The Political Scene

Forty seven years after India won freedom, Kashmir still continues to be a problem. The Prime Minister, Mr. P.V. Narasimha Rao, in his ad­dress to the nation from the ramparts of the historic Red Fort spoke atlength on Kashmir enunciating in no uncertain terms India’s policy and determination to foil the attempts of Pakistan to create conditions of uncertainty in the tormented State. The role of the hostile neighbour in promoting and actively helping militancy is well known and the Prime Minister made it clear that terrorism would be wiped out whatever be the difficulties. Those who have been talking about inaction on the part of the Prime Minister on the Kashmir problem, will have real­ised that he is taking no chances and the firm declaration that the liberation of Pakistan - occupied Kashmir was the unfinished task before the nation has been widely welcomed in the country. In fact, this was the first time that a reference to PoK was made in recent years and Pakistan should real­ise the futility of interfering in the internal affairs of India by fomenting trouble in Kashmir. Militant groups in the State aided and abetted by Paki­stan and graduated from amateur hit and run bands to well organised dar­ing guerilla groups bristling with anus and uptodate knowledge of explosives. Pakistani training and the induction of veteran mercenaries in the State has transformed the character of the insurgency. In fact the situation has now come to such a pass that the State has had to accept the reality of virtually liberated zones and vast tracks of rural areas with a thriving parallel administration. It would no doubt be extremely difficult to defeat India in Kashmir militarily but continued stalemate entails significant losses. Not only does it sap the Army’s energies, it also damages India’s international standing. Precisely for this reason the Prime Minister in his address had drawn the attention of the global community to the mischief being played by Pakistan in Kashmir. He has also said that India is prepared to talk to Pakistan oh the basis of the Simla agreement but in no case Ka­shmir’s status as an integral part of India is negotiable. Simultaneously the Centre needs to be seen to be committed to peace and not apathetic to it. It should make serious attempts to re­store the democratic process after shedding the old, discredited politi­cians. Of course the Prime Minister told the nation that the first step towards restoring the political process had already been taken in the form of revising the electoral rolls. This task has begun in right earnest although it is too early to say when the process would be completed. For the same reason the prime Minister was not in a position to say when the elections would be held in the State. Until com­plete normality was reached-which means that every voter should be in a position to exercise his franchise with­out fear-elections are not possible but the fact seems to be that the people who are tired of militancy and their tactics are now eagerly looking forward to this event. The strong streak of sub-nationalism among the Muslims in the State cannot however be wished away and Dr. Farook Abdullah, former Chief Minister, is trying his best to stage a come . The real difficulty is that all mainstream national parties in the State have become dormant and there are no authentic political leaders in the Valley capable of rallying even a small group of locals. Further, the militant groups have now become quite popular and the Government will perforce have to deal with them in any future negotiations making it clear that they must as a pre-condition subscribe to the Indian Constitution. The Prime Minister has to display some real statemanship by making a sustained effort to woo the kashmiris with a generous dose of autonomy that would make the trauma of separating from India unnecessary. The Prime Minister’s skill in evolving an approach which is shared across the political divide will certainly be welcomed and it will have a real chance of success.

If Kashmir was the main subject of discussion during the period under review, the other important subject which attracted the nation’s attention was the opposition boycott of Parlia­ment for more than two weeks. It may be recalled that the security scam which rocked the nation was the issue before a Joint Parliamentary Commit­tee. The JPC made a number of recom­mendations in regard to the preven­tion of such scams while at the same time indicting persons in high places as being constructively and in some cases directly responsible for the scam. The government came out with an action taken report which was presented to Parliament in the monsoon session. The Opposition parties were not happy with the Government’s re­sponse and they were angry that some of the ministers who were indicted by the JPC went scot free. It was also said that the action taken fell short of their expectations although the JPC’s findings were unanimous. This, they argued, was an insult to parliament itself and denigrating the highest legis­lative forum by the government could not go unnoticed. And as a mark of protest the Opposition parties decided to boycott Parliament. They also demanded that the action taken report should be withdrawn by the Govern­ment as it was totally inadequate and a fresh comprehensive report should be submitted. Of course the govern­ment stood by the report and was not prepared to be cowed down by the ex­treme threat imposed by the Opposi­tion. The Prime Minister did offer to respond further after there was a debate and discussion on the report. The Opposition was in no mood to listen and they even presented a memorandum to the President to in­tervene to break the dead lock. It was in this context that the President’s In­dependence day eve message to the nation assumed considerable impor­tance. The President emphasised the role of debate in Parliament and the need to observe certain norms which made the functioning of Parliament meaningful. Obviously he was having the boycott of Parliament by the Oppo­sition parties in his mind. There is much sense in what the President said in his address and the Opposition parties who sought his intervention should have straightaway heeded his advice. In a system of parliamentary democracy of the kind the country has there really is no place for obstruction­ist tactics. The Opposition was really wrong in trying to subvert parliament. Precious time was lost due to the boycott and some of the Bills that were passed in their absence did not get the scrutiny that was due.

Clearly the tactics of the Opposition parties did not achieve any de­sirable gain. If elections to Parliament were not nearly two years away the Opposition members would even have quit Parliament to put pressure on the Government as had happened in the past. Strangely the left parties and the Bharatiya Janata party too were on the same wave length on this issue and it only shows that the main objective of the Opposition parties was to embarrass the Government. It is worth quoting what the President said: par­liamentary democracy subsists on the basis of appropriately chosen repre­sentatives: full orderly debate and deliberation, informed and responsive decision making: accountability of the Government to the legislature and of members of the legislatures to their elections. It is for the Opposition parties to make an evaluation in terms of the President’s formulation.

Yet another issue that came to the forefront was the one relating to reservations in education institutions and in Government jobs. There has been no uniformity in regard to the policy pursued by differentStates. As the Scheduled Castes and the Sched­uled Tribes and the ward Classes constitute a big chunk of voters, governments have been vying with one another in seeking their votes by fixing quotas which deprive the classes with merit of what really is their due. The Indian Constitution sets forth a programme for the reconstruction and transformation of the Indian Society into a modem egalitarian one based on individual achievement and equality of opportunity for all regardless ofcaste, race or religion. But today one fre­quently witnesses street violence, so­cial unrest and public debate on the issue of reservations. Both the benefi­ciaries and non-beneficiaries are unhappy over the policies of reservation. For,while the beneficiaries complain, that only the Creamy layers enjoy all the benefits, the non-beneficiaries say that it is an unfair way of distributing benefits to certain preferred groups at the expense of others who are more meritorious than those actu­ally elected. The policy of reservations as a means of promoting equality is seriously questioned and had come on the social political, judicial and above all on the national agenda, the Supreme Court had finally laid down that under no circumstances should reser­vations exceed 50 per cent.

Even this had not satisfied many State Governments and they have passed legislation fixing reserva­tions at much more than 50 per cent contrary to the judgement of the high­est court of the land. The State prac­tice on reservation reveals that the device of reservation has become the tool of aggrandisement in the bands of the politically dominant castes who try to strike political bargains to retain the privilege of being classified as ward even, at the expense of really needy and the deserving. Even these in power see the advantage in the system for winning their political sup­porter castes. wardness has become a vested interest and any attempt to eliminate the well off from among the once designated wards is strongly resisted. This is the prime reason why there arecaste-riots and social tensions. The 50 per cent rule is laid down as a means of reconciling the competing claims of ward classes and the claims of merit and efficiency. It will be right to strictly adhere to this as reasonable so that a substantial number of available places are open for meritorious persons.

It must also be remembered that the problem of eliminating all kinds of inequalities or removing, poverty is part of the general developmental pro­grammes of a welfare State which should not be confused with the prob­lem of compensatory discrimination. All conceivable attributes of ward­ness such as low level of occupation, poor health, nutrition, inadequate
Housing and other adverse environmental or geographical conditions must be taken into account. Since wardness is also a matter of de­gree there can be no universal law applying to all of them. Thanks to the several measures adopted by the Gov­ernment the level of wardness is also being tackled successfully and there is therefore an urgent need to declassify the ward classes. When once the number of people to be cov­ered by reservations comes down, the percentage of reservations could also be reduced. In fact the aim of the government should be to promote social upliftment to such a degree that a time would come sooner than later when reservations become totally unneces­sary. At least that must be the direc­tion in which State policies should be drafted and implemented.

It is a matter of some concern that a few precious lives werelost and many persons wereinjured in police firing when the Bharatiya Janata party tried to forcibly hoist the Tri colour at the controversial Idgah maidan in Hubli in Karnataka on the Independ­ence Day. The maidan itself has been a matter of dispute, its ownership still unsettled even after it has been in court for several years. The BJP was keen on hoisting the flag there as the Muslim community was dead against it; it was according to them necessary to do that to impress on the people that the national flag could be un­furled there even if it meant that there would be communal trouble. Naturally the Government was keen to avoid any kind of confrontation between the two major communities. All persuasion to stop the BJP from taking recourse to an action with immense potential for mischief did not succeed and finally the police forced to open fire with all its disastrous consequences. India committed herself to secularism and democracy since Independence. Some 47 years later we have to remind our­selves that we should strive for secu­larism. In the Constitution itself there are certain features which militate against the growth of secularism. In fact, it was thought that after parti­tion free India would no more have the canker of communalism in the body politic. Unfortunately the country has been witnessing communal inci­dents on and off and it is necessary for the political parties especially to en­sure that they do not create conditions under which religious fundamentalism does not thrive. In fact the Karnataka Government has done well in control­ling the situation in Hubli although it would have been more welcome if pre­cious lives were not lost in the bargain.

Real knowledge is found not in knowing but in being. Bookish or intellectual knowledge is different from experiential knowledge.
– Swamy Rama in Living with Himalayan Masters

For a wise man there is nothing to be called bad. Every adver­sity of life provides a step for his growth provided he knows how to utilise it
–Buddha

Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature because we ourselves are part of nature and therefore part of the mystery we are trying to solve. The most penetrating eye cannot see itself any more than a working instrument can work upon itself.
–Max Planck