 |
| Thursday, June 8, 2000, Chandigarh, India   
|
A CM’s ranting Star wars and peace FEMA is not FERA
PRESIDENT’S VISIT TO CHINA |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
No turning away from Pakistan by Salman Haidar IN the highly ritualised diplomacy of China, there were several signs of a more-than-ordinary welcome for President Narayanan during his just-concluded visit to that country. As may be expected, he was received with courtesy and shown all the consideration that was his due, but the strict requirements of protocol were deliberately exceeded in a number of ways.
A voyage in values
Time to address basic needs
|
|
A CM’s ranting It is ridiculous for a Chief Minister not only to shape the country’s foreign policy but also offer free advice to a neighbouring country which is in the grip of a deep crisis. More, it is dangerous nonsense when he sticks to this untenable stand in response to all-round criticism. What is equally regrettable is that the Centre has weakly reacted to Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Karunanidhi’s antics by asking the spokesman of the External Affairs Ministry to repeat the old line and fielding a BJP leader to distance itself from any adverse fallout. True, Prime Minister Vajpayee disowned the Chief Minister’s statement, but as is normal in his case, the firmness was in his tone and not in the words. What New Delhi should have done was to field the External Affairs Minister to first air his resentment at this unwanted intrusion into the delicate field of diplomacy and then to repudiate both the core arguments of Mr Karunanidhi. A partition of Sri Lanka is no solution but a surrender to the brutal campaign of the LTTE and, again, the repercussions in this country will be too serious to contemplate. This needed to be said but was not said. It is this self-imposed silence, this reluctance to be frank with an ally, that emboldened the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister to thunder his poisonous suggestion all over again. He was obviously provoked by a stinging editorial in The Hindu, which otherwise writes mildly even on outrageous issues, and hence he went out of his way to release a long statement written in babu English. As a senior leader, he has the right to hit out at criticism but he has no business to gatecrash into the foreign policy arena. It is a mystery why he chose his 77th birthday celebrations to ask Sri Lanka to voluntarily split into two and end the decades of nightmare of the Tamils. One guess is that he fears loss of public support if he opts for a moderate line and since he faces the Assembly elections next year, he feels he has to take a risk. Here again, the subject is and should be a
taboo. Sri Lanka is very angry. This is the second time that India has gone out of its way to add to the demoralisation of the troops trapped in the Jaffna region. First, it was the offer to evacuate the army as though it was already defeated and now the fortuitous suggestion. Mr Karunanidhi’s gaffe reflects, rather accurately, the confusion at the Centre. It realises that it is a regional power, more so since everyone from President Clinton downwards, says so. And it also realises that what Sri Lanka faces is a major regional crisis and India should be leading the efforts to defuse it, if not to find a solution. But it is nowhere in the picture. New Delhi keeps saying that it is an internal affair of the island republic, as it indeed is. But helping find a solution is not interference in the internal affairs but meeting the obligations of being a regional power. Sri Lanka is a long-time friend and this could well be its terminal challenge. It should not fail and if it does, it will signal the collapse of two basic premises of democracy in this part of the world. One, South Asia is a proud legatee to multi-ethnic, multi-religious and multi-lingual societies and this should be sustained and strengthened. If this fails in Sri Lanka, or to be more precise, is deliberately failed there, it is tantamount to planting a very powerful time bomb in the subcontinent. It will soon explode and the debris will singe every country. Two, terrorist violence should not prevail over state power. Never. India is painfully engaged in containing militant violence and if it does not stand by Sri Lanka in defeating the LTTE, it would be sending a wrong message to its own gun-wielding youth. The LTTE gun is, in a manner of speaking, pointed at the heart of India. It is easy, comparatively speaking, to spike it in the island rather than in this vast land. Mr Karunanidhi’s astonishing statement has given an opportunity to the Centre to review its policy, sharpen the focus and align it with national tasks. There is no time to lose. |
|
Star wars and peace Scepticism about the outcome of the US-Russia summit has proved to be justified, with very little progress made during President Clinton's Moscow visit. The central issue was the nuclear missile defence (NMD) proposed by the USA but three days of hectic negotiations failed to end the deadlock. Mr Clinton was banking on his acknowledged negotiating skills, but Russian President Vladimir Putin proved to be a far tougher customer than the American leader had perhaps anticipated. The latter made "absolutely clear" his strong opposition to the star wars type defence mechanism proposed by the USA against a possible attack by rogue missiles. Mr Putin was not alone in striking this discordant note. The entire Russian Parliament seemed to share his misgivings about the $60-billion US proposal. The lukewarm response to Mr Clinton's speech before a joint session of Parliament — despite it being the first-ever by a US President — was a clear enough indication of that, even if one ignores the fulmination of Mr Vladimir Zhirinovsky who loudly asked Mr Clinton not to interfere in "our affairs and (instead) lift the sanctions from Iraq". Russia put forth strongly that the proposed NMD would lead to the collapse of the 1972 anti-ballistic missile (ABM) treaty and affect the strategic stability and arms control regime between Russia and the USA. However, Russia did seem to agree that the nuclear threat from North Korea, Iran and possibly other hostile nations was quite real. (Interestingly, while talking of nuclear proliferation, the two countries studiously avoided naming either India or Pakistan.) To meet this challenge, President Putin proposed to set up a joint US-Russian missile shield to protect the territories of the two nuclear superpowers and their allies from rogue missiles. The USA found this proposal "unworkable". In his eagerness to save the landmark treaty, which can allow him to conclude his second term as President amid fireworks of glory, Mr Clinton came up with several last-minute compromise
proposals, which were all rejected by Russia. The latter is fully aware that the US Congress has vowed to veto any such accord reached by Mr Clinton just six months ahead of presidential elections in November. Still, the doors for future negotiations are open. This deadlock is not purely because of cold war-era concerns about a nuclear conflagration. The USA does not seem to be giving due importance to the global perception — as articulated by Russia — that the NMD project can trigger an arms race that the world can ill afford at this stage. Millions and millions of people around the world share Mr Putin's assessment that the NMD is a cure worse than the disease. This feeling is very much prevalent in the USA itself. To cap it all, there are credible reports that the NMD shield is not all that reliable either. Top scientists say that the NMD radars and anti-missile missiles cannot make out the difference between warheads and decoys. In any case, such awesome nuclear system will only make the lone superpower more lonely. It is unfortunate that the USA ignores world opinion while insisting that the NMD would not hurt Russia's nuclear deterrence. It is good that the latter has refused to be hustled into submission and President Clinton has had to return with nothing more than secondary agreements in his bag. These envisage each side destroying 34 tonnes of plutonium from its military stock over the next 20 years and setting up a joint centre in Moscow to monitor missile launches to avert any false nuclear attack alarm. |
|
FEMA is not FERA At the stroke of midnight on May 31 the dreaded Foreign Exchange Regulation Act stood repealed. It is expected that with the coming into force of the friendly-looking Foreign Exchange Management Act, which replaced FERA, those violating the prescribed forex guidelines, deliberately or otherwise, would not be treated as criminals. The USP of the new law is that it treats violation of the guidelines governing foreign exchange transactions as a civil offence. It must be understood that FERA was introduced in 1973 when the country's foreign exchange reserves were low. However, there were any number of complaints about the earlier law being abused for terrorising business houses if they refused to meet the unstated financial demands of the ruling party. Mr V. P. Singh, as Finance Minister, virtually had some of the big names of the corporate world thrown in the dungeon for alleged violation of FERA laws. Even ordinary folks could be hauled over the coals for being found in possession of even small change in foreign currency. Of course, it goes without saying that in India if either the political class or the bureaucracy or both decide to get even with some one, for imagined or real reasons, they do not need the help of any law to do so. They make their own laws and decide the form of punishment. But they derive vicarious pleasure by abusing the provisions of existing law to establish their superiority over ordinary folks. That is the reason why it would be premature to celebrate the birth of FEMA. The law is barely a week old but complaints about the highhanded treatment of international passengers by customs officers have begun pouring in. Treating air travellers with dignity, even if found carrying more than the prescribed limit in foreign currency, is only a small part of the larger objective of the new law. FERA had become incompatible with the winds of change sweeping the country after the opening up of the economy. FERA put the fear of the Enforcement Directorate even among law abiding travellers. FEMA is expected to create a more warm atmosphere for prospective visitors to and from India, particularly those who have financial links with the global economy. Perhaps, the reason why there have been some complaints of harassment of international passengers by over-bearing customs officials has something to do with inadequate briefing about the introduction of a more friendly foreign exchange management law. In one particular case, credit should go to officers of the ED who came to the rescue of a passenger illegally detained by the customs at Palam Airport in Delhi. The customs officers were, predictably, not amused by the lessons in courtesy they received from the ED personnel. They also showed no sign of relief over the official execution of FERA. Instead, the ED men were literally made to stand for 18 hours - the time they took for adjudicating,
perhaps, the first case under the provisions of FEMA. Nevertheless, the passenger who was illegally detained for two days for violating the new foreign exchange management laws, can take little comfort from the fact that old "customs", like bad habits, too seem to die hard. |
|
PRESIDENT’S VISIT TO CHINA PRESIDENT K. R.
Narayanan’s visit to China was appropriately timed and has had the desired results. To be sure, the six-day sojourn hasn’t produced major breakthroughs for the simple reason that substantive agreements are hammered out by governments, not by constitutional heads of state. But there is not the slightest doubt that his parleys with his hosts have improved substantially the atmosphere for the India-China dialogue. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say that the hitherto slow-moving and chequered engagement between the two great neighbours, the most and second most populous in the world, may be on the verge of an encouraging new phase. This is so because of Mr Narayanan’s two-fold message and the top Chinese leaders’ response to it. The President’s emphasis was on “speeding up” the resolution of outstanding issues, principally the one relating to the border, and imparting to the India-China relations the much-needed economic content that has been “lacking for centuries”. It is arguable that the Chinese response to the plea for accelerating the border talks was equivocal. For, even while appreciating India’s concern over the tardiness of the border talks so far, Mr Jiang Zemin — unquestionably the man in command of China — also spoke of the need for “time and patience”. Mr Li Peng, a former Prime Minister who now presides over the National People’s Congress, the Chinese Parliament, added that a “great deal of work” on the subject had yet to be done. Even so, the Chinese leaders let pass the President’s comment that “what had been left behind by history need not be left to history yet again”. What is more, on the sidelines of the formal talks, relevant Chinese officials reminded the Indian side that the Joint Working Group (JWG) had agreed at its recent meeting in New Delhi to let the Expert Group serving it to meet “as often as necessary”. This, they added, was an indication that they, too, were keen on expediting the border talks. There was no ambiguity, however, about the meeting of minds on the need for forging political and cultural relations between the two Asian giants with commensurate trade and cooperation in the economic arena. Economic talks were held principally with the Chinese Prime Minister, Mr Zhu Rongji, who is sometimes called China’s “Economic Czar” and is credited with masterminding his country’s phenomenal economic advance. He was forthcoming in his response and declared that China “stood ready for trade as well as economic and technical relations with India”, and hoped that trade officials would work out the details. Like all other Chinese who met not only the President but also the media team accompanying him during the three-day tour of China, Mr Zhu was highly impressed by this country’s “unique” achievements in the area of information technology, especially software exports. He added that in this field “China could learn from India”. For his part, Mr Narayanan publicly declared at Kunming, the last halt during the visit, that India-China relations had reached a “stage of criticality”. By this, according to authoritative Indian sources, he meant that the time had come to translate fine words about goodwill, friendship and cooperation into concrete action, and it was his expectation that this would happen. The President’s notable remark was made to a group of distinguished Chinese social scientists who had made a presentation to him on the “Kunming Initiative”, a plan for regional economic cooperation between the Yunnan province of China, Myanmar, Bangladesh and India. The plan has been prepared painstakingly by NGOs from all four countries. It envisages putting into place road and air links in the region through which both commerce and people-to-people contacts could be fostered. The Kunming Initiative also underscores that in the absence of the proposed institutional arrangements for the exchange of goods and services in the area, smuggling will continue to flourish. Mr Narayanan responded positively. He welcomed the idea but pointed out that the Kunming Initiative would have to be “dovetailed” into the wider bilateral relationship. He wanted the governments of both countries to devote serious thought to the matter and take appropriate decisions. To comprehend fully the significant nuances of the presidential parleys with the Chinese leaders, a brief look at the timing of the visit will be helpful. This was determined by the thaw in India-China relations that began in the middle of last year after 13 months of intense chill caused by the Pokhran-II nuclear tests. No Chinese official or non-official, makes any bones about the fact that what incensed China was not Pokhran-II so much as the explanation, in a letter by Mr Atal Behari Vajpayee to President Clinton, citing the “Chinese threat” as the reason for the nuclear tests. This state of affairs ended with the visit to Beijing by the Foreign Minister, Mr Jaswant Singh. In February this year, the first-ever security dialogue between the two countries took place at the level of experts in the Chinese capital. The JWG held its annual meeting in New Delhi in April. When the leader of the Chinese delegation and Vice-Foreign Minister, Mr Yang Wenchang, called on Mr Jaswant Singh, the latter took the opportunity to impress on the guest that border negotiations were proceeding at a snail’s pace and required hastening. To pursue this point was part of the President’s “negotiating brief”. In this context it is essential to point out that the efforts to accelerate the pace of talks are focused at present on getting a “clarification and confirmation” on the Line of Actual Control (LAC). In other words, before the two countries can hope to clinch a solution of the border issue, the LAC has to be delineated in what continues to be called “gray areas”. Incidentally, there is no assumption on either side that the LAC as delineated would become the final border. In India, even more than in other countries, there is usually some hype about the foreign visits of heads of state and government. No wonder, some have derided the over-optimistic spin given in several reports to such developments as the absence of any reference by any of the Chinese leaders to the nuclear issue or Mr Jiang Zemin’s decision to iterate in Mr Narayanan’s presence his unequivocal criticism of international terrorism. His language was almost exactly the same as he had employed in a joint statement with the Turkish President. But it had never before been used in the Indian context. The pertinent point is that whoever might have illusions about a change in China’s policy on either the nuclear issue or Pakistan, the President — an old China hand and cherished by the Chinese as an “old friend” — never harboured such fantasies. He was, therefore, not at all surprised by the statements of the official spokesperson of the Chinese Foreign Ministry to the effect that China’s policies on the nuclear question as well as on Pakistan, described as an “all-weather friend”, had remained unchanged. Senior Indian officials travelling with him underlined, however, that these statements were made in response to questions, whether inspired or not. Also, it cannot be overlooked that Chinese unwillingness to raise the nuclear question with Mr Narayanan does mean that they do not want it to become a point of contention. In any case, negotiating with the Chinese is an arduous, complex and demanding task. China’s policies change, when they change at all, very, very slowly. The Chinese are sticklers for stated policies and go on reaffirming standard positions even while in their private conversations there are intimations of flexibility. Moreover, we must also learn to take initiatives to build on whatever positive signals are received. Beijing’s official and declared position is that China’s relations with India are “in a stage of improvement and development” which is promising enough. The President has done his share of the job. And now that Mr Zhu Rongji, the Chinese Prime Minister, is likely to come to Delhi soon, it is over to Mr Vajpayee. The writer, a well-known political commentator, was in the media party that accompanied President
K. R. Narayanan during his China visit. |
|
No turning away from Pakistan IN the highly ritualised diplomacy of China, there were several signs of a more-than-ordinary welcome for President Narayanan during his just-concluded visit to that country. As may be expected, he was received with courtesy and shown all the consideration that was his due, but the strict requirements of protocol were deliberately exceeded in a number of ways. His meeting with President Jiang Zemin, one a constitutional and the other a political Head of State, was no perfunctory affair — the reports indicate that it went on well past its scheduled two-hour span. Clearly both sides had something to talk about. Then, in an important gesture of friendship and welcome, Mr Narayanan held separate discussions with each of the rest of the top leaders of China — Mr Li Peng, Mr Zhu Rongji and Mr Li Ruihuan, the stalwarts at the helm. Such access for a foreign dignitary in Beijing is by no means routine. There was palpable warmth in the atmosphere, which doubtless owed a good deal to Mr Narayanan’s personal standing with the Chinese — he was repeatedly described as an “old friend”. The invitation to speak at Beijing University, though now not so rare, was part of the expansive welcome accorded to him. It all added up to a significant message. The Chinese leadership was demonstrating its view that relations with India were back on track and should be strengthened further. The President was no less emphatic. In the language reminiscent of the “Bhai-Bhai” days, he spoke of the “historic necessity” of the two countries cooperating with each other and he saw a “criticality” in the present phase of the relationship which was poised for rapid growth. His visit thus marked a turning point. While undoubtedly a significant event in India-China relations, the President’s journey was no occasion for solving the existing problems between the two countries. It is not just that the President of India is constitutionally limited in his role and would thus keep away from controversy or from policy innovations. Mr Jiang Zemin in his Indian visit a few years ago was no less detached from specifics. One is reminded that for problems, there are appointed problem-solvers — ministers, officials and other functionaries. A visit like that of the President is no substitute for their endeavours: what it does is to give impetus to their work and place it within the appropriate context. Foremost among these problems is that of the border. Attached to it are the lingering memories of 1962, which still cast a shadow. Negotiations to sort out the border problem have been going on for around two decades. They have not gone very far in establishing a mutually accepted version of the alignment, and the gap between the two sides remains wide. However, the fact that we have together addressed the issue earnestly and have put in position a number of confidence-building measures has made the border itself less dangerous than it was. In contrast to the Pakistan frontier, the India-China border is not the scene of repeated violent incidents and infiltration. It is an armed border no doubt, but yet an essentially calm one. In the latest phase of negotiations, the attempt has been to develop a structured force reduction arrangement along the border in terms of the agreements between the two countries in 1993 and 1996. This process has its own complexities. The President asked for accelerated progress in the border talks, which hinted that in India’s eyes China had been dragging its feet. This impression can only be reinforced by the Chinese leaders counselling patience in dealing with a problem “left over from history”. Not to be forgotten is that a few years ago it was the Chinese who were pushing for progress while we were still taking stock of where the process was leading. The President’s visit will serve a most useful purpose if it can bring the approach of the two sides back into alignment. Another perennial issue is Tibet, where Chinese sensitivity to the presence of the Dalai Lama on Indian soil and his “splittist” activities is not concealed. Yet India’s consistent position that Tibet is part of China also has to be acknowledged, as has the fact that we do not try to play mischief in that region. So the complaints on the score of the Dalai Lama are not unduly emphasised, and it was even reported that the Chinese were appreciative of the tactful handling by India of the Karmapa affair. Though Tibet may not be at the top of the list, it is bound to remain on the bilateral agenda till such time — whenever it comes — that China is able to sort out its problems with the Dalai Lama and with Tibet. The President deliberately avoided mention of the nuclear issue. This was tactful for it is a matter on which the two sides are yet to begin any meaningful talk, and Presidents should not rush in where their governments fear to tread. But this is a looming issue that will require to be addressed in the future. There is wide divergence between the two sides. After the Pokhran-II tests of 1998 India sees itself as a full-fledged nuclear power. China — among many, it must be said — refuses to acknowledge such a status for India, and on the contrary keeps urging compliance with the Security Council resolution that in effect demands an Indian nuclear rollback. China was incensed by Indian rationalisation of its nuclear tests by pointing to a possible threat from the nuclear-armed China. The road ahead is a tough one, for at some stage China will have to be brought to concede that it is indeed part of India’s nuclear problem, and that its own nuclear policies will have to be adjusted to respond to Indian sensitivities. This will be a major step for China which currently sees itself on a different plane altogether from India where nuclear matters are concerned. Media reports suggest that during the talks there was some discussion of Pakistan, China’s “all-weather friend” and recipient of nuclear largesse. Nothing in the outcome of the Narayanan visit suggests any Chinese turning away from Pakistan towards India. If India and China have for the first time expressed concern on terrorism, this is welcome but should not be interpreted as a reference to Pakistan. “Terrorism” may be Indian code for Pakistan, it is not Chinese. China remains quite capable of simultaneously maintaining its relations with the two subcontinental rivals. Many other points of detail, of interest mainly to the tribe of expert China watchers, need not be mentioned here. Suffice it to point to the final imaginative touch to the journey, which was the visit to Kunming, the capital of Yunnan province, geographically close to India. Mr Narayanan’s going there dramatises the possibility of rediscovering the trade and other links that once stretched between Yunnan and North-East India, and included portions of Myanmar and Bangladesh. There is great potential for these relatively remote regions, which have been left behind in the race for development, to trade and develop links with each other. They can help each other to grow and prosper. This is a regional project for the
future. The writer is a former Foreign Secretary of India. |
|
Of Life Sublime THE sublime is, in lexical terms, that phenomenon or state of things which creates a sense of wonder and reverence in relation to the reality before us, and which overwhelms us with its touch on the pulse, so to speak. In Latin, it means loftiness, and if we extend its usage and connotation, it comprehends, as a concept, all that falls within the basin of the spirit to make it vibrant, alert to the possibilities of the numinous and the divine. Though the sublime per se need not always imply spirituality, it does have an effect of transcendence even at the secular level. Thus, we tend to talk of the sublimity of mountains, of songs and music, of a work of art, of an act of sacrifice that is superhuman, of great martyrdoms in behalf of causes, values etc. Of course, on the peaks, it becomes almost indescribable. The ineffable holds and abides. In the realm of aesthetics, one recalls the name of Longinus to understand the mystery of the sublime. This brief piece has been started on a longish conceptual note, only to make our little discourse in subsequent issues more understandable, more transparent and more effective. For the aim ultimately is to link the idea to the societal, political and related problems which continue now, as perhaps never before, to darken the human horizons, even as we dream of the earthly wonders, of the good and beautiful life that science and technology, among other things, seem to have made not only possible, but also within our grasp and reach. In sum, Bill Gate’s “Windows” have, to be sure, triggered many a vista of human wonders, and helped create a whole new world of knowledge, but it may not be forgotten that already certain thinkers of repute have also started speaking of the “doors” that are going to be darkened, such being the nature of the imponderables inherent in this kind of progress. That’s, in effect, to say, there are limits beyond which lie chaos, entropy and cease. So a workable balance has to be achieved to make the earth a happy and sunny place. And this brings the argument to those values and virtues which have so far sustained the human life, and kept it on course amidst countless perils, disasters and challenges en route. And it’s the perennial nature of such values which finally draws us into the orbit of the sublime. We see, however, such a fast erosion of some of these values in any case, as to make us sit up, and ponder the problematics in earnest. It appears though, in proportion as material goods or “goodies”, and the primrose path of easy, purchasable pleasures ride the imagination of the youth today, the eclipse of such qualities or values as compassion, kindness, tenderness, public-spiritedness, sense of sacrifice, moral courage, fortitude and such other ‘goods of the spirit”, to recall Aldous Huxley’s expressive phrase, proceeds in that measure. Man is capable of multiple magnanimities, enormous charities and opennesses. But for all these things, one needs both “sincerity and authenticity” — essences that are sharply vanishing from the contemporary world. To some such expectations — and such fears, may strike as mere moralism. And like melodrama, moralism too is the play of false sentiments. Our view, on the contrary, is that the moral instinct from where we graduate into a state of moral consciousness, and, therefore, into the regions of refinement, is, in the end, a drive towards purposeful visionary, selfless action as canonised in Lord Krishna’s famous sermon, as crystallised in the life and bani of Guru Gobind Singh. And this defines man in his richest humanity. Thus, humanism, which in Europe, was a product of “the Age of Enlightenment”, and the values it generated in the process, could be, in tandem with reason, seen as the main bulwark in our age against the forces of fundamentalism, obscurantism and authoritarianism. Great terrors are that our door-steps and great disasters ahead if the new generations are permitted to drift more and more towards hedonism, sexual promiscuity and moral chaos. We of the present generation have great duties to think of. As the celebrated Irish poet W.B. Yeats sang: “In dreams begin responsibilities”. Yes, we’ll speak of “the Eternal India” which is as much a state of mind as a throbbing human reality, and we’ll speak also of the ugly, degraded, eroded India when this discourse gathers more weight and space, Meanwhile the confluence of “the sacred and the profane” remains our theme. |
|
Time to address basic needs WORLD-renowned economist Amartya Sen after being adorned with the prestigious Nobel Prize came to India. Analysing Indian economy he remarked that our roadmap of reforms must revolve around "common people". All our plans must address to the needs of ordinary man, water, food, clothing, education and employment. Way back in 1947, when India became independent, people were mesmerized with the slogan: "Government of the people, by the people and for the people". But it was not too late for us to realise, how sincere our government was to the basic needs of the people? Even after 52 years of Independence 50 per cent of the people are living below the poverty line. So much so that we do not have the staggering statistics of the number of people who sleep without eating food and without a roof on their heads, be it a cold biting winter or scorching hot summer night. Scarcity of water has shown its ugly face in Gujarat, Rajasthan and Andhra Pradesh — the severest drought of the century. About five crores of people have been affected by it. Ironically, a nuclear country, which claims that it can protect itself from any foreign aggression, could not protect herself from her own vagaries. This clearly depicts the lack of will to do it. Anil Aggarwal, one of our few environmentalists, has pointed out that drought is purely man-made and there is no reason why every village in India cannot get water. Despite adequate warning signals most of the states have failed to gear up to the crisis. Natural disasters are a universal reality. But in modern times, it is preparedness that counts. Damage can be minimized, rehabilitation can be effective, but only if a nation has an organised disaster management plan, which unfortunately India does not have. The National Council of Applied Economic Research in its report has given heart rending facts — only 50 per cent of land of 34.7 per cent Indian peasants comes under irrigation, 52 per cent of Indian villages are getting non-palatable water, 41.2 per cent villages do not have a dispensary within 5 km, of its vicinity. These are not crises in the conventional sense, they are lost opportunities. Our leaders and bureaucrats are responsible for this awful situation. The planners while sitting in air-conditioned rooms cannot plan for the people lying on the roads. They will have to reach them, see to their difficulties, realise their hardships and then address to their basic needs. If India is proud of having 2,765 models of televisions, 183 types of washing machines, 233 kinds of refrigerators, 74 models of cars, over 50 satellite cable channels, an expanding cell phone network, it is no way less ashamed of the fact that 100 million families are without water at home, 150 million households without electricity, 40 per cent villages without road connectivity. Government investment in infrastructure has fallen from 4 per cent of national income in 1991 to 3 per cent in 1999. The demands of the people are not ideological but woefully basic: water, road, power and drainage. The politicians must back words with deeds and mandates with resources that work. The day is not far when a politician's ability of deliver basic infrastructure to his electorate will determine his future. Indian voter will demand good infrastructure as his consumer right. India's economy is liberalising, its companies are globalising, but the Fundamentals Must Be Addressed First. |
|
Spiritual Nuggets Who is thy wife? Who is thy son? The ways of this world are strange indeed. Whose art thou? Whence art thou come? Vast is thy ignorance, my beloved. Therefore ponder these things and worship the Lord.
Behold the folly of Man: In childhood busy with his toys, In youth bewitched by love, In age bowed down with cares — And always unmindful of the Lord! The hours fly, the seasons roll, life ebbs, But the breeze of hope blows continually in his heart.
Birth brings death, death brings rebirth: This evil needs no proof. Where then, O Man is thy happiness? This life trembles in the balance Like water on a lotus leaf — And yet the sage can show us in an instant, How to bridge this sea of change.
When the body is wrinkled, when the hair turns grey, When the gums are toothless, and the old man's staff Shakes like a reed beneath his weight The cup of his desires is still full....
Seek neither peace nor strife With kith or kin, with friend or foe. O beloved, if thou wouldst attain freedom, Be equal unto all.
— Adi Shankaracharya (translation of poem by Swami Prabhavananda and Christopher Isherwood).
***
The biggest room in the world is — room for improvement. — Dada J.P. Vaswani ***
Blessed is he who finds happiness in his own foolishness. For he will always be happy. — A Chinese saying
*** Spirituality is neither the privilege of the poor nor the luxury of the rich. It is the choice of the wise men. — Swami Chinmayananda
*** We live in a chair-and-car culture, and the cold reality is that people who do not use their legs lose them. — Suza Francina *** May we always have noble thoughts in our minds; May we never express bitter words in our speech. — Sama Veda, 140.  |
“All the symptoms at whitehall”, writes our London correspondent, while speaking of Reading-Birkenhead coversations, “confirm the impression which I have previously conveyed to you, viz, that nothing of any substantial value is likely to issue from the present discussions. There may be some modification of dyarchy, but I will be in a direction opposite to that which most Indians desire”. Perpetuation of dyarchy, whether in a modified form or otherwise, in the face of determined opposition in India, would be the worst folly that a Government, devoid of foresight and wisdom, could do. Indians, rightly or wrongly, — rightly so far as they are concerned — are convinced that Dyarchy; and that the present system should be replaced by a unitary system of Government. The evidence disclosed before the Muddiman Committee, has clearly indicated that even those who entered the council with the genuine object of working dyarchy, found it unworkable; and it will be unworkable unless the Bureaucracy chose to alter their whole outlook and introduce such changes as will secure real power over Government to the people in transferred departments. |
 |
| Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir | Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs | Nation | Editorial | | Business | Sport | World | Mailbag | Chandigarh Tribune | In Spotlight | 50 years of Independence | Tercentenary Celebrations | | 120 Years of Trust | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |
