|
|
Politics
of MSP Early
polls in Haryana |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Winding
up Hill Council
Peace
process in Nepal
The
wheat growers
Democracy
will not bring freedom Why subsidise farm
labour? Inside Pakistan
|
|
Early polls in Haryana
The
dissolution of the Haryana Assembly seven months ahead of schedule puts the formal seal on something that was widely anticipated. The spectacular performance of the Congress in the Lok Sabha elections when it won nine of the 10 seats at stake and the apparent sorry state of the Opposition had convinced the State leadership that it would be inappropriate to wait for the assembly to complete its term. The Bhupinder Singh Hooda government can hardly be faulted for seeking to make hay while the sun shines. In all fairness to Mr Hooda, his party’s impressive performance in the Lok Sabha elections was not merely an expression of public disgust over the bickering and infighting in the Opposition. His record of governance has indeed had many positives. The pro-active approach of the government to investments and its contribution in modernising key sectors like education, health and infrastructure have been praiseworthy. Projects like the Kundli-Manesar-Palwal Expressway, the Rajiv Gandhi Education City, and the all women’s university in Sonepat hold promise for the future. There has also been a perceptible improvement in the law and order situation in the State. By contrast, the Indian National Lok Dal-BJP alliance has hardly inspired hope that it can deliver if voted to power. The Haryana Janhit Congress-BSP alliance is still looking to gain a foothold and early elections would rob it of time to consolidate. Yet, it never pays to be cocooned in complacency in politics. The Hooda government can hardly rest content over its limited accomplishments. The State’s power situation is cause for deep concern. The Khap Panchayats have been going berserk, dishing out their own version of justice which is heavily loaded against women and the State government has been able to do little to check them. Politically too, the Congress has had its own share of dissidence. All in all, however, the Hooda government is on a good wicket. It must convince the voter that it would build upon its positive record in days to come.
|
|
|
Winding up Hill Council
The
decision “in principle” to formally liquidate the Darjeeling Gorkha Hill Council after 21 years of its virtual non-existence must be welcomed as a belated move in the right direction. The council had ceased to function a long time ago and no election was held for over a decade. The West Bengal government had allowed Mr Subhas Ghising to hijack the council and promote himself and his grandiose plans. Politicians and bureaucrats in Kolkata were quite content to give Ghising a long rope and from the sidelines watched him getting tied in knots. They were, however, caught napping when a surge of popular anger last year forced Mr Ghising to finally resign as council chairman and take shelter in the plains. The New Delhi agreement to abolish the council and drop the plans to include the sensitive hill districts in the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution seem to have temporarily halted the statehood agitation in the hills. The Gorkha Janmukti Morcha, which is spearheading a violent movement to carve out a separate state for Gorkhas, appears to have got the message that New Delhi does not favour a further division of West Bengal. This would explain the Morcha’s mellowed stand and consent to the next round of meeting at Darjeeling in December. It would again be a major breakthrough if the Morcha does withdraw its month-long blockade of the Hills and helps in cooling passions. While the Union government is yet to appoint an interlocutor to conduct future dialogue between the Morcha and the government, much will depend on the ability of the interlocutor to not only bridge differences but also to come up with permanent solutions to the accumulated grievances of the Gorkhas. The new administrative arrangement must deliver to ensure continued peace in the sensitive border region. It would be imprudent indeed if the politics behind the Darjeeling Gorkha Hill Council were to return in a different garb.
