 |
Friday,
September 6, 2002, Chandigarh, India  
|
Who cares
for the earth? New Delhi
vs Delhi |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
HARI JAISINGH
Display
of negotiating skills
China
wins the trust of America by its silence
Disinvestment
policy: reforms or political blackmail?
|
Who cares for the earth? THE environmental health of the planet did not improve after the path-breaking Earth Summit at Stockholm in 1972. It did not change in spite of the decibel level being raised at Rio in 1992 to a point that ensured the whispered reservations of the rich could be heard across the globe. The message from Johannesburg that hosted the latest round of the World Summit on Sustainable Development is not encouraging either. It is the same old story of the poor being allowed a forum from which they can share with the rest of the world their concerns about environment-related issues. However, in the end it is the will of the rich that prevails. The fact that President George W. Bush did not deem it necessary to be present on the occasion conveyed in clear terms what the USA — the biggest polluter — thought about such summits. At Rio Ms Maneka Gandhi had stolen the thunder by insisting that for a safe and fair world order it was necessary to adopt the principle that made the polluter pay for messing around with the fragile ecology of the planet. She received applause, but at the end of the day countries like the USA continued to add to the rising pollution levels without any sense of remorse. The Earth Summit 10 years ago at Rio de Janeiro grandly resolved to save all nature, from the humblest algae to the majestic elephant. It agreed that the planet’s delicate climate urgently needed protection before global warming rises to dangerous levels. What has been the contribution of the developed countries in heeding to the sos issued by the global community at Rio? They asked the smaller nations to comply with the strict provisions while they busied themselves in buying “unused” greenhouse emission “permits” from countries that in any case do not produce even a fraction of the permissible level. The developed countries make the loudest noise about violation of human rights and yet remain silent when the USA-led action results in innocent deaths in Afghanistan and through unjustified sanctions on Iraq. It delivers sermons on the need to protect the fragile eco-system from further harm and yet turns a blind eye when demands are made for trying those responsible for the world’s worst industrial disaster that visited Bhopal 18 years ago. The multinational corporations and their role in raising the pollution level is not a secret. Union Carbide was responsible for the Bhopal tragedy and the USA did not allow the law to get hold of the guilty for trial in India. In the UK a company by the name of British Nuclear Fuels Ltd dumped approximately 182 kg of plutonium into the Irish sea over the past 50 years. Lobsters from the polluted region and near the Norwegian coast have tested positive of high levels of radioactive contamination. Should anyone be allowed to play in these waters?. What about eating the contaminated seafood? World leaders need to do an honest introspection for saving the planet from certain disaster. They must realise that every living being shares the same earth. If the lungs develop cancer, the rest of the body cannot survive by removing the lungs. The North-South divide over evolving an acceptable strategy for sustainable development is based on flawed understanding of the issues. The effects of the global warming are being felt all over the world and when catastrophe comes visiting it will knock at every door. If the rich nations think they can draw a protective shield and let the rest of the globe perish, they are literally living in a fool’s paradise. |
|
New Delhi vs Delhi THE BJP, the leading constituent of the ruling National Democratic Alliance at the Centre, is showing signs of desperation these days. After getting its image badly sullied over riot-scarred Gujarat, it is on the way to creating a morass for itself in Delhi. With the Delhi Assembly elections being due in November next year, the party is not sure of its performance good enough to replace the present Congress government headed by Ms Shiela Dikshit. Hence the BJP’s efforts through the Central Government not only to create problems for the Opposition regime in Delhi but also to take credit for any major development project undertaken in the Capital. The latest decision of the Centre to strip the Shiela Dikshit government of all its powers should be looked at in this backdrop. The Union Home Ministry has issued a circular stating that the 1998 Transaction of Business Rules, which were brought into force strangely during the government headed by Mr Sahib Singh Verma of the BJP, stand amended. Now all the powers will be vested in Delhi’s Lieutenant-Governor, Mr Vijai Kapoor. This means no legislative and administrative authority with the elected government in Delhi. All decisions will have to be approved by the L-G, who as the President’s representative will be the all-powerful ruler of the National Capital Territory. This amounts to totally altering the situation as it existed earlier with only land, law and order (which means the police) and matters relating to Centre-state relations remaining the responsibility of the Centre. The obvious fallout may be a new phase of confrontation between the Centre (read the BJP) and the Delhi government ( which means the Congress) leading to a lot of chaos in the already chaotic national Capital. If things take a turn for the worse affecting services like power and water supply, people’s ire will naturally be directed at the Delhi government. If the Congress ministry creates hurdles in the way of implementation of any people-friendly decision taken at the L-G’s level, it is bound to have its image impaired in the process. This is strange political engineering to take on an adversary. No one will appreciate it in a democracy where people’s representatives are supposed to have all the legislative powers except in an emergency situation. The trouble began with the attempt to take credit for the Delhi Metro project, which has reached the stage of a trial run. Chief Minister Dikshit says that it was her government which expedited the work on the highly popular project, whereas the Railway and Union Urban Development Ministries (which means the BJP-led Central Government) are making their own
claims. The move for depriving the Delhi government of its powers was, in fact, initiated by the Union Home Ministry by issuing a circular on July 25 stating that in the context of the National Capital Territory the word “government” should be defined as the Lieutenant-Governor. This is a retrograde step, contrary to the BJP Delhi unit’s own demand made earlier for full statehood with the Council of Ministers enjoying all the powers with certain exceptions. But at the moment the circumstances are different and, therefore, a new set of rules. In any case, bringing politics to this level does not behove a party like the BJP. |
Grey areas in Kashmir policy WHITHER
India's Kashmir policy? The one-line answer will be: as confused and confusing as ever. This may be a sweeping statement but the net result of various moves and counter-moves has been more and more confusion. Officially, this assessment may be
pooh-poohed as bakwas, utter rubbish. My reading, however, reflects public perception of Kashmir affairs. Kashmir, for that matter, has become a laboratory, without scientific apparatus, for Delhi to conduct one experiment after another. Each experiment has failed leading to added confusion. If you ask any mainstream politician or a separatist to define New Delhi's Kashmir policy the common refrain is: "It has none and it had none since 1953 when the first Prime Minister Sheikh Abdullah was arrested after he was dismissed." To say this is not to suggest that Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee, Deputy Prime Minister L.K. Advani and other policy-makers in New Delhi don't know what the policy should be and what goals, objectives and targets the government ought to be aiming at to get the desired results. The problem, however, has been with regard to the evolution of a well-focused and well-coordinated policy and its time-bound application by the various agencies and individual players deployed for this purpose. Adhocism is no substitute for a determined policy thrust on the ground, whatever might be the odds. And the odds in the Indian setting are innumerable — from Pakistan to its stooges in the valley plus sinister designs of some global players who wish to hurt Indian interests in the region. The latest addition to the Kashmir serial has been the induction of a committee headed by Mr Ram Jethmalani. This is besides the special assignment given to the BJP General Secretary, Mr Arun Jaitley, who is supposed to interact with various Kashmiri groups and evolve a BJP-centric perspective on Jammu and Kashmir. During Mr Narasimha Rao's regime, Rajesh Pilot was a key player. So was once Mr Arun Nehru. Then, we had the seasoned person in Mr K. C. Pant. The Prime Minister's office and the Home Ministry and related agencies have permanent interests and responsibilities. In recent months, Mr S. K. Dulat, a former Intelligence Director, has been playing an active role in coming to grips with the problem. We cannot overlook the role of the security forces. They have had to bear the brunt of wrong policies and decisions as well as adhocism which look like a permanent weakness of the Delhi establishment. This has resulted in generating more complications and confusion. It is a different matter if the idea is to thrive on confusing signals. The Central Government is, of course, correct in sticking to the election schedule without coming under pressure from the Jethamalani panel, All-Party Hurriyat Conference (APHC) leaders and their patrons in Islamabad, who are certainly not interested in India's electoral exercise in Kashmir. The moot questions are: is there a change of heart on the part of Hurriyat leaders? What exactly do they want? Are they willing to join mainstream politics and test their popularity among the people? Not yet. In any case, the APHC is a divided house. Some of the leaders like Mr Shabir Shah have come out of the Hurriyat umbrella, but they continue to fear the gun of militant groups who create an atmosphere of terror by eliminating those who stand for Kashmiriyat, secularism and the consolidation of the Indian position in the valley. Ironically, Prof Abdul Ghani