 |
Tuesday,
July 2, 2002, Chandigarh, India  
|
Will new-old team deliver? Trifurcation idea The millennium champs |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Foreign policy under Jaswant Singh
It’s a goal!
Unlearnt lessons of Emergency
Spotting the ‘lazy eyes’
Spirituality helps in bereavement
|
Will new-old team deliver? The much-awaited Union Cabinet reshuffle on Monday has several new faces. But it does not give Mr Atal Behari Vajpayee’s jumbo-sized ministry the much-needed new look. The Prime Minister has apparently been guided by considerations of caste and forthcoming elections, giving the South a somewhat better representation though maintaining the tilt in favour of the Hindi heartland. The induction of two silver screen personalities from the BJP — Mr Shatrughan Sinha and Mr Vinod Khanna — may provide a touch of glamour to the ministry, but its crucial test lies in how it addresses itself to the complex problems and new challenges facing the country. One major headache for Mr Vajpayee will continue to be Ms Mamata Banerjee of the Trinamool Congress. She has been bargaining for the railway portfolio, but unsuccessfully so far. One redeeming feature of the reshuffle is the seriousness with which the whole exercise has been done amidst various pulls and counter-pulls. Not that every change helps build public confidence in the government about improved performance which is the crying need of the day. Certain charges have been done keeping in view the ground realities not only within the BJP but also among the allies. The game is political. Each group wants portfolios of its choice. Even the BJP leadership suffers from a mindset which cannot be justified on the touchstone of national interest. A number of non-performers in the Council of Minister like Mr C.P. Thakur, Ms Maneka Gandhi and Mr Muni Lal have been rightly shown the exit gate. Some old ministers continue, though their performance report is poor. Some tested and trusted persons like Mr Arun Jaitley have been moved out of the Cabinet by the BJP high command as it requires them for party work. Mr Jana Krishnamurthy has finally got into the Cabinet. How he will perform as a minister is anybody’s guess. The ministry formation is surely the prerogative of the Prime Minister. However, the standard of governance is bound to suffer if vital portfolios are distributed not on merit but political conveniences to keep various interest groups in good humour. One heartening feature of the ministry-making is the elevation of Mr L.K. Advani as Deputy Prime Minister. For all practical purposes, he is now the most sought-after member of the government as well as the party. He can be described as the most powerful Deputy Prime Minister after Sardar Patel in the Jawaharlal Nehru Cabinet. Like Sardar Patel, Mr Advani, too, retains the crucial Home portfolio — a privilege which none of the five other Deputy Prime Ministers enjoyed. There is already a visible Advani touch in the ministry-making. More significant, however, is the fact that with Mr Advani as Deputy Prime Minister, the critical issue of “after Mr Vajpayee, who?” looks like having been settled not only within the BJP but also among its NDA partners. This will definitely ensure continuance of the NDA government in a normal course. India badly needs political stability and greater stress on performance and governance. A number of changes in the ministry do arouse some glimmer of hope, especially on the economic front. Mr Jaswant Singh, who has been given the vital Finance Ministry, is eminently suited for this job though it must be said that he has done fairly well even as External Affairs Minister. However, the induction of Mr Yashwant Sinha as External Affairs Minister does not inspire much confidence. His new role needs to be watched and assessed closely. India needs dynamic handling of foreign affairs. Perhaps, the Prime Minister will continue to play a decisive role in this area. |
|
Trifurcation idea First the VHP and now the RSS has floated the idea of trifurcation of the state of Jammu and Kashmir. This, according to them, is necessary to rehabilitate displaced Kashmiri Hindus and to end what they perceive as “blatant discriminatory attitude (of successive state governments) towards Jammu and Ladakh”. While their concern for the victims of terrorism is understandable, the trifurcation proposal is fraught with implications which must be discussed threadbare. While India has experimented with demarcation of states on the basis of the languages, the division has never been on communal lines. Howsoever loudly it may be proclaimed that separate statehood for Jammu and a Union Territory status for the Ladakh region, as envisaged by the RSS, will be only an administrative arrangement which will have nothing to do with the residents’ religion, that is exactly how the world at large is likely to see it. That is why fear has been expressed in many quarters that establishing a Hindu state and a Muslim state can lead to partition of the country. In fact, the idea mooted by the VHP and the RSS can provide a stick to Pakistan to beat India with. What must also be borne in mind is that Kashmir is not just another state and, as such, any discussion on its future must be done with extreme caution. Not only that, it is important that the sentiments of the local people are also taken into consideration. It is also imperative that the issue of the plight of the Kashmiri refugees is not seen through a political prism. It is a national problem and the whole country should put its head together to grapple with it. Their misfortune should not be seen in isolation by any party or organisation. Realising the exceptional sensitivity of the subject, Home Minister (and now also Deputy Prime Minister) Lal Krishna Advani has already rejected the trifurcation proposal. However, since the ruling BJP does take its cue from the Sangh Parivar, doubts remain that the RSS brainchild may gain currency in government quarters. Since both the VHP and the RSS have endorsed it back to back, there is considerable disquiet among other parties. Perhaps, it has become necessary for Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee himself to reassure the nation that no precipitate step will be taken regarding the future of Jammu and Kashmir unless a broad consensus on the whole issue emerges. All pros and cons have to be weighed dispassionately, considering that these are bound to have international ramifications. |
