P A G E
Friday, December 25, 1998
today's calendar
|
E D I T O R I A L P A G E |
Friday, December 25, 1998 |
| weather n
spotlight today's calendar |
||
|
JP’s
Bharat-Ratnaisation
CALCULATIONS
ABOUT CONG |
 |
Two
countries, two
Success
in new year
A
linguistic issue |
||||||||
 |
|
JP’s Bharat-Ratnaisation JAYAPRAKASH NARAYAN is the latest target of the Government of India for Bharat-Ratnaisation. The status of the highest civilian award is indeed most impressive but it has been given to great persons, sometimes too late. The Bharat Ratna has ceased to have any uplifting mystique or any socio-culturally honourable meaning. Who is the real chooser of names for State honours? Theoretically, it is the President of India. Remember the example of Sardar Patel? His relatives collected the citation and the medal and returned to the tranquillity of their private lives. The name of Maulana Azad also comes to mind. This great Indian was a resplendent symbol of achieved greatness. When he was sought to be honoured several years after his death, it was openly said that the Bharat Ratna had ceased to praise and venerate greatness. Some thinking Indians went to the extent of saying that the award in itself was constitutionally inappropriate, practically ineffectual and, therefore, intended to be used to vest an individual, living or dead, with conspicuously decorative distinction or status. The names of the Bharat-Ratnaised individuals include both Indians and friends of India — Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi, Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan (Pakistan), Gobind Ballabh Pant, Mother Teresa, Nelson Mandela (South Africa), Morarji Desai, B.R. Ambedkar, Sardar Patel, Rajiv Gandhi.... When the torch-bearer of modern Indian science, Dr A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, got the honour, the country had a real cause for rejoicing. The award had come at the right moment to a great scientist. The idea behind such honours in our country or abroad has its roots in the inner and genuine collective urge to show respect to the pathfinders and epoch-makers. The right path leads to the right destination and in the absence of light the march to the destination becomes difficult and disoriented. The award was instituted
in 1954. One has to look back at Article 18 of the
Constitution which abolishes all titles. It prohibits the
State from conferring any title on any person. The
exceptions statutorily made with considerable firmness
are in respect of academic brilliance and military
distinction. It will not be correct to say that honours
are not used as titles. People call themselves Padma
Vibhushan and Padma Shri like Sir or Rai Bahadur. Even
the National Warrant of Precedence recognises the
superior status of the awardees. A Bharat Ratna has the
seventh place of precedence along with Union Cabinet
Ministers and Chief Ministers. Jayaprakash Narayan would
not appear more honourable with the honour conferred on
him now. He was an active politician associated with the
Congress-Socialist movement. Once upon a time, he was
thought to be the natural successor of Jawaharlal Nehru
as Prime Minister. But JP was like a lotus. He kept
himself above the polluted level of politics. His
commitments were many. India remembers him as a unifier.
He lent his weight to the socialist movement and
strengthened the hands of Dr Ram Manohar Lohia. He led a
mass movement against corruption in high places and the
Emergency when his inner compulsions called him to do so.
He directed his efforts at the purification of “even
the Gangotri of corruption”. His so-called
supporters failed him. The government of disparate groups
and incompatible ideologies he welded together did not
last long. Among his spheres of dedicated activity were
Bhoodan, Jeevandan, Sarvodaya, Antyodaya, National
Evolution and Total Revolution. “The President has
been pleased to award the Bharat Ratna to the late
Jayaprakash Narayan.” Glory be to Mr K.R.
