 |
|
To the polls Reprieve for Maya Punjab eyes metro |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Bandhs are not against law
The case of Bommai
Saving lives is more important
than protecting patents Ensure integrated aircraft development Delhi Durbar
|
To the polls The
announcement of elections in Himachal Pradesh three months ahead of schedule, to coincide with those in Gujarat, has enlivened the political scene. The well-laid-out plans to announce more sops just before the model code of conduct comes into play have gone awry. This would be the first time in Himachal Pradesh that elections to three tribal Assembly constituencies would be held ahead of elections in other segments. The term of the Gujarat Assembly was in any case ending in December. What is similar in the two states going to the polls is the fact that the contest in both would be essentially between the Congress and the BJP. The BSP has made some forays into Himachal Pradesh of late but their impact is yet to be fully noticed. So, it is the old rivals who will slug it out. In Himachal Pradesh, if the Congress has to reckon with anti-incumbency factor, the BJP is hemmed in by internal differences and the absence of a mass appeal leader. In Gujarat, everything hinges on the performance of Chief Minister Narendra Modi. This time, it is not only the Congress which is out to dislodge him but also his own colleagues in the BJP who are after his blood. The almost open rebellion by men like Mr Keshubhai Patel has enlivened the proceedings no end. What happens in these two states may not be a pointer to the Lok Sabha elections, whether they come on time or a little early, as predicted by most political pundits. But the fate of Mr Modi in the state elections will certainly have a bearing on the future of the BJP and its policies. If Mr Modi wins, he can be counted upon to play a bigger role in the BJP affairs on the national stage. This will worry most enlightened citizens who believe in a plural society. Any reverses in Gujarat will occasion a swing in the reverse direction. |
|
Reprieve for Maya The
Supreme Court’s refusal to examine the correctness of Uttar Pradesh Governor T.V. Rajeswar’s refusal to grant sanction for prosecuting Chief Minister Mayawati in the Rs 175-crore Taj Corridor case has given her a reprieve — at least for now. The court has ruled that it was only interested in the proper investigation of the case and once the charge-sheet was filed, the matter rested with the trial court. This comes as a surprise because the same court had earlier questioned the CBI’s propriety in recommending the closure of the case in which Ms Mayawati, her erstwhile ministerial colleagues and six IAS officers were reportedly involved. It was felt that the CBI’s decision was aimed at bailing out the BSP leader in lieu of her party’s support to the UPA government at the Centre. The Supreme Court had rightly stepped in and reopened the case as it involved serious irregularities and malpractices. If the Supreme Court does not want to adjudicate on the Governor’s actions, what is the alternative, particularly when there are apprehensions that the UP Governor had acted questionably and arbitrarily in the exercise of his powers? What is the way out when a governor fails to act impartially or with mala fide intentions? Under the Constitution, the governor’s actions are subject to judicial review. In many cases, particularly with regard to the imposition of President’s rule, the Supreme Court did intervene and scrutinise his actions. Wednesday’s ruling notwithstanding, there is still a ray of hope. The court has suggested that an independent public interest litigation can be filed in the apex court in case the CBI or the interested parties did not question the governor’s order against prosecution. This advice is salutary because there is a general impression that the CBI may not challenge the governor’s orders owing to Ms Mayawati’s increasing clout and proximity to the UPA government at the Centre. Consequently, as advised by the court, an independent PIL should be filed soon so that the wrongdoers with all the ill-gotten wealth are brought to book. |
|
Punjab eyes metro The
Parkash Singh Badal government has rightly initiated two significant infrastructure projects: a metro rail service at Ludhiana and a 1,800 MW thermal plant in Mansa district. The government signed an MoU with Delhi Metro on Wednesday for undertaking a study on the feasibility of a metro rail service in Ludhiana. If found viable, bids will be invited for constructing the Rs 3,000-crore, 25-km route on a build-operate-own basis. A similar project for Amritsar is also planned. However, Delhi Metro chief E. Sreedharan and the Railway Institute of Technology and Engineering Services (RITES) had, instead, favoured the strengthening of the road transport system as the holy city’s population was “light” for a metro. Mr Badal has also proposed a metro train service for Mohali and Chandigarh and in this regard plans to approach the