Bhat, Chairman, APHC, feels that Delhi "has no definite policy on Kashmir and that it "follows the beaten track." Professor Bhat feels that "Kashmir affairs are handled by those who have varied ideologies and perceptions. Hence we have multiplicity of voices from Delhi while they talk about Kashmir affairs or the core issue." The point is that the Central Government is not yet sure of the sort of policies it should pursue on Kashmir. It seems to indulge in a bit of tinkering here and a bit of tinkering there. But in the process, the right focus is lost. Look at some policy statements. On the one side Hurriyat Conference leaders are dubbed as agents of Pakistan and on the other hand feelers are sent to them for negotiations. Nothing wrong in having a dialogue. But New Delhi must be sure of its ground. Even Dr Farooq Abdullah also, directly or indirectly, has been contributing to New Delhi's policy of drift. As a staunch opponent of the Hurriyat Conference, the Chief Minister often comes out with an offer that if it agrees to contest the election "I will recommend imposition of Governor's rule." Earlier he had announced that he would "quit if the Hurriyat leaders decide to take part in the elections." The same Farooq Abdullah has been suggesting to the Centre that if a dialogue was to be held for a settlement of the Kashmir issue it should be held directly with Pakistan and not the Hurriyat. Which policy of Dr Farooq Abdullah is genuine? True, Dr Abdullah is probably the best bet for India at world fora. If New Delhi decides to sideline him, he has the capacity to bounce back by reviving the autonomy and other sensitive issues to embarrass Indian leaders. Looking back, it must be said that one major opportunity for Kashmir settlement had come to New Delhi in the shape of the Hizb ceasefire announced in July, 2000, but the men who matter in Delhi failed to cash in on it. It bungled and caused embarrassment to the Hizb leadership. And those who had played a crucial role in offering a ceasefire today stand expelled from the Hizbul Mujahideen. This was followed by the unilateral ceasefire declaration by the Centre. And surprisingly during this three-month long suspension in combat operations militants got an opportunity to reorganise their bases in various areas of the state. Even the level of infiltration from across the border then increased substantially beyond repair. Let us look at yet another aspect of New Delhi's Kashmir policy: It has often opted for needling Dr Farooq Abdullah who, if not anything else, has been a lone credible voice from Kashmir to indulge in Pakistan bashing. He gives the impression that needlessly pin-pricking him makes him roar fiercely. The Centre should have, instead, concentrated on monitoring the utilisation of central funds. Jammu and Kashmir banks on the Centre as its expenses on established and development works are met by New Delhi to the tune of about 90 per cent. Had these funds been properly utilised its benefits would have percolated to the grassroots level. And that would have made all the difference to the success of the leaders in New Delhi and added to the credibility of India's policy and postures. Looking beyond today, first of all, it must be said that the key to the Kashmir issue these days lies in Washington. This may hurt the nationalists' sentiments and some Indian leaders who often speak against internationalising the issue. Whether we like it or not, the Kashmir issue already stands internationalised. In this context, the wrong policies and moves by New Delhi are as much to blame as are the vested interests of Islamabad and other powers. Second, India's failure to understand the Pakistani mind. I doubt if South Block fully grasps the crafty ways of the military establishment in Islamabad. Not surprisingly, the policy-makers in New Delhi have not been able to set the pace for events and put Pakistan on the right course. For instance, if turning the LoC as an international border is a feasible wayout of the stalemate, then the ground for it should have been set by now. Three, India's failure to eliminate the terrorists operating in the valley and beyond is glaring. This is because of poor house-keeping. The security forces have been unable to deliver the goods because the political masters often work at cross-purposes or are not sure of the task ahead. In contrast, Pakistan has a definite policy on Kashmir. It wants to grab Kashmir by hook or by crook. As for the USA, it delights in acting as a judge, a mediator. Washington would love to intervene and mediate between New Delhi and Islamabad. However, when Indian leaders get jittery US leaders say mediation is possible if New Delhi wants it. All the same, Washington has not desisted from pronouncing judgements. Its leaders have been telling New Delhi to hold talks with separatists. Indian leaders give the impression of buckling under the US pressure. Among all the bunglings the lack of a definite strategy to check infiltration and demolish terrorist bases in the hilly belts of the state is quite glaring. As long as India keeps on dithering on its plan to flush out militants, peace in Kashmir will remain a distant dream. In such a situation Pakistan gets emboldened to adopt belligerent postures against India. Ultimately, the success of Kashmir policy depends on the political will of Indian leaders. They must act firmly, decisively and ruthlessly. The ground realities in the valley and beyond are favourable to New Delhi. The people of Kashmir do not want the rule of the gun. They want peace and development and the restoration of the sufi tradition and Kashmiriyat. Meanwhile, let the security forces do their job and eliminate terrorists and their camps. What we want is fresh thinking on the problems and the evolution of a grand vision for peace and prosperity in the subcontinent, nay, South Asia. |
Display of negotiating skills AWAY from the political cacophony at home, an Indian voice was being heard with considerable attention on issues of sustainable
Though compromise is the essence of global negotiations, India and the developing world came out with honours forcefully putting their point of view. Pitched against the powerful lobby of JUSCANZ (Japan, the United States of America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand), Mr Baalu’s negotiating skills had been praised by all and sundry. Especially the way he argued India’s stand with members of the G-77 which include Brazil, Argentina, Indonesia and Venezuela among others. Next month Mr Baalu will again be in the thick of things in another round of international discussions in New Delhi on climate change. Considering the recent dry spells leading to the damage of crops, this would be of particular interest to agrarian economies. Spanning a political career that started quarter of a century ago from Tallikkottai in Tamil Nadu, Mr Baalu has held important portfolios,
including that of petroleum and natural gas.
Conflict resolution Formerly a professor of international relations at the School of International Studies at Jawaharlal Nehru University, Mr Sondhi was elected to the Lok Sabha from New Delhi in 1967. And rightly so, he, who had resigned from the Indian Foreign Service, had the right credentials as he was not only a scholar of international relations but had also been an active participant in the working of India’s foreign policy. Educated at DAV College, Lyallpur Khalsa College and Law College, Jalandhar, the Delhi School of Economics and Ballilol College, Oxford, Professor Sondhi had topped the UPSC examination and joined the prestigious Indian Foreign Service. Once adored as one of the rising stars of the erstwhile avtar of Bharatiya Janata Party, the Jana Sangh, he found himself totally marginalised during Deputy Prime Minister Lal Krishna Advani’s supremacy in the party. Opposed to the use of religion as a tool of politics, Professor Sondhi brought out a book, “Hinduism with a Human Face”, which he co-authored with his scholar-wife Madhuri, daughter of Pandit K Santanam, Secretary of the Jallianwala Bagh Inquiry Commission report. |
China wins the trust of
America by its silence CHINA remains as unscrutable as ever. What role will it play in Asia and in the world? What is the essence of its policy today? These are serious questions, but the answers remain as unpredictable as ever. And, yet, today, there is a greater need to know China’s mind, if only for the reason that the generation which brought about the Chinese revolution is almost passing away and a new generation is in power. When the tallest of them all — Li Peng and Jiang Zemin — disappear from the scene, China will be engulfed in new convulsions, perhaps more dramatic than what we have seen so far. The new generation after the Cultural Revolution, under the watchful eyes of the Maoists, bristles with passions and prejudices. They may be able to survive in a hostile world but they are out of tune with the aspirations of mankind. But we have to live with them and even work with them to create a better world. But are we in India better informed today about China? We lived in a fool’s paradise for long years. Have we moved out of it? Do we still take Chinese declarations seriously? Do we still think that China is guided by an ideology? That it is of all things a “socialist” state? If we do, we should have our heads examined. India is a close neighbour of China, with links running back to the formative years of the two nations. So is Russia. China owes its present status to Russia. Had it not been for Russia, America would have reversed the Chinese revolution. It was Russia which laid the foundation of modern industrial China. And it is Russia which equipped the Chinese military forces and furnished them with the basic knowhow on nuclear weapons and missiles. And yet China turned hostile. It chose to be an enemy of Russia! And the case against Moscow was that it was “revisionist” — that it was diluting Marxism-Leninism! But China has since given up Marxism-Leninism altogether, and gone for capitalism. By doing so, it gave a body-blow to the world of socialism and made it easier for the imperialist forces to bring down the Soviet Union. Today China is guided by the dictum of Deng Xiaoping: “That cat is best which catches the mice”. A very pragmatic approach. We cannot cavil over the change, for a nation has a right to change its policies. But has it the right to impose its false ideologies on the world? It hasn’t. And yet this was what it tried to do. Has China thought it necessary to express its regret? Not at all. China is a nation with least regard for truth. Even so, it cannot deny that India stood by China in its darkest days. And China paid back with evil. Which is why India can never forget the betrayal of China. China’s aggression on India was unwarranted. It had no excuse whatsoever. It was said that it was done “to teach India a lesson.” For what? For provoking some border skirmishes? Could this “provoke” a war of aggression? It should not. China’s real motive was to humiliate India. But China should have known that nations do not forget national humiliations. Is China able to forget the opium war, Japanese aggression over China and Japan’s biological experiments in China? It cannot. And rightly so. The Jewish people can never forget the holocaust. Today China wants India to forget the Chinese aggression. But how can it when China is in possession of 50,000 sq. km. of Indian territory, when China is the closest ally of India’s No. 1 enemy? When China has equipped Pakistan with nuclear bombs and missiles? No, India cannot forget these things. Nor can it take China as a “friend”. But this is not to say that India cannot have “normal” relations with China. It can and it must. India should come to terms with the new mandarins and warlords. We cannot do this unless we know the nature of the Chinese state, the philosophy of its ruling class and the ethos that animate its people. And above all we must know the aims and objectives of China’s present policies. Let us stop living in fool’s paradise. What, then, is the essence of China’s policies today and its role in the world? China continues to be an expansionist power. Its policy towards Tibet, Taiwan and South China Sea shows that China has not given up its expansionist ambitions. China continues to be an opportunist state. It has no sense of idealism. Even its policy of reering the cat that catches the mice is born of opportunism. For (20) years, America was a bitter enemy of China. Even today America is planning to eliminate China’s leadership. This has not worried China. Its trade with America is far more important. China makes an occasional noise about the need for a multi-polar world. But it will do nothing to advance this cause. Nor is it bothered if America does much harm in the meantime. Today, we know the Chinese leaders better because their masks are worn thin. China, which could have been a positive factor in the world is today a major prop of American global policies, designed first of all to serve American unipolar interests. For us in India, there is only one course open in the face of China’s intransigence and hostility and that is to align with forces which are trying to contain China. It is through the concert of wills of nations that peace and progress can be achieved. We must concert our will for peace and progress with those who think alike with us. I do not think that Mao has destroyed the character and ideals of the Chinese people. That is why when we meet again as “friends” there should be less scars on our bodies to remind us of our conflicts and acrimonies. But China has chosen to inflict more and fresh wounds. However, as a far more mature nation, we owe it to ourselves to act in tolerance. As China’s principal objective in Asia is to dominate the continent it has followed a policy of conflict with most of the major Asian nations. Above all, with India. But that very desire for dominance has raised a clamour in Asia for the American presence. American presence is reassuring. But America has other irons in the fire. America is seeking global dominance. And this time it wants to control nations from within. In early 1993 addressing the American Society of Newspaper Editors, President Clinton made human rights the core of his national security policy. He said: “During the cold war, our foreign policy largely focused on relations among nations, our strategy sought a balance of power to keep peace. Today our policies must also focus on relations within nations — on a nation’s form of government, on its economic structure, on its ethnic tolerance. These are of concern to us...” In short, America wants to take away our sovereignty, to deprive us of our right to shape our destiny. And China is silent over the whole thing! In the sixties, it was by shouting against the Soviet Union that China won the trust of America. Today it wins the trust of America by its silence. |
Disinvestment policy: reforms or political blackmail? INDIA'S disinvestment programme, initially a very successful story, faces rough political weather now. The Prime Minister, after an informal meeting with senior ministers on disinvestment of the oil sector, has fuelled the current controversy. For instance, the Petroleum Minister is worried on being divested of his own controlling powers on the oil companies. He is questioning the very concept of strategic partnership sale method and bringing in security concerns.. He is pleading for a slowdown of this process as he sees danger in the fast track privatisation of the oil sector. Is it a ploy to retain the control of the two oil companies till the next Lok Sabha elections? Setting aside the motives and public posture of the key players, we should address the country's security and mid-course review of the disinvestment policy. The Petroleum Minister has been raising the bogey of security for long. It has to be evaluated in t he context of international experience. Let us look at the most developed and developing countries. The
security concerns of the USA, after the September 11 attacks, are far more serious than those of India. There, 90 per cent of the oil sector is in the hands of the private sector. But private sector cannot, in anyway, subvert the security of the USA or even the distant policy framework affecting the security of the American state. It is a fallacious argument that public sector companies, in a situation of war, would provide fuel to the armed forces only, and that building and safeguarding oil inventories to meet the needs of the Army at the time of hostilities will happen at the cost of public money in the hands of the public sector companies. It is the experience of India's public sector companies that the cost of managing inventories is dear and huge and eats into the profitability of the companies. One needs to assess how the oil sector is a strategic one. Actually, during hostilities or a war-like situation, the Government has enough powers to overtake the management of any company including oil companies. It is better to put resources, including those of oil companies, to use more efficiently. Disinvestment of oil companies is disinvesting the powers of the Oil Minister or disinvesting of oil companies is disinvesting the political control of public sector companies. Consider the petrol pump allotment scam of the Bhartiya Janata Party and how the oil companies have been used by the Petroleum Minister to fill the purses of the RSS and the BJP workers and leaders. On the other hand, opponents of privatisation of oil sector in the name of security concerns, strongly advocated the production of defence equipment in the private sector. If defence production can be in the hands of the private sector, one is doubtful of the genuineness of their arguments about security concerns. The government should shed control of the economy and national resources should be efficiently used and wastages minimised. Disinvestment Minister Arun Shourie has demonstrated enough as to how public sector companies like ITDC and others have been used by the political class, bureaucrats and technocrats. This politician-bureaucrat-technocrat stranglehold on the public sector companies has to go in the interest of the masses of India. Defence Minister George Fernandes, in a letter to the Prime Minister, said the current policy of disinvestment is a failure for two reasons. The strategic partner sale route of disinvestment of public sector companies will give management to a private buyer. It would also create a monopoly with evils like fleecing the consumer with high prices, etc. Mr Fernandes has sudden love for privatisation of the Margaret Thatcher Model. Why? It is privatisation in a more reformed and modernisation of the Britain economy which was never seen in its economic history. So, it is not unnatural for the committed Labour Party under Tony Blair to further the agenda of privatisation with his political philosophy of a “Third Way”. However, Mr Fernandes has to see whether the widespread sale of equity of public sector companies in Britain brought a private management of those companies or a management under the garb of a new professional class which is more responsible for failing the disinvesting plan of the British Railways, from which he wants a lesson to be drawn for India. It is nice to hear about the Indian political class opposing globalisation starting to learn from global experience of managing an economy. But one has to be honest in drawing lessons from the experience of managing an economy elsewhere, particularly from the partial failure of the British Model in the privatisation of a big company like the British Railways. The Report on Disinvestment Commission led by Mr
G. V. Ramakrishnan has argued the pros and cons of the policy in general and the widespread sale of the equity and the strategic partner choice, in particular. It has preferred a strategic sale that brings a “performing management”, replacing the inefficient and government-interfered management as in the case of the Indian Oil Corporation (IOC), almost a monopoly controlling 57 per cent of the oil sector. Compared to its turnover of Rs 1,20,000 crore, the net profit shown is about 2,000 crore. The Reliance petrochemicals, with a just Rs 30,000 crore turnover, earns much more profit than the IOC does. One would certainly think of the IOC being sold to a private player and generating profits on a scale of efficiency as that of Reliance, a private company, earning profits of Rs 15,000 crore a year. The profits of this oil company can be used to eradicate poverty in a State. In just two years, with Rs 30,000 crores of investment, Orissa would be made the most prosperous State. Instead of wasting resources, we can produce surpluses to finance our growth needs by infusing the efficiency of the private players into the oil sector. Alternatively, mass consumers could be benefited, as the calculations of oil industry research indicate that it would be possible to sell petrol and diesel at Rs 4 a litre cheaper in one go. By keeping the oil companies in the public sector, are we benefiting the common consumers in the country, in whose name the whole battle against disinvestment is being fought?