Naryanan’s advisers who think that Desh Ratna for
Rajendra Prasad is a less honourable term than the Bharat
Ratna. Could Bharat Ratna outdo “Sardar”
prefixed by the people to Patel’s name? One cannot
pay a greater tribute than remembering Jayaprakash
Narayan as Lok Nayak. Indeed, he was a ratna and he
belonged to Bharat. The whole exercise of honouring him
so late looks like an avoidable afterthought. The real
manner of honouring him is to do what he wanted to do
during his lifetime — to end corruption everywhere,
particularly in high places. |
Save the peace accord RIGHT-WING politicians on both Israeli and Palestinian sides have been working overtime to kill any peace process that is initiated in their area of West Asia. They have yet not realised that strong-arm tactics or a resort to violence can never solve a problem. They generally disapproved of the land-for-security process that took birth on September 13, 1993, with the signing of the Declaration of Principles at Oslo (Norway) between the late Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. They rejected the Wye River (Maryland, USA) Declaration by Mr Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Benzamin Netanyahu brokered by Mr Bill Clinton to bring the process to the state of fruition. They have succeeded to the extent of stopping all movement in this regard. One hopes this is just a temporary phase. What has happened is that Mr Netanyahu has failed to secure the approval of Knesset (Israeli parliament) for the Wye accord. He wanted this for the continuance of the process of handing over the remaining 13 per cent of the West Bank land to the Palestinian authority so that Israel could have from the other side an assurance for peaceful coexistence. Besides this, the situation has taken a turn for a snap poll in Israel, which must be held within two months, according to the country’s constitution. One cannot be sure that Mr Netanyahu’s Likud Party will again be in a position to lead the government. Whatever is the result, the USA, the facilitator of the peace process, must bring to bear upon Israel that a change of government should not lead to the death of what was hailed as the most appreciable development in West Asia towards the close of the current millennium. In fact, Mr Netanyahu,
too, is to blame for the emergence of the painful and
uncertain situation. The coalition headed by his party
could have carried the day in parliament if he had not
made the mistake of freezing the Wye accord some time
back, which angered the Leftists to withdraw their
support to the Prime Minister. Or it may be a calculated
mistake. One gets this impression from the way Mr
Netanyahu had been conducting himself after he signed the
October accord believably under US pressure. He wanted to
wriggle out of the picture. That is why he did not bother
about the sentiments of the liberal opinion in Israel.
That is why he kept repeating pointlessly that the
Palestinian leadership must meet the conditions that had
been agreed upon for the implementation of the Maryland
accord from the Israeli side. This is despite the fact
that Mr Arafat had been declaring that he had almost
fulfilled the core conditions — which included
accepting Israel’s terms for freeing Palestinian
prisoners, renouncing his intention to declare an
independent state by May 9, 1999, assuring no incitement
to violence against the Jews, seizing weapons kept
illegally by Palestinians, and conceding Israeli demands
for reciprocity. Mr Netanyahu could not withstand the
pressure from the religious parties which also formed
part of his fragile coalition. They basically doubted the
Palestinian pledge to accept the Jewish state’s
right to exist. The right-wingers pointed out unnecessary
technicalities when the Palestinians voted out the clause
in their Covenant, adopted in 1968, vowing to physically
destroy Israel. This was Mr Netanyahu’s primary
demand, and Mr Clinton is witness to the pledge repeated
by Mr Arafat at Gaza. The US leader should not allow the
promising baby born under his stewardship to be killed in
such a manner. |
CALCULATIONS ABOUT CONG NOW is the time to return to Mr P.V. Narasimha Rao’s proclaimed, but neglected, promise with regard to the Congress party. Now is the time, too, to respect that neglected clause in the party constitution forbidding one person to hold two jobs. Those who want to ensure that the Bharatiya Janata Party’s rout in Delhi, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh is not just a flash in the pan, and that the Congress can emerge again as the national consensus, should recognise the need for such a return to legitimacy. As Disraeli noted shrewdly in 19th century Britain, “party is organised opinion” and “without party parliamentary government is impossible”. The assumption that the Congress will eventually gain control of the Lok Sabha is understandable. But speculation that Mrs Sonia Gandhi is all set to become Prime Minister one day of the world’s biggest democracy highlights the trivialisation of Indian politics. It overlooks the importance of experience, ability and vision. It also overlooks the fact that elections are the means to an end that is not best served by the propagandist skills that attract votes, especially negative votes against a lacklustre central government that is the prisoner of its own factional quarrels and ideological conflicts. It is not that the Congress does not boast respectable talent. There is Dr Manmohan Singh in the Rajya Sabha. There is Mr Sharad Pawar in the Lok Sabha. There are others too, less well-known but no less able to shoulder the responsibilities of administration. They may lack the charisma to inspire the multitude but have shown in the past that they can chart out rational economic policies, command the bureaucracy’s cooperation and enlist the support of international financial institutions as well as domestic and foreign investors. In contrast, Mrs Gandhi’s fervent supporters hark on the hallowed name that is her only asset. Her detractors dwell on ethnicity. Neither is at all relevant to the post-election task of reconstruction. One acknowledges the power of a largely illiterate and basically feudal electorate that is mindful of tokens of the more secure past represented by Jawaharlal Nehru and his daughter. But it would be folly to take veneration for granted. The ruthlessness with which voters have thrown out governments ever since Indira Gandhi’s defeat in 1977 shows that blind faith marks only the initial stages. Ultimately, even the simplest villager wants results — personal dignity as well as roti, kapda aur makaan. The other exposes middle class ignorance of the absence of xenophobic sentiment in a country whose first lady is also foreign-born, being from Myanmar, without exciting any comment at all. It is worth recalling, too, that not only did a liberal Englishman found the Congress, but Mrs Sonia Gandhi is not its first European head — Annie Besant and Nellie Sengupta, both British, also presided over it at different times. The first was such a firebrand (declaring during World War-I that England’s difficulty was India’s opportunity) that Mahatma Gandhi famously admonished her. “Mrs Besant, you are distrustful of the British”, he wrote. “I am not, and I will not help in any agitation against them during the war.” Nor were they the only foreign women to devote themselves to India. Every Indian child has heard of Swami Vivekananda’s disciple Sister Nivedita, of Sir Winston Churchill’s cousin, Mirabehn, the daughter of a Royal Navy admiral, who followed Mahatma Gandhi, and of The Mother, the Frenchwoman who inspired deep faith among Sri Aurobindo’s followers in Pondicherry. More recently, we have witnessed the phenomenon of Calcutta’s Mother Teresa. Rajiv Gandhi’s European widow is by no means unique. There are many role models for her to follow, but her own rise to prominence has been in spite of herself and is also rich in irony. Two factors are generally thought to have overcome her resistance about induction into politics. First, the disappointment that successive government formed by the Congress, the United Front and the BJP-led coalition —failed to bring her husband’s killers to justice. And secondly, the suspicion that allegations against Ottavio Quattrocchi, the Italian businessman who now lives in Malaysia and is suspected of complicity in the Bofors scandal, were really directed against Rajiv and herself. Vengeance makes for strong personal motivation, but may not be an adequate substitute for constructive thinking on rebuilding a tattered nation. This is especially so in the case of someone who was so long the reluctant debutante of Indian politics. To begin with, she and her husband had so little taste for the hurly burly of political battle that they were reportedly planning to emigrate when Morarji Desai and his Janata Party came to power in 1977. Sanjay Gandhi was the political animal, as was his vivacious wife who worked strenuously, through personal networking and her Surya International magazine, to sustain the family and party cause when Indira Gandhi was in the political wilderness. It will be remembered that ambition was Maneka’s undoing. She claimed the dead Sanjay’s mantle for herself, eventually to be passed on to her son, Feroze, now 19, but her mother-in-law preferred the more tractable Rajiv, even though both he and Sonia then craved a private family life. The quarrel became public. Maneka stormed out of the house to have no further truck with her in-laws, and became a minister first in the United Front and then in the BJP-led coalition government. All this court intrigue is history. It cannot be dignified into politics unless the Congress seizes its advantage to tackle long-neglected needs — secular harmony, for more investment in primary and secondary schools, revival of an eroded infrastructure, loosening the bureaucracy’s stranglehold, drastically chopping off the deadwood of wasteful public sector enterprises, and positive measures to mobilise investment capital. An awareness of this daunting challenge might explain