 |
Monday,
August 5, 2002, Chandigarh, India  
|
BJP’s
agenda for power Betrayal of public
trust |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Drought
of creativity
The
colonial legacy
SC frowns on judges
taking up extra-judicial assignments
Bring
your parents along, 103-yr-old told
|
BJP’s agenda for power THE message from Saturday’s National Council meeting of the BJP is on expected lines. It is the Advani factor which will be the main guiding force for the principal NDA ally as was seen in the Home Minister’s elevation as Deputy Prime Minister. This means a clear stress on the hard Hindutva line, and not its soft variant identified with Prime Minister A. B. Vajpayee. The Deputy Prime Minister dominated the one-day meeting at Delhi’s Talkatora Garden, held to formalise the appointment of Mr Venkaiah Naidu as the BJP chief, with the 19-page Delhi Pledge issued at the end of the session reflecting his stamp all over. The document acquires considerable significance as it contains the guidelines for party leaders and cadres for their future functioning. A frontal attack on the Congress and its state governments is something not unexpected from the BJP, but asking the party’s state leaders and its cadres to maintain an amicable relationship with regional forces, particularly those associated with the National Democratic Alliance government at the Centre, shows that coalition politics at this stage will not be abandoned as it has paid rich dividends. But the party will do everything it can to emerge as the single largest political force to run the show at the Centre on its own. The truth, however, is that the Delhi Pledge is aimed at retaining power by making any compromise necessary for the purpose. The BJP’s past performance provides enough proof to draw such a conclusion. Before it got an opportunity to rule the country along with its NDA allies it was known as a party of values and principles. This is now a thing of the past. There is a realisation, which tallies with the ground-level realities, that the party has to redraw its strategy to face the coming Assembly elections in 10 states as the results will provide an opportunity to go in for a course correction to successfully fight the 2004 battle of the ballot for the Lok Sabha. Hence the change of the helmsman. The Prime Minister’s declaration that the BJP would work for a “clean majority” in the Lok Sabha makes one believe that the statements to placate the allies were meant only to respect their sentiments. But the underlying message for party functionaries is to work for the BJP’s ascendancy to power on its own, so essential for implementing its agenda in the country. Mr Advani is credited with having given the BJP the necessary muscle to capture the centrestage in Delhi and hence a fresh attempt to depend on his formulation. It is natural for a political party to aspire for a majority in a legislature and, therefore, there is nothing wrong in the BJP’s new approach. Disturbing questions come to one’s mind when one looks at it in the backdrop of certain controversial statements, particularly those made by Mr Advani. He is on record to have stated that he considers Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi as the ideal ruler. It is in this context that the nation will watch with utmost curiosity the BJP’s moves in the days and months to come. |
|
Betrayal of public trust THE Opposition parties had reasons to feel agitated in Parliament last Friday at the reported allotment of petrol filling stations to ruling NDA functionaries and Sangh Parivar leaders. Looking at the gravity of the matter, they vociferously demanded the resignation of Union Petroleum Minister Ram Naik, and understandably so. One can appreciate ex-servicemen, widows of martyrs and handicapped persons being showered such favours on humanitarian grounds. But what justification can be there to distribute such benefits to political favourites? This is nothing but gross betrayal of public trust. What is disturbing is that the BJP leadership is following exactly the same line of nepotism and favouritism it once accused the Congress of. We are all familiar with the role of Capt Satish Sharma as Petroleum Minister during the P.V. Narasimha Rao regime. The BJP was then highly critical of such "politically corrupt acts". But now we see the BJP's real face. It clearly shows when in power political leaders, whether of the Right or Left persuasion, behave differently and that too for the promotion of personal and partisan interests. They keep every calculation in mind except that of public interest. The Supreme Court in its observation had come down heavily on Mr Satish Sharma for misusing his discretionary power in the allotment of petrol pumps, LPG agencies and kerosene depots to his favourites. The apex court had then observed: "The allotment of the public property has been made in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner." Indeed, the whole pattern is shocking, to say the least. The government largesse is a new form of grabbing public wealth. Ministers, who wield power to award anybody, have to act as public trustees and are, therefore, expected to be not only fair but also seen to be fair. Of course, the purpose of vesting such powers in high government functionaries was to avoid procedural delays and red-tapism in selective cases. Ostensibly, it was supposed to help those who would not normally be able to have such privileges, but genuinely deserved and needed the same. These devices might have worked at a time when public figures maintained high standards of morality. But nowadays these discretionary powers are abused with impunity. This is certainly not acceptable. Every enlightened citizen is well justified in opposing blatant acts of corruption that are associated with the discretionary quota and other privileges being illogically given to political favourites and relations of those enjoying power. A minister has to be accountable for the way he exercises his power. He has to ensure that there is total genuineness and transparency in invoking it. On the face of it, Mr Ram Naik does not stand the test of scrutiny in exercising his discretionary power to favour those who are related to the high-ups. Misuse of public position and power is now part of a flourishing corrupt culture which is weakening the fabric of Indian society. In the prevailing loot mentality and the permissive atmosphere, everyone wishes to look after himself or his favourites to the detriment of the public good. This is nothing but open political corruption. No wonder, the central concern of the people today is that the nation must move forward evolving a cleaner public life. The spread of corruption, nepotism and favouritism must be checked and reversed. The Ram Naiks at the helm should not only be clean but should also be seen to be clean. These are not negotiable matters. They are crucial to the quality of governance as well as to that of the democratic polity. |
Drought of creativity THE Central Government has constituted a Special Task Force headed by Deputy Prime Minister Lal Krishna Advani to come up with an action plan for managing the drought. Thankfully, the country has a large foodgrain stock and, therefore, much work can be undertaken under the “Food for Work” programme. The past practice has been to construct Panchayat Bhawans and roads, and deepen the village tanks. But these works have not helped solve the problem of drought. There is need to think creatively about the works that may be undertaken. The basic challenge is for us to be able to hold on to more water. One straightforward method is to build big dams like the Bhakra which will prove to be a saviour in the present situation. But big dams have been criticised for causing displacement, providing water for the rich, being ecologically disastrous and susceptible to silting. More creative methods of retaining water need to be explored. One alternative is to move from “flow” to “lift” canals. The standard practice is for canals to take water to those areas where it can flow on its own. It is costly to “lift” the water to a higher elevation. But the water that percolates into the earth during irrigation is lost in the flow method because these areas are generally located at a lower elevation. The ground water that percolates into the aquifers during irrigation cannot be reclaimed. The percolation from the canal-irrigated coastal areas of Andhra Pradesh flows into the sea. Indira Gandhi Canal is supposed to have been a boon for the adjoining areas of Pakistan. The water that is used for irrigation in Jaisalmer percolates into the groundwater acquifers and is extracted by tubewells in Multan. The alternative would be for us to lift the water to a higher plateau. The irrigation water would recharge the aquifers and that water could be re-extracted for irrigation in areas at a lower elevation. We would be able to use the same water twice. First during the canal irrigation. Second by extracting the percolated water from the aquifers. The storage in the aquifers would provide as water security. We should work out the economics of lifting water. The irrigation projects at present do not take cognisance of these large secondary effects. The energy consumed in lifting water could be generated from the additional biomass that is produced. People from drought-affected areas should be put to work in such projects. Israel has developed the technology of mapping and using these aquifers. In one city they are reported to spreading the waste water on a large areas lying above an aquifer. The water percolates down. Then they extract the water some distance away. They have calculated that it would take the water about 30 days to travel from the entry to the extraction point. This period is sufficient for it to become pure. They have created a water treatment-storage-and-supply facility — all in one go using an aquifer! We should map our aquifers and make use of them. It should be remembered that large dams and aquifers both can store huge amounts of water. But aquifers are eco-and-people-friendly. The present strategy is to extract more water to face the drought. It is proposed to instal bore-wells in traditional drinking water sources, instal more hand-pumps, provide power to tubewells on priority basis and electrify them in order to face the drought. These measures will certainly provide more water immediately. But that would not solve the problem. The availability of water does not increase. An NGO had undertaken a programme to deepen the wells in a village and also built water harvesting structures. During evaluation I asked them what was the purpose of deepening the wells if the water harvesting structures were expected to be beneficial. The water-table would rise and the existing wells would supply more water. The point is that we can increase the availability of water either by putting more water into the earth or by extracting more. It is obviously better to put more money in the latter. The people in every part of the country have their traditional technologies for water recharging. In one village of Gulbarga a farmer had built a huge tank in the path of a seasonal stream. The water would be stored there and percolate down. His land downstream would produce better crops because of higher soil moisture. Farmers build khadins in Jodhpur. One farmer in Raneri village had made a fencing of dry sticks. The wind deposited the sand on this fencing. Over the years it became a huge embankment. Rain-water would collect at the base of the embankment and he would be able to produce two crops in a year. In other areas farmers build Johad. These are small tanks which trap rain-water which is used by animals. They also recharge the ground-water. Some rivers have increased flow due to the higher seepage from the johads. The water-table is declining even in areas like eastern UP where the rains are quite good. The problem is that the amount of water that percolates into the earth is less than that which is being extracted. Most water fills the fields and then overflows into the rivers and is lost before it can penetrate into the ground. It is necessary to build percolation wells in such areas. These wells are designed to put the surface water into the earth. It is necessary for Mr Advani to move from the extraction of water to refilling the same by using some techniques such as those mentioned above. Afforestation will be crucial in combating drought in future. A shrub called Ratanjot grows wild in Udaipur. It produces seeds from which non-edible oil is extracted. This shrub grows only when planted in summer. If the branches are planted during the monsoon they die out. Large areas could be planted with Ratanjot under the Food and Work programme. There would be other plants which can be planted during the drought. It was reported that Mexico is growing Agave cactus in large areas to produce industrial alcohol. Tree plantation should be done even if water has to be transported in tankers for establishing them. Draught animals can be used for this purpose. That would give them work and income to buy fodder and help them survive through the drought as well. Mr Advani should focus on matching the immediate needs of drought relief with long term solutions of drought management. Many state government propose to provide subsidies to the drought-affected people. An amount of Rs 12 per day will be paid for every cattle, water will be supplied by tankers to far-flung villages, subsidy will be given on seed, the below-poverty-line families will be given 50 kg grains instead of 35 kg as at present, etc. These are noble thoughts. But it would be much better to give the same money through an enhanced Food for Work programme. The government must ensure that every able-bodied person has a job which brings him Rs 100 if he works for lift irrigation schemes, khadins, johads, percolation wells and afforestation. Let the people arrange drinking water themselves. That will create useful assets while providing the much-needed relief to the people. |
The colonial legacy THE British were known bad colonisers. They brought happiness whenever they left. The colonised, too weak to throw the British out through an armed struggle, exhibited different, and at times innovative, methods of showing their displeasure. The Americans for example, stopped keeping moustache which was the hallmark of the British. This also gave the Americans a more relaxed upper lip, much to the dislike of the colonisers who prided themselves in the stiffness of this limb. However, these aberrations the British could tolerate though not without considerable discomfiture. What they found blasphemous was the liberty the Americans took with the most treasured and unique symbol of the Empire; the English language. How could the Yankees dare to introduce in that intricate and often inexplicable language a modicum of simplicity! The civil war that followed is