Second robust phase
THE second phase of the polling for 123 Lok Sabha seats has reaffirmed the robustness of the democratic process in India. Voters in 123 constituencies went to the polls on Saturday.

A petulant act
THERE is a thin streak in the American administrative character which wants to impose what it considers an ideal on other countries in an aggressive and unpleasant manner.

RIGHTS OF MEDIA AND E.C.
Need to determine balance
by S. Sahay
THE strategy of a section of the media neither to challenge the Election Commission’s guidelines nor to respect them has certainly worked. It has driven the Election Commission to file an interlocutory petition seeking injunction and a writ petition praying for a declaration that the Commission’s guidelines did prohibit the publication or dissemination of exit polls and opinion polls between September 3 and October 5.


Pak role as terrorism exporter
by M.L. Kotru
NEMESIS finally appears to be catching up with Pakistan. Its role as a promoter of terrorism and an exporter of trained fundamentalists is being adversely commented upon by even some of Pakistan’s known friends.

Exit polls: wait for apex court’s vote
by Anupam Gupta
THE media versus the Election Commission? Or the people, the electorate, versus the media? Whichever way one looks at it, this week’s hearing before the Supreme Court, assembled in a Constitution Bench, on the question of the EC’s power to ban exit and opinion polls promises to be one of the major constitutional battles of 1999.

Grabbing cemetery land
by Humra Quraishi
FOREMOST, attack on the Christians doesn’t seem to subside. In spite of the so-called assurances by the so-called leaders, the focus of these attacks seems to have moved towards cemeteries.

The middle age
by Chander Gupta
I TURN 40 on September 18. I have crossed the threshold of the middle age. All the symptoms are there: Half the pate is bald and half the hair on the other half has turned grey. The baldness and belly have increased in equal measure.

75 Years Ago

Mahatmaji’s proposal
AN editorial note in the latest issue of the Indian Social Reformer throws further light on the nature of the proposals made by Mahatma Gandhi for the settlement of Congress differences.

Second robust phase

THE second phase of the polling for 123 Lok Sabha seats has reaffirmed the robustness of the democratic process in India. Voters in 123 constituencies went to the polls on Saturday. One has to take a close look at the states where franchise was exercised in spite of daunting local conditions, political acrimony, the criminal--politician nexus, and demoralising threats to law and order. These are Jammu and Kashmir (two seats), Andhra Pradesh (15), Karnataka (13), Kerala (20), Madhya Pradesh (14), Maharashtra (24), Rajasthan (15) and Tamil Nadu (20). Even in recent "normal times", these states have been sending out signals of class and caste rivalry and extra-regional conflicts with or without external provocation. The national average of the voter-turnout is 56.22 per cent. The final figure in the first phase of the election on September 5, covering 144 parliamentary constituencies, was 58.17 per cent. The projection or the preliminary estimate for the second phase was 2 per cent less than that in the first phase. The statistical accuracy is unbelievably correct. People have voted not only for persons but also for parties — or the alliances of parties. At places the electors have shown their resentment by abstaining from the poll. Their representatives are expected to get them a fair deal and look after their primary needs. No work, no vote: this message emanating from a few areas is loud and clear. Ujjain (South), Achror, Madhepur, Bhind and Morena are symbols of the wrath of the arbiters of the MPs' destiny. Awakening is evident. One need not go by the numerical nature of the overall percentage. The quality of the discerning vote is the most important factor.

Maharashtra has thrown up a condemnable and sorrowful case of election-related violence. A Nationalist Congress Party activist has been killed in the Satara constituency. The state's Minister of State for Revenue, Mr Udayanraje Bhosle, along with four of his supporters, has been arrested. The Minister is the BJP candidate for the Satara Assembly segment. It is a pity that Mr Bhosle has been presented to the people during the campaign as the "13th descendant of Chhatrapati Shivaji". The BJP should let the law take its course; to organise supportive demonstrations in respect of the gravest offence (murder) is to indulge in anti-democratic activity. Meanwhile, one must congratulate the brave people of Jammu and Kashmir who have, wherever they have been able to come out of their homes, voted in a death-defying manner. The intimidation that kept voters unwillingly in their homes at poll time earlier, has not worked in more violently threatened areas like Banihal, Kishtwar, Doda, Surankot, Mendhar, Poonch, Rajouri and Kathua! Kashmiriyat has triumphed. Hurriyat has been snubbed by jamhooriyat. The Nawaz Sharif set-up and the ISI should take note of this assertive realism. And so should the world community. The third phase will be predictably more spectacular. The essence of a viable democracy lies in the manner in which the people vote. The Election Commission shares the credit for the successful conclusion of the qualitatively robust second phase with the electors.

A petulant act

THERE is a thin streak in the American administrative character which wants to impose what it considers an ideal on other countries in an aggressive and unpleasant manner. The latest is religious freedom as it was human rights yesterday, anti-terrorism war a bit earlier and democracy in the past decade. Having made the world free for capitalism, the USA now wants to make the world free for all religions. And this obligation is mandated by Congress by way of the International Religious Freedom Act, 1998, and the State Department is directed to compile an annual report listing the degree of missing freedom and the nature of violations across the world. The idea of a self-appointed global religious policeman is a grave provocation for much of Asia where Middle Ages religious tension is yet to settle down to information age religious tranquillity. What has made the first ever report a red rag to the Asian bulls is the highly denunciatory reference to most countries, including India. China has come for wholesale condemnation for its harsh treatment of Christians and Buddhists and it has promptly lambasted the USA for doing gutter inspection in public. India too receives a rap or two across the knuckle for the attacks on Christians in Gujarat and for the general apathy of central and state governments to ensure full and timely protection to minorities. Of course there is an uncomplimentary reference to the RSS outlook but the BJP is not tarred with the same brush. Nothing unexpected or unduly lacerating. The USA has said worse things about this country in the past and India is none the worse for it.

Not this time though. The BJP-led government is needlessly worked up, refusing to invite the roving Minister in charge of international religious freedom and refusing to hold talks with him. For good measure, it attacked this kind of intrusive action and asked the USA to go elsewhere and look for officially blessed religious bigotry. That is a code word for Pakistan and Delhi thought that this would expose the partiality of the policeman. Delhi is not clever, for the neighbour gets a real pasting in the report, in terms very close to those used to describe the wicked practices of China. As is to be expected, the RSS jumped in with its own quota of outrage and unexpectedly the Congress too took a swipe at these “extra-regional endeavours”. The erstwhile ruling party wants to hold up the report as a failure of the government on the diplomatic front even while defending the national interest. This orchestrated protest is out of place in an open society struggling to regain its lost trait of tolerance in all matters. India has been trying to cope with the devastation caused by ancient rivalries revived in new forms, distortions caused by imported concepts like inimical ethnicity and the eruption of economic inequality into social strife. All these are well documented and widely known. These cannot be hidden away from prying eyes, more so because India is an open society. Why not then discuss the issues with the US envoy who is keen to come to Delhi and meet officials and others? It is time to own the Indian record which is quite creditable despite a few shameful aberrations and in many respects stands favourably with the US record of handling the black issue. India should not close the door; the days when one can lead a cloistered life in a closed room are gone.

RIGHTS OF MEDIA AND E.C.
Need to determine balance
by S. Sahay

THE strategy of a section of the media neither to challenge the Election Commission’s guidelines nor to respect them has certainly worked. It has driven the Election Commission to file an interlocutory petition seeking injunction and a writ petition praying for a declaration that the Commission’s guidelines did prohibit the publication or dissemination of exit polls and opinion polls between September 3 and October 5.

When last year some papers challenged the legality of the commission’s order, I had argued that that was a wrong strategy to adopt. The order, in my view, was unconstitutional and, in fact, an attempt to browbeat the media. I had suggested that a better course would have been to ignore the commission’s directive.

By filing the interlocutory petition, the commission tried to hustle the Supreme Court into issuing an injunction. The court observed, when pointed out that Jain TV had already released a gist of the exit poll, that what had been done could not be undone but Jain TV should desist from releasing the details until further orders. This was fair.

Equally fair has been the attitude of the Union Government, as represented by its Attorney-General, Mr Soli Sorabjee. He has made it clear that the government has not opted for a confrontation with the Election Commission, all it was doing was to point out the illegality and the unconstitutionality of the commission’s guidelines.

The Division Bench was apparently impressed by the constitutional questions raised and decided that the matter needed to be determined by Constitution Bench.

When the Election Commission counsel mentioned the Division Bench’s decision before the Bench, presided over by the Chief Justice, he raised very relevant questions. Did the Election Commission not have the powers to enforce its guidelines? The Constitution provided that all authorities should act in aid of the Supreme Court, but here was a case in which the Election Commission wanted the Supreme Court to act in aid of it. Must the Supreme Court become the executing arm of the Election Commission?

Since, in the Chief Justice’s view, the very maintainability of the petitions was in doubt, the Constitution Bench alone could decide the question of an interim injunction.

Some experts have maintained that what the Division Bench’s decision implies is an interpretation of the reach of the fundamental right of free speech and expression. One could argue with equal force that what is involved is the reach of the powers of the Election Commission under Article 324, which deals with superintendence, direction and control of elections.

Clearly there has to be a balance between the rights of the media and those of the Election Commission. The question is: who is to determine the balance? Do the courts have any role in it?

As far as the media is concerned, there is already something to be cheerful about. A Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court has quashed the order of the Election Commission prohibiting the telecasting of advertisements by the political parties and candidates on private channels during the elections.

On a writ petition filed by Gemini Television, a Telugu TV channel, the Division Bench held that the people could not be deprived of their right to know about those who intended to govern them. The Election Commission’s decision to put restrictions on the right to reach people was arbitrary.

The court rejected the argument that the restrictions were necessary in order to curb high expenditure on elections. In its judgement, the restrictions had been put on extraneous considerations, especially when one kept in mind the fact that no restriction had been imposed on the print media, even on other modes of campaign such as printed posters, pamphlets and public meetings.

The court firmly held that the restrictions on the electronic media were unreasonable, arbitrary and violative of the constitutional provisions.

If the votaries of a free media have reasons to be cheerful about the court’s decision, they cannot but be saddened by the admission by the Election Commission’s counsel that though a decision had been taken to put restrictions on the electronic media, nothing had been recorded. The court had to note in the judgement that no record was produced in this regard.

The plain truth is that if the restrictions on the electronic media were based on statutory or constitutional grounds the decision had to be recorded in writing. It was not done. The Election Commission’s counsel admitted that though a decision was taken no minutes were kept.

This makes one wonder whether the commission was fully aware of the unconstitutional nature of its directive but acted in the hope that its strong-arm tactic might work. It needs to be emphasised that the Election Commission is dominated by former bureaucrats, who as District Magistrates early in their career must have been told about the effectiveness of “flag-marches” in order to bring a tense situation under control.

The commission needs to be told that even mightier persons like Prime Ministers have discovered that there can be no “flag-marches” against a free and vibrant Press — made so by the Constitution itself and the interpretations put on it by the Supreme Court.

Pak role as terrorism exporter
by M.L. Kotru

NEMESIS finally appears to be catching up with Pakistan. Its role as a promoter of terrorism and an exporter of trained fundamentalists is being adversely commented upon by even some of Pakistan’s known friends. Last week the UN Security Council saw many countries — notably the USA, Russia and the Netherlands — taking strong exception to Pakistan’s role in insurgencies, not only in the old ones in Afghanistan but also the newer ones in Chechnia and the Dagestan province of Russia. The presence of Pakistan’s trained terrorists has been noticed in places as far removed as Bosnia, Kosovo and the Philippines, and the latest to join the outcry is the Central Asian Republic of Kyrgyzstan.

The Pakistan-backed Taliban, which controls most of Afghanistan, is in direct control of one of the world’s largest narcotics producing centres. The nexus between the Taliban militia and the Pakistani drug lords and the extension of Islamic fundamentalism into neighbouring nations is causing much concern to the Central Asian Republics who are finding that substantial amounts of narco-money are being diverted to fostering insurgency in some of these countries.

The Under Secretary-General for Political Affairs of the UN, Mr Kieran Prendergast, told the Security Council recently that foreign meddling in Afghanistan has kept the brutal civil war there going and that this risks broadening the conflict beyond its borders. Mr Prendergast set the tone for the strong criticism of Pakistan voiced in the council by several members, saying that an estimated 2,000 to 5,000 young students from religious schools (madarsas) in Pakistan had joined the Taliban in Afghanistan. One of the members accused Pakistan of “State-sponsored terrorism” a position which India had taken many years ago in relation to Pakistan-sponsored terrorist activities first in Punjab and for the past one decade in Jammu and Kashmir.

Pakistan has been quick to accuse Russia and Iran of supporting the officially recognised government of Mr Burhanuddin Rabbani, backed by the military warlord, Mr Ahmad Shah Masoud, but the truth is that the world has now come to recognise Pakistan as a major breedor-cum-exporter of terrorism. The Kyrgyzstan President at last week’s meeting of the Presidents of China, Russia and the three Central Asian Republics expressed grave concern over the growing Islamic militant activity in his country, saying that much of it was of foreign origin— Pakistani, Saudi and Afghan.

Russian Interior Minister Vladimir Rushailo also noted recently that “mercenaries from a number of countries, above all Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the UAE, took part in the fighting in Dagestan” (a Province of Russia). Russian security forces are planning to disclose “concrete facts” about the involvement of secret services of some foreign countries, particularly Muslim States, in the conflicts in North Caucasus.

Even Bangladesh over the week-end accused the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence agency of masterminding an internal upheaval in the country. Several ISI agents have been arrested from different parts of the country and 30 kg of RDX recovered from them. The Dhaka government has virtually put its intelligence agencies on a red alert of sorts. India had on many occasions in the past drawn Dhaka’s attention to the activities of ISI agents on the Indo-Bangladesh border, particularly in the context of rebel movements in some of the North-Eastern states of India. These requests had largely gone unheeded. Happily for the Indian authorities, Bangladesh has now realised that the ISI poses a threat to its own security interests.

Be that as it may Pakistan now stands thoroughly exposed as one of the prime centres for the advancement of militant Islamic fundamentalism. A report appearing in a section of the Indian Press spoke of the Pakistani government having moved against some of the madarsas in that country. This is obviously an attempt to hoodwink world opinion. The truth is that madarsas have sprung up throughout the length and breadth of Pakistan over the past three decades. Originally, their activities were confined to imparting religious education. But for some years now they have become virtual recruitment centres for the various militant organisations functioning within Pakistan and Afghanistan. In most cases these madarsas enjoy state support, in addition to the funds received from countries like Saudi Arabia.

The biggest of these centres is the Markaz-e-Dawat-ul-Irshad, its campus spread over several acres outside Lahore. The top armed wing of the Markaz happens to be the Lashkar-e-Toiba whose members in turn receive arms training in terrorist training camps in Afghanistan as well as in Pakistan. Osama bin Laden, the Saudi billionaire-turned-terrorist kingpin has visited the Markaz in the past and maintains close links with it. Indeed, he is one of the patrons of the Markaz. Laden, incidentally, is on America’s “most wanted terrorist” list.

India has been at the receiving end of Pakistani adventurism as was recently evidenced in Kargil and as it has unfolded itself for more than a decade, first in Punjab and subsequently in Jammu and Kashmir. Cross-border terrorism does not make for a liberation war. As the Islamabad-based chief of the J and K Liberation Front, Amanullah Khan, said the other day Pakistan’s record in Gilgit (Khan is a Gilgati) does not inspire confidence, Gilgit, part of the former princely State of Jammu and Kashmir, has since been annexed to Pakistan and has been renamed as the Northern Territories.

The Pakistan Supreme Court earlier this month was constrained to note the denial of the basic human right to these people to elect their own representatives. Surely, Pakistan cannot dangle the carrot of democracy to the people of Jammu and Kashmir when its record in the parts occupied by it is dismal. Add to it the misery its proxy war has inflicted on the people of Kashmir.

The fact that Pakistan is now heavily dependent on foreign mercenaries to carry out its so-called jehad in the state gives the lie to its claim that India is faced with homegrown terrorists. The time may finally have come for India to enlist the support of the world community and take Pakistan to task at the UN General Assembly meeting in September. Pakistan is a terrorist state, and it must be declared one. — ADNI

The middle age
by Chander Gupta

I TURN 40 on September 18. I have crossed the threshold of the middle age. All the symptoms are there: Half the pate is bald and half the hair on the other half has turned grey. The baldness and belly have increased in equal measure. A university-time friend who met me almost after 20 years told me that I had lost hair and gained weight. Grey hair has sprouted even on the face and chest.

Both my parents are 60 plus, and my daughter only 10 plus. So I have to, at this stage of life, look after my parents as well as my offspring. Fifteen years back when I was still unmarried, I had no care in the world of my parents nor any of bringing up children.

I am in the middle of my career too.

I am neither too junior nor too senior.

I am sandwiched.

I had the first cue of my middle age when an adult girl addressed me as “Uncle”. I was shocked. Now young people are routinely calling me “Uncle”. The wrinkles on my forehead are another proof of my youth begone. Acidity has become a recurrent problem for me. I did not know ACDT of acidity in my youth. I am also beginning to lose sleep over sleep. When I am writing this it is 11.00 pm. And there is no wink in my eyes. So I took up a pen and paper to write this “middle”. I am neither young nor old. Twenty years hence when I retire from service, I will be classified as “old”. So I have decided to make the best of the next 20 years with all the experience of 40 years behind me. The experience of forty years has taught me that “one who loses patience is the loser. We should not react, we should respond”. The game of life is played between you and the Rest of the World.

Exit polls: wait for apex court’s vote

by Anupam Gupta

THE media versus the Election Commission? Or the people, the electorate, versus the media? Whichever way one looks at it, this week’s hearing before the Supreme Court, assembled in a Constitution Bench, on the question of the EC’s power to ban exit and opinion polls promises to be one of the major constitutional battles of 1999.

Speaking for myself, there can be no manner of doubt that exit and opinion polls not only reflect voter behaviour but influence and shape it.

Even if they are totally innocent or unmotivated (which they seldom are), or accurate or reasonably accurate (which it is impossible to confirm before the elections are over and the results are out), their undeniable impact on the mind of the electorate in a multi-phase election like the present one renders them highly suspect in a constitutional system wedded to the ideal of free and fair elections.

“Our constitutional law,” Supreme Court Judge K.K. Mathew wrote in the Bennett Coleman case of 1973, “has been singularly indifferent to the reality and implications of non-governmental obstructions to the spread of political truth.”

That was a dissenting opinion, of course — one of the most intellectually powerful dissenting opinions in the history of the court, highlighting the awesome capacity of modern newspapers, concentrated in a few hands, to influence public opinion. But it has relevance of a fundamental character to the debate that shall take place before the court this week, starting tomorrow, on the EC’s petition.

“A realistic view of our freedom of expression,” said Justice Mathew, “requires the recognition that the right of expression is somewhat thin if it can be exercised only on the sufferance of the managers of the leading newspapers.”

The owners and managers of the Press determine (he said) which persons, which facts, which version of facts, which ideas shall reach the public. The citizen’s need for information has definitely increased but he is entirely dependent on the quality, proportion and extent of “his news supply — the materials for the discharge of his duties as a citizen and a judge of public affairs” — on a few newspapers. Or on a few magazines or TV channels, one might add.

If ever there was a self-operating market of ideas (he continued), as Justice Holmes assumed, it has long since ceased to exist with the concentration of the mass media in a few hands. The real problem is how to bring all ideas into the market and make the concept of freedom of speech a live one having its roots in reality.

It is only the “new media of communication that can lay sentiments before the public” and it is they rather than the government who can most effectively abridge expression by nullifying the opportunity for an idea to win acceptance.

As a constitutional theory for communication of ideas, Justice Mathew concluded (and I implore the Constitution Bench to attend), “laissez faire is manifestly irrelevant”. Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution, dealing with the freedom of the Press, deserves accordingly to be reinterpreted.

One of the great Judges of the Supreme Court of India, Justice Mathew was reacting to another celebrated dissenting opinion across the seas by one of the greatest Judges of this century. The opinion of American Supreme Court Judge Oliver Wendell Holmes in Abrams vs United States (1919). Holmes’ conceptualisation in that case of the marketplace of ideas, of a free trade in ideas, has been described by Max Lerner as the “greatest utterance on intellectual freedom by an American, ranking in the English language with Milton and Mill.”

Having said that, I must immediately concede that the question is not, to use a lawyer’s cliche, free from difficulty. The conflict between Article 19(1) (a) and Article 324, the constitutional Gangotri of the EC’s power, is by no means easy to resolve. It presents rather a formidable challenge to the court’s interpretative skills.

The EC’s power of superintendence, direction and control of elections under Article 324 is neither “subject to the provisions of this Constitution” nor does it operate “notwithstanding anything in this Constitution”.

The former phrase (“subject to the provisions of this Constitution”) qualifies Articles 327 and 328, which provide respectively for parliamentary and state legislation with respect to elections. The latter (“notwithstanding anything in this Constitution”) marks Article 329, which restricts judicial interference in electoral matters. Article 324 employs neither the one phrase nor the other. The question whether it overrides, or is subject to, Article 19(1) (a) thus remains open.

Turning now to Article 19, the right of free speech and expression under Clause (1) (a) is subject under Clause (2) to “reasonable restrictions”. Such restrictions, which may in a given case amount to total prohibition, can be imposed on various grounds. Such as the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, public order, decency or morality, or (in order to prevent) contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.

Prima facie, none of these grounds cover restrictions like the EC’s ban on exit and opinion polls. Needless to say, the ban has been conceived in the larger public interest. But “public interest” (as distinguished from “public order”) is not a ground on which the freedom of speech and expression can be restricted under Article 19(2). The distinction between “public interest” and “public order” is too well known to be overlooked.

Whichever way one’s sympathies lie, it will be interesting to watch this constitutional battle.

Grabbing cemetery land

by Humra Quraishi

FOREMOST, attack on the Christians doesn’t seem to subside. In spite of the so-called assurances by the so-called leaders, the focus of these attacks seems to have moved towards cemeteries. In fact on September 11 members of the United Christian Forum for Human Rights met to highlight the manner in which cemetery lands were being grabbed and encroached upon in the state of Haryana. “Rohtak cemetery alone — which is a century old and wherein two erstwhile Deputy Commissioners of Rohtak lie buried — has been encroached upon. Land-grabbing of this particular cemetery land has been done by a few lawyers of that town,” says John Dayal who visited the cemetery to make an on-the-spot assessment. He adds that in other towns and areas of this particular state cemetery areas are being encroached upon and little has been done to cry a halt to it.

With watchdog groups being nil, the percentage of the Christian population very low in Haryana — merely a couple of hundreds, — watch-dog commissions which are not even equipped with dentures leave alone the biting power, the onus is on the administration to guarantee that at least the dead lie undisturbed.

And coming to the developments vis-a-vis the killings of members of minorities in Orissa, just at the time of filing this column there is on way a “critical discussion” here at the Constitution Club, on the just released Wadhwa Commission Report. The panelists include Ms Nirmal Deshpande, S. P. Banerjee, T.K. Oommen, Rev Valson Thampu, M.P. Raju and several others. And to be released at this very discussion is a book — Wadhwa Commission Report — A Critique. With contributions from A J Philip, Walter Fernandez, A.J. Noorani, John Dayal and Valson Thampu this critique could raise some discomforting queries (discomforting for Advanis, Vajpayees) but right now I will not be able to fit in those details as the discussion has only just started (4 p.m. on September 11) and I am already late for filing this column.

The mood isn’t warming up

Mid week during a lunch hosted by a diplomat some of the Indian guests focused attention on the mark on my left hand index finger. “So you have voted! For whom ? Why a so and so? What difference will your vote make ?” Quite obviously they hadn’t voted. Not one of the five people who were cross questioning me on my decision to vote! It was very surprising for all of them are educated and earnest citizens yet they didn’t bother to vote for the simple reason that they were sure that things are not going to improve in this country.

And, mind you, this disillusionment is trickling right down. Even when news comes by that the next “clean” candidate to be fielded by the Congress is Dr Karan Singh there is no excitement. Though this announcement has laid to rest those wild speculations that Dilip Kumar would be the Congress choice against Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee but that is about all. And considering that it was Sonia Gandhi who is said to have personally focused on Karan Singh’s name this lack of interest seems strange. Either, like T N Seshan, Karan Singh’s case seems to be weak or else psyches lie unaffected. Or as a senior Congressman put across “The day of excitement will now only come when Priyanka and Rahul Gandhi or even if Maneka’s son Varun stands for elections...”

But Karan Singh himself seems to be in an upbeat mood. When I spoke to him some minutes back and asked “What if you lose?” he shot back “why should I lose? I never think in terms of losing!”. When I remind him that his opponent is none other than Atal Behari Vajpayee he countered “I am also strong...aisi kya baat hai...” And to the fact that he has earlier had no base in Lucknow he said, “I have been in public life for 32 years so I cannot restrict my base to just one place or to one feudal base”. Whether his wife and three children would be campaigning for him he said, “Yes, my wife will definitely campaign. In fact she travels with me wherever I go. Regarding my children, woh to ab sab bade ho gae.....but the elder son will come along and campaign”. What is his interpretation of Hindutva and does it hold some place for the minorities? “ I have my own interpretation of the Vedantas and regarding minorities all that I can say is that I come from a Muslim majority state and also I am the chairman of the Temple of Understanding and believe in interfaith harmony....” On his name being specially picked up by Sonia Gandhi — “Actually I was away on work to Paris (in the capacity of my being the co-chairman of the Indo French Forum) and returned on September 8. I was told that in my absence there were some calls from Soniaji. I met her on September 9 and it’s then that she asked me whether I was prepared to fight from the Lucknow constituency. Naturally I said okay ...”

The rest of the events

Probably the biggest event just round the corner is the upcoming ‘The First Cinemaya Festival of Asian Cinema’. Scheduled to take off on September 13, during this six day long festival films will be screened under three sections — that is — films of Japan, the Asian Panorama, the Indian New wave, as also discussions with a cross section of directors are lined up. And not to miss NDMC’s next-in-the-series of Morning Ragas. And on 19 September it will be sarangi maestro Pt Ram Narayan’s recital, at the Nehru Park. If only NDMC remained focused on garbage and maintenance of cleanliness (not only in VIP areas but otherwise too) then the very idea of holding these concerts would fall in place. Right now, it seems a little amiss.

75 YEARS AGO

September 13, 1924.
Mahatmaji’s proposal

AN editorial note in the latest issue of the Indian Social Reformer throws further light on the nature of the proposals made by Mahatma Gandhi for the settlement of Congress differences. The Mahatma, writes the journal, “has offered three boycotts, and to leave the Swaraj Party to pursue their Council activities unhampered by any opposition on the part of those who have adhered to the orthodox view of non-cooperation. The only condition he makes is that the four-anna franchise as a qualification for the membership of the Congress should be discarded in favour of each member sending a certain amount of yarn spun by himself every month to the Central Khaddar Board”.

The proposal, if it shows what great importance the Mahatma attaches to spinning and the production of khaddar for the purpose of winning Swaraj, also shows how little effect the public criticism of his previous proposal has produced upon his mind. That proposal, after all, made spinning only a condition of membership of the Congress Executive. What the Mahatma now proposes is that spinning should be made a condition of membership of the Congress itself.