Mrs Sonia Gandhi’s becomingly cautious response to questions about a bid for power. She would display even greater realism, and earn India’s gratitude, by acknowledging the fundamental difference between electioneering and administration so that leaders like Dr Singh or Mr Pawar can build on the confidence that the Gandhi image inspired at the hustings. By restoring the one-person-one-job rule she would also prepare the way for good governance if and when her party can claim a Lok Sabha majority. It will not be easy to hold internal elections in a party that claims more than 25 million primary voters. Vested interests at all levels and in every region will try to frustrate the task. Fraudulent membership claims and spurious contests are to be expected. Many will cite the historic battle between Nehru and Purushottamdas Tandon to warn against an independent centre of authority in the party presidency, which explains the later device of working president created for Kamalapati Tripathi. But the succession of coalitions shows that there can be no return to the “Indira is India and India is Indira” sycophancy, and that only collective leadership and teamwork can strengthen the party’s roots and improve democratic interaction. Mrs Sonia Gandhi can render signal service to the country of her adoption by recognising her own strong points and limitations, and ensuring that not only is the party revitalised, but also that, when the time comes, governance is entrusted to the most experienced hands available. She provides the symbol; the need now is for substance. (A former Editor
of The Statesman, the author is an editorial consultant
to The Straits Times in Singapore.) |
Subsidies need a second look WITH the deficit growing at a faster pace, the question of subsidies is again in focus. Unless these are revised and streamlined, they could upset all our calculations relating to economic growth. According to available estimates, all kinds of central and state subsidies account for 15 to 16 per cent of the GDP during a year. As brought out in the White Paper on subsidies placed before Parliament last year, the total amount of subsidies came to Rs 1,37,338 crore in 1994-95. Of this, central subsidy accounted for Rs 43,048 crore. That is to say, 31.34 per cent of the total subsidy paid by the Centre. Again, the White Paper states that 90 per cent subsidies go for non-merit services. The non-merit goods and services include milk, power, transport, irrigation, education, etc. Till now there was no document which could give an accurate idea of all kinds of subsidies being paid by the nation. The White Paper is also slightly outdated in the sense that it covers the year 1994-95. No follow-up action has been taken to calculate the exact amount of the subsidies. It may, however, be noted that the figures on subsidy provided by the White Paper may not be totally accurate because of the methodological problems related to the calculation subsidies. However, the White Paper provides us some basis to rationalise the system of subsidies as well as weed out some of the unimportant ones. Take, for instance, the subsidy on fertilisers. As per the available data, the amount of subsidies being paid on fertilisers is very high. This subsidy is expected to keep the price of fertilisers low for the farmers. According to the White Paper, however, nearly 50 per cent of the fertiliser subsidy actually goes to the producers/suppliers rather than to the farmers. Similarly, the subsidy paid out on food rarely percolates down to the consumer but gets absorbed in the costs of handling and storing foodgrains. The report also points out that a significant portion of subsidies for higher education is appropriated by middle and high income groups because shortages are cleared by quality-based screening in the shape of entrance examinations, interviews and group discussions. As a result, the poor sections who require subsidy are left out. It also points out that unnecessary subsidies are leading to the wastage of scarce resources. For instance, it has been mentioned that extremely low recovery rates in sectors like irrigation, water, electricity and diesel lead to their wasteful use as these have been withdrawn from some other sectors in which these could have been very useful. It is estimated that the gross electricity subsidy for 1996-97 will be 46 per cent more than in 1994-95. The petroleum subsidy has increased by 100 per cent between 1995-96 and 1996-97. It may be mentioned that except for petrol all petroleum products like diesel, domestic gas, wax and naphtha are being subsidised in a big way. Of the total subsidies paid on the petroleum products, nearly half of these go to diesel, kerosene and domestic gas in that order. Similarly the railways are providing subsidy to the tune of Rs 2,200 crore per annum on the movement of passengers and low cost goods. The subsidy in the railways goes to ensure a lower freight rate on essential items and second class travel. One could go on and on, but it is sufficient to note that the nation cannot afford to go on paying subsidies on every conceivable product and service. It is common knowledge that nations have come to accept the view that subsidies in certain sectors are very important for their social goals. For instance, subsidies can help bridge the gap in consumption levels arising out of very high income differentials. But, at the same time, subsidies beyond a certain level are also harmful to the economy in various ways. But the country needs is to have a dispassionate look at all kinds of subsidies and decide as to which of them need to be reduced and which to be discarded. This cannot be a one-time affair but a continuous process in the sense that the effects of subsidies need to be reviewed every three to four years to see if they are fulfilling their role, and a decision taken as to whether they need to be continued, reduced or discarded. There are, however, certain areas where subsidies will have to be not only continued but also increased for the next many years. The reason is that the Indian society is still highly stratified and income differentials are very large. The two areas which can help realise a less stratified society are education and health. Subsidy on education is actually an investment on the formation of human capital, and so is the subsidy on health care. Only healthy and educated people are an asset to a nation. In the long run only healthy and educated people can contribute to increased productivity as well as increased economic wealth of the nation. Therefore, one is not inclined to agree with the White Paper that the subsidy on education, even if it goes to middle income group is subsidy on a non-merit goods. One would like to suggest
that the subsidy on education and health care is to be
treated as an expenditure on nation building and not as
something as a simple subsidy on non-merit goods. —
INFA |
Success
in new year AS you peel off 1998, and usher in 1999, there is an urge to win the life’s race. The fact, however, is that we are always talking, thinking or reading of “winning”. It is in the newspapers, TV news bulletins, daily life, at school, college, office and home. Pause by a group of children at play in a street and we hear: “I win,” as off they race or enter into a scuffle. In the sports page in every newspaper, readers seek eagerly the winners or possible winners in football, cricket, hockey or track events. On a higher plane come the Asian Games — the peoples of many nations follow these excitedly, waiting and wanting to hail the winners. So in other national and international meets. In business, men strive to win, to make not just a profit, but a living. The winner goes to the top. The loser may go to the wall. So in academic life, in the professions, in politics, the desire to win results in struggle which strengthens character. He who wrestles with you, strengthens your muscles. The race depends a great deal on mental ability and personality traits. From childhood, we are imbued with this idea that life is a race and we must win. Each one of us in his own way, or in his own scheme of things, wants to be a winner. The urge to strive, to win, is inherent in us to a greater or lesser extent. Perhaps, we waste our time and money, and dissipate mental and physical energies in chasing imaginary rainbows. Or gloat over the failures of others. Or envy those with more ability, more drive, more know how. We make small bundles wrapped as we are of own pigmy ego. May be, we are satisfied to stand on the side and watch others run the race, engage in the struggle and fail or win as the case may be. Here is sometimes a sneaking sense of relief that we are not the loser. Yet, we should not be content with passive life, just holding a watching brief. We too must be in the race, the turmoil, involved in the effort to achieve. “Main zinda hun ae nakhuda mujhe toofan mein le chal...” Each person has his race to run, his achievements to make, his goal to reach. The choice is ours. It is waste of mental and physical energy to sit by the wayside, envying those who are racing by and achieving recognition. Success goes to the doers. Ants are better than chirping crickets. Day-dreaming can be dangerous though it does play a part in any success. Enter the race. Cease to envy others. Take a hard look at yourself and weigh your talent. Make use of it. Some possess mental ability, others have health and physical strength. Some others have a strong personality which can carry them along the road to success and achievement. There are more opportunities today than ever before. When opportunity knocks at the door, do not complain of the noise! Seize it with both hands. The doors are wide open to those who will reach out. In your own small way, you can be a winner in the place where you are. People may not shout your name from the housetops, or print it in headlines, but if you achieve something you are a winner. What you lack is not
talent; it is purpose. Not the power to achieve, but the
will to work hard. No law of success works unless you do!
At the centre of “win” is “I”. |
Two countries, two social
concerns AMERICAN tobacco companies have just agreed to pay 46 US states a sum of $ 206 billion over a period of 25 years as compensation for the damage they have done to the health of US citizens. This is unprecedented in history. They have also agreed to accept advertising and marketing restrictions, to pay $ 1.5 billion over the next five years to fund anti-smoking education programmes and endow a public health foundation affiliated to a university or hospital. It is true much of this $ 206 billion will go to lawyers as fees, but a principle has been established: that the makers and consumers of tobacco products must pay the health care cost. It is difficult to believe that the anti-smoking lobby has ultimately won. The US tobacco interests were once so powerful that they were able to bribe the legislators to block legislation. In fact, they defied so many medical reports which linked smoking with cancer and cardiac diseases. But the odds are against them today. They have no other choice but to pay up. For one thing, they can no more continue to pretend that tobacco does not kill. The tobacco companies are already under investigation by the Justice Department for concealing the risks of smoking and misleading the Congress. And there are 800 public interest law suits against them in the courts. All these explain why they have agreed to an out-of-court settlement. The alternative would have been worse. In any case, they cannot prevent states from enacting tougher legislation. The tobacco companies will no doubt try to pass on the cost to consumers. But there is a limit to what they can do. They will have to absorb much of the cost. What is India’s reaction to this momentous event? In India, the Industry Minister wants to promote the tobacco industry by inviting foreign multinationals! He has offered them 100 per cent equity holding in their subsidiaries — that is, total freedom to do what they want. All these he proposes to do in defiance of his party’s inclination. What has happened in America has made no impression on the gentleman! He says: “The problem and delays are because of some sentimental constraints from some quarters. It is not from my end.” He calls opposition to smoking “sentimental” when the UN itself is engaged in banning smoking! He says: “I do not find strength in the argument that if a foreign company is allowed in, the number of smokers will go up. Neither do I understand why the beedi industry should be affected.” Obviously, the man is living in another world. He is in favour of 100 per cent FDI in cigarette and liquor! Why? Because, he says, it will increase competition! Naturally, the swadeshi lobby is opposed to his views. Mohan Guruswamy, adviser to the Finance Minister, says that cigarette industry should not be allowed to grow as “there is a huge cost to be paid in terms of spending on health care.” He is not only opposed to 100 per cent FDI in cigarette industry but also in favour of measures to reduce tobacco consumption. The people of India should wake up if they want to save themselves. They are being led by dangerous men. It is madness to allow some people to make money at the expenses of the health of society. Dr Hiroshi Nakajima, Director-General of WHO, says: “The tobacco epidemic is an epidemic like no other...(it) is sustained only by the search for financial gain. It is all about money.” Spurred by the greed for money, men are engaged in killing fellowmen. This should stop. There are 1.1 billion smokers in the world. They smoke 6000 billion cigarettes a year. Half of the smokers will die of diseases related to smoking. Nicotine is far ahead of alcohol, marijuana and others in its addictive potency. About 41 per cent of smokers belong to the developing world. About three million die of smoking yearly, two-thirds of them in developing countries. The world’s economic success has been at the cost of its health. Thus, there is a “growing crisis of suffering.” Is the tobacco industry aware of this suffering? Hardly. In fact, it knows nothing of the agony of these three million who die yearly. It should know. Smoking has become a social stigma today in the USA. It is not permitted in most public places. It is, therefore, in decline. Between 1970 and 1980, about 38 million adults in the USA gave up smoking. (In India tobacco consumption rose during this period by 400 per cent. Along with it, smoking-related diseases.) These explain why tobacco MNCs want to shift to Asia, a continent with low consumption of tobacco. They have already taken up aggressive sales campaigns. And the companies are backed by US federal laws that threaten trade sanctions. By 2000, sales in Asia are expected to go up to $ 70 billion and consumption to 2.5 trillion cigarettes — a 15 per cent increase. In India, about six lakh die of smoking. About four million children below 15 years have taken to smoking. These should worry us. But while the Centre is committed to curb tobacco consumption, some of the Chief Ministers of states, which grow tobacco, want to promote the tobacco industry. In fact, they want to invite foreign MNCs! There is thus no consistent policy. The Centre gives Rs 28 crore for tobacco research, but only Rs 1.4 crore for anti-tobacco education research. The Central Agricultural Ministry promotes tobacco cultivation for obvious reasons. About 40 per cent of the tobacco area is irrigated against 2 per cent in the case of pulses. The Commerce Ministry is interested in tobacco export. The Industry Ministry is interested in employment. (About 26 million are employed in the industry.) And the Finance Ministry is interested in augmenting revenue. Even the media has an interest in the tobacco advertisements. None of them is for banning smoking. The Health Ministry is, however, opposed to tobacco consumption. And the Labour Ministry, which has beedi workers’ interest at heart, is against 100 per cent FDI in tobacco industry. Shows how there is no central guiding principle in much of what we do. However, anti-smoking campaigns have brought about a new awareness. There is a sharp fall in tobacco and cigarette consumption. The decision to invite tobacco MNCs must be seen in this context. In India 65 per cent of the price of cigarette represents tax. Tobacco tax constitutes 10 per cent of the total excise. If health is the main consideration, then tax should be based on tar and nicotine content. This is not the case. In fact, a US Congressional committee has found that MNCs are lacing tobacco with addictives. Hence the need to monitor the nicotine content regularly. The tobacco industry gets subsidies from the government. Thus in America tobacco farmers pay only $ 1.5 for an acre of water, whereas actual cost of water is $ 2.03 per acre. Farmers get subsidy for power and fertiliser too. And this in a country which has a high record of anti-smoking campaigns. As for the tax structure, it is not designed to promote health, but the tobacco industry. Of course, making the
tobacco companies pay for the health care of citizens is
no way to solve the problem. In spite of anti-smoking
campaigns, there is no substantial fall in the numbers of
smokers in the world. New generations add to the number.
So the final solution lies in phasing out tobacco
cultivation. Without crop substitution, the menace of
tobacco cannot be eliminated. This is what the Indian
Medical Association has pointed out. This should be the
job of agricultural universities, institutes, extension
workers and others. |
Letter
to the Editor IN a recent article headed “Hindi in the Punjab”, L. Santram B.A. asserts that books written in Vraj Bhasha are not desirable courses of study for the students of our Matric and F.A. classes. He regrets that the Hindi students and not only they, but Arya Samajists, Sanatan Dharamists, etc., also use English and Urdu in the major portion of their correspondence and propaganda, instead of Hindi. He avows that this is due to the court language being Urdu, and also to the insufficient earnestness of Panjab University about the promotion of learning in Hindi. As he saw the names of places on the milestones in Mandi, Suket, etc., in Devanagri characters, he holds the rectification of the unjust blunder of the greatest magnitude — that Hindi is not a court language — to lie in the hands of the Hindi-loving Punjabees. I fear, that only very few men can hold such optimistic views. Perhaps, the percentage of Hindi (not Landas or Gurumukhi)-knowing public is not available to him. No doubt, he holds but little the anti-Hindu attitude of the Education Minister, or the majority of the population of Muslims, the Urdu patrons in this province. It is hard to find any Mohammedan with any knowledge of the Hindi characters, and it is by no means easy to point out any Hindu having good knowledge of Hindi, here. —
Shyam Swaroop Jalota |
 |
 |
| Nation
| Punjab | Haryana | Himachal Pradesh | Jammu & Kashmir | | Chandigarh | Business | Sport | | Mailbag | Spotlight | World | 50 years of Independence | Weather | | Search | Subscribe | Archive | Suggestion | Home | E-mail | |
