 |
|
Sangma’s solo Plus is no
plus |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Party time
Indo-US strategic ties
Baliheads from Indonesia
Saving a relationship is in the interest of all
CONSUMER RIGHTS
|
Sangma’s solo FORMER Speaker P. A. Sangma's announcement about his decision to sever ties with the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) is not likely to surprise anyone. His continuance in the NCP, which he, Mr Tariq Anwar and Mr Sharad Pawar had launched to campaign on the issue of Ms Sonia Gandhi's foreign origin, had become untenable after the Maharashtra leader had decided to align with the Congress. What is surprising is that he continued in the party for so long even after the NCP and the Congress had come together to provide an alternative to the Shiv Sena-BJP government. Unlike Mr Pawar and Mr Anwar, the man from Meghalaya seems to have almost a congenital hatred for the Congress chief and hence cannot have any truck with her. That he has no problems in aligning himself with the BJP is well known. He has the distinction of addressing a training camp for BJP MPs, an honour, which is not accorded easily to non-Parivar leaders. While Mr Sangma's desire to have a government of his own in Meghalaya remains unfulfilled, he has ensured that he will not be all alone when he hitches his wagon to the National Democratic Alliance. He has already brought together a large number of non-Congress parties in the Northeast under the umbrella of the Northeast Political Forum. Once the Forum is expanded to include the Asom Gana Parishad, which is now in the doldrums, he hopes, it would be able to give the Congress a run for its money in the Northeast. Nothing could be more pleasing for the BJP, which traditionally has not enjoyed any support in the region, than to have a piggyback ride, courtesy Mr Sangma's brainchild. Compared to him, Mr Pawar has many a problem to contend with. It is true that he had the option of choosing between the Congress and the NDA. But for all practical purposes, there was no choice at all. For instance, if he had somehow aligned with the Shiv Sena-BJP combine, his party would have been relegated to the third position and he would have cut a sorry figure among his partymen. As regards the Congress, he can at least bargain from a position of strength, if not as an equal. Besides, having worked with the Congress, he knows only too well that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. |
|
Plus is no plus INDO-Pakistan trade relations have often been hostage to the Kashmir issue. But change is in the offing. Pakistan has now offered India “MFN-Plus status”, details of which will be worked out by officials of the two countries in the coming weeks. This change of heart comes after the recently signed South Asian Free Trade Area (SAFTA) treaty. While India had long ago granted Pakistan the most favoured nation status, the latter had linked trade ties with Kashmir. The recent SAARC summit in Islamabad has provided Pakistan an opportunity to break this link. After 20 years, SAARC has achieved a breakthrough. India has offered its neighbours $100 million for poverty alleviation, while Pakistan has promised help in getting Central Asian oil and gas for the region. Having no MFN status may create some hurdles, but MFN itself does not automatically contribute to the growth of trade. Growth compulsions require every country to promote external trade with any and every country from where returns are maximum. So, the two countries need to rise above the temptation of scoring points like Pakistan adding the word “Plus” to MFN. The harsh reality is that by diverting their limited resources to defence build-up, both countries have hampered development. Instead of benefiting from their geographical proximity, South Asian countries have been imposing punitive taxes on one another’s imports. Only 5 per cent of their official trade is within the region. Pakistan has been getting Indian products via Dubai and Colombo, adding to their costs. Pakistanis, for instance, spend Rs 3 lakh on a car (Maruti 800) that can be imported from India for just Rs 2 lakh or so. They can buy direct from India their requirements like automobiles, engineering goods, basic chemicals, drugs, processed foods, tea, sugar, betel leaves and Hindi films and music. Similarly, Indians too can cut their costs by shopping in Pakistan. The resumption of Samjhauta Express will perk up trade activity in Punjab. The health and tourism sectors can be tapped for mutual benefit. The obvious need is to divorce trade from politics. |
|
Party time MR KALYAN SINGH’S birthday bash came a tad early. Yet, his sharp nose could smell the whiff of Lok Sabha elections in the air. He made sure that leaders from rival camps did not forget to greet him. Mr M. Karunanidhi did not allow the suspense to linger. Now it is the turn of Mr Sharad Pawar, Ms Jayalalithaa and Ms Mayawati to hog the seasonal limelight. For smaller parties, the election season is like the wedding season. An honest broker would recommend the BJP as a better prospective groom than the Congress. One is in the process of offering sops while the other can only make promises. Two leading prima donnas of Indian politics are waiting for the right political mahurat. Both Ms Jayalalithaa and Ms Mayawati are street smart and know the art of keeping the political suitors guessing. Ms Sonia Gandhi has to play the role of the elder of the family looking for suitable brides for the Congress. The wise ones say that a woman's "no" should not be taken at face value. The Tamil Nadu leader has indicated that she still has an open mind on the question of having allies. In any case, the BJP would not mind having her in the NDA despite her none-too-pleasing record. Ms Mayawati accepted gifts and greetings from all on her birthday. She has now acquired the status of a priest who does not necessarily bless even those who have offered "dakshina". Reading tealeaves is an art. But reading the significance of a tea party is a greater art. In the popular mind an invitation to dinner gets more marks than the one in which only tea is served. Mrs Sonia Gandhi's forced smile after the high tea at Mr Pawar's residence somehow did not match what she claimed had been achieved during the interaction with an "old friend and colleague". Thought for the day I am too much of a sceptic to deny the possibility of anything.
