Daily Excelsior... Editorial

Lord Avebury's belated understanding
By: Prof. K. N. Pandita

The last five decades have seen a number of changes in India-China relations. This was a...more

What's wrong with
ex-judges as MPs?
By: Joginder Singh, IPS (Retd.)

It is a very natural weakness of human beings that we want everybody to be cast in the mould of our thoughts and schemes of things. Human nature is also susceptible to...more

EDITORIAL

SURRENDERED MILITANTS

There is good logic in Javed Hussain Shah's perceptions, assessment and discriminatory treatment being meted out to pro-India militants. Presently member of Legislative Council, he is right on course to say that ISI is not expected to take it lying down and that there is every possibility of escalation in their nefarious activities. This stands duly substantiated from continued attacks on soft targets in which many valuable lives have been lost during the current months. Such heinous acts persist despite this month being Ramzan period which should have spared from any blood spillage of the innocent. But then all such pro-Pak militants derive their sustenance from ISI of Pakistan where reckless bloodshed goes on unabated, the latest being in Bannu and Peshawar besides other centres wherein 17 innocent citizens have been brutalised to death in most unbecoming manner and in quite disregard of Islamic tenets. When they don't spare their own country, for them blood-spillage is a trait and way of life. It is so because they have no goals. They are all imported mercenaries. The more the blood spills, the better is the return for them. So they go on and on even as authorities continue to claim near normalcy in the strife torn State. This is exactly what is disputed by Javed and his apprehensions of escalation in militants activities has better logic than other assessments being reeled out by official agencies. Surely none can call it normalcy when entire front page of all the local papers give more space on militancy related activities of the ISI and their cronies. Either it is normal situation or it is not. The latter does hold good.

Himself a surrendered militant and now an MLC, he obviously has better inputs about many things and his experience on all militancy related matters outscores others. He and others of his ilk have done yeomen service by taking on pro-Pak militants particularly Hizbul Mujahideen and cleansing South Kashmir totally of their presence. It was this herculean task and the fear created by them in the Minds of HM and other pro-Pak militant outfits that facilitated Lok Sabha elections followed by State assembly elections. It is to be recorded that NC had boycotted the then Lok Sabha poll but found the pitch for electoral participation sufficiently queered by pro-India militants for the assembly election. To that extent NC owes its participation, resultant victory and assuming helmsmanship of the State to the marvellous job done by surrendered militants so much so that not a single booth could become target of pro-Pak militants during election process.

It is equally recorded that at the time of surrender and participation against pro-Pak outfits, these surrendered militants were promised respectable life, full rehabilitation including financial succour and gainful employment. This happened during President's rule. It is to be noted that surrendered militant fulfilled their part of the commitment to the last detail but Government commitment which in fact is the commitment of President of India, State being under President's rule then, have been thrown to the winds. The result of such official indifference has made them wanton targets of ISI and so far 210 such volunteers have been killed, their families harrassed and all types of abusive language used against them. If this is the reward for their loyalty to the State, to the nation and the yeomen service done in neutralising pro-Pak militants in South and North Kashmir, then none shall ever have any faith in any Government. According to him another 5000 local militants are ready to surrender but the discriminatory treatment meted out to earlier surrenderees makes quite apprehensive. It must be remembered that commitment made by one Government does not lapse. It is a continuous one, more so because normalcy is still a far cry in the State. The least Government can do is to ensure that such of the surrendered militants and their families are afforded full protection from the assaults from ISI operatives and their cronies in the State. It would be also worthwhile to utilise their expertise in taking on the left-over pro-Pak militants to remove this scourge of militancy from J&K for good. They are all sons of the soil, nationalists to the core and with good track record of having performed excellently at a time when pro-Pak militants called the shots.

EDUCATIONAL REVAMP

Some vital initiatives have been taken for reforming educational system in the State as regards Government schools. It is to be noted that despite having highly educated and top-notch teachers in Government schools, the end - product remains very poor both quantitatively and qualitatively. The reasons thereof seems to have been analysed and some reformative movement is visible. The first steps is the introduction of English from first primary class which was announced sometime back. The Ministers now informs that from the next academic session beginning in March, this policy is being implemented. This particular step would attract better in take for Government schools which in turn would result in good end-product in the long run. The password these days in English has changed over to imparting English medium all over the country. Even Punjab from Class I while W. Bengal is slated to start it from Class II. It has been realised that English remains the most acceptable common link language all over and without it students shall ever remain incompetitive both at State as also inter-state level. It is here that private schools and academies have outscored Government schools in terms of attracting good input and producing better end-product.

The second point relates to lowering of the age to 4 years instead of 6. This is also in conformity with the concept of better intake at younger age which can be groomed more efficiently than the higher age group children. This shall bring some sort of parity in Government schools with private ones. While this is done, the teachers shall have to be exposed to some re-orientation when the admission age is 4 years. Since curriculum is expected to be same for all schools going children in every school, Government or private one, it is time that Government teachers prove beyond doubt that they are second to none as regards better educational standards and good end-product.

Mr Tariq, Minister for School Education also informs that many posts at the senior rung have since been rationalised and such posts regularised to put an end to ad-hocism. This has been a burning issue. A satisfied teacher is always an asset. Another good news for the faculty is that henceforth Master grade posts would be filled up only through promotions from amongst the eligible teachers. This is another incentive for the teaching community. He also assures that tranfer policy is being evolved to make it rational, fair and equal for all the teachers. Such exercise has been negligible because of pusillanimous approach. One hopes that transfer policy would be so framed asto ensure fairplay sans favouritism and nepotism as has been the consistent wont all these years.

Lord Avebury's belated understanding
By: Prof. K. N. Pandita

Lord Eric Avebury is an honorable member of the British House of Lords. He is also the Vice-Chairman of the Parliamentary Commission of Human Rights in the British Parliament. As an elderly parliamentarian, a known human rights activist, and a person of independent views, he is much respected in political and social circles in and outside Great Britain. He has been speaking in public on human rights violations in various parts of the world. He has been occasionally presenting such cases at the UN Human Rights Commission where his statements receive due notice. Last time, he spoke on violations in Bahrain. As such, his recent views on plebiscite in Kashmir deserve a serious thought.

Lord Avebury has not been sympathetic towards New Delhi for her stand on Kashmir. Much to the embarrassment of New Delhi, he never made a secret of his critical views on some aspects of Kashmir question. Among these, were alleged human rights violations, or what he called massive Indian military build up or the right of self-determination etc. But, now there is a change of heart in and he is a much chastened man. How did this rather unexpected change take place?

It is really commendable that Indian Foreign Office and other higher circles in New Delhi let Lord Avebury visit Jammu and Kashmir this autumn. He had the full freedom of meeting a cross section of people and Government officials. He met with the leaders of secessionist, militant, nationalist, moderate and extremist groups in Kashmir. He talked to Hurriyat people, Jamaat-e-Islami echelons and many leading political personalities in Srinagar and in Jammu. This gave him the first hand knowledge of the place and people about whom he had been speaking for last many years. He has apparently understood the complexities of Kashmir question for better than while sitting in London. This is precisely what we had been writing to him.

His recent statement that plebiscite is not feasible for Kashmir is based on his personal knowledge of the ground realities. Two essential points have emerged from his independent assessment. First, large-scale movement of population in Kashmir will result in unimaginable disaster for the entire subcontinent. Second, withdrawal of the troops by both India and Pakistan from their respective parts in Kashmir is impracticable and will lead to serious consequences especially in the wake of the rise of armed fundamentalists in the adjoining regions along the Hindu Kush and Badakhshan foothills. Both of these inferences are extremely realistic. It is gratifying to note that Lord Avebury has, at the end of the day, realized the point in our logic.

The question is why had Lord Avebury been hitherto critical of India on Kashmir? How come that he now finds plebiscite as not feasible while he had been all the time harping on the so-called right of self-determination of Kashmiris? Actually, the POK emigres in UK supported by Pakistan High Commission in London and also by the Muzaffarabad-based Government, lost no opportunity in stuffing Lord Avebury's personal library with heaps of printed material on what they called India's 'repressive measures' in Kashmir. Most of this material carried on endless plethora of falsehood and fabrications. Photographs of Pakistani soldiers in action in Sindh 'Clean-up Operation' were enlarged and reproduced for presentation with captions of Indian soldiers operating against the Kashmiris. This false and fabricated material was fed to the British MPs, political personalities and human rights organizations across the world through numerous NGOs and organizations floated by ISI for the POK emigres in the U.K. Such material was bound to adversely influence the opinion of intellectuals like Lord Avebury. And he is not the only person whose independent thinking had been corrupted by the emigre lot. There are still many of them who have not been able to correct themselves in Kashmir as yet.

These emigres receive enormous funds from Pakistani and Saudi agencies to bring out protest rallies, hold demonstrations, raise slogans and collect funds for the Kashmir cause. Prime Minister or other ministers from POK travel all the way from Muzaffarabad to London to address the expectant emigres. They invariably invite anti-Indian parliamentarians and personalities from UK or USA to preside over their seminars, symposia, general meetings etc.

One could ask why did the Indian mission allow the disinformation of the ISI to succeed to that extent especially among the intellectuals in important foreign countries like Great Britain? Why does not India counter his disinformation spectre? This question is posed in many circles, and many friends have been soliciting this writer's comments on the situation. The fact of the matter is that the Indian nation state follows certain principles of good governance and norms of foreign policy which it hardly deviates. Replacing subtle diplomacy and international relations by sort of a thing called a 'campaign' even on a positive theme, is not the wont of our MEA, let alone launching a disinformation campaign'. This is among the fundamentals of our foreign policy. These fundamentals essentially emanate from our civilizational fund that places highest value of human quest for inner peace and peaceful coexistence.

As a result, Indian diplomatic circles and the MEA have become staunch believers in immortal axiom 'satyameva jayate' meaning, 'the truth shall prevail.' Hence, their perception is that time being the best regulator of affairs, must play its role in denigrating falsehood and upholding the truth. Of course, the truth takes time to prevail, and prevail it must. That much is all right to philosophize the entire gamut of human relations. The real politik demands that the MEA should have reacted seriously and not left their action to time. Much damage was done; it could have been averted.

As mentioned above, POK emigres in UK have a strong vested interest in lending their support to ISI's subversive plans and conspiracies in Kashmir. Given the policy of Islamabad towards POK and the Northern Areas, the emigres from these regions find that they have no territorial depth in their part of Kashmir. If the valley were annexed to Pakistan, they would fraternize with the Kashmiri Muslims not as much of the basis of religion but on the basis of being part of a bigger nation called Kashmiris and the imaginary vistas it opens. That is why they always speak in terms of 15 million Kashmiris meaning all the inhabitants of the original State of Jammu and Kashmir. These emigres would not like to make huge remittances to Pakistan. Instead, they would invest it in the Valley and raise properties and make the Kashmiris the hewers of wood and drawers of water. This is precisely the position to which Islamabad rulers have reduced them and their compatriots in the Northern Areas.

I remember two years ago, the Kashmir American Council, a pro-secessionist organization floated by Pakistan in the US, arranged Lord Avebury's intervention at the UNHRC in Geneva. As usual, he brought many charges of human rights violation in Kashmir against India. The sponsors arranged his press conference at the UNHRC but only the known pro-Pakistan sections of the press was allowed to sit in the room. Despite my requests, I was denied entry. The biased press brought out more than what Lord Avebury has said on Kashmir and it made an anti-India stunt.

As a leading human rights activist and senior member of the British House of Lords, now it becomes his moral duty to educate the British Parliamentarians and the public on the ground realities in Kashmir. He can build public opinion by arguing on the basis of his interaction in Kashmir. He has hinted at non-pertisan interlocutor, and the two countries should take it in all earnestness. Perhaps Lord Avebury could rope in some respectable and non-partisan NGOs at that NHRC to work for a meaningful interaction with the two embattled countries (India and Pakistan) on the basis of two fundamental premises stated above. Any such exercise has to be preceded by persuading Islamabad to stop destruction of Kashmiris by violating the international law and sending armed brigands across the border into Kashmir valley. This would be a great contribution of Lord Avebury and his team in bringing peace to a war-torn region. We are sure, Lord Avebury is in a position to make that highly desirable contribution to regional peace.

Indo-China relations: Hot and Sour
By: Girish Sharma

The last five decades have seen a number of changes in India-China relations. This was a result both of external and internal determinations. A major external factor was the superpower rivalry and the cold war. India attempted to stay aloof with some success.

China as usual always sided with both the USA and the Soviet Union at different times in pursuance of its own national interests. These alignments affected India deeply. After the 1962 war with China, India initially came close with the west. Later, the compulsions of India-Pakistan tension led to New Delhi's dependence on Russia.

But cultural revolution and leadership succession in 1970's conditioned the way Beijing looked at the world. It is in the backdrop of these initial developments that we need to position India-China relations in the coming era.

Beijing always viewed India through an ideological prism as a confrontation between capitalism and themselves as communists. In 1950, they came very close to conflict that could have errupted due to tension between the two states on China's assertion of control over Tibet.

But India didn't protest as Nehru's policy towards China was influenced by his desire to establish a non-aligned group of emerging Afro-Asian countries that would counter the immediate adverse impact of some Asian countries joining the western bloc.

China was willing to accept third world nationalist leaders regardless of their burgeois origin, as 'potential allies' in their alignment against imperialism. It also ended the isolation of China from other countries. On April 29, 1954, the two Governments signed a treaty of trade and transit on Tibet. This was also when both states expounded Panchsheel or the five principles of peaceful co-existence as a basic principle of international relations.

However, different perception of self images and interests on global question began to surface about this time more importantly on the issue of undemarcated borders. People's Republic of China's determination to undo centuries -old wrongs over lost territories through unequal treaties clashed with India's own understanding of its rightful heritage of British demarcated boundaries.

The inability to resolve this question when friendship was at its height between Delhi and Beijing, was an error which proved costly to both. The Chinese proverb proved its worth and that is "whenever People Liberation Army gains power, it advances."

The breakdown of border talks in 1960 culminated in the Sino-Indian conflict of 1962. When war broke out, Beijing accomplished its main objective of capturing 38000 square kilometers of disputed territory. Nehru's deeply held beliefs that China was as much a victim of western imperialism as India, and that it would not resort to war proved woefully wrong. Till date the issue of unresolved border dominates bilateral relations.

The next blow from China was its nuclear explosion at Lop Nor on October 18, 1964. Beijing's emergence as the fifth nuclear weapons power immediately set off a political debate within India. In those days, all non-communist opposition called upon India to exercise its nuclear option.

Chinese capability and its impact on Indian security even though not articulated adequately officially, has remained high both in India's consciousness and in its security considerations. Most of the literatures in India exposing the faults were banned and kept under the Official Secrets Act.

Chinese support to Pakistan in previous wars against India and taking a bias stand in favour of Pakistan made the relations go sour. The balance of power after 1971 was not according to Beijing's liking and in order to check India, China continued to back Pakistan's interests in the subcontinent.

By mid 70's it became apparant to both India and China to improve their relations. A leadership change was in progress in China as Deng Xiaoping's pragmatic line soon came to prevail.

Between 1981 to 1987, eight round of talks were held in which first four tried to set the basic principles and last four dealt with the situation on the ground. Inspite of the best efforts from both sides, nothing tangible could be achieved. Other issues were settled but both parties realised that the border issue could not be settled at the bureaucratic level and a political initiative was necessary.

It set a phase for Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi to visit Beijing and Deng Xiaoping also wanted to create a favourable international environment for opening up China's economy. But even at this stage only joint working groups (JWGs) were set up to be led by the Indian foreign secretary to settle the border issue and to ensure peace and tanquility in the border areas through confidence building exercise.

It was a major step towards neutralising future border relations. Besides JWGs, high level political visits too eased the tension -- first by Premier Li Peng to New Delhi in December 1991-- and both sides firmly committed to solve it through confidence building measures.

Later in 1993, Prime Minister Narasimha Rao's visit to Beijing again escalated the talks and an agreement was signed and both sides reiterated their commitment to solve border issue through mutual consultation. And during the Chinese President Jiang Zemin's visit in December 1996, four agreements were signed as emphasis was laid on economic cooperation.

Now, notwithstanding major positive developments that have taken place in mutual relations between the two nations, there continue to be major irritants.

In Chinese preception the presence of Dalai Lama in India and his activities abroad are seen with suspicion. But New Delhi has assured the Chinese that Dalai Lama is regarded only as a spiritual leader and he won't be able to carry out any kind of political activity within and from India.

Secondly, China's support to Pakistan -- technologically and strategically -- has always hindered the talks. Beijing maintained a strong and long standing security relationship with Pakistan which is based on arms and technology transfers.

The supply of M-II missiles and components of M-9 missiles and total support in conducting and nuclear tests was another blow on all kinds of talks with India, Also, the territory captured during 1962 war is still with China for which neither China is willing to give back nor India is ready to loose.

India-China relations have had their ups and downs in the last fifty years. It has been characterised by suspicion to euphoria of normalisation and finally to a stage of disengagement. Due to presence of nuclear weapons on Indo-China border, China has brought tension again in pursuance of talks.

It is necessary for peace and stability in Asia that it remains stable and positive in the future. But so may questions are still to be answered on the role of PLA. What form of China will emerge in the new international system having two of its neighbours in posing as a nuclear power?

Will it exercise restraint on the transfer of nuclear weapons and technology for massive destruction? Will China reduce over time and in cooperation with others its formidable military capability and provide greater transparency to its functions and activities? Finally, will it address along with other nations the emerging issues of the future? PTI Feature

What's wrong with ex-judges as MPs?
By: Joginder Singh, IPS (Retd.)

It is a very natural weakness of human beings that we want everybody to be cast in the mould of our thoughts and schemes of things. Human nature is also susceptible to self-justification. It is not unnatural to believe that what we say is based on experience, scriptures and the laws. Recently, a former Chief Justice of India and former Chairman of the Human Rights Commission was elected to the Rajya Sabha on the ticket of a political party.

This has raised eyebrows in various circles, whether it is correct on the part of a former judge to join politics. It has been obliquely suggested that this election has serious implications for the independence of Judiciary. It is not for the first time that a judge or a person occupying a constitutional position has entered Parliament. Earlier also a judge of the Supreme Court had resigned and contested election on the ticket of a political party to Parliament. Another judge resigned to contest election to the office of the President of India. Judges giving opinion after retirement has also come in for criticism.

A judge is also a human being. There is a Constitutional bar on him from practising in the same court where he presided. This is, as it should be. With increase in longevity, and one being used to working for long hours, retirement leaves everybody, including former Judges bewildered. After settlement of personal problems and getting used to living in a different atmosphere, not only judges, but every retired person would like to keep busy. Even for the religious-minded there is a limit to the number of hours one can spend in worshipping God or reading the same news again and again in half a dozen newspapers or taking morning and evening walks.

There is still a void in existence even with sufficient money received as post-retirement benefits and pension. Something is still missed by a person who has led an extremely busy life. If he undertakes any work, it is not for money. It is to keep himself gainfully engaged. A judge is as much a citizen, as a person who is or has not been a judge. There is no bar on the holders of any Constitutional office occupying an elective office after retirement. It is a misconception to believe that because a judge has been elected on a party ticket to either House of Parliament, it might possibly be a return favour for services rendered.

The country so far had men of probity and high standards occupying judicial offices in the Constitutional courts. There has been a single case of impeachment of a Supreme Court judge and a few cases of allegations being made against some Chief Justices and other judges of High Courts. It has to be clearly recognised that all our rulers and judges are from our society. Efforts has always been to pick up the best for all top slots. It somebody indulges in any misdemeanour, the system is there to take care of him. If it is alleged that some people always get away, a mid-course correction is called for to rectify the loopholes in the system or changeover to a better system.

Any official after retirement, including a judge, would like to continue working, to believe that he is a useful member of the society. It is a normal human feeling that the moment you feel that you are not contributing anything worthwhile to the society, the desire for living ends or gets diminished. Politics is a maligned profession. Some politicians are synonymous with all the evils afflicting our society. Is it not a good thing that people who have held high positions in the country will be their presence in it will raise its level? Don't we all say that men who should be in politics, shy away fom it? Don't we all the time urge that it is time that some good people did enter politics to cleanse it from professional politicians whose only means of livelihood is licences, quotas, permits and recommendations?

Pray why single out only judges? Why not other functionaries like the Governors or Election Commissioners or the Comptroller-General of India? It is not fair to put any single category on a pedestal even after retirement. All retired persons are equal except the quantum of pension drawn. Retired people who have their plans for a second settlement after the public service is over. If you are fit and in a position to work, your nature will compel you to work. If you don't have a purpose in life, then you are only waiting to die. There is no concluding chapter in life as long as you are alive. There is always some more future in front than what has been left behind in an individual's life. We cannot say at any point in our life that all our problems, conflicts and ambitions have been resolved. There is always a quest for doing more and more in life, for which the retired persons might not have had the time when in service.

Those retiring from senior positions do not seek post-retirement assignments for the sake of money. The retirement has been made quite attractive with a handsome amount of cash in the form of gratuity, commutation, Employees Insurance Fund and your own contribution to be Provident Fund along with the 50 per cent of the last drawn salary as pension. The total package is almost equal to the last salary drawn. Life itself becomes a burden if you do not have any preoccupation to keep you gainfully employed. It must not be forgotten that the professional contribution of the retired people, including judges, to the society is of the highest order.

Retired people have seen ups and downs in their official career. They have nothing to lose by doing plain talk and plain advice. There is no apprehension of being superseded or denied promotion. There is no violation of any conduct rule, which requires its employees not to criticise the Government, however wooden headed it may be. The retired officials, including judges, can start a sustained campaign to make the citizens aware of their rights. They can also be involved in training programmes for law enforcement officials and sensitising the administration to be responsive to the public needs. A Non-Governmental Organisation of retired judges can constantly work as a watching on the disposal of cases by the Judiciary. Perhaps, their pressure can be more effective than any number of representations and appeals made.

The talents, skills and expertise of the retired judges as of other retired persons should be used by the Government of the day in an honorary capacity without having to bear any financial burden. All the commissions of inquiry or committee appointed by the Government and made up of retired persons should be only on no-cost basis except the actual expenses. At the same time, there is need to amend the Constitution to ensure that once a person has held one Constitutional office, he is not eligible for another Constitutional assignment. But the rights of a retired official to be a citizen cannot be denied.

Another malaise affecting the society these days is making wild allegations against public men and private citizens, when they have reached a fairly high position. How it is that no allegations were made against such people when they were in humble positions. If somebody is guilty of a legal violation, then the proper forum is either filing a complaint along with prima facie evidence in the court or with other appropriate authorities. It does not serve to politicise every action Government or a political party takes. It is time that those who matter set an example and not conduct their private warfare for settling political scores. CNF