|
|
|
|
|
Targeting television
Rise of women |
|
|
Rule by ordinance undemocratic
Serving in remote areas
Defining India’s role in Nuclear Summit
|
Targeting television Aam
Aadmi Party chief Arvind Kejriwal has accused a section of media of being biased in favour of a particular prime ministerial candidate. Such charges are brandished about from time to time, especially near elections, when the urge to shoot the messenger becomes particularly strong. They are often taken with a pinch of salt. In this case, the AAP leader has stirred quite a controversy with his statement. He too has come under attack by the very media that had devoted much positive attention to him in the not-too-distant past. The decline of decorum in discourse is as perceptible as it is unfortunate. Broad generalisations tend to be erroneous. Just as it is not fair to tarnish the media with a black brush, similarly it would not be right to ascribe righteousness to everyone in it. There has been a profusion of media outlets, especially television stations, and in a number of cases political and business interests in such organisations are common knowledge. Yes, there have even been cases of bias. Mass media organisations are answerable to their readers or viewers — the very people that the media organisations reach out to also have the option of tuning out in case they feel aggrieved. Even as the leaders go out of their way to express their opinions clearly and succinctly, the media too needs to be more tolerant of criticism. Indeed, there is a long tradition of media organisations dealing with critical comment, even publicising it as public opinion. If a particular person or organisation expresses a negative opinion about certain news organisations, surely it is not an attack on freedom of expression per se. Individual behaviour can be errant, and there have been instances of paid news, which are condemnable. Overall the robust media in India has an enviable track record. It needs to develop a thicker skin to ward off political and other barbs, even as everyone can do well by cultivating the art of disagreeing without being disagreeable.
|
|
Rise of women India
might still be basking in the afterglow of the International Women's Day celebrations many of which saluted women in positions of power and eminence. But the stark reality is many women in India still face an uphill battle. A survey conducted by the Tribal Research and Cultural Foundation
(TRCF) has brought to light dismal facts about Gujjar women in Jammu and Kashmir. Blame it on poverty, illiteracy, nomadic way of life, early marriage, superstitions, traditional neglect or lack of awareness about welfare schemes, the truth is Gujjar women find little representation in the socio-political space. Not only is their presence in the policymaking machinery of the state negligible, they are conspicuously absent in the only government department working for Gujjar affairs. No doubt, all women can't enjoy the same status. It is indeed shocking that a sizeable chunk of Gujjar girls in J&K have never been to a school. The legally enforceable Right to Education will hopefully help them. A few who do get admission to school are unable to continue their education due to economic factors. The literacy rate of Gujjar women is abysmal. More than 70 per cent of them are illiterate. It's both ironical and discomfiting that even in the 21st century India when women are scaling new heights, many are denied even the basic right to education. Instead of drawing comfort from studies which proclaim that the status of tribal women in India is better than their mainstream counterparts, it's time to take into account the plight of tribal women such as Gujjars who face discrimination at several levels. Since affirmative polices like reservations for Scheduled Tribes already exist in Jammu and Kashmir, clearly what is needed is awareness. The silver lining is that surveys have also indicated Gujjar girls' inclination to study. Awareness drives have to counter the patriarchal mindset that deters them from pursuing their dreams. Any empowerment of women is meaningless if it is not all inclusive and if it denies a considerable percentage of the population access to equal opportunities.
|
||
|
Pray that your loneliness may spur you into finding something to live for, great enough to die for. — Dag Hammarskjold
|
||
THE appointment of an American expert as manager of an English railway company, owing to a dearth of rising talent in English railwaymen, has given rise to a great controversy. It is difficult to say whether the pride of Englishmen is hurt by the appointment of an American or by the declaration that there is a dearth of rising talent. One, however, is the effect of another and it is possible that those who oppose the appointment deny that Englishmen have anything to learn from American railway specialist. Yet it is here that an element of unreasonableness is pointed out. No one nation, however able, can refuse to profit by the example of another equally great. The American railways are described to be magnificent and American businessmen have doubtless a great reputation in their own spheres. Debate on the Indian Telegraph Bill THE official proceedings of the Imperial Legislative Council show that the debate on the Indian Telegraph Bill was more lively than the Associated Press reports made it appear. Reference may be made here to a couple of points, both of legal and national interest. The Hon. Mr. Vijiaraghavachariar in moving his amendment for the mission of extra-territorial jurisdiction over the "Native Indian subjects" called attention to the discriminatory nature of the legislation and said that it was calculated to do more harm than good and that the legislature ought to be very cautious in passing discriminatory legislation. The Government was practically unable to meet the point and all that Mr. Clark said in defence was that he was helpless to remove the evil. “The difficulty is,” he said, “that our powers are not co-extensive with the two class of subjects. We can take extra-territorial powers by legislation in respect of our Indian subjects, but we are not empowered to do so in respect of British subjects outside India…. Any further extra-territorial powers in respect of British subjects must belong to the Imperial and not to the Indian Government.”
|
Rule by ordinance undemocratic And pray, how come Rahul is so insistent on the ordinance route when in the matter of disqualification of convicted legislators, he had publicly shamed the Prime Minister and his government by tearing the ordinance! Can the President accept an ordinance when both Houses are not going to meet before the general election in May 2014 and there is going to be a new Lok Sabha? It would amount to shredding the Constitution if the President were to approve the ordinances, which in law were never deliberated by the members of the Lok Sabha. Are the newly elected Lok Sabha members expected to initiate their work with old Bills? I have not much objection to the broad contours of the Bills - I myself have been a public signatory to a statement demanding that before the dissolution of the Lok Sabha, the Bills on public grievances and whistleblowers be passed. But somehow it did not happen. With time having run out, democracies cannot resort to devious methods. I am aghast at the drama of ordinances for all these weeks in the Press. If the government was genuinely keen on having these Bills passed, what stopped it from extending the session by a few days? Unless the ruling party was maneuvering to acclaim Rahul Gandhi as the sole Mr. Clean of India, in the melodramatic repetition of the 1940 movie of Hollywood decades back, namely “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” and the more recent Bollywood version equally well crafted and starring Amitabh Bachchan, “Main Azad Hoon” — I fail to understand why his followers did not insist on extending the session for a couple of days to pass these Bills which certainly would have received no opposition. Of course, if the real intent was to seek a mileage, then unfortunately the move has backfired. Even if the President had been persuaded to issue the ordinances, these would have had no validity or life and the new Lok Sabha would have to pass them afresh. Was this fuss worth even a penny? A vibrant democracy is not governed by ordinances. This provision is an anathema to a democratic Republic. I feel that the ordinance issuing power is an anachronism dating back to the colonial Acts of 1919 and 1935 and it should be deleted from the Constitution. No other parliamentary democracy has such an undemocratic provision. The Supreme Court has firmly held in the Wadhwas case (1987) that the power conferred on the Governor to issue ordinances is in the nature of an emergency power for taking immediate action when the legislature is not in session. The primary law-making action under the Constitution is with the legislature and not the executive. The power to promulgate an ordinance is essentially a power to be used to meet an extraordinary situation and it cannot be allowed to be “perverted to serve political ends” (emphasis supplied). “It is contrary to all democratic norms that the executive should have the power to serve political ends”. A similar provision empowers the President under Article 123 of the Constitution. This is a hangover from the colonial period but then we have retained gleefully many remnants of the British law like sedition, applicability of which is causing havoc in the lives of young activists, especially those belonging to minorities. This power of issuing an ordinance has no place in a democratic country. Consider the ground rules of the situation. The general election is to be held in a couple of months. On a conservative estimate a minimum of half the existing members of the Lok Sabha are going to be defeated. Should these rejected politicians forestall the right of the new members either to accept or modify radically the said legislation? It was unseemly for the government to start stray winds of gossip and news items indirectly to gauge the reaction of the President if the ordinances were sent to him. We have the answer. Democratic norms and conventions in the country have at last been reiterated eloquently by the quiet, dignified and steadfast stand of President Pranab Mukherjee in refusing to give consent to the ordinances, notwithstanding the frantic legal erudition of Mr. Chidambaram. The President was not moved by the almost tearful lament of Foreign Minister Salman Khurshid, saying how the rejection has come in the way of Rahul Gandhi’s vision. Salman Khurshid should not take it to heart because the coming general election will give all the opportunity to Rahul Gandhi to test his vision. Now that the question of ordinances is over, I hope Rahul and his seasoned advisers will remember the old admonition: “Be you ever so high, the law is above you”. The writer is a former Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court
|
||||||
Serving in remote areas Take for example a place like Shillai in Sirmour district (which I think is no match for areas like Pangi, Tissa or Kukumseri) where I have had the privilege to serve as the Principal of Government College. I went there with the conviction that it was a golden opportunity sent to me by Almighty to serve the innocent and backward people. Imagine a place where life is not vibrant like it is in cities, where there is want of even the basic amenities and where you get even a copy of The Tribune at a premium. The office landline phone remained dead most of the time. The mobile phone would catch no signal for about half the week-a depressing scenario, particularly for those living alone. At the farthest point during my routine long evening walk to Pashmi village, the mobile phone would spring to life to enable me to have a hearty talk with my wife for a few frugal minutes at the end of which I would get the BSNL message that my balance had been reduced by Rs 17! Then a colleague apprised me that in the shoddy network, I was talking through the Chakrota tower in Uttarakhand! Most of the road stretches being almost kutcha, major landslides are a common feature during the rains. The very thought of getting cut off from the rest of the world for three-four days is psychologically tormenting. In fact, one learns to be a prisoner of 10'x10' space. I was reminded of Anton Tchekhov's famous story 'The Bet' in which a young lawyer offers to undergo solitary confinement for 15 years, which luckily in my case was reduced to three years with the mitigating advantage of daily parole to spend daytime in the college. In addition to my administrative duties, I opted to teach as well for the post of Lecturer in English was vacant. At weekend, I used to go to the site where our own college building was under construction, and on way back, I used to lie down for a nap at a clearing, after going through the newspaper. Once I found the mist and shadow of my sleep (in which I had reunited with my family) disturbed by the eerie presence of a few kites quietly hovering over me, thinking me to be dead! Whenever I returned to Solan after about a month, I would be greeted by the melodious shrill notes flowing in a crescendo from the ubiquitous blue thrush with white spots all over, enough to keep my spirits alive for the next 30 days in the valley of kites. I might have shaped the destinies of those who could never have dreamt of receiving quality education, but I could not devote the much needed attention to my own daughter back home during the crucial years of her education. The Great Lord above knows all!
|
||||||
Defining India’s role in Nuclear Summit
How
do we define nuclear security? Essentially, nuclear security involves the protection of nuclear materials to guard against its theft or diversion, or sabotage of a nuclear facility; it involves physical protection, deployment of guards to meet on sites and respond from off site to emergencies. Besides, it also involves automated systems to prevent unauthorised persons from gaining access to nuclear materials. The Nuclear Security Summits that have reviewed these issues owe greatly to the initiatives taken by President Obama. It would be recollected that the break-up of the erstwhile Soviet Union and dissolution of the Warsaw Pact in 1990 had led to an acute angst regarding “loose nukes”. Great fears arose that chaotic conditions in the erstwhile Soviet Republics would invite non-state actors to acquire nuclear materials and, perhaps, even operational nuclear weapons. In his historic Prague speech (2009), President Obama highlighted the need to bring nuclear materials around the world under national and international control, and set a target of four years to accomplish this task. Towards this end, he had declared that: “We will set new standards, expand our cooperation with Russia, pursue new partnerships to lock down these sensitive materials.” This task has yet to be completed, but it brooks no delay. Significantly, IAEA Director-General Amano confessed that, “More than 100 incidents of thefts and other unauthorised activities involving nuclear and radioactive materials are reported to the IAEA every year…Some material goes missing and is never found.” His predecessor, Mohamed El Baradei, had revealed that, “A large percentage of materials, which are recovered have not been previously reported as missing.” Are we even aware then of the dimensions of this problem? Fortunately, no nuclear terrorist attack has occurred till now. But, the first such event would be as traumatic for the international system as the first use of nuclear weapons in 1945. Two Nuclear Security Summits have been held earlier in Washington (2010) and Seoul (2012) that have underlined the need for maintaining strict security over weapons-usable nuclear materials. The Third Summit is scheduled to be held in the Netherlands on March 23 and 24. Holding the Third Nuclear Security Summit in the Netherlands has symbolic significance because the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court are situated in the Hague. Moreover, nuclear security in the Netherlands has been lax in the past. Apropos, A.Q Khan had stolen the blueprints for a uranium-enrichment plant from the Almelo plant in the Netherlands where he was employed.
Nuclear terrorism What were the broad conclusions of the first two Summits? The danger of nuclear terrorism was appreciated in the Washington Summit. All world leaders present agreed to pool their efforts to secure nuclear materials, particularly such materials present in their own territory, apart from jointly improving global nuclear security. In Seoul, the participants further appreciated the need to protect radiological sources, which can be used to make a “dirty bomb” that releases radiation, causing panic and massive social disruption. In general, these two Summit meetings have sought to raise consciousness about the need to tighten controls over nuclear materials and establish greater transparency in regard to counter-measures taken. In the upcoming 2014 Nuclear Security Summit, the United States, Netherlands and South Korea are likely to persuade participants to commit themselves to reducing the use of highly enriched uranium and plutonium in reactors; more frequent reviews by IAEA advisory missions; national registration and protection of radioactive sources; a greater role for industry in nuclear security issues; and more information being published by states on what steps they have taken to secure their nuclear materials and facilities. A major objective would also be gaining more adherents to implement the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) guidelines for protecting nuclear materials. These guidelines automatically become the national law in some Western countries, but this is not a universal practice. Resolutions apart, what has been the success achieved so far? Significantly, the number of countries possessing one kilogramme or more of weapons-usable nuclear materials — a criterion used by the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI) in the US to estimate nuclear security worldwide — has reduced from 32 to 25 in the last two years, implying that seven states have removed dangerous nuclear materials from their territories. Some 12 others have reduced their holdings and arranged for their better security. What has been India’s record in contributing to the goals of the Nuclear Security Summits? What could it do further to strengthen its own nuclear security, which is the main objective of these Summits meetings? Finally, what are the positions India could adopt in the next Summit meeting to refresh the debate?