Punjab Governor, who is also the Chandigarh Administrator. The project may require the involvement of the Haryana government and, possibly, of the Himachal Pradesh government if the rail service is to cover the fast-growing areas of Panchkula and Baddi. All the three states and the Union Territory should join hands and pool resources for building joint infrastructure projects. In fact, if the political leadership of Punjab and Himachal Pradesh sort out their differences, the hill state’s vast hydroelectric potential can be tapped for mutual advantage. In the given circumstances, the Punjab government has opted for a thermal power plant. The thermal plant will be set up by Talwandi Sabo Power Ltd, a wholly owned company of the Punjab State Electricity Board. If the government is keen on power reforms, it will have to dismantle the board and privatise the distribution, if not generation, of power. That is perhaps why a separate company for the thermal plant has been formed. The Badal government should also ask for a nuclear power plant to meet the growing power needs of the state. |
|
I know this — a man got to do what he got to
do. — John Steinbeck |
Bandhs are not against law
Ever
since the Kerala High Court judgement (1997) forbidding the call to bandh and upholding it by a laconic order by the Supreme Court (1998) there has been among trade unionists and political activists a wave of disappointing indignation at such a view which forbids the fundamental right of citizens of speech and association. Frustration was added to it because the court held a bandh illegal even when it conceded that there was no material to suggest that the sponsors of a bandh ever announced that any citizen not participating in it will be physically prevented or abused if he went to work. Surprisingly, the court nevertheless went on to hold that even if there is no express or implied threat of physical violence to those not in sympathy with the bandh, there is clearly a psychological fear which will prevent a citizen from enjoying his fundamental freedoms or exercising his fundamental rights. So, it justified its view on the ground of psychological fear of a citizen which view was against earlier five Judges’ decision in the Kharak Singhs case that “in dealing with a fundamental right such as the right to free movement or personal liberty, that only can constitute an infringement which is both direct as well as tangible and it could not be that under these freedoms the Constitution makers intended to protect or protected mere personal sensitiveness”. Fortunately the court did not forbid a hartal (Urdu word) or a general strike (English) but merely a bandh (Hindi). So, political parties did not call it bandh and things went on merrily till the recent call to bandh in Tamil Nadu, which has again raised the question of jurisdiction of courts in forbidding a call for a peaceful bandh and treating it as illegal. The Supreme Court in 2003, while holding that lawyers have no right to go on a strike or give a call for a boycott, conceded that where the dignity, interest of the bar and independence of the Bar and/or Bench are at a stake the court may ignore (turn a blind eye to) protest abstention from work for not more than one day. It also upheld the right of lawyers to peaceful protest marches away from the court premises, going on dharna or relay fast, etc (emphasis supplied). Now if a peaceful protest were to be called against the delay by the Central government in bringing forth judicial reform by the Bar Council of India and all the Bar associations of the country on a particular day in Delhi, I have no doubt that thousands of lawyers, their friends, family members, clients and public interest litigants will come out on the road to support them. And even though there may not be any obstruction by lawyers, it will inevitably result in traffic confusion, by total inefficiency and bad management by the police. But, surely, the lawyers cannot be injucted at this purported indirect consequence, because democratic rights are made of sterner stuff. As a matter of fact, English courts have held that the organisers of a protest march would not incur liability merely because some unruly members of the assembly commit a breach of conditions. So, how can a ruling political party in a state calling for a bandh be held to be acting illegally in support of its demand for immediate implementation of a public project (even though many may be against it)? That is the beauty and excellence of a democratic state. John Stuart Mill put it pithily, “If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind”. I can understand if the state government was to give a call for a bandh — it could certainly be injucted because the state can not stop functioning. If it does, it is like the heart stops beating and you are dead. I can even understand the court insisting and even supervising through a neutral all-party agency that no force is used to observe bandhs on unwilling citizens — obviously the state