The Tribune, Chandigarh, India

EDITORIALS

It’s a shame
11 MPs bring disgrace to Parliament

MONDAY will rank as the saddest day in the history of Indian Parliament. Ten members of the Lok Sabha and one of the Rajya Sabha were caught accepting bribe for asking questions in Parliament. For a change, political motive cannot be attributed to the sting operation carried out by a Cobrapost-Aaj Tak team because the exposed belong to parties as diverse as the BJP, the Congress, the BSP and the RJD. The Congress and the BJP have promptly suspended the MPs concerned. Other parties can also be expected to act soon against their MPs. The Vice-President and the Speaker of the Lok Sabha have already expressed their shock and indignity over the scam but is this sufficient?

The power to ask questions that concern any and every activity of the government is a right vested in an MP. It is by raising questions of public interest that he discharges his duty to his electorate and keeps the government on its toes. However, some MPs are known to have accepted rewards in kind and cash for asking questions. There are industrial lobbies who approach MPs with slanted questions but evidence to corroborate the practice has not been forthcoming. ‘Operation Duryodhana’, as the sting operation was codenamed, has done a signal service to the nation by capturing on hidden camera MPs accepting wads of currency notes in lieu of questions asked. Some of the MPs were so shameless that they wanted a permanent arrangement so that they could get such illegal gratification throughout their tenure.

These MPs have forfeited their right to represent the people. They should not only be dismissed from the Houses but also disqualified forever to join any legislature. They are also guilty of accepting bribe, which is a criminal offence, the provisions of which should be employed to deal with them. Given the damage they have caused to the institution of Parliament, it should not be difficult for all political parties to agree on such a course of action. Under no circumstances should they be shown any leniency. Let their punishment serve as a deterrent to the freebooters who think they are a law unto themselves. Lok Sabha Speaker Somnath Chatterjee has asserted that none found guilty will be spared. The nation will be happy if the MPs in the dock are given the severest punishment.

A defence university
INDU will promote strategic thinking

THE Centre needs to move quickly towards setting up an Indian National Defence University (INDU). Whether it eventually comes up in Punjab, Haryana, or the National Capital Region, there is no doubt that such an institution is desirable. There are obvious advantages in locating it in the NCR, but given technology’s growing ability to shrink physical distances, other locations can also be considered. It was in May 2002 that a committee headed by K. Subrahmanyam recommended the setting up of “a multi-disciplinary centre for excellence in education and research on national security issues.” INDU, to be headed by a three-star officer from the armed forces with an IFS deputy, is modelled after the two such existing NDUs, in Washington DC and Beijing; as conceived, it will require an Act of Parliament.

Some existing institutions are to be brought under its umbrella, and three new institutions are proposed to be set up. National Defence College in New Delhi, the Defence Services Staff College in Wellington, the Army War College in Mhow, and the College of Defence Management in Hyderabad will all benefit from a direct association with the NDU. The three new ones are to include a think tank, modelled after the American Rand, and a war gaming and simulation centre. INDU will award degrees and diplomas, besides offering credits for courses taken by personnel from the armed forces, the paramilitary, and officers of various civil services and agencies.

The lack of a culture of strategic thinking has long been commented upon and bemoaned. There is however, growing interest in the field, reflected in the growth of departments offering defence studies in various universities. INDU can help set the benchmarks for education and policy analysis in this area, if care is taken to encourage and reward professional rigour and vitality. It is also important to ensure that while we borrow institutional models from the West, we avoid conceptual traps and derivative debates. Fresh insights and new ways of thinking about security and foreign policy are needed, if India is not to flounder in its path to great power status.

ARTICLE

Sudarshan’s phobia
RSS stoking needless fears
by Mohan Guruswamy

SPEAKING at the release of “Religious Demography of India” brought out by the Centre for Policy Studies, an RSS-affiliated think-tank based in Chennai, RSS Sarsanghchalak K.S. Sudarshan exhorted Hindus to have larger families (teen se kam nahi, aap jitna jyaada kar sakein utna acha!). The immediate provocation for this somewhat drastic remedy to what he obviously considers a serious national problem is the rates of population growth of Muslims and Christians. That Muslims are growing at a faster rate than Hindus in independent India is well known. It has been so since 1951. In the decade 1951-61 Muslims grew at 24.9 per cent while Hindus at 18.6 per cent. In 1991-2001 the growth rate for Muslims, after adjusting for the exclusion of Assam and J&K in the 1981 and 1991 censuses, was 29.3 per cent, while that for Hindus it was 20 per cent.

Not surprisingly, the BJP and its allies have tried to stoke fears about Hindus being swamped by Muslims. That, of course, is a ridiculous notion, for let alone the present trends, population growth of all groups in India will cease by the end of this century. It has been calculated that even if the present trends continue it would take 247 years for the Indian Muslims to catch up with the Hindus in terms of numbers. It is not as if the RSS is not capable of getting its maths right, but logic is not the issue.

Most demographers project that India’s population growth will taper off around 2060. But the growth of population in the bimaru belt (Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh) will continue till 2091. The Muslim population growth will also level off around that time; by then they will constitute 18.8 per cent of India. But of more concern is the implication of the bimaru population growth trend continuing till near the end of the century, in which case the proportionate populations of other regions will actually be contracting. This may have even graver political consequences than the growth of Muslims, but that does not seem to concern the Sangh Parivar, which seems only perturbed about Muslim fecundity.

A decade after liberalisation not much has changed in India. About a third of our billion-plus people live below the poverty line. And mind you, the Indian poverty line, because of its emphasis on the daily caloric intake, is really the hunger line. India’s poverty line is not the one that takes into account the basic human needs. The GDP of India in 2003-4 was Rs 2760025 crore, growing from Rs 9547 crore in 1950-51. This phenomenal growth also saw the share of agriculture decline from 55.8 per cent to 27.3 per cent, while industry grew from 15.2 per cent to 24.6 per cent and services grew from 29 per cent to 48.2 per cent, making it seem that India is shaping up like a post-industrial society without having really industrialised!

We know from experience that redistribution policies do not work well in practice. In 1994, almost a full quarter century after Gharibi Hatao became the leitmotif of our economic policies, the Gini coefficient, which is the measure of income inequality, remained almost the same as in 1971 at 0.345. In 2003 the Gini has deteriorated to 0.378. The urban and rural inequality has also worsened. Worse, the inequality among the regions is alarming. There is a very clear divide apparent now in India with the Hindi speaking and eastern region quite visibly left behind.

The growth of population in the four southern states is less than half that in the bimaru states. True, the populations of Punjab, Haryana, Gujarat and Maharashtra are also growing at rates comparable with the bimaru four, but their growth in per capita income is comparable with that of the southern four. Don’t jump to conclusions that if the population growth were to have slowed down, their per capita income growth could have been quite spectacular? On the face of it that may appear so, but it doesn’t work that way.

At a macro-level, both China and India have had a phenomenal expansion of populations combined with economic growth. Quite clearly, population growth is not necessarily a brake on economic growth. On the other hand, there is much to suggest that population growth contributes a lot to economic growth. The critical factor here is the dependency ratio, which is the ratio of dependent people aged 0-14 and 65-plus against productive people in the 15- 64 years age group. It goes without saying that the lower the dependency ratio the better. China currently has a more favourable dependency ratio of 450/1000 while that of India is closer to 650/1000. It is only in about 2020 that the Indian dependency ratio will become the lowest in Asia, giving it the first real demographic opportunity to better the performance of today’s high-fliers.

In 2020 India will have more than 270 million people in the 15-35 age segments, when productivity and economic contribution are the highest. If savings rates hold and with productive potential at its peak in 2020, we will have a great window of opportunity to make it as a developed and prosperous economy by 2050 if we are able to educate and empower the masses. Such a demographic constellation will never appear again. It’s just too bad that our leaders are preoccupied with their individual constellations, and not that of the nation.

But not all the concerns of the RSS are unfounded. If economic conditions determine population growth, we must wonder as to why the growth of the SC and ST segments has remained below the Muslim growth trend? As opposed to the 29.3 per cent growth between 1991 and 2001 of Muslims, the decadal growth rate of the SCs and the STs was 20.55 per cent and 24.45 per cent respectively. The household annual incomes as well as per capita incomes of the SCs and the STs groups are lower than that of Muslims. The Muslims in turn are generally poorer than caste Hindus. Quite clearly, there are segmental attitudes impacting population growth. Literacy levels of both rural and urban Muslims are lower than Hindus, but not by very much. Perhaps what is more significant is that as a percentage point, more than twice as many uneducated Hindu women — are employed compared to the similarly disadvantaged Muslim women.

Finally here is something that would truly worry the Sangh Parivar. The proportion of caste Hindus has been steadily dropping since 1961 when it was 61.97 per cent. It is 56.05 per cent now.

The writer is associated with the Centre for Policy Alternatives, New Delhi.

MIDDLE

You can never tell
by Raj Kadyan

I had been driving from The Hague to Paris. Driving on those highways is monotonous. I had done that stretch so many times that I remembered all the landmarks.

As I drove out of Brussels and headed south, I could see on my left the famous Waterloo memorial. It sits atop a man-made hillock and has a commanding view of the battlefield of 1815, where Napoleon had met his nemesis. I found myself smiling as I recalled how a few months earlier, when I was driving a visiting politician from back home, on being pointed out the Waterloo memorial, he had queried, “But where is the water?”

As I approached the French-Belgian border, I slowed down. A car with a CD number plate was not halted but I enjoyed saying “bon jour” to the guard.

Just across the border I spotted her. Clad in a thick, neck-high jacket, she carried a backpack. She gave me a thumb-up for a lift. I was in a mood for conversation and responding to her signal I stopped and opened the front right door. She climbed in without speaking, took off her pack and sat down.

She was wheat-coloured, not as white as Europeans usually are. Her shoulder length hair was tangled and in need of a wash. White metal dolphins dangled from her pierced earlobes. She had light blue eyes that flanked a long, pointed nose.

As I started the car, she lit a cigarette, without asking. Her action was rude but I stayed comment.

“Going to Paris?” I asked. She did not speak but merely nodded affirmation. Then, as she finished the cigarette she slid back, closed her eyes and went off to sleep. I returned to my silent thoughts. I wondered if Indian parents would approve of a teenage daughter hitchhiking with strangers. “It would be interesting to talk to her and exchange views about life in general.” I eagerly awaited her to come awake. But she slept through the hour plus drive.

When we reached the peripherique that rings Paris, she suddenly woke up. Her first action was to light another cigarette. I had long ago given up the thought of conversation. “She could not be unaware of the damage she was causing to her health by indulging in excessive smoking,” I lamented.

On reaching a well-known suburb she lifted her finger, signalling me to stop. I pulled off to the side. It had been a peculiar company; she hadn’t spoken a single word throughout the journey. But as she was getting down, she did. She said, “Merci beaucoup.” That expression of gratitude came in a thick, guttural voice of a male of 18.

OPED

Real face of free trade
by Gerd Leipold

TRADE ministers meeting at the Hong Kong on Tuesday to push forward with their free trade agenda.

Not far from where the ministers are meeting, the real face of free trade reveals its ugly side. Hong Kong, shoppers’ paradise, is not just one of the world’s most free economies; it is, as a result, also a “free port” for the world’s electronic waste. China is quickly becoming a toxic trash bin for the world.

As much as 4,000 tonnes of toxic e-waste are discarded every hour. Since most mobile phones, computers and other electronic products are made using toxic ingredients, it makes it far easier (and of course, cheaper!) to dump products in developing countries instead of disposing of them appropriately at the place of origin or use.

Many electronic products are routinely, and often illegally, shipped from Europe, Japan and the US to China, India and other developing countries. The situation is distressingly similar for workers at scrap-yards such as Guiyu in China’s Guangdong province and Seelampur in East Delhi.

In these, and other illegal recycling yards workers are exposed to the toxic chemicals in electronic products, when they break them apart by hand usually under appalling conditions. This is what “free trade” looks like!

In the name of free trade, some governments at the WTO ministerial meeting aim to eliminate tariffs on electronic goods as part of the Non Agricultural Market Access (NAMA) negotiations.

If the experience of the Information Technology Agreement, signed by 29 WTO members in 1996, is anything to go by, this will inevitably result in more electronic goods being traded.

Sadly, this also means that even more electronic waste will be generated. As long as effective social and environmental regulations are not in place, this will result in even more electronic waste being dumped in scrap-yards.

The current negotiations, especially the NAMA negotiations, continue to ignore the environment. This is true for electronic goods and the waste they will inevitably become.

It is most shameful in case of forests, where an official sustainability impact assessment, commissioned by the European Union, shows that further liberalisation under NAMA will have negative results.

The study shows how free trade magnifies existing problems and fuels demand for unsustainably sourced timber.

Sadly, the study does not appear to be worth the paper it is printed on; the EU government has chosen to ignore the findings of a study it commissioned. Unwilling to admit unpalatable truths, they aim to move forward with the NAMA negotiations in Hong Kong, and to agree on concrete liberalisation steps in 2006.

Instead of blindly pursuing free trade at all cost, governments should halt the NAMA negotiations. Plans for liberalisation in ecologically sensitive areas — such as trade in forest products — must be abandoned, since negative impacts are already proven.

Trade ministers face a choice as they head to Hong Kong. They can either push forward with further trade liberalisation, ignoring the negative environmental and social impacts, or they can initiate a proper review of the global trade system.

A new trade system must be built on the basis of such a review one that has equity and environmental protection at its heart — not just in its preamble. Only if governments take this step, can the Hong Kong meeting be described as a success.

The writer is the Executive Director of Greenpeace International

Issues that WTO is set to debate in Hong Kong
by Philip Thornton

AFTER millions of air miles, countless secret meetings, forests of reports and one failed summit, ministers from 150 countries are facing the prospect of failure in their attempt to free world trade and drag millions of people out of extreme poverty.

Ministers from the member countries of the World Trade Organisation are flying to Hong Kong for a high-profile meeting, opening on December 13, that was meant to spell out the details of a trade deal aimed at lifting the prosperity of the world’s poorest countries.

The talks have become deadlocked over demands, by poor and emerging countries, such as Brazil, for the US, Europe and Japan to end their $ 300bn-a-year (£ 170bn) subsidy regime.

What’s it all about? The meeting is meant to achieve progress towards signing a deal to conclude the Doha Development Round — so named because it was signed in the Qatar capital in 2001 — which is aimed at improving the lot of developing countries.

What poor countries want: The last trade round, signed in Uruguay in 1994, opened their markets but left only promises to tackle rich countries’ massive subsidies and support for farmers. Poor countries want this round to live up to its name and focus on boosting their people’s livelihoods.

What rich countries want: The EU, the US, Japan and others believe a trade negotiation means meansquid pro quo. They are prepared to cut the subsidies and tariffs that protect their farmers but want concessions in areas such as industrial goods and services.

What is likely to happen? Ministers have already lowered ambitions for this round, which was meant to agree on formulas for cutting tariffs and subsidies. The best hope is for some concessions to poor nations and a resolution to keep negotiating until the December 2006 deadline.

Agriculture

What’s it all about? Brazil calls it the “ motor”, the traditional way for poor countries to start developing. It is also a symbol for rich countries. The EU spends 40 per cent of its budget on an industry that employs 2 per cent of the workforce. And, in 2002, the US approved a bill that gives farmers $ 175bn over 10 years.

What poor countries want: An end to the $ 300bn a year of subsidies that pays every cow in the rich world $ 2 a day. Also, sharp cuts in tariffs so they can sell into rich markets. They want to see action against bugbears such as low tariffs on leather but high ones on shoes, penalising those who try to add value.

What rich countries want: They have to offer to cut farm support but will meet internal opposition if they go too far. The EU has offered 70 per cent cuts in subsidies and 40 per cent cuts in tariffs. The US has offered to reduce subsidies by 80 per cent.

What is likely to happen? The EU cannot go further without antagonising the French. This could be a real deal blocker unless poorer countries and vocal opponents, such as Brazil, are prepared to sign up to some face-saving language for all parties.

Industrial tariffs

What’s it all about? Countries impose these duties on imports to protect their domestic manufacturing bases. They cover 60 per cent of world trade and liberalisation might benefit rich countries more. Countries have for the first time agreed to follow a formula that cuts the highest tariffs most.

What poor countries want: It comes back to agriculture — if they have to cut their tariffs they want something in exchange. Beneath the surface are some tensions; tariffs between poor countries are high and should be cut. Within Brazil, manufacturers want the government to give way so they can import cheaper parts.

What rich countries want: They want sizeable cuts in tariffs to open developing country markets in exchange for farm subsidy cuts. The EU has proposed a top tariff of 10 per cent for poor countries. The US wants parallel talks to eliminate some tariffs.

What is likely to happen? Probably little other than warm words at best. The WTO has said that failure to reach an accord would mean lost opportunities for industrial trade of the order of $ 50bn to $ 250bn.

Services

What’s it all about? Accounting for a third of world trade but 70 per cent of economic activity, they show the potential for expansion in trade. Unlike other areas, the talks are carried out on a bilateral basis, where countries volunteer areas for market access.

What poor countries want: Some are nervous about letting giant western companies in before domestic rivals have been developed. The one thing that they do want is a better deal on the movement of labour, making it easier for their citizens to emigrate for better paid-jobs.

What rich countries want: They want access to all markets, as 80 per cent of trade is by Western multinationals. The figure is 90 per cent for financial services such as banks and insurers and in sub-sectors such as telecoms, IT and construction.

What is likely to happen? No progress is needed to keep the show on the road — so there won’t be much. Rich countries have said they won’t back down from their demands for a deal on services but no one would want the talks to be stalled over this issue.

Cotton/textiles

What’s it all about? These are two issues on which the US is vulnerable. America’s cotton support keeps prices high for 25,000 farmers in swing states to the detriment of 1 million Africans. The EU is pushing for a deal on cotton and for an agreement to open all rich markets to the poor.

What poor countries want: Four African countries want concessions. Failure to move on cotton pushed the last WTO meeting over the edge. US politicians have linked any deal with deep cuts in tariffs against US exports in other areas. A deal would undermine US relations with Central American countries.

What rich countries want: The EU is happy to offer a deal on cotton and open access to poorer countries. The US is hostile and observers are suspicious that Brussels is lining Washington up as the fall-guy for any failure.

What is likely to happen? The EU is hoping its six-point plan, which includes cotton and textiles as well as four other relatively cost-free concessions, could be dressed up as the pro-development deal to come out of Hong Kong that keeps the talks on the road.

— The Independent

Delhi Durbar
Vasundhara Raje on the rise

IS Rajasthan Chief Minister Vasundhara Raje becoming the new mascot of the Sangh Parivar and in particular the RSS? It would seem so as the Organiser has brought out two special issues on Ms Raje and her achievements.

The Organiser has credited her for delivering brand NDA for the country. Thus far the RSS has been targeting the BJP for giving importance to individuality rather than ideology.

Judging by the RSS mouthpiece, Raje is clearly the rising star in the Sangh Parivar. The RSS believes that Raje is fast catching up with Narendra Modi and the editorial in the Organiser stresses that she has understood her state and the people.

UP next for Arun Jaitley?

With the dust raised by the Bihar elections settled down, a new assignment appears to be in store for Arun Jaitley. The BJP General Secretary with the Midas touch is now wanted in Uttar Pradesh by a section of the leaders of the saffron brigade in that state.

Having spearheaded the party’s successes in Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and now Bihar, some of the leaders in UP want Jaitley to be given the task of reviving the BJP in the country’s most populous state.

It obviously involves taking on the might of the Samajwadi Party’s Mulayam Singh Yadav and the BSP’s Mayawati.

UP goes to the polls in 2007. However, the cheering for Jaitley has not amused some of his colleagues like Pramod Mahajan, who had led the disastrous efforts in UP during the 2004 Lok Sabha elections.

Debate turns slippery

It was mostly lawyer-politicians who took the stage during the debate on the Volcker issue in the Rajya Sabha. If the BJP fielded Arun Jaitley, the Congress had Finance Minister P. Chidambram, Minister of State for Science and Technology Kapil Sibal.

In the spirited, sharp and high-decibel debate, no side missed a chance to take a swipe at the other. Mr Sibal, observed Mr Jaitley, was behaving like an over-enthusiastic prosecutor who had slipped while dealing with the subject of oil.

In his response, Mr Jaitley said while he was not an over-enthusiastic prosecutor, the Congress would do well to remember that “oil is not only slippery but inflammable also.”

Vinod Khanna resurfaces

Vinod Khanna is seldom seen in Parliament though the member from Gurdaspur surfaced in the Parliament House annexe the other day to felicitate the Dalai Lama on his 70th birthday. The function was organised by the All India Parliamentary Forum for Tibet. Khanna’s presence was both in deference to the Dalai Lama and to show solidarity with fellow parliamentarians.

Vinod Khanna’s connection with spiritualism is well known. After all he shunned stardom to become an Osho follower. Or was it a photo opportunity for yesteryear’s cine star?

****

Contributed by S. Satyanarayanan, Prashant Sood and Smriti Kak Ramachandran