What next on Bihar?
HOW constitutionally fair or politically appropriate — and necessary — is the dispensation of President's rule in Bihar right now?

IMF defects to
control camp
THE impossible has happened. The IMF, the head priest of free market theology, has embraced the “control the capital flow” heresy. Advocates

Crumbling heritage
THOSE who forget their past, cannot have much of a future. Individuals can be forgiven if they ignore this adage. Not so when nations are involved.

India and the CTBT
by Bharat Wariavwalla
THOSE who attacked the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in 1996 as sham are now all for signing it. You may think they are inconsistent but really they are not.

Farm growth — smug approach
by Balraj Mehta
THE Minister of Agriculture, Mr Sompal, said at the Economic Editors’ Conference this year that the policy on agriculture of the BJP-led coalition government was being finalised and would soon be announced.

One-way "interaction" By Amar Chandel NO doubt most of the Ministers in the Union Cabinet are from outside the national Capital but there is something about the Lutyen's Delhi which makes them forget India that is Bharat. Bhikaji Cama: a great revolutionary By K.L. Johar ONE of the greatest women revolutionaries in India’s struggle for freedom, Bhikaji Cama from an affluent Parsi family in Bombay waged a life-long battle to dismantle the edifice of British imperialism from the sacred soil of India. A menace or a malady? by Mangu Ram Gupta ABOUT two decades ago our country ran short of wheat and our government had to import it from the USA. Nevertheless, the wheat that was exported to our country by the American government, was plagued by “parthenium”. India thus got not only what it had bargained for but also what it had not so agreed to.

75 Years Ago

The position of Indians
AS regards the position of Indians, it has been pointed out that they have been there at least since the 16th century. They have had trade relations with the people of Kenya for nearly six centuries now.

What next on Bihar?

HOW constitutionally fair or politically appropriate — and necessary — is the dispensation of President's rule in Bihar right now? The Bharatiya Janata Party-led Union Government has created an embarrassing situation for the President, Mr K.R. Narayanan, by recommending the dismissal of the Rabri Devi government. We have been asking repeatedly for President's rule in the state during the past two years, beginning by pointing out that the almost ungoverned area has been facing a situation in which no citizen finds his life or limb safe. The Governor, Mr Sundar Singh Bhandari, has not added even a small factor to the previously stated grounds for dismissal. There has been no rule of law in Bihar. The political leadership has abdicated its responsibility and anarchy has prevailed throughout the length and breadth of this populous part of India, which was once known for its tranquillity and relentless struggle to emerge from the gloom of backwardness and poverty into an era of all-round development and prosperity. Mr Bhandari came to New Delhi the other day to submit a report on the "dangerous ground realities" in Bihar. He revealed the contents of his recommendations to the media much before he could meet either the Prime Minister or the President. The Governor, an agent of the President, carries part of the power and the glory of the supreme Head of the Republic. Mr Bhandari has demeaned his office through his unrestrained speech and hasty action. Both the Prime Minister and the Governor have given sufficient time to Mr Laloo Yadav to pitch the north against the south in his state and to indulge in petty politicking. The Prime Minister, on his part, disowned the Rabri Devi government four days ago by stating unambiguously that the end of Mr Laloo Yadav's proxy rule was imminent. Could not he have waited for the arrival of the President in New Delhi on Monday night? The Home Minister and the Defence Minister joined him in intemperate speech. Mr Laloo Yadav retaliated by abusing Mr Sundar Singh Bhandari by name and by showing the might of his Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD). Mrs Rabri Devi proved her majority in the Assembly and also defeated a Central Bill on the formation of a new state — “Vananchal”. This double slap directed at the BJP-led government has thrown up a few vital constitutional questions. Can the President dismiss a government that enjoys the confidence of the legislature? If democracy is the government of the people, can one ignore the positive vote of legislators elected by the people? The situation has been further complicated by four factors: The Vajpayee government assured the nation repeatedly over the past few months that the provisions of Article 356 would not be used for political purposes. It promised to abide by the Supreme Court judgement in the Bommai case which disfavours the pulling down of a democratically elected government on subjective grounds. The BJP's allies as well as critics want the yardsticks for the dismissal of the Bihar government to be used in, say, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, Delhi and West Bengal.

Is the present situation of anarchy and corruption in Bihar a phenomenon which has erupted suddenly? Has the Union Government done enough to preserve and protect the relevant constitutional ideals there? It has sufficient power to take remedial steps under Article 365. Yes, Bihar is a victim of non-governance and lawlessness. "We, the people", do not run the state. Goons and goondas of various socio-political factions execute their weird will even to kill. We do not want to see a situation in which the Presidential authority comes in conflict with the Central Government's action. We also do not want the people of Bihar to suffer any more because of Mr Laloo Yadav's perverse activities. United Bihar has been governed effectively for decades and it is sad to note that even in the proposed "Vananchal" area one cannot find many leaders of integrity and foresight. North Bihar is precariously sustained by primitive agriculture and fragmented by caste feuds. South Bihar is industrially and minerally rich. There is a north because there is a south also! The immediate obligation of the President is to ensure pro-people, cohesive and non-partisan governance in which money and muscle power is restricted in its sweep and reach. We welcome the President's initiatives but we must emphasise that the well-being of the average citizen should be the immediate goal of any fresh move.

IMF defects to control camp

THE impossible has happened. The IMF, the head priest of free market theology, has embraced the “control the capital flow” heresy. Advocates unfazed by the destruction of some Asian economies, are sure to chorus in anguish: “Et tu Brutus”? And the unreconstructed believers in checks and regulation will take some time to recover. Why this dramatic change? There are two reasons, one stemmimg from the other. The Fund genuinely feels that “emerging” (developing) economies are just not strong enough to withstand the impact of a sudden flight of capital. Such an event devastates the economy as a whole, and not merely the financial and capital sectors. This is precisely what happened in Thailand, Indonesia and South Korea and was about to happen in Malaysia when Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammed clamped controls. A detailed study by the Fund of last year’s Asian turmoil has led it to the realisation that opening the economies prematurely to a free flow of capital “is an accident waiting to happen”. Interestingly, the Fund has found that capital flight started from the three countries even before a full-blown crisis hit the currency and stock markets. This would indicate that hot money habitually enters and exits from countries while looking for maximum profit within the shortest time. This coupled with a weak or loosely structured banking system, exposes the developing economies to sudden, severe and externally induced convulsions.

Since it takes time to reform and strengthen the financial sector, it becomes necessary to impose control and a form of tax on incoming funds. The IMF suggests a Chilean-type tax which has the merit of making foreign money costly and of reining in excessive desire to borrow from foreign banks to benefit from lower interest rates. This tax will also rob inter-bank, cross-border lending of much of its attraction. Flowing from this is the possibility that capital develops a stake in remaining in the host country for a reasonable time and not take flight at the vaguest hint of trouble. There is wishful thinking in this expectation. The Fund seems to think that fly-by-night speculators would willingly become short-staying investors at the first speed-breaker. They may not, preferring to graze elsewhere. As the IMF’s annual report notes, last year capital movement to East Asia shrunk by as much as $70 billion, indicating that there are alternate places or avenues for parking this huge amount of surplus.

The second reason behind the IMF change of ideology is the pressure on it last year to bale out the stricken economies. It had to dip into its reserves and also arrange a total package slightly less than $100 billion, most of which went to recoup the loss of hundreds of reckless lenders from the West. It cannot tackle another crisis of that magnitude, which Latin America seems to be a prime candidate to bring about. By issuing the new call, the multilateral financial institution is also minimising its own future troubles. There is a related issue of considerable significance in a powerful body like the IMF supporting the idea of control on capital flows. It is the first move in the reverse direction of mindless globalisation, which in effect means unhindered movement of capital, goods and services across national boundaries. The IMF is showing the red flag to this trend. It sure will find new supporters and new critics.

