 |
| Friday,
April 6, 2001, Chandigarh, India   
|
Aftershocks of scams Perils of
convenience
By Hari Jaisingh |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Democracy or
mobocracy?
Is a second Cold War
around? Foot-and-mouth hits tandoori cuisine in
Britain
MOTHERS
GO BACK TO SCHOOL
|
|
Aftershocks of scams MORE than the scams, it is the many verbal skirmishes that follow which irritate the common man and damage the government’s image. This happened in the wake of the Tehelka tapes. It is happening now. This unscripted sideshow tends to keep the scandal alive for a long time and also throws the spotlight on areas unlit earlier. Right at the moment Mr N.Vittal, the one-man army to slay the dragon of corruption in public life, has found it irresistible to wade into the customs bribe controversy. That is expected of him. But what was not was the angry retort of the normally composed Mr Yashwant Sinha, Finance Minister. He had two worries and a bit of silence would have taken care of both. But he did not and his fears became public knowledge. Mr Vittal’s condemnation of the entire customs set-up as the most corrupt was likely to affect the morale of the officers and men, who collect nearly 60 per cent of the tax revenue (more than Rs 1,45,000 crore) and at the nominal cost of 1 per cent. He cannot afford to demoralise the whole department. (He also asked Revenue Secretary S.Narayan to write to the chief commissioners of customs reiterating the government’s trust in them.) Two, by referring to the “warning” he had issued against the suspended customs and excise chief, Mr Vittal managed to send out the message that the government was not alert enough in naming him to the top post. That was a tehelka.com all over again. The overall impression is that this government is disorganised. In an unwieldy alliance this is very natural but disturbing. The Prime Minister should give a stiff lecture to his ministerial colleagues and top offers not to indulge in off-the-cuff remarks on sensitive issues and also not to go on a solo trip to burnish individual reputation. This cacophony must end and the only person with authority is the Prime Minister to do this. It is all the more so since the customs scam has the potential to blow up into a systemic failure. An internal evaluation of corruption in the customs department has cast suspicion on many officers in Delhi and Mumbai airports. So far there has only been start-stop attempts to stem the rot. The present case is a Godsend to launch a massive clean-up operation. The reaction of the officers’ association to the Vittal accusation of entrenched corruption is encouraging. The government should build on it. Allowing the controversy to spill over to courts of law will be dangerous. This is one issue that should be settled out of court. |
|
Perils of convenience POLITICS has a long and illustrious history of making the strangest bedfellows. One more addition to the long list has been made in Assam with the coming together of the Bharatiya Janata Party and the Asom Gana Parishad (AGP). Apparently, it is a marriage of convenience, which might end up being inconvenient to both parties. Actually, it is only indicative of the desperation in the BJP. It is on a friend-losing spree after the Tehelka embarrassment, and is, at the same time, without having any tall leader in the State. These two harsh realities have forced it to sup with a party which it used to call anti-national not long ago. At the same time, the ruling AGP is also in dire straits. It rode to power on the anti-immigrant wave, but later took a U-turn. Ever since, it has shown itself to be not only inept but also corrupt. If the results of the 1998 and 1999 parliamentary elections are any indication, it has an almost impossible task ahead of it in the forthcoming Assembly elections. Naturally, it is looking for straws to clutch at in the ocean of trouble in which it has immersed itself. In the all-round dismal scenario, the BJP is perhaps its only bet. Both hope that the combination will work, although chances are that the hopes may be belied and the contrary may prove to be true. The BJP may have to share the anti-incumbency burden that the AGP carries with it while the AGP may have to cope with the Tehelka tar. This may not be too much of a problem for the regional party, considering that it has quite a few major scandals of its own, but for the BJP, the coalition may be a heavy cross to bear. The BJP rode to power on the pretext that it is a clean party and a party with a difference. Both premises lie shattered today. Its pow-wow with the Congress may be the fight of the kettle and the pot. And as far as being a party with a difference is concerned, it may be about as different from the Congress as tweedledum is from tweedledee. Incidentally, the BJP and the AGP have come together avowedly to consolidate the anti-Congress votes. The strategy may actually work to the Congress' advantage. The latter is bound to go to town clubbing the activities of two together and calling them the birds of a feather. The Congress may be no paragon of virtue, but will surely preen itself which may appear attractive in comparison. It may be the gainer if it can consolidate the Left votes, which are expected to leave the AGP in droves in the changed circumstances. |
|
FRANKLY SPEAKING NOTWITHSTANDING
the brave postures struck by officialdom following the tehelka.com expose, considerable damage has been done to the pride, honour and morale of the armed forces. Never before the Services had as low a rating as today. This is a pity. For, the armed forces generally and the Army in particular have always enjoyed high esteem in the country. They have a reputation for discipline, a sense of urgency of getting on with the job and professionalism. But a few black sheep led by certain vested interests and enemy agents seem to be damaging that reputation. This trend ought to be reversed without any loss of time. Not that corruption is a new phenomenon. A number of corruption cases surfaced in the 60s and later years. Their range and dimension were, however, limited. Even otherwise, political corruption then had not seeped into the system, thanks to the stalwarts of the freedom movements who had a clean public image. The bureaucrats too were then known for integrity. The whole setting has changed now. Today's Indian state is both complex and secretive. Rules are there in plenty. But there is no transparency and accountability, especially in arms deals which have become a big business for politicians, bureaucrats and their collaborators. Each arms deal is worth millions of dollars. Even a minimum 10 per cent kickback or commission could, therefore, give tremendous money power to those who share the booty. Who gets what is a matter of detail. However, the fact remains that a biradari (brotherhood) of the corrupt has grown both in size and sweep. It will be unfair to blame the armed forces on the basis of a few cases of corruption. But unfortunately, some corrupt officers have brought a bad name to the armed forces. This has affected the morale of jawans. They are disturbed by reports that political and military bosses make money at the cost of the nation's interests. This is disquieting, to say the least. In the recent expose, even the PMO has figured. No one minds a strong PMO for the good of the country, but not if it promotes vested interests or lobbies or persons. India has no doubt well-defined norms for the selection of weapons. A case is presented to the Ministry of Defence (MoD) by the Service concerned and the ministry orders an appraisal of the performance-cum-cost analysis of various systems available in the world market. An expert committee of the respective Service Headquarters then submits a critical appreciation of the various options. Thereafter, bureaucrats guided by the Defence Minister in consultation with the Prime Minister decide how, where and which offer is to be accepted. The deal is finalised directly by the Ministry of Defence. What is implied in this procedure is that since India's defence purchases are mostly government-to-government transactions, there are no middlemen and kickbacks. However, nothing could be farther from the truth. Certain changes in the procedure were announced last week. But the moot point is: will these bring about the desired changes in the system? It needs be stated that merely moving towards "establishing a Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) and associated structures, enhancement of delegated administrative and financial powers to the Service Headquarters and constitution of a defence procurement board and associated structures", (to quote the official press note) will not help if decisions continue to be imposed from above for political and money-making considerations. In fact, certain critical points continue to be kept either vague or remain to be clarified which give rise to suspicion that the latest announcement on restructuring of the defence set-up is a hurried response to the post-tehelka situation. It is not clear how the proposed procurement board will bring about the much-needed transparency in the purchase of weapons. Then the authority and role of the Chief of Defence Staff remain to be defined in relations to the Service Chiefs and the MoD's bureaucratic set-up, especially at the Defence Secretary level. Civilian control over defence matters is one thing. What is worrying is the deep infiltration of corrupt hands of the politico-bureaucratic set-up in the sensitive arena of security and associated areas. Self-reliance is surely a vital matter. But the functioning of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) needs a fresh look. It has failed to deliver the goods. In any case, the powers that be have found shopping overseas for arms more lucrative than buying indigenous products which are invariably caught in redtapism. No questions are raised for imported stuff even if junk is unloaded as it happened in the case of Caspers from South Africa. It needs to be appreciated that strategies and weapons system needed for the modernisation of the forces are interdependent and they have to be viewed in an integrated manner. This is very necessary since the cost of acquisition of, say, a new fleet of fighter aircraft with a weapons system and other infrastructure support is exorbitant. As an expert puts it, "Defence cannot be just a matter of buying weapons or buying hardware. The link between the strategy to be pursued and weapons system to be purchased has to be established before a decision to purchase a weapons system is taken... These are matters of national policy." The main problem, however, is one of establishing a proper procurement procedure with a view to eliminating corrupt practices. Serious snags exist in the present system and procedures to the advantage of manipulators in and around the Ministry of Defence. In his analytical book "India's Defence Budget and Expenditure Management " (Lancer Publishers, New Delhi), Mr Amiya Kumar Ghosh, who was once financial adviser to the Defence Services, has dwelt at length on the procurement procedures followed and why we have not been able to evolve the right response for a clean operation. To quote Mr Ghosh: "In our system we still start with QRs (Qualitative Requirements) and detailed specifications. This procedure leads to time and cost overruns with attendant evils. Even in the policy letter of February, 1992, it was envisaged that the DRDO and the Department of Defence Production would be involved in the preparation of a detailed feasibility report and the production agencies would be involved in the finalisation of QRs. If this procedure was followed, the DRDO and the production agencies would have had an important role in the finalisation of QRs. Unfortunately, however, this major policy letter has remained only on paper." Indeed, we have no choice but to drastically overhaul the functioning of the Ministry of Defence. There has to be a total professional approach and not prompted by vested interests, swadeshi or videshi. We do not expect political bosses or officers of the MoD to work as lobbyists of one arms group or the other. Equally disquieting is the gainful employment of retired officers who often operate as middlemen for one global group or the other. I am not questioning their patriotism. Right information is welcome to enable us to select the right type of weapons. But we have reasons to worry if the equipment ordered do serve the purpose for which these have been commissioned. We have seen that during the Kargil conflict our jawans were not even adequately equipped. Who is to blame? We try to overlook such matters in the name of patriotism. But patriotism is a sacred matter. It cannot be played with. The time has come for the country to think about the jawan and his equipment if he is expected to protect the sovereignty and integrity of the country. There should be no place for corrupt politicians and officers who thrive on payoffs and commissions and barter away the country's interests. In this context, let me quote from the Introduction to Karl Popper's book "The Open Society and its Enemies": "The future depends on ourselves and we do not depend on any historical necessity." It is for us to make what we want ourselves to be as well as of the nation's fate. There are no shortcuts to the country's greatness. Here the main point is: does the Indian leadership possess the political will to launch a cleansing operation? It needs to be constantly remembered that the morale of jawans is a battle-winning factor. It depends on a number of tangibles as well as intangibles, the most important being "motivation, service conditions, man management and leadership. It also depends upon confidence in one's weapons, in one's training and in one's leaders." Most of these contributory factors are in the realm of developmental action. But there are several issues relating to service conditions and allied matters where understanding and responsiveness of the bureaucracy and political bosses play the most critical role. Be that as it may. Our thinking on security must not be trapped in rigidity. It must change with the changing security needs. And with courage and conviction we should be in a position to isolate those who are corrupt and wallow in the lazy comfort of highly bureaucratised statusquoism. Am I being an over-optimistic? I prefer to be an optimistic so that the fight against corruption is carried on with the requisite zeal and determination. |
|
Democracy or
mobocracy? A guest seated in the visitors’ gallery of the U.S. Senate watched intently as the chaplain opened the day’s proceedings with an invocation. “Does the chaplain pray for the senators?”, the man asked. “No.” replied his companion. “He looks at the senators and then prays for the country. “In our Parliament, there is no such practice of a chaplain or a priest starting the day with a prayer probably because the architects of our Constitution had realised that it might have opened the pandora’s box, thanks to the host of religious faiths that would have to be accommodated. As the nation watched on television over the last several days the performance of our MPs in both Houses, prayer must have been on the lips of every citizen on the lines of what the visitor to the American Senate had been told by his companion. The UN Secretary-General, Mr Kofi Annan, who was in Parliament House recently, missed the unique spectacle of Indian law makers turning into law breakers with their utter defiance of the basic rules of parliamentary behaviour. The Speaker, Mr Balayogi, in the Lok Sabha, and the Chairman, Mr Krishan Kant, in the Rajya Sabha, were helpless spectators of the shouting and screaming of the Opposition members that left them with no option but to adjourn respective Houses. Mr Krishan Kant’s frustration at one stage provoked him to remark that “this is not a zoo or something to that effect. Occasional anarchy in Parliaments around the world is not an unusual phenomenon, but the determination with which our MPs are trying to carry out their job of unseating the government of the day has no parallel. The signs of decline of the Indian Parliament have been there for all to see in recent times, but the latest strategy defies all logic. The Governor of Maharashtra, Dr P.C. Alexander, lamenting over the present lows in legislative fora, has rightly pointed out that Parliament is not a forum to register protest but a place to reflect the people’s views on their behalf. I am tempted to quote what two US congressmen said a few years ago — one in prose and another in poetry to give vent to their disgust at the goings-on on Capitol Hill. “Frankly, ladies and gentlemen”, said Republican Senator Jack Garn, “I am getting sick of all of you, just really sick... the rhetoric on both this floor and the House floor is so disgusting that the American people ought to rise up and toss every incumbent out until we start doing work”. Congressman Silvio Conte broke into poetic scorn: “We scream and boo, moan and hiss; we don’t have time to take a break. We shout and jeer and fuss and bark. We blame each other in the dark...we are nincompoops.” To suggest that the prose of Mr Garn or the poetry of Mr Conte reflects also the state of affairs in the Indian Parliament would, I am afraid, amount to contempt of Parliament and breach of privilege, and frankly, I have no intention of appearing before the bar of either House. I have also no intention of emulating the audacity of the House of Commons reporter, who, long, long ago, fed up with a long-winded speech of a member one late evening, leaned out from his seat from the virtually empty press gallery and declared. “Mr Speaker, I move that this House be adjourned for bloody 99 years.” Before the House could realise the enormity of the incident, the tipsy reporter was whisked away by the security staff. Unlike in the Commons, fortunately for our Parliamentary reporters, there is only a milk bar in Parliament House. It must be said to the credit of the Commons reporter that even while tipsy he had the good sense to put the phrase “bloody” at the appropriate place. Apart from the joke, what the opposition members are failing to realise is that two can play the game and if they succeed in toppling the Vajpayee government and manage to form an alternative government with a hotch-potch coalition (which is now more a wishful thinking), the Opposition could adopt the same tactics to frustrate any legislative business. The net result will be the government of the day and the country as a whole will remain paralysed. No right-thinking citizen could contemplate such a prospect with equanimity. It will be pertinent to recall what Mr Atal Behari Vajpayee told a noisy House during the historic debate on the motion of vote of confidence of his short-lived government: “I feel sorry for the future of the House if proceedings continue in this manner.” His grim warning about the future of Indian democracy is even more relevant in the context of what we are witnessing today within and outside the even precincts of Parliament House. |
|
Is a second Cold War
around? IT
is said that America needs an enemy. It has at last found one. But it is not Islam, as was feared. It is Russia. The information war of the Bush Administration is taking on shrill anti-Russian overtones. It reminds one of the Cold War years. Russia is, of course, an old enemy. Perhaps it is the real enemy, for it is the only power in the world which can challenge American hegemony. So, is a second Cold War around? Perhaps. The world should be ready for the worst. The issue is not communism this time, but proliferation. It is said that both Russia and China are proliferators, that they provide nuclear and missile technologies to “rogue states”, which are enemies of America. Mention has been made of Iran, North Korea, Iraq and India. India is not a “rogue state”, nor is it an “enemy”. But others are. According to President Bush, these rogue states threaten the life of US citizens. Moscow says: “Nonsense!” Sense or no-sense, it needs only a bad name to hang a man. So, what is Washington’s plan? It says that it has to set up an anti-missile shield to protect the Americans from a missile attack. This will, of course, kill the ABM Treaty of 1972, which has served as a cornerstone of the arms control measures for three decades. The ABM Treaty prohibits the making of anti-ballistic missiles. But why? Because they made missiles in the possession of countries useless. What is worse, if these missiles are useless, they cease to deter. And without deterrence, there can be no strategic stability. But by opting for an anti-ballistic missile system, the Bush Administration not only threatens to destroy the treaty and the strategic balance, but also to re-start the Cold War and the arms race. Moscow and Beijing are, therefore, strongly opposed to the Bush Administration’s plan. The USA sees this as an effort on their part to prevent the USA from defending itself against its enemies. There is nothing new in the animus of the Bush Administration. Clinton was by no means friendly to Moscow. He took the side of the Chechnyans in their revolt against Moscow, broke up Yugoslavia in the face of Russian opposition, expanded NATO to include Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, and set out to gain the oilfields around the Caspian Sea bypassing Russia. He was also opposed to the ABM Treaty, but in the face of strong opposition by Russia and China, and, to some extent, by France, he left the decision to the next administration. In fact, Clinton’s provocation was so annoying that Yeltsin was forced to say: “It seems that Clinton has forgotten that Russia is a great power that possesses a nuclear arsenal”. George Bush, who has a commitment to the arms and oil lobbies, had promised to revive the star war programme during his election campaigns. It did not take long, therefore, for the Bush team to create a crisis in US-Russian relations. The discovery of a Russian mole — Robert Hansen — by the FBI came in handy. This led to the sensational expulsion of 50 Russian diplomats from Washington — a show of strength by the Bush Administration. To add insult to injury, the Bush Administration went out of its way to receive the representative of the Chechen rebels. Moscow believes that US support to the Chechen rebels is an expressly unfriendly act — a betrayal of the US commitment to fight terrorism. Moscow, therefore, reacted sharply. It says that anti-Russian rhetoric has never been so loud as now ever since Reagan called the USSR the “Evil Empire”. There is great resentment in Russia against this display of “the morals and manners of Texan cowboys”, as Gennady Zyuganov, the Communist leader, described it. Hardliners in the Kremlin say that while Clinton did the greatest damage to the Russian economy, Bush is trying to finish the job politically and militarily. China’s case against the anti-missile system is that security in the era of economic globalisation must be universal. And it is opposed to the US plan to bring Taiwan into the theatre missile defence. One must see the US plan for theatre missile defence against the following facts: the USA has the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons and the most sophisticated conventional weapons. It pursues a nuclear deterrence policy based on first use of nuclear weapons. A missile defence thus becomes a multiplier for US offensive weapons. This will severely impede the nuclear disarmament process between the USA and Russia. After this, any initiative by the USA for reduction of offensive weapons will be meaningless. That is why Moscow has threatened to dissociate itself from all its past commitments to disarmament. This will be a most regressive development. With what result? An uncontrolled arms race. The arms makers of America have been waiting for a Republican Administration to revive the “star war” programme, which was first launched by President Ronald Reagan. Already, over $ 5 billion have been spent on this programme. Bush’s anti-missile programme will give them $ 60 billion. The prospects are terrific. Not this alone. If NATO and America’s Far East allies are also provided with shields, it will mean orders worth another $ 100 billion. And as America has almost a monopoly in the electronic and space fields, most of the orders will go to the American MNCs. But why shields to NATO and Far East countries? Because these shields will intercept the missiles on their way to America, while NATO and Far East allies will pay for putting up the shields. Clever? Well, very clever. The US oil companies are financing the Muslim separatists in Chechnya and Daghestan. The main interest is to keep Russia out of the oil industry of Central Asia. Thus, a historic agreement was signed by Turkey, Azerbaijan and Georgia to build a US-backed pipeline to exploit the Caspian oil excluding Russia. Russia wanted the pipeline to go through Daghestan, a Muslim autonomous republic within Russia. To prevent this, an insurrection of Muslim separatists was organised by the USA in Daghestan, mainly with the help of foreign mujahiddin. This has seriously annoyed Moscow. Bush has said that Russia and the USA are not enemies and do not threaten each other. True. But the US policy has been designed to break up the Russian federation and to weaken it. Naturally, Moscow’s policy is directed to contain the US drive to dominate the world and to foist its conditions on the world community. But Russia is still in a parlous state. Putin has inherited a Russia seething with discord, capital flight, corruption and alarming death rates. The IMF is no more ready to provide loans. Moscow is naturally compelled to fall back on its own resources. And one such resource is the arms trade. Moscow was once second in the volume of arms sold. That position has been taken by the UK today. Moscow wants not only to regain its position, but also to boost its sales which explains why it is ready to defy America today while selling its arms. Washington sees danger in this. And it does not like competition. Hence the charge of “proliferation”. It is like the pot calling the kettle black. America is the world’s largest arms trader. And it has been the source of much of the arms proliferation. India should know. |
|
Foot-and-mouth hits tandoori cuisine in
Britain INDIAN cuisine is the new victim of the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) across Britain. Restaurants report that the clientele for non-vegetarian dishes has dropped at least 30 per cent to 40 per cent. The cumulative in business drop is huge. Britain’s Indian food business is worth about $ 3 billion to $ 4 billion a year. Lamb and chicken make up a big chunk of that. “We have regular clients who like their regular dishes,” Mohammed Iqbal from The Taj Mahal said. “For the first time in years they are changing their orders.” Indian cuisine is the most popular by far in Britain, but gone are all those orders for rogan josh and chicken korma. In central London, restaurant owners say clients from Europe are cancelling their bookings. “Our American clients have just disappeared,” said the manager at a leading Indian restaurant in Mayfair. The tourist business at Indian restaurants had been growing rapidly in London and around tourism destinations in the country as the fame of Indian cuisine spread beyond Britain. But “tandoori” and “mughlai” are suddenly becoming bad words. “This is the start of the tourist season, but I think it will be a hard summer for us,” the manager said. There are an estimated 9,000 restaurants serving Indian food in Britain. London alone has about 3,600. The Good Curry Guide produced in Britain claims this is more than the total number in Delhi and Mumbai put together. There is also a rapidly growing market for readymade Indian meals sold through supermarket chains. All British chains now stock a great variety of readymade Indian meals but the sale of such meals has declined in every chain, local reports said. Restaurant owners blame the growing mood to shun meat altogether, but also blame media reports that suggested FMD was brought to Britain from India. Other media reports suggested it came from China. There is no evidence or official confirmation for either but the reports have done their damage. Chinese restaurants have also been badly hit. Business is down about 40 per cent, restaurant owners say. In London’s Chinatown, restaurant owners have asked their community leaders to speak on their behalf to correct disinformation about any Chinese origins of the outbreak. Restaurant owners say in the north some places have not had a single customer in days. About 80 per cent of all Chinese in Britain are in the catering industry. And a large section of the Bangladeshi population works in restaurants offering Indian food. IANS |
|
YEARS after giving up on education, mothers who live in
Port Sunlight, in north west England, are going back to school. Rosie
is small, slight and very pretty. She looks even younger than 25 years
old; it’s hard to believe that she has four sons, aged seven, six,
four and 19 months. She left school when she was 11; she was, she
says, truanting all the time. Now she’s back at college studying
maths and English, though it’s a struggle given how little free time
she has. She wants her children to do better at school than she did. Vicky,
who is 20, has a daughter of three. She officially left secondary
school a week before her 16th birthday, but in fact she missed the
whole of that school year. She was put in a class for badly-behaved
children, though she’d been diagnosed as dyslexic, and the
experience was too much for her, so she simply didn’t go to school.
Vicky believes her daughter is already shaping up to be ``brainier’’
than she was; and wants to help her achieve. Kelly is 21, and has
three children under the age of four. She hated school and left at the
age of 14. She says she was always bullied and her education suffered;
it’s embarrassing, she says, that she can’t spell well enough to
fill in forms. She wants her children to be “really good’’ at
school. All three of them have been helped by a special course run
by Ferries and Port Sunlight Family Groups on the Wirral on the north
west coast of England as part of its parenting classes programme. The
Successful Learning pilot scheme aims to break down parents’
barriers to learning, because these in turn undermine their own
children’s potential to do well at school. If parents lack basic skills themselves, they can feel humiliated and confused and unable to help their children. And if they have felt let down by their teachers, they pass that on. It
is, says Jean Robb of Successful Learning, a vicious circle. “If
parents have had a disruptive attitude in school, those belligerent
attitudes are carried over when they have to deal with their children’s
teachers,’’ she says. Guardian
The Pentagon has taken the first step toward “Star
Trek”-inspired weaponry with the announcement of a new “active
denial technology” gun. Developed for $ 40 million by Air Force
research laboratories in New Mexico and Texas, it’s a real raygun:
it shoots microwave beams that heat up a target’s skin, causing pain
similar to “touching a hot light bulb.” A spokesman from
Kirtland Air Force Base says it’s “the kind of pain you would feel
if you were being burned. It’s just not intense enough to cause any
damage.” The military wants a non-lethal weapon for use against
civilians in peacekeeping operations. Protesters have already
figured out a defence: packets of popcorn that they call “pocket
airbags”. AP
Crossing
borders to enslavement Not all Indians in America are dotcom millionaires, green card holders or highly paid doctors. A large number of them, especially women, work in unglamorous, exploitative and menial jobs as domestic help. Even though there are laws to protect the rights of these maids, they are subjected to near inhuman conditions and are totally at the mercy of their employers. These
women are brought over by families, agents or acquaintances, legally
or illegally, to work for long hours for little or no pay. WFS |
|
|
Right belief, right
knowledge, right conduct - these together constitute the path to
liberation. ***** Belief in things ascertained as they are is right belief. This is attained by intuition or understanding. ***** Understanding is derived from external sources, e.g., precept and scriptures. It is attained by means of right knowledge (pramana) and partial knowledge (naya). ***** Perfect knowledge is gained by destroying the deluding karmas and then by simultaneous destruction of knowledge and perception-obscuring karmas and of obstructive karmas. ***** Liberation is the freedom from all karmic matter, owing to the nonexistence of the cause of bondage and to the shedding of the karmas. ***** After the soul is released, there remain perfect right-belief, perfect right knowledge, perfect perception, and the state of having accomplished all. —
Sri Umasvati Acharya, Tattvarthadhigama Sutra (a Jain text), chapter
I:1-2,6; chapter 10; 1-3. ***** There cannot be a thing which is devoid of its modifications of birth and decay. On the other hand, modifications cannot exist without an abiding or eternal something - a permanent substance, for birth, decay and stability (continuance) - these three constitute the characteristic of a substance or entity. ****** A man who holds the view of the cumulative character of truth never says that a particular view is right or that a particular view is wrong. -
Siddhasena Divakara's Sanmati Tarka ( a publication of Shri Jain
Shvetamber Education Board, 1.12.28 |
 |
| Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir | Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs | Nation | Editorial | | Business | Sport | World | Mailbag | In Spotlight | Chandigarh Tribune | Ludhiana Tribune 50 years of Independence | Tercentenary Celebrations | | 121 Years of Trust | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |
