Fire, fear and frenzy
DEEPA MEHTA’s film titled Fire is generating unprecedented cultural and physical violence in the name of morality. But a progressive society and an efficient administration cannot allow personal opinions to become an instrument of social unrest and fragmentation of composite culture.

After the strike
FRIDAY’S nationwide strike was mainly to protest against the government’s economic policies and pointedly to protect the interests of the working class.

Boredom continues
SAYING sorry by President Bill Clinton for his alleged acts of misdemeanour is evidently not enough to satisfy the Republican law-makers. They have, through the House Judiciary Committee, voted in favour of impeaching him on four counts.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
by S. Sahay
RECENTLY, the President told a conference, attended by lawyers and judges, that 30 million cases were pending in the law courts and that, now that the appointment of judges rested with the judiciary itself, it was time the problem of case arrears was tackled seriously.

Question mark over APEC’s relevance
by S. P. Seth
ONE of the greatest ironies of Asia Pacific economic meltdown has been the failure of its high-profiled regional organisations to address the issues. The Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation summit, held in Kuala Lumpur in November, was a clear example of this.

by P. Raman

Allies in no mood to toe
BJP line
THE SAD side of the BJP Government’s simmering crises has been that much of its origin could be traced to Atal Behari Vajpayee’s own doorstep.

BJP ‘googly’ stumps non-Cong Opposition
THE Bharatiya Janata Party’s decision to reintroduce the Women’s Reservation Bill in the Lok Sabha last week proved to be a googly for non-Congress Opposition parties as it took the heat out of the one-day nationwide strike called by various trade unions to protest against the Government’s economic policies.

by K. Rajbir Deswal
The wandering monk
VERY gracefully, donning a saffron cloak with a shawl and “kharaoon” (wooden footwear), he entered my office. I made him sit with apologies since he had been waiting for sometime outside.

75 Years Ago

Hindus and Hindusthan
WE have no hesitation in saying that the position taken up by Dr Kurtkoti in his presidential address to the present session of the Hindu Mahasabha about Hindusthan being “primarily for the Hindus” and India being theoretically and legally a Hindu State” is not only unsound and indefensible in theory but dangerous in practice.

Fire, fear and frenzy

DEEPA MEHTA’s film titled Fire is generating unprecedented cultural and physical violence in the name of morality. The matter is sub judice and, therefore, it is not possible to put Fire on the touchstone of logic with such criticism as comes into play with the help of comparison and analysis. The final verdict will come from the court. But a progressive society and an efficient administration cannot allow personal opinions to become an instrument of social unrest and fragmentation of composite culture. Fire should not be a new thing for those who have read Ismat Chugtai’s Lihaaf (quilt) or seen popular films like Rajanigandha and Razia Sultan. Shiv Sainiks have taken upon themselves the duty of defining culture and dictating cultural terms to the people of India. Dilip Kumar, a venerable film personality and a secular Indian, spoke a few words in support of Fire and the message contained in it. He depended largely on acceptable artistic norms and their ethical projection. He was not speaking for Deepa Mehta. He was expressing his opinion as a practising artist. His house in north-west Mumbai was attacked on Saturday by half-nude Shiv Sainiks who, through their convoluted logic, said that they were “supporting” Dilip Kumar. They ridiculed the thespian, saying: “See, he has spoken out against individual rights and in a way supported nudity. So, we all Shiv Sainiks will hold demonstrations clad in undergarments and go to every function where he is present”. They did not stop at this point. The fire of intolerance spread to a New Delhi cinema and a nasty scene was enacted there by the saffron brigade. More places in the country have been put on the Shiv Sena hit list.

There is fury and fear in the utterances of a considerable number of belligerent persons who have not even seen the film. They are unaware of the fact that Ismat Chugtai’s Lihaaf or Rajanigandha, like Razia Sultan, passed the legal and moral tests and the public enjoyed them in their printed and picturised forms. What is most worrisome in the present episode is the element of schizophrenic aberration bordering on fundamentalism. Shabana Azmi and her husband Javed have been derided because they have expressed their opinion on what, according to them, is artistically permissible in life and art. The court will expectedly hear all aspects of the Fire-born controversy. But, in the meantime, the administration at Mumbai, New Delhi and elsewhere must see to it that vandalism does not find an opportunity to get escalated. Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee, Home Minister L.K. Advani and film artist-turned-politician Vinod Khanna have condemned the violent acts of the ill-informed volunteers of the Shiv Sena. They should have, because of their BJP connection, some control over the hooligans.