history and merits no recounting. The British would rather leave with a bloody nose than accept, for example, the word “programme” spelt as “program”, irrespective of the fact that it is more user-friendly and sounds the same. The Indians expressed their dissent differently. One was the way in which they dressed. History records how Mahatma Gandhi travelled to London to attend the famed Round Table Conference dressed in his loincloth. The British could not comprehend how a man, whose throat was not encumbered by a strangulating neck tie, could think in strategic terms. A considerable time was also spent by the guardians of the Empire wondering how the loincloth was held up without a belt or buckle. Some expected it to drop from the sage’s skeletal frame and could not take their eyes off for performing the official work. The conference expectedly failed. The Indians also took liberty with the English language, though their efforts were at variance with those of the Americans. While not putting a cloak of phonetics of the language, they took freedom with the spellings. The natives continued to write Kanpur instead of Cawnpore (pronounced like “downpore”) and Jalandhar instead of Jullunder. In fact the fervour was so strong that anyone who wrote the Queen’s language correct was considered a traitor by the natives. The grammatical modification differed from region to region and left the colonisers frustrated and desperate. In August, 1942, when the Indians launched the Quit India Movement, an unrecorded incident amply explains the problems of the linguistic limitations on the one hand and the linguistic loyalties on the other. A young British Captain, tasked to stop the protest, had to bear the wrath of the mob and was mortally wounded by the hurl of a hand-launched stone missile. As he lay bleeding, his Colonel came over, knelt (The Americans would ask why not “nelt”) beside, and asked the young officer if he had any last message for his kin. Schooled at Oxford and a die-hard Briton, the Captain nodded affirmatively and said in a meek voice, “Sir even after over two hundred years of guiding them, we have failed to reform the natives”. The Colonel raised an enquiring eyebrow. Even more feebly, the Captain continued his lament: “You will notice, and no doubt will have it corrected sir, that one of the protest banners reads ‘kwit India’”. Crossing his heart, the brave Captain breathed out, with his last words, “...not acceptable...” barely audible. Modesty prevents me from openly announcing that I am a staunch patriot. I display it indirectly in various forms. Although I do not wear a loincloth, a necktie is not one of my favourite apparels. My main manifestation of the national esteem comes in spellings. I invariably compose my words differently from the Queen’s English. My patriotism recently showed when I thanked all for wishing us well on our weeding anniversary. Some recipients believed that I was actually referring to it as weeding. They were not too wide off the mark. Because, after the festive lights are switched off and the band boys have gone home, that is what a wedding is reduced to. |
SC frowns on judges taking up extra-judicial assignments “IT has been a long tradition of our Court,” wrote US Supreme Court judge, Justice Harlan F. Stone in 1931, “that its members do not serve on committees or perform other services not having a direct relationship to the work of the Court.” The only university professor ever to become the Chief Justice of the USA — Stone was dean of Columbia Law School from 1910 to 1923 before he was elevated in 1925 — and, alongwith Oliver Wendell Holmes, Benjamin Cardozo and Louis Brandeis, one of America’s great judges of the New Deal era, Stone’s words (quoted above) were recalled by the Supreme Court of India last month as it frowned upon appointment of sitting judges to extra-judicial offices. “When a sitting Judge is appointed to another post which is whole-time,” ruled the Supreme Court on July 12, “it may not be in the best interests of the independence of the judiciary.” “Sometimes the additional post held by the Judge,” it said, “may not be of equivalent status or.... (it) may even spell out a master and servant relationship between the Judge and the appointing authority.” Even though this may not create any conflict of duty and interest, it continued, “in these days of multifarious litigation, it is always desirable for the Judge of the superior judiciary to keep away from areas of controversy so that public confidence in our system is not hampered in any way.” A learned opinion, rendered with the assistance of two of the most learned members of the Indian Bar, Mr F.S. Nariman and Mr K. Parasaran, the July 12 verdict in Fenn Walter’s case imposes, for the first time since independence, significant restrictions on sitting Judges taking up any extra-judicial office such as tribunals, commissions and inquiry commissions. Triggered off by the appointment of a sitting Judge of the Madras High Court as President of the State Consumer Commission, Pondicherry — his period of service as commission president to count as “actual service” as High Court judge — it marks the culmination of a long-simmering mistrust of judges “bivouacking” in executive quarters, even if it does not fully reflect Harlan Stone’s total opposition to it. Spurning a congressional invitation to head the US Atomic Energy Commission, Stone, then Chief Justice, wrote to Senator Arthur H. Vandenburg on September 24, 1945, expressing his conviction that the duties of a judge are “difficult and exacting” and “in a very real sense, a full-time job”. “I am satisfied,” he said, “that I could not adequately discharge the duties of my office and at the same time give appropriate attention to the work of the Commission.” He hoped, he added, that “federal judges who are gallivanting about the country, seeking to do glamour jobs at the expense of their judicial work.... will read and ponder” over his response. These are strong words, indeed, but stronger still was his opposition to his colleague, Justice Robert H. Jackson’s appointment as American Prosecutor at the Nuremberg trial of Nazi war criminals, a position in which Jackson — formerly Attorney General with President Roosevelt — acquitted himself brilliantly. “It would be preferable,” Stone wrote to Jackson in March, 1946, reacting to his offer to return to the Supreme Court for a short period to attend to pending work, “not to return to the work of the Court until you are ready to take it up in the regular way without further interruptions....” “Having put your hand to the plough,” he said cheekily (as quoted by Prof Alpheus T. Mason), “you should turn the furrow by completing the trial. I shall welcome the day when you are back and we have settled down to our usual course of procedure.” Not willing to go so far, and holding in the end that appointment of sitting Judges as commissions of inquiry or as members of the Law Commission or Finance Commission “may not be objectionable”, the Supreme Court in Fenn Walter’s case voices, nonetheless, serious reservations about both the practicality and propriety of sitting Judges manning inquiry commissions. “The work of these commissions (it says) takes considerable time and there are several instances where the work of the commission continued for years. If a sitting Judge is appointed, considerable time is lost and the Judge would not be in a position to attend to his regular judicial work. In view of the mounting arrears of cases in superior courts, it would be difficult to lend services of a Judge for such commission work.” Moreover, reports of commissions of inquiry are only recommendatory and not binding on the government. They are quite often “ignored” and no follow-up action is taken by the government. That besides, in some matters where political issues are also involved, even the “impartiality and objectivity” of the commission “may some times be questioned”. It is desirable, holds the Supreme Court, that Judges are not subjected to unwanted criticism on account of their appointment as inquiry commissions. The “image and authority of the Court” must be maintained. Keeping in view all these aspects, holds the court, speaking through Justice K.G. Balakrishnan (for a three-member Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, Justice B.N. Kirpal), “the appointment of a sitting Judge as a commission of inquiry has to be made only on rare occasions if it becomes necessary for the paramount national interest of the country.” Politicians and lawyers may still play around with words like “paramount national interest” and the restriction may ultimately turn out to be far more elastic than appears at first glance, but there is no doubt that, for the present, most requests emanating from one government or the other round the country for sparing sitting Judges for some inquiry commission or the other would have to be rejected out of hand in view of this dictum. Even as regards commissions of inquiry on matters of “paramount national interest”, however, and even though there has been too much of the American example already in this article, it may not be out of place to refer to Chief Justice Earl Warren’s experience as chairman of the special commission set up in 1963 to investigate the assassination of John F. Kennedy. “(I)t was not a happy experience for the chief justice,” notes the Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States, published in 1992, in its entry on Earl Warren. His “instincts for candour and justice (it records) collided with his recognition of the political implications of the report....The commission and its report have been under continuous criticism from one group or another ever since”. “(W)hile there can be little question that a man of Warren’s integrity would not participate in a blatant cover-up (it continues), evidence does suggest that even if the commission’s ultimate findings are correct, it did not have access to important FBI and CIA files. Warren should have followed his initial instincts to turn the assignment down.” Moving back to Fenn Walter’s case, while sitting Judges may still man inquiry commissions, though rarely, their appointment (says the Supreme Court) to tribunals whose other members are not judges but bureaucrats, revenue officials and the like, is not desirable. Nor is it proper, it adds (without using that term), for a sitting Judge to be appointed as Chairman, vice-chairman or member of a tribunal or commission whose decision is subject to judicial review by the High Court. Unless, of course, he is due to retire shortly. Even in that case, however, he must express his willingness to “relinquish his remaining tenure as a Judge and then only his services shall be made available for such post.” Not a very radical decision, you would say, for, the Pondicherry exception and commissions of inquiry apart, judges normally look for other offices only after retirement. That is true, of course, but it is the spirit underlying the decision more than the decision itself which is important. And which is the real precedent behind the precedent, if one knows how to read the law. |
Bring your parents along, 103-yr-old told A 103-year-old British pensioner had a shock when his local hospital called him in for an eye test and told him to bring his parents. “I must be getting younger, in fact much younger,” Joseph Dickinson said. Dickinson was born in 1899, but because the hospital computer only ready the last two digits it mistook his age as just three years old. “It was a clerical error,” a spokesman for City Hospitals Sunderland said, “I think he was quite amused when he was explaining to the consultant at the hospital why he couldn’t bring his mother and father with him.” Entertaining leaves you with asthma If you are a part of the entertainment industry, then your risk of developing work-related asthma is five-times more than those working in other industries, says a new US study published in Occupational and Environmental Medicine. This increased risk might be because of exposure to chemicals used in art media, stage-set production, theatrical make-up and photography. The research, an analysis of a six-year national health survey between 1988 and 1994, also found that allergies were reported most frequently in the 30-49 year age group. Moreover, 3.7 per cent of those surveyed had work-related asthma and about 11.5 per cent had work-related wheezing. According to study author, Dr Ahmed Arif, an assistant professor of epidemiology at Texas Tech Health Sciences Centre, when extended to the population as a whole, the findings mean that if workplace exposure were eliminated, 36.5 per cent of asthma cases and 28.5 per cent of wheezing would be prevented. Other industries where workers are at a high risk for developing asthma included agriculture, forestry and fishing; rubber, plastics and leather products; lumber and wood products; electrical machinery; transportation equipment and trucking; wholesale trade, repair services; health related services; educational services; and justice, public order and safety industries. ANI |
One day one of the associates of The Prophet came to complain of poverty and removed his shirt to disclose a stone he had kept tied to his stomach owing to pain he was suffering due to hunger caused by fasting and living without food. Mohammed smilingly removed his shirt and lo, there were three stones tied for the same reason and on account of his fast being of a longer duration. The Prophet encouraged him to hold on and go on living and remembering the Lord in spite of all that privation. — vide Fuqrai Islam
*** When a dear friend commented on the worn-out garments and frugal meal of Hazrat Faruq, he said: O, Aiyasha! Have you forgotten the day when the Prophet had only one garment in the house, which he used as a carpet in the day and as a cover at night. Once you had folded it twice to make it into a comfortable bed and when the Prophet had got up in the morning, did he not take you to task for making it so soft that he slept longer and lost some time of his prayer? Remember, lovers of God must decide to give up comforts of the world. They are verily their foes. — From Insaniyat Maut Ke
Darwaze Par *** Before dying, Hazrat Siddiq said, “My coffin should comprise only of the old clothes viz. the three pieces of cloth, I wore in my lifetime”. His daughter said, “Father! we are not so poor as not to afford a new coffin for you.” Answered he, ‘The living need new clothes more than those entering into the grave.” — From Insaniyat Maut Ke Darwaze Par *** “Sir,” said a pupil to his master, “teach me the nature of Brahman.” The master did not reply. When a second and third time he was importuned, he answered: “I teach you indeed, but you do not follow. His name is silence. — Adi Shankaracharya. Cited in Swami Prabhavananda, Spiritual Heritage of India |
 |
| 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 | |
