The Tribune, Chandigarh, India

Welcome initiative
Helpline a step against female foeticide

IT is a matter of some relief that Punjab, which has the dubious distinction of having one of the worst sex ratios in the country, has now launched the nation’s first public health helpline, the prime purpose of which is to check female foeticide. Initiated as part of the National Rural Health Mission, the hotline may not bring about an overnight dramatic transformation in the patriarchal mindset that values sons over daughters. Yet, it is a welcome measure designed to give hapless women who are forced to abort their unborn daughters not only a chance to voice their grievances but also seek “subtle” intervention. The fact that the helpline is in Punjabi is slated to make it more effective and broad-based.

Punjab has been trying to fight the gender imbalance and several initiatives like Nanhi Chaon and Balri Rakshak Yojna have been taken to save the girl child. A recent survey in Punjab has claimed that the sex ratio in the age group 0 to 4 years is up from 796 in 2001 to 838. Yet the problem remains and female foetuses are still aborted without care or concern for “missing” daughters. Even NRI couples that get sex-specific tests done abroad, abort female foetuses in this land where nearly one lakh daughters are estimated to be found “missing”.

Clearly, more than a hotline is needed to reverse the adverse sex ratio and only a multi-pronged approach can work. While awareness campaigns must lay emphasis on taking pride and pleasure in birth of daughters, the Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act has to be stringently implemented. Merely reiterating that improving the sex ratio is top priority of the state health department or taking pride in number of cases registered against the violators of the PNDT Act will not help in tackling this social evil. Backed by firm resolve, action has to be taken on all fronts involving all sections of the community. Certainly, the helpline can help the break “conspiracy of silence”. However, the efficacy of the project has to withstand the test of time. While awareness about the helpline will have to be driven home, caution will need to be exercised in providing right counselling and ensuring that its implementation does not turn into a witch hunt.

Nobel for Obama
An award for rhetoric rather than deeds

IT is an irony indeed that the nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize for Barack Obama was filed within 11 days after his inauguration as the President of the United States earlier this year. By that token, the conferment of the coveted award on him purportedly “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples” is actually for his words rather than his deeds. That this is odd and there is understandable surprise and consternation over it is borne out by a quick online poll in his hometown of Chicago which showed that over 70 per cent of the respondents felt that he did not deserve the honour just yet. This sentiment has been widely expressed elsewhere too.

Much though the Nobel committee may defend its action, there can be little doubt that the credibility of the award has come down a few notches as a result of this controversial selection. President Obama himself has graciously cast doubts over his suitability for the award saying that he did not deserve to be in the company of past laureates. Indeed, controversies are not alien to the prestigious Nobel award. Perhaps the biggest black mark on it has been the non-conferment of the award on Mahatma Gandhi whose contribution to world peace has been beyond parallel. The western bias in the selections is unmistakable. Barring exceptions, the Nobel peace prizes awarded so far in the 109 years of the award’s existence are largely a story of individuals involved with forgotten peace initiatives, abandoned agreements and ultimately ineffectual treaties. Some examples are Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and in more recent times Jimmy Carter, Yitzhak Rabin, Menachem Begin, Anwar Sadat and Henry Kissinger.

Now that the award for Mr Obama has been announced, one can only hope that it will inspire the American president to spread peace and goodwill across the world and shed the bossy attitude of the US towards other countries. If that happens, the award, though prematurely given, would have served some purpose.

Thought for the Day

Hatred is a tonic, it makes one live, it inspires vengeance; but pity kills, it makes our weakness weaker.

— Honore de Balzac

ARTICLE

Dealing with Pak, China
India needs to change its mindset
by Air Marshal R.S.Bedi (retd)

SOME significant events have taken place during the last few weeks that have left the nation with a sense of uneasiness. India can no more afford to be in a situation of asymmetric deterrence vis-à-vis Pakistan. Deterrence is after all a mind game. The efficacy of nuclear weapons in achieving the national objectives rests entirely on the perception of the adversary about the quality and the quantity of the weapons and the intent of the politico-military leadership.