cannot shut down by its order bus movement, or compel by law or force the closing of shops, mills and other business establishments — forcible work stoppage would be constitutionally impermissible. It is strange that in the year of celebration of the birth centenary of Bhagat Singhs and his martyrdom, which was the culmination of events pursuant to a call for a bandh throughout India given by Gandhiji against the Simon Commission, leading to the martyrdom of Lala Lajpat Rai because of the police brutality, the call for a bandh should be a forbidden thing. The latest instance is unfortunately bound to sharpen the cry that the courts are snatching the power which they do not possess. Stating it in such an extreme phraseology is to misappreciate the constitutional power and privileges of all the instrumentalities of the State — the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. There can be no denying that in general it cannot be said that there is any issue outside the purview of the courts. But, equally, the courts must appreciate that matters which are mainly political and which generate understandable concern among a large number of citizens and heated controversies and are by their very nature not capable of being studied, much less solved in the cool atmosphere of the courts. Political life is too tenuous and can only be controlled and regulated by the real sovereign in the republic, i.e. “We the people”. I know bandhs many a time will cause grave inconvenience to the public — many would be opposed to it. It may even be that bandhs called by parties, and especially if they are ruling parties, can seriously dislocate the life of an average citizen. But then these are the inevitable and acceptable hazards of an open society in a democratic state. If these antics of the political parties start pinching the citizen, he/she will react; in a democratic State like ours, he has the power to show the door to any such irresponsible party. Is it not best for all concerned that any response (if there is any irresponsible action) by a political party is left to the anger and reaction of civil society and the electorate rather than the court getting embroiled in an unnecessary controversy. There is in this approach no victors or vanquished. The Supreme Court recognised this when it said, “While exercise of powers by the legislature and the executive is subject to judicial restraint, the only check on our own exercise of power is the self-imposed discipline of judicial restraint.” Courts must ponder over what Frankfurter, a judge of the U.S. Supreme Court, said with apt irony: “All power is, in Madison’s phrase, ‘of an encroaching nature’. Judicial power is not immune against this human weakness. It also must be on guard against encroaching beyond its proper bounds, and not the less so since the only restraint upon it is self-restraint….
.”
|
The case of Bommai
Somappa Ramappa Bommai, who passed away in Bangalore on Wednesday, was India’s most “misunderestimated” politician long before George Bush gave us the term. Ever affable and gentle in his words, he attracted much attention, especially at critical times, for being self-effacing. I recall speaking to him, from Madras, soon after the momentous assembly election in Karnataka in 1983. Bommai was president of the Janata Party in the state, where the Congress believed it was invincible because it had survived the “Janata wave” in 1977. His party had formed an alliance with the Karnataka Kranti Ranga of Bangarappa and the alliance registered a dramatic win. Bommai, along with H D Deve Gowda and Ramakrishna Hegde, was the architect who engineered the victory. Expectedly, victory brought its own problems, chiefly the question of who should be the chief minister. For days after the election result, Bommai and Gowda were locked in a tussle, each refusing to let the other become the chief minister. Chandra Shekhar, who was on a padayatra in the South was called to rescue the situation. Despite his aversion to Hegde, because of the tug-of-war between Gowda and Bommai, Chandra Shekhar paved the way for Hegde to be made the chief minister. I asked Bommai why Hegde had been allowed to walk away with the prize when it was he and Deve Gowda who had worked for the Janata Party’s success. He was silent for a few minutes and then said, “It was Chandra Shekhar’s decision, and no other person was acceptable”. More than a year later, Chandra Shekhar told me in Hyderabad: “It was Bommai’s idea. All I did was to make Deve Gowda accept the decision”. He was the front-runner who settled for a back seat confident that his time will come. Since then there were many occasions when Bommai’s taking a back seat pitchforked him to the front. With charmer Hegde ruling and farmer Gowda fuming at being kept out of the job, Bommai knew his time would come. He kept a low profile and it paid off when he became chief minister in August 1988. He was the first Janata Dal chief minister, but like all things in the history of the Janata Dal, not for long. Governor P Venkatasubbiah dismissed his ministry on April 21, 1989, and dissolved the assembly without giving any reason. This decision was challenged and the Supreme Court delivered the landmark judgment, now famous as the Bommai case: that no government can be dismissed without a chance to show its strength on the floor of the House and that the Assembly cannot be dissolved without Parliament’s prior approval. Hardly surprising that he should pass away when this principle has prevailed in Karnataka where unprincipled politicians rule the roost. The judgment did not benefit Bommai but the loss of chief ministership did not eclipse his political career. Quite the contrary, he rose to new heights of prominence at the Centre. When V P Singh resigned as President of the Janata Dal in 1990, Chandra Shekhar and Devi Lal fielded Bommai for the post of party chief. Jaipal Reddy and Hukumdeo Narayan Singh were the challengers. Bommai, being less familiar about the Capital’s media than Jaipal, circulated his bio-data. Jaipal tauntingly remarked that unlike Bommai he didn’t need to introduce himself. Jaipal had to eat humble pie and withdraw from the contest. Bommai was elected
unanimously. |
Saving lives is more important
than protecting patents
In
January, the Thai government gave its domestic drug manufacturers carte blanche to effectively copy the formula for Abbot Laboratories’ AIDS drug, Kaletra, and reproduce it in Thailand at a fraction of the cost. A storm of protest ensued. The United States placed Thailand on a “priority watch list” of badly behaved countries. The European Union followed suit with a sharply worded letter from Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson lamenting Thailand’s outrageous disregard for Abbot’s intellectual property. Yet, contrary to common perception, Thailand’s move was, and remains, in perfect observance of international law. The Doha Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, signed by all members of the World Trade Organization, stipulates that “every country has the right to grant compulsory licenses and the freedom to determine the grounds upon which such licenses are granted.” “Compulsory” licenses essentially allow governments to revoke patents when they are deemed to work against the public good, either by stifling competition or unreasonably restricting access to a product. Once a royalty fee is negotiated and a time limit set, governments are free to compel the original patent holder to hand over its intellectual property. The U.S. government routinely grants compulsory licenses for purely commercial reasons, largely to streamline production of consumer electronics and military hardware. Five such licenses were issued in the past year alone, one of them specifically to Abbott. To no one’s horror or, frankly, interest, Italy recently issued a compulsory license for a drug that treats enlarged prostates. Thailand’s compulsory license addresses a far starker reality – in a country of 65 million, 650,000 people (one in every 100) are infected by the AIDS virus. With soaring temperatures – and refrigeration the exception rather than the rule – heat-stable drugs such as Kaletra are crucial. Kaletra also has the advantage of low toxicity; for people whose livers have withstood years of harsh antiretroviral treatment, Kaletra is a gentler, but prohibitively priced, passport to life. Why, then, has the Thai government’s attempt to acquire a lifesaving drug run into a wall of corporate indignation and government censure? The standard answer is that pharmaceutical advances are based on the respect of intellectual property. Without the protective role of patents, the argument goes, drugmakers would fail to recover their research-and-development costs and consequently shy away from pursuing new drugs. The truth is that more than half of all antiretroviral drugs were researched entirely on US government grants. Both lopinavir and ritonavir, the two antiretroviral agents in Kaletra, were researched with public money. “Heck, we paid for them,” said James Love, director of the Washington-based Consumer Project on Technology. The pharmaceutical industry lives in fear of a cheap-drug domino effect. Thailand’s compulsory license could inspire the entire continent of Africa – where 70 percent of the world’s 40 million HIV/AIDS cases are found – to issue licenses for a series of drugs. Countries such as Kenya and Uganda, not to mention South Africa, have not only the manufacturing base needed to copy and reproduce drugs for a fraction of their cost, they also have the right. So what’s stopping them? “There is a history of trade pressures,” Love said. “Very few countries are willing to face such pressures.” Despite death on an unimaginable scale, talk of compulsory licensing remains anathema in most of Africa, so millions of lives are left in the hands of a well-meaning yet ineffectual group of international donors, whose solution to the problem has been to purchase and distribute generic AIDS drugs made in India and Brazil. It’s a noble effort, but with pitiful results. For many who survived thanks to first-line treatments, the time has come to switch to newer, less-toxic drugs -- all of them patented, none of them available. “We’re starting from zero again,” said Buddhima Lokuge, U.S. manager of Doctors Without Borders’ “campaign for access to essential medicines.” By the time generic competition kicks in for the newer drugs, millions of people will have died unnecessarily. The AIDS epidemic will constitute the single greatest loss of life in modern history. It is impossible for us in the West to conceive of death on such a scale. Far more difficult to understand, however, is the arbitrary nature of this holocaust: The drugs exist, why can’t people have them? African countries should find the resolve to follow Thailand’s example and grant compulsory licenses. In so doing, they would put an end to a drug monopoly whose human cost brings shame to us all. The writer worked as a journalist in Africa from 1997 to 2004. By arrangement with
LA Times-Washington Post |
|
Ensure integrated aircraft development The
long-awaited issue of the requests for proposal (RFP) for procurement of 126 multi-role combat aircraft (MRCA) for the Indian Air Force comes at a time when the country is engaged in two ambitious fighter aircraft programmes. The first is the indigenous Tejas light combat aircraft and the other is the nascent co-development of a fifth-generation fighter aircraft (FGFA) in collaboration with Russia. In addition to the existing fleet of Soviet-origin as well as Western combat aircraft, the coming decade would see the IAF inducting three new combat aircraft –The Tejas, the MRCA and perhaps the FGFA. Given the time frames for the design and development of complex systems like combat aircraft and their subsequent achievement of operational status, the induction of Tejas into the IAF is expected to coincide with that of the MRCA. It would also be about the time when the Indo-Russian aircraft, based upon the Su-30, is expected to be undertaking flight trials. Prototypes of the Tejas, developed by the Defence Research and Development Organisation, are undergoing flight trials and, as per latest estimates, they are expected to achieve operational squadron status in 2012. That the project has suffered serious cost and time overruns is another matter. Details of the 211-page RPF emanating from Delhi reveal that the induction of the MRCA would take place over 2012-2027. Minister of State for Defence Production, Rao Inderjit Singh, had stated in Parliament on August 29 that technical discussions to work out the details of the FGFA collaboration were in progress and efforts were on for finalising the draft Inter Governmental Agreement in this regard. Reports state that Russia began work on the FGFA about three years ago and its maiden flight is expected in 2009-2010. The RFP, issued on August 28, are for six contenders – Russian MiG-35, French Rafale, Swedish JAS-39 Grippen, European Typhoon, US F-16 and F-18. The MiG 35 is an advanced version of the MiG 29 already in service with the IAF and being procured by the Indian Navy for its fleet air arm. The twin-engined Rafale, developed by Dassault,, is a carry on series of the Mirage 2000 also in service with the IAF. The single-engined Mirage 2000 evolved into the little known twin-engined Mirage 4000, from which the Rafale was further derived. It has both, air force and naval versions, besides a two-seater attack version. The single-engined, lighter Grippen and the F-16 and the heavier twin-engined F-18 and the Typhoon would be entirely new to the IAF. The aircraft entering IAF service are envisioned to have a life cycle of 40 years, implying that they would have to meet the security and operational requirements till about 2050. A substantial period by any means, given the flux in the geo-political situation and the fast turnover of technology. India’s security concerns are not just limited to China and Pakistan, but extend beyond its immediate neighbourhood. Securing the sea lanes of communication, on which depends the bulk of India’s energy requirements and trade is a major area of concern. Of essence is to reach out effectively over long distances in as short a time span as possible. As brought out by recent conflicts and operations other than war, air power plays a dominating role in any situation. Speed, growing reach and precision attack capability, further enhanced by force multipliers like in-flight refueling and AWACS, makes it an awesome force. Of late, the IAF however, has been seeing a downslide in its operational squadron strength. From an authorised strength of 39 squadrons, it is down to just 31 squadrons, as replacements and procurements have not kept pace with wastage and attrition. Given the multiplicity of roles and the vast extent of frontiers to be covered, a former chief of air staff, in a paper authored by him recently, has pegged the requirement of the IAF at 50-55 squadrons by the end of the next decade. The Tejas and its follow-on versions, the MRCA and the FGFA would be vital elements to fill in gaps which have emerged in the IAF strength and also to further augment it to meet future requirements. The MRCA would equip 14 squadrons, with an option to go in for 65 more aircraft at a later stage. Geo-political considerations would have an important bearing in the selection of the MRCA, but the IAF would have several other factors to consider. It should not just be a “stand-alone” weapons platform, but should be able to integrate seamlessly into the IAF’s existing and planned operational and support systems to become an effective war machine. The technology, support systems and infrastructural facilities for the MRCA would also have to be considered vis-à-vis India’s own indigenous aircraft programmes. It also makes techno-economic sense to ensure that both have a reasonable degree of commonality in avionics, spares, weapons systems, maintenance and repair support, etc. As far as the MRCA is concerned, 18 aircraft would be bought in flyaway condition and the remaining would be manufactured locally under a transfer of technology agreement. A significant amount of investments would have to be made for the manufacturing plants, training facilities, maintenance depots. Investments in the MRCA and indigenous programmes need to complement each other. Towards this extent the offset policy in defence deals would bring in some spin-offs. In the MRCA deals, 50 per cent of the amount the deal in worth would have to be reinvested in the Indian defence industry. The IAF and the government need to take a holistic, long term view of the operational as well as the logistic aspects of its present and proposed aircraft programmes to ensure that they are technically sound and economically viable. Continuity in aircraft design and development can thus be sustained leading to the Indian aviation industry spreading its wings. |
|
Delhi Durbar With the possibility of snap polls looming large, central ministers belonging to the Congress are on overdrive to either announce or highlight measures targeting the common man, rural India and farmers. The increase in the MSP of wheat and other Rabi crops is also being looked at in political circles as a measure from the ruling coalition government to woo farmers, who were annoyed with the centre for importing wheat at high prices from the international market while sticking to a low MSP for domestic farmers. Don’t be surprised if there are more populist announcements in the next few days. Playing safe To avoid a possible rift in the party, the BJP may not announce a Chief Ministerial candidate in the run up to assembly polls in Himachal Pradesh, where the party is hopeful of dislodging the Virbhadra Singh- led Congress government. Both former Chief Ministers – Shanta Kumar and P.K. Dhumal – are lobbying hard with the Central party leaders to ensure that the top honour is bestowed on them. However, both Shanta Kumar and Dhumal being strong contenders for the top post, the party central leadership may decide not to project any one of them as the Chief Ministerial candidate ahead of the polls to avoid a rift in the party. Once the outcome is in favour of the party, a considered decision will be taken like it was in the case of Uttarakhand. Dhumal might have the advantage as BJP President Rajnath Singh is in his favour and he had also impressed the central leaders by registering a thumping victory in the Lok Sabha by-elections recently.
Poll think The question doing the rounds is who would gain in case of snap elections to the Lok Sabha. Needless to say the various political parties are making their calculations. While parties like the RJD seem disinclined for an early general election, there are those like the BSP who apparently feel that such a move would be beneficial in increasing their tally. A section in the Shiromani Akali Dal has its reasons for seeking early Lok Sabha polls which would otherwise be held towards the middle of the state government’s five-year rule. It feels that poll-centric state governments tend to take a short term view on most issues which may not be in the best interest of the state. This section feels that some decisions take a long to fructify and a clear tenure of four years can help the state government.
In the spotlight At the Iftar hosted by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, scribes sought to draw out leaders on the Indo-US nuclear deal and its political fallout. While Dr Singh and Congress president Sonia Gandhi were the obvious favourites, others in the spotlight were Science and Technology minister Kapil Sibal, minister of State in PMO Prithviraj Chavan and senior CPI (M) leader Sitaram Yechury. These three leaders are members of the UPA-Left committee discussing the Indo-US nuclear deal. The PM took only a handful of questions from the media. Contributed by S. Satyanarayanan and Prashant Sood |
| 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 | |
