EDITORIAL
Take
it seriously
Our neighbouring countries
would do well to take note of Prime Minister Manmohan
Singh’s offer to carry out ‘joint or
coordinated action’ against Indian insurgent groups
active anywhere in the region. The proposal serves a dual
purpose. Undoubtedly it takes care of India’s
immediate interests. At the same time it rids the other
countries of any moral dilemma that they may face on
account of having become by intent or otherwise a safe
refuge for those itching to destroy peace and normalcy in
this land. In the recent past Bhutan has set a splendid
example in this behalf. The spirited drive by the little
Himalayan kingdom against United Liberation Front of
Assam (ULFA) militants operating from its territory after
all its attempts to persuade them to leave had failed is
something that the supposedly bigger countries should
follow for the sake of harmonious ties in the
neighbourhood............more
Sweet
and sour
Eventually the Government
has decided to implement the Guest Control Order in the
case of wedding feasts. This needs to be welcomed.
Certain changes have been made in the original directive
that had led to a major uproar a few months ago. For
instance, the number of members in marriage parties has
been doubled. There is some relaxation in the number of
guests as well and the quantity of meat in particular
that is served during such gatherings. A Cabinet panel
headed ....more
|
 |
Pak
Hatf-V seriously threaten India
Men and Matters
By B.L. Kak
Hatf-V? It is Pakistan's
intermediate-range, nuclear capable ballistic missile. It
is surface-to-surface missile with a range of 1,500 km.
Hence, all the more reason for the average Indian to be
perturbed. And perturbation purely and merely flows from
the revelation that the Hatf-V is capable of hitting most
Indian cities.........more
The
uniform controversy
By Abdul Qyum Tantrey
A debate is going on in
Pakistan to ascertain, whether between democracy and
delivery, which is more important for a country. In this
regard, Singapore and India are cited as examples. In the
stricter sense of democracy, Singapore is not a
democratic country. But the Government .........more
Homeland
demand - Neither communal nor criminal
Prof. M.L.Raina
The delegation of the
South Asia Free Media Association (SAFMA) came to India ,
on a good will mission, in the first week of October,
2004. An overwhelming membership of the delegation,
headed by Imtiaz Alam, Secretary General, SAFMA,
comprised 16 members of Pakistani media journalists. The
delegation, on its visit to the J&K State, ....more
|
Pak
Hatf-V seriously threaten India
Men and Matters
By B.L.
Kak
Hatf-V? It
is Pakistan's intermediate-range, nuclear
capable ballistic missile. It is
surface-to-surface missile with a range
of 1,500 km. Hence, all the more reason
for the average Indian to be perturbed.
And perturbation purely and merely flows
from the revelation that the Hatf-V is
capable of hitting most Indian cities.
Yet
another sensational revelation: Hatf-F
can carry a payload of 900 kg. Successful
test-firing of the missile in Pakistan
recently was, it can be safely said, part
of Islamabad's efforts to boost defences
against Pakistan's immediate nuclear
rival, India.
The
announcement about the successful
test-firing of the intermediate-range,
nuclear capable ballistic missile was
made at a time when Islamabad's talk
about intensifying the India-Pakistan
peace process had become louder. The
timing of the test-firing was quite
important. The test came just ahead of
the start of two days of talks between
Pakistani and Indian border officials in
the Indian city of Chandigarh.
The Hatf-V
is a type of deadly Ghauri missile. New
Delhi was not taken by surprise,
considering the fact that India and
Pakistan inform each other in advance of
such tests. There is no denying that this
kind of exchange (of information) has in
no way reduced the threat to most Indian
cities from the deadlier
surface-to-surface Hatf-V ballistic
missile of the Islamic Republic of
Pakistan.
Pakistan
tested its first nuclear bomb in May
1998. Its weapons programme is a response
to that of India. The tale did not end
there. Nuclear-armed Pakistan conducts
regular missile tests. The last time it
test fired a nuclear capable missile was
on June 4 this year. And earlier, in
March, Pakistan test fired the Shaheen-II
ballistic missile with a range of 2,000
km.
That time
many Indians appeared panic-stricken
after it was publicly stated that the
Shaheen-II missile was capable of
carrying nuclear warheads to every corner
of India. And this time, along with the
news of successful test of the Hatf-V
came the news, as carried by a section of
the Pakistani press, with regard to
Pakistan possessing 50 to 90 nuclear
weapons compared to India's 55 to 115.
These details, in fact, were brought to
the fore by a Washington-based nuclear
watchdog, the Institute for Science and
International Security.
If the
survey by this organisation were to be
believed, Pakistan has 1,000 to 1,250
kilograms of highly enriched uranium.
According to the survey, India also
possesses this material, used for making
weapon-grade nuclear fuel. The survey
does not reveal how much quantity India
possesses. India, however, has 300 to 470
kilograms of plutonium compared to 20 to
60 kilograms of Pakistan.
The
Washington-based organisation has let it
be known that while Pakistan mainly
relies on uranium for making nuclear
fuel, India relies on plutonium.
Observers attach much importance to the
findings of the Institute of Science and
International Security. Reason: The
Institute that conducted this survey is
the same that published a report in 2003
that the 'Father of Islamic Bomb' of
Pakistan, Dr A Q Khan, was selling
nuclear tech nology to Iran, Libya and
North Korea.
The
report, which caused a sensation in the
United States, was, in fact, published a
year before Dr Khan's confession. That
Pakistan rejected the report as
'speculative' was expected as Islamabad
did not want to proceed against the
'national hero' (Dr Khan). Be that was it
may, Islamabad's efforts to equip
Pakistan Air Force with highly
sophisticated fighter aircraft have been
intensified. Pakistan does not conceal
its plan to acquire more F-16 fighters
from the United States. This does
increase the level of threat, even as
Russian - origin Sukhoi-30MKI jets
currently available with the Indian Air
Force (IAF) can meet the challenge from
F-16s.
IAF
specialists have been reported to be of
the opinion that Sukhois are doing well
against F-160s in terms of
manoeuvrability, sophistication of
avionics and weapons systems, while
MIG-29s and Mirage-2000s do match up to
the F-16s. Notwithstanding the higher
allocation of funds the Indian Defence
Ministry got for the 2004-2005 fiscal,
there are sufficient indications from the
three Services that additional funds will
be required from the Ministry of Finance
later in the financial year.
This has
to be viewed in the context that the
Ministry of Defence (MoD) had projected a
requirement of Rs. 86,457 crores to the
Finance Ministry for providing for
obligatory charges, essential maintenance
needs, committed liabilities and
prioritized new schemes for the defence
services. The parliamentary standing
committee on defence has, an the other
hand, made it plain that the Defence
Ministry requires on additional Rs. 6,000
crores this year to ensure that new
projects and schemes are not deferred for
want of funds.
On the
procurement of advanced avionic system
for advanced light helicopters (ALH), the
Defence Ministry has let it be known that
HAL (Hindustan Aeronautic Limited) signed
a contact of 33 million dollars with
Messrs Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI)
in December 2003 for design and
development of advanced avionic system
— that is, integrated avionics
display system (ICADS) for 200 advanced
light helicopters (Dhruv). At present,
the ALH has a conventional cockpit and
stand alone avionic system with its own
individual control and display units.
IADS has been planned to replace the
present conventional architecture with a
view to reducing pilot workload and
improve safety.
At a time
when Pakistan has been found making
arrangements in support of its Navy, the
higher-ups in the Indian Navy cannot be
faulted for their displeasure over the
Defence Ministry's 'go-slow' tactics
vis-a-vis the Navy's pressing demand for
more warships and submarines. Indian Navy
presently has 143 ships and submarines.
Since 1990, a total of 53 ships and five
submarines were inducted into the Navy.
