|
|
|
|
|
Delayed farm exports
Suu Kyi in Parliament |
|
|
|
Dowry deaths
When ideology wears off
The English Department
‘Internal security is shared responsibility’
|
Delayed farm exports
THE government has lifted curbs on the export of sugar and cotton under pressure from Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar, whose home state, Maharashtra, is a large producer of both commodities. Given the glut in foodgrain supplies and lack of adequate space for scientific storage as the fresh produce piles up in Punjab and Haryana mandis, a committee has been set up under C. Rangarajan to find a solution. These are all delayed reactions to situations known well in advance. Policy paralysis is not confined to reforms; it covers management of farm produce, including exports. The government has put in place procedural and bureaucratic speed-breakers, though not entirely without reason. The delayed exports of cotton and sugar will benefit only large players who have built up stocks. Since there is an excess supply of both commodities in the global market, the gains will be limited. For maximum returns quick decisions on exports based on global prices are required. This is something political interference and inter-departmental wrangling forbid. The pro-farmer lobby is countered by export opponents led by Food Minister K.V. Thomas. They point to possibilities of domestic price rise, which is already a headache for the common man as well as the UPA government. The recent electoral setbacks to the Congress were partly on this count. Exports will certainly push up prices here. But farmers need to be given the benefit of rising prices – at least occasionally — since their input costs too have gone up. A balance, therefore, has to be maintained. The waste of food and cost of storage should be weighed while choosing between exports and building up stocks for domestic use. The food Bill is yet to be passed but godowns have been overflowing with grains for the past some years. The government has still to learn how to deal with the problem of plenty. Global prices can be known well in advance through futures trading, and quick import and export decisions — depending on shortages and surpluses — need to be taken. For this decentralisation of decision-making is required.
|
|
Suu Kyi in Parliament
Myanmar’s National League for Democracy (NLD) leader Suu Kyi has finally entered her country’s Parliament after a long struggle for democracy. This, however, does not mean much so far as the cause of democracy in that country is concerned. But her presence in the House may serve as a catalyst for speeding up the political reform that has been started by Myanmar’s military rulers. Suu Kyi’s party swept the recently held byelections, winning 42 of the 43 seats for which the polls were held. Myanmar’s Parliament has thus got an opposition for the first time. Now Suu Kyi can articulate her views while taking part in the proceedings of the House, though the military-controlled Thien Sien regime may not give the deserving weight to her opinion. General Thien Sien has been talking of political reforms for some time as he, perhaps, believes military rule is no longer in the interest of Myanmar. He is scared of the growing influence of China in the insurgency-affected areas of Myanmar. How far he is prepared to go on the road to democracy and federalism remains to be seen. But the change in his thinking gives the impression that Myanmar intends to move a little away from China. The Chinese leadership is not feeling comfortable with the drive for democracy in a country Beijing has been defending at the UN and elsewhere. China is concerned with all that has been happening for some time because the feeling in Beijing is that a democratic Myanmar may tilt towards the US. The winds of change in Myanmar have provided India an opportunity to open a new chapter of relations with the neighbouring country. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s scheduled visit to Myanmar this month should be viewed against this backdrop. The Myanmarese leadership needs to realise that India can be of great help to Yangon in its drive for political reforms. But New Delhi will have to play a balancing role as it can no longer afford to be favouring only Suu Kyi. India will have to devise a new strategy to make use of the opportunity available now. |
|
|
Dowry deaths IN
the clamour against misuse of dowry law, it has been conveniently
forgotten that the menace of dowry is a virulent manifestation of
gender injustice. Although the Dowry Prohibition Act came in 1961, the
problem of dowry and, consequently, of dowry deaths continues to loom
large even today. In fact, the number of dowry deaths has been on the
rise. Over the years such deaths have increased from 6,995 in 2000 to
8,391 in 2010. Even the national capital reported 142 dowry deaths in
2011. While some cases of bride burning keep coming to light more
often than not, such cases are passed off as suicide. Without doubt
the number of women harassed on account of dowry is far more than the
actual figures would reveal. While it is true that not every
dowry complaint is genuine, and at times the punitive Section 498-A
too is used to settle scores. Yet we needn’t look too far to realise
that the simple custom of giving a few gifts to the bride has become
pernicious. The rise in the woman’s status notwithstanding, dowry
continues to undermine her position in society. It may seem ironic yet
even economically independent women have to not only live with dowry
but also with the consequences of not bringing enough dowry. Unless
we as a society understand how dowry, not a violent practice in
itself, spawns violence, the battle against the widely prevalent
practice cannot be won. Those who argue in favour of dowry, deeming it
pre-mortem inheritance, too must realise that dowry is certainly no
substitute for women’s inheritance rights as women have no control
or rights over dowry that they bring. Whatever may be the dynamics at
play, be it man being the main provider or the number of marriageable
women being more than men, dowry needs to be eradicated from our
socio-cultural milieu. Instead of toning down the dowry law as the Law
Commission has favoured, we need laws that address the social
mechanism through which dowry has perpetuated itself over decades. |
|
|
The art of being happy lies in the power of extracting happiness from common things.— Henry Ward Beecher
|
When ideology wears off
A
signboard, “Welcome to heaven”, from the days of safe tourism still hangs at a hamlet, Chintagufa, at the edge of a thick forest of Bastar which is the den of Maoists, an extreme leftist group. Alex Paul, the district magistrate, was kidnapped from here the other day. The message that the Maoists, also called the Naxalites, wanted to convey was that the revolution came through the barrel of a gun, the philosophy which Chinese leader Mao Zedong practised to wrest power from the hands of Kumintang. Why Mao Zedong succeeded and why the Naxalites have not is a lesson in revolution. The communists in China were able to “convert” people to the ideology of communism pursued. The Maoists, idealists no doubt when they began their sojourn from a West Bengal village, Naxalbari, some 50 years ago, lost their way to become the gun-wielders and sought security in deep jungles. They failed to harness people’s minds although they gave the land to the landless and developed the “liberated areas”. The Maoists did not develop equation with the landless and the cultivators, but still wanted them to be part of “revolution”. Mao Zedong’s followers were people’s army. The Naxalites were at best the land reformers in some areas. When they prefer the security of thick forests to the openness and resort to kidnapping or killing policemen, the Maoists admit that their ideology lacks popular appeal. They can always catch the imagination when they take up the cause of economically backward areas or the tribals who are losing mines and other natural resources to big corporations backed by the state and its brutal force. But then what? This is an exercise over which the Maoists have gone over for decades. They have not gone beyond creating a “red corridor” of sorts where their writ runs. It is only a matter of time before the state will re-occupy it because if the guns are the arbiter, the state has it many a thousand times more. The National Counter Terrorism Centre (NCTC) will, sooner or later, coordinate the campaign to fight against insurgency. The communists (Marxists) faced the same dilemma but opted for the electoral system. They were able to capture Kerala after the first election in independent India in 1957. They went on to rule West Bengal and Tripura. Why they lost power in Kerala and, more so, in West Bengal is their failure to appeal to the popular mind. They and their cadres ruled the states even ruthlessly but never convinced the people to the ideology of a classless society. The late West Bengal Chief Minister, Jyoti Basu, said in reply to my question once that the government could not do much because the constraints of the system did not allow him to take the steps which as a communist he would have taken. The radical Sikhs, believing in the communist ideology, wore idealism on their sleeves. Even posters displayed in the Golden Temple at Amritsar were in red letters and talked about equality and fraternity in an autonomous state of Punjab they vowed to create. But, like the Naxalites, they degenerated into a force which kidnapped and killed to sustain themselves or stay in the limelight. Their militancy failed, not because the state had more guns but because they had limited popular support which went on decreasing in proportion to the senseless killings they carried out. Ideologies wear off when commitment becomes only a fig leaf. The mania of power takes over. In the circumstances, there is no difference between revolutionaries and political parties because both have the same goal: power through whatever means. Ideals take the backseat. Ambition and authority prevail. And success, however temporary, becomes the end. The Marxists are a sad example. The Maoists were once known for their determination to get the poor and the helpless a living and justice. But they have now become gun-toters. It is difficult to say whether farmers or the unemployed are happy under duress. All the “liberated areas” by the Maoists—estimated to be one-sixth of India—should have been a “heaven on earth” because the Maoists are their own masters. My information is that the developed areas in the rest of India under the democratic system are far better and more answerable to the people than those under the Maoists. True, areas under the democratic system suffer from contradictions of the capitalism system, but there is no tyranny of dictatorship. Russia was the worst country to live in during the rule by Stalin or even less harsh dictators who followed him. The Chinese are prosperous but not free. Big brother is always watching. The Maoists in India seem to have developed a model of their own, akin to Mao Zedong’s philosophy. But they must realise that even the best of revolutions have failed to deliver because the ideology has gone awry. The basic thing is not to dilute the ideology, whatever pressures. Kidnapping, extortions or mine blasts may give the Naxalites temporary attention but not the fulfilment of ideals which once they dreamt about. Means are important. If they get vitiated, the ends are bound to be vitiated. Mahatma Gandhi won us independence through that dictum. The Maoists or any other left combination has to ponder over why he succeeded in less than 30 years and why they are as far from the goal as before even after almost twice that
period.
