P A G E
Friday, July 10, 1998
today's calendar
|
E D I T O R I A L P A G E |
Friday, July 10, 1998 |
||||
| weather n
spotlight today's calendar |
||||||
|
Crippling the post
America's Asia
policy |
 |
|
|
Crippling the post The postal strike, which began on Thursday morning, was avoidable, to say the least. The Communications Minister, Mrs Sushma Swaraj, was aware of the 10-point charter of demands submitted by well-organised employees' unions. She is said to have made it known that the Justice Talwar Committee report on the major demands and grievances of the workers of one of the largest government departments had been received. The recommendations contained in the report had been "accepted" by the Postal Board and the Minister herself. The formal approval of the Union Cabinet was awaited. What are the recommendations? Mrs Swaraj did not find it necessary to give even a summary of these. The Joint Action Council (JAC) of various employees' bodies—including the powerful National Federation of Postal Employees—had submitted its charter of demands in September, 1997. It served a widely publicised strike notice on June 9 this year. Mrs Swaraj did not find time to hold a discussion with the postal personnel's representatives. The Cabinet did not meet to discuss Justice Talwar's findings and views. An appeal, however, was issued asking the affected persons to defer their strike. The JAC saw much dithering in the government's attitude and the inevitable happened. All functions of the department, "except the delivery of letters" have been paralysed. Come to think of it, is the delivery of letters possible? The postmen and the mailguards whose pay scales were upgraded earlier have got themselves exempted from the strike. But when the staff handling sorting and other related functions is not available, what will the "dakiya" or the "rakshak" do? The truth is that the agitation involves about six lakh communication workers—from administrators to casual mazdoors. The government has not apparently learnt any lesson from the past strikes. Why go too far back? Most of the postal employees struck work all over the country for a day in response to a token strike call given by 14 trade unions on January 5 this year. Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and Chandigarh saw the postal services literally limping for a week to become normal. The consequences of the current indefinite agitation are going to be agonising for the public—particularly for those who cannot afford to avail themselves of expensive ways of transmitting messages, material or money. How useful is the courier service for a daily wage earner in Chandigarh who wants to send a message to Champaran? The money-order is the sole method of sending money to villages by those who have left their hearth and home to feed their families in poor Orissa or in distant Kerala. Nobody should defend the myraid cases of inefficiency and wrongdoing on the part of postal employees at various levels. But the Vajpayee government must see to it that its Communications Minister pays some attention to issues affecting the daily working life of the common man. Mrs Swaraj looks impressive in public as well as in satellite TV studios. She should add to her visibility and popularity on the negotiating table by taking prompt steps to end this strike.  |
|||||
| Nigeria after Abiola That the sudden death of opposition leader Moshood Abiola in prison on Wednesday at a time when the global effort for ending 28 years of military rule in Nigeria appeared to be on course, resulted in street violence was not entirely unexpected. The incidents which claimed at least 10 lives should be seen in the context of the long spell of military rule after the country gained independence in 1960. Barring the first decade — a period when Africa’s second largest economy and most populous country was evolving for itself a democratic system of governance — a succession of military rulers made false promises of restoring civilian rule. However, after the death of Gen Sani Abacha last month his successor Gen Abdusalam Abubakar made a similar promise — but this time there was a ring of sincerity in his utterances. In fact, United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan himself announced after his visit to Nigeria recently that the prospects of the release of political prisoners and the return to civilian rule were bright. And Mr Annan is known to underplay, rather than exaggerate, the outcome of his negotiations as the principal international peace-keeper. In fact, Mr Abiola was discussing the details of the release of prisoners and restoration of democracy in Nigeria with US Under-Secretary of State Thomas Pickering when he developed a breathing problem and died on reaching a hospital. To be fair, General Abubakar has thus far given no indication that he would go back on his promise to restore civilian rule in Nigeria. But the political implications of the “dissolution” of the military government by the acting ruler are yet not clear. The autopsy to be performed by Abiola’s personal physician and a team of international experts should conclusively establish whether it was a case of natural death or, as the family suspects, of poisoning. The incidents of violence suggest that the people are inclined to believe the conspiracy theory rather than accept the military ruler’s gestures of goodwill as genuine. There should be no doubt whatsoever that the death of Abiola, a businessman-politician who was popularly believed to have won Nigeria’s presidential