 |
|
Advantage Naidu Needling Antony |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Impure for sure
Jaya has lost the fight DOCUMENT
News analysis Forcing kids to eat can be harmful
|
Advantage Naidu ANDHRA Pradesh Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu’s decision to go in for a snap poll, almost a year before he completes his second term, was not entirely unexpected. In the past few weeks, there has been considerable speculation in the Telugu Desam Party circles on the need for a mid-term poll. Clearly, the ruling party could not have waited for a more opportune time. What more does the TDP want to convince the electorate — a ramshackle Opposition, a good monsoon, the steady pace of economic reforms and the high ratings of the Chief Minister himself as a good administrator? Of course, on top of all this is the apparent sympathy wave in favour of Mr Naidu following the recent attack on his life by the Naxalites. Even though elections in the state are expected to be held only around February next, there is no likelihood of any significant change in the political situation in the run-up to the elections. The TDP is well ahead of all other parties in terms of its popularity and credibility. This is because of the charisma and leadership of the Chief Minister as also the policies and programmes of the government. In sharp contrast, the Congress, the main Opposition in the State Assembly, is at sixes and sevens. It has neither an effective strategy nor a strong leader to challenge the TDP. Added to this is the continued factionalism and dissidence in the party. Though all pointers indicate a comfortable win for the TDP in the elections, one cannot lose sight of the Telangana factor. For instance, during the past three years, the Telangana Rashtra Samithi (TRS) has been championing the cause of separate statehood for the Telangana region which has been an area of neglect. In fact, this is the reason why even the Naxalite movement is going strong in the four districts of Warangal, Nizamabad, Adilabad and Karimnagar. Popular film star Vijayashanti’s plan to campaign for a Telangana state is also cause for worry for the TDP. It remains to be seen whether Mr Naidu’s tactical move will see him through. After all, there have been instances when overconfident Chief Ministers rued the day they decided to advance elections when they were thrashed by the electorate. |
|
Needling Antony KERALA Chief Minister A.K. Antony and his bete noire K. Karunakaran have together succeeded in marginalising the Marxists. The Opposition has done nothing compared to what the two Congress leaders have been doing to each other. If tomorrow the government falls, it will not be due to the machinations of the Marxists. The factional war in the Congress has reached a point of no return. The High Command is scared of enforcing discipline for fear that it may aggravate the situation. At the root of the problem is Mr Karunakaran's elephantine ambition to become the Chief Minister once again. With this end in view he has been needling Mr Antony day in and day out. The wily warhorse tasted blood when he succeeded in defeating Mr Antony's nominee in the byelection to the Ernakulam Lok Sabha seat. Emboldened by the defeat the Congress suffered, Mr Karunakaran has been going hammer and tongs at the Chief Minister. That he does not have the requisite strength in the Assembly to destabilise the government is obvious from his inability to see his Rajya Sabha nominee through in the recent biennial election. But such thoughts do not deter him from meeting Governor Sikander Bakht as often as he can to give the public the impression that he has something up his sleeves. He has already shown his readiness to accept support from any quarters to achieve his political objective. The question is whether many of his supporters are ready to cut off their nose to spite their own face. For many of them, cavorting with the Marxists is tantamount to supping with the devil. The ongoing drama in the Congress is a poor advertisement for the control party chief Sonia Gandhi exercises on the partymen. All though, she has been dillydallying in the fond hope that things will work out on its own. She does not have the courage to take Mr Karunakaran to task for his anti-party activities. In the process, the Congress stands to lose a government and she, her credibility as a leader. |
|
Impure for sure NEW-generation vehicles with advanced technologies which have finally made their entry into the country have been done in by the bad quality of fuel. Even the official failure rate in fuel samples due to adulteration in satellite towns around Delhi has been found to be as high as 26 per cent. When this is the position near the national Capital, the state of affairs in far-flung areas can be well imagined. Companies like Maruti and Hyundai have thrown up their hands in despair. Yet the authorities and the oil companies have shown monumental indifference, forcing the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) to call it a “state-sponsored crime”. The NGO, which brought to light the presence of pesticides in soft drinks and mineral water, is worried that the adulterated fuel may make the vehicle of progress splutter and stall. Bad roads and bad fuel make a lethal combination. The total loss caused by endemic engine problems runs into hundreds of crores of rupees. Worse, the air in cities gets polluted by the adulterated fuel. The damage to public health is incalculable. The CSE says the testing of fuel samples taken at Faridabad by the Research and Development Centre of the Indian Oil Corporation and the Indian Institute of Petroleum, Dehra Dun, revealed traces of drycleaning solvents like chloropentane. Not only that, all sorts of materials ranging from waste oil to surplus and pilfered solvents from nearby industrial estates and cheap imported kerosene were used for adulteration. Adulterated fuel is openly sold from drums in garages, tea stalls and roadside workshops all over Delhi as also towns like Meerut around it. Such a large-scale operation cannot take place without the connivance of the authorities meant to check adulteration. Unless government officials are punished along with the erring functionaries of oil terminals, transporters and retail outlets, it will not be possible to put in place a clean fuel regime. At the same time, consumer organisations will have to step up their vigilance. For a man to achieve all that is demanded of him he must regard himself as greater than he is.
—Goethe |
Jaya has lost the fight PERSONS suffering from a high degree of arrogance don’t make mistakes; they commit blunders. Sure as they always are of themselves, they cannot foresee the consequences of what they are doing. Ms J. Jayalalithaa, ruling Tamil Nadu from Fort St. George, also did not bother to pause for a minute and think before striking against The Hindu last week and rushing her police to the newspaper’s office in a crude attempt to arrest the paper’s Editor, Executive Editor and three others. This she tried to do under the cover of a resolution of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly holding the Hindu responsible for breach of privilege. Never for a moment, Ms Jayalalithaa cared to doubt that the attempt to imprison the Editors of The Hindu for doing their duty was wrong, undemocratic and even unconstitutional. Nobody could tell her that by publishing the editorial—titled “Rising Intolerance”— on April 25 this year, The Hindu was just doing its duty of informing the people and commenting on what was happening in Tamil Nadu. Ms Jayalalithaa, like many other potentates, was simply pursuing vendetta against a newspaper which had sought to tell its readers through the editorial how an atmosphere of intolerance was developing in the state. Ms Jayalalithaa never saw the irony in the police action she launched through the Legislative Assembly controlled by her pack of AIADMK members. It merely proved the point the Hindu editorial was trying to make. We are reproducing the editorial of April 25 below with its original title “Rising Intolerance”. Ms Jayalalithaa has once again announced that she is immune to simple demands of a democratic polity that no one can be allowed to get away by trampling on the rights of the people — which includes the right of expression and the Freedom of the Press. It was this right which The Hindu — the nation’s most responsible newspaper — was exercising when it wrote the editorial. This is not the first time a serious challenge has been posed to the Freedom of the Press since Independence. The Emergency clamped by Indira Gandhi was the first the Press experienced. She simply switched off the electricity of several newspapers, locked newspaper offices and imposed censorship. Many years later, her son Rajiv Gandhi took the country by surprise and in barely three hours pushed through the Defamation Bill in the Lok Sabha in an attempt to shield himself from exposures. Indira Gandhi’s Emergency Raj was defeated by the people; Rajiv Gandhi was forced by the nation’s Press which for a change acted in unison against a move which was clearly an attack on the Freedom of the Press and the people’s right to know. Ms Jayalalithaa is unlikely to succeed where others have failed. Actually, she has lost the fight. In the process, she has united the entire Press against her and behind The Hindu. No political party, whatever its credentials on press freedom, has supported her. The Supreme Court has stayed the arrest of the Editors of The Hindu and said that constitutional institutions should not cross the “Lakshman Rekha”. The Court, which is to hold hearings on The Hindu’s petition in a couple of weeks, might, if it chooses to, delineate the “Lakhshman Rekha” the Legislature — captive or otherwise — cannot transgress. Ordinarily, the Supreme Court’s ordering a stay on the editors’ arrest and the nationwide protests should have made Ms Jayalalithaa rush to the Tamil Nadu Assembly and seek the repeal of the breach of privilege orders passed against The Hindu. Such graceful retreats are, however, made only by those who have faith in democratic institutions. Second thoughts also come only to those rulers who care for a distinction between the right and the wrong. The Supreme Court has never in the past let down the Press in the exercise of the freedom of expression it enjoys under Article 19 of the Constitution which perhaps has not been read by Ms Jayalalithaa. May be, she will be wiser after the court has given its verdict which might settle several connected issues. One of them is how criticism of the Chief Minister can constitute a breach of a privilege of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly. The Hindu editorial had just accused the Chief Minister of “fuming”, getting “incensed”, speaking in “a high pitched tone,” “unrestrained attacks on the opposition” and of “lowering the reputation of the government.” It is hard to see how this can be held as a breach of privilege. The concept of parliamentary privileges has been evolved and followed only to enable the legislatures to perform their duties in Parliament without hindrance. Criticism of the attitude, actions and functional style of any of its members, be he or she a Chief Minister or a Prime Minister, is a democratic right of the people and the Press. Even in the House of Commons, the concept of allowing privilege issues over newspaper reports and editorials, unless they referred to closed-door discussions or expunged portions of debates, has been given up. The Hindu in its editorial, “Rising Intolerance”, in any case had committed no such offence. It had used normal journalistic language meant to convey to the people as accurately as possible as to what kind of rulers they have elected to manage public policy and government. Under the Constitution, the elected representatives of the people have been given only those legislative powers that have been listed in the Statute Book. Parliament and the State Assemblies derive those powers from the Constitution. They cannot arrogate to themselves the sovereignty that ultimately rests with the Constitution. The Tamil Nadu Assembly with Ms Jayalalithaa controlling it through the huge majority of her AIADMK loyalists grievously faulted in believing that they are the Constitution or its sovereignty lies with the State Assembly. Parliament can amend the Constitution, but the Supreme Court has strictly — and wisely — laid down that it has no powers to alter the Basic Structure of the Constitution. This was to save the Constitution from authoritarian inclinations of Indira Gandhi and the likes of Ms Jayalalithaa. The Basic Structure has not yet been defined by the Supreme Court. Nevertheless, it has made it clear in many a judgement that the right to expression is fundamental in the Constitution and hence is basic for the democratic system the country has chosen to have. There is a snag, however. While the limits of powers of Parliament and the legislature have been been defined, parliamentary privileges have not been made clear in the Constitution. Legislatures — like the Tamil Nadu Assembly — have the tendency to haul up the media and others for perceived breach of privileges that remain undefined. They are reluctant to define these privileges, because vagueness helps them to lay down the law on the spur of the moment and order punishment for those who they conveniently think violate it. Also, the legislature, which is a complainant, itself becomes the judge who also executes his decision. Several people in India have often demanded codification of these privileges. It is unlikely to be accepted by the MPs and MLAs. They would not accept limits even on their perks, least of all on their privileges. The remedy for those who misbehave lies with the Supreme Court and the people whose support is essential for protecting the Freedom of the Press. The executive, as also the legislature, cannot be depended upon by those who have concern for the Freedom of the Press. |
|
DOCUMENT THE following is the editorial of The Hindu published on April 25, 2003, which became the cause of the breach of privilege action by the Tamil Nadu Assembly against Editor N. Ravi, Executive Editor Malini Parthasarathy and three others: WITH each passing day, the Jayalalithaa administration in Tamil Nadu seems to be scaling new heights of intolerance. The crude use of state power against various sections including political opponents and the independent media shows a contempt for the democratic spirit that is deeply disturbing. Perhaps because she was at the receiving end of a series of criminal cases filed by the previous DMK administration, she sees her return to power as an opportunity to wield the sanctioning and prosecuting power of the state blatantly to her political advantage. In the process, the law and order machinery is working overtime and the administration seems to be trampling on the basic rights of the people. The Government should feel secure with its huge mandate and use the opportunity to concentrate on the tasks of governance without even the distractions of a political challenge. Ironically, it is instead behaving like an administration which is unsure of itself and is living from day to day. Its inordinate appetite for political confrontation is bound to take a heavy toll in terms of diminution of democratic rights and the welfare of the State as a whole. The courts can no doubt be counted upon to protect the rights, but the disturbing frequency with which people have had to resort to courts for relief and the fact that respect for democratic norms has to be brought home through court rulings reflect poorly on the style of governance. At one time, along with the Chief Ministers of neighbouring States, not even the Prime Minister was spared from Ms. Jayalalithaa’s vehement attack — a development that the Supreme Court took serious note of and made her withdraw. A far more serious attack was launched against her political opponents within the State in the form of prosecutions, arrests and detentions. The media too have come under pressure with a slew of defamation cases that are quite unparalleled. The latest in this pattern of functioning is the privilege issue taken up by the Tamil Nadu Assembly over three reports of its proceedings published in The Hindu. A series of descriptive phrases, mostly about the Chief Minister’s speeches, strung together from separate reports have been collectively referred to the Assembly’s Privileges Committee, and given its composition, the outcome hinges critically on the attitude of the AIADMK members. The phrases objected to in a statement made by the Speaker include “stinging abuse”, “unrestrained attacks on the opposition”, “fumed”, “incensed”, “chastisement” and “diatribe”, all used in different contexts in describing Ms. Jayalalithaa’s speeches on different occasions. These phrases are described as indecent and their use is said to be motivated by a desire to diminish the goodwill and fame that the Government enjoys. The phrases are said to constitute baseless accusations and their publication is said to be derogatory to the dignity of the House and a breach of its privilege. It is useful to note in this context that the device of privilege of the legislature exists to protect its free and independent functioning, and not to protect the reputation of the Government or of individual members. This was made clear by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha with reference to the remarks of Rajaji that the Congress had declined and its legislators “were such people whom any first class magistrate would round up.” He was following a ruling in the House of Commons that “hard words used against persons and parties are dealt with, if necessary, by the law of defamation and it is only where the House as a whole is affected... a question of privilege arises.” The House of Commons on whose practice the privileges of legislatures are still based does not allow privilege issues to be raised over reports of proceedings unless they relate to proceedings behind closed doors or expunged portions of any speech. Because of its extraordinary nature and because the legislature sits in judgement on its own cause or in the matter of an important member, it ought to be used only rarely when there is real obstruction to its functioning, and not in a way that sets legislators above ordinary comment and criticism. To invoke it lightly or to ward off innocuous, even if unflattering, comments on individual legislators would be grossly offensive to the democratic spirit and would inhibit independent reporting and assessment of the performance of legislators. The tone of the speeches, the quality of debates, the behaviour of the legislators, the nature and importance of the business transacted, violence, walk outs and the space allowed for the opposition are all matters that are legitimately commented upon in all democracies. The Supreme Court while upholding the constitutional validity of parliamentary privilege, observed that “we are well persuaded that our Houses, like the House of Commons will appreciate the benefit of publicity and will not exercise the powers, privileges and immunities except in gross cases” and it is incumbent on legislatures not to act in a way that betrays that trust. |
News analysis
DEPUTY Prime Minister L.K. Advani’s recent observation that “Roti, kapda, makaan and mobile” are the new touchstones of life perhaps epitomises the thinking amongst the millions of mobile phone subscribers. Any mobile phone user would readily agree that life isn’t the same without the handset. As of now there are more than 23 million mobile phone (cellular and WLL) subscribers in the country. The scorching pace at which mobile phone usage is increasing across the geographical land mass can be gauged from the fact that more than 36 lakh subscribers were added by cellular operators during the first four months of the current fiscal (April to July 2003). The WLL category has shown an uprecedented growth in the recent months with net addition of connections exceeding 31 lakh during the first four months — a massive growth of 31 times. And the numbers are growing. While this speaks volumes about the fast-paced developments that have characterised this sector, the road itself has been marked by discordant ringtones marred by lawsuits, litigation and slugfests in the media. For consumers though it has so far been a nothing short of a bonanza with declining tariffs and innovative services. And the decision to implement a ‘unified licensing regime’ could mean much more. There are a few caveats though. For the technically non-initiated, the unified licensing regime as adopted by the government effectively means that licences will cease to be service-specific. In other words, it means that basic telephone service providers (land-line phone operators) can offer similar services on the wireless in local loop (WLL) platform as those of cellular operators with a cost as specified by the watchdog Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI). WLL is based on a technology called the Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) and is different from that of the Global System Mobile (GSM) techonology upon which the cellular telephony operates. To be sure, the government has adopted a limited form of the unified licence regime to the extent that it remains silent on total convergence of services under one umbrella licensing system. For, as one may ask, why cannot an Internet Service Provider (ISP) or internet on cable services be brought under the same regime. Needless to say that TRAI and the government have not answered all the questions. Moreover, the new regime does not allow for a countrywide licence and the market will continue to be fragmented in separate circles (Metro, A, B and C). This actually prevents the entire country from becoming one local telephone zone even though technologically it appears feasible. In the present context, for the consumers the unified licence environment means that a WLL phone subscriber can ‘roam’ across the country and have a pan-India number. The earlier policy principles prevented this from happening. The very fact that it was allowed as a limited mobility service meant it was supposed to be confined within a pre-defined area, termed as the Short Distance Charge Area (SDCA). In reality, however, this was not
happening and Reliance Infocomm was accused of playing the villain of the piece. Reliance Infocomm, which has acquired a licence for providing basic and WLL services (not cellular), brought in technologies and marketing techniques which hitherto no other fixed line operator had adopted. According to the earlier licence conditions, a WLL subscriber in Delhi should not have been able to move across to Noida, Gurgaon, Faridabad, Ghaziabad or any other place in the National Capital Region (NCR) with the same telephone number. But this never happened and limited mobility operated as unlimited limited mobility even as allegations and litigation started flying thick and fast. Needless to say, the cellular operators were an aggrieved lot and sought justice under the principles of fair play. Several cases and hearings later, the TDSAT (Telecom Dispute Settlement Authority) ruled the WLL services should be limited to the prescribed SDCA. The government responded and high-powered Group of Ministers (GoM) on Telecom decided to honour the TDSAT ruling. It was decided that WLL services will be limited to the particular SDCA. But there was a catch. No time-frame was set for enforcing it. And less than a fortnight later, the GoM approved the TRAI recommendations on the unified licensing regime in toto. This meant — WLL services providers can migrate to the new regime offer all services, including roaming, by paying an entry fee. The WLL success story can be sustained only if the appropriate safeguards are put in place. Analysts have already started anticipating massive consolidations taking place in the industry with inter-circle mergers and acquisitions. This opens up a distinct possibility of creation of monopoly like situations in the sector dominated by only a couple of players. That could lead to a potentially dangerous situation as the lesser the number of players, the lower will be the pressure innovate. Eventually this could reduce the pressure to reduce tariffs as competitive forces become less potent. And the consumers, who are laughing and crossing across notionally bound territorial circles, could be the worst sufferers. After all, consolidation should take place because of innovations and not because of threats of survival. |
|
Forcing kids to eat can be harmful WITH all the media coverage it received, I suspect most parents will be only too aware of the discovery of a cancer-causing chemical called semicarbazide (SEM) in jars of baby food. This recent food scare will have had many mums and dads wanting to put more emphasis on home-prepared fare for their little ones. Not only will such food be happily free from SEM, but it will tend to contain much less in the way of other additives that crop up in processed foods for kids, including sugar and salt. But putting more culinary effort into the food we feed our children is no guarantee that they will want to eat it. When kids balk at lovingly prepared morsels, parents may be tempted to engage in coercive and cajoling tactics. Yet attempting to force-feed kids rarely brings positive results, and can easily lead to all parties suffering at the hands of a full-blown food fight. Feeding children against their will is a sure recipe for unhappy family relations, but it has other hazards, too. Studies show that the more children are impelled to eat a food, the less inclined they are to eat it in the future. Also, there is some thought that encouraging children to eat when they do not want to may cause their appetite control to go awry. ‘Here comes the choo-choo,’ ‘One more for Mummy’ and other such ploys may override the internal cues that tell children when they are full, and run the risk of inducing overeating later on. I suggest offering small portions of food for small people. This reduces the risk of children getting more than they need, but it also means they are less likely to be overwhelmed by the food. Small portions are particularly relevant when a new food is being introduced, and it helps if this is cut up small, too. While the first sight of a big head of broccoli is likely to intimidate a child, a small pile of nibble-sized florets will generally go down much better. It may also help to offer a new food alongside other foods that are familiar to the child, though I advise against mixing the old with the new: a child getting a sniff that something is different may induce a wholesale rejection of the meal. Even with such tactics, a child will almost inevitably reject some new foods. When this happens, parents may feel inclined to keep eschewed foods off the menu. However, there is evidence that repeated offering of a food may ultimately lead to its acceptance by a child. Persistence (without pressure) often pays. Research also suggests that parents wanting to encourage healthy eating habits in their children would do well to lead by example: parents who eat healthy foods such as fruit and veg tend to have children who eat them, too. Crucially, parents who show the way in healthy eating appear not to need to use undue force. A combination of softly, softly approaches may ensure that the feeding of healthy, home-cooked food to small children does not turn out to be an empty experience. — The Guardian |
How can we understand Jesus until we are his equals? Only grandeur appreciates grandeur, only God realises God. — Swami Vivekananda The hunger of the devotees is the praise of God, and His true Name is sustenance. — Guru Nanak Truth is my religion and ahimsa is the only way of its realisation. — Mahatma Gandhi |
| HOME PAGE | |
Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir |
Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs |
Nation | Opinions | | Business | Sports | World | Mailbag | Chandigarh | Ludhiana | National Capital | | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |
