The Nobel Prize for Literature for 2016 to rock-and-roll musician Bob Dylan has wiped out whatever was left of the credibility of the prize insofar as literature is concerned. Indeed, the Swedish Academy has of late begun to indulge in an orgy of perversities in regard to the selections of awardees for peace and literature. An audible gasp of ugly surprise went up when, a few years ago, Barack Obama was awarded the Peace Prize. Obama himself gave all the appearance of being thoroughly embarrassed by the choice. This year’s choice of the Colombian President for the Peace Prize hasn’t also gone down very well. But it is in the field of literature that the Swedish Academy’s penchant to cause outrage has been most in evidence. The ostensible argument advanced by the Academy for the selection of Bob Dylan is that he has “created new poetic expressions within the great American song tradition”. With all the sympathy and empathy, and all the poetic sensibility, and all my love of music, I could muster, I listened to a sampler of his songs and pondered over every line of his lyrics. I am indescribably, overwhelmingly bewildered, shocked. I am in a rage in fact. I could at least find something to appreciate in the lines and tunes of the Beatles, Rolling Stones, (P)Elvis Pre(s)sley and others. But Bob Dylan’s monotonous, moaning, droning, blabbering balderdash is beyond endurance. How do Americans — and now the Swedish selecters — fall for this rubbish, and even ferret out non-existent meaning in this nonsense? Altogether, this year’s Nobel for Literature is both an absurdity and a monstrosity!
My first reaction to the news that the Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, was going to the US for yet another meeting (his seventh) with President Barack Obama, was one of scepticism. My misgivings arose on four counts: First, about Modi over-exposing himself , thereby incurring a dent on his gravitas, affecting his and India’s emerging role as a world leader; second about his being discounted in the eyes of the political leadership and public opinion in that country and the international community as a supplicant or a client of the US many of whose policies and approaches have been self-centred and hegemonistic; third, about the possibility of such a manifestly effusive and effervescent relationship impairing India’s capacity to judge world issues on merits and its right to independent decision-making; and fourth, about drawing needless attention on himself by investing so much time and energy in cosying up to someone who is lame duck.
But seeing him in action on the US soil, especially after going through the statement issued jointly by him and Obama, and more emphatically, after listening to his speech to the Joint Session of the US Congress, I am happy to cast off my misgivings like wornout garments. There is only one way of summing up the outcome of his visit: Narendra Modi has once again done India proud. I say “once again” because I have by now watched him speaking at a variety of forums, and as a role model of effective commuinication, he is non pareil. Among the country leaders in Asia, Africa, the West and the Indian Ocean Rim I have seen over my long many years in public life, Narendrabhai comes close to being hailed as a man for all seasons with unmistakable grasp over the many complex and intricate issues of moment impacting the world. He captures and holds the attention of whatever audiences he addresses with a cogently and coherently woven tapestry combining sweep of vision with tangible pathways to realise it, as also with his conviction and commitment matched by impressive eloquence and flawless delivery. His ideas flow in the right sequence with the right emphasis, laced with humour at appropriate junctures. In his latest address to the US Congress, for instance, he quoted from the Amrican national anthem, the declaration of Independence and Walt Whitman with effortless ease and ithout fumbling and faltering. And he pulls it all off in a relaxed manner. That explains the rapturous ovations he got from the hard-boiled Congresspersons and Senators. Chapeau, Narendrabhai!
There is a fitting answer to the reservation about his repeatedly meeting and doing business with a lame duck President. Presidents may be ephemeral, but Governments are eternal, and once the directions and dimensions of a partnership are affirmed in a declaration signed on both sides, it binds the governments concerned in all aspets. The fact that the Modi-Obama joint statement has been enthusiastically welcomed by the leading lights of the US Congress and the media is a pointer to the US-India strategic partnership assuming broader, deeper and stronger proportions in the near future.
Now to brass tacks. Let’s face it: By whatever name it is camouflaged, call it “major defence partner” or the new found phrase during the current trip, “priority partner”, India, under Narendra Modi, has wittingly and willingly decided to become the staunch ally of the US and signed and sealed something which is nothing but a grand alliance for all practical purposes. For half-a-century after Independence, India was happy to be virtually in the camp of the Soviet Union which stood by it through thick and thin. Besides providing easy access to supplies of arms and weapons systems, it committed itself to military help in the case of attack on India and extended unquestioned and unconditional support to India’s stand on Jammu and Kashmir in UN and wherever the question was raised. But the tensions of the cold war and the label of a communist state constricted the influence and authority of the Soviet Union; there was also a tinge of unstated disreputability attached to India seeking its backing.
For these reasons, there are those in India itself who argue that it would have been far more beneficial for India to have been the friend and partner of the US during those, what now seem to them, wasted years. In their view, by getting under the wings of the Soviet Union, India denied itself the gains flowing from the military might, technological prowess, and unbounded wealth of the US — all of which would have been at its disposal. At that time, it was the anti-capitalist prejudices, and pro-socialist predilections of the first Prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, and his daughter, Indira Gandhi, who also became Prime Minister, that ruled the roost, making estranged democracies of India and the US. Rajiv Gandhi, P.V. Narasimha Rao and Manmohan Singh, each in his own way, tried rebalancing the relations, but the inhibitions and repressions of the past disabled them from going the whole hog. Since the Leftists still had a sizeable presence and a vocal say in Parliament and in the country, they had to walk a tight rope so as not to be seen currying the favour of the US. Meanwhile, even the Congress and preponderant section of India’s political class had quietly veered round to the view that in the unipolar world in which the US has emerged a decisive player, it is best to side with the strongest, the richest and technologically the most advanced. Because of his spectacular electoral victory, Modi had far greater opportunity vouchsafed to him to shape India’s relations with the US without “the hesitations of history” (as he put it in his address to the US Congress) in terms of either ideology or the past baggage, and he has grasped it by taking India, based on his own world view, to where he believes India should be heading.
One can be sure that this has not been without ratiocenation or rationalisation of some kind. One can guess what must have provided the ballast to Modi deciding to throw in his lot with the US: China! Before I set out the basis for my statement, I must, for the record, make a disclosure: I have been, for as long as I have been writing on public issues, an ardent proponent of understanding and accommodation with China. I had a romantic vision that the two ancient civilisations, by working together and mutually reinforcing their strengths, can usher in a brave, new world order and put their stamp on the coming centuries. Alas, China has managed to shatter that vision by continuing to behave, in relation to India, like an insensitive, intractable, impolitic, implacable dragon in the China shop. I have been disillusioned to the extent of being driven to ask myself whether all the effort that India has put in from the time of Nehru to be on its right side has been futile.
In retrospect, it would seem that the fiery socialist, George Fernandes, who was the Defence Minister in Atal Behari Vajpayee’s NDA Government, like the Deputy Prime Minister, Sardar Vallabhhbhai Patel, at the time of India’s Independence, was only being prescient when he declared publicly in 1998 that China was India’s “potential threat No.1″. He cautioned India to wake up to the fact that Chinese military activities and alliances, particularly those involving Pakistan, Burma (Myanmar) and Tibet, had begun to ”encircle” India. He was trenchantly critical of the ”carelessness and casual attitude” in regard to national security in recent decades, in the context of the reality of what China was doing. ”China has provided Pakistan with both missile as well as nuclear know-how,” he said. ”China has its nuclear weapons stockpiled in Tibet right along our borders…..We have become a very soft people, and we must realise that nations are not built through soft options, nor are the country’s frontiers secured by a soft line…..One has to be willing to live a hard life.”
Indeed, China has pulled all stops to prop up Pakistan to the detriment of India. It has provocatively resorted to issuing “stapled visas” to Indian passport holders hailing from Arunachal Pradesh wanting to travel to China, and has been brazen in warning Prime Ministers of India to desist from visiting that State. Off and on, its authorised spokepersons have been proclaiming Arunachal Pradesh as Chinese territory. More recently, it blocked UN action against Pakistan for releasing Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi, allegedly the masterminded behind the Mumbai terror attacks of 2008, blaming India for not providing adequate documentaion for his complicity. It has voiced its strong opposition to India’s admission to the Nuclear Suppliers Group, without Pakistan also being made a member. All this makes nonsense of all the pampering of Chinese President, Xi Jinping, by Modi. In short, it has been using every conceivable opportunity to harm India’s interests and has been myopic in pulling all stops to prop up Pakistan, a failing State and a seedbed of terrorism, to boot.
The other problem with China is its promulgation of its ever expanding core interests. It covers a wide range from sovereignty, territorial integrity and security (Tibet, Taiwan, Xinjiyang) to furtherance of its economic, commercial and maritime ambitions (South China Sea, Yellow Sea). It has been adding to them from time to time creating uncertainties and insecurities in tge meinds of its neighbours and the world community by its minatory attitude of confrontation. At this rate, nothing may stop China from extending the coverage of core interests to even the operation of exchange rate to suit China’s exports-imports and currency management regimes, right to exercise veto over other countries’ foreign and domestic policies, unilateral claim of ownership of other countries’ territories, and deciding when, where and how it would strike to enforce its diktats!
In sum, over a period, China has been proclaiming more and more areas to be out of bounds for the rest of the world, and taking aggressive postures to enforce its own version of Monroe Doctrine. At one stroke, China has brought the entire Korean peninsula within its sphere of influence; it has enlarged the scope of maritime domination in strategic waters that connect northeast Asia and the Indian Ocean; and it has asserted its interventionist rights over whatever has a bearing on its ‘core interests’.
The result is that even those who were in favour of friendly and harmonious relations with China, are now convinced that there is a megalomaniacal streak of insensitivity in its make-up leading to its behaviour as the odd person out and that it only understands the language of tit-for-tat. It may have a sobering effect on China if India also draws up its own list of inviolable, immutable core interests and asks China to adhere to them.
It is not to be wondered if, in this background, other countries, notably those in its neighbourhood, with their own stakes and core interests, engage themselves in devising the means of injecting a sense of sobriety in China’s conduct. In that sense, if the comprehensive and concrete dimensions of strategic partnership worked out by India and the US seem like a grand alliance targeted at you-know-who, China had better realise that it has fathered it. There is no point in Global Times sermonising to India that “Picking one side or camp against the other is not the way India will rise”, or that “its great vision cannot be realised by bashing or containing China.”
The commentary published by Xinhua news agency was nearer the mark in acknowledging the strategic considerations behind the frequent meetings between Obama and Modi. It quoted Jin Canrong, vice president of the School of International Studies at Renmin University, as saying that “US attaches importance to India’s strategic value, economic development potential and ideological advantage….Embracing India will help consolidate the US rebalance to the Asia-Pacific….(and) India is willing to deepen the India-US relations out of the consideration in both strategic security and economic development.”
I am content to let Jin Canrong have the last word.
B.S.Raghavan is former Policy Adviser to UN(FAO who is currently the Patron of the Chennai Centre for China Studies and Adviser to Indo-Japan Chamber of Commerce and Industry
All of us have reached a stage of resigned acceptance of corruption as a way of life in India. I came across a write-up by an observer from New Zealand according to whom there’s no way corruption can be got rid of from Indian soil because it is part of its ethos and rooted in its ancient culture. Read what he says:
It is nowadays the fashion among the prowling gangs of elitist liberal intellectual mafia (ELIM) to bad mouth the BJP, RSS, VHS and other such reputed outfits for their inordinate pride in the glories of ancient India founded on their conviction of its having been technologically the most advanced. The ELIM traduced them for stating that Lord Ganesa was living testimony to the phenomenal advances made in ancient times in plastic surgery. ELIM also pounced on some BJP stalwarts for their statements on the well-organised air transport even in the days of the Ramayan some 10,000 years ago. For instance, Valmiki, no less, has clearly documented how Ravan carried Sita in his plane to Lanka. Likewise, after slaying Ravan in battle, Rama not only takes Sita and his entourage in the Pushpaka Viman back to Ayodhya, but points to them famous landmarks, cities, rivers, mountains and so on from the plane. Which is convincing proof of the highly evolved navigational aids, including, one can be sure, GPS as well, in his time.
Actually, when Sugriva sends his vanar search parties all over the continent to find out the whereabouts of Sita, he gives to the leader of each party detailed descriptions of the countries and kingdoms they would see. From this it is clear that knowledge of geography and topography, derived from cartography, was both profound and prolific in the era of Rama Himself.
