Daily Excelsior... Editorial

EDITORIAL

Gujarat shakes
confidence of Indians
Men, Matters and Memories

By M L Kotru
Why are we scared of being judged? Why are we being dismissive of complaints that we may perhaps falling from......more

Le Pen spell in Europe!.......
Yours Randomly,

Dr R L Bhat
Purely on principle, if one can be a leftist then one can also be a rightist. If there is no intellectual compromise in leaning towards the left, there should ....more

Men and Matters
Musharraf will continue
as COAS

From B L Kak
Having learnt, though not fully and finally, the trick of keeping himself alive as Pakistan's .....more

India's new water
policy : Will it hold water ?

By Radhakrishna Rao
After much dithering and intense deliberations, the National Water Resources Council ..alive as Pakistan's .....more

EDITORIAL

A softening State !

It is not exactly correct to say that it all began with Kashmir. The phenomenon of the State getting exceedingly soft to the extent of being unable to make its writ run was first seen in Punjab. For over a decade the militants, whom we now know by their proper name terrorists, held sway in Punjab as the State went into an increasing paralysis. They openly defied the law and the State and got away with it on the strength of a religious appeal. Mehta Chowk arrest and then release of Bhindranwale signified the surrender of the State before fanatics who somehow managed to cloak their clear intransigence of law in religious colors. For a full decade the State remained in that paralytic shock. Contributing to it were the electoral interests and calculations of the ruling politicians. These were made worse by the personal feuds of two Congress heavy weights Zail Singh and Darbara Singh paving the way for a practical inaction. Next came Kashmir. An outright terrorism broke out there and sucked everything in within a matter of months. The State became inert.

Many an analyst has seen Farooq Abdullah's resignation in the early 1990 more as an attempt to escape responsibility than a protest against the appointment of Jag Mohan as the governor. The State had gone into a paralysis much before the Rubia Syed episode. The kidnapping of the daughter of the Home Minister of India symbolized the impotence of the Indian Government to control the terrorists. Of course, they were not called terrorists, they were Mujahids or at the very worst militants. The local idiom used the Urdu equivalent of militant askari, which signified a reverence of sorts for the gun-trotters. In another signal surrender the State and media adopted the terrorist-friendly designations. the majority has been described variously as subdued, terrorized or sympathetic to the militant-terrorist 'cause' of ousting the minorities. Terrorists reigned and the State became broadly inactive. It neither provided the succor nor ensured the safety. Those who opted to stay back did so at the 'assurance' of the very terrorist elements not that of the government. The writ of the State did not run. The officials, far from inspiring confidence, themselves sought 'permission' of the terrorist elements to carry on a semblance of administration.

The State made no effort to assure, held out no guarantees and roundly failed in its constitutional duty of ensuring the safety of the minority citizens. Later when the terrorists in early 1990s levied 'taxes' on the people and employees, the people simply paid up. A similar State of affairs had been existing in the northeast of the country for decades where the terrorists-called 'rebels' there- have held clear sway over the people. They collected 'levies' and gave 'protections'. Although the areas had been 'handed over' to army, the law and order was not restored. A similar State appears to be evolving in Gujarat. The State is unable to make its writ run in the State. But Gujarat somehow has become a mat under which other intransigencies are swept out of sight. The 'call' given by the Shahi Imam in supports of bin Laden was squarely ignored. Even though the cleric had clearly spoken treason no action was taken. Other leaders of sects and groups, caste and communal have issued calls for attack on the other sects and groups without having the laws of State visiting them. But no self-respecting State can go into a paralytic inaction and still say that the situation is in control. No sovereignty can tolerate open defiance and calls for rebellion. No State can look impotently and assert that it is working 'as per the provisions of the constitution'. Yet that appears to have become the rule in this land for the past couple of decades.

Welcome Supercop!

If there is one single person who must get the credit for bringing a Punjab back from the brink of disaster, it is its ex-DGP KPS Gill. Of course, the free hand and clear-sighted direction given by the other Punjab saput, Beant Singh was as important. And a piece of the credit cake must go to the then Prime Minister Narasimha Rao, too. As the executor of this clear mandate to bring Punjab back to normalcy, Gill contributed enormously. After Punjab came to be normal the Supercop retired. Even though there were any number of places where the services and expertise of this master controller of law and order could be utilized for the good of the nation, he remained neglected. Time and again people cried out for the services of this great policeman to be engaged but so tricky have the political consideration become in this land that none 'dared' use his skills.

Privately everybody from the Prime Ministers to Chief Ministers to analysts and strategists accepted the need to assign one of these festering problems to this master manager of chaos but none admitted it publicly. And, none utilized his services. His languished, neglected and ignored because his clear-headed methods did not suit the politics of the rulers. He was not even given some commendable assignment, though he deserved all the accolades the State could confer. Neither the Congress nor the various Congress supported fronts, nor the BJP led NDA and its various Governments and allies, commended this able officer after retirement. India had no use for this most devoted upholder of the Indian promise. From J&K to northeast to Bihar and central India on to the Andhra, every State could have benefited from his experience and expertise. But none called for it. His appointment as the security advisor to the Chief Minister of Gujarat is therefore a welcome thing for more than one reason. It acknowledges the stature and service of Supercop. It also means that Gujarat would see a more effective enforcement of law and order. It may be a deserved rehabilitation of this benefactor of the nation.

Gujarat shakes confidence of Indians
Men, Matters and Memories

By M L Kotru

Why are we scared of being judged? Why are we being dismissive of complaints that we may perhaps falling from the high standards we have set for ourselves? Why does an usually cool person like Atal Behari Vajpayee feel cornered and snarl back "don't read out sermons to us?" Why do we cry foul whenever anyone mentions Gujarat or Narendra Modi, the Sate's infamous Chief Minister? The fact is that the protracted communal violence on Gujarat has shaken the confidence of most people, including Indians, in a country everyone has been comfortable with for so long. Sarva Dharma Sambhav and Vausdev Kutambakam seems a far cry indeed from a country perceived by most as a congenial home to all religions and cultures. No wonder questions are beginning is be asked and nowhere as emotionally as in the Muslim world.

One of the Principal achievements of the Vajpayee Government was its unprecedented success in engaging the Islamic world. Despite initial suspicions of the Hindu BJP, most Islamic countries found that they could do business with an India led by Vajpayee. When Vajpayee's Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh visited Saudi Arabia recently he told a paper there that there was no aspect of Indians life that had not been influenced by Islam. Vajpayee himself told the Iranian Majlis (Parliament) a year ago that Islam was an integral part of Indian society.

And the absence of communal tensions until recently despite Babri Masjid had convinced the Islamic world that India, with the world's second largest Muslim population, would adhere to its secular creed under the BJP. None of the Islamic countries might practice religious freedom or pursue the notion of secularism that India had been known for. That's why India would be judged by its own standards and rightly so. An India teetering at an extended communal abyss can only cause great unease. And unease it has certainly caused everywhere, not excluding he overwhelming majority of Indian people.

The high moral ground we Indians usually, but ourselves on issues concerning the world community suddenly seem kill - behove us. And if Atal Behari Vajpayee objects to other countries preaching sermons to us he better be prepared for more. His boast that the four years of the BJP - led coalition have been remarkable if only for the communal harmony it witnessed, now stands exposed and in tatters. The Sangh Parivar and its frontal organisations like the VHP and the Bajrang Dal, have never lost an opportunity to keep ghost of Hindutva alive. Babri Masjid has come to haunt the Vajpayee Government with a vengeance and who knows, with the Prime Minister himself reinterpreting secularism, there may be more of the same coming. Minus his mask of tolerance Vajpayee should be prepared for more vocal criticism of the country and its Government from countries considered friendly in the past. The unbelievably positive run on the external affairs front which the Vajpayee Government has undoubtedly had may now seem a distant dream. Gone indeed are the many pluses scored by Indian diplomacy after the nuclear tests of 1998, reshaping the country's relations with all major powers and expanding its influence in its neighbourhood. The diplomatic costs of Gujarat are beginning to confront us. The high moral ground no longer belongs to us. Narendra Modi has made sure of that. And the flood of adverse comments from many world capitals should convince the BJP-led Government that by defending Modi it is seen as defending the indefensible. The US may not have been as vocal as yet as, say, the British Foreign Secretary or the European Union but New Delhi appears determined to squander the strategic advantage it had built up in recent years.

To portray whatever has happened in Gujarat under the Modi regime, from Godhra to the continuing two-month-old brazen anti-Muslim riots there, as a mere law and order problem, as the Vajpayee Government did before Parliament finally forced its will on it, is preposterous. The Modi Government's virtual refusal to rein in the saffron goons is not something that concerns the BJP alone. Article 355 of the Constitution very unambiguously speaks the Centre's duty to protect every State against internal disturbance and to ensure that the Government of every State is carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.