election in July, 1993, may delay the promised transition to civilian rule. It is a strange coincidence that a month ago General Abacha, who threw Abiola in prison a year after the annuled elections, too died of a heart attack. The end of the official period of mourning has now pushed the nation, to quote Abiola’s supporters, “in an interminable period of sorrow.” His countless followers in Nigeria insist that “our period of mourning” would end only after General Abubakar steps down and announces free multi-party elections. Whatever may have been the real cause of Abiola’s death, the international community appears keen to play down the incident so that the process of ending military rule in Nigeria is not stalled. It is even willing to overlook the fact that the opposition leader was in poor health ever since his detention a year after he won the presidential election and that his request to allow his own doctor to attend to him or travel abroad for treatment was rejected by the military establishment. Those who believe in the conspiracy theory say that the death of Abiola may make it easy for General Abubakar to keep his promise of sending the army to the barracks. He may order elections, offer himself as a candidate for the top job, and in the absence of a credible opposition, may, thereafter, instal himself as a “duly elected leader”. Mr Annan, who only a month ago appeared happy with his efforts, will have to begin from scratch to ensure that General Abubakar does not subvert the process of restoring civilian rule in Nigeria by going through the motions of holding “free and fair” elections. Already, there is talk of pushing the proposed dates for holding elections and formally restoring popular rule beyond August 1 and October 1 respectively. |
| America's Asia policy Problem of "seening" & yet not "knowing" by Hari Jaisingh The Sino-American collaboration, consolidated as a result of President Clinton's recent visit to China, has much wider implications for India and other Asian countries than is probably being realised. Of course, in certain areas the US ties with China have a tinge of superficiality meant for public consumption. But then diplomacy these days is half illusion and half reality. The Americans have succeeded in projecting themselves as genuine friends of President Jiang Zemin. This in itself is quite an achievement considering the fact that the two countries had maintained hostile postures towards each other till the seventies. Theoretically speaking, the harmonious relationship between the super power and the Asian giant should normally be a stabilising factor for peace and development. But the problem arises when the two powers give the impression of ganging up to the disadvantage of those countries that have genuine reservations about China's track record in the conduct of its foreign relations. Looking back, it will be interesting to know how the USA and China have come closer to each other. This will help us appreciate the fact that in diplomacy there are no permanent friends or permanent foes. Everything is governed by mutual interests of two nations at a given time. From the Korean war to the Vietnam war (1950-1975) China was America's enemy number one. Between 1975 and 1992, the two countries were trying to adjust their relations. Deng Xiaoping made a visit to the USA in 1979. The pace of Sino-US rapprochement gained momentum from the 1980s. President Reagan visited China in 1984. President Bush followed suit in 1989. In between, in 1985, the two countries signed a 12-year peaceful nuclear cooperation agreement. After the Tiananmen Square massacre (June, 1989), a virtual freeze surfaced in Sino-US relations. A number of countries, the USA included, imposed trade sanctions on China. The relations remained strained till 1993-94 when the two sides began to pick up the old threads. This process was upset by the private visit of the Taiwan President to New York in June, 1995. The USA decided to despatch an aircraft-carrier to the Taiwan Straits during the Presidential election there in March, 1996, to counter the threat posed by Chinese missiles. The human rights violations, nuclear proliferation, trade imbalance, Tibet repression—all these and more vitiated the ties between the two. It is like a fever chart. Today China is said to be the closest ally of the USA. Such a volte face in American policy is not uncommon. But there is something spurious about it. Once Mr Clinton denounced America's China policy. Today, he not only defends those very policies, but also declares that China is to be America's principal partner in the 21st century! At a press conference at Hong Kong at the end of his nine-day odyssey to China, President Clinton hailed President Jiang Zemin and Prime Minister Zhu Rongji as men of vision capable of hastening the pace of reforms. He was also hopeful about China becoming a democracy. Ironically enough, the same leadership is delaying the process of democracy in Hong Kong, let alone the Chinese mainland. Mr Jiang Zemin, who is also the Secretary-General of the Communist Party of China (CPP), and the second leader in the hierarchy, NPC Chairman Li Peng, are themselves resisting political change. In fact, the CPP's hold is total in all areas of activities. No one dares raise the voice of dissent, though a facade of democracy is maintained for the consumption of the outside world. The Tiananmen Square massacre is now a thing of the past. Actually every voice of dissent in China today gets lost in the dazzle of new consumerism. And the new mantra for youngsters is: "Make money, Mao can wait. "The Chinese youths today have taken to western style of living in a big way. Whether they will also embrace democracy is difficult to say right now. But looking at the harsh realities, it is unlikely that political reforms will follow economic reforms. In fact, President Clinton has accorded a seal of legitimacy to the "no political change" leaders. They will now be in a better position to resist political change since President Clinton attended a welcome ceremony at Tinanmen Square, the venue of military crackdown on defiance of the Chinese communist regime. China no doubt needs American support to buttress its own presence in the rest of Asia, to contain Japan and to keep Russia out of the Asia-Pacific region. And America needs China to strengthen its own presence in Asia. This explains why the two — the USA and China — have agreed to share power in Asia. Of course, there is tremendous opposition to this marriage of convenience in America itself. First of all, from the Republican Party. And also from several "think tanks". But this has not deterred President Clinton. He is backed, above all, by the military-industrial complex, the same force which guided the Cold War against the USSR. No country today can give a new life to the US arms industry except China. It can place orders worth tens of billions of dollars for military supplies. The military complex is in bad shape after the end of the Cold War. Trade between the USA and China is one of the highest in the world. But it is not balanced — a major US complaint against China. The US trade deficit with China is likely to reach 60 billion dollars this year. In 1997, the USA imported 63 billion dollar worth of goods from China, while Beijing imported from America goods worth only $ 13 billion. These were mostly military supplies or high technology. But Washington has been insisting that China should open up its market wider. Beijing's reply invariably has been: give us more high-tech goods and technology. For this, there is opposition in the US Congress. It is the vast potential for investment and trade which attracted American multinationals to China in the first instance. They are not yet totally disillusioned. In any case, they are ready to use punishing weapons against each other to get what they want. For example, America may still like to block China's entry into the WTO till Beijing opens up its market more. And China will continue nuclear proliferation till it gets what it wants. And Taiwan is yet another instrument in this game. That is why I believe that China will continue to supply nuclear and missile technologies to Pakistan and other countries, notwithstanding the claims to the contrary. As for India, it would like to have friendly cooperative relations with both China and Pakistan based on a sense of realism, understanding and mutual respect. And towards this friendly frame, New Delhi would like Washington to play a positive role keeping in view Indian interests. Is it a tall order? Certainly not. China has been suspect in the eyes of India since its traumatic experience in 1962. This country cannot easily overcome the shock that the leadership had then suffered. Jawaharlal Nehru could never be the same again. He was the one who had generated an atmosphere of "Hindi-Chini bhai bhai". He even went to the extent of appeasing the Chinese by overlooking certain historical facts, security concerns and the Tibetan issue. Nehru could never recover from China's shock attack. Indeed, in dealing with China, knowledgeable persons cannot afford to lose sight of Beijing's ability to hurt this country's vital interests. True, in recent years the two countries had taken a number of steps to mend fences. Things were surely looking up till Mr George Fernandes' outburst against China and the nuclear explosions at Pokhran on May 11 and May 13 this year. Why can't China digest Indian nuclear tests? Why should it not accept India as a nuclear weapons state? Afterall, China itself has violated the proliferation norms as many as 21 times. Today it has acquired a seal of legitimacy, thanks to American generosity. The second disquieting issue from Indian viewpoint is the supply of nuclear knowhow and material to Pakistan. This cannot be viewed as a friendly act. What becomes specially distressing is the Sino-US sermons, equating India with Pakistan and endorsing Islamabad's bid to internationalise the Kashmir issue. Indian sensitivities are known to Washington and Beijing. Still, they have not cared to respect vital Indian interests. The USA should not overlook the fact that Indian defence and nuclear capability is based on its threat perception vis-a-vis China and Pakistan, both singly and jointly. Why policy-makers in Washington should ignore this basic fact is difficult to understand. Ironically enough, President Clinton went out of his way to display a strange addiction to engage with China even though certain ground realities in that country go against all the cherished principles that the USA represents. India too has reasons to feel disturbed at America's amateurish moves in Beijing. It is not yet clear whether a free and frank dialogue between the US Deputy Secretary of State, Mr Strobe Talbott, and Mr Jaswant Singh, Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission, will be able to correct the tilt which is very much visible in America's Asia policy. Mr Talbott is on record having reiterated the commitment of President Clinton to put American relations with India "back on track". Here the moot point is: how serious is Washington about improving its ties with New Delhi? What are America's priorities? How is it going to adjust India's sensitivities in view of its global interests? "Understanding" and "perception" are two different things. Like H.Munk's dog, American policy-makers can "see" and yet not "know" what they are seeing. It is, of course, in the interest of the two countries to do so sooner rather than later. A cooperative America can change the dynamics of global responses towards this country. For that matter, India may even be willing to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) provided some basic Indian interests are accommodated. The US attitude will be a crucial factor in influencing the follow-up action of the international community—P-5, G-8 countries and the UN Security Council—on the sensitive nuclear issues in the subcontinent. It is very important for India to ensure the recognition of its basic position and security concern . Once this is done and economic sanctions are lifted, India will possibly have no hesitation in going along with the rest of the world and accept nuclear arms control agreements without sacrificing the credibility of its nuclear deterrence. |
| US
experts for
nuclear India By no means, they are among the cleverest people of the world. How? Because they have dominated the world for nearly a century, raised themselves up as the foremost economic power and did all this and more at the expense of the rest of the world! That calls for great intelligence. But it is true they have a higher proportion of ignorant people. (Weren’t they made up of the “refuse” of the old world?) But there is an impression that Americans are ill-informed about India. This is true of the ordinary Americans, but wrong about their specialists. It is the policy that shapes the view of the rest. (Are we any different?) Let us recall the reactions to the Indian nuclear explosions. While President Clinton and his allies spoke lies (that was policy), American specialists gave us the best arguments in support of what we did. But how did our own political parties and media react? They were one and all totally confused (the Congress, above all). Our nuclear policy is not without critics. One can understand their sentiments. But how can sentiments substitute cold logic when a nuclear-armed country, China, has been systematically promoting the nuclear and missile ambitions of a hostile neighbour, Pakistan for over a decade? Is this not a more dangerous proxy war against us? Should we take to pacifism in the face of this provocation and perfidy? Can the critics give a realistic reply? Let us see what the American specialists have to say. To “should India go nuclear”, the Carneigie Endowment for International Peace seems to say yes. “No government in New Delhi could survive if it abandons the nuclear option (when) nuclear weapons continue to be the ultimate coin of power,” it says in a report. More so, when India has known enemies to contend with. Abe Rosenthal of The New York Times, who reported the Chinese aggression in 1962 from New Delhi, writes: “Today if India has enemies, I feel China is the strongest.” He feels Mr Clinton has made trade with China an ideology. But why are we so muted when it comes to criticising China? Look at the mauling given to Mr George Fernandes for stating the obvious — that China is our most dangerous adversary. Do these critics of Mr Fernandes expect India to be silent when China has been hatching a holocaust against us? Mr William C. Triplett, a former Republican Counsel to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is not surprised at what Mr Fernandes said but that it had taken so long for an Indian Defence Minister to say it. He says China has apologists in the USA, but Delhi has more. US specialists have a very convincing argument that it was President Clinton’s steady appeasement of China that compelled India to exercise its nuclear option. Prof Charles Krauthammer, a well-known authority on Asia, wrote in The Washington Post that it was the systematic courting of China by Mr Clinton which compelled India to choose the nuclear option. Mr Stephen S. Rosenfeld of The Washington Post wrote that Mr Clinton had shamelessly courted the world’s worst proliferator of weapons of mass destruction. “We are now reaping the consequences,” he says. China was in no way less responsible. The Heritage Foundation of America, a highly prestigious conservative “think tank”, said: “China’s deep involvement with Pakistan’s nuclear programme contributed to the new Indian government’s decision to test nuclear weapons.” It even warned that Pakistan might be tempted to make a pre-emptive strike! Did such a prospect ever occur to the mandarins in Beijing? Or they did not care? Mr William Safire, one of the most widely read columnists of the USA, reflects the same view. He says: as China improves its satellite and missile technology (thanks to Mr Clinton), a new government in India reacts to the growing threat from its long-time Asian rival. Is the Chinese threat alarming? Mr Triplett thinks so. That is why, he says, no one in authority in India wants the spotlight turned on this issue. “If they did there would be a lot of explaining to do,” he says. Mr Newt Gingrich, Speaker of the US House of Representatives, agrees. He writes: “India is facing potential threat from China.” But some of our own critics ask: where is the threat! American specialists mercilessly exposed the absurdities of the Clinton