EDITORIAL
Gurez versus Kargil
Is a conflict of the
Kargil type around the corner? Doubts have been expressed
in this behalf following the longest encounter between
armed infiltrators and the Army in the Gurez sector of
the State after India and Pakistan had settled for
ceasefire in November of 2003. Evidently, however, the
confrontation in itself although serious is not as much
responsible for creating this perception as the overall
atmosphere of terrorism that has erupted across the
globe. First, the scale of the incident is not as wide
and gory as it was in the Kargil region. Secondly, it
will be unfair to ignore that Pakistan has not provided
cover fire to intruders. It means that it is wary of
taking any such counter-productive step although it faces
the charge of having failed to prevent the militants from
crossing over from its side. In Kargil, on the other
hand, not only the neighbouring country had incited the
intrusion it had also directly taken part in it. Defence
Minister Pranab Mukherjee is, therefore, right in his
assessment that the Gurez episode may not lead to a
Kargil-like situation. At the same time if he has struck
a note of caution and hinted at a review of the decision
to reduce troops in the Valley it is because he can ill
afford to take chances. Anybody in his position will be
careful because the world has again become suspicious of
Pakistan. Whether it is the attack on the Ram Temple in
Ayodhya or serial bomb blasts in London Pakistan finds
itself in the dock because of the complicity of the
people of its origin. Moreover, it has the needle of
distrust firmly turned towards it following the
disclosure in its own media that the militant training
camps have been revived in the North-West Frontier
Province (NWFP).
Taken together these
occurrences have lent meaning to the somewhat belated
discovery about Pakistan Information Minister Sheikh
Rashid having provided accommodation to the Kashmiri
militants for shelter as well as storing their arms. To
make matters worse for our neighbours a responsible
United States newspaper has published a detailed account
of the arrest of Pakistani extremists not only in America
but also across the Europe in Italy, Spain and Britain. A
terribly upset US which had already hinted at "weak
links" in the global war against terrorism has
conveyed to the Pakistan Government that it should take
measures to get the terror shops closed. The superpower
has conveyed to Pakistan to "stop infiltration
across the LoC" in Kashmir as well.
Does this mean that
Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf who is trying to push
his country towards "enlightened moderation"
finds him too helpless in the face of terrorist factories
that have been built over the years? Or, is it that he is
playing a double game the sort of which he himself had
done in the case of Kargil? The greater possibility is
that he is caught in a bind. There are others in Pakistan
trying to do him what he had done to Mr Nawaz Sharif by
plotting Kargil behind his back and then staging a coup
against him. Close observers of the Pakistan developments
rule out the possibility of the General doing anything
that offends the US by hindering its attempts to
"smoke out" Osama bin Laden. It is not easy for
him to go back either after having declared a war against
extremism and orthodoxy. Therefore, the logical inference
is that his grip over his country is somewhat weak. This
is all the more reason that we in this country remain
extremely vigilant.
Wake up, Jammu
Now that the details of
the Supreme Court judgment striking down the Illegal
Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act are available
the country would do well to heed to the warning the
highest court in the land has sounded. A three-judge
bench comprising Chief Justice R.C. Lahoti, Justice G P
Mathur and Justice P K Balasubramanyan has observed:
"The presence of such a large number of illegal
migrants from Bangladesh, which runs into millions, is in
fact an aggression on the State of Assam and has also
contributed significantly in causing serious internal
disturbances in the shape of insurgency of alarming
proportions." It has noted that this
"aggression" had made the life of the people of
Assam "wholly insecure and the panic generated
thereby had created fear psychosis". Not
surprisingly, therefore, Assam's development was a
casualty as it was viewed by the rest of the country as a
disturbed area discouraging investment and employment.
Certain other remarks made by the apex court portray the
frightening scenario that exists on the ground. It has
pointed out that the presence of Bangladeshis in large
numbers has "changed the demographic character of
that region and the local people of Assam have been
reduced to the status of minority in certain districts.
