The Tribune, Chandigarh, India

Vittal’s latest bombshell

IN trying to resurrect the hawala case, Chief Vigilance Commissioner N.Vittal is clearly treading on morally sound but legally uncertain ground. The prosecution failed on a technical ground. The court held that diaries and loose sheets of paper were not admissible evidence. But it was clear that at least Rs 64 crore had come into the country through the hawala route and, according to the Jain brothers, found it way to several political leaders. True, this point was not established in the court since the case collapsed before that stage. At least one person, the present Union Civil Aviation Minister Sharad Yadav, had admitted having received money from Jains, but said it was for the Janata Party. In a classic case of throwing the baby with the bathwater, the massive money laundering and the subsequent deployment became a non-case once the CBI’s efforts to link the funds with a few politicians came a cropper. Its revival even if in a circuitous manner is welcome in this narrow perspective — to ensure that those guilty of collecting a vast amount of money obviously for illegal purposes do not go scotfree and to establish that it was used to buy political influence. What the CVC now wants to do is to revive the investigation from the income tax angle. He has asked the same CBI, which messed up the original case, to go through the bank accounts of those whose name featured in the FIR to see if there was any sudden and large deposit. There is at least one bank account with an inexplicable infusion of a heavy amount.

It is here that the CVC is apparently stretching his jurisdiction. For one thing, he does not have the power to go into charges of corruption against politicians and the CBI does not have the power to launch investigation into violation of the income tax rules. As a matter of fact, it is debatable if he can at all order the CBI into doing his bidding. He got the power of superintendence when an ordinance made the commission a statutory body outside the control of the government of the day (on the basis of a Supreme Court order, paradoxically issued in the course of the same hawala case hearing). But the ordinance lapsed early last year and a Bill to the same effect is before a parliamentary select committee. Thus his powers and jurisdiction fall in a grey area and a reasonable assumption is that the CBI director can decline to reopen the hawala chapter until Parliament makes the CVC a statutory authority.

What is easily understandable is the nervousness and anger of some political leaders. They remember the devious way former Prime Minister Narasimha Rao used the hawala case FIR to deny party tickets to some Ministers, thereby putting pressure on other political parties to follow suit. They do not want a repetition of the painful treatment. Anyway, bank account is as private and should remain private as is one’s medical record. Even those who support the view would like to make an exception with regard to corruption since the abuse of power strips the account-holder of the presumed immunity he enjoys. Further, the initial reaction proves that the political establishment is against him; he has already antagonised the bureaucracy. Without the cooperation of these two powerful arms of the government he cannot hope to fight corruption. He can try to build public opinion and use it to weaken entrenched resistance but so far he has failed to enthuse the liberal sections of the population. He lacks the kind of fire that another reformer in a hurry, Mr T.N. Seshan, showed. It is also possible that the Seshan style does not appeal to Mr Vittal. Corruption in high places distorts and destroys the rule of law and brings about an unhealthy shift in income. It should be given no ground but no single individual can make it a solo effort. That applies to the CVC, a would-be statutory establishment with awesome powers but with a yet to be established image.

The General speaks

THE Indian Armed Forces are truly traditional in the matter of talking about their professional limitations and requirements. Therefore, when the Chief of Army Staff, Gen V.P. Malik, talks, as he did on Tuesday at Bikaner, those in the government who are responsible for the defence of the country should not only sit up and think but also act with promptitude. Speaking to defence correspondents in the area of Vijaya Chakra, the desert exercise organised by the Army and the Air Force to assess its capability broadly, the General mentioned one major hurdle in the way of ensuring military preparedness — "procedural delays". Financial constraints can be overcome by the rational determination of priorities and the evolution of a reasonable method for the allocation of funds. But when there is excessive multiplication and concentration of power in administrative bureaus or bureaucrats, the red tape gets clumsier. There are irritating formalities aggravated by routine. The resultant multiplicity of forms and records hinders work. Quite often, unnecessarily detailed — and sensitive — information is required before action can be taken. As General Malik has rightly pointed out, "one has to remember that time is an important factor in equipping our forces, especially when the country is facing an extraordinary security situation". Mark the last three words and try to imagine the state of affairs which has made him hint at a difficult and crucial condition with a direct bearing on our existence as a nation.

Kargil should have made the Defence Ministry look back at the Chinese invasion in 1962. There were pragmatic thinking and action in certain areas — from the acquisition of hardware to research in high-altitude warfare — soon after the downfall of Defence Minister V.K. Krishna Menon and the death of Jawaharlal Nehru, the traumatised Prime Minister. We did extremely well in the Bangladesh war. In the present nuclear era, the security demands have gone up with the rise in the threat perception. The post-Kargil assessment has revealed the serious shortage, if not the non-existence, of fully upgraded technological equipment and such wherewithal as can provide superior strength to the Armed Forces. Vijay Chakra is revealing to the military men the actual strength, weaknesses and requirements of the defence system. Military preparedness acknowledges no theoretical or bureaucratic way of judgement. One is prepared and thus is in a winning position. One is unprepared and, therefore, is in a vulnerably precarious condition. Defence Ministers like Mulayam Singh Yadav and George Fernandes would go down in India's military history as flamboyant politicians and protectors of myopic bureaucrats whose creed is red-tapism. General Malik has underlined the seriousness of the defence situation. There is more talk of past scams than of transparent planning for the immediate future, which also includes the turbulent present. The General has, in sum, asked for a need-based supply of men, material and confidence-building resources. No one in the Union Government need say anymore that the Armed Forces have not spoken candidly about the looming challenges — and their requirements. In a war, there is no substitute for victory.

INDIAN SOCIAL MILIEU
Crumbling edifice of tolerance
by Hari Jaisingh

INDIAN society today is in a state of ferment. This is mainly due to the over-politicisation of issues and non-issues. Every party plays to the gallery, exploits entrenched prejudices and ignorance forgetting that in a democratic polity it is supposed to guide and inform the public on right conduct and civilisational values of this great nation.

Take the simple matter of shooting Deepa Mehta's film "Water" at Varanasi. The melodrama that followed in the holy city and beyond was part of the new debased political culture which goes against the proud legacy this country symbolises.

The Indian people are known for tolerance and that is the reason why this nation has seen cross-fertilisation of ideas, views and counter-views. The evolution of the Indian mind over the ages can be attributed to the liberalism and tolerance ingrained in the national psyche which is also forever eager to learn.

To say this is not to deny serious aberrations in society caused by internal and external factors. What has made things worse is the ascendancy of riff-raff elements on all sides of the political divide. Since there is no premium on decency, honesty, sobriety and just public conduct, the New Class of operators have a field day. They exploit the masses either in the name of religion or old-time progressivism.

The new brokers of power often miss the wood for the trees and indulge in shadow-boxing while ignoring the substantial matters of Indian tradition. I have talked to a number of knowledgeable persons in this regard. Some politicians belonging to the Sangh Parivar have underlined the disadvantage of the Hindu community because of its failure to assert itself. The moot point, however, is: the assertion for what? The ideals of tolerance do not require an assertive thrust. They are all-encompassing and hence stand on their own strength, putting all negative traits in their place.

The citizens need to assert themselves, but that has to be directed against fighting social evils in every form and every type. They also ought to simultaneously work for social reforms and bring about better understanding and harmony among all sections of society.

In fact, Indian society has derived its strength from the message of love and brotherhood of gurus, swamis, saints, fakirs and the crusading spirit of social reformers who have raised their voice against evil practices like sati, ban on widow remarriage, exploitation on the basis of caste, creed and sex, etc, from time to time. In the process, they have successfully revived the people's faith in the basis of the Indian value system.

Where are the old-time crusaders and reformers? In their place have now emerged operators, middlemen, mafia gangs and an undesirable nexus of vested interests which tend to dominate every walk of life. New signs of intolerance are part of the allround drift seen in the social milieu for the past several years.

In China, Mao held out the promise of allowing a hundred flowers to bloom. He used this device to eliminate those who did not toe the official line and thinking. Traditionally we have allowed thousands of flowers to bloom in an atmosphere of freedom and creativity and that is the reason why India's culture looks like a rich and fascinating rainbow.

I am not going into the question of the widows' plight. Every sunny side has its shadow. There are grey areas in social practices. Perhaps the time has come to have a fresh look at them both objectively and dispassionately.

Indian society has everything to gain and nothing to lose if it looks at itself in the mirror on a regular basis. This is the only way we can fight against the ills of the social milieu.

Nowadays, the ruling elite talks about globalisation. At the ground level, however, the country seems to be clinging to the outdated 18th century practices which cannot do India proud as emerging a modern nation.

If the past continually haunts India, it is because the traces of the past as seen today do not reflect an unalloyed, pristine purity of the Vedic age. It is a mixed fare of rich traditions and hallowed practices, all in the name of religion. Gone is the vision based on dharma, the ethical mode of life that once dominated Indian thought and action.

In today's world, child marriage and sati cannot be condoned under any circumstance. Such things go against a civilised order. Those who stick to the antiquated practices in the name of religion are the biggest enemies of society.

Social evils must not be politicised. They ought to be seen in their raw nakedness and fought ruthlessly and decisively. Otherwise, we shall be failing in our duty as enlightened citizens.

The new brokers of Indian culture seem to be the most ignorant lot. Instead of crying wolf over unwanted western influence, they should get familiar with the essence of Indian culture and the value system it represents. There is, therefore, no justification for prejudging an issue without understanding what is what.

Those who have protested at Varanasi ought to have asked the government for a copy of the film script instead of taking to the street on the basis of half information.

I may say that the handling of the whole episode by the BJP-led governments at the Centre and in Lucknow has not done credit to the saffron party. If anything, it has projected the entire organisation as an obstructionist outfit contrary to the projection by some BJP stalwarts, including Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee.

The trouble with the BJP is that it is badly caught in its own image trap. While it has used its new political success to promote its agenda, the party has not been able to guide its followers to the new lines of thinking.

One Vajpayee is not enough. In any case, it will be a pity if the BJP only wishes to make use of the Prime Minister merely as a mask and pursue what its critics suggest its hidden agenda on the sly.

Actually the BJP is not sure of the profile it should adopt permanently in the new political setting. There is no denying the fact that it has given up a number of issues, otherwise dear to the party, for the sake of ensuring continuity in power.

Of course, power can be a great leveller. We have seen how extreme elements, both politically and ideologically, are cohabiting, keeping themselves afloat in the business of being in power. However, adjustment should not be a matter of convenience but of conviction, especially relating to India's cultural ethos and values which are part of our civilisation.

"What is India?", Jawaharlal Nehru once asked and said, "I sought a reply to it in her past and in the present." He explained: "The early beginnings of our history filled me with wonder. It was the past of a virile and vigorous race with a questioning spirit, an urge for a free inquiry and, even in its earliest known period, giving evidence of a mature and tolerant civilisation...."

How come maturity and the spirit of tolerance are disappearing fast?

Indian culture is not divisive. It carries within it some of the finest instincts of humanity. I would like the BJP, RSS, VHP and the Bajrang Dal leaders to take a broader view of the country's social and cultural milieu and not get bogged down to the outer trappings of what India should be like.

It also needs to be borne in mind that the essence of Indian tradition should not be politicised. Nor should this be a matter of bargain.

In fact, instead of dividing society on caste and communal lines, I expect the leadership to widen and consolidate the areas of national consensus not only among the Hindus but also among the minorities. This is the real challenge.

There is, of course, scope for cultural synthesis that can be part of the Indian spirit of tolerance common to all communities. The Indian spirit can certainly be inculcated without inviting religious intolerance we saw at Varanasi.

The new converts who swear by Mahatma Gandhi these days ought to remember his simple message:

"The need of the moment is not one religion, but mutual respect and tolerance of the devotees of the different religions. We want to reach not the dead level, but (to) unity in diversity."

Is there any need to say anything further? Tolerance, mutual respect, understanding, liberal thinking, responsive attitude all are part of the rich Indian tradition. Even if certain parts of the script of "Water" are obnoxious, such matters can be easily sorted out across the table.

I must say the central leadership was both slow and half-hearted in tackling the situation firmly and decisively. As in other areas of national life, it allowed things to drift to a flashpoint. This reflects poorly on its maturity and the quality of governance.

Industry: need for restructuring
by S. Sethuraman

INDIAN industry is ending the decade of the nineties with a lower growth trend, failing to avail of the sweeping liberalisation policies such as delicensing, freer imports, greater access to domestic and external financing and reduction in the levels of taxation unveiled since 1991.

Let alone the demands of competition in a globalising economy, and an inevitable structural transformation to be undergone, the record of industry in terms of productivity, exports or technological upgradation has been depressing. The annual average growth rate of industrial production declined in the 1990s from the eighties in all sectors — manufacturing, electricity and mining and quarrying. This is true of the use-based categories, basic goods, capital goods and consumer goods.

There has emerged in recent years a rising demand for consumer durables, which is reflected in the automobiles sector and a range of other “white goods” to meet the needs of affluent classes. The relative contribution of basic goods and capital goods to industrial production has fallen over the decade.

Against the around 8 per cent average growth in the 1980s, industry grew by only 5.8 per cent in the 1990s (till 1998-99). The share of basic goods declined from 43.6 to 35.8 per cent in this period while that of capital goods from 25 to 7.1 per cent. An increase in intermediate and consumer goods offset the decline in the contribution of basic and capital goods sectors.

The decade has also seen a steady fall in corporate investments as reflected in new capital issues in the latter half (from 1996-97 onwards). The primary capital market had been in depressed conditions and resource mobilisation by non-government public limited companies declined consecutively for three years during 1995-96 to 1997-98 at an annual average rate of 48.1 per cent, according to the RBI data. The rise in resource mobilisation in 1998-99 was on a low base of 1997-98.

Whatever the factors attributable to the stock market depression until recently, the slowdown in the economy, and industrial sector in particular, has affected the demand for funds from the primary capital market. For its part, the industry has been looking to the government to increase public investments which could trigger private investments and for lowering of both tax and interest rates. Several sections of industry have also been clamouring for protection against cheaper imports.

The relatively low contributions of basic and capital goods sectors to overall industrial output, according to the RBI, reflect the impact of trade liberalisation, particularly imports, and of financial liberalisation that enabled the corporate sector to make financial gains through “other income”.

Lack of competitiveness is writ large in many areas of manufacturing, but to become internationally competitive, industries would need to restructure themselves with modern technology. On the other hand, there are some leading industrial groups which are in the process of corporate restructuring and going through mergers and acquisitions. Downsizing workforce and shedding non-core activities so as to concentrate on core competence has become the normal feature in restructuring.

The financial institutions will be called upon to fund mergers and acquisitions which will grow. The Budget for 1999-2000 had proposed changes in tax treatment to facilitate mergers and acquisition activities.

As for labour reforms, it will be very difficult for the government to attempt them in the near future, especially when organised workers have begun to embark on agitations against reform policies, such as in insurance and banking, power and public undertakings in general.

In the current year ending March, 2000, there has been a distinct recovery in industrial output after three years of virtual stagnation. However, the November, 1999, data has moderated the expectations of 7 to 8 per cent growth. It is too early to assess whether industrial recovery has become sustainable. — IPA

Where is Kandahar?
by N.K. Oberoi

WHERE is Kandahar? I did not ask this question when the whole world was asking it during the hijacking of the Indian Airlines plane. I did it a week after the incident when I happened to be in a seminar on Making of a Nation or perhaps Nation in the Making: culture, literature and politics. It was a marathon discussion on the forms of nationalism, territorial cultural and civilisational, the forms of literature and politics. How did our nation come into existence and how is it continuing to exist; what is the difference in its colonial and post-colonial configurations? There were references to the European, the nationalist and the subaltern perspectives on nationalism. There were occasional references to the literature of the Dalits and the tribals and to the surfacing into national consciousness of the marginalised ones who had been so far kept outside the mainstream nationalism.

I had all along been hoping that someone will bring up the hijacking incident. Does it not bring to our mind with a bang what passes for making and unmaking of nation in practice? Is it possible to imagine the hijacking if the hijacked ones were not Indian nationals and the hijackers the Pakistanis? How do we place, besides, the cold-blooded knifing to death of a bridegroom in the presence of his bride and other passengers of the plane within the thematic focus of the seminar or it is rather unacademic to attempt it.

We never felt so helpless as we did during that one week when the Indian and the Pakistani nationalisms were locked in a deadly showdown. We pretended and continue doing so that it was all too unexpected. The alleged unexpectedness is fake as it is unfounded. To consider it a freak act of terrorism is a ploy for not recognising that such hijackings are inherent in the very idea and logistics of national sovereignties. It can happen again, this kind of hijacking and we would not be any better prepared to deal with it. It is high time we disabused our minds of the unexpectedness argument. We should learn to look upon this hijacking as the millennium kicking us into looking at the world, what we have made of it and ourselves in relationship to it for our discretions proprieties and the professed concern for human rights. The tight-rope-walking America is doing in this regard is not even interesting. It seemed to be supporting India committing itself to getting the hijackers extradited and punished. In order to get Pakistan sign the CTBT it does not find now the evidence of the Pak involvement in the hijacking conclusive.

One hundred and sixty lives hanging on the whims of the six crackpots did not stir the global policeman into taking or threatening to take any action while it bombed the palace of Col Gaddafi to avenge its hurt nationalism. The whole of United Nations being mobilised into taking military action and imposing economic sanctions on Iraq are too recent to be forgotten. These incidents may have no bearing on the hijacking incident except that they bring out the hypocrisy inherent in international diplomacy.

Why were we so helpless? Nobody is prepared to address oneself to! How is it that our human sensitivities are so peremptorily suspended in the face of improprieties and the disobeying of the rules of the game and protocol which characterize our international relations. I do not wish to blow up the hijacking incident out of proportion. I cannot be quiet, however, after reading in newspapers that Germany is going to introduce in its schools curriculum the subject of Holocaust-education. Does poetry have a right to exist after the Holocaust and is it possible to bless in the German language after the killing of the millions of Jews by the Germans? These were the questions raised by the intelligentsia of Europe. How can we remain so detached and ivory towered towards the implications of the hijacking in our social and academic life? How are we so insensitive to the survival of the conflicting nationalisms for understanding their true character? I am thinking of Sadat Hasan Manto’s short story Toba Tek Singh. On learning about the partition of India in the lunatic asylum the protagonist collapses bewildered saying — “there is India, there is Pakistan but where is Toba Tek Singh” where is Kandahar, I asked driven to my wit’s ends rhetoric of the seminar on nationalism.

Multiculturalism & global response
by M.S.N. Menon

EVERY NRI in America is an American and an Indian. Multiculturalism is thus unavoidable.

In trying to achieve homogeneity, every tribe had tried to assimilate newcomers. The Americans followed this course. Their experience is instructive.

America called for the “refuse” of Europe. But it put the “refuse” in the “melting pot” (a phrase coined by Emerson) to turn them into “Americans”, distinct in appearance and tongue. It was a success at first.

But America did not wish to assimilate the Negro. He remained separate. Naturally, this was abnormal. Even the Greeks and Romans had absorbed their slaves and granted them citizenship.

But when the blacks began to go their separate way, white America came out with the offer of “integration.”

How does integration work in practice? It means less of exclusiveness on the part of the whites at schools, work places, etc. And yet integration had little success. In its report, President Clinton’s Advisory Board on Race has said that after 130 years of “equal rights”, the whites are ignorant of the nature of the discrimination against the blacks. And after four decades of federal efforts at “integration” there are “few spaces that blacks and whites occupy as equals.” Thus, for all practical purposes, the blacks and whites exist in two worlds, in two civilisations.

With what result? Today black Christian Americans embrace Islam in the hope of finding an escape. But it is a futile hope. The whites are more likely to be spiteful. It is thus a jump from the frying pan to the fire.

So, America is veering round to “multiculturalism”, that is to an acceptance of various cultures, to some form of coexistence among different communities. How this experiment will proceed, we cannot even guess.

The British experiment ran along similar lines. Britain wanted all non-white minorities to become British, except in religion. (This is Macaulay again) In fact, any plea for special consideration to minorities was dismissed. Education was to be the means for this change. But there was no place in that education for the languages and cultures of the minorities. Schools were told to anglicise the students. Even celebration of minority festivals was frowned upon. In short, Britain was trying to create a homogenous society. This policy failed.

Britain then took to “integration” — a liberal approach. It accepted cultural differences and diversity. It was even said that diversity enriched a society.

This was no doubt a step forward. It was more acceptable to the minorities then assimilation. But it did not go far enough. It failed for want of money to promote the culture of the minorities. There was the question: how could the British taxpayer be asked to promote so many cultures?

Britain has now gone for multiculturalism. But the practical steps are yet to be worked out.

To sum up, no country has been able to work out a way to deal with minorities. In fact, bush fires burn all over the world. In China, the effort is still to assimilate the minorities, that is to efface their identity. In India, the effort is to maintain their identity, while trying to hold on to the territorial integrity of the country.

Prof Bikhu Parekh, an authority on this subject, and at present teaching at Harvard, says: “There is little sign that we have even begun to grasp the enormity of the problem before us, let alone explore ways of tackling it.” In fact, every experiment in Europe and Asia has failed. The minorities themselves are least helpful in evolving a stable multicultural society. They prefer the path of violence and strife. This is, of course, a foreign import in India. An edict of Ashoka says: “Samavaya eva sadhu” (Concord alone is meritorious). This is India’s tradition.

Today 10-15 million people leave their hearths and homes every year to seek fresh pastures elsewhere in the hope of doing better in life. They add to the problem. Let us be frank: instead of limiting population, the developing countries are asking for free movement of labour — a way of passing on the problem to other societies.

Little do we realise that these immigrants go through intense suffering. “It is not easy to bear the burden of differences, especially for the young. Differences draw attention to oneself, intensify self-consciousness, singles out one as an outsider and denies one the instinctive trust and loyalty extended to those perceived to be one of us,” says Prof Parekh.

So what does one do? Prof Parekh says: “Indian students try to excel themselves in their studies.” Which also explains how the Jews have become the greatest achievers in history. (I remember during the Raj days all that we wanted was to be better than an Englishman.)

But this constant effort on the part of the minorities to demonstrate their worth, coupled with their low self-esteem (speaking in English when foreigners are around) constitutes a heavy burden that one cannot carry for long. It takes its toll. In fact, low self-esteem among minorities is a curse, says Prof Parekh.

In India, the Muslims carry a heavy burden of “guilt”. Apart from other “sins”, they bear the guilt for the excesses committed by Muslim rulers of India, although the present generation of Muslims has nothing to do with these wrongs.

And yet India is the only country in the world, which has sought to explore a way to accommodate the minorities. This is because dissent and diversity came to be accepted even from the Vedic times. Tolerance and compromise became a necessity, when sects began to multiply. Necessity became a virtue.

The Buddha and Mahavira were the first to revolt against the Brahmanical rituals. Yet they absorbed much that was noble in the Brahmanical system. And, Sankara, the man who re-established Hinduism, absorbed the advanced ideas of Buddhism. He was even called a “crypto Buddhist.” But the most fascinating chapter of Indian history will remain (for me) the reconciliation of the Aryans and the Dravidians — how the Aryans accepted the Dravidian gods and how Sanskritisation came to be accepted by the vast masses of non-Aryans.

Diversity has thus become a way of our life. It has provided, above all, freedom. It will one day become a guiding principle of our political philosophy. (We are yet to evolve this philosophy, a Constitution based on it and a party system to reflect our diversity). We will then be an example to the world.

There is no place in this system for either uniformity or exclusiveness. And yet exclusiveness is raising its head.

There are some Hindus who insist on imposing the Hindu way of life on other communities. There are Muslims who say that only in an Islamic state a Muslim can find his salvation. And there are Christians who say that salvation is possible only through Jesus Christ. They want India to become Christian.

It is a pity — a thousand pities — that these people do not know the basic character of the state in which they live: They do not know what ideals have guided the people of this country. And they do not know what their duties are in such a state.

Gandhiji used to say that a Hindu should strive to become a good Hindu, a Muslim to become a good Muslim and a Christian a good Christian. Of course, this is perhaps the most difficult thing in the world. But in India religion is not so much for us doctrinal conformity, or ecumenical piety, as the transformation of our personality into something nobler. Gandhiji did not say that a Hindu should become a Christian. Assimilation in not the way. Nor is integration any solution. Accept diversity. Glory in the freedom it brings. Seek personal excellence. Our ideal is not the “melting pot”. It is the garden of flowers.