 |
|
N-deal faces uncertainty Parivar girl Uma |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Doctors at large Rural posting a must to improve medicare Union Health Minister Anbumani Ramadoss has been stressing the need for posting doctors in rural areas to operationalise the primary health centres (PHCs) effectively and improve health care in the countryside.
Limits of power — A Tribune debate
The Aryan myth
Fear and hate in
US universities World Bank in a sorry state Chatterati
|
N-deal faces uncertainty Sceptics of the India-US nuclear deal may be feeling vindicated when reports from Washington suggest that the final agreement may not come about. It is, however, too early to say that the strenuous efforts made so far will go waste. The deal is, no doubt, faced with uncertainties as indirectly acknowledged by US Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, a key official involved in the negotiations. His comment that “there is a fair degree of frustration in Washington that the Indian government has not engaged seriously enough or quickly enough with both the United States and the IAEA” gives an indication of what is going on in the US. It is indeed significant that New Delhi, which not long ago used to brag about the merits of the nuclear deal, is silent about it. That too when the crucial negotiations for the123 Agreement are on. Washington is opposed to giving India the right to import uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing technologies from the US on the plea that these have military implications. The US also wants to ensure that India, which has otherwise declared a moratorium on nuclear weapon tests, is never able to carry out such an exercise even if necessitated by any unforeseen development. This is not acceptable to New Delhi, as it has been asserting since the very beginning. Any such curb would amount to not only compromising India’s national interests but also questioning its established credentials as a responsible nuclear power. There is another major area of disagreement: fuel supply guarantees as incorporated in the March 2, 2006, agreement. India wants this to be included in the 123 Agreement, but the US is unwilling. India’s insistence is aimed at ensuring uninterrupted fuel supplies to its nuclear facilities even if the deal ceases to be in operation. This eventuality cannot be wished away as there is a US law that prohibits nuclear trade with a non-NPT country which conducts nuclear tests. However, what might have contributed to the unhappy situation more than all these factors is India’s inability to accommodate the US as much as it wants on Iran. The US appears to have taken a serious view of New Delhi’s decision to go ahead with the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline, despite Washington’s open opposition. The US should realise that no government in India can afford to allow its foreign policy to be guided from Washington or elsewhere.
|
|
Parivar girl Uma Uma Bharati
is the kind of mercurial political leader who can behave like an outsider even when she is inside a party and as an insider when she happens to be out of it. So, speculation about her return to the BJP is none too significant. What matters is that she has withdrawn candidates of her Bharatiya Janshakti Party from the Uttar Pradesh Assembly elections - obviously to boost the chances of the BJP. This conciliatory gesture has come about following the appeal of VHP leader Ashok Singhal. That just goes to show how much the Sangh parivar is involved in the affairs of the BJP. Apparently, the party has become desperate in Uttar Pradesh with all straw polls suggesting that it is trailing behind the BSP and the SP. At such a trying time, every extra hand is welcome, although the influence of Uma Bharati will be minimal because she has hardly carved out a niche for herself in UP. Perhaps she herself knows that the electoral performance of her party candidates may be nothing to write home about. So, why not mend fences with the parivar? What rankles is that all this is being done in the name of consolidating Hindu votes. What the parivar fails to grasp is that Hindus don’t vote en bloc. They have seen through the narrow games played by some religious zealots and have been extending support to various parties depending on their own interests. For instance, the BSP today enjoys considerable support among even Brahmins. Interestingly, the former Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister has rejected all suggestions that she is going to join the BJP soon, rather brusquely. There is an ominous ring to her remark that if the BJP fails to get a clear majority in Uttar Pradesh elections, it should accept that the Hindu community has no faith in it. Does that mean that if the UP voter does not oblige the BJP, she will continue to plough a lonely furrow in Madhya Pradesh? Even now, she has given no clear indication whether she will be campaigning for BJP candidates in UP.
|
|
Doctors at large Union
Health Minister Anbumani Ramadoss has been stressing the need for posting doctors in rural areas to operationalise the primary health centres (PHCs) effectively and improve health care in the countryside. It is also suggested that unless doctors and nurses work at least for one year in rural areas, the Medical Council of India (MCI) and the Nursing Council of India (NCI) should not register them. Undoubtedly, the doctors’ reluctance to work in villages has adversely affected health care in rural areas. They may be attracted by the promise of a thriving practice and the pulls of the city life, but what will happen to the medical needs of the countryside if doctors remain stuck to the urban areas? As many PHCs in the country run without doctors, the poor and others, too, are forced to knock at the doors of quacks because the cost of treatment in private clinics is prohibitive. True, most states have managed to provide one PHC for every 30,000 people and a sub-centre for 5,000. However, the problem is that facilities in these PHCs are not fully functional. Most PHCs have no doctors, nurses, paramedical staff, laboratories and medical supplies. Mr Ramadoss has said that the problem has become acute as 30 to 40 per cent of the doctors who were posted at PHCs had failed to report for work. The National Rural Health Mission (NHRM) seeks to upgrade the doctors’ skills to an extent that in an emergency they can administer anesthesia, perform C-section deliveries and take care of neo-natal problems. But the basic problem remains: how to ensure that doctors work in rural areas? One does not know the fate of the Centre’s proposed Bill providing for a one-year tenure for all doctors in rural areas. According to the draft Bill, about 28,000 medical students passing out from various government and private medical colleges every year will be first posted in rural areas with a stipend (drawn from the respective state governments) and temporary registration. The doctors will get permanent registration only after they have served for a year in rural areas. Given the urgent need to overhaul and strengthen public health services in the villages, enactment of the proposed legislation should be hastened.
|
|
We may become the makers of our fate when we have ceased to pose as its prophets. — Karl Popper
|
Limits of power — A Tribune debate
A
lively debate on the limits of judicial activism has attained high visibility after the conference of Chief Justices and Chief Ministers. The Prime Minister said on April 8: “I do sincerely believe that the judiciary, the executive and the legislature have an obligation both to our Constitution and to our people to work in harmony.... Each organ must respect the roles and functions of the other.… Courts have played a salutary and corrective role in innumerable instances. They are highly respected by our people for that. At the same time, the dividing line between judicial activism and judicial over-reach is a thin one…. We need standards and bench-marks for screening PILs so that only genuine PILs with a justiciable cause of action based on judicially manageable standards are taken up… The Supreme Court should take the lead in framing rules in this regard.” A distinguished former Chief Justice of India, Mr Justice J.S. Verma, in a speech made at Jabalpur on March 24, used strikingly similar language. For instance, he said: “Pratap Banu Mehta, President of the Centre for Policy Research, has said the evidence of judicial over-reach is now too overwhelming to be ignored.... It has to be admitted that the line between appropriate judicial intervention and judicial over-reach is often tricky.” Mr Justice Verma continued: “There can be no quarrel with the above observation that the line between appropriate judicial intervention and judicial over-reach is often tricky.... Inappropriate judicial intervention results in judicial adhocism or judicial tyranny.... It is time the Supreme Court framed rules to ensure consistency in approach of the court in all PILs.” The Chief Justice of India, who addressed the conference before the Prime Minister, observed: “The application of judicial review to determine constitutionality of the legislation and to review the executive decision sometimes creates tension between the judge and the legislative and executive branches. Such tension is natural and to some extent desirable. The principle of separation of powers are kept in the forefront....” These views demonstrate a considerable amount of convergence. There is no dispute that each organ of the State must work within its constitutional limits; judicial review has played a salutary role; PILs have great utility in initiating corrective actions; and the principle of separation of powers must be kept in the forefront. It is difficult to fault the Prime Minister’s views when they coincide with similar views earlier expressed. Distinguished Lok Sabha Speaker Somnath Chatterjee has also repeatedly voiced concern at judicial interventions relating to the powers of the two Houses of Parliament and state legislatures. There is considerable substance in many of these concerns. They cannot and should not be ignored. But a debate started by the media in an effort to show sharply divergent views seems to me to be an exercise in highlighting legitimate differences and magnifying them into major confrontations. A debate which contains sweeping generalisations and penchant criticism is both flawed and sterile. Though it makes a good copy, it is wiser to consider specific instances and identify areas and interventions where criticism may be justified to strengthen democratic values in a spirit of accommodation. As far back as 1982, a Bench of two judges of the Supreme Court referred several questions in regard to social action litigation (another phrase for PIL) to a Constitution Bench for evolving guidelines. The reference has not seen the light of day though some of the questions have been resolved by subsequent judgments. Mr Justice Verma in his speech also refers to draft rules framed by the Supreme Court laying down guidelines in relation to PILs which do not appear to have been finally formulated. The Prime Minister’s appeal in this connection, therefore, needs to be urgently addressed. Two other decisions of the Supreme Court are vulnerable to criticism. Under Article 122 Parliament and under Article 212 the state legislatures are complete masters of their own procedure and in the conduct of their business are not subject to the jurisdiction of any court. In spite of these clear provisions, the Supreme Court by two orders passed in February 1998 gave directions in relation to the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly. It summoned a special session of the Assembly, set the agenda for a composite floor test and warned against disturbances. A similar order was passed on March 9, 2005, in relation to the Jharkhand legislature, giving interim directions for holding a session, setting the agenda for a floor test, warning against any disturbance and requesting for a video-recording. The Jharkhand order created a political storm. Speaker Somnath Chatterjee advocated a Presidential reference. The Supreme Court order was triggered by the most cynical and unethical behaviour of the Governor who ignored the claim of the Opposition NDA chief ministerial candidate Arjun Munda in an effort to keep in power Shibu Soren supported by the UPA government at the Centre. The Supreme Court order led to the nullification of the indefensible behaviour of the Governor but was constitutionally wrong, though morally right. The opposite view was legally right but morally indefensible. A hard case made bad law. These cases illustrate the creeping jurisdictional increase in judicial review triggered by totally unworthy and cynical behaviour by the executive branch. But Speaker Somnath Chatterjee’s strong, though unsuccessful, pitch for a Presidential reference served a great purpose. It exposed the legal and constitutional infirmity of the Supreme Court order. This is one side of the coin, but let us now look at the other side. A judge characterises “Muslims” as not being a minority; directions are given that the SSC qualification is necessary for driving licence for certain vehicles; detailed directions are given to schools in Delhi regarding the admission process leading to total chaos in admissions. Such directions lead to legitimate criticism about judicial power and its excesses. In sum, the timely warnings emanating from the executive and the legislature need to be addressed by the judiciary and the legal profession. Posturing and confrontation are counterproductive. Judicial review and judicial activism cannot be wished away. It is one of the pillars of our democratic way of life and the bedrock for protecting human rights. But the courts in the process must not lose their way. The Constitution promises the rule of law not the rule of whim or caprice whether of the administrator or the
judge. The writer is Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India.
|
The Aryan myth
Scholars, literary “sleuths” and research scientists seem to take a fiendish delight in destroying some of our long-cherished beliefs. For many years now, there has been rather a futile controversy as to who actually wrote Shakespeare’s plays and sonnets; the Bard himself or his patron, the Earl of Southampton. Christopher Marlowe or the Virgin Queen in her spare moments when she was not giving chase to the Spanish Armada. So, too, there has been the bickering over the identity of the lady with the famous smile, Mona Lisa. Some art experts are of the view that it was a self-portrait of the artist, Leonardo da Vinci wearing a wig. Others have said that the smile wasn’t smile but a grimace of pain from a woman suffering in illness. I am inclined to believe the latter view as I have always thought that da Vinci’s subject was the victim of a dyspeptic ulcer. And, a few years ago, some of these art snoopers visiting the western world’s most famous art galleries, declared that a few of the works by the Old Masters in Queen Elizabeth’s priceless collection were clever fakes. Then came a real eye-opener, a blockbuster, shaking our faith in our own ancestry. There was that beautiful story in the Bible about God creating the first man, Adam, and giving him the run of an earthly paradise called the Garden of Eden. Being an understanding and compassionate God, he soon realised that poor Adam would feel rather lonely living by himself. So, one day, while Adam was enjoying a siesta, God detached a spare rib from his chest which he fashioned into a woman called Eve, our ancestress, or so we thought. Eve, like most women, had an inquisitive nature. So, beguiled by a snake-in-the-grass, she dug her teeth into a fruit from the one tree in the garden that the Lord had forbidden the couple to touch. And being a somewhat henpecked husband, Adam too took a bite from it, having/been prevailed upon to do so by his wife. The consequences of disobeying the creator were disastrous, not only for Adam and Eve, but for posterity. Driven out from the Garden of Eden, they produced two sons, Cain and Abel. The former, consumed by jealousy of his brother, killed him, and so began the cult of violence which plagues us to this day. And then came a man called Charles Darwin, a biologist, who shocked the 19th Century by declaring that man was descended from apes. He was dismissed as a lunatic, or at least a crank. But today, when I consider the antics and utterances of some of our politicians I tend to think that Darwin did the poor ape a disservice by making him our ancestor! Top cap it all, a few years ago some scientists at the College de France in Paris, making a careful study of ‘D.N.A.’ or the genetic material of racial groups, came to the conclusion that Adam and Eve were Africans and Adam was a pigmy. Unfortunately, this astounding discovery came many years too late. Had it been made when Adolf Hitler was alive, he would have died of an apoleptic fit, thus saving the world from a great deal of
trouble.
|
Fear and hate in US universities ON the night of 11 September 2001, Al Dershowitz of Harvard Law School exploded in anger. Robert Fisk, he roared over Irish radio, was a dangerous man. I was “pro-terrorist”. I was “anti-American” and that, Dershowitz announced to the people of County Mayo, “is the same as anti-Semitic”. Of course I had dared to ask the “Why” question; Why had 19 Arabs flown aircraft into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and Pennsylvania? Take any crime on the streets of London and the first thing Scotland Yard does is look for a motive. But when we had international crimes against humanity on the scale of New York, Washington and Pennsylvania, the first thing we were not allowed to do was look for a motive. How very odd. The 19 murderers came from a place called the Middle East. Was there a problem out there? But Al would have none of this. And I got the message. To ask the “Why” question made me a Nazi. Which is why I subsequently received a flood of mail, much of it from Denver - what has Denver got against me? - telling me that my mother was Adolf Eichmann’s daughter. Thanks, Al. I’m sure you didn’t dream of the hate mail your silly diatribe will inspire. I guess Irish radio host Eamon Dunphy did. He pulled the plug on Al. I’m recalling all this nonsense because Al has been back at work attacking his old nemesis, Norm Finkelstein, who has just applied for tenure at DePaul University in the US where he is an assistant professor of politics. Norm’s department has supported him but Al has bombarded faculty members with a blistering attack on Norm and all his works. So let me just explain what these works are. Finkelstein, who is Jewish and the son of Holocaust survivors, has published a number of works highly critical of Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian West Bank and the use Israeli supporters make of the Holocaust of six million Jews to suppress criticism of Israel’s policies. He has accused Dershowitz of plagiarising portions of his 2003 book The Case for Israel. Finkelstein’s book, The Holocaust Industry, earned Dershowitz’s continued fury. Al is clearly trying to destroy Norm’s career, adding that the “dossier” he sent to DePaul academics - we remember that word “dossier” rather too well in Britain and, I should add, Al has absolutely no connection to DePaul University - contains details of “Norman Finkelstein’s ... outright lies, misquotations and distortion”. It will be a disgrace, says Al, for DePaul to give tenure to Norm. “His scholarship is no more than ad hominem attacks on his ideological enemies.” As if this is not enough, Al - who is also Jewish - takes a crack at philosopher and linguistic academic Noam Chomsky who has supported Norm and whom Al refers to as “the high priest of the radical anti-Israeli left”. Enough, I hear readers shout. I agree. But Norm’s politics department give him top marks for scholarship and says he “offers a detailed argument that suggests that Dershowitz plagiarised or inappropriately appropriated large sections of others work in The Case for Israel”. Norm has a “substantial and serious record of scholarly production and achievement” and has So far so good. But now up pops “Chuck” Suchar, the dean of DePaul’s College of Liberal (sic) Arts and Sciences, with an extraordinary recommendation that Norm should not be granted tenure. While acknowledging that “he is a skilled teacher” with “consistently high course evaluations,” Chuck has decided “that a considerable amount of [his work] is inconsistent with DePaul’s Vincentian values, most particularly our institutional commitment to respect the dignity of the individual and to respect the rights of others to hold and express different intellectual positions”. Norm’s books, according to Chuck, “border on character assassination and ... embody a strategy clearly aimed at destroying the reputation of many who oppose his views”. I loved too, that bit about “Vincentian values”. That really does warrant a chortle or two. St Vincent de Paul - the real de Paul who lived from 1581 to 1660, not the de Paul of Chuck’s soft imagination - was a no nonsense theologian who was captured by Muslim Turkish pirates and taken to Tunis as a slave. Here, however, he argued his religious values so well that he converted his owner to Christianity and earned his freedom. His charitable organisations - he also created a home for foundlings in Paris - became a legend which Chuck Suchar simply dishonours. All over the United States, however, Norm’s academic chums have been condemning Suchar’s tomfoolery; even in Beirut, where Norm has lectured, academics of the American University have insisted that he be granted tenure in his department, Arabs supporting a Jewish professor and son of Holocaust survivors. Of course, I grant that all this is a little heavy for the real world and I do have a secret desire to take Norm, Chuck and Al and bang their heads together. But what is happening at DePaul University is a very serious matter in the anodyne, frightened academic world that now exists in the US. Norm’s moment of truth comes up in May. As they say, watch this space. By arrangement with
|
|
World Bank in a sorry state
WASHINGTON – In the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, there was a new recognition that poor countries could harm rich ones: Weak and failing states could incubate disease, crime, environmental degradation – and terrorism. But that healthy recognition is fading, and the World Bank, which ought to be a powerful voice against complacent backsliders, is muted by scandal. Before we get to the World Bank, consider the bigger picture. After September 11, the world launched the Doha round of trade talks, which was supposed to help developing countries; now Doha has fizzled. There was hope for more humanitarian intervention; now the Iraq syndrome undermines the Western will to intervene. Then there is the aid story. After September 11, foreign assistance from governments doubled from $52 billion in 2001 to $107 billion in 2005; and that year, the leaders of the industrialized nations gathered at the Group of Eight summit in Gleneagles, Scotland, and pledged a further doubling of aid to sub-Saharan Africa. But the Gleneagles promise is proving empty. The latest data show that governments gave less in 2006 than they had a year earlier. An analysis by the Center for Global Development projects that aid to sub-Saharan Africa will grow at less than half the rate promised at Gleneagles. The West’s financial retreat is a policy retreat, too, because an alternative patron of poor nations is emerging in the form of China. So long as Western governments dominated the aid business, African governments had reason to listen to their advice on fighting corruption and building institutions. But as Western aid budgets tighten, more African leaders will turn to China for cash and technical assistance. China cares little for controlling corruption and still less for democratic notions of accountability. Even though China has developed marvelously itself, its new sway in Africa is likely to set back the struggle against poverty. In times like these, the West needs a clear voice to make the case for development. In the past, this has frequently come from the World Bank: As the bank’s president in the 1970s, Robert McNamara coined the phrase “absolute poverty.” And James Wolfensohn, his most illustrious successor, did more than anybody else to forge the post-September 11 consensus in favor of development. But there is no moral clarity emanating from the bank right now. Instead, there is demoralizing scandal. The scandal centres on the pay of people around Paul Wolfowitz, the World Bank president. Kevin Kellems, an unremarkable press-officer-cum-aide who had previously worked for Wolfowitz at the Pentagon, pulls down $240,000 tax-free – the low end of the salary scale for World Bank vice presidents, who typically have PhDs and 25 years of development experience. Robin Cleveland, who also parachuted in with Wolfowitz, gets $250,000 and a free pass from the IRS, far more than her rank justifies. Kellems and Cleveland have contracts that don’t expire when Wolfowitz’s term is up. They have been granted quasi-tenure. Then there is the matter of Shaha Riza, a long-standing bank official who is Wolfowitz’s romantic partner. She went on paid leave ( to the State Department) after Wolfowitz arrived; her salary has since jumped from $133,000 to $194,000. When questions were first asked about Riza’s rewards, a spokesman declared that the matter had been handled by the bank’s board and general counsel, implying that the bank president himself had not been responsible. But the truth was that Wolfowitz had been closely involved, as a contrite Wolfowitz admitted last week. Treating an anti-poverty institution this way would look bad under any circumstances. But the scandal is especially damaging to Wolfowitz because his leadership had generated questions already. Wolfowitz has alienated the staff by concentrating too much power in the hands of Kellems and the abrasive Cleveland; he has alienated shareholders by presenting half-baked strategy ideas; he has alienated borrowers by blocking loans, sometimes capriciously. After September 11, Wolfensohn drove home the point that the fortunes of the world’s rich depend on the fortunes of the world’s poorest. In good times an invisible wall seems to divide the two. “There is no wall,” Wolfensohn insisted. Now, five years later, the United States is walling off its southern border and the aid boom is over. And where is the current World Bank president? Fending off calls for resignation. By arrangement with
|
|
Chatterati ALL attention 24 by 7 is focused on the Congress crown prince Rahul Gandhi, who is all over Uttar Pradesh, taking digs at the Mulayam government and the BJP. Rahul is no doubt a crowd-puller. The youth of UP wait for hours as this charismatic youngster drops in from above in his chopper. He has the grandmothers’ blessings, girls just want to touch his hands, and the men folk give in to his charming smile. Even though they are note sure about voting for the Congress, their enthusiasm is overwhelming. There is, of course, curiosity about the new Gandhi. His message is clear – development, development and development. The youth understand his body language. At the same time they are a bit apprehensive as to whether he is here to stay. Many want to know why he did not start this road show a few months ago. The Congressmen say that he was preparing his own strategy, thinking about how to win the state with inputs from the grassroot level. Will Rahul Gandhi be a vote-catcher? The whole country will be watching out for the results. Quiet break In the capital Rahul swiftly changes from his politically crisp khadi kurta pyjama into a T-shirt and cargo pants. Without any hang-ups he goes to the famous South Indian Sagar Ratna, with his friends, for a quiet evening. Thoroughly enjoying his lassi with sugar free sweetener and masala dosa without oil. In a quiet, matter-of-fact manner, he explains to his friends, when asked, why his hand is bandaged. The skin, he says, peeled off when people were constantly shaking his hand during the campaign. He politely calls the waiters “bhaiya” and his “thanks” and “please” are in place. He finished his meal with a diet coke and quietly slipped out of the restaurant. Incorrigible MCD The outcome of the recent MCD elections will only impact a miniscule minority of politicians and their band of followers, comprising middlemen, property brokers, fixers and petty businessmen currying favours. Before long, this hitherto loyalist group will attach itself to a new emerging group of power brokers in the latest dispensation. For the millions of people living in the capital and hoping for succour, life will not be for a moment easy; there is hardly anything new which the new regime has promised them or is capable of delivering. MCD’s past history of corruption and incompetence hardly evokes any confidence among the people. BJP’s jubilation will also be short-lived. The vote for change is not a vote for them. Once their corporators realise their inability to satisfy the myriad demands of their wards, they will forget about contributing meaningfully to MCD’s functioning and look for shortcuts. The MCD needs a jolt. Street lights, paved roads, pedestrian paths and garbage cans are also required in non-VIP colonies.
|
First secure the oil of divine love, and then set your hand to the duties of the world. — Shri Ramakrishna God is hidden in every heart. Every heart is illumined by Him. — Guru Nanak He alone lives in whom the Lord resides. No one else is really alive. — Guru Nanak
|
| 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 | |