|
|||
The English Department
In the late seventies, only the MBA students in our university seemed to be serious about their profession. But in 'the somewhat non-serious business of life', it was only the English Department (ED) that aroused a love-hate feeling among all others. At many places, the ED in its reputation, style, delivery, environment, ambience, atmosphere, assimilation, association and, to cap it all, education used to be the most sought-after department after graduation. When we pursued our masters in English literature, at least we thought it so, and so did many others in the university. Being associated with a blessed department gave us a different kind of feeling. Everybody added a 'romantic' tag to us all in the ED. We were perceived by the rest to be pursuing a course not for a profession but a passion — whatever it meant. But, yes, we were passionate in our literary indulgences. The daily take-home from eminent authors, writers, critics and even our own teachers in terms of references, allusions, quotes and styles was a mixed bag of euphoric, exciting and thrilling stuff. Terms like labyrinth, utopia, picaresque, repertoire, byzantine, dunce, apocryphal, ethereal, metaphysics, illusion, delusion and reverie were lapped up by us then as and when there was an opportunity to impress all others around, with our newly acquired literary status — a cut above the rest. Our teachers too did not spare any tool in their possession not only to groom us but also fine-tune our sensibilities, customising them and making them attuned to a world of romance, adventure, passion and dreams — to say the least. The histrionics with which the teachers described the stuff at the back of their mind, with a hint of their own professional acumen and expertise in speaking out and making manifest the most unspeakable and difficult scenarios, emanating from a rich text of all the literary genres, was unique to each one of them. The seduction scene in Joseph Andrews by Henry Fielding being a case in point; as also when a lamenting, repenting, soliloquising and sleep-walking Lady Macbeth exclaims looking at her hands which had Duncan's blood on them "…all the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten this little hand. Oh! oh! oh!". I dare say that some of the eccentricities in our teachers' persona added the much-desired instrumentality and flavour to the narration, which did go down our understanding of things which were too common, yet clothed in uncommon a diction. Our friends in other departments did poke fun at us at times, seeking to know — How could a poem by Keats or Wordsworth tackle the intricacies of real life? They thought of us all to be "emotional" types, who could slip into depression and shrink, and being unable to bear the blues, seeking a remedy in mood-elevating drugs and fags of smoke. We did have a case or two, when the "literature-afflicted" would look delirious one day and quite sulking and withdrawn the following day. But the funnier and livelier side of the ED was its very frequent involvement with singing songs, wearing trendy attire, going for movies and always putting up a trademark ED facade with pleasant smiles in greeting one and all. Being in the ED gave us a feeling of superiority not only on our university-mates but also whoever we met, since we could not help bragging about our pursuit of literature. We attempted speaking the prescribed British Received Pronunciation of the BBC, besides some really zealous ones who ventured into Cockney — an accent of educated people of South London — too. Here is a weird but funny fact. The ED was like "Yellow Pages" for parents to put their daughters for better marriage prospects. The most eligible bachelors too turned to these pages to find a "suitable
girl".
|
|||
‘Internal security is shared responsibility’ IN terms of terrorist violence, there was a time when every year we had five to six major terrorist attacks. Since Mumbai, we have had three major terrorist attacks and I am the first who wants to admit that the three are blots. But if you go back to 2001, every year we have had five to six major attacks, and in the run-up to Mumbai, we had an average of seven attacks a year. Now in the last three and a half years, we have had three terrorist attacks. No one can deny our capacity to deal with terror has increased.
I believe security can be enhanced by enhancing our capacities in three areas. First is intelligence. Without intelligence there is no security. The second is capacity. We need more policemen, arms, equipment, vehicles, and schools to train them. The third is we must have a complete and common understanding that as a nation we are willing to take firm, pre-emptive steps to control any kind of threat to internal security. On the first two there is no quarrel. We all agree that we need to expand our intelligence capabilities. Everybody has welcomed MAC [Multi-Agency Centre]; everybody has welcomed State MAC. It is MAC and SMAC which seamlessly share intelligence 24x7 with every important functionary in the Intelligence Establishment that has given us this capacity to deal with terror. Every Chief Minister has acknowledged that MAC and SMAC have made a remarkable difference to our intelligence capacity. Do it together On capacity, honourable Members tell me do this and do that. But who should do this and who should do that? There are 5 lakh vacancies in the state constabulary today, against a total sanctioned strength of 20 lakh. Who should fill them? Who should appoint policemen and acquire weapons? I am willing to take the responsibility. But do I have the capacity to take this responsibility? What about the responsibility of the state governments? You tell me take all these responsibilities, roll back National Investigation Agency (NIA); roll back National Intelligence Grid (NATGRID); roll back National Counter-Terrorism Centre (NCTC). What I am trying to say is that this Hamletian dilemma must go. Remember the famous words of Hamlet: “To be or not to be”. What do we want to be? In this troubled neighbourhood, in the year 2012, internal security of this country is a shared responsibility. The states must come forward to accept their share. The Constitution says in List-II that law and order and public order are the responsibility of the state governments. It also says, in Article 355, that it is the responsibility of the Central government to protect every state against external aggression and internal threat. We have to read these provisions together. Last year, the Government of India spent Rs 40,000 crore on police. All states put together spent Rs 60,000 crore. I have repeatedly urged the Chief Ministers, saying, “You point to my share of the Budget and look at your share for police in your Budget.” Unless we accept the principle of shared responsibility, it cannot develop the capacity to deal with threats to internal security. The NIA [National Investigation Agency] is a fledgling organisation. In three years, we have entrusted [it] with 40 cases, out of which 22 have already been charge- sheeted. I cannot recall any other fledgling organisation which has hit the ground running. The NIA makes no distinction between a terrorist belonging to one religion or another religion. It makes no distinction between a terrorist belonging to one faith or another faith, one caste or another caste, one language or another language. The NIA has registered cases against those who call themselves "jihadi" terrorists. There are 12 cases. NIA has also registered cases against those who mistakenly believe in some kind of a right-wing fundamentalism. There are nine cases like that. Let us not run down the NIA. NIA's track record has been the best among the new organisations. Then, there is a myth India cannot deal with terrorist attacks whereas the US has had no terrorist attacks since 9/11. At least half a dozen Members said this. Let us disabuse ourselves of this wrong notion. It is only a tribute to the successful propaganda machinery of the US. There were three actual terrorist attacks in the US. The Los Angeles Airport shooting was on July 4, 2002, in which three were dead and four were injured. Little Rock Recruiting Office shooting was on June 1, 2009, in which one was dead and one was injured. Fort Hood shooting was on November 5, 2009, in which 13 were dead and 30 were injured. There were three merely successful terrorist attacks. The shoe bomber was on December 21, 2001, the underwear bomber was on December 25, 2009, and the Times Square bomb on May 1, 2010. I am not taking any sense of satisfaction. All I am saying is every country is vulnerable today. But do not be under the misapprehension that India is more vulnerable than other countries. I say India is no more vulnerable, but India is no less vulnerable than any other country. Some questions were raised about the BSF Amendment Act and the NCTC [National Counter-Terrorism Centre]. But I do not know whether this was the right time for me to speak extensively on NCTC because there is a Chief Ministers’ meeting coming up on the 5th of May. There was some question about the BSF Amendment, which is now before the Rajya Sabha. Let us take the BSF Amendment Act. Section 139 confers powers upon the BSF. Whatever powers are there are there. That section is not being amended. All that we are doing is this: The Preamble to the Act made long ago says that the BSF can be deployed in the border. Today, I am forced to deploy the BSF in the interior districts of two states: Odisha and Chhattisgarh. There are 30 companies of the BSF in Odisha and 30 in Chhattisgarh. The Act does not allow me to deploy them. Therefore, we ask you to amend the Preamble, amend the Section which says “border areas” to “any other area in the State”. The BSF cannot be deployed unless the Chief Minister wants it to be deployed. When I deploy it on the border, the power is there. When I deploy it in an interior district, it should not be a sort of same power. Not a single additional power is being given. The same is with the NCTC. Section 2(e) of the UAPA [Unlawful Activities Prevention Act] was made in 2004, long before I became the Home Minister, which introduced “designated agency”. We amended the UAPA Act in December, 2008. The Lok Sabha added Section 43 (a) to 43 (f). Section 43(a) refers to designated agency. It says “designated agency may, under certain circumstances, counter terrorism, arrest and seize articles.” But the moment you arrest, you must hand them over to the nearest police station. This is a law made by Parliament. In fact, some of you should have asked me: “We passed the law in 2008. What were you doing for three years?” But when I finally get a consensus within the government and we have an NCTC, you turn around and say that I am encroaching upon the states’ powers. What power am I encroaching upon? When a counter-terrorism operation is undertaken, the first police officer there would have to arrest, and the next Section 43(b) says when you arrest, you will hand him over to the nearest police station. Please tell me, where is the encroachment on states’ powers?
TACKLING MAOISTS I want to conclude [with] what our government considers the gravest threat to internal security: the CPI (Maoist). A number of Members say hold talks. I have no objection. Just tell me, who should I talk to? When we hold talks, should there be violence, should there not be violence? I am on record having offered to the CPI (Maoist), please say that you will not indulge in violence during the period when we hold talks and I will immediately fix talks. In the North-East, we impose more stringent conditions: You must lay down arms; you must surrender; your cadres must move into camps.... Only then we will hold talks. With Naxalites, we only say, during the period we hold talks there should be no violence. There has been no response to this. In the absence of a response, I have to pursue my two-pronged strategy. One prong is security action, the other is development work. Under the IAP, we have spent Rs 3,300 in the last 18 months and 66,000 works have been completed in 60 districts. Yet, the CPI (Maoist) targets – two principle targets are school buildings and roads. Police are not put by me in school buildings. It is because the state government, which leads the operation, has no other accommodation, puts the policemen in the school building. I ask Chief Ministers to build infrastructure, to give barracks.... I don’t blame you. You have difficulty with money and resources. But the point is, school buildings are targets; roads are targeted. Why? The CPI (Maoist) does not want the children to go to schools; does not want roads to be built. If roads are built, the whole hinterland will be opened up. Be that as it may, I have no objection to talking to the Maoists. Let us not have any illusion about what the CPI (Maoist) want. They are not unclear as we are unclear about them. They are very clear about their objective... that the parliamentary system of democracy must be overthrown through an armed rebellion. That is their record, that is their document, and that is their interview. Power must be seized through the barrel of a gun. We can talk to them about grievances, poverty, illiteracy, lack of development. But please tell me, as to whether we can talk to them about overthrowing of the parliamentary system through an armed rebellion? Let us not have any illusions. They know their goal. We are the ones who are misunderstanding their goals. Civil society organisations, many of them, have completely misunderstood their goals and objectives, which is why some hon. Members call them misguided. They are not misguided. They are guided by their objectives. We are misguiding ourselves by misreading their objectives. Nevertheless, I make the offer once again. The government is willing to talk to the CPI (Maoist), provided they abjure violence during the period of talks.
|
|
| 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 | |
