 |
|
Cadres vs farmers Beware thy neighbour |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
An exciting birth Let the fate of dodos not befall vultures IF the visit of the stork to the Vulture Conservation and Breeding Centre (VCBC), Pinjore, is generating nationwide interest and excitement, it is only because we have almost exterminated nature’s natural scavengers. Nearly 95 per cent of them are already dead and the birth of even one chick is extremely important.
Dealing with China
Laugh a little
Divide and fight UK struggles with the immigration dilemma Delhi Durbar
|
Cadres vs farmers THE Left Front Government’s industrialisation plan has a lot to commend itself but the way it is being executed causes concern. The killings at Nandigram on Sunday show an ugly aspect of its policy. Even if reports that the cadres of the CPM, armed with automatic rifles and wearing police uniforms, attacked the farmers protesting forcible acquisition of farmland for a special economic zone, are not true, the clashes and the deaths are a poor commentary on the state of affairs in West Bengal. Monday’s statewide bandh in protest against the highhandedness of the CPM cadres is one more proof that public opinion is not in favour of the government’s policy vis-à-vis land acquisition. In a democracy, it is incumbent upon the authorities concerned to win the confidence of the people on whatever policies they want to pursue. West Bengal does not have much non-agricultural land. Nor can its farms provide jobs to the youths passing out of schools and colleges. The state needs a heavy dose of industrialisation to make up for the loss it suffered when ‘gherao’ was a state policy and Marxist success was measured in terms of the number of industries closed. Thus, acquisition of farmland for industrial purposes as at Singur and, now, at Nandigram is unavoidable. It is also true that without state intervention companies planning to set up units cannot acquire large, contiguous tracts of land. But this does not mean that farmers can be forced to part with their land. Nobody would dispute that the farmers should get market price. Often, such prices are not sufficient to carry on their lives. Having never handled large sums of money, they are tempted to fritter it away by way of conspicuous consumption. Cases of farmers falling prey to cheats are also not unheard of. What the farmers, therefore, need is a stake in the proposed unit. It could be in the form of shops in the township or jobs or houses or shares depending on their individual needs. These are matters that should be discussed across the table to find a solution. In this, there is no scope for the Marxist cadres to take the law into their own hands. The CPM would do well to remember that India is not China and what is possible in the “dictatorship of the proletariat” is not possible in a democracy.
|
|
Beware thy neighbour WITH NATO commanders in Afghanistan practically begging for additional troops as the Taliban engineer a sustained resurgence across this blighted land, it is none too surprising that Afghan president Hamid Karzai has reiterated his charge that neighbour Pakistan was continuing to harbour militants. Even the Americans, who like to defend General Pervez Musharraf, are increasingly pointing to the fact that Pakistan’s wild border regions around Waziristan have become a place for the Taliban to retreat to and restock and regroup. Of course, they are still giving him a ready-made excuse when they stress the remoteness of the region and the fact that the Pakistani state has never held total sway in the area. Whether it is US Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte or State Department official Richard Boucher, this forked tongue prevails. The fact that Mr Karzai chose to repeat his concerns when the Pakistani Prime Minister was actually visiting Afghanistan show that this is no mere campaign for diplomatic brownie points. Of course, India has for long been familiar with this kind of Pakistani double game. Pakistan’s interest in the Afghanistan region is multi-pronged. It has always wanted control of the territory, for it believes it can then get the necessary strategic depth vis-à-vis India. India’s closeness to the Karzai regime is also a sore point. The US attempt to “balance” its relationship with Pakistan and Afghanistan has an unfortunate ring of familiarity to it and Mr Karzai should be wary of a timeworn hyphenation across the Durand Line. Mr Karzai is understandably not impressed with the Pakistani plan for fencing and laying land mines across a rugged, 1500-mile border. Pakistan insists that it is serious about the plan but that carries no more conviction than the tribal pacts Pakistan entered into a few months ago, where Waziristan’s tribals were to rein in cross-border attacks. In the meantime, Taliban attacks, including suicide attacks and daily “direct-fire” incidents, are mounting. There are fears of a concerted attack to cut off Kandahar and retake the city. Merely exhorting Pakistan to “do more” is no longer enough and the US should seek tougher options.
|
|
An exciting birth IF the visit of the stork to the Vulture Conservation and Breeding Centre (VCBC), Pinjore, is generating nationwide interest and excitement, it is only because we have almost exterminated nature’s natural scavengers. Nearly 95 per cent of them are already dead and the birth of even one chick is extremely important. One does not have to be an old-timer to recall that “Giddhs” and “Cheels” flying in formation used to fill the skies. Now the majestic birds are rarely sighted thanks to the capacity of human beings to destroy their natural habitat. More than that, the vultures were done in because of Diclofenac being given indiscriminately to domesticated animals. The drug was lethal for vultures, which fed on the carcasses of such animals. It was banned only last year, when the vultures were almost gone. Ironically, while it has been officially banned, it is still available almost freely. No wonder very few go in for Meloxican, which is a viable alternative that happens to be slightly costlier. That only shows the seriousness attached to the revival of the birds. Unless the public is made fully aware of the necessity of saving vultures, which are essential for cleaning up the surroundings, the battle cannot be won. For instance, not many know that the hobby of flying kites can do incalculable damage to the vultures. Pieces of sharp glass strung to the kites injure and kill them. If vultures do not dispose of carcasses, the threat of diseases and epidemics will multiply. Many more breeding centres are planned to be opened in the near future. Let us also ensure that the vultures born there will also get to lead a long life. Otherwise, the bird will become as extinct as the dodos. |
|
Let me remind you that information is not knowledge, knowledge is not wisdom, and wisdom is not foresight. Each grows out of the other and we need them all.
|
Dealing with China
THE broad contours of a border settlement as Beijing conceives it are now clear. To start with, there is to be no revival of the earlier swap proposal, first aired in informal talks with Prime Minister Nehru by his Chinese counterpart, Zhou Enlai in New Delhi in April 1960. The deal envisaged exchange of Aksai Chin in the Western sector in return for NEFA (later Arunachal Pradesh) in the Eastern sector. For a variety of reasons — roused public outrage against what was viewed as China’s “perfidy” in its virtual slaughter of Indian patrols in Ladakh as well as Arunachal, and the aftermath of the March 1959 rebellion in Lhasa resulting in the flight of the Dalai Lama and hordes of Tibetan refugees who followed — New Delhi was in no mood to negotiate. And the talks remained deadlocked. Not long after the massive Chinese armed assault of October-November 1962 in which the Indian Army suffered a humiliating defeat was followed by almost two decades of unabated tensions and mutual recrimination. Mao’s “smile” and the return of ambassadors to their respective capitals (1976) restored a modicum of normalcy. Later following the death of the great helmsman and the rise of Deng Xiaoping, the swap proposal was revived (1980). Sadly for Deng’s initiative, New Delhi’s reaction was no whit different. Eight rounds of talks between the two foreign ministers in the 1980s led to nowhere in particular. In 1985, it would appear, the offer was “withdrawn” partly, it has been explained, to disabuse India that China’s claim in the east was not serious. Two aspects of the proposal need careful scrutiny. To start with, neither in 1960 nor yet in 1980, was it fleshed out. And this largely because New Delhi showed little or no interest whatever. In the event, details remained unexplained, modalities unexplored. Knowledgeable students of India-China relations maintain that the proposal was “fair and reasonable” and Beijing “sincere”. More that the impact on Chinese opinion of New Delhi’s rejection thereof was “difficult to overstate”. On the other hand, Nehru strongly supported by public and
parliamentary opinion deemed the Chinese seizure of Aksai Chin “wrong” and argued that in accepting their offer New Delhi would be relinquishing land in the west that rightfully belonged to it while China would give up nothing for Arunachal was never hers. The Indian line of reasoning may best be summed up in the analogy of a thief breaking into one’s house and stealing the coat and the wallet: “You don’t say to him that he can have the coat if he returns the wallet.” Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi’s visit to China in 1988 marked a new beginning. Joint Working Groups of officials from both sides were to be set up for each sector — the western, the middle and the eastern. Later in 1993 following Prime Minister Narasimha Rao’s sojourn modalities were worked out to ensure that there was peace and
tranquility on the border. In the event, over the past decade or so the border has largely been peaceful with mechanisms in place to ensure that it stays that way. In April 2005 when the Chinese Prime Minister, Wen Jiabao, visited New Delhi a broad consensus was reached on the parameters for a settlement, its “guiding principles” inter alia being both historical evidence as well as national sentiment. A year and a half later, President Hu’s visit (20-23 November, 2006) gave the talks a further boost in that both sides were now alive to the settlement being a “strategic goal” or objective. The Chinese leader went on to add that it would contribute to “peace and stability” in the region and advance the “basic interest” of the two countries. Preceding President Hu’s arrival Sun Yuxi, the Chinese Ambassador in India, heavily underlined his country’s claim to Tawang. Nor was that all. “The whole of Arunachal Pradesh”, the envoy was emphatic, was “Chinese territory” and Beijing was claiming it all. Countering the Indian Foreign Minister’s statement that Tawang was “an integral and inalienable” part of India, the Ambassador maintained that it was “disputed area” and that there had to be “some give and take”. And some “mutual compromise” on the issue. Another straw in the wind that may hold some clues to Chinese thinking on the subject can be gleaned from the proceedings of a close door conference of several think tanks in Beijing that convened earlier in November. Here heavyweight Chinese expertise apart, some Indian scholars were also present. The hosts emphasised that the border problem could be solved if New Delhi “handed over” Tawang to China and clearly hinted that should India accept the proposal, Beijing would be “magnanimous” on the issue of Aksai Chin. It may bear mention in this context that Aksai Chin in the western sector was the subject of considerable contention when, in the early 1950s, the Chinese built a road through this territory claiming it as their own. New Delhi stoutly contested the Chinese claim. Beijing though was uncompromising and used the highway to supply, and later replenish, its armed forces stationed in Tibet. Prior to 1956, it may be recalled, most of the rice, fuel and supplies used by the PLA (People’s Liberation Army) in Tibet came via the Indian port of Calcutta which would largely explain why the Lhasa-Yadong highway was one of the first to be renovated by China after its occupation of Tibet. The Aksai Chin road was important especially in that through the 1950s the routes through Quinghai and southern Sichuan were infested with widespread insurgency. In the event, Indian claims to the territory were viewed in Beijing as a brazen and indeed hostile move to deny China its sovereign rights in Tibet. Despite the distance and the hazards — and the expense involved — a large bulk of Chinese manpower in Tibet and the supplies to sustain them were processed through the AC route. It should follow that in the 1950s and 1960s the road was extremely important to China’s control over Tibet and linked in a direct way to maintaining and asserting its authority. Chinese analysts suggest that Nehru sought to cut the AC road as part of his effort to force the PLA out of Tibet. More, while encouraging and supporting the Tibetan ‘splittist’ opposition to Beijing’s authority, he was at the same time colluding with US efforts in supplying arms to Tibetan rebels. It may be noted, if only in parenthesis, that thanks to its moveable, if also still undefined LAC (Line of Actual Control), in the western sector Beijing has over the decades purloined not only Aksai Chin but also the neighbouring Lingzi Tang. And made deep inroads into the Changchenmo valley. Today thanks to the two major highways from the mainland and the railroad from Golmud to Lhasa, the AC road is in comparative disuse if not neglect. Carrying, it has been computed, a bare 20 per cent or even less of the traffic to the TAR (Tibetan Autonomous Region). No wonder Beijing is prepared to be “magnanimous” on the question. As New Delhi views it, the heavily wooded AP is a vital link to the northeastern states of Tripura, Mizoram, Manipur, Nagaland, Meghalaya and Assam. India’s vulnerability here is no different from that of China in Tibet. A large number of these hill tribes, nearly 200 of them, are of Mongoloid racial stock, akin to the hill tribes in neighbouring Burma, Laos and Thailand. Ruling the northeast poses a continual challenge for New Delhi, even as ruling Tibet, and Xinjiang, does to Beijing.
|
Laugh a little
THE capacity for laughter, it has been said, is a universal quality; one of the few that differentiates human beings from beasts. Applying this yardstick, it is pertinent to ask ourselves, are we a fun-loving nation or is humour a commodity in short supply in our country? My answer to both questions, paradoxically, is in the affirmative. No one, rich or poor, the world over, could be more given to merry-making than us at festival time or at the greatest of all events in our lives, a family wedding. But when it comes to humour in its subtle forms, in speech, in writing or pictorially represented, suggestive, provocative rather than obtrusive, we fall short of the ‘universal’ standard. As for a laugh against ourselves, perish the thought! Of course, we have our professional laughter-makers, the cartoonists, as good as any in the world. But how many of our people read English newspapers and how many of these spare more than a passing glance, if that, for a cartoon or a middle? They are more concerned with politics, politicians and the game of musical chairs played by the latter. Below the westernised jet-set you will find plenty of laughter but mostly at the antics of our film heroes. But when you come down to that 35 per cent of our population living below a nebulous poverty line, you will find that the only joyous events in their lives are religious festivals and weddings. At the latter, especially in rural areas, you are more than likely to hear some ribald jokes. To these people, the eternal struggle for food, shelter and clothing leaves little time or in-clination to laugh. Here lies the difference between ourselves and those living in affluent societies in the West for whom humour, rude or subtle, is the very salt of life. As Chaplin says in his autobiography, it is an essential component of the human survival kit. For those of my vintage, who had more to do with the British than have the post-independence generation, the spontaneous, off-the-cuff utterances of our erstwhile rulers are more readily appreciated than the American slap-stick variety so popular with our young people. This, however, is not the “universally” accepted view. Traditionally, for instance, the Frenchman has looked upon the Englishman as an individual who takes his pleasures sadly — more given to morosity than gaiety, according to Madame de Stael. All I can say is that this famous 18th century writer did not have the good fortune to be confronted with cockney humour, as I was, during World War II. Here is an example. An ARP warden in London looking into an underground shelter called out, “Any nursing mothers dahn there?” to which query a young woman replied, “Give us a chance, mate. It takes orl of nine month, an’ we’ve only bin ‘ere 10 ruddy minutes!”. It was this type of humour that sustained the British in their darkest
hour. |
Divide and fight ISLAMABAD, Pakistan – Pakistan’s proposal to plant land mines along the border with Afghanistan, aimed at preventing Islamic insurgents from using Pakistan as a sanctuary, has aroused angry protests by Afghan leaders who say the mines would endanger innocent travelers and divide tribal lands whose inhabitants do not recognize the border. The contretemps is the latest sour note in a deteriorating relationship between the neighboring Muslim governments, both staunch U.S. allies that are linked by the common threat of terrorism but divided by bitter cross-charges of failing to curb a growing Islamic insurgency that operates on both sides of the border. Last week, after a lengthy meeting in Kabul with Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz, Afghan President Hamid Karzai said there was still an increasing “lack of trust” between the countries. The plan to mine and fence the border, Karzai said bluntly, “will not prevent terrorism, but it will divide the two nations.” The tension has persisted despite a series of high-level meetings between Karzai and senior Pakistani officials, including the two-day visit by Aziz to the Afghan capital this past week and a private session with President Bush at the White House in September that brought Karzai together with the Pakistani president, General Pervez Musharraf. Taliban insurgents have spread across southern Afghanistan in the past year, battling NATO troops and launching hundreds of attacks, including suicide bombings against government facilities, military convoys and schools. Afghan and Pakistani officials have repeatedly blamed each other for failing to control the violent groups. Karzai and his aides accuse Pakistan of allowing Taliban leaders and their sympathizers to seek refuge across the border, especially in the semiautonomous tribal districts. Recently, U.S. officials have made the same claim after months of defending Musharraf as an important partner in the war against terrorism. “The Taliban have been able to use those areas for sanctuary and for command and control and for regrouping and supply,” Richard A. Boucher, a senior State Department official, said during a visit to Canada two weeks ago, although he noted that Pakistani authorities had historically not “held sway” in the tribal regions. Pakistani officials, in turn, maintain that they have tried every possible means of reining in the Islamic fighters, first sending about 80,000 army troops to the restive border areas and then negotiating agreements with tribal leaders who pledged to control or eject armed Islamic groups. Both efforts have met with major problems. “We have been the target of a whisper campaign that we are not doing enough, but no one has yet defined what enough is,” Tariq Azim Khan, Pakistan’s minister of state for information, said in an interview Saturday. “We have gone the extra mile, and we have lost many troops. This is a joint fight and a joint struggle, but we can only look after our side of the border. The Afghans have to look after their side, too.” Pakistan’s latest proposal, to lay mines and string barbed wire along parts of the 1,500-mile border, has struck some observers as either cynical or far-fetched, but officials here insist that they are serious about it and that the work will begin sometime this month. They said they have made careful plans to avoid areas of heavy legal cross-border traffic and focus on others where clandestine crossings occur. “If people take the legal routes, there will be no problem. They will be clearly marked,” the information minister said. “Our intention is to go after those who want to move illegally.” The minister noted that in addition to insurgent fighters, drug traffickers use hidden routes to bring opium out of Afghanistan, which produces 90 percent of the world’s heroin supply. He suggested that drug-related groups, who are powerful in southern Afghanistan, could be using their influence against the border-sealing plan. But Afghan reaction to the proposal has been negative for other reasons. Many Afghans have echoed Karzai’s assertion that it would arbitrarily divide the Pashtun tribes that live on both sides of the border, while insurgents would continue to slip across. Moreover, Afghanistan has endured terrible human suffering from hundreds of thousands of land mines laid during 25 years of military conflict, first by the occupying Soviet army in the 1980s and then by warring Afghan Islamic militia factions in the 1990s. The UN and other aid groups have spent millions of dollars on mine clearance, but many areas are still infested with the deadly devices. “We are against planting mines on the border because we have many bad memories of mines in Afghanistan,” Mir Wali Khan, a member of Afghan’s parliament from Helmand province, said in a telephone interview last week. “This cannot possibly stop the terrorists, and it’s not even clear where the border is. Pakistan always lies about trying to help us. They don’t want a stable Afghanistan, they are just interfering in our affairs.” The information minister and other Pakistani officials insist that it is very much in Pakistan’s interest to have Afghanistan become stable and peaceful, in part because Pakistan is tired of hosting several million refugees from years of Afghan conflict and is worried that renewed turmoil could send a new flood of people fleeing across the border. During his visit to Kabul this week, Prime Minister Aziz stressed Pakistan’s determination to begin registering and returning all remaining refugees. Taliban officials, for their part, have sent contradictory signals about their relations with Pakistan. Some have boasted that they can move freely in the tribal areas and also in the southern border city of Quetta, Pakistan, where the Taliban leadership council is widely reported to be based. But a statement this past week attributed to Mohammad Omar, the fugitive Taliban leader, insisted that the entire movement was based in Afghanistan and was not receiving any foreign assistance. Omar and other Taliban officials have vowed to step up their attacks against the Afghan government. They have rejected recent proposals by Karzai for tribal meetings or peace negotiations.
By arrangement with
|
|
UK struggles with the immigration dilemma THE United Kingdom has seen one of the largest waves of migration in its history in the last two years with an estimated 6,00,000 people arriving for work from 10 countries that joined the European Union in May 2004. The increase in migration has led to an animated debate with questions about integration, race, multiculturalism and Britishness dominating the public discourse. There are concerns about the cities getting overcrowded but the debate has been largely civilised so far. Has British society come to terms with the inevitability of migration – for running its farms, public services and shops – or is it grudging acceptance of a reality made less painful because the large-scale economic migration is “white”? Opinions vary sharply in the media and political parties on the need and scale of migration into Britain. Lobbyists and think tanks in the UK have made divergent predictions about the arrival of workers from Bulgaria and Romania that joined the EU on January 1 this year. The UK government, which grossly underestimated arrivals from eastern Europe in 2004, putting the number at 13,000 a year, has not made any guess this time. Of the estimated 6,00,000 workers who came to the UK since May 2004 from eastern Europe, 4,27,000 applied till June 2006 under the government’s Workers Registration Scheme. Migration from EU countries to the UK is in addition to that from other parts of the world. According to the UK’s Office of National Statistics (ONS) 5,82,000 persons migrated to the country in 2004 and 5,65,000 in 2005. Estimated emigration out of the UK in 2004 was 3,60,000 and 3,80,000 in 2005. The net emigration of Britons has grown very rapidly over the past decade, from 17,000 in 1994 to 1,20,000 in 2004. To assess the impact of the inflow of people from eastern Europe, the UK government has decided to set up a Migration Advisory Committee which will suggest ways to balance “migration with economy” and compile the latest information on how immigration is affecting the labour market. Simultaneously, it has taken steps to overcome skill shortages by pumping extra money into schools, colleges and universities. The government’s moves to control immigration from countries outside the European Economic Area (all 25 EU member states along with Iceland, Lichtenstein and Norway) by introducing a points-based system, have not found favour with organisations working for ethnic communities. Mr Habib Rahman, chief executive of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants (JCWI), a non-governmental organisation based in London, says the points-based system works against people from the developing countries in search of low-paid jobs in Britain. He disagrees with the provisions that entail giving preference in jobs to candidates from the EU and says the best talent should be hired irrespective of nationality. Estimates drawn up by the JCWI suggest that there are nearly 5,00,000 people living and working in the UK without proper documents. “A part of any serious managed migration policy is to give rights to the irregular migrant population which is making a positive contribution to British society,” Mr Rahman says. The scale of the problem is reflected by lack of space in Britain’s detention centres where many would-be illegal immigrants are held. Violence has erupted twice in the last two years at Harmondsworth, the country’s biggest detention centre. Mr Danny Sriskandarajah, Head of Migration, Equalities and Citizenship at the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), a left of centre think-tank, says that there is growing emphasis on free trade in the world but little talk of free movement of workers. He, too, feels that the debate on immigration is fairly decent because most of those coming in are white and Christians. “The debate would have been much, much worse if this was not the case,” he says. Net migration to Britain tripled in the first seven years of Labour party rule. To fulfil its promise of cutting hospital waiting lists, the government recruited some 70,000 doctors and nurses, according to Mr Sriskandarajah, of the IPPR, many of them from outside Britain. It has also encouraged foreign students to study in Britain as a means of financing higher education. Migration Watch, an anti-immigration pressure group, favours achieving a position where the number of people entering Britain will be equal to the number emigrating. Britain, it says, has historically been a nation of emigrants and not immigrants and the migration into Britain, which largely began in the 1950s from Common-wealth countries, was counterbalanced by emigration till 1983 when the net inflow began to grow steadily. |
|
Delhi Durbar It is the Noida jinx which has forced Uttar Pradesh Chief Minster Mulayam Singh Yadav to avoid a visit there, despite the brutal killing of so many children. The industrial district has the dubious distinction of unseating a Chief Minister from power within six months of a visit. Once bitten, twice shy Mulayam Singh would not like to take any chances with Assembly polls in the state later this year. He lost power in 1995 after a visit to the district. His predecessor Mayawati, who took precautions by renaming the district as Gautam Budh Nagar and laying its foundation stone in Lucknow, lost power within months of her stepping on the soil of Noida. It is not just Mulayam Singh or Mayawati who have had this bitter experience. Earlier N D Tiwari met the same fate. Old-timers recall instances of Chief Ministers before Tiwari who lost their posts in similar circumstances. New faces With the atmospherics hotting up in the run-up to the Assembly elections in Punjab next month, the expected mud-raking against Chief Minister Capt Amarinder Singh has compelled him to launch a frontal attack against his arch rival Parkash Singh Badal of the SAD. Though any government in a state after having been at the helm of affairs for five years is expected to face a strong anti-incumbency factor, the Congress high command believes that their party has more than an even chance of retaining power. It is contended that a lot will depend on the kind of candidates that the party picks as its nominees. No doubt various lobbies are at work for the Congress ticket from Punjab. At the same time, there is talk of at least 25-30 per cent new faces coming into the election fray. US boat for Navy The Indian Navy is gearing itself to bring home the USS Trenton, an amphibious transport warship. This will be the first American made vessel to join the country’s growing blue water navy. More than 300 sailors from the Indian Navy are already in the US training with the Trenton crew, and the transport warship will be handed over to India at a ceremony in Norfolk, Virginia on January 17. It will be the second largest warship after the 28,000 tonne Hermes class aircraft carrier INS Viraat. Besides landing troops during war and rescue operations, the warship can also function as a command and control platform during offshore and mid-sea mishaps. The warship is
expected to be inducted into the Eastern Naval Command as INS Jalashva (seahorse in Sanskrit). Union Defence minister A K Antony made a special mention of this warship in Mumbai last week and how it provides the Indian Navy enhanced capability to move troops and equipment to great distances while remaining offshore for a long time.
Contributed by R Suryamurthy, Rajeev Sharma and Girja Shankar Kaura |
True non-violence should mean a complete freedom from ill-will and anger and hate and an overflowing love for all. Those who love God. love everybody. No one equals Him.
|
| HOME PAGE | |
Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir |
Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs |
Nation | Opinions | | Business | Sports | World | Mailbag | Chandigarh | Ludhiana | Delhi | | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |
