|
|
Thank
God for sobriety Pollution
on agenda |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Time for
roadmap on Kashmir
Mark
Twain’s memoirs
Different
pension for same service is patently unjust More logic, less
rhetoric to strike a better deal
|
|
Pollution on agenda
Punjab
Chief Minister Parkash Singh Badal has committed in the Vidhan Sabha to rid Punjab of air and water pollution by November 30 next year. Though this may be a tall order, given the magnitude of the problem, it is heartening to note that at least the government is turning its attention to a serious issue. A persistent funds crunch usually comes in the way of Punjab’s grandiose projects but this time money has been sanctioned by the Centre and the state too is doing its bit. The condition of water resources in general and the rivers in particular is abysmal. The excessive use of pesticides and fertilizers has contaminated the Punjab ground and surface waters. Cities and towns as well as industries discharge untreated waste in the rivers and canals with impunity. Year after year dead fish are found floating in the Satluj near Nangal. Himachal units too contribute to the problem. Air has been spoiled by the state’s industries and thermal plants, an increasing number of vehicles and the burning of farm residues. How the government curbs these known sources of pollution will be keenly watched. Central grants are available for clearing the urban mess as well as laying or repairing sewerage in cities but the political leadership refuses to meet the condition of introducing user-charges. The fact that Ludhiana’s toxic Budha Nullah has still not been cleaned up despite funds from the Centre and intervention of the Punjab and Haryana High Court raises doubts about Mr Badal’s claims of making the state’s water and air pollution-free within a year. In the absence of political backing the Punjab Pollution Control Board has become a toothless tiger. How serious politicians are on this issue is clear from the fact that only 30 of the 117 MLAs were present in the House to discuss air and water contamination on Thursday. Let us hope Mr Badal proves the skeptics wrong.
|
|
|
The central function of imaginative literature is to make you realise that other people act on moral convictions different from your own. — William Empson
|
Time for roadmap on Kashmir One
did not expect a miracle from the all-party parliamentary delegation which went to Srinagar and Jammu a few days ago. But I did believe that the problem that had remained frozen for so many years would begin to move. In one way it has. Some MPs, particularly from the Left, have said on their return that things cannot go on in the valley as they have been. They have suggested to the government to have a roadmap. This is where the parliamentary delegation will get stumped. Unfortunately, the government has no roadmap. It wants to solve the problem. But it has no concrete proposal which it can place on the table. Home Minister P. Chidambaram has offered a package after visiting the valley. The important part of the package is the appointment of three interlocutors. This is welcome as far as it goes. But unless New Delhi indicated to the interlocutors the contours of a political formula, it would be a wild goose chase. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has indicated that anything within the Constitution would be acceptable to him. Still the interlocutors would be at sea to fathom the extent to which they can go. If it is up to them to strike some kind of a deal, they would be hard put to reconcile the aspirations of the Kashmiris without knowing the limit the government has in mind. And if the interlocutors have politicians among them, as Press reports indicate, their task would be still more difficult. Politicians are people with the baggage and party affiliations. Also, the interlocutors have to be such people as enjoy credibility in Kashmir as well as the rest of India. Satisfying the government and the people at the same time may be well-nigh impossible. However, those who are asking for “azadi” have to keep in mind that the solution has to be from within India even if it is outside the Constitution. I think the different parties in Kashmir realise this. Their postures may be different but it must be there in the heart of their hearts that separation is not possible. What is immediately required in the valley is normalcy. This has a lot to do with the governance which Chief Minister Omar Abdullah fails to provide. He has to retrieve the people from alienation and distrust which plague them. The inhuman life which the Kashmiris have been leading for years - today it may be worse - doesn’t seem to be ending. The non-violent struggle which Yasin Malik had launched after leaving the path of insurgency did not persuade New Delhi to initiate talks with him or such other people. It lost a golden opportunity. The youth was bound to become restive and resort to something like stone pelting as their new weapon when nothing was happening in the political field. That they have adopted a radical posture is a temporary phase because fundamentalism and Kashmiriyat do not go hand in hand. The Kashmiris are a secular people. That philosophy is bound to prevail once the dust and din of protests settles down. That some MPs felt revolted over the excess committed by the security forces was natural. Indeed, the forces used to old methods and weapons do not know how to handle new forms of resistance. They do not differentiate between insurgency and protest. Words cannot describe the daily life of humiliation and hurt which the Kashmiris go through. Naturally, they are hardened in their attitude. Losing one person per day for the last three months because of security forces’ action develops such a frame of mind. They want to retaliate in any way which acts as catharsis. It does not know of caution or fear. The basic question is that of a roadmap, that is the solution. The main opposition party, the BJP, is not willing to accept even Article 370 which gives special powers to Jammu and Kashmir under the Constitution. Srinagar gave New Delhi only three subjects: defence, foreign affairs and communications. If the Centre wants more it has to ask the state for it. New Delhi cannot usurp authority on its own because it violates the terms and conditions of accession. New Delhi cannot appropriate more on its own. All powers the Centre has acquired after the arrest of Shiekh Abdullah, then the Prime Minister of Jammu and Kashmir, have to be restored to Srinagar. True, some MPs were irritated to hear the demand for “azadi”, wherever they went in Srinagar and the nearby areas. The word epitomises the Kashmiris’ expression of frustration and helplessness. They have stopped talking about the option of Kashmir joining Pakistan for a long time. What option they have except “azadi”, they argue, when they find - and believe - that they have no other way in the face of New Delhi’s “oppression.” They believe that “azadi” from both countries is the best way out. “Azadi” means emancipation, or release from misrule, not necessarily sovereignty. This is where India’s hope rests. The interlocutors must read the memorandum given by civil society members in Srinagar. There is no word of “azadi” used, but it clearly describes what they go through. The memorandum says: “The free hand given to the armed forces to kill and maim civilians, while enjoying complete immunity, is unacceptable to the people of Jammu and Kashmir state. People’s spiritual, physical, economic and social spaces have been greatly infringed because of a massive military presence in the state.” Civil society should, however, see that their school-going children do not sit at home in the crossfire between the government and those who goad protests. Education does not brook any break because it ultimately gets translated into certificates and degrees. The separatists, whatever their point of view, should not come in the way of children’s education. Somewhat belatedly, the Home Ministry has done well to ask the state government to release all political prisoners, including the youngsters, arrested during the last three months. However, responsibility should be fixed for false encounters carried out on the line of control. Also, the security forces should answer for the killing of young men who were not even part of the protesters. The setting up of a high-power commission to go into the security forces’ excesses would give confidence to the Kashmiris and may make them trust that the visit of the parliamentary delegation was not a joy ride. Once New Delhi and Srinagar have come to agree on the terms of a settlement, they should associate Islamabad with it, without which a lasting solution may
not be possible.
|
|||||
Mark Twain’s memoirs Mark Twain
had dictated his autobiography but sealed the text with instructions that the book shall be published one hundred years after his death. It is natural that his readers would be counting the days to October 30, 2010, when the book (Vol-I) will reach bookstores in
the US. Not many have matched either his literary output or the simplicity of the anecdotal style of his narrative. And, of course, his wit, often directed at the outlandish mores of society, has had few equals. Once when asked what he considered a good Christian, his spontaneous response was: “He keeps the Sabbath when there is anybody around, and when there isn’t, doesn’t”. We do not know what the clergy thought of him but Queen Victoria must have been pleased as punch with Mark Twain’s witticism: “The English are mentioned in the Bible: blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit
the earth.” Mark Twain wasn’t averse to having fun with his children. One of them once asked, after an admonishment by his teacher, as to why must he be good ? The fond parent said promptly: “To be good is noble. And to tell others to be good, is nobler. And no trouble”. Any visitor to the museum at Cairo would know how tiresome the histories of antiquity of the mummies become. In a moment of irreverence, Mark Twain turned to the guide and said, “We will double your fee if you show us a fresh corpse!” Like many successful writers who live by their trade alone he too fell on hard times. So, he took his family on a world tour and wrote the travelogue “Following the Equator.” The moment they touched at Bombay, he was charmed by India and Indians of every shade. This becomes evident where he records his conversation with an English-speaking priest at the temple of Lord Hanuman. May be, his looks betrayed skepticism concerning the aerial transportation of a whole mountain to bridge the gap between India and Sri Lanka. But Mark Twain was quick to admit the irrefutable logic of the priest: “Don’t you believe that the waters of the Red Sea parted to allow passage to Moses and his flock to reach the promised land? We too live by our faith.” A thought once crossed my mind that perhaps the poet Alama Iqbal drew inspiration to compose his song “Sare Jahan Se Achha” from Mark Twain’s unique impression
of India: “So far as I am able to judge, nothing has been left undone, either by man or Nature, to make India the most extraordinary country that the sun visits on his rounds. Nothing seems to have been forgotten, nothing
overlooked.”
|
|||||
Different pension for same service is patently unjust The Congress spokesperson understandably eulogized UPA 1 and UPA 2 for what they have done for the ESM since 2004, but made some statements that do not fit facts. His assertion that all personnel other than officers have been granted OROP was incorrect. When cornered, he corrected his version to say that the difference between pre and post January 2006 pensioners is only one to eight percent. This is again blatantly wrong as the difference is more than 50 percent for jawans. He also claimed that all personnel other than officers were very happy with what they have got. If this were so, they would not have been protesting and depositing their medals still. Thirdly, he attempted to create an impression that jawans are happy and the problem exists only in officers’ pension. One wonders whether this statement and not-so-subtle attempt to create a divide was his personal opinion or whether he was towing the official line. In either case, it was unfortunate and unbecoming and needs to be clarified. When he announced that the government has agreed to constitute a separate Pay Commission for the defence forces from the Seventh Pay Commission, he was rightly booed. Going by precedent, the Seventh Pay Commission report might come out around 2018. There is no denying that the government announcement is merely to shelve the problem and not solve it. Some have suggested a compensation package instead of higher pension, but In this they overlooked the fact that OROP is all about justice and not about money. While accepting the hazards of military life, an economist recently equated a soldier to a fireman who might get killed while entering a building that is on fire. Apart from the fact that the fireman has a choice whether or not to enter a burning building where a soldier does not, it is also relevant to remember that there is a fundamental difference between dying and getting killed. In the former, that the soldier faces, there is a readiness, even a willingness, to sacrifice one’s life for the nation. Getting killed on the other hand is a passive action and more accidental than voluntary. While one has all the respect for the firemen, it is difficult not to point out that while soldiers die in almost every operation, firemen do not die in every building that goes aflame. Another misconception that needs correcting is about the injustice. A father and son, both having served in the same regiment, retiring in the same rank and after equal number of years, and staying under the same roof get a different pension to the disadvantage of the father. This is patently unjust. The economist propounded a theory that a son earning more than the father is a law of nature, but it overlooks two ground realities. First, one is not talking of earning; the son might have earned relatively more while in uniform. The subject instead is remuneration for the work already done in the past. If that work was equal both in quality (rank) and quantity (length of service), then remuneration must also be equal. Secondly, if the laws of nature were to be applied to soldiering, then the economist needs to ponder how natural it is for a soldier to be ordered to advance in the face of bullets and die an The suggestion that OROP is not legally tenable is equally out of sync. If the past and present presidents, vice presidents, judges, legislators and host of others can have same pension for old and new pensioners, then why cannot the soldiers get it? Any government that hides behind the law to deny its soldiers their dues is only touting an excuse, not a reason. Unfortunately, the bureaucracy is playing the villain, as brought out by Commodore Uday Bhaskar. When late PM Indira Gandhi gave a decision to sanction OROP and Uday, as the secretary, was required to prepare minutes, the senior bureaucrats told him to omit this point as they would take it up separately. And there is a more recent example. When enhancements in pension were announced on March 8, 2010, the service widows were left out. Aghast, I wrote to the Secretary, Ex-servicemen Welfare Department, but received no reply. I next wrote to the Defence Minister and again, no reply. Then I sent a letter to the Prime Minister. The reply that came through Army Headquarters bore a PMO file number. It said that the widows were not covered because the Committee of Secretaries (headed by the Cabinet Secretary) had not recommended it. The reply leaves no doubt about who in the government calls the shots. It is also an admittance of the harsh reality of the tail wagging the tiger. Leaving the widows out of the ambit of the enhancements has been a very insensitive action by the government and has caused widespread resentment among the veterans. Successive Parliamentary Committees have been recommending OROP. Besides, seeing the support of the public, of the courts as evidenced by their recent pronouncements, and of the Members of Parliament, so ably shown the lead by Rajiv Chandrasekhar who has renounced the increase in his MP salary till OROP is sanctioned, the writing is clearly on the wall. Isolated, the government can only delay grant of OROP but cannot deny it. Though none of us would like that to happen, it cannot be said that a serving soldier, seeing the plight of his father or uncle whose profession he had followed, will remain unaffected. The unhappy prospect can be grave. The writer is former Deputy Chief
of the Army Staff
|
|
More logic, less rhetoric to strike a better deal Is
atta-dal cheaper for a pensioner who retired in, say 1995, than an employee retiring today? Absolutely not. Then why should an old retiree be paid much less pension than an equally placed person retiring today in the same rank and with the same length of service? Legalese apart, this is the question that stares the present system in its face. But then, the logic is equally applicable not only to defence pensioners but to all pensioners irrespective of the service they retired from. And this is where I differ from some veteran organisations, which time and again bring in the talk of honour, valour and sacrifice of defence personnel while trivialising the roles of other occupations. One rank—one pension (OROP), or more precisely “Equal pension for the same grade with same length of service”, is definitely an equitable and ideal concept and should be granted, but it should be extended in time to all pensioners irrespective of the service from which they retired. If the defence services deserve it earlier or in a different format than others, it is not because their contribution is more hallowed than civilian employees but because they retire younger, at times 25 years before their civilian counterparts, are at call 24 hours a day, 365 days a year and definitely lead a tougher regimented life. Every service or occupation, however, has a role to perform in sustaining this nation and the thin line between pride and superiority should not be crossed. The outrage and retort of some members during a recent popular TV talk show, when a professor of economics suggested that there were other professionals too such as firemen who faced occupational risks, again reflected a kind of hollow supremacy which we are unknowingly instilling within the military society and that is taking us further away from the real world. Perhaps, the example of a fireman was not apt, but there are others such as personnel of the Central Police Organisations who face similar risks and probably lead an even tougher life. The only intelligible differentia that can be logically put forth is that defence personnel retire earlier. Of course, also fallacious was the argument of the professor that defence personnel should be granted higher pay but not greater pension because the nation cannot afford it. Perhaps the professor did not know that pension, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, is a “deferred wage” and a higher wage therefore has to rationally translate into higher pension. This fight should be won not by comparisons or running down others but by articulating a logical stance that is not easy to defy. The idea should be to convince the government, the public and the nation as to why pensioners in general and defence pensioners in particular deserve a better deal. Though I do not agree with the oft-repeated conspiracy theory of the bureaucracy being always opposed to what defence personnel deserve, I can say it with conviction that mischievous elements at not-so-high-levels definitely have the ability to deceive the upper echelons of governance with misleading file notings on which there is no proper application of mind at the top but only affixing of initials as a mere formality. Or else nobody on earth could justify what has been labelled as “modified parity” or “rationalisation of pension structure”. The difference of Rs 1,400 between the pension of a Captain and a Major as on December 31, 2005 has gone down to Rs 250 on January 1, 2006 after the Sixth Pay Commission, rather than increasing with the enhancement of scales, while the difference of Rs 950 between the pension of a Major and a time-scale Lieutenant Colonel has gone up to Rs 11,600. As on date, the disability element of pension of a 100 per cent disabled officer holding the rank of a full General who retired on December 31, 2005 after 40 years of service is Rs 5,880 while the disability element of an officer of the same rank retiring a day later is Rs 27,000. In fact, a Lieutenant, the lowest commissioned rank, with one day of service released on January 1, 2006 gets a disability element of Rs 8,100 which is much more than that of a 100 per cent disabled General, the highest commissioned rank, who retired a day earlier. Probably it has been somehow established on file that an injury sustained in January 2006 is more agonising than the one sustained a day before! The government may call it anything — modified parity or rationalisation, officialdom may put across a labyrinth of rulings and decisions to defend itself, but the net result is that the differentia between pre and post 2006 retirees is something that shakes the conscience. But how do we counter it — by rhetoric and presenting ourselves as “holier than thou” or by sound and logical reasoning? The writer practises in the Punjab & Haryana High Court
|
|
|
| HOME PAGE | |
Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir |
Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs |
Nation | Opinions | | Business | Sports | World | Letters | Chandigarh | Ludhiana | Delhi | | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |
O