Time seems to have come for real India to place Narendra Modi Gujarat in the larger perspective of the Sangh Parivars brazenly aggressive hate campaign and the BJP-led Government's unconcealed support and patronage to it. On the eve of the Parliamentary debate on the Gujarat carnage the parivar continues to show scant regard for the concern expressed by the country as a whole over the communal twist it is seeking to give to Indian polity. The tops guns of the parivar even managed to force a meeting with the Prime Minister and his Home Minister just prior to the debate, as if to warn the two-some against any concessions to the "secularists". It wasn't amusing to listen to some of the parivar spokesmen making all those absurd claims on behalf of the Hindu faith; their speech for the most part was one of the unadulterated hate. According to them there is no room in this country for anyone who is not a Hindu. Yes, even a Muslim or a Christian must call himself a Hindu. In return, and as a favour, they may be allowed to practice their respective faith.

Mr Vajpayee for some reason has nothing to tell them. He is annoyed by the "pseudo secularists" who unlike the Prime Minister see the parivar's stance as a threat to the core principles of our nationhood. He is outraged by the "sermons" by sections of international community on India's credibility as secular State. As the Prime Minister of a country that stands for pluralist global order why should Vajpayee be afraid of such transparency as might induce an international scrutiny of even issues concerning the country's core principles of nationhood. Or, is it Vajpayee's case that some sections of the international community are trying to instigate further bloodshed and violence in Gujarat to keep the communal cauldron on the boil. Why hasn't his Government asked Narendra Modi to answer the many pertinent questions raised by our National Human Rights Commission? Or do we have to believe that the NHRC is acting on cue from some foreign land. If the Vajpayee Government cannot stand an international plain-speak on human rights and on the basic principles of democracy, how can he claim a participatory role in the multilateral efforts to shape the global order of the unfolding times?

Mr Vajpayee is perhaps right in objecting to sermons from foreign lands but then he would do well to remember that the Indian tradition is based on the cherished ideals of love, compassion and tolerance. These are not exactly the guiding principles of the parivar of which he is a swaymsewak. When one of the leading lights of the parivar talks of a "final solution" (shades of Adolf Hitler) to the Hindu-Muslim problem he is obviously not bothered about what Vajpayee calls "Sarvadharama Sambhav". People like that draw their inspiration from another heritage that categories Muslims and Christians as internal enemies number 1 and 2. And if you have doubts about the "inspiration " go and visit some Ministerial offices in New Delhi. You will find it right there-in the visitors rooms or in some cases even in their work rooms as well. You will find photographs of Guru Golwalkar, Dr Hegdewar et al, the entire pantheon of the prophets of hate.

It may seem too late in the day for me to ask the Prime Minister to retrace his steps. Even so I can't help reminding him that he must either hang Narendra Modi or vigorously implement the positive vision of India he has projected in the past.

Never mind the beating the image of Indian may have taken post Gujarat, Vajpayee has a limited choice. More so when his Government has put the country into an eyeball to eyeball confrontation with a belligerent Pakistan along our borders. Allowing Gujarat sore to fester is not going to help whichever way look at it.

Le Pen spell in Europe!.............
Yours Randomly,

Dr R L Bhat

Purely on principle, if one can be a leftist then one can also be a rightist. If there is no intellectual compromise in leaning towards the left, there should not be any problems if another person chooses to go over to the right. Yes, if being a leftist can be right why should being a rightist be presumed to be wrong? No reason there. In fact, the presumption that automatically associates intellectualism with being a leftist is as un-intellectual as it is irrational. But so pervasive has the leftist ideology been that nothing that does not move towards it, is considered reactionary, bad, insidious. For a brief spell in the early 1990s, the leftism or communism did come to called reactionary. That was when the stark exploitations and subjugations of whole peoples under communist rule, in the very enlightened Europe, came to light with the fall of totalitarian communist regimes there. The regimentations that when under the name of communism never recovered their ways but the leftists quickly regained their self-given respectability. In a way it was never questioned at any depth.

The leftists in India did not come into disrepute at all. Indian communists must be the only ones to call their comrade Gorbachav a reactionary and shut their eyes to the capsizing of communism all over the globe. Those in other parts laid low for the time and then resurfaced. One of the reasons that helped that 'rehabilitation' may have been the fact that leftists widely pervade the intellectual milieus all over. They became the liberal face of capitalism and not only survived but came to rule their realms again. In any case, they have not seen the tyranny in the name of proletarianism. They have enjoyed a typical bourgeois life while toasting the leftist notions. Rind ke rind rahey; janat bhi haath sey na gaie. They have the best of both the worlds. And they continue to keep the monopoly command over intellectualism. Today, when the leftist promise has been shown to be a thinly camouflaged despotism, they still hold it out as the promise of intellectualism, liberalism and elitism.

Nobody asks why this biased outlook is regarded as a balanced one, rather the only balanced one. One reason is that it there is one huge caucus that has appropriated the prosecution, defense and adjudication all to itself. And the result is that while centralism, rightism, even moderation come under question and get dismissed as biased this clearly one-sided view comes to be presented as the only equition dispensation in thought as well as politics. Right is fanaticism, it is partial but the fanatically partial leftism is presumed to be liberating. Thus in India the leftist version of history is presented as the balanced version while a holistic view of the history is outrightly rejected as biased. Communism, which imposed regimented totalitarianism in nation after nation are the 'champions of democracy'. And not once do they flinch in proclaiming this I-alone-am-right view. India broken into attritious interests and groups, which the leftists effectively play one against the other, ensures that this presumptiveness would not be questioned. But not so the other nations. Not so in the birthplaces of Marx and Lenin.

Today the whole Europe is in the grip of rightist revival. It has seen its most poignant reflection in the stunning victory of far rightist Jean-marie Le Pen in the recently held first round of the French presidential election. Le Pen is what is called a far rightist. Many of the positions he holds about France as well as Europe are almost racial. His pronouncements on immigrations are nearly rabid. His vision of nationalism is narrow. Accordingly his victory in the round one at least has alarmed the liberals there. But Le Pen is not an isolated phenomenon in today's Europe. There are rightist perceptions emerging all over the continent. Last year Germany saw clear racist calumnies spread and promoted against the coming of Indian computer experts. There is a movement afoot to clear German language of all the 'foreign accelerations' and make it pristinely pure. Austria saw, last year, a rightist voted to be Prime Minister who was dislodged only by an open ultimatum by the European Union. Rightist outfits, which pride themselves on their narrow nationalisms, are significant groups in almost all European nations from Britain to Russia and Norway to Italy. How did all that come about? First and foremost it is the clear perception of the left in having failed to yield any answers. The right are taking over from the leftists here and that is the most graphic illustration of the innate deficiencies in the idea and appeal. The rightist surge is a reaction to the worship of the other extreme that leftism promoted. Because one bias has been held to be legal and right, others bias is sure to ask its due. If you promote an obsession of I-right, others would also take up the call and claim. The rightists are doing it all over the European continent. It is an assertion that civilization and ethos may not be easily trifled with. Then, Europe has never been as elite as others especially Indians have been lead to believe it to be. They have never had to confront pluralism but easily preached it to others. Then those preaching began to come home in form of immigrations. The 'coloured' as all the Asians - Africans are clubbed there, began to grow in numbers. Today they form a good chunk of not only the workforce but also the elite sections. Europeans are aghast. Then the European nations have always been fiercely nationalist. They hold a patent bias against outsiders. The persistent efforts they made to rid Spain and the continent of Muslims is medieval history. The crusades they mounted and manned to regain the Christian sites and places will centuries in dark ages.

The ethnic hate is a modern fact of the lands from where we Indians are exhorted to 'learn' tolerance and pluralism and accommodation. They may fight one another for liberalism and rights but the moment they perceive that their way of life, their civilization and ethos are threatened they react with vehemence. They do not allow their nations to be trifled with. That is what births Le Pens there. That is what sustains them and give them strength and sway. Le Pen and rightism is rooted in their hard and uncompromising devotion to nationalism and culture. Those, incidentally, are things that are fondly ridiculed here in India.

Men and Matters
Musharraf will continue as COAS

From B L Kak

Having learnt, though not fully and finally, the trick of keeping himself alive as Pakistan's ruler, Gen Parvez Musharraf has managed to remove one more hurdle in his way. In other words, he has managed the victory he wanted for himself in the referendum on April 30. And the victory for Gen Musharraf and his inner circle in Pakistan's armed forces will, naturally, be followed by yet another significant event, namely, introducing some amendments in the Pakistani Constitution.

When Gen Musharraf had divulged that the Pakistan Supreme Court was not opposed to his move to hold referendum to determine is Presidency, many in his country as well as in India seemed to have reservations. And when the matter was really referred to the apex court, a section of the media chose to circulate reports about the possibility of the court rejecting Gen Musharraf's referendum programme. Curiously, the anti-Musharraf lobby avoided paying due attention to the argument from the Musharraf camp that the issue was to be seen in the light of the Provisional Constitutional Order rather than the 1973 Constitution.

Gen. Musharraf, obviously, had strong reasons when he exuded confidence and clearly hinted a the Pak apex court's approval of his referendum exercise. His confidence emanated from the fact that the 1973 constitution remained in abeyance since he promulgated the provisional Constitutional Order (PCO) and asked judges of the superior judiciary to take oath under the PCO. No wonder, the, Pak Supreme Court, on April 27, upheld the April 30 Presidential referendum as legally valid.

The court gave its verdict on a number of petitions challenging the decision of Gen Musharraf to seek extension of his tenure for another 5 years. Among those who had knocked on the doors of the apex court were the Pakistan Muslim League (PML), led by former Prime Minister, Mr Nawaz Zharif, the Jamaat-e-Islami, the largest religious party of Pakistan, and the Supreme Court Bar Association. Happily for Gen Musharaf, all his adversaries were knocked out, with the apex court's verdict that ever since he came to power, he had been performing his functions and duties in accordance with the mandate given to him by the apex court in 2000.

The reference was to the Supreme Court verdict of early 2000 that validated military takeover and fixed October 2002 as the deadline to hand over power to an elected administration. The apex court dismissed the petitioners' objections as purely academic, hypothetical and presumptive in nature which were not capable of being determind "at this juncture". And Gen. Musharraf was not to blame when he hailed the court decision as "historic" and said that he saluted the judges for their decision. Admittedly, the court had confirmed his belief that referendum was according to the law and the constitution.

Gen Musharraf is now set for removing yet another hurdle in his path - that is, to amend the Constitution before the general election to bring in a balance of powers between the Senate and the National Assembly in order to redress the grievance of smaller provinces. Pakistan's National Reconstruction Bureau (NRB) is considering these amendments for the last seven months. Gen. Musharraf has let it be known that the draft of these changes was in the final stage and would be presented before his countrymen for debate.

The main purpose of the amendments is to established a National Security Council (NSC) and to being some sort of powers between the President and the Prime Minister and Gen Musharraf has also dropped clear hints vis-a-vis the shape of events to come. In any future set-up Prime Minister will be the chief executive of Pakistan, while the NSC will help him govern the country with of his abilities. Second important hint Gen Musharraf will not share power with the Prime Minister.

These and other hints have surfaced at a time when Gen Musharraf has declared that he is not giving up his position as the Chief of the Army Staff (COAS). Why should he allow even his confidant number one in the armed forces to be the next COAS? All the institutions be presides over are by virtue of his title as COAS. Hence, all the more reason for his insistence on going about, at the same time, as the Chief of the Army Staff.

Gen Musharraf seems to have been inspired by Gen Zia-ul-Haq's art of survival. When Gen Zia toppled the ZA Bhutto regime in 1977, he had then claimed that he really did not want to stay on in power and that he would restore democracy in 90 days. On August 2, 2000. Gen Musharraf was quoted as having told the BBC: "I am not here to perpetuate myself and prolong my stay here." And Gen Musharraf knows it will that Gen Zia will still the Chief of Army Staff (COAS) and President of Pakistan when he was killed in a mysterious air crash in 1988.

There is no denying the fact that both Gen Zia and Gen Musharraf ousted constitutionally elected Presidents and installed themselves as Head of State. And both sought and obtained western, particularly American, support for their claims to legitimacy. Pakistani media already confirmed that a crucial meeting was held by Gen Musharraf with his Corps Commanders in Islamabad, where the decision was taken that like Gen Zia he would also take resource to a referendum to legitimize a 5-year term for him as President.

Whatever the attitude adopted by his critics toward him, there is no doubt that Gen Musharraf has successfully manipulated a measure of political legitimacy for his continuance in office. The "affirmative" voice in the just concluded referendum is nothing short of an endorsement for Gen Musharraf to continue in office for another 5 years. As "all is fair in love and war", why shouldn't he, like Gen. Zia, do his best to continue as COAS?

