 |
|
Stop intrusion Vaccine on trial Poignant picture |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Another dream budget?
The darling of my habits
India should review its policy on SAARC Tough new policy
for entry into UK
|
Stop intrusion THE invasion of an individual’s privacy in this computer age, whether on the Internet or the mobile phone, has become so irritatingly common place that a responsive government would have itself pushed some sort of legal protection for the harried citizens. In this country, however, public-spirited citizens have to approach the judiciary for solutions to their problems. Governments often act when told to do so by courts. On the complaint of one Mr Harsh Pathak, troubled by unsolicited marketing calls on his cell phone, the Supreme Court on Monday issued notice to the cellular companies and five banks, among others. The nasty practice of making calls for business promotion at odd hours does call for a check. But the issue of protecting a person’s privacy goes beyond this. The unwanted intrusion is not just on the mobile phone or the computer by crazy marketers. It is done by the media too. TV channels insensitively and annoyingly question ordinary citizens caught in “newsy” situations, show them in their moments of grief and pain, at times embarrassingly so. Recently, a newspaper had to apologise for publishing photographs of filmstars Kareena and Shahid sharing a private moment at a public place. Whether it was Diana, hounded to death by photographers, or Anara Gupta of Jammu victimised by the police and an uncaring media, the practice of salacious intrusiveness needs to be dealt with. How other countries handle the tricky issue of privacy can be informative. The US has a law that bans unsolicited telemarketing calls. The right to be left alone is recognised and respected there. Britain’s tabloids are notorious for their intrusions on privacy, but courts are equally aggressive in protecting individuals despite there being no written law. Europeans combine Press freedom with restrictions. The media there avoids reporting private squabbles even of public figures. The Supreme Court should seize this opportunity to ensure a comprehensive legal framework for protecting the right to privacy of the citizen. |
|
Vaccine on trial INDIA has joined a select group of countries like the US on the forefront of the fight against AIDS by launching the clinical trial of a vaccine developed by a Pune-based institute of the Indian Council of Medical Research. The vaccine prototype, injected for the first time into one of the healthy volunteers on Monday, is unique in the sense that it would be more effective in arresting the spread of the disease caused by HIV type C, the virus strain found in most Indian patients. It would also be easily affordable and useful for preventive purposes. But we have to keep our fingers crossed till the vaccine’s trial on human beings is carried through all the three stages as planned. The only vaccine, AIDSVAX, which reached the third stage of human trial was declared ineffective at the end in 2003. The Indian vaccine prototype, as the key man behind the project, Dr Ramesh Paranjpe, claims, has greater chances of getting successful in the clinical trial because the results on animal trials were “extremely encouraging”. The vaccine would not only prevent the spread of the infection but also reduce its progression. Our scientists deserve appreciation for their landmark achievement. If all goes well, their effort may lead to India being in a position to manufacture the drug in less than a decade. The AIDS problem in India has assumed alarming proportions with the country having the second largest HIV positive population (over five million) after South Africa. The disease is no longer confined to the traditionally high-risk groups like homosexuals, commercial sex workers and drug addicts. It is fast spreading in the rural areas, where it is more prevalent than in the cities. Many AIDS victims are yet to be identified because of the lack of awareness about the scourge. Attempts are made to hide it owing to the stigma attached to it. The problem, therefore, needs to be fought at the social level too. |
|
Poignant picture THE Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act exists only on paper. The Tribune on Tuesday carried a photograph of a horse dangling precariously in the air, simply because the cart it was pulling was so overloaded that it tipped over. The agony of the animal haunts the mind for long and the dramatic photograph highlights how cruel and callous society is towards animals. It is obvious that the cart had been carrying more weight than the 750 kg limit fixed by law. Animal rights activists say that even this limit is too high, and that in any case, most owners overload the carts, especially those carrying goods like steel bars. The Act, as it applies to pack and drought animals, also prohibits spiked objects that could harm the animals from being loaded on such carts, but again, this law, too, is often violated. Any policeman above the rank of a constable is empowered to take action against such violations, but often, they take the attitude that the persons plying the trade are poor, and thus turn a blind eye. In general, society's attitude towards animals, with the specific exception of pets, has been indifferent or negative. Circuses continued to use animals in their acts, till they were forced to desist. Now without the animals also, the circuses run well. Recently, a leopard was killed by the police at Phillaur. Animal rights activists have made a strong case that the animal could have been tranquillised and returned to its original habitat. There are regular reports of stray animals, especially cows and bulls, facing hardship. Most of the time, the concern merely amounts to lip service. Only on some occasions do Good Samaritans come to the rescue of the animals. As a society, we need to be more aware of the conditions around us and be more responsive towards those which can't articulate their pain. After all, a society is judged by how it treats animals. |
|
Anyone who has ever struggled with poverty knows how extremely expensive it is to be poor. — James Baldwin
|
Another dream budget? WHEN Finance Minister P Chidambaram gets up to present the Union Budget for 2005-06 in the Lok Sabha on the last day of February, his fourth budget in the last nine years, he will have to confront certain classic dilemmas faced by all Finance Ministers. How can the government raise additional resources without increasing tax rates, that is, by widening the base of taxpayers? How can the economy grow at a faster rate while ensuring that the benefits of the growth reach the unemployed and the underprivileged? These questions are easier raised than answered. Every budget is a balancing act, a compromise among interest groups and lobbies. This one is unlikely to be any different. On the positive side, the Indian economy is at present in a fairly healthy state with the rate of growth of the gross domestic product (GDP) expected to be in the region of 6.5 per cent during the current financial year ending March — the advance estimates of the Central Statistical Organization (CSO) place this figure at a higher 6.9 per cent. The CSO’s revised figures indicate that the country’s GDP had grown by an impressive 8.5 per cent in the previous year (2003-04) against only 4 per cent in the year before that. More importantly, inflation is less of a worry now compared to what it was during the second half of 2004. The inflation rate had spurted last year on account of unusually high international prices of crude oil —the rise in the wholesale price index breached the 8 per cent mark in August. The fiscal deficit as a proportion of the GDP appears well under control though not the revenue deficit - one reason for this is the shortfall in excise duty collections as a consequence of tax cuts on petroleum products and steel as well as the lower than expected collections of corporate tax. The really tough part of the Finance Minister’s task would be devising ways of raising revenues substantially. The single biggest new item of expenditure in the coming budget would relate to the implementation of the employment guarantee scheme. The United Progressive Alliance government has no choice in this respect not only because of the pressure that has been mounted on it by the Left parties but, more significantly, also by Mrs Sonia Gandhi, who heads the National Advisory Council. At least two members of the NAC, Jean Dreze and Aruna Roy, have already expressed their deep dissatisfaction at the government’s attempts to dilute the employment guarantee scheme by restricting its geographical coverage. The president of the Congress party, in a recent letter to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, reportedly demanded that the budgetary allocation for the employment guarantee scheme should be increased from Rs 14,000 crore in 2004-05 to Rs 19,000 crore in the coming financial year. There is every reason to believe that this demand would be met. She has written that although the employment guarantee Bill would be considered and passed only after the presentation of the budget, the 2005-06 budget “should reflect the government’s determination to implement” the scheme in the 150 backward districts that have already been identified. Mrs Sonia Gandhi has called for a merger of schemes like the Food for Work programme with the Sampoorna Grameen Rozgar Yojana and the creation of a non-lapsable fund for public health along the lines of a similar fund for elementary education that was created last year. She has asked for additional outlays to the tune of around Rs 12,000 crore on nutrition schemes for schoolchildren, health-care programmes for the poor in rural and urban areas and a road network for the north-east and Sikkim. She has also reportedly suggested additional taxes on sinful products like cigarettes, gutka and pan masala. It is evident that all these suggestions would be included in the budget proposals. The Finance Minister is almost certainly going to try and garner resources by widening the income tax net (barely 3 per cent of the country’s population currently pays income tax) and also by increasing the rate and scope of taxes on services. He would also attempt to simplify and rationalise excise duties, especially in the context of the implementation of a value-added tax regime from April 1 onwards. The Left has urged Mr Chidambaram not to be overly worried about containing deficits as per the requirements of the Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management Act, 2003. The Communists are of the view that there is a strong case for deficit financing to step up spending on the social sectors (health and education) and on infrastructure. Contrary to the advice dished out rather generously at this time of the year by industry associations and chambers of commerce, the Left wants the Finance Minister to raise levies (or remove tax exemptions) on the organised corporate sector and beneficiaries of stock-market transactions by increasing the turnover tax on securities and by restoring the tax on long-term capital gains. It also opposes a reduction in Customs duties which Mr Chidambaram would support. The Communists also want the government to halt divestment of shares of profit-making public sector undertakings (PSUs) like Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd (BHEL). The government has already announced the establishment of a National Investment Fund in which the proceeds of divestment would be parked for use in the social sector and also for reinvestment in specific PSUs. While the Marxists are happy with the government’s decision to hike the interest rate on the Employees’ Provident Fund deposits from 8.5 per cent to 9.5 per cent, the Left is terribly miffed at the Cabinet move to hike the foreign direct investment (FDI) limit in telecommunications companies from 49 per cent to 74 per cent. The extent to which the conflicting interests of the Marxists on the one hand and the gung-go liberalizers in the government led by Dr Singh and Mr Chidambaram on the other can be accommodated remains to be seen. In public, the Prime Minister describes them as “patriots” and the Finance Minister as his “conscience keepers”, but the tussle between the Congress and the Communists — on whose support the survival of the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government is dependent — is certain to gather momentum later in the year and in early-2006 during the run-up to the assembly elections in West Bengal and Kerala. The budget is much more than a mere balance-sheet of the government’s finances. It is a political statement. How our Harvard-educated Finance Minister, who is apparently enamoured of the virtues of free markets, would ensure that his comrades on the Left are not too unhappy with his budget, only time will tell. Mr Chidambaram wants to keep corporates and market players happy. But the same set of proposals may not endear him to farmers and blue-collar workers. He surely wants to present another “dream” budget. Whose dream would it be? Who might consider it a nightmare? Wait for February
28. |
The darling of my habits MY dear departed intellectual mentor, the Great G. Bernard Shaw, once told me (it became public later, thanks to presswallahs like me) that the golden rule is that there are no golden rules. The guru-shishya parampara was till then unbroken and I, therefore, took the Great Beard’s word not as a clever quote but as a way of life. It was the Eleventh Commandment. Over the years, I have done my darnest best not to have rules for myself. I have been a free radical in a cosmic order undivided by straight lines of conduct. There have been no tight corners for me to cut. I have flowed along without the threat of the whistle being blown on me. It has been fun; recklessness is fun. And, rules invariably cut the fun out of everything first. Living sans rules has now become a terminal habit with me. Of course, I know that all habits are bad, specially the good ones. Rule-less living is a good habit. Off the cuff, I can reel of a few bad ones. The habit of waking up early is one of them. Simple-living –and- high-thinking sort of life code is another. Many have tried to force these habits on me. I have been sincerely told that I should imbibe the practice of getting up early or sitting straight. But I have always argued that such habits are best avoided. You lose your autonomy and start feeding off the habits. For example, your day supposedly goes off well if you have had your mandatory three-kilometre walk. In other words, your life depends on them for its sustenance. It is so slavish. Moreover, those who survive on fresh air, vigorous locomotion and veggie diets are selfish to the core. They are shameless consumerists who take away for themselves rather than provide for others. Imagine gulping in all that oxygen just because you are bothered about ensuring your own longevity! How callous and depraved can one be! Frankly, it is a good healthy feeling to know that my ‘pet’ habits are provided for by me. I am happy that they feed off me rather than the other way round. I always proudly proclaim that many distilleries have prospered because of me. My habit of using the bed to full extent possible has provided bread to several furniturewallahs. My posture has yielded greenbacks to scores of doctors. And, my late nights have provided employment to night patrols. In other words, I have sustained my habits diligently and lovingly, and, at my cost. I provided for them like a good husband. It is no wonder that I am the darling of my habits and not their
slave. |
India should review its policy on SAARC However, this decision not to attend the SAARC summit when one of its Heads of State violates international democratic norms is not a new one. It has happened before when Pakistan had a military coup in 1999. Surely King Gyanendra could not have overlooked this possibility when he dismissed his government. The purpose of SAARC was not just to have a club of Heads of State and Government in South Asia. Taking into account the South Asian realities, it was proposed by Gen Ziaur Rehman of Bangladesh that by initiating mutually beneficial economic and technological cooperation, the seven South Asian states would progress towards political and security cooperation. In this respect, SAARC was unique and has to be differentiated from the European Union and ASEAN. In the former, initially the NATO members came together to form a common market. They had no security problems among themselves to sort out. Subsequently, the members of the Treaty of Rome expanded to become the European Union, all under a common security umbrella. In the case of ASEAN again, the founder members shared a common security doctrine under the aegis of the US and attempted to promote greater political and economic cooperation. In SAARC there is not only no political or security cooperation but one member of SAARC initiated a war against the other (Kargil war in 1999). One member (Pakistan) refuses to abide by universal commercial norm (extending the most favoured nation status under the charter of the World Trade Organisation) by withholding this basic requirement in peaceful international relations to its neighbour (India). Charges have been traded among members, of one member waging a sustained proxy war against the other and members providing safe havens for terrorist organisations operating against each other. In these circumstances making comparisons with the European Union or ASEAN does not make any sense. The continuance of the organisation is a proof of tolerance by India and its keenness to promote despite all difficulties, a South Asian cooperative framework in the long run. SAARC is unique in yet another respect. If India is taken out of it, none of the other six members have shared borders, shared culture, language or economic interests. They are total strangers to each other. As Lakshman Kadirgaman, Sri Lankan Foreign Minister, described it SAARC is like a wheel with India as the hub and the other six nations are like spokes in the wheel. While Sri Lanka exhibits such consciousness of the reality, Pakistan, Bangladesh and, to much lesser extent, Nepal are keen to exploit the relationship with their giant neighbour to their maximum advantage. Pakistan has an additional thesis of its equality with India and its commitment not to submit to a perceived Indian hegemony. There is nothing wrong in smaller neighbours expecting more from their larger neighbour and bargaining hard to get as much advantage as possible. But if this natural bargaining relationship is rooted in the two-nation theory and the clash of civilisations thesis, based on religious extremist animosity, then it is unrealistic to expect a genuine cooperative framework to emerge. Again the situation in this respect in SAARC is totally different from that in the European Union or ASEAN. In the EU large nations like Germany, France, Italy and the UK provide a balance among themselves. In ASEAN the giant Indonesia is balanced by a combination of Vietnam, Thailand, the Philippines and Burma. In SAARC the six members of SAARC taken together constitute only 25 per cent of the population as against India’s 75 per cent. The only element of unity in SAARC is provided by India and that is a civilisational one. But when that is rejected as the basis (by two-nation theorists) then the SAARC framework becomes an unnatural one. Perhaps India joining an expanding ASEAN to the East and a new trading bloc involving Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan and some of the Central Asian republics to the West would make a better sense Trade is recognised in today’s globalised world as the glue bonding nations. If there are difficulties in expanding mutual trade for various political and religious reasons, there is no point in pursuing attempts to keep up an artificial framework. That attempt itself serves to further strain the relationships among the nations. India has been paying a high price in attempting to sustain SAARC. India is in a position to expand mutual trade with Bhutan, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, the Maldives and ASEAN,. if SAARC considerations do not stand in the way. India should go ahead with it and leave it to Pakistan and Bangladesh to come in on the terms of the existing majority. So should there be a westward attempt by India. This country has a unique role to play as the joint link between the East Asian and West Asian trade blocs. Pakistan and Bangladesh are still living in the cold war era in which the tensions between the US and India and India and China provided them with opportunities to play one against another to their own advantage. They do not appear to understand that those days are over. The Indo-US relations and India-China trade are growing very fast, increasingly marginalising the Pakistan and Bangladesh factors. Partly the fault is India’s. From the beginning, knowing the internal contradictions of SAARC, India should have developed a strategy to manage the problems posed by SAARC through economic diplomacy. India’s counter-terrorism diplomacy too has not been energetic enough in the international arena though it has been relatively successful in shielding India from the possible terrorist onslaughts from Pakistan and Bangladesh. It is generally agreed that North-Eastern states play a crucial role both in expanding our trade with ASEAN, which would compel Dhaka to tamper with its policies towards India. Above all, corruption and lack of good governance in the North-East has been exploited by elements hostile to India. The present impasse in SAARC provides Delhi an opportunity to review its South Asian strategy and progressively shift it away from SAARC and concentrate on trade diplomacy towards East Asia and intensive development of the North-East. |
|
Tough new policy
for entry into UK LOW-skilled workers will find it much harder to enter Britain under a tough new immigration policy announced by the Government on Monday. Ministers were accused of starting a “bidding war” with the Tories to sound tougher on immigration and asylum after matching the Opposition’s pledge to bring in a points system for economic migrants. Charles Clarke, Home Secretary, rejected the criticism. He stopped short of implementing the Tory scheme, modelled on the Australian system, for an annual limit for immigration, including a quota for asylum-seekers. He praised the vital role that migrant workers played in the economy. Although ministers insisted they had been working on their blueprint for months, the new measures were seen as an attempt by Labour to neutralise the Tory attack over immigration launched two weeks ago. The Tory plans unsettled Tony Blair, who took an unusually high-profile role in presenting the plans by giving a series of media interviews. Mr Clarke came under strong pressure from Mr Blair to produce a tough package. But some ministers had reservations, with the Chancellor, Gordon Brown, echoing concerns in the business world that the curbs on migrants might harm Britain’s economy. Unveiling a five-year plan on immigration and asylum, Mr Clarke announced that skilled immigrants, such as doctors, engineers and IT specialists, would be the only group able to come to Britain without a job offer. Skilled workers, including nurses and teachers, will be able to come only to fill a vacancy. Low-skilled workers from outside western Europe will be allowed in only if there is a job for them and they promise to leave at the end of their stay. Under the points system, applicants will be given marks for their skills and qualifications. Only skilled or highly skilled workers will be allowed to settle permanently in Britain — and then only if they speak English and pass a “Britishness test”. Mr Clarke said successful asylum-seekers would lose the right to stay in Britain permanently. They will be given temporary leave to remain, which will last up to five years and then be reviewed. Numbers of removals would also be stepped up and more asylum-seekers held in detention centres. All visa applicants will be fingerprinted by 2008. He said: “It’s a weakness of the current system, a failure that we don’t have as many people removed as we would like.” In the Commons, Mr Clarke attacked Tory plans to pull out of the 1951 Geneva Convention on refugees as “unworkable, unjust, counterproductive and immoral.” He added: “A rigid quota would cause considerable hardship and is not
acceptable.” David Davis, the shadow Home Secretary, said: “This is the latest headline grabbing initiative from a panic-stricken government in the run-up to a general election. The Government’s plans to introduce a points system will not necessarily reduce the number of immigrants coming into Britain unless a limit is introduced.” Mark Oaten, the Liberal Democrats’ home affairs spokesman, warned Mr Clarke: “There is now a bidding war taking place on immigration and asylum between the Government and the official Opposition. Isn’t it important to speak up for the positive role that migrants play and also to defend at all costs the principle that in this country we welcome refugees?”
— By arrangement with The Independent, London |
He who is seeking his own happiness and who punishes those who also long for happiness is running after a chimera. No happiness shall come his way for having destroyed that of others. — The Buddha Happiness goes to the person who does not work for selfish motives. He works for the greater good of the greater number. Neither praise nor criticism can shake his self-conviction. He remains steady on the path of God. — The Bhagvad Gita The Presence of the wise sanctify the holy sacrifice as the cold valleys are warmed green by the rays of the spring sun and as the cool monsoon breeze brings life to heat baked plains. — The Mahabharata  |
| HOME PAGE | |
Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir |
Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs |
Nation | Opinions | | Business | Sports | World | Mailbag | Chandigarh | Ludhiana | Delhi | | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |
THE Indian Prime Minister’s refusal to attend the scheduled SAARC summit in Dhaka on February 6 and 7 and its consequent postponement should not cause any undue disappointment in South Asian capitals such as New Delhi, Colombo, Male and Thimphu. Condemnation of the Indian decision was equally predictable in Dhaka, Islamabad and Kathmandu.