 |
| Monday, February 7, 2000, Chandigarh, India  
|
Probing
defence deals
CHANGING
THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Berating UN, American style by R. A. Singh IT is unusual indeed for a senior Senator like Jesse Helms, Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, to berate the United Nations merely because the world body these days does not, in his opinion, reflect the wishes and dictates of America in its global operations. But berate the UN he did, in a tone of arrogance and condescension that other UN members, including America’s allies, found totally unacceptable.
The
Burra Sahib
Flip
flop on constitutional review
Frenzy
of literary activity
February 7, 1925
|
Probing defence deals DEFENCE Minister George Fernandes has launched a sweeping three-pronged attack on entrenched corrupt ways in the armed forces and the Defence Ministry. He has asked the CBI to track down commission agents in all defence procurement deals during the past 15 years and also find out if there were kickbacks and other payments. Simultaneously, the Comptroller and Auditor-General (CAG) will go through the purchase lists of spare parts with a fine-tooth comb to compare prices and the real need. He has also set up a high-powered committee to examine the past audit notes and recommendations of the CAG. Of particular focus is technology transfer. The suspicion is that somebody had sabotaged the transfer or just did not bother, preferring foreign purchase instead of local production. The scale of the clean-up operation and the unleashing of two of the most powerful institutions have given it a high profile, angering and dismaying the top brass of the defence forces. Even by the Minister’s flamboyant style, the investigation is both dramatic and all-embracing, creating unease among some of his Cabinet colleagues. Of course, the opposition parties wonder about the scale and the timing of the announcement. Mr Fernandes has tried to answer this in the Ministry’s press note. All three wings of the armed forces are poised to spend hundreds of crores of rupees on equipment and even as talks are going on, there are murmurs of big commission payments. It is to silence such critics that the Ministry has opted for this clean-up drive. This is true, but only
partly. Former Prime Minister Deve Gowda has raised
doubts about hefty commission payments in both the
purchase of 300 T-90 tanks and the retired aircraft
carrier, the Admiral Gorshkov, from Russia. There are
several bidders for the advanced jet trainer for the Air
Force. And defence deals all over the world are noted for
the vast sums of money involved and the amount which
passes hands to clinch them. This is very true of this
country despite the rule banning the presence of agents
in all deals. Perhaps the full answer lies in a High
Court case in Delhi. A senior naval officer, Rear Admiral
Suhas Purohit, feels that he has not got his overdue
promotion and has sought the court’s intervention.
In an annexure to the petition he has listed several
irregularities in the purchase of spare parts by the
Vishakhapatnam naval yard. Some items have cost the Navy
several times the market price and some items which were
occupying precious godown space were purchased in an
arbitrary fashion. It is the same officer who, the
Minister once said, had faxed messages to middlemen, and
that former Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat was protecting him.
Well, the Minister ordered a CBI inquiry and the Rear
Admiral has come out smelling roses. This clean chit has
thrown the Defence Ministry in a dilemma. It is probably
too arrogant to retract the charge with a graceful regret
and so it is indulging in this exercise of broadbasing
the anti-corruption plank. When he assumed office three
years ago, Mr Fernandes asked interested or knowledgeable
individuals to directly write to him with or without
signature. Several such complaints were faxed to the
Ministry. Nothing seems to have come out of the
experiment. Now the Minister himself has turned a
complainant with a request to the CBI and the CAG to go
into vague charges. An anti-corruption crusade is vital
for establishing probity in public life. But this has to
be done in a dignified, transparent and subtle manner,
keeping in view the honour and prestige the armed forces
enjoy in the country. In any case, Mr Fernandes should
have formally secured the Cabinet approval before his
public pronouncement on such a vital issue. The moot
point is: has he done so? |
Getting deeper into “Water” A WEEK after a handful of hooligans, posing as the protectors of the country's culture, destroyed the sets of Deepa Mehta's underproduction film "Water" in Varanasi the questions raised by the unhappy episode remain unanswered. No action has been taken against the miscreants by the local administration. Instead, the Bharatiya Janata Party-led government in Uttar Pradesh indirectly supported the action of the malcontents by withdrawing permission for the shooting of the film on the plea that it was likely to result in the breakdown of law and order in Varanasi! In the story which has unfolded so far Ms Mehta has been seen as having been more sinned against than sinning. The script for the film had been cleared by the Information and Broadcasting Ministry and the UP government had given her permission to shoot the film, depicting the lives of two widows, on the ghats of the Ganga. However, before the cameras could be switched on, the set for the "mahurat" shot was destroyed by Sangh Parivar activists. Ms Mehta introduced some changes in the approved script which forms the basis of the fresh clearance from the I and B Ministry for making the film. But the UP government has not changed its stand. Now the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and RSS activists have given a disturbing twist to the controversy by stating that Ms Mehta would not be allowed to shoot the film anywhere in India, in spite of the fresh clearance by the relevant authority. In their view, the script "outraged ancient Indian culture and traditions". VHP President Ashok Singhal, who claims to have read the script, has been quoted as having said that "the script of the film smacks of a conspiracy by votaries of western culture to tarnish the image of widowhood in India". This is a matter of opinion which seems far-fetched. Why has Ms Mehta chosen
to shoot the film in Varanasi and Vrindavan? Had the
process of social reforms succeeded in making most Indian
households accept widows as equal and respected members
of the families of their deceased husbands Ms Mehta's
script would have become irrelevant. In any case, the
issue is not whether a film based on the lives of the
widows of Varanasi needs to be made. The right to make or
not make the film belongs to Ms Mehta. The decision
cannot be forced on her by anyone except the State, for
which it would have to give valid reasons.If she is not
"allowed to shoot anywhere in India" because of
the threats from Sangh Parivar outfits, it is the State's
image as the protector of civil liberties which would be
badly tarnished. A section of the media too has tried to
distort the issue by publishing excerpts from the script
which create the impression that the Canada-born
film-maker is "a demon" and not a creative
artist. It has even insinuated that the script she is
using for making the film is not the one which was
cleared by the I and B Ministry. The sensible thing to do
would be to let her complete the shooting. Thereafter the
screening committee and the censor board should go
through the finished product with a toothcomb keeping in
mind the sentiments of those who feel strongly about
Indian culture being denigrated by self-styled liberals.
Ms Shabana Azmi, who is playing a key role in the film,
put the issue in perspective by pointing out that
"claims are being made that the mahurat shot was
offensive,whereas the cameras have not been switched on
so far". However, she defended the democratic right
of the Sangh Parivar outfits to hold protest rallies
against any issue which upsets them. She herself has
taken part in countless protests as a social activist.
But the protest should always be peaceful and not
violent, as it was on the day the "mahurat" of
"Water" was to be performed in Varanasi. Those
who are spearheading the protest and threatening to use
violent methods to stop Ms Mehta from shooting anywhere
in the country should not overlook the fact that in the
global village the entire country may have to suffer the
consequences of the inability of the State to protect the
constitutional right to freedom of expression. |
CHANGING THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM INDIA is a welfare state. Democracy is a system of governance or administration for the betterment of the people. Administration of justice is one of the basic responsibilities of the state. This has been considered to be the divine duty bestowed on the ruler, now the government of the people elected by the people. Can the laws of civil procedure controlling the entire judicial edifice be so framed as to work oppressively against the common ordinary citizen of India? Certainly not. The Indian society is still predominantly agricultural. Nearly 80 per cent of the people are living in the rural areas and are dependent on land. A large mass of civil litigation is still concerning disputes pertaining to land arising out of suits for perpetual prohibitory and mandatory injunctions in respect of agricultural lands or properties subservient to agriculture, or suits for the declaration of title to lands or suits for easements, pre-emption etc. In none of such suits the value of the subject matter in dispute is more than Rs 25,000. The common man has greater faith in the outcome of the litigation when it is finally settled at the High Court level. Denying him the right to approach the High Court will give rise to frustration of the common man with the judicial system. Therefore it has to be avoided. The latest amendments proposed in the Code of Civil Procedure governing the entire nation are going to shut the doors of the High Courts upon the common man by eliminating second appeals to the High Courts in suits in which the value of the subject matter is not more than Rs 25,000. This has been done by the proposed amendment in Section 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Similarly, revisions from various interlocutory orders made by the subordinate judicial authorities have been shut out by amending Section 115 of the Code. Now revisional jurisdiction will be exercisable by the High Courts only when the setting aside of the impugned order will result in the disposal of the suit. Interference in the interest of justice when the rights of a party are greatly prejudiced is shut out. The heavier load of pendency of second appeals and revisions before the High Courts should be dealt with by filling the quota of judges in the High Courts, and not allowing any vacancies to remain unfilled. Why are we allowing 35 to 40 per cent vacancies in every High Court to remain unfilled perennially? Even the strength of judges in the various High Courts may be temporarily increased so that the backlog is cleared. Moreover, the litigants are not likely to get speedier justice only by reducing the workload at the High Court level alone. The number of matters on the board of a trial judge and the District/Additional District Judge level has also to be reduced by making up the full quota of appointees at those levels in time (appointment/replacement must come in immediately on the occurrence of a vacancy on retirement/transfer) and increasing the number of judges at these levels. As I have said earlier, providing a machinery for speedy justice is one of the primary duties of the State and this duty must be fulfilled. In case there is any deficiency in this duty towards the people, the authorities concerned must be made accountable for their failure. The state of affairs as it exists today at the trial and district court level is intolerable in any civilised society. The number of presiding officers at these levels of the judicial system should be so fixed that the number of matters requiring attention of a judge at any level on any working day is not more than 20 or 25. Shutting out or diminishing remedies of appeals and revisions is no solution. This is like telling patients not to approach specialist hospitals. Eighty per cent people in India cannot afford the luxury of getting their plaints and written statements, etc, drafted in the offices or firms of solicitors who are experts in the art of drafting pleadings. In the large majority of cases, the advocates engaged to argue matters themselves do the drafting job. In case a bona fide and genuine mistake is committed by an advocate in a matter now, the mistake is prohibited to be corrected. The provision for seeking amendments of pleadings has been deleted by deleting Rule 17 of Order 6 of the Code. The argument that this provision is capable of being misused or abused is not valid as the courts should and can be required to make the misuse/abuse of this provision extremely costly to a litigant. Complete abolition of the provision is worse than the ailment. The conclusion is, therefore, inescapable that the proposed amendments have forgotten the ordinary litigant in the country and his requirement of an efficient judicial system. I am not against change and progress. The changes required in the system are different than those proposed. I venture to suggest a few of them for consideration by fellow countrymen: (i) Compulsory pre-trial conciliation between opposing parties. The conciliation sought to be introduced by reintroducing Section 89 in the Code of Civil Procedure after the parties have already approached the court of law is not likely to be very productive. Such conciliation efforts should be compulsory in law before the door of a court is knocked at. Such conciliation can take place in the chambers of the advocates for the parties. A party which is found to be indulging in frivolous and vexatious litigation even after pre-trial conciliation should, on the failure of its cause, be burdened with heavy and exemplary costs invariably so that people do not indulge in unjustified litigation. (ii) The State is the largest litigant at all levels, and in a majority of matters, the cause of the State is not found to be justified. The officials of the State should be made accountable for involving the State in fruitless and unjustifiable litigation. Relief should be granted to the citizen by the State agencies when the cause of the citizen is found to be genuine. Any official found responsible in involving the State in litigation unnecessarily should be made to pay the costs incurred by the State as well as by the citizen from his pocket. (iii) Judgements should not be allowed to be kept reserved by judges at various levels for more than two weeks after the completion of the arguments. (Although the intention of Rule 1 of Order 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that judgement should be pronounced within15 days of the date of conclusion of hearing, this provision is not being strictly adhered to). (iv) In order to keep the judicial system abreast of the demands of globalisation of the Indian economy, suits in which the subject matter, in dispute, is worth more than Rs 10 lakh should be heard in the first instance at the High Court level so that big corporate litigants get quick disposal of their disputes. (The writer is a
senior advocate, based in Chandigarh). |
Berating UN, American style IT is unusual indeed for a senior Senator like Jesse Helms, Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, to berate the United Nations merely because the world body these days does not, in his opinion, reflect the wishes and dictates of America in its global operations. But berate the UN he did, in a tone of arrogance and condescension that other UN members, including America’s allies, found totally unacceptable. Swanking swaggeringly in his address to the UN Security Council on January 20, Mr Helms lambasted the UN as if he were divinity descending angrily to earth before his devotees whose offerings had been inadequate. His disgusting diatribe included the charge that despite America’s magnanimity with largesse, the UN had turned out to be ungrateful by not translating its appreciation into unquestioned reverence. What Mr Helms clearly expected from Secretary-General Kofi Annan were folded hands and bended knees, and paying predominant attention to US interests, even at the cost of global interests. Mr Helms also issued the dire warning that unless the world body went along with the above scenario, the USA would withdraw from the organisation. “If the United Nations respects the sovereign right of the American people, and serves them as an effective tool of diplomacy, it will earn and deserve their respect and support,” Mr Helms declaimed. “But a United Nations that seeks to impose its presumed authority on the American people, without their consent, begs for confrontation and — I want to be candid with you — eventual US withdrawal.” Rather than have a world body where the writ of Mr Helms and his cohorts runs, it might be far better for the world at large to have such an institution fold up for good. Besides, who gave Mr Helms the right to speak on behalf of the entire American populace? That is the right of the American President, and it is absolutely certain that President Clinton, who is a champion of global engagement, will never even remotely suggest that the USA should walk away from the world body. Mr Helms’ UN address had bullet-like words, each driven like a nail into the bleeding head of the world body. The truckful of tripe in Mr Helms’ speech would not have been worth so much bother if he had the courage of his convictions to recommend withdrawal from the world body. Instead, he executes the swing between bombastic volubility in world affairs and rigor mortis when it comes to releasing legitimate US dues to the UN. Senator Helms conveniently forgets that the UN was founded under the stewardship of President Frank Delano Roosevelt in 1945 to help a war-torn world and to sort out the differences among nations. The UN was never intended to be an annexe of the Capitol Building where US Congressmen and Senators rule the roost. Senator Helms and those of his ilk expect America to be treated as “God’s own country,” even though the Almighty himself might have other ideas on the subject. Mr Helms has shamelessly used his legislative clout on the US purse-strings to blackmail the United Nations into acquiescing in his demands for so-called internal reform. The end result has been that he has held up payment of over $1 billion in US dues to the UN, giving the sole super power and richest nation on earth a “deadbeat” reputation — and angering allies and adversaries alike. Over a period of time, an unrepentant Helms has called the United Nations every name in the book, excoriating the organisation and its functionaries. But perhaps in the Christmas spirit of goodwill to men, he landed up in the UN Security Council offering “a hand of friendship.” But any hope of a rapprochement quickly evaporated when he formally addressed Council members. For it became immediately apparent that there had been no reformation in Mr Helms’ delusions of grandeur. He behaved as if his visit were that of a potentate to one of his fiefdoms. Mr Helms ruffled a lot of feathers when he charged the UN with “a lack of gratitude,” and accused it of trying to “impose its utopian vision of international law on Americans.” He ridiculed “absurd” assertions by some UN members that small, poor nations like Fiji and Bangladesh were carrying America’s burdens in peacekeeping. That was too much even for an ally like Canadian Ambassador Robert Fowler. He pointed out that in 1999 the UN owed Bangladesh $18 million for the services of peacekeeping troops, a sum that was about 175 times its regular budget contribution; similarly Fiji was owed $4 million, 100 times its regular budget assessment. “In that 60 per cent of all monies owed to the United Nations are owed by the United States, 60 per cent of these numbers are owed by Americans to Bangladeshis and to Fijians,” Ambassador Fowler declared. Canadians were not the only US allies who took umbrage at the Senator’s acerbity. British Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock pointed out that US tardiness in meeting its payments and Mr Helms’ insistence on reducing the agreed US contributions had “hindered, not helped” peacekeeping efforts. An irate Greenstock added: “The UN is not a separate organ to which we turn, like a fire service. It is the member-states, and the US owns 25 per cent of the power and the resources of the UN. When it does well, the US gets credit for. When it does badly, the US must bear some responsibility for.” One of the issues on which Mr Helms has displayed total intransigence is his demand that US contributions to the UN be reduced from an agreed 25 per cent to 20 per cent. The demand is totally arbitrary, and he is fully aware that such a change cannot come about without the sanction of the 180-plus total membership of the world body. What Mr Helms does not realise, or does not wish to realise, is that the USA gets back a great deal of its UN contribution since the UN headquarters is in America and the thousands of UN employees spend most of their earnings in America. In fact, the UN is one reason why New York has become such an expensive city in real estate terms. Mr Helms also forgets that the clout that the USA commands at the UN and at other world bodies like the World Bank and the IMF is a great deal more than commensurate with what it pays for. Meanwhile, French Ambassador Alain Dejammet was another usually cool diplomat who got hot under the collar after listening to Mr Helms’ ultra-conservative polemics. “We hear you, but the idea in this house is that others must be heard as well,” the ambassador commented with commendable restraint. At the end of the Senator’s diatribe, almost all members of the Security Council took issue with his description of the world body and made pointed references to the way the USA had let it down. But the ultimate put down was left to a representative of the Third World, which Mr Helms considers a bunch of indolent, over-populated basket-cases that keep smuggling illegal aliens into America, to the disadvantage of the domestic population. When Mr Helms boasted that President Reagan’s anti-communist policies had triggered freedom and democracy around the globe without the help or approval of the UN, it was more than Namibian Ambassador Martin Andjaba could swallow. He asserted that the Reagan doctrine had denied independence to Namibia, and by supporting the apartheid regime in South Africa and the UNITA rebel movement in Angola, had prolonged a civil war that stretched out over 25 years. “It contributed to a lot of suffering in Africa,” Mr Andjaba said. “That page has passed, but we have it fresh in our memories.” It is not yet evident whether that riposte had any impact on Mr Helms, who obviously possesses a very selective memory. (The author is
based in Washington.) |
The Burra Sahib BURRA Sahib sends his salaams; said the office peon, this being the conventional, office euphemism for “the boss wants you ek dum.” It doesn’t matter if you are enjoying a cup of tea or smoking a cigarette. The year was 1940 and the place, Kanpur, then known as Cawnpore. It was a city of mills, factories and soot-laden air which I loathed. The only reason I have for not damning it entirely is that it was there I met the girl who became my wife 58 years ago. My boss, Kingsley Charles Lee Gorringe (to give him his full name) was not a bad sort. He was a veteran of the first World War during which, as a young pilot officer in the Royal Flying Corps, he had crashed and fractured his cranium. The injury, though completely healed, had made him a trifle eccentric. Summer wear for the office comprised a half-sleeve shirt (genuine aertex) khaki or white shorts and long stockings. The bush-shirt had not been invented. One of Kingsley’s foibles was to wear shorts that may have been airy but were too wide above the knees for propriety. Once a visiting director had commented on this and was told that he had a dirty mind. Kingsley was senior enough in the company to get away with a remark like that. Kingsley’s great passion in life was motor cars. There wasn’t a car since the advent of the T Model Ford that he couldn’t describe to the last bolt and nut. He spent a small fortune in subscribing to British and American automobile journals. The day he called me into his office he looked as if were about to have a fit. He threw a H.O. letter across to me and said, “These stupid b....rs won’t let me buy a new Ford V 8 for the office. Soon there will be none left and the old Plymouth is falling to bits.” I sympathised with him and advised him to wait till a director came round again. Then we could drive him down to Lucknow and arrange a “breakdown” en route. He looked hard at me and winked. “That’s a damn good idea” he said, “We’ll make the chap walk home or get into a bus. As it turned out, we didn’t have to wait that long for our V8. A week later he sent the office driver to my house early in the morning with his urgent “salaams” When I reached his bungalow he took me round to the back. All I could see of the old Plymouth was its charred and blackened remains. “I’ve sent for the police” said Kingsley, “though I doubt if they’ll be of much use. Must have been a short circuit in the old wreck.” And he winked at me again. Poor Kingsley
didn’t live long after his retirement. He died in
England, in a car crash. Somehow, I couldn’t have
visualised him dying any other way. |
Flip flop on constitutional
review “MY duty”, said the writer, Emile Zola,“is to speak. I have no wish to be an accomplice.” Taking on his own Prime Minister and displaying a courage of conviction that goes back to Zola, President Narayanan’s “leave the Constitution alone” speech on January 27 has proved to be one of the most successful moral interventions ever by the Head of State in the history of free India. Egg on its face, an embarrassed BJP government has immediately switched over from the fundamentalist to the liberal mode and pledged loyalty to the basic structure of the Constitution. And to the parliamentary system of government that constitutes its core. “ The clamour for a Constitution review,” wrote Deputy Editor Harish Khare in The Hindu the same day as the President spoke, “is a subterfuge for non-democratic temptations; but, this authoritarian project will also fail because it is intended to bypass the egalitarian assertiveness from below. India is not Pakistan.” India definitely is not Pakistan (and thank God for that!) but, quite clearly, it is not egalitarian assertiveness from below but fierce presidential opposition from above that has blocked the project. And altered the tone and temper of the constitutional debate. “The views of the President are entitled to the highest respect and consideration,” the man who now matters the most, a man of rare integrity and erudition in a world dominated by petty minds and base motives, the former Chief Justice of India, Justice M.N. Venkatachaliah, told The Hindustan Times yesterday. The Commission, he said, referring to the proposed Constitution Review Commission headed by him, “is not entitled to bring about changes in the Constitution. It is only the people’s representatives who can do it. The Commission’s work is essentially an academic exercise to collect and collate the views of the civil society with the political society.” It was Justice Venkatachaliah’s moral reading of the Indian Constitution — if I am permitted to borrow Prof Ronald Dworkin’s latest title on the American Constitution — that brought the Supreme Court of India under his leadership in the middle of the last decade into the vortex of judicial activism. This, the period when he led it, was the court’s finest hour even though it tended to impart to the Constitution a moral open-endedness that, in the hands of lesser judges, worked havoc later on. The moral reading, says Prof Dworkin, one of the most distinguished legal thinkers of our time, brings political morality into the heart of constitutional law. But it seems at the same time to erode the crucial distinction between law and morality by making law only a matter of which moral principles happen to appeal to the judges of a particular era. It seems also and “grotesquely (he adds) to constrict the moral sovereignty of the people themselves — to take out of their hands, and remit to a professional elite, exactly the great and defining issues of political morality that the people have the right and responsibility to decide for themselves.” The proposed Constitution Review Commission headed by Chief Justice Venkatachaliah will be precisely one such elite. And on its composition, to be settled by the government in consultation with the chairman, will ultimately depend what questions are raised by way of an attempted review of the Constitution and how they are answered. Amongst the names reportedly being considered are Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy, the Chairman of the Law Commission and a former Supreme Court judge cast in the mould of a Krishna Iyer though without his eloquence, and Justice R.S. Sarkaria of the Sarkaria Commission fame. And two of the tallest constitutional lawyers in the country today, lawyers who would rank with the best in the world: former Attorney General K. Parasaran and Mr Fali S. Nariman. But whoever, or whoever else, may be nominated on the Constitution Review Commission, the Commission will surely miss one man who, more than any other — and let me state very frankly, more than even B.R. Ambedkar — contributed to making India’s Constitution perhaps the finest document of its time in the history of Constitution-making, though by no means perfect. The Constitutional Adviser to the Constituent Assembly and the real draftsman of the Constitution, Sir Benegal Narsinga Rau. From Hindu law reform to riparian rights to constitutional affairs to international law, Rau’s knowledge and experience, capped by an 18-month stint as Prime Minister of Kashmir, made him a natural choice for the post of Constitutional Adviser in July, 1946. A year earlier, he had declined (in writing) the Government of India’s offer of permanent judgeship of the Calcutta High Court, an appointment which would, not before long, have taken him to the Federal Court (now Supreme Court). The task of mapping out and drafting the Constitution took Rau outside India as well: to the USA, Canada, Ireland and the United Kingdom for personal discussions with leading constitutional authorities in those countries. Among those he met and conferred with was Justice Felix Frankfurter, US Supreme Court Judge and one of the greatest judges of this century. Recounting his impressions of the man, Frankfurter later told Girja Shankar Bajpai, then Secretary-General in the Ministry of External Affairs: “If the President of the USA were to ask me to recommend a judge for our Supreme Court on the strength of his knowledge of the history and working of the American Constitution, B.N. Rau would be the first on my list.” Such were the men who
shaped and penned our Constitution, now sought to be
revised. With due apologies to Justice Venkatachaliah and
his prospective colleagues on the Constitution Review
Commission, they don’t make men like that any more. |
Frenzy of literary activity I DON’T know whether we can call ourselves literate, in the real sense, yet a frenzy of literary activity took off with the start of the World Book Fair (February 5 to 13), at the Pragati Maidan. It’s too early to comment on the crowds it draws or the number of the books that sell but from my previous experience I can say that even book fairs have become tamasha events. The very timing of this international book fair has always been questioned —February heralds examination hysteria here, so it’s almost like omitting young men, women and their poor parents from the list of potential readers. The very thought is difficult to digest but such seems the reality. Another of those instances when we have succumbed to suit the convenience of the West. In this particular case maybe the weather conditions suit the publishers coming from abroad and therefore, there’s no going back on February, as the month for the World Book Fair. And on February 9 and 10 the British Education Fair will begin, at the British Council. It is almost akin to a selling mart — representatives of the various British universities come down and publicise and advertise the courses and facilities they offer. Before moving ahead I must write that perhaps for the first time a definite awareness about book piracy will be taken up by the British Council, at the World Book Fair. At this special stand not only some of its staff will be masquerading as modern day pirates, wearing black eye patches but “visitors will have an opportunity to sign a pledge to stop buying or encouraging pirated books”. And those signing such a pledge will be presented a specially created anti-piracy force badge. And all along the days of this fair, literary figures are going to be especially invited to talk about their work. The highlights will be Amit Chaudhuri with his latest book “A New World” (Picador) and, of course, the very arrival of the well known British poet Benjamin Zephaniah. He is no ordinary poet rather what is called the ‘performance poet’ or a ‘Dub poet’. Dub poetry is based on political themes and has a strong rhythmic element. In fact in the early eighties when there were protests on London streets about high unemployment, homelessness and other burning issues Zephaniah’s Dub poetry could be heard at demonstrations, at youth gatherings, outside police stations. The traumatic times we are passing through or living in could perhaps become less stressful if we are allowed to freely vent our disgust at all that is happening around. In fact this brings me to write about film maker Deepa Mehta’s compromise to tone down her script to suit vested interests. There has been criticism of her, in the context of succumbing to those interests in spite of earlier mouthing heady, bravado laced sentiments. And as reports trickle in there could be further problems awaiting her, in the context of her ability to shoot the film. For one the weakening of the Centre’s authority over the state gets so very writ large and this itself has sent very dangerous signals. Imagine, corrupt politics has weakened the system to such an extent that the state begins to get virtually ruled by a set of self-styled goons who are at liberty to set afire or ruthlessly put a stop on any activity, all in the name of religious sentiments. In fact, just a few months back I had interviewed Aradhana Seth, Vikram Seth’s sister and the designer of the sets of all the films made by Deepa Mehta, including this latest film ‘Water’. The script was lying on her table, as she picked up the file and flicked through the pages I remember asking her the theme and storyline. “Oh! its about the plight of the Hindu widows... you know how widows were treated in the ‘30s....” At least Deepa Mehta is projecting the plight of the widows of that era, but if you talk to women activists they’d tell you some very horrifying tales of the plight of today’s widows, almost perishing in Vrindavan. What is the government doing for them, for their upkeep, for their mental and physical wellbeing? Probably nothing. The least it can do is to divert attention of those Banarsi babus to the horrifying conditions in which widows survive in Vrindavan. Maybe UP’s Tourism Minister who was mouthing one couplet after another on the idiot box in response to the recent vandalism in Varanasi should take it upon himself to do some sightseeing in Vrindavan. Shiv Khera sells Perhaps, fitting in these times the likes of Shiv Khera would definitely sell. You all must be aware of his name and of his passion-to make you think along the lines of the positive in spite of all the negatives around or as he says “winners don’t do different things, they do things differently...”And to hear him talk on how to live with a strong positive attitude many had gathered on February 2 at the IIC lawns. That evening also saw the release of the Hindi version of the international best seller “You Can Win” which he had earlier authored. The Hindi version is titled ‘Jeet Apki’ (Full Circle). Khera, of course, speaks and writes well, otherwise his list of clients wouldn’t include Lufthansa, ANZ Grindlays, Johnson and Johnson, Nestle etc. But the only thing that comes in the way is that American accent, still very much intact. Agreed he had lived in the USA for years but if he really exercises some of the determination he talks about he can shirk it off. Before ending let me add that here there seems a sudden thrust on such books. In fact, Poonam and Shekhar Malhotra, the couple who launched Full Circle (an associate company of Hind Pocket) only two years back have already published several books of Deepak Chopra, Dominique Lapierre, Paula Horan, The Dalai Lama, on philosophy, spirituality and topics close to the soul. Shekhar Malhotra, has, anyway, very soulful eyes indeed! Essay competition Unnati features and
UNFPA’s essay competition’s very topic
“One Billion Indians: The Road Ahead —
challenges or opportunities”, makes you ponder on
our future. What with one billion Indians around! Anyway,
this prestigious essay competition is open to all college
and university students of India and the closing date is
February 15, 2000. There is no entry fee. Entries should
be sent to Unnati Features/UNFPA, PO Box 3015, Lodi Road,
Head Post Office New Delhi-110003. |
February
7, 1925 COMMENTING on the decision to grant bounty to Indian steel, the Financial Times points out that protection will be justified if it enables India to build great metallurgical and engineering industries. At the same time it warns India that any defect in the quality of steel produced or inefficiency leading to high costs will, in the long run, prove injurious. The quality of steel produced at Jamshedpore is said to be of a high grade and there is no fear of inferior quality. As to the cost, it is hoped that when Indians are trained and they are employed largely in the works, the cost of production will compare favourably with that of European countries. In any case, the effect
of protection should be watched closely. There are other
iron and steel works to be started in Bengal in addition
to the Tatas. It is reasonable to watch the development
of this important industry for some time before coming to
a decision as to the success or failure of the protective
policy recently adopted by the Government. |
 |
| Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir | Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs | Nation | Editorial | | Business | Sport | World | Mailbag | Chandigarh Tribune | In Spotlight | 50 years of Independence | Tercentenary Celebrations | | 119 Years of Trust | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |
