|
C O M M E N T
Canadian
politics goes the Indian way
Canada’s
Tory Prime Minister Stephen Harper worried about the defeat of his government at
the hands of Liberal and New Democratic Party has been enticing opposition
members of House of Commons to buy time. Wajid Khan, 60, a former Pakistani air
force pilot and popular Toronto-area car dealer has discovered new
"political chemistry" with Harper's Tories while working as the Prime
Minister's special adviser on issues in the Middle East and in Afghanistan.
Although Tory role both in Afghanistan and Iraq has been criticised both at home
and international forums.
 "It has
often been said that politics makes strange bedfellows, but nothing about my
decision to join the Conservative caucus feels strange to me," Khan
declared perched on a stool behind Harper's podium. His joining the Conservative
caucus i could provide a buffer against the threat of minority Tory government's
defeat in the coming months. The additional Tory seat in the House of Commons
gives the party 125 MPs, and means that all three opposition parties will have
to be joins hands to defeat the minority Conservative government and
force an election.
Standings in the
308-seat Commons are: Conservatives 125; Liberals 101, Bloc Quebecois 51; New
Democrats 29. There are two independent MPs. The defection was expected for the
past some months, but it came quickly when Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion stated
that Khan could not continue to divide his loyalties between the Liberal party
and the Conservative Prime Minister.
Khan's profile
within the large South Asian community in his Mississauga-Streetsville riding
and the fact he is a well-known entrepreneur have the federal Liberals nervous
about the prospect of hanging on to what has been a fairly safe Liberal seat.
Dion in
statement said he received Khan's decision with "regret," but that he
was never comfortable with the role Khan took on last summer after offering to
help Harper following the arrest of 17 people in Toronto suspected of plotting a
terror attack.
As special
adviser, Khan travelled to Middle East to study, and though many politicians
said they are suspicious about the report he claims to have written, Harper said
it is full of "detailed and rich" information.
Khan's defection
comes as little surprise to a number of his former colleagues in the Liberal
caucus and his Mississauga riding. He always harboured some discontent when Paul
Martin was the prime minister. He was a hungry political mouth to feed, some
said.
Liberal Jim
Karygiannis (Scarborough-Agincourt) said Khan would do whatever he could to get
ahead, and had never let political affiliations get in the way. At Queen's Park,
Khan's former cohorts did not mince their words. "Good riddance to
him," said Liberal MPP Bob Delaney (Mississauga West), Khan's provincial
counterpart. "He is not held in high regard by our community and I am
delighted to see he has shown his true colours." Clearly khan would have
tough time winning next election as most South Asians who helped him rise in
politics are left of the center. Their vote is decisive.
Khan who
migrated from Pakistan originally belong Indian Punjab. His family migrated
after the tragic partition of India in1947 from Kapurthala district of Punjab.
BACK
American
newspapers offer Little Commentary on Troop Escalation in Iraq
WHY
are major American newspapers silent on troops escalation in Iraq? The question
haunts media watchers across the country and elsewhere too. Do the commentators
not know that sending 20,000 more troops as President Bush has indicated would
meet the same fate as it did three decades back on Vietnam. A defeat here too
stares the American warmongers as it did in Vietnam. President Bush has,
perhaps, little choice as no other spectacular move could be designed at this
stage when he faces an adversarial Congress with democrats in control. He has
offered one billion dollars in aid to build infrastructure.
According to
Greg Mitchell of the Publisher and Editor magazine, “ As a critical turning
point in America’s role in the nearly four-year-old Iraq war nears, the
editorial pages of the largest U.S. newspapers have been surprisingly – even,
appallingly – silent on President Bush’s likely decision to send thousands
of more troops to the country.”
It follows a
long pattern, however, of the editorial pages strongly criticizing the conduct
of the war without advocating a major change in direction. Now it comes at what
appears to be a crucial point, with Democrats in Congress, overcoming their own
timidity on the issue, finally emerging Friday with opposition to the buildup --
setting up a possible battle royal in the days ahead.
Newspapers, at
least in their editorials, have chosen to retreat to the sidelines so far. This
comes even as hawkish conservatives such as Oliver North, and dozens of other
op-ed contributors, have come out against the idea, and polls show that 11% or
less of the public back the idea. That would seem to set the stage for
editorials taking a strong stand, for or against.
An E&P
survey of major papers’ editorial pages this past week, however, finds that
very few have said much of anything about the well-publicized “surge” idea,
pro or con. They may finally declare themselves Sunday – much too late, given
that the president seems to have made up his mind and just shook up his cast of
commanders to assemble a more sympathetic crew. (Note: This "surge" in
editorials on Sunday did not happen. See update below.)
The liberal
editorial page of The New York Times has said nothing this week, beyond noting
the "bleak realities" in Iraq, even as its regular columnists Bob
Herbert, Thomas Friedman, Maureen Dowd and (on Sunday) Frank Rich and David
Brooks, across the page, have ripped the idea.