administration. Mr Patrick Buchanan, a former Presidential candidate, asked: “If America had a nuclear-armed China in its north...would we follow the counsel of some distant busybody, that was demanding we forever deny ourselves a nuclear deterrent?” Mr William C. Triplett raises a similar question: “What if China were in India’s position...how would China react?” In any case, these specialists do not take the protests of nuclear have’s and others seriously. The Sunday Times (now American) said in an editorial: “There is always a danger of hypocrisy when the West launches itself into moral indignation.” And there were comments on the double standards. Mr Richard Haas, a well-known analyst, asks: “Why should the world live with China’s bombs and not with India’s?” Mr Jesse Helms, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, opposed sanction against India because Mr Clinton failed to clamp sanctions against China, the main proliferator. Mr Newt Gingrich says: “...with one hand the Clinton administration gives China access to sensitive missile technology, while the other slaps India for trying to protect itself from the consequences of that improved technology.” They are not less informed, these Americans. We are — more so, our rulers. |
| Lessons from Ranjit Singh's rule By Jagmohan The meteoric rise of Maharaja Ranjit Singh’s empire in north-west India in the early nineteenth century and its equally sudden disappearance from the scene after the Maharaja’s death hold significant lessons for all those who wish to learn from history and are anxious in building a modern technologyically advanced country with strong roots in a healthy society and sound institutions. Captain C.M. Wade, British Resident at Ludhiana, in his letter of February 19, 1834, to the Foreign Secretary, w.H. Macnaughten, had described Maharaja Ranjit Singh’s “government as the most vigorous next to our own between the countries of India and Europe”. How did this “most vigorous government” come into being? It was primarily the genius of Ranjit Singh that brought it about. It is, indeed, amazing that at a time when the map of India was increasingly turning into red, a lad of 12 years who became head of “Sukarchakia Misl, after the premature death of his father, created a vast and powerful kingdom from Sutlej in the south-east to Kabul in the north-west and from Ladakh in the north and to the boundaries of Sind in the south-west. He first established effective control over the territory around Amritsar and Lahore and occupied the two cities soon thereafter. He then subjugated the tiny but troublesome Pathan enclave of Kasur, brought Jammu under his suzerainty, overcame (1818) the fierce resistance from Afghan Governor of Multan, Zaffar Ahmed, smothered the rising ambition of Sansar Chand of Kangra (1809-1829), drove the Gurkhas out of the Simla Hills, wrested Kashmir from the Afghans (1819), occupied Attock (1820), Peshawar (1822-1831) and even Kabul (1834) and Jamrud (1837). Ladakh, too, had become part of Ranjit Singh’s kingdom by dint of the amazing military campaigns of Zorawar Singh, a General in the army of Raja Gulab Singh of Jammu. Though formally uneducated, Ranjit Singh had a razor sharp mind and showed “insightful practicality” of a very high order. He hardly took time in maturing into a great leader of men and moments. His organising capacity and quality of leadership can be seen from the fact that, in a short time, he was able to raise an army whose strength equalled that of the British Indian Army on the eve of World War II (1939) It included 92,000 infantry and 31,800 cavalry and artillery with 384 heavy guns and 400 light guns. The spectacular might of Maharaja Ranjit Singh’s army caused a great deal of worry to the British government. This is what Emily Eden, sister of the Governor-General, Lord Auckland, wrote in a private letter, after witnessing, with his brother and other senior British functionaries, the parade of Ranjit Singh’s troop, on December 5, 1838, at Ferozpur: “All the gentlemen went at day break to Ranjit’s review, and came rather discomfited. He had nearly as many troops out as we had; they were quite well disciplined, repeated the same military movements and several others more complicated, and, in short, no body knows what to say about it, so that they say nothing.” Ranjit Singh’s well-organised and scientifically trained army owed much to his modernising instinct. He fully understood the great advantage which new weapons and new techniques of warfares conferred on an army. He, therefore, took extraordinary interest in enlisting European officers of high calibre, particularly those who had ground-level experience and shown their mettle in actual combat. He recruited two French Generals, J.F. Allard and J.B. Ventura, who had participated in the Napoleonic wars. The former had fought in Italy and Spain and the latter accompanied Napoleon to Russia. Both had experience of integrated fighting, combining the use of infantry, light and heavy cavalry and artillery. The training and guidance provided by these two Generals enabled Ranjit Singh to raise an elite and highly efficient unit within his army, called “Fauj-e-Khass.” Ranjit Singh engaged another specialist — Claude Auguste Court. He was an expert in manufacturing guns. he was put in charge of The Maharaja’s ordinance factory. he got fabricated a number of light, medium and heavy guns. Ammunition, including gun powder, was produced under the guidance of a Hungarian expert, Dr Honigherger. Quite a few other European