"This being the situation there can be no manner of
doubt that the State of Assam is facing external
aggression and internal disturbance on account of
large-scale immigration of Bangladeshi nationals. The
impact is such that it not affects the State of Assam but
also affects its sister states like Arunachal Pradesh,
Meghalaya and Nagaland … as the route to the said
places passes through Assam". Of course, as is
widely known by now, the court has held that the IMDT Act
has not proved a remedy that it was meant to be. Quite
contrary to this the Act and the rules under it had been
so made that "innumerable and insurmountable"
difficulties were created in identification and
deportation of illegal migrants. Small wonder then that
though inquiries were initiated in 310759 cases under the
Act only 10015 persons were declared illegal migrants and
just 1481 of them were physically expelled up to April
30, 2000. The Supreme Court has noted that this
"comes to less than half per cent of the cases
initiated". On the other hand, the Foreigners Act
has turned out to be effective. A case in point cited by
the apex court is that of West Bengal from where 489046
persons were deported between 1983 and November 1998
"which was a lesser period". In view of this
finding it has concluded that the IMDT Act "is
coming to the advantage of such illegal migrants as any
proceedings initiated against them almost entirely ends
in their favour, enables them to have a document having
official sanctity to the effect that they are not illegal
migrants".
There are three points
that are relevant to this State especially Jammu city.
One is the Supreme Court's reference to the report of
Governor Lt Gen S.K. Sinha (retd) on the adverse impact
of the unchecked migration on North-East. He had prepared
it when he held the same post in Assam. Secondly it has
commented upon the unfavourable fall-out on language,
script and culture of Assam. Thirdly and that is for us
in this city to do is to wake up to the similar threat of
illegal migrants from Bangladesh that we are confronted
with. We have repeatedly stated in these columns that we
are not doing anything to avert the impending danger.
Will we still look around for any excuse for our inertia?
|
Assertive
mood of Kashmiris in PoK
By
Samuel Baid
All Party
National Alliance (APNA) in occupied
Kashmir, a conglomerate of political
parties, has stepped up its peaceful
movement for freedom from Pakistan's
control of their territory. It is
"in fact a colony of Pakistan,"
said their leaders at a Press Conference
in Muzaffarabad last month. Muzaffarabad
is treated as the capital of Pakistan
occupied Kashmir (PoK).
APNA
appears determined not to leave the fate
of Kashmir to those Kashmiri and
non-Kashmiri groups who thrive on pushing
the Pakistani Kashmir agenda. This Press
Conference was held a day after the APNA
filed a Constitution petition in the PoK
High Court challenging the exclusion of
nationalist parties from participating in
elections because they do not subscribe
to the ideology of Kashmir's accession to
Pakistan. The permission to participate
in elections is restricted to only those
in PoK who swear loyalty to Pakistan. The
petition said this condition, as provided
by the 1974 Provisional Constitution of
PoK, went against the United Nations
resolutions on Jammu and Kashmir and
violated Human Rights. PoK's last
elections were held in July 2001. Eighty
nationalist candidates filed their
nominations without committing themselves
to the ideology of accession. Their
papers were rejected and the candidates
faced rigorous jail terms for months.
APNA
Chairman Arif Shahid expressed the hope
that the PoK High Court would strike down
this clause from the 1974 Constitution to
allow the people, who stand for
independence of Jammu and Kashmir,
participate in elections. In case the
court failed to do justice, Mr Shahid
said, the APNA was determined to approach
the International Court of Justice.
APNA's is
the second constitutionally important
petition in the past 15 years that the
PoK High Court will be hearing. The
first, in 1990, was filed by two lawyers
from Gilgit-Baltistan and
"Azad" Kashmir challenging
Pakistan's continued illegal control over
Gilgit-Baltistan. The petitioners
demanded that this territory, which
Pakistan unauthorisedly called its
Northern Areas, be returned to the
administrative control of
"Azad" Kashmir. The Pakistan
Government challenged the jurisdiction of
the High Court and averred that although
Northern Areas did not belong to
Pakistan, they were not included in
"Azad" Kashmir as defined in
the 1974 PoK Constitution. It, however,
agreed that these areas belonged to the
State of Jammu and Kashmir, as it existed
before independence in 1947.
