Daily Excelsior... Editorial

EDITORIAL

Hopefully the Government will be able to keep the new date of April 13 for taking the train from Jammu to Udhampur. It has been more than a year since the completion of the track through an arduous terrain. In fact, the deadlines have been repeatedly fixed and revised for the inaugural run. For the people in and around Udhampur it is a typical case of grapes being sour. They have been virtually chasing a mirage for too long. First, the extension of the railway line from Jammu has taken decades to be finished: there has been slow progress both on account of tough natural obstructions and official indifference. Then, the elections intervened to pre-empt a VIP opening ceremony lest the one giving the green signal attracted the charge of violating the model code of conduct. Lately, it is obvious although it has not been officially stated that the security-related concerns have been delaying the train. It is to be admitted that when the project was originally conceived the State did not face the sort of threats that it encounters these days because of militancy. The remnants of perpetrators of murder and mayhem are still around and are not averse to playing with the lives of ordinary citizens. Indeed, for them a train passing through high bridges and tunnels can be a soft target. This is quite a justified reason for the security and administrative apparatus to take whatever...........more

Shaking hands

For the first time the delegation of a ruling party --- Pakistan Muslim League (Q) --- from Pakistan is on a visit to this country......more

Kashmir solution
possible if.....

By Fazal Mehmood

Meeting a delegation of political leaders from Pakistan, led by the former Prime Minister Shujaat Hussain (president, Pakistan Muslim League), Prime Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh, said India was committed to finding a "lasting solution to all outstanding issues" between the two countries. "History obliges us to seize all opportunities to pursue peace. We cannot change borders but in a globalised world, borders should not matter", said Mr. Singh..........more

Beware of
Uncle Sam’s
sweet nothings!

By Lt. Gen. (Retd.) Daulat Singh

Beware of Uncle Sam when he comes bearing gifts. This warning applies both to India and to Pakistan. The latter is buying F-16 aircraft from the USA despite having burnt its fingers before. The US's decision to sell F-16s to Pakistan has not won approval in India. To sweeten the pill, the US has offered to India the licensed production of F-16s and F-18s...............more

Who is an
ideal Governor?

By Vazeeruddin

For good or for ill, the focus of national attention has lately shifted from the performance and role of various Governors in the past to how they can avoid hasty action in their respective States. This is the offshoot, first, of the dismissal of four Governors by the United Progressive Alliance.......more

EDITORIAL

Dream coming true?

A look at the composition of the official team that has carried out the latest check on this track in a train leaves no doubt about the purpose of the exercise: it included technical as well as police and security experts. It has taken two important decisions. One is to restrict the speed of the train to 60 kilometres per hour instead of about 100 kilometres that was proposed earlier and the other is to ensure round-the-clock vigil of the line for the safety of passengers. Detailed requirements of the police force needed for the task have been worked out. In addition, four new stations --- Bajalta, Sangarh, Ramnagar and Udhampur --- have been well equipped with the staff in charge of track maintenance, signal and communication. A thrice-a-week train between the national capital and Udhampur has been earmarked with the arrival and departure timings which the commuters should find very convenient.

From the reports it appears that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh would flag off the first train. It will be befitting the occasion. The Udhampur railway station marks the first step towards the most ambitious plan for taking the train to Srinagar piercing through the mighty Pir Panjal. There are more than 20 bridges and tunnels each in the short stretch between Jammu and Udhampur. This gives an idea of the onerous challenge that lies ahead. The work is already in progress within the Valley and, not entirely surprisingly, it has occasionally brought railway engineers and militants face to face with each other. There is no doubt that the job of the employees --- the majority of whom are outsiders --- would be made easy if the local population everywhere is doubly vigilant and fearlessly helps the authorities in tackling mischief-makers who constitute just a miniscule but troublemaking minority.

