119 years of Trust E D I T O R I A L
P A G E
THE TRIBUNE
Friday, June 25, 1999
weather n spotlight
today's calendar
 
Line Punjab NewsHaryana NewsJammu & KashmirHimachal Pradesh NewsNational NewsChandigarhEditorialBusinessSports NewsWorld NewsMailbag


50 years on indian independence 50 years on indian independence 50 years on indian independence
50 years on indian independence


Search

editorials

The General speaks
IT is difficult for the Chief of Army Staff, working within the democratic discipline of India, to speak to the media in a straightforward but soldierly and authentic manner on military options in situations like those obtaining in the Dras-Kargil-Batalik region.

Additional burden
FINANCE Minister Yashwant Sinha is confident that the economy is strong and resilient enough to absorb the effect of the Kargil operations. His is a guestimate, since neither the Finance Ministry nor the Defence Ministry is known to have initiated a fullscale study on the subject.

Edit page articles

CONFLICT IN KARGIL
by T. V. Rajeswar

WHAT is being described as a “limited war” is, in all respects, a regular war between India and Pakistan, raging along the LoC in the Kargil sector of Kashmir. It is a war which has produced more casualties in a short period than the previous ones fought between the two countries in 1965 and 1948 in this region.

Reforms require reorientation
by Anurag

IT was more out of compulsion than choice, much less foresight, that the economic reforms were initiated in 1991. But for the foreign exchange crisis that overtook us, we would have missed the reform bus once again. It is a different matter that we made a virtue of a necessity.



Did China bless Pak misadventure?
By M.S.N. Menon

“WE were living in a fool’s paradise.” — Jawaharlal Nehru on India’s China policy. “I offered my hand of friendship to Pakistan at Lahore, but they betrayed me.” — Atal Behari Vajpayee. It seems we are a credulous people. We often trust. It has become part of our character. But wisdom begins with doubt.

Middle

Stinging sallies
by I.M. Soni

WINSTON CHURCHILL and George Bernard Shaw had three things in common: they were famous, celebrated writers, and also had a sense of humour laced with brilliant repartee the verbal hit-back. The plays of Bernard Shaw were hardly successful on the stage, still, he gleefully looked down upon others and believed in beating his own drum.


75 Years Ago

Alleged fabrication of false evidence
A
CHARGE of perjury against a mill agent and his Munim has been preferred by the Hon’ble Mr Justice C.G.H. Fawoett of the Bombay High Court. In his complaint, which is on the file of the Acting Chief Presidency Magistrate, Mr Justice Fawoett stated that one K.N.s. Vedan Rajah had brought a suit against the accused’s firm in March, 1921, for the recovery of Rs 3,39,500 for certain forest rights sold by him to the firm.

  Top








The General speaks

IT is difficult for the Chief of Army Staff, working within the democratic discipline of India, to speak to the media in a straightforward but soldierly and authentic manner on military options in situations like those obtaining in the Dras-Kargil-Batalik region. The parameters are clearly laid down. The Union Cabinet takes such decisions as are warranted by strategic and security factors. Senior Army officers are "in attendance". General V. P. Malik chose his words carefully when he spoke about the "Kargil conflict" in South Block on Wednesday. The most important point he made concerned the Line of Control (LoC) which the Pakistani Army has violated in Jammu and Kashmir with full political backing from the civilian rulers who are precariously dependent on the military top brass for their survival. The LoC, General Malik pointed out, is not "ambiguous" as stated by Pakistani leaders and important military men. It is a clearly delineated line which has prevented major conflicts along the 740 km-long stretch. The General's view is based not on logistics alone but also on binding bilateral decisions and historical facts. The LoC is "the east-west line" demarcated through Kashmir where Indian and Pakistani soldiers were positioned when a ceasefire was enforced to end the war between India and Pakistan (December 17, 1971). What does this line do? It separates one-third of Kashmir occupied illegally by Pakistan from two-thirds of the state controlled legitimately by India. Before the demarcation, field commanders of the two countries, along with a UN representative, went through the ground positions of the two armies. Twenty-five maps were exchanged. The processes of agreement, signing and ratification were meticulously followed.

The LoC is a vital dispensation of the Simla Agreement. Therefore, General Malik calls the ambiguity alleged about it as "full of mischief, wrong, dangerous and unacceptable". To restore the sanctity of the line, the vacation of the aggression is mandatory. But what if Pakistan does not see reason? The Union Government took a firm decision and asked the Armed Forces to end the aggression. The Indian forces have done this work to a large extent despite heavy odds. Can they complete the job without crossing the LoC in view of practical and locational obstacles? No. But this "no" must come from the Cabinet. General Malik knows, like the rest of the persons or agencies concerned, that total physical surveillance of the region is not possible without sufficient technical and other equipment. The nature of the terrain is helping Pakistan. So, the man in command says: "There is need for us to look beyond Kargil." He has underlined a crucial fact. It is for the Government to take major operational decisions and provide the soldiers with the wherewithal. The General's message is clear: The Army is ready to evict the enemy. Impending Pakistani misadventures are not mysteriously hidden in the womb of the future. Islamabad is trying to do a Siachen in Kargil. "We will fight with what we have" is a brave but materially indicative statement. Let the forces have all they need. And we shall overcome. Thank you, General, for your robust realism!
top

 

Additional burden

FINANCE Minister Yashwant Sinha is confident that the economy is strong and resilient enough to absorb the effect of the Kargil operations. His is a guestimate, since neither the Finance Ministry nor the Defence Ministry is known to have initiated a fullscale study on the subject. Perhaps it is somewhat early since no one can be sure how long it will take to eject the intruders and what will be the level of fighting to achieve this. But newspapers have offered some hints and there are stray official announcements to provide a broad picture. An economic daily has ventured to put the daily expenses in terms of ammunition and fuel at Rs 30 crore. Even if this figure seems to be on the high side, there is the report that India has placed an order with a South African firm for the supply of shells to be fired by the Bofors gun. Until now the Army is drawing down from the training and regular reserves and the import is to replenish this and keep the strategic reserve at the optimum level. Another source of additional expense is the cost of replacement of equipment destroyed during the skirmishes. So far India has lost two aircraft and a helicopter and the loss of a truck here or a field gun there should not cause undue worry.

A prolonged duel like the one across the Line of Control (LoC) in the Kashmir valley tends to throw the limelight on the personal kit of the jawan and the status of his fighting equipment. The present operation, partly conducted in front of television cameras, has exposed severe deficiencies on both counts. A respected senior retired Army officer put it succinctly: the jawan is well equipped but barely that. After the cessation of hostility or even in the middle of it there will be a national urge to give the jawan the best so that he gives the country his best. Analysts have demanded that the defence budget should go up to 3 per cent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) from the present 2.5 per cent. In terms of money this will come to an additional Rs 15,000 crore or more. This can be absorbed in the budget, considering that every year the government borrowing goes up by this amount without causing any serious problem for the economy. Nor will this factor alone impart an inflationary impulse. What will is an acute shortage of either production or availability of an essential commodity; that will set a short fuse for a sharp increase as it did in the case of onion last year and sugar a few years back when Mr Kalpnath Rai was the Food Minister. An item to watch right now is again sugar; the government has imposed curbs on the sale of imported sugar and if local production estimates go awry, there will be trouble. If the fighting spills over several months, the effect will be there in the next year’s budget. An early bird has suggested a surcharge or cess so that a good section of the population can contribute its mite to keep the defence forces in trim. That will be the testing time for individual patriotism.
top

 

CONFLICT IN KARGIL
The unanswered questions
by T. V. Rajeswar

WHAT is being described as a “limited war” is, in all respects, a regular war between India and Pakistan, raging along the LoC in the Kargil sector of Kashmir. It is a war which has produced more casualties in a short period than the previous ones fought between the two countries in 1965 and 1948 in this region.

