P A G E
Monday, January 4, 1999
today's calendar
|
E D I T O R I A L P A G E |
Monday, January 4, 1999 |
| weather n
spotlight today's calendar |
||
|
Our
decrepit schools
Babar
Akali cases |
 |
Civil
vs civil service control
Delegations
flock to |
||||||||
No
solid grounds for extreme step |
|
|
Our decrepit schools EDUCATION for the poor is the most neglected aspect of national life. This is obviously because of a deep class bias. Since the affected children belong almost exclusively to the dalit, the most backward and tribal families, there is also a deep caste bias. The nation’s conscience is not touched by the fact that one in every three illiterate children in the world is an Indian. Nearly half of those in the age group of 5-11 years, who number over 10 crore, are out of school; the population:classroom ratio as also the teacher:student ratio at the primary level is fast declining, indicating that investment in this vital sector is stagnant or falling. One more statistic: a constitutional amendment (the 83rd) proposed to provide primary education to half the out-of school kids would have required an outlay of Rs 40,000 crore over the ninth Plan period or Rs 8000 crore every year. The present government has shelved the measure. These figures explain why Mr Amartya Sen has made primary education for all his magnificent obsession, drilling the theme from every possible forum. He is convinced that funds could be found. Why, the government spends more than this sum on non-merit subsidies — that is, subsidising those goods and services which have no social welfare component. What has led to the alarming deterioration in the availability of primary education is the lack of will and a dangerous misconception that the nation can progress and march into the new millennium with nearly half of the citizens unlettered. Basic education is the most important building block of development and no country can get out of the mire of poverty without first preparing the people to be more productive. In other words, Mr Sen places education in the larger context of development and not merely as a means to help an individual earn a few rupees more. A recent study reveals
that Mr Sen is right in insisting that funds can be found
for an ambitious education-for-all programme. All it
would need is to set apart a mere 0.5 per cent of the
gross national product. Just one half of one per cent! As
the report says, the government is about to spend six
times this on the increased salary of public sector
employees. The study covered six Hindi-speaking states
and found that the so-called non-formal education is a
hoax; only two students out of a sample of more than 1100
opted for this. It would be more appropriate to describe
it as formal non-education. Another malady is the total
reliance on the government in all matters of schooling.
Social action helps, as the success stories of Kerala and
now Tamil Nadu show. In the absence of people’s
involvement, even a moderately successful total literary
mission collapses after some time. The new literates
become old illiterates. India is a country of bewildering
contradictions; yet to think that a country which
produces satellites and rockets houses millions of
illiterates and adds more millions every year! |
Fogged out COME winter and Nature envelops North India in a thick blanket of fog. The cold mist may evoke positive feelings in romanticists but it plays havoc with those engrossed in the daily grind. The poor suffer the cold and hunger; even the better off feel helpless in the face of poor visibility. Road, rail and air traffic comes to a crawl due to near-zero visibility. The story is repeated year after year but hardly any remedial measures are put in place. Take road traffic for example. There is no additional force to help those who are unfortunate enough to be caught in the mess. But the worst hit is the air traffic. Delhi airport normally remains inoperative for long stretches. Other airports suffer the cascading effect, with missed flights, frayed tempers and missed appointments. The problem is that while one can choose one's airline, one has to make do with one and only one airport. While one is more or less helpless before the vagaries of the weather, the fact remains that the problems at the Delhi airport are to some extent man-made also. There are very many other airports in the world which also have to cope with near-zero visibility but do not go out of action because they already have state-of-the-art navigational systems in place. Experts say that Delhi is in dire need of a category III instrument landing system (ILS) but the authorities have been dragging their feet. The instrument is expensive no doubt but considering the recurring loss that is caused because of the missed and delayed flights, the acquisition of the ILS is absolutely essential. It is not just a question of financial loss but also that of loss of face and goodwill. At the same time, there is
also need for having a more humane approach. The misery
of those caught in the bind can be greatly reduced if
only the officials show a little more consideration for
their plight. For instance, when many trains were
re-routed recently, there was no one to advise the
passengers as to which will be the most suitable station
where they should disembark. Nor were the persons waiting
to receive someone told where and when they could receive
the persons concerned. The same thing happens in the case
of those travelling by air. Many of those who were
waiting for hours for their delayed flight to become
airborne were put on the plane the other day. They
thought that their misery was over. Their joy was
premature. They had to remain in the plane for many hours
more before it took off. To cap it all, during the recent
foggy condition, the pre-paid taxi system is said to have
broken down at the airport with the taxi drivers charging
exorbitant fare. There are even reports of the Indian
Airlines staffers manhandling and thrashing a harassed
passenger. A helping hand is all the more required at
such times but the authorities conveniently forget this
basic thing. It is such mind-set that gives the country a
bad name. |
DISMISSAL OF NAVAL CHIEF No
solid grounds for extreme step THE case of dismissal of the Naval Chief has shocked the nation and invited strong reactions from the Press and political parties across the country. The effect of this unprecedented action of the government on the defence forces has been variously assessed. The reluctance of the serving personnel to speak out for themselves has compounded the problem. While their silence must be appreciated, it is for the Press and the public to look for pointers and make an intelligent evaluation of the state of morale of troops. The Press and the retired defence personnel are firm in their belief that this sacking of the chief will have a far reaching effect on the morale of troops but the government is smug in its conviction that it will have no effect and that the morale is high. Has the government or even the military authorities been able to determine the correct state of the armed forces’ morale. Some indicators need watching. The extremely limited avenues of promotion and, consequently, large-scale supersession, step-motherly treatment meted out by the Fifth Pay Commission and the governments acquiescence in the case brought about the lowering of the morale. That has been our reading, and our view stands vindicated. Consider this. The extension of retirement age by two years has thrilled every government servant; from the Cabinet Secretary to the lowest level class four employee of the Government of India. Ninety per cent of the soldiers of the Republic of India have declined this largesse. They would rather be doormen at some cheap hotel than continue with military service for another two years. Does this stark reality convey anything about the morale of troops to our political executive and the nation? Service in the defence forces is quite apart from any other calling. While soldiering demands many attributes in men and officers unheard of in civil life and service, the requirement of one key quality called loyalty runs like a warp thread in the tapestry of military thought and action. This is a key element in the character and the making of a soldier and an officer. When that gets subverted or eroded then his utility to service, more so in an operational setting, becomes not only worthless but also deleterious to the very cause. Therefore, no military commander can possibly have a subordinate whose loyalty to him is anything but complete. ‘That was the raison d’etre of the Naval Chief’s stand against Vice Admiral Harinder Singh’s posting as his deputy. The officer’s conduct towards his chief has been defiant, defamatory and mutinous, and the naval law warranted severe disciplinary action, but the Ministry of Defence (MoD) condoned it on its own, contrary to all legal canons of military law. The well-known animosity and disloyalty of Vice-Admiral Harinder Singh towards his chief by itself had made a foolproof case to deny the officer the appointment of Deputy Chief (DCNS) and exposed him to disciplinary action. His unsuitability for the job and seniority may be the other issue. While the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) can interpret the Naval Act of 1957 in the manner it may deem fit, it cannot be so insensitive to the Naval Chief’s sensibilities for it to take such an inflexible approach and play hand-maiden to the bureaucracy in forcing an unwanted deputy down the Chief’s throat. What was the nature of information available to the ACC regarding the relations between Vice-Admiral Harinder Singh and the Naval Chief? Was it not for the minister to make it his business to know this. It is essential to clear some of these issues to dispel the unfortunate suspicion of collusion and conspiracy. This posting designed to “torpedo” the Naval Chief would have, in fact, “depth-charged” the Indian Navy. If not for anything else, the Naval Chief’s stand on preventing damage to the Navy this posting would have caused, must go to his credit. That is what service before self is all about. The venerable Prime Minister has stated that the Naval Chief’s behaviour was defiant and that he had come to harm national security, and the non-implementation of the decision of the ACC had made his continued stay in that post undesirable. These are very serious allegations and the nation has the right to know more; transparency requires that the details of the Naval Chief having become a threat to national security be made known to the public. If that was really so then a court-martial was the logical course. The fact that the government waited for the Parliament session to end before taking this step is indicative of a mala fide intention. The other disturbing aspect of this episode is the attempt at communalisation of the defence forces. While the government has denied this allegation, an Akali Dal MP spilled the beans through his clumsy attempt in a TV interview at tarnishing the Naval Chief’s image with communal paint, which is at once belied by the fact that the officer being recommended for the post was also a Sikh. Our MP from the land of soldiers does not know that there are no colonels and generals in the Navy, who he felt were being discriminated against. When the entire polity in this country has been deliberately and systematically communalised, the Services cannot remain immune from this virus for long. The Defence Minister’s long diatribe against the Naval Chief falls short of reasonable grounds for this extreme step. Perhaps the minister has still not gained full insight into the ways of the bureaucracy. He needs to see the episodes in the serial “Yes Minister”. The relations between General Rodrigues and the Defence Secretary were anything but congenial. When the latter passed instructions for the deployment of the Army in Punjab, the General raised some queries on the nature of the tasks, etc. A few hours later an agitated Defence Minister rang up the General to say, “I am told you have refused to deploy the Army”. This sort of misunderstanding can be easily created when there is no direct, formal and structured interface between the Defence Minister and the Chiefs. The causes of the current episode can be traced to the non-existence of direct communication. It is the irony of our times that this unfortunate incident has taken place at a time when the country’s finest Defence Minister since Independence is in place. The frequency, regularity and the capacity of this government to shoot at its own feet is indeed amazing. The whole episode has caused so much dismay and resentment in the nation and has such far-reaching implications that it cannot be pushed under the carpet in the name of secrecy. A parliamentary enquiry must be constituted to go into the case together with the conspiracy angle, the alleged threat to national security posed by the Naval Chief, the functioning of the bureaucracy in the MoD and the working at the Service Headquarters. Transparency, a healthy political culture, fairness and good precedence require that the Admiral is given a chance to explain in the Lok Sabha the rationale of his stand in not accepting Vice-Admiral Harinder Singh as his deputy. Finally, the time to pull out the Arun Singh Committee report from the dusty cupboards of the MoD has come. The implementation of its recommendations can brook no further delay. (The author, a
retired Lieut-General, was the Deputy Chief of Army
Staff.) |
DISMISSAL OF NAVAL CHIEF Allowing
problems to fester COMPARISONS are always odious, but the two extraordinary decisions by Mr Atal Behari Vajpayee — to explode the bomb and to dismiss the Chief of Navy Staff, Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat — automatically brings to mind President Harry Trumen who decided to explode the atom bomb in Nagasaki and to dismiss Gen McArthur. Here the comparison must end, for, Mr Trumen was a highly underrated President who by his deeds qualified to be considered one of the great Presidents of the USA. Mr Vajpayee, on the other hand, is thought of much as a man and as a politician, who on the whole has disappointed his countrymen by both his non-action and over-reaction. I, for one, have consistently supported his action in exploding the bomb, and thereby giving notice to the USA and the world that India is the best judge of where its security interests lie, and it is not for others to foist a patently unfair and biased nuclear regime in the country. I am not so sure about the Vajpayee Ministry’s decision to dismiss Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat. By all accounts the Admiral is a highly self-willed person who would brook no “no” to his decisions. But, then, it must be remembered that the three services, and not the Navy alone, have been having grievances against the high-handedness of the bureaucracy. According to them, civil control of the defence forces does not and should not imply the control of the civilians (bureaucrats) over them. Mr N.N. Vora, former Defence Secretary, has been writing in the newspapers to point out that a mechanism already exists for quietly sorting out differences between the Services Chiefs and the bureaucracy, and, given understanding and goodwill, problems have in the past been sorted out. It is indeed a reflection on the Vajpayee government that problems were allowed to fester. The fact that the Defence Secretary, Mr Arun Kumar, too has been transferred would show that the political executive has not been happy with his performance, but then it is not at all clear why the Defence Minister, Mr George Fernandes, and, finally, the Prime Minister did not intervene to sort matters out. There is nothing to indicate that either of them took any initiative to advise or warn Admiral Bhagwat, when he refused to implement the Cabinet Appointments Committee’s decision, or dispassionately hear his cases and take a fair decision, even if it meant rescinding its earlier one. The defence expert, Mr K. Subramaniam, has a point in suggesting that the government’s terse refusal to take the public into confidence about what the Admiral’s misdeeds were really given the impression that the government has something to hide. It goes