Of these, eleven ships and three
submarines were imported and the balance
42 ships and two submarines were
indigenously constructed at Indian
shipyards.
The Navy
has formulated a 15-year shipbuilding
plan as part of the long-term perspective
plan that covers the periods from 2002 to
2017. The plan envisages induction of 132
ships and 12 submarines. Unfortunately,
the Government is yet to finalise
definite budgetary allocation for this
long term shipbuilding perspective plan.
The Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS)
has not even cleared the long-pending
2-billion dollar French 'Scorpene'
project, which envisages construction of
six submarines at Mazagaon Docks.
The
Defence Minister, Pranab Mukherjee, will
have to admit that there is total absence
of strategic planning in the Ministry of
Defence. Will he act effectively and take
up the concrete allocation for the Navy's
shipbuilding plan?
|
 |
The
uniform controversy
By Abdul
Qyum Tantrey
A debate
is going on in Pakistan to ascertain,
whether between democracy and delivery,
which is more important for a country. In
this regard, Singapore and India are
cited as examples. In the stricter sense
of democracy, Singapore is not a
democratic country. But the Government
there delivers and has made the life of
its citizen happy. The Singaporeans,
therefore, are not concerned about the
type of Government they have. On the
contrary, India is a strong democracy but
the progress is slow. Even after 57 years
under a real democracy, a large chunk of
people still live below poverty line.
Many do not have a roof above their
heads, and the benefit of growth is
unevenly distributed.
From the
indicators available on the ground, it
appears that this debate was purposely
raised by the establishment. There is a
strong undercurrent desire in Pakistan
for real democracy, where people would be
the master of their destination and not
the army bosses. Before such desire gets
strengthened and turns into mass
movement, an effort is being made by
General Musharraf's Government to divert
the attention from democracy to delivery.
By bringing about some discipline in its
fiscal management, the present Government
claims that it has not only saved the
country from possible bankruptcy, but
also has given impetus to economic growth
aimed at delivering the nation with basic
necessities like food, cloth and shelter.
It is different matter that the so-called
stability in Pakistan's economy is the
result of the rescue operation undertaken
by its western allies, particularly the
USA and the UK, who have pumped in
billions of dollars to protect General
Musharraf, whom they consider as their
safest bet in their geo-strategic designs
in the region. With the literacy figure
very low, who is going to understand in
Pakistan the nuances of Government's
argument.
The
pro-democracy component of the Pakistani
society argue that all the military
rulers, who come to power initially
promised to establish real democracy in
the country, but none of them fulfilled
their promises. The military has ruled
Pakistan four times directly but it has
created more problems that any elected
Government. General Ayub Khan's
controlled democracy collapsed after
eleven years and even the Constitution
given by him was subsequently abrogated.
General Yahya Khan's military rule was
marked by the shame and humiliation of
1971, when the country was dismembered.
General Zia-ul-Haq's rule made Pakistan a
hub of terrorist outfits for which the
country is still paying the price in
terms of international image, foreign
investments and above all the unity of
the nation. It was an irony that when
General Zia died, the country had neither
a Prime Minister nor a National Assembly.
General Musharraf has come to power as
the result of the arbitrary changes made
in the Constitution by authoritarian -
civilian and military. They consider
General Musharraf as the biggest
impediment in the way to restore
democracy. They fell that General
Musharraf both as an army chief and the
President has prowess and proclivity for
manipulating the Constitutional process
or having any bill of constitutional
amendment passed. They are, therefore,
keen that as promised and as stipulated
in the constitution (Where the President
cannot have ay other office of profit).
General Musharraf must shed his uniform
on or before the stipulated date. Once he
does so, perhaps, the army under new
Chief may work as a balancing factor and
may restrain General Musharraf from
becoming over ambitious. In the long run,
a system may evolve for paving the way
for establishment of real democracy in
the country.
Hints from
the Government side, however, indicate
hardening in General Musharraf's attitude
vis-a-vis his uniform controversy.
General Musharraf is well aware of
undercurrent in favour of democracy. He,
therefore, does not appear keen to give
away the post of Chief of Army Staff. He
is, however, aware that if he does not
fulfil his promise, that may not be
appreciated in Washington, because, as
Haqqani pointed out, Americans were
hoping to use that (General Musharraf
shedding his military uniform) as a fig
leaf for accepting his regime of having
completed its transition to democratic,
civilian rule. It is with this fear in
the background, an exercise is on to
project that General Musharraf has
succumbed to the public pressure, who
want him to continue as Chief of Army
Staff in the national interest. Apart
from generating a debate on democracy
versus delivery, the Punjab Assembly was
forced to adopt a resolution (Sept 13)
urging General Musharraf to continue
keeping the office of President and the
army chief simultaneously. It was
followed by a discussion on the issue in
the cabinet of Prime Minister Shaukat
Aziz. The Cabinet felt that there was no
Constitutional restriction on General
Musharraf to remain President in uniform.
The Government's view was also explained
in the National Assembly by Parliamentary
Affairs Minister Sher Afghan Niazi and
the Law Minister Mohd. Wassi Zafar.
"He was elected (as President) in
uniform and will complete his term with
uniform", they said referring to
2002 referendum in which General
Musharraf had sough five more years as
the President. General Musharraf,
himself, has indicated that 95% of the
people of Pakistan wants him to continue
as Army Chief after Dec. 31.General
Musharraf's continuing as the President
of Pakistan and the Chief of Army Staff
beyond Dec. 31 is a forgone conclusion.
Till General Musharraf is there,
democracy can wait.
|
|
Homeland
demand - Neither communal nor criminal
Prof. M.L.Raina
The delegation of
the South Asia Free Media Association (SAFMA)
came to India , on a good will mission, in the
first week of October, 2004. An overwhelming
membership of the delegation, headed by Imtiaz
Alam, Secretary General, SAFMA, comprised 16
members of Pakistani media journalists. The
delegation, on its visit to the J&K State,
had an occasion to visit the refugee camps of the
Kashmiri Pandits at Muthi, Jammu. On the return
of the delegation from the camp, Mr Imtiaz, for
whom ‘seeing was believing", made an
observation that, "the sea-change among the
KPs, a trend showing communalization of the
views, indicates that the Kashmir issue has also
been communalized to certain extent". He
added, " I was stunned to know that they
demanded a separate state (Homeland), which,
though, might not be a general demand but was,
definitely, an overwhelming sentiment among the
community…… I wonder why they have not
been rehabilitated till now."
From the pointed
observation of Mr. Imtiaz Alam, regarding the
Kashmiri Pandits’ demand for a separate
state (homeland), suggestive of
"communalization of views", it appears
that the homeland demand of the Kashmiri Pandits,
languishing in forced exile, is looked upon as a
demand with communal overtones by some people,
including a section of the media fraternity
It becomes
imperative to remove the cobwebs of confusion, to
start with, about the much used and publicized
word ‘communal’. It is important to
redefine this word, and place it in its proper
lexical perspective. The word
‘communal’ (an adjective) is a
derivative of its head-word ‘ commune’,
and, according to the Oxford Dictionary, it
means, "of, pertaining to, or done by a
community". There is absolutely no shade of
bias or scorn attached to the word, as people in
general have been made to believe by vested
interests that give a negatively distorted shade
of meaning to this word to suit their aims and
objectives. Bereft of its wrongly attached
negative nuance, the word means nothing beyond
its dictionary meaning.
It thus follows
that there being nothing inherently negative and
abhorrent about the word ‘communal’, we
can define a communal person as one who works for
the betterment of the community he belongs to.
There is nothing objectionable about the keen
interest he shows in the betterment of his
community members with whom he shares, in common,
the tradition, culture, heritage and history of
the community, so long as his ideas and actions
do not come into clash with the vital interests
of another community around. If, while engaged in
pursuits, designed to uplift his community
economically, socially, educationally and
politically, he throws the chances of progress of
another community in jeopardy, and wilfully too,
his communal feelings for his community may be
said to have a negative and as such, an
unacceptable angle. In other words, he can be
described as a communal extremist, and not as a
communal person.
In the light of
the above mentioned assertions, the demand of the
Kashmiri Pandits, in exile, for a separate
homeland, is, by no standards, a communal demand
in the context of the actual meaning of the word
‘communal’ which is the reverse of the
wrongly accepted meaning of the word. This demand
is for the welfare of the community, and it does
not suggest, even remotely, any harm to the
Muslim community of Kashmir.
The Kashmiri
Muslim fundamentalists militated, through the
power of the gun, against what they termed as
‘Brahmin rule’ forced on them by the
Indian Government, and demanded freedom from what
they called the "Indian Colonisers".
Their demand was, and is, both communal and
criminal. Their ‘Jehad’ for the
establishment of Nizam-e-Mustaffa was negatively
communal in content, because it excluded
automatically the Kashmiri Pandits from the
envisaged theocratic political dispensation. Not
only that. Their communal extremism assumed the
dimension of communal frenzy when they started
killing Kashmiri Pandits, on a selective basis,
with the sordid intention of hounding them out of
the valley. Their demand was also criminal. In
the first instance, their insurgency was an act
of crime against the established political
authority. In the second, they committed crimes
against their fellow Kashmiris, the Pandits, by
taking recourse to their genocide, and other
inhuman acts.
In contrast, the
demand of the Kashmiri Pandits is a demand for
finding their lost roots. They are the aborigines
of Kashmir, with a recorded history of more than
five thousand years of their tradition, culture,
learning, and a rich and vibrant heritage. From
the despotic Muslim rule of the ancient times
till date, their history has been a chequered
one. All through these dark times they were
subjected to heinous atrocities. It is a tragic
irony that even during the bright days of the
post-independent era, in the avowed democratic
and secular set up, their vital interests, were
always put on the back burner by the successive
Muslim governments of Kashmir. Political
marginalisation, economic squeeze and social
isolation fell to their lot. Right from 1947,
they have had the misfortune of being treated as
third class citizens without free and fair access
to the existing political structures. But,
despite the stark discrimination against them in
various walks of life, the hapless Kashmiri
Pandits made every attempt to co-exist with the
majority Muslim population, because, primarily,
they were deeply attached to their native land
Kashmir and were deeply in love with the
"ashes of their fathers and the temples of
their gods". But alas! the hurricane of
Muslim fundamentalism and terrorism in 1989-90
swept them off their feet. They were hurled out
of their own land, Kashmir. What happened to them
in the exile is too apparent to need any
repetition. Their ethnic cleansing has been taken
cognizance of by the whole world.
Having been pushed
to the wall, the Kashmiri Pandits have been
persistently demanding a homeland in Kashmir.
This demand is enshrined in the historic
Margdarshan Resolution of 1991. It is the demand
of the community members. It is neither a
communal nor a criminal demand. Pandits are not
committing any crime by making a genuine demand
of resettlement in a separate homeland in Kashmir
within the four walls of the Indian Constitution.
Their existence as a community is precariously
poised on the brink of disaster.
They can be saved
only if they are given their envisaged homeland
with political power in their own hands. This is
the only way out for their leading a dignified
way of living, which has thus far, been denied
them. The homeland demand is not a communal
(negatively charged) demand either, because it
has absolutely no disastrous ramifications for
the Muslim majority of Kashmir.
Instead of being
scattered throughout the Valley in the dangerous
environs, without any physical, social and
economic security, and with absolutely no chances
of any guarantees, which they had never before,
of full growth in different areas of existence,
it is imperative that they be given due their
share of the land of their birth, at one place in
the Valley for their compact living without fear
of facing yet one more ethnic cleansing, and
exodus.
|
|
| |
|
|
