 |
| Saturday, February
24, 2001, Chandigarh, India   
|
Performance and promise Ghost of disinvestment Sanctions on the way out? |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pakistan’s increasing woes Uncertain turn in West Asia
On filthy lucre
Musharraf versus “jehadis”
Tavleen Singh
Fighting racial discrimination
|
|
The Economic Survey paints not-so-rosy a picture but makes up by promising to reshape the whole structure. In this respect the annual report card, which the document really is, admits that the government’s management is pretty messy but it will be better next year. Actually, there are two clearly distinct parts of the Survey. The first is a litany of shortfalls in production and the second is a rewritten version of all the fanciful goals set by the Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister. Alas, for Finance Minister Yashwant Sinha, both are well known and hence a hurried reading makes it look directionless. The economy is likely to register a growth rate of just 6 per cent, down from the target of 7 per cent and very much below the oft repeated wish of 9 per cent. This is mainly because of a slower growth of the service sector, 8.3 per cent compared to 9.6 per cent the previous year. Industry too registered a lower growth, 5.7 per cent which is less than the 1999-2000 record of 6.4 per cent. Exports have been going up at a fast clip of something like 20 per cent, which has helped cushion the bulging crude import burden. All this dreary statistics are of the year about to end. To sweeten these facts, Mr Sinha has resorted to listing all the brave things he proposes to do. And it makes for a very aggressive catalogue. First the old promises. He will bring down the interest rate on small savings and link that of provident fund to inflation rate. He will streamline subsidies by directing the benefit to the intended beneficiaries. There will be major reforms in the way the government funds cheaper fertiliser, sugar and fuel. Of course laws will be redrafted to allow contract labour. Now for a few new commitments. The Centre will armtwist the states to cut down transmission and distribution losses of electricity, in some cases at an alarming 40 per cent or so. He wants that all those government departments which merely control or enforce various controls should be shut down in the name of downsizing. The emphasis should shift from supervising production to providing social security. But the most daring proposal is to eliminate all those income tax exemptions which favour professionals in high salary brackets and companies hiring clever chartered accountants. This Mr Sinha has suggested in the name of widening the tax base and bringing more people into the tax net. Actually, he should attempt to inject equity into the tax collection machanism by offering some sop to the salaried class and tightening the rules governing those in business or collecting tax-free allowances. It is an admitted practice to deny exemption to those who routinely avail of the same exemptions. One analyst has brought out that if the shadow economy and legal evasion is taken into account, the tax to GDP ratio will plummet from the present 13 per cent to a single digit. That is scandalous in a country where fully one-fourth of the population lives below poverty line. Liberals will know the idealistic trait in what Mr Sinha wants to accomplish in his budget but will fervently pray he changes the income tax rules in the cause of justice. |
|
The rumpus in the Rajya Sabha over the government's decision to sell 51 per cent shares in the profit-making Bharat Aluminium Company [Balco] to Sterlite Industries was entirely expected. Disinvestment Minister Arun Shourie must have been prepared for such a reaction from the Opposition. That is why he promptly accepted the demand for a discussion on the Balco deal. The objection to the deal is evidently based on two points. One point questions the policy of disinvestment itself. The other point concerns the lack of transparency in the deal which gives majority shareholding to a private company. The opposition to the policy of privatisation has resulted in the strange political convergence of the right-wing Swadeshi Jagran Manch and the Left parties on the same side. Their objection to privatisation is based on the flawed logic that public sector represents welfare of the people while the private sector thrives on exploiting the workers and their skills. This is an old picture. The new reality recognises the value of making wise investments in "human resource" as an essential ingredient for optimising profits. The "welfare component" in the running of the public sector was systematically killed by corrupt managers and misguided trade unions. In any case, those who are unhappy with the Balco deal because of their incurable allergy to the very idea of privatisation have no case. A lot of din and dust was raised against the policy when Dr Manmohan Singh introduced it a decade ago. Disinvestment as a policy cannot now be abandoned. It can only be fine-tuned. This is where the objection of the Opposition to the manner of the deal gains a lot of weight. The National Democratic Alliance led by Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee has done little to translate into deed its commitment to greater transparency in government dealings. Although the Disinvestment Ministry has claimed that the offer from Sterlite was substantially higher than the reserved price, it has not been examined by an independent body. The Opposition seemed to have a case when it suggested that the Auditor-General of India should be brought into the picture. However, the Congress, which led the rumpus in the Rajya Sabha, would do well to direct Chhatisgarh Chief Minister Ajit Jogi to study the legal angle carefully before threatening to cancel the mining contract of the Korba plant. |
