 |
|
Pak N-stockpiles Costlier home loans SC’s snub |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
After the nuclear deal
Cure for a doctor
Office
of Profit Bill Harassed by Vigilance chief TV industry explains parental controls
|
Pak N-stockpiles THE report that Pakistan is building a new 1000-MW plutonium-based nuclear reactor at Khushab is a very alarming development. The construction for the purpose, according to the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security, has been going on for over six years near Pakistan’s 50-MW plutonium facility. Once the huge reactor starts production, it can enable Pakistan to make between 40 and 50 nuclear bombs a year, adding up to its stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction considerably. Thus, “South Asia may be heading for a nuclear arms race that could lead to arsenals growing into hundreds of nuclear weapons, or at the minimum, vastly expanded stockpiles of military fissile material”, as the US think tank warns. At present, Pakistan reportedly has 30-50 uranium-based warheads, which are heavier than plutonium-based bombs and hence difficult to be mounted on missiles. Nuclear bombs to be manufactured by using plutonium-based technology will be much lighter —- a great advantage for Pakistan’s military machine. Islamabad has been concentrating on the plutonium-based technology, besides acquiring the latest missile technology from China and North Korea, for a long time. India and the world cannot afford to ignore Pakistan’s plans to multiply its nuclear stockpile. The Bush administration, which knew about this major plutonium reactor at Khushab coming up, might have urged Pakistan not to expand its nuclear weapon programme, as it has claimed. But, obviously, Washington did not put enough pressure on Islamabad to ensure that its advice was heard. This is not fair, to say the least. The US and other powerful members of the international community should remember that the supporters of the terrorist outfits in Pakistan are capable of capturing political power in the future. That will mean that the weapons of mass destruction in Pakistan can come under the possession of extremists who are no friends of either India or the United States. Will the world be safe in such a situation? The international community must act fast and find ways to ensure that Pakistan does not cross the limit and pose a threat to peace in the region.
|
|
Costlier home loans THE RBI on Tuesday hiked its short-term lending and borrowing rates by 0.25 per cent, while keeping the long-term rates unchanged. The repo rate, which was raised to 7 per cent, is the rate at which the RBI lends overnight funds to banks. The reverse repo rate, which now stands at 6 per cent, is the rate at which the apex bank borrows money from banks. As a result, home loan interest rates will go up. Some public sector banks and HDFC have already hinted at a rate hike for home loans. This may weaken demand for houses and bring down prices, which have risen unreasonably high in the recent years. On the other hand, pensioners and other depositors will gain from the rate hikes. The central bank has taken these steps to control inflation, which, it hopes, will stay between 5 and 5.5 per cent. This is commendable in view of the sharp rise in the prices of cereals, pulses and oil since mid-June. The RBI measures are in line with global trends. Interest rates are hardening all over. The Bank of Japan recently upped the interest rate from zero to .25 per cent. The US Federal Reserve is also planning to apply the brakes. The RBI has to keep the rates above the levels of the US and Europe to attract foreign deposits apart from saving the rupee from further depreciation. The RBI hopes that despite the hikes and inflationary pressures, the growth momentum will continue. The economy is projected to grow at 7.5-8 per cent this fiscal year. The manufacturing and service sectors are particularly buoyant. An RBI survey, released on the eve of the quarterly policy review, finds an improvement in business confidence. This is surprising, but welcome in view of the hardening of interest rates, slowdown on reforms, tension in West Asia and a steep hike in global crude oil prices.
|
|
SC’s snub The Supreme Court has rightly taken the Centre and the Punjab government to task for their failure to resolve a 49-year-old land dispute in Nawanshahr. Significantly, it advised them to settle the matter out of court. This is a typical example of how both the Centre and the state have failed to realise the crucial need for resolving the dispute amicably through talks and instead chose to fight it out in the court just for the sake of litigation. Call it pique, one-upmanship or ego, the case shows that both have failed to rise above petty considerations and work for the larger public good. What could have been resolved in a couple of sittings between the Centre and the state has been allowed to prolong for decades only because both were sitting on prestige and were unwilling for an amicable settlement. The case in question pertains to the ownership of just 11 acres of land in Nawanshahr. The Punjab government raised some offices over a portion of this land in 1962. Later, it appealed to the Defence Estates Department of the Government of India to transfer the plot for building a hospital. However, far from considering the request in the right spirit, the Centre has been trying for a court decree to evict the state government from the land. If the Defence Estates Officer was callous and non-cooperative, the Deputy Commissioner of Nawanshahr was no different. He complicated matters by restoring the encroached plot to the state government and setting aside the Tahsildar’s mutation order in favour of the Defence Estates Officer. If the Centre and the state functionaries behave like this and act irresponsibly, how will they convince the general public on the need to avoid litigation, decongest the clogged courts and try for expeditious settlement of disputes through negotiation or other alternative redressal mechanisms? Clearly, as the Supreme Court has said, disputes of this nature are best resolved amicably than through litigation.
|
|
How inappropriate to call this planet Earth when it is clearly Ocean. — Arthur C. Clarke
|
After the nuclear deal
President George W. Bush and Dr Manmohan Singh signed an agreement on July 18, 2005, under which the US leader pledged he would work to achieve “full nuclear energy cooperation” with India. He also pledged to secure agreement of the US Congress to amend the existing laws to end nuclear sanctions against India and to work with friends and allies to adjust international regimes to enable the resumption of nuclear energy cooperation and trade with India. What this “deal” of July 18 essentially aimed at was an end to nuclear sanctions not merely by the US, but also by the 45 members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, which includes world powers like the US, Russia, China, France, the UK and Canada. These sanctions had sullied the international image of India and halted all trade and cooperation in nuclear-related fields with these countries for three decades. It is pertinent to note that countries like Russia and France had indicated that they would be in a position to end nuclear-related sanctions only if the US took the lead. In response to the pledge of President Bush, Dr Manmohan Singh agreed to separate India’s peaceful and strategic nuclear facilities and sign an Additional Protocol with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for placing all peaceful nuclear facilities under international safeguards. One of the architects of our nuclear weapons programme, Dr Raja Ramanna, had favoured such an approach. Dr Manmohan Singh reiterated India’s commitment to the unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing made by the NDA government. He also agreed to “working with the US for the conclusion of a Multilateral Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty “ (FMCT). The July Agreement was described as a “sell out” by influential quarters in both the United States and India. The “Ayatollahs of Nonproliferation” in the US launched a shrill campaign that the nuclear deal would compromise US commitments to global nuclear nonproliferation, encourage countries like North Korea and Iran to go nuclear and destabilise the balance of power in Asia, as it would permit India to develop hundreds of nuclear warheads by getting access to imported uranium ore for its power reactors. In India, apart from criticism by the BJP and the Communist Parties, there was genuine concern that the deal would compel us to eschew nuclear testing for and also “cap” our nuclear weapons production at a relatively low level. There was also concern that the US would use the deal to pressurise us on foreign policy issues like Iran. The operative parts of the proposed legislation to end US sanctions on India that have secured considerable support in both the Senate and the House of Representatives broadly conform to the provisions of the July 18 Agreement. But the proposed legislation contains several “nonbinding” clauses that have caused understandable concern. There are demands that India should join US efforts to “dissuade, isolate and, if necessary, sanction and contain Iran” for its efforts to “acquire weapons of mass destruction”. These provisions also require President Bush to work to obtain a “moratorium on fissile material production by India, Pakistan and China” and conclude a FMCT at the earliest, to which India and the US become parties. Finally, there is a legally binding provision that nuclear cooperation with India will end if it tests a nuclear device. What is even more objectionable is that this provision is designed to prevent India from even undertaking sub-critical (hydronuclear) tests to determine the reliability of its nuclear weapons. While New Delhi can say it is not bound by any “Sense of the Congress” provisions in the legislation, it cannot ignore the fact that, as things stand, nuclear cooperation with the US will end if it tests a “nuclear device”. There is, therefore, merit in the criticism that India is being coerced to adhere to the CTBT by the threats of sanctions and an end to nuclear cooperation. In his statement to Parliament on March 7, 2006, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh asserted that that India-specific safeguards negotiated between India and the IAEA would permit India to take “corrective measures to ensure uninterrupted operation of its civilian nuclear reactors in the event of disruption of future foreign supplies”. He also said: “The United States will support an Indian effort to develop a strategic reserve of nuclear fuel to guard against the disruption of supply over the lifetime of India’s reactors”. He added: “If despite these arrangements, a disruption of fuel supplies to India occurs, the US and India would jointly convene a group of friendly supplier countries such as Russia, France and the UK to pursue measures as would restore supplies to India”. India has yet to negotiate the text of a bilateral nuclear energy agreement with the United States and an Additional Protocol for safeguards with the IAEA. The NSG is also yet to approve the end of nuclear sanctions against India. It remains to be seen what conditions some members of the NSG will seek to impose for the resumption of nuclear cooperation. No government in India can allow a situation to arise where fuel supplies for nuclear power plants are terminated if India decides that its national security interests require that it has to carry out further nuclear tests. The main focus of national attention has to be on whether the fuel supply agreements we sign contain irrevocable provisions for uninterrupted supplies and a “strategic reserve of nuclear fuel”. The July Agreement states that India will “work with the US for the conclusion of a FMCT”. It does not, however, require India to accede prematurely to such a treaty, which will cap our nuclear weapons programme. We have agreed to complete the separation of some designated peaceful facilities and weapons-related nuclear facilities only by 2014. It is evident from this separation plan that we intend to produce fissile material for weapons even beyond 2014. Thus, while we need not oppose the conclusion of a FMCT, we should make it clear that we will abide by its provisions only if it is verifiable, non-discriminatory and not binding on us till we choose to accede to it. India should not rush into concluding any agreement for importing nuclear reactors till there are irrevocable guarantees of fuel supply for the life of the reactors. Nuclear power from imported reactors can perhaps generate 30,000 MW in coming decades. Nepal alone, however, has the potential for providing 83,000 MW of hydro-electric power. Secondly, we seem to have lost a sense of direction, will and courage to develop a credible, minimum, nuclear deterrent. This deterrent is presently less than minimal and certainly not credible, given the delays in testing and deploying the Agni-3 missile and the absence of sea-launch
capabilities.
|
Cure for a doctor I was admitted to the intensive care unit of a reputed hospital in Ludhiana since I was diagnosed to be suffering from dengue shock syndrome. My platelet count was very low, blood pressure nosedived and I developed fluid around my lungs, heart as well as inside my abdomen. An oxygen mask was put on my face and leads of cardiac (heart) monitors were taped on my body. A central venous line was also put near my heart. A number of platelet bottles were transfused into my blood stream. My liver had enlarged to such an extent that I could actually notice it protruding from my abdomen. Though my heartbeat was irregular, I was fully conscious. A dermatologist of some repute myself, an alumnus of the institution and the husband of a professor serving in that college and hospital, I was definitely given VIP treatment there. Ten senior consultants were monitoring me day and night. Trained staff nurses were giving me the best possible medical care. Everybody was wishing for my speedy recovery. The prayers of my wife, children, parents and in-laws were not being answered immediately by God for reasons best known to Him. So far as I was concerned, I never prayed even once, since I presumed my God to be jaani-jaan (All-knowing). Then my parameters showed improvement — my platelets increased, blood pressure stabilised and the fluid in my body cavities disappeared. The central line was taken out and cardiac monitor as well as oxygen pipes were taken off. I was declared out of danger and shifted to a private room. Now one question remains still unanswered. Was I saved because of the timely medical aid or by the grace of God or both? In case of any eventuality, who should have been held responsible? I could have bled to death or persistent low blood pressure could have easily knocked off both of my kidneys. While bowing my head before the Almighty, I confess that my conscience would have given a clean chit to the hospital even if something untoward had happened. A faint central line scar on the right side of my neck will always remind me of my illness, but it is also the only sign that stands testimony to my miraculous
recovery.
|
Office of Profit Bill Article 102 of the Constitution provides for the disqualification of any Member of Parliament. Clause (a) thereof mandates that a person is disqualified from either House of Parliament if he holds any office of profit under the Government of India or the Government of any State, other than an office declared by Parliament by law not to disqualify its holder. The term “office of profit” is not defined in the Constitution, but there is a clear indication of the intentions of the framers of the Constitution in Article 102 (2) which provides that for the purpose of this Article a person shall not be deemed to hold an office of profit under the Government of India or the Government of any State by reason only that he is a Minister either of the Union or of such State. The substitution of Sub Article (2) by the Constitution (Fifty Second Amendment) Act, 1985, has not altered its concept. The principle debarring a holder of office of profit under the Government from being a Member of Parliament, is that such a person cannot then exercise his functions independently of the executive of which he is also a part. It would follow that the independence of the executive from extraneous or profitable considerations is implicit in the doctrine of separation of powers, which is one of the basic features of the Constitution. The issue of notice by the Election Commission to 49 Congress Members of Parliament and the state legislature on the office of profit issue, and the pendency of 250 petitions involving the same question before the Election Commission affecting practically all the political parties has prompted the UPA Government, with rare unanimity and undue haste, to introduce a Bill in the current session of Parliament to amend, for the fifth time, the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959 with retrospective effect from April 4, 1959. Let us consider what the Bill seeks to achieve. The statement of Objects and Reasons for rushing the short Bill of four sections records that to exempt from incurring disqualification the holder of an office which confers executive, judicial or legislative powers or which entitles the holder to draw any allowance other than compensatory allowance, the current practice is to exempt such office itself by making a specific legislative provision to that effect. Not surprisingly, the retrospective legislation is justified on the ground of necessity due to recent developments where approximately 40 or more members from both Houses of Parliament are facing disqualification proceedings on the ground that they are holding an office of profit. It is inconceivable that the law makers are not aware that such a retrospective legislation introduced with the sole purpose of protecting individual Members of Parliament from holding offices of profit would plainly be ultra vires the Constitution. No Parliamentary legislation or any constitutional amendment would save any of such “Office of Profit”, being violative of the basic features of the Constitution. On May 30, 2006, President Abdul Kalam, in exercise of his power under Article 111 of the Constitution, returned the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Bill of 2006 to the Houses of Parliament with a message requesting that Parliament reconsider the provisions of the Bill in the light of the objections raised therein. Such action of the President was consistent with his constitutional obligation under Article 60 of the Constitution to safeguard the well-being of the people of India. The reported decision of the UPA Government to present the Bill to the President again for his assent without any modification raises serious Such a decision is in violation of the government’s fundamental duty to abide by the Constitution, respect its ideals and give due respect to the office of President. The President’s objections related to the absence of uniform criteria which should be just, fair and reasonable and applicable to all the States and Union Territories in a clear and transparent manner. These objections for a lay person imply that the President had doubts about the constitutional validity of the proposed enactment. Should the President withhold his assent to the Bill when it is presented to him again, he will be violating the mandate of Article 111 of the Constitution. And should he give his assent to the Bill without the Government clearing his doubts, he is violating his constitutional obligation under Article 60. In this situation, the President would be within his constitutional right under Article 143 to advise the Government to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court on the constitutional validity of the proposed enactment.
**** The writer is a senior advocate of the Supreme Court of India
|
|
Harassed by
Vigilance chief The circular issued by Mr K.R. Lakhanpal, the Chief Secretary, Punjab, asking the chief of the Vigilance Department to take a prior clearance of the Chief Secretary before initiating enquiries against senior IAS officers seems to be a routine reiteration of the position as it prevails in the states. The Chief Minister’s public dissociation from the policy pronunciation of the Chief Secretary seems to be either a misreporting by the media or a hasty off-the-cuff remark of a politician. I had joined Bihar cadre of the IAS in 1955 when Mr Paul Appleby, an American expert, had published a study in which he had described Bihar as one of the best administered states of India. The situation deteriorated fast so that by the close of the seventies Bihar started being cited as one of the worst administered states of India. The chief reason for this change was that the political parties that came to rule Bihar ordered the establishment of a number of commissions of enquiry to go into the alleged misdeeds of the erstwhile political masters. The charges framed up were lapped up by the media almost convincing the general public that what was alleged was true and in committing those irregularities the civil services had connived with the politicians. One of the main architects of framing of charges against the previous politicians in power was the chief of vigilance who had remained on his job for more than a decade. The vanity of the Vigilance chief apparently got hurt when he visited Dhanbad during my tenure as the Deputy Commissioner. He joined hands with a dismissed clerk on my transfer to Ranchi. The dismissed clerk brought out a scurrilous yellow local sheet alleging some cock and bull misconduct on my part. Unfortunately for me, my transfer to Ranchi was ordered by the Chief Minister overruling the Chief Secretary in the wake of the 1964 communal riots as in his perception I was the most competent officer who could be depended upon to restore communal peace in Ranchi. This gave the Vigilance Chief an opportunity to seek clearance of the Chief Secretary of his proposal to initiate a discreet enquiry into my conduct towards the end of my stay at Dhanbad. The Secretary Personnel was shocked when he saw the orders and immediately thought it fit to inform me as a friend.He was good enough to send me a copy of the allegations that had been made. I had put in just ten years of service and if I had let the matters take their course, I would have virtually ended my career in the IAS. I applied for leave of two months which was sanctioned easily. I, thereafter, addressed a letter to the Chief Secretary answering all charges without officially having received any letter from the government concluding with the words that I had a promising IAS career before me but with this development it had come under a shadow so at this stage I had decided to resign from the service unconditionally. I left him with the unanswered moral question if it was appropriate on his part to give his concurrence to the Vigilance chief’s proposal so hastily. I did not wait for an answer and proceeded to my village near Chandigarh. I was lucky as I found that the Chief Secretary quickly recalled his orders on which he obtained the concurrence of the Chief Minister who ordered that I should be recalled from leave and that I be entitled to travel by air at government cost for rejoining my duty in Ranchi.
|
|
TV industry explains parental controls All three major television distributors —broadcast stations, cable networks and satellite services — have united for the first time in a media campaign to educate parents on how to block objectionable programming from their children, as cable and satellite outlets fear that the government crackdown on broadcast indecency will spread to them. The government’s recent tenfold increase in fines for broadcast indecency combined with the public’s nearly nonexistent use of blocking technology, such as the V-chip, has motivated the three rivals to join forces in contributing airtime for a series of public service announcements. Two TV spots — each with a 15-second and a 30-second version — are to debut Wednesday on local broadcast stations and the top 100 cable channels, as seen on cable and satellite systems, said Peggy Conlon, chief executive of the Ad Council, which creates public service announcements for use on donated airtime. The ads direct parents to a Web site, www.thetvboss.org, which instructs viewers on the use of blocking technology. The man behind the campaign is longtime motion picture industry lobbyist Jack Valenti, who met with Sens. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, and Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaiil, in November when the two leaders of the Senate Commerce Committee convened a working group of industry, government and advocacy representatives on the topic of indecency. The senators asked the entertainment industry for a plan to counter the rising coarseness of television broadcasts. The alternative was a further crackdown on indecency and the possibility of legislation requiring cable and satellite operators — such as Comcast Corp. and the DirecTV Group — to change the way they sell channels. The cable industry has been airing consumer-education campaigns since 2004, but Stevens and Inouye made it clear that those didn’t allay all their fears, said Rob Stoddard, senior vice president for communications and public affairs for the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, the major trade group of the cable industry. “They were very clearly looking for us to do something,” Stoddard said. “This issue (indecency) is simply not going to dry up and go away.” Valenti — who for years was known as the only man who could unite the fiefdoms of the major Hollywood studios to get them to agree on, for instance, the movie ratings system — envisioned a multi-platform campaign to instruct parents in the blocking technology already available in television sets and on cable and satellite remote controls. A 2004 Kaiser Family Foundation survey found that 15 percent of parents who own televisions with V-chips use the technology, which allows users to block programming carrying certain ratings. The broadcasters have little incentive to remain in the campaign. In June, before the public service announcements were ready, Congress passed a law upping the maximum indecency fine for broadcasters to $325,000 from $32,500. But the cable and satellite providers — which are outside the Federal Communications Commission’s authority to police indecency — still fear government intrusion into their content. The cable and satellite systems balk at such ideas, saying they would result in diminished choice for consumers because popular cable channels — such as TNT — effectively subsidize lesser-watched channels, such as Court TV, which could not garner enough viewers on their own to survive, the operators say. By arrangement with
LA Times-Washington Post |
|
From the pages of “Indicate” v. “Syndicate”
“What is going on? I know what is going on. I am going on,” said Mr Wilson recently when asked about the going on in his Cabinet. Here Mrs Indira Gandhi is going on — and she knows it too. But Mr Morarji Desai, who is going out, is not so sure if she would be able to go on like this for a thousand years. If the party upholds him, he says, “then she goes.” It could not but be that she also knows this. Her action in virtually dismissing Mr Desai so unceremoniously is the first shot in the war which she is going to fight to the finish. The next few days will show who or what is going to be finished. Whoever is finished, it is clear that the Congress is finished as a ruling force. If the long awaited split comes, it could lead to one of two things.
|
Self-control is the best way to calm the thought-disturbed mind. It brings serenity and allows us to look on the world dispassionately. — The
Bhagavadgita No salvation is possible for man as long as he has desire, as long as he hankers for worldly things. — Ramakrishna To believe in something, and not to live it, is dishonest. — Mahatma Gandhi By merely calling oneself excellent, does not make one so. — Guru Nanak In the whole creation that I see around me, Nothing worthwhile can be obtained without effort and exertion. — Guru Nanak Inside this body of flesh, blood and bones, there is another of vibrating energy. — The
Upanishadas Everyone must be treated equally irrespective of relationships. Sages spend life times searching for this balance. —The Mahabharata What is God? He is the breath inside your breath. — Kabir
|
| 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 | |
