|
|
|
|
|
Waiting for justice
Women's rights |
|
|
An ideological battle in Bangladesh
Saying sorry and saving a relationship
The last days of Mahatma Gandhi
|
Waiting for justice Statements
of the Delhi Chief Minister and the Congress vice-president have both brought focus back on the anti-Sikh violence in New Delhi and other places. In the 30 years since the event, most of the people involved in the violence have escaped punishment. Cases were registered against some of the guilty persons and a few were convicted. Leaders from the Congress party, including Sonia Gandhi and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, have expressed regret over what had happened. However, the issue remains open because some of the most prominent persons blamed for their role in the violence have not been punished for their crimes. Politically, they did well within the Congress party and its governments. Congress vice-president Rahul Gandhi admitted the role of ‘some Congressmen’in a recent interview, even as he claimed that the Congress government had sought to control the situation. Unfortunately, those guilty of mass killings are seldom brought to justice in India. We have a sorry history of not punishing people who kill during riots or other public disturbances. Be it Delhi in 1984, Gujarat in 2002 or Muzaffarnagar in 2013, it is the same story. Is it the case that the only lesson we learn from history is that we do not learn any lesson? It is much deeper than that. There is collective political amnesia regarding the victims of large-scale violence. Various factors like caste, creed and religion come into defining the ‘other’, which is targeted and brutalised. Punishing those guilty of killing thousands of Sikhs in the wake of the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's assassination has remained on the backburner, no matter which political party came to power at the Centre. Indeed, even non-Congress dispensations, including those who had the support of the Akali Dal, did little to expedite matters. Now, Arvind Kejriwal has demanded a probe by a special investigation team into the matter. While its effectiveness at this late stage remains to be seen, one thing is clear — the need to end the quest for justice by bringing the guilty to book as soon as
possible.
|
|
Women's rights IN a country where most wives, rightly or wrongly, believe that they have every right to husband's salary, the fact that many don't even know how much his pay packet contains may come as a surprise. But beyond the humour of the oft-circulated joke, "Marriage is a workshop, where men work and women shop," lie some not-so-unpalatable truths. One of these is that for self-serving reasons many a man is known to hide his earning from his other half. But now things have changed, particularly for the government officials. The wives of government servants have a "right" to know the salary particulars of their husbands. Interestingly, this observation has been made neither by a court nor for the first time. This comes from Information Commissioner M Sridhar
Acharyulu. He has said that every woman has a right to information about the salary particulars of her husband, especially for the purpose of maintenance. Not too long ago the Goa State Information Commission too had upheld similar rights of an estranged wife. Living as we do in a world where the sacred marital vow "till death do us part" has been overtaken by more pressing issues, money assumes greater significance when the walk to the altar ends in a court battle. Considering that as of now alimony laws invariably work against women, clearly in divorce cases, ignorance of husband's financial stature is not exactly helpful. Since alimony largely depends on the income of the husband, a wife would be far better equipped to take on her adversary in the "war of roses" if she were privy to the spouse's pay
cheque. Fortunately, lawmakers are trying to make the divorce proceedings less complicated, while keeping in mind the maintenance needs of women. Whatever may be the final look and fate of the Marriages Law (Amendment) Bill that grants women 50 per cent share in husband's property, few can grudge that women have more than a right to know the salary of husband.
|
||
|
You are remembered for the rules you break. — Douglas MacArthur
|
||
ONE of the interesting points in the Census of India over which a controversy is raised is the fact that during the last 30 years there has been a deficiency of female population ranging from 37 to 46 for every 1000 males. It is suggested that this deficiency may be due to the omission to enumerate all the females in a country where purdah habits prevail. It is pointed out that the purdah region in India is north of the Vindhya and here there has been a decrease of female population returned; whereas in the south, where there is practically no purdah system, there has been an excess of female population. The census department naturally tries to show the accuracy of its figures and attributes the deficiency of female population to diseases, climatic severity and social conditions. In the Punjab we know there is a deficiency of nearly two millions of females and though the causes are not indisputably known, we cannot say there has been any perceptible defect in census enumerations. The reluctance of the people to give the names and other particulars of females to census officials is not confined to those who observe purdah system. We do not think there is much in the purdah theory of the decrease of female population. Moral and social effects of Co-operative Societies IN a previous issue we referred in brief terms to the moral and social benefits of Co-operative Societies in Madras and the United Provinces. In the latter the prevention of gambling, drinking and extravagant habits are reported to have been effected in certain places. The report says that the members are beginning to take great interest in education and schools for backward classes have been started in Unao, Benares and other districts. The Fatehpur societies have maintained their interest in the primary education of their boys and girls.
|
An ideological battle in Bangladesh
WHEN the subcontinent was partitioned on August 15, 1947, what emerged was the issue of whether religion alone could be the primary basis of nationhood. Gandhiji envisaged the creation of a pluralistic nation state, cherishing its ethnic, linguistic, religious and cultural diversity, Pakistan's founder Mohammed Ali Jinnah equated unity with uniformity, holding that religion (Islam) constitutes the primary basis of what he called his "moth-eaten" Pakistan. Within six months of Pakistan coming into being, Jinnah showed scant regard for the sentiments of the Bengali-speaking majority in the country, declaring: "Urdu alone will be the sole official language of the State". Proud of their Bengali literary and cultural ethos, the people of East Pakistan rose in revolt against Jinnah. The fault lines in Jinnah's Pakistan ultimately led to a civil war in 1971 and the emergence of Bangladesh as an independent nation. In the course of the bloody civil war in 1971, the Pakistan army and its fundamentalist Islamist allies like the Jamat-e-Islami and the Razakars resorted to an orgy of pillage, violence and rape. An estimated three million people perished in the civil war. The Pakistan army used mass resort to rape as an instrument of State policy. Most of those responsible for the atrocities of 1971 got away unscathed. They are finally being brought to justice with the War Crimes Fact Finding Committee indicting 1,597 people for war crimes in 1971. A number of leaders of the Jamat-e-Islami have been indicted, with one senior leader sentenced to death and hanged. There has been a battle for the "Soul of Bangladesh" since its birth between the secularists led by the Awami League founded by Sheikh Mujibur Rehman and the Right Wing Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), founded by military ruler, General Zia-ur-Rehman. Zia-ur-Rehman abrogated the secular provisions of his country's Constitution. The BNP is now led by Zia-ur-Rehman's widow, Khaleda Zia, who has made no secret of her kinship with Islamist causes and parties. The Jamat Islami, which does not enjoy large public support, draws its muscle and firepower from financing and supporting extremist Salafi organisations worldwide. The Awami League led by Sheikh Mujib's daughter, Sheikh Hasina, is secular and protective of the minority Hindus and Buddhists. It has ensured that the Jamat-e-Islami is banned from participation in electoral politics because of its advocacy of the Sharia law, which violates the country's Constitution. Given their intense personal and ideological differences, Sheikh Hasina and Khaleda are barely on talking terms. The run-up to recent elections was marked by unprecedented violence, following a call for boycott by Khaleda Zia. Sheikh Hasina went ahead with the elections and her party has been returned with a two-thirds majority. The fight between the secularists and the Islamists has now entered a new phase, with the BNP and its Islamist allies like the Jamat-e-Islami resorting to violence. Complicating the internal political situation is the role of external powers. While India has remained correct and urged political reconciliation, the refusal by Begum Zia to even talk to her opponent has hardened positions in New Delhi. India has endorsed the legitimacy of the recent elections and called for talks to end the political impasse. The endorsement of the constitutional validity of the recent Bangladesh elections by India reflects a broad national consensus of support for a secular and extremely friendly leader. Sheikh Hasina had been conciliatory to her opponents and abided by the provisions of her country's Constitution. She needs Indian understanding, in the wake of challenges posed by a rabidly Islamist and anti-Indian opposition. The two earlier tenures of Khaleda Zia were marked by hostility towards India and support to separatist groups like ULFA. Bangladesh became the eastern base for Pakistan backed terrorist groups like the Harkat ul Jihad ul Islami and the Lashkar-e-Taiba. Even though New Delhi has reached out to Begum Khaleda and hosted her with high-level meetings, her viscerally anti-India propensities appear undiminished. Ever since the birth of Bangladesh, which was seen as a setback for its global power, and exposed the limitations of the Nixon-Mao alliance in Asia, the US has adopted a less than friendly position towards the secular Awami League. While American support for the Right Wing BNP is predictable, what has been shocking is the American propensity to act as an apologist for the fundamentalist Jamat-e-Islami, whose cadres were involved in horrendous crimes during the country's war for freedom. While China has been cautious in responding to the current events in Bangladesh, it has traditionally been close to Khaleda's BNP. Begum Khaleda was received by the then Vice President Xi Jinping, when she visited China in 2013. She was also warmly received during a visit to Saudi Arabia in the same year. Russia, facing an Islamist insurgency across its Caucasian region, has backed India. Pakistan's response to the recent events in Bangladesh has been predictable. While its Foreign Office has mouthed pious sentiments about non-interference in the internal affairs of Bangladesh, its mercurial Home Minister Chaudhury Nisar Ali Khan has openly backed the fundamentalists. The European Union's approach to recent developments in Bangladesh has been perceptive and forward looking. The European Parliament has asked Khaleda Zia's BNP to cut its links with the two main fundamentalist outfits given to using muscle power and street violence -- the Jamat-e-Islami and the Hefazat-e-Islam. It has noted that "parties which turn to terrorist acts should be banned". This pressure appears to be working, with signs that Khaleda Zia may be willing to reconsider the BNP ties with the Jamat. India has denounced the resort to violence by some political parties and radical Islamic groups, while supporting the constitutional process in Bangladesh. It should now focus attention on its diplomacy, particularly with the US, on the terrorist links and dangers posed by Jamat-e-Islami and the Hefazat-e-Islam, which have terrorised and assaulted the Hindu minority, in the run-up to the recent elections. Channels of communication with Begum Khaleda should be maintained, making it clear that political parties that support the Constitution need to work together. The BCCI should assist and facilitate the conduct of T20 World Cup in Bangladesh. Bangladesh has to be reassured about our commitment to implementing the land boundary agreement and our readiness to accelerate and expand economic cooperation. Western aid donors and Japan should be persuaded to do likewise.
|
|||||||
Saying sorry and saving a relationship “Shhhh, it’s a classroom”, my friends sitting with me on the last bench glared at me. Once again I and my friend, Shikha, had one of those stupid fights. Both being egoistic were not ready to make up for it. Shikha, being an angry 16-year-old teen, went to sit alone on the first bench. The other dear friends of my group were trying to convince me to go up to her and say sorry. They asked me to be a sport and call her to sit with us so that we all could have fun. "Fine, I'm going", I said getting up and dragged my feet towards her seat where she was solving some of the math questions in our free lecture. I sat with her with a straight face, thinking maybe she would realise her mistake and say sorry to me. But to my utter surprise, she did not even look up to see me. Just hate her, I thought to myself, but anyhow forced myself to utter that word which I refrained from using until and unless I was actually at fault. "SORRY", I said. She looked at me and said, "Don't you know how to say a proper sorry? You should say it with immense politeness in your tone". I just howled back at her and said, "You were at fault and you know it". "Then don't say if you don't mean it", she shot back. I reflected my failure of the task for which I had come to her. Suddenly my eyes caught a glimpse of her new notebook cover which had a black R1 bike on it. I could not help saying, "Wow, I just love it". She gave me a surprised look and immediately got to know what I was up to. Within seconds, she got equally excited and started telling me about this bike and how we would drive it together one day. We forgot all our fight and started talking and laughing once again as if nothing had happened between us. Being girls, it was always expected to show that we were girly and very sophisticated. Only we knew the wild fantasies we both shared like driving a bike wearing a black bikers' jacket and a big helmet. This is one of the incidents of my school days which have always been close to my heart and bring a smile on my face. We all have many fond memories of our childhood days which always remain with us and make us remember the innocence we had while growing up and wonder how we lose it in the process of becoming the so-called adults. It is funny how we always try to grow up fast but when we actually do, we want to be back to our childhood days and be with our childhood friends. The innocence we all possess and the word hate does not seem to find any place in our dictionary. That is how relations should always be taken care of with love and innocence. Wish I could be in school again with my friends who taught me that it is OK to say sorry if it could save a loving relationship.
|
|||||||
The last days of Mahatma Gandhi ON January 13, 1948, Mahatma Gandhi undertook a fast unto death, laying seven main conditions to end it. These included: The 117 mosques that had been desecrated and converted into temples and other religious places in Delhi should be restored; there should be no economic boycott of Muslims; properties vacated by Muslims should not be occupied by members of the majority communities; Muslim families who had fled Delhi should be allowed to return without fear.
Cash balance transfer to Pakistan Even as Gandhi undertook the fast as a last resort to restore communal harmony another issue got clubbed with the fast. The Pakistan Monetary System and Reserve Bank Order, 1947 was issued on the eve of India’s Partition as a part of several agreements that came into being between the two dominions. The existing currency under the aegis of the Reserve Bank of India was to continue in Pakistan up to September, 1948. By virtue of another related understanding, India was to transfer to Pakistan a proportionate share of the Reserve Bank of India’s cash balance as it stood on August 15, 1947. A major part of this fund had already been transferred to Pakistan. None of the seven points even remotely referred to the Rs 55 crore of cash balance that Pakistan had been claiming from India as its share of the surplus that remained with India. For some reason, however, in the Punjab in particular, the common perception was that Gandhi undertook the fast to force the Government of India to relent on the issue and transfer the cash balance to Pakistan. Home Minister Sardar Patel, in the mean time had already made it clear that Pakistan by supporting the invasion in Kashmir had lost the moral and legal right to lay claim to its share of the cash balance. As newspapers continued to speculate on the reasons for the fast, the Government of India undertook a complete reversal of its stand and ordered the Reserve Bank to credit Rs 35 crore to Pakistan.
Sardar Patel opposes cash transfer The Tribune, which was rated as among the most important opinion-makers of the country (even by Gandhi), carried a story on the issue (January 20, 1948). It said that Patel had done some plain speaking with Gandhi in a meeting (January 14, 1948) that was also attended by Prime Minister Nehru and Finance Minister Chetty. The Tribune also said that Gandhi and Nehru were in favour of releasing the payment to Pakistan. Some reports said that most of the ministers were also opposed to the cash transfer. This led Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru to himself issue a clarification in the matter. Nehru said that even though Gandhi had been consulted on the issue, the decision to transfer the balance had nothing to do with Gandhi’s fast and was taken: “...in the hope that the gesture would be seen in accord with India’s high ideals and Gandhi’s noble standards and will convince the world of our earnest desire for peace.” What added to the political speculation however was a speech Patel had delivered a few days earlier (January 6) in Lucknow. He had called upon the minority community to openly declare loyalty to India and in doing so also inferred thereby that those who failed to do so would be viewed with doubt.
In defence of Sardar Patel Patel’s Lucknow speech had assumed a serious dimension, so serious that Gandhi himself came out in Patel’s defence. On January 13, just before he started the fast, Gandhi said: “Patel should not be blamed for holding a view that the Muslim League cannot become a friend over night” (Statesman, January 14). For the first time, Gandhi also discussed how a section of the minority press had always been supporting Nehru and Gandhi but had been attacking Patel: “… anyone who can link the fast to the policies of the Sardar (Patel) will hurt me more than the Sardar… no power can separate the Sardar from me” (Daily Milap, January 18, 1948).
Patel is angry, writes to Gandhi Patel, as also widely reported in the Press, appears to have been personally embarrassed as a result of the government’s decision to revert its stand on the cash balance. As the Pioneer put it: “The turnaround (cash transfer) has bewildered the public… while Sardar Patel proposes Gandhi disposes … thus is policy made and unmade in Delhi…” Patel left Delhi for Bhavnagar on an official visit on January 15. The visit was planned before Gandhi had started the fast. However, it was considered at the time very unusual for the Home Minister to leave Delhi even as Gandhi was on a fast unto death. Before leaving Delhi, Patel chose to write to Gandhi (perhaps late evening of January, 14): “The sight of your fasting has made me disconsolate. The burden of work has become so heavy… I feel crushed… May be I have deteriorated with age and am no more any good as a comrade to stand with him (Nehru) ... you have again and again to take up cudgels on my behalf… since I can be of no help even in ending your fast I do not know what else there is for me to do…” (Sardar Patel’s Correspondence, Vol. 6, p.24). The issue of serious differences between the three great minds who were instrumental in crafting India’s struggle for freedom refused to die down. Pakistan’s then leading daily Dawn, in fact quoting ‘reliable’ sources in London, did a big story on how Gandhi undertook the fast mainly to bridge the differences that had grown between them. Gandhi issued yet another statement on January 20: “There were no differences of views between himself, Nehru and the Sardar (Statesman, January 21).
Gandhi faces criticism in Punjab For as long as Gandhi was on fast, the opposition to the cash transfer was subdued in the Punjab. But once the fast had ended there was anger and surprise. The Hindu Mahasabha in particular organised several meetings across Punjab condemning not only Gandhi but the conditions of the fast and also the cash balance transfer. Master Tara Singh, the firebrand Akali leader, while drawing attention to the manner in which millions of families had suffered financial ruin and barbaric violence refused to accept the logic of transferring such a huge amount to Pakistan and that too at such a time. In a press statement, he said: “... times have changed, I request you (Gandhi) not to interfere in government affairs as you do not have a realistic view... let the Mahatma cease to be a super Prime Minister” (The Tribune, January 25, 1948). A day before Gandhi’s assassination, a dismayed Nehru was on a tour of the Punjab. While issuing a warning to communal elements, he specially referred to speeches that had been made at a large and enthusiastic public meeting organised by the Hindu Mahasabha in Delhi on January 27, in which Gandhi was the focus of attack.
Pakistan joins in mourning Gandhi Gandhi’s assassination on January 30 shocked the world. In Pakistan, every single office and establishment was closed on January 31. Pakistan’s then leading newspaper the Civil & Military Gazette devoted two full pages to the tragedy and quoted from John Gunther’s book – calling Gandhi the greatest Indian since Buddha. In Lahore, the sea of humanity that gathered in the Islamia College grounds for the memorial meeting that coincided with Gandhi’s cremation in New Delhi (4 pm) was compared in size with the massive crowd that had joined the celebrations of Pakistan's first Independence Day. Likewise, Karachi saw the largest ever gathering in its history at the memorial meeting on January 31. Papers reported how “Raghupati Raghav” and verses from the Bhagavadagita flooded the air across Pakistan as Gandhi’s mortal remains were put to flames (Civil & Military Gazette, February 1, 2 & 3, 1948). It was amazing to see how as reports noted the manner in which both East and West of undivided (pre-1947) Punjab which till only a few months earlier were overrun by unprecedented violence had now joined in shared grief. An estimated 100,000 people gathered on the Ridge in Simla. Over 50,000 people marched through the streets of Patiala. A four-mile-long procession was reported from Amritsar. Srinagar witnessed for the first time ever a complete hartal on January 31. Over 200,000 people had gathered on the Sutlej to witness the immersion of Gandhi’s ashes. The entire stretch of 30 km from Jalandhar to Phillaur along which a part of the ashes were brought was covered with flower petals. In Pakistan, February 12, the last day of mourning, was a day of unprecedented events. No newspaper appeared on February 13, because every office was closed on February12. So was the case with every other office and institution.
Nehru & Patel embrace and weep The last Viceroy Lord Mountbatten, with whom Gandhi, Nehru and even Patel had very close and informal relations had been invited to deliver the first Jawaharlal Nehru lecture at Cambridge University (1968). He said: “… A few days before his tragic assassination he (Gandhi) had asked me to help him to bring about reconciliation between Nehru and Patel. I told them (Nehru & Patel) of his (Gandhi’s) last wish as he lay there dead. They wept and embraced each other…” (I. M. Stephen’s papers, Centre for South Asian Studies, Cambridge. Stephen as Editor of the Statesman was perhaps the most influential journalist in India at the time).
— The writer is a Senior Professor of Modern History, Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra.
After Gandhi
|
|
| HOME PAGE | |
Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir |
Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs |
Nation | Opinions | | Business | Sports | World | Letters | Chandigarh | Ludhiana | Delhi | | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |
WHY me? It was not my fault this time”, I shouted to my friends.
