The Tribune, Chandigarh, India

Exporting toxic rice
Punjab, Haryana must educate farmers

An indiscriminate use of chemicals by farmers has caused immense damage to public health. Now rice exporters from Punjab and Haryana are feeling the effect. They have complained that the US has rejected their export consignments due to the presence of toxic residues in rice. What the US authorities reject as unfit for Americans is allowed for consumption by blissfully ignorant Indians in the absence of stringent tests on food items. Earlier, Europe had rejected honey consignments from India on the same ground.

Remedial steps being offered by traders like testing the produce before buying may serve their immediate need. The larger issue is toxic food stuff should not be produced or consumed within the country. Under the APMC Act the government buys all wheat and paddy brought to mandis by farmers. The procurement agencies sometimes lift grains of doubtful quality under political pressure. Whether water-deficient states like Punjab and Haryana should be producing rice for exports is debatable, but the matter of quality cannot be left to traders. The Punjab and Haryana governments should rope in experts from agricultural universities to spread awareness among farmers about the use of pesticides on crops in general and food crops in particular. The extension services of agricultural universities should be strengthened so that expert advice is available to farmers at their doorstep and the environment, water resources and soil health are not ruined by bad agricultural practices.

Punjab is not much known for exports but whatever little it does is not without problems. The debt crisis in the European Union and economic uncertainty in the US have slowed down exports from Punjab of hand tools, woollen products, sports goods, honey and rice. The rupee depreciation against the dollar has provided some relief, but for sustainable growth exporters must insist on world-class quality and meet deadlines. A rejection of an export consignment brings a bad name not only to them but also to their state and the country.

No charity, please!
Education is a social commitment

Education alone can liberate children of the poor from the crushing weight of poverty. But they do not get access to quality education. It’s a catch 22 situation. The dream associated with the ambitious RTE (Right to Education) Act — which attempted to bring in the poor to share the common dream of quality education for children that every Indian harbours — two years after its implementation still remains elusive for the poor. Even in a prosperous state like Haryana, the dropout rate has grown alarmingly after the implementation of the RTE Act, from 0.15 per cent in 2010 to 6.3 per cent in 2011.

The reasons are many. To begin with, instead of imposing the vague concept of education on the children of the poor to show improved statistics, work should first be done to improve their living conditions. For children who lose the earning members of their family, concerns of survival precede the concerns of education. This must be understood and provision should be made for offering some kind of financial help or paid work for the family so that the child can pursue education. This help should not be offered as a mockery, as is done presently by offering Rs 75 to Rs 100 per month under different government schemes. The real issue is the intent. If the government continues to treat education of the poor as an act of charity, it will fail to deliver the desired social change that good education alone can trigger and Haryana is in dire need of it.

Education should be treated as a social commitment and this commitment should get reflected at different layers of implementation. Children like Rohit, Mona and Sanjay should be helped using the existing provisions so that they don’t continue to pick rags or beg for the rest of their lives. Unfortunately, in two different news items that appeared on the pages of this newspaper, reports of contaminated mid-day meals served at Jhajjar and poor kitchen conditions in Sarangedev village in Punjab reflect how callously these schemes continue to be treated.

Thought for the Day

Love all, trust a few, do wrong to none. — William Shakespeare

ARTICLE

Discontent in armed forces
Pushing them too much not in national interest
by Air Marshal R. S. Bedi (retd)

A few decades ago a senior former bureaucrat wrote in his book that it was not possible for the armed forces to stage a coup in India. The argument was simply based on the fact that Indian society was a complex body comprising different castes, religions, languages and ethnicities. No General, however popular, could be sure of total loyalty and backing of so diverse a force as the Indian armed forces. He was perhaps right. Despite this, the fear in the corridors of power continued to persist, for many a fledgling democracy was falling prey to ambitions of men in uniform. There lay the genesis of the process of downsizing and subordinating the Indian armed forces.

At present, the state of affairs in the armed forces is somewhat disturbing. The cumulative effect of years of neglect of the forces has begun to manifest. Today’s soldier is educated, conscious of his status and standing. His aspirations are growing with the fast-changing environment around him. This, perhaps, is the main reason for repeated incidents of indiscipline in the Army. The men were never so verbose and openly daring as they are now in expressing their dissatisfaction. The palpable resentment of the mass of the forces against the government doesn’t augur well for the future.

Year after year, the armed forces have been given a raw deal. They are downgraded with regular periodicity and denuded of power due to them. Enough has been said about their dwindling status. Even the para-military forces seem to be overtaking them in many respects.

The bureaucracy has tightened its grip to the extent that orders from the highest in the government establishment are either diluted or not implemented in proper spirit. Realising deep discontent in the armed forces in regard to the Sixth Pay Commission award, the Prime Minister ordered a high-powered committee to look into the armed forces’ grievances. The bureaucracy got away with impunity without delivering. The problem continues to simmer. There is mounting discontentment over the government’s inability to set things right. The political leadership that should, in fact, be the epicentre of power is gradually becoming ineffective.

The retired community, less shackled with rules and regulations, is far more verbose and has even resorted to rallies and dharnas to express their dissatisfaction. They surrendered their hard-earned medals to their Commander-in-Chief to protest against the step-motherly treatment meted out to them. The President showed scant regard for this desperate act of the soldiers.

Surprisingly, even the para-military forces are better placed and better looked after by their Home Ministry than the armed forces by their Defence Ministry. In the case of the latter, the Services first struggle with their own ministry to get past it to secure government approval for anything that it needs. The reason not generally known for the para-military forces to be under the Home Ministry instead of the Defence Ministry in itself assures them somewhat better treatment. They don’t have to fight with their own ministry as do the armed forces.

The armed forces are not in any major decision-making loop, not even in regard to national security. This is when the country is on the verge of completing its nuclear triad and acquiring strategic weapons. Presently, no uniformed personnel serve in the Ministry of Defence despite the recommendations made by various committees in the past to make decision-making more informed and rational. Many a committee, including the one on Kargil, has made such recommendations but none has been implemented by the all-powerful bureaucracy. It’s a pity that despite the highly specialised staff available at the Services headquarters, the political establishment relies totally on the Ministry of Defence civil servants drawn from diverse backgrounds. Since the Services have a limited access to the political establishment, they are unable to make any worthwhile contribution to matters of national importance. The Chiefs can hardly meet the Prime Minister. Meeting the Defence Minister is not a routine affair either.

The plight of the soldier has not moved the conscience of the government. He is taken for granted and tasked to perform what his civilian compatriots prefer not to do or perhaps consider it too dangerous to stake their lives. He is killed almost every day which is just a matter of statistics for the government. Only his family sheds tears for they will have to struggle for the rest of their lives; first with the bureaucracy to get what is due to them and then try to subsist with growing responsibilities and scarce resources. His status and emoluments are perhaps among the lowest in the government hierarchy. Yet he does not come out in the streets to protest. But now the discontentment is no more confined to whispers. It is getting louder by the day. Questions are asked but unfortunately the answers are not forthcoming. How long will the mandarins in the North and South Blocks ignore the writing on the wall?

The military leadership has been sounding the government at various levels but to no avail. In a rare display of political magnanimity, the Defence Minister wrote to the Prime Minister a couple of months ago with an implicit warning in regard to the deteriorating state of affairs in the armed forces. The Prime Minister acted ‘promptly’ and asked the bureaucracy, the same people who are largely responsible for creating the mess, to look into it. The bureaucrats, as is their wont, refused to include representatives from the armed forces whose problems they are supposed to resolve. Obviously, one doesn’t expect much from them in the absence of their voice being heard directly. In the end, some cosmetic changes will be brought about, but the problem will linger on.

Today’s Indian Army is no more the same as it was a decade ago. To take them for granted without responding to their genuine needs would be a serious mistake. They are no more reticent and subdued. At least, three cases have been reported in the recent past of revolts against officers. It may be the tip of the iceberg. In any case, it is a reflection of deteriorating standards and morale of men in uniform. Whatever be the reasons for dissatisfaction — pay, pension, food, facilities or status — once the intensity of feelings reaches the critical stage, the consequences may be serious.

The naval mutiny in 1946 was led by signalman M.S. Khan and Telegraphist Madan Singh as a strike in protest against the general conditions of service, inadequate facilities and poor quality of food. The revolt spread fast throughout the British India from Karachi to Calcutta and ultimately came to involve nearly 20,000 sailors on 78 ships and 20 shore establishments. So was the 1857 mutiny inspired by an ordinary soldier called Pandey in Meerut that soon escalated into other mutinies and civilian rebellions?

The Indian Air Force too was gradually sucked in the naval strike. And so was the Indian Army. The NCOs defied the orders from their British superiors. In Madras and Poona, the British garrison faced a revolt in the ranks of Indian Army. In fact, widespread rioting took place from Calcutta to Karachi.

Even the British Air Force revolted against the conditions of service in January, 1946. The mutiny began in Karachi and spread to sixty RAF stations in India, Ceylon and Singapore. Lord Wavel, then Viceroy of India, stated that the action of the British airmen inspired both Indian Navy and Air Force mutinies. Revolts and rebellions are not necessarily led by the officer class; in fact, often by men whose only concern is their conditions of service and welfare.

Today the discontent is far more pronounced than ever before. Whether it is the lackadaisical attitude of the government or a wilful decision is hard to say. But it would be a gross mistake to ignore the writing on the wall and the lessons of history so soon.

