EDITORIAL
46%
versus what?
Of course, the
comparison between J&K and Pakistan does not
lie; what we had here was an election of the
State while there across the border it was for
the whole country and the six states going to
polls, to elect a Government for the country, for
the states, perchance to rid itself of the
dictatorship. While the commentators say, that
the low turn out was a huge disappointment for
the general presiding over Pakistan, it could be
a comfort of sorts for him: that the people are
not too enthusiastic about ridding the country of
his rule! Or, even having a rule of theirs. The
only ‘problem’ is that the turn out for
the ‘confirmation’ of his presidency
was still lower. That shows that farces cannot be
reasoned on logic. And to be fair nobody is doing
that there. Nobody is talking of voting,
arrangements or the elections as such. For what
is the election for, when it cannot change the
Government, when it cannot dictate policies, when
it has to play a second fiddle to
institutionalized dictatorship. So we do not have
any figures to put against the versus’
above.
One wonders what
would happen if a referendum were to be held for
the resolution of Kashmir dispute as Pakistan
demands and the turn out were between sixes and
sevens’? Meanwhile, though the final figures
of the turn out in the March referendum are
vacillating between 6 and 15%, the turn out in
the double election ‘conducted’ this
week are said to be better. Of course, nobody
knows them-they must be in the pipeline awaiting
approval. To be tailored for a better fit than
the unflattering unofficial reports that the
‘the turnout was estimated between 20 and 25
per cent by a PML- N spokesman, between 18 to 20
per cent by a PML-Q official and 12 to 15 per
cent by the Pakistan Tehrik-i-Insaaf. Now if that
sounds rather strange, it is the way the things
are done in that part of the world. Because, it
apparently is not meet for the people there to be
told how they acted, how they voted, and how many
did. All that has to be made to measure for them.
At the highest of seats of power, the GHQ itself.
That is why there won’t be any transfer of
power at the end of this ‘election’.
For the first, the elected men (women are not to
be elected, they are to be nominated, allotted to
the parties as per their vote share) have to sit
cooling their heels till November.
Then they would
sit at the feet of the military, dictator. But
not directly. There would be a National Security
Counsel to lie in between the general and the
elected people and the two would together
overlook the democracy to make it functional and
worthy of the people of Pakistan. For, the Land
Of The Pure is not to be suffered the desecration
by the rough and rubble; that right is reserved
for the men of heavy boots and overbearing
beings. They alone know, and they alone can tell,
what is true democracy, what is voting, what is
participation and what is people’s rule
about and for. That is how at the close of
‘election’ cometh not the figures of
voter turn out but an ordinance that ‘the
independents’ have to ‘join a party
within three days’. And in due course, the
figures would come out too to be shamed by the
transparency here, at this small window on Indian
democracy!
|
 |
J&K
Elections- Agenda for new Government
Prof. M. Aslam
The State
of J&K has passed through crucial
phase in its history of political
journey. One only hopes that any sensible
Government either at the Centre or in the
State will not equate the just concluded
elections with plebiscite. The hasty
statements made by the politicians about
the situation in Kashmir only ignite
low-lying militancy and therefore needs
to be refrained. Now that the election
results are before us. It is important
that we start thinking as to what should
be the agenda of the new Government for
governance of the State. The conduct and
the results of the elections have given
us many lessons. One of the lessons is
that there could be fair elections if the
Government at the Centre and the body
entrusted with this responsibility is
interested to do so. This has been proved
by the recent elections beyond doubt.
Secondly, it gives us a realization that
bad governance cannot remain unnoticed
and that people are the best monitors.
The announcement of the results have
supported this contention also. Like the
Government at the center, it seems that
the State of J&K is also heading for
a coalition Government. In all
probability, there will be two major
players - Indian National Congress and
Peoples Democratic Party. This is now
time for National Conference to
introspect. The important question, which
needs to be addressed at this point of
time, is that as to what should be the
agenda for governance for the new
Government.
There are
two important aspects of governance.
First is the political governance and the
second is developmental governance. It is
my considered opinion that the new
Government should not mix the two but
address them separately. As far as the
political governance is concerned, the
new State Government should take results
of the elections as a mandate for
talk/negotiations with the center
regarding the political future of the
State. There can be a full debate on the
agenda for political governance, which
can be addressed separately. The second
and most important aspect of the
governance is developmental governance.
The new State Government should take
development of the State with all its
seriousness. The rampant corruption in
the rank and file has ruptured
development scenario of the State. Huge
amounts received in the shape of plan,
non-plan and development grant/assistance
have not been allowed to reach the
intended beneficiaries because they have
been snatched on the way by the
privileged few. In a recent exercise
undertaken to prepare a State Development
Report, it has been proved beyond doubt
that the development scenario of the
State is very grim and needs the
immediate attention of the new State
Government. The people will have a sigh
of relief if the rural development
schemes and programmes are implemented
with utmost sincerity. There are very few
people who according to the definition
fall below poverty line in the State of
J&K. It is not a difficult task to
lift them above poverty line to ensure an
era of prosperity in the rural areas of
the State.
The next
important agenda for the new Government
is a dismal rate of literacy. This is one
State where education was made free up to
college and university standards. In
spite of this, the literacy rate remains
very low. The new Government will do a
good job if they pay special attention to
the infrastructure development in
education followed by strict measures to
improve the quality on the one side and
reduce the drop out rate on the other.
The open learning system through IGNOU
can be harnessed not only to reach
far-flung areas but also to address
professional and vocational areas in
education. The next important agenda for
the new Government will be to address the
problem of unemployment. This is the crux
of the problem and increasing level of
unemployment give rise to not only
frustration among the youth but has taken
alarming turn in terms of social
deviation. The State has a great scope
for the promotion of self-employment
avenues provided the new Government is
interested to address this area of
intervention with utmost sincerity. There
are many other areas, which qualify for
attention by the new Government. It is
not possible to discuss all of them.
Suffice to say that administration and
bureaucracy needs to be sensitized so
that they shut corruption and become
responsive to the sensitivities and the
problems faced by common masses.
*(Prof.
M. Aslam, is currently Professor, Indira
Gandhi National Open University, New
Delhi)
|
Disinvestment:
Politics of economics
By Kedar Nath
Pandey
There
seems to be more politics than economics
in the opposition the Prime Minister, Mr.
Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s ministerial
colleagues have to the programme of
disinvestment. Witness the unseemly rush
to declare practically everything, from
steel making and petroleum to photo
films, "strategic" warranting
public sector presence in them. Or, the
attempt to preserve one’s reformist
credentials by saying that one is not
against disinvestment, but only against
sale of strategic stake knowing full well
that a public offer is a non-starter.
Even in these depressed market conditions
the divestiture of a 51 per cent stake in
the top oil and telecom companies would
be worth upwards Rs. 75,000 crore. That
would be more than four times the monies
Indian households invested in equity
instruments at the peak of the stock
market boom in 1999-2000.
The
message simply is this : The Indian
public simply does not have the appetite
for large chunks of shares in major PSUs
that may be on offer. Certainly, not if
there is no prospect of private
management of these enterprises with the
possibility of unleashing hidden values.
Those opposed to privatisation had better
make up their mind if they are for or
against disinvestment. They cannot claim
to be in favour of it and also advocate a
method of divestiture that is calculated
to derail the process of ownership
restructuring of these enterprises. Their
opposition has to be viewed also in the
backdrop of marginalisation of their role
in governance that is inevitable once
these enterprises are privatised; there
is really very little to govern in their
administrative ministries.
History
too is against viewing this purely from
the perspective of ideological
convictions of the protagonists. Economic
issues have always provided a convenient
cloak in the past for masking the
political agenda of the politicians.
Indira Gandhi divesting Morarji Desai of
the Finance portfolio in 1969 on the
grounds that the latter opposed
nationalisation of banks is perhaps the
most celebrated example. The issue then
was successfully marketed as a pro-poor
initiative, which ultimately resulted in
the decimation of a syndicate of
politicians brought up in the old school
of Congress politics. Now, national
security is being held out for the
opposition to disinvestment in select
sectors. The choice can hardly be
faulted. With terrorism acquiring global
dimensions and with Indian having to
brave its onslaught constantly, raising
this issue is bound to strike a chord in
public mind.
For now,
the Prime Minister appears to have
adopted an ambivalent attitude to the
game of political posturing. He spoke,
while releasing the Labour
Ministry’s journal the other day, of
how there are bound to be differences
when knowledgeable people discuss
policies. Only, this sounded more a
resigned acceptance of his Cabinet
colleagues forming pressure groups to
push for an agenda of governance that is
at variance with the consensus already
established. Yet, he also talked of how
there should be a limit to such debate
– a faint hint of disapproval of
Messrs Murali Manohar Joshi, George
Fernandes and Ram Naik’s tea-table
confabulations.
To all
appearances, he has thrown his weight
behind his Minister of Disinvestment, Mr.
Arun Shourie, and has in effect declared
that disinvestment is here to stay,
although he does not mind a "healthy
debate" on the process. Whether this
will apply the quietus to the dissension
is a moot question. For one thing, the
three Ministers, Messrs George Fernandes,
Murli Manohar Joshi and Ram Naik, who are
for hastening slowly, represent a school
of thought which cannot be wished away.
For another, their publicly expressed
uneasiness has rekindled the fears of the
RSS on the policy of disinvestment as
well as the modalities of implementation.
In
strident language, its sarsanghchalak,
Mr. K.S. Sudarshan, has come down heavily
against those who, in his view, are
striving to impose on India the
"urban-based, high energy-consuming,
labour-displacing and
ecologically-destructive" western
model of development under the baneful
instigation of the WTO, the IMF and the
scheming coterie of capitalist vested
interests. With his acerbic call for
removing those favouring foreign models
from the seats of power, he has staked
the prestige and authority of an
important and influential member of the
Sangh Parivar, which cannot be shrugged
off.
All this
is the external manifestation of the
snarling of communication in the inner
councils of the Government. In turn, it
is a sure sign of failure of political
management on the part, certainly, of the
Minister of Disinvestment, but in the
overall sense, of the PM himself.
They both
must have known that good intentions and
inherent justification along cannot
repair the damage done by neglecting to
prepare the ground adequately in advance,
and take precautions against the process
of disinvestment coming unstuck.
Issues of
both substance and procedure which are
now being raised should have been
thrashed out right at the time of
embarking on the course to the
satisfaction of not only the political
and ideological interest groups within
and outside the Government, but also the
intelligentsia and general public.
For
instance, the very purpose of
disinvestment being to bring about
greater competition leading to better
choice for customers at lower prices, one
cannot brush aside the plea that it
should not end up creating private sector
monopolies with a stranglehold on the
economy.
Similarly,
there can be no dispute about the need to
keep out of the scope of the policy
framework enterprises which are of
strategic importance in relation to
security, defence and the
Government’s prime obligation to
maintain essential supplies and services.
But the
absence of a prior agreement on a list
has led to the stalling of the process in
respect of the two public sector oil
behemoths due to the objections of Mr.
George Fernandes and others on that
score.
Whether
profit-making undertaking should be
disinvested or not has become yet another
bone of contention. All this shows that
Mr. Shourie, as a Minister, has somehow
not measured up to the reputation he
built up as a journalist. Pity! (INAV)
|
Cobbling
a coalition
By Omkar Dattatray
Election
verdict brought about a mixed, fractured
and hung assembly. It is a vote for
cobbling a coalition as the days for
single party rule have ended. Coalition
politics has come to stay in J&K as
elsewhere and there is no escape route
from it. Electoral results infact sprang
a big surprise on the political landscape
of J&K. The election results mark a
watershed in the history of the political
development of the state. It is for the
first time that the ruling party was
defeated at the electoral battle thanks
to the transparent and fair elections.
Elections put forward a fractured mandate
perhaps in consonance with the coalition
experiment of the center. Election have
resulted in a badly hung assembly and the
voters have rejected the oldest gross
root level party of NC for the time
being. It is a great set back and a shock
for the ruling party. They never expected
their debacle at the hands of the voters.
The election verdict is a victory for
democracy, peace and development. It
reflects anti incumbancy mood and the
earnest desire for a change of guard in
the state. The shrewd voters have
rejected a single party rule through the
fractured mandate and no single party in
now in a position to form a Government on
its own. Mature voters have ensured a
political change through adult franchise.
Whichever party or parties/ groups come
together to form a Government, it is
clear that voters have reposed their full
faith in the credibility of Indian
democracy and leadership. The gullible
voters have rejected the bullet and the
gun culture unleashed by Pakistan and
have shown their firm and resolute
commitment in the democracy. Thus it is a
triumph for our electoral democracy and
peace. So in this sense it is immaterial
which party has won and which has lost.
The successful elections amidst threats
and intimidation is a great set back to
Pakistan and its ISI. It is also a
diplomatic triumph for the India
notwithstanding the lukewarm attitude of
America. The brave and mature voters of
J&K have shown their magnanimity by
rejecting the philosophy of sword by
actively participating in elections at
the risk of their lives. The voters
deserve to be complimented on this
account. The attention of the world
community was focussed on J&K
election and these were taken by GOI and
Election Commission as a challenge. The
Prime Minister had assured free and fair
elections and the election results
clearly reflect the transparancy and
fairness of the elections. The election
results are the expression of the free
and fair will of the electorate and can
rightly be called as the beauty of Indian
democracy and its essence too.
People
have voted for change, peace, good,
transparent and responsive governance.
These elections have once again proved
beyond any doubt that peoples power is
supreme in a democracy. It is infact the
silent voters who are the virtual masters
in a democracy and with them lies the
ultimate power. Thus they can make or mar
a government. It is a clear message to
the rulers either deliver or quit. The
voters of this sensitive state have
rejected religious fundamentalism and
have shown their unflinching faith in
democracy and secularism. Results have
also shown that the voters have not
favoured the sentimental slogans of
autonomy, pre 1953 status, Resettlement
Act, trifurcation, Chenab development
council et all. They have voted for
change, peace and development.
But the
voters have given a mixed and fractured
mandate and have rejected the hegemony of
a single party rule of NC. It will
definitely give sleepless nights to NC
stalwarts. It is a matter of jubilation
for three year old Mufti's PDP and the
old party of Indian National Congress
(I). Many new faces have made their entry
to new assembly as independents and some
proxy candidates of Peopls Conference
have also won the elections. Some NC
rebels have also ensured their comeback
to new house. So new permutations and
combinations will be worked out by
Congress and PDP with other smaller
groups like JKNPP of Bhim Singh, CPM and
others to form a coalition Government.
Thus new political chemistry and
arithmetic is in the offing to cobble a
coalition. These are the hey-days for
Congress and PDP but the crown waiting
them is thorney and the job of governing
formidable and challenging. Neither NC,
nor Congress, nor PDP can form a
Government on its own. Any party staking
claim to form a government will have to
align with more than two parties or
groups to capture power. There are very
bleak chances of NC holding power with
the support of some independents or other
significant political formation like PDP
and Congress because they are at daggers
drawn with each other. But then anything
can happen in the murkier field of
politics because there can be strange bed
fellows in politics as there are no
permanent friends and foes in politics.
Since NC leader and ex Chief Minister Dr
Farooq Abdullah had decided that his
party will sit in opposition and will not
claim their stake in government
formation. They have accepted peoples
verdict for change. Thus given the
prevailing political environment in
J&K state, it is all the more clear
that it is now the turn of Congress and
PDP with some independents jumping in the
fray to form a government. There is some
affinity between PDP and Congress and
they also started parlays to enlist the
support of other likeminded groups or
even independents to stake claim for
Government formation. Now it is to be
seen how will the Congress, PDP strive
for a magic figure of 44 members to form
a government. The post poll alliance of
Congress, PDP is short of only eight
legislators to form a government. But
there are indications that Congress has
some understanding with smaller political
groups like JKNPP, LUTF CPM etc. The
optimism shown by Congress and PDP
clearly indicates that Govt formation is
a easy affair for them but governance is
a tough and formidable task given the
nature of a coalition politics where the
power sharears have different ideological
standing. It seems that Government
formation will see horse trading,
changing of loyalities and deserting of
parties. Somehow political arithmetic of
44 has to be ensured by the likely
alliance of PDP and Congress with other
smaller groups. Thus in the present
context it is easy to cobble a coalition
Government but it is difficult to carry
on the governance in a coalition
politics. How stable will the coalition
experiment be in the state will depend
upon how soon the parties concerned will
learn to adhere to the coalition Dharma
and how will they work out a common
minimum agenda for governance. Let us
welcome new Govt with the hope of good
governance, peace and development. Amin.
|
|
|
Crime
pandering
By Joginder Singh
The bandit called
Veerappan has struck again in Karnataka State. In
a meticulously planned operation, which is the
''hallmark'' of sandalwood smuggler Veerappan's
exploits, he fooled the Special Task Force
officials and the security provided to the
abducted victim, a former Minister of Karnataka
Government. In the last week of August, Veerappan
took Nagappa away, from his house located on the
busy Kollegal-Hanur Road, in Chamrajnagar
district. The house of the abducted victim is not
in the forest.
The nearest forest
is 15 km away. The bandit and his associates
obviously camped in or around the area, near the
scene of abduction, for at least a week or a
fortnight and studied the risk factors in detail,
besides the movement of police and forest
officials. Without proper planning it would not
have been possible to kidnap the former Minister.
The latest
kidnapping incident once again proves,
Veerappan's intelligence network is far superior
to that of the police. The handle bar
moustachioed dacoit simply barged into the house
of former minister K Nagappa near Kollegal, at
about 9.45 pm and dragged him away even as his
wife fell at brigand's feet.
Nagappa had
returned home just at that time from a function
and was talking over the telephone. As Nagappa's
wife Parimala collapsed at the brigand's feet,
begging him not to take her husband away, the
dacoit simply pushed her aside. The gang
reportedly stopped a bus, and forced the
passengers out. They hijacked the vehicle into a
sprawling forest, which has been Veerappan's
familiar play field and the area of operation for
over 15 years.
Veerappan's
familiarity with his forest has enabled him to
dodge the security forces of both Karnataka and
Tamil Nadu, with almost total impunity. The
elusive Veerappan had kidnapped Kannada icon and
movie star Raj Kumar in August 2000 and had held
him hostage for 108 days. The latest victim of
Veerappan is definitely less high-profile than
Raj Kumar and has no fan following or an image of
a pure hero in real life. But it no way takes
away the culpability of the police or the civil
administration, who forgot all about the brigand
and paid only a lip-service to their resolve to
bring him to book.
Amongst the
demands of the brigands, conveyed in a tape are
his grievances that he felt cheated, as both the
Governments of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu reneged
on their promises made before the release of film
actor Raj Kumar in November, 2000.
More than Rs 100
crore has been spent by both the Governments in
the last ten years in trying to apprehend the
elusive dacoit, who has been involved in 135
cases which are pending against him both in
Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. These cases involve 120
murders of 32 policemen, 10 forest officials, and
78 civilians.
Veerappan has used
the period from 1997 onwards to consolidate and
regroup his gang. Incidentally, the states were
lulled into a belief by the intelligence agencies
that Veerappan had outlived his effectiveness and
utility. It was also reported that Veerappan, who
had crossed 60 years of age, was suffering from
asthma.
Obviously, such
reports led to the slackening of all efforts to
nab him, in the belief that sooner or later he
would die on his own. Veerappan has converted
himself into a Robin Hood of the area, by
occasionally helping the poor in the area, where
his writ and not that of the state governments
run.
Earlier for
getting Raj Kumar, the Special Public Prosecutor
in Mysore had moved the Court, an application to
withdraw 129 TADA cases, against 129 associates
of Veerappan, for paving the way for bailing out
51 of the accused. This was to comply with one of
the numerous demands of Veerappan. Only after
Supreme Court pulled up the two state governments
to perform their constitutional duty or quit,
they desisted from falling flat before the
dacoit. The other past history of the criminal is
also worth recalling.
Major Abductions:
In 1987, he kidnapped and later killed forest
official Chidambarram. Kidnapping and killing
three forest officials followed, after two years.
He shot them dead. In 1992, he kidnapped the son
of a quarry owner, who was released after
securing a huge ransom. In 1994, he abducted six
persons including a deputy superintendent of
police. They were released later on. In 1995, he
kidnapped three forest officials for ransom. They
were released later. In 1997, he abducted another
10 forest officials and kept nine of them hostage
for 43 days.
Major Killings:
Veerappan killed four Karnataka forest officials.
In 1989, he killed five persons in his village
Gopinatham. In 1990, he killed two Karnataka
police Police sub inspectors and a constable. In
1991, he beheaded Deputy Conservator of Forests,
Srinivas. Srinivas’s sin was that he wanted
to reform him.
In 1992, he
attacked and killed 5 policemen in the police
station. Again he killed Karnataka Police SP
Harikrishna and sub inspector Shakeel Ahmed in
1992. In 1993, he killed six policemen followed
by the killing of a BSF officer, and a Tamil Nadu
sub inspector and a police constable.
Veerappan had made
the following demands before Raj Kumar was
released or escaped in December, 2000.
(Jayalalitha, however, has alleged that Re 30
crore was paid to get Raj Kumar released).
Resolve the Cauvery issue permanently;
Immediately implement the Cauvery Tribunal’s
interim award; Adequate compensation for Tamil
victims of the 1991 Cauvery riots; Declare Tamil
as Karnataka's additional administrative language
and Install Thiruvalluvar’s statue in
Bangalore.
He also wanted to
be made public the report of the Sadashiva
commission, which was appointed to probe the
alleged Task Force atrocities. Karnataka should
pay Rs. 10 Lakh to rape victims; Rs. 5 Lakh to
the kin of those killed and innocent Tamil
detenues released from Karnataka jails.
Veerappan asked
for fixing minimum wages for coffee and tea
estate workers in Tamil Nadu and Karnataka at Rs.
150 a day and Rs. 15 as the minimum procurement
price of green leaves in the Nilgiris.
The above demands
were not the handiwork of Veerappan himself, an
illiterate criminal. He is not interested in
anything except the money he could make, from
killing elephants or extortion. It is unfair to
credit him with any intelligence to make any Pro
Tamil demands he allegedly made at that time or
even now. He is a simple plain poacher and a
murder, who deserves to be dealt with for his
crimes. The only thing Veerappan deserves is
quick elimination from the scene, so that his
reign of terror could be ended.
The uproar about
the dacoit’s crimes had died down in the
last two years. The reason for failure has been
the mentality of reacting to any kidnapping or
other crime of Veerappan instead of adopting a
consistent proactive approach to nab him. Only
another strike again, has jostled the
administration to some visible activity. But one
is not sure as how long interest in nabbing
Veerappan will continue and whether it will come
to a successful end.
As compared to
kidnapping by Veerappan, let us examine how
United States deals with similar cases. The South
Philippine Muslim rebels had demanded a ransom of
$ 10 million for the release of a kidnapped
American in August 2000. This American, who was
living in Philippines, had married a Filipino
woman. The USA demanded his unconditional release
and also declared that it would not pay any
ransom or make deals with the Muslim rebels who
seized him. The Americans never paid a cent for
the release of an American citizen.
It is obvious that
large sums as extortion payments, to any criminal
or criminals encourage more kidnappings in any
country, more so in poor and impoverished one's,
like our own. While the USA supports efforts at
negotiations, for quick resolution of the case,
they rule out, any payment of any ranson.
Israel follows the
same policy of No Surrender to kidnappers or
extortionists. Our leaders talk about fighting
firmly with Pakistan’s proxy war with grit
and determination, irrespective of any cost. But
they balk at bringing a known criminal to heels,
with all the might of the State. It is only
adding insult to the injury.
Regrettably, it is
the game of opportunism being played to the hilt.
Once principles were the guiding forces. Now the
only principle left is how to garner the most out
of the system for personal benefit and damn
everything else. Unfortunately, in place of
governance, the Governments are going for their
survival on daily basis, irrespective of
disastrous consequence.
It is time to show
will and the only negotiation should be get the
criminal to surrender, so that the right message
goes all over the country, including to the
Government of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu that law
is mightier than the gun, even if a dacoit called
Veerappan is handling it. (PTI Feature)
|
|
"Pre-emptive"
or "retaliation" ?
By Tukoji R. Pandit
"Pre-emptive"
strike is now a widely discussed topic in India
when ''retaliation" would perhaps sound as
the right prescription to deal with the endemic
problem of Pak-sponsored terrorism in India. But
swimming with the rest of the world,
"pre-emptive" (strike) has become the
most commonly used word in the vocabulary of
politicians, diplomats, military men,
bureaucrats, scholars, journalists et al.
Indians who now
drop the word frequently in political and
military dis- cussions have taken their cue from
US President, George W. Bush, who has vowed to
throw out the Iraqi head of State, Saddam
Hussein, by a "pre- emptive" attack on
Baghdad. There is stiff opposition to the
"Bush doctrine" on Iraq, both within
the US and amongst its staunch allies.
In the third
world, however, the public opinion is clearly
pronounced against the US stand against Iraq,
which is seen as threatening the world peace. Of
course, the American policy makers will not
accept that their mindless action against
President Saddam may convert that region into
"the most dangerous place" on earth.
If the US action
shifts focus from South Asia to Iraq then it is
the favou- rite dictator of President Bush, Gen
Parvez Musharraf, who may be unhap- py feeling
circumscribed in his plans to turn South Asia
into a theatre of nucle- ar war.
A large section of
public opinion in India is strongly opposed to
the US decision to strike at Iraq. Even the BJP-
led NDA Government wants to sound cautious in
expressing its views on the "Bush
doctrine" on pre-emptive strike.
While in New York,
attending the annual session of the UN General
As- sembly, Prime Minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee,
tried to do a balancing trick in reply to a
question on the proposed US action against Iraq.
But somewhat to
the surprise of many in India, the Finance
Minister Jaswant Singh was more open and vocal in
supporting the "Bush doctrine" when he
followed the Prime Minister in New York to attend
the just-concluded jointmeeting of the World Bank
and the International Monetary Funds (IMF).
Justifying the US decision, the former Major in
the Indian army said: "Pre- emption or
prevention is inherent in deterrence."
During his stint
as the country’s External Affairs Minister,
Jaswant Singh had hardly hidden his admiration
for US policies, arousing suspicion that he was
pushing the country blindly into the US fold. It
is an uncomfortable thought because the US has
still not given up some of its Cold War days
misconceptions about India and takes such a
"balanced" view of India and Pakistan
that most of its policies end up in favour of
Pakistan.
Witness all the
double-standards the US has employed in dealing
with Pakistan’s home industry of preparing
"Jehadi" terrorists-shutting its eye as
the Pakistani dictator becomes more brazen in
pushing these terrorists into India, but still
insisting that Pakistan is ''key" ally in
the US-led"war"against terrorism.
However, Jaswant
Singh’s defence of the Bush-sponsored
"pre-emptive" strike theory could also
be reflecting the NDA Government’s desire to
cite the US example in getting at Pakistan to
settle scores for its policy of
"bleeding" India for almost 20-years
without suffering one bit for it.
But the Finance
Minister as also those who support his view are
wrong in defending the US decision against Iraq.
The US aim of "eliminating" Saddam
Hussein smacks of imperial arrogance and an open
contempt for all canons international law and
justice. The "evidence" of Saddam
Hussein preparing weapons of mass destruction is
not only thin but does not suggest that Iraq is
about to attack the US.
UK, the most loyal
follower of the US, has even prepared a dossier
on Iraq, which is as unconvincing as the US case.
Tony Blair’s Government has chosen to malign
India for supplying certain alleged contraband
items for the Iraqi war machine, as though it was
the only country "collaborating" with
an errant dictator.
Anyway, as far as
India is con- cerned, the debate on the need for
India to follow the US action centres round ways
to deal with Pakistan which far from eliminating
its India-specific ter- ror network has once
again strength- ened it. Given the congenital
hatred for India in the Pak establishment, only
the naive would have expected Gen Parvez
Musharraf, to really wind up his terror machine.
If India has now
lost its patience with Pakistan, the issue to be
discussed and decided upon is not
"pre-emptive" action against that
country but RET- ALIATION. A pre-emptive action
is taken to stop an attack from happen- ing. It
is an advance, anticipatory action, not a
follow-up action. Here we have a country, which
has "attacked" India frequently with
impunity, using its US-aided military machine
trying to "bleed" India by exporting
terrorism and then hope to destroy
the''Kafir" nation, the ultimate goal of all
"good" Pakistani Generals.
If, as the US
says, there is every justification for taking
"pre-emptive" action against an
impending threat, then India should have thought
of it long time ago. Well, before the Indian
Airlines plane hijack, even before Pa- kistan was
raising an army of anti- Indian Sikh terrorists
or ordering its underworld friends in Mumbai to
blast the city!
After 9/11, Gen
Musharraf yielded to US pressure to join
the"war"against terrorism and received
a prompt re- ward from the US which termed Mush-
arraf as the most important US ally- lackey, some
said in Pakistan. He had also avowed before the
world that he would wind up his entire terror ma-
chine. India’s protests at the time that the
wily General was only trying to fool the World
Cup as he would never give up his love for
terrorists were dismissed by the US and other
western countries as being exaggerated fears.
But what did
Pakistan do in India after 9/11 - after being
alleviated to the front ranks of nations
allegedly fight- ing terrorism? Terrorists from
Paki- stan and their Indian agents and asso-
ciates have been frequently killing a large
number of Indians, attacking, after regular
intervals, the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly,
Parliament House, pilgrims on way to Amarnath,
residen- tial quarters of’army, police and
other security forces, unarmed villagers who
would not shelter the Pakistani or Pa-
kistani-trained terrorists, temples in Jammu
(Raghunath Temple) and Gan- dhinagar (Akshardham)
and so on. The Pakistanis did -all they could, to
disrupt the just-concluded polls in Jammu and
Kashmir, killings not a few but hun- dreds of
innocent men, women and children. Pakistan, the
torch-bearing nation in the "war"
against terrorism, is best at killing soft
targets.
This chain of
cowardly and inhu- man attacks by Pakistan has by
no means ended; it will certainly not end as long
as the military dictator with phoney pretensions
of being a demo- crat presides over the GHQ in
Islama- had.
Pakistan’s
dark record in implant- ing the poison of
terrorism in South Asia has, ironically, begun to
bother the country. A few attacks in which almost
all the victims were Christians, either Pakistani
or foreign and the country is shivering under the
fear of "terrorism", pleading with the
US for more help for its protection. India need
not be taken in by that sham show in Pakistan
because guided as the terror- ists in Pakistan
are by its ISI and such agencies, the targets of
their attacks within Pakistan are either
foreigners or Christians. Of course, their more
favou- rite targets are Indians of all commu-
nities.
There is no shame
or regret among the Pakistani rulers in
sponsoring State terrorism. They are further
embold- ened by President Bush and the West which
is unwilling to see any "evil" in
Pakistan after discovering that all the
"evil" is concentrate in Iraq and its
leader, Saddam Hussein.
It is for India to
frustrate the evil designs of Messrs Musharraf
& Co with some resolute action not mere
rhetor- ical flourish which is the favourite
pastime of the Prime Minister and his Deputy.
Time for thinking about "pre- emptive"
action against Pakistan has long gone. If action
is indeed under consideration, it has to be
called some thing else. If it is to he termed
RETAL- IATION, so be it. (Syndicate Features)
|
|