Crumbling heritage

THOSE who forget their past, cannot have much of a future. Individuals can be forgiven if they ignore this adage. Not so when nations are involved. But India has been allowing many of its priceless edifices to go to seed, as if these are nothing more than worthless heaps of dirt. Recent reports indicate that in place of being arrested, this tendency is becoming more and more pronounced. If in the North, centuries-old Leh monasteries are crumbling, in the East, the world-famous Sun temple of Konark is undergoing similar humiliation. Havelis, which are a witness to the glorious past of Old Delhi, are giving way to ugly modern buildings. Many monuments like Shahnajaf Imambara of Lucknow are on the verge of collapse. Future generations may only get to read about these magnificent edifices. Why, even the Taj, which boasts of being one of the Seven Wonders of the World, is not being looked after the way it should be. One wonders when this monumental neglect will end. What is shameful is that while many countries that have monuments of far less value have preserved these religiously, we are driven by a strange death wish. For instance, the Kangra Fort and the nearby Masrur rock-cut temple would have been restored with tender care in any other country. Not so in India. Here the effort is just not commensurate with the significance of the buildings.

One perennial excuse that is bandied about is that there is an acute shortage of finances and manpower. This is true but only partially so. Actually, what is missing is the sense of history and the will to preserve it. The government seems to think that it has done enough if it has entrusted the responsibility of a site to the Archaeological Survey of India. The ASI is just not equipped to look after the monuments that number not in hundreds but in thousands. At many places, the only sign of its presence is a signboard proclaiming that the monument is a protected site. What is needed is a holistic and well-coordinated effort to restore these to their pristine glory. The Centre, the States, the tourism departments and private conservationists have to join hands. If that is done, the preservation of the monuments can generate funds instead of being a drain on the economy. Despite inaccessibility of many sites, lack of proper transport, communication and accommodation, tourists flock to India because of its unique culture. Their number can be increased manifold with better facilities. For instance, one has to keep in mind that before 1965, Khajuraho was nothing but a sleepy village reaching which was next to impossible. Today, nearly three lakh tourists visit it every year. The success story can be replicated at countless sites. But first of all, archaic laws like the 1958 Ancient Monuments, Archaeological Sites and Remains Act (AMASR), which frustrate conservation efforts in place of facilitating them, have to be done away with.

India and the CTBT
What national interest demands
by Bharat Wariavwalla

THOSE who attacked the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in 1996 as sham are now all for signing it. You may think they are inconsistent but really they are not. They are greatly consistent in that they support the position of the government that happens to be there. In 1996 the Deve Gowda government was against the treaty and so many of our defence experts and journalists supported the government position. Now they are airing the views of some in the Vajpayee government who want to sign the CTBT.

To think of signing it, barely four months after the Pokhran-II explosions, is to negate the event. It is to publicly admit that the event should not have happened. That would be disastrous for the national morale. Let us now get the most out of Pokhran-II.

In a sense it had to happen; it was in the logic of things. The CTBT aimed at crippling our clandestine nuclear capability; its main object was to legally ban any testing of nuclear weapons. Our signing it would have imposed on us an obligation not to test our capability, should we have thought it was necessary. Foreign Minister Gujral opposed signing it in 1996 in the name of national interest.

It is for the first time we dropped the mask of universalism and started talking about national interest. We were interested in arming ourselves than disarming the world. What the Vajpayee government did was to carry forward the logic of national interest and test our nuclear capability on May 11.

Can we now forswear not to develop a nuclear deterrence? This is what the five nuclear powers plus three other major economic powers — Germany, Japan and Italy — are asking us and Pakistan to do. The P-5 and G-8, the two groups of countries which hold much of the world’s military and economic power want to deprive us of what we have gained by Pokhran-II. They insist that we unconditionally accept the CTBT and undertake not to make nuclear weapons and deploy them.

Without developing nuclear warheads and marrying them to a delivery system, missiles, aircraft or submarines, we cannot have an effective deterrence against nuclear adversaries. What we had till May 11 was simply a notional deterrence, a non-weaponised deterrence, as our sarkari strategic experts said. It was no deterrence at all, for without testing you cannot design warheads that would fit your missiles or aircraft.

Non-weaponised deterrence, a recessed deterrence or whatever our establishment strategic experts called it, was merely a decorative thing which no one outside India took seriously. They were, of course, all too happy to see us delude ourselves into believing that the decorative was real and substantial.

It is for the first time since Pokhran-I in May, 1974, that we have the potential to develop a credible deterrence against China. Nuclear warheads carried by a medium or long range missiles or aircraft over a distance of 3000 to 4500 miles could serve as deterrence. There is simply no other kind of deterrence.

