Daily Excelsior... Editorial

EDITORIAL

By Atul

It now looks certain that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh will visit Islamabad before the summer is out; it is in a sense returning Gen Pervez Musharraf’s visit to Delhi in April 2005 actually on a self-invitation to watch the Pakistani cricket team play a one-day international at the Ferozshah Kotla ground. His presence at the stadium in the city of his birth was inspiring enough for the Pakistanis to . ...more

Rewards and brickbats
for ifs officers

By N.B. Menon

India’s 26th foreign secretary, Shyam Saran, will be demitting office in June. He has been a "crisis manager" ever since foreign minister K. Natwar Singh was forced to quit the office following the Volcker report. Who will succeed Shyam Saran is still being debated. . .......more

Government service
by doctors

By Dr Ratandeep Kaur

Every time the Government tends to think long term and bring about far reaching changes which would change the health scenario and awareness levels as well as enhance the health delivery system, it is put to confusion resulting in half hearted steps, which further deteriorates the prevalent health status in our state. . . .. .......more

EDITORIAL

Wise move

It is to be welcomed that the moderate faction of the Hurriyat Conference will meet Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in New Delhi on May 3. Its acceptance of the Prime Minister's invitation speaks of wisdom and maturity. The dialogue between the Mirwaiz Moulvi Umar Farooq-led Hurriyat and the Prime Minister ought to have proceeded on a faster pace. There can't be two opinions that it has not happened. Their first and last meeting was on September 5 last year. Since then a lot of water has flown down the Jhelum and the Yamuna. The reasons for excruciatingly slow progress are only too well known. Indeed it will not be wrong to say that there was virtually total breakdown of the communication between the two sides. We have discussed this sad reality in these columns earlier. Any repetition needs to be avoided now that there is promise of renewed bonhomie. Suffice it to say for the moment that no person should jump the accepted and pragmatic principles that govern mutual discussions. Certainly those should watch their steps more carefully whose support base has not stood any popular test. False egos, one-upmanship and dictation of terms are anathema to a reasoned exchange of views. These are best cast aside during heart-to-heart talks particularly in matters involving intricacies. The Mirwaiz Hurriyat has the ability and nerve to play a significant role in restoring peace and normalcy in the region. In fact it had caught wide attention at one stage by taking the lead in search of tranquility in the face of heavy odds. Somewhere along the way, however, it appeared to go adrift in the deluge of media hype which was surprising. Nobody will grudge if it wants to become part of a "triangular dialogue process" with New Delhi and Islamabad as the other two sides of the polygon. For that it will have to prove itself through logic on the negotiation table and strength on the ground.

Unlike other separatist outfits and conglomerations the Hurriyat faction is a rare blend of youth and experience. The Mirwaiz (Awami Action Committee) himself is in his thirties as is Bilal Lone (People's Conference). Nayeem Khan (National Front), Fazal Qureshi (People's Political Front) and Aga Syed Hassan (Anjuman-e-Shara-i-Shian) are somewhat senior in age while Prof Abdul Ghani Bhat and Maulana Abbas Ansari are veterans both having been chairpersons of the united Hurriyat Conference in the past. Almost all these leaders have been exposed to various facets of militancy including personal tragedies it inflicts. Therefore, they have the requisite credentials to make a difference between virtues of peace and horrors of the gun culture. All that they require is to press their agenda with consistent courage and conviction. They should not be upset if the Centre for its own reasons wants to carry other secessionist leaders along in its well-intentioned exercise.

It can be anybody's guess that the May 3 get-together may also settle the suspense about the Mirwaiz Hurriyat's participation in the Prime Minister's second roundtable of mainstream and secessionist leaders scheduled to be held in Srinagar later this month. Like every other separatist group it had stayed away from the first such conference in the national capital in February. According to available indications it wants that instead of throwing open the meeting to one and all it should be restricted to major political parties and players in the State. National Conference patron Farooq Abdullah too has already gone on record saying that every Tom, Dick and Harry should not be called to such a high-level gathering. Coincidentally the Hurriyat leaders are said to have used the same term in their discussions with intermediaries. It is a reasonable expectation and should be met. It may well ensure that the second event is a credible step forward compared to the first that has already taken place. Who will not want this to happen?

Too good?

