The Tribune, Chandigarh, India

Outsourcing blues
Obama’s tax breaks are just populist

One cannot quibble over US President Barack Obama’s earnest desire to create more jobs for his countrymen but the protectionist manner in which he intends to go about blocking outsourcing of jobs by US firms is ill-advised. Worried about the growing rate of unemployment in the US, Mr Obama has warned US companies in his State of the Union address that he would slash tax breaks to firms that move jobs abroad. On the face of it this may spell trouble for the nearly $60 billion outsourcing industry in India but considering that US companies actually outsource jobs to low-cost locations like India mainly to cut costs, Mr Obama will unwittingly be only harming the American industry by his projected measures. The US President has been consistent in his criticism of outsourcing but it is unlikely that his own country’s industry would fall for his line which would rob them of low-cost benefits. Indeed, it is debatable whether the Senate which is yet to pass the jobs bill which provides for tax breaks to US firms that move jobs abroad would surrender to his view.

Mr Obama’s dream of doubling exports and also working on bilateral trade agreements can hardly be achieved by protectionism. Such an attitude could lead to a backlash against the American companies, many of which derive considerable revenue from outside the country. Citigroup, for instance, which is a major outsourcing firm, gets nearly 75 per cent of its revenues from international operations spread over nearly 100 countries.

As India and China invest in their future, Mr Obama’s contention that the US cannot afford to be in second place, is unexceptionable. His resolve that his administration’s 2011 budget will invest in a new generation of scientists is constructive and sound. In addition, he must work towards obviating the need to outsource jobs by increasing productivity to levels that justify the high-wage structure. Taking recourse to restrictions to seek to block outsourcing is no solution to the woes of American industry. President Obama must inspire his countrymen to work harder if the US is to retain its pride of place in the world’s economic arena.

Law on clinics
New bill can regulate healthcare

The need for regulating healthcare in India, increasingly falling prey to unscrupulous medical practices, has been felt for long. The Union Cabinet’s approval of the Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Bill to bring clinics under one law is indeed a path breaking move and can go a long way in improving the quality of health services. While the Bill aims to check fraudulent practices it will also play a crucial role in bringing relief to victims of road accidents and other emergencies who are denied treatment on the pretext of being “medico-legal cases”.

Medical practice in India, especially in the private sector, has turned into a moneymaking enterprise and malpractices ranging from commissions, unwarranted tests and procedures, exorbitant charges and favours from drug companies are rampant. Many medical establishments in the private sector are more interested in raking in moolah and have forsaken the prime purpose of the medical profession — to render service to society. While the public health system is beset with many ills, private healthcare fares no better. Patients’ hope of proper healthcare is invariably met with dissatisfaction, despair and often penury too.

To keep a check on healthcare and to ensure quality health services, the government must pass the Bill, likely to be introduced in the Budget session of Parliament, on a priority basis. Once it becomes a law, it must be implemented throughout the country. While the irregularities prevalent in medical institutions need to be checked, regulation alone is not the answer to the woes of patients. The government that spends little, merely one per cent of the GDP on public health, must increase public spending and fulfil its promise of better health infrastructure in the country. Doctors too must realise that the growing-doctor patient trust deficit harms their interest as much. Keeping the Hippocratic oath in mind, they can play the most pivotal part in providing medical care for all.

Thought for the Day

Some seek bliss in this life; some seek bliss in the other life. Wise is one who seeks bliss both in this life and thereafter. — The Upanishads

ARTICLE

Improving governance
Need to learn from experience
by B.G. Verghese

Jyoti Basu was a fine individual whom the nation rightly mourns. But emotion appears to have overtaken reason in the kind of uncritical adulation accorded to the CPM leader who was chief minister of West Bengal for 22 years. The fact is that apart from some initial good work done on the first phases of land reform and devolution of power to panchayats, West Bengal’s HDI indices and state of infrastructure deteriorated and there was disinvestment, de-industrialisation, mounting poverty and unemployment as a result of ideological rigidities.

On any reckoning, the state was in decline during Jyoti Basu’s long watch. It is fortunate that party ideologues did not permit him to move to Delhi as prime minister when this was mooted. Had he done so, the consequences might well have been problematic.

This may appear a harsh judgement on someone who has departed. But the sycophancy that attends our leaders when alive, and even after they are gone, is disconcerting and prevents us learning from experience. The secrecy attending archival policy is partly a reflection of the tendency to shore up reputations by precluding the world from prying too closely into the past of our heroes. A nation that does not learn from history risks repeating its mistakes.

G. Parthasarathi’s diary entry on Nehru’s true view on Chinese attitudes during the Bhai-Bhai period and of his Man Friday, V.K. Krishna Menon, just published by the former’s son, Ashok, casts a flood of light on matters that it would have been better to know contemporaneously. The continuing classification of the Henderson-Brooks report on the 1962 debacle stems from the same desire to protect a legacy. Nehru is surely big enough to do without this shield.

Another problem of governance was aired recently by junior ministers in the UPA government who complained to the Prime Minister that they had little or no work. This is largely because of a tendency to centralise decision making with the result that secretaries to government do what could well be disposed of by their deputies while Ministers usurp the role of their permanent secretaries.

This often leaves Ministers and secretaries — Central and states — with insufficient time for policymaking, monitoring and evaluation. They are overly buried in files, some in dispensing patronage, and still others in running sports associations or indulging in other extraneous activities.

The enlargement of cabinets to satisfy all manner of representational principles has also resulted in fragmenting sectoral responsibility without adequate coordination. In the first few governments formed after Independence many bright sparks were appointed Deputy Ministers or parliamentary secretaries who answered questions and assisted the Minister in other ways, thereby gaining experience that equipped them to shoulder heavier responsibilities over time. Now everybody aspires to be a minister ab initio, if not Prime Minister or Chief Minister. This may be a matter of political culture but it certainly impinges on good governance.

Another issue of governance that calls for attention is the battle being fought over the right to access file notings under the Right to Information Act. The RTI regime has certainly helped promote transparency and accountability in governance but there has been a difference of opinion on whether or not file notings should be made public as a rule.

There is currently a dispute over an information commissioner’s decisions to permit an applicant access to file notings pertaining to the decisions reflected in the Indo-Pakistan joint communiqué at Sharm el-Sheikh some six months ago which aroused much controversy over how it was to be interpreted.

Insistence on making public all file notings is misplaced as this could well inhibit officials and ministers from giving frank expression to their views. These would not be noted on file but recorded elsewhere or exchanged orally, resulting in double entry book keeping of another kind. Suffice it that a reasoned statement is made available so that a fair judgement can be made about the quality and ethical basis of the decision taken.

Every day at seminars, meetings or even in private conservation, one hears people invoking the basis of Chatham House rules (without attribution) or a clear understanding that what they say is off the record. Why? So that they may speak frankly, a contract beneficial both to the speaker and the audience. File notings are no different.

At a very different level, concerning public relations more than governance as such, is the unwise decision, fortunately rescinded, of the Maharashtra government to insist that new cabbies in Mumbai must have lived in the city for 15 years and read and write Marathi. This was a misguided concession to parochialism, in competition with the Shiv Sena’s petty localism.

What any city needs is a good and honest taxi service rather than an indifferent one offered by cabbies speaking a chaste native tongue. The default rule now incorporated in a new cultural policy for Maharashtra lays down that Ministers should speak only in Marathi at official functions and converse with foreigners solely in Marathi, through interpreters. No language flourishes by fiat and these are pitiful rulings by small men.

Finally, the Vice-President’s call for making intelligence agencies accountable to Parliament through a standing committee merits serious attention. There is today no intelligence oversight body, as the L.P. Singh Committee had recommended some 30 years ago. This need not imperil intelligence operations but could provide a safeguard against possible misuse and an independent monitor and sounding board.

MIDDLE

Those four letter words
by Raj Chatterjee

English, I have always thought, is the most difficult language in the world with the possible exception of Chinese. Even Chinese may be simpler and more precise than English once you learn to read it the right way up or down.

What makes English so difficult is the number of words which, though phonetically similar, have vastly different meanings, depending upon the way they are spelt or the context in which they are used.

I once saw an advertisement in an American paper which said: “ Wanted unmarried girls to pack fruit and produce at night”. The Editor must have had infinite faith in the capacity of his readers to distinguish between “ produce” as a noun and the same word as a verb.

Take the word “sole” and its variant “soul”. Spelt with an ‘o’ in the middle and an ‘e’ at the end, it has much to commend itself.

You may wake up one fine morning to find yourself the sole beneficiary of the last will and testament of a dear departed relative whose soul may well rest in peace.

The flat-fish of this name, fried in butter and garnished with a slice of lemon, or a blob of ketchup, makes a most delectable dish.

And, of course, one often obtains a great deal of mental satisfaction from imagining that the sole of one’s foot has come into vicious contact with the posterior of someone whom one dislikes, or finds annoying.

Spelt as “soul” the word has nothing as substantial to offer us as a large, unearned income, a choice item on the luncheon menu or a broad target on which to plant a well-aimed kick. It does, however, offer solace to those of us who, having had a rough deal in this world, look forward to everlasting peace in the next.

So too with that other four-letter word, “dash” which is not so simple as it sounds.

You need a dash of courage to pay compliments to a pretty girl in the hearing of your wife. You like to cut a dash in company, you make a dash to the railway station to be on time for your mother-in-law who is arriving at some ungodly hour, you dash to pieces the cup in which you have been served tepid tea at the end of a hard day’s work in the office, you use a dash when you think that the editor’s sense of propriety will not permit him to print the colourful word you had in mind when you wrote your article.

There are other words in the language full of dangers and pitfalls for the unwary foreigner. I am reminded of the story of the Frenchman on his first visit to London. Someone occupying the room just above his shouted “Look out” as he accidently dropped a flowerpot from his balcony. The unfortunate Frenchman promptly stuck his head out of his window of his room to come into painful contact with the falling flowerpot. One could hardly blame the poor fellow when he came to his senses a few hours later for saying “English is an impossible language in which you say ‘Look out’ when you mean look in.”

The French and the British have had plenty of time to get to know each other ever since the Norman conquest of Britain. Our own association with the British extends only to 200 years. So no one can call us stupid if we occasionally slip up while conversing or writing in English.

OPED

Sri Lanka must share power with Tamils
by Rajinder Sachar

One of the most tragic happenings of the decade was the breakdown of the Sri Lankan ceasefire in 2006 and its aftermath, resulting in the horrors of war crimes and slaughter of innocent Tamils.

Why it happened and whether it could have been avoided were some of the questions posed before the Permanent Peoples Tribunal, which held its sittings from January 14 to 16 in Dublin.

The tribunal was presided over by Mr Francois Houtrt, Chairperson of the U.N. Committee on Economic Recession. The writer was one of the ten members of this panel.

There had been, for over a decade, war-like encounters between the Government of Sri Lanka (GOSL) and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), with unbearable losses to both sides. At last due on the intervention of the USA and the European Union a ceasefire agreement was signed which was overseen by Norwegians.

I can personally vouch for the comparatively relaxed and hopeful atmosphere that prevailed when our delegation of the Peoples Union for Civil Liberties, on an invitation from some human rights groups in Sri Lanka, visited it in 2003.

However on January 2, 2008 GOSL officially declared its withdrawal from the ceasefire agreement, of course, both parties blaming each other for this eventuality.

Various reasons were advanced for the failure of the agreement like delay in reconstruction and rehabilitation work in the war-ravaged areas and failure to ensure social and economic well-being of the people. After the tsunami, Tamils were led to feel neglected, marginalised and discriminated against.

The European Union’s decision to ban LTTE in 2006 is also seen as a grave error that destroyed the parity of status conducive for the peace process.

The USA has been accused of undermining the post-tsunami operational management structure, which was put in place as a unified mechanism to carry out joint rehabilitation and relief work in the tsunami-affected areas by insisting that it would not direct money to any joint fund other than the government treasury.

But the most crucial reason for the breakdown of the ceasefire was the attitude of the US government, which insisted on excluding LTTE from advanced talks in Washington.

The conduct of the European Union in so early withdrawing from talks was explained by impartial witnesses as being due to a strong pressure from the USA, which because of its own war in Iraq and Afghanistan, wanted the logistic support of GOSL, which obviously it could not hope to get if LTTE continued to be associated with the ceasefire talks.

The tribunal found that the Lankan Army dropped cluster ammunition by war planes. The military attacked civilian areas, which constitutes a violation of the Geneva Convention. The British and French media indicated that during the third week of fighting some 20,000 Tamils were killed.

Sexual abuse and rape of women was yet another atrocity clearly proved against the government military and would amount to crime against humanity and the Geneva Convention.

The tribunal regretted that after repeated pleas, and in spite of the appalling conditions experienced by Tamils, the UN Human Rights Council and the UN Security Council failed to establish an independent commission of inquiry to investigate those responsible for the atrocities committed.

The tribunal has emphasised that if normal conditions are to be restored in Sri Lanka, the government must establish an independent and authoritative commission to investigate crimes against humanity and war crimes committed by the parties in conflict.

The Sri Lankan government must also implement a political power-sharing solution that gives the Tamil people a proactive and legitimate role in the administration and management of the Northeast, while upholding their rights to equal citizenship, participation and representation at all levels, and ensuring a free, fair and peaceful electoral process in regard to the parliamentary elections scheduled for May, 2010 and allow free and unlimited access to humanitarian organisations such as the international committee of the Red Cross, human rights defenders and the media in refugee camps.

I feel that in the matter of restoration of peace in Sri Lanka, the Tamil diaspora can play an important role. It is well known that the Tamil diaspora in Europe and America was greatly sympathetic to the LTTE demand for Eelam — its active help was stupendous.

It has, during the present tragedy, tried to do its best for rehabilitating the victims, but lack of support by GOSL has greatly hindered its activities. It is rightly not only deeply hurt but also furious at the indignities and brutalities suffered by their brethren/sisters — the same sentiments that every Indian in the country shares.

But in anger nothing should be done to bring Tamils again on the path of violent confrontation. Of course, much will depend on how GOSL treats Lankan Tamils and whether it genuinely tries to give a humane touch to the Tamils and gives them an equitable, honourable position in power-sharing so that both can rebuild Sri Lanka and move on to a joint quest for a happy, united living without any discrimination of religion or language.

Security, governance top Afghan agenda
by Anita Inder Singh

The Taliban mounted their latest attack on Kabul on January 18 soon after British Foreign Secretary David Miliband affirmed that the London Conference on Afghanistan, which started on January 28, must show that there is a coherent international plan for the future of Afghanistan.

But the attack underlines that an agreement between the West and President Karzai is essential not only for the coherence of any plan that might emerge from the London conference, but more importantly, perhaps, for its implementation.

The Taliban assault highlighted yet again the inextricable intertwining of security and governance.

It was intended to tell the West and Karzai that a surge of 37,000 Nato troops won’t achieve security in Afghanistan and that there will be no reconciliation with moderate or any other Taliban.

The Afghan National Army (ANA) restored order in Kabul. But paradoxes coexist. The ANA’s success served as a reminder that the West has not trained enough Afghans to stabilise their country.

General Stanley McChrystal’s advice, given to the Obama administration last summer, still needs to be followed: building up the Afghan security forces would be “the most important thing we do in the future.” Only then will Karzai’s government be able to establish a legal monopoly of force in Afghanistan.

Insecurity largely explains the weakness of political institutions and the rule of law in Afghanistan. Stable political institutions and a strong rule of law cannot be established in the middle of a war. As Transparency International pointed out in a recent report, instability and corruption reinforce each other.

But Karzai must realise that decent governance is necessary to deliver essential services to ordinary Afghans, and to enhance his legitimacy.

For their part his western allies will not enhance their legitimacy – or his – by publicly berating him for misgovernance.

The western criticism of Karzai can easily be construed as a slight to the proud Afghans: he has said that the poverty of Afghans should not become a means to insult and ridicule them.

In any case, Karzai can turn the tables on his western critics – as he did – by sharply denouncing the killing of civilians in recent Nato attacks.

And rumours that Nato soldiers had desecrated the Koran sparked a violent protest in the southern province of Helmand.

Denials by Nato could not hide the fact that such incidents only play into the hands of the Taliban.

Nato and Karzai must work together to strengthen the government in Kabul. For reconciliation with any ‘moderate’ Taliban, deemed vital by the West to win in Afghanistan, can only be achieved by a strong centre. Reconciliation will not be achieved either by a divided Nato or by Nato and Karzai blaming each other for Afghanistan’s woes.

To some extent the onus for poor governance rests with the West. Omar Zakhilwal, the Afghan Finance Minister (favoured by the West), has said that western countries must share the blame for corruption in Afghanistan and that some in the West were using the issue to make domestic political mileage.

The allegation cannot be dismissed simply because it is made by an Afghan.

So first, Nato must provide security, which will include training more Afghans to assume full responsibility for their country’s defence.

Success will only come when Karzai and his Nato backers agree that Afghans should have a government that is strong enough to protect them and provide them with essential services.

The writer is a Professor at the Centre for Peace and Conflict Resolution in New Delhi

Inside Pakistan
When lawyers get bad Press
by Syed Nooruzzaman

The image of the legal profession in Pakistan has suffered a major dent owing to two developments during the past few days. One is the strike call given by their association for forcing the government to implement the Supreme Court judgement on the infamous National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) and the other is the reaction of a section of lawyers after the reports of the alleged involvement of a well-known advocate of Lahore in the killing of a domestic help – 12-year-old Shazia Masih.

The story of the poor girl’s death exposes the ugly side of the profession which earlier earned accolades for being on the forefront of the fight for the restoration of the judiciary’s pre-2007 Emergency status, leading to the reinstatement of dismissed Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry.

The abuse and murder of the housemaid became an unusual story because she had been working in the house of a former chief of the Lahore District Bar Association in the defence area of the provincial capital. The whole episode got considerable media coverage because of its “ironic dimension”.

“As if this was not bad enough, on Tuesday a mob of lawless lawyers, reportedly led by the incumbent District Bar Association President, decided to become law unto itself”, The News commented. A large group of lawyers “forcibly prevented the family and relatives of the little victim from attending the court proceedings. They then abused and manhandled media persons, accusing them of aligning an ‘honourable lawyer’.” The police, too, showed its bias against the victimised family. The media was, perhaps, the only institution which came out in its favour.

According to columnist Kamila Hyat, abuse and murder of domestic servants has become a common occurrence in Pakistan. The situation prevails because, as Kamila says, “The powerful rarely face punishment.”

Row over NRO implementation

What are the lawyers in Pakistan up to? They are being accused of not behaving responsibly particularly after they got the treatment as the heroes of the movement for the protection of the judiciary’s independence. They cut a sorry figure when Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) President Qazi Mohammad Anwar issued a call for a strike on January 28 on behalf of the revived National Coordination Council of Lawyers (NCCL), which was formed in March 2007 and then disbanded after the reinstatement of the judges sacked by former President Gen Pervez Musharraf. The strike call had to be withdrawn when the media and others criticised the legal fraternity for taking a course which was unjustifiable.

According to Business Recorder, “the reason given for the call by Qazi Anwar was what he called the government’s reluctance to implement the court’s orders. He has alleged that the government wanted a clash with the judiciary. There are many who would question the rationality of the NCCL’s decision in view of the repeated assurances both by Zardari and Gilani that the Supreme Court’s decision on the NRO would be implemented.”

The lawyers also failed to get support for their demand that the government must accept the judiciary’s recommendations for the appointment of ad hoc judges to the Supreme Court when the vacancies that exist are for permanent judges.

As Dawn pointed out, “as yet the disagreements between the judiciary and the presidency over judicial appointments have not risen to the level of illegalities. As it stands, Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry has made some recommendations, the President has declined to make the appointments and given his reason for doing so, and that’s it. No side has violated the Constitution and, if anything, the executive is on the right side of the law as interpreted historically by the judiciary itself.”

Tussle over judicial vacancies

The strike call, interestingly, came during the tussle over the filling of judicial vacancies. Daily Times says, “In this scenario, calling for a strike leads one to believe that the NCC and the SCBA may have other agendas up their sleeves. If they are unhappy about the President not elevating judges as per the Chief Justice’s wishes, then they need to read what the Constitution says regarding the issue. Apart from that, the government is only following the Supreme Court’s verdict in the Al-Jihad trust case.” The verdict does not support the appointment of ad hoc judges when vacancies for permanent judges exist.

Daily Times warned the lawyers “not to let their new-found ‘power’ go to their heads and jeopardise the democratic system.”