The Tribune, Chandigarh, India

Azhar, Ajay and avarice

INDIAN cricket's worst kept secret is officially out. Mohammad Azharuddin's name will have to be removed from cricket's hall of fame and put right at the top of the list of crooked players in the new hall of shame. He is not going to be alone up there. A for Azhar will be followed by B for Brian Lara and C for Cronje. The former South African captain has somewhat redeemed his name by coming clean, after the Delhi Police found evidence of his involvement in "fixing" the outcome of matches he played as captain, for which he took money from global betting syndicates. Brian Lara's reaction is not known. But will Azharuddin be able to deny having taken money for throwing matches now that his name has been included in the CBI report presented formally to Union Sports Minister Sukhdev Singh Dhindsa on Monday? Should he be remembered as the shy, lean and thin youth from Hyderabad who scored consecutive centuries in the first three Test matches on his debut in the home series against England in 1984? Or as the most successful Indian captain, both in Tests and one-day games? Or as an avaricious individual whose fall from cricketing grace can be linked to a number of unhappy domestic developments midway in his career? If Azhar holds the world record for three consecutive Test centuries on debut, Lara holds the record for the most number of runs in an innings in both Test and first class matches. The CBI investigators have found evidence against him as well. How should the cricket buffs react to the fact that even the West Indian superstar could not resist the temptation of making easy money? Ajay Jadeja too, like Azhar and Lara, has caused hurt to his countless fans by not being able to convince the CBI about his integrity as a cricketer. Why did he have to sell his soul to the devil? Had he not got mixed up in the match-fixing scam, he would certainly have been the regular captain of the Indian cricket team. It is doubtful whether anyone would ever be able to explain why a player who traces his ancestry to the legendary Duleepsinhji and Ranjitsinhji would stoop so low for a few pieces of silver.

No tears are likely to be shed for Manoj Prabhakar, who had the audacity to name other players without admitting his own role in tanking matches. He showed the stuff he is made of by secretly recording the casual conversation he had with former players for tehelka.com. The only piece of good news is the clean chit given to Kapil Dev by the CBI. But will he ever be able to regain the pedestal the Indian fans had placed him on? An apology, which is unlikely, from Prabhakar is not going to heal the scar of reckless allegation against Kapil Dev. Now that the CBI has done its job, what next? A copy of the report should be made available to the International Cricket Council for possible action against the players involved in match-fixing and other cricket-related crimes. The larger issue of how to keep the game of cricket clean will have to be addressed by the ICC. As far as the Indian response is concerned, the ball is now in the court of the Board of Control for Cricket in India. All the current tainted cricketers have already been dropped from the team, not because the BCCI was convinced of their guilt, but because of Mr Dhindsa's insistence that the names of players being investigated by the CBI should not be considered for selection. He should now ask the BCCI to examine the possibility of scaling down commercial involvement of sponsors in Indian cricket to acceptable levels. How to protect the game off cricket from the machinations of betting syndicates, because in India it has been given the status of a religion, should take primacy over exposing cricketers to the temptation of making easy money. It must be remembered that money, after all, is the mother of most evils.

Poverty of numbers

Preferring to embrace a happy ghost and banish an ugly reality, the government has given its imprimatur to the first two rounds of the National Sample Survey. It is this survey which found a sharp reduction in the incidence of both rural and urban poverty. Minister Arun Shourie defends the decision to make the findings official by pointing out that nobody has so far challenged the veracity. He is not entirely right. At the last month’s Economic Editors conference Planning Commission deputy chairman K.C. Pant announced that a committee would be set up to examine the findings, particularly the method adopted this time. Everyone knows that the NSS gave up two sacrosanct practices, which have artificially suppressed the extent of poverty. In the past the large survey (covering a greater number of poor households as against a thin survey) was conducted on two different sets of people. One was asked the consumption expenditure over the previous week which is the one-week recall. The other was quizzed on one month recall. This way a wider section was covered. For some strange reason the NSS applied to the same households both the one-week and one-month recall methods. What is worse, it asked the one week first and the other later, encouraging the people to merely multiply it by four times to provide the second answer. As several analysts have said, the effect of the reversal of order jumps out of the findings. The poverty figures are strikingly similar. In the past large sample survey conducted in 1993-94 there was considerable variation, indicating the shorter and longer time frame have their own purpose and should not be abandoned because of somebody’s whim. What is more, since the format was so different this time, it is illogical to compare the findings with the earlier one and conclude that poverty is just about to go on exile. As commented earlier when the figures became public, overall poverty is supposed to have plunged from 42.6 per cent in 1993-94 to just 27.6 per cent in 1999-2000, a reduction of 30 per cent in five years.

Several disturbing aspects scream for attention. An analysis by NCEAR confirmed that there had been no dramatic improvement in poverty reduction. Last year, when the NSS was on, the National Institute of Rural Development came out with its report confirming the prevalence of extensive poverty. If anything, lack of investment in much of the eastern and central parts, where a vast majority of the poor live, has worsened. Nothing dramatic has happened to lift the rural poor from grinding poverty. In a Third World country burdened with so many dispossessed people, combating poverty should have top priority. As one economic paper has caustically written, in this country governments live by poverty allieviation and die by poverty allieviation and every scheme is introduced by claiming how it will root out poverty. Yet there is no reliable estimate of such people, which is essential to think up plans. Indian statistics are more guesstimates than scientifically worked out data, and this is the criticism of National Statistical Commission. Its chairman and Andhra Governor Rangarajan has pointed out how figures vary by 10 per cent to double that in most cases and how without a reliable statistical base, changes in economic and social life cannot be accurately measured. The government’s eagerness to accept the NSS findings is easy to understand. Many have used them to contend that reforms have not helped the poor. That reality is sought to be amended by approval on paper. It is all so disquieting.

TV channels minus cables

After nearly half a decade of dillydallying, the Direct to Home (DTH) broadcasting may finally become a reality after the go-ahead from the government. This ought to have been a natural corollary of the avowed liberalisation of the broadcasting sector, but the government made such a heavy weather of the whole affair that it seems as if a great concession is being made. The fact of the matter is that DTH is already an integral part of modern living all over the world. In India all that it is now going to mean is that instead of getting foreign channels through the surly cable operator, it will be possible to get these directly in one’s home through a pizza-sized antenna. That is a step forward indeed because cable operators acting as middlemen will be removed, although there is always a possibility that similar monopolies may be put in place by DTH service providers through possible vertical integration. However, this mischief cannot be any worse than the cartels formed by cable operators, which blacklist a particular channel at the drop of a hat or go on strike in an equally abrupt manner. In fact, it may be easier to keep a strict watch on the content of DTH and thereby curb piracy and pornography. The main advantage will be that instead of a large number of channels remaining confined to clusters of houses in mainly urban areas, these will be available over the entire length and breadth of the country. No doubt the service will be more expensive than the cable tariff but the commercial viability needs to be the concern of the service provider. The consumer will have the choice to select from among the competing services. If all goes well, competition may not only bring the rates down but may also improve the programme content.

While the group of ministers has given its nod, some doubts still remain on the mode of dissemination. As usual, Doordarshan wants to have a monopoly on the service for at least five years through a system providing for licensed operations by private companies. Perhaps a better option is to throw the service open to all with a regulatory mechanism woven in. A few years ago, the advent of cable TV had done a world of good to the programmes of Doordarshan. DTH can now do the same to Doordarshan as well as cable services. To that extent, competition has to be welcomed rather than feared. Somehow, the introduction of any new technology always activates prophets of doom. Some of the security concerns raised by them are indeed genuine but can be easily addressed since DTH passes through earth stations. Then there is the question of foreign equity. A strict cap can be put in place, as is done in most other countries. While Canada allows only 33 per cent foreign equity, the limit is 25 per cent in the USA, France and Japan. With similar restrictions, the possibility of some other country making any mischief can be eliminated. What should be kept in mind is that DTH is a technological advancement which can be a great boon for the country, of course, with suitable and not excessive regulation. With the passage of time, it can be an ideal tool to bring along value-added services like e-mail, video-on-demand, Internet and pay-per-viewership.

What can Nov. 7 mean for India?
Quite a lot — possibly
by Pran Chopra

EVER since it became independent, India has always watched American presidential elections with interest. The reason is obvious: America’s role in affairs of close concern to India. When the Quit India Movement launched by Mahatma Gandhi seemed likely to undermine the war effort in India, which was Britain’s main supply base for soldiers and war material in the eastern, south-eastern and middle eastern theatres, America argued strongly with Britain to win Indian support. Guided as much by its own struggles against British colonial rule, and its democratic traditions, as by concern for successful pursuit of the war in Asia. America urged Britain to announce immediately that India would get independence, if not during then at least very soon after the war. America thus became the most popular country in India.

This continued into the later 1940s, when America cautioned Britain against the tendency on the part of the British Foreign and Home offices to question the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India. The British position seemed strange to Indians because it was Britain which had given to the rulers of the princely states the right to decide the future of the relations of their sates with India and Pakistan, and it was the ruler of J & K who had decided in favour of acceding to India. But then Britain produced an argument which silenced America.

Britain argued that the issue was not the rights and wrongs of the accession. The issue was whether the post-war interests of the Anglo-American alliance would be better served by J & K becoming a part of India or of Pakistan. Kashmir lay on the best route to the soft underbelly of the future enemy, the Soviet Union, and the vulnerable eastern flank of China, at that time a stauch and potentially powerful ally of the Soviet Union. Pakistan was willing to become a total ally of the West while India would prefer to remain nonaligned. Therefore, the Kashmir route would be safer in the hands of Pakistan than of India. America became a zealous convert to this point of view and later the flag carrier of Pakistan’s position on Kashmir.

These events were soon to become the cause of a deep chill in Indo-American relations. To these were soon added two more. One, the USA refused to sell some fighter aircraft to India and the technology for making them in India later; and two, it rejected India’s request for aid to build a steel plant, on the ground that the plant would be in the public and not in the private sector. India’s alienation from America became so great then, and was to remain so for so long, that whenever an American presidential election came along India’s official and unofficial America watchers searched earnestly for any signs to see which party would be less inimical to India.

It is sign of the more relaxed relations between the two countries now that any differences there might be regarding India between the two main parties in the American presidential election and there appear to be no significant ones anyhow — have not generated much Indian interest in the current presidential election. Reflecting this lack of interest, and partly explaining it, is a chatty comment sent to me by Stephen Cohen, who is among the half a dozen Americans who, knowing America very well of course, have also maintained a close interest in India and Pakistan. He writes, “The question ‘would Bush or Gore be good for South Asia/India/Pakistan, can’t be answered without heavy qualification, because regional developments (meaning in South Asia) have not figured in this election at all, and foreign policy only marginally.... The days are long over when Democrats were more ‘pro-Indian’ and Republicans more ‘pro-Pakistan’. The difference this time is likely to be the degree of interest and activity in South Asia that one or the other might pursue; the Republican platform has a lengthy paragraph on the importance of strengthening ties with India (but notes that the USA should not allow relations with Pakistan to suffer), the Democratic platform puts South Asia in the context of various global problems, such as non-proliferation and human rights concerns. However, platforms count for little after the election, when policies tend to be driven by events...”

And then, in another comment, he adds, “My wife (Roberta) and I cannot decide whom to vote for ...” But since both parties are well disposed towards India, anxiety does not spark much concern in India the outcome of the contest.

These appearances are not misleading at all, but they do not reflect the total reality. There are significant differences between the two parties, and though “events” will certainly do much to shape the country’s and the government’s policies, respective attitude, which are well rooted in habits, will also play a significant part. Cohen confirms as much when he says the Democrats used to be more “pro-India and the Republicans more “pro-Pakistan”. There are differences between them on several issues which could affect India’s interests.

For instance the differences between them on a missile defence system, or what is popularly called “star wars” which can put a shield over a country or a theatre to protect it against nuclear missiles. Its biggest supporter was Mr Ronald Reagan, the most gung-ho President of America outside fictional caricatures and cartoons, and the most outstanding Republican since the end of World War II. The phrase and the fact of “star wars” was his contribution to the American agenda, and he lavished funds upon it with such abundance that the Soviet Union, forced into a competition which it did not want and could not afford, was sent into financial ruin. In that sense Mr Reagan, to whom the Soviet Union was “the evil empire”, won the “star war” without firing a missile at the enemy.

The Democrats first moderated this programme’s huge appetite for funds, then took if off the front burner, and under Mr Gore it would recede further because he has made a bigger commitment than any President to socially beneficial programme, which also need a huge amount of money if they are to have much meaning. The Republicans on the other hand would be loath to slow it down too much, having criticised Mr Clinton for doing so even to the small extent he did. Besides, the Republicans have much closer links than the Democrats with the high profile end of the arms industry, as indeed with the uppermost strata of the corporate world in general.

The fate of the “star wars” programme can affect India indirectly. If America went ahead with it in a big way, neither Russia nor China would sleep in peace. Russia has the technology for an answer, but not the resources for developing and deploying it. But China is much richer, and together they can marry the technology and resources required for at least a modest but sufficient reply. It could consist of, firstly, enough number of missiles between them to make sure that some at least would get through, and secondly, enough protective cover for each of them to take care of the most important targets of their respective countries.

If that happened, India would have to re-think its whole nuclear equation with China. The present equation is based on the Indian assumption that even though India might not be able to catch up with China in the number of nuclear missiles that the two countries possess already or might possess in future. India would at least have enough to pose a counter threat to some critical targets in China, not to many but to a sufficient number for China to think twice before deciding whether what it might gain by attacking India would be worth the risk of even a limited retaliation by India. In that sense even a dozen or so Indian nuclear capable missiles are sometimes mentioned, for example by the late General Sunderji, as being a sufficient deterrent against a rationally calculated attack by China. But if China had a sufficient nuclear shield in the sky to cover all of its critical targets, then how many more missiles would India need in order to maintain its deterrent capability? And would India be able to afford as many? That would re-start the whole Indian debate about the economics of nuclear deterrence.

An “event” that could become what Mr Cohen called a “drive” to push this “star war” scenario — in which the defender’s computers would send up a missile to intercept and destroy what they sense as the approach of an attacking missile — is the on-going clash between China’s ambition to unite Taiwan with mainland China, and Taiwan’s hope of becoming independent. Mr Gore’s Democrats and Mr Bush’s Republicans are both committed to the defence of Taiwan, but the Republicans much more stridently so. The Democrats, under Mr Clinton, have made quite an effort, with some success, for relaxed relations with China. It is not clear that the Republicans would do that too. If they did not, how would China react? In addition to being rich, it is again close to a Russia which is recovering politically under Mr Putin, continues to be a giant in both nuclear fire power and technology, and is strapped only for cash. Which way would this “event drive” the combination?

There is also another India-related China dimension to November 7. Both parties are wary about China’s future intentions, but the Republicans much more so and also much less willing to disarm China with appeasement. The Republicans under Nixon opened America’s first channel to China, through Pakistan, but that was done to detach China from the Soviet Union. How would they react if China and Russia now get much closer together, and what would that do to their Indian policy? There is a sneaking scenario among the policy planners of both parties in which India, if it can fulfil its potential, is seen as a counter-poise to China, as both saw it in the wake of the India-China conflict in 1962. But here again the scenario is closer to the Republican than to the Democratic heart. A Republican in the White House could also become another driving event. How would India handle that event, seeing how close Russia is to India also? What would happen to India’s present stance towards China, seeing that at present India is more than willing to improve relations with China as well?

Take another event. Since the nuclear tests by India, Mr Clinton’s top people have engaged India intensely and for long over India’s ambitions. As a result, America has softened its nuclear agenda with India. From demanding that India rollback to become nuclear again, America has changed to urging India not to let its ambitions exceed its needs, and also be more realistic in assessing how many missiles its needs, of what range and how ready for instant use. Washington has also lifted many of the sanctions it imposed after the tests. But the Republican attitude continues to be harder. On the other hand, America under a Republican President is much less likely than under a Democrat to sign the CTBT and another SALT agreement with Russia, and if America does not sign the treaty it is not going to be able to coerce India into doing so.

There is yet another “event”, but more related to France and Russia than to China. France is keen to enter the Indian market for nuclear energy plants and technology. But France is a member of the Western dominated “suppliers’ group”, which has prohibited its members from cooperating even in the civilian nuclear energy field with any country which does not accept, and India does not, full international inspection of all its nuclear installations, including those it may develop on its own. France has tried to find a way round that prohibition but is not known to have succeeded so far.

In the meantime Mr Putin has signed up India as a market for Russian plants and technology, and has assured New Delhi that it will not bend to any such prohibition. How it will manage to resist the Western pressure is not very clear. Russia did ultimately get round American restrictions on Russia supplying cryogenic engines and technology to India. But firstly that was at a price India had to pay in terms of delays and costs as India, with Russian help, developed indigenous engines. Secondly, that event happened when a Democrat was in the White House. Will it happen again with a Republican there? It remains to be seen. But it also remains to be seen whether the Republicans will bend to the pressure which is bound to come from the American nuclear industry that it should not be left out of the Indian market when the Russians are able to get it in, and the French will surely try harder than to get in too.

So it is obvious that even though Mr Gore and Mr Bush are Tweedledum and Tweedledee in domestic politics and on many foreign policy issues too, India’s interests could possibly be affected in many matters of some concern to it whether Dee gets in or Dum. But the one issue on which they will not be affected by the American voters’ choice on November 7 is India’s relations with Pakistan, or for that matter on the Kashmir question. There is no noticeable difference between the two parties on these issues now even though one was supposed to be more “pro-India” once and the other “pro-Pakistan”. Each, when in office, will fine-tune its policies as the situation develops on the ground on South Asia.

But India, needs to take note that both will desire resumption of the long interrupted Indo-Pakistan dialogue, and if India is not to fall foul of the next incumbent in the White House, whether Republican or Democrat, it should either agree to resume the dialogue or give better reasons for not doing so than it has given so far. India has talked in the past with military rulers in Islamabad and cannot convincingly refuse to do so now. Nor can India realistically demand that all intrusions from Pakistan across the Line of Control must stop first. Who is to verify whether they have, and what would India say if Pakistan proposed that international observers should be invited to inspect the border regime on both sides of the Line? India has so far been opposed to any further form of “internationalisation”.

The writer, a former Editor of The Statesman, is a well-known political commentator.

Encounter with a normal VIP
by D. P. Sabharwal

IT was 30 minutes past mid-night. Boeing 737-600 of a private airline had landed at Palam airport. As the aircraft came to a halt, I got out from my aisle seat, pulled out my briefcase from the luggage-hold and moved towards the rear door of the aircraft which was just few steps away from the 28th row that I was seated in. Hardly had I taken a step that I froze. Standing in front of the gate was face I was quite familiar with. I had been seeing him often in the pages of newspapers as well as on the silver screen of the idiot-box.

It was not his presence that surprised me. It was the circumstances and the manner of his presence that left me foxed. Well, he was travelling on a night flight which would save the exchequer 30 per cent on his travelling expense. He was travelling economy class instead of the executive class to which he was entitled. He had no personal assistant with him. He was standing there, holding a suitcase in one hand and a jute bag in the other, waiting patiently for the ladder to be positioned properly, where after he quietly got out of the aircraft, duly acknowledging the greetings of the cabin crew. At this stage, a doubt came to my mind. Before going out of the aircraft, I asked the steward whether he was the VIP that I had thought of. “Yes, you are right sir,” was the response of the smiling steward.

More surprises were in store for me. As he stepped on to the tarmac, I noticed there was no staff car for him. Instead he walked towards the airlines passenger coach. When a ground-crew approached him to take his baggage, he politely declined the offer. He got into the bus and travelled with other passengers to the terminal building. During this short trip of three-to-four minutes, he answered whatever was addressed to him. Only time he did not reply was when a passenger sitting next to him asked: “Sir, don’t you have an attendant?” To this he just turned his head towards the passenger, gave a faint smile and shook his head slightly from left to right.

At the terminal, once again he gently refused the help offered to him for carrying his bags. He walked the distance to the exit gracefully, where he met his driver. He handed over the suitcase to the driver, walked up to the car and got in. It was an ordinary car and the red blinker was off. The VIP headed towards his home in the most unusual manner without any noise, pomp and show and causing no inconvenience whatsoever to anyone.

The incident got imprinted on my mind like many other unforgettable events like the first and the only slap I got from any teacher, the no-holds barred fist-fight with my best friend at the age of seventeen, the gift of a new bicycle when I entered the engineering college or the first kiss I got at the age of 25. I would have loved to treasure this encounter with VIP to myself but for the news that said that 27 odd MPs forced the diversion (an editorial called it a hijack) on an aircraft to a particular destination, reportedly with the connivance of a cabinet minister putting to inconvenience more than 100 passengers.

I agree that everyone cannot be like George Fernandes. Yes, the ordinary VIP was him. Yet I have hopes that some-one some-day will be inspired by the simple but appealing and forceful behaviour of our Raksha Mantri. May your tribe increase, George Sir.

Chhattisgarh: rich state with poor people
By N.D. Sharma

EXCESSIVE poverty, a high level of unemployment, a severe drought and the menace of Naxalism are the major challenges before the new State of Chhattisgarh which comes into existence on November 1. Madhya Pradesh will, thereafter, cease to be the largest State of the country.

With 1,35,133 sq km, Chhattisgarh covers 30.47 per cent of the total area of Madhya Pradesh and 4.14 per cent of the total area of the country. The new state of Chhattisgarh will share boundaries with Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Orissa, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, and, of course, Madhya Pradesh. Its population in 1991 was 1,76,14,918 (26.62 per cent of the present population of Madhya Pradesh). The tribal population in Chhattisgarh is 57,17,125 which is 37.13 per cent of the total population of the new State, or 23.3 per cent of the population of Madhya Pradesh and approximately 8 per cent of the total population of the country.

Chhattisgarh will have 16 districts, 11 Lok Sabha and 90 Assembly constituencies. The present state of Madhya Pradesh has 61 districts, 40 Lok Sabha and 320 Assembly constituencies. Of the present 16 Rajya Sabha seats, five will go to Chhattisgarh. The Congress has 48 members in the 90-member Chhattisgarh Assembly. The MP Reorganisation Bill, 2000, provides that the Assembly of Chhattisgarh State will comprise the members elected from the Chhattisgarh region in the 1998 Assembly elections and will have a tenure of five years from the date on which the Assembly of Madhya Pradesh was constituted.

The economy of Chhattisgarh depends largely on agriculture. The region accounts for 89.6 per cent of the total rice production of Madhya Pradesh and had been referred to as the rice bowl of Madhya Pradesh. That is in spite of the fact that only 18.6 per cent of the total irrigated land of Madhya Pradesh is in Chhattisgarh. Some of the superior qualities of rice produced in Chhattisgarh are exported to Bangladesh, Bhutan and a few other countries.

As much as 43.85 per cent of the total forest area of Madhya Pradesh is in Chhattisgarh. Besides, the new State is rich in mineral resources with substantial deposits of limestone, copper ore, coal, iron ore, manganese ore, corundum, dolomite, rock phosphate, quartzite, bauxite, mica, quartz, asbestos, fluorite, and alexandrite. Deobhog and Mainpuri areas of old Raipur district are supposed to have large deposits of diamond. Chhattisgarh has been contributing approximately 28 per cent of the total revenue of the state from excise and an equal percentage from entertainment tax. Chhattisgarh’s share in the state’s revenue from forests approximates 44 per cent and from mineral resources over 46 per cent.

A general grouse of the people from Chhattisgarh had been that the region had not been properly developed. Though rich in mineral resources, Chhattisgarh region was far behind the Madhya Bharat region in matters of irrigation, literacy, per capita income, etc, the members pointed out during a discussion on the Madhya Pradesh Reorganisation Bill 2000 in the Madhya Pradesh Assembly. They reeled out comparative figures. Surprisingly, the

Chief Minister, Mr Digvijay Singh, virtually admitted the charge of neglect of the Chhattisgarh region because neither he nor any of his Ministers refuted it or tried to explain what, if any, special measures had been taken during Mr Digvijay Singh’s regime to undo the “injustice” to the Chhattisgarh region. The Chief Minister merely hoped that the Central

Government would release the maximum amount for infrastructure development and construction of a new capital in Chhattisgarh.

The first government will have thus to pay immediate attention to the wide-spread drought in the new State and then lay the foundation for developing infrastructure in the state which abounds in natural resources and has very fertile land but where most of the people live in abject poverty. According to the India Rural Development Report 1999, Chhattisgarh accounts for the highest percentage (30.96) of the poor among all the regions of Madhya Pradesh, followed by south-western Madhya Pradesh (15.32 per cent) , south MP (14.93 per cent), Vindhya region (13.27 per cent), central Madhya Pradesh (10.62 per cent), Malwa (10.50 per cent), and northern region (4.41 per cent).

A large area of Chhattisgarh is under the control of the Naxalites and at several pockets of Bastar division the writ of the State Government does not run. It has poor communication network. Literacy rate is very low. Health services are in a rudimentary stage. It will be an uphill task for the new government to fulfil the aspirations of the inhabitants of the new State.

The relationship between Chhattisgarh and the parent State is going to be less than smooth unless the two sides tackle the mutual problems adroitly. The public debt of Madhya Pradesh is over Rs 21,000 crore, nearly Rs 16,000 crore obtained during Mr Digvijay Singh’s seven-year period. While Madhya Pradesh may like Chhattisgarh to share roughly one-third of this debt, the Chhattisgarh leaders are making noises that Chhattisgarh should be burdened with only that much as had been spent on Chhattisgarh.

In fact, the division of the assets and a liabilities between the two States is going to be a real tough job. Chhattisgarh region has been contributing a large chunk of revenue to the State’s coffers whereas the expenditure in the region was not in that proportion. For instance, Chhattisgarh contributed over 46 per cent of the State’s total mining revenue but only 26 per cent of the State’s total earnings from mining was spent in the Chhattisgarh region. Similarly, total power consumption in Chhattisgarh has been 23.86 per cent of the States’s total power generation whereas Chhattisgarh’s contribution to the State’s total is 35.66 per cent. Already, a demand is being made in Chhattisgarh that all such factors should be taken into consideration at the time of division of assets and liabilities.

The MP Reorganisation Bill 2000 has devoted the entire Part Sixth of the Bill (as many as 20 clauses) in laying down the procedure for division of the assets and liabilities. That would show the enormity of the problem.

SPIRITUAL NUGGETS

If ignorance arises reaction occurs;

if reaction arises, consciousness occurs;

if consciousness arises, mind and matter occur;

if mind-and-matter arise, the six senses occur

if the six senses arise contact occurs;

if contact arises sensation occurs;

if sensation arises, craving and aversion occur;

if craving and aversion arise, attachment occurs;

if attachment arises, the process of becoming occurs;

if the process of becoming arises, birth occurs;

if birth arises, decay and death occur, together with sorrow,

lamentation, physical and mental suffering and tribulations.

Thus arises this entire mass of suffering.

— Majjhima Nikaya 38, Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta.

***

Burning now, burning hereafter,

the wrong-doer suffers doubly....

Happy now, happy hereafter,

The virtuous person doubly rejoices.

—The Dhammapada, 1, 17-18

***

If you make a mistake, accept it and try not to repeat it the next time. Again you may fail; again you smile and try a different way. If you can smile in the face of failure, you are not attached. But if failure depresses you, and success makes you elated, you are certainly attached.

—Questions and Answers in The Art of Living: Vipassana Meditation as taught by S.N. Goenka

***

Impermanent truly are conditioned things,

having the nature of arising and passing away.

If they arise and are extinguished,

their eradication brings true happiness.

—Digha Nikaya, 16. Maha-Parinibbana Suttanta

***

Life of a man should not be a wasteful of eating, drinking and sleeping. Man must learn to become aware of that unfailing shower of bliss.

—From the discourses of Sathya Sai Baba