The High
Court in its judgement on March 8, 1993
rejected Pakistan's argument against the
Court's jurisdiction and said it
(Pakistan) had failed to explain why it
continued to deny the people of
Gilgit-Baltistan their fundamental and
political rights. The Court said Pakistan
also violated the UN resolutions by
separating Gilgit-Baltistan from
"Azad" Kashmir. (Pakistan has
divided PoK into "Azad" Kashmir
and what it calls Northern Areas.
Pakistan controls the latter directly but
does not give its people any rights. It
controls the former through the 1974
Constitution). The Court accepted the
petition and ordered the "Azad"
Kashmir Government to immediately assume
the administrative control of Northern
Areas and to annex it with the
administration of PoK.
The
Court's judgement was very embarrassing
for the Government of Paistan but it
tried to keep a bold face. Nevertheless,
before the time for appeal expired, it
appealed to the PoK Supreme Court and got
the High Court's judgement vacated. The
Supreme Court said the Northern Areas in
terms of the 1974 Constitution did not
belong to "Azad" Kashmir, but
they were part of the State of Jammu and
Kashmir, as it existed on August 15,
1947. This order also negatived the High
Court order for the relief to the people
of Gilgit-Baltistan. The High Court had
ordered that these people should be given
all the fundamental rights that were
available to the people of PoK under the
1974 Constitution. Thus, the people of
Gilgit-Baltistan continue to live without
fundamental rights in spite of Pakistani
Supreme Court's order of May 1999, which
asked Islamabad to give the people of
Northern Areas all basic rights available
to the citizens of Pakistan.
This order
was like an election promise. It came at
a time when the Pakistani Army badly
needed the support of the local
population of Gilgit-Baltistan for its
aggression in Kargil around the same
time. The local youths were forced to
work for the Army and after the
aggression they were just forgotten.
There are reports that old parents of
many young people who died during the
aggression were either not given or given
very inadequate compensation.
APNA
basically represents the deprivations of
the people of Gilgit-Baltistan. Now, it
seems, it wants to expand its political
activities to "Azad" Kashmir,
perhaps, with a view to demanding a role
for itself in the settlement of the
Kashmir tangle. It rejects Pakistan's
description of the Hurriyat Conference as
the sole representative body of the
people of Kashmir. At the APNA Press
Conference in Muzaffarabad last month,
its Chairman Arif Shahid said Hurriyat
leaders during their recent visit to
Pakistan went to Islamabad and Karachi
and met Pakistan's unrepresentative
leaders and secret agencies but did not
bother to visit Baltistan and Gilgit to
meet the oppressed people there. If the
fate of the PoK High Court's verdict of
March 1993 is any guide, one cannot
imagine the Kashmiri nationalists would
be allowed to participate in elections
and play a role in the affairs of PoK.
But, they say, they are determined to
approach the International Court of
Justice if they do not get justice in
PoK.
It is true
that the Indian media has thus far
ignored the nationalists’ activities
in PoK. But they cannot be ignored for
long. They are emerging a threat to Pak
occupation of Kashmir and its campaign of
disinformation worldwide.
|
 |
Sethusamudram
and its political and ecological costs
By T K
Krishnamurthy
The
Sethusamudram Ship Canal Project, the
Central Government and the Sethusamudram
Corporation Limited, formed specially to
execute the project, have subjected
themselves to a lot of suspicion. The
project is supposed to construct a
"continuous navigation channel"
connecting the east- and west-coast ports
of India by dredging into the shallow
waters of the Gulf of Mannar and the Palk
Straits off the Tamil Nadu coast. This
has raised fears about the Dravida
Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), a key ally of
the UPA government at the Centre.
The 167
km-long channel, touted as the Suez of
the East, is expected to be completed in
three years at the cost of Rs. 2,427.40
crore. It would, it is argued, obviate
the need for ships sailing from the west
to the east coast, or vice versa, to
circumnavigate Sri Lanka. But the
project, launched by the prime minister
himself at Vandiyur near Madurai on July
2, raises more questions than it provides
answers to.
The
Tuticorin Port Trust tries to allay fears
by insisting that the dredging technology
is quicker and safer now. But is it all
about dredging?
The
"dream" project has been in
incubation since 1860, when it was first
proposed as a "link canal" by a
British commander of the Indian Marine.