Of late three developments have taken place concerning the restoration of popular rule in Pakistan. All of them can be described as positive. One is, of course, that two former prime ministers Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif have moved closer than before on the single agenda of reinstating democracy in their country "by getting rid of the military rule." The other is an announcement by Pakistan's Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Qazi Mohammad Farooq that the next general election will be held "on time and under a caretaker set-up and opposition parties should not have any doubts about fairness of the process." The third is very interesting. It relates to Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf himself pledging to hold free and fair elections in 2007. He has admitted that it is "ironic' that he should be talking of democracy while "sitting in uniform". He justifies it in the same breath that he "needed" to hold the charge as the Army chief to bring in democratic system. He concedes that his "popularity" has gone down. But at the same time he is convinced that "at this moment my country needs me. I've put a strong Constitutional system in place. That will throw up a successor. I'm a strong believer in democracy." One may take his words with a pinch of salt. However, if one takes an overview one may conclude that Pakistan will have polls next year and not in 2008 as was being contemplated by the Musharraf administration at one time. On their part, Ms Bhutto and Mr Sharif (both of them live in exile) have started working out on a "charter of democracy." They have resolved to return to Pakistan "together if possible". As is already known they are jointly functioning under the banner of the Alliance for Restoration of Democracy (ARD). Their own feelings notwithstanding, the question remains whether they will be allowed to return home to contest elections. Gen Musharraf just does not seem to like their sight. His silence is an indication that if not pressed further by national and international opinion for holding genuine elections he will keep the door shut on both the former prime ministers. Interestingly, the Pakistan CEC has made it clear that he has no role in this behalf meaning thereby the Government alone can take a decision on their homecoming.

Will it do the General or Pakistan any good if he goes ahead with electoral exercise in the absence of globally recognised leaders of well-organised political parties? Ms Bhutto and Mr Sharif should be permitted full play on the home turf. Their presence can lend credence to the claim for transparent polls even if these are not held in time.

Visiting Pakistan to Defreeze Siachen

By Atul

By a coincidence Kargil is likely to be the centrepiece of the prime minister’s visit to Pakistan, the land of his birth. Manmohan Singh may be flying to Islamabad with a proposal for resolving the problem of troop positions on the icy heights of Siachen glacier adjacent to Kargil. A final ‘settlement’ of the Siachen problem was quite possible. A solution to the prickly problem of marking the boundaries in the Sir Creek swamps in Gujarat is also said to be ready, awaiting Pakistan’s signature.

The manning of Siachen heights, where apparently ‘not a blade of grass’ grows, has been a very costly affair for the nation, both in terms of men and money. Many more soldiers are said to have died on Siachen from exposure to the extremes of winters than from enemy bullets. An agreement to withdraw forces from that highly inhospitable region will indeed be welcome as will be the agreement on Sir Creek or any other bilateral dispute, for that matter.

But a fear looms large in many quarters that the moment Indian forces are pulled out of the Siachen glacier, the Pakistanis, as is their wont, will be putting into action their plans to move into positions vacated by India and consolidate their positions there.

Indian army as well as security experts are unanimous in saying that once vacated it will be extremely difficult for Indian forces to re-occupy the positions held in Siachen at this moment. The whole Kargil war was about Pakistani perfidy in moving into heights that had been left unmanned by India from the beginning of the Kashmir dispute with Pakistan. The Indian jawans had to make tremendous sacrifices to push the intruders out because of the logistic advantages the latter had gained by occupying the Kargil heights from where the Indian forces had voluntarily and unilaterally retreated.

The Pakistani army, General Musharraf included, continues to maintain that it had the upper hand in Kargil and had not the then prime minister of Pakistan, Nawaz Sharif, catapulted on ‘orders’ from the then US president, Bill Clinton, the Pakistani army would have been firmly perched on the Kargil heights. From that vantage position, the Pakistanis would have posed a permanent threat to a major highway in the upper reaches of Kashmir. What makes the Pakistanis believe that they had breached no contract in Kargil is the fact that even as India and Pakistan fought over Kashmir and later agreed on an ‘Actual Line of Control’, no such demarcation in Kargil was ever outlined or accepted by the two countries.