|
US Secretary of State Colin Powell has ordered a broad review of the economic and trade sanctions imposed on various countries. That step, coupled with the concerted drive launched by India Caucus and other friendly organisations, has given rise to the hope that the restrictions imposed following the 1998 nuclear tests would be lifted soon. Speaking before a Senate panel, Mr Powell admitted that although the sanctions were "noble", their utility in changing a country's behaviour could become hypocritical. In plain language, that means that the restrictions have proved ineffective. These have rather steeled public opinion against the USA. There are instances where American interests have suffered as much - if not more - as those of the marked countries. So, facilitating trade and investment links makes business sense. In fact, that is one of the main reasons why the USA has agreed to change tack. If Washington is shifting its affection from Islamabad to Delhi, it is partly due to the fact that the latter provides a huge and lucrative market. The main reason, of course, is that due to the changes brought about in the erstwhile USSR, Pakistan has all but outlived its utility. It has also earned a bad name for itself through its almost-open promotion and export of terrorism. All these factors have made the USA look East, as it were. There is another vital reason for this turnaround. The new President has made it clear that he would be adopting a tougher line on China. For him to be able to do so, there has to be a counterpoise to Beijing. Delhi fits the bill admirably. India is aware of the tremendous value of the cards that it holds. It can curry concessions without looking to be either too brash or soft. Even otherwise, the sanctions have not meant the end of the road for it. Its time schedules have gone awry, but the restrictions have given the much-needed impetus to indigenisation, which would stand it in good stead in the long run. There is more good news emanating from Washington. The new President is unlikely to tighten the screw on India on the CTBT issue. That is because Mr George W. Bush is not going to plug the treaty domestically, and may take a similarly soft line for foreign countries as well. Both sides are likely to gain from the new wind that is blowing and whatever the motives may be, the two can forge much better relations than have existed between them in the recent past. |
|
Pakistan’s increasing woes Pakistan is a failed state — that is, politically. Economically, it is near bankruptcy. It can collapse any time, unless foreign resources are pumped in. But foreign investors are reluctant. There are two reasons: the instability of the military regime and the militarisation of its foreign policy. Musharraf blames Nawaz Sharif for the present predicaments. This is not unusual. Every military regime — this is the fourth — has blamed the civilians, and promised a grand recovery, only to end up in a worse mess. But Pakistanis never learn. They acclaim every military coup. The main charge against Sharif is that he froze the foreign assets of Pakistanis, thereby destroying the confidence of the business community and foreign investors. The facts are a little different. Pakistan has one of the highest per capita expenditure on defence. Remittance from the Gulf, Saudi money, IMF loans — these kept the Pak economy afloat. But US sanctions, following the nuclear blasts of 1998, gave a major shock to the economy. And the Kargil adventure (for which Musharraf is solely responsible) invited the worst crisis. The situation was somewhat saved by re-scheduling the debt. And low inflation also helped. In fact, before the military coup, unlike what Musharraf says, the Pak economy was on the mend. Any revival of the economy will depend on massive investment. But the rate of saving continues to fall. Much of the investment will, therefore, have to be foreign. But that is not likely to come by in the near future. The GDP annual growth has fallen from 6 per cent a decade ago to 3-4 per cent. Pak export peaked at 8.8 per cent in 1995-96. Since then it has not touched that figure. In the meantime, the foreign debt has gone up to $ 38 billion. It is eating away 56 per cent of the budget by way of interest payments etc. The military regime was expected to widen the tax net, but it has failed to do so. And the traders have warned the regime that they would not pay general sales tax. In the meantime, the military regime has come to depend heavily on the criminal and fundamentalist elements for survival. In August, 2000, the Time published some facts, which were startling. It said that about 1.7 million young men were being trained in about 7,000 madrassas in Pakistan for waging jihad in Kashmir and other parts of the world. How much Pakistan spends on this and the proxy war in Kashmir — this is a dreaded secret. But it is no secret that the ISI gets unlimited funds. The Washington Post says that Pakistan has “sunk deeper into poverty and political uncertainty” under the military regime. Musharraf has failed to convince investors, says Post, that Pakistan is a good risk. Unemployment is at its worst today. It has doubled in the last few years and poverty has increased by 41 per cent. This is reflected in the stampede for emigration to the USA. The number of applicants has trebled from 600 a day in 1999 to about 1500-1800 per day today. Applicants now admit frankly that they have no means of livelihood in Pakistan. Per capita income, which has remained more or less stagnant at below $ 500 for a long time, has begun to slide. Musharraf has introduced a reform package recently. It recommends agricultural tax, sales tax and a 5 per cent cut in defence outlay. He cannot carry out any of these. Retired army generals are some of the biggest zamindars today. He cannot touch them. As for sales tax, the trading community has warned him against imposing it. And they are in cahoots with the mullahs. As for defence cut, it will remain on paper. In practice, the defence budget has steadily grown over the years. The proxy war against India, which began in the eighties, has already imposed a higher cumulative cost than any of the full-scale wars. Only the narcotic trade and good crops saved the economy. Food imports have been drastically cut. Over the years problems have multiplied, and there is no short-term solution. Musharraf has even failed to collect the taxes. One should have expected a military regime to do that. The IMF has asked the military regime to broaden the tax base, privatise the public institutions and resolve the bitter row with private power producers, who are mostly foreigners. Over 50 per cent of the investment has gone into the power sector, which explains why Pakistan has a power surplus. The foreign producers want to sell the surplus to India, but the generals are against it. The present crisis is the worst in 53 years. What is needed are extensive reforms, more so of institutions, which are unable to carry out the tasks for which they were created. Pakistan has a high population growth rate. As against India’s 3.1, Pakistan’s is 5.1. By 2010, Pakistan will have a population of 170 million. This spells danger. Of them, about 80 million will be under the poverty line, according to US economists. (In 1990, it was only 11.6 per cent of the population). As Pakistanis are used to good growth rates and high consumption, there is fear of mounting social tensions. Saving rate has always been low in Pakistan. From 1947 to 1989, the saving was no more than 12 per cent of GDP per year on the average. If we add foreign aid and remittances of Pakistanis to this (that is 8 per cent of GDP) the total is no more than 20 per cent. But it helped in the initial stages. But, above all, Pakistan has to thank its good soil and infrastructure. It had good roads, bridges, canals, railways, ports etc and the best irrigation system in the subcontinent. All these helped to create a good performance. It was better than that of India. India has now overtaken Pakistan in most of the development indices as per world reports. In prices of commodities and purchasing power, India is in a far better position. Only with regard to poverty Pakistan is placed in a better position and that too only as related to adject poverty. Pakistan has thus had a steady growth of 6 per cent for more than 40 years, whereas it was no more than 3 per cent for India. Today, Pakistan’s investment is about 16 per cent. But many negative features have cropped up. For example, corruption, inefficiency and moribund institutions. So, growth has fallen to 4 per cent in the past few years. There is growing inefficiency, collapse of institutions,
bankruptcy of public sector enterprises, banks burdened by non-performing assets and growing domestic and foreign debt. The consumer protection system has collapsed. There is fear that growth will fall further to three per cent. These are days of human rights. To meet the new social obligations, a nation needs vast resources. But Pakistan has none. Failure to meet the human rights obligations can make aid donors withhold aid. Poverty alleviation (Rs 40 per capita at present!), basic education and primary health care — these are essential today. But with 65 per cent illiteracy, one can gauge the enormity of the problem. With a run-down educational system, Pakistan is in no position to catch up with the IT revolution. Today, for every Pak IT student going to the USA, there are 35 Indians. Pakistan has fallen way behind India. |
|
Uncertain turn in West Asia The peace process in West Asia has become uncertain. The change of scene in Washington has been followed by the change of government in Tel Aviv, without any of the new rulers in America or Israel being in a position to set it right if the situation goes out of hand. From the indications so far there will be no restraining hand to let disaster go slow. Don’t we remember how fast the situation deteriorated before the six-day war in 1967? President Bush will have in that case quickly to get into the act. Otherwise West Asians, Israelis as well as Palestinians, will miss the firm and conciliatory hand of Mr Bill Clinton. The only one from the old leadership who continues to hold the fort is Mr Yasser Arafat, the Palestinian leader, but he is already being accused of causing the defeat of Mr Ehud Barak and bringing about the emergence of the rightist hawk, Mr Ariel Sharon. What will hold back a renewed Israeli-Palestinian confrontation can only be good sense on both sides not to go over the brink. In his policy pronouncements even before the election result was officially announced, Ariel Sharon called for restoration of peace in West Asia. At the same time he has been promising Israel security. This is the promise on which the Israelis have voted for him to give him a landslide victory over
Barak. Sharon’s pronouncements during the campaign have called Arafat a “war criminal”. He has said that “Yasser Arafat is a murderer and a liar ... He is a bitter enemy.” Will he be able to hold negotiations with Arafat? The Palestinians’ reply to the coming of Sharon has been to go back to the talk of violence which has been the routine of the region for the last four months before the recent elections. “The reply to Sharon,” the Palestinians have said, “is
Intifada”. This is said to mean that the Palestinians will only depend on fighting Sharon. Yasser Arafat’s own reply has been less violent. In the first hours of Sharon’s victory he said prudently that the Palestinians will respect the leader. Israel will set up and they will try to work for peace with him. But Arafat’s Fatah movement, which is part of the PLO, has called him “killer Sharon” and said that it will intensify
Intifada. The Palestinians will find it hard to go back to what Barak was willing to give them — ceding up to 95 per cent of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and dual control over Jerusalem. Many at that time said that this was the best the Palestinians could hope to get from Israel. The other point of dispute, on the return of Palestinian refugees to their homes in Israel, could have been slowly negotiated although Israel was refusing to give in on it. At the last meeting of the two sides in Taba in Egypt, shortly before the election, it seemed that the two sides may come to an agreement on it. But perhaps it was too late. How late it was, was shown when representatives of the two sides met at
Davos, with the Israeli leader, Shemon Peres, promising conciliation and Arafat listing out a string of complaints against Israel. At first it was thought that Arafat’s hard attitude might satisfy the hawks in Israel that their country was not being unduly soft towards the Palestinians. But this too did not work. Ever since Barak had announced that he would go in for an election and Sharon had made known that he would fight for the prime
ministership, there was no hope for Barak to soften the Israeli voters asking for security. Throughout the campaign Barak miserably trailed behind Sharon. His voters were disillusioned with Barak’s diplomacy. As he went on making one concession after another in meeting Palestinian demands, the violence continued. Nearly 400 people were killed in recent months, most of them Palestinians. The Israelis asked what good was the peace process in which they went on getting killed. Sharon came as a fresh hope to them as he promised peace with security. It is not so much the peace but security which they want. Being encircled by Arabs, with the memory of stray killings which Israel cannot afford, the greatest need for Israel is security. The Palestinians want land and peace to rebuild a new country. At the negotiations in Taba the peace process was gone through once again. This was at the time said to be successful where the two sides went for realistic negotiations, clearly wanting to reach an agreement. The Palestinian negotiator, Yasser Abed
Rabbo, said the “peace process cannot be considered dead and the way ahead is still open.” But it fell through. As the election came nearer it was clear that the return of Palestinian refugees to Israel was still an open question. As big, if not bigger, was the question of the future of Jerusalem and the control of its Jewish and Muslim shrines. Things were moving in favour of Sharon who bitterly campaigned against Arafat. Worse was his saying that he had “never accepted the Oslo agreement as it was”. When his election became certain Sharon ruled out any territorial concessions to the Palestinians over the status of Jerusalem which both sides are claiming. The best compromise had been offered during Barak’s time was for the dual control of the holy city. But Barak is now out of the picture. For the time being he is moving out of politics. Both sides claim the city which contains both Muslim and Christian sacred places. The only solution to the dispute seems to be the dual control. After his election Sharon called Jerusalem Israel’s “eternal capital”. There are some who hope that Sharon might change as he settles down in the government and looks for ways to achieve