Daily Excelsior... Editorial

EDITORIAL

Has the Hurriyat missed
the bus in Kashmir?

By Ghazanfar Butt

Much was expected by the people of Jammu and Kashmir when the Prime Minister visited Srinagar to preside over the Inter-State Council meeting. On ....more

Using elections for change

By V M Tarkunde

In a multi-religious country like India, democracy can subsist only on the basis of secularism. A secular democracy does not require that the people at large .....more

Remembering Radhakrishnan

By Kunj Behari Raina

The world celebrates today the 115th birthday of Dr S Radhakrishnan, the second President of India. The greatest ......more

EDITORIAL

Nuclear clouds

What New Delhi does today, Islamabad must follow tomorrow. Within two days of Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee holding the first meeting of the country’s Nuclear Command Authority in the national capital, Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf has presided over a meeting in Rawalpindi of the National Command Authority in charge of command and control of nuclear assets in his country. Clearly indicating that Pakistan was seeking ‘qualitative upgrades’ in its nuclear programmes, President Musharraf has said that this would fortify national security. Striking a hawkish tone, he has dismissed talk of a freeze or rollback of the nuclear programmes as ‘irrelevant, outdated and totally false’. One theory is that the Rawalpindi get-together was prompted by the reports in a section of the American press that there was nuclear cooperation between Pakistan and Iran. This does not sound convincing. Assuming that the new-found nuclear friendship between Pakistan and Iran was a reality, there was no need for them to publicise it and invite the wrath of the non-nuclear world. In any case, a meeting involving the concerns of Iran could not have taken place without the representatives of that country who, as the reports from Islamabad suggest, were not present. What seems more logical, given the past record, is that Pakistan does not want to let an impression exist, even remotely, that it lags behind India in the game of brinkmanship. Hence, the tit-for-tat meeting to reassure the people of Pakistan that what there should be no cause of worry on account of what Indian nuclear apparatus does. At one level, it may appear childish for any country to indulge in such theatricals but threatening noises and gestures, unfortunately, continue to be part of the sub-continental security scenario. On their part, foreign ministers of both the countries have already denied the charge of nuclear ties between Pakistan and Iran. President Musharraf himself has now condemned such reports as ‘inspired and malicious’ . This only further confirms that the exercise in Rawalpindi is targeted to send a message to India, whatever that may actually mean, that it should not take Pakistan for granted. The NCA meeting in New Delhi is reported to have dealt with specifics in terms of increasing and strengthening the country’s nuclear capability. The Government is learnt to have decided to induct a leased nuclear-powered submarine, acquire new long-range bombers and accelerate development of Agni medium-range missiles as part of India’s nuclear triad force which was suggested in the draft nuclear doctrine formulated four years ago. It has also been decided to expand the delivery system for carrying nuclear bombs. In the face of conflicting versions, authoritative sources reassure that an appropriate command-and-control system is in place to handle the nuclear weapons. India’s serious concerns about its security need to be appreciated in view of its experience at the hands of China in 1962 and with, of course, Pakistan ever since the Partition of the country. There are inimical forces always trying to find chinks in India’s religious, ethnic and linguistic diversity. As we have seen, they have fished in the troubled waters of the Ravi, Sutlej, Beas, Jhelum and the Tawi. One reason they have not succeeded is that India has been able to adequately flex its muscles. With this background in view, it is necessary for India to develop strong deterrents and, in an increasingly nuclear world, the country can ignore the nuclear capability only at its own peril. Having said that, it needs to be conceded that it is a mad race. India perhaps would have ignored it if its neighbours had not stabbed it in the back and were cooperative. With Pakistan also having joined the nuclear club, the security scenario in our region is far more unsafe and complicated than ever before. We in the sub-continent are thus destined to live under the perpetual threat of a nuclear war unless, of course, sanity prevails which does not seem likely in the immediate future.

A tale of three cities

It is a tale of three cities all separated by hundreds of kilometres and while the two of them, Jammu and Srinagar, are part of the same State, the third, Mumbai, has an independent identity as India’s financial hub even though it is actually the capital city of Maharashtra. All of them face the identical threat of terrorism. In the case of Jammu it is occasional, for Srinagar almost always and for Mumbai rare but equally devastating. The speed with which they recover from a terrorist strike varies. Jammu manages to recover slowly. Srinagar limps back unsure how long peace will last. It is Mumbai alone which recovers fast to send a message that not for nothing it is India’s commercial capital. It is not surprising, therefore, that Mumbai has withstood the shocking impact of the August 25 twin bomb explosions, in which 52 persons were killed and 167 were injured. Life is back to normal in the metropolis. People have not let the despair overcome them in the wake of the most deafening explosions after the 1993 serial blasts. All the signs have resurfaced which distinguish Mumbai as the dreamland for the millions of star-struck youth and a city of unlimited opportunities for the talented and the hard-working. Mumbai’s life is dependent upon the public transport system which is running packed. There is business as usual in Dalal Street, Zaveri Bazar and other business centres. Arguably, the frequency of terrorist attacks in Jammu and Srinagar is much more; they recover from one blow only to face the other and yet they manage to go about their everyday life. It also needs to be admitted that there are serious security constraints in the two cities restricting the movement of the common man. In Mumbai, life remains comparatively less under pressure. Perhaps because it is far away from the fountainhead of mischief which is just next door in the case of both Jammu and Srinagar. Perhaps also because Mumbai has always been governed by the cosmopolitan spirit of life must go on come what may. It is not that the authorities there are not worried. Maharashtra Chief Minister Sushil Kumar Shinde does feel that terrorist acts ‘are intended to sabotage the State’s fast-track developmental activities’ and ‘destabilise the State’. He rightly says the attacks in Mumbai ‘are a cause for national concern, particularly since the city is the centre of the country’s trade and business’. According to him, ‘the economy is improving, and tourism is looking up, with hotels reporting full occupancy. Several international giants have made huge investments in the State in the last few months’. Terrorist acts, he fears, are targeted to derail this process. This is the worst possible scenario. One had come across a similar phenomenon in Srinagar in the early 1990s --- a city humming with tourists had turned into a ghost town with terrorists playing havoc. Jammu city did not suffer to that extent but its peace was seriously disrupted. Its already strained resources came under further strain with the migration of people from the Valley. It has withstood all this. In a way, many may say, it has done much better than Mumbai. Srinagar is also learning to cope with the menace. Mumbai, of course, does it more effectively and tellingly. In its own way each city is sending a message that the response to terrorism has to be matching.

Has the Hurriyat missed the bus in Kashmir?

By Ghazanfar Butt

Much was expected by the people of Jammu and Kashmir when the Prime Minister visited Srinagar to preside over the Inter-State Council meeting. On the eve of the visit, Moulvi Abbas Ansari, Chairman of the All Party Hurriyat Conference said that he would be willing to meet the Prime Minister and hold talks with him. This stand was publicly supported by Mirwaiz Omar Farooq, a former head of the APHC, who has a sizeable following.

It was also noticed that Prime Minister Vajpayee and the Deputy Prime Minister Lal Krishna Advani had softened their stand towards the Hurriyat leaders. The general impression was that, whatever be the reservations of the national leadership regarding the APHC, they were veering round to the view that in the final analysis the APHC consisted of people of Jammu and Kashmir and the national leadership should not have any reservations in talking to them. They were prepared to overlook the attitude of the APHC towards former Central Interlocutor K. C. Pant and the present Interlocutor NN Vohra.

The change in the attitude of the APHC was preceded by controversy regarding the attitude adopted by Syed Ali Shah Geelani, towards the People’s Conference. He wanted the APHC to take disciplinary action against the People’s Conference for allegedly setting up proxy candidates during the Assembly elections last year. When Syed Geelani did not receive any support for his stand, he refrained from attending the meetings of the Hurriyat Conference. In turn the Jamat-e-Islami eased out Geelani and appointed Ashraf Sehrai, who was recently released from jail, to represent the organization in the APHC. The stage was set for Syed Ali Shah Geelani to explore the possibility of setting up a parallel organisation to the APHC. But there has been little response to Geelani’s offer by other groups in the State.

The announcement of Moulvi Abbas Ansari about his willingness to start a dialogue with the Central leadership came in the backdrop of a number of events that followed the announcement by Prime Minister Vajpayee during his last Srinagar visit that he was extending the hand of friendship to Pakistan. Then followed the confidence-building measures between the two countries. The diplomatic relations between India and Pakistan have been resumed and busses are plying the Delhi –Lahore –Delhi route once again. Maulana Fazlur Rehman, head of the Muttahida Majlise-e-Amal and leader of the opposition in Pakistan, headed a delegation to India, which received a warm welcome. It was followed by a visit to Pakistan by Members of the Indian Parliament, media representatives, and other important leaders — under the umbrella of the South Asia Free Media Association. By all accounts the visit was a great success – and Pakistanis had the experience of watching India’s politicians – in particular Laloo Prasad Yadav – in action. Rationalising the stand taken by the leader of the APHC, the Daily Times of Pakistan said: "What is apparently the new stance is that Hurriyat would first talk to New Delhi and then communicate the result to Pakistan. Maulana Ansari said that since at the present time the three parties to the Kashmir dispute could not sit at the table, the Hurriyat Conference had to show flexibility. A tripartite discussion could take place at a suitable time later. He praised Chief Minister Mufti Sayeed of the ruling People’s Democratic party for declaring that all the parties would be included in the dialogue planned for the near future……….. Increasingly Pakistani unofficial opinion leans to the fact that Pakistan would accept any solution acceptable to the Kashmiris."Speaking to the Jang, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq said : " Pakistan too had initiated talks with India at Agra without consulting the APHC and then no objection was raised by the Hurriyat because it considered these talks a move in the right direction." He also said that during the talks the Hurriyat would ask for permission from the Government of India to visit Pakistan. Responding to a question, he said that Ali Shah Geelani would get nothing by launching another party as the Hurriyat was the representative organization of the Kashmiris.

Across the border, the opposition to the Hurriyat stand started building up by vested interests. They said that the Hurriyat Conference has not lived up to its promise. The United Jehad Council, based in Pakistan, has supported efforts of Syed Ali Shah Geelani to form a new Party. Geelani is reported to have contacted Al Badr Mujahideen Amir, Bakht Zamin, and Jamaiatul Insaar head Maulana Fazlur Rahman Kahlili and both leaders pledged support. (Daily Times 25/8) Syed Ali Shah Geelani then issued a statement calling for the Bandh in Srinagar on the day of Prime Minister’s visit to Srinagar to preside over the Inter-State Council meeting. A reluctant APHC supported the Bandh call – after all the Hurriyat Conference had to live up to its reputation as the All Party Hartal Conference. There was a frantic effort to present to the world an impression that normalcy has not returned to Jammu and Kashmir. The attempt to attack the Central Telegraph Office on the day the Inter State Council met in the Srinagar, resulted in the death of Javed Ahmed Shah, a member of the Legislative Council, his bodyguard and a Jawan of the Border Security Force. The office of the Urdu Daily Wattan was burnt and the building housing the office of Javed Shah and the newspaper was badly damaged.

One expected Mirwaiz Umer Farooq, who is widely respected in Srinagar, to take a bolder stand. True, he cannot forget the assassination of his father Mirwaiz Moulvi Farooq almost thirteen years ago, when he was exploring the possibility of a peaceful solution to the problems in the State. Similar fate had befallen Abdul Gani Lone on the eve of State Assembly elections last year. Return of peace to Jammu and Kashmir does not suit forces across the border.

Still all is not lost. The Prime Minister has not drawn back the hand that he has extended, nor retracted the invitation to those who have given up violence to start a dialogue. Deputy Prime Minister Advani has stated that the Hurriyat leaders could meet the Prime Minister, himself or NN Vohra when they visit New Delhi. The Prime Minister has not changed his stand in spite of the grave provocation of the serial bomb blasts in Mumbai which claimed 50 lives.

Is it too much to expect that the Hurriyat leaders would look at the interests of the people of Jammu and Kashmir who want an end to violence. After all they claim to be their "real representatives." Will they show some real courage? – Asia Defence News International (ADNI)

Using elections for change

By V M Tarkunde

In a multi-religious country like India, democracy can subsist only on the basis of secularism. A secular democracy does not require that the people at large should have no religious faith. What is requires is that by the bulk of the people should agree that religion should have no bearing on political issues and that therefore there should be a separation of religion and politics.

Whatever may have been other shortcomings of Jawaharlal Nehru, he was undoubtedly a staunch secular democrat. Dr Ambedkar was obviously the main architect of the Indian Constitution, but the contribution of Jawaharlal Nehru with his huge popularity was indispensable for the promulgation of the secular democratic Constitution of India, Jawaharlal Nehru not only helped materially in framing a secular democratic Constitution for India, after its promulgation, he established and ran a democratic and secular Government in the country for nearly seventeen years. Because of the success of anti-fascist forces in the last Great War, India obtained Independence without having developed an adequately strong democratic movement for the replacement of foreign rule by an independent secular democracy in our country.

That is why religious orthodoxy remained rampant in India, even after it obtained complete independence. Religious orthodoxy, however, did not by itself imply the promotion of communalism which required the prevalence of enmity between two or more religious communities. It can be stated with confidence that after the acquisition of independence and in the course of the operation of a secular democratic state in India for a now long period of nearly 40 years, there has been a gradual reduction of the religious orthodoxy of the people and a gradual growth of a democratic culture in India. That process of a gradual growth of a genuinely democratic culture in India was, however, interrupted when a coalition Government dominated by a communal organization like the BJP was established in the country in or about 1998.

In the last general election, BJP did not get an absolute majority in the Lok Sabha. But because of the relative unpopularity of the Congress, the BJP emerged as the largest minority party. Under the clever leadership of Atal Bihari Vajpayee, the BJP announced that in order to form a coalition Government, it would keep under suspension the more controversial parts of its communal programme, such as the construction of a Ram temple at the place of the Babri Masjid, introduction of a common civil code, and the deletion of Article 370 of the Constitution which grants a special status to Jammu and Kashmir.

On this basis, the BJP invited opposition parties to join in forming a coalition Government, which would lay down an agreed programme of action. There were a number of opportunist leaders of comparatively smaller political parties like Mayawati and Fernandes, who were prepared to pocket their anti-communalism and join hands with the BJP to form a coalition Government. Thus the BJP, inspite of being a minority party, came to power under a coalition which took the name of National Democratic Alliance (NDA) and is functioning today under its domination.

As will be shown below, NDA Government, under the leadership of the BJP, has caused grave damage to the secular democracy of India. If after the coming general election, the BJP again emerges as the largest minority party, it will again be able to form a coalition Government with the help of many unprincipled opportunist leaders, and in that eventuality, the secular democracy of India may be so materially damaged as to be on the of pathy of extinction.

We are giving below, in a summary form, a few details of the ways in which the present BJP coalition Government has damaged the secular democracy in India.

As soon as the BJP coalition Government was formed, the first act of Vajpayee was to approach the President with a request that he should approve of a programme by which India would have nuclear weapons. The President gave the required approval and this action was approved by almost all the opposition parties, including the Congress as well as some of the former Presidents and Prime Ministers of India.

Vajpayee claimed that this step was taken for ensuring the security of India, but what was actually achieved was that India not only lost its moral stature as the most important non-nuclear state, but its insecurity was actually enhanced. With its very limited nuclear weapons, India is rapidly becoming a puppet state of USA.

As was to be expected, some other states, including Pakistan, acquired nuclear weapons. Pakistan in particular not only manufactured or acquired some nuclear weapons, but it refused to join India in declaring that will not use them, unless it was subjected to nuclear attack or had a genuine apprehension thereof.

Pakistan is a much smaller country than India and has a smaller army. It is bound to be defeated in a war with India, unless it uses a nuclear weapon as a deterrent. There was thus some justification in Pakistan's refusal to agree that it will not have the first nuclear strike. Thus, instead of incrasing its security, India's becoming a nuclear State has increased its insecurity, besides losing its moral stature as a leading non-nuclear state.

In this process, India has spent huge amounts in acquiring and maintaining nuclear weapons, so that it has no adequate resources for reducing mass poverty and increasing employment among the poor.

Under the BJP coalition rule India's history has been perverted in order to show that the Muslim rule in India in the recent past was much more harmful than what is recorded in history books so far. Alterations have been accordingly made in history books, particularly those which are meant to be used in schools and colleges. Another term of BJP's Government will cause further perversion in teaching history to Indian students.

In many department, such as education, industry, police, etc vacancies are being filled lup by the appointment of supporters of the BJP and persons who are inclined to be Hindu communalists. This process is highly detrimental to the continuation of a secular democracy in the country. In the course of time, the Indian Government at the Centre as well as in the States will cease to be impartial and in this way the present weak and wobby secular democracy of India may be destroyed.

Political opportunism which is the main cause of the increasing corruption as well as vulgarization of Government services has increased during the rule of BJP-led coalition Government. This may be illustrated by one graphic instance. In order to avoid the collapse, the Mayawati Government had secured the support of 35 unprincipled legislators. This was achieved by appointing every one these 35 legislators as ministers in the State, with the result that many of the newly appointed ministers could not get charge of any portofolio!

This unprincipled action was adopted by Mayawati with the consent of Prime Minister Vajpayee. When Vajpayee was asked whether this was morally justified, his answer was that this was done ''only for power''. Is it not true that the power politics is the main cause of opportunism which enhances corruption and political misrule? This attitude of Vajpayee shows that the BJP rule is even more opportunistic than what the country ever had in the past.

These instances justify the conclusion that the rule of a communalism party cannot possibly benefit our country. To save the secular democracy of India, it is necessary that a BJP Government does not come to power after the next election. It is hoped that Indian voters in the coming general election will ensure that communalism does not succeed so as to destroy Indian democracy.--CNF

Remembering Radhakrishnan

By Kunj Behari Raina

The world celebrates today the 115th birthday of Dr S Radhakrishnan, the second President of India. The greatest tribute that we can pay to the distinguished dead is to emulate what was good in them and it is precisely there where we are lacking and that is the main cause of the troubles and tribulations.

Much has been written and more will be written, indeed much more can be written of Dr S Radhakrishnan, our honoured President. The world is familiar with the description of the man as, for instance, the symbol of India, philosopher-statement, leader of Indian thought, intellectual light -house, spiritual mentor, the voice of East-West understanding prophet of humanity and what else. There has yet been no study of his resplendent personality in its different facets or a projection of his image on alminous, if limited, canvas.

Dr Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan bore his load of learning with an artist's grace and unlike may learned men, never thought of his work as unrelated to life.

When Radhakrishnan spoke before an audience, he succeeded almost invariably in weaving a spell particularly on those who heard him rarely. Never hesitant, his words had a smooth and ready flow, there were frequent flashes of, imagery and of thought, that had a deeply pleasing, if sometimes rather unequal effect. If one heard him many times, however, one sensed a sort of misgiving.

As an academician, Dr Radhakrishnan has had deservedly, a truly bejewelled career. He served his apprenticeship in Madras and Mysore, drinking deep of western philosophy even as he toiled hard under the able guidance of great Sanskrit Pandits, a community not yet extinct in some parts of India. From Mysore he went to Calcutta, to hold, what was then the most highly prized University assignment in his subject, the philosophy. There he took the place of India's greatest modern encyclopaedist, Brajendra Nath seal--a fact which needs to be remembered, for Dr S Radhakrishnan was then less than thirty years old, a newcomer in the realm of Indian scholarship. Even in Calcutta, unknown to many, he continued to work with our sanskrit pandits, at the same time his faultless english eloquence charmed his pupils and opened before them fresh vistas of thought. For more than 20 years this close link with Calcutta University remained and this was the most productive period of his intellectual life.

Well before he was forty, Dr S Radhakrishnan was lecturing on invitation at American Universities and also at Oxford. And from Calcutta he went to his own native region to be the real builder of the newly setup Andhra University, staffing it with people of his own choice from different parts of the country. For some years he was Vice Chancellor of Banaras Hindu University. leaving on that illustrious institution an impress that is cherished all the more because it was rare and precious. Even official honours were showered on him in unfree India and situated as he was, he could not quite refuse them though, as a flaming patriot behind his calm academic exterior, he did not probably relish them. The world reputation that had gathered round his name paid remarkable dividends when, willingly, he served as Free India's ambassador to the Soviet Union.

Great persons are usually known to us through their lectures, writings and public activities. The felicity of style which characterises his writings is seen even more clearly in his speeches. Rarely has a man used the word, whether spoken or written, so effectively. Both in his writings and speeches, Dr S Radhakrishnan marshalls his material with consummate mastery. With a photographic and phenomenal memory, hardly anything he has read or heard escapes him. He draws upon a vast accumulation of facts and theories and presents them with a clarity and orderliness that is deceptive. It has been rightly said that great art lies in concealing art. This is true of Radhakrishnan's art because when he writes or speaks, the words seem to flow with spountaneous and unpremeditated ease. He spoke not only with fluency but also with eloquence. There was a precision and clarity of his thought. Whether it was a difficult philosophical problem or a complicated social or political issue, Dr Radhakrishnan could present them with unrivalled directness and simplicity.

Dr Radhakrishnan was always proud of India's culture and heritage but in his view it depended essentially on the realisation of spiritual values. Radhakrishnan carried the message beyond the shores of India. Radhakrishnan used to say that wars begin in the minds of men and it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be built. Wars arise from hatred and hatred is born out of ignorance and unfamiliarity. That is why he used to speak again and again of the common cultural heritage of man and stressed the need of mutual understanding and interpenetration of the great traditions of East and West. Dr Radhakrishnan used to say that peace within and among nations can be based only only justice and mutual accommodation.

Dr Radhakrishnan used to preach the message of understanding and compassion. He condemned injustice and tyranny and urged the people to resist evil while at the same time seeking to change and reclaim the evil doer. By spech and conduct he sought to uphold the ideals which alone give grace and dignity to human life so essential for the human beings in the world.