The Tribune, Chandigarh, India

Resignation melodrama

PANIC has settled in the Shiv Sena at the distinct possibility of the police arresting its supremo Balasahib Thackeray. And its impact in New Delhi in the shape of resignation by three Ministers has injected a degree of uncertainty although the ruling NDA is very firm on the saddle. Mumbai spent two restless nights with Shiv Sainiks keyed to go into action if the leader were to be touched. A party and a chief accustomed to frightening others are feeling highly frightened. And state Home Minister Chhagan Bhujbal has so far out-thought and outmanoeuvred the Sena think-tank and that is precisely what annoys the Sena. He is an old Sainik himself, was particularly close to Mr Thackeray until he walked out in 1991. He is intimate with the mental profile of all, including the boss. And he is a smart operator. When Sena MLAs wanted the city Samajwadi Party president prosecuted for making an inflammatory speech, the Minister readily agreed. While sanctioning prosecution he thoughtfully remembered a similar case against the Sena leader. When the party threatened violence, he again exploited it to withdraw or reduce the security cover to several leading politicians, saying he needs every available policeman for maintaining law and order. No doubt, the Sena feels cornered.

On Tuesday Mr Thackeray decided to pull out his men from the Union government. And Mr Suresh Prabhu, a favourite of the leader, was the chosen one to receive the fatwa and he rushed to Mumbai for direct talks. Before leaving the Capital, he informed Home Minister Advani of the impending resignation drama. The Sena does not know what it wants the Centre to do; issuing a warning to the Maharashtra government by invoking Article 355 will carry no weight. On the other hand, it will hopelessly tie its own hands. New Delhi has asked the Law Ministry to explore ways of legally stalling the arrest and Law Minister Jethmalani feels the case is clearly time-barred. The maximum punishment for an offence under Section 153 (a) is three years in prison and becomes a non-crime if the case is filed after three years. There is an escape door for the state government; it can appeal to the trial court to condone the delay by pointing out that the Sena-BJP government then in power was busy withdrawing criminal cases against Mr Thackeray and somehow overlooked the present one. Thus for the Sena it is a risky defence and what is more, the time spent in the court will weaken the passion of the Sainiks to fight the government’s move.

The angry tantrum of the Sena supremo and the resignation tactics pose a delicate problem for the NDA government. Plainly, both the Prime Minister and the Home Minister are loathe to intervene in what is purely a state subject. They are aware that largescale violence will not last beyond a few days, as is normal, and the Sena would have played its last card. As for the durability of the government, there is very little threat. There are 15 Sena Lok Sabha members and right now NDA has a strength of 296 members. Moreover, the Sena needs the alliance in Maharashtra much more than the BJP does. It is this realisation that has held back the Union Government from any urgent action. It can wait and it is waiting.

BJP's UP problem

UTTAR PRADESH, which has changed the BJP from a party with two MPs in 1984 to the biggest group in Parliament now, has been giving unbearable trouble to it for some time. The party's image in the state has been continuously on the decline, specially after the emergence of open factionalism leading to the exit of Mr Kalyan Singh from its ranks. The depressing state of affairs for the party's cadres was crystal clear when the results of panchayat elections were declared recently. The tally of the BJP's zila panchayat members ended at 354 whereas its arch rival, the Samajwadi Party led by Mr Mulayam Singh Yadav, got on its side as many as 2115, with 40 per cent of the total votes polled. The members owing allegiance to the BSP of Ms Mayawati numbered 329, only a little less than the party that leads the government in the state as well as at the Centre. Explanations by the BJP leadership notwithstanding, the party rank and file as also its allies in Lucknow seem to realise that today they find themselves on a "sinking ship". Most of the allies, serving as the life-support system for the Ram Prakash Gupta government, have begun contacting the SP leadership with a view to switching over to Mr Mulayam Singh's side to contest next year's assembly elections. Among these BJP allies are the Janatantrik Bahujan Samaj Party, the Kisan Mazdoor Party and the Janata Dal (Rajaram group). This development, though not entirely unexpected, follows the recent cold-shouldering of the BJP dissidents by the party's Central leadership, allowing Mr Gupta to continue as Chief Minister, at least till the election for the UP unit's chief next month.

The UP organisational poll too is giving sleepless nights to the party's managers. In an attempt to avoid an election, the Central leadership has reduced the list of aspirants for the state party chief's position to two candidates---Mr Kalraj Mishra, one of the seniormost leaders representing the upper caste lobby, and Mr Om Prakash Singh, a champion of the interests of the backward classes. It is believed that the party's top leadership is strongly in favour of Mr O. P. Singh to strengthen the organisational base among the backward classes, specially in view of the situation created by the desertion from the party by former Chief Minister Kalyan Singh. But the grand scheme, which includes the elevation of Mr Mishra as Chief Minister in the near future, has been threatened by the appearance of other serious contenders. The most difficult challenger to handle is Mr Ram Prakash Tripathi, a senior Vice-President, who has the reputation of staging a Brahmin revolt against Mr Kalyan Singh when the latter was UP's Chief Minister. During the previous search for the state party chief's post Mr Tripathi was made to withdraw in favour of Mr Rajnath Singh, a very senior leader. Now Mr Tripathi is hell bent on entering the fray. That may lead to a fierce contest, breaking the party's two decade-old tradition. There is a strong feeling that as far as possible the election, though a legitimate democratic activity, should be avoided as it can further weaken the organisation. However, as things stand today, the wish may not be fulfilled this time.

CHANGING FEDERAL EQUATIONS
New parameters in relationship
by Hari Jaisingh

LOOKING beyond the controversial issue of autonomy, the time has come to have a fresh look at the whole gamut of Centre-State relations, especially in the crucial areas of the Constitution, administration and finance. As it is, everything in this country is enmeshed in politics which complicates even simple matters of governance. Still, serious flaws in the system which have been overlooked for decades demand proper attention on a priority basis.

The Sarkaria Commission did suggest several steps to improve the working of the federal system. The Constitution Review Commission (CRC) is now expected to examine in detail the working of the Constitution. This is not an easy task. Such is the complexity of the country’s highly politicised system. The commission will take quite some time to complete its onerous task. What is necessary, meanwhile, is a dispassionate national debate which should reflect the changed conditions of the polity.

To begin with, let me spell out the ground realities. First, the decline of the Congress has changed the Centre-State equations. The regional forces now are not only assertive but also a dominant factor in national politics. I have always viewed this as a positive development. For, once the best persons from the grassroots and States come up to the national scene, it will not only bridge the existing leadership gaps but also help neutralise facets of regionalism. This has happened mainly because of the decline of the Congress which had once enjoyed a virtual monopoly of power both at the Centre and in the States for nearly three decades.

Second, in the new political dispensation prevailing at the Centre, the States are not prepared to knuckle under to the diktats of the ruling elite in New Delhi.

Third, the human factor has been most neglected in the working of the system. It needs to be gracefully acknowledged that for years together the Central leadership had failed to grasp the shift in power equations and the socio-economic changes taking place rapidly to the advantage of the regional leaders.

It may be worthwhile to have a quick look at the transformation of power. The moment we gained freedom, the struggle was all about power. The Congress was afraid of losing it. This fear is reflected in our Constitution. With the accession of 500 princely States to the Indian Union, the foremost fear was balkanisation. This explains why the founding fathers favoured a “Union of States” and not a “Federation of States”.

The federal idea was, in fact, marginalised. This was supported by the Left parties. This also explains why Sardar Patel was determined to retain the “steel frame” of the bureaucracy on the presumption that it knew the methods and techniques of controlling the country.

However, this approach had unexpected consequences which are beyond the scope of discussion in this article.

What is more important is that the Congress failed to meet the special needs of different regions and groups. The party’s centrist tendency ultimately led to the emergence of splinter parties based on caste, region, religion, etc.

