Divisive unto death
The editorial in the latest issue of the Organiser,titled Under UPA,vote-bank dictates the course of law,says: One of the favourite phrases of Indian politicians is that the law will take its own course. If it was true,the Supreme Court would not be reminding the government about carrying out the death sentences given by the court. Last week,the Supreme Court asked the Centre to decide fast on the death sentences. Three years after the Supreme Court ordered death sentence for Afzal in the Parliament attack case,the UPA government is dithering over carrying it out. By various implied statements,the government has conveyed that hanging him would hurt the sentiments of a section of the society and hence it is sitting over the mercy petition. In fact,a minister in the previous UPA cabinet even went so far as to suggest that hanging Afzal would affect the chances of the release of Sarabjit Singh languishing in Pakistani jail on a false case of espionage.
It concludes: The case in point is,the communalising of the system of crime and punishment by the UPA. The politics of this conglomeration is totally and blatantly communal. Right down to railway ticket concession to students,the UPA seeks to divide the people by religion,by caste and by region. The Supreme Courts ruling on death sentences is a timely warning to the government not to prevaricate on carrying out justice. It should take the cue and speed up several pending cases against terrorists and punish them. It may yet act as a deterrent.
The Tibet commitment
In an analysis titled India has a moral commitment on Tibet Ram Madhav observes: Almost five decades of efforts to resolve the border issues have resulted only in India conceding every time and ending up as the loser. Zhou talked of a package deal; Deng talked of a sector-wise approach. We today see neither of them to be relevant anymore. Of the 2500-km border,the only peaceful sector is the middle one,namely the Tibet-Uttarakhand/Himachal border,which is not more than about 550 km. The Chinese refuse to talk anymore about the Aksai Chin. For them it is a settled fact. What is unfortunate is that even our own leadership stopped talking about it. Rajiv Gandhi visited China in 1988; Narasimha Rao in 1993 and Vajpayee in 2003. The nation has not heard them talk about the occupation despite the fact that there is a unanimous Parliament resolution of 1962 on getting that territory back. For the Chinese,the obvious policy appears to be to get the maximum territorial advantage of the talks. That is the reason behind their constant harping on Arunachal Pradesh… In 2006,just a couple of weeks ahead of the visit of the Chinese President Hu Jintao to India,the Chinese Ambassador to Delhi Sun Yuxi had made the outrageous claim that Arunachal Pradesh belonged to China.
He adds: One of the most contentious issues between India and China has been the presence of His Holiness the Dalai Lama and his people on the Indian soil. Although successive Indian governments,starting with Jawaharlal Nehru in 1954,have conceded directly or indirectly that Tibet is a part of China,the Chinese harbour serious apprehensions…India has a moral and ethical commitment to HH the Dalai Lama and his people. Every Indian wants them to realise their dream of a return to their homeland but with dignity and honour. Unfortunately our government has completely abdicated that duty. It is only the American official visitors who raise the question of Tibet with their Chinese counterparts; we seldom do that.
