EDITORIAL
Valid protest
It is seldom that the
legislators of the Jammu region cut across party lines to
take up a common cause. More often than not they are
required to adhere to their organisation's discipline. If
one looks around one will find that even the issue of
regional discrimination is addressed differently. The
proposed solutions vary from the creation of a separate
state of Jammu to the establishment of a regional council
within the administrative and geographical contours of
the State. The wider issue that is involved is of
political empowerment of the people at grassroots level.
The well-intentioned ideologues of maintaining a united
State too have been concerned about the matter. They
realise the need for keeping the superstructure in tact
and have been trying remedies to meet the local
aspirations at various levels. It is not for nothing that
the offices of chief minister and deputy chief minister
have been rotating between Kashmir and Jammu provinces
for some years now. Arguably this practice has its
genesis chiefly in the compulsions of coalition politics.
But it can't be ignored that it is based on regional
realities as well with the two dominant ruling partners
having clearly defined major areas of influence on either
side of the Jawahar Tunnel. One would have appreciated
had this arrangement worked out in tune with the
recommendation made by the Gajendragadkar Commission of
Inquiry: "A convention should be established that if
the chief minister belongs to one region there should be
a deputy chief minister belonging to the other region. By
another convention the number of cabinet ministers
belonging to the two regions should be equal." The
Commission set up to look into regional imbalances had
made this suggestion way back in 1965. Since then more
than four decades have passed. The ground scenario has
undergone more transformation in the intervening period.
The Gajendragadkar Commission had taken note of the
"two regions" namely Kashmir and Jammu. But as
everyone knows the popular ambitions have further gone up
not only in these two places but also in the Ladakh
region. Technically Ladakh is part of the Kashmir
division but in practical terms it is being increasingly
mentioned as a separate region given its remoteness. Even
senior ministers make it a point to talk in terms of
" Jammu, Kashmir, Leh and Kargil" while talking
of the State as a whole. At the same time the citizens
everywhere have become conscious of the necessity of not
only political parity but also due share in economic pie.
With this background in
view it is to be welcomed that the elected
representatives of this region have spoken with one voice
against ignoring Jammu in the projects sanctioned by the
National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development
(NABARD). They have used the occasion provided by
Thursday's District Development Board meeting to
ventilate their anger and anguish. Equipped with facts
provided by a report in this newspaper the leaders of all
parties put Minister of State for Roads and Buildings
Gulchain Singh Charak and his bureaucratic colleagues in
the line of fire. They were virtually up in arms.
Congress leaders are learnt to have expressed their
dismay that this may have an adverse impact on the image
of their party. One of them openly described as
"very unfortunate the step-motherly treatment meted
out to Jammu region and that too under a Jammu Chief
Minister." For his part Chief Minister Ghulam Nabi
Azad is also said to have lost his cool and lashed out at
the concerned official apparatus for committing the
"blunder". He regretted that bypassing Jammu in
NABARD schemes was "a big mistake" that, he
assured, would be rectified.
In retrospect one would
find that the Chief Minister has used the same language
that Mr Charak had applied when the Excelsior had
first carried the report on May 20. It implies that
nothing has been done for well over a week to make
amends. No further time should be lost in this behalf.
All regions --- Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh --- deserve
fair and equal treatment. Let divisive tendencies not
gain ground because of insensitive planning.
Wake up
Only recently we had
lamented the absence of a proper tourism policy for the
Jammu region in these columns. There is little planning
in adequately publicsing its places of interest. Most of
them are virtually hidden from the public view. This can
be easily illustrated by an example based on the
information provided by the Union Ministry of Tourism and
Culture to Parliament in its last session. There are four
Centrally-protected ticketed monuments in the State. Of
these two are in the Jammu region: Ramnagar Palace,
Ramnagar and the Krimchi temples. The other two are:
Avanti Swami Temple, Avantipura in the Valley and the
Palace in Leh. No foreign tourist has been tempted enough
to visit the Jammu marvels in 2005. On the other hand, 56
of them have cared to see the Avantipura ruins. The Leh
Palace has been the star attraction with as many as 1748
foreigners. Actually, the number of foreign visitors to
the Leh Palace exceeds that of the domestic tourists of
whom only 1570 paid to visit the historic old fort. The
potential of the Ramnagar Palace is evident from the fact
that it lures domestic sightseers in a big way despite
its location in one corner. It got 2152 guests. It is a
sort of irony that even though the presence of the
Krimchi temples is now widely recognised it received
merely 602 tourists. Looked in the context of domestic
arrivals the Avantipura ruins top the list. As many as
7825 have walked through this splendid treasure that has
survived centuries. This figure far exceeds the number of
paying customers --- domestic and foreigner --- turning
up at all these monuments. Clearly Avantipura is the
beneficiary of its location on the National Highway No. 1
which is the busiest road in the State. It is anybody's
guess that the State's share in about Rs 35 crores
collected as entrance fee from a total of 116 ticketed
monuments in the country is woefully meagre.
Such state of affairs must
change. The Archaeological Survey of India needs money
for structural conservation, chemical preservation and
environmental development. Besides, it regularly takes
measures to provide tourism-related amenities like
provision of drinking water, toilet blocks, pathways,
signages and information centres, among others. Why
should it be denied a more liberal allocation? An ideal
solution will be for the ASI and the State Government to
evolve a joint strategy for the promotion of tourist
interest in Kashmir Valley as well as Jammu and Ladakh.
‘No
politician’ PM
Men,
Matters, Memories
By M L
Kotru
Remember Manmohan
Singh, the man of impeccable
credentials, of utmost humility,
a do-gooder who will do no wrong,
not knowingly, his admirers will
tell you. Remember the man who is
leading us in our crusade to take
our appointed place among the
great economic powers of the
world. And don't you forget the
man who is going to solve all our
problems with Pakistan and
thereby close a chapter in the
sub-continent's decades old
horror story. But Manmohan Singh,
you must also remember, is no
politician and has no political
base. That is if you overlook the
Sonia connection without which he
would, of course, be just one
more of our economists like so
many others wandering in the
wilderness.
The other day I was
talking to some colleagues over a
cup of coffee when to my surprise
one of them came out with the
startling statement that Manmohan
Singh 's days are numbered. The
four of us, listening to the
great orcale, asked almost
simultaneously. Oh, no, you can't
be serious. No, he asserted this
is what he had got from
‘‘very reliable
sources’’. According to
him Prakash Karat of the CPM had
told Sonia Gandhi that Manmohan
Singh was turning out to be a
disaster as Prime Minister.
Karat, as our man went on, wanted
her to remove Manmohan Singh and
alongwith him Finance Minister
Chidambaram and Montek Singh
Ahluwalia, the Planning
Commission Deputy Chairman.
Surely, one of us remarked, Sonia
must have told Karat to mind his
business of ‘‘friendly
criticism’’ of the UPA
Government. No, no, that's not
what Sonia said. She fell silent
for a while and then murmured
‘‘give me some
time...... we can't do it just
like that’’.
The story may be
apocryphal but the fact that such
thoughts are now openly
entertained should make one
wonder. There are many identical
straws in the wind starting with
HRD Minister Arjun Singh's
somewhat sacreastic references to
the Prime Minister in the context
of his (Arjun's unilateral since
endorsed by the PM himself)
declaration on the OBC
reservations issue.
There are others in
the Cabinet, easily identifiable,
who wouldn't hesitate to do in
the Prime Minister at the first
given opportunity. The
‘achha aadmi hai’, it
is argued by Manmohan Singh
detractors, may be
‘achha’ for himself but
he has brought the party to the
verge of collapse. His
‘sharif aadmi’ approach
to partners within the UPA and,
evidently in relation to the
‘‘outside’’
supporter, CPM gives the
impression to the bad men
surrounding him that he is
willing to bend with every
passing wind.
And this argument,
it was argued by our man at the
coffee table, might be used by
his colleagues to persuade Sonia
Gandhi to lay claim to the crown
directly, for herself. After all
it was she who had denied herself
the Prime Ministership responding
to her ‘‘inner
voice’’.
This may be neither
here nor there, but what do you
make of Laloo Prasad Yadav saying
that the question of removing the
creamy layer of SC/ST/OBC from
the benefits of reservations in
jobs and in schools of excellence
is absurd. The messiah of the
downtrodden, who is Manmohan
Singh's Railway Minister, let the
eat out of the bag. He went red
in the face when someone asked
him if he agreed with the
suggestion that the creamy layer
from among the SCs/STs/ and OBCs
be excluded from the benefits of
reservations. Why ? Why, should
the creamy layer be excluded. Did
he (the questioner) expect a
rickshaw pullers son to qualify
for admission to professional
institutions ? By implication he
admitted that it is only the
offspring of the likes of Laloo,
Kanshi Ram, Mayawati, Mulayam,
Ram Vilas Paswan et al who must
derive the benefit of the
reservations. And then there are
so many other backwards who have
moved forward through the IAS,
IFS, IPS and such other avenues.
Did you expect him to say that
their children who have gone to
good schools and are perhaps
better equipped should compete
with general category students?
No, that cannot be. A backward,
however forward he may have gone,
should continue to get the
benefit of having come from the
backward classes. End of
argument.
The fact is that
however laudable the motives of
those working for Mandalisation
of our life, caste as a criterion
in public policy does not find
support in available evidence.
Many tomes have been written and
many words expended in favour or
against caste becoming a
criterion in public policy.
As was recently
argued by Pradipta Chaudhary of
Jawaharlal Nehru University
‘‘when confronted with
the heterogeneity within a caste
the champions of caste politics
argue that it is not economic but
social backwardness from which
these castes have historically
suffered that warrants
reservations. Did the whole
population of the lower castes
suffer from equal degree of
ritual handicap ? Mr Chaudhury
asks.
In fact there was an
elaborate gradation or hierarchy
among the shudra and even the
untouchable castes, which
governed interaction between them
and kept inter-caste
socialization to the minimum.
Historically, the rich in each
caste tried to emulate the
customs and rituals of the upper
castes, such as child marriages,
payment of dowry and prevention
of widow remarriage. Sometimes
well- off sections of caste broke
away, formed new castes and
claimed higher ritual status, for
example, Sainthwar (from Kurmi)
and Jatav (from Chamar) during
the 20th century''. Available
evidence Chaudhary concluded
cannot be a criterion in public
policy.
There are other
studies as well which illustrate
the ever growing number of castes
within castes. Laloo Prasad Yadav
is a prime example of the
phenomenon. So are numerous other
so-called men and women from the
backward classes who made their
mark socially and economically
and should therefore have no
binding claim when it comes to
public policy.
I recall Babu
Jagjivan Ram, the great scheduled
caste leader, as yet another
example. I had the pleasure of
having visited Babuji's house on
many occasions when he served in
Nehru's and later Indira Gandhi's
Government as a Cabinet Minister.
Here was a man who had long
graduated from his scheduled
caste days. There was a special
silver service reserved for the
big man and his family at home.
Visitors from his constituency in
Bihar were always treated well,
but unfailingly made conscious of
their low social status. The
glasses in which they were served
water were of the cheapest kind
(not Laloo's kular), and they,
were rarely allowed into the
inner sanctum of the house.
Babuji lived like a
‘‘Brahmin’’
of yore. He even had a marble
bust of himself sitting proudly
in the room leading to the main
sitting room of his Government
bungalow. His daughter Meira is a
Minister in the Manmohan Singh
Government. Am I to believe that
Meira Kumar's children too must
continue to be treated as
backward ? May be the Supreme
Court will sort out the issue
when it takes up the creamy layer
business. Meanwhile keep praying
for the Manmohan Singh Government
! The word from Rashtrapati
Bhavan was not particularly
auspicious. The President refused
the UPA managed enactment to
protect MPs holding offices of
profit asking for it to be
reconsidered. A rare Presidential
rebuff to a serving Government.
|
|
 |
Alternative
to communal and casteist
politics
By
Subroto Mukherjea
The
stark reality of the
Indian politics has moved
it's full circle:
Congress brand of
socialism and secularism
to the BJP's communalism,
and, now it is the turn
of casteism. The die is
cast for the national
politics to take a U-turn
with long-term disastrous
consequences which
palpably nobody has cared
to check. Instead of
uniting the nation into a
cohesive unit, champions
of casteist politics has
their agenda fixed to
fragment whatever little
is left for the national
unity. The SP-BSP combine
can be excused for a
while for its casteist
instance because it is a
regional grouping. What
about the Congress in
search of a formula to
"win back"
backwards. There is no
sane voice who could warn
that replacing
communalism with casteism
will destroy the
democratic fabric of the
country.
With
the passage of time, the
social agenda being set
will devour not only the
democracy but would also
create social tension in
rural and urban areas
which would prove
dangerous for the
national polity. It is
not that the present day
leaders are not aware of
the danger, but for their
survival they have to
evolve a winning
combination. Thus,
politics is becoming
something akin to stock
trading. There is nothing
like sacrifice and
long-term national goal
for any of the present
day leadership whether
they belong to major
national parties or
regional groupings.
More
than 53-years have passed
since independent India
first held the biggest
elections in the world.
In the exhilaration and
inexperience of freedom,
we believed that the
inherited Westminster
system of parliamentary
democracy was ideal and
that our politicians and
political parties would
compete only in proposing
alternative ways to
achieve national unity
and progress. But it has
not worked that way. It
is time to admit that the
entire system has become
counter-productive and
modify it before it is
too late. For, with each
election, caste and
religious tensions are
strained further, and
worse, criminal elements
further infiltrate
politics and Government.
Smugglers and other
big-time criminals are
replacing big business as
campaign financiers.
They
have access to the huge
amounts of black money
required by the crore to
pay for the mounting
emphasis on show and
spectacle in elections in
which nothing is
projected to help
evaluate the personality
and reputation of the
candidate. He remains a
symbol who need not open
his mouth.
The
entire electoral process
is meant to develop
community interest and
togetherness; to promote
community education and
interaction between the
citizen and his/her
representative in the
legislature. The
elections themselves are
designed to enable the
public to periodically
eliminate those found
guilty of corruption,
nepotism or failure to
serve the constituency.
Over the years, however,
we have converted it to
perform the opposite
function: to become a
vehicle of social
disruption and
administrative
corruption.
In
addition to straining the
fabric of the nation,
political opportunism
hurts political parties
themselves. There is
little except convenience
to bind the legislator to
his party, no common
commitment or ideology.
Legislators in the
Opposition are tempted by
offers, explicit or
concealed, from the party
in power. But the party
in power itself has to
devise ways and means to
keep its own members
happy. So ministries are
expanded far beyond the
number needed to oversee
Government departments
and new posts created,
with rich perquisites,
like chairmen of public
sector corporations, all
at the cost of the
tax-payer. Keeping MLAs
happy has also meant
high-level nepotism,
transfer of inconvenient
officials, deployment of
police for factional
ends, inequities in
development.
No
area of official
influence has been left
untainted to satisfy the
legislator - which is why
the job has become so
attractive to those keen
to bend the law. But,
even so, the plums of
office are limited and
peer rivalry between the
recipients stokes
discontent.
Consequently,
the threat of defection
continues to haunt
parties and threaten the
political structure.
MPs
and MLAs developed a
vested interest in
keeping the voter
ignorant. As a result,
education received low
priority despite the
commitment made in the
Constitution when it was
adopted in 1950 that free
and compulsory education
would be provided for all
children upto the age of
14 within 10-years. That
is yet to happen. Many of
our legislators would not
have been returned if it
had; those that were
would have had to watch
their step for fear of
pubic opinion. No
question of public
opinion arises, however,
when the bulk of the
electorate is illiterate.
Public education has
become another victim of
electoral politics.
What
damage-control measures
can we take now without
damaging the basic
principles of electoral
democracy itself?
Although most legislators
have exploited the
illiteracy of the
electorate, it will be
retrogressive to limit
the right to vote to
those with certain
educational or property
qualifications, as has
been suggested. This
would deny the vote to
most of the population.
Parliament and state
legislatures would
represent only the haves
of society and the
propertied caste would
rule for its own benefit.
Our objective should be
to make the legislatures
less attractive to those
whose only ambition is to
make money and influence
the administration and,
at the same time, to make
the Government less
vulnerable to their
pressures.
One
change that has been
recommended is to sever
the legislative from the
executive powers of
Government: to replace
the cabinet system with
the presidential. The
chief executive would be
elected independently for
a fixed term. His
survival would not depend
on enjoying majority
support in parliament,
though his effectiveness
would depend on getting
Parliament to enact the
legislation he needs and
to pass the budget.
This
would give legislators
influence but no direct
power over the executive.
The attraction of
becoming legislators
would be reduced. They
could not aspire to
become ministers or hold
any office of profit.
Fewer would compete for
the job and elections
would become less of a
farce. Though the
president system also has
its drawbacks, as the
American experience has
shown, it may be better
suited to our situation
than the Westminster
model has proved to be.
Both
Gandhi and J.P. doubted
that any system that did
not draw sustenance from,
and strengthened,
decentralised panchayat
rule, would suit the
masses of India. An
essential requirement
pressed by J.P. was for
the voter to have a say
in the selection of
candidates. Other
functioning democracies
have evolved other
procedures. Otherwise,
the voter is left with no
option but to vote for
someone he may know
nothing about just
because the candidate has
enough money and
connections, often
disreputable, to secure a
party nomination. This
may suit the party and
its financiers but does
not promote democracy.
INAV
|
|
|
|
Siachen
is strategically important
By J N Raina
India will be
deluding itself if it feels sanguine that Siachen
conflict will be negotiated with Pakistan
amicably. The concerns of the Indian Army are
huge and genuine. When Pakistan continues to
regard Siachen glacier as part of its Northern
Areas, which it had forcibly annexed in 1947,
will it climb down by any stretch of imagination?
In the first
place, what is the exigency to resolve the issue
in haste, when the peace process between India
and Pakistan is already apace? The Kashmir
problem cannot be solved in parts. What is the
urgency to find out an out-of-box solution for
Siachen, which is legally a part of India?
Siachen glacier, the world’s highest icy
battlefield, has been the scene of many
skirmishes since 1984. India cannot afford to
sacrifice Siachen just to ‘please’ some
people, when proxy war is still on; when 59
terrorist camps continue to remain in operation
in PoK.
Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh, who is planning to visit Pakistan
shortly, has expressed keenness to settle the
issue. He does not want his visit ‘to turn
out to be a non-event’. His original visit
schedule would have coincided with the Assembly
election at home. Naturally, any sort of deal on
Siachen would have been termed as
‘India’s victory’ and helped the
Congress to boost its electoral fortunes.
But the visit was
finally put off, because the Siachen issue could
not be clinched. Chief of the Army Staff, General
J. J Singh many others in his establishment
expressed concern over Pakistan’s reluctance
to authenticate the ground positions as a first
step for the deal. Citing Kargil, the Prime
Minister’s Office was told that Pakistan
will have no compunction to occupy the
Indian-held glacial posts, once an agreement was
reached. More over Pakistan was not
‘trustworthy’.
Reports are rife
that India had considered to ‘drop’ its
insistence on the demarcation of posts held, to
suit Pakistan and to ‘show progress in the
peace process’. Since the peace process is
‘transitory’, according to Stephen P
Cohen, the US’s premier South Asian
Strategic Affairs analyst, will it be prudent for
India to override the suggestions of the Army and
enter into an agreement with Pakistan on Siachen
separately. Cohen has gone to the extent of
saying: "I expect the talks to break down,
and hope both sides then draw lessons from why
the process failed". But such lessons have
never been drawn, given the nature of governments
in Pakistan, which has been mostly ruled by
military, barring a few spells of democracy in
between.
In which manner
can we estimate a country like Pakistan, which
has reportedly threatened that it will
‘nuke’ India, even if another country
(read Israel) attacks it? It is highly intriguing
that ISI had ordered the killing of Indian
engineer K Suryanarayan in Afghanistan, as
testified by the Taliban. Consider this scenario.
Pakistan, having had its way on the Glacier pact
that is no authentication of troops position,
moves quickly and occupies Indian positions. Well
in such a scenario India will be at a
disadvantage. Very little could be done to
retrieve the situation, according Indian army
experts.
Says Jasjit Singh,
Director, Centre for Air Power Studies, "If
Islamabad decides to launch an adventure in
Siachen, the costs will be heavy, in fact much
more than Kargil". India has been
persistently asking Pakistan that maps of the
positions last held by both the countries should
be endorsed by it, but it is reluctant to do so
obvious reasons.
Some Pandits are
unwilling to buy the line that India, by giving
in on Siachen, can earn Pakistan’s goodwill
or even dictate terms on Kashmir. It is a
ridiculous argument, they aver. How can we repose
faith in Pakistan, which has been dishonest in
its dealings with India ever since partition. We
have before us the lessons of Kargil war. Even
when the war was nearing an end and the enemy was
retreating, Pakistan insisted that India should
vacate Chorbat La, Siachen and Qamar sectors,
"to restore the sanctity of the Shimla
Agreement on the LoC". A few years earlier,
the then Foreign Minister Yakub Khan had
categorically rejected the Indian claim to
Siachen glacier, saying ‘it was part of the
Northern Areas’.
The Northern
Areas, which comprise the five districts of
Gilgit, Ghizar, Zhanchay, Baltistan and Diamir,
was forcibly annexed by Pakistan in November
1947. The Areas touch Chinese Sinkiang and Afghan
Pamirs in the north and a 480-km-long LoC in the
south. From third to 11th century, the area was
ruled by Buddhist kings.
In 1993, the
"Azad Kashmir (PoK)" High Court upheld
the position that Northern Areas was part of
undivided state of Jammu and Kashmir politically,
legally and constitutionally.
Before initialling
the Simla agreement, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto had
given verbal assurances to India to convert the
LoC into an international boundary. He had
literally begged of Mrs Indira Gandhi not to make
his verbal commitment a part of the formal
Agreement, for his ‘political
survival’. The Iron lady obliged him but he
and his successors backtracked.
When Benazir
Bhutto was reminded of her father’s
commitment, she simply said ‘circumstances
had changed’ and much water had flowed down
the Jhelum since then. Those were the days when
proxy war was at its zenith. And it led the
Pakistan establishment to believe "Kashmir
was ripe for separation…. And India did not
have political will to sustain Jammu and Kashmir
as an integral part of India," J N Dixit,
India’s former Foreign Secretary, says in
his book: "War and Peace".
Pakistan had even
questioned the sanctity of the LoC during Kargil
conflict. It had claimed that there existed only
a ‘working border’ between the two
countries. The objective was to justify the
intrusion. Given this track record of Pakistan,
should India make a climb down on Siachen?
Pakistan made its first attempt on the glacier in
early 80s, as it felt the demarcation of LoC
could be interpreted to justify the intrusion.
India checkmated Pakistan by quickly deploying
the army and setting up a network of well manned
posts in the Siachen region in 1984.
General Pervez
Musharraf was made the Brigade Commander of the
Special Services Group in the glacial area and
his task was to push back the Indian forces .He
was responsible for a major attack on Bilafond La
post in September 1987; the attack was repulsed.
Will he give in now?
---Syndicate
Features
|
|