The Facile Material Cut off Treaty (FMCT) is in the offing. India may find itself restrained from carrying out further nuclear test in order to overcome the alleged shortcomings of the Pokhran tests. The US’ renewed interest in arms control agenda including getting the CTBT ratified by the senate which rejected it 10 years ago would create further pressure on India which it may find hard to cope with. Chauvinism of self-imposed nuclear moratorium needs to be re-visited and imbalances corrected if these really exist.

Whether India has adequate scientific data and the capability to switch on to laboratory testing after the CTBT comes into force is a moot point. Some in the scientific community have serious doubts about it and seem to suggest that in their perceptions, there is a need to go ahead and improve the quality and capacity before it is too late. Consider how France and China conducted series of nuclear tests unabashedly just days prior to signing the NPT’s indefinite extension in May 1995.

It is perhaps for this reason that Pakistan is enhancing its nuclear capabilities, qualitatively and quantitatively. The US disclosure that Pakistan was building and refining its nuclear arsenal beyond what has been known all this while was astounding to say the least. The Federation of Americans Scientists revealed that Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal could be as large as 70-90 warheads. Earlier Pakistan was known to possess about 60 such weapons. This claim was further buttressed by a report of the US Congressional Research Services, which said that Pakistan was not only making improvements to its nuclear arsenal but has also added to the list of situations under which it could employ these weapons against India.

Pakistan is also constructing two new plutonium production reactors and trying to miniaturise its nuclear warheads. Gen Musharraf has recently stated that during his tenure Pakistan had made substantial advances in developing plutonium weapons and uranium enrichment.

The Army Chief and Chairman, Chiefs of Staff Committee, Gen Deepak Kapoor reacted strongly to these reports and hinted reappraisal of India’s ‘No First Use’ policy and reconsideration of its strategic stance. There is a growing feeling amongst the strategic community that there is a need for a serious look at our nuclear policy and the capability in order to maintain its cutting edge. The political leadership must satisfy itself before it can re-assure the armed forces that India’s nuclear deterrence remains fully effective.

However, now that the nuclear debate has been initiated by Dr Santhnaman, rightly or wrongly, and that the US has put us on the alert by disclosing Pakistan’s intentions, India must rectify the imbalance in time.

The Chinese attempt to provoke India recently by intruding into Indian territory in Ladakh and painting Chinese graffiti (China) on rocks to assert their ownership has disturbed the national psyche. There was also an air space violation which happened after two long years. For over 20 years now, the Chinese have been using incursions into Ladakh, Arunachal Pradesh and Sikkim as an assertion of their claim over Indian territory. The defence establishment views these incursions as a reflection of the Chinese policy of keeping the border issue alive. The July incursions are seen by the army as a deliberate attempt to provoke India.

Instead of lodging a strong protest, our Foreign Minister surprised every body by his August 7 statement: “...the border with China has been one of the most peaceful boundaries that we have as compared to boundary lines with other countries”. Even the Defence Ministry was taken aback. Taking the queue, the Chinese foreign ministry stated promptly, “Reports of incursion are baseless.” Timid responses and continued proclivity to placate the Chinese have only encouraged them to be more indulgent.

Here are a few examples of how the Ministry of External Affairs’ policy of appeasing the Chinese by its overcautious responses has damaged our credibility. The MEA has prevented the armed forces from detaining the Chinese soldiers when confronted on the Indian side of the border. This is when the Chinese have no such hesitation in capturing Indian soldiers if found by them on their side of the LAC.

The Indian army has also been prevented from patrolling certain areas close to the LAC claimed by us to prevent clashes with the Chinese troops. The Chinese have imposed no such restrictions on their troops. Even the ITBP is not allowed to carry weapons to prevent provocation to the Chinese. The army finds itself hand tied by an overcautious MEA in coping with Chinese aggressive and bullish policies.

China’s continued violation of LAC is in keeping with its policy of asserting its claims along the border. Except for a firm action against the Chinese in 1986, India has remained overcautious all along. It has always downplayed the seriousness of these incursions, letting the Chinese have the upper hand psychologically. Our responses are weak and minimal. For some unknown reason, in dealing with the Chinese, we tend to circumvent and dodge the issues. Is it that the Indian governments still continue to suffer from the 1962 syndrome? India should have realised by now that the Chinese only respect firmness and show of strength.

