The Tribune, Chandigarh, India

Reprieve, not freedom

A wholly unwarranted impression has gained ground that Home Minister Advani and other bigwigs do not have to face trial in the Babri Masjid demolition case. In reality, their case has only been put on hold on a highly technical ground, that the state government notification clearing the prosecution suffers from a few infirmities. These can be, indeed must, be removed before long, preferably by June 8 when the CBI special court will frame charges against 26 others in the same case. Anyway, the order issued on Friday flows from the Allahabad High Court ruling on February 8 last, which accepted the plea of eight accused that the notification was faulty. Hence all the 21 individuals covered by case no. 198 now stand on a separate footing, meaning their trial will start once the government corrects the mistake. Uttar Pradesh has a coalition government headed by the BJP and a section of the leadership led by BJP state president Kalraj Mishra wants the government to keep quiet and allow the case to die of neglect. But Chief Minister Rajnath Singh has repeated his February assurance that his government will do what is legally necessary. It is somewhat ambiguous but if his allies take a stand, he has to issue a fresh order to signal the start of the court process. With the Assembly election on the horizon, politics rather than legal propriety will take precedence.

The CBI special court judge has taken an admirably focused legal view. Among the 26 accused whom he has summoned next month are the former district magistrate and the police chief of Faizabad. The judge has pointed out that they kept the police and paramilitary forces away, thinned down the security, failed to do anything to stop the demolition and did not protect mediamen from being attacked. This is about district officials but the 21 facing trial are political leaders and included in the second case (198) for instigating the mob to pull down the structure. Of course former Chief Minister Kalyan Singh is the only exception. Then there is the Liberhan Commission hearing. All three Union Cabinet Ministers who figure in case no. 198 have been examined at least once and their testimony does not destroy the court case. True, it does not prove any guilt either. What happens to these worthies will thus depend on three factors. The stand of the non-BJP parties in the UP government, the findings of the Liberhan Commission and the outcome in the court. For the present only one thing is sure: Mr Advani and co have not been let off but their trial is delayed for the time being.

Reign of terror in Assam

TILL last year, if some quizmaster posed the question as to which is the most violent state in the country, the unanimous answer might have been Bihar. But today, one may not be too sure because Assam is catching up fast. ULFA goons are doing there what ganglords do in "Lalooland". There have been more than a dozen massacres since the announcement of elections. Among those who fell to the ULFA bullets is the BJP's Dibrugarh candidate Jayanta Dutta. Such gory happenings during polling are not a new phenomenon. Violence spins out of control during almost every election. But this time, the intensity and frequency are particularly high. ULFA has launched a virtual jehad against the AGP-BJP combine and has been targeting their workers mercilessly. That is bad news for the Congress because it is being accused of having a nexus with the militant organisation. Everyone from BJP President Jana Krishnamurthy to Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee has hinted at such an unholy understanding. Difficult questions are being posed. Why didn't the Congress criticise ULFA openly? Why didn't it condemn the killing of BJP workers? How come its workers were spared when the killer struck near Nalbari gunning down six AGP men despite the fact that the Congress office was almost next door? But in the latest attack, even six Congressmen have been murdered. It is not clear whether it is the handiwork of ULFA or a case of revenge killing by some other organisation. But the Congress must have almost been "relieved" that now it is also among those parties which are the victims of the violence. On its part, it has been accusing the ruling party of maligning it. The scene has been muddied beyond redemption. ULFA activists move about openly sporting AGP or BJP flags on their vehicles. It is so easy to pass the blame to any group.

In the 1998 and 1999 parliamentary election, ULFA had campaigned openly against the AGP and had succeeded in turning the tide against it. As a result, the Congress had won 13 Lok Sabha seats in 1998 and 10 in 1999. But this time the strategy might not work, despite its shrill campaign that the BJP is injecting communalism into Assam. In fact, the violent targeting has brought the AGP and the BJP, whose middle and lower level functionaries were not too happy with the coalition, closer. The killings might even generate a sympathy wave that may benefit the two in some ways. The unfortunate part is that the violence will sideline the real issues. These include rampant corruption and lack of development.

Idea of State funding of elections
Taxing people to subsidise corruption
Sumer Kaul

THE Tehelka episode has revived the debate on — indeed, the demand for — state funding of political parties. Shown in extremely unsavoury light on the tapes, both Mr Bangaru Laxman of the BJP and Ms Jaya Jaitley of the Samata Party claimed that the money they received from the dotcom decoys was not bribe aimed at getting commercial favours from the government (i.e. a something-for-something payment) but bona fide donations for their respective parties. Thus was blatant malfeasance sought to be portrayed not only as a legitimate act but also something quite noble actually. By inference, political parties are projected as sublime entities which, poor wretches, are thwarted in their high mission of democracy by the high costs of politics!

Laughable on all counts? Not for politicians — for obvious reasons. But there are others, well-meaning and generally perceptive observers and commentators who are deeply impressed by the theory that corruption in politics can be eliminated if only politicians and parties did not need to raise funds in order to function and particularly to meet the astronomical costs of contesting elections. Therefore, they say, we must have state funding of politics, at least for fighting elections. In other words, make the people pay for them.

This question has been debated off and on and the view favouring state funding is not confined to individuals. Several committees have gone into the matter and these too, implicitly or explicitly, have upheld the alleged nexus between corruption in politics and costs of politics and, consequently, commended the proposal. So far, fortunately for the tax-payers, the various reports have done no more than embellish the shelves in government storerooms. Now, however, the Union Law Minister has asked his legislative department to examine the Inderjit Gupta Committee report on the subject. Time, therefore, to see the issue in proper perspective, unblinkered by vested considerations and specious arguments.

The starting point of the discussion should be, but has never been, a simple and pertinent question: How has the cost of electioneering come to be so high? Inflation is an important part but only a small part of the answer. Let us face it, the main reason is that directly or indirectly money has become the predominant, many would say decisive, instrument of persuasion (and coercion) of voters. Be it buying of votes, literally or through distribution of goodies, or intimidating voters through bullies and muscled canvassers, or influencing them by sheer show of pelf and clout (helicopters, cavalcade of cars and jeeps, armed escorts and sideys by the score) — usually a combination of all these — huge amounts of money are spent by parties and candidates during the campaign. The sole aim is to win by hook or by crook, and since the more you spend the better your chances of winning, the more you want to collect which anyway you can.

The point is that electioneering is not a fixed price shopping; it is a frenzied spending spree where the only limit is the candidate’s and the party’s ability to harvest megabucks from all possible fields. This ability is inherent to a lesser or greater degree in every MP and every MLA; it increases exponentially if they are in power or likely to come to power — and therefore in a position to benefit their beneficiaries. In short, a mutually convenient vicious circle. In these circumstances, pray, how would state funding break the circle? It would add to the politicians’ kitty, but in no way stop them from seeking “donations” — chiefly, as it repeatedly turns out, on the something-for-something basis, and not necessarily or always for the party, or even for their own election alone.

This may seem a harsh and unduly pessimistic view to many; after all state funding is prevalent in foreign countries. This fact, I suspect, has much to do with the psychology of those who favour adoption of the practice in India; if it is done abroad, then it must be the right thing to do! This copycat “solution” ignores the kind and extent of political sleaze in those countries. Even in the oft-cited example of Germany, the flick scandal of the eighties and an array of illegal political donations have come to light from time to time, as have similar scams in the USA and other countries which have state funding of elections.

That apart, contrary to the impression created by the protagonists, state funding is not a universal practice. In fact, it is confined to a handful of countries, and these are all rich and industrialised and (mostly) western. No country comparable to India in socio-economic and political realities has introduced state funding. One aspect particularly pertinent to the discussion is the fact that in the countries sought to be emulated by the pro-funders, the multi-party system is multi to the extent of two or three parties. In our case, it is a multitudinous-party system. There are some half-a-dozen Election Commission-recognised national and 43 state parties — out of a whopping total of nearly seven hundred registered with it!

Given this sordid fact of our politics, how is state funding to be worked out and implemented? The Gupta committee has recommended a framework which is as simplistic as it is arbitrary. It proposes state funding in kind, not cash. Included in this would be rent-free office accommodation with telephone, free time on DD, AIR and private networks; for individuals, fuel for a specified number of vehicles, paper for printing election materials, postage stamps, one set of loudspeakers for every assembly segment (six for a parliamentary constituency), some free telephone calls, refreshments and food packets for polling agents, etc!

To pay for all these freebies, the committee suggested an initial corpus of Rs 1200 crore, with the Centre providing Rs 600 crore and the states a matching amount. The figure was worked out on the basis of Rs 10 for each of our 60 crore electors! Lest this bounty lead to a (further) mushrooming of parties, the committee proposed state funding only for the recognised parties. Leaving aside the ludicrous per-voter basis of arriving at the overall figure, the suggestion of restricting funding to certain parties is discriminatory — and irrational in an era where tiny little parties have found themselves not only in power but also in the council of ministers (even supplying a Prime Minister or two!). And in ruling out independents the committee has dealt a body blow to what many believe is the best hope of getting good persons into legislatures and thereby reducing the stranglehold of the kind of unprincipled politics that the parties, such as there are, have spawned.

All this apart, it is naive to believe that state funding will end the quest even among the beneficiary parties for donations from elsewhere. In fact, the Gupta committee itself recognises the fact that parties and individuals will continue to do so, and suggests what it believes is a foolproof arrangement against giving and receiving of black money and allied illegalities — namely, all “donations” above Rs 10,000 will have to be by cheque. If this is scrupulously implemented, all it means is that the payments would be kept to Rs 9999, at a time! In other words, state funding plus the existing “business” as usual! So all this cry about ending political corruption will boil down to the tax-payers financing the parties in addition to the prevailing skulduggery on this count.

By what stretch of the imagination, on what moral criteria can this be justified? As it is, politics costs the public exchequer a stupendous and ever-escalating amount in terms of organising elections, having huge permanent bureaucracies for the purpose, etc. And not just elections. The 5000-odd legislators in the country and particularly the 1000-odd ministers directly and indirectly cost the tax-payers mind-boggling amounts, enough to set up a million primary schools a year. The expenditure on their salaries and allowances and perks and security and a whole lot of freebies would make even the top courtiers of the richest and most generous emperor of yore look like lower division clerks in comparison! They also get vast amounts to spend as they please under the MP Local Area Development scheme which the present minister in charge rightly calls “organised loot”. And now the pro-funders want us also to pay for their efforts to get into positions where they can enjoy all this!

All said and done, the alleged merits of state funding of elections are a trainload of motivated bosh. As, tautologically enough, the Prime Minister himself said the other day, greed is at the root of all corruption. And greed, especially a politician’s greed, is a bottomless pit which cannot be filled by dollops from the tax-payers’ money, nor in all conscience should it be. The very idea of state funding is bad in principle and deserves to be thrown out of the nearest window.

The writer is a veteran political commentator.

Just a pair of scissors
Rashmi Sarkar

WHEN I was in school, I was a girl guide, for a few years and our motto was, “Always be prepared”. And indeed, I really follow this useful advice religiously till today. Time and again I have observed that a tiny instrument or tool can help save a day and make many a friend. Thus whenever I travel, I always carry with me a small kit containing an odd assortment of useful tiny gadgets.

I have to travel back and forth from New Delhi to Chandigarh many times by Shatabdi Express. I must say, Shatabdi is both convenient as well as entertaining. Not only does it save valuable time, good food is always served.

There is ample opportunity to mingle with a variety of co-passengers who can be witty, knowledgeable and irritating in turns. One has to spend a good deal of time in tearing open the tiny packets of salt, pepper, sugar etc before one can sprinkle them on the food. The ears become attuned to hearing Queen’s English — in fact, in Shatabdi the passengers are so classy that you can almost hear even the babies babbling in English.

These polite and formal people break into their respective native languages only when they have to abuse each other for usage of space for overhead luggage. Usually one does not have to worry about any unwelcome co-passenger trying to strike a moronic conversation with you as most of them sit quietly, either listening to their walkman or prefer the company of their mobile phones over human beings.

Well, as I had mentioned, sometimes it can be pretty cumbersome tearing open one or two tiny packets served at meals. The tomato ketchup packet, especially can be challengingly slippery, proving extremely troublesome to tear, and on accomplishing this task, the tear becomes so generously large, that the red gooey material spills all over your well ironed dress. So, being a girl guide at heart, I always carry a tiny pair of scissors in my purse.

Once my co-passenger happened to be an extremely sophisticated, polished, well manicured and pedicured, high-society lady whom I knew. I tried to strike a friendly conversation with her. But much to my consternation, she would reply in monosyllables only to my various eager queries. I was highly embarrassed, when she pretended to sleep when I bravely persisted in my endeavours.

That shut me up effectively. Then the meals were served. In no time at all, I had neatly cut through all the tiny packets and was already halfway through my meals.

Then I saw my co-passenger struggling with her packet of tomato ketchup. At last, she asked me hesitantly, “Beta, where did you keep your lovely pair of scissors”. I handed them to her grimly. She was so grateful, that in all humbleness personified, she asked me admiringly whether I had kept these useful appendages especially for my travel on Shatabdi. Well, those tiny pair of scissors certainly broke the ice and the extremely sophisticated lady of few words, transformed into an eager conversationalist within minutes.

After that time, I routinely offer my pair of scissors to all struggling co-passengers. I had the privilege to offer my tiny pair of scissors to a very senior doctor seated next to me once. He had been imparting useful knowledge throughout the journey, to which I had been listening respectively.

I helped him in opening an extremely slippery packet of tomato ketchup, thus saving his formal suit and the day. This earned me his admiration. Therefore, I conclude by stating that “All good things in life come in small packages.

EC (and RO) vote out Iron Lady Jayalalitha
Anupam Gupta

THREE days before Tamil Nadu goes to the polls on May 10, the question whether AIADMK supremo Jayalalitha has been rightly disqualified from contesting owing to her conviction in a corruption case still looms large over the legal and political landscape.

A doughty and ruthless politician excelling in the melodramatic, Jayalalitha’s disqualification — or the rejection of her nomination papers — continues to generate a highly emotive debate.

“Convicted criminals should not pollute the electoral process until acquitted,” senior Supreme Court lawyer and academic Rajeev Dhavan wrote in The Hindu on May 4. “Indian democracy is more important than any individual politician’s career.”

“The vast majority of the electorate is persuaded,” Congress MP Mani Shankar Aiyar had written in The Times of India earlier on April 29, “that what Jayalalitha has suffered is not prosecution but persecution.”

“In any case (he said), most Tamilians find it risible that a pitch-black kettle like Karunanidhi, severely indicted by the Sarkaria Commission a quarter century ago, should suggest that Jayalalitha is a somewhat off-white pot..... I have little doubt that Karunanidhi, his son Stalin and his nephew Murasoli Maran will be complaining of the mosquitoes in Chennai Central Jail before this year is out.”

It is apparent that personalities obtrude upon reason and logic and drive the best of us to conclusions not entirely kind or accurate. So do, on the other hand, impersonal perceptions of an ethical or moral nature, subsumed in the present case under that increasingly popular rubric: “Criminalisation of politics”.

“It is difficult to define as to who a criminal is,” confessed the Election Commission of India in 1998, releasing a set of proposals on electoral reforms, criminalisation of politics being the first of them.

“(I)n strict legal parlance,” said the Commission, “a criminal may be one who has been convicted by a court of law. But a common man perceives otherwise. In his eyes, a person who has been charged with certain types of offences and is under trial is also a criminal.”

The common man, the Commission continued, considers it criminalisation of politics if he sees a history-sheeter or a notorious bad character involved, though perhaps not finally convicted, in various crimes of a heinous nature like murder, dacoity or rape, contesting elections and getting elected.

“There is clamour (it added, with approval) that such history-sheeters and bad characters should be debarred from contesting and holding any elective office.”

Jayalalitha’s propensity for self-aggrandisement is too notorious to be doubted. But it would strain common sense — and even the perceptions of the common man — to include her in the category of “history-sheeters and bad characters”.

It is important to bar the entry of criminals into politics. But it is no less important to distinguish between criminals — murdrers, dacoits or rapists — who enter politics, and politicians who are convicted of crime.

However tired democratic India may be of its professional politicians, it is necessary for it to respect this distinction lest the campaign against criminalisation of politics end up in the depoliticisation of India — the best way for a democracy to commit suicide or slide into fascism.

How quickly the one can slide into the other — the fear of criminals into an aversion against politicians — is shown by senior assistant editor Shastri Ramachandaran’s article in The Times of India on April 29.

“In Tamil Nadu (he wrote) it is difficult to tell when entertainment is politics and where politics becomes entertainment. So, if we want something outrageously bizarre, why stop halfway? Why not go all the way to the jungle? Make bandit Veerappan the Chief Minister. At least, he has not been convicted.”

So all “criminals” are alike — from Veerappan to Jayalalitha!

The election law, the Representation of the People Act, 1951, is not that blind, of course, even if it is not all-discerning.

As Dhavan has noted, it makes — in Section 8 — a three-fold categorisation of criminality resulting in disqualification.

The first category, covered by Clause (1) of Section 8, clubs together a large number of offences conviction for any one of which entails disqualification for a period of six years from the date of conviction.

They include rape, the offence of insulting the national flag, offences under the TADA and the NDPS Act, certain offences relating to places of religious worship and maintenance of communal harmony, etc.

The second category, covered by Clause (2) of Section 8, comprises offences relating to hoarding, profiteering, adulteration of food and drugs, dowry and sati. Conviction and a sentence of imprisonment of not less than six months for any such offence entails disqualification from the date of conviction till upto six years after release.

The third category, provided by Clause (3) of the Section, deals with all other offences. Conviction and a sentence of imprisonment of not less than two years for any such offence also entails disqualification for the same period as prescribed in Clause (2).

Jayalalitha’s case, or rather cases of conviction under Sections 120-B and 409 of the IPC (criminal conspiracy and breach of trust) and Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, followed by a sentence of three years imprisonment in one case and two years in another, falls in the third category.

As distinguished from the first category, both the second and third categories, however, speak of disqualification as a result not of conviction per se but of conviction and a sentence of imprisonment (of a certain minimum duration).

The “and” coupling conviction and sentence makes all the difference in Jayalalitha’s case, a difference which the Returning Officers in all four constituencies from where she filed her nomination papers chose to ignore under orders from the Election Commission.

For the sentences imposed on her were stayed by the High Court at Chennai and bail granted to her in appeal in both the cases in which she was convicted. The conviction, of course, was not (following the general practice under Section 389 of the CrPC), but the conviction alone and by itself does not entail disqualification under Clauses (2) and (3) of Section 8.

It was this that Justice Malai Subramanian of the High Court referred to in his April 11 judgement, when he said:

“It is the sentence that disqualifies but not the offence. If the sentence of imprisonment is suspended, I do not think there may be any disqualification for a person to contest in the election. In this case (of Jayalalitha), the sentence of imprisonment has already been suspended. Under such circumstances, in my view, there may not be any disqualification for the petitioner to contest in the election.”

That despite this Jayalalitha’s petition on the point was dismissed, not allowed, by Justice Subramanian will forever remain a glaring curiosity.