|
The millennium champs The world’s most popular sport extravaganza came to a spectacular end at The Yokohama International Stadium on Sunday. Virtually half the world watched the live coverage of the Football World Cup that Brazil won for a record-stretching fifth time ever since it was introduced in 1930. It would be wrong to call it a record-breaking event because the earlier record too was held by it. Yes, had Germany lived up to its reputation, it would have had the unique distinction of coming on a par with Brazil having won the title in three earlier tournaments. The pity is that the Germans did not do justice to their talent in what turned out to be a one-sided final. The simple fact is that the world’s best goalkeeper, German captain Oliver Kahn, was made to look like a novice against the game’s best striker, Ronaldo Luis Nazario de Lima. Not once but twice the Brazilian striker found the German goal post to notch up a personal record of eight goals in seven matches in World Cup 2002. No praise is enough to describe the amazing levels the Brazilians take the simple game of football to. They ended the last millennium as the only team to have won the World Cup four times. It is the only team to have won two World Cups in a row in 1958 and 1962. They had begun their quest for football glory on the wrong foot by losing the first final they reached in 1950 to their South American neighbour Uruguay. What steeled their resolve never to taste defeat in a final was the embarrassment of going down to Uruguay before their home
crowd. Thereafter the magicians from Pele’s country have never lost the final. With Sunday’s victory, Brazil can now claim the distinction of being the first team to lift the World Cup in the new millennium. The tournament began with a stunning upset. The little-known team from Senegal in Africa defeated the defending champions France in the opening game. France never quite recovered from the shock and went out, notching up the dubious record of a defending champion not being able to score a single goal in the three games it played. Those who thought Senegal’s performance was an aberration could not believe their eyes when they noticed it march into the last eight in a tournament that saw many a fancied team being “kicked out”. Then there was a heart-warming show of guts and gumption put up by co-host South Korea. It managed to reach the last four. Keeping in mind the fact that the premier football event was held for the first time in Asia, it is fair to presume that the game would become equally popular in the continent. Why football has not received the attention it deserves in India is a mystery wrapped in an enigma. All that is needed is a football, a few willing kids and a vacant piece of land to get started. Official patronage plays a marginal role in the popularity of any sport. The defining moment for Indian cricket was the upset victory over the giants from the West Indies by Kapil’s little-known devils in 1983. Biachang Bhutia as an expert commentator was a small consolation for the sport-crazy people of the country. The nation is waiting for a Bhutia to lead a football XI to the same dizzy heights that it has scaled in Europe and Latin America. |
Foreign policy under Jaswant Singh Now that there is a new Foreign Minister, it is time to evaluate the tenure of Jaswant Singh during a time that has spanned momentous world events and seen two American presidencies. On balance, Mr Jaswant Singh’s score has been positive although on the other side of the ledger there are such negative phenomena as over-exuberance over US policies and a failure in communicating with neighbouring and world media. It was a justifiable assumption of the Vajpayee government that after the demise of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, there was only one big boy to cultivate. During the Clinton presidency Mr Jaswant Singh’s marathon peripatetic discussions with Mr Strobe Talbott, a key member of the Clinton administration, were both extraordinary and path-breaking and foreshadowed a new American interest in India, symbolised by President Clinton’s visit. The US Administration was doing its own sums and had come to the conclusion that in the post-Cold War world, building a close political, economic and strategic relationship with India made sense. There was no longer the compulsion on the Indian side of relying on the Soviet Union, which had ceased to exist, its successor state occupied with its own affairs. Besides, the size, potential and population of India were impressive and the 1.7 million Indian Americans were beginning to make an impact, the information technology sector being only the most conspicuous. Mr Clinton was to pay another visit to India, this time as a private citizen, but the successor George W. Bush Administration gave all indications of maintaining and even accelerating the new honeymoon with India. Then September 11 happened and Americans had a new prism through which to look at the world. India immediately and enthusiastically offered support for America’s “war