The two leaders have given no time-frame on the Kashmir question, even otherwise not in the realm of possibility. They will have to look for ways for finding a mutually acceptable solution. This means no urgency may be shown in this regard. Terrorism will be tackled in accordance with the January 6 joint statement issued at Islamabad. But it remains to be seen how far Pakistan is prepared to go in pursuing Kashmir-centric terrorists and winding up their training camps. It is heartening to note that the significance of confidence-building measures (CBMs) has been underlined by Pakistan too. The CBMs have been playing a unique role in creating an atmosphere of understanding and an urge for friendship that can be seen on both sides of the divide today.

Although terrorism ended in the early nineties of the last century, Punjab remains a heavily policed state. Medals and quick promotions to police officers risking their lives to curb militancy were understandable then, but the top officers continue to be pampered. Well-entrenched interests do not let things change easily. Besides, the police is heavily politicised. The force is often misused to settle political scores and influence elections— from the panchayat to parliamentary level. Both Congressmen and Akalis have often used the selected police officers for wrong ends.

The would-be head of government, popularly known as General SBY, has the image of a tough and caring administrator which he earned as the Security Minister in the Megawati government. He may launch a concerted drive against those suspected to have links with Al-Qaida like the Jemaah Islamiya whose activities have created an atmosphere of insecurity throughout the country. Three major terrorist attacks — the 2002 bomb blasts in Bali, the 2003 attack on Marriott Hotel in Jakarta and the September 9 truck bombing outside the Australian Embassy this year — in Indonesia after 9/11 had forced many foreign investors to move out of this country. The situation is likely to change after the formation of the new government.

Dr Ahluwalia was working with the IMF before he moved into Yojana Bhavan. He was associated with the World Bank in Washington DC during the late1960s and the early 1970s. It does not require a genius, leave alone an eminent economist like him, to be aware of the fact that mere mention of consultations with the Bank or the Fund to a communist is akin to waving a proverbial red rag before a raging bull. What is, however, interesting is that Dr Ahluwalia’s actions seem to have united the Left with its arch political opponents in the Bharatiya Janata Party and its ideological parent, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. Socialist George Fernandes, convener of the National Democratic Alliance, too has decided to support the communist parties on this issue.

Let us consider the arguments in favour of inducting consultants representing foreign organisations in the planning process. In his letter to leaders of the Left parties, Dr Ahluwalia claimed that the consultative groups would not be “committees of outsiders”, that there was “enormous expertise” outside the Indian government and that it was necessary for the Planning Commission to make itself aware of the views of these experts instead of relying on one set of bureaucrats commenting on the views of another group of civil servants. He added that the members of the consultative groups would include experts from different walks of life, including representatives of the trade unions supported by the communist parties.

Dr Ahluwalia reportedly stated: “Representatives of the World Bank and the ADB have been included in four of these groups that deal with areas in which these agencies are actively involved in supporting the Central government or state government projects … By including individuals from outside the government in the consultative groups, we are not in any way handing over to them critical decision making involved in the mid-term appraisal on policies and policy corrections that need to be introduced to achieve the objectives laid out in the National Common Minimum Programme.”

In his letter to leaders of the Left parties, he wrote: “… we recognise fully that the individuals whom we hear have their own agendas, but I would like to assure you that we will subject the views expressed in our consultative process to careful professional scrutiny”. Moreover, he stated that the multilateral institutions “in any case interact regularly” with Central and state government agencies and “this has in the past also included the Planning Commission”.

Going beyond this formal response, those critical of the Left position claim the Marxists are being hypocritical since the West Bengal government has obtained a loan from the ADB for the urban renewal of Kolkata. The CPM-led Left Front government in the state had also engaged McKinsey to prepare reports on information technology, agriculture and the state’s overall industrial potential. The counter-argument of the communists is that borrowing money from a multilateral funding agency is one thing; seeking its advice on policy matters is a different kettle of fish altogether. As Mr A. B. Bardhan, General Secretary of the Communist Party of India, asked: “… one can certainly informally consult and interact with as many experts as one wishes … (but) why institutionalise the process by including representatives of such foreign institutions in regularly constituted panels?”

While the position of the Left has been described as xenophobic, the Marxists argue that they have nothing against particular individuals but are opposed to the policies propounded by the organisations they represent. The country’s first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, and the father of Indian planning, Dr P. C. Mahalanobis, had both solicited the advice of eminent foreign economists but they were brought in as consultants in their individual capacities and not as representatives of multilateral funding agencies or consultancy firms. No hue and cry was raised at that time.

A number of prominent economists who had worked with the World Bank are today its bitter critics. Among them are Mr Joseph Stiglitz and Mr Jeffrey Sachs. Both today wonder whether a select coterie of economists situated at Washington’s 19th Street should be dictating economic policies to the governments of the countries in which billions of poor people live. The supporters of the World Bank and the IMF, however, say these two agencies have learnt from the mistakes of the past and have become more responsive to the aspirations of developing countries.

Nevertheless, the communists remain rather wary of the policies of the Fund and the Bank. They claim that these agencies act on behalf of American interests and prescribe “one-size-fits-all” policies that are usually detrimental for developing countries. Typical Fund-Bank policies include outright privatisation of all public sector undertakings, currency devaluation, elimination of subsidies aimed at helping the poor, user charges for the use of public utilities, cuts in customs tariffs in the name of globalisation and removal of controls on capital account transactions. The mindless application of such policies has wreaked havoc on the economies of many countries all over the world, from Russia to South Asia, East Asia and Latin America.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has surely not forgotten the difficulties he faced in 1991 and 1992 convincing his political opponents (which included the Left at that time) that he had not compromised the country’s economic sovereignty by obtaining a $ 5 billion structural adjustment loan from the IMF. He had vociferously argued then that the Fund’s 3D prescription – deflate, devalue and deregulate – would be good for India. In subsequent years, however, Dr Singh tried to restore the sharp cuts that had been made to the government’s capital expenditure on health and education during those difficult years.

