 |
Monday,
January 14, 2002, Chandigarh, India  
|
George at
it again An oily
acrobat |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Beyond
the struggle against terrorism
Indian
policy for Central Asia
Surgery
using staplers to help piles patients
1974, Chemistry: PAUL FLORY
|
George at it again
DEFENCE Minister George Fernandes is at his old game again. He shot off his mouth, this time to denounce the Army Chief at a time when there is palpable tension on the border and the troops of both India and Pakistan are on high alert. He described the top Army man as an “anybody” who has “bandied about” the use of nuclear weapons “in a cavalier fashion”. The Chief of Army Staff is not “anybody” but symbolises the spirit of the fighting force and speaks on its behalf. He is a professional soldier and the Defence Minister is a politician. And his unusually frequent visits to Siachen and an occasional lunch with the jawans in their mess do not automatically confer on him the unquestioned leadership of the defence forces. As the old saying goes, war is too serious a matter to be left to the Generals; it is equally true that it is too serious to be left to politicians who have a tendency to go beyond their brief, if they recognise one. General Padmanabhan was addressing the soldiers amassed all along the border. They are bound to be uneasy at Pakistan using nuclear weapons. India enjoys superiority in conventional weapons and can thus blunt any attack. The jawans feel very confident in engaging the enemy in a traditional war and worsting him. With the shrill anti-India rhetoric in the air, will Pakistan resort to the last weapon? The General was answering this nagging doubt. All he said was that India has no plan to press the nuclear button first and this is its nuclear policy enunciated loud and clear. But God forbid, if anyone lobbed nuclear-warhead carrying rockets at India’s military or economic assets, this country would react so ferociously that the enemy would cease to exist as an entity. Reading it again, this is what any Army Chief will tell his soldiers. His primary duty is to keep up the morale of his men and bluntly tell them that the sacrifice of their life will not go in vain and the country will wreak a frightful revenge. This is how a soldier talks, and a politician just cannot understand. Issuing or holding out threats is not the Indian Army’s style, particularly not of General Padmanabhan. He undertook the unusual method of a media conference for two purposes. He wanted to assure the fellow citizens, particularly in the border areas, that the Army was ready to repulse any attack and protect them. Two, he was telling his jawans that a nuclear attack would not mean the end of India but the end of the enemy. But the political leadership got worried that the reference to a nuclear war might sound alarm signals around the world. Political leaders need have merely restated the General’s stand to calm the rattled nerves of the West, particularly the USA. The disowning of the Army Chief by the Defence Minister was not called for. Actually, it is ugly. |
|
An oily acrobat IT is an economic acrobat by Petroleum Minister Ram Naik that has foxed many a lay
consumer: how could the excise duty on petrol and diesel go up and their prices move down? Consumers are used to suffering price hikes whenever the excise duty on a commodity is raised. It is rare that prices are reduced. So, the immediate question being asked is: how did the government do it? Soon after the government empowered the Finance Ministry to raise the excise duty rates on any commodity without any limit, the Petroleum Ministry on Friday announced an increase in the excise duty on petrol of 90 per cent from the present 32 per cent and on diesel of 24 per cent from the existing 16 per cent, but reduced their prices by Rs 1.39 and eight paise a litre, respectively. Instead of passing the duty hike on to the consumer, the Petroleum Ministry has chosen to burden the state oil companies — Indian Oil Corporation, Bharat Petroleum and Hindustan Petroleum — which not only will have to absorb the entire cost of the duty hike but also sell their products at cheaper rates. So, it is a double blow. The additional revenue of Rs 1,600 crore from petrol and Rs 1,200 crore from diesel generated from the duty hike will flow to the state coffers for the next two and a half months. Thereafter, that is, from April, 2002, the government proposes to dismantle the administered pricing mechanism for petrol, diesel, kerosene and LPG. The second question that arises is: why has the government done so? And also: why at this time, especially when the budget is around the corner? There are two obvious reasons. One, which is political, is that since Punjab, Uttaranchal and Uttar Pradesh are going to the polls, a fall in the oil prices, even if marginal, may consolidate the BJP’s shaky vote bank in the three northern states, particularly UP. Two, the step will bring the fiscal deficit to manageable
limits. There are reports about a 2.47 per cent drop in the revenue mop-up during the April-December, 2001, period because of poor collections of customs duty and corporate tax, thanks to the slowdown and lower exports. International rating agencies, among others, have frequently expressed concern over the country’s mounting fiscal
deficit. The duty hike on petrol and diesel will, therefore, help the Finance Minister to lower the fiscal deficit and help him put up a brave face while presenting the next budget. The oil pool, which has a current deficit of about Rs 11,000 crore, will bear the brunt of this exercise. Fortunately, oil prices in the international market have been witnessing a steady fall. Any reversal of this trend will upset the government’s calculations. |
Beyond the struggle against terrorism THE great question of this new century is whether the age of interdependence is going to be good or bad for humanity. The answer depends upon whether we in the wealthy nations spread the benefits and reduce the burdens of the modern world, on whether the poor nations enact the changes necessary to make progress possible, and on whether we all can develop a level of consciousness high enough to understand our obligations and responsibilities to each other. We cannot make it if the poor of the world are led by people like Osama bin Laden who believe they can find their redemption in our destruction. And we cannot make it if the wealthy are led by those who cater to shortsighted selfishness and advance the illusion that we can forever claim for ourselves what we deny to others. We are all going to have to change. Philosophers and theologians have long talked about the interdependence of humanity. Politicians have talked about it, quite seriously at least, since the end of World War II, when the United Nations was established. But now ordinary people take it as given because it pervades every aspect of our lives. We live in a world where we have torn-down walls, collapsed distances and spread information. The terrorist attacks on September 11 were just as much a manifestation of this globalisation and interdependence as the explosion of economic growth. We cannot claim all the benefits without also facing the dark side of the coin. It is very important, therefore, that we see the present struggle against terrorism in the larger context of how to manage our interdependent world. If asked on September 10 what the forces most likely to shape the beginning of the 21st century are, the answers would have varied, depending on where you live. If you live in a wealthy country, and you are an optimist, you might have said the global economy. It has made the rich countries richer and lifted more people out of poverty around the world in the last 30 years than any time in history. And the poor countries that have chosen development through openness have grown twice as fast as the poor countries that have kept their markets closed. Second, you might have answered the explosion in information technology, because that increases productivity which drives growth. Hard as it is to believe today, when I became President in January, 1993, there were only 50 sites on the World Wide Web. When I left office eight years later, there were 350 million. Third, you might have said the current revolution in the sciences, especially in the biological sciences, that would rival Newton’s or Einstein’s discoveries. The sequencing of the human genome means that mothers in countries with well-developed health systems will soon be bringing babies home from the hospital with a life expectancy of 90 years. Nanotechnology and super microtechnology are giving us the diagnostic capacity to see tumors when they are only a few cells in size, raising the prospect that all cancers will be curable. Research is now under way on digital chips to replicate the highly complex nerve movements of damaged spines, raising the prospect that people long paralysed might get up and walk. Fourth, from a political point of view, you might have said the dominant factor of the 21st century world would be the explosion of democracy and diversity. For the first time in the history of humanity, more than half of the world’s people live under governments of their own choosing, and within countries with open immigration systems and successful economies; there was a breathtaking increase in ethnic, racial and religious diversity, proving that it is possible for people from different backgrounds with different belief systems to live and work together. On the other hand, if you come from a poor country, or if you are just pessimistic, you might have said the global economy was the problem, not the solution. Half of the world’s people live on less than $2 a day. A billion people live on less than a dollar a day. A billion people go to bed hungry every night. A quarter of the world’s people never get a clean glass of water. Every minute one woman dies in childbirth. It is projected that the world population will grow 50 per cent over the next 50 years, almost 100 per cent of it in countries that are poorest and least able to handle it. Further, you might have said that, despite economic growth or perhaps because of it, we were going to be consumed by an environmental crisis. The oceans, which provide most of our oxygen, are rapidly deteriorating. There is drastic water shortage already. And global warming is going to wreak devastation. If the Earth warms for the next 50 years at the same rate as recorded during the last 10, we will lose whole island nations in the Pacific and 50 feet of Manhattan Island in New York. We will create tens of millions of food refugees, leading to more violence and upheaval. The global health crisis might have topped the list. One in four people every year dies of AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis and infections related to diarrhoea, almost all of them children who never get a clean glass of water. From AIDS alone, 22 million people have died and 36 million are infected. One hundred million cases are projected in the next five years if preventive action is not taken. If that happens, it will be the biggest public health problem since the Black Death killed a quarter of Europe’s population in the 14th century. While two-thirds of the cases are in Africa, the fastest growing rates are in the former Soviet Union, on Europe’s back door. The second fastest growing rates are in the Caribbean, on America’s front door. The third fastest growing rates are in India, the biggest democracy in the world. And the Chinese have just admitted they have twice as many cases as they had previously thought, and only 4 per cent of the adults know how AIDS is contracted and spread. Even on September 10, you might have reasonably argued that the 21st century would be defined by the marriage of modern weapons with terrorism rooted in ancient hatreds of race, religion, tribe and ethnicity. Taken together, these positive and negative forces are a stunning reflection of the most extraordinary degree of global interdependence in human history. What to be done? First, we have to win the fight against terrorism. There is no excuse ever for the deliberate killing of innocent civilians for political, religious or economic reasons. Terror has been around a long time. The West has not always been blameless. In the First Crusade, when Christian soldiers seized Jerusalem, they burned a synagogue with 300 Jews and proceeded to slaughter every Muslim woman and child on the Temple Mount. My country is now the oldest continuous democracy in the world. Yet, it was born with legalised slavery, and many black slaves and native Americans were terrorised and killed afterward. Now America and other advanced nations face the reality of terror at home. While we have to win the fight in Afghanistan and do more to develop defences against the possible use of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons, we also must do more to figure out how, with open borders and increasingly diverse societies, we can identify and stop people who come into our countries, looking for somebody to kill. This will be hard to do without violating civil liberties because, in America and many other nations, there is somebody from everywhere. But we will do it. In all human conflicts, since the first person came out of a cave with a club in his hand, offence always wins first. But, then, if good people do sensible things, defences catch up and civilisation proceeds. The more lethal the weapons, the more urgent it is to quickly close the gap between offence and effective defences. Terrorists aim to terrorise, to make us afraid to get up in the morning, afraid of the future and afraid of each other. But no terrorist strategy standing on its own has ever succeeded. This frightening effort will fail, too, and it is highly unlikely that the 21st century will claim as many innocent lives as the 20th century. Not everybody who is angry wants to destroy the civilised world. A lot of people are angry because they want to be a part of tomorrow, but they cannot find the open door. It thus seems fundamental to me that we cannot have a global trading system without a global economic policy, a global health care policy, a global education policy, a global environmental policy and a global security policy. In effect, we have to create more opportunity for those left behind by progress, thus reducing the pool of potential terrorists by increasing the number of potential partners. To make new partners, the wealthy world has to accept its obligation to promote more economic opportunity and help reduce poverty. To start with, there should be another round of global debt relief. Last year the USA, the European Union and others provided debt relief to 24 of the world’s poorest countries, if, and only if, they put all the money into education, health care and development. There have been some stunning results. In one year, Uganda doubled primary school enrollment and cut class size with its savings. In one year, Honduras took its savings and went from six years of mandatory schooling to nine. For several years the USA has funded two million micro-enterprise loans every year in poor countries. We should do more of that. That two million should rise to 50 million. As the Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto has shown, economic growth can explode if the assets of the poor are brought under the legal system, such as through gaining titles on their homes, which in turn will enable them to collateralise credit. Whole new markets will open up if this can be done. Last year America and Europe opened their markets further to Africa and the Caribbean as well as to Jordan and Vietnam. China was admitted into the World Trade Organisation. This market access should be expanded further. We should urgently fund the $10 billion UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan has asked for to fight AIDS. America’s share would be about $2.2 billion — a mere tenth of a per cent of the budget. And a lot cheaper than coping later on with a potential 30 million AIDS victims in India alone. The same argument applies to helping fund education. A year’s education adds 10 to 20 per cent to a person’s income in a poor country. There are 100 million children who never go to school — half of them in sub-Saharan Africa. In Pakistan, the main reason that all those madarsas were not teaching maths but promoting such ludicrous notions as “America and Israel brought dinosaurs back to Earth to kill the Muslims” is that the Pakistanis ran out of money in the 1980s to support their schools. Compared to the costs of fighting a new generation of terrorists, putting 100 million children in school around the world is an inexpensive proposition. And it can be done. In Brazil, for example, 97 per cent of the children go to school because the government pays the mothers in the bottom third of the poorest families every month if their children attend school. The Afghan war costs America about $ 1 billion a month. For $12 billion a year America could pay more than its fair share of every programme I have mentioned. Obligations of the poor The poor countries also have an obligation — to advance democracy, human rights and good governance. Democracies don’t sponsor organised terrorism, and they are more likely to honour human rights. To that end, we must encourage the debate now going on in the Muslim world, one that has risen and fallen for 1,300 years, about the nature of truth, the nature of difference, the role of reason and the possibility of positive, nonviolent change. The most successful modern reconciler of faith and the imperatives of modern life, King Hussein of Jordan, lamentably died not long ago. In 1991, he galvanized all the elements of Jordanian society and offered a real parliament with fair elections, in which everyone, including fundamentalists, could run, as long as they agreed not to limit the rights of others. It is no accident that Jordan, a poor country, a young country, a majority Palestinian country, a small country in a geographically delicate position, is nonetheless the most politically stable country in West Asia today. That is because it has moved toward democracy with enforced mutual respect and a role for human reasoning and debate. Those of us who want to have a good relationship with the Islamic world must support this kind of moderation and trend toward democracy. If interdependence is going to be good instead of bad for the 21st century, then we must recognise that our common humanity is more important than our differences. This is the struggle for the soul of the 21st century. But history has shown how hard this notion is to realise. In my lifetime, Gandhi was killed, not by an angry Muslim but by an angry Hindu, because Gandhi wanted India for the Muslims, the Jains, the Sikhs and the Hindus. Anwar Sadat was killed 20 years ago, not by an Israeli commando but by an angry Egyptian who thought Sadat was not a good Muslim because he wanted to secularise Egypt and make peace with Israel. And my friend Yitzhak Rabin, one of the greatest men I have ever known, was killed, not by a Palestinian terrorist but by an angry Israeli who thought Rabin was not a good Jew or a faithful Israeli because he wanted to lay down a lifetime of killing for a secure peace that gave the Palestinians a homeland and recognised their interests in Jerusalem. Those of us who have benefited most must lead the way in making this world without walls a home for us all. Islam not the enemy President George Bush has made it clear that America and the West are not the enemies of Islam. We need to remind Muslims around the world that the last time the USA and the United Kingdom used military power it was to protect the lives of poor Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo; that 18 Americans lost their lives in Somalia trying to arrest Mohammed Farah Aidid because he had murdered 22 UN peacekeepers from Pakistan. We need to tell angry Muslims something they apparently don’t know: In December, 2000, the USA proposed an agreement that, in the most sweeping terms, provided a Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza as well as protected Palestinian and Muslim interests in Jerusalem and on the Temple Mount. While Israel accepted this plan, the PLO said no. To prove that Islam is not our enemy, the European Union and the USA have to get back to the work of building a just and lasting peace in West Asia. The writer is a former President of the USA |
Indian policy for Central Asia THE interim government in Kabul is faced with numerous and critical problems. Restoration of peace, elimination of gun and violence, establishment of law and order, planning and development, supply of necessities of life, health and education, transport and communication and above all rapid growth of trade and commerce so as to gradually cut short dependence on foreign aid etc are the immediate subjects that need to be addressed. During the Taliban power, India had been sidelined, certainly as a result of machinations of Pakistan. But India must come out of its shell and boldly come on to the field to play a constructive and supportive role in Afghanistan and Tajikistan in particular and in the whole region of Central Asia in general. India must establish contact with the Pushtoon leadership both in Afghanistan and among the Afghan refugees in Peshawar, Quetta and in some places in Iran. India must also seek and win the friendship of Afghan Diaspora in European countries and in the USA. It must have an elaborate and well-defined policy in the MEA of cultivating the friendship of all elements in Afghanistan, particularly the Pushtoons. We know of late India has realised the importance of closer ties with the Central Asian republics, especially with Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. Central Asia will be playing an important role in the new geopolitical strategies. For two reasons, India must step forward to be more than friendly with the Central Asians. The first is the resolve of the Central Asian States, predominantly Muslim, to resist the Islamic fundamentalism. Four of them are the members of the Shanghai-6, which is committed to the eradication of religious extremism and terrorism in the whole region. The second is the growing importance of Central Asia as an alternative to the energy resource of the Gulf region, hydrocarbon reserves of Tengiz in Kazakhstan, and the gas reserves of Turkmenistan will be the future determinants of geopolitical strategy. Pakistan’s effort will be to keep India outside the Central Asian region, and India should fight it tooth and nail. Central Asians do not have access to the warm waters of the Indian Ocean. Pakistan’s gameplan was to make Afghanistan its backyard and then plan for Central Asia’s exit route to the Persian Gulf. It was interested in Taliban supremacy so that it could influence them to provide the route for laying the gas pipeline from Turkmenistan (Daulatabad gas fields) to Herat-Kabul-Lahore and Karachi. Unocal, a big US oil cartel, had even conducted a survey of the route for the pipeline at a cost of about two billion dollars. Turkmenistan had developed close cooperation with Pakistan during the second stint of Benazir Bhutto and the gas pipeline via Pakistan was the source of this friendship India must see to it that a pipeline from Central Asia, if coming to Pakistan via Afghanistan, should come to India and terminate somewhere in Kandla or Kolkata. India has also to seek the over land link with Central Asia in terms of globalisation concept. During the medieval times, we had a close trade link via Srinagar-Ladakh-Yarkand-Kashghar and the Silk Route. It has to be revived in due course of time as an article of Indian strategy in Central Asia. This is not to suggest that the Bombay-Bandar Abbas — Sirakhs — Central Asia route as in use at the moment has to be given up because of the vagaries of Iranian political stance. One viable way for India to win the confidence of the Afghans and the Central Asian is to encourage bilateral and trilateral co-operation in the fields of industry, technology and trade. India has the vast fund of experience in these areas and it can offer schemes for strengthening the infrastructure of the Central Asian States with Indian technology, which is both cheap and durable. Our relations should be on the basis of our common cultural heritage. Central Asians have always considered India a repository of their cultural fund. In this hour of their need, our government must take the initiative of inviting private investors to undertake projects in Central Asia in which the good of the Central Asians would be the main concern. There are many attractive fields like tourism, hotel management, banking, pharmaceuticals, heavy machinery, software, precision instruments, textiles, forestry etc in which India can provide high quality expertise and consultation besides investment and management. In the final analysis, New Delhi should constitute a team of experts in various branches, policy planners, academics, technocrats, industrialists, marketing magnates, bankers and investors, to examine the whole gamut of policy and planning in Central Asia for next half a century to begin with. It should have a time-bound programme of submitting viable schemes and their operational culture. This is necessary because at the moment we do not have a policy for Central Asia and we do understand that Central Asia is the future region of the world at least for the next two centuries. (The author is a former Director, Centre of Central Asian Studies, Kashmir University). |
Surgery using staplers to help piles patients A new minimal invasive surgery using a “stapler device” can help millions of patients of haemorrhoids, commonly known as piles. Dr Pradeep Chowbey, Head of the Department of Minimal Assess Surgery, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Delhi, says haemorrhoids is common as one out of three persons in the country suffer from the painful disease. Among the earlier available treatment for the disease was injection but the recurrence rate was high and in many cases a poor response was found. A surgery for the removal of swollen blood vessels was an option, but doctors hesitated to recommend it. However, under the new minimal invasive technique, surgery can be done and patients are discharged a few hours after the operation. The discomfort can be controlled by a few pain-killer tablets. This surgical technique is economical and more effective than the conventional surgery as it requires no hospitalisation and the patient can resume work within a couple of days. The hospital will organise a live workshop for haemorrhoids on January 20 at which more than 100 surgeons from across the country will participate.
UNI Long-term stress behind fat around waist Long-term stress could make people fat, according to a study of some 50 overweight middle-aged Swedish men. Disruptions in the human nervous system, or stress, can concentrate fat around the abdomen, raising the risk of diabetes as well as heart problems, a study by the university hospital in the Swedish city of Gothenburg found. One fifth of Westerners are estimated to suffer from diabetes or cardiovascular diseases. “The stress system is developed to deal with periods of brief stress for the Stone Age man preparing for battle or flight. But in today’s civilised world, stress is different. One does not beat up the boss or run away from the mortgage institute,” said physician Thomas Ljung, who led the study. A body under stress creates a surplus of a hormone, which stimulates a fat-gathering enzyme. This enzyme is more easily taken up by the abdomen than other parts of the body, the survey found. After a long period of stress, the hormone surplus decreases but the fat remains, particularly around the bellies of modern men who need less physical exercise to survive than their forefathers. “Positive stress, a quick rush of Adrenalin, is only good for the body. It is the long-term negative stress than can lead to serious health problems,” Ljung said. Even though pot-bellies are often associated with middle-aged men, a surprisingly large number of women also have a disproportionate amount of fat around their waists, he said.
Reuters |
|
Destiny is not a matter of chance, it is a matter of choice; it is not a thing to be waited for; it is a thing to be achieved. — The World Renewal, Vol. 27, no. 2, August 1996 *** The tree is known by its fruits. When I have seen among them that are called idolaters, men, the like of whom in morality and spirituality and love I have never seen anywhere, I stop and ask myself, "can sin beget holiness?" *** Superstition is a great enemy of man but bigotry is worse. Why does a Christian go to church? Why is the Cross holy? Why is the face turned towards the sky in prayer? Why there are so many images in the Catholic church? Why are there so many images in the minds of protestants when they pray? My brethren, we can no more think about anything without a mental image than we can live without breathing. By the law of association, the material image calls up the mental idea and vice versa. This is why the Hindu uses an external symbol when he worships... It helps to keep his mind fixed on the being to whom he prays. He knows... that the image is not God is not omnipresent. After all how much does omnipresence mean to almost the whole world? It stands merely as a word, a symbol. Has god superficial area? If not, when we repeat that word "omnipresent", we think of the extended sky or the space, that is all. —
Swami Vivekananda at the Chicago Parliament of
Religions, September 19, 1893 *** Spider emits out and absorbs back (its thread; Herbs emerge out of the earth; Hair grows out of the head and body of a living person; Likewise too emerges this universe out of the imperishable. — Mundaka Upanishad, 1.1.7 *** The ideal is in Thyself, The impediment too is in Thyself. — Sir Thomas Carlyle, Sartor Resartus |
 |
| 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 | |
Change
is the key to interdependence for survival
