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
Laxmans 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
Indias Energy security.
Energy is vital for expanding
economic growth and development.
In every form of energy, there is
need to expand the countrys
generating capacity. At present,
nuclear energy provides less than
3 per cent of Indias 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 countrys 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.
Indias
concerns
In regard to the
principles and concerns that
guide our approach to the nuclear
understanding, the Prime Minister
had set forth the
Governments position when
he spoke to the Parliament on
August 17, 2006. These principles
and concerns continue to remain
the basis for Indias
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 countrys
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)
|
|
|
|