|
|
|
|
|
Eying PSU cash
Not by steep fine alone |
|
|
|
Bringing up children Norway case has raised new issues EVER since the incident of the Indian children put into foster care in Norway has come to light, there has been outrage over the attitude of Norwegian authorities and sympathy for the parents accused of not taking proper care of their children. So it is heartening that the contentious issue is close to a solution.
From West Asia and beyond
Sibling revelry
STATES ill-equipped to handle terror
|
Eying PSU cash
Ahead
of the budget on March 16, the UPA government is desperately seeking to fix its finances. The revenue-expenditure gap, or fiscal deficit as economists call it, has shot up from the current budget’s target of 4.6 per cent of the GDP to about 6 per cent. If the state fiscal deficit figures and expenditure outside the budget are included, the gap touches 9 per cent of the GDP, which is alarming and is a major deterrent to foreign investors. In a delayed exercise, the government has allowed its cash-rich public sector undertakings (PSUs) to buy back their own shares or those of sister concerns. Essentially, this will transfer cash from companies to the government accounts, which will help the Finance Minister spruce up a bit the otherwise shoddy balance sheet. Earlier, the PMO had asked the heads of government companies to spend/invest more instead of sitting on piles of cash. As an experiment, which was almost bungled, the government auctioned its 5 per cent share in ONGC on Thursday. Pricing it above the market rate and without clearing the confusion on ONGC’s oil subsidy liability, the government offloaded its stake with LIC help to collect Rs 12,000 crore. The money raised so far through disinvestment is far short of the 2011-12 budget’s target of Rs 40,000 crore. Through another revenue-raising decision the government has cut its fertilizer subsidy by 33 per cent to save Rs 10,000 crore. Farmers will have to pay more as companies will raise fertilizer prices. To tackle the fiscal deficit problem, which will persist in the next fiscal year too, the government will have to either cut expenditure and subsidies or raise taxes. The Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council recently suggested a hike in indirect taxes and decontrol of diesel prices. There are also suggestions to prune the social sector spending, which would actually go up substantially once the Food Security Bill is passed. The Finance minister is certainly in an unenviable position. He has some harsh choices to make in the coming budget. And sections of society are not going to like it.
|
|
Not by steep fine alone
THE Union Cabinet has approved increasing fines and jail sentences for traffic offences manifold to deter violators. These would come into force after amendment of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in Parliament. While this is a much-needed step, it can hardly be called drastic. In fact, it is merely a correction to maintain the spirit of the fines established in 1988. The three-fivefold increase barely covers the inflation that has taken place in the past two and a half decades. This is a problem with all fines under the IPC, some of which were fixed in the 19th century, and continue to be the same till date, which is ridiculous. There has to be a mechanism for automatic increase in all fines to maintain the spirit of the law. As with any offence, traffic offences are best checked with the certainty of punishment — whether fine or imprisonment — rather than the quantum of punishment. In fact, in many cases it has been noticed that with increased punishment, the insistence of courts on that much more reliable evidence leads to lower rates of conviction. No court would like to send a man to jail for four years on the basis of an alcohol-level test that may be faulty. On the other hand, it is human nature to not jump a red light if there is an assured Rs 50 challan waiting on the other side. That, however, is not to say the fines should be low. Rather, it is to underline the need for greater traffic vigilance. That brings us to implementation of the Act. Policing traffic has its own peculiarities, as it involves all manner of people, not necessarily criminals. What do you do with a man found driving drunk with his family in the car? He can neither be allowed to drive off, nor can the family be asked to walk away in the night. And what if there are 15 such cases at a check point? Therein lies the need for a far more elaborate infrastructure. |
|
|
Bringing up children
EVER since the incident of the Indian children put into foster care in Norway has come to light, there has been outrage over the attitude of Norwegian authorities and sympathy for the parents accused of not taking proper care of their children. So it is heartening that the contentious issue is close to a solution. The Norwegian Child Welfare Service’s decision to grant the custody of the children to their uncle, thus facilitating their return to India ought to bring some cheer to the anxious family members. Indeed, it is nobody’s case that those indulging in child abuse should be let off the hook. But the Norwegian government’s charge supported by the findings of Norwegian social workers brought into focus cultural differences more than anything else. It appears that the Norwegian authorities took the adage “while in Rome do as Romans do” a little too seriously. While the chief of Norway’s Child Welfare Service has refuted charges of cultural prejudices, it is hard to believe that the body’s intransigent stance stemmed more out of a factual position and not bias which European countries of late are perceived as showing towards migrants, Asians in particular. The Norwegian authorities’ unreasonableness itself earlier, too, when they cited legal reasons to deny permission to twins born out of an Indian surrogate woman. In the case of separated infants, the agreement to hand over the children to their uncle in Kolkata needs to be honoured at the earliest. The Indian government did what it takes to put pressure on the government in Norway. Not only did the External Affairs Minister make a personal intervention, a special envoy was sent to Norway to expedite the return of the children to India. All these efforts bore fruit but they couldn’t quite resolve the basic issue in question. Though different cultures have different yardsticks of measuring the correctness of child rearing practices, variations in cultural norms must be respected and accounted for, especially while taking decisions that affect the lives of little ones who can’t speak up for themselves. |
|
|
A man sooner or later discovers that he is the master-gardener of his soul, the director of his life. — James Allen
|
From West Asia and beyond
ASIA — East Asia, in particular — may be the “pivot” of the foreign and security policies of the United States but the main challenges to it are currently concentrated in West Asia, also called the Middle-East. Iran and Syria, in that order, top the list of America’s acute concerns even though, since the double veto of the UN Security Council resolution on Syria, more attention is being paid to the country where a determined rebellion is being met with brutal repression by the regime of President Bashar al-Assad. At the 60-nation “Friends of Syria” conference in Tunis lat week, there were no buyers of what the Saudi Foreign Minister called the “excellent idea” of arming the Syrian rebels. For everyone knew this would lead to a multi-faceted and catastrophic civil war in a country which has 47 different ethnic and sectarian groups. To make matters worse, the rebels are hopelessly fractious and deeply divided along sectarian, ethnic and ideological lines. A brief video by Al-Qaeda declaring that it is part of the Syrian rebellion has sent shock waves all over. Moreover, if there is strong opposition to Mr Assad, there is also strong support for him. It is not confined to his minority Alawite community that rules the Sunni majority but includes others like Christians, Kurds, Druze, Assyrians, Turkmen and so on, if only because they are scared of Sunni reprisals in case he is overthrown. Despite some desertions, the 200,000-strong, heavily equipped army remains loyal to the regime. This is not all. Mr Assad enjoys also the support of some regional powers of which Iran is the most important. (For this reason the US wants his early exit because that would weaken Iran and prevent it from sending arms to Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza.) More importantly, Mr Assad has the solid support of Russia and the more nuanced one of China. This is the backdrop to his “triumphant” referendum on a new constitution as a prelude to multi-party elections although the Syrian Opposition has boycotted it and many countries have denounced it as a “farce”. The call for a UN peacekeeping force for Syria means little because, despite former UN Secretary-General Kofi Anan’s appointment as the UN envoy for Syria, no peace-keeping force can be formed without the sanction of the Security Council where Russia and China are determined to use their veto. Mr Zbignew Brzezinski, a former US National Security Adviser, forcefully argued during a TV programme that his country must not get involved in any decision to arm the Syrian Opposition, and leave it to Syria’s two neighbours, Turkey and Saudi Arabia, to decide. On Iran he subtly denounced the folly of a military strike on its nuclear installations. Read with American intelligence agencies’ revelation that Iran was certainly trying to acquire nuclear capability but it has not yet decided to make the bomb, this makes sound sense. But the trouble is that hardliners in the US, including all aspirants to the Republican nomination for the presidency, are clamouring for an immediate military action against Iran. Since the Obama administration is averse to this, Israel is the hope of the hawks and this is grist to Israel’s mill. Israel completely rejects the argument that increasingly tough sanctions coupled with covert action would persuade Iran to abandon its nuclear ambition. Once Iran develops the capability to make the bomb, it says, Israel’s very existence would be threatened. Thomas Donilo, President Obama’s National Security Adviser, has just returned from Jerusalem after an unsuccessful mission to persuade Israel’s leaders to “show restraint”. The chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, had met the same fate last month. Soon