|
|
|
|
|
Ouch! That
hurt Time for
diesel decontrol |
|
|
Religious
divide in Kashmir
What’s
up on WhatsApp?
Rebalancing
act for UK after Scotland votes The many
shades of Scottish independence
|
|
Time for diesel decontrol With
the decline in global oil prices and a monthly incremental rise in the domestic diesel prices, a stage has reached where diesel is no longer
subsidised. From continuous under-recoveries the country has moved to 35 paise-a-litre over-recovery from diesel and this may lead to a cut in the diesel prices. This has prompted RBI Governor Raghuram Rajan to suggest deregulation of diesel prices, which means these would no longer be fixed by the government but move in tandem with global fuel prices. This may seem acceptable now since oil prices have softened but if tomorrow prices move up, the cost of transportation throughout the economy would also go up. Lower oil prices have contributed to inflation touching a five-year low. Before the development could trigger celebrations, the RBI Governor dampened the spirits by ruling out rate cuts in the near future. Cheaper oil imports have also reduced the current account deficit. And monsoon worries too have eased. However, given the volatile situation in the Middle East, it would be politically risky to link the economy to global fuel prices in the absence of a price stabilisation fund the BJP had promised in its election manifesto. Experts are broadly in agreement with what Raghuram Rajan has suggested. But political parties often shy away from reforms due to vote-bank politics. The Modi government has not yet shown much enthusiasm for economic reforms and is happy to carry on the UPA's economic policies. With the assembly elections due in Haryana and Maharashtra next month, and then in Jharkhand and Jammu and Kashmir later in the year, the government may not have much time to take major policy decisions. The code of conduct may come in the way of a diesel deregulation decision, but if the political will is there it can be got cleared from the Election Commission. How serious the Modi government is on the issue remains to be seen. The electoral setback in the by-elections on Tuesday is likely to make it more populist and less reform-oriented.
|
|||||
|
If you cannot do great things, do small things in a great way.
|
|||||
Punjabi aid to the Belgian Relief Fund HIS Excellency the Governor of Bombay has illustrated in a most practical manner the truly catholic disposition of the people of Bombay by his offers of £2500 to the Belgian Relief Fund in appreciation of the heroic conduct of those sturdy and intrepid people who by their suffering are showing the world their title to nationhood. In the stirring and forceful words of Mr. Asquith the Belgians have by their stubborn resistance of gigantic and overwhelming force gained for themselves the immortal glory which belongs to a people who prefer freedom to ease and security. They have won the admiration of the civilized world and forced even Germany to admit the grave injustice done to them in violating the neutrality of their country. In view of the fact that a large part of the Indian Expeditionary Force consists of Punjabis, would it not be appropriate to send a part of the Provincial collections in aid of the Belgian Relief Fund to testify to the Punjabis’ appreciation of Belgian heroism? The university calendar THE sweeping and momentous change wrought in the Calendar of the Punjab University in 1911 (of holding examinations in May and June) was brought about in the teeth of public opposition and popular protest. The students of our colleges realised only too vividly what it would mean to them to work for their examinations in the height of summer, how with perspiring bodies and heated minds, they would have to pass their days and nights in a regular purgatory subject to all kinds of annoyance from men and insects. The parents too realized the awful scene well enough and joined the protest. But their entreaties and protests went unheeded.
|
Religious divide in Kashmir Some Pandits who have returned are unhappy. They find that the atmosphere of secularism, by and large, is a memory of the past. They have the feeling of being strangers at places where they and their forefathers lived happily. Religious bias has built walls between the communities. The Pandits had to leave their homes when militancy hit Kashmir in the mid-nineties. Though militancy has waned, the overall situation is
not congenial. True, most of the Pandits live in Jammu and the places around the city. But these are refugee camps, not homes. Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah has been vainly trying to sort out the matter which is essentially human. Home Minister Rajnath Singh, a BJP stalwart, has politicised the issue by asking Omar to give land to the Pandits. Who is Ranjath Singh to do so? He is not serving the cause of the Kashmiri Pandits who are not outsiders. They are part and parcel of Kashmiri culture. Their protest against the sufferings is understandable. But that does not mean that the Home Minister should play politics while taking up their cause. This is not a Hindu-Muslim question and should not be made into one. All political parties need to initiate steps which will enable the Pandits to go back. Most of their property is intact. The rest must be taken back from the people who have occupied it forcibly or
otherwise. I recall the Hurriyat leader, Syed Shah Gillani, vehemently denying that it was a Hindu-Muslim question. At that time the bug of fundamentalism had not bitten Gillani. He may not have changed his views. But he is conspicuous by his silence. He should have re-enunciated his earlier stance: the Pandits are part of Kashmiri culture and should not be mixed with the general Hindu-Muslims question. Gillani, in fact, told me that he had wrongly stated earlier that the Kashmiri Pandits' question would be settled with the overall Kashmir dispute. Rajnath Singh has unnecessarily given an opening to those who argue that Kashmir is an unfinished task of Partition. They want the state to be divided on religious grounds. Somewhere they will also try in Pakistan to re-emphasise their contention that the criterion of religion-on the basis of which India was divided-should be extended to Kashmir. Omar's response to allot the land to Pandits only gives a communal colouring to the problem. Some extremists have demanded a separate area and security for the Kashmiri Pandits. At present, 30,000 of them are reportedly in Kahsmir, while their total number is around four lakh. As long as Sheikh Abdullah was dominant in the affairs of Kashmir, he did not allow religion to play any role in politics. He would say that he opposed the state's integration with Pakistan because Jammu and Kashmir was a secular state. He did not want to join an Islamic country because he preferred pluralism to communalism. Even during the Independence struggle, the Sheikh sided with the Congress instead of the Muslim League, which demanded a separate homeland for the Muslims. He paid the price for being critical of New Delhi's policy of wanting a strong Centre. After being detained for 12 years at Kodaikanal in the South, he stayed with the then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru to register that Nehru had realised his mistake of misjudging the Sheikh when he demanded that the Centre should only administer three subjects-Foreign Affairs, Defence and Communications — as was offered at the time of Partition. The Sheikh’s famous statement was that the Kashmiris would not eat the Indian wheat if it meant their compromising their autonomous status within the Indian Union. The Sheikh's faith in secularism was deep, although he wondered whether India would stay pluralist in the long run. Chief Minister Omar Abdullah, too, is said to have the same apprehension. His perception is that Prime Minister Narendra Modi is anti-Muslim. It was, however, healthy to see Modi and Omar appearing at the same platform after the Prime Minister had made an aerial survey of the flood-ravaged state. Modi announced a special relief of Rs. 1,000 crore and said that it was a national disaster, thus transcending the special status under Article 370. This may erase the charge that he was anti-Muslim. (Kashmir's population is 80 per cent Muslim.) Modi's gesture to Pakistan to help the victims in occupied Kashmir is praise-worthy. This is a thaw of sorts in the frozen relationship between the two countries. Pakistan has also made a similar gesture. Both Prime Ministers must have realised that misery knows no religion or politics. Understandably, India does not want to talk to Pakistan because Islamabad is dragging its feet on the trial of the militants who attacked Mumbai in 2008. The trial is the litmus test of Pakistan's intention to punish the perpetrators who are now without any charge. Islamabad's plea is that New Delhi has not provided enough evidence to its courts to convict the guilty. Whether the Kashmiris realise it or not, they have lost the services of highly trained people. Pandits have gone to other parts of India and have found jobs because of their high qualifications. They are not likely to go back even if the state offers them equivalent jobs. In fact, Kashmir has lost the cream of youth which is technically well-equipped to help the state develop
economically. Yet Srinagar should make efforts to get the Pandits back because that will give them the secular image which they had enjoyed for decades. Lack of efforts on this front would only alienate the rest of the country where the Kashmiris are gainfully employed.