peace. Politicians do change under the stress of working out a policy. In India we know how the BJP gave up some of its attitudes like on Article 370, Ayodhya and the common civil code to be able to form a coalition government and achieve stability for it. Would Sharon also opt for such a change for the sake of a permanent peace? We have also the example of Rabin who had spent the best part of his life in fighting the Palestinians but when he found that peace was illusive he said “enough is enough” in a famous speech at the White House before stretching his hand to greet Yasser Arafat. This could as well happen with Sharon but in the statements he has so far made he has given no such indications. In fact, he has been elected to take a hard stand and tell the Palestinians that violence would not pay. He seems to feel that if peace is a necessity, he would win it with a deterrence. The man who was responsible for the attack on Lebanon to eliminate those who attacked Israel is not likely to sue for peace easily. The situation has become more complicated by the absence of former President Clinton from the scene. Had he been there, perhaps he would have seen to it that the peace process did not stall. President Bush is too new to the scene. So also his Secretary of State, Gen Colin Powell. Are they also interested as Clinton was in carrying forward the peace process? Either they come out quickly to set the peace process going which can make for new points of agreement or they will sit back and see violence achieve a new ferocity which will be the time for the USA to get the parties together. The chances are that to make a good beginning of their own administration, they may take a decisive hand in not letting the peace process fall apart in the very initial months of Bush’s presidency. President Bush should be concerned over this. Involved in this is the power he must display to bring about peace. |
|
|
On filthy lucre I have, of late, developed a new and healthy respect for money. I no longer look upon it as filthy lucre. There was a time when I could borrow a tenner and, like Oliver Goldsmith, toss it over to a beggar! It is different now. I neither borrow money nor toss it to any one, unless the needy one really deserves it. I do not led money. I just give it. In both cases it costs me the same amount! As a result of my new-found respect for money, I have developed a peculiar fascination for bits of flimsy paper called currency notes. There is a similar liking and respect for shining tingling coins which is good for nerves. Money is a tonic. An American tycoon has rightly described it the greatest aphrodisiac. I think, he speaks from experience! However, let me make one thing clear. My previous indifference and disrespect for money was not because of the soiled currency notes in circulation which made money really a filthy thing. You soiled your hands handling it. Rather it stemmed from my casual, careless, even callous, attitude to it. I belonged to that class of people who preferred enjoyment of life to self-denial. I spent all I earned which, in any case, was never “enough.” I had nursed my thinking on the fallacy that it was the mark of a “rich” man to spend all he earned. Economy was for misers. It had never occurred to my scatter-brain that a rich man is not one earns much but the one who saves much! Money is a guarantee of independence and the economy is a virtue. “Never treat money affairs with levity,” and never rung any bells in my soft head. I had holes in my head and my hands were like sieve. It has now dawned on me, after reading Mahatma Gandhi that waste is a kind of “immorality and vulgarity.” We indulge in it not because it is necessary but because we want to be applauded. Things have happened as a result of this new attitude. One, I do not have to lower my eyes as I do not go a borrowing. Self-respect stimulates one to rise and to look upward. Now, I no longer enjoy the dubious reputation of being a “high-spirited” spendthrift. In the past, when I was applauded for my extravagance, I felt flattered. Now, I look upon it with deserved suspicion. Cicero says: “Not to have a mania buying is to have a revenue.” When someone passed a dark hint to me that “a small leak sinks the ship,” I dismissed him as dim-wit. Now I look upon myself as one! Money is a handmaid or a reckless mistress. It serves the thrifty, enslaves the shifty. Taylor of the Opera-house used to say that if he took off his hat to Sheridan in the street, it would cost him fifty pounds, but if he stopped to speak to him, it would cost a hundred! |
|
Musharraf versus “jehadis” Now it is the turn of the Pervez Musharraf regime. It is the target of attack by numerous “jehadi” outfits promoting a gun culture in Pakistan. These militant organisations have been fattening themselves by exploiting the religious sentiments of the gullible public. Today they are up in arms against a reported move of the military regime to curb the raising of funds from the public for the so-called “jehad” and illegal acquisition and open display of guns and other lethal weapons. They are baying for the blood of Interior Minister Moinuddin Haider, who issued a statement on the subject on February 12, spelling out his government’s plan to clip the wings of the militant organisations. Despite the militant groups’ threat to take the military regime to task, newspapers have been carrying reports that the Musharraf government is working on a plan to carry out a massive operation against the destructive elements. As one report says, a list of jehadis has been prepared. These activists number over 3000 in Punjab alone. It will be interesting to watch the events in the coming few weeks. However, more than a week has passed since the government’s plan was made known to the world, but it has yet to act. The delay indicates two things: either the military regime is insincere about its much publicised move, or it is scared of the religious militants. Media comments reflect a contradiction in the stand of the ruling General. Yet there is a definite alarm over the fast spreading social disease: the desire for living by the gun. The Nation of February 14 says in one of its editorials: “Interior Minister Moinuddin Haider’s briefing to senior journalists contains a list of good intentions, but there remain serious questions on whether the government can deliver on any of the pronouncements made. The most dramatic announcement was his direction that anyone displaying arms is to be shot by the police after warning. In principle, the display of arms is unacceptable for a peaceful society, but whether the shooting order can be implemented is another matter.... Arms have been displayed during various intra-party takeovers by elements sympathetic to the government, but no action has been taken. This kind of exception leads even the apolitical criminal to take liberties with the ban. Similarly, the Minister’s decision not to allow the raising of funds for jehad cannot be faulted in principle, but problems of implementation immediately spring to mind. First, the Kashmiri freedom struggle and Afghanistan constitute special cases. The Kashmir freedom struggle has been described as a jehad by the Minister’s boss (General Musharraf), and is considered by Pakistan as a liberation struggle, to which Pakistan is providing diplomatic and moral support. Material support is being provided by Pakistani fundraising, both for the Pakistan-based jehadi organisations and for the indigenous Kashmiri groups.... It is not enough to play to the gallery.... A more serious effort to rid Pakistan of the Kalashnikov culture bequeathed by a previous military regime is required, even though the track record of the last 16 months is not encouraging.” Commenting on the same issue, Dawn on February 19 had this to say: “ Pakistan’s image has taken a battering because of the free run assumed by various religious organisations to recruit and train people for ‘jehad’ and to collect funds for the same purpose. Supporting the freedom struggle in Kashmir at the governmental level is one thing but turning Pakistan into a recruiting ground for militant activities is something completely different. India needs to make no special efforts to paint Pakistan in black colours. We ourselves are providing it all the evidence it needs. If Pakistan-based organisations orchestrate guerrilla attacks on the Red Fort in Delhi, or if they say they will attack the Indian Prime Minister’s office, this does not show the Pakistan government in a very good light.” Religious militancy is assuming alarming proportions because of Pakistani society’s obsession with Kashmir. “Jehadi” outfits’ search for recruits is no longer confined to religious schools. Their representatives can be seen visiting government schools, colleges and universities too for “holy warriors”. They brainwash youngsters to spend at least during their summer vacation a month or so at the camps run for imparting training in the handling of arms, etc, and then to use them for cross-border terrorism. An exhaustive report carried in Newsline magazine says that the terrorist organisations have spread their tentacles to different parts of Pakistan, and fundraising and getting fresh recruits are becoming easier for them. They keep their donation boxes at shops, petrol pumps and other such places where funds pour in without much effort.The international community should not get surprised if tomorrow Pakistan begins exporting terrorists to countries other than India. This situation may be a reality very soon. |
Our problem is with our political leaders Before Dr Amartya Sen won the Nobel Prize and became a mega star I met him once on a street in Davos. It was a snow-covered, icy street and difficult to walk on and we got talking, I think, to discuss the sort of spikes that you could slip on to your shoes to make walking possible without falling. Later, that same day there was the gala soiree that is the main social event at the World Economic Forum’s annual meeting and we ran into each other again and got talking. Conversation, as is usual among Indians abroad, was about India and we talked about the importance of primary education and the tragedy that it had been so abysmally neglected. Some months later he won the Nobel Prize for Economics and our encounter in Davos became for me the sort of cameo event you tell total strangers about. I know him, you know, I once discussed basic education with him of an evening in Davos...that sort of thing. I never met him again or heard him speak till last week in Mumbai when he gave the Dorab Tata Memorial Lecture to an audience so large and so enthusiastic that those who could not get in nearly banged the door down. The lecture was about India’s role in the world, not a subject that attracts the lumpen proletariat, and once inside and seated on the stairs the door-bangers and shouters listened so quietly, to Dr Sen expound on the meaning of globalisation, you could have heard a pin drop. Since this was a Mumbai audience there would have been at least some supporters of the Shiv Sena in the hall and hopefully at least a few of them went away convinced that their party’s hysteria over the evils of western influence were misguided and illiterate. The Shiv Sena and the RSS have been in the vanguard of the opposition to globalisation on the specious grounds that it is some kind of secret western weapon aimed at destroying India and all things Indian. Faith in this idea inspired the storm troopers of these organisations, recently, to break up shops selling Valentine cards. And from it has also sprung the Swadeshi Jagran Manch whose sole reason for being is to prevent western influences from polluting Indian “culture” and western multinationals from entering our bazaars. On the opposite side of the ideological divide similar protests have come from Leftist political parties and NGOs who see globalisation as analogous (in Dr Sen’s words) to the shark in the film “Jaws” that ate everything that came its way. Then there are the supporters of globalisation and their enthusiasm is so boundless that they end up making globalisation sound like the ultimate solution to all our problems. This is why what Dr Sen had to say on the subject is so important. He pointed out that globalisation was neither a new idea nor a folly and that it had been around, at least, since the end of the last millennium. The difference being that in 1000 AD the global influences that changed the world came from East to West. So it was China that gave the world printing, among other things, and India that provided the decimal system that Arabs took to the West. “It is one of the ironies of history that Hindu mathematics spread because of the establishment of the Islamic empire”. Europe, he pointed out, would have been a lot poorer had it resisted these ideas emanating from the East and now that the trend has been reversed it would be extreme folly on our part if we did not acknowledge the beneficial influences in our own country of western science and technology. If India is unable to compete better not just with the West but with countries east of us like China it is largely because of failures of policy at a domestic level. Dr Sen listed some of these failures: our “remarkable neglect” of basic education, our inability to provide modern infrastructure, our monumental bureaucratic inefficiency and our inability to curb earnings from corruption or encourage human enterprise. In this list of failures he also included the absence of healthcare, microcredit, land reforms and advancing the efficiency of women. These are things that should be obvious to those who rage and rant against the winds of globalisation but they are not or we would surely have seen some serious attempts to improve Bharatmata’s deficiencies in these crucial areas when governments are led by the Shiv Sena or the BJP. Alas, we have not, and even the Swadeshi Jagran Manch, passionate in its supposed defence of the motherland never draws attention to our own failures. It is as if they have convinced themselves that we would be rich and prosperous were it not for multi-national investment. The stupidity of this proposition is evident from the fact that China is richer, more developed and more competitive by far than we are and attracts as much foreign investment in a single year as we have attracted in the decade that has gone by since we opened ourselves to it. Dr Sen had a few cautions about globalisation and they reflect the fears of those who oppose it. He warned that globalisation could not mean global inequality because developing countries were much less likely to accept this now than they were in 1947. Global asymmetry needed to be fought at a global, national and local level he said pointing out that there needed to be more pressure on richer countries to reduce trade restrictions instead of them demanding this from poorer countries. But, what was required was a global agenda of which trade should only be a part. In the end, though, the opposite of globalisation in his view was “stubborn separatism” and this was against the whole ethos of India. Using what he said was a Sanskrit saying “koopa-mandooka” but translates into a well-known English one about the frog at the bottom of a well. That frog has a worldview but for obvious reasons one that is limited. So, the choice is between being those well-frogs or coming out and taking a good look at the world and then coming to our conclusions. At the end of Dr Sen’s lecture there was thunderous applause and people I talked to said they had been very impressed by what he said. Our problem, alas, is not with ordinary Indians, not even with those who break doors down if they are locked out, our problem is with our political leaders who are “koopa-mandookas” to a man. Perhaps, Ratan Tata could do everyone a really big favour by making thousands of copies of Dr Sen’s lecture and popping them into the various wells in which our political leaders reside. Ah, but then there is the other problem — is there enough light at the bottom of the well for anyone to have learned how to read? |
|
Fighting racial discrimination Public organisations across Britain have been given new rules to outlaw race discrimination. The new rules have been issued under the Race Relations Amendment Act. The Act was amended last year. The new rules arise from ongoing government action to implement recommendations of the Macpherson Report made two years ago. Those wide-ranging recommendations followed a review of police failings in the investigation of the murder of a black youth, Stephen Lawrence, in 1993. The rules set out a new role for the Commission of Racial Equality (CRE). The CRE will now have the right to issue notices to public bodies to comply with rules under the new Act. If the bodies fail to act, the CRE can have its orders enforced through a court. Public bodies cover the police, local councils, universities, the BBC, prisons and other public institutions. British Home Secretary Jack Straw ordered the moves under an action plan launched to implement the Macpherson recommendations. About 70 per cent of those recommendations have been enforced over the past two years, the Home Office said. “The Stephen Lawrence inquiry marked a watershed for race relations in Britain,” Straw said in a statement. “The Government’s far-reaching programme of reform across our public services is well under way, underlining our commitment to equality for all.” “We are beginning to see the breadth and depth of change that is required if the reforms are to stand the test of time. This report describes encouraging progress in key areas but we cannot afford to be complacent,” Straw said. The action plan has seen so far the development of a new independent Police Complaints Commission. It has led to major research into police stop and search operations to ensure there is no discrimination. At present, non-white people are far more likely to be stopped than white people. The police, community organisations and local agencies have been given a new code of practice enabling people to report race crimes at locations other than police stations. The Home Office reports more than 1,500 successful prosecutions for new racial violence and racial harassment offences since they came into force last year. Under the action plan, all police frontline staff would have completed community and race relations training by 2002. London is being given a Metropolitan Police Authority comprising members of all communities to oversee policing. Citizenship lessons have been introduced in primary schools. This will become a statutory subject in secondary schools from September, 2002. All pupils will be taught about diversity of national, regional, religious and ethnic identities in Britain and the need for mutual respect and understanding, the Home Office said. India Abroad News Service |
|
|
That man in whom there never kindles One spark of the love of God, Know, Nanak, that his earthly vesture Is no better than that of a swine or dog! — Guru Tegh Bahadur, Slok 44. Sri Guru Granth Sahib, Page 1428 ****** O friends, I am lost to myself, Unveiling my face I dance in the open. Wherever I look Him alone I see. By Him I swear, none else exists. — Bulleh Shah (1680-1758) a sufi poet ****** I am infinite and so are you and so is everyone, my friend. But there is a veil, there is a veil. Do you follow me? You can see only an infinitesimal part of me. Just like when a man stands on the seashore and looks out over the great ocean, he sees only a fraction of that vast ocean. Similarly, everyone can see only a small part of me. The whole cosmo,s is but an infinitesimal part of the real man, but how can a man see the whole cosmos? ****** All I know is Ram Nam.... Ram Nam is everything. Chant the Name all 24 hours! I do as ordained by my Master. That is enough for this beggar. — Yogi Ramsurat Kumar. Vide Tattva Darsana, sixth annual number 1990. ****** One should worship Kali by watching the inflow and outflow of the life breath. When it is accomplished, the life-breath Prana becomes full of light. One should worship Lakshmi by watching the thoughts rising like waves in the mind. When it is accomplished the kind will be devoid of thoughts. One should worship Gayatri by following with care the subtle sound. Then the inner sound will become full of light. One should worship Ishwari by constant remembrance. By that the release of all knots will be accomplished. One should worship Sadashiva by a natural, inborn poise. By that the Self will be transformed to Brahman. This is my message to my disciples. — Kavyakantha Ganapati, Purna |
 |
| Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir | Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs | Nation | Editorial | | Business | Sport | World | Mailbag | In Spotlight | Chandigarh Tribune | Ludhiana Tribune 50 years of Independence | Tercentenary Celebrations | | 121 Years of Trust | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |
