EDITORIAL
LoC
strip
Not even Pakistan
has denied that terrorists are infiltrating from
its soil into Jammu and Kashmir. Its plea, that
the terrorist infiltration goes on despite its
best steps in curbing it, are not accepted by
all, though of late questions have been raised
about how influential the Pak Chief Executive is
in the present Pak situation and schemes. Even if
the Pak plea of helplessness in curbing
infiltration is accepted, the task of stopping
the terrorists from coming into the State remains
a prime one. Rather, it becomes more urgent.
Given that lack of control on the part of Pak
administration, the particular terrain of the
State, especially that along the Line of Control
has made it difficult for the fully deployed
Indian army to completely stop the ingress of
marauders into the State. Hence the decision of
the army to install sensors along the LoC, and
also to employ unmanned flying vehicles along the
Line for greater vigilance to cheek this traffic
of terrorists. But it is doubtful if cent percent
results would be achieved with this advanced
watchfulness, though it certainly mould help
reduce the incursion of the terrorists.
A more certain
means, that has been mooted earlier also, is to
clear the strip along the Line of Control and
hand it over to the army. As it is, the areas
adjoining the LoC have proved to be a harsh
habitat for the people living there. Half of the
villages are permanently uprooted due to Pak-
shelling, which despite the Pak pleas, thoroughly
coincides in time and space with the infiltration
bids. Those people may visit their villages to
oversee their properties or try to plant a crop
there, but they have nearly given up living there
for good. Another half, especially in the Kathua
and parts of Jammu district are still there but
live a precarious life amid the Pak shelling,
mine-filled fields and frequent uprootings. All
of them have been petitioning the Government to
resettle them at some safer place where they
could eke out their lives without the constant
threat of bullets seriously curtailing their
movement, life and commerce. With the Indo-Pak
standoff showing no signs of abatement, and the
instability across the border as well as the
terrorist activities there either with or without
the connivance of Government not ceasing, these
people are doomed to living a life of ceaseless
suspense.
Then there is the
vital question of controlling the terrorism. This
would not be accomplished unless the flow from
the borders is completely checked. We have had
twelve years of a heightened presence along the
LoC and six months of a full deployment in
readiness for war. All that we have to show for
that is that not only does the infiltration go
on, even other people, particularly Bangladeshis
are using the border for a quick
‘passage’ to and from Pakistan.
Hundreds of them have been seized during the last
few months, and it has become virtually another
problem for the security on how to lodge them,
treat or dispose off them, without jeopardizing
the security. It is clear that this border needs
be sealed. Barbed wire has not proved very easy
an option, as it has turned out to be the prime
target of the Pak army. The best way to seal the
border, therefore, is to resettle the border
people at a safer place with compensation and to
hand over the areas adjoining the border and LoC
to army to put in a scaling corridor there. The
costs would not be more than what the security
measures now entail, and there would be no
further loss of life, neither of the people of
this State nor of the security forces along the
Line.
Patience
wearing thin!
The prolonged
period that the new Government in the State is
taking in getting installed has begun to wear out
its enthusiasts both among the people and the
political parties. The latest development is the
decision of one ardent supporter, Panthers Party
to review its unconditional support to the
expected Government. While the front of
independents still appears to be active, the
deadlock among the main contenders must be
telling upon it. Thus when Farooq Abdullah stated
that no Government in the State could be formed
in the State without the help of National
Conference, many people believed that he was
talking a truism. How frustrating that must have
been for the people who had enthusiastically
voted for a change is obvious. How luring, or
destabilizing it can be for the sundry free
floating members in the new assembly can be
easily guessed. One thing is certain that the
people would not like how their vote was played
with. But, the fear of the vote being hijacked is
something that the people at large may not be
able to help.
And, that mould be
a great travesty of the wholesome hopes that the
elections have raised. Somehow horse-trading has
been greatly frowned upon by the electorate and
the elected representatives. But would it be
permanently prevented, or permanently avoided?
That is something the leaders thrown up by the
recent election must mull with great thought. For
it is not a Pakistan here, that can go without
Government, that does not expect the Government
to be in place for months and may not even feel
the difference even after a new Government gets
installed there. This here is a people, who know
that their vote counts, that their voice matters,
and that they can get what they want and must get
it. It just would not do to frustrate that hope.
Nor tire it out without cause or reason, as we
have seen of the enough, every dispensation that
ignores the people comes to a fall. And every
scheme that opens the way for an underhand
practice or hanky panky is a travesty that would
not be allowed. It is in plainly in nobody’s
interest to wear the patience of the people thin
or to make them amenable to other permutations
and combinations.
|
 |
Translating
Dogri poetry into English
By
Ravinder Kaul
''Translating
a poem is a lot like writing a poem
yourself. You have to know what you want
to say. You have to feel what you want to
say. You have to be focused. There are a
thousand other jobs that are easier,
better paid, and eyesight-saving, but
translating has its own glories. Putting
poems into another language is one of the
best ways to share culture, honor poets,
and remind us that we can transcend
geography.'' (Jennifer Liddy)
It is one
of those rare occasions when one is
witnessing a pioneering effort on part of
the Dogri Department of the University of
Jammu, which, in collaboration with
Sahitya Akademi, New Delhi is organising
a workshop on translating Dogri poetry
into English. It is the first workshop of
its kind being held in Jammu and this
effort needs to be applauded
unreservedly. To my knowledge there are
only a few books of Dogri poetry
available in English translation. Of
these, two readily come to my mind. One
is a collection of Smt. Padma Sachdev's
poems rendered into English under the
title ''A Handful of Sun''. Most of the
poems in this collection have been
translated by Col. Shiv Nath, who can
undoubtedly be given major credit in
introducing Dogri literature to the
English speaking people. However, some of
the poems in this collection have also
been rendered into English by Arlene
Zede, Mrinal Pande, Dr. Karan Singh,
Iqbal Masood and Padma Sachdev's husband
Surinder Singh.
Another
book of Dogri poetry in English
translation that readily comes to my mind
is Dr.Karan Singh's rendition of Dogri
folk songs published under the title
''Sound and Light''. Col. Shiv Nath has
translated most of the Dogri poems into
English in the recently published issue
of Indian Literature (May-June 2002)
published by the Sahitya Akademi. Yet, if
I am asked to choose the best translated
book of Dogri poetry into English till
date, I would unhesitatingly choose ''The
Representative Dogri poems of Narsingh
Dev Jamwal'' translated by Laxmi Narain.
This small collection containing 42 poems
must serve as a benchmark for all
potential translators of Dogri poetry
into English.
So, how to
go about the task of translating Dogri
poetry into English? Out of a lot of
material that I have collected on the
subject over the past few days, Jennifer
Liddy's five tips will undoubtedly prove
to be most helpful for the potential
translators:
1. Stay
Close to the Poem. Read the poem again
and again until the words become second
nature on your tongue. By doing this, you
will be able to feel the rhythm of the
poem. You will recognize the pace, the
pauses, the beats, the swirls of energy.
2. Know
the poet. If you are lucky enough to pick
a living poet to translate, write to him
or her. Get to know the person; ask him
or her questions about the poem. What was
the poet thinking when writing the poem?
What does the poet think the poem means?
Is there any imagery or language that is
repeated? Is there anything symbolic from
his or her life? What does the poet think
of poetry? The more you know about the
poet and his or her life, the better able
you are to understand the nuances of the
poem. If, however, you choose a poet who
has passed on, your job is a little
harder. Try and find out as much as you
can about the poet’s life. Be
familiar with the poet and you will get a
sense for the poem.
3. Go for
Grace. When you translate a poem, your
job is to stay as close to the meaning as
possible. That said, you also have
artistic license to use (not abuse) the
meaning to make a clear and graceful
translation. Translating slang is an
excellent example of when to use artistic
license. Remember, you want readers in
your language to enjoy the poem, not
marvel at how well you can directly
translate words.
4. Be
Wary. This tip is for those of you who
think translating takes just a few
minutes. There are some excellent
dictionaries and phrase books. But do not
rely on them to give you the
end-all-be-all translation. You can use
these dictionaries as a guide. They may
help get to the bones of the poem but
your job is to put heart and live
language on those bones.
5. Take a
Deep Breath. When you finish a
translation, sit tight for a few days,
maybe even a week, before you go over it.
Take some time to think about something
else, in your own language. Then come
back and see where the gaps and the
goodies are.
One would
like to conclude with a quote from Barry
Keane, one of the finest translators of
Polish poetry into English who says 'If
you love doing something then you'll do
it well. If a poem moves me sufficiently
for me to want to translate it, I sense
that the poet is extending a hand of
friendship from beyond the grave.
Unfortunately, many of the poets that I
enjoy reading have never been translated
into English, at least not to my
knowledge, so any translation I write may
somehow affect the poets literary legacy.
That's some responsibility!''
|
MEN
AND MATTERS
Date:
October 26. Year: 1947
By B L
Kak
Historically,
it was ‘Dogra House’ first.
‘Kashmir House’ came into being
later. The ‘Dogra House’ was
headed by Maharaja Hari Singh. And the
head of ‘Kashmir House’ was
none other than Sheikh Mohammed Abdullah
himself.
‘Kashmir
House’, though secular in its
character and outlook, was often found
highlighting the urges, needs,
aspirations of the ‘backward’
and ‘ignored’ Muslims of
Kashmir. Hence, the Sheikh’s total
apathy to the contiuance of the
‘autocratic’ rule of Hindu
Maharaja.
The
Sheikh’s ‘Kashmir House’,
which officially came to be called
National Conference, didn’t take
long to organise activity and expression
against the ‘Dogra House’ of
Maharaja Hari Singh.
At its
annual conference at Sopore (Kashmir) in
August 1945, the National Conference sent
out a definite political message. In his
presidential address, Sheikh Abdullah
demanded representative Government and
asserted: "This is the only type of
Government which can command the
confidence of the people. It is the lack
of responsible Government which is
responsible for inefficiency and
corruption in the administration".
The Sopore conference was addressed,
among others, by Jawaharlal Nehru, Khan
Abdul Ghaffar Khan and Abdus Samad Khan,
a prominent leadeer from Baluchistan.
An
important development took place in
Kashmir in 1945. Maharaja Hari Singh
installed RC Kak as the Prime Minister on
June 28 after BN Rau, an eminent judge,
was dislodged. The change became
necessary to support the policy of
autocragtic ruler over the disgruntled
majority, of which the Sheikh himself was
an inseparable component. Kak was a tough
administrator; his authoritian ways,
though appreciated by the Maharaja in
particular, did not help the latter on
the political scene.
As months
rolled by, Abdullah and his followers
proved tougher opponents of the
‘Dogra House’, or Maharaja Hari
Singh’s rule. With the eruption of
serious differences between the
‘Kashmir House’, or National
Conference, and the ‘Dogra
House’ by March 1946, chances of a
compromise considerably receded; the
result was that the National Conference
launched ‘Quit Kashmir’
movement in May that year. Before his
arrest on May 20, Abdullah said:
"When we raise the slogan of
‘Quit Kashmir’ we naturally
visualise that the Princes and Nawabs
should quit all the States... The rulers
of Indian States who possess one-fourth
of India have always played traitors to
the cause of Indian freedom. The demand
that the Princely Order should quit is a
logical extension of ‘Quit
India".
Sheikh
Abdullah’s arrest was followed by
scuffles between the armed forces of the
Maharaja and the agitated Kashmiris,
overwhelming majority of them professing
Islam. As the movement gained momentum,
the Maharaja and his advisors found it
difficult to suppress it. The National
Conference was supported by the Congress
and the All-India State People’s
Conference. The Congress, at the instance
of Nehru, condemned the Maharaja’s
"policy of repression".
In a
statement issued in Delhi on May 28,
1946, Nehru expressed his sympathy for
Kashmir—’Kashmir House’,
to be precise—and blamed the State
Prime Minister, RC Kak, for the flare-up
in the region. He also accused him of
having encouraged groupism and
communalism in order to weaken the
National Conference.
"To
the Government of Kashmir I would say
that you have erred grievously in many
things but there is yet time to remedy at
least some of these errors. It is never
wrong for a Government to retrace a step
which has brought trouble in its train.
To persist in error is not
strength", Nehru said on June 12, as
he pleaded for the Sheikh’s release.
Nehru decided to enter Kashmir on June
18, 1946, in spite of a ban on his entry
by the Maharaja’s Government. Nehru
was arrested in Kashmir on June 19.
After the
action was condemned in entire India, the
ban was withdrawn by the end of July
1946. Nehru met the Sheikh. The meeting
hurt the Maharaja’s ego; the Kashmir
leader was later jailed for three years
and the National Conference was banned.
The Congress Working Committee made amply
clear its unstinted sympathy with the
National Conference from July to November
1946.
Every
passion gives a particular cast to the
countenance, and is apt to discover
itself in some feature or the other. As
the partition of India was, at last,
allowed to take place on the basis of
religion in mid-August 1947, the two
independent countries which succeeded
British raj in India began to function in
relation to each other with a plethora of
problems and compulsions inherited by
them from the past. After the entire
subcontinent, excepting Jammu and
Kashmir, was partitioned, Kashmir’s
premier political party, National
Conference, opposed joining the new
Muslim State of Pakistan.
Maharaja
Hari Singh desired to have his homeland
independent of the two Dominions, India
and Pakistan. An early evidence of the
Maharaja’s wishes, as influenced by
the then Prime Minister, RC Kak, was the
address he delivered at a Special Durbar
in the middle of July 1946. The Maharaja
said: "The second principle which
guides our policy is that so far as our
domestic affairs are concerned we must
work out our own destiny without
dictation from any quarter which is not
an integral part of the State".
After
India’s partition, Pakistan and its
supporters in Kashmir displayed their
desire and eagerness for the
territory’s merger with that
Dominion. Reports of armed infiltration
from Pakistan began to circulate in
Kashmir from the beginning of September
1947. On September 29, Sheikh Abdullah
was freed from the jail along with many
National Conference workers. And as the
month of October progressed, events took
a turn for the worse in the wake of march
into Kashmir by armed Pakistani
tribesmen.
Uri fell
on October 24. Then the raiders reached
Baramulla on October 27. A day earlier,
on October 26, Maharaja Hari Singh asked
for aid from India. Such aid, he was
plainly told, could come only after
Kashmir’s accession to India. The
Maharaja lost no time. On October 26
itself, he signed the Instrument of
Accession. And a day later, on October
27, The Governor-General announced that
his Government had decided to
"accept the accession of Kashmir
State to the Dominion of India".
Signing of
the Instrument of Accession by Maharaja
Hari Singh was followed by the swift
operations in J&K by the Indian
troops and India’s telegram to
Pakistan informing her of the accession
of Kashmir. These devevelopments played a
deuce with Pakistan’s calculations
and expectations. Mohammed Ali Jinnah and
a band of Muslim Leaguers, who had waited
in Abbottabad to ride in triumph into
Kashmir, found it difficult to reap where
they had not sown.
With the
appointment of Sheikh Abdullah as the
head of the Emergency Administration in
Kashmir, Maharaja Hari Singh and the
Muslim Conference experienced major
reverses on the political scene. The
Maharaja went into voluntary exilement
and his place as the constitutional head
of the State was occupied by his son,
Karan Singh. After he lost the
paradise—in other words, his
kingdom— Maharaja Hari Singh lived
the rest of his life mostly in Bombay
(now known as Mumbai).
‘King
is dead, long live the king’! This
expression, it has been found, is used
when the Instrument of Accession, signed
by Maharaja Hari Singh on October 26,
1947, is referred to by political, or
official, or media or academic circles.
|
Why
this distrust of politicians?
By
Vazeeruddin
A TV
channel recently organized a debate on
why the stock of politicians in India has
touched the lowest ebb. Representatives
of the Congress, BJP and the Samajwadi
Party participated in it. Though they all
stopped short of admitting that the
common people had nothing but contempt
for politicians, they dared not claim
that people had respect for their breed.
Every
participant accused the party represented
by every other of having devalued
politics and politicians. But none of
them cared to discuss some fundamental
aspects of the Indian polity. Democratic
performance is stubbornly resistant to
meaningful and precise measurement. Even
so, Indians no longer refer to their
democracy with reverent pride.
A pilot
opinion poll some decades ago reportedly
revealed 'pessimism' about the future of
democracy in India. The pessimism was
induced by "power games at the top,
greed for political power, lifestyles of
ministers and bureaucrats, emergence of
regional political parties and relative
decline in the national character."
The survey
was conducted by the Social Policy
Research Institute at Jaipur, set up by
former Chief Minister of Rajasthan Shiv
Charan Mathur.
Many
respondents were 'distressed' over the
'growing problems of poverty and
unemployment, regionalism and
communalism, corruption and black
money." Almost all of them felt that
"corruption starts at the top and,
therefore, its eradication should also
state at the top of the political and
bureaucratic ladders."
Why this
disenchantment with democracy despite the
fact that the Government has, almost
always, satisfied the criteria laid down
by eminent political thinkers for
determining the success of democracy?
For
instance, G. Bingham Powell Jr., in his
celebrated book "Contemporary
Democracies: Participation, Stability and
Violence", uses three criteria:
executive stability or durability, voting
turnout and absence of large-scale
violence.
India has
had executive stability at least until
recently. The voting turnout in almost
every general election has been massive,
and violence has not always been
overwhelming. If still an increasing
number of people seem to have doubts
about the future of Indian democracy, the
reason must lie elsewhere, perhaps in the
stuff most politicians belonging to
almost every party are made of.
For
instance, the Tehelka exposure showed to
the world that Indian politicians were
not averse to accepting 'donations' (are
they beggars to accept alms?) ostensibly
for their parties but really for
themselves. And where politicians do not
stick at making money even out of the
coffins bought for martyred soldiers, it
is surprising that the masses are yet to
take the law into their own hands.
Again,
some decades ago it was alleged in the
Uttar Pradesh Assembly that the Allahabad
Development Authority had allotted newly
built shops (meant for details and other
weaker sections) to the husband, son and
daughter-in-law of the Union Minister of
State for Social Welfare Rajendra Kumari
Bajpai.
While all
that the then Chief Ministers Vir Bahadur
Singh could say was that he would have
the charge investigated, the Opposition
had alleged that, to justify the
allotment, the ADA had recorded in its
books its 'appreciation of the fact that
the husband, son and daughter-in-law of
the minister had been working for the
uplift of the poor"! To make matters
worse, it was added that other shops had
been allotted to people 'who were
economically better off and had strong
political connections."
Even so,
such cases may remind many of what Govind
Narain said while delivering the first
part of the National Security Lectures at
the United Service Institution in Delhi.
"Objective
reports suggest that the benefits of
various poverty-alleviation schemes have
not percolated down to the most needy
people, and that only the better off and
the influential have managed to corner
most of them. Besides mismanagement,
there is widespread corruption and
deception," he added.
"The
overall impact of these schemes has thus
been only marginal. How long can one hope
to sustain the patience of these people
with mere promises? The situation could
become explosive any moment at the
slightest provocation," warned the
former Defence Secretary and Karnataka
Governor.Seymore Martin Lipset says in
his famous book, "The Changing Class
Structure and Contemporary
Politics", that "as long as
some men are rewarded more than others by
the prestige of the status structure of
society, people will feel relatively
deprived."
In India
there has been a growing awareness that
economic prosperity and distribution of
prosperity are, to a large extent,
politically determined, and this feeling
has increased the salience of
socio-economic issues as a dimension of
partisan conflict.
Syndicate
Features
|
|
|
But,
who are they against?......
Yours Randomly,
By Dr. R L Bhat
Truth is a bitter
pill and none would swallow it happily. If you
have gotten away with fib and fabrication for too
long, it becomes not only more bitter but also
‘untrue’, for by then you have come to
believe in the invention as if it alone existed.
So when the Shiva Sena Chief openly pointed out
that the terrorism ravaging the country was
something directed at things more deeper than the
administration and law and order people of this
country felt scandalized for the truth being
given out in a clear and concise manner. Somehow
the height of intellectualism has come to be
understood as a capacity to camouflage truth
while you try every possible means to allude to
it. It is nice if others name it. Better still if
they come to fight it out of the country but like
the Indian wife refusing to call her husband by
the name, the intelligentsia of this nation would
not like the true names to be given out. They
thus would not hesitate calling America names for
not being clear about action against the
terrorism in India but would fight shy of
standing up against it, striving to oust it
themselves, instituting measures appropriate
measures against it or even thinking about it in
clear terms.
When America came
under the terrorist attack, there was not a
single person who flinched at the drastic action
the American administration contemplated, who
fainted when she took it or who disapproved of
the summary legal measures to bring all people
even remotely doubtful under the totalitarian
anti-terror laws. Noam Chomsky was a lone bird
there, who had to come to India to air his views.
In the American media his one outburst was nailed
in a series of twelve counters in one
news-magazine alone. It is only now, more than a
year later that the details of the attacks on the
suspect nationals at the hands of common
Americans are coming to light. Remember the
attacks on Sikhs for being taken as Afghanis or
Laden- men? Those details are also coming to
light only now, and that too in a trickle! How
much of an adverse reaction-discrimination and
racial prejudice-they faced in academics, market
places, parking lots etc. may never be known
fully. And, all along the State there had been
thoroughly active against saboteurs, suspicious
elements and suspected peoples. The latest in the
series is that all people from certain nations
entering USA are to be fingerprinted and under
clear vigilance.
And, India? All
she has to show for her fight against terrorism
is an uncertain POTA whose implementation is more
uncertain. And yet India has been under attack,
not once but for two decades. How so the
inventive minds may see the turmoil in Kashmir,
it is a war against the nation of India,
India’s presence in Kashmir, and the
alliance of Kashmiri people with India all in
one. This war is not bothered about the
proclivity and opinion of the people there, or
their choice. But is clear in its objective of
decimating that opinion and supplanting it with
one raged against India. And it does not matter
if they have to annihilate the whole Kashmir
population to achieve that end. That war goes on
as it has been envisaged. Over the past twelve
years that it has not only taken the whole of the
Jammu and Kashmir State into its grip but has
extended to other parts of the nation as well.
That extension
runs from Kashmir to Calcutta and Coimbatore,
along the intervening territories. It courses
from Kashmir Assembly to the Indian Parliament on
to Akshardham, in one trajectory to target India.
Yet somehow it is not only a taboo to call this
clear attack on India what it is, but it appears
to be a sacrilege to see it as one. Instead, the
nation is being told to see it as something
else-anything else but the clear targeting of the
Indian nation and ethos that it is. Once, one of
the modernist progressive historians had opined
that Gaznavi’s attack on the Somnath temple
had been occasioned by his need to build a fine
mosque at Gazni, which he ultimately did with the
fragments of the Somnath Moorti forming the steps
to its entrance. Today that modernist progressive
clique is not reasoning but has grown wrathful.
Its wrath is directed against Bal Thakrey for
having said that if Indian Government were not
able to fight the terrorism out, the people of
India would have to gear up and do it themselves.
One may not like a particular phraseology, but
should the Indian mass, who hold up an oasis of
sanity in this part of the world let their hope,
being and nation be trampled by a stray gang of
people, which may have a need like that of
Gaznavi'?
Especially, when
the Government is being proved less capable of
dealing with the menace almost on a daily basis.
It may be that the same reluctance which makes
the opinion leaders of this nation shy of
cognizing terrorism, is holding the Government
back, but the net result is that the nation is
being trodden by the terrorists under their feet.
This certainly is not something that the nation
and its people should be advised to take lying
down. If two terrorists, can hold a significant
Shrine in Ahmadabad, and go down after killing
dozens of people and more than their number of
the most elite of the commandoes, what would not
a handful be able to do? And why should
they’? Why should anybody play with this
nation and its being’? And why should not
that outrage other nation arouse the indignation
of the people? If, that can be called as
something against the ethos of the nation, there
is a pressing need to redefine what the
priorities of this nation are.
Rather, a
clarification as to what this nation has been
‘allowed’ to rank as its objectives and
aims. Who has done that, and on whose authority?
For, it certainly cannot be sanctioned of the
people that they are to be ranged against their
own selves; that their nation is not to be their
prime and pivotal concern.
|
|
|