|
||||||||
What’s up on WhatsApp? My children crowed with delight when I first used the Google map on my phone. They pumped their fists in glee when I began to check the news and weather forecast on my phone. Their tech-debutante mum had finally ‘arrived’. My friends and colleagues congratulated me on my new 'avatar'. 'Oh but you are not on WhatsApp, they lamented. They looked at me as though I was an inferior being from an alien planet. My children remedied this oversight and set up my WhatsApp account. I was thrown willy-nilly into a global world of communication that frowned upon boundaries. Pictures, jokes, quotes, videos et al were being exchanged at zero cost. When I missed going to Benaras, my husband sent me videos of the “aarti” on the ghats of Benaras. When my son visited San Francisco, his pictures on WhatsApp transported me to the city of the ‘Golden Gate’. My jaded palate savoured the breath-taking panorama. My enthusiasm seemed to please my friends and colleagues who invited me to join a WhatsApp group which I promptly did. Every ping had me grabbing the phone in anticipation. The morning posts had a pious ambience with members vying to prove their spiritual credentials. As the day progressed, the posts would veer to comments on political shenanigans and debacles. The evening saw non-descript "shayari" alternating with video clips of classical greats. Good-natured bantering broke the academic tedium. Life had suddenly become interesting. But like all good things, this did not last. It all started with some off-color jokes followed by a slew of more explicit jokes. I wondered aloud at the change but was told in no uncertain terms to 'stop being such a prude’. Feeling sheepish, I withdrew. But the quiet indifference of the members seemed to have scratched the sleazy under-belly of the group. The videos turned risqué. Lewd videos would be followed by an apologetic 'oops wasn't meant for this group'. I was horrified. This was a pool of mature thought and intellect. But some members seemed to have taken on the role of 'roadside Romeos' with aplomb. By now I had come to the unhappy realisation that blatant sexting in social media was the norm. Was this the result of peer pressure or an unnatural predilection, I wondered. Was this translating into increased crime against women? No one knows and worse still, no one cares. We sermonise and pontificate but turn a blind eye to the malady that has beset social networks like WhatsApp. Perhaps we believe that bringing intimacy out of the closet is indicative
of progress.
|
||||||||
Rebalancing act for UK after Scotland votes
WE are living through an eccentric revolution. Normally constitutional change in the UK moves at a snail's pace. Think of the many arduous attempts to reform the House of Lords — the commissions, the reviews of the commissions and then the reviews of the reviews. Nothing happens. In contrast, Scotland has been offered new powers after just a few hours of frenzied negotiations. The rest of the UK will seek a rebalancing. It might not be content with the snail's pace. Yet if the cause of the swing towards Yes in Scotland was a hunger for more power, the contest would be over. After last week it has secured new powers. The No campaign would be surging ahead if that was key. Since Gordon Brown announced the powers and the timetable for implementation, the leaders of the No campaign have been a little calmer, but they are hardly striding confidently towards an easy win. That is because something else fuels the Yes vote — the decline of the two parties that have dominated UK politics and once battled it out in Scotland. A leading Labour figure from the No campaign tells me that one of the complaints that recurs repeatedly is that “they are all the same,” the Labour government being perceived as little different from the Conservative administrations before 1997 and since 2010. The Labour party in Scotland, once a mighty force, struggles to enthuse its natural supporters. Meanwhile, the Conservative party is as toxic as it was in the Thatcher era, for the good reason that it is still a Thatcherite party. In the vacuum erupts a great big dissenting force that goes well beyond the SNP. The Yes insurrectionaries should not be over-romanticised. It is easier and on the whole more fun to be disillusioned than to examine the details too closely. There were very big differences after 1997, not least in spending on the NHS. But it is easy to understand why, in the minds of some voters, the New Labour era appears to have been part of the same story as what went before. There was Tony Blair, the most silver-tongued leader since 1945, exhausting his mesmerising powers of advocacy to put the case for an alliance with a Republican president, and on the domestic front for “reform” of public services — changes that David Cameron fully supported. As a Chancellor and Prime Minister Gordon Brown acquired a muffled public voice as he sought to appear as the apolitical father of the nation. His authentic voice — that powerful, restless advocate of social democracy — is a pivotal feature of the referendum campaign, but was rarely heard before. In the referendum campaign Blair is all but silent while Brown speaks with a passion. He is no longer troubled by fears that middle England might disapprove. A senior Labour figure from England tells me that the decline of the Scottish Labour party was a two-way process. Some voters in Scotland might have disapproved of what was happening at Westminster, but senior party leaders from Westminster were told by their Scottish counterparts to keep away from the Scottish Labour party. Senior figures in England lost interest because they were discouraged to show concern. The decline intensified. So when Labour in Scotland tries to pull levers, it's not surprising that the voters at the other end are not as responsive as they used to be. The Conservatives, meanwhile, have no levers to pull. have a lot of sympathy for those Conservative MPs protesting that a constitutional revolution has been unleashed without a single debate in what is still the UK's elected chamber. Ed Miliband argues that part of the rebalancing must be more power for local government in England. But if the powers for Scotland are as sweeping as the Westminster party leaders suggest that will be nowhere near enough as an act of rebalancing. The old unanswerable West Lothian question might be close to being answered. In essence the question related to why Scottish MPs voted on legislation that impacted only on England while English MPs had no such powers over Scottish matters. The answer could well be that Scottish MPs will be deprived of legislative powers over England. Rather like offering referendums, proposing to give power away is relatively easy and popular. Holding the referendums can be a nightmare and so can working through the consequences of devolving powers once the easy offer has been made. The irony is that ideologically Miliband is not remotely close to Cameron. There is no way that voters can conclude that they are “all the bloody same”. Miliband has to play down some of the ideological differences to keep his uneasy party united and to get the tiniest hearing in sections of the media. But even so no one, even in disillusioned Scotland, will be able to conclude that there is no choice at next year's election. There is another irony. If Miliband were to win, he risks being in a position where he seeks to make radical change and finds he has given away the powers to do so. In which case voters will conclude again that they are “all the bloody same”. If there is a Yes vote on Thursday we are in those much-referenced uncharted waters. If No wins, stormy waters will need to be navigated with considerable care if any national UK leader wants to be in a position to wield significant power again. — The Independent
|
||||||||
|
The many shades of Scottish independence THE future of Scotland will be decided by the Scots. Or will it? Under the terms of the Edinburgh agreement, which set out the rules of tomorrow’s referendum, eligibility to take part in this week's vote is broadly similar to those governing normal Scottish parliamentary or council elections. With the notable addition of 16- and 17-year-old voters, qualifying British, EU and Commonwealth citizens resident in Scotland as well as members of the armed forces serving overseas are all entitled to take part alongside born and bred Scots. The 2011 Census put the Scottish population at a record 5.3 million — surpassing its previous 1974 peak. From that an unprecedented 4.3 million people have registered to vote. Much of the past decade's population growth has been down to the arrival of so-called New Scots exceeding the number of nationals leaving the country. Recent years have seen arrivals switch from traditional countries such as India and Pakistan to include workers from Eastern Europe, particularly Poland. It is now estimated that 7 per cent of the Scottish population was born outside the UK, less than half the figure for the rest of Britain as a whole. Yet by far the largest non-Scottish ethnic group residing across the Tweed is the 4,22,000 English-born individuals accounting for nearly 9 per cent of the Scots population. They outnumber all other nationalities combined, including the 35,000 expatriate Northern Irish and 16,000 Welsh. Yet this is just half the figure of 7,50,000 Scots, more than the combined population of Edinburgh and Glasgow, who have crossed the border in the opposite direction and, unlike their fellow Britons living in Scotland, are excluded from the ballot. The English will form a formidable constituency with up to seven out of 10 English expected to vote No on Thursday. But if the choice comes down to one of national identity, they could find themselves severely outnumbered. Asking the question for the first time, the 2011 Census found six out of 10 Scots said they were Scots alone while less than one in five described themselves as Scots and British. Just 8.4 per cent considered themselves purely British. Meanwhile, when Scotland organised its giant Homecoming celebrations in 2009 it was estimated that 40 million people around the world claimed to have Scottish ancestry — none of whom will have a say tomorrow. — The Independent
|
|
| 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 | |
K
I