A treaty seeking to prevent us from acquiring this kind of deterrence must be rejected. The CTBT may not be inherently discriminatory as the NPT is, but it is just as harmful to our security interests. The Clinton Administration wants us to accede to the CTBT and thus roll back our existing deterrent capability, let alone develop it. When Washington says that India should accept the treaty unconditionally and not develop and deploy nuclear weapons, what in effect it is saying is that we erase from our minds the Pokhran event. Besides, they refuse to consider us as a nuclear weapons power.

The irony of the situation is that the USA does not have the power to coerce us into signing the CTBT. The sanctions it has imposed on us are ineffective, though they are greatly effective on Pakistan whose economy is terminally ill. Our economy is not yet tied to the world economy to the extent that sanctions by the West could seriously hurt us. True, the relative autonomy of our economy speaks more of our backwardness, but it is this backwardness that protects us from the consequences of economic sanctions.

It is the thought of defying the United States of America that really unsettles our leadership, be it the BJP, the Congress or the UF variety. Indira Gandhi, with two-thirds majority in Parliament and a nearly autarchic economy, albeit lumbering at a Hindu growth rate of 3.5 per cent, stopped at one nuclear explosion in May, 1974, undoubtedly under Soviet and American pressure. The UF government in 1996 opposed the CTBT on the grounds of national interest but then went back to the meaningless policy of keeping the nuclear option open. In the choppy waters of international politics one exercises or abandons options but never keeps them indefinitely open. For 25 years between Pokhran I and II we have kept the nuclear option open, much to the amusement and derision of all those who matter — China, the former USSR, the USA, Britain and France. They clearly understand what it is to exercise or abandon options.

The Vajpayee government exercised the nuclear option on May 11 but now it, or at least some factions and individuals in it, wants to “limit the damage” done by the tests. Thus they, through their mouthpieces in the journalistic world, are now advocating the signing of the CTBT on the grounds of protecting national interests.

I think it is too early to sign the treaty. I am not for defying the USA, as some Hindutva jingoists or Congress members, out of sheer cussedness, would like to do. But signing it at this stage will harm our national interests. The gains of Pokhran-II need to be consolidated — a credible nuclear deterrence put in place and a realistic US-India relationship firmly established — before we announce to the world our willingness to sign the CTBT.

All important treaties reflect power equations between their signatories. The CTBT is one of the important treaties of the post-Cold War era, and it clearly says that only those who have nuclear weapons at their command will fashion the global strategic balance. We are yet to be accepted as one of the nuclear haves.

Farm growth — smug approach
by Balraj Mehta

THE Minister of Agriculture, Mr Sompal, said at the Economic Editors’ Conference this year that the policy on agriculture of the BJP-led coalition government was being finalised and would soon be announced. But his exposition of the government’s intentions and preferences was rather fuzzy and smug. It did not give the assurance that agriculture was poised for a major breakthrough.

Many disturbing features with respect to investment and production and productivity have indeed surfaced in the case of agriculture. A shift from food crops to non-food crops has been taking place. This has serious economic and social implications. The production of coarse cereals and pulses and grams, on which the poor largely subsist, too is declining. The production of local varieties of rice and wheat has been discouraged. High-yielding varieties, which require the application of costly imported inputs, have become predominant in the Green Revolution areas. With the rising prices of inputs for increasing agricultural production and productivity, marginal and small farmers are at a clear disadvantage.

The emphasis on lifting controls on prices and the reduction of subsidies is very much on the cards as part of the market-friendly economic reform process. The prices of chemical fertilisers have been increased substantially. The balanced use of nitrogen, phosphate and potash has suffered considerable dislocation. The small and marginal farmers who have to use higher doses of fertiliser for intensive farming on their small parcels of land feel the pinch more than the large farmers. Since the application of fertilisers is more sensitive to the rise in their prices, productivity per acre for the small farmer has suffered and necessarily increased the disparity between small and bigger farmers.

There has been much talk in recent years of giving priority to the growth of agriculture and rural development. This has gone no further than giving niggardly increases to budgetary allocations for agriculture. But the large shortfalls in the expenditure and gross underutilisation of funds so allocated have been scandalous. This has not been due to administrative inefficiency so much as because of hectic efforts to catch up with the logic of market-friendly “efficient” growth path. It is not without significance that land reforms are no longer projected in official policy as the prerequisite for overcoming bottlenecks to higher production and productivity in agriculture. The minister has ruled out the lifting of ceiling laws on the ownership of agricultural land. But he has no objection to corporates taking over large tracts of agricultural land for contract farming. The rich gentlemen-farmers have built large landholdings for “modern farming” on lease from small farmers.

