The Tribune, Chandigarh, India

OPINION

ASSUMPTIONS GO AWRY
Dynamics of a limited war
by Harwant Singh
CLAUSEWITZ makes a valid point in that, it is obligatory for statesmen to understand war as a policy instrument so that they do not expect and ask of it what it cannot deliver. He postulates that war has a grammar, though not a policy logic, of its own. Policy makers and their military commanders should bear this in mind when talking (loosely) about war.

Singapore PM’s “friends first” visit
by Amar Chandel
IT was typical of the average Indian’s West-fixation that the visit of the Singapore Prime Minister, Mr Goh Chok Tong, did not evoke the kind of public interest that it should have. Otherwise, the strategic significance of the city-state far exceeds its geographical size. Singapore is the country- coordinator for India’s dialogue with the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN), with which Delhi wants close association and involvement for obvious reasons.

ON THE SPOT

How does urban India look like?
From Tavleen Singh
COME with me, if you will, for a short walk down Marine Drive, arguably the most famous street of all of India’s towns and cities. Walk with me past the pavement vendors selling coconuts, south Indian instant food, roasted corn, spicy snacks and, of late, herbal drinks. It is a permanent real life drama that is constantly played out on this street. Its fame draws tourists from distant parts and to make money off them come snake charmers and monkey-wallahs and armies of small children who use bags full of tricks to extract a few rupees out of unsuspecting foreign tourists, invariably their first target.

PERSPECTIVE

Using TV to counter drug use
From Edward Helmore in London
THE soldiers in the war on drugs are never at rest. So it was surprising, but not shocking, when it recently came to light that White House anti-drug officials had quietly opened a new media front in their efforts to steer the nation’s youth away from temptation.

75 years ago

January 29, 1925
Protection for Steel Industry
WE are glad that the proposal of the Government of India to grant a bounty to the steel produced in India, as recommended by the Tariff Board, has been accepted by the Legislative Assembly. This is in addition to the already increased import duty on foreign steel, which was found to be insufficient to protect Indian production.

Heroes of Pak judiciary

GENERAL Pervez Musharraf dealt a severe blow on Saturday to the people's hope that one day—some day—in the near future they would get reprieve from the authoritarian rule imposed yet again on them on October 12, 1999. The sacked Chief Justice of Pakistan, Mr Justice Sayeed-uz-Zaman Siddiqi, and several courageous legal protectors of what remains of the rule of law in the neighbouring country have stood up and been counted defying the army ruler's diktat to take the oath of allegiance to the provisional constitution promulgated two days after the coup in which the democratically elected Prime Minister, Mr Nawaz Sharif, was thrown out of office, arrested and charged with heinous crimes. The timing of the General's new instruction is as important as the stunning extra-constitutional order itself, imposing total subservience on the judiciary. The Supreme Court and some regional courts had agreed to consider cases filed by ousted politicians and social activists against the usurpation of power by General Musharraf. (The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear a major petition on January 31.) When the military ruler called on the former Chief Justice a day before promulgating his emergency orders, the latter said: "I will work only under the Constitution." The General apparently agreed and left Justice Siddiqi's residence. When an order requiring the taking of a fresh oath was given to the judges, including their chief, by the Chief Executive four days back, he refused to comply. The government said that they ceased to be judges and that Justice Siddiqi had resigned. The chief judge has this to say: "I have not resigned. I have refused to take oath under the provisional constitution because it would mean that I am deviating from my earlier oath."

The situation now is precarious. The General claims that about 85 per cent of the judges of the High Courts and the Supreme Court have taken the oath prescribed by him. The other judges are "dismissed rebels". The former Chief Justice is being charged with the blackest shade of corruption. The Shariat Court, which has given a verdict that does not favour the Musharraf government, is facing humiliation. High Court Judge Shabir Ahmed, who refused to hear a case against Mr Nawaz Sharif, protesting against the presence of intelligence agents and paramilitary personnel in the courtroom, is being subjected to a witchhunt. General Musharraf's dispensation says that "the Constitution shall remain in abeyance". He has not abrogated the sacred document. He cannot, unless he proclaims that Pakistan has come under total dictatorship. The provisional constitutional order says that "no judgement, decree, writ, order or process whatsoever shall be made or issued by any court or tribunal against the Chief Executive or any authority designated by the Chief Executive". Since "abeyance" does not amount to abrogation, the appointment, original oath and jurisdiction of the judges remain intact. If this is not true, why did the military regime take its cases to the judges who had not taken "a new oath"? Illegality and the hijacking of the judiciary have become manifest. Fearless persons never succumb to the demand of sycophancy from unethical "superiors". It became clear late on Thursday that the petition against the dismissal of Mr Nawaz Sharif was likely to face the disapproval of the Supreme Court headed earlier by Justice Siddiqi. The judges who have taken "a new oath" will go down in judicial history as the personification of timidity. The defiant judges are becoming heroes in the eyes of the public as is evident from the people's reaction outside Pakistani courts. The dictator must look back at the fate of his fellow autocrats. Justice Siddiqi is most likely to have the last laugh—either as an unbending judge or as a victim of conspiracies hatched by congenital bullies.