Other papers
often critical of the war, the Los Angeles Times, the Boston Globe, USA Today,
and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette -- among others -- have also been silent. Oddly,
all of them hailed the recent Iraq Study Group report, which opposed an
escalation.
The Washington
Post, hawkish in the past, has not even roused itself to say anything. Perhaps
it is hopelessly torn. Even its conservative columnist, Charles Krauthammer,
blasted the execution of Saddam's execution on Friday, concluding: "We
should not be surging American troops in defense of such a government."
But the paper,
we've learned, will run a major op-ed on Sunday by Sen. John McCain, titled,
"The Case for More Troops." Also coming Sunday a column by George Will
called "Surge, or Power Failure?" It comes out against the idea,
saying only a massive escalation might work.
Another longtime
war supporter, the Chicago Tribune, did run an editorial on Friday, raising
doubts about a surge, but did not come out flatly against it, focusing on
handing over more responsibility to the Iraqis in general: “President Bush
will need firm answers to overcome some intense public opposition.”
The Chicago
Sun-Times said nothing. Ditto for the Sacremento Bee, Cleveland's Plain Dealer,
Denver's Rocky Mountain News, Portland's The Oregonian, Long Island's Newsday
and New Jersey's Bergen Record.
A Miami Herald
editorial on Saddam’s hanging closed with, “Now it is up to Iraqis and their
international supporters, especially the United States, to find a way out of the
despair and darkness that have been Iraq's unfortunate fate for far too many
years” -- but it did not say a word about the "surge."
Neither did the
Dallas Morning News in its lone editorial related to Iraq, also on Saddam's
hanging, saying only, "The window of opportunity for success is closing
rapidly as the White House re-evaluates prosecution of the war."
The Sun of
Baltimore seems out of step in this group, issuing a strong editorial against
the escalation about a week ago. A longtime critic of the war, the Minneapolis
Star Tribune, called for withdrawals, not an escalation, on Saturday. A San
Francisco Chronicle editorial looked ahead to the president’s decision,
stating, “If it's only dressed-up talk about sending in more troops, it won't
be worth hearing.”
Foot note:
The Washington
Post did carry an editorial, which praises Sen. McCain and Sen. Lieberman for
"courageously" pressing the "surge" -- but adding the idea
still gives the editors "pause." It concludes: "If he chooses
escalation, Mr. Bush will have to work a lot harder than he has before to
explain the mission that justifies the risk and to build support in Congress and
with the public."
The New York
Times again failed to discuss the surge, even though it ran a lengthy editorial
attack on Bush called "The Imperial Presidency 2.0." The closest it
came to taking up the matter in the editorial was one snippet, where it accused
the president of interpreting "his party’s drubbing as a mandate to keep
pursuing his fantasy of victory in Iraq."
Among the many
leading papers that also ignored the pending Bush move on Sunday were the Boston
Globe, Los Angeles Times, Dallas Morning News and Cleveland's Plain Dealer.
BACK
Washing the Sins
 Millions
Hindus bathed in the freezing cold water at the confluence of three major rivers
in north India. A weeklong festival, an Ardh Kumbh Mela or Half Pitcher
Festival, was a pilgrimage intended to wash away earthly sins. On the last day
or on Makkar Sankranti, first day the moth of Makkar or Megh more millions of
Hindus bathed at numerous Indian rivers. At Allahabad alone where sadhus
protested against the polluted Ganges, at least 70 million Hindus bathed to
clean their souls. These two rivers despite huge public spending are the most
polluted by industrial and human waste. These protests had some bearing, but
devotees continued to throw flowers and other material to further pollute and
nearly choke the rivers.
The makeshift
campsite of 50,000 tents and 25,000 lavatories, provided by the authorities for
one of the largest gatherings of people in the world, covered 50 kms on the
banks of the Ganges.
Led by
ash-smeared holy men, every day of the week men, women and children
bathed in the biting cold at the confluence of Yamuna, Ganges and Saraswati
rivers. While the two rivers are alive, the third is mythical.
Nearly 50,000
policemen were on security and management duty as large number of voluntary
organizations besides the government provided food, water and shelter. It
cost the authorities some 7.5 billion rupees to provide infrastructure. It was a
well-managed massive affair and showed India could work provided there was will.
According to
Hindu mythology, gods and demons fought a celestial war, spilling nectar at
Allahabad in a pitcher or Kumbh. Hindus believe that bathing in the Ganges
during the festivals washes away their sins and ends the process of
reincarnation. Faith still rules stronger than science or rationality indeed.
Kumbh Mela is
the largest religious gathering in the world performed by the Hindus and is the
greatest of the Indian pilgrimages. It is the largest bathing event in the world
which is celebrated four times every twelve years, once at each of the four holy
destinations - Prayag (Allahabad), Haridwar, Ujjain and Nasik. Each twelve-year
cycle includes the Maha (great) Kumbh Mela at Prayag and and others are termed
as Ardh (Half) Kumbh Mela, attended by millions of people. The fair is also
renowned for the active participation of the sadhus and mahants coming out from
remote hideaways of forests, mountains and caves.
BACK
|
