EDITORIAL

Idea that moves us

By all means our friendship with Pakistan is necessary for peace in this part of the globe. After all, good neighbours are always assets and lead to healthy lasting relationships. Their spirit of co-existence encourages the formation of broader forums like the European Union. Regional bodies like the South Asian Association of Regional Cooperation (SAARC) are also playing a useful role in our vicinity though they are admittedly not as effective yet as the EU. It is also true as former American President Dwight Eisenhower has said: "The world moves, and ideas that were good once are not always good." Human beings and countries should also be open to suggestions. Such attitude is very essential from the point of view of pre-empting eruption of mutual tensions and misunderstandings. It also helps to find out each other's real intentions. One can always tell the other to make amends and if the advice is not followed one is entitled to act in one's best interests. Having said that one has to admit that there are certain things that are eternal. Truth is one that readily comes to mind. At another level it . .......more

Death by choice

That one sentenced to death should have the option to choose its mode sounds weird. But this is a big issue in advanced countries. In the United States, for instance, there are at least five ways for a convict to die: lethal injection, electrocution, gas chamber, hanging and fire squad. In our country the law prescribes death by hanging by the neck. The Law Commission of India once recommended death by lethal injection to make it quick and less painful with least mutilation of body. Human beings can't help but be decent .......more

Indian blues
Men, Matters & Memories

By M L Kotru

A nation of billion plus, I am told, went into mourning the day the Proteans recently hammered its blue-eyed boys, the Indian Blues, in the last of the one-day cricket series. I am told at least one of the billion angry Indians smashed his TV set. ‘‘I just can't take it any more; recall this lousy team,’’ he reportedly screamed, . ...more

No withdrawal from Siachen

By Sarla Handoo

A look, in retrospect, over India's response to victories in wars with Pakistan, big or small, makes a dismal reading. It has been one of returning to the vanquished all that it could get hold of --- after a huge sacrifice, of course. On top of such surrenders have been the return of not only the huge territories India occupied during the 1971 war, but also about 95,000 soldiers who had surrendered in Dhaka, following the Simla agreement between . .. ......more

Indo-US nuke cooperation

By Sumathi Vishwanathan

The Indo-US civil nuclear cooperation understanding is historic in many ways. A reconciled bill for this purpose was passed almost unanimously in US House of Representatives and Senate on 8/9 December 2006.

Energy Securities

The nuclear understanding with the United States is important for the larger .....more

EDITORIAL

Idea that moves us

By all means our friendship with Pakistan is necessary for peace in this part of the globe. After all, good neighbours are always assets and lead to healthy lasting relationships. Their spirit of co-existence encourages the formation of broader forums like the European Union. Regional bodies like the South Asian Association of Regional Cooperation (SAARC) are also playing a useful role in our vicinity though they are admittedly not as effective yet as the EU. It is also true as former American President Dwight Eisenhower has said: "The world moves, and ideas that were good once are not always good." Human beings and countries should also be open to suggestions. Such attitude is very essential from the point of view of pre-empting eruption of mutual tensions and misunderstandings. It also helps to find out each other's real intentions. One can always tell the other to make amends and if the advice is not followed one is entitled to act in one's best interests. Having said that one has to admit that there are certain things that are eternal. Truth is one that readily comes to mind. At another level it is not for nothing that we have been told over the ages that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Likewise in the sub-continent there is a reality that we in this country are proud of. India is not simply a country but an idea that is raised on the pillars of democracy and secularism. Its poor and illiterate masses have surprised the world with their robust common sense and infinite wisdom. They have shown that it is possible to live together in spite of following different religions and speaking varied languages. One can't deny that there have been aberrations some of them of serious nature but the collective assertion has helped us to overcome them. There is total transparency about all that happens in this land. On the other hand, Pakistan has chosen theocracy as a system of governance. However, the same religion has not enabled it to survive as one entity. It has already split into two nations. Even after that bitter blow nothing has happened to suggest that there is normalcy in either of them. There is noticeable sectarian stress which coupled with the patronage to terrorism makes a deadly mix.