Sell-off but no take-off

AT long last there is some stirring in the privatisation corner. A puny but until last year profit-making Modern Foods, maker of a popular brand of bread, is about to move to the Hindustan Lever stable. Indian Airlines has come on to the sales counter, although the prospective buyer will have to overcome several obstacles before the first plane can take off under a new flag. Bharat Gold Mines is being shut down with a job loss of slightly more than 2500. Different treatment to the three undertakings strongly brings out the confusion in and reluctance of the ministries controlling these units. The best deal has come the way of the MFIL. The buyers agreement has three interesting and innovative conditions. One, HLL cannot throw out any worker for one year and, two, it has to ensure same pay for same work. There are more than 2500 workers in the 14 bread-making plants across the country. Finally, it cannot parcel out land and sell it to pocket the huge profit. The prospect of becoming an HLL employee, assured employment even for a limited period and the promise of expansion (the new owner will invest Rs 20 crore apart from paying Rs 105.5 crore for 74 per cent of shares) have combined to easily win over the workers to the deal. Without realising it, the government has stumbled on a workable way to sell PSUs and also keep the workforce quiet. This should be the basis of future privatisation.

The clutch of conditions attached to the IA deal are designed to scare away potential investors. Companies already in aviation business cannot make a bid; foreign companies can have only 40 per cent ownership in Indian ones wanting to buy the airlines. Holding of 49 per cent even after the sell-off will give the Minister and the secretaries a lot of room to create problems. It is precisely this interference which has stifled the growth of the unit. No individual will bring in hundreds of crores of rupees only to have the government behave like an aggressive co-pilot. Insiders solemnly say that in the second phase the government will part with another 26 per cent of ownership. Why not club the two to make it very attractive? There is this big problem of valuation of the worth of the airlines. Somebody has leaked out information that IA is worth over Rs 12,000 crore. This includes the value of its fleet of 56 planes and all the land and buildings it owns. Since it is making profit and is one of the world’s biggest domestic airlines, the valuation will be questioned for its accuracy.

In fact, there can be a similar criticism of the Modern Foods valuation too. What is striking is that while the government hired a foreign bank as consultant, HLL handed over its end of the job to government-owned ICICI. The time has come for the government to set up a committee of experts to assess both the potential value of PSUs proposed to be sold and to vet the bids and negotiate the final terms. Now there is no set procedure, leaving room for suspicion and corruption charges. The IA controversy, which is sure to surface and gather strength in the weeks to come, should goad the government to have a permanent commission to go about this business openly and confidently. This is particularly essential as one of the marked out enterprises is Indian Petro-Chemicals Limited (IPCL), a world class unit both in size and profitability and in a sunrise sector of the economy. If the bureaucracy is going to lose control over these plants, there is no reason why it should not lose control over how and at what price they should change hands?

Spewing fire on “Water”

NOTED film-maker Deepa Mehta is in the eye of a storm again, for continuing to pick up gender-sensitive subjects which show the true yet revolting face of the male-dominated Indian society. Those whipping up the storm belong to the Sangh Parivar. Last time Ms Mehta had aroused the ire of Shiv Sainiks and members of the Sangh Parivar by daring to explore the factors which force a married women to seek a lesbian relationship. The characters in the film captioned "Fire" were Indian but the theme had a universal relevance. However, for the Sangh activists the film was an attack on Indian womanhood and the remedy available to them was to attack cinema houses in Delhi, Mumbai and elsewhere for not complying with their order to cancel the screening of "Fire". Thespian Dilip Kumar was humiliated by those professing to be the champions of Indian "maryada" when he came out in defence of Ms Mehta and praised the film for the sensitive portrayal of a complex subject. The same set of goons have now threatened to stop her from shooting her next film "Water" - part of a trilogy along with "Fire" and Earth" - in the holy city of Varanasi because in the words of an activist of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh "it depicts Hinduism in bad light". The controversy over the shooting of "Water" in Varanasi and Vrindavan is more disturbing than the one caused by the screening of "Fire". The RSS activists have demanded that the script should be made public and approved by Hindu religious scholars! This will be undesirable as it goes against the country's cultural freedom and norms.

Reports from Varanasi, where Ms Mehta is camping with the film crew after having obtained prior permission from the district administration for the shooting, suggest that the Bharatiya Janata Party-led government in Uttar Pradesh had itself encouraged Mumbai producers to "explore the untapped potential of the state". But the Sangh Parivar is now putting pressure on the government to withdraw the permission to Ms Mehta to make a film on the plight of widows in the holy cities of Varanasi and Vrindavan. That young widows in the two centres are often sexually exploited by unscrupulous elements is an issue which has been discussed in the media. Various human rights organisations, including the National Commission for Women, have taken up the question of the exploitation of the widows of Varanasi and Vrindavan with the Centre and the state government. In any case, the script has already been cleared by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and the Sangh Parivar elements have no right to act as cultural guardians under the garb of protecting Hinduism from being brought into disrepute by Ms Mehta. In view of reports that the Banaras Hindu University has withdrawn permission to shoot some parts of the film on the campus and that the district administration is putting pressure on her not to shoot on the famous ghats of the Ganga the artistic fraternity may once again be required to express solidarity with Ms Mehta. It needs to be appreciated that intolerance does not fit in with India's civilisational values. This country is known for its liberal tradition. The Sangh Parivar needs to keep this in mind for the sake of India's image.

ASSUMPTIONS GO AWRY
Dynamics of a limited war
by Harwant Singh

CLAUSEWITZ makes a valid point in that, it is obligatory for statesmen to understand war as a policy instrument so that they do not expect and ask of it what it cannot deliver. He postulates that war has a grammar, though not a policy logic, of its own. Policy makers and their military commanders should bear this in mind when talking (loosely) about war. It may be argued that with sound policy decisions, strategic vision, competent tactical handling of forces backed by efficient administration it may be possible, to an extent, to impose a vision of war on a less prepared opponent. But war belongs to the domain of uncertainty, unpredictability and is full of surprises. It can pick up a momentum and direction not originally intended. Then there is the enemy which may find it expedient to extend the conflict over a wider area or on the entire front. The enemy may not be all that ill prepared and inadequately equipped and there could be near parity in deployable conventional forces. In 1965 war, notwithstanding all else, disaster of unimaginable proportions on the Punjab front was barely averted.

Any attempt to forecast the contours and course of a future India-Pakistan war at best can be an intelligent and informed guesswork and at worst a hazardous business. There may be some theorists and military men who make accurate predictions, but the difficulty lies in sifting truth from error. The German army after much study and planning and knowing every inch of the ground over which it had to conduct operations, evolved the Schlieffen Plan and firmly believed that it could overrun France in a matter of 40 days and prepared for no other contingency. The war lasted four years (1914-1918) with disastrous consequences for Germany. History is replete with catastrophically erroneous assumptions being made concerning future conflicts. We tried to confine fighting in 1971 war to Bangladesh but Pakistan chose to spread it to the western front too. The Korean and Vietnam wars are some of the other recent examples of initial assumptions going awry.

At a recently held seminar at New Delhi on “Challenges of Limited War, Parameters and Options,” the Indian Defence Minister made many predictions on the nature of future India-Pakistan war (should that occur!) He emphasised that future wars would be “limited wars.” He stated that China in its military doctrine had been projecting that future wars would be “local border wars.” If that be really so, Mr Minister, then where is the logic for China to support such a large defence force and then mechanise and modernise it at so much expense! Sometimes strategic necessity, as at Kargil, can severely restrict options and commanders are compelled to adopt those, of which they harbour serious reservations. Kargil conflict was of a minor nature with operations conducted at sub-unit/unit level and planning at one stage higher. Many a defence analyst has drawn a whole range of incorrect lessons from this action.

Referring to eviction of Pakistani forces, “equipped as they were with modern weapons, from the dominating heights of Kargil, a place and time of their choosing etc, the Defence Minister alluded to Indian defence forces success and “grasp of a limited war.” Continuing, he lay claim that “India can beat Pakistan any time anywhere.” Indian leadership is given to talk loosely about this serious business of war. Mr Madan Lal Khurana reduced war to the level of a street brawl when he told Pakistan to name the place and time to fight India. Apparently with the backdrop of the Kargil conflict, the Defence Minister appeared to assume that future wars would be limited in space and dimension and more likely of the Kargil type, scale and pattern. Such assumptions would naturally bear on the organisation and equipping of the defence forces of India.

Herein lies the great danger of forcasting the nature and dimensions of a future war in the India-Pakistan context within the frame of reference of “Kargil conflict” Erroneously drawn lessons and inferences from the action at Kargil by first confusing it with a war and then concluding that it has set a pattern for the future, can prove disastrous. The confusion has been so widespread that a defence analyst had put the Kargil conflict as a greater victory than the success in the Bangladesh war in 1971.

Such surmises and lessons drawn from an extremely restricted action at Kargil reflect a constricted vision and limited capacity at understanding this business of war. Such a stance can lead to a whole range of incorrect and debilitating conclusions and consequently, seriously jeopardise the security of this country, more so when “no first use” doctrine lacks deterrent value in the conventional conflict context. The type named, ‘many more Kargils’ further complicates the matter. Our military leaders and their political masters need to “take in “the larger picture and gain grasp of the type, size and spread of a possible future conflict on the India-Pakistan canvas and prepare for such an eventuality.

There appears to be an attempt by the Indian Defence Minister to rationalise the Kargil type responses by eulogising our “grasp” of such operations. Firstly, no generalship was called into play in these operations and secondly it was left to the young officers and troops to bail out an inept political and military leadership. It was to Pakistan’s great advantage to create Kargil for it first made India expend extensive economic resources and manpower and later bogged down its forces in the worst type of terrain with no tactical advantage but enormous recurring expenditure. It will continue to be to Pakistan’s benefit to create “many more Kargils” and make India fall into the trap of merely reacting to these and not enlarging the scope of the conflict and bring to bear the full and unfettered conventional forces potential. Pakistan is currently waging not just a proxy war but in fact a covet war in Kashmir. What scares Pakistan and would dissuade it from “many more Kargils” is the Indian wider reaction from its conventional forces and therefore, this posturing for a nuclear deterrence by Pervez Musharraf is to dissuade the latter’s more definitive responses. At Kargil it was Pakistan which was scared stiff from the conflict escalating and no effort on India’s part was required to keep it so except its traditional defensive frame of mind. That is one of the reasons why Pakistan kept denying its direct involvement in this conflict. Therefore, it is patently wrong to contend, and as claimed at the same seminar by Army HQ representative that, “we were able to keep the Kargil war limited primarily due to nuclear and conventional deterrence.” Policy of “no first use” of nuclear weapons carries no deterrence against a conventional conflict!

Short wars were believed to have come to stay until the Iraq-Iran war which lasted close to eight years. Some of the ongoing conflicts in Chechenya and Kosovo put a question mark on such a supposition. Notwithstanding these recent extended conflicts, it is reasonable to assume that in the India-Pakistan context pressure would be exerted by the UN and a host of major nations will compel the contestants to terminate the hostilities. A short war thrust upon a nation at no notice has its own dynamics and compulsions.

It is this type of setting for which the Indian defence forces have been organised, equipped and trained. For them, there is no learning on the job. That is why any diversion by way of repeated and prolonged deployments in aid to civil authority and internal security commitments impinges on the essential requirement to maintain the capability to take to the field at no notice. Their equipment, weapons, ammunition, reserves and training standards have to be maintained at a minimum acceptable level. What bears heavily on the outcome of such a conflict is the state of the forces, their strength, quality of equipment, levels of reserves of ammunition and stores, logistic backup etc of the contestants at the commencement of hostilities. Issues like size of the economies and populations or the Industrial base etc have less relevance, because, long before these can be brought to bear on the conflict the fighting would have been terminated.

Responding to Gen Pervez Musharraf’s statement that he would not let Pakistan die at any cost and would not hesitate to use nuclear weapons, the Indian Defence Minister observed that there is inherent contradiction in this statement which does not seem obvious to Pakistani leadership. What is implied in Musharraf’s statement and which simply stated means that if Pakistan has to go down in a conventional war, it will take India with it by using nuclear weapons. Nuclearisation of Pakistan (at least overtly) in May, 1998, has given it an assumed hedge against superior conventional forces and a deterrence against threat of employment of these. But the transition of this deterrent into physical manifestation is another issue altogether. Musharraf has merely spelled the contours of a war situation when use of nuclear weapons by Pakistan could manifest. However the contradiction lies in the fact that the transition to nuclear war would result in, not averting a defeat for Pakistan, but its decimation, nay annihilation. That is the scope and spread of Indian retaliatory capability.

But then such is the nature of posturing in projecting a nuclear deterrence. The one who takes recourse to deterrence must first build a climate of credibility in the threat and then condition the opponent to have a reasonable suspicion that the threat could materialise. In the seventies, China declared that a nuclear war could be successfully conducted and that China could afford to lose a few million of its people. All that was to impress America that its large nuclear arsenal would not avail against China because it could absorb a few strikes while the former cannot possibly afford to suffer even one retaliatory nuclear strike on any of its cities.

India’s vision of war with Pakistan, God forbid if it is thrust on India, has to encompass its full-scale conventional dimension and a retaliatory second strike nuclear capability of horrendous proportions so that the latter acts as a viable deterrent. A vision of a possible war, its nature, extent in time and space, scope, scale, deployments outside national boundaries etc would determine the size, type, equipping pattern, organisations, command structure, technology levels etc of armed forces required by India. A constricted vision, false assumptions of potential enemy’s intentions, aims and designs and the nature and dimensions of conflict can lead to a whole range of faulty steps related to own armed forces, their equipping, training, organisations, leadership pattern etc with serious implications for national security. Herein lies the validity of Clausewitz’s observation relating to the obligation of statesmen to understand the nature of war and that it is an instrument of policy. That policy cannot be to merely evict an intrusion every time it occurs or to keep reacting to “many more Kargils” in their varied manifestations and allow oneself to be slowly but surely bled white.

(The writer is a retired Lt-General).

Singapore PM’s “friends first” visit
by Amar Chandel

IT was typical of the average Indian’s West-fixation that the visit of the Singapore Prime Minister, Mr Goh Chok Tong, did not evoke the kind of public interest that it should have. Otherwise, the strategic significance of the city-state far exceeds its geographical size. Singapore is the country- coordinator for India’s dialogue with the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN), with which Delhi wants close association and involvement for obvious reasons.

In fact, Singapore had played a vital role in making India a full dialogue partner of ASEAN in the early 90s. Last time when Mr Goh Chok Tong visited India in 1994, his country was in the midst of an “India fever”. That was, sadly, not present this time. Still, there was fresh thaw in the bilateral ties which had cooled during these five years. This sluggishness had appeared for two reasons. On the one hand there was a financial meltdown in the ASEAN region, and on the other India was caught up in its own political turbulence.

Before embarking on the trip, the Singapore Prime Minister had done well to dub it as a “friends first” visit, with the sole diplomatic agenda being to make friends with the present coalition government. “My philosophy has always been to make friends first and worry about profits later,” he had said. This underplaying was apparently to avoid raising false hopes. But the spotlight on economic cooperation was unmistakable, considering the large contingent of industry leaders in his delegation. While India went out of its way to showcase its capabilities and potential, the subtle message that the visiting Prime Minister delivered during his six-day visit was that India needed to improve its infrastructure tremendously for more meaningful economic cooperation.

As was expected, the most tangible offers from him came in the information technology sector. Singapore knows that it does not have the necessary human resources and the Prime Minister emphasised this fact in Delhi as well as in Chennai, Hyderabad and Bangalore. “Being a small country, we recognise that our local population would not be able to produce sufficient talent that is needed to develop Singapore into a knowledge economy,” he said, and offered to utilise Indian manpower in a big way. Indian experts could help him reach the “critical mass”, as it were.

When he informed senior government officials here that Singapore had launched a major manpower initiative to train its workforce to meet the needs of a knowledge economy, the signal was that it would be imperative for India also to do so. In effect, his was a lucrative offer that India could utilise his country as a laboratory to develop information technology to the international level. Indeed, such cooperation can generate millions of jobs if India pursues the lead in right earnest. At stake is a large untapped potential of export to the USA, Europe, Japan, Australia and China.

The IT Minister, Mr Pramod Mahajan, has since announced that the two countries will set up a joint task force to identify core and emerging technology areas in the infotech sector and promote joint venture. He will be going to Singapore in March to finalise the ventures. What is important is that the visiting Prime Minister has assured India that once a suitable venture is identified, money will not be a problem.

Several other projects in the field of human resource development, tourism and development of ports and airports were also discussed but the focus was firmly on IT. The businessmen accompanying Mr Goh Chok Tong advised India to take effective steps to facilitate the flow of investment from Singapore in the infotech sector and make India an attractive investment proposition.

In this regard what was noticeable was that the southern states stole a march over the rest of India. The visiting Prime Minister formally opened the $650-million Bangalore IT park; he had laid the foundation stone during his previous visit in 1994. Singapore has stakes in it and with the occupancy rate already above the 60 per cent mark, it is a symbol of growing economic ties between the two countries.

In Hyderabad, while praising the Chief Minister, Mr N. Chandrababu Naidu, and even going to the extent of saying that “I am inspired by the CM”, Mr Goh did not hide the fact that the pace of privatisation of airports and the failure of the Tata-SIA airlines project were dismaying. He also found occasions - as during the Chennai visit - to point out various anomalies in the Indian system, like the one in the import of cargo handling equipment wherein importers were forced to repay the import cost in dollars despite the fact that the use of cranes within India did not involve the realisation of foreign currency. The Chief Minister had nothing to say except that he would take up the matter with the Union Government.

Although Mr Goh expressed satisfaction over the general direction in which the Indian economy was moving, he had many words of advice. He exhorted India to follow a “look-East” policy and yet his views on the economy tended to coincide with those of the US Treasury Secretary. While floating the idea of an Asian free trade zone, he swore by the WTO. According to him, member-countries should redouble their efforts to analyse and avert the failure of Seattle, otherwise, the survival of the multilateral trading system would be threatened. If the WTO system was rendered ineffective, countries would seek alternative arrangements which might presage an era of “exclusivist, protectionist trading blocks”, he warned.

While seeking greater liberalisation of foreign investment flows, Mr Goh cautioned developing countries like India against haste in moving towards capital account convertibility lest they were overwhelmed by the sudden withdrawal of short-term funds invested in stock markets. His counsel was that the pace of reforms should be increased so that technology and competition could be used effectively to enhance its trade and commerce in the world market. A strong and regulated banking system should be in place before pursuing liberalisation.

Whether this country can duplicate the success story of the tiny state, with a population of about only 3.7 million, is doubtful, given the size of India and also its political ground realities. The Peoples Action Party has been ruling Singapore for 35 years. It has been applying five principles rigidly, the first one of which is: live by yourself, succeed on your own or die. That kind of do-or-die determination and commitment is sadly lacking here. The temporary, cosmetic nature of the sprucing up of Hyderabad which was done for the sake of the dignitary’s visit was indicative of the odds stacked against the realisation of various dreams and visions.

Still, India did manage to convey the impression that it was keen to accept Singapore’s offer of being a window on South-East Asia.

India can also derive satisfaction from the fact that the Pokhran-II nuclear tests did not cast a long shadow on the visit. Perhaps its offer to accede to the protocol to the relevant treaty on the South-East Asian nuclear weapons-free zone — even ahead of China — facilitated its case. If other countries of ASEAN come to terms with the reality of India as a nuclear weapons power in the larger context of East Asia — factoring in China as well as Pakistan — the ASEAN-plus-Asian countries dialogue can proceed on smoother rails. That would be a highly welcome outcome of the Goh visit.

How does urban India look like?
From Tavleen Singh

COME with me, if you will, for a short walk down Marine Drive, arguably the most famous street of all of India’s towns and cities. Walk with me past the pavement vendors selling coconuts, south Indian instant food, roasted corn, spicy snacks and, of late, herbal drinks. It is a permanent real life drama that is constantly played out on this street. Its fame draws tourists from distant parts and to make money off them come snake charmers and monkey-wallahs and armies of small children who use bags full of tricks to extract a few rupees out of unsuspecting foreign tourists, invariably their first target.

On this particular morning there is more excitement than usual because of a parade. Men in white and red uniforms are marching down from Nariman Point to patriotic tunes played by police bands and, although nobody dares interrupt their marching to ask questions, we assume that it is a rehearsal for Republic Day. It must be, we say, or there would not be that helicopter patrolling the bay. On other days you see film crews shooting commercials and often big time Hindi movies. You know this is happening because of the crowds that collect to gaze at the stars who, for some reason find Marine Drive the right place to film dance sequences of one kind or another.

Now, let me tell you why I am taking you down this street that was, in Raj days, called the Queen’s Necklace because at night its lights resemble, as they curve along the bay, a necklace of glittering jewels. I am taking you down it because, if you look more carefully, as you walk it will take you only a few moments to realise that behind its pretty facade the street is also a memorial to the worst problems of urban India.

You will notice, for instance, that an attempt to strengthen the shoreline with tetrapods has been abandoned before the job could be completed. The Maharashtra Government ran out of money and so ordered the work closed. Unused concrete tetrapods, therefore, continue to lie piled up in small heaps on Nariman Point. People have started using them as outdoor toilets so a permanent smell of human waste mingles with that of the roasted corn and the spicy snacks. You will notice also that small, yellow garbage bins have been embedded into the promenade, all along Marine Drive. They are too small to be useful so garbage continues to litter the ground and the yellow paint of the bins has now acquired shades of rust and green slime. All over the world there is a standard design for garbage bins but in India we always need to reinvent the wheel.

You will, then notice that Marine Drive is home to a very large number of new immigrants into the city who sleep on sheets of waste plastic and cloth. Some have become permanent residents, setting up home outside a public toilet under a flyover. They have even built themselves a little shrine to Shiva on the edge of the sea.

If you go beyond the problem of homelessness and waste disposal you will notice that vast portions of this prime real estate is occupied by the government and used for purposes that could easily be fulfilled on less expensive land. And, if you turn towards Nariman Point and let your gaze travel you will notice an ugly cluster of yellow, high-rise buildings in which naval officers have been given apartments at throwaway prices. What is the Navy doing in Central Mumbai? Good question, but the only answer is that is the way it is.

Now, imagine if the most famous city street in all of India looks like this what must the rest of urban India look like? The answer in one word is: terrible. The towns of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, even those that were once beautiful like Agra and Lucknow, are so overwhelmed with the speed of their growth that they are in visible states of decay.

Recently, we have been supplied with statistics of just how bad things are by the Minister for Urban Development himself. Mr Jagmohan, in articles in India Today and The Pioneer tells us that 52 per cent of urban Indians have no access to sanitation. Sewerage systems are available to only 35 per cent of Indians living in towns and even our most modern cities manage to provide proper sewerage to only 75 per cent of their citizens. Nearly 30 per cent of urban waste lies uncollected because municipalities cannot dispose of it properly. And, 35 per cent of people living in urban India live in slums. In Mumbai half the population lives in slums. The housing problem is so acute that 44 per cent of urban families live in one room tenements.

Mr Jagmohan says, “Though 90 per cent of the government revenues and 60 per cent of our national gross domestic product are contributed by the cities they, at the municipal level, get only 0.6 per cent of the GDP. Over the years, the percentage of Plan allocation for urban development schemes has been declining. From 8 per cent in 1951, allocation for urban development is only 2.6 per cent today.”

The minister, unfortunately, sees the problem only through the eyes of a former bureaucrat-turned-politician so although he sees the extent of urban decay he offers no solutions. In terms of solutions all he has to say is that if there was an ‘inspiring urban vision’ then Varanasi would have been transformed by a green vista along the Ganga. The river’s water would be cleaned and Varanasi would have become a ‘symbol of resurgent India’.

What he does not tell us is that, in other countries, cities and towns are allowed to govern themselves usually through elected governments headed by an elected Mayor. It is only when this happens that we will begin to see some hope of a solution to the country’s urban problem, Mumbai, Delhi, Chennai and even Lucknow, Bhopal, Allahabad and Cochin must be taken out of the clutches of state governments who take all they can out of them to invest in rural areas.

It is only when municipal governments become powerful enough to raise their own taxes and make their own decisions about everything, including, law and order, that we will see any change. This is not a new suggestion and if Mr Jagmohan looks into the bowels of his own ministry he may discover a report, ordered when Rajiv Gandhi was Prime Minister, that lists this among its major recommendations.

If he would like to be remembered as the Minister who made the difference then he needs to dig up this report and start implementing it. His own job can be confined then to initiating the right laws and providing other support. Another statistic that he supplies tells us how urgent the need for solutions is. According to him there will be 418 million Indians living in urban areas by the year 2020. Unless cities and towns are allowed to govern themselves they will all be living in slums, breathing polluted air and making do without sanitation, municipal water supply and all the other things necessary for human habitation in the 21st century.

Using TV to counter drug use
From Edward Helmore in London

THE soldiers in the war on drugs are never at rest. So it was surprising, but not shocking, when it recently came to light that White House anti-drug officials had quietly opened a new media front in their efforts to steer the nation’s youth away from temptation.

In exchange for a reduction in the number of public service announcements they must broadcast by law, the US TV networks allowed the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) to review the scripts and watch advance screenings of shows such as ER and Beverly Hills 90210. The drugs body then suggested ways that characters or plots could be changed, inserting or reinforcing an anti-drug message.

Under the scheme, which has been running with little public comment since 1997, Barry McCaffrey, President Clinton’s drug tsar, allotted advertising points for TV shows that conveyed the desired message - a scene in which a teenage actress rejects a joint, for example, or depicting groups of stoned teenagers as losers. These points, or credits, can be cashed in, allowing the networks to sell advertising time at commercial rates that it would otherwise be obliged to fill with the descendants of Nancy Reagan’s “Just Say No” media blitz.

News of the scheme, which was revealed by the online magazine Salon.com two weeks ago, created a predictable uproar. Media watchdogs called the deal a form of censorship, and warned that in creating financial incentives for the networks to air covert anti-drug messages the government was setting a bad precedent.

“In allowing the government to shape or even be consulted on content in return for financial rewards, the networks are crossing a dangerous line they should not cross,’’ boomed a New York Times editorial. “On the far side of that line lies the possibility of censorship and state-sponsored propaganda.”

Others say the deal amounted to a contravention of the first amendment, guaranteeing the right to freedom of speech. “The broadcasters scream about the first amendment until McCaffrey opens his chequebook,” says Andrew Jay Schwartzman, President of public interest law firm Media Access Project.

The former chief counsel of the Federal Communications Commission, Robert Corn-Revere, called the campaign “pretty insidious. The Government surreptitiously planting anti-drug messages using the power of the purse raises red flags. Why is there no disclosure to the American public?”

The outcry moved President Clinton to defend the arrangement. “I don’t think there was any attempt to try to undermine the content or the independence or the integrity of the networks and the programming,’’ he told reporters. “If the networks were willing to put a good anti-drug message in heavily watched programmes, particularly by the most vulnerable young people, that would be a good thing.”

The networks, while supporting the war on drugs, denied that they had ever changed a programme at the behest of the White House. Instead, they confirmed that they consulted government officials on how to portray the issue of drugs abuse and supplied scripts and tapes of programmes so the officials could determine if the shows counted toward a credit. “At no time has the independence or creative integrity of our programming been compromised,” said a CBS spokesman, echoing similar statements from ABC, NBC, Fox and Warner Bros.

The White House said that not only had the arrangement been made public, it had in fact only benefited the networks to the tune of $24 million over 18 months.

“It’s been open, public, and a wonderful thing because we’re very proud that last year juvenile drug use declined by 13 per cent. What we are doing is working,’’ said a spokesman for the agency.

Whatever the resistance to the principle of the government having any hand in modelling the content of the media, an anti-drug message is not one that can be said to be very controversial. The networks are hardly purveyors of youth-corrupting messages anyway — unless you count the transmission of mind-numbing mediocrity — in part to sustain advertising from big companies that would shy away from any kind of controversial message.

And the networks like to be seen as socially conscientious. “We enjoy doing something that is pro-socially responsible, especially since we reach a younger audience,’’ says Jamie Kellner, chief executive of Warner Bros. “I think people should applaud the government for being clever.”

A recently released report on 168 prime-time television episodes broadcast over three months in 1998 showed that illegal drugs were seen being taken in only 3 per cent of the episodes viewed, while tobacco was used in 19 per cent and alcohol in 71 per cent.

The report, on the influence of television on teen substance abuse, found that only three major characters were seen using illicit drugs. A male adult and a male teenager smoked marijuana, while a female teen was seen taking a drink laced with the date rape drug. “These findings make it clear that the broadcast television industry is sending our kids the right messages about drug abuse,” concluded McCaffrey.

The idea of exchanging content for advertising credits evolved from a congressional mandate that for every dollar of anti-drug advertising purchased by the government from a network, the network was required to donate another dollar’s worth of advertising time.

Initially, the networks welcomed the billion dollar advertising deal but soon cooled to the idea of selling time at half-price as the boom in dot.com advertising kicked in. The White House then came up with the idea of releasing networks from their obligations in exchange for positive anti-drug messages within their shows.

The calculations worked according to a set numerical formula under which the drug-policy office assigned financial value to each show’s anti-drug message. If the office decided that a half-hour pushed an endorsed anti-drug theme sufficiently , it got valued at three units, with each unit equalling the cost of one 30-second ad on that show.

For instance, a two-episode Beverly Hills 90210 story involving a character’s downward spiral into addiction exempted Fox from broadcasting anti-drug commercials during ad time worth around $450,000. Several episodes of ER with anti-drug subplots redeemed $1.3 million in ad time for NBC to be able to sell elsewhere. ABC recouped approximately $450,000 with episodes of Home Improvement.

But in the wake of continuing controversy, ABC announced it would stop trying to collect government credits for inserting anti-drug messages. And in an effort to “eliminate any misunderstandings and prevent any inference of federal intrusion in the creative process” the drug policy office said it will no longer review programme episodes for credits until after they have been broadcast.

— By arrangement with The Guardian