In post-independence India, several
committees, the first constituted by the
Centre in 1956 under the chairmanship of
Ramaswamy Mudaliar, have studied its
viability. In the Sixties, the
Sethusamudram was seen as a much needed
concomitant to the development of the
Tuticorin port in order to attract larger
vessels and contribute to the industrial
development of its vast hinterland, along
with the development of minor fishing
ports in the region. In the hands of C.
Annadurai, then chief minister of Tamil
Nadu, the project also became a means to
assert the economic rights of the state.
But soon
all this was put behind and restricted to
consultancy studies as Tamil Nadu got
embroiled in a major river water
controversy over the sharing the Cauvery
waters with Karnataka - a controversy
that remains unresolved after 32-years.
This festering trouble is slowly but
surely contributing to Tamil Nadu's
agricultural decline.
It was the
BJP-led NDA experiment at the Centre that
brought the project to the limelight once
again. It wormed its way into the NDA's
common minimum programme and was
aggressively pushed by the no-nonsense
chief of the All India Anna Dravida
Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK), J.
Jayalalithaa. Vaiko of the Marumalarchi
Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam also lent his
voice initially.
More
recently, in May 2004, the project got
included the CMP of the UPA Government.
For this, Vaiko claims sole credit. He is
supposed to have "convinced"
both Manmohan Singh and the Congress
veteran from West Bengal, Pranab
Mukherjee, and ensured that Sethusamudram
found a place in the UPA's CMP too. But
the MDMK decided not to join the UPA
cabinet and the plum portfolios like
surface transport and shipping eventually
went to the DMK's TR Baalu and
environment and forests to another DMK
nominee, A. Raja. Implementation of the
Sethusamudram project thus became the
DMK's baby from day one in the new
regime.
There was
another factor. The vital finance
portfolio went to P. Chidambaram, who was
elected on a Congress ticket from Tamil
Nadu. Little wonder that almost every
speaker in the inaugural address
complemented the Union finance minister
for making adequate provision for the
Sethusamudram in the Union budget. The
project seems to have cemented the
Congress-DMK bond.
Unwittingly,
the best testimony for the Sethusamudram
came from the UPA chairperson, Sonia
Gandhi, herself.
Yet the
UPA in Tamil Nadu - where it is the DPA
as fashioned by M. Karunanidhi before the
last Lok Sabha polls - finds itself at
loggerheads over the true authorship of
the Sethusamudram project in its latest
avatar. Reflecting this inner tussle,
Vaiko's party men went to town with
posters in Madurai proclaiming him as the
"architect" of the project.
Meanwhile local Congressmen tom-tomed
that had it not been for the UPA, that is
the prime minister himself and the
Congress president, this project would
not have seen the light of day. The
Shipping Minister, TR Baalu, sought to
set the record straight by asserting that
the "chief architect" of the
project was none other than Karunanidhi..
But this
perceived Congress-DMK axis within the
UPA has already irked Vaiko and the S.
Ramadoss, the founder-leader of the
Pattali Makkal Katchi. The latter kept
away from the inauguration over seating
arrangements. Even Vaiko, one learns, had
to fight his way to be invited to be on
the dais and rub shoulders with the UPA's
bigwigs. Karunaidhi took great pains to
explain that the Sethusamudram project
was a proof of how not only political
parties, but even the seas could be
brought together. But this was a hardly
reassuring signal for the DPA allies. Not
many were convinced by his analogy.
The
impression, quite on the contrary, was
that "big brother" DMK was
cornering all the glory for implementing
the Sethusamudram project. And this has
already ruffled the feathers of the PMK
and the MDMK. Things could worsen and
upset Karunanidhi's tenuous wish to keep
the rainbow alliance intact for next
year's assembly polls.
Nonetheless,
the DMK has to confront more substantial
questions on the environmental front. And
this despite all the official avowals
that the Sethusamudram project will
address all the problematic ecological
issues, including the threatened
livelihood of thousands of fishermen in
the six coastal districts close to the
canal project area. Amid all the elation
over a major infrastructure project with
implicit gains for India's port
development, trade and coastal security
being kicked off, the prime minister
himself struck a note of caution. He
asked the project authorities led by the
Tuticorin Port Trust to be "mindful
and respectful of Nature and the maritime
environment of the channel."
