 |
|
Protesting too much Attack on editor |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Retirement
Price of power
Of nuts
and mint
Is disarmament making
a comeback? Weak states make bad
laws and kill the messenger No consensus on
biofuels at food meet
|
Protesting too much AS expected, the oil price hike has triggered protests in some parts of the country, particularly in the Left-ruled states of West Bengal, Kerala and Tripura. Accusing the UPA of unleashing “economic terror”, the BJP has described the step as “disastrous for the economy”. AIADMK leader Jayalalithaa, Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mayawati and Punjab Chief Minister Parkash Singh Badal have also opposed the increase in the prices of petrol, diesel and LPG. It is common for Opposition parties to whip up public sentiment against an unpopular decision. That is a compulsion of electoral politics. Unsuspecting people get carried away by the politically motivated rhetoric. What is commendable is that before going on to the streets to protest, the ruling Left parties in West Bengal had slashed sales tax on petrol and diesel by 5 per cent to 20 per cent and 12.5 per cent respectively. Congress president Sonia Gandhi and BJP chief Rajnath Singh have also asked their chief ministers to cut the taxes on oil. That will soften the blow dealt by a costlier fuel. The effective oil and gas rate hike will, therefore, be much less than what was initially projected. In fact, the states as well as the Centre will still gain higher revenue from the sale of petroleum products. Because of the ad valorem duties on oil the government income rises in accordance with the price rise. While hardly sacrificing any existing revenue, the opposition parties ruling in states try to exploit the common man’s anger to their advantage. In fact, the UP and Punjab governments have refused to cut the state taxes on oil. So, instead of joining motivated protests, people should understand the reasons for the price rise. Since India imports oil and its global price has more than doubled during the past one year, there is a limit to the government subsidy. Subsidies divert money from infrastructure and other pro-people projects. Besides, the better-off benefit maximum from the subsidies. Oil is precious and its wastage can be curbed partly by making it reasonably expensive.
|
|
Attack on editor IT is a peculiar democracy where political forces compete to impress which of them can be more intolerant. They are also involved in competitive suppression of fundamental rights and freedoms. Thus we have a situation where the Congress and the Nationalist Congress Party in Maharashtra are trying to outdo the Shiv Sena in parochial violence by attacking and intimidating those who express views incompatible with “Maratha pride”. The latest target of these self-appointed custodians of Maratha pride is Kumar Ketkar, the well-regarded Editor-in-Chief of the Marathi daily Loksatta. Mr Ketkar’s house was attacked and damaged by a mob of the Shiv Sangram Sangathana, an offshoot of the NCP which is part of the state’s ruling coalition. Mr Ketkar’s “crime” is that he editorially criticised the Maharashtra Government’s move to put out at sea a 309-foot statue of Shivaji Maharaj. The editorial questioned the colossal expenditure that would be involved in the venture when the state was facing so many serious problems that are more deserving of attention and resources. Shiv Sangram Sangathana leader Vinayak Mete, who is vice-president of the state unit of the NCP, said that the questioning tone of the Loksatta editorial was disrespectful of Shivaji. Mr Ketkar and his wife, who were at home when the mob targeted their house, escaped unhurt. The fact that the miscreants went with a television crew, which filmed their violent actions, tells its own story. Mr Ketkar had alerted the police, who conveniently turned up after the mob had finished its work. The incident is highly deplorable, and the Maharashtra government is guilty of turning a blind eye to the activities of rampaging mobs, be it of the Shiv Sena, Raj Thackeray’s outfit or any other group acting in the name of Maratha pride and interests. It is time the state government stopped encouraging, by design or otherwise, such intolerance and violence by hauling in the offenders for exemplary punishment.
|
|
Retirement THE increase in the retirement age of specialists teaching Central Health Service doctors from 62 to 65 will help control the shortage of such teachers. It will also allow the institutions to benefit from their vast experience. While early retirement may be unavoidable in jobs where a lot of strenuous physical activity is involved, in others it is tantamount to letting rich practical knowledge go waste. With improved health standards and higher life expectancy, there is need for raising retirement age in many other streams. If those teaching doctors are good enough to perform well up to the age of 65, so can be the doctors who learn from them. But the Union Cabinet in its wisdom has done the revision only for those engaged in teaching activity, not those occupying administrative positions. Such anomalies are glaring all over the country. Central employees are supposed to be employable up to the age of 60, but are not considered good enough after 58 in many states. Yardsticks are different even for judges of the Supreme Court and the high courts. Why, there are different retirement ages within a state also! For instance, while IAS officers and Class IV employees retire at 60 in Punjab, others are shown the door at 58. There is need to bring about some uniformity in all such matters, if unnecessary heartburn is to be avoided. The retirement age is kept low mainly to cater to the large number of unemployed youth, who believe they are being denied jobs merely to keep the older employees in service. So, a routine matter has been converted into an age-group struggle. At times, this pandering has gone to ridiculous lengths. In Kerala, the retirement age is as low as 55 and no government has gathered courage to revise it. The governments fail in their duty to give gainful employment avenues to the educated youth and then punish the elderly for this mismanagement. Even the youth forget that they will reach the ripe old age of 55 soon enough and will be told to pack their bags unceremoniously.
|
|
Besides the noble art of getting things done, there is the noble art of leaving things undone. The wisdom of life consists in the elimination of non-essentials. — Lin Yutang
|
Price of power Electoral
victory, as the Maoists of Nepal are learning, always comes with a price. It is the preparedness to pay the price — and without protracted haggling — that holds the promise of clinching the deal. For delivering the goods, the CPN(M) needs to be in the driver’s seat, accept that coalition partners have to be taken aboard and start moving on the road to a new republic. The longer the delay, the more the starting trouble; and the more the starting trouble, the less the chances of a firm grip on the steering. As the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) negotiates government formation — with the Nepali Congress and the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist) — it must, first and foremost, learn to conduct itself as a party of government, adopt the techniques of leadership and not behave as an opposition party that can walk away from its partners. Almost a week after the repeatedly-delayed first session of the Constituent Assembly — which abolished the monarchy and declared Nepal a democratic, secular republic — the CPN(M) is yet to form a government. The dispute over power-sharing, among the Maoists, the NC and the UML, appeared so intractable that the Maoists threatened to quit the (pre-election) coalition government and take to the streets if Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala did not resign. For a party that has won the legitimate right to lead a new government, such a threat exposes its impatience with the democratic process. The mark of leadership would be to show that the issue can be resolved and the coalition kept intact; that the Maoists have the endurance to not only negotiate but also prevail by combining firmness with flexibility; and, strengthen the impression that they intend to carry the coalition partners with them at every stage without taking a make-or-break position. The Maoists have to tell themselves that they can do this and convey the message that they will not be worn down or frustrated by the effort to carry the coalition partners, if only because they have no other option. Perhaps, this realisation is beginning to dawn on them, which may explain their decision to forego their claim to the post of president. Confronted with the unrelenting resistance of the NC and the UML, the Maoists gave in — but not entirely — on the issue. Neither side has been able to have its way wholly. The Maoists wanted the post of executive president while the opposition parties insisted that the post should be ceremonial and should not be held by the CPN(M). Both sides have now agreed to a ceremonial president. A principle has been established. The practical way forward is still a political minefield. The opposition to a Maoist as president has not disappeared. The best the CPN(M) can bargain for is to keep the president’s post out of the hands of the other parties, particularly G P Koirala. Therefore, they have mooted the idea that the president should be an eminent, non-party, public figure acceptable to all sections. The NC and the UML may not be able to oppose this proposition. Even if they agree on the credentials of the person to be head of state, there remains the issue of how the president should be elected. Thus, on every issue, particularly power-sharing, disputes over the deciding principle followed by disagreements over the process to be adopted are inevitable. The dilemma itself is not new, either to Nepal or to the Maoists. During the last two years there were many such deadlocks. Yet, the Nepali Congress-led Seven-Party Alliance, which was at the receiving end of the Maoists’ demands, managed to keep the coalition afloat and carry forward the peace process along with the CPN(M) in Parliament and government. What is new, though, is that now, the boot is on the other foot. The Maoists are at the receiving end of the demands of other parties. It would be instructive, especially for the Maoists, to remember that when they entered Parliament and the interim government, the SPA had resolved that all decisions would be guided by consensus and the interests of national unity. Consensus and national unity are of even more importance at this time of transition in Nepal. The Maoists are the single largest party with 30 per cent of the seats in the Constituent Assembly and about 29 per cent of the votes polled. They have neither the numbers nor the vote share to break ranks with the other parties that formed the pre-election coalition. To push matters to a precipitate point would only drive the alienated constituents of the SPA to make common cause with other parties, especially those from the Terai, who have a sizeable number in the Constituent Assembly. Such a development would find the CPN(M) trapped in government without the numbers to carry forward the republican agenda in the Constituent Assembly. The Maoists should be able to differentiate between an immediate tactical problem and true strategy. Otherwise, mainstream politicians, who are pastmasters at playing parliamentary games, will run rings around the Maoists and make sure that they are stuck at every stage. The CPN(M) needs to get going: with the work of the Constituent Assembly; forming a government; framing policies for reconstruction, development and transformation of the polity and the economy; and, drafting a new Constitution. There are more difficult issues ahead such as what is to be done with the Maoist People’s Liberation Army and the Young Communist League, and how the cadres can be schooled to play their role in the democratic process. They have only two years to do all this, including drafting a new constitution, if they want to stay on top of the political order. There are enough posts — not only that of president, prime minister and speaker — to be shared among those in power. For example, the leadership of the statute drafting body, might turn out to be more important than any of the above three positions. The CPN(M) must keep the big picture in mind, confident that the force of their mandate will help them to prevail and carry out policies for deepening the democratic culture. As they take the first steps on a long and arduous journey, they must win friends and influence people by constantly reinforcing their credentials as a party that can only improve the democratic climate. They need to reassure, for instance, that the media and the judiciary can function without fear, and that Maoist supremacy will not endanger pluralism. They should take the high road, knowing that there are many ways to cut the cake of power. It is not possible in Nepal or any democracy, for that matter, for one party to have the cake, eat it, too, and grab the whole
bakery.
|
Of nuts and mint
WE homosapiens are creatures of habit. Nowhere is this fact more evident than in what we eat and what we serve our guests! One hapless visitor finally made bold to comment on how she had been served homemade carrot soup thrice on successive visits. Apparently, I had also extolled its virtues in an enthusiastic monologue each time. I cringed in embarrassment and vowed to replace the carrots with cabbage when she dropped by next. If forgetful hostesses like me are the bane of sensitive guests, organisations are not far behind. For many years, visiting divisional commissioners at inspection time were only served cashewnuts and almonds by nervous tehsildars. The dignitary had to contend with fried cashews at the review and kaju burfi at tea, interspersed with lunch where all the gravies were made of cashews and cream. If this wasn’t “death by chocolate”, it certainly was “attempt to murder by dry fruits.” This prompted a commissioner to write to all the DCs and SDMs in his jurisdiction, “I am a vegetarian and do not eat paneer. I would prefer a simple meal in your home to an ostentatious one at the Circuit House.” Sadly, since most field officers in small rural stations lived in enforced singlehood, the “nutty” menu travelled intact from the Circuit House kitchen to the SDM’s house for the D-Day. The effort at enforcing austerity measures drove everyone nuts and predictably ended before it could take off. Another trend is the table decoration at most conference venues. In addition to the regulation bud vase or even a more elaborate floral centerpiece, one is subjected to a continually-replenished bowl of mints — with a hole or without. Someone in a key decision-making slot seems to have figured out that only people with terribly bad breath attend conferences! Thankfully for those of us who look at celebrities with envy, it can get worse if you are wealthy and famous. I read of a ruling monarch who politely replied in the affirmative when asked if his pineapple juice was okay. He was repeatedly offered only this beverage until he threw a royal tantrum and demanded more heady stuff instead. I did not know that this lament was universal and had nothing to do with age, sex or nationality until one day about a decade ago when I volunteered as a teacher substitute at my daughter Riddhima’s playschool. I devised what I thought was a brilliant game to keep the little geniuses amused in the absence of their regular teacher. I asked them to place all their tiffin-boxes in random order on the centre table and open them one by one. The game was that they had to guess from the contents which box belonged to which child. The children lined up to make their guesses but a well-built toddler muscled his way to the front and announced confidently — “Maggi-Rhea, Idli-Krittika, Parantha-Simran, Sandwich-Rattanjot, Carrot Idli-….” The child paused, looked at the others, and the class of two and a half year olds dissolved into a flood of giggles with the chorus — “Carrot Idli-Riddhima.” I didn’t know where to
look!
|
Is disarmament making a comeback? Speaking
to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council in March, American Senator John McCain surprised many listeners when he said that “the United States should lead a global effort at nuclear disarmament.” It has been a long time since a US Republican presidential candidate said anything close to this, let alone seemed to think it would help him win an election. But McCain senses what many may have not: This is a rare moment in national and international politics, a period of rapid change that promises a transformation in global nuclear policy. This transformation is the result of four converging factors. The first is the deep and ongoing concern about existing nuclear threats. These threats include the possibility that a terrorist group might get hold of a nuclear weapon. There are still 26,000 existing nuclear weapons held by nine nations today. A few countries – most prominently Iran and North Korea – are trying to develop their own nuclear weapons for the first time; and there is a possibility of a collapse of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty regime triggering a cascade of proliferation. The second factor is the widespread sense, among policymakers and the public, that existing US policies have failed to lessen these dangers. President Bush sought to maintain US supremacy through a reduced but still large nuclear arsenal, new nuclear weapons (like his “nuclear bunker buster” or the artfully dubbed “reliable replacement warhead”), rejection of treaties limiting U.S. freedom of action and preemptive military action against hostile states. But nuclear threats only increased as confidence in American leadership decreased. Third (and in response to this policy collapse), there is a new drive for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons. This once utopian dream (held a few decades ago only by those on the left of the foreign policy mainstream) is now the focus of a bipartisan appeal from Republicans George Shultz and Henry Kissinger and Democrats William Perry and Sam Nunn in two Wall Street Journal Op-Ed articles for “A World Free of Nuclear Weapons.” They are not alone. The Ploughshares foundation I lead funds dozens of institutes working on plans for sweeping change in nuclear policy, including the Council on Foreign Relations, the Monterey Institute for International Studies and the Physicians for Social Responsibility. Finally – and this is what might make it all come together at last – there is a nearly simultaneous leadership turnover in most of the world’s major nations, creating openings for leaders less rigidly wed to the failed policies of the past. Together, these factors offer an extraordinary opportunity to advance new policies that can dramatically reduce and even eliminate many of the dangers that have kept political leaders and security officials worried about a nuclear 9/11. How extraordinary? Consider this: The drive to reduce and eliminate nuclear weapons comes from the very centre of America’s security elite. The conservative Hoover Institution at Stanford University, where Shultz and Perry are both scholars, is the epicenter of this nuclear policy earthquake. Of the 24 former national security advisers and secretaries of State and Defense who are still living, 17 have endorsed the Hoover campaign for a series of practical steps leading toward nuclear abolition. These former officials – including former Republican Cabinet members from every administration since President Nixon – recognize that the current strategy has not worked. The clearest failure is the Iraq war, which was the prototype for what the Bush administration hoped would be ongoing U.S. policy: the use of military means to stop proliferation preemptively. Bush said on its eve, “Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof – the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.” But there was no Iraqi nuclear weapons program – and there were no chemical or biological weapons either – and the war, in the end, actually provoked Iran and North Korea to accelerate their programs. Both have made more progress in the past five years than in the previous 10. The idea that we and our allies could keep our nuclear weapons and simultaneously prevent others from getting them also proved bankrupt. While opposing, correctly, nuclear efforts in Iran, the Bush administration blessed, incorrectly, the nuclear weapons program in nearby India with a special trade deal and looked the other way while Pakistan continued work on its bomb program and nuclear trade until it was too