— T.H. Huxley |
Indo-US strategic ties IN identical statements on January 13, President Bush and Prime Minister Vajpayee jointly announced the concretisation of a new strategic equation between India and the United States. The statement by Mr Bush was issued at Monterrey in Mexico where he was participating in a meeting of South American Heads of State. Mr Vajpayee’s statement came in New Delhi. The two Heads of Government announced that India and the US had agreed to expand cooperation in the areas of civilian nuclear activities, civilian space programmes and high technology trade. Both sides also agreed to commence negotiations on missile defence and related issues. It is pertinent to reproduce the text of the rationale that Mr Bush gave for this important agreement. He said: “We are partners in the war on terrorism and we are partners in controlling the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and means to deliver them. The vision of the US-India strategic partnership which Prime Minister Vajpayee and I share is now becoming a reality. The expanded cooperation is an important milestone in transforming the relationship between the US and India, based increasingly on common values and common interests. The agreement will deepen the ties of commerce and friendship between our two nations, and will increase stability in Asia and beyond”. The policy pronouncement on January 13, is the result of painstaking negotiations at official and diplomatic levels between the two countries spread over the last 18 months or so. Mr Brajesh Mishra’s interaction with his US counterparts laid the foundation for these agreements. Former Foreign Secretary Kanwal Sibal held discussions with US Under Secretary for Commerce Kenneth Juster. Details of these agreements were negotiated at several meetings of the Indo-US High Technology Cooperation Group. Indo-US relations have had their hiccups since 1998, when India conducted its nuclear tests and also expanded its military missile capacities. India’s disappointment over the US involvement with the Musharraf government and India’s reticence about responding to the US invitation to send Indian troops to Iraq did affect the evolving positive chemistry in Indo-US relations in the early 1990s. Differences of opinion on these points, however, did not influence the broad constructive orientations in Indo-US interaction as is evident from this latest high-level policy statement on strategic cooperation, issued simultaneously by Mr Bush and Mr Vajpayee. The factors which contributed to the process are the personal equation between the two leaders. Secondly, the general supportive posture adopted by India in favour of the US on a number of important policy decisions taken by President Bush regarding national missile defence and theatre missile defence, the stabilisation of Afghanistan and the US regional policies related to Asia contributed to this. Mr Bush acknowledging the existentialist reality of India becoming a nuclear weapons power and India’s policy decision not to conduct further nuclear tests and to abide by the non-proliferation export control regimes neutralised the differences of opinion on India’s nuclear weaponisation to a great extent. The policies of reforms and liberalisation of India’s economy also evoked a positive response from the US. There is a contentful convergence of interests between India and the US on countering international terrorism and religious extremism. Overarching these factors is the perception in the US establishment that in the post-Cold War era, India as a stable democracy, based on institutional solidity, can be a more reliable partner in the US policy objectives in the Asian region. This US perception has translated into expanded economic relations as well as greater cooperation between the defence establishments of the two countries. India taking the initiative in restoring a dialogue with Pakistan strengthened this perception about India as a rational and stabilising factor in West Asian and South Asian regions which are in ferment due to the recent developments in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. These positive trends were backed up by the strategic community and think-tanks in both countries which interacted with each other on a continuous basis over the last five years or so. An example of the significance of these non-governmental contacts is the report on “New Priorities in South Asia, US Policy toward India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan,” prepared by an independent task force of former ambassadors under the auspices of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Asia Society of the US. The agreement between Mr Vajpayee and Mr Bush will result in US assistance in safety for India’s nuclear facilities. It will lead to cooperation between the two nuclear regulatory agencies, and the joint production of civilian satellites. It will also result in easing the unilateral licensing requirements for the transfer of high technology and dual-use technology items for India. The negotiations on missile defence for India indicate an inclination on the part of the US to provide some kind of a missile defence umbrella to India in tandem with the Indian missile defence programme. The political and strategic implications of the Vajpayee-Bush statements are worth noting. The US decision to engage India in the spheres of peaceful uses of nuclear energy and space, and to cooperate in missile defence indicates that the US and India have to put their disagreements and apprehensions about India’s nuclear and missile weapons behind them. There is a sufficient climate of trust between the two countries to move forward for cooperation in these sensitive fields. Mr Bush’s statement that India is a partner and that this partnership will increase stability in Asia and beyond is an acknowledgement of India assuming a significant position in the US strategic and security plans in Asia. This assessment finds confirmation in the National Security Paper issued by the National Security Council of the US in September 2002, where there are specific references to India’s potentialities as a partner of the US. Having referred to these positive implications of the Bush-Vajpayee statement and the follow-up action which Foreign Minister Yashwant Sinha will take in Washington, it is necessary to assess the impact of the developing Indo-US equations. India would have to be sensitive and alert about reactions from Russia, China and Pakistan to this development. The equations with the US should not negatively affect India’s relations with China and Russia. One has to examine whether the nuclear, space and missile cooperation will result in the US desiring a quid pro quo in capping or restricting India’s freedom of options to sustain its nuclear and missile defence capacities. Will these agreements increase the US pressures on India to compromise with Pakistan on Kashmir beyond the threshold which India can reasonably cover India will have to tailor its export control regimes conforming to US standards which is not difficult. The question is how fast India can do this without eroding its political autonomy while dealing with the issue. US policies regarding not exporting civilian nuclear plants to India or not cooperating with India on joint space launches are not going to change. Will there be indirect pressures on India to fashion its policies towards Iran in conformity with the US apprehensions and attitudes towards that country. India will have to carefully calibrate its policies on these issues while moving ahead to translate the policy decisions of the January 13 joint statement into operational realities. There are also indications that this process would be gradual. Mr Mark Grossman, US Under Secretary of State, stated in a Press briefing on the Bush-Vajpayee statement in Washington that while the joint statement indicated a significant stage in Indo-US relations, the implementation of the proposals would take time. One suspects that the same reaction would be there from the Indian establishment also, given the issues to be sorted out. India’s approach should be to assiduously build relations with the US on the basis of this strategic agreement without losing the freedom to take
decisions. The writer is a former Foreign Secretary of India. |
Baliheads from Indonesia IN 1957, our Prime Minister, daughter Indira and her two sons were received at Jakarta jetty by President Sukarno while bands played Indonesian and Indian national anthems. Savouring freedom from Dutch yoke, crowds shouted Sukarno — Nehru “ding-dingo” (long live) this warm display of affection was witnessed there when Pandit Nehru embarked on board the flagship of India and escorted by three destroyers steamed into Jakarta harbour. Official formalities over, the Indian ship companies were divided into groups for sightseeing. I happened to be in the group proceeding to Surabaya and Denapasar in Islands of Bali. We were ferried across to the Sagar tourist jetty. After visiting ancient Hindu temple of Pura Tirtha Empal (Temple of bubbling elixir) built by King Mayadanava we went round the streets of Denapasar for much sought after Baliheads. Bali is the heart of 17000 islands which comprise Indonesian archipelago, Pandit Nehru paid Bali lyrical tribute by calling it as the morning of the world. During the evening party President Sukarno brought his child daughter in tow. She was fondly referred to as Sukarnoputri Megawati and is at present President of Indonesia. At Surabaya we witnessed a boat launch ceremony where a small congregation was invoking blessings of Aditi through vedic hymns. Dozens of ebony coloured hardwood Baliheads were purchased during day-long brisk shopping in that divine island where Indians are greeted with fraternal respect. During visit to botanical gardens next day sarpagandha, broad leaf tulsi plants and rudraksh trees were shown to us. We returned to Mumbai via Singapore after completing a circuitous voyage. The Prime Minister and family had returned to Delhi by air. My friends NN Pai, an economist, and Pratap Bhogilal, an industrialist, resided at Malabar Hill, Mumbai. They were much excited to learn that I had brought finely carved Baliheads from Indonesia for them. They invited me to join them for breakfast on top floor of the Bakhatawar building one Sunday morning . As I entered the roof garden I was introduced to six others present there by Mr Pai, including one Mr Premji who said he was carrying out small business of manufacturing refined oil and shikakai soap. Utter humility of the person impressed me. I handed over to him a pamphlet in Sanskrit on Rudraksh tree similar to one I saw in Bali assuming all along that Premji was a Hindu bhakta. Seated next, Mr Bhogilal assessed the situation and loudly announced that he was going to introduce the energetic entrepreneur in detail. His friend Azimbhai from a known Muslim family had shown a wonderful sense of honesty, diligence, business acumen and love for his country. I felt relieved to know the full name of Mr Premji, otherwise I would have continued with my version of Puranik links of rudraksha mala while talking to Azimbhai! Looking back more than 40 years I feel proud to have talked to such a distinguished son of India. Earlier, I did not know his full name. Azimbhai Premji of Wipro a farsighted businessman, and a nationalist above politics ranks now as the richest industrialist of India Azimbhai still smiles affectionately when strangers engage in conversation with him as Premji Bhai only instead of Azim
Premji. |
Saving a relationship is in the interest of all
Though statistics might reveal an improvement in the level of freedom enjoyed by married women in India, yet a key point that still remains unaddressed is whether an average Indian household woman has earned her basic right to a respectable married life? Is she really free to make a choice between living in an abusive and detrimental relationship and breaking away from it when she knows that her situation is unlikely to improve and is beyond her tolerance? The psychology that in order to enjoy a respectable status in society a woman should make every effort to save her strained married life even at the cost of bearing maltreatment and physical abuse at her marital home, cuts across caste, creed, religion and class in India. A few women who have been courageous enough to raise their voice against the injustice and abuse meted out to them at their matrimonial homes are either silenced by their in-laws, or worse, suppressed by their own parents. In most of the complaints heard at the Woman and Child Support Unit (W&CS Unit), parents usually show an inclination to send their daughter back to her marital home after obtaining reassurances from her husband and in-laws. This is notwithstanding the fact that the latter may have made several such promises and agreements in the past before the complaint was filed but yet have failed to fulfil them. Take the case of Neeta (name changed) and her husband Sanjay. In her complaint to the W&CS Unit filed in March last year, Neeta had complained that her husband all through the six years of their married life had continually subjected her to physical and mental torture. The couple, in their early thirties, belonged to an upper middle class background and had a five-year-old daughter. According to Neeta, Sanjay would resort to beating her at even the slightest pretext. The torture and trauma was so severe that Neeta had on a few occasions even been forced to seek medical help. The situation had only deteriorated over the years since every time Neeta left her matrimonial home, her parents sought a compromise and sent her back to Sanjay. In fact, even while Neeta’s complaint was being heard at the W&CS Unit, apparently the decision to send Neeta back had already been taken by her parents and they simply needed some reassurances through police intervention. They were reluctant to consider the option of Neeta separating from her husband and staying with them even if that is what she desired. A sensitive point that emerges form such cases is whether a woman should suffer physical and mental abuse to save her marriage, to protect the interests of her children and to avoid the “wrath” of society, or should she instead go in for separation after feeling certain that the situation is unlikely to improve despite all possible efforts and precautionary measures and that she can no longer tolerate further humiliation. Though there can be no simple formula or generalised answers since every marital dispute is determined by its own peculiar characteristics and history, yet a pattern that runs common to most of the cases is that it is very rarely a woman herself who takes decisions about the future of her married life. She is mostly influenced either by priorities of her parents or relatives, or by society. What is crucial is that the freedom to make the most important decision of her married life should only belong to a woman and should not be subjected to pressures from her parents or in-laws. Take the case of Paramjit who filed a complaint at the W&CS Unit in October last year after she had a fight with her husband Surinder. The couple in their mid twenties, belonged to the upper middle class, had been married for two years and had a one-year-old daughter. Though the couple apparently did not have irreconcilable differences and Paramjit did show an inclination to return to her husband and her in-laws, yet her parents demanded a separation for their daughter. They felt that Surinder did not respect them enough and was unfit to be their son-in-law. The excessive involvement of everyone in the future of Paramjit’s married life was evident from the fact that even a shopkeeper who lived near Paramjit’s house came forward to express disagreement on sending the girl back. Every marriage has its share of ups and downs. But to overcome differences and to strive for a sound relationship is in the best interest of both partners, children, if any, and the society at large. But while this thought guides the psychology of most of the people, it is equally important to remember and recognise that there are certain relationships which get damaged beyond repair and it is important that they should be ended gracefully. More importantly, a woman should be given complete freedom to decide what she thinks is best for her. Rather than living in an abusive relationship with the false hope that things would some day improve or to satisfy the interests of her parents or society, a woman has to safeguard her self-respect first. The rest will fall in place. The writer is a counsellor at the Family Counselling Centre of the Woman and Child Support Unit, Chandigarh |
|
CONSUMER RIGHTS THESE days, credit card companies, airlines, shopping malls and large retail outlets are coaxing you to buy more or travel more so as to increase your chances of winning a bumper prize, which in most cases is a luxury car. Well, that’s certainly tempting, but don’t let them lure you into buying more than you wanted to or using your card much more than necessary. However, if you do happen to be the lucky one, but are denied the prize, what would you do? Well, in that event, you can seek the intervention of the consumer forum to get what is due to you. Mr P.Raman did exactly that when he was denied a Maruti Omni, despite having won the bumper prize in a lucky draw. This was not a lottery announced by a shopping mall, but by the government and yet, he had to knock at the doors of the consumer court to get his prize! Under a central government scheme aimed at mobilising funds for developmental activities , the Tamil Nadu government had announced a district level “Gift-linked savings mobilisation scheme”. All those who invested over Rs 500 were eligible for the draw of lots and were given gift coupons. The person who bagged the bumper prize had an option to choose either a Maruti Omni or a 25 HP HMT tractor with a trailer. Mr Raman invested Rs 5,000 in a time deposit and was given a passbook and the gift coupons. When the bumper prize was announced, Raman was overjoyed — he had won the bumper prize. The thrill was, however, short-lived. His prize-winning ticket and the passbook were taken away by the village Tehsildar and the Block Development Officer for verification of the ticket. Subsequently, the passbook was returned and he was promised that he would get the prize of his choice. After waiting in vain for some time when he made enquiries, he was informed that the prize was won by another Raman in the same village, who also had invested Rs 5,000. His petition to the Collectorate too did not merit any positive response. The consumer court at the state level, to which Mr Raman appealed, however, found, at the fag end of the hearing that the other Raman had not been given the prize either. This led the Commission to make some enquiries and reopen the case. While examining several people involved in the scheme, the Commission also learnt that the Office of the Collectorate maintained a ‘gift coupon issue’ register pertaining to CH and CI series. Since the register contained the full name and address of the persons to whom the gift coupons were issued and the coupon numbers, the Commission asked the Collectorate to produce the register. Despite adjourning the case thrice to give the Collectorate time to search for the register, it was not produced and eventually the Commission was told that the register was not traceable. On the basis of the evidence produced and the examination of several witnesses brought before it, the Commission concluded that the complainant was indeed the winner and had been wrongly denied the bumper prize. The Commission passed some strictures against the Collectorate for having harassed a poor villager and ordered that he be given the car or the tractor, as per his choice. So if you have a problem getting the promised prize or gift, remember the consumer courts are there for you. However, keep the cash receipt and the gift coupon safe. It’s best to hand over the coupon at the time of collecting the prize. In case you need to give it early, keep a photocopy and get the person who collects the original to give a receipt for it. |
Realisation of Truth is impossible without non-violence. Brhamacharya (celibacy), asteya (non-stealing), aparigraha (non-possession) are means to achieve Ahimsa. — Mahatma Gandhi Everyone is answerable to God. No one is saved but for his good deeds. — Guru Nanak An entity cannot be judged diversely to be of such a kind, and not to be of such a kind, to be existent and non-existent (simultaneously). Options depend on human notions, whereas the valid knowledge of the true nature of a thing is not dependent on human notions. — Shri Adi
Shankaracharya Prejudice is the reason of fools. — Voltaire Let us preach where we all agree and leave the differences to remedy themselves. — Swami Vivekananda |
| HOME PAGE | |
Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir |
Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs |
Nation | Opinions | | Business | Sports | World | Mailbag | Chandigarh | Ludhiana | National Capital | | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |
THE year: 1861. The scene: A woman is burnt alive by her husband and her in-laws for want of dowry. The year: 2003. The incident: A young woman, Sameena, mother of a five-year-old daughter, is burnt alive in Chandigarh. The reasons for the crime in both situations may vary, yet the fundamental reality that has not changed in a seemingly endless time span is the dismal status of many married Indian women. Such is the gravity of the situation that many married women even today continue to be deprived of their most basic right: the right to life.