PM’s plain talk
DIPLOMATIC jargon has its place in conducting relations between countries, even while the brash American style is gaining wider acceptance.
Rushdie and the fatwa
THE threat to the life of Salman Rushdie from Muslim hotheads is not over.
Manning the crossings
WHILE visiting the site of the tragedy in Andhra Pradesh where over 20 persons were killed and 30 injured when a goods train hit a bus on Friday morning, the Railway Minister, Mr Nitish Kumar, boldly declared that all the level-crossing gates would be manned in the near future.

INDO-US NUCLEAR
DEAL & FMCT
by O. P. Sabherwal
THE ongoing Indo-US talks on nuclear reconciliation have engendered hopes of a breakthrough in the relations between the two nations.
Where is the farm policy?
by Vinod Mehta
THERE is supposed to be a national agriculture policy in the making for the last almost one decade and yet not even a draft blueprint of it is available.

She awakened Indians against slavery by Dr K.L. Johar DR ANNIE BESANT’S name will be remembered with respect for ages as she will continue to be counted as one of the front-rank fighters for India’s freedom struggle. Elected as president at the Calcutta session of Congress in 1917, she compares favourably with other women freedom fighters like Aruna Asaf Ali. An ambition unfulfilled by Sanjay Manchanda MY boyhood ambition was not to be a Governor or a Chief Minister. I simply wanted to become a cricket commentator, preferably an English one.

75 Years Ago

Mines in India
LONDON: In the House of Commons today, replying to Mr Tom Smith, Earl Winterton emphasised that the conditions of work in Indian mines would be greatly improved by the recent Indian Mines Act and the Indian Workmen’s Compensation Act.

PM’s plain talk

DIPLOMATIC jargon has its place in conducting relations between countries, even while the brash American style is gaining wider acceptance. India, the most committed practitioner of the fading British tradition, still loves to clothe unacceptable response and demand in acceptable phrase. Prime Minister Vajpayee broke the tradition and went American on the American soil while addressing the prestigious Asia Society on Monday. The result must have surprised him as much as it did the others. In what was clearly designed as a one-way dialogue, he twitted the successive US administrations of being blind to India and its concerns and interests. The USA went solo with nary a thought for this country in Afghanistan, in shaping the Asia-Pacific region concept, on expanding the UN Security Council and while finalising the NPT. In each of these, India has a vital security or economic stake. The US policy on Afghanistan had posed a serious security challenge, meaning that dumping arms in Afghanistan had aggravated today’s proxy war in Kashmir. Strong words these. But more was to come. He gently rebuked the USA for refusing “to accept us as a responsible member of the international community”. Then the final assertion. Housing one-sixth of the world population, India (together with the USA) will be a key player in the “democratised world order”. It is not all suppressed resentment coming out in soft but firm words. It was really a new attitude born out of new-found self-confidence and commanding attention. Mr Vajpayee said that the USA is a “natural ally” of India, just as the former Soviet Union’s successor Russia is a “traditional ally”. Analysts have described the Asia Society speech as a major foreign policy statement, and so it indeed is.

Coming as it does within hours of the major policy enunciation, the US Congress decision to relax sanctions in one or two economic areas has lost much of its importance. Anyway, the scope of the proposed legislation is narrow and it merely allows the President to exempt a few transactions for just one year. Pakistan, which is the intended beneficiary, can now import $ 200 million worth of wheat on credit. US farmers then are the main domestic gainers of the relaxation. That is clear from the fact that the new legislation is tagged on to the agriculture appropriation bill. India, on its part, will now receive a $ 900 million multilateral loan for the infrastructure sector and the US Exim Bank will extend guarantee to a $ 500 million investment. In due course, the partial lifting of economic sanctions will favourably influence the grant of $1.17 billion in loan from the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank. The new thinking on sanctions is the product of pressure from two sources. Congressmen feel that frequent resort to financial and trade armtwisting has been counter-productive, or at least not productive. A leading think-tank has pointed out in its report that the President should have the power to impose or waive sanctions and to use them as incentives or disincentives in support of, and not to freeze, the country’s foreign policy. In other words, the USA should not try to cast the world in its own image. Well said, and incidentally, that is the gist of Mr Vajpayee’s speech.

Rushdie and the fatwa

THE threat to the life of Salman Rushdie from Muslim hotheads is not over. It is evident that the champions of free speech did not understand the meaning of the statement of Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi during his meeting with British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook in London recently. All Mr Kharrazi did was to distance his government from the fatwa issued by Ayatollah Khomeini nine years ago against the India-born British author for having blasphemed Islam in the controversial book “The Satanic Verses”. In fact, both Mr Cook and Mr Kharrazi seemed to be keen to give the fatwa issue a hurried burial so that Britain and Iran could get on with the business of establishing diplomatic ties, snapped after the Islamic Revolution of 1979. The point to note is that Mr Kharrazi did not drop even a vague hint that Iran would take suitable steps against the pro-fatwa groups in his country. The announcement has only revived the controversy, with self-styled protectors of Islam issuing fresh appeals from all parts of the globe, including Iran, for Rushdie’s head. A spokesman of a London-based group said that “there will always be Muslims who want to carry out the fatwa”. Another group claimed that “the Iranian government has not said they have revoked the fatwa because they cannot. Only Khomeini who issued the fatwa can withdraw it”. But the father of the Islamic Revolution died in 1989 and the pro-Khomeini elements are not going to accept the official stand as correct. In any case, it should be remembered that India is the “mother” of Rushdie’s troubles and it is only fair to expect a matching response from the government to the Iranian initiative. As of today New Delhi’s stand on “The Satanic Verses” remains unchanged.

The book was banned in India after Syed Shahabuddin raised a howl of protest even without reading it. Prof Mushirul Hasan, an eminent historian, was physically attacked by Muslim fundamentalists for having defended the right to freedom of speech while criticising the book as offensive. Not only is India not ready to lift the ban, but it has also refused permission to Rushdie to visit the land of his birth because “his presence may arouse Muslim passions”. The fact of the matter is that the threat to Rushdie’s life is as real today as it was nine years ago when Khomeini responded to the “Shahabuddin-generated controversy” and issued the fatwa for his head. Iran has revised its official stand because it is keen to end its global isolation. As far as Britain is concerned the Rushdie fatwa stood in the way of establishing diplomatic ties between the two countries. Britain which is currently experiencing industrial stagnation and economic slow-down is keen to invest in Iran’s gas reserves believed to be the world’s highest. It was waiting for an excuse to forget the bitterness of the past between the two countries and get on with the “business” on hand. In a manner of speaking, until yesterday Iran was seen as backing a pack of hungry wolves wanting to kill Rushdie for having blasphemed Islam. If after the “London declaration” the pack of wolves still manages to get the author of “The Satanic Verses”, Britain would continue doing business with Iran with a clear conscience. In the free market economy global diplomacy is about promoting one’s own interests even if it means sacrificing a few principles. As far as Rushdie is concerned he has been conned into believing that he has earned his freedom from the application of the obnoxious fatwa.

Manning the crossings

WHILE visiting the site of the tragedy in Andhra Pradesh where over 20 persons were killed and 30 injured when a goods train hit a bus on Friday morning, the Railway Minister, Mr Nitish Kumar, boldly declared that all the level-crossing gates would be manned in the near future. If it is seen as a declaration of good intention, then there is no quarrel with the assertion but if it is viewed in practical terms, one cannot be too hopeful of the promise being fulfilled in the near future. There are more than 25,000 unmanned crossings in the country, many of which have witnessed ghastly incidents over the years. But the task of manning them has been going on at the proverbial snail’s pace. One fails to understand how this process is going to be speeded up all of a sudden. The main constraint is finances. The manning of each crossing involves Rs 7 lakh of capital expenditure and more than Rs 2 lakh of recurring expenditure. That means that the 25,000 crossings will require about Rs 2,500 crore for doing the needful. The Minister has not clarified where that kind of money is going to come from. That is why he has added that the work will be done in a phased manner. But that is how it has always been. It is not clear what new is now sought to be done.

The Union Cabinet is to take a decision in this regard and one would look forward to some positive development. But it is obvious that the task cannot be done without the help of the state governments. The latter, however, have been lukewarm in their response. It is ironic that the governments are willing to pay compensation to the people who lose their lives in the frequent accidents but are yet to wake up to the danger posed by unmanned crossings and do something about it. The Railway Ministry is also said to have tried to persuade various MPs to set aside part of their constituency allowance for the manning of the crossings but they too have been hesitant in committing themselves. Things can look up only when this attitude changes. At the same time, there is need to have a closer look at the way buses are driven. For instance, eyewitness accounts are unanimous that Friday’s accident in which many children lost their lives occurred due to the bus driver’s recklessness. It is unfortunate that all over the country buses — even those ferrying school children — continue to be driven by people whose driving skill is preliminary, to say the least. After a drowning tragedy in Delhi, the Administration and the Judiciary had tried to discipline bus operators but they raised such a hue and cry as if they were the aggrieved party. This playing with the lives of passengers must stop forthwith.

INDO-US NUCLEAR DEAL & FMCT
Complexities of new style diplomacy
by O. P. Sabherwal

THE ongoing Indo-US talks on nuclear reconciliation have engendered hopes of a breakthrough in the relations between the two nations. Despite their disparate outlook, the prevailing global political and economic scene opens prospects of Indo-US rapport as never before. There is talk of a package deal which unfolds in stages, reconciling the public postures of the two countries with a commonality of interests.

Yet there are roadblocks. The divergence in the positions of the two nations on the nuclear issue cannot be wished away; much hard work and give and take is needed on both sides. Even more important, the Indian side has to do its homework thoroughly and play the aces in the hands with understanding and finesse, if it is to overcome the stiff American resistance to accepting India as a de facto, not to speak of a de jure, nuclear weapons state, and do business accordingly.

The CTBT card has been well played, but it is time now not to overdo it. The CTBT, despite its obvious limitations, does not hurt India. In fact, after the display of advanced Indian nuclear technology on May 11 and 13, the CTBT is beneficial to India since it is devised to favour the nuclear front-runners. India’s moral objections to the CTBT being largely a non-proliferation regime rather than a disarmament move remain. But India can fight for this cause better from within by joining the CTBT.

There is an even more effective ace that India holds — its prospective role in the fissile material cut-off treaty talks. However, the FMCT presents both a challenge and an opportunity. Indian negotiators have to be fully prepared to deal with the complexities of the fissile material cut-off treaty to build their clout with the USA and the rest of the West, and extract their economic and technological priorities, while at the same time warding off the dangers that this treaty poses to India in particular.

What then does the FMCT mean and what are its dual implications for India? Essentially, while the CTBT bans nuclear test explosions of any yield — subsurface or overground — the FMCT will take the process to the source. It will prohibit further production of weapon-grade plutonium and highly enriched uranium after an agreed cut-off date. This means that the nations with the capability of producing weapon-grade nuclear material can retain under national control their existing fissile material pool, over and above the stock-pile of nuclear weapons in their arsenal, but cannot add to their fissile pool after the declared deadline.

The important corollary is that nations will have to disclose and declare the quantum of their weapon-grade fissile material holding in any form, as also their stockpile of weapons. While it is obvious that the FMCT will tilt the nuclear power balance heavily in favour of the United States of America, Russia and the European nuclear powers — nations having a very large fissile material pool and massive stockpiles — it will also benefit India by transforming it into a nuclear weapon state de facto. What better acceptance of Indian nuclear weapon status can there be than the listing of Indian fissile material pool plus weapon stockpile? In fact, the FMCT can be negotiated to variably nullify the NPT’s five-nation exclusive weapon status and register India as a nuclear weapon state de facto as well as de jure. If there is any ambiguity on this question, it has to be cleared as a precondition for Indian participation in the FMCT.

Much depends on the manner in which India enters the FMCT process and conducts its multilateral as well as bilateral negotiations within the upper layer of nuclear capability nations. India’s clout rests primarily on two aspects: after the display of Indian nuclear technology’s worth following the May tests, more so the thermo-nuclear test, the USA is in dire need of India’s accession to the FMCT. Secondly, this is needed all the more to persuade China, presently dragging its feet on the FMCT in view of the big lag in its fissile pool, and that the USA. As things stand, there can be no FMCT without Indian participation, and the CTBT is worthless minus the FMCT being in place.

India can pull out its objectives one by one. Sanctions have, of course, to go. In this context, the first major technological deal — which is also a bait for France and USA — is for a massive programme of these countries’ light water reactors for India’s nuclear power programme on financial terms similar to those entered into with Russia. Such a deal will break the technological Berlin Wall put up by the West on the advanced technology coming to India.

On the other hand, India has to take a close look at the limitations and constraints which the FMCT will impose on this country. These are equally obvious. On the declared deadline, India will have to stop the production of weapon-grade plutonium — the fissile core of its nuclear weapon capability. Since the nuclear weapon deterrence capability is India’s strategic need and its not entering a matching race with the nuclear weapon big powers, there should be no shying away from the prospect of a deadline on fissile material production, a deadline that is no doubt going to be universal and rigorously enforced. The catch here lies in Indian policy-makers being wide awake to the ensuing implications well ahead of the FMCT deadline’s imposition.

This political-scientific synergy is urgently called for because of another aspect of the FMCT talks being vital for India. And that is because the dividing line between weapon-grade plutonium and reactor-grade plutonium is thin. India’s civilian nuclear energy programme is greatly dependent on plutonium fuel obtained from the reprocessed spent fuel of operating reactors. Control over fissile material which the FMCT regime imposes should not mean curbs or practical constraints on the production of reactor-grade plutonium and its use for fabricating plutonium-based fuel for reactors. One can be sure that American endeavour will be to bring all types of plutonium within the curbs of one or another type flowing from the FMCT regime, but Indian negotiators can ward off the dangers for the Indian nuclear power programme provided the intricate scientific issues involved are adequately tackled. This can be done all the more because India is not the only country which has such interests to be guarded — France, Japan and several other countries fall in the same category, some at least potentially.

Inducting the scientific establishment in the crucial talks ahead — in fact, even the ongoing talks — can be of great benefit to this country from yet another aspect. It can help provide for scientific education of the political top brass by detached briefings explaining the national interests and objectives both in relation to the CTBT and the FMCT talks which are ahead. That should be the right way to create a national consensus among the major political parties.

Where is the farm policy?
by Vinod Mehta

THERE is supposed to be a national agriculture policy in the making for the last almost one decade and yet not even a draft blueprint of it is available. It is really surprising that in a country where still 70 per cent of the population is dependent on agriculture, there is no national agricultural policy as yet. How casual the approach is towards the agricultural sector can be gauged from the fact that the Minister of State for Agriculture could not give the figures for grain production during the current agricultural season at the recently concluded Economic Editors’ Conference.

It is, therefore, not surprising that the weakest link in our economic reforms of the past six years has been the lack of any meaningful agricultural policy. The successive governments have been neglecting this important sector for a long time. And as the WTO provisions regarding the agricultural sector come into force in the next five years, we are likely to be at a great disadvantage vis-a-vis other countries unless we do something to develop a sensible agricultural policy.

The policy which is being currently pursued is biased towards ensuring sufficiency in food production and the public distribution system of the food so produced. The current agricultural policy was, in fact, born when India had to import food under the American PL-480 scheme to feed its population through the import of American wheat which was politically quite humiliating. The policy that emerged put many restrictions on the movement of foodgrains from one region to another within the country. The prices came to be fixed by the state as well as severe restrictions on the export and import of agricultural products.

With the introduction of high-yielding varieties of wheat and other crops, the country has been able to achieve a reasonable degree of self-sufficiency in foodgrain production. For the past many years India has not made any distress purchase of foodgrains from a foreign country to feed its population. This is an important achievement for the nation.

However, with the signing of the WTO, the country has to look beyond feeding its population. That is, to say, keeping intact the ideal of self-sufficiency in grain production to feed its own population, agriculture must now look for lucrative markets not only within the country but also outside. Agriculture need to be dependent upon the state for remunerative prices but should look towards the free market.

In other words, the agricultural sector needs to be accorded the status of industry so that it can also reap the benefits of economic reforms. However, the sudden opening up of this sector may create more problems for the country than any tangible benefits to all the sections of society in the immediate future.

As a first step, after meeting the requirements of the public distribution system, foodgrains should be allowed to move freely within the country, all the restrictions on their movement should be lifted. This will not only work as a stabilising factor for foodgrain prices within the country but also ensure the availability in food-deficit areas.

Even though food will be relatively expensive in the food-deficit areas, it will stave off situations as in Kalahandi in Orissa where hunger deaths have been reported in recent times. This will also save the state from artificially propping up the prices to ensure remunerative prices to the farmers. Since the farmers have all the time been functioning in a regime where the movement of grains has been regulated by the government, it should be deregulated in a phased manner so as to cause the minimum upheavel in the market.

Removal of restrictions on the movement within the country also calls for the development of transport infrastructure. At the moment the railways are handling the bulk transport of grains. The movement of grains to remote areas by road is going to be a very expensive proposition.

Therefore, it leaves us with two alternate modes of transport: The railways and, waterways. The railway network is already moving the bulk of grains but the system of waterways is not as yet fully developed to handle it on that scale. Therefore, as a first step the railways may be asked to gear up to handle the movement of grains on a massive scale. Secondly, we must have a waterways or river transport policy so that grains could be moved in bulk by boats wherever possible.

If we are to add an international dimension to the marketing of agricultural products, then we will have to immediately develop the ports. At the moment our ports are not properly equipped to handle any bulk transport of agricultural products. — INFA

An ambition unfulfilled
by Sanjay Manchanda

MY boyhood ambition was not to be a Governor or a Chief Minister. I simply wanted to become a cricket commentator, preferably an English one.

Mind you, in those days of the late seventies, radio commentary was more popular, and that was predominantly in Hindi. Even after the 1982 Asiads when television initially began to make huge inroads, there were only a few traces of English commentary for the cricket matches played in India. Nowadays, of course, the TV commentary has been completely taken over by the English language with world-class former players turning into telecasters.

But in those good old days of Jasdev Singh and Sushil Doshis, I was a proud English commentator, perceiving myself to be a prospective usherer of a new era. My folks were also quick to spot my “inborn talent” and, therefore, were never short of encouraging my obsession. At every family get-together of immediate relations where each child was supposed to entertain the “audience” with a song, joke or a piece of mono-acting, I would be inspired by my parents to dish out an exclusive slice of my special imaginative commentary.

Never reluctant to seize the opportunity, I would kick off with a description of an attacking field setting that was always firmly ensconced in my mind. “Three slips, a gully, a silly point, mid off, mid on, forward short leg and fine leg”. That rattling without a pause generally left some curious onlookers around, but I would almost non-chalantly go on: “Jeff Thomson (the fastest speedster of the time) runs in to bowl to Farookh Engineer and he has bowled him”.

However, the most amusing and striking gesture used to follow immediately thereafter. By cutting short my speech, I would then imitate the chattered noise of spectators’ cheers that one invariably got to hear from the radio set after the fall of wicket. Charmed as most of the listeners were by this unique “skill”, they would shower a little more than customary compliment that was due to every performance by a child.

I remember my uncle, who always took a little extra personal interest in my activities, having queried me once in front of one such gathering. “Why, son, do you have to make the commentary in English when you audio-view the game in Hindi most of the time?” My repartee was firm and straight. “Because, uncle, cricket is an English game with English laws and English terminology.”

Impressed by that terse comment and a bit of intrinsic knowledge of an 11-year-old boy, my uncle suggested to my father that I might be allowed to pursue cricket commentary as my profession, if I wanted to. And I certainly harboured a strong yearning for seeing myself on the other side of the fence — radio or television. Since that day I had incessantly started rehearsing my commentary monologue. Whether I was sitting in my study to prepare for my school lessons or on the front rod of my elder brother’s bicycle, I had complete freedom to indulge in lengthy sessions of commentary.

However, as I grew up, I was gradually discovering that my dream of donning the mantle of a professional commentator was turning sour. On the one hand if the radio commentary was fast becoming passe, the entire television cricket coverage, on the other, in spite of turning into English, left very little scope for people like me (who have not played any big-time cricket) to barge into the commentator’s box. This new practice of roping in only international players of yesteryear as the specialist commentators has put paid to all the hopes I had of fulfilling my life’s sole ambition.

She awakened Indians against slavery
by Dr K.L. Johar

DR ANNIE BESANT’S name will be remembered with respect for ages as she will continue to be counted as one of the front-rank fighters for India’s freedom struggle. Elected as president at the Calcutta session of Congress in 1917, she compares favourably with other women freedom fighters like Aruna Asaf Ali. Sarojini Naidu, Kamala Devi Chattopadhyaya and Kasturba Gandhi. Nehru once said of her: “She was a tremendous figure who influenced the men of her time greatly and there could be no doubt that in India’s journey for freedom her part was a considerable one.”

Unlike other women freedom fighters mentioned above she was of English origin. But so was Hume who had founded the Indian National Congress in 1885. She was fully aware that the British were the rulers and in opposing the British on Indian soil, she was running a double risk. In the first place she would be looked down upon by the English; secondly, there would be a natural apprehension in some quarters in India that her opposition to the country of her birth was mere hypocrisy.

Undaunted by these fears, she came to India in November 1893 at the age of 46 and engaged herself in the task of social reconstruction. This was the time when she wanted to rouse the self-respect of Indians. It did not mean, however, that people like Feroz-Shah Mehta, Surendra Nath Banerjea, Gokhale and Tilak had not done similar work before her. She was an added force to the effort already in operation. She wanted Indians to free themselves from the obsession of the West and the Western lifestyle. “To a people imprisoned in alien ideas and bewitched by western standards and mode of life, some voice had come to release them from the dungeons of their musings and free their inferiority complex.” When an English woman spoke to Indians about their ruthless exploitation by the English, it made more than normal sense.

Dr Annie Besant, therefore, thought that awakening the Indian mind to the ills of slavery was the first step. She seemed to tell the British imperialists as Lincoln had said many years ago during the civil war in his country”. As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. Soon after her arrival in 1893, she lectured extensively all over Southern India. In 1894, she covered the northern region on a similar campaign. Her topics invariably were related to Hindu religion and Indian culture and she tried to infuse in her audiences the lessons of fearlessness and truth. She settled at Benaras in 1895 and translated the Bhagwad Geeta into English. Side by side, Dr Besant gave a fillip to education. She established Central Hindu College at Benaras in 1894 which was later elevated to the status of a university by Pt Madan Mohan Malaviya and others. She established many educational institutions in the south region. In 1918 she established a national university at Adyar. She laid particular emphasis on women’s education for like Mahatma Gandhi later, she felt, that unless womenfolk played their legitimate role in nation-building, the freedom movement would not make much headway. It goes without saying that it was under Gandhiji’s magic spell that women of India even from the villages came forward in vast multitudes and made innumerable sacrifices during the freedom struggle.

It was around 1914 that Dr Annie Besant entered the political arena. She attended the Congress session as a delegate in 1914. Her experience as a social reformer and as a free thinker stood her in good stead. She had worked as co-editor in ‘National Reformer’, a journal of great repute launched by Charles Bradlaugh. The latter had taught her that a good cause could be promoted speedily and with the desired results through printed publicity. She had emerged as a great crusader in trade union work in London and as a member of the Fabian Society had earned the respect of such stalwarts as Sydney Webbs, George Bernard Shaw and Ramsay Macdonald. Her membership of the “Theosophical Society” had provided ethical inputs to her constructive endeavours. With this rich background, she worked day and night to promote the noble cause of the national movement in India. She was a silver-tongued orator and kept her audiences spell-bound wherever she spoke.

In January, 1914, she started a weekly journal ‘Commonweal’. In June, she purchased Madras Standard and rechristened it as “New India.” Through these two papers, she launched a blistering campaign for India’s freedom, and bitterly criticised the British for their racial arrogance, colour prejudice and economic exploitation.

She started the Home Rule League in September 1916. After she had delivered a fiery speech at Cuddalore in Madras Presidency, Lord Pentland, the Governor of Madras, asked her to leave India. She refused to be browbeaten and did not comply with the order as she thought it was unjust. She was arrested and remained in prison at Ootaucumund for a few months leading to wide-ranging resentment throughout the country.

She soon became household name and her popularity was next to none. Gandhiji said of her: “It is indisputable that the services rendered to India by Annie Besant will ever remain memorable in the country’s history. I shall continue to think of Mrs Besant whom from my youth I had come to regard as great and living illustration of fearlessness, courage and truth.” A great complement indeed! It became greater when it came from a person of Gandhi’s stature.

But in politics, reputations are marred as quickly as these are made. Her popularity waned rapidly when she stood against Gandhiji’s concept of the non-cooperation movement in 1920. In fact, no one in Indian politics after 1920 not even Subhas Chandra Bose, howsoever well intentioned, meaningful and strong, could stand against the tidal wave of Gandhiji’s popularity. She insisted on an organised agitation consistent with the law of the land. But Indians seem to have lost faith in the legal system as a whole and thought of it as a sham and a mere show. They had before them the ghastly episode of Komagata when hundreds had been shot dead at Buj Buj seaport in Calcutta. They had known that thousands of their compatriots had been sulking in jails for years together. The latest in the unarmed innocent Indians were gunned down by their British masters. It was against this background that people readily accepted Gandhiji’s plea of non-cooperation with the British.

However, in the wake of changed political scenario, not a word of vengeful anger came on her lips. She worked in her own humble way. She continued writing in her papers pleading for India’s cause. She fought for women’s franchise and wrote about 300 books and articles and vigorously pleaded with the British to give freedom to Indians.

Annie Besant remained to her conscience till her last breath. Like Gandhiji, she espoused truth and in one of her articles wrote: “An imperious necessity forces me to speak the truth, as I see it, whether the speech pleases or displeases, whether it bring praise or blame. That one loyalty to truth I must keep stainless, whatever friendships fail me or human ties be broken. She may lead me into the wilderness, yet I must follow her, she may strip me of all love, yet I must pursue her, though she slay me, yet will I trust in her and I ask no other epitaph on my tomb but she tried to follow truth.”

This woman of unflinching mind and soul and of wonderful political sagacity born this day 86 years ago in England died in peace at Adyar near Madras on September 20, 1933.

(The writer is Vice-Chancellor of Guru Jambheshwar University, Hisar)

75 YEARS AGO
Mines in India

LONDON: In the House of Commons today, replying to Mr Tom Smith, Earl Winterton emphasised that the conditions of work in Indian mines would be greatly improved by the recent Indian Mines Act and the Indian Workmen’s Compensation Act.

Mr Smith declared that some coal companies in India were declaring dividends of 165 per cent and in view of the exceptional profits which were being made, it was a scandal to employ women underground in the coal mines.

Earl Winterton replied that he did not see what bearing the dividends of these companies had on the point. Indian industrial conditions were admittedly inferior to those in Great Britain, but they were probably far superior to those in any other Asiatic country.

There had been a great improvement in recent years. India had more than carried out all her obligations and the internal Labour Convention and the legislation which were about to come into effect would mean much greater and further improvement.