Daily Excelsior... Editorial

EDITORIAL

K.N. Pandita
At last the military regime of Pakistan published the Hamoodur Rahman Report. ..more

What if Gujarat
repeats elsewhere?
Tales of Travesty

By Dr. Jitendra Singh
In one of his better known verses, the Late Sahir Ludhianvi had opined that the tears that are...more

Kashmir and peace process

By P L Khushu
With the changed visions and versions of the ruling elite of the government of India ....more

Indo-EU relations

By K R Sudhaman
Aturnaround in India European Union relations is clearly visible now especially after ......more

Enlightenment within
Muslim women
ACADEMIC PULSE

By Prof. S K Bhalla
At a time when the population of India has touched 100-crore.......more

EDITORIAL

FORMER PMs

It has become the favourite past-time of former Prime Ministers to criticise the good, remain silent over the bad, organise or address some gathering on the theme of 'being neither here nor there'. True, when one is unemployed or has no work the famous adage applies which States, ''Idle brain is devil's workshop''. It is okay as far as inconsequential people are concerned. But those who have occupied the coveted Delhi throne at some or the other time owe it to nation to be grateful, positive and in tune with times. What they could not do or what they did during their tenures howsoever short-lived should remain the guiding factor for their approach. The fact is that Deve Gowda as Prime Minister went in for petro-product hikes twice on the plea that predecessor Congress government did not do it. It was agreed that by the year 2002, it will be strictly market price for all petro products. It is therefore quite ridiculous to criticise NDA Government for effecting petro hikes in the wake of three-fold increase in crude oil prices. He talks of rolling back and in justification thereof he mentions price of crude having come down from $ 30 a barrel to $ 20. This shows how bereft such of the political clan is about the facts. The fact is that crude prices continue to hover around $ 30. It went down just for a few days but cut in production effective from Feb 1 has once again sent the price up. Further, he fails to inform wherefrom burgeoning oil pool deficit is to be made good. Again, he criticises PM's Foodgrain Yojna which would give 25 kg per family at highly subsidised rate of Rs 2 for wheat and Rs 3 per kg for rice. This will be available to 5 crore people who are poorest amongst the poor and cost the exchequer Rs 2300 crore in terms of heavy subsidy. He conveniently forgets that he himself announced Targeted Public Distribution to cover 36 crore people living below the poverty line. This entitled every card holder only 10 kg rice/wheat at half the PDS price. NDA Government has since enhanced TPDS quota to 20 kg per ration card holder. True, these may be populist measures. But then Gowda did it when India was importing wheat while Vajpayee has done it when our godowns are full to the brim. Yet it is a subject of criticism when out of power. Gowda also criticises anti-farmer policies of NDA Govt. He forgets that MPs stands artificially pegged up and at this rate India cannot compete in the open export market. In fact all the exports negotiated are well below the MPs. This itself is proof that pricing pattern is artificial and needs reformative approach rather than the annual ritual of revising upwards as appeasement of strong farm lobby.

The other former Prime Minister Chander Shekhar is a step forward and sees only evil and dark clouds in the Vajpayee Government. He calls liberalisation as sell-out to western countries and subjugation of Indian economy. It is interesting to recall some of the 'achievements' of Chander Shekhar. He broke up the Janata Party and formed Government with only 50 MPs. He survived for a few months on crutches provided by Rajiv Gandhi with outside support. During the mid-term poll ordered by him his '50 score' collapsed like the proverbial house of cards and it became virtually a solo-show. He pawned gold to Bank of England to clear urgent international liabilities. Incidentally as Prime Minister he permitted refuelling facilities on Indian soil to American led Multinational Force against Iraq during Gulf War. But now he condemns liberalisation and calls it a trap laid down by World Bank and WTO regime. He also does not like 'unilateral ceasefire'. The Young Turk in him remains in belligerent mood despite having fulfilled his long cherished dream of becoming PM. However the positive side is that both Gowda and Shekhar continue to lead Solo-Parties sans public support. But they are in the news and that explains their penchant for publicity. Never mind for whose cause. One need not comment on the remaining three surviving PMs namely Narasimha Rao, Gujral and VP Singh because for quite sometime they have not 'disclosed' their mind on Third Front.

GHQ betrayed General Niazi

K.N. Pandita

At last the military regime of Pakistan published the Hamoodur Rahman Report. How far is the released version true to the original is a moot question? Pakistani print media’s reaction was only subdued. The subject matter of the report is extremely sensitive because national honour is involved and also because there is reflection on the holy cow of Pakistan, viz. The Army

A serious study of the findings and recommendations of the Hamoodur Rahman Commission of Inquiry on one hand, and deliberate non-implementation of the recommendations on the other, reveal a big gap between the civil authority in Pakistan and the ultimate power centre called the Army. The study helps understand the real source of power in Pakistan and her frantic efforts to develop a massive war machine supported by the religious zealotry supported by segments of her civil society. This is reminiscent of Hitler’s war machine supported by Nazi ethnic fervour. Will Pakistan meet with the same fate that awaited the Nazis? If yes, who will be actors in that tragedy?

The Hamoodur Rahman Commission set up to investigate the causes of debacle in 1971 blamed Lt. Gen. (Retd.) Ameer Abdullah Khan Niazi with certain other generals for the tragedy6 and asked that he be court-martialed. Niazi denies he was responsible for the defeat and offers himself for a court martial. Challenging the findings of the Commission report, the 86-year-old General suggested that a new commission of inquiry be appointed by the present military regime with wider terms of reference.

General Niazi told a press correspondent who interviewed him recently that after the debacle, he had volunteered to face the court martial proceedings. But General Tikka Khan did not want to revisit the tragedy because it would have exposed the GHQ’s inept conduct of war and Tikka Khan’s own role as Army Reserve Commander. He said that the Hamoodur Rahman Commission denied them the right of defence while a court martial would not have denied it and they would have placed their position before the people of Pakistan. He said that even the Commission had agreed with his contention that the orders for surrender at Dhaka had been given by the then President Yahya Khan. But Yahya Khan, Generals Hamid, Omer, Mitha, Raheem and Jaamshed were also responsible for the debacle.

Giving an insight into the personal vendetta and rivalry among the top army Generals, Niazi said that General Tikka Khan was out to destroy him. He had even cancelled two squares of borderland allotted to him in Kasur. Niazi said that in an English daily of January 1991, General Tikka Khan had given a statement saying " We did not find any potential material against Lt. Gen. Niazi, who surrendered to the Indian Commander, Lt. Gen. Jagjit Arora, because he had permission to surrender from the C-in-C, Yahya Khan."

General Niazi said that on 14 December 1971, a signal was received from GHQ ordering me to surrender. General Hamid and Air Chief Marshal Rahim called me up and ordered me to act on the GHQ signal although I had informed GHQ that I was prepared to fight to the last. They told me that since West Pakistan was in danger, I should accept cease-fire and ensure the safety of the troops.

Divulging the developments leading to his surrender, General Niazi said that an unabated power struggle had finally led to the 1971 debacle, especially when the "barrel of the gun blocked the transfer of power". The power struggle was between Yahya, Mujib and Zulfiqar Bhutto. Yahya wanted to retain power while Bhutto wanted to attain. This was despite the fact that Sheikh Mujib’s Awami League had emerged victorious and he should have been handed over the government. He said that Bhutto’s fiery speed -- idhar tum udhar ham --was not mere rhetoric, but the actions of a desperate man vying for power at any cost. Had the power been transferred to Mujib, Pakistan would have remained united. However, it is pity that the Commission absolved Bhutto of any blame, Niazi added.

Reacting on the subject of the Hamoodur Rahman Commission exonerating three Generals, namely Tikka, Sahibzada Yaqub and Rao Farman Ali, General Niazi said that Yaqub’s inaction as commander of the Eastern command resulted in aggravating the situation. Having messed up everything, Yaqub deserted his post and resigned. He betrayed the nation at a critical juncture and should have been executed for his treason. Yahya demoted him but Bhutto restored his rank and sent him as ambassador to the US. This was the prize paid to him for desertion.

Niazi said that General Tikka Khan has not been mentioned in the report. The fact is known to everybody that his barbaric action on March 25, 1971 earned him the title of "butcher". The Commission has not even touched his crime of genocide in East Pakistan.

Reflecting on the situations on Eastern and Western fronts during the 1971 war, General Niazi said that the Commission of Inquiry did not address the most vital issue of the entire war scenario. It made no effort to find out why the small, tired and ill-equipped eastern garrison completed all the given tasks under the worst possible field conditions, and why the western garrison, with enough forces and resources and having the initiative, failed and lost 5,500square miles of territory in less than 10 days under conducive conditions? He said that after his return to Pakistan, he had heard persistent reports that the GHQ had knowingly sacrificed the Eastern Command according to a "detailed plan".

Holding senior army commanders "who brought disgrace to Pakistan by subverting the Constitution, usurping political power by criminal conspiracy, their professional incompetence, willful neglect in the performance of their duties and physical and moral cowardice in abandoning the fight when they had the capability and resources to resist the enemy", responsible for the defeat, the Commission had recommended punishment for the responsible army commanders. But 12 out of 13 officers held responsible were given full pension and other perks and benefits after their retirement. Any government has, even tried none of those held responsible and recommended for court martial. Niazi and one more General were the only two to be removed from the army in May 1975 and were not given a pension or any other benefit. He was put behind bar by Bhutto after his arrest during the Pakistan National alliance movement in 1977. General Yahya Khan, the main character of the debacle was given two pensions and all other perks and benefits, which were due to an ex-president and ex-commander – in – chief Lt. Gen. Gul Hassan Khan suceeded Yahya as COAS and after retirement was made Ambassador in Austria where he married an Austrian woman.

What if Gujarat repeats elsewhere?
Tales of Travesty

By Dr. Jitendra Singh

In one of his better known verses, the Late Sahir Ludhianvi had opined that the tears that are apparently shed in sympathy with others' bereavement or a common bereavement are, infact, often subconsciously motivated by an intimately personal despair lodged deep inside the individual mind. The malancholic mind inadvertantly seizes the opportunity to unburden itself by participating in others' outbust.

When the entire nation mourns Gujarat, people living far and away from the earthquake -struck State are left dumb-found not only by grief but also by the apprehension of being confronted with a similar fate for the same reasons that have led to the Gujarat tragedy. Because, even though a natural calamity occurs by the divine decree of the Almighty, its curse is compounded by the earthly misdoings of the mortal beings.

In a few days as the nation comes out of its collective shock over Gujarat, a number of questions would come up for intense debate. What have we so far done to prevent or avoid a natural calamity ---- whether it be an earthquake or a cyclone or a flood? Have we learnt any lessons from the past, from Latur or Orissa? What have we done to safeguard against earthquake risk while raising skyscrapers and multi-storeyed buildings to accommodate the shamelessly swelling millions and crores of an unchecked population? Incidentally, only in November last year the Centre for Earth Studies at Thiruvananthapuram had issued a warning that there is a seismogenic fault at Kutch capable of generating earthquakes of 7 or more on the Richter scale.

In the aftermath of the tragic Bengal famine of the early 1940s, when the entire region was beset with devastation and disease epidemic, an aged and ailing Rabindranath Tagore had mustered courage in his death-bed to reprimand the British administration for what he had described as its unpardonable callousness. But today, over half a century later and after five decades of self-governance, we have nobody to blame but ourselves.

The contemporary India bears the liability of a polity which spends all its time in manoeuvres to topple the existing governments or to bring in "no-confidence" motions. The contemporary India also carries the burden of a neo-rich society which spends all its time in a blind race for money-making. In the process, the foundational issues that confront India stand pathetically ignored. If the Gujarat catastrophe fails to awaken us in much the same manner as earlier Latur and Orissa have failed to awaken us, then in the years to come India would have to remain prepared for other diverse devastations ranging from an AIDS epidemic in the health sector to a civil riot situation resulting from a thoughtlessly exploding population.

Gujarat has meanwhile also inadvertantly exposed the bottom-line of national values cherished by the Indian citizens. Think of the loot and burglary witnessed in the tumbled houses of the dead ones where reward of jewellery has come as a bonus from earthquake for the more inconscientious amongst us. The only deterrant that can ultimately hold back these unscrupulous looters is the fear of catching some fatal disease when the epidemics break out as a sequalae to putrefying and decaying dead-bodies and corpses.

The basic instinct which sustains the individual Indian psyche is rather pervertly self-centred and prompted by the escapist thought "It is his problem ---- not mine as long as I remain unaffected". The point that is conveniently ignored is that one cannot remain safe for long when the neighbour's house is on fire just as one cannot build a heaven inside one's house and leave a hell outside. The events of last few days have, nonethess, shaken the common man's confidence and he is ready to run out to the streets at the mere suggestion or rumour of an earthquake. An earthquake panic struck Bangalore the other day --- it can now strike anywhere any time.

The common man feels profoundly insecure. You cry "wolf" and he is on his feet. The poet articulates Umapathy's apprehension- reflex "Woh Jala Jo Ghar Kisi Ka! Mera Aashiyaan To Nahin?" What if Gujarat repeats elsewhere?

Indo-EU relations

By K R Sudhaman

Aturnaround in India European Union relations is clearly visible now especially after former Hong Kong's Chief Administrator Chris Patten became the EU Commissioner for External Relations. European Union has been India's second largest trading partner accounting for 18 per cent of New Delhi's exports. Of late, political bilateral relations have also changed for the better with holding of the first-ever Indo-EU Summit in Lisbon in June last.

As a follow up to the improving relations, which took a nosedive after India's nuclear tests in May 1998, Chris Paten is slated to pay a visit to India in last week of January aimed at cementing the bilateral ties further.

EU Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy visited India in March last, which opened new vistas of trade cooperation with EU agreeing to release exceptional quota facility of textiles, First they agreed to release additional exports of 3,500 tonnes of exports, which was increased to 8,000 tonnes at the Lisbon summit in reward for India making progress in gradual reduction of import tariffs on textiles.

There has been a gradual improvement in Indo-EU economic relations ever since liberalisation process started in India 1991. What is significant is a marked improvement in political bilateral relations lately giving new impetus to Indo-EU economic relations. More importantly, the two have emerged as a major dialogue partners.

Apart from the need to strengthen bilateral dialogue, which is crucial for the balance of power in Asia, India is being increasingly recognised by the European Union as a major player in Information Technology. To deal with the Visa issue for Indian IT personnel, an Indo-EU counsel is to be set up in New Delhi. The counsel would act as a coordinator between various diplomatic missions of EU in New Delhi to remove hurdles faced by Indian professionals in getting visas.

The two countries have also set up working groups for improving bilateral relations on IT, Civil Aviation and Textiles as a follow up to the Lisbon summit. On trade India is one of the key partners of Europe in World Trade.

''It's difficult to conceive of any important initiative in world trade being taken forward without India's full participation. We recognise that and believe that it's important that Europe and India establish a strong working relationship, a fluid working relationship where we are able to discuss things openly and frankly as in any health relationship,'' EU trade commissioner Spokesman Anthony Gooch said elaborating on the important EU attaches to relationship with New Delhi.

On launching of the new round of multilateral trade negotiations at the World Trade Organisation, Gooch recognised that there were differences of views between India and EU but ''We do not believe that these are insurmountable''.

''We believe that it is precisely through Lamy's visit earlier this year, through the contact that we had in the summit and through future contacts that we have, EU wants to strengthen the relationship. Commissioner Patten will be going to India and he again will take the same message that we attach importance to the relationship. Trade and economic component in the cooperation is very important,'' Gooch said.

New round and anti-dumping issues are generally considered as irritants between India and European Union. But both sides now recognise that there is better understanding of each other's point of view mainly because there are now more opportunities to exchange points and also continuing dialogue between the two at Geneva.

But on trade, both agree on one point that a rule-based multilateral trading system was any day better than a system without rules as it can lead to more abuse. Where there is abuse, the stronger survives better than the weak. So it is in the interest of both developed and developing countries to have more and stronger rules. But what India wants is that the rules should not be tilted in favour of developed countries. For example introduction of social clause like core labour standards and environmental issues will erect non-tariff barriers which would be detrimental to developing countries as it would deny market access to them.

Recently, European Union adopted measures to liberalise textiles and clothing trade as part of its commitment to WTO. It liberalised imports of 65 categories of textiles and clothing products from other WTO countries in the third stage of integration. The remaining quotas on textiles and clothing products will be eliminated by EU with the elimination of WTO's agreement on Textiles and clothing on January 1, 2000, what has popularly come to be known as dismantling of multi-fibre agreement. The MFA, which provides for quota system for imports of textiles and clothing is being phased out from January 1, 2005.

The liberalisation of imports of textiles by EU came close on the heels of the announcement of India's new textile policy, which has dereserved garment sector paving the way for cent per cent foreign direct investment in the sector. These developments are expected to push up India's textiles exports of which European Union accounted for major shares.

The improving Indo-EU relations assumes significance as the positive movement forward came immediately after the new turn in the bilateral relationship between India and United States. Both United States and European Union are key players in the multipolar world and growing relationship with them at this juncture augurs well for India which has emerged as an important power in this part of the world. PTI Feature