Daily Excelsior... Editorial

EDITORIAL

Looking back and ahead

The significance of trialogue

By Abhijeet Patwardhan

Is Bachchan’s "Baghban" a lesson for Senior Citizens?

By O P Modi

Bending. Bowing.
Hoping to stand?

Dr. R. L. Bhat

With the dozen-and-more Confidence Building Measures announced the other day, coupled with DPM as the latest emissary to talk to pro-Pak…nay, Pak-propped secessionists,..........more

EDITORIAL

Looking back and ahead

Yet another October 27 has come and gone. This year the date has marked the 56th anniversary of Jammu and Kashmir’s accession to the Indian Union. It gives an opportunity to both look back and ahead. Like a pendulum the fortunes of the State have swung so far between hope and despair. The past does not generate much confidence. During the last half a century, there have been several political ups and downs. It is a major tragedy that J&K has not so far recovered the united entity in which it had acceded to the country. Moreover the communal holocaust of 1947 continues to haunt lakhs of people down the generations. Tales of violence against Muslims in Jammu and Hindus in Mirpur are the ghosts which are taking time to get buried. Pakistan is in illegal occupation of a huge chunk of the territory of J&K. Locally known as the ‘Azad’ Kashmir, the occupied territory is without any of its non-Muslim subjects much to the annoyance of the local people whose resistance to the oppressive policies of a foisted regime does not get the attention it deserves. Tearing apart the ideals of Panchsheel, China has wrested a sizable piece of land in the Ladakh region, in addition to a big strip of the occupied territory it has got as a ‘gift’ from Pakistan. In the overall milieu, if there is any silver lining in any part of the State it is on this side of J&K. It is remarkable that three distinct regions having differentreligions have managed to sail together. This is, however, not to deny that there are varied and at time volatile regional political aspirations. They have to be understood in the context of the democratic dispensation that prevails. While Jammu and Ladakh regions have nursed the real and perceived feeling of discrimination, it is the Kashmir region which has suffered the most right from the beginning. If this sounds contrary to the prevailing belief, it is because not many have been able to make a distinction between the ordinary people and the ruling elite. From a paradise the Valley had almost become a hell from which it is recovering gradually. To blame extraneous influences for such state of affairs will not convince anyone. More often than not the rootless ruling politicians in the Valley have indulged in deception and doublespeak rarely seen elsewhere. Not even one finger was moved in the right direction when the Kashmiri Pandits were forced to leave their homes in the Valley. In retrospect, therefore, this seems hardly surprising that those who had controlled the levers of power in the State between 1953 and 1977, claiming themselves to be leaders of the Valley, had just disappeared from the scene at the first sight of the gun in 1988. Those who had ruled between 1977 and 1989 had done little better in terms of providing just and beneficent governance. To their credit, however, they have stayed put suffering heavy casualties at the hands of armed militants. The introduction of the gun in 1988 had further complicated an already complex scenario. It did lure many young persons and they felt like Robinhoods while calling the shots. They became wiser as the traditions around them crumbled because of their own misdeeds. They have finally realised that they had allowed themselves to be used as ammunition in a battle that was not being fought on their behalf.

Equally disturbing has been the present scenario. Not enough homework has been done even in the latest instance in which Deputy Prime Minister L.K. Advani finds himself dragged into the factional politics in the secessionist camp. The first clear announcement that he would be talking to the Hurriyat Conference, led by Moulvi Abbas Ansari, has since been changed too often to mean different things to different persons. Lest confusion persists, Mr Advani, on his part, has let it be known that the proposed talks envisaged nothing more than the ‘decentralisation’ of power in J&K. This has visibly upset the Abbas Ansari faction which is already too weakened to give any impression that it is prepared to further compromise on its original agenda of the talks about the ‘future’ of Kashmir. Mirwaiz Moulvi Umar Farooq, one of the two key leaders lending some credibility to this Hurriyat group, has accused the Central Government of not being clear about ‘what it wants to and what it wants to talk about’. One wishes that the entire issue would have been handled more efficiently in the beginning itself. Any view that the Central Government on one end and the Abbas Ansari faction on the other may be indulging in shadow-boxing while actually doing serious business behind the scene is not corroborated by the available evidence. This is not the first time such dramatic but counter-productive developments are taking place in the State. Beginning with Sheikh Abdullah’s own ambivalent utterances in the early fifties, his arrest in 1953, Dr Farooq Abdullah’s dismissal in 1983, abortive Central Government-Hizbul Mujahideen talks not very long, and the appointment of one Central interlocutor after the other without exactly specifying their role, one can cite several instances of ad hoc thinking and functioning. Most of these developments have taken place with political expediency taking precedence over careful planning. All this has resulted in the neglect of the task of administration and governance, leave alone industrial development or exploitation of extraordinary tourism and horticultural potential. With this background in view, one should not have been very sanguine about the future. That this is not the case is a pleasant surprise. There are many positive indicators. First and foremost is our right to debate every issue. Without snatching the others’ life and liberty, we can discuss any matter under the sun. This in turn helps in the churning of our society with beneficial result as a whole. The 2002 Assembly elections have proved that democracy is now firmly entrenched in the State. There is a change in the mood and perception of the majority of the people in the Valley whose desire for peace is compelling politicians of almost all hues to articulate their views accordingly. Likewise in the case of Jammu and Ladakh, people are no more insistent upon carving out separate identities if their political aspirations are met within the existing dispensation. Leh Buddhists’ dramatic altered approach in the present circumstances is a shining example in this context. One least expected fall-out of militancy is that there is more contact between different sections of society and a better appreciation of each other’s concerns and difficulties. There is realisation that the past mistakes have to be undone. Pilgrims to Khirbhawani this year can vouch for the changed environment. Local people have accorded them a warm reception as if a missing part of their own body has been restored. For a fairly long time sane elements in the State have been advocating that the people from one region should be encouraged to visit the other regions. Their itinerary can be extended to include the regions under Pakistan’s control once the Uri-Muzaffarabad or Jammu-Sialkot bus routes are restored. In the enhanced people-to-people contact lies the hope that the unfinished task of 1947 is accomplished smoothly. Such interaction will also reduce the chances of war remaining the only option for this purpose. There is thus a rare opportunity and that it exists despite all the turmoil in the previous years is cause enough for us to hope that there are better days ahead.

The significance of trialogue

By Abhijeet Patwardhan

The Foreign Ministers of India, Russia and China had their second meeting at the sideline of the UN General Assembly. They are likely to meet again in November in New Delhi. The trialogue is "not to gang-up against any other country", but the western media has given in detail its significance, what it calls a "strategic triangle". The three countries represent the vast majority of the global population. It could be counted upon to strengthen the forces of stability in the region – and the world.

The meeting is equally significant in the backdrop of Beijing deleting Sikkim as an independent country from its foreign ministry website. Gestures often speak louder than words. In the case of India and China they perhaps speak the loudest. There has been a steady improvement in the bilateral ties among the three countries–between Russia and China, Russia and India and China and India.

The three countries are faced with similar security environment and have similar or close positions on many international issues. All of them advocate a multipolar world and the establishment of a just and fair new international order. Their economies are complementary. Russia has a special position among the three – it is a traditional ally and partner of India and also has close ties with China. Its special role could help facilitate development of trilateral cooperation. This cooperation, though just started, has gained strong momentum. On the negative side are the unresolved boundary dispute between India and China, and Beijing’s special relationship with Islamabad.

The trilateral meeting last year of Yashwant Sinha, Igor Ivanov (Russia) and Tang Jiaxuan (China) discussed matters related to the agenda of the United Nations General Assembly with the three taking "common positions on principal matters", with stress on "formation of a world order based on the superiority of the UN Charter and international law".

The talk of "strategic triangle" gained currency in 1998 during the visit of the then Russian Prime Minister, Primakov to New Delhi. At the very start of his trip, at the formal reception at the Rashtrapati Bhavan, a correspondent asked him whether Russia favoured this concept. "If we can succeed in establishing a triangle", he replied "it will be very good." However the issue did not figure in his discussions with the Indian hosts. China, too, was cautious in its reaction. Interestingly, Russia was cool to the idea barely a year ago.

This was evident during the Moscow visit of I.K. Gujaral, then External Affairs Minister. His Chinese counterpart, too, was in Moscow then. Mr. Primakov, then Foreign Minister, did not approve of Mr. Gujaral’s idea of a meeting of the three – even of the two visiting Ministers on the Russian soil. Obviously there had been a major shift in the Russian stand after a year, with caution giving place to enthusiasm, which continues till now. China, too, appears to have given up its earlier lukewarm attitude. In recent years China has been pro-active in the region, with a bigger role in ASEAN and the Shanghai six, a grouping including the Central Asian republics and Moscow. It offered a free trade area with ASEAN, well before India came out with such a proposition, and is far more active in the campaign against terrorism and religious fundamentalism. It has taken greater interest in matters like energy, connectivity and WTO. Some of the matters of common concern now are obvious, like the situation in Afghanistan, and the danger of its lapsing into religious fundamentalism, and Iraq.

