The Tribune, Chandigarh, India

Eyeless in New Jersey
SRK was treated with arrogance

The US immigration officials who grilled India’s film icon Shah Rukh Khan for over two hours at Newark Airport on Friday did no service to either country. The overzealous officials made him to undergo this ordeal simply because his name had a “Khan” in it. Obviously, they had a problem with the film super star having a Muslim name. But is it fair to go in for special questioning of a visitor, a world celebrity, because of his religion?

The airport security personnel, as Shah Rukh says in a mild language, were “very unprofessional” because they did not allow him even to contact the people who had invited him to participate in an Indian Independence Day function in New Jersey.

India has strongly protested against the shabby treatment meted out to SRK, who has a large number of fans in the US too. But the arrogant Americans are unlikely to learn to behave with Indians unless the matter is taken up very seriously.

Information and Broadcasting Minister Ambika Soni, who was also frisked in the same way earlier, is right when she says that India may have to go in for a “tit-for-tat” response if the US continues with this highly insulting practice.

The incident concerning the reining deity of Bollywood has come to notice soon after Continental Airlines officials had the audacity to frisk former President APJ Abdul Kalam at New Delhi airport. Despite much furore, unfortunately, there is no change in the ways of US officials, who are often found paranoid.

No one will object to special security checking by either airlines officials or the immigration staff anywhere. No leniency can be allowed when it comes to ensuring security. But this does not mean that a discriminatory practice like religious and racial profiling can also be done in the name of security. The US needs to ponder whether it is not pursuing a policy for outsiders replete with arrogance.

When statues help
TN, Karnataka must go beyond gestures

Whatever be the political motive behind the sudden bonhomie between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka with a statue of Tamil saint-poet Thiruvalluvar being unveiled in Bengaluru 18 years after its installation and that of Kannada poet Sarvajna in Chennai four days later, the move towards reconciliation between the two neighbours deserves to be welcomed.

However, the two states have had such a bitter relationship that mere cultural symbolism may remain just that if proper follow-up measures are not taken. With both the DMK and the BJP having exploited issues of divergence to raise temperatures on their sides in the past, it makes one wonder whether there is more to the sudden show of love between Chief Minister Karunanidhi of Tamil Nadu and his Karnataka counterpart B.S. Yeddyurappa than meets the eye.

Recent reports that Mr Karunanidhi is building bridges with the BJP to spite the Congress and to seek to improve his bargaining position within the UPA may well be the motivation for the move. The wily octogenarian has much to lose by drifting away from the UPA and this show of love for the BJP may well be mere tokenism.

In that event, the new-found bonhomie may stand exposed when the time comes to hammer out a solution to the contentious issue of sharing Cauvery waters which arouse passions in both states. So often in the past, when the differences on the issue come to the fore, theatres playing Tamil films are the target of Kannada protesters in Bengaluru and buses from Karnataka are targeted in Tamil Nadu. It would be interesting to see how things play out this time around.

If the two chief ministers are serious about mending fences, they must rise above local politics and show a spirit of accommodation on the Cauvery issue. The famed river can be harnessed very effectively to mutual benefit if this happens. It would be a matter of deep regret indeed if the current statue swap turns out to be a mere mutual exchange of goodwill sans substance.

Thought for the Day

We loathe our manna, and we long for quails. — John Dryden

ARTICLE

Empowerment of women
Knowledge panel ignores gender issues
by Ratna Ghosh and Paromita Chakravarti

INDIA is said to be at the forefront of the knowledge revolution and one of the fastest growing economies in the world. Yet it has a quarter of the world’s poorest people and the largest number of illiterate women (over 40 per cent). It was ranked 62nd among 108 developing countries in 2005 listed in the Gender Development Index (UNDP, 2007).

Despite many advances for women since Independence, in the 2001 Census 245 million Indian women were still illiterate and 40 per cent of Indian girls less than 14 years of age did not go to school. These figures indicate that nearly half the brain power represented by women in India is not being utilised for the development of the country.

The authors of the National Knowledge Commission (NKC) Reports, 2006-08, envisage a comprehensive and radical programme of educational reform at all levels of education in India so as to bring the country into the new knowledge economy. The proposed changes have significant implications for women engaged in education whether as students, teachers, educational administrators or parents of students.

However, the reports do not explore the embedded gendered impact of their recommendations, especially on the vast majority of women. In spite of various constitutional guarantees and international treaty obligations promising gender equity, women’s issues continue to take a backseat in governmental policies in India.

The Knowledge Commission is a high-level group convened by the Prime Minister and entrusted with the task of preparing “a blueprint to tap into the enormous reservoir of our knowledge base so that our people can confidently face the challenges of the 21st century”. Chaired by a technology expert and consisting of high-powered academics and members of industry, the commission submitted its reports between December 2006 and 2008.

Its recommendations included a plan for a comprehensive revamping of higher education with implications for school education; the creation of libraries and knowledge networks and national portals; and the transformation of vocational education and e-governance to respond to the changing needs of a globalising economy.

Instead of playing a critical and leading role in providing a balanced vision of future national development, the reports emphasise the need for trained, English-speaking technical personnel for global corporations, validate privatisation, and justify the focus on the techno-sciences and the expanding information technology sector at the expense of the social sciences and humanities.

They use the discourse of efficient management, maximising productivity, downsising institutions and rationalising operations rather than of educational goals, social responsibility, accommodating diversity and providing equity, access and justice.

As such, the reports do not treat gender issues with any degree of seriousness. The definition of knowledge is limited, uncritical and abstract, and not located in the grounded realities of oppression and marginalisation in Indian society. The fallouts for women’s education and empowerment are many.

Firstly, the report commodifies knowledge as capital to maintain a “competitive edge” in the new global world. Science and technology, “relevant” education which will produce trained workers for the industry, intellectual property rights and innovation form the core of this document to the near exclusion of the social sciences and the arts, which have the greatest number of women students and academics in their programmes.

Secondly, the authors assert that information technology can be used for democratic ends by making knowledge more accessible through computer-aided distance learning, e-governance, data sharing between universities and digital library networks. However, the report places those who are least likely to have access to technology — the poor, women and the marginalised (the majority of the population) — on the other side of the “digital divide”.

Thirdly, a major concern in the Knowledge Commission reports is with language. English is described as a “determinant to access”, thus disadvantaging those who do not have English-medium schooling, the majority being girls. Education in the vernacular is a constitutional right, and most government schools are vernacular-medium schools.

The emphasis on English in higher education disadvantages girl students, large numbers of whom attend the free, vernacular-medium government schools. Thus, an educational “apartheid” is created between the urban rich (English-medium schools) and the poor in rural as well as urban areas (free vernacular-medium schools).

Fourthly, the reports clearly state that universities should follow a “needs-blind policy” in admitting students and charging fees. This policy will put higher education beyond the reach of poor students, particularly of women. Fee waivers have been suggested for “needy” students, but the social and cultural context and factors that discriminate against women are ignored. For example, many parents are not inclined to invest in their daughters’ education because of socio-cultural reasons, even when they can pay for it.

Finally, gender issues do not figure at all in any of the reports. In fact, women are never mentioned as a social category. Gender is left to “Potential Future Areas”, which is to be discussed later along with public health, environment and teacher training.

Gender issues in education cannot be considered in isolation. They have to be understood along the axes of class as well as geographical location. It is important to look at women’s issues as crosscutting with other disparities and disadvantages. When policy makers avoid the issue of the gender divide and assert that it does not exist, they think primarily of urban, upper middle class women and rarely of the majority of poor, rural women.

Gender discrimination has a specific character as well. Even if a family is not necessarily poor, it might be reluctant to invest in a daughter’s higher education. It is important to be attentive to these entrenched cultural factors. A concerted and widespread effort is needed to address the deep-rooted traditions of boy-preference. The government will need to strengthen efforts against giving dowry, female feticide and child marriage — all of which are still practised despite being illegal.

The deeply internalised patriarchal notions even among educated women also need to be addressed through gender sensitisation. Women need to be made aware of their right to equal educational opportunities and to employment so that they may recognise cases of violation.

The larger question of educational goals needs to be addressed and discussed. Is the goal of effecting social transformation through education to be totally abandoned to privilege the need to supply recruits for the newly emerging global markets? Surely, innovative education reforms can incorporate both market needs and social ones.

MIDDLE

The Kitchlew brothers
by N.S. Tasneem

A recent Tribune write-up reminded me of two Kitchlew brothers who were in Hindu College, Amritsar, from 1944 to 1946. The elder one was in BA and the younger one was in FA during that period. The younger Kitchlew (most probably Taufique) was my class fellow while the elder one was a class fellow of Mr Balramji Dass Tandon (a veteran BJP leader).

Both brothers were our role models as they gave fiery speeches on the college stage and were of amiable nature. Both of them were tall, in fact lanky, and exuded confidence and determination. Having been the sons of a great leader, Dr Saifuddin Kitchlew, they were freedom fighters in their own right.

I recall that when I was in the primary school, I was in the habit of reading Urdu words scripted on the walls of houses and shops. The words in bold letters, “Vote Dr Kitchlew ko do”, are still fresh in my memory. I was too young at that time to know whether the votes were being solicited for being elected to the Amritsar Municipal Committee or the Legislative Assembly, Lahore. Later I learnt that Dr Kitchlew was on the stage, along with Dr Satyapal, when General Dyer gave orders for opening fire on the congregation in Jallianwala Bagh on Baisakhi Day in 1919. The rest, of course, is history.

In our college there were some Muslim students but the joining of the two Kitchlew brothers was hailed as a great event. They had refused to join Mohammedan-Anglo-Oriental College in Amritsar and had preferred Hindu College. In 1946, the movement for the creation of Pakistan had gained momentum. Likewise, the freedom movement had received a boost due to the imprisonment of INA stalwarts in the Red Fort. It seemed to the students like me that the freedom was just round the corner and the Netaji’s dream of Independent United India would be realised.

In those days when we marched to the Jallianwalla Bagh shouting slogans like “Lal Qile se aayi aawaz, Sehgal, Dhillon, Shahnawaz”, we were thrilled beyond measure. Mostly we held meetings at our college campus. The elder Kitchlew brother was in the habit of raising his voice suddenly while delivering his speech before saying, “Hum sar pai kafan baandh kar niklenge” (We shall march forward after fastening the shroud on our head).

Later the college principal would say in lighter vein, “Please don’t frighten the first-year babies (students) with your hair-raising declamatory blast”. This remark was received with laughter and the thumping of the benches. The younger Kitchlew was equally persuasive in his arguments but he was lyrical in his expression.

The news that Taufique has gone back to Delhi from Amritsar as a disillusioned and disheartened person is upsetting. The city where his grandfather, father and he himself were born has, in a way, disowned them. He wanted to have a feel of the city for writing his memoirs. Indeed, we observe anniversaries of freedom fighters with great enthusiasm and deliver speeches using hyperbolic language. But we are reluctant to provide comfort and security to their progeny.

OPED

India-Pakistan relations
A change of mindset required
by Paramjit S. Sahai

If anything Prime Minister Manmohan Singh proved in the Lok Sabha debate on July 29 was that he stood committed to what had been stated in the Indo-Pakistan joint statement at Sharm el-Sheikh on July 16.

He invoked Atal Bihari Vajpayee, both in letter and spirit, in his defence. Was it an attempt to bring about a consensus on the foreign policy debate, which was now lacking or simply a tactical approach to tell the adversaries that they were not ‘walking their talk’.

The Prime Minister got a golden opportunity to spell out his vision on India-Pakistan relations in three words: ‘trust but verify’, while recognising the inevitability of the dialogue process to usher in peace, security and development for not only India and Pakistan but also South Asia as a whole.

In the process, he widened his appeal and message to people in South Asia as people on both sides would like to reap the peace dividend in terms of economic development and prosperity.

The debate in Parliament did not question the gospel truth that cooperative development, peace and security between India and Pakistan have to follow the dialogue process. War was not a solution and even if it were a solution, it does not produce lasting peace.

The whole debate, however, focussed on the tactics to be adopted. Was it a wise decision to delink the dialogue process from the Pakistani delivery on terrorism? Why was a paragraph on Balochistan allowed to be inserted, giving Pakistan a countervailing weight vis-à-vis Kashmir, while we gloated on the omission of Kashmir? Added to this was the issue of India bartering away its sovereignty on the end user agreement with the United States.

While the Prime Minister made a staunch defence of the India-Pakistan joint statement, he also made a tactical retreat, in reiterating that no meaningful dialogue could take place unless Pakistan delivered on terrorism.

It is likely that partial delivery from Pakistan in the form of their first official admission of their involvement in the planning and execution of the Mumbai terrorist attack of 26/11 by Pakistanis carried the day in the drafting of the statement. Despite the Prime Minister’s strong defence, he failed to carry the Opposition with him as they continued seeing the situation from their own prism.

The moot question is: Are we fighting a tactical battle and forgetting our strategic goals? In approaching Pakistan, do we have to score brownie points on the fine print in the Sharm el-Sheikh statement, as to whether we are getting ‘a mile for an inch’? We have to be steadfast in our determination to win Pakistan, ensure its stability and wean it from terrorism. This is equally in our self-interest.

India’s approach, therefore, has to be in line with our grand vision towards Pakistan, allowing us to make tactical changes, while we continue pursuing our strategic goals. We can do so if Pakistan sees India as a friend and is equally prepared to go more than half the way, like India is willing to do so, as reiterated by the Indian Prime Minister.

We cannot do so, unless we build a consensual approach domestically. The problem becomes acute if the Congress party also joins hands with the Opposition. It needed Sonia Gandhi’s directive before the Congress party’s hand started endorsing the Prime Minister’s approach.

Are we any wiser, consequent to the parliamentary debate, in approaching Pakistan? The debate spawned a number of important issues, which need to be carefully considered. We do not have to make the water muddier at home and ensure that we do not lose sight of long-term goals for short-term debating victories.

The Congress has to avoid a direct, open and confrontationist role vis-à-vis the government. There are other ways to rein in the Prime Minister. Perhaps, equally important for India is not to jettison the summitry process, by taking shelter under the legalistic jargon to run away from the commitments made by devaluating the importance of the joint statement.

Similarly, Parliament, which has a rightful role to play on foreign policy issues should not behave like the US Congress so long we have a parliamentary system of democracy.

What is the way ahead? We have to get out of the box and not continue placing ourselves in a tight-jacket tactical approach as happened immediately after the 26/11. We have to evolve a dynamic foreign policy, which is responsive to the changing times and situations.

We cannot afford to speak with multiple voices, even though we are a multicultural society, if we want India’s voice to be heard in international portals as India starts playing a major role.

The need of the hour is to develop a national consensus on foreign policy under the critical eye of the Opposition with Parliament playing the role of a watchdog. The initiative has to rest with the government, which has to enter into dialogue domestically, as it approaches Pakistan.

Dr Manmohan Singh has to show the courage to sell his vision on India-Pakistan as he did it in the case of the India-US civil nuclear cooperation agreement. He should continue remaining out of the box, after having come out of it.

The Gilani-Manmohan Singh meeting had already begun the dialogue process, although it was not a ‘composite dialogue’. India-Pakistan relations cannot be built on legally binding documents, but on trust, for which we need a change of mindset.

The larger interest of the people in South Asia demands that India and Pakistan live in peace and friendship. Dialogue is, therefore, in our national interest.

Hopefully, the leaders would not only hear but heed this call. This can happen if there is greater connectivity as through communication alone we can produce better understanding. Let the fresh breeze blow through open windows, as was stated by Mahatma Gandhi.

The writer is a former Ambassador

The forgotten war against malaria
by Johann Hari

On the border between Thailand and Cambodia, a mighty battle is taking place – and the outcome will determine whether millions of people live or die.If the right side falters and fails, the long list of the dead will consist overwhelmingly of children and pregnant women. But this fight is passing virtually unnoticed in the outside world.

Why? Because the lives at stake are – initially, at least – “only” “those of Asians and black Africans.

Malaria is already the biggest killer in the world after Aids and tuberculosis. It infects 250 million people a year – the vast majority in Africa – and kills 1.5 million of them.

It is caused by a parasite carried in the saliva of female mosquitoes. Once they inject it into your blood with a bite, the parasite heads for your liver and slows your blood flow. Within a few days, your organs fail. This happens to an equivalent of seven jumbo jets full of children every day.

Up until this year, the world was making remarkable progress in whittling down this disease. Since the year 2000, seven of the worst afflicted countries in sub-Saharan Africa have slashed malaria deaths by 50 per cent.

It has a great knock-on effect too: for every £1 spent on malaria prevention, Africa gains £12 in economic growth, because people can work instead of lying sick and dying. It was a sign that aid, matched by good African government, can produce inspirational results.

But then something began to change – at first imperceptibly – in the forgotten forests of Western Cambodia, where the Khmer Rouge held their last stand-off. The drug that is most effective at treating malaria is called artemisinin: it shocks the parasite out of your system and saves your life.

But in south-east Asia, horrified doctors have discovered that the malaria parasite is becoming resistant to it. In a Darwinian arms race, it has begun to evolve a way to beat the treatment. It is taking twice as long to work – and soon it will have defeated the medicine altogether.

We have been here before. In exactly the same place in the 1960s, the malaria parasite outraced the best available treatment of its day, choloroquine, and rendered it useless. The new super-parasite then spread rapidly to Africa. Across the map of the world, the ability to treat malaria was blacked out, region by region.

It took 20 years for another medicine as effective as choloroquine to be developed. Millions of Africans died waiting. If we lose artemisinin, we will face another deadly interlude – and given that pharmaceutical companies are doing virtually no work on diseases that afflict poor countries because there is no profit in it, it could last indefinitely.

Nobody knows why Cambodia’s malaria parasites are such buffed-up hyper-Darwinian winners – the Mr Universe of the parasite world. They have in the past rendered other treatments like SP and DDT far less effective by evolving resistance to them too.

Some scientists think it is because the treatments have been used there longer than anywhere else, giving their parasites a head-start. But it is not inevitable that this super-malaria will spread to Africa and cull millions. The scientists on the ground say we can contain them in Cambodia and prevent a disaster – if we act fast.

The scientists’ plan is simple. It is to first of all massively suppress the spread of malaria in this area by a vast distribution of insecticide-treated mosquito nets, which have been shown to cut transmission by 80 per cent. Then it is to ease the “drug pressure” on the parasite.

At the moment, heavy doses of artemisinin are pushing the malaria parasite to evolve fast. So the scientists are drastically cutting the doses of artemisinin in the area, and complementing it with a cocktail of weaker malaria drugs that in combination can have some compensatory effect. They calculate that this will reduce the evolutionary pressure on the parasite and make it revert back to type.

The cost of not acting will be catastrophic for Africa – and, in time, we would all live to regret it. One of the most frequently anticipated effects of global warming is a spreading of the parts of the world vulnerable to malaria. The World Health Organisation has advised European governments and the Southern states of the US to take “urgent action” to prepare for “the spread of malaria” to its territory as warming accelerates.

But this is a moment for excitement as much as despair. This is a chance to save the most precious medicine humanity has from destruction. This is a chance to do something heroic – for Africa, and for our own future. If we make this happen, we can be energised to keep on eradicating malaria, step-by-step, from the human condition: Dr Robert Koch has shown that for just $10bn over five years, we could reduce deaths from the disease to a few thousand a year. So will we seize the opportunity – or will we stand by, limp and passive, and wait for the advance of a super-charged killer? — By arrangement with The Independent

Chatterati
BJP caught in confusion
by Devi Cherian

BJP rebels Yashwant Sinha and Arun Shourie have not been invited for the coming ‘chintan baithak’ in Shimla. Jaswant Singh has been accommodated after the loss of his office space, as the Leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha, in the room of the PAC Chairman.

It seems anyone in the BJP asking for introspection about the defeat in the elections is the ‘villain’ to be avoided.

The BJP’s choice of Shimla as the venue of the meeting is perhaps intended to cool the rising temperatures within the party. A senior party leader used to sarcastically tell everyone before the LS polls that ‘when the Congress loses an election, everybody except Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi is blamed by the sycophants in the party’.

Now the question everyone asking is: who is responsible for the BJP defeat? The Sinha-Shourie duo is also looking for answers from the strategists of the general election of 2009.

Rajnath Singh’s orders as the president of the party are not being obeyed. Vasundhra Raje’s refusal to resign has created confusion in the party.

BJP chief ministers don’t really care about their high command. They are now bigger than anyone in the high command and secure in the hope that their senior leaders are dependent on their services.

Not many young MPs speak up

Like the mentor Rahul Gandhi, the young Congress brigade, it seems, is in no hurry to make a point and wants to pick up the ropes “slowly and cautiously”. This Parliament session was a new learning curve for the young members. However, the performance of the youth brigade in Parliament, with a few exceptions, was not encouraging.

Many in the Rahul brigade, including Jitendra Singh, Ashok Tanwar and Manicka Tagore, chose not to speak or ask questions on any issue. But as this is their first term as MPs, they were just busy grasping the proceedings.

Sanjay Singh Verma, Navin Jindal and Sanjay Nirupam made impressive interventions, but the performance of others like Anu Tandon was found wanting.

Tandon’s maiden speech on drought in which she said the MPs should go to their constituencies for relief work instead of sitting in the House and debating the issue, really agitated Sushma Swaraj. Swaraj said going by Tandon’s logic, Parliament might as well be adjourned.

Manish Tewari was articulate and raised many questions. The tribal MP from Orissa, Pradeep Majhi, asked maximum questions. The youngest of the lot, 27-year-old Hamdullah Sayeed of Lakshadweep made an impressive maiden speech on the Finance Bill.

Some new MPs said they were yet to get even a proper office and computers. Anyway, it’s good to know that the future policy-makers are young, dynamic and educated.

Amar Singh and Azam Khan

Amar Singh is resting in Singapore after a kidney transplant. But he keeps himself informed about the politics back home. He addresses the media through video-conferences.

After his much publicised face-off with Mulayam, rebel Azam Khan has suddenly gone quiet. Jayapradha win from Rampur was a huge jolt for him, while Amar Singh could not stop smiling. This seat was a prestige issue. Azam left no stone unturned to make sure she lost.

Azam Khan is not quite sure of his future. The Samajwadi Party has asked him to resign, but Azam has chosen to ignore this. His warming up to some BSP ministers recently has set tongues wagging, but it seems the man is running out of options.

Corrections and clarifications

n In the report “New tax code unveiled to replace IT Act” (Page 1, Aug. 13) there is a reference to the tax liability being “10 per cent for income up to Rs 10 lakh, 20 per cent beyond Rs 25 lakh and 30 per cent beyond Rs 25 lakh”. The correct figure was “20 per cent between Rs 10 lakh and Rs 25 lakh”.

n In the headline “Delay in airport building holds up Dubai flight” (Page 3, Aug.14), the last word should have been in plural-“flights”.

n In the headline “Banks asked to install note-sorting machines” (Page 20, Aug.14), instead of “asked” the word used shouldhave been “told”.

n The headline “Kites losing strings in city” (Page 1, Aug 16, Chandigarh Tribune) is inappropriate. It could have been “Kites lose their charm in city.”

Despite our earnest endeavour to keep The Tribune error-free, some errors do creep in at times. We are always eager to correct them.

This column will now appear thrice a week — every Monday, Wednesday and Friday. We request our readers to write or e-mail to us whenever they find any error.

Readers in such cases can write to Mr Kamlendra Kanwar, Senior Associate Editor, The Tribune, Chandigarh, with the word “Corrections” on the envelope. His e-mail ID is kanwar@tribunemail.com.

H.K. Dua, Editor-in-Chief