The film is being treated like The Satanic Verses or Taslima Nasreen’s perceivedly unIslamic novel. One should remember that our culture and tradition rejoice in the beauty and grace of emotive, erotic and devotional songs like those in Jaideva’s Geeta Govinda. Countless sculptures and paintings of yore adorn our protected monuments and art galleries. Indian art and religiosity have a liberal tradition which justifies artistically significant and morally cherishable themes and their representation. Obscenity and pornography, however, are punishable. These terms are used interchangeably to designate written, recorded or pictorial material — including films — that many people consider indecent and offensive. Sexually explicit ideas or forms intended primarily to cause erotic stimulation are to be avoided. It is usually held that a publication or a show is obscene or pornographic if it is likely to corrupt those whose minds are open to amoral influences and into whose hands some work of that sort may fall. Most of those who have expressed violent opinions against Fire have not yet seen the film. Anger must give way to reason. Art has to be judged by artistic norms. Precedents cannot be forgotten and violence of all kinds should be abjured. The judiciary is applying its legal (and moral) mind to the fiery question. We should wait peacefully for its considered verdict. Meanwhile, no sane Indian should insult his motherland by calling his brothers like Dilip Kumar Pakistanis.

After the strike

FRIDAY’S nationwide strike was mainly to protest against the government’s economic policies and pointedly to protect the interests of the working class. The first objective got extensive airing while the second remained far in the background. Take the problem of unemployment the proposed closure of public sector units will create. Recently the government decided to shut down six units with a combined workforce of over 17,000. Given an average family size of five, the move threatens the future of at least 85,000. The Centre says that the attractive retirement benefits (about Rs 500 crore in all) it is offering will ensure a trouble-free future for them. It may not in the case of shop-level workers whose wages are low and have not been revised for nearly 12 years of continuous loss making. If the employees are also to lose the benefit of subsidised housing in these days of high rent and unaffordable real estate, the resultant hardship is easy to imagine. The CPM-affiliated trade union, CITU, has argued that it will need less funds than financing the voluntary retirement scheme to renovate and restart these closed units and even make them profitable. This may not be possible for two reasons. One, modernisation implies going in for fresh technology and retraining and reducing the workforce. But most of the workers are poorly educated and past their prime. Spending money and time on teaching them new skills may not thus be a viable economic proposition. Yet the human angle to the government withdrawing from industrial and commercial arena cannot be ignored altogether.

The certain loss of jobs in closing down the six units has got mixed up with the incessant talk of disinvestment and privatisation of public sector units. This was evident in PSU workers joining last week’s strike. The trade unions point out that while the government and the Disinvestment Commission have generated a mountain of statistics on the likely funds to be raised and the percentage of shares to be sold, there is precise little information on retraining workers or in helping them find alternative jobs. The so-called National Renewal Fund is all about adding a few thousand more rupees to the normal terminal financial benefits and has nothing to do with any renewal as such. Why not use a small part of it to prepare a blueprint for equipping workers to meet the challenges of post-retirement or to subsidise bank credit to them to start life afresh. The Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction can be the nodal agency. Disinvestment should not end up as an exclusive exercise in mopping up revenue; workers also deserve consideration. This is the precautionary lesson of the one-day strike.

Boredom continues

SAYING sorry by President Bill Clinton for his alleged acts of misdemeanour is evidently not enough to satisfy the Republican law-makers. They have, through the House Judiciary Committee, voted in favour of impeaching him on four counts. Of course, the vote for impeachment does not reflect the popular mood. Those who thought that President Bill Clinton would receive a standing ovation for providing non-stop excitement in the year about to end evidently too do not understand the preferences of the inscrutable American. For him excitement does not mean more of the same, but a different dish every night with or without the infamous blue pill. Not unsurprisingly, therefore, a survey conducted by the Boring Institute of New Jersey has placed Mr Clinton at the top of the heap of the “10 most boring celebrities” of 1998. It is safe to presume that Mrs Hillary Rodham Clinton was not asked to vote. Even she might have voted the President as the most boring celebrity because he reserved all the excitement for a former White House intern! She herself may have bagged the trophy for the “most understanding woman of 1998” — although some may argue that she has still not understood the full import of the goings-on in the Oval Office. Some may even prefer to vote her as the most boring woman for not having walked out on Bill after the globally televised confessional. But why drag her name in a contest in which she was not even a bystander — her official designation of First Lady notwithstanding? But if she had a vote, she would have preferred a safe distance — not respectable, for that was lost the day Mr Clinton admitted to an affair with Monica Lewinsky — between the President and the former intern. The ballot, if anything, shows that the Americans have a wicked sense of fun. They have voted Mr Clinton as the most boring man and placed Ms Lewinsky next to him as the second most boring celebrity of 1998. If the President is feeling hot under the collar — or whatever — for being placed in the company of someone he has sworn to avoid, he should protest to the Boring Institute for not putting him and Ms Lewinsky “polls apart”.

The 15th annual list released by the institute needs to be questioned for another reason. It has independent counsel Kenneth Starr breathing down the “pati aur woh” — with the “patni” nowhere in the picture — at number three. The “boring list” also includes Ms Linda Tripp at number four. Had she not released the tapes of Ms Lewinsky’s conversation with her the “pati aur woh” might have continued living happily ever after — as they do in stories with happy endings. If a similar survey were to be conducted in India quite a few political leaders would qualify for a place in the list of boring celebrities.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Alarming symptoms of decline
by S. Sahay

RECENTLY, the President, Mr K.R. Narayanan, told a conference, attended by lawyers and judges, that 30 million cases were pending in the law courts and that, now that the appointment of judges rested with the judiciary itself, it was time the problem of case arrears was tackled seriously.

Unfortunately, the government has never accorded a high priority to the administration of justice. Not that the problem of law’s delays has not been analysed. The Law Commission has submitted reports on improvements at every level — groundroots, High Court and Supreme Court — but these have generally gathered dust.

Worse, the judiciary itself is not blameless in this regard. Notice the existing dissatisfaction even in the higher courts, over appointments and the transfers of High Court judges and Chief Justices, and over appointments to the apex court.

The opinion given by the Supreme Court on the issues raised by the President concerning the grey areas in the judgement in the second judges case has the merit of arriving at a solution which is acceptable to the government, and the nine seniormost judges of the court are a party to the judgement. This, hopefully, will minimise complaints or grumblings, but would hardly solve the consequences that flow from the law’s delays.

The increasing resort to the law courts would ordinarily indicate a faith in the system, but, unfortunately, just the opposite is the case. In fact, an ordinary citizen would like to avoid going to the law court, if he can. It would be interesting to know the percentages of cases that are filed simply to delay unpleasant consequences of the implementation of the law that would follow for an individual — delaying the payment of taxes, preventing eviction from premises and such like. Surely, people have noticed that even our parliamentarians move the court in order to retain the bungalows allotted to them after they have ceased to be MPs or ministers.

Ask any really aggrieved landlord genuinely needing the own flat or house for his own use, ask anyone who has his dues from the government; ask anyone who has been wronged and is trying to lodge a complaint to the police. And he will have a sorry tale to tell.

Let us face the unpleasant truth, that, by and large, what prevails in practice in this country is not the rule of law but the rule of force. Might is right. If you are rich and powerful you can both ignore and frustrate the law — consider how the rich and the famous develop health problems the moment they are sent to judicial or police custody. Consider how selective our police agency is in even registering cases. Consider the pressure that is mounted on the police, or the investigative agencies, the moment a person of influence is sought to be dealt with according to law.

Not only those powerful in their own right think they are above the law, but their progenies also treat it as their inheritance.

The latest instance is the plain murder of a college girl, Pinki Srivastava, who along with some of her friends had objected to eve-teasing. One of the eve-teasers, the son of a local leader, chose to hit her with her running jeep, and not satisfied with it, reversed the gear in order to kill her and then escaped.

Despite the timely lodging of the First Information Report (FIR), the police took five hours to reach the scene of the crime. It was only after a public outcry that the culprit was arrested and the jeep impounded.

The people of Ambikapur (Madhya Pradesh) where this ghastly crime took place were so furious that, when the police was taking the culprit to the court, they demanded that the culprit be handed over to them for ready and rough justice. The culprit had to be taken to the court on foot. Later he was taken out through the backdoor. When the crowd came to know about it, it threw stones on the police, which had to resort to a lathi charge.

If this were a single incident of its kind one could have ignored it, but unfortunately it is not. Even in the Capital harassment or attacks on girls have become brazenly common. It can be said in defence of the police that, even if it were not as demoralised or subservient as it is now, it cannot possibly be present at every place of crime. What is to blame is the general culture of lawlessness that those in power are breeding.

The Rajya Sabha did discuss the Pinki Srivastava murder case but as a problem afflicting the fair sex. There is no doubt that this is on the increase and, as a member said, had degenerated into a “murder for pleasure”. While the Home Minister, Mr L. K. Advani, has a point in suggesting that one of the causes of this degeneration is the neglect of morality and good religious teaching, but restoring this can only be a long-term problem. What the governments both at the Centre and in the states can do is to firmly deal with the law offenders. The governments complain, not without reason, that the judiciary grants bail merrily and the cases drag on for years. In criminal cases these prove fatal. Perhaps the time has come to tighten the law so as to restrict the judiciary’s power to grant bail in certain cases; for the judiciary to exercise self-restraint in discretionary matters.

However, we are plagued with a different kind of problem. Let us face it. Even the judiciary does not claim that it is wholly free of corruption. Nor are the cases of victimisation by the powers that be unknown.

Where does it all take us? The writing on the wall is clear. Unless an all-round effort is made to establish the rule of law in this country, we shall have “pindari raj” sooner than we imagine. Already, the life and property of honest citizens are increasingly becoming unsafe. The organs created by the Constitution are proving unequal to the task, when not itself causing or collaborating with the decline. And yet we raise the slogan of “Mera Bharat Mahan”.

Question mark over APEC’s relevance
by S. P. Seth

ONE of the greatest ironies of Asia Pacific economic meltdown has been the failure of its high-profiled regional organisations to address the issues. The Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit, held in Kuala Lumpur in November, was a clear example of this. (So was the Association of South-East Asian Nations — ASEAN.) It is sad because APEC had begun in 1989 with great hopes of regional trade liberalisation, faster economic growth and regional cohesion.

The Kuala Lumpur summit was anything but that. First, President Clinton, who had given such a fillip to APEC summitry with its Seattle meeting early in the decade, pulled out of it. His presence at home was considered more important in the context of the Iraqi crisis. Vice-President Al Gore, his replacement, bought straight into Malaysia’s internal politics in support of the country’s “reformasi” (reform) movement linked to its imprisoned former Deputy Premier, Mr Anwar Ibrahim. Mr Gore drew a direct link between democracy and economic growth, attributing Asia’s economic crisis to its authoritarian leadership.

Proclaiming that “democracy was the best guarantee of prosperity”, he said: “People are willing to take responsibility for their future if they have the power to determine the future... Democracy confers a stamp of legitimacy that reforms must have in order to be effective.”

Kuala Lumpur turned out to be wrong venue for this year’s APEC summit. Malaysia was in the midst of a political fratricide, too preoccupied with its power struggle. Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammad was under attack both at home and abroad — even among his ASEAN neighbours in the Philippines, Thailand and Indonesia. Asia’s economic meltdown had made its authoritarian political leadership highly vulnerable. In Indonesia, it had already brought down Mr Suharto’s presidency. In Malaysia, Mr Mahathir appeared shaky.

Elsewhere, in Thailand and South Korea, economic restructuring was causing tremendous social pain and unrest, though their politics was relatively stable. China remained an enigma. And Japan was into recession, with no signs of early recovery. With the idea of a Pacific century now a shambles, APEC seemed to have lost credibility, if not relevance.

But nobody at the Kuala Lumpur summit wanted to write its obituary — least of all Australia, the convener of its first ministerial meeting at Canberra in 1989. As an Australian commentator pointed out, “It is the only vehicle we can use to push our case in the region.” Even Canberra, though, is not unaware of APEC limitations. As Mr Gareth Evans, its former Foreign Minister closely associated with APEC evolution, has said, the organisation is severely constrained by its rules of “totally consensual decision making, voluntary implementation, and movement only by peer group pressure.”

He was simply highlighting APEC’s institutional weakness as it existed — even before the onset of Asia’s economic crisis. Obviously, with economic, social and political turmoil now overtaking many of its members, its namby-pamby character is even more pronounced, evident from the platitudinous summit declaration read by Dr Mahathir in Kuala Lumpur.

It said, “We, the economic leaders of APEC, meeting in Kuala Lumpur on November 18, renew our resolve towards creating a prosperous Asia-Pacific community where economic disparities among our peoples will be bridged by strengthening the foundations of our economics for growth, providing the environment necessary for the efficient flow of investment, trade and technology and by enhancing the capacities of our economies to participate and benefit fully from liberalisation.”

Indeed, Ms Charlene Barshefsky, US trade negotiator, blamed Japan for blocking the process of trade liberalisation in APEC.

She urged Japan not only to “do more to get its own (economic) house in order, but also to absorb more (Asian) imports” to revive regional economies. Clearly, with the USA and Japan unable to agree on how to go about restoring Aisa’s economic health, there is not much scope for APEC as a regional forum.

Will APEC, then, survive? It would seem so. Because even though it is largely ineffective, it is not doing any harm. The next year’s summit at Auckland in New Zealand will be a clearer pointer to what lies ahead for APEC.

by P. Raman
Allies in no mood to toe BJP line

THE SAD side of the BJP Government’s simmering crises has been that much of its origin could be traced to Atal Behari Vajpayee’s own doorstep. His short-sighted image-builders first thought that sweet words and fixed smiles could be a substitute to a meaningful system of consultations and consensus — something essential for running a multi-party coalition. When they found this failed to click with the people, they began suddenly pushing him to the other extreme of giving him a tough and mighty image.

The new profile, heralded following the dismal feedback from the recent election campaigns, is based on the assumption that the ‘Vajpayee effect’ had failed to work in states because of the wide perception that the Prime Minister has been too weak and compromising. The government’s non-performance was traced to this factor. Thus, it was suggested, the only way to revive the earlier ‘Vajpayee wave’ was to provide him with a halo of authority. He should be projected as the supreme leader whose decisions and pronouncements should go unquestioned.

The number of schemes he has been announcing without Cabinet discussion at various business and academic gatherings in the past couple of months surpasses recent records. Running into several thousand crores, these were designed to strengthen his position as an unassailable centre of power. This new assertiveness is writ large on his face when he bluntly castigated the VHP-Bajrang Dal for their repeated Christian bashing and trying to usurp the disputed shrine near Chikmagalur. His initial defence of the Saraswati Vandana and its subsequent firm rejection had marked this sudden change of profile.

Two developments had climaxed this man-of-action buildup of the Prime Minister. First was his sudden decision to expand the Cabinet with his own close confidants. The second was to push through the highly controversial IRA Bill to allow 40 per cent foreign control of the insurance sector. In both cases, Vajpayee had his way. But the bitter war that had marked the victory itself highlights the limitations of the Prime Ministerial prerogatives in a coalitional setup and its inherent incompatibility with the kind of relationship within the RSS clan. For the time being, the Prime Minister has been seemingly able to make peace with the adversaries. But the troubles are bound to multiply in the coming months.

In the first place, the Prime Ministerial prerogative is not something absolute. It entirely depends on the extent of control the incumbent enjoys in his own parliamentary party and organisation at a given point of time. Both Indira Gandhi and Narasimha Rao had wrested this authority after compromises and concessions. At least in theory, Sonia Gandhi can also aspire to attain the kind of Prime Ministerial despotism her mother-in-law had perpetuated. But not Vajpayee. This is due to the peculiar organisational structure of the Congress and its built-in culture of sycophancy.

Thus the Prime Ministerial or Chief Ministerial prerogative can flourish only under conditions of the authoritarian control of the party by a single individual. Jayalalitha, Mulayam Singh Yadav, Chandrababu Naidu or Mamata Banerjee can enjoy full powers to hire and fire ministers and make or scrap rules. In a cadre-based party no individual, however big he or she might be, can enjoy such absolute powers. They will have to function as a repository of collective wisdom. Those who valiantly advise Vajpayee to assert himself over the hawks in the RSS clan on policy matters are oblivious of this basic difference.

Arguably, in the present juncture the RSS clan or the hawks within the BJP need Vajpayee to garner the floating votes without which they cannot hope to maintain the party’s Lok Sabha tally. On the other hand, Vajpayee himself derives his strength from the RSS clan. Without this backing he will remain just a hallowed individual. Moreover, the recent assembly elections have signalled the rapid erosion of his ability to impress the usually vacillating middle class. Most party MPs owe their allegiance to the RSS or its allied organisations. Traditionally, they are conditioned to follow the decisions of the clan, the recent erosion in such commitment notwithstanding. In the unlikely event of a tie between Vajpayee and the RSS clan, it is to be seen how many MPs will remain loyal to the former.

The Vajpayee camp, more than others, should know the intricacies of their relationship with the constituents of the RSS clan. In any case, none of them can assail the actions of the VHP, Bajrang Dal or Swadeshi Jagran Manch for supposedly spoiling the show. For, it is they who provide a dependable workforce, vote base and a religion-based ideology for their political wing. If the BJP strength in the Lok Sabha had gone up from two to 175, it has been due to the hard work put in by them. They constantly strived to whip up religious hatred, switching from cow, Ram and Saraswati. Unlike BJP politicians, VHP fanatics do so without expecting the loaf of power.

The difference between BJP politicians and VHP-Bajrang Dal workers has been that while the former uses religion as a tool to get power, to the latter it is a genuine obsession. Again, for the VHP, power is a medium to attain objectives, not the ultimate aim. This hiatus was known to both BJP politicians and VHP activists. For a long time, the BJP and the RSS clan had taken advantage of this hiatus to market the supposedly same product in different packages to win over different segments. The two camps within the RSS clan would like to continue this dual strategy.

But the contradictions within the BJP coalition had reached such a stage where it is no longer possible to accommodate the two conflicting strategies of middle class gentlemanliness and VHP bigotry. The backlash from the uncontrolled actions of the latter in the past few months had badly damaged the BJP in its own strongholds. The Vajpayee camp is keen on checkmating them so that he could avert a further backlash in coming elections. His firm disapproval of the attack on the minorities and appeal for ‘introspection’ on the Ayodhya issue have apparently been ignored by the VHP hawks. However, he seems to have succeeded, at least for the time being, to put a halt to the Hinduisation programmes of the Union Human Resources Ministry and the BJP state governments, especially in UP. But his writ will hardly run in the VHP which, from all indications, is bent on going ahead with its drive against Muslims and Christians.

By far, Vajpayee’s fiercest battle has been with the Swadeshi lobby on the issue of foreign domination of the insurance sector. The BJP manifesto has been quite firm on rejecting foreign participation. A year back, the BJP had opposed the same provision when it was introduced by P. Chidambaram. Apart from an influential section of the RSS top brass, BJP chief Kushabhau Thakre had openly opposed the government decision which was taken without consulting the party. Several articulate MPs had also come out against it . At one stage, it looked the two sides were set for direct confrontation.

If Vajpayee has in this case scored a limited victory, it has been due to the last-minute intervention by RSS chief Rajendra Singh, who had made special requests to the rebels to oblige. In the process, Vajpayee too suffered a loss of face. His authoritarian behaviour came in for condemnation. He was finally forced to come down from the high pedestal of Prime Ministerial prerogatives and agree in future to consult the party on all major issues — something his image builders had considered as incongruous. As part of the patch-up formula, Vajpayee has also been forced to agree to the formation of a coordination panel which would keep a close watch on actions of the ministerial arm.

The bid to give an imperious image to the Prime Minister has also caused revulsion from among the allies. Vajpayee’s sudden decision to add the three BJP ministers has invited protests from within the BJP and outside. Jayalalitha openly challenged Vajpayee’s claim that she had been consulted on the expansion. Samata Party and Biju Janata Dal have also protested. The allies question the very contention that the Prime Minister enjoyed such sweeping powers. In a coalition, all such matters should be settled through negotiations, and not by arbitrary action. He has faced flak from even sections of party MPs who alleged neglect of the lower castes while giving ministerial berths.

The discomfiture has been more on the issue of election of the Deputy Speaker. The lineup is quite stunning. Jayalalitha’s pot-shots apart, Mamata Banerjee unilaterally decided to canvass support for the Congress nominee, much against the BJP’s official candidate. The position was still worse on the issue of the Opposition bandh and nationwide hartal. Many BJP allies extended direct or indirect support to the trade union protests against their own government. Jayalalitha and the BJD, another BJP ally, were firm on their participation, while the Trinamool Congress did not oppose it.

All this should have caused considerable worry for the Prime Minister’s managers. The initial camaraderie and enthusiasm for mutual defence have given way to suspicion and mudslinging. The coordination committee of the allies had never been functional. Now even informal communication with allies seems to have broken down. Often, efforts have not been made to arrive at a consensus on issues. None bothers about Madan Lal Khurana. George Fernandes seems to have exhausted his appeal. As a result, the allies are more busy asserting their own identity. The lineup of the Congress groups among the allies under Mamata Banerjee has been a move in this direction.

BJP ‘googly’ stumps non-Cong Opposition

THE Bharatiya Janata Party’s decision to reintroduce the Women’s Reservation Bill in the Lok Sabha last week proved to be a googly for non-Congress Opposition parties as it took the heat out of the one-day nationwide strike called by various trade unions to protest against the Government’s economic policies.

Alarmed by the reunion of several non-Congress Opposition parties on the eve of the strike, the BJP’s decision to introduce the Women’s Bill effectively drove a wedge between the Left parties and the Rashtriya Janata Dal-Samajwadi Party combine. As expected, the Left parties did not take kindly to the spanner thrown into the works by the RJD-SP combine. A leader of the Left Front admitted that the BJP’s move had stumped them. As for publicity, the furore over the women’s Bill hogged the headlines and the strike was pushed down to the second slot.

Advantage of being PM’s kin

Being close to the Prime Minister has its advantages and disadvantages. More so if you happen to be his relative. The swearing-in ceremony of three ministers in the Cabinet recently had all the government bigwigs attending the ceremony. The seating arrangements were in accordance with the hierarchy. One could see a former President, former Prime Ministers, the Vice-President and other senior functionaries seated in the front row. Several senior Cabinet Ministers, including Union Finance Minister, Yashwant Sinha, had to sit in the second row. The Chief Election Commissioner, Mr M.S. Gill, too had to occupy a not too-envious seat.

What was surprising was that the Prime Minister’s adopted son-in-law, Mr Ranjan Bhattacharya, was made to sit in the front row ahead of other senior government functionaries. However, eyebrows need not be raised as a seat is reserved in the front row for a member of the Prime Minister’s family, to which Mr Bhattacharya belongs. He has been seen with Mr Atal Behari Vajpayee at times which were rough. So why deny him his rightful place? If this is not transparency then what is?

A show of women’s rights

The media cannot complain if the Trinamool Congress leader, Ms Mamata Banerjee, accuses them of having a gender bias. This follows uproarious scenes in the Lok Sabha last week over the proposed introduction of the Women’s Reservation Bill. The battlelines were already drawn even before the Speaker entered the House with members of the Rashtriya Janata Dal and the Samajwadi Party taking positions on the aisle and women members led by Ms Banerjee occupying the front row.

As soon as the Speaker entered the House, the members of the RJD-SP combine rushed to the well of the House to oppose the Bill. Sensing the mood of the Opposition members, Ms Banerjee, too, led supporters to the well of the House to challenge the Bill’s opponents.

Amidst uproarious scenes, Ms Banerjee lost her cool and in a bid to dissuade Opposition members from blocking the Bill, pulled at the sweater of Mr Daroga Prasad Saroj (SP). Angry SP and RJD members later gave a notice of breach of privilege against Ms Banerjee.

However, what was surprising was that some newspapers reported the next day that Ms Banerjee “manhandled” a SP member and this incident led to the adjournment of the House. Shouldn’t “(wo)manhandled” been a more appropriate usage in such a scenario?

Overcoat too much for Naidu

At a time when freebies are quite common for people in power, BJP General Secretary M. Venkaiah Naidu displayed a rare gesture in turning down one such offer. The grapevine says that Mr Naidu recently went to a big shop in Connaught Place to purchase some woollen garments for himself. The purchases included an expensive overcoat and three Kashmiri pullovers. However, when the Bill for the transaction was presented to the BJP leader he expressed his inability to make the entire payment. Even the massive discount given by the shop did not bring it within his reach. Mr Naidu paid whatever sum he had in his pocket and asked the shopkeeper to collect the rest of the amount from his house. However, the very next day the shopkeeper was surprised to see a neatly packed overcoat in his shop with a small note attached to it. Mr Naidu said he had not been able to sleep all night as his conscience prevented him from wearing such an expensive coat. He requested the shopkeeper to deduct the money for the three Kashmiri pullovers and refund the rest to him. A flabbergasted shopkeeper had no other option but to oblige.

13-year-trial for Viagra

The anti-impotency wonder drug, Viagra, had undergone a long gestation period before being finally born. The co-discoverer of the drug, Pfizer Limited’s research chief, Dr Simon Campbell, who was in the Capital last week has this to narrate.

The application for the drug was sent in December 1985 and it was not initially perceived that Viagra would be born. Dr Campbell was then undertaking a research project for a compound pertaining to cardio-vascular disease. As is common in any pharmaceutical research, a compound is put under an elaborate clinical trial process extending up to 12 stages. In this particular case, it was during the seventh round of clinical trial that the proclaimed potential of the drug was first noticed. This led to further intensification of research by Dr Campbell and his team of scientists which finally led to discovery of the drug in its present form. The approval for commercial availability of the drug was achieved only in March 1998 — a good 13 years after the research project was initially perceived.

May be this is the reason why Pfizer is not willing to commercially make the drug available in India in the absence of tight patent regime. “Five years is too short a time for yielding returns”, Dr Campbell quipped when told about the government’s consideration to grant exclusive marketing rights to pharmaceutical firms for five years.

(Contributed by T.V. Lakshminarayan, Girija Shankar Kaura, Gaurav Chaudhury and P.N. Andley.)

by K. Rajbir Deswal
The wandering monk

VERY gracefully, donning a saffron cloak with a shawl and “kharaoon” (wooden footwear), he entered my office. I made him sit with apologies since he had been waiting for sometime outside.

He had a large shining forehead and deep, unfathomable eyes. His white beard, tended seemingly effortlessly, added an aura of serenity and sagaciousness on his contended, pinkish face. He was wearing round glasses, resting on his long and pointed nose.

I asked him the purpose of his visit. He simply smiled and did not answer. Then I sought his introduction Straightening the curve of his smile in a matter-of-fact manner, he said, “I am a wandering monk”. He spoke in English. “It’s obvious ...!” I said, since now it was my turn to curve my lips for a smile.

“You know the way the youths are being misled today? It’s high time we’d done something for them. Otherwise the day is not very far off when we would curse ourselves!” he began, and I ordered for a cup of tea for him.

He talked of the Chicago Conference and Swami Vivekananda’s discourses. He talked about his philosophy and its relevance to youth. Then he switched over to Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, and his contribution to the freedom struggle. He spoke at length about the youth of those days and how they were motivated, trained and indoctrinated with the concept, and the manifestation of the Indian National Army.

... I was surprised at his idea of linking philosophy patriotism. It was almost a monologue and a trenchant from his side, and I was only nodding and humming in the affirmative. The tea arrived and I offered him a cup covered with the lid.

Throughout the entire deliberations “the wandering monk” did not talk of God, the scriptures or even spiritualism. He did not touch upon soul and prayers, nor metaphysics. He talked only of “self”. And not even his own self but “that” of the youth.

We decided to organise seminars in educational institutions on the birthdays of Swami Vivekananda and Subhash Chandra Bose. The “wandering monk” had his way when he secured a commitment from me. My curiosity about his identity was still not over.

Once again very humbly I asked him his “good name”. He obliged me and the additional information that he gave me was no less mystifying for me at least. “I am an IPS officer of the 1952 batch!” (Those days it was called the Indian Police). Bewildered, I stood up and saluted him, and less spontaneously but more compulsively it sprang from my mouth: “Er-r, sir”.

He also stood up and bid me goodbye with folded hands. I reminded him of the tea. “I have already finished it”, he smilingly said and left.

I saw him leave my office with firm steps. Firmness of gait and gall only the Vivekanandas and Netajis could infuse in the youth of their times. “The wandering monk” had said quits to the Indian Police as Netaji bid goodbye to the Indian Civil Service.

In his youth the visitor was concerned about the nation’s future, and in the twilight years of his life, he appeared worried about the present. “The crusader, sir,” I must say.

75 YEARS AGO
Hindus and Hindusthan

WE have no hesitation in saying that the position taken up by Dr Kurtkoti in his presidential address to the present session of the Hindu Mahasabha and by Dr Radha Kumud Mukerjee in his presidential address to the Hindu Youth Conference about Hindusthan being “primarily for the Hindus” and India being theoretically and legally a Hindu State” is not only unsound and indefensible in theory but dangerous in practice. It is unsound and indefensible because Hindusthan is, and has now for centuries been, as much the home of Muslims, Christians and Parsis as of the Hindus. To describe the millions of non-Hindus who inhabit India to-day as mere guests, as Dr Kurtkoti once described them in a speech which was widely commented upon, is on the face of it absurd. Apply to the overwhelming majority of these people whatever test you may, India is as much their motherland as it is the motherland of the Hindus....