obvious to ignore. Indeed, the most dangerous country in the world is not our adversary Iran, which is still five to 10 years from a nuclear capability, but our ally Pakistan. Its unstable government, growing mountain of nuclear weapon material and tolerance of al-Qaida bases within its territory give Osama bin Laden the best chance he has had of acquiring the nuclear weapon he seeks. This is one reason realists like Kissinger have concluded that we must turn “the goal of a world without nuclear weapons into a practical enterprise among nations.” This policy is in tune with the American people, with 70 percent favoring nuclear elimination in polls. McCain has now adopted some of the new policies; Senator Barack Obama has embraced the entire plan, including his pledge to secure all loose nuclear materials – thus preventing nuclear terrorism – in his first term. We cannot know for certain if these plans will work. But we do know these policy moments do not last long. We might not get another chance. By arrangement with
LA Times-Washington Post
|
|
Weak states make bad laws and kill the messenger And
the award goes to..... oops he is not here tonight ladies and gentlemen because he is in jail in India held under an infamously bad law. Human rights activist and public health specialist Dr Binayak Sen was not there in Washington on May 29 to collect his 2008 Jonathan Mann Award for Global Health and Human Rights. He could not shake hands with the international jury of public health professionals who chose him for this singular honour. He could not hear the fine citation spoken in appreciation of his exemplary services to the poor and tribal communities and for his unwavering commitment to civil liberties and human rights. Twenty-two Nobel Prize winning scientists and economists from across the globe had appealed to the Indian government that Dr Sen be allowed to receive the award in person in Washington DC. But Dr Sen remained in Raipur Jail, Chattisgarh. He has been there for over a year. Dr Sen is President of the Chattisgarh chapter of the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) an old and extremely well respected organisation of champions of the constitutional way. He has been speaking out against police excesses in Naxal infested Chattisgarh and the Salwa Judum – a violent and indisciplined government sponsored counter-Naxal effort which has been thoroughly disapproved of in many quarters – most recently even by the Supreme Court. Dr Sen was arrested for being a member of an unlawful association and a terrorist gang or organisation, holding the proceeds of a terrorist act and giving support to a terrorist organisation. For good measure, Sen has also been charged with ‘sedition’ and ‘conspiracy’ and waging war against the state. A month after his arrest as if to bolt the door thrice, the police added charges claiming he acted as a courier for the Naxalites. The Chhattisgarh State Public Security Act, (CSPSA) 2005 and the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 under which Dr Sen is being held in essence mimic the disgraced and repealed POTA and as Noam Chomsky points out, “are extremely vague and subjective in what is deemed unlawful and give arbitrary powers to the State to silence all manners of dissent.” These Acts – always allowed to remain on the books despite the demonstrable proof that their wide discretions are constantly misused - give officials wide latitude to detain people merely on the basis of their suspicions and nothing more. In law, suspicions always have to be reasonably grounded. But given our laggard court system, challenges about whether it was reasonable to detain someone in the first place are guaranteed to take a long long time. In the meantime the nuisance person remains inside. Whether in the end the reasons are judged sound or untenable a citizen ends up locked up. The wider purpose of making an example of an inconvenient voice is served and a chill is cast on making any effective outcry against state policy. After over a year, Sen’s trial is now in progress. Already three witnesses have turned hostile. At the same time another PUCL activist Ajay TG has also been arrested on similar charges. He too challenged authority by continuing to be very vocal about unlawful killings of adivasis, sexual assault on their women, abductions and forced displacement even after Dr Sen’s arrest. The news out of Chattisgarh is bad. The Ministry of External Affairs should be worried. Its international image as an upholder of the rule of law is taking a pounding. The Ministry of Home Affairs should also be worried because across state lines, the counter-violence of Salwa Judum is fuelling the intensification of Naxal violence and that of other anti-state actors as they see justification for their own illegality mirrored in the illegalities of the Salwa Judum. The news from Chattisgarh is indeed bad. But we must not kill the messenger because he says it to us. Our rulers must not loathe and fear human rights defenders. Human rights activists from the Mahatma to Dr Sen have long been the backbone of India’s struggle for rights, development and democracy. But sadly the State does not see them as allies in this great cause but, fearing criticism, treats them as enemies. By their very nature, human rights defenders are defenders of the constitution dedicated to achieving its aims and ends. Laws like the CSPSA are not to be used against them. They are enacted not because Naxalites are too strong but because the state is too weak, with its law enforcement capacity dwindling and moral authority in tatters. But, it is true that non-violent critics are easier to catch and tame than violent opponents. The writer is Director, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative
|
|
No consensus on biofuels at food meet ROME – The world summit on hunger veered near collapse late on Thursday when Latin American countries objected to a final, watered-down resolution designed to boost agriculture and control soaring food prices. Ultimately, the declaration was adopted, with about 180 countries pledging to work to eliminate hunger and secure access to food “for all, today and tomorrow” through urgent actions including the easing of trade barriers and the supply of seeds and fertilizer to poor farmers. No significant agreement was reached on the production of biofuels and what effect they have on the costs of food and on the environment. The resolution did not contain stronger language sought by critics of biofuels, which are strongly supported by the Bush administration.’ The three-day summit was called by the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) as an emergency response to food prices that officials say could threaten nearly 1 billion people with starvation. U.N. officials said between $20 billion and $30 billion a year was needed to fight hunger, which can also trigger social and political unrest. “This has reminded us that there are still millions of people in the world ... who face famine,” said Denzil Douglas, prime minister of St. Kitts and Nevis, who briefed reporters after the resolution was adopted. “I believe now resources will be mobilized quickly.” Numerous issues split the delegates, and there were moments that a final agreement seemed elusive. Led by Argentina, Cuba and Venezuela, a veritable revolt by much of Latin America dragged negotiations hours past the original conclusion deadline and frayed the nerves of numerous participants. One African delegate chided her colleagues for creating the “appearance of grandstanding ... as people are dying.” But the Latin American delegates said the declaration was paying lip service to the starvation crisis. These delegates noted that the final document did not condemn subsidies maintained by wealthy nations nor did it challenge the price-aggravating control exercised by big agricultural companies. Argentina and Venezuela argued that the free-trade policies being promoted risked exacerbating poverty and hunger in Latin America. Argentina was especially forceful in objecting to language, which remained in the final document, that criticizes export curbs similar to the ones it has imposed. Venezuela protested the resolution as “a step backwards” because it treated the food-price crisis as the result of a convergence of factors rather than as a result of the structural flaws of capitalism. The summit declaration “frankly neglects the vital needs of those who suffer from hunger,” Cuban delegate Orlando Requeijo Gual said. Another point of irreconcilable dispute was biofuels. The U.S. delegation, led by Agriculture Secretary Edward T. Schafer, welcomed the declaration’s support for further study, timid language compared with the restrictions that some countries were seeking. FAO Secretary-General Jacques Diouf said the gap between supporters and opponents of biofuels was too wide. By arrangement with
LA Times-Washington Post
|
| HOME PAGE | |
Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir |
Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs |
Nation | Opinions | | Business | Sports | World | Letters | Chandigarh | Ludhiana | Delhi | | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |
