 |
|
Forward with
nuclear deal King’s elections |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Salute to Navneet
The coming budget
Step-train
treatment
Containing Iran’s
nuclear ambitions Myths about Iran
conflict Fat is not too much
of an evil
|
|
King’s elections King
Gyanendra of Nepal seems to be a firm believer in the left-handed adage that “the king can do no wrong”. That is why he has been bludgeoning his way from one blunder to another. The royal script of the municipal elections that he ordered on the first anniversary of his seizing power has, however, gone wrong. Instead of being seen as a “roadmap” for restoring democracy, it has been almost unanimously debunked as the monarch’s blatant power-grab attempt. Both India and the US have described it as a hollow exercise. Within the country, the reaction has been all the more hostile. Significantly, the ill-advised move has brought major political parties and Maoists together, so much so that the rebels have for the first time veered round to demanding a “free and fair election to a constitutional assembly”. To that extent, the king has shot his own leg. Much more than that, the public has soundly rejected this farce. Even in Kathmandu, the voter turnout has been less than 25 per cent. In other areas, the figure is much less. That makes it the lowest voter participation ever in the history of the country. Violent protests have broken out everywhere, which the king has tried to curb through draconian measures, further fuelling public anger. By doing all what he is doing, the King is himself playing an instrumental role in the speedy erosion of the authority of the monarchy. Traditional Nepalese used to look up to the king as a living god. No longer. There has been a sea change in public mood. The controversial circumstances in which Gyanendra ascended the throne made him an unpopular ruler. His scuttling the parliamentary setup has made him more so. The so-called municipal elections are a sham. They cannot pull him out of the mess he has created. |
|
Salute to Navneet IN a tradition-bound society like ours, it calls for extraordinary courage for a bride to call off the marriage in the nick of time. That is what Navneet Kaur of Asandh in Karnal district did when the groom asked for a Honda City car when her parents proposed to give him a Maruti Zen. If he could make such a demand before the marriage, there was no guarantee that he would refrain from making similar dishonourable demands after the marriage. She realised it was risky to marry such a greedy person. Her parents, too, need to be complimented for standing by her side, rather than trying to placate the groom. And for good measure, the day after, a worthy boy — apparently believing in right values — came forward to marry her and the marriage was solemnised with greater happiness. By her exemplary conduct, Navneet Kaur has set an example for the youth, particularly girls and their parents who are harassed in the name of dowry. Despite stringent laws against demanding and receiving dowry, the practice has not declined a wee bit. Rather, it has spread to communities and castes, which hitherto were free from the scourge. Every parent would like to give his daughter gifts he can afford at the time of her marriage. It becomes an objectionable practice only when demands are made, fulfillment of which is made a condition for marriage. Most parents succumb to such pressures in the hope of ensuring a happy married life to their daughters. In many cases, pre-marriage demands are just a prelude to more post-marriage demands. And when the poor parents are unable to meet them, the girls become a kind of
hostage and are mentally and physically tortured. The law is now definitely on the side of the girl but, more often than not, pressures of society, tradition etc., leave her with no option but to suffer the indignities, which, at times, lead to what is euphemistically called dowry deaths. Consequently, many people see daughters as a liability in the avoidance of which they resort to such abominable practices as female foeticide and female infanticide. The failure of the anti-dowry law buttresses the point that unless society acts in concert, such enabling legislation will serve little purpose. By her brave act, Navneet Kaur of Asandh has proved that there is a ray of hope in the otherwise bleak scenario.
|
|
No bird soars too high if he soars on his own wings. — William Blake
|
The coming budget WHEN Finance Minister Palaniappan Chidambaram gets up in the Lok Sabha to present the third budget of the UPA government on the last day of February, many would be wondering what face of the Harvard-educated lawyer-turned-politician would be revealed. Would we see a familiar gung-ho liberaliser giving a rightward shift to economic policies? Or will we witness a man who has become much more mindful of current compulsions of the country’s coalition politics? These questions are largely rhetorical, for the answers seem obvious. The Congress may be fighting electoral battles against the Communists in West Bengal and Kerala a few months down the road, but the fact that the Manmohan Singh government depends on Left support for its survival surely cannot — and will not — be lost on the Finance Minister. It is thus evident that pressures exerted by the Left parties would influence the Union Budget for 2006-07 quite a bit. In other words, do not expect too many dramatic pronouncements that would make the pink press ecstatic and describe the budget as a “dream” one. And, it is almost certain that the budget speech will contain not a few references to the need to create more jobs, assist farmers and help the proverbial aam admi. As Chidambaram himself acknowledged during a recent interaction with the media, the UPA and the government, not to mention journalists and commentators, are all still getting accustomed to the new norms of decision-making under a “rainbow coalition”. To use his words, the “decision-making process in a rainbow coalition government would be different from (the process under) single-party rule”. He added that “there will be areas where we will agree and there will be areas where we will agree to disagree”. The FM’s remarks had come in reply to a question relating to why the government had not talked to its allies or even the Congress party before deciding to cut food subsidies - a decision that Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar later said had been put on hold. Chidambaram has defended the track record of his government by claiming that besides this instance, only once in the past had a Cabinet decision been kept in cold storage. The reference is to the government buckling under Left pressure last year and reversing its decision on divesting shares of Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited. As the instance of the privatisation of the airports at Delhi and Mumbai and the agitation by employees of the Airports Authority of India indicated, the government too will on occasion put its foot down against Left pressure. This becomes easier when the Communists are themselves divided, as they were on the AAI employees’ agitation with West Bengal Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee expressing his apology to passengers who were inconvenienced at Kolkata airport. The Communist parties have apparently decided to soft-pedal two issues on which they strongly disagree with the government. The first is the divestment of minority holdings in profit-making public sector undertakings not described as navratnas. The Left is opposed to the government offloading a part of its stake in profit-making PSUs like Neyveli Lignite and National Mineral Development Corporation, but has decided not to make a big noise about it for the time being. In fact, the government is under greater pressure from the DMK (which is part of the UPA) to not sell shares of Neyveli Lignite and has reportedly postponed a decision in this regard. The second and more contentious issue is the decision to fix the interest rate on deposits with the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation at 8.5 per cent. The Left wanted this rate to be increased to 9.5 per cent, to which the government remains dead opposed. What the Communists have done is to ask affiliated trade unions to go ahead with their protests and have informally decided to raise their voices on the issue only in the run-up to the assembly elections in Bengal and Kerala that are scheduled to take place in May. It is clear that the government and the Left both realise that each would have to give a little to take a little. The blow-hot, blow-cold posturing would, therefore, continue from both sides. The wish-list submitted by the Left parties to Chidambaram is long and detailed but a few key suggestions stand a good chance of being accepted. The Left has suggested that the government raise more resources from the liquid reserves that currently exist with PSUs. It was pointed that 50 central PSUs collectively hold reserves in excess of Rs 2,20,000 crore, which amounts to nearly 7.5 per cent of the country’s gross domestic product. Of this huge sum, barely Rs 80,000 crore has been actively invested. This is a suggestion that the FM would certainly not be averse to. The Left has also suggested removal of long-term capital gains concessions given to mutual funds, higher excise duty on luxury cars run on diesel, the imposition of a flat 0.1 per cent tax rate on all securities transactions (including derivatives and government bonds), a higher capital gains tax rate of 15 per cent (curiously, by citing the example of the US), a rise in the wealth tax rate from 1 per cent to 3 per cent, higher valued added tax or sales tax on so-called luxury consumption (including by shoppers at malls) and a new tax on purchases of foreign exchange. Whereas Chidambaram seems unlikely to accept many of these recommendations, he may go along with the Left and review tax incentives being given under sections 80IA and 80IB of the Income Tax Act by phasing out tax concessions currently being given to industries such as shipping, hotels and tourism, oil refining. The Left wants removal of concessions on housing but that may not happen. The Communists have argued that the government could mobilise an extra Rs 10,000 crore by withdrawing various exemptions on corporate income and export income. The FM would have to seriously consider these proposals. He has already made it clear that the fringe benefit tax would not be done away with, but only simplified. He also knows he has no choice but to raise resources to finance welfare schemes, notably the employment guarantee programme which alone would cost the government Rs 40,000 crore in the coming fiscal year. He says he would have no worry if everybody paid taxes voluntarily. But that is like asking for the moon. So much as he would have liked to extend only a juicy carrot, Chidambaram has no choice but to also wield the big stick. On the positive side, he has much to be thankful for — healthy growth rates of many economic indicators and a booming
stockmarket.
|
Step-train treatment AS a frequent traveller of the Indian Railways, I thought I had seen it all. Be it travelling without tickets or without reservations, general compartments or airconditioned coaches, I had enriched myself with enough experiences to call myself a veteran. But that was before I had a chance to travel by the Mumbai Rajdhani Express. When I saw the bright red and orange-coloured train pulling on Platform No. 3 at the New Delhi railway station, my reaction was the same as my five-year-old son’s. Mouth agape and eyes round in surprise. Never in my life had I seen a sleeker train. The inside of the train proved equally impressive. Clean, shiningly new and orderly, the train stood in sharp contrast with the Guwahati Rajdhani Express, by which I have travelled more times than I care to remember. A comparison ran in my mind. Here, clean bedsheets and blankets were neatly folded and kept in place even before we boarded the train, while in Guwahati Rajdhani, more than once, we had to return the torn, wet blankets. I never understood why the staff did not have time to even dry them properly. No complaint with the services as well. Fancy accessories like paper soap, perfumed freshners and colourful coffee stirrers definitely made the journey memorable. While in the past I had to drag my son to the toilet, this time he volunteered to go, not to relieve himself, but to have a look inside. And we were not disappointed! Timer-operated faucets reminded me of the dry taps and overflowing sinks of the Guwahati Rajdhani. The only thing, which proved to be common, was that I had to post someone on guard in front of the door. Here for the fear that I would lock myself in with that hi-tech locking system (which I did the first time) and in the Guwahati Rajdhani, because many a time the lock did not work. As the comparison went on and on, the word that came immediately to my mind was “step-motherly treatment”, a word, which is very much a part of every Assamese’s vocabulary. I had heard it so many times, but never actually lost much sleep over it. It was the first time I regretted for not paying much attention to those heated arguments on this subject my friends back home often indulged in. Only if I did, perhaps, I would have understood when youngsters all over the country were busy learning the latest American slang, why my friends back home were busy learning such cynical words like “step-motherly treatment” and “human rights violation”. I wished I had listened more
carefully! |
Containing Iran’s nuclear ambitions All the three recent developments may appear rational and even radical. But then all of them convey the threat of a nuclear arms race across the world and in this sense bad news to a minority that wishes for a world free from nuclear weapons and from thereon for a world without war. Look at Iran’s reaction to the IAEA vote on February 4, 2006. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared that “Iran will teach attackers a lesson”. He said to the IAEA to “issue as many resolutions as this as you want and make yourself happy’’ and added: “We don’t fear the Security Council. It’s not the end of the world.’’ Iran’s confidence emanates from the fact that its nuclear facilities are supported by Russia and China. Or is it that Ahmadinejad is sitting on a nuclear weapon facility already? Well, this is unlikely because nuclear weapons and the delivery system cannot be made overnight and in such secrecy. The point is that Ahmadinejad’s brave anti-US postures must, in the natural course, make those who dream of an end to the US hegemony and those who detest George Bush, the war-monger, look up to him. And in that context express disgust over the Manmohan Singh regime’s decision to kow-tow the US and its allies. A generation that grew up detesting the US and participated in umpteen demonstrations and other kinds of agitation against the successive regimes in the US — the Vietnam War some 40 years ago and against the Invasion of Iraq now — must feel happy that they are not alone. This section is indeed a minority in India. Given the fact that information on the vote and the debate on the IAEA and such matters are still confined to the intelligentsia, which is also the middle classes in India, there are very few members of this class who are also anti-US today. A large majority of our middle classes continues to look at the US with awe and hence do not mind humiliation to any extent in their quest for a US visa. You will find them waiting endlessly, rain or shine, around the US Embassy or the Consulates to obtain a US visa. And it is simply foolish to expect them oppose the Manmohan Singh regime for having voted along with the US in the IAEA. The Left parties, in this context, have taken a stand that could alienate them from a section of the middle classes who as members of the various blue collar unions and associations constitute their support base. But then it is indeed good to see the Left standing up for a cause that is ideological and anti-imperialist. And the fact that the Left is correct is borne out by the abuses hurled against it in the mainstream media. Be that as it may. The anti-US position notwithstanding, the Iranian reaction should cause some concern. And that is about the legitimacy that is being sought to be derived from this anti-US stand to develop, possess and stock-pile nuclear weapons. In other words, the same old logic that drove the Soviet Union and the US to embark upon a nuclear race in the name of deterrence. The outcome of this is clear. The world is becoming an increasingly unsafe place by the day. The 20th century, we all know, witnessed so much of destruction and loss of lives due to wars and that these exceeded the sum total of all the wars and battles in the past several hundred years. The fact is we are moving into an era where each nation considers developing and possessing nuclear weapons to be its right; and in some cases we agree to support them because they are seen as their sovereign right and even as expressions against the US attempts to hegemonies the world. But the point is that we are also agreeing to, in the process, to make this world a far more dangerous one than it was when the World War II was brought to an end. A world without wars is possible only when nations agree to disband their armies and dump the arms and ammunitions. That was a dream that many who were inspired by the politics and the culture of the sixties, symbolised, among others, by John Lennon, cherished. There was, indeed, a deep rooted anger against the US establishment among that generation. But then this anger and the politics of that genre was also critical of all the regimes that amassed weapons and claimed that it was necessary to establish peace. That generation and that school of thought considered it morally wrong to posses such weapons of mass destruction and argued that the peace movement would have to start, sustain and grow from a morally superior position. And that, in simple language, means each nation must stand from a morally correct position and declare its opposition to others possessing nuclear weapons. India could have done this and led others if only the BJP-led NDA had not done what it did in Pokhran on May 11, 1998. Having done that, we lost our moral authority to tell others not to develop nuclear weapons the same way as the US had used it on August 6, 1945. Dr Manmohan Singh, perhaps, does not believe in the logic of moral superiority. It is another matter that his party persists with the claim that it inherits Gandhi’s legacy. |
|
Myths about Iran conflict Is
there anything the West can do, short of a highly dangerous military option, to prevent Iran from going forward with its nuclear program? The answer is clearly yes. Although a prolonged standoff with Iran over its nuclear program would pose significant problems for Western countries, including a probable rise in oil prices, the benefits of preventing a nuclear Iran would clearly outweigh the costs. We’d like to try to dispel some common myths on the subject. Myth 1: Economic sanctions would hurt the West more than Iran. The premise of this argument is that any sanctions imposed on Tehran would result in a dramatic rise in oil prices, hurting the economies of Western countries and undermining public support for the sanctions. But while Iran holds the world’s second-largest reserves of oil and gas and is the fourth-largest oil producer, it is in fact a net importer of refined oil products, including gasoline. And internal consumption of oil products in Iran is growing by 5.2 percent a year, far faster than its ability to increase refining capacity. This means that the levels of imports necessary to make the Iranian economy function will only increase over time. Thus, sanctions that prevented Iran from importing, say, refined oil products, including gasoline, could bring its economy to a grinding halt. Perhaps more important, the subsequent shortages would disproportionately affect President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s political base, the urban underclass and lower-middle class, as well as the military. No doubt there would be some cost to Western countries if Iran chose to retaliate by lowering or shutting down its oil production. But Iran would be unlikely to halt oil production for long, because under sanctions, it would depend more than ever on oil revenue to maintain its grip on power: As the economic situation in Iran worsened in response to sanctions, the government would have to rely on handouts and state assistance to maintain loyalty and support from the army and the general population. Myth 2: Russia and China would never go along with sanctions. While persuading Russia and China to support sanctions might take some time and effort, these countries are unlikely to prove reliable allies for the Iranian regime. Russia has little strategic interest in supporting the Iranian cause. While it may see Iran as a useful tool for balancing U.S. power in the Middle East, it has far more to fear from Iran’s nuclear program in the long term than does the United States or Europe. Iran’s support of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism across the Middle East and Central Asia is a direct challenge to Russian interests in territories that were part of the old Soviet empire and are still considered by Moscow to be within its sphere of influence. While playing the role of honest broker between Iran and the West certainly suits the Putin administration’s goals of raising Russian prestige and influence, policy-makers in Moscow are realistic about the challenges presented by Iran to Russia’s long-term interests. While Russia is willing to search for a face-saving compromise, it is unlikely to support Iran to the bitter end. Myth 3: Iran might respond to sanctions by irrationally lashing out at Israel and other U.S. allies. One of the most dangerous assumptions about Iran is that it is acting irrationally or is led by people who do not calculate the potential costs and benefits of their actions. But in fact, while one can challenge the logic that leads the Iranian leadership to seek nuclear weapons in the first place, the Iranians have acted with complete rationality in seeking to achieve their objectives. — LA Times-Washington Post |
|
Fat is not too much of an evil Low-fat diets do not protect women against heart attacks, strokes, breast cancer or colon cancer, a major study has found, contradicting what had once been promoted as one of the cornerstones of a healthy lifestyle. The eight-year study of nearly 50,000 middle-age and elderly women — by far the largest, most definitive test of cutting fat from the diet — did not find any clear evidence that it reduced their risks, undermining more than a decade of advice from many doctors. The findings run contrary to the belief that eating less fat would have myriad health benefits, which had prompted health authorities to begin prominent campaigns to get people to eat less fat and the food industry to line grocery shelves with low-fat cookies, chips and other products. “Based on our findings, we cannot recommend that most women should follow a low-fat diet,” said Jacques Rossouw of the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, which funded the $415 million study. Although the study involved only women, the findings probably apply to men as well, he said. Several experts cautioned, however, that the study hints that there still may be some benefits to reducing the total amount of fat in the diet, especially for breast cancer. In addition, there is clear evidence from this and other studies that particular fats--saturated fats from meat and trans fats from processed foods--are unhealthful and should be avoided. But the findings, being published Wednesday in three papers in the Journal of the American Medical Association, deflate the notion that a simple, easily communicated message of reducing overall fat intake would stave off a host of ills. “We set out to test a promising but unproven hypothesis that has proven to be less promising than we anticipated,'' Rossouw said. ``This is the nature of science: to have incremental gains and setbacks. We have a duty as scientists to put the best information out there at any given time, even if it can become confusing at times.” Skeptics said the findings confirm their long objections to the message that all fat is bad. That strategy may have diverted attention from much more effective approaches that differentiate between healthful and detrimental fats and may have contributed to the obesity epidemic because people worried more about how much fat they ate than how many calories they consumed, they said. “It was a mistake, and this study really confirms that it was the wrong direction to go for nutritional advice,'' said Walter Willett of the Harvard School of Public Health. “It did do harm. It was a lost opportunity. People were given the idea that it was only fat calories that counted. This should be the nail in the coffin for low-fat diets.” Willett and other researchers fear that the findings will leave the public skeptical about all health advice, or will be misinterpreted to mean that diet and lifestyles are unimportant. A large and convincing body of evidence shows that eating a diet rich in fruits, vegetables and whole grains and low in saturated and trans fats; avoiding smoking; exercising regularly; and maintaining an appropriate weight have a powerful effect on health, they said. “There's a danger people will throw up their hands and say, ‘Why should I believe anything else?’” Willett said. “But there is strong evidence that diet and lifestyle do make a big difference.” The findings stem from the Women's Health Initiative, which also shocked the medical establishment in 2002 when it showed that taking hormones not only did not protect the hearts of postmenopausal women but was dangerous. For the new findings, researchers analyzed data from 48,835 women age 50 to 79 who joined the study between 1993 and 1998. About 40 percent were counseled to eat more fruits and vegetables and to cut their overall fat intake, with the goal of reducing their total fat consumption to no more than 20 percent of their daily calories. After about eight years, those women had cut their total fat from 35 to 38 percent to 24 to 29 percent on average, while the rest continued to consume about the same amount. The women on the low-fat diet had slightly lower levels of “bad” cholesterol—low-density lipoprotein—and blood pressure, but their risk of heart attack, stroke and heart disease was unaffected, one paper showed. There were indications, however, that women who cut down on saturated fat, or who ate more fruits and vegetables, did lower their risk. Similarly, when the researchers looked at colorectal cancer, the women who cut their fat intake had no decrease in risk, according to the second paper. But they were less likely to develop polyps that increase the risk, suggesting that a benefit may emerge later on, the researchers said. The third paper found that the low-fat diet also did not significantly decrease the risk of breast cancer. Women on the low-fat diet did have 9 percent fewer breast cancers, but researchers could not be sure that difference was not the result of chance. There were other encouraging hints, however, including signs that women who were consuming the most fat when the study began, or those prone to certain types of tumors, may benefit, especially if they were followed longer. “I think women who are currently following a low-fat diet should be encouraged to do so. We didn't see any unfavorable effects,” said Ross Prentice of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, who noted that the women on the diet also avoided gaining weight. “For women who are at high risk for breast cancer, they should talk it over with their physicians whether adopting a low-fat diet might be warranted.” But overall, the findings fell far short of warranting a broad recommendation for low-fat diets, several experts . “We had hoped that this approach would prove to be beneficial,'' said Barbara Howard of the MedStar Research Institute, who helped conduct the study. “I think we've learned that nutrition is never simple and there are no simple solutions.” — LA Times-Washington Post |
|
|
From the pages of Congratulations to Jinnah
Our sincere congratulations to Mr M.A. Jinnah on his election to the Legislative Assembly. We have not always been able to see eye to eye with Mr Jinnah. We are particularly opposed to the communal tendencies which Mr Jinnah has developed during the last few years. But there is no doubt that in the Assembly the weight of Mr Jinnah’s influence and authority has, on the whole, been thrown on the side of the advocates of immediate Swaraj. He was with Pandit Nehru when the Nationalist Party presented its demand to the British Government. He was again with him when that party, reinforced by the accession of the Liberals, repeated that demand in September, 1925. It is true that in the matter of putting pressure upon the Government with a view to the satisfaction of the demand, he did not go the whole length, but short of the whole length he went nearly as far as he possibly could. We have absolutely no doubt that in the new Assembly he will be equally, if not even more, helpful to the popular cause.
|
If you see a poor, virtuous man, try to ignore the poverty and look only at the virtue. See the smile on his face. He delights in this world and the next. Such is the purity of the virtuous man. — The Buddha Always remember the source of all success. — Islam Perform your duties in an unselfish spirit. Always try to perform your duties without desiring any result. — Ramakrishna Rise above the three modes of Material Nature (goodness, passion and ignorance) and be self-conscious. To a God-realised person, scriptures are as useless as a river in a flooded area. Scripture is only an aid to God-realisation, not needed after one has realised God. —
Bhagavadgita
|
| 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 | |