the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, who is very conscious of his clout in the US, especially in an election year, is due in Washington. Mr Brzezinski was brutally frank when he said that on his last visit Mr Netanyahu had “humiliated the President of the United States on American soil” which must not be allowed to happen again. Almost by the day impression grows in Washington that during the coming spring or at the latest this summer Israel would strike at Iranian nuclear sites to eliminate what the Israeli Defence Minister, Mr Ehud Barak, calls Iran’s “zone of immunity”. If this does happen, the US would not be able even to condemn Israeli action! As if this wasn’t enough the US has entangled itself in a raucous row with Egypt over the trial of 16 American activists that had gone there to “promote” democracy but have been charged by the Egyptians of violating their laws. Intense negotiations have been fruitless so far. On top of all this, the US has inflicted upon itself a far graver, indeed lethal, crisis in Afghanistan where it was planning to end its combat role a year ahead of schedule and to play only a mentoring and training role so that the Afghan army and police could take over the responsibility for their country’s security. This looks like turning into a vain hope. The Americans may be right in claiming that the incineration of the Quran by US army personnel at the Bagram base was inadvertent. But Afghans don’t believe it, nor do they attach any importance to President Obama’s apology for which he is being criticised at home. The ferocity of the ongoing agitation against the US speaks for itself. The killing of two American officers, a colonel and a major, at the command centre of the Ministry of Interior and the ability of the killer quietly to walk away indicate that what is happening is something deeper and more dangerous than mere outrage over the burning of the Holy Book. Nor can it be overlooked that long before the latest episode 700 NATO soldiers had been killed by uniformed personnel of the Afghan army and police whom the victims had trained. Not to put any gloss on a very ugly situation, the fact is that the distrust between the Afghans, including the Karzai government, and the Americans is much deeper than either side is prepared to admit. This can greatly jeopardise the entire US plan to withdraw its troops by 2014 and yet maintain enduring military presence
there.
|
||||||
Sibling revelry
One evening this January, Sartaj jumped up and down like a yo-yo on adrenaline. His mom had been driven to the hospital with the promise that she would be back with a baby brother or sister. Even his favourite TV cartoon characters - Shin Chan and his sister Himavari could not hold his attention. For the twentieth time that day, he checked things out in the ‘baby room’. Sartaj’s old cradle, lovingly handcrafted in Kartarpur, stood by the window. He glanced at the array of toys that babies of either sex could play with - his dog-eared Torro the Tortoise, Dolo the Dolphin and Pigla the Piglet. Sartaj’s parents did not know if they would come home with a boy or a girl. His classmate Suroor had told him that these days doctors did not know until the last minute. If the doctors were clueless, how would his parents know? His grandparents watched live ‘kirtan’ from Darbar Sahib on TV and later that night, counted prayer beads on their ‘simarna’ while waiting for news. A baby girl was born at dawn, making Sartaj a big brother for all times to come. The family clustered around the hospital bed, admiring the baby’s glossy dark curls, black-button eyes and pink toe-nails. Sartaj thought she was the tiniest creature he had ever seen — even smaller than Diana the Dinosaur back home. He gaped in amazement as the baby let out a loud shriek. The nurse observed that her lungs were in fine fettle for someone who weighed only 2.8 kg. The next day, Sartaj escorted his baby sister home and started playing Baby Manager. At age six, Sartaj was an early reader and could read product labels and big print in books. He handed his mom the bath-things, the nappies, the jump-suits and the booties in fluid and precise movements. He could read the baby’s immunisation card because the paediatrician had a very clear handwriting, better than his class-teacher’s. Sartaj slept when the baby slept and insisted on being by her side all the time that she was awake. When she screeched like a miniature ‘banshee’ at night, he cooed to her, sang to her, tickled her tummy or brought various toys to amuse her - though he suspected she didn’t know what a toy was yet. He phoned his friends Mansher and Parakram and told them that he was very busy and could not go to school till the baby started walking. In the school office, Sartaj’s father filled up an application form for a fortnight’s leave. Under ‘grounds for absence’, he wrote, ‘Child-care leave’. The stern, ‘ikat sari’-clad Principal thought that the handsome young father in the Tommy Hilfiger shirt and wine-red turban was trying to be over-smart. But when he coaxed her into watching a family video of Sartaj and baby Gultaj in action, the Principal relaxed. ‘Clearly no sibling rivalry there, Mr Singh! The family must revel in all this togetherness. Let Sartaj make the most of it!’
|
||||||
Having briefly commented on some of the more worrying threats to internal security yesterday, it would be useful to examine whether the existing security management apparatus in the country has the capacity of meeting the existing and emerging threats to national security. The pattern on which the security management machinery has been established in our country over the past six decades has been essentially determined by the Constitutional responsibilities of the Union and the States, respectively, in regard to this important arena of governance.
Thus, as per the provisions in our Constitution, while the Union has the overall responsibility, there is no doubt that the States are required to play an important role in the maintenance of national security. The Constitution prescribes that the Union shall be responsible for the defence of India; the control and deployment of the armed forces of the Union; and protecting the States against external aggression and internal disturbances. Correspondingly, it is prescribed that the States shall be responsible for the maintenance of Public Order and Police. Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure and Administration of Justice are listed among the subjects in which the Union and the States have concurrent jurisdictions. It may be noted that while the subject of ‘security’ under Article 352 and under the Emergency Provisions in Part XVIII of the Constitution has been assigned to the Union, the term ‘national security’ does not find any mention in the Constitution. It would appear that the founding fathers of our Constitution had not envisioned that the country would be so soon and so seriously threatened by proxy wars, terrorist attacks and varied new forms of criminality and it is perhaps for this reason that it was not considered necessary to define the limits beyond which ‘public disorder’ would graduate to an ‘internal disturbance’. And, possibly, it is again for the same reason that the Constitution does not prescribe the stage at which the Central Government would require to take over and become responsible for dealing with an internal disturbance in any State. In so far as the Union’s duty to protect the States against war and external aggression is concerned no issues have ever arisen, from the 1947-48 Indo-Pak war onwards, about the Central Government’s role in the matter. However, in so far as the Union’s duty to protect the States against internal disturbances is concerned, issues have been raised, time and again, about the Central Government’s jurisdiction, as happened in 2008 when serious communal disturbances took place in Orissa. The Constitution provides exclusive powers to the States to make all required laws in regard to Police and Public Order and to take all necessary executive decisions in respect of both these subjects. However, if one looks back on the law and order related developments in the past six decades it would be difficult to say that all the States have been adequately discharging their constitutional duty of maintaining internal security within their realms. Track record of states Taking an across-the-board view, it could be said that, since 1950, most of the States have not been able to effectively maintain internal security within their jurisdictions. While the reasons for the failure would vary from State to State, and from time to time, it could be said that, over all, recurring defaults have taken place for want of the requisite political will and the consequential failure of the States to maintain civil and armed police forces of high professional standard in adequate strength; and to timely put to use whatever forces were available, to deal with an arising situation. As if these failures were not enough, the successive governments in the States, irrespective of their political complexion, have also been guilty of politicising the entire hierarchy of the constabularies which have been, on many occasions, deterred from enforcing the law and even misused for carrying out unlawful behests. The aforesaid factors have, over the years, resulted in eroding the discipline, integrity, morale and professionalism of the State Police Forces. On their part, the States have been attributing their failures to the paucity of resources. They have also been advancing the specious argument that it is essentially the responsibility of the Union to provide them the required funds. In this context, the States have found it convenient to support their case by citing Article 355 under which it is the constitutional duty of the Union to protect the States against internal disturbances.
Union Government’s dilemma Considering the pattern along which the Union-State relations have evolved in the past decades it has not so far been possible to clearly lay down the responsibility of the States to maintain internal security. The general tendency has been to avoid any confrontation with the States which could possibly precipitate a constitutional crisis. Not having been able to critically question the States about the causes of a given disturbance, the Union has been assisting the States, virtually whenever called upon to do so, by deploying Central Police Forces to restore normalcy in the disturbed area. The Union has also been providing, on a progressively increasing scale, financial and logistical support to the States for enlarging and modernising their police forces. It is relevant to note that notwithstanding its constitutional duty to protect the States against internal disturbances the Union has not so far been able to establish its right to suo motu deploy Central Police Forces for pre-empting an arising disturbance in any State, and not even for protecting the Union’s properties located in the States. The failures which led to the demolition of the Babri Masjid, and the grave consequences of this event for the entire nation, are still far too fresh in our memories to call for any retelling. The Union has also been hesitant in issuing ‘directions’ to the States, under Article 256, for dealing with an arising disturbance. The general approach which has evolved over the years is for the Union Ministry of Home Affairs to merely issue ‘advisories’ to the States in regard to the management of an emerging disorder. Resultantly, in the past years, colossal human, economic and other losses have been incurred on account of varied serious internal disturbances in different parts of the country. In this context, there should be no basis whatsoever for losing any more time in making the States understand and fully accept the Union’s responsibility to maintain national security. In this regard, the States shall also need to accept their responsibility to act in close cooperation with each other and provide prompt support to the concerned agencies of the Central Government for ensuring effective security maintenance on all fronts. Once the aforesaid position has been clearly accepted by the States, it would be necessary to undertake a critical assessment of the existing security management systems and structures which are operated by the State and Central Governments. And after such a review has been completed, the entire security management apparatus, across the country, would need to be reorganised and re-oriented to clearly define the role, authority and responsibility of every element within the nation-wide machinery.
Posturing by states If the aforesaid approach is to be implemented within a practical time frame, it shall be necessary for the States to forthwith withdraw from their position that as ‘Police’ and ‘Public Order’ are within their domain it would not be constitutionally correct for the Centre to interfere or question the manner in which the States deal with the management of internal security issues. Instead, the States would need to forthwith give up their traditional postures and accept their high responsibility of ensuring effective internal security management by working in close coordination with the security establishments of other States and in complete concert with all concerned agencies of the Central Government. If the States accept their responsibility to effectively maintain internal security within their areas, the State Governments shall need to devote high priority attention for enlarging and upgrading their security administration machineries. As the very first step, the States will need to provide adequate budgetary support, on a sustained basis, for the enlargement and functional improvement of their civil and armed Police Forces. In this context, it would be relevant to note that in 2009-10 the allocation for Police was a mere 4.3 per cent of the total budgeted expenditure of all the States and Union Territories. As about eighty per cent of the annual Police budgets in the States goes toward the payment of salaries and pensions of the constabulary, very little is left for the progressive enlargement and modernization of the Police Forces. One of the consequences of the aforesaid situation is that nearly four lakh of the sanctioned posts in the States and Union Territory Police Forces were lying vacant at the end of 2009. In other words, about one fifth of the total sanctioned posts were lying unfilled all over the country. Needless to stress, the most urgent steps are required to be taken to make the State Police organisations adequately strong and capable if they are to serve as reliable instruments for effectively managing internal security. To be concluded The author is currently the Governor of Jammu and Kashmir. He is also a former Defence Secretary, Home Secretary, Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister and chaired the National Task Force on internal security in 2000. The article is adapted from his talk on ‘National Security Concerns’, delivered as the 28th C.D. Deshmukh Memorial Lecture at the India International Centre, New Delhi, in 2011.
Since 1950, most of the States have not been able to effectively maintain internal security within their jurisdictions. While the reasons for the failure would vary from State to State, and from time to time, it could be said that, over all, recurring defaults have taken place for want of the requisite political will and the consequential failure of the States to maintain civil and armed police forces of high professional standard in adequate strength; and to timely put to use whatever forces were available, to deal with an arising situation.
|
|
| 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 | |
STATES ill-equipped to handle terror