Daily Excelsior... Editorial

EDITORIAL

Healthcare: Action
at Grassroots

By Suraj Saraf
You cannot have health for all, if you do not have health from all," emphasis Dr. Halfden Mahler, former Director ....more

The Century Extraordinary!......
Yours Randomly,

By Dr R L Bhat
No, the 20th century didn't end with the year 1999 but ends now as the year 2000 comes to a close. Yet so strong is ..more

Civil society
combats child labour

By J Niti
The campaign against child labour has burgeoned into a national movement in India as civil society has joined the frontlines with the government, ...more

Is Osama bin Laden intractable?

K.N. Pandita
On December 19, 2000, the Security Council passed a resolution jointly introduced by the US and Russia. It demanded imposition of more sanctions .......more

EDITORIAL

RESTRAIN MILITANTS

Home Minister L K Advani makes it amply clear that Pakistan shall have to restrain militant outfits let loose on the country before any bilateral dialogue can be initiated. Immediate provocation for talking tough is the statement of Pak dictator Gen Musharaff that he has no control over jehadi Tanzeems. He can order his troops to restrain but not so with mercenary outfits. Only a few months back General Musharraf had differentiated between terrorist and jehadi and that too for appeasing American public opinion. He is on record of having stated that Pakistan could go to any extent to rein in terrorists that threaten 'American interests' and that jehadis are not terrorists. They are fighting for an Islamic cause to liberate suppressed Muslims in J&K and elsewhere. He also mentioned that Pak moral support would be readily forthcoming for such of the jehadis. Once you support a cause and allow its breeding on Pak soil, the nation cannot disown the responsibility of not exercising control over them. It is layman's knowledge that such of the outfits namely Lashkar-e-Toiba, Jaish-e-Mohammad, Harkat-ul-Mujahideen, Al Badr etc derive their motivation and material support from ISI of Pakistan. Inter Services Intelligence in turn is part and parcel of Pakistan Army. Invariably some or the other Pak serving General heads this organisation. ISI's total budget exceeds that of Pak central budget. Most of its accruals are from narco-dollars. In fact, Pak army is narco-army. That explains why Pak Army calls the shots and don't allow any democratic government to function or last except on its own terms. This in a nutshell means all ISI activities of Pakistan including spreading global terrorism, J&K in particular, are virtually at zero cost to Pak exchequer. Whatever deficit encountered by it is made good through export of fake currency.

From the above it is evident that General Musharraf is engaged in self-deceit. Something that is substantiated even in USA and Great Britain is sought to be denied by him. In fact, these countries have asked Musharraf to stop activities of such outfits like Lashkar-e-Toiba from Pak soil because they threatened global peace. To say that he has no control over them means he has no control over Army even because ISI is an army wing and these terrorist outfits are sustained by ISI. The chain is complete and Musharraf have to rein such dreaded outfits for any meaningful dialogue. No civilised or responsible nation can disown activities and the activists in one's country. His stance inter-alia means Pakistan is not interested in meaningful dialogue to resolve various contentious issues in true spirit of Lahore Declaration. Even so-called withdrawal of Pak troops from LoC is not confirmed and India has done well to reiterate that there is no question such withdrawal or even scaling down on the Indian side. If Pakistan was interested in peace and good neighbourly relations, it should have withdrawn mercenaries from J&K and other places in India. Since it disowns them, India is well within her rights to take drastic steps to neutralise such of the terrorists being sustained by Pakistan. Instead of supplementing Indian effort of ceasefire, these mercenaries are under orders to accelerate their nasty acts. In fact, blood-spillage has increased ever since unilateral ceasefire. This is indeed meant to sabotage the vital initiative taken by India in ordering unilateral ceasefire. Lahore Declaration was sabotaged by the same General by sending his troops to occupy Kargil heights. This time round sabotage manifests abundantly when General Musharraf disowns them totally which inter-alia means Pak support to them continues unabated.

It thus follows that both Home Minister and Prime Minister say that they will wait until January 26. Unless the ground situation cools down and there is proper atmosphere and reflection of uninhibited sincerity on the part of Pakistan, it cannot expect India to remain mute spectator. At this stage some line has to be drawn with local political/militant leaders as they are sons of the soil. That explains why Hurriyat delegation is being permitted to visit Pakistan so that it can pursuade Pak military rulers and the terrorist outfits to leave the Kashmiris alone. If, on the other hand, Hurriyat leadership parrots Pak themes rather than address to the concerns of the people of Jammu & Kashmir, policies can indeed be re-arranged. In fact, enough room has been left when Advani says that Hurriyat is not the only representative body and that before any dialogue there would be wide interaction with all others who matter in the State.

All said and done, India should be very watchful on the activities of ISI agents and go all out to pre-empt their nefarious designs all over the country. Their modules have to be destroyed fast enough to put them on the run. By any yardstick, enough of evidence is now available that foreign subversives have spread their tentacles far and wide in the country. Only one gang of six is neutralised and that too partially. There could be hundreds of such modules already active in the country. Although law and order is a State subject but IB and RAW must become more active so that even 'sympathetic and soft States or their rulers' are compelled to become hard to take on the hard-nuts like Karnataka and Tamil Nadu have been forced to neutralise Veerappan. Simultaneously, Pak agents provocateurs and mercenaries must be denied easy access to India so that internal security environs show some marked improvement in the shortest possible time.

INDO-NEPAL RELATIONS

It has happened so suddenly. Relationship and mutual confidence built up so assiduously stands shattered overnight. And all this because some adverse remark about Nepal and Nepalese are attributed to cine heart-throb Hrithik Roshan. He has since denied having said anything derogatory that hurts Nepalese sentiments. But mob violence let loose by leftist students and sympathetic to Maoist type of insurgency has left many questions that need to be elucidated with correct answers. First, Hrithik is not Indian Government or a politician. He is only an actor, a successful actor for that matter. Second, he denies having stated anything bad about Nepal or Nepalese. Third, agitation picked up so fast that it affected even the unity of the ruling Nepalese Congress. Dissidents have been quick to exploit mass upsurge manifested on the streets by those who hate Indo-Nepal friendship. These forces can be easily identified. Maoists insurgents that have been active in Nepal do not like India nor its friendship. They would instead prefer Nepal to remain under the hegemony of China. Landlocked Nepal is unlucky as it can ill afford bad relations either with India or with China. Nepal Congress Government in fact has been following this line. The second enemy is the ISI which has been allowed to establish its bases in Nepal for exporting terrorism to India. Hrithik remarks have come in handy to whip up mass hysteria. Hand of ISI is visible in as much as it intends killing two birds with a single stone. First bird is growing Indo-Nepalese friendship. The second bird is Hrithik himself in as much as it has incurred massive wrath of Dawood Ibrahim and Chhota Shakeel. Both are incidentally ISI masterminds. Hrithik has consistently refused to act in films financed by these underworld dons. It is this refusal that resulted in attempt on the life of Rakesh Roshan. They want to send a message across the board to bollywood that it has to remain compliant to the underworld dons. Otherwise, they could annihilate anyone anywhere if not physically, at least mentally and financially. The link is complete. Nothing else can explain building up mass hysteria over the remarks of an actor which he did not make. Prime Minister has done the right thing to talk to Nepalese Prime Minister and asking him to control the anti-India tirades. Nepal will be well advised to stop all facilities to ISI as the same are bound to recoil on Nepal much more than on India.

Healthcare: Action at Grassroots

By Suraj Saraf

You cannot have health for all, if you do not have health from all," emphasis Dr. Halfden Mahler, former Director General WHO (1973-1988) and drafter of "Health for All by 2,000" resolution at World Health Assembly, 1977.

Dr. Mahler, who was in India last year to participate in a 'Small Family by Choice' programme in Bhopal, had added that health structure in many countries was in crisis not just because of monetary shortage but more due to lack of people's involvement and Government's interest.

Despite half a century of efforts to improve healthcare in the country, India is still confronted with enormous health problems. Twenty years after India joined 134 countries to discuss world health at Alma Ata (of which Dr. Mahler was one of the architect) where it was affirmed that the road for 'health for All' lay through the primary healthcare approach, healthcare remained a far cry for majority of its people.

In rural India, where as overwhelming 85 per cent of its population lives, it is barely 12 per cent who received medical help. How to tackle the situation is the crucial problem.

There is no gainsaying the fact that Panchayats could play pivotal role in ensuring delivery of health facilities to the teeming villagers. In accordance with the Constitution, powers and responsibilities in the health and family welfare sector should be given to Panchayats along with the financial resources which should be increased to run to optimum level the primary healthcare centres and sub-centres.

Sometime back while inaugurating the 16th meeting of the Health Ministers of South-East Asia region in new Delhi, Vice-President Krishan Kant had said that competing demands on resources in developing countries have more than ever before, reinforces the need to look for new innovative solutions to the emerging challenges that confront the health sector.

While underscoring the need for people's participation in the healthcare delivery system, vice-President had commanded the example of Kerala where primary health centres are being run by panchayats. "Entrusting the responsibility to people would, in the context of health, enable them to look after what matters most to them, oversee the presence of doctors, health workers, availability of medicines and fulfilment of determinants of good health, namely sanitation, drinking water and prevention of diseases.

In view of the market forces taking the centre stage, every developing nation is feeling the financial crunch in procuring enough drugs and extending western mode of health services are being badly hit; even access to essential drugs is becoming problematic, not to speak of an assured access to health services and diagnostic facilities. It is here that role of Panchayats assumes great significance in ensuring effective surveillance, control and management of recurring epidemics, vigilance and quick mobilisation of resources and intervention. It is Panchayats which could better look after efficient running of primary health centres and ensuring timely and adequate supply of equipment and drugs.

However, to help Panchayats effectively discharge their duties in respect of provision of health facilities to the villagers. The health infrastructure shall have to be handed over to Panchyats in rural areas. Moreover, the health infrastructure in such areas should be in keeping with the requirements thereof. Dr. Mahler had strongly disfavour forcing the medical practitioners to go to rural area if they were not motivated to do so. "A demoralised doctor will into have the imagination to deal with the difficult situation he is called with at the primary level and would make even the existing structure rot.. Instead it is better to have trained para-medical staff along with the essential drugs."He, moreover, stresses, "If primary and secondary health sectors are in place, then the number of people needing tertiary care would become manageable."

Indeed, two things emerge from a deep look at the situation prevailing in connection with infrastructure and facilities available at village level for medical care in India. First thing to consider is what type of personnel, equipment etc. are needed there. It is apparent that in view of paucity of resources on one hand and abnormally high expenditure on producing higher enchelons of allopathic doctors and opening modern hospitals, we would have to adopt some innovative approach, as emphasise by Vice-President Krishna Kant, to meet the requirements of lakhs of villages. Indeed, even health workers with suitable short-term courses could also play a vital role in that.

It is unfortunate that ancient Indian medical systems, like the Ayurveda has been constantly, and often disdainfully ignored by the planners. In spite of over fifty years of independence, Ayurveda, is treated much below allopathy at govt level. It is so in spite of even Who having long stressed utilisation of well-established indigenous medicare systems as Ayurveda gaining acceptability and respectability all over the world. Unless this bias against indigenous systems of medicine is shed, rural health services will remain in poor shape whatever other measures are taken.

In respect of medicines, India must follow the Drug R&D agenda pursued by the Father of Indian Pharmacology Dr. R N Chopra viz (a) Discovering remedies from the claims of Ayurveda (and other indigenous systems of medicine) suitable for being employed by exponents of western medicine. (b) Making India self-supporting by enabling her to utilise drugs from within the country, by manufacturing them in the form suitable for administration, and (c) To discover the means of effective economy so that these remedies will fall within the means of the great masses in India whose economic condition was low.

A World Disaster Report recently by the International Red Cross Federation an Crescent Societies, has pointed out that with the Western model of doctors, diseases and dispensaries, making medicare an expensive proposition, Indian Government is slipping on basic preventing healthcare and the associated problems of growing urbanisation, climate change and environmental degradation. Seventy per cent of the health budget gets siphoned into big hospitals.

Besides drugs must be rationalised viz superfluous, hazardous and spurious drugs must be eliminated, which will also result in lowering the cost of drugs and ensure better treatment because only best drugs will be allowed in the market under this scheme of things. According to WHO and medical experts around 250 basic drugs could treat almost all diseases.

If Panchayats are involved to supervise such a medicare system viz premedics and health workers along with rationalised drugs from indigenous sources, rural health environs shall certainly improve sooner than later. PTI Feature.

The Century Extraordinary!......
Yours Randomly,

By Dr R L Bhat

No, the 20th century didn't end with the year 1999 but ends now as the year 2000 comes to a close. Yet so strong is the faith in appearances that you have to cite book and rule to convince people that the century, that transformed this globe within its span of hundred years, is still extent! Why, doesn't the figure 10 belong to the first clutch of 'ten' and 100 to the first 'hundred'? Or, doesn't the second hundred begin with 101 and end with 200. Surely, the 21st century of the Christian era begins with the Ist of January 2001. Though Indians were not in it, the turn of the last century had resulted in regular riot in Texas, the State that houses and sends forth Bushes to the American center-stage. People there had got divided into rival school on the issue whether to end the century with 1899 or 1900. Then, as today, the saner elements were routed the gala parties were held in 1899, a full year before the nineteenth century actually ended!

But then, that century had little to distinguish itself. Of course, the Americans had consolidated their nation. A few inventions had been in place too. Okay, the groundwork for the science had also been laid; the train had gotten in, pictures had begun to move on the silver screen and aeroplanes were about to fly. But people were pretty much where their forefathers had been. Life continued in its fixed ruts and the world was just a quantitative degree ahead. For long strides and transformations, it had to await the turn of the century. As if to signal that Wright brothers took off around that time. In a manner of speaking neither the world nor the century was the same again.

Today from the pinnacle of the pile of the 20th century it looks unbelievable that, just a hundred years ago the world was not only firmly in a medieval rut but would not have imagined the range of freedoms that this century has made possible. This September when the whole world met at UN in the Millennium summit, there were just 189 nations. At the turn of century the subcontinent of India alone carried thrice that number of 'nations'. From British to Rajas and Nabobs to petty Jagirdars everyone was mai-baap, a ' god-endowed power that could not be disenganged, from its divinely bestowed 'greatness';. The end of the century sees the most powerful man in the world handover his scepter to his successor who is only half sure that he had been elected to that position. That triumph of the laid down law would be ranked as the highest tribute to this great century. For, it symbolizes the take over or the brute force by the laid down rule.

Principles, covenents, agreements of reason and rationality: that is the single most significant contribution of the 20th century. Before its dawn everything from British imperialism to Bismark's consolidation of Germany had been brought about by the dint of superior strength. Here, everything from Indian independence to dismantling of South African apartheid came from conviction, acknowledging the agreed superiority of principles over power of cannons and colonnade. That is not to say that man has eschewed the visitations of brute force, or power even. Indeed the equations of this world are still reckoned in terms of superior force. But the force had lost its justification. It simply is not correct -- not right anymore. It is good to have power, but power itself is not good. That subtle distinction has made the world of 20th century qualitatively different from what it was at the end of the last century.

It is said that much the world changes much it remains the same. That probably cannot be wished out, for this world continues to be a world of humans who cannot but err. They jumbled their free societies together to create kingships, compounded kingships to create empires, and then decimated them to form republics, only to shatter them to bring in new kingships and empires all for their own peril. And now they, the fickle humans that is, are back to disjointing them to create bits and pieces called identities. Why, they may start worshipping the caveman again, and feel expressly proud of their achievement! Is this an innate dissatisfaction with the fate and finality of human life or lurking urges within them that run their circular course, propelling man to create, build and destroy to create anews? The cycle of creation, say the sages, is the course ordained of gods. Somehow the 20th century coaxed the gods into bestowing an extra-ordinary amount of creative and building fund to it.

Was that coaxing accomplished with threats, not entreaties? For, nowhere in the history of humankind were so many god-less, god-baiting, god-denouncing people packed together as they were in this century! God, the poor soul, has been a helpless spectator before. More than His dictates it has been the choice of people in His name that has ruled the world for long millennia. Yet they always believed in the dispensations not questioned them. This century saw the question mark being made on the divine face, saw it getting bigger and bigger till the divinity appeared to have been reduced to a dot at its end. Here, religions saw a shaking that can, only mildly, be called thorough. Religion virtually became an apology taking the second place in peoples' life, scheme and substance.

And, thought disengaged itself from the pulpits in an unprecedented manner. While Darwin saw in his theory a revelation of the 'Godly might' and Newton had seen in his laws a vindication of the variety of Godly claim, the century saw thought refuting its erstwhile bastions, as no ungrateful refugee had ever done. Science infused, suffused and took over all realms, from intimate interpersonal relations to ethereal expanses. And, flourished to take humanity into fights just short of time travel. Except that Einsteinian possibility, most of the erstwhile impossibilities today have either been realized or are in the process of being bared. This last year saw even the Human Genome sequenced and put on Internet. Imagine, these hundred years ago, the scientists had no idea of what the genetic material is!

In the process the century also ended up fouling the world a never before. It also left human race much splintered with even the family, not to speak of peoples and nations fearing for its survival. Why that primeval of human motives, sexuality too is in throes of transformation. Indeed, this extraordinary century was a century of elementalisms --- breaking things, institutions, images and hope into their constituent bits. For the creation of new contemplations? Probably. It is for the future ages to tell, to attend to. To carry forth. To build. Per chance. To make sense of the huge piles this remarkable century threw up.

Is Osama bin Laden intractable?

K.N. Pandita

On December 19, 2000, the Security Council passed a resolution jointly introduced by the US and Russia. It demanded imposition of more sanctions on Taliban and surrender of Osama against whom a criminal case is registered in the US. Thirteen out of a total of fifteen members voted in favour of the resolution: Chinese and Indonesian representatives absented themselves.

China is the foremost supplier of high-grade weaponry including missiles regime to some of the Islamic countries, Pakistan in particular. She would not lose that lucrative market, which, besides yielding the hard currency, gives her leverage in geopolitical strategies. Beijing is well aware who pulls the wires of Taliban. Recently, a high-power Chinese delegation arrived in Kabul to discuss with Taliban leadership various matters including geo-political strategy and the role of foreign powers in Afghanistan. The supply of Chinese advanced weaponry to Taliban in return of a commitment of dissuading the Islamists from stirring up Uighur separatist movement in Xinjiang could presumably be the broad contours of bilateral talks.

As far as Indonesia is concerned, she is bogged down with communal strife involving the Muslims and the Christians. Since radical Islamic organisations, preaching jihad in and outside Pakistan, are the real source of Indonesian Islamic revivalist movement, it is difficult for the Indonesian government to be too outspoken against them or their origin at an important international forum like the Security Council.

But the crucial question is whether the Taliban would agree to hand over Osama bin Laden to the Americans or to the UN agency? Taliban supremo Mulla Omar has already rejected this demand made earlier by the Americans saying that it was not the tradition of the Afghans to betray their friend and a shelter-seeker. Osama, in their eyes, is much more than a friend or a shelter-seeker. He is the champion of Islam with a mission, a structure and cast iron will to fulfil the mission.

Equally exciting is the question whether Taliban will close down the training camps on their soil where Islamists receive training in handling sophisticated war machinery to wage the jihad wherever it has been begun, Northern Afghanistan, Kashmir, Chechnya, the Philippines etc.

Rishkor, a sprawling complex of military barracks in the foothills of a small mountain range was the garrison headquarters of the 7th Division of the Afghan Army until the collapse of the communist regime. It had won the notoriety as the largest military training camp in Afghanistan for radical Arabs associated with Osama bin Laden as well as hundreds of Kashmiri Harakatul Mujahideen militants.

Following the US-sponsored November 1999 sanctions against Taliban and the resultant pressure from their principal backers, Pakistan, Taliban Interior Minister Mulla Abdul Razzaq Akhund ordered the closure of all three training camps in Afghanistan

According to Pakistani sources of considerable credibility, over 1400 Pakistani militants of the banned Harakatul Mujahideen and an unexpected number of Arabs were immediately ordered to evacuate.

Another military training camp Kangla, eight kilometres to the west of Kabul, was also closed down and the Arabs who occupied the camp were ordered to vacate. Further away, in Afghanistan’s southern Khost province bordering Pakistan, another Pakistani militant group, led by Maulana Masu'd Azhar, whose release was demanded and secured by the hijackers of the Indian Airlines plane in Kandahar as part of the hostage deal, was also closed down.

Pakistan felt relieved after these camps were closed down. The main camp Rishkor, is now deserted except for the 12 odd Taliban guards who have now blocked the main entrance leading to the camp.

Taliban had certainly begun to feel the pinch of the international sanctions slapped on Afghanistan in November 1999. "It was not for the love of Allah. They are worried, There are fears of further sanctions," said an insider. International pressure mounted on Pakistani military rule to use its influence with Taliban in handing over Osama to the Americans. The Taliban felt they could no longer afford to look the other way.

In May 1999, Taliban Interior Minister, Akhund arrived in Pakistan to discuss Pakistan’s concern that some of the most wanted Pakistani criminals involved in sectarian killings had taken refuge in Afghanistan. Pakistani officials are reported to have told the Taliban Interior Minister that the Taliban should listen to the international community. Then somewhat unexpectedly, the Taliban ordered the closure of three training camps. With that Pakistani maintained that 2500 Harakatul Mujahideen militants had been sent to the frontlines north of Kabul to fight the opposition force of the Northern Alliance, to Bamiyan in Central Afghanistan and Kunduz in northern Afghanistan. Insiders said the Taliban were gradually moving towards scaling down military training for Arabs and Pakistani militants and had stopped further recruitment in madrasahs in Pakistan.

The Taliban also closed down a guest house run by Osama in Karte Parwan called the Rahimi-i-Ghulam Bacha guest house. Arabs living in residential areas in Wazir Akbar Khan and Shahr-e-Nau were also ordered to leave. Taliban are reported to have apprised Osama before taking the tough measures. Osma, it appears, has been told by Taliban to keep a low profile. Reports say that after the sanctions of November 1999, Osma’s satellite phone and computer were confiscated and he was told to refrain from public statements.

There is something more that plagues Osama in Afghanistan. The arrest of two Jordanians in Kabul and their subsequent disclosures to the Taliban that they had allegedly been asked by CIA to monitor and gather information on Osama and his associates, has sparked off fears of infiltration in Bin Laden’s camp. Osama, it is reported, has changed his entire squadron of Arab bodyguards and replaced them with Pakistanis and Bangladeshis from the ranks of Harakatul Mujahideen.

Circumstantial evidence leads one to the conclusion that presumably the US has felt convinced that the Taliban would like to get rid of Osama but the methodology had to be evolved so that the transition is smooth and without any backlash. This explains the reason why a resolution demanding that the Taliban hand over Osama within one month be introduced at this point of time. In final analysis it appears that neither Osama can elude the Americans nor can Taliban extend him shelter and secrecy.