There has been some dispute whether Guglielmo Marconi was the real inventor of wireless telegraphy. In fact, this issue has been long settled, and conclusively, by Indian archaeologists leading to clinching evidence that wireless too had its origin in India. For all their furious and frantic excavations all over the country thousands of feet deep into the sacred earth, they founf nary a single bit of wire of any length.
Let us come to Thiruvalluvar whom Western Indologists, out of spite, fix at some 300 BC, but he must have lived and composed his 1330 Thirukkural couplets many centuries before then. Every Tamil schoolboy is by now familiar with his mention of the rifle (thuppaakki) in the 12th couplet occurring in chapter 2.
It is evident from the same documentary source, that cell phones too were widely in use in Thiruvalluvar’s time. Not only were they in use, but the traffic was so very dense and heavy that people were uncontrollably incensed by garbled transmission, disconnections and the like, just as we are these days (so much so that, at home, most of us discard the cell and use only landlines). Thiruvalluvar was concerned that this intense indignation and attendant tension at the non-performance of the cell phones might lead to blood pressure, strokes, multiple sclerosis and even amiyotrophic lateral sclerosis. So, very considerately and compassionately, he advises cell users to take it calmly and not get angry with the cell, “with whatever else they might get angry”. (Couplet 301, chapter 31) The explanation of commentators of the latter clause is that people didn’t use any other thing 24X7 as they did the cell, and so they must specially desist from getting angry with the cell, if they cared for their health.
OK, for want of space, I skip millennia and quickly come to Kamban, the great Tamil poet, whose Ramayanam is timeless in its conception and content. Do you know, you wanton, wilful ELIM denigrators of ancient India, that cars were common place even in Rama’s time? What greater substantiation of this can there be than that provided by Kamban? Indeed, cars were so commonplace that Valmiki doesn’t even mention them, whereas Kamban, with his eye for detail, refers to them in one of the many stanzas describing the arrival of invitees to the wedding of Rama with Sita at Janaka’s palace. While noting the various modes of transport — palanquins, chariots, even vandis (ordinary carts) — he unerringly spots the arrival of some in cars. You can see indisputable corroboration of this in stanza 1278 in Ayodhya Kanda of Kamba Ramayanam.
Thiruvalluvar’s reference to cell is nothing surprising when we find from Kamban that there were many brands of cell phones even in Rama’s times. Again, by then, they were so widespread that Valmiki doesn’t consider it necessary to talk about them, just as we do not talk about the things around us that we take for granted. But Kamban is of a different stuff: He seems to have had a premonition of the emergence of ELIM at some future date and, therefore, wants to leave impeccable record of everything. Of the many brands existing in Rama’s times, one brand seems to have had the dominant, if not monopolistic, market share. Both Rama and Sita were sold (pardon the pun) on the brand as is clearly established by Kamban’s observation in stanza 596 in which he irrefutably says “annalum Nokia, avaLum Nokia” that is, both Rama and Sita had Nokia. (All editions wrongly print the brand name as “Nokkinaal” because of the unfamiliarity of the printers with modern brand names.) Some media anchors, just to jack up their TRP ratings, have started a media trial of Kamban, insinuating that Nokia had paid huge sums to Kamban for giving them prominence in his Ramayanam. This is as preposterous and monstrous as imputing any such motive to Rahul Gandhi for his mention of Fair and Lovely in his speech in the Lok Sabha.
These are just a few, cursory examples to show how advanced India was as far back as in Rama’s days. I hope ELIM gets the message and puts a stop to their vile calumny.
The print and electronic media, as also the social media, are full of reports of the manner in which a solemn and sacred document like an affidavit to be filed before a temple of justice suffered manipulation bordering on falsehood and forgery at the highest levels of the Ministry of Home Affairs. When G.K.Pillai, Home Secretary at the relevant time, was asked why he did not object to the rewording of the affidavit in Ishrat Jahan’s case by the then Home Minister, P.Chidambaram, even though he knew full well that the manipulation went against the facts as he knew them. he nonchalantly contented himself with stating that since the file came from the Minister himself, he just passed it on as it was,
The Home Ministry was the morphed version of the Political Department of the days of British Imperialism and it was the direct charge of the Viceroy and the Governor-General. For many decades after Independence, it was regarded as the pivot of the Union Government responsible for many areas such as recruitment, appointment and deployment of the highest services of the land, including the judges of the high courts and the supreme court, , internal security, centre-state relations, administration of preventive detention act and defence of India rules, emergency, president’s rule, the Central Bureau of Investigation, the Intelligence Bureau in its full panoply, including external intelligence, border security, para-military forces — in short, areas at the heart of the nation now hived off into two or three separate ministries with their own hordes of ministers and functionaries. In the 1960s when I served for ten years in the Ministry, first as Deputy Secretary and then as the Director, there was the Cabinet Minister, two Ministers of State, one secretary, two additional secretaries, five joint secretaries, one director, nine deputy secretaries and 10-12 under-secretaries.
Those working in the ministry were proudly conscious of its being a cornerstone of the Constitution and tried to conduct themselves in the highest traditions of public service. Never once even the faintest glimmer of any thought of fabrication, falsification, manipulation or tampering in any manner with any facts or documents ever crossed our minds even momentarily. On the contrary, even the junior-most officer never hesitated to express himself boldly and frankly in meetings and notings, and even to the extent of recording his disagreement with the views of their superiors.
Compare Pillai’s attitude with how those working in the Home Ministry construed their role and duty to be in those far-off days, as will be evident from the following narrative..
Following the Chinese aggression of October 1962, a section of the Communist Party (there was only one in those days) was reported by the Intelligence Bureau (IB) to be propagating the Chinese line and pitching for a negotiated settlement.
The IB which was exercising surveillance over them forwarded a list of around 1200 persons (dubbed pro-Chinese communists) who were said to be aggressive in espousing the Chinese cause and who, therefore, according to the IB, posed a danger to national security. Home Minister, Gulzarilal Nanda called a meeting of the Home Secretary, the Intelligence Chief and other senior officials concerned to discuss the IB’s report. I was also present, but being the junior-most officer, I was there merely to keep notes and record the decision for further processing.
After a detailed analysis of the pros and cons, the unanimous view of the assembled officials was to act as per the IB’’s recommendation. It was now for me to initiate the concomitant steps: Prepare the warrants of detention, and alert and line up the State Chief Secretaries and Inspectors-General to be in readiness to complete the entire operation in a synchronised manner so as to guard against anyone going underground. I returned to my room with great uneasiness. After all, it was I who would be signing and issuing the orders of detention: so, should I not also be fully convinced that the course of action decided upon was the right one? Somehow, my conscience rebelled against condemning honest dissent as prejudicial to security and defence of India.
After all, to argue that India should enter into a dialogue with China in an accommodating spirit was not a crime. Even if some of the apparatchik had said in secret meetings that India was in the wrong in provoking China, I saw nothing objectionable in it. Further, if the Government went in for wholesale detention, it would lead to a further hardening of their stand and might even make militants of some of them. Finally, what was the proof that these 1200 members were indulging in anti-national activities? We only had the word of some constables covering the meetings incognito, who might or might not be able to grasp the sense of what was being said.
I decided to put down all these reservations in a note and send it to the Home Secretary, L.P.Singh. Remember, a final decision had been taken after due deliberation by a conclave of officials at the highest levels of the Government presided over by the Home Minister himself and also remember, I had no business at that point to be raising objections. The Home Secretary, on receiving my note, could have promptly sent it back peremptorily ordering me to carry out the decision already taken: or, worse, he could have thought that I myself was a pro-Chinese Leftist mole in the sanctum sanctorum of the Home Ministry and got me reverted to Bengal, or in the worst case scenario, had me detained, if not dismissed from Service, under the security clause of the Constitution without proceedings and inquiry.
To the contrary, while he disagreed with my contentions and wanted the decision to stand, the Home Sercretary did me the courtesy of rebutting each of my arguments with reasons and sending the file to the Home Minister with the remark “The Deputy Secretary has expressed his reservations, ably supported by arguments, about the decision taken last evening in HM’s room. For the reasons I have mentioned, I feel that the decision is the right one and should be implemented. Still, I am bringing the DS’ note to HM’s attention as it is well worth reading”. Nanda, too, could have just initialled and sent the file back. No! He sent it to Shastri with his own words of praise for the way I had argued my views. Shastri noted in his beautiful hand to the effect: “I appreciate Raghavan’s effort to put down his views. However, for the reasons mentioned by the HS, we may go ahead with implementing the decision.”
These appreciative observations did not relieve me of my uneasiness on another count. The names of Jyoti Basu, Harkishen Singh Surjeet, A.K.Gopalan, Susheela Gopalan, and E.M.S.Namboodripad were included in the list. In my opinion, their patriotism could not be doubted and they were second to none anywhere in the world in their stature, calibre and service to the country. The very thought of detaining them on an atrocious and unprovable pretext went against my grain. So, I sent the file back once again to the Home Secretary expressing my views to the above effect. This time, my stand was approved right up to the PM’s level, and they were left out of the list of detenus.
Can you imagine a mere Deputy Secretary surviving what would be straightaway condemned as insubordination and disloyalty if only he had been serving political dispensations in recent years? The spirit pervading bureaucracy in those halcyon days was one of fearless expression of views and elders in service and Ministers took it with understanding and good will. If they differed, they had the self-confidence to over-rule you in writing on files, giving their arguments, unlike the present political bigwigs who are allergic to any dissenting opinion. Civil servants too did not feel that they were doing anything heroic or unusual. They took intellectual integrity and freedom to give their views as part of a natural order of things. It never impinged on their consciousness that there was any other way.
The Minister for Human Resources Development, Smriti Irani, brought forth a gasp of disbelief when her appointment was first announced. Lacking any kind of manifest pretensions to scholarship, and, on the contrary, trailed by tales of fudged educational qualifications, there was widespread scepticism about her fitness for the job. Soon enough, several stories began circulating about her supposedly abrupt and abrasive behaviour among those who had encounters with her. Reputed academics and professionals of national standing in various fields who had to deal with her as Minister talked of her penchant for tongue-lashing. Over time, though, she seems to have impressed everyone who met her with her lightning grasp of issues, clarity of thinking, masterly command over both English and Hindi and sparkling humour — making for a brilliant personality. Some heads I know of famous academic institutions readily credit her with intellectual acuity and demonstrable vision in handling her portfolio.
We have now to add to all this political acumen of a high order. I have been keenly and closely watching the way leading lights of the National Democratic Alliance, in general, and the Bharatiya Janata Party, in particular, are comporting themselves, and I have no hesitation in asseverating, after her scintillating performance in Parliament during the debate on the happenings in the Hyderabad and Jawaharlal Nehru Universities, that she bids fair to be counted as the most effective campaigner for the BJP, and its pillar of strength, next to Narendra Modi himself. She has torn to shreds the Opposition’s accusations with her convincing rebuttals, leaving the political opponents in disarray and making them seem abettors and accomplices of forces working against the nation’s unity, integrity and security. It was certainly a political feat unmatched by any other luminary in recent memory. Chapeau, Smriti!
It is good that the Government, instead of waffling and wobbling, has taken a tough and unambiguous stand on an issue that has a vital bearing on nation’s stability and survival. All their idealism, intensity of emotions, acute sense of right and wrong, and burning passion for public causes can never serve as justifiable grounds to be touted by students and youths of any country, let alone of India, with all its fragility and vulnerability, to question its unity and endanger its security, or to encourage others to do so, in the name of freedom of expression. The bleeding hearts of the civil society who take their side, either out of a genuine sympathy, ideological motivation, or political opportunism, should realise that they also have a pivotal role as parents and guardians. It is their paramount duty to cooperate with, and support, the law-enforcing authorities and the Government to prevent their wards from committing such excesses.
France, which gave the world the resounding clarion call for liberty, equality and fraternity, as a curtain-raiser to the French Revolution, and guillotined a King and his Queen to uphold the cause, is cutting down on freedom of expression to combat threats to security after Paris was struck by terrorist attacks in November last year. French authorities now have powers to conduct police raids without warrants and put suspects under house arrest without prior judicial authorisation. They can also ban public demonstrations, shut down websites and disband groups deemed a threat to public order by the government.
The police can detain terrorism suspects for up to 144 days without charges. The government is seeking new powers, including the ability to hold someone for up to four hours to check his identification and the authority to search bags and vehicles near “sensitive” sites by order of a prosecutor.
The proposed law would also allow the government to put someone returning from a “terrorist theater of operation,” like Syria or Iraq, under house arrest for up to a month.
A provision in the policing bill would let prosecutors eavesdrop on cellphone communications with a judge’s authorization, using technology currently available only to intelligence agencies, which were granted enhanced capabilities after the attacks in January 2015 at the Paris offices of a satirical newspaper, Charlie Hebdo, and a kosher supermarket.
The new bill would also give prosecutors powers similar to those of investigative judges, including the ability to tap phones, use hidden cameras and analyse electronic communications.
France can strip a person of citizenship if he or she is convicted of crimes that violate the “fundamental interests of the nation,” including terrorism, if the person is a naturalised French citizen who is also a citizen of another country.
A new measure would make it possible to strip the citizenship of dual citizens born in France who were convicted of terrorism.
Recently in Spain, two puppeteers were arrested and jailed because in a street play they showed scenes of violence such as the hanging of a judge or raping of a nun. In France and Germany, persons can be arrested and convicted even for making statements doubting the occurrence of holocaust perpetrated during the Nazi rule
India is not out of sync with the prevailing durrents of opinion in other longer established democracies. For instance, in the United States, the National Security Agency has carried out complex electronic surveillance domestically and abroad since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The agency had been monitoring international calls and emails without warrants. In 2007, President George W. Bush signed a law further strengthening the government’s authority to eavesdrop on international calls and email without warrants. In 2015, President Obama signed a law setting some limits to the government to conduct surveillance operations, but still they are sweeping enough.
Under the provisions of the Patriot Act of the US, anyone shouting or displaying slogans such as the ones seen and hear at the gathering in JNU, would be immediately picked up and put away by the FBI, without any such protest or political agitation as was mounted in India. In those genuine and mature democracies, patriotism and loyalty to the country are regarded as inviolate, binding principles and political differences are not allowed to come in the way of any preventive or punitive action taken. Indeed, unlike in India, the moment a person is picked up for violation of any law, even if it be a traffic offence, his hands are pinioned behind his back and handcuffed. Rajat Gupta, the shining star of McKinsey and Indian Business School, for the offence of insider trading and, earlier, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Managing Director, IMF, accused of sexual advances by a hotel waitress, suffered the same fate.
My appeal to the opposition political leaders: Be Indians first, and do not tear asunder the fabric of security and unity of the country for your narrow, selfish political ends, or under a misguided notion of civil liberties.
2. Media should be vigilant against allowing personal predilection or partisanship to cloud their judgment or slant their reports and opinions.
3. Media should not adopt a “Dog-doesn’t-eat-dog” policy by brushing the misdeeds of their own ilk under the carpet. First and foremost, their accountability is to the readers and the society at large, and advancing public interest should be their watchword. They should be as willing and courageous to purge the media of pernicious deviations from norms and values as they are to set matters right in the Government and the society.
4. Media should at no time swerve from accuracy, truth and fairness. There should be enough scope for expression of dissenting opinion and right of reply. Comments and articles received from the public should be treated with respect, and in case of their not being accepted for publication, the contributors should be informed of the reasons.
5. While investigative journalism and exposes have a legitimate place, they should not be allowed to degenerate into witch-hunting and vengeful pursuit of individuals and institutions with ulterior motives.
6. There should be no second-guessing of police versions or court decisions in the reporting of crimes and criminal cases, leading to trial by media and tarnishing of reputation.
7. Every media enterprise should publish and put n the public domain its audited accounts at the close of each financial year, regardless of its status under the Companies’ Act.
8. Likewise, it should make available to the public full information about the qualifications and background of its columnists, correspondents, reporters and editorial staff as and when they are appointed.
9. Those at the helm of media enterprises should consider themselves answerable before the people in observing what they demand of all others in their editorials, namely, rectitude, propriety and probity in the management of their internal affairs.
10. Every profit-making media enterprise should be a shining example of philanthropy and public service.