Daily Excelsior... Editorial

Woman power in full display
MEN AND MATTERS
From B L Kak

Ms Mamata Banerjee needs no introduction. She is capable of doing anything. And if there was any doubt about it,it was set at rest by Ms Mamata herself.....more

51-year-old history of
free India
Men, Matters, Memories
By : M L Kotru

These surely must be the saddest of times in the 51-year-old history of free India. The days of intolerance, unrelenting bigotry of, uncaring men and women, .. ....more

In the line of "Fire" .......
Yours Randomly,
By: Dr. R. L. Bhat

Deepa Mehta's "Fire" is afire, gloriously. Everybody, who has seen the film not seen it or may never see it, is debating. The ....more

EDITORIAL

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

It augurs well for the safety, security and integrity of India that Explosive Substances (Amendment) Bill 1998 has been passed by Lok Sabha by a voice vote. The bill seeks to impose capital punishment on those causing deadly explosions taking heavy toll of life and property. These include RDX, PETN and HMX explosives that are normally produced by Ordinance Factories and is beyond the reach of others unless it has the tacit approval and political nod of the Government. Till date no less than 40,000 kg of RDX has been seized in this country and hardly a day passes when more and more seizures are not reported from every nook and corner of India. Such explosives cause mass destruction. This State in particular has the bitter experience of cycle borne, car borne and matador borne RDX explosions that cost loss of many innocent lives. RDX in particular continues to be seized by the day which shows the magnitude of the threat posed to the internal security by the enemies. As such explosives have come from Pakistan via its ordinance factories and channelled through ISI whch has spread its tentacles far and wide in the country, no mercy need to be shown to such carriers and perpetrators of death dance.

The old explosive act was enacted in 1908 when such highly destructive explosives were not in existence. Then the act was primarily aimed at those engaged in freedom struggle and maximum one could have access to was .303 rifle, pistol, hand grenade or single/double barrel gun. Present day possessions include rapid fire AK series of machine guns which too have been used for massacring hapless citizens. But possession or use of AK-47 or AK-56 has been kept outside the purview of the above amendment. It is upto Home Minister to explain why other deadly weapons being sent by Pakistan and with which terrorists are fully equipped and which are indeed being extensively used by ISI backed anarchists in the State and elsewhere in the country stand excluded from the above Bill. To that extent deterrent impact of the bill now passed will be nominal in that other equally deadly explosives and new devices could be used as substitutes for the ones whose use now attracts capital punishment. In fact, the amendment should not have been confined to only RDX, PETN or HMX but every other weapon of heavy destruction of life and property should have been provided for to forestall any change of strategy by the enemy.

One tends to quote opinion of Congress Stalwart SB Chavan who has wide and varied experience having held at important slots at the Centre including Home. He has made special mention of TADA which did come handy for curbing ISI activities by nabbing their agents indulging in sabotage and other heinous acts. He says in its absence, present laws on the statute book are not enough to have the desired results. Although he mentions some misuse of TADA by several State Governments to settle political scores, the law which was upheld by the Apex Court could have been provided with adequate safeguards to avoid any misuse. Tamil Nadu Government was quick to react to Coimbatore blasts and lost no time in enacting PUDA which has more or less same provisions as the TADA. Maharashtra Government too finds handicapped in the absence of sufficient deterrent laws to take on the mafia and other anti-national activists. If TADA was bad and allowed to die unceremonious death due to political expediency of vote pocket culture its scrapping or non-existence of any other parallel law has indeed given massive thrust to ISI activities which have spread its tentacles in every nook and corner. The need of such law is all the more acute in J&K which continues to be the wanton target of subversives and agents provocateurs let loose on the State by Pakistan. On the one hand Government says that it wants to wipe out insurgency. On the other hand it shies away from equipping itself with adequate laws to take on the foreign-sustained agents with single minded pursuit. The law of course is meant for the crooks, for the criminals and for the saboteurs. To that extent all possible safeguards have to be provided far to prevent gross misuse against political adversaries.

What the above bill has done is only symbolic exercise. Much more needs to be done to make it a fatal proposition for all foreign sustained agents who are hell upon spreading anarchy with the ultimate objective of causing balkanisation of India, a goal that continues to be pursued by Pakistan backed by America. It is good that Congress has lent full support to passage of the amendment to the 1908 Explosive Act. It is however a sad commentry on those parties that opposed even such token amendment for taking on nations enemy. Such parties that opposed the bill are CPM and RJD. They want terrorism to be curbed 'politically' rather than with deterrence of capital punishment. This shows how bereft such parties are about the serious threat to internal security from foreign supported agents who continue to blast peace and tranquility of hapless citizens in almost every part of the country.

ILLEGAL MIGRANTS

Governor of Assam, Lt. Gen (Retd) S K Sinha has done some plain speaking about the unabated influx of Bangladeshis into Assam in particular. According to him it poses immense threat both in the short and long term to national integrity and security alike. Its immediate impact is reflected in changing the demographic character of Assam where local population has been reduced to minority while illegal migrants from Bangladesh call the shots. His apprehensions stem from the fact that ultimately such migrants would swamp Assam people totally and severe the North East from rest of the country. This is all the more possible because of large scale ISI activities going on in this border state. Friendly relations with a neighbour apart, it is the sovereign right of any country not to expose its borders to reckless illegal migration. Friendship cannot be at the cost of national security.

General Sinha has some useful suggestions to stem the rot. While it may be impossible to push back over one crore Bangladeshis it is indeed desirable that they are identified as such with issuance of proper identity cards so that impact of demographic invasion is minimised in the border State so strategically located. Strategic location implies closeness with China, Burma, Bhutan and Nepal border while wall to wall contiguity with Bangladesh. Such identity cards obviously makes them stateless citiznes without any right to voting or purchase of immovable property. The second suggestion made by him is a friendly gesture towards Bangladesh. Sinha wants this country to help Bangladesh economically so that its youths get more employment opportunities to make migration to India not so attractive. Second, he wants good financial back up for education of women in Bangladesh as literacy reduces population growth, checks fundamentalism and general awareness of rights enjoyed by citizens in Bangladesh. Third, there is the suggestion to fence Assam border with Bangladesh to prevent any further illegal migration. Lastly, he wants the IMDT (Illegal Migrants Determination Tribunal) and its replacement with comprehensive law which should act as disincentive for illegal migrants.

Woman power in full display
MEN AND MATTERS
From B L Kak

Ms Mamata Banerjee needs no introduction. She is capable of doing anything. And if there was any doubt about it,it was set at rest by Ms Mamata herself the other day when she tested the might of women power to the advantage of Mr Daroga Singh Saroj’s tailor.The two MPs who offered the sorry spectacle to the Lok Sabha and the country do not feel contrite, nor do they see any reason to apologise to the House for their conduct or even to each other.

On the contrary, one is blaming the other. At stake: Women’s Reservation Bill in Parliament. Neither forward nor backward. That seems to be the fate in store for the Bill. Will the measure continue to remain the political shuttlecock it has become or is there a possibility of a breakthrough? If the legislation somehow gets past Parliament and even becomes an act, will it make any significant contribution to the empowerment of women? Does the proposed 33 per cent quota to be consumed entirely by the "elite class", leaving nothing for the "exploited class" ?

Can a compromise at all be worked out between those wanting backward classes and minorities also to be provided special quotas and others who insist on an omnibus 33 per cent for women as a whole ? Such are the questions that have been thrown up by the Government’s decision to push through the Bill in its original form without any changes. Some parties, notably AIADMK, have indicated that they will move amendments seeking quotas for the backward classes within the 33 per cent allocation.

Some other parties, notably the Rashtriya Loktantrik Manch of Mr Mulayam Singh Yadav and Mr Laloo Prasad Yadav, have said that they will neither allow the Bill to be introduced nor allow the Lok Sabha to transact any business if the Government insisted on pushing through the Bill with Congress support. When will "great leaders" of India see light at the end of the tunnel ? At this rate possibly never. As it is, the nation has good reason to feel infinitely sad over the unprecedented incident when the Lok Sabha had to be adjourned following a fracas involving Ms Mamata Banerjee of Trinamul Congress and Mr Daroga Prasad Saroj of the Samajwadi Party.

It was the first episode of its kind in our parliamentary history, amid whatever the excuse or provocation, it has not enhanced Parliament’s or the members’ dignity one bit. The Samajwadi Party, which was already on the warpath on the issue of the women’s quota Bill, has found two handy issues to spend its ire on; it has threatened to stall proceedings till Ms Mamata Banerjee tenders an apology and till the Speaker takes action to punish her. In the midst of these traumatic developments women members, reportedly under Ms Mamata Banerjee’s leadership, have served notice that they will stall proceedings till the Bill is passed.

After the BJP jettisoned its plans of fielding its candidate for the Deputy Speaker’s post, the election of Mr PM Sayeed was a mere formality. Mr Sayeed’s election is noteworthy not only because it is a well-deserved honour for a member who has had nine consecutive terms in the Lok Sabha but also because he will be the first Muslim Deputy Speaker. The fact that he has had nine successive terms in the House may convey the impression that he is the seniormost Lok Sabha member.

In fact, there is only one other member senior to Mr Sayeed. He is Mr Indrajit Gupta who has had 10 uninterrupted terms and has also been given the Best Parliamentarian Award for 1995. Mr Indrajit Gupta entered Parliament in 1960 while Mr Sayeed came in 1967. What makes Mr Sayeed’s career interesting is that his constituency, Lakshadweep’s population is only 60,000 and the total strength of the electorate about half that size, and they have voted for Mr Sayeed election after election. However, as Minister of State for Home under Mr PV Narasimha Rao’s leadership, Mr Sayeed controlled the entire Delhi police whose strength is more than 60,000 !

Two persons who are unlikely to rejoice over Mr Sayeed’s election will be Mr Madan Lal Khurana , Parliamentary Affairs Minister, who fought tenaciously all these months asserting BJP’s claim for Deputy Speaker’s post as a matter of right and not as a concession. Even when there were signs of all the Opposition parties coming together in favour of Mr Sayeed, Mr Khurana refused to give up. He Admitted that the BJP gameplan went up in smoke only when Ms Mamata Banerjee launched a campaign in favour of Mr Sayeed. And Ms Jayalalitha’s support for the Congress candidate crushed whatever resistance was left in Mr Khurana.

The other person whose disappointment would be even more acute is Ms Rita Verma, the BJP member from Dhanbad who had hoped to sail through as the party’s official candidate. This is the third term for her in the Lok Sabha. But she can console herself with the thought that there will be yet another chance for her to try her luck - provided she gets elected once again, and the BJP comes to power at the Centre once again,and it decides to nominate her once again. Many ifs and buts, undoubtedly, but,then,she is only 45,and the best is yet to be.

Two women also were the innocent cause of intense political speculation during the week that was, setting off tremors in distant Karnataka, about an imminent collapse of the JH Patel Government. It began with a call on the former Prime Minister and Janata Dal leader, Mr HD Deve Gowda, by Ms Mamata Banerjee. Ms Mamata has nothing to do with Janata Dal politics nor has she any political axe to grind in Karnataka. But all kinds of rumours were set off after the meeting.

Hardly had the rumours died down when Ms Sonia Gandhi also called on Mr Deve Gowda sparking off a fresh round of rumours. Telephone wires between Delhi and Bangalore buzzed and buzzed and buzzed till clarification came that the ladies had just paid courtesy calls on the former Prime Minister. Matters got even more clarified when Mr Deve Gowda returned the courtesy by calling on Ms Sonia Gandhi on her birthday to wish her.

Former UP Chief Minister and Bahujan Samaj Party leader, Ms Mayawati, was also in the news. This time with an unusual demand for Governmental intervention. She feared a threat from her own security guards on the pattern of the fatal danger which overtook Mrs Indira Gandhi who was assassinated by her own security guards. Ms Mayawati complained that the BJP Government in UP had assigned upper caste security guards not to protect her but to render her vulnerable to their vindictiveness. She fears that since she is a Dalit, the upper caste guards may eliminate her, and she wanted the Central Government to intervene and ensure real protection for her.

51-year-old history of free India
Men, Matters, Memories
By : M L Kotru

These surely must be the saddest of times in the 51-year-old history of free India. The days of intolerance, unrelenting bigotry of, uncaring men and women, occupying places of power and prestige in our socio-political lives, opting to look the other way. The days when a woman corporator is burnt alive because she asked for drinking water for people living in a Bombay slum, when semi-nude Shiv Sainiks gherao the house of a much loved Indian, for the simple reason that he had filed a public interest litigation in the Supreme Court, when a member of the House of Elders, a man in his 30s, insists on calling the same respected Indian a Pakistani. The days when reckless men are urging their flocks to prepare for a dooms day do-or-die fight to take over shrines sacred to many other as well. The days when political morality has touched a very low ebb indeed, when the criminal and corrupt go hand in hand, strutting across the grim Indian political stage as so many peacocks.

One would have imagined that in such a distressing scenario we would allow our last remaining hope- the country's armed forces- to remain untainted by controversy, a disciplined, secular force of which all of us have been proud this past half century. But, no, our mindless bureaucracy (the civilian variety) has got so inured to power- its misuse to be precise- that it believes in its own supremacy, rendering misleading advice to ministers most ill-prepared to handle the onerous responsibilities of their office. There have been controversies in the armed forces in the past going back to the Krishna Menon- Gen Thimayya brush-off. There have been supersessions of very able commanders such as Lt Gen Kulwant Singh, Lt Gen Prem Bhagat, Lt Gen Sinha but somehow all these were sorted out, or, at the very least, not allowed to develop into public controversy.

Alas, the Services too are being contaminated by the virus that had so far only infected the politicians and the bureaucrats. We had last year's public controversy over the pay structure of fighter pilots and ground staff including engineers and others. The ham-handed manner in which Air Headquarters handled it has left bitter memories. Armed forces had until very recently depended on the Directorate of Public Relations of the Defence Ministry to do their PR but now we have a lot of spin doctors around, giving us daily doses of unsavoury news about the three Services. ''News'' leaks have become a commonplace, the ''leak'' caused sometimes by an aggrieved officer and at other times by a mischievous bureaucrat out to settle a score with an officer or may be even with his own Minister or Ministry. Unfortunately senior officers have started rushing to courts to seek redress. You had last week the case of the Delhi High Court quashing the appointment of Lt. Gen H R S Kalkat as General Officer Commanding, Eastern Command. The Court ordered the appointment instead of Lt Gen Kadyan who had reason to believe that he had been superseded unfairly. The Solicitor General claimed the next day that the government would appeal against the ruling. I am not taking sides but must we inflict such indignities on the fair name of our Armed Forces and at such high command levels. As if this was not distressing enough, we are now faced witha most piquant situation, all of the making of the Ministry of Defence. The Ministry announced the appointment of Vice Admiral Harinder Singh, after obtaining the clearance of the Cabinet Appointments Committee, as the Deputy Chief of Naval Staff (Operations). It so happened that the Chief of the Naval Staff, Adm. Vishnu Bhagwat had already appointed Vice Admiral Madanjeet Singh as the Deputy Chief of Staff, as an officer of his choice and merit. The appointment made by the Chief was undoubtedly in an officiating capacity but then he was well within his rights to make the decision. The Ministry should have known this. There is a clear cut provision for such appointments being made on the recommendation of the Chief, be he of the Navy, Army or the Air Force. The Navy Act, passed by parliament, makes a clear provision for it. Indeed, all the three Chiefs have been given a free hand in making such staff appointments. The government has to go by the Chiefs' recommendation in all such appointments.

This dispute, as it is, has caused much anger in the Navy. More so because Vice Admiral Harinder Singh has not only made the Navy Chief and his wife the target of his statutory complaint to the Ministry of Defence but has also made a series of other unwholesome charges against his Chief in a writ petition pending before the Calcutta High Court. All this need not have happened had the bureaucracy shown understanding of the basic structure and ethos of the Indian Armed Forces. The bureaucracy could not have been unware of the fact that the Indian Armed Forces headquarters, unlike those of some other countries, have not been incorporated in the Ministry of Defence but kept out of it. The Chief of staff is the operational commander of the forces and is answerable to the Government. Since he is the commander of a fighting force, the command structure has to be coherent and work like a team under him. The Navy Act as well as the Army and Air Force Acts have laid down that all senior appointments shall be made on the "recommendation" of the respective service chiefs and not merely "in consultation" with him. This, on the face of it, is a sound principle if the combat efficiency of the force is to be maintained. This is true of all senior appointments including that of the Deputy Chief of Staff (operations). In the present case, apart from the fact that the Ministry of Defence is trying to restrict the powers of the Naval Chief, it is also indirectly trying to impose on Admiral Bhagwat on officer (Vice Admiral Harinder Singh) who is fighting court cases against him. The Ministry of Defence should clearly have known how the command structure in the Indian Armed Forces works.

If it's the Government's case that the command structure needs to be altered then it is open to it to merge the Services Headquarters with Ministry of Defence and passing on operational responsibilities to the theatre commanders. Only then would the Ministry of Defence be justified in treating principal staff officers as staff appointments which in effect means that the Ministry could in that case make the appointments in its discretion. By acting in the manner in which it has, the ministry is clearly in violation of the the Navy Act and consequentially Admiral Bhagat is well within his rights to argue that he cannot be party to such a violation of the Act. He is interpreting, and correctly too, the law which binds him and the Government in the interest of the Navy as an effective combat force. The Atal Behari Vajpayee Government has not particularly distinguished itself in any major field, let it not be said to its discredit that it even contributed to the erosion of the apolitical character of the Armed Forces. The Prime Minister and the Defence Minister should impress on the civilian bureaucracy the need to understand the nuances in the structure and culture of the armed forces. Admiral Bhagat, by refusing to accept Vice Admiral Harinder Singh is upholding the highest traditions of the Services. It would be foolish to see his actions as willful defiance as, I am sure, many civilian officials will be wanting to interpret it for their political masters. It simply is not defiance. The Stakes are very high when it comes to dealing with armed forces of the country. It is not just a matter of a posting. It boils down to maintaining high levels of discipline, effective command and combat efficiency of the Armed Forced. Above all it also involves the apolitical character of our armed forces. Without going into the merits of Vice Admiral Harinder Singh's case, it is an odd taste that he should be asked to serve as Deputy of a Chief whom he has accused of being motivated by consideration other than his ability.

In the line of "Fire" .......
Yours Randomly,
By: Dr. R. L. Bhat

Deepa Mehta's "Fire" is afire, gloriously. Everybody, who has seen the film not seen it or may never see it, is debating. The central question would appear to be: Does Fire glorify an abnormal sexual practice viz lesbianism. But, that should not be so. Different people would interpret the emphasis of the film differently. Besides, when it is called an "abnormal" or "deviant" or 'unnatural' practice, a moral judgement has already been passed; the person has already committed his or her self to a particular view-point. For different people the film will would also mean different things. A discussion on that score would only be rhetorical. Do we or do we not accept homo-sexuality as a phenomenon? If hetero-sexuality i.e. one type, is okay, there must not be much wrong with the other type. Right? What about Sadism? What of bestiality? These, too, are forms of sexuality, ain't they? Count de la Sade (from whose name the word "Sadism" comes) is almost a cultifigure in the West, now. In any case, he is not looked upon with much disapproval in this end of the 20th century. So, is Sadism alright? Some people you know, may have a sadist streak, naturally!

The truth is that there are no "rights" or "wrongs" in morality of behaviour patterns. The standard of moral stands is societal approval. Approval or acceptance comes not from any absolute truth, but from practice. In Homer's Greece it was normal (or moral) for motley suiters to woo Penelope, even as her husband Ulyssus was fighting for their 'honour'. The England of early 20th century was shocked by Lady Chatterlay's lover. D. H. Lawrence was charged with obscenity and dragged to the courts. Indians had made Vatsayan into a celebrity, not censored his Kama Sutra. Puritanism, a blind exclusion of any view, any interpretation that goes counter to the percepts and practice of majority of the people, is not the Indian way. That freedom of thought and act is also the Indian strength. That probably, is the reason why India is a flourishing democracy -- ah, yes a flourishing one for all its ills! -- in a sea of intolerances, theocracies and de facto dictatorships.

But India has also a morality -- as good a morality as any in the world. Given a choice one would any day choose the Indian way. Probably, that is because one is accustomed to it, but also because the other ways are as flawed as this one, if not more. So, shouldn't this one be preserved? No. Preservation here means a conformity, a denial of any new ideas and rejection of the emerging facts. It means imprisoning life, in a time frame that is, say a thousand years back in the past. That is anachronism. A cultural anachronism is as bad, as abhorent, as a moral degradation. The only choice here is a living, changeable, but not a drifting cultural perception. That perception may reject "Fire", or accept it but it would not allow taking up sticks and stones, or bombs, against it. That culture would also frown at attempts to peddle sensuality in one garb or the other for a fast buck. The general rejection of the so called adult films, which hardly run more than a week at a place, is clear proof of rejection. "Fire" too may have died in a fortnight, and gone un-noticed, had it not been turned into a cause of sorts. Pooja Bhat's "Tanhai " made on a like theme, sank without a trace. So, did "Dairay".

If there is anything that Indian culture rejects outright, it is violence. And so, should every civilized culture believe that force is not the means to settle points of difference. Calling Dileep Kumar names was immaturish, in bad taste and a clear sign of intolerance. Intolerance is out, but protest is not. Shiv Sainiks have as much a right to protest against the film, as its makers had to make it. Yes, including a semi-nude protest procession, so long it remains non-violent, unthreatening. There appears a strange but good logic to the nude procession of Shiv Sainiks in the vicinity of Dileep Kumar's bangalow. Dileep Kumar, and now a good part of the film industry, feels that Deepa Mehta has a right to shock the moral attitudes of Indians by putting lesbianism into full view. Granted. But doesn't anyone -- Shiv Sainiks for example --- have a balancing right to protest against it. Or, to shock the liberals in their turn? It would be interesting to know how they react to the presence of semi-nude people around them in, say, a party or at a function. For that is freedom -- freedom of the film - maker and the freedom of the protestor. Both freedoms deserves respect. Both together would determine the level where the Indian morals should stand and to what range the liberal sparks should fly.

If the object of making Fire was to focus the national attention upon the sexuality of Indian women, Deepa Mehta should be happy for the controversy that has arisen around the film. It has made the theme of the film a national debate. Even the calls for a ban should be welcome. But Ms Mehta is unhappy and wants the film to run. And, earn revenue? Probably, she is genuinely earnest. Alas, the social motivations of a commercial enterprise are always suspect!