EDITORIAL

Unending tragedy

In the National Conference office in Srinagar the portraits of party leaders and workers killed by the terror machine have been put up on the walls of what appears to be the main room. This is the least that the State's premier political outfit can do to pay homage to the martyrs to the cause of pursuing its ideology. The latest to join this gallery of the organisation's heroes is Safdar Ali Beg who has been shot in Anantnag last week. He was the third top leader to have lost his life at the hands of the militants in the recent times. Ironically the other two belonged to the political spectrum a major part of which is exposed to the charge of patronising the cruel cult of the gun. Moulvi Mushtaq, one of the finest human beings and the uncle of Mirwaiz Moulvi Umar Farooq, was the first to have been gunned down while he was offering prayers in a mosque. This was followed by the assassination of Peer Hissamuddin, a top Jamaat-e-Islami (J&K) ideologue who was the key associate of firebrand Syed Ali Shah Geelani. The three of them were among the hundreds of eminent figures across the party lines ruthlessly removed from the local scenario after the eruption of the armed militancy in 1988...........more

Immobile Suya

Not many will be happy with the heading of this editorial. We are also not. But there is no other way we can bring into focus the decline in efficiency over the centuries. It is not our intention that....more

Top issues: Dual track

By Joginder Singh

Even the most die hard democracies like the USA, UK and France have been compelled to enact laws, for dealing effectively with the threats of terrorism. Having stringent anti-terrorism law to protect the integrity of the country is not inconsistent with the democratic values......more

FBI seeks
graduitous entry

By Tukoji Pandit & Tushar Charan

It is not surprising that the US 'offer' to India for investigating the bomb attacks in Nagaland and Assam with the help of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has raised the hackles in many quarters in the country. It has also sparked off a political debate because many think that the Government of India has not been firm in denouncing........more

Montekspeak for
the rich countries

Dr Bharat Jhunjhunwala

Montek Singh Ahluwalia had made his best efforts to include representatives of the World Bank in Consultative Groups to make a mid-term appraisal of the Tenth Plan. He had to retract under the pressure of the Left. But his thinking remains unchanged. Truly, Montek Singh is a strong proponent of the interests of the rich countries. He believes that rich countries have a right to interfere in the affairs of the poor countries through the IMF.....more

EDITORIAL

Unending tragedy

In the National Conference office in Srinagar the portraits of party leaders and workers killed by the terror machine have been put up on the walls of what appears to be the main room. This is the least that the State's premier political outfit can do to pay homage to the martyrs to the cause of pursuing its ideology. The latest to join this gallery of the organisation's heroes is Safdar Ali Beg who has been shot in Anantnag last week. He was the third top leader to have lost his life at the hands of the militants in the recent times. Ironically the other two belonged to the political spectrum a major part of which is exposed to the charge of patronising the cruel cult of the gun. Moulvi Mushtaq, one of the finest human beings and the uncle of Mirwaiz Moulvi Umar Farooq, was the first to have been gunned down while he was offering prayers in a mosque. This was followed by the assassination of Peer Hissamuddin, a top Jamaat-e-Islami (J&K) ideologue who was the key associate of firebrand Syed Ali Shah Geelani. The three of them were among the hundreds of eminent figures across the party lines ruthlessly removed from the local scenario after the eruption of the armed militancy in 1988. What is extremely depressing is that this harmful trend continues. One can't get over an uneasy feeling that the gun is being used to settle mutual scores. While saying this one is not taking into account the encounters that often take place between the security forces and the militants. They can be easily understood in the kind of the situation that we have been witnessing during the last 15 years. What should be worrying us more is the presence of what look like what we describe as private armies in states like Bihar. In addition there are a number of mercenaries still floating around in the State after their to-and-fro movement has been affected by the fencing of the Line of Control and the International Border.

Clearly, there is no gainer in this situation. Violence has seriously damaged our society as a whole. There is grim awareness about this. What is missing is the determination to take a unanimous stand against this evil. It is to be regretted that at least one section of the local leaders still regards it as a tool to achieve its ends; it is more than willing to extend its patronage to foreign mercenaries as well. Is it guided by weird thought that the ordinary citizens will gradually get tired of mourning the loss of their dear ones? Is this the view that the people will stop beating their chests and let the tears not flow down their cheeks even when they see mauled bodies around them? Only those bereft of genuine human emotions would think on these lines. The reality is that with each murder our foundation as a civil society is weakened and it may slowly crumble.

Therefore, it is absolutely necessary that political leaders regardless of their ideologies sit together and adopt a conscientious resolution to unitedly oppose the gun. Those flirting with this deadly instrument must openly renounce it. As is the experience of all militancy-affected societies the terrorism is a tiger that does not spare its riders too. All organisations must send a firm message that while they will pursue their different opinions they will be together in opposing and condemning the use of violence. Only then there is a chance that there will a breathing space for our society. Or else, they will be fated to witness one sob story after the other and possibly become a victim themselves in the end.

Immobile Suya

Not many will be happy with the heading of this editorial. We are also not. But there is no other way we can bring into focus the decline in efficiency over the centuries. It is not our intention that Avantivarman's great engineer Suya should turn in his grave. He had rescued the Jhelum at a time when there was virtual absence of all machines: he achieved the feat with the assistance of a determined human force and cleared the artery of the Valley of its blockades. Since then there has been a marvellous engineering revolution. A difference is that we in this State are not its beneficiaries. How else can one explain that the employees of the Flood Mechanical Division (FMD) in Baramulla have been lying idle for nearly two decades and its machinery has decayed as a consequence? There are more than 200 employees and the cost of the machinery that is rusting is a whopping Rs 70 crores. The FMD can be described as the modern albeit mechanical version of Suya. It was assigned the important task of dredging of the Jhelum from Seer to Khadinayar in Baramulla. According to a disclosure in this newspaper, heavy machinery deployed for the purpose remained in use from 1962 to 1986 when the project was suddenly abandoned without any plausible explanation (it can't be because of the terrorism which was a later phenomenon). There are serious allegations that the work was stopped by a few vested interests in the irrigation department to carry out manual de-siltation and temper with the records in this behalf with the nefarious aim of exploiting public exchequer for personal ends. Given that the machines were in perfect shape such an alternative could not have been resorted to without a degree of collusion at a higher supervisory level. It is not known what precisely the FMD had achieved during its operations but there can be no denying the reality the river has to be attended to at a regular basis. The water bodies --- the Jhelum is no exception and, in fact, in some ways it may be worse affected because it is populated --- tend to get deposits of all sorts mainly because of inflow from varied sources, natural or otherwise, and they have to be purged constantly of these undesired elements. It is not surprising that since the river was not cleared of its undesired properties there have been continuous floods in the Valley during the last decade. In addition the State has been deprived of its revenue as it is estimated that if the FMD works in top gear it can earn Rs 10,000 for each working hour. The sand dug from the river-bed can be a big money spinner.

Although belatedly, a plan has been worked out to revamp the FMD. The concerned department has sought a sum of Rs 5.82 crores for repairing the machines of which Rs 39.50 lakhs are needed for the first phase. It is to be hoped that it is not yet another half-hearted measure to cure a serious malady. Whatever decision is taken must be foolproof so that the public money is properly utilised in the best interests of all. It will be quite relevant to suggest that the FMD should be given a target to be achieved in terms of profitability once it is refurbished. If it fails again, the Government should consider handing its job over to private players.

Top issues: Dual track

By Joginder Singh

Even the most die hard democracies like the USA, UK and France have been compelled to enact laws, for dealing effectively with the threats of terrorism. Having stringent anti-terrorism law to protect the integrity of the country is not inconsistent with the democratic values.

The present Indian laws were framed in 1863, when there were no crimes like terrorism, hijacking, threat to the security of the State and assassination of Prime Ministers and other VVIPs.

Pakistan has reportedly recruited over 31000 Indian spies. Over 10000 Pakistani and other foreigners have infiltrated into India. In the last one decade, 30,0071 civilians and 6077 defence personnel, have been killed in the country by militants and more than 3,50,000 rendered homeless. The laws of the land, which exist on the statute book, are hardly or not at all adequate to deal with terrorism. Hence to deal with terrorism, India had first introduced TADA, later POTA and now Unlawful Activities Ordinance.

In France and US, not only the executive and the legislature, but even the judiciary have recognised the need for special powers and procedures to deal with terrorism. In August, 1994, Carlos, a notorious terrorist, was allegedly drugged and kidnapped by the French external intelligence from Khartoum with the help of the Sudanese intelligence. Carlos' contention that this vitiated his prosecution and trial was rejected by the judiciary.

In the US, the judiciary had upheld in the 1980s the right of the US Counter Terrorist agencies, to kidnap an international terrorist wanted for terrorism offences against US nationals and/or interests and found in foreign territory, if, in the assessment of the agency, there was no other way of bringing him to justice.

On the other hand, we in India, keep on tinkering with the instruments to deal with terrorism and go on endlessly debating, whether the rights of the terrorists are being violated. It is a well-known fact that the first effort of the terrorists is to leave no track and try to survive another day to continue to create problems. It is the terrorists which force the Government to bring anti-terrorism laws. If there was no problem, there would be no need for such laws.

The President on September 23, this year, promulgated an ordinance scrapping POTA. The new law called The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Ordinance, 2004, defines terrorism exactly as in POTA. It has dropped Section 4, under which independent MLA from UP, Raja Bhaiyya, wa charged. Now under the amended law, carrying of unauthorised arms in a notified area and possession of bombs, RDX, dynamite, biological and chemical weapons is not a terrorist act.

The ordinance also has done away with POTA special courts, apart from doing away with the provision where an accused could not apply for bail for one year. Bail provisions as laid out in Criminal Procedure Code will apply to those charged under the amended law.

The POTA (Repeal) Ordinance, on the other hand, has also provided for setting up of one or more review committees to review all existing cases, whether at the investigation or trial stage, within one year.

The amendments to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act also discards the POTA provision making a confession before a police officer admisible in court and shifts the onus of proof on the prosecution, besides providing for forfeiture of proceeds of terrorism. However, it allows any investigating officer (POTA only allowed officers not below the rank of SP) to make an order, with prior written approval of the DGP of the State concerned, seizing or attaching a property representing proceeds of terrorism.

The ordinance allows evidence collected through interception of wire, electronic or oral communication as admissible evidence against the accused in the court during trial of a case. However, the POTA safeguards providing of one-year punishment/fine to a police officer who intentionally intercepts communication or gets any person to do it have been deleted. There is a POTA like provision on checking funding of oganisation. Similarly, banned-by-POTA terrorism originations remain banned under the amendment ordinance. There are no special Court to try terror suspects.

There is no doubt that use of POTA against MDMK leader Vaiko might have been a big factor behind its repeal, but the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Ordinance very much retains Section 21 of the scrapped anti-terror law, under which he was charge, with a rider that the offence should have been committed "with intention to further activity of a terrorist organisation".

Section 21 (2) and Section 21(3) of the repealed law have been reproduce verbatim in Section 39(1) (b) and Section 39(1) (c) of the amended Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. According to Section 39(1) (b), a person commits the offence relating to support given to a terrorist organisation, if he knowingly arranges, manages or assists meetings in support of the terrorist organisation.

The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Ordinance, 2004 also retains the punishment for such an offence at imprisonment for a term not exceding 10 years of fine or both.

However, BJP, the main opposition party, feels that the newly promulgated Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Ordinance to replace POTA not only shows the Government's political motives but also its "naive" approach towards terrorism. It says that "It is naive of the Government to believe, that the fidayeen will honour bail and juiciary." Under the new law, the bail provisions against terrorists would be much less stringent as against cases of other crimes like smuggling, black-marketing and narcotics.

The norm that ‘bail is the rule and jail is an exception’ will also apply against the terrorists. The Ordinance replacing anti-terrorist POTA has inserted a clause whereby organisations like Bajrang Dal an VHP could be banned under provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Ordinance. The ultra Leftist extremist groups like Peoples' War or even to an extent an outfit, like SIMI, which was banned under POTA can no longer be declared unlawful under the new law.

Section 2, sub-clause O&P of the ordinance defines "unlawful activities and association". Sub-clause (11) says "which has for its object any activity which is punishable under Section 153A or Section 153B of the Indian Penal Code, or which encourages or aids persons to undertake any such activity. "Section 153A and 153B of the IPC deal with provisions to punish for "promoting enmity between classes in places of worship and promoting enmity between classes.

Nevertheless, our country has to recognise, that there cannot be any quick decisive result to the war against terrorism. We should be willing and determined to engage in protracted conflict. It is a tough battle; because, in the ultimate analysis democracy survives on civil liberties and rule of law. Such anti-terrorist measures can, unfortunately, erode the very basics of democracy.

More than that, the track record of the agencies enforcing the laws against terrorism has at times been lackadaisical and partisan, rather than inspiring. We must give whatever tools are required in the fight against terrorism, but not license to kill the innocent. Rule of law must be held at all costs and the rules of the games must be respected by the State.

FBI seeks graduitous entry

By Tukoji Pandit & Tushar Charan

It is not surprising that the US 'offer' to India for investigating the bomb attacks in Nagaland and Assam with the help of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has raised the hackles in many quarters in the country. It has also sparked off a political debate because many think that the Government of India has not been firm in denouncing the audacious offer that amounts to US eagerness to poke its nose in India's domestic affairs. The response from the Ministry of External Affairs was pussy-footed and the Home Minister astounded many by almost expressing his 'gratitude' to the US for the 'gesture' of offering FBI help.

Most Indians see that as an act of brazenness, an unwarranted attempt by the US to interfere in what is an internal affair of the country. Dismay and anger spreads across almost the entire political spectrum in the country. The fear of 'foreign hand'-generally meaning the US or Pakistan, depending on the context-has persisted in the country for about 30 years. But perhaps many have failed to notice that the 'foreign hand' of America is making a pincer movement towards India, establishing its presence both in Pakistan to our west and Bangladesh to our east. Pakistan gave a free licence to the FBI after 9/11 and Bangladesh has sought help to unravel the 'mystery' behind the spate of bomb blasts in different parts of that country which is fast heading towards radicalism and bigotry.

But democratic and secular India is not a banana republic; nor is it subservient to US wishes in the manner the other two countries are. In any case, the US motives towards India have always been looked at with deep suspicion, one opinion being that the US wants to balkanise India not only to please its friends in Pakistan but also to deny India its superpower aspirations.

There is nothing amusing about the indiscretion of the US ambassador to India, David C. Mulford, who made the FBI offer in a letter to Tarun Gogoi, the Assam chief minister, in breach of well-established diplomatic practices. Mulford's letter cannot be seen as a mere expression of 'sympathy' for the victims of the blasts, bearing no political overtones.

It is not that India is totally opposed to the idea of seeking assistance or cooperation from foreign agencies in tracing terrorists or insurgents who get easy refuge in some of the neighbouring countries. It was only after specific Indian requests that help from foreign agencies came to the country, especially after the 1993 Mumbai blasts, the hijacking of IC814 flight from Kathmandu and the bomb blast outside the US consulate in Kolkata.

After the 9/11 attacks on the US, the world has come to an understanding that global cooperation in sharing intelligence and cooperation hunting terrorists is a must if the scourge of terrorism has to be wiped from the face of the earth. The Indian media has reported from time to time that inputs provided by India in relation to terrorists have proved to be very useful to the US. But is the reverse also true? Suffice it to say that some of the wanted criminals-turned terrorists from India continue to live well looked after and protected in certain foreign countries. The US, which is in a position to put pressure on the countries that hosts these fugitives, seems disinterested in helping India despite requests from New Delhi.

When the US envoy jumps with an offer to trace home grown 'terrorists' certain other doubts also arise. Is it an attempt by the US to 'infiltrate' Indian agencies? The Americans have been worrying deeply about the failure of their intelligence agencies because of lack of ground support. The US does not have the right kind and number of moles in foreign countries over which Washington likes to keep an eye. India is one of them.

Some months ago, there was much embarrassment when it was discovered that a senior RAW official who had 'disappeared' (to the US) was actually a US mole. This mole had been well cultivated by the Americans when he began to contact them in his professional capacity. It is no secret that many Indians, irrespective of position they hold, are easy prey to American 'charms'. FBI agents mingling freely and frequently with Indian agents could well become a hidden US exercise to recruit Indian moles.

The FBI forays into India's two neighbours were made under the pretext of investigating or pursuing 'terrorists', particularly the Al Qaeda elements who have vowed to inflict more and more damages on the US and its global interests. The bomb blasts in northeast India might be seen as akin to terrorist attacks, but by all accounts they were the handiwork of separatist groups operating in the region for long.

In fact, Indian authorities are reasonably certain that secessionist insurgents belonging to groups like the National Democratic Front of Bodoland (NDFB) and United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA) were behind the bomb blasts in the northeast, which were set off on the occasion of the birth anniversary celebrations of the apostle of peace, Mahatma Gandhi, October 2.

A few more groups may be suspects, including a rival faction of a separatist group in Nagaland where the main separatist group is engaged in delicate peace talks with the Government. It is only after some arrests for the crime have been made that it might be necessary to make conclusive claims about the group or individuals responsible for the blasts.

Neither at the initial stage nor at a later (prosecution) stage of the northeast blasts will the Indian authorities need the service of the FBI or any other foreign investigative agency. That is why the US offer looks gratuitous if not presumptuous and even smacks of unflattering assumptions-that Indian agencies are incapable of investigating terrorist attacks.

But instead of infuriating Indians that kind of assumption will appear rather amusing considering how pathetic has been the US progress into hunting AL Qaeda and its chief, Osama bin Laden by a combined force of the FBI and a host of Pakistani agencies, including its army. And, hello, does the US or the FBI remember that a person almost as much wanted as bin Laden, a one-eyed man by the name of Mullah Omar, is still at large? Both these men are supposed to be hiding in a small area in Pakistan along the border with Afghanistan but they have remained elusive.

True, Indian investigative agencies do not boast of the quality of forensic skills available with the FBI. The investigative methods in India are dated with their excessive reliance on what is known as 'intensive' or 'sustained' interrogation. But it appears even the Americans rely a great deal on interrogation in the case of 'terrorists' a large number of whom have been kept in a prison outside the US (Guantanamo Bay) territory for a long time, all in the hope of getting some significant information about the Al Qaeda network.

The Americans have apparently failed to extract much useful information from these detainees because the intensity of terrorist attacks in different parts of the world has not reduced, nor the ferocity of their damage. In the US, the FBI, an internal agency, and the CIA, a notorious external agency, have come under cloud for their inability to check the terrorist attacks on home soil as well as foreign land. Assuming the US offer of FBI help is 'genuine', can India rely on it looking at its home record? (Syndicate Features)

Montekspeak for the rich countries

Dr Bharat Jhunjhunwala

Montek Singh Ahluwalia had made his best efforts to include representatives of the World Bank in Consultative Groups to make a mid-term appraisal of the Tenth Plan. He had to retract under the pressure of the Left. But his thinking remains unchanged. Truly, Montek Singh is a strong proponent of the interests of the rich countries. He believes that rich countries have a right to interfere in the affairs of the poor countries through the IMF.

Montek Singh was the Director of the Independent Evaluation Office (IEO) of the IMF before taking over as Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission. The IEO has made a study of the role of the IMF in the economic crisis of Brazil, Indonesia and Korea. The report asserts "While the close involvement of the Board and the major shareholders was proper and necessary, close contacts at multiple layers unnecessarily subjected staff to micromanagement and political pressure, contributing to a blurring of technical and political judgments. For example, the visible presence of major country officials close to the IMF negotiating teams sometimes created a misperception of the motives behind IMF involvement, thus weakening the sense of country ownership."

According to Montek Singh the involvement of the major shareholders i.e. the rich countries in the formulation of a relief package by the IMF is justified. If India approaches the IMF for relief it would be appropriate for the IMF to ‘closely involve’ representatives of the US Government. The IMF is to operate like a privately owned company at the behest of the rich countries. The IMF, according to Montek Singh, should not operate independent of such pressures. His advice is not to make this ‘close involvement’ explicit so that it does not lead to avoidable opposition. One wonders, how ‘misperception’ can arise by making explicit the ‘close involvement’. Making explicit the close involvement of the major shareholders will give the correct perception.

The IEO further says in its report that close consultation with the Executive Directors appointed by the major shareholders was necessary for the Executive Board to "fulfill its governance role in these large-access cases, in which political judgment played an even greater role than usual and speed was critical." Montek Singh here explicitly endorses that the IMF should pursue the line as per political judgment of the major shareholders. If, for example, India were to approach the IMF for some relief, the decision of the IMF would be dictated by the political judgment of the U.S. representative on the IMF Board. The U.S. could judge, for example, that India should disband its nuclear programme or support the U.S. war in Iraq in order to qualify for IMF aid.

The making of a financial package requires the disclosure of much confidential information such as the composition of a country’s foreign exchange reserves, the level of external liabilities, etc. Such sensitive information too would pass through the Executive Directors to the governments of the major shareholders; and could be used by them to bulldoze the developing country into political subservience.

Montek Singh holds that imposition of conditionalities—at the behest of major shareholders or otherwise—is justified. Speaking at the General Assembly of the Club de Madrid in November 2003 he said, "At the very least, however, democratic governance requires that the conditionality in IMF-supported programs should not appear to be imposed from outside but be based on policies emerging from domestic policy formulation process, which should also command a wide range of support." Montek Singh is less concerned about imposition of the conditionalities. He is more concerned that these conditionalities should not appear to be imposed from outside... To be fair though, it must be conceded that Montek Singh disfavours the imposition of unnecessary conditionalities and wants only few crucial conditionalities to be imposed. But the imposition of conditionalities based on the political judgment of the major shareholders has green light from Montek Singh.

Montek Singh is more worried about being on the right side of the rich countries than about the impact of such policies on the developing countries like India. An alternative approach would be that the professional judgment of the Executive Directors should rein supreme and they not report to their governments. The IMF should operate as an independent multilateral agency free of pulls and pressures by the major shareholders.

But this should not surprise us. India has a long list of leaders who have tried to promote the interests of foreign powers saying that such would be beneficial for the Indian people. The Maharaja of Jaipur attacked Shivaji at the behest of the Mughals. The Scindias of Gwalior did not come to the aid of Laxmi Bai when she fought with the British. Dadabhai Naoroji cried hoarse that the British should work for the prosperity of India because that would be more beneficial for the British businesses than an impoverished colony. Rabindranath Tagore composed the ‘Jan Gan Man…’ as a tribute to the British King. Swami Vivekananda went to England and U.S. to collect money for removing the illiteracy of the Indian people. He did not ask the Indian Kings to fight the British and throw them out of the Indian soil. Instead he was content with receiving grants from them that enabled him to travel abroad. Indian Finance Ministers like Yashwant Sinha have had family relations with the same foreign investors whose operations he had to oversee in his official capacity. In an interview available on Commandingheights.com Prime Minister Man Mohan Singh was asked whether the rich countries set the rules of the WTO, and it'll always be to the disadvantage of the emerging countries like India. Man Mohan Singh replied: "The international economic game is a power game, and those who are strong are always able to lay down the laws of the game. As I see it, India is not strong enough to rewrite the rules of the world game in its own image. But there are opportunities, and [other] countries of East Asia have taken advantage of those opportunities of the trading system, which has many minus points, also." The captain of the Indian team has already conceded a walkover by holding that ‘India is not strong enough’ to resist the present rules of the game.

In this background there is little wonder that Montek Singh Ahluwalia seeks to promote the interests of the rich countries rather than resisting such pressure tactics. His advice to them as the Director of the IEO was to promote their interests in a subtle and unobtrusive way. India waits for policy maker who can take a stand without succumbing to the pressures of the rich countries.

 
 



|
home | state | national | business | editorial | advertisement | sports |
|
international | weather | mailbag | suggestions | search |
subscribe | send mail |