Repeated Terror Attacks: Reminder of Political System Failure

After a second blast within four months at Delhi High Court's gate in the national capital, the efficiency, alertness, and vigil of the Delhi police have come under question. The earlier blast had taken place near gate number seven. Nobody was killed or injured in it. But this time, the high intensity blast near gate number five where entry passes are issued, proved to be fatal for dozens of people. The fact is that there can neither be an actual estimation of the loss caused by this kind of blast due to security lapse, nor could it be compensated. Still, we cannot avoid questions that blast raises.
Self-Destructive for Entire Country
The link to this incident may also be established with some kind of domestic or international terrorism in the coming days, but is it a mere coincidence that when it is time to take the culprits of terrorist acts which directly challenged the sovereignty and power of the country to their logical end, politics is being played on the issue that is self-destructive for the entire country? Is the weak political leadership of the country responsible for these conditions? The country's domestic policy is already a victim of delusion, but who are they trying to harm by bringing the foreign policy also under its influence, knowingly or unknowingly? With which country among our neighbors -- Pakistan, China, Nepal, Myanmar, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka, are our policies in normal condition? Is all this not becoming the reason for deteriorating situations that are giving a challenge to the domestic front?
The present home minister and external affairs minister could agree that in Bangladesh's context, the consent or discord of any of our states does not have any impact on the foreign policy, but could we ignore Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab, and Gujarat in Pakistan's context, or Tamil Nadu with regard to Sri Lanka? These double standards and insistence is not allowing our national political leadership to become strong.
Lesson From Past Experiences
The regret is also that we do not seem to be learning a lesson from our past experiences. Then, why do we expect this kind of lesson from Delhi police, which is nurtured on the game of politics at the center? But there is no hesitation in saying that the blast that took place at the gate of High Court situated within the circle of Delhi's political heart could have perhaps been prevented, had the police learned any lesson from the "big rehearsal of bomb blast" carried out by terrorists in the parking lot of gate number seven of High Court on 25 May. It is unfortunate that the incident was forgotten saying that the bomb was planted to target a particular person.
Police have their limitations in any political system. Our police force is not like London or Scotland Yard police, neither in skills, nor from the viewpoint of resources. Parliament is in session. The entire Delhi remains on "high alert" during this period. Then, how could this blast take place just a few kilometers from the Parliament House? But it would not be right to call it mere carelessness of police or security agencies. In fact, it is a failure of our politically-administered system.

Air India Strike: Situation Worsens

Despite the hard attitude adopted by Delhi High Court against the pilots' strike in Air India and the direction given by it to the pilots to resume duty, the dispute continues to defy a solution. The situation has come to such a head that despite the threat of losing their jobs and contempt of court proceedings, pilots appear to be adamant to hold on to their stand. The Air India administration has hinted a lock out in the organization.
Sixth Pay Commission Recommendations
It may be pertinent to note that while hearing the case pertaining to the strike in Air India by its pilots, the court had directed the pilots to return to their duties in public interest. Pilots are demanding the implementation of the Sixth Pay Commission recommendations. Interestingly, pilots had served notice of strike on the administration way back on 24 February, but the Air India administration failed to find out an amicable solution to the issue. Several rounds of talks between the parties concerned also proved futile and in the end, pilots went on strike. Air passengers are a harassed lot because of the strike by about eight hundred pilots.
Seeking to derive undue benefit out of the Air India strike, private airlines have unilaterally hiked their fare manifold. On the other hand, the Air India administration declared the strike illegal and, thereby, further provoked the pilots. It also withdrew recognition granted to the Indian Commercial Pilots Association, which played an important role in the strike.
As a matter of fact, the adamancy of pilots coupled with the weak stand and attitude of the Air India administration, and the dictatorial attitude of the chief managing director of Air India Arvind Yadav, are largely responsible for the situation. That is why when the case came up for hearing in Delhi High Court, the court directed the pilots to return to their duties immediately and also admonished the administration for its failure to implement the agreement it had reached with the pilots in 2009.
Demands of Employees
The fact remains that the Air India administration or the government have never displayed any liberal attitude to the just demands of employees, nor it showed any courage to hold on to its decision despite its harsh attitude which was displayed initially when the strike began. It remains a fact that whenever there was a strike in the Air India, the administration took strong measures to dismiss the striking pilots, but it never implemented its own decision. It was compelled to withdraw the decision of dismissal of pilots following the discussions and talks with the striking pilots. That is why pilots are adamant despite dismissal of some of their colleagues and the threat of contempt of court proceedings looming large on them. Without caring for any punitive action pilots are continuing their strike for which none other but the very attitude of the Air India is responsible.
Had the administration implemented the 2009 Agreement, there would have been no strike, nor it would have to bear the admonishment by the high court. It is the outcome of the irresponsible attitude of the administration that pilots have mustered such great courage that they are not prepared to hear to anything from the administration, and are defying court direction too. By ignoring the larger public interest, pilots in their own vested interest, are causing a loss of millions of rupees to the government and the country and simultaneously, adding to the sufferings of air passengers.
Resolution to Issue
Under the circumstances, the reported intention of the Air India management to declare a partial lock out does not augur well. It would be futile to expect any fruitful outcome of it. In fact, it may further deteriorate the situation. If the government does want to take a decision, it should decide to remove the present CMD Arvind Jadhav who continues to be in the eye of the storm because of his way of functioning. At present, going by the stage of the strike one can only surmise that instead of a resolution to the issue, the situation is worsening with each passing day.

Life Term for Social Activist Vinayak Sen

The voices against the life term awarded to a human rights activist, Vinayak Sen, by a Chhattisgarh court are multiplying by the day. It is a reflection on the weakening of the judiciary, as the tradition of not speaking one's mind on a decision and ruling of the court is weakening it. Intellectuals as well as the common man have begun to feel that if a ruling does not come up to the basic needs of justice and fails to pass the criteria of fairness, one should raise one's voice against such a ruling and decision.

Allegation Against Sen
Vinayak Sen was arrested on the allegation of sedition and waging war against the state in 2007. He has been active in the Naxal infested areas in Chhattisgarh. While arresting him, the police alleged that he has been patronizing, harboring and helping Maoists. He was further accused of acting as an intermediary between a Maoist leader and a businessman.

A Chhattisgarh court awarded him life imprisonment for helping Maoists and waging a war against the state. Ever since he was awarded the punishment, criticism continues at both the national and international levels against it. After criticism by important persons in the United States and the Amnesty International, a human rights organization, voices began to be stronger against the decision of the court.

The statement made by former chief justice of the Delhi High Court, Justice Rajinder Sachar, assumes greater significance in this regard. He maintains that there can be no other such decision that lacks total sagacity. I feel ashamed, after the pronouncement of the ridiculous verdict, that I have been associated with the judiciary? In addition to justice Sachar, others, including Romila Thapar, Prabhat Patnaik, Ashok Mitra, and Mushirul Hasan, have demanded Sen's release. A leading social worker, Swami Agnivesh, has gone on a dharna (sit-in protest) at the Jantar Mantar, against the pronouncement of the court verdict against Vinayak Sen.

Criticism Against Ruling
All these reactions go to prove that the tendency of testing a court verdict by the people is on the rise. Justice Sachar has specifically reacted to it sharply. The criticism that he has made against the ruling of a Chhattisgarh court amounts to a sarcastic comment on unjudicial and nonsagacious mentality, a mentality that remains confined to the surface and lacks understanding of the true spirit of law to reach a decision. It also reflects lack of spirit of providing true justice to an accused. Understanding the true spirit of law, while hearing and considering such cases is imperative. The objective of the judiciary is not just to respect laws and regulations, but to provide justice in the true sense.

As far as the case of Vinayak Sen is concerned, the allegations against him, firstly, are very weak and should one take all these allegations for granted that Vinayak had indeed worked as an intermediary between Maoists and a business man and that he did carry the message of the Naxalite ideologue, Narayan Sanyal to fellow Maoists, the crime is not such a serious one that he should be awarded life imprisonment by the court.

Faith in Judiciary
In a country where those responsible for the gas leak in Bhopal, which killed thousands of people, get the term of imprisonment for only two years each, that too after prolonged hearing spanning over twenty five years, how it is justified that a person accused of carrying a message to Maoists be awarded such a stringent punishment to languish behind the bars for his entire life?Such a verdict, naturally, raises eyebrows against the judiciary. That is why Justice Sachar is feeling ashamed for his association with such a judiciary. His remarks are not mere activism or a strong reaction. Instead, it is the expression of the pain that a person who loves justice, feels.

It is an expression of sympathy for those who fell victim to the strong handedness of law, and is a reminder to those at the helm of the affairs, to think and act wisely. It calls upon those in power to strive seriously to bring about a change in such a scenario before the people lose faith in the judiciary.