Editorial
We condemn the killing of
innocent rail passengers
Terrorism’s ugliest face was witnessed in Mumbai on Tuesday. The whole world was jolted into a fresh realisation of the satanic power of destruction the terrorists possess and their ability to strike with thoroughness and precision. A fresh reminder of how vulnerable modern civilisation is to the forces of darkness. Latest reports from Mumbai give a tally of 175 deaths and 300 injured in the serial bombing on Mumbai’s suburban rail network. The number of deaths will in all probability exceed 200. Seven blasts in quick succession rocked Mumbai’s trains in the hours when these remain most crowded. There was no claim of responsibility but the deadly blasts came a few hours after a series of grenade attacks by Islamist extremists killed eight people in India-administered Kashmir.
The government of India has been calm, composed but resolute in its response to the tragedy. President APJ Abdul Kalam in a statement appealed to the people to maintain calm and assist the administration in providing relief to the victims. Prime minister Dr Manmohan Singh held an hour-long security review meeting. In a statement after the meeting, which was read out by home minister Shivraj Patil, the prime minister asserted his government’s resolve.
It was not Mumbai railways that was hit but the entire mantle of human rights and values was shred to pieces. The whole world stands aghast! Those merchants of death who kill innocent people can achieve no salutary goal apart from inviting worldwide hate and condemnation. In today’s troubled world there are many aggrieved groups, many victims of injustice and marginalised communities but nothing can lighten the crime of terrorism. Terrorists are terrorists and nothing else and must be resisted unitedly by all who believe in humanity and ethics. We record our strongest condemnation of the incident.
Zidane is a legend, but Italy
won fair and square
There is a fine line between genius and madness. Whatever the field, and especially if it is a creative one, eccentricity more often than not accompanies any brilliance that outshines others. The history of modern football itself provides plenty of examples. Maradona, arguably the greatest footballer of them all, has had his share of controversial outbursts, the most infamous of which saw him shoot air-pistol pellets at journalists. George Best always had a drink in hand, as did Paul Gascoigne, Eric Cantona Kung-Fu kicked an opposition fan, Johann Cruyff missed an entire World Cup because he was feeling moody.
Zinedine Zidane’s moment of madness came on Sunday, when he head-butted an Italian defender in front of two billion eyes watching on television. The assault was too well executed for it not to have been clearly thought out, at least in the few seconds that preceded the move (and any follower of football will tell you that to a player of Zidane’s class, even a split-second is an eternity). It was a statement — of the couldn’t-care-less attitude Zidane has nurtured throughout his career; of the fact that here was a man who was, indeed, bigger than the game; and yes, of the sheer genius that is Zinedine Zidane.
Such an ignominious exit may have haunted mere footballing mortals forever, but not Zidane. Nothing, not even such clear betrayal of his temper, his teammates, his nation and football at large, can diminish the legendary stature that Zidane has attained. A hot-headed indiscretion or two can indeed be afforded to the best player since Maradona.
What has been unfortunate, especially if the subsequent media coverage is anything to go by, is the fact that many seem to forget that there was a winner on that day. Yes, Italy won the World Cup on Sunday! And not only did they do so fair and square, they did so after turning in a masterclass in exciting, end-to-end football played in the most professional of manners. In the face of adversity themselves, what with the match-fixing scandal raging on at home, the Italians embodied team spirit and a work ethic that drew the admiration of the football fraternity the world over.
But suddenly there’s a cry for the World Cup to be taken away from them. And all because conspiracy theorists and reactionaries among the anti-Imperialist camp have smelt a ‘racist’ jibe of the anti-Islam sort in there somewhere. Even if suggestions that the Italian player called Zidane a ‘son of a terrorist whore’ are true — and at this point such claims are nothing but innuendo — let us not forget that the game being played was football, not geo-politics, and that Zidane was the one who took the matter into his own hand here, deservedly receiving a red card. Heckling has been a part of football as long as playacting and diving has, and Zidane himself converted a penalty earlier in the game that was ‘won’ by a clear act of diving. So by asking Italy to give up their deserved prize, what footballing principles are we advocating?
In their bandwagon-jumping outrage splayed all over the press and the internet, have the conspiracy theorists considered this: that by playing up the ‘racist’ card, they themselves are assigning a race-identity to Zidane. A footballer, after all, is allowed to lose his cool on the field once in a while, not least Zinedine Zidane. For that is what he is above anything else — not French, not Muslim, not an immigrant — but one of the greatest footballers of them all.
WORTH A LOOK
Unfolding drama on voters’ list
AMM Shawkat Ali
The CEC is missing the point that well-informed public views need to be respected rather than be
dismissed in the manner he is doing. He is not expected to be the repository of all wisdom. When a constitutional office holder believes that he or she is the repository of all wisdom and above law, it is calamitous for citizens whose interests he/she is expected to serve. Independence and autonomy to constitutional offices are given to ensure neutrality of actions and not to create roadblocks to transparency and accountability. The CEC’s decision not to publish draft list of voters is definitely creating such roadblocks. It needs hardly to be emphasised that it is not the human beings but institutions which matter. The time has come for an appropriate intervention to save such constitutionally recognised institutions like the EC. It cannot be left to the whims and caprices of individuals
The Election Commission (EC), in particular, the Chief Election Commissioner and his two other colleagues, continue to remain publicly controversial. The primary reason is their unwillingness or inability to make any meaningful progress in the preparation of voters’ list for the upcoming election of 2007. All sections of the people agree that an acceptable voters’ list is the first step towards a free and fair election. Steering the EC through this first step has proved and continue to prove difficult.
EC lands in legal battle
During the first stage of the controversy centring on preparation of voters’ list, landed EC in a legal battle. The CEC took a stubborn stand and preferred an appeal in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court. The Appellate Division confirmed the judgement of the High Court division. Even then, controversies continued to be there because of the CEC’s interpretation of the judgement of the Appellate Division. The CEC himself belongs to the higher judiciary but that does not mean that his interpretation is final or in public interest. After the verdict in appeal, the CEC had to modify his stand on preparation of a new voters’ list and opt for updating of the list.
It may be recalled that the initial controversy was whether a new list should be prepared or the existing list of 2000 should be updated. The CEC decided to prepare a new voters’ list against the advice of his two commissioners who are now out of office having served the full tenure. This led to a public interest writ which confirmed the views earlier expressed by the former commissioners. In the judgement of the relevant bench of the High Court division also laid down some salutary principles of decision-making within the EC. It was enjoined that the EC must act as a collegial body.
Volte-face
The list that was prepared became a matter of considerable public criticism. The number listed was incredibly high. To further correct the list, decision was given by the EC to ask citizens to visit designated offices of the EC.
It was at this stage that at least two senior ministers of the four-party alliance chose to publicly air their views against the stand taken by the CEC. They categorically affirmed that it was absurd to expect that the citizens eligible to be voters would be willing to visit designated offices for listing their names as voters. Some observers also rightly pointed out that in clinging on to his own views, the CEC was expecting that the dead voters would rise from the graves to visit the designated offices to ask the relevant election officials to delete their names from the list under preparation. This apparently led to the volte-face but the CEC continued to assert that both the approaches must be employed. That is registration at designated offices and door to door visit. The former method of visiting designated offices was tried. The media reports confirmed that the result was negative. Even after this, it is not understood why the CEC continues to insist on this approach.
Further explosives from CEC
The latest information indicates that the CEC has once again opted for an absurd course of action. He has asserted that the draft voters’ list would not be published. The Law Minister reportedly differed very strongly to say that it must be published or else the citizens would not be able to know if they were voters or not. This apart, the time-honoured practice of publication of voters’ list is to enable the eligible voters to file objections to the list. It may be recalled that the very same EC after preparation of the much controversial voters’ list also affirmed that it would be published. Why this sudden change of mind now? A former commissioner, who was also a judge of the Supreme Court, had earlier condemned this course of action to be illegal. Are we then in for another public interest writ on preparation and publication of the draft voters’ list? If that happens, it may further delay the preparation of the voters’ list with its consequences for an election in time.
The CEC had earlier asserted that he would follow the judgment of the Appellate Division in letter and spirit. That was good news. However, it turned into a bad news when he said that the draft list of voters would not be published. Is it merely because the judgement does not say so? If the publication of the list was not an issue raised, it is not expected that a court of law would go into it. As a judge, the CEC should have known it better than others.
Independence of EC versus public interest
In his latest meet with the journalists on July 9, the CEC in his inimitable manner had asserted that he would not bow down to any pressure as he was holding an independent and autonomous constitutional office. This was an obvious dig at the media which have, till date, published numerous editorials and columns about the need for the CEC and his two colleagues to quit office in the greater interest of the nation. Further, it was also directed against other opposition parties whose leaders spoke and continue to speak in the same manner. They are strongly of the view that the CEC and his two commissioners are unworthy of the office that they hold at the moment.
The CEC’s reaction to the public criticism from all quarters, including senior leaders of the government, was that there was none in the country to force him to leave. Does it mean that the appointing authority i.e. the president is also not competent to remove him following the due process of law? The CEC is further reported to have said that some individuals and vested quarters were out to create a smokescreen against the EC because there was no ‘tax on words uttered’. Indeed such a tax would be unconstitutional because freedom of speech and of thought, subject to reasonable restrictions as may be imposed by law, are recognised to be fundamental rights.
On a more substantive plane, the CEC is missing the point that well-informed public views need to be respected rather than be dismissed in the manner he is doing. He is not expected to be the repository of all wisdom. When a constitutional office holder believes that he or she is the repository of all wisdom and above law, it is calamitous for citizens whose interests he/she is expected to serve. Independence and autonomy to constitutional offices are given to ensure neutrality of actions and not to create roadblocks to transparency and accountability. The CEC’s decision not to publish draft list of voters is definitely creating such roadblocks. It needs hardly to be emphasised that it is not the human beings but institutions which matter. The time has come for an appropriate intervention to save such constitutionally recognised institutions like the EC. It cannot be left to the whims and caprices of individuals.
MAIN PAGE | TOP
|
|
