The Tribune, Chandigarh, India

Nothing special for women
Budget has no big gains for fair sex

Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee made a reference to goddess Laxmi before tabling the Budget 2011-12 on Monday. And then he forgot about the centrality of women to a dynamic economic activity. By not offering special tax concessions to women, he seemed to have recognised the equal status earned by a small community of women who pay income- tax. At the same time, he ignored a large community that requires special impetus to achieve economic independence in a male-dominated economy.

To begin with, the assessment of the gender budgeting statement brought out by the government shows that the total allocations earmarked for women, as a proportion of the total Union Budget outlay has gone up marginally from 6.1 per cent in 2010-11 to 6.2 per cent in 2011-12. This, by no means, can be considered adequate for women who constitute half the population and emerge a strong political force. No new interventions have been introduced for women from the most marginalized sections; the tribal and the minority. Schemes meant for working women; like hostels, training and employment programmes such as women’s ITIs, Swadhar and Priyadarshini have all registered a decline in allocations from last year, despite the fact that 70 per cent funds were utilised by Swadhar. Last year, it was announced that fund allocation for Rashtriya Mahila Kosh, the prime government body that offers micro- credit to women, will be raised from Rs 100 crore to Rs. 500 crore. This year, too, it was announced that the corpus will be raised to Rs 500 crore.

The silver-lining appears for aanganwadi workers whose salaries have been doubled. About 29 lakh credit-linked women self- help groups that depend on micro-finance institutions (MFIs) got some relief as the Finance Minister announced an equity-linked fund of Rs 100 crore for MFIs. Though, how it is going to work is to be seen in the wake of absence of any regulatory body for MFIs. The worst hit by the rising inflation, the housewife, received no relief from this budget. Adding to her woes, travel and eating-out will cost more.

Missing girls
Punjab ought to be pro-active

Many Punjabi girls have gone missing and the state government has failed in its duty to trace them and help them. It took an RTI query filed by a concerned citizen from Patiala to bring to light some shocking statistics that reveal that the police has registered cases that show that 781 girls have been missing in the past decade. Contrary to what would be expected, the police seem to have made no special efforts to trace the missing girls, and the lack of coordination between various jurisdictions and forces, is as evident as it is unfortunate.

Women are often treated as second-class citizens, in homes, as well in society at large. Girl children face discrimination before they are born, often after their birth. The region has the dubious history of killing unborn daughters though sex-selective abortion. Over the years, the ratio of females to 1,000 male children has been plummeting, and has sounded alarm bells not only within the nation, but internationally too. In case, they manage to come into the world, its still tough going for the girl child. Discrimination persists. It is a fact that many girls are not allowed to go to attend schools where their brothers go. Even if they do, household chores are given to them, leading to their dropping out. It is this attitude that seems to have reflected even in cases where concerned parties have filed reports of missing women.

The state government has shown a dismal degree of apathy in making proper efforts to trace these missing women. What is wrong must be set right. It is time that the state government takes notice of this serious problem and gives responsibility to a senior officer to take charge and consolidate and coordinate the effort of the police force in finding the missing girls.

Thought for the Day

Human beings can alter their lives by altering their attitudes of mind. — William James

ARTICLE

Davis imbroglio in Pakistan
People’s feelings in sharp focus
by Zorawar Daulet Singh

When the Raymond Davis story first broke, many observers instinctively predicted that the inglorious incident would be brushed aside. And it was not unreasonable to presume that events would return to an even keel. It is now well known that American and Pakistani high officials have been operating under a tacit and cozy arrangement that has enabled US security and intelligence personnel to undertake reconnaissance and surveillance missions across Pakistan and to execute targeted assassinations against irredentist Islamists and insurgents in the borderlands between Afghanistan and Pakistan. The apparent deniability around the drone strikes programme on Pakistan’s western frontiers had always allowed the Pakistani state and elite to proclaim the rhetoric of sovereignty, but which has really been a fiction all along.

The extraordinary upsurge in Pakistani nationalist sentiment over the Davis double-murder issue is an expression of a people’s feelings and the elite struggling to come to terms with a highly asymmetric arrangement with its principal benefactor.

Arguably, three reasons make the Davis case unique, thus meriting further attention. First, normally, such a virulent reaction is reserved for India-centric issues, where Pakistan’s rulers ratchet up an issue to buttress their sovereignty by rallying street opinion around an anti-India image. Second, what makes this case interesting is that the public backlash occurred despite all initial attempts by both governments to suppress the incident. This is quite unlike the manufactured and token resistance that the Pakistani regime usually invokes to extract more favourable quid pro quos from Washington.

Third, this issue has little to do with ideology or Islamisation either in society or in the Pakistani state apparatus gaining the upper hand. The issue at its heart is a nationalistic the backlash by a people who have been kept excluded from the elite arrangement between the US and Pakistan in the war on terror and who have disproportionately borne the collateral damage from that covert war. Pakistan’s civilian and military rulers, who had become adept at embellishing the quasi-sovereign reality of the post-9/11 Pakistan, have been finally confronted with collateral damage from the Davis affair, which has left a taint that is proving difficult to wipe clean.

It is logical to pose the question whether US-Pakistani relations have reached an inflexion point?

The commentary emanating from India has been predictable. The reaction here is a combination of schadenfreude — the pleasure derived from finding the Pakistani regime in an embarrassing soup — to a fixation with the maze of espionage enterprises in Pakistan. A minority might have expressed its empathy for the plight of the common Pakistani who is caught between an imperious sponsor and its incompetent and diabolical proxy, but such sentiment remains confined largely to the private sphere.

While it is rarely articulated in such precise terms, the psychology of the Pakistani feudal and military elite and its inherent ideological prejudice against the secular Indian nation state implied that a faustian bargain with America has always been preferable to forging a modus vivendi or even an entente with India. The relationship with Washington is perceived to supply an invaluable lifeline to the Pakistani elite that has persuaded itself to continue with its absurd and self-destructive ambition to seek parity with India. And the severity of the inequality in US-Pakistan relations and the attendant costs that accompany it are deemed justified to serve that end.

The relationship with Washington has also been the only recourse to preserving the distorted political economy and power structure of Pakistan that has enabled so few to rule so many via an enduring feudal-military compact sustained and nourished by Washington. Not unlike the sponsored and now tottering regimes of the Middle East and North Africa.

The Davis issue has brought the people — the common Pakistani — back into the foreground as an important variable of political life in the subcontinent. It is perhaps an indication of how authoritarian and elitist, and, perhaps, even cynical the mainstream discourse around South Asian politics has become that something as obvious as the relevance of the people’s voice requires emphasis. The Pakistani elite has discovered this the hard way.

Is there any cue that India might take from the Davis imbroglio to further its interests in the region? There are two ways that India might react. It can either decide to remain wedded to a stale narrative that focuses on a superficial indictment of Pakistan without actually following that up with a strategy to influence the calculus of the incumbent actors, or it can explore a path never treaded — where people, rather than elites, become the object of India’s attention.

India must seriously introspect on what it truly seeks within Pakistan. Does it desire a perpetuation of a farcical democratic status quo with the feudal-military superstructure at its apex even if this configuration of power produces a managed equilibrium in India-Pakistan relations with the occasional recourse to Washington’s good offices? Or does India seek a sincere democratisation in a federal multi-ethnic structure of power even if that alters the decades’ old logic of the US-Pakistan relationship, and indeed the India-Pakistan equation? It might surprise some that India has for the past decade been pursuing the former path.

To be sure, it would be foolish and even dangerous to think that India can transform Pakistan. That extraordinary feat must be accomplished by the Pakistanis themselves. But India can, as the country most affected by today’s and tomorrow’s Pakistan, surely begin to contemplate a structure of power within Pakistan that actually involves accommodating the diversity of its people, and, giving that a nuanced policy expression. A tactical fascination with “process” and “engagement” and a dubious narrative that goes something like “beyond the present Pakistani power structure lies an abyss far more tumultuous and dangerous to India and thus requires shoring up the status quo” has ensured that India has missed the wood for the trees.

The Davis issue might exemplify the beginning of the end of an era, whether that emerges in a year or a decade. Irrespective of that, one hopes that if an Indian debate occurs it does not remain an elite endeavour.

The writer is a research fellow at the Centre for Policy Alternatives, New Delhi.

MIDDLE

‘Able or pliable’
by J.L. Gupta

Some years back, public duty took me away from home. From Chandigarh to Cochin. And more than once, purely as a part of the protocol, I was asked to be at the airport to receive the President of India. On one of the occasions, the President was arriving at a time when I was to be on the job. So, a note of regrets and a request to call on His Excellency during lunch was sent. The appointment was fixed. I reached Hotel Taj punctually.

The ADC escorted me to a room. Dr Kalam arrived soon after. During the 20 minutes that I spent with the President, I was face to face with an inquisitive man. A curious mind.

There was a volley of questions. He wanted to know all about the courts, cases and the causes for delay in decisions. Why can’t the criminal be convicted promptly within a fixed time? Why does it take years? Why should the courts be making posthumous awards? And on hearing my response, he asked, “Why can we not have more courts? Why do we continue to follow the archaic laws, which are a legacy from the days of the English rule? Why do we not simplify our laws? Why should there be more than one appeal in every case?”

The reactions were quick. Despite the fact that he had never delved in law, each observation was pertinent. Actually, a razor sharp mind. With the precision of an aerospace engineer. More than that, it was clear that he was always wanting to know more. Willing to change the old rules when required and move forward. People’s progress was the dominant desire.

It was evident that the constitutional office of the Head of State — the Governor or the President — is not merely ornamental. Nor is it meant to reward the faithful only. Men of merit matter. They make a difference. If such offices are held by men with ability and integrity, they can lend light even to those on whose aid and advice they are expected to act.

And fortunately, there is no dearth of such men of ability in the country. Man to man, most of us can hold their own against the best in the world.

Yet, we often opt for mediocrity. Merit is invariably sacrificed. Even in matters of appointment to the constitutional offices, irrelevant considerations of caste and creed are seen to creep in. Sadly, we prefer the pliable to the able. When we do that the individual gains but the “office” and the “institution” suffer.

Is that the reason why we are where we are? One of the most corrupt nations of the world.

OPED SPORTS

Nothing like cricket

The Commonwealth Games, bigger in scale and far costlier, were no match to the excitement being generated by the Cricket World Cup 2011. In the subcontinent, Cricket is clearly associated with nationalist passion and commercial considerations, writes Boria Majumdar

Everywhere in the subcontinent one can see the passion for cricket and the pride people take in the game. Reuters

It was 2 am in the morning on 19 February 2011, the day of the first World Cup match between India and Bangladesh. No fewer than 30,000 people were still celebrating the arrival of the Cup on home soil just outside the Sher-e-Bangla stadium in Mirpur.

It was a sight to soak in, understand what sport can do to a country, its people and its culture. With only a handful of the 30,000 having tickets, the only thing in store for them was a view of the flood lit stadium and the realisation that the World Cup had finally come to Bangladesh. Waving passionately at every car passing by and pushing and shoving their way to plead with every video journalist present to record their actions, this crowd was evidence what cricket means to people across the border.

As I made my way through the crowd in trying to do an ethnography of sorts, not one in the mass of humanity asked for a ticket. For them it was a carnival. The biggest event to have come to Bangladesh had to be celebrated and they were doing so in style. Cricket, it was evident, had cut across all boundaries, socio-cultural and economic.

While passion was at a premium in Bangladesh, cricket business continues to thrive in India. Leading Indian corporates were all present in Bangladesh to leverage their brands and it was evident why the ICC is so overwhelmingly dependant on the Indian market for the game’s well being. More than bulk of the in-stadia hoardings were from Indian companies, the Pepsi cheering squad promoting the brand’s World Cup campaign had traveled from India and business around the Cup, it was evident, was being led by Indian companies. Much to their satisfaction, India’s performance in Dhaka has given the World Cup economy a welcome fillip, borne out by the delight on the face of Hero Honda Chief Pawan Munjal in Dhaka.

Munjal, one of the key partners of the ICC, was slightly apprehensive to start with as India was asked to bat by Shakib-al-Hasan. However, once the Indian openers got going the apprehension gave way to confidence. When asked what the total score could be like, Munjal said in zest, “With Yusuf still to come, anything can happen.” Having spent millions in backing the World Cup, he had every reason to feel satisfied. World Cup 2007, after all, is still raw in the minds of the corporate and they are fully aware that return on investment is directly proportional to India’s on field performance.

And this is what brings me to the central difference between the World Cup and the Commonwealth Games. While both are mega events of unprecedented proportion, the World Cup, it must be acknowledged, is a pan-Indian event while the Delhi Commonwealth Games, despite being bigger in scale and many times more costlier, was centred around Delhi and the NCR region. India and Indians across the country had not embraced the Commonwealth Games in totality and there was a disconnect between what was happening in Delhi and what was happening in the rest of India.

For an average Indian in Mumbai or Kolkata, a trip to Delhi to watch the CWG was not an option. The World Cup is different. But several thousand fans from Kolkata had travelled to Dhaka to watch the action.

With India doing well in cricket, Olympic sports will find it extremely difficult to compete for the same pots of money. It will either be the World Cup or rather the IPL or even a bilateral series but not certainly hockey or athletics for the sponsors. This point is also driven home by a cursory glance at the list of sponsors for the World Cup and the Delhi Games.

While the World Cup has Pepsi, Hero Honda, Reliance and other private sector giants spending millions, the entire sponsorship garnered by the CWG OC was from public sector units. Central Bank, Indian Railways, NTPC, Air India and others had little option but to come forward and bail out the country at a time when it was hosting the biggest ever sporting extravaganza on Indian soil.

This anomaly between cricket and Olympic sports extends to the stars as well. Barring Leander Paes, Mahesh Bhupathi, Saina Nehwal, Sania Mirza, Vijender Singh, Abhinav Bindra, Gagan Narang and Vishwanathan Anand, no other Olympic sporting great is a draw with the sponsors. And none of them command the kind of money paid to Sachin Tendulkar or MS Dhoni.

In fact, a Piyush Chawla, still finding his feet in the Indian team, makes more money than Anand or Leander, men who will go down in history as two of the best India has ever produced. It is this that explains the interest in the Cup across the country and the lukewarm response to the 2010 Delhi Commonwealth Games.

Two points of caution, however, need to be introduced here. The first is that the size of the Indian cricket market has not grown in proportion to the game itself. Sponsors now have many more options than earlier, making it difficult for cricket, as a phenomenon, to thrive all the time. This explains why the BCCI failed to find a sponsor for India’s under 19 team and also India’s women’s team. It also explains why many of the IPL teams are struggling to rake in money with many leading brands queuing up for the World Cup or other fancier IPL teams.

With the Indian national team playing for more than 150 days in the year and IPL occupying another 50 days of the calendar, cricket for its own sake, needs to reconcile itself with the threat of saturation. Overall then it must be acknowledged that Indian cricket is passing through one of its most important phases ever. A successful World Cup and cricket’s position as the nation’s de-facto national sport will have been cemented for at least a decade. Anything to the contrary and things may well be radically different.

This restlessness, a sign of new age India, has indeed turned cricket into a fascinating social lens to understand contemporary Indian society, a complex interplay of nationalist passion and commercial considerations.

The writer is Senior Research Fellow, University of Central Lancashire and General Editor, Sport in the Global Society, Contemporary Perspectives (Routledge)

For BCCI, a rags to riches story

India is the land of silk and money for international cricketers today, but it was not always so, writes Gulu Ezekiel

The World Cup returning to India for the third time in the span of a quarter of a century cements the position at the top of world cricket’s financial pecking order for the Board of Control for Cricket in India.

Estimates vary but it would be fair to say that approximately 70 per cent of cricket’s worldwide finances are sourced from the massive Indian market.

This position has been strengthened even further with the advent of the cash-rich Indian Premier League which was launched in 2008.

From the 1960s, cricketers from around the world, particularly, India, Pakistan and the West Indies, flocked to England for county contracts. Today India has become the land of silk and money for the world’s top players.

But the picture was not always so rosy.

Kapil Dev and his unheralded team turned things upside down on a glorious summer’s day at Lord’s in June 1983 in the final of the third Prudential World Cup and that set the ball rolling.

Having fulfilled their task of getting the then-BCCI president (and Union Minister) NKP Salve tipsy on champagne, it was left to captain Kapil Dev and senior statesman Sunil Gavaskar to press home their demands.

Over and above the Rs. 5 lakhs the Board had already promised the team as a whole, they also persuaded Salve to part with a further Rs. one lakh for each team member and the manager, that too tax free.

Today the BCCI is one of the richest sporting bodies in the world, its net worth crossing the $1 billion mark. But back then it did not have enough in its coffers for Salve to fulfil his promise. The problem was solved when Lata Mangeshkar agreed to stage a concert in New Delhi with all the gate-money and royalties from the album going to the players.

That victory led to the World Cup being staged outside of England for the first time when in 1987 it was jointly hosted by India and Pakistan. The money on offer to the participating teams from the hosts was simply irresistible.

By 1996 the die was cast when India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka jointly hosted the Wills World Cup, followed a year later by the ascension of Jagmohan Dalmiya to the International Cricket Council presidency.

Now money, of which the BCCI has truckloads, does not always translate into vision or common sense. This has been proven time and again in relation to the BCCI, with the current World Cup ticketing fiasco and the Eden Gardens scandal only giving ammunition to India’s detractors.

So it was that the Indian board came close to boycotting the tournament—opposed as it was then to the whole concept of Twenty-20 cricket-which their team would go on to win. And out of that triumph, a year later, sprang the IPL, bringing in a permanent change in power equations.

India now has the financial clout to repeatedly override the feeble ICC and lord over its member nations, most of whom are happy to feed on the scraps thrown to them?

When Dalmiya took over the ICC presidency in 1997, the world body had about 16,000 Pounds Sterling in its kitty. By the time his term expired five years later, that had grown to $50 million which today has expanded manifold.

And the key to these riches lay in TV rights. With Rupert Murdoch’s STAR TV network invading the Indian airwaves in 1992, the monopoly enjoyed by the state broadcaster Doordarshan finally came to an end.

It also gave Dalmiya (at the time BCCI president) and his then comrade-in-arms and board secretary Inderjit Singh Bindra their moment of glory.

That same year Mark McCormack’s London-based TV production company Transworld International made an offer the Indian board could not refuse and the pair fought a bitter and ultimately victorious battle against the Indian government to free cricket coverage from the state’s clutches. The game has never been the same again.

Today the 10-year telecast deals for the IPL and its offshoot, the Champions League run into billions of dollars. The IPL is already expanding after just three years and the current World Cup promises to be the most lucrative of all. All this wealth has made the BCCI the de facto rulers of world cricket. But its critics allege, power has gone to the heads of the officials who run what is virtually a state within a state

Even as the BCCI takes the paying public for granted, with numbers on its side, there appears to be no looking back. And as far as they are concerned, the rest of the cricket world can either like it or lump it.

The writer is a senior sports journalist and author based in New Delhi.