Wouldn't be in national interest if the public sector releases the funds for national development and directly help the poor masses? It is the public sector monopoly that has robbed the country's resources, which are being pocketed by the Indian political class and the controllers of the public sector — bureaucrats and technocrats. Let the current turf war in the NDA not derail the great economic reforms initiated by Dr Manmohan Singh. Let the reforms be pursued to their logical end. Let the whole process of disinvestment be open, transparent and accountable so that people exercise their right to debate. Let it not be just a confidential matter between Mr Fernandes and Mr
Vajpayee with no public debate and using it as an instrument of political blackmail against economic reformers. The writer is Member of the Punjab Legislative Assembly and a former Member of Parliament. |
Open the doors, let the conch-shells be sounded! In the depth of the night has come the king of our dark, dreary house. The thunder roars in the sky. The darkness shudders with lightning. Bring out thy tattered piece of mat and spread it in the courtyard. With the storm has come of a sudden our king of the fearful night. I asked nothing from thee. I uttered not my name to thine ear. When thou took’st thy leave I stood silent. I was alone by the well where the shadow of the tree fell aslant, and the women had gone home with their brown earthen pitchers full to the brim. They called me and shouted, ‘Come with us, the morning is wearing on to noon.’ But I languidly lingered awhile lost in the midst of vague musings. I heard not thy steps as thou camest. Thine eyes were sad when they fell on me; thy voice was tired as thou spokest low — ‘Ah, I am a thirsty traveller. I started up from my day-dreams and poured water from my jar on thy joined palms. The leaves rustled overhead; the cuckoo sang from the unseen dark, and perfume of babla flowers came from the bend of the road. I stood speechless with shame when my name thou didst ask. Indeed, what had I done for thee to keep me in remembrance? But the memory that I could give water to thee to allay thy thirst will cling to my heart and enfold it in sweetness. The morning hour is late, the bird sings in weary notes, neem leaves rustle overhead and I
sit and think and think. — Gitanjali, Rabindranath Tagore *** One who has identified his own self with the body in which it is encased is extremely afraid of death, seeing therein his own destruction and separation from friends. — Samadhi Shataka |
 |
| 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 | |
development. Union Minister of Environment and Forests T. R. Baalu was in the thick of intense multilateral deliberations on sustainable development at the Earth Summit in Johannesburg. To his credit, Mr Baalu was successful in convincing the Third World in veering round to the view that the developed world should stand by the Rio principles that were agreed to at the 1992 Earth Summit. 
Post-Godhra events in the coastal state of Gujarat shook 69-year-old Prof Manohar Lal Sondhi so much that he decided to bring out a collection of writings on the human tragedy. A scholar of Conflict Management and Peace Studies, Professor Sondhi’s 465 pages “The Black Book of Gujarat”, which was released by Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Farooq Abdullah in the Capital last week, looks upon the happenings in Gujarat as both a part of historical truth and as a lesson for
humankind to retrieve approaches to conflict resolution and communal harmony.