on terror” — for good reasons; India had been facing terrorism and insurgency in Kashmir and elsewhere for many years. If it was a case of unrequited love, the External Affairs Ministry took some time to grasp the situation. In immediate terms, President Bush — W. for short — was more interested in President Pervez Musharraf’s cooperation, whatever might have been Pakistan’s policies in relation to the Taliban in Afghanistan and Kashmir in India. One look at the map indicates why this was an American compulsion. And it soon became clear that Washington’s policies towards India and Pakistan followed parallel lines and Washington had not given up its quest for close relations with India, subsequently spawning a number of military cooperation agreements. Displaying excessive enthusiasm and feeling great despondency are perhaps as much Indian weaknesses as they are of the External Affairs Ministry. New Delhi’s immediate and extraordinary enthusiasm for W’s National Missile Defence plan, which spiked the 1972 anti-missile treaty, displayed boyish enthusiasm uncharacteristic of a country’s official reaction. Presumably, Mr Jaswant Singh had come to the conclusion that since W had proposed it, it would soon become a fait accompli and it was, therefore, in New Delhi’s interest to be counted at the start. As it transpired, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin bowed to the American diktat because he felt he had no choice. Apart from the new relationship with the USA, the high and low point in Mr Jaswant Singh’s tenure has been Pakistan. From India’s point of view, the Agra summit with Pakistan was a disaster not merely because President Musharraf came determined to score points at New Delhi’s expense, rather than secure an agreement, throwing diplomatic protocol to the winds, but because of the sudden inarticulateness of Indian spokesmen, with Indian television channels reduced to relying on Pakistani spokesmen to fill in their reports. India’s failure was more than that of the External Affairs Ministry because Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee had a chunk of his Cabinet camped in the city of the Taj and there seemed to be no guidelines on how to proceed, the initiative being entirely given to the Pakistani President. There were differences in the Indian camp, with no one minister confident enough to hazard a position in public, apart from the impolitic intervention of Information Minister Sushma Swaraj. But it was the responsibility of Mr Jaswant Singh to grasp the central fact that if he and his spokesmen clammed up, they were giving the Pakistanis a carte blanche to interpret events and discussions, which they did splendidly. On the other hand, India’s tactic in folding the Kashmir insurgency into the American “war of terror” was too good an opportunity to miss. A string of spectacular terrorist attacks, on the Kashmir assembly, on the Indian Parliament and in parts of Kashmir was reason enough to escalate Indian demands for receiving some satisfaction. Massing troops along the borders with Pakistan was an accepted form of coercive diplomacy, and as the USA and much of the rest of the world feared an Indo-Pakistani war between two nuclear-armed neighbours, the inevitable happened. The USA and others ratcheted up the pressure on Pakistan to end cross-border infiltration, as the Americans like to call it, and having secured President Musharraf’s promise permanently to stop the “infiltration”, induced New Delhi to offer concessions to reduce tension. Much of the sting in stationing troops along the border was taken out by the more relaxed regime of letting soldiers and officers go on leave. But America remains wary and has not let down its guard. Inevitably, the process of an Indo-Pakistani dialogue will begin after the elections in Jammu and Kashmir. Having burnt his fingers by undertaking the bus journey to Lahore, which was quickly followed by the Kargil incursions, Mr Vajpayee should not become overcautious. Being merely reactive to Pakistani moves is no diplomacy. Despite Pakistan’s attempts at merging the Kashmir issue with the Palestinians’ just struggle against Israel to end its occupation, New Delhi has succeeded in keeping the Arab world informed of developments. Any comparison between the two situations is unrealistic, if not propagandist, and while Arabs themselves are clued up on the situation in Kashmir, Indian diplomacy has played its role in presenting its case, despite the growing Indo-Israeli interaction. The new close relationship with the USA is to be welcomed for a variety of reasons of national interest. But Mr Jaswant Singh’s successor must remember that there is a world beyond the USA and there is a danger in making Indian policy too America-centric. The Indo-Russian military relationship proceeds apace and New Delhi should not merely commune with developing countries more intensively but also nurture the power centre emerging in the European Union. Besides, the countries of East Asia, in addition to China, are important in the pursuit of Indian policies. Mr Vajpayee’s forays into South-East Asia were useful exercises. With America’s present status as the Second Roman Empire, President George W. Bush’s unilateralism will roll his friends and foes alike. Indian policies will inevitably be more in sympathy with US critics on specific issues such as the sanctity of national borders and the role of the United Nations, rather than American unilateralism, in resolving world problems. While remaining close friends, New Delhi will have to learn to say “no” to the USA. |
It’s a goal! The International Football Federation (FIFA) has invited bids from cities around the world for staging the 2006 World Cup finals and according to well-informed sources within the Indian Football Association, Bangalore is going to be among the top contenders with a strong inside track for getting the finals. Officials concerned with football in Bangalore are reported to be busy giving the finishing touches to a spectacular “presentation”, projecting Bangalore as the natural contender for hosting the next World Cup Finals. A sneak preview. Bangalore, besides being one of Asia’s fastest growing cities, can also boast of the largest ill-conceived and half-constructed modern football stadiums with a chequered history of petty power struggles and interminable litigation in the small causes court. Large parts of the stadium actually resemble the stone age excavations of Mohenjodaro and Pompeii. Almost plumb in the middle of our football stadium is a flourishing dhobi ghat and if Paul (“gacha”) Gascoigne or Roberto Baggio happen to get their shorts soiled during a vicious mid-field tackle they can get their kit drycleaned and pressed in the dhobi ghat. They don’t have to go all the way to Brigade Road or Mahatma Gandhi Road for their laundry. This is only one of the many attractions of Bangalore’s football stadium and it’s not likely that even the Wembley stadium in London can boast of a dhobi ghat within the goal posts. All along the sidelines of our stadium from which free kicks are taken are huge, gaudy hoardings which have sprung up overnight in violation of municipal corporation by-laws and they advertise such varied merchandise like after-shave colognes and briefs and vests with velcro lining and if Gerhard Mueller happens to get his shorts torn while diving brilliantly to his left to stop a brilliant Jan Cruff header, he will know where to get a new pair of shirts, thanks to the hoardings. On the northern periphery of our stadium, a squalid slum is fast coming up and if Bobby Charlton foozles a simple drop kick and the ball goes out of play, urchins from the slum can be expected to pick it up and expertly “break” it in. Dotted across Bangalore’s football stadium are half-finished foundation columns with 14 inch steel rods jutting out menacingly and TV cameras from networks covering the finals live and beaming to a worldwide audience of more than six billion people can be tied to these columns with gunny sacks to help in spectacular “zoom” shots of the morning wash from the dhobi ghat hung up to dry. As the stadium isn’t even half complete, skinhead hooligans on the terraces won’t have access to furniture to throw as missiles whenever they are displeased with a umpire verdict awarding a penalty kick to Argentina. In view of these superior facilities available in our stadium, Bangalore may be awarded the 2006 World Cup finals. |
Unlearnt lessons of Emergency The anniversary of the imposition of the Emergency has come this year amidst several disturbing political signals. True, the enormous changes that have taken place in the course of the past 27 years invariably make it impossible for the ruling class to reimpose the black law. Yet the dark clouds now gathering on the horizon should alert us against the dangerous tendencies characterised by the Emergency. They are of two kinds. First the blatant use of Emergency methods by the executive to stiffle public criticism and thus blunt political opposition. After the Emergency no government at the Centre has resorted to such crude use of official machinery with such tenacity as in the case of Tehelka. It has been as barbarian as the attacks on Ramnath Goenka’s establishment and certainly worse than those on it in the 1980s. The harassment of the Time scribe for his write-up on Vajpayee has been another expression of this Emergency legacy. Such high-handed methods can only be a short solace. The other aspect has been the latent streaks of authoritarianism in decision making and the virtual rule by a narrow inner circle. One wonders what has happened to the Vajpayee government which had started off with so much of goodwill, initiatives, readiness for mutual accommodation and consultations. During the elections, Vajpayee was viewed even by large non-parivar sections as a symbol of liberalism and a man of moderation who will uphold politics of consensus. What one finds now is a negation of all such hopes. Why does the government follow such a devil-care style in tackling issues that have crucial long-term implications? Forget about the Opposition which, with such short-sighted men as Mulayam Singh Yadav, remains as divided and rudderless as ever. In the NDA even the allies and party colleagues often come to know about the government moves on crucial issues from TV or hearsay. A look at the government’s decision making style makes startling revelations. In recent months, Vajpayee’s Cabinet reshuffle has been an issue on which there have been some meaningful interaction. This has partly been due to the ailing Prime Minister’s increasing dependence on L.K. Advani and the complications raised by party chief Jana Krishnamurthy. Unlike earlier, Vajpayee now needs Advani’s endorsement to what is otherwise considered as his prerogative. This has been due to the erosion of his old powerful PMO and his own weakening position. Compared with the tight control Vajpayee’s well-manned PMO had exerted on the government as well as the party organisation, the present devolution is a welcome change. In those heydays, visiting BJP state leaders used to take directions from the PM while Ashok Road remained an appendage. The Congress Prime Ministers in the past two decades were also party chiefs. Yet even without a formal dual role, the BJP Prime Minister had tried to keep control of the both. Despite this welcome change, the functioning of the BJP government has visible authoritarian streaks and yearning for brinkmanship. Despite the BJP’s minority status in the Lok Sabha, it has never lost any opportunity to accrue additional draconian powers for itself. Apart from the POTA, it has been persistently trying for deeper intrusions into the states’ powers. It had mooted special powers for the central forces in keeping law and order in states and rights of prosecutions, some thing which goes against the letter and spirit of the federal system. After successfully completing the process of ‘Congressisation’ by appropriating all of its discredited practices, the BJP is set to effect a sort of ‘Indiraisation’. From all accounts, the present government could have been more authoritarian and insensitive to other’s views but for its lack of majority on its own. The way the party pushes its own agenda over the shoulders of the supporting parties and allies has been a manifestation of this trend. The parliamentary system vests ample powers in the Prime Minister so long as he enjoys a majority in the House. Powerful Prime Ministers did command brute powers and imposed decisions on others without going through the drills of seeking the views of others. The casual manner in which crucial decisions are being taken without even a pretence of consultation within the ruling party and the coalition partners highlights a disturbing trend. Even Indira Gandhi with her overriding majority in Parliament had — barring some cases — been more responsive. Her system of in-house consultations to ward off possible blunders are legion. Those who have worked during her time will vouch for the kind of elaborate consultations she had held before taking every plunge. Today’s Vajpayee government is a curious mix of Indira Gandhi’s oneupmanship and her son’s reckless styles. The term authoritarianism has an extended meaning in a coalition framework. A closer look at the NDA government’s decision making process will reveal the BJP’s gradual shift from its initial please-all policy to the present one-party hegemony. It has been in proportion to its own threat perception from the allies. The party had gone out of the way to appease Jayalalithaa and brazenly reinducted George Fernandes even while the Tehelka commission was inquiring into the corruption charges. Now the BJP feels confident that none of the allies would dare to question its decisions. It is this political megalomania that has encouraged the BJP to turn more and more authoritarian and arrogant towards the dumb allies. The TDP is the only party which has its own soul and hence the BJP leadership takes it into confidence on matters that need a parliamentary majority. All important decisions are taken by the Prime Minister or his principal secretary, Advani and Fernandes. Others are called if and when necessary. The allies are only informed of the decisions, not consulted. By violating the cardinal principal of the coalition dharma, the main ruling party has converted the entire NDA into a nucleus of its two leaders plus Fernandes. When the whole authority is vested in a small group, distortion of the democratic process becomes inescapable. All those who deal with this government know that nothing really moves without the help of an internal lobby comprising the inner circle wizkids, business lobbies, inhouse scribes and the hard core RSS. Here every one seeks to outsmart the other to get noted as saviours of the government. They put forth bright ideas and force the endorsement of the PM and the Home Minister, and it becomes the Government of India’s decision. This was how Kalam was chosen after ditching Alexander and Krishan Kant about whom Naidu has been pretty confident until the last minute. Suddenly, another group gets the Cabinet endorsement for FDI in the print media. The BJP, the parivar and Advani himself had held a different view on it. Almost every one except a tiny interested group had opposed it. Yet it got the Cabinet approval. This is the strange mystery of the working on this government. In the process, we have the curious spectacle of the hitherto admirers of MNCs in the Cabinet criticising the proposal and the old anti-globalisationists like Murli Manohar Joshi championing the FDI cause. Such sudden jerks and reckless moves might not have been possible under an institutionalised system of party management and coalition framework. But for the lack of numbers, the brinkmanship and draconian style might have taken a worse form. |
||
|
Spotting the ‘lazy eyes’ Many small children suffer from a common eye disorder called amblyopia or “lazy eye” which researchers say can be cured if they get proper medical treatment before they are three-years-old. Children with amblyopia have one eye, which does not see, properly despite wearing glasses. Researchers from the Children of the 90s study, based at Bristol University, say bringing back testing for children under three could mean better sight for those with the condition, reports BBC. For the study 2,000 children were either offered repeated eye tests from the age of eight months, or were not tested until they were three. All those found to have amblyopia were sent to their local hospital for treatment, which usually involves wearing a patch over the good eye to encourage the muscles in the “lazy eye” to develop. The findings, published in the British Medical Journal, revealed that by the time the children in the study were seven-and-a-half, those whose eye problem had been detected before they were three were four times more likely to be cured compared with those who had been diagnosed later. Dr Cathy Williams, who led the Children of the 90s project (Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children), said that the pre- school sight test programme was abandoned in 1997 because the research had not been done, not because there was proof testing did not work.
ANI |
Spirituality helps in bereavement A new study conducted by British researchers has revealed that people with strong spiritual beliefs can overcome sorrow caused by the death of their near and dear ones faster than those with low spirituality or atheists. Dr Michael King, who heads the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioural Sciences at Royal Free and University College Medical School in London, said, “We found that people with no religious or spiritual beliefs did the worst. They didn’t recover at all over the study period.” The researchers recruited friends or family members of hospice patients before the patient’s death. Of the 129 volunteers, 43 per cent reported having strong spiritual beliefs, 16 per cent said they had none, and 41 per cent said they had “low-intensity” spiritual beliefs. The study, published in British Medical Journal and reported in HealthScout, tried to measure spiritual belief without including religion. So, in this study, strong spirituality simply meant a belief in a higher power, regardless of what religion they believed. The researchers interviewed the volunteers at one month, nine months and 14 months after the death of their loved ones. The volunteers completed five standardised tests to assess the strength of their spiritual beliefs and to see how they were coping with their loss. King and his colleagues also tried to control the data for sex, age, depression and social connections. The findings revealed that the people with the strongest beliefs got steadily better throughout the study period. Those with a lower level of spirituality didn’t do as well for the first nine months, but by the end of the study had caught up to the strong belief group. The group without spiritual beliefs seemed to recover slightly by nine months, according to King. However, by the end of the study, they were as bereaved as they had been just after the death.
ANI A dallop of yoghurt for teeth Very soon, it might be possible for us to buy meat or food which instead of causing, prevents tooth decay. The bacterium found in yoghurt has been genetically engineered by researchers and this might soon be incorporated into different food stuff to give us healthier teeth, reported the Nature journal. Lactobacilli is increasingly being used by manufacturers who add them to ‘functional foods’ such as live yoghurt intended to augment the body’s beneficial microbes. But this is the first time that such bacteria have been used to deliver passive immunity. “Earlier approaches weren’t that successful,” says microbiologist Wim Boersma, Institute for Animal Science and Health, Lelystad. “This seems to work well.” Lactobacilli is now being worked upon by Hammarstrom’s team to give it the antibodies to a range of infectious agents, including rotavirus, the main cause of severe diarrhoea, and helicobacter, which promotes stomach ulcers.
ANI |
As geese and swans fly hundred and hundreds of miles Leaving their young behind! Who feeds them? Who nurtures them? They know and remember Him all the time. All nine treasures and eighteen occult powers Are in the palms of our Lord and Master, For Him, will Nanak sacrifice his life over and over again. There is no end to your existence Unmeasured forever will remain your domain. Our Lord is without blemish, our Lord is untainted by illusion He is beyond comprehension, endless and beyond reach; All worship you, the real author of all creation; All creatures are created by you, you are their provider and giver; O men of God, ponder over Him! He is the remover of all sorrows; He himself the Lord, and the servant, Says Nanak, of what worth is a mere human? You dwell in every body, flowing uninterrupted, You are the only one in every one; Some you endow with riches, others you reduce to beggary, It is all a part of your inscrutable design; You are the giver You yourself the decider of how it is spent I know not any other like you; You are the infinite God, your expanse unknown, How can I put your qualities in words? —
Rehras, Sri Guru Granth Sahib
*** When a wise man, established well in virtue, Develops Consciousness and Understanding Then as a Bhikkhu ardent and sagacious He succeeds in disentangling the tangle. — From The Vishuddhimagga by Buddhaghosha
*** Virtue herself is her own fairest reward. — Silius Italicus, Punica
*** Virtue brings honour and honour, vanity. — Thomas Fuller, Gnomologia |
 |
| 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 | | 122 Years of Trust | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |
