Daily Excelsior... Editorial

EDITORIAL

After being in the reckoning for the Nobel prize for literature for over a decade Knowledgebearing Sunbetokened Naipaul has finally got to the pinnacle that this prize has come to symbolize. Naipaul has not received the prize not a day too soon. He has been in the ring for a long time. He is easily one of the oldest writers alive, one of the most versatile, most intuitive and in the words of Khushwant Singh one who ‘has something new to say, in each of his books’. Something thoughtful too. And penetratingly so. Naipaul is a master craftsman who does not play with his tools but builds, creates and corners the truths of the human concern with them. He, says the prize citation, compels us to see the presence of suppressed histories’. Naipaul, in fact, is a voice that compels us to look at the facets of histories and civilizations that are not in the fashion nor are seen by the most. When it was fashionable to laud the thousands-of-years-old civilization of India, he went ahead and wrote of the wounded civilization, pointing his pen at the sores that Indians failed to see. His area of darkness is a chilling negation of the loved pantomime of his time. And when the world was worshiping the garb of identities he roamed among the believers to see how all identities were roughened up there.

Should India attack
Terrorist Camps?

By. K.N. Pandita
Some political commentators think India should strike when the iron is hot. The carbuncle asks for the scalpel treatment. ....more

Will Kashmir learn any
lesson from Afghanistan?
TALES OF TRAVESTY

By: Dr. Jitendra Singh
Now that the American forces have finally struck at the terrorist and fundamentalist .more

The constitutions is supreme

By Nalni J. Singh
The unseating of the former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu Jayalalitha by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has.....more

60 per cent threats
spring from Pakistan

By Bharat Verma
In spite of the fact that Pakistan is militarily, considered a secondary threat by New .......more

HERE AND THERE
Limitations of media in Muslim countries

From B L Kak
The West-based global media may not always be credible and balanced. Yet, they .......more

Promoting Gandhian studies in J&K
Academic Pulse

By Prof. S. K. Bhalla
In the strip cartoon 'Pogo' one comes across an interesting line which reads "We ........more

EDITORIAL

Nobel NaIpaul

Naipaul is not an Indian. Born in the Caribbean and educated in the Great Britain he has spent his life there. His being of Indian stock is a remote connection, as is his name. It is all nam-matra, as they say in Indian philosophy. But he is an Indian in that universal sense, which can be of an Indian’s alone. He is on a sympathetic resonance with India and that for an Indian is saying a lot. We have many born and bred Indians who would not feel so ‘attached’ to India as this ‘non-Indian’ does. And all true Indians are cosmopolitan. They are the citizens of the world; only the world is getting too much bogged down in narrow lanes and lines. Naipaul there is an Indian and recognition of his work and worth is something that Indians can justly take pride in. There is more for Indians to take pride in this prize. Most of Naipaul’s works have India and Indians in the backdrop, if not in focus. And he sees his various visits to India as pilgrimages to home. Over the past several years he has been very appreciative of the growing realization within India, that this civilization here deserves to be preserved and efforts must be made in the direction. He, though not exactly an Indian has, therefore, been a staunch respecter of Indianness.

And Naipaul must know. He has seen and studied almost whole of the world from a very close range. He is one of the most traveled litterateurs. His travels have not been mere sightseeing but insightful incursions into histories, civilizations and peoples, their inclinations and proclivities, failures, fumblings and gains. The Swedish Academy which awards the Nobels, has called him 'a literary circumnavigator' and noted that he is 'only ever really at home in himself, in his inimitable voice'. The latest molding of that voice is a novel that spans three major civilizational continents, Asia, Europe and Africa and tells of the intimacies of the human soul in perpetual flux. But, then, Naipual has been exploring this essence of being human in different variegations all his life, in all his works with a depth and understanding that is the mark of great minds alone. That greatness has been lauded by conferring the highest prize on this genius of our times.

Should India attack Terrorist Camps?

By. K.N. Pandita

Some political commentators think India should strike when the iron is hot. The carbuncle asks for the scalpel treatment. And if India strikes, western powers cannot raise an eyebrow leave aside holding her back by any logic.

India has provided sufficient proof to the Americans of Pakistan’s involvement in Kashmir terrorism. The American agencies have themselves collected a plethora of irrefutable evidence. By attacking terrorist training camps in PoK, India will be only pursuing the agenda chalked out by the anti-terrorist coalition.

Is General Musharraf covertly agreeable to India striking at the terrorist training camps in PoK as a measure of good riddance for him? Was this the type of support he had asked from Prime Minister Vajpayee during his recent telephonic conversation?

Perhaps this is a far- fetched possibility. General Musharraf has been strongly demanding in his more recent utterances that Kashmir issue should not be linked to Afghanistan situation meaning that Kashmir turmoil is what he calls a "freedom movement" and Osama’s is "terrorism". What he means to say is that the claim of Osama to liberate the Muslims all over the world from the stranglehold of the Americans is "terrorism" and the terrorism unleashed by the mercenaries in Kashmir is a "freedom struggle".

The voices of ‘now or never’ are also heard on Indian side. The argument is to exploit Pakistan’s critical internal and external situation. The recent bomb blast in the Assembly complex, they say, makes a real and compelling reason, which the democratic world cannot afford to lose sight of. Of course both the British Prime Minister and the American President did make a mention of this attack in their recent statements. Furthermore, they argue that India has shown too much of patience and the Prime Minister did refer to it when he wrote to President Bush that India’s patience should not be tested. When our very political arrangement, on which the future of our nation hinges, is attacked, why should we not retaliate and remove this source of threat once for all?

Nobody denies the weight in these arguments. But a crucial decision with far-reaching implications and consequences is to be taken after due thought. India is a big country. Unlike Pakistan, political gimmickry should not be her forte.

India missed the bus in 1990 when terrorism raised its head in Kashmir. She has by now travelled a long distance and a sudden and whimsical shift at this belated point of time could become counter-productive.

The whole world will say that India didn’t have the guts to take on the Islamic terrorists herself this last decade, and has now become the surrogate of a super power. India does not need the crutches. We took a bold decision in 1971. We are strong enough to take a bold decision on our own at a time of our choosing and a place of our choice.

Any attack on terrorist camps in PoK presupposes a good homework done in advance. In 1971 war, late Prime Minister Indira Gandhi made a whirlwind tour of the European countries and apprised their leadership of the problem of one crore of Bangladeshi refugees crossing over to India. She prepared the ground for an action and it was planned very intelligently and executed efficiently. We have not done anything of the sort today.

Anglo-American bloc has been able to prevail upon the OIC Foreign Ministers meeting in Doha recently to declare American attacks on Ben Laden’s camps as justified. In the wake of OIC’s known hostility, India cannot ever elicit any such statement from it if she attacks PoK training camps. No sooner does India attack PoK, than the OIC will call an emergency meeting and impose a boycott (tark-e-mawalat) of political, economic and social relations on India. Don’t forget that war machine runs by oil.

Pakistan is faced with the worst kind of instability ever since its creation. With a fragile internal situation, it foreign policy in general and Afghan policy in particular is on the verge of a collapse. Rumours of a coup are in the air. Detention of some fanatical religious leaders does not mean an end to the voices of dissension. Launching an attack on the camps in PoK in the background of this political scenario in Pakistan gives a strong re-unifying lever in the hands of the rickety government. Indian military action will unite all dissenting elements and mould them into a very strong anti-India front from which the military junta will try to take the maximum mileage.

An attack on the terrorist camps in PoK at this point of time will lend credence to the strongly trumpeted propaganda that India is a partner of the USA and Israel in decimating Islam and the Muslims. This will be a great disservice to the interests of India. Our adversaries will ask the question that when India did not take a punitive action during last 12 years, why did she hazard an attack simultaneously with the one launched by the Americans? We are already suspected of a sell-out to the Americans. Therefore, it will be unwise on our part to precipitate crisis in the South Asian region. Don’t forget that no country in the world, much less the US, fights the war of an other country.

It will be recollected that only a week ago, our Minister for External Affairs made a statement in which he said that India was not interested in adding to the problems of Pakistan. It indirectly meant that India would not launch an attack on terrorist camps in PoK (or for that matter on Pak terrorist camps as well). The compulsion of giving this assurance has to be understood..

We have the second largest Muslim population in the world and we are a democratic country. It is a different story that the Indian Muslims did not play a very active and effective role in persuading the terrorist outfits and the dissenting political leadership in Kashmir to shun violence. Recently, a resolution condemning American assault on the Taliban in Afghanistan, has been passed by a group of leading ulema in the country who met in Delhi under the chairmanship of Imam Bukhari. He said publicly that the Muslims world over considered Osama as their hero, and why should they not raise the slogan of ‘Osama zindabad’? Obviously he was trying to bail out the SIMI.

In their recent meeting at Doha, OIC foreign ministers justified the attacks on Afghanistan. This isolates Imam Bukhari and his tribe from the responsible Islamic ideologues.

The divide within the Islamic community being visible, it would be unwise to precipitate any action on India-Pakistan soured relationship. Imam Bukhari has to be pragmatic if he wants to give right direction to the Indian Muslim community at this critical juncture.

Will Kashmir learn any lesson from Afghanistan?
TALES OF TRAVESTY

By: Dr. Jitendra Singh

Now that the American forces have finally struck at the terrorist and fundamentalist bases in Afghanistan, it is hoped that in the aftermath of this war the world community will take some time off to engage itself in serious introspection to find out why at the first place the mankind was called to bear with the liability of such bizarre phenomenon as Talibans, Ladens as also a host of sponsored militant organisations perpetrating violence in different parts of the world including Jammu and Kashmir.

Mahatma Gandhi always said that means were as important as ends. For a world in hurry, however, this message was lost somewhere half-way and Bapu became irrelevant not only in the rest of the world but also in his own country. In its haste to emerge as an unchallenged super-power, it was none other than Washington itself which first treacherously conspired the disintegration of the erstwhile Soviet Union and then clandestinely funded extremist Islamic terrorist groups led by Osama bin Laden, Talibans and others in order to maintain its supremacy in the world order. Quite similarly, nearer home in Jammu and Kashmir, certain unscrupulously ambitious politicians and their misguided supporters among the socalled intellectuals sought to achieve their dubious objectives by playing the "Azaadi" card via separatist violence sponsored by Washington - Kabul - Islamabad nexus. And, the results are there for everybody to see!

The Musharraf Government has all along been at pains to stress that it has nothing to do with the violence in Jammu and Kashmir because, according to them, the militancy there is purely indegenous carried out by local Kashmiri freedom fighters. All along the Kashmir's Hurriyat conglomerate has, even while evidently being on the pay-roll of Pakistan, claimed that their struggle is purely self-motivated. The question that now arises is: why, then, the Hurriyat leadership and its friendly Musharraf Government are today making apologetically confused statements over the turn of events resulting from the American attack on the Taliban. If the "Azaadi" movement in Kashmir is absolutely indigenous and local, there should be no reason to get disturbed by an American - Afghan war which is being fought not locally but much beyond the borders of Kashmir.

And, what about the state of Muslim community living in India and in Jammu and Kashmir? It is high time the Muslims in India including the Muslims in Jammu and Kashmir avoided the temptation to identify themselves with Islamic fundamentalists in Pakistan or Afghanistan and instead sought to strike a common chord with their fellow Indian citizens among Hindus, Sikhs and other Indian communities. This is essential considering the commonality of interest of various Indian communities and also considering the high stakes that the Indian Muslims have in future for themselves and their children.

It is a sad irony that simply because of the perverted actions of a handful of Islamic extremists, the entire Muslim community should suffer the predicament of becoming a suspect in the eyes of the world. But then, who is to be blamed for this? Is it not true that so far not a single forum of Muslim religious leaders or Muslim intellectuals has come out openly and forcefully to dissociate itself from the Taliban ideology or from the Pakistan's terroristic tactics?

As long as the sanity does not return, peace will continue to be a casualty and common man will continue to be the target. Certainly, this is not what the common man had aspired for. Certainly, this is not what Umapathy had asked for --- and, at the first place, was never given an opportunity to ask for ---- thus only emulating Ghalib's poetic lament: "Main Bhi Moonh Mein Zubaan Rakhta Hoon, Kash Poochho Ke Mudai Kya Hai?"

Meanwhile, will Kashmir learn any lesson from Afghanistan?

The constitutions is supreme

By Nalni J. Singh

The unseating of the former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu Jayalalitha by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has raised many legal issues which need to be understood in right perspective.

"The Constitution is Supreme," said the Supreme Court, in the course of the arguments over the legitimacy of a leader elected by the majority legislature party to hold office. This is a doctrine known to American constitutional law and may not be wholly appropriate to India.

Moving the Objectives Resolution in the Constituent Assembly in December 1946, Jawaharlal Nehru emphasised how all the power and authority of sovereign independent India and its constituent parts and organs of Government are derived from the people, and decried the thought that real democratic freedom can be secured by relegating the task to lawyers sitting in conclave, however wise they may be.

The Preamble to the Constitution starts with the premise, "We the People" - words reminiscent of similar usage in the American Constitution, indicating that the people, and not the institutions of the Government created by the Constitution, are sovereign. Constitutionalism presupposes a society with a moral order and a judiciary with the highest integrity. The Constitution is to endure for ages and be regarded as adaptable to the various crises of human affairs, for adaptability is a necessary requirement of permanence.

In the UK, Parliament is Supreme. Indeed, Dicey quotes the celebrated passage from Stephen Science of Ethics: "If a legislature decided that all blue-eyed babies should be murdered, the preservation of blue-eyed babies would be illegal; but legislators must go mad before they could pass such a law and the subjects idiotic before they could submit to it."

Parliament rises from the mass of the people. Its representative character can never be sustained unless it can be made to bear some stamp of the actual disposition of the people at large. As Burke put it : "It would (among public misfortunes) be an evil more natural and tolerable, that the House of Commons should be infected with every epidemical phrenzy of the people, as this would indicate some consanguinity, some sympathy of nature with their constituents than that they should, in all cases, be wholly untouched by the opinions and feelings of the people out of doors… By this want of sympathy, they would cease to be a House of Commons".

In the affairs of the State, it is the will of the people that prevails ultimately. The framers of the Constitution bestowed their faith on a democratic government based on adult franchise that could bring enlightenment and promote well being. The American constitution depends on the Doctrine of Judicial Review and vests supremacy in the judiciary to interpret the constitution and operate as the safety valve or the balanced wheel of the constitution.

The American constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is. The Indian Constitution adopts the via media between the American system of judicial supremacy and the English Principle of Parliamentary Supremacy. It is a fundamental principle of constitutional law that the Court cannot supply supposed omissions (or causes omissis). It is not for the Court to import into statutes words that are not to be found there. It cannot make up deficiencies in the statutes. It is not competent to any court to proceed on the footing that the legislature has made a mistake.

It was Thomas Jefferson who wrote in the Declaration of Independence that all governments derive "their just powers from the consent of the governed." The Supreme power of political decision and action vests with the people. The voice of the people has indeed become the voice of supreme authority - unquestionable and infallible.

To quote an American author : "Legislators in democratic countries are increasingly expected to function merely as phonograph discs to record and reproduce the voice of the people; executives to be glorified bellhops to do their bidding and judges to conduct bloody assizes whenever the mob howls for the sacrifice a detested scapegoat." To be sure there would be abuses in a democracy. "The cure for such abuses," said Jefferson, "was more democracy."

Keep the government continually close to the people and abuses would ultimately be rectified. Universal adult suffrage, popular election, local self-government, universal free education, religious freedom, freedom of speech and of press _ these were the great talismans by which democracy would succeed. Law is the mandate of society in its entirety. Out own Supreme Court had made feeble attempts to develop a theory of sovereign power subject to constitutional limitations. Constitutional pundits rejected this idea as unsatisfactory. The Pakistan Supreme Court invoked the Doctrine of Necessity to uphold military rule when a popularly elected government was forcibly displaced.

The Supreme Court resorts to the Doctrine of De Facto in critical cases. Semantics, however, cannot obliterate the fact that, ultimately, it is the will of the people that counts in matters democratic. How do we explain the innumerable amendments to the constitution, now more than hundred, and the upholding of the Mandal Doctrine by the Supreme Court?

"Judges," said Justice Holmes, "commonly are elderly men and are more likely to hate at sight any analysis at which they are not accustomed and which disturbs repose of mind, than to fall in love with novelties." Harold Laski points out that it is the judge’s experience of life that determines his attitude to the problems of Law. Most people’s philosophy, both in its conscious assumptions and its much more significant unconscious prejudices, is fairly fixed at forty; years later, the average judge will belong to a generation of which the general outlook is very different from his own.

When we know how a nation-state dispenses justice, we know with some exactness the moral character to which it can pretend. Roosevelt tried to pack the courts with judges sympathetic to his New Deal.

The Indian Supreme Court failed to rise to the occasion when emergency was imposed. Seervai quotes Prof. Schwartz: "Through the exercise of its review power, the Supreme Court may enable the will even of the great majority of the people to be frustrated. That this is no mere theoretical possibility is shown by what actually happened in the pre-1937 period (in the US). The Court is essentially a check of the past upon the present but it is the present that represents the will of the people and it is that will that must be ultimately given effect in a democracy. If the democratic bases of our system are to be respected, the review power of the one non-democratic organ in our Government should be exercised with self-restraint." The learned Constitutional authority also pooh-poohs the idea of "value packing" in the Supreme Court and points out that no particular philosophy, political or economic, can be attributed to the Constitution.

The American system had no problem in allowing Clinton to continue as President even when impeachment proceedings were on. Society, in the words of Edmund Burke, is indeed a partnership, not only between those who are living, those who are dead and those who are to be born.

Each contract of each particular state is but a clause in the great primeval contract of eternal society linking the lower with the higher natures, connecting the visible and invisible world, according to a fixed compact sanctioned by the inviolable oath which holds all physical and moral natures, each in their appointed place.

"This primeval inter-generational contract is enshrined in the Constitution and it requires for its implementation a strict obedience on the part of every organ of the constitution to what Palkhiwala calls ‘the law of the unenforceable’. INAV

60 per cent threats spring from Pakistan

By Bharat Verma

In spite of the fact that Pakistan is militarily, considered a secondary threat by New Delhi, hostilities, spearheaded against us constitute sixty percent of the sum total. It originates with ‘catching them young, in schools - the students are indoctrinated with hatred against India. Cross border terrorism in Jammu & Kashmir is sustained by Pakistan’s ISI. Induction of sophisticated weapons, communications equipment and the infiltration by Jihad outfits into J&K without Pakistan’s patronage cannot flourish. There simply is no other accessible route. Therefore, the responsibility to control the illegal activities of these citizens of Pakistan rests on the shoulders of Islamabad.

The fulcrum of the pan-Islamic movement against ‘Kafirs’ (non-believers) of all denominations is the Pakistan-Afghanistan combine. The present agenda is not limited to Kashmir, which it wants to carve as an Islamic state run on Wahabi philosophy from Islamabad. It extends to Western UP, West Bengal, Assam, Bihar and portions of South India. If the modus operandi in the Valley is based on ethnic cleansing, a demographic alteration through creeping invasion is the happening strategy in other parts of India. Subsequently using Assam as the launching pad, the anti- kafirs movement will crawl towards the other states of Northeast just as it presently attempts to sneak from Kargil to lest populated areas of Leh and Ladakh.

Emboldened by victory against Soviet Union in Afghanistan, nuclear Pakistan in low intensity conflict war waged by its well- oiled Jihad machine is convinced that it has a low cost win-win weapon.Therefore its ambitions stand enlarged with two-fold politico-military objectives. First it wants to dominate the political space in the subcontinent. In addition, to balkanize or divide India in the name of religion is a dream based on the former Mughal Sultanates! Inimical activities to us are being conducted through Bangladesh, Nepal and Bhutan. Through instigation and supplies of arms to the Muslims in Sri Lanka an attempt is underway to develop a foothold for exporting Jihad to the South. Second aim of this pan-Islamic movement is to dominate the resource rich Central Asia through spread of Jihad beyond Afghanistan.

Pervez Musharraf who comes calling on Delhi is part of this problem and not an integral of the solution. New Delhi should not shy away from accepting his role as an architect of Kargil- that is where the Lahore bus finally landed! For the last four years he has been busy encouraging demographic resettlement of POK with population inducted from outside to increase intensity of proxy war inside Jammu & Kashmir.

Since Zia's time Musharraf's rise in the army (trom a Colonel to a General) is the result of contribution to the cause of so-called Jihad. If the General dumps Jihad that he nourished and honed, he will be replaced. In case he does not, the IMF drip on which Pakistan lives may be switched off. it is a Hobson’s choice.

Therefore the charm offensive launched by President Musharraf in the garb of reconciliation is merely a tactical retreat. This enables Pakistan to gain time for re-grouping and marshalling of forces by a country- that is under enormous economic strain. In view of the demographic changes being effected in POK, we will commit a grave folly by creation of a "soft border". The suggestion that J&K be trifurcated, and the Valley which is a Muslim majority area be given independence is a devious suggestion. First, it will not remain ‘independent. Second, the two-nation theory has collapsed with Pakistan Talibanised. Third, it undermines our foundation laid on secularism and will only accelerate the process of ethnic cleansing. Corollary to this assumption implies that all conclaves with predominant Muslim population should be autonomous or independent!

It is the eighty-three percent majority that guarantees the multi-cultural plurality of the Indian society. Today, despite this preponderance it is stressed out and insecure. This increases the chances of a major backlash if the poison of Jihad being introduced in the social fabric of a secular society is permitted to grow its tentacles.

Fourth, Pak experiment with democracy has failed continuously due to one single factor - Islamic fundamentalism. On what ground can Islamabad advocate protection of rights of people in Kashmir or elsewhere when it refuses to protect the rights of minorities within Pakistan? Further, do we really want to construct the Indo- Iran gas pipeline overland at this point of time? With revenue exceeding 600 million dollars annually, Pakistan will only use it to fan the fire against India.

The above wrap-up constitutes sixty percent of the threat perceptions to India. If this slice of the pie is neutralised, India possesses the potential to emerge as a global player in no time. The balance of forty percent contains threat from others and through faulty governance within. However, militarily the primary threat in long term is posed by China. The reason it does not blip on New Delhi’s radar often is due to the fact that Beijing has fine-tuned and boosted its surrogate’s hatred against India to keep the latter preoccupied within the subcontinent without a direct intervention. This way China reaps two benefits. First, this disallows power rivalry in Southern Asia. Second the fall out of Indian public opinion against China remains minimal.

Therefore recent offers to reduce nuclear or military power in case of a breakthrough during Indo-Pak Summit are misplaced. While China subtly wants to shift Indo-China power equation to Indo-Pak debate, New Delhi must avoid walking into this trap.

During the Indo-Pak Summit we should insist on Pakistan reining in its citizens' nefarious activities on the Indian soil. Neighbours who profess intentions to live in peace do not print and push fake currency or run military training camps and launching pads for infiltration along the borders. However, if President Musharraf cannot halt immediately this antagonism, we are left with no alternative to judiciously combine the geo-political factors with covert and overt actions to achieve zero tolerance. After all Islamabad has never been a poem but an essay in intrigues and treachery since 1947!
PTI Feature

HERE AND THERE
Limitations of media in Muslim countries

From B L Kak

The West-based global media may not always be credible and balanced. Yet, they enjoy high levels of viewership and quotable status in non-Judeo-Christian areas. This is so because they, as reported by Pakistan’s influential English daily, Dawn, often also give the non-Christian, or the purely Muslim view point or project comments critical of western policies in a way that very few media based in Muslim countries do about the policies of their host Muslim countries.

History bears testimony to the fact that there are very few radio or TV channels, daily newspapers, magazines or news agencies originating from any of the over 50 member-countries of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) that have worldwide recognition and a reasonable reputation for credibility broadly comparable to BBC, CNN, Washington Post, New York Times, Times of London, Economist, Time, Newsweek, Reuters, AFP or AP.

Another fact, which seems to have been reckoned even by Islamic radicals in Pakistan and elsewhere, is that media based in the Muslim world tend to give only a Muslim point of view while excluding or downplaying views that are unsympathetic to the host country’s viewpoint. In contrast, the West-based global media invariably present two side of a story.

Fact number three: West-based media have an embracing global reach. Radio channels such as the Voice of America and BBC Radio reach larger audiences than English language TV. Yet the five billion people, still largely beyond the pale of the West-based global media, comprise those whose principal languages are Chinese, Hindi, Arabic, Spanish, French, Russian, Urdu and others.

Even as estimates of total worldwide coverage by CNN and BBC does not significantly exceed about one billion viewers and listeners, West-based global media have achieved a status of influence and the capacity to initiate word-of-mouth effects that are greater than the sum of their numbers.

For example, leading Urdu or Sindhi language newspapers in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan frequently publish front-page reports of what English language BBC, CNN, New York Times or Washington have to say about a given subject. Pakistan has the reality of Muslim national media, as best personified by Radio Pakistan and Pakistan Television (PTV). Pakistan also has Muslim regional media in Arabic language radio and TV channels, newspapers and magazines.

But such Muslim media, it has been already been established, are speaking to those who are already ‘converted’. Fact number four: The difference with the West-based, non-Muslim global media is that, in addition to reaching their own audiences that are already ‘converted’, they are also reaching out to non-converted audiences in the Muslim countries.

Fact number five: Large audiences in Muslim countries prefer to listen to BBC and Voice of America (VOA) radio broadcasts about the present crisis in their local languages rather than those of their own countries’ media because of the latter’s poor credibility. Muslim countries, Pakistani publication (Dawn) has argued, have no one to blame but themselves for the absence of Muslim global media.

Fact number six: Governments in Muslim countries, it can be safely argued, have simply not demonstrated the self-confidence and courage to conduct or to permit full-blooded criticism of their own policies particularly on their own electronic media.

At the same time, however, Qatar’s Al Jazeera network being described as the CNN of the East has plenty to crow about. If they asked for accreditation to the White House, they would be granted the facility to in less than 24 hours, according to a set of observers. Such is Al Jazeera’s reach and clout in the Arab World that anyone wanting to make a point amongst the people in the region wants Al Jazeera.

The other day the British Premier, Mr Tony Blair, besieged with requests for interviews since the events of September 11 sought out Al Jazeera to air his views. Jack Straw is believed to routinely talk to them and in Washington, the station’s representative is believed to have unlimited access to officials who want to present their point of view.

For the Doha headquartered TV channel, all the hard work is now paying off. It must be said to the credit of Sheikh Hamad bin Khaliofaal-Thani, the ruler of Qatar and one of those who pumped money into the venture that he has let the channel blossom without any interference. Although the country does not allow too many periodicals and magazines with overt political views to get through its customs, the Emir has let Al Jazeera blossom in spite of the routine ruckus it causes in the neighbourhood.

In fact, at one point, Qatar’s relationship with Saudi Arabia almost came to nought thanks to Al Jazeera. But Sheikh Hamad declined to reign the channel in despite an official protest from the Saudi royal family.

Promoting Gandhian studies in J&K
Academic Pulse

By Prof. S. K. Bhalla

In the strip cartoon 'Pogo' one comes across an interesting line which reads "We have met the enemy, and he is us". At a time when a pall of gloom has descended over the whole of the world by terrorist activities being undertaken with distressing regularity for the last so many years, it is quite refreshing to learn that Gandhian studies are more relevant than ever before.

As per a national daily "most foreign Universities today have Peace and Conflict Studies (PACS) Centre that teach conflict resolutions as propounded by Gandhi". The University of Columbia, Sydney, a few College in North America and the famous Rhodes College in USA have incorporated Gandhi's non-violent approach in their history course. We are further told that Manhattan University regularly conducts seminars on Gandhi. In John Hopkins University history students are made to examine critically Gandhian views on nation building, gender, self-determination and religion. To be precise Gandhian studies have now a global appeal.

Gandhi's concepts of non-violence, human rights and social justice constitute one complete discipline to be studied in greater depths for laying the foundations of a civilized civil society. But a nagging question agitates the minds of some here in J&K too. Are our Universities and colleges here offering extensive courses like a few Indian Universities in Gandhian studies? The answer is big no. At the undergraduate level we are content with teaching an essay 'To students' to our disinterested lot in General English course which eulogizes the virtues of Truth, Ahimsa and rural uplift.

But offering a course on some aspects of Gandhi's life, work and teaching, supporting research by faculty and students as also organizing annual lectures on Gandhi by faculty members is conspicuous by its absence. The fact of the matter is that neither the policy makers and teachers nor the students are enthusiastically interested in Gandhian agenda for their trouble torn world and ailing nation.

Our nation as never before is rife with the forces of disintegration and fissiparous tendencies aiming at creating chaos and confusion. In such a situation if a well planned educational programme incorporating Gandhian ideals is made a mandatory part of curriculum, it shall definitely yield dividends in terms of inculcation of spirit of patriotism and amity.

Here it shall not be out of tune to mention that while framing curriculum for students we should not forget our cultural and historical traditions, diversities of castes and creeds, inherent contradiction in the system. An attempt should always be made to promote minimum of those ideals and principles which will usher in an era of peace and prosperity for all those putting up in our vast expanse of land without injuring their preferences. This is quite a difficult proposition.

Taking a cue from those who have seriously undertaken Gandhian studies within and without, in our J&K too we should also implement and educational programme on their lines to save our youth from slipping into wrong hands. For the success of the programme we again need crusty teachers and not the kindergarten stuff who cannot follow a punishing schedule of work.