Not willing to be outwitted again and wiser after Kargil, India now says it is seeking ‘iron clad’ guarantees from Pakistan in authenticating the troop positions held by the two countries in Siachen. The National Security Adviser, M. K. Narayanan, has said that India and Pakistan are ‘closer’ to a ‘final point’ on the Siachen. His remarks have come amidst reports that Pakistan will under no circumstances agree to authenticate the actual ground positions held by the two armies. Given the apparent contradictions in the stands of the two countries it is not clear how can it be said that a ‘final point’ in resolving the Siachen problem is about to be reached.

This view may appear to be a misguided fear of a layman or someone who is not part of the security loop, much less the inner thinking of policy makers. It is said that there are some international models of making such agreements work. But if past lessons about Pakistan showing contempt for treaty obligations and promises made are kept in mind a layman’s instinct cannot be dismissed outright. Forget what happened in Kargil or the fact that Pakistan has never honoured the very UN resolution it swears by to pull out its forces from the part of Kashmir it forcibly occupied in 1948. Till the other day, Musharraf rarely missed an opportunity to say he does not recognise the Shimla agreement, which, in his view, Pakistan had signed under ‘coercion’.

Several knowledgeable persons in India, the ones who have been part of the inner circles, have said that after the Pakistani rout in the 1971 Bangladesh war, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, assured Indira Gandhi that he would convert the line of control in Kashmir into international border between the two countries, once his troops were back home. Bhutto forgot his promise the moment his 90,000 troops, which had surrendered to the Indian army, returned home. Soon he was talking of a 1000-year war with India and Pakistanis willing to eat grass to build a nuclear bomb.

While many in India continue to criticise Indira Gandhi for trusting Bhutto, it has to be remembered that Bhutto’s predecessors as well as successors did not act differently in regard to promises or assurances given to India on certain vital matters. Pakistan does not hesitate to violate even an international treaty like the WTO or its obligations as member of SAARC when it comes to trade relations with India. Even in matters far removed from politics and diplomacy, like visit of Indian artists or allowing screening of Indian films, the Pakistani rulers either come up with whimsical objections or tie up the issues to the ‘final’ resolution of the Kashmir dispute. But Islamabad is very keen to make an exception to this ‘Kashmir first’ rule on matters like a gas pipeline from Iran to India because it will bring it billions of dollars in revenue, the money that it will promptly spend on buying lethal arms for use against the ‘enemy’.

It has been said that Manmohan Singh does not want to visit Pakistan for the sake of only returning Musharraf’s visit but wants to carry with him something that will substantially contribute to improving relations. The ‘solutions’ that he may be carrying may sound good and may also be mutually acceptable, but India will not be ready to accept another act of perfidy by Pakistan.

If during their talks in Pakistan, the prime minister or his aides are not completely sure about Pakistan’s intentions on Siachen it may be best to postpone resolution of the dispute. India can offer its solutions to other disputes like Sir Creek. If Pakistan rejects them all, at least the world will know that India has shown sufficient interest in sorting out matters with Pakistan even as, unlike Islamabad, New Delhi believes in step-by-step approach to resolving Kashmir.

(Syndicate Features)

Rewards and brickbats for ifs officers

By N.B. Menon

India’s foreign secretaries are very good at redrawing the world - with the stroke of a pen. It is not unusual to find an incoming foreign secretary, bereft of ideas, deciding to redefine Europe, making Turkey part of the Continent in South Block’s agenda. Never mind the reality that the European Union is a long way from accepting Turkey as such. Similarly, South Block’s description of its territorial division dealing with East Asia and south-east Asia has changed so many times that had these been real changes, this crucial area of the globe would have become unrecognisable to the real world by now. But Shyam Saran was different from his predecessors.

It is not merely enough for joint secretaries to list the options to the foreign secretary while deciding policy or making up the Indian government’s stand on an issue. That even a junior under-secretary can do. Instead, joint secretaries should bring to bear on policy their expertise and their understanding of issues, and make specific policy recommendations to their superiors. They should stop playing safe, opting for the easy way out of problems and fully participate in decision-making.

In a change that is virtually unprecedented in the history of the Indian foreign service, Saran has told the external affairs minister, K. Natwar Singh, that he wants his secretaries to be fully part of his team. In the past, foreign secretaries had kept for themselves 95 per cent of the work in South Block, leaving just about five per cent for the two, sometimes three, other secretaries. Extremely insecure foreign secretaries have gone further and kept 98 per cent of the work to themselves. During Mr. Saran’s tenure Shashi Tripathi, Rajiv Sikri, the triumvirate were the MEA’s diplomatic face.

Saran had shown that he was capable of leading a team that had to consolidate the single biggest achievement of the Atal Bihari Vajpayee government - of dealing with the major world powers as an equal and not as the non-aligned bull in the china shop of international diplomacy or as the congenital dissident in the arena of global negotiations. It is a tribute to Saran’s brand of diplomacy that he had not been allowed by South Block’s political leadership to serve in two of his postings for no more than a year-and-a-half at each station. He had done only one year and two months of his eventful stay in Jakarta as ambassador when his interests were demanded in Nepal.

The full potential of Indo-ASEAN relations is far from realised - except in Indonesia and to an extent in Singapore. Saran turned relations between India and Indonesia into what they were intended to be in the first place when Indonesia became free from Dutch colonialism in 1949. When Saran persuaded Bollywood’s Shah Rukh Khan to visit Indonesia as part of a four week, four-city Festival of India that he organised in 2002, he created what amounted to the nearest equivalent to another revolution in that country where Khan is a cult figure, almost like Indonesia’s national heroes.

The profile that Saran created for India and the respect he earned for New Delhi in Indonesia stood the charge d’affaires, Amar Sinha, in good stead and enabled him to weather successfully the biggest crisis in Indo-Indonesian relations in recent memory within days of Saran’s transfer to Kathmandu. Bank Artha Graha - a mafia-controlled institution with links to Indonesia’s powerful, but notoriously corrupt, army - decided to dispute a contract with Polaris, a Chennai-based financial services software firm, as an excuse to extort a fortune from the Indian company.

It illegally detained the chief executive of Polaris, Arun Jain, who had arrived in Jakarta to negotiate the dispute in good faith. Jain was held incommunicado at the bank’s headquarters while other Polaris employees, similarly held hostage, were threatened by the bank’s hatched men at gunpoint to sign payoff documents. The mafia that controlled Bank Artha Graha demonstrated that they were above the law. Sinha defied conventional wisdom within the ASEAN when he combined New Delhi’s resolve to stand up on behalf of Jain with a campaign in the Singapore and Hong Kong media citing the Polaris case to discredit Indonesia’s claim of being business-friendly. Jain and his colleagues were freed after the intervention of the Indonesian foreign minister, Hassan Wirayuda.

Saran’s tenure in Jakarta was cut short as New Delhi groped for its traditional and historic role in Nepal as the kingdom lurched from crisis into deeper crisis: he was rushed to Kathmandu to head the Indian embassy there. The National Democratic Alliance government had not paid adequate attention to Nepal in the months preceding the crises in the kingdom, caught up as Vajpayee and the then external affairs minister, Jaswant Singh, were with dealing with the Big Powers as fallout of the Pokhran nuclear tests.

Surprising as the neglect of the world’s only Hindu kingdom by the Bharatiya Janata Party was, it threatened some of the foundations of India’s neighbourhood policy. Within six months, Saran put Indian interests in Nepal on the road to recovery. He gained the confidence of King Gyanendra by stopping the flow to Narayanhitty Palace of confusing and multiple messages on sensitive and top-secret subjects from New Delhi, messages which were often contradictory and delivered through more than one intermediary. He also rewrote the rules for India’s dealings with Nepal’s main political parties.

History will judge Saran’s role as ambassador in Kathmandu on a par with Rajiv Gandhi’s in his final year as prime minister, when Rajiv’s policies put Nepal on an irreversible road to democracy. Saran recognised that Nepal’s place in international affairs was undergoing a historic change with the United States of America and its allies taking an interest in Kathmandu for the first time.

India’s policies towards Kathmandu could not remain moribund or warped in time under those circumstances. Saran’s tenure in Kathmandu was also cut short by the call to take over as head of the IFS. He will also have the opportunity to look afresh at the fires he put out as envoy earlier in Mauritius and Myanmar, and pick up those threads from where they were left off. Does the political leadership in South Block recognise the worth of a diplomatic fire-fighter? No sooner Shyam Saran demits office he will be forgotten like his equally capable predecessors. But he is certainly to be awarded with an important ambassadorial posting. INAV

Government service by doctors

By Dr Ratandeep Kaur

The Division Bench response to the PIL filed, after hearing Advocate Faisal Qadri on 27th Feb, has been widely accepted by the public but resented by doctors who are undertaking dual Government service as well as practice. The basic endeavor behind the decision by the DB has multiple motives-to restrict illegal practice in all its forms. It has also spurred the Government into bringing about re-structuring the health system as well as streamline the same. A ban on private practice by serving Government doctors is intended to allow the respected doctor to place both his feet and mind in a single boat. This way there will be employment generation for the needful. Those who are confident to stand on their own feet in the private sector can leave the Government service respectfully and carry on their good work in that set up, whereas it will allow the infusion of young blood into the service who would be intended to work with greater passion in the services that is not seen any longer. It will also allow infusion of newer ideas to overcome the problems in the present overburdened health set up, as the present incumbents have been unable to deliver as they tend to tie themselves in multiple knots from which they cannot come out.

A recent article on the same subject by a Government doctor of repute has tried to tie more knots regarding the essence of Government service by doctors. His contention that a ban on private practice will not make the Government doctor take his work seriusly is wrong. In fact, when a Government servant joins service he has to give it in writing that he will not undertake any other professional work as long as he is in Government service and that he will not hold any other office of profit either directly or indirectly. If he is found to violate his service guidelines he would loose his service and any other benefits that he would have accrued-pension, DA, TA, LTC etc. So, if the service conditions are used by the Government properly-in true letter and spirit- no Government employee will deviate from his duties and functions. Moreover, it will be prudent for the Government to call the doctors bluff that they would be inclined to submit their papers-as most of the doctors want to retire at the top most post as they would get better pension benefits and also be eligible for other perks such as TA, DA, materials and equipment that is pilfered to their establishments, as well as stipends to attend conferences, where the scientific presentations are never made or attended and they buy materials for their establishments since their travel and stay is from Government funds. That is the reason that there has been only one doctor in the history of Government Medical College whose has authored a book on Pediatrics, which has been acclaimed all over the country. So, a ban would allow the doctors to concentrate their energies in academics, which they should be doing in the first place and do some good surveys assessing the need of the population as well as prevalence of diseases, on which the Government can plan the future health care systems. Moreover, it is a well known public fact that the OPD of the patients drops drastically, in their private set up once a doctor retires. So, not many Government doctors would take the jump to private practice.

The second contention that corrupt malpractices cannot be brought down is again totally misplaced. Where there is a will, there is a way. The Government will have to devise ways be which the Government doctors do not undertake shadow clinical practice that is show his present nursing establishment in the name of his father, mother, wife or child and practice under the garb of the same. If the punishment for indulging in the same is made so strict that he would tend to loose his credit of having served in Government as well as loose his pension rights too- he would not dare do the same at all. And this pertains to all departments of the Government and not only the health care services. Moreover, such a step by the Government could be challenged in court and if upheld the litigant would have to pay for the false litigation to the Government coffers would be best detriment and allow the Government servant to serve the public with respect and dignity. This way the long lost respect to the profession would be regained in a matter of couple of years. Moreover, the Government can also grade the nursing homes/clinical establishments depending upon their facilities offered. Let the Government form a committee having equal representation of reputed Government and private doctors in every fields, who would oversee the level of facilities and the grading norms in the nursing homes etc, so as to ensure there is no harassment of the private sector. And the better the facilities offered the higher the charges for those who can afford the same. Those who cannot afford can seek care in the Government hospitals, where the doctors would be now eager to prove their mantle, as a lot of funds are being made available for up-gradation of the hospitals on the line of AIIMS. This way good medical facilities would come up in the state, wherein the patient does not have to go out of the state and save drain of finances to other states. This grading would also allow coming up of world class facilities, which can attract medical tourism as is being pursued by the Governments in Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu & Punjab in the recent years, which can be associated with scenic and cultural/religious tourism- a huge potential which lies untapped in the State. This would be another way of bringing Khushali to our state. Hope the Government does not fall prey to this blackmail time and again. Reminds me of the introspection that one undergoes after watching Amir Khan starrer- 'Rang De Basanti'.