China’s aggressive behaviour needs to be analysed in proper perspective. To pursue its “four modernisations” unhindered, it wanted a peaceful and stable environment, particularly along its international borders. It managed to resolve border disputes expeditiously with all except India. With India, it followed a different approach by signing a treaty of ‘Peace and Tranquillity’ in 1993 to achieve the same effect. Having secured borders with neighbours, it was able to concentrate on improving its economy and simultaneously modernising its armed forces in a big way.

Now that China has reached a stage wherein its economy, finance, exports and the military are global phenomena, it has begun to flex muscles with renewed arrogance and assertiveness. Large-scale military exercises in the neighbourhood of its adversaries to showcase its might is the modus operandi it follows to intimidate them. As of now, the Chinese are running a massive military exercise involving about 50,000 troops along with large contingent of tanks and aircraft north of us.

However, the Chinese seem to betray some uneasiness manifested in their recent conduct of needling India on some pretext or the other. They have surprised India yet again by issuing separate visas to Indian passport holders from Jammu and Kashmir. Are they trying to convey some message as regards their stand on Kashmir?

The Chinese behaviour could perhaps be attributed to the series of actions taken by India in securing its border against them. Deployment of front line SU-30s at Tezpur, upgradation of airbases in the east, raising of two mountain divisions for deployment in Arunachal Pradesh and Manipur, deployment of T-72 tanks in the higher reaches of Sikkim and reactivation of Daulat Beg Oldi, Fuckche, Chushule and Nyama airfields in Ladakh which were literally abandoned after 1962 because of their close proximity to Chinese deployments have all added to China’s discomfort.

India has to come out of past paranoia and handle China’s intransigence with fortitude. The MEA must ensure integrated responses in close liaison with the Ministries of Defence and Home. We have to learn to deal with the Chinese and their ruthless attitude towards us.

The writer is a former Director-General, Defence Planning Staff

MIDDLE

When old is young
by Nonika Singh

WHILE rummaging through my music collection I stumble upon a CD on which my daughter seems to have boldly scribbled: very, very old songs. Undeniably, the songs of Talat Mehmood, Geeta Dutt, et al belong to another generation even by my own standards, let alone when judged from the perspective of a teenager.

Nevertheless, stung by her observation, I resist the temptation to tune in to the eternal Aaj sajan mohe ang laga lo janam safal ho jaaye and Piya aiso jeeya mein samaye gayo re and put the CD away, lest she puts the “relic” label on me too. Still the words “very, very old” continue to haunt me. Am I overreacting, true to my profession of a journalist, reading too much in between the lines (in this case one line actually). Do I sense my daughter’s derision behind what is a seemingly an innocuous observation?

Just as I soak into J K Rowling’s quote “Youth cannot know how age thinks and feels. But old men are guilty if they forget what it was to be young” at a neighbour’s party, I come across a senior citizen. What is so special? Isn’t India greying fast? Well, she is dancing to the tune of same songs with gusto and abandon. Clearly as her not so youthful body sways to the evergreen number Babu ji dheere chalna, the song is not only part of her past perfect but also present which is not flawed either.

How past and present interweave, Kal aj aur kal become one, we often overlook. Instead, we tend to draw firm lines, delineating the two into watertight compartments.

At a seminar in Shimla that deliberated upon the “Changing role of teachers” a learned professor read out a paragraph: “The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company; gobble up their food and tyrannise their teachers.”

Not just me, all present were certain that he was describing the youth of today. Guess what, he was quoting Socrates the Greek philosopher. Indeed, the implication is loud and clear — more things change, the more they remain the same. Yet, comparison between past and present is inevitable, both in real life and on celluloid screen.