All these items are expected to figure in the coming trilateral round which may also cover steps to counter terrorism. UN peacekeeping processes, reform of the Security Council, human rights and environment concerns, apart from the General Assembly agenda items. Next year they may move on to substantive economic matters. India was far from enthusiastic when the trilateral process started two years ago. It has warmed to the "trialogue" now, primarily because of the improvement in its ties with China, as evident from the outcome of the Prime Minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s recent visit there.

Not much is given out officially on what transpires in the Foreign Ministers’ discussions. To get a better idea of the rationale and scope, it is useful to refer to a parallel track II exercise – the meetings of the academics from the three countries. This initiative by now institutionalised, is not formally connected with the Government but is an authentic index of the context of the trilateral exercise, especially of common concerns and parameters of the collective approach. A detailed account of this process, which too began in 2001, is called for.

Involved in this track II exercise are the scholars from the China Institute of International Studies, the RAS Institute of Far Eastern Studies, Moscow, and the Institute of Chinese Studies, New Delhi. Both in Beijing and Moscow, the consultative process is officially encouraged and gets considerable official attention. The institutes in these two capitals have close relation with their respective foreign offices, while their Indian counterpart is autonomous and independent. The first meeting was held in September 2001 in Moscow, the second in November 2002, and the third is scheduled for November this year in New Delhi. According to published accounts, they made known, at the very beginning of the first meeting, their continued adherence to the three "no" s– the tripartite relationship is not an attempt to forge an alliance, nor meant for confrontation and not targeted against a third country. The press release, issued after the first meeting made the following points:

"Participants to the conference were in agreement that trilateral cooperation between China, India and Russia had a rich and positive potential based on common or similar positions on a broad range of international issues such as democratisation of international relations, formation of a multipolar world, opposing hegemony, construction of a fair and rational new international order, countering international terrorism, extremism, separatism, organised crime and illegal circulation of drugs."

"All the three countries are firm supporters of the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence. As noted by the participants, the strengthening of trilateral cooperation does not imply any diminution of national autonomy or of the national identity. On the contrary, constructive interaction must become a guarantee for the full development of the most valuable qualities and genius of all three peoples."

"Another common position taken by the participants was that trilateral cooperation does not imply the formation of alliances, blocs, etc."

Now some significant highlights of the discussions in the last two-years. To guard against the perception of an anti-US ganging up, the scholars went out of the way to emphasise the importance of good relations with Washington. But while taking the positive stand in relation to the sole superpower, they felt concerned over the dangers of unilateralism and the strategy of pre-emption. Hence their emphasise on active cooperation to promote multipolarity and on steps to democratise international relations.

There was complete unanimity over the need for international cooperation to combat terrorism but some felt that the approach of the coalition, under the US, needed to be tampered with caution. In some cases, the US objectives could not be shared and, in other situations, there were strong reservations to the means used by it. As seen by the scholars, the US appeared to be motivated by three goals– to eliminate Islamic extremis, enhance its status as the sole superpower and increase control over energy sources of West Asia and Central Asia.

Globalisation was seen as having both positive and negative elements. Among the suggestions to contain the negative factors were 1) joint steps to build defences against movement of speculative capital 2) sharing of the experience of the three countries in dealing with multinationals and 3) establishment of a trilateral study group on WTO.

The track II may be an independent channel but the idea mooted there do find their way to the corridors of official policymakers. That is its additional utility. INAV

Is Bachchan’s "Baghban" a lesson for Senior Citizens?

By O P Modi

Yes, partly. Partly, because every senior citizen is not going to be as lucky as Amitabh Bachchan, the hero of the picture, who plays the role of a retiring bank manager, Malhotra. Malhotra and his wife Pooja have four well settled sons who live away from their parents. Malhotra the bank manager has spent whatever he earned meeting the demands of his sons besides providing them the best education. Spending all that he had to make available the finest of everything to the sons Malhotra, much against the advice of his boss, gives away even a part of his gratuity to one of his sons for the purchase of a car. To his boss Malhotra replies, "I have four sons and they are the real fixed deposits for me". As a result when Malhotra retires he has no money to bank upon and none of his sons is willing to… ……. Well! Let us not spoil the pleasure and the lesson that you may yourself draw by seeing the movie. However, one fact needs to be mentioned here and that is: After the bitter experience of his sons’ betrayal the retired and distraught Malhotra writes a book based on his own life story. The book is published by a London based publisher. Malhotra earns millions from his book. But this kind of good luck for every retiring senior citizen is not possible.

A valuable lesson that one can draw from the story of "Baghban" is that in view of the changed social milieu one should set aside, regularly, a part of his earnings for the inevitable old age. Those who do not save for their twilight years will have to regret deeply the folly of their younger days when they could and should have done so. The other important lesson is that one should have his own "shelter" where, when they become old and infirm he and his wife - his several decades loving companion could live peacefully; enjoying their independence in their own small refuge. The "shelter" should be small; because with their children living away from them it is generally difficult for the old people to maintain a large house.

Although the movie has a happy ending for the bank manager Malhotra and his wife, who disown their sons on account of their betrayal, it fails to provide a realistic answer to the paradox of advancing age for the senior citizens in general. It does not say as to what would happen to the old and sick parents abandoned by their progeny. Or who would take care of the old man or his wife, when one of them is gone leaving the other to flounder in this world? While, given the opportunity, a person retiring at 58 may continue to work and earn for quite a few years more (say up to 65 years), what would happen beyond 65, when the second phase of the old age begins? No one would be willing to employ the oldie then. Yes, a business man may continue to work up to the age of 75 or even beyond that, provided he retains a good health. But, generally, in such cases some unpleasant experiences are always in store. In most cases the younger generation does not like the old man poking his nose in the working of the family’s joint business.

As one advances in age it becomes difficult to work efficiently due to ones failing faculties. In Hindu Shastras the Sanyasa or Tyaga is advised for persons going beyond the age of 75. People deeply attached to work and possessions, sons and daughters, grand sons and grand daughters normally find it impossible to relinquish their attachment. But it should not be forgotten that these days when the Western culture is being increasingly adopted by the new generation, old persons’ infatuation beyond a certain limit proves harmful not only to themselves but is detested even by their off spring. The fast changing social environment that conforms to the Western culture leaves no alternative for the senior citizens but to renounce unwanted attachment if they wish to retain their self respect and freedom.

How a person, who has spent all his life in comforts, is expected to take to Sanyasa at once? There has to be a rigorous preparation for taking a Sanyasa and normally according to the scriptures, it is necessary that before going for Sanyasa one should take first to Banprasta (25 years for practice of renouncement). Bnaprasta is to begin at 50 and by the time one attains the age of 75 he is expected to be mentally and spiritually prepared for effective detachment needed for Sanyasa or Tayaga. Adopting a life of complete detachment and seclusion without proper training and preparation could prove disastrous. What then is the right course for those of the present day senior citizens who are not being properly looked after by their children?

The modern way to resolve this serious paradox in the life of the senior citizens would be to join a co-operative movement of old persons who may decide to live together in an enclave exclusively meant for them. Senior persons who have sufficient funds, some of whom may even be rich, should invest in building one room tenements where they could live comfortably looking after each other. They would enjoy the company of the persons of their own age group. If they set up a good enterprise manned by professionals they will not face any hassle with regard to keeping their dwellings clean, the payment of electricity and telephone bills or even that of day to day medical assistance. Such an establishment would take care of all their needs. Those who are of good health could look after the sick and infirm among them. Thus not only most of the senior citizens, living together in an exclusive enclave, will obtain a peaceful, respectable, secure and happy life they will also get an opportunity to serve others. Soon a sense of Tyaga or detachment will take root in their minds. Such an exclusive enclave should have a common mess a Sat Sangh Bhavan besides all the modern amenities such as standby generator, strong security set up and twenty four hours medical assistance etc.

The concept of an exclusive housing complex for the senior citizens is not a new one. In many cities it has taken a practical shape. At certain places Pay and Stay Hostels have been established for the old people; where they live a life of dignity and comfort by paying for their accommodation, food and other services. At places like Dehradun and Noida many old persons have invested in built up one or two bed room accommodations meant for the seniors. But most of these places lack the spirit of mutual care and assistance. It is just like purchasing a property anywhere.

The old people living in such places are no better off because they still have to take care of themselves. The touch of love and personnel attention from the management is absent at such places.

The idea of an exclusive enclave centres on the principle of mutual care and help among the old persons. Of what avail are millions of rupees possessed by the old men and women if there is no one to love and care for them at the fag end of their lives?

Bending. Bowing. Hoping to stand?

Dr. R. L. Bhat

With the dozen-and-more Confidence Building Measures announced the other day, coupled with DPM as the latest emissary to talk to pro-Pak…nay, Pak-propped secessionists, it is clear that India has neither reservations nor qualms about going the extra mile in the process of peace with Pakistan. and all this when the hand of peace extended by the Prime Minister six months ago has for all intents and purposes been stilled in the air. The fact that the stilling of peace came at the UNO is even more ominous. Indeed, only a will to overlook the portents would ignore the clear repudiation Musharraf handed out to the peace and its process at the UN General Assembly last month. For her part, instead of promoting peace Pakistan chose to wrangle over ‘guarantees’ for resuming the air-traffic between the two countries. The Pak insistence on guarantees and assurances would have been understandable, had India attacked Pakistan Parliament, ran terrorist rings around the country, fomented destabilizations all around, targeted its state leaders and legislatures, etc. etc. Had India been harboring Pakistan’s dawoods one could comprehend Pakistan dithering on peace!

Instead, it is India that is the victim of Pak intransigence. And all India is asking for is to stop the cross-border terrorism, which is now accepted by all peoples and countries to be Pak-sponsored. Pakistan is refusing to do this minimal, yet India is going all the miles and taking all measures to restore peace! Okay. That proves India’s stand. It tells the world over and over again that India is sincere and willing to build trust. It gets India all the points in the brownie book. But is that enough, rather good enough for India, her integrity and standing as a nation? Does it help? This bending and bowing and bowing again, petitioning for peace, prostrating for a crumb like sending back Dawood? Worrying over looks and image is alright. Showing everybody that thou art a ‘gentle country to the core’ is good at times. It is needed in a world that is built over an essential presumption of distrust. But at the end of the day, it shows that this gentleness is not backed by the needed grit. In absence of hard stands to support her truth and confront subverters and opponents, the appeals for peace are little more than petitions of weak. Here the foot-notes that the concession should not be taken as ‘sign of weakness’ do not help at all.

Here is Pakistan with a full-fledged wing ISI, which sometimes appears even bigger than the establishment there, devoted to the one-point program of bringing India to her knees. If Kashmir helps, it is okay. Else it will enlist Northeast. If that doesn’t do, it recruits Bodo’s and infiltrates Bangladesh. Or, Myanmar. Anything, anybody, any group would do so far as its purpose is served. Before Kashmiris it ‘helped’ Assamese to oust Bangladeshis. Then it roped in Sikhs. Now it is aiding Bodos against the Assamese. Tomorrow it may enlist any body else. All along there is nothing but the hate-India campaign. Asking why is often an exercise in self-defeatism. There may be a thousand grievances and many causes. But ‘cause’ does ISI have? Why is ISI doing it? Why is it meddling in troubled waters or muddying other waters? Not over human rights. Nor for development and progress. Not to get any peoples more rights, more amenities, more facilities. It is to subvert the nation of India. And the nation of India must stand up and fight this destabilization process out. Instead she is going out of her way to placate the bent-on-mischief fiend. Would it be placated? Ever?

Before the BJP came to power they had made ‘appeasement’ into a slogan and won many adherents. Today the BJP-headed coalition is bending over backwards to appease the sponsor of terrorism. If it hopes that this would convince the ISI-framed Pakistan to desist from its course it is naive. We have seen too much of the peaceful proclivities of India and very little of a determination to fight the subversion out. Today India is calling at the top of her voice for extradition of Dawood. If Dawood is extradited tomorrow chances are that he would not be called to book at all. There would be no witnesses, no proof. India has not been able to take on the terrorists ravaging the state of Jammu and Kashmir for decades now. Amid peace processes, amid interlocutions, amid healing touches the terrorists are having a field day. The state DGP may say the latest attack on CM’s residence was an ‘attack on police’ but everybody knows what it was and what it portends. Everybody knows about cross border terrorism. Each day we get explicit examples from USA, from West Asia how subversion is fought. India is doing nothing, fighting nothing and hoping to prove to the world that it is a peace-full country nagged by a belligerent neighbor. That point is proved. But what next?

Does proving itself peaceful make the looming threat go away? Does India expect US or some body else to fight these terrorists, while it politicks over power and percentages? Does it hope to drown Pakistan and its terrorist machine it its overwhelming goodwill and nice intentions. That plainly never happens. And countries, like meanness, only get honed by lack of resistance. Going all those extra miles along the peace path would be fine if it came on top of a determined will to uproot terrorist and action against subversion. Sans that determination and action the patent concessions to belligerency show a nation driven to wall bending a little more to avoid being crushed altogether.

Strength in footnotes is…well, strength in footnotes-not to be used not to be feared. It does not make a nation strong. It prevents no subversion, stems no terrorism. See, it never did!