Price of misadventure
ALTHOUGH this is not the hour of celebratory victory for India in the Dras-Batalik-Kargil region, the people of this land of peace-seekers feel a sense of pride at the certain vacation of its aggression by Pakistan in calculated phases.

Onward to elections
THE announcement of the schedule of the coming midterm elections has been exquisitely timed. As the government announced that the remaining Pakistan intruders are heading back home on their own, the Election Commission set the country on the road to electing the next Lok Sabha, the 13th.

Penalising car makers
THE case in which a California jury last week ordered General Motors Corporation to pay a whopping amount of $4.9 billion in damages to six persons has important lessons for Indian car users.

CLINTON-SHARIF PARLEYS
Question of diplomatic triumph
by Poonam I. Kaushish
AFTER Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s hasty airdash to Washington, there is a tussle between the good news and the bad news.

Circumstantial advantages
by S. Sahay
MR Atal Behari Vajpayee was the Minister of External Affairs in the Janata Party government. As Prime Minister, Morarji Desai insisted that the Indian embassies must not serve liquor during reception (In fact, even the foreign embassies did not serve liquor, if the Prime Minister happened to be the chief guest, but no sooner his back was turned than wine and liquor flowed freely — a fine example of diplomatic coexistence.

Reining in caretaker regimes
by P. Raman
THE unnecessary controversy over the issue of calling a special session of the Rajya Sabha only reveal the absurdity of the contemporary political discourse. Even if the Opposition forces a motion ‘regretting’ the intelligence failures — that seems to be the BJP’s worst fears — it would not make much difference to the ruling party. For, in any case it is going to be a major issue in the ensuing election, with or without a Rajya Sabha motion. Moreover, while a war is raging on the border, no sensible Opposition group will risk any political adventurism that might raise public ire.

Songs pop out
by Iqbal Singh Ahuja
THOUGH television has become a part of life for most of us, there is a section, which because of its professional compulsions is unable to enjoy its fare. The doctors belong to this class. However silly it may be to confess but I try to see some interesting programmes on TV at breakfast or dinner time.

75 Years Ago

Medical inspection of school children
WHAT is of more than local interest and may well be emulated by the local bodies in other parts of India is the success which has attended by system of medical inspection of the primary school children of Simla, launched by captain W. J. R. D. Webb, Medical Officer, Simla, on the lines prevailing in the United Kingdom.

Price of misadventure

ALTHOUGH this is not the hour of celebratory victory for India in the Dras-Batalik-Kargil region, the people of this land of peace-seekers feel a sense of pride at the certain vacation of its aggression by Pakistan in calculated phases. It is painful time for the neighbour whose well-being is part of our own ethos of dignified coexistence. The Pakistani leaders — including the army top brass — made yet another grievous mistake and sent their soldiers in the garb of "Afghan mercenaries" to grab more Indian land across the Line of Control, clearly demarcated after the third invasion by Pakistan. Defeat is the first humiliating consequence of misadventure and calumny. Islamabad's ruling circle has a strong military component, which is undergoing, among other agonies, the acutely demoralising effect of humiliating retreat. It has been a consistent, though often nationally hurtful, tradition on the part of India to "accommodate" Pakistan after every war launched against this country. The people of Pakistan are right in censuring their Prime Minister, Mr Nawaz Sharif, because of his miscalculations. His army committed the blunder of occupying strategic heights in northern Kashmir with the intent of cutting the supply line to Ladakh and subsequently fuelling the proxy war from Jammu to Srinagar with greater ferocity. The Indian intelligence system showed culpable complacency. Political leaders, from Chief Minister Farooq Abdullah to Defence Minister George Fernandes, did not know anything about the intrusion when it really began. Awakening came at a late stage. Consequently, there have been high casualties on the Indian side. Precious resources have been exhausted in the emergency. The entire nation has felt traumatised during the period of one and a half months. The damage to the collective psyche cannot be calculated in mathematical or financial terms. However, despite his face-saving rhetoric, Mr Nawaz Sharif must be a fallen man in the eyes of his countrymen, particularly those related to the armed forces. He had to genuflect before the leaders of Islamic countries, European governments and American President Bill Clinton. The Chinese did not help. The clandestine North Korean arms supply was lost on the way. Indian valour proved overwhelming. A total rout was the net result. Surrender has not been demanded by the Indian Army. This is a notable gesture to Sqn. Ldr. Ajay Ahuja's tormentors and killers.

It is a pity that a large number of soldiers of Pakistan did not get a decent burial in the lap of their motherland. Indian soldiers, with the help of Kashmiri maulvis, had to lay them to rest respectfully. A government which is not in a position to receive its brave dead soldiers is unarguably not the instrument of governance. The people who have lost their near and dear ones in their leaders' misadventure cannot be expected to be seen crying and mourning privately at home. Sorrow can make one better, but it can also make one bitter. The Pakistani public is not gullible and Mr Nawaz Sharif has many questions to answer despite his explanation and harangue through the media on Monday night. The Clinton-Sharif Agreement has been a source of peace, howsoever short-lived it may happen to be because of the Pakistani hate-India syndrome. Remember 1947, 1965, 1971, 1989 (when the proxy war began) and then come to the present perfidy. Our soldiers have embraced death in a large number to see to it that we remain free. Our hearts go out in sympathy to their families and our heads stay bowed in gratitude for their sacrifice. Fresh talks on the Line of Control (LoC) are immediately needed. We never bargain with a humbled nation. But to ask for the return of our own territory in the enslaved part of Kashmir does not mean bargaining and we must keep in mind the source of Pakistani arrogance — the areas which are under its control. This point ought to be on the top of the agenda in any further high-level bilateral talks. We are immensely appreciative of the sacrifice of our Armed Forces during the undeclared war. Man is not a military animal; but to control rogue military animals from the enemy side, the people have to be militarised. India is a united nation at this moment. It must remain so in the future also.

Onward to elections

THE announcement of the schedule of the coming midterm elections has been exquisitely timed. As the government announced that the remaining Pakistan intruders are heading back home on their own, the Election Commission set the country on the road to electing the next Lok Sabha, the 13th. Deep and neutral thinking has gone into working out the various dates, the staggering of voting and also when to make public the whole plan. The Commission chose a Sunday, a holiday, to unveil its elaborately drawn schedule. It could have waited for a day but there was a small risk. On Sunday came the first clear indication of Pakistani withdrawal and with its attention off the Kargil issue for a moment, the Union Government could have got into the election-fighting mode and that would give it undue advantage. As it is, there is much legitimate controversy over the gift of hundreds of crores of rupees worth concessions to cellular telephone operators and more decisions of a similar nature will muddy the electoral waters further.

By fixing the polling dates full seven weeks before the first vote is to be cast on September 4, the Election Commission has sought to dilute, if not delink, the effects of Kargil on the electoral preference of the common people. If the political parties are sincere in their public stand that the fighting should not be politicised, they will take a hint from the Commission and not mix the mega emotional issue of fighting and dying and the election campaign. They may not, but normal developments will force them to. For instance, Home Minister Advani told the media at the end of the Chief Ministers conference last week that the ruling coalition will invoke three “W”s — Wimbledon, Washington and war. War may on its own cease to spell an electoral bonanza once the television screen stops showing the booming Bofors gun and the arrival of Tricolour-wrapped coffins. High pitch nationalist ardour tends to cool down in the absence of daily visual stoking. How can Wimbledon be an election issue? Leander Paes and Mahesh Bhupathy are unlikely candidates to divert votes by the million the BJP way. Anyway tennis is not a spectator sport in India as is cricket or hockey. Washington is a dicey proposition. The withdrawal is thanks entirely to the US efforts, but if that country were to be equally insistent on the early resumption of the Lahore process, there will be several sour faces in Delhi. Washington will then be a symbol of a weight around India’s neck. The Election Commission’s announcement on Sunday is a signal triumph of democratic spirit. The three members have resisted all pressure, first to hold the polling by June and now by refusing to delay the announcement. They have ensured, as much as they can, a “level playing field” to all political parties. Coupled with the unobtrusive and morally subtle way the President is conducting himself vis-a-vis the Union Government, it is clear that the Indian heart beats vibrantly to high ideals of democracy. This is despite a few wreckers at large.

Penalising car makers

THE case in which a California jury last week ordered General Motors Corporation to pay a whopping amount of $4.9 billion in damages to six persons has important lessons for Indian car users. The case is important in the context of the amazing expansion of the car manufacturing sector after the opening up of the economy. It may only be a minor exaggeration to say that is now far easier to buy a car of one's choice than to pick up one's favourite detergent from the neighbourhood general merchandise shop. By all accounts the after sales service offered by the car manufacturers in India is close to being excellent. But do the manufacturers follow the same stringent safety norms which they dare not violate in the developed countries? Anyone who is even remotely familiar with what can be called corporate psychology would know that the multi-nationals too do not mind cutting corners in the matter of introducing features which make their products safe for use if they know that they can get away with it. For instance car manufacturers are following Euro III emission norms in the European market. They have now promised Euro II norms for the Indian market, that too after the intervention of the Supreme Court. The case in which General Motors were slapped a penalty of nearly $ 5 billion relates to the deliberate violation of an elementary safety norm which resulted in the victims being burned in 1993 when their car exploded after being hit from behind by a drunk driver. A similar case may have been dismissed by courts in a country which takes pride in being part of the global village. In fact Indian lawyers themselves may not have gone beyond seeking damages from the drunken driver.

However, in the present case instead of going for the driver the victims' lawyer sued General Motors for damages for ignoring the norms prescribed for protecting the fuel tank from the kind of accident which caused the victims' car to explode. The jury was convinced by the argument that the fuel tank in the 1979 Chevrolet Malibu was too close to the rear bumper and insufficiently protected from explosions. The evidence which clinched the case for the victims was a 1973 memo prepared by a GM engineer. He had shot down a proposal for improving the fuel tank's safety by presenting statistics which showed that deaths by fire cost the company only $2.40 per victim while fixing the tank would cost GM between $4 to $12 per car. The reason why GM was ordered to pay $4.9 billion to the victims was because the court wanted to send a message that earning profit by ignoring safety of human lives was an unacceptable practice in civilised society. Had the company invested a small amount per car in improving the safety of the fuel tank, the victims may have got away with nothing more serious than "a fractured leg" to one of the children of the family of six involved in the accident. Today, even after 60 surgeries the skin of 11-year-old Alisha Anderson involved in the accident remains "horribly scarred, her face disfigured and some fingers amputated". The California court awarded $107 million in compensatory damages and $44.8 in punitive damages - which is 67 per cent more than GM's 1998 net profit of $3 billion. The reason why the case has important lessons for Indian car users is that GM are the world's leading car makers. If they can cheat customers of a few dollars as investment on improving the safety level of their product in a country where laws are strictly and fairly applied, what can stop the second-string players in the car making segment from doing much worse to Indian users of their products? The Indian policy-makers too should realise the folly of pushing the country in the global village armed with laws which would be shot down by courts in developed countries.

CLINTON-SHARIF PARLEYS
Question of diplomatic triumph
by Poonam I. Kaushish

AFTER Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s hasty airdash to Washington, there is a tussle between the good news and the bad news. First the good news. Diplomatic triumph is how New Delhi described the Clinton-Sharif joint statement on the Kargil conflict. So did Prime Minister Vajpayee “I am fully satisfied. The USA concurs with India’s view.” Now the bad news. For the first time, a USA twist has been appended to the Kashmir issue, courtesy Kargil.

Undoubtedly, New Delhi has much to be pleased about over the Clinton-Sharif three-hour parleys in Blair House on July 4. For the first time, the USA has not only affirmed but Mr Clinton has also personally re-affirmed Pakistan’s Kargil misadventure. The statement averred that Pakistan would take “concrete steps to restore the Line of Control in accordance with the Simla Agreement.” The President urged an immediate cessation of hostilities once these steps were taken.

India has treated this with cautious optimism. Against the backdrop of Pakistan’s untrampelled record of going back on its word: “We appeal to the freedom fighters to withdraw from Kargil at the one end to linking India’s simultaneous withdrawal from Siachen at the other. This is contrary to the interpretation given by Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott to Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh, sequencing the statement as vacation of Indian territory and restoration of the “sanctity” of the LoC, followed by talks under the Lahore Declaration.

The fact remains that verbal assurances are not enough. India continues to wait, at the time of the writing, for the ground situation to reflect the new status. Even after a week has elapsed, no withdrawal has taken place. Instead, Pakistani troop deployment has intensified on the Kargil border. According to a Pakistani newspaper, The News, the conflict is going to see its fiercest activity till July-end as India can dump supplies for its army on Siachen Glaciers only from March to July. Two strike corps of the Pakistani army and two defence corps have fully mobilised manpower and ammunition from the Ravi to Siachen in the North and from Okara to Badin in the South to repulse any Indian attack along the LoC.

Islamabad’s desperation is understandable after Mr Sharif’s “empty handed” return from Washington. The fundamentalists have described the joint statement as a “sell-out” of their cause. The militants view it as a “U” turn by the Sharif government, which had backed their proxy war to get India to agree to a UN plebiscite in Kashmir, refusing to buy the line that the statement has affixed a US seal to internationalising the Kashmir dispute.

At another level, the joint statement says nothing substantial. What is, however, of import from India’s perspective is what it does not state, rather than what it states. For starters, the interpretation to the statement was provided by the Americans, not by the Pakistanis. Islamabad has not yet made any commitment to withdrawal.

In fact, its reading is quite to the contrary. While Mr Clinton “wants to see positive steps taken in a very early time”, Pakistan’s Defence Committee of the Cabinet (DCC) has made no mention of a ceasefire. “We appeal to the Mujahideen to help resolve the situation.” Second, there is no time-frame mentioned for the withdrawal. Foreign Ministry mandarins, therefore, wonder, whether this was a “deliberate oversight” in the joint US-Pakistan draft.

Significantly, what is most disturbing is that the USA did not acknowledge the involvement of the Pakistani army in Kargil, despite the proof made available to it by New Delhi. Replying to a question, did the Prime Minister acknowledge that they had troops in Kargil and they would withdraw them, the official said. “Again, what we’re doing here is to give you an understanding of the document itself, what was said, backgrounding. We’re not going to get into an elaboration of what was discussed at the meeting.” In other words, it refused to endorse India’s claim. “Arguably, if Mr Clinton has given a clean chit to the Pakistani army, how can he ask Mr Sharif to take positive steps”, said a senior official. Also, what is the US motive behind giving Mr Sharif a face-saver, given the tenuous politico-military balance in Pakistan?

Defence sources believe it is significant that the USA has chosen to underwrite the Pakistani withdrawal by issuing a joint statement. The absence of the mention of the Pakistan army is Mr Clinton’s way of reaffirming its special relationship with Islamabad. The sources cite a US Task Force report — “The Kashmir Connection” — which details Pakistan’s role in fomenting militancy in Kashmir and highlights the CIA’s acquiescence in the diabolical and bloody terrorism let loose in the valley.

The report recalls the fact that American help to the rebels in Afghanistan was routed through Pakistan’s ISI, a willing conduit, as Washington did not wish to be seen as being directly involved. At one point, the report adds: “... it was not long before Afghan terrorists trained by CIA instructors had been smuggled into India with the purpose of organising acts of terrorism against ... members of the Indian government and foreign diplomatic representatives”.

What is even more worrisome is Mr Clinton’s promise to take “personal interest”. Does this mean that he will “kickstart” the stalled Indo-Pakistan peace talks? A commitment which India sees as mediation? The first time the USA has agreed to play such a role for the final settlement of the Kashmir dispute. The answer to these is an emphatic “yes”.

According to transcripts of the State Department press briefing, a senior official was asked: “Clinton has promised to take personal interest. So, there is no commitment on the part of the United States to continue to take interest? Or, is there a commitment on the part of the United States to continue to be involved in solving the Kashmir dispute?”

The answer? I think you’re parsing that sentence way too narrowly. The President has had an interest in this. He has had Deputy Secretary Talbott and Administration officials one and two engaged in an intense process for the last year on this. No, it does not mean that when January 2001 comes around, he takes this issue with him to whatever he goes on to.... The President wants to see this process move forward as quickly as possible and he will be involved in trying in his fashion to encourage that to take place.” In his fashion?

Further, what is the US understanding of the restoration of the Line of Control in accordance with the Simla Agreement? “That means the day the Simla Agreement was signed, if there had been any alteration in the Line of Control after 1972 by use of force — what is the US understanding about those territories? Replied the official: “We have read the Simla Agreement, we read the 43-page annex which delineates the Line of Control. We are very aware of the history of Kashmir. In fact, if any of you wish, you can go back to Secretary Albright’s father’s book, “Danger in Kashmir,” that he wrote after being on the first UN Commission. We’re very aware of the history and what has been said and what has been done. We’re hoping that can be resumed. And I think that is why we’re trying to focus on tracks so diplomacy can be resumed. And they will have the full support in that effort by the President and the US government.”

Additionally, if one goes by this press briefing, Mr Clinton had successfully accomplished the task of an “unofficial” mediator in trying to broker peace between the warring neighbours. When questioned about the timeframe of the withdrawal of the forces, the official stated: “I think it is safe to say that the President and both Prime Ministers have a great sense of urgency here, and that we expect they want to see positive steps taken in a very early time.” Needless to say, the word “want” carries a veiled warning.

The moot point now for New Delhi to consider is when will Washington translate words into action, if it perceives no progress? One way would be to squeeze Pakistan economically, deny it military hardware and spares and get its allies to join in exerting pressure. Alternatively, clearly for New Delhi, it is for the first time the Clinton administration has offered to “mediate”. True, Mr Vajpayee has outrightly rejected the offer. But it is clear that Kashmir continues to be very vital for the USA’s new containment policy to succeed. It has been often said that a settlement of the Kashmir issue would be against the US interest. Their strategy seems to be gearing towards both India and Pakistan exercising the third option, that is agreeing to an independent Kashmir.

Post-Cold War Washington’s new strategy for this region is elucidated in the annual publication of the US Institute for National Strategic Studies Assessment. India has been grouped with a new geostrategy area, called the “Greater Middle East”. After the Gulf War and the Bosnian and Kosovo crises, Washington is wary of the growth of sectarianism in Iran, CIS states, Egypt, etc. For the USA the control of fundamentalism and terrorism is vital for its foreign policy and economic forays in the region.

In this scenario, New Delhi must have its own dynamics of security logic which should be broad-based. Pakistan is not unimportant from India’s security perception, but what is of greater relevance is a quiet acquiescence from the USA. Till recently, the USA used to claim that bilateral pacts were sufficient to tackle regional issues. But, as its policy on Kashmir shows, it not only wants its finger in the Kashmiri pie but eat it too. This will be India’s greatest strategic challenge in the future. — INFA

Circumstantial advantages
by S. Sahay

MR Atal Behari Vajpayee was the Minister of External Affairs in the Janata Party government. As Prime Minister, Morarji Desai insisted that the Indian embassies must not serve liquor during reception (In fact, even the foreign embassies did not serve liquor, if the Prime Minister happened to be the chief guest, but no sooner his back was turned than wine and liquor flowed freely — a fine example of diplomatic coexistence.

To come to the main point, Mr Vajpayee as External Affairs Minister considered it to be an unreasonable request and hence kept delaying the decision. And the story went that each time the PMO sent Mr Vajpayee a reminder, he replied that the request was receiving his active consideration.

Clearly, Mr Vajpayee, even though himself the Prime Minister, has not changed his style. He has been assuring the political parties and the nation that even though there is no consensus among the political parties on whether or not a session of the Rajya Sabha should be called to consider the Kargil situation, “I shall, however, continue to evolve a consensus on the matter by examining the proposal afresh”.

His Information Minister, Mr Pramod Mahajan, briefed media persons after the Prime Minister’s meeting with Chief Ministers, that seven Chief Ministers had supported the demand for a Rajya Sabha session, 13 had opposed it, while seven had expressed no opinion on it.

Those who oppose a session argue that the parties must put national security above partisan politics and tell the “enemy” that the nation was united on the threat to its democratic values and integrity. The Punjab Chief Minister, Mr Parkash Singh Badal, in particular, asked the parties to refrain from creating controversies.

Those who favour such a session, including the Congress, argue that, now that the Lok Sabha has been dissolved, the Rajya Sabha, along with the President, represents Parliament and it must be allowed to have a say on the undeclared war by Pakistan.

Several political parties, including the Left, have pleaded with the President, Mr K.R. Narayanan, that a session of the Rajya Sabha should be convened to discuss Kargil. The Congress has sent a written note and the President has forwarded this and other notes received by him to the Vajpayee government, along with his own view that a session of the Rajya Sabha should be convened.

That the President has expressed his own view in the matter appears to be a fact. It is irrelevant as to who is responsible for this leak; what is relevant is that the President has expressed his mind and he has the right to do so — it is his acknowledged prerogative to advise and warn the government.

Theorywise, the case for a Rajya Sabha session is irrefutable. While the country is faced with an undeclared war, the Lok Sabha stands dissolved. And, this being the case, the constitutional foundation for the existence of the Council of Ministers, which is collectively responsible to the House of the People (the Lok Sabha) gets eroded.

If the Vajpayee government exists today it is because of the further constitutional provision that there shall (always) be a Council of Ministers to aid and advise the President in the discharge of his functions. He simply cannot do without one and the convention has been that the outgoing Prime Minister should be asked to hold the fort until fresh arrangements are made.

The Rajya Sabha, which is never dissolved, exists and it is only right and proper that it should have a say in a serious matter like war.

Thanks to the weather and other factors, the parliamentary elections had to be deferred till September-October even though the government had pleaded for an early election.

And then came the undeclared war. An unusually long-tenure as a caretaker government and the fact of war have given the Vajpayee government the boldness to take major economic and other decisions, apart from conducting an undeclared war.

Never in the history of any democratic country has a caretaker government taken such sweeping decisions as has the Vajpayee government. And the President has no option to helplessly watching it and the other parties sucking their thumbs.

But then this is a bad precedent. A caretaker government does not constitute the nation. And it is the nation that is fighting Pakistani aggression. The Vajpayee government is simply taking advantage of the upsurge of the national emotion against Pakistani perfidy. And certainly it is influenced in its decisions by the fact that parliamentary elections are only a few weeks away and it wants to take full advantage of the truth that, accidentally, it is in power.

Songs pop out
by Iqbal Singh Ahuja

THOUGH television has become a part of life for most of us, there is a section, which because of its professional compulsions is unable to enjoy its fare. The doctors belong to this class. However silly it may be to confess but I try to see some interesting programmes on TV at breakfast or dinner time.

As I switched on the television, a Punjabi pop song, “gallan gorian te wich toye....” assailed my ears. It made me sit up for a while. My younger daughter, a conventee, who was sitting with me noticed my reaction. Before I could speak she asked “dad, do you understand the meaning of these words? “Yes madam”, I said, “chubby cheeks and dimple within”. She giggled, cut me short and said, “Oh dad” “toye” means caries (cavities) in the teeth. For the first time I realised that she had inherited our medical knowledge.

Hardly had I settled when another popular Punjabi song, “kala sha kala”, came on the screen showing half-clad women dancing to different tunes. It took me 15 years back, when Nimmi Sandhu, the first Lion Lady, sang the same song. The whole crowd shouted in unison —“Ek bari hor” (once more). “Juti Kasuri”, “Kali teri gut te paranda tera lal nee”, still haunt our memories. I wonder why they can’t invent new songs instead of spoiling the purity of our golden oldies.

Though everything was said in a lighter vein, it made me serious. I wanted to find out how the transition has occurred from folk songs to these pop songs in Punjabi music. “Musical innovation is full of danger to the state, for when the modes of music change, the fundamental laws of that state change with them. It is also true that if one desires to know whether a kingdom is well governed, if its moral is good or bad, the quality of music will furnish the answer”.

The bug of pop music has bitten one of our friends also. His son, with the grace of God, has a good voice. Dame luck seemed very happy and his first song was picturised for DD 1. We were invited to dinner to see a copy of the recorded song. To me it seemed as if Yash Chopra had called us for dinner on the premiere show of his new film.

The beaming couple welcomed us. Our friend’s wife was in seventh heaven. The fellow who would get a scolding the whole day for listening to music and ignoring studies had all the appreciation. There was not even an iota of doubt that the song was extremely good and we expected the fellow to rise and attain glorious heights. My soul and ears were also haunted by “Hai Billo Hai Billo”.

As we were leaving to say goodbye, something appeared to be unsaid. We are Indians and as per Indian customs — the goodbye takes a rather long time and some times the journey from the dining table to the car is longer than the time you have spent in having dinner.

As I was opening the door of my car his beaming wife asked me: “Doctor sahib, you know who is the writer of the song”? It was a very difficult question for me. I could count some Punjabi singers but could not recall any Punjabi lyricist. She did not have the patience to wait for my answer and blurted, it is he, my husband, who wrote the song. I was happy and as a goodbye note I said, “Bhabiji be careful, these Billos are very dangerous”.

The year passed and the illustrious son had sung a series of songs on Billo. There was no repeat invitation. So we decided to invite ourselves, and one fine evening we raided the house. The wall of the house was decorated with large-sized photos of Billo. Everything was fine except the wife. The beaming face was missing. After a cup of tea, I just asked “How is Billo”.

Mar gai Billo, sar gai Billo
Mere munde nu lai gai Billo

With great difficulty, I managed to come out of the house and thought in my mind that serene Punjabi songs were far better. Punjabi pop songs are bound to pop sooner rather than later.

Reining in caretaker regimes
by P. Raman

THE unnecessary controversy over the issue of calling a special session of the Rajya Sabha only reveal the absurdity of the contemporary political discourse. Even if the Opposition forces a motion ‘regretting’ the intelligence failures — that seems to be the BJP’s worst fears — it would not make much difference to the ruling party. For, in any case it is going to be a major issue in the ensuing election, with or without a Rajya Sabha motion. Moreover, while a war is raging on the border, no sensible Opposition group will risk any political adventurism that might raise public ire.

Sadly, in the present atmosphere of political confrontation and mutual suspicion, everything is viewed from the narrow partisan angle. If the BJP tries to emphasise the success of diplomacy and war victory, the other side is bound to play up the negative aspects like allowing the infiltration in the first place and the consequent loss of life and resources. This obsession with scoring points and oneupmanship has made us blind to the basic issue of institutionalising democratic practices without giving scope for their misuse.

There are two different aspects to the present political crisis. We tend to mix up the two situations thinking they are inseparable. Take the issue of an unusual situation brought about by a sudden war. This is different from the need for evolving a regular systemic arrangement to run the government during caretaker rule. Demand for consultations and special sessions must have been raised even under a government enjoying the confidence of Parliament. This has been part of the parliamentary process.

More fundamental is the need for building up precedents and the right kind of institutional mechanism to meet the situations when effective parliamentary democracy gets caught in a state of suspended animation. But for the best reasons known to them, no political party has so far come up with concrete suggestions in this regard. It is true that the life of the present caretaker government could be counted as unusually longer but not altogether unprecedented. There can be more similar situations in future. In the past 10 years from 1989, we had seven prime ministers. Of them, only one — Narasimha Rao — had survived full term. All others had to function as caretaker prime ministers for varying terms.

Unfortunately, Vajpayee with all his accommodating and liberal image, has been the first defeated prime minister to challenge the very concept of ‘caretaker’ government. All others had conceded their de facto position and unreservedly accepted what R. Venkataraman had described the President’s role as an ‘emergency lamp’. His special role ends the moment a legitimate prime minister with a parliamentary majority emerges. On the other, the Vajpayee government has taken the stand that the word ‘caretaker’ does not exist in the Constitution and hence any one appointed as prime minister — even if lost the confidence of the House — has full powers of a government and hence is entitled to do anything it considered necessary.

This is in striking contrast to the dignified manner in which Chandra Shekhar had conducted himself after he had lost the majority. Minutes after the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi, he had rushed to Rashtrapati Bhavan to consult what he had later described the ‘surviving segment’ of Indian Parliament. Even a usually arrogant T.N. Seshan did not stand on prestige. Senior officials were summoned. It was at this crucial midnight meeting at Rashtrapati Bhavan — not PMO — that prompt decisions were taken to step up the security and alert all authorities to deal with the possible outbreak of violence. Unlike Vajpayee now, Chandra Shekhar had never questioned his ‘caretaker’ status to claim that he could do as any government with parliamentary legitimacy.

Some friendly ‘experts’ have already justified the new thesis on the status of a caretaker regime. But a more pertinent question is: If this is accepted, what is the remedy if a Bal Thackeray or Mulayam Singh Yadav, taking advantage of Vajpayee’s precedent, begin trampling over all around under a future weak President? Should the country have to wait until the next election to undo the misdeeds which might, in many cases, be impossible to do? Parliamentary democracy functions on respect to rules and healthy conventions. Individuals and parties will come and go. Once a wrong precedent — that the caretaker Prime Minister is not accountable to either Parliament or the President — is set for momentary partisan gains, it will be difficult to get rid of the vicious circle.

At least two serious proposals to deal with caretaker situations are in circulation. One is the formation of a statutory panel consisting of the President, Prime Minister and leaders of the two largest Opposition groups in the Rajya Sabha to advise the government on crucial issues. The other proposal aims at institutionalisation of the supervision of all caretaker governments by a committee of the President, Prime Minister and the Rajya Sabha chairman. The moment a prime minister is voted out or he or she resigns, this committee should come into force. Article 79 of the Constitution stipulates that Parliament shall consist of the President and the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha. Thus when the Lok Sabha, the most representative arm, becomes non-existent, the other two could step in as a stop-gap arrangement. Such an inbuilt mechanism will inject a better sense of accountability into future caretaker governments.

Along side this, there is also need for institutionalising the practice of the outgoing prime minister continuing as head of the caretaker government. During the protracted public debate on national government, constitutional experts have suggested that at a time when the Lok Sabha stood dissolved, the President could ask any reasonable person to head the government. It was argued that even when the House is alive, outsiders have been appointed as prime ministers after a majority of the MPs elected him or her as leader. The outsider only has to get elected to the House within six months. Now consider the situation when an obdurate President hoists a puppet as caretaker prime minister and both begin rampaging the system. Such fears were expressed during the Zail Singh crisis.

Why did the image-conscious Vajpayee take the position that his is a full-fledged government and went ahead with taking sweeping decisions with far-reaching consequences? It all had started with the purpose of providing the right psychological effect. The BJP wanted to send the right message that the party is so sure of returning to power — like Yagnavalkya who had ordered the herding away of Janaka’s gift cows even before the debate began, so sure of his victory. Second, the BJP also wished to impress the voters by earning the encomium for quick action without allowing any one else to share the credit. Consultations with the President or Opposition parties will deprive the ruling party of this exclusive electoral bonus. Last but not least, a nonchalant display of authority and patronage can bring around the media and business on the eve of a crucial election.

The stunningly large number of decisions, some aimed at demonstrating its inscrutability and some purely for electoral profits, highlights the dire need for a reasonable amount of restraint on all caretaker governments. With elections scheduled for September, it may not be possible at the moment to introduce any such systemic control. But this should not blind us to the need for a meaningful public debate on the constitutional mechanism to be put in place on all such future situations. Fragmentation of the polity and perpetually hung Lok Sabhas with frequent elections make it all the more imperative. Simultaneously, clear guidelines should be evolved on the duties and functions of a caretaker regime. While it will have to handle routine matters and emergency situations — like the present war — uninhabited, it should leave controversial issues of far-reaching consequences for the legitimate government’s decision.

Many of Vajpayee government’s hasty decisions should cause awe and suspicion. The challenging manner in which it shifted the governors, reshuffled the top bureaucracy and dumped inconvenient ministers — all after getting defeated in the Lok Sabha — go beyond the moral limitations of a caretaker regime. What was the special urgency in taking decisions on FM radio or recast of Indian Airlines after the commission has clearly indicated the election schedule? Already there are misgivings about the out-of-way decision to give a large bonanza to the cellphone operators while other sections are denied subsidies, massive sellout of the government blue chips and behind the scene moves to bail out certain business firms in distress.

From the very beginning, President K.R. Narayanan has been extremely cautious in dealing with the present caretaker government. Initially, it was anticipated that the incumbent would continue with the tradition of the caretaker governments taking Rashtrapati Bhavan into confidence on all important moves. On the contrary, within days senior ministers began asserting the government’s self-will and perceived unlimited powers. This, as also the response from the ruling camp to the President’s advice to go in for a confidence vote, had ruled out the kind of healthy relationship other prime ministers had with Rashtrapati Bhavan. All this made the President to confine to the use of his persuasive powers to the extent possible.

Any more initiative from his side might have made him vulnerable to the charge of indulging in presidential activism, something which Narayanan wanted to avoid. An unseemly confrontation between the two sides might have been worse than the excessive overstepping of its powers by the caretaker government. Despite this, the President did caution the government on its controversial moves on Indian Airlines by calling its chairman to Rashtrapati Bhavan. On the repeated Opposition demand for summoning the Rajya Sabha for a discussion on Kargil war, he stopped short of forwarding the request to the caretaker Prime Minister.

75 YEARS AGO

Medical inspection of school children

WHAT is of more than local interest and may well be emulated by the local bodies in other parts of India is the success which has attended by system of medical inspection of the primary school children of Simla, launched by captain W. J. R. D. Webb, Medical Officer, Simla, on the lines prevailing in the United Kingdom.

The value of school medical work is proved by the recent statement by the London School Attendance Sub-Committee that the eight-year-old London schoolboy of the present day was half an inch taller and three and three quarter pounds heavier than his counterpart of twenty years ago.

“Why is this important class of work neglected in India?” asks Captain Webb. It was at the suggestion of captain Webb that the Simla Municipality agreed at its meeting of the 19th June last to place the important work of medical inspection under him.