Imtiaz Ali, the well-known film director of Jab We Met fame, who seems to have quite easily mastered the art of making films on youth too couldn’t resist this urge. With a firm grip on the pulse of Gen Next — remember the delectable dialogue Mein apni favourite hoon epitomising the 21st century youth — his latest offering Love Aaj Kal does exactly that. Juxtaposing vintage “till death do us apart” love of yesteryear with two-minute fast food variety of today, he makes many startling and delightful observations on commitment and love, as the present generation understands it.

However, the overt and underlying message of his movie is — aaj ya kal, love is love. In city for the promotion of his film the dashing filmmaker who can easily be a hero himself revealed how youth is never dated.

Any wonder, the protagonist Veer of yesteryear (in Love Aaj Kal) is as much in sync with his times, as fashionable and as rebellious (with the gumption to elope with his beloved hours before her marriage) as the modern day Romeo who discovers the value of love the “long distance” way.

Indeed, if youth and love can never be behind times, can its most potent expression music be. My CD is back in circulation. The air is filled with Hoon abhi main jawan…

OPED

The real world has little time for prizes
by Rupert Cornwell

IF Henry Kissinger’s Nobel Peace Prize in 1973 was said to signify the death of satire, the one that’s been awarded to Barack Obama may go down as the triumph of naivety. Henry the Great had indeed cosied up to vile regimes in Latin America and ordered the secret bombing of Cambodia. But he was also the arch exponent of realpolitik, who extricated the US from a futile war. That is why he was awarded the prize.

This one has gone to an American president in office for less than nine months. Yes, Obama, perhaps more than any president in history, has roused hopes of a new beginning. But nothing leaves a more bitter taste than hope unfulfilled, and therein lies the danger of this premature award.

Yes, he’s made those fancy speeches – in Berlin in summer 2008 during his pre-election European victory lap, his inaugural address in January, the ones to the Muslim world in April, to the UN General Assembly last month. Not only can Obama dissect and explain a complicated problem as few others, but he’s inspirational as well. But, as they say in American politics, where’s the beef?

To be sure, George W Bush’s misbegotten war in Iraq is being wound down. But in the Middle East, Obama’s exhortations and strictures to Israelis and Palestinians have this far achieved precisely nothing. Even as he lays out a stirring vision of a nuclear-free world, Iran accelerates its pursuit of a nuclear weapons capacity that might easily ignite a new war in the region.

It’s all but certain that Obama will miss his deadline of next January for closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay. Nor will honeyed presidential words, the White House already concedes, persuade Congress to arm US delegates to December’s climate change conference in Copenhagen with a piece of legislation to prove their good intentions.

Then there’s Afghanistan. The man praised yesterday for giving the world “the hope of a better future” is considering escalating a conflict in which America’s involvement has now lasted as long as in Vietnam – and whose parallels with that failed war grow with every passing day.

The difference is that Obama’s America has even less chance of imposing its will on Afghanistan – and if it is to succeed there, on the larger, more treacherous stage of nuclear-armed Pakistan next door – than presidents Johnson and Nixon had of victory in South-east Asia.

He may have sown the seeds of hope. But then again, so in his time did Jimmy Carter, a president to whom people these days are starting to liken Obama: another good and extremely intelligent man, who promised much when he came to office in the aftermath of Vietnam and Watergate, but whose single term ended in failure and disappointment. Seven years ago, Carter did win the Nobel Peace Prize. But that was a lifetime achievement award, more in recognition of 20 years of post-presidential toil in the world’s most thankless hot spots than for anything he achieved in office.

So why did the Norwegian committee act as it did yesterday? Perhaps, you might frivolously say, to show even-handedness. Only last Friday, after all, Obama was returning from Copenhagen with his tail between his legs.

He had just suffered the biggest rejection of his presidency as his adopted city of Chicago, for which he had lobbied in person, saw its 2016 Olympics bid tossed out in the very first round of voting. The collective gasp of surprise at Obama’s victory yesterday was as audible as at his failure seven days earlier. Scandinavia, the Norwegians were keen to prove, not only taketh away. It also giveth.

You could also argue that this was a political move by the committee – a calculated attempt to boost Obama’s prestige as he tries to resolve those global problems listed above. And maybe it will. But it’s hard, for instance, to see Mahmoud Ahmadinejad turning all sweet and reasonable, forswearing Iran’s nuclear ambitions just because the fellow across the table has won the Nobel Peace Prize.

Most likely, though, it was a very human mixture of idealism and spite to which even right-thinking Scandinavians also are not immune. The idealism reflects a perception of Obama as a new embodiment of America at its best, the last hope of humanity, guided by high and universal ideals, determined and decisive, using its immense power in concert with others to build a better world. As such, Obama’s prize is also a final, gratuitous shot at George W Bush (remember him?), who for Scandinavia and far beyond was embodiment of America at its worst.

But the real world has little time either for comforting myth, or pointless score settling. Obama’s Nobel Prize will not weigh heavily in the deliberations over Afghanistan, the first acid test of his presidential mettle. The basic choice is simple: either to throw in more troops, spending more American blood and treasure on a war in which in any politically realistic time frame the US cannot succeed; or to wind things down, and focus on the terrorists, not the Taliban.

Most probably, though, he will split the difference, sending more troops. They won’t be enough to win, but they’ll delay the inevitable final failure. But for the moment, we do not even know what America’s goal is in the war. And to have a goal you must have a strategy. All the rest is tactics, which at best buy time.

Which brings us back to Henry Kissinger, nothing if not a strategist. He and Nixon came to recognise that America’s power was not infinite, and decided their strategy would be to extricate the US from the war.

It was messy, and took four years to achieve. Then the process was called “Vietnamisation”. Call it “Afghanistanisation” or whatever, but that is the path Obama should take now. If he did, he would really earn this premature Nobel Peace Prize.

— By arrangement with The Independent

Punjab Congress waits for its turn
by Gobind Thukral

EVERY Congressman in Punjab looks towards capturing political power by early 2012. They strongly sense that the present Akali-BJP combine has failed on all fronts and a victory at the polls is granted since there is no alternative except their party.

This is not a bad wish by itself. But the way Punjab Congress leaders at all levels have been conducting themselves, they ought to think twice before dreaming about power.

The Congress in Punjab is so plagued by groups and stuck in confused ideological positions that at times it becomes a laughing stock. Both inside and outside the state assembly the party demonstrates its pitiable position, despite some bright leaders making well-informed speeches.

Punjab is today suffering from a grave economic crisis. Poor quality and short supply of power to the farm, industry and domestic sectors has hampered the production and pushed up costs all around.

There is an ever-deepening agrarian crisis. Farmers are leaving their old and trusted profession of farming, Punjab’s only pride on the economic map, and are moving to cities to make a better living. Leaving the agricultural sector to the vagaries of free market is proving disastrous.

Crime is on the rise and as social tensions mount it is bound to increase. Social sectors like health and education are in poor shape. A wobbly government admits a shortage of doctors, medicines and teachers but does little.

It is true that the Congress made its ‘contribution’ when it ruled the state towards the current mess. Yet it offers no alternative solution and one does not hear much from Congress leaders like Capt Amarinder Singh, Mrs Rajinder Kaur Bhattal or Mohinder Singh KP.

The issues do not bother them and it is only the lack of power that upsets them. When did they lead any reasonably big protest march in the state’s capital, Chandigarh? They need not, as one senior leader admitted, “We do not have to slog in the streets. What is the choice before the people when elections come? The Akalis and the BJP have done nothing and the people are sick of them. They have already lost and we only wait for the elections to come to power. We shall look at these problems then.” And what he will not say is that meanwhile, “we fight with one another and settle the leadership issue.”

Yes, it is the leadership issue that hangs like a cloud over the Congress party in Punjab. The Congress presents better team work in Haryana and Himachal Pradesh than in Punjab. Part of the problem lies with leaders like Capt Amarinder Singh and Mrs Bhattal and second-rung leaders.

They lead delegations to central leaders, Mrs Mohsina Kidwai, party president Sonia Gandhi’s all season trusted secretary, Ahmed Patel.

Complaints, largely anonymous or unsigned, reach these central leaders to fill huge boxes, finally to be consigned to the dustbin. The job of those in charge of Punjab Congress affairs, instead of helping forge unity, is to encourage one group against the other.

All this happens in the name of the invincible Congress president and chairperson of the UPA, Mrs Sonia Gandhi. This is pushing the party into a limbo and the only activity is seen to hold small meetings, protests here and there and press briefings.

One reason for the delay in deciding the leadership issue is the conviction that any leader chosen much in advance of the elections will be a spent force by that time and any new leader close to the elections will help the party’s performance at the elections as that means less factionalism.

But there is another more important reason and that exposes the great secular party. It cannot choose a non-Sikh and not even a non-Jat Sikh to lead the party. When was the last time it chose a Hindu its state president and chief ministerial candidate?

Side by side it must appease the Scheduled Castes. Caste and religious considerations weigh heavily on the party that promised ages back to end interference of religion in political affairs and an end of untouchability in all its forms. What face does it have to call others communal? Meanwhile, the Akalis and the BJP are more than contented at the vacillation of their main rivals.

Chatterati
Congress leaders go in for ‘Dalit tourism’
by Devi Cherian

THE Congress top shots have not taken well to “Dalit tourism” by UP netas. In fact, Rahul Gandhi has asked the UPCC to formulate guidelines for leaders who visit hamlets inhabited by Dalits and other poor sections of society so that genuine gestures are not reduced to a picnic.

On October 2 Union Ministers Sri Prakash Jaiswal, Pradip Aditya Jain, Mohammad Azharuddin and UPCC chief Rita Bahuguna Joshi spent the night in Dalit homes. These visits seemed like an outing. Some ate chicken, some brought pedestal fans, mattresses, bed sheets and mineral water.

Local netas are supposed to hold chaupals once in a month in villages at a poorman’s house. The chaupal is aimed at educating people of their right to jobs under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) and old age pensions. Every block and district president of the party has been asked to hold chaupals. They are to bring ration and cook food in the settlement and not bring along food or it order from restaurants.

The Congress had started these visits to expose the BSP supremo’s lack of concern for the poor. But unlike the Congress general secretary, who sticks to what is available at Dalit homes, several of his followers made sure they were not short of any amenities or conveniences.

Some, accompanied by big bands of supporters, went to the extent of hiring their own cooks, bringing food supplies and even disposable plates for dinner. Sri Prakash Jaiswal had a generator installed in order to sleep with a fan close by; ex-cricketer and Moradabad MP Mohammed Azharuddin chose to bring disposable plates to eat from.

Then there was the Bahraich MP, Kamal Kishore, who decided to skip dinner with the Dalits altogether and eat elsewhere. There were many others who brought mosquito nets, clean sheets and mattresses to do the “Dalit night”.

While Rahul’s plans are top secret, these leaders made the act of sharing a meal with Dalits and “getting to know their problems” a media event. The issue is likely to be played up by the BSP, whose Dalit vote the Congress is attempting to capture.

Launch of a book

Death of a Moneylender an with an extremely brutal financial situation in rural India. Though written as a work of fiction, former journalist Kota Neelima brings remarkable authencity and credibility to her work. In fact, it was Neelima’s truth and technique that became the subject of discussion at her book launch.

Through a blaze of photographs and camera men the shy and retiring author received warm words graciously from Delhi CM Sheila Dikshit.

Sheila, who is an avid reader of books herself, said that the teaser read out by Suneet Tandon should provoke many into reading the book. The CM said that this book was a worthy sequel to Neelima’s earlier work that was also set in rural India.

Next in line to praise the book was Salman Khurshid, who recalled Neelima’s research style and factual portrayals, during her journalistic days. The audience was also treated to a discussion with the author before dispersing for snacks.

Rural Minister C.P. Joshi chose not to speak even though the subject was rather close to his heart and work. MPs like Azharuddin and Sandip Dixit and junior mantris like Jitin Prasad made the evening a political one. Minds were exercised in the Constitution Club even as a few of those who attended made a round of the exercise machines that are a part of the brand new gym in the newly upgraded political hangout of Delhi.