The Election Commission’s order of August 28, 1997, followed by the Returning Officers while disqualifying Jayalalitha on April 24, does not unfortunately advert to this aspect at all or to the distinction between Clause (1) of Section 8, on the one hand, and Clauses (2) and (3), on the other.

The legal simplisticness of the Commission’s order, emanating from its strong concern about criminalisation of politics, its obliteration of the distinction between the two sets of clauses, speaks highly of its moral commitment. But not so highly of its legal maturity.

That apart, the Commission’s order is vitiated by what lawyers call an error apparent on the face of the record.

“(T)he Election Commission has (says the order), after taking due note and paying regard to the above judicial pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble High Courts, come to the considered view that the disqualification under Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, for contesting elections to Parliament and State legislatures, on conviction for offences mentioned therein, takes effect from the date of conviction by the trial court, irrespective of whether the convicted person is released on bail or not during the pendency of appeal...”

“Accordingly, the Election Commission (it continues), in exercise of its power of superintendence, direction and control of elections to Parliament and State legislatures vested by Article 324 of the Constitution, hereby directs that all the Returning Officers, at the time of scrutiny of nominations, must take note of the above legal position and decide accordingly about the validity or otherwise of the candidature of contestants disqualified under Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.”

The first, and the most important, of the three judicial pronouncements which the order cites at some length before arriving at this firm conclusion — which has put paid to Jayalalitha’s political ambitions — is the judgement of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in V.C. Shukla’s case.

More than three-quarters of a page in the three-and-a-half-page order are devoted to this judgement.

A judgement no authority in India — constitutional or any other, Election Commission or any other commission — is legally entitled to cite or place reliance on while taking any decision adverse to any one’s interests.

For less than five months after it was pronounced on September 5, 1980, the judgement was set aside in appeal by the Supreme Court.

Set aside fully and comprehensively by a three-member Bench of the Supreme Court in a judgement that occupies sixteen printed pages of one law journal, the Supreme Court Cases (SCC), and eleven printed pages of another, the All India Reporter (AIR).

Whatever be the fate of the elections in Tamil Nadu, and whatever be Jayalalitha’s own fate as a convicted politician, such legal sleight-of-hand on the part of the Election Commission cannot, just cannot, be permitted.

MENTAL ILLNESS GRAPH SOARS

With the breakdown of the joint family and other support structures, India is fast joining the industrial nations of the world in stress-related disorders, which rank almost as high as cardiovascular disease in the total disease burden. Doctors, psychiatrists, counsellors and caregivers came together on the occasion of World Health Day (April 7), to discuss the rising problem of mental illness in Indian society.

Experts say that the rise in mental disorders can be assessed through the new concept of Disability Adjusted Life Year (DALY) which, in addition to deaths, also quantifies the impact of disability and sickness on the population, combining them into a single unit of measurement of the overall disease burden.

This shift in computing has led to a soaring mental illness graph. In a refreshing departure from the conventional focus on mental disorders, the stress this time around was on “daring to care for the mentally ill”. The vital point here is that it can happen to anyone and that the mentally ill are in need of mainstreaming, not exclusion, for optimum effective management.

Mental disorders in the country are expected to rise to 15 per cent of the world share from the present 9.5 per cent. Also, depression is expected to become the second leading cause of disease. It is therefore crucial to address the issue, from training more professionals to changing peoples’ attitudes. WFS

KEEP YOUR MOUTH STITCHED

A Vietnamese court has sentenced a couple to jail for mistreating a 10-year-old boy in a notorious case in which the woman forced the boy, her stepson, to stitch up his mouth as punishment for stealing less than two cents.

Friday’s state-run Saigon Giai Phong (Liberation Saigon) newspaper said Phan Thi Hien, 31, was sentenced Thursday to 30 months in prison. Her husband, Nguyen Viet Honh, was sentenced to 12 months in prison.

The two were prosecuted by a court in Bac Ninh province, east of Hanoi, after Hien punished the boy last month for stealing 200 dong (1.3 cents) by forcing him to stitch up his mouth with a needle and thread. Reuters

AND NOW CONVERTIBLE COFFINS

A carpenter from York has started making furniture which converts into coffins.

Richard Pickles began by making a coffin which converts into a bookshelf for a customer concerned about the cost of his funeral.

He says his convertible coffins can also double as wardrobes and TV stands before they are needed. They cost just £350, much less than traditional coffins.

He told The Sun: “My local pub wants one to use as a phone booth and it’s just taking off.

“The cupboard only looks like a coffin when the doors are shut. The uses are endless - people can use them as a wardrobe, bookshelves, even as a TV stand or a wine rack. And once their time has come they’ve got a ready-made coffin in their living room.

“A lot of undertakers charge ridiculous prices for coffins. Mine are a lot cheaper and you get a lot more use out of them.” Ananova

DUTIFUL DAUGHTERS

More and more women in Lucknow are now balancing their professional lives with voluntarily looking after their ageing parents. As a result the old “normal” (red patriarchal) family structure is rapidly mutating into new complex and interdependent relationships in which the breadwinner daughter is not only the head of the family but is also clearly in command.

Many parents in India now prefer a daughter-headed household. “It’s less complicated. My son’s home, though my daughter-in-law is very warm and nice, is still another woman’s home and not mine,” says a woman living with her daughter.

ARTIST ADDS LOINCLOTH TO JESUS

An artist has painted a loincloth over a nude figure of the crucified Jesus in a mural at a new building at Kennedy International Airport, New York after complaints from construction workers.

The figure’s nudity prompted a worker to contact the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights.

David Sigman, development general manager for terminal builder and operator JFK IAT, said that Deborah Masters, the mural’s artist, willingly changed the mural.

“We didn’t bring it before the mayor’s panel,” Sigman said, referring to Mayor Rudolph Giuliani’s newly established committee charged with setting a “decency standard” for art in city-funded museums.

Masters, who created 28 sculpted reliefs for the airport’s new international arrivals building, did not immediately return a phone call to her home.

The 8-by-10-foot reliefs depict city street scenes. The image of Jesus is about 18 inches high.

The mural is to be unveiled when the new terminal opens on May 24. Newsday

SPIRITUAL NUGGETS

The day a man is born, the date of his death is inscribed on his forehead. This writing cannot be effaced; the marriage with the God of death must come on the appointed day, entreaties are of no avail. The path by which the soul has to pass is subtler than the thickness of a hair.

The eyes that were so delicate that they could not hear the weight of collyrium in them, today the skull that held them has been turned into a nest for birds to hatch their eggs in it.

They who dwelt in the mansions yesterday, and whose arrival and departure was announced by the beat of drums, now lie unattended in the grave in the solitary churchyard. So says Farid.

Mute lips are turned vocal. The tombs cry out: “O ye dwellers in the transient wordly abodes! Ye, homeless ones come to Me, your eternal House. Fear not death (and pursue the Path). One day ye shall have to embrace it in spite of yourself. So says Farid.

— Baba Farid

To fear death, gentlemen is nothing other than to think oneself wise when one is not; for it is to think one knows what one does not know. No man knows whether death may not even turn out to be the greatest of blessings for a human belie; and yet people fear it as if they knew for certain that it is the greatest of evils.

— Socrates

How strange that one who claims not to fear death fears it the most, and seeks every means to avoid it!

Is not death, in every case, a release from too much suffering? If so, why lament when it comes?

— The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Vol. Eighty

He who seeks permanence in this world,

Let him take lesson from the rose in bloom

and the season of autumn.

The colour and fragrance of the one and tyranny of the other

Lasts like the guests for a moment and then passes on.

— Sarmad, the martyr poet-saint

Whatever may be one’s duty, so long as it is done without selfish motives or malice, it will do him lasting good. Exertion is superior to destiny, for destiny is the result of previous exertion. We are not straws, but men, nay Gods in the making.

— The Mahabharata, Shanti Parva