. |
. |
EDITORIAL Prime Minister has announced extension of ceasefire in Jammu & Kashmir State for another month. The same will be further reviewed after Republic Day. The government may have many faults but one thing is certain. Wherever decision is to be taken it is not delayed for the love of it. Be it the liberalisation; be it the privatisation, be it the debate in both Houses of Parliament, NDA Government led by Vajpayee has been fairly fast on delivery when compared to predecessors. It also does not hesitate taking some vital initiatives. Going to Lahore ....more At long last poll schedule for exposing militancy infested State to Panchayat elections has been announced. Although it is spanned excessively but given the hostile terrain, topography, weather extremities and security aspects, one can probably understand compulsions of long spanning. The positive aspects far outweigh negative ones. First, it is ....more |
|
Indian electoral system superior to the US By Nalini J. Singh Foodgrains : Exporting By Jyotsna Pandit 'Tina' is best U.S. By M R Rao |
 |
||
EDITORIAL Prime Minister has announced extension of ceasefire in Jammu & Kashmir State for another month. The same will be further reviewed after Republic Day. The government may have many faults but one thing is certain. Wherever decision is to be taken it is not delayed for the love of it. Be it the liberalisation; be it the privatisation, be it the debate in both Houses of Parliament, NDA Government led by Vajpayee has been fairly fast on delivery when compared to predecessors. It also does not hesitate taking some vital initiatives. Going to Lahore and signing of Lahore Declaration could have fetched rich dividends as regards solving many contentious issues with Pakistan but for the Kargil misadventure launched by Pak army at about the same time Lahore Declaration was being signed. It needs specific mention that Government was quick to respond to the ceasefire announced by Hizbul Mujahideen on August 24 and lost no time in despatching central team to discuss modalities. It is quite another thing that HM could not push it further and had to cancel the ceasefire on September 8 under acute pressure from its Pak counterparts. Quite undeterred by these setbacks in the backdrop of Kargil intrusions and abortion of HM ceasefire, Vajpayee very courageously took a calculated risk in announcing unilateral ceasefire in as far as combat operations besides search and cordon operations are concerned. There has been very positive reaction from the people, from the Hurriyat amalgam and even Pakistan has been compelled to reciprocate with orders to troops for observing maximum restraint on LoC. The ceasefire that became effective from first Ramzan day has by and large held on in as much as the firing on the LoC and IB has virtually come to nought. By far the greatest gain lies in catching peoples mood which is overwhelmingly in favour of peace. In fact, Prime Minister has mentioned that peace constituency in the troubled State has expanded substantially. For any insurgency to succeed peoples cooperation and sympathy remain the over-riding pre-requisites. Sans their support it has to die. People have expressed in no uncertain language that they not only want to celebrate ensuing Id joyously with least interference from gun-wielders but also live thereafter in peaceful environs. In fact, there has been vocal demands from Kashmir polity, intelligentsia and people to make ceasefire permanent or at least extend it. Similar requests have been emanating from those who wielded guns till recently or supported gun-culture. The second gain from this initiative is that Pakistan has been put on the defensive. International community is in mood to exert pressure on Pak rulers to cease transborder terrorism and instead get back to Lahore Declaration for peaceful resolve of various issues. In fact, Pak isolation gained momentum as soon as ceasefire was announced by Prime Minister Vajpayee on Nov 19. Third gain lies in Hurriyat changing its stance and opting for dialogue with the Centre. In fact, many statements made by prominent Hurriyat leaders ask Pakistan to withdraw mercenaries so that people of the troubled State can work for peace on their own and pursuade Pakistan also to respect their wishes, the principal one being peace. One however cannot ignore the darker side. Violence continues unabated. Many innocent lives have been lost. Security forces too have suffered casualties since the unilateral ceasefire became effective. And all these heinous acts have been claimed by foreign outfits like Lashkar-e-Toiba, Jaish-e-Mohammad and Harkat-ul-Mujahideen. All of them are Pak-based and Pak sustained They have vowed to continue their nefarious acts. But here too assessment of Army Chief and Defence Minister reflects optimism in as much as further infiltration has almost stopped. It has been the consistent wont of the infiltrators to cross over under the excessive fire cover of Pak army/rangers. Since firing has ceased, so is the infiltration. Normally, about two lakh rounds of various hues used to be fired daily. The damage done to people of border areas can best be gauged from the extensive fireworks. Now they too have heaved a sigh of relief and want that ceasefire on LoC/IB should hold. It is precisely with above favourable contours that Vajpayee announces extension of ceasefire for another month beyond Id feastival. This would provide enough of room for Hurriyat to visit Pakistan and pursuade them to control these so-called jehadis who are unwanted in J&K. This period is as well beneficial in that constituency for peace would further increase. With mounting pressure by the people, those yet prone to play Pak game would be humbled. Final outcome notwithstanding, extension of ceasefire by another month provide enough of cushion for new ideas towards ultimate resolve of the Kashmir imbroglio. Prime Minister has made it amply clear that national interests will never be compromised and that his Government is committed to restore lasting peace to enable people of J&K State to join as equal partners in India's march to prosperity. At long last poll schedule for exposing militancy infested State to Panchayat elections has been announced. Although it is spanned excessively but given the hostile terrain, topography, weather extremities and security aspects, one can probably understand compulsions of long spanning. The positive aspects far outweigh negative ones. First, it is exactly after 23 years that democratic institutions at the grass root level will take shape. In fact, the Sarpanches and Panches to be elected will have entirely different taste and role. Earlier, they used to be elected by raising hands. That used to be the voice vote. One really did not have any mechanism to monitor its fairness. It obviously depended upon the clout of those nearer the seats of power to make a success of it. Not so now. Their fate would be decided by the ballot paper. In other words people will have the choice to throw their lot secretly behind anyone deemed the fittest. There will be real contest and people have the right to reject the corrupt or otherwise not upto the mark. In fact, entire process will be like any other Lok Sabha or assembly election. Second notable feature is that one-third of the seats are meant for women. Even if they fail to make it to the Panchayat in desired numbers the Government could nominate women to make good the deficiency. This is a little ticklish problem as between nominated and elected members. But given the excessive female illiteracy and backwardness besides the community culture, this aspect should not be treated as malafide for tilting the balance in favour of the ruling clan. It is all the more appropriate in as much as Panchayat elections have been ordered to be conducted on non-party lines. This means all candidates will have their individual symbol and no party campaign will be resorted to. To that extent fight will be amongst independents. Besides electing only men of integrity, it would also subserve the security requirements as ultras could target candidates of particular party. One hopes that entire process would usher in Panchayati Raj for equitable development of all places and all sections. |
||
|
||
Indian electoral system superior to the US By Nalini J. Singh As one goes through the days of the escalating high voltage drama of the United States Presidential elections involving the candidates, their advisers, Federal and State judiciary, famous lawyers, election officers, country boards, unhappy voters and a bemused world, it is tempting to make comparisons with another country which has for 50 years stubbornly held on to its democracy, and to see how the major features and themes involved in the U.S. would be played out in India. Some distinctions - India does not follow the presidential system; it is a parliamentary democracy, and its voters cast their ballots for political parties represented by their candidates for the 540-member House of the People. The leader of the party in the majority becomes the Prime Minister, the nation's executive head. Second, India has a national Election Commission, a body created by the Constitution which protects the Commissioners from removal. The Commission is a permanent body and manages the election process all over the country. Members of political parties do not have a role in the conduct and certification of elections. Civil servants are barred by law from political affiliation; if drafted for election duty, they are under the control of the Commission. Accustomed to this rigid separation between the election authority and politicians, Indians are bemused to find Republicans and Democrats virtually running the main levers of the system, as exemplified in Florida, and would think it a recipe for partisanship and conflict. Third, in an Indian election the process and its components are standardised; there would be no question of having a differently designed ballot paper. As for the machine v human debate, the latest in the Gore/Bush series, a near universal use in India of paper, eye and hand for the vote and count is slowly being replaced by electronic apparatus. The wisdom of this may now have to be reviewed. If we take into account India's vast population exercising universal franchise, its far-flung areas, remote villages, multiple parties and candidates, one must concede that its Election Commission has done a pretty good job in handling the five yearly general elections and a few mid-term, ones. However, the major credit-takers are India's voters, most of who are poor and barely literate. Time and again, they have shown that they take their democracy seriously, vote in large numbers, and possess a remarkable degree of political maturity and discernment evidenced by frequent rejection of the corrupt, inept and breakers of election promises. By contrast, the relatively low turnout in the U.S. comes as a surprise. Another interesting aspect is that in India it is the poorer lot who display the most interest and have the highest turnouts in elections. On the negative side in India is increasing violence, booth capturing, and corruption and voter impersonation. The United States seems to be relatively free of this. One other point about an Electoral College. It would never work in India. At times of crucial legislative votes, Indian political parties in some States not known for best constitutional practices have ferreted key legislators and kept them in captivity, to be produced at the eleventh hour for voting. Absent a rigid rule that members of the Electoral College have no business to change their voting mandate, there will be blandishments and tempting offers ensuring high grade multi-generation prosperity for floor-crossing. India's media has always played a strong role in its elections. Newspapers, especially in the local languages, extensively cover political and electoral news and stories. Till not so long ago, television existed in the lone presence of Doordarshan, a network wholly owned, controlled and supportive of the government in power. Since everyone knew that, no attention was paid to it. However, with increasing privatisation there are several networks, including some international ones, and these turn out fairly slick programmes forecasting trends and covering elections. They haven't so far taken it upon themselves to blur the difference between the results of the count and their predictions. Hopefully, they will learn a lesson from the dreadful muddle use U.S. newscasters landed themselves in on the night of November 7. The Indian Election Commission frowns upon exit polls, taking the view that this may influence voters going to vote at a later time or day. This seems quite reasonable; a few more hours to get the actual results should not matter so much, especially in a country whose concept of time easily stretches to take in millenniums, and occasionally borders eternity. However, it is in the process of resolving the conflicts over ballot validity that we would see dramatic differences between the two democracies. In India, the national Election Commission would decide such disputes. It has shown little hesitation in ordering recounts, and less frequently, repeat polls, when the facts reveal distortion of the electoral process. And if it does not, anyone familiar with India's robust public interest law and litigation would bet that within hours of the problem surfacing, a petition would be filed in the country's Supreme Court. Issues involving breach of fundamental rights and constitutional protection can be brought directly to the Supreme Court. Few matters can be as important as the election of the nation's government, and it is a fair assumption that the Court would exercise its discretion to take on board the case and proceed to hear it. That would set the scenario for an interesting reversal of Finley Peter Dunne's quip that "the Constitution follows the flag; and the Supreme Court follows the election returns." While it is hazardous to predict what a Court may decide, some indications arise from the consistent view taken by India's senior Justices that in matters of public importance, form and procedure must yield to substance and justice; the more important the issue, the greater force for this maxim. The Court has fashioned the doctrine of the basic structure of the Constitution, and held that it is immune even from constitutional amendment. Free and fair elections, the Court has said, is an important part of this basic structure. Given such law, the Court would have little difficulty in holding that where the facts reveal a substantial failure of the electoral process, corrective action is called for, especially when the issue in controversy would have a decisive bearing on the final outcome of the national poll. Relevant in this connection is a maxim of elections - that the ballot paper should be designed to facilitate easy and uncomplicated marking of the candidate of the voter's choice. A defectively designed ballot paper combined with complaints of confusion from a sizeable number of voters could well lead to an inference of a flawed process requiring remedial action. The test to be applied is not whether a clever voter can understand the ballot paper; rather it is whether a not so clever citizen can misunderstand it. Other significant instances of voter intent not being counted, due to pre or post ballot bungling by officialdom, would further nudge the judicial mind towards relief and remedy. The presence of someone like Ms. Kathleen Harris, with obvious overtones of partisanship, being in a crucial determinative position would have disturbed the Court. As an aside, while oral evidence is rare in the Supreme Court, it is not unknown; and it would have been interesting to see Ms. Harris being cross-examined by Mr. Boise, who is reputed to have given Mr. Bill Gates a harrowing time in the box. Of particular interest would be Ms. Harris' understanding of the use of discretion; one of her statements setting out her position of non-intervention and making mention of an act of God seemed to indicate that unless the Almighty personally intervened for Mr. Gore, she was not going to budge. By comparison, to the credit of Governor Bush (the Florida one), there is hardly any allegation that he would influence the result. In an Indian setting, much would have been made of the fact that Government of Florida is the brother of the Republican candidate. The early intervention in the controversy of the country's Supreme Court has some advantages. It ensures an early result and avoids protracted litigation, ruinous to candidates and country. It brings a verdict and solution from the one institution that commands great respect and credibility. Issues and times such as these desperately need public men and women who will be, and be seen to be, free from partisan considerations; who can rise to the task of matching fact and principle and national interest and finding a solution with these guides alone. It is a sad and sobering comment on a democracy when it cannot easily find such men or women in its political and public spheres. Perforce it must turn to a Court, for at least the framework of that institution is designed to obtain and exhibit these qualities. INAV |
||
|
|
'Tina' is best U.S. prop for Musharraf By M R Rao There Is No Alternative (TINA) factor, a very popular concept with the ruling establishments in the Indian sub-continent, appears to have come to the aid of General Musharraf, at least for the present, notwithstanding a political scene, which has begun to warm up to cope with the contradictions in the Pakistani situation. Interestingly, the subscribers to the General's TINA are his influential American friends like General Anthony Zini, arguably the most competent to speak on Pakistan military. Zini was until recently commander-in-chief of the Central Command, that includes Pakistan. And more important, he is on one-to-one terms with the Pakistan Chief Executive for long years. The fact that after throwing out Nawaz Sharif, the first American Musharraf had telephoned was not President Clinton, but his old friend Tony, testifies to their equation. According to Washington Post, the retired General wields enormous influence over the State Department on issues concerning this region. Now, what did Gen Zini say and why? Appearing in CBS TV programme ''Sixty Minutes'', Zini unhesitatingly upheld the Musharraf TINA factor: In the extremely dicey situation that Pakistan is passing through, Musharraf remains the best bet of Pakistan. The world cannot let him down, because it just could not afford a failed Pakistan. The General,therefore, criticised the delay in the IMF's assistance being extended to Pakistan. (The loan package is now more or less cleared.) These words were undoubtedly sweet music to his friend Musharraf. Rather intriguingly, General Zini picks up the TINA factor after highlighting the HIDE factor that Musharraf has come to be identified within the neighbourhood and beyond. What is HIDE factor ? This acronym stands for : He is a Dangerous Entity. While on the HIDE factor, Tony Zini did not mince his words. His bluntness was to the point of hurting the interests of his friend. He told the ''Sixty Minutes'' audiences of millions that the ideology of Islamic fundamentalism has begun to contaminate the Pakistani Army also, that some of its senior officers were in sympathy with the aims and objectives of the wide array of fundamentalist organisations strutting around. Undoubtedly, this first hand assessment of Tony Zini is contrary to the general American perception as reflected in the thinking and actions of the US State Department that Pakistan's Army is that country's only strong, cohesive and disciplined institution capable of coping with any challenge, including on onslaught by the fundamentalist forces, despite the latter's growing influence. In fact, it is this perception that has been the basis of continued engagement with the military junta in Islamabad. Undeniably, the contraditions in the perception and the reality and the inability to knowledge HIDE and ignore TINA come as a surprise in the face of mass of evidence that is coming in. The question therefore is : was this an inability created by the non -use of night vision glasses ? The CBS programme went on the air three days after Gen. Musharraf celebrated on a low key his first anniversary as the Chief Executive and booted out his Information Minister Javed Jabbar for the negatives press he has been getting. The documentary questioned the glib assumptions vis-a-vis Pakistan and its rulers and showed in chilling detail how brazenly and blatantly various jehadists and Islamic fundamentalists are operating in Pakistan with impunity. The telecast included a long interview with Gen Musharraf and juxtaposed his claims with some stunning statements and arresting visuals. Like Anthony Zini, some Pakistan analysts, based in Washington, who are not inimical to General Musharraf personally, bold the view that it is time the HIDE factor gets noticed. According to them, Pakistan army is no longer in a position to take on the fundamentalists. The question doesn't arise, since the army has been Talibanised. Brigadiers and generals, even their orderlies with or without beard are guided and motivated by the fundamentalist ideology. It is true that leaders of fundamentalist parties and groups may not win an election on their own, but that doesn't undermine their reach, more so when they have large followings and huge cache of arms and vast sums of money flowing from the State treasury's secret funds and overseas well wishers. According to one version in circulation, proponents of jehad have succeeded in raising the religious fervour to such a pitch that any army crackdown on those, whom the West considers as hardcore fundamentalists, would have a terrible backlash. Certainly, there is force in the argument, going by the intense speculation in the Pakistan circles over the revival of the post of army Vice-Chief and Musharraf's choice for the post. It is said Lt General Aziz is being brought back to Rawalpindi from Lahore, where he was shunted out as the Corps Commander s afew days ago. Before he was thrown out of the headquarters rather unceremoniously, Aziz was the Chief of General Staff. The spin-doctors of Musharraf had projected this transfer to Lahore as a deliberate attempt to weaken the hold on armed forces of the hawkish generals. Aziz is know forn his Islamist predilections, like his brother General Mahmood, who finds himself fighting jehad outside Pakistan as the ISI chief, after he was removed from the command of the Corps at Rawalpindi without a warning bell. Why are Azizs and Mahoods allowed to become comeback kids? One view is this is mainly to pacify the original Zia constituency, which is disenchanted with General Musharraf, who unlike the late military dictator, cannot afford to ride rough shod over any pro-establishment section, particularly at a time, in his own words, when the despondency factor is spreading. The revival of the army Vice-Chief, which ended with the Zia era, is an effort to buy the support of an influential general. Who said, unlike politicians, generals could see beyond their nose, whether they are under TINA or HIDE syndrome ?-- CNF |
|
|
|
|