So far as the determination of the cost of production of farm commodities is concerned, the government tends to go by the claims and demands of the least efficient producers, both in industry and agriculture, and in the process establish a system of floor or support prices which jack up open market prices as well. The production of marketable surpluses, foodgrains in particular, should not be measured by reference to their procurement by the government either. The procurement under even the strict regulations of the foodgrain market has fluctuated in the past between 10 per cent and 15 per cent of the total production. The small farmers are obliged to sell a fraction of what they produce immediately after the harvest at whatever support/procurement prices are offered to them. But the bulk of the marketable surpluses are held by big farmers who are in a position to collude with the foodgrain traders to rig the open market.

The marketable surpluses of wheat and rice are also concentrated mainly in Punjab, Haryana and Western U.P. The large producers in these regions benefit enormously from the free trade in wheat and rice. They have sought and succeeded in cornering gains from increases in production and productivity at the cost of the vulnerable consumers, including poor farmers and farm workers. Having grown economically powerful and socially influential, these farmers are now asserting their claims in the political arena and official policy making. They are emerging, together with the urban big business and speculative traders, as pillars of the market-friendly economic policy. They ensure that the distribution of the gains of growth, to the extent it fitfully takes place, goes in favour of a thin upper crust in society.

A menace or a malady?
by Mangu Ram Gupta

ABOUT two decades ago our country ran short of wheat and our government had to import it from the USA. Nevertheless, the wheat that was exported to our country by the American government, was plagued by “parthenium”. India thus got not only what it had bargained for but also what it had not so agreed to. “Parthenium” is as such a gift from America though one would loathe to have such a gift.

“Parthenium” is also known by the sweet sobriquet of “congress grass” because it was the Congress government which had imported the wheat from America along with which came “the parthenium”. “Parthenium” is now wide spread. Cast your eyes on any vacant piece of land anywhere, you will find it overgrown with this weed. Whether it is a village or a town, a city or its suburb, the Capital of the country or a metropolitan city, one will not fail to see it blooming there. It is, as a matter of fact, difficult to think of a place sans this weed. So colossally vast is the territory over which it holds its sway!

“Parthenium” is a pernicious plant, a woeful weed, and a horrible health hazard. It is notorious for causing two terribly troublesome ailments — skin-itch and asthma. Whichever naked portion of one’s body comes into contact with this woeful weed is afflicted with repugnantly repulsive rash and an intensely irritating itch. One feels like scratching the affected portion of one’s body violently and one does it. This violent scratching, however, makes the skin bleed and the person concerned very miserable. So horrifying is this itch!

I have had a personal experience of this skin-rash and itch. A few years ago, I was getting a house constructed for my youngest son at Panchkula. To approach the site of the house, I had to walk for a little distance on a well-trodden footpath on either side of which swayed the powerful and proud “ parthenium” mightily and majestically. As I knew nothing about the horrid hazards this pernicious plant posed, wherever it obstructed my movement, I brushed it aside with my right hand and moved on. I continued to indulge in this sort of exercise when suddenly after about a week, a red rash with a burning sensation and an uncontrollable urge to scratch it, appeared on my right hand.

A skin-specialist was consulted. He examined my hand and diagnosed the skin-trouble as eczema. An ointment, prescribed by him, was applied for a week but sans the slightest relief. Then a friend happened to visit me. He had himself been a victim of this skin-trouble caused by “parthenium”. He went to the market and brought for me a tube of “Quadriderm ointment”. It was applied for a few days and the skin-trouble was completely cured. How ardently I blessed my friend hardly needs any elucidation or elaboration.

As regards the other ailment, “asthma”, caused by the pollen of “parthenium”, suffice it to say that it does not require any steroids to be cured. Shifting from the old environments to some new ones, where there is no “parthenium”, is the simple remedy for getting rid of this malady.

Therefore, my answer to the question whether “parthenium” is a menace or a malady is that it is both and a misery to boot. The best way to save oneself from this misery is to pour some kerosene into its roots to destroy it for all times to come, and then let no “congress grass” grow under one’s feet.

One-way "interaction"
By Amar Chandel

NO doubt most of the Ministers in the Union Cabinet are from outside the national Capital but there is something about the Lutyen's Delhi which makes them forget India that is Bharat. The pronouncements they make on various topics touching upon the common man's life while sitting in their airconditioned offices and houses bear no relevance to reality. What is commonsense and is known to every common man somehow seems to escape the attention of these big men. That is why the journalists who have their ears to the ground have this irresistible urge to give a piece of their mind to the Ministers concerned. This is the desire that draws more than 50 senior journalists to Delhi to attend the Economic Editors Conference every year. After all, the conference offers a unique opportunity to meet over 10 Ministers and their secretaries within three days. The invitation makes it clear that it is an interaction and the proceedings are not particularly meant for reporting.

But the high hopes are rarely fulfilled. The optimism and enthusiasm do not take long to evaporate. The first lesson one learns is that any suggestions that the editors may have for the Ministers are barely welcome. The latters' endeavour is to make the visitors believe that their apprehensions on various counts are misplaced, and the country is going full steam ahead on the road to progress under the stewardship of the worthy Ministers.

Disillusionment soon sets in as the personal secretaries of these Ministers start ringing one up to ensure a good coverage for their respective bosses. But the conference is not meant for reporting, you protest. That is all right, you are assured. But please do give a good coverage to what the Minister says.

Those 50-odd editorial writers wait expectantly in the PIB hall in Shastri Bhavan, which is far too small to accommodate all those men and a battery of TV cameras. (From this year, Reuters has even started to beam the proceedings live round the world.) The Minister comes in with an impressive retinue of secretaries and joint secretaries. The jovial Principal Information Officer, Mr S. Narendra, sets the ball rolling by joking that the economic editors are the original MPs (members of the press) and it is gratifying that so many of them have come from across the country. He requests the Minister concerned to begin by making a statement and then have an interaction with the press. He makes a special request to all those present to treat this as an interaction and not as a press conference.

The proceedings may ostensibly be not for reporting but it is clear that the Ministers are keen to get a good press. Many vital decisions are announced at the conference and many new schemes are unveiled. For instance, this year, among the decisions disclosed at the conference were a plan to revamp the Planning Commission; global bids for exploration in 48 oil blocks; full computerisation of the country's patent offices; extension of the licence period for mobile phone operators from 10 years to 15 years; plans for a more liberal technology import regime and a special scheme for duty-free import of electronic hardware inputs for exporters. One wonders what would have happened if these were not reported, as was specified in the invitation to the conference.

Now about the opportunity to "interact" with the Ministers. Since the Honourable Ministers are there for hardly an hour or so, and since many journalistic hands go up, the PIO takes on the role of a stern school madam, rationing the use of the mike and goading everybody to keep the questions very very short. This provokes at least one journalist to say that this was supposed to be an interaction and not a question-and-answer session. What is the point if one is not free to communicate properly? All right, a few seconds more but the conference continues to be a question-and-answer session. In the case of the Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission, one feels rather humiliated when Mr Jaswant Singh says that because of certain other commitments, he will have to rush out before the scheduled time but there is no cause for worry because the lunch will be served as scheduled. How one wishes he realised that nobody takes the trouble of going to Delhi to partake of a sarkari lunch.

When the worthy Ministers do answer, it becomes clear that there is an us-versus-they dividing line. They are there only to defend whatever has been done, even if it is indefensible. You want to engage them in a discussion, but the mike is no longer with you. And then there are others waiting to ask some other question.

Area-specific questions are supposed to be off. But since everybody has a constituency back home, he or she cannot help squandering one's question on something connected with a particular organisation or problem in one's hometown or State. Larger issues thus remain untouched.

The experience the world over is that the issues which do not get discussed at a formal meeting become amenable to resolution at informal retreats. So after a hard day of trying to pin the Ministers down, one looks forward to meeting them in a more relaxed setting during the dinner hosted by one of them. Rather, the reception hosted by the PIO or somebody else prior to the dinner is the right time to get the Sphinxes talking. After all, liquor does have a history of loosening tongues. The Secretaries do give their honest appraisal of the situation but strictly off the record. And even then, they have one eye glued to the door lest the Minister walks in before the drinks party is formally over and the dinner begins.

Once the Minister makes the grand entrée, it is back to small talk. One tries to engage the Minister in an honest discussion but without much success. He is either not aware of the realities or is unwilling to admit them. For instance, some journalists tried to tell Finance Minister Yashwant Sinha that his government was in deep trouble because of skyrocketing prices of onion and potatoes. He lashed out that if the floods damaged the crops, his government was hardly at fault. But surely, the government must take some remedial measures, some journalists persist. The tall Minister's reply takes everyone by surprise: Nobody is going to die if he stopped eating onions for a few days. Thank God, he did not ask them to eat cake instead.

There are some journalists who have been attending the conference for more than a decade. They gently advice the greenhorns to treat the conference as Delhi darshan. This advice is heeded by quite a few, given that the attendance during the afternoon session on the final day is abysmally poor. One of the few who are dutifully there suggests to officials of the Press Information Bureau that they should schedule the visit of a heavyweight Minister for this session so that more people attend it. The officials reveal that it is becoming increasingly difficult to make the Ministers realise the importance of the conference and attend it. For instance, this year, Railway Minister Nitish Kumar sent in his deputy Ram Naik while the Textile Minister did not come at all. Under the circumstances, you should be satisfied with whatever is available. Some journalists even wonder whether the conference will always continue to be held. Well, it is not perfect, but something is better than nothing. Maybe someday it will turn into an interaction instead of being a glorified, high-level Press conference.

Bhikaji Cama: a great revolutionary
By K.L. Johar

ONE of the greatest women revolutionaries in India’s struggle for freedom, Bhikaji Cama from an affluent Parsi family in Bombay waged a life-long battle to dismantle the edifice of British imperialism from the sacred soil of India. Perhaps the most thrilling moments of her life came on August 18, 1907, when she unfurled the first national flag at Struttgard in Germany before an assembly of more than 1000 members of Socialist Congress from all parts of the world. With their caps in hand, the enthusiastic audience gave her a vocal and prolonged applause. She made an intensely passionate speech accusing the wily British rulers who were ruthlessly exploiting the poor innocent Indians and were eating into the vitals of the Indian economy. Those who dared ask for freedom were rotting behind bolts and bars. The total environment in India was one of indignity and humiliation. As such the spirit of defiance, independence and revolutionary ardour had started showing up. The other two who joined her as delegates at this historic conference were Varendra Nath Chattopadhyaya — brother of Sarojini Naidu — and Sardar Singh Rana.

Born on September 24, 1861, at Bombay, her father, Sorabji Patel, a businessman of note, could give her anything that money could buy. The atmosphere in the country around this time was hardly placid. The first war of independence was only four years old. She had started reading tales of bravery and heroism of the martyrs in the struggle of 1857. At times, she would sit brooding for hours together. She sat by herself and think of those who had laid down their lives for the sake of the motherland. As she grew in years, these thoughts grew with her and strengthened her resolve to actively participate in the task of social reconstruction and freedom. Her father, a great psychologist in his own right, was not unaware of the seeds of rebellion sprouting in her young and formative mind. With a view to deviate her from “aberrations” as he put it later, he married her to Rustomji in 1885. But the marriage was soon on the rocks because she had already been married to her “mission of azadi”. Rustomji, an orientalist and a votary of the British, could no longer tolerate her revolutionary activities aimed against the raj. The marriage broke down. She was a free person and could go about her work unhindered and unfettered. She set up a number of women organisations and motivated the women folk to work for social clubs and to rise above narrow caste considerations and religious fanaticism. She inspired them to come forward and play their role in breaking the shackles of alien rule. She took active part in ameliorating the sufferings of the plague-stricken in Bombay. She cleaned their wounds and put up bandages with her own hands. It is to her credit that she snatched many a person from the jaws of sure death. She played the ‘Nightingale’ but unfortunately was herself taken seriously ill. Her father sent her to England for medical treatment in 1902. After a brief sojourn in London, she went to Germany, France, Scotland and the USA before returning to London in 1905.

During her stay in London, two miracles happened which completely transformed her life. The first of these was her contact with Dada Bhai Naroji, the old veteran of the freedom movement, and became her personal secretary. She worked for a year and a half and was schooled and saturated into political happenings of the day. But the second and perhaps the more important was her association with Shyamaji Varma, Sardar Singh Rana and Vinayak Damodar Savarkar at the ‘India House’ in London. She wrote fiery articles pleading for India’s freedom in ‘Indian Socialist’ and spent plenty of time in promoting the cause of the ‘Home Rule Society’. She often went to Hyde Park’ and delivered stimulating lectures. Once when she had addressed a meeting at Caxton Hall, she was cheered and acclaimed by leaders like Lajpat Rai, Bipin Chandra Pal, Gokul Chand Narang and Agha Khan. She seemed to be bearding the lions in their own den. Earlier she had visited New York in October, 1907, where she had met Maulvi Barkut Ullah and addressed various meetings.

She was now under strict surveillance by the British intelligence agencies. She was being shadowed every minute of the day. She was threatened with deportation. However, she successfully dodged the police network and slipped away to France in 1907.

Bhikaji Cama was a voracious reader and prolific writer. She was convinced that what was needed was wide publicity of India’s cause through publicity material. She started the publication of Bande Matram on May 1, 1909, from Paris. Later, Lala Hardyal took over as editor of this paper in September, 1909. However to maintain secrecy of this underground paper, which was becoming increasingly popular overseas and in India, it was published from Geneva and later from Holland from January to August, 1910. She was greatly shocked and dazed by the hanging of Madan Lal Dhingra in England on August 17, 1909. She started publication of Talwar from Berlin in the memory of the great hero. She successfully smuggled the literature published by her into India through Pondicherry.

Although she could not accept Lenin’s invitation to visit Russia, she corresponded with him as also with Maxim Gorky and exchanged views about the efficacy of revolutionary methods.

During World War I she addressed Indian soldiers on French shores in 1914. Britain was then in alliance with France. She was arrested and kept behind bars for more than three years. She was released after the war in 1918 and continued the fight as a militant nationalist with grit and determination. Her house in Paris was the nerve-centre of patriotic extremism and served as refuge for the revolutionaries. To her, constitutionalism was a drag on the freedom movement. She worked incessantly for national uprising. She set up Abhinav Bharat in Europe. She imparted training for the manufacturing of indigenous bombs. She sent arms and money to the revolutionaries in India.

A time came in the mid-twenties when she was eager to get back to India. She was denied permission by the alien powers to go to her own country. Her health was failing. At last after spending 33 years in forced political exile, she returned to Bombay as an emaciated woman of 74. She was put on a stretcher and taken straight to the hospital where after a prolonged illness of eight months, she breathed her last on August 13, 1936, with the words ‘Bande Matram’ on her lips.

Today is Bhikaji Cama’s birthday. Let us bow our heads in reverence to that grand lady who lived and died in the cause of India’s struggle for freedom.

(The writer is Vice-Chancellor of Guru Jambheshwar University, Hisar)

75 YEARS AGO
The position of Indians

AS regards the position of Indians, it has been pointed out that they have been there at least since the 16th century. They have had trade relations with the people of Kenya for nearly six centuries now.

When it was thought advisable to make Kenya a Protectorate, Indians were there.

A very high authority has stated that it was because of the presence of Indians that the British Government resolved to occupy the territory and make it a Protectorate.

That has been stated by an Englishman, whose testimony cannot be disputed. There is no doubt that Indians have helped in the development of trade in that country, and they have contributed largely by their labour to finish the Uganda Railway as quickly as possible.

Not only that, during the war, when there was the possibility of disturbances in that part of the Empire, Indian troops were requisitioned to go there. We are mentioning these facts for the purpose of showing that the work which has been done by Indians in Kenya has been very conspicuous and has greatly helped that country.

Consequently, it is only fair that their claims should be considered very seriously before a decision is arrived at. It is true, that the capital for the Uganda Railway came from the white settlers, but the position of labour is no less important than the position of those who furnish capital.

Therefore, in arriving at a decision upon any question between the white settlers and the Indians, the part played by Indians in developing trade, in helping to finish the Railway and in otherwise improving the country, should be carefully weighed.