"We will also protect the livelihood
of the fishermen," he assured.
Sonia
Gandhi was even more candid in her diktat
to the project authorities. She said that
the coral reefs in the Gulf of Mannar
area, declared as a national marine park
for its rich biodiversity and for being a
natural and most productive breeding
ground for fishes, had to be protected
and preserved. This could be a tall order
once the huge dredging machines begin to
churn the ocean bed to throw out the silt
and clay.
The
tsunami-struck fishermen of Tamil Nadu
are among the most vulnerable sections of
society and their interests have to be
protected while implementing the
Sethusamudram project, insisted Sonia
Gandhi in response to apprehensions
expressed by NGOs including Green-peace.
These organisations argue that the
pounding of the dredgers will diffuse the
fishes far and wide, jeopardising the
daily catch of the coastal fishermen.
Tactfully,
Jayalalithaa has already washed her hands
off the project. She alleges that the
final Environment Impact assessment
Study, done by the Nagpur-based National
Environmental Engineering Research
Institute, was based on insufficient data
and that more detailed studies on certain
other parameters of the project's
ecological impact had to be done,
particularly after last December's deadly
tsunami. Thus choppy waves seems to await
the DMK in the straits they want to
deepen. INAV
|
|
London
bombings
By Geoffrey Malone
Did Britain's past
tolerance towards high-profile Islamist militants
help sow the seeds for London bombings? Critics
say a long tradition of granting asylum to West
Asia dissidents at risk of jail, torture or death
in their own countries helped foster the
emergence of a dangerously radical Islamist
scene.
This earned the
British capital the nickname
"Londonistan" in some foreign
intelligence circles - an ironic tag with
connotations of central and south Asian
militancy. "At the end of the day, Britain's
attachment to tolerance has brought it nothing
but death and desolation," said European
security analyst Calude Moniquet, describing
London as "the world capital of militant -
and even armed - Islamism".
Home secretary
Charles Clarke described as "total
nonsense" the idea that Britain had granted
safe haven to extremists. But it was not until
after the September 11 attacks on the US in 2001
that Britain clamped down on outspoken Arab
radicals who had for years been calling for
jihad, or holy war, against the West. The best
known was Abu Hamza al-Masri, a firebrand Muslim
preacher with an eye-patch and a hook for an arm
he lost while fighting Soviet troops in
Afghanistan.
A notorious figure
in the British media, he was last week appearing
in pre-trial hearings in court, accused of
incitement to murder, even as London reeled from
attacks that killed at least 52 people and were
blamed by the government on al Qaida-type
militants.
Why did the
authorities appear for so long to tolerate
Masri's inflammatory preaching? One reason may be
that he provided an easy surveillance target and
acted as a magnet for radicals who were drawn to
his Finsbury Park mosque, making it easier for
the security services to keep tabs on potential
troublemakers.
"There is a
lot of intelligence benefit from those people
living in the UK," said Mustafa Alani, a
security analyst with the Gulf Research Centre in
Dubai who lived in London from 1975 until last
year.
Until last week,
Britain had not suffered a militant Islamist
attack on its own soil and police say
surveillance operations have enabled them to
thwart a number of plots. But a number of
British-based Islamists took part in attacks
elsewhere, or stand accused of involvement.
Accused September
11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui had lived in
London and visited Masri's Finsbury Park mosque.
Convicted "shoe bomber' Richard Reid, who
tried to blow up an airliner over the Atlantic,
was a British convert to Islam.
Critics argue that
new anti-terrorist law enacted in Britain since
September 11 came too late, even if they finally
resulted in arrests of some leading militant
figures.
We do not yet know
who did this deed. But if as most now assume, it
is the work of jihadis, even more if it is the
work of home-grown jihadis, it is a reminder that
we are engaged in a long and bitter conflict. It
is a conflict that has at least one thing in
common with the cold war: it is a battle of
ideas. It is a battle between tolerance and
religious bigotry, between freedom and despotism,
between London's open society and the Taliban's
closed one.
First, we must not
change our polices in response to terrorism.
Spain responded to the attack of last year by
dismissing its government and withdrawing its
troops from Iraq. The result was an enormous
victory for the terrorists. Britain must not
follow suit.
Second, we must
continue with our lives. We must no huddle in our
homes. We must not hate our neighbours. We must
live as we have always done, trusting in the
decency of the millions of people with whom we
share the city.
Third, we must
accept that we cannot be safe. We cannot protect
ourselves entirely against all the dangers that
confront us. Only by abandoning our way of life,
even the city itself, could we hope to do so.
What we have to do, instead, is strike a balance
between the freedoms we cherish and enhanced
security. The greater the potential danger, the
more careful we need be. But we must not go too
far. Everybody now accepts the extra security
needed when flying. But comparable checks when
boarding a bus or a train would be intolerable.
Fourth, we must
abide by our principles, which are also our chief
weapons in the battle of ideas in which we are
engaged. We must stick to our belief in the rule
of law. To violate our beliefs is to embrace
hypocrisy and, thereby, hand a propaganda victory
to our enemies. The prison at Guantanamo Bay
would need to have been sensationally productive
of useful intelligence to offset the damage it
has done to trust in US adherence to its often
proclaimed values.
Fifth, we must
invest heavily in intelligence and in the
cooperation needed to obtain it. This will be
particularly important within the European Union.
The freedom of movement that is the great
achievement of the EU can be combined with
adequate security only if each member state
cooperates intensely with the others. Equally,
efforts must be made to upgrade the capacities of
member states to monitor potentially dangerous
people operating within their territories.
Finally, we must
recognise that the underlying struggle is over
how Islamic civilisation achieves its
reconciliation with modernity. Of the four great
civilisations of Eurasia - European, Chinese,
Indian and Islamic - it is the last that has
found it most difficult to accept the
transformation brought about by the first. China
and India have now decided to participate in the
modern world. Much of the Islamic world - and,
above all, the Arab part of it - is failing to do
so. Ultimately, it is this failed modernisation
and the incompetence, corruption and tyranny of
Islamic governments - many alas, long supported
by the west - that fuels the jihadi movement.
According to the International Institute for
Strategic Studies there are roughly 18,000
al-Qaeda trained terrorists at large. The danger
they pose is evident.
The US now claims
to be promoting democracy throughout the Middle
East. The cause is noble. But it must accept the
possibly threatening consequences of acting in
its support, along with the still more dangerous
consequences of now failing to do so.
In the last
resort, however, the only possible response is
defiance. The enemies of freedom have always
underestimated their adversaries. They must be
proved to have done so once again. The values
that animate London are the only ones on which
humanity can build a shared existence. They are
the values of freedom and diversity. The jihadi
fanatics must be made to understand that they
will never destroy them. INAV
|
Global
terrorism: After 3½ years
By Sreedhar
The London bomb
blasts on July 7 is a grim reminder that the US
led war on terrorism that began after 9/11 is far
from over. In fact before July 7 many in the
Western Hemisphere disagreed with Indian
assessment that war on terrorism cannot be fought
the way it is being conducted by the US and a
combined effort by like-minded nations is
necessary.
The immediate
question that arises is where has the war on
terrorism gone wrong? Foremost reason appears to
be terrorism war became focused on one-man Osama
bin Laden / one organization, al-Qaida. In the
process other victims of terrorism like India
even started maintaining a discreet distance from
the US led war. With the result the war on
terrorism became a western Hemisphere war and
less of a global war.
This subtle
distinction automatically resulted in some
sovereign states in the Eastern Hemisphere
continue to provide safe havens to terrorists.
From the New Delhi perspective Pakistan and
Bangladesh are providing safe havens to
terrorists; and countries like Sri Lanka where
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam operates have
turned in to training grounds for terrorists. And
if the US media reports in October 2004 are to be
believed, Osama bin Laden had even a sanctuary in
People's Republic of China! The Chinese are said
to have bouyat peace with Osama in return for
pacifying muslims in the Xinjiang Autonomous
region of China.
In countries like
Pakistan, the situation is far more complicated.
A section of the ruling elite in Islamabad
consider it is their solemn duty to support
organizations like al Qaida and Taliban. They
perceive that the US led war on terrorism in
reality is war against Islam. Now intelligence
official across the globe accepts that Federally
Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan are
providing safe havens to all terror outfits. If
one goes by the captured terrorists and their
hideouts, they are spread over right across
Pakistan, whether it is Karachi, or Peshawar, or
Multan or Lahore. And Pakistani media is full of
reports about reopening of terrorist training
camps in Pakistan from this April. No one has a
clear answer why till today either Pakistani
authorities or the US, though operating under new
names does not dismantle organizations like
Lashkar-e-Toyaba and Jaish e-Mohammad.
At another level,
after the intial success in the war against
terrorism, the US starting the Iraq war in March
2003 shifted the whole focus. The war in Iraq
proved to be another rallying point to the al
Qaida brand Islamic radicals. The US might have
succeeded in effecting a regime change in
Baghdad; but the Islamic radicals managed to
plunge Iraq in to a civil war and demonstrated to
the Islamic world how ineffective the US
intervention could be.
As the civil war
like situation in Iraq is unfolding, attacks on
the new regime in Afghanistan also started. This
signals the Islamic radicals are reenacting the
war against the Red Army of the former Soviet
Union in 1980s, in Iraq and Afghanistan.
If a repeat 1980s
of Afghanistan takes place in Iraq, the radical
Islamic groups like, al Qaida can claim that it
had perfected the technique to confront the
"infidel" (US)
Still at another
level the financial support to Islamic radicals
got further strengthened with covert patronage
they have been receiving from some sovereign
states like Pakistan and affluent in the Islamic
world. With entire arms and ammunition of the
Iraqi armed forces under Saddam Hussein are now
freely available in the entire Islamic world,
there is no paucity of weapons to fight the
adversary in their territory.
Therefore, the
strategy to fight terrorism has gone hay ware.
And it appears with the opportunities provided by
Iraq war, to fight the adversary, the Islamic
radicals have regrouped themselves and launched
fresh attacks in the western Hemisphere. The
London bomb blasts appears to be the first, and
one can anticipate some more in the coming weeks
in other places.
In these
circumstances what are India's options. Atal
Behari Vajpayee, when he was prime Minister,
almost disappointed with the attitude of US led
war on terrorism after 9/11. He declared publicly
that every country has to find on its own ways
and means to combat terrorism. Indian policy of
building fences all along the Indo-Pak border,
better surveillance and intelligence coordination
has neutralized many high profile terrorist
attacks like London bomb blasts, the most recent
being terrorist attacks on Ram Janambhoomi -
Babri Masjid disputed site at Ayodhya, two days
before London bomb blasts. In all these cases,
terrorists failed to succeed because the Security
Forces response was quick and decisive.
The Indian
strategy, thus appears to be three fold:
Punish the people
indulging in terrorism
Make it abundantly
clear to the sovereign state supporting terrorism
and violence through civilised channels that they
cannot succeed; and
Create awareness
among the international community about states
and people supporting and indulging in terrorism
and violence.
In the short run
this may result in projecting India as a soft
state; but in the long run terrorism and violence
does manage to stay with in manageable limits.
And over the years terrorism in principle loses
its relevance.
Therfore, Dr.
Manmohan Singh's plea that there should be
cooperation among civil societies across the
globe, and for a coordinated global effort to
meet the challenges posed by terrorism and
violence appears to be the only way out for
coming out of vicious circle on terrorism. The
earlier such an exercise started the better.
Otherwise London bomb blasts like situations
continue to take place as long as there are wars
like one in Iraq and Afghanistan. -CNF
|
|
Repeal
J&K Right to information act
By Dr Kulwant Singh
On the 15 June,
the President gave assent to the Central
Government's ground-breaking Right to Information
Act of 2005. This Act, notified in the Gazette of
India on 21 June, gives the citizens of India the
right to request and receive public records from
the Central Government so that they may hold
government services and their bureaucrats
responsible for their actions and inactions. As
the Preamble to the Act eloquently observes:
"democracy requires an informed citizenry
and transparency of information which are vital
to its functioning and also to contain corruption
and to hold Governments and their
instrumentalities accountable to the
governed."
It is laudable the
Parliament and the Central Government have
officially recognized the importance of
transparency in the Government. It is also
laudable that the Central Government has now
institutionalized the fundamental right of its
citizens to obtain public records that would
otherwise remain cloaked in the secrecy of the
bureaucracy. Several states also deserve
recognition for their earlier initiatives: Tamil
Nadu and Goa passed such an act in 1997,
Rajasthan and Karnataka in 2000, Delhi in 2001,
Maharashtra and Assam in 2002, and Madhya Pradesh
in 2003.
Unfortunately,
nearly a decade after the Right to Information
Act movement was launched across India, the
Government of Jammu & Kashmir still does not
have a meaningful Right to Information Act! On 5
January 2004, the Governor gave assent to the
Jammu & Kashmir Right to Information Act of
2004, which was duly notified in the Gazette on 7
January 2004. However, the Rules were not issued
for 18 months, rendering the Act nothing more
than a scrap of paper! Only recently, on 30 June,
the General Administration Department issued the
Rules (SRO 181), which are expected to appear in
the Gazette later this month, thereby enforcing
the Act.
More importantly,
however, the Jammu & Kashmir Right to
Information act is a meaningless piece of
legislation due to severe legal deficiencies. The
Jammu & Kashmir Right to Information Act of
2004 was based upon the Central Government's
moribund Freedom of Information Act of 2002,
which lacked a) proper assignment of
responsibility to bureaucrats, b) a proper
appeals process against denial-of-requests, c) a
direct penalty clause for officers who illegally
withhold public information, and even lacked d) a
proper notification in the Gazette of India. The
Central Freedom of Information Act was so defunct
that it was widely criticized in the media and by
NGOs, and was later replaced earlier this year
with the new Right to Information Act of 2005.
Similarly, the
Jammu & Kashmir Right to Information Act of
2004 does not contain a proper appeals process or
a direct penalty clause. For example, the J&K
Right to Information Act of 2004 simply states
that first appeals lie with the "controlling
officer" of the concerned department, while
second appeals shall lie with "the
Government" [Sec. 9(1) and (2)]. It is
absurd to presuppose that such an appeals process
will favor the interests of the citizens of
J&K, especially when there are vested
bureaucratic interests within each department
against the release of public information.
In another
example, the J&K Right to Information Act of
2004 states that officers who fail to provide the
requested information in the stipulated timeframe
will be "liable, after such inquiry as may
be required under rules pertaining to
disciplinary action applicable to him, for
imposition of such penalty as may be determined
by the disciplinary authority under such
rules" [Sec. 12]. Again, the burden is
placed on the citizen to punish a law-breaking
bureaucrat by seeking punishment through
J&K's extraordinarily cumbersome and biased
Civil Service Rules.
In contrast, under
the Central Government's Right to Information Act
of 2005, a citizen seeking information from the
Central Government may submit a form and a
nominal fee to the officially-designated Public
Information Officer of each ministry, department,
or semi-autonomous body. Citizens who are denied
their requests or who do not receive the
requested information within 30 days may appeal
to the specially-constituted, independent,
National Information Commission for reversal
and/or punishment of the concerned officers (viz.
Rs. 250 for each day of delay, with additional
fines up to Rs. 25,000 as well as disciplinary
action).
The Act also
instructs the States to constitute State
Information Commissions to review these requests
at the State level. Already, the Governments of
Goa and Karnataka have agreed to scrap their old
laws in favour of the new Act, while Orissa and
Meghalaya have agreed to implement the Central
Act as their first Right to Information Acts.
Meanwhile, there are media reports Delhi and
Maharashtra plan to amend their old acts to
conform with the new Act. Repeal J&K Right to
information act
Therefore, it is
high time for the Government of Jammu &
Kashmir to follow the example set by the Central
Government and these states by repealing the old,
moribund, J&K Right to Information Act of
2004, and implementing the new Central Act of
2005. The citizens of Jammu & Kashmir deserve
at least this much accountability from their
Government.
|
|
|