|
|
|
Courage is the capacity to confront what can be imagined. — Leo Rosten
|
Peace process in Nepal Prime Minister
Madhav Kumar Nepal was General Secretary of the Communist Party of Nepal United Marxist Leninist (UML) since the mysterious death in 1992 of the charismatic Madan Bhandari till 2008 when he lost the elections. Fortunately for him, he made it to Prime Minister and is no stranger to Delhi. With the peace process stuck, many Nepalis are saying India has a moral duty to break the impasse as it was the one that brought Maoists into the mainstream through the Delhi Declaration of November 2005 popularly called the Magna Carta in Nepal. In hindsight, some Nepal watchers refer to the Delhi agreement as a strategic blunder. At the time, the US which has a pathological dislike for Communists and Maoists, was keen that political parties and King Gyanendra team up to take on the Left Wing guerillas. India instead chose to back the Seven Party Alliance and Maoists in their bid to dislodge monarchy. The key drivers of the peace process constitution drafting and integration have come to a grinding halt while there is no rule of law and order in Nepal and Maoist commitments to multiparty democracy and human rights are in serious doubt. They have not allowed the functioning of Parliament and have launched a two-month long protest programme against their illegal ouster and President Ram Baran Yadav’s unconstitutional restoration of the dismissed Chief of Army Staff, Gen Rukmangad Katwal. They are using the civilian supremacy issue to portray themselves as victims and the underdog. Out of government, they are in a state of shock and disbelief. The two turning points of the peace process are the Maoist election victory and the collapse of their government which ended the politics of consensus being replaced with the politics of majoritarianism. You have this strange spectacle of the single largest party which has more seats in the House than the combined strength of the Nepali Congress and UML, sitting in the Opposition and on the streets. Sacking Katwal under pressure from party hardliners was a grave miscalculation on the part of Prachanda, especially as it was clearly unconstitutional and was not a cabinet decision. The Maoists had begun to believe that the Maoist-led coalition was, in fact, a Maoist government. President Yadav’s rescinding the dismissal order forced Prachanda to resign. Unleashing a barrage of vitriol, Prachanda accused India with blatant interference in bringing down his government, propping up an illegal regime, undermining civilian supremacy, splitting the Madhes Janadhikar Forum and trying to break up Nepal by propping up Madhesis. This was not all. He even accused India with plotting with the US to attack China. Neither will the constitution get drafted by the stipulated deadline of 2010 nor the integration of armies be completed before the expiry of the fourth extension of the United Nations Mission in Nepal (UNMIN) in January next year. It is no longer a question of how long the Nepal government can last but what it can achieve without the Maoists on board. Mr Nepal’s government is perfectly legitimate as it has risen from the same House that squeezed out the Maoists. Once postponed, Mr Nepal’s first visit to a foreign country is to India, correcting the earlier deviation of Prachanda going to China and breaking the Visit India First tradition. Prachanda must be reassured that if he is able and willing to uphold his commitment to multiparty democracy on which he has reneged, and fulfill promises to return confiscated property, disband Young Communist League (YCL) and dismantle parallel state structures, Delhi would be ready to act as a facilitator towards integration of armies championing civilian supremacy. It would even work with the US to help take the Maoists off the Terrorist Exclusion List. India would also encourage the formation of a national unity government by the coalition that commands a majority in the House. At present, the 22-party alliance with a Common Minimum Programme is led by Mr Nepal and it would be in the best interest of the peace process if the Maoists were to join the government. That’s the number one challenge for Delhi. So is the political stability of the non-Maoist coalition if reports are correct that Foreign Minister Sujata Koirala walked out of the Prime Minister’s delegation at the last minute demanding the post of deputy prime minister, which Mr Nepal has refused.
India’s core concerns are Chinese and Pakistani activities detrimental to its security interests. These are not new but lately, the Chinese had been encouraged by the Maoist government to step into areas where they had not previously ventured. This is part of Prachanda’s Look Beyond India policy by using China to balance India, put in his own words. Delhi has been very generous on trade, business and investment to ensure the socio-economic transformation of Nepal. Mr Nepal has to demonstrate that he has both the talent and the capacity to govern better than the Maoists during their nine-month interregnum. One of the key problems is law and order in the Madhes where some 109 armed groups have been operating unchecked. It is here that Delhi can help by enlisting the good offices of the two Chief Ministers of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, states contiguous with Nepal. Mr Nepal has little elbow room for any new substantive agreements with India given this is the transition period for an evolving new Nepal and the warnings from the Maoists to desist from any treaty agreements. For the present Prime Minister Nepal requires all the goodwill and support for his government and for the peace process which must include India helping bring Prachanda around. But first Delhi must be clear what it wants in
Nepal.
|
|||||
The wheat growers
The
farmers in a non-descript village crowded around a paddy-transplanting machine. Their eyes were riveted on the gleaming and shiny equipment as it transplanted the paddy nursery. It was one of those unusually hectic days when the Punjab government’s agriculture department had swooped on farmers who listened to the instructions of officials in an awestruck manner, as the newly purchased machine showed its antics. After the group dispersed, farmers sat in a group and talked about modern machines invading farms and leaving little manual labour for them. The topic slipped into “good old days” when everything was done manually. One of them quipped that wheat harvesting was never a cakewalk as it is now. “One had to work like machine, day and night, separating wheat from chaff manually. Wheat sprouted out on our bodies, literally,” said octogenarian Sukhchain Singh lying on a hand-knit charpoy in his farm. The long beard on his wrinkled face waved as the breeze blew. Reminiscing the times, when he was a young boy, Sukhchain added that in early 50s, when Green Revolution was yet to make its presence felt in Punjab, harvesting seasons spread over couple of months, instead of weeks at present. Farm hands and farmers working on harvesting crop did not take bath for weeks together. Reason? “During de-husking, the chaff used to get glued to our bodies. Since it was a daily procedure, we could not afford to take bath daily, oil ourselves and laze in the sun,” he said. Finally, Sukhchain and all others like him hit a novel way to get freedom from prickling. During this period nobody took bath as every time water touched silage-filled bodies it gave more irritation and burning sensation. Some farmers used clothes to wipe off scum and those who failed to do so then boasted of wheat growing on their arms and heads. Consequently, by the end of the harvesting season, many used to have a green slimy layer covering their bodies and a small twig peeping from behind ear, neck or other body parts. The sweat provided ample “food” for saplings to grow on the body. It remained a source of amusement for men at work in large fields, who had no other means of entertainment. “Mechanisation of farming these days has not only left us with pot bellies and hanging flab, but has taken away those days of hard work, when we literally grew wheat on our body. Our sickle lies lazing somewhere in outhouse of farms and robust muscles are used more to look for addictions,” one of them lamented. “Can the young generation dare to grow wheat on its body?” challenges
Sukhchain.
|
|||||
Democracy will not bring freedom
So
they voted. But for what? Democracy? Certainly not “Jeffersonian” democracy, as President Obama reminded us. Yes, the Afghans wanted to vote. They showed great courage in the face of the Taliban’s threats. But there’s a problem. It’s not just the stitched-up Karzai administration that will almost certainly return, nor the war criminals he employs (Abdul Rashid Dostum should be in the dock at The Hague for war crimes, not in Kabul), nor the corruption and the hideous human rights abuses, but the unassailable fact that ethnically-divided societies vote on ethnic lines. I doubt if anyone in Afghanistan voted on Thursday because of the policies of their favourite candidate. They voted for whoever their ethnic leaders told them to vote for. Hence Karzai asked Dostum to deliver him the Uzbek vote. Abdullah Abdullah relies on the Tajik vote, Karzai on the Pashtuns. It’s always the same. In Iraq, the Shia voted in a Shia government. And in Lebanon, Sunni Muslims and a large section of the Christian community voted to keep the Shia out of power. This is not confined to the Muslim world. How many Northern Ireland Protestants vote for Sinn Fein? But our problem in Afghanistan goes further than this. We still think we can offer Afghans the fruits of our all-so-perfect Western society. We still believe in the Age of Enlightenment and that all we have to do is fiddle with Afghan laws and leave behind us a democratic, gender-equal, human rights-filled society. True, there are brave souls who fight for this in Afghanistan – and pay for their struggle with their lives – but if you walk into a remote village in, say, Nangarhar province, you can no more persuade its tribal elders of the benefits of women’s education than you could persuade Henry VIII of the benefits of parliamentary democracy. Thus the benefits we wish to bestow upon the people of Afghanistan are either cherry-picked (the money comes in handy for the government’s corrupt coffers and the election reinforces tribal loyalties) or ignored. In the meantime, Nato soldiers go on dying for the pitiful illusion that we can clean the place up. We can’t. We are not going to. In the end, the people of these foreign fields must decide their own future and develop their societies as and when they wish. Back in 2001, things were different. Had we hoovered up every gun in the land, we might have done some good. Instead, the Americans sloshed millions of dollars at the mass murderers who had originally helped to destroy the place so that they would fight on our side. Then we wandered off to Iraq and now we are back to fight in Afghanistan for hopelessly unachievable aims. Yes, I like to see people – women and men – voting. I think the Afghans wanted to vote. So, too, the Iraqis. But they also want freedom. Which is not necessarily the same as democracy. — By arrangement
with The Independent
|
|
More Afghans vote now For all that, the Afghan election represents another advance for a nation whose progress must necessarily be measured in small increments. The 17 million registered voters represent an increase of one-third over 2005, including millions of newly enfranchised women. Mr. Karzai has been challenged by several serious candidates and could be forced into a second-round runoff. As he reminded Afghans in a televised debate on Sunday (itself inconceivable in the Afghanistan of 2001), the country’s economy and per-capita income have grown substantially in recent years. The violence, though serious, is the predictable result of a new effort by U.S. and NATO forces to wrest control of southern Afghanistan from the Taliban. It’s too early to judge how the campaign is going, but the principles behind it — protection of the population and the construction of a viable Afghan army, economy and political system — are the right ones. Success will require considerable time and patience — and, almost certainly, more troops and other resources than the Obama administration has yet committed to. In the shorter term, the administration will need to find ways to work productively with Mr. Karzai, should he win re-election. In recent months, senior U.S. officials and military commanders have often been publicly at odds with the Afghan leader, and both sides have some legitimate reasons for grievance. American policy should continue to aim at cultivating capable and uncorrupt local and regional leaders, and in encouraging Mr. Karzai to bring competent administrators into his cabinet. New policies to avoid civilian casualties could alleviate one of the largest irritants in the relationship. The Obama administration and the Afghan president will share a powerful common interest: demonstrating to Afghans that the government they vote for, in many cases at considerable personal risk, is capable of improving their
lives. — By arrangement with LA Times-Washington Post
|
|
|
Why subsidise farm labour? Indian
farming is always looking for state support, logical or illogical. It started with the Green Revolution, which involved subsidies on fertilisers and seeds and even agricultural machinery. Then during the late 1980s and the early 1990s, as costs of cultivation rose, there was a culture of free electricity for irrigation in many states. Some states even did away with canal water charges. Then came the loan waiver culture during the 1990s. Now if there is any input untouched by subsidies, it is labour. Now with the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) coming in, even that lone input is being asked to be subsidised. The logic is this: the cost of cultivation in farming is going up because local labour is more interested in NREGA for less work and fair wage (Rs 80 per day) though only for 100 days in a year. The recent budget makes it Rs 100 per day. There were reports that states like Punjab suffered from shortage of labour due to the implementation of NREGA in Bihar and UP, which provided migrant labour to Punjab for paddy transplantation. The labour shortage and its higher cost have reached such an extent that this year the state government has imported paddy transplanters from China, Korea and Japan and supplied to farmers at 50 per cent subsidy. Earlier, farmers resorted to mechanical harvesting of wheat and paddy to cut costs, which led to the shortage of fodder. The combine harvester owners were willing to harvest an acre of a wheat crop just for its fodder in return. Though policymakers talk of withdrawal of the state from agriculture, the state looks after all problems of a farmer right from free water and electricity to machines, and then the purchase of produce with an MSP, irrespective of its quality. There seems to be something fundamentally wrong with either technology or farmers as no entrepreneur would repeatedly do a losing business. I am sometimes told that it is simply because there is no alternative for farmers. Farmers take lease land on @ Rs 30,000 per acre to grow wheat and paddy which together give an output of Rs 45000 per acre in a year. The cost of cultivation of wheat alone is Rs 10,000 per acre (excluding irrigation charges as electricity for irrigation is free in Punjab. It is much higher in case of paddy. The wage cost is as much as 25 per cent of all operational costs in major wheat-growing North Indian states and only 17 per cent in Punjab, where it is only human labour with no use of bullocks and a higher use of machines unlike other states. Punjab’s machine costs are 30 per cent higher than that in other states and only 64 per cent are hired against 79 per cent in other wheat growing states. But Punjab leads in casualisation of this wage labour component with 51 per cent of it being casual compared with only 34 per cent in all wheat-growing North Indian states together. You deduct the cost of all subsidised inputs and labour, and it hardly leaves any decent return to the leasee farmer even after including by-products like wheat straw for fodder. The owners are no better off if we take the opportunity cost of land they cultivate. Imagine if a farmer has to pay for all the inputs and then sell at the market price, how long can he practise farming? Farmer agencies and lobbies are now asking for labour subsidy in rain-fed areas to cut farmers’ cost of cultivation. In many of these areas as well, irrigation water is free or electricity to pump it is free. All other inputs are also partly subsidised. Now, labour cost is also being sought to be subsidised and many NGOs are in the forefront for this subsidy. Even if it is assumed that there is rationale for labour subsidy in farming, how will it be ensured that this subsidy, like oher subsidies, is not cornered by a few rich farmers who use hired labour. Unlike NREGA projects which are on public land and for public purpose, how will the labour on private lands be monitored and accounted for? On the other hand, the higher cost of labour, instead of being treated as a problem, could be seen as one factor leading to higher mechanisation of farming which can help cut costs and improve efficiency, especially in relatively under-mechanised areas. It is generally seen that whenever the marginalised and resource poor communities are given some policy benefit by the state, the others start eying it either to scuttle it or to partake it. This makes it prone to malpractices as other vested interests start manipulating it. This seems to be one of such initiatives. If the state has to offer labour subsidies in the Green Revolution as well as rain-fed areas to sustain farming, it needs to rethink the model of agricultural development being
promoted. The writer is a teacher at the IIM, Ahmedabad.
|
|
Inside Pakistan No
independence day in Pakistan passes off without a discussion on the country’s founder, Mohammad Ali Jinnah. But almost every word spoken or written about him is in praise of Jinnah as is proved by a lengthy article carried in the magazine section of Nawa-i-Waqt (Aug 9). He “has been elevated to the status of a kind of saint in Pakistan”, as The News says in an editorial on Jaswant Singh’s controversial book, “Jinnah — India, Partition and Independence”. “Any pragmatic analysis of his role and his personality becomes difficult” in Pakistan. “Any fresh look at history and the characters who played a part in its making is always welcome. This is, perhaps, especially true in the case of Jinnah”, the paper adds. The News also points out, “Writing a fully objective history is difficult — some argue impossible. The beliefs and biases of the writer always play a part. For this reason, having as many different points of view as possible is important.” That is why it considers Jaswant Singh’s book “a significant addition” to the literature available on Partition. Reinterpreting history Daily Times, a relatively liberal paper, is of the view that Jaswant Singh “has given a positive portrait” of Jinnah. The paper believes “this time history may be reinterpreted more permanently in favour of an Indo-Pak détente through a ‘reinterpretation’ of M.A. Jinnah”. The daily points out, “Perhaps more significantly than anything else he has said in praise of his subject, Mr Singh’s explanation of the last-minute rupture between Nehru and Jinnah will become important in the coming days: ‘Nehru believed in a highly centralised polity. That’s what he wanted India to be. Jinnah wanted a federal polity. That even Gandhi accepted. Nehru didn’t. Consistently, he stood in the way of a federal India until 1947 when it became a partitioned India’.” There is another viewpoint given by Daily Times: “In Pakistan, the conservative right and the liberal intellectuals are hopelessly divided on the person of Mr Jinnah. But both tend to stand together when it comes to what they think is Indian prejudice against the great man. Now that Mr Jaswant Singh has set the record straight in India, it may be easier for Pakistan to frame Mr Jinnah in a more realistic national reference. The identity of the state of Pakistan has been consciously moulded over the years in relation to India as the ‘enemy’ state. Learning lessons Another Leftist paper, The Frontier Post, carried an article by Ehsan Mehmood Khan (Aug 19), who says, “Jaswant Singh has squarely put the blame for partition of India in 1947 on Jawaharlal Nehru, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel and the Congress rather than Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah.” Expressing the hope that “Jaswant Singh’s book would certainly occupy a principal place in the recorded history of partition of the subcontinent”, Mehmood Khan quotes what L. K. Advani wrote in the Visitor’s Book at Jinnah’s mausoleum in Karachi in June 2005 and Atal Bihari Vajpayee at the Minar-i-Pakistan in February 1999. As mentioned by the writer, Mr Advani’s words, which landed him in trouble back home, were: “There are many people who leave an inerasable stamp on history. But there are very few who create history. Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah was one such rare individual. In his early years, Sarojini Naidu, a leading luminary of India’s freedom struggle, described Mr Jinnah as an ‘Ambassador of Hindu-Muslim Unity’. My respectful homage to this great man.” Vajpayee wrote: “From the historic Minar-i-Pakistan, I wish to assure the people of Pakistan of my country’s deep desire for a lasting peace and friendship. I have said this before, and I say it again, that a stable, secure and prosperous Pakistan is in India’s interest…. India sincerely wishes the people of Pakistan
well.”
|
|
|
|
| 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 | |
I