| EDITORIAL
»
» |
Last
updated : WEDNESDAY 31 DECEMBER
2008 |
 |
| A
Year of Terror
Today
is the last day of this year,
and the year will be remembered
as the one that witnessed the
worst of criminal terrorism
with the government still caring
more for votes than for the
lives of ordinary citizens.
Before Mumbai 26/11, the country
had already been attacked at
several of its places, which
ought to have served as a lesson
for the government to smarten
up its security regime and shape
the intelligence architecture
accordingly. But nothing was
done; it was as if the government
itself had not chosen to learn
anything with an effete Home
Minister, Shivraj Patil, presiding
over the anarchy and yet making
promises — tall but empty
— to the country that
terrorists would not be allowed
to succeed even though it was
there for all to see that the
terrorists were indeed succeeding
because the government itself
had allowed them that scope.
And when Mumbai 26/11 happened,
it was proved beyond doubt how
unresponsive the intelligence
machinery was, and how callous
and irresponsible the government
had allowed itself to be just
because it had to be politically
correct in the fight against
jihadi terrorism.
Asom, on October 30, saw the
ghastliness of terror. Nine
serial blasts rocked four places
in the State, with the State
capital bearing the worst brunt.
Even today it shocks the people
of the State because the crime
was so enormous that it is difficult
for the peace-loving people
to imagine of such terror unleashed
on an innocent humanity. With
such heinous designs allowed
to succeed, the people feel
that they are not only unsafe
but also being sacrificed at
the altar of politics in the
name of a very perverse brand
of secularism. And when the
crime began to be investigated,
there was so much confusion
— of course orchestrated
by the State government —
that it was virtually impossible
for the people to believe anyone
because there were different
versions of the probe and there
was no convergence of the grand
theories anywhere. An artist
was brought in from Kolkata
to draw sketches of the terror
suspects, but only one of the
sketches has so far been released
and no one knows how the other
suspects look like. The blame
game continues. The government
says it is the NDFB that helped
carry out the strikes with a
‘‘third force based
in Bangladesh’’
being the real mastermind, while
the NDFB has denied its involvement
in the attacks and says that
the government is deliberately
trying to profile the organization
and the community it represents.
Given the frequency of terror
attacks in the country and the
kind of mayhem let loose on
the people by the exported variety
of terror from Pakistan and
Bangladesh, it is indeed time
that we forced the government
of the day — both at the
Centre and in the States that
have fallen victims to terror
— to do a reality check
and ensure that the security
and intelligence framework would
now be foolproof so that innocent
lives are not lost any more.
But, again, the question is
whether the government has learnt
any lessons. True, there are
signs of belated awakening,
such as the strengthening of
the anti-terror law in vogue
and passing of a Bill to create
a federal investigative agency
(National Investigative Agency
or NIA). However, a mere agency,
however well-intentioned and
well-planned, would mean little
or nothing if it were to operate
under political pressure mounted
on it by the ruling party and
politicians. Can the government
promise us of a really autonomous
federal investigative agency,
and keep that promise too? And
how about reforming the police
and bringing about a change
in its colonial mindset? One
can only hope that 2009 would
be a little bit different, our
life a little bit secure, and
the government a little bit
concerned about ordinary citizens
— if not more. We wish
you all a safe and secure 2009. |
| |
|
Introspect
Tonight
How
we conduct ourselves tonight
as we bid adieu to the year
gone by and welcome the new
one, will point to our own character
— how conscientious, responsible,
mature and civilized we are,
in the midst of so many tragedies
the country has suffered from
this year. ‘Celebrating’
this night has become too routine
and mundane by the day, especially
in societies like ours where
there is nothing at all to celebrate
but everything to rue and mourn.
True, we should welcome the
new year, but on that welcoming
spirit should reflect our resolve
to rid our society from the
many ills it is afflicted with.
There should be a great deal
of introspection tonight as
we ‘celebrate’:
whether we should celebrate
just because everyone else seems
to be celebrating, or whether
it should be a night of intelligent
pondering, resolutions and determination
to contribute to the society
and country. In fact we should
examine our individual contribution
to the society and country this
year, and if we have not contributed
anything, we should humbly accept
that we too are a burden on
the system that helps us sustain. |
|
Between
the lines
Not
his own Master
Kuldip
Nayar
Tensions,
if prolonged, burst into consequences
which are hard to handle. A
warlike atmosphere comes to
develop.
Nations are sucked into jingoism
because they feel insecure.
In the process, people restrict
their liberty willingly. New
Delhi has enacted a new, harsher
law on detention. And all know
who calls the shots in Pakistan.
Still, for Foreign Minister
Pranab Mukherjee to ask with
whom India should deal is meant
only to score a point. It is
the army which has been operating
for more than 50 years, often
overtly and some time behind
the democratic façade.
If New Delhi has done business
with the governments which the
army guided then why ask President
Asif Ali Zardari to prove his
credentials? However weak and
wanting, his is a democratically
elected set-up. The voters queued
up before polling booths to
elect their representatives.
General Pervez Musharraf, chief
of the army staff, ruled Pakistan
for some nine years. New Delhi
never questioned his legitimacy.
Why in the case of Zardari?
True, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto enjoyed
all powers as Prime Minister
of a democratic country. But
he came in the wake of Bangladesh
formation. Then the army was
blamed for having lost half
of Pakistan. The circumstances
are different now. Zardari too
assumed that like Bhutto he
had all the power. But he found
out it was not so when he wanted
to send the ISI chief to Delhi
after having accepted Prime
Minister Manmohan Singh’s
request. What should he have
done: Admit his helplessness
in public? No ruler does so.
He blamed the media, as governments
do, for misquoting him. He could
have resigned but Pakistan does
not have the tradition of doing
so.
Knowing all this, Mukherjee
should have refrained from asking
who rules in Pakistan. This
has further exposed the Zardari
government. But then New Delhi’s
problem is that it is under
a lot of pressure to act after
the terrorist attack on Mumbai.
Yet, India might have strengthened
Zardari if it had not posed
the question that Mukherjee
did. Top brass in Pakistan might
have realized that New Delhi
preferred to do business with
the democratically elected government
even though the real power was
in the hands of the army. The
suo moto statement by General
Asfaq Parvez Kiyani that Pakistan
would retaliate within minutes
was meant to underline the point.
The question to ask from Islamabad
is not who governs Pakistan,
but how it can be helped to
get back to democracy which
the country enjoyed for a few
years after its birth? Yet the
Zardari government should understand
and appreciate the extent of
anger which is sweeping India.
However helpless, Pakistan has
to deliver. It cannot be party
to the cover-up job. Why should
Prime Minister Yousuf Reza Gillani
and his master’s voice
Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood
Qureshi go on saying that the
terrorists who attacked Mumbai
were not Pakistanis? Ajmal Amar
Kasab, the terrorist caught
alive, has sought legal assistance
from the Zardari government.
Former Pakistan Prime Minister
Nawaz Sharif, whose prestige
is going up day after day, was
quite right when he said that
Kasab’s case gave the
impression as if Pakistan was
a failed state. Why should Islamabad
go on repeating that India had
not given any credible proof
on the terrorists being Pakistanis?
Zardari’s embarrassment
is understandable. It is apparent
that he came to know about the
attack on Mumbai only after
it had taken place. After all,
Nawaz Sharif did not know Musharraf
sending troops to Kargil till
the operation began. However,
once Nawaz Sharif became aware
of it he made clean breast of
it before the world through
President Bill Clinton. It cost
Nawaz Sharif his prime ministership
because when he tried to take
action against army chief Musharraf,
the latter took over the government.
A respected Pakistani expert,
Ahmed Rashid, has said that
the attack on Mumbai is the
handiwork of the Pakistani Taliban
who are said to have become
part of the Al-Qaida Taliban.
It is possible that the Taliban
and the jehadi straddling over
Pakistan and Afghanistan have
jointly conducted the Mumbai
carnage. This development is
as much disturbing for Pakistan
as it is for India. Yet Zardari
cannot run away from the fact
that the Pakistan territory
was “used” for planning
and executing the attack. He,
who has made friendly statements,
should have taken not only measures
to expose but also curb the
terrorists and those behind
them. Had he done so, he would
have sustained the goodwill
he evoked in India within the
first few weeks of his taking
over. Even now it is not too
late. The mood in India is nasty
and the Parliament session has
shown that Zardari will have
to come really hard on terrorists
in Pakistan. The LeT chief should
have been tried by this time.
He was responsible for the attack
on the Indian Parliament House
in 2001. He is at the back of
what happened in Mumbai.
Surely, Zardari and his colleagues
do not entertain the thesis
which even some Indian Muslims
and Urdu newspapers adumbrate
that the entire operation was
that of certain elements in
the Indian government, helped
by the BJP extremists. The very
idea is preposterous: India
killing nearly 200 people of
its own, causing a loss of at
least $2 billion and exposing
its ineptness before the world.
(It took 60 hours to kill nine
militants.)
The thesis was built after the
killing of Anti-Terrorist Squad
chief Hemant Karkare who found
the Vishwa Hindu Parishad hand
in the Malegaon blasts. It was
assumed that he was silenced
because he had a lot more to
say. A high-level police inquiry
has proved that Karkare was
killed by the terrorists. Doubts
had unnecessarily arisen when
AR Antulay, Union Minister for
Minority Affairs, posed the
question: On whose direction
did Karkare go towards the Cama
Hospital when the operation
was at the Taj and the Oberoi?
Antulay did not realize that
the terrorists first went to
the Cama Hospital. Ultimately
he did when Home Minister P
Chidambaram made a detailed
statement in Parliament. But
his remark, untimely as it was,
created a furore. Muslim clerics
also came on the side of Antulay,
giving the happening a communal
colour.
What is disconcerting is the
attitude of Islamabad which
believes that it has no explanation
to offer. It has not even dismantled
the training camps, a worldwide
demand. The whole thing is getting
messier and messier. True, the
two countries have to sit across
the table to reconstruct the
whole attack, from the beginning
to the end and see where the
blame lay. Weak as the Zardari
government is, it looks weaker
and gives the impression of
not being its own master. Rhetoric
can make it worse. |
|
Nepal
Waiting for a Bigger Turmoil
Dina
Nath Mishra
Once
Comrade Ashok Mitra, the then
West Bengal minister, said that
they were communists and not
gentlemen. It is a profound
statement. Anything that happened
in Russia, China, West Bengal
and Kerala can be accommodated
in the scope of this statement,
including massacre, torture,
mass arrests etc. How else can
you justify the massacre of
98 million innocent people by
communist governments in various
countries? The figures are staggering:
20 million in Russia, 60 million
in China, one million in Vietnam,
two million in Cambodia, two
million in North Korea, 1.5
million in Afghanistan, and
so on. Compare this figure with
about 40 million people (both
civilians and soldiers including
those killed when two atom bombs
were thrown on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki in Japan) killed in
World War II. It happened recently
also in Nandigram and Singur.
For the past few months, due
to terrorist attack on Mumbai,
events of Nepal have been shadowed
in the Indian press. If one
goes into the details of Nepal
Diary, Nepal appears to have
gone back to square one when
capturing property, extortion,
conscription and killings were
routine events. Thanks to Maoist
revolution, Nepal’s Prime
Minister Prachanda confessed
that to stage a revolution was
rather easier than to run a
government comprising parties
of various hues. This was partly
an admission of failure of his
government as well as of his
frustration. But in more than
one way it was a tactical statement
coupled with the threat of resigning
from the government and going
back to bushes. After this phase
of revolution, he thinks his
party would come back to power
with a thumping majority. Communist
commitments to democratic rights
and comprehensive peace have
by now proved to be deceptive,
like in other places wherever
there has been communist rule.
Prachanda is a man in hurry.
He wants to integrate Maoist
guerrillas and Nepal state armed
forces under the guidance of
Chinese military experts. China
has agreed to take up this work
to perform “neighbourly
duty”, of course to consolidate
its power in Nepal as quickly
as possible. Military is the
key to the power of any state
apparatus. Maoists want to consolidate
it. This would be the most useful
strategy to subjugate Nepal
totally. Obviously most of the
political parties working in
tandem to run the government
are opposed to it. Prachanda
considers it as the biggest
stumbling block in the process
of building a powerful communist
regime. It would be appropriate
to recall the statement of former
King Gyanendra who admitted
that it was a blunder on his
kingdom’s part to have
relied on China and leaned towards
it. But Prachanda may not have
to repent, as after all they
are all comrades.
The Opposition parties are fighting
this move as strongly as they
can. They call it integration
of Nepali army (with the armed
forces of Nepal), including
the Royal Nepal Army, which
once it was. All this is not
undeclared Maoist strategy.
They have been calling for it
for nearly two years. So far
as law and order is concerned,
under Prachanda’s rule
it is at the mercy of Maoist
cadres. From ceasefire accord
to post-elections agreement,
no agreement was principled;
they were tactical. Those who
know the pattern of communist
behaviour would realize that
Nepal is in Maoist trap.
If one goes through Prachanda’s
following statement one can
draw the picture of Nepal’s
immediate future: “…his
party had no option but to launch
a fresh struggle if attempts
were made to thwart army integration
and the constitution-drafting
processes.’’ Referring
to his recent remark on violence,
Prachanda said that he just
wanted to tell the people to
be ready to carry arms for the
sake of national well-being
as feudal elements were trying
to harm the country. The Prime
Minister was speaking at a programme
organized by his party at Bhakti
Namuna Higher Secondary School
in Bhote Odar, Lamjung. He,
however, said: “I didn’t
mean I would raise arms immediately.
I said people themselves would
raise arms if the peace bid,
army integration and constitution
processes were stymied.”
On the other hand, non-communist
parties, after remaining dormant
for a number of years, are also
slowly activating themselves.
One particular movement is getting
momentum. Gyanendra, after being
humiliated by the arrival of
Maoists, has been touring villages
and getting moderate response.
He is now thinking of establishing
constitutional monarchy. A number
of other leaders, including
former Prime Minister BP Koirala,
are also considering establishment
of constitutional monarchy.
And Koirala and Gyanendra have
already met in this connection.
|
| |
Education: Some Change Now
Uma
Nair
“No
failure till Class VIII’’,
as enshrined in the Education
Bill introduced in Parliament,
brings to the fore the huge
level of responsibility that
schools across the nation face
in educating children —
all the way till Class VIII.
This proposal protects the right
of a child to education and
also categorically states the
importance of school contribution
to writing, reading and speaking
in the medium of instruction
desired.
This runs along parallel to
America’s ‘‘No
Child Left Behind’’
programme, but that is where
the similarity stops. Because
American schools have as little
as 20-odd kids in a classroom
and India has 50 kids in a classroom.
The Right of Children to Free
and Compulsory Education Bill,
2008, introduced in the Rajya
Sabha, proposes that both government
and private schools across the
country not fail students for
poor performance until they
complete elementary education
(Class VIII), nor throw anyone
out of school.
Teaching children anywhere requires
not just passion for making
sure that every child gets educated,
but a certain level of acceptance
in terms of equipping a student
to read, write and speak with
proficiency. And we cannot have
a system that simply shuffles
children through the schools,
we need a system that is graded
in terms of teaching techniques
and goals set.
Teachers across the board must
know that their first principle
is accountability. Accountability
not to the good students, but
to the weakest of the class.
Every teacher has a job to do.
And that is to teach the basics
to the shirkers and teach them
well. If we want to make sure
no child is left behind, every
child must learn to read. And
every child must learn to add
and subtract. Maths and language
skills become critical and crucial
tools in learning. Teachers
then should also be graded according
to how they equip the weak students
through the year.
The fundamental principle of
this act is that every child
can learn, we expect every child
to learn, and schools must show
us whether or not every child
is learning. The story of children
being just shuffled through
the system is just to move them
through. That must not happen.
The first step to making sure
that a child is not shuffled
through is to test that child
as to whether or not he or she
can read and write, or add and
subtract. All weaknesses must
be dealt with and worked upon.
This requires everyday labour
and constant monitoring. Parents
too must cooperate and organize
their time with kids at home.
One of the interesting things
about this Bill is that you
wonder how it affects a school
that is performing poorly. Will
schools be given time and incentives
and resources to correct their
problems? If, however, schools
do not perform, there must be
real consequences. Parents must
be given real options in the
face of failure in order to
make sure reform is meaningful.
And so the new role of the schools
is to set high standards for
all students — weak, average
and good — provide resources,
hold teachers accountable, and
liberate school curriculum so
as to meet the standards. But
teachers also need to be paid
better. They need to be taken
care of. A teacher who does
not worry about little bills
will be a happier person.
Then the government needs to
spend more money, more resources,
on education and on schools,
but they must be directed at
methods that work. They should
not be superficial feel-good
methods, not sound-good methods,
but methods that actually work
(The writer is an English teacher
at Don Bosco School, New Delhi)
(IANS) |
| |
|
|
|