Perhaps, this fear of a weak Centre (even aired by the Sarkaria Commission ) made decentralisation (devolution) of power unwelcome. It is also quite possible that the leaders then were not sure of what was good for the country and what needed to be avoided. It was not fully realised that a strong Centre was not possible without strong States. Imagine the Centre with a few States like Bihar!

The Gadgil Committee tried to resolve some of the financial problems between the Centre and the States. The process of devolution of power gained ground with the Sarkaria Commission report. But it was not implemented by the Congress. The Bharatiya Janata Party is committed to implementing it. But it has never given this matter the priority it deserves.

I am afraid the various political parties have still no clear idea about the decentralisation of power. Does it mean that the Centre could shed its responsibility for the development of the States, especially weak States, not to speak of ensuring equal development of all regions and their people?

Certain basic objectives must be clear. While ensuring decentralisation or devolution of power, the Centre has to ensure a level-playing field for all the States so that they develop economically both speedily and uniformly.

The absence of an even-playing ground for the States has resulted in lopsided development. The States poor in resources have, by and large, remained backward. Isn’t the Centre expected to raise their resources by improving their infrastructure? The harsh fact is that it has failed to do so. The plight of the States which are run inefficiently is even worse.

As it is, the more efficient States like Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Gujarat are developing at a faster pace in sharp contrast to the backward States of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. Whether we like it or not, in the long run this will create more tension between the Centre and the States. This could also lead to very serious political consequences in view of the fact that UP and Bihar send the maximum number of MPs to the Lok Sabha.

What is the wayout of this complex setting? There are no readymade solutions. As it is, the regional parties have already entered the national arena and are now forces to reckon with. This has changed the federal equations and today there is a visible measure of federalism at play in the polity. What is, however, regrettable is that most of these parties are not inspired by a sense of justice and fairplay. They often tend to oppose the centralised approach to governance without understanding the compulsions of the situation.

The new realities demand that the country has no choice but to exist as a federal entity. This will require new parameters in Centre-State relations. What could be these parameters?

One, the country will have to evolve a new structural form which must be different from the present confrontationist postures and manoeuvring.

Two, a consensus will have to be built on a new framework of Centre-State relations. In this context, we must think in terms of evolving a genuine federal culture. This is surely not a tall order.

Three, there is the need for a fresh constitutional commitment to democratic packages, secular attitudes and just economic policies.

Four, financial subjects involving Centre-State relations require a close look on a priority basis. Most Central leaders these days are no longer reluctant to give more financial powers to the States. What is needed is to identity the problem areas and widen the scope of financial powers and initiatives so that the States can work faster to create the infrastructure and boost their economies in a competitive environment.

It must, however, be emphasised that the role of the States does not end by just getting more financial powers. They will have to see how these powers are further redistributed for the empowerment of the panchayats. At present, democracy at the grassroots suffers because of the lack of finances and political-administrative support.

Five, the administrative flabbiness and the lack of professionalism now visible in every area of economic activity needs to be eliminated ruthlessly. There must not be a premium on non-performance by State governments. They must take the initiative to improve the system and provide a people-friendly administration. The fiscal deficit of a number of States keeps growing. This shows poor fiscal management by the leaders controlling the levers of power in the various State capitals.

Be that as it may. Indian politics is based on adhoc responses, and not on rationalisation. Even today, no party has cared to study the current trends in politics and their inevitable consequences.

In fact, one major failure of the political leadership has been its inability to arouse and sustain interest even in respect of major objectives and its incapacity to foresee problems. It has fumbled time and again, creating in the minds of the people the image of “a spineless body” which is a prisoner of its own indecision.

Also, there exists a tendency to make the Constitution sacred and conventions of governance sacrosanct. This is both absurd and dangerous. Thomas Paine, the philosopher of the American Civil War, says that the greatest tyranny is in wanting to control the affairs of man beyond one’s grave.

There are no permanent solutions in politics. One idea which is gaining ground is that India should have smaller States, well-administered and progressive. This calls for a new State reorganisation commission. States like UP and Bihar, and even Madhya Pradesh, are too unwieldy to be administered well.

And there is need for an even distribution of power. Today big States can decide who should become the Prime Minister of the country and which party should be in power at the Centre. This is not a healthy situation. No single State should be in a position to decide the course of affairs in this country.

The absence of an even-playing ground for the States has resulted in a lopsided development. The States poor in resources have, by and large, remained backward.

Pakistan’s deepening economic crisis
by Sultan Shahin

WHAT exactly are the crises facing the Pakistan economy? An attempt was recently made to identify these by a Pakistani economist, Syed Nawab Haider Naqvi, on the eve of the presentation of that country’s Economic Survey. He found at least five of them:

(i) The growth crisis: The “mother” of all crises is that an adverse concentration of economic forces has produced a near-zero growth of per capita income. The saving and investment rates and the efficiency of investment have all declined. And the growth rate of the commodity-producing sectors has significantly slowed down. Especially ominous are a lack of vitality in the agricultural sector mainly because of its dependence on a single crop (cotton), an insufficient input of scientific knowledge, and an inter-crop disequilibrium owing to an irrational input/output price structure and the vanishing of heavy industry. These have weakened the vertical and horizontal linkages of the production sector, and brought the process of structural transformation to a virtual halt.

(ii) The resource mobilisation crisis: The second major crisis is the economy’s failure to raise enough tax resources efficiently and equitably. The reason is that while tax rates have been sharply reduced, the tax base remains small because a large part of potential taxable income — agricultural income, capital gains, etc — escapes the tax net. Thus, given the rigidity of the non-developmental expenditure, the budgetary deficit has been reduced, as part of the IMF structural adjustment programme, only by cutting into the developmental expenditure which, in turn, has reduced private investment and eroded the economy’s growth potential.

(iii) The balance of payments crisis: The deepening external payments imbalances are symptomatic of the instability of exports caused by a high degree of concentration, of the difficulty to convert domestic output into an exportable surplus, and of a sharp contraction of long-term capital inflows. As nothing else is about to give in, the trade and current account deficits can only be reduced perversely — by a reduction in imports due to a domestic recession, by a sharp depreciation of the par value of the rupee, and/or by increasing the external debt.

(iv) The external debt crisis: The economy’s ability to service and repay the large external debt on time has sharply diminished. Pakistan is more distant now than ever before from the goal of self-reliance. Its debt liability, both as a percentage of the GDP and foreign exchange earnings, has spun out of control. If the economy, has so far been spared a catastrophic debt explosion, it is because, notwithstanding indiscriminate short-term borrowings on unfavourable terms, the ODA (Official Development Assistance) still makes an overwhelming proportion of the total external debt.

(v) The distributional crisis: Thanks to the very chemistry of slow growth, its equity content has been sharply eroded. The unemployment rate has significantly increased, and real wages have declined which, combined with other de-equalising factors (such as a tendency towards land concentration and a regressive tax structure) has led to a grossly unequal distribution of income and wealth and a greater “distance” between the rich and the poor, a rising incidence of poverty.

As if to complicate the task of economic management, these crises are essentially inter-linked so that tackling them at a time and in isolation of each other is likely to be a self-defeating exercise.

The worst part of the Economic Survey, 1999-2000, is the revelation that in Pakistan poverty has increased significantly in the 1990s, and at present about 44 million people live below the poverty line. Rising from 17.3 per cent in 1987-88 to 22.4 per cent in 1992-93, it was 31 per cent in 1996-97 and is estimated to be 32.6 per cent in 1998-99. That means the people who cannot meet their daily nutritional requirements and have fallen below the poverty line number about 43.9 million.

Borrowing for the budget may not be such a bad thing, but if you borrow to consume and not to make sound socio-economic investments, then the size of the economy will continue to remain very small, and any kind of borrowing, even of the smallest amount, may look formidable.

Samman Patra
by R. P. Sapru

I HAVE this five-year-old son, Abhishek who is blessed with an inexhaustible store of energy. Always on the move, he loves outdoors. He is full of pranks, some funny and others not so funny. My wife and I smile and make suitable noises when neighbours come up with their tales of woe. There is little else we can do. Reprimand, cajoling, entreaties; you name it, we have tried it all. The effect lasts only just as long as water on a rock! But, believe me, he is so lovable in those brief sober moments. A perfect clone of Denis the Menace, he even insists on the same hair cut! Sometimes we wonder if his name should be changed to Denis Junior or Denis II. But Abhishek is better. My grandmother chose the name just before setting out on her journey to heaven. Adorable woman, she was full of wit and a bundle of affection, a woman of the soil, not to condominiums. May her soul rest in peace!

The other day, Abhishek shouted through the window: “Dad”. I rushed out fearing the worst, but there he was with his gang of four. Tapping his ball he muttered: “What is a Samman Patra?” I was angry but relieved and turned back to return to what I was doing. Abhishek is not the one to give up ever. “Dad, what is a Samman Patra?” Experience told me that the only way to buy peace was to answer the question sooner than later. So I turned back and said: “Samman Patra is a kind of a certificate given to someone, in recognition of an outstanding contribution in that person’s field of work.” “Is that so? “he said and as an afterthought added: “ Dad, Rahul says that his dad has got a Samman Patra”. “Oh yes”, was my rather disinterested answer and added absentmindedly: “He must have done something great.”

That evening after a tiring day in office, I had just entered my home when Abhishek came running: “But, why has Rahul’s dad got the Samman Patra?” It was Shyama, my wife, who sensed my frustration and said: “Don’t bother dad just now. He is tired, don’t you see.” And added by way of consolation: “Rahul’s dad got Samman Patra because he paid his income tax”.

What came next stumped both of us: “But isn’t everybody supposed to pay income tax?”

Gathering our wits we blurted: “Of course, of course, son. May be he paid more income tax than anyone else.”

As I have already said, Abhishek is not the one to give up easily ever. “You mean he paid more income tax than he was supposed to pay? Like you pay to the blind children’s charity?” That could not be passed. I knew Rahul’s dad would not let a penny out of sight unless there was just no other option. Said I: “No, not likely. He must have paid a lot more money than anyone else. We don’t pay charity to income tax”.

“But dad. If he didn’t pay more than he was supposed to pay, why should he be given the Samman Patra”?

“It is not like that son. If you pay a lot of money to income tax you are making a contribution towards making our country stronger.”

I thought that would settle the matter and returned to browsing through the unread pages of the morning newspaper while waiting for dinner to be served. Suddenly, the little fellow sneaked upto the me and asked in his inimitable demure manner: “Dad, when will you get a Samman Patra?” It was a while before that sank in. When I finally collected myself, I said : “Well, someday may be. But I do not make that kind of money to pay such a large sum towards income tax.”

“But, you have been telling mummy that it is the duty of all of us to pay income tax. I know last month you didn’t get my new shoes because you had to pay income tax. Mohan uncle said you could have saved that money, but you insisted on paying.”

I turned the pages of the newspaper in the hope that he would think of something else.

After a while, just as I had thought that Abhishek had wandered to different thoughts, he said: “Dad, is the Samman Patra given for honesty?”

“Yes, son”, said I.

“That means that a person who gives more money is more honest than the one who gives less money.”

Alarmed, I said: “No, no. Honesty is an attitude of mind. A poor man who returns what does not belong to him or pays his dues, however, small, is as honest as any other person, indeed more honest than anyone else.”

What came next was totally unexpected. “Then you should get a Samman Patra.” Without waiting for a reply he went on: “Bhaiya is right. He says it is a gimmick anyway.”

Dinner was served to my relief.

Key to Kashmir lies in Central Asia
By M.S.N. Menon

THE proxy war — in Kashmir — cannot be solved by well advertised trips to Washington and London, Paris and Beijing. The key to the problem lies in central Asia and Moscow.

To have recognised it at last is an achievement. But the mere setting up of a Joint Working Group by India and Russia to combat terrorism is not enough. To make it meaningful, the central Asian countries must be in it. They are now keen to join.

Kabul is the source of the problem. It can be tackled only by dismantling the Taliban forces. This is the task of the Northern Alliance, led by Burhanuddin Rabbani and Ahmed Shah Masoud. The role of Moscow and Delhi, as also of central Asia, is to equip them with invincible power.

The Taliban is no more the conquering force it was. Even its creator — Pakistan — is not happy with it. General Musharraf is in two minds about his support to terrorism and fundamentalism. They can overwhelm him, too.

Kabul is under threat from various sources. There is pressure from the USA and the UN. The UN sanctions were imposed by the Security Council without a single dissent. Both are planning to step up the sanctions.

Afghanistan, as it is, is no more nearly three centuries old. It is multi-ethnic, consisting of Pashtuns (the dominant community) and Iranians in the South and Uzbeks and Tajiks in the North. There is little that unites them.

The Kabul regime is an abomination to civilised people. It has little support in the world, not even in the Islamic world. Now that the central Asians are united on the need to curb the Taliban, the days of the Taliban are numbered.

But this blood-letting in Kashmir and Chechnya can be prolonged because the money comes from the narcotic trade. This is an important factor to remember.

Michael Sheehan, US coordinator for counter-terrorism, recognises this. He says it is the most dangerous development. This has enabled the coming together of the drug mafia, fundamentalists and terrorists, who are all in need of money. There is thus need to strike at the source of this finance. As in Columbia, the poppy cultivation must be stamped out. That is the first task.

If the Rabbani Government failed to hold on to Kabul, it was because there was no unity among the Uzbeks, Tajiks and Hazaaras. There were reasons, but wrong ones, for this. They thought that Afghanistan was going to break up and that their task was to pick up the pieces.

To make matters worse for Rabbani, Yakubjan Salimov, the Tajik leader and Interior Minister, called for a union of all Tajiks to form a Greater Tajikistan (there are six million Tajiks in Uzbekistan and 7.5 million in Afghanistan). Rabbani, being a Tajik, was thus suspect in the eyes of the Uzbeks. Aid to Rabbani Government was, therefore, fragmented and half-hearted. Those days are, however, over now.

As for India, after the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, it lost interest in Afghanistan — a gross error. But in the Moscow Declaration, signed in 1994, Russia and India committed themselves to promote multiethnic, multi-cultural and multi-religious societies. India recognised the presence of Russians in central Asia, and Russia endorsed India’s stand on Jammu and Kashmir. What was more, the joint declaration spoke of their “deep interest in promoting peace and stability in the area between the borders of the Republic of India and the Russian Federation.”

Unfortunately, nothing was done to promote this objective in the past six years. This emboldened the Taliban. They mounted their offensive against both Kashmir and Chechnya.

Now the Uzbeks and Tajiks have realised their folly. There is a new awareness of the need for unity. In the meantime, the Kashmiris have had time to know the Taliban. They have condemned Hurriyat leader Abdul Ghani Lone for inviting the Taliban to Kashmir. Even the PoK leader Afzal Tahir said: “Obviously, the Hurriyat is not satisfied with the slaughter of thousands of Kashmiri youth (at Mazar-e-Sharif). It is planning a mass genocide in Kashmir.”

The Taliban has also not found favour with the Muslim world. Only Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and UAE have recognised Kabul. At the OIC meeting in Teheran in 1997, this is what Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia said of the Taliban: “Many questions arise in Islamic countries, including Saudi Arabia, about the heinous crimes being committed in the name of Islam and under the pretext of creating an Islamic form of government. Are these killers ... to be trusted? Are they qualified to create an Islamic state ... Why do Arab and Muslim worlds keep silent with regard to what is going on?”

Kabul’s relations with Islamabad have soured over the years. It is finding it difficult to export goods through Pakistan. Afghans are not welcome in Karachi or Lahore. The Taliban is said to be at the back of the sectarian violence in Pakistan between Sunnis and Shias. Several Afghans were arrested during the time of Nawaz Sharif. It led to a written protest by the Afghan Ambassador. Shabhas Sharif, brother of Nawaz and former Chief Minister of Punjab, had accused the Taliban of sending terrorists to Pakistan. Thus, both the Muslim League and the PPP of Mrs Bhutto are hostile to the Taliban.

And look at the irony of it all: Pakistan did not want a moderate regime in Kabul, for it would not have been amenable to Pakistan plans. So, it sought a fundamentalist regime of the most militant variety, but beholden to Pakistan for its very survival. Well, there is such a regime in Kabul at present, but it is not dependant on Pakistan. In fact, it has plans to Talibanise Pakistan. The Frontier Post, a daily of NWFP, admitted recently that Pakistan’s Afghan policy lay in ruins. Kabul is no more friendly to Pakistan. But the ISI and some of the generals have not given up their strategic perceptions.

Moscow had been in favour of uniting the central Asian states from 1992, when it entered into an agreement with central Asian republics for creation of a central Asian peacekeeping force. But it remained on paper.

Times have changed. There is a sense of urgency today. At the recent meeting of the “Shanghai Five” at Dushanbe to discuss security problems of central Asia, Russian President Putin expressed himself in favour of a unified central Asian stand against the Taliban. He said this was his priority number one. All central Asian leaders were present, including President Karimov of Uzbekistan, who had kept out of these meetings earlier. Now it is Tashkent which is leading the fight.

The Talibans have become bolder. They are now using death squads to cause the greatest scare in Chechnya and Kashmir. Dozens of Russians were killed in the recent bomb blasts. Obviously, the time has come to strike at the source of this mischief. The old idea of a peacekeeping force must be revived, if possible with UN support. And India must be an important part of it.

SPIRITUAL NUGGETS

No religion wants you to be tied down to this earthly life. All religious have as their goal the reaching of perfection, freedom and immortality. All religions . . . want the complete annihilation of the lower self, the anomalistic part of man, and the progressive unfoldment of his divine nature, until the unmanifest becomes manifest, the latent becomes potent, and man who is made in the image of God partakes once again the infinitude of his real nature. All religions are at one in this ultimate goal.

— Swami Chidananda, Guidelines to Illumination: The Ideal of Unity

***

Is religion a matter of following a pattern laid down by another, however great? To follow is merely to conform, to imitate in the hope of receiving a comforting reward; and surely that is not religion. The releasing of the individual from envy, greed and violence, from the desire of success and power, so that his mind is freed from self-contradictions, conflicts, frustrations — is not this the way of religion? But organised religions merely condition the mind to a particular pattern of thought.

— J. Krishnamurti, Commentaries on Living: Third Series: Can God be Sought Through Organised Religion?

***

To meditate is to navigate: each day be thou a navigator and each day discover a new region of the Light within thy soul. The Infinite Universe is within Thee.

— T.L. Vasvani, Gita: Meditations, Volume I

***

Meditation is the only royal road to the attainment of salvation. It is a mysterious ladder which reaches from earth to heaven, from error to truth, from darkness to light, from pain to bliss, from restlessness to abiding peace, from ignorance to knowledge, from mortality to immortality.

— Swami Shivananda, Bliss Divine, chapter 41

***

Meditation means the mind is turned back upon itself. The mind stops all the thought-waves and the world stops. Your consciousness expands.... You forget the body. You may be cut to pieces and not feel it at all. You feel such pleasure in it. You become so light....

— The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, Volume IV; Lectures and Discourses