P A G E
Friday, May 21, 1999
today's calendar
|
E D I T O R I A L P A G E |
Friday, May 21, 1999 |
| weather n
spotlight today's calendar |
||
|
Kargil:
what’s the truth?
PRESS FREEDOM NOT
Goodbye
to Prasar Bharati?
|
 |
Time
to boost India’s global presence
The
brass and brass tacks
Notes and
comments
|
||||||||
 |
|
Kargil: what’s the truth? THE Indian Army has achieved “a major success” in the Kargil sector, claims an official version, referring to the massive Pakistani “infiltration” in the region. “Twelve Indian soldiers” have lost their lives. The fighting has been going on for almost two weeks. Just about 400 “Pushtoo-speaking militants were involved on the Pakistan-occupied side. There is no question of the Pakistan Army capturing any of the (Indian) posts.... All reports in this regard are mischievous and baseless...” The same reporting breath, however, adds that the “infiltrators” had occupied certain posts in the “unheld areas”. The infiltration bid was “fully backed by the Pakistan Army and the ISI to revive the proxy war”. One finds much avoidable confounded confusion about the current situation in the high ridges of the mountainous territory. If posts were not captured, why were they recaptured? In this age of fast satellite information understatements, degraded to the level of wrong statements, are easily identified. As we have stated earlier, the state of Jammu and Kashmir needs total transparency in the matter of information. The Ministry of Defence — and not a Corps Commander — should put the clear picture of the warlike happenings in the sensitive area before the people. There have been culpable intelligence failures in the region which, by no means, lacks in surveillance infrastructure and wherewithal. Someone, preferably a senior Defence Ministry officer, or the high-flying Defence Minister himself, should tell the nation the whole truth about what has gone wrong in the Kargil-Dras belt and why. The domestically
beleaguered Pakistani Prime Minister, Mr Nawaz Sharif,
has, out of compulsion, upgraded the proxy war in Jammu
and Kashmir. The battles of Kargil and Dras cannot be
treated as terrorist incidents. The Army has to realise
that its response in those places and at the posts was
not “swift, well-focused and hard-hitting”. Why
does it want more days to neutralise the factors? The
Dras, the Shingo and the Suru have stopped flowing
quietly. Kargil, Dras and Leh should be seen in one
unified vision. The aggressor should be identified as he
is. He belongs to the Pakistan Army and the ISI. We
should go into hot pursuit and show what the present Home
Minister once incidentally called proactivity. Dr Farooq
Abdullah, who escaped a major danger to his life the
other day, has done some plainspeaking. He has disclosed
that he had advised the Central Government to smash the
hideouts of militants and training camps across the
border quickly. Had the Government acted on his advice,
the problem of insurgency would have ended long back, he
has added. All Pakistani agents are to be treated like
assaulting soldiers. The Indian Army has to hit hard and
extensively in all Pakistan-targeted areas. There are not
many Najam Sethis in the neighbouring country. There are
huge groups of hawks and one should not approach them
with dove-like docility. Remember John Kennedy: War will
exist until that distant day when the conscientious
objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the
warrior does today. |
Russia’s Yeltsin problem PRESIDENT Boris Yeltsin of Russia has got tremendous capacity to survive. He has provided proof of it many times during his eight-year-tenure, the latest occasion being last week’s communist-sponsored impeachment motion in Duma, the lower House of Parliament, which failed to secure the necessary number of votes. The historic vote was sought to impeach Mr Yeltsin on five counts. The first charge against him was that he hatched a conspiracy in cooperation with the then leaders of Ukraine and Belarus to disband the Soviet Union undemocratically in 1991. The other charges were: silencing an inconvenient parliament with the use of tanks and bombs in 1993; ruining the mighty armed forces of Russia; bringing in market reforms which led to mass poverty and lowered drastically the country’s life expectancy level, in a way, indulging in “genocide”; and launching a 21-month-long “illegal” war against a breakaway region, Chechnya, resulting in the avoidable loss of 80,000 lives of civilians and troops. Though the first charge had great sentimental appeal, the last one drew the maximum number of votes, only a little less than the statutory figure of 300 required to launch impeachment proceedings. The 1994-96 military drive against Chechnya proved to be disastrous for Russia. It failed to prevent the secession of the region from the Russian Federation, and in the process exposed Russia as a military power. This was a major humiliating development for an already depressed people whose country had lost the status of a global super power only a few years ago. President Yeltsin’s
supporters say that the failure of the impeachment move
has saved Russia from possible attacks by NATO or China,
which meant a graver crisis than what it faces today. The
fear of military invasion appears to be unrealistic, but
Russia could have definitely found itself in a
constitutional logjam. Yet many Russians would argue that
anything could be acceptable provided it paved the way
for the exit of Mr Yeltsin as the Head of State, whose
rule has failed to provide a solution to any of
Russia’s major problems. The free market economic
regime suddenly imposed on a country which had known only
a command system for decades with dictations from the
US-controlled World Bank and IMF, has brought
indescribable miseries to the people. If the explanation
is that this happens during the transition period, one
may ask: how long will it continue? Till the people will
start dying of hunger? Russia will have to look for
sources other than those in the West to cure its economic
ills. The West has its vested interest in Russia’s
economic illness. A country which does not have enough to
feed its people cannot play an effective role on the
international stage. The Russians should understand the
point in view of their own experience in the case of the
Balkan crisis. But they can free themselves from the
western stranglehold only after they have got rid of the
problem called Boris Yeltsin. |
PRESS FREEDOM NOT A LUXURY
BARRING a few vibrant democracies like India and the USA, the Press and newsmen elsewhere tend to be soft targets of the powers that be. This is true of several Asian countries, including our immediate neighbour Pakistan. Democracy has not struck deep roots there because of the domination of the military establishment practically in every walk of life. During the past 51 years of its chequered existence, Pakistan has had an occasional dose of freedom and liberty. But most of the time, it was “guided” democracy and struggling media. Things did turn easy during the early months of Mr Nawaz Sharif’s rule. He appeared to me to be a liberal and forward-looking person committed to certain democratic norms and values. But his recent running battle with the Jang group of newspapers and the Najam Sethi affair have shattered his liberal image I once carried after meeting him in Islamabad soon after he became Prime Minister. Why this change? Is it because power corrupts and the desire for absolute power corrupts absolutely? Democracy is not a luxury for developing countries. India has learnt this lesson the hard way. The people here are so used to democracy that, I believe, they will never accept any other form of government. True, certain excesses are occasionally committed in the name of democracy. There are also occasional violations of human rights, etc. But the basics are sound. The system is, by and large, vigorous. The officialdom and occasional curbs on individual rights and freedom do not go unchallenged here. The Press is alive and kicking all the while. The judiciary is vigilant and plays tough. Aberrations in the system do not go unchallenged. This is the strength of Indian democracy. Herein lies the real strength of the democratic order we all cling to despite its faults and limitations. Looking back, the Emergency span was a bad dream. It is better forgotten as an aberration. In fact, we have seen the emergence of a more vigorous polity in post-Emergency India. All these are healthy signs. Alas, the same cannot be said about Islamic Pakistan. The Najam Sethi affair has shocked several sensitive Pakistanis who thought Mr Nawaz Sharif will be different from the usual run-of-the-mill politician. The “treason” of Mr Najam Sethi, Editor of The Friday Times, an influential weekly of Pakistan, was that he broke the taboo of toeing the official line and aired his views far and wide. This was seen as defiance of the establishment. And we know that the establishment in Islamabad does not approve of the thought of projecting Pakistan as a “failed state”, howsoever objective the assessment might be. No wonder, he was hauled up for his alleged connection with Indian intelligence agencies. What a shame! Can’t the Pakistani authorities be more confident and sure of themselves and come out of their old mindset and fear psychosis? The Pakistan authorities have probably not reckoned with the courage of Mr Sethi. He was the first to expose the men behind Pakistani drug trade. Among them were some top politicians, army generals, bureaucrats, feudal lords and the mafia. The journalist who could take on such powerful interest groups will surely not allow himself to be intimidated by Mr Nawaz Sharif’s government. What provoked the Prime Minister was the interview Mr Sethi gave to the BBC team which was preparing a film on “corruption of the Sharif family” and also about how he has subverted all the organs of the State in order to fulfil his desire to gain absolute power. Pakistan’s Information Minister Mushahid Hussain claims that his government is “media-friendly”. “The days of censorship, press advice or officially certified truth are things of the past. The present government welcomes criticism,” he asserts. As a former journalist, Mr Mushahid Hussain should know what he is talking about. I had the privilege of meeting him during my last visit to Islamabad. A sharp and articulate person, I thought he would inject a degree of liberalism in the government’s sensitive areas. In Pakistan the trouble with thinking persons working for the establishment is that they follow the same hackneyed process, especially when it comes to dealing with India. The Sethi affair too needs to be viewed in this framework. Be that as it may. The fact is that the Nawaz Sharif government has become jittery. It no longer tolerates even legitimate criticism. Some recent arrests, for that matter, have common features: the victims were suspected of having “Indian links” or talked to a BBC team making a film on allegations of corruption against Mr Nawaz Sharif and members of his family. Even Rahmat Shah Afridi (editor-owner of The Frontier Post) was arrested by the Anti-Narcotics Force (ANF) on charges of possessing narcotics and illegal arms! “Mr Nawaz Sharif has thrown out the President, the Chief Justice and the Army Chief. Unless the judiciary stands up against him, it will not be easy to throw him out,” says Mr Sethi. But after what the Muslim Leaguers in 1997 did to the Chief Justice by storming the Supreme Court building, the judiciary in Pakistan is unlikely to muster enough courage to challenge the legislature and the executive. The Pakistani journalist also exposed the ISI case pending against Mr Sharif in the Supreme Court filed by Air Marshal Asghar Khan (retd). In this case, Mr Khan has accused the ISI of giving Mr Sharif Rs 35 lakh to acquire power! Mr Najam Sethi is relentless in his crusade and exposure. On Mr Sharif’s Islamisation programme, he says that the Prime Minister is trying to get the 15th amendment passed in the name of Islam. “If this happens,” he points out, “he will have absolute authority to pass any executive order without getting it okayed by the court and Parliament.” This, he feels, will sound the death-knell of democracy in Pakistan, especially since Mr Sharif has a tendency to gag the Press. One such “diabolical step”, according to Mr Sethi, is the passing of the Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Ordinance whereby “even if you do some wall-chalking, you can be treated as a terrorist”. The Pakistani Press is, understandably, divided on its support to Mr Sharif. Mr Sethi says that in societies like that of Pakistan, in which corruption is rampant, the Press has to take an adversarial position. But, he says, in the first year, he gave Mr Sharif a long rope. Interestingly, Mr Najam Sethi was recently in Delhi to give the Kewal Singh Memorial lecture. In his lecture, he described Pakistan as a “failed state”, a description which the Pakistani High Commissioner described as “treachery”. What followed is well known. A number of Pakistani journalists are concerned about the fallout of what they see as the government’s “media-friendly” crackdown. Alleged links with India are often used as an excuse for cracking down on journalists. After Pakistan TV accused Mr Sethi of unpatriotic conduct, he said publicly that he feared an attack on his office and sought police protection. The next day he was arrested by the military intelligence wing. In a letter to the British Prime Minister, Ms Benazir Bhutto has pleaded for intervention “to protect the freedom of the Press”. Yet she would have been the first to call it “interference in the internal affairs of Pakistan”, if she had been the Prime Minister. As stated earlier, Pakistan has never been a democracy in the true sense of the term. More often than not, it has been under military rule. And the two Bhuttos — father and daughter — had definite streaks of authoritarianism. The Press in Pakistan was in some way controlled with this difference that sometimes it is persecuted, as is the case now. The Press has nowhere to turn to in such circumstances, except to enlightened sections of the media everywhere. It is a matter of some gratification that the US Press has wholeheartedly supported Mr Najam Sethi and other Pakistani journalists facing the wrath of the establishment on flimsy grounds. In a written statement, US State Department spokesman James Rubin has said that Islamabad should “immediately terminate this unacceptable crackdown on journalists”. Ironically, I hope, Mr Rubin is aware of what Ms Benazir Bhutto once said of the USA and army rule in Pakistan. She said: “To become Prime Minister of this country, you have to please the USA and the army. But now I am not a Prime Minister, I can say the truth....It has been the case since this country was created in 1947.” It is true that Pakistan is not accepted by the USA as a functioning democracy, but as a “flawed” democracy. Therefore, it is difficult to keep Mr Sethi behind bars for long. The US Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs, Mr Karl Inderfurth, is a friend of Mr Sethi. He has spoken to Mr Sethi’s wife about his “safety”. In Pakistan itself, the Press is mostly with Najam. So is the Pakistani Opposition which staged a walk-out in the Senate. In trying to implicate Mr Najam Sethi in a “treason” case, the Nawaz Sharif government is apparently trying to hide its repressive face. But this will not help. Even Pakistan’s Media Watch group has accused the government of embarking on “a dangerous path to curb dissent”. There is indeed a method
in this disturbing game of harassing independent
journalists. That is why the world Press must make this
case a cause celebre. I personally believe that a
genuinely democratic Pakistan and a free Press alone hold
the key to peace, stability and prosperity in the
subcontinent, nay, South Asia. |
Goodbye to Prasar Bharati? INDIA has a proud distinction, probably unique among developing countries. Except for the 1975-77 Emergency rule of Indira Gandhi, we have continuously had a free, fearless Press and freedom of expression ever since our Independence. This democratic right is also enshrined in the Constitution. But there is one major blemish, which was not so evident at the time of Independence in 1947. I am referring to the electronic media, primarily radio and television. For some strange reason, the framers of our Constitution did not make radio free from government control. This was perhaps because, even under the British, radio was controlled by the government, unlike the Press which was relatively free. That government-control continued after Independence. And does to this day. Television had not arrived in India by 1947, so it did not come into the reckoning. Now, however, TV is a major factor, more important in many ways than the Press, especially in a country like India where almost half the people are illiterate. Doordarshan goes out to some 300 million to 400 million people and satellite and cable TV to about 50 million. They undoubtedly influence the population much more than the Press. The Indian newspaper readership is only a small fraction of the radio and TV audience. Government control over the electronic media means that India does not have real freedom of expression. For that, there must be an independent print, as well as electronic, media. In the USA, for instance, the electronic media is as free as the Press. The same is true in almost every country which has a free Press. Unfortunately, this is not so in India. TV and radio were misused by Indira Gandhi for her own political purposes. Radio and TV became a powerful propaganda tool in her hands, often crudely used against the Opposition. Which is why when the Janata Party took over after Indira Gandhi’s electoral defeat in 1977, at the top of its agenda was an autonomous, independently functioning radio and TV, on the lines of the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). But the Janata government fell before it could get its act together (Mr L. K. Advani, the present Home Minister, was then the Minister for Information and Broadcasting). With Rajiv Gandhi, it was back to the bad old days. He publicly said that India was “not ready” for TV and radio autonomy, clearly signifying that he wanted to use it for his and his party’s interests, just as his mother had done. It was only during the regime of Mr V.P. Singh that a serious initiative to make the electronic media truly free from government control took place. But his government too fell before anything concrete emerged. Nevertheless, under the prime ministerships of Mr Deve Gowda and Mr Inder Kumar Gujral, Doordarshan functioned more independently than ever before, and what is called Prasar Bharati came into being. There was little government interference and Indian viewers enjoyed fairly objective and politically unbiased programmes. The Prasar Bharati Board, with Mr S.S. Gill, a retired senior government official, as the CEO, ran the show. And, by most accounts, the board did a good job of it. But the BJP did not like Mr Gill and succeeded in removing him from his post. Since then matters have gone downhill and reached rock-bottom with the appointment of Mr Pramod Mahajan as the I and B Minister. He is clearly no respecter of freedom of expression and has shamelessly used All India Radio and Doordarshan to further his government and his party’s interests, just as shamelessly as the I and B ministers under Indira and Rajiv Gandhi did. The low point was reached recently when an interview with the maverick Union Defence Minister, Mr George Fernandes, lasting no less than one-and-a-half hours was screened. It was repeated the next day and large ads taken out in the newspapers to announce the interview. It was probably the most shocking misuse of Doordarshan ever, outside the Emergency period of Indira Gandhi. Mr Fernandes, who has been under attack for his controversial sacking of the chief of the Indian Navy, Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat, was interviewed by Karan Thapar and allowed to put forth his point of view. Admiral Bhagwat was given no such opportunity. The real villain of the piece is Mr Mahajan. Just the other day, on a TV programme, with his trademark foolish grin, he announced that he wanted to scrap Prasar Bharati and sack its entire board! In other words, to remove what little pretension that has been left of an independent radio and TV and keep the electronic media firmly under government control, just like Indira and Rajiv Gandhi did. To justify the proposed
move, he said that, in any case, satellite and cable TV
were free from government control and could air different
views. Mr Mahajan is trying to be a little too clever.
How can he possibly equate Doordarshan with satellite and
cable TV? Doordarshan goes to six times more Indian homes
than satellite and cable TV does! Mr Mahajan is not only
being dishonest, he is also showing his utter contempt
for the freedom of expression. Those of us who value this
fundamental democratic right must stand up and protest. |
The
brass and brass tacks A BRITISH MP is quoted as having said the other day about the Euro: “You row... we will follow”. Much the same can be said about the recently “relieved” Navy Chief who, in an (in)famous broadside against us generalists, sought a place in the MOD for the “scholar warrior”. Likewise, the COAS reportedly addressed IAS probationers at the Mussoorie Academy last winter, lamenting surrender of funds and how it would help to have greater financial autonomy for the Service Chiefs. Is either of this exceptionable? How do “civvies” like me feel about recent developments in South Block? Much has been said on — and for — both sides in newspapers and magazines, and while almost every ex-serviceman has raised the spectre of battred defence morale, what about ours? Ever since the happening, wherever we have gathered, from business meetings to iftaars and marriage receptions et al, not one colleague in the civil service has felt triumphant about it. Of course, from the day the former CNS chose to distinguish between “refusal to implement” and what was “unimplementable”, the question really was whether he was unputdownable! The common refrain here was that if he felt so strongly against the number two being brought in against his wishes, he should have quit like an “Officer and a gentleman”, instead of cocking a snook at the system. All of us in Government have this choice. You can refuse to be a party to what you might think is a wrong order, but by going out and not by being downright cheeky with your employer who gives you your rank, your house, your vehicle, your medical facilities, your pension and all that. Try doing that outside the government and see what I mean. All that notwithstanding, there is great concern in civvy street about the CNS. After all, the CNS also belongs to us, not just the Navy. We look up to the triumvirate as men who have brought glory to their uniforms, who have risen to the top by dint of hard work and merit acquired over the years by doing various courses and field exercises, by spending some of their best years in forward areas and bases, and not just by clearing, as in our case, one exam some 25 years ago. We may have cleared just one exam in our lives, but that does not mean we have no idea about their hopes and aspirations. Most of us have interacted with them at various levels, and having seen them at work, we can even understand their hopeless obsession with the rank structure. Sadly though, that is precisely where the problem begins. Their extreme rank consciousness spills over to civilian turf, and while a Sub Area Commander chafes at being downgraded in the seemingly ubiquitous warrant of precedence vis a vis the district magistrate, despite being given the courtesy and affection that is undeniably due to him, the three chiefs reportedly were not wanting even to talk to the Defence Secretary while, again reportedly, joining hands to complain about his high-handedness! There are lessons for
all of us from this incident. I gravely doubt, however,
if any tears are being actually shed for the former CNS.
Those who question their Chiefs or go to Court when their
own career prospects are about to be “sunk”
must be prepared for history to repeat itself, just as we
civilians must endeavour at all times to remember that
irrespective of personalities, the three Services are the
nation’s pride. And since what belongs to the nation
is the nation’s heritage, the real purpose of
“integrating” the services with MOD must be to
strengthen that heritage, not widen the schism brought
into the open recently. |
Time to boost India’s
global presence IF India is to take advantage of globalisation, it must go abroad in a big way. But it is making no effort to do so. All that we hear is: open the door wider to foreign MNCs! Trade is the index of a country’s presence abroad. But in 50 years, India’s relative share of world trade has fallen from about 1 per cent to 0.5 per cent. This should have been a matter of concern. If Indian business stayed on at home, it was because the home market was large and it never asked for quality goods. As for investment abroad, there was no money — certainly no foreign exchange.But why should we go abroad? First of all, to create markets for our surpluses. Perhaps we have to be near the consumers. Perhaps, near the raw materials. Perhaps, even to cheaper labour. Time is important. Already, trading nations are busy seizing larger and larger shares of the world market. With every passing day, the opportunities are exhausting. But have we got a strategy? Not that I know of. Of course, India has a modest presence in many countries today, particularly in light engineering, chemicals, pharma, textiles and allied products, commercial vehicles, oil seed processing, palm oil refining, food processing, soft drinks, paper and pulp, glass and glass products, cement, etc. Non-manufacturing enterprises include rail, roads, hotels, houses, restaurants, teaching institutions, etc. There is a fallacy that to go abroad, a company must be a giant. Even small companies can become multinationals. We must learn from global experience. Taiwan has no giant enterprises. The majority of Taiwanese companies are in small and medium sectors. Yet Taiwan has a major presence in a number of countries. It is the want of documented experience that has been the cause of much mortality among Indian companies abroad. This can be overcome if we have consultancy agencies with specialised information. Banks too can furnish such information. Apart from providing funds, they can also give information and knowhow. No less important to India is the growing presence of NRIs and their enterprises, although for the present they are of no great help to India. In the meantime, Indian big businesses are going abroad. Their experience will be highly valuable in the further progress of India’s expansion. Till the seventies, six countries accounted for most of the joint ventures of India abroad. They were Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Nigeria, the UAE and Oman. Since then India’s expansion has been more rapid and it has a presence today in all continents. The developing countries look to India for investment, technology and management skills. There are still some restrictions on India’s investment abroad, as also in the terms and conditions offered by the Government of India, especially with regard to repatriation of profits. Many international projects are financed by the multilateral financial institutions like the IMF, World Bank, Asian Development Bank, African Development Bank and so on. These were largely monopolised by the advanced countries. It is time India got a fair share of these projects. At present government policy, though supportive, is not active enough to boost India’s global presence. That is why there is need for a special department with staff drawn from industry and commerce. Of course, our earlier experience of government promotion has been disappointing. Despite its present limited attraction, Africa, south of Sahara, is seen by most as the “continent of the future”. India has friendly relations with most of the African countries like Tanzania, South Africa, Mozambique, Uganda, Nigeria, Namibia, Kenya and so on. Africa can be the cradle for Indian MNCs. Already Indian companies have established a reasonable presence in Africa. They are in fields in which they have great competence. For example, Avon Cycles of Ludhiana has bought a public sector cycle unit in Tanzania to produce two lakh cycles a year. One of the Birla groups has gone for a paper and pulp unit, based on abundant raw materials. In Zambia, a major producer of copper in the world, India has already a significant presence in the Binanis. In Uganda, Roadmaster, another Indian cycle company, has established a major plant to produce five lakh cycles a year. The Tatas, the Ranbaxies and others are already there. Some of them are moving to South Afirca, a new destination. These are a few interesting cases. Of course, preliminary studies are to be taken up in each region of Africa about prospects. Africa does not have a big market. This is a handicap and investors must be careful. But some of the African countries are linked to the European Union and to African economic associations. Of course, the region is highly volatile and political risks are high. This explains why the big MNCs of the West and Japan are reluctant to invest in Africa. But this is an opportunity for India. Indian investment is never too high. Namibia is an attractive place for investment, with vast mineral resources. The country offers considerable concessions to investors in the EPZ areas. Namibia has plans to make the country a major trading centre for southern Africa. As for South Africa, it is already well on the road to development. With an Indian community there, India’s task is easier. There is also a strategic alliance between India and South Africa. Both are members of the Indian Ocean Rim Association. Africa has a high opinion about Indian expertise. “India’s technology diversity is among the most applicable to not only Africa but also the rest of the developing countries,” says an African leader. He thinks India has a key role to play in southern Africa. The Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa and Southern African Development Community are good examples of regional cooperation. They will welcome India’s vast experience in almost every aspect of economic life. The western regions of Africa are a little inaccessible to India. As a result, except for the old association with Nigeria, nothing substantial has come about. Some of the African countries are members of the Indian Ocean Rim Association. The idea of IOR actually came from Mandela. South Africa is so strategically situated that it is a staging post for trade with Latin America and Central America. With its size, technology competence, industrial growth and potential strategic reach, says an Australian defence analyst, India can play a major role in the fields of both economy and security. India’s huge population and its market allow it to maintain a wider range of technologies than smaller nations. The Congress party was opposed to foreign investment. As a result, India had hardly any presence abroad as an investor. And due to Forex limitations, the private sector was discouraged from investing abroad. In any case, the laws were strictly enforced. Thus India lost precious time. I believe the idea of “navaratnas” is a gimmick, thought up by the Indian bureaucracy to create lucrative jobs for the IAS cadres abroad. The only political party
with a commitment to greater India is the BJP, although
it has done nothing to prove this commitment in the last
13 months. There is still time. In the next few months,
it can give a boost for a major Indian presence abroad. |
Notes
and comments IN one of his farewell speeches, Lord Willingdon congratulated himself, the Government and the Province which he was about to leave that he and his colleagues, both in the reserved and transferred departments, had always been and were still a happy family. Lord Willingdon had evidently no idea that in uttering these words, he was passing the severest condemnation upon the whole order of things of which he had been the most eminent representative in the Province for the past three years. The Reforms, whatever might be the letter of the law, did not contemplate the reserved and transferred halves of the administration constituting a “happy family”. One has only to go through the Joint Committee’s report, and particularly that part of it which earnestly exhorted the Governor to compose differences between the two halves of the government to realise that the idea of a happy family was far from being the dominating idea in the minds of the authors of the Reforms. In reality, it is most
absurd of all things to believe that the ministers can
realise their true responsibility to the Legislature and
through it to the people and yet be constantly at peace
with themselves and their colleagues under a condition of
things when the forces of autocracy are still in the
ascendant. |
 |
 |
| 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 | |