It is now beyond doubt that Pakistan had prepared a well-planned thrust across the LoC in the Dras-Kargil-Batalik sector, and executed it. The Pakistani army, the ISI, the Mujahideen and the Taliban are all involved in it and an operation of this scale, involving anything upto 3000 men, would not have been possible without clearance at the highest political level.

There is a long history of Pakistani deceptions and covert operations beginning from Partition. The 1948 invasion of Kashmir, Operation Gibraltar and Operation Grand Slam in 1965, the 1971 war and the proxy war unleashed in 1989 in Kashmir by Gen Zia-ul-Haq are all there as guide posts. Indeed, the current events in the Kargil sector are in pursuance of Phase-II of Operation Topac outlined by General Zia in April, 1988, at an ISI gathering. The opening sentence thereof says: “Exert maximum pressure on Siachen, Kargil and Rajouri-Poonch sectors to force the Indian army to deploy reserve formations outside the Kashmir valley.” The scheme also speaks of blocking the Banihal tunnel and the Kargil-Leh highway. It was the first phase of Topac that led to massive insurgency in Kashmir from 1989 which is continuing.

In August, 1998, a top Hizbul Mujahideen commander, Ali Mohd Dar, was killed by the security forces and the diaries recovered from his possession gave a wealth of information on Pakistan’s plans for J and K and the extension of terrorism throughout India. Another militant, Azhar Shafi Mir, who was caught by the security forces in December, 1998, was interrogated by all the agencies including military intelligence and he disclosed a lot on the mercenaries from Afghanistan and elsewhere being trained in PoK by the Pakistani army and the ISI. He reportedly mentioned the scheme for infiltration in the Kargil sector, disruption of Srinagar-Kargil highway as well as the national highway from Srinagar to Jammu.

There were persistent reports of the Saudi terrorist Osama bin Laden being involved in training a large number of militants some of whom were earmarked for operations in Kashmir. When the USA launched Cruise missiles on Laden’s camps in Afghanistan in August, 1998, a number of militants who were earmarked for Kashmir were reportedly killed. The Sunday Times of London had a report in October, 1998, that Pakistan and Laden were jointly planning to intensify the Kashmir operations and a large number of trained militants with sophisticated arms were all set to move in after the winter. Then there are various diversified intelligence operations by the agencies concerned. That despite all this, such a massive infiltration should have happened is a serious matter deserving enquiry which, however, may have to wait.

The Western nations led by the USA are aware that the intrusions across the LoC were with the backing of the Pakistani army and the ISI. The US State Department and the CIA have a big presence in Pakistan as well as in Afghanistan. US satellites constantly cover the Indo-Pak border and Pakistan in particular since the nuclear explosions in May, 1998, and all the major events along the border can be safely presumed to be within the knowledge of the CIA. It is a different matter that this intelligence is not shared with India by the USA even though a few titbits are usually exchanged between the Indian intelligence agencies and the CIA staff posted in New Delhi. The relevant point is that the training of militants and their infiltration along with some of the Pakistan army regulars are in the knowledge of the USA. This explains the significance of President Clinton’s letter to Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. The US State Department’s Under Secretary, Mr Carl Inderfurth had made it clear that the infiltrators would have to be withdrawn by Pakistan if the fighting in Kashmir was to stop. The G-8 countries which met at Cologne, Germany, recently also favoured strict observance of the LoC and removal of all intrusion. This was rather a mild admonition of Pakistan, but diplomatically it was yet another setback for Islamabad.

This phase of American diplomacy has come as a breath of fresh air, not seen for many years. The memory of US tilt, the sailing of the US fleet to the Indian Ocean at the height of the Bangladesh war in 1971 and the attempt of President Nixon and his Secretary of State, Dr Kissinger, to push China into attacking India are all fresh in India’s memory. On the issue of Kashmir, the western nations and the USA in particular had always taken an equivocal stand in spite of all the evidence given to the USA on the insurgency in Kashmir promoted by Pakistan from 1989 onwards. Documents, radio interceptions and video-tapes have been provided on many occasions, and the USA in any case has its own inputs from satellites and other sources. The growing menace of Islamic fundamentalism, the close links between Pakistan and the Taliban, Islamabad’s unwillingness to cooperate with the USA in apprehending Osama bin Laden, the big role played by drug money in Pakistan’s political life, the close links between the Pakistan army especially, the ISI and drug lords, the massive corruption at all levels and increasing authoritarianism of Mr Nawaz Sharif have all led to Pakistan’s all-round isolation.

It is time Pakistan’s rulers, the armed forces and the ISI realised that after all that had happened and three wars fought, India would never give up the Kashmir valley. Pakistan’s attempt to pose a nuclear threat over the Kashmir issue hardly rattles India. There is a sea change in the international appreciation of the situation. In March, 1997, US Ambassador Frank Wisner stated that the demand for a referendum in J and K had become irrelevant and that such a step would carry no meaning in view of several developments in the past five decades. In Europe, although the Dayton Accord brought about the emergence of Bosnia, Kosovo may not get anything more than autonomy, and the Kosovo Liberation Front would not be allowed to become the arbiters of Kosovo’s future.

Russia and China, the two major powers and members of the Security Council, have their own ethnic and minority problems. Russia has its Chechnya, Dagestan, North Ossetia, etc, while China has its Xinjiang. There are other international hot spots of this nature like North Cyprus and Mindanao in the Philippines. Merely on the basis of any ethnic or religious group being in majority in one of the states of a sovereign country, neither the USA nor any other western power would support the demand for partition, much less independence.

Will the war in the Kargil sector be resolved by India in its favour by September? There is a dark cloud of doubt ominously hanging over this question since there are reports that Pakistan is mobilising its regular forces all along the LoC, forcing India to do likewise. Will Pakistan, particularly those who wield the levers of power in that country, see reason and pull back from the brink? Will they realise the economic chaos and ruination already threatening the very foundations of Pakistan? Is it likely that the army generals will seize power once again, now that Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s credentials are seriously eroded? The next few crucial weeks may provide the answer.

(Mr Hari Jaisingh’s “Frankly Speaking” column will appear tomorrow)
Top

 

Reforms require reorientation
by Anurag

IT was more out of compulsion than choice, much less foresight, that the economic reforms were initiated in 1991. But for the foreign exchange crisis that overtook us, we would have missed the reform bus once again. It is a different matter that we made a virtue of a necessity.

Eight years after the journey we find that political consensus on economic reforms still eludes us, claims to the contrary notwithstanding. As yet, there is no time-table for the total abolition of subsidies, which are anti-productivity. The fertiliser subsidy continues to be treated as a sacred cow. So much has been the brouhaha over the earlier attempts to increase the fertiliser prices that the government earned the epithet of a roll-back regime. Views on taxing the rural rich have been as divergent as ever. If the Congress considers fiscal deficit as a key indicator, the CPM dubs it fiscal fundamentalism.

Given that ours is a political economy, political parties would do well to evolve a “minimalist reforms agenda,” which ought to be pursued not just without demur but with missionary zeal. It would be instructive to compare our economic reforms initiative with those carried out in the UK. Mrs Margaret Thatcher adopted an integrated multipronged approach which encompassed labour and their unions, public sector undertakings, public utilities, regulatory systems, among others. While allowing the market to make most of the decisions, she aggressively involved the government in furthering her country’s business and investment interests abroad so as to enable the British market withstand the waves of competition, Later, Mr Tony Blair pursued his political-cum-economic reforms agenda with the clarity of purpose and a flawless action plan.

The key areas crying for reforms include, inter alia, education and health. Precious little has been done in these areas over the past eight years. We are notorious for low levels of productivity. How can our human resource sans basic education and health become reasonably productive?

If reforms have just not taken off in the insurance sector, thanks to the lack of political consensus, they have been half-backed in the public transport, telecom and power sectors. Ditto for the markets for land, labour and capital. The administered price mechanism (APM) is yet to be fully dismantled in the oil sector. LPG continues to be subsidised even as the private sector has been allowed to market LPG at a higher market-determined price, to the detriment of the oil companies as well as the private companies. In the bargain, the former’s subsidy bill has mounted and the latter’s profits have plummeted.

Coming to the public sector undertakings, more than disinvestment or privatisation, they need debureaucratisation and complete functional autonomy. The abolition of ULCRA should have been followed by the reforms in the rent control and tenancy laws.

An economist has rightly attributed the “fits and starts” nature of our economic reforms to the fact that every political party is a labour party too. Every major political party has an affiliated trade union and all that goes with it. This explains the political nature of our economy. And poor productivity of labour and capital dissuades the MNCs from shifting their manufacturing bases to India. They are interested only in our protected market.

Let’s admit that abysmally poor productivity is our bane. Labour productivity can be improved by insisting upon high educational standards and skill, improved infrastructure and a radical revision of retrograde labour laws. Flexible and well-enforced laws covering land, labour and capital shall increase productivity. Deregulation, debureaucratisation and less corruption cannot but make a dent in boosting productivity. Administrative and judicial reforms are needed to cut down procedural delays. Delay is another name of denial.

These are the imperatives for a competitive economy. So far we have taken steps to liberalise the economy by way of liberalisation of trade and industrial policies, credit policy, deregulation of the capital market, reduction in tax rates and tariff, etc. Precious little has been done to ensure competitiveness of domestic industry. Unless we enable the protected domestic industry to become globally competitive, the forces of liberalisation will sweep it off its feet in no time. We must work towards total internal liberalisation to withstand the waves of globalisation.

Higher productivity should be our guiding principle. Whatever contributes to enhancing national productivity should be accepted and enforced and the rest rejected. The earlier we could say goodbye to sops and subsidies, the better.

As the world economy shifts from industry to services, India stands a much better chance to excel. That the software industry, unfettered by labour laws or capacity constraints, is booming with no holds barred, illustrates the point.
Top

 

Middle

Stinging sallies
by I.M. Soni

WINSTON Churchill and George Bernard Shaw had three things in common: they were famous, celebrated writers, and also had a sense of humour laced with brilliant repartee the verbal hit-back.

The plays of Bernard Shaw were hardly successful on the stage, still, he gleefully looked down upon others and believed in beating his own drum.

Knowing that Churchill had few personal friends, Shaw once sent him two tickets for the evening show with a note, “One is meant for you and the other for your friend, if any.”

“Thank you. I am very busy at this time and shall come to the next show, if any,” was Winston’s sizzling reply.

Once he was so much impressed by the acting of actress Skinner in his play “Candida,” that he remarked, “Wonderful, excellent, greatest.”

The actress modestly replied: “Undeserving, such praise.” Shaw realised that he had been too gushing in his compliments and added, “I mean the play”. Miss Skinner hit back: “So do I.”

Groucho Marx was introduced by a husband to his battering wife with: “Matilda is just dying for you to say something insulting to her.”

Marx retorted: “You ought to be ashamed of yourself. With a wife like that, it should be easy to think up your own insults.”

Alexander Dumas approached Victor Hugo, and suggested that they write a novel in collaboration.

Hugo asked: “How can it be possible? Can a horse and a donkey be harnessed together?”

“My dear, if you do not want to write the novel, you may not. But for God’s sake, please do not call me a horse,” was the former’s verbal cut.

One evening, at a party, John Barrymore walked into lounge after the show. By mistake he entered the Ladies loo. A woman got infuriated and said, “This is for ladies!” Gallantly bowed Barrymore, but sparkled, “ So am I.”

Sydney Smith too could shoot from the lips. He also had the rare quality of aiming at his own self to produce a smile.

He thought poorly of himself as a shooter with a gun. He once observed, when asked about it, “When I take a gun in hand, the safest place for the pheasant is just opposite the muzzle.”
Top

 

Did China bless Pak misadventure?
By M.S.N. Menon

“WE were living in a fool’s paradise.” — Jawaharlal Nehru on India’s China policy.

“I offered my hand of friendship to Pakistan at Lahore, but they betrayed me.” — Atal Behari Vajpayee.

It seems we are a credulous people. We often trust. It has become part of our character. But wisdom begins with doubt.

Who is to blame? I will say: the media. It has failed in the education of our people. True, it is the politician who spreads the lie, but it is part of his trade. Why should the media propagate it? To plead that it is the job of the media to report does not seem to be sound logic.

The “Lahore Declaration” was hailed as a “new era” in Indo-Pak relations. It helped BJP’s propaganda. But it was a blatant lie. We are paying for such naivete. Was it not a wrong signal to our armed forces?

The visit of Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh to China is now being hailed as a “new era” in Sino-Indian relations. It is yet another lie. Jaswant Singh achieved nothing. And China gave away nothing. But, in the meantime, we have said enough in the media to re-assure the Chinese that we have not departed from that fool’s paradise.

Can it be true that China had no hand in Kargil? No, it cannot be true, China had a hand in the 1965 and 1971 wars. One word from China could have averted these wars. But China chose to sit atop the hill and watch the two tigers fight — a typical Chinese saying. Without China’s approval, Pakistan would not have plunged into this Kargil adventure. Afterall, it is China which supplies the instruments of war.

I am afraid we know so little of China even after our searing experience. China has been a militarist state for the past three thousand years. Warlordism was endemic. Violence was endemic.

The Chinese are, of course, a practical people, given least to logic and idealism as we are. As for religion, they have little of it. It was our hope — a false hope — that China would become a bulwark against imperialism in Asia and a powerful friend of the Asian peoples. What transpired was different. China invaded India and Vietnam, supported Pol Pot to commit the most horrendous genocide in human history, caused the destruction of 30 million Chinese in devastating famines, brought about the debacle of the greatest social experiment in human history — the socialist experiment, and finally, China made peace with imperialism. It was fear of China which brought back imperialism to Asia. Such is the record. Was this a glorious role?

The world thinks of the Chinese as a peaceful people. It is a travesty. This picture was propagated by the Jesuit Fathers in the 16th and 17th centuries, and this was the source of what came to be known as the reve chinois (Chinese dream). It had a powerful impact on savants of Europe in those days, who held forth the virtues of the Chinese social system as a model for Europe. The Chinese mandarins encouraged this belief because they thought that with China weak, it was better to project the image of a peaceful people being subjected to foreign tyranny. That was why the rape of China evoked fierce protests in Europe from the men of the Enlightenment. Nothing similar happened in the case of India.

What was the Chinese reality? If there was Confucius with his moral doctrines, there was also Shang Yang , the philosopher statesman of the 4th c BC, who preached militarism, the complete antithesis of Confucianism. This came to be called the Fa-Chia school, and the Shang Yang legacy was codified in the treatise Shang Chung Shuhi. It absolved a ruler from all morals and conscience. It advocated any and every means in the struggle for power at home and abroad. Reminds us of Chanakya. But in India it was dharma which prevailed, not Chanakya.

Shang Yang believed that men were born evil and that wars were inevitable. Hence he advocated a military state. He came to this conclusion through the traditional methods of Chinese sophistry: “If war can be destroyed by war, then even war is permissible”, he argued. His disciple Sun Chuan had a powerful influence on Mao. Some of Mao’s theories are sophisticated versions of Sun Chuan’s theories. For example, “power comes out of the barrel of a gun.”

A major part of the Maoist doctrines is devoted to war, its role in the historical process and its character in the contemporary epoch. Mao believed in the inevitability of war. Thus, we see a long continuity in the military outlook of the Chinese state. “Learn from the army”, Mao used to say.

There is also an inherent logic of expansionism in the Chinese state. The Han race that was confined to Central China brought under its inheritance a vast empire that should have been the envy of any great conqueror. Sixty per cent of the Chinese territory belongs to conquered peoples.

Yet the proper limit of China as conceived by the ancient Han race and its emperor Chin Shi Huang-ti, who unified China for the first time during the 3rd c BC, was the boundary now known as the Great Wall of China. It was built by that tyrant of Chinese history to prevent invasion of China by the nomadic tribes of Central Asia. Today, beyond the Great Wall lies more than half of China. Such is the extent of Chinese expansionism. China cannot deny it.

China followed this expansionist policy throughout its history. This was true of the Hans and Tangs, two of the greatest dynasties, and of the Mongols and Manchus, who came as conquerors of China. They too followed an expansionist policy.

Chinese imperialism carried Chinese arms to the far corners of Central Asia and Eastern Asia under these four dynasties. Only the Himalayas and the Sea of Japan prevented the conquest of India and Japan.

Under the Hans, the traditional policy of expansion came to be konwn as tsan shi, which means “to eat gradually (the neighbour’s land) as a silk worm eats a mulberry leaf.” Such picturesque imageries could not have been formed unless militarism was deeply entrenched in China.

Yet another doctrine was to put one neighbour against another. It was said: “The unity of the barbarians is harmful to China; stir up feuds by alienating them and let them fight against each other”, says a Chinese authority. The Chinese emperors used to bribe one tribe to fight another in order to keep up the feuds among them. Do we not see a sophisticated version of this policy in China’s encouragement of Pakistan? In supplying nuclear and missile technologies to Pakistan and North Korea, China had only one objective: to reduce the threat from India and Japan to itself. These are long-term calculations.

Comparing the Indian and Chinese traditional foreign policies, Chusei Susuki says in a Harvard study that while India absorbed the conquerors and not their land, China absorbed both. Thus China absorbed the Mongols and their conquests as also Mongolia. The same was the case with the Manchus. And yet China is not satiated. It wants more territories. How is it that China alone has been allowed to keep its conquests? Is it not time to call for the decolonisation of the Chinese empire?

Take Chinese Turkestan. During the Han dynasty, China established some form of suzerainty over this region. But after the Hans, China could not maintain it for a thousand years. In fact, during this period, the Tibetans defeated a vast Chinese army and established their sway over Chinese Turkestan.

However, the Manchu emperor Chien Lung reconquered the region and named it Sinkiang (New land). And it has remained with China although its claim is now being challenged.

Sometimes China’s claim is fanciful. Thus any king who sent a present to the Chinese emperor was treated as a vassal. Even the great Indian emperor Kanishka!

Finally, we must say for all the world to hear that while the old Chinese empire never tried to destroy the identity of the conquered, the modern mandarins are determined to do so.

China is our neighbour and we want to live in peace and amity. But it is China which is the cause of tensions because of its plethora of claims on us. We chose to be mute for a long time. Now George Fernandes has broken the silence and called China our enemy number one. Some of us agree with him. But we also agree with China that this is not the way to promote better relations. For that, there is only one way: we must become a dominant economic and military power. Only then can we expect China to be reasonable and friendly. Not till then.
Top

 


75 YEARS AGO

Alleged fabrication of false evidence
Complaint by Bombay judge

A CHARGE of perjury against a mill agent and his Munim has been preferred by the Hon’ble Mr Justice C.G.H. Fawoett of the Bombay High Court. In his complaint, which is on the file of the Acting Chief Presidency Magistrate, Mr Justice Fawoett stated that one K.N.s. Vedan Rajah had brought a suit against the accused’s firm in March, 1921, for the recovery of Rs 3,39,500 for certain forest rights sold by him to the firm.

The accused and one Manibhai Dalpatbhai, doing business in Bombay and Ahmedabad in the name of Jagabhai Manibhai and company, gave evidence in the suit and produced certain receipts and counterfoils which afforded almost conclusive evidence in the suit. The complaint examined the documents carefully and discovered a difference in the printing of the two receipts and their counterfoils which distinguished them from all other forms in receipt books.

The accused could offer no explanation for the difference. There was no evidence before the complainant except the second accused’s confession that entry in one of the receipts was in his handwriting and that he had taken part in the fabrication of evidence.

Though the first accused did not seem actually to have taken part in fabrication the circumstances of the case raised a strong presumption that he abetted the fabrication.
Top

  Image Map
home | 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 |