If I came back late I would see wild rabbits jumping around in the grass under the fruit trees, unfazed either by the security lights or by the loud noise that my battered, old Sumo made as it came to a sharp halt in the porch.

And in the morning, on Sundays, I would find hundreds of partridges foraging for seeds in my front lawn followed by graceful egrets searching for insects and worms.

One, clear, bright, Sunday afternoon as I sat in the porch reading a book I looked up and saw a beautiful green snake racing across the grass. I have never seen anything more breathtaking. The shades of green were fresh and crisp and the movement was sensuous in its speed and elegance. All my cumulative dread of snakes disappeared in an instant and I wished I had been sitting close enough to caress it as it slithered past.

The stairwell of the house has long narrow windows of filmed glass.

When you look in you see only your reflection. But you can look out.

Every morning a beautiful peacock would step up to the lowest of these windows, look carefully at his reflection, then suddenly jump into the air and attack the “other peacock” with his beak. Then frightened by his failure he would run away. Yet he came back each morning to repeat this manoeuvre at such a precise time that you could set your watch by it. It became a family event – specially enjoyed by my grandchildren.

Then the world of development caught up with this quiet corner of Mohali. The school had been without a boundary wall for 25 years and now the shrubs and trees on the periphery were cleared to make way for a smart brick-faced wall. The bank of eucalyptus was felled to make place for a new parking lot and on a quieter part of the lot a massive three-storied building came up to accommodate the junior school.

For implementation of contract farming, Punjab Agro Foodgrains Corporation Ltd. (PAFC) was made the nodal agency. The companies involved include Rallis India, Pepsi Foods, Mahindra Shubhlabh Services and Advanta India.

Since PAFC did not have field staff at the block/village level, it largely relied upon Agriculture Development officers posted at the block level for enabling private (big) companies to have contracts with farmers for specific crops. These companies did not have their network at the block/city level. Therefore, they appointed dealers/traders, who could enter into contract with farmers on behalf of the companies.

The purpose of contract farming has been to shift area from wheat and paddy to hyola (gobhi sarson), barley, winter maize, durum wheat, sunflower, spring corn, Basmati, kharif corn, guar gum, castor/jastropha, groundnut, organic Basmati, vegetables, fodder and horticulture.

The working of contract farming has not produced the desired results. The expected four lakh acres of area away from wheat and paddy cultivation has not been achieved during 2003-04. In fact, the area under both these crops has increased. The statistics available with the Agriculture Department of the state show the area under paddy has increased from 25.30 lakh hectares in 2002-03 to 26.14 lakh hectares in 2003-04. The area under wheat has increased from 33.75 lakh hectares to 34.40 lakh hectares during this period. In kharif crops the areas had declined under oilseeds and sugarcane while in rabi crops there is a marginal increase in the area under pulses and oilseeds.

The investigation into the working of contract farming has brought out a number of problems for farmers in relation to private companies. Farmers of Sudran (Dera Bassi), Ajrawar (Rajpura), Ramgarh Chhanna (Nabha) and Khatriwal (Samana) villages complained to the Chief Agricultural Officer, Patiala, about the inferior quality of seed hyola supplied, leading to a low level of sprouting of the seed or mixed varieties of plants of hyola and mustard affecting the quality of the produce.

The farmers of Sudhoheri and Saholi filed a complaint against the inferior quality of seed supplied for the crops of peas, carrot, and sweet chilly. The farmers of Samana and Asarpur Chupki (Samana) found that seed of winter maize supplied by private companies did not sprout properly and the number of plants grown was much less than the requisite quantity.

Most of the complaints were verified and found to be correct by the Agriculture Department. But farmers could not be compensated, they felt cheated and dejected. Consequently, the companies claimed that hyola has been contracted for 910 acres in Patiala district, but the actual area (as per records of Agricultural Department) under hyola crop was on 109 acres during 2003-04. The farmers blamed Advanta India, an MNC, for seed hyola and Pro-Agro company for winter maize seed of doubtful quality.

None of these companies have their research laboratories or research stations in different agro-climatic regions of Punjab to test the suitability of their seeds. PAFC and the Punjab Government failed to protect the farmers against the spurious/doubtful quality of seeds. When farmers approached the company offices or PAFC offices, they got no technical advice/ extension service. In case of Basmati contract, the farmers were made to pay Rs 150 per acre as consultancy/extension service fee.

In case of peas and other vegetables when there was glut in the market, the farmers’ produce was not accepted on the grounds of quality when the seed was supplied by the companies and they were supposed to provide technical advice too. In case of Basmati marketing, the cleaning units installed by PAFC at Dudhan Sadhan, Shatrana (Patran) and Rajpura were not working leading to harassment of farmers. They were paid a price in the range of Rs 1,100 to Rs 1,250 per quintal. As soon as the companies closed their procurement, the price of Basmati increased by Rs 100 to Rs 150 per quintal causing a loss of income to farmers.

The Punjab experience demonstrates that the corporate sector, both Indian and foreign, is primarily interested in trading, not in agro-processing as envisaged in the Tenth Plan. These companies supplied seeds at high (agreed) prices and saved money by not arranging extension service/technical advice. They purchased the produce at an agreed price which proved to be low after their withdrawal from procurement and they could subsequently gain from enhanced Basmati price in the market. Thus, contract farming has worked to the disadvantage of farmers.

Earlier, sugarcane growers were not paid for years by sugar mills for the sugarcane supplied by them. The incapability of the state to get the contracts enforced in letter and spirit is working to the disadvantage of farmers.