without saying that the defence forces in the country must work within the parameters of the Constitution, but the Admiral’s case was that he was just doing that — his reading (or misreading) of the Constitution and the laws was that no senior Navy appointments could be made without consultation with the Navy Chief. Admiral Bhagwat read consultation to mean concurrence — which was perhaps wrong — but adopting that posture did not amount to mutinying against the government. Little wonder some retired Generals and others are upset over the implications of Admiral Bhagwat’s dismissal. The Prime Minister’s observation that more than the posting of the Deputy Naval Chief was involved, and that the Admiral had been deliberately defying the established system of governance, would require a more elaborate explanation to be convincing. In another burst of activity, the Vajpayee government had transferred Mr Bezbaroah, the Enforcement Directorate Chief, and also appointed a new CBI Director, Mr R.K. Raghavan, who has replaced Mr Trinath Mishra. The timing of Mr Bezbaroah’s transfer is interesting. The Central Vigilance Commission had ordered the Deputy Director of the Delhi Zone, Mr Ashok Aggarwal to be divested of all sensitive cases, and inquiries to be made into four sensitive cases being handled by him. Mr Bezbaroah issued the necessary orders. But the government chose to transfer Mr Bezbaroah on the grounds that, according to the Supreme Court ruling, only Additional Secretaries or Secretaries were qualified to hold the post, and since Mr Bezbaroah did not have the necessary rank, he had to be transferred. By all accounts Mr Bezbaroah, an honest officer, was doing his work diligently and impartially, but this is what did not suit some politicians, bureaucrats and businessmen. Else, since Mr Bezbaroah is already on the panel of those due for promotion to the rank of Additional Secretary, could have easily been upgraded. Now Mr Aggarwal too has been transferred. The BJP government tends to strike a posture of hurt innocence at constant criticism by the media and the parties of its alleged non-performance. However, facts speak for themselves. In the winter session of Parliament, among the important Bills it was able to introduce were the Women’s Reservation Bill, the Uttaranchal, Chattisgarh and Vananchal Bills, and the Insurance Regulatory Authority Bill. Despite loud expression of its resolve, the government could push through the Rajya Sabha the Patents Amendment Bill, but faced with criticism, even by some elements in the Sangh Parivar, it developed cold feet and did not introduce in the Lok Sabha. The spurious explanation given by the Minister of Parliamentary Affairs, Mr Madan Lal Khurana, that the Bill sent to the President for his signature, had not been sent back on time, attracted the rejoinder from Rashtrapati Bhavan that it had not been sent by the government at all. Mr Khurana had no option to apologising for the misleading statement. Then there are the Ordinances adopted with a great deal of fanfare but not got passed by Parliament, with the result that they will lapse next month. The Constitution provides, that, unless an Ordinance is passed by Parliament, within 45 days of meeting of the next session, it will lapse. The two important Ordinances that face this danger are the one on the appointment of the Central Vigilance Commission and the other on the Prasar Bharati Corporation. (The author,
former Editor of The Statesman, is a distinguished
politico-legal commentator.) |
DISMISSAL OF NAVAL CHIEF Fabric
of discipline damaged WE have seen an unprecedented event where the head of the Navy has refused to obey a government order. In whichever way the wording is couched, it is a defiance of the wish of the government of the day. We have also seen a “namby pamby” government putting up; with such defiance. In their efforts to defend the “action” of the Naval Chief, some defence analysts appear to have lost sight of many more important issues. Firstly, the total effectiveness of any armed force is based on discipline. Civilians, who have never served in the armed forces and who are much undisciplined themselves, can never understand the rigid discipline on which the entire efficiency of a Service depends. An important ingredient of discipline is instant obedience of orders. By tradition, more than by regulation, every officer, jawan, sailor and airman is expected to instantly obey the command of a superior officer. This hallowed tradition is hundreds of years old. By breaking this tradition — and so blatantly — the Naval Chief has destroyed the strong fabric of discipline in his Service. We are told by some that Admiral Bhagwat has taken a “principled” stand. He has declared that the order of the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet is unimplementable! But he took a “principled” stand in 1990 also. Unfortunately, at that time it was a different “principle”. However, according to his favourites (and Marc Antony), the “Admiral is an honourable man”. He obviously believes in the edict: “Show me a case and I will show you a principle”! This same principled gentleman filed a 400-page writ petition in the Bombay High Court against a whole phalanx of politicians, bureaucrats and Service officers. The list included the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister’s Secretary, Mr BG Deshmukh, the Defence Secretary, the Chief of the Naval Staff, FOC-in-C (Western Naval Command) and many Admirals in the Navy. He made many serious charges against them — charging them with corruption, amassing wealth, being American agents, etc. Of course, he withdrew the petition as soon as his buddie Ramdas became Chief. But for a small dose of some “education” for the readers, a few lines from his petition of 1990 on “principles and principles” need to be quoted here. This is an extract from page 93: “The petitioner submits that respondent No. 1 in collusion with respondent No. 10 informed and advised respondent No. 11 that the post of Fleet Commander was dependent on the personal choice of the Chief of the Naval Staff and was an internal matter for the Navy. The petitioner states that this advice was both illegal and flawed as in accordance with the rules of business of the Govt/Defence Ministry, the basic requirement of the approval of the assignment of Fleet Commander, West/East is not a procedural issue or a formality for the Defence Minister and the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet assisted by the Cabinet Secretary. The entire concept of civilian control rests on the implementation of this real position, in letter and spirit (i.e. in a democratic parliamentary system where there is no military rule) .... Within the framework of the Indian Constitution, Navy Act and Regulations, Rule of Govt business and appointments, no Chief of Naval Staff can seek to be a dictator/despot as the Indian Constitution does not recognise military rule and, therefore, within the constitutional/administrative structure, military command and senior appointments are not left to the arbitrary choice of the Chief of the Naval Staff unregulated by guiding rules, norms .....” In a fire-fighting exercise the Naval Chief’s friends have made much about the Chief being allowed to have his own team as if he is the US President. Even the latter has to seek approval for his nominations from the US Senate. One former senior bureaucrat, now a consulting editor of a national daily, has talked about the “Divine Right” of the ACC in one of his latest pieces. One may ask: does he then expect the Naval Chief to have a divine right? And does having one’s “own team” mean surrounding yourself with sycophants? Having your own team has to be done within the confines of equity and justice. Unfortunately, the government has not shown the required spine to take quick and, if necessary, drastic action and we, regrettably, hear of an “amicable solution”. Whatever the final outcome of the controversy, I feel that irreparable damage has been done to intra-Navy discipline, Navy-civilian relationship and the image of the Navy. The future of the nation is not going to be tension-free. When Mountbatten arrived in India in March, 1947, the sailor in the Viceroy graphically expressed: “India is a ship on fire in mid-ocean with ammunition in the hold:” Is our Navy in the new millennium going to be similarly “placed”? Egos have to be ruthlessly eliminated, whatever the rank and position held. (The author is a
retired Rear Admiral.) |
Civil vs civil service control
THE contrast between the volubility of the legal profession and the disciplined silence of the armed forces notwithstanding, last week’s dismissal of the Chief of Naval Staff for “loss of confidence in his fitness to continue” has unleashed no less a sense of outrage than independent India’s first-ever supersession of Judges (for the office of Chief Justice of India) for lack of “ideological” fitness 26 years ago. And even as Mohan Kumaramanglam’s defence of the supersession in Parliament failed to convince the nation in 1973, despite its richness of exposition and its firmness on the first principles of judicial accountability, George Fernandes’ justification of the dismissal — shifting emphasis and expanding in content with every passing day — will, I am sure, fail to impress the critics of the move, who manifestly outnumber its supporters if there are any. If what Mr Fernandes now states about Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat is true — that he was “crossing all limits” and was “so defiant that a dialogue with him had almost become impossible” and that the choice for the government was reduced to one “between chaos and discipline” (interview with India Today) — the Admiral, a Chief Justice Sajjad Ali Shah of Pakistan in the making, fully deserved the sack. Mr T.N. Seshan, the former Chief Election Commissioner who ground Indian democracy to a halt with his penchant for diktats and ultimatums, would be a still better and more homely example of individuals who mistake institutions for themselves. The danger that such individuals in office pose to the rule of law and the Constitution is often greater than that posed by anarchy or lawlessness. But are Mr Fernandes’ allegations true? Or is he just another Krishna Menon, a Defence Minister undoubtedly capable, unlike most politicians, of thinking for himself but organically incapable of tolerating difference of opinion and the dignity and self-respect that underlie it? Tempting though it is, it is difficult to pass judgement at this distance in an atmosphere of highly personalised perceptions. Nor perhaps would it be proper for me to do so for, strictly speaking (and despite the keenness of litigative combat among top naval officers in different High Courts and the sacked Admiral’s wife being, and speaking out like, a lawyer), it raises no legal question. Except one. The concept of the supremacy of civil power over the military invoked by the government to dismiss Admiral Bhagwat. No constitutional or legal device, say two leading British jurists (one unfortunately no longer alive) known for their scholarship, can afford a guarantee against a military take-over when the political structure is in a condition of decadence or collapse. In a large number of new states, and in a few that are not so new, the military servants of the State have become masters. Nonetheless, write Professors SA de Smith and Rodney Brazier, the “primacy of the civil power is a sociological as well as a constitutional fact”. No British government has been overthrown by military force since 1688. No senior officer of the regular armed forces has ever been Prime Minister except the Duke of Wellington (1828-30, 1834), and he had long since retired from active service. It is a part of the service tradition to accept a position of subordination to the civil power and although the British public has often been disenchanted with its political leaders, it is averse from turning to the regular armed forces for salvation. An examination of the written or unwritten Constitutions of the world, whether of the federal or the unitary type, reveals that the centre of political power always controls “Defence”, writes Rear Admiral (retd) O.P. Sharma, echoing the same thought. The first naval officer to be appointed as Judge Advocate General of the Navy, Sharma’s book on military law — prepared for his doctoral dissertation in law at the University of Bombay — is notable for its principled exposition of the supremacy of civil authority. He refers, in particular, to the constitutional designation of the President of India as the Supreme Commander of the Defence Forces (Article 53) and to the financial control of Parliament over the armed forces. Even though the armed forces constitute a permanent feature of the State, Parliament votes money from year to year for their maintenance. The Prime Minister’s statement from Port Blair and Mr Fernandes’ protestations notwithstanding, there is nothing to indicate that Admiral Bhagwat questioned, or defied, civil supremacy in this fundamental sense. His opposition appears to have been directed at the crippling hold of the civilian bureaucracy in the Ministry of Defence rather than ministerial or political control per se. This is conceded by editor Prabhu Chawla and Manoj Joshi in their latest cover story on the dismissal in India Today, otherwise blatantly biased in favour of the government. It is conceivable, they say, that the “Naval HQ-MOD battle began as Bhagwat’s way of showing the babus their place”. Chief of Naval Staff from 1990 to 1993, Admiral L. Ramdas made the same point in The Hindu on January 2 in what is perhaps the best article to appear on the controversy till date. “...I fully concur with the principle of the supremacy of civil control over the military,” he said, provided that the definition of “civil control” is not confused with “civil service control.” This challenge to
bureaucratic dominance masquerading as civil supremacy is
the most important question thrown up by the Bhagwat
dismissal. More on the subject next week. |
Delegations flock to see President
IT certainly cannot be termed a happy end to the year when violence against the Christian community went on unabated right from Christmas, in the state of Gujarat. In fact, I have been told that on December 31 and January 1 the President of India, Mr K.R. Narayanan, met three delegations — one comprised SAHMAT activists, the second delegation was members of the Congress party and the third were representatives of Left parties. Each of these recounted the rising cases of communal instances in recent times with particular reference to the attack on Christians in Gujarat. And there are over 31 other organisations under the umbrella of ‘Citizens Committee For Secular Action’ who have sought an appointment with the President, for the same purpose. And on January 1 afternoon some prominent Christians of the Capital left for Gujarat to assess for themselves the damage and the situation. And though no diplomat posted in New Delhi wants to be officially quoted but reports confirm that a number of them are upset at the latest round of these communal ongoings. To quote a senior ambassador “Actually right now a great majority of the diplomats are out of the Capital. Some went back to their respective countries to celebrate Christmas and New Year whilst many others are out on short vacations in Goa, Rajasthan and Kerala ... by January 6 most will be back here in New Delhi, that is the time the general mood can really be ascertained....” ...Needless to add that for the sake of diplomacy their real moods could lie camouflaged but seeing the large turnout of the foreign media crew on December 30 and 31 at the protest sit-ins here in front of Gujarat Bhavan and at Jantar Mantar there can be no doubt that the rest of the world knows about the ongoings in Gujarat. In fact the mood at the protest gatherings was highly sombrer, with people telling each other “Look at the extent to which blatant communalism is getting stretched .... it is time the Gujarat CM and Home Minister resign”. And as representatives went to hand over the memorandum to the resident Commissioner of Gujarat cynicism couldn’t be curbed. Afterall, it would be naive not to realise that such a series of planned attacks against a minority community which barely constitutes 2% of the population cannot take place without the potent or impotent support of those responsible for maintaining law and order. In this context it would be important to also mention that earlier last week news was that the Chairman of the Minorities Commission had summoned the Chief Secretary of Gujarat but till the date of filing this column there is no further news of the CS’s response to it. Anyway, this new year had other reasons for a poor start. That night it seemed wiser to shut the idiot box before the clock struck twelve or before Shekhar Suman’s face crawled all over your psyche from different angles, beaming from both the DD channels. That sackful of stale jokes, songs, dialogues and withered faces were hard to digest. But talking to Sharad Dutt, the producer of the two- hour-long programme ‘Bye 98 Hi ‘99, aired on DD-I, one gets the impression that he was confident that the programme was an eminently watchable fare and also the fact that the I&B Secretary Piyush Manakad and Minister Pramod Mahajan didn’t see it nor had it screened before the telecast. A committee definitely ought to have at least screened, if for nothing else then to judge the level of submediocrity of the programme. On this 31st night if the sight of Shekhar Suman made you feel giddy then the well spread out fog outside threatened to swallow you. Though some great publicity had been (prematurely) given to new year partying but the majority of the who’s who I spoke to the next morning admitted that they spent that evening in their home confines. Exceptions alright, several senior bureaucrats attended the cocktail dinner at a well known five star chain of hotels and several others attended another major”contributory dinner” held at the premises of a former bureaucrat — one who had sought premature retirement and now works for a public sector enterprise. The new year eve parties which the defence personnel attended got distracted to talks revolving around former Navy chief Vishnu Bhagwat and his lawyer spouse Niloufer. The case of his sacking getting murkier with AIADMK chief Jayalalitha asking for a thorough enquiry against the allegations made against him by the Defence Minister delayed allegations alright, especially if they happened, to pertain to national security. Meanwhile a number of senior defence personnel seem to be echoing former navy chief OS Dawson’s lines, to the effect that the Navy chief is not a cook who can be fired overnight. If there were serious charges against him then he ought to have been asked to give an explanation and he could have been court-martialled much before. R-Day celebrations With a not so happy start to this new year let’s focus attention to the coming Republic Day. Thankfully King Birendra of the Kingdom of Nepal didn’t get peeved by Madhuri Dixit’s off-the-cuff remark that Nepal was once upon a time part of India and he is indeed coming here as the chief guest to our Republic Day celebrations. Not so ordinary spouse It would be futile if I
write whatever Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen has spoken
here, at the special convocation at JNU and the private
receptions hosted in his honour, for by now all his
utterances have become well known quotes. But not much
seems to be known about his English (second) spouse Emma
Rothschild, who is accompanying him here. Two aspects
about her are enough to impress. One that she is herself
a senior professor but keeps a very low profile and the
other aspect is that she belongs to the well known
Rothschild banker family of the UK and yet leaves all the
economic talking for her husband. |
Babar Akali cases WE understand that the Babar Akali conspiracy case will be tried in the Central Jail, Lahore, by a Special Magistrate, although Lahore is not the district or even the division where the alleged offences are said to have taken place. This will undoubtedly be inconvenient to the defence. But the worst feature of the trial is that it is proposed to hold it in jail and in camera. Secret trials in jail of persons accused of serious offences can never inspire public confidence, and are reminiscent of the Middle Ages which one would have thought the British administration of justice had long outgrown. The measures taken by the Government in the matter of the so-called suppression of the Babar Akali movement have evoked strong adverse criticism in the Press, to which the Government has not thought it fit to give a reply. The trial of the Babar Akali cases within the closed doors of a Central Jail will lay the Government open to the further charge that the accused were not treated fairly. Nothing but a public trial in an open court can satisfy the people, or entitle the judgement of the court to that respect and weight which judicial pronouncements of courts of law ought to be able to claim. In the present case, it is
easier and more desirable for the Government to hold the
trial publicly because the public has not only no
sympathy with the crimes which are the subject matter of
the prosecution, but has already condemned them in strong
and unambiguous terms. |
 |
 |
| Nation
| Punjab | Haryana | Himachal Pradesh | Jammu & Kashmir | | Chandigarh | Business | Sport | | Mailbag | Spotlight | World | 50 years of Independence | Weather | | Search | Subscribe | Archive | Suggestion | Home | E-mail | |