In this behalf one is reminded of an observation made by a Pakistani journalist when he saw a group of Indian journalists freely inter-acting with each other in Islamabad not very long ago. He told the accompanying local security guards: "Look how comfortable they are although they belong to different religions. We are not one despite belonging to the same faith." No less a person that Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf has been critical of sectarian and extremist tendencies in his country. His problem, however, is that while doing so he is not averse to occasionally shaking hands with radical forces on his soil. That is one of the two reasons why his habit of floating one formula after the other is not taken seriously. The other, of course, is that he often ends up contradicting himself presenting allegories without concrete ideas. Not surprisingly, therefore, he finds himself in a soup after his country's spokesperson has announced giving up Pakistan's claim on Jammu and Kashmir. The surface below him has turned hot. His countrymen are bewildered and wonder why they have been taken for a ride for so long. Opposition parties are gunning for him. Of course, the General and his colleagues are now striving hard to explain that their stance envisages a similar flexibility from New Delhi. The thrust of their argument seems to be that they have just mooted a proposal but are not keen to take any unilateral step. Since we last took notice of this development in these columns their Foreign Minister Khurshid Mahmud Kasuri has come up with a few fantastic assertions. Of course, he has reiterated that his country "never had any territorial claim over Kashmir." He has made light of wars in the past saying that these armed confrontations could not be seen as justification for "such a claim". He has left it unexplained why his country had then forced these conflicts on the sub-continent in the first place. Lest he drew more fire in the country he has taken care to add that Pakistan's "principled solution" on Kashmir rested solely on the United Nations Security Council Resolutions. It is neither-here-nor-there approach. Hence, it is doubtful whether it can facilitate a breakthrough.

Former "Prime Minister" of "Azad" Kashmir (as the occupied territory across the Line of Control is locally known) Sardar Sikandar Hayat Khan is not the only one who is confused and shocked on the other side of the LoC. He thinks that Pakistan has taken a U-turn which is a negation of the two-nation theory. An experienced politician the Sardar has recalled Jinnah's declaration about Kashmir being Pakistan's jugular vein. He thinks that the founder of Pakistan was being blemished now. For our part we feel that one should welcome if Pakistan is genuinely in search of tranquillity in the region. One should also greet if Pakistan is actually deviating from the pernicious two-nation theory based on religion. It is better late than never in such cases. It should do Pakistan good in the long run. So far as we in this country are concerned we should consider ourselves fortunate that our founding fathers were clear and confident about the durability and credibility of the ideology that they had chosen. It has stood the test of times. There is no reason at all for us to stray from basic commitment to equality of all human beings. As a nation, therefore, there is no need for us to settle either for anything that seeks to weaken us in any way. Indeed we should help others in enlarging their intellectual horizons. Since they are learning they should not solicit tuition fees from us.

Death by choice

That one sentenced to death should have the option to choose its mode sounds weird. But this is a big issue in advanced countries. In the United States, for instance, there are at least five ways for a convict to die: lethal injection, electrocution, gas chamber, hanging and fire squad. In our country the law prescribes death by hanging by the neck. The Law Commission of India once recommended death by lethal injection to make it quick and less painful with least mutilation of body. Human beings can't help but be decent even towards one they don't want among them.

Indian blues
Men, Matters & Memories

By M L Kotru

A nation of billion plus, I am told, went into mourning the day the Proteans recently hammered its blue-eyed boys, the Indian Blues, in the last of the one-day cricket series. I am told at least one of the billion angry Indians smashed his TV set. ‘‘I just can't take it any more; recall this lousy team,’’ he reportedly screamed, as his wife and two kids consoled and scolded him.Consoled, because the man could have done worse; he could well have taken the kitchen knife stabbed himself to death. The scolding was unavoidable because the outraged Indian had destroyed his bank-financed TV set much to his own and his family's disgust.

His heroes meanwhile had collected a cool 25 lakh rupees in match fees and were laughing their way to the bank. Barring four, the others hung around in South Africa for the next fifteen days before the Test series commenced. And I forgot to mention the extras which men like Virender ‘‘Mayur’’ Sehwag or Irfan Pathan and even the captain with the broken finger made selling cokes, soaps and suitings or telling us how to look after your future by going for a particular insurance scheme.

I have no doubt that the ‘‘boys’’, who refused to learn from successive failures, were quite relaxed after the one-day series washout. The investment consultants of the boys, you can be sure, were simultaneously drawing up plans for the huge packets the brats would have made by the time the South African safari gives over after the Test series.

The Cricket Board may have no reason to rejoice over the miserable performance of its ‘‘Team India’’ except that it has added a million or more dollars to its burgeoning coffers. Given the gullibility of the billion mourners at home, the Board has every reason to see the one day series washout as an aberration. If you have any doubt about that ask our cricket administrators headed by Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar, aided and abetted by the clever, clever men like Lalit Modi (cricket is a cash-cow to him which yields more, the more you milk it), and his co-financial whiz kid I.S. Bindra, once of the IAS and Rajiv Shukla, a smart journalist who wormed his way into the Rajya Sabha, owns a TV production house and is now the spokesman and Vice-President of the BCCI. I don't mean to offend Mr Shukla but have a feeling that he knows as little about the game as say his Chief, Sharad Pawar. Nor do I blame him for his ill-advised observations on the honky dory working of the Board.

But never lose heart, dear billion brethren. Take my word for it: the Indians will surely bounce back some day somewhere but certainly not in the World Cup which is just months away. As someone who covered cricket between 1951 and 54, before moving to other journalistic pastures, I have seen Indian teams bouncing back. So much so that the joke then was why don't the Indians play their second innings first. Because everytime they were drubbed in the first innings they would bounce back in the second, often times losing and many times playing out a draw. The winning habit, except for short periods, here and there, is not part of our cricketers’ mental make-up. I pity the players of the 40s, 50s and 60s who always played for a pittance with many buying their own cricketing gear First class travel was a rarity. Shared accommodation the norm, unlike our today's heroes who must take their wives along and in some cases their parents as well.

Cheer up, even if the odds are loaded against you. Shake off the fear of doom and gloom Dada is back in the team as is VVS Laxman who incidentally was rushed in to join the one-day squad for the last match of the series and scored, as the old Maharaja Kumar Vizianagram, a former BCCI President and cricket commentator, would say ‘‘a blob’’. This is not questioning Laxman’s cricketing credentials. But why was he dropped in the first place, if he was so good? Ask no questions for you shall get no answers.

Remember Dada (whose Dada is he anyway) is back. Saurav Ganguly sounded smugly confident the other day on the idiot box suggesting (‘‘let's not go into the past’’, he kept repeating in his one-hour interview with one of the channels) that he felt vindicated. If he flopped during his short stay with one of the English counties during the interregnum the fault was not his. It was just that his stay was very brief. If he failed with the bat on at least three occasions as the Bengal skipper in the ongoing Ranji Trophy competition, have a heart and remember that he was very much into the wickets. He took as many as four in one match.

During that boringly long interview Ganguly did not rule himself out of the World Cup either. Mind you, the Prince of Kolkata doesn't forget to mention at the drop of his hat his past performances in one-day and Test formats. Understandably he does not want to mention the politicization of his non-inclusion in the team by Marxist MPs from West Bengal including of course, the very voluble Speaker of the Lok Sabha Somnath Chatterjee. The Prince did not either care to speak of his endorsement of the Kolkata Police Commissioner as a candidate for the Presidentship of the West Bengal Cricket Association against Mr Jagmohan Dalmiya who ultimately won.

The interviewer looked very satisfied with the job he had done; he chose not to question Ganguly about the e-mail controversy with coach Greg Chappel or the e-mailed endorsement by him of the Police Commissioner. For someone who obviously has no intention to retire from the game how far is a cricketer right in siding with one or the other feuding group in a cricket association. Personally I am all for good, responsible cricketers taking over the reins of the Board of Control for Cricket but the incumbents, whether it is a Dalmiya or Sharad Pawar, will not let that happen. Even in the running of State associations it is the politicians who must take charge at the helm. It is a shame that some of the top cricketers of the country are not even allowed a foot-hold in the State Associations, let alone the BCCI. The politicians and their cronies from the business world won't let go of the great Indian cash cow.

Finally how come that with its vast resources the BCCI has not been able to prepare a pool of cricketers like they, for instance, have in Australia. At the drop of a coin Australia has the capacity to produce a Stuart Clarke who upstages even maestros like McGrath ? Australia can do away, whenever necessary, with champion bowlers like a Gillespe or the bowler MacGil or even some of the younger cricketers who have already made their mark internationally.

We are told of a number of cricket academies have come up in recent years including the BCCI's in Bangalore. How many young, aspiring cricketers do in fact get to these institutions ? Not many. Why doesn't the BCCI spend its enormous resources on spreading its net far and wide to spot talent. Why can't a cricket crazy country like ours provide the kind of infrastructure that will allow school children to hone their skills ? Why don't we pay attention to the kind of pitches we have in the country ? Must we keep on playing on substandard pitches which in the end show up our great masters as no more than paper tigers when it comes to playing on true pitches like the ones they have in Australia, Britain, South Africa et al ? Why isn't more attention paid to our domestic cricket ? Why should our ‘‘international’’ cricketers consider it infra dig to play in all domestic circuit ? The Board must insist on all of them to participate in all domestic tournaments whenever they are no international commitments.The cricketers cannot complain; they are very well paid for that. Every cricket playing nation ensures that its top players participate in domestic cricket as well.

The problem with our cricketing stars is that they would rather spend the international off season running from one ad agency to the other, go for shoots which earn extra fortunes. Some have set up businesses and curiously at least four or five of the best paid cricketers, men like Tendulkar, Ganguly, Sehwag and even Zaheer Khan have taken to catering business, setting up restaurants. Given their multi-crore earnings I am sure they could spare come for would be cricketers from poor background.

 

No withdrawal from Siachen

By Sarla Handoo

A look, in retrospect, over India's response to victories in wars with Pakistan, big or small, makes a dismal reading. It has been one of returning to the vanquished all that it could get hold of --- after a huge sacrifice, of course.

On top of such surrenders have been the return of not only the huge territories India occupied during the 1971 war, but also about 95,000 soldiers who had surrendered in Dhaka, following the Simla agreement between Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and Pakistan President Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. One would have thought that the big deal based on a magnanimous act on India's part would resolve the differences between the two countries and bring them closer as good neighbours. Subsequent events proved that was not to be. In fact, things worsened after a brief lull, bringing them face to face once again.

India's penchant to give away the booties has not been limited to the Simla agreement. In fact, it has been there at the end of every war with Pakistan.

In 1965 Indian troops captured the strategically important position of Haji Pir in the Uri sector. This enabled the people of Uri, and of the Valley , to walk down to Poonch area of the state in four hours, which otherwise would mean a distance of 700 kilometers of hilly roads taking not less than three days by bus. For the people of Kashmir there could not have been a better victory against Pakistan. But alas, the post was returned to Pakistan in the wake of the Tashkent agreement between Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri and Pakistan President General Ayub Khan. Indian troops were pulled back to their original positions. And this happened despite two important factors. One that Haji Pir falls within Pakistan occupied part of Jammu and Kashmir, which India claims as its own. And two, the victory of Haji Pir marked jubilation by the local residents who could taste a commodity like sugar for the first time in their lives, provided to them by the Jammu and Kashmir government.

In the Chhamb sector of Jammu region, the critical chicken-neck area was captured by the Indian troops several times during the course of wars, but was returned to Pakistan each time. Pakistan has now renamed the area, returned by India, as Iftikharabad, the victory land.

It is out of this give- give syndrome that the advancing Indian troops were ordered to stop at Uri in 1947 and allowed Pakistan to retain the rest of the Jammu and Kashmir with it.

And now the air is thick with speculations that India is going to return the Siachen glacier to Pakistan and that the talks in this regard are at a very advanced stage. This is the point from where Indian troops are in a position to keep a vigil on the movement on Karakoram Highway between Pakistan and China and thereby provide security to the Ladakh region.

The road has been built after Pakistan handed over a portion of POK to China. It also gives a military advantage to Indian troops not only over Shyok and Nubra Valleys but also on the Pakistani positions located about 3000 feet below.

Ever since Indian troops dislodged Pak troops in this region on April 13, 1984, crippling environment has been claiming more lives than the enemy fire. And now, when the Indian troops have mastered the drills to operate in the area, it would be foolish to withdraw them from there. The buzz is that after the Foreign Secretary level talks Siachen is going to be a major issue during the Foreign Ministers talks in Islamabad next month. The heroic deeds of Bana Singh who captured the highest Pakistani post of Qaid, now called Bana post, cannot be forgotten so lightly.

When the cease fire line (CFL) in Jammu and Kashmir was being demarcated in 1947-48 neither India nor Pakistan was keen to extend it to Siachen. Accordingly, the 1949 UN resolution terminated the CFL at Khor in Shyok Valley, at map reference NJ 9842. The cease-fire line, which was converted into the Line of control in 1972 also stopped at NJ point 9842. It is from this point onwards that India and Pakistan differ on its course. While Pakistan says it extends North- East to Karakoram Pass, giving the entire glacier to it, India says that it extends along the Saltro ridge leaving the entire area with India.

In the backdrop of Kargil infiltration and the subsequent conflict, withdrawal from Siachen would be a blunder. What, if the Pakistani troops occupy the heights once Indian troops withdraw? Army experts feel that it will be a very costly exercise in terms of effort and the sacrifice to dislodge them again. One would hope that Army's assessment will prevail upon the authorities and the Give-Give syndrome will not come into play once again.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is to visit Pakistan shortly. General Musharraf has already started to play his usual tune, saying that he hopes to achieve headway on what he calls the "simmering issues" of Kashmir and Siachen during Dr. Singh's visit. For him terrorism is not a simmering issue and he is not bothered about it.

While attempts to normalise relations with Pakistan are welcome, India needs to be wary about Pakistan President's moves. Accommodation beyond a point by India may not help. It has not during the last 58 years, at least. A 'give - give' attitude will only demoralise the Indian Army by concluding that it is no use to sacrifice lives for victory as the political executive will return the strategic points later on.

(Syndicate Features)

Indo-US nuke cooperation

By Sumathi Vishwanathan

The Indo-US civil nuclear cooperation understanding is historic in many ways. A reconciled bill for this purpose was passed almost unanimously in US House of Representatives and Senate on 8/9 December 2006.

Energy Securities

The nuclear understanding with the United States is important for the larger perspective of India’s Energy security. Energy is vital for expanding economic growth and development. In every form of energy, there is need to expand the country’s generating capacity. At present, nuclear energy provides less than 3 per cent of India’s energy needs.

Current estimates envisage nuclear power generation of 30,000 MWe by 2022 and 63,000 MWe by 2032. Several energy options like clean coal technologies, exploitation of coal bed, methane and gas hydrates, wind as well as solar power are being pursued. Access to other forms of energy can be expanded relying on market mechanism. Access to nuclear energy is impeded by institutional regime and requires political solution consistent with the country’s national security and energy requirements.

Facilitating nuclear cooperation

In a suo-moto statement on Indo-US Civil Nuclear Cooperation the External Affairs Minister Shri Pranab Mukherjee in Parliament said "The US Administration committed in the 18th July Joint Statement to adjust its laws that otherwise prohibited civil nuclear energy cooperation with India. Although the passage of any legislation is an internal matter of that country…this legislation is an enabling measure necessary for civil nuclear energy cooperation to be worked out between India and the United States. Keeping that in mind, the enactment of waivers from certain provisions of the US Atomic Energy Act, which allows the United States to cooperate with India in civilian nuclear energy despite our not accepting full scope safeguards and despite maintaining a strategic programme, is significant".

The legislation that has been passed is an enabling measure that will now allow US negotiators to discuss and conclude with India a bilateral cooperation agreement, which is popularly known as a 123 Agreement. Such an agreement is a pre-requisite for nuclear cooperation and trade with the United States. In parallel, India is engaging the International Atomic Energy Agency with the intention of negotiating and concluding an India-specific Safeguards Agreement and an Additional Protocol. At a broader level, India is already discussing with member States of the Nuclear Energy Suppliers’ Group (NSG) the need for an adjustment of their guidelines to permit transfers to India. While every stage of this process is important, the test of this process is for India to secure full civil nuclear cooperation with the international community while protecting our strategic programme and maintaining the integrity of our three-stage nuclear programme and indigenous research and development.

US Assurance

The US Administration has categorically assured that this legislation enables the United States to fulfill all of the commitments it made to India in the July 18 and March 2 Joint Statements and that this legislation explicitly authorizes civil nuclear cooperation with India in a manner fully consistent with those two Statements. India expects the July 18 Statement and the March 2 Separation Plan to be reflected in the text of the 123 Agreement.

India’s concerns

In regard to the principles and concerns that guide our approach to the nuclear understanding, the Prime Minister had set forth the Government’s position when he spoke to the Parliament on August 17, 2006. These principles and concerns continue to remain the basis for India’s engagement with the United States and the international community on the tasks ahead. India has taken note of certain extraneous and prescriptive provisions in the legislation. The country has always maintained that the conduct of foreign policy determined solely by national interests is its sovereign right. It has made it clear that its strategic programme remains outside the purview of these discussions. External scrutiny of or interference with the strategic programme will not be allowed.

Objective

The objective is that technology denial regimes that have targeted India for so many decades must be dismantled so that the country’s national development is unimpeded. India is also committed to creating a climate where its scientists and technologists can participate in and contribute to international initiative in various fields. (PIB)



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