India’s nuclear programme Here, it would be fair to mention that India’s record is mixed. On the credit side. it might be highlighted that India has accepted its international legal obligations in regard to the security of its nuclear materials by entering the Convention on Physical Protection of Nuclear Materials with its 2005 Amendment, and the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism. India’s record in implementing United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540, concerned with preventing trafficking in materials, technology and equipment relevant to nuclear security has been exemplary. More significantly, no case of leakage of nuclear materials from India’s extensive nuclear programme has ever come to light. On the debit side, however, it also needs mention that India has been reluctant to inform what are its on-site and off-site emergency response arrangements for its civilian nuclear facilities, although they have been established and are believed to be working satisfactorily. Nothing apart from a general penchant for secrecy can explain this reticence, apart from the belief that transparency compromises national security. Further, India had committed to the 2012 Nuclear Security Summit that it would establish an independent regulatory board to oversee its nuclear programme. It had also laid its Nuclear Safety Regulatory Authority (NSRA) Bill before Parliament in 2011. However, this Bill has not been passed, and has now lapsed with the last session of Parliament having ended. Hopefully, the next government will accord priority to this matter. But this issue would have to be suitably explained to the Summit participants. Some apologists for the government have claimed that India already has adequate oversight provisions through its Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB); since it functions under the administrative control of the Atomic Energy Department, there is scepticism about its independence. Besides, India had also volunteered to establish a Centre of Excellence for sensitising and training personnel in nuclear safety and security issues. It is believed that land has been acquired for this Centre in Haryana, and buildings and other infrastructure will come up soon. Apparently, its charter of duties and mode of functioning have also been decided upon, but this information, too, is not in the public domain. There is still time for New Delhi to finalise remaining issues make a public announcement, and inform the Summit meeting accordingly. A general issue that India should highlight in the Summit meeting is the dichotomy between words and deeds in the matter of nuclear security. Many countries subscribe to international agreements to protect their nuclear materials, establish regulatory authorities to oversee their nuclear programmes and so on. But, several have also transferred nuclear materials, technology and equipment clandestinely in violation of these prohibitions with impunity. The usual suspects hardly need mention, but they present major security threats to India. That apart, several firms in the West have also indulged in such illicit trade for commercial reasons, and with official indulgence. For instance, there is incontrovertible evidence that supplies to Iraq’s nuclear program in the Saddam era were made by several European countries and the United States. An airing of these uncomfortable issues could be initiated by India. How could India contribute further to the success of this Summit? Two suggestions are made here. First, its gifting of $1 m to the IAEA for strengthening its supervisory functions has been appreciated. India could raise the relevance of this UN body by making a further donation and also by offering to train IAEA personnel in its newly created Centre of Excellence. Second, India might erode its penchant for secrecy, become more forthcoming, and agree to a “peer review” of its nuclear security arrangements by international experts or the IAEA. Some part of its present reluctance to accept this dispensation derives from the inability of the nuclear establishment to coordinate its policies with the foreign policy and defence bureaucracies. Besides, India could also draw attention to the dangers involved in transporting nuclear materials, which will increase in future as appreciation grows regarding the need to keep spent fuel away from nuclear facilities, post the Fukushima disaster. Apropos. India’s atomic power plants are also situated along its coastline, and are vulnerable to cyclones and other turbulences. This also applies to transferring radiological substances like Cobalt-60, which came into a Delhi market some years back. The need, therefore, to establish international norms for transferring nuclear materials by different modes of transport should be pressed by India.
Nuke talks The Nuclear Security Summit was establisehd with the aim of preventing terrorism around the globe. The first summit was held in Washington, DC on April 12-13, 2010. It saw participation by 47 countries The 2014 summit, to be held in the Netherlands, will be attended by 58 world leaders, nearly 5,000 delegates and some 3,000 journalists
|
|
| 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 | |
THERE was recently a frantic race among Congressmen how to persuade the President of India to issue a couple of ordinances because the young master, Rahul Gandhi, desired it. It is a different matter that none of the proposed laws were opposed by the Opposition. Had the House managers done their homework, Parliament could have passed some of the pending Bills, including the Grievances Redress Bill and the whistleblowers Bill. The self-flagellation and ego of the Congress combined with antics of the Opposition turned everything topsy-turvy. The Telangana Bill, with both major political parties indulging in political maneuvering, was passed by voice vote, embellished by a peppery spray and a shameless failure of live TV coverage of the proceedings of the House (one does not yet know the villain - the government has not held an inquiry).
