27 May 2002
The Times of India
News Analysis
Musharraf dares India to go to war
SIDDHARTH VARADARAJAN
TIMES NEWS NETWORK
NEW DELHI: With one eye fixed firmly on his domestic constituency and
the other on the international community, General Musharraf delivered a
hard-hitting speech that granted no fresh concessions on the terrorism
issue and essentially dared the Vajpayee government to go to war.
Logic and common-sense, however, suggest India should not be in any
hurry to accept the ``challenge''.
Given the fact that public opinion in Pakistan had not rallied behind
the General despite the imminent danger of an attack by India,
Musharraf's tone and tenor were along expected lines.
Anything that even smacked of bending before India's diktat would have
been the kiss of death for him.Last month's referendum which he tried
again Monday night to present as free and fair fatally exposed his lack
of support.
What he did, therefore, in his televised address was to try and rally
support for himself in the name of defending Pakistan. It was the
desperate verbal equivalent of the missile tests he conducted last week.
As Prime Minister Vajpayee has found out nothing unites a nation behind
its leader so much as the threat of war. And Musharraf appears to have
taken a conscious decision to up the ante.
Since Vajpayee has repeatedly been saying verbal assurances are not
enough, a promise of fresh action against terrorists crossing the Line
of Control would not have cut any ice with New Delhi.
In the event, any concessions Musharraf plans on making would have to be
implemented on the ground for India to be satisfied. And implemented
quietly, for the Pakistani public to not cry treason.
It is possible that the United States -- which has willy-nilly emerged as
a mediator in South Asia is already aware of this fact and has
communicated the same to India. Or it could be that the General wants to
enlarge the scope of US mediation with his uncompromising stance.
Hard as it may seem, the Vajpayee government will have to take the
General's provocative posturing in its stride.
Musharraf's strategy seems to be aimed at collapsing the vast space
which exists between diplomacy and war.
In the game of chicken New Delhi initiated following Kaluchak, the
General has decided to put his foot on the accelerator in the hope that
the international community will step in to pull both countries back
from the brink of what is bound to be a catastrophic consequences.
27 May 2002
10 May 2002
Manohar Joshi not new to controversy
10 May 2002
The Times of India
Joshi not new to controversy
SIDDHARTH VARADARAJAN
TIMES NEWS NETWORK
NEW DELHI: If Shiv Sena leader and Union industries minister Manohar
Joshi is elected Speaker of the Lok Sabha, it will be for the first
time that a politician indicted by a commission of inquiry for
fuelling communal violence on innocent citizens and accused by a high
court of being party to an illegal land deal makes it to the coveted
post.
It will also be the first time that a Speaker will be ‘‘remote
controlled'' by another politician.
When Joshi was chief minister of Maharashtra, Shiv Sena supremo Bal
Thackeray frequently boasted of his powers to ‘‘remote control'' his
nominee. On Wednesday, Joshi acknowledged that even as Speaker he
would be subject to Thackeray's manipulation.
Colourless but controversial, Joshi rose to national prominence during
the Bombay riots of 1993 when he was widely seen as instigating
attacks by Shiv Sena supporters on innocent Muslims.
As chief minister of Maharashtra, he dropped all criminal charges
against Thackeray and tried his best to scuttle the Srikrishna
Commission of inquiry into the riots but was unsuccessful.
His apprehensions were well-founded since the Commission did not mince
words in indicting him for his role: ‘‘The attitude of the Shiv Sena
as reflected in a Time interview given by Thackeray and its doctrine
of ‘retaliation' as expounded by (Madhukar) Sarpotdar and (Manohar)
Joshi... were responsible for the Sainiks vigilantism. Because some
criminal Muslims killed innocent Hindus in one corner of the city, the
Shiv Sainiks ‘retaliated' against several innocent Muslims in other
corners of the city''.
When the report came out, Joshi, as chief minister, rejected its
findings and consigned it to the administrative equivalent of the
dustbin. Srikrishna's findings, he told the assembly, were ‘‘biased,
anti-Hindu and pro-Muslim''.
Shortly thereafter, Joshi was to have another brush with Justice
Srikrishna, but this time, he was unable to raise the ‘‘anti-Hindu''
canard.
In March 1999, the Bombay High Court criticised Joshi for abusing his
powers as chief minister of Maharashtra in order to sell a plot of
land in Pune originally earmarked for a school. The beneficiary was an
outfit controlled by his builder son-in-law, Girish Vyas.
The court said Joshi had ‘‘pressurised officials'' to clear the
illegal deal and rejected his protestations of innocence.
‘‘We do not expect a chief minister to file an affidavit like a
pettifogging official to mislead the court'', a Bench consisting of
Justices Parkar and Srikrishna stated sternly. Stung by their ruling,
Joshi quit his seat in the legislative assembly.
A month earlier, he had already been stripped of his chief
ministership by Thackeray thanks to infighting within the Sena.
As Speaker, Joshi will frequently be called upon to rule on
accusations that MPs have used unparliamentary language.
However, in his deposition before the Srikrishna Commission, he
defended the use of the offensive term ‘landya' to describe Muslims in
the Sena mouthpiece Saamna, even though he acknowledged the word was
likely to cause hurt.
The Times of India
Joshi not new to controversy
SIDDHARTH VARADARAJAN
TIMES NEWS NETWORK
NEW DELHI: If Shiv Sena leader and Union industries minister Manohar
Joshi is elected Speaker of the Lok Sabha, it will be for the first
time that a politician indicted by a commission of inquiry for
fuelling communal violence on innocent citizens and accused by a high
court of being party to an illegal land deal makes it to the coveted
post.
It will also be the first time that a Speaker will be ‘‘remote
controlled'' by another politician.
When Joshi was chief minister of Maharashtra, Shiv Sena supremo Bal
Thackeray frequently boasted of his powers to ‘‘remote control'' his
nominee. On Wednesday, Joshi acknowledged that even as Speaker he
would be subject to Thackeray's manipulation.
Colourless but controversial, Joshi rose to national prominence during
the Bombay riots of 1993 when he was widely seen as instigating
attacks by Shiv Sena supporters on innocent Muslims.
As chief minister of Maharashtra, he dropped all criminal charges
against Thackeray and tried his best to scuttle the Srikrishna
Commission of inquiry into the riots but was unsuccessful.
His apprehensions were well-founded since the Commission did not mince
words in indicting him for his role: ‘‘The attitude of the Shiv Sena
as reflected in a Time interview given by Thackeray and its doctrine
of ‘retaliation' as expounded by (Madhukar) Sarpotdar and (Manohar)
Joshi... were responsible for the Sainiks vigilantism. Because some
criminal Muslims killed innocent Hindus in one corner of the city, the
Shiv Sainiks ‘retaliated' against several innocent Muslims in other
corners of the city''.
When the report came out, Joshi, as chief minister, rejected its
findings and consigned it to the administrative equivalent of the
dustbin. Srikrishna's findings, he told the assembly, were ‘‘biased,
anti-Hindu and pro-Muslim''.
Shortly thereafter, Joshi was to have another brush with Justice
Srikrishna, but this time, he was unable to raise the ‘‘anti-Hindu''
canard.
In March 1999, the Bombay High Court criticised Joshi for abusing his
powers as chief minister of Maharashtra in order to sell a plot of
land in Pune originally earmarked for a school. The beneficiary was an
outfit controlled by his builder son-in-law, Girish Vyas.
The court said Joshi had ‘‘pressurised officials'' to clear the
illegal deal and rejected his protestations of innocence.
‘‘We do not expect a chief minister to file an affidavit like a
pettifogging official to mislead the court'', a Bench consisting of
Justices Parkar and Srikrishna stated sternly. Stung by their ruling,
Joshi quit his seat in the legislative assembly.
A month earlier, he had already been stripped of his chief
ministership by Thackeray thanks to infighting within the Sena.
As Speaker, Joshi will frequently be called upon to rule on
accusations that MPs have used unparliamentary language.
However, in his deposition before the Srikrishna Commission, he
defended the use of the offensive term ‘landya' to describe Muslims in
the Sena mouthpiece Saamna, even though he acknowledged the word was
likely to cause hurt.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