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

MIDDLE

Relics of the past
by Rama Kashyap

Just about half a kilometre from my place stands a dilapidated building which till a decade ago was a grand, imposing structure. The happening place, which once upon a time was bustling with activity, now looks sleepy. I am not talking about any historical monument but the neighbourhood cinema hall which has lost its glory in these times of multiplexes.

There was a time when the neighbourhood theatre, like any other cinema hall, used to be a huge crowd-puller. I remember the time when people thronged the theatre on weekends and holidays. Fridays, when new movies are released, saw maddening crowd. With long queues at the ticket window, buying a ticket for a new movie was a Herculean task. Any time the “House Full” board could be put up and you were in for disappointment.

Tickets were sold out at the ticket counter but, of course, could be bought in black at a premium. In sync with the general economic scenario, there was a thriving black market for the tickets of the new movies. Times have changed now; getting tickets is no issue. There is no hustle and bustle, no crowd at the theatre. Even on holidays the cinema hall gives a deserted look.

Undoubtedly, multiplexes have sounded the death-knell of the old-style huge cinema halls which have now become the relics of the bygone days. But long before the cinema halls started losing their popularity to multiplexes, the crowd at the traditional theatres started thinning with the entry of VCRs in middle-class Indian homes. That was the time when video libraries sprang up all over the cities, doing brisk business of renting out video cassettes of movies, old and new. During that period video piracy was at its peak. The pirated copies of the movies hit the market even before the film was released. It became fashionable to watch movies in the comfort of home and, of course, at much lower a cost. No wonder, the crowd at cinema halls started dwindling.

Long after our children deserted the traditional cinema halls in favour of multiplexes, we continued to patronise our old neighbourhood cinema hall. Despite the rickety chairs and the shoddy upkeep, we would walk down to the theatre for our occasional movie outings. It must have been a couple of years ago when we last watched any movie in the neighbourhood cinema hall. Climbing umpteen stairs, huffing and puffing, we entered the balcony of the theatre. As we made ourselves comfortable on the seats of our choice, we got the impression that we were just two of us sitting in the entire hall. We felt as if the show was exclusively being held in our honour. Later we discovered that there were two lovey-dovey pairs watching the movie sitting in different corners of the hall. We felt we, a middle-aged couple, were deputed to keep an eye over the young couples and I must admit it was not a great feeling. That was the last time we went to the cinema hall. Now we too have embraced the mall-multiplex culture and we are ‘loving it’!

OPED WORLD

Soaring rhetoric that triggered more tweets per minute than any other political speech ever marked the US President Barack Obama’s re-election bid as he touched on many issues, largely domestic, but also foreign at the recent Democratic Convention.
‘It's a choice between two different paths for America’

First Lady Michelle Obama, US President Barack Obama and daughters Malia (R) and Sasha (2nd R) wave after Obama's nomination acceptance speech in Charlotte, North Carolina, on the final day of the Democratic National Convention on September 6. — AFP

US President Barack Obama accepted his renomination by the Democratic Party at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C., on September 6. The following are selected excerpts from his acceptance speech:

Madam Chairwoman, delegates, I accept your nomination for President of the United States. Now, the first time I addressed this convention, in 2004, I was a younger man — a Senate candidate from Illinois who spoke about hope, not blind optimism, not wishful thinking but hope in the face of difficulty, hope in the face of uncertainty, that dogged faith in the future which has pushed this nation forward even when the odds are great, even when the road is long.

Eight years later that hope has been tested by the cost of war, by one of the worst economic crises in history and by political gridlock that's left us wondering whether it's still even possible to tackle the challenges of our time. I know campaigns can seem small, even silly sometimes.

Clear choice

But when all is said and done, when you pick up that ballot to vote, you will face the clearest choice of any time in a generation. Over the next few years big decisions will be made in Washington on jobs, the economy, taxes and deficits, energy, education, war and peace — decisions that will have a huge impact on our lives and on our children's lives for decades to come.

And on every issue, the choice you face won't just be between two candidates or two parties. It will be a choice between two different paths for America, a choice between two fundamentally different visions for the future. Ours is a fight to restore the values that built the largest middle class and the strongest economy the world has ever known.

I've cut taxes for those who need it — middle-class families, small businesses. But I don't believe that another round of tax breaks for millionaires will bring good jobs to our shores, or pay down our deficit. I don't believe that firing teachers or kicking students off financial aid will grow the economy — or help us compete with the scientists and engineers coming out of China. After all we've been through, I don't believe that rolling back regulations on Wall Street will help the small-businesswoman expand, or the laid-off construction worker keep his home.

We have been there, we've tried that, and we're not going back. We are moving forward, America.

Now, I won't pretend the path I'm offering is quick or easy. I never have. You didn't elect me to tell you what you wanted to hear. You elected me to tell you the truth.

And the truth is, it will take more than a few years for us to solve challenges that have built up over decades. It'll require common effort, shared responsibility, and the kind of bold, persistent experimentation that Franklin Roosevelt pursued during the only crisis worse than this one.

Goals for the country

I'm asking you to rally around a set of goals for your country, goals in manufacturing, energy, education, national security and the deficit, real, achievable plans that will lead to new jobs, more opportunity and rebuild this economy on a stronger foundation. That's what we can do in the next four years, and that is why I am running for a second term as president of the United States.

You can choose the path where we control more of our own energy. Today the United States of America is less dependent on foreign oil than at any time in the last two decades. And yes, my plan will continue to reduce the carbon pollution that is heating our planet, because climate change is not a hoax. More droughts and floods and wildfires are not a joke. They are a threat to our children's future.

Gateway of education

Education was the gateway to opportunity for me. It was the gateway for Michelle. It was — it was the gateway for most of you. And now more than ever it is the gateway to a middle-class life.

A government has a role in this. But teachers must inspire. Principals must lead. Parents must instill a thirst for learning. And students, you've got to do the work. And together, I promise you we can outeducate (sic) and outcompete any nation on earth.

You know, in a world of new threats and new challenges, you can choose leadership that has been tested and proven. Four years ago I promised to end the war in Iraq. We did. I promised to refocus on the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11, and we have. We've blunted the Taliban's momentum in Afghanistan and in 2014, our longest war will be over. A new tower rises above the New York skyline, al- Qaida is on the path to defeat and Osama bin Laden is dead.

Around the world, we've strengthened old alliances and forged new coalitions to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. We've reasserted our power across the Pacific and stood up to China on behalf of our workers. From Burma to Libya to South Sudan, we have advanced the rights and dignity of all human beings — men and women; Christians and Muslims and Jews.

But for all the progress that we've made, challenges remain.

Inalienable rights

As Americans, we believe we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, rights that no man or government can take away. We insist on personal responsibility, and we celebrate individual initiative. We're not entitled to success. We have to earn it. We honour the strivers, the dreamers, the risk- takers, the entrepreneurs who have always been the driving force behind our free enterprise system, the greatest engine of growth and prosperity that the world's ever known.

But we also believe in something called citizenship — citizenship, a word at the very heart of our founding, a word at the very essence of our democracy, the idea that this country only works when we accept certain obligations to one another and to future generations.

We don't think the government can solve all of our problems, but we don't think the government is the source of all of our problems — any more than our welfare recipients or corporations or unions or immigrants or gays or any other group we're told to blame for our troubles — because — because America, we understand that this democracy is ours.

We, the people recognise that we have responsibilities as well as rights; that our destinies are bound together; that a freedom which asks only, what's in it for me, a freedom without a commitment to others, a freedom without love or charity or duty or patriotism, is unworthy of our founding ideals, and those who died in their defence.

As citizens, we understand that America is not about what can be done for us. It's about what can be done by us, together — through the hard and frustrating but necessary work of self-government. That's what we believe.

So you see, the election four years ago wasn't about me. It was about you. My fellow citizens — you were the change.

If you turn away now — if you turn away now, if you buy into the cynicism that the change we fought for isn't possible, well, change will not happen.

You know, I recognize that times have changed since I first spoke to this convention. Times have changed, and so have I. I'm no longer just a candidate. I'm the president.

Know what Lincoln meant

And while I'm proud of what we've achieved together — (cheers) — I'm far more mindful of my own failings, knowing exactly what Lincoln meant when he said, "I have been driven to my knees many times by the overwhelming conviction that I had no place else to go." for I have held in my arms the mothers and fathers of those who didn't return. I've shared the pain of families who've lost their homes, and the frustration of workers who've lost their jobs. If the critics are right that I've made all my decisions based on polls, then I must not be very good at reading them. And while I'm proud of what we've achieved together, I'm far more mindful of my own failings, knowing exactly what Lincoln meant when he said, "I have been driven to my knees many times by the overwhelming conviction that I had no place else to go."

But as I stand here tonight, I have never been more hopeful about America. Not because I think I have all the answers. Not because I'm naive about the magnitude of our challenges.

I'm hopeful because of you.

Not an easy journey

America, I never said this journey would be easy, and I won't promise that now. Yes, our path is harder, but it leads to a better place. Yes, our road is longer, but we travel it together.

We don't turn back. We leave no one behind. We pull each other up. We draw strength from our victories. And we learn from our mistakes. But we keep our eyes fixed on that distant horizon knowing that providence is with us and that we are surely blessed to be citizens of the greatest nation on earth.