Cricket should win
THE big day has arrived. In Sri Lanka (and wherever there is a sizeable “tiger population”) life itself would come to a standstill later today with every working television set tuned to Star Sport or ESPN.

Again in Amma’s parlour
IN Tamil Nadu politics, Ms Jayalalitha is always the central figure and others merely react, negatively or positively. On Wednesday the Congress formally bowed before this reality and sought her hand in an electoral marriage of convenience.

IN SEARCH OF STABILITY
by T.N. Kaul
INDIAN political parties and their leaders are busy coining new slogans, making new alliances and inventing new strategies to somehow better their performance at the coming elections to the thirteenth Lok Sabha.

Media professionals are not for killing
by Arvind Bhandari
SO long as the world is infested with dictatorial regimes, organised crime and extremist groups, journalism will remain a hazardous profession.

Lure of populist gimmicks
By M.S.N. Menon
INDIA takes the easy way. More often, the populist route. For example: Pakistan proclaims itself a nuclear power. India arranges a joint cricket match! Pakistan constructs the Karakorum Highway, a strategic link with China and Central Asia. Vajpayee thinks up a bus trip to Lahore!

The other Cup is ours!
by Amar Chandel
THE World Cup is here. I mean the event. Whether the actual Cup comes here or not depends on the magnificent boys in flannels. It may or may not. But imagine how well things would have shaped had the Board of Control for Cricket in India put our politicians on the job. After all, what can poor Brijesh Patel do as the manager of the Indian team! My choice for managership was Sonia Gandhi. A player like Brijesh knows nothing about the intricacies of cricket.

75 Years Ago

Plague in Hindu College, Delhi
AS usual plague has begun its work. This year it has chosen the Kashmiri Gate side first for its entry. Some days ago, a kitchen servant suddenly died of plague.

Cricket should win

THE big day has arrived. In Sri Lanka (and wherever there is a sizeable “tiger population”) life itself would come to a standstill later today with every working television set tuned to Star Sport or ESPN. The seventh edition of the World Cup could not have got off to a better start than with the opening contest between the defending champions and hosts England. Tomorrow a more virulent form of cricket fever may strike India when the “defenders” of the last World Cup played on English soil in 1983 clash with South Africa, marketed as the best team in the tournament. The run-up to the last cup of the millennium was as exciting as the record number of 42 matches, to be played over the next 38 days, ought to be. The pre-tournament hype was an interesting mixture of an Indian election campaign and the bluff and bluster associated with WWF-sponsored wrestling matches. Arjuna Ranatunga’s team has been described as “Dad’s Army” and Mushtaq Mohammad, the late replacement for Javed Miandad as coach of the Pakistani side, had a dig at England for not being able to find players below the age of 30 for the World Cup team. The media has already had its share of fun at the expense of the opening match between “two Dad’s Armies” (Sri Lanka and England). Then there was a bit of spat between Alec Stewart and Ranatunga over the use of stump mikes. Steve Waugh made his contribution to the pre-tournament hype by slamming a proposal to award five “sledging runs” to the batting side. Of course, sledging should be discouraged, but the penalty proposal is ridiculous. What yardstick the expert committee applied for determining the quantum of punishment for sledging (five runs to the batting side) is difficult to understand. By way of a parting kick before the opening game the “Undertaker” (a popular WWF wrestler) of the tournament, Shoaib Akhtar, took the “fight” straight to the enemy campaign by thundering that “my speed will flatten all”.

Be that as it may, as far as the Indian fans are concerned a repeat of ’83 is what they expect from Azharuddin, who would be equalling Clive Lloyd’s record of leading the side in three World Cups. But Lloyd won two of them, and going by the relative strength of India and the West Indies in the’83 final, should have made it three in a row. That is what one-day cricket is all about. The team that plays better on the day gets the jar of cookies. This time a whole range of goodies are floating in the “free market” zone for fans and players to pick up. Giving an entirely unexpected twist to the World Cup is the latest Time magazine cover on Sachin Tendulkar. It means two things. One, Tendulkar as a “commodity” has a market in the USA. Two, American interest in a game they do not play can easily turn into interference for making it as exciting as basketball and baseball. Remember, English counties are currently experimenting with fancy names for their clubs in line with the Chicago Bulls and are raising cheer groups to bring back the crowds to the empty stands during cricket matches. Who could have imagined that cricket would be played with white balls, black sightscreens and coloured clothings and that there would be a third umpire for the smooth conduct of international matches? All these points have been subjects of debate before the tournament and would continue to be discussed once the dust settles after the final at Lord’s on June 20. Well below the din of simulated spats between teams and managers a cricket writer has suggested that India should learn to be mean like others on the field. In his words, “Indian cricketers are a softer touch than their rumbustious neighbours to the North and West and altogether more Gandhi than Gurkha”. The choice between Gandhi and Gurkha is a difficult one to make. In any case, meanness does not come naturally to Indian sport persons. G. Vishwanath as captain recalled an English batsman after he was given out because the catch was not clean. The player scored a century and India lost the Test. To be fair, India has the potential to lift the trophy, as it had done in ’83, without indulging in gamesmanship for hustling the rivals. All it has to do is to forget Sharjah and play with self-belief. It would be a sad day if Indian players too give up playing cricket like it used to be played by gentlemen. A victory in which the game of cricket is the loser is not worth the effort.

Again in Amma’s parlour

IN Tamil Nadu politics, Ms Jayalalitha is always the central figure and others merely react, negatively or positively. On Wednesday the Congress formally bowed before this reality and sought her hand in an electoral marriage of convenience. The two parties had fought elections in alliance in the past, sometimes successfully and sometimes disastrously, as in 1996 when both drew a blank. Last year the national party was a bit late and a bit dithering and she promptly chose another suitor, the ever-willing BJP. This arrangement collapsed famously last month leading to the defeat of the BJP-led government and causing a vacancy for the Congress to now fill. It has acted in a premeditated way, doing this year what it wanted to do last year when it came a cropper. It did not explore other possibilities and also got the sequence of events totally wrong.

Organisationally the Congress is a pale shadow of its former self. The real party had gone over to the TMC led by Mr Moopanar and Mr Chidambaram. The first task was then to persuade the TMC to return to the fold of the parent party and thus recreate a powerful third force in state politics. There is a second advantage in this. It would have retained the right to field any full-fledged Congressmen in the constituencies allotted to it, including former TMC leaders, and the AIADMK could not have any objection. Now the TMC can only be a junior partner and Ms Jayalalitha will kick up a shindy against Mr Chidambaram, whom she heartily hates. Another angle to the proposed tie-up is the Left, which has always opposed the AIADMK and had campaigned vigorously against Ms Jayalalitha’s feudal ways. Even if the seven-party coalition comes up, it will be both unnatural and unwieldy. There is also the talk of an anti-Jayalalitha wave taking shape in the state and it is not in favour of anyone but just against her unpredictable behaviour. If the negative attitude gets entrenched in size and sweep, the Congress would have plumped for the wrong party for the third time running.

Obviously, Congress strategists have lost their old finesse and judgement. Hence the mess in Tamil Nadu. From its point of view, the first priority is to block the emergence of the BJP as a credible force in Tamil Nadu. If it grows, it would replace the Congress as the national party offering the additional bit of clout to win elections. If the Congress had kept that in mind, it would have been talking to the DMK, seized the Supreme Court judgement on the Rajiv assassination case to issue a clean chit to the DMK and go for a formal alliance. Mr Karunanidhi would have grabbed it since it would leave Ms Jayalalitha stranded in political no-man’s land. Instead, it has now stranded the TMC and, in the bargain, has bought for itself an alliance of doubtful value. The party has apparently reasoned that joint campaigning by the “Amma” and Mrs Sonia Gandhi would tap the old seam of Nehru-Gandhi adulation and it will rain votes on the polling date. One reckless optimist has given all 39 seats to the two women and their minor partners. On such fickle calculations are electoral tie-ups decided.

IN SEARCH OF STABILITY
Parties must change strategy
by T.N. Kaul

INDIAN political parties and their leaders are busy coining new slogans, making new alliances and inventing new strategies to somehow better their performance at the coming elections to the thirteenth Lok Sabha. We must remember and keep in mind a few things in judging the past performance and the future potential of the main political parties, before we campaign for or cast our vote in favour of one or the other.

Firstly, it has been proved by the last three elections, and even by the 1980 election, that coalition governments in India have failed and proved unstable and opportunistic. Secondly, with increasing autonomy for the states, and decentralisation of power, many regional parties have sprung up and wield more influence on the vote banks in their respective regions than national parties. However, when regional parties aspire to share power at the Centre it leads to unstable and weak coalitions — based not on a common policy but on compromise and opportunism of the worst type.

It is neither in the interest of the country as a whole nor the respective regions. It is aimed mainly at lining the pockets of the leaders of the regional parties and their musclemen and money-bags. It has led to widespread corruption, lack of internal security, law and order. It has weakened the morale of both civil and defence services, because of the undue interference and favouritism exercised by political bosses and ministers.

One does not need to mention names to prove this. The purpose of this article is not to campaign for one political party or another, but to point out the danger of coalitions between political parties which are ideologically poles apart but are attracted to each other mainly to gain power and pelf at the cost of the country and its people.

If the country’s internal security and development and its ability to meet external threats are to be safeguarded — and this must be the most important factor in the mind of the voter — then it seems necessary to have only two or three main political parties at the national level and not a dozen or two as in the last few years.

Regional parties are indeed necessary for the various regions, but their role should be mainly in their respective regions. They should not and need not weaken the Centre to the detriment of our national interests or at the cost of our territorial integrity and sovereignty — politically, militarily or economically.

Judged by this very important and essential test, it seems most unfortunate that almost all the national parties are already taking of “new allies” and “new alliances” to form a coalition government at the Centre. Would it not be better and more consonant with our secular, democratic ideals and national interests, if the main national parties were confined to three: (1) Left — the CPI, the CPM, the Forward Bloc and the RPI. (2) Centre, comprising secular democratic parties, such as the Congress and the United Front. (3) Religious Parties such as the BJP, the Muslim League and the Akalis.

If each of these three main national parties — the Leftists, the Congress and the BJP — put forward only their own party candidates and do not form pre-or-post-electoral alliances, the voter would find it easier or more logical to vote for anyone of the three main parties for election to the Lok Sabha. This might lead to either the Congress or the BJP getting a clear or a near majority, which would enable either of them to form a stable government at the Centre and not feel compelled to have allies who would prove more a burden than a help in running the government and safeguarding the interests of the people and the country as a whole. They could have seat adjustments with like-minded regional parties in various states, but not make any commitment to share power with them at the Centre.

This might lead to greater stability at the Centre, with greater consideration for various regions, rather than for mere personalities who claim to speak for the region or nation but have only their personal axes to grind. It would also reflect the unity of India in the midst of its rich diversity. It would create greater confidence in the minds of the various minorities — based on religion, gender, and economic and social status.

Is it too late or too much to expect, even at this stage, for the Congress, the BJP and the Left to put up only their own party candidates for election to the thirteenth Lok Sabha and not give in to or compromise with the money-bags, the musclemen and the mafia that have penetrated into most of the regional parties. Some may have sneaked into the main parties also and must be thrown out immediately.

Parliamentary democracy cannot produce stable governments at the Centre with coalitions comprising a dozen or more regional parties. We must learn from our recent and past experience and not repeat the mistakes we have already made more than once.

Of course, it will be necessary to reform our electoral laws, but that is not possible at this late stage when elections are due in three to four months, and electoral rolls have to be brought up to date. Electoral reform must, however, be borne in mind and political parties must include it in their election manifestoes, and implement them if and when they are able to form a stable government at the Centre.

The voter wants to have a clear choice — of a rightist, leftist or centrist party — to vote for, and not a confusing conglomeration or motley crowd of differing and discordant parties to choose from. Will the Congress, the BJP and the Left heed the voice of the voter and put up only their own party candidates, and not coalition — compromise — candidates who will only confuse the voter and make it difficult for any national party to have a clear majority in the thirteenth Lok Sabha?

(The author is a former diplomat).

Media professionals are not for killing
by Arvind Bhandari

SO long as the world is infested with dictatorial regimes, organised crime and extremist groups, journalism will remain a hazardous profession. In 1998, at least 20 journalists were killed in the course of duty in different parts of the world. This brings the number of media professionals assassinated in the past 10 years to more than 500, according to information compiled by UNESCO in connection with the recent World Press Freedom Day.

A survey conducted by the well-known non-governmental organisation Freedom House points out that 66 countries — such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Jordan, Iraq and China — have no freedom of the Press. Russia, Pakistan, Bangladesh and 48 other countries have “partly free” Press. The survey classifies 68 countries, including the USA, Canada, Germany, Britain and Japan, as having a free Press.

Pointing out that Pakistan just managed to scrape through into the “partly free” category, Freedom House is quite critical of that country. The radio and television networks, owned and operated by the government, invariably favour the ruling party. The Jang group, the country’s largest newspaper chain, came under a severe attack by the government some time ago. Offices of five other newspapers were raided and ransacked. The latest case is the arrest of The Friday Times Editor Najam Sethi’s arrest because of his highly controversial writings. There were 22 cases of serious Press freedom violations, including the murder of a journalist and physical attack on eight journalists. Some 21 journalists were arrested in 10 separate incidents. Pakistani laws restrict the freedom of expression over broad subjects, including the Army and religion.

The US-based Committee to Protect Journalists has described Yugoslavia’s Slobodan Milosevic, China’s Jiang Zemin and Cuba’s Fidel Castro as the three greatest “enemies of the Press”. President Milosevic has been accused of suppressing the Press through intimidation, assault, fines and licence denials. Journalists’ lives have been imperilled and the airwaves filled with “hate speech”. President Jiang of China has been accused of presiding over the worsening conditions for politically independent journalists, including the shutdown of newspapers and magazines and jailing of newsmen. In President Castro’s Cuba, says CPJ, independent journalists face arrest for covering a trial of dissidents or a public demonstration. Since January this year 28 journalists have been detained.

The 1999 UNESCO/Guillermo Cano World Press Freedom Prize has been awarded to Mexican journalist Jesus Blancornelas. Mr Blancornelas (63) is the co-founder and Editor of the Tijuana-based Zeta news-weekly, known for exposing corruption, notable linked to drug trafficking. He is also the Vice-President of the Mexican Society of Journalists and survived an assassination attempt in November, 1997.

The UNESCO/Guillermo Cano Prize was first awarded in 1997 to Ms Gao Yu, a Chinese journalist imprisoned from 1993 to February, 1999, for publishing articles in Hong Kong’s newspapers. The second award in 1998 also went to woman journalist Christina Anyanwu of Nigeria. She was imprisoned from 1995 to 1998 under particularly harsh conditions for publishing news of an attempted coup against the Nigerian government. The $ 25,000 prize is awarded on the recommendation of a jury of 14 news professionals chaired by Mr Claude Moisy, President of UNESCO’s Advisory Group for Press Freedom.

Here are some cases of journalists who lost their lives in pursuit of their professional work.

In 1987, Guillermo Cano Isaza, a highly respected editor of El Espectador in Colombia, was assassinated at the behest of drug barons. In 1995, two murders occurred in two impoverished areas of Brazil. Aristeu Guida da Silva was gunned down when he was investigating the links between various town councillors of Sao Fidelis and organised crime. Zaqueo de Oliveire was murdered in broad-daylight after he had criticised the mayor of the town of Barrowso and his associates.

At least five Russian journalists were murdered in 1998. Vladimir Zfaratsky, a staff member of Itar-Tass, was beaten to death in Moscow on January 30. Ivan Fediunin, a sub-editor of Bryanske Izevestiya, was stabbed to death on April 2. On May 2 Major Igor Lykov was shot at point-blank range for repeatedly writing articles in the Moscow press concerning corruption. On June 8 Ms Larisa Yudina, editor of the independent newspaper Sovetskaya Kalmykia Segodnya, was kidnapped and brutally killed in Elista, capital of Russian Republic Kalmykia. Anatoly Levin, editor of Yuridichesky Petersburg Segodyna, was beaten to death on August 21.

On May 26, 1993, Tahar Djaut, a fearless and honest Algerian journalist, was shot dead while sitting in his car. Metin Goktepe was a Turkish journalist working for the left-wing newspaper Evrensel.

In a message on the occasion of World Press Freedom Day on May 3, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said: “Each time a journalist is killed or attacked, society at large suffers a grievous wound”.

The other Cup is ours!
by Amar Chandel

THE World Cup is here. I mean the event. Whether the actual Cup comes here or not depends on the magnificent boys in flannels. It may or may not. But imagine how well things would have shaped had the Board of Control for Cricket in India put our politicians on the job. After all, what can poor Brijesh Patel do as the manager of the Indian team! My choice for managership was Sonia Gandhi. A player like Brijesh knows nothing about the intricacies of cricket. This is a job best left in the hands of born leaders. Her induction would have changed the whole complexion of the team. Then all that was necessary was to send only one or two players, perhaps Sachin Tendulkar and Ajay Jadeja. She could have asked all others, of whatever nationality they were, to support it from outside!

Even if she had declined, Harkishan Singh Surjeet was always there. By now, England -- with its imperial designs -- would have already been isolated. All the other teams would have combined to form a Third Front to fight anti-secular forces symbolised by the decadent West. Jyoti Basu would have been declared the Indian cricket captain to atone for the historic blunder of not making him the leader in 1975 during the first World Cup.

Tell me, is Brijesh Patel better than Jayalalitha in any way? Imagine what a dapper figure she would have cut in England in her designer cape and a thousand suitcases! She might have even caused a political earthquake to get the Indian team declared the winner without a single ball being bowled. By now, the authorities would have received her list of demands (removal of Tony Blair, Knighthood for Subramanian Swamy, appointment of Vishnu Bhagwat as an honorary Admiral in NATO operations and transfer of all corruption cases against her to the International Court of Justice, along with the appointment of judges of her choice) if at all they want the tournament to continue. Alas, that was not to be.

Ah, we are forgetting Laloo Prasad Yadav. It would have been an entirely different team which would have gone to England under him. The obvious choice for the captainship was Rabri Devi and the other members were to include Sadhu Yadav, Imarti Devi, Jalebia and Misa. Had this been not allowed, he would have by now encroached on Lord's and other grounds to establish a new fodder paradise there and make England as advanced as Bihar. Imagine so much of green grass going waste. The ultimatum should have already reached there: either the fodder from all these places is hypothecated to the poor janata of Bihar or a one-month England bandh is declared.

Our own Sukh Ram too should have been considered. He may not have ensured that we won the Cup. But he would have certainly bought it for us with free phone connections and what not.

But the best winning chances could have been provided only by a woman of the calibre of Mayawati. South Africans and Australians who use computers for studying the strength and weaknesses of various teams would have been foxed by our brilliant strategist in no time. Today, she would have announced one set of 12 players. Tomorrow, the organisers would have been shocked to find that an entirely different team had come to play, so what if rules do not permit it. Everything is fair in love, war and cricket. Had they protested, she would have thrown bouncers with such ferocity that Shoaib Akhtar and Allan Donald would have stopped calling themselves fast bowlers.

Lure of populist gimmicks
By M.S.N. Menon

INDIA takes the easy way. More often, the populist route. For example: Pakistan proclaims itself a nuclear power. India arranges a joint cricket match! Pakistan constructs the Karakorum Highway, a strategic link with China and Central Asia. Vajpayee thinks up a bus trip to Lahore!

There is an international dimension to these flippant reactions. While the organised church wants to make Christianity the supreme religion of the world, the Hindu is happy with the antics of the few dhoti-clad hippies. While Wall Street will have nothing but supreme economic power, India makes much ado about freer manpower export. And while the Kissingers plan Western hegemony over the world, India continues to prattle about non-alignment.

I am not advocating an Indian hegemony. I am simply saying: Let us have less of these buffooneries. Guiding the nation, not to speak of the destiny of mankind, is a serious business. It cannot be done by gimmicks.

Legend has it that the Parsis merged with the people of India like sugar in milk. True. But the Parsis do remember from where they came. And they retain their culture as far as possible. They can’t pretend that they have always been part of India. Nor can they go ga-ga about “our ancient civilisation.” But this is not to say that they are less appreciative of Indian culture or that they are not touched by the same spirit of patriotism.

The same can be said of the Muslims who came to this country, with this difference that they came as conquerors. And being conquerors, they were bound to be proud of their origins. As conquerors, they could not have identified themselves with the history and culture of the conquered people. At least, not fully.

Any Muslim, who calls himself proudly a “Khan”, knows that his ancestors came from Central Asia. He is proud not because Central Asia had a higher civilisation, but because his ancestors were conquerors. He, therefore, feels somewhat separate. This is what led to the partition of India. Two factors were responsible for it: a lively memory of their being rulers of this country for long centuries and their being foreigners.

But this is not true of Muslim converts. They had always been Indian. Their problems are different. But I do not propose to go into that here. In any case, they were too poor and socially backward to be of any consequence in the shaping of modern India.

The people of Pakistan — at least the vast majority of them — belong to the first two categories. They still feel that they were once rulers of India and that their ancestors came from abroad. These two factors continue to shape their thinking and aspirations. And unless we take these two factors into account, we can never be right in our analysis.

Naturally, the Pakistanis cannot be satisfied with a “truncated” Pakistan. They want to play a bigger role, first of all in shaping the Islamic world.

Alas, our rulers and our media refuse to acknowledge these realities! They are bowled over attending a mushaira in Lahore! Or a cricket match in India! They think that the same heart beats on both sides of the divide. Such beliefs are bogus. The hearts of the men who matter in Pakistan beat to a different rhythm. They have different ambitions, and a different sense of greatness. They know that they belong to the Islamic civilisation, not to the Indian. They want Afghanistan to be part of their homeland to give it logistic depth. They want Pakistan to become the dominant hegemonic power over the western gateway to China. And perhaps their eyes are fastened on Central Asia from where they came. And yet we propose a confederation with Pakistan!

It is said that the two-nation theory guided the Muslim leaders. This is true only partly. Jinnah was not a theocrat. And Liaquat Ali Khan was thinking of annexing a vast geographic region, not in creating a pure Islamic state.

Of course, the Muslim leaders wanted to balkanise India so that India would remain small and weak. With this objective, Jinnah sought the independence of all princely states. But in this he failed.

The Muslim League leaders had no clear idea about Jammu and Kashmir. The tribal raids were organised by a British governor and army generals who had a clear idea of the strategic importance of the northern territories. (Unfortunately, Indian leaders, both civil and military, had no idea of the strategic importance of the northern territories.) The Russian and Chinese empires met there.

But Liaquat Ali, the first Prime Minister of Pakistan, thought that Nizam’s Hyderabad, a Hindu majority state, was more important than “some mountain rocks”, meaning Jammu and Kashmir!

So, where is the two-nation theory in all these? The sole objective was to get a large state for the Muslims. Even Assam, a Hindu majority province, was claimed by the League, and had it not been for Gandhiji’s resistance, Assam would have gone to Pakistan.

Balkanisation of India continues to be the main objective of Pakistan even today. Benjamin Gilman, Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee (USA) has pointed out that China and Pakistan want India divided and weak.

That Pakistan was not going to accept a low role for itself is evident from two facts: 1) Z.A. Bhutto’s testimony from jail — “If I am assassinated” and 2) the construction of the Karakorum Highway.

In his testimony, he writes: “My single most important achievement which I believe will dominate the portrait of my public life is an agreement which I arrived at (with China) after an assiduous and tenacious endeavour spanning over 11 years of negotiation. It was concluded in 1976. In short, Bhutto started negotiations just after the 1964 Chinese nuclear explosion. Perhaps India too began its preliminary work then. Obviously, Bhutto was not merely thinking of an answer to a possible Indian bomb, but also of what it could do to raise the status of Pakistan as a major player in the world. They used to talk of it as “the Islamic bomb.”

Of equal importance was Pakistan’s decision to construct the Karakorum Highway. Built at a cost of 3.07 billion dollars, linking Pakistan with China, Kyrghystan and Tajikistan, the highway was the most strategic road that Pakistan had undertaken. Apart from its commercial significance, the highway could be an alternative route just in case India blocked the seaports of Pakistan in war.

Essentially, whoever controls the access roads to Kashgar and Yarkhand controls the gateway to China. Work on the Karakorum Highway began as far back as 1967, and was completed in 1978. It was finally opened for traffic in 1986. The highway broke the isolation of both China and Pakistan in the region, ensuring a corridor that could withstand prolonged blockade. Islamabad considers the Karakorum Highway a symbol and manifestation of the unique Sino-Pak relationship and their strategic unity of purpose. It is Pakistan’s calculation that if it can become the dominant hegemonic power over the western gateways of China, it will be in a position to exert great influence over the entire Trans-Asian-Axis.

Pakistan has always coveted Kashmir. But, of late, the struggle has become intense. From 1993 Mrs Bhutto has been stressing the centrality of Kashmir for the long-term development of Pakistan. It did not take long for Pakistan to realise that the opening of Central Asia with Pakistan as the gateway to the Indian Ocean could become the key to Pakistan’s economic growth. But any rail route has to go through Kashmir if construction and operation costs are to be kept minimum. This explains the intensity of the proxy war in Kashmir and the enormous stake in nuclear development. Pakistan sees no alternative but to annex the whole of Jammu and Kashmir.

The puerile exercise of “bus diplomacy” must be seen in the light of these deep strategies that Pakistan has been evolving during the past three decades. It is said that India had been living in a fool’s paradise before the 1962 Chinese aggression. Perhaps we have not left our comfortable habitat all these years.

75 YEARS AGO

Plague in Hindu College, Delhi

AS usual plague has begun its work. This year it has chosen the Kashmiri Gate side first for its entry. Some days ago, a kitchen servant suddenly died of plague.

Afterwards several infected dead rats were found in the college as well as in the hostel premises. As ordered by the Principal, all the resident students have got themselves inoculated. But the daily appearance of dead rats is causing deep anxiety.

The Principal has ordered all the resident students to be shifted to Timarpur, about two miles from the college. But it would be much safer if he closes the college for some days.