experts were appointed to positions which required special skills. Clearly, Ranjit Singh was the first indigenous ruler who made an all-out effort to modernise the Indian Army and to bring about the transfer of technology and management skills. Nothwithstanding the great military might that Maharaja Ranjit Singh had acquired, he was insightful enough to understand that his army had not attained the level of efficiency, morale and discipline which would enable him to challenge successfully the British power in India. He, therefore, entered into an agreement with British government, through The Treaty of Amritsar (1809) which fixed the dividing line between the two powers along the Sutlej. The Maharaja got a free hand in the west of Sutlej, while he recognised British authority and interest on the east of the river. Ranjit Singh’s modernising instinct also found expression in what may be called positive and practical secularism. His main advisers were three famous Muslims, the Fakir brothers — Fakir Aziz-ud-Din, his Foreign Minister, Fakir Nur-ud-Din, his “Home Minister”; and Fakir Imam=ud-Din, his custodian of the arsenals. Fortyeight of his senior military officers, including two generals, were Muslims. In the police and other branches of civil service, there were more than 90 senior Muslim officers. Hindus, too, held many of the key positions. Vincet Smith has significantly observed: “The Punjab State was neither a traditional Indian territorial state and monarchy, nor merely a dictatorship of one community over another. There was an element of partnership with other communities. Ranjit Singh did not claim the despotic sway of a traditional monarch over his own Sikhs. He was in some sense its elected chief and like Augustus Caesar, he was careful never to push his pretensions too far. To the end, though taking the title of Maharaja, he claimed to be no more than a General of the Khalsa.” Maharaja Ranjit Singh was one of the greatest rulers who was truly secular as well as truly religious. He, in fact, set an outstanding example to show how state polity and administration could not run on secular lines without relegating one’s religion to a secondary place. He was a devout Sikh and never took any major decision without seeking guidance from the Holy Granth. He preferred to call himself “Sarkar Khalsa”, Chief of the Commonwealth of Sikhs. The first set of coins that he struck have the inscription of Nanak Shahi, and not of his name. He even willingly submitted himself to the dictates of Akal Takht and accepted the punishment for having deviated from the strict tenets of Sikh faith by marrying a Muslim courtesan, Moran, to whose charm he had been irresistibly drawn. Undoubtedly, Maharaja Ranjit Singh was a many-splendoured leader. Few in history have achieved so much in such a short time against such heavy odds. How is it, then, that the vast kingdom he had built and the strong fighting force that he had created collapsed so soon after his death? The answer to this simple question holds an important lesson for us. The use of European military, management and technological skills was necessary. But it should have been accompanied by a programme of creating these skills within society. Scientific temper and a sense of discipline, unity and team-spirit should have been inculcated among the people, particularly among those who occupied influential position in society and the state. Maharaja Ranjit Singh made no effort in this direction. Since the foundational planks of the super-structure were weak, it coult not withstand the pressure of both internal and external forces which his strong hand had kept at bay during his life-time. Clearly, it is the institutional and social strength that really provides sustenance and stability to any state structure. The writer is an MP (Lok Sabha) and former Governor of Jammu and Kashmir. |
 75 YEARS AGO Philosophic Minister LAHORE: Mian Fazl-i-Hussain is nothing if not a philosopher. He is certainly unperturbed by the defects and shortcomings, the fury and the passions of the world around him. The marvellous extent to which he has acquired the habit of mental detachment is shown by the following passage which we have taken from one of his recent speeches: “Gentlemen, while I have the privilege of helping you on to the road of complete local self-government, I want you to equip yourselves with a few principles which are absolutely essential if you are to overcome the hinderances in the way. “Your first requisite is tolerance, equal freedom of thought and action to all, equal opportunities for development to all. “Not only should you be tolerant, but you should also display goodwill towards your neighbours and your colleagues. Then there is one principle which is a sort of charm against all narrowness of thought or religion, and that noble principle is the creed of human brotherhood. “If you imbue yourselves in this noble principle, all religious differences, all unworthy animosities will disappear. Armed with tolerance, goodwill and the creed of human brotherhood you can well march forward with the hope of reaching the promised land at no distant date”. |
 |
 |
| Nation
| Punjab | Haryana | Himachal Pardesh | Jammu & Kashmir | Chandigarh | | Editorial | Opinion | Business | Stocks | Sports | Cartoon | | Mailbag | Spotlight | World | 50 years of Independence | Weather | Saturday Plus | | Sunday Reading | Arts Tribune | Health Tribune | Science Tribune | Education Tribune | | Horoscope | Search | Subscribe | Archive | Suggestion | Home | Email | |