One more move which Gen. Musharraf will initiative will be on the international front. And since the Americans need him at a time when Osama bin Laden, Mullah Omar and members of both Al-Qaeda and the Taliban are seeking refuge in Pakistan Washington will naturally try to support him in obtaining international political legitimacy as well. "One should not be surprised when the Americans agree to play ball with him", Mr G Parathasarathy, India's former High Commissioner to Pakistan, has observed. He has also assessed: The ruling elite in Pakistan will change course only when it learns that the price to be paid for a policy of compulsive locality towards India and attempts to 'bleed' India is too high.

India's new water policy : Will it hold water ?

By Radhakrishna Rao

After much dithering and intense deliberations, the National Water Resources Council has finalised the National Water Policy, a revised, modified version of the earlier water policy of 1987.

The focus of this water policy is on integrated water resources development and sustainable use of water resources conspicuously. The policy excludes the inter-state water sharing which has been referred to the National Water Board for arriving at a consensus.

According to this water policy, states are required to formulate their own water policy supported by an operational action plan within a decade. Clearly and apparently, the state water policy will have to take into account community participation and evolve a detailed resettlement and rehabilitation policy for the benefit of people displaced by multi purpose water control projects.

On another front, the policy also lays stress on reviving the traditional water harvesting techniques to blunt the edge of an impending water crisis in the country.

Stating that this was not the end but a beginning of a new era, Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee said the policy provided that to achieve the desired objectives, each state would have to formulate its own water policy. He also stated that subsidies for power and diesel ahve been largely responsible for the over exploitation of ground water and advocated appropriate group incentives to involve community action to recharge ground water.

As it is, 90 per cent of the water needs of India are met from ground water. However only 5 per cent of the total ground water extracted is needed for domestic use. Irrigation accounts for 85 per cent and the remaining 10 per cent is used by other sectors like industries.

The phenomenal expansion in ground water based irrigation falling back on tubewells that are more than 150-metres deep coupled with the deployment of high power pumps have contributed in a big way to the rapid decline in the ground water table in most parts of the country.

At present, about 40-million hectares of land is under ground water based irrigation. An annual decline in the ground water table of upon 2-metres is considered normal and can cope with even a deficient rainfall in the following year.

A decline of upto 4-metres is considered a disturbing development and above 4-metre a veritable stress condition. The current groundwater situation in India has been described as ''stress condition'' by the Central Ground Water Board (CGWB).

In the Indian context, the issue is not so much about scarcity of water but its proper management so that the needs of all users are met adequately. However, the overall availability of water in the country is quite comfortable at over 2100 cubic metres per capita per year.

But then the quantum of water available in different geographic zones of the country at different times of the year varies widely. The grim reality is that parts of the country have an excessive supply of water while many other regions continue to reel under drought like conditions for most parts of the year.

Dr A P J Abdul Kalam, former Scientific advisor to the Prime Minister, has suggested linking of all the major rivers in the country so as to make water available to the entire country in sufficient quantities all through the year. All these years, the issue of proper distribution of water has only received vague attention.

Water resources experts point out that water conservation measures demand a professional management approach, allocation of water for different user and involvement of community and local participation in water resources development and distribution.

They have also called for putting an end to the populist measures of providing power and water for irrigation at a throw away price. Similarly, the current policy which does not impose a limit on the volume of water that a land owner can extract from underground aquifiers, has made its own contribution to the ''stressfull condition.''

Of course, vigorous efforts are being made in various parts of the country to raise the ground water table through a set of environmental friendly measures. For instance, the Social, Educational and Development Society (SEDS), active in the drought prone Rayalaseema area of Andhra Pradesh has successfull raised the groundwater level through afforestation and women's empowerment.

Dr T V Ramachandra of the Centre for Ecological Sciences in the Indian Institute of Science in Bangalore says, ''Holistic approach helps in enhancement in the productivity of all components of watershed management.''

There is an increasing realisation in the country of the growing importance of groundwater in meeting the water require ments of the country. It is considered far more reliable as a source of supply than surface water and if protected can provide potable water of high quality. Ground water is also the primary buffer against drought.

Many Non-Government Organisations (NGOs) in the country have vigorously opposed the move to ''privatise and monetise'' water supply. They say, water is a natural resource and a community property which should not be a source of profit. Rajendra Singh, of the Tarun Bharat Singh (TBS) whose work on water harvesting has won him the coveted Magasaysay award, has expressed himself against commercialising water resources.

PTI Feature