Shaking hands

For the first time the delegation of a ruling party --- Pakistan Muslim League (Q) --- from Pakistan is on a visit to this country on the invitation of the Union Government. This is a significant development and fits into the current peace mood. The group has inter-acted with, apart from Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Congress president Sonia Gandhi and Bharatiya Janata Party president L.K. Advani, among others. Lest there should be some confusion it must be clarified that the guests constitute that part of the PML that has broken away from former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to put their weight behind Pakistan President and Army chief Pervez Musharraf. Technically this PML heads the ruling coalition in Pakistan under Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz but for all practical purposes it has been dancing to the tune of Gen Musharraf who is calling the shots during and after its split from the parent body. Soft-spoken Chaudhary Shujat Hussain head of the visiting delegation was the Prime Minister of the neighbouring country for a brief period in 2004 at the sweet will of the uniformed President. He had to make a rather unceremonious exit from the Government but leads the organisation. Some observers are fond of making a comparison between Chaudhary Shujat and Ms Sonia Gandhi as if they are placed on the same footing behind those wielding power in their respective countries. As the facts about the Pakistan leader show any such judgment is grossly wrong: unlike the Chaudhary, Ms Gandhi is the acknowledged major force behind the currently ruling dispensation in New Delhi. The Chaudhary's outfit, therefore, loses some of its sheen and it fact faces a credibility gap in the absence of Mr Nawaz Sharif who has been dislodged in a coup and compelled to live in exile these days. At least two members of the Pakistan team, including Chaudhary Shujat himself, have preferred to stay behind bars for longer spells in the past than to be seen compromising with their commitment to democracy. Their present posturing in playing a second fiddle to an army-led system may thus seem to be at variance with their original bold philosophy. These facts are pertinent and absolutely necessary to know in order to fully understand the internal dynamics of politics in Pakistan. However, they are not relevant so far as this visit of the Pakistan leaders to this country is concerned which must be viewed in an altogether different context. There are reasons to welcome any such tour as it does lead to better appreciation of the situation if one comes with an open mind. There is strong need to build bridges between the two neighbours at all possible levels. Political elements of all hues have to be involved in this fruitful exercise: they can't be left out because of certain problems which are best left to them to tackle as their country's internal affairs.

Having noted this one is constrained to emphasise the necessity of observing utmost caution during these trips. Nothing should be said or done even remotely which gives the impression as if one is indulging in a game of one-upmanship or scoring diplomatic points. The first priority should be strengthening the feeling of having a common heritage and history that younger generations are rediscovering. Everything else can be put on hold. The emerging optimistic signs may eventually prove that the relations between India and Pakistan are not always prone to accidents.

Kashmir solution possible if.....

By Fazal Mehmood

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh deserves credit for three initiatives that will go a long way in bringing down the temperature in India-Pakistan relations: doing away with passports for travel between the two parts of Jammu and Kashmir, inviting General Pervez Musharraf to watch the one-day match between India and Pakistan in New Delhi; and going ahead with the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline.

The most visible impact of normalising the relationship with Pakistan is likely to be seen in Jammu and Kashmir. However, Kashmir and the Kashmiris ought not to be marginalized in this process. Indeed, the cardinal mistake that both India and Pakistan are making is of not taking the Kashmiris along with them. The plight of Kashmiri Pandits needs to be addressed immediately.

It is evident that the Kashmiris have been reduced to being passive receivers of decisions taken by Islamabad and New Delhi. Today, at best, they seem to be only collateral beneficiaries of the bargaining going on between India and Pakistan.

If the Manmohan Singh Government can be faulted on its Kashmir policy, it is in confusing the "problem of Kashmir" for the "problem in Kashmir". The problem in Kashmir - of an internal conflict, of human rights violations, of youngsters languishing in prison and the lack of an adequately open space for politics - will not get resolved by increasing the frequency of bus services to Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. For this there has to be dialogue with the people in Indian Kashmir.

There was a time when New Delhi was obsessed with a dialogue with the All-Party Hurriyat Conference. Ever since their leaders refused to meet Manmohan Singh when he visited the valley - no doubt partly because of the fear of Pakistan - New Delhi seems to have given up on them. On the rebound, our leaders in New Delhi hesitate to meet even Yasin Malik, who only wants to hand over the 15 lakh signatures he has collected demanding a voice for the Kashmiris in the India- Pakistan peace process.

It is New Delhi's declared policy to offer talks to anyone who gives up violence. What could be more non-violent than Yasin Malik's signature campaign? Yet he is unlikely to get an appointment with the prime minister. However, if General Musharraf meets him in Delhi or the Pakistan high commission receives the signatures on his behalf, we will immediately dub him a Pakistani agent.

The only confidence-building measure that has gone overwhelmingly in favour of the Kashmiris up to now is the ceasefire. And end to violence by the two sides can give the people of J&K the breathing space they desperately need. This also implies Pakistan pull its hand entirely from the violence it encourages within the state. Unless Kashmiris are given a right to life, and fear is taken away from their daily existence, how can they be expected to make up their mind? Their right to life must take priority over their right to self-determination.

If Pakistan is to understand this, then its establishment must give up its double standards on violence. A moderate Kashmiri friend recently posed the question succinctly: "When civilians are killed in Wana, Pakistan calls it a war against terrorism but when grenades are thrown in Kashmir, why is it called jihad? When elections are held in Muzaffarabad, they are considered good, but why are they evil if they are held in Kashmir?"

The fact is that Islamabad does not know the reality of Kashmir today. Its channels of information and communication are blocked - its sources are those who are involved in the conflict enterprise. Islamabad talks to only those who speak the language it likes to hear. The result is that it ends up believing its own propaganda.

General Musharraf is eager to address the Kashmir issue. He has even shown a readiness to be innovative. However, he has a habit of putting the cart before the horse - a number of solutions are put forward while ignoring the people. Has he consulted the Kashmiris about his seven-region proposal or any other proposal he might have up his sleeve? How does he have a greater right to speak about the future of the Kashmiri people than the Kashmiris themselves?

Perhaps General Musharraf needs to think less as a military planner and more as a statesman. Were he to do so, he may find that it is more productive to focus on people rather than on map-making exercises. A people-centric approach, in the short run, would entail building interdependence between the two Kashmiris; jointly addressing with India the issue of lack of investment in the two Kashmirs; promoting not only bus traffic but also goods traffic between the two regions.

In the long term, this would have to be backed by a commitment to complete peace in the region. It is quite likely that the Kashmir issue would become more amenable to solution if it is made less important and separated from both Indian and Pakistani nationalisms. Only when this happens can the people of Kashmir be de-linked from the negativities emanating from Indian and Pakistani nationalism.

The political unity of the two Kashmirs does not seem possible as of now. The least India and Pakistan can do is to help forge a psychological unity between the Kashmiris so that they can heal themselves. General Musharraf will do a great service to the Kashmiris if he does not focus on pulling yet another rabbit out of his hat in terms of a new Kashmir solution when he is in Delhi.

Beware of Uncle Sam’s sweet nothings!

By Lt. Gen. (Retd.) Daulat Singh

India would do well to avoid this very well meaning trap. The US is notoriously unreliable as a supplier of military hardware, as Pakistan has learnt to its cost. In its wisdom or from an absence of choice, Pakistan, although once bitten, is not being twice shy. But that is not good enough reason for India to be bitten too, especially as there are other ways of beefing up the Indian air force.

The unreliability of the US is underlined by the fact that during the visit of the US secretary of state, Ms Condoleezza Rice, there was no indication that the sale of F-16s to Pakistan would be announced so soon. The F-16s to Pakistan have been balanced, in the eyes of the US, by a clutch of sweet promises to India.

This disproportionate bestowing of gifts should not also be blown out of perspective and Jeremiahed into anti-US rhetoric. The estrangement of the Cold-War era has changed to engagement at the level of diplomacy and in the military field. The Indian and the US navies carry out joint exercises and combined operations. The armies of the two countries are cooperating in high-altitude training and disaster management, while the two air forces are working out plans to take part in joint search-and-rescue missions. Washington and New Delhi are cooperating quietly on various aspects of national missile defence and are sharing information on terrorists and terrorist organizations. There is the promise now of an agreement on civilian nuclear activities.

There is no gainsaying the fact that in many critical areas, India and the US have come together and formed reciprocal arrangements. But this cannot take away from the profound and fundamental contradictions that inform Indo-US relations. Foreign policy is always based on the perception of self-interest and on its advancement. India's self-interest clearly lies in emerging as the most important player in south Asia and in the Indian Ocean. It also sees itself as a key player in Asian affairs.

It is not in the US's interest to see India play such a powerful role in the region. It would like India to be subservient to its own interests and plans. Its nurturing of Pakistan is designed to make it a counter-balance to India. This is a contradiction unlikely to be resolved. Given this, India should be choosy about what it decides to take from the US, and more importantly, it should resist the temptation of being seduced by sweet nothings.

In 1971, Henry Kissinger, the then US national security adviser, came calling to Raisina Hill, much like American cabinet members and officials these days who frequently invite themselves to India. Kissinger's much-anticipated and much-hyped meeting with the then defence minister Jagjivan Ram lasted less than 15 minutes.

Rukmini Menon, who accompanied Kissinger to all his engagements in New Delhi in her capacity as joint secretary dealing with the US in the ministry of external affairs, has recorded that the American master diplomat opened his meeting with Ram by piously hoping there would be peace in South Asia and that the crisis that was then building up over east Pakistan's independence would not lead to war. The Indian defence minister bluntly, but calmly, told Kissinger that there would be peace in the sub-continent if and when the Americans stopped supplying arms to Pakistan.

For once, the garrulous, smooth-talking Kissinger was at a loss for words. Menon has recorded that Kissinger then tried a ploy that often sweeps Third World leaders off their feet. He invited Ram to visit Washington. Once again, Ram was the master of the situation. Instead of accepting the American invitation, the defence minister asked Kissinger, his face betraying no expression or feeling, why he should visit Washington.

Kissinger had no answer to such a question. Their meeting ended abruptly.

The sale of F-16s to Pakistan, announced in Washington on March 25 and the events leading up to it, constitute an example of history repeating itself.

Like Kissinger almost a quarter century ago, a succession of Americans in power - from president George W. Bush down to the desk office in-charge of India at the state department - have been telling officials of this country for several years now of their hopes of peace between India and Pakistan.

Like Kissinger then, they have been sweet-talking everyone from Prime Minister Manmohan Singh down to strategic analysts and business leaders into visiting the US as a sop for their acts of omission and commission - from India's point of view - in their dealings with general Pervez Musharraf.

In addition, they are now dangling the carrot of a visit to India by the president of the world's only superpower. India's singular misfortune today is that there is no one in New Delhi like Jagjivan Ram who can stand up to the Americans and tell them plainly and firmly that the biggest threat to the prospect of peace between India and Pakistan comes from Washington's actions which are fuelling another arms race in South Asia much like the ones in the 1960s after Islamabad joined western military alliances, purportedly to fight communism.

When US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was in Delhi four months ago, the present defence minister Pranab Mukherjee came very close to being a leader in the mould of Jagjivan Ram. Rumsfeld, typically, tried to badger everyone he met in Delhi during that visit into buying US arms. Like the wily Kissinger, Rumsfeld may have hoped that his offer to sell American arms to India may soften New Delhi's concerns about the Bush administrations' decision to supply offensive weapons to Musharraf - weapons which the general has no scope to use against the Maldives, Nepal or Afghanistan, but only in a war with India. Among the ministers whom Rumsfeld met in New Delhi, only Mukherjee was unwilling to mince his words.

May be it was the input he received from the men in uniform in his defence ministry, maybe it was his experience in dealing with Uncle Sam during one of the most difficult periods in Indo-US relations when he was external affairs minister. Mukherjee somewhat rudely told Rumsfeld during their December meeting that for India, the US would be an "unreliable defence partner'. Rumsfeld, like Kissinger in 1971, was taken aback by such bluntness.

Mukherjee told George W. Bush's arms-peddler that India would not walk down a blind defence alley, buy US arms and then place its national security at risk because Washington was notorious for its decisions, at times whimsical, to suspend sales of arms and spare parts - even impose sanctions on buyers at will. Instead of assuaging the Indian defence minister's fears, Rumsfeld's reaction to Mukherjee's statement was one of injured innocence. He said the US had its laws in this regard and that other countries which were buying American arms were prepared to accept such risks.

But by the time secretary of state Condoleezza Rice flew into New Delhi a few days ago, the Bush administration had realised that like Ram nearly a quarter century ago, Mukherjee was no pushover. At each of her meetings in New Delhi, Rice repeated like a mantra that the US wanted to be a "reliable partner for India" in defence matters.

Whether she was able to pull the wool over Indian eyes in diminishing this country's concerns about the sale of F-16s to Pakistan will only be known in the coming weeks and months as New Delhi's response to Washington's announcement on March 25 unfolds and crystallises.

Bush has telephones prime minister Manmohan Singh, but for the time being, at least, India's reaction is not the US president's urgent concern. At the White House, Bush is sharing the joy of 5,000 workers in his native Texas, whose jobs at the Lockheed Martin Corporation plant that will produce the F-16s for Musharraf have been saved by the announcement. That plant employed 5,800 Texans at this time last year. Their number is now down by 800 with a decline in orders. The plant is still manufacturing F-16s for Israel, Chile, the United Arab Emirates and Poland, but was poised to cut its workforce in nine months to 4,000 unless the Pakistani order came in.

Lobbyists for Lockheed Martin and Pakistan have been putting out the word in recent months that the plant in Fort Worth would have to close down unless the F-16s promised to Pakistan a long time ago were cleared.

It was a ploy that they together used to good effect, proving in the process that all politics is local, after all. INAV

Who is an ideal Governor?

By Vazeeruddin

An ideal Government is one that governs the least, said a former American President. Former Governor of Jammu and Kashmir and later a Central Minister Jagmohan once defined an ideal Governor as one who talked as little as possible, and heard, read and saw as much as possible.

Presiding over an extension lecture in Delhi, delivered by the distinguished jurist V.R.Krishna Iyer, on areas of conflict and tension in Centre-State relations, Jagmohan said: "Sometimes the role of Governor is criticized because critics at the time of making comments are not in possession of full and true facts, and for reasons of confidentiality Governors have to keep quiet."

Moreover, constitutional words and expressions are, according to him, subject to different interpretations and have to be read in the totality of circumstances. "The political and administrative environment cannot be ignored by a responsible Governor," he said.

The rest of Jagmohan's thesis ran thus: The constitutional crises with which Governors are sometimes asked to deal are not their creation but are imposed upon them, and they have to deal in a few hours with intricate issues with manifold ramifications; the Governor can act fairly only if other components of the power structure act similarly; the Constitution is not an end in itself but a means to an end, the end being the leading of an organized and orderly life in an environment that is conducive to peace, progress and productivity; the Governor is helpless if other components of the power structure destroy the very moral and ethical basis of the constitutional provisions.

If the nation did not seem to have paid much attention to the views of Jagmohan, it could only have been because he had been closely associated with the Emergency regime and all the atrocities committed by it, even if he later had a change of heart!

It speaks volumes for the stuff that most tenants of Raj Bhavans are made of that, if asked to name the best of the lot of Governors republican India has had, an average Indian would perhaps not be able to expand the list made up of B.K.Nehru, Dr. Shankar Dayal Sharma, and Prof. Nurul Hasan. Why? The reasons are manifold.

First, the day Jagmohan explained the woes of the Governor, the then Union Home Minister Buta Singh told the Lok Sabha that the post of Governor should be viewed as an institution irrespective of the person occupying the post, and that, although the Constitution did not enjoin it, the convention was that the Centre consulted the concerned Chief Minister before appointing a particular person as Governor of that State.

Singh said that, prior to the shifting of Prof Nurul Hasan to Orissa, the then Chief Minister of West Bengal Jyoti Basu had been sounded on his successor. The Chief Ministers of West Bengal and Kerala promptly challenged the claim that the Centre followed the convention of consulting the Chief Ministers.

Be that as it may, the fact remains that, barring those named above, few persons of standing are ready to be Governors, for there is little of gubernatorial pomp about them and because of the sea of troubles in which they have to swim in the conflicts of party politics. Indeed, the job seems to be becoming as unwanted and thankless as that of vice-chancellors.

In the days of the British regime the Pentlands, Goschens and Erskines had both power and pomp. Though their wives were not called Excellencies, they could share the gubernatorial splendour and recommend titled or untitled toadies for favours like ministerships or ribbons. Even during the last days of the British rule, the Haileys, Haigs and Halletts, or Viceroys like Linlithgow and Wavell could give garden parties where the Executive Councillors and Rai Bahadurs could pay obeisance to British deities who ruled by a sort of divine right.

The Constitution-makers did their best in making Governors heads of State enjoying dignity, rather than power. The suggestion for elected Governors on the American pattern was rightly rejected, for two elected rivals to the throne could have led to repetition of the story of Corsican brothers.

In Uttar Pradesh, for instance, a Governor like Sarojini Naidu, a nightingale, found herself busy without seeking power, and was content to be a constitutional head. Her successor, Mody, looked aggrieved though he was allowed to have his quota of drink in Government House under a Government committed to Prohibition. Mody's successor, K.M.Munshi, tried to teach teachers and students, only to learn that neither were receptive. V.V.Giri did his best that, in the event, was not good enough, to revive the utility of the office by concealing lack of power behind his bulk, and by being vociferous.

The spirit of the Constitution is as important as its letter, but in 1947-50, when the Constitution was being drafted, everything could not be written into it---constitutional practice from Britain, Fundamental Rights from the USA and Directive Principles from Ireland and other countries. The position of the Governor, like that of the President, was supposed to be analogous to the office of the British Sovereign through whom Ministers act, and not the other way round. Even with all the expositions of the law and custom of the British Constitution from Dicey to Jennings, there may be some uncertainties and unsettled questions, and Governors in India face sometimes unforeseen problems, as explained by Jagmohan. This can be vexatious, and there have been many instances of it in many States.

Of course, there have been periodical demands for the abolition of the post of Governor, but the point is that if the States are to enjoy autonomy in a federal set-up and a status superior to that of Swiss Cantons, if not of the constituent States of the USA, Governors are suitable symbols of Statehood. The framers of the Indian Constitution, however, did not bother to discuss in detail how these non-party heads of States were to be appointed. They are appointed by the Central Government, and, in practice, they have been expected to act as its agents. The crucial test is not the summoning, proroguing or dissolving of a State legislative assembly but the calling upon of the leader of some party to form a Government after elections when majorities are doubtful.

It was in this delicate business that Tapase got himself into trouble in Haryana. His arithmetic may have been wrong or his inner voice may have given him the wrong advice. According to the then President R.Venkataraman, to recall newspaper reports, Tapase's action in swearing in Bhajan Lal in a hurry when he had asked Devi Lal to parade his supporters was unconstitutional. Venkataraman, however, showed his impartiality by condemning the reported manhandling of the Governor by Devi Lal's supporters. This was not all. It was the Independents who made the situation complex by their independence of loyalty, principle and programme. For the evolution of a good party system elimination of Independents is necessary. The guidelines laid down by the Governors' conference, presided over by Bhagwan Sahay, dealt with matters of propriety.

The criterion, it was said, is not necessarily the single biggest party. It is the party or combination of parties that can promise a stable Government that should be invited to form Government. On the basis of the recommendations of this conference and the opinion of jurists, Shanti Dhawan, Governor of West Bengal, though favourably disposed towards Jyoti Basu, rejected his claim to the formation of a ministry with his single largest party and prove its strength on the floor of the House. The Governors' conference was forgotten in the discussion on precedents and proprieties. The facts were that the Congress had a certain number of members, and the Lok Dal, the Bharatiya Janata Party and the Congress (J) had a larger number. The position of the Independents was dubious. Whomsoever they joined would have had the majority.

But the nation's concern is not with what happened in Haryana decades ago, or with what may happen in future, but with what the proper duty of a Governor is in such circumstances. There is no law to be followed in such matters. Only propriety should dictate the course.

By what the Governors' conference laid down, that course should have been clear, or Tapase could have abided by the word he gave to Devi Lal. The consequence, in the event, was embarrassment to everyone, including the Central Government. The lust for power is increasing and pursuit of power knows no rules. The position of the Governor has become difficult without a firm indication of how far he is the head of a State and how far an agent of the Central Government.

There was only one B.K.Nehru who had the guts to say no to Indira Gandhi who, as Prime Minister, asked him to dismiss the Farooq Abdullah government in Jammu and Kashmir. That, additionally, Indira Gandhi was his niece meant less to him, and he paid the price for his principles by allowing himself to be transferred to Gujarat as Governor. Such courage of convictions no longer seems to obtain. If a Governor has to be both head of State and an agent of the Center, appointment of Governors should be reviewed even though an alternative to the present system would be hard to find.

If some sort of a public service commission were to select Governors, their dignity would not necessarily be enhanced. Anyone would like to be a Governor but only in a State where there is a stable government. Where there are indeterminate majorities and minorities, difficulties are bound to arise. As French people faced the guillotine during the French Revolution and cried out what crimes were being committed in the name of liberty, the Indian people might try to consider what crimes were being committed in the name of the Constitution. Everyone in politics should remember that there would be no Crown without the people.

It has been said that the art of government lies in knowing when one should play the fox or the lion. It looks likely that most Governors have tried to be lions when they should have been foxes. (Syndicate Features)