The Tribune, Chandigarh, India

Finally, new anti-rape law
A lot more needed for women’s safety

Finally, the debate over the anti-rape Bill that got entangled into a dozen other non-issues is over. When it comes for approval to the all-party meeting on Monday, it should be kept in mind that what led to the need for a fresh anti-rape law was an unprecedented spurt in the cases of violence against women at all fronts. Therefore, the amended law that makes stalking and disrobing non- bailable offence and also includes penetration other than peno-vaginal as rape for the first time is welcome. It will offer better legal protection to women against sexual violence but the focus should not deviate from ensuring their empowerment so that they come out of the bracket of being perceived as vulnerable and weak.

Several studies have referred to astounding facts that reinforce the need for women’s empowerment schemes. A study suggests that only 21 per cent of women have bank accounts in their name, shared or single holding, and only 12 per cent of the total deposits in the Indian banking system are made by women. An ASSOCHAM study suggests that 70 per cent of women are not aware of their rights as laid out in the Constitution. This, in many ways, explains why women still remain at the receiving end of all kinds of injustices. Unless these systemic flaws are corrected, the amended laws will not make much difference because the implementers of these laws will continue to treat women with the patriarchal mindset.

Their social empowerment is important because on the one hand the government amends laws to offer legal protection to women, on the other, it allows a political system to flourish where a horrifyingly high percentage of political representatives come with a criminal record. With as high as 31 per cent representatives who still have criminal cases pending against them and are bestowed with the power to legislate, women’s growth programmes require special impetus. Women need safeguards at multiple levels to protect their growing relevance in society.

Trimming the flab
Big Fat Punjabi Wedding Makeover

IT was only a matter of time before it happened. The Big Fat Punjabi Wedding is under threat. No, not from the long-suffering parents who foot the bill, neither from their relatives who come in for the pleasure of sharing the joy, and finding enough issues with the arrangements to continue criticising them till the next wedding they attend, but from the honourable representatives of the people. Yes, Punjab legislators have taken time out from performing their onerous duties that include storming the well of the House and generally creating a ruckus and focused on the serious matter of overspending on marriages. So much so that they have made public announcements of their intent of not spending exorbitant sums of money for their children’s weddings and other related ceremonies.

There is no doubt that a Big Fat Punjabi Wedding feels incongruent when not only the bride but many of her relatives, friends and others who want to be noticed have often explored various crash and fad diets in order to look size zero, clad in gorgeous Swarovski crystal-encrusted lehngas and other designer outfits. On the other hand, along with this is the trend for helicopter rides, one crore tents and multi-cuisine feasts. Punjabi weddings were not that way, the purist will rue, but then it could well be argued that Punjabis have fallen in love with the myth of the Big Fat Wedding. Then so have Indians on the whole, as have people in many other parts of the world, as the film “My Big Fat Greek Wedding” showed us.

On a serious note, the legislators’ concerns are genuine. They are brave. They are also swimming against the tide. However, they have brought up a serious social issue. Conspicious consumption is often at its worst during weddings. One-upmanship ensures that the stakes rise ever-higher. The Punjabi version of “The Father of the Bride” is one in which going into debt is very much a part of the post-celebration scenario. Various measures taken by governments at different times have all failed because fundamentally the issue is social; it needs to be addressed socially. Mere lip service will not be enough to trim the Big Fat Punjabi Wedding.

Thought for the Day

Patience is bitter, but its fruit is sweet.

— Jean-Jacques Rousseau

ARTICLE

Gas pipeline becoming a reality
Iran and Pakistan outmanoeuvre US
by S. K. Sharma

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his Pakistani counterpart Asif Ali Zardari have virtually mocked at the US-led sanctions against Iran at the ground-breaking ceremony, which marked the start of the construction of the Pakistan portion of the Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline. The present phase of the project involves the laying of a 780-km section of the pipeline on the Pakistani side at an expected cost of $ 1.5 billion. Around 1100 km of the pipeline in Iran between Bandar Abbas and Iranshehar has already been completed by Iran. The pipeline will terminate at Multan in Pakistan after traversing through volatile Balochistan province. The pipeline will export 8.7 billion cubic metre of natural gas to Pakistan, which will be sufficient to generate 5000 MW of power.

This pipeline was conceptualised in 1950. However, serious discussions between the governments of Iran and Pakistan started only in 1994 and a preliminary agreement was signed in 1995. India also joined the project in February 1999, resulting in the increase of the pipeline distance to 2760 km. India withdrew from the project over pricing and security issues in 2009. Iran and Pakistan signed an agreement on the pipeline on March 16, 2010, in Ankara. According to the agreement, each country must complete its section of the pipeline by 2014.

Reluctance of India to join this project in spite of perpetual shortfall in the availability of natural gas in the country was influenced by a number of factors. Most important was the security of gas supply due the volatile situation in the Balochistan area and the threat from Jihadi terrorists to harm India's economic interest. Take and pay clause would have made India pay for the gas whether it received it or not due to these disruptions. The stoppage of the supply would have made a profound adverse economic impact on the downstream users. The high price of gas demanded by Iran was another major impediment for India in joining this project.

Iran had demanded a price which was more than double the prevailing market price in India. However, in its desperation to sell gas in the face of US sanctions, Iran has agreed to sell the gas now at $ 4.93 per million Btu to Pakistan after India has withdrawn from the project. Even this price, with an additional transit cost and hefty pipeline security charges being demanded by Pakistan, would have increased the price of gas to a high level of $ 8-10 per MM Btu to India. It has been estimated that gas-based power plants in India become economically viable only if the landed cost of gas remains below $ 7 per million Btu.

In 2005, due to its insistence for a higher price of gas, Iran scrapped an already signed deal of $ 22 billion between Iranian gas Export Corporation and Indian companies, GAIL and IOC, to sell 5 million tonnes per annum of LNG to India at $ 3.215 per million Btu. It cited the lack of approval by the higher authorities as the reason. India was apprehensive that Iran may not play the same game at a later stage.

Another factor which has come into play against India joining the pipeline project is the tremendous reduction in the cost of production, shipping and regassification of liquified natural gas (LNG). As a result, the transportation cost of gas through the pipeline and as LNG has become comparable within a distance range of 2000-3000 km, which corresponds to the Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline length. Keeping in view the economic, geopolitical and security issues into consideration, the Indian establishment feels that LNG is a better option than the pipeline for gas transportation. A large number of LNG terminals have been already established and more are in the pipeline. These were the main reasons for India to opt out of this project, instead of the nuclear deal bogey being raised by the distractors.

The South Par gasfield from where the pipeline is originating is one of the largest gas fields in the world and is spread over 9700 square kilometres. Out of this, 3700 sq km falls in Iran and 6000 sq km falls under the jurisdiction of Qatar. While Qatar is producing more than 230 billion cubic metres of gas per year, Iran is producing only 110 billion cubic metres per year. One of the main reasons for the low production of gas by Iran is its inability to sell the gas due to US sanctions.

The US, under the 1996 Iran-Libya Sanction Act, has barred any entity to engage in oil and gas trade and develop infrastructure beyond $ 20 million in any 20 months with Iran. As a result of these sanctions, the Indian consortium of ONGC Videsh, Oil India and the Indian Oil Corporation has not been able to pump $ 5 billion required to develop the Farsi Offshore block having an estimated reserves of 21 trillion cubic feet, which is twice the size of India's biggest gasfield.

Iran has hailed the Iran-Pakistan pipeline project as a step to promote peace, security and progress of both countries and a show of resistance against the domination of US-led western bloc. The US sanctions have crippled the economy of Iran as gas and oil exports are the major source of income for Iran. There is an added fear of horizontal drilling by Qatar for siphoning off gas from the Iran portion of the gasfields. Keeping this factor in view, Iran was desperate to make this pipeline. As a result, it reduced the price of gas to be sold to Pakistan and further agreed to partly fund the cost of the pipeline in Pakistan.

Pakistan has become the biggest beneficiary of this pipeline. It has made full use of the desperation of Iran by asking it to fund the Pakistan portion of the pipeline to the tune of $ 500 million. It had saved its construction companies from US sanctions, by asking Iran to build the pipeline in its territory. Iran has further sweetened the deal by committing to supply 80,000 barrels of oil to Pakistan. If India joins the pipeline project at a later date when geopolitical and economic conditions get resolved, Pakistan will earn an additional $ 500 million per year as transit fee. The US also provided assistance worth $ 125 million for upgradation and repair of power houses and transmission lines along with providing 11000 irrigation pumps so as to dissuade Pakistan from going ahead with the pipeline. Thus, with this deal, Pakistan has proved that it can have its cake and eat it too.

However, there is a flip side for Pakistan also. If the pipeline is not completed on the Pakistan side by the end of 2014, it will have to pay a daily penalty of $ 1 million to Iran until its completion. Also, from the end of 2014, Pakistan would be obliged to pay Iran for gas under a “take or pay” contract linked to the pipeline project, regardless of whether it actually receives any gas or not. The US has warned Pakistan about sanctions. Owing to this, shares at the Karachi Stock Exchange slumped by almost 2.5 per cent on fears of possible US sanctions over the deal.

Some analysts feel that signing the pipeline deal just less than a week before his government's tenure was due to end is a political gimmick of Zardari, to garner votes for his Pakistan People’s Party in the coming general election by opposing the US. With this project, Pakistan has showed its immaculate skill of out-manoeuvring the US once again. The Indian establishment can take a few lessons from Pakistan in coercive diplomacy.

The writer is Professor Emeritus, Panjab University, Chandigarh.

MIDDLE

Hand that cures need not be a Dr
by Sanjeev Singh Bariana

Recently an elderly uncle of mine came after my aunty had been referred to the PGI by the doctor at our village dispensary in Hoshiarpur district.

Miffed by long queues at the premier hospital in the region, first, he pulled me up for not having enough "jaan pashaan" (contacts) to walk straight into the room of a doctor like he could, "anywhere", back home. Later, he rubbished the long list of tests for blood and urine recommended by the urologist. "For decades now, doctors have only felt our pulse and cured us", he scoffed. He went back and I am not sure what he did as as a follow-up measure. My aunty appeared to be in good health when I went to the village, recently.

I had gone in connection with a wedding in our family. One night, my son started vomiting. My uncle, who lives right across the street, got his Maruti and drove us to the nearby town. He knocked at a door where a signboard read, "Dr Abhinav Grover".

Dr Grover gave a certain medicine and put him on the drip. My son slept for about an hour before he got up fit.

Driving back, my uncle said, "During the days of terrorism, a large number of Hindus had left the town. Catching on from whatever he imbibed from his father’s younger brother who was a compounder at the government hospital, he started recommending medicines to the poor who continued visiting his home. He had a good hand, they said and his practice clicked”. Laughing at my narrowed eyes, he said, “The suffix ‘Dr’ with his name on the signboard was not wrong. He is a doctor. He is a PhD in political science”.

“How is that possible? This is playing with human lives”, I reacted.

“Don't jump with excitement. The entire neighbourhood did not have a single doctor during those dark days. I told you he has a very good hand. It works like magic.”

“And, just for your knowledge, the entire neighbourhood knows about a doctor in our district headquarters who never studied medicine. He bequeathed the medical legacy from his father, who was the only doctor in the area at one point of time”, he smiled.

Attending a marriage, next day, I nodded at a group of youngsters sitting right across the table. "Sat Sri Akal', a youngster said pulling his chair, “I am Gurmukh Singh. I am the son of your Tirlochan ‘Taya’from Bada Pind. I am a veterinary doctor.”

“Animal care doesn’t give very great financial returns,” I said.

An unfazed veterinary doctor replied instantly and very confidently, “I am not just running my kitchen royally, I have also purchased new land too. Besides the cows and buffaloes, I also see the accompanying human beings. God made them similar. They have similar problems and, trust me, medicines too are similar. Believe me, I have also successfully tried the same ones sometimes.”

“Whose medicine did you try on whom?” my uncle quipped to which the animal-human specialist only gave a naughty smile.

OPED — DOCUMENT

Issue of sensitivity & responsibility
In every nation state the majority-minority syndrome is one of the great political paradoxes of our time since it is in the very foundations of a democratic government that the rights of minorities are most often jeopardised.
Fali S. Nariman

Every religion must go back to its original teachings and make itself more relevant today — Thai activist Sulak Sivaraksa

IN a modern democracy (and no civilised country professes that it is not) everything is determined by counting heads — euphemistically described as "the will of the people" — necessarily the majority of the people. But even though democracy be the rule of the majority, it is important to know that the protection of minorities is not a matter of compassion.

Indian-ness of minorities

Jawaharlal Nehru was the first to emphasise the overriding characteristic of Indian-ness of the minorities. He had written that "Moslems, Christians, Jews and Parsees, who professed a religion of non-Indian origin, coming to India, settled down here and became distinctively Indian in the course of a few generations. Indian converts to some of these religions never ceased to be Indians on account of a change of their faith. They were henceforth looked upon in other countries as Indians and foreigners, even though there might have been a community of faith between them.

This eloquent passage from the "Discovery of India" (1946) describes our true heritage. It inspired us in our college days. It needs to be translated into all Indian languages and more widely disseminated, especially in our educational institutions to inspire the students of today, because it represents India's great cultural tradition.

We all know as to how the word 'propagate' (in the expression "right to freely ... propagate religion") was deliberately introduced in draft Article 19 during the debates in the Constituent Assembly, and was after much discussion adopted. This is now Article 25 of India's Constitution.

But what had been deliberately inserted by the Constituent Assembly was virtually deleted by a judicial diktat of India's Supreme Court in the case of Father Stanislaus decided in the year 1977 - since when the fundamental right to propagate one's religion has been virtually taken away. But like it or not (I certainly do not like it), Father Stanislaus has stood the test of time, and we have lived with it for 35 years without too much inconvenience. No State can presume to confer the right to adopt or change one's religion and no civilised State can take it away.

But all this and more, the minorities in India, including the thrice-born Indian Christians, know and can live with, but what minorities in India simply cannot accept is intolerance and violence directed towards them.

A classic instance of the sense of responsibility of minority communities in India's constitutional history is the following: When the British announced their determination to withdraw from India and political arrangements had to be put in place for filling the void, the Advisory Committee on Minorities in August 1947 recommended separate electorates (i.e. reservation of seats for minority groups on the basis of population: in order to safeguard minority rights). But two years later in May 1949 this decision was reversed with almost rare unanimity amongst all religious groups.

Reservation of seats

Reservation of seats for religious communities, it was felt, led to a certain type of separatism and was contrary to the conception of a secular democratic State. Senior members of the Advisory Committee gave notice of resolutions seeking to recommend to the Constituent Assembly that there should be no reservation of seats in any legislature for any religious community in India.

And this resolution was supported by Father Rev. Jerome D'Souza, the most eloquent member of the Christian community in the Constituent Assembly. He boldly said that in opting for giving up reservation of seats for minorities in legislatures it was not the minorities who were taking a risk. It was the national leaders and the majority community that were undertaking a grave responsibility. He deftly expressed the idea of minorities voluntarily joining the mainstream of Indian politics (with no separate representation) only because of the assurance of the majority that they will be fairly treated.

Protection of courts

Despite the declaration of constitutional rights, minorities (cultural, religious or linguistic) cannot find adequate protection in the normal political process; they need the protection of courts. The Supreme Court of India when dealing with minority rights had for long tended to conceptualise its role to that of a political party in opposition - but only during the first 25 years —not for long thereafter.

Chief Justice S. R. Das - one of the most distinguished members of the majority community of the time - speaking for six other Justices on the Bench in the Kerala Education Bill case had in 1958 said: "So long as the Constitution stands, as it is and is not altered, it is we conceive the duty of this court to uphold the fundamental rights and thereby honour our sacred obligation to the minority communities who are of our own."

It is in this celebrated judgment that the fundamental right of minorities to establish and administer primary and secondary schools of their choice became a reality.

A few years later when it was represented that Chief Justice S. R. Das had gone too far, the Supreme Court constituted a Bench of nine Judges in the St.Xavier's College Ahmedabad case to reconsider the earlier decision. But this larger Bench of nine Judges only re-affirmed that decision and held that even secular education in colleges up to graduation was encompassed within the provisions of Article 30. The minorities now felt doubly assured - educational rights were safeguarded. But not for long.

Educational rights

I regret to say that this was because the minorities stretched Article 30 to almost breaking point when they contended years later that Article 30 gave them an uncontrolled and unregulated right to establish post-graduate and super-specialty courses in medicine, engineering and the like, even for state-aided minority institutions. This is when the minorities lost the sympathy of Judges of the Supreme Court.

And with this contention, the true content and ambit of minority rights (even for state-aided MEIs) under Article 30 got diluted.

In the now infamous - much larger-bench decision of 11 Justices in TMA Pai Foundation (2002) the judges approximated (in my view wrongly) the Fundamental Right of minority educational institutions guaranteed under Article 30 to the Fundamental Right of all citizens under Article 19(1)(g) to establish and maintain educational institutions as a business or 'occupation': the latter as you know is always subject to laws made by Parliament and State legislatures imposing reasonable restrictions: this is how the provisions of Article 30 got diluted assimilating to a 19(1)(g) right.

During and after the decision in the TMA Pai Foundation case the ethos and attitude of many of the Justices of our highest Court has under gone a sea-change. Which is why I welcome the setting up of the National Commission for Minorities (and of State Commissions) by statute. The minorities now badly need these Commissions as we minorities are no longer protected as we once were by the Justices of the highest court.

How then should minorities act in a secular India? Let me begin with an example. At the start of this new century, in the year 2000 a prominent Thai activist was on his way to the Millennium World Peace Summit in New York. His name is Sulak Sivaraksa. He had been persecuted by many dictatorial regimes in Thailand and had been forced into exile. He was asked by the press at a stop-over in New Delhi whether he felt that the major world religions needed to reinvent themselves in order to be more effective in "these troubled times"? And Sulak Sivaraksa answered:

"Yes - certainly. Every religion must go back to its original teachings and make itself more relevant today. For instance, I belong to a school of 'socially engaged Buddhism' as preached by a Vietnamese monk - it preaches that if you are not engaged in society you are not practising Buddhism but escapism."

He was then asked why there were great disparities in the way Buddhism was being practised? And his answer was significant, and for us in India, crucial. He said: "I make a distinction between Buddhism with a Capital 'B' and buddhism with a small 'b'. Sri Lanka has the former, in which the state uses Buddhism as an instrument of power, so there are even Buddhist monks who say the Tamils should be eliminated. Thai Buddhists are not perfect either. I am for buddhism with a small 'b' which is non-violent, practical and aims to eliminate the cause of suffering..."

The middle path

When we discuss the political scenario today, we must never forget its historical context: Minority with a small m should be the watch word. Minority with a small m helps to carry the majority with it.

There are usually two extreme views about minorities - on the one hand is the view that everything done by minorities is preferable since they are always right, and on the other hand the view that if we reject the majority principle there would be anarchy. But there is a middle path.

I first heard this middle-way expressed at a conference in New Zealand way back in the year 1984 by its one-man Human Right Commission. In his opening address the sole member of that commission, Justice John Wallace, said: "The minority view is generally right provided the minority can carry the majority with it." This was not human rights rhetoric but a statesman-like assertion of wisdom and experience.

Excerpted from the inaugural speech delivered by the eminent jurist at a seminar on the theme of “Sensitivity of the Majority, Responsibility of Minorities in Secular India” organised by the National Commission for Minorities in New Delhi on March 13, 2013