires to be ratified by the parliaments of 44 countries that have some degree of nuclear capability. So far, 26 countries have ratified the treaty.

According to US media reports, the State Department, worried about the message the Senate rejection sent, has asked all American diplomatic position holders to urge world leaders, especially those in nuclear rivals, India and Pakistan, to refrain from nuclear testing.

The Russian connection
by K. Rajbir Deswal

MIKHAIL Gorbachev’s photograph appeared in the newspapers after a very long gap following his wife’s death recently. With his daughter standing by his side, Gorbachev was seen wiping tears from his eyes. The dark, ink-spread-looking spot on his forehead was very familiar, and this set rolling certain flashes in my mind of the days gone by — the Russian connection we Indians once proudly boasted of.

I am making no political comment nor do I intend to talk of any “isms” but surely a recollection of the times from Kennedy to Clinton in America, and from Khruschev to Yeltsin in Russia, in the Indian context, is a pleasant reminder of the happy days of the Indo-Russia ties, known to at least our generation of middle-aged people.

The American President, to us Indians, has always had an image of a Hollywood actor who plays a definite role yet he, on a personal plane, is altogether a different person. He always appears good to the eyes, yet he does not take entry into the chambers of heart. But the Russian President has always been recognised and regarded as a big brother and a friend, on whose shoulders you could weep your heart out. One American President was reported to have made the revelation that he would “cold-shoulder” India. The Russian Presidents have always generated warmth, intimacy, and, the above all, identification with the Indian masses.

The fifties saw a visionary in Nehru who was influenced by the kind of socialism Russia practised. This era was marked by the experimentation of certain practices in the Russian system, and not any “isms”, in at least the cooperative sector in our country. A number of movies were made in India on related themes. Raj Kapoor’s “Awara” was a great hit in Russia and Soviet citizens hummed the number “Awara-hoon” with great admiration for the Indian proletariat.

Indians, on the other hand, had a special liking for Russian literature and culture projected through certain magazines brought out by the Russians and circulated in friendly nations. I remember “Soviet Bhoomi” which was the main source of information at least for me during the childhood. Those were the days when India’s agriculture, industry and defence did have some kind of a Russian bearing. Their machinery — earth movers and tractors — were a craze in India. And so was the Russian circus and artists. I remember the programmes organised for cultural exchange between India and Russia in those days. The common Indian still remembers the 20-year treaty, the American Seventh Fleet moving towards its destination — the Indian Ocean — and the reports of Russian intervention during the Indo-Pak war of 1971.

The Breznev era was equally important in the diplomatic relations in the Indian context, and later on glasnost and perestroika of Gorbachev had their own desirable and undesirable effects on Russia in particular and the rest of the globe in general. The world became unipolar and the Indian Premier of those times, Rajiv Gandhi, was rumoured to have referred to the Russian President, Gorbachev, as “Guru-Bachao”.

Earlier, Lal Bahadur Shastri’s death in Tashkent after the Indo-Pak war of 1965, in a way, led to the further strengthening of Indo-Russian friendship. The common man in the Indian streets used to talk about Russian monkeys trained in planting explosives under the American Patton Tanks used by Pakistan during the war, suggesting thereby that every gesture of the Russians was welcomed by the Indians with sincerity.

Not many Indians today know about Raisa, the deceased wife of one of the most powerful men of his times, but tears trickling down Gorbachev’s eyes evoke in us a true sense of sympathy for the former Russian President.

Oasis of democracy; keep it that way

by Anupam Gupta

“IT takes years,” said the Supreme Court in 1982, referring to the Election Commission, “to build up public confidence in the functioning of constitutional institutions, and a single court hearing...to sully their image by casting aspersions upon them.”

That was a hearing in the Calcutta High Court, arising out of a writ petition inspired by the Indian National Congress, then the principal Opposition in the State. The petitioners, eight in number, were political leaders of disparate hues, from the Muslim League to the Janata Party to the Congress to the Republican Party of India, banded together in a strident challenge to the impending Assembly elections in West Bengal.

Alleging largescale illegalities and irregularities in the preparation of the electoral rolls, the writ petition listed exactly 100 grounds why the elections, if held, would be wholly unconstitutional, arbitrary and unfair. Nearly 8 lakh complaints, it was said, had been filed by the Congress alone in regard to the voters’ lists and they all, or most of them, remained to be heard and decided. How, then, could the elections be held?

Overly sensitive to such allegations as judges generally are and overlooking Article 329(b) of the Constitution, reproduced in this column last week, the High Court not only entertained the writ petition but granted stay as prayed for. And earned for the act a scathing reprimand from the court above all courts, the Supreme Court of India.

A reprimand that the Patna High Court, similarly overcome by the passions of the moment, earned the right to receive last month when it permitted itself to intervene in the ongoing parliamentary elections in the State. Not once but twice.

First, over the charge of printing of excess or fake ballot papers for use in Bihar. A charge levelled by Defence Minister George Fernandes with his wonted indignation and self-righteousness, citing an authority no less than the Director of the Intelligence Bureau in support.

And, second, over Mr Sharad Yadav’s fast-unto-death-demand for a repoll in the VVIP constituency of Madhepura, alleging massive rigging and booth capturing at the behest of his rival, Mr Laloo Yadav.

Both Mr Fernandes and Mr Sharad Yadav romped home in the elections and are now comfortably ensconced in the Union Cabinet. Their victory, Mr Laloo Yadav’s defeat and the rout of his party totally rubbished all that was said by them and their colleagues against the Election Commission and its failure to act in time and act enough in Bihar.

But before that happened the High Court had, in both cases, entertained the writ petition on their behalf filed by the JD(U), summoned the Election Commission and issued specific directions to it. And had, in the case of Madhepura, even stayed the announcement of the result till Mr Sharad Yadav was heard by the Commission in person.

All in the face of Article 329(b), that “Great Wall of China” which completely blocks judicial interference in electoral matters except by way of an election petition filed after the declaration of results, as discussed in this column last week.

But let us get back to the reprimand administered by the apex court to the High Court at Calcutta in the 1982 case. The case of Lakshmi Charan Sen decided by a Constitution Bench presided over by the then Chief Justice of India, Justice Y.V. Chandrachud.

“Very often,” said the CJI, “the exercise of jurisdiction, especially the writ jurisdiction, involves questions of propriety rather than of power. The fact that the Court has the power to do a certain thing does not mean that it must exercise that power regardless of the consequences.”

That was said on the assumption that the preparation and publication of electoral rolls, challenged in the Calcutta case, are not part of the process of “election” within the meaning of Article 329(b). And that, therefore, the court still retains the power to interfere in such a case. Even then, said the CJI, the court ought not to interfere.

“No High Court,” he ruled on behalf of the Constitution Bench, should in exercise of its powers under Article 226 “pass any orders, interim or otherwise, which has the tendency or effect of postponing an election which is reasonably imminent, and in relation to which its jurisdiction is invoked.”

The imminence of the electoral process, held the Bench, must guide and govern the passing of orders in the exercise of the High Court’s writ jurisdiction. “The more imminent such process, the greater ought to be the reluctance of the High Court” to do anything, or direct anything to be done, which will postpone that process.

This is because (as was said in the Ponnuswami case in 1952, at the dawn of the Constitution) it has always been recognised to be a “matter of first importance” in democratic countries that elections be concluded as early as possible according to the time schedule, and all controversial matters and all disputes arising out of elections be deferred till after the elections are over.

Casting a look around the region, the CJI’s concluding caution transcends the boundaries of law.

India, he said, is an “oasis of democracy, a fact of contemporary history which demands of the Courts the use of wise statesmanship in the exercise of their extraordinary powers under the Constitution.”

Politicians or judges, statesmanship, not sensitivity, was precisely what was lacking in Bihar last month.

Govt’s first test — threat to Pope visit

by Humra Quraishi

THE ongoing political adjustments could take a back seat and the real crisis for this government would emerge if factions of the Sangh Parivar sticks to their threat of causing disruption during Pope John Paul II’s visit to the Capital.

The Pope arrives here on November 5 for a three-day visit. Besides addressing the special assembly of Asian Synod Bishops at the Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium on November 7, he is scheduled to address several gatherings and call on the PM and the President. And though it is said that tight security arrangements are being made at all venues especially around Chanakyapuri — the Pope is going to stay at the Apostolic Nunciature, which is the Vatican Embassy situated in this diplomatic area — but on the other hand VHP and RSS have reiterated those earlier threats.

And several Christians, whom I spoke to, were emphatic that the government could not afford to let any disruption take place and therefore security arrangements have to be foolproof. And though members of the organising committees in charge of the various receptions been held in honour of the Pope are tight-lipped about the security being provided to them but in view of these threats all those connected with the Pope’s visit ought to be covered by security bandobasts.

Now focusing on the political adjustments of this government, it is being speculated that the majority of the disgruntled elements would find a place in the Cabinet, in the next expansion round, shortly after the parliament session. These would not only include the three most disgruntled BJP men from Delhi — Madan Lal Khurana, Sahib Singh Verma and Vijay Kumar Malhotra — but probably two from the Uttar Pradesh’s BJP unit (to ease the tension within the party in that state).

Of the two “dropped” former Cabinet ministers, Ramakrishna Hegde and Sikandar Bakht, the former is out with his disgust, the latter is yet to come out with his reaction. It is said that Bakht cannot be quiet for long, for in his earlier tenure as Cabinet Minister he had raised a hue and cry on several occasions, and now he is said to be waiting for an occasion to speak out, unless, of course, he is waiting for the next round of expansion.

Meanwhile, talking to a very senior and vocal Congressman on the comeback plans of the party, I was left disappointed. Probably still in that defeated mood, introspection is yet to begin. And as this Congressman pointed out, “the party has yet to come up with some real issues. Secularism, fight against communalism, etc. have all been hijacked by other parties so we have to hit out with some new strategy and we are working on this...”.

Mulk Raj Anand going strong

Midweek came the news that the 95-year-old scholar Mulk Raj Anand was in town. He sat at one end of the IIC lounge, along with some of the well-known personalities, Kapila Vatsyayan, Nirmala Despande, BC Sanyal, Devendra Satyarthi, Vasant Sathe, OP Paliwal and several others.

Concerned about the rising problems all around us he said.” Foremost I declare Mahatma Gandhi to be ‘man of the millennium’ and then we have to work towards UNESCO’s call for declaring 2000 as the International Year for the Culture of Peace ...this becomes all the more relevant as news comes of the military coup in Pakistan...,” he stated.

Others also looked concerned at this new dimension and Dr Nirmala Deshpande, who is the chairperson of the Association of Peoples of Asia, said she was in touch with various peace committees in Pakistan and till two days back one of the leaders of a particular peace committee of Pakistan was in New Delhi. “But with the news coming in of the coup he had to return. However, from whatever I could gather, it is a fact that the people of “Pakistan were not happy with the Sharif Government,” she pointed out.

Veteran artist BC Sanyal was upset by the current happenings in our own country “You people talk of Kargil ...but I see Kargil-alike happenings taking place all around us: there are those daily instances of violence, loot, murders and killings yet nobody seems to react to them. Tell me who is controlling these war-like situations within the country?”

The only person not to have spoken a single word that evening was octogenarian Punjabi writer Devendra Satyarthi. It is said that he had worked closely with Rabindranath Tagore. And for some strange reason he looked from another era altogether in fact, very much like Tagore — tall, with stately features, a flowing beard and completely at peace with himself.

Anyway, let me not distract you all. Back to that evening. And at the end of the meet Vasant Sathe and Eduardo Faleiro came up with the suggestion that the thrust on “Culture of peace” has to be picked up in a big way and they have planned to mobilise utmost support at the parliamentarians’ level .

Let’s see what is the outcome of this enthusiasm.

So many artists!

Last week-end was the first anniversary of Art Junction (Art gallery attached to Hilton Hotel). And one was left amazed by the number of artists and sculptors whose works were on display. “If I am not mistaken, at least 70 or 80 artists. Good, original works of art and I am no critic to slot them ruthlessly into A,B,C,D slots, but the fact that we have so many artists amongst is encouraging. Most of these names were of new artists and the very fact that they had been given a platform to put their works on display goes to prove that we aren’t void of talent and nor devoid of sensitivity to encourage art.

75 YEARS AGO

October 18, 1924
The Kohat tragedy

IT is about a fortnight now since Mr Bray, the Home Secretary to the Government of India, returned from his visit to Kohat but no official report has been issued on the subject.

The matter is clearly one of great urgency, involving as it does questions of vital import to thousands of the King’s Indian subjects who are now living in Rawalpindi in a state of penury and destitution as exiles from their native place, and the public is naturally extremely anxious to know what the government is going to do to rehabilitate them and how generally it looks upon the matter.

We trust the government will not delay the expression of their view any longer and will assuage the feeling of uneasiness that has been occasioned by this long delay.